RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message


Ron Saueracker -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/26/2004 1:48:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomonyou

but that is the point. In this game you can send your convoys anywhere you want protected by a MSW or a PG and even if they encounter 10 warships (nearly one warship for every merchantman, each warship at least 100% faster then thier prey) in broad daylight they stand very little chance of the amount of loss they would probably take from encountering 10 good Jap torpedo bombers.

Is this the relationship for surface combat from WWII?


BTW I am NOT saying that every encounter should be a Little big horn on water, but also let us remember that in both of my examples and in the one provided here, these were air-spotted convoys in daylight!. No BB's or CVs spotted etc. They were already reconned.

So yes a warship captain in those circumstances would likely stick it in and break it off at the hilt.

That convoy should have taken it worse from 10 PTs much less 10 real warships.

Why does this matter? because this is a historical simulation. And having surface combat task forces incapable of effectively hurting unarmed ships in daylight because they can "scatter" is silly.

Why are we imputing such impressive coordination to the merchies (meaning being able to outfox faster ships that can sink you at five miles distance) but a combat task force is forced to what, form a calvary square and volley fire by squad?

In the scenario provided the only thing that would save some of the ships is that there were enough of them that the warships would take enough time to destory 6 or seven of them plus the escort suicide charge that the rest would get away into the approaching darkness later that day.


Wholeheartedly agree.




Montrose -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/26/2004 3:01:16 PM)

Lots of interesting responses, thanks. I'm currently trying to think of a way to defeat the system and get a realistic result out of this, and am seeing a strange oddity, but in the meanwhile to the 'scatter' theories. My limited descriptive powers are evidently not up to the task, so attached is a screenshot of Davao, and Rockwells task force steaming in to the attack. I absolutely don't buy into any 'scatter' theory for the following reasons:

1) Geography - The only way for a task force get out of Davao is to attempt to sail past any approaching aggressor to the South. Narrow access and the confines of terrain preclude any scatter attempt.
2) Mission - The Japanese must be reasonably close together to enable the unloading 56th brigade to maintain some cohesion and get to their objective. They will be close to the base at the top of the bay, not spread about all over the hex.
3) The Manual - There is absolutely no mention of any 'scatter' tactics for disadvantaged TFs at all in the PDF manual.
4) Speeds - When I checked the Japanese in head-to-head mode, their ships which had already been hit by the CD guns were only capable of 5 knots. Some of their intact AKs could only do 11 knots to begin with. Injured ships in a confined space cannot simply sail away from hostile ships which are seven times faster.
5) Evidence - There is no evidence at all that the convoy has scattered. It is simply and immediately sitting in the adjacent hex, intact. That in itself is questionable, if ships can only do 5 knots it should take 12 hours to get that far.
6) TF content - There are a lot ships. It is not conceivable that 90% of them could avoid each other in that bay even if they all wanted to.
7) Visibility - The action started at 25,000 yards. Ships can see for miles, and if that wasn't enough, several of the Japanese ships are already burning.
8) History - Scattering in hostile waters even when possible can be disasterous. PQ-17 had it easy compared to the position that the Japanese are in here.
9) Regional threat - There are no Japanese bases anywhere near. Davao itself is a friendly American base, Rear Admiral Rockwell is not under any pressure to get out of there, and can chase any supposed attempted scatter at his leisure.

Doomonyou and William Amos have made good points I feel, and I laughed at Doomonyou's description of the much seen massive overkill. For Platoonist Rockwell is rated at 68, he was one of the best I had. I'm currently trying to split the TF down into two or three ship components, thinking that each mini-TF will engage and cause lots more damage, but there is another engine problem with this approach. However, it's fun to play around with.

[image]local://upfiles/9962/Fc903874189.jpg[/image]




Top Cat -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/26/2004 3:39:09 PM)

I too feel that the convoy scattering is a bit overdone. If conditions are poor then fine, ships can slink away. But 15 slooow ships running away from say 10 fast ones is a bit rich. If the slow ships scatter then so can the fast ones.

