Fleet assets

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by MemoryLeak
-mdiehl

I believe you know the point that I'm making.

Lets say--
Your opponent's POV is wrong.
Your (mdiehl)'s POV is wrong.
A third, as yet unstated, POV is right.
How does your acquiescence to your opponents POV equate to "making you accurate"?
If you'd said it makes you open minded, I wouldn't have written in the first place.

Because he is unwilling to conceed me credibility on any point.
My existance offends him =)
As if I care =)

[madflava13]

Ok, even I am sick of arguing this stuff, and I'm in law school... That should tell you something.

Let's all play nice. He who gets the last word in doesn't get a prize.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by madflava13
Ok, even I am sick of arguing this stuff, and I'm in law school... That should tell you something.

Let's all play nice. He who gets the last word in doesn't get a prize.

Then you know the futility of arguing AD HOC.

Given the nature of the board, ALL statements are no more than opinions.

[madflava13]

Right, opinions with some fact mixed in... But the point is we're getting no where with this, so let's all just agree to disagree for now. When we hear something from the game designers about this, we can rekindle... Until then, I say let's let it go.

[mdiehl]

I believe you know the point that I'm making.

Lets say--
Your opponent's POV is wrong.
Your (mdiehl)'s POV is wrong.
A third, as yet unstated, POV is right.
How does your acquiescence to your opponents POV equate to "making you accurate"?
If you'd said it makes you open minded, I wouldn't have written in the first place.

No I don't know he point you're trying to make and not following you I guess. If you feel like running down your logic on that you can send me a private message. The quip to Mike was hardly worth all this attention on the thread.

What was all this about... fleet assets. How did PH become part of this? I dunno. Any connections? Not many that I see except that the D3A (a kind of asset carried by the fleet) was not going to carry any munitions with enough explosive force to substantially damage a machine tool, substantial concrete structure, or dry dock.

I wonder about the Kate. Have to look up some factoids on that one. As a level bomber it's not going to have a prayer of sufficient accuracy to hit anything important in a dry dock gate, or an important valve suite. I wonder if it will carry enough payload to mount a substantial bomb?

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by mdiehl
No I don't know he point you're trying to make and not following you I guess. If you feel like running down your logic on that you can send me a private message. The quip to Mike was hardly worth all this attention on the thread.

What was all this about... fleet assets. How did PH become part of this? I dunno. Any connections? Not many that I see except that the D3A (a kind of asset carried by the fleet) was not going to carry any munitions with enough explosive force to substantially damage a machine tool, substantial concrete structure, or dry dock.

I wonder about the Kate. Have to look up some factoids on that one. As a level bomber it's not going to have a prayer of sufficient accuracy to hit anything important in a dry dock gate, or an important valve suite. I wonder if it will carry enough payload to mount a substantial bomb?

Seems to me that it had enough to carry a torpedo =)
As for accuracy, well you know there is this thing called PRACTICE,
which the Pearl Harbor strike force did for a considerable
period of time.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by Chiteng
Seems to me that it had enough to carry a torpedo =)
As for accuracy, well you know there is this thing called PRACTICE,
which the Pearl Harbor strike force did for a considerable
period of time.

The B5N could lug a 811.2kg AP bomb if utilized in a level bomber role.

Kates did well at Pearl Harbor dropping them from 10,000 feet.

[mogami]

Hi, The Kate was often used as a level bomber (1650lb bomb load) Each IJN carrier had between 15-40 810kg bombs onboard as the normal load out (I think they carried extras for PH)
This bomb is often overlooked in wargames. The carriers can't make repeated attacks (since they only carry enough for 1 or 2)
They carry several hundred of the 250kg bomb (which was sheldom carried by a Kate.)

Bombs carried by IJN CV (I'll have to dig up the standard load out by carrier class- The mag storage racks are designed to hold a specific bomb so it is possible to know normal loads carried.
60kg
125kg
250kg
500kg
800kg
Torpedo

[mdiehl]

Kates did well at Pearl Harbor dropping them from 10,000 feet.

