Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

PTs in Flames /naval units CSV

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> PTs in Flames /naval units CSV Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
PTs in Flames /naval units CSV - 10/31/2008 7:31:01 PM   
wfzimmerman


Posts: 652
Joined: 10/22/2003
Status: offline
Hi,

My publishing company just signed to publish a really cool 12-volume pictorial history of torpedo boats, 1585 to 1945, by Joe Hinds, and naturally it got me started thinking about PTs & MGBs in MWIF.

After reading some of this stuff, I don't think the scale objection to PT & MGB counters is insuperable ... although some small craft were deployed in most sea areas/ports, there was a tendency to deploy large fleets of them in particular areas, and they were by no means uniformly attached to capital ships. The US built ~ 620 PTs in WW2, and about 400 of them were deployed in the South & Southwest Pacific. It would be pretty reasonable to justify a counter in the Solomons and another in the Phillipines (Surigao Strait, 1944.) Similarly with the Germans -- wouldn't it be pretty fun to have an E-boat counter in the English Channel?

As to the counter values, maybe 3 antiship, 0 or 1 AA, 0 or 1 ASW, 8 or 9 damage (stealthiness good, wood construction not so), range 2, movement 5?

I think they might deserve a "superpower" or two, maybe something directed at interdicting supply -- they were hell on wheels against barges in the Solomons.

Anyway, Steve, what would happen if one added an unknown ship type to the Units CSV? would that blow up the game, or can we insert mythical BBGs, PTs, and so on? is the ship label "PT" different from the ship type in the CSV? could we just treat a PT as similar to a CL? (some, but not all PTs, came with tenders, which were roughly the same size as a CL).

Cheers,

Fred



< Message edited by wfzimmerman -- 10/31/2008 7:37:01 PM >


_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: PTs in Flames /naval units CSV - 11/1/2008 1:31:43 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 2669
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
I've thought about that. They would be a little bit hard to model in WiF, but I think they would be good for certain things...that could make it into the game someday. I'll type some ideas later.

I've been wondering though, what was their record of success against capital ships in WWII? For all countries. I know they tore up merchant shipping in places, and the E-boats had their famous raid against US AMPHs out on manuevers (maybe a damage result in WiF?).

(in reply to wfzimmerman)
Post #: 2
RE: PTs in Flames /naval units CSV - 11/1/2008 5:05:51 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21052
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

Hi,

My publishing company just signed to publish a really cool 12-volume pictorial history of torpedo boats, 1585 to 1945, by Joe Hinds, and naturally it got me started thinking about PTs & MGBs in MWIF.

After reading some of this stuff, I don't think the scale objection to PT & MGB counters is insuperable ... although some small craft were deployed in most sea areas/ports, there was a tendency to deploy large fleets of them in particular areas, and they were by no means uniformly attached to capital ships. The US built ~ 620 PTs in WW2, and about 400 of them were deployed in the South & Southwest Pacific. It would be pretty reasonable to justify a counter in the Solomons and another in the Phillipines (Surigao Strait, 1944.) Similarly with the Germans -- wouldn't it be pretty fun to have an E-boat counter in the English Channel?

As to the counter values, maybe 3 antiship, 0 or 1 AA, 0 or 1 ASW, 8 or 9 damage (stealthiness good, wood construction not so), range 2, movement 5?

I think they might deserve a "superpower" or two, maybe something directed at interdicting supply -- they were hell on wheels against barges in the Solomons.

Anyway, Steve, what would happen if one added an unknown ship type to the Units CSV? would that blow up the game, or can we insert mythical BBGs, PTs, and so on? is the ship label "PT" different from the ship type in the CSV? could we just treat a PT as similar to a CL? (some, but not all PTs, came with tenders, which were roughly the same size as a CL).

Cheers,

Fred



There are 80 unit types already. The program only recognizes those unit types. Anything else should generate an immediate exception (though I haven't tested that specifically).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to wfzimmerman)
Post #: 3
RE: PTs in Flames /naval units CSV - 11/1/2008 9:30:03 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 34165
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

Hi,

My publishing company just signed to publish a really cool 12-volume pictorial history of torpedo boats, 1585 to 1945, by Joe Hinds, and naturally it got me started thinking about PTs & MGBs in MWIF.

