The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Paladin1dcs

+1

[:D]

+1

Wait-what are we "plus one-ing"? [&:]

[Canoerebel]

What a great day!  Profligate posting and I haven't even had to resort to my "sex topic" yet.  I still have arrows in my quiver!  (And, I think my winsome and wholesome ways combined with my supple and rugged form, sometimes leave Andre aquiver.)

[Chickenboy]

Wait....

Was "the sex topic" that you hoped to spur discussion on here that of your own alleged virility? Ugh.

Unsubscribed!



[;)]

[Encircled]

Did someone mention "sex topic"?

[MAurelius]

what??? - where....

[BBfanboy]

Paladin, I have not been impressed with the Yamato and Musashi as modeled in this game. They do not seem to be the uber-BBs that they should be. Cap Mandrake and Adm. Lord Sprior nearly sank Yamato in a fair close-range fight with BB Warspite. The latter was sunk, but Yamato was so badly damaged it was finished off next day. Warspite's vintage 15" guns were penetrating Yamato's side armour. Similarly, I have seen AARs where Yamato succumbed to a mere 4 aerial torpedoes [as opposed to ~20 IRL] and in one extremely skilled attack personally directed by Greyjoy, one of his PTs sank Yamato with a single torp. [X(]
I have also seen these monsters shrug off dozens of hits by 1000 lb bombs only to go down from the fires they spawned. Then there is the fact that they are bears to support in fuel and reammunitioning.

Bottom line, the way the game models them the Allied player willing to risk ships need not flee in fear from them.

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Paladin, I have not been impressed with the Yamato and Musashi as modeled in this game. They do not seem to be the uber-BBs that they should be. Cap Mandrake and Adm. Lord Sprior nearly sank Yamato in a fair close-range fight with BB Warspite. The latter was sunk, but Yamato was so badly damaged it was finished off next day. Warspite's vintage 15" guns were penetrating Yamato's side armour. Similarly, I have seen AARs where Yamato succumbed to a mere 4 aerial torpedoes [as opposed to ~20 IRL] and in one extremely skilled attack personally directed by Greyjoy, one of his PTs sank Yamato with a single torp. [X(]
I have also seen these monsters shrug off dozens of hits by 1000 lb bombs only to go down from the fires they spawned. Then there is the fact that they are bears to support in fuel and reammunitioning.

Bottom line, the way the game models them the Allied player willing to risk ships need not flee in fear from them.

Well, much would depend on engagement ranges - realistically, the 15in/42 should be able to penetrate Yamato's belt at ranges below ~16,000yards, with some variation depending on the exact shell model. A lot of the engagements in the game take place at fairly short range, so typically even the most protected BB's are vulnerable at times.

The torpedo issue is a separate and known issue, and as a result I believe DaBabes and some other scenarios (inlcuding RA I suspect) have tuned down the effect ratings on torpedoes to alleviate this.

[Paladin1dcs]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Paladin1dcs

+1

[:D]

+1

Wait-what are we "plus one-ing"? [&:]

+1

Pointless posts to pass Senior Penguin's post count.

[Paladin1dcs]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Paladin, I have not been impressed with the Yamato and Musashi as modeled in this game. They do not seem to be the uber-BBs that they should be. Cap Mandrake and Adm. Lord Sprior nearly sank Yamato in a fair close-range fight with BB Warspite. The latter was sunk, but Yamato was so badly damaged it was finished off next day. Warspite's vintage 15" guns were penetrating Yamato's side armour. Similarly, I have seen AARs where Yamato succumbed to a mere 4 aerial torpedoes [as opposed to ~20 IRL] and in one extremely skilled attack personally directed by Greyjoy, one of his PTs sank Yamato with a single torp. [X(]
I have also seen these monsters shrug off dozens of hits by 1000 lb bombs only to go down from the fires they spawned. Then there is the fact that they are bears to support in fuel and reammunitioning.

Bottom line, the way the game models them the Allied player willing to risk ships need not flee in fear from them.

