Torpedo Attacks in Ports

[bradfordkay]

My Jane's (WWI era) lists the depth at ten fathoms:

Singapore. Coaling Station. Good roads. Average anchorage. 10 fathoms. Tanjong Pagar Docks: (1) Victoria, 467x65x20; (2) Albert, 478x60x21. Keppel Harbour: (1) 400x47x16; (2) 450x52x19; (3) King's, 846x100x34, (Dreadnought and to take any warship).


Keep in mind that this is WW1 era, I expect that there were a few more docks built in the next 25 years, but I don't have access at this moment to any pertinent info.

My guess is that depth listing is for the main channel in Johore Strait.

[Brady]

In General I think Mogami is corect, I would rather have the larger bombs and forgo torp atacks if posable in ports with Multi engined aircraft, if were can use the larger bombs, the amount of loss from AA fire is not worth it.

Their are several examples of Bettys making Torpedo ataks on Allied Shiping off Guadacanal, a place in UV that was a size 3 port. The sortied thier looking for ships anchored or otherwise on many ocashions:

From Mitsubishi Type 1 Rikko Unitts of WW2:

p.46

"The Next Morning* 4th Ku went back properly armed with torpedos" This was Aug. 8(posable9th).

The 10th they went backto hit ships unloading but they had puled out that night.

The 12th of Novemeber saw another torpedo atack aganst shiping at Lunga.

* The previous day they wanted to do a torp atack but time would not alow for a rearming of the planes so they went with bombs.

So we have 4 example of Bettys making atacks aganst an area clasified in the Game as a Port, whear they were or would rather of been using torpedos.

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: Brady

Their are several examples of Bettys making Torpedo ataks on Allied Shiping off Guadacanal, a place in UV that was a size 3 port. The sortied thier looking for ships anchored or otherwise on many ocashions:

From Mitsubishi Type 1 Rikko Unitts of WW2:

p.46

"The Next Morning* 4th Ku went back properly armed with torpedos" This was Aug. 8(posable9th).

The 10th they went backto hit ships unloading but they had puled out that night.

The 12th of Novemeber saw another torpedo atack aganst shiping at Lunga.

* The previous day they wanted to do a torp atack but time would not alow for a rearming of the planes so they went with bombs.

So we have 4 example of Bettys making atacks aganst an area clasified in the Game as a Port, whear they were or would rather of been using torpedos.

Brady where did you learn to add. First you list 2 ATTACKS not four ( wanting to attack counts for attacks now????) niether of which were against ships within an anchorage.

The hex you refer to encompasses Tuligi harbor, which was ablsolutely imune to Med.Bomer torp attack. Tuligi IS for all pracitical purposes the Harbor for Guadacanal. Most supplies were unloaded there and then transhiped to Lunga by smaller craft. Any "Docked" or dispanded ships should be considered within the safe confines of Tuligi.

Now, I believe it is still be possible to attack with Torps, any undocked TFs within that hex via "NAVAL ATTACK" as well as Invasion TFs offloading troops over a enemy beach or Base Hexes. THIS represents the types of attacks to which you are refering to does it not? NOBODY was suggesting the Betty/Nells should not be allowed to attack undocked TFs with Torpedos.

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

My Jane's (WWI era) lists the depth at ten fathoms:

Singapore. Coaling Station. Good roads. Average anchorage. 10 fathoms. Tanjong Pagar Docks: (1) Victoria, 467x65x20; (2) Albert, 478x60x21. Keppel Harbour: (1) 400x47x16; (2) 450x52x19; (3) King's, 846x100x34, (Dreadnought and to take any warship).


Keep in mind that this is WW1 era, I expect that there were a few more docks built in the next 25 years, but I don't have access at this moment to any pertinent info.

My guess is that depth listing is for the main channel in Johore Strait.

Hi Bradfordkay, I think we are talking past each other. I am agreeing with you. However I still think you have the wrong impression. Singapore Changi Naval base is located on the North landward side of the island, within the "Jahore Strait" The strait between Malaya and Singapore Island. This is where the Eastern Fleet was based. Singapore City's harbor (Keppel) is located on the south of the Island along the "Malacca Strait" The strait between Singapore and Sumatra.

