Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Artillery Battle Academy 2: Eastern Front - End of Early Access Space Program Manager unveils its multiplayer modes Another update for Commander: The Great War!Distant Worlds: Universe gets a new updateDeal of the Week: Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich Advanced Tactics Gold is coming to SteamMatrix Games now speaks German!A little bit of history with To End All WarsBattle Academy 2 gets a release date!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

The Rock

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury >> The Rock Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The Rock - 3/20/2012 1:25:05 AM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 409
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
Any Ideas regarding how (while still keeping the game simple) how best to handle Gibraltar?

Gibraltar is rather poorly handled in ToF (and most war games) its interdiction ability vastly overestimated. It blocks the straight like a solid wall. The reality is that air units and shore guns and most importantly naval units based there could force an engagement with anything attempting to transit the narrow (14.3 kilometer) straight. The actual count of naval guns and there size was not too impressive. With less than a dozen large ( well 9.2 inch so not huge Wikipedia 9.2" Guns ) guns and a few dozen 6" guns the fort itself simply wasn't going to significantly hinder any BB even CA moving through. Transports of course are another matter, but if a couple of BB and a few CA are engaging with some DD deploying smoke even a transport fleet could force the straight against the fort alone.




I have a few ideas

First and most important. IF NOT AT WAR with the holder anyone can sail thru the straight. After UK is taken in ToF (it happens...) for example GE and IT cannot transit and could not even attack GB as it is listed as neutral 'pro axis' but in the allied sphere of influence. The absurdity of the diplomatic situation described is something for another post.

Perhaps The Fort would get a 'free shot' at ships passing each stack as it moves (not much of a shot a BB or CA would have little to fear but transports would have a chance of a problem.

And / Or ships 'based' would get a free first shot then an automatic engagement. After the engagement the moving player would be on the 'other side' Pretty hard to sneak past even with subs against Naval units operating out of 'The Rock' The Fort perhaps should also be included in the engagement (perhaps with the firepower of a strong BB unit which cannot be destroyed (give it 999 Hit points or something)

Another idea is to give GB a stationary CV unit in the port (could be damaged and repaired like a normal CV) It would get a 'shot' with the fort at each stack of enemy units passing. It could also do recon and air strikes on adjacent sea areas like any other CV I expect this could be modded except for the 'free shot'

No fog of war at Gibraltar while Spain is neutral (or enemy). Anyone with binoculars is going to pretty much see everything significant...

Really addressing this would increase the game complexity too much (stacking for instance. Air units would be based with ground units at Gibraltar, but the Gibraltar 'hex' really would have to be 'smaller' in capacity than a normal land hex as you just can't deploy large formations in such a small space (only 6.8 sq km).

_____________________________

"Donít you think that if I were wrong, Iíd know it?"
Post #: 1
RE: The Rock - 3/20/2012 1:31:48 AM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 409
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
Just a PS

Most war games (not just ToF) seem to take this as a 'given' from the Napoleonic period through WW2 (I seem to remember it is the case in a 1980's era naval game as well LOL) It looks like a case of someone 'decided' it was 'the' design and almost everyone who came after followed the 'precedent'.

_____________________________

"Donít you think that if I were wrong, Iíd know it?"

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 2
RE: The Rock - 3/20/2012 3:42:02 AM   
Razz


Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline
You forget about the Guns on the other side of the straight.
The bombers at the airport in Africa and the ships waiting on either side.

Pretty easy to sink ships in a small area.

What about the English channel at 21 to 150 miles wide?

You didn't see the German navy sail through there for a reason. Except there was one made dash but that is a different story and a much larger area.

I can see Catalina Island on a clear day and that is about 12 miles away.

Your looking at 6 miles with no pollution in WW2. Pretty close to seeing ships easily with out binoculars. Add a few of those and you can target ships easily.

Not much room to zig zag while the Enemy's Navy sails from port to meet you.