Just read that the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau sank or captured 15 unescorted ships in 48 hours (15th and 16th Mar. 1941). So if 2 capital ships can run down 15 transports then Montrose's 4 crusiers and half a dozen destroyers should have had a field day amongst all those transports.

Cheers
Top Cat




Luskan -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/26/2004 3:55:49 PM)

One thing I'm good at is the surface combat bit of WITP/UV.

What you find are different admirals and different tf makeups vary your results greatly.

1. Unless you are bombarding, never put more than 2 or 3 at most Bb in the same TF. They seem to get in each other's way and these big boys of the fight don't do much. Put 1 bb, 2 ca, 4 dd in a tf and stick an agressive admiral in command and you've got a winner.

2. TFs that are way too big never fight well. 25 ships - only if you're fighting another 25 ship tf. 3 cas and 5 dds would have sunk the MSW and ML first (escorts die to protect fleeing transports) and then closed the range and polished off at least half.

So the moral is, if you've got that many ships, send in 3 small tfs instead of 1 big one and watch the carnage.

Vs transports, all dds (nimble) can be tough to beat too.




Montrose -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/26/2004 4:20:21 PM)

Sorry Luskan, but splitting into smaller task forces isn't working - I'll post full details later [:)]




geozero -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/26/2004 7:24:59 PM)

50 hits on one ship??????????

That ship should have sunk or exploded by the time it received 10-20 hits IMHO. I doubt that Allied forces would continue to bombard a sinking shio with crew trying to escape overboard... a little something called the Geneva Convention.

Anyway, hardly did US ships continue to blast a sinking ship, I have not read or seen any historical film footage showing that.

So IMHO, there should have been way more sinkings. Targeting is way off...




rhohltjr -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/26/2004 7:33:25 PM)

Map detail doesn't show Samal Island so Japanese fleet not hiding behind that.

What was the experience level of the ship crews of the Allied fleet?
[X(] Allied ships crewed by infants and toddlers while all Japanese ships crewed
entirely by sailors named Yamamoto?[X(]




carnifex -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/26/2004 7:55:23 PM)

I don't know about Surface Combats, but the Air portion of the targetting routine is working quite well.

I was trying to evacuate some Dutch units out of Java. I marched them to some western port (name i forget) and every couple of turns a transport TF pulls in, I spend the PP's to convert the HQ on the unit, and the Dutch load and are sailed to Derby.

I get the 1st and 2nd Dutch brigades out, and I go back to get the rest. DEI is heating up, with Sumatra and Borneo gone, and Java itself suffering from landings. Time is running out so I send back 3 TF's to get what they can and get the hell out before the Betty's are rebased to Java.

At this time I detect the KB moving west off Darwin, with a Surface TF and a Transport TF behind.

Darwin is mercilessly bombed, and then the KB moves west, bombing severely each of the four cities on the north coast. My land based air get's off one maybe two ineffective strikes before the rest of the planes are destroyed on the ground.

The Surface TF and the Transport TF break north to invade some Dutch island. KB steams northwest, toward my transport TF's.

I go into full panic mode; one TF loads the 4th Brigade (I wanted to get a better unit out but I was out of PP and couldn't hang around to wait to accumulate more), the other empty TF's hover nearby to absorb any hits on empty transports, not ones full of Dutch soldiers.

I load what I can, cancel the rest (hey, good luck in the internment camp), and steam out directly west into deep water, away from prying floatplane eyes.

No luck.

Two turns later the KB shows up sixty miles from the transport TF's. Such is the rotten luck when you are moving at 10 knots.

Over the next two days each of my TF's is bombed, bombed, and bombed again. To add to the rotten luck, I forget to adjust course for my regularly scheduled supply TF heading from Karachi to Perth. Twenty five ships all laden with supplies and cargo, steaming directly for the rampaging KB.

I pray that the pilots will target one TF to death, or not bomb the whole thing at least. No dice. Each TF is hit in turn, and every ship in each TF is targetted.

Before the raid I had 3 TF's, each with 10AK, 3MSW, 2DD, and 1 CL. Also had 1 TF with 15 AK's, 5TK, and 5DD. (yes I know my escorts were a little light but c'mon I was in the backwater, just need some ASW action, who the hell would have thought the KB would show up WEST of Java?)

