Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Night surface engagement. No matador_spa

 
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 >> Night surface engagement. No matador_spa Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Night surface engagement. No matador_spa - 8/11/2014 2:09:37 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline
Hi. I need some advice about a battle I have lost.

Mod: Ultimate Battleships ( heavy BBs build, lot of battlewagons for two sides). Date: 21th December.

Place: Kuching. Allied empty base, mined.

Combat report:

ight Time Surface Combat, near Kuching at 58,88, Range 5,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CA Tone
CA Chikuma, Shell hits 2, on fire
CL Agano
DD Shirakumo, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Murakumo
DD Asagiri, Shell hits 1
DD Sagiri
DD Yugiri

Allied Ships
DD Graham
DD Alden, Shell hits 4, and is sunk
DD Barker
DD Bulmer
DD Edsall
DD John D. Edwards, Shell hits 1
DD Fox
DD Paul Jones
DD Parrott
DD Peary, Shell hits 2
DD Whipple, Shell hits 1
DD Stewart
BB Emperor of India, Shell hits 4 ( Iron Duke Class )
BB Ramillies, Shell hits 1
BB Resolution, Shell hits 10, Torpedo hits 6, and is sunk

Reduced sighting due to 14% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions and 14% moonlight: 8,000 yards
Range closes to 15,000 yards...
Range closes to 9,000 yards...
Range closes to 5,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 5,000 yards
Japanese open fire on surprised Allied ships at 5,000 yards


Second combat on the same hex:

Night Time Surface Combat, near Kuching at 58,88, Range 9,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
BC Kirishima
BC Hiei, Shell hits 3
CA Chokai
CA Ashitaka
CA Kumano, Shell hits 1
CLAA Kiso, Shell hits 1
CL Sendai
DD Maikaze
DD Nowaki
DD Arashi, Shell hits 1
DD Hagikaze, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Asashio
DD Oshio, Shell hits 1
DD Michishio
DD Arashio
DD Akatsuki
DD Hibiki
DD Shinonome, Shell hits 1, on fire

Allied Ships
DD Graham
DD Barker, Shell hits 4, heavy fires
DD Bulmer, Shell hits 1
DD Edsall, Shell hits 5, on fire
DD John D. Edwards, Shell hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Fox, Shell hits 15, and is sunk
DD Paul Jones, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Parrott, Shell hits 5, and is sunk
DD Peary, Shell hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Whipple, Shell hits 1
DD Stewart, Shell hits 2, on fire
BB Emperor of India, Shell hits 67, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
BB Ramillies, Shell hits 36, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk

Reduced sighting due to 14% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions and 14% moonlight: 10,000 yards
Range closes to 15,000 yards...
Range closes to 9,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 9,000 yards
Japanese open fire on surprised Allied ships at 9,000 yards

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

I assume engaging IJN at night is risky bussiness, ok, but with the british BBs I was (almost) sure of taking some big ship with me ( my strategical objective was damaging them enough to erode the Japanese Main Batteline ). So, was my TF wrong? simply bad luck? How can I do an efficient surface TF knowing Japan has a LOT of BBs and BCs..

Thank you
Post #: 1
RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa - 8/11/2014 2:30:39 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline 		Torpedoes are the killers for those older BBs. They simply don't have the damage control capability.... They go down like rocks if underwater integrity is compromised. Which is a reflection of reality.

_____________________________


(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 2
RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa - 8/11/2014 2:34:10 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		Yes, but with sooo many escort DDs, I expected had enough time to keep a good fight.

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 3
RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa - 8/11/2014 2:38:05 PM   
Barb


Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline 		- Battleships - 21kts top speed killed them, slowing down whole TF (very easy targets)
- 15 ships in a SCTF at night will probably cause half of them not to engage - too many ships to handle at night for any commander

_____________________________


(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 4
RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa - 8/11/2014 2:39:23 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		Yes, it's a big TF, but...ey!!! the japanese too !!!

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 5
RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa - 8/11/2014 3:12:04 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline 		Ok, I take it that this was early in the war, was this December '41? If so, the Japanese outclassed all other forces in their night fighting capability (even the British). Second, what was the level of light? How much moon was there? If the engagement opened at about 5K it is evident that there was little light, again this works in the favor of the Japanese as they had excellent lookouts (this is pre-radar time) and it gives them prime torpedo weather, low light, long range fast torpedoes, and normally the enemy is surprised (the tactic was to launch a torpedo barrage and then close the enemy with and finish off with guns). I'm surprised that your BBs lasted two rounds. Look at the battle of Savo Sound for this tactic in action.

Oh, I just read it was 14% light.... very low... this fits the picture. And the Allied side was surprised..... again fits the picture.

< Message edited by dr.hal -- 8/11/2014 4:15:05 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 6
RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa - 8/11/2014 3:41:54 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		Allied ships surprised under 14% moonlight. You're lucky you didn't lose more DDs! Really need radar before you can engage the IJN at night without moonlight. Maximum spotting of 8,000 means that all parties were well within torpedo range, and at 21 knots those BBs just aren't going to survive that.

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 7
RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa - 8/11/2014 3:50:18 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		I have to check the game but im almost sure the BB had radar...well, in fact what i really want to know is: i have more BBs, BCs, and CAs near. Faster and modern, with radars. If I try it again, will I get the same outcome?. Considering the answer of dr.hal, no matter what tupe of ship you deploy, u are going to lose. But leaving DEI without fight when u have 3BCs, 2BBs and a good bunch of CA/CLs...well.

