"Solution to excessive Torpedo use (from land bases)"

[treespider]

I would like as noted above to see Torps be a transported item required to be stocked just like Suply and fuel, and acounted for 1 torp one plane exc...

Are you going to pay for my staff to track these things?

If you are going to start tracking torps you will also need to start tracking Av gas and torps and bombs on CV's as well, as well as Av Gas at bases and bombs at bases...so why not start stracking artillery shells....and so forth and so on.

One of of my issues with this game is the amount of detail it devotes to some areas and not others. Ie if we are going to model individual ship captains and pilots then why are we not also modelling battalion/company/platoon/squad commanders? IMO the game needs to be consistent across the board in its level of detail... and I am not suggesting more detail is better.

[Brady]

Look's like this:



What they Built:




Aaaaahh, MAN THATS A LOTA TORPS![:)]

[Brady]

The Big Picture:




The Previously posted (not by Me) Chart, was the Yen Value chart.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Brady


The Big Picture:




The Previously posted (not by Me) Chart, was the Yen Value chart.

Beat me to the punch..

[juliet7bravo]

xxx

[Brady]

Their is a little Astric at the bottom of the Chart you posted indicating the Numbers are to be multipled by a 1000, so I belave your wrong bud, the figures also jive with the other charts, though I see what you mean their are kinda oddly labled, but I do beleave the chart you posted is a yen value chart.

Example the Fist of the Plant production break down charts, showing units built:

[juliet7bravo]

xxx

[Brady]

Clearly something is screwey with the charts, but look at the last one I posted, and look at the numbers their, they seam reasionable enough, for production Numbers.

[juliet7bravo]

xxx

[Brady]

The Chart I am looking at ,the last one I posted shows:

Type 91 Mod II's built by Nagasaki Arsenal for all of 1941 to be 209
Type 91 Mod III , 430


Total production for just the Factorys listed on the above Chart for 1941 is: 667

For the Entire war on the Above Chart it is:8546

Which is Aproximaterly 2100 a year or 178 a Month.

Not counting the prewar stocks at all thats a fair amount of torps.



Or 11,402 for total Aireal torpedo production.

If we include Pre War Production thats 237 a month if you figure a full 4 years of War, which their was not, I used the 4 year figure above to. Even counting in training you could likely figure on at least 200 a Month average.

Dont look at the figures for the Aierial Mines.

[el cid again]

If you are going to start tracking torps you will also need to start tracking Av gas and torps and bombs on CV's as well, as well as Av Gas at bases and bombs at bases...so why not start stracking artillery shells....and so forth and so on.

I do that - and would do that - if the game structure allowed. It does not. So I don't worry about it. This is a real artificial issue: it is completely out of sync with the game design - or lots of other equally valid issues (to the extent it is a valid issue).

I favor a more general solution - addressing ALL munitions. It would not require a change in focus or game design of major proportions. Track munitions separately - not as part of "supplies". Allow players to select weapon loadouts. You don't have the quantity of ammo needed, you cannot carry torpedoes, or bombs either! Maybe you need 3 times that much - or 5 times that much - find some sort of operational average and apply it always to everyone.

I gave the Allies a medium bomber with torpedoes - it seems the Aussies liked it - so maybe the storm will die down?

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: Brady


Spence-On the 7th of may 42 Bettys made a torpedo atack on US Naval Forces off the southeren end of Jomard Passage....7th Augast, while preparing to raied PM again the Bettys at Rabaul got a report of enemy shping off Gudacanal, they sortied with the bombs they on board. The Next day they came back with torpedos. After this we see several Torpedo atcks aganst targets their for some up till 43 and the Battle of Renal Island. The details are from my Coppy of Osamu Tagaya's book linked above. In the perioud between the Atack on Force Z, most of the Betty's and Nell's simply did not have any worthy targets to Torp, when they became available they did Atack with Torps.

Err...

