Matrix Games Forums

Armageddon invasion starts in 2014Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!Servers UpdateThe Deal goes Fourth!Command Ops gets a Massive Update!Lost Battles AAR: Smolensk 41War in the East: Lost Battles is here!Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! Let's Play videoLost Battles Scenario Manual excerpts available!A sneak peek from Allied Corps!		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Surface Raiders

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Surface Raiders Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Surface Raiders - 9/10/2012 4:32:23 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 1364
Joined: 6/3/2006
Status: offline 		In a number of threads in recent months players have indicated their use of Surface Raiders. I am assuming these are ships that a player sends out "behind the lines" as a commerce raider hitting unprotected supply lines. Can any of you folks tell me which ships or type of ship you use, when (month/year), in what areas of the map and finally how was the outcome. I've never used them as I feel as if a single ship wouldn't last very long in the air intensive environment of this game. But I could be wrong. So let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Hal
Post #: 1
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/10/2012 4:44:26 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12007
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-NE ? "Cloud Coo-coo land"
Status: offline 		I always use the most expedable. On the Japanese side, pairs of light cruisers or AMC's. On the Allied size, Omaha or Dutch and British light cruisers. I send them out to raid, do diversionary bombardments, and most importantly , scout. LBA doesn't allways reach where you need them to , and subs are too unreliable as scouts (good as pickets though, in good size numbers). Light cruisers were designed as scouts originally , and except for Brooklyn class CL's (my dedicated DD killers and BB screeners) all of my cruisers do scout duty, using the most expendable 1st. Raiding is just an extension of scouting.

_____________________________

"Don't hold yourself up as an example of what community members should aspire to. You have a long history of rude behavior, and you overract to the slightest provocation."
Amoral


(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 2
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/10/2012 5:07:43 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 2528
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: The deepest, darkest pit of hell
Status: offline 		Well, my 2 Euro cents:

As Japan, you have a number of AMC available. Just make sure you replace their leaders before sending them out - their captains have stats in the 30s range. Early in the war, I use them on the US-Autralia supply routes. I had some success in the area south of Palmyra and north of Bora-Bora and between Fidji and New Zealand. But with more Cats and 4Es on patrol it will probably become too hot in mid-42 - then I shift to the Indian Ocean (less air activities) and the routes between CT, India and Perth. Forces the Allies to shift shipping lanes (longer routes > slower build-up), to use convoys and to provide them with cruiser escort. Beware of anti-raider CV patrols - but you could use raiders as bait to pinpoint Allied CVs and then try to jump them with KB. You may also use CLs and CA for raiding, but I consider them too valuable to be risked that way (the CLs are too short-legged anyway).

As Allies, you have just a few British and Canadian AMC, and geography makes it difficult to use them against Japanese shipping lanes. You may try a stab against the Central Pacific, but since Japan profits from interior lines, there probably will be a strong reaction soon. I usually use the Allied AMCs as convoy escorts against enemy raiders. Of course you can use cruisers, but again, I consider them too valuable for raiding and in too high demand for more urgent tasks.

_____________________________

Carpe Cerevisiam



WitP AAR "Six Years of War"

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 3
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/10/2012 5:19:42 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 2130
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline 		As Japan, I've used CL's and DD's effectively interdicting Allied LOC's. One or two small AO's (8000 capacity) tagging along do wonders. Use submarines to screen and provide locations of enemy TF's so your CL's aren't wasting fuel searching. It also does set up a chance to ambush enemy SCTF's sent out to deal with the raiding CL's with CV TF's lurking just over the horizon. It's been effective for me in the past.

I don't use CA's, they are too valuable to risk losing for a few sunk transports, even high value ones (tankers).

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 4
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/10/2012 7:18:36 PM   
obvert


Posts: 3683
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: London, UK
Status: offline 		Read Canoerebel's AARs. He is a big fan of sending ships on one way missions, and usually he gets away with turning them into roundtrips.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 5
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/10/2012 8:14:26 PM   
Shellshock


Posts: 182
Joined: 12/31/2010
From: U.S.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

In a number of threads in recent months players have indicated their use of Surface Raiders. I am assuming these are ships that a player sends out "behind the lines" as a commerce raider hitting unprotected supply lines. Can any of you folks tell me which ships or type of ship you use, when (month/year), in what areas of the map and finally how was the outcome.


