Friendly PTs a liability to CV groups

[Widewing]

Several times, over the past few days, I have observed something that has contributed greatly to the destruction of carrier task forces, and it results from the behavior of friendlies. Friendly PT Boats to be specific. How? I'll show you.

Since the release of 1.10, and the elimination of the "laser guided" bombs (error free bombsight), the primary method of attacking carriers is now using low-flying torpedo carrying bombers such as the Ju 88 and Ki-67. Typically, these aircraft approach the CV group at between 100 and 200 feet in formations of three. Normally, these are easy kills for the 5" guns of the carrier and cruiser. I say normally, because if a PT gets between the guns and the enemy aircraft, the proximity shells are detonated by the PT. Last night, I saw this happen again and again, with enemy bombers getting within 2k of the carrier, unmolested. Their torpedos eventually sank both ships, all because some noodlehead parked his useless PT between the CV and the enemy airfield. There were other contributions, such as sailing the force directly at the enemy field, thereby masking half of the defensive guns. However, PTs were the biggest factor in allowing enemy torpedo carrying bombers getting in close.

Personally, I don't see any reason to have PTs anywhere near the task force. Their contribution to the tripleA is minimal. Likewise, I find PTs to be the most useless vehicle in the game. I kill them by the dozens, and rarely get hit in return. Hell, I killed 3 with a potbellied FM-2, with its 4 little MGs. When the CV is sunk, it seems that half of the pilots spawn PTs. Why? Basically, they are defenseless against determined air attack. I'll orbit the spawn point and kill half a dozen in 2 minutes with a C-hog. Yet, these PT guys keep respawning. I can only conclude that their parents let them play with hammers as children.

Powerboaters, don't motor your scows in between enemy airfields and the CV group, you become a liability to the task force if you do. If you must play with toy boats, save it for the bathtub.  As it is, you are only helping the enemy kill the task force.

My regards,

Widewing

[Saintaw]

My regards,

I'm glad you said that otherwise it would have sounded like a scolding

[Pongo]

Is that an accurate behavior for the VT fuse?
Being set off by a ground vehicle? wouldnt the ground set it off if it was flying that close to the water?

[Sabre]

Originally posted by Pongo
Is that an accurate behavior for the VT fuse?
Being set off by a ground vehicle? wouldnt the ground set it off if it was flying that close to the water?

Yep.  They had different types of ammo availbable depending on the target.  The proximatey shells were much harder to build, and were used against aircraft.  If shelling armored warships, they used AP.  Against unarmored ships, small boats, or area targets they used HE.  There were also starshells for use at night, to aluminate the target for the other guns.  It was safer than using searchlights (which gives the enemy something to shoot back at), and had longer range.  I'd like to see lo-light optics modeled for guns (heck, I'd like to see ANY kind of optics modeled for ships' guns).

[BigGun]

What are you an admiral of AH or something? If someone wants to up a PT, then big deal. I don't think you or anyone else has right to tell them how to spend there time in AH.

disregards

[J_A_B]

Since AH is a computer game and not the real deal, this issue could be fixed by making the prox shells not explode when near friendlies.

J_A_B

[Ripsnort]

Shoulda had alittle more CAP on your CV instead of relying on the Milkers (Ship Gunners)

[MrLars]

I've saved the CV group many times from torp attacks in exactly the situation you describe here. Often times the gunners either don't see the low level attack comming or are just not there to defend the group at all.

Chastizing people for jumping into a PT WHENEVER they want because of some ammo modeling problem is kind of elitist IMO. Trying to force people to not use a particular plane, vehicle, boat or anything that is available in the MA is a bunch of bullhockey, after all, it IS the MA now isn't it?

Given the choice of being a ships gunner or a PT driver while protecting the CV group I'd choose the PT every time, it's more fun and in the end that's what AH is all about.

Come try and kill my PT with guns only and no help from your mates and I'll send you back to the tower post haste...repeatedly!

[Widewing]

Originally posted by MrLars
I've saved the CV group many times from torp attacks in exactly the situation you describe here. Often times the gunners either don't see the low level attack comming or are just not there to defend the group at all.

Chastizing people for jumping into a PT WHENEVER they want because of some ammo modeling problem is kind of elitist IMO. Trying to force people to not use a particular plane, vehicle, boat or anything that is available in the MA is a bunch of bullhockey, after all, it IS the MA now isn't it?

Given the choice of being a ships gunner or a PT driver while protecting the CV group I'd choose the PT every time, it's more fun and in the end that's what AH is all about.

Come try and kill my PT with guns only and no help from your mates and I'll send you back to the tower post haste...repeatedly!

It seems to me that if you were really interested in defending the Task Force, you would select a weapon better suited than a PT. There is no better weapon than a 5" 38 cal dual gun mount. No, I think you are motivated by the prospect of killing airplanes. That's fine, but it shouldn't be at the expense of the Task Force.

I understand that you wish to enjoy yourself, I only ask that you do it somewhere that doesn't inhibit the defense of the CV by its most potent weapons. Head in closer to the shore, get beyond 3k from the ships. In fact, if you get closer inshore, you'll get first crack at the torpedo carrying bombers. Help the gunners do their job. Their motive is simple; defend the ship. There's nothing to be gained score-wise by shooting down airplanes with a ship's gun.

