IJN torpedo bombers

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

Reiryc
Posts: 1091
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:00 am

RE: IJN torpedo bombers

Post by Reiryc »

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

One more thing. WITP is a historical simulation AND a game.

Japanese capablities may be overrated (Personally I do not think that they are, just with hindsight and practice players can achieve much better than Japan). But, as the game is moved from game to simulation, we may reach a point where playing Japan is totally hopeless. When you get there, there will be no more japanese PBEM players and all the allied fanboys can do is play the AI.

Keeping some kind of balance is important.

I am no japanese or allied fanboy, I am simply a fan of the theatre and I am having fun playing any of the sides.

Well said....
Image
User avatar
Tanaka
Posts: 5383
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:42 am
Location: USA
Contact:

RE: IJN torpedo bombers

Post by Tanaka »

The next day, the carriers again launched strikes on Formosa. During the ensuing night retirement, the formation again came under attack by Japanese torpedo-carrying "Betties" which struck home this time and damaged Canberra (CA-70). The Sullivans then helped to protect the damaged cruiser. On the 14th, "Betty" torpedo bombers scored against Houston (CL-81). The Sullivans soon joined the screen which guarded the two battle-battered cruisers as they retired toward Ulithi.

http://www.sullivans.navy.mil/dd537.html

The Japanese attempted to strike back through the air. On the 18th the ship's guns claimed their first victim but four days later a Japanese "Betty" bomber sneaked in, flying low over the still-contested Saipan hills and found two anchored battleships. Crossing the bow of USS Pennsylvania (BB 38), she dropped a torpedo which opened a gaping hole in Maryland's bow, portside.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/shi ... 46-md.html

The Japanese tried again the next day, this time with 27 "Betty" bombers fitted with aerial torpedos and an escort of 15 "Zeros". Once more, they failed to locate the U.S. aircraft carriers, but made a daring low-level torpedo attack on the Vice Admiral Turner's amphibious force. Turner skillfully maneuvered his ships in the sound between Guadalcanal and Tulagi, throwing off the enemy's aim. Only one torpedo scored, hitting destroyer Jarvis in the bow.

http://www.thehistorynet.com/wwii/bltac ... ndex1.html

The invasion was deceptively easy; the Japanese were taken by surprise. It couldn't last and, on the following day, WILSON helped to fight off dozens of Japanese "Betty" twin-engined torpedo bombers as the enemy air fleet struck at the transports in the anchorage. A destroyer and a transport succumbed to the attack. WILSON was ordered to take the place of the stricken destroyer.

http://www.destroyers.org/nl-histories/dd408-nl.htm

As the Bettys entered Chicago's circle of escorts, additional Wildcats joined the fray: the four Kilpatrick and Porter had left behind, as well as four more led by CDR Jimmy Flatley. Despite the vigorous anti-aircraft fire from ships below, the airmen pressed home their attacks. Flying at masthead level, the Wildcats' .50-calibers brought down one bomber, then three more, and as the enemy fled Task Force 18's defensive circle, two or three more. By most accounts, a single Betty survived the attack.

But the well-trained enemy crews had completed their mission. Despite a desperate, last minute attempt by Navajo to turn Chicago's bow to the attackers, four torpedoes slammed against the cruiser's already-battered starboard side and detonated. A fifth torpedo struck destroyer La Vallette DD-448, killing 21.

In moments it was clear Chicago's fate was sealed, and she was ordered abandoned. In her remaining 20 minutes of service, her men calmly evacuated their wounded and then abandoned ship themselves: 1049 survivors were rescued. At approximately 1715, the cruiser rolled to starboard and slipped under the waves, stern first. Chicago was the last major American warship lost in the struggle for Guadalcanal.

http://www.cv6.org/1943/rennell/default.htm

He was spot on, a desperate, and well pressed home attack was carried out by Japanese twin engined torpedo carrying Betty Bombers. 16 were shot down, and we lost 12 carrier borne aircraft. It was the first time that I had been subjected to an enemy air attack, I was staggered just how the Japanese Betty’s could fly through so much flak thrown up by the Fleet’s AA guns, and come through unscathed. I thought no aircraft could survive such a barrage, but they did, as on they came to drop a deadly torpedo at the last moment, then pull into a steep climb trying to escape and head for home, all very scary. It was fortunate at this early stage of the war against Japan, that the frightful weapon of the Kamikaze Aircraft had not been conceived. US Destroyer Mugford[/b] was hit, with 22 of her crew dead.

http://www.ahoy.tk-jk.net/Solomons/Prel ... sinth.html


Image

Check out my mod for Strategic Command American Civil War!

https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopic.php?t=413785
User avatar
Oleg Mastruko
Posts: 4534
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: IJN torpedo bombers

Post by Oleg Mastruko »

ORIGINAL: spence

Rather than hijack another thread (emasculated B-17s or whatever) I would like to challenge the many IJN Fanboy types to come up with some records of successful torpedo attacks by Bettys and Nells which occurred subsequent to their famous sinking of the Repulse and Prince of Wales. From what I can find in the history books their successes were really pretty few and far between. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places. I am genuinely curious now.