A good haunt for the Japanese raider would be the vast Indian Ocean space between Australia and the off map boxes. No real Allied air bases in the area provided you have secured Christmas and Cocos Islands and it's close to a decent fuel supply in Java and Sumatra. Plus, air search from these spots can give you a clues as to what is out there. If memory serves, the Japanese did conduct a few raids in this area to interdict shipping during the war

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 6
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/10/2012 8:23:26 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 1364
Joined: 6/3/2006
Status: offline 		Thanks Shellshock and others. I don't recall the Japs ever using true raiders, yes they did send the KB into the IO with predictable results, but I don't recall ever hearing about a lone wolf as some have described above. Or did I miss something in history? Also LargeSlowTarget you make an excellent point in that the Japs have interior lines of communications (unless the allied player really screws up) and thus difficult for the allied player to exploit the operations of a raider. Certainly the first 4-6 months of the war are when raiders can do something, just not sure what?

(in reply to Shellshock)
Post #: 7
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/10/2012 8:29:09 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12007
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-NE ? "Cloud Coo-coo land"
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Thanks Shellshock and others. I don't recall the Japs ever using true raiders, yes they did send the KB into the IO with predictable results, but I don't recall ever hearing about a lone wolf as some have described above. Or did I miss something in history? Also LargeSlowTarget you make an excellent point in that the Japs have interior lines of communications (unless the allied player really screws up) and thus difficult for the allied player to exploit the operations of a raider. Certainly the first 4-6 months of the war are when raiders can do something, just not sure what?



The Japanese had a pair of AMC raiders that operated around NZ , then in the IO. .The Germans operated several during the war in both Pacific and IO.

_____________________________

"Don't hold yourself up as an example of what community members should aspire to. You have a long history of rude behavior, and you overract to the slightest provocation."
Amoral


(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 8
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/10/2012 8:43:26 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 1364
Joined: 6/3/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Thanks Shellshock and others. I don't recall the Japs ever using true raiders, yes they did send the KB into the IO with predictable results, but I don't recall ever hearing about a lone wolf as some have described above. Or did I miss something in history? Also LargeSlowTarget you make an excellent point in that the Japs have interior lines of communications (unless the allied player really screws up) and thus difficult for the allied player to exploit the operations of a raider. Certainly the first 4-6 months of the war are when raiders can do something, just not sure what?



The Japanese had a pair of AMC raiders that operated around NZ , then in the IO. .The Germans operated several during the war in both Pacific and IO.

Steve, I certainly know of the Germans, but not the Japs, any further details?

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 9
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/10/2012 8:49:49 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 1364
Joined: 6/3/2006
Status: offline 		Somewhat found my own answer (from Wikipeida):

This is a list of the Japanese Auxiliary Cruiser Commerce Raiders in World War II.

The success of the German raiders in World War I was not lost on the Japanese. In 1941,the Aikoku Maru and Hokoku Maru, two passenger-cargo vessels built for the Osaka Shipping Line’s South America route, were requisitioned for conversion to Armed Merchant Cruisers (AMC).[1]

Before and during the Pacific War, Japan converted 14 merchant ships to Armed Merchant Cruisers (AMCs). Although two of these ships initially enjoyed some successes by sinking the American freighters Malama and Vincent and the British Elysia,[2] the early loss of the Hokoku Maru after a battle with the armed Dutch tanker Ondina[1] and the pressing need for more transports to support their far-flung Pacific empire resulted in the reconversion of most of Japan’s AMC fleet. By the end of 1943, five of their AMCs had been sunk and seven reconverted. The remaining two were lost in 1944.

Unlike the Kriegsmarine's raider Atlantis, that stayed at sea 622 days in World War II and sank or captured 23 ships of 145,697-tons, most Japanese AMCs had but short and undistinguished careers.

