RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (Full Version)

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



Message

witpqs -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/23/2009 8:03:42 PM)

Tazo, thanks for an excellent write-up of your observations and conclusions! [&o]

I would like to express one point of disagreement, that regarding the 'firing back process'. The problem with the firing back process is when and if it causes any gun to exceed its rate of fire.

The rate of fire is basically the laws of physics plus crew quality. I realize the game engine might not apply crew quality to rate of fire, but even if it did the effects should still be limited because of the physical apparatus involved.

I realize from my readings on various naval battles that often a ship would purposely target a ship that was firing upon it and of course I have no problem with that. The problem comes in when (if) the game engine applies that concept and causes one or more guns to exceed their rate of fire. Just to illustrate my point, a gun with a rate of fire of 4 times a minute cannot fire 7 or 8 times a minute, and probably can only fire 5 times a minute for a short period with an excellent crew. Even that might be stretching it, I hope subject matter experts chime in.

Even if 20 enemy vessels are firing at you, you can still only fire that gun 4 times per minute. This was one of the factors identified as a weakness in WITP, so hopefully it was changed for AE. Or, if it wasn't changed yet hopefully it can be changed in a patch.



Mus -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/23/2009 11:27:55 PM)

Had a fight off Guadalcanal last night. A night engagement between one of my CV task forces and a force the Japanese AI sent to raid down the island chain. Japanese force was 1 CA, 1 CL and 2 DDs I think. My force was something like CV, BB, CA, CA, CLAA, DD, DD, DD, DD, IIRC.

Engagement started off at 1000 yards with some minor slugging back and forth, but not much damage. Then it increased to 2000 yards. My BB N Carolina kept peppering the Japanese ships with .50 machinegun fire and 20mm AAA fire at 2000 yards and they kept firing back with their biggest guns and doing lots of non-penetrating hits. The guns from my Cruisers and Destroyers also seemed to be causing a lot of "shoot back" and then the Japanese started firing torpedoes back at me, 2 of which hit N Carolina causing major flooding and engine damage. At that point the Captain of the N Carolina remembered that his ship had 16" guns and they finally started shooting, still at 2000 yards, doing some good damage with the few hits scored. Then the ranges gradually increased as both sides had been trying to disengage and I continued firing the big guns with few hits but good results when I did. Both sides heavily battered the TFs broke off.

My CV and 3 DDs made out without much damage (luckily). They launched strikes on the broken up Japanese TF in the morning and sank them all.

N Carolina has 80 flooding, 43 major, 50 something engine and is limping back to base under escort at 3 knots. Both my CAs and the CLAA were also heavily damaged in the fight and headed back to port together in a group.

If somebody could give me a tip how to print these combat reports would appreciate it. Just started playing the game a few days ago. Are they logged somewhere?



Mike Scholl -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/24/2009 12:08:50 AM)

"My BB N Carolina kept peppering the Japanese ships with .50 machinegun fire and 20mm AAA fire at 2000 yards and they kept firing back with their biggest guns and doing lots of non-penetrating hits."
 
This has been a problem for years.   Wish someone could figure out how to achieve a rational fire distribution with this program.  At that range N.Carolina should have been engaging Cruisers with her main (16") battery, and probably DD's with her secondary (5") guns.   The light AAA batteries shouldn't even be manned, let alone doing the majority of the firing.   Maybe someday...



Kull -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/24/2009 12:17:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mus

If somebody could give me a tip how to print these combat reports would appreciate it. Just started playing the game a few days ago. Are they logged somewhere?


Look in your "Save" folder (one level down from the folder titled "War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition") for a text file titled "combatreport_(year)(month)(day).txt" Where year-month-day are two digit numerals. For example, "combatreport_430613.txt" is what happened on June 13th, 1943.



Mynok -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/24/2009 1:31:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

"My BB N Carolina kept peppering the Japanese ships with .50 machinegun fire and 20mm AAA fire at 2000 yards and they kept firing back with their biggest guns and doing lots of non-penetrating hits."
 
