|
This looks fun. May I sign up for IJN Amatsukaze...? Fred
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 22:33 |
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:The hell with it—I'll take Hiei, may she wreak spectral havoc once again! Hmm...not very cultural...but, thank you, anyway. Fred
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:A true grog would withdraw the fleet, since despite being fully fueled in the game, in actuality they were really low on fuel at the time they launched the attack and couldn't stay on station a second day. "Low on fuel" is a matter of definition...is it not..?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
I've always known it - the P-36 was a better fighter than the P-40 - particularly the P-40 "E" version. The P-36 could well be adjusted somewhat for maneuverability and climb in the Editor. The 41/42 models were lighter than the later models. Fred
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
sullat posted:In a more serious note, how bad was losing all those transports and invasion troops from that lurking carrier? If this is a game about snowballing in the first few months, seems like minor incidents like that could really make it difficult to establish his perimeter before the invasion bonus wears off. But, this was a Japanese problem that the allies were not able (or willing) to make use of. Perhaps most obvious in the Philippines and Moluccans. Fred P.S.. I've made some use of it in this scenario. Mind you I'm a poor beginner with WitP - this is my second try. I also have a specific purpose for playing it. It seems that purpose is about to be fullfilled. It can be seen in the end of the thread.: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3840708 fredleander fucked around with this message at 10:55 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 08:41
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Losing transports is something Japan can't replace constantly. Losing some is pretty normal, as they'll be targeted by subs, aircraft, coastal guns, etc; you have to figure that the number of transports available will go down, but it'll take a while before you reach a critical level where you are no longer capable of doing anything. I believe they had something like 500 transports available for their initial moves. Fred (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 11:10
|
|
|
Already Kavieng and Rabaul! Quite a shortcut!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 08:15
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:I'm not 100% sure I can take Rabaul with the forces I have there, but I'm willing to take the risk - go big or go home! One at a time. Fly in the Navy paras...... Aaahh......British Vildebeests supporting the Americans in the Philipppines? That'd be the day.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
Drone posted:I've never once been able to either reinforce or evacuate Rabaul by sea in time before the Japanese invade. I usually just do the admittedly-gamey-but-still-valid tactic of sending some PBY Catalinas there and ferrying out little bits of the troops that are stationed there, to recombine them into the Australian 6th/8th Division (I forget which) at Moresby. If you're playing the US side there is always the Pensacola convoy. Not sure MacArthur would like that, though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
Ikasuhito posted:No, we can go even deeper. We should publish a book, "The Pacific theater of World War 2 as told by Grey Hunter" It can include not only his first play through, but this one as well simultaneously (Hell even his first botched attempt.) All told as if it was a legit history book. Too late, I'm already at it. Would have liked to post a link to it but the local moderator seems rather sensitive to such. Am I correct?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 11:33
|
|
|
Duds? The Mark XII torpedoes of the USN "S"-boats were supposedly more reliable than those carried by the newer boats.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:Don't disrespect biplane torpedo bombers. Ask the Bismarck about Swordfishes. I was about to say the same. Not only Bismarck - Taranto - a pattern for Pearl Harbor. Of course, like any other old torpedo plane at the time it was defenseless against a good fighter. Look at the Devastator, supposedly much more modern than the Swordfish and the Vildebeest. As much as the plane, in air torpedo warfare the crews were as important as the materiel, including the torpedoes. That said, what are the RN Vildebeests doing in the Philippines? fredleander fucked around with this message at 09:01 on Dec 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 08:54
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Britain had a lot of territories near the Philippines. Yes, but in the scenario I refer to they fly out of Clark Field, Luzon. Quite uncommon for the British to use their resources for anything else than the defense of Singapore/Malaya. Jobbo_Fett posted:Also, Bismarck and Force Z had no air cover, Taranto and Pearl were surprise attacks. Yes? Taranto was as a night attack. And Bismarck was very difficult to find in the bad weather. Even then... fredleander fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Dec 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Fred, stop signing your posts - you'll get probated again. Sorry, forgot - happens automatically. Is "F" OK.......:-)....
