Page 3 of 12
RE: CD fire issues
Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:58 am
by Misconduct
Base has 251325 Supplies, at night, Commander was switched to best I could afford he has 59 Leadership, 67 Agression land 42, experience 62 moral 99
I am guessing only reason my guns did not fire was because at night time, Moonlight 53% and it was light rain.
However if my guns didn't fire because of that then how the hell were the battleships so accurate?
ORIGINAL: bklooste
Out of supply , Surprised and a lot exp crew / bad commander ? Was it night ? I note the CDs are far worse against ships making a landing then a bombardment.
Cant see screenshot
ORIGINAL: Misconduct
Can anyone explain why my shore batteries don't even bother to fire? I am clueless..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Port Moresby at 98,130
Allied aircraft
no flights
Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed on ground
A-20A Havoc: 2 destroyed on ground
LB-30 Liberator: 2 destroyed on ground
P-40B Warhawk: 1 destroyed on ground
B-17E Fortress: 2 destroyed on ground
Japanese Ships
BB Haruna
BB Kongo
CA Myoko
CL Jintsu
Allied Ships
AV Langley, Shell hits 1, on fire
Allied ground losses:
256 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 24 destroyed, 18 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 3 disabled
Guns lost 14 (3 destroyed, 11 disabled)
Vehicles lost 10 (8 destroyed, 2 disabled)
Airbase hits 25
Airbase supply hits 6
Runway hits 132
BB Haruna firing at Port Moresby
BB Kongo firing at Port Moresby
CA Myoko firing at Port Moresby
CL Jintsu firing at Port Moresby
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a screenshot of the unit in question -
RE: CD fire issues
Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:18 pm
by Nikademus
ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
Check out the Hiei. She faced nothing bigger than an 8' gun, and mostly 5" at First Guadalcanal..., an was left helpless and burning to be finished off by A/C the next morning.
Her armor was not penetrated to my knowledge. Being an old battlecruiser design however, her steering gear was vulnerable (and outside her primary protection) and did flood as a result of damage. Her uncontrolled fires had been extinquished by the next morning and she would have escaped after jury rigged repairs to her flooded steering room. However the subsequent torpedo bomber attacks undid the repairs and reflooded the steering gear preventing her timely escape. Arguments continued on whether or not to continue efforts to save the ship. IIRC, Yamamotto made the decision via long distance to scuttle the vessel due to her proximity to the enemy.
The multitude of small caliber hits (+ a few mediums) peppered and damaged her upperworks fairly well, impeding her nighttime efficiency but never threatened the integrity of the ship.
RE: CD fire issues
Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:23 pm
by John Lansford
Nikademus,
What source did you get that information on Hiei from? Everything I've ever read of that battle indicated Portland firing pointblank into Hiei's stern is what disabled her steering and kept her from escaping. Was the BC's stern completely unarmored?
RE: CD fire issues
Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:35 pm
by witpqs
Don't recall about what exactly damage the steering gear. But, Yamamoto ordered (too late) that she not be scuttled in the hopes that she would absorb US air attacks to aid IJN efforts.
I don't recall if he had reversed himself or earlier had simply assented to reports, but (too late as mentioned above) he did order her to remain afloat as a target for the enemy!
My information is from Frank's Guadalcanal.
RE: CD fire issues
Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:41 pm
by Nikademus
ORIGINAL: John Lansford
Nikademus,
What source did you get that information on Hiei from? Everything I've ever read of that battle indicated Portland firing pointblank into Hiei's stern is what disabled her steering and kept her from escaping. Was the BC's stern completely unarmored?
IIRC, her gear had only a thin covering of deck armor. An extensive discourse on Hiei's plight can be gleaned from Lundstrom (believe it or not), Frank, and a couple other "Battleship devoted" sources I own.
ORIGINAL: witpqs
Don't recall about what exactly damage the steering gear. But, Yamamoto ordered (too late) that she not be scuttled in the hopes that she would absorb US air attacks to aid IJN efforts.
I don't recall if he had reversed himself or earlier had simply assented to reports, but (too late as mentioned above) he did order her to remain afloat as a target for the enemy!
My information is from Frank's Guadalcanal.
Your memory may be better than mine this morning [:)]. I recall that there was some decision, reverse decision, and serious arguing over her fate, with the ship's captain of course being vehemently opposed to sacrificing the ship. I'm pretty sure Yamamotto made the final decision in the end after further consultation.
Ultimate point though was that she was not in any danger of sinking nor were her primary systems wrecked (with the notable exception of her exposed steering gear). It was her close proximity to the enemy complicating salvage efforts that was the issue, along with concerns over other ongoing efforts in the vacinity of Henderson field's airpower.
