RE: The R's

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: The R's

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 >> RE: The R's

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The R's - 8/22/2020 6:12:49 PM

RangerJoe

Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy.

BTW, only four QEs were ordered by the Admiralty, but the rulers of Malaya bought a fifth one as a gift to Britain (in return for Britain guaranteeing their rule, no doubt). Try and guess which QE was bought by those SEA rulers...

I have seen it suggested that a sixth QE was projected - Agincourt, a name used for a Brazilian ordered
BB, Rio de Janeiro, purchased by Turkey in December 1913, and originally christened Sultan Osman I, taken over by the RN in August 1914.

Greger says the QE Agincourt was authorised in the 1914 budget, but was cancelled at the end of August 1914.

The RN did take over the Rio de Janeiro build and finished it as Agincourt, so that was one unexpected addition to the fleet. Agincourt had the most major caliber guns ever put on a warship - 14X 14" guns IIRC. She probably could not fire them all simultaneously without breaking something! I also think she would blow up easily if anything penetrated her armour which would not have been strong (because so much weight had been devoted to guns and ammo).

14 x 12" - in 7 centre-line turrets. AB, PQ, WXY. W faced forward and was deck level; B & X were raised and superfiring. The ship was not flush decked.

Belt was 229mm, deck 114mm max, main turrets and CT 305mm. The QEs and "R's had thicker belts, but a bit less deck armour (330, and 89mm).

That ship would be great for shore bombardments!

_____________________________

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 Ian R)

Post #: 31

RE: The R's - 8/22/2020 6:43:53 PM

BBfanboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy.

BTW, only four QEs were ordered by the Admiralty, but the rulers of Malaya bought a fifth one as a gift to Britain (in return for Britain guaranteeing their rule, no doubt). Try and guess which QE was bought by those SEA rulers...

I have seen it suggested that a sixth QE was projected - Agincourt, a name used for a Brazilian ordered
BB, Rio de Janeiro, purchased by Turkey in December 1913, and originally christened Sultan Osman I, taken over by the RN in August 1914.

Greger says the QE Agincourt was authorised in the 1914 budget, but was cancelled at the end of August 1914.

The RN did take over the Rio de Janeiro build and finished it as Agincourt, so that was one unexpected addition to the fleet. Agincourt had the most major caliber guns ever put on a warship - 14X 14" guns IIRC. She probably could not fire them all simultaneously without breaking something! I also think she would blow up easily if anything penetrated her armour which would not have been strong (because so much weight had been devoted to guns and ammo).

14 x 12" - in 7 centre-line turrets. AB, PQ, WXY. W faced forward and was deck level; B & X were raised and superfiring. The ship was not flush decked.

Belt was 229mm, deck 114mm max, main turrets and CT 305mm. The QEs and "R's had thicker belts, but a bit less deck armour (330, and 89mm).

That ship would be great for shore bombardments!

Thanks for the correction on the caliber of the guns RJ!
IIRC, Wyoming and Arkansas were a similar design without the "W" turret.

_____________________________

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 RangerJoe)

Post #: 32

RE: The R's - 8/23/2020 12:36:44 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

Interesting thread, especially to see everyones' ideas.

As is usual, I find I think M-M makes a lot of sense. I don't know where this idea of using the slower BBs as convoy protection comes from, they can't protect against subs, and at night an IJN heavy cruiser or even a destroyer squadron is a very good matchup against them.

They are very useful ships to be treasured and used, but they are not always useful.

I could point out that from the Japanese side the Yamato could be described in much the same manner. But once you figure out how to use them, they become almost magical.

Check out Jorge's AAR to see a real nice usage of the slow American battleships in 1942 no less.

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 8/23/2020 12:37:23 PM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 33

RE: The R's - 8/23/2020 1:48:25 PM

Jorge_Stanbury

Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline

Thanks, can you point to which occasion?

They American are relatively good AA platforms and they can be used successfully in echelon attacks, with multiple TFs

_____________________________

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 34

RE: The R's - 9/13/2020 3:26:03 AM

Jorge_Stanbury

Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline

The "Rs" in action

they were like angry ninjas mauling poor Mutsu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Makassar at 64,105, Range 11,000 Yards

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
E13A1 Jake: 1 destroyed

Japanese Ships
BB Mutsu, Shell hits 15, and is sunk
DD Onami
DD Kuroshio, Shell hits 8, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Hayashio
DD Amatsukaze, Shell hits 5, heavy fires
DD Asashio, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Kasumi
DD Shiratsuyu
DD Kamikaze
DD Asakaze, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Hatakaze, Shell hits 2, and is sunk
DD Yanagi, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk

Allied Ships
BB Revenge, Shell hits 1
BB Resolution, Shell hits 6, on fire
CA Frobisher
CL Mauritius, Shell hits 2
CL Birmingham
CL Phoenix, Shell hits 1
DD Stuart
DD Arunta
DD Warramunga
DD Nepal, Shell hits 1
DD Nestor
DD Napier, Shell hits 3, on fire
DD Tjerk Hiddes, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Van Galen

Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions and 60% moonlight: 11,000 yards
Range closes to 23,000 yards...
Range closes to 17,000 yards...
Range closes to 11,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 11,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 11,000 yards
BB Mutsu engages BB Revenge at 11,000 yards
DD Yanagi sunk by DD Napier at 11,000 yards
DD Napier engages DD Hatakaze at 11,000 yards
CL Phoenix engages DD Hatakaze at 11,000 yards
CL Birmingham engages DD Hatakaze at 11,000 yards
DD Asashio engages DD Tjerk Hiddes at 11,000 yards
DD Amatsukaze engages DD Napier at 11,000 yards
DD Hayashio engages DD Napier at 11,000 yards
DD Kuroshio engages DD Nepal at 11,000 yards
DD Onami engages DD Warramunga at 11,000 yards
Range closes to 5,000 yards
BB Mutsu engages BB Resolution at 5,000 yards
BB Revenge engages DD Kuroshio at 5,000 yards
DD Warramunga engages DD Asakaze at 5,000 yards
CL Phoenix engages DD Asakaze at 5,000 yards
BB Mutsu engages CL Birmingham at 5,000 yards
BB Mutsu engages CL Mauritius at 5,000 yards
DD Asashio engages DD Warramunga at 5,000 yards
DD Amatsukaze engages DD Napier at 5,000 yards
DD Kuroshio engages DD Nestor at 5,000 yards
DD Napier engages DD Onami at 5,000 yards
DD Asashio engages DD Warramunga at 5,000 yards
DD Arunta engages DD Hatakaze at 5,000 yards
DD Stuart engages DD Kuroshio at 5,000 yards
BB Resolution engages BB Mutsu at 5,000 yards
DD Hatakaze sunk by BB Revenge at 5,000 yards
CA Frobisher engages DD Onami at 5,000 yards
DD Kamikaze engages DD Tjerk Hiddes at 5,000 yards
DD Shiratsuyu engages DD Napier at 5,000 yards
CL Mauritius engages DD Asashio at 5,000 yards
DD Amatsukaze engages DD Tjerk Hiddes at 5,000 yards
DD Napier engages DD Kuroshio at 5,000 yards
DD Nestor engages DD Onami at 5,000 yards
DD Nepal engages DD Onami at 5,000 yards
DD Shiratsuyu engages DD Stuart at 5,000 yards
Range closes to 4,000 yards
BB Resolution engages DD Hayashio at 4,000 yards
DD Warramunga engages DD Asakaze at 4,000 yards
DD Kamikaze engages DD Tjerk Hiddes at 4,000 yards
CL Phoenix engages DD Kuroshio at 4,000 yards
DD Nepal engages DD Kasumi at 4,000 yards
CL Mauritius engages DD Kuroshio at 4,000 yards
DD Amatsukaze engages DD Warramunga at 4,000 yards
DD Hayashio engages DD Nepal at 4,000 yards
DD Kuroshio engages DD Stuart at 4,000 yards
DD Nestor engages DD Kuroshio at 4,000 yards
DD Kuroshio engages DD Warramunga at 4,000 yards
DD Arunta engages DD Kuroshio at 4,000 yards
DD Kuroshio engages DD Stuart at 4,000 yards
Range increases to 8,000 yards
BB Mutsu engages BB Resolution at 8,000 yards
DD Asakaze engages DD Tjerk Hiddes at 8,000 yards
CA Frobisher engages DD Asakaze at 8,000 yards
CL Phoenix engages DD Asakaze at 8,000 yards
CL Birmingham engages DD Shiratsuyu at 8,000 yards
CL Mauritius engages DD Kuroshio at 8,000 yards
DD Van Galen engages DD Kamikaze at 8,000 yards
DD Tjerk Hiddes engages DD Asakaze at 8,000 yards
DD Napier engages DD Kuroshio at 8,000 yards
DD Napier engages DD Onami at 8,000 yards
DD Asakaze engages DD Nepal at 8,000 yards
DD Warramunga engages DD Asakaze at 8,000 yards
DD Kuroshio engages DD Arunta at 8,000 yards
Range increases to 11,000 yards
BB Mutsu engages BB Revenge at 11,000 yards
BB Revenge engages DD Asakaze at 11,000 yards
CA Frobisher engages DD Kamikaze at 11,000 yards
DD Shiratsuyu engages DD Napier at 11,000 yards
BB Mutsu engages CL Birmingham at 11,000 yards
CL Mauritius engages DD Asashio at 11,000 yards
DD Amatsukaze engages DD Van Galen at 11,000 yards
DD Hayashio engages DD Tjerk Hiddes at 11,000 yards
DD Napier engages DD Kuroshio at 11,000 yards
DD Nestor engages DD Kuroshio at 11,000 yards
DD Amatsukaze engages DD Warramunga at 11,000 yards
DD Asakaze engages DD Arunta at 11,000 yards
DD Stuart engages DD Kamikaze at 11,000 yards
Range closes to 10,000 yards
BB Mutsu engages BB Revenge at 10,000 yards
CA Frobisher engages DD Kamikaze at 10,000 yards
CL Phoenix engages DD Kuroshio at 10,000 yards
DD Tjerk Hiddes engages DD Kasumi at 10,000 yards
CL Mauritius engages DD Kuroshio at 10,000 yards
DD Kuroshio engages DD Van Galen at 10,000 yards
DD Kuroshio engages DD Tjerk Hiddes at 10,000 yards
DD Kuroshio engages DD Tjerk Hiddes at 10,000 yards
DD Kuroshio engages DD Nepal at 10,000 yards
DD Hayashio engages DD Warramunga at 10,000 yards
DD Shiratsuyu engages DD Stuart at 10,000 yards
Range closes to 9,000 yards
BB Mutsu engages BB Resolution at 9,000 yards
BB Revenge engages BB Mutsu at 9,000 yards
CA Frobisher engages DD Kuroshio at 9,000 yards
CL Phoenix engages DD Kuroshio at 9,000 yards
DD Kasumi engages DD Arunta at 9,000 yards
DD Arunta engages DD Asashio at 9,000 yards
DD Kuroshio engages DD Van Galen at 9,000 yards
DD Kuroshio engages DD Tjerk Hiddes at 9,000 yards
DD Kuroshio engages DD Napier at 9,000 yards
DD Onami engages DD Stuart at 9,000 yards
DD Kasumi engages DD Nepal at 9,000 yards
DD Kuroshio engages DD Stuart at 9,000 yards
Range increases to 10,000 yards
BB Mutsu sunk by BB Revenge at 10,000 yards
DD Asakaze engages DD Napier at 10,000 yards
CA Frobisher engages DD Kuroshio at 10,000 yards
CL Birmingham engages DD Onami at 10,000 yards
CL Mauritius engages DD Asashio at 10,000 yards
DD Amatsukaze engages DD Nepal at 10,000 yards
DD Nepal engages DD Hayashio at 10,000 yards
DD Napier engages DD Kuroshio at 10,000 yards
DD Onami engages DD Stuart at 10,000 yards
Range increases to 12,000 yards
BB Resolution engages DD Amatsukaze at 12,000 yards
BB Revenge engages DD Amatsukaze at 12,000 yards
DD Shiratsuyu engages DD Tjerk Hiddes at 12,000 yards
CL Phoenix engages DD Amatsukaze at 12,000 yards
CL Birmingham engages DD Amatsukaze at 12,000 yards
DD Amatsukaze engages DD Nepal at 12,000 yards
DD Hayashio engages DD Napier at 12,000 yards
DD Kuroshio engages DD Warramunga at 12,000 yards
DD Onami engages DD Napier at 12,000 yards
DD Kuroshio engages DD Nestor at 12,000 yards
Tanaka, Raizo orders Japanese TF to disengage
Range closes to 9,000 yards
DD Asakaze engages DD Tjerk Hiddes at 9,000 yards
BB Revenge engages DD Kamikaze at 9,000 yards
CA Frobisher engages DD Shiratsuyu at 9,000 yards
DD Kasumi engages DD Nepal at 9,000 yards
CL Birmingham engages DD Asashio at 9,000 yards
CL Mauritius engages DD Amatsukaze at 9,000 yards
DD Kuroshio engages DD Van Galen at 9,000 yards
DD Tjerk Hiddes engages DD Kuroshio at 9,000 yards
DD Stuart engages DD Onami at 9,000 yards
DD Amatsukaze engages DD Nestor at 9,000 yards
DD Amatsukaze engages DD Warramunga at 9,000 yards
DD Amatsukaze engages DD Arunta at 9,000 yards
Range increases to 13,000 yards
BB Resolution engages DD Amatsukaze at 13,000 yards
BB Revenge engages DD Amatsukaze at 13,000 yards
DD Arunta engages DD Shiratsuyu at 13,000 yards
CL Phoenix engages DD Kasumi at 13,000 yards
CL Birmingham engages DD Amatsukaze at 13,000 yards
CL Mauritius engages DD Amatsukaze at 13,000 yards
DD Van Galen engages DD Onami at 13,000 yards
DD Asashio engages DD Tjerk Hiddes at 13,000 yards
DD Shiratsuyu engages DD Nepal at 13,000 yards
DD Warramunga engages DD Amatsukaze at 13,000 yards
DD Arunta engages DD Kuroshio at 13,000 yards
DD Amatsukaze engages DD Stuart at 13,000 yards
Task forces break off...

