RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (Full Version)

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

Message

Alfred -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/12/2011 3:27:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cribtop I think we can all agree that McRibs are borked. [:D] I think Pax and I were concerned about several incidents in PzB vs Andy's campaign, specifically the rapid reduction of Christmas Island (Pacific), an atoll with level 6 forts defended by a full division, HQ unit, smaller combat forces and support troops. CV air, massed B-29s, and the dreaded auto bombardments did the defenders in with the base captured in about a week. Now, we concede that the base would and should fall given the well played "kitchen sink" that Andy brought, but it felt like an island defended in a manner similar to Peleliu with probably similar forts (Iwo, as you say Moose, is a special case given the unique terrain) fell awfully quickly, and that the level 6 forts had little impact on the bombings. But you are missing the point. Fortifications reduce the rate of hors de combat which otherwise would ensue in their absence. By themselves they don't put up a shield against a pluton torpedo. Any position which is not adequately supported, which is the subject of unremitting overwhelming enemy force, will collapse. All that forts essentially do is buy time until the cavalry arrives. No cavalry to the rescue, defeat is assured. What you are all seeing is what has always been the historical outcome for the last 3000 years; retreats turned into routs where no fall back positions filled with fresh (relatively speaking) rearguards exist, garrisons overwhelmed where there is no field army nearby. The historical verity is just accentuated by the greater capacity of modern (for the 1944-45 era) to deliver ordnance. Alfred

rader -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/12/2011 4:50:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cribtop I think we can all agree that McRibs are borked. [:D] I think Pax and I were concerned about several incidents in PzB vs Andy's campaign, specifically the rapid reduction of Christmas Island (Pacific), an atoll with level 6 forts defended by a full division, HQ unit, smaller combat forces and support troops. CV air, massed B-29s, and the dreaded auto bombardments did the defenders in with the base captured in about a week. Now, we concede that the base would and should fall given the well played "kitchen sink" that Andy brought, but it felt like an island defended in a manner similar to Peleliu with probably similar forts (Iwo, as you say Moose, is a special case given the unique terrain) fell awfully quickly, and that the level 6 forts had little impact on the bombings. Yeah, what on earth is auto bombardment all about? Why can't we just sit back in the caves and defend?

rader -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/12/2011 4:54:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred But you are missing the point. Fortifications reduce the rate of hors de combat which otherwise would ensue in their absence. By themselves they don't put up a shield against a pluton torpedo. Any position which is not adequately supported, which is the subject of unremitting overwhelming enemy force, will collapse. All that forts essentially do is buy time until the cavalry arrives. No cavalry to the rescue, defeat is assured. What you are all seeing is what has always been the historical outcome for the last 3000 years; retreats turned into routs where no fall back positions filled with fresh (relatively speaking) rearguards exist, garrisons overwhelmed where there is no field army nearby. The historical verity is just accentuated by the greater capacity of modern (for the 1944-45 era) to deliver ordnance. But not very much time. How many people have seen a land battle at a base in WITP go for several weeks, a month, or even 6 months like Guadalcanal? Well, I saw it once in my game (only). Went about 4 months I think at Port Blair. In just about every other landing the allies conducted against me, the base fell in 1-2 days tops, and all Japanese were eliminated from the island in less than a week. And this was with pretty high fort levels, often 4-6. This seems like a pretty high tempo of land operations. I bet it would often take more than a day to walk across some of the isldans (e.g., Guam) even if not under enemy fire.

