WWCC Campaign Battle and G&M

Discussion in 'General' started by Gascan, Sep 3, 2007.

  1. Gascan

    Gascan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Posts:
    920
    Sunday, September 2nd, a date which will live in infamy, Italy was suddenly and deliberately attacked by battleship and unarmed transport forces of the United States and Britain. As commander in chief of the Axis forces, Rear Admiral Von Gino directed a strong, mostly Italian, cruiser force to engage and defeat the offending Allied forces with support from a German carrier and a French battleship. The coordinated Axis counter-assault pushed the Allies back into their home port and established a strong blockade thirty feet off shore. During the course of the fighting, the BLT sank twice (both times by Spahkreuzer), the LST surrendered twice (once to Spahkreuzer), the USS Alabama was sunk (due to concerted effort on behalf of all Axis ships), and the King George V was reduced to a wreck (almost sank and was unable to return to battle).

    This was the most decisive Axis victory since the Battle of Tsushima Strait.

    The Gunnery and Maneuvering event was held on Monday. Though winds picked up later in the day, most ships had completed the course without too much trouble. Commodore John F, Captain Neal A, and Commanders Carl and Eric Bitondo tied for second place in the Gunnery event, while Eric and Carl placed first and second place, respectively, in the maneuvering event. These four Axis skippers earned enough points to advance in rank. Congratulations are due to Rear Admiral John F, Commodore Neal A, Captain Carl B, and Captain Eric B on their promotions.
     
  2. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
    Sounds like a grand time was had by all.
     
  3. Gascan

    Gascan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Posts:
    920
    OK, I've told you basically WHAT happened (more details to come in an article for the newsletter). Now I'll tell you all WHY it happened.

    The WWCC campaign battle is the only battle of the year that is specifically Axis vs Allies ONLY. It is also a two hour endurance battle, though it is divided into two one-hour periods with a 45 minute half-time break and each team is allowed one 15 minute time-out per period. As long as your ship makes it back in to your home port, you can pull it out, patch it, reload it, swap it out for a different ship, whatever you want. If, at any time during combat, one team has no ships on the water, that team loses immediately.

    The Axis strategy was the same one that was successfully used last year, with minor improvements. Several mine-laying light cruisers would reduce access to the port by deploying minefields to interfere with the Allies. The light cruisers would then make rapid, coordinated torpedo attacks on a single battleship, attempting to swarm it. Any and all capital ships would act as bait to lure the Allies out of port while avoiding committing to combat.

    The Allied strategy was to put as many battleships on the water as possible. These ships would then set up a wall of steel to discourage marauding light cruisers and slowly score hull hits. Cargo boats would be launched while the Axis were off guard and would score enough cargo points to give the Allies the edge.

    Honestly, both teams' plans were perfectly suited to the ships that they had and were up against. They were the perfect plan and counter-plan. So, why did the Axis win by such a large margin? There are several possible causes. Some people maintain that the rules currently make torpedo-armed cruisers the dominant ship in the game, since they are fast and maneuverable and pack a monster wallop in a small package. The Axis main force was torpedo cruisers, while the Allies had battleships. Other people say that unbalanced teams made the difference. When two teams have equal numbers of battleships, cruisers, and transports, the battleships duel while the cruisers keep the enemy cruisers from attacking their own battleships and transports. When you have a team of battleships against a team of light cruisers, the teams lose the ability to counter fire with fire. The third possible reason is that some ships are more reliable than others, either due to initial construction or age. When cannon valves stick, rudders get stuck hard over, poor solder joints break, and gas leaks drain the CO2, a ship can't fight any more. The majority of the Axis main force was very reliable, and only came in to port to reload torpedoes. The Allied main division had problems. They came in and out of port often, and were not able to support each other and set up the wall of steel that they had planned.

