(Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific



Message


denisonh -> (11/12/2002 11:20:11 PM)

As a footnote about this particular example of USN experience, let me say I saw no "jump" of 30 exp.

These ships have been in steady combat since their committment into theater.

This particular PBEM has been blessed with a great number of surface actions. I have sunk something over 40 IJN shipd due to surface action, not including cripples picked off by follow up air strikes. My opponent has sank even more (that includes the 19 PT boats Sonny).

Over 6 months of combat with steady surface actions, I would expect the experience to increase. It is still not where the IJN starts the game.

The ability ot learn and adapt was one of the strengths of the USN. The wargaming done at the US Naval War College as part of the curriculum between the wars emphasized asessing the situation and adapting to it.




Chiteng -> re: Long Term (11/12/2002 11:24:53 PM)

I see no material difference between the Pacwar night combat model and the UV combat model. Especially with regards to
outcome. I still argue that it is the sequencing.

The Jap DD should always start out with a torpedoe spread.
At night this should be invisible. Not just one or two DD
I mean if there are 10 DD they ALL fire torps.




Diealtekoenig -> Re: re: Long Term (11/13/2002 2:17:40 AM)

Here, here!

I concur completely with Chiteng.




mdiehl -> (11/13/2002 3:56:43 AM)

[QUOTE]The Jap DD should always start out with a torpedoe spread. At night this should be invisible. Not just one or two DD
I mean if there are 10 DD they ALL fire torps.[/QUOTE]

Considering that an initial IJN torp salvo was the exception rather than the rule, your demand for always and all ships seems excessive. Should happen roughly 25% of the time, and should tend to happen only at long range where the likelihood of scoring a hit is around 3%.

Nothing wrong with the PW surface combat engine.




Chiteng -> re: Mdeihile (11/13/2002 4:25:08 AM)

Except of course that you cant get historical results.




SoulBlazer -> (11/13/2002 5:06:12 AM)

And I still say there are problems, espeicly with the torpeados and with the assigning of targets for guns.




mdiehl -> (11/13/2002 5:31:55 AM)

No. But a previous user did note roughly 12% hits in battles of all types. This would be historically accurate including the few engagements where the IJN did launch an all torp salvo attack and was *quite* successful (on the order of 16% as at Tfrnga). So, adding a "torp first" subroutine with modal hit rates of 3-6% and occasional hit rates of about 16% would necessarily mean reducing the accuracy for "non initial torp salvo" shots, to preserve the 12% mean that the sim seems to generate reasonably well.

In short: like it the way it is, or accept lower overall hit rates with the very uncommon (about 10%) occurrence where the IJN launches an all torp initial attack *and* many (about 16%) of the torps hit. Understand that these will only occur until US ships carry SG radar. After that the likelihood is that the US will launch the torp sally first.




Chiteng -> re: Mdeihkl (11/13/2002 5:42:32 AM)

Savo Island happened and Tass. Point

For that matter, North Carolina and Wasp all in one day.

The only way now to pound the USN is to catch some element
out of air support range.

You can quote statistics all you want mdiehl. I will keep
point out the historical outcomes.

How can the USN DD launch torps without closing?
The Japs CAN launch torps, w/o closing.




Sonny -> (11/13/2002 9:16:43 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh
[B]........(that includes the 19 PT boats Sonny).

.... [/B][/QUOTE]

Those little bastards got a torp hit on my BB!:mad: :)




denisonh -> (11/13/2002 12:06:41 PM)

[QUOTE]Those little bastards got a torp hit on my BB! [/QUOTE]

Well, **** Sonny! How many times did you visit Irau with my PT boats sitting there? Enough times to kill 19 of the little suckers.

Give them enough chances, and they will hit something that big!




DoomedMantis -> (11/13/2002 3:47:24 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]No. But a previous user did note roughly 12% hits in battles of all types. This would be historically accurate including the few engagements where the IJN did launch an all torp salvo attack and was *quite* successful (on the order of 16% as at Tfrnga). So, adding a "torp first" subroutine with modal hit rates of 3-6% and occasional hit rates of about 16% would necessarily mean reducing the accuracy for "non initial torp salvo" shots, to preserve the 12% mean that the sim seems to generate reasonably well.

In short: like it the way it is, or accept lower overall hit rates with the very uncommon (about 10%) occurrence where the IJN launches an all torp initial attack *and* many (about 16%) of the torps hit. Understand that these will only occur until US ships carry SG radar. After that the likelihood is that the US will launch the torp sally first. [/B][/QUOTE]

I would accept a lower percentage hit rate if more torps were fired. How many time have you had an engagement and checked afterwards and seen that most of the torps are still yet to be fired.

