Allied Damage Control Option

[adsoul64]

My new PBEM opponent and I have talked about toggling on/off Allied Damage Control option. In short, the point is whether in RL Allies had a solid edge in this specific area. We have mentioned different events to support our different point of views. At the end we chose to activate that option. I've found a number of thread about this subject, but related to WitP or UV, so I wonder if Allied Control is ON "by default" for AE players. Also, I’m still curious to hear from all of you about damage control procedures in RL. Thanks to everyone.

[Anachro]

I'm pretty sure that Allied Damage Control is ON be default for most players here. I think the case is pretty strong that the Allies had far greater damage control capabilities than the Japanese. The IJN tried to address this after Midway, but their attempts seem ineffective when you take into account what happened to Shinano or Taiho.

[Anachro]

Here's a fun example. The Heavy Cruiser New Orleans, which managed to survive Guadalcanal and make it back to the US for repairs.

...New Orleans, next astern, was forced to sheer away to avoid collision, and ran into the track of a torpedo which detonated the ship's forward magazines and gasoline tanks. This explosion severed 150 ft (46 m) of her bow just forward of turret No. 2. The severed bow, including Turret No. 1, swung around the port side and punched several holes in the length of New Orleans' hull before sinking at the stern and damaging the port inboard propeller. With one quarter of her length gone, slowed to 2 kn (2.3 mph; 3.7 km/h), and blazing forward, the ship fought for survival.

[AW1Steve]

Damage control in the US Navy is emphasized to an almost unbelievable degree. Where the USMC has a mantra of "everyman a rifleman" the USN can honestly say "every man (and today , every woman) a firefighter". From their earliest most basic training (boot camp) is taught to every enlistee (and officer in their schools) the principals (and backed up in simulators and "smoke houses" with real , hands on training) and practicalities of fire fighting and damage control training .

Every ship does frequent damage control and fire fighting training on a weekly basis, EVERY "safety stand down" day has extensive training , much of the advancement course work and training manuals consist of damage control and firefighting. When I first entered Naval Service there was a little history taught on the development of this "near fetish" so that the recruit would comprehend and be motivated (although I do not know if this is taught currently). I do recall that this really began early in WW2 due to the loss of such ships as Lexington which really should not have been lost. Ships later in the war would easily survive such damage.

Recruits , reservist and even long serving enlistees used to receive pretty frequent showing of such films as "Trial by Fire" (the 1967 Forrestal ordeal) and "Three sailors" (a fictional account of three sailors who by screwing up on damage control manage to sink their own destroyer!) and many other films. "DC" (damage control) received a HUGE boost and re-investment during the Vietnam war (when 3 different CV's..Oriskany, Forrestal and Enterprise were very badly damaged by accidental fires) with several major fires and collisions causing a high degree of motivation.

While a great many of the ship board fire fighting techniques were developed during 1942-45 (indeed , probably the bulk), it certainly was never far from Naval leaders and planners eyes. The 1982 Falklands war , the Belknap-Kennedy collision and the attacks on the frigates Stark and Rueban James each brought around new studies in design and techniques in effective damage control. Friends of mine still serving tell me the Cole attack has lead to yet more study.

So to answer your question , yes damage control has been a constant near obsession with the USN since 1942. Ask any USN/USNR vet about his firefighting or "DC" training and you'd better grab a snack, a drink, and a comfortable chair as it's apt to be a long period of "sea stories". Yeah, it's that important. [:D]

[Dili]

US damage control in the game is exagerated and even goes to merchants.

About that New Orleans photo. So? Italian Navy, Greek Navy, English navy(with dreadful damage control in case of Ark Royal) have all photos of the ships like that where damage control worked.

Greek destroyer Adrias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_des ... rias_(L67)

[Anachro]

Dili, I don't understand your point. None of those are the Japanese navy, which is the only comparison that matters...wait on second thought, I get it, you are saying its not a good example of US damage control capability. I admit, you are probably right. I just think its a cool example of successful damage control.

I wonder if the Japanese would have been capable of saving such a ship. Really, I think for the game it matters in terms of relativity. Japan was demonstrably inferior in the damage control department. I do think there is debate as to how much of a buff the allies should get in comparison.

[LargeSlowTarget]

I think the USN had to make some bad experiences early in the war before it developed DC to a high degree through lessons learned. I have read for example that Lexington could have been saved if the knowledge / equipment of later time had been available (like filling gasoline lines and the spaces around tanks with CO2). Other DC improvements like the removal or stowage rearrangement of inflammable items (wooden furniture, linoleum etc.), the separation of fire mains, additional handy-billy pumps, the fog-nozzle etc. were the result of the Battle of Savo Island. It would be interesting to know if the Allied DC advantage in the game is an on/off affair or is improving over time.

