Fletchers

[Reaverman]

Ok, some of the ships VAS have various traits. The Fletcher Class being Agile, and Sub Hunter.

But where is Radar, the ship was created with that in mind?

After Pearl Harbour, congress demanded they had to have new ships with sonar and radar to defeat the Japanese threat. The first ships, being the Fletchers. The ships also proved their worth in the Pacific War, since they were used as anti fighter/Sub escort!

http://www.gyrodynehelicopters.com/fletcher_class.htm

http://www.destroyerhistory.org/fletcherclass/

 

[Aramanthus]

Thanks for sharing the links! They were very cool! Love those Fletchers!

 

[Burger]

As I said in the other thread I'm not one to debate historical accuracy for hours, I'd rather pick up some ships and blow stuff up. But Reaverman is clearly right here.

 

[DM]

The selection of radar as an applicable trait was an area for some debate during playtesting. To be honest, many DD or larger class of of the major nations (except Japan) could have it at some time in their operational lives (it was one of the easier new systems to retrofit).

 

[Reaverman]

The selection of radar as an applicable trait was an area for some debate during playtesting. To be honest, many DD or larger class of of the major nations (except Japan) could have it at some time in their operational lives (it was one of the easier new systems to retrofit).

But these ships left the yards with Radar, so at minimum they should start with Radar. I cant see a retrofit, where they remove a useful component. Now I am not a major 'Militaria' gamer, but I can see some backlash from various fans who might get a little upset that ships are not truly being represented.

 

[DM]

As the RN would say "good point, well made"

 

[E Nicely]

And the historical accuracy wars begin...

Good to see you posting, DM.

Erik

 

[DM]

And indeed good to be here Erik

 

[Lord David the Denied]

I'm with Reaverman (oddly enough). Accuracy is the most important thing in a historical wargame. Or film, novel or other endeavour. If you don't make every effort to be accurate, you might as well take the "historical" component out of the name...

 

[BuShips]

Not to continue the dogpile as it were, but Reaverman is quite correct. The entire class of 175 ships were built with the much improved SG surface search radar included as well as SC-3 or SC-4 air search radar. It's also interesting to note that the 5" main guns were radar directed. Towards the end of the war some of the class even had their 40mm AA mounts directed by radar, but I'd negate that in a wargame because it was introduced late and with just a few ships. Of course to the attacking aircraft heading towards those particular ships, it certainly did matter :lol: .

 

[Mr Evil]

ships look like ships to me !

 

[Wulf Corbett]

I'm with Reaverman (oddly enough). Accuracy is the most important thing in a historical wargame.

But you don't have to continue to ram your accuracy down everyone's throat to be accurate. So long as the ships WORK and produce the right end results, that's accurate. It's like RPGs with 20 pages of guns, 50% of which are identical apart from the name. That's not accurate, that's anal...

Wulf

 

[rbax]

Having been one of the biggest pushers of historical accuracy on the playtest, development team, the lack of Radar on the Fletcher is my bad. Call it a miss and the first Errata point to document.

---- Rich

 

[BuShips]

Having been one of the biggest pushers of historical accuracy on the playtest, development team, the lack of Radar on the Fletcher is my bad. Call it a miss and the first Errata point to document.

---- Rich

Do not take this in any way as a criticism, but look into, say, the battle between the Washington and the Kirishima. As the South Dakota was getting the full "attention" from the IJN, Admiral Lee in the Washington had a large blip on his surface search radar and after determining it wasn't the SoDak basically finished the engagement with 9 16" shell hits. Another is specifically with the Fletchers and is a very good scenario to fight (I will eventually try a write up for it). It is The Battle of Cape St. George and involves famous Adm. "30 knot" Burke and DesRon 23. Radar is a crucial part of the battle and the outcome. Otherwise, it is a perfect set battle of 5 DDs vs. 5 DDs. You may know of these stories, but since I'm not sure I thought I'd give you several suggestions. The thing these two stories tell is that radar isn't fair. :wink:

 

[Reaverman]

I'm with Reaverman (oddly enough). Accuracy is the most important thing in a historical wargame.

But you don't have to continue to ram your accuracy down everyone's throat to be accurate. So long as the ships WORK and produce the right end results, that's accurate. It's like RPGs with 20 pages of guns, 50% of which are identical apart from the name. That's not accurate, that's anal...

