Matrix Games Forums

Arg...Agin we lost info, how vexing is that:(

Ok in a nut shell...

Nikademus, Lundstrom, Yes we keep going over this, but from whear I sit he is plain wrong on several points he makes, and initialy some of your balnket statemnts in the other thread were as well regarding usage of the 60KG bomb. Since the source Lundstrom sights does not suport his stance on the Canaster issue I was woundering if you could provide a source that in fact shows they did exist, as nothing that I have or have sean does in fact show this, it might clear up this point which so much of your posation seams to be based on.

From whear I sit as well, and as can be sean above their is plenty of evidance to sugest the use of the multiple 60 KG bombs from vals (4-5), and or the Combo of one 250KG and two 60 KG bombs as the plane was designed to use as the primary loadout, in fact photographic evidance shows this for a wide range of times and places, I know you dont see the phots as evidance, but as some one who knows what he is looking at they do work for me. Even if they are as you previously sugested trainig sorties, one would ask why would they train with one 250 KG bomb and two 60 KG bombs if they dident intend to use that load, and further more why not use traing bombs instead, which was common to use during training, which are much smaller and look nothing like the bombs shown in the photos.


Another way to look at this is from the game impact prespective, the reductiuon of the Vals Standard load by 120 KG is substantial when it only carys aprox. 370 KG anyway, your taking aprox. 1/3 of it's standard load away. These 60 KG bombs when deployed aganst Most Naval targets are only going to effect the flack guns as was their designed intent and not hurt the ship realy at all other wise, so realy were talking minamal impact hear. Whear their will be or would be if they are included is agasnt land targets and lighter vessals, whear theier is the most evadance of their use, from CV's and Land bases, this reduction in true capabality will have a signafagant impact, rducing anythings ordance load by 1/3 will.


Not to open another can O worms but what is the Juddys load in the game?

Arg...Again we lost info, how vexing is that:(

OK in a nut shell...

Nikademus, Lundstrom, Yes we keep going over this, but from where I sit he is plain wrong on several points he makes, and initially some of your blanket statements in the other thread were as well regarding usage of the 60KG bomb. Since the source Lundstrom sights does not support his stance on the Canister issue I was wondering if you could provide a source that in fact shows they did exist, as nothing that I have or have seen does in fact show this, it might clear up this point which so much of your position seams to be based on.

From where I sit as well, and as can be seen above their is plenty of evidence to suggest the use of the multiple 60 KG bombs from Vals (4-5), and or the Combo of one 250KG and two 60 KG bombs as the plane was designed to use as the primary loadout, in fact photographic evidence shows this for a wide range of times and places, I know you don't see the photos as evidence, but as some one who knows what he is looking at they do work for me. Even if they are as you previously suggested training sorties, one would ask why would they train with one 250 KG bomb and two 60 KG bombs if they didn't intend to use that load, and further more why not use training bombs instead, which was common to use during training, which are much smaller and look nothing like the bombs shown in the photos.


Another way to look at this is from the game impact perspective, the reduction of the Vals Standard load by 120 KG is substantial when it only carries approx. 370 KG anyway, your taking approx. 1/3 of it's standard load away. These 60 KG bombs when deployed against Most Naval targets are only going to effect the flack guns as was their designed intent and not hurt the ship really at all other wise, so really were talking minimal impact here. Where their will be or would be if they are included is against land targets and lighter vessels, where there is the most evidence of their use, from CV's and Land bases, this reduction in true capability will have a significant impact, reducing anything's ordnance load by 1/3 will?


Not to open another can O worms but what is the Judy's load in the game?

Translation
OK, The VALs normal load was 1x 250kg and 2x60kg (I think it was able to carry this load but 1x250kg was the normal load)
There is no such thing as a canister that mounted under the wing of Val. Anything so mounted would be a bomb. Only 60kg bombs were mounted under wing.

