RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (Full Version)

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



Message

mdiehl -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/21/2008 10:39:55 PM)

quote:

Exactly the reason why she would be firing every gun that could be brought to bear..., even if they could only depress enough to blow the superstructure off a threatening DD!


Agreed, absent other circumstances like engaging other enemy surface vessels at the same time or encounters where detection simply doesn't happen until the DD is too close to avoid.



Shark7 -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/21/2008 11:13:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pbear


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium


Her 18.1" guns had a max depression of -5 degrees. I have no idea if that would be enough...[:D]


That would depend on if she fired on the up roll or the down roll. [:D]



Would the concussion from a near miss damage a lightly armored DD though? With a shell that big, its bound to be doing something to the air, land and water surrounding where it's fired at.



Panther Bait -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/21/2008 11:41:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Would the concussion from a near miss damage a lightly armored DD though? With a shell that big, its bound to be doing something to the air, land and water surrounding where it's fired at.



I am not sure that the concussion in the air would do much more than blow light equipment, maybe even a person, overboard, while a near miss in the water could probably cause enough damage to start some flooding. It would have to be fairly close though since AP shells wouldn't explode on hitting the water.

Hell, an 18.1" AP shell fused for a CA/BB, probably wouldn't even sense that it had just punched all the way through a DD. I've read of numerous occasions where large shells went right through a DD/DE because they did not offer enough resistance to trip the fuse.



crsutton -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/22/2008 12:03:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

"No, I have to disagree. The British had good radar and knew how to use it. This would totally outclass any Japanese ship of equal stature. "

Well I agree that the RN had radar and were well trained in its use, but at night those Long Lance torpedoes would have been as dangerous to them as they were to the radar-equipped USN ships in 1942 and 1943.  If it were just between the capital ships the RN would have probably defeated the IJN battleships handily, night or day.



John,

Actually, there was a pretty big difference between the RN and USN ships in 1942 as there were more British ships with radar and the Brits were probably a little more competent in both the tacitical use of radar and by having already weeded out many of the fossilized surface commanders that were commonly found in the USN in 1942. Three years of naval war tends to shake out the cobwebs. 1943 is another story as the Americans were quick to adopt to the new doctrine and technology and were making excellent radars in the US.

With the Americans, by mid 1943 effective radar doctrine and better fire control had pretty much made the long lance an afterthought. The disasters of 1942 changed that.

Just my two cents.



crsutton -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/22/2008 12:07:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

quote:

Maybe more readers would contribute what their experience has been and we could collect a large enough sample to conclude whether the better fire control and armament on the POW is enough to counter-balance the Japanese night tactics and Long Lance torpedos?


In my less publicized game vs. Bilbow as Japan, I left a fleet with two of the fast BBs and handful of cruisers and DDs to handle Force Z if it intercepted some other landings at Java.  The RN got a night radar detection and surprise and my fleet was summarily executed.  Kongo and Hei went down, 2x CLs and a CA.  And one CA is going to be in the yards for a -very- long time.  I think it actually was a bit of bad luck on my part, as I do believe the fleets were matched "well enough" (as in, well enough to injure PoW and Repulse so Madam Nell could finish them off in the morning).  But I barely dinged the paint on anything.  All torps (when they had few chances to shoot) missed, and i don't think the Kongo and Hei ever got a shot off with their main guns.

-F-


But it does make sense. Look at how the Brits were able to handle the Italians who lacked effective radar. I suspect that a British TF at night in 1942 would have been very deadly against non radar equipped ships.

Of course they would have to eat some betty and nell torpedos the next morning.



Nikademus -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/22/2008 6:32:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

John,

Actually, there was a pretty big difference between the RN and USN ships in 1942 as there were more British ships with radar and the Brits were probably a little more competent in both the tacitical use of radar and by having already weeded out many of the fossilized surface commanders that were commonly found in the USN in 1942. Three years of naval war tends to shake out the cobwebs. 1943 is another story as the Americans were quick to adopt to the new doctrine and technology and were making excellent radars in the US.

With the Americans, by mid 1943 effective radar doctrine and better fire control had pretty much made the long lance an afterthought. The disasters of 1942 changed that.

Just my two cents.


add to that, the British were also better trained for night ops in general. As far back as post-Jutland the RN realized that it was severely deficient in night training but at the time (WWI) they could get by it as they had such a strong fleet. Post WWI, with other nations overtaking them in daylight gunnery advances, they were forced to turn to night ops as a way to shore up their odds. While not as extensive as preWWII Japanese training, they practiced and developed it enough that the RN entered the next war far far better prepared for night ops than in the last....and it showed vs. the Italians. Radar only furthered their already weighty edge in night combat. (The Italians had done little with night ops)



John Lansford -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/23/2008 4:07:40 AM)

Was the RN surface radars better than the USN version?  IIRC the US 1942 radars had all sorts of problems, and I'd expect the RN to have worked all that out by then.



Nikademus -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/23/2008 5:14:33 AM)

The RN was a bit ahead in certain radar developments/deployments but remember that that Allies were sharing alot of info/tech research at that point so breakthroughs and improvements developed apace as the war went on. It was more a question of training and experience in the use of radar rather than quality of equipment. RN radar was in a fairly primitive stage in 1940-41 but with exp and training (along with officers willing to embrace the new tech), it could prove an enormous asset. Early USN failures at night had as much if not more to do with a misappreciation (including overconfidence in the reliability of the electronic eyes such as at Savo - [Frank, Guadalcanal]) of the new tech helped lead to that disaster. (the early radar also had probs with local ground interferences) Many officers were not yet familiar with the tech and even distrusted it which led to situations such as not having the ship with the best radars chosen as the flagship. Admiral Lee was a notable exception and he fully embraced the new technology and that was a direct factor which led to his force to eventual victory during the Nov15 night action.

