CLAAs vs CLs/CAs

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

alanschu
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:31 am

CLAAs vs CLs/CAs

Post by alanschu »

I know the US CLs are pretty much CAs (in some cases they are even more durable!) and so forth.

Does the game treat CLAAs differently than the other cruisers, or is it just a designation more for flavour? For some reason I was thinking they might get extra shots against an attacking air strike.
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5177
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: CLAAs vs CLs/CAs

Post by Don Bowen »

ORIGINAL: alanschu

I know the US CLs are pretty much CAs (in some cases they are even more durable!) and so forth.

Does the game treat CLAAs differently than the other cruisers, or is it just a designation more for flavour?

I believe CLAA are more likely to be used for escorts in carrier TFs.
User avatar
Sakai007
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:17 am
Contact:

RE: CLAAs vs CLs/CAs

Post by Sakai007 »

I do believe that CLAAs contribute to flak for all ships in a TF. Once air combat is done, aircraft attack ships on a 1 vs 1 basis. CLAAs will defend ships under attack during this phase even when it's not the specific ship under attack. I just read this in the manual the other day, but it's not open in front of me so if I am off some, please feel free to correct me.
When in Doubt, Charlie out!!
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: CLAAs vs CLs/CAs

Post by wdolson »

CLAAs were, from what I've read, a post war USN designation for CLs that had a large suite of dual purpose 5 inch guns instead of 6 inch guns. During the war they were designated CLs.

I don't believe the code treats them any differently than CLs, they just throw up a lot more AA against air attacks and aren't as potent in a surface battle against anything larger than a DD.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
mike scholl 1
Posts: 1265
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:20 pm

RE: CLAAs vs CLs/CAs

Post by mike scholl 1 »

The ATLANTA Class were originally designed as Destroyer Leaders, but often used during the war as AA Cruisers. Basically they provided the AA firepower of a 10,000 ton cruiser on a 6,000 ton hull, so they were faster and cheaper to produce. Had they been originally designed for the AA role, they would have had more AA directors and no TT tubes.
User avatar
wneumann
Posts: 3768
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:47 am
Location: just beyond the outskirts of Margaritaville

RE: CLAAs vs CLs/CAs

Post by wneumann »

CLAAs were, from what I've read, a post war USN designation for CLs that had a large suite of dual purpose 5 inch guns instead of 6 inch guns. During the war they were designated CLs.

I don't believe the code treats them any differently than CLs, they just throw up a lot more AA against air attacks and aren't as potent in a surface battle against anything larger than a DD.
Armor protection on Atlanta Class CLAA is much lighter than armor on other US light cruiser classes. It's likely they were probably designed as AA cruisers despite their use in several surface actions off Guadalcanal (CLAA more often than not were casualties in these actions). Given the light armor protection they had and their armament, it doesn't seem they (Atlanta class CLAA) were intended or well suited for use in surface combat ops.

The lighter armor protection for the Atlanta CLAA class is reflected in the AE game data values, code in the AE game engine likely picking up the numbers in the ship data and going from there.
spence
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: CLAAs vs CLs/CAs

Post by spence »

Given the light armor protection they had and their armament, it doesn't seem they (Atlanta class CLAA) were intended or well suited for use in surface combat ops.

Friday, 13 November 1942 - Knife fight in the dark. Come as you are.

(I've always wondered why Pensacola didn't attend but Atlanta and Juneau did.)
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: CLAAs vs CLs/CAs

Post by wdolson »

ORIGINAL: wneumann
Armor protection on Atlanta Class CLAA is much lighter than armor on other US light cruiser classes. It's likely they were probably designed as AA cruisers despite their use in several surface actions off Guadalcanal (CLAA more often than not were casualties in these actions). Given the light armor protection they had and their armament, it doesn't seem they (Atlanta class CLAA) were intended or well suited for use in surface combat ops.

The lighter armor protection for the Atlanta CLAA class is reflected in the AE game data values, code in the AE game engine likely picking up the numbers in the ship data and going from there.

