Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

It is almost like saying Japanese Submarines should be nerfed into oblivion because they were poorly used.

You need a better analogy. Or at least, so say the crews of the Wasp and Indianapolis, among other large surface combat ships sent to the bottom by Japanese subs.

These auto cannons would shred a PT boat at 2000-3000 yards

More like 1-2yds after that trajectory is much less tense.

Actually they couldn't hit them at < 1000 yards due to the trajectory.

I think this is where the problem is the AA guns are not firing at small targets and they should.

I don't think they were allowed to fire much unless in real danger. They need amno for AA.

[/quote]

For large ships maybe , not for destroyers , their MG AA armament was designed to be used against smaller ships.
Not much point saving ammo because your main gun cant hit and your about to get torpedoed , beside they carried many thousands of rounds for each gun.. Ammo doesn't do much good when your at the bottom. Note this only applies when unarmored vessels get within a few thousand .

Many examples of people using AA MG/Auto Cannons at ships at close range eg The Sydney/Commarant , The US destroyers on the Hiei in Iron Bottom etc

We proved you didn't. You didn't proved that with good doutrine, good crews, clear propose missions and placement, torpedos that don't run away or even try to hit the PT they couldn't have the success levels of other countries. Your argument is: the whole thing is crap, because you didn't say and even the problems you finded you ignored in your propose to nerf for good PT's.

It is like saying that P-39 were crap so should be nerfed overall despite the fact that in other war theatres they made good account at low level. In short you deny everything that makes this game great: detail.

or. How can the designers "nerf" something that WAS "nerfed" in real life? What we know for a fact is there were many hundreds of US PT boats deployed in the Pacific, and they fired off many hundreds more torpedos. And for all that, the number of confirmed kills (or even hits) against large surface targets was very small. Now I can't say with certainty WHY that is, but it is. To many here, it's simply a matter of "better training or better leaders or different doctrine and PT Boats would have been serious ship killers". And for me (and others) it's, "they never did it over the course of 3 solid years, because there was something about the PT Boat design that made it a lousy torpedo platform, at least in the Pacific Ocean".

Can we prove your theory? No. Can we prove mine? Equally no. So like you, I'll end the discussion here, as neither proposition is "provable", absent time machines.

The smaller German / Italian boats were replaced by Eboats type vessels as they thought they were more effective at 100-120 tons they were over double the size of a PT boat and much more seaworthy ( the US and Italian PT boats had a very long but unstable design) . Despite the success of the smaller boats.

The question why US boats did not sink more is a valid one. As other people have pointed out
- They are not very stable boats in blue water conditions this impaired there accuracy ( Pretty damn hard with the roll on a 70' boat)
- They had no way of plotting an enemy location for torpedos
- Enemy guns would shred them
- Due to the above effective Torpedo range was 1000 Yards.

Due to the above the tactics the US developed were sensible , wait quietly at night and abush when the target gets to 1000 yards
To prevent getting quickly destroyed by enemy gun fire they would use a smoke screen to get out.

This is a valid tactic IMHO and they would be effective ambushing at night in narrow straights, I would have preferred the fix was left to the players and just correct the fact that gun fire would have destroyed them quickly.

One of the problems one faces when confronting a JFB is that Japanese successes were in many cases such singular events that even a person with negligible memory can cite each and every one to support their point of view.

Besides the Wasp, the Indianapolis, and the Juneau which large warships did the IJN subs sink? (Besides the Kongo, the Shokaku, the Taiho, the Atago, the Maya, the Kako, the........................................................................which large warships did USN subs sink?)

Example 2: Besides the Prince of Wales and the Repulse which large warships did torpedo toting G3s/G4s sink?

ORIGINAL: m10bob

PT's can't be useless, especially against ak's and barges. The weapons on the PT's use their own device switcxhes, (does not matter what they are attached to), therefore an Oldsmobile 37mm auto-cannon or a Colt .50MG will still cause the same damage as if they were mounted on a tank. Besides, PT's are still great at detecting night passages of the enemy..

