Surface Combat - What Am I missing here?

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

davbaker
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:54 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Surface Combat - What Am I missing here?

Post by davbaker »

I would have thought this was a pretty even engamement, maybe as I knew it would be at night and I had radar slight advantage to me.

From watching the replay and looking at the log:

The allies spot the Japanese at 11,000 yards on Radar.
All 4 british Royal Sovereign Ships have SS & AS Radar so do 2 criusers and 1 destroyer.

Good XP and good captains.

They dont open fire, close to 2,000 yards and let the Japanese Visually spot and commence pulverising them with their big guns.
When they do return fire its with their 4".

They get one or two hits with big guns before breaking off.
The high hits on Hyuga were from 20mm....

What I'm confused about is why didnt they open fire with first radar contact at 11,000 yards, or isnt that the way it works?

The eventual outcome was that I lost all 4 BB as I set Port Blair as home port and he was Bombarding Blair so I kept running into his TF and he sank me piecemeal.

Bonus was Hermes & Invincible caught him on run home and so far I've sank 2 of his BB with some more to follow hopefully....




Night Time Surface Combat, near Port Blair at 46,58, Range 2,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
BB Mutsu
BB Yamashiro
BB Hyuga, Shell hits 30, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
CA Aoba
CA Furutaka
DD Kazegumo
DD Hamakaze
DD Shigure, Shell hits 1
DD Ayanami
DD Oboro, Shell hits 1, on fire

Allied Ships
BB Revenge, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires
BB Royal Sovereign, Shell hits 16, heavy fires, heavy damage
BB Ramillies, Shell hits 1
BB Resolution, Shell hits 5, on fire
CL Mauritius
CL Glasgow
DD Stronghold
DD Tenedos
DD Thracian
DD Norman, Shell hits 1



Low visibility due to Thunderstorms with 28% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Thunderstorms and 28% moonlight: 2,000 yards
Range closes to 17,000 yards...
Range closes to 11,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 11,000 yards
Range closes to 8,000 yards...
Range closes to 6,000 yards...
Range closes to 4,000 yards...
Range closes to 2,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 2,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages BB Resolution at 2,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages BB Ramillies at 2,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages BB Royal Sovereign at 2,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages BB Revenge at 2,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages CL Glasgow at 2,000 yards
DD Oboro engages BB Royal Sovereign at 2,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages DD Norman at 2,000 yards
DD Shigure engages BB Revenge at 2,000 yards
DD Oboro engages DD Stronghold at 2,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages BB Royal Sovereign at 2,000 yards
BB Ramillies engages BB Hyuga at 2,000 yards
BB Mutsu engages BB Royal Sovereign at 2,000 yards
BB Revenge engages BB Hyuga at 2,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages CL Glasgow at 2,000 yards
DD Oboro engages CL Mauritius at 2,000 yards
DD Ayanami engages DD Norman at 2,000 yards
DD Shigure engages DD Tenedos at 2,000 yards
DD Norman engages DD Hamakaze at 2,000 yards
DD Kazegumo engages DD Stronghold at 2,000 yards
Range increases to 5,000 yards
BB Resolution engages BB Hyuga at 5,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages BB Ramillies at 5,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages BB Royal Sovereign at 5,000 yards
BB Revenge engages BB Hyuga at 5,000 yards
CL Glasgow engages CA Aoba at 5,000 yards
DD Norman engages DD Oboro at 5,000 yards
DD Norman engages DD Ayanami at 5,000 yards
DD Shigure engages DD Thracian at 5,000 yards
DD Hamakaze engages DD Tenedos at 5,000 yards
DD Kazegumo engages DD Stronghold at 5,000 yards
Range increases to 6,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages BB Resolution at 6,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages BB Ramillies at 6,000 yards
BB Revenge engages BB Mutsu at 6,000 yards
CA Furutaka engages BB Revenge at 6,000 yards
CA Aoba engages CL Glasgow at 6,000 yards
DD Oboro engages DD Tenedos at 6,000 yards
DD Ayanami engages DD Stronghold at 6,000 yards
DD Thracian engages DD Oboro at 6,000 yards
DD Tenedos engages DD Hamakaze at 6,000 yards
DD Kazegumo engages DD Stronghold at 6,000 yards
Task forces break off...
User avatar
jomni
Posts: 2827
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:31 am
Contact:

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here?

