Fleet assets

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

Post Reply
Chiteng
Posts: 1174
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Raleigh,nc,usa

Fleet assets

Post by Chiteng »

From the limited materials I have on hand....

Fleet assets such as Oilers are highly specialized and are not
easily replaced. The estimated construction time of an oilers is
at a minimum 6 months. Using a battleship as a fleet tender
is NOT something they are designed to do. I am sure it can be done, I am sure it WAS done, but I am also sure it wasnt the preffered method.

By destroying the fleet support assets, you limit the range
the enemy can react to 1/2 its steaming capacity.

That isnt very far, for a Battleship.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic
User avatar
showboat1
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Atoka, TN

Post by showboat1 »

In PACWAR I always tried to take out the USN's AO's and TK's early in the game. I found it could limit offensive capabilities in the latter stages of the game.
Glad to see that is being taken into consideration here.
SF3C B. B. New USS North Carolina BB-55 - Permission is granted to go ashore for the last shore leave. (1926-2003)
Chiteng
Posts: 1174
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Raleigh,nc,usa

Post by Chiteng »

Originally posted by showboat1
In PACWAR I always tried to take out the USN's AO's and TK's early in the game. I found it could limit offensive capabilities in the latter stages of the game.
Glad to see that is being taken into consideration here.


I am not sure it is. Mogami says that they are easily replaced
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic
User avatar
Bulldog61
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Aurora,CO

Post by Bulldog61 »

Originally posted by Chiteng
I am not sure it is. Mogami says that they are easily replaced


There appear to be enough tankers in the allied player mix to keep forward bases fueled. About 1/2 dozen at SF to start and a bunch arriving in January 42. There are several Oilers that start at Pearl but more on the west coast. WITP (at least where we are at in development at this time) rewards proper tactics.
You can run but you'll die tired!
Chiteng
Posts: 1174
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Raleigh,nc,usa

Post by Chiteng »

Originally posted by MikeKraemer
There appear to be enough tankers in the allied player mix to keep forward bases fueled. About 1/2 dozen at SF to start and a bunch arriving in January 42. There are several Oilers that start at Pearl but more on the west coast. WITP (at least where we are at in development at this time) rewards proper tactics.


Whatever 'proper tactics' means.

Its sounds like a traditional attack on the BB.
Because at least that gets rid of them at least for a while.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic
User avatar
showboat1
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Atoka, TN

Post by showboat1 »

Disclaimer: All facts taken from: The Encyclopedia of the World's Warships, Salamander Books, New York, 1978 and are related to ships AS BUILT except where noted.

Cruising range of typical US battleships
Texas class : 10,000 miles @ 10 knots
Tennessee class : 10,000 miles @ 10 knots
Iowa class : 20,727 miles @ 12 knots
Obviously the newer classes had much greater range. No info given on N. Carolina class or Alaska class.

Cruising range of typical IJN battleships
Kongo class : 11,660 miles @ 18 knots (post-1937 rebuild)
Hyuga class : 9,360 miles @ 16 knots (post-1936 rebuild)
Nagato class : 10,300 miles @ 16 knots (post-1936 rebuild)
Yamato class : 7,200 miles @ 16 knots
Strange that the largest ship had the shortest legs. Guess all that armor ate at fuel efficiency and carry capacity.

Anyway, LET THE BIG DOGS EAT!!!!!!!!!!!
Battleships should be set loose on the Pacific!!!!!!!!!
SF3C B. B. New USS North Carolina BB-55 - Permission is granted to go ashore for the last shore leave. (1926-2003)
Chiteng
Posts: 1174
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Raleigh,nc,usa

Post by Chiteng »

Originally posted by showboat1
Disclaimer: All facts taken from: The Encyclopedia of the World's Warships, Salamander Books, New York, 1978 and are related to ships AS BUILT except where noted.

Cruising range of typical US battleships
Texas class : 10,000 miles @ 10 knots
Tennessee class : 10,000 miles @ 10 knots
Iowa class : 20,727 miles @ 12 knots
Obviously the newer classes had much greater range. No info given on N. Carolina class or Alaska class.

