New battle of Midway Article

New battle of Midway Article (Full Version)

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

Message

witpqs -> New battle of Midway Article (3/4/2015 6:06:28 PM)
This brief review of a new article in Naval War College Review: Always Have Branching Actions Prepared http://www.informationdissemination.net/2015/03/always-have-branching-actions-prepared.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+InformationDissemination+%28Information+Dissemination%29 The article: A QUESTION OF ESTIMATES How Faulty Intelligence Drove Scouting at the Battle of Midway Anthony Tully and Lu Yu https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/fb6e3982-4f6f-43ee-8742-23261fb5f486/A-Question-of-Estimates--How-Faulty-Intelligence-D.aspx A teaser: quote: In a few particulars, we now feel that Shattered Sword’s account is still too critical of Nagumo.

Buckrock -> RE: New battle of Midway Article (3/5/2015 4:28:00 AM)
Good stuff. It was interesting to see the authors mention that the searches conducted by the USN carriers could be just as problematic when they weren't anticipating enemy carriers. I'd recently read some accounts of the USN carrier raids in the first half of 1942. At times there could be limited or no dawn searches, strike bombers being refueled and rearmed below decks, or strikes being held aboard due to the need to cycle CAP in the face of enemy land-based air threats. It did sound eerily familiar. Thankfully at these times the IJN carriers were always where they were supposed to be, somewhere else.

dr.hal -> RE: New battle of Midway Article (3/5/2015 2:44:36 PM)
Thanks for sharing the article, I'll read it with interest as I really liked Shattered Sword. Hal

Jones944 -> RE: New battle of Midway Article (3/5/2015 9:53:17 PM)
quote: The number of patrol planes needed to cover just 180 degrees out to six hundred nautical miles would be anywhere between fifty and seventy in all, and thirty needed to take off simultaneously at dawn. 44 Midway never had such num- bers. Here's an interesting snippet from the article. 600 NM in the game is about 15 hexes, but in game it only requires two squadrons of 18 PBYs to do this 180 degree search, or one squadron if we do 90 degrees in the morning and 90 degrees in the afternoon phases. Seems like the game makes naval searches about twice as effective as they would be in real life.

witpqs -> RE: New battle of Midway Article (3/6/2015 1:35:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jones944 quote: The number of patrol planes needed to cover just 180 degrees out to six hundred nautical miles would be anywhere between fifty and seventy in all, and thirty needed to take off simultaneously at dawn. 44 Midway never had such num- bers. Here's an interesting snippet from the article. 600 NM in the game is about 15 hexes, but in game it only requires two squadrons of 18 PBYs to do this 180 degree search, or one squadron if we do 90 degrees in the morning and 90 degrees in the afternoon phases. Seems like the game makes naval searches about twice as effective as they would be in real life. What you are leaving out is that the game makes the search less effective the farther out it goes. It still might not be as effective as real life, but they do impose some sort of penalty.

Jones944 -> RE: New battle of Midway Article (3/6/2015 5:21:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: Jones944 quote: The number of patrol planes needed to cover just 180 degrees out to six hundred nautical miles would be anywhere between fifty and seventy in all, and thirty needed to take off simultaneously at dawn. 44 Midway never had such num- bers. Here's an interesting snippet from the article. 600 NM in the game is about 15 hexes, but in game it only requires two squadrons of 18 PBYs to do this 180 degree search, or one squadron if we do 90 degrees in the morning and 90 degrees in the afternoon phases. Seems like the game makes naval searches about twice as effective as they would be in real life. What you are leaving out is that the game makes the search less effective the farther out it goes. It still might not be as effective as real life, but they do impose some sort of penalty. So you're saying that in order to have effective searches past 10 hexes or so in the game, more than one plane should be travelling along each search arc? How would you read the intent of the statement from the article and translate that into game terms?

witpqs -> RE: New battle of Midway Article (3/6/2015 5:56:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jones944 quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: Jones944 quote: The number of patrol planes needed to cover just 180 degrees out to six hundred nautical miles would be anywhere between fifty and seventy in all, and thirty needed to take off simultaneously at dawn. 44 Midway never had such num- bers. Here's an interesting snippet from the article. 600 NM in the game is about 15 hexes, but in game it only requires two squadrons of 18 PBYs to do this 180 degree search, or one squadron if we do 90 degrees in the morning and 90 degrees in the afternoon phases. Seems like the game makes naval searches about twice as effective as they would be in real life. What you are leaving out is that the game makes the search less effective the farther out it goes. It still might not be as effective as real life, but they do impose some sort of penalty. So you're saying that in order to have effective searches past 10 hexes or so in the game, more than one plane should be travelling along each search arc? How would you read the intent of the statement from the article and translate that into game terms? The game formulas on the matter are not disclosed to us (that I saw), but they have said that the longer a search is the less effective it is. So, yes, one way to improve things is to have arcs from different groups overlap, that way what one plane misses another might find. Even better is to have them be from different bases when you can, so that adverse weather is less likely to nix your entire sweep of an area. But in terms of the article, that was a different matter. They were talking more about the resources commanders dedicated to search on any given day. In-game we have an easier time being vigilant, the game mechanics are different than real life, we get different cues than they did, and we have hindsight. So in the game I think we need to be more vigilant overall with air search, and we can be. They figured out how to be (and got more resources to put to the job), but they had to learn the lessons that we have already read about. [8D]

spence -> RE: New battle of Midway Article (3/8/2015 1:53:53 AM)
There are a lot of articles at the Naval War College Review website that should interest Forum members. The Winter 2014 Issue has an article about Minoru Genda's planning for the Pearl Harbor attack...the Winter 2015 has something of a rebuttal of many the first authors' points and includes an something of an operational analysis of the failings of that attack. Interesting reading in both. Somewhat akin to the articles in 2000/2001 by Parsham/Tully and Ishom that took different points of view regarding the Battle of Midways crucial moments. Both of those resulted in books: "Shattered Sword" and "Midway Inquest". For any history buff its always good to take a peek at the NWCR every so often.

Dili -> RE: New battle of Midway Article (3/9/2015 3:38:40 AM)
Thanks for the link. One reason is that aircraft availability is too good in game even if 70% of squadron flies. From Midway: quote: � 43 The number of patrol planes needed to cover just 180 degrees out to six hundred nautical miles would be anywhere between fifty and seventy in all, and thirty needed to take off simultaneously at dawn� 44 Midway never had such num- bers� quote: 44� Assuming visibility of twenty-five nautical miles and a range of six hundred, one patrol plane can cover a sector of about six degrees without gaps� A range of six hundred miles or more was needed to give warning of any fast- approaching (twenty-five knot) enemy carrier force planning to launch an air strike at dawn, two hundred nautical miles from Midway�

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.125