Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks...

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: spence

One ought to look as well at the SRA/DEI Campaign. Someone already mentioned that the Swordfish and Vildebeests used bombs there rather than torpedos. I have done a lot of looking and found no instances other than the attacks on the PoW/Repulse wherein the G4s and G3s used torpedos. Reading about those attacks specifically I got the impression that:
1) the Japanese recognized a specific threat to their designs on the area in PoW/Repulse
2) they moved in certain air groups and then trained them up to make torpedo attacks
3) they provided torpedos for some of the aircraft (at least nine of the attacking bombers attacked with bombs).

Following the air groups involved I found no torpedo attacks by any of them during the remainder of the DEI campaign. Planes from some of these groups attacked the Dutch Fleet, Houston, Marblehead, and Boise at one time or another: all with bombs.
The next time they flew with torpedos was in the Guadalcanal campaign.

Trying to find info on a proposed torpedo attack on the ABDA Fleet but the newly occupied field couldnt handle it, Late Feb, early march 1942

[juliet7bravo]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, So where would the torpedo factories be and what starting size should they have?
(Nagaskai, SF,Karachi)
and then we need starting levels and locations.

My comments were addressed to WitP 2 or to an "WitP expansion pack". I really don't think mucking with major changes in WitP is desirable at this (very) late point in time. If they were desired, I think changes in line with the checks for 1000 lbs. would be more desirable, as others have mentioned.

If it was desired, I think we could come up with harder overall production numbers and extrapolate monthly production...

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

At the time, where the 9 Type 96 bombers were based at Taroa (Chitose air group), there were no torpedoes available but they were available at Roi but permission to land there and rearm with torps was denied due to bomb damage. Like the Rabaul raid i see this as another example of ill preperation by the Japanese at that time. The outer defense perimeter was badly neglected during Japan's campaign in the SRA and shortly thereafter it concluded. Players are usually much more diligent and bring in enough planes and supplies to represent a formidable threat to carrier raids.

Ya beat me Nik. I knew that.[:@]

[el cid again]

An early form of victory disease was the Japanese failed to build up their Nanyo area (Carolines). They were believed to have "illegally fortified" them in the 1930s, but University of Hawaii research (See Nanyo) indicates in no case did they.

It took the Makin Island raid to turn this around. That raid probably made the later battles much worse. Had it not occurred, the islands would have been relatively easy targets.

[ChezDaJez]

Hi, So where would the torpedo factories be and what starting size should they have?
(Nagaskai, SF,Karachi)
and then we need starting levels and locations.

Primary Assembly Plant, Kure Naval Shipyard, Japan
Commanding Officer: Rear Admiral S. Naruse

Torpedo Research Facility: Kanazawa, Japan
Commanding Officer: Rear Admiral S. Oyagi

Individual parts produced throughout Japan.

Japanese Type 91 Aerial Torpedo Production Values by Year:
1931- 7
1932- 53
1933- 702
1934- 150
1935- 193
1936- 237
1937- 308
1938- 312
1939- 280
1940- 450
1941- 710
1942- 1200
1943- 1800
1944- 3565
1945- 297

These figures do not include the Type 3 or Type 4 aerial torpedo.

This data (and much, much more) is contained within the US Naval Inteliigence Technical Survey publication O-01-2 titled "Japanese Torpedoes and Tubes, Artilce 2, Aircraft Torpedoes." Also contained in this publication are the locations and capacities of torpedo storage facilities throughout Japan.

Chez

[tsimmonds]

The point, of course, is not to prevent LBA from using torps, but to reward players for planning and deploying with a bit of forethought.

Exactly.

Wow.

Someone besides j7b gets it.

Thank you.

