|
Velius posted:You guys have forgotten Grey can't even take Noumea. Getting a bit over large for britches here. The power of Japan is clearly the Navy, not the armies. Grey should follow the current path of attritional warfare, surely the Americans must run out of ships sometime. Actually they Americans are running out of bullets as we speak
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 02:21 |
|
|
Velius posted:You guys have forgotten Grey can't even take Noumea. Getting a bit over large for britches here. The power of Japan is clearly the Navy, not the armies. Grey should follow the current path of attritional warfare, surely the Americans must run out of ships sometime. Why., this is nothing but cowardice! To stop our advance at this point is to surrender the initiative to the enemy. Instead, we need to advance boldly on all fronts, relying on the elan of the Japanese soldier and his superior morale to overcome all difficulties. I recommend particularly that we advance into Burma and India, which will both cut off British supply routes to the Chinese bandit forces, and also encourage the Indians to take up arms against the British there and establish a government, at the worst case neutral, and at the best case, friendly to the Empire of Japan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
Send reinforcements to Noumea and finish it off. The meatgrinder stalemate must continue!
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
Take the fight to the homewaters of the NZ invaders.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:If grey moves 100k troops from China to New Caledonia, I bet he can take Noumea. This is the plan, overwhelm them with veteran troops from China! I'm going to start the land bombardment soon, as that is a a good thing to start up - I have no air wing left in the area to support with, but I could run some battleships in, I'm just wary of patrol boats and their lucky torps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 11:05
|
|
|
Have you considered, and this may be a radical idea, not flooding your overtaxed sea supply lines with hungry new soldiers?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 11:11
|
|
|
wiegieman posted:Have you considered, and this may be a radical idea, not flooding your overtaxed sea supply lines with hungry new soldiers? shhhhhh some of us still have hopes for the allies... (if Grey decides to soldier on until 1946, otherwise he probably wins in 18.5 months)
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
You should take the Aleutians. Maybe set up a nice submarine base.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Or actually take port moresby?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Why isn't Grey conquering Sichuan? Wouldn't that free up even more troops to invade India or the Soviet Union with?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Why isn't Grey conquering Sichuan? Wouldn't that free up even more troops to invade India or the Soviet Union with? Yeah *urp* Grey. We need we need that *urp* Schezuan dipping sauce Grey *urp* we need it *urp* for the supply problems. *urp* get me that dipping*urp* sauce.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Why isn't Grey conquering Sichuan? Wouldn't that free up even more troops to invade India or the Soviet Union with? See now this is a plan. Invade the Soviet Union, preempt August Storm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 17:04
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Really take the pressure off the Eastern Front, make the US divert even more resources toward Europe, buy yourself more time... A perfect plan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
It's bold. I like it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
take Siberia, ship all its riches to Vladivostok to take back to japan, and then park every available ASW over the conga line of submarines that will surely be drawn to it
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
   These guys are getting into battleship sortie range!   Another Liberator kill.  Then they bring fighters, and things go a bit wrong.   Not much to mention today, the carriers are heading back for fuel – and I'm going to see if I can kill that cruiser.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
  Really guys?  At least they have bomber support.  It looks like it's Fiji's turn to be emptied and sent to the slaugher.   There are not many of these small forces left to murder. These guys will now march to a rail head then on to somewhere I can ship them somewhere more useful.  So the plan now is to bring the troops in China out as much as I can and commit them to the New Caledonia campaign. Then maybe on to Australia/New Zealand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Please toggle the switch that allows your fighters to contest airspace before invading anywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
Aren't the Fiji brigade one of those super-light, mostly-useful-as-garrison infantry units?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
16 April 1943 Two British destroyers, Pakenham and Paladin, intercepted the Italian transport Belluno, bound for Tunis and escorted by the torpedo boats Cassiopea and Cigno, at 2:38 on the 16th. The Italian escort sighted the British and ordered Belluno to retire under cover of a rearguard force, then turned to engage. Italian torpedo boat Cigno, torpedoed by Pakenham after receiving severe gunfire damage. British destroyer Pakenham, disabled by gunfire and scuttled by Paladin. Cassiopea was also badly damaged and disabled, but successfully towed to Trapani. Italian torpedo boat Giacomo Medici, sunk at Catania by aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
I feel like TBs, while a sound theoretical idea, were practically really not great. At best WW2 era TBs were okay at patrolling minor coastal zones and shallow waters, but any time a group of TBs went toe to toe with a destroyer flotilla/single destroyers/larger vessels things went poorly for the TBs. Then again my knowledge of all things TB doesn't really extend past John Kennedy and his marathon swims in the South Pacific.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Destroyers are more properly "torpedo boat destroyers". They were originally designed to burn around and chew through little, unarmoured ships before they could get near enough the valuable things to cause problems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
