re: Mdiehl (Full Version)

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



Message

Chiteng -> re: Mdiehl (11/14/2002 5:33:35 AM)

The person I am addressing is always included in the header.

So you are saying that if I desire to see historical results,
that this is the equivalent of asking for divine intervention?

I interpet the quote to mean that statistics are no better
than lies if the person using them has an agenda that they are pushing. There is no way I will accept yours, you have a vested interest in your interpetation.

BTW I DID put a '?' next to the ship name, that usually tells people
that your not sure which ship it happened to.

My point about Kirishima was that war is not statistics. Not even the air war(which comes the closest)
No model would have predicted a critical power loss in the middle
of a battle and certainly not one NOT caused by the enemy.
And yet it happened.

It should tell you something when the number of people fighting
you is so high. If it were JUST me, I would consider my opinon
possibly flawed. But it ISNT just me.



Nikademus -> (11/14/2002 6:04:50 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]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

[/quote]

Incorrect.

Washingtons sister is the North Carolina whose name represents that class of battleship

South Dakota was lead ship of the 2nd class of US Modern battleships. Her sisters were Indiana, Massachussetts, and Alabama

the SoDak's had a completely different armor scheme from the North Carolina class, but neither was designed to withstand heavy shellfire from 9700 yards. So no, neither ship's citidel was immune to the Kirishima's guns at what was essentially point blank range for BB combat.

To give a reader an idea of how point blank it was, the two ship's had calculated immune zones that were contained within the 20-30,000 yard bracket. I can get more specific on request, :) but the point is.....9700 yards is spitting distance for battleships armed with 14 or 16 inch guns.

The theory you were reffering too is actually called "De-capping" and reffers to the tearing off of an AP shell's heavy cap in order to reduce it's armor penetrative qualities. Washington's external mounted belt was not designed for decapping. SoDak's was not either.....ironically the decapping effect was unintentional
In theory, the outer skin of the SoDak is just thick enough to potentially reproduce a decapping effect on the shell before it strikes the internally mounted armor belt (inclined to increase resistance to an incoming shell....but is dependant on the AoI of the shell which at 9700 yards would be minimal) For SoDak, this effect is possible with shells up to 16" in diameter. (Iowas with a slightly thicker skin could potentially decap an 18 inch shell)

Only the Littorios had a purpose designed and built 'decapping' layer. The Littorios armor belt was arguably the most advanced designed during the pre-war period.

Sorry....battleship talk makes me prone to babble :) Short summery: Kirishima could have wholloped either enemy battleship at that range.....unless she was firing bombardment HE shells that is... :)



Wilhammer -> (11/14/2002 7:09:56 AM)

Now is a good time to point out that the most famous Japanese Naval victory of all time was Tsushima.

The most interesting thing to come out of analyzing that battle is that not ONE, NONE, NADDA, ZIP shell fired by a Japanese warship penetrated a Russian ship.

The victory was one by shredding the topsides of the Russian ships with QF type guns and having very hot burning HE bursters set fire to the upper decks.

The damage was casued by wrecking nearly all above main deck systems and slaughtering the crews with intense fires and shrapnel damage.

The two? big gunned Battleships they had contributed NO hits.

The Japanese torpedo doctrine, defined by close in fighting, failed due to missed interception.

It is ironic that the Japanese thus decided on the Big Gun navy and the idea of long-range torpedoes, when their greatest success was based on getting in close and dirty and defeating with high quality the theory of long range fire.

Thus, if the Kirishima had better gunnery and a bit of luck, they could of at least muted the one enemy BB it was engaged with.

Imagine if the Japanese had scored an early hit on the SG radar? It would not take much more than a direct hit from a secondary or tertiary gun to wreck it.

One wonder what would of happened if the Japanese had taken to the idea that the mission og guns was not to sink ships, but wreck their fighting ability, and leave the sinkings to torpedoes.

....and strangely enough, that was the logic behind the idea of night time torpedo attacks, which they practiced for to perfection, in order to put the N-squared equation in their favor for the "Big Guns Battle".



wpurdom -> mdiehl (11/14/2002 7:23:23 AM)

Have you actually gotten UV and played it yet? You've never answered that question when previously asked.
If you haven't played UV, I would suggest that you confine your comments to historical results, and not to flaws in the game or the modeling or to proposed changes in the modelling, because if you haven't played the game your comments are valueless on those subjects.
As to your historical analysis, it is often interesting and of value although I think your pronounced slant on everything is apparent.



Chiteng -> re: wpurdom (11/14/2002 7:31:31 AM)

I am unsure Mdiehl reads headers. But I assume that you were
addressing him.



SoulBlazer -> (11/14/2002 7:36:12 AM)

I don't know how this topic wandered into this corner, but if anything can find some concrete and solid evidence of the effectviness of the IJN in night combat (and the lack of the Americans thereoff in 1942) that would convience Matrix to re-look at the issue, I'd be most gratefull. :)

My main compliants are the Japanese do not use torpeados enough and the AI is very stupid in assigning ship targets (in all my tests with a combined fleet they went after the DD's first).



mogami -> IJN Night fighting (11/14/2002 7:52:54 AM)

Greetings, I really don't have a problem with UV and night battles.
I think there should only be these considerations in battles
TF leader, TF ships weapons,TF fire control, Ship experiance.

