Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf



one other note.. actually B-26s armed with a pair of British Mark XII torpedoes would have been pretty excellent
instead of 4, have 40 on midway, with decent fighter escort

but historycally,the lack of good torpedoes forced the USAAF to improvise anti-ship tactics (skip-bmbing),
fortunately they were profficient at it in time for the battle of the bismarck sea

japanese had excellent torpedoes but by 1943 had no way to deliver them to their targets
(the betties were relegated to night torpedo missions, and except for sinking the cruiser chicago, had no major success)

japanese torpedo planes were simply too slow and vulnerable, and their fighter escorts were worn down by the
attritional fighting above rabaul

what was required was either a heavily armored torpedo plane that could defend itself from enemy fighters
or a fast torpedo plane that could reduce the time available for interception

Apparently the Japanese agreed with you - which is why they bought the Francis - and not long afterwards - adopted
the Army Peggy. Peggy was truly remarkable, aside from being torpedo armed, in that it was jointly operated, often
on the same mission, and spectacularly successful. So much so it was a deep secret - and the reason we improvised
plans to invade Iwo Jima - which otherwise would have been ignored. That refueling base permitted attacks on B-29
bases - amazingly timed so they always caught the bombers armed and fueled just before take-off. We did not know
until after the war how they knew when? Not that those were torpedo attacks, nor daylight, fighter escorted attacks - but
Peggy was up to that as well.

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

It is a bit unfair not to say it was something WE did too!

Hehe..my point was just that Dinah was to Japan as Mosquito was to Britain

they just should have made a lot more of them [;)]

(and fewer sallys)

If you do it right - judge a plane for WHEN it was designed - Sally is perfectly fine.
It outlasted its successor, in spite of technical innovations on the Helen. Before the
war with us, Sally was modified to take a 500 litre bomb bay tank - replacing 4 bombs
which (a) were not carried to extended range or (b) were still carried on a max load
mission - only externally. Sally had good maneuverability and adequate bomb load
(at least relatively speaking to other options) - and was better armed than Japanese
light bombers were. I find I want more of em in 1941-2, just as IRL.

IRL sallies were torched from the skies whenever they met any large fighter opposition.

IJAAF Bmbr units were totally impotent by 1943.

Sally remained in production due to the failiure and delay of better designs,
Sally remained in production because IJAAF neglected the idea of high speed or heavy Bmbers

USAAF could plaster Rabaul with B-24s while IJAAF could do nothing, repeat nothing - to port moresby

Clearly you are not aware of The Siege of Rabaul. This is unusual in that it is in English, but isn't written
to glorify the Allied side of the war. But that is the hallmark of Henry Sakaida, its author: he is able to
read Japanese materials and bring them to limited markets in English. If this story was about some US unit,
there would be a movie based on it! Isolated units at Rabaul, which had been ordered to send off all its usable
planes and pilots, re-created an air unit from scrap, and from wounded pilots who had not been able to leave.
They eventually created bomber versions of the Zero, in addition to restoring Kates to service - and engaged
in surprise air strikes long after it was believed this was impossible. They would have loved to have had
some Sally's to play with, I am sure! What matters isn't so much what you have as what you do with what you
have. ISBN 1-883809-09-6

The book also has some curious historical items: the very first US guided "missile" attack (using large,
radio controlled model airplanes) went in on Rabaul. And its prisoners, who properly surrendered - even
creating a special plane with surrender crosses to set it up - were forced into slavery by the AUS forces,
were not given even food, never mind medicine - and were not regarded as POWs at all. [This isn't the
worst such example - on New Guinea an AUS brigade wiped out a surrendered Japanese formation - over
the objections of its own XO - and on Borneo Aussie troops turned over POWs, unarmed of course,
to natives for slaughter by, shall we say, creative means. Only in Burma did US and UK forces behave
in such ways: one veteran writing in a US history magazine reported no prisoners could be taken except
for interrogation, a process they would not survive. Then there was the contest between Navaho "code talkers"
and Ghurka's - which the Ghurka's won - by a gruesome means I won't describe.]

Not everything in history glorifies one side and condemns the other. Nor is technology God's means of insuring the superiority of
what Churchill called "The English speaking peoples." One of my chiefs said "the Japanese had the best
warships" - and eventually I learned he was substantially right. I myself saw us lose EVERY air engagement
for five months in a row to planes we regarded as obsolescent and too inferior to be concerned with. Before we
came up with solutions for our combat jets (dissimilar combat training and other things) I saw the improvised
use of A-1 Skyraider PROPELLER driven bombers flying fighter escort for F-4 JETS acting as bombers - to protect
the jets from MiGs that had superior horizontal maneuverability and the ability to exploit that. The vast majority
of enemy pilots in that war became aces - while USN managed only 2 pilots and 2 back seaters - and USAF 2 pilots
- although I count Col Olds as well - already an ace he scored 4 more - and had a chance to get one or two in
addition but opted to support his unit instead of set a record - which was the best choice. Inferior planes didn't mean
nothing could be done. It almost never does. The USAF commander in 1991 (Iraq), asked in front of cameras
"what could the Iraqi Air Force have done to make its planes more effective?" replied, instantly "they could have
flown em!" A hint he was right exists in the form of a single MiG-25 - not well fitted and sans wingman - went up -
got his kill - and lived to tell the tale without even losing his plane.