This has been a problem for years.   Wish someone could figure out how to achieve a rational fire distribution with this program.  At that range N.Carolina should have been engaging Cruisers with her main (16") battery, and probably DD's with her secondary (5") guns.   The light AAA batteries shouldn't even be manned, let alone doing the majority of the firing.   Maybe someday...


Could they even fire at something that close? Those big guns did have depression restrictions.



Mus -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/24/2009 2:45:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

Could they even fire at something that close? Those big guns did have depression restrictions.


2000 yards is over a mile away. The target is above sea level too, so there isn't that great a deal of vertical offset, plus the guns did have some negative depression. Main threat was a Japanese CA, not a patrol boat or guy in a rubber innertube.

Also the 5" secondary guns on the BB were not fired at 1000 yards either, only the .50 machineguns and the 20mm AAA guns.

My CA (checked and saw I only had one CA not two) was not firing its 8" guns at the very beginning either, instead using 1.1" AA guns in imitation of the BB I guess.



Dili -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/24/2009 2:56:37 AM)

quote:

Could they even fire at something that close? Those big guns did have depression restrictions.


Yes they could, Matapan was that close.



witpqs -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/24/2009 3:39:21 AM)

The BB's many 5in guns should have been devastating at that range...



Mike Scholl -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/24/2009 3:46:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
The BB's many 5in guns should have been devastating at that range...


Capitol ships in general get "the fuzzy end of the lollypop" in the WITP surface action program. One big advantage they had was multiple fire control positions and directors so that they COULD effectively use both their Primary and Secondary batteries at the same time and aginst multiple targets.

In the game, they are limited to one calibre of guns when they fire, and as often as not it's a totally rediculous choice like 20mm AAA. Really wish someone could figure out how to improve this situation.



Dili -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/24/2009 4:05:24 AM)

quote:

Capitol ships in general get "the fuzzy end of the lollypop" in the WITP surface action program. One big advantage they had was multiple fire control positions and directors so that they COULD effectively use both their Primary and Secondary batteries at the same time and aginst multiple targets.


That's another good point. They had also several AA directors(at worse one by each side) while a destroyer had one at best and some none.



Mynok -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/24/2009 4:56:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mus

2000 yards is over a mile away. The target is above sea level too, so there isn't that great a deal of vertical offset, plus the guns did have some negative depression. Main threat was a Japanese CA, not a patrol boat or guy in a rubber innertube.


I agree their secondary batteries should bear, but I'm not convinced the main ones should.



Kull -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/24/2009 5:27:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

I agree their secondary batteries should bear, but I'm not convinced the main ones should.


Read up on the Battle of Matapan. Main BB guns against CAs at 3000 yards. Ouch. Actually given the workings of the Surface Combat model (frequent close in actions), replicating the RL effects of Matapan would be frightening:

Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions: 4,000 yards
Range closes to 3,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 3,000 yards
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 3,000 yards
BB Hiei engages CL Boise at 3,000 yards (Boise takes six 12' shells and disappears in a cloud of smoke and shrapnel)
BB North Carolina engages BB Kirishima at 3,000 yards (BB Kirishima takes eight 14" shells and erupts in a column of flame, then breaks in half and sinks)
CA Kumano engages CA Australia at 3,000 yards (CA Australia takes nine 8" shells and is obliterated)
CA Chicago engages CA Myoko at 3,000 yards (CA Myoko takes seven 8" shells and explodes and capsizes)etc.



castor troy -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/24/2009 7:32:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

quote:


Reduced sighting due to 67% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Overcast Conditions and 67% moonlight: 8,000 yards
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 30,000 yards
BB Haruna engages BC Repulse at 30,000 yards
BC Repulse engages BB Kongo at 30,000 yards
BB Haruna engages DD Express at 30,000 yards
BB Haruna engages DD Electra at 30,000 yards
Range closes to 24,000 yards


Anyone else see something wrong here?

I remember noticing this is one of the pre-release AARs and commenting on it, but it seems it still happens.