Cruising range of typical IJN battleships
Kongo class : 11,660 miles @ 18 knots (post-1937 rebuild)
Hyuga class : 9,360 miles @ 16 knots (post-1936 rebuild)
Nagato class : 10,300 miles @ 16 knots (post-1936 rebuild)
Yamato class : 7,200 miles @ 16 knots
Strange that the largest ship had the shortest legs. Guess all that armor ate at fuel efficiency and carry capacity.

Anyway, LET THE BIG DOGS EAT!!!!!!!!!!!
Battleships should be set loose on the Pacific!!!!!!!!!

I suspect all those are based at speeds less than TOP speed.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic
User avatar
showboat1
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Atoka, TN

Post by showboat1 »

Your suspicion is correct. For USN battlewagons the cruising range is determined by a speed of less than 50% of max speed. For IJN battleships/batlecruisers the cruising speed is somewhat higher, approximately 67%.
SF3C B. B. New USS North Carolina BB-55 - Permission is granted to go ashore for the last shore leave. (1926-2003)
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

BB and fuel

Post by mogami »

Hi, Chiteng I did not mean the BB would join the CV TF to refuel them I only meant the CV could siphon fuel from the BB in port (you would need to make a BB TF and then refuel CV at sea)
While the CV would not fill up they would get enough fuel to protect the PH area while waitng arrival of fuel from West Coast)

There are enough aircraft on the 6 IJN CV to damage somewhat PH's supply/fuel. I am waiting for final version of special strike rules for turn 1. If the Japanese can damage the airfields enough prehaps they can stick around for an extra day and hit the base again. (On Dec 7 they hit airfields and ships in port. On Dec 8th they hit the base again.)

Sinking the BB would therefore serve two purpose. One remove BB from order of battle. Two remove fuel source for CV returning to PH. (But there is a lot of fuel at PH on Dec 7th it would require a massive port strike on Dec 8th to have any real effect.
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
User avatar
Raverdave
Posts: 4882
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Melb. Australia

Re: BB and fuel

Post by Raverdave »

Originally posted by Mogami
(But there is a lot of fuel at PH on Dec 7th it would require a massive port strike on Dec 8th to have any real effect.


I am surprised to hear that....I would have thought that a larger tank farm would be easy to find and put out of action than a smaller one would. After all, it's not like oil is THAT hard to destroy, or whatever it is stored in.:confused:

Can you shine some light on the subject please Mogami?
Image


Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

Port attack

Post by mogami »

Hi, WITP uses the same formula as UV. each fuel/supply hit destroys .9 percent of fuel/supply.

So if there is 100k fuel at PH 1 hit would reduce it by 900. I'll do a few PH strikes to see how much it can in fact be reduced by the Dec 7th port attack (this attack mainly hits the ships but does do some damage to fuel/supply. Also it hits the oilers and tankers there. But I think a second strike on the 8th would do much more
because it would be a 'normal' port attack where ships in port while targets are not the main target)
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

Dec 8th

Post by mogami »

Hi, OK this is only the alpha version so don't have a cow.
PH has 300k fuel on Dec 7th. I was unable to hit any of it.
(after strike of Dec 8th there was still 300k fuel)
However Dec 8th strike did also target the size 100 ship repair facility and damaged 86 points of it. (How long it take to fix this remains to be seen. It was targeted using the new "city" attack function. The second strike also hit a lot of ships and damaged the port (9 percent)
After both strikes
PH
Port Damage 9
Runway Damage 40
Airfield damage 22
Repair Yard (86)x14 (86 out of 100 damaged)

The IJN airgroups were shot up on Dec 8th CV would need to return to port to get new AC/Pilots and rest airgroups.
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

Post by mdiehl »

These results are incorrect unless the repair facility may be rebuilt to pre-war strength in two weeks. The only critical non-replaceable devices were heavy lift cranes. Can't damage one without scoring a direct hit. An a/c pilot would have to be extensively trained to know exactly waht to look for and exactly where to hit it. And given the tech of the day, he'd almost certainly miss.

