Author Topic: Two More CVs, Four Battleships  (Read 5060 times)

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Torpedoes
« Reply #75 on: February 17, 2015, 09:10:28 PM »


The Japanese Navy invested heavily in developing a large, heavy, and long-range torpedo, the Type 93. Torpedoes were one of the few naval weapons enabling small warships, such as destroyers, to damage battleships. IJN torpedo research and development focused on using highly compressed oxygen instead of compressed air as the fuel oxidizer in the torpedo's propulsion system. These torpedoes used an otherwise normal wet-heater engine burning a fuel such as methanol or ethanol. Since air is only 21% oxygen (and 78% nitrogen), pure oxygen provides five times as much oxidizer in the same tank volume, thereby increasing torpedo range and the absence of the inert nitrogen resulted in the emission of significantly less exhaust gas, comprising only carbon dioxide, which is significantly soluble in water, and water vapor, thus greatly reducing tell-tale bubble trails.
Compressed oxygen is dangerous to handle and required lengthy research and development, not to mention additional training for the warship's torpedomen, for safe operational use. Eventually, IJN weapons development engineers found that by starting the torpedo's engine with compressed air, and then gradually switching to pure oxygen, they were able to overcome the problem of explosions which had hampered it before. To conceal the use of pure oxygen from the ship's crew and any potential enemy, the oxygen tank was named the secondary air tank. The pure oxygen torpedo was first deployed by IJN in 1935.

The Type 93 had a maximum range of 40 km (21.6 nmi; 24.9 mi) at 38 knots (70 km/h; 44 mph) with a 490 kg (1,080 lb) high explosive warhead. Its long range, high speed, and heavy warheads provided a very formidable punch in surface battles. In contrast, the U.S. Navy's standard surface-launched torpedo of World War II, the 21 in (53 cm) Mark 15, had a maximum range of 15,000 yd (14 km; 7.4 nmi) at 26.5 knots (49.1 km/h; 30.5 mph), or 6,000 yd (5.5 km; 3.0 nmi) at 45 knots (83 km/h; 52 mph), with a significantly smaller 375 kg (827 lb) warhead; torpedoes of other Allied nations did not have longer range. The Type 93 was launched from 61 cm (24 in) torpedo tubes mounted on the decks of IJN destroyers and cruisers; some Japanese destroyers, unlike ships of other navies, mounted their banks of torpedo tubes in turrets offering protection against splinters, and had tube loaders. IJN armed nearly all of its cruisers with Type 93 torpedoes.

In the early surface battles of 1942–43, Japanese destroyers and cruisers were able to launch their torpedoes from about 20 km (11 nmi; 12 mi) at the unsuspecting Allied warships attempting to close to gun range. Allied warships expected that, if torpedoes were used, they would be fired from not more than 10 km (5.4 nmi; 6.2 mi), their own typical torpedo range. The many torpedo hits suffered by Allied warships in such engagements led their officers to believe torpedoes had been fired by undetected Japanese submarines operating in concert with the surface warships. On rare occasions stray very long-range Type 93s struck ships much further range than their intended targets, leading the Allies on occasion to suspect their ships had been mined. The capabilities of the Type 93 went mostly unrecognized by the Allies until examples were captured intact in 1943.

A 17.7 in (450 mm) version, the Type 97 was later developed for midget submarines, but was not a success, and was replaced operationally by the Type 91. A 21 in (53 cm) version for use by a few IJN submarines was designated the Type 95, and it was ultimately successful.

A disadvantage of the Type 93 was that it was far more likely to detonate due to shock than a compressed-air torpedo. The explosion from one Type 93, with its heavy warhead, was usually enough to sink the destroyer, or heavily damage the cruiser, carrying it. As American air strikes against IJN ships became more common, the captains of destroyers and cruisers under air attack had to decide whether to jettison torpedoes to prevent them from being detonated during the attack.

