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

[spence]

It's still a joke, because the instances of getting over 20 hits is very poor. Sorry, I have no idea how many of those 40 missed IRL so it's only marginally helpful. Perhaps you would understand it more in terms of BB's sank, which of course directly corresponds to few torp hits. The vast majority of the starts see NO BB's sank

Actual hits by torps on BBs at PH as follows I believe in no particular order:

Tennessee - 0
West Virginia - 6 or 7 (sank and refloated/repaired/returned to duty)
Arizona - 1 but sinking due to 800kg bomb hit in magazine
Maryland - 0
Oklahoma - 5 (sunk and refloated but deemed not worth repair)
California - 3 (sunk and refloated/repaired/returned to duty)
Pennsylvania - 0
Nevada - 1 (beached/repaired/returned to duty)

Utah was also hit, capsized and sunk....torps permanently really only put 1 BB down for good (Oklahoma). Arizona would for game purposes be a lucky die roll I guess.

[juliet7bravo]

xxx

[treespider]

The issue is; "did they (Allied or Japanese) have enough torpedoes, and the support, to have them forward deployed at each and every airfield capable of supporting a torpedo capable aircraft"? And in sufficient quantities at each of said AF's to mount an infinite number of torp attacks from that AF back to back? The answer, both from historical examples and from historical production figures is NO.

But you are not launching Betties from every single base every turn.

#1 - You are launching Betties from size 4 or larger bases.

#2 - You are limited by the number of Air groups in the game

#3- Because we are not provided with a complete command and logistics staff...you have to look at the zen of the game... in which the invisible command and logistics staff has already positioned the resources for you....before you even had the inkling that you might need them at Base X. So when the level 4 airbase at Lunga is utilized to launch a torpedo strike the invisible command staff had already been planning on that action before you realized it was a possibility. In real life you have thousands of minds planning and orchestrating the events in the war. In the game you have ONE!

[spence]

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.

I am in the process of collecting some data from my FIRST YEAR PBEM. I have a combat report for all turns from 8 Dec to 7 Feb which is where the game is at presently (for some reason I didn't have the combat report summary for the first turn so I added 40 to the total so far (I really can't remember whether 1 Daitai or 2. Before real life so rudely interrupted my collection of data there had been 450 torpedo sorties by B5s/G3s and G4s up to Jan 10th. I hope to complete the collection of data in the next 24 hours (dang work always interferes with fun stuff though[:)]) .

[treespider]

Here is another way to look at this argument...

How many times when given the opportunity to strike Naval targets were Betties armed with bombs versus torpedos?

-People have been content to rattle off the limited number of torpedo strikes by Betties IRL. But how do they compare to the number of times the Betties were carrying only bombs when attacking Naval targets? I don't know the ratio myself...But I would be curious...is it one torpedo strike for three bombing strikes or 3 torpedo strikes for every bombing strike? Or is it 50-50?

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: 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.

I understand what you're saying, but my main point wasn't so much that first attack. My main point was that if an attack is done, as heavy as PH was, how is it possible those raging fires were down to single digits EVERY SINGLE TIME, by the time the player had a chance to look at them? I'm not sure how the game works exactly on this score, but I'm imaging that in that situation you are looking at the damage as it happened directly after the attack, especially when you consider the logevity of the damage model on ships. Remember, I've seen this on the PH attack, but I can't help but think the US has this invincibility across the board. I mean, when we saw the films of the fires and such, and yet these are basically nothing, it makes me think the whole US fire model is a shambles.

[tsimmonds]

treespider is on it. the problem is not that there are too many torpedoes, it is that, as long as you have a L4 AB or a CV with strikes remaining, there are torpedoes available wherever one wants, in whatever numbers one needs, at exactly the critical moment. And that is not reasonable. Sorry. It just isn't. I don't have to believe that IJ build 9000 torpedoes or 90,000 to know that sometimes, maybe a lot of the time, perhaps even most of the time, even though you would really really really like to have torpedoes, you just don't have torpedoes.

Oh sure. There are lots and lots and lots of torpedoes. But the enemy, and the aircraft you would like to use to attack them with, are someplace else. Unless you figured it out beforehand, and moved a mess of torpedoes there first.