I feel like I'm turning into a pasternakski-esque crank. And I don't care! [;)]

[el cid again]

In mechanical systems, I always produce torpedos by model number, and make players track where they are. That way they get no free torpedoes - but they get as many as they plan to have in any area.
I like logistics games - but I hear they are not popular. [Jim Dunnigan once wrote "no one would play a logistics game"] I would - and Joe says he would - and WITP (the original one) WAS a logistics game - designed by Dunnigan himself. But here we have problems imposing limits on the game design.

The Ki-67 was actually a torpedo bomber - and the Army air force actually had a unit named "the torpedo squadron" - trained to fly with the navy and hunt naval targets. I think it is a mistake to believe we have much idea about Japanese operations. The records were ordered destroyed - and mostly were. And Japan never kept records in the sense we did in the first place: they didn't have many log and record people to begin with. [An IJA division rated a full captain as a logistic officer!] A lot of what we think we know comes from testimony - and eyewitnesses are both invaluable and a source of error. It is best to go with things like 'the planes were designed for this weapon' - 'the unit was trained to use this weapon' things like that. I do not think it makes a lot of sense to say players cannot use the weapons they have - and we don't have real control over the logistics - just watch the printout!

[spence]

I think it is a mistake to believe we have much idea about Japanese operations. The records were ordered destroyed

Au contraire - we do know about such Japanese air operations as occurred for the most part. It is not particularly difficult to tell the difference between a level-bombing attack from altitude and a torpedo bombing attack. For a variety of reasons which may be somewhat obscured by the destruction of Japanese records torpedo attacks by land based medium bombers of either the IJN (or IJA= never? occurred very infrequently during the period of Jap expansion. The pace may have picked up some later in the war but aerial torpedo production was not such that it could support indescriminate or profligate useage of torpedos (in spite of a doctrinal preference for such attack) early on.

There should be some sort of limitation IMHO. The proposal to use various checks as Allied LBA does for 1000 lb/2000 lb bombs seems a very good idea.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant
I feel like I'm turning into a pasternakski-esque crank. And I don't care! [;)]

Hey ... hey ... HEY! I promised myself never again to say negative things on these forums ... but it ain't easy ...

[juliet7bravo]

That's why I (try really hard to) only talk to abstracts like "WitP 2". Some people like WitP, some people don't...

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

That's why I (try really hard to) only talk to abstracts like "WitP 2". Some people like WitP, some people don't...

If one was cynically inclined, one might even get the thought that Matrix floated the entirely non-commital hint of a WitP II to direct critiscism of the game somewhere safe...[;)]

[juliet7bravo]

If they wanted to deflect critisicism, they could give Ron S. his own locked forum and let him pick people for a "WitP 2 Alternate Development Team". Co-moderated by Pasternaski. "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer", "Divide and conquer" and all that. All the whiners in one basket, LOL.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo
Co-moderated by Pasternaski.

I don't understand how you could possibly use a derivative of the word "moderate" and my online moniker in the same sentence...

[juliet7bravo]

Granted, that is an unusual use of the work "moderate". I'm uncertain exactly what would be the correct descriptive word to apply. The mind boggles...

[Belce]

Right now there is a requirement to arm subs in the game or place mines on a minelayer based on port size or auxilary on site. The same could be done for torpedo planes, either you are at a very big airbase or you have a specialized air support group at a base for it to work. The specialized air support groups could be the very large air support groups like the allies 270 air support formations.

[bradfordkay]

Belce, the game at present requires you to have a base of size 4 + (bomb load in lbs/6500 FRU) in order to launch a level bomber at normal range. Any level bomber launching from a smaller base must use the extended range load at normal range (and cannot fly to extended range). The extended range load will not be a torpedo, so this effectually is a base size restriction for loading torpedoes.

There are a few of us who believe that it should not be a base size restriction, but some other mechanism that reflects the relative scarcity of torpedo ammunition. I like any idea that rewards the player for forsight and planning in getting his torpedoes to the right base. I dislike any system that allows unlimited torpedo attacks all over the map.

[el cid again]

There should be some sort of limitation IMHO. The proposal to use various checks as Allied LBA does for 1000 lb/2000 lb bombs seems a very good idea.

