AFB Whining!

[spence]

So why are the Allies denied some of their toys such as the radio controlled drones they used against Japanese Rabaul, the homing torpedoes with which they sank 6-7 IJN subs, the "cutie" torpedoes which homed on escort vessel's propellors, the Bat rocket-bombs that they used against IJ ships and even the real Bridge Over the River Kwai. Maybe all this stuff didn't work as advertised but neither did Japanese torpedo bombers to name the most egregious IJN wet dream.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: spence

So why are the Allies denied some of their toys such as the radio controlled drones they used against Japanese Rabaul, the homing torpedoes with which they sank 6-7 IJN subs, the "cutie" torpedoes which homed on escort vessel's propellors, the Bat rocket-bombs that they used against IJ ships and even the real Bridge Over the River Kwai. Maybe all this stuff didn't work as advertised but neither did Japanese torpedo bombers to name the most egregious IJN wet dream.

Personally, I would have appreciated all of these things in the game. Bat bombs are just damn cool!

Of course, the Okha is a steaming mound in the game. And, as any serious JFB will argue, "where the Hell are my balloon bombs?!?"

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: spence

So why are the Allies denied some of their toys such as the radio controlled drones they used against Japanese Rabaul, the homing torpedoes with which they sank 6-7 IJN subs, the "cutie" torpedoes which homed on escort vessel's propellors, the Bat rocket-bombs that they used against IJ ships and even the real Bridge Over the River Kwai. Maybe all this stuff didn't work as advertised but neither did Japanese torpedo bombers to name the most egregious IJN wet dream.

I don't quite understand the point about Japanese torpedo bombers not working. In game the Betty and Nell are used by most players as a torpedo bomber a lot more than they were in the real world.

The engine has limits and some things were too small an impact to write a lot of code to support. Road building is one of those things the design team would have liked to do, but there wasn't time. Not only was the Burma-Thailand railroad completed during the war, but there were also some roads and rail lines built in China and the Can-Am highway in North America.

With missile type weapons, the engine has never handled them well and there wasn't time to fix it. Air to surface rockets were a major weapon for the Allies in the last year of the war, but they don't work in the game.

Bill

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: wdolson


With missile type weapons, the engine has never handled them well and there wasn't time to fix it. Air to surface rockets were a major weapon for the Allies in the last year of the war, but they don't work in the game.

Bill

I would have settled for some napalm . . .

[geofflambert]

I expect to lose when playing the Japanese. I don't mind at all. I just want to do better than they did, and that's not easily done. All of my opponents have been good, on either side. If I get an opponent who isn't up to beating me, I'm going to tell him what he's doing wrong. Hasn't happened yet.

[spence]

I don't quite understand the point about Japanese torpedo bombers not working. In game the Betty and Nell are used by most players as a torpedo bomber a lot more than they were in the real world.

IN THE GAME IJN torpedo bombers are sea control weapons/sea denial weapons of tremendous repute. IRL they completely failed to live up to IJN expectations. The KB "praticed" their Midway fiasco with torpedo bombers earlier in the DEI campaign and again off Ceylon...launching a coordinated raid with 200 bombers and 100 escorts against a naval target NEVER happened in real life and was utterly beyond the capability of IJN organization EXCEPT in the game. By their own doctrine every raid as well as fhe physical limitations of their carriers every raid should be split into at least two parts.

[mind_messing]

One thing I would have liked to have seen in AE is a representation the political interactions between the Allied powers, perhaps as some way to compensate for the fact that the Allies can coordinate multinational forces with little hassle.

It would be interesting if the Allies were compelled to fly supply to China to keep it interested in fighting the war, for example.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: wdolson


With missile type weapons, the engine has never handled them well and there wasn't time to fix it. Air to surface rockets were a major weapon for the Allies in the last year of the war, but they don't work in the game.

Bill

I would have settled for some napalm . . .

Trust me, 4E's at 2000ft do just fine without napalm...

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


Trust me, 4E's at 2000ft do just fine without napalm...

With respect, no they don't. Marine CAS after the Tinian campaign, the first with napalm that I know of, was an art form. Napalm works in heavy canopy jungle more effectively than HE explosives. Napalm enters the cracks in fortifications. It burns supply dumps without relying on the flammability of the supplies themselves. And it is a terror weapon with deep effects on troop morale.

So far as I know the USA does not have it in the inventory any longer; we went with cluster munitions. But as a boy growing up in Va. Beach, in sight of the pattern at NAS Oceana, I had HS teachers who had dropped it in Vietnam. And as a man who knew guys in the Navy who were alive due to its use, I have great respect for what it could do to win battles.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


Trust me, 4E's at 2000ft do just fine without napalm...

With respect, no they don't. Marine CAS after the Tinian campaign, the first with napalm that I know of, was an art form. Napalm works in heavy canopy jungle more effectively than HE explosives. Napalm enters the cracks in fortifications. It burns supply dumps without relying on the flammability of the supplies themselves. And it is a terror weapon with deep effects on troop morale.

So far as I know the USA does not have it in the inventory any longer; we went with cluster munitions. But as a boy growing up in Va. Beach, in sight of the pattern at NAS Oceana, I had HS teachers who had dropped it in Vietnam. And as a man who knew guys in the Navy who were alive due to its use, I have great respect for what it could do to win battles.

