Slitherine

quote:


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR June 9, 45 - AFTERNOON
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Amami Oshima at 98,64

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 22 NM, estimated altitude 3,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
E8N2 Dave x 1

Japanese aircraft losses
E8N2 Dave: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
AP Gen. R.L.Howze, Kamikaze hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
1 x E8N2 Dave flying as kamikaze *
Kamikaze: 2 x 30 kg GP Bomb

quote:

This ship means business! I haven't looked recently, but I wonder what the experience levels are for the BBS and other surface ships that have been around since the beginning?

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

This ship means business! I haven't looked recently, but I wonder what the experience levels are for the BBS and other surface ships that have been around since the beginning?

No doubt grossly overrated. IRL the performance of the IJN BBs was pretty close to abysmal in all their engagements. Not one of them had ever fired a shot in anger on 12/07/1941 and such practice engagements as any of them fought subsequently do nothing whatever to justify any especially high experience level. ISE and HYUGA both suffered significant non-combat materiel casualties in early 42. Mutsu blew up spontaneously in 43. Yamashiro and Fuso's only engagement does little to inspire anything positive. KIRISHIMA and HIEI beat a USN cruiser TF but failed to complete their mission (not mention that HIEI subsequently became "a source of infinite pride for the Emperor"). Of course the KIRISHIMA did the same a few nights later in its second engagement. And then there is the Battle off Samar" wherein 4 IJN BBs had their ultimate chance for glory and failed miserably (unless ont thinks that trading 3 of their screening cruisers for a CVE, a DE and a couple of DDs was worth it).

IRL the practice that the IJN CAs/CLs/DDs had in night combat exercises pre-war does seemingly justify a higher experience level for those IJN ship types vs corresponding American types. It should be noted however that no significant proportion of the IJN crews and captains of any type had actually "seen the elephant" when they went to war. IJN doctrine caused the IJN light ships to take a more aggressive role against the "enemy" (US) battleline in night combat as exemplified in the Solomons while US doctrine emphasized screening said battleline in those same engagements.

(The Brits and their Commonwealth Allies' ships had for the most part seen real (not exercise) combat. With England stretched thin strategically those ships had mostly "seen the elephant" in multiple ways and on multiple occasions.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

This ship means business! I haven't looked recently, but I wonder what the experience levels are for the BBS and other surface ships that have been around since the beginning?

No doubt grossly overrated. IRL the performance of the IJN BBs was pretty close to abysmal in all their engagements. Not one of them had ever fired a shot in anger on 12/07/1941 and such practice engagements as any of them fought subsequently do nothing whatever to justify any especially high experience level. ISE and HYUGA both suffered significant non-combat materiel casualties in early 42. Mutsu blew up spontaneously in 43. Yamashiro and Fuso's only engagement does little to inspire anything positive. KIRISHIMA and HIEI beat a USN cruiser TF but failed to complete their mission (not mention that HIEI subsequently became "a source of infinite pride for the Emperor"). Of course the KIRISHIMA did the same a few nights later in its second engagement. And then there is the Battle off Samar" wherein 4 IJN BBs had their ultimate chance for glory and failed miserably (unless ont thinks that trading 3 of their screening cruisers for a CVE, a DE and a couple of DDs was worth it).

IRL the practice that the IJN CAs/CLs/DDs had in night combat exercises pre-war does seemingly justify a higher experience level for those IJN ship types vs corresponding American types. It should be noted however that no significant proportion of the IJN crews and captains of any type had actually "seen the elephant" when they went to war. IJN doctrine caused the IJN light ships to take a more aggressive role against the "enemy" (US) battleline in night combat as exemplified in the Solomons while US doctrine emphasized screening said battleline in those same engagements.

(The Brits and their Commonwealth Allies' ships had for the most part seen real (not exercise) combat. With England stretched thin strategically those ships had mostly "seen the elephant" in multiple ways and on multiple occasions.)

It is worth noting that the IJN had been on a war-footing since 1938 with the invasion of China. While they didn't exactly see much action against the Chinese Navy, the demands of a genuine war would probably drive experince up above their peacetime USN counter-parts, and both would be outshadowed by the British and Commonwealth ships (which had seen a real war with action).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

This ship means business! I haven't looked recently, but I wonder what the experience levels are for the BBS and other surface ships that have been around since the beginning?