Wulf

Wulf, the point I am making is that if the Fletcher is fighting another vessel. One which has the 'Radar' trait, then immediately the Fletcher is at a disadvantage. As others have confirmed on here, the ship was equiped with 'Radar'.

As for your analogy of guns, well that would be fine if it was an RPG. But this is a historical wargame, so accuracy does play a part in the game. For the game to make any headway into the 'Traditional' wargames fraternity, they are going to expect certain things to be right. It could be seen just as bad, as saying the Tirpitz has 12" guns!

EDIT-Oh and while I am at it, the in service date is wrong. Its listed in the PDF as 1930, when the first Fletcher (DD 445 Fletcher) commisioned May 3, 1942

 

[The Terran]

On the subject of historic accuracy I believe another more fundimental issue is one of deck armour vs belt armour on battleships. The were often very different with deck armour being lighter. The most extreme case was the battlecruiser. The point being was at long range guns had a high trajectory and hit deck armour (as did bombs from aircraft) whilst at shorter range the tragectory was flatter and hit the belt. I would suggest therefore the armour stats need to reflect this.

The most famous cas in WW2 was the sinking of the HMS Hood. The Hood charged the Bismark because the commander knew this and was attempting to reduce the range given the weak deck armour of the Hood. Indeed I have read theories that in fact HMS Hood was sunk by the Prinz Eugen as her smaller guns were still at long range and therefore still hitting the weak armour whilst the Bismark's were not.

Am I way out with this?

 

[Jellicoe]

On the subject of historic accuracy I believe another more fundimental issue is one of deck armour vs belt armour on battleships. The were often very different with deck armour being lighter. The most extreme case was the battlecruiser. The point being was at long range guns had a high trajectory and hit deck armour (as did bombs from aircraft) whilst at shorter range the tragectory was flatter and hit the belt. I would suggest therefore the armour stats need to reflect this.

The most famous cas in WW2 was the sinking of the HMS Hood. The Hood charged the Bismark because the commander knew this and was attempting to reduce the range given the weak deck armour of the Hood. Indeed I have read theories that in fact HMS Hood was sunk by the Prinz Eugen as her smaller guns were still at long range and therefore still hitting the weak armour whilst the Bismark's were not.

Am I way out with this?

Deck armour is important against long range plunging fire and bombs dropped by aircraft. Belt armour is important at closer range where the trajectory of the shells is flatter.

You are right it is important, but bare in mind this is supposed to be a fast moving game. Differentiating between armour layouts, firing ranges etc.. is going to slow it down.

I think you will find that modern scholarship does not subscribe to such theories. Hood was hit by 1 or 2 15’ AP shells from Bismarck in her fifth broadside. 1 penetrated a magazine which blew the ship up.

Prinz Eugen had been ordered to engage the Prince of Wales by this point which was trailing the Hood, as well as turning its radar to the rear to watch out for the cruisers Norfolk and Suffolk still shadowing the Germans.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

In the playtest battle report in S&P, it's mentioned that deck armour and belt armour is taken into account along with arcing shots at long range.

It seems pretty realistic as long as the gaffs like the Fletcher-class missing its radar gear are fixed.

 

[The Terran]

Deck armour is important against long range plunging fire and bombs dropped by aircraft. Belt armour is important at closer range where the trajectory of the shells is flatter.

You are right it is important, but bare in mind this is supposed to be a fast moving game. Differentiating between armour layouts, firing ranges etc.. is going to slow it down.

I agree entirely that there is a compromise between playability and how realistic a game can be however the inclusion of deck armour ve belt armour or not will affect fundimentally how the game will be played. If I am playing a ship with weak deack armour I will be desperately trying to reduce the range with my enemy or very worried about aircraft. However if there is just one armour value it will not matter. I just think that, if you can add this aspect without too much complexity, it will make for a much more interesting game, both in terms of what ships will be chosen and how a game is played.

 

[Jellicoe]

I agree entirely that there is a compromise between playability and how realistic a game can be however the inclusion of deck armour ve belt armour or not will affect fundimentally how the game will be played. If I am playing a ship with weak deack armour I will be desperately trying to reduce the range with my enemy or very worried about aircraft. However if there is just one armour value it will not matter. I just think that, if you can add this aspect without too much complexity, it will make for a much more interesting game, both in terms of what ships will be chosen and how a game is played.

I a word "Yes", but armour is factored in as one. Without seeing the full rules and playing a few games its kind of difficult to see how this is going to play out. Will just have to wait.