B25J and tropedoes

[mdiehl]

But it really shouldn't be that high.

Agreed. After all we're talking about eight marine corps units that might potentially be torp armed, most deployed to the PTO in 1944-45.

Does anyone know what the allowed load-out of B-25s and PBJ-1s will be?

[ChezDaJez]

The point that you keep dodging is that the training and the doctrine were there.

And the point that you keep dodging is that while they did receive the most rudimentary training in torpedo use while stateside, they did not continue to train with torpedoes. Indeed, only one unit, VMB-433, ever actually dropped a torpedo during training. The rest used concrete shapes! Hardly "extensive training" as you so incorrectly insist.

They also did not have a doctrine in place in which to make use of them. Your assertion of having a doctrine in place strongly implies the supporting infrastructure is there. This was certainly not the case. I know you won't but once again, I ask you to list your sources. What books or websites support with any degreee of certainty, your supposition?

Of course, it is amusing to be upbraided by the guy who imagined that one instance of a B-29 having a turret blown off by flak (but completed its mission despite that) implied the losses of hundreds of B-29s during the war by "explosive decompression."

Lovely stretch of the imagination there. Go back and reread that thread. I stated that explosive decompression could, and did, prove fatal under that right circumstances and that it could also lead to the loss of an aircraft as amply demonstrated by numerous air disasters such as the BOAC Comets in the 50's, the DC-10 over Paris and many more. In no way did I imply that many B-29s were lost to explosive decompression, certainly not hundreds as you so ably exaggerate, only that the possibility existed.

You are incorrect. I've named four that were dedicated torpedo bombers. Not deployed to the PTO but the training and doctrine were there. Or is it your contention that doctrine and training changed substantially from one Naval Air Station to the next?

You named four squadrons that Vandergriff transitioned to Avengers and wanted trained in ground support missions for the anticipated invasion of Japan. USN Avengers were certainly designed to drop torpedoes and did employ them on many occasions. However, that is not what the Marines wanted them for. Where is your data to the contrary? What sources prove otherwise? List it here and prove me wrong!

Since this is a consim that permits deviation from history, given that the training and doctrine were there, my point is that VBM units equipped with PBJ-1s should be allowed to be torpedo armed, if the Allied player deems it appropriate.

And my point is that you can charge the windmill all you want, the game simply won't support multiple, selectable loadouts. Your diatribe is simply grandstanding.

Chez

[mdiehl]

I know you won't but once again, I ask you to list your sources. What books or websites support with any degreee of certainty, your supposition?

It's very odd to hear you dismissing that there was a doctrine for it (and other information already provided) when you don't have any evidence to indicate there wasn't one. You're the one on a limb here. Given that four of the units subsequently were designated VMBT (VMB torpedo) and equipped with Avengers, the overwhelming evidence demonstrates that the interest and doctrine were there all along.

I stated that explosive decompression could, and did, prove fatal under that right circumstances and that it could also

I'm not imagining anything. You were the one suggesting that explosive decompression was a big problem for B-29s. You were wrong then.

lead to the loss of an aircraft as amply demonstrated by numerous air disasters such as the BOAC Comets in the 50's,

If you'd read anything about the Comets you'd know that explosive decompression did not cause the crashes. Structural failure caused by metal fatigue around the oversized windows cause the crashes. Decompression was the side effect. As happened with your assessment of the B-29 example that you provided, you have reversed the cause and the effect.

You named four squadrons that Vandergriff transitioned to Avengers and wanted trained in ground support missions for the anticipated invasion of Japan. USN Avengers were certainly designed to drop torpedoes and did employ them on many occasions. However, that is not what the Marines wanted them for. Where is your data to the contrary? What sources prove otherwise? List it here and prove me wrong!

If the designation "Marine Bomber - Torpedo" isn't evidence enough of a torpedo doctrine for you then you're beyond reasonable reach or concern.

And my point is that you can charge the windmill all you want, the game simply won't support multiple, selectable loadouts. Your diatribe is simply grandstanding.

