Timjot/Wobbly,
I think both of those are acceptable ways to allow torpedo bombers in while still limiting them from becoming uber-weapons in WiTP. I would certainly have no problem limiting their effectiveness, I just don't think they should be removed completely from port attacks as those type of attacks did happen in the war.
One dreams of this PH!
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
-
madflava13
- Posts: 1501
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Alexandria, VA
1. I've seen photos posted on the net of betties dropping torps at unloading transports in a harbour (photos from the ship). They scored several hits IIRC. I'll rty to find them again.
2. Since the game does differentiate between tfs docked and disbanded ships, torpedoes have to be allowed in ports. This is a far lesser evil even though some ports (like madflava, I think not very many) were truly safe from torpedo attacks. To allow a player to disband his ships in port to avoid the entire naval attack routine and therefore all torpedoes is completely gamey - especially since now in WITP ships can be disbanded even when they're carrying cargo etc.
3. Extra checks on whether or not the betties/nells could bomb is an ok idea -
however the extra aa disruption is crazy. if you imagine that all the ships at a port add 50% of their AA to the defence of the port, and that all the flak and coastal batteries of the port get a say - you don't need extra flak damage to torpedo bombers - they're getting wiped out at 200ft left right and centre - why would we need to add an extra penalty to one that already exists and works extremely effectively (look at the losses an IJN player can take at pearl, then realise that those losses are lessened by the surprise factor by a massive amount).
4. Also, there are very few spots (be they moorings or roads or docks etc) in singapore harbour (for example - make sure I pick a harbour I know) that are deep enough to park the PoW in 1941. By their very nature, these deep water spots were not narrow channels/indents into the coast (or like little fjords) - they were easily accessable for torpedo planes to have a long approach and plenty of room to pull up, out and over the ship. I do agree that you'd be able to park subs and dds and smaller vessels in more secure places where torps couldn't get them however.
Reading the first hand account of one of the swordfish pilots, Taranto had plenty of room too!
2. Since the game does differentiate between tfs docked and disbanded ships, torpedoes have to be allowed in ports. This is a far lesser evil even though some ports (like madflava, I think not very many) were truly safe from torpedo attacks. To allow a player to disband his ships in port to avoid the entire naval attack routine and therefore all torpedoes is completely gamey - especially since now in WITP ships can be disbanded even when they're carrying cargo etc.
3. Extra checks on whether or not the betties/nells could bomb is an ok idea -
however the extra aa disruption is crazy. if you imagine that all the ships at a port add 50% of their AA to the defence of the port, and that all the flak and coastal batteries of the port get a say - you don't need extra flak damage to torpedo bombers - they're getting wiped out at 200ft left right and centre - why would we need to add an extra penalty to one that already exists and works extremely effectively (look at the losses an IJN player can take at pearl, then realise that those losses are lessened by the surprise factor by a massive amount).
4. Also, there are very few spots (be they moorings or roads or docks etc) in singapore harbour (for example - make sure I pick a harbour I know) that are deep enough to park the PoW in 1941. By their very nature, these deep water spots were not narrow channels/indents into the coast (or like little fjords) - they were easily accessable for torpedo planes to have a long approach and plenty of room to pull up, out and over the ship. I do agree that you'd be able to park subs and dds and smaller vessels in more secure places where torps couldn't get them however.
Reading the first hand account of one of the swordfish pilots, Taranto had plenty of room too!
With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?
Luskan wrote:1. I've seen photos posted on the net of betties dropping torps at unloading transports in a harbour (photos from the ship). They scored several hits IIRC. I'll rty to find them again.
2. Since the game does differentiate between tfs docked and disbanded ships, torpedoes have to be allowed in ports. This is a far lesser evil even though some ports (like madflava, I think not very many) were truly safe from torpedo attacks. To allow a player to disband his ships in port to avoid the entire naval attack routine and therefore all torpedoes is completely gamey - especially since now in WITP ships can be disbanded even when they're carrying cargo etc.
3. Extra checks on whether or not the betties/nells could bomb is an ok idea -
however the extra aa disruption is crazy. if you imagine that all the ships at a port add 50% of their AA to the defence of the port, and that all the flak and coastal batteries of the port get a say - you don't need extra flak damage to torpedo bombers - they're getting wiped out at 200ft left right and centre - why would we need to add an extra penalty to one that already exists and works extremely effectively (look at the losses an IJN player can take at pearl, then realise that those losses are lessened by the surprise factor by a massive amount).
4. Also, there are very few spots (be they moorings or roads or docks etc) in singapore harbour (for example - make sure I pick a harbour I know) that are deep enough to park the PoW in 1941. By their very nature, these deep water spots were not narrow channels/indents into the coast (or like little fjords) - they were easily accessable for torpedo planes to have a long approach and plenty of room to pull up, out and over the ship. I do agree that you'd be able to park subs and dds and smaller vessels in more secure places where torps couldn't get them however.