The sources are:

1 a b Visser, Jan (1999-2000). "The Ondina Story". Forgotten Campaign: The Dutch East Indies Campaign 1941-1942.
2 L, Klemen (1999-2000). "Allied Merchant Ship Losses in the Pacific and Southeast Asia". Forgotten Campaign: The Dutch East Indies Campaign 1941-1942.

Has anyone read this source: Forgotten Campaign: The Dutch East Indies Campaign 1941-1942??

< Message edited by dr.hal -- 9/10/2012 9:26:36 PM >

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 10
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/10/2012 8:53:46 PM   
CyrusSpitama


Posts: 130
Joined: 2/21/2011
From: Naw'lins, Luzianna
Status: offline 		Edited because I put the wrong responses on the wrong posts!

I meant to ask here about whether as Japan I should be making AKs from the AMC that can do so? I have been doing so regularly so far...

< Message edited by CyrusSpitama -- 9/10/2012 8:59:10 PM >

_____________________________

"I'm sure the universe is full of intelligent life. It's just been too intelligent to come here." - Arthur C. Clarke

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 11
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/10/2012 8:55:41 PM   
Shellshock


Posts: 182
Joined: 12/31/2010
From: U.S.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Thanks Shellshock and others. I don't recall the Japs ever using true raiders, yes they did send the KB into the IO with predictable results, but I don't recall ever hearing about a lone wolf as some have described above. Or did I miss something in history? Also LargeSlowTarget you make an excellent point in that the Japs have interior lines of communications (unless the allied player really screws up) and thus difficult for the allied player to exploit the operations of a raider. Certainly the first 4-6 months of the war are when raiders can do something, just not sure what?


You may want to check out Operation Sayo No.1 where the cruiser Tone sank the merchantship Behar in the mid-Indian Ocean in 1944 during a raid. Resulted in a wartime atrocity too.

http://www.nesa.org.uk/fb/bcc.behar1.htm

< Message edited by Shellshock -- 9/10/2012 10:07:01 PM >

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 12
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/10/2012 10:55:56 PM   
wadail


Posts: 55
Joined: 8/17/2012
Status: offline 		As I understood it, while the Japanese toyed with surface raiders, the Bushido code ingrained in their fleet and sub officers tended to cause them to look down on attacking merchant ships and seek out confrontations with warships.

(in reply to Shellshock)
Post #: 13
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/11/2012 1:11:04 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 3640
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline 		One should remember that the IJN AMCs were merchant ships "at heart" meaning large spaces not subdivided to enhance damage control but rather to enhance cargo handling. Japanese torpedoes sank several real Japanese cruisers so it is not surprising that a Japanese torpedo sank the Hokoku Maru as noted in the TROM of same at Combined Fleet:

11 November 1942:
Indian Ocean. SW of the Cocos Islands. HOKOKU MARU attacks Captain Willem Horsman's 6, 341-ton Royal Dutch Shell tanker ONDINA and her escort, LtCdr William J. Wilson's, RINR, Australian-built minesweeper HMIS BENGAL at 19-45S, 92-40E. BENGAL closes the range with HOKOKU MARU to protect the tanker.

At 1545 (JST), HOKOKU MARU opens fire. Both ships are damaged in the ensuing action. AIKOKU MARU is 6 miles NW of the scene and closing. A lucky shot from ONDINA's 4-inch gun hits HOKOKU MARU's starboard torpedo tube which had just been loaded. After the ensuing explosion, a fire breaks out that rages out of control and reaches the aft magazine. More explosions follow that blow out her sides. At 1752, HOKOKU MARU sinks. [4]

AIKOKU MARU arrives and hits BENGAL. LtCdr Wilson, confident the ONDINA can outrun the AMC, disengages at best possible speed. AIKOKU MARU scores six hits on ONDINA and virtually disables her. Captain Horsman is killed. AIKOKU MARU fires two torpedoes at the tanker, but both miss. With her ammunition expended, ONDINA's crew Abandons Ship.