One man's windmill is another man's water pump. Seems like it's only "charging a windmill to you" when it rattles your studiously underinformed p.o.v. Kiss off.

[ChezDaJez]

One man's windmill is another man's water pump. Seems like it's only "charging a windmill to you" when it rattles your studiously underinformed p.o.v. Kiss off.

My oh my! Seems to me that you are the one that is rattled by having to resort to using phrases such as "kiss off." I didn't think that you could sustain a discussion without resorting to insults.

Be that as it may, I'll tell ya what. You post your references and I'll post mine and we'll let the readers determine what is correct.

A few examples:

From: "North American PBJ Mitchell" by Jack McKillop

VMB-624 was commissioned on 20 June 1944 at MCAS Cherry Point. The squadron began operational training with PBJs and by the end of December had ten PBJ-1Hs and one PBJ-1J. On 15 February 1945, the squadron was redesignated VMTB-624 and re-equipped with Eastern Aircraft TBM Avengers.

The weren't designated VMBT squadrons while flying PBJs.

From the same reference:

The Marine PBJ squadrons served ashore as a garrison air force to attack bypassed Japanese bases and other installations. The primary operations were at night against shipping and land targets. In the South Pacific, five squadrons flew missions against Japanese installations at or near Rabaul (4.12S, 152.12E) on New Britain Island and Kavieng (2.35S, 150.50E) on the northwest coast of New Ireland Island in the Bismarck Archipelago and Bougainville Island in the British Solomon Islands. One squadron, based in the Marshall Islands, was tasked with preventing resupply of bypassed Japanese bases in those islands while one squadron was based in the Mariana Islands, and later Iwo Jima and Okinawa, flying night anti-shipping missions. The eighth squadron departed the U.S. in July 1945 and ended the war based on Midway Island.

From Joe Baugher's site:

Operational use of the Marine Corps PBJ-1s began in March of 1944. The Marine PBJs operated from the Philippines, Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa during the last few months of the Pacific war. Their primary mission was the long range interdiction of enemy shipping that was trying to run the blockade which was strangling Japan. The weapon of choice during these missions was usually the five-inch HVAR rocket, eight of which could be carried on underwing racks. Many of the PBJ-1C and D versions carried a rather ugly, bulbous antenna for an APS-3 search radar sticking out of the upper part of the transparent nose. On the PBJ-1H and J, the APS-3 search radar antenna was usually housed inside a ventral or wingtip radome. Some PBJ-1Js had their top turrets removed to save weight, especially toward the end of the war when Japanese fighters had become relatively scarce.

I'll post more after work.

Chez

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
One man's windmill is another man's water pump.

So Quixote wasn't the fool he seemed, he was actually trying to cut off their water supply?

BRILLIANT!

[anarchyintheuk]

Quixote wasn't called El Ingenioso for nothing.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: spence

Off Guadalcanal the G4Ms with torpedoes were pretty unsucessful...apart from a suicide crash or two and an instance where 35 of them ganged up on a damaged destroyer (USS Jarvis) they pretty much paid a lot for nearly no return. They had a really good day off Malaya in 1941 and never approached that result again throughout the war.

There were far more instances where they attacked ships with bombs from high altitude when their results (amazingly[8|]) differed in no important way from the results obtained by B-17s dropping on ships from 20000 feet.

The likelihood of US 2e bombers dropping torpedoes should exceed somewhat the likelihood that the IJN forms a "Baby KB" out of escort carriers with no arresting gear that are too slow and short-decked to launch a torpedo armed bomber. But it really shouldn't be that high. And anyways a more likely candidate for the USN would have been the PV-1 which was faster, had longer range and an equal if not larger payload than the B-25/PBJ.

The PV-1 started out life as an airliner and had some limitations over the B-25. For one thing the bomb bay was very shallow. It also wasn't as tough an airplane.

The max bomb load for the PV-1 was 3000 pounds, which was the normal combat load for the B-25. The B-25 could carry a larger load, but only short range.

