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

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

el cid again
Posts: 16984
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

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

Post by el cid again »

On a slightly rlated theme. Has anyone noticed, other than myself, just how unrealistic the fire damage is after the PH attack on the ships? I have opened up the Allied side about 3 of the 150 or so starts that I have had, and not once have I seen a single ship that ever had a double-digit fire. I know the US firefighters are supposed to be better, but the PH RL films I saw looked nothing like a small fire or two on those things. The Japanese ships, by comparison, I'm talking in general here, almost never see a single-digit fire the turn directly after an attack. What gives? As the game operates, I would expect that what you see on the next turn is the direct effect of the attack, or at worst, in most cases, with a night pulse inbetween. As I say that, I realize fires were often put out in that amount of time, but, because the game extenuates damage on ships to several days, this can't possibly happen. Anyone notice this and have any comments as to what level of fires the PH attack had inflicted?

The game is prejudiced in favor of Allied damage control - for just cause - but it is ahistorical when the war began. The crews were not at action stations, the ships were in a peacetime condition of readiness, and most ships had not been intensively training in damage control - something that changed very soon! The special routines for the first attack allow more hits - but do nothing about the inability to deal with them present on that day. Notice that you CANNOT score as well as the Japanese did - which should the AVERAGE score if the game were calibrated properly.
I am a skilled tactician and I should be able to greatly improve on the score - and I can in a more detailed simulation. It is just part of the way the game works - and I don't expect it to be fixed. No one is going to write a lot of code for a single day situation.
el cid again
Posts: 16984
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

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

Post by el cid again »

I think it's clear it the Japanese built this thing to get 2,000 miles with full bombload. One can only question whether an internal heavier load or external torp reduces range more. Their specifications may mean that either armanent had to go the 2,000 miles.


The torpedo is not very external. And the range is the same with either load. They remove the bomb bay doors and the torpedo in effect replaces them - becoming part of the airframe for purposes of airflow.
el cid again
Posts: 16984
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

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

Post by el cid again »

ALL TORPEDOS ALL THE TIME IS AHISTORICAL AND JUST A PLAIN SOP TO JAPANESE FANBOY FANTASIES.

You do not understand how SIMPLE this game is -

so you are completely misunderstanding why things are as they are.

It is NOT some sort of "sop to JFBs" - it is simply not up to letting players do loadouts - and you are stuck with simplistic tactics. There are LOTS of ways to vary your attacks IRL not in the game. I want to use the anvil when I do torpedoes - IF you play a more complex game I WILL use it too - you gonna complain about it? I didn't track those torpedoes all over the Pacific not to hit when I use them...
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

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

Post by treespider »

ORIGINAL: el cid again
I think it's clear it the Japanese built this thing to get 2,000 miles with full bombload. One can only question whether an internal heavier load or external torp reduces range more. Their specifications may mean that either armanent had to go the 2,000 miles.


The torpedo is not very external. And the range is the same with either load. They remove the bomb bay doors and the torpedo in effect replaces them - becoming part of the airframe for purposes of airflow.


Its my understanding, after seeing the excerpt from Tagaya's book that the Betty does not have bomb-bay doors to remove. From an earlier post in this thread:
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.

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
User avatar
Brady
Posts: 6084
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 12:48 pm
Location: Oregon,USA

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

Post by Brady »


See the faring over the Bomb Bay to acomadate the Torpedo:

Image


Image


SCW Beta Support Team

Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view
juliet7bravo
Posts: 893
Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 8:00 am

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

Post by juliet7bravo »

x
User avatar
ChezDaJez
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:08 am
Location: Chehalis, WA

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

Post by ChezDaJez »

I'd be gratified for someone to continue my education by showing me sources giving the Betty a 600 mile max range with a torpedo, or any range other than what's listed. Not saying it's not possible, but it flies in the face of anything I've seen elsewhere. If there's better sources, I'd like to see them. Not that I've seen anything that leads me to believe the Betty EVER made a torp attack at 12-1300 miles range...in fact, the only attacks I can think of the Betty making at that range off the top of my head were the bombing attacks at P.I. at wars start. Speaking practically, I'd have to imagine that attacking moving ships with a slow bomber (and finding them after a multi-hour flight) at max range would be a self-limiting exercise.

Well, we know the distance from Rabaul to Guadalcanal was 560 miles one way. Bettys were more than able to cover that distance with torpedoes loaded. Indeed they attacked naval forces southeast of Guadalcanal on at least one occasion. In comparison, the distance between Formosa and Manila is about 675 miles.

Lundstrom in his "First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign" (page 43) states "Introduced in 1941, the Mitsubishi Type 1 land attack plane, Model 11 (later called BETTY by the Allies) became renowned for its extremely long range: 1540 miles with normal fuel and payload and up to 3256 miles under special conditions. This meant a combat radius of 700 miles or more, but with a modest payload of 800 kilograms of bombs or one aerial torpedo..."