After the raid I had 2 AK's with remnants of the 4th Dutch Brigade and two hurt escort ships. The Karachi-Perth TF suffered 50% sunk and rest hightailed it back north to Ceylon.

What I really needed was that bug where all the 100 torpedo planes go after ONE ship :)




UncleBuck -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/26/2004 8:04:06 PM)

HEY! Thaks for teh help but get your own Signature Pic! [8D]

I think the Surface TF not sinking all of the transports trapped in a restricted bay, with minefields, who cares if they were there own or enemy would have been toast. Since they laid a mine field of there own, the restricted the allowed movement in the bay even more. Now take in account eh CD guns and just where do these transports scatter to? They all should have been sunk or left burning hulks tied to piers or beached.

UB




crsutton -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/26/2004 9:43:06 PM)

What is Rockwells command ratings and is he a cautions commander? This certainly can have an effect. The Japanese had a cautious commander at Leyte Gulf. Look what happened there. Course, he had a lot more to deal with.




Montrose -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/27/2004 1:34:12 AM)

Before I forget, for crsutton Rockwell is 62/68, it won't let me click on him to confirm his competance in other areas, but I do remember that he is aggressive and a recommended surface force commander from when I chose him.

Unfortunately the idea of splitting the TF down into smaller groups barely made any difference. The oddity it provoked can only be described as mass teleportation.

Initially I split the TF into 4 groups of two or three ships each. When they sailed into the combat hex the De Ruyter and two DD's attacked, inflicting about as much damage as the entire force had done previously, due to the fact that there were just less ships to overkill the unlucky one or two singled out. So far so good, but there was unfortunately no combat from the other three TFs. On re-running the turn it has become obvious that as soon as the Japanese TF has faced one battle, it is magically transported to one hex away, leaving the other mini TFs who had also arrived wondering where the Japanese had gone.

I tried to second guess this by spreading the mini TFs out along where the Japanese retreat would take them to. The first hex they had to retire to is the main bay, and I managed to get more shots at them there, unfortunately ineffectual. However, as soon as this second little TF had a go at them, they were immediately taken to yet another retreat hex, and it is apparent that if you are clever, or lucky, enough to guess where the enemy TF will teleport to, you can keep bouncing them around ad infinitum.

The example I saved is shown in the attachment. The USS Houston catches the Japanese TF at point 1 as shown. It does mighty fine, causing a lot of damage. The Japanese are immediately afterwards bounced into a battle in the bay at point 2, where I had second guessed that they would appear in, although it was pretty obvious. The De Ruyter and friends had a minor shot at them and pulled out of the attack after just two rounds for some unknown reason. The Japanese were then bounced into point 3.

This all happened instantaneously. The Japanese did not actually sail there, as witnessed by the ML which appeared in the second battle at point 2 and immediately rolled over to sink because it was so badly damaged. There is obviously some 'automatic retreat one hex in any direction' rule in the game code. Unfortunately this just means that trying to hit a TF with waves of mini TFs cannot work.

All this playing around really did was obscure the main problem which would avoid the need for this bizarre behaviour in the first place. Hopefully the devs will make a change to enable Surface TFs to actually do some damage under ideal circumstances, by altering the targetting routine. If not, then at least I have learned that surface TFs larger than 4 ships are pointless [:D]

The example:

Day Time Surface Combat, near Davao at 41,61

Japanese Ships
ML Ikitsushima, Shell hits 18, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
MSW Tomozono Maru #3, Shell hits 5, and is sunk
AP Hie Maru
AP Kiko Maru
AP Sanfuku Maru
AP Tango Maru, Shell hits 13, on fire, heavy damage
AP Tarushima Maru, Shell hits 10, and is sunk
AP Tatsujin Maru
AP Tatsuta Maru, Shell hits 2
AP Teiryu Maru
AP Tenryu Maru
AK Tokiwa Maru
AP Toyo Maru #2
AP Ujigawa Maru
AP Yamafuku Maru, Shell hits 7, on fire
AP Zyuyo Maru
AK Tokiwasan Maru

