Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: AAR 1944

 
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] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: AAR 1944 Page: <<   < prev  53 54 [55] 56 57   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: AAR 1944 - 6/5/2021 2:00:18 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3256
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

If the US had their 1945 bombardment capability in place at Tarawa, then it would have been significantly easier in terms of losses on the US.

It's worth realising that the development of these ships came about precisely because it was challenging to effectively suppress beach defences


You still really don't get it... don't even have the concept of aimed fire vs not aimed that is done by these boats.
And what is again the range of those rockets?



Impossible to teach a monkey how to fly This game is rewriting history and even more so real life, some people have obviously been so long around they mismatch the game with reality and if reality doesn't suit the game's result then reality must be wrong.


Do you know of any examples where units subjected to heavy rocket bombardment were able to dust themselves off and carry on as if nothing had happened?

Would be interested to read them if so!

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 1621
RE: AAR 1944 - 6/5/2021 2:03:23 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3256
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

If the US had their 1945 bombardment capability in place at Tarawa, then it would have been significantly easier in terms of losses on the US.

It's worth realising that the development of these ships came about precisely because it was challenging to effectively suppress beach defences


You still really don't get it... don't even have the concept of aimed fire vs not aimed that is done by these boats.
And what is again the range of those rockets?


You can easily find that out Wiki is quite good for technical specs. You can read the warhead weight there, then take eg. a 50kg HE bomb as comparison and perhaps add 1-2 points for acceleration (ie. impact force higher than bomb?).

I have done the research already and in game the 4.5 (ground fired) rocket is seriously overrated even when you adjust the value a bit up for the rocket.


This comparison is pointless as the read-across between a 50kg bomb and the 4.5 inch rockets in AE is limited. The air, naval and ground models in the game all call up different algorithms. If you had actually done your research properly then you would have found the appropriate dev comments on this.

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 1622
RE: AAR 1945 - 6/5/2021 2:06:36 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 13841
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Saipan at 115,93

Japanese Ships
SS I-7, hits 11, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CV Franklin
BB New Jersey
CA Chicago II
CA Canberra II
CL Santa Fe
DD Gatling
DD Haraden
DD Lewis Hancock
DD Paul Hamilton
DD Halligan


wonder if it would have been too much to ask for this attack to be succesful too... I-7 also fires Kaitens followed by four Type 95 torps but all miss... the sub takes quite a beating in return but also has a chance to survive...


SS I-7 launches 8 torpedoes at CV Franklin
I-7 diving deep ....
DD Haraden fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Lewis Hancock fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Paul Hamilton fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Halligan fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Paul Hamilton attacking submerged sub ....
DD Paul Hamilton fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Paul Hamilton fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Paul Hamilton fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Saipan at 116,94

Japanese Ships
SS I-47, hits 8

Allied Ships
APD George E. Badger
BB Texas
BB Alabama
CL Montpelier
DD Collett
DE Eisele
APA Crenshaw
APA Banner
APA Lubbock
APA Oconto
APA Oneida
APA Navarro
APA Lanier
LSI(L) Empire Mace
LSI(M) Prince Henry
APD Walter B. Cobb
APD Walsh
APD Kinzer
APD Kephart
AKA New Hanover
AKA Tyrell
AP Gen. W.M.Black
AK Navajo Victory
LCI(G)-528
LCI(G)-405
LCI(R)-342
LCI(R)-225
xAP Ruth Alexander
xAP Surada
xAP Gogra
xAP Anhui
xAK Rutland Victory
xAK Francisco Morazan
DD Wallace Lind
DD Ingraham
DD Hyman
DD English


and another attack but this time on an APD which isn't worth the risk of attacking...


SS I-47 launches 2 torpedoes at APD George E. Badger
DD Wallace Lind fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Ingraham fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Hyman fails to find sub and abandons search
DD English fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD English fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD English fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD English attacking submerged sub ....
DD English fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub



Allied movement during the movement phase was suspicious already and nav search confirmed what I thought, the Allied fleet is retreating after the aerial disaster over my bases yesterday... WOW!

if not suizide I'd rated the assault on the Marianas a super difficult affair with lots of losses to be expected and to be honest, as the Allied commander I wouldn't even have tried to pull it off but Mundy likes these big style operation that hardly find comparable examples in PBEM campaigns so there he went... this has lead to a disaster more than once but this time he correctly evaluates the situation and orders his fleet to retire to the South East...

having hit Bunker Hill hard our subs' task now is to finish the crippled carrier as one never knows what Allied damage control is able to do even though the chance for the carrier is 1:100 after suffering this kind of damage... the damage routine has split off Bunker Hill from it's carrier group and the heavily damaged ship is now limping two hexes behind parts of the Allied Armada...

two dozen subs are now trying to hunt down the carrier, blocking the retreats to the Marshalls, Marcus Island and towards Hawaii...








Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 1623
RE: AAR 1945 - 6/5/2021 2:08:54 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3256
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:









Now that is a first, don't think I've ever seen that in all my AE days.