Also what about meeting engagements for a cautiaus IJN commander. It would be far more effective for him to turn up launch his torps then disengage.




Drongo -> (11/13/2002 6:07:43 PM)

Posted by mdiehl
[QUOTE]But a previous user did note roughly 12% hits in battles of all types. This would be historically accurate including the few engagements where the IJN did launch an all torp salvo attack and was *quite* successful (on the order of 16% as at Tfrnga). So, adding a "torp first" subroutine with modal hit rates of 3-6% and occasional hit rates of about 16% would necessarily mean reducing the accuracy for "non initial torp salvo" shots, to preserve the 12% mean that the sim seems to generate reasonably well. [/QUOTE]

Sounds fascinating. Where did someone say they got "12% of hits in battles of all types"? If the historical hit rate you're using in your arguement is based on hits per number of torpedoes launched, where is the equivalent UV hit rate coming from? Did someone say they worked out the actual number of torpedoes launched in a UV battle and then gave the number of hits as well? Otherwise your comparing apples to oranges.

There is no reason why adding a torp-first routine should require any fiddling with torpedo accuracy. Accuracy is determined by range in UV, not doctrine. If you launch early at a less accurate range, so be it. All people are requesting is to have a chance of firing early to better reflect the flavour and results of IJN/USN surface warfare in the UV theatre in '42-'43.




mdiehl -> (11/13/2002 10:02:32 PM)

[QUOTE]Savo Island happened and Tass. Point [/QUOTE]

Exactly. It is unreasonable to think of either of these as typical of either the IJN or USN.

[QUOTE]For that matter, North Carolina and Wasp all in one day.[/QUOTE]

Not germane to surface engagement discussion because it was a submarine attack.

[QUOTE]The only way now to pound the USN is to catch some element out of air support range. [/QUOTE]

Sounds spot-on then. A TF within range of enemy air support and lacking its own air support should have trouble hanging around, never mind making contact.

[QUOTE]You can quote statistics all you want mdiehl. I will keep
point out the historical outcomes. [/QUOTE]

Non sequtur. The stats that I quote are based on historical battles. If your simulation is to be based on one engagement or two, selecting the IJN's two best engagements that says alot about what you want from a sim.

[QUOTE]How can the USN DD launch torps without closing?
The Japs CAN launch torps, w/o closing.[/QUOTE]

Non sequitur. Your comment lacks specifics. A USN ship armed with the mark 14 could shoot out to about 11000 yards. The IJN (at least those armed with Type 93a) much farther. At ranges in excess of 8000 yards, historical results show that neither the IJN or USN could hit a barn wall from the inside of the barn. (There are a couple statistical outliers.) If the target TF was completely unaware of enemy TF shooting at them, the 2% (mean, at night, at long range) hit rate is imrpoved by a few percent. So, 100 IJN torps fired at, say, 10,000 yards, could count on 3-6 hits. Close the range, and the hit rate increases in ways that you'd appreciate, up to about 16% in ideal situations.

SG radar can give a solution for firing torps out to the theoretical limit of the Mark 14's range. IJN ships were still limited to visbility range, typically less than the range of the Mark 14 and far less than the range of the Type 93. The Type 93's range advantage was superfluous.




mdiehl -> (11/13/2002 10:21:03 PM)

[QUOTE]If the historical hit rate you're using in your arguement is based on hits per number of torpedoes launched, where is the equivalent UV hit rate coming from? Did someone say they worked out the actual number of torpedoes launched in a UV battle and then gave the number of hits as well?[/QUOTE]

Yes.

[QUOTE]There is no reason why adding a torp-first routine should require any fiddling with torpedo accuracy.[/QUOTE]

Yes there is. The historical rates (8% at night, 12%-16% at night if some strong initial advantage, 1% in daylight with a modal IJN hit rate of 0% in all engagements day or night) are lower than UV's present hit rates (8-12%). The historical hit rates include the IJN's best nights (excluding a couple statistical outliers): Savo and T'faronga. If you back out those two engagements, the historical night action hit rate drops to about 6% -- roughly half the hit rate of UV.

So, if you're going to throw in the initial torp salvo (the routine should be implemented for both sides) and it has hit rates that are approximate to Savo/T'faronga, then to keep the model consistent with history all other IJN hit rates should be reduced.

Even then, something like Tassafaronga (a big, multi ship initial torp salvo) should occur in about 1/10 engagements and only if the USN ships lack SG. USN DD-only groups should have also about a 10% chance in 1942 of conducting such an attack.

Savo Island should not happen at all unless USN vessels readiness is severely depleted, because Savo saw the US ships (a) fatigured from nearly 24 hours at general quarters, (b) without local commander on scene, (c) dispersed, (d) with two USN groups unaware as to the exact position of the other friendly group (leading to much hesitation when it was most advantageous to the IJN).