After reading some of this stuff, I don't think the scale objection to PT & MGB counters is insuperable ... although some small craft were deployed in most sea areas/ports, there was a tendency to deploy large fleets of them in particular areas, and they were by no means uniformly attached to capital ships. The US built ~ 620 PTs in WW2, and about 400 of them were deployed in the South & Southwest Pacific. It would be pretty reasonable to justify a counter in the Solomons and another in the Phillipines (Surigao Strait, 1944.) Similarly with the Germans -- wouldn't it be pretty fun to have an E-boat counter in the English Channel?

As to the counter values, maybe 3 antiship, 0 or 1 AA, 0 or 1 ASW, 8 or 9 damage (stealthiness good, wood construction not so), range 2, movement 5?

I think they might deserve a "superpower" or two, maybe something directed at interdicting supply -- they were hell on wheels against barges in the Solomons.

Anyway, Steve, what would happen if one added an unknown ship type to the Units CSV? would that blow up the game, or can we insert mythical BBGs, PTs, and so on? is the ship label "PT" different from the ship type in the CSV? could we just treat a PT as similar to a CL? (some, but not all PTs, came with tenders, which were roughly the same size as a CL).

Cheers,

Fred


Warspite1

Given that we have the Italian minisubs in the game, its possible ADG have already thought of - and rejected - this. I do not know much about the US in the Pacific war, but I think historically their impact - at WIF scale - in Europe was minimal (unlike the Italian mini-subs that sunk Queen Elizabeth and Valiant (in shallow harbour waters, fortunately)). I think the largest ship lost to these vessels was the cruiser Manchester during Operation Pedestal, although her sister Newcastle was also damaged in a separate encounter. The German E-boats were active in making life difficult in the English Channel - but again with no real impact at WIF scale - but when the Channel had to be cleared for D-Day and the RN and RCN got serious about a properly trained force, apart from the tragic Operation Tiger episode, they had little if any success and certainly not anything that would affect the outcome of D-Day.

Something to look at for MWIF2 maybe?

(in reply to wfzimmerman)
Post #: 4
RE: PTs in Flames /naval units CSV - 11/1/2008 11:33:35 AM   
wosung

 

Posts: 658
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline
German E Boats were indeed quite effective around the Channel and generally in coastal warfare, even in the Black Sea. AFIR they scored quite hight among German naval weapons, like 3rd after U-Boats and mines. In 1944/45 the Reichsmarine virtually had nothing more left than those, a few DDs and other small vessels, like T-Boote (Torpedoboats), R-Boote (Minesweepers) and Kleinkampfmittel (Combat divers and explosive boats, etc.).

The Commander of German Marine, Dönitz, lost 2 sons in the war. One with an U-Boot, the other on an E-Boat in 1944.
The real and the possible German Submarine threat from 1943 onwards was and is generally highly overrated:

1. The snorchel was loud and thus detectable.
2. The Walther boat was fast but reached its tops speed only with an one time emergency incection.
3. And, this is the main point:replacing submergable Torpedoboats by real submarines only works, if you drastically increase your air and electronic reconnaissance. From 1943 onwards this was pure fantasy, given the Luftwaffes other missions. A submerged Walther boat could only detect ships within 20 nautical miles. Thus it was tied to the narrows around the British Isles.

Besides moral issues and inter service rivalries, the third – and quite telling - reason why the outclassed U-Boote still went on combat patrol in 1944/45 was: the lack of submarine pens to keep them all in harbour.


As for E boats in MWIF: I would love additional units. But the inclusion of naval vessels for coastal warfare would possibly also mean also:

1. to model E-boats/PTs prey: Small coastal freighters, barges and so on.
2. to revise the clumsy loss model of WIF towards, frex, step losses to simulate E Boat vs Convoy encounters. I would love to see that.
Regards

< Message edited by wosung -- 11/1/2008 11:35:56 AM >

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 5
RE: PTs in Flames /naval units CSV - 11/1/2008 4:13:14 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 2669
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
I think in the Black Sea, the Romanian DD counter nicely simulates the naval effort of Rumania, Italy, and Germany.

