Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Thoughts on mines...

 
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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Thoughts on mines... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Thoughts on mines... - 6/13/2002 6:19:37 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
I'm no expert on mining, but I can throw a few thoughts into the debate based on my testing with the patch release candidates.

The main changes to mine warfare since v1.00 are:

- Reloads available only at Truk and Noumea

- Minefields that are in deep water decay quickly and start out quite ineffective (note that in the patch you can now see shallow water locations by pressing F2).

- Minefields that are not at a friendly base or beach location will be considered "offensive", which is another way of saying they are not as well tended. They have an increased chance of hitting your own ships, though it's still much lower than the chance of the enemy hitting them.

- Minesweepers will now sweep enemy and "offensive" minefields.

In v1.00 player reports and my own PBEM experience, I did notice a tendency for certain areas to become quite clogged with mines. Even though deep water mines were very ineffective, they still worked well enough to encourage mass mining. Minelayers would mine the Slot for instance, run back to Shortlands and then mine some more.

I think everyone at Matrix realized that the mine rules were being exploited to a degree and that they needed a second look. Paul Vebber was certainly invaluable in this as he has a lot of experience in this field professionally and was happy to provide a lot of input to the public and development forums.

With the patch changes, I see mining as much less exploitable and more historical. Mining heavily all over the map means you now need to keep minefields from decaying and that you need to sweep your own offensive minefields. This tends to discourage "overmining" in locations that you can't easily maintain, particularly for the unrealistic overmining of deep water hexes.

According to Paul, the US had their mine depot in Noumea through the entire period of UV. I don't believe this would be all that easy or quick to relocate. I know there's concern over Truk as a mine depot. Give the patch a try, see if in the first week or two your concerns are borne out with game practice. If so, and we'll continue to evaluate as well, we can always take a third look.

The only thing I can say for sure is that we keep an eye on things and if we can find a better solution that is not too resource-intensive to implement, I'm sure we'd do it. For now, though, give the new rules a try before closing the book on them. Personally, based on vs. Computer and PBEM play, I'm very satisfied with the changes Mike and Paul have come up with.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 31
HMAS Bungaree - 6/13/2002 6:26:18 AM   
Slaughtermeyer


Posts: 156
Joined: 5/10/2002
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline
The Australian minelayer Bungaree arrived in Noumea in May of 1942 according to [URL=http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/lpa52manoora/manooraww2.htm]http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/lpa52manoora/manooraww2.htm[/URL]
This ship is not present in UV. Australian industry eventually produced over 12,000 naval mines during WW2. This means that either the Bungaree went to Noumea either to get mines from there or else to use Australian-produced mines to mine Noumea defensively. I don't know when Australian industry actually started producing its own mines.

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 32
Re: Thoughts on mines... - 6/13/2002 6:45:41 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins
[B] Paul Vebber was certainly invaluable in this as he has a lot of experience in this field professionally and was happy to provide a lot of input to the public and development forums.

With the patch changes, I see mining as much less exploitable and more historical. Mining heavily all over the map means you now need to keep minefields from decaying and that you need to sweep your own offensive minefields. This tends to discourage "overmining" in locations that you can't easily maintain, particularly for the unrealistic overmining of deep water hexes.

According to Paul, the US had their mine depot in Noumea through the entire period of UV. I don't believe this would be all that easy or quick to relocate. I know there's concern over Truk as a mine depot. Give the patch a try, see if in the first week or two your concerns are borne out with game practice. If so, and we'll continue to evaluate as well, we can always take a third look.

[/B][/QUOTE]

I don't doubt Paul's expertise, as I have no reason to. Yet. ;)

However, the issue isn't where the mine warfare ops center was actually located historically during this period, its about the PRINCIPLE of operational flexibilty. I guarantee you if the Japanese hadn't gone after Guadalcanal and the Solomons chain and instead focussed all the action in New Guinea, the Op Center would have MOVED to be closer to it, such as in Townsville or PM.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 33
Another method - 6/13/2002 7:03:08 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, Is it possible to detirmine how many mines per month were available per side (like barges and PT boats) They could be created in the same manner.

_____________________________






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

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 34
Re: Thoughts on mines... - 6/13/2002 7:09:40 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins
[B]
The only thing I can say for sure is that we keep an eye on things and if we can find a better solution that is not too resource-intensive to implement, I'm sure we'd do it. For now, though, give the new rules a try before closing the book on them. Personally, based on vs. Computer and PBEM play, I'm very satisfied with the changes Mike and Paul have come up with.

Regards,

- Erik [/B][/QUOTE]

How resource intensive would it be to

1. Create a new class of unit, a Mine Engineer Unit., add that unit to starting locations Noumea and Truk at start of all scenarios. Unit characteristics : 18 x Mine Engineer Squads, 4 x Engineer Vehicles, 24 x Support Squads.

Note : A Mine Engineer Squad is the same as a Support Squad for purposes of combat and construction, and does not provide support of any kind. Its only function is to enable the loading of mines.

2. Code to allow loading of mines only when

a) At least 10 Mine Engineers are present
b) Port Size of at least 2

Errors on attempt to load mines : "Insufficient Mine Engineers" or "Port too small to load mines"

3. Code supply cost to mine loading of X supply per mine (specific number to be worked out in playtesting).

4. Add replacements to the replacements database for Mine Engineers. About 2 per month per side.

Huh huh? Can we spike huh?

This scheme would have zero interface changes, 2 additional text error messages, some validation code.

In addition to all the other changes you have coming up in the patch for mine warfare, I think we'd have a great system.

All of the current issues would be mitigated by the following fallout results :

1. Mines would be expensive. A single mine run might take more than 1000 supplies, meaning you can't do it all the time, and most likely you'll want to keep the MWOC (Mine Warfare Op Center) at a large port with plentiful supplies.

2. Since you have a min port size, you couldn't move it to a pithy island unless you built up the port first, again at a huge logistics cost.

3. Mine Engineers are precious and rare. Best not to place your Mine warfare center in anything except a well protected location. The enemy could bomb the location of the Mine Engineer Unit and cause enough disruption to make it impossible to load mines. Also, the "Malaria Effect" could make it impossible to load mines if a Mine Engineer Unit remains too long in a Malaria zone.

4. MOST IMPORTANTLY : The player has the flexibility to move the MWOC, even if he doesn't need to or want to. But, he CAN if the Operational situation demands it.