[QUOTE]Accuracy is determined by range in UV, not doctrine.[/QUOTE]

The model currently achieves hit rates that are consistent with historical results only if you include the IJN's best nights, both featuring unusual circumstances and torps fired at close range, and the only two actions in which the IJN multi-ship TF opened with a very effective initial salvo. So the other hit rates in the model must be adjusted if a special subroutine is to be concocted with the purpose of creating Tassafaronga/Savo like combat results.

Accuracy, however, is not solely determined by range. Target disposition, laxity/fatigue, and their awareness of hostiles also heavily affect accuracy.

[QUOTE]All people are requesting is to have a chance of firing early to better reflect the flavour and results of IJN/USN surface warfare in the UV theatre in '42-'43.[/QUOTE]

To reflect two engagements in 1942 from what the advoactes here say. It's a fine request, but then the hit rates from non-initial-torp-salvo shots need to be reduced.




Admiral DadMan -> (11/13/2002 11:13:06 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cap_and_gown
[B]... For SG radar, I found that it was worth the equivalent of 70 experience points. In other words, a USN task force with an experience level of 20 and SG radar would be as effective as a USN task force without SG radar and an experience level of 90.
Is this too much? I think it is. But perhaps the crew at Matrix can explain why they chose to make SG radar as effective as they did. [/B][/QUOTE]The most common denominator that I saw in this whole discussion was that of ships in the US Battle Line engaging, some had SG RADaR (BB's [I]Washington[/I] and [I]North Carolina[/I] most notably).

So, if the US TF Commander (Lee) knows that the IJN SurCom TF is inbound, the level of surprise should be lower, [B]and[/B] he'd have his RADaR operators on double watches with crews at Ready Stations, ready for Battle Stations. My point being that Lee would spot first, fire first, and possibly score his hits first, which would reduce return fire from the opposing ships that were scored upon.

Does that make sense?




Wilhammer -> (11/13/2002 11:42:40 PM)

This is how I see the solution, which probably does not fit to well with the current system.

1. Determine if TFs intercept.

2. Determine who sees who first, or if they they see each other at the same time.

3. Based on first spotting and reactive spotting, determine who (if anyone) gets the initiative, and based on things like leadership, readiness, how "good" the initiative is.

4. Initiative could be surprise attack (like Savo), when the Japanese basically ambushed the Allied forces.

5. Initiative could be minor; one salvo off without response before your whole TF is detected.

6. Once initiative is worn out, it becomes a slugging match that one side or the other, based on readiness, leadership, ship condition, etc, could chose to withdraw from.


Then of course, doctrine must be factored in.

Japanese doctrine was try to take away the Allied (esp American) gunnery advantage by torpedo attrition. In a surprise attack, they would launch the torpedoes after having the time to pinpoint the enemy and 'boresight' the targets.

Of course, US doctrine would be to open up, most of the tiem, with guns.

.just a simple idea that would need to address things like range based on spotting tools, weather, etc.




mdiehl -> (11/14/2002 1:06:05 AM)

Numbers 4 and 5 are the same. Savo featured one free torp shot that gave the IJN early success. What made the torp shot a success was all those things attributed to surprise (which at Savo was actually a combination of surprise, USN personnel fatigue, and the awkward necessity of patrolling two landing areas at the same time).

[QUOTE]In a surprise attack, they would launch the torpedoes after having the time to pinpoint the enemy and 'boresight' the targets. [/QUOTE]

Nope. Boresight is virtually impossible with torpedoes. About the only historical example of a "boresighted" torp use was in Norway. Surprise made a lousy probability of hitting slightly better. Boresighting, in contrast, is much more deterministic.

[QUOTE]Of course, US doctrine would be to open up, most of the tiem, with guns.[/QUOTE]

*If* CAs were in the line. When a DD desron was acting on its own, the doctrine was to fire torps until they were used up or the enemy so battered that they could be finished off with guns.




Wilhammer -> (11/14/2002 1:08:33 AM)

'Boresight" is a phrase looking for a better one.

By its usage I mean "lock on and plot for a while", like at Savo.




Drongo -> (11/14/2002 1:11:29 AM)

Posted by mdiehl
[QUOTE]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the historical hit rate you're using in your arguement is based on hits per number of torpedoes launched, where is the equivalent UV hit rate coming from? Did someone say they worked out the actual number of torpedoes launched in a UV battle and then gave the number of hits as well?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. [/QUOTE]

Well, I cant find where that was stated. So unless you can say who supplied you with this proven average torpedo average hit rate for UV (no of hits per no of torpedoes), your whole arguement is a waste of time.

Let me give you some "proven" UV figures.

