Torpedo Attacks in Ports

[Nikademus]

USS Pennsylvania was torpedoed by a Japanese torpedo plane, while at anchor on Aug 12, 1945....Saipen (Buckner Bay)

Fortunately she was in condition Zeb at the time, otherwise she might have been damaged even more seriously than she was.

[tsimmonds]

Good find....but Buckner Bay is off the southeast coast of Okinawa. It is a moderately protected anchorage, but there is no way it could be considered a port by any stretch of the imagination. The entrance is 15 km wide....check it out:
http://webpages.charter.net/jquinn503/map.htm

[Nikademus]

I stand corrected.

However it does highlight the problem of what is defined as a PORT in the game. [;)]

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

I think Mogami stated it nicely. Surface TF's are fair game in a port. But, can anyone provide any conclusive information showing that air carried torpedo attacks were made against ships docked in port? Except for Taranto and Pearl Harbor, it just didn't happen. Those operations took extensive planning and rehearsals to carry out. That is why they didn't happen all the time.

I know that we have been severely criticized because of our inattention to the fact that geography is different from weapons systems, but my opinion is unchanged. It is, actually, reinforced by what has been said by testers and staff.

We are talking about game, not real-world, mechanics here. Yes, the hexes are 60 nm across. Still, the game must provide a framework within which the players can play the game. If ships are disbanded into a port, one set of rules must apply concerning the enemy's ability to attack them and which weapons they can employ. If ships are docked, but still incorporated into a task force structure, another set of rules governs.

The map is not a collection of satellite photographs. It is a means of rationalizing terrain conditions. Why else would LCUs look like they are swimming around 20 miles at sea, when the actuality is that the graphic depiction of the port merely puts them in that position for information reference purposes?

The players in this game ought to have the certainty that, when they disband a TF into a "port," those ships will not be subject to aerial torpedo attack from level bombers. When they are still assigned to TF command and are merely "docked," torpedo attack ought to be possible for all aircraft capable of executing anti-shipping torpedo attacks.

That gives certainty to the attacking player, as well.

The only problem remaining is for the game to define what is a "port" as opposed to what is an "anchorage." The level 3 development has been an answer in UV. Why not in WitP (at that or another level)?

[byron13]

Good reply, Mogami, but I am still somewhat confused. I remember a thread a looong time ago about being in port and docked and whatnot.

If no one chooses to respond to my questions, I'm fine with it. I can wait to read the instructions. But, in the hopes someone will answer . . .

A TF in port but not docked is subject to naval attack. We consider this something like a fleet at anchorage at Ulithi, offloading supplies at a port not large enough to disband in, or maybe at anchor offshore near the port. Basically, the TF maintains its cohesion and remains under power - maybe a temporary stay or in preparation for leaving.

When disbanded, the ships in the former TF lose their cohesion and just lie around at anchor inside the port. Many are tied up to wharves or whatnot refitting, refueling, etc. These are not subject to naval attack but will be subject to port attack. Their proximity to the port and their stationary position makes them subject to attack when the port is attacked.

I guess my confusion is over TFs that are in port but docked. I gather if you have a TF that is IN port, it MUST be docked. What is the analogy for this? A TF quickly dumping supplies on the dock and then sailing in the morning? I also gather that one actually selects whether a TF is docked or not. If it is not docked, is it then considered to not be in the port? Is an example of this a supply TF with orders to return home after disgorging its supplies?

Anyway, I can wait for the directions if no one answers. If only they would release the darned thing. What about pre-orders? I got some money burnin' a hole in my pocket!

[Mr.Frag]

"Port" means many things:

(a) Ship is tied up to a pier being actively loaded or unloaded.

(b) Ship is swinging at anchor, engines not running.

(c) Ship is in a dry dock/repair yard being actively worked on.


(a) might be attackable, it very much depends on the actual port and it's defenses

(b) might actually be (b1) in a protected anchorage or (b2) in an unprotected anchorage

(c) is the only clear cut case where 100% of the time you can say it's immune!

[byron13]

Sheesh. So repairs don't work like they did in PacWar, i.e., disband in a port and the civilians immediately get to work on damage. In WitP, you actually have to select a ship to be worked on?

I've got a ton of questions, but I'm not going to annoy anyone anymore. Ahhh, the weather's beautiful outside, and I'm going to go home!

[Rendova]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag


(c) Ship is in a dry dock/repair yard being actively worked on.


