PT Boats are awesome

[Scott_USN]

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

I don't like your tone either. You can stick your "JFB" thing right where it belongs.
If you're looking for a dishonest exchange with such a bias you'd better not try to exchange at all. I don't have to endure being called a JFB just because I don't agree with you (especially when you are willingly leaving such obvious facts aside with the sole aim of bothering us) period. To someone with my family heritage, it's worth any sort of insult. I guess I never called someone a Nazi FanBoy just because he found the Tiger underrated.

You can call me Nazi Fan Boy if you like irrelevant to me on any level. Means absolutely nothing to me.

Are you Japanese and confusing the fact that JFB is talking about this game and not nationality? JFB is about people who "are accused" of seeking to get advantage ingame with the Japanese through any means.... Hardly nationality issue more like play time.

Well if it's not an issue for you to be called a Nazi Fanboy, good for you. For some others it is.

It's not (only) about nationality. It's about the fact that I care about epistemology for certain academic reasons, and that I won't accept to get accused with having a selective memory while I am actually trying to be fair.

Fair? You aren't even quoting me!

[Scott_USN]

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

I don't like your tone either. You can stick your "JFB" thing right where it belongs.
If you're looking for a dishonest exchange with such a bias you'd better not try to exchange at all. I don't have to endure being called a JFB just because I don't agree with you, period. To someone who has my family heritage it's worth any sort of insult.

JFB? Are you serious? I don't play PBEM to start with. Dishonest? I just showed you major warships sank by Subs.

I am cool with that. I am not cool about the JFB sting

One of the problems one faces when confronting a JFB is that Japanese successes were in many cases such singular events that even a person with negligible memory can cite each and every one to support their point of view.

nor with your very special way of rebuking any kind of argumentats with the following comment

Besides the Wasp, the Indianapolis, and the Juneau which large warships did the IJN subs sink?

There is no debate about the US boats being way more efficient. But calling us JFB and provide us with partial data in the same paragraph is quite awkward. So if you're calling to be honest, please be exemplary too. I don't care about what IJN subs really sunk in their ill-fated career, but I care about the fact that I am being called a JFB "with a negligible memory" when you forget yourself about Yorktown, Liscome Bay and luckless Sara. It's not the data, it's the way you put it.

You have me confused with someone else. If you want to complain about JFB then quote the correct person. I never said "One of the problems one faces when confronting a JFB is that Japanese successes were in many cases such singular events that even a person with negligible memory can cite each and every one to support their point of view."

Not that I disagree with their point or agree just the fact is I never said that.

The US boats were miles ahead of Japanese in doctrine and usefulness of the boats. They sank over 50% of Japanese surface ships during the war there is no aruging that really. Or you can whatever.

I rebuked on the subject of Japanese sub forces because it is historical fact they were wasted chasing ships that out ran them had better technology and tactics. If they would have put 30 of their boats in the US-Aus pipe and killed tankers and transports... who knows. The fact is just because doctrine is retarded doesn't mean the platform can't succeed. Japanese had excellent subs, which were poorly used. The allies had a fear of PT boats and PT boats changed a few Japanese offensives alone by themselves. So they were obviously very capable yet poorly used just like Japanese Subs.

My point is why are subs sinking Transports off the coast of US, Suva, Australia, Java and the Indian Ocean every turn if the people who say PT's should be useless are going to argue Japanese Subs are correct? Because they are not correct historically but I agree with the game designers they were capable if given the right orders. Is that confusing?

[oldman45]

With the beta patch, I find the PT's and MGB's act much better. If they get caught during the day and there are escorts they get wacked pretty good. If its a dark night and they catch ships unloading they can get some hits and run away. Seems to work pretty well.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

My point is why are subs sinking Transports off the coast of US, Suva, Australia, Java and the Indian Ocean every turn if the people who say PT's should be useless are going to argue Japanese Subs are correct? Because they are not correct historically but I agree with the game designers they were capable if given the right orders. Is that confusing?