RE: CD fire issues
Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:50 pm
by witpqs
ORIGINAL: Nikademus
I'm pretty sure Yamamotto made the final decision in the end after further consultation.
IIRC he was said to be ticked off when he learned of her scuttling, but he had earlier either assented or given the order, so it was his decision. He just reversed it too late.
RE: CD fire issues
Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:52 pm
by Oldguard1970
As with many things about AE (or WITP), the games simulates, but does not reproduce, the effects of combat during WWII.
I get it that many players are convinced the CD guns are too hard to supress/destroy, or they do too much damage to certain ship types, or that TF commanders would withdraw in the face of withering fire, etc. I also get it that using large hexes means TFs in our game might have to confront CD weapons they would be able to avoid in real life.
But, shucks, sending ships against shore batteries has always been understood to be seriously "going into harm's way". The trade offs in our game mean we might have to do it sometimes, but we should all try hard to avoid it. Perhaps the design can be tweaked, but maybe we should also seek tactical alternatives to sending ships against major nests of CD guns.
RE: CD fire issues
Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 3:33 pm
by freeboy
WHY AVOID IT!!! thats the ppoint of bomnbardment missions, or perhaps you are saying we are not to use BB CA in their historicaly correct roles in shore batary supression? What is up with your comments?
RE: CD fire issues
Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 3:53 pm
by Kereguelen
ORIGINAL: Misconduct
Base has 251325 Supplies, at night, Commander was switched to best I could afford he has 59 Leadership, 67 Agression land 42, experience 62 moral 99
I am guessing only reason my guns did not fire was because at night time, Moonlight 53% and it was light rain.
However if my guns didn't fire because of that then how the hell were the battleships so accurate?
Escorts of Japanese TF were (according to the combat report) set to 'do not bombard'. Thus the Japanese TF only employed main armament. Shortest range of guns used were the 14cm/50 3YT guns (range 21K yards) on CL Jintsu. Coast defense guns in 5th RAA Coast Art Rgt are 6in Mk V/VI guns (range 17K yards). = Coast defense guns were not in firing range.
RE: CD fire issues
Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 4:13 pm
by Dili
Sorry, but I have to agree with TF composition. Placing the BB in an amphibious TF makes them behave differently than if they were in a Bombardment TF. I have a hunch that they'll stick around until the troops unload which might not be what one desires.
Precisely.
Most battleships doesn't have armor all along the hull. Sizeable parts at bow and rear can be easily penetrated and flooded.
RE: CD fire issues
Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 4:15 pm
by Bradley7735
ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
ORIGINAL: Misconduct
Base has 251325 Supplies, at night, Commander was switched to best I could afford he has 59 Leadership, 67 Agression land 42, experience 62 moral 99
I am guessing only reason my guns did not fire was because at night time, Moonlight 53% and it was light rain.
However if my guns didn't fire because of that then how the hell were the battleships so accurate?
Escorts of Japanese TF were (according to the combat report) set to 'do not bombard'. Thus the Japanese TF only employed main armament. Shortest range of guns used were the 14cm/50 3YT guns (range 21K yards) on CL Jintsu. Coast defense guns in 5th RAA Coast Art Rgt are 6in Mk V/VI guns (range 17K yards). = Coast defense guns were not in firing range.
Seems logical. But, the results of the 20k yard bombardment sure seems a bit high. I wonder if range is considered during bombardment routines.
It would be nice if the accuracy of bombardment TF's was real low when escorts set to not bombard, and much higher when escorts set to bombard. Maybe this is already in place, though.
It would also be nice to see two bombardment task force types. 1: shoot and scoot, 2: shoot and stay, conserve ammo, make shots count
RE: CD fire issues
Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 5:29 pm
by Oldguard1970
Hi Freeboy,
I am making the distinction between using ships to take on fortresses and using ships to support a landing.
Relative to a CD gun, ships are really big targets, ...and they sink. A zone with lots of CD weapons would be an ugly nut for a TF to challenge. Yes, I intend to use ships to support my landings, but I hope to pick landing zones that are not covered by massive batteries.
If we really must send our ships against substantial shore batteries, then it would be best to use air to try to suppress the batteries first. (I think Port Attacks are what we use in AE for that effect.)
RE: CD fire issues
Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 5:52 pm
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Misconduct
Can anyone explain why my shore batteries don't even bother to fire? I am clueless..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No searchlights in the LCU?
RE: CD fire issues
Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:00 pm
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: OldGuard1970
Hi Freeboy,
I am making the distinction between using ships to take on fortresses and using ships to support a landing.
