RE: PT Boat Usefulness

RE: PT Boat Usefulness (Full Version)

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

Message

RangerJoe -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (12/23/2020 5:37:44 PM)
Here are some links to help out: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2920431 https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4726264 https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2260137

RhinoDad -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (12/23/2020 6:01:39 PM)
Sorry not meant to be a fight. Just one not far removed from the era and experience. Had lots of exposure to training manuals of time and much time spent with those with first hand experience. Can be quite different than what is often portrayed in movies and statistics. Unfortunately, much has been lost through time. This as well as drastically changed tactics. It was a tough fight especially early on when men were sent in to fight with known defective equipment and lack of proper supplies to fight an enemy that was not understood. One had to deal with not only an enemy trying to kill you but also your equipment that often did the same. Not to mention early on an officer corps that was more of a social club or completely untrained than leaders of a fighting force. Probably not the best at online communication was mainly just trying to be informative as well as gaining useful game information. Again, thank you for your helpful information.

PaxMondo -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (12/23/2020 6:42:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RhinoDad quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred .... AE is a game full of abstractions. It is always fatal to expect your own subjective interpretation of the historical record to be slavishly incorporated into the game code. There is simply no substitute to learning how the game handles the historical capabilities and outcomes. Historical outliers cannot be incorporated into game code. Alfred However, the opposite can be quite helpful for me to keep the game realistic: when you see an outcome, puzzle out how in the context of the era (1940's, not 2020's) how this came about. Remember 2 things about this game to help you moving forward. 1. There are now millions of play hours on it. it is a rock solid game. 2. There are NO bugs in this game. There are only features; almost all of which are historically accurate in the context of the 1940's. Those few which are not (historically accurate) are still features of this game. The latter list is quite small, rarely seen more than a couple of times per game (and since a game takes several real life years to complete many never even notice). Memory leakage is the only one you as a player can control by being sure to re-start the game engine often when playing against the AI. Often means once per day at least; most experienced players restart for each new turn particularly as a GC ages and the save file size grows. PBEM players by nature generally restart the game for every turn, so they rarely (if ever) experience memory leakage issues. I jumped from vanilla Witp AE and patch 1 to latest official patch. That is about a decade of features added and bugs fixed. Not to mention a much improved AI. It is a bigger change for me than Witp to Witp AE. To a great degree am restarting a steep learning curve. Keep finding myself finding a new feature and wishing I had found it a few turns back. Not much into new game but all the bugs and quirks of the first one seem to have been worked out; and the original had some pretty strange quirks. Added features are incredible and add great depth to game play. Only problem is trying to find it all out as forum has many years of changes incorporated into it so info is sometimes dated. As one who is probably a bit older than your average game player it is nice to play a game that takes place in an era actually have the feel of the era and not a modernized subjective or cartoonish perspectives full of "You have to be kidding" moments. It is obvious that although spotty information is available that the homework was done. In the few areas that I notice a non historical feel it is rather small and insignificant. Also they are areas that have little if no information available on them. For instance many YPs are missing and equipment and armaments off. But if one really wants to get into the mud than that is what the editor is for. Your dedication and quality work is very evident in the transition of the game. When playing a game is something of a way of life it is nice to have the game reflect such quality and soundness. Heartfelt thanks to the work and effort that was put into this. You made an old gaffers day. Several of the devs still drop by time to time ... you ever see one in the forums, share your opinion with them ... they will appreciate it. Alfred had access to the dev forum back when, so he is under an NDA and that restricts his answers to a large degree. BUT, when he states something, treat it as fact. He picks and chooses his commments carefully so as not to get crossed with his NDA.

RangerJoe -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (12/23/2020 10:17:02 PM)
Maybe that is also why he will usually either quote the manual or certain threads.

