RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$

RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ (Full Version)

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

Message

castor troy -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/18/2005 11:22:07 PM)
There are always the two realities on this forum. If this result would have been reality I wonder why not every ship hit by a Kamikaze sunk? Should do more damage than a bomb?!? It was reality that Japanese had problems with fires not with flooding! Isn´t this a fact????

Feinder -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/18/2005 11:32:49 PM)
Castor, Folks have answered your post with a deulge of historical references. Your problem is, you don't like what they have to say. At this point, you're just being adversarial. -F-

Terminus -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/18/2005 11:38:41 PM)
Again...

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/18/2005 11:42:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder Castor, Folks have answered your post with a deulge of historical references. Your problem is, you don't like what they have to say. At this point, you're just being adversarial. -F- Well, his question has not really been adequately answered from my seat here in the nose bleeds. Tons of reasons why the model for progressive flooding is spread out over days as opposed to hours (due to turn and design constraints given the scale issue), but I've seen no real reasons for making it as severe as it is on Japan. How pathetic were the Japanese at flood control after all? C'mon, they were not as bad as portrayed here. Flood damage could use a reduction.

mogami -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/19/2005 12:06:37 AM)
Hi, Again the time frame gets you. If they just sank the Japanese ships outright there would be no complaint. The player would never know they started with 20 sys 20 flood and 10 fires and lost the DC battle. The flooding is not so much what happens 3 days after the battle. (If the ship sinks they lost on day one) The flooding is what happens right after the bomb or torpedo hit. And for the last time. As long as the fires remain flooding progresses. Allied ships put out the fires and so stop the flooding. Japanese ships burn (even a level 1 fire means no flooding repair and more is coming) So it is in fact Japanese fire control that gets them and USN fire fighting that saves them. And the ship crew ratings. USN/IJN CV have lower ratings then most ships that see combat for USN/IJN and that is why USN/IJN CV are more liley to sink then BB with same damage after battle.

Hornblower -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/19/2005 12:23:34 AM)
Well truth be told the IJN didn’t even come close to the USN when it came to damage control. Bad training and some bad procedures. The Taiho comes to mind. Regarding the progressive flooding the Chitose was near missed by SBD’s from the Sara and almost capsized on the way to truk. Shokaku almost flipped over on the way home from Coral Sea- and she wasn’t even hit by a torp. Now on the flip side, look at the damage the USN CA’s at Tassafaronga survived (Northampton excluded.) The New Orleans had a fifth of her length blown off and she didn’t sink. And The Houston (CL-81, not the CA) took on 6000 tons of Water but still managed to steam over 1000 miles to get to port. Now thats progressive flooding!!! Anyone really think the IJN could have accomplished the same?

Nikademus -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/19/2005 12:34:06 AM)
Overall, USN damage control was superior to IJN damage control as IJN training tended to focus on combat prowess. Which is not to say that IJN DC was "lousy" across the board but definately not on the same par as with the USN. (re: "Kaigun") I've also read that the Japnese actually obtained a USN DC "manual" and modeled some of it into their established doctrine in order to improve their ship survivability There were some instances of outstanding Japanese DC too though. BB Musashi may arguably be the best case....her DC teams did pretty much everything you could do to keep the ship afloat on an even keel before the sheer amount of the flooding overwhelmed all efforts. 'Course the two behemoths would have had high quality crews. On the bottom end of the scale one has Taiho's destruction which was preventable even when factoring in her unrefined fuel.

Terminus -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/19/2005 12:47:20 AM)
Another example of good Japanese damage control, combined with a supertanker full of luck was what happened to the Kumano after the Battle of Leyte Gulf: http://www.combinedfleet.com/atully04.htm

sven6345789 -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/19/2005 1:08:47 AM)
generally speaking, the japanese were experts at man to man combat, but bloody amateurs when it came to supply!! This also extends to the damage control of their ships.

Terminus -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/19/2005 1:15:02 AM)
They also had huge problems with Command & Control: when their officers were killed, the lower echelons tended to become disoriented and lose initiative.

Bradley7735 -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/19/2005 1:40:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sven6345789 generally speaking, the japanese were experts at man to man combat, but bloody amateurs when it came to supply!! This also extends to the damage control of their ships. I disagree with you. I'm speaking from my "gut feel" from the many books I've read. But, When the US fought the Japanese on land, the causalty rate was almost always greatly in favor of the US. There were only a couple of cases where the US took more land losses than the Japanese (Tarawa and Iwo Jima, I think. even then, total dead was far less for the US). Generally, when the Japanese made a "Banzai" charge, they were mowed down with significantly more losses than the defenders. This would seem to indicate their hand to hand or man to man combat was sub par. then again, I don't have any real hard facts. Just a gut feel.

