Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I am a little looser in that I never have seen much of a problem as long as the ships are similar in speed. I regularly mix CLs with CAs and do not see any problem. Don't give much thought to DDs except later on I do try to use Fletchers in groups. Ship type does not seem to matter as long as they are in range and and there are not too many of them, they will all shoot and fire torpedoes. That is all I really care about.

I also think it's largely a function of how many ships are in the battle, particularly in a night action.

Which is realistic. It hasn't been that long since I last read the accounts of the naval battles off Guadalcanal, but the larger actions got really disorganized really fast, while the smaller battle forces stayed organized and seemingly performed better on a per ship basis.

ORIGINAL: byron13

Playing the Allies against AI. January '43 I run the South Dakota, Maryland, West Virginia, 2 CAs, 1 CL and 3DDs into Timor. All fully updated with radar, but pretty low night experience in the 40s.
Ching is in command. Along comes the Kirishima, a CL, and 4 DDs. They are picked up at long range by the Allies but, due to rain, engagements being at 2000 yards ...

At that short range, does having radar even offer an advantage?

How did early radar operate in heavy rain since sometimes my modern satellite dish doesn't.

Satellite dishes work at miniscule power levels. Radar usually works at higher power and WW II radar was a lower frequency range than modern radar or satellite TV. At different frequencies different things become "opaque" and "transparent". (In advanced Physics in college we did an experiment where we had to figure out what material we had based on what frequency range it was transparent at. It was really cool.) We use glass because silicon dioxide is transparent at the frequencies of visible light.

Water is opaque at some frequencies and clear at others.

However, weather did sometimes play havoc with early radar. More so than today. Modern airliners have a separate weather radar system that tells them what is ahead of them. I worked on a simulator to test that hardware on the Boeing 777.

Bill

On many occasions I've had intense , small "storm cells" appear as ships until we closed on them and were able to change our aspect or were able to change our PRF (pulse repetion frequency)to a much higher setting (something only possible at close range) to distinguish steel from storm. [:D]

A ship close to a landmass also is sometimes difficult to find. And sometimes two ships on a similar (or same) bearing often appear as one big ship.

My understanding is that until late in the war utilization of RADAR was more of a problem than the RADAR it'self. CO's were not use to it , and "unhappy" putting them selves into the hands of 18 year old technicians. Establishment of Combat information centers and training up officers and men to man it really brought out the best use of RADAR.

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

On many occasions I've had intense , small "storm cells" appear as ships until we closed on them and were able to change our aspect or were able to change our PRF (pulse repetion frequency)to a much higher setting (something only possible at close range) to distinguish steel from storm. [:D]

A ship close to a landmass also is sometimes difficult to find. And sometimes two ships on a similar (or same) bearing often appear as one big ship.

My understanding is that until late in the war utilization of RADAR was more of a problem than the RADAR it'self. CO's were not use to it , and "unhappy" putting them selves into the hands of 18 year old technicians. Establishment of Combat information centers and training up officers and men to man it really brought out the best use of RADAR.

Mistrust of radar was a key cause of at least one of the major defeats at Guadalcanal.

The difference in crew skill levels is critical. The Japanese start out with much better night fighting experience. I avoid surface encounters with Japanese warships until my crews have gained experience through commerce raiding. Early in the game as the allies, your surface ships are your best weapon: US submarines have defective torpedoes, most of your aircraft are hopelessly obsolete, and your troops are poorly trained and equipped. But as the Japanese expand aggressively in the first few months of the war you will have opportunities to intercept poorly defended transports and cargo vessels with the warships you have at hand. A handful of destroyers and cruisers can wreak havoc on an invasion task force defended only by patrol boats and sub chasers. The good news is that it I've seen one night battle raise a crew's experience by 20-30 points. With that experience under their belt, the crew can fight the combined fleet on more even terms.

ORIGINAL: mgoldstein

The difference in crew skill levels is critical. The Japanese start out with much better night fighting experience. I avoid surface encounters with Japanese warships until my crews have gained experience through commerce raiding. Early in the game as the allies, your surface ships are your best weapon: US submarines have defective torpedoes, most of your aircraft are hopelessly obsolete, and your troops are poorly trained and equipped. But as the Japanese expand aggressively in the first few months of the war you will have opportunities to intercept poorly defended transports and cargo vessels with the warships you have at hand. A handful of destroyers and cruisers can wreak havoc on an invasion task force defended only by patrol boats and sub chasers. The good news is that it I've seen one night battle raise a crew's experience by 20-30 points. With that experience under their belt, the crew can fight the combined fleet on more even terms.

Yes, this is a sound tactic. But if your Japanese opponent knows his stuff, sometimes you are just going to have to fight him and take a licking. My first campaign I was too passive with my surface ships early on.

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: alanschu

That seems.... unfortunate... that that is actually the case.

I imagine the idea of sending the faster cruisers first is that the Japanese BB's would waste ammo on them?

I did not imply this is the consequence. In the specific case of the OP it might have made sense to leave the slow BBs out alltogether, and accept battle with a mixed main body of South Dakota and the cruisers, and the destroyer escort.

