Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: Nuke naval bombardment Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/1/2006 4:13:51 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		I was curious about the number of shell fired. This is only one example (USS Iowa) in Vietnam. There are quite a few deck logs available, so I'll do some digging. But it's my son's bed time, so I'll be back.

The next six months self into a steady pace of bombardment and fire support missions along the Vietnamese coast, broken only by brief visits to Subic Bay and replenishment operations at sea. In her first two months on the gun line, New Jersey directed nearly ten thousand rounds of ammunition at Communist targets; over: 3,000 of these shells were 16-inch projectiles.

That's in a 2 month span tho, but very respectable cosidering it's one ship. Also need corrobberating numbers, but we'll see.

-F-

_____________________________

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


(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 31
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/1/2006 4:15:41 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		I guess my biggest objection to this type of foolishness is the system totally ignores the standby naval gunfire support that the USN/Allies developed which completely neutered the coastal defenses of innumerable Japanese held islands and assisted the invading Allied forces to overcome garrision after garrision.
One good night for the IJN in October 1942 governs the whole game...though it's hard to see how the addition of 18 18 inch guns could drive the casualties from 41 up to 12000 plus.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 32
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/1/2006 4:22:00 AM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

One good night for the IJN in October 1942 governs the whole game...though it's hard to see how the addition of 18 18 inch guns could drive the casualties from 41 up to 12000 plus.


From what I've read in this thread there are not actually 12,000 KIA in this example. In addition to the 16-18 additional big guns there are an additional 80-100 8" guns that weren't in the IRL bombardment.

Although I don't have issues with the results of 4 BB's and 8-10 CA's inflicting this kind of damage , I think logistically the way players are able to carry off these bombardments weekly is where the real issue is.


< Message edited by treespider -- 3/1/2006 4:24:50 AM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 33
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/1/2006 6:36:50 AM   
Oznoyng

 

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

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

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

All of which points to another factor in the bombardment and the previous ones that netted little effect. Did anyone else notice that the screenie showed weather for the hex as "Clear"? Maybe weather is factored into the combat result in Bombardments...

_____________________________

"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 ChezDaJez)
Post #: 34
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/1/2006 6:42:41 AM   
Oznoyng

 

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

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
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.

I would agree except for one thing: Guadalcanal was a base barely held, with enemy on the island and units were in defensive positions. At Luganville in this example, Wolfpack found plenty of time to build his port to 6 when the SPS was 3, and his airfield to 6 when his SPS was 3. However, he found no time to build any kind of fortifications. The men here weren't in foxholes, trenches, bunkers, or behind sandbag forts. They were in Quonset huts and tents - and there were no foxholes to dive into when the shooting started. Something else for you to look at: the LCU itself did not have any fort levels.

_____________________________

"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 ChezDaJez)
Post #: 35
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/1/2006 7:20:24 AM   
ChezDaJez


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

However, he found no time to build any kind of fortifications.


No disagreement here. That was actually a point I was going to make but had to finish the post in a hurry. Momma was calling dinner!

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 Oznoyng)
Post #: 36
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/1/2006 10:02:58 AM   
frank1970


Posts: 1678
Joined: 9/1/2000
From: Bayern
Status: offline 		But, would a foxhole help against a 16" grenade landing some feet near you?

I´d say those results would be perfectly good, if all units would sit in a smal defined area, but we are speaking of 3600sqm here. 15000 grenades would mean 5/sqm or simply a not so high propability to hit anything usefull.

Destroying airstrip is ok (is a level 9 airstrip one airfield or several?) Destroying the port the same. Hitting infantry somewhere out there in the jungle, no way.

Just to make you think a little more: There were no DDs fireing, so the TF stood off the coast, reducing the range into the hex even more. The ship could propably reach 5 to 10 miles into the hex, reducing the area hit even more. Why are all airfields built near the coastline? why aren´t they 35 miles inlan and out of reach for naval fire?
The actual routine seems quite right for minor atolls or small islands, but for coast hexes? Ridiculous!

< Message edited by Frank -- 3/1/2006 10:03:28 AM >

_____________________________

If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!