AIKOKU MARU rescues 278 of HOKOKU MARU’s crew. She fires a last torpedo at ONDINA and departs. Later, AIKOKU MARU departs the Indian Ocean for Penang, then proceeds via Singapore to Rabaul.

ONDINA's crew reenters the ship, effects temporary repairs and departs the area for Fremantle, Australia.

17 November 1942:
BENGAL makes port at East Point, Diego Garcia for repairs. LtCdr Wilson reports ONDINA as lost.

18 November 1942:
ONDINA arrives at Fremantle.


Likewise the American Liberty ship Stephen Hopkins with relatively poor armament and a Naval Armed Guard contingent (not exactly the epitome of naval gunners) engaged and sank a German AMC (forgot which one). The sinking of the Stephen Hopkins as well does little to offset the loss of the heavily armed German ship with professional naval crew. Merchant ships are inherently very much, much less able to sustain damage compared to naval ships. Any resistance at all could prove fatal to the AMC: a significant reason why the AMC faded away on all sides as the war continued.

< Message edited by spence -- 9/11/2012 1:14:25 AM >

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 14
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/11/2012 9:26:21 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 2528
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: The deepest, darkest pit of hell
Status: offline 		Stephen Hopkins sank the German raider "Stier" ("Taurus"). Two lucky hits from Hopkins early in the engagement jammed Stier's rudder and cut fuel lines, so Stier started to drift uncontrollably and could not bring her superior armament to bear. Another hit knocked out Stier's electrical power plant, so ammunition hoists stopped working and torpedoes could not be fired as well. Finally, Stier caught fire which - fed by the leaking fuel lines - soon raged out of control and threatened the magazines and torpedo storage, forcing the crew to abandon ship. As spence said, AMC were basically merchant ships with much less ability to absorb damage.

< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 9/11/2012 9:27:03 AM >

_____________________________

Carpe Cerevisiam



WitP AAR "Six Years of War"

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 15
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/11/2012 1:31:45 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 1364
Joined: 6/3/2006
Status: offline 		Did any AMCs have any substantial alterations in damage control capability? I know most were just simple conversions although some were based on built in design. I would have thought that given built in design, some augmentation of the inner capabilities might have been considered (although I know most of the built in designs were around hard spots of gun emplacements, etc....). Any one know something more??? Hal

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 16
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/11/2012 1:50:23 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12007
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-NE ? "Cloud Coo-coo land"
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Stephen Hopkins sank the German raider "Stier" ("Taurus"). Two lucky hits from Hopkins early in the engagement jammed Stier's rudder and cut fuel lines, so Stier started to drift uncontrollably and could not bring her superior armament to bear. Another hit knocked out Stier's electrical power plant, so ammunition hoists stopped working and torpedoes could not be fired as well. Finally, Stier caught fire which - fed by the leaking fuel lines - soon raged out of control and threatened the magazines and torpedo storage, forcing the crew to abandon ship. As spence said, AMC were basically merchant ships with much less ability to absorb damage.


I'd would venture to say that merchant vessels have lots of ability to absorb damage. They woulf have lots of void spaces that could be filled with non-flamable , boyancy enhancing material. Think of a cargo ship filled with ping-pong balls! The problem with merchant ship construction is the lack of redundancy. Warships are designed to take hits and keep fighting. Had an engine taken off? No problem, got 3 more. Lost a screw? Again, we've got at least one more , maybe as many as three.

Warship construction is NOT efficient. Why put in 4 engines when 1 will do? Same with screws. So the problem with merchant style construction is an inability to absorb CRITICAL hits. The famous tanker SS Ohio of Malta fame is an example of mership construction at it's best. It's not hard to find example of it's worst.

Now TRUE AMC's (Line most of the UK liners) were built with government subsidies to reinforce decks (for gun mounting) from the begining. I don't know if the Japanese did this, but it wouldn't suprise me. The question is , how does the game model it?