5. You save dev cost in WitP, because this system will most likely work there in concept and implementation - you might need to up the replacement levels and add two or three additional MWOCs.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 35
Political - 6/13/2002 7:30:48 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
Quoting Al Nofti/Dunnigan and in the book 'Victory at Sea?'
or Victory in the Pacific':

This is from memory so bear with me:

Mines were not used extensively in the early stages of the war
because they had no LOBBY. No one was pushing for their use.

No ones career was enhanced by clever deployment. You could never 'prove' anything definatively.

The sub commander WILL get kudos from torpedoeing tonnage.
He DOESNT get kudos for sneaking into Tokyo bay and releasing 50 mines.

No one is standing outside saying how brave they were to go lay that field.

No one denies the 'effectiveness' of the tool of war. Its just that we are all human. We promote things that benifit US.

Sorry for the spelling

(that is what I meant by 'political')

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 36
Mine depots in Australia - 6/13/2002 8:04:17 AM   
Slaughtermeyer


Posts: 156
Joined: 5/10/2002
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline
The 55th Battalion Seabees arrived in Brisbane on March 25 1943 and constructed mine depots in the Brisbane and Cairns area according to [URL=http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/ozatwar/55seabees.htm]http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/ozatwar/55seabees.htm[/URL]
The mine depot near Brisbane is referred to as a "mine assembly depot."

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 37
- 6/13/2002 1:32:26 PM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline
Johnson, Ellis A., and David A. Katcher. Mines Against Japan. Silver Spring, Md.: Naval Ordnance Laboratory, 1973. 313 pp. -
A record of mine warfare activities in the Pacific Theater during World War II.


" The structure of the Navy's Mine Force has changed dramatically throughout history, in stride with the structure of the Navy in general. During World War II, the Navy's mine warfare assets were in the charge of Commander, Service Squadron FIVE in the Atlantic. Commander, Service Squadron SIX commanded assets in the Pacific Fleet early in the war, followed by the first true MCM type command, Minecraft, U.S. Pacific Fleet. In the postwar reorganization of the fleets, seven type commands were created, each responsible for the condition and readiness of different types of ships, including the Mine Force. In 1946, Mine Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet (MINELANT) was created. The Pacific Fleet followed suit in 1947, establishing MINEPAC."

Lott, Arnold S. Most Dangerous Sea: A History of Mine Warfare and an Account of U.S. Navy Mine Warfare Operations in World War II and Korea. Annapolis: U.S. Naval Institute, 1959. 322 pp.

From another site :

"The History Locker
Voices From the Past

"We agree that the mine warfare conducted by American planes.....produced a very great strategical effect; it quickly reduced our war potential and hastened the end of the war."

"The mine warfare coupled with the bombing raids prevented our utilizing our war strength and completely nullified our plans to the extent of forcing us to abandon them."

"The results of .... mining was so effective against the shipping that it eventually starved the country. I think you probably could have shortened the war by beginning (mining) earlier.

"Mine warfare, in short, was merely another phase of air warfare."

"Many ship casualties thought to be from submarine attack were actually due to mines."

"I think the planes used in mining were more effective than an equal number used in bombing."

"In my opinion the main reason for the war's ending unsuccessfully.... was the lack of cooperation between the scientists and the military. They (the scientists) got no cooperations."

Taken from the consensus of opinion of all Japanese mine experts as presented by Captain Kyuzo Tamura (later Admiral) at the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey Conference (1945). The Vice Chairman of the conference was Mr. Paul Nitze, later Secretary of the Navy and Defense, and the interrogator was Commander Tom Moorer, later Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The mine effectiveness referred to was the 12,500 mines planted by B-29s in the Japanese home waters in the final five months of the war. "

=========

"In April, 1950, Admiral Forrest P. Sherman, Chief of Naval Operations, approved a report from his planners which described mine countermeasures as "...the only countermeasures which seems to offer the possibility of being cheap enough to make peacetime readiness practical." The report went on to warn that "...the great danger is that if mine countermeasures continues to be neglected, large wartime appropriations for countermeasures will be almost useless because the fundamental development will still have to be done first."

In October of that year, after suffering seven ship casualties and having a 250 ship invasion fleet with 50,000 Marines held up for seven days past D-Day off Wonsan, Korea, all due to mines, Admiral Sherman accepted another report. This report, from Rear Admiral Alan E. (Hoke) Smith, Commander of the Amphibious Force, contained the often quoted statement, "We have lost control of the seas to a nation without a Navy, using pre-World War I weapons, laid by vessels that were utilized at the time of the Birth of Christ."

The above was taken from a briefing to senior Navy officials by Dr. Tamara Moser Melia on May 6, 1991 - three months after the Marines had been denied the invasion beaches of Kuwait by mines. "

Guess what? You never read about the hold up of invasion fleets due to mines. I realize this was in Korea, not WW2. But I'm throwing what I have here. This is what I've been referring to as "course correction" or "avoidance". Sucks up massive resources.

=========

From the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Website :

"Mines in World War II, 1939-1945
As had been the case in World War I, mine warfare played a key role during World War II. Between 1939 and 1945, these weapons sank more than 1,100 Allied ships. The United States alone lost 108 ships sunk and 85 ships damaged.

Axis losses from mines were even more severe. Between them, Germany, Japan, and Italy lost more than 1,300 vessels, with an additional 540 ships damaged. More than 1,000 Japanese ships were damaged or sunk by mines - more than from any other single source.

With numbers such as these, mine countermeasures could not be ignored. As usual, Great Britain led the way with experimentation and research. And again, the U.S. Navy benefited from the Royal Navy's experience. But by war's end, the United States had the world's largest minesweeping fleet and had built up its own experience levels.

Even so, the new generations of sea mines that appeared during the war - and even older types of mines developed earlier in the century - continued to have a significant influence on naval operations throughout this global conflict. World War II featured significant improvements in mine countermeasures, particularly against the moored contact mines that essentially were carry-over weapons from the previous war. However, while the Allies could contain or work around the threat posed by new influence mines that emerged during the war, they never decisively neutralized them.

=======

More from the Chief of Naval Operations Website :

"MCM Operational Lessons: The Pacific
U.S. and other Allied forces in the Pacific also faced a daunting mine warfare task. Fortunately, the Japanese rarely used mines offensively, mainly confining their activities to laying defensive fields - many of them off their own coast. Japanese forces used some German-type magnetic mines, but most of the weapons they laid were copies of old British contact mines.

For many operations in the Pacific, U.S. minesweeping task groups consisted of small yard motor minesweepers, fleet minesweepers, and destroyer-minesweepers conducting exploratory sweeps in front of the assembling assault forces. From 1942 until 1944, these mine countermeasures craft were assigned to Service Squadron 6. But in October 1944 they came under the administrative and operational command of Minecraft, Pacific Fleet - commanded by Rear Admiral Alexander Sharp, who had voluntarily gave up one star to take command of this centralized mine command.