"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"


(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 37
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/1/2006 2:30:55 PM   
el cid again

 

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

The next six months self into a steady pace of bombardment and fire support missions along the Vietnamese coast, broken only by brief visits to Subic Bay and replenishment operations at sea. In her first two months on the gun line, New Jersey directed nearly ten thousand rounds of ammunition at Communist targets; over: 3,000 of these shells were 16-inch projectiles.


Actually, the USS New Jersey was severely limited in ammunition expendature. Unlike in WWI, both in practice and on the gun line off the DMZ, she fired ONLY single shots, never a salvo or turret salvo. [I was present the first day she fired a practice shot off San Clemente Island and also the first day she fired in anger off the DMZ, both in 1968. I was supposed to protect her from an enemy missile attack, and more or less stuck to her like glue.] The tubes shoot out the riflings in an astonishingly short time: she carries 1800 rounds of 16 inch, and she cannot fire her entire magazine twice without losing all her tubes as accurate weapons. We DID have an extra set of barrols at Subic, but they were NOT used.
New Jersey DID fire a little over 3000 rounds - but in 18 months - not 2 months - and then she went home - the decision to pay to rebarrol her having not been made.

The record for rapid fire of heavy guns in Viet Nam is held by USS Newport News - a des Moines class cruiser with automatic 8 inch guns. She once was engaged by a shore battery - briefly. She "silenced the battery" with over 200 heavy rounds (counting 5 inch and 8 inch) - I forget the exact number - in less than 5 minutes.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 38
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/1/2006 2:35:04 PM   
el cid again

 

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

Although I don't have issues with the results of 4 BB's and 8-10 CA's inflicting this kind of damage , I think logistically the way players are able to carry off these bombardments weekly is where the real issue is.


IF you did the right sort of planning, it could be done every two or three nights. Certainly the Japanese did this with destroyers and light cruisers.
But in the real world, Japan had astonishingly little ammunition, and surprisingly little capacity to make ammunition. It could not keep this up long unless it planned to do so and took appropriate steps - or unless it was gambling the war would end soon - which is the real world case in a way.

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 39
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/1/2006 2:38:31 PM   
el cid again

 

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

I guess my biggest objection to this type of foolishness is the system totally ignores the standby naval gunfire support that the USN/Allies developed which completely neutered the coastal defenses of innumerable Japanese held islands and assisted the invading Allied forces to overcome garrision after garrision.


Uh - oops. Didn't happen. It was regarded as "almost unbelievable anyone could be alive" under the immense weight of US bombardments, but actually they did NOT destroy the coastal defenses of Japanese islands. This is why casualties were so high. These were frontal assaults against prepared positions - no clever moves at all - and never once was surprise achieved (Japanese intel ALWAYS knew the next objective). The campaign in the Central Pacific is amazing for its lack of imagination - and its simple brutality. Battleships and cruisers and bombers did NOT neutralize the defenses - and we knew they would not - but landed anyway. It might have been smarter to do what we did at Truk and Rabaul - kill the planes and then starve em.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 40
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/1/2006 2:40:48 PM   
Feinder


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

IF you did the right sort of planning, it could be done every two or three nights. Certainly the Japanese did this with destroyers and light cruisers.


I guess you go back to the limitation on reloads by port-size debate then...

-F-

_____________________________

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


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 41
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/1/2006 2:42:11 PM   
el cid again

 

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

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.


When the war began Japan operated two types of unique (no other country had ANY) planes from light cruisers - a tiny flying boat and a seaplane - painted all black and often unarmed. These planes had the range to fly all night - and they were slow - and the spotters were blindfolded by day and fed special diets to improve their vision. They were actually above the battle the night of Savo - we could hear them - but we did not understand they were spotting and informing the enemy what they could see. These planes are not in our game, nor does code allow us to add them (no function for them).

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 42
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/1/2006 4:41:12 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		(in reply to El Cid again)

OOPS YOURSELF.... the vaunted coast defense guns you've been touting in another thread inflicted very little damage on the transports carrying the marines and infantry that actually took the islands. Yes, brute force frontal attacks were required by selfsame infantry to take the islands but the invasion fleets operated in near impunity from the CD guns on those islands feeding in the continual stream of replacements and supply that guaranteed the isolated garrisions would be overcome. The CD guns were neutralized by the USN bombardments...maybe not knocked out but rendered ineffective either by damage or because the crews didn't want to attract attention to themselves by firing their weapons.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 43
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/1/2006 6:22:04 PM   
Oznoyng

 

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

ORIGINAL: Feinder

quote:

IF you did the right sort of planning, it could be done every two or three nights. Certainly the Japanese did this with destroyers and light cruisers.