Yes, good point here. They are patrol boats first and foremost. I don't expect my catalinas to sink many warships, just find them for me. The should be deadly against barges and small shipping but not effective against any ship with automatic weapons such as AA guns.

Conducting data analaysis on combat operations is a bit of a challenge, given the extreme level of variability and low number of instances.

Even worse is using the "absence" of an event to justify a level of capability.

e.g. How many IJN CVs were significantly damaged or sunk by Allied LBA? None, so one would say Allied LBA has no CAPBILITY to damage CVs due to lack of historical example.

The fact that the IJN (and US until 1944-45) stayed clear of major enemy airfields, and when they did venture there they did not "stick around" (shot and scoot so to speak).

Doctrinal decisions by the combatants with respect to escorting transports and providing air cover (IJN), and employment by the USN, as well as opportunities had a significant impact on the nature and number of USN PT boat combat outcomes and cannot be discarded out of hand.

The whole point is to evaluate capabilities and model them. Overusing lack of historical outcomes without evaluating these aspects as they affect the issue is not helpful.

- Enemy guns would shred them
- Due to the above effective Torpedo range was 1000 Yards.

That is not diferent from other other PT's. In all of them a well placed hit is the end of the boat.
Torpedo firing range to get a success needs to not be much more then 1km.

The issues with US PT's were in my order of importance:

-Lack of Navy investment which implies "space" Navy doutrine gives to that weapon system. They were not a priority for the US Navy, they came in maybe in last place of all direct combat ships.

-Crew training, without a doutrine and importance given by the Navy the training is mediocre - other have found that crews seldom fired a torpedo in training.

-Torpedos failures, in 1943 in Med MK 8 torpedos had a failure rate of over 50% sometimes even putting in danger the boats.

-The Boats like you said are nimbler than S-boots, but that restricts its use only.

The should be deadly against barges and small shipping but not effective against any ship with automatic weapons such as AA guns.

That depends what kind of guns we are talking about, also barges and small shipping can get an AA gun too, the more important if they can or cannot overhelm the defenses. Detected at distance in clear weather and day time one PT have very low odds of putting a torpedo in a DD -Note that i said detected if the DD crew is incompetent anything can happen- If instead they are 5 or 6 PT's vs a DD thing get much more difficult for DD if the PT's are well trainined in swarm tactics.

I like how the PT's are now, still a bad idea to send lightly/unescorted AKs and APs near, but they don't mow down fleets of transports with MG fire. (Last encounter I had was 9 PT boats against a small convoy guarded by 1 PB and 1 DMS, ended with a DMS, CM and xAP sunk by torpedoes)

ORIGINAL: spence

One of the problems one faces when confronting a JFB is that Japanese successes were in many cases such singular events that even a person with negligible memory can cite each and every one to support their point of view.

Besides the Wasp, the Indianapolis, and the Juneau which large warships did the IJN subs sink? (Besides the Kongo, the Shokaku, the Taiho, the Atago, the Maya, the Kako, the........................................................................which large warships did USN subs sink?)

Example 2: Besides the Prince of Wales and the Repulse which large warships did torpedo toting G3s/G4s sink?

Well I try! Submarines did sunk CVE Liscome Bay??

Bettys did sunk CA Chigaco??

I think PT boats are about right after the patch.&nbsp; I've had them sneak in at night and torpedo an unloading transport, while another group was unable to get close to a transport TF in daylight.&nbsp; A third PT group shot up the escort (a PB) but the transports got away.&nbsp; Attacks on warships now leads to damaged or sunk PT boats with little damage to the bigger ships.
&nbsp;
On an unrelated note, though, one of my Asiatic Fleet PBY's torpedoed Hyuga sitting in Davao harbor.&nbsp; Only problem is, I still own Davao!