I look forward to Mundy posting on the forums about how unrealistic it is given how fickle these weapons were in real life...

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 1624
RE: AAR 1944 - 6/5/2021 2:11:56 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 13841
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

If the US had their 1945 bombardment capability in place at Tarawa, then it would have been significantly easier in terms of losses on the US.

It's worth realising that the development of these ships came about precisely because it was challenging to effectively suppress beach defences


You still really don't get it... don't even have the concept of aimed fire vs not aimed that is done by these boats.
And what is again the range of those rockets?


You can easily find that out Wiki is quite good for technical specs. You can read the warhead weight there, then take eg. a 50kg HE bomb as comparison and perhaps add 1-2 points for acceleration (ie. impact force higher than bomb?).

I have done the research already and in game the 4.5 (ground fired) rocket is seriously overrated even when you adjust the value a bit up for the rocket.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.5-Inch_Beach_Barrage_Rocket

"Warhead weight 6.5 lb (2.9 kg)"

So 3 KG HE, look up value in game look up other HE shells / bombs and compare

In game named "4.5 inch M3 BBR"


everyone with the brain of a hamster can rate that LCI(G) deleting all troops on a heavily fortified island is something that works in the game but that annoying guy still posting in my AAR (wonder how many times he still wants to put his head into the toilet?) unfortunately misses the 3.8 gramms a hamster has... no need trying to tell him, he's one of those that mixes up the game with reality... there are also these same people claiming Corona would be all fake, he must be a comparable typus...

I wonder if I shouldn't block him anymore because all those Alu hats also make me laugh quite a lot, but usually only until a certain point when it gets too silly and he has long crossed that line... discussing is one thing but to discuss something one has to come to at least some concensus but if you are that far off it's just mood to discuss at all, see the Alu hats...


< Message edited by castor troy -- 6/5/2021 2:14:38 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 1625
RE: AAR 1945 - 6/5/2021 2:22:43 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 13841
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
was wondering about the stats of those Kaitens so I looked it up to compare it to the Type 95 sub torps and it was just

a Kaiten has more than 2,5 times the effect of a torp and got 44 accuracy compared to 38 of the torps... needless to say the Kaiten is the most accurate torpedo but I got no clue how much better the chance to hit is with that kind of accuracy... also note the dud rate of 50 though...






Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 1626
RE: AAR 1944 - 6/5/2021 2:24:40 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3256
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

If the US had their 1945 bombardment capability in place at Tarawa, then it would have been significantly easier in terms of losses on the US.

It's worth realising that the development of these ships came about precisely because it was challenging to effectively suppress beach defences


You still really don't get it... don't even have the concept of aimed fire vs not aimed that is done by these boats.
And what is again the range of those rockets?


You can easily find that out Wiki is quite good for technical specs. You can read the warhead weight there, then take eg. a 50kg HE bomb as comparison and perhaps add 1-2 points for acceleration (ie. impact force higher than bomb?).

I have done the research already and in game the 4.5 (ground fired) rocket is seriously overrated even when you adjust the value a bit up for the rocket.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.5-Inch_Beach_Barrage_Rocket

"Warhead weight 6.5 lb (2.9 kg)"

So 3 KG HE, look up value in game look up other HE shells / bombs and compare

In game named "4.5 inch M3 BBR"


everyone with the brain of a hamster can rate that LCI(G) deleting all troops on a heavily fortified island is something that works in the game but that annoying guy still posting in my AAR (wonder how many times he still wants to put his head into the toilet?) unfortunately misses the 3.8 gramms a hamster has... no need trying to tell him, he's one of those that mixes up the game with reality... there are also these same people claiming Corona would be all fake, he must be a comparable typus...

I wonder if I shouldn't block him anymore because all those Alu hats also make me laugh quite a lot, but usually only until a certain point when it gets too silly and he has long crossed that line... discussing is one thing but to discuss something one has to come to at least some concensus but if you are that far off it's just mood to discuss at all, see the Alu hats...



Again, worth reiterating that the vast, vast majority of squads impacted by the pre-invasion action were disablements.

The notion that rocket-based artillery "deleted" all the troops on the island is incorrect.

Now, we can all agree that there was a lot of disablement and disruption, which is not inconsistent with a heavy rocket bombardment of troops in open terrain on a very overstacked island...

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 1627
RE: AAR 1944 - 6/6/2021 12:38:20 AM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1966
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
@Castor: What has Corinna to do with the topic, seems you pulled that out of your own "Aluhut" for which the English term is tinfoil hat btw.

