RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

Kull -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/20/2008 6:45:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Ok this site gives CAP details:

23 Dauntless dive bombers shot down 4 torpedo-planes (the rest of the CAP was out of position), so 23 of the 27 destroyed are from flak. Though it doesn't say how many of the 69 are zeroes.


I'm seeing conflicting information as to AA vs. Cap losses (look at pages 68-71). The strike package numbers were "twenty fighters and seventy attack planes". The one thing everyone agrees on is that Japanese losses were 27 aircraft:

http://books.google.com/books?id=bNtS8A6UOn8C&pg=RA1-PA74&lpg=RA1-PA74&dq=japanese+aircraft+losses+at+coral+sea&source=web&ots=WiwHkEltCu&sig=6EJUsfc1x2tmqzxEQ4xjAToKjqo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PRA1-PA69,M1

As an interesting side note, the same book notes that the Japanese strikes on Neosho and Sims cost them six planes. Obviously there was no CAP in that engagement and the AA had to be paltry in comparison to that Carrier Task force, yet it still claimed six planes.



TheElf -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/20/2008 10:50:37 AM)

CORAL SEA Continues...

Immediately following the brutal attack of CARDIV 5, Shoho launches her small AirGroup less 6 CAP Zekes. The strike is extremely effective, finding both American CVs in the throws of pitched damage control battles and blind without Radar. The Airborne CAP of 6 Cats does well to bag 2 Zekes from the meager escort, but fails to cut into the Strikers. The result is a 33% hit rate for the Shoho Kates. Lex seems all but doomed.

[image]http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg75/iankibler/ShohoStrike.jpg[/image]
The Shoho takes advantage of a an enemy while it's down...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Cooktown at 98,138

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-21 Zero x 6
B5N2 Kate x 6


Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 7


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2-21 Zero: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged
B5N2 Kate: 6 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat: 4 damaged

Allied Ships
CV Lexington, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires


Aircraft Attacking:
2 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet (EIII-3 Daitai / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
4 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet (EIII-3 Daitai / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo



PeteG662 -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/20/2008 12:31:00 PM)

From this example looks like strikes may be more brutal on the receiver.



cantona2 -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/20/2008 12:55:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Remember that Miss Betty carries a very teeny-tiny bombload.


Its the damn torpedo she carry's thats the problem [:(]



TheElf -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/20/2008 1:19:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

From this example looks like strikes may be more brutal on the receiver.

It's not as bad as it looks. FoW is on. Lex is not in too bad a shape. At least not for having received 4 torpedoes. She'll make port and fight again.



moose1999 -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/20/2008 1:41:04 PM)

Is it possible to turn FOW on and off - also during a game, not just at the beginning?
Is it possible to turn FOW on/off just for the combat reports?
If not, would any of the above be possible through modding?



m10bob -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/20/2008 3:36:15 PM)

In Elf's last example it looks like the Zeke's did a good job of protecting the bombers and keeping the Wildcats busy...Nice..So much damage to the bombers with the escort, It would be a waste to send un-escorted bombers against a defended target.



Terminus -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/20/2008 3:44:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: briny_norman

Is it possible to turn FOW on and off - also during a game, not just at the beginning?
Is it possible to turn FOW on/off just for the combat reports?
If not, would any of the above be possible through modding?



No, no and no.



Terminus -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/20/2008 3:44:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

In Elf's last example it looks like the Zeke's did a good job of protecting the bombers and keeping the Wildcats busy...Nice..So much damage to the bombers with the escort, It would be a waste to send un-escorted bombers against a defended target.


Plus, there's also now a significant risk of unescorted bombers turning back before reaching the target, or inbound strikes breaking up into smaller packets.



PeteG662 -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/20/2008 6:50:04 PM)

Its going to be interesting.



Local Yokel -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/20/2008 8:51:48 PM)

Fascinating stuff - as always when it's the analysis of a carrier engagement!

However, just to demonstrate that I am not a completely unreconstructed JFB, the criticism I have of this particular attack is that the Japanese CVL's did not have the capability of launching a torpedo strike. Shoho's deck just wasn't long enough to permit a Type 97 to lug a torpedo into the air, even if it were the B5N2 model rather then the B5N1's probably embarked in this carrier.

It pains me to have to admit it, but strictly speaking some way should be found to curtail the Japanese ability to launch torpedo strikes from any carrier smaller than Junyo and Hiyo.



TheElf -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/20/2008 10:35:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

Fascinating stuff - as always when it's the analysis of a carrier engagement!

However, just to demonstrate that I am not a completely unreconstructed JFB, the criticism I have of this particular attack is that the Japanese CVL's did not have the capability of launching a torpedo strike. Shoho's deck just wasn't long enough to permit a Type 97 to lug a torpedo into the air, even if it were the B5N2 model rather then the B5N1's probably embarked in this carrier.

It pains me to have to admit it, but strictly speaking some way should be found to curtail the Japanese ability to launch torpedo strikes from any carrier smaller than Junyo and Hiyo.

