Matrix Games Forums

JP has none

JP has 6. Woo Hoo!

Hi, After our 50 Irish monks finish entering every single ship and midget suub into the OOB the IJN will have over 200.

I wonder if its the very fast speed of the PTs taht causes increased damage ?

For example I had a group of my PTs ambush a group of Japanese ships in shallow water unloading at a beach. There were two TFs there a group of APs and a TF of PC and PGs running ASW.

The PTS got a "Crossing the T" result on the APs. They sank two and damaged two more.

THEN the AWD TF came in after them (I preseumed that the PTs had used their speed to get past them earlier)

Again the PTS got a "Crossing the T" result. This time they torpedoed two PCs and sank one of them.

All of this with minimal damage done to the PTs.

The VERY next turn this SAME group of PTs got AMBUSHED by a Japanese TF consiting of Two BBs and their escourts.The BBs and escourts shelled them at long range and sank 4 of the 5 PTs without taking any return fire.

Just got feeling that SPEED is the key factor here. The PTS ambushed the Japan landing force and did alot of damage. Conversly THEY got ambushed and couldnt do a damn thing.

Hi, I had 5 PT attack one of my transport TF's My TF had 2 DD as escort. The PT were shot up by 12.7mm guns. If I catch PT with a TF of DD only I find that 1 hit from a 4.7in sinks the PT but the AA MG murder the PT as well.

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Do you know what one of the largest fears a present day USN Battlegroup commander has in the Gulf? High speed motor boats. You don't see them and when you do it is too late to call for air. Large guns are useless. Today in the Gulf every US warship has machineguns and 20mm manned 24/7 for protection against those cigarette boats and the TF is over 100 miles from the coast. (I know I stood my share of watches behind a .50cal with the CO hopping up and down in CIC because he thought small boats were in the area)

In fact this just happened near Iraq.

A small ship rammed a USN Carrier. The Captain of the Ship is in hot water for allowing it to happen. This was despite the fact the small ship had been spotted on radar several hours before.

Carrier’s run-in with dhow raises red flags
By MATTHEW DOLAN, The Virginian-Pilot
© July 31, 2004

How could a small boat designed for fishing in the Persian Gulf get so close to a multibillion-dollar American carrier equipped with state-of-the-art radar and armed with its own air force?

That’s the question Navy investigators are still asking after the carrier John F. Kennedy struck and sank the mysterious boat in the Persian Gulf on July 22.

No survivors or remains from the small boat, known as a dhow, have been recovered. The crew of the Mayport, Fla.-based carrier and its Virginia Beach-based air wing did not sustain any injuries from the collision, Navy officials said. No structural damage to the carrier was reported.

But the little-noticed accident, now under review by an admiral sent from the Pentagon, could raise serious questions about the Navy’s ability to protect its own ships. Small suicide boats have already attacked larger Navy ships or their crews in the region on at least two occasions in recent years.

In 2000, a bomb-laden skiff blew a 40-by-20-foot hole in the Norfolk-based Cole while the destroyer was refueling in Yemen. The explosion killed 17 sailors and injured 42 others.

In April, three crew members from the Virginia Beach-based Firebolt died after a dhow exploded near the coastal patrol boat’s boarding team in the Persian Gulf.

Other reports indicate that terrorists have attempted to strike Navy ships close to shore or while transiting maritime chokepoints such as the Straits of Gibraltar.

But a spokesman for the Navy’s 5th Fleet in Bahrain said that it was too early to speculate on the cause of the accident, much less the intentions of the dhow.

“It’s a bit premature,” Cmdr. James Graybeal said by telephone Friday. “We need to let the investigation run its course.”

Other Navy officials said that they did not worry in general whether ships such as aircraft carriers were able to protect themselves adequately.

“There is an ongoing investigation, but I don’t have any overall concerns about ship self-defense,” said Rear Adm. John D. Stufflebeem , assistant deputy chief of naval operations who previously led the Harry S. Truman carrier strike group.

But Paul K. Van Riper proved recently that the “4½ acres of American floating sovereignty,” as deployed aircraft carriers are sometimes called, are not completely impenetrable.

Van Riper, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant general, commanded an enemy force “Red Team” during the $250 million war game known as Millennium Challenge in 2002. He was able to sink an American carrier using a salvo of surface-to-surface missiles, but his overall naval strategy also employed swarming small boats.