I do agree with your first two paragraphs. The G4M obtained a reputation like the Stuka in the early going due to some amazing feats of range and the humbling of the Royal Navy off Malaya. Against decent air defense, the limitations of the Betty became obvious and it lost its scariness in a similar way the Stuka did.

Bill

[AirGriff]

Ah, yet another good point.  At the start of the war, naval and even merchant shipping AA was a fraction of what it was in the latter years of the war, and I assume that goes for the Japanese combatant ships, as well.  As the AA power and effectiveness improved over the war I'm sure pilots were less and less willing, or at least less motivated, to make torpedo attacks, especially in a big, slow, lumbering 2E bomber. 

[mdiehl]

Ah, yet another good point. At the start of the war, naval and even merchant shipping AA was a fraction of what it was in the latter years of the war, and I assume that goes for the Japanese combatant ships, as well. As the AA power and effectiveness improved over the war I'm sure pilots were less and less willing, or at least less motivated, to make torpedo attacks, especially in a big, slow, lumbering 2E bomber.

The problem with the Betty was not the speed. It was not all that slow. It's chief problem was an inability to withstand damage. And you are spot on. The US, UK and Japanese substantially increased AAA armament as the war progressed (although Japanese AAA armament quality never approached that of late war Allied ships). The B-25 was not particularly slow either, but as others have already noted it's deployment in anti-ship strike configuration in combat was limited to skip bombing, GP level bombing, rockets, nose mounted guns, and depth charges against submarines (which were a commonplace and regularly occurring load out for PBJ-1s flying "hunter-killer" ASW missions in the PTO).

If you'd like a link to some mission logs for PBJs loaded with rockets or DCs I can provide but will presume you can find 'em otherwise.

[mdiehl]

I didn't think that you could sustain a discussion without resorting to insults.

I'll never shoot first but I'll always shoot back. If you don't like the retaliation, don't do the provocation.

Be that as it may, I'll tell ya what. You post your references and I'll post mine and we'll let the readers determine what is correct.

Still waiting for you to post anything that I have not already noted. You're an expert at taking the info I provide, attaching a link, and somehow construing yourself to have rebutted something I said.

The point, that you still continue to dodge, is that in a consim one must sort out what's likely, what's plausible but improbable (such as torp armed PBJ-1s IMO) and that which is impluasible and improbable to the point of exclusion (Japanese invasions of Ceylon, India, Australia, high a.c. production rates, and so forth). The game lets the Japanese player get away with violations of reasonable SIMULATION far greater than imagining VMB B-25 units executing a torpedo attack.

By the way. What WILL BE the permissible load outs for B-25s. Will they use D.C.s when on ASW missions? Rockets on late war naval strike missions? Parafrag-w.p. on strikes on enemy airfields?

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
What WILL BE the permissible load outs for B-25s.

I don't think we included B-25s in the game - that would made this thread have greater than zero meaning!
[:D]

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
What WILL BE the permissible load outs for B-25s.

I don't think we included B-25s in the game - that would made this thread have greater than zero meaning!
[:D]

touche

[jwilkerson]

In case some of you haven't figured this out yet - this thread is not actually about anything. There are long standing feuds between some of the posters - some going back as far as a decade perhaps - and this thread is just a vehicle for these folks to continue their feud. So if anyone has anything better to do - you are invited to GET TO IT !!!
[:D]

[Terminus]

What, something better than watching this endless, tedious, mind-numbing, monotonous, droning on and on and on and on and on about the same things, by the same people, over and over and over again?

Nope, nothing better to do...[:D]

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

What, something better than watching this endless, tedious, mind-numbing, monotonous, droning on and on and on and on and on about the same things, by the same people, over and over and over again?

Sounds like marriage.

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: Terminus

What, something better than watching this endless, tedious, mind-numbing, monotonous, droning on and on and on and on and on about the same things, by the same people, over and over and over again?

Sounds like marriage.

Now this is usually just about the time my wife happens to walk by to see what i am up to [8|]