Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Nuke naval bombardment

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Nuke naval bombardment Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Nuke naval bombardment - 2/28/2006 7:42:19 PM   
Wolfpack_MatrixForum

 

Posts: 181
Joined: 3/1/2004
From: Raleigh,NC
Status: offline 		To beat a dead horse.....

Naval bombardment of Luganville, at 72,107


Allied aircraft
no flights


Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1 Corsair: 4 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat: 13 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk: 12 destroyed
PBY Catalina: 3 destroyed

Japanese Ships
CA Furutaka
CA Kinugasa
CA Aoba
CA Kumano
CA Mogami
CA Takao
CA Chikuma
CA Tone
BB Musashi
BB Yamato
BB Hiei
BB Haruna


Allied ground losses:
12011 casualties reported
Guns lost 80
Vehicles lost 105

Airbase hits 43
Airbase supply hits 19
Runway hits 140

This in a game against Castor Troy.

Just not realistic. Maybe I should execute my commander. Appears that there was an all hands beach party going on and all equipment was piled on the runway for security purposes so the few poor guys not at the beach party could guard it.

8 units on the island. All 80%-100% disrupted.

The base:







Attachment (1)
Post #: 1
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 2/28/2006 7:43:23 PM   
Wolfpack_MatrixForum

 

Posts: 181
Joined: 3/1/2004
From: Raleigh,NC
Status: offline 		An example unit:






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Wolfpack_MatrixForum)
Post #: 2
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 2/28/2006 7:43:58 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, engineer units really get disrupted by naval bombardments. I don't any where near 12k troops were actually killed. They will be back to normal in 2 or 3 turns provided enough supply is on hand Put a few CD guns there. OK you posted the unit. See they are not dead.
That was an extremly heavy bombarment TF. (Wish I got such good results)
There are 0 forts?

< Message edited by Mogami -- 2/28/2006 7:46:24 PM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Wolfpack_MatrixForum)
Post #: 3
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 2/28/2006 7:50:54 PM   
Wolfpack_MatrixForum

 

Posts: 181
Joined: 3/1/2004
From: Raleigh,NC
Status: offline 		Aircraft info:






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Wolfpack_MatrixForum)
Post #: 4
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 2/28/2006 7:52:34 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		mumified horse.

(repost)

ok folks.....one more time....

this is your brain.....


41st USA INF div

USA Rfile-- 500
USA ENG-- 50
81mm----- 50
4.2in------- 50
37AT-------50
75pack---- 50
105-------- 50
155-------- 50
ENG--------50
support---- 700

3rd USA INF Div

USA Rfile-- 500
USA ENG-- 50
81mm----- 50
4.2in------- 50
37AT-------50
75pack---- 50
105-------- 50
155-------- 50
ENG--------50
support---- 700

32nd USA INF Div

USA Rfile-- 500
USA ENG-- 50
81mm----- 50
4.2in------- 50
37AT-------50
75pack---- 50
105-------- 50
155-------- 50
ENG--------50
support---- 700

101st BASE FORCE

USMC RS---500
Support-----500
0.5 MG------100
Av Support-500
Support-----100
Eng----------100
Eng Veh--- -100

102nd BASE FORCE

USMC RS---500
Support-----500
0.5 MG------100
Av Support-500
Support-----100
Eng----------100
Eng Veh--- -50

103rd BASE FORCE

USMC RS---500
Support-----500
0.5 MG------100
Av Support-500
Support-----100
Eng----------100
Eng Veh--- -50

104th BASE FORCE

USMC RS---500
Support-----500
0.5 MG------100
Av Support-500
Support-----100
Eng----------100
Eng Veh--- -50


This is your brain after drugs:

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 11/02/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Lunga, at 67,97


Allied aircraft
no flights


Allied aircraft losses
SBD Dauntless: 14 destroyed
B-24D Liberator: 5 destroyed

Japanese Ships
CA Mikuma
CA Mogami
CA Chikuma
CA Tone
BB Hyuga
BB Ise
BB Yamashiro
BB Fuso
BB Musashi
BB Yamato
BB Mutsu
BB Nagato


