house rules

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
Well when it says "most effient" then obviously 15 IS better than 25. If its programmed the way I would program it, the AA rating would be averaged and multiplied by 15 (ie 16 ships AA ratings added, divided by 16, and times 15) and thus you would actually have more AA rating with 15 than 16 ships (or 25). I would be very surprised if this isnt what they did, but only one way to know for sure.

As I read it, 'most efficient' means that up to 15 ships will use the entire 100% of their AA capabilities, thus being most efficient in the use of this assets. Any additional ship will use less than 100% of its AA capabilites and therefore will be considered less efficient in the use of its AA assets. But the total projectile weight thrown up against enemy planes will be higher with 25 ships than with only 15 ships (15 x 100% plus the less efficient but still sizeable output of the 10 additional ships). More projectiles in the air tend to procure more hits on enemy planes.

Imagine 15 ships being able to fire 15 tons of AA ammo against an incoming strike, while 25 ships only manage to shoot 20 tons into the air due to mutual interference, masking of fields of fire and so on - that means one ton of ammo per ship in the 15-ship-TF, but only 0.8 tons per ship in the 25-ship-TF > therefore the 15-ship-TF is more efficient. But the total output of AA in the 25-ship-TF is five tons higher than in the 15-ship-TF.

But be it as it may, USN AAA tends to get really nasty later in the war even with only 15 ships per TF - and early in the war the USN does not have enough cruisers and destroyers to form a 23-ship screen around each of the three possible 2-CV-TFs anyway.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

More ships will always have more AA. "Less efficient" just means that ships #16-25 will not contribute their full power, as ships #1-15 did. Why would 25 ships have less AA effect than 15?

Well thats easy to answer. Typical deployment vs air attack was to put the important ships in "the core". Core could only accomidate 3 - 4 ships, usually CV/CVLs, but sometimes BBs would be included in the core. 6 - 8 ships around "the core" were the screening units, usually 3000 yards out. The remainder of the forces were beyond this range usually deployed in the direction an air attack was expected from. Over 50% of AA shoot downs were credited to 40mm and lesser guns. What this means in game terms is that 10 ships maximum should get 100% (that would be the 4 core units and the 6 ships facing the side the attacking a/c are comming from). Any ships further away than this from the bombers target simply could not fire its 40mm and lesser guns. Its a matter of range and effectiveness of the weapons. Its physics. Only about 12% of AA shoot downs were credited to long range 5" fire (and the vast majority of those where the attackers were directly approaching the guns and after the prox fuse was used and these are for the whole war, so while the early war lack of prox fuse would make the 5" less effective, the latter war versions should be better).

AA is a point defense, and only a limited number of ships can bring their weapons to bear. Any ships outside the 8 - 10 in core and screen should lose their 40mm and less (thus cutting their AA fire to 50% at best) simply because the enemy is out of range.

This is of course just the AA that would shoot prior to bombs being released. After dropping, the attackers would fly out through the least amount of AA fire, which of course would be the backside where only 2 or 3 ships would typically be. Keep in mind also that any given ship can only bring about 75% of its AA weapons to bear in any given direction.

At Coral Sea, there was a ring of 7 vessals around the carriers (in each TF), and the remaining ships were deployed to the north of the TF to shoot at incomming A/C. They scored no hits. At Midway, the same pattern was used and they scored minimal damage. As the war went on, they did a little better, but was never truely effective. Realistically, only 12 or so ships should be able to fire, based on something as minor as history. [;)]

Edit: By "scored no hits" I am refering to the ships outside the immedate "screen". Also something I noted in my research, 70% of all prox fuses failed to detonate. I found that facinating, and it also explains why they didnt use them anywhere near land. Too easy for the enemy to find a dud, and take it apart.

So for example 2 CVs, 7 CAs, and 6 DDs in a TF. The 2 CVs and possibly 1 CA would be in the core, with the remainder of the CAs in a circular screen 3000 yards from the carriers. The DDs would deploy ahead searching for subs during movement and deploy in a ring 2000 to 3000 yards from the screen on the side that air attack is expected from in a battle formation, 6000 yards from the ships in the core (or a little over 2.5 miles from the carriers you would have us believe they get 100% of their fire to protect).

