RE: Ships too Fragile in AE???

RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (Full Version)

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

Message

Puhis -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (5/16/2009 6:40:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin quote: ORIGINAL: Iridium I dunno, when a 40,000 ton ship sinks from one torpedo, no matter how badly designed (unless built with no WTCs), I consider that a damage control issue. Which 40,000 ton ship? The Ark Royal sunk by one torpedo was a 22,000 ton pre-war CV. The uninterrupted boiler room flat turned out to be more of a design error than was understood at the time by the Board of Inquiry. The Illustrious nearly sank in the same way. Maybe Taiho? Fully loaded Taiho was 37,270 tons ship. Only one torpedo and very badly damage control was needed to destroy her.

Charles2222 -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (5/16/2009 8:56:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin quote: ORIGINAL: Charles_22 I agree with you. I don't see how anybody could believe most DD's survive from a torpedo hit, especially from the most destructive of torps. It depended on the DD class. Fletcher, Sumner, and Gearing class DDs at 2,000-2.500 tons standard displacement did better when hit by a torpedo than some of the pre-war DDs at 1,400-1,600 tons and a lot better than the 4-stackers at 1,200 tons. Six RN CLs sank after one underwater hit, as did the Ark Royal. Ten IJN cruisers sank after an engine-room hit. Oh yeah, there were some that would come away better off, but then it depends a lot on how clean a shot they got too.

Iridium -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (5/17/2009 12:32:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin Which 40,000 ton ship? The Ark Royal sunk by one torpedo was a 22,000 ton pre-war CV. The uninterrupted boiler room flat turned out to be more of a design error than was understood at the time by the Board of Inquiry. The Illustrious nearly sank in the same way. Huh, guess my memory is a tad foggy on the tonnage, for some reason I thought Ark Royal was near 40k tons. Upon looking you'd be hard pressed to even suggest it to be 30,000 tons (at full load). Still, DDs I can accept sinking via a single torpedo hit. A vessel 22x (or only 11x if a late war DD) heavier than said DD sinking by the same weapon seems rather odd even with poor design choices.

John Lansford -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (5/17/2009 1:42:22 AM)
Kongo sank from one torpedo hit, according to the sub commander that got the hit on her. Many of the RN CL's were small ships, with less than 10,000 tons displacement. A ship that small compromises on many design features to squeeze certain demands into the hull, and one of them is watertight compartmentalization. Areas like magazines and engine rooms must be of a certain size and a hit in these areas seriously threatens flotation as well as mobility or firepower.

tondern -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (5/17/2009 3:06:24 PM)
Interesting discussion. From hazy memory I believe that in D.K. Brown's (most excellent) analysis something like 17 British Destroyers survived single torpedo hits. He concluded that as long as the torpedo didn't break the ship's back, survival was likely. Breaking the back has to do with violent acceleration amidships caused by the explosion - horizontally but especially vertically. The farther the hit was below the waterline, the greater the transmission of explosive force into acceleration. That means a destroyer taking a deep hit by a big torp anywhere plus or minus a hundred feet of amidships (say 60% of the hull) was likely a goner. With a little dinky 18" air dropped torp (Nells, Bettys, Kates, Jills, etc.) even a hit amidships was probably not always fatal. Hits in the bow or stern are likely non-fatal even with a big torp, and certainly with little (air-dropped) torps. The destroyer losses in the Solomons were the result of very big torpedoes (24"), the existence of which was unknown to Allied intelligence. So - could a DD sink from a single torp? Yes, easily. Could it survive? Yes. Especially from a single 18" air-dropped torp. Humbly Yours, Johnny

SamRo115 -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (5/17/2009 4:40:30 PM)
Gentalmen might I prescribe a trip to your local Public house...

Iridium -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (5/17/2009 11:18:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford Kongo sank from one torpedo hit, according to the sub commander that got the hit on her. I meant losing a capital ship to one torpedo is only understandable when it's more than just design flaws, ie. crew inabilities or plain quirky hits/damage inflicted.

