RE: What good are battleships?

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: What good are battleships?

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 >> RE: What good are battleships?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: What good are battleships? - 12/14/2011 9:31:40 AM

jmalter

Posts: 1673
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline

early USN BBs 'sunk' at Pearl were re-floated, re-paired & re-equipped. after modernization, they could hold a place in the battle-line, as SurfTF combat units, or as AA adjuncts. Rebuilt 'slow' BBs are an essential element for AmphTFs, they can be used in a protection role in SurfTF against enemy fleets, or as Bombardment TFs to soften enemy base targets, or as elements of an AmphTF, to suppress enemy defensive fires at an invasion hex.

as an attack force, when covered by air cap, they can deny sea-lanes to the enemy.

BBs can rule the waves, if they're used wisely!

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 31

RE: What good are battleships? - 12/14/2011 11:01:26 AM

pharmy

Posts: 271
Joined: 4/3/2010
From: Bangkok/Budapest
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Few months later battleship Yamato was sent to one way suicide mission without any hope of success and meaningful duty!

Leo "Apollo11"

Not commenting on what happened at Samar, but operation Ten-Go (the Yamato suicide mission) is a perfect example of relatively sensible IJN officers losing out vs Hirohito/and Army clique that got them in the war in first place. Hirohito bullied the CIC of the combined fleet, Toyoda Soemu to do something to match the army's self sacrifice. The commander, Vice Admiral Seiichi ito actually refused to carry out the order. So the CIC sent his chief of staff Vice Admiral Ryunosuke Kusaka (a man who also did not believe in suicidal missions) to convince Ito and the other captains of the combined fleet to carry out the operation. They unanimously refused !!!

And this is where the story starts to parallel operation Sho-Go, the admirals and captains were told that in truth its not about the pride of the Navy, but that they were supposed to carry out the mission to divert planes from the defense of Okinawa to allow a huge kamikaze operation to sneak through.

About 120 planes did indeed attack Okinawa on that day, but was the (unsuccesful) kamikaze attack dreamed up to give the navy commanders a rational reason to send Yamato on a suicide mission, or was it part of the plan all along?

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 32

RE: What good are battleships? - 12/14/2011 11:10:37 AM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarconix

Thanks! So I have: AA platform and surface combat against a weaker force. How about bombardment?

Were they historically effective in these roles, or does this only apply to WITP?

I prefer CAs for bombardment. BBs carry much less ammo and get 1-2 shots before they have to find a port to rearm. CAs can shoot multiple times due to their high ammo load.

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Sarconix)

Post #: 33

RE: What good are battleships? - 12/14/2011 11:16:45 AM

Erkki

Posts: 1461
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

They make excellent secondary targets, drawing shells, bombs and torpedoes away from more useful ships such as CAs and CVs.

You also get to practice evacuation, damage control and ship repairing with them with a smaller risk of the hit ships sinking.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 34

RE: What good are battleships? - 12/14/2011 11:19:31 AM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

As a Japanese player, I love them. If they catch an Allied cruiser/destroyer force, they'll shred them in return for a bit of chipped paint. You just need to be careful with them, as you do with all Japanese ships (and everything else for that matter).

Just like in real life??? All the skill displayed by IJN DD and cruiser captains in real life battles seems to have been offset by captains and admirals who commanded in the IJN Battleline.

I'm talking game, not real life.

I'm very cautious about committing Japanese combat power, especially early and mid war. Late war, you're just about always outnumbered unless your opponent makes a mistake (and you get lucky). I don't want even odds. I want overwhelming odds in my favor. This also goes for commanders. Over time, I check out all commanders for my important units (naval, air and ground). It's worth the PPs to replace the schmoes. Sure, sometimes the BBs take damage. There's a huge difference between damage and sinking. Basically, anything that sinks usually doesn't have a replacement in the queue. Also, lots of damage means that ship is out of combat for months. I do everything I can to minimize that damage.

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 35

RE: What good are battleships? - 12/14/2011 11:35:44 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarconix

Thanks! So I have: AA platform and surface combat against a weaker force. How about bombardment?

Were they historically effective in these roles, or does this only apply to WITP?

I prefer CAs for bombardment. BBs carry much less ammo and get 1-2 shots before they have to find a port to rearm. CAs can shoot multiple times due to their high ammo load.

both BBs and CAs spend 2/3 of their main gun ammo during bombardment.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 36

RE: What good are battleships? - 12/14/2011 5:04:00 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

The Japanese had complex (again ) plan that deliberately meant sacrifice of part (or whole) of their fleet. All was done to insure that USN is drawn away and that US landing ships are destroyed / damaged / disrupted by all means possible...

