Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Still, 512 shell hits shows that the coastal defenses were working.

quote:

Without the full picture of how the other defenses were set up vs. those of the attacker its hard to comment further outside the fact that the CD's were firing but didn't give you the results desired.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

Kudos on both players for having a really out of the box war ! Wippl for thinking this up ! and BlueBook for taking it on the chin and carrying on !

I hope you both continue to have a fun game (as thats why we play it after all)

Got to say i am v v curious about the next few turns.

Arguing about the exact positon/facing of any CD guns in the game is utterly pointless. We all know that CD guns are treated as units not as historically placed and covering each piece of potential landing space. so stop arguing whats actually impossible to model in game and if you feel its unrealistic then argue ways to improve it, not just cry foul.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders


It seems that the main problem is the targeting of the CD guns. Instead of completely gutting the landing ships, which should probably be the priority when you're being invaded, they hit the PB ships. Another strange thing is that the PB ships don't sink during the combat. Looking at the size of the guns and the number of hits, nearly every PB should have sunk. They probably did, but only after the combat, leaving them to soak up a lot of damage that would have otherwise destroyed many a landing transport.

I don't kow if it's a "problem", but I think there's probably code in the attack routines to say "shoot at those whom are shooting at thee." How many times have we all seen surface engagements where a tough warship TF hits an anchored invasion TF containing two PBs and an E and twenty AKs, and the cruisers and destroyers plug away at the escorts and leave the fat boys alone?

On the other point, it's an interesting question of perception. Maybe some folks here think the combat replay is real-time, in sequence, and others don't? Do the ships really sink after the engagement, or is that only when it's reported? Are those different caliber shells hitting that PB in sequence, or are they only reported that way? Maybe they all hit at once, or were fired all at once, and it only looks like those dumb gun-bunnies were shooting perfectly good taxpayer-provided ammo at previously-obliterated ships. Who knows? The guys who can see the code of course!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford
Plus, how did the IJN unload troops in an amphibious landing?  They didn't have any specialized landing craft, so did they just load the troops in smaller boats and send them towards the shore?  Those two Army divisions plus Marine and Naval forces are going to slaughter them before they reach the beach, in addition to the CD guns still operating.  I don't remember the exact number of 155mm guns on Oahu at the time but think it was somewhere in the several dozen range. 

Four dozen mobile 155 guns, plus another dozen mobile 9.2"howitzers. All having a number of pre-sighted and surveyed positions (panama mounts) available depending on which area the threat developed from (all of which were tied into the fire control network). No matter where the landings were to take place, the fixed defenses could be reinforced by up to 60 6.1"+ guns in short order.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook

Yes, which means that if anything is wrong with the situation that the Japs can land 75 000 troops from 350+ ships at Pearl Harbor without losing more than 1000 troops and 15 PBs, it must be with something else. The coastal defences were firing alright, but at what and why?

quote:


All of the units were in combat mode, fully rested and well supplied. They were completely unharmed by air or naval attack. What more do you want to know?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders
As for the second, it's pretty unrealistic that all the CD guns shoot at the same time, I'd imagine that to unload this kind of force the TF should have been in range for several hours, so if the code would only give one 'round' of fire (even if this means several shells from every CD gun)then this could be modelled better to account for ships sinking during the engagement and thus no longer being a target. I'd indeed be interested to know the devs opinion on this.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Mike,

Thanks for the exact numbers. My book on the history of Oahu coast defenses mentioned the 155mm mobile guns and the preselected mount locations but I'd forgotten just how many were there. Sixty 155mm guns firing from all angles at both the men on shore and the ships offshore would have been a complete nightmare, not even taking into account the 5", 6", 8", 12", 14" and 16" guns firing too, plus divisional artillery and any ships damaged but still operational in the harbor itself.

Except, as the link I posted shows, they weren't there in January 1942. By the time they were, Midway had happened, and an invasion was a pipe-dream. (Or more of one than in January at least.)

quote:

Bullwinkle,

The IJN will have charts but no way to take sightings on where they are once they get to Hawaii. Do you think the navigational lights and lighthouses will be operating?

No, but the mountains don't move. Crossed bearing fixes on geographic features are a staple of piloting, especially pre-radar. BBs had pagodas high enough to get a fix and still stay below the horizon.