ID Number: 306610/01
Physical description: Black & white
Summary: CORAL SEA. 1942-05-07. A JAPANESE BOMBER FLIES PAST THE CRUISER HMAS AUSTRALIA AS IT STRAFES ALLIED WARSHIPS DURING THE BATTLE OF THE CORAL SEA. ANOTHER AIRCRAFT HAS BEEN SHOT DOWN ASTERN OF THE CRUISER. THE DESTROYER USS PERKINS IS VISIBLE BEYOND THE AUSTRALIA. (NAVAL HISTORICAL COLLECTION).

Time 3.06pm. (12-14*) Nells of the 25th Air Flotilla based in Rabaul attacking Task Group 17.3 with torpedos followed by strafing runs.

* Action Stations - Coral Sea, Chris Coulthard Clark, 1991

[Reg]

ID Number: 306610/03
Physical description: Black & white
Summary: CORAL SEA. 1942-05-07. THE CRUISER HMAS AUSTRALIA BRACKETED BY BOMBS FROM HIGH LEVEL BOMBERS DURING THE BATTLE OF THE CORAL SEA. TO THE LEFT IS THE DESTROYER USS PERKINS; TO THE RIGHT THE DESTROYER USS WALKE. THE PICTURE WAS TAKEN FROM THE CRUISER HMAS HOBART. (NAVAL HISTORICAL COLLECTION).

Time 3.13pm. (approx 20*) Nells of the 25th Air Flotilla based in Rabaul attacking Task Group 17.3 with high level bombing.

* Action Stations - Coral Sea, Chris Coulthard Clark, 1991

[Brady]

Cool Picks, I had my Nell referances out earler but got side tracked nice find.[:)]

[Charles2222]

It's still a joke, because the instances of getting over 20 hits is very poor. Sorry, I have no idea how many of those 40 missed IRL so it's only marginally helpful. Perhaps you would understand it more in terms of BB's sank, which of course directly corresponds to few torp hits. The vast majority of the starts see NO BB's sank.

[Reg]

Brady

Cool Picks, I had my Nell referances out earler but got side tracked nice find.[:)]

There are more photos of the torpedo phase of the attack on the AWM website. Just go into the collections database and search for "Coral Sea".

Interestingly, though this was the same Air Flotilla that had so effectively dealt with Force Z, in this case they failed to inflict any significant damage. (Note also the similar torpedo/bomb load mix).

Apparently most ships copped a liberal peppering of friendly AAA fire which nearly caused a bit of an international incident. (Wasn't there a thread on this subject a short time ago??)

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: spence

That's pretty funny considering the showcase attack at the beginning of the game is often such a non-torp joke. So would an attack they claim was rigged to allow more torp hits, that being PH, do so much worse than the sky is falling at PM?

There were only 40 or so torps launched at PH (2 Daitai's worth). The other 4 Kate Daitai carried bombs.

That's pretty funny considering the showcase attack at the beginning of the game is often such a non-torp joke. So would an attack they claim was rigged to allow more torp hits, that being PH, do so much worse than the sky is falling at PM?

This is a design feature in an attempt to limit torp usage that often mishandles the first turn. My gripe was that why should 2E aircraft get to use torps vs ships in port (I'm OK with more maneuverable 1E tacticals) when this never happened historically, and why, if they are to be given this "fantasy capability", historically existant anti torpedo defences were deliberately not included (aside from the inability of subs to penetrate size 3+ harbors).

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing when I say thia, but supposedly the manual states that torp launches at port sites will be pretty rare, but I tak ethat to mean for the ones docked only. In any event they have made a port adjustment to some degree, which may need to be increased, but of course that was the whole reason for them gving a bonus of sorts to the PH attack because the torps would probably not fall otherwsie. Unfortunately despite trying to recreate the PH attack, they still are still way too light. I recall I was running a 1-in-12 odds of two or more Kate groups using torps. I think the most common amount is 1 group. In any event, it's not so much the number of groups dropping them that matters, but that we want sinkings! Those 800kg bombs don't do spit.

