RE: Incoming! (Full Version)

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



Message

AW1Steve -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 9:53:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Mdiehl, why are you so eager to fight and argue everytime when there is issue about japanese hit percentages/ship quality/TORPEDOES/zero... Why? what enrages you that much about japanese equipment?


I'm not particularly eager to fight about anything, but I'll stand by any claim that is best supported by facts, and I don't back down just because someone feels that the facts are not as they should be.

Is there a problem here? The modal and median hit rates of Type 93As was 0% (per battle), and the mean hit rate around 6%. My position is that these measures of central tendency reflect the realities of the range of historically possible usages of the weapon, and therefore any good consim will produce a similar distribution. If we agree, then there's nothing to argue about. If someone disagrees, they have the choice of demonstrating that the numbers derived by Czernecki are inaccurate and that some other set of numbers is more accurate, or else they have to claim that the stats don't matter. If the stats don't matter, then all one is left with is competing subjective claims.



Debating facts is what we are supposed to be doing here. And as long as no one calls each other names the debate can go on forever (and should! ) [:D]



mdiehl -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 9:55:01 PM)

Easy Steve. I don't feel that CVZuikaku is taking sides. I think he just doesn't understand my position.

For ex:

quote:

But even fan of statistics shoul'd know that if they were so crappy and had 0% hit rates, and that their crappy ships blew and suffered from spontanious self combustion- the US woul'd won the war by mid '42 at the worst scenario...


You sound like you're angry at me because the Japanese modal and (edit) median hit rates were 0%. I can't understand why you'd be upset with me over a matter of historical fact.

You don't need to postulate spontaneous self combustion for Allied ships. It's already a well known fact that in several engagements the Japanese had very good success with their torpedoes. Nobody denies that success.

In my view, a talented historian will look at the Japanese typical results (mode 0%, median 0%, mean 6.5ish %) and then look at their really remarkable successes (Tassafaronga, Savo Island) and ask how the circumstances of the exceptionally good cases differed from the more normative cases. As Herwin noted above, "surprise" was a big factor. If the Allied flotilla commander (usu an Admiral) thought that he had not been detected by the Japanese and the range was relatively short, the Japanese tended to do very well.

I'd add that a USN DD flotilla commander wouldn't have made the same mistake as Adm. Wright made at Tassafaronga. Not even in 1942.

And aren't we at some level here just replicating the kind of historical discussion that DD skippers and flotilla leaders like Burke had with higher ranking cruiser based flotilla leaders? In 1942 USN DDs were slaves to the gun line if there was a CA or bigger gun line present. In 1943 they were turned loose.



CV Zuikaku -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 9:56:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Mdiehl, why are you so eager to fight and argue everytime when there is issue about japanese hit percentages/ship quality/TORPEDOES/zero... Why? what enrages you that much about japanese equipment?


I'm not particularly eager to fight about anything, but I'll stand by any claim that is best supported by facts, and I don't back down just because someone feels that the facts are not as they should be.

Is there a problem here? The modal and median hit rates of Type 93As was 0% (per battle), and the mean hit rate around 6%. My position is that these measures of central tendency reflect the realities of the range of historically possible usages of the weapon, and therefore any good consim will produce a similar distribution. If we agree, then there's nothing to argue about. If someone disagrees, they have the choice of demonstrating that the numbers derived by Czernecki are inaccurate and that some other set of numbers is more accurate, or else they have to claim that the stats don't matter. If the stats don't matter, then all one is left with is competing subjective claims.


So, basically, it woul'd be historically accurate if japanese warships in WITP/AE were unable to score a single hit with Type93 ?! I don't know, but I read that there were hits. It doesn't matter if americans were surprised or unaware or in confusion. Heck, KB was in total confusion at Midway, and using that analogy we coul'd say that all those bomb hits by SBDs does not count cause japanese were confused and surprised- and that means that SBD is overrated crappy plane (which it is not).



CV Zuikaku -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 10:03:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Easy Steve. I don't feel that CVZuikaku is taking sides. I think he just doesn't understand my position.