In one instance heavy cruiser Chikuma was fortunate to have jettisoned her Type 93s just before being hit by bombs from several USN dive bombers at the Battle of Santa Cruz Islands. During the Battle off Samar (in the eastern Philippines) a five-inch (127 mm) shell from escort carrier USS White Plains[5] struck heavy cruiser Chokai. While in most circumstances a shell of this size would not seriously damage a heavy cruiser, this shell detonated the cruiser's torpedoes, disabling her rudder and engines; she was scuttled the next day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_93_torpedo


Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
More torpedoes
« Reply #76 on: February 17, 2015, 09:12:03 PM »
The Fletcher class mounted the Mk 15 torpedo

The Mark 15 torpedo, the standard American destroyer-launched torpedo of World War II, was very similar in design to the Mark 14 torpedo except that it was longer, heavier, and had greater range and a larger warhead. During the war 9,700 were produced.[2] The Mark 15 suffered from the same basic design problems that plagued the Mark 14 for the first 20 months following U.S. entry into the war, though this was not realized nearly as quickly by the destroyer crews as it was by the submariners. Surface-combatant torpedo attacks very often included confusing splashes from gunnery and aerial bombs, obscuring smoke screens, and quick maneuvering to evade counterattack. Rarely was a destroyer given a chance for a slow, careful surprise attack. Torpedo results were difficult to estimate under these circumstances. The correction of the Mark 15's problems would depend on the submariners solving theirs.[3]

The Battle of Vella Gulf on the night of August 6–7, 1943, was the first in which a surprise torpedo attack by U.S. gave the Americans an overwhelming advantage in the following gun battle, though one Japanese warship was hit by a dud torpedo and escaped. By September, 1943, effective methods of torpedo deployment were beginning to be distributed to all U.S. destroyers.

 Tactics

     
Above-water Mark 15 torpedo tube installation mounted on destroyers   

Anticipating the possibility of war with Japan, the United States planned to move their battleships across the Pacific with the fleet train. Cruisers and destroyers would be responsible for defending this large formation at night. Fleet exercises held during the 1930s revealed the confusing nature of close range engagements during hours of darkness. In 1932, during Fleet Problem XIII, "attacking" destroyers closed to within 500 yd (460 m) of USS Saratoga before being detected. Fleet Problem XV in 1934 placed the destroyer screen 7 nmi (13 km; 8 mi) beyond the battleship formation, but the battleships were unable to differentiate "friend" from "foe" at that distance. Screening destroyers were subsequently stationed at effective searchlight illumination range, 3 nmi (5.6 km; 3.5 mi). Recognition improved at that distance, but torpedo hit probability increased as evasive maneuvering of the large, compact force was restricted within the closer screen.[4]

United States Navy War Instructions (FTP 143) published in 1934 remained in effect through the initial 1942 engagements in the Solomon Islands. The instructions emphasized defense to avoid the attrition objective of Japanese planning:
 
  • Cruisers were advised to avoid night action unless conditions were favorable.
  • Destroyers were to attack at once with guns, but reserve torpedoes for use against capital ships.
Searchlight illumination range effectively covered launch positions of United States torpedoes, but not the Japanese Type 93 torpedo. Japanese ships could remain outside of illumination range, launching torpedoes at American ships revealing their position with gunfire and searchlights.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_15_torpedo

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: Two More CVs, Four Battleships
« Reply #77 on: February 21, 2015, 12:17:54 PM »
Picture this. You're flying in an AH event as a scout for the U.S. Pacific fleet and you find this ....


Offline Rich46yo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
Re: Two More CVs, Four Battleships
« Reply #78 on: February 21, 2015, 01:21:49 PM »
The type 93 turned IJN DDs and light CGs into very effective night attack platforms against USN capitol ships. I can only imagine the Havoc to be caused had they lesser platforms for such attacks at night, like PT boats, and used their DDs for convoy protection. Luckily for us they didnt have the number of DDs available for that until AFTER we destroyed their convoy Hulls, and probably, would have used the DDs as capitol ships anyways BECAUSE of the type 93.

I bet the Long Lance could have taken out any ship in the USN. Of course what good was it when we got our huge CV groups rolling, nothing could get close to the CVs or BBs used as screens. Was there ever a USN BB hit by a LongLance?

I know the lighter sub version took out the heavy cruiser Indianapolis. The IJN "fish" were very dangerous, most of all at night. In the end we managed them by managing their launch platforms. The Japanese also didnt seem to learn from their mistakes. Even the modern IJN was mired in to much tradition.
"flying the aircraft of the Red Star"

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: Two More CVs, Four Battleships
« Reply #79 on: February 24, 2015, 05:22:35 PM »
The type 93 turned IJN DDs and light CGs into very effective night attack platforms against USN capitol ships. I can only imagine the Havoc to be caused had they lesser platforms for such attacks at night, like PT boats, and used their DDs for convoy protection. Luckily for us they didnt have the number of DDs available for that until AFTER we destroyed their convoy Hulls, and probably, would have used the DDs as capitol ships anyways BECAUSE of the type 93.