Post by jomni »

Low visibility due to Thunderstorms with 28% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Thunderstorms and 28% moonlight: 2,000 yards


You cannot shoot what you cannot see even when detected by radar.

But they did shoot at each other up to 6k yards afterwards. Probably directing fire to the muzzle flashes on the other side.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here?

Post by witpqs »

IIRC they made an adjustment so that early in the war they have to make visual contact to open fire, and as the war goes on (and radar is more competently used and understood) they can open fire at longer and longer ranges.

Prior to the adjustment there were complaints that Allied navies were opening fire way beyond visual range early in the war with primitive radar sets which were barely trusted and partially understood IRL. The Allies had a 1943-44-45 advantage in 1942.
davbaker
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:54 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here?

Post by davbaker »

I'm reading about SG radar fitted to a crude CIC in a US destroyer in Dec 42 that sounds pretty amazing.
i.e. PPI scope showing paint of area , able to distingiush land and ships and DRT showing plot of the ships movement.

(OT the book South Pacific Destroyer - Russell Crenshaw Jr one of the best I've read heaps of details, names all Ships by full designation down to small tugs etc.)

i.e. way beyond anything I'd previously thought they had in World war II.

Now granted the poms pretty much invented radar and had it fitted as standard pretty early on I would have thought it would have made more of an impact.

Maybe it's just me getting enthusiastic after reading this book. [;)]
User avatar
topeverest
Posts: 3381
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:47 am
Location: Houston, TX - USA

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here?

Post by topeverest »

Dav

Although radar defected the enemy, I have never seen a fight above visual spotting range at night. Best guess why the fight started at 2K yards. There was no surprise, so it boiled down to your basic barroom brawl. The damage pattern on Empire ships suggests an ultra aggressive allied commander targeted all his firpower on one ship to best ensure that it sunk. The empire spread its fire out more in a classic defensive posture to reduce the overall effectiveness of the allied TF

As to experience, there is no point in the early or mid game where I would say that the major allied fleets are comparable in experience. That is an empire advantage. As to the eveness of the armaments, I disagree to a small degree, I think there was a slight advantage to the empire. Their torpedoe warfare is far better, and 2 CA's much more readily penetrate most BB armor moreso than the two old CL's. The rest IMHO is the randomness of the combat engine.
Andy M
User avatar
tigercub
Posts: 2026
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 12:25 pm
Location: brisbane oz

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here?

Post by tigercub »

davbaker
what date was the battle?

Tigercub
Image
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here?

Post by crsutton »

It seems like the Brits always get the poor end of the stick. My old British BBs have not fared too well. Perhaps they should get a radar bonus from the start. We are talking about one year after the battle of Matapan (3-41). Of all the combatant in the Pacific war in 1942, the Brits had the experience with radar and knew how to take advantage of it. It is not so much the firing range but the situational bonus that radar gave.


As for your fight, it is just one fight. You had a bad day.....[;)]
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here?

Post by decaro »

ORIGINAL: crsutton

It seems like the Brits always get the poor end of the stick. My old British BBs have not fared too well ...

Neither have mine, but consider what happened to the WW I-era Hood after it was hit by a salvo from the brand new Bismark.
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here?

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: Joe D.
ORIGINAL: crsutton

It seems like the Brits always get the poor end of the stick. My old British BBs have not fared too well ...

Neither have mine, but consider what happened to the WW I-era Hood after it was hit by a salvo from the brand new Bismark.

I've never analyzed it, but I think rate-of-fire has a lot to do with BB battle outcomes. The IJN seems ot do very well in that regard. And one reason the USS Boise does so well. Once the North Carolina and the New Jersey and later classes get there the BB battles can be slaughters.
The Moose
John Lansford
Posts: 2664
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 12:40 am

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here?

