#### OFFICIAL ADMIRAL's EDITION AAR ####

[cantona2]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Yeah, didn't know you were such a JFB, LY...[:'(]

He's definitely not!!!![:D]

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

While I'm about it, I count 20 torpedo drops by the TBD's. With Sho. charging around with a 34 knot capability and the Mark 13's having a speed IRO 33.5 knots, isn't a 20% hit+detonation rate just the teensiest bit on the fortunate side?

Are you saying that 24 Virtually unscathed TBDs should NEVER be able to score 4 Torp hits on a CV?

No, I'm not, because that's not the state of affairs revealed by the combat report.

24 TBD's participate in the attack. Of these, 4 are shot down, and 16 take damage. That leaves only 4 unscathed machines. Of course, I can have no idea how many of these casualties occurred before weapons release and how many after - from the defender's perspective I would hope my CAP and gunners would concentrate on those attackers who had yet to release their weapons.

Likewise I have no idea whether there is any correlation between the number of undamaged TBD's and the number of torpedo hits obtained. The fact that in both cases that number is 4 may be entirely fortuitous.

The other thing I know is that, whilst the Mark 13 later became a highly reliable aerial torpedo in a wide range of drop conditions, such wasn't the case in May 1942. This from the Navweps site:

"The early models were handicapped by the need to drop them low and slow - 50 feet (15 m) and 110 knots - which made the torpedo planes carrying them more vulnerable to attack. The torpedoes themselves were found to be prone to defects. In mid-1943, an analysis of 105 torpedoes dropped at speeds in excess of 150 knots found that 36 percent ran cold (did not start), 20 percent sank, 20 percent had poor deflection performance, 18 percent gave unsatisfactory depth performance, 2 percent ran on the surface and only 31 percent gave a satisfactory run. The total exceeds 100 percent as many torpedoes had more than one defect."

What I'm saying, therefore, is that with possibly as few as 4 aircraft in optimal condition to stay within the small airspeed/altitude window required for a successful drop, the attainment of 4 hits out of 20 is a good outcome for the attackers.

And that's before any account is taken of the target's capacity to evade or outrun such torpedoes as were running 'hot, straight and normal'. For a comparison, take a look at dumpy ole' Kaga's dismissal of the Torpedo 6's attack at Midway. The attackers split into two 7-plane divisions to catch her in a simultaneous assault from two directions, but the coordination isn't quite there, and Okada is able point his stern at both divisions' drop so that she combs the wakes of each. This at a maximum speed six knots less than the 34 knots of which Shokaku is potentially capable in the attack under consideration.

Hey, I merely suggested, in mild terms, that the attackers had somewhat fortunate results. Given the factors referred to above, I stand by that. What I said isn't open to re-interpretation as a claim that 'This could never have happened.' I've seen enough of the part played by fortune to know better. I only hope that the result posted IS a reflection of such fortune, rather than the norm.

[Splinterhead]

Despite the fact that the report says 16 damaged it actually means 16 occurrances of damage so there were at least 4 undamaged TBDs but probably many more. (theoretically as many as 20 undamaged if each of the destroyed TBDs was damaged 4 times before destruction.)

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

While I'm about it, I count 20 torpedo drops by the TBD's. With Sho. charging around with a 34 knot capability and the Mark 13's having a speed IRO 33.5 knots, isn't a 20% hit+detonation rate just the teensiest bit on the fortunate side?

Are you saying that 24 Virtually unscathed TBDs should NEVER be able to score 4 Torp hits on a CV?

No, I'm not, because that's not the state of affairs revealed by the combat report.

24 TBD's participate in the attack. Of these, 4 are shot down, and 16 take damage. That leaves only 4 unscathed machines. Of course, I can have no idea how many of these casualties occurred before weapons release and how many after - from the defender's perspective I would hope my CAP and gunners would concentrate on those attackers who had yet to release their weapons.

Likewise I have no idea whether there is any correlation between the number of undamaged TBD's and the number of torpedo hits obtained. The fact that in both cases that number is 4 may be entirely fortuitous.