Reading the first hand account of one of the swordfish pilots, Taranto had plenty of room too!
Luskan,
I would really like to see that photo of Bettys launching torps in a port. Also any information on that particular incident you can find.
Regarding disruption, I wasnt thinking so much AA disruption but just targeting disruption or even just the likelyhood that the a/c successfully launches its torp.
Regarding Singapore, the POW wasnt parked at Singapore Harbor (Keppel) but rather Singapore Naval Base, which was located on the northern coast of the Island, deep within the narrow Jahore straits. I can categorically state that a arial torp attack would be next to impossible there.
Ah - ok, should have known that (singapore naval base).
Still looking for those 3 photos - but can describe it. First photo is three betties in an attempted echelon left at about 200ft (but from the looks of the photo the three of them look to be at way different altitudes) dropping torps. There is a fuzzy torp in this shot - they are aiming at several transports unloading at the "end" of the harbour while the photos are taken from the "side".
Couple of little blurbs on the photos etc. There are some buildings in the background, but from the angles in the photo it didn't look like a really well built up port.
For the most part however, "pull up" room after a torpedo drop wouldn't be too great for an ordinance-free aircraft of any sort unless the port was at the bottom of a bunch of big hills of cliffs (like a fjord). Not sure seeing as i've never tried, but a decent pilot could put torps into sydney harbour in many places (as long as he didn't fly completely perpendicular to the "coasts" too far in and didn't hit the bridge etc). The angles would make for nice easy approaches from more than a few directions. Have done the heads/top of the harbour in a cessna a couple of times and there is certainly room out there (although the instructor probably would have smacked me one if i'd tried to go lower than 1000ft).
Still looking for those 3 photos - but can describe it. First photo is three betties in an attempted echelon left at about 200ft (but from the looks of the photo the three of them look to be at way different altitudes) dropping torps. There is a fuzzy torp in this shot - they are aiming at several transports unloading at the "end" of the harbour while the photos are taken from the "side".
Couple of little blurbs on the photos etc. There are some buildings in the background, but from the angles in the photo it didn't look like a really well built up port.
For the most part however, "pull up" room after a torpedo drop wouldn't be too great for an ordinance-free aircraft of any sort unless the port was at the bottom of a bunch of big hills of cliffs (like a fjord). Not sure seeing as i've never tried, but a decent pilot could put torps into sydney harbour in many places (as long as he didn't fly completely perpendicular to the "coasts" too far in and didn't hit the bridge etc). The angles would make for nice easy approaches from more than a few directions. Have done the heads/top of the harbour in a cessna a couple of times and there is certainly room out there (although the instructor probably would have smacked me one if i'd tried to go lower than 1000ft).
With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?
Personally, I don't care ...
More then happy to drop 800 kg bombs from altitude instead of getting shot to heck and back on torpedo flight profiles. Funny how no one is complaining about the 800 kb bombs I nailed the BB's with ... or did you guys not notice them in your haste to complain about torpedoes?
Going back through various records, a lot of ships sat at anchor outside secure port facilities while waiting for their spot at the dock to be unloaded. Look at them being the targets. There are very few docks around the world that would be completely safe from torpedo attacks yet still have the space for more then a handful of ships. I find it tough to believe that every port there had effective torpedo netting installed everywhere that an aircraft could launch from.
Looking at my current losses for Nell/Betty, I simply can not produce them fast enough to fight the war. Burning them up on port attacks on the hopes I hit something useful against brutal AA levels is not exactly the best use of these aircraft.
While you might find folks doing this for the first week or so of the game, be aware that it is completely non-sustainable. The aircraft/pilot loss rates are staggering! The game will sort out this kind of player all by itself as they will no longer have any torpedo bombers in short order.
More then happy to drop 800 kg bombs from altitude instead of getting shot to heck and back on torpedo flight profiles. Funny how no one is complaining about the 800 kb bombs I nailed the BB's with ... or did you guys not notice them in your haste to complain about torpedoes?
Going back through various records, a lot of ships sat at anchor outside secure port facilities while waiting for their spot at the dock to be unloaded. Look at them being the targets. There are very few docks around the world that would be completely safe from torpedo attacks yet still have the space for more then a handful of ships. I find it tough to believe that every port there had effective torpedo netting installed everywhere that an aircraft could launch from.
Looking at my current losses for Nell/Betty, I simply can not produce them fast enough to fight the war. Burning them up on port attacks on the hopes I hit something useful against brutal AA levels is not exactly the best use of these aircraft.
While you might find folks doing this for the first week or so of the game, be aware that it is completely non-sustainable. The aircraft/pilot loss rates are staggering! The game will sort out this kind of player all by itself as they will no longer have any torpedo bombers in short order.
