RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message


tsimmonds -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/18/2006 4:14:44 PM)

One single bombardment at night. Presumably they don't do another because they don't want to shoot off all their bullets.




treespider -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/18/2006 4:29:27 PM)

Patrol/ Do not retire vs retirement allowed?




tsimmonds -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/18/2006 4:39:08 PM)

Patrol. It switches to an SCTF afterwards.




treespider -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/18/2006 4:49:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Patrol. It switches to an SCTF afterwards.



My guess is mog's is retirement allowed. Your TF spends more time on target thus expending more ammo.




mogami -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/18/2006 4:55:55 PM)

Hi, I wonder if this is why I do not get those "Nuke attack" bombardment results so often seen. My TF are only firing 2 rounds while others are firing 6.




treespider -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/18/2006 4:57:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I wonder if this is why I do not get those "Nuke attack" bombardment results so often seen. My TF are only firing 2 rounds while others are firing 6.



I'm curious how the 'nukes' are set up? Are they Patrol/ DNR or Retirement allowed?




mogami -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/18/2006 5:06:16 PM)

Hi, Since I have not played the Allies to where I conduct any opposed landings I never have TF that remain in hex bombarding both phases. Most of my bombardments are part of operations attempting to gain air control prior to moving transports. even where as Japan I control the air my TF do the hit and run. I don't think I've ever had a 1 hex target. I would either already control the air and thus not need to bombard or I would not control the air and so not have TF that close to enemy base. It is not good to be within 6 hexes of operating enemy airfield during daylight.




tsimmonds -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/18/2006 5:09:10 PM)

I just did one of these with Lee's fast BBs, and it caused 250 casualties on a combat unit (the only IJ LCU left on Saipan). That was the turn it finally died.




treespider -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/18/2006 5:09:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Since I have not played the Allies to where I conduct any opposed landings I never have TF that remain in hex bombarding both phases. Most of my bombardments are part of operations attempting to gain air control prior to moving transports. even where as Japan I control the air my TF do the hit and run. I don't think I've ever had a 1 hex target. I would either already control the air and thus not need to bombard or I would not control the air and so not have TF that close to enemy base. It is not good to be within 6 hexes of operating enemy airfield during daylight.



So you are using your Bombardment TF's as to shut down AF's...

I imagine others are using them as -- soften up and disrupt the enemy ground forces bombardments.




mogami -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/18/2006 5:17:29 PM)

Hi, Yes my most common use for bombardment TF are to target enemy airfields. I soften up ground forces by denying supply movement and bombing supply levels via air. I do like to have the bombardment mission the same turn my troops begin to land in a hex but this only occurs after the base has been isolated for a number of turns and subject to repeated air attacks. I don't like having my TF in range of enemy air. The worst possible result (which I obtain repeatedly) is where my TF fails to damage or close the enemy field and my TF are not out of range at daylight. I get this horrid result almost every time I attempt to bombard Noumea. I don't think I've ever had a mission actually achive the desired result against that target. I've pounded Baker and Canton Islands with good results but never Noumea. (As Japan my offensive Operations have stalled against Noumea more times then I care to relate.) If i was not so stubborn I'd just do what every Japanese player does against me and land there in Dec 1941.




treespider -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/18/2006 5:22:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Yes my most common use for bombardment TF are to target enemy airfields. I soften up ground forces by denying supply movement and bombing supply levels via air. I do like to have the bombardment mission the same turn my troops begin to land in a hex but this only occurs after the base has been isolated for a number of turns and subject to repeated air attacks. I don't like having my TF in range of enemy air. The worst possible result (which I obtain repeatedly) is where my TF fails to damage or close the enemy field and my TF are not out of range at daylight. I get this horrid result almost every time I attempt to bombard Noumea. I don't think I've ever had a mission actually achive the desired result against that target. I've pounded Baker and Canton Islands with good results but never Noumea. (As Japan my offensive Operations have stalled against Noumea more times then I care to relate.) If i was not so stubborn I'd just do what every Japanese player does against me and land there in Dec 1941.