This is true. Unfortunately it didn't make the cut. We could go on all day about things that can or can't be done in this game that should or should not be possible.

If we stopped to smell every flower how long do you suppose it would take us to get out of the garden?

How much time do you want to spend in the garden...?



TheElf -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/20/2008 10:42:46 PM)

Coral Sea Continues: The Americans Strike back...

Unaware of the conflagration experienced by their sea bound comrades, the Yorktown and Lexington AirGroups Find and Fix their opposites in CARDIV 5. The Response of the IJN Defenses is slow and Flak bursts are blooming around the tight USN formations even as interceptors scramble to join the 6 Zekes standing guard over head.

[image]http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg75/iankibler/TheInitialPicture.jpg[/image]

The initial picture...The CAP is unprepared to repulse the American attack

The response is swift though belated and the lack of radar among the IJN is telling. Though the CAP savages the Wildcat Escort the SBDs and TBDs are relatively untouched before they deploy and attack.

The CAP peaks at 26 Zekes but they are too late as the American Divebombers are well into their dives before they can have an effect on the outcome of the day. The Escort Wildcats have performed admirably, though at a cost in men and machine...

[image]http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg75/iankibler/USStrikeatCS.jpg[/image]
CARDIV 5 under duress from the Lexington and Yorktown Air Groups. How will this look in the morning?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Milne Bay at 101,138

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-21 Zero x 19


Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 19
SBD-3 Dauntless x 36
TBD-1 Devastator x 24


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2-21 Zero: 1 destroyed, 3 damaged
D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat: 8 destroyed, 3 damaged
SBD-3 Dauntless: 1 destroyed, 23 damaged
TBD-1 Devastator: 4 destroyed, 16 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage
CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 6, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
CA Haguro, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires
DD Ushio


Aircraft Attacking:
1 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing from 2000 feet (VS-2 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb
1 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing from 2000 feet (VB-2 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb
2 x TBD-1 Devastator launching torpedoes at 200 feet (VT-2 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
1 x TBD-1 Devastator launching torpedoes at 200 feet (VT-5 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
2 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing from 2000 feet (VS-2 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb
3 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing from 2000 feet (VB-2 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb
1 x TBD-1 Devastator launching torpedoes at 200 feet (VT-2 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
1 x TBD-1 Devastator launching torpedoes at 200 feet (VT-5 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing from 2000 feet (VS-2 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing from 2000 feet (VS-2 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing from 2000 feet (VB-2 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing from 2000 feet (VB-2 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb
4 x TBD-1 Devastator launching torpedoes at 200 feet (VT-2 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing from 2000 feet (VB-5 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing from 2000 feet (VB-5 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb
4 x TBD-1 Devastator launching torpedoes at 200 feet (VT-5 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless bombing from 2000 feet (VB-2 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb
3 x TBD-1 Devastator launching torpedoes at 200 feet (VT-2 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
4 x TBD-1 Devastator launching torpedoes at 200 feet (VT-5 / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo



Nomad -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/20/2008 10:45:48 PM)

Would it be possible to define a B5N1a that can only carry bombs, and have it only on the CVLS? And not allow it to upgrade to the torpedeo carring one?



Terminus -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/20/2008 10:46:35 PM)

No different than defining any other aircraft type, and plenty of slots in the new database.



Splinterhead -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/20/2008 11:52:22 PM)

Of course the same should be done for the US TBF/TBM as, IIRC, only the Sangamons had torpedo carrying ability (as well as being the only US CVEs to carry F6F)



Terminus -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/21/2008 12:06:37 AM)

Good modder-fodder.



Elouda -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/21/2008 12:17:16 AM)

I thought carriers had a limit on how many 'torpedo equipped' sorties they could launch. Isnt the simplest solution just to set this number to 0 for carriers unable to launch planes with torpedoes? Or is this number hardcoded for each type of CV/CVL/CVE?



witpqs -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/21/2008 3:07:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elouda
I thought carriers had a limit on how many 'torpedo equipped' sorties they could launch. Isnt the simplest solution just to set this number to 0 for carriers unable to launch planes with torpedoes? Or is this number hardcoded for each type of CV/CVL/CVE?


Brilliantly simple. Great solution.



Apollo11 -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/21/2008 9:57:15 AM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elouda
I thought carriers had a limit on how many 'torpedo equipped' sorties they could launch. Isnt the simplest solution just to set this number to 0 for carriers unable to launch planes with torpedoes? Or is this number hardcoded for each type of CV/CVL/CVE?


Brilliantly simple. Great solution.


Great idea - nice and simple!

BTW, it should be used for both sides... [;)]


Leo "Apollo11"



Elouda -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/21/2008 9:59:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elouda
I thought carriers had a limit on how many 'torpedo equipped' sorties they could launch. Isnt the simplest solution just to set this number to 0 for carriers unable to launch planes with torpedoes? Or is this number hardcoded for each type of CV/CVL/CVE?