RADM Alexander Sharp

Service Squadron 6 continued to grow throughout the war so that by the invasion of Okinawa in April 1945, Sharp controlled the largest minesweeping force in the history of the U.S. Navy. Moreover, as noted by Chief of Naval Operation Ernest J. King, minesweeping operations at Okinawa occurred "on a scale greater than in any previous operation." Admiral King's report to the Secretary of the Navy, described the mine clearance operation off Okinawa:

The mine sweepers were in the van, and on L-minus-8 day [eight days before invasion], 24 March, commenced sweeping under cover of gunfire from battleships of the Fast Carrier Force, and continued this work up to L-day, 1 April. There were 75 sweepers; and the entire coastal perimeter of southern Okinawa was cleared of mines during this pre-assault phase, in addition to the sweeping necessary for the capture of Kerama Retto and Ie Shima. Including re-sweeping, over 3,000 square miles were swept and declared safe prior to L-day. Some 177 mines were swept and about 80 floaters destroyed. The thoroughness of this task is evidenced by the safety with which bombardment and assault ships in great numbers closed the assault beaches without significant loss from mines.

Okinawa may have been the largest minesweeping operation in the Pacific, but the severest test came in June 1945 before the Australian amphibious assault against Balikpapan in Dutch Borneo. Here, Allied mine forces faced a deadly mix of Japanese contact mines and various types of influence mines laid earlier in the war by U.S. and Allied forces defending the area. Several of these fields were also covered by Japanese coastal defenses. All told, the Allies spent sixteen days prior to the 1 July invasion clearing mines, with the bulk of the work being carried out by the U.S. Navy's versatile, wooden-hulled YMSs . Nevertheless, the high-quality target detectors on previously laid U.S. mines sank seven of these vessels, while several more were destroyed or damaged by Japanese coastal guns. The waters off the assault beaches ultimately were cleared, but at high price.

As was the case in the Atlantic, conditions in the Pacific theater also led to innovations in minesweeping gear and techniques. The MCM craft doing pre-invasion sweeping required the ability to do so quickly and in shallow water. To this end, they were fitted with lighter minesweeping equipment adapted from German gear by Mine Station Solomons Island. Minesweepers in the Pacific also used an NOL-produced towed electromagnetic detector capable of finding mines buried in shallow water off invasion beaches. Meanwhile, the Navy Electronic Laboratory in San Diego developed QLA, the first mine-hunting sonar, in 1944. Nine U.S. submarines were fitted with this system, allowing them to navigate more safely through Japanese mine fields.

U.S. mine countermeasure developments were not all technology-related - some of the most effective were decidedly low-technology. An example of this can be found in the wartime work of U.S. divers in both the Pacific and the Atlantic. Closely integrated into all pre-invasion mine clearance operations, Explosive Ordnance Demolition (EOD) divers usually disposed of mines discovered by other minesweeping units. EOD and Underwater Demolition Teams (UDT) also examined the approaches to selected assault beaches in the days before a landing took place to scout for enemy mines and to mark swept channels. These activities sometimes took place under fire - UDT swimmers reconnoitering the waters off Iwo Jima in February 1945 came under intense fire when the Japanese responded to the presence of the landing craft supporting their operations. "

Dgaad notes : This is another example of the ENORMOUS resources that must be expended to "clear" areas of suspected minefields. Its not insignificant, and has a MAJOR tactical impact on operations.

========

Rather than post bits and pieces of the Chief of Naval Operations site which has good information on Mine Warfare Operations in the Pacific in WW2, I encourage everyone to go to this link :

[URL=http://www.exwar.org/1800_history/mine/mine.htm]Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (USN) Website[/URL]

=======

More coming as I find it.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 38
- 6/13/2002 1:37:53 PM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline
Here is a link to a listing of all Minecraft Ships of the US Navy in the Pacific and Atlantic during WW2. Note the number of THESE ships lost to mines, and the locations of their strikes being all over the place :

[URL=http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/ships-dm.html]Minecraft Ships of the US Navy [/URL]

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 39
Re: Re: Mining made useless - 6/13/2002 2:53:18 PM   
Didz


Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spooky
[B]
Mines were only effective in shallow waters ... wich is not affected by this 50% decay rate :) [/B][/QUOTE]

An added problem being that at present its not possible to be 100% certain whether a hex is classed as shallow or deep for mining purposes. Matrix have confirmed that the water colouration on the map is not an accurate indication of water depth. So laying mines is a bit Hit & Miss at the minute.

Having just read through the excellent postings already made here from dgaad and Erik I note that this is being sorted out in the patch and in future you will be able to determine a shallow water hex by pressing F2.

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 40
Re: Thoughts on mines... - 6/13/2002 3:33:31 PM   
Didz


Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins
[B]In v1.00 player reports and my own PBEM experience, I did notice a tendency for certain areas to become quite clogged with mines. Even though deep water mines were very ineffective, they still worked well enough to encourage mass mining. Minelayers would mine the Slot for instance, run back to Shortlands and then mine some more.

I think everyone at Matrix realized that the mine rules were being exploited to a degree and that they needed a second look. Paul Vebber was certainly invaluable in this as he has a lot of experience in this field professionally and was happy to provide a lot of input to the public and development forums.

- Erik [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi Erik,

I can understand the reason for concern but what I am not clear about is whether the objective is to discourage player strategies like Mining the slot because they are not historically feasible or because nobody actually did it.

Clearly, if players have merely discovered an alternative strategy for interdicting ships passing through the slot then there is no real reason why the game should be altered to stop them using it.

However, if in reality that strategy was not practical in then the reason it was not practical should be modelled into the program so that all mining operations are appropriately restricted.

From what I have read it would seem that, whether or not mining the slot should be a feasible strategy, the changes being proposed to stop it are not an accurate reflection of the actual limitations on the use of mines.

For instance the limitation of mine loading to Truk and Noumea seems to be just an arbitarty game mechanism to discourage players from using mines. And even if Truk and Noumea were the only bases historically to have a Mine loading facility the suggestion that players wishing to adopt a mine focused strategy should not be allowed to build one somewhere else would be no different than preventing them building an airbase at a location that never really had a one or adding a ship to to a TF with ships it never actually served with.

Personally, I would like to see the solution to this problem discussed in a bit more detail on this forum and a better understanding reached before any major changes are made to the way Mine Warfare works in the game.