“The Navy took that part seriously,” he said in an interview this week.

Traditionally, carriers post sailors standing watch 24 hours a day, seven days a week, Graybeal said. Flattops are also protected by an air wing packed with surveillance aircraft and usually ringed by an armada of destroyers, cruisers and other ships.

The Kennedy had only been in the gulf for 12 days when it struck the dhow at about 10:20 p.m. during night flight operations.

Evidently, someone on the Kennedy’s crew spotted the dhow. Graybeal would only say that “it’s my understanding that the ship was maneuvering to avoid contact with the dhow.”

After the sinking, the mine countermeasures ship Dextrous joined the British multi-role hydrographic and oceanographic survey vessel Echo in an effort to locate any survivors.

Navy officials said they know little about the sunken dhow. They do not know the boat’s nationality or its purpose, Graybeal said.

Although the Navy has asked for any information about the boat in neighboring countries through its embassies, no one has come forward to say where the boat came from or whether it was manned at the time.

A debris field has been located, but Graybeal said he did not have details about what it contained.

In the gulf, dhows are often made with wood and sometimes outfitted with sails.

They are used for fishing, trade and transportation. But it is not uncommon for dhows to be used as smuggler’s boats, which could be why no one has come forward so far.

Rear Adm. Evan M. Chanik, who works as director of the programming division for the chief of naval operations, flew from the United States to the region to lead the investigation and report back to 5th Fleet.

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Do you know what one of the largest fears a present day USN Battlegroup commander has in the Gulf? High speed motor boats. You don't see them and when you do it is too late to call for air. Large guns are useless. Today in the Gulf every US warship has machineguns and 20mm manned 24/7 for protection against those cigarette boats and the TF is over 100 miles from the coast. (I know I stood my share of watches behind a .50cal with the CO hopping up and down in CIC because he thought small boats were in the area)

In my 20 years as a Marine and with most of that time assigned to the 2nd Marines, I spent plenty of time aboard ships in the gulf. That will be the commander's concern (not fears) now, because there isn't much of anything else for the enemy to use. The war on terror has changed the battlefield.

That said, we aren't losing warships to suicide motor boats either. Even the Cole was hit in port. Look, PT boats were 80' long, operated in groups, and left wakes. A TF of these sliding up to Kido Butai 120-180 miles offshore and launching torpedoes into the carriers is a million to one shot or more. Throw in some weather and in becomes near impossible. We've seen this happen too many times in this game for it to be a million to one shot. Please try and picture this scenario in your mind in anything but a John Wayne movie.

Why can't the testers admit this now that the game is released? We seem to have many examples of the problem. It's a similar issue with Allied ASW strenght. Upon release we heard it was the tester's concensus that US ASW was too strong. Several players concur. Now we hear its fine form everyone. Why the change?

And a little P.S. to the testers:

Don't be so defensive all the time. I understand you feel like WitP is a part of you in some way and it is. We followed this game all the way and what you see on these forums are fellow lovers of the game. It's a part of us all now. So we may criticize, we may question, we may be out of line, but take it easy on us. We are all in this together.

ORIGINAL: William Amos

I wonder if its the very fast speed of the PTs taht causes increased damage ?
For example I had a group of my PTs ambush a group of Japanese ships in shallow water unloading at a beach. There were two TFs there a group of APs and a TF of PC and PGs running ASW.
The PTS got a "Crossing the T" result on the APs. They sank two and damaged two more.
THEN the AWD TF came in after them (I preseumed that the PTs had used their speed to get past them earlier)
Again the PTS got a "Crossing the T" result. This time they torpedoed two PCs and sank one of them.
All of this with minimal damage done to the PTs.
The VERY next turn this SAME group of PTs got AMBUSHED by a Japanese TF consiting of Two BBs and their escourts.The BBs and escourts shelled them at long range and sank 4 of the 5 PTs without taking any return fire.
Just got feeling that SPEED is the key factor here. The PTS ambushed the Japan landing force and did alot of damage. Conversly THEY got ambushed and couldnt do a damn thing.

Overall, this is the most reasonable and realistic post of PT activitiy I've seen. Suprise
a group of transports and light escorts while they are unloading, get in some licks, and
make a run for it. Run the wrong way, hit a real combat force, and get smacked around.