-
Mike Scholl
- Posts: 6187
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
- Location: Kansas City, MO
Torpedoes...
Things that make it difficult to use torpedoes against ships in a port (as
opposed to an "anchorage") are the need for a relatively long over-water approach to line it up AND to allow the "fish" to balance it's depth and arm
itself PLUS deep enough water to do the same. Even dropped from a very
low and slow aircraft, the torpedo fluctuates widely in depth until it regains
it's preset level. Many harbours are either too shallow or don't allow for a
mile or so of open water run-in for the A/C and the torpedo. The swordfish
at Taranto were more or less the ultimate in "low and slow"---while the Kates
used at PH needed both specially fitted torpedoes and months of extra training
to be able to use them against "Battleship Row", which was opposite the ONLY
area allowing for a long enough "run in".
Big coral atolls such as Ulithi, Truk, and Kwajalien would allow for torpedo
use, and the "anchorages" used in amphibious landings would generally be large
enough and open enough, with only a question of depth. Pre-war ports in
general were lacking in one of the requirements, especially for an aircraft as
large as a Betty. How the game will balance this remains to be seen, but from
what I've seen in test results torpedo use and the range at which torpedo-
bombers can use them are pretty generous.
opposed to an "anchorage") are the need for a relatively long over-water approach to line it up AND to allow the "fish" to balance it's depth and arm
itself PLUS deep enough water to do the same. Even dropped from a very
low and slow aircraft, the torpedo fluctuates widely in depth until it regains
it's preset level. Many harbours are either too shallow or don't allow for a
mile or so of open water run-in for the A/C and the torpedo. The swordfish
at Taranto were more or less the ultimate in "low and slow"---while the Kates
used at PH needed both specially fitted torpedoes and months of extra training
to be able to use them against "Battleship Row", which was opposite the ONLY
area allowing for a long enough "run in".
Big coral atolls such as Ulithi, Truk, and Kwajalien would allow for torpedo
use, and the "anchorages" used in amphibious landings would generally be large
enough and open enough, with only a question of depth. Pre-war ports in
general were lacking in one of the requirements, especially for an aircraft as
large as a Betty. How the game will balance this remains to be seen, but from
what I've seen in test results torpedo use and the range at which torpedo-
bombers can use them are pretty generous.
Mike, trust me here, burning up Bettys/Nells at the insane loss rates you incure on port attacks is going to make this a very unpopular option. The AA strengths of ports coupled with ships docked there makes these paper aircraft go down in record numbers.
Unless you are assured a sinking of a capital ship, it is simply not worth the losses in trained pilots and aircraft. The only time I would be doing this is on turn #1 (non-historical) against Singapore to take out the BB & BC sitting there so as to remove any major ships from the SRA and allow unrestricted operations for a few weeks without the fear of getting a large transport group thrashed!
(note clearly the non-historical statement, in the historical version this is not an option until the surprise with quarter strength CAP has expired at which point the CAP levels result in massive losses.)
Later in the game, Bettys and Nells are much better employed in a Naval Attack role while the shorter ranged bombers conduct land strikes.
Unless you are assured a sinking of a capital ship, it is simply not worth the losses in trained pilots and aircraft. The only time I would be doing this is on turn #1 (non-historical) against Singapore to take out the BB & BC sitting there so as to remove any major ships from the SRA and allow unrestricted operations for a few weeks without the fear of getting a large transport group thrashed!
(note clearly the non-historical statement, in the historical version this is not an option until the surprise with quarter strength CAP has expired at which point the CAP levels result in massive losses.)
Later in the game, Bettys and Nells are much better employed in a Naval Attack role while the shorter ranged bombers conduct land strikes.
I can live with Torpedo bombers being allowed Torpedo attacks in ports but not the level bombers. I've found that the torpedo attacks in ports are overly effective and don't suffer the casualties that everyone is saying they should.Mr.Frag wrote:Mike, trust me here, burning up Bettys/Nells at the insane loss rates you incure on port attacks is going to make this a very unpopular option. The AA strengths of ports coupled with ships docked there makes these paper aircraft go down in record numbers.
Unless you are assured a sinking of a capital ship, it is simply not worth the losses in trained pilots and aircraft. The only time I would be doing this is on turn #1 (non-historical) against Singapore to take out the BB & BC sitting there so as to remove any major ships from the SRA and allow unrestricted operations for a few weeks without the fear of getting a large transport group thrashed!
(note clearly the non-historical statement, in the historical version this is not an option until the surprise with quarter strength CAP has expired at which point the CAP levels result in massive losses.)
Later in the game, Bettys and Nells are much better employed in a Naval Attack role while the shorter ranged bombers conduct land strikes.