The other thing I know is that, whilst the Mark 13 later became a highly reliable aerial torpedo in a wide range of drop conditions, such wasn't the case in May 1942. This from the Navweps site:

"The early models were handicapped by the need to drop them low and slow - 50 feet (15 m) and 110 knots - which made the torpedo planes carrying them more vulnerable to attack. The torpedoes themselves were found to be prone to defects. In mid-1943, an analysis of 105 torpedoes dropped at speeds in excess of 150 knots found that 36 percent ran cold (did not start), 20 percent sank, 20 percent had poor deflection performance, 18 percent gave unsatisfactory depth performance, 2 percent ran on the surface and only 31 percent gave a satisfactory run. The total exceeds 100 percent as many torpedoes had more than one defect."

What I'm saying, therefore, is that with possibly as few as 4 aircraft in optimal condition to stay within the small airspeed/altitude window required for a successful drop, the attainment of 4 hits out of 20 is a good outcome for the attackers.

And that's before any account is taken of the target's capacity to evade or outrun such torpedoes as were running 'hot, straight and normal'. For a comparison, take a look at dumpy ole' Kaga's dismissal of the Torpedo 6's attack at Midway. The attackers split into two 7-plane divisions to catch her in a simultaneous assault from two directions, but the coordination isn't quite there, and Okada is able point his stern at both divisions' drop so that she combs the wakes of each. This at a maximum speed six knots less than the 34 knots of which Shokaku is potentially capable in the attack under consideration.

Hey, I merely suggested, in mild terms, that the attackers had somewhat fortunate results. Given the factors referred to above, I stand by that. What I said isn't open to re-interpretation as a claim that 'This could never have happened.' I've seen enough of the part played by fortune to know better. I only hope that the result posted IS a reflection of such fortune, rather than the norm.

I didn't intend to come off defensive. I genuinely wanted to know if your statement was intended to question the legitimacy of the result or just a casual observance. Just curious.

Your reply in either case was unnecessary as most of what you stated is in consideration by the code already. We have dud hits and FoW often provides misleading reports. In fact, though I don't remember, it is entirely possible that of the 4 hits, at least one was a dud. Also in this case the IJN attackers report no less than 6 torpedo hits on Lex in three different engagements and I can assure you she is alive and well with no more than 50 float damage.

I also tend to agree that this result is MOST fortunate, but also hold to the belief that something like this is POSSIBLE, however given varying circumstances you'd also find it's PROBABILITY would vary proportionally.

We only have a handful of CV vs CV clashes from which to draw conclusions. I would submit that there are endless possibilities vis a vis the end state of any one match. Had there been opportunity to replay each of the CV battles as we know them I would fully expect the results to be different each time. So much of it was left to chance...

Oh, and by unscathed I meant by the CAP. A TBD attack that has managed to sneak past the CAP would be in order and at least able to deploy a proper anvil attack up until the point where AAA became and overriding factor and would thus benefit from something approaching better than average results. Something that didn't happen IRL...

[Przemcio231]

Elf a question dose the "Death Star" TF thingy got some testing???

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Przemcio231

Elf a question dose the "Death Star" TF thingy got some testing???

Can you be a bit more specific?

[Chad Harrison]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Przemcio231

Elf a question dose the "Death Star" TF thingy got some testing???

Can you be a bit more specific?

Im taking a guess, but I assume its the class end war Allied 'Death Star' juggernaught. I put 10 Essex's in a single hex and set CAP to 70% and am pretty much immune to anything in stock.

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

ORIGINAL: TheElf



Are you saying that 24 Virtually unscathed TBDs should NEVER be able to score 4 Torp hits on a CV?

No, I'm not, because that's not the state of affairs revealed by the combat report.

24 TBD's participate in the attack. Of these, 4 are shot down, and 16 take damage. That leaves only 4 unscathed machines. Of course, I can have no idea how many of these casualties occurred before weapons release and how many after - from the defender's perspective I would hope my CAP and gunners would concentrate on those attackers who had yet to release their weapons.