ORIGINAL: spence

One of the problems one faces when confronting a JFB is that Japanese successes were in many cases such singular events that even a person with negligible memory can cite each and every one to support their point of view.

Besides the Wasp, the Indianapolis, and the Juneau which large warships did the IJN subs sink? (Besides the Kongo, the Shokaku, the Taiho, the Atago, the Maya, the Kako, the........................................................................which large warships did USN subs sink?)

Example 2: Besides the Prince of Wales and the Repulse which large warships did torpedo toting G3s/G4s sink?

. They are patrol boats first and foremost. I don't expect my catalinas to sink many warships, just find them for me. The should be deadly against barges and small shipping but not effective against any ship with automatic weapons such as AA guns.

If you exclude Pearl there weren't many allied large ships sunk in total! The submarines and LBA certainly were a significant portion. Excluding Pearly and counting 10K+ ships you prob get

1) LBA ( 70K ?)
2) Naval Air (60K?)
3) Surface combat (40-50K)
4) Sub (40K)

Anyway this is OT.

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I think PT boats are about right after the patch.  I've had them sneak in at night and torpedo an unloading transport, while another group was unable to get close to a transport TF in daylight.  A third PT group shot up the escort (a PB) but the transports got away.  Attacks on warships now leads to damaged or sunk PT boats with little damage to the bigger ships.

On an unrelated note, though, one of my Asiatic Fleet PBY's torpedoed Hyuga sitting in Davao harbor.  Only problem is, I still own Davao!

That sounds good. I still dont think they punish unescorted merchants during daylight - can you confirm.

In my current game, I kept track of PT boats before the patch. I compared this to the PT boats after the patch. The difference is a factor of 7. After the patch, I am getting about 1/7 the productivity I was getting before the patch. I begin keeping track because I thought they were too over power before the patch. I think they may be a bit underpowered now. Much of this difference is due to the "run in day light" protocall now.

ORIGINAL: Dili

We proved you didn't. You didn't proved that with good doutrine, good crews, clear propose missions and placement, torpedos that don't run away or even try to hit the PT they couldn't have the success levels of other countries. Your argument is: the whole thing is crap, because you didn't say and even the problems you finded you ignored in your propose to nerf for good PT's.

It is like saying that P-39 were crap so should be nerfed overall despite the fact that in other war theatres they made good account at low level. In short you deny everything that makes this game great: detail.

I know where this is heading. So rather than go there, I'll just say that you seem like a nice, impassioned fellow. And I really did appreciate you taking the time to post that excellent link to Bulkelys PT Boat document. It was extremely helpful.

ORIGINAL: spence

One of the problems one faces when confronting a JFB is that Japanese successes were in many cases such singular events that even a person with negligible memory can cite each and every one to support their point of view.

Just curious, but do you find that insults add to the quality of your argument? Assuming otherwise, a useful tactic is to first write the post you WANT to send, and then - feeling better about things - delete most of the adjectives and focus on the essentials.

ORIGINAL: Kull

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

It is almost like saying Japanese Submarines should be nerfed into oblivion because they were poorly used.

You need a better analogy. Or at least, so say the crews of the Wasp and Indianapolis, among other large surface combat ships sent to the bottom by Japanese subs.

Yes and German and US submarines sent more ships to the bottom than any surface fleet in the world. Most of Japanese shiping was killed by US Subs including CV's. Regardless besides a few high level targets the Japanese Sub Force was pathetically used and basically useless.

Not to mention US Submarines out killed every other weapons platform combined in the Pacific. Including Air and Surface forces.

The point is PT's MTB's et al. Were nerfed so bad to make them basically useless.

I dare say the right command and right orders would have made the PT's very brutal opponents in the Pacific. They already were in North Sea and Med.

One of the problems one faces when confronting a JFB is that Japanese successes were in many cases such singular events that even a person with negligible memory can cite each and every one to support their point of view.

