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: The R's

 
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 >> The War Room >> RE: The R's Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The R's - 9/25/2020 1:54:14 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 2510
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alamander
quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
As I understand it, the game does not allow land-based artillery to fire against bombarding ships unless it is a Coast Defence/Naval Fort unit or has DP guns. Standard artillery will not return suppressing fire, but will fire at landing troops.

That is my understanding as well. Standard artillery units will not fire on bombardment TFs. They do seem to fire on amphibious TFs, however, which is the entire point that I am making about BBs in amphibious groups and using some 10 cm and 15 cm guns to try to take advantage of this type of TF construction.


Using repeated AKE supplied bombardments as a chief tool to suppress tough spots I assure you standard artillery does fire on any eligible seaborn target day or night. Just not as often compared to CD units, more skill checks have to be made.

< Message edited by GetAssista -- 9/25/2020 1:55:02 PM >

(in reply to Alamander)
Post #: 61
RE: The R's - 9/25/2020 6:47:17 PM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1117
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alamander

It was no feint. It is the center of all activity in the game right now.

I still find it a bit hazardous, so early in the game, to launch such an operation there, but given the details of your game, I better understand his choice to focus on India/Burma. It still poses problems of supplying all that, needing ships to bring supply AND fuel to Capetown and then to India (but the advantage of concentrating the escorts), plus the lack of repair yards for upgrades (or repairs)... all the while, with corresponding advantages for the IJN, being close to fuel sources and to repair yards (and well-protected ones).

I have done so against the AI, but I probably wouldn’t do it against a human opponent.

(in reply to Alamander)
Post #: 62
RE: The R's - 9/25/2020 9:29:46 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 16077
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alamander
quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
As I understand it, the game does not allow land-based artillery to fire against bombarding ships unless it is a Coast Defence/Naval Fort unit or has DP guns. Standard artillery will not return suppressing fire, but will fire at landing troops.

That is my understanding as well. Standard artillery units will not fire on bombardment TFs. They do seem to fire on amphibious TFs, however, which is the entire point that I am making about BBs in amphibious groups and using some 10 cm and 15 cm guns to try to take advantage of this type of TF construction.


Using repeated AKE supplied bombardments as a chief tool to suppress tough spots I assure you standard artillery does fire on any eligible seaborn target day or night. Just not as often compared to CD units, more skill checks have to be made.

I have never seen it happen myself, and I do a lot of naval bombardment. E.G., once I killed the Truk Naval Fort, there has been 0 return fire from the LCUs still there even though I let the bombardment TFs go all the way in (Escorts Bombard, standoff range 1). Mines were swept as soon as the Naval Fort was toast. Truk was still firing AA so it had supply.

_____________________________

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 GetAssista)
Post #: 63
RE: The R's - 9/25/2020 11:30:12 PM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 2708
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alamander


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R





Sounds like your clever ploy bagged a follow up TF with a base force on board.

You might want to lower the volume on the self congratulation here. I am starting to like Mike's work.


I am not congratulating myself. The point that I was making was to suggest that while BBs may have a role in some amphibious groups (as BBFanboy notes), they can do more harm than good.

The conversation was sidetracked a bit. Several folk suggested that my opponent was being careless, and my intent was to defend him by stating that he was not being careless and that he had planned it out pretty well from the looks of it on my end. Of course, you are free to read whatever you want into intent and make whatever sorts of judgements you deem fit.



I think 11-42 is too early, and Mike should have waited until he can blanket the area with F6Fs, or attacked somewhere within land based fighter cover. But the further information you provided (about other amph forces etc) suggests his ducks are much better lined up than first appeared from your description. No offence was intended - it's a saying, a bit like "it ain't over till the fat lady sings" or "don't count your chickens before they hatch". My kids say it when they think I'm getting ahead of myself.



_____________________________

"You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
- Cdr Spock


Ian R

(in reply to Alamander)
Post #: 64
RE: The R's - 9/25/2020 11:46:46 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 2510
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
I have never seen it happen myself, and I do a lot of naval bombardment. E.G., once I killed the Truk Naval Fort, there has been 0 return fire from the LCUs still there even though I let the bombardment TFs go all the way in (Escorts Bombard, standoff range 1). Mines were swept as soon as the Naval Fort was toast. Truk was still firing AA so it had supply.