US PTs were marginally successful torpedo platforms over the course of the whole war. We can argue over why that is, but it's a fact nevertheless. Japanese subs are different. In the real war they were quite successful in the early phases. The idea that they concentrated only on enemy surface combat vessels is a myth, as evidenced by the fact the devs removed the "Japanese Sub Doctrine" button from AE. Joe Wilkerson notes that they sunk 60 transport ships in the early months of the war alone. However, as time passed, the Allies made better use of convoys and ASW effectiveness increased steadily, and the IJN submarine successes soon became a thing of the past. Literally.

You SHOULD be seeing successful IJN subs in the early phases of AE, anything less would be ahistorical. But if you think that success continues as the war wears on, just take a look at the results in my Aleutians AAR. Even nerfed PT Boats are more effective than IJN subs by mid-43.

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

which large warships did USN subs sink?)

Mutsu

Junyo

I didn't know US subs sunk Mutsu, I thought it was magazine explosion... [:D]

And I didn't even know Junyo was sunk... [:D]
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... 218542.jpg

[bklooste]

I think this a point that AA guns were too short ranged and typical DD gun mounts too slow to track PT's. I am convinced that best weapon against a PT's were fighter bombers and PT hulls with guns for British: MGB's specially because being numerous, so a good simulation would rise this weapons in typical scenarios.

Best against PT boats were float planes who can fly at night and follow their trail for hours.

Dont get this about AA guns not having range , AA Guns have huge range ,100mm and 127mm guns your looking at 18-20,000+ Yards. The 25mm had a range of 8000 yards and were used on land against tanks. I do accept that many deck mounted AA guns had a MINIMUM range. Torpedo effective range was 1000 yards.

DD Guns could track planes so i don't think a 40 knot PT boat is an issue. Besides when the boat is spending 5 minutes closing the tracking doesn't need to change at all your not going to be doing 20,000yard circle
Lets check this out lets assume a stationary target

Distance covered in a minute 1.2km .

m radius training needed assuming 100% lateral movement
20K 3.4 degrees / minute
10K 7 degrees / minute
5K 13 degrees / minute
2k 34 degrees / minute
1K = fire and go home. ( would be 69 degrees per minute or about 1 degree per second) .

Some guns
5"/40 6-7 degrees/ second
5"/50 ( On most destroyers) a slow 4-6 degrees per second
1" AA gun 16 degrees / second

As you can see with 100% lateral movement guns will still train effectively on a PT at all distances greater than 250 yards.


(Also note against 33 knot active destroyer , your relative speed is like 7 knots.)

There is a good reason they were used at night or in ambush , guns will shred them which is why in US doctrine they used Smoke after the surprise. At land they can hide behind a piece of land ( like the Italians often did) and not be spotted when a ship gets near they can rush the 3-5000 yards in 2-3 minutes with a bit of luck they will not be spotted until half that time is up and hence are only exposed for fire for a minute or so. You can not use this more than 10,000 yards from shore. If its good weather they will see you and get 15 minutes to fire on you . In most bad weather your torpedoes will be to inaccurate due to the platforms stability. In heavy rain conditions with a flat sea you will have a chance.

Im not satisfied with the fix ( if a players wants to run a daytime middle of the Ocean attack he should ,but 95% of the time all the boats will be lost for no gain) , but your arguments on guns having trouble to hit them are poor. The guns have enough training which should be obvious since they can hit much faster and smaller aircraft .

[John Lansford]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

With the beta patch, I find the PT's and MGB's act much better. If they get caught during the day and there are escorts they get wacked pretty good. If its a dark night and they catch ships unloading they can get some hits and run away. Seems to work pretty well.

I agree with you; my PT boats 'scare off' a lot more ships than they sink or even attack now, and it appears that they are vulnerable to more damage as well. If it's daytime the TF's just run away if they are transports, if they are warships they shoot at the PT boats until the PT's run away. At night the PT boats get some hits in but it's no longer the carnage we were getting earlier before the patch.

[Dili]

Just as a side note for information, are you sure they didn't get sunk at this occasion then? I seem to remember they had to evacuate at a time or another (always found these Decima Mas swimming stories quite impressive...). Got a book at hand? I get no resource of this kind here unfortunately...