For ex:

quote:

But even fan of statistics shoul'd know that if they were so crappy and had 0% hit rates, and that their crappy ships blew and suffered from spontanious self combustion- the US woul'd won the war by mid '42 at the worst scenario...


You sound like you're angry at me because the Japanese modal and mean hit rates were 0%. I can't understand why you'd be upset with me over a matter of historical fact.

You don't need to postulate spontaneous self combustion for Allied ships. It's already a well known fact that in several engagements the Japanese had very good success with their torpedoes. Nobody denies that success.

In my view, a talented historian will look at the Japanese typical results (mode 0%, median 0%, mean 6.5ish %) and then look at their really remarkable successes (Tassafaronga, Savo Island) and ask how the circumstances of the exceptionally good cases differed from the more normative cases. As Herwin noted above, "surprise" was a big factor. If the Allied flotilla commander (usu an Admiral) thought that he had not been detected by the Japanese and the range was relatively short, the Japanese tended to do very well.

I'd add that a USN DD flotilla commander wouldn't have made the same mistake as Adm. Wright made at Tassafaronga. Not even in 1942.


OK, think that now I understand what you are trying to say [:)]



mdiehl -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 10:07:40 PM)

quote:

So, basically, it woul'd be historically accurate if japanese warships in WITP/AE were unable to score a single hit with Type93 ?! I don't know, but I read that there were hits.


I think you really need to consider what is meant by mean, median and mode. There's no escaping the historical distribution. A strong central tendency towards 0% hit rate is not the same thing as "unable to score a single hit." What it means is that if you were a betting man and could travel back in time, if you put money on the outcome of a battle, you bet that NO ONE would get a hit in a torpedo engagement between surface ships in 1942. Most of the time your bet would pay off. And a couple of times your bet would lose badly.

quote:

It doesn't matter if americans were surprised or unaware or in confusion.


Actually, it matters ALOT. If you look at Japan's two greatest victories you see that surprise and confusion were the dominating characteristics of the USN battle condition at Savo Island. Part of that came from a lousy command structure, some of it from fatigue, some of it from lousy communications. Ultimately though, the USN ships didn't know they were in combat until well after the Japanese torpedoes had been launched.

Savo Island bears a strong resemblence (in re confusion, command and control, and torpedo usage) to the USN victory at Balikpapan in January 1942.



castor troy -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 10:07:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

Mdiehl, why are you so eager to fight and argue everytime when there is issue about japanese hit percentages/ship quality/TORPEDOES/zero... Why? what enrages you that much about japanese equipment? [;)] [&:] [:(]



Oh thank you! Not only do you throw fuel on the fire , you take sides! Why don't you help try and cool this debate off? That would be the RESPONSIBLE thing to do![:(]



Steve, please tell me that you donīt find Zuikakuīs post insulting or a try to piss Mr. M off. Either I donīt know English at all (perhaps I should start discussing in German but I guess Mr. M would find speaking German crappy - sorry, canīt resist [;)]) or why isnīt this a permitted question as it definetely begs some truth in it? [&:]


I find it very much so. But I still feel that there is no reason why educated adults need to resort to name calling and getting personal. Your English is Outstanding! There are several native English speakers on the forum that I seldom understand, but your English is impeccable. (It makes me ashamed that I speak no German, Spanish,Croatian or any of the other languages of some of our forum brothers).

I know that you and Mdiel don't get along. That's fine , some people just rub each other the wrong way. But personal attacks will get you both banned. And the moderators have been concerntrating on AE, so a lot of poor behavior has gone unpunished. But AE is done, they are just waiting for the printer to do his job. So the policemen are back. Please mind the insults. Because they will be. And both you and Mdiel are assets to the forum. So play nice , or ignore each other. Please. I for one , don't want to see either of you banned. [:(]



Well, until an hour ago I have never had a problem with him in over 5 years of my forum membership. Itīs like Iīve stated before, I felt symphaty for him for staying behind what he says when 80% of the people here disagree. And most of those people canīt be called uninformed when it comes down to WWII aircraft, ships, tanks, etc. He always was kind of a Don Quichote fighting windmills and that got my respect. I started to have a serious problem with him after being called a troll, just because HE did an absolutely stupid post - POST NO 2 in this thread - and I responded to that post as his statement definetely implied that everyone that doesnīt agree with him is either stupid, a revisionist, has no idea of statistics, etc.

