RE: PT Boats from Hell

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: PT Boats from Hell

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: PT Boats from Hell

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: PT Boats from Hell - 8/17/2004 5:09:12 PM

Jim D Burns
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle

I am just trying to sort that out. So is doing nothing out of religious convicition the worst evil? Or is it just the most cheerful evil?

I was trying to highlight the irony of the world we live in today. No one wants to blame the Muslims for terrorism in the world today (politically incorrect), yet they stand by and do nothing while their fellow believers reap havoc upon the world in the name of Allah.

The hidden point being both these men were talking about western evils at the time, after having learned our own lessons about religious dominance and the evils it produced in our culture. What a difference a few hundred years and a Renaissance period made. Now if the Muslims would just go through their own Rennaissance period, perhaps terrorism would end in another hundred years or two...

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to DrewMatrix)

Post #: 31

RE: History of the DD - 8/17/2004 5:32:36 PM

Nikademus
Matrix Legion of Merit

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Before WWI there was no such ship as the Destroyer. The Dreadnought was the ultimate weapon. Then one was sunk by a motor torpedo boat.
The Birth of the Destroyer. (Full name Motor Torpedo Boat Destroyer)

Sorry Cyberwop, don't know how I missed your post. I'll change mine to "What he said"

Because DD made MTB some what ineffective. The DD was modified to fill the role of the MTB (was armed with torpedos) Then the submarine further broadened it's role (it was given depth charges)

Now a new ship was required to combat the DD. The CL arrived. Then something to combat the CL the CA appeared. Now the BB had something other then enemy BB. The circle was complete and the BB began to grow larger again. Then some whacko figured airplanes could sink ships cheaper then ships could sink ships so the CV arrived. All the ships exposed to air attack now became escorts for their own CV. After this all ships that could not defend against enemy air or submarine threats vanished.

One should not confuse an MTB or PT with an early Torpedo boat. Before/during WWI there tended to be not too great a difference between a TB and a "Torpedo boat Destroyer". as the Destroyer's full name was called. DD's tended to be a little bit bigger depending on class and carried either more or bigger guns for the purpose of warding off the TB's. A PT is a different kettle of fish.

Just to be anal on a Tues morning. the CL did not evolve due to the DD nor did the CA evolve from the CL. the proto-"Light cruiser" developed due to the need for fleet "Scouts", a role that the old slow AC (Armored cruisers) could not fullfill. CA's evolved from AC's, made obsolete initially by battlecruisers but then evolving as a result of the Washington treaty which laid down solid definitions of what would constitute a "light cruiser" and a "heavy cruiser" (i.e. it's main armament)

Effectiveness of PT's has been discussed before. Historically they were not greatly effective, their extremely small size limited their effectiveness unless the sea was calm or attacking in a sheltered area. As far as the game engine is concerned, the only problem i "see" is that like transport combat, the engine treats PT combat in the same generic way when in fact it is quite a different type of fight. A wildy maneuvering PT, with a low field of visibility (due to spray, manevering, lack of sophisticated fire control, and low silowette) is not going to be as effective a FC platform as a blue water DD.

Another signifigant difference....was how the PT arament was set up. Most had two TT's but often you could only fire one at a time, then you would have to try set up another shot.

The targeting routines seem to be set up to attempt attack on priority ships too. PT's would most likely end up attacking fringe/escort elements much of the time so there should be more DD/PT interaction. In the game the PT's tend to get consistant cracks at CV's and BB's no matter how many escorts you arrange.

Personally i'd like to see build limits too. Brady i believe mentioned the US only built a total of 500 PT's yet you can easily have that many in the SRA at war's start in no time flat....whether Dutch or US.

_____________________________

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 32

RE: PT Boats from Hell - 8/17/2004 7:17:06 PM

latosusi
Matrix Veteran

Posts: 327
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: London/Kuopio
Status: offline

I do agree with you. Small ships like pt-boats should simply disintegrate if hit by
a heavy shell or a torpedo. Also transports should not be able to survive torpedo
hits at all. Tankers should be very vulnerable due to their imflammable cargo.
Subs should be able to "break ships back" quickly sinking them.

(in reply to shoevarek)

Post #: 33

RE: PT Boats from Hell - 8/17/2004 8:18:01 PM

Blackhorse
Matrix Elite Guard

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: latosusi

I do agree with you. Small ships like pt-boats should simply disintegrate if hit by
a heavy shell or a torpedo. Also transports should not be able to survive torpedo
hits at all. Tankers should be very vulnerable due to their imflammable cargo.
Subs should be able to "break ships back" quickly sinking them.

I agree with everything except the comment about tankers. AOs carrying gasoline or Avgas *were* extremely vulnerable, and could easily "brew up" from one bomb or torpedo hit.

But tankers died hard. Oil has a much higher "flash-point" than gasoline, and generally did not explode after a torpedo hit. Oil is lighter than water, and improves the tanker's bouancy. Larger tankers had several self-contained oil tanks, and each one had to be holed before the tanker would sink.

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to latosusi)

Post #: 34

RE: PT Boats from Hell - 8/17/2004 8:51:18 PM

latosusi
Matrix Veteran

Posts: 327
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: London/Kuopio
Status: offline

Thats a good point. But if that torpedo did break ships back with under-keel explosion
all that is just gaining more time to abandon ship. Under-keel explosions were very
destructive. Not that magnetic exploders worked that well at the start of the war

(in reply to Blackhorse)

Post #: 35

RE: PT Boats from Hell - 8/18/2004 3:19:23 AM

Ron Saueracker
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

Perhaps PT boats could be handled like aircraft in the game as opposed to hard hulled vessels?

Too late in any case.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 36

RE: PT Boats from Hell - 8/18/2004 4:05:55 AM

Cmdrcain
Matrix Elite Guard

Posts: 1161
Joined: 8/21/2000
From: Rebuilding FLA, Busy Repairing!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

I agree with everything except the comment about tankers. AOs carrying gasoline or Avgas *were* extremely vulnerable, and could easily "brew up" from one bomb or torpedo hit.

But tankers died hard. Oil has a much higher "flash-point" than gasoline, and generally did not explode after a torpedo hit. Oil is lighter than water, and improves the tanker's bouancy. Larger tankers had several self-contained oil tanks, and each one had to be holed before the tanker would sink.

Then again, AO "oilers" didn't all carry avgas, they also carried OIL
to refill the ships OIL bunkers Thats why AO are called "oilers"

Tankers carried either Oil or Fuel or Both so it would need coding to check the type of cargo carried, I could see then where a Tanker full of Avgas/fuel would blow up fast but a Tanker full of bunker oil would not be as vulnerable.

Also I think its not so much the Fuel itself that causes the explosions but the FUMES

_____________________________

Noise? What Noise? It's sooooo quiet and Peaceful!