RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post)

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: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post)

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: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post)

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 4:19:40 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

" something is wrong with our damn torpedoes " ! We fired a lot of them and (I noted most cruisers and DD have empty torpedo magazines) but only a single one hit and exploded...

I have pics of the Yamato battles and more info what went wrong for unknown reasons and complete combat reports in my AAR if someone is interested. Link: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4175198

But ok here I copy it too:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 198 encounters mine field at Kirakira (116,140)

Japanese Ships
SS RO-63, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine attack near Kirakira at 116,140

Japanese Ships
SSX Ha-20, hits 9, and is sunk

Allied Ships
BB Idaho
CA Cornwall
CA San Francisco
CA Astoria
CL St. Louis
CL Dauntless
CL Hobart
DD Lang
DD O'Brien
DD Le Triomphant
DD Isaac Sweers
DD Selfridge
DD Flusser

SSX Ha-20 is sighted by escort
DD Le Triomphant fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Isaac Sweers attacking submerged sub ....
DD Isaac Sweers cannot establish contact with SSX Ha-20
DD Isaac Sweers loses contact with SSX Ha-20
DD Isaac Sweers loses contact with SSX Ha-20
DD Selfridge fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Flusser fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Isaac Sweers attacking submerged sub ....
DD Isaac Sweers loses contact with SSX Ha-20
DD Isaac Sweers loses contact with SSX Ha-20
DD Flusser attacking submerged sub ....
SSX Ha-20 forced to surface!
DD Flusser firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Le Triomphant firing on surfaced sub ....
Massive explosion on SSX Ha-20
Sub slips beneath the waves

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 257 encounters mine field at Kirakira (116,140)

Japanese Ships
SSX Ha-25, Mine hits 2, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Kirakira at 116,140, Range 8,000 Yards (why did the slower TF arrive first?)

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
OS2U-3 Kingfisher: 2 destroyed

Japanese Ships
BB Yamato, Shell hits 37, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
CA Kinugasa, Shell hits 4, on fire
CL Kuma
CL Kiso, Shell hits 2
CL Oi
DD Nowaki
DD Hibiki, Shell hits 3, on fire
DD Fumizuki
DD Oite
DD Hayate, Shell hits 4, heavy fires

Allied Ships
BB Idaho, Shell hits 38, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
CA Pensacola, Shell hits 1
CA Salt Lake City, Shell hits 2
CA Astoria, Shell hits 6, on fire
CA San Francisco, Shell hits 8, heavy fires
CA Australia, Shell hits 1
CA Cornwall
CL Leander
CL De Ruyter, Shell hits 1
CL Tromp, Shell hits 1
CL Hobart, Shell hits 2
CL Dauntless, Shell hits 4, on fire
CL St. Louis, Shell hits 1
DD O'Brien, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Henley
DD Jarvis
DD McCall, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Benham
DD Lang
DD Stack, Shell hits 4, heavy fires
DD Wilson, Shell hits 1
DD Flusser, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Selfridge
DD Isaac Sweers, Shell hits 4
DD Le Triomphant

Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions and 67% moonlight: 12,000 yards
Range closes to 20,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 20,000 yards
Range closes to 14,000 yards...
Range closes to 8,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 8,000 yards
Kingman, F.V. crosses the 'T'
BB Yamato engages BB Idaho at 8,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages BB Idaho at 8,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA San Francisco at 8,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Astoria at 8,000 yards
BB Idaho engages DD Hayate at 8,000 yards
BB Idaho engages DD Oite at 8,000 yards
DD Fumizuki engages BB Idaho at 8,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL Hobart at 8,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL Tromp at 8,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL De Ruyter at 8,000 yards
DD Hibiki engages DD Isaac Sweers at 8,000 yards
DD Hibiki engages DD Wilson at 8,000 yards
DD Jarvis engages DD Hayate at 8,000 yards
DD Hibiki engages DD O'Brien at 8,000 yards
Range closes to 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages BB Idaho at 4,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages CA Cornwall at 4,000 yards
CL Oi engages BB Idaho at 4,000 yards
BB Idaho engages CL Kiso at 4,000 yards
BB Idaho engages CL Kuma at 4,000 yards
CA Salt Lake City engages DD Hayate at 4,000 yards
DD Wilson engages DD Oite at 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL St. Louis at 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL Dauntless at 4,000 yards
DD Nowaki engages DD Stack at 4,000 yards
BB Idaho engages BB Yamato at 4,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages BB Idaho at 4,000 yards
BB Idaho engages CL Oi at 4,000 yards
CL Kiso engages BB Idaho at 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Astoria at 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Salt Lake City at 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Pensacola at 4,000 yards
CL St. Louis engages DD Fumizuki at 4,000 yards
DD Hibiki engages DD O'Brien at 4,000 yards
DD Stack engages DD Nowaki at 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL Tromp at 4,000 yards
DD Benham engages DD Fumizuki at 4,000 yards
DD McCall engages DD Oite at 4,000 yards
DD Hibiki engages DD O'Brien at 4,000 yards
Range closes to 2,000 yards
BB Idaho sunk by BB Yamato at 2,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Australia at 2,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA San Francisco at 2,000 yards
DD Stack engages DD Oite at 2,000 yards
DD Fumizuki engages DD Isaac Sweers at 2,000 yards
CL Dauntless engages BB Yamato at 2,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL Hobart at 2,000 yards
CL Oi engages CL De Ruyter at 2,000 yards
DD Hibiki engages DD Isaac Sweers at 2,000 yards
DD Lang engages DD Hibiki at 2,000 yards
DD Benham engages DD Oite at 2,000 yards
DD Hayate engages DD McCall at 2,000 yards
Range increases to 3,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Cornwall at 3,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages CA Australia at 3,000 yards
CA San Francisco engages CL Oi at 3,000 yards
CL Kiso engages CA San Francisco at 3,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Salt Lake City at 3,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Pensacola at 3,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL St. Louis at 3,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL Dauntless at 3,000 yards
DD Stack engages DD Hibiki at 3,000 yards
CL Tromp engages BB Yamato at 3,000 yards
DD Le Triomphant engages DD Oite at 3,000 yards
DD Hibiki engages DD Flusser at 3,000 yards
DD Stack engages DD Hayate at 3,000 yards
Range increases to 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Cornwall at 4,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages CA San Francisco at 4,000 yards
CL Oi engages CA San Francisco at 4,000 yards
CA San Francisco engages CL Kiso at 4,000 yards
CL Kuma engages CA Salt Lake City at 4,000 yards
DD Oite engages DD Le Triomphant at 4,000 yards
DD Fumizuki engages DD O'Brien at 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL Hobart at 4,000 yards
DD Stack engages DD Nowaki at 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL Leander at 4,000 yards
DD Le Triomphant engages DD Nowaki at 4,000 yards
DD Hayate engages DD Isaac Sweers at 4,000 yards
DD Hibiki engages DD Stack at 4,000 yards
DD Jarvis engages DD Fumizuki at 4,000 yards
Range closes to 3,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA San Francisco at 3,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Australia at 3,000 yards
CL Oi engages CA San Francisco at 3,000 yards
CL Kiso engages CA San Francisco at 3,000 yards
CA San Francisco engages CL Kuma at 3,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Pensacola at 3,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL St. Louis at 3,000 yards
DD Fumizuki engages DD Jarvis at 3,000 yards
DD Hibiki engages DD McCall at 3,000 yards
DD Nowaki engages CL Tromp at 3,000 yards
DD Hayate engages DD Wilson at 3,000 yards
DD Hayate engages DD Henley at 3,000 yards
Range increases to 6,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA San Francisco at 6,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages CA Australia at 6,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA San Francisco at 6,000 yards
CL Kuma engages CA San Francisco at 6,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Pensacola at 6,000 yards
DD Oite engages DD Benham at 6,000 yards
DD Fumizuki engages DD McCall at 6,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL Hobart at 6,000 yards
DD Nowaki engages DD Stack at 6,000 yards
DD Hayate engages DD Le Triomphant at 6,000 yards
DD Selfridge engages DD Hayate at 6,000 yards
DD Fumizuki engages DD Flusser at 6,000 yards
DD Benham engages DD Hayate at 6,000 yards
Range increases to 9,000 yards
CA Australia engages BB Yamato at 9,000 yards
CL Oi engages CA Pensacola at 9,000 yards
CL Kiso engages CA San Francisco at 9,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Salt Lake City at 9,000 yards
CA Pensacola engages DD Hayate at 9,000 yards
DD Oite engages DD Flusser at 9,000 yards
DD McCall engages DD Fumizuki at 9,000 yards
CL Hobart engages DD Hibiki at 9,000 yards
DD Nowaki engages DD McCall at 9,000 yards
CL Kuma engages CL De Ruyter at 9,000 yards
DD Nowaki engages DD Le Triomphant at 9,000 yards
DD Flusser engages DD Hayate at 9,000 yards
DD Hibiki engages DD Wilson at 9,000 yards
DD Lang engages DD Hibiki at 9,000 yards
DD Oite engages DD Jarvis at 9,000 yards
Range increases to 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA San Francisco at 12,000 yards
CA San Francisco engages CA Kinugasa at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA San Francisco at 12,000 yards
CL Kuma engages CA San Francisco at 12,000 yards
DD Stack engages DD Hayate at 12,000 yards
DD Oite engages DD Stack at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL Hobart at 12,000 yards
DD O'Brien engages DD Nowaki at 12,000 yards
DD Stack engages DD Nowaki at 12,000 yards
DD Fumizuki engages DD Benham at 12,000 yards
DD Hayate engages DD Jarvis at 12,000 yards
DD Henley engages DD Oite at 12,000 yards
Task forces break off...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Kirakira at 116,140, Range 12,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CL Jintsu, Shell hits 6, on fire
CL Yubari
DD Mochizuki, Shell hits 1
DD Tachikaze
DD Fuyo
DD Yugao

Allied Ships
CA Pensacola
CA Salt Lake City
CA Astoria, heavy fires
CA San Francisco, Shell hits 1, heavy fires
CA Australia
CA Cornwall
CL Leander
CL De Ruyter
CL Tromp, on fire
CL Hobart
CL Dauntless, on fire
CL St. Louis, on fire
DD O'Brien, on fire
DD Henley
DD Jarvis
DD McCall, heavy fires
DD Benham
DD Lang
DD Stack, Shell hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Wilson, on fire
DD Flusser, heavy fires
DD Selfridge
DD Isaac Sweers, on fire
DD Le Triomphant

Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions and 67% moonlight: 12,000 yards
Range closes to 24,000 yards...
Range closes to 22,000 yards...
Range closes to 20,000 yards...
Range closes to 18,000 yards...
Range closes to 16,000 yards...
Range closes to 14,000 yards...
Range closes to 12,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 12,000 yards
Allies open fire on surprised Japanese ships at 12,000 yards (LOL)
CA Cornwall fires at CL Jintsu at 12,000 yards
CA San Francisco fires at CL Jintsu at 12,000 yards
CA San Francisco fires at CL Jintsu at 12,000 yards
CA Astoria fires at CL Jintsu at 12,000 yards
CL Dauntless fires at CL Jintsu at 12,000 yards
CL Leander fires at CL Jintsu at 12,000 yards
DD Flusser fires at DD Mochizuki at 12,000 yards
DD Henley fires at DD Mochizuki at 12,000 yards
Range closes to 11,000 yards
CA San Francisco engages CL Yubari at 11,000 yards
CL Jintsu engages CA San Francisco at 11,000 yards
DD Mochizuki engages DD Stack at 11,000 yards
DD Mochizuki engages DD Jarvis at 11,000 yards
CA Cornwall engages CL Jintsu at 11,000 yards
CA San Francisco engages CL Jintsu at 11,000 yards
CA San Francisco engages DD Yugao at 11,000 yards
DD Stack engages DD Fuyo at 11,000 yards
DD Fuyo engages DD Benham at 11,000 yards
DD Mochizuki engages DD McCall at 11,000 yards
Range closes to 10,000 yards
CL Jintsu engages CA Cornwall at 10,000 yards
CL Jintsu engages CA San Francisco at 10,000 yards
DD Flusser engages DD Fuyo at 10,000 yards
CA Salt Lake City engages CL Jintsu at 10,000 yards
DD Mochizuki engages DD Henley at 10,000 yards
CL Jintsu engages CL St. Louis at 10,000 yards
DD Mochizuki engages DD Le Triomphant at 10,000 yards
DD Fuyo engages DD McCall at 10,000 yards
Range closes to 8,000 yards
CL Yubari engages CA San Francisco at 8,000 yards
CL Jintsu engages CA Australia at 8,000 yards
CA San Francisco engages CL Jintsu at 8,000 yards
CL Jintsu engages CA Astoria at 8,000 yards
CA Salt Lake City engages CL Jintsu at 8,000 yards
DD Stack engages DD Mochizuki at 8,000 yards
CL Jintsu engages CL St. Louis at 8,000 yards
CL Jintsu engages CL Leander at 8,000 yards
DD Selfridge engages DD Mochizuki at 8,000 yards
DD Mochizuki engages DD Stack at 8,000 yards
DD Henley engages DD Mochizuki at 8,000 yards
Range increases to 11,000 yards
CL Yubari engages CA Cornwall at 11,000 yards
CL Jintsu engages CA Australia at 11,000 yards
CA San Francisco engages DD Yugao at 11,000 yards
DD Stack engages DD Fuyo at 11,000 yards
CL Jintsu engages CA Salt Lake City at 11,000 yards
DD Jarvis engages DD Mochizuki at 11,000 yards
CL Jintsu engages CL Leander at 11,000 yards
Kozai, Torazo orders Japanese TF to disengage
Range increases to 12,000 yards
CL Yubari engages CA San Francisco at 12,000 yards
CA Australia engages CL Jintsu at 12,000 yards
DD Yugao engages DD Stack at 12,000 yards
CA Astoria engages CL Jintsu at 12,000 yards
DD Stack engages DD Tachikaze at 12,000 yards
DD McCall engages DD Mochizuki at 12,000 yards
CL Leander engages CL Jintsu at 12,000 yards
DD Fuyo engages DD Jarvis at 12,000 yards
Range increases to 13,000 yards
CL Jintsu engages CA Cornwall at 13,000 yards
CA San Francisco engages CL Jintsu at 13,000 yards
DD McCall engages DD Yugao at 13,000 yards
CA Salt Lake City engages DD Tachikaze at 13,000 yards
DD Mochizuki engages DD Stack at 13,000 yards
CL Jintsu engages CL St. Louis at 13,000 yards
CL Hobart engages CL Jintsu at 13,000 yards
DD Henley engages DD Mochizuki at 13,000 yards
DD Tachikaze engages DD O'Brien at 13,000 yards
Task forces break off...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Kirakira at 116,140

Japanese Ships
SSX Ha-16

Allied Ships
DD Henley
CA Cornwall
CA Australia
CA San Francisco, on fire
CA Salt Lake City
CL Tromp
CL Leander
DD McCall
DD Selfridge
DD Flusser, on fire
DD Wilson
DD Lang

SSX Ha-16 launches 2 torpedoes at DD Henley
Ha-16 bottoming out ....
DD Selfridge fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Flusser fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Wilson fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Lang fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Flusser fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Wilson fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Flusser fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Wilson fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Kirakira at 116,140, Range 12,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
BB Yamato, Shell hits 40, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Oite
DD Hayate, Shell hits 9, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CA Pensacola
CA Salt Lake City
CA San Francisco, on fire
CA Australia
CA Cornwall
CL Leander
CL De Ruyter
CL Tromp
CL Hobart
DD Henley
DD Jarvis, Shell hits 2, heavy fires
DD McCall, on fire
DD Benham
DD Lang
DD Wilson
DD Flusser, on fire
DD Selfridge

Improved night sighting under 78% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions and 78% moonlight: 12,000 yards
Range closes to 24,000 yards...
Range closes to 22,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 22,000 yards
Range closes to 20,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 20,000 yards
Range closes to 18,000 yards...
Range closes to 16,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 16,000 yards
Range closes to 14,000 yards...
Range closes to 12,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 12,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Cornwall at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Australia at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA San Francisco at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages DD Lang at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages DD Jarvis at 12,000 yards
Range closes to 9,000 yards
DD Jarvis engages DD Hayate at 9,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL Leander at 9,000 yards
BB Yamato engages DD Selfridge at 9,000 yards
DD Wilson engages DD Hayate at 9,000 yards
Range closes to 6,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Australia at 6,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL Leander at 6,000 yards
DD Jarvis engages DD Hayate at 6,000 yards
Range closes to 3,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA San Francisco at 3,000 yards
DD Selfridge engages DD Hayate at 3,000 yards
DD Selfridge engages DD Hayate at 3,000 yards
DD Benham engages DD Hayate at 3,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Cornwall at 3,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Australia at 3,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA San Francisco at 3,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Salt Lake City at 3,000 yards
DD Hayate engages DD Lang at 3,000 yards
Range increases to 4,000 yards
CA Australia engages DD Hayate at 4,000 yards
DD Flusser engages DD Hayate at 4,000 yards
Range increases to 5,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA San Francisco at 5,000 yards
CA Australia engages DD Hayate at 5,000 yards
DD Oite engages DD Jarvis at 5,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Pensacola at 5,000 yards
Range closes to 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Cornwall at 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Australia at 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Pensacola at 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL De Ruyter at 4,000 yards
DD Oite engages DD Benham at 4,000 yards
DD McCall engages DD Hayate at 4,000 yards
DD Jarvis engages DD Oite at 4,000 yards
DD McCall engages DD Oite at 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Salt Lake City at 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Pensacola at 4,000 yards
DD Jarvis engages DD Oite at 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Australia at 4,000 yards
Range increases to 7,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Cornwall at 7,000 yards
DD Jarvis engages DD Oite at 7,000 yards
Range increases to 8,000 yards
DD Selfridge engages DD Oite at 8,000 yards
Japanese Task Force Manages to Escape
Task forces break off...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Kirakira at 116,140, Range 12,000 Yards