The MTSM-228 was sunk by German planes. If i am reminding right there was another MTSM in a land column called "Giobbe" that advanced to a beach near frontline, but i am not sure if it was employed. The only thing i am sure is that everyone came back, see below link.
Official Association, Arditi Incursori in Italian http://www.anaim.it/index.htm, click in "Attività dei Mezzi d'Assalto della R.M. nella II^ G.M." and go to Agosto/Settembre 1942 Egitto/Libia. They don't detail that operation(only those at red) but everyone got back: "rientrato". MOVM, MAVM and MBVM means a Gold, Silver and Bronze medals. Gamma group were the best swimmers they put a lot small limpet bombs in merchant hulls.

Dont get this about AA guns not having range , AA Guns have huge range ,100mm and 127mm guns your looking at 18-20,000+ Yards. The 25mm had a range of 8000 yards and were used on land against tanks. I do accept that many deck mounted AA guns had a MINIMUM range.

Sorry when i was refering AA was talking about light AA up to 40mm . I accounted the 100 and 120 mm as Destroyer main guns.
Anyway to hit a movable target you need a tense trajectory a 20mm gun have that at 1 kyds, a 40mm Bofors(not the Pom Pom crap) 2 kyds , with good sights and fire control obviously this numbers might be better, if you are trying to hit a PT with a 25mm with your guns pointing 45º in elevation to get 8kys in range i wish you luck and many rounds [:)]

[Scott_USN]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

which large warships did USN subs sink?)

Mutsu

Junyo

I didn't know US subs sunk Mutsu, I thought it was magazine explosion... [:D]

And I didn't even know Junyo was sunk... [:D]
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... 218542.jpg

The magazine has been accused by subs

While operating off southern Japan on 9 December 1944, Junyo was badly damaged by torpedoes from the U.S. submarines Redfish (SS-395) and Sea Devil (SS-400).

Junyo bever fought again. You should have look her up huh?

[Scott_USN]

ORIGINAL: Kull

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

My point is why are subs sinking Transports off the coast of US, Suva, Australia, Java and the Indian Ocean every turn if the people who say PT's should be useless are going to argue Japanese Subs are correct? Because they are not correct historically but I agree with the game designers they were capable if given the right orders. Is that confusing?

US PTs were marginally successful torpedo platforms over the course of the whole war. We can argue over why that is, but it's a fact nevertheless. Japanese subs are different. In the real war they were quite successful in the early phases. The idea that they concentrated only on enemy surface combat vessels is a myth, as evidenced by the fact the devs removed the "Japanese Sub Doctrine" button from AE. Joe Wilkerson notes that they sunk 60 transport ships in the early months of the war alone. However, as time passed, the Allies made better use of convoys and ASW effectiveness increased steadily, and the IJN submarine successes soon became a thing of the past. Literally.

You SHOULD be seeing successful IJN subs in the early phases of AE, anything less would be ahistorical. But if you think that success continues as the war wears on, just take a look at the results in my Aleutians AAR. Even nerfed PT Boats are more effective than IJN subs by mid-43.

You think it slows down in the game?

I have played near to 43 and they only get worse and worse, slippery slope, next we should nerf Jap production

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN



Mutsu

Junyo

I didn't know US subs sunk Mutsu, I thought it was magazine explosion... [:D]

And I didn't even know Junyo was sunk... [:D]
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... 218542.jpg

The magazine has been accused by subs

While operating off southern Japan on 9 December 1944, Junyo was badly damaged by torpedoes from the U.S. submarines Redfish (SS-395) and Sea Devil (SS-400).

Junyo bever fought again. You should have look her up huh?

Tässä kohtaa meillä Suomessa sanottaisiin jotain maalitolppien liikkumisesta...

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

which large warships did USN subs sink?)

