Fire control (revisited)

[mdiehl]

IJN almost gave as good as they got (1 CA + 1 DD lost by IJN, 1 DD lost and Boise nearly lost by USN)

I'd call that a selective accounting. USN 1 DD lost. Period. If you want to count battle damaged, there was alot more done to the IJN in that fight than the loss of a CA and a DD.

Battle of Nov 13: both sides surprised, only 2 out of 13 USN ships left in condition to fight, the rest sunk or heavily damaged > mission kill only because Adm. Abe chose to disengage (had enough forces left for a bombardment), but cannot be called a USN "win", considering the losses

It was inexcusable for the Japanese to achieve anything other than a lopsided win considering that they entered that fight with 2BBs.

Saved by performance of Washington, Lee knew how to exploit radar, but nevertheless lost his entire DD screen sunk or heavily damaged and South Dakota crippled

Please. A little less editorial bias. The USN lost 3 DDs (one to friendly fire), the Japanese lost 1 BB, 1 DD, and 4 transports. That is a hands down straight up win for the USN. And yes, it proves the superiority of USN radar directed fire over Japanese night doctrine. 40 IJN Type 93a's launched, no hits.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Treetop64

An interesting topic.  It's hard to overstate just how badly mauled the Japanese southern force was at Suriago.  They were being peppered by highly accurate, over-the-horizon radar-controlled fire before they even knew where their enemy was.  The level of technical and martial proficiency by the US Navy at this stage was staggering, even by today's standards.

What really gutted the Japanese southern force at Surigao was not the Allied heavy BB bombardment, but the extremely effective earlier DD torpedo attacks on the Japanese main battle line. One of these DD torpedo attacks was, in my book, one of the most effective torpedo attacks of the war.

Even with the surfeit of big guns on the Allied sides, not all ships performed well. Some, with the older fire control systems, did not engage at all or got off a few desultory shots before the action was completed. Others, particularly with the newer fire control, were able to dish out some pain to the Kirishima.

[mdiehl]

Even with the surfeit of big guns on the Allied sides, not all ships performed well. Some, with the older fire control systems, did not engage at all or got off a few desultory shots before the action was completed. Others, particularly with the newer fire control, were able to dish out some pain to the Kirishima

Yamashiro. But I otherwise agree, the difference between radar directed vs non radar directed fire was very substantial.

[US87891]

Mr mdiehl, the point you may be missing is that fire control radar, per se, had little to no impact for early war engagements. Early USN radars were more in the context of search and detection systems, if they worked, and if their returns reflected reality. Neither of which were foregone conclusions, a fact that informed the decisions of TF commanders, depending on their comfort level with the technology. Thus, discussions of engagements are irrelevant in terms of the OP question re radars.

But … Both US and Japan trained at night. They trained according to their respective doctrines. In both cases they relied on illumination for fire control. This could be star-shell or parachute flares. Both used float planes in a night illumination role and for shell spotting.

The only difference between the two was the doctrinal scope of the engagement parameters. Their doctrines were totally different. Unfortunately, wartime strictures paid little attention to doctrinal requirements. Both sides were at a loss, when confronted with reality, so it was a matter of which side had the flexibility to confront the new paradigm.

In this median period, once the situation fell outside the scope of the, admittedly rigid, standard engagement parameters, it was catch-as-catch-can and depended exclusively on the internal motivation, skill, and luck, of one side or the other.

Surprise is the result of skill compounded with a great deal of luck. One cannot plan for surprise, one can only plan well and hope for it. Having dice rolls control this aspect of the game is quite rational.

[mdiehl]

I'm not missing the point. It's just that the claim is flat out incorrect. Fire control radar was a substantial USN advantage at Cape Esperence and allowed the USN to turn a lopsided disadvantage to a "draw" on Friday the 13th, and to pound the stuffing out of the Japanese battle line the following night.