[juliet7bravo]

xxx

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

treespider is on it. the problem is not that there are too many torpedoes, it is that, as long as you have a L4 AB or a CV with strikes remaining, there are torpedoes available wherever one wants, in whatever numbers one needs, at exactly the critical moment. And that is not reasonable. Sorry. It just isn't. I don't have to believe that IJ build 9000 torpedoes or 90,000 to know that sometimes, maybe a lot of the time, perhaps even most of the time, even though you would really really really like to have torpedoes, you just don't have torpedoes.

Oh sure. There are lots and lots and lots of torpedoes. But the enemy, and the aircraft you would like to use to attack them with, are someplace else. Unless you figured it out beforehand, and moved a mess of torpedoes there first.

I could accept a limiting factor on torpedos in that regard but not "nerfing"... As I pointed out we the players have one mind to work out the logistics, IRL you have staffs of people. So to an extent I can accept that I have resources that i can use within a moments notice because my invisible staff had already been planning that op for me before i decided to launch it.



Another question in regards to the range to target issue....Is there an increased liklihood of "Failed to locate target" the farther an air unit is from its base?

I would hope so but, I don't know nor have i tested it.

[treespider]

Ah, yes...the Zen thing. I wish torpedoes are available, at any base on the map, before I even get there, click my heels 3 times...and <poof> there they are. FM.

My point is ....there is a command staff IRL that would have been planning this thing for you...so unless we are all given command and logistics staffs to start planning our logistics for us... I can accept resources magically appearing because I envision my invisible command staff has been planing this for me without me realizing it.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: 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.

That "group forming up" argument is a bunch of baloney. Need I remind everyone that ALL bombers went through that? So what makes more sense? Leaving all ratings at their non-forming up ratings, or cutting into Nell's and B17's both?

[treespider]

the problem is not that there are too many torpedoes, it is that, as long as you have a L4 AB or a CV with strikes remaining, there are torpedoes available wherever one wants, in whatever numbers one needs, at exactly the critical moment. And that is not reasonable. Sorry. It just isn't. I don't have to believe that IJ build 9000 torpedoes or 90,000 to know that sometimes, maybe a lot of the time, perhaps even most of the time, even though you would really really really like to have torpedoes, you just don't have torpedoes.

Which goes to my my other question....IRL how many times were Betties that were involved in attacks on naval targets carrying torpedos vs bombs? Is it 10-1, 9-1, 8-1, 3-2, 5-3?

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

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.

Not to mention a combat radius of 6-700 miles would hardly qualify the Betty for being "renowned for its extremely long range". It leaves you with a lightweight and extremely vulnerable AC with the combat range of a B-25 for all intents and purposes...that doesn't pass the common sense test.

"Quoting "trials numbers"

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.

Excellent deduction. And need I remind everyone that the torp range on the Betty is a mere 900 miles already? Some people seem to think it can go exntended range with that thing, and to look at the specs it looks as though the Betty is getting gyped range-wise whilst torp-laden, if anything.

Yes, I proposed cutting the B-29 A-bomb range as well, and nobody took me up on it.[:D]

[Charles2222]

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...

IMO if you should cheapen anti-shipping ability it should be with the 4E bomber types. The B25 type 2E's were probably a little better than a Betty, but the Betty strikes me more as a somewhat less effective Ju88, in that while it had strategic range and was perhaps a little clumsier, it was able to pull off some tactical bombing abilities but at strategic ranges if necessary. Just my general feel anyway.

[tsimmonds]

Which goes to my my other question....IRL how many times were Betties that were involved in attacks on naval targets carrying torpedos vs bombs? Is it 10-1, 9-1, 8-1, 3-2, 5-3?

I dispute that this is a valid criterion. We are not trying to duplicate history, remember. IJ Staff IRL may have been spectacular organizers of torpedo logistics, or they may have been hopeless futzers like they were at everything else. My point is let's not be given a free pass with something so important. Make us manage it, just a little bit, or at least give us some random imperfection if management is beyond our defined scope (although given the detail in which we have to manage mine warfare for example, or torpedoes for surface ships, closer to the point, having also to manage torpedo deployment for aircraft should be uncontested). Does anyone claim that IJ Staff always had the right answer for logistics or for anything?

I could accept a limiting factor on torpedos in that regard but not "nerfing"...

I never proposed nerfing. I just want some accountability. Like with mines. Like with torpedoes for ships. Makes us have either a certain size port plus a certain number of sipplies, or else make us have moved a certain type of ship (read: a specific cargo) there first. That's all.