So far UV has produce results over the course of a campaign that satisfy me. I have been unhappy after some engagements and overjoyed after others. No matter how involved or detailed the program was there would be those who remained unhappy with it. I think the single largest thing I see is Japanese players who feel they are being robbed of the ability to crush the USN in every fight. I have had light TF's (2 CL 4-6 DD) score victories over USN TF of 4 CA and 4-6 DD. The only BB involved battles have been slug fests where the player with the closest size 3 port came out ahead (able to save crippled ships).

Any program that does not allow for lopsided battles is flawed. (I have had plenty of lopsided battles)

Any program that make lopsided results the rule is flawed (I see them given in equal doses.)

The standard result between "balanced, equal" TF should be draws with other factors (proximity to bases and LBA the day after) being the deciding factor. I feel this to be the case.

I don't pay attention to which ship fires first or hit first. I pretty much consider the entire round to be happening all at once.

When the round is over and the range changes (or not) I look to see what has changed, if ships that did not fire the first round catch up and the like. But once again I do not get too excited reading the messages.

Between even sized/type TF I would agree the IJN Torpedo is often the differance in outcome. But I would not suggest it requires the ability to hit every target in every battle.

Like my old 1st Glass Gunners Mate used to tell me. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" (Well actually he said "If it's working, don't f*&^ with it)



Chiteng -> re: Mogami (11/14/2002 8:25:06 AM)

Greetings, I really don't have a problem with UV and night battles.
I think there should only be these considerations in battles
TF leader, TF ships weapons,TF fire control, Ship experiance.
****************************************************
So you are saying that what happened to South Dakota is un-model-able?

****************************************************
So far UV has produce results over the course of a campaign that satisfy me. I have been unhappy after some engagements and overjoyed after others. No matter how involved or detailed the program was there would be those who remained unhappy with it.
****************************************************

Ad Hoc. Need to see it first

****************************************************
I think the single largest thing I see is Japanese players who feel they are being robbed of the ability to crush the USN in every fight.
****************************************************

Not true. But at least one fight would be nice YES.

***************************************************
I have had light TF's (2 CL 4-6 DD) score victories over USN TF of 4 CA and 4-6 DD. The only BB involved battles have been slug fests where the player with the closest size 3 port came out ahead (able to save crippled ships).
***************************************************

I have not. Nor do I think have alot of other people.
I HAVE had absurdly small ALLIED TF kick the snot out of Jap
BB. I have NEVER seen that with the Japs. I have played plenty
of games also.

****************************************************
Any program that does not allow for lopsided battles is flawed. (I have had plenty of lopsided battles)
****************************************************
Not sure that is true, but it May be for Naval combat. I would not like to see lopsided victories in an air-simulation.



****************************************************
Any program that make lopsided results the rule is flawed (I see them given in equal doses.)

The standard result between "balanced, equal" TF should be draws with other factors (proximity to bases and LBA the day after) being the deciding factor. I feel this to be the case.

I don't pay attention to which ship fires first or hit first. I pretty much consider the entire round to be happening all at once.

When the round is over and the range changes (or not) I look to see what has changed, if ships that did not fire the first round catch up and the like. But once again I do not get too excited reading the messages.

Between even sized/type TF I would agree the IJN Torpedo is often the differance in outcome. But I would not suggest it requires the ability to hit every target in every battle.

Like my old 1st Glass Gunners Mate used to tell me. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" (Well actually he said "If it's working, don't f*&^ with it)
****************************************************

The thing that angers is that you can have 10 DD in the TF
and only two participate. The other simply sit it out.
THAT Mogami is where 'I' get angry




__________________



SoulBlazer -> (11/14/2002 8:54:08 AM)

Greetings to all again.....

I don't expect the IJN to win every battle. Far from it. :) Especily as the game goes on, it gets into 1943, the Americans get better weapons, equipment, and training, etc.

All of the tests I have conducted so far indicate that the IJN does not use torpeados as often in night battles as they did historicaly. Strangly, they seem to fire more during daytime battles. Yes, I do watch the battles to their conclusions and also compare ammo before and after.

I'm not even saying all of those torpeados should hit -- but the IJN torpeados should hit more often then USN torpeados, which does not seem to be the case right now.

Between the Japanese not firing more of their torpeados, not hitting as often as they could, and going after the weakest ships (combined with, perhaps, the USN torpeados being a little too good in 1942), it skews the battles more in favor of the USN then should be historicaly.

After all, what's the point of CA's and CL's having torpeado tubes if they use their guns more? What's the point of the Japanese having the awsome Long Lance which (seems to be) better then even their gunfire? (In my IJN games they seem awfull in hitting the US ships, but that has solid foundation in history.)

And I'm talking about fair fights.....of course if the USN has a better commander, more ships, more experience, gets surprise, crosses the T, or any thing else that gives them a edge, then the battle should be in their favor.