What about mines that make you sail a more narrow path and your buddies sitting in submarines laughing while they shoot you like fish in a barrel?

Even sending submarines through the pass was considered suicide although it did succeed with looses. (Operation Betasome)

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 3
RE: The Rock - 3/20/2012 4:10:50 AM   
battlevonwar

 

Posts: 217
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline
I tend to think of the nightmares the Allied Navy had in WW1 with Gallipoli. It's sad that you cannot traverse the narrow passage without risk though or attempt to overpower it. :: shrugs :: I would love to pour the Italian Navy into the Atlantic at a heavy cost.

< Message edited by battlevonwar -- 3/20/2012 4:12:15 AM >

(in reply to Razz)
Post #: 4
RE: The Rock - 3/20/2012 5:01:48 AM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 409
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
Basically the Germans didn't go thru because there was really never any reason to take the risk. I never contended it would be easy, but the fort (with fewer and smaller guns than a single BB) wasn't going to stop someone who had a plan and shipping (and a good reason) to try to force it. The RN and a bit of air power (very limited due to space constraints on Gibraltar) is the reason GB could interdict traffic but that would be naval battle with the help from the fort. The English Channel should be closed then as well and well comparing with the Dardanelles is just really not accurate the geography is VERY restrictive there, as is the case in Denmark to a lesser extent. I have been to all four places (and Catalina as well for that matter LOL) Air and navy can interdict a narrow area and did. Mines at Gibraltar would not be to effective (Deep with very strong current) actually more effective in the Channel. The Dardanelles is of course completely different. BTW the guns on the other side were in Spanish territory and weren't going to fire on neutral shipping (and really didn't amount to much in any case)

Really Razz did you even think of exposure times, rates of fire, ranges, traveling at night... (effectively only 2 9.2" guns facing south)? I am saying the FORT doesn't block the straight. It gives advantage but you get a battle not a force field. A relatively secure sally point for air and naval forces. I don't expect the Bismark would have needed to avoid 9.2" fire at 10000 yards, it would simply have been ineffective. My point is it is a naval battle not a wall.

The naval rules in ToF need a bit of work. The game is good but it can be better.

The rules of this game block it like it was a concrete wall. Just plain silly, particularly when you can sail the English channel without any problems.

The game really needs some intercept rules. There does not seem to be any way to 'force' a battle. (the enemy gets to stay) at the very least the small forces (surface) which avoid combat should retreat.

One good example is that I just had a landing in Narvik succeed (division vrs division) with 4 carriers and much of the home fleet in the sea zone. Simply ridiculous. (add to that that Narvik was not only occupied but surrounded and the French teleported home instead of laying siege and retaking it you have a simulation problem. ( I do understand when a country surrenders it is hard to get game to resolve the issue of forces fighting in the territory but you do get some pretty unrealistic events which could be handled a bit better. For all practical purposes if the UK France and Germany are fighting in Norway NO one cares if Norway surrenders. In this example the single Norweagan division was effectively irrelevant. BTW my guess (FoW makes uncertainty) is that the landing may have been more than one unit or a followup unit was landed as the German unit in Narvik was full strength. BattleVonWar perhaps as the German in the game you can let us know what happened, clearly the RN did't have much effect. All I saw in PBEM was 4 French Divisions in and all around Narvik then a German full strength division in the city. (the FR division in the city was damaged but at as I recall over 20%)

Bottom line is its a game with some flaws, we can ignore them or look to make it better. If ToF wasn't pretty good already it wouldn't be worth making suggestions.

< Message edited by JLPOWELL -- 3/20/2012 8:39:23 AM >


_____________________________

"Donít you think that if I were wrong, Iíd know it?"

