THE STOLEN 'JAP' ADVANTAGE

[bradfordkay]

I believe that you are mistaking unloaded range with the range of an aircraft loaded with a torpedo. The Kate does have a range advantage over the Dauntless and Avenger when each is loaded with their main anti-ship weapon. In WITP,the Dauntless can only carry the 1000lber out three hexes, the Avenger can only carry its torpedo four hexes and the Kate can carry its torpedo five hexes. These are closer to actual operational ranges rather than search or transfer ranges.

Probably everyone on this forum has watched a USN CV get smashed by IJN carrier aircraft launching from beyond the range of its aircraft. I know that I lost the Hornet that way in my PBEM.

I am sure that AE will further refine the ranges of all aircraft for two reasons: one is that the crew working on AE have spent a lot of time digging up the actual performance data on the aircraft involved, and second is that changing the size of the hex to forty miles will help exaggerate the differences in aircraft ranges.

[Japan]

bradfordkay  - Thanks alot for your post.

Na, im fully awere of the factors of Payload ect.  I fly irl.


The Ranges i mantioned above, is the Aircrafts Range when Departure was done at MTOW. So with other words, the ranges mantioned above is when the departure was done at Max Take Off Weight, who usualy is slightly below the Max Gross Weight. 

The ZFW of the KATE is not so high, so if you were to load it only with Fuel (No Payload) you would get a far longer range, and of course the same for the Dountless.  But the Ranges mantioned above, is as i mantion, the Range in Combat Configuration, and for the KATE that means a departure with a GW close to or at MTOW (Almost Regardless of Distanse to Target).


[8D]  

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I believe that you are mistaking unloaded range with the range of an aircraft loaded with a torpedo. The Kate does have a range advantage over the Dauntless and Avenger when each is loaded with their main anti-ship weapon. In WITP,the Dauntless can only carry the 1000lber out three hexes, the Avenger can only carry its torpedo four hexes and the Kate can carry its torpedo five hexes. These are closer to actual operational ranges rather than search or transfer ranges.

Probably everyone on this forum has watched a USN CV get smashed by IJN carrier aircraft launching from beyond the range of its aircraft. I know that I lost the Hornet that way in my PBEM.

I am sure that AE will further refine the ranges of all aircraft for two reasons: one is that the crew working on AE have spent a lot of time digging up the actual performance data on the aircraft involved, and second is that changing the size of the hex to forty miles will help exaggerate the differences in aircraft ranges.

no, in stock the Kate carries the torp 4 hexes, same as the Avenger.

[Mobeer]

ORIGINAL: spence
Doctrinally the Japanese were not inclined to use the advantage. The admirals all pretty much adhered to a "lay alongside the enemy" mentality. Hiryu charged towards the Americans after all her compatriots had been effectively destroyed at Midway (at least until after her two airstrikes had gone and returned (sorta)).
...

The range advantage of the Japanese a/c is present in the game. The ability to make use of it is up to the players and is difficult to achieve for the Japanese Player but if you read the AARs you see it happening sometimes. ...

The range advantage for the Japanese is just about in the game, though the restriction to 60 mile hexes makes the difference in striking range a bit less realistic.

What is missing is any ability to alter the doctrine in use. For example with Hiryu at Midway, the player could not give any sort of doctrinal advice that would say if the enemy is found then try to make the range longer. There is also no option like Japan suggests to launch a long range strike, close and launch shorter ranged aircraft in a following strike - such an option might actually be beneficial to the TBD equipped US carriers.

I would have liked to have a desired engagement range for each task force, and a optional single hex move between the AM and PM air strike phases based upon this rather than a 1 hex automatic reaction.

It does seem some of the options in WitP are a bit unbalanced - for example I can tell a squadron of 12 aircraft to attack a particular port, from particular height, or to devote an exact proportion of aircraft to training. But I cannot tell a taskforce with 200 aircraft to target enemy transports, or close in, or to never approach enemy LBA.

[Barb]

1. I should not say Nimitz was a carrier operation expert. His role in the war was to get his forces in time and space to meet the enemy. This is the role of all high ranked commanding officers. And every one of them will say that all depends on luck, quality of his subordinates, their training and weapons they have got when the hell broke out there.

2. Japanese doctrine was not to strike at long ranges, but to make coordinate attack: Fighters will engage enemy CAP, dive bombers will distract AA fire to high angles, force the enemy to maneuvre madly and to torpedo planes to make the rest. Just think: Where are the ships most vulnerable? Under waterline. What will cause the greatest damage there? Torpedoes. What to do to get sluggish and direct flying torpedo bombers through? Distract enemy CAP and AA defence from them to other targets. What will serve best? Fighters to cover and dive bombers (as DBs presents also a threat to ships).