I could understand the Japanese returning fire after the first few rounds even if its beyond the normal visibility, as by then they will see flashes and there will probably be illuminations rounds in the air, ect, but right off? Those Kongos must have some serious anti-radar gear...

Is there a reasonable explanation for this or is this a bug?



Gotta say it's still screwed up. The longest range a BB EVER scored a hit was about 26,000 yards, so the Allies opening fire at 30,000 is really dumb (expecially with a radar spot and such limited visability...all that happened is they wasted their "suprise"). Secondly, even if the Japs were firing at "muzzle flashes", why would the DD's be firing at all? To have a hope of hitting anything with their 4.7's, they would have to close to about 15,000. "Reasonable" it ain't..., so "bug" sounds appropriate.



I doubt this is a bug, it´s the game´s design. Weapons have a certain range and WITP and now also AE it seems make it possible to hit at max range. You have spotted a ship at max range and the game starts firing. If something is wrong then the hit percentage from max range, it should be near ZERO.



EUBanana -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/24/2009 8:49:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok
I agree their secondary batteries should bear, but I'm not convinced the main ones should.


I really don't get why BBs have this lingering, deeply ingrained doubt hovering over them.

Given their rate of fire and their traverse speed of their turrets, there isn't much reason not to believe that they couldn't hit targets a mile away. And they did, at Cape Matapan, as mentioned.

The guns on the Yamato are presumably the most cumbersome of all, they fired 1.5 times a minute (so we can say, every 45 seconds?) and had a train rate of 2 degrees per second according to navweaps.com. So the guns could in theory traverse about 90 degrees and not have their rate of fire impeded at all.

So, assume Yamato is facing north, firing at a DD 2000 yards away heading south, ie a worse case scenario. Assuming Yamato and the DD are at full speed for our worse case scenario, so the DD is accelerating off southwards at 27 knots + 35 knots = 62 knots, which is roughly 30 m/s. Yamato fires when the DD is bearing 90 exactly, Yamato wants to fire again in 45 seconds time when her guns have reloaded. Can she?

The ROF of Yamatos guns are one shot every 45 seconds, so the target will have moved in that time 1350 metres.

So inverse tan of 1350 / 2000, which by my reckoning is 34 degrees.

So, yes, she can, easily.



Tazo -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/24/2009 9:21:58 AM)


Thanks witpqs. I agree with the problem you point out, the rate of fire that also bother me in case of multiple targets - not so frequent when battles oppose similar size SCTFs. It seems that nobody knows here wether or not the RATE of fire is INCLUDED in the hitting PROBABILITIES of each salvo of a given gun. In that case then it is even worse to exagerate the shooting, and only a fix number of shoots could be done. Otherwise a max number of shoots per round should exist in the combat algorithm to reflect the rate of fire limitation.

I remember an opperational and tactical naval game we had in France, called "Amirauté" and played with a referee, in which every 5 minute the guns of each ship where able to engage another one in one salvo, but the percentage to achieve with a dice100 was indexed by target speed/size/distance but also took into account the rate of fire, then a second dice roll determined the number of shells and then each shell was giving random damage at random location. By the way at max range the percentage where about 1% and player started at the efficient range at about 15% to spare salvos (very limited number on board). And ships where on fire before reaching the crazy 1000' distance.

Thus, IF the rate of fire is part of the high or low hitting probability of x salvos per round THEN a ship should only fire x salvos per round.
In Amirauté x=1.
And IF the rate of fire is NOT part of the high or low hitting probability of each salvo THEN a ship should only fire y salvos per round, where y = rate of fire of the gun.

In both case there is a limitation in the ability to "reply" I have seen sometimes in action but only at the mid-end of battles. So the quick depletion of a given ship in a battle could be explained by an exceed of her rate of fire by firing at more than x or y aggressors then this could be changed accordingly by the dev - of course they know the procedure more than us. It seems that some ships are in front line, others behind, so it is natural that some fire more than others but I also noticed several times only 2 BB depleted and most of their CA with almost full amno... now, in theory, they are not so far away behind.

TZ



EUBanana -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/24/2009 10:16:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tazo
but I also noticed several times only 2 BB depleted and most of their CA with almost full amno... now, in theory, they are not so far away behind.