In the English Channel, to use light naval forces, including the British MTB's, several things would have to change. The British lost a lot of shipping on their east coast in the war. This never happens in WiF, because the shipping used on that side of the UK was moving things from north to south or vice versa, from within the country, because it was more efficient than the railroads. In WiF, there is no need to simulate that shipping.

Also, my regular opponent has an excellent idea to improve the reality of the English Channel...make the boundary at Dover/Calais. My idea for light naval forces would go hand-in-hand with that...let anyone move through the English Channel, and even if using the 'via port' clause in the rules to use the Channel when you don't control Dover or Calais, subject the moving force to a generic attack of so many factors (maybe double if one side controls both Dover and Calais simultaneously). Kind of like the old 'Sea Mines' optional that allowed movement into the Baltic or through Gibraltar in exchange for taking a one time combat loss against 50 surface factors. That optional has been scrapped, but I would like to see it return in some form, and maybe be beefed up in strength. One suggestion would be to simulate the heavy casualties which would result by making the movement attempt fail after too many losses ... a real navy would eventually fail a morale check and turn around and go home. The problem with that optional was in WiF, you are commanding a cardboard navy, and you get to order it do things regardless of casualties.

Another place to use light naval craft would be during an invasion of or adjacent to any Major Port. Do you really think the Axis could have invaded Gibraltar without losing any ships, just because the CW missed a 30-50% search roll (or no roll if the CW was busy refueling due to end-of-turn) in the Western Med? In the case of Major Ports, the generic defense factor could represent torpedo boats in addition to minefields and shore batteries. Such a defense mechanism would be a bit more accurate than allowing the CW to stuff 7 divisions and a couple thousand planes into the little place.

In the Med, the Italians had some good torpedo boats I think? The British also used them...for both sides the focus of using them was on interdicting enemy supply I believe.

In the Pacific, a place to see the use of light naval craft would be in several of the narrow straits. As WiFZ mentioned, the US used them during a Japanese fleet movement through the Suriago Strait. One thing I would like to see modeled more accurately is the Strait of Malacca. After the Japanese take Singapore, do you think an Allied fleet based in Calcutta could sail through it with impunity to attack shipping in the South China Sea? Or would Japanese DD squadrons (did the Japanese use torpedo boats?) have a field day launching the Long Lance in such narrow waters? But in WiF you can sail past that base all you want. But to model things like that, WiF would have to evolve a lot further past the awesomely playable area naval movement system it now has. I hope that someday the brilliant WiF economic and force construction system can be wedded to a more realistic and detailed hex-based naval game, with simultaneous hidden movement orders, which would be possible with the aid of computers.

(in reply to wosung)
Post #: 6
RE: PTs in Flames /naval units CSV - 11/2/2008 4:14:38 PM   
NeBert

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 2/11/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung

German E Boats were indeed quite effective around the Channel and generally in coastal warfare, even in the Black Sea. AFIR they scored quite hight among German naval weapons, like 3rd after U-Boats and mines. In 1944/45 the Reichsmarine virtually had nothing more left than those, a few DDs and other small vessels, like T-Boote (Torpedoboats), R-Boote (Minesweepers) and Kleinkampfmittel (Combat divers and explosive boats, etc.).

The Commander of German Marine, Dönitz, lost 2 sons in the war. One with an U-Boot, the other on an E-Boat in 1944.
The real and the possible German Submarine threat from 1943 onwards was and is generally highly overrated:

1. The snorchel was loud and thus detectable.
2. The Walther boat was fast but reached its tops speed only with an one time emergency incection.
3. And, this is the main point:replacing submergable Torpedoboats by real submarines only works, if you drastically increase your air and electronic reconnaissance. From 1943 onwards this was pure fantasy, given the Luftwaffes other missions. A submerged Walther boat could only detect ships within 20 nautical miles. Thus it was tied to the narrows around the British Isles.

Besides moral issues and inter service rivalries, the third – and quite telling - reason why the outclassed U-Boote still went on combat patrol in 1944/45 was: the lack of submarine pens to keep them all in harbour.