Terminus -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/19/2005 2:11:01 AM)
Casualty figures for the Battle of Tarawa: US Marine Casualties - KIA -> 837 (47 officers, 790 enlisted) - Wounded - killed -> 34 (2 officers, 32 enlisted) - Died of wounds -> 90 (8 officers, 82 enlisted) - Missing and wounded - presumed dead - > 29 (all enlisted) - WIA -> 2296 (110 officers, 2186 enlisted) - Combat fatigue -> 15 (1 officer, 14 enlisted) US Navy Casualties - CVE USS Liscombe Bay (sunk by Japanese submarine I-175) -> 644 KIA - BB USS Mississippi (turret explosion) -> 43 KIA Japanese Casualties - Garrison strength - Tarawa -> 4836 - Total KIA on Tarawa -> 4690 - Prisoners -> 146 (17 Japanese, 129 Korean labourers) - Garrison strength - Apamama -> 23 - Total KIA on Apamama -> 23

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/19/2005 2:45:18 AM)
quote: Anyone really think the IJN could have accomplished the same? The Mogami at Midway for one. Shokaku on a number of occasions. Aoba after Cape Esperance. Point is every Navy had its good and bad moments. Sure Japan had some bad examples, but Allies have many bad as well. USN:Good-Let's use your CL Houston example. Bad-well CV 2 Lexington comes to mind. RN: Good-CV Illustrious. Bad- CV Ark Royal. I don't think that the difference was so huge as is portrayed in the model.

treespider -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/19/2005 2:50:17 AM)
So my take on this thread is that there are a group of people who are upset because in the game Japanese CV's are sinking because of flooding, rather than becoming festering AVgas infernos.

Iridium -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/19/2005 7:32:13 AM)
Well, concerning the flooding of the Musashi, the Yamato class had the 'designed' capability to correct a maximum of 13.8 degree list with just water pumps. When fuel is moved to tanks on the opposite side of the hull breach an additional 4.5 degrees could be added. Altogether, the Yamato class could theoretically return to an even keel from a list of 18.3 degrees. When the initial torpedo hit occurs, they gave the damage control crews an ability to reduce the flooding that occured to result in under a 4 degree list and 2.3 meter difference in draught fore and after within 5 minutes. A second torpedo hit would be controlled within 30 minutes according to the same standard. Of course this is in a perfect situation but this simply shows that these ships were the best that Japan had to offer in design and innovation. This should be an example of a best possible result due to damage, not the rule. Stability of the Yamato class was still good until it listed to 20 degrees. Trim capacity would enable the ship to function with freeboard forward reduced to 4.5 meters (std freeboard was 10 meters, amidships 8.6 meters, aft 6.4 meters). In December of '43 Yamato was hit by a torpedo from the Skate near Truk. 3000 tons of water flooded the upper powder magazine due to a small hold in the side armor joint. She made her way to Japan with this damage. This flooding was due to a documented design flaw that people were concerned about even before this incident but due to the unwillingness to modify the hull they left it as is until this occured. I believe that the biggest issue concerning flooding in Japanese ships is that many of them were rather old. The newer vessels suffered due to bungles and or negligence. This was due to the fact that they were rushing production of ships to the very maximum of their production, many mistakes were made. The game does not model ship quality, damage control capabilities (for every class), or many other factors that make a seemingly good vessel fail in combat. If the game isn't doing what you'd like then just remove Allied damage control. It's a bit overrated anyhow.[:'(] [image]local://upfiles/16037/54C3B08D396041729BFBC7E71FE585BD.jpg[/image]

rogueusmc -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/19/2005 7:43:09 AM)
We should have used that pic for your banner....[:D]

Iridium -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/19/2005 7:45:12 AM)
Nooo!!![:(] [:D] Not that great in depth though. I prefer to remember them in their prime, as it were.

rogueusmc -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/19/2005 7:50:21 AM)
I'm always game to make banners...if ya find other art ya like and want another banner, just let me know. I didn't spend a whole heck of alot of time on that one...I expected you to have some changes when I sent it to ya. You see how I change banners like I do underwear (actually I change underwear more often but we won't go there.)

castor troy -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/19/2005 9:24:16 AM)
I think my biggest problem is, that I´ve got the same opinion like Ron Saueracker! [;)] Every thread I´ve read so far in a year where Ron posted, he was mowed down by 10 others. After 100+ replies I got (woow, if it´s so obvious that Japanese damage control is right I wonder why there are so many posts) let me summaries what people brought up: Historically Jap CVs blew up because their flight deck was full, because of their problems with fires, because they did take many hits, or because a lucky shot. Now why did my CVs sank: the flight deck wasn´t full (can´t happen in WITP), I nearly didn´t have fires (I wondered, always thought 1000 lbs. GP does some fires), I didn´t take many hits (or does someone rates 2 as many?) -----> so I just can say they were all lucky shots!???! So the posts at the beginning were right! It´s all just luck in this game! And the Allied side is cheating then??? [>:] I know, just toggle off the damage control! None of the explanations I got fit to my result! Perhaps one who knows can explain me, where those GP bombs explode? I thought they would explode somewhere in the upper levels of the ship, but it seems they went through level after level and exploded far under the water line near the hull. If it´s like this, then I know why I do so minor damage with my AP bombs: because they go through the whole CV and explode on the ground at 500 m.

castor troy -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/19/2005 9:35:26 AM)
I just have to laugh when I get all those replies how RIGHT the result is and why that happened and I then read the "Will she make it thread" from Wild Willie! Achilles was hit with 20 [X(][X(][X(] 250 kg AP bombs, makes it to a more or less small port (hey, noone explain me please what Luganville for a great place was in WW2 to do ship repairs) and is safe!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! In your dreams! [:'(] I know I have been so unlucky (in fact three times at once) and this CL was sooooo lucky because the Japanese dropped 250 kg bananas on it!

