Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Rookie III

 
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 >> After Action Reports >> Rookie III Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Rookie III - 3/17/2019 8:00:08 PM   
Leandros


Posts: 1740
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline

Those of you who have followed my Rookie II thread may have noticed that the progress in that thread has slowed down somewhat due to my opponent’s various other engagements (anybody want to step in for him..?..). To calm my nerves, I have in the meantime started a parallel game against the AI, to test some of the ideas (theories) which I have aired here earlier – that of an aggressive US leadership where the US Navy played along instead of panicking and sabotaging the Army’s intentions to give effective aid to the USAFFE – MacArthur’s forces in the Far East. The mission is to see how fast the Japanese can be isolated in The Philippines and the transport route between the Japanese homeland and the conquered areas in the south-west closed off, thereby strangling the Japanese war effort. Which is what MacArthur preached from the start.

I would like to say that I find “our” game to be an excellent platform for a “war game”. The warring parties would have been lucky to have something similar at their disposal in 1941. While it can be unrealistic in some ways, in other ways it compensates for this - things even out over time. While some things are too easy to implement, others are too difficult and do not take into consideration the American flair for improvisation and all-out effort. The defense of Bataan, and the Philippines in general, are good examples of this (as is Guadalcanal, for that matter).

However, to make this in any way meaningful the game must be “edited” somewhat – first of all the “political points” (PP) system. With only 50 points added each day this does not conform, or make possible, an “aggressive leadership”. As I do not know how to change this in the Editor I have had to make other adjustments.

An aggressive leadership should be reflected in how fast and how many units of all branches, were sent west. To that effect I have, in the Editor, released approx. 1/3rd of air and ground units on the west coast, to be transferred as shipping become available 1-4 weeks after the war started. Naval units were not tinkered with. Instead, the PPs have been used for available allied units. For the Anzacs this was natural as they had lost confidence in the British and welcomed the US efforts to protect them. The Dutch have put up part of their resources based on the area meant to be specifically covered by the US – that is the Moluccans (the only viable route to The Philippines) and The Philippines.

Crew experience of air units in this first wave (1-4 weeks after the war started) has been adjusted up. Not unnaturally as these units were, of course, topped up with the most experienced pilots in the various (and other) groups. They should, after all, go to war. Average amounts to approx. 60-70 experience level. Later available units have been kept to their original experience levels.

Naval fighting units have been sent west according to analysis of the threat picture behind the immediate front – based on the obvious conclusion that the enemy was already seriously over-stretched when the war started. The US Navy’s insistence that they could not release the carriers for air transport (which MacArthur had asked for), or fighting in the Far East, was over-ruled by the political leadership.

On this day, January 15th 1942, the situation is as follows:

MacArthur’s ground forces on Luzon have withdrawn into the Bataan Peninsula in good order. However, some of his best regiments had to be sacrificed to achieve this. He was able to transfer a good volume of supplies into Bataan before he was closed off. The enemy has still not advanced on Bataan but has instead concentrated on occupying Manila with its surroundings.

In Burma the British have sent forces forward to the Thai border and have at one place crossed it. Moulmein and Tavoy have been reinforced and fortified. New forces arriving in Theatre shall not go to Singapore but instead reinforce Burma (at this stage the British leadership had already started to doubt if Singapore could be held). Indian reinforcements to Burma have travelled by train to Chittagong and are proceeding over land to Akyab. On British request, two Chinese divisions have crossed into Burma and shall stand by near the Lashio railhead. Two more are moving to the Burma/China border.

British forces in Malaya have been pushed south towards Singapore but are preparing stands in Malacca and Johore Bahru. Some British units have been locked up in Georgetown and are heavily bombed, the airfield is still operational. British air forces in Singapore have been waiting for the enemy ground forces to come within fighter range before starting to bomb them. Some central British units are being prepared to leave Singapore.

An enemy carrier force has launched attacks on Singapore, Oosthaven and Batavia. It has now withdrawn. Another enemy carrier task force cut through the Moluccan Sea without doing much damage. The British oil installations on Borneo have been captured, Kuching, too. Most of the British and Dutch naval units are still intact. MacArthur’s Asiatic Fleet has been kept for its original duty – that of supporting MacArthur and the convoys arriving from the West Coast.

