Small TF and ship bombard reults

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Small TF and ship bombard reults

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Small TF and ship bombard reults

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Small TF and ship bombard reults - 3/30/2010 5:35:07 PM

Arizona41

Posts: 4
Joined: 2/21/2010
Status: offline

I have found that unlike WITP small TFs comprised of say a CL and a few DDS wreck airfields much easier and are much more likely to sneak through search planes and evade air attacks then the traditional bombard TFs of CAs and BBs.

Something seems out of whack with the results. It seems as if this small TFs operate with near impunity and can cause incredible damage. Anyone else see these results?

Post #: 1

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 3/30/2010 5:44:51 PM

Schatten

Posts: 35
Joined: 10/3/2009
Status: offline

smilar, have send a Bombard TF of 2 BB and around 15 Cruiser and Destroyer�s to Bombard Akyab.
result were around 10 casauties (drunken soldiers that fell into the holes of BB shells i think^^).

2 Days later a single Destroyer has make around 10 Hits into Ships in Harbor, destroy around 5 Planes and caused ~ 100 casaulties at same Basis.

(in reply to Arizona41)

Post #: 2

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 3/30/2010 5:58:40 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

One thing that makes big difference in results is Recon & Detection Level. You can for example set your cruiser float planes to recon the target base and you see results getting lot better.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to Schatten)

Post #: 3

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 3/30/2010 6:54:57 PM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

Another thing is escort bombardment: DDs can inflict considerably more damage than CAs on occasion because they come so close to the shore. Of course the cost of this can be near total if there is any meaningful artillery opposition.

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 4

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 3/30/2010 8:36:49 PM

USSAmerica

Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arizona41

I have found that unlike WITP small TFs comprised of say a CL and a few DDS wreck airfields much easier and are much more likely to sneak through search planes and evade air attacks then the traditional bombard TFs of CAs and BBs.

What were the different airfield runway and service damage levels after the bombardments? I would expect BBs to be able to make bigger runway holes, and cause a higher damage %. If not, then maybe the routine to calculate airfield damage % is not using the warhead rating for the different size guns, and just seeing a higher total of hits (even though from smaller guns) by the DDs.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Arizona41)

Post #: 5

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 3/31/2010 10:17:51 AM

Moss Orleni

Posts: 201
Joined: 11/3/2008
Status: offline

This might be a good place to ask...

When talking about 'escort ships bombarding' in an amphibious TF, is that something you can set as an option? I mean, is there a specific button 'set escorts to bombard' that you can select and that will allow you to set your preference? If so, where is it located, because I seem to have missed it entirely

Cheers,

Moss

(in reply to USSAmerica)

Post #: 6

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 3/31/2010 11:53:41 AM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moss Orleni

This might be a good place to ask...

When talking about 'escort ships bombarding' in an amphibious TF, is that something you can set as an option? I mean, is there a specific button 'set escorts to bombard' that you can select and that will allow you to set your preference? If so, where is it located, because I seem to have missed it entirely

Cheers,

Moss

That setting is only in Bombardment TF. In Amph TF combat ships support the landing automatically.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to Moss Orleni)

Post #: 7

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 3/31/2010 12:21:37 PM

Moss Orleni

Posts: 201
Joined: 11/3/2008
Status: offline

Thanks Sardaukar, I just found an example in a Bombardment TF.
What does it mean in game terms? If turned off, certain ships in a Bombardment TF won't bombard after all, correct? If so, how do know which ones?

Cheers,

Moss

< Message edited by Moss Orleni -- 3/31/2010 12:22:52 PM >

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 8

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 3/31/2010 12:42:52 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moss Orleni

Thanks Sardaukar, I just found an example in a Bombardment TF.
What does it mean in game terms? If turned off, certain ships in a Bombardment TF won't bombard after all, correct? If so, how do know which ones?

Cheers,

Moss

DDs and smaller escorts. CL and bigger ships will bombard. Since CLs have quite thin armour, I usually use only BB & CA escorted by DDs in Bombardment TFs.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to Moss Orleni)

Post #: 9

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 3/31/2010 12:47:53 PM

Moss Orleni

Posts: 201
Joined: 11/3/2008
Status: offline

And thanks again! Useful info...

Cheers,

Moss

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 10

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 3/31/2010 12:54:30 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

The USN Cleveland and Brooklyn class CL's have enough armor to take on shore defense positions in a bombardment TF. Don't use the Detroit class or any other Allied CL's though unless you want to turn them into a reef.

(in reply to Moss Orleni)

Post #: 11

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 4/3/2010 3:54:32 AM

Disco Duck

Posts: 552
Joined: 11/16/2004
From: San Antonio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arizona41

I have found that unlike WITP small TFs comprised of say a CL and a few DDS wreck airfields much easier and are much more likely to sneak through search planes and evade air attacks then the traditional bombard TFs of CAs and BBs.

Something seems out of whack with the results. It seems as if this small TFs operate with near impunity and can cause incredible damage. Anyone else see these results?