Mutsu

Junyo

I didn't know US subs sunk Mutsu, I thought it was magazine explosion... [:D]

And I didn't even know Junyo was sunk... [:D]
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... 218542.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Mutsu

Mutsu suffered a catastrophic explosion in the number 3 ammunition magazine 3km North of the present-day Mutsu Memorial on Oshima Island, on 8 June 1943. Although the direct cause of the explosion was never substantiated, it was ruled by the Japanese Government as "human interference". The explosion was so severe that it instantly sheared the stern from the ship forward of turret 3, causing major flooding in the boiler rooms and main engine room. The 535-foot (163 m) front section of the ship rolled to starboard and sank almost instantly resulting in the loss of over 1,100 officers and men, including 140 instructors and cadets from an aviation training group on a familiarization tour. The stern upended and remained floating for nearly 12 hours before coming to rest just a few hundred feet south of the main wreck. Only 350 survivors were recovered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Jun%27y%C5%8D

Junyō was drydocked at Kure, but repairs were abandoned in March 1945. The lack of materials, fuel and carrier planes meant that there was no need for fleet carriers. Junyō remained moored at Sasebo until the end of the war. She was scrapped in 1947.

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: witpqs


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Mutsu

Mutsu suffered a catastrophic explosion in the number 3 ammunition magazine 3km North of the present-day Mutsu Memorial on Oshima Island, on 8 June 1943. Although the direct cause of the explosion was never substantiated, it was ruled by the Japanese Government as "human interference". The explosion was so severe that it instantly sheared the stern from the ship forward of turret 3, causing major flooding in the boiler rooms and main engine room. The 535-foot (163 m) front section of the ship rolled to starboard and sank almost instantly resulting in the loss of over 1,100 officers and men, including 140 instructors and cadets from an aviation training group on a familiarization tour. The stern upended and remained floating for nearly 12 hours before coming to rest just a few hundred feet south of the main wreck. Only 350 survivors were recovered.

From Combined fleet:
Doubts as to the cause of the disaster remain, especially by those who favor the explanation that a submarine attacked MUTSU. Several months later IJN officials question the German naval attaché in Tokyo, Vice Admiral (later Admiral/Knight's Cross) Paul Wenneker (former CO of Panzerschiff DEUTSCHLAND/LUTZOW), about the circumstances surrounding British Operation "Source." Only after completing the exploration of MUTSU's wreck, do the Japanese decide that, indeed, the explosion must have occurred from within the magazine itself.

Or mayby some sub captain just forgot to tell that he just sunk one mighty battleship.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

You think it slows down in the game?

I have played near to 43 and they only get worse and worse, slippery slope, next we should nerf Jap production

Your AAR has reached April of '42. That constitutes "near to 43"? [&:]

[bklooste]

[/quote]

Sorry when i was refering AA was talking about light AA up to 40mm . I accounted the 100 and 120 mm as Destroyer main guns.
Anyway to hit a movable target you need a tense trajectory a 20mm gun have that at 1 kyds, a 40mm Bofors(not the Pom Pom crap) 2 kyds , with good sights and fire control obviously this numbers might be better, if you are trying to hit a PT with a 25mm with your guns pointing 45º in elevation to get 8kys in range i wish you luck and many rounds

2000 rounds per gun minimum Note AA guns have flatter trajectories , Anyway the real danger is at about 3k yards , note 25 Type 86 AA guns hit planes at 3k yards ie a 200-300 knot targets about a tenth of the size of a PT boat , max ceiling was 6k Yards.

Regards,

Ben

[Dili]

Yes except Pom-pom most light AA guns have high muzzle velocity.

25 Type 86 AA guns hit planes at 3k yards ie a 200-300 knot targets about a tenth of the size of a PT boat , max ceiling was 6k Yards.

That is probably when it starts firing not when it hits -note that a plane at 3km is a very tiny thing- even with less air resistence air to air combat is made at less than 1kyd even with 20mm guns . Max ceiling at 6k means that the bullet is almost at zero speed at that height. Effective altitude is much less, probably not more than 2 kyd . Note that for big AA effective height is much nearer their zero speed since most destruction was made by explosion and not by direct impact.

