"Solution to excessive Torpedo use (from land bases)"

[Brady]

Nikademus, is corect, I am refering to the 500KG bomb types the Japanese Army and Navy had, each had various bomb types in this weight class.


Something were likely overlooking hear from a historical perspective is that the Japanese put a lot of Weight (literly) in the operational doctern governing the use of Airdelevered ordance. It was the Japanese beleafe priour to about mid 42, that the 250 KG bomb type they fielded for Anti Shiping use was insuficient to defeat Allied CA's or larger. Thus any strikes intended to be sortied aganst such targets neaded the 500KG,800KG or Torpedo loadout. So for Torpedo units for The Japnese their whole reasion for existance depending on them being able to field such a weapon. to restric them from using this weapon would realy be A historical. If we wanted to get realy anal in the game we would have specific Suport units as existed in real life that could cope with Torps.

In a perfect world Torps would be a seperate suply item, their would be a factory(s) building them and we would stow them and move them around. No more filling up a CV at some atole with some suply and a Tanker, you want torps to bring them along...


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

Army 500KG bomb being loaded into a Sally:





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

el cid again-You live in Oregon right?, if you do go if you can to the Oregon Military Museum in Clackamas, they have an original coppy of TM-1985, and the Navy OPNAV manual on Japanese explosive ordance, I have personal coppy of the former and part of the Navy manual at home. Both show pretymuch all types of Japanese explsive ordance.

[bradfordkay]

"Any type of Suply sujestion is realy just puting a pro allied slant on it, the Japanese prety much always had Torps available whear ever they based their Betty/Nel bombers. I dont personaly see a big problem in the game with them at present, the Beauforts seam a bit to plentifull and torp capable, but their short range is not that big a deal to work around imo."


Brady, this is an absolute falsehood. In the other thread (the one which prompted Russ to post this poll) it was pointed out that on at least two occaisions (the early raids by US carriers against Japanese held islands and the one by Rabaul based Betties against US carriers before Coral Sea) the Japanese planes were launched without torpedoes because there were none available.

When you consider how few occaisions there were that Betties actually launched torpedoes, and compare those numbers to the occasions where they used bombs instead, then it is obvious that you are twisting the facts in that statement.

[XENXEN]

Japan had allot of bombs from 30kg and up to 1498.6Kg (later in the war) there were 2 different kinds of the 800Kg bombs, one still in production at the end of the war

This page is the only one i have found on the internet with info on bombs
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200E-0465-0531%20Report%200-23.pdf

[Feinder]

Do you guys have doc on the boom (TNT) weight of the ordinance? The model for "effect" rating in WitP is, for almost all projectiles, simply the total weight of the oridinance. Example, 500 lb. GP bomb has an effect rating of 500. You can do the conversions on the kg bombs, and it works out the same. Something that might be of interest for you modders would be to adjust the effect ratings of the oridinance, so as not to reflect the shell weight.

Then again, I think bombs tend to be somewhat undervalued in their overall effectiveness in WitP. As in, historically plenty of ships were sunk with only bombs. But in WitP, you almost always need a torp to make the kill.*

* And while it's true that it was often torps that finished off ships historically (Lexington, Soryu, Hiryu, et al), you'd never see that in WitP. Those ships would be limping back to the nearest port with 90+ sys dmg in WitP (like Sara and Wasp in my game vs. Erstad!).

-F-

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Do you guys have doc on the boom (TNT) weight of the ordinance? The model for "effect" rating in WitP is, for almost all projectiles, simply the total weight of the oridinance. Example, 500 lb. GP bomb has an effect rating of 500. You can do the conversions on the kg bombs, and it works out the same. Something that might be of interest for you modders would be to adjust the effect ratings of the oridinance, so as not to reflect the shell weight.

