RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed

RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (Full Version)

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

Message

Whisper -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 12:23:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: Frank please, donßt scare him, he is sec level 5 and works for the state! [:D] Let me know when it's safe to come out of hiding! [sm=00000116.gif] This is like two neuter bulls in the ring in TJ. Fun but not very funny. wow both these peoply are are seriously wierd. Duck and cover. not Frank or witpqs, I mean those nuts waving their clearances in each others faces.

tocaff -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 12:45:51 AM)
Useless posts!?! I thought they were my specialty. [:)]

jb123 -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 3:45:30 AM)
one of my first threads in this forum and it gets hijacked like this.... so, about those APs. I can't imagine the 41st infantry div getting transported without escort. They took the QE in real life, what assets supported them?

Nomad -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 4:58:30 AM)
To be honest, I don't think anything did. Most likely they had a DD escort for the first couple of hundred miles and the last couple. But any ASW escort would have just slowed them down and made them vulnerable. Remember they crossed the Atlantic with no escorts also, and it would have been much more dangerous.

Whisper -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 5:51:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nomad To be honest, I don't think anything did. Most likely they had a DD escort for the first couple of hundred miles and the last couple. But any ASW escort would have just slowed them down and made them vulnerable. Remember they crossed the Atlantic with no escorts also, and it would have been much more dangerous. I don't think thay had escorts either irl. But I have seen them get torpedoed by submarines in the Aars, so how do they get protected in the game?

Iridium -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 6:34:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Whisper I don't think thay had escorts either irl. But I have seen them get torpedoed by submarines in the Aars, so how do they get protected in the game? They don't apparently...[;)] At best I could use CVE's posted along the intended path of the QE but this would be a giant waste of resources and only doable late war. The best method to keep them out of harm's way is to use them far from the front lines.

bradfordkay -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 7:32:43 AM)
To my knowledge, the DDs only slowed the Queens down. There is the famous case of the Queen Mary slicing through her only escort HMS Curacao (an older CL) and continuing on to Britain unescorted (I am sure that they sent craft out to meet her as she approached Britain). Herwin's post agrees with what I have read - that they counted on speed to foil the subs. I like to use older CLs (Omahas, British, Aussie, Kiwi or Dutch) as escorts. They can't do anything about the subs, but they can fend off surface raiders - and they can almost keep up with the big liners.

Sardaukar -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 9:00:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Reg quote: ORIGINAL: herwin quote: ORIGINAL: Frank maybe he will be better at level 6! [;)] There's something screwy about this discussion. I don't remember the US Department of State running its own clearance system. I suspect a troll. and anyone who reveals their clearance on a public forum probably doesn't deserve it..... I didn't know we need security clearance to play AE! Now, should I mail my signed copy of our version of "Official Secrets Act" to Matrix Games, since I have apparently been exposed to confidential, secret and top secret material on this forum! [:D] Whole idea of adding some credibility to one's posts by stating "I have security clearance" on WW II Pacific War forum is absolutely ridiculous. [:D]

herwin -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 9:45:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar quote: ORIGINAL: Reg quote: ORIGINAL: herwin quote: ORIGINAL: Frank maybe he will be better at level 6! [;)] There's something screwy about this discussion. I don't remember the US Department of State running its own clearance system. I suspect a troll. and anyone who reveals their clearance on a public forum probably doesn't deserve it..... I didn't know we need security clearance to play AE! Now, should I mail my signed copy of our version of "Official Secrets Act" to Matrix Games, since I have apparently been exposed to confidential, secret and top secret material on this forum! [:D] Whole idea of adding some credibility to one's posts by stating "I have security clearance" on WW II Pacific War forum is absolutely ridiculous. [:D] I agree. The only reason I mentioned AN/BSY-2 was to support my argument that fast-moving TFs and ships were immune to WWII submarine attack without getting into the details. I guess I need to fill in the blanks, although bsq made the key point. WWII subs were almost stationary when submerged and not that fast on the surface (around 20 knots). Against a convoy or a TF when it was trundling along at 15 knots, that was enough, but against a CVTF or fast packet at 25-30 knots, the sub had to take a shot as the target passed at speed. Getting a good track on a ship took a while, so the chance of a successful engagement of a fast-moving ship was very low. This had operational significance. A carrier in a hurry out of enemy air range was very hard to take down. Both sides used high speed when they needed to get damaged carriers (Yorktown, Shokaku) out of an engagement or back to a dock yard, and I've found the game gets this detail wrong.

John Lansford -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 12:20:15 PM)
Plus, at the speed the QM and QE were travelling, if the sub wasn't already in torpedo range as the ship passed by, there was zero chance the sub could move fast enough to get into firing range before the ship was out of sight. There were many encounters in the Pacific where USN subs would see fast moving IJN warships but could not get into position to fire torpedoes at them. Unless the sub was very lucky and the liner was headed almost right at them, there was very little chance they'd get torpedoed.

