|
   There are more air raids over Luganville.   The enemy cruisers have fled to Sorenbar. We come after them once more.  We also see our planes go out after smaller targets.  We see off their attacks on us.   A hard days fight, but we win on destroyed squads.  Changsha begins again, we are doing well once more, but can we take the city before needing to rest once more.   A quieter day, but things are still progressing.  I doubt that the two military ships have sunk, but it would be nice – we only get credit for the freighter.
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 04:41 |
|
|
It must have been pretty disheartening to get assigned to the Decoy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Are you sure you got that destroyer? It seems to have been a decoy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Well, if they didn't sink they'll probably still be there tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Kindof a shame it looks like the AI didn't turn Surabaya into a huge base. Still big and you'll still get some easy pickings from the ships there, but nothing gigantic like a BB.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Didn't you do something similiar when you were playing as the allies? Huge Cruiser-TF trying to take out the carriers? I guess the AI had a lot less luck with that tactic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
SOLarian posted:Didn't you do something similiar when you were playing as the allies? Huge Cruiser-TF trying to take out the carriers? I guess the AI had a lot less luck with that tactic. He also had the Repulse intact as well to conduct operations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
SOLarian posted:Didn't you do something similiar when you were playing as the allies? Huge Cruiser-TF trying to take out the carriers? I guess the AI had a lot less luck with that tactic. If I remember correctly he managed to heavily damage (but not sink?) one of the Kido Butai's carriers during a storm at night. Probably the high-water mark for the ABDA fleet in that game, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Something I was wondering about: How the hell did people aim torpedoes in WWII? They had pretty long ranges and didn't go nearly as fast as a bullet, after all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Something I was wondering about : How the hell did people aim torpedoes in WWII? They had pretty long ranges and didn't go nearly as fast as a bullet, after all. You either shoot straight and time it right or you program the gryoscope to take the torpedo through a curve and aim it right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Boats are very slow to turn, and torpedoes are very hard to see. You shoot at where they will be, and hope they don't notice that they need to be turning away from that course.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Something I was wondering about : How the hell did people aim torpedoes in WWII? They had pretty long ranges and didn't go nearly as fast as a bullet, after all. Using trigonometry, or, if they were on the right side, analog computers (which still needed hand-calculated input for correct triangulation). The torpedoes themselves could be programmed to assume specific paths based on gyroscopic mechanisms, so subs weren't completely restricted in their ability to fire at targets that weren't perfectly aligned with their hull.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
goatface posted:Boats are very slow to turn, and torpedoes are very hard to see. You shoot at where they will be, and hope they don't notice that they need to be turning away from that course. Actually even fairly slow ships seemed to usually fast enough to dodge a sole spotted torpedo with a healthy margin of wiggle room, based on the literature I've read. Multiple torpedoes can gently caress up your maneuvering options, though. Still, Repulse (being a pretty agile ship) dodged IIRC 8 torpedoes before sustaining a hit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Something I was wondering about : How the hell did people aim torpedoes in WWII? They had pretty long ranges and didn't go nearly as fast as a bullet, after all. Clunk! Dammit! A Hit! but no Explosion! - Lets Play Slient Hunter 4! (requires archives) Plus the videos for this LP: playlist I suggest skipping the first video, because it's too dark, but starting with the second you can see a pretty decent simulation of torpedo hunting in WWII, narrated by our own Grey Hunter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Something I was wondering about : How the hell did people aim torpedoes in WWII? They had pretty long ranges and didn't go nearly as fast as a bullet, after all. Specifically, the torpedo could be set to take a single turn to the left or right a specified number of degrees shortly after leaving the tube. If you know the enemy ship's bearing from your sub, along with it's range, speed, and heading, as well as your own subs heading, it's just a trigonometry problem to calculate how to make the torpedo turn to result in a hit. Bearing is easy, you just look at it through your periscope (or rotatable sonar hydrophone) Range can be tricky, but can be estimated be seeing how many degrees high the ship is in your scope (assuming you know or can estimate the actual height of the ship) Speed can be determined by tracking a ship for awhile, looking at the size of the bow wave and guessing, or timing the ships movement across your scope. Heading is determined by tracking the ship for awhile, or looking at which direction the ship is oriented in your scope (called the Angle on Bow). If you know bearing and AOB, you know heading. The math stuff can be done with a circular slide rule, or various types of electro-mechanical computers where you dial this stuff in and it spits out the solution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
And you just hope they don't see it coming. Of course, BuOrd, in their infinite wisdom, didn't check to make sure the gyroscope would level out. So among the fun 'features' of US torpedoes was that they could circle run. Which had the unfortunate side effect of hitting the Sub that launched the torpedo with its own torpedo. And because of the ideosynchracies of US torpedoes, they tended to work just fine when circling round (because they would hit at an angle due to the shape of the hull and that they hadn't quite completed a 360 degree circle when they reached the back of the submarine)
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
pthighs posted:The math stuff can be done with a circular slide rule, or various types of electro-mechanical computers where you dial this stuff in and it spits out the solution. Did someone say analog fire control computer??? Because this old training film is really great at explaining how they work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1i-dnAH9Y4 It's a bit post-WW2, but whatever. The idea remains the same.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
That video is a great way to spend 40 minutes
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
I got really into manual torpedo calculations back in, I want to say around 2010 or so, to the point where I bought a new rig just to be able to keep playing Silent Hunter. Stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oagZyKjq4gg Installing slide rule and nomograph mods and memorizing the 3:15 rule and filling notebooks full of tracking notes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
  It looks like most of the enemy have gone to ground today.  We do continue to shred their attacks.  Another day where the destroyed squads are on our side.  So many small units to chase down.  Wait, We lost a unit?  I fix a couple of squadrons on training in the Butais. At the moment we're waiting on marching troops.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
No boats left in the harbour, or are the pilots just refusing to fly under the cloud?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
we lost a unit 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
29 vehicles went down, tanks made a bad decision?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
The game has no mechanic for creating entirely new, empty ground units, right? So anything that gets organizationally destroyed is gone for good? In that case, losing an armoured unit like this one is even worse for Japan - As lovely as their tanks are, they still pack a punch against infantry, and they are so rare...
