OT Things to ponder

[L0ckAndL0ad]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Point taken, but if I am reading this correctly they were still part of the same formation ("a 'chaff' wall" isn't going to work if the chaff deploying ships are too far away, far enough away to be pickets), so the lesser value ships were not sent out on their own.

I don't think Woodward meant actual "chaff" in case of auxiliaries. He meant using these ships as decoys his carriers may hide behind. This is what actually happened soon after, when they lost SS Atlantic Conveyor.

Battle Group came under attack from enemy planes that came in low and launched a couple of ASMs. HMS Ambuscade deployed chaff. Enemy ASMs targeted the decoys and went through the chaff cloud. Going further, the missiles locked on to the next thing they saw - SS Atlantic Conveyor. If it wasn't there, it was likely that the carrier HMS Hermes would've been targeted instead.

Her [Atlantic Conveyor's] war had lasted exactly thirty days and, even without her final mission accomplished, we still owed her a considerable debt. Not least, I suppose, because she was in a dead line between Hermes and Ambuscade. If the Conveyor had possessed a chaff system and decoyed the missiles, they might have come straight on for the carrier. We may, or may not, have been able to divert them yet again.

So while it is true that these ships weren't simply sent forward without any support (in fact, Conveyor, being the biggest of all, was kept further back than others in previous days), they were used to shield the most valuable ships of the group, carriers, in time when armed escorts were in short numbers.

[geofflambert]

I do what it takes to win, as long as it could've happened. For me, if they coulda done it, I woulda done it. Historically the Japanese baited the US navy away from it's BBs by using CVs. It worked too! Sorta.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: L0ckAndL0ad

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Point taken, but if I am reading this correctly they were still part of the same formation ("a 'chaff' wall" isn't going to work if the chaff deploying ships are too far away, far enough away to be pickets), so the lesser value ships were not sent out on their own.

I don't think Woodward meant actual "chaff" in case of auxiliaries. He meant using these ships as decoys his carriers may hide behind. This is what actually happened soon after, when they lost SS Atlantic Conveyor.

Battle Group came under attack from enemy planes that came in low and launched a couple of ASMs. HMS Ambuscade deployed chaff. Enemy ASMs targeted the decoys and went through the chaff cloud. Going further, the missiles locked on to the next thing they saw - SS Atlantic Conveyor. If it wasn't there, it was likely that the carrier HMS Hermes would've been targeted instead.

Her [Atlantic Conveyor's] war had lasted exactly thirty days and, even without her final mission accomplished, we still owed her a considerable debt. Not least, I suppose, because she was in a dead line between Hermes and Ambuscade. If the Conveyor had possessed a chaff system and decoyed the missiles, they might have come straight on for the carrier. We may, or may not, have been able to divert them yet again.

So while it is true that these ships weren't simply sent forward without any support (in fact, Conveyor, being the biggest of all, was kept further back than others in previous days), they were used to shield the most valuable ships of the group, carriers, in time when armed escorts were in short numbers.

I understand. Be interesting to learn if those ships had literal chaff dispensers installed for the mission to South Atlantic.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I know, it's just me, but sometimes I get into some really deep thinking, and I was wondering, when astronomers decided Pluto wasn't a planet anymore, why didn't they rename it Dopey, Doc, Bashful, Happy, Grumpy, Sleepy, or Sneezy?

Or maybe Tyrion?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: L0ckAndL0ad

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Point taken, but if I am reading this correctly they were still part of the same formation ("a 'chaff' wall" isn't going to work if the chaff deploying ships are too far away, far enough away to be pickets), so the lesser value ships were not sent out on their own.

I don't think Woodward meant actual "chaff" in case of auxiliaries. He meant using these ships as decoys his carriers may hide behind. This is what actually happened soon after, when they lost SS Atlantic Conveyor.

Battle Group came under attack from enemy planes that came in low and launched a couple of ASMs. HMS Ambuscade deployed chaff. Enemy ASMs targeted the decoys and went through the chaff cloud. Going further, the missiles locked on to the next thing they saw - SS Atlantic Conveyor. If it wasn't there, it was likely that the carrier HMS Hermes would've been targeted instead.

