IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH

[anarchyintheuk]

Except for Surigao Straight I can't think of a time that the IJN sailed their capital ships into waters that had PTs in them.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Except for Surigao Straight I can't think of a time that the IJN sailed their capital ships into waters that had PTs in them.

I wasn't asking for Capitol Ships. Anything much bigger than a barge would qualify.
And the Japanese were certainly sailing combat and transport vessels around during
the Soloman's Campaign of 42-43. At least one of them ran over PT-109. I'll accept
Destroyers, Light Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, Transports..., any substantial vessel of
say 1,000 tons or more (something worth a torpedo). So where are the examples?

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Except for Surigao Straight I can't think of a time that the IJN sailed their capital ships into waters that had PTs in them.

I wasn't asking for Capitol Ships. Anything much bigger than a barge would qualify.
And the Japanese were certainly sailing combat and transport vessels around during
the Soloman's Campaign of 42-43. At least one of them ran over PT-109. I'll accept
Destroyers, Light Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, Transports..., any substantial vessel of
say 1,000 tons or more (something worth a torpedo). So where are the examples?

Hi, Mike I think that is the wrong way to approach the subject. Since many of the ships on both sides never actually got into combat all we can do is guess what they would do in any possible WITP encounter. Kitikami and Oi never fired a torpedo, The IJN Super Battleships never did anything to justify their existence. The AVG never shot down a single A6M2, The Japanese never entered a hex that contained large CD guns. If we have to get down to cases where we have examples then we also have to acknowledge that in statistics you need a very large number of examples to learn anything conclusive and very few weapons used in WWII have enough actual examples to where any mathematician would say he could conclusively predict the outcome of any hypothetical encounter between this or that.
This leaves us the players with what the designer believes. We have to live with that until we can bring very strong evidence to the contrary. All the designer does is set up the system where the results are plausible. In the spread will be rare instances but because of the large number of encounters he only looks that the more common results are plausible and the outrageous is rare. There were outrageous events in WWII that WITP will not recreate. The IJN sub that fired a single spread of 6 torpedoes and hit a USN CV, BB, and DD. We really should not begin looking to prove something never happened because then we will make it impossible and no one can prove such a thing is impossible.

In one of my favorite books "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" The heroes space ship is powered by "the improbability drive" All you do to refuel is state something you think improbable and it happens. I think "PT's could not hit a CV" would get you around the universe.

Along with examples from American PT boats you should also look at torpedo boats of all navies in WWII and small attack boats in general since their inception. And keep in mind one of their primary purposes is to keep enemy forces out of certain waters. If the enemy can just ignore their existence then way bother having them or have we instead of making the PT too effective ended up making them to weak?

I think the PT are about right but the escorting DD not effective enough in defense but once again we only have a few examples in this thread and I myself have been involved in many more PT boat actions then listed here and have no real issue with the results.

We have begun collecting the results of PT action in WITP. Let us use this collection to base our opinion and not go looking for example we know don't exist within the limited scope you define. I am no expert. Were German E-boats larger then PT? Italian Torpedo boats how do they compare? Lets just base our opinion on what WITP produces.

[Drongo]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
I wasn't asking for Capitol Ships. Anything much bigger than a barge would qualify. And the Japanese were certainly sailing combat and transport vessels around during the Soloman's Campaign of 42-43. At least one of them ran over PT-109. I'll accept Destroyers, Light Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, Transports..., any substantial vessel of say 1,000 tons or more (something worth a torpedo). So where are the examples?

Mike,

The IJN DD Teruzuki was sunk by 2 PT boats during the Tokyo Express attempts to resupply Guadalcanal in Dec '42. At least one other IJN DD (possibly 2) was torped and damaged during the campaign while another is often counted as a "kill" when it ran into a minefield while dodging a PT attack in the Western Solomons '43 (they're not too choosey with their claims).

For what it's worth, there is no doubt they could and did hit IJN warships. Just like B-17s [;)].

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Except for Surigao Straight I can't think of a time that the IJN sailed their capital ships into waters that had PTs in them.

I wasn't asking for Capitol Ships. Anything much bigger than a barge would qualify.
And the Japanese were certainly sailing combat and transport vessels around during
the Soloman's Campaign of 42-43. At least one of them ran over PT-109. I'll accept
Destroyers, Light Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, Transports..., any substantial vessel of
say 1,000 tons or more (something worth a torpedo). So where are the examples?

This leaves us the players with what the designer believes. We have to live with that until we can bring very strong evidence to the contrary.

Russ, you don't actually believe the designers believe the PTs to be the unsung heroes of the Pacific war do ya? It's simply an unforseen result of an overstretched naval combat model which can't be used for these vessels.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Drongo

For what it's worth, there is no doubt they could and did hit IJN warships. Just like B-17s [;)].

I knew this discussion sounded familiar.

[mogami]

Russ, you don't actually believe the designers believe the PTs to be the unsung heroes of the Pacific war do ya? It's simply an unforseen result of an overstretched naval combat model which can't be used for these vessels.

Hi, Every time I cut off the top of someones head so I can get inside and see what they are thinking they die and I remain in the dark. This time around I think I will pass on trying to quess what anoter person is thinking and instead wait and see what actions they take or do not take. Then I will know what they are thinking. In the meanwhile I will collect data produced by the game they designed and make it available for them to see the results of their efforts.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Russ, you don't actually believe the designers believe the PTs to be the unsung heroes of the Pacific war do ya? It's simply an unforseen result of an overstretched naval combat model which can't be used for these vessels.