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Gimmick Account posted:The game has no mechanic for creating entirely new, empty ground units, right? So anything that gets organizationally destroyed is gone for good? In that case, losing an armoured unit like this one is even worse for Japan - As lovely as their tanks are, they still pack a punch against infantry, and they are so rare... You can restore destroyed units for political points I think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:You can restore destroyed units for political points I think. Oooh, okay. That would make the loss much more tolerable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
goatface posted:29 vehicles went down, tanks made a bad decision? Japanese "tanks" can make a bad decision by attacking anyone armed with something more threatening than a Red Ryder BB gun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
They are in China.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Grey has over four thousand stockpiled political points, too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Japanese "tanks" can make a bad decision by attacking anyone armed with something more threatening than a Red Ryder BB gun. I've heard about that before, but what I'm curious about is their reliability. I can't really imagine them being all that great on that front either, though. As in, I'd expect the list of threats to include mud, slopes, unusually rough roads, heat, cold, humidity, sand, snow, tree leaves in the air intakes, and rivers. Maybe that's what happened with that unit earlier, they tried to ford a river and no one ever saw them again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
YeOldeButchere posted:I've heard about that before, but what I'm curious about is their reliability. I can't really imagine them being all that great on that front either, though. As in, I'd expect the list of threats to include mud, slopes, unusually rough roads, heat, cold, humidity, sand, snow, tree leaves in the air intakes, and rivers. Maybe that's what happened with that unit earlier, they tried to ford a river and no one ever saw them again. Japanese tanks were regarded as very well engineered, though poorly suited for the revolutionized 1940s combat, so terrain conditions should be not much more of a concern than for any other power. The Japanese used tanks to great advantage in Burma and Malaya in 1942, when they moved stealthily under the cover of dense jungle and launched effective surprise attacks, which, I suppose, is a proof enough of them being able to survive even very harsh conditions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
YeOldeButchere posted:I've heard about that before, but what I'm curious about is their reliability. I can't really imagine them being all that great on that front either, though. As in, I'd expect the list of threats to include mud, slopes, unusually rough roads, heat, cold, humidity, sand, snow, tree leaves in the air intakes, and rivers. Maybe that's what happened with that unit earlier, they tried to ford a river and no one ever saw them again. You ford in line astern, not line abreast.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Japanese tanks were regarded as very well engineered, though poorly suited for the revolutionized 1940s combat, so terrain conditions should be not much more of a concern than for any other power. The Japanese used tanks to great advantage in Burma and Malaya in 1942, when they moved stealthily under the cover of dense jungle and launched effective surprise attacks, which, I suppose, is a proof enough of them being able to survive even very harsh conditions. Huh. That's really not what I expected. I was under the impression that the IJN generally had priority when it came to resource allocation and that tanks would have suffered from that. I would have also guessed that the relatively low power of engines found in Japanese planes reflected generally poor engineering for, well, more or less everything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
YeOldeButchere posted:Huh. That's really not what I expected. I was under the impression that the IJN generally had priority when it came to resource allocation and that tanks would have suffered from that. I would have also guessed that the relatively low power of engines found in Japanese planes reflected generally poor engineering for, well, more or less everything. Japanese tanks weren't exactly Shermans or Panthers or T-34s. They were small, light tanks designed for operating in dense jungle environments. When they encountered American and Soviet armor, or proper Western anti-tank weapons designed to deal with Panzers, they typically fared very poorly. The ground war in the Pacific was dominated by infantry. Armor did not play a significant role except in certain situations like the American penchant for flamethrower tanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Japanese tanks weren't exactly Shermans or Panthers or T-34s. They were small, light tanks designed for operating in dense jungle environments. When they encountered American and Soviet armor, or proper Western anti-tank weapons designed to deal with Panzers, they typically fared very poorly. Yeah, I did know that they were almost tankettes, but I also expected them to be bad tankettes. The fact that they weren't permanently broken down, let alone capable of fighting in jungle terrain of all places, is a bit of a surprise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
I would assume it's much easier to keep a small tankette running than a 30 ton monstrosity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
YeOldeButchere posted:Yeah, I did know that they were almost tankettes, but I also expected them to be bad tankettes. The fact that they weren't permanently broken down, let alone capable of fighting in jungle terrain of all places, is a bit of a surprise. Japanese military equipment, as a rule, was well-designed for the kind of war and the environments that the Japanese expected to be dealing with. The primary failings of the Japanese military had to do with their leadership and doctrine, both IJA and IJN. The Japanese expected a short, sharp war that would establish their colonial empire, and by and large succeeded in that goal. Problems arose when the war did not end at that point and turned into a kind of war they did not expect to fight and were ill-prepared to wage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Weren't Japanese tanks kinda plagued by using subpar steel in their construction too, since all the good poo poo went to the Navy? Or is that a myth?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
Drone posted:Weren't Japanese tanks kinda plagued by using subpar steel in their construction too, since all the good poo poo went to the Navy? Or is that a myth? The quality wouldn't make much of a difference if its penetrated regardless of the at guns it faces. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 04:41 |
|
|
Drone posted:Weren't Japanese tanks kinda plagued by using subpar steel in their construction too, since all the good poo poo went to the Navy? Or is that a myth? Per the US Handbook of Japanese Military Forces, IJA armor plates were of "good quality".
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 07:49
|
|