In my 30 test battles of 4 IJN CA's vs 4 USN CA's, the IJN scored 21 torp hits. If you assume that only half the IJN CA's (2) fired off their torps each battle, each of those fired off only half their full salvo (8 of 16) and no one fired off their reloads, that will give you a total of (2 x 8 x 30) = 480 torps fired. That gives you a hit rate of 21/480 or about 4%. The average range when CA's are involved was around 8000-9000 yds. More likely, even more topedoes were fired in the test battles which would reduce the hit rate further.

In 30 test battles of 6 IJN DD's vs 6 USN DD's, the IJN scored 32 hits. The IJN DD's were Fubuki class DD's and would always fire a full salvo (9 torps). Assuming half the DD's fired (almost definitely would have been more) and no firing of reloads, you get (3 x 9 x 30) = 810 torps fired, That gives you a hit rate of 32/810 or about 4%. The average engagement range for DD's was about 6000-7000 yds but DD's tend to be harder to hit.

Now these are not definitive UV hit rates by any margin but they came from a set of test UV battles where conditions were designed to be as close as possible to historical. It has also been stated many times that the IJN hit rates (whatever they really are) are "inflated" by the way that damaged (slown) ships in UV attract multiple hits (since they're easy targets). Going after cripples during combat was not the norm in the South Pacific during 42-43.

All this would indicate is that the UV hit rate does not appear to translate to the 12% you keep mentioning as bible.

[QUOTE](8% at night, 12%-16% at night if some strong initial advantage, 1% in daylight with a modal IJN hit rate of 0% in all engagements day or night)[/QUOTE]

Why include a day hit rate in the calculation when everyone else is talking night combat. Apples and oranges.

[QUOTE]So, if you're going to throw in the initial torp salvo (the routine should be implemented for both sides) and it has hit rates that are approximate to Savo/T'faronga, then to keep the model consistent with history all other IJN hit rates should be reduced. [/QUOTE]

I certainly never said anything about getting the same hit rates as Tass. I'm happy to leave it entirely up to UV's combat engine. The whole concept of the early salvo was to allow the IJN to get a chance to launch torps and influence the result before the battle settled into a gun battle. If someone else requested that an early torp launch must always get a Tass torp hit rate, go take it up with them.

[QUOTE]Even then, something like Tassafaronga (a big, multi ship initial torp salvo) should occur in about 1/10 engagements and only if the USN ships lack SG. USN DD-only groups should have also about a 10% chance in 1942 of conducting such an attack. [/QUOTE]

The SG radar was present at Tassafaronga.

Your 1/10 figure for Tass is just an opinion. Because 1 of the 5 surface battles around the Solomon Islands in '42 was Tass, I could just as easily say that 1/5 of all UV surface battles around the island of Guadalcanal in '42 should give you a Tass result. What I can say is that you certainly dont get anything like a 1/10 chance of a Tass in UV at present.

[QUOTE]Savo Island should not happen at all unless USN vessels readiness is severely depleted, because Savo saw the US ships (a) fatigured from nearly 24 hours at general quarters, (b) without local commander on scene, (c) dispersed, (d) with two USN groups unaware as to the exact position of the other friendly group (leading to much hesitation when it was most advantageous to the IJN). [/QUOTE]

Well that's a pointless arguement considering we're discussing a game that has an abstracted combat system which contains none of the above specific factors but instead is supposed to give us results from its combat model which reflect all historical reality. The game should be capable of producing Savo as a result. Regardless of what caused it, Savo happened, live with it (I know you'd sleep better at night if those two annoying little battles (Savo and Tass) hadn't happened).

[QUOTE]Accuracy, however, is not solely determined by range. Target disposition, laxity/fatigue, and their awareness of hostiles also heavily affect accuracy. [/QUOTE]

Agreed, as do other factors. As I said before, UV's combat model is supposed to have a lot of this as abstracted factors. All we can do is take UV's model and argue the case for things based on the results, since no-one tells us specifically how everything fits together in their combat model. If we already knew it, we would never have opened Area 51.




Wilhammer -> (11/14/2002 1:14:48 AM)

Another consideration, along with weather and night combat; moon phases.

Does UV even consider moon phases?

A full moon is not condusive to surprise night movements, but a new moon certainly is.




TIMJOT -> (11/14/2002 1:15:59 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
[B]The most common denominator that I saw in this whole discussion was that of ships in the US Battle Line engaging, some had SG RADaR (BB's [I]Washington[/I] and [I]North Carolina[/I] most notably).

So, if the US TF Commander (Lee) knows that the IJN SurCom TF is inbound, the level of surprise should be lower, [B]and[/B] he'd have his RADaR operators on double watches with crews at Ready Stations, ready for Battle Stations. My point being that Lee would spot first, fire first, and possibly score his hits first, which would reduce return fire from the opposing ships that were scored upon.