(in reply to Razz)
Post #: 5
RE: The Rock - 3/20/2012 5:08:18 AM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 409
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
If a zone is undefended you should be able to traverse it. If a significant enemy force is there you would need to win to get past them (not in the wide Atlantic perhaps but in the North Sea and Channel areas for sure). The Dardanelles are of course MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH narrower and shallow and guarded from both sides etc. And yet the RN was able to penetrate into a bit them and get troops ashore BTW the naval part of Gallipoli was successful (they were successful in landing the troops) they just couldn't win the land battle.
quote:

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar

I tend to think of the nightmares the Allied Navy had in WW1 with Gallipoli. It's sad that you cannot traverse the narrow passage without risk though or attempt to overpower it. :: shrugs :: I would love to pour the Italian Navy into the Atlantic at a heavy cost.



_____________________________

"Donít you think that if I were wrong, Iíd know it?"

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 6
RE: The Rock - 3/20/2012 5:50:13 AM   
Razz


Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline
I'm not disagreeing with you just pointing out there were more things to consider besides Gibraltar if you wish to pass.

If it was so easy to implement forces not deploying to the pool when a country surrenders Paradox would have implemented it.

In those games you can program it so troops do not deploy to the pool. However it was a design decision to do it the way the games are at Paradox.

For TOF this option is behind the scenes.

No matter which way you program it you can't please all.

There's always the debate: If the country surrenders, how many Generals will refuse the order and continue the fight.

Just because the government accepts Vichy doesn't mean the army and air force have to follow suit. After all they are fighting for their country and loved ones.

For Narvik and other points in the game, defense has improved allot for those key cities in the Third Reich.

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 7
RE: The Rock - 3/20/2012 9:49:29 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1686
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
I don't think that Gibraltar was much of a block its self, the shore guns are not likely to stop a determined effort to pass, in a 7 day turn you could more easily pass the straits at night and submarines should have an even better chance. Apart from in its own self defence I don't think that Gibraltar as a fortification has much effect. Like any other fort hex, it shouldn't stop enemy units passing in adjacent hexes, but would be more difficult to attack, until the fort level is reduced

The effect that Gibraltar has, is the ability to call down air and naval forces on an enemy, but only if those forces are available. Without air and naval forces, Gibraltar is ineffective.

If there are no naval, or air, units present, or in adjacent sea zones, Gibraltar is just another fort. With either air, or naval, units present there could be a combat bonus, since detection (apart from submarines) is almost assured and reaction time for Gibraltar based units is very short. Air units can make many more attacks, with home base so close, for refuelling and rearming, naval operations are simplified.

In any condition submarines should be able to pass the straits, but with a higher detection probability, because the area to be searched, or to hide in, is so limited.

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 3/20/2012 6:44:53 PM >


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Razz)
Post #: 8
RE: The Rock - 3/20/2012 1:04:36 PM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 707
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline
Two words.

Plunging Fire.

Even the strongest BBs do not have great deck armour.

The higher the gun platform, the more likely that shells fired from it will hit the weak deck armour rather than the stonnger belts around the sides and citadel.

Even 6" guns could cause severe damage.

Your argument is rather like the one Churchill used to try and get the RN to send as fleet into the Baltic during the opening stages of the war ... the IGS had to gently, but forcefully, point out the problems of passing through narrow straits and remaining in range of land based air ... not exactly the same, but similar.

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 9
RE: The Rock - 3/20/2012 1:09:13 PM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5320
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline
It is really hard to model such small territory on this scale, so we must make some sacrifices.

aspqrz, where have you been for the last month?

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 10
RE: The Rock - 3/20/2012 2:46:14 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1686
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader
It is really hard to model such small territory on this scale, so we must make some sacrifices.


The reality is that, apart from submarines, the axis navies did not try and force the straits, whether the fortress of Gibraltar deserved its reputation is not so important, but it is the way it was viewed.

I would only say that there should be a way to take axis submarines past an allied controlled Gibraltar, even if there is some random cost in strength points, to reflect the anti-submarine defence, with odds increasing as allied tech level increases. The same could be applied to any of the narrow seas (Channel, Skagerrak, etc.).