Allied Ships
CA Houston, Shell hits 4
DD John D. Edwards

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat at 42,62

Japanese Ships
ML Ikitsushima, and is sunk
AP Hie Maru
AP Kiko Maru, Shell hits 3
AP Sanfuku Maru
AP Tango Maru, on fire, heavy damage
AP Tatsujin Maru
AP Tatsuta Maru
AP Teiryu Maru
AP Tenryu Maru
AK Tokiwa Maru
AP Toyo Maru #2
AP Ujigawa Maru
AP Yamafuku Maru, Shell hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
AP Zyuyo Maru
AK Tokiwasan Maru, Shell hits 9, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CL De Ruyter, Shell hits 1
CL Marblehead
DD Scout, Shell hits 1
DD Thracian

[image]local://upfiles/9962/He970162946.jpg[/image]

[Edit] - more cockups!




Thayne -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/27/2004 3:14:37 AM)

I see two invalid inferences being made here.

The first is to compare instance to instance in a situation where only a comparison from average to average makes sense. That is, to compare the instance of one battle in this game to an instance of one battle in the actual war, where what makes sense is to compare the average of a particular type of engagement in this battle to the average of a particular type of battle in the average war.

The second is to bring in location-specific information into the debate. In this game, I do not expect the programmers to create a different combat subroutine for each hex on the map, taking into effect its special circumstances. I expect certain "type" considerations (jungle, city, hill, swamp), but I think it is too much to ask for "token" considerations. So, site-specific data has no relevance to the debate.

Now, I do consider this last post by Montrose to contain genuine issues. This actually does identify a problem with the modeling of a particular "type" of situation -- one in which multiple combat teams are working in the same area. The model appears to only allow for one combat team and considers the others to be ineffective. The model should allow different combat teams to strike at different targets or -- if the enemy does not scatter -- to strike at the same target multiple times (which would illustrate the risks of using these types of tactics, where four piece-meal attacks against a strong target would get each unit defeated in detail).

As for what the developers should do, I would be concerned here with what changing one variable in this type of battle might do to the overall balance of the game throughout the war. It is easy to say, 'this should work differently', and to ignore the fact that the change that makes 'this' behave differently can have implications for 'that' which are far worse.

Then, throw in all of the play-testing that is required to make sure that 'this' change in fact does not throw 'that' all out of kilter.

This is what I mean by comparing 'average vs. average'. On average, I think that the program models surface-to-surface combat quite well. Of course, I would always like to see improvements. However, I am not going to condemn the work of somebody who But, I am not going to say that a game programmer has done a poor job if he has not created a model that accurately accounts for every shell fired in every actual happens to successfully track every surface engagement of the actual war.

Somebody else's estimates may differ. However, I suspect that many of these estimates are caused by imagining a closely packed group of enemy ships that see nothing more worthwhile to do than to sit and wait for an enemy combatant to take them under fire. Whereas I imagine a set of captains in a disbursed group who have given some thought to what they would do in such an emergency to limit casualties.




doomonyou -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/27/2004 4:43:56 AM)

Thayne there is no average to average. Go to the editor yourself. Take a dozen 0 sys damage fully loaded DD's and Flag that squadron with the Prince of Wales and ram them into a 20 ship transport convoy with lets call it a MSW and a PG for escort in Daylight, with prior Air spotting, fair weather and decent commanders on both sides in open unobstructed waters friendly to the DD's and if you see more than six ships hit your amazingly lucky. Of those six ships if you sink three you should immediately run to the casino and bet it all on your choice.

The bitter chaser to this steaming drink of humility is that somehow ships that take a torpedo or an AK hit twice by the PoW manages to steam away at usually 5-8 knots from a ship chasing them at 30 knots in broad daylight and go home.

Now does this ruin the game? No. But does it put a dent in it? Yes. Because in broad daylight to a convoy with a DD and an MSW for escort Twenty SBD divebombers should not 100% of the time outperform Twenty DD's. But in this game they will.