@MindM: Seems you are the type who wants always be right, so I just should forget about talking with you further. However you shot yourself in the foot already with re. the rocket issue with your own link to the Iwo operation, if you had bothered to read it like myself, the rockets DID not obliterate (or only disable) even 30-40% of defenders (est.) plus the troops felt that heavy directed fire from big naval guns was the main contributor to success. Not rockets, yes they helped and did their work for "beach supressioN"

...also you said yourself these weapons are for beach suppression, guess what ? Not all troops are at the beach and not in range of the rockets. Also I do not see why the explosive force can not be compared to other shells or even bombs. HE is = HE there is not much difference in the filling of HE shells from rockets to bombs to shells and also not from say 1942 - 1945. Eg. TNT is still used today. Even the Wiki says that the rocket barrage "was comparable to a heavy mortar barrage"

..here another quote:
"Rocket artillery cannot usually match the accuracy and sustained rate of fire of conventional gun artillery. They may be capable of very destructive strikes by delivering a large mass of explosives simultaneously, thus increasing the shock effect and giving the target less time to take cover."

That only changed quite recently (1990s) with weapons like MLRS but these are also guided and LR rockets often with "intelligent" sub munitions.

But guess it is useless to show the real world to you

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 6/6/2021 12:49:01 AM >

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 1628
RE: AAR 1944 - 6/6/2021 1:58:57 AM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3256
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77
@MindM: Seems you are the type who wants always be right, so I just should forget about talking with you further. However you shot yourself in the foot already with re. the rocket issue with your own link to the Iwo operation, if you had bothered to read it like myself, the rockets DID not obliterate (or only disable) even 30-40% of defenders (est.) plus the troops felt that heavy directed fire from big naval guns was the main contributor to success. Not rockets, yes they helped and did their work for "beach supressioN"



You may want to revisit your source material - where did I claim that rockets should obliterate up to a third of defenders?

The US post-battle assessment of Iwo is a fairly authoritative document, but given that you have read it in such detail you should have noted that it is by nature limited to an American viewpoint. What US troops viewed as effective and what the IJ felt was effective may well have been different, and there weren't a whole lot of IJ perspectives to be gathered after the battle was done.

I suggest you broaden your reading to the effectiveness of Soviet rocket artillery on the Eastern Front.

quote:

...also you said yourself these weapons are for beach suppression, guess what ? Not all troops are at the beach and not in range of the rockets.


For the purposes of AE combat, all troops are at the beach.

That sword can cut both ways, as both the defender and the attacker can be in a position to profit (or not) from suitable preparation during that stage.

The defender gets to maximise potential damage, but with the trade off to expose units to return fire from off-shore.

quote:

Also I do not see why the explosive force can not be compared to other shells or even bombs. HE is = HE there is not much difference in the filling of HE shells from rockets to bombs to shells and also not from say 1942 - 1945. Eg. TNT is still used today. Even the Wiki says that the rocket barrage "was comparable to a heavy mortar barrage"


It can't be compared because the game code treats 5kg of explosive filler in a bomb different from 5kg of explosive filler in a naval shell, which is in turn different from the same shell fired during a land combat engagement.

Different code, different algorithms, different results. See previous comments from Symon on those who've attempted to mod the game without acknowledging this fact.


I would have hoped that you would have read a bit more in-depth than just Wikipedia, but I'm used to being disappointed by the quality of these discussions.

quote:

..here another quote:
"Rocket artillery cannot usually match the accuracy and sustained rate of fire of conventional gun artillery. They may be capable of very destructive strikes by delivering a large mass of explosives simultaneously, thus increasing the shock effect and giving the target less time to take cover."

That only changed quite recently (1990s) with weapons like MLRS but these are also guided and LR rockets often with "intelligent" sub munitions.

But guess it is useless to show the real world to you



Yes, Soviet Guards Mortar's units were disbanded in 1941 because STAVKA were disappointed that they couldn't match the accuracy and fire rate of the regular artillery units...

Oh wait, no. They were fine with that because accuracy and sustained fire wasn't what these unguided rocket systems were designed to accomplish.

Never mind the fact that unguided rocket systems (with abysmal accuracy and poor fire rates compared to conventional artillery!) have stuck around till this day.

Throwing a lot of rockets that go boom at things still works. See the BM-21 and related systems, and none of your fancy sub-munitions or guidance systems there. Sometimes you just want to excavate football pitches with high explosives and then drive back home.

I'd like to challenge you to find me an account from combat where a unit is subject to heavy rocket bombardment and maintains complete combat effectiveness. It's a good challenge, but if it ever has happened I'm confident someone will have noted it :)

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 1629
RE: AAR 1944 - 6/6/2021 8:38:46 AM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1966
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Yes, Soviet Guards Mortar's units were disbanded in 1941 because STAVKA were disappointed that they couldn't match the accuracy and fire rate of the regular artillery units...

Oh wait, no. They were fine with that because accuracy and sustained fire wasn't what these unguided rocket systems were designed to accomplish.

Never mind the fact that unguided rocket systems (with abysmal accuracy and poor fire rates compared to conventional artillery!) have stuck around till this day.

Throwing a lot of rockets that go boom at things still works. See the BM-21 and related systems, and none of your fancy sub-munitions or guidance systems there. Sometimes you just want to excavate football pitches with high explosives and then drive back home.