Would adding the 2x60kg have any impact on suppressing AA? (This was the role they were carried for. I would suggest that when so employed only certain Vals carried them not the entire strike) If they would not suppress AA in WITP then they do not need to be worried about. If this effect can be duplicated then they would need to be included. (Do Beaufighters flying low suppress flak? This was their primary role in anti ship strikes)

Translating for Brady is a full-time job that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy... [:D]

ORIGINAL: Brady


Nikademus, Lundstrom, Yes we keep going over this, but from whear I sit he is plain wrong on several points he makes, and initialy some of your balnket statemnts in the other thread were as well regarding usage of the 60KG bomb. Since the source Lundstrom sights does not suport his stance on the Canaster issue I was woundering if you could provide a source that in fact shows they did exist, as nothing that I have or have sean does in fact show this, it might clear up this point which so much of your posation seams to be based on.

Thats fine Brady....however your assumption is that Lundstrom based his entire statement soley on this reference. Having not accessed it myself and given your description i do not come to the airtight conclusion that he is "wrong". Additionally Lundstrom heavily researched all four major carrier battles in his two books and in not one insance does he record a hit or use of a 60kg bomb, whether against a "flak gun" or anything else. The only recorded instance was a land based Val attack on 8-Aug, which i will reiiterate, was NOT a 1 x 250kg and 2 x 60kg loadout....but 2 x 60kg ONLY which he describes as a land attack loadout. It also does not as i have repeated, make sense for the KB to have wasted prep time (when a carrier is most vulnerable) loading these bombs given their extremely limited usefullness against warships. Further point....Japanse doctrine for warship attack was to mix land and antiship versions of their 250kg bomb, a clear indication that it takes a much larger bomb to make an impact if one is going for HE effect. If i find an additional refrence on the canister i will be sure to post it. In the meantime i would appreciate it if you would provide a source that i've been asking for since near the beginning of this subject.....conclusive evidence that this bomblet was STANDARD loadout for Val's on naval strikes. If said loadout was indeed standard one would think that there would be recorded evidence of their use and the damage they inflicted. You have provided none and i havn't found any.

know you dont see the phots as evidance, but as some one who knows what he is looking at they do work for me. Even if they are as you previously sugested trainig sorties, one would ask why would they train with one 250 KG bomb and two 60 KG bombs if they dident intend to use that load, and further more why not use traing bombs instead, which was common to use during training, which are much smaller and look nothing like the bombs shown in the photos.

What one is 'seeing' was never the contention....nor was the question of whether the plane COULD be armed with the bomblet. All the photos prove is the above, they do not prove that the bomblet was standard loadout during WWII. Why did they train with them? I can offer one explanation right off the bat besides the obvious point that some prewar tactics either did not make it into WWII or were modified based on experience. In this case, given the KB's heavy involvement and support of operations in China, up to and including transfer of naval bomber squadrons to fight as LAND based squadrons, i can see them using the bomblets in HE missions against land targets just as they were reputed to have done at Pearl Harbor. This, unlike the naval question is a logical course of action.

Another way to look at this is from the game impact prespective, the reductiuon of the Vals Standard load by 120 KG is substantial when it only carys aprox. 370 KG anyway, your taking aprox. 1/3 of it's standard load away. These 60 KG bombs when deployed aganst Most Naval targets are only going to effect the flack guns as was their designed intent and not hurt the ship realy at all other wise, so realy were talking minamal impact hear. Whear their will be or would be if they are included is agasnt land targets and lighter vessals, whear theier is the most evadance of their use, from CV's and Land bases, this reduction in true capabality will have a signafagant impact, rducing anythings ordance load by 1/3 will.

No, they wont. I've played UV.......60kg hits were not all that frequent and they even less frequently struck flak guns. weapon mount hits in general are less frequent than the standard belt armor or deck armor hits. Even if they did they did not immediately nor signifigantly reduce flak levels in the game. The most frequent result i ever saw from a 60kg hit was a "Deck armor hit" with no penetration and no effect, including fleet carriers, 'armored' or 'unarmored'. But thats really not the point. If there was true evidence that the plane was STANDARD loaded with this 3 bomb combintanation there would be evidence from the naval battles fought with the Aichi. There is none.