Allied ground losses:
4443 casualties reported
Guns lost 37
Vehicles lost 29

Airbase hits 9
Airbase supply hits 8
Runway hits 71
Port hits 1

********

41st USA INF div

USA Rfile-- 495(4)
USA ENG-- 48(2)
81mm----- 48(2)
4.2in------- 50
37AT-------47(2)
75pack---- 47(3)
105-------- 46(4)
155-------- 50
ENG--------46(2)
support---- 692(8)

Disruption=70
Fatigue=17

3rd USA INF Div

USA Rfile-- 500
USA ENG-- 49(1)
81mm----- 48(1)
4.2in------- 50
37AT-------50
75pack---- 49(1)
105-------- 50
155-------- 50
ENG--------48(1)
support---- 699(1)

Disruption = 2
Fatigue = 8

32nd USA INF Div

USA Rfile-- 499(1)
USA ENG-- 50
81mm----- 50
4.2in------- 49(1)
37AT-------50
75pack---- 50
105-------- 50
155-------- 50
ENG--------50
support---- 699(1)

Disruption = 0
Fatigue = 5

101st BASE FORCE

USMC RS---480(13)
Support-----482(17)
0.5 MG------88(4)
Av Support-484(12)
Support-----86(10)
Eng----------93(4)
Eng Veh--- -90(1)

Disruption = 53
Fatigue= 33



102nd BASE FORCE

USMC RS---487(7)
Support-----483(12)
0.5 MG------93(5)
Av Support-485(12)
Support-----97(1)
Eng----------85(10)
Eng Veh--- -47

Disruption = 48
Fatigue = 31


103rd BASE FORCE

USMC RS---483(13)
Support-----481(14)
0.5 MG------96(2)
Av Support-483(13)
Support-----97(2)
Eng----------94(4)
Eng Veh--- -44(1)

Disruption = 53
Fatigue = 30


104th BASE FORCE

USMC RS---481(13)
Support-----482(13)
0.5 MG------91(5)
Av Support-480(14)
Support-----94(5)
Eng----------91(7)
Eng Veh--- -41(3)

Disruption = 51
Fatigue = 30

Any questions?

Total of permanent losses:

41st USA INF div

USA Rfile-- 1
USA ENG-- 0
81mm----- 0
4.2in------- 0
37AT-------1
75pack---- 0
105-------- 0
155-------- 0
ENG--------2
support---- 0


3rd USA INF Div

USA Rfile-- 0
USA ENG-- 0
81mm----- 1
4.2in------- 0
37AT-------0
75pack---- 0
105-------- 0
155-------- 0
ENG--------1
support---- 0

32nd USA INF Div

USA Rfile-- 0
USA ENG-- 0
81mm----- 0
4.2in------- 0
37AT-------0
75pack---- 0
105-------- 0
155-------- 0
ENG--------0
support---- 0



101st BASE FORCE

USMC RS---7
Support-----1
0.5 MG------8
Av Support-4
Support-----4
Eng----------3
Eng Veh--- -9


102nd BASE FORCE

USMC RS---6
Support-----5
0.5 MG------2
Av Support-3
Support-----2
Eng----------5
Eng Veh--- -3


103rd BASE FORCE

USMC RS---4
Support-----5
0.5 MG------2
Av Support-4
Support-----1
Eng----------2
Eng Veh--- -5


104th BASE FORCE

USMC RS---6
Support-----5
0.5 MG------4
Av Support-6
Support-----1
Eng----------2
Eng Veh--- -6


*****

Sum total of losses from front line units during the "tactical nuke"

USA Rfile-- 1
USA ENG-- 0
81mm------1
4.2in-------0
37AT-------1
75pack---- 0
105--------0
155--------0
ENG--------3
support---- 0


Total losses among airfield/port '2nd line troops'


USMC RS---23
Guns/mortors - 2
Support-----16
0.5 MG------16
Av Support-17
Support-----8
Eng----------12
Eng Veh--- -23


Summation:

712 men killed
16 MG's destroyed
23 Engineering vehicles.
2 guns destroyed

No fort levels were present.