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 9/13/2020 3:29:37 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)

Post #: 35

RE: The R's - 9/13/2020 11:27:44 AM

Ambassador

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

The "Rs" in action

they were like angry ninjas mauling poor Mutsu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Makassar at 64,105, Range 11,000 Yards

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
E13A1 Jake: 1 destroyed

Japanese Ships
BB Mutsu, Shell hits 15, and is sunk
DD Onami
DD Kuroshio, Shell hits 8, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Hayashio
DD Amatsukaze, Shell hits 5, heavy fires
DD Asashio, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Kasumi
DD Shiratsuyu
DD Kamikaze
DD Asakaze, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Hatakaze, Shell hits 2, and is sunk
DD Yanagi, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk

Allied Ships
BB Revenge, Shell hits 1
BB Resolution, Shell hits 6, on fire
CA Frobisher
CL Mauritius, Shell hits 2
CL Birmingham
CL Phoenix, Shell hits 1
DD Stuart
DD Arunta
DD Warramunga
DD Nepal, Shell hits 1
DD Nestor
DD Napier, Shell hits 3, on fire
DD Tjerk Hiddes, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Van Galen

Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions and 60% moonlight: 11,000 yards
Range closes to 23,000 yards...
Range closes to 17,000 yards...
Range closes to 11,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 11,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 11,000 yards
BB Mutsu engages BB Revenge at 11,000 yards
Range closes to 5,000 yards
BB Mutsu engages BB Resolution at 5,000 yards

I also love the R�s, and I don�t find your results really surprising, it�s a two-vs-one engagement, with more support on the side of the two.
I don�t know the date of the battle, but as you have those two R�s, I�d guess none of the IJN DD have a radar, and given Birmingham�s participation, it�s �43*, so fighting performance of the Allies doesn�t suffer as much as in the first few months. Plus, all those radar sets on the Allies side improve the starting DL of the Japanese ships...
Moreover, Nagato-class have a weak belt armor (compared to most other BB classes), the fight basically starts at point-blank range, and the R�s 15in main guns have a better penetration rating than Mutsu�s 40cm... By comparison, the R�s weakness in deck armor is negated by the close range of the engagement.
And on the supporting cruisers, while Frobisher is not great, you still had a Fiji-class, a Southampton-class and a Brooklyn-class, or three of the four best light cruiser classes. They might not be able to penetrate Mutsu�s armor, but it still amounts to more fires, and they can make short work of any DD.

EDIT : * or maybe early in late summer or fall �42, as I�ve just checked Birmingham�s arrival, and it�s July �42 in Cape Town.

< Message edited by Ambassador -- 9/13/2020 11:33:56 AM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)

Post #: 36

RE: The R's - 9/13/2020 11:39:21 AM

Runnersan

Posts: 136
Joined: 6/11/2008
Status: offline

It's end of January 1943.

The same day showed that Royal Navy is ruler of the seas... Few direct hits from another British BB ended life of Yamato. I wonder if there was some kind trophy for killing Bismarck and Yamato :)

quote:

Night Time Surface Combat, near Makassar at 65,105, Range 8,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
BB Mutsu, Shell hits 2
BB Yamato, Shell hits 30, heavy fires
DD Onami
DD Kuroshio
DD Hayashio
DD Amatsukaze
DD Asashio
DD Kasumi
DD Shiratsuyu
DD Kamikaze
DD Asakaze
DD Hatakaze
DD Nokaze, Shell hits 1
DD Yanagi

Allied Ships
BB North Carolina
BB South Dakota, Shell hits 8, on fire
BB Prince of Wales, Shell hits 2
CA Indianapolis
CA Chester, Shell hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
CA Pensacola
CA Salt Lake City
CA New Orleans, Shell hits 1
CA Astoria
CA San Francisco, Shell hits 2
CA Vincennes, Shell hits 1
CA Dorsetshire
DD Buchanan
DD Barton
DD Woodworth
DD Caldwell
DD Frazier, Shell hits 1
DD Gansevoort, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Meade, Shell hits 1
DD O'Brien
DD Walke
DD Morris
DD Dunlap, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Case, Shell hits 1
DD Cushing

Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions and 60% moonlight: 11,000 yards
Range closes to 23,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 23,000 yards
Range closes to 17,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 17,000 yards
Range closes to 11,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 11,000 yards
Range closes to 8,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 8,000 yards
BB Yamato engages BB Prince of Wales at 8,000 yards
BB South Dakota engages BB Mutsu at 8,000 yards
BB North Carolina engages BB Yamato at 8,000 yards
DD Nokaze engages CA Dorsetshire at 8,000 yards
DD Hatakaze engages BB South Dakota at 8,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA San Francisco at 8,000 yards
DD Kamikaze engages BB South Dakota at 8,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Salt Lake City at 8,000 yards
DD Asashio engages BB South Dakota at 8,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Chester at 8,000 yards
BB South Dakota engages DD Hayashio at 8,000 yards
BB Prince of Wales engages DD Kuroshio at 8,000 yards
DD Case engages DD Hayashio at 8,000 yards
DD Asashio engages DD Dunlap at 8,000 yards
DD Hayashio engages DD O'Brien at 8,000 yards
DD Kuroshio engages DD Meade at 8,000 yards
DD Hatakaze engages DD Gansevoort at 8,000 yards
DD Frazier engages DD Kamikaze at 8,000 yards
DD Caldwell engages DD Kamikaze at 8,000 yards
Range closes to 7,000 yards
BB Yamato engages BB Prince of Wales at 7,000 yards
BB Mutsu engages BB Prince of Wales at 7,000 yards
DD Yanagi engages DD Frazier at 7,000 yards
DD Nokaze engages DD Meade at 7,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Vincennes at 7,000 yards
DD Asakaze engages DD Dunlap at 7,000 yards
DD Dunlap engages DD Kamikaze at 7,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA New Orleans at 7,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Salt Lake City at 7,000 yards
DD Gansevoort engages DD Asashio at 7,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Chester at 7,000 yards
CA Indianapolis engages DD Hayashio at 7,000 yards
DD Kuroshio engages DD O'Brien at 7,000 yards
DD Case engages DD Nokaze at 7,000 yards
DD Dunlap engages DD Hatakaze at 7,000 yards
DD Yanagi engages DD Meade at 7,000 yards
Range increases to 9,000 yards
BB Yamato engages BB South Dakota at 9,000 yards
BB South Dakota engages BB Mutsu at 9,000 yards
DD Yanagi engages DD Gansevoort at 9,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Dorsetshire at 9,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Vincennes at 9,000 yards
DD Asakaze engages DD Meade at 9,000 yards
DD Shiratsuyu engages DD Dunlap at 9,000 yards
DD Kasumi engages DD Dunlap at 9,000 yards
DD Gansevoort engages DD Asashio at 9,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Chester at 9,000 yards
DD Hayashio engages DD O'Brien at 9,000 yards
DD Kuroshio engages DD Cushing at 9,000 yards
DD Case engages DD Onami at 9,000 yards
DD Asakaze engages DD Walke at 9,000 yards
DD Nokaze engages DD Buchanan at 9,000 yards
Range increases to 11,000 yards
BB Prince of Wales engages BB Yamato at 11,000 yards
BB Mutsu engages BB South Dakota at 11,000 yards
DD Yanagi engages DD Dunlap at 11,000 yards
DD Nokaze engages DD Dunlap at 11,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Vincennes at 11,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA San Francisco at 11,000 yards
CA Astoria engages DD Kamikaze at 11,000 yards
CA New Orleans engages DD Shiratsuyu at 11,000 yards
DD Kasumi engages DD Frazier at 11,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Pensacola at 11,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Chester at 11,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Indianapolis at 11,000 yards
DD Hatakaze engages DD Case at 11,000 yards
DD Asashio engages DD Morris at 11,000 yards
DD Shiratsuyu engages DD Gansevoort at 11,000 yards
DD Asakaze engages DD Frazier at 11,000 yards
Range increases to 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages BB South Dakota at 12,000 yards
BB Mutsu engages BB South Dakota at 12,000 yards
DD Dunlap engages DD Yanagi at 12,000 yards
DD Nokaze engages DD Cushing at 12,000 yards
DD Hatakaze engages DD Gansevoort at 12,000 yards
CA San Francisco engages DD Asakaze at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Astoria at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA New Orleans at 12,000 yards
DD Frazier engages DD Kasumi at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Pensacola at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Chester at 12,000 yards
DD Nokaze engages DD Cushing at 12,000 yards
DD Onami engages DD Frazier at 12,000 yards
DD Kuroshio engages DD Meade at 12,000 yards
BB Prince of Wales engages BB Yamato at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages BB South Dakota at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages BB North Carolina at 12,000 yards
CA Dorsetshire engages DD Hatakaze at 12,000 yards
DD O'Brien engages DD Hatakaze at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA San Francisco at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Astoria at 12,000 yards
CA New Orleans engages DD Shiratsuyu at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Salt Lake City at 12,000 yards
DD Meade engages DD Asashio at 12,000 yards
DD Frazier engages DD Amatsukaze at 12,000 yards
DD Hayashio engages DD Case at 12,000 yards
DD Hayashio engages DD Cushing at 12,000 yards
DD Woodworth engages DD Nokaze at 12,000 yards
Range increases to 13,000 yards
BB Prince of Wales engages BB Yamato at 13,000 yards
BB Yamato engages BB South Dakota at 13,000 yards
BB North Carolina engages BB Yamato at 13,000 yards
DD Nokaze engages DD Dunlap at 13,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Vincennes at 13,000 yards
CA San Francisco engages DD Hatakaze at 13,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Astoria at 13,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA New Orleans at 13,000 yards
DD Meade engages DD Kasumi at 13,000 yards
DD Asashio engages DD Gansevoort at 13,000 yards
CA Chester engages DD Amatsukaze at 13,000 yards
DD O'Brien engages DD Hayashio at 13,000 yards
DD Cushing engages DD Hayashio at 13,000 yards
DD Nokaze engages DD Case at 13,000 yards
DD Hatakaze engages DD Morris at 13,000 yards
DD Amatsukaze engages DD O'Brien at 13,000 yards
DD Hayashio engages DD Gansevoort at 13,000 yards
DD Amatsukaze engages DD Frazier at 13,000 yards
DD Yanagi engages DD Caldwell at 13,000 yards
Task forces break off...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Makassar at 65,105, Range 10,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
BB Yamato, Shell hits 9, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Nokaze, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
BB North Carolina
BB Prince of Wales
CA Indianapolis
CA Pensacola
CA Salt Lake City
CA New Orleans
CA Astoria
CA San Francisco
CA Vincennes
CA Dorsetshire
DD Buchanan
DD Barton
DD Woodworth
DD Caldwell
DD Frazier, on fire
DD Gansevoort, on fire
DD Meade
DD O'Brien
DD Walke
DD Morris
DD Dunlap, on fire

Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions and 60% moonlight: 11,000 yards
Range closes to 27,000 yards...
Range closes to 25,000 yards...
Range closes to 23,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 23,000 yards
Range closes to 21,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 21,000 yards
Range closes to 19,000 yards...
Range closes to 17,000 yards...
Range closes to 15,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 15,000 yards
Range closes to 13,000 yards...
Range closes to 11,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 11,000 yards
Range closes to 10,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 10,000 yards
BB Yamato engages BB North Carolina at 10,000 yards
BB Yamato engages BB North Carolina at 10,000 yards
BB Yamato engages DD Walke at 10,000 yards
BB Yamato engages BB Prince of Wales at 10,000 yards
BB Yamato engages BB North Carolina at 10,000 yards
Range closes to 6,000 yards
BB Yamato engages BB North Carolina at 6,000 yards
BB Yamato engages BB North Carolina at 6,000 yards
Range closes to 2,000 yards
BB Yamato engages BB Prince of Wales at 2,000 yards
DD Nokaze engages DD Walke at 2,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Pensacola at 2,000 yards
DD Nokaze engages DD O'Brien at 2,000 yards
BB Prince of Wales engages BB Yamato at 2,000 yards
DD Nokaze sunk by DD Woodworth at 2,000 yards
Japanese Task Force Manages to Escape
Task forces break off...

(in reply to Ambassador)

Post #: 37

RE: The R's - 9/13/2020 1:10:53 PM

Ambassador

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline

In a surface engagement, the RN is not to be snubbed.