I ran a small test and stand corrected - I was not able to provoke regular field arty battalions as long as there were no naval guns as devices involved. It's not about the units though, it is about the guns. Many of the base forces and some allied ART units have the guns that are designated as Naval in the DB, those do return fire.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 65
RE: The R's - 9/26/2020 1:37:36 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 2708
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
I have never seen it happen myself, and I do a lot of naval bombardment. E.G., once I killed the Truk Naval Fort, there has been 0 return fire from the LCUs still there even though I let the bombardment TFs go all the way in (Escorts Bombard, standoff range 1). Mines were swept as soon as the Naval Fort was toast. Truk was still firing AA so it had supply.

I ran a small test and stand corrected - I was not able to provoke regular field arty battalions as long as there were no naval guns as devices involved. It's not about the units though, it is about the guns. Many of the base forces and some allied ART units have the guns that are designated as Naval in the DB, those do return fire.


Late game, the USMC receives a couple of "sea-coast artillery" battalions. They are armed with 24 155mm Long Tom field guns (device 1161). Stats are range 25, acc'y 25, pen. 80, effect 95. a-a is 69, a-s 47. It is a type 19 - Army Weapon.

That weapon can be contrasted with the 155mm M1A1 GPF (device slot 1144) which is the ultimate upgrade for all US CD weapons up to 6" calibre. Its numbers are range 25, acc'y 53, pen 140, effect 110, a-a 80 & a-s 52. It is a type 18 - Naval Gun.

As far as I can tell, both these weapons are 155mm Long Toms. After a bit of googling, I suspect the CD version is modeled as using AP ammo (actually the M112 APBC/HE round), where the Army weapon only gets M101 HE rounds.

Could you put some of each in your sandbox and see who fires? A second test would be to clone the 155mm M1A1 GPF and change it to type 19 and see what happens.

The other thing to test is whether accuracy ratings play a part. No US field artillery has an accuracy rating greater than 16 - except the Long Tom, at 25. No 'naval gun' has an accuracy less than 16 (and most are substantially higher). This may be merely coincidental.

_____________________________

"You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
- Cdr Spock


Ian R

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 66
RE: The R's - 9/26/2020 4:03:35 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 16077
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R


quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
I have never seen it happen myself, and I do a lot of naval bombardment. E.G., once I killed the Truk Naval Fort, there has been 0 return fire from the LCUs still there even though I let the bombardment TFs go all the way in (Escorts Bombard, standoff range 1). Mines were swept as soon as the Naval Fort was toast. Truk was still firing AA so it had supply.

I ran a small test and stand corrected - I was not able to provoke regular field arty battalions as long as there were no naval guns as devices involved. It's not about the units though, it is about the guns. Many of the base forces and some allied ART units have the guns that are designated as Naval in the DB, those do return fire.


Late game, the USMC receives a couple of "sea-coast artillery" battalions. They are armed with 24 155mm Long Tom field guns (device 1161). Stats are range 25, acc'y 25, pen. 80, effect 95. a-a is 69, a-s 47. It is a type 19 - Army Weapon.

That weapon can be contrasted with the 155mm M1A1 GPF (device slot 1144) which is the ultimate upgrade for all US CD weapons up to 6" calibre. Its numbers are range 25, acc'y 53, pen 140, effect 110, a-a 80 & a-s 52. It is a type 18 - Naval Gun.

As far as I can tell, both these weapons are 155mm Long Toms. After a bit of googling, I suspect the CD version is modeled as using AP ammo (actually the M112 APBC/HE round), where the Army weapon only gets M101 HE rounds.

Could you put some of each in your sandbox and see who fires? A second test would be to clone the 155mm M1A1 GPF and change it to type 19 and see what happens.

The other thing to test is whether accuracy ratings play a part. No US field artillery has an accuracy rating greater than 16 - except the Long Tom, at 25. No 'naval gun' has an accuracy less than 16 (and most are substantially higher). This may be merely coincidental.