Sending slow and gold-valued TBs on a mission so far far away will result only in great casualities by enemy CAP, AA and ditching. (Something similar occured on 2nd day at Coral Sea battle (or was it another?) as Japs send their planes to search US carriers. They have not found them, but were catched by some US CAP and many were lost)

EVERY nation which has carriers know the 1st carrier battle rule: STRIKE FIRST!
(It is very similar to land war rule no.1: Never try to battle Russia in a land war!)

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Barb

1. I should not say Nimitz was a carrier operation expert. His role in the war was to get his forces in time and space to meet the enemy. This is the role of all high ranked commanding officers. And every one of them will say that all depends on luck, quality of his subordinates, their training and weapons they have got when the hell broke out there.

2. Japanese doctrine was not to strike at long ranges, but to make coordinate attack: Fighters will engage enemy CAP, dive bombers will distract AA fire to high angles, force the enemy to maneuvre madly and to torpedo planes to make the rest. Just think: Where are the ships most vulnerable? Under waterline. What will cause the greatest damage there? Torpedoes. What to do to get sluggish and direct flying torpedo bombers through? Distract enemy CAP and AA defence from them to other targets. What will serve best? Fighters to cover and dive bombers (as DBs presents also a threat to ships).

Sending slow and gold-valued TBs on a mission so far far away will result only in great casualities by enemy CAP, AA and ditching. (Something similar occured on 2nd day at Coral Sea battle (or was it another?) as Japs send their planes to search US carriers. They have not found them, but were catched by some US CAP and many were lost)

EVERY nation which has carriers know the 1st carrier battle rule: STRIKE FIRST!
(It is very similar to land war rule no.1: Never try to battle Russia in a land war!)

This is true. One thing you are all forgetting is that the combined arms approach dominated doctrine of the day. The japanese believed in the offensive but emphasized a coordinated attack that often limited the range of its components.

Often times a/c had to sacrifice some of their performance in order to conduct attacks in this fashion. F4Fs weaved over their charges, even though they already suffered from short legs, and strikes alays cruised at the speed of the slowest component. This type of coordination cost the better performing aircraft. The reward was and effective strike, if they managed to pull it off.

AE will indeed highlight the differences in performance due to the new hex size, something WitP was limited by.

The original poster should not worry about this. AE has taken the best data we can find and applied it to the database. Just be careful what you wish for! I don't want to see any posts from the original poster claiming the code is broken since his long range Kates reached the target unescorted or without the shorter range Vals...

[Japan]

ORIGINAL: TheElf


AE will indeed highlight the differences in performance due to the new hex size, something WitP was limited by.

The original poster should not worry about this. AE has taken the best data we can find and applied it to the database. Just be careful what you wish for! I don't want to see any posts from the original poster claiming the code is broken since his long range Kates reached the target unescorted or without the shorter range Vals...

THANK YOU

Thanks alot TheElf.

Im Very Happy to here about this.

Now, just to mantion it, im not claiming the Japanese Doctrine was a good one, or that its necceseraly a good idea to send Torpedobmbers and Zeros on long range missions aiganst enamy carrier groups, the Doctrine or Operational use of the tools, should be decided by each individual player.

The Jap doctrine was first Long Range Torpedo Strike, then Combined Strike when range was redused.
If this approach is used or not in AE, should be defined by each individual Japanese player.

Im ONLY asking that the actual aircrafts are moddeled correct, and then it should be up to each player to define how to use them.


Im VERY HAPPY for your post there TheElf.






Very Very nice to see that AE Corrects this.



Thanks alot.





[:)][:)][:)]

[Feinder]

So who's the cranky looking fellow in your sig Japan?
-F-

[jwilkerson]

That would be "Fast Heinz" (Guderian) famous Japanese carrier commander of WW818!!!

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

That would be "Fast Heinz" (Guderian) famous Japanese carrier commander of WW818!!!

