Ship Class Design

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

TOAW handles supply issues. This is no different than for any other piece of artillery. Ship-to-ship engagements don't last too long. Long term ground support would see the ships being resupplied at sea, but TOAW models their lower fire rates as ammo gets scarce (their combat strength drops with supply level).

Well, let's face it: the TOAW supply model really sucks when it comes to artillery-type weapons -- like ships. Their rate of fire should stay the same until they burn off their shells: then drop abruptly to zero. You don't want this to happen, stop firing.

It's not like infantry, where you can indeed begin conserving ammunition, bring up a few cases of ammo somehow, tell the machine-gunner to fire only if there's a concerted attack, etc. Artillery uses its shells and it should become useless. Might as well have big pieces of agricultural machinery standing around...

You're completely wrong, but we just had that discussion and I'm not having it again.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

You're completely wrong, but we just had that discussion and I'm not having it again.

In your previous arguments on this topic, you relied on the idea that artillery will fire more slowly when they have fewer rounds. This is true up to a point for land-based batteries which aren't particularly vulnerable. However, if one battleship is engaging another, battleship number 1 is not going to fire more slowly because they're short of 15" rounds. They're going to fire as fast as possible until they run out, because if the enemy knocks out your main batteries then the supply of ammunition for them will be irrelevant.

Moreover your idea that guns should be able to keep firing indefinitely relied on them receiving supply gradually over the turn and the shells being fed straight into the breaches. This doesn't work at sea- the supply really does get delivered all in one hit.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
In your previous arguments on this topic, you relied on the idea that artillery will fire more slowly when they have fewer rounds. This is true up to a point for land-based batteries which aren't particularly vulnerable. However, if one battleship is engaging another, battleship number 1 is not going to fire more slowly because they're short of 15" rounds. They're going to fire as fast as possible until they run out, because if the enemy knocks out your main batteries then the supply of ammunition for them will be irrelevant.

That BB vs. BB action is very unlikely to happen when either ship is low on ammo. The primary use of naval units (in TOAW) is to bombard land units. In that case, they will function just like any other artillery.

Moreover your idea that guns should be able to keep firing indefinitely relied on them receiving supply gradually over the turn and the shells being fed straight into the breaches. This doesn't work at sea- the supply really does get delivered all in one hit.

What? There was no such reliance. Rather, the reliance was on the retention of a significant buffer stockpile - augmented by resupply during the turn.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
In your previous arguments on this topic, you relied on the idea that artillery will fire more slowly when they have fewer rounds. This is true up to a point for land-based batteries which aren't particularly vulnerable. However, if one battleship is engaging another, battleship number 1 is not going to fire more slowly because they're short of 15" rounds. They're going to fire as fast as possible until they run out, because if the enemy knocks out your main batteries then the supply of ammunition for them will be irrelevant.

That BB vs. BB action is very unlikely to happen when either ship is low on ammo. The primary use of naval units (in TOAW) is to bombard land units. In that case, they will function just like any other artillery.

Moreover your idea that guns should be able to keep firing indefinitely relied on them receiving supply gradually over the turn and the shells being fed straight into the breaches. This doesn't work at sea- the supply really does get delivered all in one hit.

What? There was no such reliance. Rather, the reliance was on the retention of a significant buffer stockpile - augmented by resupply during the turn.

In the one case I'm aware of, you're quite wrong. The British off Crete fired off all their AA shells -- then had to just take their medicine.

After all, there's no sense in 'conserving your ammo' if the result will be your getting sunk with that buffer still in the magazines. You keep firing -- and hope like hell the attacks stop before you run out.

As to land combat, if I'm 'completely wrong,' let's consider this. In OPART, artillery retains about a third (or a half, or some significant part) of its firepower regardless of the state of its ammunition stocks. Perhaps you'd care to look up the final Soviet assaults on the Stalingrad pocket. Find out if German artillery was still contributing significantly to the defense...after all, in OPART-land, it would.

Really, you're wrong, of course. In OPART-land, Sixth army's tanks, trucks, artillery -- all would retain good chunk of their abilities indefinitely. Paulus was just being a wuss when he claimed he was incapable of attempting offensive action after a certain date. His tanks could still roll, his artillery could still fire, they don't need fuel or shells -- what was he talking about?

