Matrix Games Forums

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 of the eight units, seven saw combat. The last unit, VMB-614 arrived in theater too late.

"...extensively trained in torpedo bombing."

Uh, no. Units received very rudimentary torpedo training at either Boca Chica, Fla or San Diego, but not both. Training lasted up to two weeks at Boca Chica and was one week long at San Diego. Training consisted mostly of lectures with a few orientation flights. 2000lb concrete shapes were used at both stations to simulate torpedoes. Only one unit, VMB-433 actually dropped live exercise torpedos. Interestingly enough, it is the only unit to have a torpedo on its patch. It was designed by one of its officers, Malcolm L. McGuckin. Even more interestingly, you chose to use this patch to bolster your arguments that PBJ units should be torpedo equipped. Pretty thin thread if you ask me. But the most telling part is that not one PBJ equipped VMB unit ever carried a torpedo outside of the US. And not one received any additional torpedo training at anytime, anywhere.

"In 1945, VMB 621, 622, 623, and 624 swapped out their PBJs for TBMs."

True enough but not quite the whole truth now, is it?. Of course, you failed to mention that these squadrons were never assigned to the Pacific, never trained in torpedo tactics and that they never left the US. The sole reason for the conversion was that the Marine Corps wanted a carrier-capable bomber for close air support. The TBM, with its large bombbay, was perfect. These units were to serve aboard CVEs in that role for the expected invasion of Japan. MGEN Vandergrift came up with the idea in July 44.

"Clearly from 1942 through the end of the war, USMC B-25 drivers were trained in torpedo bombing"

Clearly, USMC B-25 drivers were NOT trained in torpedo bombing in 1942 as the first USMC B-25 unit, VMB-413, wasn't commisioned until 3/1/43. And VMB-413 didn't complete their training until Dec 43 and deployed to the Pacific in Jan 44. And of course, these were PBJs if you want to get technical, not B-25s. And just as clearly, there wasn't any VMB torpedo training in 1945 as the last VMB unit to conduct any torpedo training finished training in 1944.

Another point to make here is that only the PBJ-1C/D models were actually capable of deploying torpedoes. The PBJ-1H/J models were too heavy and had considerable center of gravity problems when loaded with their airborne radar suites, HVAR rocket installations and 75mm cannon provisions. Most H model and all J models had their torpedo shackles removed in the field to save weight. One of the VMB squadron webpages has an extensive list of field modifications that were made to reduce weight.

Another point to consider is that these units usually flew from Marine Corps bases and these did not have maintenance or storage facilites for torpedoes. And last, let's not forget that USMC ordnance personnel were not trained in torpedo maintenance. In addition, the US Navy was increasingly equipping its Avengers with bombs rather than torpedoes due to the lack of suitable targets. Put it all together and the picture is rather dismal for supporting your assertion that USMC pilots were extensively trained in torpedo bombing.

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."

So torpedo training was USMC standard doctrine and training in 1941 and 1942? Now that's whimsical! No mean feat when you consider that the Marines didn't have any torpedo squadrons during those years! And the picture you presented is that of a VMB-433 aircraft at Boca Chica during torpedo training. But the most telling part is that not one PBJ equipped VMB unit ever carried, let alone dropped, a torpedo outside of the US. And not one unit received any additional torpedo training at anytime, anywhere.

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.

And your cognitive failure is that you fail to recognize that VMB units were not "extensively" trained in torpedo use. They had no supporting infrastructure, no stock piles of torpedoes, no trained torpedomen and crews who received at most 2 weeks classroom and flight training.

And I am sure that you will never play this consim. What was the sum of your WitP experience again? Oh yeah, you "borrowed" a copy of a very early version and played against the Ai until May 42. When was that again? 4 or 5 years ago? I forget. Something like that.

And perhaps you should go back and reread those websites instead. It's clear that you are the one that has some historical "cathing" up to do.

One last question... why do you care so much about a game you won't buy and don't play?

To those that own the game... there is an editor. If you feel that torpedo-equipped PBJs should be in the game, the means to include them is at your disposal.

If I have offended any by this post, I apologize. I just get real tired of this continual "bull-in-the-china-shop" routine.

Chez

Excellent analysis!

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez


If I have offended any by this post, I apologize. I just get real tired of this continual "bull-in-the-china-shop" routine.

Chez

I'm not offended, but i am very entertained. [:D] Very informative post. It matches the less thorough research i did on the topic after seeing repeated assertations of "extensively trained."

Nice analysis.....particularily on the logistical side of things. [:)]

But not really worth the effort...

yes, but i actually found the details of the PBJ program interesting.

Thank you.....On with AE!!!

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Your cognitive failure here
...

Perhaps you should read some books instead. It's clear you've got a lot of historical cathing up to do.

Oh my ... certainly one to talk!
[:D]


I'm moving this over to the "war room" ... to avoid further distractions ...

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Thank you ChezDaJez a very professional, and enlightening breakdown on this subject.

Oh my ... certainly one to talk!

A fellow who claims that the Japanese never launched torpedoes from a twin-engined bomber (and is wrong), who claims that the USMC never had torpedoes when they had PBJ-1s (and is wrong), who claims that the USMC didn't have PBJ-1s when they finally got torpedoes (and is wrong), who claims that the USMC was never interested in using torpedoes (and is wrong), who claims that the USMC gave up training PBJ-1s to use torpedoes in 1943 (and is wrong), who can't recognize a photograph of a PBJ-1 with a torpedo, and who dismisses the evidence of both intensive training and doctrine in VBM units as "whimsical" or "fantasy," clearly doesn't have even elementary knowledge of the war.