I'm curious if the Port at Noumea due to its size is absorbing some of the damage that (edit) : otherwise would normally be absorbed by the AF with a smaller port ?




VladViscious -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/18/2006 5:55:51 PM)

Anyone have any idea if the very high Maneuver ratings for the transports are causing some of the misses, and low hit rates of surface combatants? I wonder if since they have higher maneuver rates than DD's that the big guns cannot track them correctly. I am not sure what the Maneuver value controls but it seems odd that an IJN Transport has a value of 70 and a DD has 60.

TANSTAAFL!




treespider -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/18/2006 6:10:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: VladViscious

Anyone have any idea if the very high Maneuver ratings for the transports are causing some of the misses, and low hit rates of surface combatants? I wonder if since they have higher maneuver rates than DD's that the big guns cannot track them correctly. I am not sure what the Maneuver value controls but it seems odd that an IJN Transport has a value of 70 and a DD has 60.

TANSTAAFL!



Me thinks this is to represent transports that would be trying to disengage while escort ships try to fend off any attack.

Where this scenario breaks down is when the unescorted tranport TF is intercepted...then perhaps it represents the transport TF attempting to scatter.

What are the examples in history where a transport TF was intercepted or engaged by a Surface fleet? And what were the results? Are there any examples where the entire transport fleet was sunk?




Ron Saueracker -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/18/2006 6:42:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: VladViscious

Anyone have any idea if the very high Maneuver ratings for the transports are causing some of the misses, and low hit rates of surface combatants? I wonder if since they have higher maneuver rates than DD's that the big guns cannot track them correctly. I am not sure what the Maneuver value controls but it seems odd that an IJN Transport has a value of 70 and a DD has 60.

TANSTAAFL!



Me thinks this is to represent transports that would be trying to disengage while escort ships try to fend off any attack.

Where this scenario breaks down is when the unescorted tranport TF is intercepted...then perhaps it represents the transport TF attempting to scatter.

What are the examples in history where a transport TF was intercepted or engaged by a Surface fleet? And what were the results? Are there any examples where the entire transport fleet was sunk?


At 2315 on the night of the 21st, Force D intercepted a convoy of light craft and small steamers heading for Crete, escorted by the Italian destroyer Lupo. Glennie's cruisers made short work of the one sided battle. Despite the best efforts of the Lupo, which engaged the superior British force without hesitation and desperately tried to protect the convoy with smoke, all but three of the transports were sunk. The convoy was carrying over 2,000 men of the III Battalion 100 Mountain Regiment, along with heavy support weapons. Casualties were not as high as the British assumed - most of the survivors were rescued and in the final analysis only 311 men were actually killed - but as a reinforcement for the hard pressed paratroopers on Crete the unit was a write-off. With no more enemy ships in the vicinity and almost out of ammunition, Glennie turned his force south where he rendezvoused with Rawling's Battle Squadron, based around the battleships Warspite and Valiant.

9 Nov, 1941
The British Force K, made up of the British light cruisers HMS Aurora and HMS Penelope and the British destroyers HMS Lance and HMS Lively, intercept an Italian convoy some 130 south-west off Calabria in approximate position 37.08N, 18.09E. The Italian convoy is bound from Naples to Tripoli.

In the resulting battle the Italian destroyer Fulmine (1240 tons) is sunk as well as the German transports Duisburg (7389 BRT) and San Marco (3113 BRT), the Italian transports Maria (6339 BRT), Sagitta (5153 BRT) and Rina Corrado (5180 BRT), and the Italian oilers Conte di Misurata (5014 BRT) and Minatitlan (7599 BRT). The Italian destroyers Grecale and Euro are damaged. (see map)

24 Nov, 1941
The British Force K, made up of the British light cruisers HMS Aurora and HMS Penelope and the British destroyers HMS Lance and HMS Lively, intercept an Axis convoy some 100 miles west of Crete. The Axis convoy is bound from the Aegean to Bengasi.

