RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is

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 >> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/6/2006 6:26:23 PM

Demosthenes

Posts: 525
Joined: 12/8/2005
From: Los Angeles CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

quote:

Chicken and the egg...perhaps if Allied players stopped using PT's as battlefleets and instead ran away if there was a suggestion of a dedicated surface hunter killer group the Allies wouldn't lose so many PT's.

I think you hit the nail on the head. If the PT's would break contact more often vs. a superior SF, then there would be less PT losses....AND, less of the results that people are complaining about.

Then the debate would begin on "what is a superior SF".

That would make sense if it was established that PTs always ran away from Jap surface forces, but I have read no such thing.

As far as I know, PT's did not hide from every Jap ship they found, quite the contrary.

True. However the Japanese rarely went intentionally hunting for PT boats like some players including myself do. Meaning we have a dedicated surface task force just to engage the PT's - mine usually consists of a CL and 4 DD's. Now if I could only remember to set them to Patrol Do Not retire...

quote:

What we are left with is a game routine that assumes that any contact between PT Boats and Jap surface forces is a regular slugging match that allows the Japs to shoot at PTs as if they were destroyers or bigger. That is why so many more PTs are always lost in a typical game.

In short, the game routines do not take into account how almost impossible it is for a Jap surface ship hit a PT boat. That is why so few PTs were ever lost during the war... not because PTs buggered off and hid until the Japs passed by.

They may have been harder to hit but the game routine is also causing the PT's to stick around for multiple rounds...instead of shooting and scooting.

quote:

The higher-than-historical amount of Jap DDs lost in the games in question can statistically be laid on the constant exposure players place their ships in. But the ahistorical exchange rate is not a matter of more frequent contact - it's a matter of the game not handling PT survivability meaning - maneuverability and tactics - properly.

I would say it is a symptom of both - more frequent contact with dedicated destroyer hunter/killer groups and a mishandling of PT tactics by the game routine....

PT's should be allowed to enter two types of Task Forces - Escort and PT. If in escort they can be issued orders to travel to a new base or destination.

If they are in a PT Task Force - they should be handled similarly to aircraft - be given a particular target hex - be allowed to run day or night missions - then return to base and dock in the same phase - if the player chose to send them out during the day then they would be more vulnerable.

I agree with the majority of your logic, the only thing I am trying to point out is this:
Regardless of what we think the Japanese should have been able to do if they wanted to, the cold facts are that the Japanese were very poor at destroying PT Boats.
To assume that they could have done much better - assumes that the only reason that they did not do better in fact, is because they chose not to. This cannot be.

If PTs sank 3 DDs and torpedoed others - for the cost of only 5 sunk by surface engagement, then it stands to reason that IF PT vs Surface Ship contacts are greater, PTs will sink and torpedo more Japanese ships...AND loose more PTs in the process - BUT NOT AT AN EXPONENTIALLY INCREASED RATE OF PT LOSSES THAN WAS HISTORICALLY THE CASE.
To assume that that would happen, goes back to the old position of "the Japanese really could have been better at killing PT Boats IF they wanted to... they just really didn't want to sink PT Boats. - A position that is:
A) Improvable
B) Irrational

That is why I maintain that the real eye opener in this controversy has been how vulnerable PTs are compared to the real world.

Does anyone remember that 20 years after WWII, the modernized US Destroyer Maddox was attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin in broad daylight by PTs? Those PTs closed into torpedo range and fired at the Maddox, and the Maddox was not able to sink any of them?

(I would also like to point out that the examples posted of surface combat do not show PTs operating in Flotillas of 20 and more..that is to say - it appears that players are using them in realistic numbers)

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Demosthenes -- 12/6/2006 6:35:38 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 121

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/6/2006 6:49:27 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

I agree with the majority of your logic, the only thing I am trying to point out is this:
Regardless of what we think the Japanese should have been able to do if they wanted to, the cold facts are that the Japanese were very poor at destroying PT Boats.
To assume that they could have done much better - assumes that the only reason that they did not do better in fact, is because they chose not to. This cannot be.

If PTs sank 3 DDs and torpedoed others - for the cost of only 5 sunk by surface engagement, then it stands to reason that IF PT vs Surface Ship contacts are greater, PTs will sink and torpedo more Japanese ships...AND loose more PTs in the process - BUT NOT AT AN EXPONENTIALLY INCREASED RATE OF PT LOSSES THAN WAS HISTORICALLY THE CASE.
To assume that that would happen, goes back to the old position of "the Japanese really could have been better at killing PT Boats IF they wanted to... they just really didn't want to sink PT Boats. - A position that is:
A) Improvable
B) Irrational

That is why I maintain that the real eye opener in this controversy has been how vulnerable PTs are compared to the real world.

Does anyone remember that 20 years after WWII, the modernized US Destroyer Maddox was attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin in broad daylight by PTs? Those PTs closed into torpedo range and fired at the Maddox, and the Maddox was not able to sink any of them?

(I would also like to point out that the examples posted of surface combat do not show PTs operating in Flotillas of 20 and more..that is to say - it appears that players are using them in realistic numbers)

There is also an example from World War II in the Solomons where the Americans attempted to use a massed PT squadron in a daylight attack - the result was not good - iirc - three PT Boats were sunk in this incident alone. I am currently at work and do not have access to my book on PT Boat Squadrons...when I get home later today I can provide the quote. Needless to say after this incident the Americans decided that they would not attempt to use their boats during the daylight.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Demosthenes)

Post #: 122

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/6/2006 7:31:42 PM

Procrustes

Posts: 633
Joined: 3/30/2003
From: Upstate
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
Make the modifier of accruing sys damage higher on atolls and enormous on open ocean hexes - i.e. 80% chance of 1 sys damage per boat per deep water hex travelled on operations - that would make allied players wary of committing to many to ahistoric raids send all your boats to raid that Jap base 4 hexes away - yup they will get there and back but next week the whole sqn is U/S and the base they came form wide open.

So make the rate or repair and the rate of sys damage accrual high for the PT Boats to try and reflect the operational fragility of the boats

Just something to stop them all being available all the time

That's not a bad idea, but it will really mess up your system of generating PT boats on the West Coast and then accompanying them across the Pacific. (I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just pointing out that one of the other things that has caused a problem with game play is the way that PT's can generated anywhere with supplies instead of transported like IRL.)