Japanese twin engined bombers sank Prince of Wales and Repulse with torpedoes on the third day of the war. They deployed torpedoes against an American carrier (unsuccessfully) in February 1942, and against American ships near Tulagi in August 1942, and sank USS Chicago with torpedoes in 1943. Isn't much of this elementary knowledge.

But thanks for being a "third man in." It certainly drops your pretense at moderation. And after the number of times I've been challenged and proven correct, one'd think that even you would know better.

And of the eight units, seven saw combat. The last unit, VMB-614 arrived in theater too late.
etc.

The point that you keep dodging is that the training and the doctrine were there. Since this is a consim that permits deviation from history, given that the training and doctrine were there, my point is that VBM units equipped with PBJ-1s should be allowed to be torpedo armed, if the Allied player deems it appropriate. Certainly, much more extreme deviations from historical pathway are allowed to the Japanese player. The whole production alteration scheme is one great fantasy, for example.

As to the rest, I've already conceded that no PBJ ever dropped a torpedo in combat. What of it. No Japanese unit ever invaded New Caledonia. No marvels of industrial modernization occurred, yet such events are fairly routine in the consim.

Of course, it is amusing to be upbraided by the guy who imagined that one instance of a B-29 having a turret blown off by flak (but completed its mission despite that) implied the losses of hundreds of B-29s during the war by "explosive decompression."

And your cognitive failure is that you fail to recognize that VMB units were not "extensively" trained in torpedo use.

You are incorrect. I've named four that were dedicated torpedo bombers. Not deployed to the PTO but the training and doctrine were there. Or is it your contention that doctrine and training changed substantially from one Naval Air Station to the next?

One last question... why do you care so much about a game you won't buy and don't play?

I'd buy it if it were any good. My interest is in seeing it made good enough to buy.

If I have offended any by this post, I apologize. I just get real tired of this continual "bull-in-the-china-shop" routine.

Then you shouldn't employ that routine.

If not torpedoes, what load outs apart from bombs and cannons will B-25/PBJ-1s be allowed? Parafrag-w.p.? Depth charges? 5" rockets?

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

But, Reg, old scout, this is where we are. You remember me as the guy who used to say stupid stuff like, "I want a game that puts me into a specifically defined historical role, then insists that I make the most of the men and materiel high command has afforded me."

And other such crapola. What we've got is an entire slate of computer wargames - not just Matrix, but nearly everyone else does it, too - that bill and coo, "here, big boy, I may be ugly, but there's an editor you can use to make me as beautiful as you want - and use your own definition of 'beautiful.' I'll do anything you want. Use me. Hurt me. Make me your slave..."

I hate it, but I keep buying this stuff. What I do is try to edit it into what I think is something close to a game that gives me the kind of challenge I initially started buying computer wargames for.

For those who live out their fantasies twisting and bending a game into something that lets you boil your noodles by creating a fantasy world where Japan conquers Olympus, Nazi Germany finally drives a wooden stake through the heart of Moses, or Bomfoque, Egypt becomes the capital of the "New Oddball Hegemony of Bizarre People Who Need to Create a Life for Themselves Because They Don't Currently Have One" (NOHBPWNCLTBTDCHO), I wish you well (well...)

Me, I'm gonna kick back tonight, fire up my C64 simulator, load "Carriers at War" (1983), and see if I can beat the Japs at Coral Sea, even though that doggone Grigsby gave Vals a hit probability of 15 and SBDs only 9...

Blah-Blah-Blah-Blah... [8|]

ORIGINAL: Barb

Blah-Blah-Blah-Blah... [8|]

you got somethin' to say, dick, or are you just generally insulting without serious comment?

No insult was meant to either side. There are two threads about torpedo carrying B-25s. In both it is about the same and still debate continues. And the solution is simple: If someone want it in the game, just mod it. And the one who wants it not - do not play that mod.

Japanese twin engined bombers sank Prince of Wales and Repulse with torpedoes on the third day of the war. They deployed torpedoes against an American carrier (unsuccessfully) in February 1942, and against American ships near Tulagi in August 1942, and sank USS Chicago with torpedoes in 1943. Isn't much of this elementary knowledge.

The Lexington (not Yorktown) was attacked by G4M's carrying bombs.....not torpedoes during the Feb42 raid.

Off Guadalcanal the G4Ms with torpedoes were pretty unsucessful...apart from a suicide crash or two and an instance where 35 of them ganged up on a damaged destroyer (USS Jarvis) they pretty much paid a lot for nearly no return. They had a really good day off Malaya in 1941 and never approached that result again throughout the war.

There were far more instances where they attacked ships with bombs from high altitude when their results (amazingly[8|]) differed in no important way from the results obtained by B-17s dropping on ships from 20000 feet.

The likelihood of US 2e bombers dropping torpedoes should exceed somewhat the likelihood that the IJN forms a "Baby KB" out of escort carriers with no arresting gear that are too slow and short-decked to launch a torpedo armed bomber. But it really shouldn't be that high. And anyways a more likely candidate for the USN would have been the PV-1 which was faster, had longer range and an equal if not larger payload than the B-25/PBJ.

ORIGINAL: Barb

No insult was meant to either side. There are two threads about torpedo carrying B-25s. In both it is about the same and still debate continues. And the solution is simple: If someone want it in the game, just mod it. And the one who wants it not - do not play that mod.

I am like a ship that has capsized - I'm not on either side, I'm on the wrong side. I agree with what you say, and the post to which you responded so insultingly says exactly the same thing, if you would bother to read it before waxing critical.

For future reference - if you're interested in intelligent discussion, don't post "blah-blah-blah-blah" followed by rolleyes.

"Call me not fool 'til heaven hath sent me fortune."

"Call me not fool 'til heaven hath sent me fortune."

Wow, Pasternsaki, you're an erudite fellow!