[Scott_USN]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

ORIGINAL: Puhis




I didn't know US subs sunk Mutsu, I thought it was magazine explosion... [:D]

And I didn't even know Junyo was sunk... [:D]
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... 218542.jpg

The magazine has been accused by subs

While operating off southern Japan on 9 December 1944, Junyo was badly damaged by torpedoes from the U.S. submarines Redfish (SS-395) and Sea Devil (SS-400).

Junyo bever fought again. You should have look her up huh?

Tässä kohtaa meillä Suomessa sanottaisiin jotain maalitolppien liikkumisesta...

Means nothing to me.

[Scott_USN]

ORIGINAL: Kull

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

You think it slows down in the game?

I have played near to 43 and they only get worse and worse, slippery slope, next we should nerf Jap production

Your AAR has reached April of '42. That constitutes "near to 43"? [&:]

I gave up on the AAR and? I held all of Burma easily. Destroyed the KB at Port Morseby etc etc etc.


I wrote what one page and figured why waste my time? I have about 3 game far in to 1942. Japanese subs run rampant. They are broken and need to be nerfed using your logic there is not way around it nerf them. They were perhaps capable and perhaps with the right doctrine and leadership they could produce the results in AE that they never came close to in reality. Same logic used against PT boats.

[Scott_USN]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: witpqs


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Mutsu

Mutsu suffered a catastrophic explosion in the number 3 ammunition magazine 3km North of the present-day Mutsu Memorial on Oshima Island, on 8 June 1943. Although the direct cause of the explosion was never substantiated, it was ruled by the Japanese Government as "human interference". The explosion was so severe that it instantly sheared the stern from the ship forward of turret 3, causing major flooding in the boiler rooms and main engine room. The 535-foot (163 m) front section of the ship rolled to starboard and sank almost instantly resulting in the loss of over 1,100 officers and men, including 140 instructors and cadets from an aviation training group on a familiarization tour. The stern upended and remained floating for nearly 12 hours before coming to rest just a few hundred feet south of the main wreck. Only 350 survivors were recovered.

From Combined fleet:
Doubts as to the cause of the disaster remain, especially by those who favor the explanation that a submarine attacked MUTSU. Several months later IJN officials question the German naval attaché in Tokyo, Vice Admiral (later Admiral/Knight's Cross) Paul Wenneker (former CO of Panzerschiff DEUTSCHLAND/LUTZOW), about the circumstances surrounding British Operation "Source." Only after completing the exploration of MUTSU's wreck, do the Japanese decide that, indeed, the explosion must have occurred from within the magazine itself.

Or mayby some sub captain just forgot to tell that he just sunk one mighty battleship.

Wow so who cares take one cruiser away. 51% of Japanese ships were sunk by Subs.

Maybe realistic look at the war would be healthy for you

[Scott_USN]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN



Mutsu

Junyo

I didn't know US subs sunk Mutsu, I thought it was magazine explosion... [:D]

And I didn't even know Junyo was sunk... [:D]
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... 218542.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Mutsu

Mutsu suffered a catastrophic explosion in the number 3 ammunition magazine 3km North of the present-day Mutsu Memorial on Oshima Island, on 8 June 1943. Although the direct cause of the explosion was never substantiated, it was ruled by the Japanese Government as "human interference". The explosion was so severe that it instantly sheared the stern from the ship forward of turret 3, causing major flooding in the boiler rooms and main engine room. The 535-foot (163 m) front section of the ship rolled to starboard and sank almost instantly resulting in the loss of over 1,100 officers and men, including 140 instructors and cadets from an aviation training group on a familiarization tour. The stern upended and remained floating for nearly 12 hours before coming to rest just a few hundred feet south of the main wreck. Only 350 survivors were recovered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Jun%27y%C5%8D

Junyô was drydocked at Kure, but repairs were abandoned in March 1945. The lack of materials, fuel and carrier planes meant that there was no need for fleet carriers. Junyô remained moored at Sasebo until the end of the war. She was scrapped in 1947.

The Junyo was hit and put out of action by Submarines. That is a fact what is your point? There is no difference between docked for the war and sunk to me as long as it no longer fights.

I will give you the Mutsu but irrelevant the point was made clearly.