[tsimmonds]

I agree with everything you just said. And in addition, I believe that a TF with 25 ships would put more total flak on target than would the same TF with ten fewer ships. Call it a character flaw.[;)]

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

I agree with everything you just said. And in addition, I believe that a TF with 25 ships would put more total flak on target than would the same TF with ten fewer ships. Call it a character flaw.[;)]

Well the point is, 25 ships wouldnt be shooting. And after a point, ships get in each others way. Ships firing at one another did 1 of 2 things (typically). Either they each fired at a different target, or they use diffterent colors of dye in their shells so they knew where their shells were landing and could ajust fire accordingly. Otherwise, they are just throwing lead downrange hoping to hit something.

Same thing with AA fire. The more people shooting, doesnt translate to more hits. The more you have shooting, the less effective you are going to be because you dont know where your shells are hitting, so you have no basis to make adjustments, and thus lose a lot of effectiveness (exacept tracer fire of course, which just so happens to be 40mm and less, amazing how that works out).

[tsimmonds]

In the game, Yamato hugger; in the game.....[;)]

[Yamato hugger]

Heh, well we will never know how it works "in the game". Lots of things dont work in the game as in history (one of the reasons I have to laugh at those that think this will ever turn into a "simulation"). Ammo for example. DDs typically carried 20 mins of ammo at full firing. If every ship in the TF fired full bore at every air attack that came in, they would have to withdraw after 3 attacks maximum (which seems to be somewhere in the realm of what they did in the war), but AA ammo in game is a bit more than 3 shots. [;)]

[LargeSlowTarget]

YH - you simply explained in detail what I have summarized as 'mutual interference' and 'masking of fields of fire'. I agree with most of what you said regarding the disposition of core and screen and some ships too distant to contribute much etc., but that's excactly what is covered by 'less efficient' and doesn't change the fact that 25 ships put more lead and steel fragments into the air than 15, even if 10 of the 25 are only using their 5" guns. And I don't buy your comparison between air defense and ship-to-ship engagements in regards to targeting - the confusion of who is shooting at what should be much lower with directly-aimed (i.e. eye-hand) quick-firing AA guns shooting a stream of tracers than with the dyed splashes of slow-firing heavy guns aimed by a data calculating process. In fact, larger guns in the AA role were too slow in their responses to be aimed at individual planes, so the 5" DPs where in fact "just throwing lead downrange hoping to hit something" i.e. fired barrage accross the path of incoming planes hoping to cause enough damage with shell fragments - direct hits by 5" guns on a plane must have been rare.

But it's only a game, so I rest my case.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

In fact, larger guns in the AA role were too slow in their responses to be aimed at individual planes, so the 5" DPs where in fact "just throwing lead downrange hoping to hit something" i.e. fired barrage accross the path of incoming planes hoping to cause enough damage with shell fragments - direct hits by 5" guns on a plane must have been rare.

But it's only a game, so I rest my case.

As I said, 5" accounted for 12% shoot-downs total for the war. Until the prox fuse was used, it was much lower, around 5-6%. And they knew that. 5" AA ammo takes up space in a ship, a lot of space on a DD, and a typical load for DDs was 20 mins of full fire. IF they fired at every opportunity and a full rate of fire, they run out of ammo very quickly. This is why they didnt. They saved it for when they could have effect.

[tabpub]

Your synopsis of AA fire in the prior posts would definitely hold true for torpedo planes, with their low attack profile; but, it begins to not be as accurate for level bombers and dive bombers.

Level bombers would be engaged by more of the supporting ships either before or after the attacks, with their altitude being the being the main determinant of which guns can engage them. Dive bombers have to run the full cone of fire that is coming up from the supporting vessels. I think that the best visualization is an upside down ice cream cone with the CV at the center of the cone and the support ships at the rim and the apex of the cone above the CV.

