Allied CVs, early war

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Chezdajez did some research arguing against torpedo armed B-25's in the game, but I find that the B-25a could be fitted with a shackle that allowed torpedo use. Then again , the Navy tested a version for CV use, but decided against it. [X(]

Youre adding to my argument. [:D] So (unlike me) someone put in the time to do the research and discovered that the US did test the possibility, found that it was possible and decided not to go ahead with it. I can totally understand not wanting to deal with CV-born Mitchells but those G variants with all them guns in the nose that were specifically built to attack Japanese shipping...doesnt that sound like the perfect place to use a torpedo bomber?

I think a CV borne B-25 wouldn't be good for an Essex class, but for the Midways? They carrier both P-2V's (Neptunes) and AJ-1 (Savages) for the nuclear attack role. A XB-25 nuclear bomber? [&:]

[spence]

The design of the most US twin engine bombers allowed a torpedo to be carried but combat proved that bombs worked well enough and were cheaper in terms of just plain cost and in the time and effort required to train crews to launch them.

Besides the B-26s at the time of Midway some PV-1 and PV-2 crews trained with torpedoes but none apparently ever made a "warshot". I have found one curious picture taken on Attu in the Aleutians though which shows a torpedo being loaded onto a PV-2 (kind of a curious training locale I should think).

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

Beaufighter TB variant? That was well into the war, no?

later on, yes.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Chezdajez did some research arguing against torpedo armed B-25's in the game, but I find that the B-25a could be fitted with a shackle that allowed torpedo use. Then again , the Navy tested a version for CV use, but decided against it. [X(]

yes he did. He found that few of the B-25 groups designated for torpedo training actually did any serious training. Most that did carried concrete weights. His primary argument (after his reserach) was that the groups that had trained (somewhat) were not deployed with the logistics to support it nor was their 'practice' kept up. Thus his argument was that no, one could not justify altering in the game giving some B-25 varients the loudout option. The G4M and G3M's could because it was standard doctrine for them, assuming the logistics were in place which AE now simulates with the Torpedo Ordinance device embedded in certain Air HQ's.

Could the B-25 carry a torp? yes. Could the B-26? yes. Many 2E's could be retrofited to do so including the Ju-88 and S-79 and 84 plus the Beaufort and the Mosquito. Oh and the Soviets strapped a couple onto the IL-4

Hell everyone by now has heard the famous story of the PBY at Lunga jury rigged to lug two torpedoes.

Oh....and the Emily could lug a couple. (wait for it)

Me....i'd like to strap a couple onto a Sunderland + 4 DC's..........a pumpkin and two M-80 firecrackers

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

What about the Med?

Again.....finances. The Med was the most important non-home watered theater but the interwar period saw the purse strings at their tightest. Just prior to 1940 when Italy began it's first offensive there was but a single Hurricane located in Egypt to compliment a scratch force of obsolete planes scattered throughout Africa. This included Wellesleys, Vincents, Valentias, Furys and Hartbeestes. Malta started off with a fighter force of 3 Gladiators.

The RN was the principle defender of the Med and they had their CV's. The Italian battlefleet was small but modernizing with the laying down of the Littorios, but England could match them with existing BB's as long as they didnt' get too stretched (which they did)

Air resources were allocated (in general) with Home Islands first priority followed by all the other theaters....this continued even well after the war started. Thats why it took so long to get Spits abroad much less modern bombers. The UK had to supliment with purchased US designs like the Maryland and Hudson.

mulla mulla. The dicatorships could afford to spend a larger bulk of their capita on military projects (though in Germany's case not as much as previously thought)

This is all true. Still, it strikes me as odd that there was no interest at all in developing a land-based TB. The Brits were generally very innovative and ready to try new things. Why not a TB?

What is the Beaufort, if not a TB? She haunted German shipping!

[Historiker]

Could the B-25 carry a torp? yes. Could the B-26? yes. Many 2E's could be retrofited to do so including the Ju-88 and S-79 and 84 plus the Beaufort and the Mosquito. Oh and the Soviets strapped a couple onto the IL-4

I once had a book in my hand about German torpedo planes. It showed pictures with almost every plane carrying a torpedo.
From the usual suspects Ju-88 and He-111 to Do-17 and Do-217 over to Ju-87 and Fw-190...

