Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

[John Lansford]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: crsutton
older BBs did not have the turret speed and gunnery control systems nimble enough to track targets in a close in night fight.

Barham, Valiant and Warspite were hardly modern, though...

The Italian CA's were either dead in the water or stopped to render aid, so turret speed on the RN BB's was hardly a factor.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford
The Italian CA's were either dead in the water or stopped to render aid, so turret speed on the RN BB's was hardly a factor.

Though as they could traverse 90 degrees per salvo it likely wouldn't have been anyway as 3500 yards is, after all, 2 miles away, and even 35 knots isn't all that fast when talking about arc covered 2 miles distant.

Maybe at 1000 yards turret speed would be a factor.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Assuming early war, Yamato would have 9 (of 12) 6.1" secondaries and 10 (of 20) 5" DP tertiaries bearing on this DD, so it's doubtfull she would be wasting her primaries on a DD. They would be searching for a more lucrative target...

I'm sure they would, but if she wanted to blast the DD out of the water with the main armament, it would certainly be within her ability...

It certainly would. But all of you seem to be missing the main point. The "surface action programming" 2by3 wrote into WITP just doesn't work very well (fire distribution and choice of weapons being major problems). Rather that beating each other up over what is realistic, we need to unite in requesting that this part of the programming recieve further attention and tweeking to remove the obvious problems (such as North Carolina choosing to use her 20mm AAA guns to engage surface ships over her 16" or 5" batteries.)

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
It certainly would. But all of you seem to be missing the main point. The "surface action programming" 2by3 wrote into WITP just doesn't work very well (fire distribution and choice of weapons being major problems). Rather that beating each other up over what is realistic, we need to unite in requesting that this part of the programming recieve further attention and tweeking to remove the obvious problems (such as North Carolina choosing to use her 20mm AAA guns to engage surface ships over her 16" or 5" batteries.)

Well... I agree. Isn't that what the thread is about? [;)]

But that said I think the surface combat model is pretty good now. The only really glaring thing that stands out is how BBs do bugger all most of the time - which they did in WITP as well, it was always BBs with the penchant for firing the AA guns rather than the main armament. A lot of issues look to be due to weapon stats inherited from WITP.

I suspect that scaling down the impact of crew experience commensurately scaled up the impact of the stats of the weapons themselves, hence why you see DD 5" guns doing feats of wonder. In WITP I think the crew experience took precedent.

[Panther Bait]

I agree with Mike, regardless of whether the main guns or the secondaries would be more approrpriate to fight DDs, if all the BBs are using is light AA due to a faulty model, the first point is moot. Fix the AA issue first, then we can debate main guns vs. secondaries

Mike

P.S. [:)] Personally I vote for secondaries. At 1 mile range and a flat trajectory, the main guns will probably just put 16" holes in the superstructure, or the hull above the waterline if you're lucky, because a DD doesn't have enough resistance to a shell that size to set off the fuze (happened at Guadalcanal with 8" shells, too). Five-inch secondaries have a chance of exploding on the DD at least.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Herwin,

USS Houston and HMAS Perth both used their AA guns against surface targets in their final battle, so obviously the main and secondary weapons weren't interfering with them there.  I'm just pointing out it's unlikely those light weapons would seriously damage any ship larger than a PT boat, not whether they could be used at all.

Perhaps the LA/HA guns, but probably not the light AA. There was a general rule that the crews of light AA stayed under cover during surface gunfire actions unless there was a significant air threat. In game terms, HA-only weapons should not fire LA.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Assuming early war, Yamato would have 9 (of 12) 6.1" secondaries and 10 (of 20) 5" DP tertiaries bearing on this DD, so it's doubtfull she would be wasting her primaries on a DD. They would be searching for a more lucrative target...

I'm sure they would, but if she wanted to blast the DD out of the water with the main armament, it would certainly be within her ability...

It certainly would. But all of you seem to be missing the main point. The "surface action programming" 2by3 wrote into WITP just doesn't work very well (fire distribution and choice of weapons being major problems). Rather that beating each other up over what is realistic, we need to unite in requesting that this part of the programming recieve further attention and tweeking to remove the obvious problems (such as North Carolina choosing to use her 20mm AAA guns to engage surface ships over her 16" or 5" batteries.)

Right. To avoid problems with targeting, each ship should have a primary target, with no more than three ships firing on any specific target, and with all enemy ships engaged before doubling up. Secondary armament can be directed at a second target. Fall back on local control (ineffective).

[John Lansford]

Houston engaged targets in her final battle with both her .50 caliber and 1.1" AA guns, not that they did much but it gave the gun crews something to do.  The 5" crews fired starshells and practice shells as well once their supply of HE ran out.
 
