Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Alamander

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
As I understand it, the game does not allow land-based artillery to fire against bombarding ships unless it is a Coast Defence/Naval Fort unit or has DP guns. Standard artillery will not return suppressing fire, but will fire at landing troops.

That is my understanding as well. Standard artillery units will not fire on bombardment TFs. They do seem to fire on amphibious TFs, however, which is the entire point that I am making about BBs in amphibious groups and using some 10 cm and 15 cm guns to try to take advantage of this type of TF construction.

Using repeated AKE supplied bombardments as a chief tool to suppress tough spots I assure you standard artillery does fire on any eligible seaborn target day or night. Just not as often compared to CD units, more skill checks have to be made.

ORIGINAL: Alamander

It was no feint. It is the center of all activity in the game right now.

I still find it a bit hazardous, so early in the game, to launch such an operation there, but given the details of your game, I better understand his choice to focus on India/Burma. It still poses problems of supplying all that, needing ships to bring supply AND fuel to Capetown and then to India (but the advantage of concentrating the escorts), plus the lack of repair yards for upgrades (or repairs)... all the while, with corresponding advantages for the IJN, being close to fuel sources and to repair yards (and well-protected ones).

I have done so against the AI, but I probably wouldn’t do it against a human opponent.

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: Alamander

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
As I understand it, the game does not allow land-based artillery to fire against bombarding ships unless it is a Coast Defence/Naval Fort unit or has DP guns. Standard artillery will not return suppressing fire, but will fire at landing troops.

That is my understanding as well. Standard artillery units will not fire on bombardment TFs. They do seem to fire on amphibious TFs, however, which is the entire point that I am making about BBs in amphibious groups and using some 10 cm and 15 cm guns to try to take advantage of this type of TF construction.

Using repeated AKE supplied bombardments as a chief tool to suppress tough spots I assure you standard artillery does fire on any eligible seaborn target day or night. Just not as often compared to CD units, more skill checks have to be made.

I have never seen it happen myself, and I do a lot of naval bombardment. E.G., once I killed the Truk Naval Fort, there has been 0 return fire from the LCUs still there even though I let the bombardment TFs go all the way in (Escorts Bombard, standoff range 1). Mines were swept as soon as the Naval Fort was toast. Truk was still firing AA so it had supply.

ORIGINAL: Alamander

ORIGINAL: Ian R





Sounds like your clever ploy bagged a follow up TF with a base force on board.

You might want to lower the volume on the self congratulation here. I am starting to like Mike's work.

I am not congratulating myself. The point that I was making was to suggest that while BBs may have a role in some amphibious groups (as BBFanboy notes), they can do more harm than good.

The conversation was sidetracked a bit. Several folk suggested that my opponent was being careless, and my intent was to defend him by stating that he was not being careless and that he had planned it out pretty well from the looks of it on my end. Of course, you are free to read whatever you want into intent and make whatever sorts of judgements you deem fit.

I think 11-42 is too early, and Mike should have waited until he can blanket the area with F6Fs, or attacked somewhere within land based fighter cover. But the further information you provided (about other amph forces etc) suggests his ducks are much better lined up than first appeared from your description. No offence was intended - it's a saying, a bit like "it ain't over till the fat lady sings" or "don't count your chickens before they hatch". My kids say it when they think I'm getting ahead of myself.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
I have never seen it happen myself, and I do a lot of naval bombardment. E.G., once I killed the Truk Naval Fort, there has been 0 return fire from the LCUs still there even though I let the bombardment TFs go all the way in (Escorts Bombard, standoff range 1). Mines were swept as soon as the Naval Fort was toast. Truk was still firing AA so it had supply.

I ran a small test and stand corrected - I was not able to provoke regular field arty battalions as long as there were no naval guns as devices involved. It's not about the units though, it is about the guns. Many of the base forces and some allied ART units have the guns that are designated as Naval in the DB, those do return fire.

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
I have never seen it happen myself, and I do a lot of naval bombardment. E.G., once I killed the Truk Naval Fort, there has been 0 return fire from the LCUs still there even though I let the bombardment TFs go all the way in (Escorts Bombard, standoff range 1). Mines were swept as soon as the Naval Fort was toast. Truk was still firing AA so it had supply.

