Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
Yes, the US .308 bullet came in an a.p. variety. It could penetrate German h.t.s but at only silly close range as I recall. At that range, the better weapon that one could fire from the Garand was the rifle grenade.
ORIGINAL: Dili
Yes, the US .308 bullet came in an a.p. variety. It could penetrate German h.t.s but at only silly close range as I recall. At that range, the better weapon that one could fire from the Garand was the rifle grenade.
Well and adding to that a penetration doesn't always mean a vehicle kill and with such a tiny bullet even less.
ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk
Personally, game balance is irrelevant.
Usual issue, rl vs. capabilities. Irl B-25s, as a plane, clearly had the capability to launch torpedoes. The IJN so rarely operated capital ships in range of Allied LBA that there weren't enough opportunities to make the effort in training and equipment worthwhile. Had the they run bombardment tfs freight-train style as sometimes happens in the game, it's probable USAAF as an organization would have been more interested in developing the capability.
ORIGINAL: Cerix
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Express
The tactic involved loading personnel or supplies onto fast warships, such as destroyers or other warships, and using the warships' speed capability to deliver the personnel or supplies to the desired location and return to the originating base all within one night so Allied aircraft could not intercept them by day.
Let's not unbalance the game by putting torps on US medium bombers.
If torpedos were that effective for the medium bombers then they surely would have been used IRL.
As has been posted, they clearly tried to use them but found it wasn't feasible for no doubt a variety of reasons.
ORIGINAL: Cerix
ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk
Personally, game balance is irrelevant.
Usual issue, rl vs. capabilities. Irl B-25s, as a plane, clearly had the capability to launch torpedoes. The IJN so rarely operated capital ships in range of Allied LBA that there weren't enough opportunities to make the effort in training and equipment worthwhile. Had the they run bombardment tfs freight-train style as sometimes happens in the game, it's probable USAAF as an organization would have been more interested in developing the capability.
Hmm..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Express
ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk
Any major differences in flight profile between torpedo attacks and skipbombing for 2e bombers?
ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk
Any major differences in flight profile between torpedo attacks and skipbombing for 2e bombers?
Speed, I'd say.
Until arrival of late war model Mk 13 torpedo, torpedo bomber had to fly quite slow speed. No such restriction in skip bombing and strafing.
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Let's not unbalance the game by putting torps on US medium bombers.
Game balance is irrelevant in a consim. A good consim gives the players plausible strategic and tactical capability and corrects for the imbalance, game-wise, by tweaking victory conditions.
The fact that Japanese players have the ability to make far more extensive use of aerial ASW than was historical practice does not seem to bother anyone -- even though as a matter of doctrine the IJAAF felt that ASW was largely the job of the imperial navy. In my view, torpedoes on USMC operated medium bombers is far more plausible than depth charges on most IJAAF bombers because the USMC had a doctrine and extensive training for use of medium bombers armed with torpedoes.
If torpedos were that effective for the medium bombers then they surely would have been used IRL.
Only if real life conditions had placed a premium or torp armed medium bombers. Real life did not. WitP, however, because it generates potentially vastly different operational and tactical constraints in certain theaters, may put the Allied player in a position where torp armed B-25s are desirable.
The principle reason why mediums weren't deployed with torpedoes is because in the vast reaches of the Pacific, it was the USN's fleet carriers who brought torpedo bombers into the range of Japanese targets (because the Japanese were on the defensive after November 1942). In the real war, the only place where torp armed B-25s might have been very useful was in the Battle of the Bismarck Sea. But at that point in the war, USN aerial torps were rather in short supply, and retained primarily for use from US fleet carriers.
But one can EASILY imagine a situation where in, for example, June 1942, the US player has no carriers. Had that happened historically, you'd have seen many examples of B-25s dropping torpedo warshots.
As has been posted, they clearly tried to use them but found it wasn't feasible for no doubt a variety of reasons.
I'm not sure who posted that, but if they did it was a shallow analysis. It was only unfeasible because of the particular operational circumstances of the day. Put another way, there is no doubt that if the Japanese had not attacked the Philippines, then eventually in 1942 torpedo armed B-25s would have been stationed there. The same could be said for a Japanese attempt to invade India by sea, or if the Indonesian barrier had held out much longer than in the real thing.
Imo torp carrying B-25s would have been developed if a need for them was demonstrated. It wasn't.
You apparently think it was a simple and obvious tactic and weapon. Really? I say again that there were a LOT of very smart people fighting that war on all sides. Surely this tactic was seriously considered and rejected for a variety of reasons--poor results, too expensive, too sophisticated to use in mass quantities, not enough ordinance, too many pilots and planes were going to die flying low and slow into flak....the list I'm sure goes on and on.
I prefer to play the game with the tools and tactics the commanders had to use at the time, which I think the game developers have done an admirable, if not perfectly perfect, job of creating. Creating a B-25 torpedo bomber is reinventing a hammer if not the wheel, but I suppose that's what some folks like mods for...fantasy.
While you're at it, give the B-17 a torpedo load out. That surely was a possibility, so we should clearly be given the option.
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Imo torp carrying B-25s would have been developed if a need for them was demonstrated. It wasn't.
Torpedo armed B-25s WERE DEVELOPED. That seems to be the key point you've overlooked. USMC B-25 drivers were trained in torpedo attack from 1943 onward. But since the Japanese were on the defensive, torpedo strike missions delivered against Japanse targets were by circumstances limited to the fleet carriers, because these were the offensive weapons that carried torpedo bombers into range against the IJN.
If there had been a protracted defensive war on the US part, or if the combat had gone long in the Malay barrier, or brought the IJN into close proximity of places where the USN could not easily react, such as the Indian Ocean in 1943, torpedo armed B-25s would have been deployed there.
Sorry, I should have been clearer. Was referring to USAAF.
But again I point out the IJN didn't really use torpedoes on their 2E's, and they had ample targets that would justify the attempt if it was at all feasible.
Could you give some specific references to the above, both the B-25 torpedo training and anything explaining why the IJN did not use torps on their 2E's?