kfsgo -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/12/2011 5:16:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rader Yeah, what on earth is auto bombardment all about? Why can't we just sit back in the caves and defend? Isn't auto-bombardment atolls-only? Makes sense - Christmas Island isn't really a Guam or even a Peleliu - the interior is primarily saline lagoon (ie no fresh water) and most of the land area is about 6-10ft above sea level - there are no caves, and any holes deep enough to provide significant protection would flood. Whether or not you guys have a point regarding the speed of taking islands generally (I wouldn't know), I don't think a week is unreasonable for Christmas Island - whichever side can deny the other fresh water would 'win' in about that length of time by default, I suspect. e: well, there might be a few caves around the westernmost part of the island - looks like you get about 30ft asl there in a couple of places. Tiny area, though - and the airfield's on the other end, 15 miles away.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/12/2011 6:31:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rader But not very much time. How many people have seen a land battle at a base in WITP go for several weeks, a month, or even 6 months like Guadalcanal? Well, I saw it once in my game (only). Went about 4 months I think at Port Blair. In just about every other landing the allies conducted against me, the base fell in 1-2 days tops, and all Japanese were eliminated from the island in less than a week. And this was with pretty high fort levels, often 4-6. This seems like a pretty high tempo of land operations. I bet it would often take more than a day to walk across some of the isldans (e.g., Guam) even if not under enemy fire. I had a seige of Port Blair go for more than a year in my first game. As at Guadalcanal I couldn't get enough supply in to eject him, but, at great loss, I could get enough in to survive unitl I had CVs enough to break the seige. I could see the Solomons going six months if PBEM players played it historically i.e. the IJN threw in the kitchen sink. See GreyJoy's game for that. Oh, you DO see that! [:)] The balance in various aspects of the game are ahistorical. The sub war is one; it's too ineffective in shutting down the Japanese economy in part due to the ahistorical ability to stockpile "HI" in untouchable piles. The air war for sure is another unbalanced aspect. If the Japanese had to haul avgas in precious tankers to fly from islands a lot of other aspects would have to be massivley re-balanced to avoid Allied wins in 1943. To some extent the land war is too fast in some geographies. But overall the balance is pretty good to get most games into an end phase if the players are close in ability and want to go the distance.

inqistor -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/12/2011 9:20:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin Just curious, because 10% hit probability comes up. Is that the distance to the 10% lethality contour? Or is that (slightly different) a 10% probability of a fragment impacting on an exposed soft target with enough energy to cause a casualty? There are no such probabilities. What would be point in calculating distance of lethal radius for bomb? Who cares, movie makers? There are different distances for sides, front, and back of vector. Totally useless value. What army REALLY calculates is called VULNERABLE AREA. It is defined as area (in square feet) on which the average density of throughs and deep strikes on vertical wooden targets is 1 per 10 square feet. (deep strikes is penetration of at least ONE inch) Example document you are seeking for: Ministry of Supply and War Office: Military Operational Research Unit A theory of fragmentation: comparison with observed fragmentations of service bombs and shells Covering dates 1943 Report No: 138 Protection is listed for that much of steel plate. Values are VULNERABLE AREA in square feet. [image]local://upfiles/35065/CF046AD8F60A4C1583F1F12A8592C021.jpg[/image]

bk19@mweb.co.za -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/12/2011 10:46:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy I suppose that we should all go vegan because there's no ingredients used in that production or storage that aren't vegetable, right? [8\|] Hey, I like meat as much as the next guy, but I draw a line at Hush Puppy. Dunno where you live, but in my part of the world a Hush Puppy is a kid's shoe brand, and a Slush Puppy is a kids ice drink... I hope that Hush Puppy of yours is not a hamburger because it could be quite tough if you have actually tried to eat a kids shoe by accident!!

rader -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/12/2011 2:57:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 I could see the Solomons going six months if PBEM players played it historically i.e. the IJN threw in the kitchen sink. See GreyJoy's game for that. Oh, you DO see that! [:)] I meant at an individual base... oh, perhaps you mean Tulagi? Yeah, that was another one. Still not many, and it tends to be either: A) I landed enough troops to take the base the next day (or within a very few days)., or B) I didn't land enough troops to take the base without reinforcements. And I guess most players are cautious enough that it tends to be A). But I was reading about the Bouganville campaign the other day, and Japanese troops were located there until the end of the war, about a year and a half (admittedly pushed into the jungle after a few weeks or months, but still tying down troops). Note that I'm not complaining here, just making observations [:)]

witpqs -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/12/2011 3:34:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rader quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 I could see the Solomons going six months if PBEM players played it historically i.e. the IJN threw in the kitchen sink. See GreyJoy's game for that. Oh, you DO see that! [:)] I meant at an individual base... oh, perhaps you mean Tulagi? Yeah, that was another one. Still not many, and it tends to be either: A) I landed enough troops to take the base the next day (or within a very few days)., or B) I didn't land enough troops to take the base without reinforcements. And I guess most players are cautious enough that it tends to be A). But I was reading about the Bouganville campaign the other day, and Japanese troops were located there until the end of the war, about a year and a half (admittedly pushed into the jungle after a few weeks or months, but still tying down troops). Note that I'm not complaining here, just making observations [:)] In a PBM I had Pago Pago hold out for almost a month. The whole point is that when invading you use your experience to make certain you arrive with enough force to bring about a pretty quick victory. That makes your question, while quite sincere, moot. In the case above my opponent had no expectation that I had already gotten in place the amount of forces and defenses which were there.