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
E13A1 Jake: 6 destroyed

Japanese Ships
BB Yamato, Shell hits 48, and is sunk
DD Oite

Allied Ships
CA Pensacola
CA Salt Lake City
CA Australia
CA Cornwall
CL Leander
CL De Ruyter
CL Tromp
CL Hobart
DD Henley
DD Benham
DD Lang, Shell hits 1
DD Selfridge

Improved night sighting under 78% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions and 78% moonlight: 12,000 yards
Range closes to 24,000 yards...
Range closes to 22,000 yards...
Range closes to 20,000 yards...
Range closes to 18,000 yards...
Range closes to 16,000 yards...
Range closes to 14,000 yards...
Range closes to 12,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 12,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Cornwall at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Cornwall at 12,000 yards
CA Australia engages DD Oite at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL Leander at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages DD Benham at 12,000 yards
Range closes to 9,000 yards
DD Lang engages DD Oite at 9,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Salt Lake City at 9,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Pensacola at 9,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL Hobart at 9,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL De Ruyter at 9,000 yards
BB Yamato engages DD Selfridge at 9,000 yards
DD Lang engages DD Oite at 9,000 yards
Range closes to 7,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Cornwall at 7,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Australia at 7,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Salt Lake City at 7,000 yards
BB Yamato engages DD Henley at 7,000 yards
Range closes to 6,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Cornwall at 6,000 yards
DD Oite engages DD Benham at 6,000 yards
DD Henley engages DD Oite at 6,000 yards
Range increases to 7,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Cornwall at 7,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Australia at 7,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Pensacola at 7,000 yards
DD Oite engages DD Benham at 7,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Cornwall at 7,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Australia at 7,000 yards
BB Yamato sunk by CA Pensacola at 7,000 yards
Range increases to 9,000 yards
DD Benham engages DD Oite at 9,000 yards
Japanese Task Force Manages to Escape
Task forces break off...

Going to break it down to why I think your torpedoes did not do well. First good moon light and his radar spotted your TF at 20,000 yards meaning most of your torps were probably fired off at long range thus fewer hits. Your first TF had the T crossed on it thus less than optimal conditions for using torpedoes. You second TF was discovered at long range by radar then surprised-once again less than optimal conditions for torpedoes. If you had gone in on a darker night I suspect you would have done much better as his big mistake was using a TF that was way too large at night combined with a slow BB that would have made the whole TF more vulnerable to torpedoes. And then sometimes you just roll the dice bad.

Nice for him to trade Idaho for Yamato but if he had gone in with three eight ship TFs and left Idaho at home, he might very well had destroyed you.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 91

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 4:25:31 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DRF99

quote:

One option would be that there are at least two allied players to create even some friction between the allies and their objectives.

At the same time have two Japanese players who hate each other, hide information from each other, generally don't cooperate; one for the IJA, one for the IJN.

IJN: "Let's go to Australia"
IJA: "Screw you!"

IJN: "Let's go to India"
IJA: "Screw you!"

You can see the pattern here.

You have, this is exactly what I was thinking about for some time and the 2 positions did not want to co-operate in my mind. So I took a middleground, yes India but only smaller diversion in north aussie land. Well I do not hide information from myself I believe tho. What is clear that one of the ways to simulate the un-effective research and building assets for 2 different arms (eg. they could have concentrated on the Zero for both land and CVs, instead having Oscar too). You need more stripping of IJ factories, less resources at start, much less cargo ships with lower capacity and disable influencing research and building chosen by the player.

(in reply to DRF99)

Post #: 92

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 4:26:54 PM

Hotei

Posts: 110
Joined: 1/30/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hotei

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

He is weakest in China and it will fall eventually

He is strongest in the south (I have not seen any major combatants anywhere for a while except there) he certainly likes to concentrate his stuff (contrary to the AI, so I needed to get used to that - this is my 1st full PBM). I have a pretty clear picture of both Ndeni and Kira (good D/L), again 500-600 planes and 20 ships at Kira and 250 or so at Ndeni. I tried to isolate the places with subs, my sub sunk an AKL recently so I am making progress

Subs are funny he started to shoot his guns at the AKL and I thought, ah a clever capt not wasting torps, but then after the AKL was crippled already by gun fire he fired a torp spread Big succes: 1 VP It seems I sank CA Quincy perhaps near Ndeni 3 turns ago (2 torp hits could be enough or?)

You also seem to be pushing in India, dont over do it, just crushing China is a good objective if he is allowing it.
Keep a better win/loss ratio in the Solomons and dont commit valuable assets to do it.

THANKS! I have only few naval assets there, as I saw that he sends everything to the south (even candian corvets, all RN & Aussie ships). I also suspect he uses off map movement for most convois I was not able to find much on map so far. Would be cool if we get some possibility to send eg. subs and raiders "off map" to at least disturb this a bit. Or a simulation of German/Italian disturbances. He does not even need escort off map which in reality they would need esp. vs. German subs. OTH the loss of some cargo ships even with fuel/supply will not disturb the Allies much, they have/get enough of all these. Only troop convois would be a valueable target imo (except good combat ships).

