Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post)

[Hotei]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77



EDIT; sorry for my lax answer, this forum, matrixgames and the people are awesome, so here a pic. Turns out only 70 night exp. See also the cap´s values (low agr, good nav): Seeing the pic again, I realize I also lost lots of fuel with her and a very good floatplane unit (should have loaded planes off and only refueled what I needed for the short range mission and back to Shortlands before Harakiri)...

And HOTEI, you were right, the Yamato TF has a lower number than the recon TF (!) So i need to pay attention to these numbers in the future. THANKS.

You are welcome but why would you leave the floatplanes out when they are your radar until you actually have one..
Especially on a ship that fires from a long range and needs fire direction to actually get an advantage it was designed to have in battle.

[Alpha77]

Not sure if "in battle" recon / fire direction by floatplanes is modelled in game ? I never heard from it at least [&:]

They were set to night search ofc. But obvisouly they did not fly before the movement phase, otherwise should perhaps have found enemy TF. Or weather prevented their use. But there was more night search from eg. Tulagi too

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Yamato is the biggest ship in the game. How can she sink a bigger Allied ship?

I meant bigger than an AKl or AM etc. Not bigger than Yamato herself. Cheers [:D]

[Hotei]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Not sure if "in battle" recon / fire direction by floatplanes is modelled in game ? I never heard from it at least [&:]

They were set to night search ofc. But obvisouly they did not fly before the movement phase, otherwise should perhaps have found enemy TF. Or weather prevented their use. But there was more night search from eg. Tulagi too

It seems to work on bombardment only from the quick search I did, why they would not spot in battle needs to answered by some veteran player.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Hotei

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Not sure if "in battle" recon / fire direction by floatplanes is modelled in game ? I never heard from it at least [&:]

They were set to night search ofc. But obvisouly they did not fly before the movement phase, otherwise should perhaps have found enemy TF. Or weather prevented their use. But there was more night search from eg. Tulagi too

It seems to work on bombardment only from the quick search I did, why they would not spot in battle needs to answered by some veteran player.

Allegedly, this makes it easier to raise the DL on a TF, which affects whether or not there is contact/a battle. During the actual battle, nobody knows.

[Hotei]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Hotei

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Not sure if "in battle" recon / fire direction by floatplanes is modelled in game ? I never heard from it at least [&:]

They were set to night search ofc. But obvisouly they did not fly before the movement phase, otherwise should perhaps have found enemy TF. Or weather prevented their use. But there was more night search from eg. Tulagi too

It seems to work on bombardment only from the quick search I did, why they would not spot in battle needs to answered by some veteran player.

Allegedly, this makes it easier to raise the DL on a TF, which affects whether or not there is contact/a battle. During the actual battle, nobody knows.

So I will continue to use them as if they work in their designed role.

[Revthought]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Well, the range on the 5"/38 gun was 18,000 yards, so...

It was not. Depending on the configuration it was between 17400 yards and 17600 yards. Close enough you might say, but not so fast... the gun's armor penetration rating falls to 0 over 11,000 yards for hits on anything but deck armor, and its deck armor penetration rating falls to zero over 13,800 yards.

So the idea that American destroyers are engaged in running gun fights at 16k yards seems pretty ridiculous to me, and it happens often in the game.

That's what I mean when I bring it up in the context of the surface combat model being a little (just a little) wonky.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Revthought

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Well, the range on the 5"/38 gun was 18,000 yards, so...

It was not. Depending on the configuration it was between 17400 yards and 17600 yards. Close enough you might say, but not so fast... the gun's armor penetration rating falls to 0 over 11,000 yards for hits on anything but deck armor, and its deck armor penetration rating falls to zero over 13,800 yards.

So the idea that American destroyers are engaged in running gun fights at 16k yards seems pretty ridiculous to me, and it happens often in the game.

That's what I mean when I bring it up in the context of the surface combat model being a little (just a little) wonky.

I mean, is Wiki wrong? There is a source for their numbers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%22/38_caliber_gun

Ballistics
Maximum horizontal range, with a 55 pound projectile, is 18,000 yards (16,000 m).[5]:159 In the antiaircraft role, it had a ceiling of 37,200 feet (11,300 m) at 85 degrees elevation.[5]:159

Armor penetration with 54 lbs. (24.5 kg) Special Common Shell[12]
5.0" (127 mm) belt armor at 4,000 yards (3,660 m)
4.0" (102 mm) at 5,400 yards (4,940 m)
3.0" (76 mm) at 7,400 yards (6,770 m)
2.0" (51 mm) at 11,000 yards (10,060 m)
1.0" (25 mm) deck armor at 13,800 yards (12,620 m)
with 55.18 lbs. (25.0 kg) AA Common Shell: 1.5" (38 mm) at 10,000 yards (9,140 m)

Range with 55.18 lbs. (25.03 kg) AAC Mark 49 (792 mps)[12]
10° 9,506 yards (8,692 m)
15° 11,663 yards (10,665 m)
20° 13,395 yards (12,248 m)
25° 14,804 yards (13,537 m)
30° 15,919 yards (14,556 m)
35° 16,739 yards (15,298 m)
40°17,240 yards (15,764 m)
45° 17,392 yards (15,903 m)

Source number 5 there is straight from the Navy in 1957.

[Buckrock]

ORIGINAL: Revthought
It was not. Depending on the configuration it was between 17400 yards and 17600 yards. Close enough you might say, but not so fast... the
gun's armor penetration rating falls to 0 over 11,000 yards for hits on anything but deck armor, and its deck armor penetration rating falls
to zero over 13,800 yards.

So the idea that American destroyers are engaged in running gun fights at 16k yards seems pretty ridiculous to me, and it happens often
in the game.