witpqs -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/12/2011 3:37:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bk19@mweb.co.za quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy I suppose that we should all go vegan because there's no ingredients used in that production or storage that aren't vegetable, right? [8\|] Hey, I like meat as much as the next guy, but I draw a line at Hush Puppy. Dunno where you live, but in my part of the world a Hush Puppy is a kid's shoe brand, and a Slush Puppy is a kids ice drink... I hope that Hush Puppy of yours is not a hamburger because it could be quite tough if you have actually tried to eat a kids shoe by accident!! Here Hush Puppies are (or certainly were) also an adult shoe. Of course the only adults I ever saw wearing them were derided for it (ironically that was not very adult!). He's talking slang for some kind of food item, but scientists have yet to agree if it is really food!

herwin -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/12/2011 5:03:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: inqistor quote: ORIGINAL: herwin Just curious, because 10% hit probability comes up. Is that the distance to the 10% lethality contour? Or is that (slightly different) a 10% probability of a fragment impacting on an exposed soft target with enough energy to cause a casualty? There are no such probabilities. What would be point in calculating distance of lethal radius for bomb? Who cares, movie makers? There are different distances for sides, front, and back of vector. Totally useless value. What army REALLY calculates is called VULNERABLE AREA. It is defined as area (in square feet) on which the average density of throughs and deep strikes on vertical wooden targets is 1 per 10 square feet. (deep strikes is penetration of at least ONE inch) Example document you are seeking for: Ministry of Supply and War Office: Military Operational Research Unit A theory of fragmentation: comparison with observed fragmentations of service bombs and shells Covering dates 1943 Report No: 138 Protection is listed for that much of steel plate. Values are VULNERABLE AREA in square feet. [image]local://upfiles/35065/CF046AD8F60A4C1583F1F12A8592C021.jpg[/image] You have me a bit confused. Of course, terminal ballistics were historically a bit confused. However, your definition of vulnerable area makes sense when one realises that measurement of lethality is rather fraught and sensitive to the exact circumstances of the shell exploding. Most experimental studies have to use second or third order proxies for the parameter of interest. If you were to investigate why the exact measure reported is chosen, you discover a long chain of assumptions, probably extending back to studies during 1920-1940 using live pigs or goats.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/12/2011 6:06:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bk19@mweb.co.za quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy I suppose that we should all go vegan because there's no ingredients used in that production or storage that aren't vegetable, right? [8\|] Hey, I like meat as much as the next guy, but I draw a line at Hush Puppy. Dunno where you live, but in my part of the world a Hush Puppy is a kid's shoe brand, and a Slush Puppy is a kids ice drink... I hope that Hush Puppy of yours is not a hamburger because it could be quite tough if you have actually tried to eat a kids shoe by accident!! I was referring to my earlier post wherein I related that reports give the McRib sandwich over 70 non-meat ingredients, including one chemical which is a primary component in gym mats and shoe soles. So yes, I was referring to Hush Pupppy brand shoes. [:)] In the US South, a hush puppy (lower case) is a side dish to seafood, deep fried balls or cylinders of corn meal with some grated onion in the mix. Incredibly good when hot and fresh, a little less when cold and old, but good enough for hangover food. When I lived in New England (OCS) and first ordered a seafood platter it came with something called Johhnycakes. Similar, but not hush puppies. Or Hush Puppies.

US87891 -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/12/2011 7:08:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin Just curious, because 10% hit probability comes up. Is that the distance to the 10% lethality contour? Or is that (slightly different) a 10% probability of a fragment impacting on an exposed soft target with enough energy to cause a casualty? Since you ask, I assume the contour you mention is for artillery patterning. Bombs follow a different pattern. A better evaluation comparison would be against the larger caliber mortars. The War-II 500lb GP bomb had a charge/weight ratio of 27-31%. The casing was proportional thickness mild steel. Average Impact angle was 70-90 degrees. Aerial bombs often had nose and tail fuses, while mortar bombs only had nose fuses, otherwise very similar in mechanism. My artillery colleagues are very sure that a �bomb� does not work like an arty �round�, and they cannot be judged by the same rules.

witpqs -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/14/2011 3:05:21 PM)
FYI, in Andy's and PzB's game Andy counted 16 days for the total capture of Christmas Island (meaning eliminating the defenders).