Without being a flight engineur, I guess that almost any plane able to lift the weight could carry one. But how effective is another matter, as we all know.

[Onime No Kyo]

So we're back to the original point. It was very possible, but it wasnt done.

The reason for it not being done seems to be that bombs worked well enough.

The conclusion I'm coming up with is that AE does not model the damage which bombs could realistically do to ships. Even with lower historical hit rates it seems that bombs were indeed good enough (seems to me that historical hit rates were more like what you'd expect from the Dutch on turn 2 [:D]).

Of course we cant get AE to model such things because with hit rates we get in the game you could eradicate fleets of ships in a single turn. And if we didnt, there would be a general uprising.

Does that seem fairly accurate or is that an unsustainable leap of inference?

[Onime No Kyo]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

ORIGINAL: Nikademus




Again.....finances. The Med was the most important non-home watered theater but the interwar period saw the purse strings at their tightest. Just prior to 1940 when Italy began it's first offensive there was but a single Hurricane located in Egypt to compliment a scratch force of obsolete planes scattered throughout Africa. This included Wellesleys, Vincents, Valentias, Furys and Hartbeestes. Malta started off with a fighter force of 3 Gladiators.

The RN was the principle defender of the Med and they had their CV's. The Italian battlefleet was small but modernizing with the laying down of the Littorios, but England could match them with existing BB's as long as they didnt' get too stretched (which they did)

Air resources were allocated (in general) with Home Islands first priority followed by all the other theaters....this continued even well after the war started. Thats why it took so long to get Spits abroad much less modern bombers. The UK had to supliment with purchased US designs like the Maryland and Hudson.

mulla mulla. The dicatorships could afford to spend a larger bulk of their capita on military projects (though in Germany's case not as much as previously thought)

This is all true. Still, it strikes me as odd that there was no interest at all in developing a land-based TB. The Brits were generally very innovative and ready to try new things. Why not a TB?

What is the Beaufort, if not a TB? She haunted German shipping!

I was referring to pre-war aircraft development.

The answer to that question appears to be that Brits didnt have the money to pursue it and the US didnt have the interest to spend the money to pursue it because Billy Mitchell showed them that bombs work. [:D]

[Onime No Kyo]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Could the B-25 carry a torp? yes. Could the B-26? yes. Many 2E's could be retrofited to do so including the Ju-88 and S-79 and 84 plus the Beaufort and the Mosquito. Oh and the Soviets strapped a couple onto the IL-4

I once had a book in my hand about German torpedo planes. It showed pictures with almost every plane carrying a torpedo.
From the usual suspects Ju-88 and He-111 to Do-17 and Do-217 over to Ju-87 and Fw-190...

Without being a flight engineur, I guess that almost any plane able to lift the weight could carry one. But how effective is another matter, as we all know.

I'm not an...ahm....engineur either but I wonder what unfortunate things strapping a torpedo it it would do to a Stuka's flight characteristics.

[Historiker]

I've found it [:)]

I'm presenting: TP Ju-52/3m - now TB Ju-52/3m

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Chezdajez did some research arguing against torpedo armed B-25's in the game, but I find that the B-25a could be fitted with a shackle that allowed torpedo use. Then again , the Navy tested a version for CV use, but decided against it. [X(]

yes he did. He found that few of the B-25 groups designated for torpedo training actually did any serious training. Most that did carried concrete weights. His primary argument (after his reserach) was that the groups that had trained (somewhat) were not deployed with the logistics to support it nor was their 'practice' kept up. Thus his argument was that no, one could not justify altering in the game giving some B-25 varients the loudout option. The G4M and G3M's could because it was standard doctrine for them, assuming the logistics were in place which AE now simulates with the Torpedo Ordinance device embedded in certain Air HQ's.

Could the B-25 carry a torp? yes. Could the B-26? yes. Many 2E's could be retrofited to do so including the Ju-88 and S-79 and 84 plus the Beaufort and the Mosquito. Oh and the Soviets strapped a couple onto the IL-4

Hell everyone by now has heard the famous story of the PBY at Lunga jury rigged to lug two torpedoes.