At least in the Solomons fighting the PTs were scary as hell, a lot of tiny guys who can flood out torpedoes. But I don't remember them sinking much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
The Spica-class were more DEs than TBs, and definitely not much like PT boats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:I feel like TBs, while a sound theoretical idea, were practically really not great. At best WW2 era TBs were okay at patrolling minor coastal zones and shallow waters, but any time a group of TBs went toe to toe with a destroyer flotilla/single destroyers/larger vessels things went poorly for the TBs. Destroyers eating TBs alive is pretty much working as intended. The background to this timeline is that pre-Dreadnought Battleships were invented in the early 1890s (USS Texas being a prime example from 1892), but then the torpedo and the torpedo boat was invented back in 1876 and it threatened the whole battleship concept because you could manufacture a bunch of TBs and their torpedo armament for a lot cheaper than you could a single battleship and yet a few torps could cripple or sink a large battleship. So they invented Torpedo-Boat Destroyers as smaller escorts for battleships with guns heavy enough to sink TBs before they could get to the battleships. Later on the first part of that designation was dropped, but the purpose (and the outcome of such engagements) remained largely the same. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
It must take either a lot of skill, luck or incompetence for a destroyer to torpedo a TB. Can't imagine there being much left to confirm the kill.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Throw enough torpedoes in the water and you can hit anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
goatface posted:Throw enough torpedoes in the water and you can hit anything. Basically this is how I played world of warships Find a lone battleship Charge it Huck a dozen torpedoes into it Die quickly afterwards
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:Basically this is how I played world of warships I play Royal Navy cruisers so have the 'die quickly' part nailed. Spewing thousands of AP shells into the air is all good and fun but it's a good way of creating a rainbow that shows the nearest battleship exactly where you and your squishy citadel is sitting. Would still recommend the game to any who are interest in a bit more interactive naval combat, it's a lot of fun at low tiers but the atmosphere kind of dies during the high tier ego and testostodrama stages.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
  Well hello there!  This is shown as proof that I am trying to protect my tankers.  This is a good day!  The Fijian tanks are going to make this is tougher nut to crack.  We're ahead by one plane kill today!  46cm is about, hmm, 18 inches. I wonder who is claiming the kill? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
The Musashi is completely out of ammo for her main guns after a single small battle?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
That's what fleet supply ordnance ships are for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
... Do they seriously only carry one and a half shells per main gun?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The Musashi is completely out of ammo for her main guns after a single small battle? Each of those shells is the size of a person and weighs a ton and a half. Gotta leave some room in the magazine for the smaller rounds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
The Italian torpedo boats from yesterday's engagement have very little in common with a PT boat. At about 800 tons standard/1000 tons full load displacement and armed with 3x100mm (3.9") guns and 4 torpedo tubes, they're much closer to a WWI-era destroyer. Compare Spica-class torpedo boat and Admiralty M-class destroyer. The British destroyers they were facing were larger modern ships (about 1700 tons standard/2200 tons full load). See P-class destroyers here. These torpedo boats are a part of the old lineage that eventually produced the [torpedo boat] destroyer, as related by gradenko_2000. PT boats are part of a separate, newer lineage called motor torpedo boats ("motor" meaning gasoline or diesel engined as opposed to conventional steam reciprocating or, later, turbine machinery—compare SS steamship and MS motor ship merchant designations) or MTBs. Their designs are only really related in that they carry torpedoes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:... Do they seriously only carry one and a half shells per main gun? 9 loads, I would think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Honestly, 27 shells per turret still seems incredibly low, especially given said ammo would need to be split between two, possibly three, types (Type 1 AP, Type 0 HE, possibly some Type 3 AA shells too). Assuming that number doesn't just refer to a single type of shell (in which case where the hell are the other ammo types listed?).
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Lord Koth posted:Honestly, 27 shells per turret still seems incredibly low, especially given said ammo would need to be split between two, possibly three, types (Type 1 AP, Type 0 HE, possibly some Type 3 AA shells too). Assuming that number doesn't just refer to a single type of shell (in which case where the hell are the other ammo types listed?). Yep quote:Each mounting held 300 rounds with 180 rounds stored in two handling rooms on the rotating structure and the remaining 120 in shell rooms. The practice was to feed projectiles from the lower handling room until the supply was exhausted and then feed from the upper handling room. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_18-45_t94.php
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
9... combat rounds?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 02:21 |
|
|
Yeah, the game scales down ammo by about 10x across the board. I think I once saw that this was to prevent everlasting battle sequences at long ranges where nobody hits anything, and accuracy was bumped to compensate for the reduced ammo and produce comparable results. (Yes, it's true, even in Witp they did SOME nods to gameplay and fun and avoidance of excessive tedium.) Other interesting tidbit from navweaps: quote:These guns were officially designated by the Japanese as 40 cm/45 Type 94 (15.7 inch) in an effort to hide their actual size, which was a closely-guarded secret until after the end of World War II.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 20:17
|
|
