New BETA AAR's Please (ex: see Snigberts)

[Sinjen]

The closer things get to Rabaul, the more dangerous things should get for the US forces if he is bold enough to take the fight to you.

I wouldn't give up...I've had nothing but light carriers left as the japanese in similiar situation with QQP's South pacwar game and managed to sink Yorktown and Hornet with a surface action group led by the Yamato. I slipped them behind a stormfront to get close, then raced in to intercept the American carrier TF under the cover of darkness.

Losing your transport fleet is probably killing your offensive abilities. This should be somewhat offset by the fact that your DD's and CL's can carry some troops and small amount of supplies via Tokyo express??? Wondering if japanese DD's and CL's can carry troop and small amount of supplies in UV???

This might be enough to hold onto what you have and hope for a decisive engagement to put victory and the initiative back into your hands.

[corbulo]

When did american ships start using BOFORS AA guns? I read in "The War in the Pacific" that this made a big difference. As I can see in Joels' AA report it was before October 1942.

BTW I read in the same book that American SUbs only became truly effective in January 1944 with the advent of the Mark 18 torpedo.

[mogami]

Howdy, great stuff like sitting glued to a radio waiting for news from the front. I have to dry off my keyboard now thanks

[wflarry]

How effective were U.S. subs in 1942?

For the most part the old school cautious captains were still at the helm. How many of these guys were aggressive enough to go after japanese naval task forces? If memory serves, Morton, Fluckey, O'kane and other younger, more aggresive skippers didn't get their subs till 43 or 44.

Were bad torpedoes an issue in 1942? I believe I read that most of the torps (Mark 10s?) on hand at the beginning of the war worked fairly well, as they were made slowly by master craftsman and had been overhauled and rebuilt many times by the Navy bureau of ordinance. It was the replacement, mass produced Mark 14 torps that gave U.S. subs trouble till the problems with faulty depth keeping and bad contact exploders were finally identified and corrected.

The Mark 18 had its own problems, one of which was a rudder that tended to jam causing it to run in circles. Several U.S. subs managed to sink themselves with their Mark 18s.

[juliet7bravo]

Biggest problem with the torpedoes was the Mk. 6 detonator...the magnetic detonator bit didn't work period, and the contact detonator bit only worked about 10% of the time.

Mk 14 torpedo had numerous design flaws...worst was that it ran about 10' deep. The only semi- effective torpedo the US had was the Mk 10, used in the old R & S class pig boats. The Mk 15 was the torpedo used by surface ships, and wasn't that bad a torpedo (comparatively speaking)...but it also used the Mk. 6 detonator. The Mk 15 could also be used in fleet subs (but not S boats)...but had to be loaded into the tubes at dock (from outside?) because they were so long...couldn't be routined (maintenance) either while at sea. The Mk 15 didn't sink a single ship in 1942 because of the Mk 6 detonator...basically, US destroyers in '42 were just oversized gunboats outclassed by the Jp. Navy in almost every way, especially training and tactics.

Starting in '43, they started deactivating the magnetic detonator on all torpedoes, so people at least had SOME chance of their torpedoes going bang. Plus they started rebuilding the contact detonator with field modded firing pins machined from aircraft propellers. Set the depth 10' higher, disabled the magnetic detonator, rebuilt the contact detonator...and bam, they were in business.

How about that Mk 13 air-dropped torpedo? Had to be dropped at around 50'@100 knots airspeed, LOL, or it'd break apart...I think the stall speed for most US torp bombers was around 90 knots. Compare this to the Jp Navy air-dropped torps in use in the early war...good for 1000'+ feet and over 250 kots.

The Mk 18 didn't have a major problem with "circling", no more so than other torps (or not much)...the problem was that for some unknown reason, the Navy Dept. removed the "anti-circular run guard" off its rudders that were standard equipment on earlier torpedoes. Unfortunately, it took a while before someone survived a circular run and came back to explain what was occuring...I'm not certain, but they might not have figured it out until post-war, and some of the survivors who by some miracle survived both their subs sinking and the Jp. POW camp explained what happened...I think they were pretty pissed about it.

Can't believe the Navy never properly tested the torpedoes. Some admirals should have been tried and executed for treason over the entire fiasco. They spent most of '42 denying that there was even a problem

Can't really say that the early war skippers lacked agression in '42...how froggy you going to get when going into combat with weapons that you KNOW ain't gonna work except by divine intervention? The problems with the torps weren't exactly a secret within the submarine community. A large number of the subs in service in '42 were pretty much obsolete to boot. It was also a period when doctrine and tactics were still being formulated, and the new war production fleet subs themselves still had teething problems. Later in the war, the hardware, tactics, training was vastly improved over what it was earlier...you could afford to be a tad bit more aggressive if you were driving a radar periscope equipped "heavy hull" Gato around instead of a creaky old WW1 S boat or a cow like one of the "cruisers".