One of the problems here is determining exactly what type of range is being listed in the sources. Sometimes its listed as total possible flying distance (one-way), other times its listed as a combat radius. Different authors present it different ways.

BTW, that is correct concerning the bombbay doors. They were left off for combat missions. They were normally only used for ferry and recon missions.

Chez
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

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

Post by Mike Scholl »

Excellent and rational points you make CHEZ. Another thing to consider when computing the "practical range" is that what a SINGLE plane with an experianced, veteran crew can accomplish is different from what a SQUADRON flying in formation to deliver a coordinated attack can achieve. Quoting "trials numbers" is not the same as producing reasonable COMBAT performance data. And for the purposes of the game, we need numbers that represent what a group of average flyers can achieve on a repeatable basis.
Big B
Posts: 4642
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Cali
Contact:

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

Post by Big B »

ORIGINAL: el cid again
ALL TORPEDOS ALL THE TIME IS AHISTORICAL AND JUST A PLAIN SOP TO JAPANESE FANBOY FANTASIES.

You do not understand how SIMPLE this game is -

so you are completely misunderstanding why things are as they are.

It is NOT some sort of "sop to JFBs" - it is simply not up to letting players do loadouts - and you are stuck with simplistic tactics. There are LOTS of ways to vary your attacks IRL not in the game. I want to use the anvil when I do torpedoes - IF you play a more complex game I WILL use it too - you gonna complain about it? I didn't track those torpedoes all over the Pacific not to hit when I use them...

Sorry, but Spence is correct here - because no matter how simplistic the game is in it's ability to give options for mission loadouts - the game designers came up with a code to make sure allied land based bombers would seldom use heavy AP bombs for anti-ship missions.
But those same designers CHOSE to put no such restrition on torpedo availability for the Japanese (it also effects the Beaufort true - but to be honest this is much more of a Betty/Nell issue in game effect).

B
User avatar
mlees
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 6:14 am
Location: San Diego

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

Post by mlees »

Good point, Mr. Scholl.

A plane may have a stated flying duration of x-minutes, but if the bomb group takes thirty minutes to form up, that's that much less flying time to the target.

CV strikes, especially, if they are handled as desired, fly off the longer ranged planes first, and while they orbit the carrier, the shorter legged ones follow next, etc.
juliet7bravo
Posts: 893
Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 8:00 am

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

Post by juliet7bravo »

xxx
bradfordkay
Posts: 8686
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
Location: Olympia, WA

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

Post by bradfordkay »

Brady, you just posted a chart which shows a little over 9000 aerial torpedoes produced by the Japanese during the war years. Now this translates to how many per Betty/Nell that was produced? 3? 4? 5? How does this justify every naval strike by these aircraft being able to carry torpedoes?

You also talk about having to make adjustments to allied 4E bombers if there is going to be any adjustment to torpedo availability. Have you forgotten that they have already adjusted allied bomber capabilities by limiting the number of strikes that can carry their "best anti-ship weapon"?

Personally, I do feel that level bombers of all types (B17, B24, B25, B26, Beaufort, Betty, Nell, ect) are too effective against shipping throughout the game. However, I can not understand why people would want to block any adjustment that is being made to create more realistic results...
fair winds,
Brad
User avatar
ChezDaJez
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:08 am
Location: Chehalis, WA

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

Post by ChezDaJez »

Well, I'd hate to argue with Lundstrum, but those numbers aren't reflected anywhere else. It's a big jump to go from meeting and exceeding a specification calling for a 2300 mile range combat loaded (with torp) to a combat loaded range of only 12-1400 miles. The 10 knot loss of airspeed with bomb bay doors off and a torpedo covers the difference between the combat range given and the max range nicely. Note that Lundstrom's 1540 mile combat range is about half what the Betty's combat range is usually quoted as...my interpretation based on the quoted combat range elsewhere is that he's talking a 1540 combat radius.

...snip...

Combat radius is combat radius...I haven't seen anyone using that as a justification for shaving the range off of AC before. Likewise, I've never seen anyone trying to use Saburo Sakai's range claims for the Zero as the basis for it's combat range. It's definitely NOT a valid reason to cut an AC's combat radius in half. Are we going to do that for all AC in the game? That would cut out B-29 raids on the Japanese mainland for one thing.

As a WitP Japanese player, I would love to say that my Bettys should be able to fly a combat mission of 1200 or more miles with a torpedo onboard. But unfortunately, I have not been able to find any occasions in which they did so.

As far as Lundstrom's numbers are concerned, he states "700 miles or more." Meaning that they could fly at least that far on a combat mission with torps loaded. He does not indicate that they could ONLY fly that far.

