TIMJOT wrote:Tristanjohn
Getting back to the test.
I do not understand why you are fiddleing around with the editor. Is it that important to you to get the name Turner in there? Why dont you just use scenerio 7 and put Wilkinson in charge? He has a good rateing and is a amphib.invasion expert. Afterall the name is only chrome. As long as the numbers are similar any substitute will do.
I understand. That, is what I resorted to in the that first test (so long ago).
I was merely curious how the editor would function, and I wanted a perfectly accurate scenario into the bargain, so I gave it a whirl--two birds with one stone. Had I known how awkward the editor is to use I'd have never bothered, I assure you.,
If you like, I'll simply set up another run using #14 and see what shakes out this time. For all I know I'll get the same results you have, in which case I'll let it rest (for the time being, at least). If I can, I'll try to get several runs in tomorrow. I've been at work since early afternoon--no time today for that stuff whatsoever.
Anyway, regarding your problems with PM. I am guessing you have airfield attack or port attack selected as a secondary mission for your Bettys. Just switch them to Naval Attack/ Rest and they will stop bombing PM.
Bad guess. (Logical, but not right in this case. If you want I'll mail you the files. Take a look at them yourself, run the test yourself. Something's not right in there.)
Regarding fleshing out the TF. I have to disagree. I think its preferable to include all the historic escorts at the expense of a few APs. That is if you are interested in modelong the historic flak as you said you were.
We don't know how much flak was put up. We
do know that not every ship in the TF had clear line of sight (ship logs, sailor diaries, analysis of track charts and so on), it's
certain only a few support ships ever had unfettered line of sight to the Japanese planes for the entire duration of the attack.
On the other hand, with the correct number of transports included we then at least have the correct number of
targets--the Japanese were (as they ought to have been) after the transports. These ships were their primary objective, the support forces were of secondary importance.
I do not think a few less transports will have a significant impact on the validity of the test.
Gary doesn't actually have planes flying around in there, TIMJOT. Everything's just one large happy average and abstracted like crazy, with variables (and randomization hard at work on these) doing this and modifying that like you wouldn't believe . . . you get the idea I'm sure. So with more ships there's a larger chance (and with Gary I do mean chance) of one of those Japanese "planes" launching a "torpedo" that will "run true" and "hit" one of those "transports."
See what I mean?
One thing about Gary's method of "combat" that always seems true in his games: small differences in just one variable tend to make a significant difference in the result. That was certainly the case when we worked on PW with, for instance, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and it's not any different here. (Well, it just might be, but please trust my judgment on this point: it's all but sure it's the same deal all over again. That's just the way Gary's games are.
)
Besides if anything my test in all probability has less flak represented than was present historically since I did not include the Vinscence or any the other fire support ships, that may very well have contributed that day. I am also not at all convinced the San Juan didnt take part either, but excluded it as well for your sake.
Again, there's no way to know exactly. Case in point:
Vincennes was steaming somewhat west (possibly northwest) of
Jarvis when the latter was struck;
Jarvis was generally west (or northwest) of Turner's transports; the Japanese attack ran on an east to west bearing. In other words,
Vincennes undoubtedly was screened to one degree or the other by a whole lot of ship profiles--considerably screened is my best guess. (Please always keep in mind that these Bettys did not fly in at 200 feet, no matter what the simulation says.
They came in at around 50 feet, or lower still. If you don't believe me I'd be happy to direct you to some pictures of the action that day. Anyway, my contention is most of these ships we're using for this test never had a bead on these airplanes once they got down near the water for the reason
the gunners couldn't see these planes.). However, if you feel like it throw
Vincennes in. Leave
San Juan out of the mix, though. It's all but certain she was out of the main fight, and in any event I'm confident the aggregate AA put up by our virtual navy will equal (and then some) that put up on the 8th in defense of Turner's force.
[Ed's note: In the above description of the battle I quoted the orientation of USN ships and attacking Bettys wrong, originally citing a south-to-north torpedo run, etc. Drongo picked up the error and I've changed this to relfect actuality.]
Do try, by all means, to give the TF its due allotment of CAP.
I am not pro-USN in this matter or anti-Japanese. All I want to determine is if the model can consistently portray in accurate fashion (within the bounds of reason) what happened on 8 August 1942 off Lunga Point.
Not sure at all why you think a test in an open sea hex would be more valid than Lunga. An open sea hex may open up all sorts of ahistorical possibilities that would make the Lunga roads comparison invalid IMO.
Not more valid, but based on my short experience with the editor less confusing to the AI--as I said, it kept going for PM (when it did anyting at all!). An expedient, nothing more.
Anyway I only put max CAP because I thought that is what you wished. As I said, I intended to run the test again with toned down CAP anyway but will be away for the weekend so probably will not be able to post it until Monday.
No problem. Thank you for the interest and effort.