Snigbert and those Shermans

Snigbert and those Shermans (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific

Message

Ron Saueracker -> Snigbert and those Shermans (4/6/2002 9:52:41 PM)
The Sherman was designed the way it was because the Americans were ignorant of design and lessons learned at this point. Sure it was a heap of crap, but it was the best they thought producable. They ignored Christie's suspention concepts years before, just as they did Fulton and his steam engine, and Ericcson and his breach loading naval rifle. The aircraft carrier was a different situation, altogether. The USN was always near the forefront in carrier and naval aviation development and, as such, made a concious decision to use wooden decks in order to commit displacement tonnage to large hanger decks and airgroups. In neither case did the Americans "knowingly" sacrifice manpower for design neccessities.

mogami -> Sherman (4/7/2002 8:58:45 AM)
Hi, go look at a picture of the French S-35 Souma tank. One of the most advanced designs of it's day. Now look at a picture of a Sherman. The US designers picked the best current tank to model their new design on. Unfortunatly war speeds up development, designs to defeat the enemys equipment render it obsolete. By the time the Sherman finished the deveopment process and entered production it was behind the current in use armor of the Germans. It would however have been the best tank in the world (well second to the T-34) had time stood still. If you had been the US what choice would you have had but to go ahead and produce it. They did try to keep updating it to meet the battlefield needs but again always just a step behind. The real question is why a new design was not rushed through. The next generation main battle tank was only just being sent to units when the war ended. For the US it was also a two front war. In the Pacific the Sherman ruled supreme.

Kadste -> (4/10/2002 9:40:04 AM)
Just to breathe a little life back onto this subject. Take a look at this article and decide whether you want your carriers to have armored flight decks. http://www.warships1.com/W-Tech/tech-030.htm Hope that this works, have not been able to post for a week, not sure of the problem.

Erik Rutins -> Stirring the pot... (4/10/2002 12:13:54 PM)
Figured I'd give you all a little more to debate about... :D The Victorious.

Erik Rutins -> And... (4/10/2002 12:15:20 PM)
The Yorktown, right before Coral Sea.

Ron Saueracker -> Taunting kids with candy... (4/10/2002 12:52:26 PM)
That's kinda mean, Eric. Just kidding. How about a USN sub?

Raverdave -> (4/10/2002 1:03:13 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kadste [B]Just to breathe a little life back onto this subject. Take a look at this article and decide whether you want your carriers to have armored flight decks. http://www.warships1.com/W-Tech/tech-030.htm Hope that this works, have not been able to post for a week, not sure of the problem. [/B][/QUOTE] That is a good website, and adds a lot to the discussion.

bradfordkay -> (4/10/2002 1:09:04 PM)
It looks like the durability ratings on the carriers in the game are not substantiated by the information we've read in this thread. Did anyone else notice that?

Erik Rutins -> Comparisons... (4/10/2002 1:35:09 PM)
Well, that was actually one of the points of interest for me. The early war Yorktown with its weak deck armor does not seem particularly superior in survivability to the Victorious. However, it already has a much better air wing and will soon have better AA defenses. The later carriers that are mostly contrasted against in the recently linked article (like the Essex class) are a different story and a generation ahead of the early Yorktown. For further comparison, here's a few more shots from various scenarios. First, the Essex.

Erik Rutins -> And now... (4/10/2002 1:36:27 PM)
An upgraded Saratoga.

Erik Rutins -> Per Ron's Request... (4/10/2002 1:38:54 PM)
On a slightly different note, The SS Silversides...

Erik Rutins -> And finally... (4/10/2002 1:40:24 PM)
For the fellow who's dad was onboard, The BB North Carolina.

bradfordkay -> (4/10/2002 1:44:31 PM)
thanks, Erik. I noticed that some of the ships have a second set of Max and Cruise speeds listed, but not all ships do. What exactly is that? In most games I've played over the years that would represent the ship's speed when heavily damaged, but i have to wonder since only a few of the data sheets you have shown have those parenthetical speeds listed.

Erik Rutins -> Differing speeds... (4/10/2002 1:48:34 PM)
The difference in those shots comes from whether I pulled the screenshot from the database listing or from an in-scenario ship. For example, the Saratoga was in a TF at Luganville and thus shows its data somewhat differently than the Essex which was back at Pearl and accessible through a slightly different menu. In the case where a second speed number is visible, that is the number of hexes the actual speed translates to on the game map. Damage can affect speed and maneuver in much smaller increments, there are no "steps", in effect. Regards, - Erik

bradfordkay -> (4/10/2002 2:04:11 PM)
Even better! That parenthetical speed is how far the ship can go in one impulse (I would gather you have a day and a night impulse - since all this occurred near the equator then day/night hours are relatively equal). And these speeds will be reduced incrementally as the ship accumulates damage. Wonderful. Do you have certain critical hits that affect ship speed more than others?

ratster -> (4/10/2002 2:13:45 PM)
I notice the Saratoga max speed indicated at 33 knots shouldn't that translate to 13 hexes per impulse?

