Matrix Games Forums

Yes, the US .308 bullet came in an a.p. variety. It could penetrate German h.t.s but at only silly close range as I recall. At that range, the better weapon that one could fire from the Garand was the rifle grenade.

Well and adding to that a penetration doesn't always mean a vehicle kill and with such a tiny bullet even less.

ORIGINAL: Dili

Yes, the US .308 bullet came in an a.p. variety. It could penetrate German h.t.s but at only silly close range as I recall. At that range, the better weapon that one could fire from the Garand was the rifle grenade.

Well and adding to that a penetration doesn't always mean a vehicle kill and with such a tiny bullet even less.

Please don't misunderstand the reason I posted my comment ref the AP capability of the Garand, nor the BAR..I was pointing out the danger of looking for inclusion of somewhat esoteric items into an already researched (and possibly delayed) game product.
With the vast amount of knowledge and talent on the forum alone, it would be impossible to include everything one might come up with, and still satisfy all whims, AND deliver at a reasonable date.

I know how to use the editor, and Terminus indicates the AE editor is easier to use than the ones used in past.

No worries m10bob, i wasn't sniping against you, but i think there is a small degree of chance that a B-26 torpedo might hit a destroyer or a carrier and that as the potential to influence the game more than a special bullet. Like you said, since we have the editor i think the choice made by the devs is acceptable, in that i agree with you.

Personally, game balance is irrelevant.

Usual issue, rl vs. capabilities. Irl B-25s, as a plane, clearly had the capability to launch torpedoes. The IJN so rarely operated capital ships in range of Allied LBA that there weren't enough opportunities to make the effort in training and equipment worthwhile. Had the they run bombardment tfs freight-train style as sometimes happens in the game, it's probable USAAF as an organization would have been more interested in developing the capability.

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Personally, game balance is irrelevant.

Usual issue, rl vs. capabilities. Irl B-25s, as a plane, clearly had the capability to launch torpedoes. The IJN so rarely operated capital ships in range of Allied LBA that there weren't enough opportunities to make the effort in training and equipment worthwhile. Had the they run bombardment tfs freight-train style as sometimes happens in the game, it's probable USAAF as an organization would have been more interested in developing the capability.

Hmm..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Express

ORIGINAL: Cerix
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Express

The tactic involved loading personnel or supplies onto fast warships, such as destroyers or other warships, and using the warships' speed capability to deliver the personnel or supplies to the desired location and return to the originating base all within one night so Allied aircraft could not intercept them by day.

I think it was a night issue, not an ordnance issue...

Let's not unbalance the game by putting torps on US medium bombers.

Game balance is irrelevant in a consim. A good consim gives the players plausible strategic and tactical capability and corrects for the imbalance, game-wise, by tweaking victory conditions.

The fact that Japanese players have the ability to make far more extensive use of aerial ASW than was historical practice does not seem to bother anyone -- even though as a matter of doctrine the IJAAF felt that ASW was largely the job of the imperial navy. In my view, torpedoes on USMC operated medium bombers is far more plausible than depth charges on most IJAAF bombers because the USMC had a doctrine and extensive training for use of medium bombers armed with torpedoes.

If torpedos were that effective for the medium bombers then they surely would have been used IRL.

Only if real life conditions had placed a premium or torp armed medium bombers. Real life did not. WitP, however, because it generates potentially vastly different operational and tactical constraints in certain theaters, may put the Allied player in a position where torp armed B-25s are desirable.

The principle reason why mediums weren't deployed with torpedoes is because in the vast reaches of the Pacific, it was the USN's fleet carriers who brought torpedo bombers into the range of Japanese targets (because the Japanese were on the defensive after November 1942). In the real war, the only place where torp armed B-25s might have been very useful was in the Battle of the Bismarck Sea. But at that point in the war, USN aerial torps were rather in short supply, and retained primarily for use from US fleet carriers.