I can think of about a half dozen Pacific engagements off hand (including the running gunfights of Biak and Samar) where USN DDs with 5"/38s
did engage the enemy at ranges of 16K or greater during the action.

Such ranges weren't the preferred standard but combat can ruin one's firing intentions at times.

[Barb]

With 5"/38cal you are not going for armor penetration against anything bigger than DD - I would even not bother to fire AP ammo at all. HE, VT-HE, or even WP is the way to go. Every hit you make is going to kill a lot of personnel and do small damage to outside things - radio antenas, radar devices, cables, AA guns, searchlights, directors, etc. reducing overall combat effectiveness, causing fires, and all sort of little things that would impair an effective ship operation and accurate gun fire. (Like Hiei got handled at the 1st Naval battle of Guadalcanal).

At Samar it was the question of keeping the enemy as far away as possible. At Biak, the idea was to damage enemy ship enough to slow down and close on her. A lucky hit here or there on the extreme range, and the outcome could be different. Or would you not fire at all under those circumstances knowing the chances are small?

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Barb

With 5"/38cal you are not going for armor penetration against anything bigger than DD - I would even not bother to fire AP ammo at all. HE, VT-HE, or even WP is the way to go. Every hit you make is going to kill a lot of personnel and do small damage to outside things - radio antenas, radar devices, cables, AA guns, searchlights, directors, etc. reducing overall combat effectiveness, causing fires, and all sort of little things that would impair an effective ship operation and accurate gun fire. (Like Hiei got handled at the 1st Naval battle of Guadalcanal).

At Samar it was the question of keeping the enemy as far away as possible. At Biak, the idea was to damage enemy ship enough to slow down and close on her. A lucky hit here or there on the extreme range, and the outcome could be different. Or would you not fire at all under those circumstances knowing the chances are small?

Against a dangerous opponent I would want to empty my mags ASAP to reduce the chance of a magazine explosion and give a reasonable excuse for retirement from the action! A bit different if my task was protection of more valuable ships/installations.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Yamato is the biggest ship in the game. How can she sink a bigger Allied ship?

I meant bigger than an AKl or AM etc. Not bigger than Yamato herself. Cheers [:D]

[:D]

[Grfin Zeppelin]

Someone complaining about the Akizukis ?
Now I have seen it all

[Hotei]

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Someone complaining about the Akizukis ?
Now I have seen it all

[Grfin Zeppelin]

Weeeell I guess I have not seen it all..... yet.

[Hotei]

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Weeeell I guess I have not seen it all..... yet.

You do wonder what the landing look likes.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Someone complaining about the Akizukis ?
Now I have seen it all

Well, well look who put in her two cents.[:D]

[Alpha77]

I miss Yamato tbh, it could have served as a floating battery to protect Lunga and/or Tassa...however it is all in range of US nav bombers now. Have not risked any other surfce battles anymore (also because the moonlight is always over 80% the last days) so must take the pounding by allied fleets however we got 1 mine and 1 torp hit by an SSX on their cruiser. That is pretty rare [;)] We lost 2 more big tankers, I thought US torps start to work better in 43? Not much duds in 7/42 as far I can tell.

[SheperdN7]

Akizuki's equal greatest ships the Empire has to offer (other than MAYBE the Shimakaze's and Taiho)


Love the Empire for its CA's, DD's and floatplane carrying subs.... Not much else other than KB[:D]


But still, why such hate for my Kongo's? I love those ships[:(]

[wdolson]

In the real war the Kongos were the "go to" battleship class. They were fast, relatively fuel efficient compared to other BBs, and could carry a significantly bigger punch than just a CA. Kirishima didn't do so well in a one on one vs the Washington, but the Washington had the advantage of being much newer, bigger guns, one of the best trained crews in the USN, and the first US ship to master radar controlled gunnery. The Yamato might have been sunk in that fight under those conditions. Not many times in the history of naval warfare has an admiral been able to get a short range broadside from ambush with a capital ship on another capital ship.

The Japanese had a system of awarding officers billets based on how they did in testing, which ensured the best and brightest went to the more prestigious ships and the poorest officers were commanding the smaller ships. Tamichi Hara talked about this in his book. He ended up in destroyers because he bombed the test, even though he was a top student. That pretty much destined him to be the best DD officer in the fleet. Other navies spread around their officers more and frequently senior officers had served on a number of different types of ships, which gave them a better perspective on what each of their captains were dealing with in a tactical situation.

But as capabilities went, the Japanese DDs had potent torpedo armament, but were often lacking compared to other navy's DDs. ASW gear was poor until late in the war, AA armament was also poor. The Japanese also failed to standardize on much in the way of equipment. It seems ever DD class had a different type of turret design. US DD design settled on a couple of standards for turret designs early on. Pretty much all US DDs had single or twin 5 inch turrets after 1930. Some mounted higher up on the ship had turrets with less armor, but the design was pretty much standardized which meant the US could mass produce them at a rate nobody else could match.

IJN filled out their CLs early which meant they had a lot of older ships when the war began. The US only had the Omahas as older CLs and most CLs in service were much newer. IJN CLs were also designed for a different mission. They were intended as DD flotilla leaders and were mostly larger DDs. The US had a class of DD flotilla leaders in the 1930s that stuck to the same 5 inch armament of other modern DDs, but had dual gun turrets and were larger. They were a little smaller than IJN CLs, but were almost as capable as well as being more modern.

A lot of capability had to do with the age of the ship as well as decisions made during the treaty. US CLs were newer and thus more capable from lessons learned. The IJN cheated on treaty CA design and had built ships with more tonnage than they claimed. The US stuck to the treaty limits and ended up with inferior CAs that were overly compromised and not great when it came to a surface fight, though they did do OK as CV escorts.

Bill