Does that make sense? [/B][/QUOTE]

Not neccessarirly, since in 2nd Guadacanal; Lee spotted 2nd, fired 2nd, and scored hits 2nd. Even with latest SG radar. That being said I think the probability of a ship with a*expirence* crew equiped with SG radar, spotting and fireing first should be high. That probability should be directly related to either the night expirence rateing or a special radar expirence rateing of the ship and crew.




Wilhammer -> (11/14/2002 1:30:16 AM)

Not only that, but more important to having radar is how you integrate into your command/control structure.

The biggest failing of IJN radar deployment was first a failure of how to integrate it, not the technology itself.

US doctrine on intergration of radar in fleet actions was all but non-existent at the start, and was always under experimentation.

It just so happned that we seemed to consistently get better at using it in an integrated system.




Califvol -> (11/14/2002 2:03:55 AM)

Diatribe deleted.

I have the same issue that IJN sucks at night in 1942. (Hmm, Japanese Vampires?)

However, I have to caveot myself and ask a question. I have been playing against the computer with it at "historical" settings. Maybe that actually is my problem? If I change the setting will that change the IJN hit rate at night????

Thanks!




mdiehl -> (11/14/2002 2:40:32 AM)

[QUOTE]Why include a day hit rate in the calculation when everyone else is talking night combat. Apples and oranges.[/QUOTE]

Because the hit rates are different for day and night actions and, of course, for the combined actions, and because these differences are germane if UV gives different hit rates for day or night engagements, or alternatively, uses a generic hit rate as the premise for both. As usual, germane and to the point and not "apples and oranges."

[QUOTE]I certainly never said anything about getting the same hit rates as Tass. I'm happy to leave it entirely up to UV's combat engine. ... go take it up with them. [/QUOTE]

Since my only response to you has been to answer questions that you asked in response to my post directed at someone else, you can take your smarmy "why bother *me* with this" shtick and jam it down your blowhole.

[QUOTE]Your 1/10 figure for Tass is just an opinion.[/QUOTE]

It's an "opinion" in the same way that believing that you exist is an opinion. Since you and others argue that the rule should apply to the IJN *in general* not 'the IJN within 20 klicks of Guadalcanal' it throws the door open to consider all IJN surface engagements. Good nights and bad nights, and not many of them opened with multi-ship IJN torp salvos.

[QUOTE]Well that's a pointless arguement considering we're discussing a game that has an abstracted combat system...[/QUOTE]

*Really* pointless of course is arguing with you, when you suggest that the results generated by a sim should not be compared with analyses of historical results. Yeah, I understand that you've heard of Tassafaronga and Savo, and that these two anecdotal cases are the sum total of your frame of reference. There were other surface engagements in 1942, perhaps you've read about them?

*Given* that the mitigating factors that actually produce Savo or Tassafaronga type engagements aren't modeled, the question is whether one takes those two anecdotes (which any detailed analysis of the engagements demonstrates produced lopsided results owing to highly unusual and contingent circumstances) as teh basis for a general model. The initial post that I responded to said that IJN DD should "always" open with an initial torp salvo prior to gunfire. That's not how it happened, and the reasons why it did not happen "always" or even very often have to do with contingencies that UV, by your admission, does not model.

Since these contingencies might as easily have adversely affected the IJN (imagine an IJN TF lingering around Tulagi and Guadalcanal for several days to support a significant amphibious operation in the face of several US army or marine regiments already ashore), the *abstract* model for which you an others clamor either needs to provide the same opportunities for both sides, or else reflect the contingencies that led to results like Savo.




Wilhammer -> A very good read on just this subject (11/14/2002 2:48:30 AM)

Attached...




Chiteng -> attn: Drongo (11/14/2002 3:42:40 AM)

Because Drongo man
If he doesnt do that
then the model is wrong.

and then we win =)

So he will
quote statistics
to defend his
poor position.

Banzai!




mdiehl -> (11/14/2002 4:00:40 AM)

[QUOTE]So he will
quote statistics
to defend his
poor position. [/QUOTE]

Proving that doctrinaire adherents to (what amounts to) a theological belief can't be swayed by facts or statistics. Why don't you just cite papal authority, or vaguely attribute your beliefs to Morison, or, better yet, Aristotle? Or maybe you could make up some really bad Haiku?




Chiteng -> re: Mdiehl (11/14/2002 4:50:37 AM)

Mdiehl,

I have played and studied wargames since 1970. I own every title
of SPI and VG. Some were toads, some were gems. One thing I have learned:

If the simulation, cannot or will not allow historical results, something is wrong.