Post by John Lansford »

ORIGINAL: crsutton

It seems like the Brits always get the poor end of the stick. My old British BBs have not fared too well. Perhaps they should get a radar bonus from the start. We are talking about one year after the battle of Matapan (3-41). Of all the combatant in the Pacific war in 1942, the Brits had the experience with radar and knew how to take advantage of it. It is not so much the firing range but the situational bonus that radar gave.

Not always. Very early in my CG I had PoW get in a one-on-one fight with Hyuga, and the RN ship blew her out of the water with barely a scratch. The escorts for each BB were about even in firepower; IIRC PoW had two CL's and 4 DD's, and Hyuga was escorting Chiyoda with a CL and 5 DD's. The seaplane carrier got hit as well, split off the escorting ships in a seperate TF, and PoW then found and sank her as well.
anarchyintheuk
Posts: 3958
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here?

Post by anarchyintheuk »

Agree w/ moose und squirrel. Rof makes a huge difference. Iirc the Brit 15/42s and the USN 14s and old 16/45s have a rof of 1. The rest are rof 2.
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here?

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Joe D.
ORIGINAL: crsutton

It seems like the Brits always get the poor end of the stick. My old British BBs have not fared too well ...

Neither have mine, but consider what happened to the WW I-era Hood after it was hit by a salvo from the brand new Bismark.

I've never analyzed it, but I think rate-of-fire has a lot to do with BB battle outcomes. The IJN seems ot do very well in that regard. And one reason the USS Boise does so well. Once the North Carolina and the New Jersey and later classes get there the BB battles can be slaughters.

Thats a good point. I would not suspect any of the Japanese BBs to have much over the Brits in ROF but don't really have a clue. I know that the American Brooklyns and Clevelands seem to do very well over the Japanese treaty cruiser so that is probably the point. I do know that all of the old BBs (both sides) has slow turrets and older fire control systems. They just were not suited for close-in night battles as it was difficult for them to track in the frequent course changes involved in a knife fight. I really look to take CAs and Cls into night fights and leave the BBs to daylight or bombardment.

My question is does anyone know if the ROF of the American BBs change with the major conversions that they can undergo in 1943? Seems like they would be a lot better after these major overhauls ( like four months in the yard).
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
kirk23_MatrixForum
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here?

Post by kirk23_MatrixForum »

ORIGINAL: jomni

Low visibility due to Thunderstorms with 28% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Thunderstorms and 28% moonlight: 2,000 yards


You cannot shoot what you cannot see even when detected by radar.

But they did shoot at each other up to 6k yards afterwards. Probably directing fire to the muzzle flashes on the other side.

This argument of you can't shoot at what you can't see is rubbish,please read Battle of North Cape as an example.This action took place at night,in a snow storm with initial contact using radar at 35,000 yds,and the ships opened fire at over 11,000 yds.What the game recreates as fighting at 2,000 yds is crap,maybe thats ok for destroyers closing to launch torpedeos,but to have Battleships closing to 2,000 yds before opening fire is simply rediculous and stupid.


Battle of North Cape

On Christmas Day 1943, Scharnhorst and several destroyers, under the command of Konteradmiral (Rear Admiral) Erich Bey, put to sea with the purpose of attacking the Russia-bound Arctic convoys JW 55B and RA 55A north of Norway. Unfortunately for the Germans, their orders had been decoded by the British codebreakers and the Admiralty were able to direct their forces to intercept. The next day, in heavy weather and unable to locate the convoy, Bey detached the destroyers and sent them south, leaving Scharnhorst alone. Less than two hours later, the ship encountered the convoy's escort force of the cruisers HMS Belfast, Norfolk, and Sheffield. Belfast had picked up Scharnhorst at 08:40 and 35,000 yd (32,000 m) using her Type 273 radar and by 09:41, Sheffield had made visual contact. Under cover of snow, the British cruisers opened fire. Belfast attempted to illuminate Scharnhorst with starshell, but was unsuccessful. Norfolk, however, opened fire using her radar to spot the fall of shot and scored two hits. One of these demolished Scharnhorst's main radar aerial, disabling the set and leaving her unable to return accurate fire in low visibility.
In order to try to get around the cruisers to the convoy, Bey ordered Scharnhorst to take a southeast course away from the cruisers. In the late afternoon, the convoy's covering force — including the British battleship HMS Duke of York — made contact and opened fire at 16:51 and at a range of 11,950 yards
Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller
Smeulders
Posts: 1879
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 6:13 pm

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here?