Then again, I think bombs tend to be somewhat undervalued in their overall effectiveness in WitP. As in, historically plenty of ships were sunk with only bombs. But in WitP, you almost always need a torp to make the kill.*

* And while it's true that it was often torps that finished off ships historically (Lexington, Soryu, Hiryu, et al), you'd never see that in WitP. Those ships would be limping back to the nearest port with 90+ sys dmg in WitP (like Sara and Wasp in my game vs. Erstad!).

-F-

Feinder, I don't believe Hiryu or Soryu were torpedoed - just bombed.

Also Lex was done in by poor damage control practices...not a torpedo.
If I recall, Lex took two bombs and two torpedoes - knocking boilers off line, starting fires and bringing her to a stop.
But an hour later she had her fires out, making 20 knots, and operating her air group - when the generator sparked gas vapor from a ruptured fuel line that was not cleared of vapor....So her sinking was not the effects of a coup de grace from a torp.

For what it's worth anyway...
B

[witpqs]

Big B,

You might be right about the real cause of Lex's demise, but I think (IIRC) that a USN destroyer put a torp in her to finish her off, so she's listed that way.

There are conflicting stories on Hiryu. She supposedly was torpedoed by an IJN destroyer, and seen to sink. She was also supposedly found on the surface and sunk by USN destroyers, and also supposedly found by IJN destroyers and again torpedoed - and again seen to sink. I really don't know which is the most credible (and certainly not which is true).

[Nikademus]

The latest account seems the most likely to moi...(shattered sword) Hiryu was to be scuttled by one torp fired by an IJN torp. The hit was not initially severe as it struck close to the bow and vented out the other end. The ship was still deemed sufficently doomed and the DD departed. later a Hosho based plane spotted the CV still afloat with recently escaped lower deck crewmen waving at her. However soon after the famous pictures of Hiryu were taken the slow progressive flooding from the bow hit set her to foundering.

The other KB carriers were scuttled by torps as well.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Big B,

You might be right about the real cause of Lex's demise, but I think (IIRC) that a USN destroyer put a torp in her to finish her off, so she's listed that way.

There are conflicting stories on Hiryu. She supposedly was torpedoed by an IJN destroyer, and seen to sink. She was also supposedly found on the surface and sunk by USN destroyers, and also supposedly found by IJN destroyers and again torpedoed - and again seen to sink. I really don't know which is the most credible (and certainly not which is true).

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The latest account seems the most likely to moi...(shattered sword) Hiryu was to be scuttled by one torp fired by an IJN torp. The hit was not initially severe as it struck close to the bow and vented out the other end. The ship was still deemed sufficently doomed and the DD departed. later a Hosho based plane spotted the CV still afloat with recently escaped lower deck crewmen waving at her. However soon after the famous pictures of Hiryu were taken the slow progressive flooding from the bow hit set her to foundering.

The other KB carriers were scuttled by torps as well.

Ahh yes. I thought we were talking about what combat damage doomed these vessels - Sorry Feinder.[8D]

In fact if we are talking about "scuttling with torpedoes" you can add Hornet to the list too and I believe Yorktown...each of which were finished off some 24 hours or more after battle with torpedoes Yorktown by I-168, Hornet by the USN and IJN. (In fact if I remember correctly Hornet took something like 8 torpedoes and 500 rounds of 5" L38 to finish her off - between the US Navy and the Japanese Navy which found her drifting the next day).

B

[Brady]

bradfordkay- I do respet your right to disagree with me, but I did not follow the "other thread" so I cant comment on what was said their and I dont have time to go and sift throught it right now. I know that Betty's/Nells did use bombs to atack Shiping/Naval targets as well as torps, I also know that many of the times that they used bombs they did so because they were vectored to the target while in flight already and on their way to a lnad target/ or had been armed up on the ground already for a land atack and sent on a momnets notice to atack a Naval target. Certainly their were a few instances whear they did not use torps to atack shiping because their were non available, but it was the prefered method for sinking ships.

It is certainly a Pro allied slant no mater how you slice it though, wheater or not it is by designe or not is ireavalent, in the end a Suply derived torp availabality rule is going to be slanted toward the Allies. The game is rife with these lovely little pro allied rules btw.

