Do TBFs ever use torpedoes...

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

mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Do TBFs ever use torpedoes...

Post by mdiehl »

If those 20 500-er caused 10 sys dmg


Perhaps they're not causing enough system damage. 20 500 lbers on any BB ever made would mission kill the BB. Quite apart from fires, you'd have lousy funnel draft, substantial damage to secondary and AAA armament, communications and radar failures, modest flooding, reduced speed, and substantial injury to personnel.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
rockmedic109
Posts: 2472
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 11:02 am
Location: Citrus Heights, CA

RE: Do TBFs ever use torpedoes...

Post by rockmedic109 »

Star castling is going speed 2-4 with all extra power to shield reinforcement.  Going faster allowed you to maneuver around the shield with reinforcement and hit unreinforced shields.
Menser
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 9:55 pm
Location: Peabody, Massachusetts

RE: Do TBFs ever use torpedoes...

Post by Menser »

I prefered the Kaufman Retrograde myself [:D]
"Alea iacta est." Caius Julius
"If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing." Emo Philips
"Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." Abbot Arnaud Amalric
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Do TBFs ever use torpedoes...

Post by witpqs »

I always thought that was hokey. I mean, if the engines were designed to work as well in reverse as in forward, they would look symmetrical front to back.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Do TBFs ever use torpedoes...

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

Star castling is going speed 2-4 with all extra power to shield reinforcement.  Going faster allowed you to maneuver around the shield with reinforcement and hit unreinforced shields.

Thanks. Never heard that name.

Regarding those enveloping plasma-R's - gotta love 'em. Especially when pseudo torps are in play. Are those the real ones? aka "Do you feel lucky today, Punk? Well do ya?" [:D]
rockmedic109
Posts: 2472
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 11:02 am
Location: Citrus Heights, CA

RE: Do TBFs ever use torpedoes...

Post by rockmedic109 »

I was partial to the power of a Federation fleet's Photons.  All firing at max rang at one ship.  Not enough to cripple a cruiser but it was enough to cause Sudden Escort Death Syndrome.
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: Do TBFs ever use torpedoes...

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Menser

500lb bomb? Thats funny ....I thought the Kates that didn't launch torps were dropping 800kg bombs (modified BB shells) at Pearl .....1760 lb bombs ...... more than enough penitration for the deck armor at 10,000 feet.


you are right, they do drop 800kg AP bombs, but rockmedic talks about US TBFs on port attack, they drop 500lb ! bombs on port attack if they don´t drop torps.
Thanks Castor.

But if the target is a battleship {or even a CA}, those 500lb bombs might just as well be ping-pong balls or even cotton balls! Disgruntling to see 20+ hits on a battleship or cruiser and know that none of them penetrated. I can only hope that enough fires were created to be a problem.


I know what you are talking about. Don´t give much about the fires caused by 20x500 lb bombs (yes they cause damage but I guess only something around 10 sys dam and a couple of secondary arms knocked out in the end).

Best thing would be to close in to three hexes and use Dauntless or Helldivers on normal range, they drop 1000 lb bombs then - which still won´t really hurt a BB though.
User avatar
Feinder
Posts: 7205
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:33 pm
Location: Land o' Lakes, FL

RE: Do TBFs ever use torpedoes...

Post by Feinder »

Unfortunately, WitP is all-or-nothing for penetration (to keep up the SFB analogy: I always preferred to play with "leaky shields" to avert the same principle).
 
50 non-penetrating hits isn't going to do much in WitP.  Yes, 50x 1000# bomb hits would hurt (most secondaries blown away), but you're still looking at probaly 15 - 20 sys damage and maybe 20 fires (which will be extenguished at end of turn if in port as this thread is about).
 
I think in AE, there seems to be some load-out options (torp or no-torp at least).
 
And to throw into the mix, the USN was moving away from torpedo bombers by end of war, because low-n-level (TB) wasn't as effective at ordinance delivery as high-n-fast (DB).  DBs were both more survivable and accurate than TBs.  I find it ironic that later-war squadrons (with more DBs than TBs) are actually a bit handicapped in WitP because torps trump all in WitP.
 
Speaking of which, why is the Helldiver rated for only one 1000# bomb?  Just about everything I've ever read says it usually carried 2x 1000# bombs, or a torpedo (now -that- would be sweet!).
 
-F-
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

Image
rockmedic109
Posts: 2472
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 11:02 am
Location: Citrus Heights, CA

RE: Do TBFs ever use torpedoes...

Post by rockmedic109 »

Where would a Helldiver put a second 1000lb bomb?  Wings weren't strong enough were they?
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: Do TBFs ever use torpedoes...