The two German tansports in the convoy Maritza (2910 BRT) and Procida (1842 BRT) are both sunk by HMS Penelope and HMS Lively dispite the presence of the Italian torpedo boats Lupo and Cassiopea.






mogami -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/18/2006 6:58:28 PM)

Hi, on 21 May The German ships were in two convoys. A total of 63 barges and 7 captured transports. The germans lost a total of 15 ships. Not sure how many were barges or transports.




tsimmonds -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/18/2006 8:00:57 PM)

Nov 5, 1940: After the sinking of the refrigerator ship Mopan (5389 t) the Admiral Scheer attacks the convoy HX 84 at 52°45'N, 32°13'W. consisting of 37 merchants. While the auxiliary cruiser Jervis Bay defends the convoy and is sunk, the main body can escape. The total loss of HX 84 are:

Jervis Bay (14164 t)
Maidan (7908 t)
Trewellard (5201 t)
Kenbame Head (5225 t)
Beaverford (10042 t)
Fresno City (4955 t)
Three other merchants with 27844 t are damaged.




spence -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/18/2006 8:06:34 PM)

Frankly, I think merchies on both sides are either too durable or far too capable of controlling damage.




tsimmonds -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/18/2006 8:08:47 PM)

quote:

The German task force resumed patrol on 17 February. Admiral Lütjens hoped to meet up with convoy HX-111 which was eastbound. After two days of fruitless searching the Germans gave up and headed westwards. It seemed as if the Atlantic in its immensity had become barren of ships.

On 22 February the Gneisenau's lookouts reported a promising feather of smoke on the horizon. Immediately, the men went to their action stations, and the two ships put on speed to intercept. As the convoy came into closer range, the picture turned out to be disappointing. The vessels were not fat with food and war materials for Britain. They were returning to the United States. They were hardly worth the trouble of an attack.

But, as Admiral Lütjens quickly realized, he had no alternative. As soon as the convoy noticed the lean grey hulls of the battleships, with their towering super structures, the ships began to scatter. Simultaneously, the air became alive with radio signals. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had undoubtedly been identified. When the first warning shots were fired, the captains of the merchant vessels seemed to pay no attention. They maintained their courses and the chatter on the wavelengths increased. It was now almost 11:00 and Admiral Lütjens decided it was time to exercise his guns in anger.

At 10:55 the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau together sank the passenger-cargo ship Kantara (3.237 grt). Gneisenau sank at 13:12 the passenger-cargo ship Trelawny (4.689 grt). Scharnhorst dispatched the tanker Lustrous (6.156 grt). At 16:23 the Gneisenau sank the cargo ship A. D. Huff (5.866 grt) whilst Scharnhorst steamed off in pursuit of another tanker, which escaped.

A passenger-cargo ship of 5.483 grt. named the Harlesden was known to be about fifty miles away. Something had to be done about her, if only to put her wireless out of action. The crew of one of Gneisenau's seaplanes was given the task. When, about an hour later, the aircraft returned, the pilot reported that he had destroyed Harlesden's W/T aerial. He had, however, been subjected to machine gun fire. But the freighter's time was running out. She was picked up on the radar screens, pursued, and, at 23:08, sunk.

Within the last twelve hours, Gneisenau and Scharnhorst had sunk 5 ships totalling 25.431 gros registered tons. But, since the firing took place at very long range, the cost in ammunition was high. That night, Admiral Lütjens used his radio for the first time since 8 February. He reported his success and ordered the tankers Schlettstadt and Esso Hamburg to meet him at a point near the Azores.

........

quote:

15 March the German force (Uckermark) sighted several tankers steaming without escort. The killing could begin again.

The action was brief and virtually bloodless. Gneisenau captured the Norwegian tanker Bianca (5.688 grt.) at 10:20, British tanker San Casimiro (8.046 tons) at 13:40 and Norwegian tanker Polykarb (6.405 grt.) at 17:50. Prize crews were put on board with orders to sail for Bordeaux. In fact, only one (Polykarb) reached her destination. On passage, Bianca and San Casimiro encountered HMS Renown. 46 British prisoners were released, and the German sailors were taken into captivity. But, before leaving the tankers, they managed to scuttle them.

In addition to the three prizes, Gneisenau sank the British tanker Simnia (6.197 grt.). Scharnhorst sank the British tankers Athelfoam (6.554 grt.) and British Strength (7.139 grt.).