Not sure to what extent Singapore Roads was used during the war. It is used extensively today, filled with ships waiting to dock. I do know however that the Brits sent some 10 odd reinforcement convoys to Singapore during the campaign, totalling some 54 AP/AKs and 52 warships, carry more than 2 Divisions worth of troops and tons of supplies, guns, and a/c. These ships were attacked repeatedly by high level bombers but NEVER by torp bombers. The results were one ship sunk. Now given that Singapore was a high priority, I would think that given the poor results from bombing, the IJN would if it COULD have attacked Keppel Harbor with Torps. That they did not at Keppel or at the Naval base even though the 22nd Air flottillas Torp bombers were dispatched to Indo-china specifically to deal with the threat of Force Z speaks volumns whether if was possible or not.

Regards

[Rainerle]

Well obviously 2by3 has to add a harbour limit for ships. When the port is full you cannot disband your TF, period. If you want to free space build a new TF. Those TF's then can be sunk by torpedo attack normally. my 0.02 Euros

[Brady]

TIMJOT :

It was late and I was tierd and so it was a bit worse than my ushual wrting stile, in a nut shell the above shows 4 seperate instances when the Japanese would of, or did use torpedos to atack ships off Guadacanal, Not Tuligy, in each instance the ships they were after were unload or suporting the troops on Guadacanal, in some cases they were anchored ships they were after, in one other they were warned the atack was comming and started to bug out, but non the less this very area is classified as a port in UV and I asume WiTP.

But this is largely mute at present, owing to the preferance for the Larger Bombs in these types of atacks do to the high atration levals attributed to torpedo ataks.

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: Brady

TIMJOT :

It was late and I was tierd and so it was a bit worse than my ushual wrting stile, in a nut shell the above shows 4 seperate instances when the Japanese would of, or did use torpedos to atack ships off Guadacanal, Not Tuligy, in each instance the ships they were after were unload or suporting the troops on Guadacanal, in some cases they were anchored ships they were after, in one other they were warned the atack was comming and started to bug out, but non the less this very area is classified as a port in UV and I asume WiTP.

But this is largely mute at present, owing to the preferance for the Larger Bombs in these types of atacks do to the high atration levals attributed to torpedo ataks.

ONE MORE TIME. In each case the ships were underway and manuevering out in the slot not at anchore. Again undocked TFs CAN be attacked within the hex by Torp bombers via Naval ATTACK. THIS is what your Examples represent. Specifically an invasion TF offloading troops at Lunga can be ATTACKED by torp loaded Betty/Nells set on NAVAL ATTACK. IF the base is captured and any ship docked or dispanded there ARE IN TULIGI HARBOR and thus imune to torp attack.

Your big bomb make up therory does not hold water do to the historical whoaful effectiveness of Level boming against shipping as oppose to torpedos. Some Examples; Prior to the Lunga Torp attack on 8.8/42 the IJN Level bombed the Lunga invasion TF on 8/7/42 and got one hit. As I mentioned before Level bombers made dozen attacks on Keppel Harbor Singapore and sank just one ship. Level bombers attacked Cavite on 12/10/41 and sank one Sub. Now compare those results with the AARs and you have a overwhelming overcompensation for any absence of larger ordnance. Torps are ship killers level bombing "Seldom is". Frankly I have nothing against bigger bombs based on range. Can you tell me what size bombs where used at Lunga, Darwin, Soerebaya, Keppel, Cavite? What ever they were they certainly were not very effective against shipping.

[Damien Thorn]

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT
Frankly I have nothing against bigger bombs based on range.

Since the 800 kg bomb weighs the same weight as a torpedo the range would be the same.

[Rendova]

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

ORIGINAL: Brady

TIMJOT :

It was late and I was tierd and so it was a bit worse than my ushual wrting stile, in a nut shell the above shows 4 seperate instances when the Japanese would of, or did use torpedos to atack ships off Guadacanal, Not Tuligy, in each instance the ships they were after were unload or suporting the troops on Guadacanal, in some cases they were anchored ships they were after, in one other they were warned the atack was comming and started to bug out, but non the less this very area is classified as a port in UV and I asume WiTP.

But this is largely mute at present, owing to the preferance for the Larger Bombs in these types of atacks do to the high atration levals attributed to torpedo ataks.