What I meant was the code doesn't make any distinction between a CL and a CLAA. The database is different, but a player can make a custom scenario with CLAAs that have BB armor protection if they want.

I haven't read up on them, but if Mike is right and they were intended as destroyer leaders, they were probably built to match the Japanese CLs which were often lead ships in DD squadrons. A sort of keeping up with the Jones' sort of thing. In the end the many 5 inch gun CLs just were not needed in that role. Surface combat in the Pacific was fairly rare and the mix was usually whatever was available. The 5" weapons were dual purpose and CV formations needed all the AA they could get, so they were slotted into that role. I have read that the CV admirals didn't really like the 5" cruisers though.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
alanschu
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:31 am

RE: CLAAs vs CLs/CAs

Post by alanschu »

In evolving this thread, how exactly does task force AAA work?

I know there's the shots while approaching, during attack (if the alt changes), and leaving. Do all ships get those shots? Does the attacked ship only get the shots for the 2nd phase? All phases?
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: CLAAs vs CLs/CAs

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: alanschu

In evolving this thread, how exactly does task force AAA work?

I know there's the shots while approaching, during attack (if the alt changes), and leaving. Do all ships get those shots? Does the attacked ship only get the shots for the 2nd phase? All phases?


all ships in a TF fire at an incoming strike, above 15 ships additional ships contribute less and less to flak to simulate the fact that not every ship in a TF would be able to fire on incoming aircraft. A 100 ship TF with 10000 total AA value would put more flak up than a 15 ship TF with 2000 total AA value even though the 10000 total AA value wouldn't actually turn out as 10000 as it is just the sum of each ship's AA value of the TF. Do I make myselve clear? Probably not.

User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 11243
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: CLAAs vs CLs/CAs

Post by Sardaukar »

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: alanschu

In evolving this thread, how exactly does task force AAA work?

I know there's the shots while approaching, during attack (if the alt changes), and leaving. Do all ships get those shots? Does the attacked ship only get the shots for the 2nd phase? All phases?


all ships in a TF fire at an incoming strike, above 15 ships additional ships contribute less and less to flak to simulate the fact that not every ship in a TF would be able to fire on incoming aircraft. A 100 ship TF with 10000 total AA value would put more flak up than a 15 ship TF with 2000 total AA value even though the 10000 total AA value wouldn't actually turn out as 10000 as it is just the sum of each ship's AA value of the TF. Do I make myselve clear? Probably not.


It is actually very clear to me and I bet to most. [8D] But I add, just in case.

To say it bit differently TF with ships up to 15 ships = 100 % of flak power.
TF with ships 16-100 (100 is max number in TF, IIRC) = 100% up to 15 + less % added per ship, diminishing slowly ship by ship when numbers grow.

E.g. TF with 25 ships WILL contribute lot more AA than 15 ship similar composition TF, but not 100% for 25 ships. Exact formulas are unknown, but we could say as an example in this case: 15 ships contribute 100% of their flak and rest of 10 ships maybe add 80% as average (numbers are just pulled out of hat with that 80%, but that's the idea).

And let's not even get to directions of attack etc....since I think often not all ship's AA weapons can fire, if attack comes from wrong direction to them to face.
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
alanschu
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:31 am

RE: CLAAs vs CLs/CAs

Post by alanschu »

So basically diminishing returns (which is understandable).

Do we know if it affects only the additional ships? Or would 16 ships potentially have less effective AAA than 15 ships if the 16th is particularly crap at AAA. Based on your talks, it sounds as though all ships 16+ contribute diminishing returns in some regards.

I remember the 15 ship rule. How big do you guys make your offensive task forces then? I typically capped them at 15, but maybe I should just go all out and go for 25 (if I am planning on going that big). A raid I might use maybe 4 or 5 (just to reduce detection chance), but I figure the difference between finding 15 or 25 ships is probably pretty small.


Cheers!

