Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

ORIGINAL: Gaspote

You not supposed to get an advantage when crossing the T. It's the worst case in naval battle except if you are Admiral Nelson and get the wind.

I beg to differ. That was the goal of any naval force to achieve during the time period. You bring your full firepower to bear on the enemy who can only respond with fire from the bow. Crossing the T should be a major tactical advantage in combat. As to your Nelson comment, getting the weather gage was always a tactical advantage during the period, but every Captain tried to rake (cross the T) of an enemy ship's bow or stern if given the opportunity to do so.

Yep I agree, i understood the opposite. In french we use something like "blocking the T" so for me crossing the T is like you try to go trough but I was wrong.

Crossing the T worked out well at Tsushima, but it was key in the days before turrets. With turrets fore and aft the line only need turn 30 some degrees in line abreast to bring their broadsides to bear. Plus they could wiggle left and right while continueing to close, thus avoiding enemy torpedoes. The crossing formation would also be a nice target to be torpedoed. I don't know enough about the level of radar fire control at that date, but it could be another factor.

I don't agree geoff, crossing the T is significant advantage, the force have more guns and fire first. I agree that the crossing the T doesn't appear to work well.
But the player bungled here choosing like many said a slow cruiser.

Anyway the issue with Fletchers - in a short range night combat like this it is non issue - is that Japanese gun being a long gun /50 it should have a significant range advantage over a /38 gun. In the game data it barely exist.

One thing that Japanese players need to keep in mind is that a Fletcher retains 8 guns main guns while most Japanese destroyers go from 6 main guns to 4 guns with 25mm AA uprgrades. So a Fletcher broadside is double of a Yugumo.

The only Japanese destroyer that keeps up are the Akizukis but those should be saved for AA coverage not surface combat.

Dili I don't know what you mean. Fletchers have 5 main guns, not 8, yes? As far as ballistics, that is what it was known to be, not what the theory says it will likely be. Many other things go into it. Anyway, are you talking about Babes where all the naval guns were calibrated to the same standard a long time ago? A lot of that data was fed into stock a while back, too.

You are right for some idotic reason i put in my head that the Fletcher had 4 double turrets, might had picturing some British ship instead. No i am not talking about Babes. From the glimpses i got about Babes it seems to go in right direction. In navweps /38 has some 16km range and /50 gun 18,3km strangely in game this goes for 18km vs 20km which makes them both too good. I now think the divergence between them is not so big to warrant my critic.

I realize I also forgot that fire control is not a separate item in this game, so the gun stats have to take that into account as well.

This is October 1944
This would be much more of a actual issue if the fight went the other way.

By 1944 USN torpedoes actually work and against flimsy targets like this a single torpedo can be deadly. Add to that that the US by this point in the game usually has high experience, advanced radar and upgraded ships.

I picture this fight happening in the night in a almost full moon. The Japanese detect the Allies at 12,000 yards and light their boilers and begin to raise steam. The range falls to 10,000 yards as the USN hits the IJN with searchlights and smothers them in rapid fire salvos. The IJN is illuminated against the coast line. Not all of their ships are going to reach sailing power at the same time. In fact if they were at anchor the ships would have to raise electric power and probably have the crew falling out of their bunks to an general alarm.
They would get underway 1 by 1 and the USN would be at full power, battle stations and have all the advantages.

I see nothing wrong here.

ORIGINAL: Dili

You are right for some idotic reason i put in my head that the Fletcher had 4 double turrets, might had picturing some British ship instead. No i am not talking about Babes. From the glimpses i got about Babes it seems to go in right direction. In navweps /38 has some 16km range and /50 gun 18,3km strangely in game this goes for 18km vs 20km which makes them both too good. I now think the divergence between them is not so big to warrant my critic.

Game ranges are in kyards, not km. Game data does give 5in/38 18kyard range when it is actually 17,3 kyard which should probably be round to 17 kyard instead.

Ballistically the relatively narrow gap in performance despite the difference in barrel length and muzzle velocity (2600fps vs 3000fps in favour of the 5in/50) can be attributed to the heavier shell in the US gun (better energy retention) and the blunter shape of the Japanese shell (more energy loss), which means even though initial muzzle energy is ~23% greater on the Japanese shell, its range is only ~15% longer.

Game ranges are in kyards, not km. Game data does give 5in/38 18kyard range when it is actually 17,3 kyard which should probably be round to 17 kyard instead.

Ballistically the relatively narrow gap in performance despite the difference in barrel length and muzzle velocity (2600fps vs 3000fps in favour of the 5in/50) can be attributed to the heavier shell in the US gun (better energy retention) and the blunter shape of the Japanese shell (more energy loss), which means even though initial muzzle energy is ~23% greater on the Japanese shell, its range is only ~15% longer.

Okay kyds explains it. Thanks.

