Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Wow, I just went through a strange experience. (I only have time for a brief post as I have an errand to run for 1.5 hours. Much more later). I watched an excruciatingly long replay with countless ship combat rounds....in which the Allies came out ahead, but not to the point of demanding unconditional surrender. Then, I opened the turn file, which seemed to indicate something entirely and dramtically different. The combat report embedded in this replay seems to confirm that the Allies won a resounding victory. As best I can tell Japan suffered the loss or heavy damage to three or perhaps four BBs while the Allies lost one CA (amongs other lesser damages). More later, but I think the Second Battle of Assam was a decisive Allied victory. I think.

This does happen to me when there are massive battles. The replay has nothing to do with the outcome. Seems to only really happen when a big fight takes place.

Dan did all the right things and got big victory. He is an outstanding player but the gods of war are smiling on him to some extent. American torpedoes don't work that well in 1942 yet he killed or cripple a CV a few weeks back and now both PT boats and TBF's have killed BB's. If you take those 2 kills out the outcome is a bit closer. Fortune may favor the bold, but it really favors the prepared. Dan put those TBF's and PT's into places they would not normally be. That and a bit of lucked worked wonders

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Wow, I just went through a strange experience. (I only have time for a brief post as I have an errand to run for 1.5 hours. Much more later). I watched an excruciatingly long replay with countless ship combat rounds....in which the Allies came out ahead, but not to the point of demanding unconditional surrender. Then, I opened the turn file, which seemed to indicate something entirely and dramtically different. The combat report embedded in this replay seems to confirm that the Allies won a resounding victory. As best I can tell Japan suffered the loss or heavy damage to three or perhaps four BBs while the Allies lost one CA (amongs other lesser damages). More later, but I think the Second Battle of Assam was a decisive Allied victory. I think.

This does happen to me when there are massive battles. The replay has nothing to do with the outcome. Seems to only really happen when a big fight takes place.

From my experience Ross, it doesn't have to be a major combat but it happens sometimes when the PTs are engaged...

Frankly speaking somehow I feel pity for John. He's my opponent in other RA (very slow paced). We're in march '42 and John is playing Allies... and I must say he has his a** spanked several times just now... well, so, he must be in an interesting mood right now... [;)]

ORIGINAL: viberpol

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Wow, I just went through a strange experience. (I only have time for a brief post as I have an errand to run for 1.5 hours. Much more later). I watched an excruciatingly long replay with countless ship combat rounds....in which the Allies came out ahead, but not to the point of demanding unconditional surrender. Then, I opened the turn file, which seemed to indicate something entirely and dramtically different. The combat report embedded in this replay seems to confirm that the Allies won a resounding victory. As best I can tell Japan suffered the loss or heavy damage to three or perhaps four BBs while the Allies lost one CA (amongs other lesser damages). More later, but I think the Second Battle of Assam was a decisive Allied victory. I think.

This does happen to me when there are massive battles. The replay has nothing to do with the outcome. Seems to only really happen when a big fight takes place.

From my experience Ross, it doesn't have to be a major combat but it happens sometimes when the PTs are engaged...

Frankly speaking somehow I feel pity for John. He's my opponent in other RA (very slow paced). We're in march '42 and John is playing Allies... and I must say he has his a** spanked several times just now... well, so, he must be in an interesting mood right now... [;)]

You are right Ark but Canoe did not have swarms of PTs and that is when it gets to be a problem. I think our HR of one PT TF of not more than six vessels at a single base has worked well. Besides, PT boats with radar and equipped with the later version torpedo only go to confirm my point about using old BBs at night at close range. You could sink 50 PTs and that would not compensate for a sunk BB. You are optimizing the opportunity for your enemy to make good use of his PTs.

There is a historical basis for this as well. After the Solomons campaign the US navy determined that it was counter productive to use BBs and treaty CAs in night actions. Slow turrets and slow rate for fire just did not work due to the need for frequent course changes. I think the game does a very good job of duplicating the risks here.

After the Solomons campaign the US navy determined that it was counter productive to use BBs and treaty CAs in night actions. Slow turrets and slow rate for fire just did not work due to the need for frequent course changes.

