IJN torpedo bombers

[spence]

Rather than hijack another thread (emasculated B-17s or whatever) I would like to challenge the many IJN Fanboy types to come up with some records of successful torpedo attacks by Bettys and Nells which occurred subsequent to their famous sinking of the Repulse and Prince of Wales. From what I can find in the history books their successes were really pretty few and far between. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places. I am genuinely curious now.

When playing the IJN in UV (WiTP is finally on order) I do enjoy a good massacre of Allied shipping by my G3Ms/G4Ms but I much prefer wargames to fantasy games.

[Halsey]

BRAVO Spence!

You won't get many Japanese Fanboys to respond to this one.[:D]

They rarely show their faces when it means something might be taken away from them by proving it was historical.

There! The gaunlet has been thrown![:'(]

[tsimmonds]

I'm not a Japanese fanboy, rather a history fanboy, but these come to mind right offhand. It does not specify, but the attackers were all G3/G4.

....Lexington sailed to raid Kwajalein 4 December. Her morning strike destroyed a cargo ship, damaged two cruisers, and accounted for 30 enemy aircraft. Her gunners splashed two of the enemy torpedo planes that attacked at midday, and opened fire ag ain at 1920 that night when a mayor air attack began. At 2322 parachute flares silhouetted the carrier, and 10 minutes later she was hit by a torpedo to starboard, knocking out her steering gear....

... During a Japanese counterattack 20 November, Independence was attacked by a group of planes low on the water. Six were shot down, but the planes managed to launch at least five torpedoes one of which scored a hit on the carrier's starboard quarter. Seriously damaged, the ship steamed to Funafuti 23 November for repairs....

...On 27 January, she sailed from Noumea to escort a Guadalcanal convoy. On the night of the 29th, as the ships approached to that bitterly contested island, Japanese aircraft attacked the force and the Battle
of Rennell Island was underway. During the attacks, two burning Japanese planes silhouetted CHICAGO, providing light for torpedo attacks; two hits caused severe flooding and loss of power. By the time the attack ended, fine work on board had checked CHICAGO's list. LOUISVILLE (CA-28) took the disabled ship in tow and was relieved by a tug the following morning. During the afternoon, the Japanese attacked again and, despite heavy losses, managed to hit the disabled cruiser with four more torpedoes which sank her at 11d 25m S., 160d 56m E...

Source: DANFS on Hazegray

[Mr.Frag]

From what I can find in the history books their successes were really pretty few and far between. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places. I am genuinely curious now.

Not going to find much, the Nells and Betties were pulled from front line service very quickly once it was learned that they were death traps (no armor, huge gas tank) and couldn't go up against anything serious. Used to tow gliders in rear areas.

This is just another one of those cases where a real logistics engine is required to handle ammo. Just as the USAF didn't have a neverending supply of bombs to carpet bomb Japan to death early in the war, so to did Japan not have a neverending supply of torpedoes to drop, but ...

Forcing players to deal with ammo would reduce the number of people playing this game to about 10. There's few enough at this level of detail. [:(]

Since this logistics issue benefits both sides, there is little point nit picking over exactly which side gets the best of it. Both sides benefit enormously. Leave it at that. [;)]

[von Murrin]

I have yet to experience Nells and Bettys scoring more than a handful of hits on ships covered by CAP. Usually when one of my TF's gets hammered by them I can honestly say I deserved it.

[tsimmonds]

Two more. Again, it doesn't say so here, but other sources credit Bettys with these attacks.

....Three fast carrier groups arrived undetected daybreak of the 17th, sinking two destroyers and 200,000 ton s of merchant shipping in 2 days of almost continuous attacks. Moreover, the carrier raid demonstrated Truk's vulnerability and thereby greatly curtailed its usefulness to the Japanese as a base. The night of 17 February 1944 an aerial torpedo struck Intrepid's starboard quarter, 15 feet below her waterline, flooding several compartments and jamming her rudder hard to port....