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 123

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/6/2006 8:34:38 PM

Procrustes

Posts: 633
Joined: 3/30/2003
From: Upstate
Status: offline

I just want to say that (as a quantitative researcher) I really appreciate the quantitative approach that Fiender has taken to this. I think it's a great idea to try to take a bigger and more representative sample of PT results and then look for patterns - small samples are notoriously misleading.

On a related note, I was reviewing a grant application today that deals with recall, stereotyping and biases that can occur between two people involved in a professional interaction. A couple of sentences struck me as pertinant to this discussion: "... information is more likely to be remembered if it conforms to prior expectancies and stereotypes. In effect, people tend to remember things as conforming more closely to prior beliefs than warranted by actual events." (References omitted.) That goes for all of us - part of the human condition, I guess.

Please don't anyone think I'm poking at them - I'm just suggesting that all of us tend to get ideas in our heads that aren't neccessarily reflective of the whole picture. Sometimes it really helps to step back and look for some objective data that may help us past that.

Best wishes,

P.

(in reply to Procrustes)

Post #: 124

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/7/2006 12:43:45 AM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

Figured people would find this interesting...

					
PT Boat Losses					
Boat	Cause		Place		Date
PT-33	Grounding		Pt.Santiago	15/12/41
PT-31	Grounding		Subic Bay		20/1/42
PT-32	Scuttled		Sula Sea		13/3/42
PT-34	Airplane		Cauit Isalnd	9/4/1942
PT-35	Demolished	Cebu Island	12/4/1942
PT-41	Scuttled		Mindanao		15/4/42
PT-44	Surface Craft	Pacific		12/12/1942
PT-43	Surface craft	Guadalcanal	10/1/1943
PT-ll2	Surface craft	Guadalcanal	10/1/1943
PT-28	Grounding		Alaska		12/1/1943
PT-37	Surface craft	Guadalcanal	1/2/1943
PT-lll	Surface craft	Guadalcanal	1/2/1943
PT-123	Airplane		Guadalcanal	1/2/1943
PT-67	Explosion		New Guinea	17/3/43
PTcl19	Explosion		New Guinea	17/3/43
PT-l65	Submarine		New Caledonia	23/5/43
PT-173	Submarine		New Caledonia	23/5/43
PT-22	Weather		Pacific		11/6/1943
PT-153	Grounding		Solomons		4/7/1943
PT-l58	Grounding		Solomons		5/7/1943
PT-l66	Airplane		Solomons		20/7/43
PT-117	Airplane		Rendova		1/8/1943
PT-164	Airplane		Rendova		1/8/1943
PT-109	Surface.Craft	Blackett Straits	2/8/1943
PT-ll3	Grounding		New Guinea	8/8/1943
PT-219	Weather		Attu		Sep-43
PT-118	Grounding		Vella Lavella	7/9/1943
PT-l72	Grounding		Vella Lavella	7/9/1943
PT-136	Grounding		New Guinea	17/9/43
PT-68	Grounding		New Guinea	1/10/1943
PT-l47	Grounding		New Guinea	19/11/43
PT-322	Grounding		New Guinea	23/11/43
PT-239	Fire		Solomons		14/12/43
PT-l45	Grounding		New Guinea	4/1/1944
PT-110	Collision		New Guinea	26/1/44
PT-279	Collision		Bougainville	11/2/1944
PT-200	Collision		Rhode Island	22/2/44
PT-251	Gunfire		Bougainville	26/2/44
PT-337	Gunfire		New Guinea	7/3/1944
PT-283	Gunfire		Bougainville	17/3/44
PT-l21	Airplane		New Britain	27/3/44
PT-353	Airplane		New Britain	27/3/44
PT-l35	Grounding		New Britain	12/4/1944
PT-346	Airplane		New Britain	29/4/44
PT-347	Airplane		New Britain	29/4/44
PT-247	Gunfire		Bougainville	5/5/1944
PT-339	Grounding		New Guinea	27/5/44
PT-63	Explosion		New Ireland	18/6/44
PT-I07	Explosion		New Ireland	18/6/44
PT-l93	Grounding		New Guinea	25/6/44
PT-133	Gunfire		New Guinea	15/7/44
PT-509	Surface.Craft	English Channel	9/8/1944
PT-202	Mine		France		16/8/44
PT-2l8	Mine		France		16/8/44
PT-555	Mine		Mediterranean	23/8/44
PT-371	Grounding		Molukka Passage	19/9/44
PT-368	Grounding		Halmahera NEI	11/10/1944
PT-493	Surface.Craft	Surigao Strait	25/10/44
PT-320	Airplane		Leyte		5/11/1944
PT-30l	Explosion		New Guinea	7/11/1944
PT-32l	Grounding		San Isadora Bay	11/11/1944
PT-3ll	Mine		Corsica		18/11/44
PT-363	Gunfire		Halmahera		25/11/44
PT-323	Airplane		Leyte		10/12/1944
PT-300	Airplane		Mindoro Island	18/12/44
PT-73	Grounding		Philippines	15/1/45
PT-338	Grounding		Mindoro		28/1/45
PT-77	Surface.Craft	Luzon		1/2/1945
PT-79	Surface.Craft	Luzon		1/2/1945

< Message edited by treespider -- 12/7/2006 1:14:25 AM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Procrustes)

Post #: 125

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/7/2006 1:37:51 AM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

Source?

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Figured people would find this interesting...