Dili -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (5/18/2009 11:02:00 AM)
I think PoW could have sink just from that torpedo hit in the stern.

herwin -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (5/18/2009 11:39:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iridium quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford Kongo sank from one torpedo hit, according to the sub commander that got the hit on her. I meant losing a capital ship to one torpedo is only understandable when it's more than just design flaws, ie. crew inabilities or plain quirky hits/damage inflicted. Tully indicates there were three hits, which is the expected number of hits to sink her given the age of her design.

herwin -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (5/18/2009 12:00:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili I think PoW could have sink just from that torpedo hit in the stern. PoW sank from four or five hits, which is less than the seven expected based on her waterline area and date of design. There's a discussion in Brown. My take is that the design was deficient in similar ways to those of British cruisers and carriers, although not quit as spectacularly bad. Brown admits there were problems of competence in the design office. By the way, I mentioned that the Illustrious nearly followed the Ark Royal in succumbing to a bad engineering layout. It turns out that the Indomitable had a similar near-miss during the Husky operation. Once is accident; twice is coincidence; and three times is enemy action.

mikemike -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (5/22/2009 12:37:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tondern Interesting discussion. From hazy memory I believe that in D.K. Brown's (most excellent) analysis something like 17 British Destroyers survived single torpedo hits. He concluded that as long as the torpedo didn't break the ship's back, survival was likely. Breaking the back has to do with violent acceleration amidships caused by the explosion - horizontally but especially vertically. The farther the hit was below the waterline, the greater the transmission of explosive force into acceleration. That means a destroyer taking a deep hit by a big torp anywhere plus or minus a hundred feet of amidships (say 60% of the hull) was likely a goner. With a little dinky 18" air dropped torp (Nells, Bettys, Kates, Jills, etc.) even a hit amidships was probably not always fatal. Hits in the bow or stern are likely non-fatal even with a big torp, and certainly with little (air-dropped) torps. The destroyer losses in the Solomons were the result of very big torpedoes (24"), the existence of which was unknown to Allied intelligence. So - could a DD sink from a single torp? Yes, easily. Could it survive? Yes. Especially from a single 18" air-dropped torp. Humbly Yours, Johnny An example to support your point would be the case of HMS Javelin which was hit by two German G7a torpedos in bow and stern and which was reduced as a consequence to little more than the machinery section with a length of 155 feet of the original 353 feet. The torso was towed back to port and repaired, which took a year. That was in Nov. 1940. Later in the war, this would have become a constructive total loss.

Dili -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (5/22/2009 4:09:07 AM)
Herwin there is here some new information on POW demise http://www.bobhenneman.info/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2150&sid=4ffb145416596a6726df5919f58772a3 It doesn't support what i have said but the situation was very nasty.

bklooste -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (6/2/2009 3:01:39 AM)
Yeah right a 2000-2500 ton destroyer surviving a 24" torp. These torps were far more powerful then US or German sub torpedoes , the air launched one is prob only a little worse than a German sub and by wars end was a least twice as powerful . German Sub 300kg ,Royal Oak etc. German air 180 kg (after 41 180-250 kg) Japan 18" Early ( PoW /Pearl ) 205kg Japan 18" 43-44, 240kg -420 kg Japan 21" (sub) 405kg -(550kg in 42) Japan 24" 490-580 kg While late war destroyers are bigger ,torpedoes are far more powerful and its likely a Destroyer in 41 has a better chance. On a bow hit ,look at the New Orleans a CA which JUST survived. Though a destroyer may survive a hit at the top of the bow. Here is an aircraft hit (180kg) on a 6000 ton cruiser http://www.hms-arethusa.co.uk/nov_1942/november42.html . On a destroyer a 24" long lance is lucky not to blow a hole out the other side and /or beam and destroy all structural integrity. "eg Long Lance was about 80 feet " the beam on most destroyers is like 40' and compartmentalization on destroyers is also poor due to the large amount of machinery.

Hornblower -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (6/2/2009 3:37:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bklooste Yeah right� a 2000-2500 ton destroyer surviving a 24" torp. Selfridge survived a long lance torp hit at the Battle of Vella Lavella in'43. and she was a 1,900 Ton Porter.. Foote likewise survived a Long lance at the Battle of Empress Augusta bay in '43, she was a 2,100 Ton Fletcher