I'd like to challenge you to find me an account from combat where a unit is subject to heavy rocket bombardment and maintains complete combat effectiveness. It's a good challenge, but if it ever has happened I'm confident someone will have noted it :)


Tbh I was already guessing that you would put words in my mouth and use "strawmans" arguments before opening the thread

I NEVER said that rockets were not effective and never talked about the Soviet ones at all - but perhaps I forgot about that and you can pinpoint where I said that Stalins Organs, BM21 etc. were rubbish. In fact for the cheaper cost in production they were very good for special circumstances like shorter range, area saturation and psychological effect etc.

In fact I think if you have "careless" troops out in the open these weapons might be among the most terrible to destroy them. But even adding some simple foxholes and troops being on alert changes that quite a bit. And Castors troops had 6 forts and invasion was spotted so troops expected an attack and were ready.
Also in Russia eg frozen ground added to their effect.


Rockets belong to artillery weapons, so their values in game can be compared to other artillery.

Nice day to you


< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 6/6/2021 8:56:38 AM >

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 1630
RE: AAR 1944 - 6/6/2021 9:10:52 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 13841
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Yes, Soviet Guards Mortar's units were disbanded in 1941 because STAVKA were disappointed that they couldn't match the accuracy and fire rate of the regular artillery units...

Oh wait, no. They were fine with that because accuracy and sustained fire wasn't what these unguided rocket systems were designed to accomplish.

Never mind the fact that unguided rocket systems (with abysmal accuracy and poor fire rates compared to conventional artillery!) have stuck around till this day.

Throwing a lot of rockets that go boom at things still works. See the BM-21 and related systems, and none of your fancy sub-munitions or guidance systems there. Sometimes you just want to excavate football pitches with high explosives and then drive back home.

I'd like to challenge you to find me an account from combat where a unit is subject to heavy rocket bombardment and maintains complete combat effectiveness. It's a good challenge, but if it ever has happened I'm confident someone will have noted it :)


Tbh I was already guessing that you would put words in my mouth and use "strawmans" arguments before opening the thread

I NEVER said that rockets were not effective and never talked about the Soviet ones at all - but perhaps I forgot about that and you can pinpoint where I said that Stalins Organs, BM21 etc. were rubbish. In fact for the cheaper cost in production they were very good for special circumstances like shorter range, area saturation and psychological effect etc.

In fact I think if you have "careless" troops out in the open these weapons might be among the most terrible to destroy them. But even adding some simple foxholes and troops being on alert changes that quite a bit. And Castors troops had 6 forts and invasion was spotted so troops expected an attack and were ready.
Also in Russia eg frozen ground added to their effect.


Rockets belong to artillery weapons, so their values in game can be compared to other artillery.

Nice day to you



forget about it, it's senseless, trust me

_____________________________


(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 1631
RE: AAR 1944 - 6/6/2021 11:54:27 AM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3256
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Yes, Soviet Guards Mortar's units were disbanded in 1941 because STAVKA were disappointed that they couldn't match the accuracy and fire rate of the regular artillery units...

Oh wait, no. They were fine with that because accuracy and sustained fire wasn't what these unguided rocket systems were designed to accomplish.

Never mind the fact that unguided rocket systems (with abysmal accuracy and poor fire rates compared to conventional artillery!) have stuck around till this day.

Throwing a lot of rockets that go boom at things still works. See the BM-21 and related systems, and none of your fancy sub-munitions or guidance systems there. Sometimes you just want to excavate football pitches with high explosives and then drive back home.

I'd like to challenge you to find me an account from combat where a unit is subject to heavy rocket bombardment and maintains complete combat effectiveness. It's a good challenge, but if it ever has happened I'm confident someone will have noted it :)


Tbh I was already guessing that you would put words in my mouth and use "strawmans" arguments before opening the thread


Please point out where this is the case?

quote:

I NEVER said that rockets were not effective and never talked about the Soviet ones at all - but perhaps I forgot about that and you can pinpoint where I said that Stalins Organs, BM21 etc. were rubbish. In fact for the cheaper cost in production they were very good for special circumstances like shorter range, area saturation and psychological effect etc.


So if we can agree:
1. that rocket artillery was used in the Pacific theatre of WW2, and
2. Rocket artillery is effective,

then we can move the discussion on to if the results seen at Marcus are "out of whack". I'd say that they're not - the large number of disablements (vs destroyed squads) is consistent with the shock effects of artillery, amplifued by the IJ over stacking on Marcus.

quote:

In fact I think if you have "careless" troops out in the open these weapons might be among the most terrible to destroy them. But even adding some simple foxholes and troops being on alert changes that quite a bit.


So now we're getting at a discussion of what reality is like. I largely agree with your assessment. Troops in the open, subject to rocket bombardment die.

Troops in trench systems will suffer less in the way of casualties, but trenches do not protect against the shock impact of these weapons systems.

Again, this matches with the in-game results. Comparatively few squads destroyed versus a large number of disablements as the IJ troops try to stop their ears from bleeding while trying to dig themselves out of the bombardment.