Naval artillery would have the benefit of a much larger range finder, set higher up to see farther, and later on, radar ranging slaved to the guns as well. Rather than build in a separate calculation for the radar and range finder aboard, it was likely abstracted into the accuracy figures.

_____________________________

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 Ian R)
Post #: 67
RE: The R's - 9/26/2020 6:53:07 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 2708
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline
The naval guns I am referring to are the US CD types - various calibres from 3" to 16" (and 155mm) - not the ship-board ones, although they also seem to have accuracy ratings above 16. A quick check of allied DP types also shows accuracy ratings of 17+.

_____________________________

"You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
- Cdr Spock


Ian R

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 68
RE: The R's - 11/22/2020 10:31:56 PM   
Shilka

 

Posts: 68
Joined: 10/27/2009
Status: offline
Not exactly Revenge class but POW got a "scratch" after a 45cm/18in torpedo. That's +14 inch belt and air/water filled torpedo belt layer for you, they can really sometimes work and save you.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 69
RE: The R's - 11/22/2020 11:17:23 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 16077
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shilka

Not exactly Revenge class but POW got a "scratch" after a 45cm/18in torpedo. That's +14 inch belt and air/water filled torpedo belt layer for you, they can really sometimes work and save you.




You got a lucky die roll. The torpedo will often penetrate the bulge and belt (perhaps hitting below the belt), and cause substantial damage. It can even cause a magazine explosion.
It take those minor dings to mean something that hits at the very end of the bow, making a hole in a very small compartment.

_____________________________

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 Shilka)
Post #: 70
RE: The R's - 11/22/2020 11:35:43 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 9252
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: online
Or the stern. The bow hit could force a lot of water in, that is what actually happened to the Mushasi.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 71
RE: The R's - 11/23/2020 8:42:46 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 16077
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Or the stern. The bow hit could force a lot of water in, that is what actually happened to the Mushasi.

I discounted the stern because most ships are usually wider there - bigger compartments - and there is some pretty vital hardware back there that would easily become major engineering damage.

_____________________________

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 RangerJoe)
Post #: 72
RE: The R's - 11/23/2020 10:27:29 AM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 9252
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: online
The Musashi was hit in the bow and 3,000 tons of water came in.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 73
RE: The R's - 11/23/2020 3:04:18 PM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 2708
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline
Has anyone sandboxed the "army gun" 155mm Long Tom against the the USMC Seacoast type, or the 155mm naval gun GPF,or are we all just speculating?

_____________________________

"You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
- Cdr Spock


Ian R

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 74
RE: The R's - 11/23/2020 5:05:00 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 16077
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Has anyone sandboxed the "army gun" 155mm Long Tom against the the USMC Seacoast type, or the 155mm naval gun GPF,or are we all just speculating?

You could just compare the stats of each in the Editor. That would show whether the guns themselves are comparable (the Long Tom might have better range).

The Marine Defence Battalions have radar, and possibly dual optical systems for rangefinding with telephone links to their internal fire controller. That might give them a better accuracy score than the Long Toms which would normally not have optical sight of their target, so they rely on Forward Observation Officers to call in the shot and adjust the aim.

_____________________________

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 Ian R)
Post #: 75
RE: The R's - 11/23/2020 11:12:36 PM   
Shilka

 

Posts: 68
Joined: 10/27/2009
Status: offline
Yeah, I guess that doesn't happen very often. Didn't knock on the wood, and Warspite took two torpedoes and went in the yard for another 4-5 months.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 76
RE: The R's - 11/23/2020 11:21:49 PM   
Shilka

 

Posts: 68
Joined: 10/27/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The Musashi was hit in the bow and 3,000 tons of water came in.


Didn't know that.

I read that compartmentalization on the Yamato's was actually pretty tight / advanced, and they even had some armor plating protecting under the magazines. I guess that would've helped if a magnetic torpedo exploded beneath (but it still probably would have a high chance of cracking something else bad i.e. the hull). Basically all-or-nothing armor schemes were based on the idea that as far as the citadel (covering usually a more-or-less box liked shape from front turret to back turret) isn't flooded, it has enough buoyancy to keep the ship afloat regardless of what other parts get flooded.