Define "well." IRC reading (I think it was in one of these threads so its about as asuthoritative as nothing) that the only B5N AP bomb that hit a target was the one that accidently hit Arizona. Hitting a parked BB is not exactly a skills challenge. US strategic bombers hit smaller stationary ships (of course it helps to drop sixteen bombs...).

Anyone know from a source how many of these AP sluggos hit their targets?

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by mdiehl
Define "well." IRC reading (I think it was in one of these threads so its about as asuthoritative as nothing) that the only B5N AP bomb that hit a target was the one that accidently hit Arizona. Hitting a parked BB is not exactly a skills challenge. US strategic bombers hit smaller stationary ships (of course it helps to drop sixteen bombs...).

Anyone know from a source how many of these AP sluggos hit their targets?

Now he is shifting back to Ships.....the discussion
was about bomb payloads vs the port?

The Kate existed in numbers. They didnt practice at hitting dock features. But they easily could have.

Plus Mdeihl your ignoring the opinions of several people one of whom is an engineer, that it WOULD be possible to substantively
damage a harbor. So stop pretending you are facing merely
me. That makes you look dishonest.

[mogami]

Hi, I know the Japanese could have hit the dry docks. They bombed ships in them. They even sank at least one floating dry dock. The Japanese used a much shallower dive then the US. (making them more accurate but also easier to shoot down. (Japanese used a 55 degree dive USA used a 70 degree.
The Kate level bombers destroyed or damaged around 300 aircraft and did serious damage.

The Pennsylvania Flagship of the Pacific Fleet and one of the raiders' priority targets, was "high and dry" in Drydock # One with destroyers Cassin and Downes. One bomb hit Pennsylvania amidships, killing eighteen crewmembers and producing modest damage to the battleship. Other bombs, hitting on and near the two destroyers, opened their fuel tanks and set intense fires. Ammunition explosions, including the detonation of a torpedo on Downes, added to the destruction, which was compounded when the drydock was partially flooded. Cassin then lifted off her blocks and rolled over against Downes.

Dive bombers from the second wave also struck the destroyer Shaw, which was in the floating drydock YFD-2. The resulting fires spread to Shaw's forward magazines, which blew up spectacularly, severing her bow. However, the rest of the ship remained afloat as the drydock sank beneath her. The little tug Sotoyomo, also in YFD-2, was badly burned by Shaw's fires and went down, too.

(Now days all ships must off load fuel and ammo before entering drydock)

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by mdiehl

Define "well." IRC reading (I think it was in one of these threads so its about as asuthoritative as nothing) that the only B5N AP bomb that hit a target was the one that accidently hit Arizona. Hitting a parked BB is not exactly a skills challenge. US strategic bombers hit smaller stationary ships (of course it helps to drop sixteen bombs...).

Your free to carry that opinion of course. I dont know what smaller ships you refer too, however i do know that "strategic bombers" benefited from dropping considerably more than one single bomb per plane.

Anyone know from a source how many of these AP sluggos hit their targets? [/B]

Arizona was struck by four 800kg. 2 more were close near misses, 2 more struck the Vestal....moored alongside with an additional near miss on Vestal

Obviously, 1 of the 4 hits blew up the old battleship, hence the term "well" 1 bomb for nearly every 4 dropped being a hit from 10000 feet is pretty good in my book. More so when adding the Vestal, had a BB been in place of her.

[madflava13]

mdiehl,
I'm rusty, but IIRC, the Kate level bombers did quite well on PH targets. I've gotta dig up some old books, but that was my understanding.
Granted they trained exclusively for this attack, and I could still be wrong... But let me have a couple days to hit the books again.

As an aside - Anyone who can get to the U.S.S. Arizona memorial, I urge you to do so. There's a video you watch before heading to the actual memorial - it shows that Kate-dropped bomb which hit the magazine... It's a sobering experience. The first time I saw it, I looked around the theater and realized I was the only one who recognized that 2,000 US sailors died during that footage. There aren't words to describe that...

[LTCMTS]

1. Drydocks are entered and exited through flood gates.

2. Flood gates are made of wood or metal.

3. Wood or metal will bend, splinter, deform and collapse under excessive pressure.

4. There is water outside the gate in a drydock, even when the side with the ship on the blocks is dry.

5. Sufficiently powerful bombs dropped alongside the drydock gates in the water will create blast overpressure in the water.