As for E boats in MWIF: I would love additional units. But the inclusion of naval vessels for coastal warfare would possibly also mean also:

1. to model E-boats/PTs prey: Small coastal freighters, barges and so on.
2. to revise the clumsy loss model of WIF towards, frex, step losses to simulate E Boat vs Convoy encounters. I would love to see that.
Regards

one question and one remark:
?) what is the "E"-abbreviation in E-boat for? I only know "S-Boat" for the german "Schnellboot".
R) from late ´44 the Type XXI (21) submarine-class was available which was thanks to its large batteries and new electro-engines a full combat submarine type.

regards

_____________________________

NeBert

(in reply to wosung)
Post #: 7
RE: PTs in Flames /naval units CSV - 11/2/2008 7:12:14 PM   
wosung

 

Posts: 658
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline
You’re absolutely right: Contemporary German use was Schnellboot (“fast boat”). E-Boat just seems to be the (contemporary?!) English usage. Being not a native English speaker I’m not sure, what the E should stand for. Maybe “Express”?!

Type XXI indeed was more of a submarine than a submergable torpedo boat. But it also had to recharge its batteries by diesel motor, either schnorcheling or surfacing. Given the then in both cases increased visual/sound detectability such an operation was a matter of timing and luck.

But still, the never solved main contradiction in late-war German naval strategy remained: Without increasing air recon the switch from submergable torpedo boat to submarine remained usless and as such a waste of ressources. Even if the Nazi-Regime hoped that the U Boote wonder weapons would become a renewed and now last offensive weapon of the “Third Reich”.

This at last is the quintessence of:
Werner Rahn, Die Deutsche Seekriegführung 1943 bis 1945 [German Naval Strategy, m1943-1945], in: Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg [The German Reich and WW 2], Vol 10.1, Rolf-Dieter Müller (Ed.), Der Zusammenbruch des Deutschen Reiches 1945 [The Collaps of the German Reich 1945], München 2008, p.3-273.

“The German Reich and WW 2” is the official German military history, edited by Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt [Institute of Military history] in Potsdam, which is closely connected with the Bundesarchiv/Militärarchiv [Federal Archive/Military Archive] in Freiburg. Therefore the Edition is based on a huge ammount of archive sources.

The good news for English speakers, that the whole edition is and will be translated into English. and published by Oxford UP, frex:

Germany and the Second World War: Volume VII: The Strategic Air War in Europe and the War in the West and East Asia, 1943-1944/5: 7 (Germany and the Second World War)

Bad news is, since it’s hard cover and academic writing, right now, each volume is really expensive. But simply the best you can get about Germany in WW 2.

I’m not affiliated with this edition or getting paid to advertise it. Just readingt it with great pleasure.

Regards

(in reply to NeBert)
Post #: 8
RE: PTs in Flames /naval units CSV - 11/3/2008 11:28:07 AM   
Stabilo

 

Posts: 140
Joined: 2/3/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung

Werner Rahn, Die Deutsche Seekriegführung 1943 bis 1945 [German Naval Strategy, m1943-1945], in: Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg [The German Reich and WW 2], Vol 10.1, Rolf-Dieter Müller (Ed.), Der Zusammenbruch des Deutschen Reiches 1945 [The Collaps of the German Reich 1945], München 2008, p.3-273.

“The German Reich and WW 2” is the official German military history, edited by Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt [Institute of Military history] in Potsdam, which is closely connected with the Bundesarchiv/Militärarchiv [Federal Archive/Military Archive] in Freiburg. Therefore the Edition is based on a huge ammount of archive sources.

The good news for English speakers, that the whole edition is and will be translated into English. and published by Oxford UP, frex:

Germany and the Second World War: Volume VII: The Strategic Air War in Europe and the War in the West and East Asia, 1943-1944/5: 7 (Germany and the Second World War)

Bad news is, since it’s hard cover and academic writing, right now, each volume is really expensive. But simply the best you can get about Germany in WW 2.

I’m not affiliated with this edition or getting paid to advertise it. Just readingt it with great pleasure.

Regards




It is expensive in Germany too (49,80 € for each of the 12 books - ok, not 300 $ each as in the US) but it is worth every cent. I would love to read something similar about the Pacific War...

(in reply to wosung)
Post #: 9
RE: PTs in Flames /naval units CSV - 11/4/2008 3:26:03 AM   
Neilster


Posts: 2780
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

What is the "E"-abbreviation in E-boat for?