I guess you go back to the limitation on reloads by port-size debate then...

-F-

And once that is added, something else will take it's place.

_____________________________

"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 Feinder)
Post #: 44
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/1/2006 6:27:56 PM   
Oznoyng

 

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

ORIGINAL: Frank

But, would a foxhole help against a 16" grenade landing some feet near you?

I´d say those results would be perfectly good, if all units would sit in a smal defined area, but we are speaking of 3600sqm here. 15000 grenades would mean 5/sqm or simply a not so high propability to hit anything usefull.

Actually, the forces are in a small area. The island is 50 miles by 50 miles (estimated). The base is on the southwest tip of the island, and all of the men would be concentrated there, where the airbases and port facilities were. The base itself was within a much smaller area than you suppose. Therefore, so were the men.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank
Destroying airstrip is ok (is a level 9 airstrip one airfield or several?) Destroying the port the same. Hitting infantry somewhere out there in the jungle, no way.

Just to make you think a little more: There were no DDs fireing, so the TF stood off the coast, reducing the range into the hex even more. The ship could propably reach 5 to 10 miles into the hex, reducing the area hit even more. Why are all airfields built near the coastline? why aren´t they 35 miles inlan and out of reach for naval fire?
The actual routine seems quite right for minor atolls or small islands, but for coast hexes? Ridiculous!

Because this is the South Pacific. Building inland means cutting roads through very nasty terrain so avgas, bombs, bullets, food, etc can be delivered.

_____________________________

"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 frank1970)
Post #: 45
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/1/2006 7:02:18 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oznoyng


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

quote:

IF you did the right sort of planning, it could be done every two or three nights. Certainly the Japanese did this with destroyers and light cruisers.


I guess you go back to the limitation on reloads by port-size debate then...

-F-

And once that is added, something else will take it's place.


What kind of attitude is that? Don't fix something because they will only bitch about something else.


_____________________________





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

(in reply to Oznoyng)
Post #: 46
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/1/2006 10:08:50 PM   
ChezDaJez


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

But, would a foxhole help against a 16" grenade landing some feet near you?


If a 16" shell lands within 50 feet of you, probably not. But where it really helps is in reducing your exposure to shrapnel, which killed/damaged far more people/things than concussion ever did.

I can think of few other things that would be more terrifying than standing on an open plain completely devoid of any defensive measures with tons of shells/bombs landing all around me. You can be assured that I would have a foxhole dug in milliseconds even if it meant using bare hands!

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 frank1970)
Post #: 47
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/2/2006 12:37:04 AM   
aletoledo


Posts: 827
Joined: 2/4/2005
Status: offline
quote:


The record for rapid fire of heavy guns in Viet Nam is held by USS Newport News - a des Moines class cruiser with automatic 8 inch guns. She once was engaged by a shore battery - briefly. She "silenced the battery" with over 200 heavy rounds (counting 5 inch and 8 inch) - I forget the exact number - in less than 5 minutes.

wow! that must have been something...from the bridge: "fire at will!"

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 48
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/2/2006 2:06:20 PM   
timtom


Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

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.


We don't see many Allied shoot-'nd-scoot missions, not least, presumably, because an Allied TF would have to spend several turns inside the Betty envelope. No such worries for the IJN - they start the sprint outside the range of any Allied aircraft that can realistically hurt them much. There's of course the 2,000-lbs AP bomb rule, but with 7 die rolls to pass, it seems unlikely that things are going to come together at the crucial moment. Still, for those of you who enjoy playing with PDU's, it's another reason to get rid for your mediums.

I'd like to see aircraft target selection linked to the aircrafts actual ability to hurt the target. Thus a bombatdment TF's light units would be at risk when entering with Allied LBA range. This way there'd at least be some kind of potential penalty, rather than have the mediums queue up to scrape the paint off Combined Fleet's BB's. This routine incidentally also means that the A6M series makes a lousy kamikaze, because they're likely to waste themselves on high-value, armoured targets they can't hope to hurt.






