"Solution to excessive Torpedo use (from land bases)"

[Brady]

Present Game:


1) Switch, and the Default bomb type is the bigest each plane type can schlep that is in the data base. (Betty's/Nell's get 800 KG, TBM's get 2K pound bombs, Beauforts get 250 KG bomb's, I dont think they had 500 KG bombs for them but I may be wrong, as examples). This would alow for hose rules and not I think be to big a coding isue. we keep the Zise 4 base rule to further cover this.

2) Delux they bite the wenie and make torps an item we nead to move around and stock at basses and alow for the above rule to use them with the switch, they have a factory (Mitsubishi made torps). We do away the size 4 base rule and alow torps from smaller abses, what ever size the plane can operate out of normaly is fine for torp use. Float planes should have no such restriction's imo.

[Mike Scholl]

One REAL way to take the wind from the sails of this arguement would be to cut the Torpedo range of Nells and Betties to a much more realistic 600 miles. Over that they can only use bombs. Does away with the complaints about them showing up and torpedoing things all over the Pacific while still giving them the ability to make torpedo attacks at ranges exceeding virtually any other aircraft.

[bradfordkay]

I not sure that I agree with the idea that aircraft should by default fly with the biggest bomb they could. What I'd rather see is some attempt to represent historical averages with bomb expenditure. Use the smaller bomb numbers for extended range, and the bigger ones for normal range - with a certain chance that this time the planes are loaded with the 800kg bombs, next time it might be torpedoes,the time after that it might be 250kg. Weight the die roll based on published production figures, modified by value of reported target... just my idea...

[Brady]

Mike-Why dont you think the Netty's(Betty/Nell's) could not fly with a war load to their stated operational ranges?

.............

Bradfordkay-The reasion I opted for would argue for the Bigest posable at normal range is, that the Torp planes for both sides represent the primary threat the enemys capatole ships, as noted above Japanese doctern dictated that these ships neaded the bigger loads to contend with a great pains were undertaken to inhsure that they did use them agnst these typers of targets. To be fair this should extend to the Allies as well. Also it is simple to implement well it would seam so, the more variables you tho in the more likely it is to be open to argument (not that it is not already).

Honestly we may of debated ourselfs in a full circle, it may be easer to just wait for WiTP II, and deal with the torp isue from Land based planes s they are now, Honestly in my games it is not for me a big deal.

[juliet7bravo]

[xxx

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Brady
This would alow for hose rules and not I think be to big a coding isue.

...Delux they bite the wenie

Why can't I just shut up and enjoy reading this?

[Brady]

I would realy like to find out how many Torps The Japanese had in their stocks from the period priour to 1940.

....................

Not to get sidetracked but How many Naval torps were built? and do we want to get anal about them as well? Their were as I recal US torp shortages ealy in the war, certain types were short suply and High demand. personaly I think the present model for Ship and Sub torps is fine (suply wise).

[juliet7bravo]

xxx

[Brady]

Thanks, Man thats still a lot of Torps...[:)]

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Reg

So I guess what we are after is torpedo strikes to be conducted
1. against capital ships or
2. against invasion forces (how would A.I. know??), and
3. from bases with torpedo support units (simulated by supply levels)

But what about PBY strikes and the Beaufort night raids on Rabaul Harbour. There may not be a perfect solution for this...

I'm not sure PBY's and Beauforts are worth dealing with unless ol' Betty gets jacked with. The Beauforts aren't much of a problem in the first two weeks of the long campaign. It appears their chances of hitting a ship, for whatever reasons, are at best 1-in-50, but that probably has a lot to do with lack of exp. and my patrolling the targets with at least a bit of aircover.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

"Guess who that favors, and rather strongly? The Allies. You said it yourself, they have lousy torps, so why would they care if their use were cut if they don't use them anyway?"

Me, I'm here to re-fight WW2, not take a fanboy position for one side or the other. My position is that if you give the players historical and realistic capabilities...they'll figure something out.

Both sides during the war made some serious errors. There are numerous ways the war might have played out differently. There are many ways the Japanese position could have been improved using the the capabilities they had available. The Japanese "winning" is not a viable option. The Japanese achieving a better end to the war, is. The Allies achieving a better end to the war, is. Either side screwing things up worse, is.