I did have a problem with only one guy on this forum and I guess heīs well aware of that. Iīm not the only one anyway who has problems with him but that doesnīt matter now anyway. And what I also know is the fact that there are people that have also problems with Mr M. Well, now there seem to be two people here I do have a problem with and I am absolutely aware of the fact that jwilkerson or one of the other mods wonīt like my posts at all. [:-] And I am aware that insulting is a reason to get banned and thatīs just how it should be. But honestly, thereīs a point when I just risk to be banned (would be the first time in 5 years anyway - MY first time, not the first time of the guys I donīt come along with). Itīs childish behaviour that I react on being called a Troll, but hey, perhaps I just have a bad day. Call someone a troll and donīt get a response, call another person a troll, an idiot a whatever. If you never get a punch on your nose, you will never learn, at least not a person like him it seems.

You donīt have to speak another language, youīre an English native speaker and that enables you to come along quite good all around the world. [;)] As soon as I cross the border I have to either use Italian (which Iīm not that good in at all anymore) or English. I go with English and am even speaking English with my Dutch relatives even though I am usually good enough to explain myself in Dutch too. English is the way to go.



CV Zuikaku -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 10:20:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl


quote:

It doesn't matter if americans were surprised or unaware or in confusion.


Actually, it matters ALOT. If you look at Japan's two greatest victories you see that surprise and confusion were the dominating characteristics of the USN battle condition at Savo Island. Part of that came from a lousy command structure, some of it from fatigue, some of it from lousy communications. Ultimately though, the USN ships didn't know they were in combat until well after the Japanese torpedoes had been launched.

Savo Island bears a strong resemblence (in re confusion, command and control, and torpedo usage) to the USN victory at Balikpapan in January 1942.


what I ment to say is that it doesn't matter in the final statistic- confusion or not! All after all, war is the ultimate confusion... And the side that lose the battle usually lose it due to higher level of confusion/surprise than opposing side...



AW1Steve -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 10:23:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

Mdiehl, why are you so eager to fight and argue everytime when there is issue about japanese hit percentages/ship quality/TORPEDOES/zero... Why? what enrages you that much about japanese equipment? [;)] [&:] [:(]



Oh thank you! Not only do you throw fuel on the fire , you take sides! Why don't you help try and cool this debate off? That would be the RESPONSIBLE thing to do![:(]



Steve, please tell me that you donīt find Zuikakuīs post insulting or a try to piss Mr. M off. Either I donīt know English at all (perhaps I should start discussing in German but I guess Mr. M would find speaking German crappy - sorry, canīt resist [;)]) or why isnīt this a permitted question as it definetely begs some truth in it? [&:]


I find it very much so. But I still feel that there is no reason why educated adults need to resort to name calling and getting personal. Your English is Outstanding! There are several native English speakers on the forum that I seldom understand, but your English is impeccable. (It makes me ashamed that I speak no German, Spanish,Croatian or any of the other languages of some of our forum brothers).

I know that you and Mdiel don't get along. That's fine , some people just rub each other the wrong way. But personal attacks will get you both banned. And the moderators have been concerntrating on AE, so a lot of poor behavior has gone unpunished. But AE is done, they are just waiting for the printer to do his job. So the policemen are back. Please mind the insults. Because they will be. And both you and Mdiel are assets to the forum. So play nice , or ignore each other. Please. I for one , don't want to see either of you banned. [:(]



Well, until an hour ago I have never had a problem with him in over 5 years of my forum membership. Itīs like Iīve stated before, I felt symphaty for him for staying behind what he says when 80% of the people here disagree. And most of those people canīt be called uninformed when it comes down to WWII aircraft, ships, tanks, etc. He always was kind of a Don Quichote fighting windmills and that got my respect. I started to have a serious problem with him after being called a troll, just because HE did an absolutely stupid post - POST NO 2 in this thread - and I responded to that post as his statement definetely implied that everyone that doesnīt agree with him is either stupid, a revisionist, has no idea of statistics, etc.