Allan
spence
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: CLAAs vs CLs/CAs

Post by spence »

Unfortunately, TF flak, particularly CV TF flak, is coded in a manner which reflects USN doctrine:
high value targets sailing in the center of a compact, protective "ring" formation. Such a formation was not adopted by the IJN until 1944.

As detailed and even photographed in "Shattered Sword", prior to that the Kido Butai sailed around in a very, very dispersed formation. Flak played almost no part in TF defense (2 US planes were shot down by IJN flak all day on June 4th, '42 out of over 220 attacking bombers(all day)). If the CAP failed to stop attacking bombers, the ship which was under attack was supposed to maneuver radically as its primary defense. It had plenty of sea room to do so but had virtually no help in the form of flak from other ships (other than the plane guard DD).

The other ships were spread out to visually spot incoming raids: BBs and cruisers out at around 5 miles from the CVs (thus only within range of the heavy AA guns along the axis of the attack) with the DD's out to about 15 miles (out of range of all of their AAA). The principle job of the ships along the axis of the air attack was to use smoke and/or their main armament firing at the water to attract the attention of the CAP.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: CLAAs vs CLs/CAs

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: spence

Unfortunately, TF flak, particularly CV TF flak, is coded in a manner which reflects USN doctrine:
high value targets sailing in the center of a compact, protective "ring" formation. Such a formation was not adopted by the IJN until 1944.

As detailed and even photographed in "Shattered Sword", prior to that the Kido Butai sailed around in a very, very dispersed formation. Flak played almost no part in TF defense (2 US planes were shot down by IJN flak all day on June 4th, '42 out of over 220 attacking bombers(all day)). If the CAP failed to stop attacking bombers, the ship which was under attack was supposed to maneuver radically as its primary defense. It had plenty of sea room to do so but had virtually no help in the form of flak from other ships (other than the plane guard DD).

The other ships were spread out to visually spot incoming raids: BBs and cruisers out at around 5 miles from the CVs (thus only within range of the heavy AA guns along the axis of the attack) with the DD's out to about 15 miles (out of range of all of their AAA). The principle job of the ships along the axis of the air attack was to use smoke and/or their main armament firing at the water to attract the attention of the CAP.
Are you sure it's not coded to adjust per side?
btbw
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:23 am

RE: CLAAs vs CLs/CAs

Post by btbw »

Flak played almost no part in TF defense
4 reasons for that in IJN:
1. Unadequate LAA gun.
2. Wrong ammo for HAA.
3. Lack of CVG escort ships, especially ships heavier then DD.
4. Priority in main gun direction instead of AA fire before and early in WW2.

Also fifth reason - chaotic personnel use, but that reason not clear for understand.
spence
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: CLAAs vs CLs/CAs

Post by spence »

Are you sure it's not coded to adjust per side?

Some attempt may have been made. During the replay there is often a period of flak firing which precedes the A2A phase. In fact the deadly smoke screen defense seems to bring down the occasional Allied/American plane. Just imagine what the IJN could have accomplished if they'd fired their guns AT the attacking planes.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: CLAAs vs CLs/CAs

Post by witpqs »

... if they'd fired their guns AT the attacking planes.
A revolutionary concept! [:D]
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: CLAAs vs CLs/CAs

Post by wdolson »

Pre-war Japanese doctrine considered surface ships the more potent threat. They figured the USN aircraft to be poor quality and the crews just as poor. The TBD was a generation behind the Kate, and Japanese doctrine saw the torpedo bomber as the primary naval weapon with the dive bomber being the secondary weapon that split enemy forces and crippled ships for the torpedo bombers to finish off.

The Japanese badly underestimated the SBD. The SBDs dropped their bombs at a higher altitude than the Vals. The Japanese thought that was because American pilots were weak, they didn't realize it was because the US had a superior weapon.

The US had a technology nobody else did, the trailing edge split flap. Japanese and German dive bombers used fence type dive brakes. Fence style dive brakes did work, but the plane bucked and bounced on the way down. To ensure a hit, pilots had to hold the dive to near suicidal altitudes. With the trailing edge split flap, the dive was very stable which allowed the pilot to make gentle course corrections within the dive. SBDs could release at a higher altitude and still have a good chance of a hit because the pilot had a better assurance where the bomb was going after release.