< Message edited by Shilka -- 11/23/2020 11:23:15 PM >

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 77
RE: The R's - 11/23/2020 11:44:26 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 9252
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: online
Actually, from what I read it was not. There as no center bulkhead so water could slosh back and forth.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Shilka)
Post #: 78
RE: The R's - 11/24/2020 4:19:14 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 16077
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shilka

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The Musashi was hit in the bow and 3,000 tons of water came in.


Didn't know that.

I read that compartmentalization on the Yamato's was actually pretty tight / advanced, and they even had some armor plating protecting under the magazines. I guess that would've helped if a magnetic torpedo exploded beneath (but it still probably would have a high chance of cracking something else bad i.e. the hull). Basically all-or-nothing armor schemes were based on the idea that as far as the citadel (covering usually a more-or-less box liked shape from front turret to back turret) isn't flooded, it has enough buoyancy to keep the ship afloat regardless of what other parts get flooded.

I once found a site that had a blow by blow account of Yamato's sinking, with pictures at every stage (CL Yahagi included). The site said the USN was not happy with how much ordnance they expended sinking Musashi, so they developed a new strategy. Instead of attacking from all sides initially, they would concentrate on attacking only one side to cause significant list and try to capsize the ship. And so it was they concentrated on Yamato's starboard side and got it listing something like 20º, despite the frantic counterflooding the damage control officer ordered.

When the USN strike coordinator saw that the list lifted Yamato's port side armour out of the water, he ordered four torpedo planes to attack the port side. All four torpedoes struck and tore out the bottom of the ship, causing massive flooding and an almost immediate capsize, which set off the magazines.

Also of interest in the attack plan was that the fighters and dive bombers went in first to attrite the AA crews and largely succeeded in smashing most of the AA or its control.

Unfortunately, when my computer hard drive crashed I lost the bookmark for that site and haven't been able to find it again.

_____________________________

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 Shilka)
Post #: 79
RE: The R's - 11/24/2020 8:10:44 AM   
Buckrock

 

Posts: 540
Joined: 3/16/2012
From: Not all there
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
I once found a site that had a blow by blow account of Yamato's sinking, with pictures at every stage (CL Yahagi included). The site said the USN was not happy with how much ordnance they expended sinking Musashi, so they developed a new strategy. Instead of attacking from all sides initially, they would concentrate on attacking only one side to cause significant list and try to capsize the ship. And so it was they concentrated on Yamato's starboard side and got it listing something like 20º, despite the frantic counterflooding the damage control officer ordered.

I'm fairly sure I've also seen that same narrative in several websites and (IIRC) in at least one book.

However, I've yet to find a USN CAG report from that action (7th Apr '45) that would support it. Most of the reports I've seen would in fact contradict the narrative that the USN strikes went in that day with the intention to concentrate their torpedo attacks primarily against one side of the Yamato.

< Message edited by Buckrock -- 11/24/2020 8:11:55 AM >


_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 80
RE: The R's - 11/24/2020 12:26:43 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 9252
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
I once found a site that had a blow by blow account of Yamato's sinking, with pictures at every stage (CL Yahagi included). The site said the USN was not happy with how much ordnance they expended sinking Musashi, so they developed a new strategy. Instead of attacking from all sides initially, they would concentrate on attacking only one side to cause significant list and try to capsize the ship. And so it was they concentrated on Yamato's starboard side and got it listing something like 20º, despite the frantic counterflooding the damage control officer ordered.

I'm fairly sure I've also seen that same narrative in several websites and (IIRC) in at least one book.

However, I've yet to find a USN CAG report from that action (7th Apr '45) that would support it. Most of the reports I've seen would in fact contradict the narrative that the USN strikes went in that day with the intention to concentrate their torpedo attacks primarily against one side of the Yamato.


Does this work? The emphasis is mine:

quote:

A lookout spots American planes 25 degrees to port, levation 8, range 4,375 yards, moving to port. This is the first wave of 280 aircraft (132 fighters, 50 bombers, 98 torpedo planes) from Task Group 58. 1’s USS HORNET (CV-12), HANCOCK (CV-19), BENNINGTON (CV-20), BELLEAU WOOD (CVL-24) and SAN JACINTO (CVL-30) and from Task Group 58. 3’s USS ESSEX (CV-9), BUNKER HILL (CV-17), BATAAN (CVL-24) and CABOT (CVL-28).