But one can EASILY imagine a situation where in, for example, June 1942, the US player has no carriers. Had that happened historically, you'd have seen many examples of B-25s dropping torpedo warshots.

As has been posted, they clearly tried to use them but found it wasn't feasible for no doubt a variety of reasons.

I'm not sure who posted that, but if they did it was a shallow analysis. It was only unfeasible because of the particular operational circumstances of the day. Put another way, there is no doubt that if the Japanese had not attacked the Philippines, then eventually in 1942 torpedo armed B-25s would have been stationed there. The same could be said for a Japanese attempt to invade India by sea, or if the Indonesian barrier had held out much longer than in the real thing.

Well you should take torpedo manufacture cost into consideration too. It is quite big and complicated device (only MK.VI - the faulty magnetic exploder costed 10000$ a piece!!!) so its price is way higher compared to bombs.

Against unarmored Jap merchants those bombs were sufficient enough.

ORIGINAL: Cerix

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Personally, game balance is irrelevant.

Usual issue, rl vs. capabilities. Irl B-25s, as a plane, clearly had the capability to launch torpedoes. The IJN so rarely operated capital ships in range of Allied LBA that there weren't enough opportunities to make the effort in training and equipment worthwhile. Had the they run bombardment tfs freight-train style as sometimes happens in the game, it's probable USAAF as an organization would have been more interested in developing the capability.

Hmm..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Express

Heard of it, not sure what the connection to my post is.

The connection is that the Japanese risked major fleet elements within kill range of land based air on many occassions. These include during the Guadalcanal campaign, the Midway campaign, the New Guinea campaign, the Indian Ocean raid, and the Pearl Harbor attack. In the Midway, Guadalcanal, and New Guinea campaigns, land based air chewed their ass rather thoroughly. In the latter, during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, it was B-25s doing the chewing, and other raids on Japanese bases surrounding the Bismarck Sea.

Still don't see the connection. Depending on what you mean by major and many, that's less than 20 days worth of risk from lba out of a 1350 day war. Torps would have been needed against bbs, maybe cas had they operated in range of Allied lba in any frequency or shown any particular destructive power. Bombs seemed sufficient for dds and merchies, especially after low level attacks were developed. Imo torp carrying B-25s would have been developed if a need for them was demonstrated. It wasn't.

Any major differences in flight profile between torpedo attacks and skipbombing for 2e bombers?

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Any major differences in flight profile between torpedo attacks and skipbombing for 2e bombers?

Speed, I'd say.

Until arrival of late war model Mk 13 torpedo, torpedo bomber had to fly quite slow speed. No such restriction in skip bombing and strafing.

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Any major differences in flight profile between torpedo attacks and skipbombing for 2e bombers?

Speed, I'd say.

Until arrival of late war model Mk 13 torpedo, torpedo bomber had to fly quite slow speed. No such restriction in skip bombing and strafing.

Thanks.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Let's not unbalance the game by putting torps on US medium bombers.

Game balance is irrelevant in a consim. A good consim gives the players plausible strategic and tactical capability and corrects for the imbalance, game-wise, by tweaking victory conditions.

The fact that Japanese players have the ability to make far more extensive use of aerial ASW than was historical practice does not seem to bother anyone -- even though as a matter of doctrine the IJAAF felt that ASW was largely the job of the imperial navy. In my view, torpedoes on USMC operated medium bombers is far more plausible than depth charges on most IJAAF bombers because the USMC had a doctrine and extensive training for use of medium bombers armed with torpedoes.

If torpedos were that effective for the medium bombers then they surely would have been used IRL.

Only if real life conditions had placed a premium or torp armed medium bombers. Real life did not. WitP, however, because it generates potentially vastly different operational and tactical constraints in certain theaters, may put the Allied player in a position where torp armed B-25s are desirable.