Frankly in my game when the houston intercepted a lone AP dropping off a force to attack Mendano (sp?) and failed to sink it after hitting it 7 times (FOW whatever, in a one on one battle in daylight no damaged AP ever escaped a fulled crewed 2 sys damage CA) I came close to needing a new mouse.[:-]




Mike Scholl -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/27/2004 5:07:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thayne

Sorry . . .

If you come across a convoy, the enemy ships scatter. You chase down one or two ships and spend enough time putting shells into them that it actually does sink. By that time, the rest of the convoy is over the horizon.

Using spotter planes, you may be able to see the rest. You begin pursuit. You have to make up for a lot of ground, because this ship ex hypothesi took off in some different direction from the ship you hunted.

Do not expect your victims to maintain radio contact in these situations. They know who you went after -- in what direction. When you go after the second or third one, that news gets reported to the others, who make the appropraite course corretions.

When you catch and sink this one, the others are now still further away.

That's about it. Three enemy ships, maximum.

Anything more, and you are requiring that the "AI" simply forget the best way that people in this situation have to save themselves.

The results sound perfectly reasonable to me . . . unless you decide to split up your task force. Which you could have done before engaging the enemy, by the way, unless the encounter is a complete surprise. Just create 15 individual task forces that all happen to be going in the same direction.

This is simply so much hot air. Convoys of merchant shipping virtually never have
"spotting aircraft" available. The first they know about an enemy Surface Group is the
sight of smoke on the horizon (best case, maybe at 15 miles). They are plodding along
at 10-11 knots (some will have problems) while the intercepting group is moving at
something like 20-22 knots. They react by scattering, but the choice of directions are
pretty limited. They can't go towards the Surface Group (that's suicidal), and even
taking off on a 90 degree tangent increases the rate of closure dramatically. So the
choice is limited to directly away from the approaching enemy, and perhaps 50 degrees
on either side of that course. Meanwhile, the Surface group, having spotted the convoy,
kicks up it's spead to 25-28 knots and spreads out to clear it's firing arcs. Maybe your
convoy's escort tries to delay them---but at these odds it will be shreaded in fairly short
order (maybe a DD will be detached in passing to "finish the job") The rate of closure
between the Surface Group and the attempted escapees will still be something on the
order of 12-15 knots an hour. And NO..., ships do not stop to shoot. They keep right on
closing. Within 90 minutes of the sighting at 15 miles, the attackers can easily be sailing
parallel to the "targets" at 500 yds. Now foul weather, a submarine sighting, or an air
attack could distort this picture. Night falling certainly would before radar. But the
average result of such an intercept during daylight hours should easily be l-2 "targets"
sunk or badly damaged per attacking ship (maybe .8 per DD up to 4-5 for a BC). The
results being consistantly delivered in the game are a joke. The only good thing that
can be said for them is they seem to effect both sides fairly equally.




Thayne -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/27/2004 8:58:37 PM)

All you need to do is to imagine that you are a merchant ship captain who does not want to die.

Other methods available: The use of picket ships to warn of the presence of an enemy task force. The picket ship dies, but the rest of the fleet gets a bigger head start. The picket ships do not even need to be merchant ships, but smaller craft that are sent out just for that purpose.

Spotters on the merchant ships could have identified a seaplane from the enemy task force long before the enemy task force could be seen. If not spotters on the merchant ships, then spotters on shore, or even in the picket ships. All provide an opportunity to give the scatter order long berfore the enemy shows up.

In addition, just as one can question the plausibility of a group of merchant ships escaping if trapped, one can raise issues about the ease of trapping merchant ships in situations such as this early in the war. In World War II, in the Pacific, the Wake invasion was the only assault that failed. In the game, it is very common for the Allied player to cause initial assaults to fail by attacking merchant ships at the landing sight. I have twarted two such landings in my own game in December 1941 alone.

This suggests that there are problems with the computer's modeling for these types of operations. The inability to sink a whole fleet of ships would, then, be an accurate model of the difficulty of trapping so many to start with.

So, actually, I have no trouble with this.




von Murrin -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/27/2004 9:09:42 PM)

Thayne, look at the Battle of Samar. The only reason the Taffies got away was because of several critical mistakes on the part of Kurita and his staff as well as a sizable dash of plain old luck. The CVE's could make roughly 18 knots to an average of about 29 for Kurita's ships.