I did have a problem with only one guy on this forum and I guess heīs well aware of that. Iīm not the only one anyway who has problems with him but that doesnīt matter now anyway. And what I also know is the fact that there are people that have also problems with Mr M. Well, now there seem to be two people here I do have a problem with and I am absolutely aware of the fact that jwilkerson or one of the other mods wonīt like my posts at all. [:-] And I am aware that insulting is a reason to get banned and thatīs just how it should be. But honestly, thereīs a point when I just risk to be banned (would be the first time in 5 years anyway - MY first time, not the first time of the guys I donīt come along with). Itīs childish behaviour that I react on being called a Troll, but hey, perhaps I just have a bad day. Call someone a troll and donīt get a response, call another person a troll, an idiot a whatever. If you never get a punch on your nose, you will never learn, at least not a person like him it seems.

You donīt have to speak another language, youīre an English native speaker and that enables you to come along quite good all around the world. [;)] As soon as I cross the border I have to either use Italian (which Iīm not that good in at all anymore) or English. I go with English and am even speaking English with my Dutch relatives even though I am usually good enough to explain myself in Dutch too. English is the way to go.


Maybe. But I've always felt the best way to understand another culture is to live it if possible. Eat the food, drink the drink and most important, speak some of the langauge. Only then can you begin to understand the people. But my talent doesn't include languages, and although I keep trying other languages, they just don't take.

I certainly understand your offense at being called a troll. I would be too. I don't think Mdiel would normally use that word, but I think passion and tempers got to everyone, and as a result words flew that probably shouldn't.

What I'm really hopeing is we can get by that little spat. You both are extremely intelligent and I'd say learned gentlemen. And you are both assets to the forum. It's upsetting for use "newbies" to see two masters slag away at each other (it's kind of like being a kid , watching adults argue). Because I really don't think there are that many differences between you both, just degree's of seperation. And as long as tempers are under control, and provocative words are avoided, I see no reason why you two shouldn't get on well.

So how about this? Let's forget the former unpleasantness, and start fresh? Everybody gets angry and has a bad day. Let's just call this one. I won't ask you two to shake hands and make friends. But I will ask you both to try and forget what was said earlier. Life's too short to fight, and the forum is no place to do it.

Frankly , I'd really love to hear you both do a quiet, non-passionate debate on the subject, I think I'd learn a lot. But please guys, easy on the math! I'm a history major! No speaky calculus! [:D]



mdiehl -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 10:24:07 PM)

quote:

And the side that lose the battle usually lose it due to higher level of confusion/surprise than opposing side...


Mostly I agree. Look at the Battle of Balikpapan (IIRC 17 January 1942) for example. Crappy US torpedoes. Substantial confusion among the Japanese. The results were a substantial USN victory. Too bad those USN DDs didn't have something like a Type 93 Long Lance torpedo, because then you'd have seen some real rocking and rolling.



CV Zuikaku -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 10:35:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

And the side that lose the battle usually lose it due to higher level of confusion/surprise than opposing side...


Mostly I agree. Look at the Battle of Balikpapan (IIRC 17 January 1942) for example. Crappy US torpedoes. Substantial confusion among the Japanese. The results were a substantial USN victory. Too bad those USN DDs didn't have something like a Type 93 Long Lance torpedo, because then you'd have seen some real rocking and rolling.


I tried to find in my memory one WW2 naval engagement in which both sides were perfectly calm and not in confusion, but I failed to do that. confusion is everywhere when the battle starts [;)]
It's true, USN cruisers, destroyers and subs were badly crippled by not having reliable torpedoes in '42...