I bet the Long Lance could have taken out any ship in the USN. Of course what good was it when we got our huge CV groups rolling, nothing could get close to the CVs or BBs used as screens. Was there ever a USN BB hit by a LongLance?

I know the lighter sub version took out the heavy cruiser Indianapolis. The IJN "fish" were very dangerous, most of all at night. In the end we managed them by managing their launch platforms. The Japanese also didnt seem to learn from their mistakes. Even the modern IJN was mired in to much tradition.

The Long Lance torpedo is certainly a potential advantage depending on the circumstance. If torps were modeled for the surface ships that carried them I think it would add a dimension to surface ship combat in AH (obvious statement, I reckon).

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: Two More CVs, Four Battleships
« Reply #80 on: February 24, 2015, 05:30:16 PM »


I've seen a negative opinion expressed when it comes to AI in Aces High. Then again, AI exists to a degree already. Drone bombers to complete a three ship formation, drone ships to complete a task force, those are two examples. I've also seen an expression of interest in sea planes (patrol planes - both ship launched and larger). Personally, I think they would best be utilized as drones. I mean, c'mon, once the novelty wears off how many players are going to fly around in patrol aircraft that are likely to be shot down once spotted? But if a task force commander could launch 1-3 patrol aircraft and set a course for them to look for enemy fleets (much like a course can be set for the task forces, themselves) then these valuable eyes in the sky would probably see a lot of use (and they would be an important target to down, as well).

Just mentioning this as yet another element in expanding the fleet.

Offline Volron

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5805
Re: Two More CVs, Four Battleships
« Reply #81 on: February 24, 2015, 07:28:08 PM »
I don't see an issue for having the AI control the scout planes from a ship.  Now for Cruisers and Battleships, there isn't a problem.  They only had a couple.  From a CV though, a limit would be needed.  Maybe 4 to 8, depending on CV class (if they add in different CV types)?  If we are still with our Essex, then what about a limit of 8 scouts?

Now how about this idea to further it along:  If launched then later shot down, it would take 15 minutes before you could launch another one?  If they returned and landed, you have a 30 second wait until you can launch again?  This would be similar to them landing to re-arm.  For launching of scouts, a player MUST be in the tower of the TG to do so, and possibly in command.  A drop down menu would appear when you click on something like "Launch Scouts", where you can select which ship and how many would launch.  Then give a custom patrol path or click on "Default Patrol", which would give you a basic search pattern.
Quote from: hitech
Wow I find it hard to believe it has been almost 38 days since our last path. We should have release another 38 versions by now  :bhead
HiTech
Quote from: Pyro
Quote from: Jolly
What on Earth makes you think that i said that sir?!
My guess would be scotch.

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: Two More CVs, Four Battleships
« Reply #82 on: February 24, 2015, 08:21:48 PM »
I don't see an issue for having the AI control the scout planes from a ship.  Now for Cruisers and Battleships, there isn't a problem.  They only had a couple.  From a CV though, a limit would be needed.  Maybe 4 to 8, depending on CV class (if they add in different CV types)?  If we are still with our Essex, then what about a limit of 8 scouts?

Now how about this idea to further it along:  If launched then later shot down, it would take 15 minutes before you could launch another one?  If they returned and landed, you have a 30 second wait until you can launch again?  This would be similar to them landing to re-arm.  For launching of scouts, a player MUST be in the tower of the TG to do so, and possibly in command.  A drop down menu would appear when you click on something like "Launch Scouts", where you can select which ship and how many would launch.  Then give a custom patrol path or click on "Default Patrol", which would give you a basic search pattern.

I wasn't even considering scouts from a CV. I imagined float planes from cruisers and battleships and larger seaplanes from ports. How about a limit of just one scout per ship that can launch one. If CVs are included you have one for the cruiser and one for the CV. With a BB group there's one from the BB and one per CA (if more than one).

As far as down time on a scout that's shot down, there's where having one than more scout plane on a ship comes in. You can immediately launch another scout if the ship has other planes available. Granted, if somehow you lose three scout planes in 5 minutes and your ship only has three I suppose you'll be stuck waiting if there is a wait time added, as well.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: Two More CVs, Four Battleships
« Reply #83 on: February 24, 2015, 11:22:10 PM »
IIRC, Yamato class BBs carried seven aircraft, though I don't know how many she could have in the air at once.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: Two More CVs, Four Battleships
« Reply #84 on: February 25, 2015, 07:19:44 AM »
Well. Having multiple scout planes in the air at the same time would make it easier to find enemy task forces. But there can be a point of overkill on a map where there's only so much water.