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 41
Re: Re: Thoughts on mines... - 6/14/2002 1:09:10 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz
[B]

Hi Erik,

I can understand the reason for concern but what I am not clear about is whether the objective is to discourage player strategies like Mining the slot because they are not historically feasible or because nobody actually did it.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Good post Didz. The Slot was mined by the US, and resulted in the loss of something like 4 DDs, damage to a CA, damage to a BB, probably sunk a sub or two, and damage / sinking of an indeterminate number of smaller ships and transports. Japanese mining doctrine was primarily defensive, they laid very few offensive minefields, so their mining was limited mostly to port protection. This caused immense problems later in the War as the US went over to the offensive in areas that had been held by the Japanese and heavily mined (such as in Indonesia, the PI, and Japan itself). Mines layed in WW2 accounted for losses of, or damage to, ships in the Pacific as late as 1950 according to my information.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 42
- 6/14/2002 6:51:38 PM   
Didz


Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline
I had more or less given up on Mines having laid a lot around Noumea without seeing any benefit and having realised that as a result my convoys were now making lengthy detours in and out of port. So, I decided to put my DM's in mothballs.

However, before this I had laid three minefields in the channel between Guadacanal and Malaita. (Hexes 39:41; 40:40; 40:41)

I must admit that this was mainly becuase I was getting bored with moving my DM's back and forth laying mines near my ports. And I've been regretting ever since.

With the Malaita channel mined my subs and PT boats heading for Iron Bottom Sound have been making enormous detours right round the island rather then risk the channel. I even considered trying to clear them again with MSW's but the distance and nearby enemy base discouraged me from risking my minesweepers.

Anyway, I'm glad I didn't because following The Third Battle of Guadacanal (see AAR thread) the IJN Super CV TF has been hovering about at the mouth of the slot frightening my replenishment convoys and bombarding the 1st Marine Div. on Rennel Island.

It appears that the AI's CV TF commanders are far more cautious than mine and carefully avoided coming with LBA range of Nevea during daylight hours. He did however like to nip into Iron Bottom Sound and Lunga at night.

This was getting really annoying until on 5/11/42 he decided to sail south of Guadacanal presumably in the hope of catching one of my convoys. That night instead of doubling back to the slot he decided to circumvent Guadacanal and return to Iron Bottom Sound via the Malaita Channel.

The first I heard of this was when there was a loud bang and a message appeared telling me that the Light Carrier Ryujo had hit a mine in 39:41. The enemy CV TF travelled on to 40:40 and stopped as if uncertain what to do next, in fact they were lucky there was a thunderstorm otherwise my LBA would have descended on them because they were well within range.

They launched another airstrike on Rennel the next day and then appear to have tried to double back again through hex 39:41 becuase on the night of the 6/11/42 I received not one but two messages reporting that both the CL Naton and DD Akitsuki had hit mines.

The TF then doubled back yet again sailing straight through the minefield at 40:40 and are now heading back to Truk with their tails between their legs.

A victory for mine warefare in my opinion. Probably saved the lives of hundreds of my Marines on Rennel.

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 43
RN and Mines - 6/14/2002 10:27:47 PM   
Chris21wen

 

Posts: 6249
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline
Some of you might find this zipped spreadsheet interesting.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 44
Re: Re: Re: Thoughts on mines... - 6/14/2002 11:38:03 PM   
JohnK

 

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dgaad
[B]

Good post Didz. The Slot was mined by the US, and resulted in the loss of something like 4 DDs, damage to a CA, damage to a BB, probably sunk a sub or two, and damage / sinking of an indeterminate number of smaller ships and transports. Japanese [/B][/QUOTE]

I can find no evidence the SLOT itself, per se, was mined by the US.

Three of those DDs were the famous Blackett Strait mining; Blackett Stait is a tiny, shallow gap between two of the Islands near New Georgia, not the actual slot.

There was an additional destroyer sunk by mining along the coast of Guadalcanal where the Tokyo Express attempted to land reinforcements.

What are the specifics of the CA and BB damage you're claiming?

The serious problem I have is people thinking you can lay mines ACROSS the Slot and have major units not specifically entering ports or landing troops, in a precise location, hit them. The slot is generally 2 hexes wide; that's 60 miles, or (very roughly) 1800 square miles.

Once again, I desperately am looking for a seafloor map of the slot but I suspect you'll find that most slot hexes only have a tiny fraction of the hex shallow enough for US mines.

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 45
- 6/15/2002 12:08:51 AM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline
What does a "mine field tender" do...besides tend minefields, LOL? Polish the mines with brasso?

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 46
Re: Re: Re: Re: Thoughts on mines... - 6/15/2002 2:49:43 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JohnK
[B]

Three of those DDs were the famous Blackett Strait mining; Blackett Stait is a tiny, shallow gap between two of the Islands near New Georgia, not the actual slot.

There was an additional destroyer sunk by mining along the coast of Guadalcanal where the Tokyo Express attempted to land reinforcements.

The serious problem I have is people thinking you can lay mines ACROSS the Slot and have major units not specifically entering ports or landing troops, in a precise location, hit them. The slot is generally 2 hexes wide; that's 60 miles, or (very roughly) 1800 square miles.

Once again, I desperately am looking for a seafloor map of the slot but I suspect you'll find that most slot hexes only have a tiny fraction of the hex shallow enough for US mines. [/B][/QUOTE]

JohnK : you are most likely correct with respect to the depth of the Slot being unsuitable for US mines. There were mines laid off Tasssafronga Point, which as you say did result in some damage to some resupply attempts, though the info either of us have on that is sketchy.

I am not interested in whether or not the Slot or other deep waters can be mined per se, however. Whatever is decided about WHERE mines can actually be laid will I'm sure be the correct decision, as we know for sure what the maximal depth limits were for US mines, and we also know that deep water mining is extremely inefficient (decay rate).

My major concern, once again, has to do with the concept of "operational flexibility". Tying either side down to mineloading only in Noumea or Truk does in large measure force players to use their resources in a certain way that is not justified by sound military judgement -- regardless of whether or not there is historical evidence that the "mine center" moved during the period simulated in the game.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 47
- 6/15/2002 5:11:20 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by juliet7bravo
[B] "mine field tender" [/B][/QUOTE]

That's a quote from a Japanese sailor in response to a question from a doctor who was at the moment pressing his hand against a gaping wound : "What happened?"

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 48
Mine field tender - 6/15/2002 5:37:51 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, I would think mine field tenders looked after mines around friendly ports. Not mines laid around enemy bases.
I have found that 2 of the Aussie mine warfare ships in UV were sunk sweeping their own minefields (after the war so the crews were probably not as experianced as the war year crews.)
One was the Minelayer based out of Sidny (later Brisbane) the other a minesweeper.