Barb -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 10:42:00 PM)

Uh Oh! Another "can of worms"? Who wants to go out fishin' ? [:D]



mdiehl -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 10:44:45 PM)

quote:

I tried to find in my memory one WW2 naval engagement in which both sides were perfectly calm and not in confusion, but I failed to do that. confusion is everywhere when the battle starts


I think the phrase you're looking for describes a meeting engagement where both sides are alert at the start of the battle. The two November battles at Guadalcanal fit the book in my view. Tactically, the Japanese got the better of the USN in the first battle, and tactically the USN won the 2nd battle.

Admiral Wright *should* have won (or at least done better ) at Tassafaronga. I can only attribute his defeat there to being a blockhead. He seemed to think that he hadn't been detected by the Japanese, even though he'd tracked them by radar and visually for several minutes, and he refused to let his DD skippers use their torpedoes when they had a rather optimal target solution.

I have no idea how one would model a blockheaded admiral in a consim. If you modeled the fellow as a blockhead, what player would let him command a combat flotilla?



AW1Steve -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 10:46:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Uh Oh! Another "can of worms"? Who wants to go out fishin' ? [:D]


Your late to the party! Where ya been? [:D]



Barb -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 10:54:36 PM)

Cookin' lot of hellish good lasagna [8D]



whippleofd -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 10:57:25 PM)

Sunk! Sunk I tell ya!

NOT SCUTTLED!

Same argument. Different noun.

Whipple



CV Zuikaku -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 10:58:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

I tried to find in my memory one WW2 naval engagement in which both sides were perfectly calm and not in confusion, but I failed to do that. confusion is everywhere when the battle starts


I think the phrase you're looking for describes a meeting engagement where both sides are alert at the start of the battle. The two November battles at Guadalcanal fit the book in my view. Tactically, the Japanese got the better of the USN in the first battle, and tactically the USN won the 2nd battle.



Again, I can not agree with you [;)] In both November 13th and 14th both sides were alerted, but were also in great confusion. let me see... Hiei entered into the battle expecting to bomb the hell out of Henderson field... but instead she found herself with decks full of prepared HE rounds in naval engagement... and US task force was so confused in resulting melee that any coordination was impossible -resulting in friendly fire. the second battle was less confusing, but was also not as planned- neither for USN or IJN...



mdiehl -> RE: Incoming! (6/3/2009 11:10:14 PM)

I was talking about initial conditions. The decay of good order is otherwise pretty much expected in combat I think, unless command and control are exceptionally good. In the Pacific lull after December 1942, the USN spent ALOT of time studying their mistakes, and perhaps more important than material improvements were the improvements in command and control.

We seem mostly to agree on this. Whatever we seem to disagree on at this point seems relatively minor and rather subtle.



niceguy2005 -> RE: Incoming! (6/4/2009 12:47:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

At least it's an old grenade.

This is a WWII forum....they're all old grenades. [:'(]



AW1Steve -> RE: Incoming! (6/4/2009 2:17:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005


quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

At least it's an old grenade.

This is a WWII forum....they're all old grenades. [:'(]


Ask any EOD guy. Old grenades (or any old explosive) is ALWAYS more dangerous than a new one! [:D]



Charles2222 -> RE: Incoming! (6/4/2009 3:15:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

Mdiehl, why are you so eager to fight and argue everytime when there is issue about japanese hit percentages/ship quality/TORPEDOES/zero... Why? what enrages you that much about japanese equipment? [;)] [&:] [:(]



Oh thank you! Not only do you throw fuel on the fire , you take sides! Why don't you help try and cool this debate off? That would be the RESPONSIBLE thing to do![:(]

While CV Zuikaku may often take sides, I do not know, but in that one case he was simply asking a question. I know it's impossible to believe somebody with an IJ type logonid might not be an JFB, but an FB of any sort couldn't have asked that question and had it less loaded; believe me. Mdiehl is simply that way, and he would like to know why.



Nemo121 -> RE: Incoming! (6/4/2009 3:19:06 AM)

Couple of points in response to the actual topic:

1. In WW2 naval combat with torpedoes I think 10 kilometres is pretty long range.

2. In statistical analysis I think you get onto very shaky ground when you say ( effectively ) "if we ignore instances where the Allies were surprised or where there were startlingly high hit percentages". Sorry but an analysis should include as many data points as possible and not just those ones which support your view.

