RE: Ineffective PH attack?

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: Ineffective PH attack?

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: Ineffective PH attack?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/18/2009 9:00:33 PM

Dr. Duh

Posts: 35
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

...

From the USSBS volume campaigns of the Pacific war -

In accordance with instructions from CinC Combined Fleet, the Task Force sortied from Hitokappu bay at 0600, 26 November and proceeded along the track shown in Appendix 2. On 2 December instructions were received to the effect that negotiations had failed and that 8 December was designated as "X"-day. The refueling was successfully completed on 3 December without mishap. (In the event of failure of the fueling operation it had planned to continue without the destroyers.) After refueling, the Task Force proceeded along the track without incident. No shipping was encountered and the force successfully escaped detection. During the approach, the following instructions were in effect:

1. If discovered prior to "X"-minus-2-day, the Task Force was to return to Japan without executing the attack.

2. If discovered prior to "X"-1-day, the decision as to what action to take was the responsibility of the Task Force Commander.

3. If discovered on "X"-minus-1-day or the morning of "S"-day the Task Force was to continue with the attack.

4. If at any time during the approach to Pearl Harbor the negotiations with the United States had been successful the attack would have been cancelled.

5. If, at any time during the approach to Pearl Harbor the American Fleet attempted to intercept the Japanese Task Force, the Japanese planned to counterattack. If the American Fleet advanced into Japanese home waters in pursuit of the Task Force it was planned to commit the Main Body of the Japanese Fleet as a support force.

6. If, after arriving in Hawaiian waters, it was found that the American Fleet was at sea and not in Pearl Harbor, the Japanese planned to scout a 300-miles radius around Oahu and attack if contact was made; otherwise they were to withdraw..

Nice info. Thanks!

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 61

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/19/2009 1:57:21 AM

Kadrin

Posts: 183
Joined: 5/5/2005
From: Orange, California
Status: offline

Just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents, this is the average result I get.
Remember carriers have full fuel so they stick around for 4+ days after just laying into Pearl. So far the best I've come out of this attack was having 7 ships (all DD or auxiliary) still not sunk, out of 12 different attempts just to gauge the damage done.

Oh and Repulse and Prince of Whales have sunk every time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Pearl Harbor , at 180,107

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 40 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 32
B5N2 Kate x 144
D3A1 Val x 126

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 damaged
B5N2 Kate: 5 destroyed, 20 damaged
D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed, 11 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
PBY-5 Catalina: 14 destroyed on ground
B-17D Fortress: 3 destroyed on ground
A-20A Havoc: 3 destroyed on ground
P-36A Mohawk: 3 destroyed on ground
SBD-1 Dauntless: 6 destroyed on ground
B-18A Bolo: 5 destroyed on ground
P-40B Warhawk: 14 destroyed on ground
B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed on ground
O-47A: 1 destroyed on ground
R3D-2: 1 destroyed on ground

Allied Ships
AV Wright, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
BB Pennsylvania, Bomb hits 7, Torpedo hits 5, and is sunk
BB Nevada, Bomb hits 7, Torpedo hits 5, and is sunk
BB West Virginia, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
BB Arizona, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 5, and is sunk
DD Allen, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage
BB California, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
BB Tennessee, Bomb hits 7, Torpedo hits 6, and is sunk
BB Maryland, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk One torpedo?
BB Oklahoma, Bomb hits 6, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Mugford, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CL Helena, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CA New Orleans, Bomb hits 4, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
CL St. Louis, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
CL Raleigh, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL Honolulu, Bomb hits 3
DD Hull, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Bagley, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DM Gamble, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
PT-26, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
DMS Perry, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AG Argonne, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage
AV Tangier, Torpedo hits 1
AV Curtiss, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DMS Trevor, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Helm, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
ACM Buttress, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
CM Oglala, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Monaghan, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Worden, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
CA San Francisco, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
SS Dolphin, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage
CL Detroit, Torpedo hits 2
DD Schley, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Aylwin, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
AE Mauna Loa, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DM Ramsay, Bomb hits 1, on fire

Allied ground losses:
24 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Repair Shipyard hits 2
Airbase hits 38
Airbase supply hits 1 (lost 92 supply)
Runway hits 118

Fog of war is off, I checked the carriers, aircraft losses were accurate, all the ships listed as sunk were sunk. (And those not listed as sunk, probably sank in one of the following strikes over the next 4 days.)