					
PT Boat Losses					
Boat	Cause		Place		Date
PT-33	Grounding		Pt.Santiago	15/12/41
PT-31	Grounding		Subic Bay		20/1/42
PT-32	Scuttled		Sula Sea		13/3/42
PT-34	Airplane		Cauit Isalnd	9/4/1942
PT-35	Demolished	Cebu Island	12/4/1942
PT-41	Scuttled		Mindanao		15/4/42
PT-44	Surface Craft	Pacific		12/12/1942
PT-43	Surface craft	Guadalcanal	10/1/1943
PT-ll2	Surface craft	Guadalcanal	10/1/1943
PT-28	Grounding		Alaska		12/1/1943
PT-37	Surface craft	Guadalcanal	1/2/1943
PT-lll	Surface craft	Guadalcanal	1/2/1943
PT-123	Airplane		Guadalcanal	1/2/1943
PT-67	Explosion		New Guinea	17/3/43
PTcl19	Explosion		New Guinea	17/3/43
PT-l65	Submarine		New Caledonia	23/5/43
PT-173	Submarine		New Caledonia	23/5/43
PT-22	Weather		Pacific		11/6/1943
PT-153	Grounding		Solomons		4/7/1943
PT-l58	Grounding		Solomons		5/7/1943
PT-l66	Airplane		Solomons		20/7/43
PT-117	Airplane		Rendova		1/8/1943
PT-164	Airplane		Rendova		1/8/1943
PT-109	Surface.Craft	Blackett Straits	2/8/1943
PT-ll3	Grounding		New Guinea	8/8/1943
PT-219	Weather		Attu		Sep-43
PT-118	Grounding		Vella Lavella	7/9/1943
PT-l72	Grounding		Vella Lavella	7/9/1943
PT-136	Grounding		New Guinea	17/9/43
PT-68	Grounding		New Guinea	1/10/1943
PT-l47	Grounding		New Guinea	19/11/43
PT-322	Grounding		New Guinea	23/11/43
PT-239	Fire		Solomons		14/12/43
PT-l45	Grounding		New Guinea	4/1/1944
PT-110	Collision		New Guinea	26/1/44
PT-279	Collision		Bougainville	11/2/1944
PT-200	Collision		Rhode Island	22/2/44
PT-251	Gunfire		Bougainville	26/2/44
PT-337	Gunfire		New Guinea	7/3/1944
PT-283	Gunfire		Bougainville	17/3/44
PT-l21	Airplane		New Britain	27/3/44
PT-353	Airplane		New Britain	27/3/44
PT-l35	Grounding		New Britain	12/4/1944
PT-346	Airplane		New Britain	29/4/44
PT-347	Airplane		New Britain	29/4/44
PT-247	Gunfire		Bougainville	5/5/1944
PT-339	Grounding		New Guinea	27/5/44
PT-63	Explosion		New Ireland	18/6/44
PT-I07	Explosion		New Ireland	18/6/44
PT-l93	Grounding		New Guinea	25/6/44
PT-133	Gunfire		New Guinea	15/7/44
PT-509	Surface.Craft	English Channel	9/8/1944
PT-202	Mine		France		16/8/44
PT-2l8	Mine		France		16/8/44
PT-555	Mine		Mediterranean	23/8/44
PT-371	Grounding		Molukka Passage	19/9/44
PT-368	Grounding		Halmahera NEI	11/10/1944
PT-493	Surface.Craft	Surigao Strait	25/10/44
PT-320	Airplane		Leyte		5/11/1944
PT-30l	Explosion		New Guinea	7/11/1944
PT-32l	Grounding		San Isadora Bay	11/11/1944
PT-3ll	Mine		Corsica		18/11/44
PT-363	Gunfire		Halmahera		25/11/44
PT-323	Airplane		Leyte		10/12/1944
PT-300	Airplane		Mindoro Island	18/12/44
PT-73	Grounding		Philippines	15/1/45
PT-338	Grounding		Mindoro		28/1/45
PT-77	Surface.Craft	Luzon		1/2/1945
PT-79	Surface.Craft	Luzon		1/2/1945

_____________________________

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 126

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/7/2006 2:01:27 AM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

Source?

Angus Konstam, PT Boat Squadrons: US Navy Torpedo Boats , Ian Allan publishing, 2005 (ISBN: 0711030448)

< Message edited by treespider -- 12/7/2006 2:15:56 AM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to denisonh)

Post #: 127

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/7/2006 3:10:14 AM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

Thanks

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

Source?

Angus Konstam, PT Boat Squadrons: US Navy Torpedo Boats , Ian Allan publishing, 2005 (ISBN: 0711030448)

_____________________________

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 128

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/7/2006 5:06:13 AM

Demosthenes

Posts: 525
Joined: 12/8/2005
From: Los Angeles CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Figured people would find this interesting...

quote:

PT Boat Losses
Boat Cause Place Date
PT-33 Grounding Pt.Santiago 15/12/41
PT-31 Grounding Subic Bay 20/1/42
PT-32 Scuttled Sula Sea 13/3/42
PT-34 Airplane Cauit Isalnd 9/4/1942
PT-35 Demolished Cebu Island 12/4/1942
PT-41 Scuttled Mindanao 15/4/42
PT-44 Surface Craft Pacific 12/12/1942
PT-43 Surface craft Guadalcanal 10/1/1943
PT-ll2 Surface craft Guadalcanal 10/1/1943
PT-28 Grounding Alaska 12/1/1943
PT-37 Surface craft Guadalcanal 1/2/1943
PT-lll Surface craft Guadalcanal 1/2/1943
PT-123 Airplane Guadalcanal 1/2/1943
PT-67 Explosion New Guinea 17/3/43
PTcl19 Explosion New Guinea 17/3/43
PT-l65 Submarine New Caledonia 23/5/43 Tanker Torpedoed
PT-173 Submarine New Caledonia 23/5/43 Tanker Torpedoed
PT-22 Weather Pacific 11/6/1943
PT-153 Grounding Solomons 4/7/1943
PT-l58 Grounding Solomons 5/7/1943
PT-l66 Airplane Solomons 20/7/43
PT-117 Airplane Rendova 1/8/1943
PT-164 Airplane Rendova 1/8/1943
PT-109 Surface.Craft Blackett Straits 2/8/1943
PT-ll3 Grounding New Guinea 8/8/1943
PT-219 Weather Attu Sep-43
PT-118 Grounding Vella Lavella 7/9/1943
PT-l72 Grounding Vella Lavella 7/9/1943
PT-136 Grounding New Guinea 17/9/43
PT-68 Grounding New Guinea 1/10/1943
PT-l47 Grounding New Guinea 19/11/43
PT-322 Grounding New Guinea 23/11/43
PT-239 Fire Solomons 14/12/43
PT-l45 Grounding New Guinea 4/1/1944
PT-110 Collision New Guinea 26/1/44
PT-279 Collision Bougainville 11/2/1944
PT-200 Collision Rhode Island 22/2/44
PT-251 Gunfire Bougainville 26/2/44
PT-337 Gunfire New Guinea 7/3/1944
PT-283 Gunfire Bougainville 17/3/44
PT-l21 Airplane New Britain 27/3/44
PT-353 Airplane New Britain 27/3/44
PT-l35 Grounding New Britain 12/4/1944
PT-346 Airplane New Britain 29/4/44
PT-347 Airplane New Britain 29/4/44
PT-247 Gunfire Bougainville 5/5/1944
PT-339 Grounding New Guinea 27/5/44
PT-63 Explosion New Ireland 18/6/44
PT-I07 Explosion New Ireland 18/6/44
PT-l93 Grounding New Guinea 25/6/44
PT-133 Gunfire New Guinea 15/7/44
PT-509 Surface.Craft English Channel 9/8/1944
PT-202 Mine France 16/8/44
PT-2l8 Mine France 16/8/44
PT-555 Mine Mediterranean 23/8/44
PT-371 Grounding Molukka Passage 19/9/44
PT-368 Grounding Halmahera NEI 11/10/1944
PT-493 Surface.Craft Surigao Strait 25/10/44
PT-320 Airplane Leyte 5/11/1944
PT-30l Explosion New Guinea 7/11/1944
PT-32l Grounding San Isadora Bay 11/11/1944
PT-3ll Mine Corsica 18/11/44
PT-363 Gunfire Halmahera 25/11/44
PT-323 Airplane Leyte 10/12/1944
PT-300 Airplane Mindoro Island 18/12/44
PT-73 Grounding Philippines 15/1/45
PT-338 Grounding Mindoro 28/1/45
PT-77 Surface.Craft Luzon 1/2/1945
PT-79 Surface.Craft Luzon 1/2/1945

