escorting APs with high cruise speed

[EUBanana]

I think the game goes by maneuverability, not speed, when handling torpedo attacks. At least, maneuverability is the main factor.

Hence why subs attacking DDs almost always result in a "Torpedoes miss!" while subs attacking Queen Mary results in four hits and a lot of Japanese victory points.

You even see it with subs vs warships. A DD is hard to hit - a CA is harder than an AK but far far easier to hit than a DD.

[whippleofd]

ORIGINAL: herwin

I agree. The only reason I mentioned AN/BSY-2 was to support my argument that fast-moving TFs and ships were immune to WWII submarine attack without getting into the details. I guess I need to fill in the blanks, although bsq made the key point. WWII subs were almost stationary when submerged and not that fast on the surface (around 20 knots). Against a convoy or a TF when it was trundling along at 15 knots, that was enough, but against a CVTF or fast packet at 25-30 knots, the sub had to take a shot as the target passed at speed. Getting a good track on a ship took a while, so the chance of a successful engagement of a fast-moving ship was very low. This had operational significance. A carrier in a hurry out of enemy air range was very hard to take down. Both sides used high speed when they needed to get damaged carriers (Yorktown, Shokaku) out of an engagement or back to a dock yard, and I've found the game gets this detail wrong.

herwin, in my book you're one of the folks on here that doesn't need supporting evidence for your arguments to be rational and well thought out.

Maybe that's because I know just enough naval "science" to understand what you are talking about. More likely it's because if I don't understand what you are talking about, I go look it up and educate myself.

Keep on keepin on. Do your thing, ignore the trolls and never EVER feel the need to justify to those who are insulting.

Whipple

[NightFlyer]

ORIGINAL: RDonlon

ORIGINAL: herwin
HISTORY

The Queens did not use escorts. They cruised at 29-30 knots, which was sufficiently fast that a sub had a near-nil chance of developing a target solution in the time between first detection and engagement. (When I was doing the system modelling for A/N BSY-2, I had to model this process. There are a number of books in the open literature that address the issues of interest.) Note that the American CVTFs moved at about that speed when strategically deploying, but with cruisers (but not destroyers, however) in attendance to protect against SAGs. They were also pretty much invulnerable to submarine attack.

I don't know what the game does. Most TFs and convoys moved at speeds that subs could handle. This is the sort of issue that you need a background in OR and some submarine experience to get right.

This is one of the most pretentious posts I have seen in many years. I assume you are not a developer because if you were you would have put that in your curious ciriculum vitae. Since you are not, I wonder what in the world you are talking about. Just who do you think you are? And don't play stupid games please. I work for State at sec level 5.

Oh look Mummy, there's a troll under the bridge. World of Warcraft is that way ----->

[bsq]

ORIGINAL: jb123

one of my first threads in this forum and it gets hijacked like this.... so, about those APs. I can't imagine the 41st infantry div getting transported without escort. They took the QE in real life, what assets supported them?

Speed was their asset against subs and in my experience of using them in the game, a well plotted course stops them from being detected (whereas it would seem if you add escorts it slows them down and makes them more likely to be detected). I guess the footprint of one ship in the vast tracts of the Pacific is harder to detect than the footprint of a large convoy or naval TF.

[Knavey]

ORIGINAL: Whisper

Neither one of these people are worth a purple fart in a pink bathtub.

Just go on.

Now THAT is funny! [:D]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

I think the game goes by maneuverability, not speed, when handling torpedo attacks. At least, maneuverability is the main factor.

Hence why subs attacking DDs almost always result in a "Torpedoes miss!" while subs attacking Queen Mary results in four hits and a lot of Japanese victory points.

You even see it with subs vs warships. A DD is hard to hit - a CA is harder than an AK but far far easier to hit than a DD.

I've had QE sunk in AE. Maybe the high speed aspect you guys describe is something that could be adjusted when the AE Team has time to think it over.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

I think the game goes by maneuverability, not speed, when handling torpedo attacks. At least, maneuverability is the main factor.

Hence why subs attacking DDs almost always result in a "Torpedoes miss!" while subs attacking Queen Mary results in four hits and a lot of Japanese victory points.

You even see it with subs vs warships. A DD is hard to hit - a CA is harder than an AK but far far easier to hit than a DD.

I've had QE sunk in AE. Maybe the high speed aspect you guys describe is something that could be adjusted when the AE Team has time to think it over.

Target TF speed is a component of the calculation and high speed reduces chances of successful attack. But it does not eliminate attacks. There's always a chance...