Erik Rutins -> Damage and speed... (4/10/2002 2:14:13 PM)
Bradfordkay, Yes, the turn structure accounts for both day and night and the speed is for each "impulse". The damage system itself is quite complex and I don't know how it works precisely since I'm not involved in the coding and design of this project. However, based on the manual and as a player/tester I can say that the results are satisfying in their diversity and how they reflect the different weapons. In the last game of Coral Sea I fought with Joel, I hit the Shokaku with three 500lb bombs. Normally, that would not be a mortal blow. However, the first two not only caused critical damage after penetrating his deck armor but also caused fuel storage explosions. With that, the Shokaku was toast before it got back to Shortlands. Meanwhile, he put two bombs and a torpedo into Yorktown, but the bombs didn't cause critical damage. The torpedo did and I ended up with moderate system and flotation problems, but had no difficulty getting her back to Noumea to be patched up. In a campaign scenario, I could have had her back to combat capable status within a few days. However, as long as I had other carriers, I would have let them work on her for a few more weeks to bring some of the system damage down before sending her out again. Besides, I lost most of my fighter squadron in that battle and the F-4F replacements were just arriving in significant numbers... an excellent time to hang around Noumea for some new planes. :) Regarding the 33 / 13 question - that does seem right on the surface to me, but I don't know the precise formula. I'm sure Joel or someone else will clarify this if need be. Regards, - Erik

Ron Saueracker -> USS Saratoga 1942 refit (4/10/2002 9:09:24 PM)
Eric. Thanks for the sub. Looks great and Creed Burlingame is the CO. Lots of research went into this baby. Regarding the Saratoga in 1942.. What's up with the armament...how was this arrived at? 5"/25 cal were not AA capable, hence the development of the 5"/38 cal. After it's first upgrade after being torpedoed in Jan 42, she received 4 twin 5"/38s and 10 (maybe 12...someone correct me on this as I was sure it was twelve in 4 gun gallery sponsons) single 5"/38s, 8 twin 40mm bofors and 30 20 mm oerlikons. Since this sim begins in May, one month until her returning to duty, her original guise in UV should reflect the refit. Reference US and Japanese DDs. Many games from Gary's GC to Fighting Steel and Destroyer Command are remiss regarding the prewar destroyer armaments. They list Farraguts, Mahans, Bensons, Sims classes etc. as still having 5x5"/38s, when in actuality, the centre turret was removed for stability. Same goes for the Hatsuharu class. The superimposed turret forward was removed for stability concerns. Has this been rectified with UV? Thanks for all your efforts, Ron.:D

Elvis1965 -> (4/10/2002 10:30:51 PM)
Erik, How about a CLAA screenshot? Or a small Japanese carrier? The York, Saratoga, NC, and sub are all great!!! Thanks

mogami -> more more (4/10/2002 10:38:21 PM)
I'd like to see Kitikami or Oi. And a screen shot of a LCU

CynicAl -> Re: Comparisons... (4/11/2002 4:26:02 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins [B]Well, that was actually one of the points of interest for me. The early war Yorktown with its weak deck armor does not seem particularly superior in survivability to the Victorious. However, it already has a much better air wing and will soon have better AA defenses. The later carriers that are mostly contrasted against in the recently linked article (like the Essex class) are a different story and a generation ahead of the early Yorktown. For further comparison, here's a few more shots from various scenarios. First, the Essex. [/B][/QUOTE] Depends - survivable against what? The armored flight decks of RN CVs were designed to reject outright bombs of up to 500 lbs. Of course, this doesn't help much if someone drops a bomb down the elevator well (Illustrious), or down the stack (Yorktown), or just uses heavier bombs (Illustrious again). It also doesn't help against torpedos; in fact, against torpedo hits the armored flight deck is a liability, as the heavy weight high in the hull aggravates stability concerns - Indomitable was very nearly lost to a single torpedo (and arguably would have been if the sea hadn't been dead calm), whereas even the small, lightly-built Wasp took two, and Yorktown and Hornet took a lot more abuse before going down. In the defense of British, they did the best they could with what they had. The RAF had controlled all British military aviation for twenty years up until 1937, and had regarded carrier aviation as a sideshow at best. The RN finally got its air arm back just before the war, too late to develop and field new high-performance designs suitable for CV service. So the RN entered the war with small numbers of obsolescent aircraft. As the designers knew that their ships wouldn't be able to rely on their fighter complement (Blackburn Rocs and Gloster Sea Gladiators - yeesh!) to protect them from air attack, they had to do something else. The "something else" they came up with was the armored flight deck combined with heavy AA batteries. In practice, it turned out that a strong fighter complement was by far the most effective defense, but that wasn't one of the options on the table for the RN in the late 30's.

