Flying Boats

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Biggus63

I dont see it as all that gamey. They have the capability do to so even if it's not standard doctrine. Much innovation in warfare has to do with thinking outside the box and I don't see it as gamey in the sense that using B-17s for skip bombing would be. If an opponent used it against me I'd regard it as a legitimate tactic and take steps to counter it. If that's gamey then so is using Japanese subs against commerce targets.

+1.

If his torpedo cats bother you, bait 'em, shoot 'em down with CAP or bomb them on the ground. In the early months, Allied Catalinas are a scarcity, he's very shortsighted if he's using up his reserves to knock off a few xAKs.

Then you can return the favor with your H8K1s.

[Commander Stormwolf]

a plane must be maneuverable at low level to make corrections at last minute. Mavis, PBY's, Emilies had nothing for it

not true.

a flying boat normally has a low wing loading, as it needs a low landing speed to land on water (technically it makes a belly crash landing)

compare Mavis 100 kg/m2 , Emily 150kg/m2, PBY 120 kg/m2

to the TBF Avenger's 180 kg/m2



the large wing area makes flying boats slow

compare with the B-26 marauder 230kg/m2, the secret to its speed was the small wing area (and thus low drag)

would say, according to your logic the B-26 would be an awful torpedo plane


heavy does not mean unmaneouverable, what matters is weight per wing area

for example the Avro Vulcan could run circles around the F-104 starfighter in a horizontal dogfight

[Dili]

according to your logic the B-26 would be an awful torpedo plane

It was.

[btbw]

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf


according to your logic the B-26 would be an awful torpedo plane

How many ships sunk by B-26 as torpedo bomber?

[Commander Stormwolf]

would say low speed and unreliable torpedoes are what made the PBY a bad torpedo plane

good turn rate doesnt help when zeroes and AA are taking you apart at 100 feet, at 100 mph

[Commander Stormwolf]

if mvr was important for torpedo planes, and you may be right, then PBY and Emily had no trouble in that category

Avenger was way less maneouverable, and it did okay

[btbw]

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf


if mvr was important for torpedo planes, and you may be right, then PBY and Emily had no trouble in that category

Avenger was way less maneouverable, and it did okay

Mvr dont affect only by wing load. It hard for make a tricks when u have 2-4 jumbos on wing.
Just try compare two torpedo bombers - Swordfish and Marauder. Good luck with trying score any hits on last plane which perfect as you think for torpedo bombing)

[Commander Stormwolf]

agree that its easier to maneouver into position in a swordfish than a marauder,
then you agree that low wing loading = high mvr


what would I prefer if i was forced at gunpoint to fly one of those into enemy flak + fighters?


B-26 with 300mph speed and heavy armor, will possibly survive (Battle of Midway)

Swordfish at 100mph, will sing waltzing matilda while you are crashing in the sea (Breakout of Scharnhorst)



Emily I would fly out of my own free will

high speed, low wing loading, durable


emily was so good because of its engines (1850 hp),

it was able to compensate for the penalties of being a flying boat, unlike Sunderland (1000 hp)


catalina would have been good if the war started in 1935 (weak fighters and flak), and it used reliable british Mk12 torpedoes

[btbw]

Flak it good answer on question why Avenger was born. Japan lost moment when targetted ship can kill outdated plane before plane going on last stage of attack (where need to have lowest speed and high mvr) and lost war because only a few planes can penetrate enemy defense and try score a hit.
So good torpedo bomber still must had lowest speed and good maneur, but have enough durability.
Marauder with too big lowest speed and low maneur cannot score any hits as torpedo bomber even with good durability.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

would say low speed and unreliable torpedoes are what made the PBY a bad torpedo plane
good turn rate doesn't help when zeroes and AA are taking you apart at 100 feet, at 100 mph

What "unreliable torpedoes"? Those were the Mk Xiv Submarine torpedoes that had all the problems. And the discussion was about PBY's operating at night, so WHAT "zeroes" do you refer too?

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: Dili

I mean the crews were not trained in torpedoing and even if they did in real life the planes couldn't have the outstanding success levels we see in game.

For a successful torpedoing aircraft it implies that a plane must be maneuverable at low level to make corrections at last minute. Mavis, PBY's, Emilies had nothing for it. The Italians hated the S.84 that was supposed to replace the S.79 because of that and it was certainly still a better plane for torpedoing than a PBY. Even the Albacore was considered not a good improvement over Swordfish. Also the crews should be trained exclusively in torpedoing and units should be exclusive for that propose to have consistent results.