On a slightly rlated theme. Has anyone noticed, other than myself, just how unrealistic the fire damage is after the PH attack on the ships? I have opened up the Allied side about 3 of the 150 or so starts that I have had, and not once have I seen a single ship that ever had a double-digit fire. I know the US firefighters are supposed to be better, but the PH RL films I saw looked nothing like a small fire or two on those things. The Japanese ships, by comparison, I'm talking in general here, almost never see a single-digit fire the turn directly after an attack. What gives? As the game operates, I would expect that what you see on the next turn is the direct effect of the attack, or at worst, in most cases, with a night pulse inbetween. As I say that, I realize fires were often put out in that amount of time, but, because the game extenuates damage on ships to several days, this can't possibly happen. Anyone notice this and have any comments as to what level of fires the PH attack had inflicted?

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: spence

The Netty's (Betty's/Nell's) That Sank PoW and Repulse were loaded out with the same type of torps used at Pearl, they had intended to strike the ships in the harbor at Singapore, many of them were used during the atack at sea.

Here we have a several units specifically selected, positioned, trained and equiped to attack those ships which, when given the opportunity to do exactly what all the preparation was for, ATTACKS (in part) WITH BOMBS.

ALL TORPEDOS ALL THE TIME IS AHISTORICAL. Perhaps no one has put their finger on what problems the Japanese had in supplying their strike aircraft with torpedos, evidently even within their prewar empire, but they had some problem which seriously affected the ability of those aircraft to perform the mission they were intended and designed for. ALL TORPEDOS ALL THE TIME IS AHISTORICAL AND JUST A PLAIN SOP TO JAPANESE FANBOY FANTASIES.

Hi spence, but I think you're jumping to conclusions. Sure all the time torps are ahistorical, but then so was any bombload always the same, and because of game design I guess you're stuck with one. It doesn't take too much imagination to envision that the POW strike had some of them without torps so as to cause multiple problems. For one there's more personnel probelms with bombs and would hamper recovery efforts and start fires. In nay event it's definitely leaping to conclusions that just because that every Betty armed with a torp has more punch against BB's, that doesn't mean that IRL those bombers were low on torps because they had somewhat of an ordinance mixture. You could make the same claims for Bomber Command that they didn't have enough bombs because they used incendiaries too.

[Charles2222]

I don't unerstand 'indices' but I do see actual and planned columns there.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Brady


Mike - every book I have lists the Range for Betty of Nell at well over 2000 miles with a torpedo, Well over 3000 without one. Find me a referance bud, other than what you seam to be saying which is man that just dont feal right...

At 7 Am the strike foce took off,at 11,O:clock they made contact,at 12:33 they were still under atack, some time after this the finial groups atacked and then wet home. They did not know exactly whear their targets were, and the entire groupe had actualy flow a lot farther than the distance between whear the ships were and their base. Not all the groups were over the ships at the same time.

You're correct. I have the book "Fighting Aircraft od World War II" which states on page 430 (Note, this description was for the Betty, but the Nell developement comments just weren't as telling):

"Designed by an incredibly difficult 1938 Navy specification the G4M family (Allied name "Betty") was the Imperial Japanese Navy's premier heavy bomber in World War II; yet the insistence on the great range of 2,000 nautical miles (3706km) with full bomb load made the saving of weight take priority over defense and the aircraft was highly vulnerable and not very popular."

Also on the armanents portion it states this:

"(1) three manually aimed 7.7mm in nose, dorsal and ventral positionsand 20mm manually aimed in tail; internal bomb load of 2,205lb (1000kg) or 1,764lb (800kg) torpedo externally...."

I think it's clear it the Japanese built this thing to get 2,000 miles with full bombload. One can only question whether an internal heavier load or external torp reduces range more. Their specifications may mean that either armanent had to go the 2,000 miles.