(in reply to Runnersan)

Post #: 38

RE: The R's - 9/13/2020 8:21:42 PM

fcooke

Posts: 1156
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Boston, London, Hoboken, now Warwick, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

It always struck me as odd that the Rs were built in the first place. The QEs were the best BBs of their time and should likely have just been replicated instead of doing the Rs. That said the Brits were all over the place with naval design at the time. BCs as ships of the line was pretty much put to rest at Jutland but still got Repulse, Renown and Hood. Which didn't end well for 2 of the three once WW2 rolled around. And then the oddly designed Courageous class, which ended up being converted to carriers, which made them useful.

And then in WW2 tank design in the UK was all over the place. Too many designs and dispersion of resources. But perhaps there was just a desire for diversity and change (like my wife ).

IIRC Churchill had made a pitch to take some turrets off the Rs to lighten them / decrease their draft so that they could sail into the Baltic. The guy was a great war leader but he came up with some 'out there' ideas at times.

It was a cost saving measure build the R class that way.

The only people who like fairly constant change, cry if they don't get it, are happier when it comes, are babies. It sounds like you are not one of those . . .

You just described my better half. She makes the changes and I get to deal with the delivery companies, utility companies, shifting furniture, etc. I just want to hang in the hammock and enjoy retirement and the dogs.

(in reply to RangerJoe)

Post #: 39

RE: The R's - 9/14/2020 2:10:09 AM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

I just want to hang in the hammock and enjoy retirement and the dogs.

Then maybe you should do what I did, get a divorce.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to fcooke)

Post #: 40

RE: The R's - 9/23/2020 8:20:07 PM

Alamander

Posts: 147
Joined: 4/29/2020
Status: offline

One of the R's in action in my game against Mike, serving, I think, as an amphibious escort. These ships really aren't very helpful for most things. I suppose if you can bring them to bear 2 v. 1 against an isolated Japanese BB in narrow straits, they can be effective, given the quality of crew and so forth, but even as convoy escorts they lack the basic AA armaments necessary to do much more than serve as damage soaks: high-priced damage soaks. Even in this role, they do not perform well. A few CLs would serve better, IMO.

These were some cracker-jack pilots. At least a ship with a decent AA package could have shot down some first-rate pilots. As it was, I lost only 1 pilot in the attack.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Koggala at 32,57

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 77 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 28 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 30
B5N1 Kate x 10
D3A1 Val x 16

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N1 Kate: 1 damaged
D3A1 Val: 3 damaged

Allied Ships
xAP Tabinta, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
CA Cornwall, Bomb hits 2
xAP Takliwa, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
BB Royal Sovereign, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 3
xAK Arkaba, Bomb hits 1

Allied ground losses:
2135 casualties reported
Squads: 54 destroyed, 15 disabled
Non Combat: 139 destroyed, 55 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 6 (6 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Vehicles lost 30 (25 destroyed, 5 disabled)

Morning Air attack on TF, near Koggala at 32,57

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 79 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 29 minutes

Japanese aircraft
B5N2 Kate x 11
D3A1 Val x 25

Japanese aircraft losses
D3A1 Val: 4 damaged

Allied Ships
BB Royal Sovereign, Bomb hits 13, on fire
xAP Tiradentes, Bomb hits 2
xAK Dagfred, Bomb hits 6, heavy fires
xAP Empire Kohinoor, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
xAP Corio, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AK Bellatrix, Bomb hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Mendoza, Bomb hits 7, heavy fires, heavy damage

Allied ground losses:
2042 casualties reported
Squads: 31 destroyed, 26 disabled
Non Combat: 93 destroyed, 103 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 20 (18 destroyed, 2 disabled)
Vehicles lost 55 (25 destroyed, 30 disabled)

Morning Air attack on TF, near Koggala at 32,57

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 10 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
B5N1 Kate x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N1 Kate: 2 damaged
B5N1 Kate: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied Ships
BB Royal Sovereign, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
xAP Empire Tugela, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage

Allied ground losses:
215 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 6 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 26 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 5 (1 destroyed, 4 disabled)

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Koggala at 32,57

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 78 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 33 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 40
B5N1 Kate x 17
B5N2 Kate x 13

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N1 Kate: 4 damaged
B5N1 Kate: 1 destroyed by flak
B5N2 Kate: 3 damaged

Allied Ships
AMC Chitral, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
xAK City of Manchester
BB Royal Sovereign, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
xAP Tabinta, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAP Kota Radja, Torpedo hits 2, on fire
DD Anderson
xAP Maetsuycker, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AK Bellatrix, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage

Allied ground losses:
195 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 39 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 3 (1 destroyed, 2 disabled)
Vehicles lost 10 (2 destroyed, 8 disabled)

< Message edited by Alamander -- 9/23/2020 8:24:07 PM >

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 41

RE: The R's - 9/23/2020 8:44:36 PM

RangerJoe

Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

It looks like those ships were misused. There were no defending fighters.

_____________________________

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 Alamander)

Post #: 42

RE: The R's - 9/23/2020 8:44:49 PM

Ian R

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline

I have a question:

Did your amphibious TF (or transport?) come within strike range of what looks like an IJ air combat TF with at least two carriers (and one + fleet carrier with Vals), with no fighter cover? If so ...

The Royal Sovereign's fate is fairly typical of what would happen to any BB caught by highly trained early war IJN Kate crews - who apparently scored 7 hits from 10 torpedoes carried in the first strike, 5 from 11 in the second, then 3 from 6, and then only 10 in the last strike - but I suspect not all the 30 Kates were carrying torpedoes by then given ordnance limits. Basically those Kate crews were striking at a 50+% hit rate, subject to fog of war.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Alamander)

Post #: 43

RE: The R's - 9/23/2020 10:36:45 PM

Alamander

Posts: 147
Joined: 4/29/2020
Status: offline

The point that I am trying to make, I think, is that BBs in amphibious groups, in my opinion, especially these R-class BBs with almost no AA package, offer nothing to the group, extract little from attackers, and are simply big floating targets which ensure that even non-aggressive CV commanders will launch a full, or near-full, strike package against the TF.

In this case, there were allied CVs nearby. The TF commanders were Fujita and and a CV commander, both with aggression ratings in the low 50s. The range was 7 hexes and multiple elements of both the morning and afternoon packages did not arrive at the target. Had all the planes arrived, it would have been close to a full-strike package. With enemy CVs nearby and detected, Fujita does not launch a full strike package at that amphibious group, in my opinion, if it does not contain that BB. In this case, Royal Sovereign did more to harm the amphibious group than to help it. Sovereign did not even shoot down a single plane. The AMC shot down the Kate and killed the pilot: the only Japanese casualty.

I have been patrolling the entrance to the Indian Ocean almost regularly with at least subs, often other pickets, and sometimes even CVs, for 6 months. I had a good inkling from various means that something big was in the works. For Op sec reasons, I can't divulge more than that or how I knew, almost exactly, where the TF would be. It was moving to rendezvous with a CV group for air-cover and was 1 day away from doing so.

