Combined Historical Scenario - Devices

[Iron Duke]

(529) Overvalwagen: New device added.
(530) Bren Carrier: New device added.
(531) Alvis Armored Car: New device added.
(532) M8 Armored Car: New device added.
(533) Stuart I LightTank: Copy of device 484 with upgrade to Grant Medium Tank.
(534) 7in CD Gun: New device added.
(535) 180mm CD Gun: New device added.
(536) 6in CD Gun: Copy of device 457 with load cost set to 9999.
[/quote]

Hi

In the editor manual it states allied devices should be located in 137,138,315-517.
I've attempted to add devices above slot 517, they are available to add to units but when i ran the scenario (moded 15) they did not appear in the Industry/troops/resource pool screen. Have you tested this successfully?

cheers

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke

(529) Overvalwagen: New device added.
(530) Bren Carrier: New device added.
(531) Alvis Armored Car: New device added.
(532) M8 Armored Car: New device added.
(533) Stuart I LightTank: Copy of device 484 with upgrade to Grant Medium Tank.
(534) 7in CD Gun: New device added.
(535) 180mm CD Gun: New device added.
(536) 6in CD Gun: Copy of device 457 with load cost set to 9999.

Hi

In the editor manual it states allied devices should be located in 137,138,315-517.
I've attempted to add devices above slot 517, they are available to add to units but when i ran the scenario (moded 15) they did not appear in the Industry/troops/resource pool screen. Have you tested this successfully?

cheers
[/quote]


Well - sort of. Adding devices above 517 adjusts the "mouse over" ratings of Land Combat Units and does not appear to cause any problems during combat resolution. As to actual use, I have no idea.

I would also like to determine if devices above 517 could be used for things other than LCU weapons - torpedoes for instance. Not sure how to test this and don't have much time anyway. I'd be very grateful if anyone could set up and run some tests on this.

Don

[bstarr]

I would also like to determine if devices above 517 could be used for things other than LCU weapons - torpedoes for instance. Not sure how to test this and don't have much time anyway. I'd be very grateful if anyone could set up and run some tests on this.

Don

I can answer part of that question. Torpedoes - no. Ship items past a certain number loop around when you try to assign the item to ships or ship classes. number 530, becomes number 20, or something very close to that number.
bs

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: bstarr

I would also like to determine if devices above 517 could be used for things other than LCU weapons - torpedoes for instance. Not sure how to test this and don't have much time anyway. I'd be very grateful if anyone could set up and run some tests on this.

Don

I can answer part of that question. Torpedoes - no. Ship items past a certain number loop around when you try to assign the item to ships or ship classes. number 530, becomes number 20, or something very close to that number.
bs

Yeah - I see what you mean. Looks like the limit is 255 so it's stored in a single byte. Now the question is: how freely can we use the devices up to 255? These include aircraft devices, "special" devices like aircraft engines and engineers, and all the naval guns, radars, torpedoes, mines, asw weapons, and a few empties. Is there anyway to test using one of these empty for another depth charge or torpedo?

[bstarr]

I've thought about combining some of the 1-255 devices. example - 60 & 62 are different guns but they have the same range, accuracy, effect and ceiling; and their penetration is almost the same (35 and 40). However, I strongly suspect that there are some hidden values in the devices that may be altered if we use this method - ever notice how a 6" gun seems to have a tremendous rate of fire, just as it historically did, yet there is no rate of fire statistic listed. My luck we'd accidentaly give the 16" guns the same rate of fire as a .50 . [:D]

one more devices note - american 6" guns accuracy should be lowered considerably. The CLs practiced rapid fire, but they seldom hit anything that moved.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: bstarr

I've thought about combining some of the 1-255 devices. example - 60 & 62 are different guns but they have the same range, accuracy, effect and ceiling; and their penetration is almost the same (35 and 40). However, I strongly suspect that there are some hidden values in the devices that may be altered if we use this method - ever notice how a 6" gun seems to have a tremendous rate of fire, just as it historically did, yet there is no rate of fire statistic listed. My luck we'd accidentaly give the 16" guns the same rate of fire as a .50 . [:D]

one more devices note - american 6" guns accuracy should be lowered considerably. The CLs practiced rapid fire, but they seldom hit anything that moved.