Matrix has been more then willing to listen to us in the past. I know I'm not the only one complianing about this. Its my biggest complaint with this otherwise top notch game. But they allready said in this thread they don't have any evidence to look at this issue again. Since they seem to want more then combat reports, that's why I posted this thread in the first place.

I am not a die hard wargamer like some of you, although I have long liked them. I do have a MA in American History and did my thesis on the Pacific War, however, so I would like to think I have a idea of what I am talking about. I am not meaning disrespect to you or to anyone else here....far from it. I'm making a argument, presenting my facts, and asking for help.

Although reading all of this has been amusing. :)



Chiteng -> re: Soulblazer (11/14/2002 9:11:59 AM)

That doesnt matter to a number cruncher Soulblazer.
They will only be moved by more or better numbers.
To them your credentials are merely an obstacle for them.

Because, if they EVER doubt the numbers, the 'magic' of the
simulation vanishes for them.

The number crunchers LOVE WiR for exactly that reason.
They have total control.

If you point out that the losses are not even close to historical
it means nothing at all.



mogami -> They do listen (11/14/2002 9:42:35 AM)

Hi, Matrix does listen. This is a subject of very hot debate.
The crux being is UV skewed enough to where a tweek is needed. And will that tweek skew the game the other direction,
(To where th allied player will refuse surface combat because of the IJN clobbers them every time. I do not play against the AI very often. In PBEM games from the beginning I have been able using the IJN to achive control of the waters around any base I choose. The cost is always more then I had wanted to pay. As the USN I find I have to concede areas because there are not enough ships to maintain control. I damage IJN ships but lose USN ships. (I get hit by those **** torpedos all the time)

Numbers in UV will not be historical. The level of commitment used by most players and the readiness to employ ships and other assets in combat of the players is much higher then in the actual event. The players avoid using the lower rated commanders so the battles are always between first string leaders. Players in UV when thir TF's are spotted prior to arriving at enemy base do not reverse course because their suprise is blown. Even the bombardment TF's that are impossible to engage with airgroups are often spotted before the battles.
Several methods I can think of would really make people upset.
1. When a TF is made the computer selects the leader. The leader must be present afloat/ or ashore at base the TF is built. (meaning the PBY/Transport capable planes would have to move leaders with all that entails or they would need to be onboard a ship.

2. Use OP's for combat like aircombat groups. every torpedo/gun directed at a new target would expend them. OP's would be product of TF leader and ship CO's. TF's that had been spotted during day would not be able to achive suprise.



Chiteng -> re: Mogami (11/14/2002 9:53:50 AM)

Well Mogami, all I have advocated was a sequencing change.
I didnt say adjust the hit probs etc. I just dont think that
a well trained crew will sit out a battle. At a minimum they
will at least TRY to determine what is going on.

I think that the Japs COULD easily fire a spread of torps
at mid-range and then retreat. Leaving the USN to either break
formation or risk a hit.

I will also remind you that I have advocated this since two weeks
after the game was released.

As for TF getting a ranking commader, its a good idea except...

Mikawa was commader at Savo. He cant command a TF in UV.
He is administrative.

Plus, I would simply remove commanders I didnt want, and ship them to Wewak or something. I would still get the same effect.

Like I said, I dont ask for a Jap edge. I ask for something approaching historical results.



TIMJOT -> (11/14/2002 10:57:45 AM)

Mdeihl says:

"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."


Mdiehl,

No, they're not . Your stats are based on an *UN-PUBLISHED INTERNET ESSAY * written by a *laymen* like the rest of us. The author of said essay readily admits that his analysis is based on *assumptions* (read best guess). This in no way is ment to disparge the said authors effort. His analysis certainly has merit. Just that you should refrain from reciteing his numbers as some sort of *verified documented fact* becuause they are neither verified, documented or fact!

The FACT is that we DONT know with certainty what the *historical hit rate* was for surfaced launched IJN LL torps, becuase of the lack of HARD numbers on the exact number torps launced in MOST of the battles we are discussing.

What we do know is that the USN was unable to score a single surface torp launch torp hit on a moving target in 15 surface engagements over a year and half period. While the IJN was able to score at least 35 hits over this same period.

That being said, the only thing I would change would be increase the probabilty of the IJN launch more torpedos. Increaseing the number of IJN torps launched should give you more historical results. That being most critical damaged inflicted on USN should be caused by torpedos while most damaged inflicted on IJN should be by gunfire. As it stands the vast majortiy of damaged on both side is by gunfire.



CapAndGown -> (11/14/2002 11:19:32 AM)

TIMJOT:

I pretty much agree with you. I think that if the IJN were more apt to use its torps, then we would probably see results more in line with what we were expecting. An opening salvo is not needed so much a much more marked tendency of the IJN to behave like the IJN and not like the USN. The combat model right now treats both navies as having the same doctrines.