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Unfortunately, WitP is all-or-nothing for penetration (to keep up the SFB analogy: I always preferred to play with "leaky shields" to avert the same principle).

50 non-penetrating hits isn't going to do much in WitP.  Yes, 50x 1000# bomb hits would hurt (most secondaries blown away), but you're still looking at probaly 15 - 20 sys damage and maybe 20 fires (which will be extenguished at end of turn if in port as this thread is about).

I think in AE, there seems to be some load-out options (torp or no-torp at least).

And to throw into the mix, the USN was moving away from torpedo bombers by end of war, because low-n-level (TB) wasn't as effective at ordinance delivery as high-n-fast (DB).  DBs were both more survivable and accurate than TBs.  I find it ironic that later-war squadrons (with more DBs than TBs) are actually a bit handicapped in WitP because torps trump all in WitP.

Speaking of which, why is the Helldiver rated for only one 1000# bomb?  Just about everything I've ever read says it usually carried 2x 1000# bombs, or a torpedo (now -that- would be sweet!).

-F-


would love to see a dive bombing Helldiver with a torp! [;)]
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: Do TBFs ever use torpedoes...

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

Where would a Helldiver put a second 1000lb bomb?  Wings weren't strong enough were they?


answer below:

Manufacturer Curtiss-Wright Corporation
Type Navy Dive Bomber
Engine Wright R-2600 Cyclone (1900HP @ takeoff power)
Wing Span 49 Feet 9 Inches
Length 36 Feet 9 Inches
Height 14 Feet 9 Inches
Gross Weight 13,674 Pounds
Max Takeoff Weight 16,800 Pounds
Empty Weight 10,114 Pounds
Max. Speed 294 MPH
Normal Cruise Speed approx 195 MPH
Rate of Climb 1,750 Ft/min
Ceiling 25,000 Feet
Range 1,200 Miles
Crew 2 (pilot, radio operator/gunner)
Armament 2X20 MM Cannons with 800 rounds per gun
2X.30 Caliber Machine Guns with 2,000 rounds per gun
Disposable Ordnance Internal bomb bay - up 2000 lbs of bombs, depth charges or a Mk 13-2 torpedo
Two under-wing hard points - up to 500 lbs each of bombs, depth charges or unguided rockets

The Helldiver's performance has been maligned by many critics, frequently without regard to the facts. Some comparisons to other Navy aircraft are enlightening. The SB2C-4 had a higher cruising speed and greater range (without drop tanks) than the TBM Avenger, and a significantly higher top speed. It easily outperformed the SBD Dauntless in every category except range. Its cruising speed was only two mph slower than the F6F Hellcat. Only the F4U Corsair, among contemporary carrier-based aircraft, had a significantly superior speed. The Corsair could carry the same load as the Helldiver but over a much shorter range. Of aircraft designed in the same, immediate pre-war period, only the Corsair outlasted it in front-line Navy service.

rockmedic109
Posts: 2472
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 11:02 am
Location: Citrus Heights, CA

RE: Do TBFs ever use torpedoes...

Post by rockmedic109 »

Did the bomb bay have two ejector mechanisms?  Or could it carry 1 bomb up to 2000lbs?  I think it was the later.
User avatar
Feinder
Posts: 7205
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:33 pm
Location: Land o' Lakes, FL

RE: Do TBFs ever use torpedoes...

Post by Feinder »

( nevermind )
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

Image
User avatar
Feinder
Posts: 7205
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:33 pm
Location: Land o' Lakes, FL

RE: Do TBFs ever use torpedoes...

Post by Feinder »

Actually, they -did- carry 2x 1000# bombs (not always).

This is an after action report by VB-20 from USS Enterprise flying Helldivers.

Deck Logs of USS Enterprise
Attack on Enemy Task Force: 25 October 1944
Launched at 1200, our group consisting of 10 bombers, 5 torpedo planes, and 6 fighters. We joined up with planes from the other three carriers in Task Force Group 38.4, with the Franklin planes in the lead. This entire striking group comprised 25 bombers, 27 torpedo planes, and about 30 fighters. Group proceeded to reported position enemy disposition. At 1315 the group of enemy cripples sighted at reported position. At 1325 the enemy's main force sighted, consisting of 2 carriers, both damaged, one very slightly, one battleship, 2 cruisers, and 4 or 5 destroyers. Strike from Task Group 38.3 attacked and sank the large CV (Zuikaku). The Franklin planes attacked the smaller carrier (Otaka) with no apparent major damage resulting.