Friendly Fire by USN
Japanese surface ship/aircraft
Destroyed in Europeean Theatre
Japanese Shore batteries

So the Japanese did not get all 26 PTs lost to hostile action during the war...
All I can say is once again, the Japanese ability to kill PTs in this game is obviously beyound the wildest dreams of what the Japs could actually achieve...

< Message edited by Demosthenes -- 12/7/2006 6:57:04 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 129

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/7/2006 11:05:35 AM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

And at least one of those PT's sunk by the Japanese was sunk "by accident".

_____________________________

(in reply to Demosthenes)

Post #: 130

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/7/2006 1:56:54 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Figured people would find this interesting...

quote:

PT Boat Losses
Boat Cause Place Date
PT-33 Grounding Pt.Santiago 15/12/41
PT-31 Grounding Subic Bay 20/1/42
PT-32 Scuttled Sula Sea 13/3/42
PT-34 Airplane Cauit Isalnd 9/4/1942
PT-35 Demolished Cebu Island 12/4/1942
PT-41 Scuttled Mindanao 15/4/42
PT-44 Surface Craft Pacific 12/12/1942
PT-43 Surface craft Guadalcanal 10/1/1943
PT-ll2 Surface craft Guadalcanal 10/1/1943
PT-28 Grounding Alaska 12/1/1943
PT-37 Surface craft Guadalcanal 1/2/1943
PT-lll Surface craft Guadalcanal 1/2/1943
PT-123 Airplane Guadalcanal 1/2/1943
PT-67 Explosion New Guinea 17/3/43
PTcl19 Explosion New Guinea 17/3/43
PT-l65 Submarine New Caledonia 23/5/43 Tanker Torpedoed
PT-173 Submarine New Caledonia 23/5/43 Tanker Torpedoed
PT-22 Weather Pacific 11/6/1943
PT-153 Grounding Solomons 4/7/1943
PT-l58 Grounding Solomons 5/7/1943
PT-l66 Airplane Solomons 20/7/43
PT-117 Airplane Rendova 1/8/1943
PT-164 Airplane Rendova 1/8/1943
PT-109 Surface.Craft Blackett Straits 2/8/1943
PT-ll3 Grounding New Guinea 8/8/1943
PT-219 Weather Attu Sep-43
PT-118 Grounding Vella Lavella 7/9/1943
PT-l72 Grounding Vella Lavella 7/9/1943
PT-136 Grounding New Guinea 17/9/43
PT-68 Grounding New Guinea 1/10/1943
PT-l47 Grounding New Guinea 19/11/43
PT-322 Grounding New Guinea 23/11/43
PT-239 Fire Solomons 14/12/43
PT-l45 Grounding New Guinea 4/1/1944
PT-110 Collision New Guinea 26/1/44
PT-279 Collision Bougainville 11/2/1944
PT-200 Collision Rhode Island 22/2/44
PT-251 Gunfire Bougainville 26/2/44
PT-337 Gunfire New Guinea 7/3/1944
PT-283 Gunfire Bougainville 17/3/44
PT-l21 Airplane New Britain 27/3/44
PT-353 Airplane New Britain 27/3/44
PT-l35 Grounding New Britain 12/4/1944
PT-346 Airplane New Britain 29/4/44
PT-347 Airplane New Britain 29/4/44
PT-247 Gunfire Bougainville 5/5/1944
PT-339 Grounding New Guinea 27/5/44
PT-63 Explosion New Ireland 18/6/44
PT-I07 Explosion New Ireland 18/6/44
PT-l93 Grounding New Guinea 25/6/44
PT-133 Gunfire New Guinea 15/7/44
PT-509 Surface.Craft English Channel 9/8/1944
PT-202 Mine France 16/8/44
PT-2l8 Mine France 16/8/44
PT-555 Mine Mediterranean 23/8/44
PT-371 Grounding Molukka Passage 19/9/44
PT-368 Grounding Halmahera NEI 11/10/1944
PT-493 Surface.Craft Surigao Strait 25/10/44
PT-320 Airplane Leyte 5/11/1944
PT-30l Explosion New Guinea 7/11/1944
PT-32l Grounding San Isadora Bay 11/11/1944
PT-3ll Mine Corsica 18/11/44
PT-363 Gunfire Halmahera 25/11/44
PT-323 Airplane Leyte 10/12/1944
PT-300 Airplane Mindoro Island 18/12/44
PT-73 Grounding Philippines 15/1/45
PT-338 Grounding Mindoro 28/1/45
PT-77 Surface.Craft Luzon 1/2/1945
PT-79 Surface.Craft Luzon 1/2/1945

Friendly Fire by USN
Japanese surface ship/aircraft
Destroyed in Europeean Theatre
Japanese Shore batteries

So the Japanese did not get all 26 PTs lost to hostile action during the war...
All I can say is once again, the Japanese ability to kill PTs in this game is obviously beyound the wildest dreams of what the Japs could actually achieve...

Likewise the ability to avoid hidden reefs and friendly fire is beyond the wildest dreams of what the Allies achieved.

How many of these engagements actually involved Japanese hunter/killer groups composed of a light cruiser and 4-6 destroyers that were not involved in some other activity like trying to run supply to Guadacanal or escorting Battleships on a bombardment mission? I would suggest...none. How many PT's are sunk in game to this tactic?

