Incoming!

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Incoming!

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 >> Incoming!

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Incoming! - 6/2/2009 7:31:00 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

OK, I realize this a grenade, and others may have seen this article on the Long Lance, but I found it interesting, so here it is:

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-067.htm

Author says LL achieved 6.7% hit rate. WITP has a higher hit rate, though WITP Long Lances appear to not cause the damage that RL ones do. Overall I'm fine with the way it is in the game.

They were controversial weapons, but I think one thing is indisputable: When they hit, that large warhead really HURT.

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Incoming! - 6/2/2009 7:38:59 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

When they went off they really hurt. In a bunch of cases they really hurt the ships armed with them. And yes, it's a grenade. The ususal suspects will shortly show up with a litany of reasons why the empirical facts don't matter.

My take is that the LL's success was largely a matter of short range when fired and surprise. If the Allies didn't know the torps were in the water and if they were fired from less than 8,500 yards and more than 1,000, they were pretty devastating.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 2

RE: Incoming! - 6/2/2009 7:41:37 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

At least it's an old grenade.

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 3

RE: Incoming! - 6/2/2009 7:45:16 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Yeah, it might not go quite so loudly KA-BOOM, given that WE'VE HEARD IT ALL BEFORE...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 4

RE: Incoming! - 6/2/2009 7:45:27 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

It's a torpedo. Of course they hurt!

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 5

RE: Incoming! - 6/2/2009 7:52:28 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

It's a torpedo. Of course they hurt!

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 6

RE: Incoming! - 6/2/2009 7:54:14 PM

RUPD3658

Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

It's a torpedo.� Of course they hurt!

-F-

Unless they are an early war Allied dud

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 7

RE: Incoming! - 6/2/2009 7:56:00 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

When they went off they really hurt. In a bunch of cases they really hurt the ships armed with them. And yes, it's a grenade. The ususal suspects will shortly show up with a litany of reasons why the empirical facts don't matter.

My take is that the LL's success was largely a matter of short range when fired and surprise. If the Allies didn't know the torps were in the water and if they were fired from less than 8,500 yards and more than 1,000, they were pretty devastating.

well, one of the "usual supects" showed up to do post no. 2...

_____________________________

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 8

RE: Incoming! - 6/2/2009 8:23:17 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

That'd be incorrect (as usual), as I am the one who tends to rely on facts. If it really is the collective desire to rehash the whole discussion again (in which it will be demonstrated that the median and modal hit rates of Long Lance vollies was ZERO hits, and the mean 6.25, 12.25 at night at less than 8K yards, and 25% when the Allies didn't know that Japanese ships were in the area), we could do all that, and you could once again attempt to explain why the historical statistical mean, mode, median and circumstances associated with each don't matter.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 9

RE: Incoming! - 6/2/2009 8:24:18 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Soooo predictable...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 10

RE: Incoming! - 6/2/2009 8:40:06 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

Agreed. Hence my sig lines.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 11

RE: Incoming! - 6/2/2009 9:39:01 PM

herwin

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

OK, I realize this a grenade, and others may have seen this article on the Long Lance, but I found it interesting, so here it is:

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-067.htm

Author says LL achieved 6.7% hit rate. WITP has a higher hit rate, though WITP Long Lances appear to not cause the damage that RL ones do. Overall I'm fine with the way it is in the game.

They were controversial weapons, but I think one thing is indisputable: When they hit, that large warhead really HURT.

OPERATIONS RESEARCH

Looks like some good numbers. The estimated pH for a torpedo launched at 880 yds against a warship moving at 25-30 knots was 5%.

_____________________________

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 Q-Ball)

Post #: 12

RE: Incoming! - 6/2/2009 9:40:29 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

Statistically analysis produces statistics. It is not a all knowing crystal ball. The greatest data processing device today, is no better that the data put into it , and the people who use it.(As programmers say GIGO-garbage in, garbage out). Robert Strange MacNamara and Donald Rumsfeld both worshipped statistical analysis. Colin Powel,Norman Swartzkoft,Curtis Lemay and Chester Nimitz did not. Who would you rather have commanding the troops?

And let's not forget the answer to the greatest bit of Statistical analysis ever! 42!

_____________________________

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 13

RE: Incoming! - 6/2/2009 9:41:16 PM

CV Zuikaku

Posts: 442
Joined: 12/18/2008
From: Legrad, Croatia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

When they went off they really hurt. In a bunch of cases they really hurt the ships armed with them. And yes, it's a grenade. The ususal suspects will shortly show up with a litany of reasons why the empirical facts don't matter.
My take is that the LL's success was largely a matter of short range when fired and surprise. If the Allies didn't know the torps were in the water and if they were fired from less than 8,500 yards and more than 1,000, they were pretty devastating.

Well ,you are the first one here who showed up withy your "litany of reasons".

