PT Boats

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

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

spence
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

PT Boats

Post by spence »

http://pt-king.gdinc.com/PT109article.html

Found this article yesterday - pretty detailed description of PT operations around Guadalcanal and its tangles with the "Tokyo Express". PT 109 had a good bit of history before Ltjg Kennedy took command.

http://archive.hnsa.org/ships/gimik.htm

Never heard of this one before - earlier found a photo on the web that described this very same vessel as a Japanese Special Attack demolition boat.

Incidentally the Battleship Cove Museum in Fall River, MA which includes the PT Boat Museum and the GIMIK is well worth stopping into for anyone in the area.

Has the NERFING of PTs gone a little too far:

Night Time Surface Combat, near Luganville at 120,150, Range 12,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
BB Haruna
BB Yamato
BB Ise
CA Atago
CA Chokai
DD Kazegumo
DD Oyashio
DD Isokaze
DD Tokitsukaze
DD Nenohi
DD Ariake
DD Fubuki
DD Yugiri
DD Amagiri
DD Kikuzuki

Allied Ships
PT-103
PT-110
PT-111

Reduced sighting due to 0% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions and 0% moonlight: 2,000 yards
Range closes to 11,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 11,000 yards
Range closes to 10,000 yards...
Range closes to 9,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 9,000 yards
Range closes to 8,000 yards...
Range closes to 7,000 yards...
Range closes to 6,000 yards...
Range closes to 5,000 yards...
Range closes to 4,000 yards...
Range closes to 3,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 3,000 yards
Allied TF attempts to evade combat
Range increases to 8,000 yards...
Range increases to 12,000 yards...
Allied PT Boat TF evades combat


No moon to speak of, coastal waters, the most aggressive PT boat skippers and TF commander available, the Japanese never even detect them, they get in to 3000 yards and then attempt to evade? Not one of them fires a torpedo?

If it had only happened once it would be a fluke...it happened twice in that turn. Not one torpedo fired?
Just not credible.




User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5041
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: PT Boats

Post by Yaab »

Well, I wouldn't want to run into a screen of 10 Jap DDs.
User avatar
zuluhour
Posts: 5244
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:16 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: PT Boats

Post by zuluhour »

no, I'm with Yab, Halsey would have attacked, but not sane man.
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: PT Boats

Post by Alfred »

It is incredible that someone can be around the forum since day 1 and still does not grasp basic AE concepts.  Not that these are difficult concepts to grasp because many people, such as myself have often posted them and explained them extensively and quite logically.
 
1.  In AE no naval surface combat occurs until a visual sighting occurs.  Never has, does not now, and never will until a visual fix is made irrespective of how many times people complain.  Why is that OK, answer because AE is a game not a simulation.
 
2.  The incident occurred at night with zero moonlight.  The closest the two task forces got to each other was 3,000 yards.  That is almost 2 statute miles distance.  In which parallel universe do you live that you expect the human eyeball mark I at that distance, in absolute pitch black darkness, to spot the enemy.
 
3.  I don't care if you had, and I quote, " the most aggressive PT boat skippers and TF commander available", it still doesn't mean they were aggressive.  They may well be the best out of a poor lot and more importantly aggressiveness is not the only relevant leadership trait; naval skill being much more important.  Besides, random die rolls always play a part in AE.  Why is that OK, answer because AE is a game not a simulation.
 
4.  And what was the night combat experience level of the PTs?  It couldn't perchance be very poor but of course that wouldn't be a relevant consideration for you because you already expect the game to conform fully with your predetermined outcomes.  No game, be it a computer game or football or boxing has predetermined outcomes set in concrete.  Even in a contest such as bullfighting there are occasions when the bull gores (and even kills) the matador.
 
There are zero grounds for complaining at the above outcome in a game.
 
Alfred 
User avatar
zuluhour
Posts: 5244
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:16 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: PT Boats

Post by zuluhour »

well that's settled.
User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5041
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: PT Boats

Post by Yaab »

But can't they fire torpedoes using the radar data a la late Allied BBs that fire main guns using radar data when enemy cannot be seen?
User avatar
zuluhour
Posts: 5244
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:16 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: PT Boats

Post by zuluhour »

That would be $21,ooo.oo dollars a torpedo. $$$$$
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: PT Boats

Post by crsutton »

What is the date? A combat report without a date is not easy to evaluate. 1942, PT boats had poor torpedoes, weak armament and no or very primitive radar. How many PTs actually torpedoed warships in 1942? 1944 PTs have better armament, better torpedo and very good radar plus all Allied crews arrive with better night experience in 1944.

