Torpedo Attacks in Ports

[Brady]

After going over sections from At Dawn we Slept this AM, Namely Chapter 40 p.320...

In sumery, using the standard model II torpedo they consistantly were able to make drops that did not excead 20 meters depth, and the torpedoes ran fine and true. The Problem was they neaded to not excead 10 metters depth. The Technishions at Mitsubishi had been working on a new fin already, and it was normaly acheaveing a 12 metter depth, The crewes were able to consistantly get 10 metter depth drops out it and it ran fine and true after drop. In testing 1 in 3 would bottom out, so he was still pleased with the results. The New Torpedo was the Type II (modell II) Imporved. All that was new on it was the fin.

[Pier5]

I wonder if it would be practical to add torpedo nets at this stage of the game. All ports except PH would be automatically equipped with them, which would prohibit torpedo attack by anything. Anchorages, as defined by Brady, clearly do exist which might be successfully attacked by torpedo bomers of all types, would not have torpedo nets. PH would be equipped with torpedo nets (by hard code) immediately after Dec. 7. If this is practical from a coding perspective, it might come closest to satisfying the historical situation with ahistorical means.

I also think that, in addition to the special torpedoes, the Kate crews practiced for months dropping these torpedoes on known targets in a known position. Time for such training for a particular target would probably not be available under wartime demands, making the PH attack a unique opportunity which probably would not occur again elsewhere.

Pier5

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Brady

After going over sections from At Dawn we Slept this AM, Namely Chapter 40 p.320...

In sumery, using the standard model II torpedo they consistantly were able to make drops that did not excead 20 meters depth, and the torpedoes ran fine and true. The Problem was they neaded to not excead 10 metters depth. The Technishions at Mitsubishi had been working on a new fin already, and it was normaly acheaveing a 12 metter depth, The crewes were able to consistantly get 10 metter depth drops out it and it ran fine and true after drop. In testing 1 in 3 would bottom out, so he was still pleased with the results. The New Torpedo was the Type II (modell II) Imporved. All that was new on it was the fin.

Thanks, Brady, good info.

It reinforces my opinion that use of torpedoes at Pearl Harbor was a one-off thing. The preparation, research, and so on just wouldn't be available for battles of opportunity far from supply sources where such modified weapons would be available (standard CV loadouts would include torpedoes for general naval attack purposes).

Level bombers - no, CV torpedo planes - yes, limited to large harbors only.

[Brady]

The Designers of the Pearl Harbor Atack were concerned about the presence of Torpedo nets, and this is mentioned in Chapter 40 sighted above, to get around this they detailed a couple men from each flight to atack the Nets should they exist, a means was developed for doing this and they felt confident they could suxcead in doing so. They were to fly their planes into the ran thng and punch a hole in it. Aparently torpedoes could be used for this but they dident creat a big enough opening, so the planes were added to make shure.

They did train hard to be shure, but the skills they aquired could be used anywhear, namely comming in a restricted place and acheaving the specified height at the right spead and droping at X distance from target.

Torpedo nets were not everywhear all the time (in Harbors), during the war and not all ships were protected by them when they were available.

[Brady]

All this gets us back to the base problem at hand, how WiTP defines a port, which is a very genral term in the game since open anchorages are included in this, which were frequently atacked by Twin engined planes brandishing torpedos. I dont mean to harp on this ponit but I am concerned that it is geting lost in the shufel again.

Since we all know that atacks were made frequently aganst ships in anchorages during the war by multi engined planes, and that when atacking ports that were restriceted in size the larger bomb types were used by the Japanese. Why not allow this to hapen as it is presently in the Game? The Japanese will pay a higer price for doing so under the present mechanism and the results will be not out of wack from those acheaved hsitoricaly in terms of damage to the enemy so why go the extream and propose it be removed entirely?

Just a bit more info, well over 100 of the Type II Improved Torpedos were delevered to the fleat before it sailed for Pearl Harbor, and I beelave they used around 40 or so in the atack, I am not shure how many more were deleaved after that. It should be notied that the 20 metter depth acheaed normaly(using the unmodified torpedos) would be suficient for use in most harbors anyway.

[Mr.Frag]

Just playing the devils advocate here ...

So you guys are perfectly ok with hundreds of B-17's doing skip bombing on a port with it's MUCH lower climb rate to pull out yet you have a problem with a much faster, more powerful aircraft dropping torpedoes? I'm not sure I follow the logic. Japan did well at PH, why would she not continue to produce torpedoes that could be used in such a manner after such a success?

I have yet to see a single reason that says they could not do it due to some mechanical or technical reason. I would understand if we were talking about another type of aircraft that was not known for flying with torpedoes suddenly loaded up torpedoes and went on port attacks.