I did not know this. Thank You. Makes sense. One wonders if turret speed or rate of fire is what made the Allied CL's great. Probably both

That's assuming I've lost the first one, which is not the case. I'll stick with the original bet but throw in a few beers if it happens this does end by Dec. 30 1943 and I'm ever driving through MN or you're stopping over in London. [:)]
 
Obvert, it is off topic, but I am just back from your grand city and I must say, as a first time visitor to the UK and London, that London is an absolutely awesome city.  Standing near Trafalgar Square (at the Nelson Tower), I was simply awestuck by the sense of history everywhere in the city.  I respectfully said to my wife, "I think there is more history in two blocks of this city than the entire state of Texas".  I absolutely loved my too short stay there.  I know you appreciate what humanity has there, but there is a lot to savor and respect!!
 
For those of you that have never visited London, I urge you to go.  I have been in Rome, Madrid, Berlin and Vienna and in none of these very great cities have I been so absolutely stricken with a city's granduer 

Gotta agree. London is awesome.

London is awesome, and I think the food is underrated. Brits have a reputation for bad cooking, but that's bollocks, as they say. (Actually it may have been because the food post-war was so wretched)

I was just in Paris and London, and thought the food was better in London

A number of years back, travelled to Londinium, Paris and a number of other Euro cities du jour. Most of them were "meh". Londinium and the UK is one place that I could really enjoy spending more time.

ETA: Props to Roma. Was nice. And I got to shake the Pope's hand. Beat that! [&o]

ORIGINAL: princep01

That's assuming I've lost the first one, which is not the case. I'll stick with the original bet but throw in a few beers if it happens this does end by Dec. 30 1943 and I'm ever driving through MN or you're stopping over in London. [:)]

Obvert, it is off topic, but I am just back from your grand city and I must say, as a first time visitor to the UK and London, that London is an absolutely awesome city.  Standing near Trafalgar Square (at the Nelson Tower), I was simply awestuck by the sense of history everywhere in the city.  I respectfully said to my wife, "I think there is more history in two blocks of this city than the entire state of Texas".  I absolutely loved my too short stay there.  I know you appreciate what humanity has there, but there is a lot to savor and respect!!

For those of you that have never visited London, I urge you to go.  I have been in Rome, Madrid, Berlin and Vienna and in none of these very great cities have I been so absolutely stricken with a city's granduer 

It is amazing. I live within a 5 minute walk of the standing visible remains of the Roman wall! Across the street from my flat is a graveyard, Bunhill Fields (used to be 'bone hill fields') where Daniel Defoe and William Blake are buried (along with apparently 120,000 others [X(]). A german bomb landed one block away during the blitz (I cringe walking around the city seeing the filled in spaces imagining what this city was like during that time) and cleared space between the Georgian homes on the street for a Virgin Gym where I now go to swim. I can see the dome of St Paul's from my living room window and the Olympic Stadium from my bedroom.

It is an incredible place. And yes, British food is great, especially after the gastro-pub revolution in the last 10 years, but it's really the multi-cultural food everywhere that makes this place special. Anything from anywhere, and very good.

So anyone traveling here get in touch. I know a few secrets, and can take you for a pint in one of the still operating 300-400 year old pubs where you'll have to duck to get in the door and you'd better enjoy room temperature real ales. [;)]

/OT
this is another superb pic, obvert.

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

After the Solomons campaign the US navy determined that it was counter productive to use BBs and treaty CAs in night actions. Slow turrets and slow rate for fire just did not work due to the need for frequent course changes.

I did not know this. Thank You. Makes sense. One wonders if turret speed or rate of fire is what made the Allied CL's great. Probably both

Exactly, but they too were very vulnerable until the Navy came up with more sophisticated radar and fire control systems. At Surigao Straight, the old BBs that were equipped with the very sophisticated MK 8 fire control system did all the shooting and hitting. Those ships using the older MK 3 system might as well have been sitting at the dock for all they were worth. In 42-43 radar gave a boost to Allied awareness, but it is doubtful that it added a whole lot to gunnery. Ships still needed to get close to be effective at night and the older ships really were vulnerable.

I have run my game with Ark through 1945 and life in surface battles really seems to mimic this. Now in our game the Allies surface forces totally dominate most any action-even with relatively equal forces. I just don't know how the game mechanics works but can only assume that more sophisticated radar is a factor. You sweat Japanese torpedoes in 42 and 43 but they just seem to become less of a factor later on while Allied torpedoes seem to be more effective. I think Viberpol will confirm this.

ORIGINAL: crsutton
I have run my game with Ark through 1945 and life in surface battles really seems to mimic this. Now in our game the Allies surface forces totally dominate most any action-even with relatively equal forces. I just don't know how the game mechanics works but can only assume that more sophisticated radar is a factor. You sweat Japanese torpedoes in 42 and 43 but they just seem to become less of a factor later on while Allied torpedoes seem to be more effective. I think Viberpol will confirm this.