ONE MORE TIME. In each case the ships were underway and manuevering out in the slot not at anchore. Again undocked TFs CAN be attacked within the hex by Torp bombers via Naval ATTACK. THIS is what your Examples represent. Specifically an invasion TF offloading troops at Lunga can be ATTACKED by torp loaded Betty/Nells set on NAVAL ATTACK. IF the base is captured and any ship docked or dispanded there ARE IN TULIGI HARBOR and thus imune to torp attack.

Your big bomb make up therory does not hold water do to the historical whoaful effectiveness of Level boming against shipping as oppose to torpedos. Some Examples; Prior to the Lunga Torp attack on 8.8/42 the IJN Level bombed the Lunga invasion TF on 8/7/42 and got one hit. As I mentioned before Level bombers made dozen attacks on Keppel Harbor Singapore and sank just one ship. Level bombers attacked Cavite on 12/10/41 and sank one Sub. Now compare those results with the AARs and you have a overwhelming overcompensation for any absence of larger ordnance. Torps are ship killers level bombing "Seldom is". Frankly I have nothing against bigger bombs based on range. Can you tell me what size bombs where used at Lunga, Darwin, Soerebaya, Keppel, Cavite? What ever they were they certainly were not very effective against shipping.

I have to agree with Timjot, the examples sited by brady the ships were underway and out in the middle of the channel between Tulagi and Lunga, not in a harbor like Brisbaine, or Singapore. Another thing Brady you can't count "well they would have used torps but didn't because it was too late/the ships left/etc" as exapmles of attacks. There were no attacks. They other thing these examples fail to prove is that Medium bombers could achieve the wholesale slaughter of ships in ports that has been seen in AAR's.

[Mr.Frag]

And back into the breach we go ...

So, the 200+ cargo ships that happened to be anchored off Noumea and Efate somehow should be magically immune too? [:D]

[bradfordkay]

Hi Bradfordkay, I think we are talking past each other. I am agreeing with you.

Timjot,yes, I was trying to supply information that backs up your statements. My information was very out of date, and so I added that disclaimer. It is just that my issue of Jane's does not mention Changi Naval Base whatsoever, so I posted what information it had on the subject.

Question, in UV/WITP are Naval Attacks allowed only on undocked, undisbanded TFs in a port or are they allowed on all undisbanded TFs in a port? I think in the answer to this question lies the crux of the whole argument, considering the way that the game treats ports and anchorages. Maybe I missed all the posts, but I don't recall too many complaints about getting ships torpedoed off Lunga in UV (or any other place where they were vulnerable to the dreaded Betty attacks). Why are we so up in arms now, when the hexes include even more open water?

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT
Frankly I have nothing against bigger bombs based on range.

Since the 800 kg bomb weighs the same weight as a torpedo the range would be the same.

Hi Actually the range would be increased somewhat. I think the torpedos are outside while the bombs are inside. (Does anyone know for sure. I know Betty's had to remove their bombbay door to carry a torpedo)

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mogami


Hi Actually the range would be increased somewhat. I think the torpedos are outside while the bombs are inside. (Does anyone know for sure. I know Betty's had to remove their bombbay door to carry a torpedo)

YOU'RE RIGHT. Though only partially because of "drag", and not in all cases. But the
"flight profile" of a torpedo attack is also limiting because the time spent at lower and
less effecient flight altitide is noticably greater as well. A TBF which mounted it's Torpedo
Internally still had a longer range with a 2,000 lb bomb.

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

And back into the breach we go ...

So, the 200+ cargo ships that happened to be anchored off Noumea and Efate somehow should be magically immune too? [:D]

Nope, like Rainerles suggested, IMO there should be limits on how many ships can be disbanded or docked in port based on size. The 200+ ships can be present in the hex but not docked or dispanded. They would be subject to Med.Bombers set to "NAVAL ATTACK"

Regardless, the thing is Mr.Frag having the capability causes all sorts or un-historical results while not haveing it does not result in any un-historical results because it NEVER HAPPENED during the war. Why do you feel its important that a capablility that has no historical presedence be modeled in the game?

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Mogami


Hi Actually the range would be increased somewhat. I think the torpedos are outside while the bombs are inside. (Does anyone know for sure. I know Betty's had to remove their bombbay door to carry a torpedo)

YOU'RE RIGHT. Though only partially because of "drag", and not in all cases. But the
"flight profile" of a torpedo attack is also limiting because the time spent at lower and
less effecient flight altitide is noticably greater as well. A TBF which mounted it's Torpedo
Internally still had a longer range with a 2,000 lb bomb.