[mogami]

Greetings, to be fair, the only country that entered WW2 with working torpedoes was Japan. They were the only peacetime military to use warshot torpedoes for practice. (This revealed torpedo problems to be fixed before the war began). The Germans could have done much more damage early on had their torpedos worked. (Hmmm..... I think one of their torpedo delvelpment officers was actually shot over this. Have to recheck)

[Paul Goodman]

My understanding is that the Mk 14 torpedo was tested exactly twice, one of which failed, prior to its release for production and supply to the fleet. However, I don't think it was BuShips officers who should have been shot. It was republican congressmen.

Paul

[Erik Rutins]

Here's the next combat report text:

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 11/13/42

Air attack on Lunga , at 38,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 30

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 21
P-39D Airacobra x 21
P-40E Kittyhawk x 18
P-38G Lightning x 2

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 5 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 13 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 3 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 2 damaged
P-40E Kittyhawk x 1 damaged

LTC E. Conant of VMF-224 is credited with kill number 4

LTC A. Vraciu of VMF-224 is KILLED


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface combat, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese Ships
BB Kirishima, Shell hits 2
CA Tone, Shell hits 1
CA Takao, Shell hits 6
DD Yamagumo, Shell hits 3
DD Umikaze
DD Shirayuki
DD Harukaze

Allied Ships
BB Washington, Shell hits 2
BB South Dakota
CLAA Atlanta, Shell hits 5, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CLAA Juneau
CLAA San Juan
DD Nicholas
DD Gwin
DD Aaron Ward
DD Laffey
DD Russell
DD Morris
DD Benham
DD Wilson
DMS Southard
DMS Hovey


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface combat, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese Ships
BB Kirishima, Shell hits 1
CA Tone
CA Takao
DD Yamagumo
DD Umikaze
DD Shirayuki
DD Harukaze

Allied Ships
BB Washington, Shell hits 2
BB South Dakota
CLAA Atlanta, Shell hits 7, on fire, heavy damage
CLAA Juneau
CLAA San Juan
DD Nicholas
DD Gwin
DD Aaron Ward
DD Laffey
DD Russell
DD Morris
DD Benham
DD Wilson
DMS Southard
DMS Hovey


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface combat, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese Ships
BB Kirishima, Shell hits 4, on fire
CA Tone, Shell hits 8, on fire
CA Takao
DD Yamagumo
DD Umikaze
DD Shirayuki
DD Harukaze

Allied Ships
BB Washington, Shell hits 1
BB South Dakota, Shell hits 2
CLAA Atlanta, on fire, heavy damage
CLAA Juneau, Shell hits 1
CLAA San Juan
DD Nicholas
DD Gwin
DD Aaron Ward
DD Laffey
DD Russell
DD Morris
DD Benham
DD Wilson
DMS Southard
DMS Hovey


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Shortland Island , at 29,34

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 12

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 18
B-26B Marauder x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2-N Rufe x 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-26B Marauder x 11 damaged

LT K.Oyama of FF2/Yokohama Chutai bails out and is RESCUED

Japanese Ships
DD Kagero, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
BB Hiei, Bomb hits 1, heavy damage

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x B-26B Marauder at 2000 feet
6 x B-26B Marauder at 2000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Lunga , at 38,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 85
G3M Nell x 23
G4M1 Betty x 42

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 19
P-39D Airacobra x 22
P-40E Kittyhawk x 13
P-38G Lightning x 2

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 7 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged
G3M Nell x 1 destroyed
G3M Nell x 3 damaged
G4M1 Betty x 5 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 6 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 damaged
P-39D Airacobra x 10 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 6 damaged
P-40E Kittyhawk x 4 destroyed
P-40E Kittyhawk x 4 damaged
B-26B Marauder x 2 destroyed
B-26B Marauder x 1 damaged

PO2 G.Aihara of F1/Tainan Daitai is credited with kill number 2

LCDR J.Kawato of G1/Kanoya Daitai is KILLED


Allied ground losses:
Men lost 32
Guns lost 1

Runway hits 7

Attacking Level Bombers:
4 x G3M Nell at 10000 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty at 10000 feet
6 x G3M Nell at 10000 feet
8 x G4M1 Betty at 10000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 10000 feet
4 x G3M Nell at 10000 feet
8 x G4M1 Betty at 10000 feet
9 x G4M1 Betty at 10000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 10000 feet
8 x G3M Nell at 10000 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 10000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on 29th Regiment, at 37,39


Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 20


Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress x 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 168

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet
4 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet
4 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attackat 30,35


Japanese Ships
DD Shirayuki

Allied Ships
SS Grayback


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I started sending fighter sweeps to Lunga along with the larger raids from Rabaul. While I assigned about 60 A6M2s to the sweep, about half of them never made it thanks to weather. We had another meeting of the big surface combat forces on Iron Bottom Sound, with another one of those blasted CLAAs going to the bottom. At this rate, I may actually consider attacking that US TF from the air again.

Joel launched a raid on the port at Shortlands with his new P-38s flying escort. Unfortunately, the Hiei was anchored there with a few other ships and one of his bombs found it. My BBs have certainly taken a pounding so far in this battle, but I'm definitely glad to say that I haven't lost any (yet).