But I also think that the ship experience variable goes up way too fast. Nor do I feel that individual ship experience should be determinate. Rather, I think there should be a "fleet experience" variable. This way, individual ships that had not yet seen combat would benefit from the experience gained in previous combats byy other ships on the same side. This variable could then be incremented after a battle, with losing battles making the variable go up faster and winning battles making it go up somewhat less. (We learn lessons from our losses much more than our victories.)

Mogami:

The combat model does NOT treat the combat resolution as simultaneous. Every action you see in the animation is happening in the order you see it in. Thus, a ship that is hit and set on fire then becomes a target for everybody on the opposing side. Likewise, each hit that slows down a ship makes every subsequent shot much more likely to hit, whether with guns or torps.



Nikademus -> (11/14/2002 1:26:15 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilhammer
[B]Now is a good time to point out that the most famous Japanese Naval victory of all time was Tsushima.

The most interesting thing to come out of analyzing that battle is that not ONE, NONE, NADDA, ZIP shell fired by a Japanese warship penetrated a Russian ship.

The victory was one by shredding the topsides of the Russian ships with QF type guns and having very hot burning HE bursters set fire to the upper decks.

[/quote]

Hi Wilhammer. Cant resist a litte OT distraction here. Though most of the heavy AP shells (though they were hardly "AP" in WWII terms) did not penetrate, a few did, sometimes producing decisive results.

The victory first appeared to be a victory of wildly firing QF and medium caliber weapons, in part because of the sheer numbers reported fired, but in actuality the real killer of the Russian battleships were heavy AP shell hits along the waterline that, even in partial or non penetration, tended to compromise water-tight integrity enough to endanger the ships. Russian damage control was poor during the battle and worse, the material conditions of the ships were even more poor (which is also why they burned so easily too.....this was not experienced at the Battle of the Yellow Sea)

Tsunshima's results helped comfirm the validity behind the idea of the All-Big gun battleship. Besides which, think of it this way....the expected range of battles back then was around 4,000 to 6,000 yards! Close enough for navies to try to get in licks with those other gun systems besides the slow firing heavies. Once the range opens though to those expected in WWII.....its only the big guns that count, and AP is the only way to go for quick decisive results.

I'm not sure which two battleships your reffering too that contributed nothing but certainly this was not the case from the IJN side.....they only had a few and all of them contributed, Fuji in the most spectacular fashion when she blew up the Borodino with a 12inch hit to the mags.

Japanese torpedo boats were actually quite successful given the primitive craft and torps that were common at the time. Their best value/role was in hounding and harrasing the Imperial battleline and they ended up scoring a respectable number of hits. The Japanese saw the value of torpedoes and torpedo carrying craft very early and pursued it most agressively. They had too given they were totally dependent in the beginning on foreign aid to build their new navy and small ships would be the easiest to produce first once the industry was in place.

This battle and postwar (WWI) tests and studies of battles such as Jutland pointed the Japanese in the right direction, though some would argue they went too far. They, like most nations realized the value of shells that preform as true AP and recognized that it was the surest quickest way to defeat an enemy. Along with the US, they became keenly interested in the vulnerability of ships to "Diving shells" (steeply plunging shells that impact the water close to a hull and dive "under" the armor belt to penetrate the vulnerable hull below water) and developed shells with long fuse delays to encourage this effect. While potentially devastating it also tended to make their shells somewhat insensitive.....not a huge factor in BB combat but more of one against lighter protected ships.....which could actually in some conditions come out better than expected due to the heavy shells punching a hole in and then out of the ship before detonation, minimizing damage.

The continued developement of torpedo craft and doctorine was motivated primarily by the knowlege that any future engagement would be with a foe that would probably outnumber them (i.e. the Royal or more likely, the USN) Thus even with effective and powerful super-battleships, armed with powerful guns and shells designed to penetrate properly or better yet, reach vulnerable locations, the Japanese still needed a means to parry down the odds so that they would have a better chance once the "decisive battle" was commenced.

boy......would i love it if Gary made a true remake of his classic tactical surface combat wargames.....Warship and Battlecruiser. Fighting Steel was a major disapointment. I'd love to set up Tsunshima with a UV equivilant of those games. They live on in emulation mode but one can only do so much to improve those games. ah well....WitP first....then!!!!!...... ;)



Drongo -> (11/14/2002 1:27:47 PM)

Posted by Mdiehl
[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]

Didn't your mother ever say to you, "don't post if you're angry"?

My response was in response to your response to my response, etc. As far as I can tell, you were responding to my statement that adding a torpedo-first routine will not require any fiddling with UV's torpedo accuracy. You were trying to counter my statement by arguing that the discussed torpedo-first routines will be accompanied by 16% average hit rates and, since that doesn't fit in with your "12% UV torp hit rate", therefore my statement is wrong. I never said that about torp-first hit rates and I never saw it in anyone elses posts. Some people have argued for a torp-first routine. Some people have argued for consideration of increasing IJN torp accuracy. The two should not be considered the same.

[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'll spell it out again. Almost all major surface engagements in UV will occur at night. If you want to play around with stats, keep them relevant to the discussion. The only relevant stats that should be used are those relating to night combat. Otherwise, your just skewing the figures.