(in reply to Dr. Duh)

Post #: 62

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/19/2009 12:24:10 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

Quantifying how much more effective the PH strike is than the historical reality is pretty difficult but here are a few random perceptions:

1) Japanese aircraft losses are consistently about 1/3 of what occurred historically: 10 or so vs 29.

2) IRL the Japanese sank or damaged 18 ships. In the game it's usually almost double that.

3) Japanese torpedoes strike their targets much more frequently than was historical. IRL 40 Kates carried torpedoes. The planes were the very first to attack and were distracted by neither fighters nor flak. Either 20 or 21 torpedoes hit their targets (depending on whether you credit one to a midget sub or not): that is 50-53%. I don't think anybody can dispute that an immobile target is probably "the ideal" for a torpedo bomber target.
In a couple of starts I've tested 80% of all torpedoes strike a target. Usually more than 40 a/c carry torpedoes as well.

< Message edited by spence -- 9/19/2009 12:25:46 PM >

(in reply to Dr. Duh)

Post #: 63

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/19/2009 10:48:24 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Quantifying how much more effective the PH strike is than the historical reality is pretty difficult but here are a few random perceptions:

1) Japanese aircraft losses are consistently about 1/3 of what occurred historically: 10 or so vs 29.

2) IRL the Japanese sank or damaged 18 ships. In the game it's usually almost double that.

3) Japanese torpedoes strike their targets much more frequently than was historical. IRL 40 Kates carried torpedoes. The planes were the very first to attack and were distracted by neither fighters nor flak. Either 20 or 21 torpedoes hit their targets (depending on whether you credit one to a midget sub or not): that is 50-53%. I don't think anybody can dispute that an immobile target is probably "the ideal" for a torpedo bomber target.
In a couple of starts I've tested 80% of all torpedoes strike a target. Usually more than 40 a/c carry torpedoes as well.

Thank You! I made each of these points during the AE design discussions, and was basically told to be quiet..., this was what the designers thought the players wanted.

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 64

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/20/2009 5:06:10 AM

bklooste

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

1) Japanese aircraft losses are consistently about 1/3 of what occurred historically: 10 or so vs 29.

2) IRL the Japanese sank or damaged 18 ships. In the game it's usually almost double that.

3) Japanese torpedoes strike their targets much more frequently than was historical. IRL 40 Kates carried torpedoes. The planes were the very first to attack and were distracted by neither fighters nor flak. Either 20 or 21 torpedoes hit their targets (depending on whether you credit one to a midget sub or not): that is 50-53%. I don't think anybody can dispute that an immobile target is probably "the ideal" for a torpedo bomber target.
In a couple of starts I've tested 80% of all torpedoes strike a target. Usually more than 40 a/c carry torpedoes as well.

1. Is a 2nd wave always modeled ? Most of the losses were on the 2nd strike which did not attack the capital ships. 9 were lost in the first wave. I have seen games where Japan has lost a lot more than 28 , most of the smaller losses seem to come when there is no US CAP at all. In some cases the engine launches a single strike which would result in much lower losses. I would also note Historically the US had almost 300 planes destroyed or damaged i dont see this either. Would gladly give up the extra 10 or so planes for seeying a historical destroyed figure
2. Agree. IRL focus was mainly on capital ships a lot of planes were used against facilities ( including all Kates of the 2nd wave ) , no ship smaller than a Cruiser should be targeted by Kates though they may be damaged by a miss.
3. I measure about 60%(58%) based on 5 torpedoes going for the caisson of the Pens.. Note these did come under AA fire as most of the first wave losses and damages were the torpedo planes. I have had cases where > 140 torps were launched ( which is historically possible with 2 waves ) but see few cases of 81 torps actually hitting based on the historical accuracy. Note Historically nearly all ships were SUNK hence the Kates did not need to carry torps for the 2nd wave.

based on occasions when more torps being carried why don't i see 7 ships each with 8+ torps in them. This would seem a flaw with the engine.