ORIGINAL: Dili

You are right for some idotic reason i put in my head that the Fletcher had 4 double turrets, might had picturing some British ship instead. No i am not talking about Babes. From the glimpses i got about Babes it seems to go in right direction. In navweps /38 has some 16km range and /50 gun 18,3km strangely in game this goes for 18km vs 20km which makes them both too good. I now think the divergence between them is not so big to warrant my critic.

I think you're thinking of the pre-war Porter and Sumers class DDs. They had four twin 5" mounts and are, frankly, some of the best DDs available to the Allies until the Fletchers come along. Great in the AAA role and tough to beat in the surface role as well. The only thing that they don't have, which I wish they did, is armor like the Fletchers.

ORIGINAL: Paladin1dcs

ORIGINAL: Dili

You are right for some idotic reason i put in my head that the Fletcher had 4 double turrets, might had picturing some British ship instead. No i am not talking about Babes. From the glimpses i got about Babes it seems to go in right direction. In navweps /38 has some 16km range and /50 gun 18,3km strangely in game this goes for 18km vs 20km which makes them both too good. I now think the divergence between them is not so big to warrant my critic.

I think you're thinking of the pre-war Porter and Sumers class DDs. They had four twin 5" mounts and are, frankly, some of the best DDs available to the Allies until the Fletchers come along. Great in the AAA role and tough to beat in the surface role as well. The only thing that they don't have, which I wish they did, is armor like the Fletchers.

Porter and Somers 5in/38s are low angle only, so their AA should be notably worse than other pre-war classes with DP 5in/38s like the Benson.

Still excellent surface combatants though.

I think you're thinking of the pre-war Porter and Sumers class DDs. They had four twin 5" mounts and are, frankly, some of the best DDs available to the Allies until the Fletchers come along.

Yes that was it.

Never Never Never put fast ships with slow! if you want to win a fight! just be sitting Ducks

ORIGINAL: Gaspote

Yep I agree, i understood the opposite. In french we use something like "blocking the T" so for me crossing the T is like you try to go trough but I was wrong.

Simply a case of a different understanding due to language. It's all good. [8D]

ORIGINAL: tigercub

Never Never Never put fast ships with slow! if you want to win a fight! just be sitting Ducks

Then you never give your old BBs a destroyer escort?

The BB power is the hedge.

ORIGINAL: JuanG

ORIGINAL: Paladin1dcs

ORIGINAL: Dili

You are right for some idotic reason i put in my head that the Fletcher had 4 double turrets, might had picturing some British ship instead. No i am not talking about Babes. From the glimpses i got about Babes it seems to go in right direction. In navweps /38 has some 16km range and /50 gun 18,3km strangely in game this goes for 18km vs 20km which makes them both too good. I now think the divergence between them is not so big to warrant my critic.

I think you're thinking of the pre-war Porter and Sumers class DDs. They had four twin 5" mounts and are, frankly, some of the best DDs available to the Allies until the Fletchers come along. Great in the AAA role and tough to beat in the surface role as well. The only thing that they don't have, which I wish they did, is armor like the Fletchers.

Porter and Somers 5in/38s are low angle only, so their AA should be notably worse than other pre-war classes with DP 5in/38s like the Benson.

Still excellent surface combatants though.

Interesting, the game models these classes with high-angle twin DP 5in/38s like the later Sumner class, giving it an AA value of over 300, but it shouldn't be nearly that effective. I wonder if there's a way to change that?

In editor make a gun with less altitude, that is my first thought.

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Colonel Mustard

ORIGINAL: mind_messing



Right there. The Japanese ships were tied up and sitting ducks when the Allies showed up.

The odd part of that is that the Japanese crossed the T. That seems to indicate some kind of advantage, not being "sitting ducks."

I have found "crossing the T" to be more of a disadvantage in this game than an advantage.

Nine times out of ten when I cross the tee only my lead ship fires while getting fired on in return by the entire enemy force.

Crossing the T seems to be bass ackwards in this game ...

Do you PBEM or vs. the AI?

I ask because I play vs. the AI and have seen the expected results of enemy lead ships firing first and then my TF answers effectively.

ORIGINAL: Paladin1dcs

ORIGINAL: JuanG

ORIGINAL: Paladin1dcs




I think you're thinking of the pre-war Porter and Sumers class DDs. They had four twin 5" mounts and are, frankly, some of the best DDs available to the Allies until the Fletchers come along. Great in the AAA role and tough to beat in the surface role as well. The only thing that they don't have, which I wish they did, is armor like the Fletchers.

Porter and Somers 5in/38s are low angle only, so their AA should be notably worse than other pre-war classes with DP 5in/38s like the Benson.

Still excellent surface combatants though.

Interesting, the game models these classes with high-angle twin DP 5in/38s like the later Sumner class, giving it an AA value of over 300, but it shouldn't be nearly that effective. I wonder if there's a way to change that?

Actually, atleast in stock and DBB they are using the "SP EBR" version of the 5in/38, which is not high angle capable. They switch later in the war to 2x2 and 1x1 high angle 5in/38s.

They probably get that AAA value from lighter weapons.