TOMLABEL -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (6/2/2009 4:25:10 AM)
Impact on Yorktown which didn't survive. [image]local://upfiles/19527/3C03ADF0BDA940BA9C0A2FAB5D610BAE.jpg[/image]

herwin -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (6/2/2009 8:53:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mikemike quote: ORIGINAL: tondern Interesting discussion. From hazy memory I believe that in D.K. Brown's (most excellent) analysis something like 17 British Destroyers survived single torpedo hits. He concluded that as long as the torpedo didn't break the ship's back, survival was likely. Breaking the back has to do with violent acceleration amidships caused by the explosion - horizontally but especially vertically. The farther the hit was below the waterline, the greater the transmission of explosive force into acceleration. That means a destroyer taking a deep hit by a big torp anywhere plus or minus a hundred feet of amidships (say 60% of the hull) was likely a goner. With a little dinky 18" air dropped torp (Nells, Bettys, Kates, Jills, etc.) even a hit amidships was probably not always fatal. Hits in the bow or stern are likely non-fatal even with a big torp, and certainly with little (air-dropped) torps. The destroyer losses in the Solomons were the result of very big torpedoes (24"), the existence of which was unknown to Allied intelligence. So - could a DD sink from a single torp? Yes, easily. Could it survive? Yes. Especially from a single 18" air-dropped torp. Humbly Yours, Johnny An example to support your point would be the case of HMS Javelin which was hit by two German G7a torpedos in bow and stern and which was reduced as a consequence to little more than the machinery section with a length of 155 feet of the original 353 feet. The torso was towed back to port and repaired, which took a year. That was in Nov. 1940. Later in the war, this would have become a constructive total loss. OPERATIONS RESEARCH The force per unit area produced by a warhead at a given distance went down as the square of the distance. Hence a 24" torpedo wasn't that much more effective than an 18" or 21" torpedo, since the increased charge weight didn't increase the zone of damage that much. Where it did have an advantage was overmatching torpedo defences designed for the smaller warheads.

herwin -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (6/2/2009 9:04:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili Herwin there is here some new information on POW demise http://www.bobhenneman.info/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2150&sid=4ffb145416596a6726df5919f58772a3 It doesn't support what i have said but the situation was very nasty. OPERATIONS RESEARCH The Repulse was a goner, but the Prince of Wales capsized too easily.

String -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (6/2/2009 9:09:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin quote: ORIGINAL: mikemike quote: ORIGINAL: tondern Interesting discussion. From hazy memory I believe that in D.K. Brown's (most excellent) analysis something like 17 British Destroyers survived single torpedo hits. He concluded that as long as the torpedo didn't break the ship's back, survival was likely. Breaking the back has to do with violent acceleration amidships caused by the explosion - horizontally but especially vertically. The farther the hit was below the waterline, the greater the transmission of explosive force into acceleration. That means a destroyer taking a deep hit by a big torp anywhere plus or minus a hundred feet of amidships (say 60% of the hull) was likely a goner. With a little dinky 18" air dropped torp (Nells, Bettys, Kates, Jills, etc.) even a hit amidships was probably not always fatal. Hits in the bow or stern are likely non-fatal even with a big torp, and certainly with little (air-dropped) torps. The destroyer losses in the Solomons were the result of very big torpedoes (24"), the existence of which was unknown to Allied intelligence. So - could a DD sink from a single torp? Yes, easily. Could it survive? Yes. Especially from a single 18" air-dropped torp. Humbly Yours, Johnny An example to support your point would be the case of HMS Javelin which was hit by two German G7a torpedos in bow and stern and which was reduced as a consequence to little more than the machinery section with a length of 155 feet of the original 353 feet. The torso was towed back to port and repaired, which took a year. That was in Nov. 1940. Later in the war, this would have become a constructive total loss. OPERATIONS RESEARCH The force per unit area produced by a warhead at a given distance went down as the square of the distance. Hence a 24" torpedo wasn't that much more effective than an 18" or 21" torpedo, since the increased charge weight didn't increase the zone of damage that much. Where it did have an advantage was overmatching torpedo defences designed for the smaller warheads. And ofcourse, sometimes the added 10% of effectiveness can be the straw that breaks the destroyers back..

String -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (6/2/2009 9:10:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin quote: ORIGINAL: Dili Herwin there is here some new information on POW demise http://www.bobhenneman.info/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2150&sid=4ffb145416596a6726df5919f58772a3 It doesn't support what i have said but the situation was very nasty. OPERATIONS RESEARCH The Repulse was a goner, but the Prince of Wales capsized too easily. Have you read the latest findings into the loss of PoW, afaik it had a lot to do with one of the propeller shafts shaking loose and tearing her insides apart.

