B25J and tropedoes

[m10bob]

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/even ... uad-1k.htm

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

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.

But if I wanted a game where anything goes regardless of the constrains of real life, I would be playing Warcraft..... [;)]

[mdiehl]

If you want a game that doesn't allow you to make different operational choices than those made by the historical opponents then you should script all your moves to exactly match those made by the historical opponents in the war.

The real life FACT was that VMB units flying B25s were trained in torpedo attack. If you can't grasp that, you probably should not be playing a WW2 consim.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Uh, yes, the IJN did. See Mitsubishi G3M ("Betty").

"Nell". The G4M was the "Betty".

[tigercub]

nice pic of the betty in action.

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: DivePac88

Some B-26As carried torpedoes at midway, and one actually got to launch a torpedo at a Japanese carrier if I remember correctly. I recall that the torpedo that the B-26 launched didn’t run correctly; the torpedo broached off the top of a wave, and flew over the flight deck of the carrier. I think that it was decided around that time by the USAAF that medium bombers were not that good at launching torpedoes.

it flew over the deck of the carrier? Are you serious or is this just a myth?[X(]

Gotta wonder if any Japanese saliors watched as that torp sailed over their ship. Probably tried to tell others about it, and no one would believe them [:)]

[AirGriff]

After reading the text from CJ Martin's link, an actual reference we can read rather than taking for granted what someone says, I would conclude that the navy and marines did indeed train for torpedo attacks on B-25's. However, it seems perfectly clear that the tactic was not preferred or much considered after 1943, and prior to that the USMC didn't have many B-25's. So, unless we can choose loadouts in the game I certainly wouldn't think torps should be a standard loadout on B-25's, certainly not army units.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: GordianKnot

Not to wander off topic, but what's with the blue and green colored air and troop markers in your sig image? Is that new for AE and if so, what do the colors mean?

Yes, it's some of the new artwork for AE. The British are Khaki, Australians green, and NZ is blue. The US is an olive green that is somewhat different from the Australians. The land units icon set has been significantly expanded. The art on the air icons comes in silhouettes of three types: Japanese A/C, American built A/C, and British built A/C. Australia, NZ, Canada, India, and the UK get British built art (in their country's color) and the rest pretty much get the American icon set. Of course if you look at a unit or the database and for animations, you will see the air art like WitP, but there is a lot more of it.

Extra, unused, icon sets are provided if you don't like a country's color, you can change it. The Dutch are a kind of blue gray by default, but some of the play testers preferred the orange set for the Dutch.

Personally, I think the new art is both more useful and nicer on the eye. I don't know how many times I was at a base and couldn't tell if an air icon was a patrol or a bomber unit for example. Now the distinction is much better. It's also easier to tell what land units you have at a base too with the new icons.

Bill

[mdiehl]

it seems perfectly clear that the tactic was not preferred or much considered after 1943, and prior to that the USMC didn't have many B-25's.

The quoted text would be a prime example of an unsubstantiated assertion, that is, baloney.

[Dili]

Personally, I think the new art is both more useful and nicer on the eye. I don't know how many times I was at a base and couldn't tell if an air icon was a patrol or a bomber unit for example. Now the distinction is much better. It's also easier to tell what land units you have at a base too with the new icons.

I would prefered a Mechanised icon instead of a Tank one, since Tank icon as far as i know means motorised mobility.

[AirGriff]

Go to the link and read the text yourself, Mdiehl. So far, I have seen you offer no specific references to material where you have drawn your conclusions. I'm willing to be pursuaded, you're just not doing a good job of it.

[mdiehl]

I've done an excellent job. You're just a poor reader. You did a very thorough job reading stuff into that link that was not actually written there. Apparently you think that the USMC didn't have any B-25s when they were interested in torpedoes, and once they got B-25s they weren't interested in torpedoes. It's a pretty obviously flawed claim, given that I've named several torpedo trained B-25 units (that anyone could search) and posted here a picture of torpedo-armed B-25s.

Here, for example, is VMB 433 squadron insignia from their B-25 days. Do I need to explain to you what the insignia includes for imagery or are you getting it?



Awe heck. A devil with two tails (that refers to the twin tail design of B-25s) riding a torpedo (I kinda figure that's obvious), with a .50cal in front, and hurling bombs. Interesting insignia for a squadron that you claim never had any torpedoes, was never interested in torpedoes, wasn't trained in torpedo bombing and, indeed, in your view, never existed.

The only question here is which fact you weigh more heavily in game design. The obvious fact that USMC B-25 squadrons were trained in torpedo bombing vs. the fact that they never had occasion to use them in combat.