PzB74 -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/14/2011 7:55:19 PM)
But the last 8 days his troops only carried out a few minor assaults against the totally wrecked remains of the garrison, mainly HQ units. Total defensive AV after "fall of base" was ~10.

Sredni -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/14/2011 8:13:06 PM)
I think one of the things to make note in regards to the speed of ground combat, IRL they always seemed to bring juuuust enough troops to get the job done whereas we in game tend to bring overwhelming force.

herwin -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/14/2011 8:22:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sredni I think one of the things to make note in regards to the speed of ground combat, IRL they always seemed to bring juuuust enough troops to get the job done whereas we in game tend to bring overwhelming force. That's known as 'right-sizing', although the USMC preferred to get it over quick and the Army took its time.

Alfred -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/15/2011 12:42:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sredni I think one of the things to make note in regards to the speed of ground combat, IRL they always seemed to bring juuuust enough troops to get the job done whereas we in game tend to bring overwhelming force. That is because IRL one is always juggling resources between various competing needs. Usually one is doing very well if juuuust enough troops can be found and spared to get the job done. AE players face only a fraction of the demands placed on IRL commanders. Alfred

herwin -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/15/2011 7:45:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred quote: ORIGINAL: Sredni I think one of the things to make note in regards to the speed of ground combat, IRL they always seemed to bring juuuust enough troops to get the job done whereas we in game tend to bring overwhelming force. That is because IRL one is always juggling resources between various competing needs. Usually one is doing very well if juuuust enough troops can be found and spared to get the job done. AE players face only a fraction of the demands placed on IRL commanders. Alfred You didn't want to use excessive anything to complete the mission because it would be added targets or wasted. The game engine loves mass, but in reality too much mass was additional casualties with no concomitant gain.

inqistor -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/19/2011 11:02:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin You have me a bit confused. Of course, terminal ballistics were historically a bit confused. However, your definition of vulnerable area makes sense when one realises that measurement of lethality is rather fraught and sensitive to the exact circumstances of the shell exploding. Most experimental studies have to use second or third order proxies for the parameter of interest. If you were to investigate why the exact measure reported is chosen, you discover a long chain of assumptions, probably extending back to studies during 1920-1940 using live pigs or goats. There was blast research on pigs? I can understand firearms, to check fragmentation, and penetration of flesh, but blast (well, except dogs in USSR experiments with atomic bombs)? Anyway, I am not aware of any other WWII Allied studies, except Zuckerman group. To stay on-topic. Here is table showing needed number of bombs to destroy Japanese bunkers. Not sure about date, it was surely after Tarawa, but probably before Iwo Jima. [image]local://upfiles/35065/80A216CFC51345778E7FC67E0212B976.jpg[/image]

crsutton -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/19/2011 5:59:15 PM)
Viperpol and I fought a bloody and long campaign in the Solomons with the main action being fights and sieges of Lunga and Kirakira. It was classic in that I rushed in and seized Lunga with a Marine division and Kirakira with a regiment. He then countered with an an invasion of both places where we spent months in a brutal stalemate. It went back and forth we me coming dangerously close to losing both Islands. The real battle was over supply. (Imagine that) In the end it played out pretty historically with me hanging on by a thread until I gradually gained naval and air superiority in mid 1943 and finally overcame him in later 43. The action was intense. Quite frankly, it could not have been better or more exciting for either of us and it felt just like it should have. The game worked exactly like it should have. But after the Allies gain superiority (1944 in our scen #2 game) Then pretty much any invasion is a foregone conclusion. Should anyone be surprised here? That is pretty much how it really played out. After the shift in the balance of forces, was there really any land based objective that could be denied to the Allies? I doubt it. Japan is then playing solely for time-trading space and men for time. That is the way it should be.

herwin -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/20/2011 8:10:44 AM)
There was blast and fragmentation research on various animals--pigs and goats come to mind--after WWI. The animals were tethered at different distances and the explosive device (shell, bomb, etc.) was set off. Afterwards, the animals were autopsied.

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 7 [8]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.75