[Mike Scholl]

"Not to mention a combat radius of 6-700 miles would hardly qualify the Betty for being "renowned for its extremely long range". It leaves you with a lightweight and extremely vulnerable AC with the combat range of a B-25 for all intents and purposes...that doesn't pass the common sense test. "


This is pure "strawman". The Betty's TORPEDO range of 600 miles exceeded every other aircraft in the world when carrying a tropedo. And a twin-engined Bomber with a bombing range of 900 miles and an extended bombing range of 1200+ miles is rightly "renowned for its extremely long range". The only thing that "doesn't pass the common sense test" is your argument.

[Charles2222]

juliet7bravo:

I can recall one (1) real world example (with bombs) where the (one-way) range to target was quoted as 1250-ish. Damned if I can recall the details though...and that's it. I was thinking it was against P.I., but I must be wrong.

It's a documented strike against China, as I've seen it too. I'm not sure of the payload but it wasn't a torp run.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: spence

It's still a joke, because the instances of getting over 20 hits is very poor. Sorry, I have no idea how many of those 40 missed IRL so it's only marginally helpful. Perhaps you would understand it more in terms of BB's sank, which of course directly corresponds to few torp hits. The vast majority of the starts see NO BB's sank

Actual hits by torps on BBs at PH as follows I believe in no particular order:

Tennessee - 0
West Virginia - 6 or 7 (sank and refloated/repaired/returned to duty)
Arizona - 1 but sinking due to 800kg bomb hit in magazine
Maryland - 0
Oklahoma - 5 (sunk and refloated but deemed not worth repair)
California - 3 (sunk and refloated/repaired/returned to duty)
Pennsylvania - 0
Nevada - 1 (beached/repaired/returned to duty)

Utah was also hit, capsized and sunk....torps permanently really only put 1 BB down for good (Oklahoma). Arizona would for game purposes be a lucky die roll I guess.

We are talking about two different things a bit. I was referring to all torp hits not all BB torp hits. While I'm measuring success by two things, that being he torps that hit and the ships sank (not necessarily just BB's, though they are the high mark). So just on BB hits alone you're getting like the torps hitting at a 50% ratio IRL. We would have to know all hits of course. This is somewhat confusing, because I was also talking about the number of BB's sank, but it all pretty much works together. 2 or more Kate groups need to use torps. There had to be at least 20 torp hits (probably more like 30 since the US ships don't seem to scarcely burn game-wise) and at least one BB sank. You generally can take any of those goals and achieve most of the others.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

ORIGINAL: spence

It's still a joke, because the instances of getting over 20 hits is very poor. Sorry, I have no idea how many of those 40 missed IRL so it's only marginally helpful. Perhaps you would understand it more in terms of BB's sank, which of course directly corresponds to few torp hits. The vast majority of the starts see NO BB's sank

Actual hits by torps on BBs at PH as follows I believe in no particular order:

Tennessee - 0
West Virginia - 6 or 7 (sank and refloated/repaired/returned to duty)
Arizona - 1 but sinking due to 800kg bomb hit in magazine
Maryland - 0
Oklahoma - 5 (sunk and refloated but deemed not worth repair)
California - 3 (sunk and refloated/repaired/returned to duty)
Pennsylvania - 0
Nevada - 1 (beached/repaired/returned to duty)

Utah was also hit, capsized and sunk....torps permanently really only put 1 BB down for good (Oklahoma). Arizona would for game purposes be a lucky die roll I guess.

We are talking about two different things a bit. I was referring to all torp hits not all BB torp hits. While I'm measuring success by two things, that being he torps that hit and the ships sank (not necessarily just BB's, though they are the high mark). So just on BB hits alone you're getting like the torps hitting at a 50% ratio IRL. We would have to know all hits of course. This is somewhat confusing, because I was also talking about the number of BB's sank, but it all pretty much works together. 2 or more Kate groups need to use torps. There had to be at least 20 torp hits (probably more like 30 since the US ships don't seem to scarcely burn game-wise) and at least one BB sank. You generally can take any of those goals and achieve most of the others.

In addition to the BB's

CL50 Helena - One torp hit - heavily damaged repaired
CL 7 Raleigh- One torp hit, one bomb hit - heavily damaged repaired and refitted
CM4 Oglala- One torp hit - sunk, raised and repaired
AG16 Utah - 2 torp hits - capsisized sunk


If you want the complete list for all bomb hits in addition to the above mentioned torpedos, i can provide it...

of the 40 torpedos carried into PH on Dec 7 - I count 23 +/-1 that found their mark.

[Charles2222]

So I think that makes close to 23 hits.