These days one could use satellite or laser guidance, but it would require that sort of accuracy to have a reasonable chance of doing the job.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

Ship yards

Post by mogami »

Originally posted by mdiehl
These results are incorrect unless the repair facility may be rebuilt to pre-war strength in two weeks. The only critical non-replaceable devices were heavy lift cranes. Can't damage one without scoring a direct hit. An a/c pilot would have to be extensively trained to know exactly waht to look for and exactly where to hit it. And given the tech of the day, he'd almost certainly miss.

These days one could use satellite or laser guidance, but it would require that sort of accuracy to have a reasonable chance of doing the job.


Hi, I don't agree cranes are the only item that could not be replaced in two weeks. I spent 2 years at Naval Shipyard Philadelphia.

Dry-docks, Valve shops, Propeller shops, Machine shops of all types, shore to ship power and water lines, the tracks the cranes move on, the warehouse with the pipe and other material for repair, the offices with the ship drawings and plans, the barges and tugs. A normal airstike that hit the confined area that most of the repair facilities occupy could do significant damage.
(The strike was over 150 bombers targeting the shipyard)
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

Post by mdiehl »

Dry-docks
What exactly is a Dry Dock made out of? Some flood control valves and concrete. There was not Bo Diddley in the IJN munitions arsenal that could do Oingo Boingo to bunker grade concrete. To nail the valves would require a direct hit to make Luke Skywalker's fictional hit on the DS look like a random drive by shooting.
Valve shops, Propeller shops, Machine shops of all types, shore to ship power and water lines, the tracks the cranes move on, the warehouse with the pipe and other material for repair, the offices with the ship drawings and plans, the barges and tugs.
All very important. All easily replaced. Tracks? Whoopty doo. Replaceable in a day if stocks are to hand. Machine shops? A couple merchant vessels can restore these to full productivity. Ship plans? All archived in Washington. Everything lost can be moved form the West Coast to PH in two weeks. Allow two more weeks to have the whole shebang up and running smoothly.
A normal airstike that hit the confined area that most of the repair facilities occupy could do significant damage.
(The strike was over 150 bombers targeting the shipyard)
I really don't agree. The targeting systems of the day, the profusion of hard, small, targets. The relatively low payload of naval attack a/c. Consider Europe: The US was unable to completely shut down comparable facilities in Europe (75% was the best result ever achieved, IIRC, against a Messerschmitt factory in, IIRC, Regensberg) typically using much larger strikes with much larger payloads, with a/c, targeting systems, and aircrews all designed specifically for this task, controlled by a general staff who'd studied strategic warfare inside and out.

No friggin way that Kido Butai can be effective as a strategic bomber force. Even letting them try is a huge break from reality, since they did not train or even consider training for hitting strategic targets. What the Japanese knoew about strategic warfare could be written on a 3x5 index card using sidewalk chalk.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
Chiteng
Posts: 1174
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Raleigh,nc,usa

Post by Chiteng »

Originally posted by mdiehl
What exactly is a Dry Dock made out of? Some flood control valves and concrete. There was not Bo Diddley in the IJN munitions arsenal that could do Oingo Boingo to bunker grade concrete. To nail the valves would require a direct hit to make Luke Skywalker's fictional hit on the DS look like a random drive by shooting.



All very important. All easily replaced. Tracks? Whoopty doo. Replaceable in a day if stocks are to hand. Machine shops? A couple merchant vessels can restore these to full productivity. Ship plans? All archived in Washington. Everything lost can be moved form the West Coast to PH in two weeks. Allow two more weeks to have the whole shebang up and running smoothly.



I really don't agree. The targeting systems of the day, the profusion of hard, small, targets. The relatively low payload of naval attack a/c. Consider Europe: The US was unable to completely shut down comparable facilities in Europe (75% was the best result ever achieved, IIRC, against a Messerschmitt factory in, IIRC, Regensberg) typically using much larger strikes with much larger payloads, with a/c, targeting systems, and aircrews all designed specifically for this task, controlled by a general staff who'd studied strategic warfare inside and out.