    I believe that the dominance of torpedo cruisers is simply due to a glut of reliable cruisers operated by a group of close friends who try to team up as often as possible. There have been torpedo cruisers in the past, even ones armed with triple torpedoes. But they were not the same as the ones that fight today. Nobody complained about the Spahkreuzer when Ken H built it, nor when Dave S rebuilt it. Once it was rebuilt by Carl, it became the Most Feared Ship overnight. So, scratch the first point.

    That leaves unbalanced teams and unreliable ships. Ben L once compared torpedo cruisers to airplanes: they are fast and hard to hit and carry a single heavy wallop. The only way to stop planes is to set up a wall of lead and steel. This whole year, the entire Battleship Buster Brigade (the three triple torpedo ships: Spahkreuzer, Scipione Africanus, and Pompeo Magno) has targeting Joe and his powerful Wisconsin. This whole year, he has not sunk once, and the ships of the Battleship Buster Brigade have been disabled and sunk multiple times in return. This suggests that unbalanced teams probably was not the determining factor.

    The last idea is that some ships are not as reliable as others. This was clearly the major factor in the first Campaign Battle in August 2004, when the Allies defeated a superior Axis force so badly that the Axis surrendered the battle at the halftime. My brother's Scharnhorst had just finished an initial refit, but lost radio and drifted across the pond. Another Axis dreadnought lost radio control and was sunk by the Allies, and another got stuck on the float line of the first and also was sunk. This year, I saw Joe take apart his Wisconsin's cannons in the middle of combat to service them and the Alabama sank due to a pump failure with very little actual damage. Dave's Dutch Battlecruiser was a favorite target and had to return to patch damage often. The King George V nearly sank in the first twenty minutes and was unable to return to battle due to water. The BLT lost propulsion before it was sunk the second time. Only the Cimarron, LST, and shore battery had no problems that I noticed. The Axis team had several failures, but in all but one case the problems either corrected themselves or were successfully repaired.

    The Allies were unable to consistently field the ships necessary to create a wall of steel, while the Axis carefully rotated their cruisers to keep up the pressure. I strongly believe this was the most important factor in the Axis victory. If the Allies had all their ships operational the whole time the battle would have been much closer. Had the Axis encountered problems like the Allies did, the the Allies would have walked all over the them.

    Sorry to be so long winded. I simply wanted to write down a post-battle analysis so I could remember everything, and happened to be on the forum after making the initial post. I don't know if you guys are even interested in this at all. If you are, this is a glimpse into the world of the WWCC from my eyes. Everyone had a blast at the battle, but this is the truth of what happened that a casual observer probably would not have noticed.

    I should probably include this in the article I'm writing about the battle. I'll also do something on some of the specific tactics that were used, such as the layout of the minefields, the blockade, the sneak attacks on Allied battleships, and the team tactics that got the maneuverable BLT the first time it sank.
     
  4. JustinScott

    JustinScott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2006
    Posts:
    2,203
    Location:
    Dallas
    I read your email last night before I went to bed, and I was right back to "I WANNA BE IN WASHINGTON, SO I CAN GET BACK TO FIGHTING!!"

    Great article!
     
  5. JohnmCA72

    JohnmCA72 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Posts:
    681
    I can't speak for any others, but I'd like to hear a lot more about ACTION (especially including tactics, analysis, reasoning behind actions, etc.) rather than about float planes, superstructures, & other model-hobby-related stuff that has nothing to do with COMBAT.

    "COMBAT" is an ACTIVE SPORT. "Modeling" is a passive hobby. Anything that advances the active sport, I'm interested in.

    JM
     
  6. klibben

    klibben Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Posts:
    790
    ooooh, sparked and idea john! i'll post a thread about it in the newsletter boards.
     
  7. Anachronus

    Anachronus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Natchez, MS
    Brilliant point. Some balance is needed. Though I love the technical, modelling details as well.

    j.


     
  8. DarrenScott

    DarrenScott -->> C T D <<--

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2006
    Posts:
    1,077
    Location:
    Australia
    Since the Newcastle Battle group will be sailing this weekend, I will attempt to provide such details as I can.