Chinese forces have crossed the border to Vietnam and captured Hanoi and Haiphong, the enemy is fleeing south towards Vinh. Strong Chinese forces are in pursuit.

The enemy’s attempts to land in Davao, Jolo, Menado and Tarakan have been frustrated by allied naval forces, including two carriers. Only the last few days have any new US air force units to speak of began to arrive in Theatre. The enemy invasion fleets have been weakly defended by inferior covering forces. Several of the convoys have been slaughtered and their back-up escorts have been harassed by US submarines and torpedo-carrying PBYs. Yesterday he lost the carrier Hiryu in the Luzon Strait after a two days’ gauntlet through submarine-infested waters. A Japanese battleship and three light cruisers have been sunk in the Celebes Sea through naval action and by land-based bombers and own carrier planes flying from USS Enterprise and Saratoga in the last few days. While the enemy has sunk 50 % more ships than the Allies the tonnage is fairly equal. A US freighter carrying 25 P-40 fighters was sunk in the Coral Sea yesterday. It is estimated than an equal number of enemy fighters went down with Hiryu. While the enemy’s submarine warfare has been of little consequence, in the last few days it has started to pick up.

Own submarines have been set to “reliable torpedoes” which in reality is a little less “reliable” than in real life. Just my previous experience.

Some Australian army and air units have moved forward to strengthen the Dutch defense of the northern Moluccans, mainly Ternate, Menado and Tarakan. Three Australian“Independent” companies landed on Jolo before the first US reinforcements arrived. This was important as Jolo has the best airfields in that area. Two US Army infantry regiments with support units have recently arrived in Zamboanga and Davao. Two others are some days out. 8th Marines are presently being reorganized in Ambon, the 7th is right behind them. Part of the US 27th Infantry Division has arrived in Brisbane. Many of the Army units in transfer from the West Coast are in less than a complete state but it has been judged that this is better than nothing.

Ships with amphibious capacity are concentrated in Ambon and an assembly of air support units shall make Ambon the center for newly arrived air force units. Several USN four-stackers are withdrawn to be converted to APDs.

The first Australian army units withdrawn from North Africa and the Middle East have arrived in Aden for transfer to the homeland. The American leadership has insisted that these shall be put under MacArthur’s command to relieve US units for the coming north-bound push. The Aussies have agreed on this.

With the conclusion on the Arcadia Conference that the Pacific shall have priority in the US war effort until further, many transports are transferring from the East to the West Coast.

Further postings by me here shall be erratic and mainly in connection with special events.

Fred


_____________________________

River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D34QCWQ/?ie=UTF8&redirect=true&ref=series_rw_dp_labf
Post #: 1
RE: Rookie III - 3/17/2019 9:45:38 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline
A suggestion: Divide you air units into thirds after removing the pilots and then sea transport them. That way, you will only lose a third of a squadron instead of the entire squadron when the transporting ship is sunk. You would have to purchase the third of the lost squadron since the other two can not reform the squadron.

Also, if you expand either the port or the airfield at Bataan, it can hold more supplies for the upcoming seige.

Admiral Phillips was in Manila when Pearl Harbor was attacked. The discussion was that the surface elements of the Asiatic fleet were to join with the Far Eastern fleet. Hence, the DDs and the Black Hawk at Blaikpappen were actually going to Singapore and not Batavis for I & I as the crews were told. A Japanese nightmare, facing Force Z in a surface action that also included the Boise . . .

edited for spelling . . .

< Message edited by RangerJoe -- 3/17/2019 9:50:13 PM >


_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Leandros)
Post #: 2
RE: Rookie III - 3/17/2019 11:19:44 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
You can easily edit the PP in the Editor but only BEFORE you start the game:

- open the editor and select the scenario to play
- go to the second last tab labeled 'Scenario'
- in the right hand column change the PPs to whatever you want, up to 9999 starting points and (I think) 999 per turn.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Leandros)
Post #: 3
RE: Rookie III - 3/18/2019 2:03:39 AM   
Bif1961


Posts: 2014
Joined: 6/26/2008
From: Phenix City, Alabama
Status: offline
The best thing about the AI he is always ready when you are, playing this game is his real life.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 4
RE: Rookie III - 3/18/2019 7:15:18 PM   
Leandros


Posts: 1740
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

A suggestion: Divide you air units into thirds after removing the pilots and then sea transport them. That way, you will only lose a third of a squadron instead of the entire squadron when the transporting ship is sunk. You would have to purchase the third of the lost squadron since the other two can not reform the squadron.