Lagging behind the main force, destroyer ASASHIMO is attacked and sunk by aircraft from SAN JACINTO.

YAMATO opens fire with her two forward main turrets and AA guns. YAMATO stops zigzagging and increases speed to 24 knots. Her nine 18.1-inch guns firing Sanshikidan beehive shells, twenty-four 127-mm. AA guns and one hundred fifty-two 25-mm AA guns all open fire. The American planes release their bombs and torpedoes and strafe the bridge with machine-gun fire. YAMATO is hit by two AP bombs. Smoke rises from the vicinity of the mainmast and a bomb explodes in the same area. The aft secondary battery fire control, secondary gun turret and the air search radar are knocked out.

The Attack Force changes course to 100 degrees. Helldivers from BENNINGTON and HORNET attack from port. At flank speed, YAMATO commences a right turn but two 1000-lb AP bombs hit her. The first explodes in the crew’s quarters abaft the Type 13 radar shack. The second penetrates the port side of the aft Command station and explodes between the 155-mm gun magazine and main gun turret No. 3’s upper powder magazine. It starts a fire that cannot be extinguished and rips a 60-foot hole in the weather deck. One Helldiver is shot down, another is damaged badly.

A group of five low-flying Avengers (VT-17) from HORNET (CV-12) start a torpedo run from the port, bearing 70 degrees. YAMATO, at 27 knots flank speed, heels to starboard in evasive action. The Avengers drop three torpedoes. One strikes her port side near the forward windlass room. One Avenger is shot down.

Fourteen F4U Chance-Vought Corsairs from BUNKER HILL strafe and rocket YAMATO but cause only minor damage. Thirty-four Hellcats, 22 Helldivers and one Corsair attack YAMATO’s escorts. DesDiv 17’s HAMAKAZE takes a near miss on her starboard quarter that disables her starboard shaft. A torpedo strikes HAMAKAZE starboard, aft of amidships and she jackknifes. SUZUTSUKI takes a 500-lb GP bomb hit to starboard, abreast her No. 2 gun mount. Two dud rockets hit FUYUTSUKI.

The first attack wave retires. Destroyer SUZUTSUKI wreathed in black smoke, burns furiously. The light cruiser YAHAGI, without headway, drifts helplessly behind the main force. YAMATO, despite hits by two bombs and one torpedo, maintains flank speed.



1300 hour – YAMATO changes course to 180 degrees, due South. Her remaining air search radar reports the approach of a second attack wave. The Attack Force changes course due south to 180 degrees. Fifty aircraft from ESSEX and BATAAN are sighted approaching from the SSW, range 18.5 miles. YAMATO increases speed to 22 knots.

A Corsair from ESSEX drops a 1000-lb GP bomb that hits the superstructure in the port bow area. Twelve Helldivers claim several hits near the bridge and main gun turret No. 3. Five Helldivers are damaged by AA fire. Another 110 aircraft from Task Group 58. 4’s YORKTOWN (CV-10), INTREPID (CV-11), LANGLEY (CVL-27) engage the Attack Force. This time all the attacks are concentrated against the battleship. Twenty Avengers make a new torpedo run from 60 degrees to port.

YAMATO starts a sharp turn to port but three torpedoes rip into her port side amidships. Her auxiliary rudder is jammed in position hard port. YAMATO has taken a total of four torpedo hits. She ships about 3,000-tons of seawater. She lists about seven degrees to port. Damage Control counter-floods both starboard engine and boiler rooms and almost entirely corrects the list.

YAMATO starts a turn starboard to course 230 degrees. One of her lookouts spots the tracks of four torpedoes approaching. The first torpedoes pass by harmlessly, but the remaining two strike her port amidships. She takes on a heavy list to port and her speed drops to 18 knots. Armor-piercing and other bombs make a shambles of her upper works.

YAMATO turns hard to port. She continues to throw up a screen of desperate flak fire. One Avenger is shot down but her barrage is largely ineffective because each AA battery fires independently without coordination. The escorts cannot defend the flagship either.