_____________________________






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

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 49
US mining in the Solomans - 6/16/2002 4:02:11 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline
I posted this earlier on a mine thread. It details the US mining activities in the context of the game.

SInce this whole argument seems to mostly boil down to limiting the location of the real world - NON MOBILE - mine assembly depot at Noumea, to Noumea, i would ask why there is then nto a cry to allow the NON-mobile infrastructure at Pearl to be moved? Or that the player control the upgrade path of aircraft, or teh arrival of ships into theater, or chooing not to focus on the Carrier but the submarine?

Because the game places you in the role of operational commander of teh SW Pacific and as him, you could not control these decisions.

WITP will allow STRATEGIC level decision making with more flexibilty, but there are some things, like the starting locations of major bases - including the Mine assembly base - that are being locatied where they where located. And not being mobile facilities, they can;t be moved!

Later in the war (the one link deals with Seabees building mine assembly depots in 1944 - after a more pro-mining strategic decision was made) one should get more flexibility, and you will have it in WITP.

But I and the otheres on the design and Beta teams feel the patch provides an historically justifiied limitation that reflects what the real commander, SWPAC had to deal with. Air mining was of arguable efficacy, being done altogether in numbers similar to surface mining, but spread out in "penny packets" that were easily countered. You can argue you might have used them differently, but it was really an immature capability that did not become effective until after teh time frame of the game.

It is no more "arbitrary" than any of a hundred other decisions ot based what was avalaible to the player on what was historically available...

When you are CINC PAC in WITP you will have more options (becasue you have the means at that level to influence them)

That's the decision that has been made. It may not be to the liking of those that want to use 10s of thousands of mines, but <3000 were used in real life in the Solomans because that was about all that could be used given the strategic decisions made above the players head.

You will just have to wait for WITP to play an ahistroically high "heavy mining" strategy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that "Mine tenders" tended minlayers - NOT minfields. Small baots were used to "tend minfields" (ie reseed defensive minefields to fill in holidays where mines broke free or sank.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

US WWII mines primarily consisted of WWI era moored type MKVI with the K-device. Use of aerial laid magnetic bottom mines offensively in enemy waters increased steadily as the war went on. Remote controlled bottom mines were also used defensively in many US ports between the wars, and were in place in a great many areas on Dec 7th 1941, including San Francisco, Boston, New York, Los Angles/Long Beach, Portland ME, the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays, the Straits of Juan de Fuca and Columbia River entrance. Many more were laid during the war, mostly in US ports, but also at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Manila, Philippines, Puerto Rico and St. Thomas.

Against Surface ships the maximum depth bottom mines of that era are effective is about 20 fathoms (120 ft) they can cause damage to poorly constructed vessels to about 30 fm, but the magnetic coil sensors may not “see” the target signature properly the deeper the mine and slower the vessel goes. Moored mines could be effectively used down t about 100fm, below which depth internal currents made it almost impossible to keep them close enough to the surface to be effective.

The stockpiles of MKVI mines was of dubious quality, and it was late 43 before “new” generation mines were available in any numbers. Those used in the Uncommon Valor context were nearly all these WWI type.

Defensive minefields were laid off Manilla Bay and Subic Bay, by Bird calss minesweepers before the war started. in the Pacifc at Pago Pago by the Bird class KINGFISHER in late Dec 41 – 82 mines off Cape Faguaso and Taema Bank. These were the first mines laid by the USN in WWII.

In the Uncommon Valor Area of Operations the following Defensive mining ops of note ocured (many other smaller minelays occurred, but these described here represent those ordered as part of what the game would consider “Mine-laying Task forces”

In March 42 GAMBLE and RAMSEY planted six more minefield of Tuila for a total of 400 mines. These were still old WWI MKVI types as the newer WWII era mines were still yet to get out of production.

GAMBLE, RAMSEY and KINGFISHER then sailed to Fiji where they laid 26 mine fileds totaling 843 mines.

RAMSEY and MONTGOMERY laid fields in May and early June 42 at the entrance to Apra Harbor on the island of Efate

After the Efate mining op, MONTGOMERY sailed to the Tonga Group and laid some 551 mines around Tongatabu. Nature itself kept trying to sweep this field as on several occasions many explosions were observed form the field , shortly after which dozens of whale bodies floated into the harbor.

August 2 42 GAMBLE, TRACY and BREEZE laid fields at both ends of the Segond Channel between Espiritu Santo Island and Aore island. Unfortunatley USS Tucker (DD-374) escorting SS Nura Luckenback, struck a mine and sank within hours. BREESE made a mad dash through an uncharted channel it knew existed and picked up surviors. This field claimed a second friendly transitor in Oct 42, whenthe troop transport President Coolidge tried to deliver 5050 troops and heavy weapons to relieve Guadalcanal’s defenders. Despite repeated warnings she was standing into danger, the transport ignored the channel markings and plowed into several mines, ran aground on a reef and later sank. She is now one of the most dived wrecks in the area. Only four lives were lost, miraculously form the 5100+ aboard.

After patching the hole the President Coolidge left in the Segond Channel field in Dec 42, In Feb 43 GAMBLE laid a field at Nandi Waters, composition unknown.

Episodes like the Tucker and President Coolidge are why more extensive use of defensive minefields was not used more extensively.

Offensive mining

The vast majority of Offensive mining was Areial mining of Japan’s home waters in two zones. In the outer zone, 7762 magnetic, 960 acoustic, 124 mag.acoustic combination, 33 pressure/magnetic and 268 contact fdrifting mines (all in the Yangtze river) mines were laid. 106 dummymines were laid in the India Burma theater. In the inner zone 4291 magnetic, 3507 acoustic, 2959 acoustic/pressure combination, 748 low frequency acoustic. A total of 22,919 were loaded and 21389 deployed for an efficiency of 93.3% Mines laid per aircraft loss was 231. Less than half of those lost were to enemy fire. This caused 1,067,963 tons of Japanese shipping sunk and 1,221,453 damaged and later repaired. That likely represents only a fraction of what was actually lost, as most records were lost.

Despite this offensive mining was not part of any general plan or war plan, most were originated at a low level and sent up the chain were they were approved. Naval mines were generally deemed “orphaned weapons” of WWI. Despite its effectiveness it was “too little, too late” to affect overall strategic bombing resource allocation.