Other factors:

Recon doubles effect of bombardment (this test had recon)
Fort levels can greatly reduce casualties

addenum:

ENG/support type units will receive majority of bombardment

_____________________________


(in reply to Wolfpack_MatrixForum)
Post #: 5
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 2/28/2006 7:58:12 PM   
Wolfpack_MatrixForum

 

Posts: 181
Joined: 3/1/2004
From: Raleigh,NC
Status: offline 		Mogami,

I agree somewhat with your analysis but we have had the opposite happen at Baker in this game. Bombardment after bombardment by varying amounts of ships barely scratched that island. It had at best a lvl 1 fort at the time.

So with 30k supply I should be ok in a few days? That seems odd too. 12k troops shell shocked. 100+ vehicles destroyed. Damage seems too great for a quick recovery.

I can't really judge as many of the routines this games uses to decide things remain a mystery.

Wolfpack

P.S. I love this game. It just frustrates me to no end sometimes.

(in reply to Wolfpack_MatrixForum)
Post #: 6
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 2/28/2006 8:08:34 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Sum total of losses from front line units during the "tactical nuke"

USA Rfile-- 1
USA ENG-- 0
81mm------1
4.2in-------0
37AT-------1
75pack---- 0
105--------0
155--------0
ENG--------3
support---- 0


Total losses among airfield/port '2nd line troops'


USMC RS---23
Guns/mortors - 2
Support-----16
0.5 MG------16
Av Support-17
Support-----8
Eng----------12
Eng Veh--- -23


Summation:

712 men killed
16 MG's destroyed
23 Engineering vehicles.
2 guns destroyed


Superb analysis...


BTW, since 4x BB and 8x CA were used those are really light looses (Leo running away and ducking for the incoming)...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 7
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 2/28/2006 8:13:58 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline 		Don´t know if I´m even allowed to look at this thread as it gives me info. Sorry it´s too late anyway! If you look at the engineer unit, it´s 0/72 so if it was 100/100 then 28% are dead now. If most of his units look like this then pretty many troops are out of order for more than a few turns.

My intel gives me an airfield damage of 40% but it´s even completely destroyed. In my oppinion this attack is as way off as other attacks where I do 0% damage to the base, 0 planes destroyed (although plenty of them are at the base) and 100 ground casualties.

Both times

(in reply to Wolfpack_MatrixForum)
Post #: 8
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 2/28/2006 8:15:48 PM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		Welcome to Fantasy Warfare in the Pacific. BTW, that bombardment TF can be back in 2 days or less to do it again.

_____________________________


(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 9
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 2/28/2006 8:17:38 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline 		Wolfpack, I feel your pain. That was a huge bombardment BB. Might want to station some carriers in the area to discourage THAT again.

While the affect apears large, it doesn't seem beyond statistical probability. Your opponent got a good die roll.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 10
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 2/28/2006 8:19:23 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Welcome to Fantasy Warfare in the Pacific. BTW, that bombardment TF can be back in 2 days or less to do it again.



Hey! Are you telling him my plans??

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 11
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 2/28/2006 8:21:20 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline 		This is why, when possible, I don't stack large numbers of units at frontline bases until forts are ok (probably around 3-4). Otherwise your soldiers are just sitting around on the beaches with big bullseyes painted on their chests. When I take an island base I send one ground unit to defend the base and lots of engineers to build forts. It isn't declared operational where I move planes and base forces in until I am satisfied with the defensive capabilities of the base. Of course, emergency situations can call for a change in that SOP, but I find that following it saves me lots of bombardment attacks.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 12
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 2/28/2006 9:23:15 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
quote:

BTW, that bombardment TF can be back in 2 days or less to do it again.


For me, the only unrealistic part. You can't get 18" bullets at the CVS drive thru.....but the bombardment results seem fine. You don't want to get bombarded, you'd better have an SCTF in the hex. It doesn't have to be strong enough to win, or even to survive combat. It's a speed bump.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 13
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 2/28/2006 9:33:36 PM   
Oznoyng

 

Posts: 818
Joined: 4/16/2004
From: Mars
Status: offline 		I am one of those people that think Bombardment TF are perfectly fine when it comes to their effectiveness. For certain bases, bombardments would not work. I can understand the concern that some people have expressed about bombardments against places like Palembang, where the base itself was too far inland to be reached by naval gun fire. On the other hand, I completely disagree with the logic that says "it only happened once, so it was a fluke and can't be used to model what happens in WitP".