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 14

RE: Incoming! - 6/2/2009 9:55:42 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

Statistically analysis produces statistics. It is not a all knowing crystal ball. The greatest data processing device today, is no better that the data put into it , and the people who use it.(As programmers say GIGO-garbage in, garbage out).

That is true. But you do have to know which sorts of subjects can be statistically addressed. If the question is "how likely is it that a torpedo fired at range X under circumstances Y will hit a target" it's a rather straightforward question. That, after all, was the basis of the TDC.

quote:

Robert Strange MacNamara and Donald Rumsfeld both worshipped statistical analysis. Colin Powel,Norman Swartzkoft, Curtis Lemay and Chester Nimitz did not. Who would you rather have commanding the troops?

LeMay was more of a statistician than your statement suggests. And I'd argue that McNamara and Rumsfeld were operating without data... it'd be as if someone came up with a hit rate for Japanese WW2 torpedoes in a consim that substantially differed from the hit rate mentioned in Czernecki's study on the assumption that some ideological factor should be given greater weight than actual usage successes and failures on the battlefield.

quote:

And let's not forget the answer to the greatest bit of Statistical analysis ever! 42!

Let us hope that mice aren't too involved in torpedo R&D these days.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 15

RE: Incoming! - 6/2/2009 9:59:12 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

Well ,you are the first one here who showed up withy your "litany of reasons".

It was required that I do so after someone suggested that my position might not be based on the best empirical evidence. If anyone doesn't like to hear me make an empirical argument, they're free to agree with me and move on.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 16

RE: Incoming! - 6/2/2009 10:06:10 PM

CV Zuikaku

Posts: 442
Joined: 12/18/2008
From: Legrad, Croatia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Well ,you are the first one here who showed up withy your "litany of reasons".

It was required that I do so after someone suggested that my position might not be based on the best empirical evidence. If anyone doesn't like to hear me make an empirical argument, they're free to agree with me and move on.

Combat statistics might be a bit tricky area

All after all, combat is not about statistic- it is Murphy's law in it's full scope and practice

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 17

RE: Incoming! - 6/2/2009 10:09:48 PM

Kereguelen

Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

.. it'd be as if someone came up with a hit rate for Japanese WW2 torpedoes in a consim that substantially differed from the hit rate mentioned in Czernecki's study on the assumption that some ideological factor should be given greater weight than actual usage successes and failures on the battlefield.

Then ... what was the hit rate for USN WW2 torpedoes? How does their hit rate compare to USN torpedo hit rates in WITP?

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 18

RE: Incoming! - 6/2/2009 10:11:01 PM

Historiker

Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to Kereguelen)

Post #: 19

RE: Incoming! - 6/2/2009 10:20:55 PM

herwin

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

.. it'd be as if someone came up with a hit rate for Japanese WW2 torpedoes in a consim that substantially differed from the hit rate mentioned in Czernecki's study on the assumption that some ideological factor should be given greater weight than actual usage successes and failures on the battlefield.

Then ... what was the hit rate for USN WW2 torpedoes? How does their hit rate compare to USN torpedo hit rates in WITP?

HISTORY

Airborne torpedoes? About 10%. I seem to recall the surface torpedo hit rate was similar.

< Message edited by herwin -- 6/2/2009 10:37:34 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Kereguelen)

Post #: 20

RE: Incoming! - 6/2/2009 10:26:55 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

Combat statistics might be a bit tricky area All after all, combat is not about statistic- it is Murphy's law in it's full scope and practice

We agree that unforeseen things can mess up a predicted outcome based on some statistical calculation. That said, Murphy's law is a statistical argument. Basically it's an engineering law that notes that a part is most likely to fail when it is placed under the greatest stress, and parts tend to be placed under the greatest stress when they're most needed.

I'm not sure how many cases of actual battles can be invoked as examples of Murphy's Law in action. Maybe the ABDA's command and control structure in the battle of the Java sea, USN command and control at the battle of Savo Island, or the Japanese operational plan at Midway (a plan that had no tolerance at all for deviation from predicted perfect execution).

quote:

Then ... what was the hit rate for USN WW2 torpedoes?

I don't know. To my knowledge, no one has brought it up before around here. I could probably put something together for USN torpedo shots. You might ask someone at Matrix where their algorithm comes from.

quote:

How does their hit rate compare to USN torpedo hit rates in WITP?

I'd guess that certainly the Japanese hit and detonation rate in 1942 was considerably better than the USN hit and detonation rate in 1942.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 21

RE: Incoming! - 6/2/2009 10:28:27 PM

wworld7

Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Robert Strange MacNamara and Donald Rumsfeld both worshipped statistical analysis. Colin Powel,Norman Swartzkoft,Curtis Lemay and Chester Nimitz did not.

I doubt you have done enough indepth research on these men, as your statement above is not accurate at all with Gen. Powel, Gen. Curtis or Admiral Nimitz. I dont' have extensive knowedge of Gen Swartzkoft, but I could guess he would also take offense to your statement, but again with my lack of knowedge of him I could be wrong.