I reached my main goal in India (Calcutta and 3-4 surounding towns as perimeter), will establish defense now there. Or would it be better to try getting more ? However I find most of the nearer places have not much foghting for (HI,oil eg). Most only a bit LI and RES.

Still no solution for the south, I am outnumbered there. It perhaps was a mistake to commit 2 divs and all these ships. But as reported above he would now have the whole area otherwise and can build giant bases and then make my positions at shortlands/rabaul dangerous (would always need huge CAP but 4e get through anyway - means could not even keep ships there in port/repair. This in turn would mean, my PM position becomes outflanked and I would need to reatreat to Truk area (in 42 already). Or is this analysis wrong

However he has significant air assets in India too (just not much naval, they are in the south) I wonder are not a lot of US units also restricted (and air units) Seems he lot he can bring in 42 already.

You should look for the convoys, now you could even sink them with surface assets if he has everything in the Solomons.
If the loss ratio is too high fall back and see what he does, keep his LOC under pressure and strike if he overreaches.

If he does not fight for India at all then naturally you should take it out, if that would mean winning the game.

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 93

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 4:31:03 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Going to break it down to why I think your torpedoes did not do well. First good moon light and his radar spotted your TF at 20,000 yards meaning most of your torps were probably fired off at long range thus fewer hits. Your first TF had the T crossed on it thus less than optimal conditions for using torpedoes. You second TF was discovered at long range by radar then surprised-once again less than optimal conditions for torpedoes. If you had gone in on a darker night I suspect you would have done much better as his big mistake was using a TF that was way too large at night combined with a slow BB that would have made the whole TF more vulnerable to torpedoes. And then sometimes you just roll the dice bad.

Nice for him to trade Idaho for Yamato but if he had gone in with three eight ship TFs and left Idaho at home, he might very well had destroyed you.

Thanks, well this is why I send in the small recon TF (faster!) but it arrived later. As written above despite the carnage going on with the main fleet battle, the small - recon TF which arrived for whatever reason after the slow TF was still surprised (not possible in reality, as all the fires, gunflashes etc. could seen from kilometers in the night, also I wonder why has main fleet not even notified small fleet of the enemy presence. Did IJ ships not have radios (I know they were bad and failed often... but we can assume ONE radio on all the ships should have worked sending out "WARNING...engaging enemy ships numbers xy, types xy, position zc.." so how could 2nd TF still be surprised ?

Yes I it is true I did not look at the moonlight value. My mistake, but I had to send back the ships then burning more fuel. So I decided to give it a go (esp. as these ships were from the bad list mostly) The jump off position at Tassa is far from safe for ships now (with also British planes present which have good exp and torpedoes right ? Also Avengers the Allies now have). Allied planes mostly get through a CAP imho, so I could have lost/damaged the ships if I had waited. Or needed to move them back, then in again etc. It was a deliberate gamble, to see if Yamato is worth something yes she is, but as written above better have good CAs then her :) Also my fuel supply at shortland is not THAT huge, if Yamato needed to refuel eg. But she is gone, problem solved. I will not use more BBs - they will become hotels for admiral at a safer place (like Yamato in reality)

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 2/10/2017 4:37:06 PM >

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 94

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 4:42:49 PM

Hotei

Posts: 110
Joined: 1/30/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Going to break it down to why I think your torpedoes did not do well. First good moon light and his radar spotted your TF at 20,000 yards meaning most of your torps were probably fired off at long range thus fewer hits. Your first TF had the T crossed on it thus less than optimal conditions for using torpedoes. You second TF was discovered at long range by radar then surprised-once again less than optimal conditions for torpedoes. If you had gone in on a darker night I suspect you would have done much better as his big mistake was using a TF that was way too large at night combined with a slow BB that would have made the whole TF more vulnerable to torpedoes. And then sometimes you just roll the dice bad.

Nice for him to trade Idaho for Yamato but if he had gone in with three eight ship TFs and left Idaho at home, he might very well had destroyed you.

Thanks, well this is why I send in the small recon TF (faster!) but it arrived later. As written above despite the carnage going on with the main fleet battle, the small - recon TF which arrived for whatever reason after the slow TF was still surprised (not possible in reality, as all the fires, gunflashes etc. could seen from kilometers in the night, also I wonder why has main fleet not even notified small fleet of the enemy presence. Did IJ ships not have radios (I know they were bad and failed often... but we can assume ONE radio on all the ships should have worked sending out "WARNING...engaging enemy ships numbers xy, types xy, position zc.." so how could 2nd TF still be surprised ?

Yes I it is true I did not look at the moonlight value. My mistake, but I had to send back the ships then burning more fuel. So I decided to give it a go (esp. as these ships were from the bad list mostly)

Now you are entering game engine limitations and over analysing it and actually it is totally possible a separate TF could get jumped on, especially at night.

Someone posted that the TF with the lower TF number will engage first, so micromanage those when you want them to fight in a specific order.
This needs some forward planning as you usually buy a commander for an important TF, planning beforehand the TF compositions,their roles and commanders is your doctrine for fighting battles in different conditions and against different enemies.
These would labeled Top Secret in real life and could be here also to a degree.

< Message edited by Hotei -- 2/10/2017 4:43:33 PM >

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 95

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 4:58:50 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

Yes looking for convois sunk some ships, but small Brit CV and Wasp surprised me 20 hexes east of Ndeni. My mistake I thought he had at least 1 or 2 bigger RN ships in their historical locations near Ceylon etc. But as I said it turned out every Brit ship there. We lost Junyo for 1 torp hit on the Brit and 3 bomb hits on Wasp (both not showing "heavy damage"). As I said IJ CAP is just too weak vs. the fast and experienced Allied flyboys. I learned my lesson now - the AI just does not intecept your missions or concentrates so much in 10% of the map. My mistake no doubt, PBM is a learning curve.