Alfred -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (12/24/2020 12:33:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Maybe that is also why he will usually either quote the manual or certain threads. A few of reasons. 1. Can't get into trouble if the info is already out in the public domain. The finesse is in providing clearer context without disclosing that which the devs did not want, for various reasons, to be out in the public domain. 2. Respect. The key devs have always had their posts accepted as if they were the Ten Commandments. I provide the same data and am constantly told that I'm wrong. By people who are absolutely ignorant of what they write. One of my favourite threads is one where I made several posts correcting quite erroneous interpretations but several posters kept on telling me I was wrong and they were correct. This went on for a few pages until JWE/Symon stepped in and quite bluntly stated that I was correct and how, to paraphrase him, the cockroaches always scurried away when a dev entered a thread. That thread died just about immediately following JWE/Symon's post. It wasn't the only time heated threads died when devs confirmed the accuracy of my comments. 3. It is good research practice to provide the primary source documents from which conclusions have been drawn. Too many around here have either obtained degrees from Mickey Mouse universities or have never been exposed to intellectual rigour when undertaking any analysis of an issue. One doesn't need a degree from a top university in order to properly analyse something. Transparency goes a long way to ensuring intellectual rigour has been applied to the issue. Providing the public source documents creates transparency. It is why scientist are required to provide their methodology and raw data for other scientists to independently check their conclusions. Why any academic publishing a paper needs to footnote their sources so that others can check them. Alfred

PaxMondo -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (12/24/2020 1:53:15 AM)
JWE did have a certain style didn't he. [;)] Miss him very much. Anyone still in contact, please give him my wishes for a Merry Christmas!

RangerJoe -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (12/24/2020 4:00:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Maybe that is also why he will usually either quote the manual or certain threads. A few of reasons. 1. Can't get into trouble if the info is already out in the public domain. The finesse is in providing clearer context without disclosing that which the devs did not want, for various reasons, to be out in the public domain. 2. Respect. The key devs have always had their posts accepted as if they were the Ten Commandments. I provide the same data and am constantly told that I'm wrong. By people who are absolutely ignorant of what they write. One of my favourite threads is one where I made several posts correcting quite erroneous interpretations but several posters kept on telling me I was wrong and they were correct. This went on for a few pages until JWE/Symon stepped in and quite bluntly stated that I was correct and how, to paraphrase him, the cockroaches always scurried away when a dev entered a thread. That thread died just about immediately following JWE/Symon's post. It wasn't the only time heated threads died when devs confirmed the accuracy of my comments. 3. It is good research practice to provide the primary source documents from which conclusions have been drawn. Too many around here have either obtained degrees from Mickey Mouse universities or have never been exposed to intellectual rigour when undertaking any analysis of an issue. One doesn't need a degree from a top university in order to properly analyse something. Transparency goes a long way to ensuring intellectual rigour has been applied to the issue. Providing the public source documents creates transparency. It is why scientist are required to provide their methodology and raw data for other scientists to independently check their conclusions. Why any academic publishing a paper needs to footnote their sources so that others can check them. Alfred I admit that I am sloppy in regards to my research but I haven't had to do any such papers for awhile. [:(] On thread in the General section, I posted a link where some published works had to be retracted. Then I remember this: quote: Pilots can lose an EXP point if their plane is damage or lost due to an operational loss. https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2263271 It is post #14.

Ambassador -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (12/24/2020 1:14:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred Too many around here have either obtained degrees from Mickey Mouse universities or have never been exposed to intellectual rigour when undertaking any analysis of an issue. One doesn't need a degree from a top university in order to properly analyse something. Don’t limit to here (or to the web). In my day-to-day activities, I see plenty of professionals with a university degree in the appropriate field who fail to properly analyse cases, or to conduct proper research (sometimes as basic as simply opening the files and sub-files).[8\|]

Platoonist -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (12/24/2020 1:22:00 PM)
I often wondered why the Japanese never invested much in building motor torpedo boats. They're relatively cheap to build and they would have been armed with the best torpedo on the planet at the time. I suppose they didn't fit in with the whole Mahanian Decisive Battle Doctrine though, being too defensive in nature.

mind_messing -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (12/24/2020 3:29:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Platoonist I often wondered why the Japanese never invested much in building motor torpedo boats. They're relatively cheap to build and they would have been armed with the best torpedo on the planet at the time. I suppose they didn't fit in with the whole Mahanian Decisive Battle Doctrine though, being too defensive in nature. I think you would find it a challenge to get the Type 93 onto a MTB given the weight/speed constraints.