Yamato sunk by a single PT boat??? That makes me extremely curious as to the actual combat effectiveness of these ships, especially considering how much of a fuel hog they are reported to be and how restricted their repair slips are going to be.

[Canoerebel]

The person who PM'd me yesterday about OpSec concerns has offered to contact John to explain the situation.  I've asked him to do so and provided the following information in hopes that it might thoroughly address all aspects of this sticky subject:

Yes, please do get in touch with John. I think it's better coming from you than me.

You are welcome to copy and paste the following or modify to suit your taste, but this is how I understand the issue developed:

1. You posted in John's AAR encouraging him to commit to a strong night-bombing campaign.
2. Just a few hours later, in reading my AAR you were surprised to note a sudden flurry of discussion about night bombing, where there hadn't been any before.
3. Concerned that there might have been an OpSec violation by a reader of my AAR, you contacted me by PM to aprise me of the situation.
4. The timing for the raising of the issue in my AAR seemed suspicious, but the person who raised it denies reading John's AAR and is a known proponent of night bombing. So whether there was an OpSec violation or not isn't known, though you remain skeptical.
5. In alerting me to what you felt was an OpSec violation, you unintentionally informed me that John's AAR was actively discussing night bombing. So now I'm aware that John may be considering it.

While I don't know whether there was an OpSec violation in my AAR, I have decided on a strong course of action so that I can avoid even the hint of impropriety. I am accordingly acting as though the issue wasn't raised in my AAR. I will continue to act "oblivious" unless and until something happens that would reasonably raise the issue fresh. IE, I will continue to conduct operations at Sabang as I have.

One final comment. I feel strongly that uber nighttime attacks were not possible in the war. I do not use them nor have I ever used them in a game. I do not intend to use them in this game and would prefer that John not do so. Others in my AAR have rules limiting nighttime attacks to one squadron per theater. I would be open to something like that.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Paladin, I have not been impressed with the Yamato and Musashi as modeled in this game. They do not seem to be the uber-BBs that they should be. Cap Mandrake and Adm. Lord Sprior nearly sank Yamato in a fair close-range fight with BB Warspite. The latter was sunk, but Yamato was so badly damaged it was finished off next day. Warspite's vintage 15" guns were penetrating Yamato's side armour. Similarly, I have seen AARs where Yamato succumbed to a mere 4 aerial torpedoes [as opposed to ~20 IRL] and in one extremely skilled attack personally directed by Greyjoy, one of his PTs sank Yamato with a single torp. [X(]
I have also seen these monsters shrug off dozens of hits by 1000 lb bombs only to go down from the fires they spawned. Then there is the fact that they are bears to support in fuel and reammunitioning.

Bottom line, the way the game models them the Allied player willing to risk ships need not flee in fear from them.

Which is just like it was in real life. No effective fire control system and no effective radars made them less than super ships. At night or in a haze Warspite would have sunk her....Well maybe not in 42 but 44 for sure.[;)]

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Paladin, I didn't know that the Yamato/Musashi group was coming back to Medan for a third consecutive night.  the RN TF was part of a rotation to protect the troops at Medan.  (A few days back, CA Quincy led some destroyers against four of the best Japanese CAs, and came out on top.)  I did know that if Yamato and friends returned for a third consectuve night, the BBs would likely be low on ammo.  Damage and slow them down and they face an ambush by SBDs and Avengers based at Langsa.  I've already seen what RN and RAN cruisers can do to Japanese battleships.  A month back, John lost two, with a third badly damaged, up at Akyab under similar circumstances - and Avengers there applied the coup-de-grace.

My experience is that BBs really have no business in night fights and I look to see them show up in the enemy TF. Moonlight is a factor but they usually do not hit when they shoot and they are vulnerable to torpedoes. Ship size is a factor, so a damaged BB will spend a lot more time in the yard than a CA. One torpedo hit might not do so much damage but it might take 90 days to repair 15 flotation on a super BB.