But we also have to consider that a Betty loaded with a torp will have less range than one loaded with the same weight in bombs. This is due to the flight profiles required for deployment of a torpedo or bomb. Let's assume for the moment that there is no CAP to contend with, just AAA fire.

Typically a bomb-loaded Betty is going to climb to its assigned altitude, form up in formation and proceed to its target area at cruise speed. It bombs from its assigned altitude, maybe boosts its speed abit to clear the area and then resume curising back to home base.

A torpedo equipped Betty, on the other hand, has a much different flight profile. It will climb to its assigned altitude, form up and cruise to the target area where it descends to 100-200 feet (or less). It commences its torpedo run at its highest possible speed and continues for some time after to clear the target area. Then it commences another climb back to altitude for the cruise home. When the Betty is down low for its torpedo run, its fuel consumption is something on the order of 3-4 times greater than it would be at cruising altitude. This alone will reduce its effective range. Plus it must commence another climb back to altitude using more fuel. If it stays low, it will not have enough fuel to RTB.

So I think the 700-800 mile range is closer to its actual PRACTICAL range with maybe 900-1000 miles maximum for torpedoes. That results in a practical roundtrip distance of 1400-1600 miles and a maximum roundtrip range of 1800-2000 miles.

Often the numbers quoted for maximum range by various sources were either theorectical or obtained by testing under optimal, not wartime, conditions. And as I said earlier, sometimes the numbers listed represent the combat radius and sometimes represent the total distance that could be flown. As you stated, the design specification for the Betty required a range of over 3000 miles but is that radius or total distance? I think it more likely total distance, not radius.

Nobody's advocating reducing an aircraft's range. I just want a reasonably realistic range for all aircraft. I think the WitP numbers for the Betty are reasonably realistic.



Chez
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

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

Post by mogami »

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Brady, you just posted a chart which shows a little over 9000 aerial torpedoes produced by the Japanese during the war years. Now this translates to how many per Betty/Nell that was produced? 3? 4? 5? How does this justify every naval strike by these aircraft being able to carry torpedoes?

You also talk about having to make adjustments to allied 4E bombers if there is going to be any adjustment to torpedo availability. Have you forgotten that they have already adjusted allied bomber capabilities by limiting the number of strikes that can carry their "best anti-ship weapon"?

Personally, I do feel that level bombers of all types (B17, B24, B25, B26, Beaufort, Betty, Nell, ect) are too effective against shipping throughout the game. However, I can not understand why people would want to block any adjustment that is being made to create more realistic results...

Hi, Can anyone post results from a WITP game that show the Japanese flying more then 2000 torpedo missions over the course an the entire game? (that would be 75 strikes flown by full 27 plane daitais)
Then we would need to add the strikes flown by carrier aircraft.
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
juliet7bravo
Posts: 893
Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 8:00 am

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

Post by juliet7bravo »

xxx
juliet7bravo
Posts: 893
Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 8:00 am

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

Post by juliet7bravo »

xxx
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

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

Post by mogami »

Hi, Oh Jeez before I can agree that there are too many missions I think we should count how many missions we are actually flying.
when Brady posted 9000 torpedos in inventory we had an upper limiit for all missions (training/carrier/Land based)
Now are we exceeding this? If so by how much?
I know for a fact that I have at least 2 games where it is late 1943 and I bet Japan has flown between 200-500 missions (not counting training)

Now I know that might be more then Japan actually flew but is it more then Japan COULD have flown in the same period?

Thats what it has to do.

Pretend you don't think I am against you. Pretend I am interested in learning two things

1. What could Japan have done UPPER LIMIT
2. What is occuring in WITP NORMAL GAMES.

Don't you think this simple data is important?
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
juliet7bravo
Posts: 893
Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 8:00 am

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

Post by juliet7bravo »

[xxx
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

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

Post by mogami »

Hi, So your saying
"WITP is wrong because it is unlimited"

but

"what the actual limits might be is not important"

Any inquiry into
Actual limits or WITP use is not important because WITP is "Just wrong"
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
bradfordkay
Posts: 8686
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
Location: Olympia, WA

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

Post by bradfordkay »

Russ, it appears that you are trying to set up an argument that there is no need to adjust the game because it doesn't come anywhere near to using up those 9000 torpedoes during the passage of the game.

So are you okay with every naval attack being launched to be carrying torpedoes? Does that not seem a little off-kilter to you? I'm not trying to put restrictions on the Japanese, as what Bib B and I have requested is to have all torpedo carrying aircraft pass a torpedo check, same as allied LBs do with the 1000lb bomb. This will also restrict allied torpedo operations. It has already been included in the port attack routine, why can't it be included in the naval attack routine.
fair winds,
Brad
Post Reply

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