Also, if you expand either the port or the airfield at Bataan, it can hold more supplies for the upcoming seige.

Admiral Phillips was in Manila when Pearl Harbor was attacked. The discussion was that the surface elements of the Asiatic fleet were to join with the Far Eastern fleet. Hence, the DDs and the Black Hawk at Blaikpappen were actually going to Singapore and not Batavis for I & I as the crews were told. A Japanese nightmare, facing Force Z in a surface action that also included the Boise . . .

edited for spelling . . .

Thank you, Joe - I appreciate your advice but I do not see a need to go to such measures, besides it would require three times
as many ships to get a squad there. As it is I think I shall manage just fine. If the submarine menace becomes excessive I shall
instead arrange for some escorted convoys.

Fred


_____________________________

River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D34QCWQ/?ie=UTF8&redirect=true&ref=series_rw_dp_labf

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 5
RE: Rookie III - 3/18/2019 7:19:11 PM   
Leandros


Posts: 1740
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

You can easily edit the PP in the Editor but only BEFORE you start the game:

- open the editor and select the scenario to play
- go to the second last tab labeled 'Scenario'
- in the right hand column change the PPs to whatever you want, up to 9999 starting points and (I think) 999 per turn.


Tks for the info, BB, but I shall have to go along the way it is now. With the increased initial flow of troops and unit
I shall manage anyhow. The daily PP allocation shall cover the need for allied forces. Good to know for future games, though.

Fred


_____________________________

River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D34QCWQ/?ie=UTF8&redirect=true&ref=series_rw_dp_labf

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 6
RE: Rookie III - 3/27/2019 7:31:56 PM   
Leandros


Posts: 1740
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline
January 19th 1942 proved to be a somewhat special day. The Chinese have broken all enemy resistance on their way down the
Vietnamese East Coast and are now one day's march from Vinh with no known enemy forces to speak of in front of them.

Another attack against the British 53rd Brigade in Mergui on the Kra Peninsula was beaten back. The main enemy units are
a Thai infantry division and a Japanese tank regiment.

Now that the Japanese are approaching Singapore, British bombers today flew three conesecutive raids against the enemy ground
forces north of Johore Bahru without any fighter opposition.

The main event, however, was a clash between two carrier task forces in the Sulu Sea. The enemy task force which, according
to previous day's scouting reports, consisted of several carriers escorted by a battleship and cruiser unit, was heading
towards Jolo/Zamboanga, most probably to make way for another invasion attempt. Two US carriers, Lexington and Saratoga
were cruising in the Celebes Sea, midway between Jolo and Menado. Being in the "shadow" of Jolo Island, with its powerful
fighter defense, it was supposed that they had not been spotted by the enemy carrier scouts.

During the night they both set course north and joined up south of Jolo Island, within the CAP parameter of Jolo and Zamboanga.

First ctc with the enemy was made by four PT boats based in Zamboanga. They reported 2 battleships, 2 heavy cruisers and four
destroyers before they had to withdraw with no damage done or received. The next contact was by the RN light cruiser Colombo
leading a mix of five USN and Dutch destroyers. They bumped directly into the enemy carrier force which had a strong escort,
among it battleship Kongo and the heavy cruiser Tone with six destroyers. The carriers were identified as Kaga and Akagi.
The allied task force was able to withdraw but only after Colombo had been roughly handled. No damage was done to the carriers.

In the morning four SBD scouts from Lexington found the enemy and attacked. The CAP downed two of them, the others were
able to get away and report. Right behind them came, in three waves, 53 SBDs and eight TBDs, escorted by 22 fighters. They
were met by 19 Zeros which had already spent some of their juice on the first four SBDs. A dozen hits were claimed on the
two carriers and Kongo. No torpedo hits.

As it were, the Japanese had already launched their bombers and torpedo-planes, 10 Kates, 29 Vals and eight Zeros were on their
way to retaliate. They were massacred by the combined effort of the Navy and Army fliers rising both from the carriers as well
as Jolo Island and Zamboanga. 18 were destroyed for the loss of one F4F and no damage done to the US carriers.