Darn, well I guess at the battle of Cape Esperence where Friedman in U.S. Cruisers, An Illustrated Design History, Page 320, states that the "six ships sunk by the Boise's gunfire: two heavy cruisers, one light crusier, and three destroyers..." not to mentioned the effectiveness of the Helena at the same battle.

Gee, the Japanese ships must have been at anchor!!!!

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Snip

As Matrix chose to use max ceiling for every other weapon in the game, I felt the British should not be penalized for honesty.

Why are we being spoon fed this max range bull?? No anti-aircraft gun in WWII fired to it's max range. For instance, the 40mm Bofors shell was designed to self-destruct at approxiamtely 5000 yards at tracer-burnout. Let me see, if it is historical that the shells were designed to self-destruct in this manner, then why are we not using this value for max range? The same can be said for all medium and larger AA guns, as the shell were designed spefically to self-destruct well before 'max' range would be attained. The reasons for the self-destruct varies, but usually was concerns over reducing the amount of fraticide and to un-nerve the target.

rm


[&:]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Snip

As Matrix chose to use max ceiling for every other weapon in the game, I felt the British should not be penalized for honesty.

Why are we being spoon fed this max range bull?? No anti-aircraft gun in WWII fired to it's max range. For instance, the 40mm Bofors shell was designed to self-destruct at approxiamtely 5000 yards at tracer-burnout. Let me see, if it is historical that the shells were designed to self-destruct in this manner, then why are we not using this value for max range? The same can be said for all medium and larger AA guns, as the shell were designed spefically to self-destruct well before 'max' range would be attained. The reasons for the self-destruct varies, but usually was concerns over reducing the amount of fraticide and to un-nerve the target.

rm


[&:]

Well, I just had Japanese 4.7's repeatedely hitting DDs at 18,000 yards. Seems way too accurate. These shell sizes would basically be tumbling at this range at best, no? Should probably think about reducing the max range for everything once some research is done here.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Snip

As Matrix chose to use max ceiling for every other weapon in the game, I felt the British should not be penalized for honesty.

Why are we being spoon fed this max range bull?? No anti-aircraft gun in WWII fired to it's max range. For instance, the 40mm Bofors shell was designed to self-destruct at approxiamtely 5000 yards at tracer-burnout. Let me see, if it is historical that the shells were designed to self-destruct in this manner, then why are we not using this value for max range? The same can be said for all medium and larger AA guns, as the shell were designed spefically to self-destruct well before 'max' range would be attained. The reasons for the self-destruct varies, but usually was concerns over reducing the amount of fraticide and to un-nerve the target.

rm


[&:]

Well, I just had Japanese 4.7's repeatedely hitting DDs at 18,000 yards. Seems way too accurate. These shell sizes would basically be tumbling at this range at best, no? Should probably think about reducing the max range for everything once some research is done here.

i doubt that the fall of shot of such a small caliber gun could even be seen at that range. Just like my example in another post of an Omaha crusier hitting a battleship at night at 25,000 yards. Yes, too much realism was sacrificed for expediency....

rm

[Lemurs!]

Hi all,

I certainly have no problem changing to real ranges, however, we need to keep two things in mind. The first is that data for effective ranges is difficult to find, although i have some data for AA weapons.
The second is during the war pilots did not know what altitude was completely safe from various guns. If we lower ceilings of guns we are going to create a larger safe zone for bombing and make the accuracy problems even more pronounced.

What i suggest is that we use my latest mod idea which is to lower the weapons loadouts of aircraft that were not know for their ability to hit ships. Example: B17, 6800lbs max bombload, carries 12x500lb bombs in an antishipping role. Change the 12 bombs to 6 (or so) will lower naval attack ability but not effect bombload for city, or airfield attack. In other words the weapon loadout is only used in a ship attack.

But otherwise the AAA fire is probably too weak as it is.

Mike

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Hi all,

I certainly have no problem changing to real ranges, however, we need to keep two things in mind. The first is that data for effective ranges is difficult to find, although i have some data for AA weapons.
The second is during the war pilots did not know what altitude was completely safe from various guns. If we lower ceilings of guns we are going to create a larger safe zone for bombing and make the accuracy problems even more pronounced.