The SBD could also carry a larger load. The max load was 1600 lbs for an SBD, but that was almost never used. The SBD could and did carry 1000 lb bombs, the Val was limited to 250 Kg (about 550 lb). And early war USN strike package was usually about 2/3 500 lb bombs and 1/3 1000 lb bombs, but the bigger bombs were there.

The lack of a potent torpedo bomber at Midway did ensure that the USN didn't actually sink any carriers. But the SBDs did such massive damage that the IJN scuttled all 4 carriers. The description of the Kaga in Shattered Sword is striking. Even if the ship had been capable of getting to a friendly base, she might have been scuttled anyway. The fires gutted all the upper decks of the ship.

In any war, especially a long one, everybody goes in with assumptions that are proven wrong in combat. The Japanese thought their carrier aviation was vastly superior to the USN and in some ways it was, but they underestimated US strengths.

Everybody underestimated how much flak they would need. Both sides upgraded flak suites on everything throughout the war. The US was more aggressive about it, but they also had the industrial infrastructure to afford it.

The US had the mutual defense doctrine down early war (though effectiveness lacked), but the Japanese thought the big threat was coming from surface ships coming in after the air attack, so they built their CV formations with that in mind. The Japanese war doctrine was built on the subs thinning the enemy fleet, then the CVs taking out some more, and finally the big surface ships would come in to finish the job. The US was thinking along the same lines, with CVs and BBs, but the loss of so many BBs at PH made them rethink. By Midway the US knew they were much weaker in surface assets, but they could attain near parity in air power between the 3 Yorktowns and Midway. Even still, TF 1 was waiting out in the middle of the Pacific between San Francisco and Midway with all the serviceable BBs in the Pacific fleet. A bit of the US OOB nobody knows about.

Early war USN air defense doctrine was a bit better than Japan, but early carrier losses demonstrate it had holes too. It's telling the only US carrier losses after 1942 were due to 3 factors:

1) A lucky shot by a lone attacker slipping through the CAP (the Princeton)
2) A massive screw up (Battle Off Samar)
3) Kamikazes (which never sank a carrier larger than a CVE, though they damages a lot of fleet carriers)

After 1942, the US started building a lot of advantages from lessons learned, better AA, better AA direction, better CAP, better fighters as well as better pilot training, and better CAP direction. At the same time Japanese pilot quality was in steep decline and newer aircraft designs were often inferior to US designs. The US had the luxury of building fighters around big engines like the P&W 2800 which had just about worked out all the bugs by Pearl Harbor. The Japanese had to start from scratch with bigger engines and it wasn't until late war they had anything they could use and Japanese large engines remained finicky to the end.

I'll stop rambling now...

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
alanschu
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:31 am

RE: CLAAs vs CLs/CAs

Post by alanschu »

No no! Please continue rambling! That was a good read! :)
User avatar
Panther Bait
Posts: 654
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:59 pm

RE: CLAAs vs CLs/CAs

Post by Panther Bait »

It might also be that the Japanese AA doctrine, deficient as it was, was also geared towards stopping torpedo bombers more than dive bombers.  Torpedo bombers use longer, slower, more steady runs at lower altitudes.  High elevation, high altitude, fast turning AA is possibly less important for those types of planes relative to dive bombers.  Concentric rings of AA might give you more attempts to hit a torpedo plane driving on the high-value targets in the middle of the rings.
 
Also, a good defense against torpedoes (of any kind) would seem to be the ability of the target to manuever to deny the torpedo bomber a good angle to attack from and then evade the torps once dropped.  Giving the high-value ships more room to manuever without risk of collision would help with that.
 
Not saying they had the right idea, but as wdolson indicated, maybe they were concentrating on the wrong weapon to defend against.
 
Mike
When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.

Nathan Dogan, USS Gurnard
Post Reply

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