I would not like flying into combat on any Japanese plane, even if I had no political issues with the Japanese war
effort (which I do have). On the other hand, I know of missions where WE flew unarmored and very slow
transport planes into combat - to obtain vital intelligence with the sensors on board - or to provide fire support
for troops on the ground. If WE can rationalize why it is sane to fly slow planes without armor, perhaps we can
respect an enemy who did the same? For me, respect is a key concept - one not entirely bounded by wether or
not I agree with you - or even wether or not you are on the other side in a war we are fighting. I had more respect
for General Giap (whom I also hated) than for either of our top commanders in Viet Nam. Giap deliberately set out
to understand our concepts, and then devised means to negate them - technology notwithstanding.

Guys, guys. This is topic about better representation of BETTY plane in game, not about theory of its historical performance.
Nobody have any data about bigger torpedo? Was it used as standard armament, since Second model?

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf
if you want another example of a bad design for the wrong purpose.. the first 30 betties were built as fighters [:D]

What is exact description of this picture? Second page, I have linked earlier, have several drawings of transport BETTY types, and only one of them shows ANY MG as armament. On this picture I have also do not see any MGs.

The QUALITY of torpedo varied - improved - over time - and is well modeled by the game system.
But the SIZE didn't change - although it was eventually considered replacing the torpedo with
a missile or an internal explosive charge for use if the plane dived into a ship (preferably an AP).

However, BIGGER torpedoes were considered for a decendent of the Betty - the G7M.
It would deliver a 21 inch long lance - not only delivering more punch - but from a greater stand
off range (slightly greater anyway - you would still have to get close to have much of a chance UNLESS
it was one of those huge Allied formations - where you could hardly miss if the torpedo ran for
20 nautical miles!!)

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The QUALITY of torpedo varied - improved - over time - and is well modeled by the game system.
But the SIZE didn't change - although it was eventually considered replacing the torpedo with
a missile or an internal explosive charge for use if the plane dived into a ship (preferably an AP).

However, BIGGER torpedoes were considered for a decendent of the Betty - the G7M.
It would deliver a 21 inch long lance - not only delivering more punch - but from a greater stand
off range (slightly greater anyway - you would still have to get close to have much of a chance UNLESS
it was one of those huge Allied formations - where you could hardly miss if the torpedo ran for
20 nautical miles!!)

Sorry, wrong wording. I meant bigger WARHEAD.
I had dig further, and things are getting interesting. In-game torpedo Effect, and Penetration is identical to its Explosive Charge in lbs:
45 cm (17.7") Type 91 (1931) Mod 1 had only 331 lbs, and:

This was a pre-war torpedo although still in service ten years later. "Nell" (G3M) torpedo bombers carried this weapon against the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse on 10 December 1941.

45 cm (17.7") Type 91 (1931) Mod 2 452 lbs:

Compared to Mod 1, Mod 2 had a heavier explosive charge, a thinner air vessel and anti-roll stabilizers. It was first delivered in April 1941 and was carried into action by "Betty" (G4M) bombers against the Prince of Wales and Repulse. A version of this torpedo heavily modified for use in shallow waters was carried by "Kate" (B5N) attack planes at Pearl Harbor.

45 cm (17.7") Type 91 (1931) Mod 3 this is in-game model, with 529 lbs.

45 cm (17.7") Type 91 (1931) Mod 3 Improved, Mod 3 Strong, Mod 4 Strong and Mod 7 Strong
KAI 4 have 679 lbs, KAI 7 926 lbs. Date in Service 1944, and they were probably carried by late war BETTYs.

So, it seems, Japan should begin game with weaker torpedoes (and weaker should be used in port attacks).

Yep.

The torpedoes need to be different --> weaker at start and better at the end

in my mod the IJN Nells and Jeans use Mod .1 (331 lbs),
Betty and Kates use Mod. 2,

mid war models Mod. 3 and late war Mod. 7

like this

jean

1945 model myrt

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

The torpedoes need to be different --> weaker at start and better at the end

in my mod the IJN Nells and Jeans use Mod .1 (331 lbs),
Betty and Kates use Mod. 2,

mid war models Mod. 3 and late war Mod. 7

Yeah, I am going to make it similarly.
I would actually like to implement it for KATEs to use KAI 3 in ship strikes, and KAI 2 in port attack, but I do not see way to make it. I tried every possible combination, and I can not define any replacement for torpedo (even, when it shows up as bombload before mission, plane still use hardcoded 2x250 kg+4x60 kg).