Much of that had to do with *which* USN Adm. was acting as commodore. Some of it also had to do with individual ships. I again direct your attention to the remarkable Bob Hagan... one of the few USN Fire Control Officers to be in the thickest of the action at Guadalcanal and later aboard USS Johnson at Samar. In both instances, he used radar directed 5" gunfire to devastate the command centers of Japanese CAs. This is what I mean when I say that USN fire control radar allowed USN DDs to punch above their weight class. And it happened in October 1942.

The situation in 1942 was not the lopsided Japanese advantage that *some* seem to believe.

[US87891]

Sorry, but not correct.

You seem to be one of those people who do not wish to learn, but only wish to talk.

Since the developers will not do what you want, you might as well keep talking, seeing as it is irrelevant.

[mdiehl]

Wow. All that ad hominem hostility, and not a single fact to support your case. Hmmm.

I thought we were having a historical discussion. The devs will do what they will do. Not My Problem.

I'll try again. If you think fire control radar was not decisive at Cape Esperence, or on Nov 13-14 or Nov 14-15 night actions, then you should reconsider your position. You can get a general sense of the flow of action if you read Richard Frank's Guadalcanal. But a more recent and excellent history of the surface combats has been produced by James Hornfischer (Neptune's Inferno -- it's new this year). In it, you can find more details about the relationship between fire control radar and the information that it generated during those battles.

Or you can continue to merely assert claims that have no basis in reality.

[JWE]

Frankly, I'm with US87891 on this one. The realities of combat do not come from books or from manuals. I've read Frank, the manuals, and everything else. Everybody, but everybody says what. Nobody, but nobody can say why. So take your own ad hominem hostility and shove it up your rose marie. I'm not buying it.

[ed] and neither will the game buy it, so blather all you wish; your irrelevant comments are ... irrelevant.

[mdiehl]

Frankly, I'm with US87891 on this one. The realities of combat do not come from books or from manuals. I've read Frank, the manuals, and everything else. Everybody, but everybody says what. Nobody, but nobody can say why.

Actually, lots of people CAN say why. You just need to read someone who knows whatfor about it. Richard Frank's is a pretty good account. But it's not "the last word." Indeed, it'd be odd if anything ever WERE the last word. Historical research does not assume that anyone's account will be sacred and inviolate.

So take your own ad hominem hostility and shove it up your rose marie. I'm not buying it.

I've offered no hostility. Only noted that in his case the assertion of "unwillingness to learn" isn't a rebuttal. It's just an attack against the person who does not share his opinion. Obviously, you are another person who subscribes to his, errmm, standards of discourse. I'm not sure where one keeps a "Rose Marie." I suppose if that is an admission that you have a "Rose Marie" you could explain what you shove in yours.

and neither will the game buy it, so blather all you wish; your irrelevant comments are ... irrelevant.

Heh. [:D] What I love most about guys like you is the insistance that I just STFU. After all, no one would want a historical discussion to break out if it's based on, say, evidence, rather than whatever agenda you seem to embrace.

So, hmmm, is it that YOU PERSONALLY don't care for historical analysis, or is it that you do not want the Developers to become interested in historical analysis?

[Mynok]

Now, JWE, you know quite well he's a troll. [:-]

Remember the old adage about teaching pigs to sing........[;)]

And for those who aren't aware, mdiehl will jump on any thread or post that claims the Japs did something well or the US did something badly. Brings zero facts to the table, just a bunch of argument by decree.

So the green button is your friend. Highly recommend it. These forums have too good of discussion to have his lot piddling all over them.

Just some friendly advice. He's been doing this crap for years.

[mdiehl]

Now, JWE, you know quite well he's a troll.

Ah. Nothing like forum decorum to bring out the best in people.

And for those who aren't aware, mdiehl will jump on any thread or post that claims the Japs did something well or the US did something badly. Brings zero facts to the table, just a bunch of argument by decree.

I've already brought plenty of facts to the table. It's just that you're not interested in facts. We can talk about many indices of "ability." Torpedo hit rates. Gunfire hit rates. Tons sunk. Who gets the first shot. Etc. Pick one.

I think anyone here who is NOT aware of your past efforts to derail historical discussions by giving insult is perfectly capable of judging, from this thread alone, who has facts to support their claims, and who is or is not a troll.