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 11
RE: The Rock - 3/20/2012 5:24:57 PM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 409
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
Plunging fire at 10000+ meters Seriously? From a 100m elevation? Its all going to be somewhat plunging at that distance based on trajectory. Besides the fort just didn't have many guns, a single BB outguns the whole thing. The guns are adequate for soft targets, but of course the main purpose is to stop an enemy from sailing right up to the harbor shooting up the airfield and shipping.

_____________________________

"Donít you think that if I were wrong, Iíd know it?"

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 12
RE: The Rock - 3/20/2012 5:35:02 PM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 409
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
Pretty much my point. BTW I do understand the need for simplicity in a game. Simplicity is ToF's greatest strength. That said I think the naval rules are its greatest weakness (the events system and 'unit caps' do vie for the top spot however now that the T Rex Tanks have been nerfed a bit.)

If you want to improve something you get the greatest result fixing the most deficient element. There was a thread a while back about 'fixing' the air rules. Sure there are some improvements to be made there, but by and large the air section is working pretty well. The naval rules on the other hand are a different matter. When I get a chance I think I will start a thread on what is right and wrong with the game IMHO. Perhaps I will call it "The Good The Bad and the Undocumented"


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

I don't think that Gibraltar was much of a block its self, the shore guns are not likely to stop a determined effort to pass, in a 7 day turn you could more easily pass the straits at night and submarines should have an even better chance. Apart from in its own self defence I don't think that Gibraltar as a fortification has much effect. Like any other fort hex, it shouldn't stop enemy units passing in adjacent hexes, but would be more difficult to attack, until the fort level is reduced

The effect that Gibraltar has, is the ability to call down air and naval forces on an enemy, but only if those forces are available. Without air and naval forces, Gibraltar is ineffective emphasis added J.

If there are no naval, or air, units present, or in adjacent sea zones, Gibraltar is just another fort. With either air, or naval, units present there could be a combat bonus, since detection (apart from submarines) is almost assured and reaction time for Gibraltar based units is very short. Air units can make many more attacks, with home base so close, for refuelling and rearming, naval operations are simplified.

I any condition submarines should be able to pass the straits, but with a higher detection probability, because the area to be searched, or to hide in, is so limited.



_____________________________

"Donít you think that if I were wrong, Iíd know it?"

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 13
RE: The Rock - 3/21/2012 6:28:10 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 707
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline
Back at work. School teacher, down under (Australia) where the summer holidays are, well, in your winter ... so I had a lot of time to spend gaming and discussing things until the end of January ... then back to the grind, a new school year and lots of pointless record keeping and excessively rigid (and equally pointless) and meaningless assessments for all and sundry.

Another month (more or less) off at present, so I should be at least as active as before ... and I have the whole of the second half of the year (beginning of July 2012 to end of January 2013) off as well (what we call "Long Service Leave", which I don't think anyone else in the world has, or not the same, but is closest to an academic sabbatical, sort of, though almost all workers get it ... as long as you work at least 10 years with the same company ... me, 35 years in )

Phil

< Message edited by aspqrz -- 3/21/2012 6:32:40 AM >


_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 14
RE: The Rock - 3/21/2012 6:44:34 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 707
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline
Unless you have better sources than I have (I am using Osprey's Fortress #52: The Fortifications of Gibraltar 1068-1945), the maps show *seven* 9.2" guns in battery, five of which are on the crest running across the top of the rock, and which have, according to my sources "almost 360 degree" fields of fire. These would have the capacity for "plunging fire" as noted elsewhere/.

The two which are lower, at almost at the tip of the rock/peninsula and would easily have 270 degree fields of fire.

There were also 2 x 9.2" Howitzers down near the bottom 9.2" rifles with similar field of fire.

Wouldn't want to face them myself, not even in a BB ... and definitely not in a CA or CL.

Then there's the 6" guns and the like.