When playing the IJN in UV (WiTP is finally on order) I do enjoy a good massacre of Allied shipping by my G3Ms/G4Ms but I much prefer wargames to fantasy games.

This thread went in some strange directions...

My point is... vs careful/shrewd/whatever Allied player, you'd have problem just repeating the historical Nell/Betty successes, so I see no problems with the way these planes are modelled in WITP. They are most certainly not modelled as "IJN fanboy's wet dream" as original poster suggests.

O.
User avatar
dtravel
Posts: 4533
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 6:34 pm

RE: IJN torpedo bombers

Post by dtravel »

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I like it! Of course, this means it will never happen...[;)] Nobody wuvs me anymore...[:(]

Well, when you keep beating dead horses into a fine paste a certain ... smell ... tends to linger about your person. A stronger soap and shampoo might help.

[:D]

(I'm kidding Ron. No... Put the club down, NOT THAT DEAD HORSE CLUB!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

Image
User avatar
Mr.Frag
Posts: 11195
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Purgatory

RE: IJN torpedo bombers

Post by Mr.Frag »

Ron, base sizes doesn't work.

The real issue is that things are made somewhere and have to be transported somewhere else to be used. This is why ships exist. This is why Navies were built to protect/blockage shipping lanes.

Without the physical aspect of having to cart the stuff around, there is very little point imposing imaginary limits on where it might be. I can just as simply send 10 AK's full of bombs to a size 4 port as I can a size 10 port. The issue is that to get them where I need them, a great deal of shipping must be tied up constantly and a large amount of stockpiling must happen to support extended use of anything.

It's a great concept for the diehards, but it would kill the game for a lot of folks if you told them that each turn was now going to be 10 times the micromanagement.
Halsey
Posts: 4688
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 10:44 pm

RE: IJN torpedo bombers

Post by Halsey »

That is a good idea. Why aren't "all" the torps included in this abstraction?[;)]



Keep posting Ron! I enjoy reading all your responses![:D]
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: IJN torpedo bombers

Post by Ron Saueracker »

ORIGINAL: dtravel
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I like it! Of course, this means it will never happen...[;)] Nobody wuvs me anymore...[:(]

Well, when you keep beating dead horses into a fine paste a certain ... smell ... tends to linger about your person. A stronger soap and shampoo might help.

[:D]

(I'm kidding Ron. No... Put the club down, NOT THAT DEAD HORSE CLUB!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

[:)]
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Oleg Mastruko
Posts: 4534
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: IJN torpedo bombers

Post by Oleg Mastruko »

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Ron, base sizes doesn't work.

The real issue is that things are made somewhere and have to be transported somewhere else to be used. This is why ships exist. This is why Navies were built to protect/blockage shipping lanes.

Without the physical aspect of having to cart the stuff around, there is very little point imposing imaginary limits on where it might be. I can just as simply send 10 AK's full of bombs to a size 4 port as I can a size 10 port. The issue is that to get them where I need them, a great deal of shipping must be tied up constantly and a large amount of stockpiling must happen to support extended use of anything.

It's a great concept for the diehards,

You meant to say "great concept for Ron Saueracker"? [:D]

Show me another "diehard" who dreams about micromanaging torpedo stockpiles on various god-forgotten Pacific s*itholes and I'll... I'll order my Bettys to stand down in my next PBEM turn(s) [:D]

O.
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: IJN torpedo bombers

Post by Ron Saueracker »

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Ron, base sizes doesn't work.

The real issue is that things are made somewhere and have to be transported somewhere else to be used. This is why ships exist. This is why Navies were built to protect/blockage shipping lanes.

Without the physical aspect of having to cart the stuff around, there is very little point imposing imaginary limits on where it might be. I can just as simply send 10 AK's full of bombs to a size 4 port as I can a size 10 port. The issue is that to get them where I need them, a great deal of shipping must be tied up constantly and a large amount of stockpiling must happen to support extended use of anything.

