PT Boats from Hell

[Damien Thorn]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

What other weapon systems do you neuter? Just wondering.

Japanese ASW... oh wait, that wasn't me. That was the developers. [;)]

I don't neuter the PT boats. They still have their torpedoes, just like subs or DD or CL ships. It's just now they have to actually close the range to use them LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE does.

[mongo]

I've had PTs start at 10k yards.. It was daylight of course.

They got just slaughtered. I think Musashi got in a couple 18" hits..[X(]

[UncleBuck]

I think the PT and Barge attack level of 100 feet is a bit much. If it were say 5K that would be resonable. Patrol Planes flew higher than 1000 feet, just doign a normal patrol, and they would attack PT's. I would like to have a better chance of attacking Barges and PTS without destroying my morale and increaseing Fatigue through the roof.

UB

[Jim D Burns]

I think the problem with PT boats may be due to night ambushes. In my game every time I try to offensively use my PT’s (I move them into a Japanese base with a task force) they get slaughtered. However if I leave them on a defensive mission with a reaction range set, the AI avoids the base like the plague. If I move the PT’s away the AI attacks the base, so I’m guessing there is significant ambush code built into PT boat combats when they are defending a base.

If players want to sail into a hex containing PT boats on these defensive missions without first trying to destroy them with air power, then there should be a risk of a surprise attack that can potentially sink a capital ship or two. Players should sweep the base for a turn or two with a couple air groups set to 100 feet to be sure there are no possible PT’s lurking about before they move into a base hex.

Simply complaining until they are disabled by Matrix is a mistake in my opinion. We should strive to understand what is going on first before we cry for a change. Are these poor results being discussed occuring as a result of an ambush (did you sail into a hex containing PT’s) or are these occurring as a result of offensive use of these craft? Personally I’ve never had a single success when using PT’s offensively, so I suspect people are getting stung by surprise ambushes.

Recon planes are in the game for a reason, players need to slow down and systematically assault bases. First good recon (several days or weeks), then continuous prep bombing and strafing, followed by several turns of shore bombardments and surface sweeps. Only then should the transports move in to assault said base. These operations could take weeks, but this is how it was done historically. Rushing in against prepared defenders should cost you, even if those defenders are just PT boats.

Jim

[DrewMatrix]

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Blaise Pascal

I am just trying to sort that out. So is doing nothing out of religious convicition the worst evil? Or is it just the most cheerful evil?

[cyberwop36]

Remember 1 historical point. The motor torpedo boat "PT" is the reason the destroyer was 1st invented. DD's were originally called Torpedo Boat Destroyers. When PT type craft 1st came out they scared the hell out of all the large Dreadnought based navies.

Under the right conditions and used properly a small relitivly cheap speed boat cold kill a huge and massively expensive capital ship.

[mogami]

Hi, Before WWI there was no such ship as the Destroyer. The Dreadnought was the ultimate weapon. Then one was sunk by a motor torpedo boat.
The Birth of the Destroyer. (Full name Motor Torpedo Boat Destroyer)

Sorry Cyberwop, don't know how I missed your post. I'll change mine to "What he said"

Because DD made MTB some what ineffective. The DD was modified to fill the role of the MTB (was armed with torpedos) Then the submarine further broadened it's role (it was given depth charges)

Now a new ship was required to combat the DD. The CL arrived. Then something to combat the CL the CA appeared. Now the BB had something other then enemy BB. The circle was complete and the BB began to grow larger again. Then some whacko figured airplanes could sink ships cheaper then ships could sink ships so the CV arrived. All the ships exposed to air attack now became escorts for their own CV. After this all ships that could not defend against enemy air or submarine threats vanished.

[Ron Saueracker]

Problem I think lies with the fact that Task Forces are over simplified. There is no differentation between types of ship, roles of ships, positions of ships, etc, etc, etc...

Preferably, some sort of subdivision of TFs, with some sort of cause and effect flow to it, could have been attempted. Perhaps "Capital Ships" and "Screen" fields within the TF make up. This would most likely alter the present results significantly. Make the PTs have to deal with the screening light forces prior to getting a crack at the heavies. No more free shots I'd bet.

[von Murrin]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

I think the problem with PT boats may be due to night ambushes. In my game every time I try to offensively use my PT’s (I move them into a Japanese base with a task force) they get slaughtered. However if I leave them on a defensive mission with a reaction range set, the AI avoids the base like the plague. If I move the PT’s away the AI attacks the base, so I’m guessing there is significant ambush code built into PT boat combats when they are defending a base.

If players want to sail into a hex containing PT boats on these defensive missions without first trying to destroy them with air power, then there should be a risk of a surprise attack that can potentially sink a capital ship or two. Players should sweep the base for a turn or two with a couple air groups set to 100 feet to be sure there are no possible PT’s lurking about before they move into a base hex.

Simply complaining until they are disabled by Matrix is a mistake in my opinion. We should strive to understand what is going on first before we cry for a change. Are these poor results being discussed occuring as a result of an ambush (did you sail into a hex containing PT’s) or are these occurring as a result of offensive use of these craft? Personally I’ve never had a single success when using PT’s offensively, so I suspect people are getting stung by surprise ambushes.

Recon planes are in the game for a reason, players need to slow down and systematically assault bases. First good recon (several days or weeks), then continuous prep bombing and strafing, followed by several turns of shore bombardments and surface sweeps. Only then should the transports move in to assault said base. These operations could take weeks, but this is how it was done historically. Rushing in against prepared defenders should cost you, even if those defenders are just PT boats.

Jim

Some very sharp observations there, none of which I can disagree with. I too have noticed a difference between offensive and defensive usage, but I would feel more comfortable with such an assessment after many more encounters.