In the "thousand Mile war" scenario I have used the PG charleston to wipe out the kiska airfield and most of the air craft. All by it's lonesome.

Seems like an adjustment is needed.

(in reply to Arizona41)

Post #: 12

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 4/3/2010 6:44:51 AM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

[/quote]

That setting is only in Bombardment TF. In Amph TF combat ships support the landing automatically.

[/quote]
To an extent. Don't let your kids read this--it isn't pretty. This was all in ONE day at Saipan. If there are "heavy fires" that ship was almost certainly a goner:

Pre-Invasion action off Saipan - Coastal Guns Fire Back!
Defensive Guns engage approaching landing force

344 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
BB Maryland, Shell hits 14
AKA Algol, Shell hits 21, heavy fires, heavy damage
CVE Gambier Bay
DD Selfridge
AKA Alcyon, Shell hits 2
APA James O'Hara
DD Cushing

Japanese ground losses:
14 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allied ground losses:
302 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 27 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 18 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Vehicles lost 20 (1 destroyed, 19 disabled)

BB Maryland firing at 5th Base Force
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging AKA Algol at 17,000 yards
CVE Gambier Bay fires to suppress enemy guns at 17,000 yards
12cm 10YT DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging AKA Algol at 17,000 yards
BB Maryland fires to suppress enemy troops at 17,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging AKA Algol at 17,000 yards
DD Selfridge fires to suppress enemy guns at 17,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging AKA Alcyon at 17,000 yards
BB Maryland fires to suppress enemy guns at 17,000 yards
12cm 10YT DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging AKA Algol at 17,000 yards
BB Maryland fires to suppress enemy troops at 17,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging AKA Algol at 17,000 yards
BB Maryland fires to suppress enemy guns at 17,000 yards
12cm 10YT DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging AKA Algol at 17,000 yards
BB Maryland fires to suppress enemy troops at 17,000 yards
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 4,000 yards
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 1,000 yards

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibious Assault at Saipan

TF 300 troops unloading over beach at Saipan, 108,93

Allied ground losses:
5 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Vehicles lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)

5 troops of a US HMG Section accidentally lost during unload of 2nd Marine Div /2
Motorized Support lost overboard during unload of 2nd Marine Div /7

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Invasion action off Saipan - Coastal Guns Fire Back!
Defensive Guns engage approaching landing force

621 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
BB West Virginia, Shell hits 143, heavy fires, heavy damage
AK Azimech, Shell hits 31, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Lang
CVE Sangamon
APA Cambria, Shell hits 3
AK Allegan, Shell hits 3, on fire
DD Roe
APA Knox
DE Spangler

Japanese ground losses:
Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
237 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 13 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 15 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 3 (0 destroyed, 3 disabled)
Vehicles lost 5 (0 destroyed, 5 disabled)

BB West Virginia firing at Saipan Naval Fortress
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging AK Azimech at 11,000 yards
CVE Sangamon fires to suppress enemy guns at 11,000 yards
12cm 10YT DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging AK Azimech at 11,000 yards
CVE Sangamon fires to suppress enemy troops at 11,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging AK Azimech at 11,000 yards
CVE Sangamon fires to suppress enemy guns at 11,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging AK Azimech at 11,000 yards
CVE Sangamon fires to suppress enemy guns at 11,000 yards
12cm 10YT DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging AK Azimech at 11,000 yards
CVE Sangamon fires to suppress enemy troops at 11,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging APA Cambria at 11,000 yards
CVE Sangamon fires to suppress enemy guns at 11,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging AK Azimech at 11,000 yards
CVE Sangamon fires to suppress enemy guns at 11,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging AK Azimech at 11,000 yards
CVE Sangamon fires to suppress enemy guns at 11,000 yards
12cm 10YT DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging AK Allegan at 11,000 yards
CVE Sangamon fires to suppress enemy troops at 11,000 yards
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 6,000 yards
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 2,000 yards

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibious Assault at Saipan

TF 395 troops unloading over beach at Saipan, 108,93

Allied ground losses:
12 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 3 (1 destroyed, 2 disabled)

5 troops of a US HMG Section lost overboard during unload of 7th Infantry Div
Motorized Support lost in surf during unload of 7th Infantry Div /7

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Invasion action off Saipan
Defensive Guns engage approaching landing force

96 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
xAK Jean Lykes, Shell hits 26, heavy fires, heavy damage
DE Martin
DE Fleming
xAK Joseph Lykes, Shell hits 2, heavy damage
xAK Lipscom Lykes, Shell hits 9, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK General Fleisher

