Page 2 of 2
RE: Most effective single torpedo attack of WWII Pacific Theatre?
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:09 pm
by treespider
How about Torpedo Sqd 8 June 5 1942?
RE: Most effective single torpedo attack of WWII Pacific Theatre?
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:16 pm
by Mike Scholl
Can't at the moment remember the details.., but didn't some Dutch Sub sink the ship bringing most of Japan's Petroleum Engineers to the DEI to work on bringing the oil fields back into production. That seems pretty effective...
RE: Most effective single torpedo attack of WWII Pacific Theatre?
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:58 pm
by LargeSlowTarget
See post #8 above. Great minds... [:)].[/align] [/align]Might have been a Dutch sub instead of a USN sub. Have to check Morison.[/align]
RE: Most effective single torpedo attack of WWII Pacific Theatre?
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:29 pm
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
See post #8 above. Great minds... [:)].[/align] [/align]Might have been a Dutch sub instead of a USN sub. Have to check Morison.[/align]
Whoops! Yeah, I missed that one in my scan to keep up. [:(] Trouble with interesting new threads is that they grow so fast. [:D]
RE: Most effective single torpedo attack of WWII Pacific Theatre?
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:24 pm
by Chickenboy
Certainly a high value rare target that got nailed, but IRL how much effect did the loss of this engineer unit affect bringing the oil fields back up to snuff? If it didn't do anything to the IJ timetable other than kill a bunch of oil engineers, wouldn't that call into question its effectiveness?
RE: Most effective single torpedo attack of WWII Pacific Theatre?
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:54 pm
by witpqs
The bit a I remember reading about it claimed it was quite meaningful. True or false, I don't know.
RE: Most effective single torpedo attack of WWII Pacific Theatre?
Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:32 am
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Certainly a high value rare target that got nailed, but IRL how much effect did the loss of this engineer unit affect bringing the oil fields back up to snuff? If it didn't do anything to the IJ timetable other than kill a bunch of oil engineers, wouldn't that call into question its effectiveness?
Well, Japan is a rather oil-poor nation, so losing the majority of a very small supply of petroleum engineering specialists was a kick in the crotch. By the time they could get supply back up to the necessary levels, US subs had started devastating their tanker fleet. Which resulted in much of the IJN having to base itself in the SRA for fuel reasons because their home bases (and support installations) couldn't supply it.
RE: Most effective single torpedo attack of WWII Pacific Theatre?
Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:29 am
by Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Certainly a high value rare target that got nailed, but IRL how much effect did the loss of this engineer unit affect bringing the oil fields back up to snuff? If it didn't do anything to the IJ timetable other than kill a bunch of oil engineers, wouldn't that call into question its effectiveness?
Well, Japan is a rather oil-poor nation, so losing the majority of a very small supply of petroleum engineering specialists was a kick in the crotch. By the time they could get supply back up to the necessary levels, US subs had started devastating their tanker fleet. Which resulted in much of the IJN having to base itself in the SRA for fuel reasons because their home bases (and support installations) couldn't supply it.
Hi Mike,
I understand the *theoretical* impact of losing such a limited pool of skilled workers, but IRL was this effect worked around or was it, IRL, as crippling as the initial loss portended?
RE: Most effective single torpedo attack of WWII Pacific Theatre?
Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:30 pm
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Hi Mike,
I understand the *theoretical* impact of losing such a limited pool of skilled workers, but IRL was this effect worked around or was it, IRL, as crippling as the initial loss portended?
What it cost them was any chance to get production back on line and humming BEFORE the US Sub campaign got into "high gear" and destroyed the means of transferring the oil home.
By the way..., I LOVE the "Tropical Disease Fanboy!" bit. Let's hear it for Beri Beri and Elephantiasis! [:D]
RE: Most effective single torpedo attack of WWII Pacific Theatre?
Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:08 pm
by Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Hi Mike,
I understand the *theoretical* impact of losing such a limited pool of skilled workers, but IRL was this effect worked around or was it, IRL, as crippling as the initial loss portended?
What it cost them was any chance to get production back on line and humming BEFORE the US Sub campaign got into "high gear" and destroyed the means of transferring the oil home.
By the way..., I LOVE the "Tropical Disease Fanboy!" bit. Let's hear it for Beri Beri and Elephantiasis! [:D]
Mike, this is my not so subtle way of reminding folks about the critical omission of the effects of malaria in the game. This has been consistently overlooked and should be remedied. For the time being, I'll carry the flag for our uncharismatic animal bretheren and protozoal / bacterial 'guests'. [;)]
RE: Most effective single torpedo attack of WWII Pacific Theatre?
Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:16 pm
by Nikademus
not an omission. It broke. It being fixed.
RE: Most effective single torpedo attack of WWII Pacific Theatre?
Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:24 pm
by timtom
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Hi Mike,
I understand the *theoretical* impact of losing such a limited pool of skilled workers, but IRL was this effect worked around or was it, IRL, as crippling as the initial loss portended?
What it cost them was any chance to get production back on line and humming BEFORE the US Sub campaign got into "high gear" and destroyed the means of transferring the oil home.
By the way..., I LOVE the "Tropical Disease Fanboy!" bit. Let's hear it for Beri Beri and Elephantiasis! [:D]
Mike, this is my not so subtle way of reminding folks about the critical omission of the effects of malaria in the game. This has been consistently overlooked and should be remedied. For the time being, I'll carry the flag for our uncharismatic animal bretheren and protozoal / bacterial 'guests'. [;)]
FYI, according to the WHO's '08 World Malaria Report, malaria was the cause of an estimated 610,000-1,212,000 deaths in '06 alone, 91% of whom where from Africa and 85% of whom were children.
http://apps.who.int/malaria/wmr2008/
RE: Most effective single torpedo attack of WWII Pacific Theatre?
Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:34 pm
by Chickenboy
timtom: Yep, pretty nasty stuff. As far as case fatality rate, it got even worse than that with other (mercifully rarer) tropical diseases in troops deployed to the tropical Pacific in WWII. Tremendous impact on pace of the war and unit cohesion / durability and certainly needed in such a detail-driven war game as this.
Nik: As always, glad to hear that devs are keeping up the good work. It be cool when it be fixed.
RE: Most effective single torpedo attack of WWII Pacific Theatre?
Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:59 pm
by timtom
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
timtom: Yep, pretty nasty stuff. As far as case fatality rate, it got even worse than that with other (mercifully rarer) tropical diseases in troops deployed to the tropical Pacific in WWII. Tremendous impact on pace of the war and unit cohesion / durability and certainly needed in such a detail-driven war game as this.
US Surgeon General's Office of Medical History has several studies available online on a variety of medical issues, incl. communicable diseases ->
http://history.amedd.army.mil/default_index2.html