Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
So you have to pick what is most likely/useful. US medium bombers dropped a heck of a lot more bombs on ships than torpedoes, so the torpedo loadout didn't make the cut.
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
So you have to pick what is most likely/useful. US medium bombers dropped a heck of a lot more bombs on ships than torpedoes, so the torpedo loadout didn't make the cut.
Japanese medium bombers primarily dropped 60 kg fragmentation bombs. For every torpedo a betty dropped, they probably dropped 1000 60 kg bombs somewhere. Presumedly by your logic, betties will only be regularly armed with 60 kg fragmentation bombs.
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
PBJ-1D and later models should have the option to use Mark 13 torpedoes when available. These would of course only be available to USMC units. All PBJ1s should have the option to use DC. as load out.
BTW, late war variants of the Mark 13 torp were not a low and slow weapon. They were designed to be and successfully used at high speeds and higher altitudes. The design limits on late war Mark 13s specified a drop altitude up to 2400 feet at an airspeed of 410 knots.
From Navweps.com:
The early models were handicapped by the need to drop them low and slow - 50 feet (15 m) and 110 knots - which made the torpedo planes carrying them more vulnerable to attack. The torpedoes themselves were found to be prone to defects. In mid-1943, an analysis of 105 torpedoes dropped at speeds in excess of 150 knots found that 36 percent ran cold (did not start), 20 percent sank, 20 percent had poor deflection performance, 18 percent gave unsatisfactory depth performance, 2 percent ran on the surface and only 31 percent gave a satisfactory run. The total exceeds 100 percent as many torpedoes had more than one defect.
...and let's make sure that it's true early operational performance is modeled as well...
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
...and let's make sure that it's true early operational performance is modeled as well...
Makes sense to me.
I suspect that the greater danger is that the late war reliability won't be modeled at all.
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
There were numerous instances of Japanese naval strike a.c. dropping 60 kg frags because that's all they had at the time or were loaded with same when a target of opportunity presented itself. I'm pretty sure that there's one and maybe two such instances involving Betties operating with the 25fth Air Flot out of Rabaul striking at US ships near Tulagi.
The greater point is that if all that is required is a bit change in a data file, why isn't the change being made before the game ships? USMC B25 drivers were trained to use aerial torpedoes and also depth charges. It was part of their doctrine. If the game is as some suggest not merely to duplicate history, and since the game allows players to specify weapons loadouts, the US player should be allowed to choose torpedoes for B-25s in situations where the player thinks they should be torpedo armed.
After all, the Japanese player has access to ridiculous numbers of aerial torpedoes for betties (reading the AARs they're far more prevalent than their real life availability allowed), to say nothing of large numbers of interior lines IJAAF bombers being assigned to ASW missions (something that the IJAAF regarded as the primary responsibility of the IJN and for which there was little IJAAF doctrine and little IJAAF bombardier training).
It would seem that the flexibility here to cover ahistorical possibilities is once again modeled in a rather one sided fashion. This despite the fact that the change is easy, substantiated by historical USMC doctrine and training, and consistent with the sort of flexibility typically accorded to the Japanese player.
Are you saying a M1 can penetrate a halftrack? a 50cal can after a few round hit the same place but a M1 maybe 1 in 200 rounds maybe, but if you hit the slope armor of a German halftrack no way!ORIGINAL: m10bob
Not addressed to anyone in particular:
If one were to look for somewhat esoteric examples of what one feels should be in the game, one might look at the basic M 1 Garand bullet.
As issued, the basic load-out had an AP capability, effective against thin skinned APC's, such as halftracks, but as in SPWAW, if this were included, it would be accused of harming game-balance, (at the expense of historical-correctness.
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
The greater point is that if all that is required is a bit change in a data file, why isn't the change being made before the game ships?
ORIGINAL: tigercub
Are you saying a M1 can penetrate a halftrack? a 50cal can after a few round hit the same place but a M1 maybe 1 in 200 rounds maybe, but if you hit the slope armor of a German halftrack no way!ORIGINAL: m10bob
Not addressed to anyone in particular:
If one were to look for somewhat esoteric examples of what one feels should be in the game, one might look at the basic M 1 Garand bullet.
As issued, the basic load-out had an AP capability, effective against thin skinned APC's, such as halftracks, but as in SPWAW, if this were included, it would be accused of harming game-balance, (at the expense of historical-correctness.
I did have one 10 years ago.
Tiger!
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
BTW, late war variants of the Mark 13 torp were not a low and slow weapon. They were designed to be and successfully used at high speeds and higher altitudes. The design limits on late war Mark 13s specified a drop altitude up to 2400 feet at an airspeed of 410 knots.
ORIGINAL: wdolson
While some B-25s were tested with torpedoes, no B-25 ever dropped a torpedo in anger.
Sorry, it's not in AE. B-26s with torpedoes aren't either because they were only used with torpedoes on a coupleof occasions in June 1942 and had zero successes.
Bill