Truthfully, PT boats were great press and made great movie fodder---but they didn't DO
DIDDLY against major surface ships (especially combatant surface ships). This was
tacitly admitted in 1943 when most gave up a pair ot torpedoes for heavier deck arma-
ment in their role as gunboats to chase barges. I ask each of the supporters of the
"Uber-PT Boats" to furnish some examples of actual success against large surface ships.
They did manage to torpedo one damaged FRIENDLY transport in the Solomans,,,,. but
if they are as capable as many of you suggest, you should be able to point out at least
a half dozen historical instances of such actions in the Pacific. Certainly their best op-
portunity should have been at Suriago Strait..., and they didn't do squat. It was the DD's
who attacked later that got hits and sank one of the Jap BB's. So please fill us all in on
the "actual historical successes" of the mighty PT fleets.

Who was it that said:

"Don't ask what you can do about PT Boats, but ask what PT boats can do to your opponent."

I have seen ONE person say his carriers got hit by PT boats, and another say his BB got hit. I dont see a "lot" of evidence that the design is faulty. In fact I will bet you that the Carrier Task force was sitting there with no surface fleet to back it up.

Again if you CHOSE to place your carriers where a PT squadron can get at it, and dont provide surface fleet support, it is bad tactics, not bad game design.

The words were 120 miles from shore, thats 2 hexes, a PT boat can travel either 6 or 8 before running out of fuel, so if you want to put your carriers 2 hexes from a port, then dont be suprised if the Allied player sends his PT boats.

It is March 42 in my game and I sure havent seen a ton of PT boats to just build where every I want, I have been able to build exactly 8 so far, 5 from the beginning and finally at the end of February early March 3 more.

I havent seen any great feats by my PT boats either, the ones in Java intercepted a convoy of mostly AP with 2 escorts and lost a pt boat with no hits in a day light attack. So where are the super boats your complaining about again?

My PI ones are out of torpedos and havent sunk anything either. One was sunk by an aircraft as it patrolled the harbor. Again where is this mountain of evidence that PT boats are so super?

ay Air attack on TF at 35,62

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 23

No Japanese losses

Allied Ships
PT PT-34, Shell hits 40, Bomb hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
PT PT-35, Shell hits 12, on fire

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x A6M2 Zero attacking at 100 feet
4 x A6M2 Zero attacking at 100 feet
4 x A6M2 Zero attacking at 100 feet
4 x A6M2 Zero attacking at 100 feet
4 x A6M2 Zero attacking at 100 feet
4 x A6M2 Zero attacking at 100 feet

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

I have seen ONE person say his carriers got hit by PT boats, and another say his BB got hit. I dont see a "lot" of evidence that the design is faulty. In fact I will bet you that the Carrier Task force was sitting there with no surface fleet to back it up.

Again if you CHOSE to place your carriers where a PT squadron can get at it, and dont provide surface fleet support, it is bad tactics, not bad game design.

The words were 120 miles from shore, thats 2 hexes, a PT boat can travel either 6 or 8 before running out of fuel, so if you want to put your carriers 2 hexes from a port, then dont be suprised if the Allied player sends his PT boats.

It is March 42 in my game and I sure havent seen a ton of PT boats to just build where every I want, I have been able to build exactly 8 so far, 5 from the beginning and finally at the end of February early March 3 more.

I havent seen any great feats by my PT boats either, the ones in Java intercepted a convoy of mostly AP with 2 escorts and lost a pt boat with no hits in a day light attack. So where are the super boats your complaining about again?

My PI ones are out of torpedos and havent sunk anything either. One was sunk by an aircraft as it patrolled the harbor. Again where is this mountain of evidence that PT boats are so super?

CAP would have come down and strafed the crap out of the puppies during the day. CVs would have launched a few bombers as well.

That is because once again the discussion has veered off course.

My argument is they (pt boats) are immune to normal air strike routines. They are ignored unless the altitude is pre-set to 100'. Ran a test run on a hunch and sure enough it worked the way I feared.

2 CV's with each fighter group divided and 1 group in each set to 100' naval strike. They completely ignored the PT boat sqdrn 3 hexes away and took out after a LR-CAP'ed surface combat TF with 2 CL's and 3 DD's. Out of 18 attacking fighters, only 5 returned.

