Jutland campaign AAR

[grumbler]

...and how many torpedo hits did the US naval aviators score within the first six months they were involved in against ships fully maneuverable? With their good tactics and well-trained crew?

Quick count says 8 hits out of 44 launches.  As I noted above, the attack against Shokaku was launched from an extremely disadvantageous position (astern) because wing tactics broke down.

That's ignorant at best, dishonest at worst. Shoho was a burning wreck from several bomb hits when the Lexington's torpedo squadron made their run. 1st hit was by Lt.Cmd Robert Dixon from Lexingoton's Scout bomber Sq. that hit Shoho in the middle of the flight deck with a 500-pound bomb. Shoho recieved two more 500-pound bombs from that 5-plane squadron, after which the regular dive-bombar squadron hit the Shoho with several 1000-pound bombs that turned Shoho into a burning wreck. THEN the torpedo-squadron ripped her apart....

Actually, Shoho was still maneuvering radically when the torpedo bombers launched.  Your account is ignorant at best, dishonest at worst.  According to The First Team, Bombing Two began its dive at 1118, and the first torpedo launch was at 1119.  Dixon's Scouting Two missed completely, and Scouting Two had ten planes, not five.  Shoho's maneuvers ended when Torpedo Two (not Bombing Two) knocked out the steering gear.

The fifteen planes of Bombing Two got two hits.  The twelve planes of Torpedo Two got five hits.  When the tactics were executed, they obviously worked well.

The bombers and torpedo planes of VS-5, VB-5, and VT-5 scored more hits (probably 3 of 12 for the torpedo bombers) but the ship was already doomed by the bomb and torpedo strikes of Air Wing Two.

You forgot to mention the Mk.13's tendancy to run to deep 

In fact, none of my sources mention this.    Care to cite a source?  Is it the same source that had Scouting Two having only five planes and getting three hits?  Might not be the best source (but then The First Team could have it all wrong).  I await your source to decide.

In fact, the naval aviators at Coral Sea found that their 'good' tactics coupeled with the problems with their torpedoes made them unable to hit a maneuvearable target, and when they hit their torpedoes failed to detonate.

In fact, the naval aviators found that, when the wing tactics were executed as planned, even their crappy weapons could be effective.  When not, then they couldn't.

[Berkut]

grumbler, you get AE?

[grumbler]

grumbler, you get AE?

Yeah, and am playing it, slowly.  Overall, I like it, but there are some weird design decisions (which I outlined in the thread on AE) which I question.

The overall feel, though, is for a completely different (and better) game than WitP.  Whether it is worth the money is entirely a matter of personal opinion.  Given the time I have spent on WitP, it is worth it to me.  It probably won't be for anyone not a WitP fanatic, though, given that it exacerbates what most would see as WitP's flaws.

[Berkut]

I am kind of torn - it does sound like it makes some of the things I did not like about WitP worse. On the other hand, WitP was one of the truly great PBEM wargaming experiences I ahve ever had, warts and all.

The level of tension in that game was incredible. I actually kind of dreaded getting a turn sometimes because an imminent clash could be very stress filled.

[Drakken]

I am kind of torn - it does sound like it makes some of the things I did not like about WitP worse. On the other hand, WitP was one of the truly great PBEM wargaming experiences I ahve ever had, warts and all.

The level of tension in that game was incredible. I actually kind of dreaded getting a turn sometimes because an imminent clash could be very stress filled.

Tell me about it.

In my current PBEM game, reaching December 14th my opponent actually stationed its KB around Johnston Island, most probably to intercept my CVs or, foolishly, to attempt another attack on PH. Also, Lexington ate a torpedo in the groin by a random sub, but remains alive and well nonetheless.

My CVs were returning to PH, I had resisted the envy to go raiding, so I ordered a curvy route to reach behind the islands before entering the port. I spotted the bastard right in time enough to reorder my TFs to the West Coast, and now they are out of reach.

Given my inexperience, it made me shiver down my spine, almost as if I had barely escape a deadly accident. 

[grumbler]

BTW, six of six Swordfish were lost in the Channel Dash, all to AA.  So  much for the theory that German AA couldn't track Swordfish, or that they were nearly immune to AA fire! 

[Tamas]

OMG naval-geek rush on my thread! 

[grumbler]

I am kind of torn - it does sound like it makes some of the things I did not like about WitP worse. On the other hand, WitP was one of the truly great PBEM wargaming experiences I ahve ever had, warts and all.

The level of tension in that game was incredible. I actually kind of dreaded getting a turn sometimes because an imminent clash could be very stress filled.

I would think the new version a better PBEM experience, but full of the same nits as the original, with some more added ( patrol sectors, FFS!).  Where things were added, they were not added with the idea of making them easy to execute.

[grumbler]

OMG naval-geek rush on my thread! 

Yeah, we did kinda trash your thread, but you deserved it, posting what you did! 

[Syt]

I had only a passing interest in Jutland, and DRM killed it for me (and the devs' attitude in their forums).

I'm normally not very squeamish about DRM, can live with online activations, limited amount of installs, or having to "store" a license online if moving to a different machine. But a single player game that has to phone home to the server of a cruddy little company that may go belly up tomorrow? No fucking way.

[Viking]

BTW, six of six Swordfish were lost in the Channel Dash, all to AA.  So  much for the theory that German AA couldn't track Swordfish, or that they were nearly immune to AA fire! 

I wonder where that theory came from? I can't see that anybody here proposed it. Strawman!

(Note, the Bismarck's AA did not constitute the sum total of German AA)

[grumbler]

I wonder where that theory came from? I can't see that anybody here proposed it. Strawman! 

It appears that your reading comprehension skills in English are not quite up to those in your native language, because you missed these posts:

Now before you say that the Swordfish was worse, consider that the Swordfish had to take a direct hit to the engine or pilot to stop flying, quite hard with flak...

and

I believe the theory is that the Bismarck's fire control was at fault, rather than the guns themselves; the Swordfish flew below the minimum speed the fire control was able to cope with.

So, before you start squealing "strawman!" you'd be better off checking with someone who can read English better than you can.

(Note, the Bismarck's AA did not constitute the sum total of German AA)

I probably don't even need to mention that this is a strawman! 

[Alcibiades]

BTW, six of six Swordfish were lost in the Channel Dash, all to AA.  So  much for the theory that German AA couldn't track Swordfish, or that they were nearly immune to AA fire! 

I, too, have heard the claim that the swordfish flew too slowly for the Bismarck's AA guns to track. 

[Agelastus]

BTW, six of six Swordfish were lost in the Channel Dash, all to AA.  So  much for the theory that German AA couldn't track Swordfish, or that they were nearly immune to AA fire! 

Trying to look up the actual causes of loss in this case, as I know the Luftwaffe was supplying air cover. I don't suppose you have the figures to hand?

As for the Bismarck's AA, eyewitnesses are said to have reported that the Bismarck's AA seemed to be consistently bursting ahead of the attacking Swordfishes. I agree it is only a theory, but it does fit the observable facts in the case of the Bismarck.

[grumbler]

I, too, have heard the claim that the swordfish flew too slowly for the Bismarck's AA guns to track. 

I have heard thousands of claims that proved to be unsubstantiated.  I am not saying that Swordfish did not fly too slowly to be tracked, just that I don't believe it until I see something authoritative (since it would be foolish to place a lower bound on relative speed in a tracking computer).  Given that the aircraft were nearly on a collision course in a heavy sea, I would thing ship pitch and roll would be an adequate explanation.