...In a devastating 3 days of
attacks, naval air forces did much to destroy Formosa as a supporting
base for the Japanese in the island battles still to come. Japanese
forces retaliated with heavy and repeated land-based aircraft attacks.
HOUSTON splashed four aircraft in one attack on 12 October, and helped
repel another attack next day, in which CANBERRA suffered damage. Taking CANBERRA's old station 14 October, HOUSTON and other ships met another heavy raid. Her gunners shot down three of the attackers but a fourth's torpedo hit her engine room, causing loss of power....

[spence]

Thank you IRRELEVANT for your rapid response. I knew about the Chicago and had sort of a hazy recollection of at least one carrier getting hit in 43-44 by a night torpedo attack but couldn't pin it down.

I also have a hazy recollection of some Dutch DD getting sunk by air attack early on (Jan-Feb 42) but don't know if it was by a bombing or torpedo attack.

Sooooo - in 45 months of war in the Pacific we have established that there were at least 4 successful torpedo attacks by IJN LBA (including Force Z attacks). Not too impressed just yet. Any more data?

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: spence
Any more data?

There were certainly some in the SRA. I recently re-read The Lonely Ships: The Life and Death of the US Asiatic Fleet. I'm not so enthused about this topic to go hunting through the text, so let it suffice to say that Allied air cover was lacking in a big way, AA wasn't what it was later in the war, and there was fairly little material commitment to the theater by the Allies. A totally different deal than against stiffer opposition.

[spence]

Thanks again Irrelevant.

Up to 8 ships hit now. It's looking a bit more justified but.... in the game.... a couple of Daitai could easily do that in 2 days...not nearly 4 years.

[spence]

(in answer to witpqs) As far as the Asiatic Fleet in the SRA - I went looking at that time frame but seems all the attacks were bombing attacks rather than torpedo attacks (at least against the USN ships and excluding the Force Z attacks)

[tsimmonds]

ORIGINAL: spence

(in answer to witpqs) As far as the Asiatic Fleet in the SRA - I went looking at that time frame but seems all the attacks were bombing attacks rather than torpedo attacks (at least against the USN ships and excluding the Force Z attacks)

Five bucks says bombs was all they had available; they had not yet developed the ability magically to convert supply points into torpedoes at every level 4 airbase.[;)]

[spence]

So maybe their default load should be bombs and they should only be able to launch torpedo attacks from certain major bases or perhaps something could be rigged along the line of having an Air Flotilla HQ in a hex changing the default load to torpedos for Naval Strike missions. Just a thought - seems more realistic than having the threat of torpedo bomber attack extend from Honolulu to Karachi and Pole to Pole.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: spence

(in answer to witpqs) As far as the Asiatic Fleet in the SRA - I went looking at that time frame but seems all the attacks were bombing attacks rather than torpedo attacks (at least against the USN ships and excluding the Force Z attacks)

Certainly by far most air attacks I recall reading were bombs.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Five bucks says bombs was all they had available; they had not yet developed the ability magically to convert supply points into torpedoes at every level 4 airbase.[;)]

Yeah, the auto convoy system and the auto supply transfer across the road and rail hex... oh, what the hell???

[tsimmonds]

So maybe their default load should be bombs and they should only be able to launch torpedo attacks from certain major bases or perhaps something could be rigged along the line of having an Air Flotilla HQ in a hex changing the default load to torpedos for Naval Strike missions. Just a thought - seems more realistic than having the threat of torpedo bomber attack extend from Honolulu to Karachi and Pole to Pole.

Excellent idea! Torps for ships are strictly limited, why not aerial torps as well?

Personally, I wish we had to produce items like torps, mines, and shells for large naval guns, and transport them forward. That would slow things down!

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

So maybe their default load should be bombs and they should only be able to launch torpedo attacks from certain major bases or perhaps something could be rigged along the line of having an Air Flotilla HQ in a hex changing the default load to torpedos for Naval Strike missions. Just a thought - seems more realistic than having the threat of torpedo bomber attack extend from Honolulu to Karachi and Pole to Pole.