I ran a small test and stand corrected - I was not able to provoke regular field arty battalions as long as there were no naval guns as devices involved. It's not about the units though, it is about the guns. Many of the base forces and some allied ART units have the guns that are designated as Naval in the DB, those do return fire.

Late game, the USMC receives a couple of "sea-coast artillery" battalions. They are armed with 24 155mm Long Tom field guns (device 1161). Stats are range 25, acc'y 25, pen. 80, effect 95. a-a is 69, a-s 47. It is a type 19 - Army Weapon.

That weapon can be contrasted with the 155mm M1A1 GPF (device slot 1144) which is the ultimate upgrade for all US CD weapons up to 6" calibre. Its numbers are range 25, acc'y 53, pen 140, effect 110, a-a 80 & a-s 52. It is a type 18 - Naval Gun.

As far as I can tell, both these weapons are 155mm Long Toms. After a bit of googling, I suspect the CD version is modeled as using AP ammo (actually the M112 APBC/HE round), where the Army weapon only gets M101 HE rounds.

Could you put some of each in your sandbox and see who fires? A second test would be to clone the 155mm M1A1 GPF and change it to type 19 and see what happens.

The other thing to test is whether accuracy ratings play a part. No US field artillery has an accuracy rating greater than 16 - except the Long Tom, at 25. No 'naval gun' has an accuracy less than 16 (and most are substantially higher). This may be merely coincidental.

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
I have never seen it happen myself, and I do a lot of naval bombardment. E.G., once I killed the Truk Naval Fort, there has been 0 return fire from the LCUs still there even though I let the bombardment TFs go all the way in (Escorts Bombard, standoff range 1). Mines were swept as soon as the Naval Fort was toast. Truk was still firing AA so it had supply.

I ran a small test and stand corrected - I was not able to provoke regular field arty battalions as long as there were no naval guns as devices involved. It's not about the units though, it is about the guns. Many of the base forces and some allied ART units have the guns that are designated as Naval in the DB, those do return fire.

Late game, the USMC receives a couple of "sea-coast artillery" battalions. They are armed with 24 155mm Long Tom field guns (device 1161). Stats are range 25, acc'y 25, pen. 80, effect 95. a-a is 69, a-s 47. It is a type 19 - Army Weapon.

That weapon can be contrasted with the 155mm M1A1 GPF (device slot 1144) which is the ultimate upgrade for all US CD weapons up to 6" calibre. Its numbers are range 25, acc'y 53, pen 140, effect 110, a-a 80 & a-s 52. It is a type 18 - Naval Gun.

As far as I can tell, both these weapons are 155mm Long Toms. After a bit of googling, I suspect the CD version is modeled as using AP ammo (actually the M112 APBC/HE round), where the Army weapon only gets M101 HE rounds.

Could you put some of each in your sandbox and see who fires? A second test would be to clone the 155mm M1A1 GPF and change it to type 19 and see what happens.

The other thing to test is whether accuracy ratings play a part. No US field artillery has an accuracy rating greater than 16 - except the Long Tom, at 25. No 'naval gun' has an accuracy less than 16 (and most are substantially higher). This may be merely coincidental.

Naval artillery would have the benefit of a much larger range finder, set higher up to see farther, and later on, radar ranging slaved to the guns as well. Rather than build in a separate calculation for the radar and range finder aboard, it was likely abstracted into the accuracy figures.

The naval guns I am referring to are the US CD types - various calibres from 3" to 16" (and 155mm) - not the ship-board ones, although they also seem to have accuracy ratings above 16. A quick check of allied DP types also shows accuracy ratings of 17+.

Not exactly Revenge class but POW got a "scratch" after a 45cm/18in torpedo. That's +14 inch belt and air/water filled torpedo belt layer for you, they can really sometimes work and save you.

ORIGINAL: Shilka

Not exactly Revenge class but POW got a "scratch" after a 45cm/18in torpedo. That's +14 inch belt and air/water filled torpedo belt layer for you, they can really sometimes work and save you.

You got a lucky die roll. The torpedo will often penetrate the bulge and belt (perhaps hitting below the belt), and cause substantial damage. It can even cause a magazine explosion.
It take those minor dings to mean something that hits at the very end of the bow, making a hole in a very small compartment.