3. You might argue that "being surprised" was rare and so there's rationale for removing torpedo attack results while under such conditions. I would respond that since it was quite possible that the attack on the night preceding the "decisive battle" would have elements of surprise I could use that same argument to say "We MUST assume there would be surprise so I'm only going to accept the 20 to 40% hit rates. At that rate each IJN DD would put 16 torpedoes into the water, get about 5 hits and account for 2 USN BBs per DD committed". This is, obviously, indefensible statistically as you are selecting your sample in order to create the results you want.


IJN torpedoes weren't war-winners by any stretch of the imagination and they were neither as effective or as terrible as the two extremes in this debate would seek to misrepresent them to have been BUT I think the MEAN performance of any weapons system across ALL of its combat outings is a pretty reasonable guide as to its performance in a hypothetical battle which may have featured surprise or radar detection or any other myriad confounders such that we can't just say "to model the hypothetical battle I'll assume there was no surprise".


Outruling instances from your sample because they featured high percentage hits and then turning around to say that the hit rate was pathetically low is really not defensible IMO in this instance.



herwin,
Aye, if I understand you correctly under surprise conditions one could expect a three to four-fold increase in hits above the 6% figure I used. As such would you not agree that the 6% figure ( the mean of all conditions ) is a reasonable figure to use to figure out what one could expect from a series of concentrated DD night attacks against a battleline ( with several hundred torpedoes being fired at the battleline over the course of these attacks) ?



mdiehl,
The whole point behind the IJN doctrine was that the decisive battle would not be occuring at the end of a long attritional war in which the USN got to "catch on". Their idea was to ambush the USN fleet seeking to relieve the Phillipines etc when it sailed 6 months to a year after the war started.

Personally I think their doctrine relied a bit too much on the enemy being dumb BUT if the USN had done what the Japanese expected I really don't have any problem imagining that 30 IJN DD ( 16 torpedoes each ) + 6 or so CLs ( another 16 torps each ) + the 2 Kitakamis ( about 80 torps each ) could have fired the guts of 750 torpedoes at ranges of 10km or so from the US battleline with a reasonable prospect of surprise on at least some of those occasions such that the mean hit % would have been about 6% - resulting in about 45 Long Lance hits on BBs and CAs. That's a lot of the battleline sunk there.

I think the real issue is that their concept of the strategic imperatives and strength of airpower was so off as to render the whole decisive battle concept erroneous. BUT if it had happened as they had thought it would I just don't see how you can argue with a mean hit % of 6% taking into account both battles in which they had the advantage of surprise and those in which they didn't.



Charles2222 -> RE: Incoming! (6/4/2009 3:24:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

Mdiehl, why are you so eager to fight and argue everytime when there is issue about japanese hit percentages/ship quality/TORPEDOES/zero... Why? what enrages you that much about japanese equipment? [;)] [&:] [:(]




Oh thank you! Not only do you throw fuel on the fire , you take sides! Why don't you help try and cool this debate off? That would be the RESPONSIBLE thing to do![:(]



Steve, please tell me that you donīt find Zuikakuīs post insulting or a try to piss Mr. M off. Either I donīt know English at all (perhaps I should start discussing in German but I guess Mr. M would find speaking German crappy - sorry, canīt resist [;)]) or why isnīt this a permitted question as it definetely begs some truth in it? [&:]


Well, I'm not a native english speaker, and my english is very crappy, but I hope it was not insulting... sorry if I was...


You weren't.



Nemo121 -> RE: Incoming! (6/4/2009 3:26:04 AM)

FWIW I thought you (Zuikaku ) were asking a question and not being insulting.



herwin -> RE: Incoming! (6/4/2009 10:03:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

If you fire your torpedos at 15km obviously you will get less hits. If the doutrine says to fire at 2km there will be more, all other things equal.