It is not as though Mike was sending it in randomly without air cover. I just happened upon it on the only day it would have been vulnerable to air attack. I'm sure it was covered by LBA the day prior and would have been covered by CV air the next day. It was a hit-and-run strike that worked out for me.

< Message edited by Alamander -- 9/23/2020 10:38:09 PM >

(in reply to Ian R)

Post #: 44

RE: The R's - 9/23/2020 11:11:56 PM

Ian R

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline

You are IMHO reaching the wrong conclusion.

The problem here was not that the BB attracted attention. The problem is that your opponent was performing an amphib OP (with xAP and xAK... so slow unloads as well) without first establishing air superiority.
In the face of enemy carriers (which likely have more strike power than RN carriers). What is your game date? Perhaps he is trying to do too much too early. There is a reason why the USN did not commence operations on the CENTPAC axis until November 1943 - they didn't have enough carriers and enough F6Fs to establish local air superiority. This also explains the torpid pace of the advances in the Solomons/PNG - everything there had to wait for the building of air bases to push the air umbrella forward. The British/Indians didn't land anywhere until 1945, despite Mr Churchill's penchant for schemes to land on Sumatra etc, because .... not enough air cover.

BBs, particularly the old slow ones like the "R"s, New Yorks, etc, are as precious as diamonds in a big amph TF conducting an assault landing. Not only do they provide immense suppressive fire at close range with multiple calibres of guns, they are a magnet for all the CD guns etc that fire at your TF. It is marvellous fun watching the various 4", 5", 6" and even 8" (203mm) hits bounce off their belt armour instead of obliterating your landing craft. I have a particular fondness for the Arkansas, and all those 12" rifles. She literally smothers well reconned shore defences. The Brooklyns with their 15 x 6" are good too where the CD guns are of equal/lesser calibre.

I am suggesting Mike simply failed to get all his ducks in a row before going on the offensive.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Alamander)

Post #: 45

RE: The R's - 9/23/2020 11:26:46 PM

Alamander

Posts: 147
Joined: 4/29/2020
Status: offline

The date is November 7th, 1942.

I'm not convinced that the CV group nearby contained only British CVs. I have a strong suspicion that U.S. CVs may have been there as well: possibly all of them. I am not sure, and this is pure speculation on my part. He may well have been thinking that a full complement of CVs in the Indian Ocean would give him local air superiority. If I had been certain that only British CVs were present, I would have moved to engage the main body and the CVs. As it was, I decided on a hit-and-run.

The Brooklyn CLs as amphibious components, I agree with completely. Coastal artillery struggles to land blows on highly maneuverable CLs.

The other problem with BBs as components of amphibious groups is that they tend to linger for several phases as ships unload, leaving them vulnerable in surface engagements as they deplete their ammunition. If used as pure bombardment groups, they discharge their munitions and leave, oftentimes reserving some ammo in case a surface battle ensues.

< Message edited by Alamander -- 9/23/2020 11:30:29 PM >

(in reply to Ian R)

Post #: 46

RE: The R's - 9/23/2020 11:29:38 PM

RangerJoe

Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

Too many Allies want to counterattack too soon. Especially with the Indian and Commonwealth forces.

_____________________________

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 Ian R)

Post #: 47

RE: The R's - 9/24/2020 1:09:04 AM

Alamander

Posts: 147
Joined: 4/29/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Too many Allies want to counterattack too soon. Especially with the Indian and Commonwealth forces.

There are far more units present in the Western theater than Indian and Commonwealth forces. There is a large U.S. expeditionary force there as well. It's going to be quite a battle for Burma coming up. It has been brewing for some time.

He seems rather intent on trying to trap a large body of Japanese forces there, so I am going to have to fight it out. I might have considering withdrawing from the central Burma plain (though not Rangoon) without much of a fight if he would have pushed along a broad front, as I can no longer count on air superiority with the P-40Ks and P-38s coming in,. As it is, I have a lot of chips in that pot, and I am not going to leave them there for the taking without a massive battle.

< Message edited by Alamander -- 9/24/2020 1:10:23 AM >

(in reply to RangerJoe)

Post #: 48

RE: The R's - 9/24/2020 1:14:23 AM

BBfanboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alamander

The date is November 7th, 1942.

I'm not convinced that the CV group nearby contained only British CVs. I have a strong suspicion that U.S. CVs may have been there as well: possibly all of them. I am not sure, and this is pure speculation on my part. He may well have been thinking that a full complement of CVs in the Indian Ocean would give him local air superiority. If I had been certain that only British CVs were present, I would have moved to engage the main body and the CVs. As it was, I decided on a hit-and-run.

The Brooklyn CLs as amphibious components, I agree with completely. Coastal artillery struggles to land blows on highly maneuverable CLs.

The other problem with BBs as components of amphibious groups is that they tend to linger for several phases as ships unload, leaving them vulnerable in surface engagements as they deplete their ammunition. If used as pure bombardment groups, they discharge their munitions and leave, oftentimes reserving some ammo in case a surface battle ensues.

You need to plan for the BBs using up most of their ammo on the first turn of landing. If I expect the landings to go on for more than one turn, I have another set of BBs or CAs to swap into the landing force and remove the low ammo BBs to go back somewhere and replenish. This is all part of the ballet that you must organize to do a big amphib landing. It takes about half a dozen landings to get good at organizing everything from minesweeping to ASW to bombardment to surface protection to air cover to HQm support to cycling out damaged/empty ships, etc.

_____________________________

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 Alamander)

Post #: 49

RE: The R's - 9/24/2020 8:32:51 PM

Alamander

Posts: 147
Joined: 4/29/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
You need to plan for the BBs using up most of their ammo on the first turn of landing. If I expect the landings to go on for more than one turn, I have another set of BBs or CAs to swap into the landing force and remove the low ammo BBs to go back somewhere and replenish. This is all part of the ballet that you must organize to do a big amphib landing. It takes about half a dozen landings to get good at organizing everything from minesweeping to ASW to bombardment to surface protection to air cover to HQm support to cycling out damaged/empty ships, etc.

Lol... As a Japanese player, I don't have the luxury of so many BBs and CAs that I can swap things in and out for an amphibious landing. I suppose if you orchestrate it all and provide cover to retiring ships... . Just be wary of crafty Japanese players who don't like to attack landing sites so much as to maneuver to attack support ships and Oilers, which always seem to be standing off about 2 or 3 days sailing. I don't know anyone like that... lol.