The CAP was a group of Demons vs Zeros.

PT boats should be treated just like any other TF for naval strike. Dive Bombers and Torp planes can use their MG's to engage them and any escorts should drop down and engage them also.

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

That is because once again the discussion has veered off course.

My argument is they (pt boats) are immune to normal air strike routines. They are ignored unless the altitude is pre-set to 100'. Ran a test run on a hunch and sure enough it worked the way I feared.

2 CV's with each fighter group divided and 1 group in each set to 100' naval strike. They completely ignored the PT boat sqdrn 3 hexes away and took out after a LR-CAP'ed surface combat TF with 2 CL's and 3 DD's. Out of 18 attacking fighters, only 5 returned.

The CAP was a group of Demons vs Zeros.

PT boats should be treated just like any other TF for naval strike. Dive Bombers and Torp planes can use their MG's to engage them and any escorts should drop down and engage them also.

Sounds horrible. Did you restrict the range of the low altitude fighers?

Hi, I'm not sure you really want the escorts to drop down and attack. The group would be wide open. I realize in WITP there are no random intercepts but still I doubt the escort leader would stop flying protection to engage in a shoot up and expend his ammo.

Aircraft have to be at 100 feet to use their guns. The game is still young and I think it will take more then a few examples of PT being bad to change it. Not because anyone is ignoring these posts or just being contrary but because the game is a system of mathamatics interacting and while some things may never actually have occured there was always a possibilty under certain circumstance. I have 4 PBEM going as Japan and through accident error and design I have had several encounters with enemy PT boats in the Philippines and none of them have produced a result I consider unplausable or even unacceptable. Over all my forces have dealt with the PT without too much effort.
If we get 1000 people playing (and many play more then 1 game at a time) we are going to see a large variation in outcomes between PT and surface ships. Any change how ever small will require another period while results are compiled. Lets just open a thread where every encounter involving PT boats gets posted. We should be able to collect the results of quite a few PT boat encounters. I would hesitate to except results from set up encounters but would prefer to see all that occur in the course of normal play. Include air attacks on PT. Since there are persons with opposing opinions lets let the numbers help us see the truth.

MTB(PT) thread started.

This should prove interesting. If everyone submits true and accurate data, we will have a lot of points to look over.
Many people forget things like DL's and MDL's and their effect on things. Personally, I currently am in the "don't go looking for the little beggars" camp right now. Nagumo (a competent, if very cautious admiral) didn't sail thru the Java Sea in late Feb.-early March on his way to the Indian Ocean. He dashed by Darwin, hit it, doubled back to Amboina and then out past Timor to the open sea. He then hit Java some on the way past to the Bay of Bengal.

1. Carriers don't (shouldn't) sit in one place. Move them constantly.
2. If you are going into PT territory, have an airbase near by with Fighters/Fighter-Bombers for PT interdiction.
3. No airbase, have a CV(L) along and use it for anti PT duty if you feel the need.
4. Don't sail as one big gob. Everyone likes too have everyone together, but you have to have some specialization.
Ex. CV TF is 2 CV's 2 CA's and 8 DDs
SC TF of 1-2 CLs and 4 DD's (to blunt any enemy surface attack first)
and if you have the assets, an ASW TF of 2-4 DD/DE to try to beat the bushes for SS.
(note, this is my opinion on the subject, not saying it WILL work, but it seems to be the sensible way to organize things)

One thing I would like to ask of all the supporters of "uber PT's" is that you please cite
some historical examples of PT's successfully attacking large ships during the Pacific
War. I'll give you one..., PT's did manage to torpedo and sink a FRIENDLY transport
in the southern Solomans. But if PT's are as effective a weapon as you maintain, you
should certainly be able to provide a half-dozen examples of success against ENEMY
ships. And NO, PT's didn't sink anything at Suriago Strait. It was a couple divisions
of Fletcher DD's that scored the hits and sank one of the Japanese BB's. PT's did squat.

