Incoming! (Full Version)

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



Message

Q-Ball -> Incoming! (6/2/2009 7:31:00 PM)

OK, I realize this a grenade, and others may have seen this article on the Long Lance, but I found it interesting, so here it is:

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-067.htm

Author says LL achieved 6.7% hit rate. WITP has a higher hit rate, though WITP Long Lances appear to not cause the damage that RL ones do. Overall I'm fine with the way it is in the game.

They were controversial weapons, but I think one thing is indisputable: When they hit, that large warhead really HURT.



mdiehl -> RE: Incoming! (6/2/2009 7:38:59 PM)

When they went off they really hurt. In a bunch of cases they really hurt the ships armed with them. And yes, it's a grenade. The ususal suspects will shortly show up with a litany of reasons why the empirical facts don't matter.

My take is that the LL's success was largely a matter of short range when fired and surprise. If the Allies didn't know the torps were in the water and if they were fired from less than 8,500 yards and more than 1,000, they were pretty devastating.



anarchyintheuk -> RE: Incoming! (6/2/2009 7:41:37 PM)

At least it's an old grenade.



Terminus -> RE: Incoming! (6/2/2009 7:45:16 PM)

Yeah, it might not go quite so loudly KA-BOOM, given that WE'VE HEARD IT ALL BEFORE...[8|]



Feinder -> RE: Incoming! (6/2/2009 7:45:27 PM)

It's a torpedo.  Of course they hurt!

[;)]





[sm=00000613.gif]
-F-



mdiehl -> RE: Incoming! (6/2/2009 7:52:28 PM)

quote:

It's a torpedo. Of course they hurt!


[:D]




RUPD3658 -> RE: Incoming! (6/2/2009 7:54:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

It's a torpedo.  Of course they hurt!

[;)]

[sm=00000613.gif]
-F-


Unless they are an early war Allied dud[:D]



castor troy -> RE: Incoming! (6/2/2009 7:56:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

When they went off they really hurt. In a bunch of cases they really hurt the ships armed with them. And yes, it's a grenade. The ususal suspects will shortly show up with a litany of reasons why the empirical facts don't matter.

My take is that the LL's success was largely a matter of short range when fired and surprise. If the Allies didn't know the torps were in the water and if they were fired from less than 8,500 yards and more than 1,000, they were pretty devastating.



well, one of the "usual supects" showed up to do post no. 2... [sm=00000280.gif]



mdiehl -> RE: Incoming! (6/2/2009 8:23:17 PM)

That'd be incorrect (as usual), as I am the one who tends to rely on facts. If it really is the collective desire to rehash the whole discussion again (in which it will be demonstrated that the median and modal hit rates of Long Lance vollies was ZERO hits, and the mean 6.25, 12.25 at night at less than 8K yards, and 25% when the Allies didn't know that Japanese ships were in the area), we could do all that, and you could once again attempt to explain why the historical statistical mean, mode, median and circumstances associated with each don't matter.



Terminus -> RE: Incoming! (6/2/2009 8:24:18 PM)

Soooo predictable...[8|]



mdiehl -> RE: Incoming! (6/2/2009 8:40:06 PM)

Agreed. Hence my sig lines.




herwin -> RE: Incoming! (6/2/2009 9:39:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

OK, I realize this a grenade, and others may have seen this article on the Long Lance, but I found it interesting, so here it is:

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-067.htm

Author says LL achieved 6.7% hit rate. WITP has a higher hit rate, though WITP Long Lances appear to not cause the damage that RL ones do. Overall I'm fine with the way it is in the game.

They were controversial weapons, but I think one thing is indisputable: When they hit, that large warhead really HURT.


OPERATIONS RESEARCH

Looks like some good numbers. The estimated pH for a torpedo launched at 880 yds against a warship moving at 25-30 knots was 5%.



AW1Steve -> RE: Incoming! (6/2/2009 9:40:29 PM)

Statistically analysis produces statistics. It is not a all knowing crystal ball. The greatest data processing device today, is no better that the data put into it , and the people who use it.(As programmers say GIGO-garbage in, garbage out). Robert Strange MacNamara and Donald Rumsfeld both worshipped statistical analysis. Colin Powel,Norman Swartzkoft,Curtis Lemay and Chester Nimitz did not. Who would you rather have commanding the troops?

And let's not forget the answer to the greatest bit of Statistical analysis ever! 42![:D]



CV Zuikaku -> RE: Incoming! (6/2/2009 9:41:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

When they went off they really hurt. In a bunch of cases they really hurt the ships armed with them. And yes, it's a grenade. The ususal suspects will shortly show up with a litany of reasons why the empirical facts don't matter.
My take is that the LL's success was largely a matter of short range when fired and surprise. If the Allies didn't know the torps were in the water and if they were fired from less than 8,500 yards and more than 1,000, they were pretty devastating.


