Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:17 pm**

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"If a CV (or other ship) is crippled within enemy aircraft range and you had no tug nearby to haul it to safety you would scuttle it."

Didn't they use other ships in the TF to accomplish this purpose? Isn't this what the one hex per turn rule simulates (maybe it should be turned off for one ship TFs)?

True I think they did use other ships.. but I think only capital ships could do a decent job of it (But I could be wrong).. I want to see the group of DDs hauling a CV to safety. All of them would be sitting ducks for the next air attack.

Xargun

Posted: **Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:57 pm**

Checked at Combined Fleet - TROMs for assorted ships. Would like to call your attention to the following ships:

BB Haruna
BB Ise
BB Hyuga
These were sunk in Kure harbor by bombs (large numbers of bombs).

CA Mikuma
CA Suzuya
These last two were devastated by torpedos but the torpedos involved were in their own.

Posted: **Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:22 pm**

I have no idea what you gents are talking about, but when Faber sank my PH BBs, he first plastered them with bombs. All of them had ~99 SYS and FLT.

Posted: **Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:37 pm**

True I think they did use other ships.. but I think only capital ships could do a decent job of it (But I could be wrong).. I want to see the group of DDs hauling a CV to safety. All of them would be sitting ducks for the next air attack.

The USN had a whole bunch of Fleet Tugs - mostly similar in size and shape to USS CLAMP pictured here. I picked her because she towed Nagato to Eniwetok when it became disabled after the war. Approx tow speed 1 kt.

A bunch of old minesweepers were apparently converted to Fleet Tugs in 1942, amongst them Vireo which was redesignated in June 42 and immediately involved with towing Yorktown. The speed of the tow was apparently around 1-2 kts. The Captain of I-168 remarked on it in his report saying he did not at first see that the ship was moving and only became aware of it after approaching submerged for half an hour and finding himself no closer than when he began.

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:28 am**

ORIGINAL: Xargun

What should happen is to stop allowing all ships to move 1 hex per turn to simulate tugs and include the tugs into the game. Why not ? We have nearly worthless AGs ... why not tugs... If a CV (or other ship) is crippled within enemy aircraft range and you had no tug nearby to haul it to safety you would scuttle it... Also increase the VP discount for a scuttled ship.. Instead of saving 10% make it something like 50% - that would get more ships scuttled..

Between having to have a tug to move a crippled ship AND a 50% VP discount for scuttling I think the problem would be resolved.

Tugs were never used on combat task forces. In the real world, crippled ships were towed by escorts. In some cases the escorts had trouble towing the ship. On www.combinedfleet.com they have an article on the last days of the Kumano and the struggle to tow her back to a ship yard. In her case a merchant ship attempted to tow her to safety. Most of the time it was destroyers that did the towing. Sometimes cruisers.

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
The 50% discount seems a bit steep... The problem really arises (i think) because of the distorted time scale in flooding in WITP. IRL, there was none of this protracted multiday saga of a ship trying for days to control fires and flooding. The ship's fate was usually decided in hours, not days. Ships that were gutted by fire DID in fact start to slowly take on water, but they were scuttled well before flooding ever became a really serious problem in most cases. It was also realized that if such a ship ever got to port, she was never going to be repaired, and could only be scrapped. This option is not available in WITP, of course.

In previous incarnations of the game, it was possible to CAPTURE an enemy ship (War in the South Pacific). It was really rare, but i suspect people would be a lot more nervous if they thought some Marines/SNLF might board their gutted carrier/bb and capture it and would thus they would scuttle more often. The possibility of capture was something of a concern IRL, but commanders were a lot more nervous about an enemy boarding party finding sensitive information (code books, etc.) without capturing the ship. Again, WITP doesn't have these features.

A player might be a lot more willing to scuttle if they thought there was a chance that all their dispositions would be revealed by a code book seizure. Yes, commanders could (and did) order destruction of sensitive materials, but that usually didn't work in the (fairly rare) cases where a ship fell into enemy hands.

When the Hornet was abandoned to the Japanese in 1942, it was a disgrace to the Navy. The escorts tasked with scuttling her had bad torpedoes that just went "thump" against the hull. The Japanese surface ships that scared off the US destroyers sank the Hornet themselves. They could have captured her though.

When trying to two a crippled ship away from a fight, there is always the risk that the enemy will show up for a surface duel, or enemy air will attack. An escort attempting to tow a capital ship is a sitting duck if attacked. Towing is a very risky task.

The code book information is also very critical. In the chaos of a damaged ship, there is no guarantee that the code books were destroyed. There is also other classified or secret information aboard a warship that nobody wants to fall into enemy hands. I have read that the Japanese sent divers down to the Prine of Wales and Repulse and they were able to bring back up equipment that advanced Japanese radar technology.

Bill

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:59 am**

Here's a classic pic...CripDiv 1

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:01 am**

Sorry Amiral, but even after 8 bomb hits the floatation should be much less the 10 points, especially on a CV.

Take a look at the USS Franklin. She was hit by 2-250kg bombs. She took on a 13 degree list as a combined result of the damage and the seawater pumped aboard to fight fires. IIRC, Franklin took on nearly 3000 tons of seawater. That would be about 11% flot damage (3000 tons sewater divided by 27,000 tons displacement) in WitP terms from just 2 bombs.

So to say that a ship should not take flot damage from bomb hits is incorrect. They could and did... even if indirectly.

Chez

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:15 am**

if the fact that a towed "hulk" can be moved one 60 mile hex per turn is a problem, why not use partial movement in ocean hexes the same as LCU's use? report would state that CV Burned Out Hulk hase moved 20 miles...three days later, it moves to the next hex...