[Lecivius]

Good to see you back, Steve [;)]

[AW1Steve]

I would suggest that USN damage control was better right from the start , but went into overdrive after Coral Sea. Several of the battleships and cruisers at Pearl Harbor were "saved" due to prompt counter flooding (which allowed them to settle on an even keel on the bottom , rather than capsize like Oklahoma and Utah). Raleigh is another example. I suggest this because this was during an attack that was totally unprepared for (several of the BB's were "open for inspection" where normal water tight security was even more impaired than normal in peacetime) a large percentage of the more experienced crew members (read..officers and married enlisted men) , and many sailors with specialized training for "DC" were not at their posts or killed.

I'd also like to suggest that Lexington's disaster resulted not so much from lack of damage control training as lack of AVIATION firefighting training. I've received both kinds and I can attest that Aviation firefighting is very different from normal "DC". CV's were still a relatively new ships type in the USN at the time.

There is an old saying in the USN that "regulations are written in blood". There had been no on ship aviation disasters in the period from 1927 till 1941 , so practical experience in dealing with such problems didn't exist. There had been plenty of experience of normal ship board experience. Looking back at some of my copies of "The Blue Jacket's Manual" (the USN's manual for sailors) , some of which I have date back to pre-world war 1 (damage control is extensively taught).

Two of the major items that killed Lexington were "easy fixes". Item one, purge aviation fuel system of fuel and fill with CO2 gas. Two , as much as possible run such lines externally. Item two develop a DC check list for the previous system that include such things as shutting down unused equipment in unused or evacuated spaces (or cutting power to such spaces). Lexington's explosion was understood to have been caused by a leaking aviation fuel system coming into contact with a running generator in a sealed off compartment. The INJ's Shimano would suffer a similar fate in 1945.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Good to see you back, Steve [;)]

Thanks , but I'm not really back , and I really didn't leave. I just decided to keep my mouth shut (as my wife say's "always a good decision") , and now have the attitude , don't speak unless you have something to say , and the minute there is any conflict , take a sabbatical. The more the heat, the longer the sabbatical. Let's see if I can stay out of trouble that way? [:D]

[HansBolter]

I'm always amazed that JFBs never seem to be satisfied with the myriad number of ahistorical advantages given to them to the degree that whenever they spot the most minute ahistorical advantage given to the Allies they parley for a house rule to counter it.

Hows about you counter with a demand for a lack of coordination between the IJA and the IJN.

Hows about you counter with a demand for the Japanese to evidence a real victory disease.

Hows about you counter with a demand that.......


Never mind,

I'm sure you get the point.

The Japanese side has been handed HUGE ahistorical benefits on a silver platter just to make the side desirable to play.

Why is it that so many JFBs want to make the Allied side undesirable to play?



Damn! I need to learn form Steve and just walk away when I encounter this kind of b_ll s__t.

[Grfin Zeppelin]

Why is it that so many JFBs want to make the Allied side undesirable to play?

Because it is a game played between 2 people. The game is historically correct loaded in favour of the Allies but of course people playing Japan want to be competetive, its a natural desire to strife for a more balanced game.

[Anachro]

But the game already makes Japan more competitive than in reality. I mean, we see regular invasions of Australia, India, and PH in PBEMs now.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I'm always amazed that JFBs never seem to be satisfied with the myriad number of ahistorical advantages given to them to the degree that whenever they spot the most minute ahistorical advantage given to the Allies they parley for a house rule to counter it.

Hows about you counter with a demand for a lack of coordination between the IJA and the IJN.

Hows about you counter with a demand for the Japanese to evidence a real victory disease.

Hows about you counter with a demand that.......


Never mind,

I'm sure you get the point.

The Japanese side has been handed HUGE ahistorical benefits on a silver platter just to make the side desirable to play.

Why is it that so many JFBs want to make the Allied side undesirable to play?



Damn! I need to learn form Steve and just walk away when I encounter this kind of b_ll s__t.