Since the game does not model any special advantages in terms of refloating ships why dont i see 6+ sunk battle ships most of the time ? ( If this was modeled you would just need 50-60 Kates on Torpedos , leaving plenty spare for a CV confrontation , and use 2 * 250kg/+60kg bombs for air fields )

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 65

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/20/2009 3:29:02 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Thank You! I made each of these points during the AE design discussions, and was basically told to be quiet..., this was what the designers thought the players wanted.

They might be right about that - most of the complaints seem to be that the PH attack is on average not effective enough!

Hence even the title of this thread.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 66

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/20/2009 3:41:05 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

The Japanese also refloated ships in port later in the war this is also not modeled unless refloating is modeled you could argue the number of ships sunk is 4-5. They went to the bottom after all.

.
.
.

Comments :

.
.
.

The game doesn't model any special abilities in terms of shallow water and re-floating so why shouldn't the average be 5 sunk ? Why cant you refloat sunk ships in port like the US is in Pearl and the Japanese in 44-45 ?

.
.
.

Excluding major loss of surprise at worst we should see 4-5 BB sunk every time if the first strike doesn't do it the 2nd one will.

Some thoughts:

- How many re-floatings were performed by the Japanese on what kinds of ships?
- Will re-floatings in '44/'45 have the same impact as re-floatings in '42?
- If the damage model used in the PH attack is the same model as used throughout the game (which it is AFAIK), then won't the same "badly damaged but not sunk" effect apply to the Japanese ships in port in '44/'45 that you are referring to? In other words, it is already 'fair' because it applies to both sides, yes?

quote:

Ships Sunk in a major port to take 90%/90% damage instead provided damage is < 150%.

I have no clue what this means - would you explain?

(in reply to bklooste)

Post #: 67

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/20/2009 10:56:53 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

The RL performance of the KB's torpedo bombers in 1941/42 didn't even come close to what the game portrays.

1) 40 torpedo bombers hit PH (with torpedoes): 20-21 hits on immobile targets with no fighter opposition and minimal flak (50-53%)

2) 18 torpedo bombers attacked Lexington at Coral Sea: 2 hits. (11%)
4 more went after Yorktown: no hits (0%). Fighter opposition was not particularly effective. Flak was heavy.

3) 10 torpedo bombers attacked Yorktown at Midway: 2 hits (20%) Fighter opposition scored early. Only 6 actually launched (3 shot down, one couldn't launch its torpedo for mechanical reasons) (So a 33% rate for those that launched)

4) Twenty torpedo bombers attacked Hornet in the 1st wave at Santa Cruz: 2 hits scored (10%). Flak and fighter opposition were heavy although the latter was not especially effective. Another 16 torpedo bombers went after Enterprise: no hits (0%). Finally 6 more went after Hornet from Junyo scoring 1 hit on a nearly immobile target (16%).

The notorious SNAFU with the torpedo bombers at Midway the KB was not a singular event. KB had "practiced" the same sort of thing twice before: once when Langley was sighted South of Java and once off Ceylon.

WitP/AE

I don't really have the patience to sit through the whole turn just to watch the PH attack but I did it one more time and saw the following:

126 Vals and 144 Kates attack (with escort) and are met by 4 P40Bs and a P-36:

(wasn't paying attention to A2A combat):

59 bombs hit ships
43 bombs caused airfield hits
11 bombs hit the shipyard
115 runway hits
(228 out of 328 carried = 69%)
32 torpedoes hit (out of 43 carried = 74%)

5 BBs were sunk along with a couple of small ships
20 other ships were damaged

Japanese a/c lost were reported as 1 Zero, 3 Vals and 1 Kate.

I've seen results such as this more often than not (PoW and Repulse also got sunk in this run through). The real life performance (which had ideal conditions) seems to be at the lower end of the range of results.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 68

RE: Ineffective PH attack? - 9/21/2009 12:27:32 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Thank You! I made each of these points during the AE design discussions, and was basically told to be quiet..., this was what the designers thought the players wanted.

They might be right about that - most of the complaints seem to be that the PH attack is on average not effective enough! Hence even the title of this thread.