Yes you are also right with the commanders, I chose one with esp. LOW AGGRO but good naval for Yamato (and complete TF) so he tries to stand back and bring bigger guns out of reach of enemy ships to bear (our range is longer than 8 and 14 inch). Did not work looked like Yamato charged in Samurai fashion (perhaps Japanese code of honour and warrior spirit simulated in game, whcih leaves you open mouthed for the detail AE delivers

)

(in reply to Hotei)

Post #: 96

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 5:06:59 PM

Hotei

Posts: 110
Joined: 1/30/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Yes looking for convois sunk some ships, but small Brit CV and Wasp surprised me 20 hexes east of Ndeni. My mistake I thought he had at least 1 or 2 bigger RN ships in their historical locations near Ceylon etc. But as I said it turned out every Brit ship there. We lost Junyo for 1 torp hit on the Brit and 3 bomb hits on Wasp (both not showing "heavy damage"). As I said IJ CAP is just too weak vs. the fast and experienced Allied flyboys. I learned my lesson now - the AI just does not intecept your missions or concentrates so much in 10% of the map. My mistake no doubt, PBM is a learning curve.

Yes you are also right with the commanders, I chose one with esp. LOW AGGRO but good naval for Yamato (and complete TF) so he tries to stand back and bring bigger guns out of reach of enemy ships to bear (our range is longer than 8 and 14 inch). Did not work looked like Yamato charged in Samurai fashion (perhaps Japanese code of honour and warrior spirit simulated in game, whcih leaves you open mouthed for the detail AE delivers )

Remember the crew experience also, what was it for Junyo and Yamato?

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 97

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 5:20:18 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hotei

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Yes looking for convois sunk some ships, but small Brit CV and Wasp surprised me 20 hexes east of Ndeni. My mistake I thought he had at least 1 or 2 bigger RN ships in their historical locations near Ceylon etc. But as I said it turned out every Brit ship there. We lost Junyo for 1 torp hit on the Brit and 3 bomb hits on Wasp (both not showing "heavy damage"). As I said IJ CAP is just too weak vs. the fast and experienced Allied flyboys. I learned my lesson now - the AI just does not intecept your missions or concentrates so much in 10% of the map. My mistake no doubt, PBM is a learning curve.

Yes you are also right with the commanders, I chose one with esp. LOW AGGRO but good naval for Yamato (and complete TF) so he tries to stand back and bring bigger guns out of reach of enemy ships to bear (our range is longer than 8 and 14 inch). Did not work looked like Yamato charged in Samurai fashion (perhaps Japanese code of honour and warrior spirit simulated in game, whcih leaves you open mouthed for the detail AE delivers )

Remember the crew experience also, what was it for Junyo and Yamato?

Junyo no idea. Yamato I believe in the 70ties, check how she arrives, I had one (night?)battle with her before I believe, she gained 2-3 more points I believe than with what she arrived. I thought in the 70ties is quite good. However I remember in the AI game I had a CL with 95 or so. Totally awesome what you can do to the AI with quick small TFs :)

But anyway, battle is over. I made mistakes, Yamato helped to sink a bigger Allied ship - I mean bigger than an AKL or AM for example (in reality not I believe?) so one must be content with the result. British ships have good exp too, so the gap was not that great I guess anyway (half the enemy were British,Dutch, Aussies with better exp then the US)

EDIT; sorry for my lax answer, this forum, matrixgames and the people are awesome, so here a pic. Turns out only 70 night exp. See also the cap�s values (low agr, good nav): Seeing the pic again, I realize I also lost lots of fuel with her and a very good floatplane unit (should have loaded planes off and only refueled what I needed for the short range mission and back to Shortlands before Harakiri)...

And HOTEI, you were right, the Yamato TF has a lower number than the recon TF (!) So i need to pay attention to these numbers in the future. THANKS.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 2/10/2017 6:27:59 PM >

(in reply to Hotei)

Post #: 98

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 5:43:52 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

See here masses of planes at Ndeni (plus ca. 150 more at Kira), see also all my subs trying to intercept some convoi going there. We perhaps sank CA Quincy with one of these:

Recon also said, ca. 250+ ships at Ndeni (as I said he likes to put most at one place LOL)..

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 2/10/2017 6:00:10 PM >

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 99

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 5:47:01 PM

witpqs

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

Yamato is the biggest ship in the game. How can she sink a bigger Allied ship?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 100

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 6:03:03 PM

Hotei

Posts: 110
Joined: 1/30/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

EDIT; sorry for my lax answer, this forum, matrixgames and the people are awesome, so here a pic. Turns out only 70 night exp. See also the cap�s values (low agr, good nav): Seeing the pic again, I realize I also lost lots of fuel with her and a very good floatplane unit (should have loaded planes off and only refueled what I needed for the short range mission and back to Shortlands before Harakiri)...

And HOTEI, you were right, the Yamato TF has a lower number than the recon TF (!) So i need to pay attention to these numbers in the future. THANKS.

You are welcome but why would you leave the floatplanes out when they are your radar until you actually have one..
Especially on a ship that fires from a long range and needs fire direction to actually get an advantage it was designed to have in battle.

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 101

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 6:16:03 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

Not sure if "in battle" recon / fire direction by floatplanes is modelled in game ? I never heard from it at least

They were set to night search ofc. But obvisouly they did not fly before the movement phase, otherwise should perhaps have found enemy TF. Or weather prevented their use. But there was more night search from eg. Tulagi too

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 2/10/2017 6:17:00 PM >

(in reply to Hotei)

Post #: 102

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 6:28:40 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Yamato is the biggest ship in the game. How can she sink a bigger Allied ship?