< Message edited by Alamander -- 9/24/2020 8:34:15 PM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 50

RE: The R's - 9/25/2020 2:35:48 AM

BBfanboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alamander

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
You need to plan for the BBs using up most of their ammo on the first turn of landing. If I expect the landings to go on for more than one turn, I have another set of BBs or CAs to swap into the landing force and remove the low ammo BBs to go back somewhere and replenish. This is all part of the ballet that you must organize to do a big amphib landing. It takes about half a dozen landings to get good at organizing everything from minesweeping to ASW to bombardment to surface protection to air cover to HQm support to cycling out damaged/empty ships, etc.

Lol... As a Japanese player, I don't have the luxury of so many BBs and CAs that I can swap things in and out for an amphibious landing. I suppose if you orchestrate it all and provide cover to retiring ships... . Just be wary of crafty Japanese players who don't like to attack landing sites so much as to maneuver to attack support ships and Oilers, which always seem to be standing off about 2 or 3 days sailing. I don't know anyone like that... lol.

It's a matter of scale. When the Japanese are doing their landings almost all of their targets are weakly held and weakly defended by mines and CD guns - you don't need any BBs embedded with the amphibs.
By the time the Allies get large scale invasions going, the Japanese have built vicious defences at every worthwhile target.

_____________________________

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 Alamander)

Post #: 51

RE: The R's - 9/25/2020 5:08:57 AM

Alamander

Posts: 147
Joined: 4/29/2020
Status: offline

I guess I have to agree that if you are going to land at spot with a coastal fortress with heavy guns, such as Truk, BBs embedded in the amphibious group are helpful when combined with other BBs doing standard bombardment missions to bring to bear as much firepower as possible while also using absorbing some potential hits that might otherwise land on APAs and the like.

Keep in mind though that there are only a couple of coastal defense batteries that are not static and these do not contain the heaviest guns. There are also some base forces that have some lighter dual-purpose guns that can ransack poorly executed landings. Again, however, these contain light guns and nothing that would be very threatening even to a CL.

Hence, my question earlier about using Japanese 10 cm and 15 cm guns as auxiliary coastal defense batteries. The problem, however, is that these are also the best counter-battery weapons that Japan has, and most divisions, if they have anything heavier than 75 mm guns, usually have the 15 cm howitzers that are not effective as coastal defense auxiliaries (especially against embedded BBs).

I am trying out some of my 10 cm and 15 cm guns in my current game at likely landing spots (though only some, since I want the rest for counter-battery fire against allied siege stacks). I will let you know how it works out and how they fare against allied BBs and so forth.

< Message edited by Alamander -- 9/25/2020 5:12:35 AM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 52

RE: The R's - 9/25/2020 6:23:38 AM

BBfanboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alamander

I guess I have to agree that if you are going to land at spot with a coastal fortress with heavy guns, such as Truk, BBs embedded in the amphibious group are helpful when combined with other BBs doing standard bombardment missions to bring to bear as much firepower as possible while also using absorbing some potential hits that might otherwise land on APAs and the like.

Keep in mind though that there are only a couple of coastal defense batteries that are not static and these do not contain the heaviest guns. There are also some base forces that have some lighter dual-purpose guns that can ransack poorly executed landings. Again, however, these contain light guns and nothing that would be very threatening even to a CL.

Hence, my question earlier about using Japanese 10 cm and 15 cm guns as auxiliary coastal defense batteries. The problem, however, is that these are also the best counter-battery weapons that Japan has, and most divisions, if they have anything heavier than 75 mm guns, usually have the 15 cm howitzers that are not effective as coastal defense auxiliaries (especially against embedded BBs).

I am trying out some of my 10 cm and 15 cm guns in my current game at likely landing spots (though only some, since I want the rest for counter-battery fire against allied siege stacks). I will let you know how it works out and how they fare against allied BBs and so forth.

As I understand it, the game does not allow land-based artillery to fire against bombarding ships unless it is a Coast Defence/Naval Fort unit or has DP guns. Standard artillery will not return suppressing fire, but will fire at landing troops.

_____________________________

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 Alamander)

Post #: 53

RE: The R's - 9/25/2020 7:48:26 AM

Ambassador

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alamander

The other problem with BBs as components of amphibious groups is that they tend to linger for several phases as ships unload, leaving them vulnerable in surface engagements as they deplete their ammunition. If used as pure bombardment groups, they discharge their munitions and leave, oftentimes reserving some ammo in case a surface battle ensues.

Besides what BBfanboy said about swapping big-guns in and out of amphib TF to replenish their ammo, I believe your basic misconception is what the BB are used for in an amphib TF.

They�re not there to defend against air attacks - that�s what you LBA or CV fighters are there for. A CV TF should not just linger nearby, to attack KB when it shows, but actively provide LRCAP to fend off attacks. Lack of CAP means the attack runs are not disrupted, hence the high success rates of the attacks. Plus, in �42 there are not many ships with great AAA ratings anyway,

Likewise, they�re not there to defend against ship attacks - that�s what your dedicated SAG groups (with an ��s�� at groups) are for, with more modern ships. And a strong air arm to deter attackers.

BBs in an amphib TF are only there to defend against coastal defenses. Lighter ships, like the Brooklyns, risk heavy damage if they get roughed up by 6- or 8-inch CD, and they attract less fire from CD than heavier supports. Even if they�re not at risk of sinking, it means they�ll spend more time in the repair yard, and you�ll have less support available for future amphibious (leading either to a slowed pace of progression or more damage on your landing ships). However, BBs will get at most a few points of sys damage, while being focused more by the CD guns, and thus your amphib TF as a whole suffers less damage.
With their many guns (main battery of 8x15in, secondary of 8x6in), the R-class BB will also pack more punch to disrupt the enemy LCU, be they CD or infantry. Same for the Arkansas, New York - they all keep a full secondary battery of naval guns, very good for amphibious support

As for ammo, that�s what AE (and AKE, if you can get a nearby undefended base to invade as a forward support) are there for. If, as the Allies, you try to invade somewhere without a full train of various TF (multiple SAG, multiple ASW, CV, preferably CVE too, minesweepers, various tenders, dedicated supply amphib TF, etc), you�re not doing your job really well.

As Japan though, if you invade somewhere heavily defended, you�re not doing your job really well. Past �42, even sometimes past mid-�42, Japan just can�t invade successfully - or at least, as an AFB I�d be delighted to see my IJ opponent try and invade beyond the RL goals and overextend itself, presenting a host of possibilities to increase the attrition. So, it doesn�t matter that IJ has less BB or CA overall to have multiple heavy supports and swap them to replenish ammo, or provided dedicated SAG - they shouldn�t be attacking, at least not somewhere needing any such heavy support to be successful. It�s a waste of ressources.

And finally, places with so many CD guns as True should simply not be invaded, but bypassed, unless your opponent has been sloppy enough to rely only on the big guns and didn�t bring additional infantry and artillery. If he did, then bomb the thing out to hell, and then invade, but usually those places can be safely just bypassed after being bombed heavily (and regularly).