As to killing PTs with aircraft… It's very easy. I like to take a wingman and attack from opposite directions. Which ever the PT engages, he bears off. Meanwhile the other kills the boat. Virtually impossible to defend against. About two weeks ago, I inflicted 6 losses on you. I'd blast your PT, you'd spawn again. After 6 tries, you finally realized that you were not going be playing PT skipper at that location. What was I in? That 5" gun mount that just sank your carrier, cruiser and two destroyers (plus several fighters hammered). This tour, I've killed 9 PTs with fighter guns. I've also lost 1 fighter and two bombers to PTs, none of which were lost while attacking PTs. The fighter (a Bf 109F) was lost while chasing an enemy fighter low over the water. Those two bombers were proxy kills awarded after being smacked by AI ship ack (both hits being taken at 10k or higher, both were lost just yesterday).

Rip mentions having a better CAP over the fleet. He's right, but that is not a practical solution because almost no one wants to do it. Besides, you need a true BARCAP out about 20 miles from the CV, with a local CAP to stop leakers. There will always be leakers. There is little one can do to intercept a P-47 coming down from 25k in a suicide dive, other than kill him with the 5" guns.

I'm not saying that you can't enjoy the PTs, I'm asking that you kindly step aside and let the big guns do what they do better than anything else, protect the fleet.

My regards,

Widewing

[Chairboy]

C'mon, this is Widewing talking here, the same guy who confidently stated over and over on the radio last night that there was no testing done on the 1.10 patch because it's not absolutely 100% perfect.  He kept suggesting that the HTC people recklessly released the patch, and implied that if they had known anything, they would have done some testing.

If he can pompously make incorrect statements about one subject he knows nothing about (in that case, it was SQA methodology), I see no conflict in him making other commandments and 'word of god' type proclamations about things like whether or not people should be allowed to use PT boats to defend their CV groups.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Chairboy
C'mon, this is Widewing talking here, the same guy who confidently stated over and over on the radio last night that there was no testing done on the 1.10 patch because it's not absolutely 100% perfect.  He kept suggesting that the HTC people recklessly released the patch, and implied that if they had known anything, they would have done some testing.

If he can pompously make incorrect statements about one subject he knows nothing about (in that case, it was SQA methodology), I see no conflict in him making other commandments and 'word of god' type proclamations about things like whether or not people should be allowed to use PT boats to defend their CV groups.

Amazing twist of the facts Chairboy, you seem to have selective memory.

I stated, and still believe that the 1.10 update was, in my uneducated opinion, prematurely released. I understand the pressure being brought to bear to get it out as soon as possible. However, there were some glaring issues that were patched immediately. Good for HTC, quick response. However, after that patch things went to hell with most players suffering freezes, CDTs and lost connections. Few of these people suffered this prior to the patch. Considering that the patch was issued just 2 days after the 1.10 update, kindly explain to all us laymen, where did they find the time to test it thoroughly? Where was the SQA methodology applied?

HTC caved to the pressure to push the release, in retrospect, perhaps they should have taken a bit more time.

Issues? How about launching 12 B-17s on a mission and just 6 get there, the others being dumped. Same problem with the escorts. It's very frustrating. Do you remember that while this was being debated, most of the participants were dumped several times? Even the guy who said "I never get dumped", was dumped.

You don't have to be an automotive engineer to recognize when your car is not running correctly. However, you remind me of the dealer service writer who looks down on them and suggests that its their imagination. The latest patch is causing me and many others headaches. That is undeniable.

Of course, you being a software guy indicates that you would have an axe to grind anyway, doesn't it?

My regards,

Widewing

[MrLars]

Originally posted by Widewing
About two weeks ago, I inflicted 6 losses on you. I'd blast your PT, you'd spawn again. After 6 tries, you finally realized that you were not going be playing PT skipper at that location.

Widewing

I was respawning because the CV group wasn't showing up on my FE. Whels could see it but not me, I was just trying to figure out WTF was going on. Finaly I decided to drop torps and turn around  and spray 40mm to see if any hit sprites would show up indicating where the ships were, I'm not a respawner but I kill a ton of them

To the crux of your diatribe...no, I won't adjust my gameplay because of you're percieved importance in manning the guns. When I launch for ship defence I place myself between the base and ships at angle to intercept the torp bombers and I advance on that course, most times that places me ahead of the CV group and at an angle out of the line of fire from most of the ships guns, others may not.

[GRUNHERZ]

" 'word of god' type proclamations "


LOL   Thats widewing.

Just like that raving F4U4 diatribe he wrote a while back.

[akak]

Originally posted by Widewing



I'm not saying that you can't enjoy the PTs, I'm asking that you kindly step aside and let the big guns do what they do better than anything else, protect the fleet.

My regards,

Widewing

Since you don't pay my $15 bucks a month, I'll play anyway that I choose to.   Frankly your whine is no better than the perk the Uber plane variety, just a little more pompous.




Ack-Ack
Ack-Ack
479th FG - Riddle's Raiders