I don't think that a ship moving 1-60 mile hex per turn is that big a deal. That results in a speed of 2.5 knots... ships could drift at that rate in the right conditions.

Chez

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:21 am**

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

if the fact that a towed "hulk" can be moved one 60 mile hex per turn is a problem, why not use partial movement in ocean hexes the same as LCU's use? report would state that CV Burned Out Hulk hase moved 20 miles...three days later, it moves to the next hex...

I don't think that a ship moving 1-60 mile hex per turn is that big a deal. That results in a speed of 2.5 knots... ships could drift at that rate in the right conditions.

Chez

i *think* it is 1 hex per segment (not per turn), but i could be mis-remembering.

Considering other things in the game, it is not that big a deal, but this is just pointing out some of the mechanics that makes it less likely that ships get scuttled in the game.

Of course, another big factor in why ships were scuttled IRL is what Ron has pointed out: to save the crew of the ship. e-soldiers have a VP value in the game, but e-sailors do not...

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:44 am**

I think bombs are bit underpowered actually.  I routinely record 8 - 10 1000# bombs used to sink a transport (will provide a "hit list" to recent game this evening).
 
However, I'm not that concerned about the explict effectiveness (or lack thereof depenending on how you see it).
 
My -REAL- issue is that it takes so long for something to sink.  True, many transports (or CVs or whatever) -would- be sunk in 3 bombs (or whatever would be normal).  But the fact that they linger for 3 - 4 days, means they are magnets (when in fact, they would have sunk in a matter of hours had they actually taken the 15 bombs in the first turn).  Instead, they take 15 bombs on day 1, 20 bombs on day 2, and 10 bombs on day 3.
 
I think the damage model iteself needs more tweaking that singling out bombs.
 
Just my 2 pfennigs.
 
-F-

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:29 pm**

i must agree with feinder, bombs are in fact UNDERPOWERED......

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:03 pm**

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2

i must agree with feinder, bombs are in fact UNDERPOWERED......

Well, for that matter - torps are also. One torpedo is generally not going to put down a transport, whereas it generally was quickly fatal IRL (at least in the first part of the war, before the Allies started shock-mounting equipment.) Similarly, we will see CAs getting away with 3 torp hits - unheard of in WW2 for CAs. AFAIK, all (but maybe 2 ships) at sea never made it back to port after being hit by more than 2 (working) torps.

Admittedly, ships often did not sink after 3 torps, but couldn't get back to port because they couldn't be towed that fast (back to towing speeds again.) Follow-up attacks would generally sink the cripple before it could get out of danger.

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:18 pm**

From what i've read, Franklin's list was caused soley by water pumped onto/into her to fight the fire. Her WT integrity was never breached by the bomb hits or the subsequent explosions caused by the armed, fueled planes just as with the four Japanese carriers at Midway. I don't have a problem with bombs occasionally causing FLT damage. It can happen. But i've never liked the abstracted ratio of damage in almost every hit regardless of HL. To me that defeats the purpose of having the three seperate values. FLT should mainly be the result of near misses, such as with the three cited Japanese BB's in harbor. (which were also handicapped by being in poor condition, having incomplete "caretaker" crews and sitting in shallow water that magnifies bomb hits making them more like mine hits)

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:30 pm**

Why not try a mod with the damage by bombs and torp INCREASED by about 30%, while DECREASING the accuracy of these devises by 30-40 %....
 

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:50 pm**

Because I don't feel bombs are underpowered and reducing the accuracy of the device won't do squat. [:)]

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:18 pm**

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

reducing the accuracy of the device won't do squat. [:)]

Why not? [&:]

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:30 pm**

Some variables in certain equations are more potent than others.

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:37 pm**

I've found that my bombs and torpedoes are certainly underpowered...whereas those of my opponent are definitely overpowered...[;)]

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:41 pm**

lol. [:D]

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:10 pm**

Well actually to the best of my knowledge the bombs on Franklin did not cause any floatation damage, it was only the fire fighting water and as such it was an absolutely controlled flooding, albeit very high in the ships (in the hangar).

And I don't say that bombs should not cause float damage at all, but not on this ratio...

Matrix Games Forums

Why do bombs cause huge floatation damage in WitP?

RE: Why do bombs cause huge floatation damage in WitP?

RE: Why do bombs cause huge floatation damage in WitP?

RE: Why do bombs cause huge floatation damage in WitP?

RE: Why do bombs cause huge floatation damage in WitP?

RE: Why do bombs cause huge floatation damage in WitP?

RE: Why do bombs cause huge floatation damage in WitP?

RE: Why do bombs cause huge floatation damage in WitP?

RE: Why do bombs cause huge floatation damage in WitP?

RE: Why do bombs cause huge floatation damage in WitP?

RE: Why do bombs cause huge floatation damage in WitP?

RE: Why do bombs cause huge floatation damage in WitP?

RE: Why do bombs cause huge floatation damage in WitP?

RE: Why do bombs cause huge floatation damage in WitP?

RE: Why do bombs cause huge floatation damage in WitP?

RE: Why do bombs cause huge floatation damage in WitP?

RE: Why do bombs cause huge floatation damage in WitP?

RE: Why do bombs cause huge floatation damage in WitP?

RE: Why do bombs cause huge floatation damage in WitP?

RE: Why do bombs cause huge floatation damage in WitP?

RE: Why do bombs cause huge floatation damage in WitP?