Thats somewhere else where BBs are shortchanged, IMO. We've already had a discussion on throw weights and how the Brooklyns have a very large throw weight for their size. Well, unless their magazines are extremely large for their size as well, surely they should have /less/ ammo than a BB, not more?

I imagine the navweaps.com stuff on magazine size is rough, but the 6" guns on the Brooklyn are listed as having "200 rounds per gun" which at 10 rpm is 20 minutes of firing. While the 16" guns on the Colorado BBs are down as having 100 rounds per gun, but firing only 1.5 times a minute thats over an hour of firing. So really I think BBs should have the most ammo on board with the lighter ships having the least, which is the inverse of the current setup.



Mark Weston -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/24/2009 10:45:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

Read up on the Battle of Matapan. Main BB guns against CAs at 3000 yards. Ouch. Actually given the workings of the Surface Combat model (frequent close in actions), replicating the RL effects of Matapan would be frightening:

Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions: 4,000 yards
Range closes to 3,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 3,000 yards
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 3,000 yards
BB Hiei engages CL Boise at 3,000 yards (Boise takes six 12' shells and disappears in a cloud of smoke and shrapnel)
BB North Carolina engages BB Kirishima at 3,000 yards (BB Kirishima takes eight 14" shells and erupts in a column of flame, then breaks in half and sinks)
CA Kumano engages CA Australia at 3,000 yards (CA Australia takes nine 8" shells and is obliterated)
CA Chicago engages CA Myoko at 3,000 yards (CA Myoko takes seven 8" shells and explodes and capsizes)etc.



Matapan is the definitive answer to "could they even hit at that distance", but you wouldn't want to base a combat model on those results. Initial conditions were as one-sided as they could possibly be. The British had a huge intel advantage (ENIGMA intercepts confirmed by air search), and were guided into a point-blank night time interception by radar against opposition that didn't have radar and who didn't train for combat at night.



Tazo -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/24/2009 12:21:02 PM)


I just tried to send a lone ship into a rainy day battle with a TF A of CV/2CA/4DD stacked with a TF B of 1CA/4DD :

- A BB alone against TFA usually makes the 4DD+CV screen to protect the CV, so the BB can an best sink 1DD and put a few shells on the CV before being attacked by the CA in "fire+reply" but each time the BB was able to fire a lot before breacking off when her 12 main gun salvos are expended : for instance, engagement at 13000 (day+rain, visibility 15000) for DD sunk, 2CA on fire, BB 19 hits on fire, CV safe. So BB repulsed and variously damaged for nothing or a single DD or two CA variously damaged.

- A BB alone against TFB in an engagement at 1000 despite a visibility day+rain of 15000 maxi too, then 3000 then 8000 and break off after 23 hits on BB and 43% system off versus only 1 hit on CA and 4 hits on DD. Again one of the hazardous encounters at 1000' we see far too often.

- A CA alone against TFB at day-rain 3000 visibility took 16 hits in a fast exchange since she crossed the T and sent torpedoes (DD sunk by 3 torp and 7 hits immediately) and scores 3 hits on CA (torp missed) then broke off, leaving the CV safe again. Other attempts for similar results.

--> Each times I had the feeling that the BB was firing twice compared to the other ships in a very few rounds, but each time she indeed received from 2:1 up to 4:1 more hits than she gave. Also "no fire and fire back" in the first rounds, besides the first one, ships were firing separately most often (CA on BB and DD on B then BB on another DD...).

Conclusion : even if the animation shows exagerated rates of fire, the final HITTING RATIO looks PROPORTIONAL to the NUMBER OF SHIPS RATIO on these few examples of 1 ship versus 5/7 ships. As expected due to simultaneous fire. Clear from the report, not from the animation. So as usual the results are fine with me, except the far too unlikely day encounters at very short range.

And the BB or CA due to low visibility were able to break off easily, but if a lone ship runs out of amno and can not escape then she's done... whence the superiority of large TF to really finish damaged ships and protect their own.