Obviously there might be situations where a fast TF following a slow one is the best solution, more so if you do not have the luxury of leaving firepower behind. But you need to be aware that in this case the freedom of movement of the fast TF is compromised, which often leads to unwanted consequences in a hostile environment.

Also, the sequence of TFs arrival each with destination set to a certain hex is not tied to the relative speed in case they arrive in the same movement pulse. It partly depends on the TF# (IIRC) and partly is not influenced by the player. And last, sequence of arrival does not automatically translate into sequence of engagement. There many more factors involved.

I can understand separating them based on speed. I guess there's just a part of me that is having trouble getting over the idea of concentration of power. It seems weird to me that a task force of only the slower BBs and a separate task force of the CAs would perform better than if they were all in the same task force.

For myself, that means that whatever the BB task force loses by giving up the CAs is overcome by the CAs acting independently. Against a powerful enemy surface fleet, it just comes across as surprising.

ORIGINAL: alanschu

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: alanschu

That seems.... unfortunate... that that is actually the case.

I imagine the idea of sending the faster cruisers first is that the Japanese BB's would waste ammo on them?

I did not imply this is the consequence. In the specific case of the OP it might have made sense to leave the slow BBs out alltogether, and accept battle with a mixed main body of South Dakota and the cruisers, and the destroyer escort.

Obviously there might be situations where a fast TF following a slow one is the best solution, more so if you do not have the luxury of leaving firepower behind. But you need to be aware that in this case the freedom of movement of the fast TF is compromised, which often leads to unwanted consequences in a hostile environment.

Also, the sequence of TFs arrival each with destination set to a certain hex is not tied to the relative speed in case they arrive in the same movement pulse. It partly depends on the TF# (IIRC) and partly is not influenced by the player. And last, sequence of arrival does not automatically translate into sequence of engagement. There many more factors involved.

I can understand separating them based on speed. I guess there's just a part of me that is having trouble getting over the idea of concentration of power. It seems weird to me that a task force of only the slower BBs and a separate task force of the CAs would perform better than if they were all in the same task force.

For myself, that means that whatever the BB task force loses by giving up the CAs is overcome by the CAs acting independently. Against a powerful enemy surface fleet, it just comes across as surprising.

I think the part you are missing is that the old, slow BBs will do bad no mater what. The CAs without the old, slow BBs will perform better on their own.

If the combat were to happen in the day, would the results still be the same? (my gut says no, as Allies tend to have higher day xp than night xp, and the encounter would likely start at longer ranges)

ORIGINAL: EHansen
I think the part you are missing is that the old, slow BBs will do bad no mater what. The CAs without the old, slow BBs will perform better on their own.

+1

ORIGINAL: alanschu

If the combat were to happen in the day, would the results still be the same? (my gut says no, as Allies tend to have higher day xp than night xp, and the encounter would likely start at longer ranges)

Probably not as distinct, but the balance might still tilt to the Japanese.

I think every navy guy on this forum will confirm you that a ships´ speed is a deciding factor in a naval engagement. Speed is responsble for dictating the distance to the enemy battle formation, and allows the freedom to decide when and how to engage, and disengage. In addition to that a faster ship is more difficult to hit.

All those factors apply equally in a daytime battle, but you are correct that there the exp delta is smaller, range is higher, and so total weight of fire and range of guns might get closer to outweight the speed component.



Btw., EHansen is correct. This what I was suggesting. The negative effect a slow BB has on the main body cannot be compensated by the benefits of a larger main body and the added firepower. Do not forget that in game a TF is a tactical formation in most cases. Assuming the total number of ships is the same, 2 TFs in the same hex instead of 1 is still a local concentration of force.

If you are not afraid to lose an old BB, you can use then successfully for base defense against bombbardment. In one game the AI was sending small TFs built around 1 or 2 CAs to Port Morseby, about every other night. I put the Colorado there with some escorts. The Colorado didn't sink, but ended up with something like 79 flotation damage. She severely damaged the two CAs she fought and land based air finished them off in the morning. That or they sank from their damage. I can't remember.

I thought of writing a mini-AAR about what happened next. I didn't move the Colorado for about 2 months as I repaired all the damage I could at PM. Then I slowly moved her from port to port back to Pearl. I think it took something like another 2 months to get her back. Between ports she tended to spring leaks and needed time to fix them in the next port. The leg from Pago Pago to Pearl she almost sank. I think she had something like 95 flotation damage by the time she limped into Pearl and all the naval support there saved her. Then she spent another year in dry dock.

It probably would have been more prudent to scuttle her, but she did stop the bombardment of PM. I think the AI quit the bombardments after that too.

Sometimes the strategic sacrifice of an old BB might be worth it. Though they are far better suited to shore bombardment most of the time.

Bill

I imagine there are thresholds?

I mean, destroyers are the fastest, but will their 4 or 5 inch guns be able to do much against not much slower cruisers, or even slower battleships? (I imagine if they could close the distance, the torpedoes will really help).

Does task force speed provide an innate defense against *all* ships in an air attack as well? I don't typically put sub 30 knot ships with carriers to begin with, but while I was moving a fleet of warships to Sydney I kept them all in the same task force "just because." Though I also figure "I'd rather those big BB's take the hit instead of the aircraft carrier," if possible.