 

quote:

They will have errors in their positions and even a small error means they aren't shooting accurately at anything at night. Please show me where any navy managed to disable fixed fortifications by shooting at them during night time. The USN certainly didn't attempt it in the Pacific

,

No, the USN had overwhelming force, didn't have surprise, and didn't face "world-class" CD systems like Oahu's. Could they have done it? Yes, I think so. With a lot of effort and doctrine development.

quote:

BTW, Barber's Point is in range of nearly every single fixed gun position on the south side of Oahu. Good luck with having your fleet sitting offshore at that location.

A lot of the bigger guns were near PH, and just getting to Barbers eats up over half your range. Facing Barber's Point there were very few large guns. Also, as I said many posts ago, I assume there would be CAS involved from an intact KB. Were the 16-inchers improved from this 1920s installation? Were they in casements by 1942? Because these look awfully like pre-air-power assumptions to me.



http://www.cdsg.org/home.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

In my game the AI attempted an invasion of Dutch Harbor, home of a base force, NorPac HQ, a few AA units and IIRC an infantry regiment.  The CD guns embedded in the base force took on the invasion TF, hitting several transports before they began firing back "to suppress the CD guns".  The invasion TF had a PB trying to suppress the gunfire but the CD guns took it out fairly quickly and then the transports took over the job themselves.

That, IMO, is a crock.  If I've got 155mm or 5" or 6" guns firing at transports, and no warships to attempt to silence them, then the popguns on the transports are just making my spotters and aimers' job easier.  I realize that the developers have said that the routine assigns a ship to suppress CD fire, and if no warship is available it uses a transport, but that's ridiculous.  Any transport that tried that would be turned into a shell ridden target in short order.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibious Assault at Pearl Harbor

TF 99 troops unloading over beach at Pearl Harbor, 180,107

Japanese ground losses:
125 casualties reported
Squads: 7 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 25 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)



10 Support troops lost from landing craft during unload of 21st Div /7
17 troops of a IJA Infantry Squad accidentally lost during unload of 21st Div /8
10 Support troops lost overboard during unload of 21st Div /9
10 Support troops accidentally lost during unload of 21st Div /10
10 Support troops lost overboard during unload of 21st Div /10
10 Support troops lost in surf during unload of 16th Infantry Rgt /5
19 troops of a IJA Infantry Squad accidentally lost during unload of 33rd Div /10
19 troops of a IJA Infantry Squad accidentally lost during unload of 4th Div /4
10 Support troops lost from landing craft during unload of 4th Div /4
10 Support troops lost overboard during unload of 4th Div /4
10 Support troops lost from landing craft during unload of 4th Div /4
10 Support troops lost in surf during unload of 4th Div /5
10 Support troops lost in surf during unload of 4th Div /5
10 Support troops lost overboard during unload of 4th Div /5
10 Support troops lost overboard during unload of 4th Infantry Rgt /5
19 troops of a IJA Infantry Squad lost overboard during unload of 4th Div /6
10 Support troops accidentally lost during unload of 4th Div /6
10 Support troops lost overboard during unload of 4th Div /6
10 Support troops lost overboard during unload of 24th Infantry Rgt /3
19 troops of a IJA Infantry Squad lost from landing craft during unload of 24th Infantry Rgt /4
10 Support troops accidentally lost during unload of 24th Infantry Rgt /4
10 Support troops lost overboard during unload of 21st Div /13
10 Support troops lost from landing craft during unload of 33rd Div /14
10 Support troops lost in surf during unload of 4th Div /7
10 Support troops lost from landing craft during unload of 21st Div /14
10 Support troops accidentally lost during unload of 16th Army
Motorized Support damaged beyond repair during unload of 16th Army /4
10 Support troops lost in surf during unload of 16th Army /4
19 troops of a IJA Infantry Squad lost from landing craft during unload of 4th Div /8
10 Support troops accidentally lost during unload of 4th Div /8

quote:

ORIGINAL: Graycompany

Castor, What do you see as a good House rule for this. Limiting the number, or perhaps size of ships (Support) in Amphib TF? I would be interested in your thoughts on that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Bullwinkle,

The long range 16" guns were emplaced in fortified caves at a position NW of Pearl Harbor and just north of Barber's Point.  Their coverage area extended from all up the west coast over to Waikiki; Barber's Point was no problem for them at all.  Besides, there were a lot more guns available closer to Barber's Point than 16" guns, most of them in disappearing mounts or barbettes.  When I get home I'll look up what was at Oahu in 1/42 and let you know; I'm fairly sure a sizable number of those 155mm mobile guns were already there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

It was my CHOICE a well thought out CHOICE not to waste Betties and its pilots not to mention KB pilots and BBs to save some AKLs. Have You ever considered that there is no one way of doing things? Everything is just and only a risk management (what I do for life).