You appear to dogmatically defend whatever aspect of the status quo you're not interested in modifying at the moment. First, these defenses usually have nothing except your assertiveness to rest on, and secondly, it's not at all helpful to have to keep dealing with someone who wants to insist we don't need to put on the snow chains because he doesn't want it to be snowing, and so therefore it's not. The fact is that the OPART model for the effects of declining supply works okay for infantry -- it doesn't work at all for the more fuel- and munitions-dependent arms.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As to land combat, if I'm 'completely wrong,' let's consider this. In OPART, artillery retains about a third (or a half, or some significant part) of its firepower regardless of the state of its ammunition stocks. Perhaps you'd care to look up the final Soviet assaults on the Stalingrad pocket. Find out if German artillery was still contributing significantly to the defense...after all, in OPART-land, it would.

In Stalingrad, the Germans were cut off from supply. In TOAW terms they would be rated "Unsupplied". As such, they would lose guns to supply attrition, representing guns dropping out due to lack of ammo. The TOAW supply model is very, very tough on out of supply forces.

Yes, you are completely wrong. And please don't make that same stupid mistake again. I've had to correct you on it before on the other board, too.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Yes, you are completely wrong. And please don't make that same stupid mistake again. I've had to correct you on it before on the other board, too.

That's the 'Curtis' we all know and love so well. So tell me: should we just let you state whatever you think the case to be and refrain from comment?

What is it with the verbal abuse, anyway? I'm not talking about its merits otherwise -- I'm just trying to ascertain what brings it on. It's not a response to offensiveness on my part -- I've certainly been far ruder than I just was. Nor is it exasperation -- it's not like this conversation has gone on very long.

Maybe you resort to it when you just don't have anything better to say. Is that it? Sort of your own little alternative to admitting that you're wrong? 'I guess you're right' in LeMay-talk?

Let's take being completely out of supply. Sure, the guns will evaporate -- so will the infantry. The Russians should have Stalingrad by Christmas.

Or...let's keep the supply. I'm aware of several scenarios where the ability of artillery to keep firing regardless of its supply state causes serious difficulties. Similarly with tanks that keep rolling.

The supply model is a problem -- in this as in several other respects. Announcing that I'm 'completely wrong' and 'stupid' won't alter that fact.

[vahauser]

This is why having an equipment editor is so beneficial.  Curtis can rate his naval units however he wants to.  I'm not being sarcastic.  Having an equipment editor is a good thing.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

That BB vs. BB action is very unlikely to happen when either ship is low on ammo. The primary use of naval units (in TOAW) is to bombard land units.

Then what's your problem? This works fine in TOAW as it stands. If you're not interested in simulating battles between ships, what is the point of this thread?

Under the current system, a ship starts rationing ammo as soon as it gets below 100% supply- it becomes less effective in combat.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

This is why having an equipment editor is so beneficial.  Curtis can rate his naval units however he wants to.  I'm not being sarcastic.  Having an equipment editor is a good thing.

The argument between Colin and myself on the one hand and 'Curtis' on the other is about how the supply system should work with regarding to artillery units.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

That BB vs. BB action is very unlikely to happen when either ship is low on ammo. The primary use of naval units (in TOAW) is to bombard land units.

Then what's your problem? This works fine in TOAW as it stands. If you're not interested in simulating battles between ships, what is the point of this thread?

Under the current system, a ship starts rationing ammo as soon as it gets below 100% supply- it becomes less effective in combat.

?? Ship-to-ship combat in CFNA, Okinawa 1945, France 1944, Soviet Union 1941? Not likely. That was not the purpose of this thread. I just wanted to get the Ranges, Shell weights, AP, AAA, and defense strengths right for various ship classes - which can vary greatly within types. I suppose Erik might have been differently motiviated, though.

Ship-to-ship combat is going to be very hard to simulate in TOAW and will need a lot of special features to get it anywhere near right.

