Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

US Battleships - fragile????

 
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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> US Battleships - fragile???? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
US Battleships - fragile???? - 6/25/2002 10:51:15 PM   
thantis

 

Posts: 185
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Cooksville, MD
Status: offline 		I've noticed that my battleships (South Dakota, Mississippi, Tennessee, North Carolina, etc) seem to be extremely vulnerable to both air attack & surface actions. I've had a single torpedo send a battleship back to Pearl & Japanese destroyers are able to do a lot of damage with their 5" Guns (even against the combined firepower of 3 BBs, 3 CAs & 6 DD's).

Anyone else noticed this, or I am just using them poorly?
Post #: 1
Re: US Battleships - fragile???? - 6/25/2002 11:16:05 PM   
NorthStar

 

Posts: 219
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: New York, US
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by thantis
[B]I've noticed that my battleships (South Dakota, Mississippi, Tennessee, North Carolina, etc) seem to be extremely vulnerable to both air attack & surface actions. I've had a single torpedo send a battleship back to Pearl & Japanese destroyers are able to do a lot of damage with their 5" Guns (even against the combined firepower of 3 BBs, 3 CAs & 6 DD's).

Anyone else noticed this, or I am just using them poorly? [/B][/QUOTE]

In the patch, Matrix reduced the effectiveness of the 5" guns. Have you updated you version yet?

If you look in the thread "Damage Values" (sorry, I don't know how to post a link to a thread) -- which is on about page 3 of this forum -- there are some lengthy posts by Nikodemous (sp?) detailing these issues. The impression I get is that I wouldn't expect that to be a typical result of a single Torepedo hit, but it is certainly not unreasonable, especially considering the power of the Japanese Long Lance.

(in reply to thantis)
Post #: 2
Re: US Battleships - fragile???? - 6/25/2002 11:29:04 PM   
Spooky


Posts: 816
Joined: 4/1/2002
From: Froggy Land
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by thantis
[B]I've noticed that my battleships (South Dakota, Mississippi, Tennessee, North Carolina, etc) seem to be extremely vulnerable to both air attack & surface actions. I've had a single torpedo send a battleship back to Pearl & Japanese destroyers are able to do a lot of damage with their 5" Guns (even against the combined firepower of 3 BBs, 3 CAs & 6 DD's).

Anyone else noticed this, or I am just using them poorly? [/B][/QUOTE]

With the 1.11 patch, the DD 5" guns should not be able to do a lot of damage to US BB ... but the Japanese torpedoes (Long Lance) can and will !!!!

(in reply to thantis)
Post #: 3
- 6/26/2002 12:56:40 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		"The impression I get is that I wouldn't expect that to be a typical result of a single Torepedo hit, but it is certainly not unreasonable, especially considering the power of the Japanese Long Lance."

It is quite unreasonable to have severe damage or flooding from a single torpedo hit. The LL had a heavy warhead (heavier than most torps) but modern BBs were incredibly resistent to them just the same.

On the other hand, *any* torpedo hit on a capitol ship is going to eventually require dock time. The best analog is the torpedoing of USS North Carolina by an IJN sub (the torpedo used had a slighlty lighter warhead than the Type 93a, but it was comparable). NC lost headawy and power in one boiler, briefly, but was bcak up to 26 knots and fully copmbat ready within 15 minutes of the hit.

About the only time a single torpedo should mission kill a modern BB is when the torp strikes in the prop/rudder area. Even then you have to look at prop dispersal and rudder redundancy. Some BBs have crappy underwater layout (like KM Bismarck), and others like the US Sodaks and Iowas have very good underwater layout that basically prevents a single torp from completely deriving the vessel of propulsion or steering.

(in reply to thantis)
Post #: 4
Re: US Battleships - fragile???? - 6/26/2002 1:09:47 AM   
JohnK

 

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by thantis
[B]I've noticed that my battleships (South Dakota, Mississippi, Tennessee, North Carolina, etc) seem to be extremely vulnerable to both air attack & surface actions. I've had a single torpedo send a battleship back to Pearl [/B][/QUOTE]


And the problem with this is?

Long Lances were big-*** torpedos. Here's the hole from a single Long Lance in USS North Carolina:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/015521.jpg

And yes, North Carolina went back to Pearl, and spent several months getting repaired.

