Matrix Games Forums

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 09/12/42

Weather: Overcast

Night Time Surface Combat, near Wunpuko at 51,51

Japanese Ships
CS Chiyoda
BB Mutsu, Shell hits 6
DD Samidare, Shell hits 5, on fire
DD Usugumo, Shell hits 1
DD Shirakumo
DD Amagiri
DD Oboro, Shell hits 1

Allied Ships
PT 39
PT 46
PT 48, Shell hits 16, heavy damage
PT 45
PT 60
PT 61, Shell hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
PT 109, Shell hits 4, on fire
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 hits from a .50cal mg sets it on fire?

I wish I had software to capture the screen, but it looks like this:

DD Samidare:
Sys=46 Flt=23 Fires=15

She wasn't hit by torpedoes, mines, or bombs.

I too sufferred the same fate with my TFs. Sometime after Guadalcanal, PTs were fitted out with 37mm AT guns to fight against the armored barges then they settled for the 40mm which seemed to do the job but even then against a DD only a torp could do the damage you show. This should be changed.

I've seen the same thing, but since I don't watch the animations I assumed that the PTs got some torpedos off.

Maybe it's some sort of McHales Navy trick...

Dave Baranyi

I have the opportunity to test this situation again soon. I will report on the results soon.

I one of my games one of my subs seems to hit the Shokaku twice with torpedos and heavy damage was shown, but after the game ends i found her in harbour undamaged.

Can it be a false report? There was a torpedo hit but nobody saw it to report?

There are only three reasons that I can think of that such damage could be caused:

1. Small Calibre arms fire set off a Depth Charge or a Torpedo on the Ship
2. An unreported Torpedo struck the Ship
3. Friendly Fire
   [/list=1] Outside of those things, the only other explanation is the 'ole Giant Squid thing...
   
   I'm going to re-run the combat resolution to see if I pick up anything.

It was shot #1, a 20mm Oerlikon that hit the DD, belt armor pentration, severe damage, two more 20mm hits with belt armor penetration, then shot #4, another 20mm to the Bridge.

Didn't think a 20mm would penetrate belt armor on a DD. I guess I'll have to assume it hit an boiler and caused it to explode or something.

I do have the satisfaction of knowing that the DD made swiss cheese of her attacker (PT 48) and PT 109 as well.

C'est la guerre...

Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
...................
Didn't think a 20mm would penetrate belt armor on a DD. .............

Why do think they were called tin cans?

Seriously, you got off easy. In one of my battles my DD had approx. 20 sys damage goin in. One PT got 32 shell hits (no torps - I watched the battle) on that DD and sunk it. My DD got off one salvo which missed and then 32 consecutive hits (no misses) from the PT. This was one round of battle not several.

Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
It was shot #1, a 20mm Oerlikon that hit the DD, belt armor pentration, severe damage, two more 20mm hits with belt armor penetration, then shot #4, another 20mm to the Bridge.

Didn't think a 20mm would penetrate belt armor on a DD. I guess I'll have to assume it hit an boiler and caused it to explode or something.

I do have the satisfaction of knowing that the DD made swiss cheese of her attacker (PT 48) and PT 109 as well.

C'est la guerre...

Why do you think DD's are called "tin cans?"

Von Frag

oops, teach me to read the entire thread before replying. :rolleyes:

Most (if not all DDs) have an all armor ratings set at "0". That actually means that yes, a 50cal or even a 30cal is going to penetrate and do SOMETHING (a 30cal has a penetration value of 1, and a 50cal has a penetration value of 2 I think).

-F-

Originally posted by Von_Frag
Why do you think DD's are called "tin cans?"

Von Frag

Yes, I've heard that phrase before.

Just didn't expect that getting my DD's deck raked by AA fire would wreak such havoc.

I managed to blow up a 5" secundary gun from cruiser with 25mm AA gun once. One of my DD's doing FT-run got little trouble with US bombardement TF. DD lived to tell more seastories with 2 5" holes in it's hull.

I believe I lost a primary turret on a Cruiser from PTs once but Soulblazer will have to verify that.

Confirmed

I believe that happened back in December, the last time that my PT Boats clashed with his surface fleets. I got a lucky hit with a PT gun on one of the main 6 inch turret on a light cruiser. The gun was destroyed. Lucky hit that caused a explosion, I guess.

Actually some PTs carried 37mm M4 autocannon from disabled P-39s on their fordeck.