_____________________________

"Don't hold yourself up as an example of what community members should aspire to. You have a long history of rude behavior, and you overract to the slightest provocation."
Amoral


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 17
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/11/2012 1:53:00 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 12007
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: ME-FL-NE ? "Cloud Coo-coo land"
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Did any AMCs have any substantial alterations in damage control capability? I know most were just simple conversions although some were based on built in design. I would have thought that given built in design, some augmentation of the inner capabilities might have been considered (although I know most of the built in designs were around hard spots of gun emplacements, etc....). Any one know something more??? Hal



Again , the Brit's did. But then again they had a LONG history of it. Reading about some of the "fighting British liners" is inspiring stuff. The Jervis Bay. The Rawlapindi. And of course "the Battle of the Liners" in WW1. (Cap Trafalgar vs. Carmania .).

_____________________________

"Don't hold yourself up as an example of what community members should aspire to. You have a long history of rude behavior, and you overract to the slightest provocation."
Amoral


(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 18
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/11/2012 2:28:51 PM   
Mundy


Posts: 457
Joined: 6/26/2002
From: Neenah
Status: offline 		In one of my pbems (can't remember which), A couple of IJN AMCs met one of my convoys east of Samoa. It was fun watching Charleston fight them off. A few inconclusive hits, but the freighters got through.

Perfect type of matchup for the Erie class.

Ed-

_____________________________


(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 19
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/11/2012 2:49:05 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 2528
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: The deepest, darkest pit of hell
Status: offline 		Cargo ships filled with ping-pong balls make rather poor AMCs...

The cargo holds of AMCs are converted into living quarters for a 350-400 men crew plus several hundred POWs and corresponding ammounts of food, clothing etc., plus storage for fuel, ammo and supplies for month-long cruises.

There must be little space for left for non-flamable, boyancy enhancing material .


Structural changes were mostly limited to weaponry and camouflage (false deckhouses, telescopic masts, dummy funnels etc.), although at least AMC Komet's hull was ice-strengthened for Artic waters.

Major conversions like better internal subdivision were considered too time-consuming and also unreasonable since in case of an encounter with a real warship, better subdivision would have made little difference.



_____________________________

Carpe Cerevisiam



WitP AAR "Six Years of War"

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 20
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/11/2012 6:23:08 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 2118
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CyrusSpitama

Edited because I put the wrong responses on the wrong posts!

I meant to ask here about whether as Japan I should be making AKs from the AMC that can do so? I have been doing so regularly so far...


I wouldn't do that. They make good escorts for troop convoys and some of them can carry troops to boot. I believe the IJN has a couple of them that are very powerful armament wise and have 5 search planes each. I would definitely think about using them as raiders at some point. Add a small anti-sub escort, the AMCs can keep them fueled.

(in reply to CyrusSpitama)
Post #: 21
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/11/2012 8:03:09 PM   
Misconduct


Posts: 1777
Joined: 2/18/2009
From: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Status: offline 		My opponent, just LOVES using old slow CL's (like two and two destroyers) to go raiding, or a single carrier like the CVL Shoho. I was running fuel for a while from India to Australia, or Pearl down to Luganville, but he always found cracks in my ASW and search by using submarines with float planes, he would recon every now and then to see if bases had anything around it, I basically was using up every PBY I had to keep an ARC around the supply convoys, but he always found the cracks.

Reason why I split my tankers/AK's is mainly to keep two supply lanes open and not one, most of the supplies comes from Cape Town, or Pearl - since its 9/43 things are slowing going my way so his raiding has slowed down since I built up the pacific.

I am actually in the process of bringing the british/indians into the war, they got to sit the war out for now, i gotta take port blair, and work my way to sumantra to keep my supply lines open. I haven't lost any carriers, I figure i can make a nice leap.


_____________________________

ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z Intel Core I7 2800k Corsair Hydro Heatsink Corsair Vengeance DD3 24GB EVGA GTX 580 Western Digital 1.5TB Raid 0 Windows 7

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 22
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/11/2012 9:26:19 PM   
CyrusSpitama


Posts: 130
Joined: 2/21/2011
From: Naw'lins, Luzianna
Status: offline 		geoff- Not in the game at this moment, but I am pretty sure the bad arse AMCs you mention don't convert back to AKs. I will confirm this pretty shortly... As for armaments and troop support, I have been using them for this exact purpose :) So assuming I am correct regarding these AMCs not converting to AKs, I will gladly give it go >>As for raiding, I haven't really touched on attempting this as my game time has been primarily getting the basics down (much work to do here yet obviously), but most importantly, getting a decently running industrial base. Thanks very much for the feedback!