Anyone care to dig up a map that shows the port at Singapore in detail that would prove one way or the other that the port could not be attacked in such a matter?

[bradfordkay]

Anyone care to dig up a map that shows the port at Singapore in detail that would prove one way or the other that the port could not be attacked in such a matter?

I wish I had a scanner. My Jane's Fighting SHips of WW1 has a tiny little chart of Singapore. Keppel Harbor is rather narrow, the western end varying between 500 yards to 1100 yards across and 2400 yards long. The eastern part has a large island in the midst and appears to vary from 150 yards to 900 yards wide and runs also about 2400 yards esat-west. Then there is Singapore Road, the anchorage, which is roughly 6000 yards by 9000 yards. Any ships out here are definitely at risk from LBA torpedo attacks.

[Pier5]

Brady, I am not suggesting torpedo nets were everywhere. That's why I referred to it as ahistorical. I suggested this as a means of simulating what we are trying to get to. Preventing torpedo attack in areas where such attacks were not practical could be resolved by "pretending" that these ports have torpedo nets and "pretending" that these nets are impervious. This would have the advantage of allowing any ports that can be demonstrated to be suitable for torpedo attack to be excluded from the torpedo net hard coding. Simpson Harbor comes to mind. It certainly is wide open, but I don't know about the depth. B-25's skip bombed there several times. If this can be coded without a huge hassle, I think it offers a reasonable solution.

Pier5

[Mr.Frag]

You guys, if you really wanted to make a good arguement against a Singapore blitz, you should be thinking along a totally different tact ...

Every modified torpedo that could be produced was given to KB to make the attack on PH, meaning that there could not have been any available for other attacks. That is far more compelling a reason to simply state that Singapore can not be attacked in such a manner until at least a couple of weeks later. It is completely backed by historical fact and doesn't involve any debates about the technical capabilities of the platforms.

Now, because of the mechanics of gameplay, this will have to be a player agreed to rule. I just can't see 2by3 coding a special rule like this when they have already solutioned it via the historical first turn and the variable historic first turn, all of which prevent this type of attack.

[Brady]

cc, we could pretend as well that the Torpedoes were representaive of the larger destructive capacity inhearent in the larger bombs the Japanese commonly employed aganst such targets but are absent from WiTP for god's know what reasion, as well. But I see you point it is reasionable, it is just the reasion for neading to employ it is not imo. I recal Beauforts making torp atacks aganst anchorages and ports as well, but I nead to find a more specific referance....

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Just playing the devils advocate here ...

So you guys are perfectly ok with hundreds of B-17's doing skip bombing on a port with it's MUCH lower climb rate to pull out yet you have a problem with a much faster, more powerful aircraft dropping torpedoes? I'm not sure I follow the logic. Japan did well at PH, why would she not continue to produce torpedoes that could be used in such a manner after such a success?

I have yet to see a single reason that says they could not do it due to some mechanical or technical reason. I would understand if we were talking about another type of aircraft that was not known for flying with torpedoes suddenly loaded up torpedoes and went on port attacks.

Anyone care to dig up a map that shows the port at Singapore in detail that would prove one way or the other that the port could not be attacked in such a matter?

I'm not "comfortable" with 4-engined strategic bombers "skip-bombing" at all. I'm sure
someplace somebody tried it..., but it certainly was not standard practice and should be
prohibited. Both "skip bombing" and the use of "para-frags" were rather specialized forms of combat and generally limited to a few specific air groups. If 2by3 can't set
the game up to reflect this, then it would be better to leave it out rather than have it
open for players to abuse. It's the same basic type of problem as torpedo planes in
ports.

[Brady]

Mr. Frag, acording to At Dawn We Slet, well over 100 were loaded abord the CV's that atacked Pearl harbor, I belave only 40 or so were used in the atack their. SO their should be enough for another atack. And The Normal unmodified Torpedo would work fine in any harbor with a depth of just over 20 Meters, how deep is Singapore harbor?

[Mr.Frag]

Mr. Frag, acording to At Dawn We Slet, well over 100 were loaded abord the CV's that atacked Pearl harbor, I belave only 40 or so were used in the atack their. SO their should be enough for another atack. And The Normal unmodified Torpedo would work fine in any harbor with a depth of just over 20 Meters, how deep is Singapore harbor?

Sure, when KB gets back to Japan and can transfer them over and they can be shipped out to other areas for use ... It is just not going to happen in the first week of december.

20 Meters?????? Thats 60 odd feet. You mixing feet and meters? Singapore is about 10.4 meters, but god only knows it's state during the war (a lot of dredging has probably happened).

(edit ... noticed you said regular torps)

[Brady]

Thats what they finished and loaded at the time of the depature for Pearl, I dont know off hand how many Type II (model II ) Improved were built and issued after that. So it is poaable that more were issued to other fleat units and certainly likely that the CV's from Pearl would of had enough for another sortie.