At 01.00 hours on 16 March, Uckermark and Ermland signalled that they had sighted the silhouettes of merchant vessels against the night sky. At dawn, it became clear that the fleet had steamed right into the middle of the convoy.

The Gneisenau sank the British passenger-cargo ship Rio Dorado (4.507 grt.) at 04:28, the British cargo ship Empire Industry (3.648 grt.) at 08:55, the Norwegian passenger-cargo ship Granli (1.577 grt.) at 10:22, the French passenger-cargo ship Myson (4.564 grt.) at 13:25 and the British passenger-cargo ship Royal Crown (4.364 grt.) at 15:50.

The Scharnhorst sank the Dutch (former German) freighter Mangkai (8.298 grt.), British freighter Silverfir (4.347 grt.), British freighter Demerton (5.251 grt.), British passenger-cargo ship Sardinian Prince (3.491 grt.).


These operations were considered to be extremely successful by the German OTC.





Ron Saueracker -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/18/2006 8:26:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Nov 5, 1940: After the sinking of the refrigerator ship Mopan (5389 t) the Admiral Scheer attacks the convoy HX 84 at 52°45'N, 32°13'W. consisting of 37 merchants. While the auxiliary cruiser Jervis Bay defends the convoy and is sunk, the main body can escape. The total loss of HX 84 are:

Jervis Bay (14164 t)
Maidan (7908 t)
Trewellard (5201 t)
Kenbame Head (5225 t)
Beaverford (10042 t)
Fresno City (4955 t)
Three other merchants with 27844 t are damaged.



That's the point...one warship is capable of doing this level of damage despite an AMC sacrificing itself so the merchies can scatter. In WITP a TF can't do this even with one or no escorts.




mogami -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/18/2006 8:44:33 PM)

Hi, I bet if anyone cared to they could go to our AAR forum and collect several hundred examples of Transport with escorts losing transports to enemy surface attack. escorts do not make the transports immune to attack. (just a little bit harder)
Also BOMBARDMENT TF that encounter an enemy TF other then a surface combat TF do not pursue or remain in engagment long. They are conducting another mission.
Surface Combat TF that encounter Transport TF eat them up. when you make a TF make up your mind on what mssion you want it to complete. Much of the complaints resulting from encounters are players wanting to accomplish everything. They want their Bombardment TF to sink every enemy ship in the target hex and then clobber the base as well.
In the game with Tom H my SURFACE COMBAT TF wiped out entire TF escorts and all on more then one occasion at more then one location.




tsimmonds -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/18/2006 9:47:00 PM)

BTW, IJN ain't the only ones who can get slammajamma bombardments:

quote:

Naval bombardment of Tinian, at 63,65

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
L1N1 Thora: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
CA Wichita
CA San Francisco
CA Minneapolis
CA New Orleans
BB New Jersey
BB Iowa
BB Alabama
BB Indiana
BB South Dakota
BB Washington
BB North Carolina

Japanese ground losses:
6875 casualties reported
Guns lost 29

Airbase hits 49
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 231
Port hits 5
Port fuel hits 6
Port supply hits 9


This TF began the turn in an adjacent hex. In addition to combat units, there are a number of IJ support-type units present (presumably most of the casualties came from these). The ships fired 2/3s of their main battery ammo. The bombardment TF was set to patrol, escorts do not bombard. The bombardment took place entirely in one phase, at night.




Ron Saueracker -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/18/2006 10:21:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I bet if anyone cared to they could go to our AAR forum and collect several hundred examples of Transport with escorts losing transports to enemy surface attack. escorts do not make the transports immune to attack. (just a little bit harder)
Also BOMBARDMENT TF that encounter an enemy TF other then a surface combat TF do not pursue or remain in engagment long. They are conducting another mission.
Surface Combat TF that encounter Transport TF eat them up. when you make a TF make up your mind on what mssion you want it to complete. Much of the complaints resulting from encounters are players wanting to accomplish everything. They want their Bombardment TF to sink every enemy ship in the target hex and then clobber the base as well.
In the game with Tom H my SURFACE COMBAT TF wiped out entire TF escorts and all on more then one occasion at more then one location.


