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

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: 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.

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?

This is a design feature in an attempt to limit torp usage that often mishandles the first turn. My gripe was that why should 2E aircraft get to use torps vs ships in port (I'm OK with more maneuverable 1E tacticals) when this never happened historically, and why, if they are to be given this "fantasy capability", historically existant anti torpedo defences were deliberately not included (aside from the inability of subs to penetrate size 3+ harbors).

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Brady

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

WHICH "war loadout" at WHICH "stated operational range". Virtually every bomber is designed to trade off payload for range in different mission profiles. There may be a few "exceptions" when veteran pilots in small numbers exceed these figures..., but for game purposes the numbers need to represent what a full unit of that type of aircraft coud handle on a repeatable basis. B-24's DID bomb Balikpapan on several occasions (using "Tokyo Tanks" and other modifications)---but do you want that to be their "Standard Range" for massive raids? I simply suggestted that a more "standardized for normal conditions" range would solve a lot of the problems this thread addresses. Simply and effectively...

[Brady]

Ron Saueracker- The Netty's (Betty's/Nell's) That Sank PoW and Repulse were loaded out with the same type of torps used at Pearl, they had intended to strike the ships in the harbor at Singapore, many of them were used during the atack at sea.

Mike-Ya I see what your saying, the B-24 referance is a good example of a non-standard rage sortie. But as el cid pointed out so well and with far fewer spelling eror's then I could manage just above these were the Standard ranges for the Betty's and Nell's.

[spence]

The Netty's (Betty's/Nell's) That Sank PoW and Repulse were loaded out with the same type of torps used at Pearl, they had intended to strike the ships in the harbor at Singapore, many of them were used during the atack at sea.

Here we have a several units specifically selected, positioned, trained and equiped to attack those ships which, when given the opportunity to do exactly what all the preparation was for, ATTACKS (in part) WITH BOMBS.

ALL TORPEDOS ALL THE TIME IS AHISTORICAL. Perhaps no one has put their finger on what problems the Japanese had in supplying their strike aircraft with torpedos, evidently even within their prewar empire, but they had some problem which seriously affected the ability of those aircraft to perform the mission they were intended and designed for. ALL TORPEDOS ALL THE TIME IS AHISTORICAL AND JUST A PLAIN SOP TO JAPANESE FANBOY FANTASIES.

[tsimmonds]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

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.

I believe the numbers you have quoted are not actual quantities, but are rather indices, like are used for GNP comparisons (1968=100 or whatever). So it doesn't state that 202 were made per month in 1942, rather it states, that more than twice as many were made per month in 1942 than in 1941.

Or maybe not. [:'(]

[Iridium]

The way I read that, it states that it's a monthly avg...so multiply those figures by 12 and you should have an 'exact' number of torpedos produced per year...supposedly...

[Brady]

My understanding is the Figuers for the Torps above that are in the collom "actual" are the real numbers that were built for each month, of their respective years.

So for:

41-1200 torpedos built.

42-2424 torpedos built.

..........

Spence-The Betty and Nell's are or should be thought of as Torpedo Bombers, not Bombers that could carry torpedos, The Atack on Force Z had 61 Torpedo equiped Betty's and nell's and 20 some odd High leval Nell's two diati of which were carrying 500 kg bombs (which acheaved one hit and a couple Near misses), the other planes with out torps had 250 KG bomb's. This is just one example of an atack, at the planes were torp capable, at the battle of renenal Island as an example all the Bettys involved except the one carrying the Flares used torps. All the bettys that made those runs on ships of Gudacanal used torps when they made torp atacks.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Brady

Mike-Ya I see what your saying, the B-24 referance is a good example of a non-standard rage sortie. But as el cid pointed out so well and with far fewer spelling eror's then I could manage just above these were the Standard ranges for the Betty's and Nell's.

No..., they were not. About 600 miles was the "standard maximum range" for a torpedo sortie, about 900 with a "full bomb load", and out to 1200 or so with a limited bomb load and max gas. Torpedoes WERE the standard loadout for a "naval strike", but even against the P-O-W and Repulse at about 450 miles most of the bombers were carrying bombs. Like the Balikpapan raids, there were a couple of examples of Bettys using torpedoes out to about 750 miles. What they call the "exceptions that prove the rule". But if you want to determine game perameters based on exceptions, be prepared to face some very long ranged B-24's. Personally I think the game moves too fast already, and limits that keep EVERYBODY within the realms of "normal" operations are a good idea.

[Brady]

Mike - every book I have lists the Range for Betty of Nell at well over 2000 miles with a torpedo, Well over 3000 without one. Find me a referance bud, other than what you seam to be saying which is man that just dont feal right...

At 7 Am the strike foce took off,at 11,O:clock they made contact,at 12:33 they were still under atack, some time after this the finial groups atacked and then wet home. They did not know exactly whear their targets were, and the entire groupe had actualy flow a lot farther than the distance between whear the ships were and their base. Not all the groups were over the ships at the same time.

[spence]

Spence-The Betty and Nell's are or should be thought of as Torpedo Bombers, not Bombers that could carry torpedos, The Atack on Force Z had 61 Torpedo equiped Betty's and nell's and 20 some odd High leval Nell's two diati of which were carrying 500 kg bombs (which acheaved one hit and a couple Near misses), the other planes with out torps had 250 KG bomb's. This is just one example of an atack, at the planes were torp capable, at the battle of renenal Island as an example all the Bettys involved except the one carrying the Flares used torps. All the bettys that made those runs on ships of Gudacanal used torps when they made torp atacks

My point and that which you really should think about is that there was 8 months of time in which ZERO, REPEAT, ZERO LBA torpedo attacls were carried out between your first example (PoW etc) and second (Gcanal) and over a year til your third.
There was a problem, perhaps not as yet mentioned, that the Japanese apparently found at least very difficult to overcome for quite some time, with using their bombers as they intended and wished. If they coulda they woulda cause they did not lack for targets in the interim.