Torpedoes were an area fire weapon: "It's not the bomb with my name on it that I'm afraid of; it's the one addressed 'To Whom It May Concern'". As long as the target battle line extended outside the spread of torpedoes being launched, range was only important in giving the targets more time to react. If they knew they were going to be blessed with a visitation, and they turned in time, there wasn't much more they could do.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Incoming! (6/4/2009 10:16:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Personally I think their doctrine relied a bit too much on the enemy being dumb BUT if the USN had done what the Japanese expected I really don't have any problem imagining that 30 IJN DD ( 16 torpedoes each ) + 6 or so CLs ( another 16 torps each ) + the 2 Kitakamis ( about 80 torps each ) could have fired the guts of 750 torpedoes at ranges of 10km or so from the US battleline with a reasonable prospect of surprise on at least some of those occasions such that the mean hit % would have been about 6% - resulting in about 45 Long Lance hits on BBs and CAs. That's a lot of the battleline sunk there.



Their whole concept of the "attrition battle" to proceed the "Decisive Battle" was pretty rigid, and depended a lot on the US Navy advancing in much the same manner as the British Grand Fleet at Jutland. Had they been presented with such a target, then it's highly likely that their light forces, operating at night with massed torpedo batteries of unprescedented (and unimagined) range, would have had a serious chance of inflicting a first class disaster.

The real failings of this doctrine were that the Japanese became so "invested" in it that they refused to allow for the enemy deviating from his part in "the plan". IRL, the big strengths of the "Long Lance" proved to be it's high speed, large punch, and lack of a visable wake. So many of the "design specs" for the weapon proved quite usefull, even if the monsterous range wasn't.



herwin -> RE: Incoming! (6/4/2009 10:37:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

herwin,
Aye, if I understand you correctly under surprise conditions one could expect a three to four-fold increase in hits above the 6% figure I used. As such would you not agree that the 6% figure ( the mean of all conditions ) is a reasonable figure to use to figure out what one could expect from a series of concentrated DD night attacks against a battleline ( with several hundred torpedoes being fired at the battleline over the course of these attacks) ?



OPERATIONS RESEARCH

Destroyers were about half as vulnerable as major surface units, and it was also a question of what the ship spacing was in the line of battle and how many lines were present.

To replicate the Solomons actions and cover other possible night actions, I'd define three lines: screen, major warships, and non-combatants. The screen would consist of destroyer-class gunships and smaller cruisers (up to about 6500 tons or so). The major warship line would consist of larger cruisers, battlecruisers, and battleships. Non-combatants would consist of carriers and auxiliaries. Major warships would be spaced at 1000 meters. Non-combatants and carriers would be spaced at 1000 meters. Destroyers would be spaced to cover the other two lines--call that the target array length--with a minimum spacing of 500 meters, so that excess destroyers miss the party. Torpedoes would be distributed over the target array. Allied torpedoes would attack one line--the first one with significant numbers of ships. Japanese torpedoes would attack two lines, similarly beginning with the first one with significant numbers of ships. Determine the target array length, and the percentage of the target array length (defined above) for a given line that consists of ships--if surprised, use the ship lengths; if not, use the ship beams--that's the probability that a torpedo will hit a ship. Start with the torpedoes, and allot them randomly to ships in the first line. See which actually hit, and save the remainder for the next line--if there is another line. Repeat for the second line. Report.

Ignore the Mogami performance at Balipapan, where she sank five Japanese transports.




mdiehl -> RE: Incoming! (6/4/2009 5:44:46 PM)

quote:

In statistical analysis I think you get onto very shaky ground when you say ( effectively ) "if we ignore instances where the Allies were surprised or where there were startlingly high hit percentages". Sorry but an analysis should include as many data points as possible and not just those ones which support your view.


Statistical analysis has to account for central tendencies and outliers. That is why any statistician worth two bits doesn't only look at the mean, but also the median and the mode. Sophisticated fellers will even break it down into percentiles. In any small sample, one expects statistical outliers, and these have to be on the one hand accounted for and on the other closely examined, because outliers often indicate the influence of some unaccounted for factor that is absent from the more normative results.

quote:

You might argue that "being surprised" was rare and so there's rationale for removing torpedo attack results while under such conditions.