First, all steel built ships should be re-edited for armor. Fletchers had .5" STS plating on their bridges for one, and any destroyer hull would be at least 10mm thick HTS or D steel, equivalent (more or less) to 5mm of armor plate. A five rating would probably cut down some on this ahistorical damage results.

Second, no Japanese cruiser, heavy or light, had heavier turret/mount protection than 25mm homo armor. I doubt the .50 M2 A/C MG w/36" barrel on the PTs could penetrate that even at 100 yds, but 20mm just might and 37mm or 40mm could.

Third, remember the damage that automatic cannons (20mm, 1.1" and 40mm) did to Hiei's superstructure and unprotected tertiary and AA batteries and the fires they started above deck.

Fourth, several Japanese cruisers suffered catastrophic hull damage when their torpedoes went off, either from hits, sympathic detonation or fires. Given the numbers of reloads carried aboard the heavies, a lucky hit, even with a 20mm has the potential to severely damage, if not destroy the target cruiser.

Generally, the problem for the Japanese with PTs, was not the damage they did, but their potential and the impact on their resupply missions when forced to engage the PT boats. Japanese destroyers did not carry sufficient light automatic guns to target the difficult to see PTs, while the 5"50 3d Year Type was a slow firing weapons with medium rates of training and insufficient depression for the ranges at which the PTs sought to engage. Until 1943, the PTs used the standard destroyer torpedo, the Mk.15 or its earlier versions, and the PT had to approach its target in a straight line for a time to spin up the torpedo's gyros, not a tactic designed to increase PT survivability.

LTCMTS - Good point about the Fletchers. I looked up their stats in UV, they are rated for armor at 18 belt, 12 deck.

-F-

Originally posted by Drex
I too sufferred the same fate with my TFs. Sometime after Guadalcanal, PTs were fitted out with 37mm AT guns to fight against the armored barges then they settled for the 40mm which seemed to do the job but even then against a DD only a torp could do the damage you show. This should be changed.

FYI they used the 37mm Autocannon out of the P-39's.

So how does UV model the depth charge attacks on barges? Cruise (high speed) down the side of the barge roll a depth charge off the side set for shallow, and boom.....blows the barge out of the water. Works good on large ships in shallow water too.

Originally posted by LTCMTS
Generally, the problem for the Japanese with PTs, was not the damage they did, but their potential and the impact on their resupply missions when forced to engage the PT boats. Japanese destroyers did not carry sufficient light automatic guns to target the difficult to see PTs, while the 5"50 3d Year Type was a slow firing weapons with medium rates of training and insufficient depression for the ranges at which the PTs sought to engage. Until 1943, the PTs used the standard destroyer torpedo, the Mk.15 or its earlier versions, and the PT had to approach its target in a straight line for a time to spin up the torpedo's gyros, not a tactic designed to increase PT survivability.

PT boat tactic was to motor in on one engine quietly to firing position hoping to not be seen then after launch a very fast exit. Did not happen very often usually the PT was spotted before getting into firing position. The guns were mainly for suppresion of search lights and guns on the target during the exit phase.

Interesting that the Japanese destroyers did not carry very many light automatic guns since the original name for the destroyer was Torpedo Boat Destroyer which was it's original job.

Pbear: we may both be correct. Morrison in "Breaking the Bismarck's Barrier", pg 210 says" torpedoes were useless in barge fighting, so 37-mm anti-tank guns and 40-mm machine guns were procured and mounted". They eventually used craft that could carry 3" AT guns. Perhaps they used the other somewhere else. However I think I've seen in UV were barges were sunk by torps yet Morrison says this didn't work. Has anyone else seen this?

Originally posted by Drex
Pbear: we may both be correct. Morrison in "Breaking the Bismarck's Barrier", pg 210 says" torpedoes were useless in barge fighting, so 37-mm anti-tank guns and 40-mm machine guns were procured and mounted". They eventually used craft that could carry 3" AT guns. Perhaps they used the other somewhere else. However I think I've seen in UV were barges were sunk by torps yet Morrison says this didn't work. Has anyone else seen this?

Yep that sound right, IIRC in PT-109 they talked about using a 37mm AT gun strapped down to some planks tied to the fordeck.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... 109img.htm

This was one of the first attempt at using this size gun but due to loading and aiming problems it was replaced with the 37 auto cannon on a waist high mount. This allow the gun to be fired with the gunner standing and enabled him to track a traget with the gun. Had to be one nasty little toy.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/4017/page02-09.html