Montrose's TF should've wiped the bay with that invasion TF.




tsimmonds -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/27/2004 9:19:47 PM)

quote:

The only reason the Taffies got away was because of several critical mistakes on the part of Kurita and his staff as well as a sizable dash of plain old luck.

Yeah, those things plus attacks on his force by scores of aircraft....




von Murrin -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/27/2004 9:37:44 PM)

Those critical mistakes kept the Taffies alive long enough to launch those scores of aircraft.[;)]




UncleBuck -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/27/2004 10:50:31 PM)

How many 5 inch (127 mm) and 8 inch (203mm) rounds do you think a Merchant should take before it Sinks or is left a burning hulk? Forget the Massive amount of disruption and death it should cause to the invading force. Submarines using 3 inch (76mm) guns would expend 20 rounds to sink a 6K ton Merchant. This was at close range and fired at the waterline, but you are talking about double the size of the shell at minimum. Merchants have Zero armor. Look at what Iranians were able to do to MODERN Merchants in the Persian Gulf in the 80's. They used 23 mm guns and grenade launchers to start massive fires and disable many tankers and cargo vessels. SO many in fact that the US, GB, and CA dispatched Frigates and Destroyers to cover and lead convoys through the straits. I loaded merchant that takes a Torpedo, or 10 5 inch rounds or the equivalent of other guns should be crippled, and in real danger of sinking. If you use 8 inch guns or larger the damage should be much greater. Another thing that seems to be off in the game is that against ships Long range fire is much deadlier than short range. At Short range your hit % should go up, but you are now hitting the armored portions of a warship. At longer ranges you get plunging fire. This is the Heavy shell coming down at a steep angle. The longer range should decrease the accuracy but the damage done with a hit should be greatly increased. IF the ship does not have an armored deck or the shell does not hit an armored structure (turret) then you get nasty damage. It works much like dive bombing. Skip bombing works to increase the hit % but the damage is not as great. Level or Dive bombing puts the bomb on the un-armored portions.

Just to give some perspective on naval values compared to Land units gun size.

3 inch - 76 mm this is the gun found on Sherman tanks (6.2KG x2.2=13.6 lb)
4.7 inch- 105 MM howitzer. Medium artillery piece. (15Kg x 2.2= 33 lb)
5 inch- 127 mm- Very large Artillery like the 122mm Artillery of the Russians. (21.8Kg=48lb)
6inch- 152mm- Larger still artillery, 155mm Howitzers and Coast defense guns.(43.5x2.2=95.7lb)
8inch- 203 mm guns- these are the largest of the field artillery pieces. These are slow firing but devastating (109.1 Kg x 2.2= 240lb)
About every 30 mm in size the weight increases by 50%.

12inch- 305mm guns. This is what wwI BB's had as armament. These have great range and are in the 406lb pound projectile range.
14 inch- 355mm guns- Just bigger than the 12's at 676 lb
16 inch- 406 mm guns. This is the biggest gun the Allies have. In Vietnam the USS New Jersey fired her main battery and made 9 landing zones with 9 shots into dense jungle, the landing zones were 1/4 mile in diameter. Projectile weight is 1,150lb
18 inch-457mm Yamato class ships. These should blow nearly any ship in any navy out of the water with a single hit. Only opposing late war BB's should have a chance to shrug these monsters off. The Missouri has a Dent to this day (or was it Wisconsin) where they took a hit from an 18 inch gun in an armored turret. It made a dent but did not penetrate; it can also not be removed. (Bondo I guess [:'(] ) shell weight 1,955 lb.