Additionally, I think that your distances might be a little on the long side for the dimensions of the formation. For example, using Santa Cruz as a guide, South Dakota was noted for only being 1000 yards from Enterprise in the formation. And this is a quote
The Hornet was ready for attack, with no planes on deck and with the protecting ships in their 2,000 yard circular screen. from here http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/USN ... html#page1

Which would put the 40mm Bofors well within its 4000 yard effective range over the CV.

But, as has been mentioned, this is a game and I have no idea how the program handles the calculations for effective AA against a target plane. It might be very simple or inordinately complex. It might account for the simultaneous attack pattern flown by torpedo planes and the successive wave attack used by dive bombers...or it might not. Those are questions that others might/may answer..

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: tabpub

Additionally, I think that your distances might be a little on the long side for the dimensions of the formation. For example, using Santa Cruz as a guide, South Dakota was noted for only being 1000 yards from Enterprise in the formation. And this is a quote
The Hornet was ready for attack, with no planes on deck and with the protecting ships in their 2,000 yard circular screen. from here http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/USN ... html#page1

South Dakota was in the core, 1000 yards from Enterprise (minimum distance between ships is 1000 yards btw). Thats what I said earlier about 4 ships max in the core.

Which would put the 40mm Bofors well within its 4000 yard effective range over the CV.

Dont forget to think in 3 dimentional terms. You not only have 4000 yards distance from the target, but up as well. So as you move away from the target (ie CV) you not only increase range by the distance away from the CV, but add some for the altitude of the A/C also (A squared plus B squared equals C squared). Plus you are also adding deflection (ie the angle to the A/C from the firing ship) and as deflection angle increases the odds of hitting frop dramatically. Thus the reason for putting a high AA value ship like South Dakota in the core to begin with.

But, as has been mentioned, this is a game and I have no idea how the program handles the calculations for effective AA against a target plane. It might be very simple or inordinately complex. It might account for the simultaneous attack pattern flown by torpedo planes and the successive wave attack used by dive bombers...or it might not. Those are questions that others might/may answer..

Well, I'd like to know their thoughts when they programmed it, but Im guessing thats another secret that we will never know.

[tabpub]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:


Which would put the 40mm Bofors well within its 4000 yard effective range over the CV.


Dont forget to think in 3 dimentional terms. You not only have 4000 yards distance from the target, but up as well. So as you move away from the target (ie CV) you not only increase range by the distance away from the CV, but add some for the altitude of the A/C also (A squared plus B squared equals C squared). Plus you are also adding deflection (ie the angle to the A/C from the firing ship) and as deflection angle increases the odds of hitting frop dramatically. Thus the reason for putting a high AA value ship like South Dakota in the core to begin with.

First off, the supporting ships are at 2000 yards, not 4000.
Second, you want to hit the planes at ...say 6000 feet above the carrier, that is 2000 yards also.
Third, after doing the Pythagorean thing to the numbers (sorry haven't slept all night....) that gives you something like 2828 yards...or less than 9000 feet.

And that's to hit the plane well above its release point. And you don't need proximity fuses. Its like a bunch of fire hoses streaming lead to a point. I know that I would not be too eager to fly through it personally. Based on the before and after figures of Japanese planes available at this particular battle, there were not a lot of operational planes on their decks afterward. And that was with a CAP that didn't operate as planned due to confusion and inexperience.

So, I guess the way that I look at it is this:

5" DP go after big groups at long range to break up formations and damage/disrupt the attackers.

20mm is like the "Gatling" type point defense of the modern vessel; last line of self defense and doesnt help others much except occasionally.

40mm is the real workhorse; good ROF, range that can cover other ships, a round that will do a lot of damage when it hits..etc. Heck, still in use now and I read that Bofors still has upgrade packages for WWII vintage weapons that are in use.

See you all around and pardon me if I blabbered on, I am beat and am off to beed[>:][>:][>:]

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: tabpub
First off, the supporting ships are at 2000 yards, not 4000.