RhinoDad -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (12/24/2020 5:10:21 PM)
As the Japanese Navy believed that in a war they would be overwhelmed by the US Navy they adopted a strategy of whittling the enemy down as they crossed the Pacific. Hence their use of submarines in a fleet roll and for scouting rather than as anti-merchant marine as the Germans and US did. They went the mini sub route rather than PT type craft as it fit their Naval doctrine of slow defensive attrition before a surface engagement, and then to pick off the stragglers after the battle. The mini subs would be taken out on a sub and released as a force multiplier. Their surface fleets had an offensive doctrine. One of the reasons Japanese submariners were not respected in the Navy as they did not embody the fighting spirit culture of their military. Subs and mini subs were use in a limited way offensively, examples would be attacks in New South Wales Australia and Pearl Harbor and the incendiary shelling of US northwest forests. But this was quite rare. US doctrine for PT/Sub use was offensive where as Japan's was defensive. PT are aggressive and offensive by nature so they did not fit well with the Japanese doctrine.

rustysi -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (12/24/2020 6:44:17 PM)
quote: JWE did have a certain style didn't he. Miss him very much. Miss him too.

Shellshock -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (12/24/2020 7:15:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Platoonist I often wondered why the Japanese never invested much in building motor torpedo boats. They're relatively cheap to build and they would have been armed with the best torpedo on the planet at the time. I suppose they didn't fit in with the whole Mahanian Decisive Battle Doctrine though, being too defensive in nature. The Japanese did build a large number of motor torpedo boats in various classes based on some captured Thornycroft C.M.B. type models. They were built of wood or steel and armed with 18 inch torpedoes and some had depth charges, other depth charge throwers. They had a designation of "T" (T-1, T-23, etc.)and were built in private as well as Navy yards. I've never found much about their actual use, though. They couldn't have been too successful. Seems like most were regulated to harbor duties or became inoperative due to engine troubles or lack of fuel. http://www.ptboatworld.com/PT_Boat_Info/JapaneseMTBs.htm

Ambassador -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (12/24/2020 8:59:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: ORIGINAL: Platoonist I often wondered why the Japanese never invested much in building motor torpedo boats. They're relatively cheap to build and they would have been armed with the best torpedo on the planet at the time. I suppose they didn't fit in with the whole Mahanian Decisive Battle Doctrine though, being too defensive in nature. I think you would find it a challenge to get the Type 93 onto a MTB given the weight/speed constraints. Twice the length and the weight of a Mk8 or a Mk13, this would indeed be interesting...[:D]

Shellshock -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (12/24/2020 9:20:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ambassador Twice the length and the weight of a Mk8 or a Mk13, this would indeed be interesting... It sounds like those that were built were usually armed with Type 44 (12.75 inch) or Type 91 (18inch) torpedoes [img]https://wiki.warthunder.com/images/thumb/0/01/T-51b_2.jpg/537px-T-51b_2.jpg[/img] [img]https://i.imgur.com/hKICVjr.jpg[/img]

RangerJoe -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (12/25/2020 12:14:23 AM)
I just wanted to slow down this bombardment TF so my air units can work it over, sometimes there are BBs there. But look at those excellent battle conditions for ducks that can see in the night. These happened after a night torpedo attack by three PBYs did not hit the cruiser: quote: Night Time Surface Combat, near Kalidjati at 50,99, Range 2,000 Yards Japanese Ships CA Aoba, Torpedo hits 1 DD Sawakaze Allied Ships PT-31 PT-32 PT-35 Reduced visibility due to Rain with 0% moonlight Maximum visibility in Rain and 0% moonlight: 2,000 yards Night Time Surface Combat, near Kalidjati at 50,99, Range 2,000 Yards Japanese Ships CA Aoba, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage DD Sawakaze Allied Ships PT-47, Shell hits 8, and is sunk PT-48 PT Q-111, Shell hits 1, and is sunk Low visibility due to Rain with 0% moonlight Maximum visibility in Rain and 0% moonlight: 2,000 yards Night Time Surface Combat, near Kalidjati at 50,99, Range 2,000 Yards Japanese aircraft no flights Japanese aircraft losses F1M2 Pete: 1 destroyed Japanese Ships CA Aoba, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk DD Sawakaze Allied Ships PT-33 PT-37, Shell hits 1 Low visibility due to Rain with 0% moonlight Maximum visibility in Rain and 0% moonlight: 2,000 yards CA Aoba sunk by PT-33 at 3,000 yards[&o] There as an ineffective daylight engagement the next day in heavy rain, both sides fled. As you can see, I picked on that heavy cruiser and I lost more war vessels than the enemy so one could state that I lost that series of battles. [8\|] [;)]

