Surface Combat

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 12605
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: Surface Combat

Post by Sardaukar »

I have always said that G. Grigsby has his bell curves inverted. Exceptional results seem to  rule in all of his games.
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
User avatar
The Gnome
Posts: 1215
Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 2:52 am
Location: Philadelphia, PA

RE: Surface Combat

Post by The Gnome »

In all sincerity I don't have the historical knowledge to know what should be the baseline result of such an engagement versus what is an exceptional result. From the point of view of an enthusiastic amateur they just don't feel right is all I'm saying.
User avatar
33Vyper
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:01 pm
Location: New Westminster BC

RE: Surface Combat

Post by 33Vyper »

"Those must have been pretty tough minesweepers then because each took at least 4 14" or 15" hits, plus numerous 6" to 8" and my ships kept piling it on. That's just silly, a single 14" shell hitting a ship that size would break its back. "
 
 
I totally agree with this statement.   I have always thought it was rediculously stupid that a MSW hit by a BB main guns would not simply be smashed into pieces.  But then I am always puzzled when a MSW is hit by 5 or 6 torpedoes...sorry but it would have sunk so fast after the first one or two that the next 3 or 4 must have been chasing it on the way to the bottom.
 
Just my 2 1/2 cents
User avatar
wdolson
Posts: 7678
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Surface Combat

Post by wdolson »

ORIGINAL: 33Vyper
I totally agree with this statement. I have always thought it was rediculously stupid that a MSW hit by a BB main guns would not simply be smashed into pieces. But then I am always puzzled when a MSW is hit by 5 or 6 torpedoes...sorry but it would have sunk so fast after the first one or two that the next 3 or 4 must have been chasing it on the way to the bottom.

Just my 2 1/2 cents

In the real world, a battleship probably wouldn't have wasted any of their large caliber ammunition on such a small target. I can't recall any instance where a battleship fired at anything smaller than a destroyer (though the Japanese battleships were attacke dby PT boats at Surgio). In a couple of instances Japanese battleships did use their main batteries in an attempt to bring down torpedo bombers though.

Bill
WIS Development Team
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: Surface Combat

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: wdolson
ORIGINAL: 33Vyper
I totally agree with this statement. I have always thought it was rediculously stupid that a MSW hit by a BB main guns would not simply be smashed into pieces. But then I am always puzzled when a MSW is hit by 5 or 6 torpedoes...sorry but it would have sunk so fast after the first one or two that the next 3 or 4 must have been chasing it on the way to the bottom.

Just my 2 1/2 cents

In the real world, a battleship probably wouldn't have wasted any of their large caliber ammunition on such a small target. I can't recall any instance where a battleship fired at anything smaller than a destroyer (though the Japanese battleships were attacke dby PT boats at Surgio). In a couple of instances Japanese battleships did use their main batteries in an attempt to bring down torpedo bombers though.

Bill



wonder if there´s even a chance to hit something small like a PT with a 16" turret...
Tetsuo
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:54 am
Location: Sweden

RE: Surface Combat

Post by Tetsuo »

I wonder what a near splash from one of those 40cm shells would do to a PT. [:)]
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”