It's OT and thread's hijacking but...
OK. Well... Ross, I still believe I must been doing something wrong... [:D]
But for those of JFB who believe in the Japanese night engagement supremacy,
the truth is that the surface action in 4'45 looks more or less like this:

Night Time Surface Combat, near Ningpo at 92,56, Range 2,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
DD Natsuzuki, Shell hits 28, and is sunk
DD Akishimo, Shell hits 1
DD Wakaba, Shell hits 24, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Maki, Shell hits 29, and is sunk
DD Kashi, Shell hits 24, and is sunk
DD Kaede, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Sakura, Shell hits 9, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Minekaze, Shell hits 3, on fire

Allied Ships
DD Taussig, Shell hits 1
DD Bearss, Shell hits 1
DD Conway, Shell hits 9, on fire
DD Haggard, Shell hits 5
DD Norman Scott, Shell hits 12

Poor visibility due to Thunderstorms with 3% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Thunderstorms and 3% moonlight: 2,000 yards

It's like Japanese ships and their captains lost their ability to fight at night...
and forgot how to use the long lances. Quite depressing I must say... [;)]

not surprised at that. Setting up a torpedo probably took a bit of maneuvering and an assumption that your enemy did not spot you and would continue on a fairly predictable course. That would not happen to the Allies late in the war. It might happen to the Japanese. I think the Fuso and Yamashiro ran into just such a situation in 1944. Just as the Allies did at Savo in 1942

All in the aid of catching GJ's post count of course, but there is a lot more to England that London (amazing though it is!). My home of Lancaster.

Lancaster Castle and the Lake District

ORIGINAL: viberpol

ORIGINAL: crsutton
I have run my game with Ark through 1945 and life in surface battles really seems to mimic this. Now in our game the Allies surface forces totally dominate most any action-even with relatively equal forces. I just don't know how the game mechanics works but can only assume that more sophisticated radar is a factor. You sweat Japanese torpedoes in 42 and 43 but they just seem to become less of a factor later on while Allied torpedoes seem to be more effective. I think Viberpol will confirm this.

It's OT and thread's hijacking but...
OK. Well... Ross, I still believe I must been doing something wrong... [:D]
But for those of JFB who believe in the Japanese night engagement supremacy,
the truth is that the surface action in 4'45 looks more or less like this:

Night Time Surface Combat, near Ningpo at 92,56, Range 2,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
DD Natsuzuki, Shell hits 28, and is sunk
DD Akishimo, Shell hits 1
DD Wakaba, Shell hits 24, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Maki, Shell hits 29, and is sunk
DD Kashi, Shell hits 24, and is sunk
DD Kaede, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Sakura, Shell hits 9, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Minekaze, Shell hits 3, on fire

Allied Ships
DD Taussig, Shell hits 1
DD Bearss, Shell hits 1
DD Conway, Shell hits 9, on fire
DD Haggard, Shell hits 5
DD Norman Scott, Shell hits 12

Poor visibility due to Thunderstorms with 3% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Thunderstorms and 3% moonlight: 2,000 yards

It's like Japanese ships and their captains lost their ability to fight at night...
and forgot how to use the long lances. Quite depressing I must say... [;)]

If spreads of any torpedo were launched from 2k yards it would be tough to maneuver out of the way while firing accurately and not careening into the other ships in your own battle line. At night this would be much harder, and with the Type 93 it would be hardest I would think, as it would take about 30 seconds to arrive after launch at that distance.

I'd guess that in this battle none were launched as the visibility was only 2k and the USN probably opened fire by radar, hitting and creating confusion before the Japanese could even see them.

I've had a lot of these kinds of affairs already in 44 with the IJN suffering if here is any kind of visibility or detection discrepancy, and I think while that's incredibly frustrating, it might be getting close to accurate for the period.

ORIGINAL: crsutton
At Surigao Straight, the old BBs that were equipped with the very sophisticated MK 8 fire control system did all the shooting and hitting. Those ships using the older MK 3 system might as well have been sitting at the dock for all they were worth.

While this comparison (Mk 3 v. the Mk 8 equipped BBs) is correct and true, it still misses the mark. The greatest impact at Surigao wasn't a surfeit of big gunned battlewagons lobbing hundreds of shells.