Nothing out of line with expectations for this attack. Sometimes for various reasons they did not take place. The game adds a variation of randomness to account for factors that are beyond the scope of the game engine, including poor identification of ships, sea state, rain squalls, poor attack positioning, general confusion due to night, mental errors due to fatigue or the ever present malaria. Just got through reading about the campaign. PTs were a nuisance but not a deadly deterrent to the Japanese surface force. And more often than not due to many factors, the attacks did not take place or were not carried out to their fullest.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: PT Boats

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: Yaab

But can't they fire torpedoes using the radar data a la late Allied BBs that fire main guns using radar data when enemy cannot be seen?


I have not read of PTs firing torpedoes based on radar targets. Not during the Solomons time period. Perhaps later. May have happened but I have never seen an account. 1/43 and looking over my PTs-perhaps ten percent of my boats actually have radar. Most upgrade to radar by mid 1943. And I don't think the radar that they have in the early days is the centimetric variety which would be needed to really target effectively. Early radar tended to function very poorly in confined waters with heavy land masses nearby.

Edit. Looking over my current game about six of my sixty active PT boats have SO-SS radar. SO radar "was" ten centimeter radar. However, from what I gather working SO radar were not actually installed on any PTs until mid 1943-other than for testing. From what I can see they were testing air search radar (SCR-521) on a few PTs in the Solomons in late 42 and early 43. PT 109 was actually used for this testing. The results were poor. So actually, the few PTs with SO radar that you do get in early 43 are a bit of a bonus. For all effective purposes PTs did not have radar during the heart of the Solomon's campaign.

Image
Attachments
pt28-3.jpg
pt28-3.jpg (122.46 KiB) Viewed 181 times
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: PT Boats

Post by Alfred »

ORIGINAL: Yaab

But can't they fire torpedoes using the radar data a la late Allied BBs that fire main guns using radar data when enemy cannot be seen?

In the AE game, the long answer is no. The short answer would be to not even bother replying.

This has been very fully covered in discussions about radar. In this game you can have 43.728 radar contacts and they count for zilch, nada, nothing until a visual sighting is made. Surface naval combat only occurs after a visual sighting is made.

I go to a lot of effort to give accurate answers and it is becoming very clear to me that I am just wasting my time as people disregard what I say. It is this constant repetition of inane questions/whinning (from veterans) which have been thoroughly answered and debunked on multiple previous occasions which would have been a major factor in Symon's responses on occasion.

Alfred
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: PT Boats

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Yaab

But can't they fire torpedoes using the radar data a la late Allied BBs that fire main guns using radar data when enemy cannot be seen?
I go to a lot of effort to give accurate answers and it is becoming very clear to me that I am just wasting my time as people disregard what I say. It is this constant repetition of inane questions/whinning (from veterans) which have been thoroughly answered and debunked on multiple previous occasions which would have been a major factor in Symon's responses on occasion.

The issue is two-fold:

- Lack of a centralized thread/page to document developer comments. The FAQ in the War Room solves part of this issue, but the post there hasn't been updated since 2010, and the manual since who knows when.

- The clumsiness of the fourm search engine and the fact that using google to search quite often throws up results from similar games on this website.

You get the repetition of the same questions over and over again because it's a pain to find the relevant thread. Saying that developer has commented definitively on a particular issue is fine. Actually finding the comment is the challenge: you end up looking for a comment in a post that has a link to another comment in another post that has the information you're wanting.

Hardly ideal. I can understand why it easier to just post and ask rather than wrestle with the problems of searching.
User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5041
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: PT Boats

Post by Yaab »

One day the manual will be patched! Keep the faith and pass the 25mm AA ammunition!
User avatar
Skyros
Posts: 1519
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Columbia SC

RE: PT Boats

Post by Skyros »

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Yaab

But can't they fire torpedoes using the radar data a la late Allied BBs that fire main guns using radar data when enemy cannot be seen?

In the AE game, the long answer is no. The short answer would be to not even bother replying.

This has been very fully covered in discussions about radar. In this game you can have 43.728 radar contacts and they count for zilch, nada, nothing until a visual sighting is made. Surface naval combat only occurs after a visual sighting is made.

I go to a lot of effort to give accurate answers and it is becoming very clear to me that I am just wasting my time as people disregard what I say. It is this constant repetition of inane questions/whinning (from veterans) which have been thoroughly answered and debunked on multiple previous occasions which would have been a major factor in Symon's responses on occasion.

Alfred
Stay with us Alfred we need you.
spence
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: PT Boats

Post by spence »

I realize that radar targeting in August 1943 was not possible and that is entirely beside the point. The PT boats in the example cited closed to within 3000 yards without being sighted and the IJN was "still blithely steaming ahead on a steady course and speed"...not one shot had been fired at the PTs...this may have been the situation that never occurred in WW2 but it was exactly and precisely what the PTs desired.

The enemy is fat dumb and happy so let's retreat. Just like real. NOT!!!!

Read about real PT operations and one can easily see that they tried to get in to use their torpedoes against DDs etc. The only reason they may have failed was discovery and subsequent resistance...the size of the enemy force figured not at all.