Brilliantly simple. Great solution.


Great idea - nice and simple!

BTW, it should be used for both sides... [;)]


Leo "Apollo11"


Well, IF its doable, it should be used where historically accurate - so AFAIK, only the Sangamons would be able to launch torpedo strikes, and probably only carry enough torpedoes for a few.

Im sure the people working on AE are more aware of what could and couldnt launch torpedo planes than I am.

(Edit - I guess Mini-KB just lost its teeth. [:D])



Apollo11 -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/21/2008 10:07:04 AM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elouda

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elouda
I thought carriers had a limit on how many 'torpedo equipped' sorties they could launch. Isnt the simplest solution just to set this number to 0 for carriers unable to launch planes with torpedoes? Or is this number hardcoded for each type of CV/CVL/CVE?


Brilliantly simple. Great solution.


Great idea - nice and simple!

BTW, it should be used for both sides... [;)]


Well, IF its doable, it should be used where historically accurate - so AFAIK, only the Sangamons would be able to launch torpedo strikes, and probably only carry enough torpedoes for a few.

Im sure the people working on AE are more aware of what could and couldnt launch torpedo planes than I am.

(Edit - I guess Mini-KB just lost its teeth. [:D])


Let's hope this is doable (i.e. the WitP-AE tem can implement it without much fuss in just few minutes of editing official scenarios)! [:)]

BTW, it would be interesting if this simple and elegant solution can be implemented that it originated from WitP player reading WitP-AE thread and not from within the WitP-AE team (many times such simple and elegant solutions are ideas brought from the outside - the inside team is always busy and sometimes the "trees hide the forrest")... [8D]


Leo "Apollo11"



Local Yokel -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/21/2008 12:55:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elouda

Well, IF its doable, it should be used where historically accurate - so AFAIK, only the Sangamons would be able to launch torpedo strikes, and probably only carry enough torpedoes for a few.

Agreed!

quote:


Im sure the people working on AE are more aware of what could and couldnt launch torpedo planes than I am.

(Edit - I guess Mini-KB just lost its teeth. )

In the immortal words of Alec Guiness, "What have I done?" [:D]

OK, for full historical verisimilitude, now find a way to limit Junyo/Hiyo to launching only 6 torpedo-armed Kanko apiece [:'(]

While I'm about it, I count 20 torpedo drops by the TBD's. With Sho. charging around with a 34 knot capability and the Mark 13's having a speed IRO 33.5 knots, isn't a 20% hit+detonation rate just the teensiest bit on the fortunate side?



cantona2 -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/21/2008 12:59:44 PM)

Good news for AFB's then [:D]



spence -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/21/2008 1:35:40 PM)

quote:

While I'm about it, I count 20 torpedo drops by the TBD's. With Sho. charging around with a 34 knot capability and the Mark 13's having a speed IRO 33.5 knots, isn't a 20% hit+detonation rate just the teensiest bit on the fortunate side?



If the torpedo bombers were able to deploy properly on both bows in the classic "Anvil Attack" then the speed benefit would be much reduced. The storyline indicates that the Japanese CAP was weak and pretty much completely tied up by the escort so the short version would be that the TBDs got into the proper positions. One could even postulate that they got onto both bows and both quarters so Shokaku was in the deep p00p no matter which way she turned. IRL Shoho got tagged mulitple times when the US strike blew through its CAP.


quote:

Would it be possible to define a B5N1a that can only carry bombs, and have it only on the CVLS? And not allow it to upgrade to the torpedeo carring one?


I tried something like this with the "old database" but it didn't work. I had different "types" of G3Ms and G4Ms as well for a Mod that I worked on but they all started using torpedos in spite of being defined as a bomb-bomber. The problem may have been redefining a slot previously used for a torpedo bomber. Perhaps it was hard-coded, I never investigated.




Knavey -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/22/2008 4:27:12 AM)

I am enjoying this AAR.  Thanks Elf.



John 3rd -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/22/2008 6:11:55 AM)

This is excellent work and highly informative.  Nice pick-up for a simple solution regarding the smaller CVs.



moose1999 -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/22/2008 9:05:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: briny_norman

Is it possible to turn FOW on and off - also during a game, not just at the beginning?
Is it possible to turn FOW on/off just for the combat reports?
If not, would any of the above be possible through modding?



No, no and no.


Damn, damn and damn. [;)]
Still going to be the best wargame ever, though!



TheElf -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/22/2008 10:08:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

While I'm about it, I count 20 torpedo drops by the TBD's. With Sho. charging around with a 34 knot capability and the Mark 13's having a speed IRO 33.5 knots, isn't a 20% hit+detonation rate just the teensiest bit on the fortunate side?


Are you saying that 24 Virtually unscathed TBDs should NEVER be able to score 4 Torp hits on a CV?



Terminus -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/22/2008 11:17:17 AM)

Yeah, didn't know you were such a JFB, LY...[:'(]



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.65625