At Henderson Field, the Japanese Task force consisting of 2 battleships, 1 light cruiser, and 9 destroyers fired 870 14-inch shells and 47 6-inch shells resulting in 48 aircraft lost and 41 men dead. It also ripped up the airfield pretty well. The fact of the matter is that what kept Japan from doing more bombardments came down to 3 issues: fuel for their BB's, ammunition for their BB's, and defenses against bombardment TF's put in place by the Allies. While I think fuel and ammunition probably needs to be addressed by the game, I do not think the effectiveness of the bombardments should be. If the defender does not commit forces to defense, results should be parallel Henderson Field almost every time.

Your Henderson Field happened at Luganville. The result was reasonable:

  • Luganville is probably in range of naval gun fire. Luganville is on the coast of Espiritu Santo: (Luganville link with map It is on the coast of an island measuring roughly 2500 square miles (perhaps 50 miles by 50 miles).
  • The IJN TF was something like 3x as powerful as the force that hit Henderson. (4 BB vs 2, and 8CA vs 1 CL)
  • Your forces at Luganville had no fortifications to protect them. Your screenshots show a level 0 fort. That means absolutely nothing has been done to provide bunkers, shelters, etc. for the troops stationed there.
  • You do not appear to have a defending naval force (even Henderson Field had 4 PT boats). Since none of the attacking ships show even a token fire or two, no significant naval Battle likely occurred prior to the bombardment
  • You had no CD units in place for counterbattery
  • I can only deduce from your LCU screenshot that most of your troops are engineer/baseforce types. Those aren't even combat engineers. A totally unexpected attack in considerable force, against a "rear area" base with no bunker areas for troops to take refuge in.



< Message edited by Oznoyng -- 2/28/2006 9:35:22 PM >

_____________________________

"There is no Black or White, only shades of Grey."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."

(in reply to Wolfpack_MatrixForum)
Post #: 14
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 2/28/2006 10:07:48 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		IMO it is bloody lucky this didn't really happen. The USN (with its Noble Aussie allies) sailed off and left the troops uncovered. The operation was planned OUT OF RANGE of friendly land based air cover and Adm Ghormly felt no particular need to cover with carriers either. Savo Island was the worst tactical defeat in actual battle in the history of USN bar none. [While eight battleships were put out of action at Pearl Harbor, it was technically not a naval battle, and the legal responsibility for fleet defense that day lay with the Army, not the Navy - something I rearly see mentioned. The entire point of the Army on Hawaii was to defend the base complex from a naval attack.] Anyway, when you have not unloaded most of your gear, and when you are allowing enemy surface forces in to strike, this is the sort of outcome you ought to expect - if the die roll is high enough.

(in reply to Wolfpack_MatrixForum)
Post #: 15
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 2/28/2006 10:17:25 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Hi, engineer units really get disrupted by naval bombardments.


Disrupted means disorganized. In this case, if real, it would mean some guys took off to get out of the fire zone! Completely feasible - although possibly hazzardous to their health - both from disease and enemy troops!

In game theory, even if they were "killed" we do not imagine they were all dead. If a submarine at sea is sunk, you can bet ITS crew is dead! But on land, "killed" units are just disorganized. You have some in hospital, some missing, some prisoners, and some just AWOL. All of which really happen too - and all of which mean the player has lost control of them. You should not think in terms of "casualties" as meaning "dead" - it includes most categories of losses - except I think you sometimes do get a report if a unit surrenders - this never happens in a bombardment action.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 16
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 2/28/2006 10:40:50 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Come ON!!!! I can't believe people are actually defending these results! This game is never going to improve and any WITP II is going to have just as much extremism in it if you guys don't get a grip and SAY SOMETHING. Unbelievable...12000 is OK...these are not disrupted, they will be OK in two days, purple's a fruit...bla bla bla. Man!

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 2/28/2006 11:57:15 PM >

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 17
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 2/28/2006 11:16:10 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		I got all wiggly when I sent 4 USN BBs and and several cruisers vs. Estad's knuckle-heads on Pago-Pago. I had grand visions of mushroom clouds wiping out everyone and everything on the island.