Not certain why you and others are bothered by having to send ships back to Pearl to repair....there really was very little repairing of serious damage in the Solomons or Noumea. Ships were going back to Pearl for various reasons likely MORE often than they are in UV.

I suspect you're having battleships in surface actions in the Solomons a lot more often than reality..which, as I'm sure you're aware, was a grand total of once. 5" at close range at night are going to cause serious superstructure damage, even if they're not going to sink a ship.

(in reply to thantis)
Post #: 5
- 6/26/2002 1:41:59 AM   
thantis

 

Posts: 185
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Cooksville, MD
Status: offline 		I have no problem sending my ships back to Pearl (I do it quite frequently - too frequently for my taste :mad: )

It just seems that everytime by surface task forces are engaged by the enemy - whether is be aircraft or surface groups - I end up sending another one or two of my battleships back to Pearl.

I just want to know if US Battlewagons were actually this vulnerable to damage?

As an aside - I pounded the BB Musashi with level & dive bombers for a week in port (Shortlands Is.), hitting the ship dozens of times with 500lb bombs, yet it never sank. I did a quick check on the other side and it managed to limp its way all the way back to Truk for repairs.

(in reply to thantis)
Post #: 6
- 6/26/2002 1:46:52 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		I was not able to view that link to the torp damage to NC. In any case, NC wasn't mission killed by the hit. NC was sent home to repair the damage because she was not otherwise required at the moment. Her primary mission escorting Wasp was done, since Wasp was sunk (it took 4 LLs do do in Wasp, which was basiclaly built on a CL hull) and because 2 other BBs were arriving on station.

Not sure what the original poster was objecting to about sending ship back to PH as a result of hit, since any torpedo hit (even a US Mark 10 from an S-boat) would be enough to warrant dock time for *any* BB made by any nation if the BB was not imeediately needed for other duties.

If, however, a single LL is putting a Sodak or Washington at risk of foundering or drastically reducing speed for a protracted interval, sans hit on the rudder/props, then the model is wrong.

(in reply to thantis)
Post #: 7
- 6/26/2002 1:56:11 AM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline 		I think that the "System" damage function is too easy a catch-all, especially in regards to a ships speed. Ships can suffer damage and still keep speed, whereas in UV, all damage eventually translates into system damage, which in turn reduces speed.

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to thantis)
Post #: 8
Not only that, mates... - 6/26/2002 1:58:15 AM   
sparks

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 5/15/2002
From: Underway!
Status: offline 		But where in all blazes did the Kongos get 60 kt engines. This Tokyo Express nonsense is downright stupid. Ain't no way a Kongo is going to leave Shortland at dusk or after, conduct a bombardment or engage in several rounds of combat at Lunga, and be back at Shortland by Dawn. If that were the case, we never would have captured the Canal. Either you have got to have some kind of knowledge they are on their way because of late afternoon contact so you can get vulnerable merchies out of the way, or you have got to be able to get your shots in with air on their way out. You can't have it both ways!

Now, the Kongos seem to be almost invulnerable to the 16"45's on the NoCar/SoDak classes, too, which ain't to terribly realistic since they only had about 9" of armor plate. Seems the Washington crippled one of them (Kirishima) with only about 9 hits in Second Guadalcanal - but I have several engagements when they soak up 16's like small arms fire, and blow the bejesus out of the NC with 14's. So far, with all of the changes in patches, I haven't got much past 01 Oct 42, but NC gets clobbered every time and virtually nothing on either of the Kongo's - and that is not real with about five run throughs. The NC was designed to withstand 14" shellfire since that was to have been her original main battery - but without superheavy shells, the 14" from the IJN just shred her. If it does the same thing to the SoDak's something is amiss.

(in reply to thantis)
Post #: 9
Thoughts... - 6/26/2002 2:31:56 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		I've found the US BBs quite sturdy, even against the lighter Japanese BBs like the Kongo. There are so many other variables to consider as well in each of these engagements, including "lucky" hits. If you have a top notch TF commander, experienced ships with good commanders and a lot of radar-equipped ships, a US BB TF is pretty much the king of surface combat, in my experience. If you send them against the Japanese in a night battle relatively early in the campaign when the US ships still have low night experience, it can definitely be a painful lesson.