EUBanana -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 12:37:13 PM)
I think the game goes by maneuverability, not speed, when handling torpedo attacks. At least, maneuverability is the main factor. Hence why subs attacking DDs almost always result in a "Torpedoes miss!" while subs attacking Queen Mary results in four hits and a lot of Japanese victory points. You even see it with subs vs warships. A DD is hard to hit - a CA is harder than an AK but far far easier to hit than a DD.

whippleofd -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 2:10:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin I agree. The only reason I mentioned AN/BSY-2 was to support my argument that fast-moving TFs and ships were immune to WWII submarine attack without getting into the details. I guess I need to fill in the blanks, although bsq made the key point. WWII subs were almost stationary when submerged and not that fast on the surface (around 20 knots). Against a convoy or a TF when it was trundling along at 15 knots, that was enough, but against a CVTF or fast packet at 25-30 knots, the sub had to take a shot as the target passed at speed. Getting a good track on a ship took a while, so the chance of a successful engagement of a fast-moving ship was very low. This had operational significance. A carrier in a hurry out of enemy air range was very hard to take down. Both sides used high speed when they needed to get damaged carriers (Yorktown, Shokaku) out of an engagement or back to a dock yard, and I've found the game gets this detail wrong. herwin, in my book you're one of the folks on here that doesn't need supporting evidence for your arguments to be rational and well thought out. Maybe that's because I know just enough naval "science" to understand what you are talking about. More likely it's because if I don't understand what you are talking about, I go look it up and educate myself. Keep on keepin on. Do your thing, ignore the trolls and never EVER feel the need to justify to those who are insulting. Whipple

NightFlyer -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 3:02:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RDonlon quote: ORIGINAL: herwin HISTORY The Queens did not use escorts. They cruised at 29-30 knots, which was sufficiently fast that a sub had a near-nil chance of developing a target solution in the time between first detection and engagement. (When I was doing the system modelling for A/N BSY-2, I had to model this process. There are a number of books in the open literature that address the issues of interest.) Note that the American CVTFs moved at about that speed when strategically deploying, but with cruisers (but not destroyers, however) in attendance to protect against SAGs. They were also pretty much invulnerable to submarine attack. I don't know what the game does. Most TFs and convoys moved at speeds that subs could handle. This is the sort of issue that you need a background in OR and some submarine experience to get right. This is one of the most pretentious posts I have seen in many years. I assume you are not a developer because if you were you would have put that in your curious ciriculum vitae. Since you are not, I wonder what in the world you are talking about. Just who do you think you are? And don't play stupid games please. I work for State at sec level 5. Oh look Mummy, there's a troll under the bridge. World of Warcraft is that way ----->

bsq -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 3:30:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jb123 one of my first threads in this forum and it gets hijacked like this.... so, about those APs. I can't imagine the 41st infantry div getting transported without escort. They took the QE in real life, what assets supported them? Speed was their asset against subs and in my experience of using them in the game, a well plotted course stops them from being detected (whereas it would seem if you add escorts it slows them down and makes them more likely to be detected). I guess the footprint of one ship in the vast tracts of the Pacific is harder to detect than the footprint of a large convoy or naval TF.

Knavey -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 4:14:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Whisper Neither one of these people are worth a purple fart in a pink bathtub. Just go on. Now THAT is funny! [:D]

witpqs -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 4:29:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana I think the game goes by maneuverability, not speed, when handling torpedo attacks. At least, maneuverability is the main factor. Hence why subs attacking DDs almost always result in a "Torpedoes miss!" while subs attacking Queen Mary results in four hits and a lot of Japanese victory points. You even see it with subs vs warships. A DD is hard to hit - a CA is harder than an AK but far far easier to hit than a DD. I've had QE sunk in AE. Maybe the high speed aspect you guys describe is something that could be adjusted when the AE Team has time to think it over.

Don Bowen -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 5:01:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana I think the game goes by maneuverability, not speed, when handling torpedo attacks. At least, maneuverability is the main factor. Hence why subs attacking DDs almost always result in a "Torpedoes miss!" while subs attacking Queen Mary results in four hits and a lot of Japanese victory points. You even see it with subs vs warships. A DD is hard to hit - a CA is harder than an AK but far far easier to hit than a DD. I've had QE sunk in AE. Maybe the high speed aspect you guys describe is something that could be adjusted when the AE Team has time to think it over. Target TF speed is a component of the calculation and high speed reduces chances of successful attack. But it does not eliminate attacks. There's always a chance...