I'm glad to hear that you look at things that way, but my point was to bring up the point on that while a true Allied fanboy may be on the Betty torp issue just to have an easier go of it, because somehow a nation that took over 4 years to conquer them, should only take a year or two, your post also brings up the additional hidden benefit that if all units were to go through a torp purge to make things allegedly even, the Allies wouldn't be hurt very much by that.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

"Have you ever seen this actually happen in-game?"

Yes, and I'm not the Lone Ranger. And it's not an ahistorical or unrealistic capability...unless it happens many, many times due to an unlimited amount of torps and "perfect" spotting.

"Is 1500 miles meant to be an exaggeration, just a round number? I ask because the regular Betty range is 15, or 900 miles. I'm pretty sure it won't carry torps beyond that range."

It's an exaggeration, of course. Though a Betty had a max range of 3500 miles or so, depending on model, and a normal combat range (with torp) of around 12-1300 miles.

"I'm thinking it has something to do with more convenient units in the area and therefore they don't get called out."

Note the example was "open ocean"...outside of normal attack range by AC like "Jakes". If I'm in Jake range, I deserve whatever I get.

"and the dummies still don't attack"

When it's my AC...they never attack. When it's my ships, they always get attacked (I'm exaggerating Charles). Always the bridesmaid, never the bride...

Note the example was "open ocean"...outside of normal attack range by AC like "Jakes". If I'm in Jake range, I deserve whatever I get.

I'm not sure what your point is there. If you're taking ships out of Manila, and I have an AV with Jakes there, you don't have a lot of choice. I mentioned the issue of being hit by Jakes, because I thought with your example that Betties were coming from the Twilight Zone, that you might be astounded that mine refuse to strike in this limited circumstance. What is more remarkable, striking some ships by themselves at the aforementioned exaggerated range or not striking them at all at a third of that range, even after they make for more juicy targets by the Jake hits? Part of my point was also that the game may decide that since I've had one shot at that TF then it won't send out the Betties, but that still belies the impression that the Betty is some hyper-strike force, because the first two weeks of the war have shown me otherwise. These are Betties/Nells in their prime. Note I also said that that same Tf's and others were swimming about for more than one day, and still no strikes. That means I had out of those days only one strike by the Jakes, so even the possible Jake factor could not account for the lack of a strike on the other days.

I think I would find it all the more remarkable, considering your example sounds so isolated and such, that a Betty sitting at a base for days on end wouldn't strike a stray TF like that. I think I can see part of what you're saying, because it looks like part of the gripe would be that you can't understand how the Betty sees it. Couldn't your group have been getting spied by a sub's Glen? I know if I were playing the Japanese as long as I have, and got spotted by a Glen I wouldn't have noticed it, or perhaps forgot it, especially for merchants.

When it's my AC...they never attack. When it's my ships, they always get attacked (I'm exaggerating Charles). Always the bridesmaid, never the bride...

Is this when playing the AI? If so, that does complicate matters. I haven't played the allies to compare the early PI situation with Betty bombers for example, but I have always thought that a reason for such a large discrepancy that we see with somewhat unbelieveable results is largely a matter of not the side you're playing, but that the AI is getting significant advantages, such as an AI IJ Betty would strike your 900 miles TF and while my damaged AI TF can't get a Betty strike at half of that range.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

And gut the ability of any torp armed plane blowing all hell out of ships in port. Ahhhh, if we are going to add this amazing stretch of reality in every instance, at least give the player the ability to deploy port anti torpedo defences (net defences). I remember asking for one example of a port attack in the pacific by 2E bombers armed with torps and nobody could or will come up with more than one (the one was not really a port at all, just an anchorage). But it got rammed in there all the same. [8|]

That's pretty funny considering the showcase attack at the beginning of the game is often such a non-torp joke. So would an attack they claim was rigged to allow more torp hits, that being PH, do so much worse than the sky is falling at PM?

[Charles2222]

They only made 1800 in 1943, after having 2 years to tool up?

How did you manage that figure? 1942 there were over 2400 made. 1943 over 3600.