Enter-see boote

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to Stabilo)
Post #: 10
RE: PTs in Flames /naval units CSV - 11/4/2008 2:15:59 PM   
wfzimmerman


Posts: 652
Joined: 10/22/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

There are 80 unit types already. The program only recognizes those unit types. Anything else should generate an immediate exception (though I haven't tested that specifically).



While I was in the shower i had a brainstorm ... I think the best way to model MTBs in a MWIF house rule (as opposed to regular WIF) is to treat them as very slow short ranged flying boat naval bombers.

that way they can do something useful -- fly a2s or ground strike missions -- with 1 or 2 attack factors. WifZen is that in terms of range, crewing, maintenance they were quite a bit like aircraft. Also, this makes them transportable, which is how MTBs actually reached their theatre of operations.


< Message edited by wfzimmerman -- 11/4/2008 3:27:11 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 11
RE: PTs in Flames /naval units CSV - 11/4/2008 3:01:29 PM   
Neilster


Posts: 2780
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline
Ground strike?

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to wfzimmerman)
Post #: 12
RE: PTs in Flames /naval units CSV - 11/4/2008 3:26:57 PM   
wfzimmerman


Posts: 652
Joined: 10/22/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Ground strike?

Cheers, Neilster



The equivalent of disrupting the coastal or riverine traffic that provide some portions of supply and combat efficiency to land units. This was a major PT mission in the Solomons, MGBs in the Aegean, E-boats against Normandy (although that didn't pan out).

House rule it to only coastal hexes.

< Message edited by wfzimmerman -- 11/4/2008 3:27:35 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Neilster)
Post #: 13
RE: PTs in Flames /naval units CSV - 11/5/2008 1:17:59 AM   
Neilster


Posts: 2780
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Ground strike?

Cheers, Neilster



The equivalent of disrupting the coastal or riverine traffic that provide some portions of supply and combat efficiency to land units. This was a major PT mission in the Solomons, MGBs in the Aegean, E-boats against Normandy (although that didn't pan out).

House rule it to only coastal hexes.

But "ground strike" in WiF means something very specific, and it's not that.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to wfzimmerman)
Post #: 14
RE: PTs in Flames /naval units CSV - 11/5/2008 3:28:30 PM   
wfzimmerman


Posts: 652
Joined: 10/22/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster


But "ground strike" in WiF means something very specific, and it's not that.

Cheers, Neilster



I realize that using the air rules is a stretch -- maybe a bridge too far! -- but for this purpose, in MWIF, I am arguing that ground strike simply means a 1 in 10 or 2 in 10 chance of a flip in anti-land-unit mode, which is about what I think the PT/MGBs were capable of.

As I work my way through the copy editing of Joe Hinds' 10-volume history, I am keeping a side worksheet for MWIF-compatible PT/MGB units in both naval and air. Right now, it looks as if there will be 1-4 flotilla units per major power. (The Soviets called theirs "brigades").

What drove me to think about air is that deployed as naval units in a sea area, the PTs will be lost amid the noise of all the other ship counters. As additional NAVs, they are far more interesting and "chromatic."


_____________________________


(in reply to Neilster)
Post #: 15
RE: PTs in Flames /naval units CSV - 11/5/2008 5:44:40 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 2669
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
I'm not sure how many people would want to add counters to a clock that groans with the weight of them all from 1943 onwards, just to block supply to notional units. Perhaps PT boats are what allow the USMC to walk forward unopposed on to adjacent enemy islands....

(in reply to wfzimmerman)
Post #: 16
RE: PTs in Flames /naval units CSV - 11/5/2008 6:08:10 PM   
wfzimmerman


Posts: 652
Joined: 10/22/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I'm not sure how many people would want to add counters to a clock that groans with the weight of them all from 1943 onwards, just to block supply to notional units. Perhaps PT boats are what allow the USMC to walk forward unopposed on to adjacent enemy islands....


Fair point. As I said at the top of the thread, I got interested in this because I'm editing a 10(!) volume history of MTBs. OK if no one else is interested. But it is bringing up some interesting issues about how to create house rules in MWIF.

_____________________________


(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 17
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> PTs in Flames /naval units CSV Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.168