“Operational” level aerial minlaying occurred throughout the Uncommon Valor area and timeframe. The first aerial minelaying in the Solomons was done by TBF bombers from VT-11 and USMC VMSB-143. All told 10th Army Air Force flew 143 mining sorties with 505 mines on target at a cost of 2 planes, 14th AAF flew 32 sorties with 1092 mines laid and lost 4 planes. 20th Bomber command flew 162 sories laying 987 mines and lost no planes, 5th AAF, under the command of MacArthur, who had unusual derision for mines as a “losers weapon” flew only 4 sorties laying 24 mines (probably resulting the squadron commander being sacked…) The RAAF flew 1128 sorties with 2498 mines on target at a loss of 11 planes.

Submarine mining of Japanese home waters proved VERY efficient, with fewer than 700 mines sinking at least 27 ships and damaging some 30 others. IN the Uncommon Valor AOR, the following Offense minelays occurred:

Between Aug 7, 42 and may 44 DMs and LCI’s laid some 2817 moored contact mines and 12 magnetic ground mines in 17 fields in the Solomon Islands area from Guadalcanal to Bougainville. The first of these was Aug 8 42 when TRACY laid a string of 84 mines in Marimasike Passage along the East coast of Maliata Island. Though it produced no known results, it eliminated a short cut for japans Destroyers, and keep at least one peace of coastline occupied by the USMC, protected. For the next few months a few high speed minelayers, APD’s, old WWI destroyers converted to minelaying were the first line of defense for US forces in and around Guadalcanal. After the 3rd battle of Savo Ilsand most other US warships were withdrawn form the area to avoid being found by the large number of Japanese forces in the restricted waters of the Solomon chain.

The old WWI 4-stackers managed to get their licks in as GAMBLE 9DM-15) sank the I-123 on Aug 29 42. Oddly the GAMBLE carried the same hull number as the Japanese sub she sank, which was a designed minelayer, possibly engaged in the same activity as GAMBLE when sunk. SOUTHARD a DMS, happened upon the I-172 and managed to get a 4in round through her conning tower as she surfaced for a look around following a long chase.

On Feb1st 43 TRACY, MONTGOMERY and PREBLE left Noumea (where the mine depot for the entire theater was located and all minelaying missions had to leave from) and headed for Doma Reef, between New Georgia and Santo Isabel Islands. This was on the route generally taken by the Tokyo Express. A few hours before the scheduled minlay, coast watchers reported “a whole bunch” of warships headed for the area – actually 14 ships mostly destroyers, but with a handful of Cruisers. The MinDiv Commander LCDR J.L. Collis, also skipper of the Tracy, orders all ships to proceed at flank speed, by 1900 hours the group was charging through Lengo channel off the eastern end of Guadalcanal. All the other US ships were hightailing it the other direction. By now darkness at fallen and with it came a series of squalls that made it impossible to see from ship to ship. The group literally managed to lay their field, in nearly impossible conditions, right under the Japanese noses, and the Destroyer Makiguma, trying to sneak down the coast of Guadalcanal to harass the Marines, found one of Tracy’s mines to be the first Japanese vessel sunk by offensive minefields. Collis received the Legion of merit and promotion to Full Commander and the MIDIV was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation.

GAMBLE , BREEZE, and PREBLE again set out 4 MAY 43 and loade form the SS James McPherson, which was used to shuttle mines from the depot at Noumea. At Tulagi they met RADFORD, which was a new 2100 flush deck with radar. Beset by squalls once again and suffering leaky boiler on GAMBLE and a defective fireroom blower on BREESE the MINDIV managed to get the field in place. IT was found by the Japanese on May 8th as four destroyers tried to run the Blackett Straits. The next morning the coastwatcher on Guadalcanal reported 3 ships in the passage, one burning, one DIW and the other rendering assistance. Unknown to him the 4th had sunk in the night. This news was greeted at Hendeson field with a “Saddle up boys, we have STATIONARY TARGETS”. Within 2 hours 60 SBD’s, TBF’s, F4U’s and P-40s took off to deal with the fish in the barrel. Oyashio – the undamaged one took a 1000lb bomb, Kuroshio and Kagero were either abanonded from the straffing, or stranded on shoals. Remarkably, the Michisio’ profuse fire likely saved her as she seemed to be ignored by the wolves overhead who apparently thought here going down, and slipped away.

On May 12th James Mcpherson with RADFORD in the van led the MINDIV to the Kula Gulf between Kolombangara and New Georgia were they laid 255 mines again, right under the noses of the Japanese. ADM Halsey sent a personnel note of congratulations to the CO’s of the ships involved.

After a 10 day R&R in Brisbane, GAMBLE, PREBLE and BREESE once again met up in Noumea at the new mine depot at Duco Peninsula. They left 29 JUN 43 with new escort PRINGLE and headed for Efete to meet up with MONTGOMERY. They deployed several hundred mines off Shortland and returned to Purvis Bay.

The next major sortie f the MINDIV was 24 Aug 43. This was to be a “hot run” so upon leaving for Vella Lavella and the Japanese airfield at Kahili so the destroyers NICHOLAS, O’BANNON, TAYLOR, and CHEVALIER joined PRINGLE. They would drop a few shells on the airfield at Munda if they had no other action. 252 mines went in the water and the minelayers began to turn to head back for home when either PREBLE turned too late or MONTGOMERY turned too early. In any case despite MONTGMERY’s emergency maneuvering and PREBLE trying to maximize her turn rate, Preble sliced into the side of MONTGOMERY. Though no one was hurt, Montgomery was reduced t 10 knots and was taking on a dangerous amount of water. Despite 4 bombs being dropped but missing badly, she managed to find a Squall (Minelayeers semed particularly adept at attracting thunderheads!) and lipped away.

Supporting the planned invasion of Bougainville was the next minelaying event, begun 1 NOV 43. The minelay began 0100 on the 2nd and 176 mines off Otua Island. At 0230 as GAMBLE,BREESE, and SICARD were leaving they passed two destroyer squadrons and a cruiser division going the other way. The Battle of Emperor Augusta Bay commenced at 0247.

On 8 Nov TRACY, PRUITT, GAMBLE, and SICARD planted 350 ines near Otua to keep the Japanese form sneaking down the mortheast side of Bougainville. That was the largest single field planted in the Solomons.

Then on 24 Nov GAMBEL, TRACY, PRUITT, and SICARD laid 252 mines from Moila Point to the Turube Channel, closing off all access to the Shortland area.

In November 43 the forward Mine Assembly Depot #4 at Guadalcanal was operational and was used to supply aerial mines to Navy, Marine and RNZAF seaplanes which dropped 42 mines into the narrow pass between Buka Island and the extreme NW tip of Bougainville. Japanese supply barges were using the sheltered pass to ferry supplies, out of sight of US forces on the island. This did little to stem the flow of supplies however as the mostly wooden barges didn’t have the draft, speed or signature to actuate the mines.