Nikademus -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/19/2005 4:48:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy I think my biggest problem is, that I´ve got the same opinion like Ron Saueracker! [;)] Every thread I´ve read so far in a year where Ron posted, he was mowed down by 10 others. A picture is worth a thousand words : [8\|] quote: Perhaps one who knows can explain me, where those GP bombs explode? I thought they would explode somewhere in the upper levels of the ship. No. WitP is an operational level wargame. You are being too specific in your expectations. The game contains 3 major Hit locations only. Deck armor hit, Belt armor hit, Tower armor hit. Only the last one will give you SYS damage only. The other two will usually (not always) cause a preportion of SYS+FLT damage. Back in UV days the preportion was virtually the same increasing ship fragility. I did a series of public tests which resulted in a change so that now Deck armor penetrations produce a less preportion of FLT damage to SYS in comparison to belt armor penetrations (to abstractly represent above water hits and damage) however there is still going to be degree of FLT damage with the deck armor hits. 1000lb GP penetrations have a large effect rating so they will be dangerous to unarmored carriers regardless of hit location. Bear in mind too, the game does abstractly represent midway similar situations with two critical hit types - Ammo explosion and Fuel explosion. If triggered they will increase SYS+FLT+FIRE levels.

Speedysteve -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/19/2005 4:57:43 PM)
Nik, A somewhat related question - When a device penetrates armour is it all or nothing in that it will have MAXIMUM device effect or will the depth of armour limit the effect of the penetration? Regards, Steven

Nikademus -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/19/2005 5:02:01 PM)
No. it's not rigidly all or nothing. The code has a decent amount of "play" in what the final damage result will be but device EFFECT rating, ship DUR rating and the Hit Location struck (and penetrated) will be the three most weighted variables. For example, i've often had ships "roll" very favorable when struck by a torpedo (i.e. small amount of SYS and FLT damage) I interpret such a result as the torp having struck in a non critical area, such as a bow hit.

Speedysteve -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/19/2005 5:09:18 PM)
Hi Nik, Thanks. I know what you mean on the non-critical hits (I quite like how WitP can give variable realistic hit results). In my PBEM with Swift. Soryu was hit by 2 torps from a PT. Luckily damage was only 13/15/0 [:)]

Iridium -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/19/2005 5:46:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus No. it's not rigidly all or nothing. The code has a decent amount of "play" in what the final damage result will be but device EFFECT rating, ship DUR rating and the Hit Location struck (and penetrated) will be the three most weighted variables. For example, i've often had ships "roll" very favorable when struck by a torpedo (i.e. small amount of SYS and FLT damage) I interpret such a result as the torp having struck in a non critical area, such as a bow hit. I can confirm this, I've had an instance where the Mutsu took a torpedo and had only 7 float damage. To say the least I was suprised, I was expecting something in the 15-25 float damage range.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/19/2005 6:12:55 PM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy I think my biggest problem is, that I´ve got the same opinion like Ron Saueracker! Every thread I´ve read so far in a year where Ron posted, he was mowed down by 10 others. Nikademus: A picture is worth a thousand words : This is the kind of crap which has kept the game so innaccurate on so many levels. Those who want to fix the game vs those who like to feather their nest and solidify their place for some future project. Result...mediocrity. Oh well...[8\|]

Nikademus -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/19/2005 6:14:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy I think my biggest problem is, that I´ve got the same opinion like Ron Saueracker! Every thread I´ve read so far in a year where Ron posted, he was mowed down by 10 others. Nikademus: A picture is worth a thousand words : This is the kind of crap which has kept the game so innaccurate on so many levels. Those who want to fix the game vs those who like to feather their nest and solidify their place for some future project. Result...mediocrity. Oh well...[8\|] [8\|]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/19/2005 6:16:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy I think my biggest problem is, that I´ve got the same opinion like Ron Saueracker! Every thread I´ve read so far in a year where Ron posted, he was mowed down by 10 others. Nikademus: A picture is worth a thousand words : This is the kind of crap which has kept the game so innaccurate on so many levels. Those who want to fix the game vs those who like to feather their nest and solidify their place for some future project. Result...mediocrity. Oh well...[8\|] [8\|] Well, ya asked for it with the shot.[;)]

Speedysteve -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/19/2005 6:21:46 PM)
[sm=00000613.gif] [;)]

Nikademus -> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF#?$* (7/19/2005 6:23:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Well, ya asked for it with the shot.[;)] And what shot was that Ron? If Castor wants to think that people disagree with him because he's an ersatz you and people with contrary opinions are simply interested in mowing him down as a result, thats his right. Me, such a silly statement deserves only a [8\|] Kind of like your comment about WitP being "medicore" [8\|][8\|][8\|][8\|][8\|] [:'(]

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.8945313