15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Jean Lykes at 15,000 yards
DE Fleming fires to suppress enemy guns at 15,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Jean Lykes at 15,000 yards
DE Fleming fires to suppress enemy guns at 15,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Jean Lykes at 15,000 yards
DE Fleming fires to suppress enemy guns at 15,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Joseph Lykes at 15,000 yards
DE Fleming fires to suppress enemy guns at 15,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Jean Lykes at 15,000 yards
DE Fleming fires to suppress enemy guns at 15,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Lipscom Lykes at 15,000 yards
DE Fleming fires to suppress enemy guns at 15,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Jean Lykes at 15,000 yards
DE Fleming fires to suppress enemy guns at 15,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Jean Lykes at 15,000 yards
DE Martin fires to suppress enemy guns at 15,000 yards
12cm 10YT DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Lipscom Lykes at 15,000 yards
DE Fleming fires to suppress enemy troops at 15,000 yards
DE Martin firing at enemy troops
DE Fleming firing at enemy troops

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibious Assault at Saipan

TF 432 troops unloading over beach at Saipan, 108,93

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Invasion action off Saipan
Defensive Guns engage approaching landing force

277 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
xAK Nathaniel Ingersoll, Shell hits 1
CVE Nehenta Bay
xAK Nancy Lykes, Shell hits 9, heavy fires
xAK Idaho
APD Gregory

Allied ground losses:
Guns lost 12 (0 destroyed, 12 disabled)
Vehicles lost 18 (2 destroyed, 16 disabled)

15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Nathaniel Ingersoll at 17,000 yards
CVE Nehenta Bay fires to suppress enemy guns at 17,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Nancy Lykes at 17,000 yards
CVE Nehenta Bay fires to suppress enemy guns at 17,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Nancy Lykes at 17,000 yards
CVE Nehenta Bay fires to suppress enemy guns at 17,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Nancy Lykes at 17,000 yards
CVE Nehenta Bay fires to suppress enemy guns at 17,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Nancy Lykes at 17,000 yards
CVE Nehenta Bay fires to suppress enemy guns at 17,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Nancy Lykes at 17,000 yards
CVE Nehenta Bay fires to suppress enemy guns at 17,000 yards
12cm 10YT DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Idaho at 17,000 yards
CVE Nehenta Bay fires to suppress enemy troops at 17,000 yards
APD Gregory firing at enemy troops
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 5,000 yards
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 2,000 yards

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibious Assault at Saipan

TF 447 troops unloading over beach at Saipan, 108,93

Allied ground losses:
Guns lost 27 (1 destroyed, 26 disabled)
Vehicles lost 6 (1 destroyed, 5 disabled)

Engineer Vehicle damaged beyond repair during unload of 871th EAB /2
40mm M1 Bofors lost overboard during unload of 97th Cst AA Rgt

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasion Support action off Saipan - Coastal Guns Fire Back!
Defensive Guns engage approaching landing force

378 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
DD Lang, Shell hits 4, on fire
AK Alnitah, Shell hits 16
CVE Sangamon
DD Roe
APA Knox
DE Spangler

Allied ground losses:
55 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

DD Lang firing at 5th Base Force
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging AK Alnitah at 17,000 yards
CVE Sangamon fires to suppress enemy guns at 17,000 yards
12cm 10YT DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging AK Alnitah at 17,000 yards
CVE Sangamon fires to suppress enemy troops at 17,000 yards
14cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging AK Alnitah at 17,000 yards
CVE Sangamon fires to suppress enemy guns at 17,000 yards
12cm 10YT DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging AK Alnitah at 17,000 yards
CVE Sangamon fires to suppress enemy troops at 17,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging AK Alnitah at 17,000 yards
CVE Sangamon fires to suppress enemy guns at 17,000 yards
12cm 10YT DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging AK Alnitah at 17,000 yards
CVE Sangamon fires to suppress enemy troops at 17,000 yards
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 6,000 yards
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 2,000 yards

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasion Support action off Saipan
Defensive Guns engage approaching landing force

158 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
xAK Idaho, Shell hits 11, heavy fires, heavy damage
CVE Nehenta Bay
xAK David Lubin, Shell hits 3
APD Gregory

Allied ground losses:
Guns lost 5 (0 destroyed, 5 disabled)
Vehicles lost 15 (1 destroyed, 14 disabled)

15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Idaho at 16,000 yards
CVE Nehenta Bay fires to suppress enemy guns at 16,000 yards
12cm 10YT DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Idaho at 16,000 yards
CVE Nehenta Bay fires to suppress enemy troops at 16,000 yards
12cm 3YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Idaho at 16,000 yards
CVE Nehenta Bay fires to suppress enemy guns at 16,000 yards
15cm 41YT CD Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK Idaho at 16,000 yards
CVE Nehenta Bay fires to suppress enemy guns at 16,000 yards
12cm 10YT DP Gun Coastal Battery engaging xAK David Lubin at 16,000 yards
CVE Nehenta Bay fires to suppress enemy troops at 16,000 yards
APD Gregory firing at enemy troops
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 1,000 yards

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 4/3/2010 6:45:56 AM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 13

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 4/3/2010 11:56:45 AM

BletchleyGeek

Posts: 4713
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

A retaliatory strike on Baker Island in early March 1942. Not really a small TF - those 3 BBs pack quite a punch. Recon was provided from nearby Canton Island by a O-47 squadron and float planes on the TF:

quote:

Naval bombardment of Baker Island at 149,136

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
H6K2-L Mavis: 1 destroyed on ground

Allied Ships
BB Warspite
BB Nevada
BB Colorado
CA Minneapolis
CA New Orleans
CL St. Louis
CL Trenton
DD Kane
DD Crane
DD Allen
DD Dale
DD Preston
DD Helm
DD Blue

Japanese ground losses:
336 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Non Combat: 17 destroyed, 25 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 5 disabled
Guns lost 6 (2 destroyed, 4 disabled)
Vehicles lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Airbase hits 12
Airbase supply hits 9
Runway hits 139
Port hits 48
Port supply hits 12

BB Warspite firing at Baker Island
BB Nevada firing at Baker Island
BB Colorado firing at Baker Island
CA Minneapolis firing at Baker Island
CA New Orleans firing at Baker Island
CL St. Louis firing at Baker Island
CL Trenton firing at 4th Garrison Unit

DD Kane firing at Baker Island
DD Crane firing at Baker Island
DD Allen firing at 4th Garrison Unit
DD Dale firing at Baker Island
DD Preston firing at Baker Island
DD Helm firing at Baker Island
DD Blue firing at Baker Island

Recon makes a difference and escorts can indeed bombard (if set so from the TF orders screen).

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 14

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 4/3/2010 3:08:53 PM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

Must admit that I find that many and large guns still make big holes...
If you recon your targets well before bombarding the results are usually better;

Naval bombardment of Chittagong at 55,41

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses (ca 50 ac destroyed on the ground)
Blenheim IV: 3 destroyed on ground
Wellington Ic: 5 destroyed on ground
Bolingbroke IV: 5 destroyed on ground
P-40E Warhawk: 4 destroyed on ground
Hurricane IIb Trop: 10 destroyed on ground
Kittyhawk IA: 1 destroyed on ground

Japanese Ships
BB Hyuga
BB Yamashiro
BB Fuso
CL Naka

Allied ground losses:
518 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 27 destroyed, 80 disabled
Engineers: 7 destroyed, 9 disabled
Guns lost 11 (5 destroyed, 6 disabled)
Vehicles lost 16 (7 destroyed, 9 disabled)

Airbase hits 43
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 305

BB Hyuga firing at Chittagong
BB Yamashiro firing at Chittagong
BB Fuso firing at Chittagong
CL Naka firing at Chittagong

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to BletchleyGeek)

Post #: 15

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 4/3/2010 8:47:37 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

A retaliatory strike on Baker Island in early March 1942. Not really a small TF - those 3 BBs pack quite a punch. Recon was provided from nearby Canton Island by a O-47 squadron and float planes on the TF:

quote:

Naval bombardment of Baker Island at 149,136

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
H6K2-L Mavis: 1 destroyed on ground

Allied Ships
BB Warspite
BB Nevada
BB Colorado
CA Minneapolis
CA New Orleans
CL St. Louis
CL Trenton
DD Kane
DD Crane
DD Allen
DD Dale
DD Preston
DD Helm
DD Blue

Japanese ground losses:
336 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Non Combat: 17 destroyed, 25 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 5 disabled
Guns lost 6 (2 destroyed, 4 disabled)
Vehicles lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Airbase hits 12
Airbase supply hits 9
Runway hits 139
Port hits 48
Port supply hits 12

BB Warspite firing at Baker Island
BB Nevada firing at Baker Island
BB Colorado firing at Baker Island
CA Minneapolis firing at Baker Island
CA New Orleans firing at Baker Island
CL St. Louis firing at Baker Island
CL Trenton firing at 4th Garrison Unit

DD Kane firing at Baker Island
DD Crane firing at Baker Island
DD Allen firing at 4th Garrison Unit
DD Dale firing at Baker Island
DD Preston firing at Baker Island
DD Helm firing at Baker Island
DD Blue firing at Baker Island

Recon makes a difference and escorts can indeed bombard (if set so from the TF orders screen).

You're not getting the point. Your comments don't apply to the situation I presented.

I reconned Saipan every day for two months.

These were not bombardment TFs. They were amphibious, with heavy and light combat ship escorts in the TFs. The results speak for themselves. Escort ships in this context does not mean what "escort ships" means in a bombardment TF.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to BletchleyGeek)

Post #: 16

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 4/4/2010 12:10:27 AM

BletchleyGeek

Posts: 4713
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
You're not getting the point. Your comments don't apply to the situation I presented.

I reconned Saipan every day for two months.

These were not bombardment TFs. They were amphibious, with heavy and light combat ship escorts in the TFs. The results speak for themselves. Escort ships in this context does not mean what "escort ships" means in a bombardment TF.

EDIT: I misread completely the point of the topic, "Small TF and ship bombard reults" and converted it into "Small Bombardment TF results"

< Message edited by Bletchley_Geek -- 4/4/2010 12:26:01 AM >

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 17

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 4/4/2010 12:49:34 AM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
You're not getting the point. Your comments don't apply to the situation I presented.