However, as others have intimated, and you have almost done, Gibraltar is not, in and of itself, a compleat obstacle ... it is a severely constricting road bump that would be useful in conjunction with the RN "fleet in being" ... the damage you'd take traversing the straits (and there's a very strong current which will increase time in range) means that you'll be facing the RN on the "other side" at a severe disadvantage ...

And, of course, forget about merchantmen traversing it unscathed ... they are LST's (large low targets) that even the 25lbers could damage.

Not impossible. Just not a real good idea ... a real dumb one, in fact.

YMMV.

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 15
RE: The Rock - 3/21/2012 6:47:41 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 707
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline
The Italians, even, ran it relatively regularly, east to west, mostly, and the Germans, to a lesser extent, west to east.

There is a strong current, which made it somewhat dangerous, as they obviously had to traverse it submerged, but the water is relatively deep.

The Kattegat and Skagerrak are a different kettle of fish. Shallow. Very shallow.

Likewise the Dardanelles and the Golden Horn.

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 16
RE: The Rock - 3/21/2012 6:57:28 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 707
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline
The Rock elevation is 490 meters or so, and the five "high" 9.2" batteries are along the spine, not at the peak, but I'd guess (from the map) at least 380-400 meters ... and the 9.2" Mk. IX/X Coastal Defence gun had a range of 26700 meters rather different from your estimates in both cases.

Edit: Range with the new *high angle fire* mounts used in the batteries on the Rock was on the order of 36000 yards, to boot.

Phil

< Message edited by aspqrz -- 3/22/2012 12:40:32 AM >


_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 17
RE: The Rock - 3/24/2012 2:22:40 AM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 409
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
The Straight is no more blockable by coastal artillery than the channel. Distances are similar. Comparing with Dardanelles is ridiculous. We have a good discussion at least, but some pretty strong opinions about what a few guns could do at the extreme of their range (perhaps we add some rain and dark of night....) and or some counter fire from a heavy BB or three and some smoke and surprise and who knows perhaps its not impossible or even that hard PROVIDED the defending NAVAL units can be dealt with. My original point is the game does not handle this well.[image][/image]




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Donít you think that if I were wrong, Iíd know it?"

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 18
RE: The Rock - 3/24/2012 2:23:41 AM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 409
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
And as they say on Monty Python something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by JLPOWELL -- 3/24/2012 2:25:18 AM >


_____________________________

"Donít you think that if I were wrong, Iíd know it?"

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 19
RE: The Rock - 3/24/2012 2:26:40 AM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 409
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
And now the English Channel something not quite so different..[image][/image]




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by JLPOWELL -- 3/24/2012 2:28:01 AM >


_____________________________

"Donít you think that if I were wrong, Iíd know it?"

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 20
RE: The Rock - 3/24/2012 2:28:22 AM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 409
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
And for extra credit. Where is this and who vowed to come back....




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Donít you think that if I were wrong, Iíd know it?"

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 21
RE: The Rock - 3/24/2012 7:43:49 PM   
Chocolino


Posts: 1419
Joined: 2/14/2009
Status: offline
JLPOWELL - very nicely put into perspective (I mean Gibraltar and the Channel vs the width of the Bosporus)

I am not an expert of naval guns or their effect. But I remember that passing the channel was already considered a daring adventure for German warships (i.e. channel dash by Scharnhorst, Prinz Eugen and Gneisenau in '42. That was with air cover and by surprise.) Gibraltar with 50% less distance may have been more perilous.

To get back to your initial question on How to handle it in ToF: I suggest to allow ships to pass Gibraltar at their own peril in ToF and assign some extra damage to them just for passing if enemy controlled, simulating the effect of various defenses. In good old ToF fashion this can be done randomly between reasonable min and max.

P.S. Were there not also large nets to prevent submarines to pass? I remember something form the movie "Das Boot" but am not sure if this was embellished. At least in the movie they made it - I believe - from the Atlantic to Italy.