_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 22

RE: Incoming! - 6/2/2009 10:43:17 PM

herwin

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Combat statistics might be a bit tricky area All after all, combat is not about statistic- it is Murphy's law in it's full scope and practice

We agree that unforeseen things can mess up a predicted outcome based on some statistical calculation. That said, Murphy's law is a statistical argument. Basically it's an engineering law that notes that a part is most likely to fail when it is placed under the greatest stress, and parts tend to be placed under the greatest stress when they're most needed.

I'm not sure how many cases of actual battles can be invoked as examples of Murphy's Law in action. Maybe the ABDA's command and control structure in the battle of the Java sea, USN command and control at the battle of Savo Island, or the Japanese operational plan at Midway (a plan that had no tolerance at all for deviation from predicted perfect execution).

quote:

Then ... what was the hit rate for USN WW2 torpedoes?

I don't know. To my knowledge, no one has brought it up before around here. I could probably put something together for USN torpedo shots. You might ask someone at Matrix where their algorithm comes from.

quote:

How does their hit rate compare to USN torpedo hit rates in WITP?

I'd guess that certainly the Japanese hit and detonation rate in 1942 was considerably better than the USN hit and detonation rate in 1942.

HISTORY

IJN airborne torpedo hit rate was about 20%. I seem to recall the surface torpedo hit rate was about the same as the Allied hit rate. On the other hand, the maximum range of the Japanese oxygen torpedoes was much greater, and their detectability was much lower.

_____________________________

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 23

RE: Incoming! - 6/2/2009 10:52:16 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

IJN airborne torpedo hit rate was about 20%.

Do you know whether or not that varied by platform (for ex B5N vs G4M)?

quote:

On the other hand, the maximum range of the Japanese oxygen torpedoes was much greater, and their detectability was much lower.

Yes. That's why circumstances of firing made such a difference (IMO). It was pretty common for both USN and IJN skippers to assume they were taking torpedo fire more or less as soon as they were sure that their own ships had been identified by the enemy. When the Japanese could get a torpedo volley off before the USN knew they were taking fire, the Japanese could do rather well. Ditto for the USN at Balikpapan in 1942 and at Cape Esperence, and subsequent 1943 actions such as Empress Augusta Bay and the like.

That's why Czernecki is correct (IMO) to suggest that the greatest asset of the Type 93A was its speed, rather than its range.

Daylight shots had pretty poor success rates except under pretty weird circumstances, such as the USN DD/DE charge at the Battle of Samar.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 24

RE: Incoming! - 6/2/2009 11:27:04 PM

AirGriff

Posts: 701
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline

Now that I've read this entire thread, the odds are statistically pretty good I'm going to head to the fridge for something cold to drink

_____________________________

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 25

RE: Incoming! - 6/2/2009 11:53:15 PM

bobogoboom

Posts: 3799
Joined: 2/13/2006
From: Dallas
Status: offline

_____________________________

I feel like I'm Han Solo, and you're Chewie, and she's Ben Kenobi, and we're in that bar.
Member Texas Thread Mafia.

Sig art by rogueusmc

(in reply to AirGriff)

Post #: 26

RE: Incoming! - 6/3/2009 1:40:22 AM

RevRick

Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline

To heck with this joyful banter. Clapton and Stevie Winwood are playing on PBS right now... Adios...

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.� ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to bobogoboom)

Post #: 27

RE: Incoming! - 6/3/2009 2:21:10 AM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Robert Strange MacNamara and Donald Rumsfeld both worshipped statistical analysis. Colin Powel,Norman Swartzkoft,Curtis Lemay and Chester Nimitz did not.

I doubt you have done enough indepth research on these men, as your statement above is not accurate at all with Gen. Powel, Gen. Curtis or Admiral Nimitz. I dont' have extensive knowedge of Gen Swartzkoft, but I could guess he would also take offense to your statement, but again with my lack of knowedge of him I could be wrong.

Ah, but you didn't read what I said. I didn't say that they didn't use statistical analysis.I said that they didn't worship them.They gave statistical analysis as much attention as it deserved. The 1st two genetlemen used SA for SA sake. They didn't see it as merely another tool in a tool box full of options. They say it as the end all and be all. There is the difference. And Lemay , in particular, was quite willing to toss the whole process and go with a gut hunch.

_____________________________

(in reply to wworld7)

Post #: 28

RE: Incoming! - 6/3/2009 2:23:49 AM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

mdiehl, I wasn't dissing you (ok, maybe I was teasing you a little). Please don't take offense. I was trying to be playfull, and as usual, got a little heavy handed. Sorry.

_____________________________

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 29

RE: Incoming! - 6/3/2009 2:47:02 AM

rogueusmc

Posts: 4583
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Texas...what country are YOU from?
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

How does their hit rate compare to USN torpedo hit rates in WITP?

I'd guess that certainly the Japanese hit and detonation rate in 1942 was considerably better than the USN hit and detonation rate in 1942.

I like this part...

_____________________________

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army