This interesting footnote in Frank's work gives a good idea of the state of exp with radar for the USN in 42;

Lest the reader doubt the perspicacity of Scott and his peers, [regarding his unfortunate decision-making process involving his radars the night of Oct 9-10] it should be born in mind that the fitting of radar of any type in the US navy only began with six experimental sets in July and Augest 1940. SC radars began service with the fleet on a limited scale in the fall of 41, and the process of general fitting of radar gained momentum only after Pearl Harbor. Thus, there had been only a very restricted opportunity for any officer to develop understanding of the virtues and limitations of radar by Oct 1942. Moreover, as anyone who reads contemporary reports will readily see, the early sets were highly tempermental and prone to "phantom" contacts. The markedly superior SG radar sets were first fitted in April 1942, but excessive secrecy apparantly masked their vast preformance superiority.

Frank- Guadalcanal



Nemo121 -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/24/2008 3:15:28 AM)

In terms of Long Lances I think that the whole discussion of whether or not a Long Lance will sink a 10,000 ton CA or ven heavier BB misses the point from a tacical point of view. I'm no expert on the Pacific ( I'm much better on U-boats and the Soviets ) BUT it seems to me that it comes down to the following:

1. The massive warhead of the Long Lance definitely played a part in giving it the necessary "over-penetration" necessary to ensure that any Long Lance which hit a BB would do significant damage --- significant damage being defined as being sufficient to render the ship which was hit incapable of remaining a high-speed, highly potent threat to IJN combatants in the area.

Sure a single LL hit wouldn't sink a CA but it would force it out of formation with other CAs in the area and force the CA to look primarily to its own survival for the forseeable future. Same thing with a BB. An LL which hit a BB would have a good chance of causing sufficient loss of speed and manoeuvrability that the BB would have to drop out of the line of battle, thus helping achieve parity. So, it wasn't really about the sinkings BUT about making absolutely, positively sure that if an LL hit a CA or BB that that CA or BB would be forced out of the decisive battle.

If we assume 15 USN BBs and 15 USN CAs accompanying them and a 5% hit rate then to achieve a parity of forces ( assuming an IJN battleline of 10 BBs and 10 CAs) with JUST IJN CL and DD strikes with an average of 8 LLs launched per strike per ship ( with one strike per night ) will require only 10 hits ( 5 on BBs, 5 on CAs). So, 10 hits requires the launching of 200 LLs which requires the committment of only 25 CLs and DDs.

At that rate, IF you didn't realise just how lethal torpedo bombers would turn out to be ( with an average of 1 torpedo hit scored per 27 Bettys/Nells launched at a heavily defended target like a BB or CV ) the Long Lance actually begins to look like quite a reasonable weapons system. Throw in the fact that with the Oi and Kitakami you've got the ability to launch 80 LLs in a single salvo from just those two ships and you begin to see that a reasonable strike of 25 to 30 CLs and DDs could throw 300 LLs at the US battleline and be fairly certain of scoring a large number of hits.

With hindsight was this the most efficient way of equalling the odds? No but hindsights a wonderful thing.

I think that the warhead of the LL is perfectly justified but I do think they would have done better to halve the range and increase the speed by 10 to 20%.


2. Are BBs undervalued... Yes, by virtue of the code they certainly don't perform to their full capability.




John Lansford -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/24/2008 3:38:48 PM)

I guess my point was that the Japanese spent a huge amount of time and resources and design effort into making a decisive weapon, developed tactics and ships to use it with, and then found out that a more conventional weapon would have been just as effective.

For instance, North Carolina was torpedoed by a submarine and seriously damaged, using a conventional 21" torpedo.  Saratoga got hit (twice!) by submarine torpedoes and both times taken out of action.  The difference between "damaged and out of action" and "badly damaged and out of action", taking into account the work that went into developing the LL, was so slight that it ultimately ended up wasting resources they needed elsewhere.




Nemo121 -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/24/2008 6:46:51 PM)

John,

Well I think that the warhead size was well justified as when you only get 5% hits you want to be SURE that every hit removes and enemy battleline unit. I agree with you though that they'd have been better off going for a more conventional torpedo with shorter range and higher speed so they could fit more of them and fire more at the usual combat ranges. I think the big warhead was well justified though.



John Lansford -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/24/2008 6:57:31 PM)

Actually, I think the warhead should have been larger at the expense of that ridiculous range, like the Mod 3 version was I mentioned earlier up-thread.  Nearly 1800 lbs of high explosive detonating against a ship's hull would ruin anyone's day, and they accomplished it while still keeping a 15,000 yard range at high speed...



Iridium -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/25/2008 2:31:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Actually, I think the warhead should have been larger at the expense of that ridiculous range, like the Mod 3 version was I mentioned earlier up-thread. Nearly 1800 lbs of high explosive detonating against a ship's hull would ruin anyone's day, and they accomplished it while still keeping a 15,000 yard range at high speed...


I do agree that the Mod 3 program was an extremely good trade off and highly destructive to anything it might have hit...if it did ever hit anything.[:D]



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.921875