Wasn't it I think... the Brooklyn class that was still quite effective at cannonade simply due to the sheer amount of shells it could put into the air because of gun quantity and ROF? I remember playing an older game, Distant Guns, and it was interesting because even with some CAs that pretty much couldn't penetrate the armor of heavier ships, if I could still swarm a dreadnought I could disable some of the weapons and eventually cause so many fires that the ship effectively became a smoldering husk with damage control unable to maintain the fire. I never really knew how much that reflected reality, however (and it was a risky maneuver because any of those primary batteries would mess me up pretty good if they scored a hit).

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Btw., EHansen is correct. This what I was suggesting. The negative effect a slow BB has on the main body cannot be compensated by the benefits of a larger main body and the added firepower. Do not forget that in game a TF is a tactical formation in most cases. Assuming the total number of ships is the same, 2 TFs in the same hex instead of 1 is still a local concentration of force.

This is not unprecedented. Olendorf split up his force into multiple layers at Surigao Strait. The Japanese faced different waves of ever larger ships as they went up the channel. This was one of the few times the US had the forces to split them up like that, but the results were very effective.

Bill

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Btw., EHansen is correct. This what I was suggesting. The negative effect a slow BB has on the main body cannot be compensated by the benefits of a larger main body and the added firepower. Do not forget that in game a TF is a tactical formation in most cases. Assuming the total number of ships is the same, 2 TFs in the same hex instead of 1 is still a local concentration of force.

This is not unprecedented. Olendorf split up his force into multiple layers at Surigao Strait. The Japanese faced different waves of ever larger ships as they went up the channel. This was one of the few times the US had the forces to split them up like that, but the results were very effective ...

It was so effective that John Wayne did it too, but during broad daylight and "In Harm's Way" [;)]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

If you are not afraid to lose an old BB, you can use then successfully for base defense against bombbardment. In one game the AI was sending small TFs built around 1 or 2 CAs to Port Morseby, about every other night. I put the Colorado there with some escorts. The Colorado didn't sink, but ended up with something like 79 flotation damage. She severely damaged the two CAs she fought and land based air finished them off in the morning. That or they sank from their damage. I can't remember.

The IJN CAs are such amazing ships, and they get so few of them, that I often will consider sacrificing an old BB , or severely damaging one as here, to be good trade. The CAs are very versatile in the areas of reload sites and fuel consumption versus the also-good IJN BBs.

I have also given up several pre-war USN DDs in a single battle to achieve a mission-kill on a CA in the first half of 1942. Putting a CA in the yards for four months (plus transit) is extremely worthwhile. Time is the resource. When they emerge repaired it's to a different Allied OOB. Never discount the value of a mission-kill.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: wdolson

If you are not afraid to lose an old BB, you can use then successfully for base defense against bombbardment. In one game the AI was sending small TFs built around 1 or 2 CAs to Port Morseby, about every other night. I put the Colorado there with some escorts. The Colorado didn't sink, but ended up with something like 79 flotation damage. She severely damaged the two CAs she fought and land based air finished them off in the morning. That or they sank from their damage. I can't remember.

The IJN CAs are such amazing ships, and they get so few of them, that I often will consider sacrificing an old BB , or severely damaging one as here, to be good trade. The CAs are very versatile in the areas of reload sites and fuel consumption versus the also-good IJN BBs.

I have also given up several pre-war USN DDs in a single battle to achieve a mission-kill on a CA in the first half of 1942. Putting a CA in the yards for four months (plus transit) is extremely worthwhile. Time is the resource. When they emerge repaired it's to a different Allied OOB. Never discount the value of a mission-kill.

FWIW, a full speed run did more float damage to one of my CAs than those DDs did [;)].

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: wdolson

If you are not afraid to lose an old BB, you can use then successfully for base defense against bombbardment. In one game the AI was sending small TFs built around 1 or 2 CAs to Port Morseby, about every other night. I put the Colorado there with some escorts. The Colorado didn't sink, but ended up with something like 79 flotation damage. She severely damaged the two CAs she fought and land based air finished them off in the morning. That or they sank from their damage. I can't remember.

The IJN CAs are such amazing ships, and they get so few of them, that I often will consider sacrificing an old BB , or severely damaging one as here, to be good trade. The CAs are very versatile in the areas of reload sites and fuel consumption versus the also-good IJN BBs.

I have also given up several pre-war USN DDs in a single battle to achieve a mission-kill on a CA in the first half of 1942. Putting a CA in the yards for four months (plus transit) is extremely worthwhile. Time is the resource. When they emerge repaired it's to a different Allied OOB. Never discount the value of a mission-kill.

FWIW, a full speed run did more float damage to one of my CAs than those DDs did [;)].

I'm playing two games. [:)]

Sadly, surface combat is in my opinion the most whitewashed aspect of the game, more so since naval combat is such a major element to any naval war game. Really needed a thorough revamp but was always overlooked by overkill time spent on lesser areas. Down to individual pilots and training for example but ships don't have crew factors...line of battle model circa 1805... simplistic formations, etc.[8|]