Japan -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (6/2/2009 9:39:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus Maybe you need to consider the fact that this game has been worked on for several years, by some of the best-informed, sharpest minds on this forum, and that maybe, just maybe, they've got a good grasp of naval history and know what they're doing. Notice I say "they", not "we"... I get seasick on a wet pavement, and know diddly-squat about naval history. I Agree with you here, but (without making any claims) I would like to ask a humble way question, most Game Designers make adjustments to fit the users, ie. giving the "good" side the better ability's overall, and In WITP this might have been done as well ie. The absurd Allied CV Bonus from 1/44, who can't Evan be compared with the Zero Bonus.. Will this sort of considerations be taken in AE... knowing that the majority of the Customers and Customer base is American ect ect ect... I don't mean to be paranoid, just presenting something who many other Game Developers and Companies takes into consideration when making Strategy Games, of course this does not qualified to be called a game, this is a Simulator.. But you get the point. I want to stress that this is not a suggestion, or any form for claims, but simply a very humble question about if the Game / Simulator is designed with the User Group and Customer Base in mind, or does it go totally realistic regardless of what Sales consciences and regardless of what the Customer Base might think of it ?

bklooste -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (6/2/2009 11:28:25 AM)
Ok if you get a lucky end of bow hit like Selfridge you can survive ( and then only just) ...anything between the front and rear turret and its curtains.

castor troy -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (6/2/2009 12:13:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Japan quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus Maybe you need to consider the fact that this game has been worked on for several years, by some of the best-informed, sharpest minds on this forum, and that maybe, just maybe, they've got a good grasp of naval history and know what they're doing. Notice I say "they", not "we"... I get seasick on a wet pavement, and know diddly-squat about naval history. . The absurd Allied CV Bonus from 1/44, who can't Evan be compared with the Zero Bonus.. Will this sort of considerations be taken in AE... knowing that the majority of the Customers and Customer base is American ect ect ect... I wonder which absurd Allied CV bonus you�re talking about. The only CV bonus I�ve heard so far is the absurd Japanese coordination bonus that they have throughout the war just from day one on. The Allied are just on par in 44 when it comes down to the coordination rules. I�m a JFB when I think about how many Japanese and how many Allied PBEMs I had going but what you are keep saying is really beyond me. [&:]

bklooste -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (6/2/2009 12:25:31 PM)
quote: OPERATIONS RESEARCH The force per unit area produced by a warhead at a given distance went down as the square of the distance. Hence a 24" torpedo wasn't that much more effective than an 18" or 21" torpedo, since the increased charge weight didn't increase the zone of damage that much. Where it did have an advantage was overmatching torpedo defences designed for the smaller warheads. Then why did Ariel torpedos carry heavier and heavier loads? The same argument applies to shells as well..Versus an unarmed target the difference between an 18" and 24" torp is about the same as a 6" vs an 8" shell ( a bit over double the explosive popwer. ) . I don't think its just the zone of damage but more the blast ability to pressure the hull and break the structure and armour of the ship . Still 180 kg vs 500 kg at the square of distance , the larger warhead will put a hole with a 70% bigger radius , which is over 2 and a half times the area ( and rate of flooding ) and at least 5 times the volume and MUCH greater structural damage eg the buckling you see on some pictures. This extra size is quite significant compared to the damage an 18" already does. And yes obviously it was a big help vs Torpedo and other bulkheads.

Japan -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (6/2/2009 12:45:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy wonder which absurd Allied CV bonus you�re talking about. The only CV bonus I�ve heard so far is the absurd Japanese coordination bonus that they have throughout the war just from day one on. The Allied are just on par in 44 when it comes down to the coordination rules. I�m a JFB when I think about how many Japanese and how many Allied PBEMs I had going but what you are keep saying is really beyond me. [&:] Hihi, Well if you don't know about it, let me tell you about it... (it is deadly)... From 1/44 The Allied CV's CAP get a "free pass" at your Fighters. The Effects of this bonus is absurd, the best way I can explain it would be: Imagine having 400 Cap fighters getting 2 Shooting Phases at your 400 fighters before it is your turn to fire. In My Opinion the Allied CV CAP Bonus from 1/44 makes any Carrier Dual Pointless from 1/44, and Japan is better off by simply stripping the planes off its Carriers, and stopping all Carrier Production... because as of 1/44 you will not be able to win any Carrier dual due to the 1/44 Allied CV Cap Bonus, you are especcialy screwed if you are fighting equall numbers or more. This is a "guaranteed" victory type of bonus IMHO, and "Thank God" that the AE Team has removed it from AE, and also removed most other bonuses. I think that Yamato hugger can expain the details about the Allied CV CAP Bonus from 1/44 far better then I can, but the above anyway is the best way I can put it. But the point of my question above was, will Customer Based Consideration be taken in AE = will there be bonuses or other advantages pleasing the majority of the Customer base (=The Allied Players [US market being biggest ect]), as most companies would do, or is this "the ultimate" fair and balanced simulator without consideration to sales numbers and customer popularity ??