I meant bigger than an AKl or AM etc. Not bigger than Yamato herself. Cheers

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 103

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 6:32:08 PM

Hotei

Posts: 110
Joined: 1/30/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Not sure if "in battle" recon / fire direction by floatplanes is modelled in game ? I never heard from it at least

They were set to night search ofc. But obvisouly they did not fly before the movement phase, otherwise should perhaps have found enemy TF. Or weather prevented their use. But there was more night search from eg. Tulagi too

It seems to work on bombardment only from the quick search I did, why they would not spot in battle needs to answered by some veteran player.

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 104

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 6:42:05 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hotei

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Not sure if "in battle" recon / fire direction by floatplanes is modelled in game ? I never heard from it at least

They were set to night search ofc. But obvisouly they did not fly before the movement phase, otherwise should perhaps have found enemy TF. Or weather prevented their use. But there was more night search from eg. Tulagi too

It seems to work on bombardment only from the quick search I did, why they would not spot in battle needs to answered by some veteran player.

Allegedly, this makes it easier to raise the DL on a TF, which affects whether or not there is contact/a battle. During the actual battle, nobody knows.

(in reply to Hotei)

Post #: 105

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 6:53:50 PM

Hotei

Posts: 110
Joined: 1/30/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hotei

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Not sure if "in battle" recon / fire direction by floatplanes is modelled in game ? I never heard from it at least

They were set to night search ofc. But obvisouly they did not fly before the movement phase, otherwise should perhaps have found enemy TF. Or weather prevented their use. But there was more night search from eg. Tulagi too

It seems to work on bombardment only from the quick search I did, why they would not spot in battle needs to answered by some veteran player.

Allegedly, this makes it easier to raise the DL on a TF, which affects whether or not there is contact/a battle. During the actual battle, nobody knows.

So I will continue to use them as if they work in their designed role.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 106

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 7:28:16 PM

Revthought

Posts: 523
Joined: 1/14/2009
From: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Well, the range on the 5"/38 gun was 18,000 yards, so...

It was not. Depending on the configuration it was between 17400 yards and 17600 yards. Close enough you might say, but not so fast... the gun's armor penetration rating falls to 0 over 11,000 yards for hits on anything but deck armor, and its deck armor penetration rating falls to zero over 13,800 yards.

So the idea that American destroyers are engaged in running gun fights at 16k yards seems pretty ridiculous to me, and it happens often in the game.

That's what I mean when I bring it up in the context of the surface combat model being a little (just a little) wonky.

_____________________________

Playing at war is a far better vocation than making people fight in them.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 107

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 7:37:51 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Well, the range on the 5"/38 gun was 18,000 yards, so...

It was not. Depending on the configuration it was between 17400 yards and 17600 yards. Close enough you might say, but not so fast... the gun's armor penetration rating falls to 0 over 11,000 yards for hits on anything but deck armor, and its deck armor penetration rating falls to zero over 13,800 yards.

So the idea that American destroyers are engaged in running gun fights at 16k yards seems pretty ridiculous to me, and it happens often in the game.

That's what I mean when I bring it up in the context of the surface combat model being a little (just a little) wonky.

I mean, is Wiki wrong? There is a source for their numbers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%22/38_caliber_gun

quote:

Ballistics
Maximum horizontal range, with a 55 pound projectile, is 18,000 yards (16,000 m).[5]:159 In the antiaircraft role, it had a ceiling of 37,200 feet (11,300 m) at 85 degrees elevation.[5]:159

Armor penetration with 54 lbs. (24.5 kg) Special Common Shell[12]
5.0" (127 mm) belt armor at 4,000 yards (3,660 m)
4.0" (102 mm) at 5,400 yards (4,940 m)
3.0" (76 mm) at 7,400 yards (6,770 m)
2.0" (51 mm) at 11,000 yards (10,060 m)
1.0" (25 mm) deck armor at 13,800 yards (12,620 m)
with 55.18 lbs. (25.0 kg) AA Common Shell: 1.5" (38 mm) at 10,000 yards (9,140 m)

Range with 55.18 lbs. (25.03 kg) AAC Mark 49 (792 mps)[12]
10� 9,506 yards (8,692 m)
15� 11,663 yards (10,665 m)
20� 13,395 yards (12,248 m)
25� 14,804 yards (13,537 m)
30� 15,919 yards (14,556 m)
35� 16,739 yards (15,298 m)
40�17,240 yards (15,764 m)
45� 17,392 yards (15,903 m)

Source number 5 there is straight from the Navy in 1957.

(in reply to Revthought)

Post #: 108

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/12/2017 12:45:48 PM

Buckrock

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought
It was not. Depending on the configuration it was between 17400 yards and 17600 yards. Close enough you might say, but not so fast... the
gun's armor penetration rating falls to 0 over 11,000 yards for hits on anything but deck armor, and its deck armor penetration rating falls
to zero over 13,800 yards.

So the idea that American destroyers are engaged in running gun fights at 16k yards seems pretty ridiculous to me, and it happens often
in the game.

I can think of about a half dozen Pacific engagements off hand (including the running gunfights of Biak and Samar) where USN DDs with 5"/38s
did engage the enemy at ranges of 16K or greater during the action.

Such ranges weren't the preferred standard but combat can ruin one's firing intentions at times.

_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to Revthought)

Post #: 109

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/13/2017 6:18:48 AM

Barb

Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline

With 5"/38cal you are not going for armor penetration against anything bigger than DD - I would even not bother to fire AP ammo at all. HE, VT-HE, or even WP is the way to go. Every hit you make is going to kill a lot of personnel and do small damage to outside things - radio antenas, radar devices, cables, AA guns, searchlights, directors, etc. reducing overall combat effectiveness, causing fires, and all sort of little things that would impair an effective ship operation and accurate gun fire. (Like Hiei got handled at the 1st Naval battle of Guadalcanal).

At Samar it was the question of keeping the enemy as far away as possible. At Biak, the idea was to damage enemy ship enough to slow down and close on her. A lucky hit here or there on the extreme range, and the outcome could be different. Or would you not fire at all under those circumstances knowing the chances are small?

