New battle of Midway Article

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

New battle of Midway Article

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 >> New battle of Midway Article

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

New battle of Midway Article - 3/4/2015 6:06:28 PM

witpqs

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

This brief review of a new article in Naval War College Review:
Always Have Branching Actions Prepared
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2015/03/always-have-branching-actions-prepared.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+InformationDissemination+%28Information+Dissemination%29

The article:
A QUESTION OF ESTIMATES
How Faulty Intelligence Drove Scouting at the Battle of Midway
Anthony Tully and Lu Yu
https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/fb6e3982-4f6f-43ee-8742-23261fb5f486/A-Question-of-Estimates--How-Faulty-Intelligence-D.aspx

A teaser:

quote:

In a few particulars, we
now feel that Shattered Sword�s account is still too
critical of Nagumo.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

Post #: 1

RE: New battle of Midway Article - 3/5/2015 4:28:00 AM

Buckrock

Posts: 578
Joined: 3/16/2012
From: Not all there
Status: offline

Good stuff.

It was interesting to see the authors mention that the searches conducted by the USN carriers could be just as problematic when they
weren't anticipating enemy carriers.

I'd recently read some accounts of the USN carrier raids in the first half of 1942. At times there could be limited or no dawn searches,
strike bombers being refueled and rearmed below decks, or strikes being held aboard due to the need to cycle CAP in the face of enemy
land-based air threats. It did sound eerily familiar.

Thankfully at these times the IJN carriers were always where they were supposed to be, somewhere else.

_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 2

RE: New battle of Midway Article - 3/5/2015 2:44:36 PM

dr.hal

Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline

Thanks for sharing the article, I'll read it with interest as I really liked Shattered Sword. Hal

_____________________________

(in reply to Buckrock)

Post #: 3

RE: New battle of Midway Article - 3/5/2015 9:53:17 PM

Jones944

Posts: 153
Joined: 3/3/2008
Status: offline

quote:

The number of patrol planes needed to cover just 180 degrees out to six
hundred nautical miles would be anywhere between fifty and seventy in all, and
thirty needed to take off simultaneously at dawn. 44 Midway never had such num-
bers.

Here's an interesting snippet from the article. 600 NM in the game is about 15 hexes, but in game it only requires two squadrons of 18 PBYs to do this 180 degree search, or one squadron if we do 90 degrees in the morning and 90 degrees in the afternoon phases. Seems like the game makes naval searches about twice as effective as they would be in real life.

(in reply to dr.hal)

Post #: 4

RE: New battle of Midway Article - 3/6/2015 1:35:20 AM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jones944

quote:

The number of patrol planes needed to cover just 180 degrees out to six
hundred nautical miles would be anywhere between fifty and seventy in all, and
thirty needed to take off simultaneously at dawn. 44 Midway never had such num-
bers.

Here's an interesting snippet from the article. 600 NM in the game is about 15 hexes, but in game it only requires two squadrons of 18 PBYs to do this 180 degree search, or one squadron if we do 90 degrees in the morning and 90 degrees in the afternoon phases. Seems like the game makes naval searches about twice as effective as they would be in real life.

What you are leaving out is that the game makes the search less effective the farther out it goes. It still might not be as effective as real life, but they do impose some sort of penalty.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to Jones944)

Post #: 5

RE: New battle of Midway Article - 3/6/2015 5:21:15 PM

Jones944

Posts: 153
Joined: 3/3/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jones944

quote:

The number of patrol planes needed to cover just 180 degrees out to six
hundred nautical miles would be anywhere between fifty and seventy in all, and
thirty needed to take off simultaneously at dawn. 44 Midway never had such num-
bers.

Here's an interesting snippet from the article. 600 NM in the game is about 15 hexes, but in game it only requires two squadrons of 18 PBYs to do this 180 degree search, or one squadron if we do 90 degrees in the morning and 90 degrees in the afternoon phases. Seems like the game makes naval searches about twice as effective as they would be in real life.

What you are leaving out is that the game makes the search less effective the farther out it goes. It still might not be as effective as real life, but they do impose some sort of penalty.

So you're saying that in order to have effective searches past 10 hexes or so in the game, more than one plane should be travelling along each search arc?

How would you read the intent of the statement from the article and translate that into game terms?

_____________________________

"Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war" - William Shakespeare, "Julius Caesar"

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 6

RE: New battle of Midway Article - 3/6/2015 5:56:05 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jones944

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jones944

quote:

The number of patrol planes needed to cover just 180 degrees out to six
hundred nautical miles would be anywhere between fifty and seventy in all, and
thirty needed to take off simultaneously at dawn. 44 Midway never had such num-
bers.

Here's an interesting snippet from the article. 600 NM in the game is about 15 hexes, but in game it only requires two squadrons of 18 PBYs to do this 180 degree search, or one squadron if we do 90 degrees in the morning and 90 degrees in the afternoon phases. Seems like the game makes naval searches about twice as effective as they would be in real life.

What you are leaving out is that the game makes the search less effective the farther out it goes. It still might not be as effective as real life, but they do impose some sort of penalty.

So you're saying that in order to have effective searches past 10 hexes or so in the game, more than one plane should be travelling along each search arc?

How would you read the intent of the statement from the article and translate that into game terms?

The game formulas on the matter are not disclosed to us (that I saw), but they have said that the longer a search is the less effective it is. So, yes, one way to improve things is to have arcs from different groups overlap, that way what one plane misses another might find. Even better is to have them be from different bases when you can, so that adverse weather is less likely to nix your entire sweep of an area.

But in terms of the article, that was a different matter. They were talking more about the resources commanders dedicated to search on any given day. In-game we have an easier time being vigilant, the game mechanics are different than real life, we get different cues than they did, and we have hindsight. So in the game I think we need to be more vigilant overall with air search, and we can be. They figured out how to be (and got more resources to put to the job), but they had to learn the lessons that we have already read about.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to Jones944)

Post #: 7

RE: New battle of Midway Article - 3/8/2015 1:53:53 AM

spence

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

There are a lot of articles at the Naval War College Review website that should interest Forum members. The Winter 2014 Issue has an article about Minoru Genda's planning for the Pearl Harbor attack...the Winter 2015 has something of a rebuttal of many the first authors' points and includes an something of an operational analysis of the failings of that attack. Interesting reading in both.

Somewhat akin to the articles in 2000/2001 by Parsham/Tully and Ishom that took different points of view regarding the Battle of Midways crucial moments. Both of those resulted in books: "Shattered Sword" and "Midway Inquest".

For any history buff its always good to take a peek at the NWCR every so often.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 8

RE: New battle of Midway Article - 3/9/2015 3:38:40 AM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

Thanks for the link.

One reason is that aircraft availability is too good in game even if 70% of squadron flies.

From Midway:

quote:

� 43 The number of patrol planes needed to cover just 180 degrees out to six
hundred nautical miles would be anywhere between fifty and seventy in all, and
thirty needed to take off simultaneously at dawn� 44 Midway never had such num-
bers�

quote:

44� Assuming visibility of twenty-five nautical
miles and a range of six hundred, one patrol
plane can cover a sector of about six degrees
without gaps� A range of six hundred miles or
more was needed to give warning of any fast-
approaching (twenty-five knot) enemy carrier
force planning to launch an air strike at dawn,
two hundred nautical miles from Midway�

< Message edited by Dili -- 3/9/2015 5:12:33 AM >

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 9