Or the stern. The bow hit could force a lot of water in, that is what actually happened to the Mushasi.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Or the stern. The bow hit could force a lot of water in, that is what actually happened to the Mushasi.

I discounted the stern because most ships are usually wider there - bigger compartments - and there is some pretty vital hardware back there that would easily become major engineering damage.

The Musashi was hit in the bow and 3,000 tons of water came in.

Has anyone sandboxed the "army gun" 155mm Long Tom against the the USMC Seacoast type, or the 155mm naval gun GPF,or are we all just speculating?

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Has anyone sandboxed the "army gun" 155mm Long Tom against the the USMC Seacoast type, or the 155mm naval gun GPF,or are we all just speculating?

You could just compare the stats of each in the Editor. That would show whether the guns themselves are comparable (the Long Tom might have better range).

The Marine Defence Battalions have radar, and possibly dual optical systems for rangefinding with telephone links to their internal fire controller. That might give them a better accuracy score than the Long Toms which would normally not have optical sight of their target, so they rely on Forward Observation Officers to call in the shot and adjust the aim.

Yeah, I guess that doesn't happen very often. Didn't knock on the wood, and Warspite took two torpedoes and went in the yard for another 4-5 months.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The Musashi was hit in the bow and 3,000 tons of water came in.

Didn't know that.

I read that compartmentalization on the Yamato's was actually pretty tight / advanced, and they even had some armor plating protecting under the magazines. I guess that would've helped if a magnetic torpedo exploded beneath (but it still probably would have a high chance of cracking something else bad i.e. the hull). Basically all-or-nothing armor schemes were based on the idea that as far as the citadel (covering usually a more-or-less box liked shape from front turret to back turret) isn't flooded, it has enough buoyancy to keep the ship afloat regardless of what other parts get flooded.

Actually, from what I read it was not. There as no center bulkhead so water could slosh back and forth.

ORIGINAL: Shilka

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The Musashi was hit in the bow and 3,000 tons of water came in.

Didn't know that.

I read that compartmentalization on the Yamato's was actually pretty tight / advanced, and they even had some armor plating protecting under the magazines. I guess that would've helped if a magnetic torpedo exploded beneath (but it still probably would have a high chance of cracking something else bad i.e. the hull). Basically all-or-nothing armor schemes were based on the idea that as far as the citadel (covering usually a more-or-less box liked shape from front turret to back turret) isn't flooded, it has enough buoyancy to keep the ship afloat regardless of what other parts get flooded.

I once found a site that had a blow by blow account of Yamato's sinking, with pictures at every stage (CL Yahagi included). The site said the USN was not happy with how much ordnance they expended sinking Musashi, so they developed a new strategy. Instead of attacking from all sides initially, they would concentrate on attacking only one side to cause significant list and try to capsize the ship. And so it was they concentrated on Yamato's starboard side and got it listing something like 20º, despite the frantic counterflooding the damage control officer ordered.

When the USN strike coordinator saw that the list lifted Yamato's port side armour out of the water, he ordered four torpedo planes to attack the port side. All four torpedoes struck and tore out the bottom of the ship, causing massive flooding and an almost immediate capsize, which set off the magazines.

Also of interest in the attack plan was that the fighters and dive bombers went in first to attrite the AA crews and largely succeeded in smashing most of the AA or its control.

Unfortunately, when my computer hard drive crashed I lost the bookmark for that site and haven't been able to find it again.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
I once found a site that had a blow by blow account of Yamato's sinking, with pictures at every stage (CL Yahagi included). The site said the USN was not happy with how much ordnance they expended sinking Musashi, so they developed a new strategy. Instead of attacking from all sides initially, they would concentrate on attacking only one side to cause significant list and try to capsize the ship. And so it was they concentrated on Yamato's starboard side and got it listing something like 20º, despite the frantic counterflooding the damage control officer ordered.

I'm fairly sure I've also seen that same narrative in several websites and (IIRC) in at least one book.

However, I've yet to find a USN CAG report from that action (7th Apr '45) that would support it. Most of the reports I've seen would in fact contradict the narrative that the USN strikes went in that day with the intention to concentrate their torpedo attacks primarily against one side of the Yamato.