I'm fairly sure I remember some extracts (maybe in Glantz?) that talked about the massive disruption that followed these weapons being used.

quote:

And Castors troops had 6 forts and invasion was spotted so troops expected an attack and were ready.


The fact that the island was fairly over-stacked must be considered also.

As for the troops being ready, a general level of alert doesn't infer prescience of artillery strikes.

quote:

Also in Russia eg frozen ground added to their effect.


Another Wikipedia meme that seems to overlook the fact that winter is only one of four seasons. What happened for the other three seasons?

quote:

Rockets belong to artillery weapons, so their values in game can be compared to other artillery.


Not in-game they don't.

There are several difference devices. My scenario 1 data may be slightly off as I'm using AndyMac's latest scenario 1 changes, which tinkered with these weapons, but the game distinguishes between different rocket devices of type 01 (Ground Attack), type 04 (AP bomb) and type 19 (Army weapon). Different devices, different code, different algorithms.




(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 1632
RE: AAR 1944 - 6/6/2021 12:20:15 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1966
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
FOLKS, today is a great day, I learned that there are 4 seasons from MM - otherwise not much tho.

But I still ask, so mere mortals like me or Castor or Dili etc. can not interprete the values in the database eg. compare soft attack with other devices just cause they are another (hidden?) class ? But immortals like MM (and Alfred ? ) can interpret the magic of the database values? I can not compare HE weight of shell (aka "soft attack") between eg. 4.2inch mortar and 4.5 inch rocket cause "Different devices, different code, different algorithms."

And perhaps even not the value of 105mm how vs. 105mm SP cause one is classed as art and the other as AFV. That would be stupid.

But ok if the forum gods say so - it must be so Ofc the gods do not tell the mortals what is really going on and HOW to interprete the values but just leave vague hints that it can not be done by us - only by the gods.

But THAT is ofc very realistic in real life does "god" or do "gods" (depending if you are monotheistic, atheist or not) tell us in clear language what is really going on in the world and what it is all about? They don´t

Now religious folks can say, BUT... god told you about it all. In the bible (or Koran etc.) !! Yes, but it is quite outdated and needs an update and some patches imho. Bible V. Anno 1500+ for example, but do the gods even release updates anymore ? Have not seen them

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 6/6/2021 12:39:42 PM >

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 1633
RE: AAR 1944 - 6/6/2021 2:37:15 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4702
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

then we can move the discussion on to if the results seen at Marcus are "out of whack". I'd say that they're not - the large number of disablements (vs destroyed squads) is consistent with the shock effects of artillery, amplifued by the IJ over stacking on Marcus.


The rockets were not aimed, the system is crude being just stuck in the boat going up and down with sea waves, the fortifications would make them almost useless.

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 1634
RE: AAR 1944 - 6/6/2021 2:45:53 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 17277
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

then we can move the discussion on to if the results seen at Marcus are "out of whack". I'd say that they're not - the large number of disablements (vs destroyed squads) is consistent with the shock effects of artillery, amplifued by the IJ over stacking on Marcus.


The rockets were not aimed, the system is crude being just stuck in the boat going up and down with sea waves, the fortifications would make them almost useless.

Not all the troops would be in concrete forts/bunkers. Most would be in pits and trenches. An explosive hitting near the lip of a pit or trench would still cause some shock/pressure wave effect.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 1635
RE: AAR 1944 - 6/6/2021 2:46:21 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 4360
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
Maybe they were good for morale? Must have been quite a view.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 1636
RE: AAR 1944 - 6/6/2021 3:33:44 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3256
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

FOLKS, today is a great day, I learned that there are 4 seasons from MM - otherwise not much tho.



Well, I'd suggest that's more due to your willingness to learn than my failings to educate, but that's the oldest excuse in the book.

quote:

But I still ask, so mere mortals like me or Castor or Dili etc. can not interprete the values in the database eg. compare soft attack with other devices just cause they are another (hidden?) class ? But immortals like MM (and Alfred ? ) can interpret the magic of the database values? I can not compare HE weight of shell (aka "soft attack") between eg. 4.2inch mortar and 4.5 inch rocket cause "Different devices, different code, different algorithms."

And perhaps even not the value of 105mm how vs. 105mm SP cause one is classed as art and the other as AFV. That would be stupid.


Can you compare those things? Of course, nothing can stop you should you wish to do so.

That doesn't mean any comparison you make will have any value at all, given how you (and all the rest of the playerbase) have absolutely zero knowledge of what goes on under the hood.

You may well make the comparison that a 4.2 inch mortar and a 4.5 inch rocket should be roughly similar in attribute as they are roughly the same size. That comparisons would be completely worthless, given that the two devices (while on the surface) seem similar, they engage in completely different aspects of the game engine.

That's before we get in to the weeds in terms of how various values of devices are normalised across domains.