The fact that Merchants can take this much damage is incredible. A Warship, any warship should mop the floor with any Merchant. There was a reason that Merchants had strong escorts, screening TF's and Air Cover when they went in an area that enemy Surface Forces were a possibility. The Argument that in WW2 only one Invasion was repelled is a silly argument. No one tried to make any landing on opposed beaches in the PTO without significant Surface Action groups and Air Cover except Wake. Any Ship with 12 Inch Guns or greater is the same as having an Enemy Dive Bomber or Skip bombers with an AP bomb hitting a ship with a 500, 1000 or 2000 lb Bomb. Even the smaller guns should do immense damage to a ship. A single 76 mm round into the Boiler room will cripple a merchant. If a Surface Task Force catches an unescorted Merchant group any survivors of the Merchant fleet should be lucky not expected. This of course has many caveats, weather, Time of day, Radar, and number of ships relative to each other. If the Surface TF has 2/3 of the merchant numbers it should be an attack of the dread pirate Roberts, i.e. No Survivors.


UB

I used as a reference. http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/wt_of_fire.htm#Table%201%20-%20Shell%20and%20Filling%20Weights




BlackVoid -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/28/2004 12:13:26 AM)

I am no expert on naval guns, but simple common sense dictates that UncleBuck is right.

I read the book Guadalcanal by R. B. Frank and I got the impression from the naval battles described, that just one salvo hit (4-8 hits) from a cruiser would cripple any ship that is equal or smaller. Only armored ships can sustain any kind of gunfire, even 20-40 mm AA guns would tear up a merchant very badly. I dont think that ammo saving considerations would deter a captain, as he can easily cripple a merchant force with 1/3 of the ammo he has.

Slow moving merchants are target practice for warships if there is no other threat around. I think UV was quite good at handling these types of battles, at least at night (never seen a day battle like that). The carnage should be at least double in good visibility.




pompack -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/28/2004 1:48:03 AM)

While I agree with much of this discussion, I have to take exception to the assumption that "bigger is better" when you are talking about projectile damage to unarmored ships. While there is limited real-world experience with merchies hit by major caliber projectiles, the 42 battles in SoPac provided numerous examples of DD's hit by 8 inch and 14 inch projectiles as well as 5 inchers.

While a half dozen 5 inch hits would reduce a DD (or a merchie) to a flaming hulk, hits by 14 inch AP shells simply left neat holes about a foot in diameter all the way through the ship. There were several instances of DD's that took 14 inch and 8 inch hits they were not even aware of until after the action. Note that the damage done by a Japanese 14 inch special bombardment shell was quite different. The point is that a 600 pound AP projectile has enough velocity and cross-sectional density to go completely through an unarmored target before it explodes even if it hits something substantial enough to inititate the fuse.

All that I am trying to say here is that I would expect a DD to be almost as effective as a BB against merchies; I still think that 20 or even 10 DD's should be far more effective than 20 SBD's.




von Murrin -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/28/2004 3:02:31 AM)

Much of the reason for light ships surviving large caliber hits may be due to AP as opposed to HE usage. An AP round 12in and up would likely go right through a DD or merchie. Now, 8in and below I don't really see that happening often, and in any case smaller guns can pump out rounds a fair bit quicker on average.

I'm no expert, but there's common sense and some understanding of real world results in the above message.[:)]




Mike Scholl -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/28/2004 3:14:48 AM)

A large calibre "hit" (unless rapid fused HE) might not be very dangerous to an unarmored
merchant ship, but a "near miss" could be deadly (acting as a mine as well as splinter
damage). But remember, ships with large calibre guns don't normally expend a lot of
that ammunition on Merchants---that's what the secondary armament is for (plus AAA in
the case of DP Mountings). Submarines sank plenty of Merchant Ships during the two
World Wars with single guns in the 3.5 to 5.5 inch calibre.

All of the arguments justifying the miserable results achieved by 8-16 Surface Combat
vessels when intercepting groups of MS are basically garbage. The system is flawed;
the debate should be over how much, not if.




2Stepper -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/28/2004 3:41:38 AM)

I want to float a thought here to see what folks think.... Good, bad or indifferent, its just a thought.

What about FOW? I know it gets brought up RELENTLESSLY in posts about inaccurate battle results and what not... My question or thought is this... What if the surface battle display isn't representative of what commanders "see"? What if in the example mentioned only a 3rd of the Jap task force were ever seen?!? Would we still see all ships in the TF? From my experience, the answer is yes. Which in turn leads to at least a problem if not the out right frustration.

