ABDA & Malaya commands in CHS

[bradfordkay]

Sometimes I think that WITP is Billy Mitchell's wet dream: the land based bomber controls the battlefield. The Betties and Nells certainly control the seas in the game far better than they ever did IRL, and the allied level bombers are much more accurate at any sort of altitude above 2000' than they ever were IRL. This causes a much greater loss of shipping and troops (going down with the ship), than we actually saw.

I think that there's a combination of factors involved in this, but I am in favour of any attempts to fix it (that work).

[Nikademus]

it doesn't help that players often tend to stick their forces down the throats of land based air power with a "as long as they get through and land mentality"

[bradfordkay]

If the allies don't so this, Nik, then they can't progress across the map.

To move against Lunga or New Guinea puts you within range of the torpedo swarm, whose base is far out of the range of allied LBA. I had one game agaisnt the AI where, in trying to keep Pt Moresby supplied, I lost well over a hundred AKs in that harbor - and I was cramming every fighter I could spare into that base (and that wasn't invading PM, it was merely trying to hang on to it).

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Sometimes I think that WITP is Billy Mitchell's wet dream: the land based bomber controls the battlefield. The Betties and Nells certainly control the seas in the game far better than they ever did IRL, and the allied level bombers are much more accurate at any sort of altitude above 2000' than they ever were IRL. This causes a much greater loss of shipping and troops (going down with the ship), than we actually saw.

I think that there's a combination of factors involved in this, but I am in favour of any attempts to fix it (that work).

As far as I can tell, the main problem with Betties is too many torpedoes being produced. Doctrine was to save torpedoes for warships, which suggests a certain scarcity.

[Bliztk]

Well, Sunburst, cites that only a few betty formations trained for low level torpedo attacks before the war because they were used in China to long-range strategic bombing.

For example when Japanese Intelligence learned of that PoW and Repulse were at Singapore they redeployed a torpedo trained squadron (Genzan ¿?) to Saigon.

I think that the same squadron attacked the Marines at Guadalcanal on 9th August (the famous photos of Betties at mast level)

[treespider]

I reccomend the book Rikko Units....

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Well, Sunburst, cites that only a few betty formations trained for low level torpedo attacks before the war because they were used in China to long-range strategic bombing.

For example when Japanese Intelligence learned of that PoW and Repulse were at Singapore they redeployed a torpedo trained squadron (Genzan ¿?) to Saigon.

I think that the same squadron attacked the Marines at Guadalcanal on 9th August (the famous photos of Betties at mast level)

So the questions are - how many "torpedo trained" squadrons were there? And which squadrons were they?

Would it be more or less realistic to have only a portion of the air units able to attack with torpedoes?

Andrew

[treespider]

I am of the opinion that it was not lack of trained units ...IMO we didn't see greater use of the torpedoes in 1941- early 1942  due to a number of factors:

A) Force Z was sunk which eliminated a large naval threat early. This resulted in a lack of worthy targets in the South China Sea. So the Rikko units were used to patrol and attack airfields.

B) Lack of facilities in and around Celebes and other portions of the eastern NEI which could be used to adequately equip and arm the planes.

As an example - in February 1942 the USS Lexington approached Rabaul ...the Osprey book has this to say ...
"This was Vice Adm Wilson Brown's Group, centered around the fleet carrier USS Lexington, heading for a raid on Rabaul. Rear Adm Eiji Goto, 24th Koku Sentai commander, ordered an attack, but torpedoes had not yet been brought to this newly captured outpost."
 
The planes conducting the attack were from the 4th Ku which was composed of three chutai ...one from Chitose Kokutai which had been supporting the Wake island operations and two other chutai from Takao Kokutai which had been based on Jolo. The book makes no mention that the units weren't trained merely that torpedoes were not available. And these were not the units that attacked Force Z.

The attack on Force Z was carried out by Kanoya Ku, Genzan Ku and Mihoro Ku. Genzan Ku flying Type 96's used torpedoes. Mihoro Ku flying Type 96's used bombs and torpedoes and Kanoya Ku used torpedoes.

[Nikademus]

In the case of Rabaul it was the classic case of too little pace of preperation. The Japanese were asleep at the wheel logistically given the focus on the Southern advance. This created opportunities for US pinprick strikes.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

If the allies don't so this, Nik, then they can't progress across the map.

To move against Lunga or New Guinea puts you within range of the torpedo swarm, whose base is far out of the range of allied LBA. I had one game agaisnt the AI where, in trying to keep Pt Moresby supplied, I lost well over a hundred AKs in that harbor - and I was cramming every fighter I could spare into that base (and that wasn't invading PM, it was merely trying to hang on to it).

Its not the whole problem, but its part of it. Thats all i was saying. The principle culprit is not too many torpedoes. Its too many planes able to concentrate quickly at one or two bases. I'd also say its a bit of too many planes and trained pilots. (not as in, trained to drop torps...but trained period)

The Allied side has a similar problem in terms of the ability to concentrate and maintain concentration.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Well, Sunburst, cites that only a few betty formations trained for low level torpedo attacks before the war because they were used in China to long-range strategic bombing.

For example when Japanese Intelligence learned of that PoW and Repulse were at Singapore they redeployed a torpedo trained squadron (Genzan ¿?) to Saigon.