RevRick -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (6/2/2009 2:37:08 PM)
Just as a reply to that, Japan, and I really don't have a dog in this hunt, I think that may have had more to do with the rapid proliferation of CIC on USN capital ships between 1942 and 1944 than with a gamer designers built-in bias for sales. In fact, CIC spaces were almost ubiquitous in all new construction and most refits by the beginning of 1944 from tin cans on up, let alone CV/CVL, BB, and CA/CLs. With the rapid improvements in RADAR, the understanding of how they could be most effectively employed, and the capacity to coordinate multiple ship CAPs from one station in the TF/TG, as well as the deck handling of aircraft, it would be well nigh impossible to get an undetected strike even close to a CV TF. Similarly, the odds of the IJN getting an unengaged strike off against a USN CV TG would be almost the same as sneaking up on a snowball in hell, since the results were usually that the CAP, because of early detection and launching, and better fighter direction, would have the 'bounce' on incoming raids. IIRC, the IJN did not have a nearly similar capacity in their carriers and other escort ships.

Japan -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (6/2/2009 4:11:21 PM)
@RevRick I also hope it is the reason, Matrix Games in General are impressive IMHO, but just the name of the product "The Struggle Agianst Japan" has an "Allied twist" to it, and many Game Developers do take Customer based Considerations due to sales numbers ect. into account, Afterall that is why the game is made in the first plase! Anyway, I'm not able to dudge anyone, only asking my very humble question as described in post above. Regardless, Im very happy that the "waste majorety" of Bonuses has been removed in AE (From both sides of course), and I hope that both the sides get's accurately represented.

Charbroiled -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (6/2/2009 4:32:51 PM)
IMO, there are inaccuracies on both sides of the line and there will probably be some in AE. Not so much for target marketing, but more for game balance. Since I have been on this forum, I have seen complaints about the Allies and Japan being too strong in some areas or too weak in others. Then when the programers try to cater to one camp or the other, they usually mess up play balance to some extent....hence the use of the "Fanboy" on these forums. Everybody has different opinions about what is "Historically accurate". All I can say to those that think the game "favors" one side or the other is "If you really don't like it, try designing your own game" and see how tough it is to please everybody. [X(] Edit: p.s. "accurately represented" is a matter of perspective and opinion.

Charles2222 -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (6/2/2009 5:38:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Charbroiled IMO, there are inaccuracies on both sides of the line and there will probably be some in AE. Not so much for target marketing, but more for game balance. Since I have been on this forum, I have seen complaints about the Allies and Japan being too strong in some areas or too weak in others. Then when the programers try to cater to one camp or the other, they usually mess up play balance to some extent....hence the use of the "Fanboy" on these forums. Everybody has different opinions about what is "Historically accurate". All I can say to those that think the game "favors" one side or the other is "If you really don't like it, try designing your own game" and see how tough it is to please everybody. [X(] Edit: p.s. "accurately represented" is a matter of perspective and opinion. Add the other edge of the sword in trying to make moves that didn't happen in history, plausible, instead of this "IJ never exceeded so many ships built, or so many planes built, or never could take PH, simply because they didn't" excuses (same goes for allied accomplishments). It only makes sense, that if you're exceeding the historical record, that the results should reflect it, but not always in a positive way necessarily, as anybody can become over-stretched.

m10bob -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (6/2/2009 7:10:34 PM)
American CVE 56 Liscombe Bay was sunk by a single torpedo..

Sardaukar -> RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? (6/2/2009 7:35:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob American CVE 56 Liscombe Bay was sunk by a single torpedo.. Well, some crewmembers of those ships said that abbreviation CVE did mean "Combustible, Vulnerable, Expendable"...

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.78125