6. The blast overpressure will splinter, deform, damage or destroy the gates. Or it will damage the hinging, locking or swinging mechanisms for the gates.

7. In any case, the drydock is now unusable until repaired.

8. This is not the same as destroying the drydock itself as was done at St. Nazaire, but it will prevent the repair of underwater damage to warships for several months as parts are sent out from CONUS and the drydock repaired.

9. Again, there are a number of maintenance shops, for torpedoes, engines, turret and FC that could be profitably destroyed at a port. All such losses would have delayed repairs to warships in Pearl Harbor until replaced.

10. The ability of the IJN to attack surface land targets from the air was suitably demonstrated by the "leveling" of Darwin by the Kido Butai in 1942.

11. The reason I stopped posting here is that you people, not just mdiehl, but, unfortunately, him mostly, cannot execute a civil exchange of opinions and information w/o making it personal. None of you would have survived your first AAR at the NTC.

[byron13]

Originally posted by LTCMTS
The reason I stopped posting here is that you people, not just mdiehl, but, unfortunately, him mostly, cannot execute a civil exchange of opinions and information w/o making it personal. None of you would have survived your first AAR at the NTC.

Aah, we're young yet. We'll grow up sometime. I hope you don't stop posting, LTCMTS, as your insight and clarity are most welcome. Frankly, you're the only poster I've seen that has the style and perspicacity to match wits with mdiehl, and we need that balance too.

[mdiehl]

Stanley Weintraub (A Long Day's Journey into War) mentioned that the IJN recon reported heavy clouds at 1500m. How does that square with level bombing attacks from 10,000 feet? Can anyone confirm the 10k feet altitude for the Kate attacks?

1. Drydocks are entered and exited through flood gates.

2. Flood gates are made of wood or metal.

3. Wood or metal will bend, splinter, deform and collapse under excessive pressure.

4. There is water outside the gate in a drydock, even when the side with the ship on the blocks is dry.

5. Sufficiently powerful bombs dropped alongside the drydock gates in the water will create blast overpressure in the water.

6. The blast overpressure will splinter, deform, damage or destroy the gates. Or it will damage the hinging, locking or swinging mechanisms for the gates.

7. In any case, the drydock is now unusable until repaired.

8. This is not the same as destroying the drydock itself as was done at St. Nazaire, but it will prevent the repair of underwater damage to warships for several months as parts are sent out from CONUS and the drydock repaired.

9. Again, there are a number of maintenance shops, for torpedoes, engines, turret and FC that could be profitably destroyed at a port. All such losses would have delayed repairs to warships in Pearl Harbor until replaced.

10. The ability of the IJN to attack surface land targets from the air was suitably demonstrated by the "leveling" of Darwin by the Kido Butai in 1942.

11. The reason I stopped posting here is that you people, not just mdiehl, but, unfortunately, him mostly, cannot execute a civil exchange of opinions and information w/o making it personal. None of you would have survived your first AAR at the NTC.

Points 1-5 agreed to without objection. Point 6 is an overclaim. It depends on how robust the gates and how big the bomb. It also depends on whether the gate is opened or closed. The blast overpressure may result in no damage whatsoever. Point 7 assumes that significant damage has occurred. If so, then the drydock is undoubtedly "not usable until repaired."

Point 8 is pure speculation. If you are talking about several months repair you seem to be assuming that the damage is so severe that the entire gate, hinging & closing mechanisms need to be replaced. OTOH, if the damage is minor it might be fixxed in 48 hours. Even if complete replacement of the gate is required, the "several months" part of your conjecture is purely speculative. It might take only the amount of time required to ship one from the states.