FWIW, in all this "the CD system doesn't work" talk I offer my recent experience taking that bastion of CD science--Wotje Island (huh?) I had the USS Pennsylvania, two CAs, and four DDs supporting a somewhat rambling invasion (hey, it's me, right?) I had two infantry regiments about 50% prepped, a Seabee unit, and a small, non-EAB combat engineer unit. Recon said there were about 5000 troops, about 30-ish guns, and no armor. I had been LBA and dive-bombing from three other islands for two weeks at a low but consistent rate, and had two fighter squadrons strafing daily for a week prior. My best info was there had been no re-supply of the island for about three months. I thought it was a simple mop up op. (Tarawa and Kwaj. hadn't had a whole lot of CD support.)

I got clocked. Two DDs sunk, both cruisers with 30-ish system damge and some float, the BB with 15 system and fires. There was counter-battery fire every phase from my ships, but it didn't put the CD OOC. In those phases I got the troops ashore with tough losses, including four xAKs and serious damage to eight other merchants, but zero, and I mean ZERO, supplies. Every LCU had a big red zero for supplies. I tried to use emergency barges from Mili to get supplies ashore, and lost about twelve, without landing even one ton of supplies.

For a second wave of resupply I used LSTs and DDs, and still couldn't get anything ashore. They got torn up too. (By now the BB and CAs had retired to lick their wounds.) Finally, out of anger more than anything, I ordered shock attacks without supplies, gambling that the Japanese were nearly out of supply. That worked in two attacks, and all three units (a Naval Guard, the Naval Fortress/CD unit, and a support unit) were wiped out.

Curious now, I re-loaded as Japanese and "peeked" at the remaining untaken islands nearby. A couple are CD farms just like Wotje. I may bypass them now that I know. This is, after all, a "learning" run-through game.

But I for one don't believe there's anything in the code that makes merchants immune while the AI focuses on small escorts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook

Ok, this is going to be a somewhat long post because Im going to quote the combat report in relevant parts.

Couple of comments:

512 shell hits is "nothing"?

2nd: Where was the airforce and the navy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


Clearing the beach? The USN wasn´t able to clear the beaches and destroy the Japanese CD at targets that nearly had the same number of guns. How should the IJN be able to do that in 42? Of course they could clear the beaches that have no defense but those probably are seen as areas where you can´t land anyway. It´s not that easy to disembark a couple of division onto a beachhead that isn´t suitable I guess. Those that were suitable would have CD that isn´t easily cleared at all and for sure not a day before the invasion goes in IMO.

I found this highly macro, 30,000-ft illustration of Oahu's defenses:

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dailypix/2002/Mar/26/localnews2map.gif

Demonstrably, the planners were defending PH and Honolulu, not the north or west coasts. As I've said, invading PH would have been insane. Kaneohe or Barber's Point, maybe not, at least from a CD perspective.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

Kudos on both players for having a really out of the box war ! Wippl for thinking this up ! and BlueBook for taking it on the chin and carrying on !

I hope you both continue to have a fun game (as thats why we play it after all)

Got to say i am v v curious about the next few turns.

Arguing about the exact positon/facing of any CD guns in the game is utterly pointless. We all know that CD guns are treated as units not as historically placed and covering each piece of potential landing space. so stop arguing whats actually impossible to model in game and if you feel its unrealistic then argue ways to improve it, not just cry foul.

If my car is broken I don't have to tell my mechanic how to fix it, I just tell him what the problem is.

I agree with the kudos to both players. Neither deserves to be criticized for exploiting the system or for bad play. The Japanese player should always have the option to put his troops on ships and send them anywhere on the map. The Allied player should reasonably expect that extensive forts and guns would slaughter any invasions without heavy surface support.

I don't know if this particular result is because of the amphib bonus or a bug with the coastal gun routine, probably a combination of both. The amphib bonus is fine when sending tiny units to the many undefended bases the IJN has to secure in the early months. It's ridiculous when it allows troops to instantly jump off ship in the middle of a fight. The Japs were capable of many things but walking on water was not one of them.

I've had Jap troops land fully supplied and capture a base even when I sunk the entire invasion TF (PBs and AKs) on arrival (AE 1.0). That's pure BS. The amphib bonus should evaporate when an invasion is contested.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf
I'm waiting for the invasion of San Francisco AAR. Regardless of whether this is "gamey" or not you have to give credit for the audacity and the ability to plan and organize this feat.