Mogami's point has great relevance. Even if, just for the sake of argument, one says that there was indeed a 60kg at Santa Cruz (and i dont believe there was) it is clear that not EVERY D3A carried it thus even in this hypothentical scenerio the loadout you so desire remains non-standard. WitP does not support anything other than a standard loadout.

Aichi D3A1/2 Val" by Peter Smith, and Francillon's Japanese aircraft of the Pacifc war, and Several other books I have all state the normal range load for the Val as one 250 KG bomb and the two 60 KG bombs, the 250 KG bomb was the primary weapon of course, though the plane coud be loaded with other configurations, more 60KG bombs as sighted above for example, in leu of the 250KG.


AA Supreshion figures only for strikes aganst Heavely aremd ships, as was the inteneded role of the lighter Bombs when so carried as noted above as well, for strikes aganst Ligher ships and for airfield and ground atack these would be fairly effective weapons, this is why they are shown above to be used for such strikes, and are shown in photos as well.

Even lighter bombs could be usefull aganst Ships as evidanced by the Sinking of:

A Japanese DD of Wake by a Wildcat armed with 100 pound bombs, which aparently hit the Depth charges and promply sunk her with all hands.

Hi, Why don't we just let Kid add to wish list

"Change normal range loadout of D3A from 1x250kg bomb to 1x250kg and 2x60kg bombs"

let the programmers decide.

fine with me. [;)]

Nikademus,

I showed in a former post or two that acording to sources at the Naval Histrical sight, at least two ships at pearl were hit with or bombed with these lighter Bombs, in adation to this their is the land based sortie you sight and the Sant Cruz referance assuming Lundstrum is wrong, while a bit scetchy they do point to their use aganst Naval targets, certainly far more so that say A Wildcat which has the abaility in the Game to be used in a Naval strike capacity even though having done so very few times. Part of the problem with finding a referance to the lighter bombs is the simply the way they work, the larger ones make holes in things that can and could me meashured, the lighter ones simply blow up and would of hit in or near the impact point of the 250 KG bomb, if they did at all. As you say you havent sean the Book I have and that does apear to be a problem for you, If you like I can scan the pages revelent to the subject and post them, but of course it would not be the entire book so they may not be suficent for you either.

Half the Val Photos I posted were clearly of D3A2's, and since these only built during the war they would half to be wartime shot's, of the other D3A1, one was in a paint scheam that was almost ashuradely wartime and the other could of been, I could repost and give detailed descripions of each pick and others if you like. Again, if they were traing they would of likely been using traing bombs, of which I can post scans of, they are very differnt from real Bombs.

Brady, this game will never ship if we try to include every potential or possible load out. We need to focus on the commonly used loads. Just because the Val could have carried it doesn't mean it should be in the game. I must echo Nikademus and Mogami's posts - please provide some conclusive documentation of more than the Aug. 8th battle showing the 60kgs were standard. Unlabeled photos and reference to one potential battle do not cut it in my eyes. I want to see a body of proof before I cast any judgment, and so far all you've provided is circumstantial evidence - and weak circumstantial evidence at that.

Perhaps it would be best for me to put all the evadance and about 4 or 5 picks in just one post and lable them and let you chew on it, it is a bit scatered and some was lost from the recent whatever with the forum...

For me that won't cut it, because all the "evidence" you've provided still only amounts to a cite from one book and multiple photographs that have no frame of reference. There's no date or other caption on the photos. For all I know, they could have been taken on one day. Who knows without some more information? You can collect all your evidence into one post if you'd like, but it still amounts to weak evidence in my mind. Before you state something as fact you need multiple seperate sources. You have not done so. Multiple unlabeled photographs don't equal proof in my mind, no matter how many you produce. Authentication is the key word here, and you've not provided it.