Post by Smeulders »

Doesn't the very article you are citing mention visual contact before it mentions any fire being exchanged in the initial battle ? Note also that this is in late 43' so we can expect radar to be used to good effect, while we do not know the date of the battle in the OP.
The AE-Wiki, help fill it out
User avatar
kirk23_MatrixForum
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here?

Post by kirk23_MatrixForum »

Yes Sheffield closed to visual range,and using her radio directed the fire on to the target for the other ships of the squadron,there are other earlier war  cases where by British ships engaged enemy ships at over 11,000 using radar,then again Britains World War 2 experience started in 1939 and not like America & Japan who's war really started after Pearl Harbour.[;)]
Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here?

Post by crsutton »

"Christmas Day 1943" You are talking the beginning of 1944. Light years away from mid 1942 in terms of radar and radar gunnery.

Matapan might be a better example where the Brits were aware of the Italians but did not shoot until they made eye contact. But radar did give them the tactical jump. You can consider the Battle of Empress Agusta bay in November 1943 where 4 modern American light crusiers and supporting DDs fired an estimated 4,000 six inch and 5 inch rounds (most, if not all of the six inch were radar directed) and acheived an estimated "20" hits overall. They still had a few kinks to work out.[:D]
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
kirk23_MatrixForum
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here?

Post by kirk23_MatrixForum »

Type 273



Type[/b]
Aerial Outfit[/b]
Peak Power[/b] (kW)
Frequency[/b] (MHz)
Wavelength[/b] (mm)
In service[/b]

273
AQN
90
2,997
100
1941
"Centimetric Mark IV" target indication set. This set was based on the Type 271, but was intended for major warships of cruiser and battleship size. It used side-by-side 3 feet wide cheese antennas that were carried in a distinctive protective perspex "lantern". In the Battle of the North Cape, HMS Duke of York identified the target of Scharnhorst at 35,000 yards using her Type 273 set
 
In service 1941
Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller
Smeulders
Posts: 1879
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 6:13 pm

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here?

Post by Smeulders »

Which does not mean that there was much experience with using radar for gunnery control in 41'. I believe code was actually added to the game in one of the patches so that radar becomes more and more useful to the Allies the later the date to model this improvement in experience.
The AE-Wiki, help fill it out
davbaker
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:54 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here?

Post by davbaker »

Thanks for all the info guys.

Battle was April'42 sorry for not posting that earlier.

To clarify my original thinking, Britain had Radar equippped ships and had been using them for some time.
In my battle they detected the Japanses TF at 11,000 yards then were 'suprised' at 2,000 yards.
To watch the replay is painful.
Hyuga proceeds to pound all four of the Brit BB's with no return fire from them for quite some time.

I can understand slow ROF but no fire at all was hard to watch [:(]

When they opened up with the 20mm after waiting for some 15" firing I almost cried.

No biggie, just another battle lost heh. Good to get others understanding and experience in-game though.

Thanks

Dave
User avatar
CapAndGown
Posts: 3078
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Virginia, USA

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here?

Post by CapAndGown »

ORIGINAL: davbaker

In my battle they detected the Japanses TF at 11,000 yards then were 'suprised' at 2,000 yards.
To watch the replay is painful.
Hyuga proceeds to pound all four of the Brit BB's with no return fire from them for quite some time.

Sounds almost like Tassaforonga: the US "sees" the japs on radar, even launches torps before the japs are aware of them, but the second the US opens fire, the japs promptly long lance their way to victory. A result that I am sure would cause complaints were it to happen in the game. [:D]
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”