"Surface Combat TF that encounter Transport TF eat them up."Unfortunately, no they don't. I have four examples in my AAR alone, and three of those examples are of a cruiser/destroyer TF making a mid ocean intercept on the same transport TF three days in a row. Guess what happenned. The escorts were heroic like at Samar each time, and the only transports that were hit repeatedly were hit on the third day after all the escorts were sunk. Must have been a female vegan surface combat TF. The other was one, same situation really, with Doorman, high aggression etc, he did not even sink an escort because basically no shots were fired and the TFs broke off!

"Much of the complaints resulting from encounters are players wanting to accomplish everything"Again, I can't agree. Most of the compalints come because extreme results are usually the norm, when one expects the opposite.

'In the game with Tom H my SURFACE COMBAT TF wiped out entire TF escorts and all on more then one occasion at more then one location.
'
I'm looking for these examples now.




tsimmonds -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/18/2006 10:37:08 PM)

Just dredge up my Trincomalee disaster from last May or so if you want to see some smokin' hot SCTFs[:D]




spence -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/18/2006 10:42:19 PM)

quote:

"Surface Combat TF that encounter Transport TF eat them up."Unfortunately, no they don't. I have four examples in my AAR alone, and three of those examples are of a cruiser/destroyer TF making a mid ocean intercept on the same transport TF three days in a row. Guess what happenned. The escorts were heroic like at Samar each time, and the only transports that were hit repeatedly were hit on the third day after all the escorts were sunk. Must have been a female vegan surface combat TF. The other was one, same situation really, with Doorman, high aggression etc, he did not even sink an escort because basically no shots were fired and the TFs broke off!


I had identical results. 3 successive intercepts by a cruiser/destroyer TF of a transport TF escorted by minesweeps and PCs (1 in their intended landing hex, Davao and then 2 more in mid-ocean on subsequent turns - my ships got to replenish in between too whereas the Transports didn't). Sank most of the escorts and 3-4 transports but out of 15 that seems awfully poor - most of the 56th Brigade got away. And then to top it off Ryujo shows up and cripples all my cruisers. I mentioned the first two fights earlier in this thread...the third indecisive intercept followed by the crushing air attack just completely disgusted me.




Big B -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/18/2006 10:51:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

"Surface Combat TF that encounter Transport TF eat them up."Unfortunately, no they don't. I have four examples in my AAR alone, and three of those examples are of a cruiser/destroyer TF making a mid ocean intercept on the same transport TF three days in a row. Guess what happenned. The escorts were heroic like at Samar each time, and the only transports that were hit repeatedly were hit on the third day after all the escorts were sunk. Must have been a female vegan surface combat TF. The other was one, same situation really, with Doorman, high aggression etc, he did not even sink an escort because basically no shots were fired and the TFs broke off!


I had identical results. 3 successive intercepts by a cruiser/destroyer TF of a transport TF escorted by minesweeps and PCs (1 in their intended landing hex, Davao and then 2 more in mid-ocean on subsequent turns - my ships got to replenish in between too whereas the Transports didn't). Sank most of the escorts and 3-4 transports but out of 15 that seems awfully poor - most of the 56th Brigade got away. And then to top it off Ryujo shows up and cripples all my cruisers. I mentioned the first two fights earlier in this thread...the third indecisive intercept followed by the crushing air attack just completely disgusted me.


Spence,
Do you think it would have gone better had your ships had a higher experience rating?
Just curious.

B




treespider -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/18/2006 10:53:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

"Surface Combat TF that encounter Transport TF eat them up."Unfortunately, no they don't. I have four examples in my AAR alone, and three of those examples are of a cruiser/destroyer TF making a mid ocean intercept on the same transport TF three days in a row. Guess what happenned. The escorts were heroic like at Samar each time, and the only transports that were hit repeatedly were hit on the third day after all the escorts were sunk. Must have been a female vegan surface combat TF. The other was one, same situation really, with Doorman, high aggression etc, he did not even sink an escort because basically no shots were fired and the TFs broke off!