< Message edited by Chocolino -- 3/24/2012 7:46:32 PM >

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 22
RE: The Rock - 3/24/2012 9:22:23 PM   
Razz


Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline
Sea zones can not be controlled.

The main fear is the enemy's Navy and air power.

They can easily spot you and then surround you on both sides. Then your also surrounded from the land. So all 4 sides can attack you.

(in reply to Chocolino)
Post #: 23
RE: The Rock - 3/25/2012 12:52:02 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 707
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline
No nets across the Gibraltar/Ceuta straits. Too wide, for a start. The real problem for submarines is that the tidal race is so strong ... even when it's in the right direction for you, it is so strong as to overpower the submarine's engines, making the traverse of the passage very dodgy.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Gibraltar) ...

"During the Second World War, German U-boats used the currents to pass into the Mediterranean Sea without detection, by maintaining silence with engines off. From Sept 1941 to May 1944 Germany managed to send 62 U-boats into the Mediterranean. All these boats had to navigate the British-controlled Strait of Gibraltar where 9 U-boats were sunk while attempting passage and 10 more had to break off their run due to damages. No U-boats ever made it back into the Atlantic and all were either sunk in battle or scuttled by their own crews."

That's almost a 15% outright loss rate and over 30% total loss/fail rate.

Not great odds ... for submarines, anyway.

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to Chocolino)
Post #: 24
RE: The Rock - 3/25/2012 6:37:29 AM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 409
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
Yea but 0% lost to coastal batteries Subs took pretty high losses anytime they went to sea the overall casualty rate for UBoat crew makes being a bomber crew on the allied side (VERY dangerous) look safe.

--- From http://www.uboataces.com (not exactly a primary source but looks about right to me)
Of the 1,155 U-boats Germany sent into combat, 725 had been sunk in the longest battle of the war. Lasting nearly six years, over 35,000 German sailors had put to sea, with 28,744 never returning Ė a death rate of 82 percent, the highest casualty rate of any armed forces of any conflict in the history of modern war.
---

(BTW nets in the harbor not across the straight...)
quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

No nets across the Gibraltar/Ceuta straits. Too wide, for a start. The real problem for submarines is that the tidal race is so strong ... even when it's in the right direction for you, it is so strong as to overpower the submarine's engines, making the traverse of the passage very dodgy.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Gibraltar) ...

"During the Second World War, German U-boats used the currents to pass into the Mediterranean Sea without detection, by maintaining silence with engines off. From Sept 1941 to May 1944 Germany managed to send 62 U-boats into the Mediterranean. All these boats had to navigate the British-controlled Strait of Gibraltar where 9 U-boats were sunk while attempting passage and 10 more had to break off their run due to damages. No U-boats ever made it back into the Atlantic and all were either sunk in battle or scuttled by their own crews."

That's almost a 15% outright loss rate and over 30% total loss/fail rate.

Not great odds ... for submarines, anyway.

Phil


_____________________________

"Donít you think that if I were wrong, Iíd know it?"

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 25
RE: The Rock - 3/26/2012 4:00:54 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 707
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL
Yea but 0% lost to coastal batteries Subs took pretty high losses anytime they went to sea the overall casualty rate for UBoat crew makes being a bomber crew on the allied side (VERY dangerous) look safe.


Or putting it another way, the Rock had a 100% success rate for preventing passage by major surface combatants ... probably not because of the deployment of anti-submarine assets, either

Knives cut both ways

Phil


< Message edited by aspqrz -- 3/26/2012 4:01:58 AM >


_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to JLPOWELL)
Post #: 26
RE: The Rock - 3/26/2012 11:01:10 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1686
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz
Or putting it another way, the Rock had a 100% success rate for preventing passage by major surface combatants ... probably not because of the deployment of anti-submarine assets, either

Knives cut both ways

Phil


That could be that the reputation if Gibraltar worked to dissuade attempts by surface vessels, or more likely because there was no interest, the Germans having no spare surface units for the Mediterranean and the Italians had their hands full and no interest, or strategic need, to pass into the Atlantic.

