.Joel Billings
Other posters have already addressed the ways you can force more historical first turn results. I'm interested in this statement above. Why was it impossible? We already know that we can't track who is in dry dock and who is not. We strongly believe that torpedo bombers need to be able to use some torpedoes in port (because they did historically). If there is a reason that the Level Bombers should not use torpedoes in port, I'd like to hear it. It would not be that hard for us to force them to drop bombs (of course they would have to do it in all port attacks, not just certain ports) if you can explain the reasons for this. Given that we have to do it for all ports, would you want us to limit Level Bombers to just using bombs in port? As an alternative we could also have only some use torpedoes to represent that some ships are in positions that cannot be attacked by torpedoes (as we are doing currently for all torpedo attacks in port). If so, please present your case for this. Thanks
Thanks for your reply Joel. Here is my case. The question really shouldnt be "why not" but rather "why should they". To my knowlegde there is not a single documented case of a Multi-engine Medium level bomber ever making a torpedo attack inside a port. Taranto and PH proved that given the right aircraft, circumstances, location, planning and training; airial torp attack of a port was possible. The operative word here however is "RIGHT AIRCRAFT" and unlike Kates and Swordfish, Med level bombers like Bettys/Nells/B-26s due to there size, wieght, minimum speed requirements, and handleing characteristics require a far far longer and unobstuctive attack run, with at least 1500 to 2000 yrds release point cushion from the target. Natural formations, Docks, Cranes, Jetties, Breakers ect... make such a flight path unlikely in all but the huge natural "anchorages" like Truk Lagoon and Manus.
In the case of Singapore Naval base and Cavite it was not only unlikely but impossible. Singapore Naval base was located on the Landward side of the Island up the shallow Jahore strait that made PH depth seem like a bottomless pit. The strait itself was not much more than a mile wide in most places. Cavite likewise was a very small harbor enclosed by Sangley point on one side and a man-made breaker on the other.
Again we have to ask if it were possible why were not all these multiple PH carried out? The Japanese were sufficiently worried about the POW and Repulse that they detached a singificant part of the 11 airfleet to counter them. Yet they did not launch an torpedo attack on the Singapore Naval pase on the morning of the 8th even though the ships remained in port until 1700 late that afternoon. When they did finally attack they used only level bombers. Likewise the IJN repeatedly level bombed Shipping at Great Keppel Harbor Singapore over a two month period but never once attacked with torpedos. Cavite Naval base in the Philipines was attacked on Dec 10th by Betty & Nells level bombing at 20,000 never attacked with torpedos. The result one sub sunk another damaged along with a few auxilleries. There were other opportunities as well. Soerebaya Naval base in Java was Leveled bombed by Bettys/Nells multiple times but no torp attacks were attempted. Darwin was also repeatedly bombed by Bettys/Nells but again never with torpedos.
The fact is no Betty or Nell ever made a torpedo attack within a port nor did any other multi-engine med level bomber in the Pacific or ETO. So why is this capability modeled in the game?
Again since some single engine carrier a/c did torp attack in ports I can see allowing it in the game, but truth be told it wasnt that easy for them either. You need to look no further than the fact that in the 4 other Kido Butai port attacks in the war Darwin, Tjlaptap, Colombo and Tricomolee the IJN did not attempt a single torp attack. The Kates were instead utilized as level bombers only.
Thanks again for your time and consideration.
Regards.