(c) is the only clear cut case where 100% of the time you can say it's immune!

Well I don't know..... if you dropped a live torpedo right on top of a ship in drydock I think you still might do some damage, or at least your make the poor demo guys that had to go out and disarm the thing sweat a little. [:D]

[Halsey]

I think you hit the nail on the head. Players want to be able to decide when and where to take the risk, but we also want the certainty of knowing when and where they are protected too.


"Long live the Banana!"

[Brady]

"(c) is the only clear cut case where 100% of the time you can say it's immune! "

Well not realy, their were floating drydocks...SWo a Torpedo would defenataly bugger that.And Many ships were severaly damaged in Drydock during port raids by bombers.

[Mr.Frag]

I think you hit the nail on the head. Players want to be able to decide when and where to take the risk, but we also want the certainty of knowing when and where they are protected too.

The only certainty in war is that people die...

[Halsey]

Except that a good commander weighs his options before putting their men in harms way. At least, that is what good commanders do. In reality and in wargames.

Brady, Did you say bomb a drydock? That's a port attack, the question is whether you can have a torpedodivebomber attack a ship in port, isn't it? If it was so easy to knock a drydock out, how come St Nazaire had to de taken out by commandos, when it was within bomber range.

Sure ships can be damaged in drydock. I don't think that is the issue. The question is can ships be damaged by air carried torpedo attacks when not in an active surface TF in a port. That answer is no. Taranto and Pearl Harbor are the only instances in WW2 that it ever occured. ( Read previous threads )

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Brady
bugger

Of all the words you misspell, you get that one right...

[Brady]

lol[:)]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I may have spotted one of the reasons why there is a torpedo controversy in the
first place. THE MAP IS WRONG. The "as the crow flys distance" from Saigon to
Singapore in the real world is 675 statute miles. On the game map its at least 100
miles shorter, and those 100 miles are a big point in deciding whether a Betty or
Nell can make a Torpedo attack.

Hi Mike,

IIRC, I believe the the max range of a torp carrying Betty/Nell is little over 700mi. At least thats the approximate distance between Rabaul and Lunga and we know Betty/Nells reached there. Besides this isnt just about Singapore or Cavite for that matter although they are the most evident in the AARs. Simply adding some sort of max port capacity to the game would make this problem go away and should make everyone happy.

I think you will find the distance from Rabaul to Lunga is just about 600 statute miles as
the crow flys..., and while the Japanese were certainly able to make torpedo attacks
there they were pretty much "at the end of their rope." At Lunga they had the great
advantage of knowing exavtly where the targets would be before they left---so there was
no need to allow a fuel "reserve" to search the area when they arrived. And there were
plaenty of "friendly checkpoints" on the route to avoid any navigation hazards. It was
about as good a situation for making a long ranged strike as they could hope to get.

The same is basically true of a strike on Singapore (the harbor wasn't going to move)
but the additional 75 miles out and 75 miles back were enough to make the "possible"
into the "totally unlikely". Which is why in reality they waited to intercept Phillips until
the range was down to about 450 miles---this gave them enough "search radius" when
they arrived at the "reported sighting" to hunt down the British TF and attack it with
great success. If the game keeps "stretching" the combat radius of the A/C involved,
it's going to end up playing out in strange and ahistoric ways. It needs to model the
realistic capabilities of the actual war for all airgroups and not be based on a few ex-
ceptional examples.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Lol! before you Allied Fanboys are finished, you will have the Betty flying less distance the a B-25!

Empty: (G4M1) 14,860 lb (6,741 kg); (G4M2) 17,623 lb (7,994 kg); (G4M3) 18,500 lb (8,391 kg)
Loaded: (G4M1) 20,944 lb (9,500 kg); (G4M2,3) 27,550 lb (12,500 kg)
Maximum Overload: (G4M1) 28,350 lb (12,860 kg); (G4M2,3) 33,070 lb (15,000 kg)
Range at Maximum Overload: (G4M1) 3,132 miles (5,040 km); (G4M2) 2,982 miles (4,800 km); (G4M3) 2,262 miles (3,640 km)

The whole reason the darn things were paper thin was because of the range! There was NOTHING on the aircraft in the way of protection to keep the weight down to keep the RANGE up!

