Night surface engagement. No matador_spa

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
traskott
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:30 am
Location: Valladolid, Spain

Night surface engagement. No matador_spa

Post by traskott »


Hi. I need some advice about a battle I have lost.

Mod: Ultimate Battleships ( heavy BBs build, lot of battlewagons for two sides). Date: 21th December.

Place: Kuching. Allied empty base, mined.

Combat report:

ight Time Surface Combat, near Kuching at 58,88, Range 5,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CA Tone
CA Chikuma, Shell hits 2, on fire
CL Agano
DD Shirakumo, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Murakumo
DD Asagiri, Shell hits 1
DD Sagiri
DD Yugiri

Allied Ships
DD Graham
DD Alden, Shell hits 4, and is sunk
DD Barker
DD Bulmer
DD Edsall
DD John D. Edwards, Shell hits 1
DD Fox
DD Paul Jones
DD Parrott
DD Peary, Shell hits 2
DD Whipple, Shell hits 1
DD Stewart
BB Emperor of India, Shell hits 4 ( Iron Duke Class )
BB Ramillies, Shell hits 1
BB Resolution, Shell hits 10, Torpedo hits 6, and is sunk

Reduced sighting due to 14% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions and 14% moonlight: 8,000 yards
Range closes to 15,000 yards...
Range closes to 9,000 yards...
Range closes to 5,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 5,000 yards
Japanese open fire on surprised Allied ships at 5,000 yards


Second combat on the same hex:

Night Time Surface Combat, near Kuching at 58,88, Range 9,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
BC Kirishima
BC Hiei, Shell hits 3
CA Chokai
CA Ashitaka
CA Kumano, Shell hits 1
CLAA Kiso, Shell hits 1
CL Sendai
DD Maikaze
DD Nowaki
DD Arashi, Shell hits 1
DD Hagikaze, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Asashio
DD Oshio, Shell hits 1
DD Michishio
DD Arashio
DD Akatsuki
DD Hibiki
DD Shinonome, Shell hits 1, on fire

Allied Ships
DD Graham
DD Barker, Shell hits 4, heavy fires
DD Bulmer, Shell hits 1
DD Edsall, Shell hits 5, on fire
DD John D. Edwards, Shell hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Fox, Shell hits 15, and is sunk
DD Paul Jones, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Parrott, Shell hits 5, and is sunk
DD Peary, Shell hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Whipple, Shell hits 1
DD Stewart, Shell hits 2, on fire
BB Emperor of India, Shell hits 67, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
BB Ramillies, Shell hits 36, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk

Reduced sighting due to 14% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions and 14% moonlight: 10,000 yards
Range closes to 15,000 yards...
Range closes to 9,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 9,000 yards
Japanese open fire on surprised Allied ships at 9,000 yards

-----------------------------

I assume engaging IJN at night is risky bussiness, ok, but with the british BBs I was (almost) sure of taking some big ship with me ( my strategical objective was damaging them enough to erode the Japanese Main Batteline ). So, was my TF wrong? simply bad luck? How can I do an efficient surface TF knowing Japan has a LOT of BBs and BCs..

Thank you
User avatar
dr.hal
Posts: 3449
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Covington LA via Montreal!

RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa

Post by dr.hal »

Torpedoes are the killers for those older BBs. They simply don't have the damage control capability.... They go down like rocks if underwater integrity is compromised. Which is a reflection of reality.
User avatar
traskott
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:30 am
Location: Valladolid, Spain

RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa

Post by traskott »

Yes, but with sooo many escort DDs, I expected had enough time to keep a good fight.
User avatar
Barb
Posts: 2503
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:17 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa

Post by Barb »

- Battleships - 21kts top speed killed them, slowing down whole TF (very easy targets)
- 15 ships in a SCTF at night will probably cause half of them not to engage - too many ships to handle at night for any commander
Image
User avatar
traskott
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:30 am
Location: Valladolid, Spain

RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa

Post by traskott »

Yes, it's a big TF, but...ey!!! the japanese too !!![:-]
User avatar
dr.hal
Posts: 3449
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Covington LA via Montreal!

RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa

Post by dr.hal »

Ok, I take it that this was early in the war, was this December '41? If so, the Japanese outclassed all other forces in their night fighting capability (even the British). Second, what was the level of light? How much moon was there? If the engagement opened at about 5K it is evident that there was little light, again this works in the favor of the Japanese as they had excellent lookouts (this is pre-radar time) and it gives them prime torpedo weather, low light, long range fast torpedoes, and normally the enemy is surprised (the tactic was to launch a torpedo barrage and then close the enemy with and finish off with guns). I'm surprised that your BBs lasted two rounds. Look at the battle of Savo Sound for this tactic in action.