It's a great concept for the diehards, but it would kill the game for a lot of folks if you told them that each turn was now going to be 10 times the micromanagement.

Well, here is a good example where ABSTRACTION applies. Smaller bases get basics, larger get more varied and specialized supply. Since we don't model the supply intricacies, why not the capabilties of bases to abstactly model the bases specialist supply ? No micromanagement added.

Without the physical aspect of having to cart the stuff around, there is very little point imposing imaginary limits on where it might be. I can just as simply send 10 AK's full of bombs to a size 4 port as I can a size 10 port. The issue is that to get them where I need them, a great deal of shipping must be tied up constantly and a large amount of stockpiling must happen to support extended use of anything.

This is WHY imposing imaginary limits is necessary. Specialist supplies were finite...with the current logistics system, limits are the only way to model this.

If this is not the case, why do we have mine and torpedo limits at bases now?
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
freeboy
Posts: 8969
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 9:33 am
Location: Colorado

RE: IJN torpedo bombers

Post by freeboy »

please amplify, what was limited?
"Tanks forward"
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: IJN torpedo bombers

Post by Ron Saueracker »

ORIGINAL: freeboy

please amplify, what was limited?

Ability to reload mines at ports smaller than 9 etc.
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
freeboy
Posts: 8969
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 9:33 am
Location: Colorado

RE: IJN torpedo bombers

Post by freeboy »

OK, I was thinking Torpedoes.. like somehow there was a historical limit ...
"Tanks forward"
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: IJN torpedo bombers

Post by Ron Saueracker »

ORIGINAL: freeboy

OK, I was thinking Torpedoes.. like somehow there was a historical limit ...

There were serious limits on torp production as well, but out of the scope of this game.
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: IJN torpedo bombers

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

I see no problems with the way these planes are modelled in WITP.

O.

Absolutely agree. That point has been proven. Both their deadly nature and the fact that they get shredded when there is ample Allied air cover. I even experience the frustration of shredding Betty strikes while the lone leaker scores a hit, just like some of the anecdotes. Kudos to the Devs & Betas.
User avatar
Mynok
Posts: 12108
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2002 12:12 am
Contact:

RE: IJN torpedo bombers

Post by Mynok »

beating dead horses into a fine paste

Ah, the essence of Korean cuisine...........
"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown
User avatar
Mr.Frag
Posts: 11195
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Purgatory

RE: IJN torpedo bombers

Post by Mr.Frag »

Ability to reload mines at ports smaller than 9 etc.

That is a facilities issue, not a shipping issue.

You can bypass that with a MLE stuck anywhere just like you can bypass the torpedo port size 8 limit with a AS or AD stuck at a port.

There is no relationship to actually having to make the mines or torpedoes. The magic weapon fairy provides an unlimited number.

Don't confuse handling facilities with logistics, they have very little to do with each other.
User avatar
tsimmonds
Posts: 5490
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: astride Mason and Dixon's Line

RE: IJN torpedo bombers

Post by tsimmonds »

Nice digging Tanaka; I got all the easy ones....
Fear the kitten!
User avatar
dtravel
Posts: 4533
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 6:34 pm

RE: IJN torpedo bombers

Post by dtravel »

If you really want to start messing with complicating the system, start with eliminating the current "assemble your soldiers out of raw materials". So, Ron, wanna track every single individual serving in the PTO? [:D]
This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

Image
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: IJN torpedo bombers

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: spence

So maybe their default load should be bombs and they should only be able to launch torpedo attacks from certain major bases or perhaps something could be rigged along the line of having an Air Flotilla HQ in a hex changing the default load to torpedos for Naval Strike missions. Just a thought - seems more realistic than having the threat of torpedo bomber attack extend from Honolulu to Karachi and Pole to Pole.

One other thing to consider. Betties and Nells could mount bombing attacks at much
greater ranges than torpedo attacks. Carrying a torpedo load-out, they rarely
exceeded 600 miles in history---with bombs they could get out to about 1000 miles.
Considering that virtually no other Torpedo bomber could strike at much over 200
miles, 600 still gave the Allies a he11 of a shock..., as did being bombed at 1000.
User avatar
mlees
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 6:14 am
Location: San Diego

RE: IJN torpedo bombers

Post by mlees »

If you really want to start messing with complicating the system, start with eliminating the current "assemble your soldiers out of raw materials".

Now we're gonna need leaders for those "houses of ill repute".
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”