So, yes, you can compare those things if you want. Your comparison is going to be worth less than the paper it's written out without an understanding of the design and coding decisions behind it. See comments from Symon in the modding forum in particular.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

then we can move the discussion on to if the results seen at Marcus are "out of whack". I'd say that they're not - the large number of disablements (vs destroyed squads) is consistent with the shock effects of artillery, amplifued by the IJ over stacking on Marcus.


The rockets were not aimed, the system is crude being just stuck in the boat going up and down with sea waves, the fortifications would make them almost useless.



Again, accuracy is not a the primary requirement with these weapons. This is not a weapons system where you call fire on specific targets.

You're not calling fire on individual Japanese positions, but "The IJ troops are dug in on those two hills and that ridgeline", and those areas experience a healthy dose of high explosive rain.

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

then we can move the discussion on to if the results seen at Marcus are "out of whack". I'd say that they're not - the large number of disablements (vs destroyed squads) is consistent with the shock effects of artillery, amplifued by the IJ over stacking on Marcus.


The rockets were not aimed, the system is crude being just stuck in the boat going up and down with sea waves, the fortifications would make them almost useless.

Not all the troops would be in concrete forts/bunkers. Most would be in pits and trenches. An explosive hitting near the lip of a pit or trench would still cause some shock/pressure wave effect.



Exactly, now we're getting some understanding.

Let's remember what the game considers as level 6 forts - AndyMac has said previously that levels 7-9 are where you start to get Maginot-style fortifications, so you can take level 6 to be representative of a developed trench system with earthen bunkers.

That's a help, but it's by no means complete insulation from such bombardments.


(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 1637
RE: AAR 1944 - 6/6/2021 7:20:45 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4702
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

then we can move the discussion on to if the results seen at Marcus are "out of whack". I'd say that they're not - the large number of disablements (vs destroyed squads) is consistent with the shock effects of artillery, amplifued by the IJ over stacking on Marcus.


The rockets were not aimed, the system is crude being just stuck in the boat going up and down with sea waves, the fortifications would make them almost useless.

Not all the troops would be in concrete forts/bunkers. Most would be in pits and trenches. An explosive hitting near the lip of a pit or trench would still cause some shock/pressure wave effect.


How is that an argument in face of casualities that this boats make, much higher than any other ship?

_____________________________


(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 1638
RE: AAR 1944 - 6/6/2021 8:24:54 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3256
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

then we can move the discussion on to if the results seen at Marcus are "out of whack". I'd say that they're not - the large number of disablements (vs destroyed squads) is consistent with the shock effects of artillery, amplifued by the IJ over stacking on Marcus.


The rockets were not aimed, the system is crude being just stuck in the boat going up and down with sea waves, the fortifications would make them almost useless.

Not all the troops would be in concrete forts/bunkers. Most would be in pits and trenches. An explosive hitting near the lip of a pit or trench would still cause some shock/pressure wave effect.


How is that an argument in face of casualities that this boats make, much higher than any other ship?


Squads disabled versus squads destroyed.

The distinction is important. The casualty string reported in game isn't by default what you would associate with casualties.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 1639
RE: AAR 1944 - 6/6/2021 10:58:39 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4702
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
It is not, there will not be so many disabled squads. No other tool can achieve that result except those puny aimless miracle rockets.

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 1640
RE: AAR 1944 - 6/7/2021 12:13:32 AM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3256
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gGrkZ00Iwc

Worth watching for some of the footage here, before making judgements on what should be "realistic".

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 1641
RE: AAR 1944 - 6/7/2021 3:15:53 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5163
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gGrkZ00Iwc

Worth watching for some of the footage here, before making judgements on what should be "realistic".

Thank you for the link, very informative.

_____________________________


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 1642
RE: AAR 1945 - 6/7/2021 3:39:59 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
JACKPOT! I-15 now gets a shot at Bunker Hill and launches KAITENS! One of them slams into the carrier and immediately causes an ammo storage explosion... right after launching the Kaitens the sub fires a torp spread of four and another two Type 95 torps hit the carrier... wow, looks like Kaiten carrying subs first fire their Kaitens and right after a spread of torps, that makes a lot of torpedoes for an attack on a capital ship... effect of a Kaiten is huge, an ammo storage explosion and two more torps pretty much means that Bunker Hill is in sinking condition... BANZAI!!!

looks like copying IJN's real life sub strategy pays off another time... I-15 is heavily damaged but has a 30/70 chance to make a port in the Marianas if not attacked again... have never seen Kaitens in use before not to talk about one actually hit something, this attack is the prove they work...
[/color]

Ammo storage explosion on CV Bunker Hill


First time I have seen a Kaiten hit in a real game. I've sandboxed them before, and built them in games, but never gotten a hit in a game yet ... Wow!!! Way cool.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 1643
RE: AAR 1944 - 6/7/2021 3:57:48 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gGrkZ00Iwc

Worth watching for some of the footage here, before making judgements on what should be "realistic".

Thank you for the link, very informative.