Well ,you are the first one here who showed up withy your "litany of reasons". [:-] [:D] [8|]



mdiehl -> RE: Incoming! (6/2/2009 9:55:42 PM)

quote:

Statistically analysis produces statistics. It is not a all knowing crystal ball. The greatest data processing device today, is no better that the data put into it , and the people who use it.(As programmers say GIGO-garbage in, garbage out).


That is true. But you do have to know which sorts of subjects can be statistically addressed. If the question is "how likely is it that a torpedo fired at range X under circumstances Y will hit a target" it's a rather straightforward question. That, after all, was the basis of the TDC.

quote:

Robert Strange MacNamara and Donald Rumsfeld both worshipped statistical analysis. Colin Powel,Norman Swartzkoft, Curtis Lemay and Chester Nimitz did not. Who would you rather have commanding the troops?


LeMay was more of a statistician than your statement suggests. And I'd argue that McNamara and Rumsfeld were operating without data... it'd be as if someone came up with a hit rate for Japanese WW2 torpedoes in a consim that substantially differed from the hit rate mentioned in Czernecki's study on the assumption that some ideological factor should be given greater weight than actual usage successes and failures on the battlefield.

quote:

And let's not forget the answer to the greatest bit of Statistical analysis ever! 42!


Let us hope that mice aren't too involved in torpedo R&D these days.



mdiehl -> RE: Incoming! (6/2/2009 9:59:12 PM)

quote:

Well ,you are the first one here who showed up withy your "litany of reasons".


It was required that I do so after someone suggested that my position might not be based on the best empirical evidence. If anyone doesn't like to hear me make an empirical argument, they're free to agree with me and move on.



CV Zuikaku -> RE: Incoming! (6/2/2009 10:06:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Well ,you are the first one here who showed up withy your "litany of reasons".


It was required that I do so after someone suggested that my position might not be based on the best empirical evidence. If anyone doesn't like to hear me make an empirical argument, they're free to agree with me and move on.


Combat statistics might be a bit tricky area [;)] All after all, combat is not about statistic- it is Murphy's law in it's full scope and practice [:D]



Kereguelen -> RE: Incoming! (6/2/2009 10:09:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

.. it'd be as if someone came up with a hit rate for Japanese WW2 torpedoes in a consim that substantially differed from the hit rate mentioned in Czernecki's study on the assumption that some ideological factor should be given greater weight than actual usage successes and failures on the battlefield.



Then ... what was the hit rate for USN WW2 torpedoes? How does their hit rate compare to USN torpedo hit rates in WITP?



Historiker -> RE: Incoming! (6/2/2009 10:11:01 PM)

[sm=00000613.gif]



herwin -> RE: Incoming! (6/2/2009 10:20:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

.. it'd be as if someone came up with a hit rate for Japanese WW2 torpedoes in a consim that substantially differed from the hit rate mentioned in Czernecki's study on the assumption that some ideological factor should be given greater weight than actual usage successes and failures on the battlefield.



Then ... what was the hit rate for USN WW2 torpedoes? How does their hit rate compare to USN torpedo hit rates in WITP?



HISTORY

Airborne torpedoes? About 10%. I seem to recall the surface torpedo hit rate was similar.



mdiehl -> RE: Incoming! (6/2/2009 10:26:55 PM)

quote:

Combat statistics might be a bit tricky area All after all, combat is not about statistic- it is Murphy's law in it's full scope and practice


We agree that unforeseen things can mess up a predicted outcome based on some statistical calculation. That said, Murphy's law is a statistical argument. Basically it's an engineering law that notes that a part is most likely to fail when it is placed under the greatest stress, and parts tend to be placed under the greatest stress when they're most needed.

I'm not sure how many cases of actual battles can be invoked as examples of Murphy's Law in action. Maybe the ABDA's command and control structure in the battle of the Java sea, USN command and control at the battle of Savo Island, or the Japanese operational plan at Midway (a plan that had no tolerance at all for deviation from predicted perfect execution).

quote:

Then ... what was the hit rate for USN WW2 torpedoes?


I don't know. To my knowledge, no one has brought it up before around here. I could probably put something together for USN torpedo shots. You might ask someone at Matrix where their algorithm comes from.

quote:

How does their hit rate compare to USN torpedo hit rates in WITP?


I'd guess that certainly the Japanese hit and detonation rate in 1942 was considerably better than the USN hit and detonation rate in 1942.



wworld7 -> RE: Incoming! (6/2/2009 10:28:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Robert Strange MacNamara and Donald Rumsfeld both worshipped statistical analysis. Colin Powel,Norman Swartzkoft,Curtis Lemay and Chester Nimitz did not.