ORIGINAL: Brady

Nikademus,

I showed in a former post or two that acording to sources at the Naval Histrical sight, at least two ships at pearl were hit with or bombed with these lighter Bombs,

and i have explained Brady that the wave one mission of the Val's at PH was airfield suppression, not naval attack. your "source" only quotes a sailor who 'thought' he saw a Val drop quote "a couple of bombs" (read: not a "trio" of bombs if your contention is correct) I do not consider this "conclusive evidence" Wave two WAS a naval attack. USS Nevada absorbed a great deal of this strike. There is NO reference to her being attacked or struck by a 60kg bomblet. Does this indicate Vals had 3 bombs as standard loadout? not in my book.

in adation to this their is the land based sortie you sight and the Sant Cruz referance assuming Lundstrum is wrong, while a bit scetchy they do point to their use aganst Naval targets, certainly far more so that say A Wildcat which has the abaility in the Game to be used in a Naval strike capacity even though having done so very few times.

The loadout of these land based Vals was 2 x 60kg ONLY. Not 1 x 250kg and 2 x 60kg that you want so badly for all naval attacks.

Part of the problem with finding a referance to the lighter bombs is the simply the way they work, the larger ones make holes in things that can and could me meashured, the lighter ones simply blow up and would of hit in or near the impact point of the 250 KG bomb, if they did at all. .

Uh uh, that doesn't wash. We have mounds of proof of bomb hits of a majority of calibers and types. Were 60kg's standard load, and with Vals carrying two each....there would be PLENTY of potential for observations of use, recorded hits and damage.

Half the Val Photos I posted were clearly of D3A2's, and since these only built during the war they would half to be wartime shot's, of the other D3A1, one was in a paint scheam that was almost ashuradely wartime and the other could of been, I could repost and give detailed descripions of each pick and others if you like. Again, if they were traing they would of likely been using traing bombs, of which I can post scans of, they are very differnt from real Bombs.

I've said my piece on the photos. I will not repeat it anymore. Accept it or disagree as you wish Japanese naval doctrine for Dive bombers did not include "tactics" for suppressing AA fire as you implied. The principle tactical dilemma explored by the Japanese was the "acknowlegement" that at the time of attack they might suffer heavy losses so the emphasis was on achieving as large a # of hits with heavy anti ship bombs as possible to score a decisive blow. Suppressing AA is useless if the bombers have already made their attack and suffered heavy losses. This is straight out of Kaigun and Sunburst which Do NOT at any point state that the Japanese used 60kg's as a standard part of naval attack.

Closest you get, is Nagumo's failed experiement at Eastern Solomons where he sent in the Dive bombers first in the 1st wave to "damage" the enemy to the point where it was safe enough to send in the Torpedo bombers for the 2nd wave to reduce their losses and increase success rates due to attacking slowed and damaged warships. The tactic cost Nagumo potential victory.

As Mogami said.....we can leave it up to the programmers.

ORIGINAL: Brady



AA Supreshion figures only for strikes aganst Heavely aremd ships, as was the inteneded role of the lighter Bombs when so carried as noted above as well, for strikes aganst Ligher ships and for airfield and ground atack these would be fairly effective weapons, this is why they are shown above to be used for such strikes, and are shown in photos as well.

Even lighter bombs could be usefull aganst Ships as evidanced by the Sinking of:

A Japanese DD of Wake by a Wildcat armed with 100 pound bombs, which aparently hit the Depth charges and promply sunk her with all hands.