+1

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 1644
RE: AAR 1944 - 6/7/2021 9:15:58 AM   
Evoken

 

Posts: 474
Joined: 10/23/2019
Status: offline
Ah Mark Felton epitome of historical accuracy. Never shares his sources , overdramatizes everything , accused of stealing peoples work with no credits given , yeap thats the guy to go to. https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/fnut9z/mark_felton_productions_plagiarizes_some_of_his/

Cant believe you guys are still insisting on these rockets work fine , M_M you are saying these casualties are just disabled squads , thats right but thats the expected result from first bombardements on an island from all ships , issue you dont see here is the 6k casualties caused , which is the success paramater for most bombardements , which even 10 BB's in a task force cant cause in best paramaters (both in an amphibious task force or in bombardement task force). Keep in mind Battleships are throwing hundreds times more lead to the enemy , has proper targeting equipment ,air or ground spotters for shell correction.

There is no doubt these rockets were usefull tools for amphibious operations but damage they are inflicting in Witp is disproportionate to every other naval gun , they are violating the standart of every other naval gun and bomb is subject to (which is soft attack = Effect/10) , if these weapons were brought down to standarts of Witp; They would still be effective , they would likely drive the disruption very high but wouldnt be the wonder weapon it currently is.

Seriously , to capture an atoll that is well guarded , you need to bombard , you need warships in amphibious task force to guard it , you need to soften enemy from air. But you dont need all of that if you just put together 20 of these in a task force and it will disable %90 of the defenders without any hussle.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 1645
RE: AAR 1944 - 6/7/2021 12:02:28 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3256
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Evoken

Ah Mark Felton epitome of historical accuracy. Never shares his sources , overdramatizes everything , accused of stealing peoples work with no credits given , yeap thats the guy to go to. https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/fnut9z/mark_felton_productions_plagiarizes_some_of_his/


You will note that I made effort to include specific reference that the video linked was worth watching specifically for the footage, rather than the commentary.

Felton, for his apparent flaws, does at least seem to have made the effort regarding stock footage (most of the clips were new to me, as was the demonstration of the rocket firing turret).

As an aside, a wall of text on Reddit about someone's version of "history being wrong" has a requirement to consume a large dose of salt while reading. It's interesting that I didn't find anything similar from a cursory check from an academic perspective. That's not necessarily an endorsement, merely that "someone on the internet is WRONG" is a trope as old as the internet itself.

quote:

Cant believe you guys are still insisting on these rockets work fine , M_M you are saying these casualties are just disabled squads , thats right but thats the expected result from first bombardements on an island from all ships , issue you dont see here is the 6k casualties caused , which is the success paramater for most bombardements , which even 10 BB's in a task force cant cause in best paramaters (both in an amphibious task force or in bombardement task force). Keep in mind Battleships are throwing hundreds times more lead to the enemy , has proper targeting equipment ,air or ground spotters for shell correction.


Some thoughts in response:

- bombardment missions fire on targets other than troops. Invasion support fire is focused only on enemy troops firing at the landing force.

- The over-stack is almost certainly contributing to the large number of disabled squads.

- The dynamic between guided fire from warships and rocket bombardment is different in nature. In WW2 terms, high calibre naval gunfire is effectively a precision weapon. These rockets are intended to provide area suppression.

- A battleship may be able to throw more high explosive at a target but it will take significantly longer to do so. It's well established that the most dangerous period of any bombardment is the initial phase.

quote:

There is no doubt these rockets were usefull tools for amphibious operations but damage they are inflicting in Witp is disproportionate to every other naval gun , they are violating the standart of every other naval gun and bomb is subject to (which is soft attack = Effect/10) , if these weapons were brought down to standarts of Witp; They would still be effective , they would likely drive the disruption very high but wouldnt be the wonder weapon it currently is.

Seriously , to capture an atoll that is well guarded , you need to bombard , you need warships in amphibious task force to guard it , you need to soften enemy from air. But you dont need all of that if you just put together 20 of these in a task force and it will disable %90 of the defenders without any hussle.


Ship designed to specifically support amphibious landings is effective when supporting amphibious landings.

I imagine that the Japanese were equally as frustrated in reality with the Allied ability to turn up and deliver high explosives.

< Message edited by mind_messing -- 6/7/2021 12:03:42 PM >

(in reply to Evoken)
Post #: 1646
RE: AAR 1944 - 6/7/2021 6:20:15 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 13841
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

then we can move the discussion on to if the results seen at Marcus are "out of whack". I'd say that they're not - the large number of disablements (vs destroyed squads) is consistent with the shock effects of artillery, amplifued by the IJ over stacking on Marcus.


The rockets were not aimed, the system is crude being just stuck in the boat going up and down with sea waves, the fortifications would make them almost useless.

Not all the troops would be in concrete forts/bunkers. Most would be in pits and trenches. An explosive hitting near the lip of a pit or trench would still cause some shock/pressure wave effect.


You don't need a concrete bunker to survive shelling with any ordnance like that. 75mm artillery was useless against any sort of entrenchement and so were these rockets. They were nothing more than suppressive but they were no killers unless you get caught in the open. What you needed against entrenched troops was heavy artillery, 150mm and up.