I reconned Saipan every day for two months.

These were not bombardment TFs. They were amphibious, with heavy and light combat ship escorts in the TFs. The results speak for themselves. Escort ships in this context does not mean what "escort ships" means in a bombardment TF.

EDIT: I misread completely the point of the topic, "Small TF and ship bombard reults" and converted it into "Small Bombardment TF results"

That's OK, I probably semi-hijacked it too.

My point is only that, in the war up until 1944, I had a few tough invasions, such as Wotje and Tarawa (twice.) But the Marianas are an order of magnitude harder and more destructive.

I'm sure I made mistakes at Saipan, such as leaving the CVEs in the landing TFs instead of stripping them just before landing, but overall I think my force structure was reasonable. Lots of infantry and tanks on Day 1, separate supply convoys, over-shipping early TFs so they would unload faster, using dedicated amphibs whenever possible for the beachhead, having the Amphib Force HQ in the hex, offshore, etc. I didn't have a huge bombardment effort because I had a massive air power effort in advance of the landings, and because I'm heavily committed in the IO with my remaining BBs. So I put what I had in the amphib TFs and hoped they could suppress the CD guns long enough to get a beachhead. The problem is the engine lets the CD units fire thousands of rounds in the first phases, shredding even TFs with BBs along. In RL, response would be point-blank, not to mention CAS with WP rounds and (maybe) napalm, but the engine doesn't model that. So, on some days, I was losing 10-12 cargo ships per day at Saipan to CD units that would not die, and no good way in the engine to specifically target them. The AI had level five forts, and about 28,000 defenders, well-supplied, so it was not a two-day pushover campaign.

For me the game cruised along until I hit the Marianas, and then it changed wholesale, even though my tactics didn't. The Allies have a lot of ships in 1944, but come on . . . I shudder to think what Iwo Jima and Okinawa will be like with kamis thrown in. My basic point is, don't count on what you're seeing in 1942 to be what you experience in the late war. I'd say that the CD routines don't make it possible to capture historic bases and still have a USN left. You might have to pick, choose, and bypass.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 4/4/2010 12:50:08 AM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to BletchleyGeek)

Post #: 18

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 4/4/2010 3:58:24 AM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

Well i don't know what you do was expecting when you put BB's in invasion forces like that and task forces with that composition.And not even a minesweeper in the force. BB's shouldn't be put in a place where they loose the range advantage. Of course land guns have all advantage they are covered many can only be destroyed by direct hit, they don't move around so their accuracy is better and they are a tiny target compared to a ship. If defenses are strong you do have to suppress them with BB bombardments and air attacks. Only after that you can go in. You make a carrier Tf and a BB/CA/CL Tf to bombard, your invasion forces should be PG's, MW and DD's the more guns the better covering directly transports . The results you got are to be expected.

< Message edited by Dili -- 4/4/2010 4:00:24 AM >

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 19

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 4/4/2010 5:17:17 AM

Nomad

Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline

Bullwinkle, what target(s) did you concentrate on with your air strikes? Ground, airfield, or port? I am trying to find answers before I have a TF get blasted.

_____________________________

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 20

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 4/4/2010 11:40:03 AM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

One thing that makes big difference in results is Recon & Detection Level. You can for example set your cruiser float planes to recon the target base and you see results getting lot better.

+1. Huge difference.

_____________________________

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 21

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 4/4/2010 8:07:42 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Well i don't know what you do was expecting when you put BB's in invasion forces like that and task forces with that composition.And not even a minesweeper in the force. BB's shouldn't be put in a place where they loose the range advantage. Of course land guns have all advantage they are covered many can only be destroyed by direct hit, they don't move around so their accuracy is better and they are a tiny target compared to a ship. If defenses are strong you do have to suppress them with BB bombardments and air attacks. Only after that you can go in. You make a carrier Tf and a BB/CA/CL Tf to bombard, your invasion forces should be PG's, MW and DD's the more guns the better covering directly transports . The results you got are to be expected.

First, the AI mine warfare code isn't anything to worry about. I don't sweep against the AI, and it hasn't mattered. For years.

Second, if you'd read what I posted, you'd know that I DID supress Saipan--for many days, with EIGHT modern CV airwings. After I knocked the LBA away I even had some of the Hellcats and Corsairs at 100 feet, strafing. Day after day.

Third, perhaps putting capital ships into landing forces isn't a good idea, but those 150 hits West Virginia absorbed would then instead have taken out 10-15 MORE landing ships holding my precious 2nd Mar Div. What I expect, as I lose my BBs (West Virginia and Maryland, with New Mexico taking 85 hits and living, barely), close in (11,000--17,000 yards), is that they will blow the everlasting hell out of shore guns they can SEE with the naked eye. As I said, I've BEEN to Saipan. I KNOW what the terrain looks like. I know where the CD guns were--I've stood there. I've been in the command bunker of General Saito, up top of the mountain he shortly thereafter exited in a downward vertical. It has a huge, gaping hole blown in its reinforced concrete wall, by, you guessed it, a direct hit from a battleship gun. (I have a photo, but it's unscanned. Also one from Diego Garcia's CD installation.) This idea that CD installations are, in some James Bondish manner, hidden deep inside volcanic mountains, unreachable by mortal man, is absurd. CD guns shoot, and soon, they die. Especially with spotters already ashore.