My interpretation is that he was referencing the game phenomena wherein every Ground Attack mission in the game always finds its target....hence the overeffectiveness of air ground attack especially versus "unspotted" targets. That is unless that aspect has been scaled back dramtically.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: treespider

My interpretation is that he was referencing the game phenomena wherein every Ground Attack mission in the game always finds its target....hence the overeffectiveness of air ground attack especially versus "unspotted" targets. That is unless that aspect has been scaled back dramtically.

In my Lokasenna game I just two turns ago (I think) used roughly 25 4Es to drop on troops in Burma with no reported casualties. 7000 feet I think. Terrain and local forts.

[spence]

Excluding the hits scored by IJN torpedo bombers on 12/07/1941 at Pearl Harbor (where even the IJN apologists only claim 50% hits (~20) IRL ALL IJN torpedo bombers put together scored fewer hits during the entire war than I can count if I take my shoes off. Overrated? As a weapons system that was abandoned IRL it seems to me that the initial fascination with Japanese torpedo bombing incorporated into PACWAR by Mr Grigsby has never even been questioned.
Apparently statistics have no part to play in computer games?

[LargeSlowTarget]

How many toes you have? PoW and Repulse alone collected 8 torpedo hits. Lady Lex, Yorktown and Hornet collected several hits each. Intrepid got hit at least once. Jarvis got hit at Guadalcanal. And that is just what I remember - I surely can dig up more. Apparently historical facts have no part to play in AFB whining?[:'(][;)]

Edit: Digging up a little known fact - the RAN Bathurst class corvette Armidale was sunk by two aerial torpedoes off Timor on Dec 1st 1942.
Add USS Chicago, sunk by six aerial torpedo hits at the Battle of Rennell Islands.

[BlackhorseToo]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

It been a very long time since I played the original WITP game, but I thought there was an at start option that used a baseball analogy to randomly move the two American CV TFs. One had BOTH of the CV TFs at Pearl, on had Lex, one had Enterprise, and a fourth had historical set up.

Infield, Outfield, and Home Plate.

[wdolson]

Both the USS Houston and USS Canberra were damaged by aerial torpedoes during the raids on Formosa in 1944.

A list of all US ships sunk in WW II along with causes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Navy_losses_in_World_War_II

This list doesn't include ships that were damaged and re-entered service.

Japanese players usually employ Bettys with torpedoes in game more than historical use, but the Japanese were still very dangerous with aerial torpedoes.

Bill

[spence]

I might need an extra toe or two but taken all together the IJN doctrine which postulated significant damage to the US Navy while it advanced across the Pacific was a complete failure.

Essentially the G3Ms/G4Ms had one good day against the POW/Repulse and at the cost of most of their number the torpedo bomber pilots of the KB scored 7 hits against USN CVs during 1942. The odd hit against an occasional corvette, destroyer or even CV didn't slow the USN advance for even a minute. The doctrine was flawed and achieved the same result that all flawed doctrines achieve: DEFEAT.

[wdolson]

In the end nothing Japan could have done would have changed the outcome. Picking a fight with the US in the 1940s was insane, no matter what your military might. The US had a large, fairly well educated population, was on a continent that could not be attacked, and had 50% of the industrial capacity of the planet.

The best case scenario was the US would get discouraged and quit. As long as the US still had the will to fight, the end was inevitable.

Bill

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

How many toes you have? PoW and Repulse alone collected 8 torpedo hits. Lady Lex, Yorktown and Hornet collected several hits each. Intrepid got hit at least once. Jarvis got hit at Guadalcanal. And that is just what I remember - I surely can dig up more. Apparently historical facts have no part to play in AFB whining?[:'(][;)]

Edit: Digging up a little known fact - the RAN Bathurst class corvette Armidale was sunk by two aerial torpedoes off Timor on Dec 1st 1942.
Add USS Chicago, sunk by six aerial torpedo hits at the Battle of Rennell Islands.

Betty Torpedo "Hits" -

PoW, Repulse

Jarvis 8 Aug & 9 Aug

Chicago, Louisville, Wichita, La Vallette all hit during the battle of Rennell Island. Although the hits on Louisville and Wichita failed to detonate.

McCauley in April of 43. Birmingham on 8 Nov., Denver 12 Nov, McKean, 16 Nov, Independence 21 Nov, Lexington 5 Dec

Intrepid 17 Feb 44,

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: spence

I might need an extra toe or two but taken all together the IJN doctrine which postulated significant damage to the US Navy while it advanced across the Pacific was a complete failure.

Essentially the G3Ms/G4Ms had one good day against the POW/Repulse and at the cost of most of their number the torpedo bomber pilots of the KB scored 7 hits against USN CVs during 1942. The odd hit against an occasional corvette, destroyer or even CV didn't slow the USN advance for even a minute. The doctrine was flawed and achieved the same result that all flawed doctrines achieve: DEFEAT.

Deflect and change the subject from hitting nothing, to it didn't win the war.

Yes the Torpedo tactic was costly and not worth the cost...but they did inflict a fair number of hits.

[zuluhour]

"As long as the US still had the will to fight, the end was inevitable. "

true in the game as well

ps except in my present case..[:@]

[wdolson]

The Nell and Betty were very dangerous when Allied CAP was poor, but once the US got effective with CAP, results dropped dramatically. That can happen in game too. I think a lot of people complain when they let a TF with no air cover get too close to Netty range and pay heavily for it. The results dropped off in the real war because the US didn't allow that to happen after the early going. The Bettys still managed to get through occasionally into early 44, but the cost was staggeringly high for each hit and effective US damage control reduced losses.

Bill