However, the show wasn't over. A squadron of TBDs followed, this time unescorted. They were able to penetrate the weakened
enemy CAP and scored hits on both Akagi and Kongo. Still, there was more to come, An Army dive bomber squadron
based on Jolo wanted to attend the party, too, and was able to land hits on both Kaga and Kongo. This time there was no fighter
opposition. The debacle was rounded off by three Aussie Hudsons flying from Jolo. Another hit on Kaga.

One of the enemy carriers is confirmed sunk. Probably Akagi.

Fred







< Message edited by Leandros -- 3/27/2019 7:36:52 PM >


_____________________________

River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D34QCWQ/?ie=UTF8&redirect=true&ref=series_rw_dp_labf

(in reply to Leandros)
Post #: 7
RE: Rookie III - 3/27/2019 10:46:50 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
A signal victory so early in the war! Do you have enough surface combat power in the area to stand against an attempt to hit your carriers at night? Do you withdraw your carriers or hunt for more victims?

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Leandros)
Post #: 8
RE: Rookie III - 3/28/2019 6:46:38 AM   
Buckrock

 

Posts: 578
Joined: 3/16/2012
From: Not all there
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros
Own submarines have been set to “reliable torpedoes” which in reality is a little less “reliable” than in real life. Just my previous experience.


My understanding of the "Reliable USN torpedoes" being set "on" means it's not just US submarine launched torpedoes that now have a dud rate of 10 but also those launched from US warships and those dropped by US aircraft, both of which had their share of historical problems during the first two years of war. If that is the case with the "Reliable USN torpedoes" option, then all air strike and surface battle combat results involving the use of US torpedoes in your game is now potentially being favorably influenced by that option as well.

It might be worth checking in case you only intended it for US sub torps.


_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to Leandros)
Post #: 9
RE: Rookie III - 3/28/2019 2:50:26 PM   
Leandros


Posts: 1740
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros
Own submarines have been set to “reliable torpedoes” which in reality is a little less “reliable” than in real life. Just my previous experience.


My understanding of the "Reliable USN torpedoes" being set "on" means it's not just US submarine launched torpedoes that now have a dud rate of 10 but also those launched from US warships and those dropped by US aircraft, both of which had their share of historical problems during the first two years of war. If that is the case with the "Reliable USN torpedoes" option, then all air strike and surface battle combat results involving the use of US torpedoes in your game is now potentially being favorably influenced by that option as well.

It might be worth checking in case you only intended it for US sub torps.


I am not sure that is how it works. It also says "reliable USN". I have been through this before and I am just as sure
now that my opinion is still valid. At one time I actually went through all torpedo encounters to find that "duds" - non-hits
and non-detonating - were higher than the 50 % stated by Lockwood. Japanese "light" (ASW PBs and destroyers) warships are
almost never hit. Deeper-going and bigger targets, like carriers and battleships/heavy cruisers seem easier targets when
within range.

Also, the Dutch submarines have quite a few duds, as have the USN PBYs. US destroyers are difficult to evaluate as they rarely
come to shots. Air-launched and destroyer-launched torpedoes should not have the same dud-rate as submarines as one diagnosed
problem was water-leakages when torpedoes were kept in water-filled tubes. OTOH, a submerged submarine ought to be a stabler
launch-platform. To me, in this game, it looks as if crew experience (in planes) has an influence on the results.

That I have had reasonably good results with my submarines in my present games I judge more to be because of concentration
and aggressivess, for a large part against enemy warships, rather than "reliable" torpedoes.

Fred

PS: The Devastator torpedo hits mentioned above (2 of 12 torpedoes launched) were against incapacitated ships with no fighter
defense. Not very impressive.


< Message edited by Leandros -- 3/28/2019 5:30:50 PM >


_____________________________

River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D34QCWQ/?ie=UTF8&redirect=true&ref=series_rw_dp_labf

(in reply to Buckrock)
Post #: 10
RE: Rookie III - 3/28/2019 3:08:19 PM   
Leandros


Posts: 1740
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

A signal victory so early in the war! Do you have enough surface combat power in the area to stand against an attempt to hit
your carriers at night? Do you withdraw your carriers or hunt for more victims?


