Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: byron13

Playing the Allies against AI. January '43 I run the South Dakota, Maryland, West Virginia, 2 CAs, 1 CL and 3DDs into Timor. All fully updated with radar, but pretty low night experience in the 40s.
Ching is in command. Along comes the Kirishima, a CL, and 4 DDs. They are picked up at long range by the Allies but, due to rain, engagements being at 2000 yards.
Allies are cut up. South Dakota sinks and, as best I can tell never fired a shot, Maryland heavily damaged, and a CA sunk. Long lances did some damage, but the naval gunnery what decidedly in favor of Japanese.

Next night, the Japanese show up again. Spotted on radar and Allies cross the T. Two Japanese battleships not hit at all. West Virginia sunk. Only Japanese loss was the CL, which had a magazine explosion from hit by CA.

Why such bad results at night with radar. The Allied battleships basically did nothing though led well, with radar, and excellent leadership. Luck of the draw? Or was it primarily poor night experience?

I'm, uh, disappointed and am now leery about putting the BBs in any kind of surface engagement. thoughts?

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

- Bad TF composition. You mixed many ships with differing weapons ranges and ship speeds.

- Battleships at night are vulnerable to destroyers with torpedoes.

- Did your suriviving battleships even get to reload before the second battle? Perhaps they had very little main battery ammo.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

- TF composition. The CA's and CL were tied to the slow battleship line. Seperate them in to task forces of their own and they'll perform much better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: byron13

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

- TF composition. The CA's and CL were tied to the slow battleship line. Seperate them in to task forces of their own and they'll perform much better.

What do you do? Have one follow the other? Which follows which?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: byron13

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

- TF composition. The CA's and CL were tied to the slow battleship line. Seperate them in to task forces of their own and they'll perform much better.

What do you do? Have one follow the other? Which follows which?

Crusiers first, then the battleships.

Nobody is ordered to "follow" anyone in terms of game orders. That's a recipe for disaster, as TF's tend to react all over the place and things fall apart easily.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

You can try that. I'd just send them independently from the same origin point. Whichever is faster will get there first, which is usually how you want it anyway - your screening TFs are generally faster.

quote:

ORIGINAL: byron13

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: byron13

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

- TF composition. The CA's and CL were tied to the slow battleship line. Seperate them in to task forces of their own and they'll perform much better.

What do you do? Have one follow the other? Which follows which?

Crusiers first, then the battleships.

Nobody is ordered to "follow" anyone in terms of game orders. That's a recipe for disaster, as TF's tend to react all over the place and things fall apart easily.

I'm talking about the follow TF function. is that what you're suggesting? Having BBs follow a lighter, faster tf at zero range?

quote:

ORIGINAL: alanschu

That seems.... unfortunate... that that is actually the case.

I imagine the idea of sending the faster cruisers first is that the Japanese BB's would waste ammo on them?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Professor Chaos

N00b butting in here -

Is there a guide somewhere relating TF composition to surface combat? E.g., is there any advantage (aside from ASW) to including DDs in a surface task force? Or, as in this case, cruisers in a battleship TF?


In occasional surface combat reports I have seen mentions of a ship "screened" by others, but in limited searching on the forum I can't find an explanation for what is going on there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I am a little looser in that I never have seen much of a problem as long as the ships are similar in speed. I regularly mix CLs with CAs and do not see any problem. Don't give much thought to DDs except later on I do try to use Fletchers in groups. Ship type does not seem to matter as long as they are in range and and there are not too many of them, they will all shoot and fire torpedoes. That is all I really care about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: byron13

Playing the Allies against AI. January '43 I run the South Dakota, Maryland, West Virginia, 2 CAs, 1 CL and 3DDs into Timor. All fully updated with radar, but pretty low night experience in the 40s.
Ching is in command. Along comes the Kirishima, a CL, and 4 DDs. They are picked up at long range by the Allies but, due to rain, engagements being at 2000 yards ...

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

On many occasions I've had intense , small "storm cells" appear as ships until we closed on them and were able to change our aspect or were able to change our PRF (pulse repetion frequency)to a much higher setting (something only possible at close range) to distinguish steel from storm.

A ship close to a landmass also is sometimes difficult to find. And sometimes two ships on a similar (or same) bearing often appear as one big ship.

My understanding is that until late in the war utilization of RADAR was more of a problem than the RADAR it'self. CO's were not use to it , and "unhappy" putting them selves into the hands of 18 year old technicians. Establishment of Combat information centers and training up officers and men to man it really brought out the best use of RADAR.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mgoldstein

The difference in crew skill levels is critical. The Japanese start out with much better night fighting experience. I avoid surface encounters with Japanese warships until my crews have gained experience through commerce raiding. Early in the game as the allies, your surface ships are your best weapon: US submarines have defective torpedoes, most of your aircraft are hopelessly obsolete, and your troops are poorly trained and equipped. But as the Japanese expand aggressively in the first few months of the war you will have opportunities to intercept poorly defended transports and cargo vessels with the warships you have at hand. A handful of destroyers and cruisers can wreak havoc on an invasion task force defended only by patrol boats and sub chasers. The good news is that it I've seen one night battle raise a crew's experience by 20-30 points. With that experience under their belt, the crew can fight the combined fleet on more even terms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: alanschu

That seems.... unfortunate... that that is actually the case.

I imagine the idea of sending the faster cruisers first is that the Japanese BB's would waste ammo on them?

I did not imply this is the consequence. In the specific case of the OP it might have made sense to leave the slow BBs out alltogether, and accept battle with a mixed main body of South Dakota and the cruisers, and the destroyer escort.

Obviously there might be situations where a fast TF following a slow one is the best solution, more so if you do not have the luxury of leaving firepower behind. But you need to be aware that in this case the freedom of movement of the fast TF is compromised, which often leads to unwanted consequences in a hostile environment.

Also, the sequence of TFs arrival each with destination set to a certain hex is not tied to the relative speed in case they arrive in the same movement pulse. It partly depends on the TF# (IIRC) and partly is not influenced by the player. And last, sequence of arrival does not automatically translate into sequence of engagement. There many more factors involved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: alanschu

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: alanschu

That seems.... unfortunate... that that is actually the case.

I imagine the idea of sending the faster cruisers first is that the Japanese BB's would waste ammo on them?

I did not imply this is the consequence. In the specific case of the OP it might have made sense to leave the slow BBs out alltogether, and accept battle with a mixed main body of South Dakota and the cruisers, and the destroyer escort.

Obviously there might be situations where a fast TF following a slow one is the best solution, more so if you do not have the luxury of leaving firepower behind. But you need to be aware that in this case the freedom of movement of the fast TF is compromised, which often leads to unwanted consequences in a hostile environment.

Also, the sequence of TFs arrival each with destination set to a certain hex is not tied to the relative speed in case they arrive in the same movement pulse. It partly depends on the TF# (IIRC) and partly is not influenced by the player. And last, sequence of arrival does not automatically translate into sequence of engagement. There many more factors involved.

I can understand separating them based on speed. I guess there's just a part of me that is having trouble getting over the idea of concentration of power. It seems weird to me that a task force of only the slower BBs and a separate task force of the CAs would perform better than if they were all in the same task force.

For myself, that means that whatever the BB task force loses by giving up the CAs is overcome by the CAs acting independently. Against a powerful enemy surface fleet, it just comes across as surprising.