I had identical results. 3 successive intercepts by a cruiser/destroyer TF of a transport TF escorted by minesweeps and PCs (1 in their intended landing hex, Davao and then 2 more in mid-ocean on subsequent turns - my ships got to replenish in between too whereas the Transports didn't). Sank most of the escorts and 3-4 transports but out of 15 that seems awfully poor - most of the 56th Brigade got away. And then to top it off Ryujo shows up and cripples all my cruisers. I mentioned the first two fights earlier in this thread...the third indecisive intercept followed by the crushing air attack just completely disgusted me.




Perhaps your cruiser TF commander had intel the Ryujo was in the area and was unsure of its location and was hesitant about pressing his attack on the transports...see the Feb 22 attack described above.




mogami -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/18/2006 11:08:39 PM)

Hi, If you ever play Oznoyng be warned. He has a great abilty to detect transport TF in open ocean and get his surface combat TF in the right hex. I lost many AP/AK/AO/TK in surface actions in open ocean and after I moved my transit lanes 20 hexes further away from his bases I still suffered several mid ocean intercepts. I don't think he would agree that SCTF cannot sink escorted transports (but he might say he wished he got more of them) He always wiped out my escorts and clobbered the TF. (big fat transport TF and always the loaded ones even when an equally large empty TF was going the other direction in an ajacent hex)




mogami -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/18/2006 11:27:36 PM)



quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Nov 5, 1940: After the sinking of the refrigerator ship Mopan (5389 t) the Admiral Scheer attacks the convoy HX 84 at 52°45'N, 32°13'W. consisting of 37 merchants. While the auxiliary cruiser Jervis Bay defends the convoy and is sunk, the main body can escape. The total loss of HX 84 are:

Jervis Bay (14164 t)
Maidan (7908 t)
Trewellard (5201 t)
Kenbame Head (5225 t)
Beaverford (10042 t)
Fresno City (4955 t)
Three other merchants with 27844 t are damaged.



That's the point...one warship is capable of doing this level of damage despite an AMC sacrificing itself so the merchies can scatter. In WITP a TF can't do this even with one or no escorts.


Hi, Ron this is you doing it to me. Or did you forget this one? A 3 ship TF hammers the escorts and gets many of the transports as well. (this was the 2nd attack by your TF)

Japanese Ships
PC Showa Maru #5, Shell hits 5, and is sunk
PC Ch 6, Shell hits 5, and is sunk
AP Kashiwa Maru
AP Keizan Maru
AP Kenshin Maru, on fire, heavy damage
AP Kensho Maru, on fire, heavy damage
AP Kidokawa Maru
AP Kiri Maru, on fire, heavy damage
AP Kisaragi Maru, on fire, heavy damage
AP Meisho Maru, Shell hits 22, and is sunk
AP Mikage Maru #2
AP Mikage Maru #20, Shell hits 1, on fire
AP Minowa Maru
AP Minryo Maru, on fire, heavy damage
AP Minto Maru
AP Mitsu Maru #3
AP Montoiru Maru
AP Shirogane Maru, on fire, heavy damage
AP Sumanoura Maru, Shell hits 16, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AP Syoryu Maru, on fire, heavy damage
AP Tafuku Maru, on fire, heavy damage
AP Taihei Maru, on fire, heavy damage
AP Takayo Maru
AP Tanba Maru
AP Tasmania Maru, on fire
AP Tatsuho Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire
AP Yamakuni Maru, on fire
AP Yubae Maru
AP Zenyo Maru, on fire
AP Palao Maru
AP Senkai Maru
AP Niitaka Maru, on fire, heavy damage
AP Meizan Maru, on fire
AP Yamato Maru, on fire

Allied Ships
CL Dragon, Shell hits 1
CL Durban
DD Isis, Shell hits 2

Japanese ground losses:
876 casualties reported
Guns lost 3




Ron Saueracker -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/19/2006 2:14:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami



quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Nov 5, 1940: After the sinking of the refrigerator ship Mopan (5389 t) the Admiral Scheer attacks the convoy HX 84 at 52°45'N, 32°13'W. consisting of 37 merchants. While the auxiliary cruiser Jervis Bay defends the convoy and is sunk, the main body can escape. The total loss of HX 84 are:

Jervis Bay (14164 t)
Maidan (7908 t)
Trewellard (5201 t)
Kenbame Head (5225 t)
Beaverford (10042 t)
Fresno City (4955 t)
Three other merchants with 27844 t are damaged.