_____________________________

(in reply to Buckrock)

Post #: 110

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/13/2017 2:28:23 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

With 5"/38cal you are not going for armor penetration against anything bigger than DD - I would even not bother to fire AP ammo at all. HE, VT-HE, or even WP is the way to go. Every hit you make is going to kill a lot of personnel and do small damage to outside things - radio antenas, radar devices, cables, AA guns, searchlights, directors, etc. reducing overall combat effectiveness, causing fires, and all sort of little things that would impair an effective ship operation and accurate gun fire. (Like Hiei got handled at the 1st Naval battle of Guadalcanal).

At Samar it was the question of keeping the enemy as far away as possible. At Biak, the idea was to damage enemy ship enough to slow down and close on her. A lucky hit here or there on the extreme range, and the outcome could be different. Or would you not fire at all under those circumstances knowing the chances are small?

Against a dangerous opponent I would want to empty my mags ASAP to reduce the chance of a magazine explosion and give a reasonable excuse for retirement from the action! A bit different if my task was protection of more valuable ships/installations.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Barb)

Post #: 111

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/13/2017 3:07:14 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Yamato is the biggest ship in the game. How can she sink a bigger Allied ship?

I meant bigger than an AKl or AM etc. Not bigger than Yamato herself. Cheers

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 112

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/13/2017 3:20:30 PM

Grfin Zeppelin

Posts: 1515
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

Someone complaining about the Akizukis ?
Now I have seen it all :(

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 113

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/13/2017 3:24:30 PM

Hotei

Posts: 110
Joined: 1/30/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gr�fin Zeppelin

Someone complaining about the Akizukis ?
Now I have seen it all :(

(in reply to Grfin Zeppelin)

Post #: 114

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/13/2017 3:27:23 PM

Grfin Zeppelin

Posts: 1515
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

Weeeell I guess I have not seen it all..... yet.

_____________________________

(in reply to Hotei)

Post #: 115

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/13/2017 3:33:35 PM

Hotei

Posts: 110
Joined: 1/30/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gr�fin Zeppelin

Weeeell I guess I have not seen it all..... yet.

You do wonder what the landing look likes.

(in reply to Grfin Zeppelin)

Post #: 116

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/13/2017 8:38:20 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gr�fin Zeppelin

Someone complaining about the Akizukis ?
Now I have seen it all :(

Well, well look who put in her two cents.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Grfin Zeppelin)

Post #: 117

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/26/2017 6:06:24 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

I miss Yamato tbh, it could have served as a floating battery to protect Lunga and/or Tassa...however it is all in range of US nav bombers now. Have not risked any other surfce battles anymore (also because the moonlight is always over 80% the last days) so must take the pounding by allied fleets however we got 1 mine and 1 torp hit by an SSX on their cruiser. That is pretty rare

We lost 2 more big tankers, I thought US torps start to work better in 43? Not much duds in 7/42 as far I can tell.

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 118

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/28/2017 3:10:22 AM

SheperdN7

Posts: 296
Joined: 2/23/2016
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Status: offline

Akizuki's equal greatest ships the Empire has to offer (other than MAYBE the Shimakaze's and Taiho)

Love the Empire for its CA's, DD's and floatplane carrying subs.... Not much else other than KB

But still, why such hate for my Kongo's? I love those ships

_____________________________

Current Games:

WitP:AE PBEM against Greg (Late '44)
AE PBEM against Mogami (Early'44)
WITE PBEM against Boomer Sooner

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 119

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/28/2017 3:52:08 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

In the real war the Kongos were the "go to" battleship class. They were fast, relatively fuel efficient compared to other BBs, and could carry a significantly bigger punch than just a CA. Kirishima didn't do so well in a one on one vs the Washington, but the Washington had the advantage of being much newer, bigger guns, one of the best trained crews in the USN, and the first US ship to master radar controlled gunnery. The Yamato might have been sunk in that fight under those conditions. Not many times in the history of naval warfare has an admiral been able to get a short range broadside from ambush with a capital ship on another capital ship.

The Japanese had a system of awarding officers billets based on how they did in testing, which ensured the best and brightest went to the more prestigious ships and the poorest officers were commanding the smaller ships. Tamichi Hara talked about this in his book. He ended up in destroyers because he bombed the test, even though he was a top student. That pretty much destined him to be the best DD officer in the fleet. Other navies spread around their officers more and frequently senior officers had served on a number of different types of ships, which gave them a better perspective on what each of their captains were dealing with in a tactical situation.

But as capabilities went, the Japanese DDs had potent torpedo armament, but were often lacking compared to other navy's DDs. ASW gear was poor until late in the war, AA armament was also poor. The Japanese also failed to standardize on much in the way of equipment. It seems ever DD class had a different type of turret design. US DD design settled on a couple of standards for turret designs early on. Pretty much all US DDs had single or twin 5 inch turrets after 1930. Some mounted higher up on the ship had turrets with less armor, but the design was pretty much standardized which meant the US could mass produce them at a rate nobody else could match.

IJN filled out their CLs early which meant they had a lot of older ships when the war began. The US only had the Omahas as older CLs and most CLs in service were much newer. IJN CLs were also designed for a different mission. They were intended as DD flotilla leaders and were mostly larger DDs. The US had a class of DD flotilla leaders in the 1930s that stuck to the same 5 inch armament of other modern DDs, but had dual gun turrets and were larger. They were a little smaller than IJN CLs, but were almost as capable as well as being more modern.

A lot of capability had to do with the age of the ship as well as decisions made during the treaty. US CLs were newer and thus more capable from lessons learned. The IJN cheated on treaty CA design and had built ships with more tonnage than they claimed. The US stuck to the treaty limits and ended up with inferior CAs that were overly compromised and not great when it came to a surface fight, though they did do OK as CV escorts.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to SheperdN7)

Post #: 120

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post)