Hi, Every time I cut off the top of someones head so I can get inside and see what they are thinking they die and I remain in the dark. This time around I think I will pass on trying to quess what anoter person is thinking and instead wait and see what actions they take or do not take. Then I will know what they are thinking. In the meanwhile I will collect data produced by the game they designed and make it available for them to see the results of their efforts.

[:D]

[Bradley7735]

Don't forget that they accidentally hit the CL Abukuma in the battle of Suriago St. She was later sunk by LBA because of the crippling torp hit by PT's.

I think that battle is a good example of PT attacks. 40 boats are involved. They shoot a lot of torps and lose a couple of PT's to DD fire. And only one lucky hit on a CL.

Yes, they do get the occasional lucky hit on warships. No, they should not consistently hit much of anything with Torps. (barges and machine gun fire, yes, but not big ships and torps.)

I do agree with Mogami, in that if you go into hex's with known PT's, expect to get hurt. But, I think they are just a little too accurate with them torps right now. I don't use em vs the AI. makes the game less fun.

[Caltone]

So can PT surface actions take place at anything other than close range? All the ones I see are up close and personal, IOW torpedo range.

Does the current model allow capital ships to open fire on PT's before they get into torp range?

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Yes, they do get the occasional lucky hit on warships. No, they should not consistently hit much of anything with Torps. (barges and machine gun fire, yes, but not big ships and torps.)

Yep. Amazing how many times this reasonable statement can be made only to have the thread go off into a more Black or White stance.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Drongo



Mike,

The IJN DD Teruzuki was sunk by 2 PT boats during the Tokyo Express attempts to resupply Guadalcanal in Dec '42. At least one other IJN DD (possibly 2) was torped and damaged during the campaign while another is often counted as a "kill" when it ran into a minefield while dodging a PT attack in the Western Solomons '43 (they're not too choosey with their claims).

For what it's worth, there is no doubt they could and did hit IJN warships. Just like B-17s [;)].

So we have one confirmed kill of an enemy vessel, and one of a friendly. Plus two-three
"damaged" results This for ALL the PT's in the Pacific during the whole war. Pretty much
seems to back my point that PT boats just weren't effective against real ships during the
war. I've venture that "uncharted reefs" had a better "kill ratio". Statistically speaking,
the evidence just isn't there for PT's being much of a "player" in ship-to-ship combat.
That's my point. They were effective at what they wound up doing most..., hunting
barges and reccon and nuisance raiding and supressing sub activity close to their bases.
But they weren't an important factor in "Surface Actions" with major ships. They are
more in the "midget sub" category in this respect..., except that midget subs weren't
much good at interdicting Allied "barge" (landing craft) traffic and PT's were effective
in that role.

[Gudgeon]

Following this thread, it seems that there is strong argument for just removing them altogether from the game. If all the PTs during the war can't sink more than 2 or 3 ships, why clutter the map with them?

[Twotribes]

And I disagree, They serve an important function. They keep the Japanese player honest. The FACT remains the Japanese didnt will fully go in harms way where PT boats where unless absolutely required too. Unlike the computer game, where some people think since the allies have few carriers at start it is ok to park off a port at 2 hex range with carriers with no possible consequencs forth coming.

[freeboy]

Sorry guys, I think reality and desire are in conflict...
Please answer me this... I am in a wooden non armored py boat traveling at 32knts.

I am spotted by surface ships at 12k due to fog and rain, otherwise it would be farther out. I cannot launch my torps due to the extream range...

I do what when 4" 5" and larger, or 20 mm 40mm or other shells start raining down on me?
PLEASE answer this... the hypotheticals are a total waste of time, these wood boats die with the slightest damage... they really do, no floatation, and if the start to blead sea water watch out for the engine compartments////

So they are navigating into these enemy ships who are shelling them, and what else? The Japs are turning away and the speed difference in what 5-10 knots...????

Please do the math, it take a long time at 5 knots to travel 12k yards.... not get hit and aim yur boat at a ship to get a hit.....so


PTs should =dead ALLIED sailors unless used historicaly as supply interdictors

[Caltone]

That's not true Freeboy, at least in WitP. Here PT's are only sighted at 3,000 yds or less. All engagements happen up close and in torpedo range.

Yes there are a couple of things that need a look. The above and the ability to mass produce them.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Caltone

That's not true Freeboy, at least in WitP. Here PT's are only sighted at 3,000 yds or less. All engagements happen up close and in torpedo range.

Which might make SOME sense at night..., but is totally rediculous during daytime
engagements. Go out to the nearest large body of water some afternoon and see
for yourself just how far away you can spot a cabin cruiser with a decent set of
binoculars....

[Belphegor]

Your tf should have float planes. Restrict the float planes to a range of 1 (good enough for protection, close enough not to go after anything else) and lower them to 100 ft. IF the PT boats come in, the float planes might get a shot at them. What else can they do when you are using other planes for recce.

I realize that the thread has moved on, just doing the why not this thing...

[freeboy]

Sighting at night in unrestriced waters is also in the 10 -12k range... escorted BB's would be ringed by DD's and would turn away from PT's subs while escorts would destroy them..
in rain fog or restriced water the 3000 yd figure I have no problem with..

Some of this comes from haveing such large hexes, where the land touches it, but only slightly..

OK, is this officially a dead horse?

[Panzer76]

How about making the PTs immobile to simulate that they are a close combat defense. That way, PTs can only stay within 60 miles of an harbour.

Not perfect at all, but with a game as complex as WitP, one should strive to make it LESS complex and not more. IMHO.

Cheers,

Panzer