Likewise I have no idea whether there is any correlation between the number of undamaged TBD's and the number of torpedo hits obtained. The fact that in both cases that number is 4 may be entirely fortuitous.

The other thing I know is that, whilst the Mark 13 later became a highly reliable aerial torpedo in a wide range of drop conditions, such wasn't the case in May 1942. This from the Navweps site:

"The early models were handicapped by the need to drop them low and slow - 50 feet (15 m) and 110 knots - which made the torpedo planes carrying them more vulnerable to attack. The torpedoes themselves were found to be prone to defects. In mid-1943, an analysis of 105 torpedoes dropped at speeds in excess of 150 knots found that 36 percent ran cold (did not start), 20 percent sank, 20 percent had poor deflection performance, 18 percent gave unsatisfactory depth performance, 2 percent ran on the surface and only 31 percent gave a satisfactory run. The total exceeds 100 percent as many torpedoes had more than one defect."

What I'm saying, therefore, is that with possibly as few as 4 aircraft in optimal condition to stay within the small airspeed/altitude window required for a successful drop, the attainment of 4 hits out of 20 is a good outcome for the attackers.

And that's before any account is taken of the target's capacity to evade or outrun such torpedoes as were running 'hot, straight and normal'. For a comparison, take a look at dumpy ole' Kaga's dismissal of the Torpedo 6's attack at Midway. The attackers split into two 7-plane divisions to catch her in a simultaneous assault from two directions, but the coordination isn't quite there, and Okada is able point his stern at both divisions' drop so that she combs the wakes of each. This at a maximum speed six knots less than the 34 knots of which Shokaku is potentially capable in the attack under consideration.

Hey, I merely suggested, in mild terms, that the attackers had somewhat fortunate results. Given the factors referred to above, I stand by that. What I said isn't open to re-interpretation as a claim that 'This could never have happened.' I've seen enough of the part played by fortune to know better. I only hope that the result posted IS a reflection of such fortune, rather than the norm.

I didn't intend to come off defensive. I genuinely wanted to know if your statement was intended to question the legitimacy of the result or just a casual observance. Just curious.

Your reply in either case was unnecessary as most of what you stated is in consideration by the code already. We have dud hits and FoW often provides misleading reports. In fact, though I don't remember, it is entirely possible that of the 4 hits, at least one was a dud. Also in this case the IJN attackers report no less than 6 torpedo hits on Lex in three different engagements and I can assure you she is alive and well with no more than 50 float damage.

I also tend to agree that this result is MOST fortunate, but also hold to the belief that something like this is POSSIBLE, however given varying circumstances you'd also find it's PROBABILITY would vary proportionally.

We only have a handful of CV vs CV clashes from which to draw conclusions. I would submit that there are endless possibilities vis a vis the end state of any one match. Had there been opportunity to replay each of the CV battles as we know them I would fully expect the results to be different each time. So much of it was left to chance...

Oh, and by unscathed I meant by the CAP. A TBD attack that has managed to sneak past the CAP would be in order and at least able to deploy a proper anvil attack up until the point where AAA became and overriding factor and would thus benefit from something approaching better than average results. Something that didn't happen IRL...

Elf, sorry, on re-reading my reply I see I may have adopted an excessively combative tone, and if so I apologise.

No, not my intention to challenge the result's legitimacy; it was a perfectly feasible outcome, albeit fortunate for the USN. It also crossed my mind that FoW might have played a part in what was reported.

It seems there's little or no difference between us in our assessment of the degree to which fortune played a part, and it's good to see it confirmed that the code takes account of the factors I mentioned. I agree completely with what you say about the likelihood that a repeat of each engagement will play out differently, and elsewhere I've commented on the danger of extrapolating too much from the handful of clashes that actually took place, be they on sea or in the air.

If it is accepted that this was an outcome that was unusually favourable to the USN, then, yes, it is one that should only occur occasionally. Otherwise there are two possibilities to consider. First, that some shortcoming in the combat resolution mechanism is skewing the results away from one's preconception of what they should be. Second, that the mechanism and its inputs are good - in which case it's time to ask whether, perhaps due to the dearth of historical evidence, such preconceptions are themselves wrong.