RhinoDad -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (12/25/2020 10:30:31 PM)
Japanese Torpedo boats were generally of the style of early allied destroyers, originally called ‘Torpedo Boat Destroyers’ and were in the hundreds of feet in length. They were similar to Allied KV, Frigate, or DE. Though they did make some PT type boats they only produced 500 or so with many of these as Gun boats and were not in the same class as US PT boats. They were built in very small numbers. The Japanese suffered from poor engine availability and reliability and so had very mixed engines and often poor performance. The fastest was something like 35 knots, many were around 20 knots slow ones were around 15 knots. Most models were produce in the 10s of units. For example the 35 knot one had less than 10 built. They were incredibly small production runs based on how many engines they could dig up; sometimes as little as 6 sometimes as large as 80. With such slow speeds it takes quite some time to close the often several miles under fire. It would also make you one of the slower boats on the water thereby increasing the difficulty of a successful engagement. Engine failure during an engagement also often has a bad outcome. They were primarily employed as harbor defense. They did not perform well in ASW, one of their primary duties, unreliable engines lead to often poor performance in any combat. May be off on this but I do not believe there was a recorded instance of one making a torpedo attack and less than 100 were destroyed in combat. Do to their general lack of effectiveness as fuel shortages became an issue most sat unused. Instead the Japanese concentrated on small suicide craft and built something like 6,000 of them. Like the mini sub most of these were held in the home islands. For patrolling where US would use the PT the Japanese tended to rely on heavily armed barges which were operated by the IJA not IJN. Perhaps for Hollywood style game play, some pacific war games give Japanese a good number of PT style boats with performances close to their US counterparts. Fortunately, Witp AE strives for a more realistic approach rather than a cartoon or Hollywood movie.

RangerJoe -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (12/25/2020 11:20:31 PM)
The "Torpedo Boat Destroyers" are completely different than what we are discussing. Informative information, though, and thank you for that.

RhinoDad -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (12/26/2020 3:28:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe The "Torpedo Boat Destroyers" are completely different than what we are discussing. Informative information, though, and thank you for that. That is why only the first two sentences mention TBD type then segwayed to the few small allied style PT/MTB boats built by the Japanese which were being discussed. Only mentioned the TBD type as they were part of the Japanese MTB classification and were the only ones produced in quantity.

BBfanboy -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (12/26/2020 4:59:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RhinoDad quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe The "Torpedo Boat Destroyers" are completely different than what we are discussing. Informative information, though, and thank you for that. That is why only the first two sentences mention TBD type then segwayed to the few small allied style PT/MTB boats built by the Japanese which were being discussed. Only mentioned the TBD type as they were part of the Japanese MTB classification and were the only ones produced in quantity. I wonder if they bought the engines from the scrapped US TBDs ...aka Devastators! [:D]

RangerJoe -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (12/26/2020 5:03:14 PM)
The in-game MTBs can be switched between the MTB and the MGB, but it also depends upon the mod. In one mod, someone did put in IJN MTBs with a Long Lance torpedo . . .

RhinoDad -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (1/12/2021 3:25:12 PM)
Thank you Q-Ball, RangerJoe, BBFanBoy, Ambassador, depollay, PaxMondo, Alfred, and others for your help. Have had enough game time to see the advice you gave put into action. It has worked out splendidly. Of course not as well as the examples provided by RangerJoe by then I have much to learn of game mechanics before I would hope to achieve results such as his.