Then we delivered our attack. Approach was made from the southwest, planes coming in exactly out of the sun, and with above average benefit from a cloud cover. Dive was made to the north. Due to planes coming out of the sun and cloud cover, there was no AA fire during approach, and very little during dive. All ships opened up with intense AA of all calibre on retirement, maintaining this fire until planes were 15 miles away. Due to clouds and the necessity for expediting the retirement to a considerable distance, there was little chance for good observation of bomb hits. From 4 to 6 bombs were reported as being near misses in the water around the stern of the ship. Each plane having a bomb load of one 1,000 lb. AP and one 1,000 lb. SAP, this leaves a total of 14 to 16 bombs that were possibly hits. Carrier started burning and CAG-20 reported seeing internal explosions following this attack. While rendezvous was being effected to west of enemy forces, Target Coordinator kept us informed of the condition of this ship, which we left burning badly dead in the water and settling. He subsequently saw the carrier sink.

When we left this northern enemy force, it consisted of this one badly damaged carrier, one battleship, two cruisers, and 4 or 5 destroyers. On the way back to base, we again passed ships which had been with crippled enemy group. These ships had apparently forsaken the small carrier lying dead in the water to the south and were steaming north to join other forces. The ships seen steaming north were one battleship, one light cruiser and one Terutsuki class destroyer. The battleship seemed to be slightly damaged.
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

Image
rockmedic109
Posts: 2472
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 11:02 am
Location: Citrus Heights, CA

RE: Do TBFs ever use torpedoes...

Post by rockmedic109 »

Double the chance to hit {gamewise anyway}?  I like it.
 
Thanks for the info.
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: Do TBFs ever use torpedoes...

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Actually, they -did- carry 2x 1000# bombs (not always).

But this is an after action report by VB-20 from USS Enterprise flying Helldivers.

Deck Logs of USS Enterprise
Attack on Enemy Task Force: 25 October 1944
Launched at 1200, our group consisting of 10 bombers, 5 torpedo planes, and 6 fighters. We joined up with planes from the other three carriers in Task Force Group 38.4, with the Franklin planes in the lead. This entire striking group comprised 25 bombers, 27 torpedo planes, and about 30 fighters. Group proceeded to reported position enemy disposition. At 1315 the group of enemy cripples sighted at reported position. At 1325 the enemy's main force sighted, consisting of 2 carriers, both damaged, one very slightly, one battleship, 2 cruisers, and 4 or 5 destroyers. Strike from Task Group 38.3 attacked and sank the large CV (Zuikaku). The Franklin planes attacked the smaller carrier (Otaka) with no apparent major damage resulting.

Then we delivered our attack. Approach was made from the southwest, planes coming in exactly out of the sun, and with above average benefit from a cloud cover. Dive was made to the north. Due to planes coming out of the sun and cloud cover, there was no AA fire during approach, and very little during dive. All ships opened up with intense AA of all calibre on retirement, maintaining this fire until planes were 15 miles away. Due to clouds and the necessity for expediting the retirement to a considerable distance, there was little chance for good observation of bomb hits. From 4 to 6 bombs were reported as being near misses in the water around the stern of the ship. Each plane having a bomb load of one 1,000 lb. AP and one 1,000 lb. SAP, this leaves a total of 14 to 16 bombs that were possibly hits. Carrier started burning and CAG-20 reported seeing internal explosions following this attack. While rendezvous was being effected to west of enemy forces, Target Coordinator kept us informed of the condition of this ship, which we left burning badly dead in the water and settling. He subsequently saw the carrier sink.

When we left this northern enemy force, it consisted of this one badly damaged carrier, one battleship, two cruisers, and 4 or 5 destroyers. On the way back to base, we again passed ships which had been with crippled enemy group. These ships had apparently forsaken the small carrier lying dead in the water to the south and were steaming north to join other forces. The ships seen steaming north were one battleship, one light cruiser and one Terutsuki class destroyer. The battleship seemed to be slightly damaged.


where was my IJN Cap that took down 75% of the attackers?? [X(] Must have been a bug! [;)]
User avatar
Feinder
Posts: 7205
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:33 pm
Location: Land o' Lakes, FL

RE: Do TBFs ever use torpedoes...

Post by Feinder »

I'm missing those 1000# AP bombs... 
 
[;)]
-F-
 
 
 
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

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

RE: Do TBFs ever use torpedoes...

Post by bradfordkay »

ORIGINAL: tocaff

I'd love to see the Kates putting fish in the water on 12/7, just once.

Start a game as the allies... I bet you will then!
fair winds,
Brad
Post Reply

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