About the only thing to fear is the Long Lance, since you can't always expect your screening destroyers to soak up the hits and those BBs are large targets. I would feel very confident putting the Washington or North Carolina up against the Kongo. In a TF situation, the same as long as the balance of power between the supporting ships is also close.

With the high durability of the US BBs, they also tend to repair fire and flotation damage quickly and without incurring much additional system damage. Also, all of the high end BBs are even tougher to sink since 1.10's new combat formulas.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to thantis)
Post #: 10
- 6/26/2002 2:40:16 AM   
JohnK

 

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]I was not able to view that link to the torp damage to NC. In any case, NC wasn't mission killed by the hit. NC was sent home to repair the damage because she was not otherwise required at the moment. [/B][/QUOTE]


That site must be set up not to allow links to pics to be posted on bulletin boards. My apologies.

People can try http://www.navsource.org/ (let me see if that works) and just go through and find the North Carolina section.

The original poster never claimed that, just complained that a torp hit was sending US Battleships to Pearl.

And I think that even if NC was "needed at the time" it would have been sent back anyway.....It had a massive 26 foot wide hole in its side, despite the fact it still could make speed.

Actually, a lot of the really long times in UV in "Pearl" are actually ships sent back to the West Coast, or even NEW YORK (which is where South Dakota went to have the repair done after the Night Battle with Kirishima.) Pearl Harbor was actually a pretty cramped place and there was no way all of the Battle Damage of the US could be repaired there.

(in reply to thantis)
Post #: 11
- 6/26/2002 2:43:56 AM   
JohnK

 

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by thantis
[B]

As an aside - I pounded the BB Musashi with level & dive bombers for a week in port (Shortlands Is.), hitting the ship dozens of times with 500lb bombs, yet it never sank. I did a quick check on the other side and it managed to limp its way all the way back to Truk for repairs. [/B][/QUOTE]


Define "dozens?" 12 hits? 24 hits?

500 lbers aren't going to do much to any modern battleship....just aren't going to penetrate. I wouldn't be surprised at all Musashi didn't sink. Really mess up the superstructure but it's not going to blow up or have damage to flotation integrity.

Need 1000 lbers or torps into her.

(in reply to thantis)
Post #: 12
Makes sense, but... - 6/26/2002 2:46:41 AM   
sparks

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 5/15/2002
From: Underway!
Status: offline 		what about these BB raids? I'm sitting on the Canal with a squadron of PBY's on Naval Search, one Squadron of Hudsons on ASW, three F4F squadrons, 2 SBD's Squadrons, and a squadron of P-39D - all of them with good morale factors, none of them too tired - fatigue under 25 - and with virtually all AC operational. CAP keeps the air raids from suppressing the air group - no enemy land units on the island, and plenty of search aircraft up - like about 24 for naval search alone - and God alone knows any commander is going to have someone orbiting over the slot as far up as they can get and still get home on the fuel in the tank - and BB's still show up out of nowhere - fire to their hearts content - and wind up out of range of anything by morning - even when there are plenty of AC around to at least smack them on the butt and hurry them up on they way back up the slot. To be that fast those big boys are doing at least 50 kts and that is if they don't slow down when passing Lunga point. In the meantime, I can't get a DM group to run 120 miles, plant mines and be out of the mine hex in the same night. What gives?

(in reply to thantis)
Post #: 13
- 6/26/2002 2:47:55 AM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by JohnK
[B]Need 1000 lbers or torps into her. [/B][/QUOTE]
Or just use the Force

"Ohhhh, maxi-BIG da Force"

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to thantis)
Post #: 14
- 6/26/2002 2:58:03 AM   
mdiehl

 

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

Agree that the PBYs should be locating any BB TF in the Solomons --- unless they're being shot down because of IJn aerial opposition. Are you losing any of them?

The BBs have the speed to get into and out of range of SBDs and TBFs in a night, unless a ship puts something into them to slow them down. It's how they were used against the 'canal when the latter had only single engined a/c to oppose them.