Alas, I only did about 400 casualties. Same thing when I sent 4 of the RN R-class BBs and cruisers vs. KBullard's guys at Akyab. Only about 400 casualties.

Bombardments are slanted in favor of Japan! BIAS BIAS BIAS!

Just throw 250x B-17s over the first bright red "X" you see.

It won't quite compare, but it'll make him scream about how 4e units are over-powered, and THAT will make you feel better.



Like the man said, welcome to "Fantasy in the Pacific".
-F-


(* Rats, I was hoping the little devil-guy would super-size also. Frankly, I was just glad I got to use a word like "alas". *)

< Message edited by Feinder -- 2/28/2006 11:18:44 PM >

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 18
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 2/28/2006 11:57:49 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Come ON!!!! I can't believe people are actually defending these results! This game is never going to improve and any WITP II is going to have just as much extremism in it if you guys don't get a grip and SAY SOMETHING. Unbelievable...12000 is OK...these are not disrupted, they will be OK in two days...bla bla bla. Man!


Have to agree here. 12000 is just too much and 28% are dead like the screen shot of the unit shows. I´m okay with destroying the planes and the airbase but those ground losses are a bit too high for me (and I´m the one who wasn´t on the receiving side).

As an opposite I did several bombardments of Baker where my force and the troops and base of Wolfpack were comparable to the ones of Luganville, where I only did a couple of hundred casualties, no AF damage and no planes destroyed. And there weren´t bunkers, nor ships to battle nor CD counterfire.


< Message edited by castor troy -- 2/28/2006 11:59:25 PM >

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 19
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 2/28/2006 11:59:01 PM   
Sonny

 

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline 		It is even harder to believe that there are no fortification since it is '43. The results may be out of line but no sympathy should be given to anyone who cannot dig a foxhole or two.

_____________________________

Quote from Snigbert -

"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."

"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 20
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/1/2006 12:01:14 AM   
Oznoyng

 

Posts: 818
Joined: 4/16/2004
From: Mars
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Come ON!!!! I can't believe people are actually defending these results! This game is never going to improve and any WITP II is going to have just as much extremism in it if you guys don't get a grip and SAY SOMETHING. Unbelievable...12000 is OK...these are not disrupted, they will be OK in two days...bla bla bla. Man!

And I can't believe you are complaining that roughly 1700 16" shells (each weighing roughly 2000 lbs) and roughly 5 to 10 thousand 8" shells (~250lb each) aren't going to have a profound impact. We are talking the equivalent of a raid by a minimum of 300 fully loaded B-29's. Why, precisely, do you think that many shells will do no damage?

Furthermore, you already should know that casualty numbers do not reflect actual losses, but I will repeat it here. Within a few days, many of those "losses" (disruptions) will be repaired and effective again. They aren't losses that will appear on the intel screen as VP. "12011 casualties reported" doesn't mean 12011 body bags. It means some dead, but also means lots of broken bones, concussions, shell shocks, severe cuts, lost or damaged weapons, etc. The KIA's are in the minority.

Finally, the KIA number will be exagerated in this example because the LCU types are not combat units. I think it is prefectly appropriate that base forces living in tents and quonset huts take severe damage when the player didn't have the engineeers build up any kind of fortifications. Even a size 1 fort would have made a difference. Yet true to form, we act ahistorically and complain about ahistoric results. No commander in their right mind would put that many troops there without at least digging some fox holes and bunkers for troops to shelter in. He didn't do that, assuming he was immune where he was. He paid for it.



< Message edited by Oznoyng -- 3/1/2006 12:08:28 AM >

_____________________________

"There is no Black or White, only shades of Grey."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 21
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/1/2006 12:17:37 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oznoyng

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Come ON!!!! I can't believe people are actually defending these results! This game is never going to improve and any WITP II is going to have just as much extremism in it if you guys don't get a grip and SAY SOMETHING. Unbelievable...12000 is OK...these are not disrupted, they will be OK in two days...bla bla bla. Man!

And I can't believe you are complaining that roughly 1700 16" shells (each weighing roughly 2000 lbs) and roughly 5 to 10 thousand 8" shells (~250lb each) aren't going to have a profound impact. We are talking the equivalent of a raid by a minimum of 300 fully loaded B-29's. Why, precisely, do you think that many shells will do no damage?