Back on your battle report, it boils down to ��what did he expect�? � as there lies a TF with anemic AAA (Kent-class CA like the Cornwall have weak AA until �44, and only one DD appeared ?), provided no air-cover to by a nearby CV TF (according to you) ? If your opponent is half-proficient, I can only infer from the hex coordinate (13 hexes out of the Andamans) that he didn�t expect to stumble on your CVs so far out (I even wonder myself what your CVs were doing there, apart of accumulating wear and tear and risking ops losses, unless you were underway for some raiding around the IO), but even without factoring KB in the equation, there�s a risk of being attacked by G3M/G4M, with the same result. So, LRCAP was needed anyway.
And then, what�s an amphib TF doing there ? Invading the Andamans with a slow TF and inadequate air cover ? Even if he brought the US CV (but then, why didn�t he bring better US CA/CL to provide more AAA for the amphib TF ?), he�s still be facing an invasion, early war, against a target which can be supported on the IJ side by multiple airfields and large LBA, including out of the top of my head at least four AF4 (Rangoon, Tavoy, Victoria Point, Moulmein), not counting any he could have built up like Sabang, all of which are within range of A6M cover.
If it wasn�t an amphibious assault on the Andamans, I�d say ��what were they doing there ?�� instead, because they�re again within range of LBA on Sumatra or the Andamans, or in Burma. So, a convoy to Calcutta/Chittagong area should not venture so far in the south, while a convoy to Australia should not venture so far east.
OTOH, if your opponent is a little more than half-competent, it might have been a decoy, and now you�ve revealed the localisation of at least two fleet CVs, half-way around to globe of the probable main attack...

(in reply to Alamander)

Post #: 54

RE: The R's - 9/25/2020 7:56:35 AM

Ian R

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador
it might have been a decoy, and now you�ve revealed the localisation of at least two fleet CVs, half-way around to globe of the probable main attack...

The thought did occur. That BB withdraws in about 12 months anyway, and he only used xA* ships. The loss of squads is probably more of a mid term problem.

Having said that, Alamander's opponent should be doing it 11-43, not 11-42, IMHO

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Ambassador)

Post #: 55

RE: The R's - 9/25/2020 9:15:39 AM

Ambassador

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador
it might have been a decoy, and now you�ve revealed the localisation of at least two fleet CVs, half-way around to globe of the probable main attack...

The thought did occur. That BB withdraws in about 12 months anyway, and he only used xA* ships. The loss of squads is probably more of a mid term problem.

Having said that, Alamander's opponent should be doing it 11-43, not 11-42, IMHO

I checked the withdrawal date of Royal Sovereign, otherwise I�d have been more certain it was a decoy. A year early is a bit much, though, albeit it might be the point, to serve as a less obvious throwaway decoy.
As for squads, we don�t know what those are. It might have been a bunch of cheap Chinese infantry (or not really useful CW).

But I agree with you on the timetable, if this isn�t a diversion. Such an assault should only be done in �43. To do a coup in the Andamans that early, you need fast ships like APD, and/or to be sure the IJ CV assets (and most LBA) are busy elsewhere, far out.
Or, if it�s a full-blown assault, it would warrant far more escorts and supports than one BB and one CA anyway, especially if, as Alemander suspects, the US CVs have come to the IO.

(in reply to Ian R)

Post #: 56

RE: The R's - 9/25/2020 10:19:51 AM

Alamander

Posts: 147
Joined: 4/29/2020
Status: offline

Oh... it was no decoy. It was moving south from Ceylon to link up with what appeared to be 2 other divisions, at least 2 heavy SAG/bombardments groups, including serious BBs, such as Colorado, what I suspect was a group of AOs, and at least 1, probably more CV TFs. It was pretty well orchestrated, and they would have linked up the next day. The day before, he was under LBA cover from Ceylon, so it was one day out of air-cover in the western Bay of Bengal, where, I am sure, he did not expect to encounter a CVTF.

What was my air combat TF doing out there? Well... as I say, I suspected from a couple of sources that something big was in the works. I knew, with some degree of accuracy (exactly, as it turns out), where the 2 groups would finish their moves. I actually had something else in mind for that group, but as several sources began to indicate that big moves were happening, they moved to intercept.

The allied amphibious operation was timed to coincide with a major offensive in Burma, which has now begun. The game is a bit unusual in that I took the northern island of New Zealand, along with Suva, New Caledonia, and so forth so as to cut off Australia from access via the Pacific. Mike responded by sending a lot of troops via the Magellan route west and into India. There is a large U.S. expeditionary force and most of the USAAF is in India right now: for a total, when combined with the British units, of about 300 bombers and 500 fighters.

I suspect that plan involved massive attacks on my airfields to limit my ability to respond with LBA to the invasion. The massive airfield attacks have begun, it would seem, regardless, and it is a decisive moment in the game. We both have a lot committed to the western theater, and the next couple of days will decide, in my opinion, how the war will go.

It was no feint. It is the center of all activity in the game right now.

< Message edited by Alamander -- 9/25/2020 10:25:34 AM >

(in reply to Ambassador)

Post #: 57

RE: The R's - 9/25/2020 10:46:32 AM

Alamander

Posts: 147
Joined: 4/29/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

As I understand it, the game does not allow land-based artillery to fire against bombarding ships unless it is a Coast Defence/Naval Fort unit or has DP guns. Standard artillery will not return suppressing fire, but will fire at landing troops.

That is my understanding as well. Standard artillery units will not fire on bombardment TFs. They do seem to fire on amphibious TFs, however, which is the entire point that I am making about BBs in amphibious groups and using some 10 cm and 15 cm guns to try to take advantage of this type of TF construction.

< Message edited by Alamander -- 9/25/2020 10:47:25 AM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 58

RE: The R's - 9/25/2020 11:01:12 AM

Ian R

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alamander

Oh... it was no decoy... Snipped but I read it.

Sounds like your clever ploy bagged a follow up TF with a base force on board.

You might want to lower the volume on the self congratulation here. I am starting to like Mike's work.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Alamander)

Post #: 59

RE: The R's - 9/25/2020 1:36:55 PM

Alamander

Posts: 147
Joined: 4/29/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alamander

Sounds like your clever ploy bagged a follow up TF with a base force on board.

You might want to lower the volume on the self congratulation here. I am starting to like Mike's work.

I am not congratulating myself. The point that I was making was to suggest that while BBs may have a role in some amphibious groups (as BBFanboy notes), they can do more harm than good.

The conversation was sidetracked a bit. Several folk suggested that my opponent was being careless, and my intent was to defend him by stating that he was not being careless and that he had planned it out pretty well from the looks of it on my end. Of course, you are free to read whatever you want into intent and make whatever sorts of judgements you deem fit.

(in reply to Ian R)