The principle reason why mediums weren't deployed with torpedoes is because in the vast reaches of the Pacific, it was the USN's fleet carriers who brought torpedo bombers into the range of Japanese targets (because the Japanese were on the defensive after November 1942). In the real war, the only place where torp armed B-25s might have been very useful was in the Battle of the Bismarck Sea. But at that point in the war, USN aerial torps were rather in short supply, and retained primarily for use from US fleet carriers.

But one can EASILY imagine a situation where in, for example, June 1942, the US player has no carriers. Had that happened historically, you'd have seen many examples of B-25s dropping torpedo warshots.

As has been posted, they clearly tried to use them but found it wasn't feasible for no doubt a variety of reasons.

I'm not sure who posted that, but if they did it was a shallow analysis. It was only unfeasible because of the particular operational circumstances of the day. Put another way, there is no doubt that if the Japanese had not attacked the Philippines, then eventually in 1942 torpedo armed B-25s would have been stationed there. The same could be said for a Japanese attempt to invade India by sea, or if the Indonesian barrier had held out much longer than in the real thing.

I posted it. You make some interesting points, but the fact is neither side used aerial torpedoes on 2E bombers very much at all, and the Japanese certainly had ample opportunity to do so had they the means or the will, but they didn't. Why? You apparently think it was a simple and obvious tactic and weapon. Really? I say again that there were a LOT of very smart people fighting that war on all sides. Surely this tactic was seriously considered and rejected for a variety of reasons--poor results, too expensive, too sophisticated to use in mass quantities, not enough ordinance, too many pilots and planes were going to die flying low and slow into flak....the list I'm sure goes on and on. I prefer to play the game with the tools and tactics the commanders had to use at the time, which I think the game developers have done an admirable, if not perfectly perfect, job of creating. Creating a B-25 torpedo bomber is reinventing a hammer if not the wheel, but I suppose that's what some folks like mods for...fantasy. While you're at it, give the B-17 a torpedo load out. That surely was a possibility, so we should clearly be given the option.

Imo torp carrying B-25s would have been developed if a need for them was demonstrated. It wasn't.

Torpedo armed B-25s WERE DEVELOPED. That seems to be the key point you've overlooked. USMC B-25 drivers were trained in torpedo attack from 1943 onward. But since the Japanese were on the defensive, torpedo strike missions delivered against Japanse targets were by circumstances limited to the fleet carriers, because these were the offensive weapons that carried torpedo bombers into range against the IJN.

If there had been a protracted defensive war on the US part, or if the combat had gone long in the Malay barrier, or brought the IJN into close proximity of places where the USN could not easily react, such as the Indian Ocean in 1943, torpedo armed B-25s would have been deployed there.

You apparently think it was a simple and obvious tactic and weapon. Really? I say again that there were a LOT of very smart people fighting that war on all sides. Surely this tactic was seriously considered and rejected for a variety of reasons--poor results, too expensive, too sophisticated to use in mass quantities, not enough ordinance, too many pilots and planes were going to die flying low and slow into flak....the list I'm sure goes on and on.

Torpedo bombing by B-25s was not "considered and rejected" by the USN. It was "considered, deemed to be a good idea, and a training program was developed whereby USMC B-25 drivers were intensively trained in torpedo attack." You need to study up on the history here.

I prefer to play the game with the tools and tactics the commanders had to use at the time, which I think the game developers have done an admirable, if not perfectly perfect, job of creating. Creating a B-25 torpedo bomber is reinventing a hammer if not the wheel, but I suppose that's what some folks like mods for...fantasy.

The fantasy is that B-25s were never considered for the job. Again, you need to do a little research. USMC B-25 operators were trained to use B-25s in torpedo attack. Circumstances did not require their use in that role, but the fact that USMC medium bomber crews were trained in torpedo attack through the end of the war proves that the USN not only considered that B-25s might be needed in that role, but also anticipated it enough that B-25 crews flying for the Marine Corps were trained in torpedo bombing. You really need to do some research before you dismiss a historical fact as "fantasy."

While you're at it, give the B-17 a torpedo load out. That surely was a possibility, so we should clearly be given the option.