Furthermore, you already should know that casualty numbers do not reflect actual losses, but I will repeat it here. Within a few days, many of those "losses" (disruptions) will be repaired and effective again. They aren't losses that will appear on the intel screen as VP. "12011 casualties reported" doesn't mean 12011 body bags. It means some dead, but also means lots of broken bones, concussions, shell shocks, severe cuts, lost or damaged weapons, etc. The KIA's are in the minority.

Finally, the KIA number will be exagerated in this example because the LCU types are not combat units. I think it is prefectly appropriate that base forces living in tents and quonset huts take severe damage when the player didn't have the engineeers build up any kind of fortifications. Even a size 1 fort would have made a difference. Yet true to form, we act ahistorically and complain about ahistoric results. No commander in their right mind would put that many troops there without at least digging some fox holes and bunkers for troops to shelter in. He didn't do that, assuming he was immune where he was. He paid for it.




1700 14 and 18" shells and 10000 8" shells?? Please someone tell me how many HE shells a Japanese BB and CA holds. If those numbers are correct than I might change my mind. Though I have to say then the game is completely broken if I do NO damage to baker with the same amount of shells on Baker!

(in reply to Oznoyng)
Post #: 22
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/1/2006 12:21:39 AM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oznoyng

Within a few days, many of those "losses" (disruptions) will be repaired and effective again.


No, they won't. I don't know how think that is true but I have NEVER seen a unit have more than two elements recover per day. And that's sitting in Pearl with CenPac, high Admin skill leaders, more than twice required support and nearly a million points of supply.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to Oznoyng)
Post #: 23
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/1/2006 12:26:58 AM   
Oznoyng

 

Posts: 818
Joined: 4/16/2004
From: Mars
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
1700 14 and 18" shells and 10000 8" shells?? Please someone tell me how many HE shells a Japanese BB and CA holds. If those numbers are correct than I might change my mind. Though I have to say then the game is completely broken if I do NO damage to baker with the same amount of shells on Baker!


The number 1700 comes from doubling the reported number of shells at Henderson (870) and rounding. Since there were 2 BB's at Henderson and 4 here, I doubled the number. The 10000 comes from a web source that said the IJN CA's carried magazines of 120 per gun. Most of the CA's have 8 or 10 8" guns. There are 8 of them. So, 120 x 8 x 10 = 9600. Since I would not shoot my ammunition all the way out without having a reserve for a naval battle, I assume the commanders would not either. So I dump half my load in the bombardment and keep half in reserve (roughly 5k). The shell weight from what I could tell was 242.5 lbs, near enough 250 to call it that. Since they had a rate of fire of 3 to 5 per minute, we are talking less than an hour to empty the magazines.

_____________________________

"There is no Black or White, only shades of Grey."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 24
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/1/2006 12:28:49 AM   
Oznoyng

 

Posts: 818
Joined: 4/16/2004
From: Mars
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oznoyng

Within a few days, many of those "losses" (disruptions) will be repaired and effective again.


No, they won't. I don't know how think that is true but I have NEVER seen a unit have more than two elements recover per day. And that's sitting in Pearl with CenPac, high Admin skill leaders, more than twice required support and nearly a million points of supply.

Yes, they will. Rate of repair is related to number disrupted. When you are 100 percent disrupted, you will see many of them repair in the first few days, then it will slow down. It may take months to get back to 100 percent, but it will not take weeks to get back to 50 percent.

_____________________________

"There is no Black or White, only shades of Grey."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."

(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 25
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/1/2006 1:01:55 AM   
BLUESBOB

 

Posts: 219
Joined: 8/27/2005
From: Fullerton, Ca.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

BTW, that bombardment TF can be back in 2 days or less to do it again.


For me, the only unrealistic part. You can't get 18" bullets at the CVS drive thru.....but the bombardment results seem fine. You don't want to get bombarded, you'd better have an SCTF in the hex. It doesn't have to be strong enough to win, or even to survive combat. It's a speed bump.