Relative to a CD gun, ships are really big targets, ...and they sink. A zone with lots of CD weapons would be an ugly nut for a TF to challenge. Yes, I intend to use ships to support my landings, but I hope to pick landing zones that are not covered by massive batteries.
If we really must send our ships against substantial shore batteries, then it would be best to use air to try to suppress the batteries first. (I think Port Attacks are what we use in AE for that effect.)
I don't know where you are in your game, but I used eight (8) 1944 CV airwings to "suppress" Saipan. Then the CDs took out two of my battleships.
If you're invading many late-war historical islands--Saipan, Iwo Jima, Okinawa--you can't avoid the guns. The islands are one hex in size.
RE: CD fire issues
Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:10 pm
by Misconduct
ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
ORIGINAL: Misconduct
Base has 251325 Supplies, at night, Commander was switched to best I could afford he has 59 Leadership, 67 Agression land 42, experience 62 moral 99
I am guessing only reason my guns did not fire was because at night time, Moonlight 53% and it was light rain.
However if my guns didn't fire because of that then how the hell were the battleships so accurate?
Escorts of Japanese TF were (according to the combat report) set to 'do not bombard'. Thus the Japanese TF only employed main armament. Shortest range of guns used were the 14cm/50 3YT guns (range 21K yards) on CL Jintsu. Coast defense guns in 5th RAA Coast Art Rgt are 6in Mk V/VI guns (range 17K yards). = Coast defense guns were not in firing range.
Thank you Kereguelen I didn't realize that, I am glad you were able to least pick that up
RE: CD fire issues
Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 7:18 pm
by khyberbill
I would like to see if that turn can be re-run, this time with the BB's in a bombardment TF to see if makes a difference.
RE: CD fire issues
Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 7:52 pm
by Monter_Trismegistos
How do you expect to BB overcome well prepared land defences? Blücher is actually an excellent example - not because lack of possibility of maneuver, but because of harm done to shore batteries. Which was none. Despite heavy fire. All German fire was basically blind, and Blücher had enough before even they localized exact positions of CD guns.
Ships are always exposed and clearly visible in sea level. But how the hell ships can fire (from 17 000 yards as someone proposed - LOOOL) to the flashlights or smoke? And on land you could put a much better rangefinder and fire control system. Example: In September '39 on Hela Pennisula (Poland) main rangefinding system consisted of two theodolite towers placed 1km from each other. Thats 1000m rangefinder - and on ships you have what? 10m?
The only problem with such result is that WitP is lacking proper routines of disengagement. Ships should retreat under heavy and well placed fire, because they have no chance to win such duel. Again as example I'll give you 3 duels of Hela battery with Schleswig-Holstein and Schlesien. Every time Germans retreated, because they were started to being hit even before they localize Polish battery. Thats despite heavier and more numerous guns on German side.
RE: CD fire issues
Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:29 pm
by seydlitz_slith
I would like to point out that at Sovetska Gavan my two superdreadnoughts and two heavy cruisers were facing the firepower and fire control equivalent of a pre-WWI armored cruiser. This was most certainly not the guns of Singapore, Corregidor, or Vladivostok.
There is a problem with the routine and the combat results are ridiculous. I am not one to normally complain but I really have to raise my hand and protest in this case.
RE: CD fire issues
Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:04 pm
by John Lansford
If we're talking about the dug in, casemated and sophisticated coastal defense systems that major ports (Singapore, Osaka, the WC ports, Pearl Harbor, Corregidor, etc) had, I agree that ships should take a beating going up against those. However, the guns such as what were on Wake Island or Saipan were not heavily dug in and were vulnerable to heavy, sustained bombardment from large warships. Time and time again, during landings in the Pacific, bombarding ships were taken under fire by coastal batteries and returned fire, usually either suppressing or destroying those guns. Wake Island was a very unusual situation, since the Marines held their fire until the destroyers were very close, insuring they could not withdraw quickly out of range. Note that the second bombardment force stayed out of range and disabled the defense guns in short order. The CD guns most often faced in the Pacific were anti-landing guns, not the fearsome weapons designed to keep enemy warships from shelling a port.
RE: CD fire issues
Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:14 pm
by CarnageINC
I'm just adding a spam comment to throw my 2 cents in about CD's and to add another body to the pile so maybe it can be tweaked. I don't have a problem so much with CD firepower as I do these dumb ship captains who allow 100+ hits to occur to there ships. Invaders should pay a heavy price for invading a heavily defended hex, this fix should go in hand with a fix for fortifications to make it balanced. However there is to much of a beating to make it seem lop-sided, much like the uber CAP in vanilla. Tone it down so you at least have floating wreaks, not a new sea reefs.