[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? [/QUOTE]

I never stated that UV results should not be compared to historical, in fact its normally been the opposite. I simply said it was pointless to list the determinants for Savo when they are not modeled as individual factors in UV but rather, assumedly, are represented within UV's abstracted combat model. I'm assuming that because its inferred the game is supposed to give us results that bear a resemblance to the historical.

And yes, I heard somewhere that there were other battles apart from Tass and Savo. And I would expect those results to be produced by the model as well.

Now, to the $64,000 question : can you elaborate on this 12% torp hit rate that UV produces as an average result? Since you've based almost all your arguements on it, I think you could explain where it came from and why we should accept it as definitive.



Nikademus -> (11/14/2002 1:42:18 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cap_and_gown
[B]TIMJOT:

I pretty much agree with you. I think that if the IJN were more apt to use its torps, then we would probably see results more in line with what we were expecting. An opening salvo is not needed so much a much more marked tendency of the IJN to behave like the IJN and not like the USN. The combat model right now treats both navies as having the same doctrines.

But I also think that the ship experience variable goes up way too fast. Nor do I feel that individual ship experience should be determinate. Rather, I think there should be a "fleet experience" variable. This way, individual ships that had not yet seen combat would benefit from the experience gained in previous combats byy other ships on the same side. This variable could then be incremented after a battle, with losing battles making the variable go up faster and winning battles making it go up somewhat less. (We learn lessons from our losses much more than our victories.)

Mogami:

The combat model does NOT treat the combat resolution as simultaneous. Every action you see in the animation is happening in the order you see it in. Thus, a ship that is hit and set on fire then becomes a target for everybody on the opposing side. Likewise, each hit that slows down a ship makes every subsequent shot much more likely to hit, whether with guns or torps. [/B][/QUOTE]

It does appear that, like PacWar, a ship that is hit and damaged by shell and/or torp fire is immediately less effective so while I do think there is a "loose" assumption of near simotanious action (but resolved one by one so that the players dont miss the action (yeah!) the hits that are scored first (and penetrate) will have a definate influence on future preformance.

My greatest concern at this point would be the lack of ability for TF's (IJN in particular) to launch torp salvoes first vs simotanious gunfire/torp , the effect of radar and the ROF of all USN 5 inch guns in surface engagements. There definately needs to be both a crew and commander EXP check vs radar to gauge effectiveness. Certainly i cant agree with SG giving USN TF's the equivilent of 70 EXP points. Thats a bit extreme in my view since it could litterally mean that a beyond greenhorn 20 EXP ship would fight as effectively as a highly experienced 90 EXP.

To me, if a crew is say '40' in EXP for night combat this figure should have (along with the other combat related aspects) less ability to effectively utilize radar vs a ship with better exp levels (like say an EXP 71 crew with radar) Either that or include a seperate proficiancy level for radar. Given the option, i think it would be a lesser headache for the coders to simply include radar effectiveness in the Day or Night EXP slot. A simple check would do (vs leader EXP and crew EXP and whatever RANDOMS are in place)



Sonny -> Re: IJN Night fighting (11/14/2002 8:29:11 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B].....................

I think the single largest thing I see is Japanese players who feel they are being robbed of the ability to crush the USN in every fight.

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

Perhaps the others want to crush the USN but I just want a reasonable result.
In our little tiff last night how much damage did I do to your ships? None was reported. Now I don't expect my 2 DDs to take on your 3 CAs and several DDs and survive - but I got no (reported) hits on your ships.

As I said in my previous post about this - before 2.0 I had no trouble with IJN night battles. Now it seems like they are at a serious disadvantage. And I don't think you can claim the high night experience that my other opponent had. Perhaps your commander was better and this might increase your overall advantage - but not to the exclusion of receiving hits.

:)



mogami -> Night surface action (11/14/2002 8:48:10 PM)

Greetings

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/10/42

Night Time Surface Combat, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese Ships
DD Yuzuki, Shell hits 6, on fire, heavy damage (reported sunk after battle)
DD Kikuzuki, Shell hits 2, on fire
MSW Tama Maru
MSW Rokko Maru
MSW Toshi Maru #1
AP Azumasan Maru
AP Koei Maru

Allied Ships
CA New Orleans (struck a mine at Tulagi while retiring after battle)
CA Astoria
CA Minneapolis
DD Dewey
DD Monaghan
DD Alwin


When IJN TF encountered USN TF DD's Yuzuki and Kikuzuki engaged while remainder of TF scattered and withdrew.
So engagement was 2 IJN DD versus 3 USN CA and 3 DD.

USN low night experiance prevented TF from finding other IJN ships after engaging DD's. Yuzuki struck by 8inch shells all USN torpedos missed. IJN DD most likely using only rear batteries and not attempting to make a torpedo attack. The battle only had 2 rounds 8k and 9k. This engagement is a poor example one way or the other. (expect to note 2 IJN DD's were able to cover retreat of other IJN ships even though the dispartiy of force and comparitive speeds would have allowed USN to pursue except for low night ratings. USN only able to sink 1 IJN DD the other able to escape. A very poor job by USN.