I always preferred the idiomatic translation "Hurrying Heinz" [:D]

[Japan]

HeHe
 
Well it is Guderian All Right, I always prefere to play the Axis side,
and Guderian was INHO the by far best Combined Arms (Land) Commander of WW2. [8D]

[Barb]

Most probable (hypotetical) outcome of Long range B5N Kate Strike:
08:00 - Our Scout plane spotted enemy carriers 750 km away
08:20 - Long range torpedo strike ordered
08:50 - Planes ready for strike
09:00 - Our scout planes was shot down/driwen off by enemy CAP, last enemy positon known
09:30 - Say 15 Kate in "vics" A,B,C,D,E + 9 Zeros X,Y,Z vics takes off, and heads for enemy
10:00 - water
11:00 - water
12:00 - nothing but water, you are at the position enemy should be now, but nothing as far as you see (2 hours on 20kts can get enemy carriers 75km in each direction from last known position
12:10 - ENEMY SHIPS SPOTTED
12:30 - 12 enemy CAP fighters engaging. 8 (4x sections) will employ your 9 Zeros (3x sections), 4 remaining will get to your bombers
12:35 - You have splited formation to take enemy carriers from side and back simultaneously. D,E "vics" going from behind, A,B,C took the side.
12:40 - One Kate of each group shot down by enemy fighters (totaly two), three others are damaged
12:45 - Going through AA fire, your A,B,C formation must get just along enemy CA. Another Kate shot down, 4 others are damaged
12:50 - Torpedoes released, running just under water from the hell. Enemy evades torpedo strike - someone puts his fish prematurely in the water.
13:00 - Counting looses: 3 B5N shot down, 2 Zero shot down, 7 B5N Kate damaged, 3 Zero damaged - US loses: 4 Wildcats shot down, 3 damaged
14:00 - 1 B5N and 1 Zero lost due to battle damage on way home
15:00 - Another B5N ditched due to loss of fuel, searching your own carriers (actually your carriers should be 150km from launching point)
15:15 - There they are, go on guys, half and hour and you are at home
15:30 - Another B5N ditched near carriers screen, crew is picked up
15:45 - all remaining planes landed.

Summary: You have just lose 6 B5Ns, 3 Zeros, 9 pilots, 5 radio operators, 6 gunners KIA or MIA, few more WIA. 1/10 of your offensive force will not be available on the next day when the enemy closes you.
If you are lucky enough to score 1 torpedo hit, the next day enemy will be far far away, not giving you a battle, running for repairs.

[Barb]

You should also know what Heinz used to said:
Klotzen, nicht Kleckern! (Boot'em, don't spatter'em!)
This is Guderian's most famous quote, which has become a stock phrase. It is said that Adolf Hitler was so impressed by the quote that he often used it. It roughly means "Don't do things by half."

[JeffroK]

Will AE limit the number of torpedo carrying sorties possible from a CV??

I am frustrated with the ahistorical ability for the japanese player to sit and launch 100's of torpedo sorties!

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Will AE limit the number of torpedo carrying sorties possible from a CV??

I am frustrated with the ahistorical ability for the japanese player to sit and launch 100's of torpedo sorties!

I think there is torpedo limit or something like that. Not sure if it was only for bases, though.

[wworld7]

Look under the air thread. There was a discussion about ALL torps being limited in AE.

[bradfordkay]

It is my understanding that all torpedoes will be limited in AE, carrier and land based. Exactly how it will work, I am not sure - but I am more than a little sure that there will be limits on the availability of torpedoes for both sides.

[jeffs]

I think the creator of this thread is a little optomistic about the long range coordination of the zeroes and the Kates...Most zeroes did not have radios (most communication done by hand signals) and it is a very optmistic attacker who is sure the zeroes could keep in contact the whole time....
 
SO if you through doctrine out the window, but not reality, a decent number of the strikes will be sans fighter protection....
 
You could see some really nasty losses. As long as you acknowledge that potential reality it is ok..But going for the long attack and then whining about lack of zero support would be rather bad manners.

[Japan]

First of all Gents, thank you for all nice replays, also thank alot to TheElf for implementing this into AE.

Then, how the advantages are used, should be let up to the players.  Im only asking that the planes are moddeled correct, and this he have now stated that thay will be. Now how thay are used, should be up to the Players using them. -  Personaly im not intending to use that advantage vs Carrier groups, but thats not the point, i dont ask for something based on what i want to do... i asked for it only because it is how it was in realety.  --- Now aigan, how to use the tools, should be decided by the individual user (ie. the Jap player). I also want to add, that im happy that thay will reduse the possible torpedo activetys by the Japanese side, this is something i have not liked with the current WITP, as the Jap side can do to many Torpedo Operations from Carriers, who is a feture in WITP of limited realism.


[;)]

[Dili]

Look under the air thread. There was a discussion about ALL torps being limited in AE.

Actually the numbers being said (36) are too low. For example Ark Royal had around 70. Maybe the IJN and USN had much less but i found that strange.