Can anyone tell me off hand just how many British Torps were in Austraila during Early 1942 for use from Beauforts?

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Brady

Can anyone tell me off hand just how many British Torps were in Austraila during Early 1942 for use from Beauforts?

Using the game as a guide, I would say the same number available to Japanese level bombers anywhere.

I'm probably being irrevelant, but it was a relevation to me.

[frank1970]

Would it be possible to allow a special mission like "torpedo attack" for torpbombers and give only a special amount of such missions being flown?
Eg: The Japs have 10 or so squadrons they could put on torpedo attack in 1941. the number is reduced/increased while the war continuos. The same is true of course for the Allies.
Changing to torpedo mission should cost political points to reflect the organization costs. Also all planes of the squadron should be damaged and have to be repaired before the mission can be flown (there are no torps in the base, only after some time)
Additionally this kind of mission should only be allowed in bases with baseforces, an HQ and enough aviation support plus an airfield of a minimum size of whatever.
Torpedo missions should attack warships and only have a very little chance of targeting Aks or Tankers.

For carriers torpedo missions should only be allowed when the number of sorties left on the carrier is more than 50% of the total sorties allowed.

If this is not possible, would iot be doable to introduce some of the torpbombers as 2 types as Betty (b) and Betty (t) with a different weaponload, like bombs for b and torpedoes for t. This way only special squadrons would do torpedoe attacks. The productionnumber for t and b types would have to be calculated.
Would it be possible to make lb torpedobombers heavybombers? This would change thei supply needs to some more realistic level.

[spence]

but I did not follow the "other thread" so I cant comment on what was said their and I dont have time to go and sift throught it right now. I know that Betty's/Nells did use bombs to atack Shiping/Naval targets

To summarize the other thread. Several squadrons were specifically set up to deal with PoW/Repulse with torpedos. That they did. The next time G3s/G4s launched a torpedo attack was off Guadalcanal in August 42. Even the KB didn't use torpedos that often. At PH in Dec, next time at Coral Sea. One of the problems with using torpedos was there needed to be a special attaching device on the plane which took time to install and was not compatible with bombs which were more diverse in their application so to speak. KB cancelled several launches of B5s with torpedos simply because by the time they were ready the divebombers had already sunk the targets: Cornwall & Devonshire, Langley and a couple of others.

The high experience of all IJN torpedo bombers presumably results from practice with real drops. Even in the best of circumstances practice torpedos are lost at roughly 30% rate. With only 3400 odd torpedos produced prior to the war and all torp bombers practicing to gain proficiency it is hard to swallow that any base anywhere is going to have a ready stock of torpedos for war shots when the empire covers 1/3rd of the globe.

[el cid again]

el cid again-You live in Oregon right?, if you do go if you can to the Oregon Military Museum in Clackamas, they have an original coppy of TM-1985, and the Navy OPNAV manual on Japanese explosive ordance, I have personal coppy of the former and part of the Navy manual at home. Both show pretymuch all types of Japanese explsive ordance.

I twice lived in Oregon (or across the River in Vancouver) - but I long have lived in Alaska (since 1988) with a 3 year break in Tacoma. At the end of that I took my family to Tillimook - Astoria - and also over to Bonniville. We also crossed Oregon en route to Anaheim. I took my daughter up in a plane at the Aviation Museum at Tillimook - right beside the blimp hanger. On the same trip we saw the Airship hangers in LA.

[el cid again]

When you consider how few occaisions there were that Betties actually launched torpedoes, and compare those numbers to the occasions where they used bombs instead, then it is obvious that you are twisting the facts in that statement.

You are confusing different things:

Just because you don't know about an occasion on which torpedos were used does not mean they were not used. Even when they were not used, it does not mean they were not available to use. See the Glen thread - the same reasoning was used "I don't know about a Glen operating in the open sea - so it didn't" But it did.