Offline mbailey

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5677
Re: Two More CVs, Four Battleships
« Reply #85 on: February 25, 2015, 08:30:29 AM »
Picture this. You're flying in an AH event as a scout for the U.S. Pacific fleet and you find this ....



Yes please  :aok
Mbailey
80th FS "Headhunters"

Ichi Go Ichi E
Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.

When the game is over, the Kings and Pawns all go into the same box.

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: Two More CVs, Four Battleships
« Reply #86 on: February 25, 2015, 08:08:10 PM »
So .... if scout float-planes are added along with the ships capable of launching them (the battleships and cruisers mentioned in this thread):





... how could the game be coded to best utilize them?

As mentioned, they may be best used as drones that the TF commander can launch and set patrol routes/coordinates. Perhaps a 'dar' ring will fly with it (half the size of the TF dar?). When it finds an enemy TF then it will show on the scout plane side's map. Perhaps the scout search ring could flash. Perhaps a player can click on the scout plane and 'join' (if not in flight or in a vehicle/gun) and see what the scout sees (with there being different types of TFs then knowing the nationality and composition is practically a must).

Any ideas?

Offline Volron

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5805
Re: Two More CVs, Four Battleships
« Reply #87 on: February 26, 2015, 03:18:21 AM »
One idea is when the scout spots an enemy task group and/or plane, it will show it on a map.  However, to see this map you need to be in the tower of the TG that scout launched from.  What the scout spots won't show on the clipboard map.  Now, I know I wouldn't want to sit in the tower of the TG group, waiting on a scout report.  For this reason, when a scout of the TG it came from finds a ship/plane, it will flash yellow to indicate detecting something.  To push it further, it could be coded for it to say something like, "Task Group 203 Scouts Detected Enemies", like how the default alert tells you, "Base is under attack.".

To further expand (this is basic), you could check in the launch options, what the scouts are to do when spotting ships/planes.  1 (Default):  Continue on Patrol.  2: Retreat back to TG.  3: Shadow TG.  It is to my understanding that when a scout spotted enemy planes, they would report and evade if able, but evade at least.  In our case, since we can't intercept radio, it would report and evade.

As for the scouts themselves.  AI Gunners will be used.  The Scouts will not dogfight you, but will take a shot if it has one.  Coding the AI to know when it should attempt to take shot and when to ignore it will probably be a pain though.  I mean, if you flew directly in front of me, putting yourself in my sights, you can sure as hell bet I would take a shot. :)  Damage sustained will cause them to retreat as well.  Give it a fuel leak, it will go home.  Etc.

Patrol ranges should be the plane type's max.  If it can fly 300 miles, the it should have it's full range.  That being said, setting custom patrol routes can shorten flight time.  If you select the "Default" patrol route, it will fly full range.
Quote from: hitech
Wow I find it hard to believe it has been almost 38 days since our last path. We should have release another 38 versions by now  :bhead
HiTech
Quote from: Pyro
Quote from: Jolly
What on Earth makes you think that i said that sir?!
My guess would be scotch.

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: Two More CVs, Four Battleships
« Reply #88 on: February 27, 2015, 05:53:38 PM »
Good points, Volron. But knowing what the enemy fleet is comprised of is as important as knowing where it is. If there is no 'join' button to see with our own eyes I would say that the TFs require specific designations to show types:

TG 203 scouts have spotted a type 1 enemy TG (our current type)

TG 203 scouts have spotted a type 2 enemy TG (U.S. BB)

TG 203 scouts have spotted a type 3 enemy TG (U.S. invasion group)

TG 203 scouts have spotted a type 4 enemy TG (IJN CV group) ..... etc.

I'd love to see a fuller surface fleet for both sides lead to an event like:

http://youtu.be/f-iGLrrwiGw

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: Two More CVs, Four Battleships
« Reply #89 on: February 27, 2015, 06:15:45 PM »
Oh, and TG commanders need a throttle to stop the group when it's time to recover the scout float plane (or lose that scout for whatever acceptable time limit and keep on trucking). Or .... do they?

Losing a scout float plane to combat/fuel should result in:

a: Loss of one scout float plane out of x for 30 minutes.

b: Loss of scout float plane capability altogether for that ship for 30 minutes.

c: Loss of one scout float plane out of x for an hour.

d: Loss of scout float plane capability altogether for that ship for an hour.

e: No penalty. Hell, buffs auger just to re-up faster as it is. It's not like scout float planes can be abused worse than that.