Excellent idea! Torps for ships are strictly limited, why not aerial torps as well?

Personally, I wish we had to produce items like torps, mines, and shells for large naval guns, and transport them forward. That would slow things down!

I like it! Of course, this means it will never happen...[;)] Nobody wuvs me anymore...[:(]

[von Murrin]

ORIGINAL: spence

So maybe their default load should be bombs and they should only be able to launch torpedo attacks from certain major bases or perhaps something could be rigged along the line of having an Air Flotilla HQ in a hex changing the default load to torpedos for Naval Strike missions. Just a thought - seems more realistic than having the threat of torpedo bomber attack extend from Honolulu to Karachi and Pole to Pole.

Not a bad idea, but I rather like being able to shred IJN air power at any point in the defensive perimeter I choose to visit.[:D]

[BlackVoid]

1. An attempt was made by Betties to attack the Guadalcanal invasion TF, but the Betties were already equipped with bombs against PM, I think, and thus they flew off with bombs. And did not hit a thing IIRC.

2. If you look at japanese doctrine they never really cared about sinking transports. Instead they bombed the airfields (PM, Lunga). Given their vulnerability they could not be used against a well defended target. In the game they will also get slaughtered by CAP or strong AA.

3. Japanese air superiority really ended in mid 42 and after that no wonder that the Betties were useless. In the game it can happen differently.

4. What kind of naval targets did the Betties really have early 42? Except maybe for a possible participation in the Coral Sea battle, or attacking ships going towards PM, not many.

5. Naval search could be still too good, allowing both sides to attack more shipping at long range then real life. As the Betties carry torpedoes this makes them better than long-range allied planes.

Conclusion: without air superiority the Betty is useless. In the game and real life as well.

Factors that affect both sides:
If you look at it all bombers in the game are more effective than IRL. They hit targets more often, they require less effort to keep them operational, OP losses are less. Airfields are too easy to build. Many airfields are overrated. For example LAE. Saburo Sakai mentions that the airfield was on a hillside and was very little, fighters could barely operate from there and bombers never could. In the game a lot of places can be built into mega-airfields easily even by Japan.

[BlackVoid]

One more thing. WITP is a historical simulation AND a game.

Japanese capablities may be overrated (Personally I do not think that they are, just with hindsight and practice players can achieve much better than Japan). But, as the game is moved from game to simulation, we may reach a point where playing Japan is totally hopeless. When you get there, there will be no more japanese PBEM players and all the allied fanboys can do is play the AI.

Keeping some kind of balance is important.

I am no japanese or allied fanboy, I am simply a fan of the theatre and I am having fun playing any of the sides.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

So maybe their default load should be bombs and they should only be able to launch torpedo attacks from certain major bases or perhaps something could be rigged along the line of having an Air Flotilla HQ in a hex changing the default load to torpedos for Naval Strike missions. Just a thought - seems more realistic than having the threat of torpedo bomber attack extend from Honolulu to Karachi and Pole to Pole.

Excellent idea! Torps for ships are strictly limited, why not aerial torps as well?

Personally, I wish we had to produce items like torps, mines, and shells for large naval guns, and transport them forward. That would slow things down!

I really think this is the ONLY way to go with respect to trying to differentiate specialist suppy in a generic supply system. The designers have the right idea, they just need to apply it universally.

We already have limitations on torpedoes for naval units (SSs, PTs, DDs and larger warships).

We have limitations on mine distribution at ports (size 9).

We need more....

For fleet ammo replenishment (size 6?) This should apply to CLs, CAs, BCs, BB, CVs etc.

Refueling (size 4?) or with AO/TKs stationed there.

Perhaps require a new field for base other than port/airfield/fortifications which can be built. Port/Base Installations. Potential max size dependent on base max size, and this could be used to establish fuel and supply(ammo) capacity and distribution limits.

Torpedo armed planes on naval attacks. Use base minimum asa we have now but have them go through same checks for ammo load as for port attacks. Larger the airbase, greater chance for torpedo availability.