Looking all the time at the quite long surface combat animations I would like to observe that :
MAYBE MORE COMMENTS IN THE SURFACE COMBAT ANIMATION COULD HELP UNDERSTANDING BETTER THE PROCESS
online, exactly as the air combat animation which is really instructive and adds a lot to the subsequent report.

Also a second suggestion :
DIFFERENT COLORS FOR PRIMARY AND SECONDARY GUNERY in sentences like "BB Yamato fires at DD Phelps"
since color is better than writting the caliber (long to read) and thus allows to accelerate the long animation by fast messages (low delay).

TZ



Tazo -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/24/2009 12:22:40 PM)

Oups, the CA alone was always able to fight the TFA not the TFB, a mistake in the above report.



John Lansford -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/24/2009 12:33:36 PM)

How about changing the category of AA guns on warships from dual-purpose to AA only?  The .50 caliber, 20mm and 1.1" guns especially should be changed, otherwise we'll keep getting these scenarios where BB's and CA's get in knife-fights with the enemy and all they shoot is the AA guns.  I had a TF led by PoW intercept a convoy of 30+ transports headed for Moumere and all of the transports were sunk, but PoW fired her AA and secondary weapons only; no 14" shells fired at all.  Maybe she was saving them for the escorts that never showed up?



herwin -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/24/2009 12:41:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

How about changing the category of AA guns on warships from dual-purpose to AA only?  The .50 caliber, 20mm and 1.1" guns especially should be changed, otherwise we'll keep getting these scenarios where BB's and CA's get in knife-fights with the enemy and all they shoot is the AA guns.  I had a TF led by PoW intercept a convoy of 30+ transports headed for Moumere and all of the transports were sunk, but PoW fired her AA and secondary weapons only; no 14" shells fired at all.  Maybe she was saving them for the escorts that never showed up?


Blast from the medium and heavy rifles would have made the light weapons useless in a surface engagement.



Dili -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/24/2009 12:46:27 PM)

quote:

Matapan is the definitive answer to "could they even hit at that distance", but you wouldn't want to base a combat model on those results. Initial conditions were as one-sided as they could possibly be. The British had a huge intel advantage (ENIGMA intercepts confirmed by air search), and were guided into a point-blank night time interception by radar against opposition that didn't have radar and who didn't train for combat at night.


Matapan was used only for argument of BB's can fire at short range. In game terms would be one side with night combat experience of 60, Radars and knowing the enemy was there, 15" guns, with another side not expecting enemy, 8" guns with covers, one of cruisers stopped by a torpedo hit and night combat experience of probably 30.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/24/2009 1:03:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok
I agree their secondary batteries should bear, but I'm not convinced the main ones should.


So, assume Yamato is facing north, firing at a DD 2000 yards away heading south, ie a worse case scenario. Assuming Yamato and the DD are at full speed for our worse case scenario, so the DD is accelerating off southwards at 27 knots + 35 knots = 62 knots, which is roughly 30 m/s. Yamato fires when the DD is bearing 90 exactly, Yamato wants to fire again in 45 seconds time when her guns have reloaded. Can she?


Assuming early war, Yamato would have 9 (of 12) 6.1" secondaries and 10 (of 20) 5" DP tertiaries bearing on this DD, so it's doubtfull she would be wasting her primaries on a DD. They would be searching for a more lucrative target...



EUBanana -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/24/2009 1:15:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Assuming early war, Yamato would have 9 (of 12) 6.1" secondaries and 10 (of 20) 5" DP tertiaries bearing on this DD, so it's doubtfull she would be wasting her primaries on a DD. They would be searching for a more lucrative target...


I'm sure they would, but if she wanted to blast the DD out of the water with the main armament, it would certainly be within her ability...



Chickenboy -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/24/2009 2:41:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

It's been discussed before I  think but surface combat TFs have an advantage over other types of taskforce.  I think certainly in the case of what happens when they meet air combat TFs, the advantage seems to be far too great.