I don't have UV. I've been waiting to hear that there has been some substantive research to the game that makes it much better than GGPW. So far I'm not tempted to part with my money. But, here's a theoretical question:

Can you set your land based air units to night anti-ship missions? If you can, you may be able to deliver a nasty torpedo attack to those BBs. Once they start cutting loose with their main batteries they *ought* to be easy targets for a group of TBFs, or SBDs engaged in glide-bombing attacks. And the flak should be nonexistant.

(in reply to thantis)
Post #: 15
- 6/26/2002 3:18:06 AM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]The BBs have the speed to get into and out of range of SBDs and TBFs in a night, unless a ship puts something into them to slow them down. It's how they were used against the 'canal when the latter had only single engined a/c to oppose them.
[/QUOTE]

BB's bombarded Henderson field successfully on 10/13/42. They had 5 carriers and LBA supporting them. This was a combined forces operation not a raid. This is the only time I can find that BB's bombarded Henderson.

The Tokyo Express were DD's that delivered troops and supplies. Even the destroyers were attacked several times by AC from Henderson.

Based on history and physics I personally see no justification for the movement rates of BB bombardment groups. Consider how fast and powerful they are in this game and yet they were proved obsolete by actual events.

For further info from another thread:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21952

(in reply to thantis)
Post #: 16
- 6/26/2002 4:30:09 AM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline 		The subject of bombardment raids has been discussed ad infinitum. There are several people who think it is completely broken, some (like me) who think it is slightly unfortunate that you can 'guarantee' to get out of range before air attack, but not really broken as such.
As far as I am aware, 2by3/Matrix are aware of the issue, and have not given any news of changes. Most of the suggestions put by people to 'fix' it would probably make things worse.
BTW you don't need to do 60kts to bombard and get out again, 30 kts will do fine. Do a search on 'Bombard' - or actually, don't I just tried it and got 200 threads! Qualify it a bit!

An BTW, here is a reply I gave the last time we discussed whether it is impossible to get in and out without air attack (sorry for the length)


(Quote) All I was pointing out was that in the bombardment case, the true sequence is:
- Bombarding force aims to cruise to get to sprint range to target, with a ToT of say midnight, by say 1 hour prior to dusk (although you can sprint in
from further out than this, and lessen the window for spotting). For a 30 kts
TF, that means 7hrs flat out from 5pm(to simplify the example - I know dusk
isn't always at 6pm!). This places the TF at 210miles out at 5pm. Even if
spotted here, too late for a strike before dark. (you're welcome to try a
night raid in RL, but not effective usually)
- The TF sprints in, and duly arrives at midnight. Say 1hr bombardment,
leaves at 1am, sprints out.
- At dawn (6am), is 150miles out, steaming hard. Say the base isn't
knocked out, and gets a search plane off on the dot of 6am (5 hrs after 8"
or 14" bricks were going bang in the neighbourhood, and no, I wouldn't take
off in the dark on a freshly ploughed airfield!). Flight time, even if it goes
directly to the TF, at say 150kts (v fast for a search cruise), =approx 1 1/4
hrs(the TF is still steaming). Sends contact report at say 7:10 (sees enemy
in distance).
- Base is really on the ball and gets strike off as soon as message recieved
(say 10mins to get off and form up, which is impossibly fast). Flight time to
TF (again at say 150kts - loaded bombers remember), now about 1 1/2 hrs.
So the earliest a strike could occur is say 8:50. The ships are now nearly 8
hrs steaming from the target, ie 240miles.
- This means that the TF has covered 210+240, i.e. 450miles (BTW all miles
are nautical miles - I presume UV hexes are nm?), in 16hrs, and is the
subject of an air strike at 240 miles out, about when it reverts to cruise
speed. (Incurably optimistic best case for the base).

If you put half realistic delays in, you could easily not spot the TF until
9:00, and then you are then trying a strike at range 240 miles.

From where I am looking, in the game there should be a small chance of
catching the bombardment force at extreme range in the morning, rather
then apparently none as at present. A poor commander bombarding for too
long (or not finding the target straight away), or having to enage surface
forces first, would increase the chance of an air stike from roughly zero, to
some (but not a lot, unless he really fouls up). There should also be some
chance of spotting him as he cruises up to sprint start point, which there is,
although at too long a range at present.
As I have said before, the 600-700 miles case in the game is a little
extreme, but has no real effect on the average case, which is that a
bombarding TF WILL get in and out without significant risk of air attack.
YOU may know he's coming, but the target is a little busy! I would love the
bombardment to be 'not a sure thing' but it doesn't keep me awake nights!