That's the point...one warship is capable of doing this level of damage despite an AMC sacrificing itself so the merchies can scatter. In WITP a TF can't do this even with one or no escorts.


Hi, Ron this is you doing it to me. Or did you forget this one? A 3 ship TF hammers the escorts and gets many of the transports as well. (this was the 2nd attack by your TF)

Japanese Ships
PC Showa Maru #5, Shell hits 5, and is sunk
PC Ch 6, Shell hits 5, and is sunk
AP Kashiwa Maru
AP Keizan Maru
AP Kenshin Maru, on fire, heavy damage
AP Kensho Maru, on fire, heavy damage
AP Kidokawa Maru
AP Kiri Maru, on fire, heavy damage
AP Kisaragi Maru, on fire, heavy damage
AP Meisho Maru, Shell hits 22, and is sunk
AP Mikage Maru #2
AP Mikage Maru #20, Shell hits 1, on fire
AP Minowa Maru
AP Minryo Maru, on fire, heavy damage
AP Minto Maru
AP Mitsu Maru #3
AP Montoiru Maru
AP Shirogane Maru, on fire, heavy damage
AP Sumanoura Maru, Shell hits 16, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AP Syoryu Maru, on fire, heavy damage
AP Tafuku Maru, on fire, heavy damage
AP Taihei Maru, on fire, heavy damage
AP Takayo Maru
AP Tanba Maru
AP Tasmania Maru, on fire
AP Tatsuho Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire
AP Yamakuni Maru, on fire
AP Yubae Maru
AP Zenyo Maru, on fire
AP Palao Maru
AP Senkai Maru
AP Niitaka Maru, on fire, heavy damage
AP Meizan Maru, on fire
AP Yamato Maru, on fire

Allied Ships
CL Dragon, Shell hits 1
CL Durban
DD Isis, Shell hits 2

Japanese ground losses:
876 casualties reported
Guns lost 3



Two important aspects of this.

1) Only 2 escorts, both of which do their job as always and take it in the chin for the convoy. (I rarely, if ever, see any transports engaged aside from a shot or two, until all escorts are destroyed, even when one or more of the escorts are "off doing something else"). Once the escorts are sunk, only 4 ships of the 32 get any attention.

2) I've always believed that smaller TFs outperform larger TFs in WITP because the model is flawed and does not consider operational maximums. So, a small TF usually dishes out equal amounts of fire as a larger TF because all the model does is trade fire. Kung Fu!

In this example, a three ship TF does worse than a single slower ship (Scheer).




mogami -> RE: Analysis of Naval Gunnery Combat (3/19/2006 2:22:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Nov 5, 1940: After the sinking of the refrigerator ship Mopan (5389 t) the Admiral Scheer attacks the convoy HX 84 at 52°45'N, 32°13'W. consisting of 37 merchants. While the auxiliary cruiser Jervis Bay defends the convoy and is sunk, the main body can escape. The total loss of HX 84 are:

Jervis Bay (14164 t)
Maidan (7908 t)
Trewellard (5201 t)
Kenbame Head (5225 t)
Beaverford (10042 t)
Fresno City (4955 t)
Three other merchants with 27844 t are damaged.



That's the point...one warship is capable of doing this level of damage despite an AMC sacrificing itself so the merchies can scatter. In WITP a TF can't do this even with one or no escorts.



Hi, I bet in WITP terms these actions required more then 1 combat phase. The action from our game I posted was the second round of combat for your TF. In the one report above you posted the 2 german ships were sinking ships for over 12 hours and sank 5 ships. Thats 2 combat phases in WITP (they started in day combat phase 1100 and finished in night combat phase 2300 so you would have to allow WITP TF 2 combats against a single TF to get a comparison.




Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.78125