However, this thread is correct insofar as it points out that torpedoes were not preferred for merchant ships. They indeed were not. But don't blame that on players - it is not up to them what the plane carries. The Japanese believed a 250 kg bomb was adequate for any unarmored ship. And it is quite true - it is.

[el cid again]

The high experience of all IJN torpedo bombers presumably results from practice with real drops. Even in the best of circumstances practice torpedos are lost at roughly 30% rate. With only 3400 odd torpedos produced prior to the war and all torp bombers practicing to gain proficiency it is hard to swallow that any base anywhere is going to have a ready stock of torpedos for war shots when the empire covers 1/3rd of the globe.

I think it is hard to swallow that no base anywhere had any torpedoes.
Japan did not apply naval air power evenly across 120 degrees of longitude. The US Army intel manual for Japanese forces says that they had interior lines, and used them effectively (for air power). There certainly were bases that had torpedoes - from which they could stage as required to other bases.

It is one thing to want bombers not to load torpedoes if hunting a merchant ship - for indeed they would not load them. It is another to want them to be unable to load them at all. I think it is a way to rationalize that you don't like torpedoes. Japan had the best torpedoes in the world - and if they were better organized they would have used them more than they did. In any simulation - in which YOU have 20-20 hindsight - you better expect the "enemy" player has it too.

[spence]

As I have said before, I am not against the IJN using torpedos from land bases...just against them always using them from practically anywhere, any time. That capability is unrealistic.

[Hoplosternum]

Well I voted for 4, but it is really a hope for WitP2 rather than a wish for WitP.

I can't see the supply thing being much of a restriction. Even the Japanese can usually stock a few bases with 20k+ easily. It might make the rapid transfers of Betties slightly more restricted. But not much.

As for making it random I don't think that would be anything except frustration.

I did like Frank's first proposal re having a Torpedo mission and restricting the number of squadrons that can use it at one time. Maybe for WitP2?? It seemed a good solution. But I can see a lot of moaning if it was implemented. The second method - having two types of Betty - would not work well unless there was some extra cost to having Torpedo Betties (perhaps make them cost more engines). Otherwise the IJ player will simply switch all production, and eventually squadrons, to the Torpedo model. Assuming PDUs.

[spence]

Even the Japanese can usually stock a few bases with 20k+ easily. It might make the rapid transfers of Betties slightly more restricted.

Well IMHO that is exactly the kind of restriction that would be both fair and realistic.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Please guys - this whole idea was _NOT_ meant to be against one side and for another side.

This whole issue is something that affects both sides especially in biggest "abuse" when players off-load their CV/CVE/CVL to land base and have instant unsinkable torpedo "death star" (just look at the AARs and you will see that this is common practice)!

Also bot sides have substantial number of torpedo carrying land based bombers.


Leo "Apollo11"

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: Brady

It is certainly a Pro allied slant no mater how you slice it though, wheater or not it is by designe or not is ireavalent, in the end a Suply derived torp availabality rule is going to be slanted toward the Allies. The game is rife with these lovely little pro allied rules btw.

Can anyone tell me off hand just how many British Torps were in Austraila during Early 1942 for use from Beauforts?

Are you saying the game is unrealistically Allied biased because they have more supply?

I will certainly grant you that early war (1942) availability of B-17s is unhistorical high, but from what I observe (mostly the effects of very high experience ratings) everything else in the game nets the Japanese kill ratios that are mind boggling, at least until middle-late war.

In a word, because of the over-bloody air combat model in large battles - and the like, in the first year or so it's not War in the Pacific so much as a fantasy land of Japanese Super Samurai slaughtering retarded allied proletarians. (from what I have seen in the stock game - typically in 1942, an air battle of 60 or more Zeros will slaughter an equal or larger number of allied planes at about a 10:1 ratio AND manage to kill about 90% of the allied aircraft involved - hardly pro allied BS)

By the end of the game it reverses, but that hardly means the game is ripe with pro allied BS.

No wonder so many people are working on mods.

Demo