Just for drill here's the next turns repeat of IJN steams along fat dumb and happy and the PTs run away.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 02, 43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Luganville at 120,150, Range 12,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
BB Haruna
BB Yamato
BB Ise
CA Atago
CA Chokai
DD Kazegumo
DD Oyashio
DD Isokaze
DD Tokitsukaze
DD Nenohi
DD Ariake
DD Fubuki
DD Yugiri
DD Amagiri
DD Kikuzuki

Allied Ships
PT-104
PT-105
PT-106
PT-107

Reduced sighting due to 3% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions and 3% moonlight: 5,000 yards
Range closes to 11,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 11,000 yards
Range closes to 10,000 yards...
Range closes to 9,000 yards...
Range closes to 8,000 yards...
Range closes to 7,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 7,000 yards
Allied TF attempts to evade combat
Range increases to 12,000 yards...
Range increases to 12,000 yards...
Allied PT Boat TF evades combat

Battleship sailors may have retreated to preserve the "fleet in being". PT boat sailors were quite aware of the fact that they were expendable (no pun intended); especially if they put a torpedo into something not made of plywood or bigger than themselves.
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: PT Boats

Post by geofflambert »

ORIGINAL: Alfred

It is incredible that someone can be around the forum since day 1 and still does not grasp basic AE concepts.  Not that these are difficult concepts to grasp because many people, such as myself have often posted them and explained them extensively and quite logically.

Alfred 

I can't believe Alfred's been around so long and not absorbed Spence's wisdom. Dr. Malcolm would tell you to leave logic behind and embrace chaos theory. If something almost certainly cannot happen, it certainly will. Just teasing, Alfred.

User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: PT Boats

Post by geofflambert »

Please continue to grace us with your wisdom, it's part of the value of this game.

User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: PT Boats

Post by geofflambert »

I was kinda teasing you too, Spence. Care to tease me a little?

User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5041
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: PT Boats

Post by Yaab »

ORIGINAL: spence

I realize that radar targeting in August 1943 was not possible and that is entirely beside the point. The PT boats in the example cited closed to within 3000 yards without being sighted and the IJN was "still blithely steaming ahead on a steady course and speed"...not one shot had been fired at the PTs...this may have been the situation that never occurred in WW2 but it was exactly and precisely what the PTs desired.

The enemy is fat dumb and happy so let's retreat. Just like real. NOT!!!!

Read about real PT operations and one can easily see that they tried to get in to use their torpedoes against DDs etc. The only reason they may have failed was discovery and subsequent resistance...the size of the enemy force figured not at all.

Just for drill here's the next turns repeat of IJN steams along fat dumb and happy and the PTs run away.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 02, 43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Luganville at 120,150, Range 12,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
BB Haruna
BB Yamato
BB Ise
CA Atago
CA Chokai
DD Kazegumo
DD Oyashio
DD Isokaze
DD Tokitsukaze
DD Nenohi
DD Ariake
DD Fubuki
DD Yugiri
DD Amagiri
DD Kikuzuki

Allied Ships
PT-104
PT-105
PT-106
PT-107

Reduced sighting due to 3% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions and 3% moonlight: 5,000 yards
Range closes to 11,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 11,000 yards
Range closes to 10,000 yards...
Range closes to 9,000 yards...
Range closes to 8,000 yards...
Range closes to 7,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 7,000 yards
Allied TF attempts to evade combat
Range increases to 12,000 yards...
Range increases to 12,000 yards...
Allied PT Boat TF evades combat

Battleship sailors may have retreated to preserve the "fleet in being". PT boat sailors were quite aware of the fact that they were expendable (no pun intended); especially if they put a torpedo into something not made of plywood or bigger than themselves.

OK, the PTs didn't see the enemy. What did the radar tell them about the Japanese TF composition at start? Two ships? So the PTs get closer. Another reading - six ships. Getting closer and the radar says 15 ships, 10 identified as DDs. OK, let's retreat.I get it.

Yet, if the radar gives them same vague reading at all times i.e six objects moving, then I don't understand why the PTs just didn't engage the Jap TF. If the radar give them same constant reading from the start saying 16 ships moving, then the PTs shouldn't be actually pressing home to meet the TF. Right now, the above engagement was an exercise in frustration.


User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: PT Boats

Post by crsutton »

Well, Aug 43, yes they should have engaged. But as said there is always a chance that they won't as in real war. Just like sometimes your carefully planed bombing missions won't fly. I have said this many times before but if the game does exactly what we want when we want it, then it will quickly grow redundant and quite boring. One reason that I have been a sucker for the game for over a decade is that you can never predict what will happen. This is how it should be...[;)]
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
reg113
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 10:42 pm
Location: MS, USA

RE: PT Boats

Post by reg113 »

YMMV [:D]
"Life's a b***h, then you die."
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”