The biggest impact at Surigao was the functional torpedoes of the Desrons that attacked the Japanese battleline. A successful surprise attack with functional torpedoes ripped the Fuso in half, damaged Yamashiro and damaged or sank 3 of the Japanese DDs, if memory suits.

Oldendorf's battleships were cleaning up the scraps at that point. Sure, it was a glorious display of big gun firepower (the likes of which the world will never see again). But the mortal blow to the Japanese battleline had already been done.

ETA: Corrected BB names.

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: viberpol

ORIGINAL: crsutton
I have run my game with Ark through 1945 and life in surface battles really seems to mimic this. Now in our game the Allies surface forces totally dominate most any action-even with relatively equal forces. I just don't know how the game mechanics works but can only assume that more sophisticated radar is a factor. You sweat Japanese torpedoes in 42 and 43 but they just seem to become less of a factor later on while Allied torpedoes seem to be more effective. I think Viberpol will confirm this.

It's OT and thread's hijacking but...
OK. Well... Ross, I still believe I must been doing something wrong... [:D]
But for those of JFB who believe in the Japanese night engagement supremacy,
the truth is that the surface action in 4'45 looks more or less like this:

Night Time Surface Combat, near Ningpo at 92,56, Range 2,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
DD Natsuzuki, Shell hits 28, and is sunk
DD Akishimo, Shell hits 1
DD Wakaba, Shell hits 24, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Maki, Shell hits 29, and is sunk
DD Kashi, Shell hits 24, and is sunk
DD Kaede, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Sakura, Shell hits 9, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Minekaze, Shell hits 3, on fire

Allied Ships
DD Taussig, Shell hits 1
DD Bearss, Shell hits 1
DD Conway, Shell hits 9, on fire
DD Haggard, Shell hits 5
DD Norman Scott, Shell hits 12

Poor visibility due to Thunderstorms with 3% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Thunderstorms and 3% moonlight: 2,000 yards

It's like Japanese ships and their captains lost their ability to fight at night...
and forgot how to use the long lances. Quite depressing I must say... [;)]

If spreads of any torpedo were launched from 2k yards it would be tough to maneuver out of the way while firing accurately and not careening into the other ships in your own battle line. At night this would be much harder, and with the Type 93 it would be hardest I would think, as it would take about 30 seconds to arrive after launch at that distance.

I'd guess that in this battle none were launched as the visibility was only 2k and the USN probably opened fire by radar, hitting and creating confusion before the Japanese could even see them.

I've had a lot of these kinds of affairs already in 44 with the IJN suffering if here is any kind of visibility or detection discrepancy, and I think while that's incredibly frustrating, it might be getting close to accurate for the period.

I think the Japanese did not have much chance to launch torpedoes. The US ships had good radar that could penetrate the rain, and would have had their torps ready to launch on fairly accurate range and bearing data when the enemy was spotted. The Japanese would have needed time to gather such data and put it into their computers to aim their torpedoes and guns. During that time they were raked with gunfire of every caliber and hit with US torpedoes.

Also note that Japanese torpedo doctrine [authored by Capt. Tameichi Hara who wrote "Japanese Destroyer Captain"] was to rush in on a parabolic course, launching at the point of the parabola and rush away. This avoided enemy torpedoes and allowed the Japanese ships to reload their tubes in 20 minutes. The did not have much training in launching from a flat-footed straight course. Even Tanaka at Tassafaronga had to get the ships moving on an arc to make his torpedo attack.

I've been reading g a lot on destroyer battles in the Solomons. Really there was every kind of situation imaginable and sometimes the Allies radar gave them an advantage, sometimes not. Sometimes an ambush worked, sometimes the hunter became the hunted. Over time though it got better for the USN and the radar + sigint intel gave them a huge advantage. That is definitely going to be the case in 44-45. So yes, in the above and in many battles like this the Japanese might have not even launched.

The frustrating part is watching a replay where they did launch 24 from 2k and ALL missed!

ORIGINAL: obvert

I've been reading g a lot on destroyer battles in the Solomons. Really there was every kind of situation imaginable and sometimes the Allies radar gave them an advantage, sometimes not. Sometimes an ambush worked, sometimes the hunter became the hunted. Over time though it got better for the USN and the radar + sigint intel gave them a huge advantage. That is definitely going to be the case in 44-45. So yes, in the above and in many battles like this the Japanese might have not even launched.

The frustrating part is watching a replay where they did launch 24 from 2k and ALL missed!

Now that would be worthy of some hair-pulling, Obvert!