Why would one argue that? A better approach is to ask oneself which conditions led to the outlying results and to assume that outliers would be more reasonable when atypical conditions occur.

quote:

IJN torpedoes weren't war-winners by any stretch of the imagination and they were neither as effective or as terrible as the two extremes in this debate would seek to misrepresent them to have been BUT I think the MEAN performance of any weapons system across ALL of its combat outings is a pretty reasonable guide as to its performance in a hypothetical battle which may have featured surprise or radar detection or any other myriad confounders such that we can't just say "to model the hypothetical battle I'll assume there was no surprise".


The mean of a distribution is only a good measure of central tendency when the distribution is normal. If the distribution is not normal, you can't use the mean and standard deviation to represent the distribution because you couldn't recreate the distribution using those measures alone. Every competent study of central tendency begins with a histogram; no competent study of central tendency presumes at the outset that the mean *must* be a good measure of central tendency.

quote:

The whole point behind the IJN doctrine was that the decisive battle would not be occuring at the end of a long attritional war in which the USN got to "catch on". Their idea was to ambush the USN fleet seeking to relieve the Phillipines etc when it sailed 6 months to a year after the war started.


The battle was expected to be attritional and involve a series of engagements beginning in the central pacific and ending close to Japan. One supposes that if Japan could have gotten ONE fight with the USN involving all the ships of both navies in March 1942, the plan might have born fruit. If they'd waited until March 1943, they'd lose, because by then US radar would have provided a tactically decisive advantage.

quote:

BUT if it had happened as they had thought it would I just don't see how you can argue with a mean hit % of 6% taking into account both battles in which they had the advantage of surprise and those in which they didn't.


The mean proportion of hits per battle is, with respect to WW2 IJN surface ship torpedo shots, a statistically poor measure of central tendency. It does not accurately describe the historical distribution. The reason why it does not do so is because torpedo success or failures were highly contingent on their use in favorable circumstances that, in the majority of IJN surface ship torpedo shots, were not extant at the time of the battle. That is why most of the time Japanese torpedos all missed.



AirGriff -> RE: Incoming! (6/4/2009 6:06:56 PM)

Against all statistical odds, I have emptied the refridgerator of cold libations and just awoke from a daze. Having finished reading this thread from where I left off yesterday, I believe it is highly probable, let's say 3-1 odds, that I will go ask a neighber for something stronger to drink.



JWE -> RE: Incoming! (6/4/2009 6:20:17 PM)

Statistics is a wonderful analysis tool so long as the input parameters are reasonably uniform. In warfare, each engagement has vastly different inputs, so the analytical result is not so much predictive as it is responsive (c.f. Deming). Mr Shewhart’s Bowl is a bit thin with only one ticket at the bottom.

Tools needs must be appropriate to the desired analysis. Statistics are not appropriate to prompt operational inspection, only longer term analysis.

For the philosophy, and math behind the statement, had a professional colloquy with (then Maj., now Maj. Gen.). Dan Bolger on this exact subject in the Nov? 1987 issue of The Artillery Journal (now Fires). Can discuss elsewhere if you are interested.



Panther Bait -> RE: Incoming! (6/4/2009 6:38:09 PM)

I agree with JWE, the number of engagements combined with the complexity of a typical surface engagement, provides a pretty small sample set for analysis.  It makes the outliers hard to correlate with the rest of the data.  How extreme are they really?  One in a hundred?  One in a thousand?  Hard to say when you have 27 events to include in your analysis.

Mike

P.S. I will agree though with those that say radar makes torpedo attacks much less effective.  The change in course/aspect ratio typically necessary to unmask the torpedo batteries is fairly easy to recognize and react to, particularly at long range.  I seem to remember reading several times in Morrison when US forces detected likely torpedo launches on radar and just had to change course long enough to clear the torpedo water before returning to their original course.  It might give the firer time to break an engagement off, if desired, but it didn't generate many hits.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.90625