Also why go to Singapore looking for POW and Repulse, they don't have the speed to move out of the range of the Betties and Nells at Saigon in there first movement phase anyway.
You can run but you'll die tired!
-
Mike Scholl
- Posts: 6187
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
- Location: Kansas City, MO
That's one of the main problems with the system as it exists now. One,MikeKraemer wrote:
Also why go to Singapore looking for POW and Repulse, they don't have the speed to move out of the range of the Betties and Nells at Saigon in there first movement phase anyway.
Singapore IS out of range for torpedo-carrying Nells and Betties in IndoChina
in reality. Two, the Naval Harbor IS too narrow to allow the run-in and length
of run for a torpedo attack. That's why the squadrons were on stand-bye
waiting to see if Phillips would sail North to try to intercept the invasions.Given the time and trouble the Japanese went to to neutralize PH, don't you think
they would have gone after the Brits in Singapore IF it were possible?
Hate to sound ignorant but what is the max range of a Betty or Nell with a torpedo? I was surprised to find that they had longer legs that B-17's!Mike Scholl wrote:That's one of the main problems with the system as it exists now. One,
Singapore IS out of range for torpedo-carrying Nells and Betties in IndoChina
in reality. Two, the Naval Harbor IS too narrow to allow the run-in and length
of run for a torpedo attack. That's why the squadrons were on stand-bye
waiting to see if Phillips would sail North to try to intercept the invasions.Given the time and trouble the Japanese went to to neutralize PH, don't you think
they would have gone after the Brits in Singapore IF it were possible?
You can run but you'll die tired!
I did notice, but I figured I'd said my piece on the subject already. Since you brought it up, though...Mr.Frag wrote: More then happy to drop 800 kg bombs from altitude instead of getting shot to heck and back on torpedo flight profiles. Funny how no one is complaining about the 800 kb bombs I nailed the BB's with ... or did you guys not notice them in your haste to complain about torpedoes?
The Japanese dropped fifty 800kg bombs at Pearl Harbor. Bombing from medium altitude, on a clear day, against very limited opposition (light flak and NO fighters - this was the first wave), they scored fourteen hits on large, stationary targets. Of those fourteen hits, thirteen were detonated outside the armor, were broken up by the armor, or were simply duds. One out of the fifty was a shipkiller. That's bordering on a fluke, there.
You appear to have scored five such hits, not counting the PT boats. (Even an 800kg dud, falling from 12k, would likely sink a PT boat - assuming that you could hit a PT boat with one, or that anyone would ever try to.) Five flukes. That's stretching the bounds of probability.
But "stretching" is not "breaking," and your original post said you more usually see one to three BBs sunk, with several more heavily damaged. That's much more in accordance with reality, so I'm inclined to put this down as a massive fluke - the sort of thing that is bound to happen sooner or later if you run the simulation enough times, as is the reverse scenario (with no BBs sunk, or even more than moderately damaged). So keep testing.
Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.
Some days you're the bug.
I've run the game several times where I had no battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor. It's typical to have one sunk and a couple others in the 90s for damage, I would say. The rest of them damaged at lesser levels along with various CA/CL and auxiliary ships.
"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
Mike Scholl wrote:That's one of the main problems with the system as it exists now. One,
Singapore IS out of range for torpedo-carrying Nells and Betties in IndoChina
in reality. Two, the Naval Harbor IS too narrow to allow the run-in and length
of run for a torpedo attack. That's why the squadrons were on stand-bye
waiting to see if Phillips would sail North to try to intercept the invasions.Given the time and trouble the Japanese went to to neutralize PH, don't you think
they would have gone after the Brits in Singapore IF it were possible?
Mike,
Could you elaborate on the range statement. As I was under the same understanding, but has subsequently been informed by members of this board that the Nells range with a 800kg torp was approx 1700 milies while the Betty was approx 2000 miles even with the bombay doors removed. Those ranges, if correct would put both Singapore and Manila within torpedo range of the Indochina and Formosa bases respectively. I think range was probably less a factor than the geography of the Singapore and Cavite naval bases in precludeing a possible arial torpedo attack.
Again, IMHO multi-engine level bomber torpedo attacks should be prohibited in ports because there is simply no precendence for them nor is there any compelling evidence that they were even remotely possible under most circumstances.
Regards
Good to hear. If the model doesn't allow a possibility of ships sunk in harbor being refloated and repaired, then that's just about right. Maybe a little too easy on the US, even - but that may just be because the Kates are giving more attention to the small fry than historical.Snigbert wrote:I've run the game several times where I had no battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor. It's typical to have one sunk and a couple others in the 90s for damage, I would say. The rest of them damaged at lesser levels along with various CA/CL and auxiliary ships.
Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.
Some days you're the bug.