Torpedos usage

[bradfordkay]

"One last point in regard to allied bombers interdicting Japanese bombardments. It doesn't take many hits to cause enough sys dam to drop the Japanese ships speed to the point that it can no longer scoot and shoot and avoid SBDs and Avengers. Just a few allied PTs at the base will greatly reduce the effectiveness of the bombardment and they may even torp a capital ship. And from what I've seen, allied PTs are nearly invincible to Japanese airpower. I've learned (and relearned) that point."

Hmm... I've had allied PTS torpedoed by enemy aircraft. Otherwise they have been just about my only effective defense. The aircraft don't often come into play (especially the SBDs and TBFs) as the Japanese bombardment TFs come in, blast the field to the point that the a/c can't launch and then escape. Without some surface TF in the location, these attacks are not going to fail. Of course, if I send the long range 4E bombers in a lower elevations in order to score any hits on the incoming TF I'm being gamey...(I realize that this is not necessarily your attitude, just the general consensus here).

[ChezDaJez]

Chez, are you guys playing the stock game? I have never seen that many 4E bombers in my air forces, though the only game I ever got into mid '43 was the first CHS issue. I do prefer the scenarios which place a more realistic replacement rate for aircraft as this prevents a lot of this nonsense.

Yes, its a stock scenario 15 upgarded to 1.801 with PDU.

Becuase we didn't house rule it, he upgraded every B-25/B-26 squadron to 4Es. I have seen raids in excess of 500 bombers from level 5 fields and raids over 400 bombers from level 4. Even level 3 airfields put up sizeable raids that are virtually impossible to stop.

Chez

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: spence
Does anyone have the magazine loadout figures for any other carriers of either side? Searching around on the web I've not been able to find any.

I posted some numbers for IJN CVs on page one of this thread. In short it's between 36-45 torpedos even for modern CVs like Shokaku.

Oleg

[castor troy]

When having e.g. a production rate for torps people should think about how air combat goes in the game. Imagine getting a raid of 100 Zekes and 100 Betties at a target that is covered by 30 Corsairs...

100 Zekes and 100 Betties shot down (of course also two or three Corsairs shot down) and all available torps for one month also gone...

If one thing is changed then 10 other things must be changed too.

[spence]

In Friedman's US Aircraft carriers appendix D there are several magazine loadouts. below is the Enterprise in Oct 43

100lb GP 504
500lb GP 288
500lb SAP 288
1000lb GP 378
1000lb SAP 378
1000lb AP 378
1600lb AP 18
2000lb GP 18
325lb DC 288
100lb Inc 288
Torpedoes 36

Without counting DCs and antipersonnel bombs that's over 40 anti-ship sorties per SBD assigned.  Seems a bit much on the bombs...but then maybe the US CVs should have a higher max sortie number.  #Torps more or less commeasurate with IJN though...roughly 2 anti-ship attack sorties per TBF.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: castor troy
When having e.g. a production rate for torps people should think about how air combat goes in the game. Imagine getting a raid of 100 Zekes and 100 Betties at a target that is covered by 30 Corsairs...

100 Zekes and 100 Betties shot down (of course also two or three Corsairs shot down) and all available torps for one month also gone...

What are you smoking? You're overestimating Corsair losses by at least 200-300% [:D] [;)]

[spence]

The max sorties number for different carriers must be hard coded because I couldn't any place to edit it (maybe I didn't look hard enough though).

Out of curiousity I just looked at Enterprise (1941 version) and found it had a max sortie number of 534 (roughly 10 sorties per attack type a/c).  How do you suppose that reconciles with the magazine loadout given below?

In Friedman's US Aircraft carriers appendix D there are several magazine loadouts. below is the Enterprise in Oct 43

100lb GP 504
500lb GP 288
500lb SAP 288
1000lb GP 378
1000lb SAP 378
1000lb AP 378
1600lb AP 18
2000lb GP 18
325lb DC 288
100lb Inc 288
Torpedoes 36  

(over 40 sorties by attack a/c with a 500lb GP or better [excludes using DCs, incindiaries, or antipersonnel bombs])

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: spence

The max sorties number for different carriers must be hard coded because I couldn't any place to edit it (maybe I didn't look hard enough though).

Look in wpn-slot 20, every carrier has "aircraft ordnance" in this slot.

[el cid again]

I went a different direction for RHS. Instead of limiting torpedo usage, I added many torpedo capable ships and planes. If you like torpedo destroyers - play RHSBBO - you get many of the 16 planned. I gave the Allies two important medium bombers with torpedo capability (Ventura and B-26) - in their early marks. I gave Japan even more bombers able to deliver torpedoes - notably a heavy one (G8N1) - and I assigned the Ki-61 to the historical NAVY group which operated it - as well as to the historical "torpedo sentai" of JAAF missing from other WITP mods. You don't like torpedoes ? Do do RHS.

It is quite true that torpedoes are a production bottleneck. More so historically than should be in the game. Japan lost 300 torpedoes by being stupid (putting them on two raiders lost in the Indian Ocean). If players really could manage production and deployment, trust me on this: torpedoes would be not be limited either. I play games where you must manage every last torpedo - and players gleefully do so.

Part of this issue is a misunderstanding:

Torpedo armed planes do NOT carry torpedoes all the time! Fly against a land target? No torpedoes. Fly over the normal range? No torpedoes. And both are quite correct.
Torpedoes are ONLY a factor IF you are in a reasonable distance of base.