How many of the sinkings by surface craft were daylights engagements?

"...on the night of 1-2 February the Japanese navy sent another Tokyo Express destroyer flotilla, this time with orders to beginn pulling off troops. They were attacked by aircraft then surface vesseels, then the PT Boats were sent in. This time the fighting took place at daylight, which placed the 11 small vessels at a disadvantage, given the greater range and firepower ogf the Japanese guns. Worse, the Americans vessels were exposed to Japanese aircraft. PT-37 exploded when her fuel tanks were hit, and PT-111 and PT-125 were wrecked by Japanese shells and bombs, and the near suicidal attack was abandoned before further boats were lost."

Due to game mechanics how many daylight battles are being fought with PT's in the game?

Here are some real-life incidents that don't jive with game mechanics...

"In late May (1944), six boats were sent from Tulagi to reinforce the squadrons operating New Guinea. They sailed in company of PT-boat Tender Niagra, but on 23 May the force was attacked by Japanese aircraft. Although all of the boats managed to survive the attack with only light dameage, the precious tender was sunk, along with all of its spare parts, supplies and ammunition. It would be months before the boats reached their new squadrons, and longer before the spare parts were replaced."

Perhaps not allowing PT boats to refuel and/or rearm unless a tender is present is warranted.

"Meanwhile, a freighter carrying reinforcements for the 1st Flotilla was torpedoed and sunk as it approached the Solomons, taking PT-165 and PT-173 down with her, as they were strapped to her decks. The other boats in the gropu (Pt-167, PT-171, PT-172 and PT-174) were being towed behind the freighter and managed to escape disaster"

In game this would never happen due to the "add water and stir" nature of PT boats and supplies.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Demosthenes)

Post #: 131

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/7/2006 2:10:26 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

Perhaps not allowing PT boats to refuel and/or rearm unless a tender is present is warranted.

You fail to mention where the "convoy" was headed for - a dot-type/smaller base, no? in which case the rules cover this.

quote:

"Meanwhile, a freighter carrying reinforcements for the 1st Flotilla was torpedoed and sunk as it approached the Solomons, taking PT-165 and PT-173 down with her, as they were strapped to her decks. The other boats in the gropu (Pt-167, PT-171, PT-172 and PT-174) were being towed behind the freighter and managed to escape disaster"

In game this would never happen due to the "add water and stir" nature of PT boats and supplies.

No, and neither does it happen for ANY ONE TYPE of weapon, be it PT boat, replacement aircraft (Allied or Japanese), heavy artillery, etc. that is being carried as undifferentiated supplies on a freighter.

quote:

How many of the sinkings by surface craft were daylights engagements?

"...on the night of 1-2 February the Japanese navy sent another Tokyo Express destroyer flotilla, this time with orders to beginn pulling off troops. They were attacked by aircraft then surface vesseels, then the PT Boats were sent in. This time the fighting took place at daylight, which placed the 11 small vessels at a disadvantage, given the greater range and firepower ogf the Japanese guns. Worse, the Americans vessels were exposed to Japanese aircraft. PT-37 exploded when her fuel tanks were hit, and PT-111 and PT-125 were wrecked by Japanese shells and bombs, and the near suicidal attack was abandoned before further boats were lost."

Personally, i've never seen a PT loss during the day that i can recall, although i'm sure others have (from this discussion).

quote:

Likewise the ability to avoid hidden reefs and friendly fire is beyond the wildest dreams of what the Allies achieved.

The game completely ignores this factor (accidental losses)- whether it is PTs grounding, or an IJN BB blowing up in port or IJN carriers hitting a reef before a major campaign (both of which occurred). i am sure most Allied players would benefit more than IJN players from "accidental casualty" rules if they happened at historical rates.

< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 12/7/2006 2:21:00 PM >

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 132

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/7/2006 2:41:09 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

How many of the sinkings by surface craft were daylights engagements?

"...on the night of 1-2 February the Japanese navy sent another Tokyo Express destroyer flotilla, this time with orders to beginn pulling off troops. They were attacked by aircraft then surface vesseels, then the PT Boats were sent in. This time the fighting took place at daylight, which placed the 11 small vessels at a disadvantage, given the greater range and firepower ogf the Japanese guns. Worse, the Americans vessels were exposed to Japanese aircraft. PT-37 exploded when her fuel tanks were hit, and PT-111 and PT-125 were wrecked by Japanese shells and bombs, and the near suicidal attack was abandoned before further boats were lost."

Personally, i've never seen a PT loss during the day that i can recall, although i'm sure others have (from this discussion).

12/18/41
Day Time Surface Combat, near Legaspi at 45,54
Japanese Ships
MSW Wa 10, Shell hits 2
MSW Wa 14, Shell hits 3
MSW Wa 19, Shell hits 1
Allied Ships
PT Q 111
PT Q 112
PT Q 113
=============================================
12/14/41
Day Time Surface Combat, near Legaspi at 45,54
Japanese Ships
CL Naka
DD Murasame
DD Harusame
DD Yudachi
DD Samidare
Allied Ships
PT PT-31, Shell hits 5, and is sunk
PT PT-33, Shell hits 36, and is sunk
=============================================
12/14/41
Day Time Surface Combat, near Legaspi at 45,54
Japanese Ships
CL Naka
DD Murasame
DD Harusame
DD Yudachi
DD Samidare
Allied Ships
PT PT-34, Shell hits 2, and is sunk
PT PT-41, Shell hits 11, and is sunk
=============================================

12/11/41
Day Time Surface Combat, near Lingayen at 43,50
Japanese Ships
CL Naka, Shell hits 2
DD Murasame
DD Harusame
DD Yudachi
DD Samidare
Allied Ships
PT PT-32, Shell hits 6, and is sunk
PT PT-35, Shell hits 2, and is sunk

< Message edited by treespider -- 12/7/2006 2:52:10 PM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 133

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/7/2006 2:47:01 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

Likewise the ability to avoid hidden reefs and friendly fire is beyond the wildest dreams of what the Allies achieved.

The game completely ignores this factor (accidental losses)- whether it is PTs grounding, or an IJN BB blowing up in port or IJN carriers hitting a reef before a major campaign (both of which occurred). i am sure most Allied players would benefit more than IJN players from "accidental casualty" rules if they happened at historical rates.

It should have a routine for them...