Oh, I just read it was 14% light.... very low... this fits the picture. And the Allied side was surprised..... again fits the picture.
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa

Post by Lokasenna »

Allied ships surprised under 14% moonlight. You're lucky you didn't lose more DDs! Really need radar before you can engage the IJN at night without moonlight. Maximum spotting of 8,000 means that all parties were well within torpedo range, and at 21 knots those BBs just aren't going to survive that.
User avatar
traskott
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:30 am
Location: Valladolid, Spain

RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa

Post by traskott »

I have to check the game but im almost sure the BB had radar...well, in fact what i really want to know is: i have more BBs, BCs, and CAs near. Faster and modern, with radars. If I try it again, will I get the same outcome?. Considering the answer of dr.hal, no matter what tupe of ship you deploy, u are going to lose. But leaving DEI without fight when u have 3BCs, 2BBs and a good bunch of CA/CLs...well.

PS: sorry about spelling, no native english plus smartphone is a bad combo.
User avatar
Lecivius
Posts: 4845
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:53 am
Location: Denver

RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa

Post by Lecivius »

Prime Lance weather. Plus, even early war radar was suspect at best, and openly ignored by many. I agree, if this was early in the war I think you got of lightly.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
User avatar
dr.hal
Posts: 3449
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Covington LA via Montreal!

RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa

Post by dr.hal »

Traskott,

It's not hopeless but putting those BBs out there is not the way to go. Don't deploy them until a near full moon to give them a fighting chance and remember early radar was pretty poor, I think you're right the early British BBs have it, but it won't help much. The second generation systems are much better as they used shorter frequency thus more resolution capability. Pick off some of his side shows, don't go after the main body, you will loose.
User avatar
traskott
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:30 am
Location: Valladolid, Spain

RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa

Post by traskott »

Thanks... Looks like I will have to take the Cunningham approach and move all the fleet to Mombasa. [:D]
rms1pa
Posts: 370
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 6:32 am

RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa

Post by rms1pa »

hanks... Looks like I will have to take the Cunningham approach and move all the fleet to Mombasa.

truth, the R class were considered scarecrows at this time. the trained crews were considered more valuable than the ships.

i try to save the R's and QE's for bombardment only, en mass. quite refreshing.

rms/pa
there is a technical term for those who confuse the opinions of an author's characters for the opinions of the author.
the term is IDIOT.
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa

Post by LoBaron »

ORIGINAL: traskott

[...]take the Cunningham approach and move all the fleet to Mombasa. [:D]

Isn´t the correct terminology 'Cunningham departure' instead of approach? [:D]
Image
User avatar
traskott
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:30 am
Location: Valladolid, Spain

RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa

Post by traskott »

I think the right word is "retreat" [;)]
User avatar
Barb
Posts: 2503
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:17 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa

Post by Barb »

NEVER! "Change in direction of advance" maybe [:D]
Image
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa

Post by LoBaron »

You probably mean advance on reciprocal heading?
Image
User avatar
traskott
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:30 am
Location: Valladolid, Spain

RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa

Post by traskott »

I mean: run, poor little limeys, run!!! [:D]
User avatar
Bill Durrant
Posts: 963
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 1:39 am
Location: Oxfordshire

RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa

Post by Bill Durrant »

Okay, I'll defend Cunningham! If you read his diaries he is aware that what he takes over is undertrained personnel manning obsolete equipment. As WitPAE shows any conflict with the enemy at this stage of the war will end in only one result. He withdraws to Addu Atoll knowing that at least he has saved some form of deterrent to Japan controlling the Indian Ocean. It is this fleet that forms the basis of an invasion of Madagascar in May '42 (before Midway) to prevent the possibility of a German and/or Japanese submarine base.
Sunk by 35cm/45 1YT Gun - Near Singapore
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa

Post by Dili »

You have probably a worse crew quality for night combat and since the allied ships were surprised then probably don't have radar.
User avatar
Jellicoe
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 5:00 pm
Location: Kent, UK

RE: Night surface engagement. No matador_spa

Post by Jellicoe »

Of course by Cunningham I assume we are meaning Somerville?
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”