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to thantis)
Post #: 17
- 6/26/2002 4:44:59 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		BBs were sent on 3 bombardment missions against Henderson. Two of these failed because the USN had surface ships intervening. In the absence of intervention tehse groups would have completed their bombardment missions and been out of range of SBDs by the time a search could have found them the next day.

There were also at least two unopposed IJN CA bombardments in which the IJN were able to scoot into and out of range overnight.

If *detection* is the complaint and PBYs are stationed at Guadlacanal then the complaint is legit. But unless something slows the BB and CA groups down, I do not see a problem with the results as-decribed vis a vis the inability for SBDs and TBFs to find these guys within range.

PS nice post HMS Warspite. Sums up my view on the whole thing.

(in reply to thantis)
Post #: 18
I agree with you - 6/26/2002 5:07:42 AM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]From where I am looking, in the game there should be a small chance of
catching the bombardment force at extreme range in the morning, rather
then apparently none as at present. A poor commander bombarding for too
long (or not finding the target straight away), or having to enage surface
forces first, would increase the chance of an air stike from roughly zero, to
some (but not a lot, unless he really fouls up). There should also be some
chance of spotting him as he cruises up to sprint start point, which there is,
although at too long a range at present.
As I have said before, the 600-700 miles case in the game is a little
extreme, but has no real effect on the average case, which is that a
bombarding TF WILL get in and out without significant risk of air attack.
YOU may know he's coming, but the target is a little busy! I would love the
bombardment to be 'not a sure thing' but it doesn't keep me awake nights![/QUOTE]

It's the fact that there is no chance of interception that bothers me. The "Tokyo Express" has been used to justify this. When examples of the Tokyo Express being successfully attacked by LBA on it way TO Lunga were posted there was no response.

If it was just Lunga I could accept even that. However, when BB's show up at Port Moresby and my LBA is completely left out of the equation, I don't accept it as realistic.

PACWAR had air zones of control and reaction attacks. UV needs something similar in my opinion.

BTW, I'm a big supporter of Gary Grigsby games going back to Carrier Force and War In Russia. This issue doesn't keep me up at night but the GAME ought to. Up to now it hasn't had that effect on me. I think this issue is the main reason why.

(in reply to thantis)
Post #: 19
- 6/26/2002 11:02:49 AM   
Huskalator

 

Posts: 212
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		I really haven't noticed anything wrong. In a surface engagement in my GC just recently the North Carolina was struck by twelve shells. I had figured it would have to be sent back to Pearl but it only had 9 systems damage. The engagement was against 2 BBs and one destroyer. I am sure more than a few of those hits were of the 12" variety.

Maybe you just got a really lucky torpedo.

_____________________________

SW Episode 2:Good movie, bad love story

Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so.

(in reply to thantis)
Post #: 20
- 6/26/2002 11:50:45 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		In my latest game the North Carolina has played a major role in three nightime surface actions off Lunga. The first was against the Hiei and Kirishima, some cruisers and destroyers. She hit both of the British-built BBs and was hit by nothing larger than an 8" shell. I have not seen any Kongo-class BB since.

The other two engagements were with mixed cruiser/destroyer TFs and she is already credited with sinking one cruiser and four destroyers, and yet she has only 10 system damage after all this fighting. In every combat many shots hit her, but i can not remember any penetrating shots (maybe one 8" shell). However, I have sweated each and every combat experience because of those hated Long Lances....

(in reply to thantis)
Post #: 21
You're lucky.. - 6/27/2002 9:04:16 AM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline 		I came up against two Kongo's and they shredded the NC with 14" shells - with Ching Lee as the TF commander. She was limping back to Luganville when a Long Lance got her - went from flotation 40 to sunk - one torp. Methinks there is a lot of variables built into the game - much like real combat - but some of them seem a bit odd - torp showed strike forward - and ship sank.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to thantis)
Post #: 22
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> US Battleships - fragile???? 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

1.531