< Message edited by treespider -- 12/7/2006 3:04:19 PM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 134

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/7/2006 2:50:55 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

"Meanwhile, a freighter carrying reinforcements for the 1st Flotilla was torpedoed and sunk as it approached the Solomons, taking PT-165 and PT-173 down with her, as they were strapped to her decks. The other boats in the gropu (Pt-167, PT-171, PT-172 and PT-174) were being towed behind the freighter and managed to escape disaster"

In game this would never happen due to the "add water and stir" nature of PT boats and supplies.

No, and neither does it happen for ANY ONE TYPE of weapon, be it PT boat, replacement aircraft (Allied or Japanese), heavy artillery, etc. that is being carried as undifferentiated supplies on a freighter.

I would be in favor of treating PT-Boats just like any other ship...likewise replacement aircraft should be flown from the Home islands or the US utilizing replacement squadrons....and generic replacement units should have to be transported as well... for units to receive new equipment...although supplies probably could suffice for the ground troops.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 135

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/7/2006 3:00:56 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

"Meanwhile, a freighter carrying reinforcements for the 1st Flotilla was torpedoed and sunk as it approached the Solomons, taking PT-165 and PT-173 down with her, as they were strapped to her decks. The other boats in the gropu (Pt-167, PT-171, PT-172 and PT-174) were being towed behind the freighter and managed to escape disaster"

In game this would never happen due to the "add water and stir" nature of PT boats and supplies.

No, and neither does it happen for ANY ONE TYPE of weapon, be it PT boat, replacement aircraft (Allied or Japanese), heavy artillery, etc. that is being carried as undifferentiated supplies on a freighter.

I would be in favor of treating PT-Boats just like any other ship...likewise replacement aircraft should be flown from the Home islands or the US utilizing replacement squadrons....and generic replacement units should have to be transported as well... for units to receive new equipment...although supplies probably could suffice for the ground troops.

Well, good luck on getting this change to the basic game engine... perhaps something for WITP 2 (if there ever is such a thing).

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 136

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/7/2006 3:01:29 PM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

quote:

Due to game mechanics how many daylight battles are being fought with PT's in the game?

I had one just this past turn at Surabaya. I started 4 hexes distant and moved my SCTF (4 DDs) at mission speed, so they arrived at the end of the 2nd naval phase. The surface combat took place after the air phase, which saw Anns attack the PTs at 100'. The SCTF then did the mop up.

12 PTs in 2 TFs put a considerable crimp (~two weeks) in my schedule to complete the conquest of Java. Two weeks saw a number of naval actions and air strikes centering on the necessity of dealing with the PTs before I could safely bring in MSW, so I could bombard and land supplies. Realistic? I dunno. Fun series of actions though.

Guess what? No mines....

< Message edited by irrelevant -- 12/7/2006 3:10:54 PM >

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 137

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/7/2006 3:25:15 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

Due to game mechanics how many daylight battles are being fought with PT's in the game?

I had one just this past turn at Surabaya. I started 4 hexes distant and moved my SCTF (4 DDs) at mission speed, so they arrived at the end of the 2nd naval phase. The surface combat took place after the air phase, which saw Anns attack the PTs at 100'. The SCTF then did the mop up.

12 PTs in 2 TFs put a considerable crimp (~two weeks) in my schedule to complete the conquest of Java. Two weeks saw a number of naval actions and air strikes centering on the necessity of dealing with the PTs before I could safely bring in MSW, so I could bombard and land supplies. Realistic? I dunno. Fun series of actions though.

Guess what? No mines....

I didn't know irrelevant was a synonym for patient...

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 138

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/7/2006 3:26:39 PM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

I just don't like to lose ships.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 139

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/7/2006 3:31:02 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

Likewise the ability to avoid hidden reefs and friendly fire is beyond the wildest dreams of what the Allies achieved.

The game completely ignores this factor (accidental losses)- whether it is PTs grounding, or an IJN BB blowing up in port or IJN carriers hitting a reef before a major campaign (both of which occurred). i am sure most Allied players would benefit more than IJN players from "accidental casualty" rules if they happened at historical rates.

It should have a routine for them...

it WOULD make the game a lot more exciting/interesting - seeing your BB blow up in harbor, or having a bunch of ships vaporized in Manus harbor when a AE lights up ... i am sure the air would turn blue around the player's computer, and on the forum... the designers would probably never hear the end of complaints... which is probably why they didn't put it in...

EDIT: i DO think they could have gotten away with ship collisions - increasing them in large convoys and ESP. in crowded harbors.

< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 12/7/2006 3:42:39 PM >

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 140

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/7/2006 4:14:03 PM

Demosthenes

Posts: 525
Joined: 12/8/2005
From: Los Angeles CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Figured people would find this interesting...

quote:

PT Boat Losses
Boat Cause Place Date
PT-33 Grounding Pt.Santiago 15/12/41
PT-31 Grounding Subic Bay 20/1/42
PT-32 Scuttled Sula Sea 13/3/42
PT-34 Airplane Cauit Isalnd 9/4/1942
PT-35 Demolished Cebu Island 12/4/1942
PT-41 Scuttled Mindanao 15/4/42
PT-44 Surface Craft Pacific 12/12/1942
PT-43 Surface craft Guadalcanal 10/1/1943
PT-ll2 Surface craft Guadalcanal 10/1/1943
PT-28 Grounding Alaska 12/1/1943
PT-37 Surface craft Guadalcanal 1/2/1943
PT-lll Surface craft Guadalcanal 1/2/1943
PT-123 Airplane Guadalcanal 1/2/1943
PT-67 Explosion New Guinea 17/3/43
PTcl19 Explosion New Guinea 17/3/43
PT-l65 Submarine New Caledonia 23/5/43 Tanker Torpedoed
PT-173 Submarine New Caledonia 23/5/43 Tanker Torpedoed
PT-22 Weather Pacific 11/6/1943
PT-153 Grounding Solomons 4/7/1943
PT-l58 Grounding Solomons 5/7/1943
PT-l66 Airplane Solomons 20/7/43
PT-117 Airplane Rendova 1/8/1943
PT-164 Airplane Rendova 1/8/1943
PT-109 Surface.Craft Blackett Straits 2/8/1943
PT-ll3 Grounding New Guinea 8/8/1943
PT-219 Weather Attu Sep-43
PT-118 Grounding Vella Lavella 7/9/1943
PT-l72 Grounding Vella Lavella 7/9/1943
PT-136 Grounding New Guinea 17/9/43
PT-68 Grounding New Guinea 1/10/1943
PT-l47 Grounding New Guinea 19/11/43
PT-322 Grounding New Guinea 23/11/43
PT-239 Fire Solomons 14/12/43
PT-l45 Grounding New Guinea 4/1/1944
PT-110 Collision New Guinea 26/1/44
PT-279 Collision Bougainville 11/2/1944
PT-200 Collision Rhode Island 22/2/44
PT-251 Gunfire Bougainville 26/2/44
PT-337 Gunfire New Guinea 7/3/1944
PT-283 Gunfire Bougainville 17/3/44
PT-l21 Airplane New Britain 27/3/44
PT-353 Airplane New Britain 27/3/44
PT-l35 Grounding New Britain 12/4/1944
PT-346 Airplane New Britain 29/4/44
PT-347 Airplane New Britain 29/4/44
PT-247 Gunfire Bougainville 5/5/1944
PT-339 Grounding New Guinea 27/5/44
PT-63 Explosion New Ireland 18/6/44
PT-I07 Explosion New Ireland 18/6/44
PT-l93 Grounding New Guinea 25/6/44
PT-133 Gunfire New Guinea 15/7/44
PT-509 Surface.Craft English Channel 9/8/1944
PT-202 Mine France 16/8/44
PT-2l8 Mine France 16/8/44
PT-555 Mine Mediterranean 23/8/44
PT-371 Grounding Molukka Passage 19/9/44
PT-368 Grounding Halmahera NEI 11/10/1944
PT-493 Surface.Craft Surigao Strait 25/10/44
PT-320 Airplane Leyte 5/11/1944
PT-30l Explosion New Guinea 7/11/1944
PT-32l Grounding San Isadora Bay 11/11/1944
PT-3ll Mine Corsica 18/11/44
PT-363 Gunfire Halmahera 25/11/44
PT-323 Airplane Leyte 10/12/1944
PT-300 Airplane Mindoro Island 18/12/44
PT-73 Grounding Philippines 15/1/45
PT-338 Grounding Mindoro 28/1/45
PT-77 Surface.Craft Luzon 1/2/1945
PT-79 Surface.Craft Luzon 1/2/1945

Friendly Fire by USN
Japanese surface ship/aircraft
Destroyed in Europeean Theatre
Japanese Shore batteries

So the Japanese did not get all 26 PTs lost to hostile action during the war...
All I can say is once again, the Japanese ability to kill PTs in this game is obviously beyound the wildest dreams of what the Japs could actually achieve...

Likewise the ability to avoid hidden reefs and friendly fire is beyond the wildest dreams of what the Allies achieved.

How many of these engagements actually involved Japanese hunter/killer groups composed of a light cruiser and 4-6 destroyers that were not involved in some other activity like trying to run supply to Guadacanal or escorting Battleships on a bombardment mission? I would suggest...none. How many PT's are sunk in game to this tactic?

How many of the sinkings by surface craft were daylights engagements?

"...on the night of 1-2 February the Japanese navy sent another Tokyo Express destroyer flotilla, this time with orders to beginn pulling off troops. They were attacked by aircraft then surface vesseels, then the PT Boats were sent in. This time the fighting took place at daylight, which placed the 11 small vessels at a disadvantage, given the greater range and firepower ogf the Japanese guns. Worse, the Americans vessels were exposed to Japanese aircraft. PT-37 exploded when her fuel tanks were hit, and PT-111 and PT-125 were wrecked by Japanese shells and bombs, and the near suicidal attack was abandoned before further boats were lost."

Due to game mechanics how many daylight battles are being fought with PT's in the game?

Here are some real-life incidents that don't jive with game mechanics...

"In late May (1944), six boats were sent from Tulagi to reinforce the squadrons operating New Guinea. They sailed in company of PT-boat Tender Niagra, but on 23 May the force was attacked by Japanese aircraft. Although all of the boats managed to survive the attack with only light dameage, the precious tender was sunk, along with all of its spare parts, supplies and ammunition. It would be months before the boats reached their new squadrons, and longer before the spare parts were replaced."

Perhaps not allowing PT boats to refuel and/or rearm unless a tender is present is warranted.

"Meanwhile, a freighter carrying reinforcements for the 1st Flotilla was torpedoed and sunk as it approached the Solomons, taking PT-165 and PT-173 down with her, as they were strapped to her decks. The other boats in the gropu (Pt-167, PT-171, PT-172 and PT-174) were being towed behind the freighter and managed to escape disaster"

Ummm,...in two encounters listed above - you just accounted for almost every PT lost during the war to surface action... along with an unwitting example of PTs in action escaping with only light damage

So if you think it's feasible that PT losses should be in the 100+ range in a year or so of use - I'm not following the logic.

Hunter-Killer groups? I think you better do some more figuring about any probable success rate based on historical patterns.
Perhaps you did not read my post above about the Maddox in 1964 at the Gulf of Tonkin? A modernized Destroyer with modern RADAR controlled guns (with a much better train and elevation capability than a WWII Jap DD)?

Sorry, but I don't see the likelihood that WWII Japanese Hunter-Killer groups would be particularly successful.

We do agree that uncharted shoals were far more dangerous to PTs than the Japanese Navy.

< Message edited by Demosthenes -- 12/7/2006 4:32:56 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 141

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/7/2006 8:36:36 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

Ummm,...in two encounters listed above - you just accounted for almost every PT lost during the war to surface action... along with an unwitting example of PTs in action escaping with only light damage

So if you think it's feasible that PT losses should be in the 100+ range in a year or so of use - I'm not following the logic.

Hunter-Killer groups? I think you better do some more figuring about any probable success rate based on historical patterns.

I'm suggesting there will be no patterns because historically the Japanese did not form TF for the sole purpose of hunting down and engaging PT boats that were spotted. In the game I do ...I imagine others do as well.

quote:

Perhaps you did not read my post above about the Maddox in 1964 at the Gulf of Tonkin? A modernized Destroyer with modern RADAR controlled guns (with a much better train and elevation capability than a WWII Jap DD)?

Are you refering to this action...

"On the afternoon of 2 August 1964, while steaming well offshore in international waters, Maddox was attacked by three North Vietnamese motor torpedo boats. The destroyer maneuvered to avoid torpedoes and used her guns against her fast-moving opponents, hitting them all. In turn, she was struck in the after gun director by a single 14.5-millimeter machine gun bullet. Maddox called for air support from the carrier Ticonderoga, whose planes strafed the three boats, leaving one dead in the water and burning. Both sides then separated."