Erik Rutins -> Re: USS Saratoga 1942 refit (4/12/2002 2:38:43 AM)
Ron, [QUOTE]Originally posted by Ron Saueracker [B]Regarding the Saratoga in 1942.. What's up with the armament...how was this arrived at? 5"/25 cal were not AA capable, hence the development of the 5"/38 cal. After it's first upgrade after being torpedoed in Jan 42, she received 4 twin 5"/38s and 10 (maybe 12...someone correct me on this as I was sure it was twelve in 4 gun gallery sponsons) single 5"/38s, 8 twin 40mm bofors and 30 20 mm oerlikons.[/B][/QUOTE] Thanks for the input - I've passed your comments along to the design team. If our research shows that you're correct, we will make the change in the data. However, at this point the data is "frozen" for the final release (take that as good news, I suppose :-) so we won't be making any changes until the first patch. Keep in mind also that with the number of upgrades UV supports, it's possible that if there's a problem here, it's just with the particular scenario or with an incorrect delay in the upgrade code. Since you clearly have an interest in this area, I encourage you to send us your comments as you play the game. As far as I and the rest of the testers can tell, we've gotten the various units as right as can be but it's inevitable that something will have slipped through. [QUOTE][B]Reference US and Japanese DDs. Many games from Gary's GC to Fighting Steel and Destroyer Command are remiss regarding the prewar destroyer armaments. They list Farraguts, Mahans, Bensons, Sims classes etc. as still having 5x5"/38s, when in actuality, the centre turret was removed for stability. Same goes for the Hatsuharu class. The superimposed turret forward was removed for stability concerns. Has this been rectified with UV?[/B][/QUOTE] I've included a screenshot of the Farragut from a campaign scenario starting on 5/1/42. It looks like it has all five. I'll pass this along to the team as well. Most likely it wasn't noticed by the testers. Can you also provide some documentary support for this and your note above? Thanks, that will help with getting these changes into an update. Regards, - Erik

Erik Rutins -> Screenshot requests... (4/12/2002 2:52:30 AM)
Okay, this should take care of all the requests... Starting with the CVL:

Erik Rutins -> ... (4/12/2002 2:55:37 AM)
The CLAA:

Erik Rutins -> ... (4/12/2002 2:56:47 AM)
The Oi! :-)

Erik Rutins -> ... (4/12/2002 2:57:56 AM)
An LCI:

Erik Rutins -> ... (4/12/2002 2:59:53 AM)
And an LST:

Elvis1965 -> (4/12/2002 7:21:10 PM)
Erik, many THANKS !!! Those US CLAA will be nasty with all those 40mm Bofors. I was surprised by the lack or armor on the Ryujo?? What was it converted from? Surely not a CA hull? Or maybe it was purpose built and armor wasn't considered important for its role?

mogami -> Thanks for the Oi (4/12/2002 11:20:44 PM)
She's purdy!!!:D and a day /night exp of 80/80 Have you gotten her or Kitikami in a fight yet?

Kadste -> (4/13/2002 8:49:30 AM)
Ron, You are right about the Sara having the 5"/38's. At this time she had: After her Jan to May refit: 4 twin 5"/38 8 single 5"/38 in sponsons 9 quad 1.1" 32 x 20mm After her refit in Aug 42: same 5" configuration as before 9 quad 40mm 52 x 20mm BTW the 5"/25's that were installed on the Sara and the Lady Lex were AA capable, they just sucked at it. Like many of the the mark 25 models they were surface guns adapted to fire at air targets. Some mark 25's notably ones on early US subs were not AA capable. The mark 38 was designed to be dual capable. You are also right about the five turret US destroyers. Some had their fifth turret removed by the timeframe of the game, but not all. The Farraguts went through several refits during 1942, one of them being the removal of the fifth turret. This turret was replaced by 2 twin 40mm. The Mahans were done after the Farraguts, the fifth gun being replaced by 2 single 20mm (later upgraded). The Sims had their fifth gun removed in 1941 (replaced by 4x.50cal). The Bensons had several refits early in 1942, some having the fifth turret and one torpedo mount removed, but not for all units. Some had the gun and torpedo, some just the gun, some just the torpedo mount, some none. While I am at it, the North Carolina with 32x40mm and 16x20mm at this time? Wow. Until her Nov 42 refit she only had 4 quad 1.1" 40x 20mm and 12x.50cal. This does not even come close to 32x40mm in terms of AA capability. There appears to be too much for the ships that I have seen US and Japanese, but that can be easily fixed. All of these details on armaments can be researched at any time. As long as we can edit them, like Pacwar, please do not sweat them, just get the game out. Like the old saying from your favorite past-time, Comon� Matrix LET�S PLAY BALL!!

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.9375