I think that the same squadron attacked the Marines at Guadalcanal on 9th August (the famous photos of Betties at mast level)

However Sunburst does confirm that the conception of the G3m/G4m plane was use as a naval torpedo bomber. I found no reference to specific groups that only trained in torp action, however the naval units were pulled into China where they gained valuable operational experience. However on the con side, too much sustained use in this role would degrade their naval attack skills and require 'refresher' sessions.

Another oft highlighted issue with WitP's exp gradiant. You can build up fighter and naval attack proficiency simply by bombing land targets.

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus




Its not the whole problem, but its part of it. Thats all i was saying. The principle culprit is not too many torpedoes. Its too many planes able to concentrate quickly at one or two bases. I'd also say its a bit of too many planes and trained pilots. (not as in, trained to drop torps...but trained period)

The Allied side has a similar problem in terms of the ability to concentrate and maintain concentration.

Agreed, that's why in my earlier post I mentioned both the Betty/Nell and allied LB situations. Again, I think that there's a combination of factors involved in this, but I am in favour of any attempts to fix it (that work).

[Nikademus]

there's a new NM scenario that attempts it (two actually)

[;)]

[spence]

it doesn't help that players often tend to stick their forces down the throats of land based air power with a "as long as they get through and land mentality"

Both sides can afford to do it cause they really don't need all the merchie hulls they are given but the tendency is exaccerbated for the Japanese player since "they" will get through and land since the Allies' bombs seem never to sink the merchie til 3 weeks after the battle is over.

The attack on Force Z was carried out by Kanoya Ku, Genzan Ku and Mihoro Ku. Genzan Ku flying Type 96's used torpedoes. Mihoro Ku flying Type 96's used bombs and torpedoes and Kanoya Ku used torpedoes

Even the premier and most famous attack (and the one that apparently justifes in some folks minds the "all torpedos all the time" model) involved some of these a/c dropping bombs.

In my Scenario 2 mod I tried to create a special torpedo bomber version of the Nell, Betty and Kate while editing the normal to carry bombs as the default loadout....didn't work. At least some of the "bombs only" Nells and Bettys launched with torpedos anyways during some testing. (Might have something to do with hard coding of the slots for torpedo carrying planes...not very good at this editor stuff though.)

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: spence

Both sides can afford to do it cause they really don't need all the merchie hulls they are given but the tendency is exaccerbated for the Japanese player since "they" will get through and land since the Allies' bombs seem never to sink the merchie til 3 weeks after the battle is over.

The durability and profusion of merchant hulls is an equal issue for both sides. Torps are better against them, but they remain resistant enough to often push things through. The transports will be lost but the troops get through.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

there's a new NM scenario that attempts it (two actually)

[;)]

Likewise treespider's Scenario attempts to tackle the problem through the reduction of base sizes...Smaller bases = less planes able to operate optimally from any given base.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Sometimes I think that WITP is Billy Mitchell's wet dream: the land based bomber controls the battlefield. The Betties and Nells certainly control the seas in the game far better than they ever did IRL, and the allied level bombers are much more accurate at any sort of altitude above 2000' than they ever were IRL. This causes a much greater loss of shipping and troops (going down with the ship), than we actually saw.

I think that there's a combination of factors involved in this, but I am in favour of any attempts to fix it (that work).

Methinks once again you are not playing RHS. Bombers do NOT control the same way they do prior to it. The change at the device level was a big part of it. So was air combat changes. So was AAA combat changes. And finally - I did also limit which units can carry torpedoes - and now even reversed that - so upgrading to certain planes will NOT give you torpedoes - only if your unit is born with the plane AND I put the torpedo on it there. The chance a few planes will penetrate is high - but not enough to do nuclear bombardment.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

it doesn't help that players often tend to stick their forces down the throats of land based air power with a "as long as they get through and land mentality"

It is true that real naval commanders are far more cautious than gamers are - as a rule. The value of naval assets - and embarked military units - is so high many real world decisions would be regarded as cowardly by most gamers. But IRL they are prudent.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

If the allies don't so this, Nik, then they can't progress across the map.

To move against Lunga or New Guinea puts you within range of the torpedo swarm, whose base is far out of the range of allied LBA. I had one game agaisnt the AI where, in trying to keep Pt Moresby supplied, I lost well over a hundred AKs in that harbor - and I was cramming every fighter I could spare into that base (and that wasn't invading PM, it was merely trying to hang on to it).

Bad integration of assets. The Allies should NEVER consider putting a landing force of any size (fast light raiders and sub raiders excepted) in range of a major enemy land air base. They should bomb the enemy into submission first. That is the real way it was done. Further - the Allies should ALWAYS cover the landing - except Guadalcanal (which we never repeated) we had very adequate land and/or sea based fighter cover over major landing forces.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Sometimes I think that WITP is Billy Mitchell's wet dream: the land based bomber controls the battlefield. The Betties and Nells certainly control the seas in the game far better than they ever did IRL, and the allied level bombers are much more accurate at any sort of altitude above 2000' than they ever were IRL. This causes a much greater loss of shipping and troops (going down with the ship), than we actually saw.

I think that there's a combination of factors involved in this, but I am in favour of any attempts to fix it (that work).

As far as I can tell, the main problem with Betties is too many torpedoes being produced. Doctrine was to save torpedoes for warships, which suggests a certain scarcity.

And IF we could limit them, and IF we could select our loadouts - we might do that. On the other hand, how do players have intel about the nature of the target?

Spence actually has a good idea - he just pushes it too far: limit the number of UNITS that can do naval attack and things work reasonably well.

We must simplify and compromise or we will never have any releasable game - fact of low budget game designer life.