[treespider]

Just some notes from the peanut gallery:

From this site:

http://www.btinternet.com/~lee_mail/Betty.html

Range: (With bombs at overload weight) (G4M1) 3,132 miles (5,040 km); (G4M2) 2,982 miles (4,800 km); (G4M3) 2,262 miles (3,640 km)

From this site:

http://www.angelfire.com/fm/compass/G4M.htm

By early 1943 the Japanese Navy had developed new techniques for night torpedo attack. These were put into effect on the night of 29/30 January 1943 in the Battle of Rennell Island, in which Betties torpedoed and sank the heavy cruiser Chicago. G4Ms repeatedly harassed US task groups in night attacks from this time until almost the end of the war, occasionally inflicting heavy damage - for example in February 1944 when a Betty torpedoed the Essex Class carrier Intrepid after Task Force 58's raid on the Japanese base of Truk in the Caroline Islands.

From this site:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1841760 ... eader-page

Note the lack of bomb bay doors on this aircraft which was a standard feature on the Type 1until the later example of the Model 22. Unlike most bombers the Type 1 was not fitted with conventional bomb-bay doors which opened and closed, the aircraft's ordinance instead being open to the elements at all times. A wind deflection plate was fitted to the rear of the open bomb- bay to cut down on turbulence.

[ChezDaJez]

There was a problem, perhaps not as yet mentioned, that the Japanese apparently found at least very difficult to overcome for quite some time, with using their bombers as they intended and wished. If they coulda they woulda cause they did not lack for targets in the interim.

I'm not so sure that they had a problem with having insufficient torpedoes in the area so much as it was a lack of worthy targets. Lets not forget that by mid-March 42, the DEI had been pretty well conquered with only some mopping up left to do. Virtually all allied ships had left due to Japanese naval and air superiority in the area.

Chez

[juliet7bravo]

xxx

[ChezDaJez]

I think early, like the examples where they attacked without torps, it was because their support hadn't caught up with the forward units. Later...a lack of worthy targets. When they had "worthy targets", they used them. Right up until they found out that a big, slow, lumbering, unarmored, "wet wing" twin-engined plane was NOT a "torpedo bomber" suited for daylight attacks against well defended targets.

I would generally agree with that though on many occasions I would think that they would load torps when the Bettys/Nells/Kates staged to a new base to ensure some on hand. But there will nearly always be a lag getting what you need in sufficient numbers to a new airbase.

Chez

[Brady]

Spence-On the 7th of may 42 Bettys made a torpedo atack on US Naval Forces off the southeren end of Jomard Passage....7th Augast, while preparing to raied PM again the Bettys at Rabaul got a report of enemy shping off Gudacanal, they sortied with the bombs they on board. The Next day they came back with torpedos. After this we see several Torpedo atcks aganst targets their for some up till 43 and the Battle of Renal Island. The details are from my Coppy of Osamu Tagaya's book linked above. In the perioud between the Atack on Force Z, most of the Betty's and Nell's simply did not have any worthy targets to Torp, when they became available they did Atack with Torps.

[Brady]

Torps- Tagaya mentions in his book the how they Loaded Torps and Avation fuel on transports priour to the forward deployment of the Betty and Nell units and how that ship and the suplys was on hand when they neaded it for the Atack on Force Z, so hear we see evidance of priour planing. Also Places like the Mandates were Long establised bases, and Bettys and nells were stationed their from Before the war, so one could I think reasionably expect their to be torps their.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Brady


Torps- Tagaya mentions in his book the how they Loaded Torps and Avation fuel on transports priour to the forward deployment of the Betty and Nell units and how that ship and the suplys was on hand when they neaded it for the Atack on Force Z, so hear we see evidance of priour planing. Also Places like the Mandates were Long establised bases, and Bettys and nells were stationed their from Before the war, so one could I think reasionably expect their to be torps their.

...but in WITP you can zip your planes anywhere, anytime, and same turn conduct anti-shipping missions. What kind of planning would be needed to master that kind of magic trick?

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker



...but in WITP you can zip your planes anywhere, anytime, and same turn conduct anti-shipping missions. What kind of planning would be needed to master that kind of magic trick?

That sort of planning is explained by the zen of WitP...Your invisible staff which you never realize is even there, was planning the move weeks in advance and has moved the resources for you, before you even thought of it.... I don't have 10,000 men planning my logistics for me like they did IRL....so until 2by3 or Matrix figures out a way to package a support staff...I don't have a real issue with this.

[Brady]

They dont Transfer and atack in the same day they transfer one day and atack the Next, realy for most trasfers this is along time, one would think most of the time they could just fly down their in the morning arm up around lunch and get a quicky inbefore bed, but if they want us to wait while or virtual men take the after noon off to lounge around then thats fine.[:)]

I would like as noted above to see Torps be a transported item required to be stocked just like Suply and fuel, and acounted for 1 torp one plane exc...

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

Torp referance:

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_ ... 0-01-2.pdf

[treespider]

Actual production figures for torpedos taken from technical survey...

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_ ... 0-01-2.pdf

on page 52


A.T., Type 91, Mod III -

1941- 7110
1942 - 18195
1943 - 31950
1944 - 88735