The 'Channel Dash' showed that shore defences were completely ineffective, I know the Channel is wider than the Straits, but there guns were mostly out of date and would probably not perform well against moving targets. Both the Scharnhort and the Gneisenau were damaged in the dash, by mines laid by other forces. I maintain the point made earlier, Gibraltar its self has little effect, apart from in its own defence as a fortress, as with the 'Channel Dash', it requires other forces (air and naval) to close the straits.



_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 27
RE: The Rock - 3/27/2012 12:15:09 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 707
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa


quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz
Or putting it another way, the Rock had a 100% success rate for preventing passage by major surface combatants ... probably not because of the deployment of anti-submarine assets, either

Knives cut both ways

Phil


That could be that the reputation if Gibraltar worked to dissuade attempts by surface vessels, or more likely because there was no interest, the Germans having no spare surface units for the Mediterranean and the Italians had their hands full and no interest, or strategic need, to pass into the Atlantic.

The 'Channel Dash' showed that shore defences were completely ineffective, I know the Channel is wider than the Straits, but there guns were mostly out of date and would probably not perform well against moving targets. Both the Scharnhort and the Gneisenau were damaged in the dash, by mines laid by other forces. I maintain the point made earlier, Gibraltar its self has little effect, apart from in its own defence as a fortress, as with the 'Channel Dash', it requires other forces (air and naval) to close the straits.


The Italians also didn't have the fuel to do anything much with their navy. They had stupidly started the war with no (or virtually no) fuel reserves and relied entirely on begging to Hitler for fuel to keep the Regia Marina's fleet units in bunkerage ... Hitler, who didn't have any fuel to spare, really, "gave" them fuel from the Kriegsmarine reserves ... which, of course, made the Kriegsmarine so happy that they delivered in full and on time ... not.

That's the real reason most of the RM's major fleet units did nothing but stay in port ... only enough fuel to keep maintenance levels of operation.

So, even if the Italians had had a reason for attempting operation(s) that required movement through the straits, they probably couldn't have fuelled it without willing assistance from the Germans.

As for the Germans and the Kriegsmarine ... well, they did pre-war reserves, but were basically at the end of the list for fuel supplies, of which Germany was always short.

After the initial wave of conquests, where the Germans captured enough from the strategic reserves of their opponents to replace the fuel they expended in capturing them, the Germans were always severely short of fuel.

It is my understanding that even operational level decisions regarding deployment of forces were being made based on fuel shortages as early as 1941 ... so, even if the Kriegsmarine had seen value in forcing the straits, what would be the Heer and/or Luftwaffe operations that would have to be short-changed to fuel it?

No easy answers.

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 28
RE: The Rock - 3/27/2012 12:52:24 AM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5320
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline
The Fuel shortages, can be easily simulated by couple of events reducing the navy range.

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 29
RE: The Rock - 3/27/2012 3:53:26 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 707
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline
Not the same. My understanding is that the RM couldn't even fill the tanks of all the major combatants all at the same time (that is BBs/BCs or whatever the larger ships were classed as) and that even for the medium ones (CAs/CLs) it was difficult.

That's why most of the action in the Med was between the RN/Commonwealth against RM DDs/SSs and light combatants.

If, somehow, you could require regular PP costs by recurring events that can never be bought off for long for keeping the actual RM on map units *active* ... quarterly, say, maybe even monthly, or simply up their support cost multiplier massively, that would be a better representation of reality ... also, increasingly the purchase cost of any air unit, and all mech/armour units would also be realistic (and probably increase their support costs as well, though probably not as massively as for the RM units).

Or, perhaps, you could allow the Italian player to start with significant oil reserves, but at a massive cost in PP or, perhaps more realistically, a massive unrest percentage ... and with negative Diplomacy totals that would make it almost impossible to declare war on the historical schedule.

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury >> The Rock Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
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

0.160