You cannot escape that fact, regardless if you dress it up with
statistics. There are three types of lies:

**** lies
White lies
Statistics

Kirishima **** near had the Washington? by the gonads
when the power failed. The BB was no more than a raft for 20 min
in the middle of the Battle. Imagine if Kirishima had simply not been alone that night.(ie Like Kongo was with her)
Your mathmatical model is innaccurate or incomplete.

Just like the guy on the Taiho that insisted on welding the fuel
line, while it was in use.




mdiehl -> (11/14/2002 5:09:17 AM)

All right, now I have *no* idea to whom you are responding. I made no statements about Kirishima or Washington or any other particular BB recently. FWIW, Kirishima's main batteries could not penetrate Washington's (or her sister, South Dakota, the one whose power failed) belt or citidel armor with an intact explosive charge (see the Guns and Armor page linkable via [url]www.combinedfleet.com[/url]). The keyword you want there is "decapitation" (which is what happens to any IJN shell other than the 18" fired at close range). In contrast, there was no range or armor-area on Kirishima at which the Washington or SoDak's 16" would *not* penetrate with an intact explosive charge. Kirishima did not come remotely close to harming Washington, and her effect (along with her CA escort) on SoDak was largely to strip away secondary systems. (All ww2 BB were vulnerable to loss of secondary systems to shells of 8" or greater).

[QUOTE]If the simulation, cannot or will not allow historical results, something is wrong. [/QUOTE]

Quite so. If, however, the situation allows for improbable results to occur too frequently, or if it allows for only one side to duplicate historical victories, it is just as wrong.

[QUOTE] **** lies
White lies
Statistics [/QUOTE]

Actually it's "Lies, Da_ned lies, and Statistics." It's a very good quote when you read it correctly. There are lies, and d__ned lies, and statistics tend to reveal them for what they are. No, every viewpoint is not valid. Yes, stats based on quantitative data may be used to identify which POV are reasonable and which are silly, and NO, statistics can't lie. People can fake their data or use the wrong stat, but people who know anything about stats or who have access to the data can usually identify when *that* happens.

People who have no stats or other quantitative information to back up their claim have no opinion worth hearing, IMO. Certainly if you think stats and quantitative data are not relevant, then there's no way to test your argument. I have no use for such subjective, "truth as revealed to me" dogma, nor for its advocates.




Califvol -> (11/14/2002 5:11:12 AM)

SOUTH DAKOTA! Not the Washington. The Washington had power and was busy blasting the KIRISHIMA to ribbons.

Why was the South Dakota powerless for 20 mins? According to the book "Battlewagon, the story of the USS Washington" a Pettyofficer on the South Dakota wired (jerry rigged) all the power through one junction box. When the firing started the box blew and the ship was without power for 20 mins while it was re-wired. This resulted in horrific damage to the South Dakota. The "what-if" is what would have happend if the South Dakota had not been without power for those 20 mins? This once again illustartes (sp) how there is more to combat than weapon specifications.

Below is a fun read:

Washington's After Action Report

WASHINGTON ACTION REPORT
SUMMARY OF OUTSTANDING EVENTS AND GENERAL COMMENT



On the night of November 14-15 WASHINGTON was flagship of Commander Task Force 64 (ComBatDiv 6). In column, with four destroyers ahead and SOUTH DAKOTA astern, she stood north between Russell and Guadalcanal, then east and southeast, passing north of Savo. Standing west from this point, first radar contact was made at 0001 with enemy ships east of Savo. From 0016 to 0019 fired 42 rounds 16", opening at 18,500 yards, at large cruiser or battleship which it is believed was sunk. From 0016 to 0017 fired 100 rounds 5" at ranges 12 to 13,000 yards at enemy cruiser or large destroyer which was also engaged by SOUTH DAKOTA and was left burning. Standing on north-westerly courses fired 133 rounds 5" from 0025 to 0034 at ranges about 10,000 yards at light craft close to south-east shore of Savo which were engaging our destroyers; all were silenced and one was left burning. From 0100 to 0107 fired 75 rounds 16'' and 107 rounds 5" at ranges from 8,400 to 12,650 yards, at battleship northwest of Savo which was firing at SOUTH DAKOTA. This battleship was silenced and was subsequently tracked by radar through a 500-degree turn. From 0100 to 0107, fired 120 rounds 5", at ranges from 7,400 to 9,500 yards, in succession at three enemy cruisers illuminating and engaging SOUTH DAKOTA.