But I have discovered, that start, and stop dates works for torpedoes. So if you define BETTY as using 2 types of torpedo (KAI 2, and KAI 3), and set dates for those torpedoes in a way, that KAI 3 shows, when KAI 2 disappears, BETTY will use only one currently available.

Surprise, surprise.

There are actually most versions of Type 91 defined in game, at Device slots 1688-1697. They are just not used by any plane.

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

this is a bad torpedo plane

Bad for what reason, CS?

It was the best of it's type in the world when it first entered service. Unfortunately, by the time it saw combat it was hopelessly out of it's league against the defenses arrayed against it. Their situation wasn't helped by the fact that the torp squads at Midway arrived at the target area naked.

Applying your logic, it's like saying a Cessna172 is a bad plane because it's older and lower performing than a Cirrus SR22.

saying that Myrt and Dinah would be a lot better as torpedo planes than devestators and swordfish.. [8D]

(some people were worried that having a torpedo slung under a dinah would make it so slow.. that it would be easy meat for AA)

Myrt and Dinah were two of the most underrated japanese designs of the war (alongside Emily and Tojo)

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Go to page 100 and read about "Rear Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, Chief of Engineering Development, Naval Air Headquarters" and his role in the G2H1 program post the Washington Treaty.

This is simply false. The Betty was designed without armor deliberately - as was its ancestor (the plane and plans were destroyed in the 1930s
to insure security).

Do you mean the G2H1 when you say 'ancestor'? Of the eight built one was lost in trials, 1 in a ferry flight and five of the remaining six were lost in a hangar fire, nothing to do with security. See http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5&t=117016

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf
saying that Myrt and Dinah would be a lot better as torpedo planes than devestators and swordfish..

Myrt - 1942 Spec, entry into service 9-1944, C6N1-B not built
Dinah - 1937 Spec, entry into service (Ki-46-II) late 1941, no torpedo version, not carrier compatible.
TBD - 1933 spec? (order 1934), entry into service Aug 1937
Swordfish - 1933 spec, entry into service 1936

So essentially your point is an aircraft specified a generation later and without carrier compatibility compromises, (Dinah), or at least three generations later (Myrt), both with hypothetical torpedo capability, are more capable than older, pre-war aircraft. Hardly surprising, really.

For the Dinah your comparator shouldn't be the Devastator or Swordfish, but the Beaufighter (and given the lack of an actual torpedo carrying Dinah, maybe that comparator should be the Brigand or the XTSF). For the Myrt your comparator should be TB2D Skypirate, or BT2D Skyraider, or the Fairey Spearfish. Are you really sure the Japanese aircraft are so superior to their real peers?

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf
the RAF had the right idea. either heavy 4-engined (lancaster) or fast 2-engined (mosquito)

Neither of which the RAF originally wanted.

The Lancaster and Halifax were both saves from what the RAF really wanted, the twin-engined P.13/36 Manchester and HP.56, after the Vulture croaked on us. Stirling was the only one of the three mainstream 4-engined heavies specified and designed as such and it suffered badly from attempts to limit its weight growth by limiting its wingspan.

The Mosquito, meanwhile, was a private venture almost no one wanted to know about, de Havillands had a bad rep for being late with military designs and only one RAF senior officer was willing to back high-speed/no defensive armament, the RAF had been turning down proposals of that sort since several years before the outbreak of war. The Mosquito got a prototype contract with no real intention of building more until people took a look at its actual performance figures.

What the RAF actually wanted as medium twins were the Beaumont and the Albemarle, which weren't exactly outstanding successes.

As to the statement that the Brits were first and ahead of everyone with the idea of a 4 engine heavy bomber, please get a hold of the Boeing Corporation and let them know all of thier history is wrong.

I'll see your Boeing and raise you a Handley Page V/1500 or the Zeppelin-Staaken R series

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

really this has nothing to do with "Dinah would make a good torpedo plane"

What, actually looking at the real constraints has nothing to do with aircraft design? Yankee Air Rat's points were an awful lot like the ones I had to come up with during my job interview, but that's because they were the kinds of factors we have to consider in real-world aircraft design. And the factors that have to be considered do include things like what existing capabilties exists within the force, as a contemporary real-world example that's part of the reason the UK looks like switching back to the F-35B after the less than fully-considered decision to switch to the F-35C.