[Heeward]

If anything air to air losses look light - Per USN Records - IJN 42 Fighters and 24 bombers vs USN 20 total ( plus 1 A/A and 8 operationally). Now I will admit that the IJN totals inculde Rufes as well as flying boats.

[romanovich]

Or, in other words, it's somewhat reassuring that the USN simply got lucky in Elf's simulation, because otherwise we'd all be playing the U.S. on AE's release...

I, personally, was happy to read in another AE thread today that the rejiggered AE actually has made the U.S. "weaker" initially, giving a good Jap player a chance to win against the U.S in the initial going (long term, as we all know, anyone who plays Japan is a masochist).

I'm not hoping to trigger the discussion whether any changes to AE are historically accurate (I think if the U.S. is initially weaker in AE, it reflects history better), but there'd be no incentive to play Japan if Sho and Zui can get sent to the bottom early in 1942 at the cost of one U.S. carrier in a confrontation involving a weaker U.S. side. If Wildcats and SBDs can wreak that kind of havoc routinely early in '42 already, the war would over in AE by October 1942 (as I understand, it won't).

To all who want to argue that the U.S. should be dominant by Dec. 31, 1941, it's necessary to accept that Japan at least be given a chance. With Japan being the only side that allows you to manage industry (I wish you could as U.S.), it's more fun that way.

[witpqs]

I appreciate the comments on what the code contains and takes account of, and I appreciate the analysis of the results. It was also pointed out that IRL we have a limited number of engagements that all had a huge number of potential outcomes, and the present AAR outcome seems to be very lucky for the USN side.

Understanding all that, I'm curious if testing of AE to date has indeed shown that (in AE) such a result as we saw here is lucky/unusual/rare/whatever-term-you-like?

[Halsey]

I ran the AE Coral Sea scenario recently.
HtH play.

In my CV action Sho and Zui were sunk in one day.
Yorktown was sunk in two days, and the Lex sank seven days later.
Almost saved the Lex, but got a bad repair roll on day six after the battle.

Mutual destruction.

The Shoho's strike was ineffective as it went after a SCTF instead.
It was the only carrier survivor.

The IJN retained the scenario's aircraft group settings.
While I reset the USN CV's to my own preferences.[;)]

[romanovich]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

The IJN retained the scenario's aircraft group settings.
While I reset the USN CV's to my own preferences.[;)]

Don't know how that affected the outcome, but this is a bit more disconcerting than I thought. If it takes a bad roll in '42 (!) or the USN to make the score even...

I'm sure this has been playtested, but does the Japanese side stand a chance at least into 1943?

Actually, has this been play tested?

[Przemcio231]

Elf something like Chad Harrison mentioned or pile up Jap CV's from the KB + add some CVL's and send this against the whole Brit and US CV's early in the wa to see how the model A2A and air strike model works. Do the same in something like The Battle of the Philipine sea enviroment in 1944. The other thing is how Japs can repulse 200 4E strikes? how dose they work out in AE?

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Przemcio231

Elf something like Chad Harrison mentioned or pile up Jap CV's from the KB + add some CVL's and send this against the whole Brit and US CV's early in the wa to see how the model A2A and air strike model works. Do the same in something like The Battle of the Philipine sea enviroment in 1944. The other thing is how Japs can repulse 200 4E strikes? how dose they work out in AE?

noone should be able to repulse a 200 4E strike, not even an Allied carrier TF!

[vonSchnitter]

Well Gents,

with your[:D] permission - or not - let me be the bad guy.

From a PBM player point of view, the Fleet Carrier engagement shows a very simple bottom line:

The single Carrier TF is still alive and doing well.

What that translates into ?