First off the strike by the Marines against this DD was a lucky strike. The only way to add luck to any game is through the use of dice.
Second of all with regards to USN doctrine of fitting thier fighters with bomb racks was an attempt by the admirals through the late 20's and early 30's for the role of flak suppression. They did train with thier use but as stated in a very good book on USN divebombing tactics Destined for Glory: Dive Bombing, Midway, and the Evolution of Carrier Airpower by T. Wildenburg publised in 1998, in it he stated that by mid-30's all of the USN fighter commanders and a larger number Captains and even Adm Reeves and Towers realized that flak suppression was not the job of fighters and rather thier role was to protect the fleet from opposing aircraft and protect the bombers on thier way to thier pitch over points. After that no guns on any ships would be able to elevate high enough to engage USN/USMC divebombers in thier 65-75 degree dives. This is how all the Scout bombers and bombing units trained was dives near the verticle 90 plane. No one else in the world went to this extreme everyone else went to towards a dive bombing angle of 50-55degrees though this assures a very, very accurate delievery of the weapons it still enables a number of mounts such as the 1.1in AA guns and even the 20mm guns to effectively engage the targets. In this book he also mentions the pratice of carrying 100lb bombs by SBD units. They did do this during scouting flights during the early carrier raids. But dropped it after Coral Sea since it decreased the range and the bombs were proven ineffective against anything short of wooden fishing fleet of Japanese.

As I stated in a previous post that was one of the one that disappeared in this topic, for all wee know the two pictures you posted of Vals could be from any time and any place early in the war. Heck the shot of the two painted in green taking off from a jungle field could of been from a unit that might of been based in the Philippines or home islands preparing to do a kamaikaze strike. The shot of the Val taking off from a carrier could be it flying in support of operations in China or even against the British Indian Ocean bases. Photograhpy does not make a vaild reference.

Finally, this is a truth that everyone has known for since the first heavier then aircraft took off from the ground. For every ounce in weight that you add to the aircraft the more drag you add and the less fuel you carry. The less fuel you carry and the more drag you have the less range you have. The less range you have the closer you have to be to the bad guys. Closer you are to him the greater chance he has a chance to see you. Can you see where this is going? The whole idea is to see the bad guy first get in your licks first and hopefully put a big enough hurt on him that they won't be able to return the favor to you.
Also just because an aircraft is listed as capable of carrying weapons doesn't always mean that it did so during combat or even together with other loads. I know that my favorite post war aircraft the AD-1 Skyraider was rated to carry torpedos. It only used that capability once during the Korean war to destroy the slucie gates of a hydroelectric dam in N. Korea. The rest of the time they carried bombs and rockets depending on the mission.

1)From a Post by Nikademus:

"Contrary to US reports, the aircraft [D3A] did not carry a pair of underwing 60kg bombs. None of the carrier-based kanbaku did."

This statemnt is plane wrong based on: *


"Instead, the underwing containers held aluminum powder to be dropped on the water as a marker to aid the post attack rendevous."

As we have sean From: **, this is prety much bogus as well.

"Damage control parties wrongly thought that one of these non-existant 60kg bombs had detonated. "

Now since the Planes did not cary wing mounted (or so the refrences sugest) it must of been a 60 KG bomb.

John Lundstrom, First Team and the Guad campaign.

footnote that acompanies the paragraph:

The Kodaochoshos are explicit on armament; for the navagational markers and the 250kg bombs, see OpNav 30-3mm, Handbook of Japanese Explosive Ordinance (15 Aug 1945)

This in general is incorect based on: TM-1985 and , OPNAV 30-3M which does not suport this in any way, and the refrences from the naval historical center as well as ** discount this.

............................................................................

2) http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/wwii/pearl/ph75.htm

This show Two not one witness in different locations seeing bombs from Vals, 60 KG bombs as they must of been being used aganst a Ship, that is the second refrence.


"The first warning of the attack on board was the noise of explosions. The Officer-of-the-Deck the, at about 0755, saw a Japanese dive bomber come in very close and drop a couple of bombs. He sounded general quarters and, as the guns were manned, fire was opened with all A.A. guns, using ammunition from the ready boxes. The machine guns opened up first, and the 3", using preset fuze setting of 2.5 seconds, shortly afterwards. The starboard 3" gun was blanked off through a large arc, by the crane on the dock but managed to fire from time to time. The machine guns on the Motor Torpedo Boats on deck opened fire shortly after the Ramapo. "

The Gunner officer observed:

"First observed that a bombing attack was in progress about 0755. I heard a couple of explosions and rushed out on deck just in time to see a Japanese dive bomber come in very close and drop a couple of bombs"

The Only Dive bombers at Peral were Val's and if the one they observed droped more than one bomb it must of been carying Wing bombs. "

Buried in the Same sight is a refrence regarding bombs which were preportedly smaller than the 250 KG type that impacted a BB and caused damage on deck but did not penatrate, in fact mention was made of several hits, I can dig up the exact link if nescessary, but it would show another ship hit with them.