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Remember that we romanticise the living poo poo out of the war, and there's nothing more romantic-heroic than the stringbags being flung against the Bismarck, and winning. Hmmm.....after launching at one of their own cruisers first.....Besides, you've heard about the Channel Dash....?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Veloxyll posted:Try battleship. Fortunately, when your entire carrier air wing says "Yo, our torpedoes exploded when they hit the water," backed up by a presumably VERY cross watch officer from one of your own Battleships giving a very colourful account of how they just got attacked by a bunch of torpedo biplanes, the British were the only power able to figure out their magnetic detonators were garbage in under 2 years. Which battleship? I was referring to the cruiser Sheffield.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Your posts are really good so I don't want you to get probated so: You know, I'm not really signing my posts - just wanting to spread the gospel of "peace" around the world. "Fred" means "peace" in Norwegian. You know, like peace and love....  ...I'm Norwegian... Ooh, there I found out how the smilies work, too. Nothing's like other sites - at this site.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Velius posted:http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2560960 Real cool. Tks for posting.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2015 09:07
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:
I'm looking forward to Wainwright's counter-offensive.... Grey Hunter posted:If this report is to believed, the Tennessee has sunk just before entering port. I suppose you don't have a sub in the area that has an aircraft that can carry an 800 kg. bomb so it must be damage from Pearl. Bad damage control?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2015 09:14
|
|
|
I see Kavieng is in the box. Rabaul next? Well, well - 1 Buffalo damage 14 Nates. That must be a record. Probably some of it damaged by AA? And no Blenheims touched by 14 Nates. OK, they did have an escort. fredleander fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Dec 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
paradigmblue posted:That's because you're sweeping at 1,000 feet - well in range of AA, and allowing the AI's CAP to dive on your sweeping fighters. Try sweeping next turn at 15k or higher. Also, Nates aren't the ideal sweeping plane. If you don't have any Zeroes that can sweep, use your Oscars IIbs. That explained that! Thank you.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 10:27
|
|
|
Hmm.....his backpack looks very much like a B-4...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2015 10:51
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:We've advanced into Clark Field, so maybe we will be able to take the city quickly and destroy their main airbase. More importantly, you may close off the enemy's withdrawal into Bataan.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Rexim posted:Can someone explain why Rabaul is such a prize? I know it was important in real life, and seems to be important to Grey, so is it just a prime location? I don’t think the Japanese ever intended that there should be a ”Guadalcanal Campaign”, in the sense that it should be necessary to defend it the way they had to. But because of their failed invasion of Port Moresby and the following surprise allied landings on and around Guadalcanal, it developed into one. Rabaul became very important for them. As is pointed out here Rabaul had a great potential for expansion. How great is shown by the fact that the allied decided to bypass it when they finally went north. If the Port Moresby invasion had succeeded Rabaul would probably have developed more into a staging area for holding Port Moresby and Milne Bay and eventual jumps over to New Caledonia and Vanuatu/Fiji than Guadalcanal, depending on the question whether the allies would have dared to go for the Solomons if the Japanese held Port Moresby and Milne Bay. That may have changed US priorities. MacArthur, for one, would probably have insisted on this. That said, having Port Moresby in their hold wouldn’t necessarily have been such a bonus for the Japanese as long as they had to supply it over the sea. To improve the Kokoda Trail as a useful supply route would necessarily have taken some time. In the meantime an air and submarine offensive based on Western Australian bases could have made the supplying of PM costly for the Japanese. Imagine if the US forces built up for the Solomons campaign had been directed that way instead. As the Japanese alternative for the missed seaborne invasion of PM, the advance from Gona along the Kokoda Trail, started to get into gear, they also landed in Milne Bay on the South-Eastern tip of New Guinea, an area that could have proved as important as Port Moresby as a forward base against Australia. Here, however, Australian forces, after little more than two weeks of fighting, were able to throw the Japanese invasion forces back. They withdrew on September 7th 1942, one month after the US landings on Guadalcanal. This was the first decisive setback on land for the Japanese. It has been little noted, probably because of the ongoing battle for Guadalcanal. Milne Bay in Japanese hands could have been very awkward for the allies at that early stage. As it turned out their advance along the Kokoda Trail also petered out, after some very heavy and costly fighting for both parties. In this period came to light the Japanese problem that was predicted by US military analysts already before the war – that Japanese resources were not sufficient to maintain more than one main campaign beside their engagement in China. Unfortunately, this analysis was not heeded in the chock after Pearl Harbor and the Philippines, resulting in a slower US offensive reaction than necessary. But, that is still to show itself in this “campaign”.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Very much like the actual war. In fact, until the US embargoed them, Japan was hoping to use us as a neutral party to hash out a treaty to end the war in China just like we had a couple decades earlier for the Russo-Japanese War. Everything considered that might have been a better solution than how it turned out. Would that have satisfied the Japanese appetite for the "co-prosperity sphere?"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 11:59