No friggin way that Kido Butai can be effective as a strategic bomber force. Even letting them try is a huge break from reality, since they did not train or even consider training for hitting strategic targets. What the Japanese knoew about strategic warfare could be written on a 3x5 index card using sidewalk chalk.


They could however hit an oil tank farm, and the ships that fill it.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

Post by mdiehl »

They could however hit an oil tank farm, and the ships that fill it.
They could, if the Japanese had studied strategic warfare enough to realize that they were a worthy target. It's less likely than the US having its own version of the Long Lance torpedo in 1941, though.

Hitting the oil tanks with a dedicated strike would put the fueling system nonoperative, with perfect accuracy and target selection, for maybe two months. Oil tanks are easily built and easily rebuilt.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
User avatar
Apollo11
Posts: 24811
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

Hmmm...

Post by Apollo11 »

Hi all,

This is exactly why I started thread:

"Pearl Harbour question for WitP designers (Matrix/2By3) and BETA testers..."

showthread.php?s=&threadid=37216


I distinctively remember reading (on many places - must find it) that Japanese
did indeed planned the strike on Pearl Harbour that would deliberately target
specialized shipyard repair, supply (oil?) and ammo storage facilities.

But the air commander's wish was turned down by fleet commander.

Also, I distinctively remember reading that, if hit and destroyed, those targets would
hurt US much more than destruction of battleship row (i.e. that the only
similar facilities existed in US west coast and it would take months and
months to repair them in Pearl Harbour).


But in discussion here some of you said that no such facilities existed (like
"mdiehl")...


So... what is the historic truth regarding this?



Leo "Apollo11"


P.S.
Yes, there were no laser guided bombs for small and specific targets in WWII
but there were very very capable dive bombers... let's not forget that...
Image

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
TIMJOT
Posts: 1705
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2001 8:00 am

Post by TIMJOT »

Originally posted by mdiehl

No friggin way that Kido Butai can be effective as a strategic bomber force. Even letting them try is a huge break from reality, since they did not train or even consider training for hitting strategic targets. What the Japanese knoew about strategic warfare could be written on a 3x5 index card using sidewalk chalk.



Actually the IJN made a study of and applied stategic bombing in China 1937-40. It pioneered hitting ground facilities with a combination of high level and low level attacks. Due to there extensive deployment in China IJN pilots on a whole had more experience attacking ground targets than they did ships.

They did a pretty thorough job of demolishing facilities at Cavite Naval yard, Olangpoa Naval base, Clark field, and Manila air depot. Likewise the naval/repair facilities at Sorebaya. It likely would have fairly destroyed the Singapore Naval base as well, but becuase there was no fleet "in being" there and the fact that they wanted it for themselves, opted not to.

Certainly everything can be replaced, but to do it in your two week time frame (very debatable) one would have to strip facilities on the west coast, with the effect of costly down time and disrutption of those very important facilities. In the short term moveing the Fleet to new facilities might be a more economical and efficient use of resources than moveing new facilities to the Fleet.
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

Post by mdiehl »

What "facilities" Leo? What are you talking about?

TIMJOT -

The "facilities" strikes in China fairly fall under the clasification of tactical targets. Granted, there's a fuzzy line between A & B. Japan made no effort to study the strategic effects of engaging a 1st world power with substantial production and repair facilities. The PI airbases "demolished" only in the sense that lot's of a/c destroyed and a few buildings. Japan's only way to shut down an airbase was to keep it stripped of a/c long enough to overrun it with infantry. Everything else at these facilities is easily replaced withing a few weeks provided taht a ship can get there to deliver the needed stuff. Ditto for Cavite.

The only really hard to replace stuff at PH were the heavy lift cranes. All the rest was portable and easily replaced. "Stripping" the West Coast of Cranes would slow down ship building and repair on the west coast. Stripping the WC of other equipment wouldn't stop anything for more than a couple weeks.

Dive bombing a crane would not be accurate enough to do the job. About the only way to have a chance of success would be to suicide bomb the cranes.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”