I am not sure, I have been considering moving my carriers a hex closer, more so as the enemy task force is on a south-westerly
heading and scout reports say there are no planes on board two carriers. There might not be two carriers, or the
report that Akagi has been sunk can be faulty. Anyway, they ought to be sitting ducks for the US carriers which still have
their full air complement.

There are no capital US ships in the vicinity but plenty of destroyers and some light cruisers. If any of the destroyers come
to a torpedo shot the criplings shall be nice targets for both land and carrier-based planes afterwards. Closer to Jolo
Island land-based CAPs shall be more effective, too. I suppose...

Fred

_____________________________

River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D34QCWQ/?ie=UTF8&redirect=true&ref=series_rw_dp_labf

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 11
RE: Rookie III - 3/28/2019 10:41:38 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros
Own submarines have been set to “reliable torpedoes” which in reality is a little less “reliable” than in real life. Just my previous experience.


My understanding of the "Reliable USN torpedoes" being set "on" means it's not just US submarine launched torpedoes that now have a dud rate of 10 but also those launched from US warships and those dropped by US aircraft, both of which had their share of historical problems during the first two years of war. If that is the case with the "Reliable USN torpedoes" option, then all air strike and surface battle combat results involving the use of US torpedoes in your game is now potentially being favorably influenced by that option as well.

It might be worth checking in case you only intended it for US sub torps.


I am not sure that is how it works. It also says "reliable USN". I have been through this before and I am just as sure
now that my opinion is still valid. At one time I actually went through all torpedo encounters to find that "duds" - non-hits
and non-detonating - were higher than the 50 % stated by Lockwood. Japanese "light" (ASW PBs and destroyers) warships are
almost never hit. Deeper-going and bigger targets, like carriers and battleships/heavy cruisers seem easier targets when
within range.

Also, the Dutch submarines have quite a few duds, as have the USN PBYs. US destroyers are difficult to evaluate as they rarely
come to shots. Air-launched and destroyer-launched torpedoes should not have the same dud-rate as submarines as one diagnosed
problem was water-leakages when torpedoes were kept in water-filled tubes. OTOH, a submerged submarine ought to be a stabler
launch-platform. To me, in this game, it looks as if crew experience (in planes) has an influence on the results.

That I have had reasonably good results with my submarines in my present games I judge more to be because of concentration
and aggressivess, for a large part against enemy warships, rather than "reliable" torpedoes.

Fred

PS: The Devastator torpedo hits mentioned above (2 of 12 torpedoes launched) were against incapacitated ships with no fighter
defense. Not very impressive.


Even if the game option is for "Reliable US Torpedoes - NO", the rate of explosions for air-launched torps should be 50% of hits. The big problem early on is that the low skill and experience ratings and fighter interference often mean very few hits are made.

IME, with "Reliable US Torpedoes-ON", the surface and sub-launched torp dud rate is still at least 20%, not the 10% mentioned earlier. Again, getting the hits is at least as much problem as reliability!

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Leandros)
Post #: 12
RE: Rookie III - 3/29/2019 1:28:50 PM   
Buckrock

 

Posts: 578
Joined: 3/16/2012
From: Not all there
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros
I am not sure that is how it works. It also says "reliable USN". I have been through this before and I am just as sure
now that my opinion is still valid.

Then I'm sorry I put you through it again but just to be safe I thought I'd mention the possibility.

However, since you're in a chatty mood.....

quote:


At one time I actually went through all torpedo encounters to find that "duds" - non-hits
and non-detonating - were higher than the 50 % stated by Lockwood.

Duds should only really include hits that don't detonate. Misses could be for any reason, not just from torpedo related issues.

Out of curiosity, what "50 % stated by Lockwood" are you referring to? If it's the drop tests conducted at Hawaii, the finding was 50% of hits on a 45deg angle triggered the contact exploder but all hits on the "perfect" 90deg angle failed. That was the first time Lockwood had been able to confirm just how unreliable the contact exploder had been.

quote:


Air-launched and destroyer-launched torpedoes should not have the same dud-rate as submarines.....