I disagree. Dolson has it correct. The Japanese battle plan, complicated as it was, did not embrace or envision sacrificing the battle fleets in order to get at the carriers or anyone else. Nor did Kurita "drop the ball." He was getting his teeth kicked in by a relatively small US air force and a relatively small DD squadron in return for no apparent damage to the prey that he was seeking. He was not on a suicide mission. Those came later.

In my view, if he'd pressed the attack, he would have lost every ship in his TF. And he still would likely not have gotten to the other USN CVE task groups. He was losing badly. At that point in the war, the fire control systems on US light ships were so vastly superior to the ones on Japanese ships that any given USN DD could fight as effectively as a Japanese CA. Coupled with the damage he was taking from air power, withdrawal was both rational and, in my view, a "smart move" (given that he was NOT on a suicide mission).

quote:

And what happens when almost everything succeeded for the Japanese?

The USN was succeeding, not the IJN. Southern Force obliterated. Central force having its heart torn out by a.c. and a handful of USN DDs and DEs. He was losing the fight, with no good prospect of gaining the upper hand.

quote:

Few months later battleship Yamato was sent to one way suicide mission without any hope of success and meaningful duty!

Not Kurita's fault that he did not anticipate the profoundly stupid orders that were subsequently issued for the use of Yamato.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Sarconix)

Post #: 37

RE: What good are battleships? - 12/14/2011 5:12:14 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
Kurita "drops the ball" and makes a whole lot of wrong decisions for the Japanese...

His failure (and it was failure because other parts of the Japanese fleet knowingly scarified themselves for his success) is unforgiving IMHO!

Had Kurita the detail control an AE player has, I'm sure he would have done better.

_____________________________

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 38

RE: What good are battleships? - 12/14/2011 5:19:30 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
I'm talking game, not real life.

I'm very cautious about committing Japanese combat power, especially early and mid war. Late war, you're just about always outnumbered unless your opponent makes a mistake (and you get lucky). I don't want even odds. I want overwhelming odds in my favor. This also goes for commanders. Over time, I check out all commanders for my important units (naval, air and ground). It's worth the PPs to replace the schmoes. Sure, sometimes the BBs take damage. There's a huge difference between damage and sinking. Basically, anything that sinks usually doesn't have a replacement in the queue. Also, lots of damage means that ship is out of combat for months. I do everything I can to minimize that damage.

One does have to be alot more careful with BB's in AE. There's the ammo reload issue to be taken into account. The fuel cost, and the risk. You hit an important point. Once the damage piles up on a BB, it becomes a liability vs. an asset. Reg. SYS isn't so hard to remove but any major damage can take weeks/months to repair.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 39

RE: What good are battleships? - 12/15/2011 11:05:52 AM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
Kurita "drops the ball" and makes a whole lot of wrong decisions for the Japanese...

His failure (and it was failure because other parts of the Japanese fleet knowingly scarified themselves for his success) is unforgiving IMHO!

Had Kurita the detail control an AE player has, I'm sure he would have done better.

True... but it is interesting to notice that in both occasions IJN ships had a chance to directly attack US transport ships they missed the chance...

IMHO both Mikawa and Kurita should have tried to attack the US transport ships!

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 40

RE: What good are battleships? - 12/15/2011 12:04:41 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
Kurita "drops the ball" and makes a whole lot of wrong decisions for the Japanese...

His failure (and it was failure because other parts of the Japanese fleet knowingly scarified themselves for his success) is unforgiving IMHO!

Had Kurita the detail control an AE player has, I'm sure he would have done better.

True... but it is interesting to notice that in both occasions IJN ships had a chance to directly attack US transport ships they missed the chance...

IMHO both Mikawa and Kurita should have tried to attack the US transport ships!

Leo "Apollo11"

I would recommend reading Sea of Thunder for some insight into the mindset of Kurita. The book includes material from an interview with him after the war.

One one hand, from the perspective of a pure warrior, one would have to agree that his decision not to press home the attck on the transports was unforgivable in the face of the sacrifice made by the southern force. On the other hand, from the perspective of a man with a conscience who knew the war was lost, he can be congratulated for sparing the lives of many.

Kurita's heart simply wasn't in the mission.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 41