What i suggest is that we use my latest mod idea which is to lower the weapons loadouts of aircraft that were not know for their ability to hit ships. Example: B17, 6800lbs max bombload, carries 12x500lb bombs in an antishipping role. Change the 12 bombs to 6 (or so) will lower naval attack ability but not effect bombload for city, or airfield attack. In other words the weapon loadout is only used in a ship attack.

But otherwise the AAA fire is probably too weak as it is.

Mike

I beg to differ with you on this. Pilots did have a very good idea on the effective ranges of FLAK. Unfortunately, in order to hit anything with any precision from the air it was almost always necessary to attack the target within the effective range of AA weapons. I will repeat this again, using max ceiling or even effective ceilings/ranges for AA fire is extremely ahistorical. It is not the limitation of the gun, per se, but the overall function of the entire fire control aspect. As I stated in my previous postings, you cannot hit an airtarget at max range if the ammo self-destructs well before reaching it or if you cannot physically see it. This is a historical fact, not fantasy! Now if the information is not readily available does not mean that it is unavailable. For land based weapons I use Ian Hogg as my primary resource on artillery stats.

For US Naval weapons, first place to look is in Norman Friedman's U.S. naval weapons : every gun, missile, mine, and torpedo used by the U.S. Navy from 1883 to the present day / by Norman Friedman. Annapolis, Md. : Naval Institute Press, 1982.

The above are just a couple of examples of resources available.

Bottom line is if we are truely trying to make a scenario that is historical, then do it. If you want to make a scenario based on false suppositions then do it and we will call it fantasy. I would make all AA at and below 40mm very effective, but shorten the effective range to something that is at least historically possible. Long range AA is more a function of fire control and fusing. Fire control till late war made heavy flak ineffective against low fast moving targets. Thus heavy guns (>40mm) should use at best effective ceilings if the actual fusing limitations cannot be found.

rm

[bstarr]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: bstarr

I've thought about combining some of the 1-255 devices. example - 60 & 62 are different guns but they have the same range, accuracy, effect and ceiling; and their penetration is almost the same (35 and 40). However, I strongly suspect that there are some hidden values in the devices that may be altered if we use this method - ever notice how a 6" gun seems to have a tremendous rate of fire, just as it historically did, yet there is no rate of fire statistic listed. My luck we'd accidentaly give the 16" guns the same rate of fire as a .50 . [:D]

one more devices note - american 6" guns accuracy should be lowered considerably. The CLs practiced rapid fire, but they seldom hit anything that moved.

Darn, well I guess at the battle of Cape Esperence where Friedman in U.S. Cruisers, An Illustrated Design History, Page 320, states that the "six ships sunk by the Boise's gunfire: two heavy cruisers, one light crusier, and three destroyers..." not to mentioned the effectiveness of the Helena at the same battle.

Gee, the Japanese ships must have been at anchor!!!!

Japs only had three CAs and 2 DDs in the Bombardment task force that Scott engaged at Cape Esperence; although a "reinforcement group" two seaplane tenders and six destroyers was turned away when this covering force was defeated, resulting in two of these destroyers being sunk by bombers on the return trip (actually, I think one of them may have been trying to rescue survivors, but this part is from memory). Your source is probably based on wartime newspapers. The Boise was the only ship to return to the states for repairs after the battle and was heralded as a "one ship task force" by the news-hungry local papers. The other ships in the task force were unmentioned since the names of the ships involved were still classifed at the time. "Illustrated Historys" are good for pics, but they generally don't research their material enough before they go to press. Kinda like the modern media, they find one source that sounds good and slap it into print. Don't feel bad - I once quoted Osprey . . . [:(]

The specific source for my comment was from "History of the United States Naval Operations in World War II, Samuel Morison, Volume VI" where he describes the battle of Kolombangara. It's a long entry, I'll spare the details, but his summation is this " . . . 6-inch continuous rapid fire, though impressive in volume, was inaccurate" In this battle, the three CLs involved fired litereally hundreds of rounds, yet they missed every destroyer and hit the CL Jintsu only three times before it went dead in the water. There are other instances of inaccurate 6" fire, but aside form CL Brooklyn at Casablanca, I can't think of any offhand. It may not be enough to warrant a change, but it's enough to warrant consideration. I'm iffy on it myself; just thought I'd toss it out there for opinions.