From the sounds of things, this was more a test in this thread rather then actual battle play... Still... Seeing as almost no weather in the west pac is THAT pristine, I have to wonder again about FOW. Because if my raiders can only see 3 of a 15 ship TF, I only want to see those three on the battle screen. So when I pummel the snot outta THOSE THREE ships I won't feel as robbed. I mean what you don't know doesn't hurt as much right?!?! Just a thought...


EDIT: Either that or give me icons on the surface battle screen that represent unsighted shipping with a chance of seeing them the longer battles last. Just a thought...




von Murrin -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/28/2004 4:20:09 AM)

Unsighted ships don't have their name listed in the battle screen. It was that way in UV, but I can't remember for WitP as my last surface engagement was two weeks (real life) ago.




doomonyou -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/28/2004 4:55:36 AM)

From the sounds of things, this was more a test in this thread rather then actual battle play... Still... Seeing as almost no weather in the west pac is THAT pristine, I have to wonder again about FOW. Because if my raiders can only see 3 of a 15 ship TF, I only want to see those three on the battle screen. So when I pummel the snot outta THOSE THREE ships I won't feel as robbed. I mean what you don't know doesn't hurt as much right?!?! Just a thought...


My examples were not tests they were real gameplay and in two case involved ships heavier than a CA. For this purpose that would give them an awesome view of the surrounding ocean at least 30K yards given appropriate weather.

I also would like to persistantly point out that if convoys are in fact in this game modeled to be spread out this massively (a battle ship litterally in clear daylight can only spot three ships) then subs should almost NEVER be attacked by more than one escort. The other escorts are litterally thirty miles away and would be hard pressed to arrive in time to find any but the most leisurely attacker




BlackVoid -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/28/2004 3:13:06 PM)

The problem seems to me that surface TFs are useless against convoys, they can only be used against other surface TFs.
But why risk your surface ships when you can happily send in your invasion force without any escort?




strawbuk -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/28/2004 3:38:04 PM)

I agree with Mike's er strident [:'(] views on this - the whole abstraction of TF formations and convoy sizes worries me when playing. Been partially addresed in the negative impacts of having more than 15 ships in a TF (but that only effects AA fire?)

All true re AP (warpsite in Noway Fjord vs German destroyers; 15in shells went through DD with little effect (unless you happened to be stood in way of course...) and exploded against fjord wall!) but of no consequence to this discussion. We are talking about trained captains who make logical decisons about weapons use on targets - if they see 14in shells not working they switch to 5in or whatever. 40mm AA on tanker will set it ablaze, 40mm fire on the bridge (common enough) is going to have disabling effect, if not lead to crew taking to boats to see what happens (also common enough, espeically if you are full of ammo or avgas). See what happend on Malta convoys or Atlantic.




Captain Cruft -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/28/2004 3:42:54 PM)

I know it's not really an answer but I think better results may be obtained by using a Bombardment TF rather than Surface Combat. Transport TFs will not run away from these for some reason.




UncleBuck -> RE: A bit of WitP fun, take a guess, everyone welcome. (7/28/2004 4:59:39 PM)

I just think that an un-escorted Merchant fleet should be meat on the table for a reasonable surface force. As for the large caliber shells going through DD's, well Merchants are not DD's (Fletcher class DD's were 2100 ton vessels, the 1940 British Ocean class merchant were 10,000 ton ships.) An AP round would cause a nice hole and if the merchant was fully loaded it would be hard to believe that the shell would not detonate. Now Surface combatants with guns larger than 6 inch carried both AP and HE rounds to be used on different targets. On soft skinned vessels like Small surface ships, and Merchants you used your HE. On other armored warships you used AP. If surface forces were not to be feared then why would a merchant heave too and surrender as they did in the South Atlantic and IO when overtaken by Commerce raiders?

Again I believe that a surface force that has 2/3 the number ships as a Merchant fleet should be sure of 99% destruction of the un-escorted Merchants. One Destroyer should be able to destroy with ease 3 Merchants without using torpedoes. After that he may be low on ammo depending on when he opened up.


UB




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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.765625