Well. The IJN has (or had) a "coordination" bonus. In a single CV TF (allied) environment, this amounts to: All KB Carier AC will go after one CV TF. If the allied force has more than one CV TF in the same hex, defensive (fighter) support is there - and a strike back capability is in place - this time allied forces will go after the IJN CV TF - if more than one CV is in, all will be hit - spreading the grief but scoring all right. And of course, contemporary USN doctrine negating the need for Fighter escorts on strikes is negated.

And of course, the superior AAA of a USN TF - compared to what the IJN ships got - not to mention numbers - the single CV TF is the thing.

Do not get me wrong. I am not saying this is bad, historically inaccurate or anything. I leave those assesments to the more history or technical savy. All I am saying is - to my lights AE has not changed a jota compared to WitP in the light of carrier clashes in a PBM environment. Just a lesson learned statement.

Cheers

[Halsey]

ORIGINAL: romanovich

ORIGINAL: Halsey

The IJN retained the scenario's aircraft group settings.
While I reset the USN CV's to my own preferences.[;)]

Don't know how that affected the outcome, but this is a bit more disconcerting than I thought. If it takes a bad roll in '42 (!) or the USN to make the score even...

I'm sure this has been playtested, but does the Japanese side stand a chance at least into 1943?

Actually, has this been play tested?

Well, I'll let you in on a little secret in AE.
Strike packages are coordinated by altitude and basing.
I coordinate my strikes by the highest effectiveness that my escort altitude ratings have.
This is what determines your optimum altitude for air strikes.

So, attention to altitude is extremely more important now than ever.
Mismatched altitudes can really bork your planned strikes.[;)]

Remember this when you start playing this game.
The air routines are not exactly like WITP.

Offhand..
I've been playing this system for 5+ years.
If I hadn't at least scored a draw in this CV action I would agree in your view that something wasn't right.[:D]
As the Allies, I use my CV's no matter what year it is.
Forcing an action whenever or wherever I can.[;)]

[vonSchnitter]

Well,

this statement of yours got me thinking:

"Well, I'll let you in on a little secret in AE.
Strike packages are coordinated by altitude and basing. "

What is going on here:

a) The topic starter is not qualified to run a "test" in public.
b) The topic starter is qualified to run a "test" in public. Knowing well, the results are staged.
c) The topic starter runs a kind of test in public to "trigger" the uninitiated..
d) If Halsey is right, a once operational game (UV) is transformed into a bog of technicalities - or tactics- or micro management
e) despite of the above, the issues of carrier engagements are not adressed in principle or some modicums are not revealed.

which leads to

f) what is the point of this thread

Cheers


So ?

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

Well,

this statement of yours got me thinking:

"Well, I'll let you in on a little secret in AE.
Strike packages are coordinated by altitude and basing. "

What is going on here:

a) The topic starter is not qualified to run a "test" in public.
b) The topic starter is qualified to run a "test" in public. Knowing well, the results are staged.
c) The topic starter runs a kind of test in public to "trigger" the uninitiated..
d) If Halsey is right, a once operational game (UV) is transformed into a bog of technicalities - or tactics- or micro management
e) despite of the above, the issues of carrier engagements are not adressed in principle or some modicums are not revealed.

which leads to

f) what is the point of this thread

Cheers


So ?

Are you referring to me?

[Apollo11]

H all,

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

Well,

this statement of yours got me thinking:

"Well, I'll let you in on a little secret in AE.
Strike packages are coordinated by altitude and basing. "

What is going on here:

a) The topic starter is not qualified to run a "test" in public.
b) The topic starter is qualified to run a "test" in public. Knowing well, the results are staged.
c) The topic starter runs a kind of test in public to "trigger" the uninitiated..
d) If Halsey is right, a once operational game (UV) is transformed into a bog of technicalities - or tactics- or micro management
e) despite of the above, the issues of carrier engagements are not adressed in principle or some modicums are not revealed.

which leads to

f) what is the point of this thread

Cheers


So ?

Are you referring to me?

"vonSchnitter" - "TheElf" is the WitP-AE Air lead and I think that he is more than qualified (and to match in real life as well [;)]) to do what he does and posts here... [:)]


Leo "Apollo11"