.....................................................................


3) As to the potential effectivenss of smaller bombs on a Naval target:

p.24 Wildcat the F4F in WW2: Bomb equiped F4F-3 carying 100 pounders hit the fantial of the Kisaragi with a 100 poundr(and MG fire) and set off the depth charges, the destroyer promptly sank with all 150 crewmen.

.............................................................................

4)p. 49 - "The D3A1/2's main weapon was a single 250kg bomb carried in a swing displacement crutch under the central fuselage. Wing loadings were usually of two 60kg light bombs on underwing racks under both wings. These could be released either separately or as one combined bomb load according to target and circumstances."

This statemet shows the plane was indead capable of and intended to be used to cary a three bombload.

From: * and suported by ***.



...............................................................................

5)p.51 - "60kg Bomb - There were two types, one for use against naval targets and the other against land targets. The latter, although known commonly as the '60kg' bomb, was actually of 58kg (128lb) and used an impact firing pin. These were used against parked aircraft on the ground at Ford Island and Hickham Field in the Pearl Harbor strike. Against naval targets, they had a mainly flak-suppression role."

Hear we see how the 60KG bomb was offered in two primary configurations, one clearly intended to atack a naval target and the other could be used for various atacks, if the Naval bomb type was not intended for use why mention it?

From: *, and suported by **

....................................................................................

6)P.73 describing the attack on Wake Island - "The fourteen 'Vals' from Soryu were each armed with a single 250kg bomb, and were commanded by Lieutenent Commander Takashige Egusa. They had an escort of nine Zeros. The fifteen 'Vals' from Hiryu, each of which was armed with four 60 kg bombs (all that were left aboard), were commanded by Lieutenant Michio Kobayashi and had an escort of nine more Zeros."

The interesting thing about this is that it possibly suggests an alternative armament of four 60 kg bombs. I've seen reference to there being 5 bomb racks in all but I've never seen a photo of or description of that that I recall.

p.74 describing a later attack on Wake - "In total, the 'Vals' took part in two separate sorties that day. At 0409, Soryu launched a force of six Vals led by Lt. Masataka Ikeda, escorted by six Zero fighters whose leader Lt. Seiji Suganami, was a classmate of Ikeda. The dive-bombers attacked the island from 0530 to 0545 dropping six 250kg bombs of which four appeared to be direct hits on military targets, with two misses. The Vals then conducted some strafing passes and all returned safely to their carrier at 0718 without damage or casualties.

The second wave consisted of six D3A1s, led by Lieutenant Michio Kobayashi from Hiryu, which launched at 0500 and again had a six-Zero escort. Again, they only had 60kg bombs and they dropped two of these each on military facilities and conducted strafing runs between 0645 and 0650. Bullet holes were found on ten of the Hiryu aircraft but none were lost or put out of action by these hits and there were no injuries. The surviving 5in batteries were the main targets and appeared to have been well hit.

There followed three further attacks by the Kates from both carriers which used up the final stocks of the 60kg bombs on Hiryu."

He states that the raid on the Darwin airfield used only the 60kg bombs as well and there's at least a couple of combat reports in the book that reference the use of the wing bombs, but they weren't generally used. "

This clearly shows a lot of use of the 60KG bombs for various atacks across a wide range of targets, from CV's no less, clearly the bomb type was carried by the Japanese CV's and put to use on several ocashions.


This From: *

........................................................................

7)From Nicadurmos,seems that a set of land based D3A's did indeed launch a raid on Lunga carrying the bomblets early on....however again....it was not a STANDARD loadout....they ONLY carried the bomblets vs the "normal" loadout of 1 x 250kg SAP for anti ship work. They attacked and damaged an auxilery vessel. The mission nor the armament was what i would consider 'standard'. the mission was a 1way suicide mission and the armament was improvised and not very effective.