Pawlock -> (11/14/2002 9:26:26 PM)

IJN seemed to have got off rather lucky in that example, out gunned in combat ships by 3 -1 ,plus the USN half of those were Ca's. I really cant see anything to complain about in that action, if anything, count yourself fortunate.

Heres another extract from one of my Pbem games :

Night Time Surface Combat, near Gili Gili at 17,42

Japanese Ships
CA Aoba
CA Kinugasa
CA Furutaka
CA Kako
DD Shiratsuyu
DD Shigure
DD Ariake
DD Akebono
DD Sazanami

Allied Ships
CA Chicago
CA Australia, Shell hits 8
CL Hobart
DD Monaghan
DD Alwin


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Gili Gili at 17,42

Japanese Ships
CA Aoba
CA Kinugasa
CA Furutaka
CA Kako
DD Shiratsuyu
DD Shigure
DD Ariake
DD Akebono
DD Sazanami, Shell hits 1, on fire

Allied Ships
CA Chicago, Shell hits 6, on fire
CA Australia, Shell hits 4
CL Hobart, Shell hits 1
DD Monaghan, Shell hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
DD Alwin

Yes Im outnumbered, by 2-1 and probably outclassed but yet all I scored was 1 yes 1 hit on a DD. Im not complaining though, I have yet to win a decisive battle against the IJN in my games, but I will I am sure sometime.



TIMJOT -> (11/14/2002 10:02:28 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pawlock
[B]IJN seemed to have got off rather lucky in that example, out gunned in combat ships by 3 -1 ,plus the USN half of those were Ca's. I really cant see anything to complain about in that action, if anything, count yourself fortunate.

Heres another extract from one of my Pbem games :

Night Time Surface Combat, near Gili Gili at 17,42

Japanese Ships
CA Aoba
CA Kinugasa
CA Furutaka
CA Kako
DD Shiratsuyu
DD Shigure
DD Ariake
DD Akebono
DD Sazanami

Allied Ships
CA Chicago
CA Australia, Shell hits 8
CL Hobart
DD Monaghan
DD Alwin


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Gili Gili at 17,42

Japanese Ships
CA Aoba
CA Kinugasa
CA Furutaka
CA Kako
DD Shiratsuyu
DD Shigure
DD Ariake
DD Akebono
DD Sazanami, Shell hits 1, on fire

Allied Ships
CA Chicago, Shell hits 6, on fire
CA Australia, Shell hits 4
CL Hobart, Shell hits 1
DD Monaghan, Shell hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
DD Alwin

Yes Im outnumbered, by 2-1 and probably outclassed but yet all I scored was 1 yes 1 hit on a DD. Im not complaining though, I have yet to win a decisive battle against the IJN in my games, but I will I am sure sometime. [/B][/QUOTE]


Looks like you had your own little Savo there. Cant help but notice that there were no torp hits despite a broadside of roughly 60 torps for the IJN TF. Were any torps fired?



mdiehl -> (11/14/2002 10:06:13 PM)

[QUOTE]Washington's external mounted belt was not designed for decapping. SoDak's was not either.....ironically the decapping effect was unintentional [/QUOTE]

In other words, "the shell gets decapped" if it is 15" or less. Was SoDak penetrated by any of the 15" hits at 2nd G'canal? No. Is there any range at which a 16" will not penetrate Kirishima with an intact cap? No. Hmm.

By far the greatest threat to SoDak at 2nd Guadalcanal was the torpedo armament of the IJN CAs. Probably not likely to sink her though following measures of central tendency that some despise. With 30 torps in the water the IJN would typically get 2-3 hits *at night.* A really unusually good night (16.5% hit rate) would do the job; if 5 or 6 hits occurred all on one side, SoDak might roll.



Sonny -> Re: Night surface action (11/14/2002 10:23:37 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B..............

USN only able to sink 1 IJN DD the other able to escape. A very poor job by USN. [/B][/QUOTE]

You still don't get it. I'm not complaining about the overall outcome. My point is that since 2.0 came out the IJN can't hit anything. I didn't count the number of shots but my DDs seemed to get off a reasonable number of them for only 2 DDs - but nothing hit. This is the same thing I saw in the outcomes I posted previously.

Maybe the fog of war is too thick. Can you imagine a Japanese commander reporting that he didn't get any hits during an engagement?

Still, I am having a good time playing the game.:)



mdiehl -> drongo (11/14/2002 10:31:55 PM)

[QUOTE]Now, to the $64,000 question : can you elaborate on this 12% torp hit rate that UV produces as an average result? Since you've based almost all your arguements on it, I think you could explain where it came from and why we should accept it as definitive.[/QUOTE]

I've "based" none of my arguments on UV. My arguments are based on the historical hit rates day, night, and combined. Since you have evaded the question as to whether different hit rates were presumed for different visbility conditions in UV, I have reliably referred to all 3 along the way.

The number is 10% on double checking. It was posted in one thread ("Should the Japs just scuttle...") by "Rowlf" in response to a post from *you* (Drongo). As it is the only estimate of torp hit rates available in the threads it is the only fact in evidence and therefore the only germane piece of information about the hit rates that UV may provide. Feel free to provide better test data.