To get some idea of the problems, try setting up two ship units in combat adjacent to each other and see what happens. They will no longer be treated like artillery units firing and counterfiring at each other, but as ground assaults. Both sides tend to take massive losses regardless of odds.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
That's the 'Curtis' we all know and love so well. So tell me: should we just let you state whatever you think the case to be and refrain from comment?

What is it with the verbal abuse, anyway? I'm not talking about its merits otherwise -- I'm just trying to ascertain what brings it on. It's not a response to offensiveness on my part -- I've certainly been far ruder than I just was. Nor is it exasperation -- it's not like this conversation has gone on very long.

Alright, I posted in a hurry. Although I directed the slur at your statement and not you, I appologize. But note that your post I was responding to had a full paragraph of personal comments about me.

Let's take being completely out of supply. Sure, the guns will evaporate -- so will the infantry. The Russians should have Stalingrad by Christmas.

Or...let's keep the supply. I'm aware of several scenarios where the ability of artillery to keep firing regardless of its supply state causes serious difficulties. Similarly with tanks that keep rolling.

Or do the latter for a while, then the start the former at some point.

The supply model is a problem -- in this as in several other respects. Announcing that I'm 'completely wrong' and 'stupid' won't alter that fact.

I've not said otherwise. What I said you were wrong about was your specific statement about artillery blowing off all its ammo without any consideration of how much they have left. Don't extrapolate that to a defense of every aspect of the TOAW supply system.

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


That BB vs. BB action is very unlikely to happen when either ship is low on ammo. The primary use of naval units (in TOAW) is to bombard land units.

..oh yeah !?!..

..try South Pacific Struggle..find it, sink it, before it becomes a floating battery..

[Foggy]

Wow - TDG - transferring over to this website[>:] Please keep your arguments - although there are issues on both sides - this site is for newbies[:-]

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Foggy

Wow - TDG - transferring over to this website[>:] Please keep your arguments - although there are issues on both sides - this site is for newbies[:-]

Ah, come on Foggy, let them emerge from their caves. [:D][;)]

I'm really enjoying this sort of discussion. Keeps the board and the community alive. Go on lads! There have been less civilized times if one goes through the WFHQ/SZO/GS forum archives..

[Foggy]

I do agree in some small part - but trying to convince someone to try TOAW -
and the argument is about something they would never care about in a million years?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

That BB vs. BB action is very unlikely to happen when either ship is low on ammo. The primary use of naval units (in TOAW) is to bombard land units.

Then what's your problem? This works fine in TOAW as it stands. If you're not interested in simulating battles between ships, what is the point of this thread?

Under the current system, a ship starts rationing ammo as soon as it gets below 100% supply- it becomes less effective in combat.

?? Ship-to-ship combat in CFNA, Okinawa 1945, France 1944, Soviet Union 1941? Not likely.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, this argument is to some extent circular. TOAW's limitations pretty much rule out scenarios where ship-to-ship combat would be important -- so there are few scenarios where it's of any importance. Voila -- ship to ship combat is unimportant.

It's like if I'm restricted to a wheelchair. Well, sure enough -- pretty soon my lifestyle contains few activities where being able to walk would be helpful. This hardly demonstrates that I'm not crippled.

It'd be great if OPART had what was needed to permit scenarios covering Norway, Sealion, the Eastern Mediterranean, the Solomons and New Guinea properly. As it is, one either has to (a) just omit great chunks of the action that were in fact critical, or (b) accept a mass of house rules.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Foggy

Wow - TDG - transferring over to this website[>:] Please keep your arguments - although there are issues on both sides - this site is for newbies[:-]

The problem with the arguments about TDG is that they often have no relation whatever to TOAW or military history in general. That's not the case here.

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Disagree all you want. You'll still be wrong. They kept track of multiple shells in the air. They had to. Otherwise, only one gun on one ship could be fired per 2-3 minutes. Admittedly, things could get really complicated . . . .

Multiple rounds in the air? Where does this come from? I could understand if the target was fixed on land, or close enough to be targeted over open sights, but in this case the target is thousands of meters away, moving at speed and maneuvering.