Part of this issue is a failure to grasp technical reality:

Small airfields CAN handle torpedoes. Wether or not they DO handle them is a different subject - but UP TO THE COMMAND - not a technical limitation. In fact, an aircraft carrier is in fact a "small airfield" - and surely it handles torpedoes. It is the UNIT that matters - the plane and its support elements - not the airfield size. You give me total control, you better not assume I will never put torpedoes - anywhere they might be useful. Because I will do that. WITP does not let players be in control in the direct form of managing where their few torpedoes go - or how many are made even. But it DOES let us manage them by saying "I want to fly a torpedo armed plane on a anti-shipping mission in normal range" - as it should. I think that is perfectly legitimate. Complaining "this isn't historical" is missing the point: the ONLY question is "can it be done?" IF it can be done, your opponent gets to decide IF it is done. War properly includes the unlikely as well as the likely - and you don't get to make the choices of the other side. Either operational choices, logistic c hoices or production choices. Not yours to make.

If you want to SELF restrict - fine - do so. Just don't expect, demand or advocate the enemy do the same. Maybe HE puts more resources in torpedoes - and if it is me - bet on it. An efficient weapon - Japan in particular having the best on the planet should focus more on them.

This war is unbalanced - so the game is as well. Japan is horribly penalized. Just by its size. And by its long list of enemies. Take away the short list of advantages it has, it is not a contest any more. Why play if Japan MUST repeat its mistakes - and not allocate or produce or distribute enough torpedoes?. Just surrender and be done with it.

[RevRick]

ORIGINAL: spence

In Friedman's US Aircraft carriers appendix D there are several magazine loadouts. below is the Enterprise in Oct 43

100lb GP 504
500lb GP 288
500lb SAP 288
1000lb GP 378
1000lb SAP 378
1000lb AP 378
1600lb AP 18
2000lb GP 18
325lb DC 288
100lb Inc 288
Torpedoes 36

Without counting DCs and antipersonnel bombs that's over 40 anti-ship sorties per SBD assigned. Seems a bit much on the bombs...but then maybe the US CVs should have a higher max sortie number. #Torps more or less commeasurate with IJN though...roughly 2 anti-ship attack sorties per TBF.

Without counting DCs and antipersonnel bombs that's over 40 anti-ship sorties per SBD assigned. Seems a bit much on the bombs...but then maybe the US CVs should have a higher max sortie number. #Torps more or less commeasurate with IJN though...roughly 2 anti-ship attack sorties per TBF.

Even WWII carriers were big ships, and bomb's don't take up a lot of space. Also, keep in mind that they usually operated for weeks at a time before reloading from AEs, and that in port. They had to carry that many bombs to be able to accomplish the mission assigned for several weeks, possibly.

But, torpedoes are finicky beasts, take constant tinkering, and require shops, special storage, and tender loving care if they are to work and/or not explode in your face.

The thing about Betty's is that I have had raids of 100+ Bettys hit task forces off Guadalcanal with torpedos and then come back that day with another raid (smaller) and use up more torpedos than the entire KB would use for a mission. THAT is wrong. Personally, I never attack shipping at sea with FE bombers, because I want to play a game which reflects at least a semblance of reality, and reality was that B17s and B24s couldn't hit the broad side of a bulls butt with a bass fiddled when aiming at a ship, unless it was tied up to a pier, not singled up, and not ready to steam.

The best defense against Betty's flying torpedo missions is to pound the bases from which they fly with FE bombers. That is more of what they were designed to do anyway.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
It is quite true that torpedoes are a production bottleneck. More so historically than should be in the game. Japan lost 300 torpedoes by being stupid (putting them on two raiders lost in the Indian Ocean).

So IJN put 300 torpedos on two marginally important ships they didn't know how to use anyway, and were carrying ~40 torps (give or take a few) per ship on their first class CVs?

I hereby return my "Jap fanboi club" membership card and join the "These guys oughta had their heads examined fanboi" club [:D]

[Feinder]

I have seen raids in excess of 500 bombers from level 5 fields and raids over 400 bombers from level 4. Even level 3 airfields put up sizeable raids that are virtually impossible to stop.

 
Please to post combat reports.
 
Thanks,
-F-

[jolly_pillager]

I agree with whoever posted the idea before that applying the die roll mechanic currently used for 1000# AP Bombs should be applied to torpedoes as well.

Would fix the problem nicely I think...without recoding everything and without forcing the player to track yet another supply item.

[bradfordkay]

Sid, if torpedo production was correctly modeled, I would have no problem with torpedoes at small bases. In this thread we have been discussing "house rules" to limit aerial torpedo usage to give the game a more "realistic flavour". Do you think it realistic that the Japanese can grab Jolo Is and the next day be torpedoing all shipping in and out of Darwin? The losses to aerial torpedoes in this game are very high, extraordinarily high when compared to the real war. There are those of us who would like to see this curtailed somewhat.

I agree with jolly pillager and whoever he was agreeing with: the extra die roll a la 1000lb bombs would be an acceptable solution. Barring that, I like a house rule that slightly restricts their usage to more developed bases just to stop some of the silliness.

As an example of this silliness, in my newest game (Dec 18, '41), the AI has over 400 a/c based at Kuching and I am now having serious difficulties getting anything in and out Singapore, Palembang, Tarakan and Balikpapan. When you consider the fact that in the real war shipping continued to sail in and out of Singapore up to the last minute - and very few torpedo attacks were made upon this shipping (the vast majority of anti-shipping strikes here were bombing runs, not torpedo runs), the game has this wrong.

Please don't act like those who want this addressed are wild eyed fanboys. We are long term wargamers, students of the theatre, who are seeing something that allows extremely ahistorical outcomes. I have no problem with either side trying something new, something that might not have happened IRL. I do have a problem with something happening that goes way beyond what was historically possible. This is the situation that we have right now.

You talk about Japan being horribly restricted by the game, and yet if you read the AARs, how many allied auto victories have been occurring? Compare this to how many Japanese auto victories... your statement does not ring true.