One may infer that the base IJN hit rates should be reduced if there is an initial torp salvo because *many* posters have noted that the night combat routine seems fine as is and tends to produce a majority of IJN wins in surface engagements at the beginning. Since UV does not attempt to capture in detail the many serendipitous initial conditions that had nothing to do with night combat training or torp initial salvos, the model seems to abstractly produce the "correct" results without the initial torp salvo subroutine.



mogami -> Combat report. (11/14/2002 10:48:49 PM)

Greetings UV IJN players would howl if this happened.
2nd Naval Battle of Guadalcanal.
Combat report for 11-14-42
Night surface action Lunga

BB Kirishima 49 shell hits on fire heavy damage (scuttled after battle)
CA Atago
CA Takao
CL Nagara
CL Sendai
DD (sunk)
DD (sunk)
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD

BB Washington
BB South Dakota heavy damage on fire (30 LL fired at no hits)
DD (sunk) by Nagara and DD
DD (sunk) by Nagara and DD
DD (sunk) by Nagara and DD
DD



mdiehl -> (11/14/2002 11:09:09 PM)

Yes they would. ;)

They'd howl even more at:

BB South Dakota (40++ hits).... no obvious evidence of damage.

I thought "heavy damage" referred to ships with substantial flotation loss and "on fire" to ships with internal (as opposed to superficial) fires.



Sonny -> Re: Combat report. (11/14/2002 11:18:17 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Greetings UV IJN players would howl if this happened.
2nd Naval Battle of Guadalcanal.
Combat report for 11-14-42
Night surface action Lunga

BB Kirishima 49 shell hits on fire heavy damage (scuttled after battle)
CA Atago
CA Takao
CL Nagara
CL Sendai
DD (sunk)
DD (sunk)
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD

BB Washington
BB South Dakota heavy damage on fire (30 LL fired at no hits)
DD (sunk) by Nagara and DD
DD (sunk) by Nagara and DD
DD (sunk) by Nagara and DD
DD [/B][/QUOTE]

At least the IJN got some hits.:D



Drongo -> (11/15/2002 1:22:28 AM)

Posted by mdiehl
[QUOTE]I've "based" none of my arguments on UV. My arguments are based on the historical hit rates day, night, and combined. [/QUOTE]
:eek: :eek: :eek:

Try your following quote :
[QUOTE]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]

The above arguement was based around the stipulated UV hit rate of 12%. You stated that because the UV "sim" had that mean torp hit rate, the introduction of the early torp launch would neccessarily have to degrade later hit rates to keep UV's mean at 12%. I'll make it even more obvious than you did. Your whole arguement about reducing non early-launch hit rates to compensate, would not have had any basis without your claim of UV having the mean hit rate of 12%. Looks like an arguement based on UV to me (even if it was wrong).
************
[QUOTE]Since you have evaded the question as to whether different hit rates were presumed for different visbility conditions in UV, I have reliably referred to all 3 along the way.[/QUOTE]
So, now I'm evading. When did you ask me the above question???
************
[QUOTE]The number is 10% on double checking. It was posted in one thread ("Should the Japs just scuttle...") by "Rowlf" in response to a post from *you* (Drongo). As it is the only estimate of torp hit rates available in the threads it is the only fact in evidence and therefore the only germane piece of information about the hit rates that UV may provide. Feel free to provide better test data. [/QUOTE]

Well, thank you for finding where you got the 12% torp hit rate figure from.

Okay, Rowlf was simply talking about 1 battle. He had said :

"Torpedoes were flying all over the place. They only hit on small fraction of the torpedoes fired (maybe 10% or so for the Japanese). As for me, the only one that succeeded was the Achilles."

So Rowlf's casual observation of IJN torps fired in one battle only hitting a small fraction of the time ("maybe 10% or so") was then used by you to become "but a previous user did note roughly 12% hits in battles of all types." And after that statment, you were then off and running with your arguement that since this definitive figure of 12% matched your view of history, no one should now request the introduction of changes that may give the IJN any increase in accuracy, without a corresponding reduction elsewhere.
***********
[QUOTE]As it is the only estimate of torp hit rates available in the threads it is the only fact in evidence and therefore the only germane piece of information about the hit rates that UV may provide. [/QUOTE]

Are you for real? You're building your arguement on Rowlf's casual guestimate of what happened in one battle? That led you to state :

"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."

Sounds like a statement based on the use of (what you thought) was a UV fact. You seriously should go play the game to avoid things like this happening.
************
[QUOTE]Feel free to provide better test data. [/QUOTE]

Thats exactly what some of us were trying to do until version 2.0 came along.
************
[QUOTE]One may infer that the base IJN hit rates should be reduced if there is an initial torp salvo because *many* posters have noted that the night combat routine seems fine as is and tends to produce a majority of IJN wins in surface engagements at the beginning.[/QUOTE]

Oh dear, *many* posters? So now everyone is to stop their efforts because you feel that *many* other people feel the combat results are just fine? Some arguement. I wont ask you to name them. :p

I'd point you at the IJN poll which infers a different story except that it might have changed by the time you look. That would just give you more ammo. ;)
************
[QUOTE]Since UV does not attempt to capture in detail the many serendipitous initial conditions that had nothing to do with night combat training or torp initial salvos, the model seems to abstractly produce the "correct" results without the initial torp salvo subroutine.[/QUOTE]

Based on what? The opinion of someone who has never seen the game? Whose "correct" results and based on what?