Good only if you are a programmer with access to code. In that case I prefer to increase the complexity of the log model one level: I want to track

fuel (meaning ALL fuel - POL - including aircraft fuel)
ordnance (everything bigger than small arms ammunition)
general (everything else)

In that case, a plane will not fly without ALL three - AND it will need enough "ordnance" by weight if it is to carry a torpedo.

If you THEN want to have some other rule for 800 kg bombs and torpedoes, I have no problem. But until we have that level of modeling, I don't think ops will be well simulated.

[juliet7bravo]

in spite of a doctrinal preference for such attack

I'm not so certain that's true anymore. I think we've all looked at that classic pic of the Betties flying in at sea level to launch torps at GC to many times.

The further you look at air-dropped torp usage, the more bomb usage you see. The only real major success at using the Nell/Betty in the TB role was "Force Z" that I can think of off-hand...pretty much the rest of the time the Japanese got (pardon the expression) "Jap Slapped". The use of the Nell/Betty in the TB role seems to have been "mostly" used against capital ships, invasion fleets, or when one or both was what the AC was likely loaded out for.

It obviously wasn't "all torps, all the time".

What's up with the near total lack of historical anti-shipping strikes around PM by the Japanese anyway?

So what was the deal? The relative scarcity of torps? Maintenance issues? Doctrine? Did the Japanese determine (correctly) that the Nell/Betty weren't ideal platforms for coming in "low and slow" to deliver torp attacks against Allied flak? The record would tend to indicate this wasn't the most survivable or effective type of attack. Then again, it would quite often require only one torp hit vs. several bomb hits to sink or do significant damage to the target ship.

Interesting paper discussing RAAF torp ops. Besides totally panning RAAF TB ops, of interest also is the problems with maintaining/supporting torps. You could imagine the Japanese had even greater issues.

http://www.library.unsw.edu.au/~thesis/ ... apter6.pdf

Pretty much, the air dropped torpedo appears to have had a very, very minor role in USAAF and RAAF (and RAF, IJA, JAAF ect.) ops as well.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

in spite of a doctrinal preference for such attack

I'm not so certain that's true anymore. I think we've all looked at that classic pic of the Betties flying in at sea level to launch torps at GC to many times.

The further you look at air-dropped torp usage, the more bomb usage you see. The only real major success at using the Nell/Betty in the TB role was "Force Z" that I can think of off-hand...pretty much the rest of the time the Japanese got (pardon the expression) "Jap Slapped". The use of the Nell/Betty in the TB role seems to have been "mostly" used against capital ships, invasion fleets, or when one or both was what the AC was likely loaded out for.

It obviously wasn't "all torps, all the time".

What's up with the near total lack of historical anti-shipping strikes around PM by the Japanese anyway?

So what was the deal? The relative scarcity of torps? Maintenance issues? Doctrine? Did the Japanese determine (correctly) that the Nell/Betty weren't ideal platforms for coming in "low and slow" to deliver torp attacks against Allied flak? The record would tend to indicate this wasn't the most survivable or effective type of attack. Then again, it would quite often require only one torp hit vs. several bomb hits to sink or do significant damage to the target ship.

Interesting paper discussing RAAF torp ops. Besides totally panning RAAF TB ops, of interest also is the problems with maintaining/supporting torps. You could imagine the Japanese had even greater issues.

http://www.library.unsw.edu.au/~thesis/ ... apter6.pdf

Pretty much, the air dropped torpedo appears to have had a very, very minor role in USAAF and RAAF (and RAF, IJA, JAAF ect.) ops as well.

So, ...have we decided to adopt my suggestion to introduce the same set of die rolls and checks on land based torps as we already do on Land based 1000lbrs?[;)][8D]

B

[spence]

Well I'm with you. Now let's see, that would make two of us in favor of the same thing.
Isn't there a rule against that?