Fourth, my point, again, is not to say the game is "broken" or anything like that. It's what it is, and this portion hasn't changed much from WITP. I accept there will be losses in amphib ops, but 70 ships to take Saipan and Wake is unreasonable. It's unreasonable that CD installations, visible from sea, would still be firing, daily, two weeks after the Marines go ashore. The engine doesn't allow targtting them, specifically, but sort of munges them into Port attacks and some into LCU attacks, but you can't specify targets. The code disperses attacks between the 153rd Box Loading Battalion and the 30 14" monsters sinking battleships. If even one BB had been sunk at Saipan, the ground commander woudl have recieved orders to silence those guns at any cost. And he would have, supported, again, by EIGHT freakin' CV airwings with nothing else to do after the LBA was underwater.

So, I'm not whining. I'm observing, in case anyone else is contemplating a Marianas campaign. And, for me, next game, I'll crank up to one of the "harder" AI scenarios, so the KB will have the escorts it needs to remain a factor in the game, and I'll also go into the editor and reduce the number of CD tubes at some of the island fortresses so I don't get results like this from code that can't handle this area of the war very well. Some day, in a WITP2, we might get separate land models for islands and contintinental battles. For now, the editor is there. To each his own with it.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 22

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 4/4/2010 8:14:18 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Bullwinkle, what target(s) did you concentrate on with your air strikes? Ground, airfield, or port? I am trying to find answers before I have a TF get blasted.

Heavy CAP first, to attrit the LBA. They came in their hundreds, and died. Then the airfields, a bit, including Guam and Tinian, but mostly Port attacks on Saipan. The resutls mostly showed supply losses and 1-2 point port stat reductions per day. No CD gun losses though. At most maybe 1 gun per attack disabled, not destroyed. I started Ground attacks--probably 50-50 with continuing Port attacks to continue to eat at the AIs supplies--after my first wave was ashore. I did some strafing with fighters, but mostly used both DBs and TBs at 15,000 feet in Ground attack roles.

Saipan in harder because of location. There's no real good LBA source for it. The carriers have to carry the load. Once you have Saipan, you can quickly build the airfield to 7, and bring in lots of LBA to help with the other islands and set up LBA CAP. But Saipan has to be "self-funding."

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Nomad)

Post #: 23

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 4/4/2010 8:15:37 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

One thing that makes big difference in results is Recon & Detection Level. You can for example set your cruiser float planes to recon the target base and you see results getting lot better.

+1. Huge difference.

I did not do that. I relied on LBA recon from Eniwetok. I will do what you suggest next time.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 24

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 4/4/2010 8:58:09 PM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Second, if you'd read what I posted, you'd know that I DID supress Saipan--for many days, with EIGHT modern CV airwings. After I knocked the LBA away I even had some of the Hellcats and Corsairs at 100 feet, strafing. Day after day.

You are right i missed the "massive airpower effort".

quote:

CD guns shoot, and soon, they die

That is not true, even less for those in reverse slope. Read reports of bombardments. The most common word about naval bombardment is disappointment.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 25

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 4/5/2010 1:06:53 AM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

CD guns shoot, and soon, they die

That is not true, even less for those in reverse slope. Read reports of bombardments. The most common word about naval bombardment is disappointment.

Saipan doesn't have "reverse slope." You can sail 360 degrees around the island in a few hours. It has really no mountains except where the General's bunker was. It's mostly farmland. In the RL invasion, there was extensicve mosaic aerial recon done. The positions of the CD emplacemnts were well-known and pre-briefed.

Put it this way--was there any way the USN could lose even ten prime landing ships, let alone my 50 or so, at Saipan? No. Nor battleships, even if they'd sailed up to the reef line.

That said, there were successful bombardments in the PTO. The bombardments in the game, as has been observed many times, are NOT the type that the USN engaged in pre-invsion. They are in&out, night time affairs with no spotters. Pre-invasion, the USN camped and pounded, and yes, significantly suppressed CD fire from all but the most dug-in big guns. And, once troops were ashore the CD effort stopped pretty quickly, with, again, Iwo Jima being an exception. On Saipan, there's no good place to hide. CAS with white phosphorus and napalm make even dug-in positions pretty unhealthy, and organic LCU artillery the same. In my invasion the CDs fired daily until the hex fell. That's the engine; I understand. The problem is when you use an historic OOB and combine it with code that doesn't allow an historic response to CD fire.