So the green button is your friend. Highly recommend it. These forums have too good of discussion to have his lot piddling all over them.

Would that you were capable of following your own advice. [:'(]

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Mynok
Now, JWE, you know quite well he's a troll. [:-]

Remember the old adage about teaching pigs to sing........[;)]

Yes, Borther Mynok, I know that quite well.

Not trying to teach the pig to sing, just trying to help warn the regular folks that the pig is talking trash. Every now and again, a developer should step in and flush the toilet. Don't mean much, just walk in, push the lever, and go on about one's business.

Sigh, It's one of those once in a while chores, like vacuming, or moping the kitchen floor; one simply must occasionally flush the toilet. [:D]

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Sigh, It's one of those once in a while chores, like vacuming, or moping the kitchen floor; one simply must occasionally flush the toilet. [:D]

[:D]

Much appreciated! Hate it when someone doesn't flush. [;)]

[mdiehl]

Talk is cheap on the internet and cheap talk is the cheapest.

I can't understand your purpose. Is it that you want to cheapen the discussion so much that the thread gets locked rather than have a historical discussion? Again?

[Treetop64]

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

ORIGINAL: Treetop64

An interesting topic.  It's hard to overstate just how badly mauled the Japanese southern force was at Suriago.  They were being peppered by highly accurate, over-the-horizon radar-controlled fire before they even knew where their enemy was.  The level of technical and martial proficiency by the US Navy at this stage was staggering, even by today's standards.

And in battle of Savo Islands smaller force of Japanese ships sunk 5 USA Heavy Cruisers (one as scuttled) and suffered only minor damages and no ship losses during night time combat. Japanese launched Float planes at night and illuminated USA ships with flares and started turkey shoot of them.

As far as I know USA inexperienced crews thought using of float planes at night to illuminate ships as impossible strategy as it would endanger pilots unable to return at night.

This is just one example of Japanese skills in night time surface battle.

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

True, but that was years earlier at Guadalcanal. Both sides profusely bled there, but the Japanese were indeed very capable at night. A lot has changed between that and the Philippine action, however.

[mdiehl]

There is no reasonable doubt that both of the navies were good at night combat. As you noted, both sides bled alot in 1942 surface engagements. (Edited to correct double negative).

The bit about the USN not using float planes to illuminate targets is wrong though. USN used them at Cape Esperence.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

Now, JWE, you know quite well he's a troll. [:-]

Remember the old adage about teaching pigs to sing........[;)]

And for those who aren't aware, mdiehl will jump on any thread or post that claims the Japs did something well or the US did something badly. Brings zero facts to the table, just a bunch of argument by decree.

So the green button is your friend. Highly recommend it. These forums have too good of discussion to have his lot piddling all over them.

Just some friendly advice. He's been doing this crap for years.

Yup. nearly 10 years. Like the "Helmut/Linda/5thGuards/JP Daniels" situation whereby players looking for legit opponents are forwarned, newcomers to the forum should be made aware of getting sidetracked in game/history related questions with someone who's only here to pick fights with people who don't conform to his views. He's never owned or played WitP much less AE. Outside of that reasonology not Feeding the Troll is the best option. Reporting abuses is another option. Our boy has already nearly gotten a vacation from Erik recently for harrasement.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

IJN almost gave as good as they got (1 CA + 1 DD lost by IJN, 1 DD lost and Boise nearly lost by USN)

I'd call that a selective accounting. USN 1 DD lost. Period. If you want to count battle damaged, there was alot more done to the IJN in that fight than the loss of a CA and a DD.

Yeah, selective accounting for both sides.Yes, there was moderate damage to Aoba and minor damage to Kinugasa. But then there was more damage to the USN than the loss of Duncan as well - Farenholt and Salt Lake City both received hits.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Battle of Nov 13: both sides surprised, only 2 out of 13 USN ships left in condition to fight, the rest sunk or heavily damaged > mission kill only because Adm. Abe chose to disengage (had enough forces left for a bombardment), but cannot be called a USN "win", considering the losses

It was inexcusable for the Japanese to achieve anything other than a lopsided win considering that they entered that fight with 2BBs.