I doubt you have done enough indepth research on these men, as your statement above is not accurate at all with Gen. Powel, Gen. Curtis or Admiral Nimitz. I dont' have extensive knowedge of Gen Swartzkoft, but I could guess he would also take offense to your statement, but again with my lack of knowedge of him I could be wrong.



herwin -> RE: Incoming! (6/2/2009 10:43:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Combat statistics might be a bit tricky area All after all, combat is not about statistic- it is Murphy's law in it's full scope and practice


We agree that unforeseen things can mess up a predicted outcome based on some statistical calculation. That said, Murphy's law is a statistical argument. Basically it's an engineering law that notes that a part is most likely to fail when it is placed under the greatest stress, and parts tend to be placed under the greatest stress when they're most needed.

I'm not sure how many cases of actual battles can be invoked as examples of Murphy's Law in action. Maybe the ABDA's command and control structure in the battle of the Java sea, USN command and control at the battle of Savo Island, or the Japanese operational plan at Midway (a plan that had no tolerance at all for deviation from predicted perfect execution).

quote:

Then ... what was the hit rate for USN WW2 torpedoes?


I don't know. To my knowledge, no one has brought it up before around here. I could probably put something together for USN torpedo shots. You might ask someone at Matrix where their algorithm comes from.

quote:

How does their hit rate compare to USN torpedo hit rates in WITP?


I'd guess that certainly the Japanese hit and detonation rate in 1942 was considerably better than the USN hit and detonation rate in 1942.


HISTORY

IJN airborne torpedo hit rate was about 20%. I seem to recall the surface torpedo hit rate was about the same as the Allied hit rate. On the other hand, the maximum range of the Japanese oxygen torpedoes was much greater, and their detectability was much lower.



mdiehl -> RE: Incoming! (6/2/2009 10:52:16 PM)

quote:

IJN airborne torpedo hit rate was about 20%.


Do you know whether or not that varied by platform (for ex B5N vs G4M)?

quote:

On the other hand, the maximum range of the Japanese oxygen torpedoes was much greater, and their detectability was much lower.


Yes. That's why circumstances of firing made such a difference (IMO). It was pretty common for both USN and IJN skippers to assume they were taking torpedo fire more or less as soon as they were sure that their own ships had been identified by the enemy. When the Japanese could get a torpedo volley off before the USN knew they were taking fire, the Japanese could do rather well. Ditto for the USN at Balikpapan in 1942 and at Cape Esperence, and subsequent 1943 actions such as Empress Augusta Bay and the like.

That's why Czernecki is correct (IMO) to suggest that the greatest asset of the Type 93A was its speed, rather than its range.

Daylight shots had pretty poor success rates except under pretty weird circumstances, such as the USN DD/DE charge at the Battle of Samar.



AirGriff -> RE: Incoming! (6/2/2009 11:27:04 PM)

Now that I've read this entire thread, the odds are statistically pretty good I'm going to head to the fridge for something cold to drink [:D]



bobogoboom -> RE: Incoming! (6/2/2009 11:53:15 PM)

[8|]



RevRick -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 1:40:22 AM)

To heck with this joyful banter. Clapton and Stevie Winwood are playing on PBS right now... Adios...



AW1Steve -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 2:21:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Robert Strange MacNamara and Donald Rumsfeld both worshipped statistical analysis. Colin Powel,Norman Swartzkoft,Curtis Lemay and Chester Nimitz did not.



I doubt you have done enough indepth research on these men, as your statement above is not accurate at all with Gen. Powel, Gen. Curtis or Admiral Nimitz. I dont' have extensive knowedge of Gen Swartzkoft, but I could guess he would also take offense to your statement, but again with my lack of knowedge of him I could be wrong.



Ah, but you didn't read what I said. I didn't say that they didn't use statistical analysis.I said that they didn't worship them.They gave statistical analysis as much attention as it deserved. The 1st two genetlemen used SA for SA sake. They didn't see it as merely another tool in a tool box full of options. They say it as the end all and be all. There is the difference. And Lemay , in particular, was quite willing to toss the whole process and go with a gut hunch. [:D]



AW1Steve -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 2:23:49 AM)

mdiehl, I wasn't dissing you (ok, maybe I was teasing you a little). Please don't take offense. I was trying to be playfull, and as usual, got a little heavy handed. Sorry. [8|]



rogueusmc -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 2:47:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

How does their hit rate compare to USN torpedo hit rates in WITP?


I'd guess that certainly the Japanese hit and detonation rate in 1942 was considerably better than the USN hit and detonation rate in 1942.

I like this part...



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.0625