In my view, the fact that there were four dedicated torpedo armed VMB units and that many more were trained in torpedo bombing using B-25s clearly indicates a doctrine and training program that argues for their availability. One could object that they were never used as torpedo bombing, to which I reply that this is a consim that permits wide operational variation from the real war. Either the Japanese player or the Allied player in this game MAY create operational situations that to the Allied player's mind warrants arming VMB units with torpedoes.

Certainly there is a stronger argument for allowing VMB units to use torpedoes than there is for IJAAF units to use aerially deployed depth charges.

[mdiehl]

@ AE designers and Terminus who seems to know.

What load outs will B-25s be allowed if not torpedoes? Will they be allowed 300 (ish, IIRC) pound DCs, 5" rockets, the Mark 7 rocket, and mixed parafrag-w.p. loadouts (all of which were regularly used by VMB B-25s) in addition to bombs?

[Dixie]

Didn't the USMC command all but shelve plans to equip their PBJs with torpedoes in 1943, focusing instead on conventional bombs and skip-bombing?  Although there wasn't the intention to use them, pilots were still trained in torpedo attacks.  Whilst the capacity was there with the earlier B-25s/PBJs I'm not sure it was a part of the Js loadouts.

[mdiehl]

Didn't the USMC command all but shelve plans to equip their PBJs with torpedoes in 1943, focusing instead on conventional bombs and skip-bombing?

No. They shelved plans to equip PBJs (for airgriff, PBJ is the USN/USMC designation for the B-25)with torpedoes in 1945. They were still training B-25 drivers to use them in 1944. In deployment, however, the PBJs didn't fire any warshots with torps (I would argue because of a general dearth of targets and opportunity). Most of the mission logs for VMBs in the PTO that I have read mention depth charges and general purpose bombs, with late war anti-ship strikes using 5"rockets and something I have seen referred to as the "Mark 7 34" motor" (which is some sort of whopping anti-ship rocket -- if it's the one I'm thinking of it swung out from the bomb bay, dropped, and a lanyard ignited the rocket -- the lanyard was needed because the rocket motor was so powerful it was damaging the deploying aircraft during testing).

Whilst the capacity was there with the earlier B-25s/PBJs I'm not sure it was a part of the Js loadouts.

It never came up in deployment.

BTW, I don't think the PBM equipped VMB units did skip bombing. As I recall, skip bombing was a USAAF technique. Makes sense because the USAAF wasn't given any torpedoes.

In 1945, four of the VBM B-25 units were redesignated VBMT (t for torpedo) and reequipped with TBMs.

[AirGriff]

Gosh, now we're getting somewhere. Can you give some material reference to these squadrons that we can actually read about rather than pretty pictures? 4 squadrons out of how many total in the USMC? Ok, so they could make a few spare torpedo squadrons to play around with. That makes sense, but did they use them in combat?

I can read perfectly well. The article CLEARLY states that sometime in 1943 the idea of using torpedoes on PBJ's was shelved before the Marines ever got PBJ's, and it gives the reasons why--not one of which was "They just didn't think there would be an opportunity to use them.". It says they canned the idea because they felt they had better options. The aritcle is a substantiated reference. I haven't seen anything you've said that is substantiated other than the squadron logo, which I don't dispute. It's a lovely picture, and no doubt the unit existed. I don't know where it was in the war or what it was doing. That would be nice to know for the sake of your argument. One think I DO KNOW is that it never sunk an enemy ship with a torpedo. Give me something more than your typical blowbag response to me.

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

[AirGriff]

Never mind. I did the research myself rather than wait and argue for it. The 433rd, despite the insignia, never deployed with torpedoes. It trained for them, like the rest of the PBJ crews, but apparently never used them or carried them on combat missions. Nice insignia, though. Too bad it has absolutely no significance to your assertion that it was specifically used as a torpedo squadron, Mdiehl.

That is all per the link in my last post . If I'm going to throw out technical claims aimed at changing the game I like to provide references. Not that I'm trying to do that, Mdiehl is, and the burden of proof should be on you, sir.

The ability for a player to turn a PBJ into a torpedo bomber at a whim would change the game, just as having every Betty and Nell in the game having a standard load out of torps changes the game from historical context. Now they've fixed that in AE by the sounds of it, and we want to recreate the issue on the allied side? Hey, I want to be able to change history, too, but I want to do it within the context of my own strategic decisions based on historical units and tactics that were actually used, not create a whole new game based on weapons systems and unit level tactics that are "what if" concepts. Yes, I know the PBJ's trained for torps, but they didn't actually use the training. Go build a mod if you want this, but please don't throw a wrench into the standard AE game they've got for us.