Some people here seem not to realize that war is over, and that Japan lost already. And that I guess that trying to tune up the Japs or tune down the Allies doesn't mean that you're some despicable JFB scum, instead of someone who's just looking for a given gaming experience that he believes honestly to feel right.
I can live with debating about PTs, even though comical relief is&nbsp; (come on Dili, "yes PTs were used in blue water, look at this Decima Mas converted explosive boat which shot up an Escort 1 mile from the coast after the boat driver jumped at sea and came back swimming"... Yes I can live with that, but please, no-one here is looking for trouble and force anal sex to your beloved PTs, so if Kull isn't proving anything - he did his fair share of proof in the Aleutians topic already btw - you're not proving anything either. Sweep your own doorstep before starting to soil your neighbour's would you please...)

But this kind of contempteous "the problem with JFB" discourse by disgruntled no-lifes is really BS. I mean, my both gramps didn't fight the Japanese so their grandson would see people like him labelled as JFB because he started an argument about the effectiveness of US PTs. You people should get a life.

Besides the Wasp, the Indianapolis, and the Juneau which large warships did the IJN subs sink? (Besides the Kongo, the Shokaku, the Taiho, the Atago, the Maya, the Kako, the........................................................................which large warships did USN subs sink?)

And then someone would start to insult your intelligence and willingly forget about everything that doesn't serve their point - not because it doesn't serve their point, but because it wouldn't harm enough the bad so-called "JFB" who-must-die. Like the YT wasn't finished off by a sub fish, and the Sara didn't spend most of 1942 in a yard because of torpedoes. Right. It's not even despicable, it's pitiful. Go on playing dumb so you can go back home tonight cheering "Damn someone was not even that wrong on the Internet, but I kicked his ass anyway, bloody JFB!".

I used to like WitP community because I seem to remember it was all about fair discourse and exchange between true history lovers and grown-up people. Looks like it ain't the case anymore. You guys behave like a bunch of teenagers who would sell their wife so to get the upper hand in a pointless debate. Jeez, it stinks.

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

ORIGINAL: Kull

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

It is almost like saying Japanese Submarines should be nerfed into oblivion because they were poorly used.

You need a better analogy. Or at least, so say the crews of the Wasp and Indianapolis, among other large surface combat ships sent to the bottom by Japanese subs.

Yes and German and US submarines sent more ships to the bottom than any surface fleet in the world. Most of Japanese shiping was killed by US Subs including CV's. Regardless besides a few high level targets the Japanese Sub Force was pathetically used and basically useless.

Not to mention US Submarines out killed every other weapons platform combined in the Pacific. Including Air and Surface forces.

Again, your analogy is poor and not apropos to this case. Judging from their performance over the entire war, Japanese subs achieved vastly inferior results compared to their American, German, and even British counterparts. But unlike PT-Boats, at least one CAN find examples which show that performance could be improved if doctrine were to change. Most of the Japanese success came early in the war, but later on they faced not only improved ASW technology, but also the fact that most of their late-war missions involved supplying remote garrisons, not hunting enemy shipping.

But leaving aside such "what ifs", reports from those playing the game do not indicate that IJN subs in AE are so overpowered that by war's end they will have sunk more than 184 merchant ships and 10 or so surface combat vessels (the real war totals). In other wordsthey are performing about as well as one might expect. Contrast that with pre-patch AE PT Boats which were sinking as much large shipping in 3 or 4 engagements as the entire PT fleet achieved over the course of the entire war.

Almost every argument for uber-PT Boats stems from the "if only" school of thought. But imagine for one moment that instead of PT Boats-on-steroids, vanilla AE had presented us with Midget subs so powerful that no in-port fleet was safe? What if they were even intercepting TFs and sinking ships at sea? "Bosh", you say "that's impossible! It never happened!" But au contraire say the Midget Sub fan-boys. "Just because they didn't actually do that in the real war is no reason it couldn't have happened if only there were changes in doctrine and training and leadership and tactics"

Welcome to "Fantasy AE"