I'd call that Monday Morning Quarterbacking. From a position of hindsight one may expect more from 2 BBs against cruisers and destroyers, but when considering the circumstances (restricted waters, low visibility, close range, intermingled formations, incomplete information, confusion, bombardment ammo etc.) it is not surprising that the BBs could not be employed with maximum efficiency.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Saved by performance of Washington, Lee knew how to exploit radar, but nevertheless lost his entire DD screen sunk or heavily damaged and South Dakota crippled

Please. A little less editorial bias. The USN lost 3 DDs (one to friendly fire), the Japanese lost 1 BB, 1 DD, and 4 transports. That is a hands down straight up win for the USN. And yes, it proves the superiority of USN radar directed fire over Japanese night doctrine. 40 IJN Type 93a's launched, no hits.

The transports played no part in the battleship action and do not count. I'm not aware of friendly-fire directed against the USN DDs. Walke and Benham were both hit and sunk by IJN torpedoes. But I agree on effectiveness of Washington's gunfire.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Different circumstances each. I would not call the battle of Badung Strait much of an example of a great Japanese job. Shot at each other for a while, torpedoed a Dutch CL, took a battering from two USN DDs and another dutch CL, and had a Japanese DD crippled and towed back to safety. Rather chaotic by any standards, and no evidence of great surface gunnery on the IJN part.

[...]

As I said, in 1942, the two were in my view equals at night combat. By 1944 the Japanese were hopelessly outclassed at it. Night combat. Day combat. Didn't really matter, the USN was simply much better at it.

Mmh, to return the "editorial bias" compliment: At Badung Strait, 4 IJN DDs did drive off a much larger Allied force (3 CLs, 7 DDs), their gunfire forced 2 USN DDs to break off action, they torpedoed and sunk a Dutch destroyer, severely damaged a Dutch cruiser by gunfire, sustained comparatively little damage themselves, and fulfilled their mission to protect the transports. Well done by any standards.

I do agree with some points (circumstances and commanders play a major role - not just at Balikpapan or Savo, USN getting better regarding information management, IJN being outclassed in 1944 day and night). But I rest convinced that the IJN was better prepared by training, equipment and doctrine and thus had an edge in night battles - until the USN technological advantages and experience introduced / gained during the 1942 battles made themselves felt. In 1942 the USN was not equal - but it learned from the 1942 battles (although drawing wrong lessons from Cape Esperance)and by the end of 1942 caught up and in 1943 pulled ahead of the IJN.

[pompack]

Does AE even have fire control radars as devices? I have not dug through the Editor or played as Allies in late 44, but the only radars I have seen are air and surface search sets. The USN Mark 8 and Mark 13 radars were (AFAIK) the first radars with sufficient range and angular resolution to function as blind-fire control devices. Some surface search radars may have had satisfactory range resolution but their angular resolution (lack of) made them useless for fire contorl.

Now with that said, the use of search radar to provide situational awareness for commanders and to coach optical fire control instruments onto a target could provide a significant advantage; the key word is "could" since it rarely did in the battles around Guadalcanal. Friedman has a lot to say about this in "Naval Firepower"; basically he stated that the advantages radar provided for situational awareness didn't really amount to much until the CIC was created (and commanders trained in it's use) to fuse all the various data and present it to commanders in a timely manner.

In other words, the USN got very spotty results from the use of radar in 1942.

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Mynok
Now, JWE, you know quite well he's a troll. [:-]

Remember the old adage about teaching pigs to sing........[;)]

Yes, Borther Mynok, I know that quite well.

Not trying to teach the pig to sing, just trying to help warn the regular folks that the pig is talking trash. Every now and again, a developer should step in and flush the toilet. Don't mean much, just walk in, push the lever, and go on about one's business.

Sigh, It's one of those once in a while chores, like vacuming, or moping the kitchen floor; one simply must occasionally flush the toilet. [:D]

Carry on then sir! Means a hell of a lot more coming from you than me!