_____________________________


(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 1647
RE: AAR 1944 - 6/7/2021 6:29:12 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 13841
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gGrkZ00Iwc

Worth watching for some of the footage here, before making judgements on what should be "realistic".


Thank you for the link, very informative.



OMG, blocking someone still means seeing his nonsense when someone quotes it? Thank you Matrix forum.

As if it wouldn't be ridicoulos enough we now take a FELTON youtube video to judge the effect of these weapons? Have we gone totally nuts now? Is this the Hearts of Iron forum? It's like claiming history channel over a good book. I was even stupid enough to watch the video which is showing exactly NOTHING other than fireworks.

I can only repeat myself and if you people have lost all military and historic knowledge, small calibre weapons are literally useless against anything that is entrenched. You ever heard about WWI trench warfare and which weapons actually destroyed fortified lines even when those were mostly trench lines? You ever heard about WWII and Sevastopol? I'm not claiming a level 6 fort in the game is a Maginot line but it is ten times more that is needed not to see a garrison 100% whiped out by the LCI(G) alone that never were more than suppressive weapons.

Shouldn't we make 8cm mortars into superweapons too? Wonder why these couldn't knock out any type of fortification, just put enough into your line and you most likely could disable all defenders in the Maginot line so the cleaning woman can move in and force the defender to surrender without a loss and all defenders being "destroyed".

This is really going from ridicoulos into depressing as I had quite a good opinion about the people here and their real life knowledge when it comes down to all military stuff and WWII.

A Felton youtube video, just can't belive where this has gone now.

If that troll would just leave the AAR at some point and go back to the HOI forum.


< Message edited by castor troy -- 6/7/2021 6:40:16 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 1648
RE: AAR 1945 - 6/7/2021 6:34:53 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 13841
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
JACKPOT! I-15 now gets a shot at Bunker Hill and launches KAITENS! One of them slams into the carrier and immediately causes an ammo storage explosion... right after launching the Kaitens the sub fires a torp spread of four and another two Type 95 torps hit the carrier... wow, looks like Kaiten carrying subs first fire their Kaitens and right after a spread of torps, that makes a lot of torpedoes for an attack on a capital ship... effect of a Kaiten is huge, an ammo storage explosion and two more torps pretty much means that Bunker Hill is in sinking condition... BANZAI!!!

looks like copying IJN's real life sub strategy pays off another time... I-15 is heavily damaged but has a 30/70 chance to make a port in the Marianas if not attacked again... have never seen Kaitens in use before not to talk about one actually hit something, this attack is the prove they work...
[/color]

Ammo storage explosion on CV Bunker Hill


First time I have seen a Kaiten hit in a real game. I've sandboxed them before, and built them in games, but never gotten a hit in a game yet ... Wow!!! Way cool.



Was the first time I've seen them and they immediately got a hit. Not sure if the game handles them correctly because it looks like any Kaiten equipped sub first fires the four Kaitens, then immediately following with a torp spread giving you quite a number of torps in the water. IIRC Kaitens weren't used much and only one or two ships were actually hit and those were laying at anchor. Always thought Kaitens were intended to be used more or less like midget subs.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 6/7/2021 6:35:22 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 1649
RE: AAR 1944 - 6/7/2021 6:53:15 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3256
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

then we can move the discussion on to if the results seen at Marcus are "out of whack". I'd say that they're not - the large number of disablements (vs destroyed squads) is consistent with the shock effects of artillery, amplifued by the IJ over stacking on Marcus.


The rockets were not aimed, the system is crude being just stuck in the boat going up and down with sea waves, the fortifications would make them almost useless.

Not all the troops would be in concrete forts/bunkers. Most would be in pits and trenches. An explosive hitting near the lip of a pit or trench would still cause some shock/pressure wave effect.


You don't need a concrete bunker to survive shelling with any ordnance like that. 75mm artillery was useless against any sort of entrenchement and so were these rockets. They were nothing more than suppressive but they were no killers unless you get caught in the open. What you needed against entrenched troops was heavy artillery, 150mm and up.



[citation needed]

That's even before we get to the point that they were not intended to be anti-entrenchment weapons...



quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gGrkZ00Iwc

Worth watching for some of the footage here, before making judgements on what should be "realistic".


Thank you for the link, very informative.



I can only repeat myself ...



Yes, you are very good at that.

You're still wrong though, the garrison of Marcus was not wiped out by LCI(G) fire. You can see that yourself from the combat report. It would be refreshing if you could stop repeating this inaccuracy.

quote:

This is really going from ridicoulos into depressing as I had quite a good opinion about the people here and their real life knowledge when it comes down to all military stuff and WWII.


So what do you think the realistic outcome of the Marcus scenario would be? Interested to know to try (almost certainly in vain) to find a common point of reference.


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 1650
Page:   <<   < prev  53 54 [55] 56 57   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: AAR 1944 Page: <<   < prev  53 54 [55] 56 57   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

0.488