Ignore this post please and refer to post #158.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Thats a lot of freaking torps man..............

No, really it isn't. 1800 in 1943?? It may seem like a lot over the course of the war, particularly in 1944, but it was not a lot during the period when they were actually useful, i.e. through mid-1943. Think about it: use half of them for training. Then keep half of what's left in reserve. Divide what's left among a half-dozen different bases so you always have some available where you might need them. What does that leave you in one spot when enemy ships show up?

Even 1942 had 202 a month. That's over 2400 for the year. I'm confused as to how you and j7b got 1800.

Ignore this post please and refer to post #158.

[Charles2222]

One REAL way to take the wind from the sails of this arguement would be to cut the Torpedo range of Nells and Betties to a much more realistic 600 miles.

I think the B29 shouldn't be able to fly to it's operational range either, when it's carrying the you-know-what[:D].

[tabpub]

Reply in general, not just Charles

1. Remove torpedo from Beaufort units except 1 flight of 8 to allow the allies to have some LBA torpedo capacity.
2. Split up the IJNAF 2E bombers into torp/non-torp capable units. Don't know what ratio would be appropriate. Probably anywhere from 33 to 50% off the cuff.
3. All land based planes (off loaded CV planes also) would have to be at a base with either a naval or command HQ to load torps. And to reflect preparation, said HQ should have a maximum fatigue/disruption level that would prevent torp loadout if over; say 25/50 or so.

Just some other thoughts rather than the current ones being bandied about. Night.

[Charles2222]

Okay guys, I see where you got the 1800, but it still doesn't make sense to me. here's the quote from Brady:

AERIAL TORPEDOES:

"Production expanded from 1,800 in 1943 to 4,000 in 1944. A peak output of about 370 was maintained from September to December 1944, but fell off each month thereafter to reach 180 in July 1945. None was made in August. The most important factors contributing to this decline were shortage of skilled labour, and absenteeism resulting from urban area raids. It was reported tat many torpedoes were rejected because of failure to meet specifications."

Indices of output (1941 monthly average = 100):

1941 - Actual = 100 ; Plan = 89
1942 - Actual = 202 ; Plan = 213
1943 - Actual = 304 ; Plan = 351
1944 - Actual = 653 ; Plan = 888
1945 - Actual = 250 ; Plan = 610

How can 1943 be 1,800 when the 1942 actual monthly average total was 202? Is the 1943 mark taken for what it was at the start of the year? If so, it should be 2400, correct? If the end of the year, which is what I take it to mean, that would be even worse at 3,600 or so.

[el cid again]

The evolution of the land based, long range, torpedo bomber in Japan is a fascinating story. One of the people involved you have heard of too: one Admiral Yamamoto! There was an earlier version - pre Betty - more or less expended in China. Japan claims to have made the first "trans-oceanic" air raids in history - and certainly made raids deep into China (although not with torpedoes!). But several generations of aircraft - including pre Betty and post Nell - were DESIGNED to be torpedo bombers. There is a companion to Francillon - a book deliberately complimentary - it refuses to duplicate planes - covering aircraft before 1941 - from which you can learn a lot. [Japanese Aircraft 1910-1941]
There is also good material in Kaigun which, in spite of its Japanese title, is in English (Kaigun is Japanese for Navy) and more in Sunburst - a deliberate companion volume dedicated to Japanese Naval Air technology/history (all of them USNI). The decision NOT to use armor was DELIBERATE (and also typical of the period in other countries) - to increase range. But the NORMAL bomb load of these aircraft is a torpedo - or the equal in bombs. They have very little max bomb load - some of them have NO max bomb load at all - they ALWAYS carried a torpedo - or equal weight - it was so SOP. It was the way the planes were designed - and the point of designing them. Only the Russians seem to have adopted the same concept - and they changed from torpedoes to missiles after WWII. But their WWII era planes are very like Japan's (see IL-4 for example).

[spence]

That's pretty funny considering the showcase attack at the beginning of the game is often such a non-torp joke. So would an attack they claim was rigged to allow more torp hits, that being PH, do so much worse than the sky is falling at PM?

There were only 40 or so torps launched at PH (2 Daitai's worth). The other 4 Kate Daitai carried bombs.