I don’t profess to be a naval warfare expert, but no account that I have ever read describes big ship combat as firing multiple shot before the fall of the previous shot was plotted. Not Jutland, not Leyte, not the Falklands (1914), not Tsushima (actually Tsushima might qualify, but it is not a modern era battle) . . . at least not until the target was dead in the water.

What is your source(s) for this assertion? Hope you have more than an isolated occurrence to back up your statement. This is another case where you seem to be claiming a general/global case based on opinion with little in the way of real world back up.

ORIGINAL: Curtis LemayThink of a garden hose. Can you keep the garden hose on your dog as he runs around? Or do you have to fire off a drop at a time, then wait for each drop to hit before launching another?.

Hope you’re thick skinned, but this is undoubtedly the silliest analogy I have ever read. Squirting a hose at a dog being compared to combat between battleships. The physics not withstanding . . . think you can do better and water hoses and dogs.

Regards, RhinoBones

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
Multiple rounds in the air? Where does this come from? I could understand if the target was fixed on land, or close enough to be targeted over open sights, but in this case the target is thousands of meters away, moving at speed and maneuvering.

I mentioned the "Task Force 1942" simulator. It was extremely realistic. And it clearly illustrated how dynamic the corrections had to be, because, as you stated, the target is maneuvering. That is actually good reason not to wait for the shells to land. The sim's computer got more accurate the more data points it got.

I don’t profess to be a naval warfare expert, but no account that I have ever read describes big ship combat as firing multiple shot before the fall of the previous shot was plotted. Not Jutland, not Leyte, not the Falklands (1914), not Tsushima (actually Tsushima might qualify, but it is not a modern era battle) . . . at least not until the target was dead in the water.

I wasn't limiting it to "big ships". Think cruisers, DDs, etc., where the rate of fire allows several rounds to be fired during the transit of any of them. Probably not the case for BBs main guns.

ORIGINAL: Curtis LemayThink of a garden hose. Can you keep the garden hose on your dog as he runs around? Or do you have to fire off a drop at a time, then wait for each drop to hit before launching another?.

Hope you’re thick skinned, but this is undoubtedly the silliest analogy I have ever read. Squirting a hose at a dog being compared to combat between battleships. The physics not withstanding . . . think you can do better and water hoses and dogs.

I'm kind of proud of it. I think it illustrates very clearly that you can do the corrections on the fly.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
Multiple rounds in the air? Where does this come from? I could understand if the target was fixed on land, or close enough to be targeted over open sights, but in this case the target is thousands of meters away, moving at speed and maneuvering.

I mentioned the "Task Force 1942" simulator. It was extremely realistic. And it clearly illustrated how dynamic the corrections had to be, because, as you stated, the target is maneuvering. That is actually good reason not to wait for the shells to land. The sim's computer got more accurate the more data points it got...

You've used this approach before -- arguing from the evidence of games. Simulations can be accurate, but they are not necessarily accurate. I'd be inclined to find supporting statements from some 1940's naval gunnery text before being as certain as you are. For one thing, no doubt 'Task Force 1942' can track shells in the air and distinguish which splash went with which salvo -- but could the actual warships of the era?

Maybe -- but I wouldn't take 'Task Force 1942' as proof that they could.

...and before you fly off the handle and start berating me, let me repeat a fundamental difference between a book and a game. A book can just avoid a point of uncertainty, or qualify its answer. A game has to put in something -- even it doesn't know. If I'm writing a book about an operation, and I can't find out some fact, I can just say so, or not get involved in the question at all. I was reading Benny Morris' book on the Arab Legion and the 1948 War. He notes a discrepancy between how many 24 pounders the Legion was shipped, and how many it reported having. Does he resolve this? No -- he doesn't need to.

If I'm designing a scenario, I don't have that luxury. The Arab Legion gets x 24 pounders, or it gets y 24 pounders. I have to choose. The author of a book can confine himself to points of certainty; the designer of a game can't. So the designer of 'Task Force 1942' may have known for sure that shells were plotted in flight, he may have guessed, or he might have been quite indifferent as to the truth of the matter. Regardless of the case, he had to come up with a model for naval shellfire -- and he did. Whether it is in fact an accurate model is another matter entirely.