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:
I don't believe there were many allied tanks in the area at this time.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I'm not sure what the exact order of releases will be, but the series is going to come down to: Please scream when Operation Sealion is released! I have a vested interest: https://www.fredleander.com fredleander fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Jan 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 11:43
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:Oh, that's too cool! Well, the Brits thought so.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:No, not really. If they'd won the Battle of Britain they might have been able to put a squeeze on the islands, and if they'd taken Egypt and effectively cut Great Britain off from the rest of their empire they'd have been within shouting distance of winning the war, but actual invasion just wasn't possible with the equipment they had on-hand. The UK was "cut off" from "their empire" already weeks before the Italians entered the war. As for the equipment the Germans had on-hand - it was nothing wrong with that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Ikasuhito posted:I'll give you a hint, part of the Germans plan for landing troops and equipment apparently involved the use of river barges. Among many other things, yes. Actually, the German planning on the tactical landings were not dissimilar to those used by the Japanese. As for "river barges", more than 3.000 were modified for their particular purpose. BTW, did you know that the allies used 600 river barges in an auxiliary role during Operation Overlord? But, we really shouldn't use more space here. After all, this thread is not about Operation Sea Lion. I was just interested in knowing when/if such a scenario was released by Matrix. If anybody is interested in discussing Sea Lion they should establish a thread here. I can't promise to participate very much, though - I did my part on the Armchair General Forum some years ago on the thread that has gone down as - TTTSNBN - The Thread That Shall Not Be Named. It contained 15.000 postings. I also wrote a book on it. Presently I am busy with my "Saving MacArthur" project: https://www.fredleander.com. Which is why I am here in the first place. I am using the WitP as a sort of filing cabinet for the project.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
fredleander posted:Among many other things, yes. Actually, the German planning on the tactical landings were not dissimilar to those used by the Japanese. As for "river barges", more than 3.000 were modified for their particular purpose. BTW, did you know that the allies used 600 river barges in an auxiliary role during Operation Overlord? Koesj, I am not the one continuing this.....:-). ...good idea to read others postings properly.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:
Has there been any AAR's where the Japanese side has landed directly on Bataan as one of their first moves in the Philippines?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2016 11:44
|
|
|
Koesj posted:No I mean that if you want to engage in a discussion about your work with jaded historians you can go there. Sorry, appreciate your concern. Ramblings....?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Drone posted:Bored, so I copied the list of variant rules options for the Sealion scenario from the DC:WtP manual, since I suppose it's relevant to the conversation. Appreciate that. I could have commented a lot on those variables but I'd rather not interfere more with the subject in hand.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Nice picture!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:
At first I thought: Aha, that Lt. Dempsey! This officer already before the war had a pretty good understanding of the problems with the Mark X torpedoes. No, not the pistol igniters (no magnetic igniters on the Mark X), but internal leakages which made them run deeper than their depth-settings. He even informed the Cavite Yard about his findings but no action was taken. When I checked I found that S-38 wasn't Dempsey's boat, after all. S-37 was. Hopefully, we shall soon hear from her, too. Sorry about that.... 
fredleander fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Jan 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:There are no real troops in the southern islands, so I can pick them off as I go. What (how) do you know about the US troops in the southern islands.....
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:.....and Stalin cannily tricked Hitler into all those invasions. Hmmm.....much like Roosevelt did with Japan....or....? I mean, we are in the Pacific, are we not..?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Should we not make some space for mr. GH now?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 22:33 |
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:
S-39, too! What are all the S-boats doing up there when the real action is around the Pilippines? I'm waiting for the S-37 to step in.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2016 15:28
|
|