[tsimmonds]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Simply complaining until they are disabled by Matrix is a mistake in my opinion. We should strive to understand what is going on first before we cry for a change.

You wild-eyed raving radical, you![;)] Good post.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Beezle

I am just trying to sort that out. So is doing nothing out of religious convicition the worst evil? Or is it just the most cheerful evil?

I was trying to highlight the irony of the world we live in today. No one wants to blame the Muslims for terrorism in the world today (politically incorrect), yet they stand by and do nothing while their fellow believers reap havoc upon the world in the name of Allah.

The hidden point being both these men were talking about western evils at the time, after having learned our own lessons about religious dominance and the evils it produced in our culture. What a difference a few hundred years and a Renaissance period made. Now if the Muslims would just go through their own Rennaissance period, perhaps terrorism would end in another hundred years or two...

Jim

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Before WWI there was no such ship as the Destroyer. The Dreadnought was the ultimate weapon. Then one was sunk by a motor torpedo boat.
The Birth of the Destroyer. (Full name Motor Torpedo Boat Destroyer)

Sorry Cyberwop, don't know how I missed your post. I'll change mine to "What he said"

Because DD made MTB some what ineffective. The DD was modified to fill the role of the MTB (was armed with torpedos) Then the submarine further broadened it's role (it was given depth charges)

Now a new ship was required to combat the DD. The CL arrived. Then something to combat the CL the CA appeared. Now the BB had something other then enemy BB. The circle was complete and the BB began to grow larger again. Then some whacko figured airplanes could sink ships cheaper then ships could sink ships so the CV arrived. All the ships exposed to air attack now became escorts for their own CV. After this all ships that could not defend against enemy air or submarine threats vanished.

One should not confuse an MTB or PT with an early Torpedo boat. Before/during WWI there tended to be not too great a difference between a TB and a "Torpedo boat Destroyer". as the Destroyer's full name was called. DD's tended to be a little bit bigger depending on class and carried either more or bigger guns for the purpose of warding off the TB's. A PT is a different kettle of fish.

Just to be anal on a Tues morning. the CL did not evolve due to the DD nor did the CA evolve from the CL. the proto-"Light cruiser" developed due to the need for fleet "Scouts", a role that the old slow AC (Armored cruisers) could not fullfill. CA's evolved from AC's, made obsolete initially by battlecruisers but then evolving as a result of the Washington treaty which laid down solid definitions of what would constitute a "light cruiser" and a "heavy cruiser" (i.e. it's main armament)

Effectiveness of PT's has been discussed before. Historically they were not greatly effective, their extremely small size limited their effectiveness unless the sea was calm or attacking in a sheltered area. As far as the game engine is concerned, the only problem i "see" is that like transport combat, the engine treats PT combat in the same generic way when in fact it is quite a different type of fight. A wildy maneuvering PT, with a low field of visibility (due to spray, manevering, lack of sophisticated fire control, and low silowette) is not going to be as effective a FC platform as a blue water DD.

Another signifigant difference....was how the PT arament was set up. Most had two TT's but often you could only fire one at a time, then you would have to try set up another shot.

The targeting routines seem to be set up to attempt attack on priority ships too. PT's would most likely end up attacking fringe/escort elements much of the time so there should be more DD/PT interaction. In the game the PT's tend to get consistant cracks at CV's and BB's no matter how many escorts you arrange.

Personally i'd like to see build limits too. Brady i believe mentioned the US only built a total of 500 PT's yet you can easily have that many in the SRA at war's start in no time flat....whether Dutch or US.

[latosusi]

I do agree with you. Small ships like pt-boats should simply disintegrate if hit by
a heavy shell or a torpedo. Also transports should not be able to survive torpedo
hits at all. Tankers should be very vulnerable due to their imflammable cargo.
Subs should be able to "break ships back" quickly sinking them.

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: latosusi

I do agree with you. Small ships like pt-boats should simply disintegrate if hit by
a heavy shell or a torpedo. Also transports should not be able to survive torpedo
hits at all. Tankers should be very vulnerable due to their imflammable cargo.
Subs should be able to "break ships back" quickly sinking them.

I agree with everything except the comment about tankers. AOs carrying gasoline or Avgas *were* extremely vulnerable, and could easily "brew up" from one bomb or torpedo hit.

But tankers died hard. Oil has a much higher "flash-point" than gasoline, and generally did not explode after a torpedo hit. Oil is lighter than water, and improves the tanker's bouancy. Larger tankers had several self-contained oil tanks, and each one had to be holed before the tanker would sink.

[latosusi]

Thats a good point. But if that torpedo did break ships back with under-keel explosion
all that is just gaining more time to abandon ship. Under-keel explosions were very
destructive. Not that magnetic exploders worked that well at the start of the war

[Ron Saueracker]

Perhaps PT boats could be handled like aircraft in the game as opposed to hard hulled vessels?

Too late in any case.[8D]

[Cmdrcain]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

I agree with everything except the comment about tankers. AOs carrying gasoline or Avgas *were* extremely vulnerable, and could easily "brew up" from one bomb or torpedo hit.

But tankers died hard. Oil has a much higher "flash-point" than gasoline, and generally did not explode after a torpedo hit. Oil is lighter than water, and improves the tanker's bouancy. Larger tankers had several self-contained oil tanks, and each one had to be holed before the tanker would sink.

Then again, AO "oilers" didn't all carry avgas, they also carried OIL
to refill the ships OIL bunkers Thats why AO are called "oilers"

Tankers carried either Oil or Fuel or Both so it would need coding to check the type of cargo carried, I could see then where a Tanker full of Avgas/fuel would blow up fast but a Tanker full of bunker oil would not be as vulnerable.

Also I think its not so much the Fuel itself that causes the explosions but the FUMES