RangerJoe -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (1/12/2021 3:30:01 PM)
You are welcome. Joe

spence -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (1/13/2021 3:37:15 AM)
Not that I've experienced any sort of IJN PT boat effectiveness but I have seen them launch torpedoes, reload and launch them again. In AE they appear to be lumped in with IJN DDs (which did carry reloads) whereas they absolutely did not carry any reloads IRL. I have to say that it is most frustrating as an Allied Player to have one's PT boats retreat after engaging an un-escorted IJN invasion TF (even when the TF and even boat commanders have been selected for high aggressiveness and naval skill).

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (1/13/2021 8:45:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GetAssista 5. Moonless nights are your friend quote: ORIGINAL: Leandros Any escorted cargo or troop transport are very hard to get near. Not necessarily [:D] Fresh from the replay of the turn I got this morning: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Kendari at 70,106, Range 9,000 Yards Japanese Ships CL Kiso DD Sanae E Saga PB Saiko Maru xAK Myoko Maru xAK Shinanogawa Maru, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage xAK Kanko Maru, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires xAP Hakone Maru, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage xAP Buenos Aires Maru xAP Huzi Maru Allied Ships TM-10 TM-12 TM-13 TM-15, Shell hits 1, and is sunk Improved night sighting under 100% moonlight Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions and 100% moonlight: 12,000 yards CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 9,000 yards Japanese ships attempt to get underway CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 9,000 yards CL Kiso engages TM-10 at 9,000 yards DD Sanae engages TM-13 at 9,000 yards E Saga engages TM-10 at 9,000 yards Range closes to 8,000 yards xAP Huzi Maru , xAP Buenos Aires Maru , xAP Hakone Maru , xAK Kanko Maru , xAK Shinanogawa Maru screened from combat - escorted by DD Sanae , E Saga Range closes to 5,000 yards xAP Huzi Maru , xAP Buenos Aires Maru screened from combat - escorted by CL Kiso TM-15 engages xAP Hakone Maru at 5,000 yards TM-10 engages xAK Kanko Maru at 5,000 yards Range closes to 3,000 yards TM-12 engages xAP Huzi Maru at 3,000 yards Range closes to 2,000 yards xAP Huzi Maru , xAP Buenos Aires Maru , xAP Hakone Maru screened from combat TM-13 engages xAK Shinanogawa Maru at 2,000 yards E Saga engages TM-12 at 2,000 yards TM-10 engages PB Saiko Maru at 2,000 yards xAP Huzi Maru , xAP Buenos Aires Maru , xAP Hakone Maru , xAK Kanko Maru , xAK Shinanogawa Maru screened from combat - escorted by DD Sanae , E Saga xAP Huzi Maru , xAP Buenos Aires Maru , xAP Hakone Maru , xAK Kanko Maru , xAK Shinanogawa Maru , xAK Myoko Maru screened from combat PB Saiko Maru engages TM-15 at 2,000 yards E Saga engages TM-10 at 2,000 yards Range increases to 3,000 yards xAP Huzi Maru screened from combat TM-15 sunk by CL Kiso at 3,000 yards TM-13 engages xAK Shinanogawa Maru at 3,000 yards E Saga engages TM-12 at 3,000 yards TM-13 engages xAP Hakone Maru at 3,000 yards TM-10 engages xAK Kanko Maru at 3,000 yards Range closes to 2,000 yards TM-12 engages DD Sanae at 2,000 yards TM-10 engages xAK Kanko Maru at 2,000 yards De Vryer T. orders Allied TF to disengage xAP Huzi Maru , xAP Buenos Aires Maru , xAP Hakone Maru screened from combat - escorted by E Saga TM-12 engages xAK Shinanogawa Maru at 2,000 yards TM-13 engages xAK Kanko Maru at 2,000 yards TM-12 engages xAK Shinanogawa Maru at 2,000 yards Range increases to 7,000 yards xAP Huzi Maru screened from combat DD Sanae engages TM-13 at 7,000 yards Task forces break off...