1400 hour – Three bombs explode port amidships, five minutes later a torpedo hits her starboard side amidships. Ten minutes later, two more torpedoes strike her port side. YAMATO’s list increases to about 15 degrees and her speed slows to 12 knots.

Executive Officer Nomura Jiro reports to Captain Aruga that his damage control officers are all dead and that counter-flooding can no longer correct the list. He suggests the order to abandon ship be given. The Fleet Commander, Vice Admiral Ito, orders the mission cancelled and directs the remaining ships to pick up as many survivors as possible.

Light cruiser YAHAGI, hit by 12 bombs and seven torpedoes sinks exactly one minute after the last bomb hits. LtCdr (later Captain) Herbert Houck, the leader of 43 TBM Avengers of VT-9 from YORKTOWN, detaches Lt Thomas Stetson’s six Avengers in a final torpedo attack from the ship’s starboard side. Stetson’s crewmen reset their Mark 13 torpedoes’ running depth to 20 feet. Listing heavily to port, YAMATO’s exposed hull is hit by several more torpedoes. She rolls slowly over her port side on her beam ends.

YAMATO’s No. 1 magazine explodes and sends up a cloud of smoke seen 100 miles away. She slips under followed by an underwater explosion.

YAMATO sinks at 30-22 N, 128-04 E.


https://vt17.com/blog/archives/34#:~:text=Operation%20Ten-Go%20was%20a%20deliberate%20suicide%20attack%20against,American%20forces%20on%20Okinawa%20with%20her%2018.1-inch%20heavy-guns.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Buckrock)
Post #: 81
RE: The R's - 11/24/2020 1:41:30 PM   
Buckrock

 

Posts: 540
Joined: 3/16/2012
From: Not all there
Status: offline
What you emphasized above was the coup de gras attack delivered by 6 of the Yorktown's TBMs against the starboard side lower hull, now exposed by the heavy port list. It was believed to be the last torpedo attack of the day delivered against the Yamato.

The narrative I was referring to was the one involving the USN torpedo aircraft deliberately targeting the Yamato's port side in earlier attacks that then created the situation that the Yorktown's TBM's took advantage of. That earlier deliberate targeting of only one selected side by the strikes is what I've not yet seen any evidence of when studying the combat reports of the CAG's that were involved in the action.


_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 82
RE: The R's - 11/24/2020 1:54:36 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 9252
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: online
Read between the lines, most of the torpedo attacks were from the port side. If you don't like the narrative that I found, you are free to find another one.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Buckrock)
Post #: 83
RE: The R's - 11/24/2020 2:43:33 PM   
Buckrock

 

Posts: 540
Joined: 3/16/2012
From: Not all there
Status: offline
Thanks. That account unfortunately doesn't describe every torpedo attack made against the Yamato on the day, something that would be needed to support or dismiss the narrative in question.

So for the moment I'll just stick with the historical CAG reports as they do appear to describe all the (approximately 60) torpedoes launched against the Yamato on the 7th April and from what quarters they were dropped.

_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 84
RE: The R's - 11/24/2020 2:55:44 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 9252
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: online
quote:

The Americans Attack

Aware of Ito's progress, the eleven carriers of Vice Admiral Marc Mitscher's Task Force 58 began launching several waves of aircraft around 10:00 a.m. In addition, a force of six battleships and two large cruisers was sent north in case air strikes failed to stop the Japanese. Flying north from Okinawa, the first wave spotted Yamato shortly after noon. As the Japanese lacked air cover, the American fighters, dive bombers, and torpedo planes patiently set up their attacks. Commencing around 12:30 p.m., the torpedo bombers focused their attacks on Yamato's port side to increase the chances of the ship capsizing.


https://www.thoughtco.com/world-war-ii-operation-ten-go-2361439

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Buckrock)
Post #: 85
RE: The R's - 11/24/2020 3:25:33 PM   
Buckrock

 

Posts: 540
Joined: 3/16/2012
From: Not all there
Status: offline
Yep. That's definitely the narrative I'm referring to. As with the other online articles I've seen, there is unfortunately no direct evidence provided in the article to support the claim. Rather than the claim itself, it's any documented historical evidence of such a strike plan being in play on the day that I've been on the lookout for.

_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 86
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: The R's Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
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

0.191