Her [Atlantic Conveyor's] war had lasted exactly thirty days and, even without her final mission accomplished, we still owed her a considerable debt. Not least, I suppose, because she was in a dead line between Hermes and Ambuscade. If the Conveyor had possessed a chaff system and decoyed the missiles, they might have come straight on for the carrier. We may, or may not, have been able to divert them yet again.

So while it is true that these ships weren't simply sent forward without any support (in fact, Conveyor, being the biggest of all, was kept further back than others in previous days), they were used to shield the most valuable ships of the group, carriers, in time when armed escorts were in short numbers.

In game terms (I assume why you brought this up), my interpretation of this RL event is that the combatant ships and the auxiliaries / transports would have been in a single mixed ship type amphibious (or transport) TF and the incoming air strike would have tried to attack members of that TF. In so doing, some auxiliary / transports were preferentially targetted by the air strikes. That happens all the time in the game, doesn't it?

I think it's different than sorting out xAKs or xAKLs and sending them in separate TFs away from the air combat TF (say 1-2 hexes= 40-80nm) in order to soak off an incoming air strike sortie.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: L0ckAndL0ad

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Point taken, but if I am reading this correctly they were still part of the same formation ("a 'chaff' wall" isn't going to work if the chaff deploying ships are too far away, far enough away to be pickets), so the lesser value ships were not sent out on their own.

I don't think Woodward meant actual "chaff" in case of auxiliaries. He meant using these ships as decoys his carriers may hide behind. This is what actually happened soon after, when they lost SS Atlantic Conveyor.

Battle Group came under attack from enemy planes that came in low and launched a couple of ASMs. HMS Ambuscade deployed chaff. Enemy ASMs targeted the decoys and went through the chaff cloud. Going further, the missiles locked on to the next thing they saw - SS Atlantic Conveyor. If it wasn't there, it was likely that the carrier HMS Hermes would've been targeted instead.

Her [Atlantic Conveyor's] war had lasted exactly thirty days and, even without her final mission accomplished, we still owed her a considerable debt. Not least, I suppose, because she was in a dead line between Hermes and Ambuscade. If the Conveyor had possessed a chaff system and decoyed the missiles, they might have come straight on for the carrier. We may, or may not, have been able to divert them yet again.

So while it is true that these ships weren't simply sent forward without any support (in fact, Conveyor, being the biggest of all, was kept further back than others in previous days), they were used to shield the most valuable ships of the group, carriers, in time when armed escorts were in short numbers.

I understand. Be interesting to learn if those ships had literal chaff dispensers installed for the mission to South Atlantic.

The RN was scraping together every warship they could muster and I doubt they had chaff dispensers in stock to stick on the merchant vessels. The missiles would be set to search for the largest vessel in a group so launching chaff from it probably would not change things if the missile was coming right at them already. Not sure if the chaff cloud can look like an even larger vessel.

[geofflambert]

There's more involved than just soaking up air strikes. As a matter of fact using freighters as scouts soaks up search planes and keeps them from spotting the real target. If they waste some enemy ordinance and shoot anything down with their pitiful flak, gravy.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Well, regardless of exact details (like range and positioning), what is interesting to me personally is the commander's intent. The first quote I posted above is Woodward's words. He intentionally put completely unarmed auxiliaries in a picket line formation to protect his two carriers, which were both armed with point defense SAMs.

That's something to think about.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: L0ckAndL0ad

Well, regardless of exact details (like range and positioning), what is interesting to me personally is the commander's intent. The first quote I posted above is Woodward's words. He intentionally put completely unarmed auxiliaries in a picket line formation to protect his two carriers, which were both armed with point defense SAMs.

That's something to think about.

Yes, the fat guy should always be picked to go on point for the patrol ...[:'(]

[geofflambert]

A torpedo that strikes one of my xAKs and detonates is worth θ. A torpedo that strikes one of my CVs and detonates is worth θ x 1,000 (roughly).

Hey, this thread isn't supposed to be about serious game stuff.

[jdsrae]

ORIGINAL: L0ckAndL0ad

Wasn't sure where to post this, so I'll leave it here.

Some time ago I've seen AARs where people used less valuable ships, like unarmed transports, as pickets, to lessen/divert the offensive enemy effort. A tactic which most of us may reasonably call gamey, abusive and non realistic.