The Book mentions Metters when discussing the depth issue, the unmodified ones would do fine in 20 Metters depth, the modified ones were good in 10 metters depth.

[Pier5]

In UV, at least, bomb damage is primarily system damage and torpedo damage is primarily flotation damage. I assume WitP is similar. Thus, allowing torpedo attack to simulate 800 kg bombs does not result in equivalent damage. From a practical point of view, the real issue at PH, at least, was not whether the ship sank or not, but whether it capsized in the process. Generally, I think at Pearl, torpedoes are what is going to sink ships. Flooding a ship to keep it from blowing up is a great idea if you are in 45 feet of water.

Pier5

[Mr.Frag]

Brady, from what I read, the reason a few ships were late and had to hurry to catch up to KB was they they were loading the very last set of modified torpedoes. That means every single one that was made went to KB. I have no problems with more being made, but they would not be available until about the end of December.

[Mr.Frag]

In UV, at least, bomb damage is primarily system damage and torpedo damage is primarily flotation damage. I assume WitP is similar. Thus, allowing torpedo attack to simulate 800 kg bombs does not result in equivalent damage. From a practical point of view, the real issue at PH, at least, was not whether the ship sank or not, but whether it capsized in the process. Generally, I think at Pearl, torpedoes are what is going to sink ships. Flooding a ship to keep it from blowing up is a great idea if you are in 45 feet of water.

They are not the same. the 800 kg bomb is a modified large caliber shell, it is not a torpedo. They do not do the saame damage either.

I do agree that flooding a ship (or for that matter BEACHING a ship) when in peril of capsizing was a common practice. Ships were designed to be counter-flooded to prevent it from rolling.

It would be a cool feature ... an added choice on top of the current scuttle. Ship would sit there stuck for xx turns, slowly repairing itself unable to move. Could only be done if in a hex that has a coast.

You'd need to bring in more ships to pull it off the beach assuming you wanted it back ... goes down the path of ship capture too. There is just a million and one features that could be added when you think about it. Perhaps in a patch or the next iteration of the series.

[Brady]

Not all 800 KG bombs were modified large caliber Naval shels, in fact very few of all those were used were, though at pearl Harbor the ones that were used were (modifed large caliber naval shels.

I agree that using a torpedo to simulate the effects of the larger bombs is not ideal, but it is all we have at present, I would realy prefer the larger bombs, flotation damage is great espichaly at sea but it is not likely to sink a ship in port unless it is hit several times. Bomb damage will hurt more of the offensive capacity of the ship potentialy, thus removing it from play for potentialy longer periouds of time. their are pros and cons to either method. Presently since the larger bombs are absent from the japanese twins the only way to even begine to acheave the potential destructive capacity is to use Torpedoes in part or in whole, though as mentioned above this will done at a price, namely higher losses.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Brady
I agree that using a torpedo to simulate the effects of the larger bombs is not ideal, but it is all we have at present, I would realy prefer the larger bombs, flotation damage is great espichaly at sea but it is not likely to sink a ship in port unless it is hit several times. Bomb damage will hurt more of the offensive capacity of the ship potentialy, thus removing it from play for potentialy longer periouds of time. their are pros and cons to either method. Presently since the larger bombs are absent from the japanese twins the only way to even begine to acheave the potential destructive capacity is to use Torpedoes in part or in whole, though as mentioned above this will done at a price, namely higher losses.

Brady, I'm surprised at you. You have argued long and hard for your version of reality, with the linchpin of your position being that WitP is going to be ahistorical because of how it short-changes the Japanese. Now, all of a sudden, I see you advocating an ahistorical model of anti-shipping attacks in ports just because it would favor the Japanese.

I have been something of an admirer of your efforts in the past, but this costs you a lot in terms of credibility with me.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Brady

Not all 800 KG bombs were modified large caliber Naval shels, in fact very few of all those were used were, though at pearl Harbor the ones that were used were (modifed large caliber naval shels.

I agree that using a torpedo to simulate the effects of the larger bombs is not ideal, but it is all we have at present, I would realy prefer the larger bombs, flotation damage is great espichaly at sea but it is not likely to sink a ship in port unless it is hit several times. Bomb damage will hurt more of the offensive capacity of the ship potentialy, thus removing it from play for potentialy longer periouds of time. their are pros and cons to either method. Presently since the larger bombs are absent from the japanese twins the only way to even begine to acheave the potential destructive capacity is to use Torpedoes in part or in whole, though as mentioned above this will done at a price, namely higher losses.

Don't know if I was seeing things but I'm pretty sure 800kg bombs were dropped on ships based in Batavia by IJN edium bombers in my test game. I will check.