It was an error in WITP AE to have the bombers with same maneuverability in all altitude bands.

At Midway, a PBY torpedoed the tanker Akebono Maru.

At Guadalcanal, Major 'Mad Jack' Cram - pilot of General Geigers's 'personal' PBY - made a daylight torpedo attack against Japanese transports covered by Zeroes after having received 5 minutes of instructions in torpedo bombing by a fighter pilot who's brother was a torpedo bomber pilot. He scored at hit (and brought his Cat back with 175 bullet holes).

Later, "Black Cats" made many successful attacks.

Granted, without proper training, doctrine and equipment hits like at Midway and Gudalcanal should be rather isolated events and not the rule.

Furthermore, I doubt that in the opening days of the war, the PI forces had any aerial torpedoes available.

So, the PI Cats should have the ability for naval torpedo attack, but no torps available.

Unfortunately, I don't see how the torpedo availability of the Far East Army Air Force HQ can be nerfed in the editor. So this would require a house rule - no torp supply for Army Air HQs allowed.

edit for spelling...

[Dili]

At Midway, a PBY torpedoed the tanker Akebono Maru.

At Guadalcanal, Major 'Mad Jack' Cram - pilot of General Geigers's 'personal' PBY - made a daylight torpedo attack against Japanese transports covered by Zeroes after having received 5 minutes of instructions in torpedo bombing by a fighter pilot who's brother was a torpedo bomber pilot. He scored at hit (and brought his Cat back with 175 bullet holes).

Later, "Black Cats" made many successful attacks.

Some hits don't make a successful torpedo bomber. An S.84 in trained squadrons also put a torpedo in British battleship HMS Nelson and if the battleship torpedoes exploded it could have sunk it http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTBR_PreWWII.htm (bottom last photo) and also got some others hits, but in 1943 the only torpedo bomber around was still S.79, S.84 were all diverted to conventional bombing and transport. Same can be said for Albacore that also had some hits. It didn't make it a successful torpedo bomber.
There are several tricks to a torpedo bomber in attack , changing altitude slighty, changing aspect - going straight to the target but appearing slight off, going in one direction and changing at last minute all with propose to deny AAA a stable predictable path.

In game floatplanes/patrol are benefited by the game engine as the problems shown by the OP to hit an anchorage prove.

[Nikademus]

Personally, i think allowing FP's to do naval attacks using torpedoes as a regular mission was a mistake. Was it done in RL? yes. Problem with these kinds of 'scenerios' is that many of the early war examples were unique and/or done under extraordinary circumstances. In a wargame however with the level of control that WitP gives, what often happens is you take something that was unusual/extraordinary and you make it standard. Suddenly all FB's all over the map can conduct day/night torp attacks. Good players can exploit this to the hilt. Arguments over "historicalness" cloud over this basic truth. A tactic becomes easy when it becomes a simple mouse click. Another example was allowing FB's to do supply transport. Again...yes it was done in some circumstances. However in the game i've seen it employed as a regular tactic and exploited to the extreme. Two old PBEM opponents i had were so good at it they made the PBY the ultimate airborne amphibious platform, shuttling in and out troops as well as supplies. It created some very odd situations.

Moral of the story. The more options you give players, the greater the chances for exploitation within the rules.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

would say low speed and unreliable torpedoes are what made the PBY a bad torpedo plane
good turn rate doesn't help when zeroes and AA are taking you apart at 100 feet, at 100 mph

What "unreliable torpedoes"? Those were the Mk Xiv Submarine torpedoes that had all the problems. And the discussion was about PBY's operating at night, so WHAT "zeroes" do you refer too?

USN aerial torpedoes were bad early on. You can see that reflected in the device database in the scenario editor.

[Commander Stormwolf]

Flying Boats have worse performance than an equivalent land based counterpart, typically 20%, the price of convenience

Flying Boats historically were used mainly for naval search, but there is no reason to limit them to that

Flying Boats could have been used for torpedo / transport / any other role that LBA was



*also for emily as transport

yes they used emily to haul supplies to isolated garrisons, what's gamey about that?

[Dili]

I think the main issue is the too high torpedoing ability of the common pilot. They should have all less than 10 capability if they aren't trained on it. The Germans set up a torpedoing school in Italy just for propose of converting bombing crews, the Italians had 3 schools/units. If the PBY crew have 10 or less ability i think they wouldn't hit much.