No doubt grossly overrated. IRL the performance of the IJN BBs was pretty close to abysmal in all their engagements. Not one of them had ever fired a shot in anger on 12/07/1941 and such practice engagements as any of them fought subsequently do nothing whatever to justify any especially high experience level. ISE and HYUGA both suffered significant non-combat materiel casualties in early 42. Mutsu blew up spontaneously in 43. Yamashiro and Fuso's only engagement does little to inspire anything positive. KIRISHIMA and HIEI beat a USN cruiser TF but failed to complete their mission (not mention that HIEI subsequently became "a source of infinite pride for the Emperor"). Of course the KIRISHIMA did the same a few nights later in its second engagement. And then there is the Battle off Samar" wherein 4 IJN BBs had their ultimate chance for glory and failed miserably (unless ont thinks that trading 3 of their screening cruisers for a CVE, a DE and a couple of DDs was worth it).

IRL the practice that the IJN CAs/CLs/DDs had in night combat exercises pre-war does seemingly justify a higher experience level for those IJN ship types vs corresponding American types. It should be noted however that no significant proportion of the IJN crews and captains of any type had actually "seen the elephant" when they went to war. IJN doctrine caused the IJN light ships to take a more aggressive role against the "enemy" (US) battleline in night combat as exemplified in the Solomons while US doctrine emphasized screening said battleline in those same engagements.

(The Brits and their Commonwealth Allies' ships had for the most part seen real (not exercise) combat. With England stretched thin strategically those ships had mostly "seen the elephant" in multiple ways and on multiple occasions.)

It is worth noting that the IJN had been on a war-footing since 1938 with the invasion of China. While they didn't exactly see much action against the Chinese Navy, the demands of a genuine war would probably drive experince up above their peacetime USN counter-parts, and both would be outshadowed by the British and Commonwealth ships (which had seen a real war with action).

This, plus the older IJN crew (who would be on the BBs...) saw action against Russia in 1905. That's where Yamamoto lost his fingers. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that there were still over IJN careerists who were veterans of that battle.

quote:

This, plus the older IJN crew (who would be on the BBs...) saw action against Russia in 1905. That's where Yamamoto lost his fingers. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that there were still over IJN careerists who were veterans of that battle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

(Gunnery practice was most assuredly limited too since each and every round fired through large caliber weapon changes the diameter of the bore and hence changes the ballistics of each subsequent round. Not exactly the same thing as plinking with a .22. It is expensive to change out the barrel liner of a 14/16/18" gun and it means taking the ship out of the OOB for a goodly while.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

... I might add that it is curious that pilots gain skills in everything from dropping bombs to brushing their teeth but ships' crews have a universal experience level no matter what they practice, train for, engage in or survive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

(Gunnery practice was most assuredly limited too since each and every round fired through large caliber weapon changes the diameter of the bore and hence changes the ballistics of each subsequent round. Not exactly the same thing as plinking with a .22. It is expensive to change out the barrel liner of a 14/16/18" gun and it means taking the ship out of the OOB for a goodly while.)

This inability to continually use these big guns day after day for months while bombarding and fighting major sea battles is not really modeled into the game. It would be really interesting if it were. It would slow the pace for both sides in naval engagements, and keep some ships heading back to the Home Islands or the West coast instead of being able to be fixed locally in many areas. That would be more fun for me, as then after some major battles you'd know certain ships might not be around for a while for either side, and would increase strategic planning to keep some big guns available in hard fought areas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

(Gunnery practice was most assuredly limited too since each and every round fired through large caliber weapon changes the diameter of the bore and hence changes the ballistics of each subsequent round. Not exactly the same thing as plinking with a .22. It is expensive to change out the barrel liner of a 14/16/18" gun and it means taking the ship out of the OOB for a goodly while.)

This inability to continually use these big guns day after day for months while bombarding and fighting major sea battles is not really modeled into the game. It would be really interesting if it were. It would slow the pace for both sides in naval engagements, and keep some ships heading back to the Home Islands or the West coast instead of being able to be fixed locally in many areas. That would be more fun for me, as then after some major battles you'd know certain ships might not be around for a while for either side, and would increase strategic planning to keep some big guns available in hard fought areas.

I whined a great deal about this in the early days of AE-just too many surface fights and bombardments in the game. But the reality is that AE players tend to love surface battles (me included) and to have the ships act historically would curtail many of those bloody night fights that we all seem to love. The other effect would to increase the importance of air power over that of surface ships which was more to the tune of historical reality as well. However, after five years I have grown to accept the trade off of more action at a cost of reality. Night naval battles are so much more fun than carrier battles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I always hated the fact that the AI will try to put 1000 fuel per port size. Playing Japan, you need every precious drop.