P.S. best of my knowledge, ALL of the Japanese AMCs carry troops, although some are quite small capacity. I had no idea the US got AMCs that dont carry troops?!@

< Message edited by CyrusSpitama -- 9/11/2012 9:27:30 PM >

_____________________________

"I'm sure the universe is full of intelligent life. It's just been too intelligent to come here." - Arthur C. Clarke

(in reply to Misconduct)
Post #: 23
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/13/2012 5:11:06 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 6166
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Thanks Shellshock and others. I don't recall the Japs ever using true raiders, yes they did send the KB into the IO with predictable results, but I don't recall ever hearing about a lone wolf as some have described above. Or did I miss something in history? Also LargeSlowTarget you make an excellent point in that the Japs have interior lines of communications (unless the allied player really screws up) and thus difficult for the allied player to exploit the operations of a raider. Certainly the first 4-6 months of the war are when raiders can do something, just not sure what?



The Japanese had a pair of AMC raiders that operated around NZ , then in the IO. .The Germans operated several during the war in both Pacific and IO.


I believe the Raiders Thor and Michel operated in the IO/Pacific theatre during 1942-1943.

_____________________________

aka- Akula

Larry Bond's Harpoon - Commander's Edition

Development Team Member

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 24
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/13/2012 11:34:58 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 2528
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: The deepest, darkest pit of hell
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
I believe the Raiders Thor and Michel operated in the IO/Pacific theatre during 1942-1943.


Yep!






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Carpe Cerevisiam



WitP AAR "Six Years of War"

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 25
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/14/2012 12:55:36 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 2579
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

The famous tanker SS Ohio of Malta fame is an example of mership construction at it's best. It's not hard to find example of it's worst.


Tankers are one of more difficult ships to sink - the volume is immense- and the bigger the tanker is proportionally the less the engine part occupies since the dive bombers pilots usually take aim at middle of the ship and usually that doesn't make a sinking damage, with only a caveat, it needs to not catch a serious fire.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 26
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/14/2012 4:23:49 AM   
Fallschirmjager


Posts: 6302
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
I believe the Raiders Thor and Michel operated in the IO/Pacific theatre during 1942-1943.


Yep!








Those do not appear to be in Ironman :(

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 27
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/14/2012 7:54:17 PM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 1727
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Blackboys East Sussex UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

The famous tanker SS Ohio of Malta fame is an example of mership construction at it's best. It's not hard to find example of it's worst.


Tankers are one of more difficult ships to sink - the volume is immense- and the bigger the tanker is proportionally the less the engine part occupies since the dive bombers pilots usually take aim at middle of the ship and usually that doesn't make a sinking damage, with only a caveat, it needs to not catch a serious fire.


Tankers ( with fuel) will burn and sink with any hit even .5 cal from a PT boat - I know its happened to me.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 28
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/15/2012 10:21:33 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 3640
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline
quote:

I believe the Raiders Thor and Michel operated in the IO/Pacific theatre during 1942-1943.


IIRC one was sunk by an American submarine and the other had some sort of fire (accident?) in a Japanese port.

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 29
RE: Surface Raiders - 9/16/2012 3:06:27 AM   
Fallschirmjager


Posts: 6302
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

I believe the Raiders Thor and Michel operated in the IO/Pacific theatre during 1942-1943.


IIRC one was sunk by an American submarine and the other had some sort of fire (accident?) in a Japanese port.




I read about it the other evening. The German resupply ships scheduled to replenish Thor exploded in port and showered Thor with flaming debris which quickly set her ablaze. It was apparantly powerful enough where it set another German ship on fire as well as a Japanese cargo ship.
All four ships burnt to the water line and were total losses and there were hundreds of casualties because the ships caught fire so quickly.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Surface Raiders Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.242