SICARD and BREESE with the DD HALFORD planted 168 mines on May 2 1944 near Taiof Island and 168 more in the East Buka Passage. Still the supplies were getting through.

In a last ditch attempt to end the barge supply problem, a group of PT boats were sent up from the Treasury Is. To scout the coast and check the soundings (which turned out to be bad) and found the only way to block the channel was to do some very shallow water mining. LCI’s 59 and 68 carrying mines supplied and assembled at Torokino Depot #5 snuck into the very mouths of the Hongoria, Mobiai, Mibb, and Purita Rivers (from which the Japanese barges were operating) and left 3 MK 13-5 magnetic mines in each river entrance. That ended the mining efforts in the Solomons.

In total 13 fields were laid by DM's consisting of 2617 MKVI mines with the K device (an automated plumb bob for depth setting) were laid in 34 sorties. The 12 MK13-5’s laid by the LCI were the only magnetic mines used in the theater. LCIs also laid 200 MKVI's

Most of this was taken from "NAVAL MINESWEEPING: Where teh fleet goes, we've been" Published by the Naval Mine Warfare Association, written form the Oral historyies of its members who performed in the actions by Dick Hansen.

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 50
- 6/16/2002 4:31:14 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline
There is also an official slogan of the a different association that deals with MineLAYING, and it is : "No fleet goes where we've been."

I note that not a word is said about the Australian Minelaying and sweeping efforts.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 51
Re: US mining in the Solomans - 6/16/2002 4:31:50 AM   
Supervisor

 

Posts: 5166
Joined: 3/2/2004
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber
[B]GAMBLE , BREEZE, and PREBLE again set out 4 MAY 43 and loade form the SS James McPherson, which was used to shuttle mines from the depot at Noumea.[/B][/QUOTE]
Let me say up front, that I don't see any problem with limiting loading from set ports. That said (and utiilizing the above exerpt), might it be possible (at least later on) for mines to have been assembled at Truk/Noumea and loaded on transports for forward deployment? This might satisfy many of those who don't like the idea of the fixed ports.

I never was enthused about the idea of high supply use translated into mines at the forward bases (or at least as high as I saw listed - 200 sp per mine equates to a 1500 ton capacity transport carrying an equivalent of 7½ mines - I'd rather load at Truk :p ).

But for transports to be able to carry mines, there would have to be a determination made on what the mine assembly depots could produce a day plus what stockpile (if any) they would have to start with. This number would be reduced by what was used by minelayers. Also, since it doesn't look like it was used until later on, this could be limited to only after a certain date. The addition of the Australian mine depot would tend to give the Allies an advantage over the Japanese. But I could sure use that Australian ML! :D

Just a thought . . .

_____________________________


(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 52
Re: US mining in the Solomans - 6/16/2002 4:37:26 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber
[B]
WITP will allow STRATEGIC level decision making with more flexibilty, but there are some things, like the starting locations of major bases - including the Mine assembly base - that are being locatied where they where located. And not being mobile facilities, they can;t be moved!

Later in the war (the one link deals with Seabees building mine assembly depots in 1944 - after a more pro-mining strategic decision was made) one should get more flexibility, and you will have it in WITP.
[/B][/QUOTE]

These two statements contradict each other. If something can't be moved, how did it get there in the first place? If something can't be moved, how is it that it was possible to move after a "strategic decision" was made?

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 53
Re: US mining in the Solomans - 6/16/2002 4:40:12 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber
[B]
Air mining was of arguable efficacy, being done altogether in numbers similar to surface mining, but spread out in "penny packets" that were easily countered.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Are you referring to the massive air-mining effort in the last 5 months of the war, known as "Operation Starvation" which many historical contemporaries, including Japanese military figures, have stated virtually shut down all remaining merchant shipping? You call it of "arguable" efficency -- I haven't seen any arguements from any historical contemporary which says that it wasn't effective or easily countered.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 54
- 6/16/2002 6:25:57 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline
I don't know why I bother responding.

I obviously stated that the section was about US mining in the Solomans...There is no Australian mining in a piece titled US mining in the Solomans by definition.

Are you really interested in sloganeering? or a game that deals with something real...

[QUOTE]These two statements contradict each other. If something can't be moved, how did it get there in the first place? If something can't be moved, how is it that it was possible to move after a "strategic decision" was made?[/QUOTE]

Umm because if you are involved in the STRATEGIC decision to put it there in the first place, then you (as the CINC) get to decide where "there" is. At the operational level you don't.

The difference between being involved in the decision to build an immovable piece of infrastructure someplace and later building mobile equivalents should be obvious to anyone...

[QUOTE]Are you referring to the massive air-mining effort in the last 5 months of the war, known as "Operation Starvation" which many historical contemporaries, including Japanese military figures, have stated virtually shut down all remaining merchant shipping? You call it of "arguable" efficency -- I haven't seen any arguements from any historical contemporary which says that it wasn't effective or easily countered.[/QUOTE]

Obviously not since that ocurred *AFTER THE GAME IS OVER*:rolleyes:

I'm talking about the 2500 or so mines I referred to in the piece as "operational level" aerial mining. Do you want to be able to execute operation Starvation in the Soloman's in 1943?.

You DID READ IT didn't you?

I don't no how many times I have to say it but...

UV and WITP WILL BE DIFFERENT and making UV the same as WITP is not warrented.

You can disagree all you want, but this is a pretty cut and dried case that has been decided.

Misquoting me to try to advance your point is...well...pointless and only succeeded in making yourself look childish trying vainly to get yout own way.

As far as I'm concernered you've demonstrated a lack any further pertinant argument and are simply being argumentative for arguments sake with these last comments...

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 55
Re : Paul - 6/16/2002 7:25:42 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline
Paul,

Please calm down. You sound strident.
Your point is made, we will learne to live with it. =)

All is subordinated to the quest for a good simulation.

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 56
- 6/16/2002 7:39:15 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber
[B]I don't know why I bother responding.

I obviously stated that the section was about US mining in the Solomans...There is no Australian mining in a piece titled US mining in the Solomans by definition.

[/QUOTE][/B]

I thought you were using these comments to justify design decisions. If so, then the design decision needs to be based on data relating to mine warfare in this theater during this period -- and that include Aussie efforts. If not, thanks for the info provided by the text, it was extremely interesting and provides basis for further research.

[QUOTE][B]


Are you really interested in sloganeering? or a game that deals with something real...