by the way, if you get a chance, buy a copy of Morison's work. It's a 15 volume set (with few pictures [;)]) so be prepared to hit the pocketbook, but it is well worth over twice what I paid for it (I paid a little under $200). I'm normally a Napoleonic nut, and, despite the excellent european* works on that subject, Morison's set is the pride of my library.
bs

* yeah, I said european. I'm a true blue american, but, as a rule, I think europeans make better historians - especially the english.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: bstarr

The specific source for my comment was from "History of the United States Naval Operations in World War II, Samuel Morison, Volume VI" where he describes the battle of Kolombangara. It's a long entry, I'll spare the details, but his summation is this " . . . 6-inch continuous rapid fire, though impressive in volume, was inaccurate" In this battle, the three CLs involved fired litereally hundreds of rounds, yet they missed every destroyer and hit the CL Jintsu only three times before it went dead in the water. There are other instances of inaccurate 6" fire, but aside form CL Brooklyn at Casablanca, I can't think of any offhand. It may not be enough to warrant a change, but it's enough to warrant consideration. I'm iffy on it myself; just thought I'd toss it out there for opinions.

by the way, if you get a chance, buy a copy of Morison's work. It's a 15 volume set (with few pictures [;)]) so be prepared to hit the pocketbook, but it is well worth over twice what I paid for it (I paid a little under $200). I'm normally a Napoleonic nut, and, despite the excellent european* works on that subject, Morison's set is the pride of my library.
bs

* yeah, I said european. I'm a true blue american, but, as a rule, I think europeans make better historians - especially the english.

Yeah - I grew up reading Morison. I actually was reading them AS THEY WERE RELEASED. Excellent reads but written a little too close to the end of the war to be completely accurate. And, as titled, they primarily address the U.S. view of things. A very good and much less expensive alternative to the 15-volume set is his "Two Ocean War" - a condensed version in one book. I once had all 15 volumes plus "Two Ocean War" but a mover decided I did not need them. I subsequently went out and bought 5 of the volumes dealing with the early pacific war - and that was before the low-cost reprints came on the market.

Don

[Lemurs!]

AlaskanWarrior,

This is not intended to rebuke you but you are missing a few points.

Pilots often had little knowledge of anything Japan had system wise. In time intelligence did come up with data but it was '43 before a good amount was generally known. Even then there were surprises like the radar controlled 120mm guns at Hiroshima & Tokyo that the B29s took heavy casualties from.

Also, altitude in this game seems to have very little to do with air to ground accuracy. I have tested that 30000 foot bombing which should have 3% or so accuracy to hit a city much less an airfield, is obliterating targets in one day.
We have to work in the system we have been given, even if that means fudging a few factors.

Next problem is finding numbers for Americans weapons is not too difficult but finding them for Japan is often very difficult.

You say to make the small calibre weapons 'very effective'. What does that mean? Define very effective within the parameters of the game.
I feel many numbers are out of whack in the base matrix, and i hope we can fix many of the mistakes, however, we will not have the testing program that Matrix had so wholesale changes will be difficult to do safely.

Mike

[akdreemer]

Japs only had three CAs and 2 DDs in the Bombardment task force that Scott engaged at Cape Esperence; although a "reinforcement group" two seaplane tenders and six destroyers was turned away when this covering force was defeated, resulting in two of these destroyers being sunk by bombers on the return trip (actually, I think one of them may have been trying to rescue survivors, but this part is from memory). Your source is probably based on wartime newspapers.

The Boise was the only ship to return to the states for repairs after the battle and was heralded as a "one ship task force" by the news-hungry local papers. The other ships in the task force were unmentioned since the names of the ships involved were still classifed at the time. "Illustrated Historys" are good for pics, but they generally don't research their material enough before they go to press. Kinda like the modern media, they find one source that sounds good and slap it into print. Don't feel bad - I once quoted Osprey . . . [:(]

The specific source for my comment was from "History of the United States Naval Operations in World War II, Samuel Morison, Volume VI" where he describes the battle of Kolombangara. It's a long entry, I'll spare the details, but his summation is this " . . . 6-inch continuous rapid fire, though impressive in volume, was inaccurate" In this battle, the three CLs involved fired litereally hundreds of rounds, yet they missed every destroyer and hit the CL Jintsu only three times before it went dead in the water. There are other instances of inaccurate 6" fire, but aside form CL Brooklyn at Casablanca, I can't think of any offhand. It may not be enough to warrant a change, but it's enough to warrant consideration. I'm iffy on it myself; just thought I'd toss it out there for opinions.