True. I had a TF of PT's, American & Dutch at Amboina. My opponent sent in a couple of CA's, some CL's & DD's to bombard. My PT's engaged and after many reports of the TF's trying to gain the advantage over one another, put a torp in one destroyer. Sent the Jap TF scurrying away w/o a bombardment. It cost me one 4.7 inch hit on one Dutch PT & it survived.


< Message edited by BLUESBOB -- 3/1/2006 1:02:43 AM >

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 26
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/1/2006 2:53:05 AM   
aletoledo


Posts: 827
Joined: 2/4/2005
Status: offline 		with no forts and a really crowded tiny island, I don't see much of a problem to think that this many people weren't affected by the concussion if the blasts and reported as causalties (only to report to duty the next day)

(in reply to BLUESBOB)
Post #: 27
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/1/2006 2:57:01 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		Some probably did not understand what I meant about Fantasy Warfare in the Pacific. The result is not really what I was talking about, it is the mechanics of the game that allow ships( including BBs) to travel 60 MPH when they are bombarding. Here it is: A TF with a speed of 6/6 is 6 hexes away from its target. It travels at top speed 360 miles( 6 hexes ) to the target. Does its bombarment mission in 0 time. That concludes the night phases. then the day naval movement phase arrives and the TF moves 360 miles( 6 hexes ) before the AM air phase. So in 12 hours a bombardment TF moves 720 miles( 60 MPH ) and performs a massive bombardment mission at the same time. Now, anyone ready for some more fantasy Warfare in the Pacific?

_____________________________


(in reply to BLUESBOB)
Post #: 28
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/1/2006 3:11:57 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
quote:

with no forts and a really crowded tiny island,


Yes, but the game doesn't know that's it's a tiny island, and doesn't care how many forts it has. You're applying a "real world" anecdote, to something the game ISN'T taking into consideration. To WitP, it is merely location 72, 107. It is a coastal hex, therefore, it can be bombarded. Nothing more.

You could get the same result bombarding Perth.

And I've got to agree, there is no f'n way that those units will be just fine in a couple days. Even if they were, they don't have a couple days. His opponent has completely anialated that garrison. Maybe there's only 15% dead or whatever (too much anyway), but with the 90% of the rest disrupted his opponent can much more easily wipe out the defenders than he -should- be able to, if the bombardment had been realistic in the first place.

I think an interesting "modifer" would be if you actually have troops on the island. I don't agree with the nukes. But I could see giving higher damage to a bombardment group if there are freindly LCUs there (to represent the land-sea communication of targets. But most of those nuke bombardments are just screaming in on an enemy base. No spotters, no nothing. Just trying to get bearings on a landmark at night (moon or not) is tough.

Sorry, I gotta throw in with the nay-sayers on this one.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 29
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/1/2006 4:13:12 AM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

But most of those nuke bombardments are just screaming in on an enemy base. No spotters, no nothing. Just trying to get bearings on a landmark at night (moon or not) is tough.

Sorry, I gotta throw in with the nay-sayers on this one.


Actually, getting landmarks in the dead of night isn't that hard, moon or no moon. It's even easier if you have radar. Given that the date is early 43, it's possible that at least one ship had been upgraded with radar. And don't forget, Washing Machine Charlie didn't have much problem finding Henderson Field after flying a few hundred miles at night.

However, without radar, the Japanese tended use to either floatplanes dropping flares, so finding the target and ranging on it isn't that big a deal if the floatplane is calling the shots. If the ships are relying on starshell for illumination, then they must be in visual range of the target.

As far as the casualties incurred by this bombardment, I would not consider it out of line if a few hundred troops were killed. The Henderson bombardment of 13/14 Oct 42 saw 41 men killed and 2-3 times that many wounded. Many more would have been killed but the ships were firing AP shells which dug deep into the ground before exploding thereby minimizing casualties and damage.

If Castor Troy's bombardment had resulted in 12000 dead, then I would agree that it was way out of line. But given that the vast majorityof those 12000 were only disrupted. Most will be ready for action fairly quickly. The rest of the damage (airfield and aircraft) are well within reason for that level of bombardment.

I would like for Wolfpack to post a screen shot of the base just before the bombardment so that we can compare the 2 to get a more accurate picture of the casualties.

Anyways, no bones to pick. Just MHO.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Nuke naval bombardment Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.922