_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 49
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/2/2006 2:56:34 PM   
Feinder


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

This routine incidentally also means that the A6M series makes a lousy kamikaze, because they're likely to waste themselves on high-value, armoured targets they can't hope to hurt.


How very true. In my campaign '45 game vs. Olie, I had 3 Kamikazes become one with USS Colorado, and 2 more vs. Indiana.

According to Oli, scratching the pain would be an overstatement (I believe him, no penetration, no sparks on the animation, no nothing).

-F-

_____________________________

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


(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 50
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/2/2006 3:16:45 PM   
el cid again

 

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

I guess you go back to the limitation on reloads by port-size debate then...


I want to hard code it. Until I can (hopefully fairly soon), I may have to come up with house rules. But without real logistics it is not a simulation of anything.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 51
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/2/2006 3:24:12 PM   
el cid again

 

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

the vaunted coast defense guns you've been touting in another thread inflicted very little damage on the transports carrying the marines and infantry that actually took the islands. Yes, brute force frontal attacks were required by selfsame infantry to take the islands but the invasion fleets operated in near impunity from the CD guns on those islands feeding in the continual stream of replacements and supply that guaranteed the isolated garrisions would be overcome. The CD guns were neutralized by the USN bombardments...maybe not knocked out but rendered ineffective either by damage or because the crews didn't want to attract attention to themselves by firing their weapons.


Really? I suppose it may be terminology, but the vaunted coast defense guns I was talking about were at places we NEVER landed. Perhaps not by accident. There were many regiments of guns - CD and otherwise - dug in around Rabaul - and we never challenged them. Nor even at Truk - or Singapore. And those were all fairly small guns by the standards of the pre-war forts I claim were the best in the world (following John Campbell's evaluation). Not only did we never neutralize them, we never even tried to neutralize them. On the islands we DID engage with heavy bombardments, we faced (typically) 5.5 inch SP guns in open positions - not even concealed - not behind hills or berms - but right in the open (see photographs of positions in places we didn't attack).
It is only a variation if the guns were 4.7 inch (12 cm vs 14 cm) - and I never said that such weapons in unconcealed positions were going to do well against battleships.

Also, it appears the surviving guns were doctrinally required to shoot at the landing craft and troops debarking - rather than the ships. In 1945 the doctrine may have changed, but the war ended before the new "go for the troopships" concept was actually tested in battle. When they are not shooting at your ships in the f irst place, it hardly is convincing evidence when they don't hit them!

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 52
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/2/2006 3:27:42 PM   
el cid again

 

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


But, would a foxhole help against a 16" grenade landing some feet near you?

If a 16" shell lands within 50 feet of you, probably not. But where it really helps is in reducing your exposure to shrapnel, which killed/damaged far more people/things than concussion ever did.

I can think of few other things that would be more terrifying than standing on an open plain completely devoid of any defensive measures with tons of shells/bombs landing all around me. You can be assured that I would have a foxhole dug in milliseconds even if it meant using bare hands!


16 inch shells fired by USS New Jersey in 1968 on San Clemente Island caused craters about 200 feet in diameter. I would not want to be right beside that crater either - in a foxhole or otherwise - when the shell went off. What kills you is overpressure. And that is probably an issue for on the order of 100 yards from the impact point if you are superbly protected, and several hundred yards if you are not.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/2/2006 3:28:56 PM >

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 53
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/2/2006 5:25:51 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		What I don't understand is, why I -never- get any nuke bombardments.

I own Akyab (as Allies). My guys have bunkers inside of their bunkers. My opponent has 2 divisions mulling around outside, with no forts. I have complete air superiority, and recons flying all the time (so the enemy's detection level must be maxxed out).

You'd think my gunners could find a tactical nuke somewhere in the ammo stores, but no....


===


Naval bombardment of Akyab, at 30,29

Allied Ships
DD Thanet
CA Exeter
BC Repulse
CL Emerald
CL Glasgow
CA Devonshire
CA Cornwall
CA Dorsetshire
CLAA Caledon
CLAA Ceres
BB Resolution
BB Royal Sovereign
BB Revenge
CL Enterprise
CL Birmingham
CL Newcastle
DD Thracian
DD Encounter
DD Fortune
DD Hotspur
DD Isis
DD Napier
DD Nestor
DD Decoy
DD Inconstant

Japanese ground losses:
154 casualties reported
Guns lost 4


===

And yes, they were fully armed with heavy shells (I was actually hoping for a surface engagment).