Has the attack on Pearl Harbor / Oahu been successful? Did I miss an update indicating that the IJA forces have landed with supplies and have defeated the entrenched American forces?

Shall we see how this audacious enterprise unfolds with the infantry assault before we crown anyone's tactical or strategic genius or assault the game engine?

What happens now to the land combat is completely irrelevant to whether or not the CD gun routine is wrong.

It seems that the main problem is the targeting of the CD guns. Instead of completely gutting the landing ships, which should probably be the priority when you're being invaded, they hit the PB ships. Another strange thing is that the PB ships don't sink during the combat. Looking at the size of the guns and the number of hits, nearly every PB should have sunk. They probably did, but only after the combat, leaving them to soak up a lot of damage that would have otherwise destroyed many a landing transport.

Another problem is of course the Japanese unloading bonus. I know it's necessary to let the Japanese do their early war expansion and it's probably not that unrealistic in the DEI/PI were there was almost no opposition on the landing beaches, but it isn't here. If the ships would have had to stay under those guns for multiple days to unload everything without the bonus, there wouldn't have been much left of the IJN.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook

I just checked my sunk ships screen. According to that one (and barring the fog of war, naturally) the Jap losses were:

On the day of the invasion:
1 CL and 2 DD to mines


The day after the invasion:
1 xAK and 1 xAKL to CD guns
2 DD to CD guns
1 DD to mines

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders
As for the second, it's pretty unrealistic that all the CD guns shoot at the same time, I'd imagine that to unload this kind of force the TF should have been in range for several hours, so if the code would only give one 'round' of fire (even if this means several shells from every CD gun)then this could be modelled better to account for ships sinking during the engagement and thus no longer being a target. I'd indeed be interested to know the devs opinion on this.

I'm sympathetic (increasingly so as I learn more about the game's finer points) to the dev's challenges though. A phase is 12-hours. Do you do one 12-hour "chunk" of calculations? Three 4s? One hour layers? Do you consider that some of the (sometimes hundreds) of ships in range of the CD guns move during those 12-hours? How often and where to/from? Is weather a factor? How often do you do a check on CD supplies? If they run out in the middle of the 12-hours, how do you handle that? How about time-to-sink? Do CD gunners still shoot at a Monty Python-esque damaged ship ("I'm getting better!") or do they look elsewhere? How do they know the damage over there, 12,000 yards away? And on and on. Hundreds of questions we all could pose onto what is only one, pretty small part of the total code base. And, once you make all these trade-offs, how do you present the results so they're clear, actionable, but still concise enough that anyone will read them?

quote:

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

Do You want me to post exact composition of all invading TFs?

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


So I guess you would have to test it first if an invasion TF wouldn´t be 100% whiped out on the other side if non of the crappy escorts would be in the TF, as I would consider whiping out 100% of the transports completely off too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebook

Ok, this is going to be a somewhat long post because Im going to quote the combat report in relevant parts.

Couple of comments:

512 shell hits is "nothing"?

2nd: Where was the airforce and the navy?

512 shell hits is nothing since 80-90 percent of those hits were on the same 8-10 PBs. I actually saw PBs obliterated by 16-inch gun hits only to be hit again and again by other guns after that. It seems that each escorting ship was engaged by all CD-guns at the same time, regardless of earlier hits. So first a 3 inch battery would shoot and hit the PB, then a 6-inch, then a 12-inch, then a 16 inch, then a 12 inch mortar, then a RR gun, then a 155 gun... Nevermind that the PB was already sunk by the second hit. Then the next PB would appear and get the same treatment.

The navy is licking its wounds after having the KB linger around Pearl Harbor for the first week of war. Those ships that are combat worthy are either somewhere else, or they have been fighting the Japs during the battles for Midway, Wake, Johnston, and the rest of the Hawaiian islands.

The airforce... The 50 bombers I have outside CONUS (with experience in the 45-50-range) are right now on ground attack duty. I considered it to be utterly pointless to send those 30 B-17s and 20 B-18s/A-20s against the 80-Zero CAP only to have them drop their bombs harmlessly on or beside the 8 Jap BBs.

I have managed to reinforce Pearl with fighters though, and I think I can muster 150-something fighters to CAP right now.

quote:

20 to 40 foot waves along the West, North, and East shores. Yeah, a Japanese landing is going to be a real "cakewalk". The whole idea is a crock.