Sounds like the maddox was fairly sudccessful considering they were on an intelligence gathering mission.

quote:

Sorry, but I don't see the likelihood that WWII Japanese Hunter-Killer groups would be particularly successful.

In the one incident I quoted a PT squadron engaged the Japanese in daylight and ended up getting three of their boats sunk...and the Japanese were on a fast transport pickup mission and not out seeking a fight.

quote:

We do agree that uncharted shoals were far more dangerous to PTs than the Japanese Navy.

< Message edited by treespider -- 12/7/2006 8:45:12 PM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Demosthenes)

Post #: 142

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/7/2006 9:25:41 PM

Demosthenes

Posts: 525
Joined: 12/8/2005
From: Los Angeles CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

I'm suggesting there will be no patterns because historically the Japanese did not form TF for the sole purpose of hunting down and engaging PT boats that were spotted. In the game I do ...I imagine others do as well.

How convenient, now we don't have to base anything on historical evidence, we can just assume things would work as we imagine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Are you refering to this action...

"On the afternoon of 2 August 1964, while steaming well offshore in international waters, Maddox was attacked by three North Vietnamese motor torpedo boats. The destroyer maneuvered to avoid torpedoes and used her guns against her fast-moving opponents, hitting them all. In turn, she was struck in the after gun director by a single 14.5-millimeter machine gun bullet. Maddox called for air support from the carrier Ticonderoga, whose planes strafed the three boats, leaving one dead in the water and burning. Both sides then separated."

Sounds like the maddox was fairly sudccessful considering they were on an intelligence gathering mission.

Exactly my point - if you will take the time to notice - the Maddox (and the Ticonderoga's jets - F8E Crusaders, armed with 4x 20mm rotary cannons and missles, all of which they used in their attack) didn't sink any of them did they? The likelihood of sinking PTs is what we are talking about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
In the one incident I quoted a PT squadron engaged the Japanese in daylight and ended up getting three of their boats sunk...and the Japanese were on a fast transport pickup mission and not out seeking a fight.

Sunk in daylight to combined surface and air attack...
that's fine, now list the active ties of the other 400 PT Boats that were in the Pacific that didn't get sunk.

Don't forget what we are talking about here, The entire wartime total of 6 PT's sunk by air, and 6 PT's sunk by combination air and surface - is an abysmally small Total for the entire war combined.
The only point of contention I have here is that PTs are sunk in WitP at a rate that is higher than historical by a good 10 orders of magnitude.

"We do agree that uncharted shoals were far more dangerous to PTs than the Japanese Navy." - Me

< Message edited by Demosthenes -- 12/7/2006 10:08:55 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 143

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/7/2006 10:52:02 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

in WitP at a rate that is higher than historical by a good 10 orders of magnitude.

What in WITP is not massively accelerated or bloody? Really, I can't think of one issue which is actually anywhere near a real life pace. This is one of the issues which the design needed to be built upon but for some reason no game designers ever seem to.

Oh, just thought of one...surface combat between warships and transports...the one instance where one expects the results to be one sided and bloody never is...the warships always break off early after sinking the weak escort, if there was even an escort provided.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 12/7/2006 11:02:18 PM >

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Demosthenes)

Post #: 144

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/7/2006 11:01:00 PM

Ursa MAior

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
...surface combat between warships and transports...

Although I wholeheartedly agree, in GNB3 Fury in the pacific Yamato + 5 DDs could not sink 10+ AKs expanding all theri primary and seconfdary ammo, and a full deckload of SBDs from CV Enterprise had problems with sinking a 3 DD Tokyo express docked for unloading. Well I gues it is because some of the routines do have the same age.

_____________________________

Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 145

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/7/2006 11:29:58 PM

Demosthenes

Posts: 525
Joined: 12/8/2005
From: Los Angeles CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

in WitP at a rate that is higher than historical by a good 10 orders of magnitude.

What in WITP is not massively accelerated or bloody? Really, I can't think of one issue which is actually anywhere near a real life pace. This is one of the issues which the design needed to be built upon but for some reason no game designers ever seem to.

Oh, just thought of one...surface combat between warships and transports...the one instance where one expects the results to be one sided and bloody never is...the warships always break off early after sinking the weak escort, if there was even an escort provided.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

Although I wholeheartedly agree, in GNB3 Fury in the pacific Yamato + 5 DDs could not sink 10+ AKs expanding all theri primary and seconfdary ammo, and a full deckload of SBDs from CV Enterprise had problems with sinking a 3 DD Tokyo express docked for unloading. Well I gues it is because some of the routines do have the same age.

I have to admit, you guys are right

(in reply to Ursa MAior)

Post #: 146

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/8/2006 2:13:05 AM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

in WitP at a rate that is higher than historical by a good 10 orders of magnitude.

What in WITP is not massively accelerated or bloody? Really, I can't think of one issue which is actually anywhere near a real life pace. This is one of the issues which the design needed to be built upon but for some reason no game designers ever seem to.

Oh, just thought of one...surface combat between warships and transports...the one instance where one expects the results to be one sided and bloody never is...the warships always break off early after sinking the weak escort, if there was even an escort provided.

Oh Ron!!!!....SO TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!
With all escorts sunk, the transports should take a real "shellac-king"........................
(no pun intended).

_____________________________

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 147

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/8/2006 4:09:12 AM

BLUESBOB

Posts: 219
Joined: 8/27/2005
From: Fullerton, Ca.
Status: offline

If I may pipe in for a moment.

I think the reason there are such high loses in PT boats, and a good deal of ship loses on the Japanese side against PTs as well, is because Allied players in the game are actually using the PT boats as they were originally intended to be used.

Originally concieved as anti-ship weapons, so many PTs throughout the war found themselves ferrying supply and troops, laying mines, rescuing downed pilots, gathering intelligence, and even just serving as mail carriers between islands.

Another thing about historical loses is that hundreds of PT boats also served in the Atlantic, Mediterranean, Caribbean, and backwater theaters such as the Canal Zone. I don't know, but do the Allied players in WITP get every PT built during the war?

If an Allied player is given just about every PT boat built, the Allied player is naturally going to use them. And since an Allied player doesn't have to worry about mail call, the PTs are going to be used as they were intended. Hence bigger loses on both sides.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 148

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is