PS: sorry about spelling, no native english plus smartphone is a bad combo.

< Message edited by traskott -- 8/11/2014 4:51:36 PM >

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 8
RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa - 8/11/2014 6:44:46 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline 		Prime Lance weather. Plus, even early war radar was suspect at best, and openly ignored by many. I agree, if this was early in the war I think you got of lightly.

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 9
RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa - 8/11/2014 10:11:07 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline 		Traskott,

It's not hopeless but putting those BBs out there is not the way to go. Don't deploy them until a near full moon to give them a fighting chance and remember early radar was pretty poor, I think you're right the early British BBs have it, but it won't help much. The second generation systems are much better as they used shorter frequency thus more resolution capability. Pick off some of his side shows, don't go after the main body, you will loose.

_____________________________


(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 10
RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa - 8/11/2014 10:37:31 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		Thanks... Looks like I will have to take the Cunningham approach and move all the fleet to Mombasa.

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 11
RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa - 8/12/2014 1:23:01 AM   
rms1pa

 

Posts: 370
Joined: 7/4/2011
Status: offline
quote:

hanks... Looks like I will have to take the Cunningham approach and move all the fleet to Mombasa.


truth, the R class were considered scarecrows at this time. the trained crews were considered more valuable than the ships.

i try to save the R's and QE's for bombardment only, en mass. quite refreshing.

rms/pa

_____________________________

there is a technical term for those who confuse the opinions of an author's characters for the opinions of the author.
the term is IDIOT.

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 12
RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa - 8/12/2014 5:52:47 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: traskott

[...]take the Cunningham approach and move all the fleet to Mombasa.


Isn´t the correct terminology 'Cunningham departure' instead of approach?

_____________________________


(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 13
RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa - 8/12/2014 7:32:14 AM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		I think the right word is "retreat"

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 14
RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa - 8/12/2014 7:33:27 AM   
Barb


Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline 		NEVER! "Change in direction of advance" maybe

_____________________________


(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 15
RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa - 8/12/2014 2:57:45 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		You probably mean advance on reciprocal heading?

_____________________________


(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 16
RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa - 8/12/2014 3:46:48 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		I mean: run, poor little limeys, run!!!

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 17
RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa - 8/12/2014 11:46:49 PM   
Bill Durrant


Posts: 967
Joined: 9/16/2003
From: Oxfordshire
Status: offline 		Okay, I'll defend Cunningham! If you read his diaries he is aware that what he takes over is undertrained personnel manning obsolete equipment. As WitPAE shows any conflict with the enemy at this stage of the war will end in only one result. He withdraws to Addu Atoll knowing that at least he has saved some form of deterrent to Japan controlling the Indian Ocean. It is this fleet that forms the basis of an invasion of Madagascar in May '42 (before Midway) to prevent the possibility of a German and/or Japanese submarine base.

_____________________________

Sunk by 35cm/45 1YT Gun - Near Singapore

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 18
RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa - 8/13/2014 2:40:40 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		You have probably a worse crew quality for night combat and since the allied ships were surprised then probably don't have radar.

_____________________________


(in reply to Bill Durrant)
Post #: 19
RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa - 8/13/2014 7:15:45 PM   
Jellicoe


Posts: 157
Joined: 9/26/2012
From: Kent, UK
Status: offline 		Of course by Cunningham I assume we are meaning Somerville?

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 20
RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa - 8/13/2014 8:00:34 PM   
Bill Durrant


Posts: 967
Joined: 9/16/2003
From: Oxfordshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jellicoe

Of course by Cunningham I assume we are meaning Somerville?


Yes you are absolutely right - Somerville


_____________________________

Sunk by 35cm/45 1YT Gun - Near Singapore

(in reply to Jellicoe)
Post #: 21
RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa - 8/13/2014 8:06:48 PM   
pontiouspilot


Posts: 1127
Joined: 7/27/2012
Status: offline 		You were a little unlucky also! I am never afraid to use my old BBs and I can only think of once I was badly lanced.

You may have had too many ships in TF for prime effectiveness. These DDs were all old US 4 pipers if I'm not mistaken. Did they have radar without later upgrades? They are generally badly outmatched. Quere if there are issues with combining US ships with Brits?? I don't think I have ever heard there are command inefficiencies.

(in reply to Jellicoe)
Post #: 22
RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa - 8/13/2014 8:38:53 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		Thats one of my "fears" : too many ships, and perhaps, not uniform speed.

The only plus side is the surviving DDs got 60 night xp...

(in reply to pontiouspilot)
Post #: 23
RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa - 8/15/2014 3:48:35 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		You could just as easy have some better luck and pound a Japanese surface force. Lots of factors involved and one thing I know is you can never guarantee an outcome in AE. Basically as the Allies I would recommend using smaller TFs (I find 8 ships to be about right) and don't use your old BBs in a night fight. Never use any BB at any time in a fight where the moonlight is less than 70%

You send a six to eight ship TF with CAs, CLs and DDs up against BBs at night and you will find that many times the BBs don't even fire a shot. Especially if he is using a big TF. I would avoid using the old four stackers if you can. A good but cautious leader is not a bad idea. He will attempt to disengage if the battle is not going well.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 24
RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa - 8/23/2014 1:33:24 AM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		You're better off leaving the "R" class BB's at home early in the war. The RN cruisers and destroyers together can fight even at night on even terms with the IJN, but the BB's are just too big and slow.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 25
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Night surface engagement. No matador_spa 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

0.828