Nikademus -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 5:05:04 PM)
Just ask Lusitania. [:D]

Nomad -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 5:07:55 PM)
My biggest problem is not with subs, but that the QEs don't carry all of the cargo needed to transport a Regiment.

bradfordkay -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 5:29:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nomad My biggest problem is not with subs, but that the QEs don't carry all of the cargo needed to transport a Regiment. I think that's because the fast liners didn't carry all the supporting equipment for the units - that stuff was carried over in slower convoys either prior to or subsequent to the transport of the soldiers. Thus a Queen could carry a division but in WITP she can't really handle a regiment.

JWE -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 5:31:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nomad My biggest problem is not with subs, but that the QEs don't carry all of the cargo needed to transport a Regiment. Large passenger liners were utilized to transport large numbers of troops. They generally did not, and could not, transport entire large units complete with their organic equipment – guns, tracks, trucks, dozers, food, ammo, gas, etc.. Passenger terminals, even in very large ports, generally did not have the heavy lift facilities to support cargo of this type, in any case. The unit either hooked up with equipment already in-zone, or its organic heavy equipment was lifted separately.

Nomad -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 5:55:31 PM)
I didn't say it should, I only stated that they didn't and that does cause me some problems. But I have taken to loading up a Regiment using a Fast AP and some AKS and then splitting up the TF into two parts and sending them out separately.

herwin -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 6:22:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana I think the game goes by maneuverability, not speed, when handling torpedo attacks. At least, maneuverability is the main factor. Hence why subs attacking DDs almost always result in a "Torpedoes miss!" while subs attacking Queen Mary results in four hits and a lot of Japanese victory points. You even see it with subs vs warships. A DD is hard to hit - a CA is harder than an AK but far far easier to hit than a DD. I've had QE sunk in AE. Maybe the high speed aspect you guys describe is something that could be adjusted when the AE Team has time to think it over. Target TF speed is a component of the calculation and high speed reduces chances of successful attack. But it does not eliminate attacks. There's always a chance... There's always a chance you'ld run over a sub. Just small.

bsq -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 6:25:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus Just ask Lusitania. [:D] Different in many ways: Confined waters, close to the coast. Almost runs into the submarine presenting a perfect firing solution to an already experienced crew of U20. Had slowed to 18 knots due to fog - the same speed as the surfaced U-boat. Single fish (the last one she had) fired at point blank. It doesn't get any better for a submariner.

JWE -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 6:54:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nomad I didn't say it should, I only stated that they didn't and that does cause me some problems. But I have taken to loading up a Regiment using a Fast AP and some AKS and then splitting up the TF into two parts and sending them out separately. That is a good move and one that, frankly, the game philosophy encourages. I am sure there are historical examples that indicate the contrary, in specific instances, but in the general sense, these ships function very well as they were intended to function. If they are used for other purposes - then all bets are off, woof!

oldman45 -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 8:20:25 PM)
Another point about the liners is they avoided the standard convoy routes, and becuase of their speed the trip was not that much longer. I lost the Queen cause I tried to run her in a straight line to the port I wanted her in and of course there was a boat waiting for her. The next game I used an out of the way route and had no problems. When she gets close to port I send out the ASW ships to clear a path for her.

witpqs -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 8:42:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana I think the game goes by maneuverability, not speed, when handling torpedo attacks. At least, maneuverability is the main factor. Hence why subs attacking DDs almost always result in a "Torpedoes miss!" while subs attacking Queen Mary results in four hits and a lot of Japanese victory points. You even see it with subs vs warships. A DD is hard to hit - a CA is harder than an AK but far far easier to hit than a DD. I've had QE sunk in AE. Maybe the high speed aspect you guys describe is something that could be adjusted when the AE Team has time to think it over. Target TF speed is a component of the calculation and high speed reduces chances of successful attack. But it does not eliminate attacks. There's always a chance... Excellent! Good to know. Thanks.

morganbj -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 8:48:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin There's something screwy about this discussion. I don't remember the US Department of State running its own clearance system. I suspect a troll. Aw, come on Herwin. Just admit you're a pretentious kind of guy! [:D] But, I like your posts, so I must like pretentiousness.

whippleofd -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 10:12:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bjmorgan But, I like your posts, so I must like pretentiousness. How pretentious of you to say that! I think I'll just disreguard it. Whipple

herwin -> RE: escorting APs with high cruise speed (1/4/2010 10:40:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bjmorgan quote: ORIGINAL: herwin There's something screwy about this discussion. I don't remember the US Department of State running its own clearance system. I suspect a troll. Aw, come on Herwin. Just admit you're a pretentious kind of guy! [:D] But, I like your posts, so I must like pretentiousness. Yep! [8D]

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.109375