Hmm, now I have up until now considered Norman Friedman a pretty reliable source (U.S. Cruisers, An Illustrated Design History), and his work very authorative. Friedman is pretty much the guru of US Naval weapons/equipment/ship developemnt of WW II. My other source was from :
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/USN-CN-Esperance/

The Battle of Cape Esperance 11 October 1942
NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, WASHINGTON 1994

Henry V. Poor authored the account of the Battle of Cape Esperance while the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands was written by Henry V. Poor, Henry A. Mustin, and Colin G. Jameson; both were published together without attribution by the Office of Naval Intelligence in 1943.


Although Morrison is a good reference, I have neither the space or money to buy it. My local University Library has at least two complete sets and a very generous lending policy... I too remember reading these when I was still in HS many years ago.

Here is an excerpt from the book "The Battle of Tassafaronga", by Captain Russell Crenshaw USN (ret.), 1995

" Honolulu took her time sorting out possible targets and finally settled on a good one to the left of the blazing ship set afire by Minneapolis and New Orleans and opened with a straddle. She cut her ranging ladder short and shifted to rapid, continous fire, each individual gun firing as soon as it was loaded. A bridge of red tracers arced into the target for 30 seconds, so che checked fire to observe the effect. Her gunners couldn't actually see the target because of the glare of the starshells and the gathering smoke and haze, but, as they continued to track by radar, the rangekeeper showed that the target was slowing down. She gave it another blast of rapid fire, and the target speed dropped to zero." (p55) The anaylsis by the author further on in the book critically examined the battle. In fact, the Honolulu failed to hit anything, not because of the guns being inaccurate, but due to the failure of the FC party and their relative inexperience with sing the new SG radar. It was a case of the tail leading the dog as the FC continued adjust to the hit where the last salvo had just struck, not the real target, and not due to some inherent inaccuracy of the 6" gun itself. Tanaka (on board the Naganami, the target, at the time) mentions that the fire was dead-on in range, but off on deflection.

rm

[akdreemer]

Several questions/comments on Land devices.

First, is it possible to add some additional device types? What I have in mind are generic MG squads, light mortar Squads, and the like. If not can generic HMG,MMG,LMG,2"mortar,60mm Mortar, and the like be added. This will enable a more accurate representation of various TO&Es.

Second, a different ATG upgrade path needs ot be created for use by American Divisions. The upgrade should be only 37mm->57mm (somehwere around late 1942). No ATG heavier than 57mm was organic to these divisions, so upgrading to 76mm is not historically accurate.

RM

[Lemurs!]

Squad and platoon mortars and machine guns are already included in the squad values we have.
There was quite a bit of work put in by a couple of us about 5 months ago on what accurate squad values should be.

Mike

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Squad and platoon mortars and machine guns are already included in the squad values we have.
There was quite a bit of work put in by a couple of us about 5 months ago on what accurate squad values should be.

Mike

Good, makes TOE developing somewhat easier.

RM

[WhoCares]

On this page are a lot of details about japanese radar, ship-, air- and land-based. Even including the dates, when the various ships were upgraded.

Link: Japanese Radar in WWII

A land-based radar could replace the sound detector, maybe a new type of Emilys later in war, with improved detection ratings, simulating their use of radar.


Edit: Looking a bit further there are some more interresting pages there:
Link: Exhibits; mostly articles about Japan in WW2, e.g. oil stocks/consumption stats, SNLFs, Fleet Building plans (inc. changes after important battles like Midway), ...

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: WhoCares

On this page are a lot of details about japanese radar, ship-, air- and land-based. Even including the dates, when the various ships were upgraded.

Link: Japanese Radar in WWII

A land-based radar could replace the sound detector, maybe a new type of Emilys later in war, with improved detection ratings, simulating their use of radar.


Edit: Looking a bit further there are some more interresting pages there:
Link: Exhibits; mostly articles about Japan in WW2, e.g. oil stocks/consumption stats, SNLFs, Fleet Building plans (inc. changes after important battles like Midway), ...

also here:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/radar.htm