The reality is that people who play the game and feel the IJN are underdone when compared to their own view of history, should and do say so in these forums. And when several people with the same view link up, they will have a tendency to discuss solutions. They paid for the game, they have a right to state their dislikes. You can obviously disagree with their view of history but I think you should be bloody careful about "inferring" UV facts and figures when you've never even played the game.

Feel free to lash out with a return post but I'm about to head off to do some diving in Fiji for 10 days, so if I don't reply, its nothing personal.:p

And no, I'm not doing any duty free shopping for you. ;)



Apollo11 -> Re: A very good read on just this subject (11/15/2002 1:31:20 AM)

Hi all,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilhammer
[B]Attached... [/B][/QUOTE]

This is most excellent read Bill !!!


BTW, do you know who is the author?


Leo "Apollo11"



Nikademus -> (11/15/2002 1:33:39 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl


In other words, "the shell gets decapped" if it is 15" or less. Was SoDak penetrated by any of the 15" hits at 2nd G'canal? No. Is there any range at which a 16" will not penetrate Kirishima with an intact cap? No. Hmm.



Wrong again.

"Decapping" refers to the removal of the cap placed on top of an armor peircing shell, however you have made two assumptions

1) The shell will "always" be decapped. This is arguable, though Nathan Okun is positive it will and he is certainly an authority. The greater issue is #2

2) If decapped the Shell will be ineffective. This is incorrect. "Decapping" a shell does not mean that the shell itself is broken up, only that the outermost hardened layer will be torn off. The shell proper is still intact. The purpose of the cap is to pre-stress the face hardened armor of the target before said shell strikes it, thus increasing it's liklihood of clean penetration. The shell is *not* totally dependant on the cap to penetrate.

North Carolina's belt would *not* decap the shell. It had no decapping layer between it and the main belt and said belt was externally mounted so if a shell strikes it the AP cap is in effect striking the belt and will, if conditions are right do it's job. At 9700 yards, a 14 inch AP would certainly penetrate most areas of both battleships. The only factors in question would be oblicity of impact and the specific characteristics of the shell striking.

South Dakota also did not have a "decapping" layer, however it was theorized that the hull skin was thick enough to produce similar effects to the purpose built 70mm decapping layer of the Lttorio's armor system. Thus the shell could lose it's cap before striking the internal armor belt. "If" all goes well, this would have the effect of increasing the resistance of the belt *but* it would *not* totally negate the shell's power. Certainly this would not happen at such close range. I could go on about the potential fobiles of an internal mounted armor belt as well, not to mention that a large % of shells would never even strike the belt armor, but I think the point has been made.

The Italians conducted tests on their new belt system using their own ultra-poweful 15 inch guns (to which such elaborate measures were taken to protect against). The tests themselves were not 100% 2 shells were stopped by the belt but a third penetrated cleanly. There are no aboslutes in battleship combat and SoDak's and NC's systems were *untested* in combat.

Your statement that there is "no" range at which the Kirishima's 14" inch guns could be effective against either US class of battleship is wrong.

As for the real life example. SoDak was struck by one 14 inch shell. This shell may very well have been an HE shell. Either way it's path did not strike the belt armor but entered into the ship near Turret I and reportedly glanced off at an extreme angle, that structure's inner barbette. Hardly damning as the Jean Bart's system did the same thing to a 2700ILB shell fired from the Massachussets....again because of extreme AoI, crucial to shellfire effectiveness

quote:



By far the greatest threat to SoDak at 2nd Guadalcanal was the torpedo armament of the IJN CAs. Probably not likely to sink her though following measures of central tendency that some despise. With 30 torps in the water the IJN would typically get 2-3 hits *at night.* A really unusually good night (16.5% hit rate) would do the job; if 5 or 6 hits occurred all on one side, SoDak might roll. [/B][/QUOTE]

Agreed that torps were the greatest threat. They always are against warships. However if more than 2 had struck her she would indeed have been in great danger as postwar Cassion tests revealed flaws in SoDak's anti-torp protection. Battleships in particular are studies in trade-offs. SoDak received her 16 inch protection by cramming as much of her citidel into the smallest possible space to save weight. This would be hurtful for survivability against torpedoes (and shellfire as well) Further, the intenal belt was linked to the anti-torp bulkhead and the tests revealed that this would most likely fail against torpedoes....certainly against torpedoes as powerful as the Type 93.

Considering SoDak's incapacitated state at that time it was a miracle that none of the 40 torps launched at her struck. Prove positive that one can quote "statistics" till their blue in the face. You never quite know what can go down when the shooting starts.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.1875