Point 9 is, well, awkward. No one has disputed the theoretical ability for a perfect convergence of pilot, plane, the right weapon system, Luke Skywalker, the Death Star and an Exhaust Port to all align favorably at just the right second. But how likely is it that the Japanese could destory any of these harder targets? You can do LOTS of damage to buildings. These, however, are relatively easy to replace. The critical stuff (machine tools in particular are the heart of "machine shops") is VERY difficult to damage. Kido Butai never inlicted on ANY facility the density of bomb hits delivered by B17s in, for example, Regansburg, and machine tools survived these raids pretty well. Other critical pieces of equipment require substantial explosives that could not be carred by the Val. The Kate seems to have the payload to carry a big weapon, but for the concussive effects you'd need a sequence of Kates each with one big bomb picking on one and only one target. Repeat as often as you can. Note that at the time, Kates used "pattern bombing." Basically, they endeavored to accomplish with 27 Kates what the USAAF could attempt to accomplish with 8 B17s.

Point 10. The buildings and facilities were minimal and the damage was largely structural. There was modest impairment of the port to function as a port because of pier damage, no long-term impairment of the airfields. The worst damage was on ships, a couple of giv't bldgs, and an airplane hanger.

19 Feb 1942 - Raids No. 1 & 2.
243 killed, 350 wounded.
Two ships set on fire, one blown up damaging the pier. Six ships sunk and seven more damaged; three Catalina aircraft destroyed and two US vessels destroyed. Post and Telegraph offices destroyed, Police Station, Barracks, Cable Office, and Government offices destroyed and hospital damaged. RAAF hospital, recreation hall, equipment store, many houses and living quarters destroyed.

from http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-bat ... darwin.htm

With respect to infrastructure damage, the Commission of Inquiry's report (see http://home.st.net.au/~pdunn/darwin02.htm) indicates that most of the damage to Darwin's piers was cause by the explosion of a ship (Neptuna)at the pier that was carrying a partial cargo of munitions, rather than by bomb hits.

[Mike Scholl]

....to take out a dry dock gate, why worry about bomb
accuracy? Why not just have a couple of Kates TORPEDO
the blasted things? On the other hand, You don't have to
immediately be able to repair the gates to use the dock.
Earlier dry docks were often sealed with nothing but rock
and soil and such..., which could be dredged out in a couple
days when the repairs were complete. It would work as
a stop-gap until gate repair could be made.

[mdiehl]

That's the best solution for this problem that I've heard. Thanks Mike.

[mogami]

Hi, Even if the machine tool is not destroyed it needs repair. (the wiring and power cords melt and need to be fixed. Not a major job but still the machine is not simply dug out of the rubble and put back into use on the street. If some of us are exaggerating the damage others are trivializing it.

Before anyone can put the machine shops back in order they have to contend with other damage. (while the ships are still burning and wounded men are laying around no one is going to worry about digging machine tools out. )

I don't think anything will be done within 48 hours. Repair has to move in a certain path. Before you can start repairing items you first have to get your repair apparatus back up and running.
(Tools sheds and power supply)
The game is too large a scale to detail what has been damaged. All we can go by is percent of capability damaged and how long it takes to repair. Remember in my two practice strikes not 1 point of port facilities was destroyed.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by LTCMTS
1. Drydocks are entered and exited through flood gates.

2. Flood gates are made of wood or metal.

3. Wood or metal will bend, splinter, deform and collapse under excessive pressure.

4. There is water outside the gate in a drydock, even when the side with the ship on the blocks is dry.

5. Sufficiently powerful bombs dropped alongside the drydock gates in the water will create blast overpressure in the water.

6. The blast overpressure will splinter, deform, damage or destroy the gates. Or it will damage the hinging, locking or swinging mechanisms for the gates.

7. In any case, the drydock is now unusable until repaired.

8. This is not the same as destroying the drydock itself as was done at St. Nazaire, but it will prevent the repair of underwater damage to warships for several months as parts are sent out from CONUS and the drydock repaired.

9. Again, there are a number of maintenance shops, for torpedoes, engines, turret and FC that could be profitably destroyed at a port. All such losses would have delayed repairs to warships in Pearl Harbor until replaced.

10. The ability of the IJN to attack surface land targets from the air was suitably demonstrated by the "leveling" of Darwin by the Kido Butai in 1942.

11. The reason I stopped posting here is that you people, not just mdiehl, but, unfortunately, him mostly, cannot execute a civil exchange of opinions and information w/o making it personal. None of you would have survived your first AAR at the NTC.

I dont call people names, and I dont resort to personal attacks.
Do not include me in your scolding.