[mdiehl]

The article CLEARLY states that sometime in 1943 the idea of using torpedoes on PBJ's was shelved before the Marines ever got PBJ's, and it gives the reasons why--not one of which was "They just didn't think there would be an opportunity to use them."

And the article does not quite say that. It may imply it, in which event it is incorrect. All you need to do is look back a few pages. If the USMC had shelved the idea of putting torpedoes on PBJs before the USMC ever got any torpedoes, then you would not have photographs (one of which I have posted) of a PBJ armed with a torpedo in 1944. Q.E.D.

One think I DO KNOW is that it never sunk an enemy ship with a torpedo.

That is true. And if you know much about the PTO in WW2 you can figure out why. The IJN was on the defensive after late 1942. B-25s operating from the southern solomons, and later Tarawa, Kwajalein, Saipan, Tinian, and Leyte, lacked the range to interdict Japanese shipping. The torpedo armed B-25 was primarily a defensive weapon (as was the torpedo-armed B-26). After 1942, the units bringing danger forward to the IJN were USN fleet carriers, and they had priority access to torps so long as the threat of a decisive force of Japanese combat ships existed.

You'd have only seen B-25s if the USMC/USN had engaged in a protracted defensive campaing around some cluster of reasonably built up islands. That did not happen in the real war, but it is more than an "imaginable possibility" in WitP. It is not uncommon to see the IJN player attempt a naval invasion of India or Ceylon, Australia, or the New Caledonia- Espirito Santo area. If the Japanese had done that in 1943 or 1944, there would have been torpedo armed VMB PBJs in place to form a line of resistence (because the TBMs were being earmarked for the new suite of fleet carriers that started coming into commission with USS Essex).

Too bad it has absolutely no significance to your assertion that it was specifically used as a torpedo squadron, Mdiehl.

VMB 433 was one of eight PBJ equipped VBM units deployed to the PTO. All of their pilots were extensively trained in torpedo bombing. In 1945, VMB 621, 622, 623, and 624 swapped out their PBJs for TBMs. Clearly from 1942 through the end of the war, USMC B-25 drivers were trained in torpedo bombing, and by the end of the war the USMC was still doing torpedo bombing (albeit with a different machine -- logistically speaking the TBM was a better torpedo bomber because it required fewer service personnel and smaller aircrews).

If I'm going to throw out technical claims aimed at changing the game I like to provide references. Not that I'm trying to do that, Mdiehl is, and the burden of proof should be on you, sir.

The proof has been made. I've provided all the information you need. Unless you can't do an internet search you can research VBM units as well as anyone.

The ability for a player to turn a PBJ into a torpedo bomber at a whim would change the game,

You have an interesting point of view to dismiss USMC standard doctrine and training from 1941-1945, photos of torp armed B-25s, and four dedicated VBM torpedo bomber units as "whimsy." Perhaps you would be most comfortable with a game in which other whimsical ideas, such as a second attack on Pearl Harbor, a Japanese invasion of New Caledonia or Ceylon, or a carrier vs carrier engagement in which one Japanese and four US fleet carriers are sunk, should not be allowed. After all, none of those events happened either.

Your cognitive failure here seems to be that you find it beyond imagining that USMC PBJ units might, under different circumstances, have actually done that which they were extensively trained to do. I'm not sure that a consim that allows any deviation from an exact replication of history is what you're looking for. Perhaps you should read some books instead. It's clear you've got a lot of historical cathing up to do.

[m10bob]

Just an opinion here. If the game will have more slots, I suggest a slot be used by modders to create aircraft with these specific load-outs and only used by the few squadrons which had them.
This will prevent them from "falling into the wrong hands"?

[AirGriff]

Ok, I give up.  Let's introduce every weapon system and tactic that was ever thought of or trained for into the game.  I can't wait to use chem warfare.  That'll be a real treat.  Just curious, Mdiehl, how far are you into your WitP game or games?  Just want to make sure I'm discussing with an experienced player here.
 
You have "proven" absolutely nothing.  I see you putting things down here on your posts, but other than some pretty pictures, one of which you tried to mislead us with, you have made no specific references to any specific data.  I'm more than happy to concede a point, but I need some hard facts rather than hearsay, especially from you. 
 
If you want to mod the game, go ahead.  I'm sure you'll get a couple of takers out there.