PT's were great press, and wonderful for the movies (you didn't need many actors for
crewmen); but they were a failure in their supposedly designed role. This was tacitly
admitted in 1943 when half the torpedo tubes were removed from most to allow for
the installation of additional and heavier gun armament for their real role as fast
gunboats for interdicting Japanese Barge traffic. Forget IN HARMS WAY and THEY
WERE EXPENDABLE and other such nonsense and look at the reality.

ORIGINAL: tabpub

MTB(PT) thread started.

This should prove interesting. If everyone submits true and accurate data, we will have a lot of points to look over.
Many people forget things like DL's and MDL's and their effect on things. Personally, I currently am in the "don't go looking for the little beggars" camp right now. Nagumo (a competent, if very cautious admiral) didn't sail thru the Java Sea in late Feb.-early March on his way to the Indian Ocean. He dashed by Darwin, hit it, doubled back to Amboina and then out past Timor to the open sea. He then hit Java some on the way past to the Bay of Bengal.

1. Carriers don't (shouldn't) sit in one place. Move them constantly.
2. If you are going into PT territory, have an airbase near by with Fighters/Fighter-Bombers for PT interdiction.
3. No airbase, have a CV(L) along and use it for anti PT duty if you feel the need.
4. Don't sail as one big gob. Everyone likes too have everyone together, but you have to have some specialization.
Ex. CV TF is 2 CV's 2 CA's and 8 DDs
SC TF of 1-2 CLs and 4 DD's (to blunt any enemy surface attack first)
and if you have the assets, an ASW TF of 2-4 DD/DE to try to beat the bushes for SS.
(note, this is my opinion on the subject, not saying it WILL work, but it seems to be the sensible way to organize things)

Is this all in reaction to the "PT scourge"? [:D]

Yep, restricted them to range 3. Of course I deliberatly put the other TF at range 3 also. Just to see which one they would choose.
Of course they chose the one they would get massacred at.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: tabpub

MTB(PT) thread started.

This should prove interesting. If everyone submits true and accurate data, we will have a lot of points to look over.
Many people forget things like DL's and MDL's and their effect on things. Personally, I currently am in the "don't go looking for the little beggars" camp right now. Nagumo (a competent, if very cautious admiral) didn't sail thru the Java Sea in late Feb.-early March on his way to the Indian Ocean. He dashed by Darwin, hit it, doubled back to Amboina and then out past Timor to the open sea. He then hit Java some on the way past to the Bay of Bengal.

1. Carriers don't (shouldn't) sit in one place. Move them constantly.
2. If you are going into PT territory, have an airbase near by with Fighters/Fighter-Bombers for PT interdiction.
3. No airbase, have a CV(L) along and use it for anti PT duty if you feel the need.
4. Don't sail as one big gob. Everyone likes too have everyone together, but you have to have some specialization.
Ex. CV TF is 2 CV's 2 CA's and 8 DDs
SC TF of 1-2 CLs and 4 DD's (to blunt any enemy surface attack first)
and if you have the assets, an ASW TF of 2-4 DD/DE to try to beat the bushes for SS.
(note, this is my opinion on the subject, not saying it WILL work, but it seems to be the sensible way to organize things)

Is this all in reaction to the "PT scourge"? [:D]

Not at all; counters the SS scourge, the DD scourge, the CL scourge ad nauseum....

It also goes along with your ASW analogy. Take a CV group. Instead of 2 CV 4 CA 2 CL and 8 DD all in a big AC TF, you have the "core" group 2 CV 2 CA 1 CL and 2 DD; a "surface screen" of 2 CA 1 CL and 2 DD and a "ASW screen" of 4 DD. All in one hex, with the screens "following" the AC TF, which is set on 0 react. The independent ASW group gets to look for the subs in the hex, the surface action group inderdicts any enemy surface assets and the CVs cover all with cap in the hex.
It seems reasonable and I look forward to trying it...once I build up some assets in the game that I am in.

A better answer to all of this air->naval stuff would be (IMHO):

1) Have a Cautious Doctrine setting for airgroups set to Naval Attack. When on, this would mean the airgroup would ONLY attack "undefended" targets. Definition of "undefended" to mean no DDs or upwards have been spotted in the TF.
2) Given 1, have all planes dive to 100 feet to do the attack. Everything I've read (which isn't much lol) shows planes attacking ships at low level as a matter of course - it was the only way to get hits.

I do not include dive or torpedo bombers in this which are already modelled specially.