But there was the possibility they may have when the option is "ON" so I thought it could be worth checking.

quote:


...as one diagnosed problem was water-leakages when torpedoes were kept in water-filled tubes

True but that possibility had been identified prior to the war. Procedures were in place that were supposed to minimise the chance of it happening. And being a known possibility, the responsibility was then on the sub skipper to do further checks if he intended to skip official recommendations and leave torpedoes in flooded tubes for lengthy periods during patrols. Wilkes, Commander of Asiatic Submarines, stated after the DEI campaign that reported cases of torpedo after-body flooding overall had remained within acceptable limits. I don't know whether the AE design team included that issue when establishing the Mark 14's dud rate but given all the torpedo's historical design problems that were unknown at the start of the war (including some not shared by the Mark 13 and even Mark 15 torpedoes), I'd be surprised if a known maintenance requirement also made the list.


_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to Leandros)
Post #: 13
RE: Rookie III - 3/29/2019 1:31:53 PM   
Buckrock

 

Posts: 578
Joined: 3/16/2012
From: Not all there
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
Even if the game option is for "Reliable US Torpedoes - NO", the rate of explosions for air-launched torps should be 50% of hits.

Do you mean "ON" or "OFF"? I was fairly sure I'd seen mention in an old thread that Mark 13s would be affected as well by the manual's 6.4.2.1 section on dud torpedoes. That rule has "all torpedoes" with dud rates higher than 10 reduced over time and that if the "Reliable USN torpedoes" option is "ON", those reductions are applied immediately at the start of the game, meaning "no torpedoes will have dud rates higher than 10%". Despite the "USN" in the name of the option, the rule seems to suggest it will affect any torpedo with a dud rate over 10, regardless of nationality or launch platform. IIRC, the only torpedoes in the stock game that start with a dud rate over 10 are US torpedoes anyway. And if the option only affected submarine and surface warship torpedoes then the poor old air-dropped Mark 13 could end up the only torpedo in the stock game to start with a dud rate above 10.

Anyway, I don't use the option so it hasn't influenced my own games. As stated earlier, I just thought it was worth mentioning the possibility of wider effects to Leandros.

Could be wrong of course.


_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 14
RE: Rookie III - 3/29/2019 11:57:44 PM   
Leandros


Posts: 1740
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

Anyway, I don't use the option so it hasn't influenced my own games. As stated earlier, I just thought it was worth mentioning
the possibility of wider effects to Leandros.

Could be wrong of course.

And I appreciate that - thank you. Lockwood, which I mentioned above, wrote a lot of things about the early WW2 USN torpedoes,
from all sort of angles and based on a lot of different parameters. But in the end of his book he generalizes the practical
effects of defective (often only slightly mis-aligned adjusted) torpedoes and the human factor (calculations, sightings)
to a hit rate, rather than a "dud" rate, of 51 % - in the first 18 months or so.

What I am trying to get through to you here is that this is much better than even "reliable USN" torpedoes give us in the game.
This I have controlled quite extensively in the few games I have been through till now. IOW, it is in no way gamey, or wrong,
but more realistic, to use this alternative. Number of "Duds" - no explosions - and misses (which includes passing under the
target) is markedly higher than 50 % in the game.

Why the game is adjusted like this I do not know, but I have seen opinions here that this is one way (one of several others)
to make the first phase of the game more interesting (or bearable) for the Japanese player. It could have had a meaning if
the "reliable USN" torpedoes in the game had actually been - reliable - but they aren't. Anyway, that is my experience - which
is relatively feeble.

Lockwood also credits much of the improvements in hit statistics as the war wore on to improved tactics and, not the least,
a new generation of young submarine commanders.

Fred





_____________________________

River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D34QCWQ/?ie=UTF8&redirect=true&ref=series_rw_dp_labf

(in reply to Buckrock)
Post #: 15
RE: Rookie III - 3/30/2019 12:17:38 AM   
Leandros


Posts: 1740
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

True but that possibility had been identified prior to the war. Procedures were in place that were supposed to minimise the
chance of it happening. And being a known possibility, the responsibility was then on the sub skipper to do further checks
if he intended to skip official recommendations and leave torpedoes in flooded tubes for lengthy periods during patrols.
Wilkes, Commander of Asiatic Submarines, stated after the DEI campaign that reported cases of torpedo after-body flooding
overall had remained within acceptable limits. I don't know whether the AE design team included that issue when establishing
the Mark 14's dud rate but given all the torpedo's historical design problems that were unknown at the start of the war
(including some not shared by the Mark 13 and even Mark 15 torpedoes), I'd be surprised if a known maintenance requirement
also made the list.