I'm not sure if you are always correct Hans. But you are right enough about many of the JFB's , some of the time, to cause an awful lot of heartache . Here's what I think. A good , competent JFB will not only accept the reality of the odds with a "I can do better than the Japanese did!" Attitude. Or even a "make it suck some more!" attitude. Those are the JFB's to treasure and admire. Those are in my simple and humble mind some of the best players out there. The ones who can only win by playing "lawfare" (as currently referred to by the US Military) , that is attempting to unbalance reality with a over abundance of "House rules". What some of those players who practice "lawfare" are really saying is "I'm not that good at this game , and I don't want to learn to play it competently , so let's invent a lot of ridiculous justifications so I can rig the game so I can win". As I said "SOME" of those players. I have the greatest respect for JFB's who competently play their side well. They learned to play the hard way, learning lesson after lesson , game after game , learning from defeat and disappointment. I respect them so much that at present, I still won't play as Japan in a GC. (I regularly play them in smaller campaigns). Because , despite playing continuously since the game came out , studying hard and reading as much as I can, I still don't feel competent to play as Japan. Playing as Japan in the full grand campaign is to me the ultimate graduation of this game. If you can successfully master production (which appears no where else in the game) as well as all forms of combat , to aggressively fight the allies right up to the end is the toughest , most professional achievement this game can offer. And I bow my head and salute those who do it! [&o] [&o][&o]

But those players who buy the game , then immediately want a partner so they can play scenario 2 with a bunch of dubious house rules simply so they can win have my absolute scorn. Frankly, I think I'll just completely ignore such people and maybe you should too.

So to all those JFB's who've slowly, carefully and doggedly built up your skill, please except my admiration and thanks.[&o][&o][&o] You are truly great achievers in this game. And to those who achieve "Grandmaster" status (don't be shy, you know who you are) , thank you very much, and please keep tutoring and teaching those of us who have not reached a "Competent" JFB status. [&o][:D]

[Revthought]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I'm always amazed that JFBs never seem to be satisfied with the myriad number of ahistorical advantages given to them to the degree that whenever they spot the most minute ahistorical advantage given to the Allies they parley for a house rule to counter it.

Hows about you counter with a demand for a lack of coordination between the IJA and the IJN.

Hows about you counter with a demand for the Japanese to evidence a real victory disease.

Hows about you counter with a demand that.......


Never mind,

I'm sure you get the point.

The Japanese side has been handed HUGE ahistorical benefits on a silver platter just to make the side desirable to play.

Why is it that so many JFBs want to make the Allied side undesirable to play?



Damn! I need to learn form Steve and just walk away when I encounter this kind of b_ll s__t.

I'm not sure if you are always correct Hans. But you are right enough about many of the JFB's , some of the time, to cause an awful lot of heartache . Here's what I think. A good , competent JFB will not only accept the reality of the odds with a "I can do better than the Japanese did!" Attitude. Or even a "make it suck some more!" attitude. Those are the JFB's to treasure and admire. Those are in my simple and humble mind some of the best players out there. The ones who can only win by playing "lawfare" (as currently referred to by the US Military) , that is attempting to unbalance reality with a over abundance of "House rules". What some of those players who practice "lawfare" are really saying is "I'm not that good at this game , and I don't want to learn to play it competently , so let's invent a lot of ridiculous justifications so I can rig the game so I can win". As I said "SOME" of those players. I have the greatest respect for JFB's who competently play their side well. They learned to play the hard way, learning lesson after lesson , game after game , learning from defeat and disappointment. I respect them so much that at present, I still won't play as Japan in a GC. (I regularly play them in smaller campaigns). Because , despite playing continuously since the game came out , studying hard and reading as much as I can, I still don't feel competent to play as Japan. Playing as Japan in the full grand campaign is to me the ultimate graduation of this game. If you can successfully master production (which appears no where else in the game) as well as all forms of combat , to aggressively fight the allies right up to the end is the toughest , most professional achievement this game can offer. And I bow my head and salute those who do it! [&o] [&o][&o]

But those players who buy the game , then immediately want a partner so they can play scenario 2 with a bunch of dubious house rules simply so they can win have my absolute scorn. Frankly, I think I'll just completely ignore such people and maybe you should too.

So to all those JFB's who've slowly, carefully and doggedly built up your skill, please except my admiration and thanks.[&o][&o][&o] You are truly great achievers in this game. And to those who achieve "Grandmaster" status (don't be shy, you know who you are) , thank you very much, and please keep tutoring and teaching those of us who have not reached a "Competent" JFB status. [&o][:D]

ose players. I have the greatest respect for JFB's who competently play their side well. They learned to play the hard way, learning lesson after lesson , game after game , learning from defeat and disappointment. I respect them so much that

Let me start by saying I have never played the Japanese. I think that's important to the context of my post below!