Surely the sole reason why a BB is in an air combat TF at all is to protect the CVs.   So theres two battleships there whose sole mission is to make sure the CVs are safe.  Thats a hell of a lot more firepower than a CL can manage, and in daylight too, and I presume in open seas.  And then theres a whole mass of DDs to screen against torpedo attacks.

Surely in daylight the Allies would be massacred 95% of the time.

I can understand a night battle being much more of a tossup, but during the day?


EUBanana,

In my game against the IJN AI, I was fortunate enough to find my SCTF directly engaging an IJN CV TF at night. I had correctly guessed the approximate area of movement for the IJN TF and my SCTF intercepted it, hoping to destroy the flat tops at all hazards.

I was undergunned. The IJN escort consisted of 1 BB, 2 CAs, 2-3 CLs and 4 DDs against 2 CAs, 2 CLs and 4 DDs.

During the combat replay (not the report), I received a number of reports of the IJN escorts 'shielding' CVs from combat. The accursed IJN did it just right-they split off a portion of their forces to get the CVs out of harms way and then held off my SCTF at arms distance with long range fire of their BBs and CAs, instead of letting it close.

Result: CVs undamaged (got off a few ricochets off of Zuikaku), Allied SCTF mauled, IJN CV TF largely undaunted.

I'm impressed with the engine and its handling of these very complicated issues. In my experience, this is working well.

Why did my IJN CV TF expertly pull off a defensive withdrawal of its prize capital ships while others failed? Experience of TF commander? Lack of allied surprise in my case? No effective torpedo attacks for allies? Who knows.



John Lansford -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/24/2009 2:57:54 PM)

Herwin,

USS Houston and HMAS Perth both used their AA guns against surface targets in their final battle, so obviously the main and secondary weapons weren't interfering with them there.  I'm just pointing out it's unlikely those light weapons would seriously damage any ship larger than a PT boat, not whether they could be used at all.



EUBanana -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/24/2009 3:00:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
During the combat replay (not the report), I received a number of reports of the IJN escorts 'shielding' CVs from combat.


Yeah, I have seen that - it does appear in the report, too, IIRC.



crsutton -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/24/2009 3:03:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

"My BB N Carolina kept peppering the Japanese ships with .50 machinegun fire and 20mm AAA fire at 2000 yards and they kept firing back with their biggest guns and doing lots of non-penetrating hits."
 
This has been a problem for years.   Wish someone could figure out how to achieve a rational fire distribution with this program.  At that range N.Carolina should have been engaging Cruisers with her main (16") battery, and probably DD's with her secondary (5") guns.   The light AAA batteries shouldn't even be manned, let alone doing the majority of the firing.   Maybe someday...


Could they even fire at something that close? Those big guns did have depression restrictions.



It was not just the depression issues. Due to need for frequent course changes, treaty cruisers and older BBs did not have the turret speed and gunnery control systems nimble enough to track targets in a close in night fight. When you read about some of the 1942 battles, the treaty cruisers sometime only got off a few ineffectual salvos before being overwhelmed. Even with modern BBs, at closer ranges the turret speeds and reload rates were the real problem at close range.

The USN sent used 13 Allied and US treaty crusiers in the Guadacanal campaign and IIFC every one was either sunk or so severely damaged as to be out the war for months. The navy concluded that the older CAs has no business fighting night battles in restricted waters.



SteveD64 -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/24/2009 3:03:18 PM)

Why did my IJN CV TF expertly pull off a defensive withdrawal of its prize capital ships while others failed? Experience of TF commander? Lack of allied surprise in my case? No effective torpedo attacks for allies? Who knows.
 
Yeah I wonder that myself sometimes- last night my Jap amphib task force (5 DD's and 4 transports) was attacked by 1CL and 2DD's in open water (not at anchor).  Every transport was sunk.  I'm going to pay more attention to leadership from now on and see if that will at least screen the transports.




EUBanana -> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result (8/24/2009 3:14:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
older BBs did not have the turret speed and gunnery control systems nimble enough to track targets in a close in night fight.


Barham, Valiant and Warspite were hardly modern, though...



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 9 [10] 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.609375