Why would one do that? The USAAF did not have a doctrine or training program for B-17 torpedo bombing. Your comparison is invalid because the USMC DID have a doctrine and training program for B-25 torpedo bombing.

If you're really interested, scroll back a little in this thread and look at the B-25 picture that I posted. If you know your apples from your oranges, you will see that those B-25s carry a torpedo. That's the long object with the nose ring hanging close to the fuselage on the starboard side.

Show me a B-17 unit trained in torpedo ops and I will suggest that B-17s be given the option too. IMO, B-17s should be allowed to skip bomb (because it was B-17s that first put skip-bombing into operational practice in the Bismarck Sea). But I can find no evidence for B-17 torpedo bombing.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Imo torp carrying B-25s would have been developed if a need for them was demonstrated. It wasn't.

Torpedo armed B-25s WERE DEVELOPED. That seems to be the key point you've overlooked. USMC B-25 drivers were trained in torpedo attack from 1943 onward. But since the Japanese were on the defensive, torpedo strike missions delivered against Japanse targets were by circumstances limited to the fleet carriers, because these were the offensive weapons that carried torpedo bombers into range against the IJN.

If there had been a protracted defensive war on the US part, or if the combat had gone long in the Malay barrier, or brought the IJN into close proximity of places where the USN could not easily react, such as the Indian Ocean in 1943, torpedo armed B-25s would have been deployed there.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. Was referring to USAAF.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. Was referring to USAAF.

Ok we agree it seems. IMO even if the USAAF had wanted torpedoes the USN would have found a way for BuOrd to deliver all the torps to the USN/USMC. Necessity being the mother of crazy ideas and all, however, it was the USAAF that developed skip bombing as their way of letting the water into enemy ships, and the first skip-bombing missions were conducted by B-17s.

Ok, ok. Sorry for the smartass comments Mdiehl. Help me understand a little better, though. I'm digging through all my books, which are surely not as mind numbing as yours probably are considering your knowledge on this stuff, but I can't find any reference to a 2E torpedo doctrine by the USMC or USN. It doesn't appear to me that the USMC used more than a handful of B-25's. All my stuff references SE combat aircraft--at least what I've been able to dig through so far. I still don't see how you could introduce this into the game without it becoming wildly ahistorical. I forget if the earlier posts suggested to use the torps on only navy and USMC 2E's?

But again I point out the IJN didn't really use torpedoes on their 2E's, and they had ample targets that would justify the attempt if it was at all feasible.

Could you give some specific references to the above, both the B-25 torpedo training and anything explaining why the IJN did not use torps on their 2E's?

http://books.google.com/books?id=AYR_sq ... t&resnum=1

Scroll up some in that link, looks like the USMC was allocated some 700 PBJ's (B-25's) of various makes. Scroll down for the torpedo stuff.

-CJ

But again I point out the IJN didn't really use torpedoes on their 2E's, and they had ample targets that would justify the attempt if it was at all feasible.

Uh, yes, the IJN did. See Mitsubishi G3M ("Betty"). You'll find they sank HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse with torpedoes. Same type attempted a torpedo attack on, IIRC, Yorktown in February 1942 during the latter's abortive Rabaul raid, but 15 of the 18 attacking G3Ms were shot down. Betties also made several torpedo strikes against shipping in the Solomons, ultimately sinking (IIRC) USS Chicago in a dusk-twilight raid.

Could you give some specific references to the above, both the B-25 torpedo training and anything explaining why the IJN did not use torps on their 2E's?

I think I've covered the IJN well enough in the previous paragraph. A bunch of USMC B-25 units were intensively trained in torpedo bombing using B-25s, starting in 1943. VMB 433 was one of the units, IIRC, and also VMB 613. Later, four of them were dedicated to torpedo bombing and the rest released to more general work (including ASW). In mid 1945, the four dedicated VMB torpedo bomber units switched to TBMs.