I like it when valuable assets such as BBs are risked vs mines, PTs, and DDs, You would have to sink 20 Allied DDS to make up the VP loss of the Yamato.

By 1944 when the Allies have better radar and working TTs, the old Japanese BBs don't have a chance in a surface fight.

Canoe is right. He can lose 2-1 in planes and 2-1 in ships in this campaign but if he is still sitting in Sabang come May 1943, he has won the game.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

[Note to Self: Super-Secret strategy to insert controversy into AAR to heighten interest so that I can overtake GreyJoy is working! Remember to introduce sex into discussion tomorrow.]

No, not sex! You had me at super-secret strategy...[X(]

[Schlemiel]

ORIGINAL: Encircled

I've logged on to see if there are any posts about sex yet.

A bit disappointed to be honest, unless OPsec is a euphemism I'm not aware of.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

What a great day!  Profligate posting and I haven't even had to resort to my "sex topic" yet.  I still have arrows in my quiver!  (And, I think my winsome and wholesome ways combined with my supple and rugged form, sometimes leave Andre aquiver.)

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Wait....

Was "the sex topic" that you hoped to spur discussion on here that of your own alleged virility? Ugh.

Unsubscribed!



[;)]

In the context of this conversation, I suspect the definition of OPsec is as follows: Oversized Prophylactic service exercise case. Was OPsec breached by canoe's purported virility?

[JohnDillworth]

The person who PM'd me yesterday about OpSec concerns has offered to contact John to explain the situation. I've asked him to do so and provided the following information in hopes that it might thoroughly address all aspects of this sticky subject:

Yes, please do get in touch with John. I think it's better coming from you than me.

You are welcome to copy and paste the following or modify to suit your taste, but this is how I understand the issue developed:

1. You posted in John's AAR encouraging him to commit to a strong night-bombing campaign.
2. Just a few hours later, in reading my AAR you were surprised to note a sudden flurry of discussion about night bombing, where there hadn't been any before.
3. Concerned that there might have been an OpSec violation by a reader of my AAR, you contacted me by PM to aprise me of the situation.
4. The timing for the raising of the issue in my AAR seemed suspicious, but the person who raised it denies reading John's AAR and is a known proponent of night bombing. So whether there was an OpSec violation or not isn't known, though you remain skeptical.
5. In alerting me to what you felt was an OpSec violation, you unintentionally informed me that John's AAR was actively discussing night bombing. So now I'm aware that John may be considering it.

While I don't know whether there was an OpSec violation in my AAR, I have decided on a strong course of action so that I can avoid even the hint of impropriety. I am accordingly acting as though the issue wasn't raised in my AAR. I will continue to act "oblivious" unless and until something happens that would reasonably raise the issue fresh. IE, I will continue to conduct operations at Sabang as I have.

One final comment. I feel strongly that uber nighttime attacks were not possible in the war. I do not use them nor have I ever used them in a game. I do not intend to use them in this game and would prefer that John not do so. Others in my AAR have rules limiting nighttime attacks to one squadron per theater. I would be open to something like that.

In the spirit of full disclosure I read both AAR's and expounded on the possibility of night bombing and placing a night CAP. In my heart of hearts, I do not think this was influenced by reading both AAR's but I think I committed the kind of mild, unconscious infraction that you warned of. The thought might not have come up had I not raised it.

Additionally, in the sprite of full disclosure, I'd like to declare I was not the person that PM'ed Dan. If I have something to say I generally post it openly. I'd like to apologize for any breach I may have caused, not matter how minor, or how unintentional. I have learned my lesson and will don the penguin mask of shame.....and nothing else. I throw myself on the mercy of the forum and deserve at least a round of insults. I submit myself to your collective mercy [&o] [&o][&o][&o][&o].

[obvert]

One final comment. I feel strongly that uber nighttime attacks were not possible in the war. I do not use them nor have I ever used them in a game. I do not intend to use them in this game and would prefer that John not do so. Others in my AAR have rules limiting nighttime attacks to one squadron per theater. I would be open to something like that.