There's an interesting note in Morrisons book, taken from the Philippines just before the war: A young sub commander (I
believe his name was Dempsey), with his torpedo officer, made some tests after discovering leakages in the torpedoes. This
showed to be general for most of his assigned torpedoes. They also made some firing tests which showed that they ran too deep,
probably because of the leakage problem. This was reported to the torpedo shop in Cavite but resulted in no initiative from
their side but he had 3/4 of his torpedoes exchanged before his torpedo officer was satisfied with the quality.

He also recommended the yard to hint his findings to the destroyer guys but that also created no reaction.

Of course, stubborn actions like this wasn't necessarily particularly healthy for a young career officer.

It would be of interest to know what standards Wilkes set for "acceptable limits" of torpedo flooding.

Fred


< Message edited by Leandros -- 3/30/2019 12:26:07 AM >


_____________________________

River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D34QCWQ/?ie=UTF8&redirect=true&ref=series_rw_dp_labf

(in reply to Buckrock)
Post #: 16
RE: Rookie III - 3/30/2019 12:23:09 AM   
Leandros


Posts: 1740
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline

I shall keep away from this thread for a while now as my Rookie II thread is progressing again - new superior Japanese leader.
Too easy to mix things (threads) up in an old head like mine.....

Fred..

_____________________________

River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D34QCWQ/?ie=UTF8&redirect=true&ref=series_rw_dp_labf

(in reply to Leandros)
Post #: 17
RE: Rookie III - 3/30/2019 12:08:39 PM   
Buckrock

 

Posts: 578
Joined: 3/16/2012
From: Not all there
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros
And I appreciate that - thank you. Lockwood, which I mentioned above, wrote a lot of things about the early WW2 USN torpedoes,
from all sort of angles and based on a lot of different parameters. But in the end of his book he generalizes the practical
effects of defective (often only slightly mis-aligned adjusted) torpedoes and the human factor (calculations, sightings)
to a hit rate, rather than a "dud" rate, of 51 % - in the first 18 months or so.

What I am trying to get through to you here is that this is much better than even "reliable USN" torpedoes give us in the game.
This I have controlled quite extensively in the few games I have been through till now. IOW, it is in no way gamey, or wrong,
but more realistic, to use this alternative. Number of "Duds" - no explosions - and misses (which includes passing under the
target) is markedly higher than 50 % in the game.

Are you really suggesting that WitP AE should have replicated a probability where for every two US submarine torpedoes fired in
the first 18 months of the game, it should be expected that one of these on average will both hit a target and then detonate on
that target? That would fly in the face of the post war analyses by academic and naval researchers.

Where exactly is the information you mentioned by Lockwood? What book of his was it in and what page number?


_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to Leandros)
Post #: 18
RE: Rookie III - 3/30/2019 12:12:17 PM   
Buckrock

 

Posts: 578
Joined: 3/16/2012
From: Not all there
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros
There's an interesting note in Morrisons book, taken from the Philippines just before the war: A young sub commander (I
believe his name was Dempsey), with his torpedo officer, made some tests after discovering leakages in the torpedoes. This
showed to be general for most of his assigned torpedoes. They also made some firing tests which showed that they ran too deep,
probably because of the leakage problem. This was reported to the torpedo shop in Cavite but resulted in no initiative from
their side but he had 3/4 of his torpedoes exchanged before his torpedo officer was satisfied with the quality.

He also recommended the yard to hint his findings to the destroyer guys but that also created no reaction.

Of course, stubborn actions like this wasn't necessarily particularly healthy for a young career officer.

This is somewhat covered by what I mentioned before, that the problem had been identified prior to the war and that recommended maintenance
and operating procedures had been established. In this case, the "young career officer" is reporting the batch he had been given by Cavite
included leaky torpedoes. Cavite then gives him some satisfactory torpedoes as replacements. It was already known that leaky torpedoes
could result in flooding of the aft-body, affecting both depth and direction keeping. That was why the pre-war recommendations had been
made, so I'd wonder why the Cavite torpedo workshop in the story should have been surprised if the "young career officer" suggested those
leaky torpedoes might also have run deep. Thankfully Cavite did then supply suitable replacement torpedoes to him, suggesting someone at
the torpedo workshops did know how to follow procedures and do proper water-tight testing.