By the time our 5" fire on light craft close to southeast shore of Savo had ceased, one of our destroyers was sunk, one was hopelessly afire (she exploded and sank a few minutes later) and the other two were put out of action (they retired southward). Subsequently, and before we opened fire on ships northwest of Savo, the SOUTH DAKOTA was seen to the eastward between this ship and Savo on a course to northward of WASHINGTON course. What appeared to be the SOUTH DAKOTA was seen at about 0121 at a considerable distance to the southeastward between this ship and Guadalcanal on a southerly course.
From radar tracking and visual observation of enemy ships, there were:

(1) Fired upon by this ship and apparently sunk:


1 large cruiser or BB (WASHINGTON only.)

2 large cruisers (WASH 5".)

1 destroyer (our DD's plus WASH 5".)
(2) Fired upon by this ship and apparently damaged:


1 14" BB silenced and out of control (WASH. only.)

1 DD burning (WASH. 5".)

5-9 light craft silenced (our DD's plus WASH. 5" plus S.D.)
There was no melee. This ship was undamaged.



COMMENT


The following comments are submitted:




Our radar is effective for accurate gunfire at long ranges at night. Japanese radar aboard ships present, if any, is not effective for surface targets.

Japanese are sufficiently familiar with radar and aware of our use of it to make full use of land cover both between them and ourselves and closely backing them up.

Our optical vision is superior to Japanese.

Our fire control and the effectiveness of our projectiles meet or exceed our expectations.


Accordingly,


We should seek rather than avoid night action, opening at ranges as great as satisfactory solutions can be obtained.



EFFECTIVENESS OF GUNNERY


This ship was fired on only sporadically. She was not illuminated. No hits were sustained and the nearest miss noted was the splash, apparently of a major-caliber shell about 200 yards on the port quarter. Observers who witnessed other ships of our force under concentrated fire reported the Japanese gunnery to be accurate. Enemy ships close to Savo fired automatic weapons accurately at our destroyers. The Japanese ships were, apparently, not equipped with radar. Their searchlights provided excellent illumination of SOUTH DAKOTA, but attracted our fire and provided a point of aim.



MAIN BATTERY


This ship's gunnery appeared highly effective. Fire was opened with a gun range of 18,500 yards initially by this vessel using radar ranges and optical train and hits were definitely obtained by the third salvo. It is believed target was stopped and sinking after third salvo rounds were fired.


In the second phase target had been tracked by radar ranges and bearing and later by optical train. Fire was opened at 8,400 yards and a hit was probably obtained on first Salvo and certainly on the second. Fire was rapid, on one turret ready light, for about 2 minutes 39 seconds, firing about 39 rounds. It was interrupted for 1 1/2 minutes due to an erroneous report that target was sunk, and resumed for 2 minutes and 45 seconds, during which time 36 rounds were fired. A total of 75 rounds was fired on this target which was believed to be the KIRISHIMA. Star shell illumination was used on this phase after about the second salvo, 62 rounds being fired.


According to the best data available, overall SPGPM was 1.30 and 5 guns had 1.8 average. Fire discipline was excellent.
The normal fire control set-up of this vessel was used throughout, namely:

Collective fire, Director I (Forward main-battery director) controlling in train.

Group I controlling in Plot.

Director IV (Stable Vertical I located in plotting room) controlling in continuous level and cross level.

Director IV controlling firing circuit (Plot.)

Radar ranges by indicating and voice.



Turret pointers were matched during phases in which the director was being trained on the visual target. During the time when the visual target was obscured, whether training by radar or generated by using previously observed relative motion of firing ship and target, a turret spread in deflection was fired.


The selected train firing key was used in plot to insure that the firing pointer could see the light that indicates when the director train is on target. It has been standard practice for this vessel to use that key at night when visual or radar train indications are accurate, shifting to generated bearing only in case of poor train indication or obscured target.


Against the first main battery target, 18,500 yards, radar range was used in conjunction with visual train. The target became obscured after the second salvo. The target was lost by all radar's after this salvo. As a result the last salvos went out in what amounted to generated. That is, the present range was let ride and the director being in automatic remained on the generated train. On the second main battery target the tracking was done entirely by radar for at least five minutes. When the target finally came into view optically, checks given by the pointer indicated that the radar was exactly on. In this connection it is noted that a considerable period of time is taken to adapt the trainer's eyes to the telescope at either night or day after looking at the radar scope (train indicator.) The reverse is also true. As a result of this difficulty, main battery Director II found it desirable to let the trainer keep track by radar and the pointer observe by telescope. Such a system is made possible by the fact that the director is trained automatically by generated bearing. Therefore small corrections only are necessary and such corrections can be made by coaching from a pointer's station.


Radar spots were used against the first target while the target echo was present. It is of interest to note that against the second target (BB) "overs" as well as "shorts" could be seen optically. Salvos were walked back and forth across the target.