So, I'll just take the number of tubes down in the editor. There will still be CD, and losses, and randoms of course, but it won't be enough to make the forward momentum of the Allies on 1944 come to a rude, code-driven halt.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 26

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 4/5/2010 1:11:56 AM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

That is not true, even less for those in reverse slope. Read reports of bombardments. The most common word about naval bombardment is disappointment.

Did a quick Google and found this

http://www.history.navy.mil/ac/amphib/88159ao.jpg

It's from the USN official site, and is a drawing of:

Enemy Gun Emplacement (Nafutan Point at Saipan)
Robert Benney #10
Watercolor, 1944
Gift of Abbott Laboratories

It looks like at least a 5-in emplacement. Do you think CAS couldn't take it out?

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 27

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 4/5/2010 2:06:56 AM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

That is not true, even less for those in reverse slope. Read reports of bombardments. The most common word about naval bombardment is disappointment.

Continuing to Google, found this fascinating oral history about D-Day at Saipan, by a Seabee who went in with the Marines as an ammo unloader in an LST.

http://www.battleofsaipan.com/seabee.htm

Well worth a read.

However, he has this to say about shore fire (and other things) that day (excerpts):

"On the top deck in the moonlight, the eye could pick out an occasional flash showing silhouettes of battleships firing salvo after salvo into the coastline ahead. For two days prior to the invasion, some 2,400 16-inch shells had 'softened-up' the enemy. These salvos gave an awesome sound. Something like a boxcar swishing around overhead. Possible mining of the area limited the firing line to six miles offshore, and because of this distance, spotters had difficulty in pinpointing dug-in gun pits.

At sunrise our massive fleet became visible extending as far as the eye could see. Someone said there were 600 ships. The record would show Admiral Spruance had amassed for his vengeance 14 battleships, 25 carriers and carrier escorts, 26 cruisers, 144 destroyers and countless transports, truly a fleet that meant business.

When the Japanese officers, including Admiral Nagumo, the villain of Pearl Harbor, looked through their binoculars,they must have firmly believed American ghosts of Pearl Harbor had returned to haunt them. And they had."

------------

"Admiral Turner, rough tongued, astute and experienced in Marine assaults, was in charge, and he knew it. At 05:42 (Navy time) his orders came - 'Land the landing force.' Into position about 1,250 yards from the line of departure, 34 LSTs moved into line. Two huge doors on the bow of each ship opened, and dropped their ramps into the water.

Then, out of the front of these LSTs, one by one, the AMTRAKs loaded with toughened Marines clanked down the ramps and into the ocean. A massive total of 719 AMTRAKs separated into special circles at the line of departure. The American Manufacturer's Association would have been very proud of their fine products being displayed to the Japanese that day.

This line of departure was some 4,000 yards from the beach. Before the Marines moved onto the beach, 24 light gun boats made the first sweep of the beach firing 4.5 inch rockets and 40mm canon. They turned aside at the reef. For good measure, Turner had 7 fighters strafe and 12 bombers hit the area with 1,200 one-hundred pound bombs. All of this strafing and heavy shelling from naval gunfire did not silence the dug in enemy. But this action did destroy vital communication links with their commanders."

----------------

"The Japanese were not deeply concerned with Saipan's defenses. Big 8-inch guns were on box cars awaiting emplacement and many trench works, lacked concrete covers. A captured Japanese document told part of the story. "The current freight shortage which is caused by shipping losses has deprived the area of much needed material. One ship out of three is sunk and the second damaged by enemy action." Our submarines took their pound of flesh. For additional credit they sunk two large carriers in attacks on the Japanese fleet, which took on elements of Admiral Spruance's fleet. It was truly an all American effort."

-------------------

"With, this assault came a strange irony. On the ends of the long assault line were stationed two old battleships, the California and the Tennessee. Fire power from these battleships was directed by the landing party on various trouble spots. On this assault, each ship fired 100 shells from their 14-inch guns. During the day before the invasion and on 'D' Day, they took some non-critical hits because they were so close to enemy guns. They did not mind. Admiral Nagumo's planes had destroyed these ships at Pearl Harbor. There, the California lost 98 and the Tennessee lost 5 sailors. On these ships, both the living and ghosts of the dead had come to even an old score with the admiral hiding in his bunker."

----------------------

"In the distance, only Mt Tapochau stood out in this menagerie of war. High up on this mountain were bunkers for General Saito, Japanese Army Commander, and his naval counterpart, Admiral Nagumo. They held a ringside view of the fighting. But unknown to the American side, our big naval guns had cut communications with their units to pieces. So much so that the Japanese could not mount a large scale counterattack that day. They depended upon the powerful Japanese fleet with its air power to save the island."

---------------------

"We received orders on the evening of 'D' Day from CDR Dallas, commander of 302 NCB, to launch the causeway floating piers from the LSTs. When the causeways were in the water, the Seabee crews took them through the narrow channel in the darkness to the Charan Kanoa beachhead. The pier was operational by daybreak, unloading supplies from landing craft.