So what volume and page number of Morison for your story were you referring to?

As for Dempsey, he commanded an S-Class submarine at that time, so the submarine torpedo in that story would be a Mark X, not the much
more important Mark XIV torpedo used by the majority of the USN submarines and the one that causes Allied players such frustration in
the game.

Actually, the story you described from Morison sounds more like some strange variant of Coe's First War Patrol report. He put to sea in
one of the S-Class subs a week before the start of the war and ended his patrol back at Manila Bay on Dec 21st. He reported on return that
several of the Mark X torpedoes issued to him at the start of his patrol had proven to be insufficiently water-tight. He determined this
not by firing torpedoes but rather just seeing whether they had suffered leaks after exposing them to lengthy periods in flooded tubes.

His recommendation in the report was that the local torpedo workshop should do a better job with their water-tight testing for submarine
torpedoes. He made no recommendation in his report that water-tight testing of Mark VIII destroyer torpedoes should be similarly improved,
only noting that the local torpedo workshop at Cavite may have mistakenly given his submarine torpedoes water-tight testing only appropriate
for destroyer torpedoes that were carried in dry mounts.

quote:


It would be of interest to know what standards Wilkes set for "acceptable limits" of torpedo flooding.

Wilkes understandably didn't define such obvious naval criteria in a report meant for Adm King but a more specific comment on page 46
from that same April '42 report on "War Activities (to date), Asiatic Fleet Submarines", was that the "percentage of flooded torpedo
after-bodies" in those operations overall "were found to be small".



_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to Leandros)
Post #: 19
RE: Rookie III - 3/30/2019 2:29:59 PM   
Leandros


Posts: 1740
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Buckrock
Are you really suggesting that WitP AE should have replicated a probability where for every two US submarine torpedoes fired in
the first 18 months of the game, it should be expected that one of these on average will both hit a target and then detonate on
that target? That would fly in the face of the post war analyses by academic and naval researchers.

No, I am not. The essence of my posting should be that the reliability of USN torpedoes in the game is, in general, portrayed as even
worse than in RL - even with "reliable USN" torpedoes ON. Which is why using the "reliable USN" torpedoes - ON should
be perfectly viable. I am not complaining on the game - only stating what i have experienced.

quote:

Where exactly is the information you mentioned by Lockwood? What book of his was it in and what page number?


I shall try to look it up - it was only a few weeks ago I leafed through it, as much as one can "leaf" a Kindle book....

Fred


< Message edited by Leandros -- 3/30/2019 2:33:12 PM >


_____________________________

River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D34QCWQ/?ie=UTF8&redirect=true&ref=series_rw_dp_labf

(in reply to Buckrock)
Post #: 20
RE: Rookie III - 3/31/2019 10:51:44 AM   
Buckrock

 

Posts: 578
Joined: 3/16/2012
From: Not all there
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros
No, I am not. The essence of my posting should be that the reliability of USN torpedoes in the game is, in general, portrayed as even
worse than in RL - even with "reliable USN" torpedoes ON. Which is why using the "reliable USN" torpedoes - ON should
be perfectly viable. I am not complaining on the game - only stating what i have experienced.

Sorry Leandros, I'm still no wiser from the above as to what your expected RL torpedo hit&detonate rate is that the game is failing to achieve, even when
"Reliable USN torpedoes" is "ON"? If it's not the 50% I asked earlier, what is it?

quote:


quote:

Where exactly is the information you mentioned by Lockwood? What book of his was it in and what page number?


I shall try to look it up - it was only a few weeks ago I leafed through it, as much as one can "leaf" a Kindle book....

Fred


And perhaps the volume and page reference for the leaking torpedoes story in Morison?

Thanks.



_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to Leandros)
Post #: 21
RE: Rookie III - 4/13/2019 9:10:12 AM   
Buckrock

 

Posts: 578
Joined: 3/16/2012
From: Not all there
Status: offline
Anything further on these interesting claims from Lockwood and Morison? I have most of Morison's volumes gathering dust and might be able to get hold of Lockwood, so if you can
throw a few page numbers (or ebook locations) my way it'd be helpful in sating my curiosity on the torpedo topic.

Thanks.

_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to Buckrock)
Post #: 22
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> Rookie III 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

1.563