Not really complaining. I think bombardments -are- overpowered. This might be more in line. It might be on the light side. While I have been the recipient of nukes before, I have never managed to deliver one myself.

(* sigh *)

One day...

-F-

< Message edited by Feinder -- 3/2/2006 5:26:58 PM >

_____________________________

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


(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 54
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/2/2006 5:33:26 PM   
Ursa MAior

 

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline 		Somewhere it is stated in the Manual that all TFs axcept transport suffer disorganization or whatever if they consist of more than 15 ships. I did bomb PM recently (6/42) with 4 CAs 2 CLs and 8 DDs. My oppnent lost 50+ planes but few men.

_____________________________


Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 55
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/2/2006 5:44:17 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		I think it's "diminishing return" on ships in TF over 15. But no penalties to the first 15 ships.

As in, the ships in line 16 thru 25 will contribute less than their maximum (maybe 50%), but that they -do- contribute. The first 15 ships contribute 100% however. So a TF with 25 ships in it is better than one with 15. However, one with 15 and one with 10, would be better than one with 25...

-F-

_____________________________

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


(in reply to Ursa MAior)
Post #: 56
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/2/2006 5:51:02 PM   
Oznoyng

 

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

ORIGINAL: Feinder

What I don't understand is, why I -never- get any nuke bombardments.

I own Akyab (as Allies). My guys have bunkers inside of their bunkers. My opponent has 2 divisions mulling around outside, with no forts. I have complete air superiority, and recons flying all the time (so the enemy's detection level must be maxxed out).

You'd think my gunners could find a tactical nuke somewhere in the ammo stores, but no....


===


Naval bombardment of Akyab, at 30,29

Allied Ships
DD Thanet
CA Exeter
BC Repulse
CL Emerald
CL Glasgow
CA Devonshire
CA Cornwall
CA Dorsetshire
CLAA Caledon
CLAA Ceres
BB Resolution
BB Royal Sovereign
BB Revenge
CL Enterprise
CL Birmingham
CL Newcastle
DD Thracian
DD Encounter
DD Fortune
DD Hotspur
DD Isis
DD Napier
DD Nestor
DD Decoy
DD Inconstant

Japanese ground losses:
154 casualties reported
Guns lost 4


===

And yes, they were fully armed with heavy shells (I was actually hoping for a surface engagment).

Not really complaining. I think bombardments -are- overpowered. This might be more in line. It might be on the light side. While I have been the recipient of nukes before, I have never managed to deliver one myself.

(* sigh *)

One day...

-F-

The problem is one of perception versus reality. 154 casualties and 4 guns does not mean 154 dead and 4 guns destroyed. It may mean 154 wounded and 4 guns damaged. If the combat report accurately reflected ground losses, this might be appropriate. However, it doesn't. When you see a number like 12000 casualties, it doesn't mean 12000 died in the attack.

Henderson Field is not the "top end" of potential bombardment results. Henderson field was the result of 2 BB's and a CL. Take 6 BB's and 6 CA's, and the results could have been worse.

As for you never getting nuke bombardments, has it ever occurred to you that you don't because your opponent doesn't allow you the opportunities that Wolfpack allowed castor troy?

_____________________________

"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 Feinder)
Post #: 57
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/2/2006 5:56:40 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		Well, considering that this game was started in v1.2, has been going on for over 2 years, and the fact that I have 4 PBEM going, and I have made -many- bombardments both as Japan and as Allies, I have come to the conclusion that there is a snipit of code that says 

If strPlayer = "Feinder" then
  Set objAmmo = objSoapBubbles
End if.



-F-

< Message edited by Feinder -- 3/2/2006 6:13:43 PM >

_____________________________

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


(in reply to Oznoyng)
Post #: 58
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/2/2006 6:15:42 PM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline 		Let me guess, there are no enemy support units in the hex? Infantry units suffer very little from naval bombardments.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 59
RE: Nuke naval bombardment - 3/2/2006 6:25:04 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		Very good point String. Could very well be. But I don't have any way of knowing what enemy HQ units are present (don't show on ground combat). I do know they don't have any ENG units.

-F-

_____________________________

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


(in reply to String)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Nuke naval bombardment Page: <<   < prev  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

1.984