I don't think either of you are really being fair. It's a matter of perspective I think. Some people are more inclined to treat this game as an attempt to model the historical war in the Pacific in game form. Frankly, I am one of those people, because for me, part of the "fun" of the game is the historical element where you are seeing how your input could make things "turn out differently."

Some of this group are more serious about this than others... for example, I am perfectly happy to acknowledge that this is a game and not a simulation, and having made games before in my life, I understand the concept of balancing and recognize some deviation from "pure simulation" is necessary to make the game fun, while others lament the fact that French HQs can arm British warplanes.

Other people are more inclined to treat the game as only a game, with the historical backdrop of World War 2 in the Pacific. For these people the idea of "balance" becomes even more important, so they like to introduce house rules that help even the field so that, all things considered, either side has an equal (or close to it) chance to win. The idea here is that the ultimate "win" then comes down solely to skill and not to advantages conferred to one side by the game engine.

And let me be clear... there is nothing wrong with this style of play. Just because I want something different out of the game, it does not follow that what I want is better, because this is, after all, a game.

The easiest solution then is to just not play people who have incompatible play styles; the solution is not to insist that the other person is "wrong."

[Trugrit]

The game model is very accurate. The US Navy is very good at damage control.

Fire fighting is to the Navy is what rifle marksmanship is to the infantry.

I was on the USS Charleston for three years and we had a least one fire every year.
We had an engine room fire my first night at sea. Scared me to death when all the lights on
The ship went out but I knew what to do from training.

http://www.pwencycl.kgbudge.com/D/a/Damage_Control.htm

[mind_messing]

I think the point trying to be made is that Allied damage control applies to such ships that it really shouldn't.

The USN were fairly good with damage control, at least on warships. What about merchantment?

What about the Allies? Were the Dutch, Australians and New Zealanders up to the same standards?

FWIW, I'm all for the Allied Damage Control advantage. I would like to see it a little bit more nuanced, though. Rather than a flat boost to damage control, I would have liked to have seen it apply only to ships with experience over a certain threshold. That way, highly drilled ships could take advantage of the advanced damage control, and merchantmen filled with rookies would still burn like cinders.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I think the point trying to be made is that Allied damage control applies to such ships that it really shouldn't.

The USN were fairly good with damage control, at least on warships. What about merchantment?

What about the Allies? Were the Dutch, Australians and New Zealanders up to the same standards?

FWIW, I'm all for the Allied Damage Control advantage. I would like to see it a little bit more nuanced, though. Rather than a flat boost to damage control, I would have liked to have seen it apply only to ships with experience over a certain threshold. That way, highly drilled ships could take advantage of the advanced damage control, and merchantmen filled with rookies would still burn like cinders.

That certainly would be nice. From everything I've read I'm not sure that's possible with the current software. Maybe Bill D , Alfred or Michealm could tell us for certain.

[adsoul64]

Let me start by saying I have never played the Japanese. I think that's important to the context of my post below!

I don't think either of you are really being fair. It's a matter of perspective I think. Some people are more inclined to treat this game as an attempt to model the historical war in the Pacific in game form. Frankly, I am one of those people, because for me, part of the "fun" of the game is the historical element where you are seeing how your input could make things "turn out differently."

Some of this group are more serious about this than others... for example, I am perfectly happy to acknowledge that this is a game and not a simulation, and having made games before in my life, I understand the concept of balancing and recognize some deviation from "pure simulation" is necessary to make the game fun, while others lament the fact that French HQs can arm British warplanes.

Other people are more inclined to treat the game as only a game, with the historical backdrop of World War 2 in the Pacific. For these people the idea of "balance" becomes even more important, so they like to introduce house rules that help even the field so that, all things considered, either side has an equal (or close to it) chance to win. The idea here is that the ultimate "win" then comes down solely to skill and not to advantages conferred to one side by the game engine.

And let me be clear... there is nothing wrong with this style of play. Just because I want something different out of the game, it does not follow that what I want is better, because this is, after all, a game.

The easiest solution then is to just not play people who have incompatible play styles; the solution is not to insist that the other person is "wrong."

Exactly! I don't think my opponent was looking for some ahistorical advantage, he made clear from the very beginning he was looking for the most historical option. He just thinks that Japanese damage control was more or less efficient as the Allied one (please, note I'm saying Allied not American). My opinion is different, that's because my original question was about RL procedures. Maybe, I've been a little bit unclear here. My question should have been "Do you think that IJN procedures in DC were as good as the Allied ones atthe outset of the War? And what about later?

[Anachro]

No and no.