Orders came the next day to launch all barges carried on 7 LSTs. These LSTs pulled off-shore. As the rigging was being released on one of the LSTs, quick as a snap shot, there were four water spouts off the bow. The enemy gunners missed. The LST moved. The launching continued."

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 28

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 4/5/2010 3:11:12 AM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

Bullwinkle58,

I generally agree with your posts which are well argued and based on in situ factual analysis, but I thought I should just remind you of a couple of issues for your next game in which I understand you plan to use the editor to make a few changes and play the AI at a higher difficulty level.

(1) At higher difficulty levels, the AI is never out of supply (IIRC this occurs at the highest difficulty level). Hence your idea of modifying the number of local gun tubes may not quite achieve your desired result because the level of available supply does play a substantial role in maintaining the weight of fire of CD guns. Reducing the number of tubes will reduce the weight of shot each round, but not necessarily their staying power if they still have supply. This is why maintaining a high DL in your pre invasion suppression operations is so important.

(2) With your avatar, I am certain you recall what always happened when Bullwinkle would tell Rocky, "Hey watch me pull a rabbit out of the hat".

If the enemy remains in supply, I suspect Rocky's response "That trick never works" may still be apropos even after you adjust the number of tubes via the editor.

Anyway keep up the good fight against slipshod/superficial analysis.

Alfred

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 29

RE: Small TF and ship bombard reults - 4/5/2010 5:31:36 AM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Bullwinkle58,

I generally agree with your posts which are well argued and based on in situ factual analysis, but I thought I should just remind you of a couple of issues for your next game in which I understand you plan to use the editor to make a few changes and play the AI at a higher difficulty level.

(1) At higher difficulty levels, the AI is never out of supply (IIRC this occurs at the highest difficulty level). Hence your idea of modifying the number of local gun tubes may not quite achieve your desired result because the level of available supply does play a substantial role in maintaining the weight of fire of CD guns. Reducing the number of tubes will reduce the weight of shot each round, but not necessarily their staying power if they still have supply. This is why maintaining a high DL in your pre invasion suppression operations is so important.

(2) With your avatar, I am certain you recall what always happened when Bullwinkle would tell Rocky, "Hey watch me pull a rabbit out of the hat". If the enemy remains in supply, I suspect Rocky's response "That trick never works" may still be apropos even after you adjust the number of tubes via the editor.

Anyway keep up the good fight against slipshod/superficial analysis.

Alfred

Thanks, Alfred. Bullwinkle also said, in response to "Are they friendly spirits?", "Friendly? Just listen!"

I should be more precise in my terms. I meant I would play Scenario 2 or the Ironman, so the AI has more escorts and can form more combat STFs and KB TFs and still have enough escorts for supply convoys. In my Scenario 1 game now, the KB remained in port for almost two years (I peeked--Tokyo and Kobe only), due to me sinking so many escorts I think. I'm playing on Historical difficulty, which is fine with me. I don't want to face uber-supply. Denial of Japanese supply is/was the core of the Allied game plan. The AI already gets enough bonuses with prep points, etc.

I "may" let the reinforcement timetable do the vary-by-60-days thing for both of us. That averages out about the same, but introduces some unknowns.

I'm also going to turn off auto-subs. Every turn I curse having left it on. The AI does some really odd things with patrol zones. Mostly it's good, but I don't need fleet boats patrolling off San Diego in 1944.

In the editor, I'm going to reduce some base CD tube #s (not all). I believe, without really studying it yet, that the bigger guns themselves are mostly dual-purpose with the IJN BBs, and I don't want to nerf those, so I won't play with device stats themselves. Just tube numbers, which should give more manageable shots-per-phase numbers at some major historical islands.

I'm also going to up the Allied PPs per turn a bit, maybe to 70. I want to be forced to budget, but I think some of the command-shift costs are too high for the accumulation rates, and don't leave enough, even with reasonable management, to buy out West Coast LCUs in 1943 when the drive starts. I still haven't managed to get NZ into the war in any real way, and I can't save enough to get the infantry I need either. Might be just me, but that's what the editor is for. It'll give ME a better game.

I may, if I can figure out how, also try to make the sub torpedo tube code work. If I have to hand-change every sub hull by bumping the device list down I don't thnk I'm up for that. If I can do it by class, I would be. Or I might just do it for the later war boats.

And, finally, I'm going to put my father in command of USS Bluegill. He was a chief sonarman in her, and I think it would be a kick to order him around. Captain Barr won't mind being replaced; I'll give him a new boat to play with.

In general, in my second game, I'm going to use what I've learned, adjust as I want, and have more fun now that the patching has calmed down. I hope to make fewer early, dumb mistakes, especially with off-map movement, and losing tankers. Also I'll try a completley different strategic focus. I got really bogged down in Burma in this one, and I'd like to try maybe a northern route game through the Aleutians (I did one in WITP and the AI couldn't begin to handle it; it was a cakewalk), combined with a move through Timor and Java rather than messing with the Solomons again.

But first I have to finish the one I'm in now.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 30