Second, you want to hit the planes at ...say 6000 feet above the carrier, that is 2000 yards also.
Third, after doing the Pythagorean thing to the numbers (sorry haven't slept all night....) that gives you something like 2828 yards...or less than 9000 feet.

Who said the supporting ships were at 4000 yards? I said the screening vessals were 2 to 3000 yards from the core (a few posts up). I was responding to his post saying the 40mm had a range of 4000 yards (which I believe is accurate).

So, I guess the way that I look at it is this:

5" DP go after big groups at long range to break up formations and damage/disrupt the attackers.

20mm is like the "Gatling" type point defense of the modern vessel; last line of self defense and doesnt help others much except occasionally.

40mm is the real workhorse; good ROF, range that can cover other ships, a round that will do a lot of damage when it hits..etc. Heck, still in use now and I read that Bofors still has upgrade packages for WWII vintage weapons that are in use.

See you all around and pardon me if I blabbered on, I am beat and am off to beed[>:][>:][>:]

Yes, all more or less exactly what I said. I guess the one thing you said that I only implied was that the 5" wasnt used for day to day firing vs low numbers of A/C. Only against large formations to break them up (wasnt really practical to use vs individual A/C). Which all of this boiled down gets back to what I said originally. That only (really) 12 to 15 ships should actually get to fire AA at incomming strikes.

Edit: Just looked back and I had said "usually 3000 yards". I ment to say 2 to 3000 yards". I was tired also.

[Oldsweat]

Does the game reflect the influence of different formations and their impact on things like AAW and ASW? If memory serves (my references are 1500 miles away, in Austin) during the initial months off the war the formations in the CVBG tended to be column and line formations, with the supporting vessels arranged in linear formations relative to the carrier, based on the earlier line-of-battle formations (somewhere in my collection of junk I have an aerial photograph of a carrier group at sea off the West coast circa 1940 and remember the ships being in a line of columns, in other words several short columns paralell to the carriers course at various intervals, since many of the ships were just barely in frame it probably wasn't the just usual end-of-the-cruise PAO shot but a normal fleet formation). If I am not mistaken the modern sector and station "pinwheel" formation, with it's improved distribution of firepower (the older formations were organised mostly to enhance either visual search or broadside concentration) didn't come about until after Midway.

[Oldsweat]

Another factor would also be the presence of things like CIC and other plotting centers within the ship. A CIC/Gunplot/Sky1,2,3,4 type setup will produce a far more effective AAA (or pretty much anything else) than will individual fire control of mounts, especially once radar is introduced. (I got a kick out of Luke and the gang using vertical plots and NC-2s in Starwars, apparently the Rebellion can't afford NTDS let alone AEGIS). Assignment of warfare commanders/coordinators would also be a major influence in the efectivenss of weaponry. I'm not sure when GCIC/RATC/CATC and so forth were implemented but am fairly confident that it was in place by the time the first Essexes were commissioned. This would improve fighter effectivenss alone by orders of magnitude.

[Yamato hugger]

I have no idea what Jap tactics were at the start of the war. I know at Midway they used the circular formation. The US used the circular formation at Coral Sea, and of course ever after. Tillman didnt detail the formations used on the Marshall raids prior to Coral Sea.

[1275psi]

Just to drag back to original topic

Our house rules - which are working very well

No night bombing airfield until 44 (i think)
6 ship asw
max 6 ship jap convoy escort
In china, must have 50 preperation points before a unit can assualt a city hex

The asw war is now very realistic, and china is a stalemate just like real life

We have an un official one too - we treat our ships as if our sons were onboard them. I also as japan always have, or try to have aircover for any invasion (sometimes it don't fly[8|])

game is very historical at the moment - and we truly are faced with same questions yammato and nimitz and co faced in mid 42

Plus its great fun too

[Ddog]