This does show agin the use of the lighter bombs aganst shiping, the 4th such referance, though it canot be said to be improvised as an aramament given the above mentioned referances.

.............................................................................................


Including the Naval historcal center sight, their are over 6 different sources being sighted hear. Including Lundstums refrence to the Sant Cruz...










* = Aichi D3A1/2 Val" by Peter Smith

**= OPNAV 30-3m & TM-1985-5
***= Refrences for the Vals preformance and bombload other than Smiths book, they include Francillion, Enclipida of Combat aircraft of WW2, and several other aircraft refrence books.

...........................................................

Regreatably the strongest evidance is chosen to be compleatly ignored hear and this is the wealth of photographic evidance.

Brady, without authentication, all the photos in the world mean exactly squat. Thats the point we're trying to get across to you. I can post photos all day long, but unless I can show with conclusive evidence where they came from and what the circumstances surrounding them are, they mean nothing.

One of my favorite quotes is "Whenever you assume, you make an ass out of "u" and me..." What you're doing is assuming a system-wide practice based on two instances (one of which is an unreliable first hand account of "a couple of bombs") and many unsupported photographs. If you had more than the same two instances you're harping on, or if there were photographs that were conclusively labeled "D3A1s taking off from "X ship" to strike "Y target" on "Z date," then I might be convinced.

Finally, and this is simply a personal plea that I hope you don't take the wrong way, but is there any way you can run your posts through Word or some other program for a spell-check? I think you have a lot of good things to contribute here, and I've enjoyed hearing your fresh perspective on issues in this game, but it's really hard to read your posts sometimes...

"Brady, without authentication, all the photos in the world mean exactly squat"

I would agree with this in general, howeaver I have a few books that help me to see things in photographs, I will do an example after this post.

"one of which is an unreliable first hand account of "a couple "

I am asuming nothing, I am trying to show this did hapen, granted a lot of the show is from photos which as we all know dont go over well hear. Their were two (2) men who witnessed this as well, not one.

"Finally, and this is simply a personal plea that I hope you don't take the wrong way, but is there any way you can run your posts through Word or some other program for a spell-check? I think you have a lot of good things to contribute here, and I've enjoyed hearing your fresh perspective on issues in this game, but it's really hard to read your posts sometimes... "

If you could sugest one I would be willing to try it.

Below we see a Val D3A1, the paint scheam is Type S, paint scheam, two solid collors one upper one lower, this scheam was active in 42-45 time frame,Tail code identifys this plane as belonging to the 33rd naval airgroupe, operational in the Indonishian theater in late 42. Note the bomb points on the wings, this is revelent because these are Comonly sean in Photos .









The primary source for the above observations is: Japanese Naval Air Force Camouflage and Markings World War II, by Donald W. Thorpe, though I have a couple other books that help as well.

Okay, we see the bomb points under the wingtips, something I have seen at least a hundred times before. What does this do to advance an argument that the standard loadout for Vals - including carrier-based aircraft - was one 250-kg. bomb and two 60-kg. bombs?

Has anyone mentioned that certain I-boats have floatplanes onboard now? E14Y1 "Glenn" I just noticed this and I have played 34 turns now as Japan. (I assumed all the scouting was allied PBY)

I'm going to bomb Washington.......(state)

"Has anyone mentioned that certain I-boats have floatplanes onboard now? E14Y1 "Glenn" I just noticed this and I have played 34 turns now as Japan. (I assumed all the scouting was allied PBY) "

WOW, now that Is cool:)

"Okay, we see the bomb points under the wingtips, something I have seen at least a hundred times before. What does this do to advance an argument that the standard loadout for Vals - including carrier-based aircraft - was one 250-kg. bomb and two 60-kg. bombs? "

Because if they were not going to be used they would be removed, in some phots they are taken off.