BBfanboy -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (1/13/2021 5:37:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget quote: ORIGINAL: GetAssista 5. Moonless nights are your friend quote: ORIGINAL: Leandros Any escorted cargo or troop transport are very hard to get near. Not necessarily [:D] Fresh from the replay of the turn I got this morning: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Kendari at 70,106, Range 9,000 Yards Japanese Ships CL Kiso DD Sanae E Saga PB Saiko Maru xAK Myoko Maru xAK Shinanogawa Maru, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage xAK Kanko Maru, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires xAP Hakone Maru, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage xAP Buenos Aires Maru xAP Huzi Maru Allied Ships TM-10 TM-12 TM-13 TM-15, Shell hits 1, and is sunk Improved night sighting under 100% moonlight Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions and 100% moonlight: 12,000 yards CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 9,000 yards Japanese ships attempt to get underway CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 9,000 yards CL Kiso engages TM-10 at 9,000 yards DD Sanae engages TM-13 at 9,000 yards E Saga engages TM-10 at 9,000 yards Range closes to 8,000 yards xAP Huzi Maru , xAP Buenos Aires Maru , xAP Hakone Maru , xAK Kanko Maru , xAK Shinanogawa Maru screened from combat - escorted by DD Sanae , E Saga Range closes to 5,000 yards xAP Huzi Maru , xAP Buenos Aires Maru screened from combat - escorted by CL Kiso TM-15 engages xAP Hakone Maru at 5,000 yards TM-10 engages xAK Kanko Maru at 5,000 yards Range closes to 3,000 yards TM-12 engages xAP Huzi Maru at 3,000 yards Range closes to 2,000 yards xAP Huzi Maru , xAP Buenos Aires Maru , xAP Hakone Maru screened from combat TM-13 engages xAK Shinanogawa Maru at 2,000 yards E Saga engages TM-12 at 2,000 yards TM-10 engages PB Saiko Maru at 2,000 yards xAP Huzi Maru , xAP Buenos Aires Maru , xAP Hakone Maru , xAK Kanko Maru , xAK Shinanogawa Maru screened from combat - escorted by DD Sanae , E Saga xAP Huzi Maru , xAP Buenos Aires Maru , xAP Hakone Maru , xAK Kanko Maru , xAK Shinanogawa Maru , xAK Myoko Maru screened from combat PB Saiko Maru engages TM-15 at 2,000 yards E Saga engages TM-10 at 2,000 yards Range increases to 3,000 yards xAP Huzi Maru screened from combat TM-15 sunk by CL Kiso at 3,000 yards TM-13 engages xAK Shinanogawa Maru at 3,000 yards E Saga engages TM-12 at 3,000 yards TM-13 engages xAP Hakone Maru at 3,000 yards TM-10 engages xAK Kanko Maru at 3,000 yards Range closes to 2,000 yards TM-12 engages DD Sanae at 2,000 yards TM-10 engages xAK Kanko Maru at 2,000 yards De Vryer T. orders Allied TF to disengage xAP Huzi Maru , xAP Buenos Aires Maru , xAP Hakone Maru screened from combat - escorted by E Saga TM-12 engages xAK Shinanogawa Maru at 2,000 yards TM-13 engages xAK Kanko Maru at 2,000 yards TM-12 engages xAK Shinanogawa Maru at 2,000 yards Range increases to 7,000 yards xAP Huzi Maru screened from combat DD Sanae engages TM-13 at 7,000 yards Task forces break off... That TF was shown as trying to get underway- so it was static when attacked. Big disadvantage for the Japanese.

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (1/14/2021 11:49:02 AM)
Sure. Being caught like a sitting duck is a big disadvantage for anyone. Just wanted to show that even with 100% moonlight and opposing escorts, you can get lucky if the for.. I mean the dice is with you. [sm=character0169.gif]

RangerJoe -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (1/14/2021 12:08:38 PM)
I have a PT boat with the Captain's Naval and Aggression numbers in the 20s. Three turns in a row, he went out and his boat torpedoed a ship. No fancy maneuvering, just go in, torpedo the ship, then leave.[:)]

BBfanboy -> RE: PT Boat Usefulness (1/14/2021 12:22:23 PM)
So to answer the original question, PTs can be totally useless to totally effective or somewhere in between ...[;)]

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.21875