[Nikademus]

Just ask Lusitania.

[:D]

[Nomad]

My biggest problem is not with subs, but that the QEs don't carry all of the cargo needed to transport a Regiment.

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

My biggest problem is not with subs, but that the QEs don't carry all of the cargo needed to transport a Regiment.

I think that's because the fast liners didn't carry all the supporting equipment for the units - that stuff was carried over in slower convoys either prior to or subsequent to the transport of the soldiers. Thus a Queen could carry a division but in WITP she can't really handle a regiment.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Nomad
My biggest problem is not with subs, but that the QEs don't carry all of the cargo needed to transport a Regiment.

Large passenger liners were utilized to transport large numbers of troops. They generally did not, and could not, transport entire large units complete with their organic equipment – guns, tracks, trucks, dozers, food, ammo, gas, etc.. Passenger terminals, even in very large ports, generally did not have the heavy lift facilities to support cargo of this type, in any case. The unit either hooked up with equipment already in-zone, or its organic heavy equipment was lifted separately.

[Nomad]

I didn't say it should, I only stated that they didn't and that does cause me some problems. But I have taken to loading up a Regiment using a Fast AP and some AKS and then splitting up the TF into two parts and sending them out separately.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

I think the game goes by maneuverability, not speed, when handling torpedo attacks. At least, maneuverability is the main factor.

Hence why subs attacking DDs almost always result in a "Torpedoes miss!" while subs attacking Queen Mary results in four hits and a lot of Japanese victory points.

You even see it with subs vs warships. A DD is hard to hit - a CA is harder than an AK but far far easier to hit than a DD.

I've had QE sunk in AE. Maybe the high speed aspect you guys describe is something that could be adjusted when the AE Team has time to think it over.

Target TF speed is a component of the calculation and high speed reduces chances of successful attack. But it does not eliminate attacks. There's always a chance...

There's always a chance you'ld run over a sub. Just small.

[bsq]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Just ask Lusitania.

[:D]

Different in many ways:

Confined waters, close to the coast.
Almost runs into the submarine presenting a perfect firing solution to an already experienced crew of U20.
Had slowed to 18 knots due to fog - the same speed as the surfaced U-boat.
Single fish (the last one she had) fired at point blank.

It doesn't get any better for a submariner.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Nomad
I didn't say it should, I only stated that they didn't and that does cause me some problems. But I have taken to loading up a Regiment using a Fast AP and some AKS and then splitting up the TF into two parts and sending them out separately.

That is a good move and one that, frankly, the game philosophy encourages. I am sure there are historical examples that indicate the contrary, in specific instances, but in the general sense, these ships function very well as they were intended to function. If they are used for other purposes - then all bets are off, woof!

[oldman45]

Another point about the liners is they avoided the standard convoy routes, and becuase of their speed the trip was not that much longer. I lost the Queen cause I tried to run her in a straight line to the port I wanted her in and of course there was a boat waiting for her. The next game I used an out of the way route and had no problems. When she gets close to port I send out the ASW ships to clear a path for her.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

I think the game goes by maneuverability, not speed, when handling torpedo attacks. At least, maneuverability is the main factor.

Hence why subs attacking DDs almost always result in a "Torpedoes miss!" while subs attacking Queen Mary results in four hits and a lot of Japanese victory points.

You even see it with subs vs warships. A DD is hard to hit - a CA is harder than an AK but far far easier to hit than a DD.

I've had QE sunk in AE. Maybe the high speed aspect you guys describe is something that could be adjusted when the AE Team has time to think it over.

Target TF speed is a component of the calculation and high speed reduces chances of successful attack. But it does not eliminate attacks. There's always a chance...

Excellent! Good to know. Thanks.

[morganbj]

ORIGINAL: herwin

There's something screwy about this discussion. I don't remember the US Department of State running its own clearance system. I suspect a troll.

Aw, come on Herwin. Just admit you're a pretentious kind of guy! [:D]

But, I like your posts, so I must like pretentiousness.

[whippleofd]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

But, I like your posts, so I must like pretentiousness.

How pretentious of you to say that! I think I'll just disreguard it.

Whipple

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

ORIGINAL: herwin

There's something screwy about this discussion. I don't remember the US Department of State running its own clearance system. I suspect a troll.

Aw, come on Herwin. Just admit you're a pretentious kind of guy! [:D]

But, I like your posts, so I must like pretentiousness.

Yep! [8D]