Regards,

- Erik

[ratster]

Air attack on Shortland Island , at 29,34

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 12

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 18
B-26B Marauder x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2-N Rufe x 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-26B Marauder x 11 damaged

curious... 9 marauders attacked, but 11 were shot down. lol

[Scouters]

Originally posted by Adnan Meshuggi

An other question, you told us about the hits, but i think we should differ between big gun hits or huge explosions (after a critical hit) and the hits of a 40 mm cannon (well, i think it is really a difference if the washington will be hit by an 25mm flak gun or a 18,1 inch granade of the yamato....) Maybe this could be done, also, a "war record" ship by ship, like engagements, successes, shot down planes, sunk ships and so (with fog of war, this isn´t exactly, but well, you will love your successfull ships and hate your unlucky ships)

I agree. It would be very helpful to have some indication of the general caliber of the hits, especially when evaluating damage to enemy vessels. In Mr. Grigsby's "War in the South Pacific" he used to indicate this by adding 1-4 asterisks after the hit report to give you an idea of how much damage was inflicted by the hit. A typical surface action would look like this:

BB North Carolina Hit* (e.g. for a 5" shell hit)

CLAA San Juan Hit**** (e.g. for a 14" shell hit)

Additionally, after each battle, a list of the enemy ships (by type) was reported with 1-4 asterisks indicating the estimated damage. A typical AAR would look like this:

Enemy Task Force:
CV
CV**
CVL****
CA
CA
CA*
DD
DD
DD**
DD
DD

It was a quick and effective way to estimate damage, and it reflected the tendency for AARs to overestimate damage.

Could something similar to these be added as a modification to the current AAR? This could add significant detail without much additional text.

Thanks!

[Joel Billings]

You can watch the combat take place in which case you are told the size of each weapon with each hit. As for the combat summary/report, that's a patch or WitP issue as it would take some work. We are trying to go gold this week.

As for the 11 damaged planes when only 9 attack, this is a result of the fog of war being on, which distorts information on how many planes were damaged destroyed and may report higher totals than the number attacking. With fog of war off you get exact, accurate numbers.

Joel

[Erik Rutins]

As Joel pointed out, there's no lack of information in the game as to what kind of weapon hit each ship. However, the post-animation combat result text simply lists the number of hits, heavy damage (if present) and fire (if present). Until UV is actually shipping (in which case we could post a full replay), you'll have to infer from the reports of the engaged forces what kinds of hits are involved.

Be assured that I'm not wondering while playing what the Kirishima got hit with. I saw that 16" salvo from the Washington go through the deck armor in all its painful glory.

Regards,

- Erik

[juliet7bravo]

Every thing has a price...the IJN lost at least 6 cruisers due to their oxy powered torpedoes exploding on deck due to fires. Hard to tell with others whether it was a contributing factor to their loss. Kind of a trade off really...they had great torpedoes right up until they started getting hostile fire aboard...then things seem to have gotten FUBAR very quickly with all those oxy powered torp mounts and reloads laying around. They really probably would have been better off sticking to a more conventional (and safer) wet-heater/air powered type. Due to their excellence in design and exhaustive live fire testing they still would have had outstanding torpedoes.

Wonder if the IJN ships greater propensity to take serious damage due to onboard fires, and the USN's better skill at damage control is factored into the game?

[Joel Billings]

No and yes. Since we have a preference option that allows for better US damage control, this makes the US ships a lot tougher than their IJN couterparts.

[corbulo]

I have looked everywhere and can find no information on the Japanese fighter "IRVING" someone please enlighten me.

[Jason629]

Here you go!

http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/j1n.htm

[Dunedain]

Joel: Does UV model the extreme unreliability of the Mark 14?
This is important because it would mean in many cases when a U.S. sub
in UV managed to get a hit on a ship, the torpedo simply wouldn't
explode. This could make a big difference in a campaign in UV and was
a major problem with U.S. subs for a long time.

Also, in surface combat does the UV combat model take into
account the range the various shell types are being fired at and
whether the shells are hitting the belt or deck armor of their intended
target? This is important because some ships had heavier armor
in different places and, depending on the range it was fired at,
different shell sizes and types would sometimes hit the side
of the ship and sometimes the deck armor. A ship often had to
get into a certain range envelope to be able to penetrate the
armor of a certain type of enemy ship. This, of course, has a
big affect on surface naval combat and how a battle would play out.

[Joel Billings]

Yes and Yes.

[mogami]

Greetings, I can't wait for this game. Anyone want to set up a Matrix League once it comes out? IS it possible in a PBEM game to have more then one player per side? (first player makes in put and saves game without ending turn and then sends to next same side player who gives his orders ends turn and sends to first opposing player etc?)

[byron13]

I've seen a lot of the AAR's posted (AAR's provided by the game) but haven't taken the time look at them in detail. Are you playtesters finding that the Japanese Long Lances are making hash of the American fleets? Or at least that the Long Lances are having much higher success rates than the U.S. torpedoes? How are they influencing the battle itself and the tactics used? How 'bout it Allied Admirals? Are you all nervous about engaging the IJN at night in close quarters?