crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
|
I am well into three solid campaigns of UV and would like to offer up the following comments for discussion. I am interested to hear other opinions on this subject.
It seems to me that surface ships are overmodeled and have too great an impact on the game. In scenarios 17 and 19, Japanese surface ships can dominate Allied land based air with careful and systematic use of the "shuttle bombardment". The use of shuttle bombardment by the Japanese surface forces will in effect shut down any major port and airbase with sustained damage. In the face of superior Japanese carrier assets, it is very difficult for the allies to counter this and Allied land based air asset have little chance to respond to these bombardments as the Japanese fleets hit at night and are out of range by morning. By pairing BBs and sending them in in sucession, an American base is efffectively pounded out of action in about three turns. Forcing the Americans to commit either weaker surface units or carrier units to the fight or accepting the loss of the base. Anyone who has played the "Four weeks in Hell" scenario as the Allies knows the frustration involved here.
I have no argument with these tactics, as well placed naval bombardments make sense and are needed to soften up a base for invasion. However, I contend that the repeated use of surface forces for this purpose by either side was an imposibility and this should be modeled in the game. The first issue of course was the severe limitations of fuel stocks that the Japanese were faced with. However, more important and not reflected in the game is the severe strain on a capital surface ship that even one sustained action would have.
My point is that capital ships were in fact very fragile and could only be used in limited amounts. Two factors come into play. The first is that heavy caliber guns had a very limited useful life.
Here is a coment on the USS Houston which give us a rare and useful study of a major surface ship that experienced prolonged action without service or refit.
"The life of an 8-inch gun of that time was about 300 rounds. By the end of the afternoons battle (Java Sea), the guns of turret 1 had fired 261 salvos since thier installation, including 97 salvos that afternoon alone......Before long, our main battery would be practically useless....Because the main battery fire had been very rapid over a sustained period, the liners of the gun barrels had crept out of the guns an inch or more".
So in effect, a capital ship that had been in say, two bombardments and one surface action in game terms should in effect, be about useless as far as guns are concerned.
My second point is that the wear and tear from action was not just to the guns. Big gun ships of the era, no matter how well built, underwent incredible stress to systems and structure when firing main gun armament. The japanese heavy cruisers and American treaty cruisers were actually too light for their main armament. A prolonged gun duel, even without taking enemy damage would, just about wreck a ship. Again I quote from the Houston's experience.
"The Houston was a wreck. During the battle turrets 1 and 2 had fired 199 salvos of ammunition for a total of 597 8-inch shells. Concussions fromt the main batteries had played havoc with the ships interior......The glass windows on the bridge were shattered. Steel plates along the ship's sides, already weakened by near hits in previous bombing attacks, were now badly sprung and shipping water....."
After an major action, above deck equipment such as radar, AA mounts, foat planes, boats could be completely smashed up just from the concussion of the main arament.
In her surface action with the Bismark. The HMS Rodney's 16-inch guns so damaged her superstructure and frame, that she had to be put in an American shipyard for a major overhaul.
Now in our game, there is no real penalty other than the normal system wear for overusing surface assets. You can base your BBs at Shortland, gas them up, and sent them down the slot night after night to pound Lunga.
Historically, this was just not a reality and it should be reflected in this fine game. How do we do this? The answer I think is simple. Place fairly substantial system damage on capital surface ships after each major action. A good Japanese player can still use his overwhelming suface forces to knock out a major base, however, at a cost. The intense use of surface ships will force either player to eventually have to send his ships back to Pearl or Tokyo for refit. This I think will bring the use of surface assets back into the real of historical reality.
Bear in mind that historically, land based air held the advantage over surface units in the South Pacific. This should be reflected in our game. Because of fuel and wear limitations, both sides had to measure when to use surface units. With the exception of certain critical times, superior Japanes surface forces were held in check by Allied ground air. As it is now, I think that equation is a little out of balance in the game.
I welcome your comments.
_____________________________
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.
Sigismund of Luxemburg
|
Printable Version
Ok, lets talk about surface ships. - 
Very much true - 
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