I had some trouble with massed night raids in my game with Torsten. They were shutting down size 6 airbases in one night's bombing and torching dozens of planes, both in the air and on the ground, and those fields were not overstacked.

Subsequently I read a bit about night bombing in the war and I agree with you, it doesn't seem it was exactly possible at those levels (150-250+ planes), especially early. Later of course the B-29s did it well, but basically those were 'manpower' raids, not accurate drops on airfields. This was written about night bombing by the British in Europe; ""Rather than nighttime raids, the US Army Air Forces were dedicated to daytime bombing over Germany and Axis allies, that statistically were much more effective. The British night-bombing raids showed a success rate of only one out of 100 targets successfully hit." And that is with many hundreds of bombers usually.

We have now adopted an HR: no more than 50 planes night bombing per target. This eliminates the uber raid and still allows some night bombing, which the Japanese did quite a lot with small numbers and the Allies did sporadically, both mostly against city targets. So far I'm happy with it.

[The Sandman]

Are any of the bases in Sumatra and on the western islands that you either currently hold or are likely to take close enough to either or both of Palembang and Singapore for you to be able to send torpedo-loaded bombers with fighter escort to hit ships in or transiting near the ports?

Because that seems to be the really critical thing here.

Also, to what extent can you lock down any other ports he might try to use if you can make those two too dangerous for regular use?

And for those who have the game and thus know more about the relevant details, would it be a good idea to have some units start prepping for Port Blair and Cocos Island? The former seems like a must-have, while the latter would help protect your LOC in the Indian Ocean and possibly be a stepping-stone towards a later invasion of Java.

...come to think of it, how difficult would it be to render Port Blair unusable by exhausting its supplies (and fuel, if aircraft also need that as well as ships)? Given that you should have Rangoon fairly shortly and that the Strait of Malacca is now full of mines and warships, getting resupply transports to the Andamans should be pretty difficult for John.

[Canoerebel]

There are limitless ideas for ways to exploit and invasion like this one, but the cold, hard light of day shows that options are actually limited:

1) It will be a long time before Allied bombers pose a real threat to Palembang, Singapore, etc. Right now, my two airfields have to be devoted nearly entirely to defensive operations. This is true becuase I have to protect my key base and it's ships, with a few offensive strikes perhaps now and then; also, I have to carefully marshall my airforce, especially fighters. So I can ill afford to try offensive strikes into the teeth of strong enemy CAP. Bottom Line: Sumatran airfield really don't become stable offensive platforms until the Allies win the overall campaig to secure the northern end of the island.

2) The Allies have to feed all available troops in SEAC (other than those committed to Burma and thus remote from the nearest port) into Sumatra. My divisional units in Sumatra have suffered tremendous degredation. I'm going to have to begin resting them soon, and I'm going to need everything I can squeeze in from India. Most troops in India are restricted and must be bought. I only have 450 PP at the moment. Port Blair has been strongly held, probably has lots of forts, and has a powerful airforce. For obvious reasons, this is beyond Allied capability or need at the moment. Better to, as you noted, starve out Port Blair by enforcing a semi-impermeable blockade.

[Chickenboy]

Canoerebel,

In the interests of maintaining OPSEC, I should tell you that I posted in John's AAR some questions that I had been meaning to ask him about. My list included:

1. Recommendations to rail transport the 10th ID from Tandjoen to Medan as soon as possible.
2. A query about pool levels of P-38E/G models in his scenario. For purposes of Allied swap-out with "upgraded" lesser fighters of course.
3. The limitations of the Colombo shipyards to repair damaged shipping from proximate surface fighting.

On a completely unrelated note, where are your carriers?







[;)]

[Canoerebel]

Thanks for the laugh, Andre! Lighthearted is much appreciated right now.

(This game has been amazingly stressful of late, I'm not sleeping well at night, and I swear I feel like a crack addict that knows he's got to stop for his own sake, for pity's sake, but can't quite pull the trigger. What a ride! What a game!)