As for a BB's main gun shells passing through a DD at close range, that's why they made HE shells.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: herwin

Right. To avoid problems with targeting, each ship should have a primary target, with no more than three ships firing on any specific target, and with all enemy ships engaged before doubling up. Secondary armament can be directed at a second target. Fall back on local control (ineffective).

I agree..., but given the original programming, that may be a lot to ask for. Hopefully a sensible distribution of realistically appropriate weaponry shouldn't be out of the question if we all ask nicely.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: herwin

Right. To avoid problems with targeting, each ship should have a primary target, with no more than three ships firing on any specific target, and with all enemy ships engaged before doubling up. Secondary armament can be directed at a second target. Fall back on local control (ineffective).

I agree..., but given the original programming, that may be a lot to ask for. Hopefully a sensible distribution of realistically appropriate weaponry shouldn't be out of the question if we all ask nicely.

You might take a look at this, this, and this.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: herwin

Right. To avoid problems with targeting, each ship should have a primary target, with no more than three ships firing on any specific target, and with all enemy ships engaged before doubling up. Secondary armament can be directed at a second target. Fall back on local control (ineffective).

I agree..., but given the original programming, that may be a lot to ask for. Hopefully a sensible distribution of realistically appropriate weaponry shouldn't be out of the question if we all ask nicely.

You might take a look at this, this, and this.

Interesting examples of doctrine and theory, but I'm not sure how they apply. As I mentioned, the basic problem seems to be with the limitations of 2by3's original coding..., and the question of how much and how effectively it can be tweeked.

Secondly, given the unforseen nature of the surface fights in the Pacific..., it's hard to say how much effect "doctronal solutions" had on any of the actual engagements. You look at a mess like "1st Guadalcanal" (basically the naval equivilent a knife fight in a dark closet) and it's hard to see much "doctrine" on either side. Even when one side had a significant number of capitol ships in a fleet, as the Japanese did of Samar, "doctrine" wound up being abandoned in favor of a disorganized "general chase".

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl





I agree..., but given the original programming, that may be a lot to ask for. Hopefully a sensible distribution of realistically appropriate weaponry shouldn't be out of the question if we all ask nicely.

You might take a look at this, this, and this.

Interesting examples of doctrine and theory, but I'm not sure how they apply. As I mentioned, the basic problem seems to be with the limitations of 2by3's original coding..., and the question of how much and how effectively it can be tweeked.

Secondly, given the unforseen nature of the surface fights in the Pacific..., it's hard to say how much effect "doctronal solutions" had on any of the actual engagements. You look at a mess like "1st Guadalcanal" (basically the naval equivilent a knife fight in a dark closet) and it's hard to see much "doctrine" on either side. Even when one side had a significant number of capitol ships in a fleet, as the Japanese did of Samar, "doctrine" wound up being abandoned in favor of a disorganized "general chase".

The military operates on doctrine. If the guys on both sides of you have deadly weapons, you want to be able to rely on what they will do. Friendly fire is no fun. So if the programme implements doctrine and something gets screwed up, it will get screwed up according to doctrine.

[John Lansford]

There was at least one night battle around Guadalcanal where USN ships shot up other friendly ships.  There are several recorded instances where the IJN had self-inflicted damage in a battle too; in Houston's last battle a DD sank the transport carrying the invasion commander with a torpedo that missed the cruiser.
 
We've already got ships colliding during a battle; let's have self inflicted damage from gunfire and torpedoes too!

[Iridium]

I would gladly see the removal of the possibility of surface ships to fire HA weapons (MGs on up till DP weapons). Most surface combat situations demand that light AA crews be away from their stations anyhow. Unless you prefer to have the argument about how everyone manning that 25mm gun on Yamato would be dead after the 18" guns fired...etc

[John Lansford]

If the light AA weapons couldn't be used in a surface battle, how did torpedoes ever get fired when their tubes were as exposed as many AA positions were?

[Iridium]

BBs had Torpedos in the ship proper and CA's with external torpedo mounts had only 8" guns that did not cause nearly as much of a pressure change. The change in pressure got pretty bad past 14" guns iirc. The 18"ers pretty well shredded small animals on deck in cages when they conducted tests.

[Mynok]

On the shooting or target vessel.... both? [:'(]

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Iridium

I would gladly see the removal of the possibility of surface ships to fire HA weapons (MGs on up till DP weapons). Most surface combat situations demand that light AA crews be away from their stations anyhow. Unless you prefer to have the argument about how everyone manning that 25mm gun on Yamato would be dead after the 18" guns fired...etc

What about MTB crews?

[Speedysteve]

In space Martian boy[:'(]

[Mynok]

Ah! Of course....how could I not know that......[8|][:'(]