FRAG Nobody's suggestting anything of the sort. At 600 miles in Torpedo Mode the
Betty or the Nell pretty much outrange ALL Allied Medium Bombers in Bomber mode!
Even a B-17 started giving up payload for fuel at 600 miles In Bomber Mode a Betty
or Nell could outrange them considerably (though they certainly couldn't defend them-
selves as well, and their "maxium bombload" wasn't as large). I don't want a "super"
B-25 any more than I want a "super" G4M. What I'm asking for is reasonable historic
norms for ALL aircraft. The Betties and Nells and Mavis's and such get mentioned most
frequently because their real ranges are already extraordinary so when they get "over
stated" they are the most likely to produce problems.

[mogami]

Hi, The Japanese did attack Singapore. Just not on Dec 7. They attacked it quite often. They only sank 1 AP but they damaged a lot of ships.
The Landbased bombers that attacked Darwin in Feb 42 came from Amboina Island (about the same distance as Saigon to Singapore (1 hex more on WITP map) And Kendari.
Now Kendari is further away then Singapore from Saigon or Lunga from Rabaul. (But in WITP terms it is still not extend range of Betty/Nell but out of range of A6M2)

Twenty seven G4M1 "Betty" bombers of the Tokao Kokutai, 23rd Koku Sentai took off from Kandari in the Celebes, while another twenty seven G3M1 "Nell" aircraft took off from Ambon. Their target was the airfields in Darwin.

A second raid occurred about 11.55 a.m. and lasted for about 20-25 minutes. This raid was 54 heavy bombers which flew at a great height and indulged in pattern bombing, more than 200 bombs being dropped according to one observer. These bombers were unescorted by fighters. This raid caused much damage to the surface of the RAAF Station and to the Hospital thereon. No attempt was made in the second raid to bomb the town or the port.

(d) The Aerodrome: The hangars and repairs shops were destroyed, the hospital damaged, and damage was also done to the hutments. The losses in aircraft were as follow:-

6 Hudsons destroyed on the ground
1 Hudson in hangar badly damaged
1 Wirraway badly damaged
2 P.40's destroyed on the ground
1 B.24 [Liberator] destroyed on the ground


The round trip to Darwin from Kendari is close to 400 miles further then the distance to Singapore from Saigon or Lunga from Rabaul. The Japanese stopped making these attacks after the Allies began putting up fighters over Darwin since they could not escort them.

I will also point out that the range from Lunga to Noumea is extended range so there will be no torpedo attacks from Lunga on Noumea. (Aircraft only carry half their bomb load at extended range.)

Those who invision taking Midway to stage port attacks also should know it is extended range. No torpedo attacks on ports from Midway to Pearl. (Take Johnson Island)

The A6M2 suffered because the IJN required it to have long range to escort G3M and G4M (delveloped along with A6M2) but it also had to be used by carriers. Had the IJN developed two fighters (one strictly land based and 1 strictly carrier based) they would have been able to design two more robust aircraft. The Landbased model would not have to be as light and the carrier model would only need 1/3 of the range.

[Brady]

In case this was missed before:

"The G3M1 Model 11 could cary a 800KG payload for 1772 statute miles."

Above from Mitsubishi Type 1 Rikko Units of WW2, by Osamu Tagaya.
.........................................................................................................
From an edited post above in case it was missed:

Nells, have almost the same range as Bettys do they are very close.

Some Japanese Buff ranges from Francillion:

Peggy: Normal 1,740 miles , max 2,360 miles. **

Helen: Normal 1,243 miles, Max 1,833 miles (750kg normal,1K max bomb load)

Sally: Normal 932 miles, Max 1,680 miles (Normal 750KG, Max 1,000KG)

Ki-48: Normal 1,274 miles, Max 1,491 miles ***

Nell: Max range(G3M2) 2,365 Nauticle miles/ 2,722 st miles [ (G3M3) 3,871 st miles]*


* Bombload same a Bettys weight wise 800KG (thought the G4M2 and M3 could cary up to 1,000KG of bombs)

** Normal load 500KG, Max 800KG, Torpedo atack either a 800kg or a 1,070 kg Torpedo.

*** Varied depending on model,Ki-48-II 400KG Normal, 800 KG Max.

[Mike Scholl]

MOGAMI I never said the didn't attack Singapore. I said they couldn't quite make the
trip in TORPEDO-BOMBER mode. Flying in BOMBER mode, and especially with a reduced
payload, they could range out to about 1400 miles and back.

[Brady]

Torpedo mode in a Bety is: aprox. 1772 statute miles.

Almost the same in a Nell.