The fire control switchboards on this ship provide for a secondary battery director to furnish target bearing to a main battery range keeper. Thus it can also be used to designate to a main battery director. At the time of first contact both main battery directors lost the target and the shift was made for designation, but the secondary battery director had not yet settled down and its designation was not used. In the meantime main-battery Director I had again picked up the target and target bearing was shifted back to it.



SECONDARY BATTERY


Secondary battery fire control used radar ranges throughout. During Phase 1 radar train was used. In Phases 1A and 2 optical train was used. Level for the basis of gun elevation order was obtained from the Stable Element with dip-range being set on the synchronized elevation knob in accordance with advance range. Firing circuits were controlled by director pointers. Group 1 used rapid continuous fire. On the other hand, Group III soon shifted to Salvo fire, 4 second interval, to facilitate spotting.


In the first phase effectiveness of the Secondary Battery was undetermined. Group I and Group III each controlled two mounts in firing at surface targets at ranges between 13,000 and 15,000 yards. The control of the groups was by radar, range and training. Group III used 400-yard rocking ladder in 200-yard steps. No radar spots were obtained and there was no observation of the fall of shot.


Phase 1A consisted of shooting at what at first appeared to be shore batteries on Savo Island but later identified as surface craft. Initially both groups opened fire on these targets. In view of the fact that Group I appeared to be shooting "over," Mounts 1 and 3 were switched over to Director III which continued the fire. Group III opened fire initially at the target near the right tangent of the island, aiming at the gun flashes, using a 200-yard rocking ladder based on the closest radar range with target speed set on zero. The first target was set on fire, many observers reporting that a stream of 5" tracers poured into the target which immediately burst into flames. A range of 10,200 yards on the burning ship from the main battery coincidence range finder was within 100 yards of the range set on the computer. Fire was shifted successively to the left using gunfire flashes as points of aim, and was continued against gunfire flashes until each gun ceased firing. Apparently another target on bearing near the center of Savo Island was set on fire. These targets may have been destroyers or large MTB's.


In Phase 2 (the third secondary battery phase) the secondary battery again opened with divided fire. Group I fired on main battery target and Group III on target whose searchlights were illuminating SOUTH DAKOTA. Twice during the firing Group I was hitting, apparently starting fires in the upper works. When searchlights on another ship were seen to be turned on, secondary battery Director III used them as a point of aim. On this target, which was apparently a heavy cruiser, also engaged by the SOUTH DAKOTA's 5", Group III fired with a 200-yard rocking ladder. The first salvo landed short and was spotted "up 400." Fires were started. At about the 4th Salvo the searchlights went out. Director III continued with about eight or ten more Salvos, at which time another group of searchlights was seen to come on. The point of aim was shifted to these searchlights and fire continued until they went out. Another set of searchlights came on and fire was again shifted to them. The last searchlights were turned off about the time of cease firing. No hits were definitely observed on the last two targets.


The tactical situation was greatly affected by the presence of islands and the necessity of fighting in comparatively restricted waters. As noted previously the radar screens had many land echoes. For a surface engagement under reduced visibility, and especially in restricted waters, a navigational plot should be maintained in radar plot for fully effective use of the radar. If this vessel were to keep such a plot more space would be required. An expansion of radar plot appears justified.


The picture presented by the SG radar is not a true plan view. Radar operators must be given concentrated training in areas surrounded by land in distinguishing between land and ships. During a previous sweep by this vessel around Russell Island at night, numerous false reports of surface targets were received from the fire control radar's that turned out to be land more than 100,000 yards away. During the night of the engagement only one such report was received.



LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS


Radar has forced the Captain or OTIC to base a greater part of his actions in a night engagement on what he is told, rather than what he can see. This ship was not hit but examination of SOUTH DAKOTA revealed completeness with which bridge structure may be riddled by shells and splinters which penetrate 1" ST S bulkheads. The enemy may be counted upon to hit foremast superstructure.


The captain and navigator should be in Conn. An experienced officer, other than the navigator, should be FOOD and should filter for the Captain the tremendously numerous reports received at the conning station over the various telephone circuits.



ComBatIve 6 ACTION REPORT


This action demonstrated the tremendous value of radar in a night action. Battleships obtained excellent fire control results using radar range and radar spots, combined with optical instruments.


Strong signals from enemy ships permitted quick and accurate solution and spots.


First phase opening ranges 16,000 - 18,000 yards, illumination by setting moon. Hit with second Salvo. Second phase opening range 6,000 - 9,000 yards; illumination by star shells, did not add to accuracy of fire.


No indication that enemy used radar. Enemy apparently ranged on gun flashes, but inaccurately. SOUTH DAKOTA hit after enemy searchlight illuminated her.


Own gunfire superior to Japs, particularly as range increased.


SG radar invaluable in locating surface targets and coaching fire control radar's on.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1