I don’t consider picket ships gamey, abusive or non-realistic.
It’s on Wikipedia so it must be true!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No.1-cl ... atrol_boat

[geofflambert]

There's another misconception at work here. Take the US during WWII. When the war started the Merchant Marine were automatically drafted into military service (and they knew that up front) and we lost a heck of a lot of those sailors in the Atlantic, fighting the war for us on freighters. They were soldiers just like any other. The Pacific is no different and which side you're on is no different. Did we ever sacrifice soldiers in a calculated way? You bet we did.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

There's another misconception at work here. Take the US during WWII. When the war started the Merchant Marine were automatically drafted into military service (and they knew that up front) and we lost a heck of a lot of those sailors in the Atlantic, fighting the war for us on freighters. They were soldiers just like any other. The Pacific is no different and which side you're on is no different. Did we ever sacrifice soldiers in a calculated way? You bet we did.

Not quite an equivalence with picket duty. Merchant ships were made to haul stuff and that is what they did under war conditions. Telling them to sit out in the ocean and radio in if they spot any enemy activity is not what they signed up for. IIRC, the 'weather ships' that were sent out to various regions were made naval ships and given naval crews. In essence they became Patrol Boats. Even on the merchant ships, naval crewmen operated the defensive guns aboard and probably the Convoy Admiral's radios.

Japanese philosophy would have allowed for merchant sailors to do picket duty, but I am not sure if Western nations ever got desperate enough to sacrifice them in that way.

I do agree that the merchant sailors were heroes who should all have gotten a medal and a pension for their service in any war zone. I could never picture myself as being a stoker on a fat tanker, waiting for a torpedo to hit while I am below sea level and surrounded by flammable liquids.

[geofflambert]

My best friend in high school went into the Merchant Marine, working river boats pushing barges up and down the Mississippi. He knew full well and couldn't have gotten in without knowing that at any moment he could be placed under military orders and military discipline. He had to pass an exam proving that he understood that explicitly. He didn't sign up for anything in particular he could be ordered to do.

[geofflambert]

I remember back in those days (maybe it's still true) you could sign up to serve in the Navy and you'd get there and a Marine Sgt might walk along the line you were in like Madeleine Kahn in History of the World Part I and pick guys out and say "you're in the Marines now, boy!"

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I remember back in those days (maybe it's still true) you could sign up to serve in the Navy and you'd get there and a Marine Sgt might walk along the line you were in like Madeleine Kahn in History of the World Part I and pick guys out and say "you're in the Marines now, boy!"

When was that the case Geoff? [&:] I've been associated with the Navy since 1977 and I've never seen that. Now they could if you were a Corpsman. I had a friend during Vietnam who joined up and bragged "That there was no way he was going to Vietnam". Then he told me the rate he'd put into. Hospital corpsman. Guess where he went? [:D]

I knew another guy who joined and went into small boats. He had never heard of Riverine forces. He learned. [:D]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I do what it takes to win, as long as it could've happened. For me, if they coulda done it, I woulda done it. Historically the Japanese baited the US navy away from it's BBs by using CVs. It worked too! Sorta.

Errr... is that what you were trying to do? Funny I thought you were going after a convoy. Which was screened by a large number of CVE's. Who gave a really good account of themselves. [:D]

[geofflambert]

Just before or just after the draft ended. It ended just before I turned 18. I had heard that if you tried joining the Navy to avoid going into the Army exactly that could happen.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

There's another misconception at work here. Take the US during WWII. When the war started the Merchant Marine were automatically drafted into military service (and they knew that up front) and we lost a heck of a lot of those sailors in the Atlantic, fighting the war for us on freighters. They were soldiers just like any other. The Pacific is no different and which side you're on is no different. Did we ever sacrifice soldiers in a calculated way? You bet we did.

Actually that's not quite true. THE SHIPS were drafted into military service , the crews were not. But if they stayed with the ships , they were very well paid and eligible for bonuses. If they left , their draft status was immediately revoked. Which meant a nastier job , for pocket change and an instead of a chance of being torpedoed , they could go out and LOOK for things that shot torpedoes. [:D]

[geofflambert]

Steve just sent me a turn, so I changed the dates on my script from 8/44 to 9/44 because it's now September 1.