Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Marblehead on steroid

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Marblehead on steroid Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Marblehead on steroid - 8/1/2007 6:18:10 PM   
Rapunzel


Posts: 141
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Look what that ship has done to me in my latest pbem turn. I dont know why this cl was not spotted by my cv´s and could escape after the angagement...

Day Time Surface Combat at 69,99

Japanese Ships
CV Akagi
CV Hiryu
CV Soryu
CV Zuikaku
BB Hiei, Shell hits 13
BB Kirishima, Shell hits 1
CA Tone
CA Chikuma
CL Abukuma, Shell hits 14, on fire
DD Akigumo
DD Kagero
DD Isokaze, Shell hits 6, on fire, heavy damage
DD Shiranuhi, Shell hits 15, on fire, heavy damage
DD Urakaze, Shell hits 8, on fire, heavy damage
DD Hamakaze
DD Tanikaze
DD Arare, Shell hits 7, on fire, heavy damage
DD Kasumi
DD Sazanami

Allied Ships
CL Marblehead, Shell hits 59, on fire
Post #: 1
RE: Marblehead on steroid - 8/1/2007 6:21:52 PM   
Yakface


Posts: 846
Joined: 8/5/2006
Status: offline 		Looks like you were on the wrong end of a serious number of dice rolls there

(in reply to Rapunzel)
Post #: 2
RE: Marblehead on steroid - 8/1/2007 7:26:34 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		If it was the Boise, you would have had some ships sunk.

When you run into the Cleveland Class CL's, you will find out that they are a CL in name only.
They have a high rate of fire and CA type armor (and usually can hold their own against Japanese CA's if the range is close enough).

_____________________________


(in reply to Yakface)
Post #: 3
RE: Marblehead on steroid - 8/1/2007 7:29:57 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

If it was the Boise, you would have had some ships sunk.

When you run into the Cleveland Class CL's, you will find out that they are a CL in name only.
They have a high rate of fire and CA type armor (and usually can hold their own against Japanese CA's if the range is close enough).

Marblehead is one of my fav early war cruiser. Boise always sinks on turn 2 or 3.

I agree with ny59giants, except that the Cleveland CLs will actually shoot the pants off an IJN CA more times than not...at least in WitP...don't know what would really have happened in RL.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 4
RE: Marblehead on steroid - 8/1/2007 8:59:48 PM   
Rapunzel


Posts: 141
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

If it was the Boise, you would have had some ships sunk.




Well the 4 heavy dmged DD´s wont make it back... .

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 5
RE: Marblehead on steroid - 8/1/2007 9:43:54 PM   
Local Yokel


Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline 		Would be interested to know who your carrier TF commander was. If selected for his air skill, he may have had a mediocre surface rating that affected the engagement's outcome. Nagumo, for example has a poor surface rating and not much better aggression. OTOH you'd not get much service out Tanaka Raizo running you air ops, and you CERTAINLY wouldn't want them to be run by Hashimoto Shintaro .

_____________________________




(in reply to Rapunzel)
Post #: 6
RE: Marblehead on steroid - 8/1/2007 10:00:05 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		The Allies have 3 Cleveland Class CL's and 2 Helena Class CL's to start the war. The have similar armor and Endurance of 14500. They make nice raiders of inadequatedly protected invasion TF either by themselves or grouped together. 

When it comes to good AC or SC TF commander's, I form another TF when I want to disband them for either repairs and/or upgrades (I leave a ship with the lowest sys damge in the original TF or trandfer one in). That way I don't have to go through the list to find them again. Also, it saves a few PP early in the game when as the Allies I would like to get an extra 5000 PP.


_____________________________


(in reply to Local Yokel)
Post #: 7
RE: Marblehead on steroid - 8/1/2007 10:12:38 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

Would be interested to know who your carrier TF commander was. If selected for his air skill, he may have had a mediocre surface rating that affected the engagement's outcome. Nagumo, for example has a poor surface rating and not much better aggression. OTOH you'd not get much service out Tanaka Raizo running you air ops, and you CERTAINLY wouldn't want them to be run by Hashimoto Shintaro .

One would expect that if a TF leader has a poor surface rating the TF will fair worse. However, from the results I have seen posted here an AC TF does not usually fair very well when caught by an attacking surface TF. The CVs are rarely hit, but the escorts dont do very well. Presumably they are placing themselves in disadventagious positions to screen the escaping CVs.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Local Yokel)
Post #: 8
RE: Marblehead on steroid - 8/1/2007 10:18:06 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		If the KB was sailing in air operations mode as practiced by the IJN then the DD's were 15-20 km distant from the center of the formation (to provide air attack warning). Thus it is not entirely inconceivable that Marblehead could engage the DDs on the edge of the screen...get in a few licks...and then head for the hills when the big boys responded; especially if visibility was not uniform in all directions or there was haze limiting visibility (phenomena I experienced routinely during my times at sea).

The Clevelands were not available in 1941. They showed themselves quite capable against IJN CAs at Empress Augusta Bay in late 43 though.

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 9
RE: Marblehead on steroid - 8/2/2007 1:55:17 AM   
Local Yokel


Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline 		The figures don't speak well for Japanese gunnery. 7 ships engage 1 but collectively secure only 5 more hits. Assuming participants' experience was broadly speaking equal, this strengthens my suspicion that mediocre leadership may have played a part. Difference appears to be that the American rounds penetrate whilst the Japanese hits merely ding Marblehead's armour.

Would also be interested to learn how many torpedoes were launched. Since it's a carrier task force, I assume it had had no previous surface engagements, so that all torpedo batteries would have been fully loaded at the outset. Marblehead's manouevrability is OK but not exceptional, so she would have been moderately vulnerable to torpedo attack. Perhaps fortune favoured the bold (=she got good dice rolls).

Issue of OP was (in part) why wasn't the CL spotted? I assumed a low DL arising from fact she was operating alone. And the ASW/inner air patrol obviously need to be spoken to .

_____________________________




(in reply to spence)
Post #: 10
RE: Marblehead on steroid - 8/2/2007 3:01:48 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline 		Could be the carriers used up their op points, but most likely bad weather.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Local Yokel)
Post #: 11
RE: Marblehead on steroid - 8/2/2007 11:20:43 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

If it was the Boise, you would have had some ships sunk.

When you run into the Cleveland Class CL's, you will find out that they are a CL in name only.
They have a high rate of fire and CA type armor (and usually can hold their own against Japanese CA's if the range is close enough).


Any of the big WWII CLs (all navies) could put out more firepower than an 8 inch treaty cruiser. They just didn't have the penetration of an 8 inch gun. Their primary mission was to sink DDs.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 12
RE: Marblehead on steroid - 8/2/2007 5:44:29 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline



quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants



Marblehead is one of my fav early war cruiser. Boise always sinks on turn 2 or 3.

I agree with ny59giants, except that the Cleveland CLs will actually shoot the pants off an IJN CA more times than not...at least in WitP...don't know what would really have happened in RL.



Probably so, very high rate of fire, modern fire control, radar, modern ship design and damage control. The differences between a 1930s design and a 1940s design is pretty significant. Light years really. I don't think the 8 inch guns would have made the difference.

Of course, in all naval gunnery engagments, the ship that spots and shoots first generally has an advantage. So it never is a done deal.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 13
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Marblehead on steroid Page: [1]
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

0.969