[/QUOTE][/B]

I just thought it was an interesting tidbit. ;)

[QUOTE][B]

Umm because if you are involved in the STRATEGIC decision to put it there in the first place, then you (as the CINC) get to decide where "there" is. At the operational level you don't.

[/QUOTE][/B]

I understand your frustration with having to say this over and over again. Believe me I do understand the difference. However, it wasn't clear to me that all of your comments were directed solely at UV design criteria. Some of your comments appeared to be saying that in WitP you will not be able to move "mine assembly" facilities there either, until after a certain time. I've stated in previous posts I don't have a huge problem with the fixed locations concept in UV, so long as it is viewed as a workaround here. My main concern is that this concept will be carried over to WitP, where it not appropriate IMO.

I do believe the basic disagreement here is whether or not the location of mine loading facilities is a strategic decision or an operational one.


[QUOTE][B]

The difference between being involved in the decision to build an immovable piece of infrastructure someplace and later building mobile equivalents should be obvious to anyone...

[/QUOTE][/B]

Again, it wasn't clear to me in your original comments whether these comments were being used to justify design decisions for WitP as well.

[QUOTE][B]

Obviously not since that ocurred *AFTER THE GAME IS OVER*:rolleyes:

I'm talking about the 2500 or so mines I referred to in the piece as "operational level" aerial mining. Do you want to be able to execute operation Starvation in the Soloman's in 1943?.

You DID READ IT didn't you?

[/QUOTE][/B]

Yes, I did read it, and again I wasn't sure if you said that mining was of questionable efficacy to justify WitP design, or UV design. Main concern is historical data being used to justify design criteria where the design results in fixed locations for facilities. About the only kind of facility that is not truely moveable are ship construction facilities. As you know, all kinds of facilities were in fact moved during WW2, including strategic bombing bases, factories of immense size and tool infrastructure, ship resupply facilities, and so forth.

[QUOTE][B]

I don't no how many times I have to say it but...

UV and WITP WILL BE DIFFERENT and making UV the same as WITP is not warrented.

You can disagree all you want, but this is a pretty cut and dried case that has been decided.

Misquoting me to try to advance your point is...well...pointless and only succeeded in making yourself look childish trying vainly to get yout own way.

[/QUOTE][/B]

Sorry you feel that way. My basic point is very simple : operational flexibility should be the baseline design criteria. The fact that something wasn't moved in a given timeframe is not solid evidence that it could not or would not have been moved had the operational situation been different. Different operational situations are in fact the goal of most wargame simulations.

Its too bad you characterise the situation as "cut and dried." UV was released with a certain scheme for mine warfare operations and features that support the original design in this area. Clearly, the REASON that FIXED LOCATIONS are now being IMPLEMENTED is because the PLAYERS started using MINES in huge numbers. The REASON for this change is NOT HISTORICAL, its a WORKAROUND to curtail something that is essentially an exploit.

In one of my VERY FIRST POSTs on this subject, I said that it would be better to find an easy to implement scheme that allows for operational flexibility, and I've even laid out that scheme in several posts. Now, I'm getting signals from some of you that "Oh, okay, well it turns out the Noumea mine facility was never moved and so this is our reason." Sorry if this strikes me as a bit too "convenient". I say again : its an operational decision as to where a facility like this is located, just like its an operational decision where you decide to locate a large airbase.


[QUOTE][B]

As far as I'm concernered you've demonstrated a lack any further pertinant argument and are simply being argumentative for arguments sake with these last comments...

[/QUOTE][/B]

I believe I am right, and therefore what I say may seem simply argumentative. I did not restate my basic premises from other posts as I assumed you had read them. Nothing that has been said is solid evidence that mine loading facilities cannot be moved. Where these facilities are located is not a strategic decision, but an operational one. Whether or not they are available at all to a theater commander is the strategic decision. If the Japanese had been bombing or shelling Noumea on a regular basis, the facility would have been located elsewhere due to operational concerns.

To further expound on this basic disagreement, I believe that there are essentially three layers to any decision in military matters : strategic, operational, and tactical. Strategic level concerns the amount of resources directed to a theater and the general goals of all military operations (offensive, defensive, etc), Operational is concerned with the allotment, location and organization of force (we locate HERE and will be using carrier groups), Tactical concerns the method and manner of the use of forces (We will use two carrier groups and move to attack position at dawn).

I cannot accept that the location of a facility that supports purely tactical operations is a "strategic" decision as you have defined it. Where I place my mines (a tactical decision) is going to have alot to do with where the mine loading facility is placed. If its placed at Noumea, I'm going to be operationally and tactically constrained. No strategic level commander would desire their operational level (theater) commanders to be constrained in this way.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 57
Mines Again: - 6/16/2002 2:50:43 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline
I think the best way to resolve this issue allowing the creation/movement of mine depots/base s with the editor.

In the game I'm still playing I've sunk 223 Jap ships (only seven were sunk by mines, many more damaged). This included 3 SS, 2 DD, 1 PG, and 1 CV. The carrier was a flaming wreck after a battle, detached and tried to take a short cut through a mine field.:D

Mines could be abused pre-patch because mines fields didn't decay and mine sweeping didn't work very well. I'm not totally happy with the current mine rules either but, think changing the editor is the way to go.

PS: Gee until I got my copy of UV I didn't know MacArthur was a mine supply office who had to oversee the loading all mines, this is why there is only one mine base (Right!) because MacArthur couldn't be two places at once, and why we have to dock the ships before we reload them, because the ships have to wait around for MacArthur to show up, now I get it:eek:

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 58
- 6/16/2002 2:58:27 PM   
U2


Posts: 3332
Joined: 7/17/2001
From: Västerås,Sweden
Status: offline
Hi

I am so happy about the mine fix in the new patch. Sure it was a nice feature but not the huge amount of mines that could be laid. In one turn four of my SS hit mines:eek: My poor heart never recovered:)

Please let us end this discussion on mines.
Dan

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 59
- 6/16/2002 3:07:10 PM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by U2
[B]Hi

I am so happy about the mine fix in the new patch. Sure it was a nice feature but not the huge amount of mines that could be laid. In one turn four of my SS hit mines:eek: My poor heart never recovered:)

Please let us end this discussion on mines.
Dan [/B][/QUOTE]

This discussion has not been, from the very beginning, about letting people lay the number of mines that were laid pre-patch. I've said this a dozen times, I will say it again this time a little differently : implement a scheme which gives the players OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY on the location of mine loading facilities, then layer on limits to the numbers that can be laid (by limiting numbers available, increasing the cost of mines, etc, any one of a dozen ways).

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to dgaad)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Thoughts on mines... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   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

2.578