Oh....and the Emily could lug a couple. (wait for it)

Me....i'd like to strap a couple onto a Sunderland + 4 DC's..........a pumpkin and two M-80 firecrackers

Why play the game if you want to blindly follow slavishly the way things were done? Just pick up a history , and white out Nimitz's name and write your own in! [:D]

The point is Nik, to explore, to wonder of the choice not taken....and see if you can make it work!

As far as training with "concrete torpedos" , they are called "shapes" in the Navy and almost every torpedo or mine I dropped in my career were "shapes". They give you load,aerodynamics and characteristics without lugging around a very expensive gadget that might explode when you don't want it to. My crew NEVER had trouble dropping the real torpedo because we trained with "shapes". [:)]

[Historiker]

DB Ju-87 - now TB Ju-87 [;)]

[Onime No Kyo]

Wow. Thats very cool.

Were there a lot of JU52s with floats?

[Onime No Kyo]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

DB Ju-87 - now TB Ju-87 [;)]

Thats even cooler! Are those bombs on the wing hardpoints as well? Double trouble. [:D]

[Onime No Kyo]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Chezdajez did some research arguing against torpedo armed B-25's in the game, but I find that the B-25a could be fitted with a shackle that allowed torpedo use. Then again , the Navy tested a version for CV use, but decided against it. [X(]

yes he did. He found that few of the B-25 groups designated for torpedo training actually did any serious training. Most that did carried concrete weights. His primary argument (after his reserach) was that the groups that had trained (somewhat) were not deployed with the logistics to support it nor was their 'practice' kept up. Thus his argument was that no, one could not justify altering in the game giving some B-25 varients the loudout option. The G4M and G3M's could because it was standard doctrine for them, assuming the logistics were in place which AE now simulates with the Torpedo Ordinance device embedded in certain Air HQ's.

Could the B-25 carry a torp? yes. Could the B-26? yes. Many 2E's could be retrofited to do so including the Ju-88 and S-79 and 84 plus the Beaufort and the Mosquito. Oh and the Soviets strapped a couple onto the IL-4

Hell everyone by now has heard the famous story of the PBY at Lunga jury rigged to lug two torpedoes.

Oh....and the Emily could lug a couple. (wait for it)

Me....i'd like to strap a couple onto a Sunderland + 4 DC's..........a pumpkin and two M-80 firecrackers

Why play the game if you want to blindly follow slavishly the way things were done? Just pick up a history , and white out Nimitz's name and write your own in! [:D]

The point is Nik, to explore, to wonder of the choice not taken....and see if you can make it work!

As far as training with "concrete torpedos" , they are called "shapes" in the Navy and almost every torpedo or mine I dropped in my career were "shapes". They give you load,aerodynamics and characteristics without lugging around a very expensive gadget that might explode when you don't want it to. My crew NEVER had trouble dropping the real torpedo because we trained with "shapes". [:)]

Whats wrong with dropping pumpkins from a Sunderland? [:-]

[Historiker]

I want this as a Jap player:

Fw-190 and Ta-152 (especially with the additional cannons - "go get some, B-29!") and now even torpedoes! [8D]

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

ORIGINAL: Historiker

DB Ju-87 - now TB Ju-87 [;)]

Thats even cooler! Are those bombs on the wing hardpoints as well? Double trouble. [:D]

That should be droptanks. So a little longer legs...

I want German planes as Japan!

[Nikademus]

Playing with gadgets is great for war, not so good for wargames. I think allowing torpedoes on some patrol planes already causes some unbalancing effects as players exploit it to the hilt. Similar problem exists for amphibians being able to move in and out LCU devices. Thus the petition to expand on torpedo carrying aircraft in the stock AE came was thumbs downed.

Modders of course can do whatever they like [:D]

[Onime No Kyo]

OK, that does it. I want torpedoes on Lysanders. This game is broken. I demand you fix it NOW!!!!! [:@]

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

Wow. Thats very cool.

Were there a lot of JU52s with floats?

Ju-52/3m could be fittet with floats and skis whenever needed. Skis were used in the Norway campaign for instance.