ORIGINAL: 1275psi

Just to drag back to original topic

Our house rules - which are working very well

No night bombing airfield until 44 (i think)
6 ship asw
max 6 ship jap convoy escort
In china, must have 50 preperation points before a unit can assualt a city hex

The asw war is now very realistic, and china is a stalemate just like real life

We have an un official one too - we treat our ships as if our sons were onboard them. I also as japan always have, or try to have aircover for any invasion (sometimes it don't fly[8|])

game is very historical at the moment - and we truly are faced with same questions yammato and nimitz and co faced in mid 42

Plus its great fun too

I understand that many people in this forum are "historical" buffs, and I respect that. I wonder if the Japs will win the war talked about above. If I wanted to see everything go down the way it happened, I would have bought "WitP the Movie". The great thing about this game is the PBEM feature. I'm not fighting Yamato or Nimitz, I'm fighting Roger and James, with the same resources available back then. They aren't going to get "doctrine" from me. They're going to get my "total war" and "fight to the last" tatics. If one of them places 5 or 6 subs outside Tokyo Harbor, I'm going to counter with a large ASW TF. You get the picture. Just throwing in my 2 cents for what is worth. I'm beginning to think I'm a minority [:D]

[rogueusmc]

It's like finding a soulmate...find one that you are compatible with...[8D]

Like Socrates said..."My advice to you is to marry...if you find a good wife, you will be happy...if not, you will become a philosopher"

[CGSailor]

I would be cautious in using the photos as evidence of what operational formations looked like. For instance, if the tf was returning to port, they would probably shake out of their operational formation into an administrative one. Destroyers would form up by division to proceed together to their mooring or anchorage sites, etc. Also, if the photo was to be a publicity photo, the ships would tidy themselves up into compact orderly formations to look good for the camera, and the result would be highly artificial, and not reflect operational conditions.

I was in USN in the 70's & 80's, and we often posed for the camera. On a deployment to the Northern Arabian Sea, the inchoppers and outchoppers rendezvoused near Madagascar where we "posed" for photos of a 3 CV task force, which was not at all how we operated in real life.

[1275psi]

ORIGINAL: Ddog

ORIGINAL: 1275psi

Just to drag back to original topic

Our house rules - which are working very well

No night bombing airfield until 44 (i think)
6 ship asw
max 6 ship jap convoy escort
In china, must have 50 preperation points before a unit can assualt a city hex

The asw war is now very realistic, and china is a stalemate just like real life

We have an un official one too - we treat our ships as if our sons were onboard them. I also as japan always have, or try to have aircover for any invasion (sometimes it don't fly[8|])

game is very historical at the moment - and we truly are faced with same questions yammato and nimitz and co faced in mid 42

Plus its great fun too

I understand that many people in this forum are "historical" buffs, and I respect that. I wonder if the Japs will win the war talked about above. If I wanted to see everything go down the way it happened, I would have bought "WitP the Movie". The great thing about this game is the PBEM feature. I'm not fighting Yamato or Nimitz, I'm fighting Roger and James, with the same resources available back then. They aren't going to get "doctrine" from me. They're going to get my "total war" and "fight to the last" tatics. If one of them places 5 or 6 subs outside Tokyo Harbor, I'm going to counter with a large ASW TF. You get the picture. Just throwing in my 2 cents for what is worth. I'm beginning to think I'm a minority [:D]

No, japan aint going to win this game at all ( maybe if I had not stuffed up in the phillipines ) but its not the destination for me, its the journey
And no, it has not been a historical re run at all.
The absolutely most important thing on such a major committment as this monster is, is to be very, very sure of your opponent wants, playing styles and inclinations before you start, or you set yourself up for major dissapointment down the track.
I would love to see the jap player drop out rate come this christmas as most games power into 1943[8|].
personally the major attraction of writing AARs, and reading of same, is not to see how others play, or the glory of "I just whipped so and so", but to show/see who are the stayers - so we know who to play next.[:'(]

(not that Im likely to change opponents now - Ive found great ones, and they're mine, all mine I tell ya!)
I can be a very jealous b@#$#@tch[:D]