Thats true Mike, but since Singapore was closer to bases in Indo-china than Rabaul was to Lunga and we know Betty's did reach Lunga with torps, demonstrates that range was not a factor in the decision NOT to torpedo attack Singapore NB, Keppel Harbor or Cavite.

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

My information was very out of date, and so I added that disclaimer. It is just that my issue of Jane's does not mention Changi Naval Base whatsoever, so I posted what information it had on the subject.

No problem Bradfordkay, your source doesnt mention it because its a WWI source and the Naval base was built after the war ( started in 1920's )

[Mr.Frag]

Regardless, the thing is Mr.Frag having the capability causes all sorts or un-historical results while not haveing it does not result in any un-historical results because it NEVER HAPPENED in during the war. Why do you feel its important that a capablility that has no historical presedence be modeled in the game?

We are playing with history itself by pretending that hundreds of large ships could be hidden away inside a port. My issue is one of mechanics, not weapons systems. You guys are all wrapped up in the weapons systems aspect of it and have not actually caught on to the game play implications.

To get a PORT ATTACK, I have to specifically order a port attack. The aircraft will fly this mission to the exclusion of any other mission. This causes a dance issue really, where players can play a game of chance, randomly jumping their ships in and out of port subjecting themselves to magical immunity of a sorts. Aircraft set to attack port will blindly go off and attack the port because that is what they have been ordered to do. They will not lay waste to the 50 ships that you just formed into a transport task force, they will completely ignore them. They will take losses against the Port's AA and CAP for NOTHING because you jumped your ships out of port.

Ships were torpedoed while outside the actual physical dock area. Ships were bombed while in the dock. If you consider the abstraction at a 50,000 foot level, being in a port does not mean that you are IN a port. It is an abstracted concept to represent you being in a location, anchored or tied up to a pier with your engines probably shut down meaning you do not have the option of being able to conduct evasive moves when things are launched at you.

As we do not have the level of detail down to exactly what ports had what features available from a ship handling capacity and a anti-torpedo defence system such as netting or shallow draft etc, a general rule is the current solution.

I frankly do not care personally what gets dropped on you or what hits you, but please deal with the realities here. Ports do not grant magical immunity which seems to be what you folks want. There is not a one of us that has not seen the famous 3 plane Betty attack at Cairns or Cooktown because we FORGOT to disband our ships. That should clue you in to the very nature of the problem. Why should this magic act of clicking a button labeled disband make you sleep safe at night? The ships haven't moved, they didn't warp into a bomb proof shelter, they are still there in exactly the same spot.

Think about the game mechanics of ordering an attack, not the weapons used. Remember you get 1 chance in 24 hours to issue your orders.

[Nikademus]

Hi Timjot.

just an FYI....i'm staying out of the public debate on this issue [;)] ...the Japanese didn't attack Singapore at all during the opening of hostilities. (they had other missions)

Cavite was indeed "bombed" vs torpedoed...but the main target was the port itself..more so than the ships......and they scored far better as a result, destroying the port's torpedo magazine (as well as one sub), crippling the Asiatic Fleet's sub ops from the get go

enjoying the fireworks [X(]

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Hi Timjot.

just an FYI....i'm staying out of the public debate on this issue [;)] ...the Japanese didn't attack Singapore at all during the opening of hostilities. (they had other missions)

Cavite was indeed "bombed" vs torpedoed...but the main target was the port itself..more so than the ships......and they scored far better as a result, destroying the port's torpedo magazine (as well as one sub), crippling the Asiatic Fleet's sub ops from the get go

enjoying the fireworks [X(]

Hi Nik, Actually I believe the Japanese did bomb Singapore city that night ( Early AM ).
I have to disagree though, The 22nd Air Flottilla sole initial mission was to Destroy Force Z. It was the reason it was transfered to Indo-china in the first place. The airfields were attacked by Army bombers. Regardless what the main target as far as Cavite is concerned it was still too small for Med.Bomber torp attack.

[barbarrossa]

Mr Frag, you make a compelling arguement. Perhaps the effectiveness of the bombing should be increased when enemy ships are "hiding" in that magic anchor icon, as this should be an indication of immobility and qualify them for sitting duck status. Maybe that can offset the lack of effective torpedo attack capability.

And ships that are sunk in the "port-mode" can somehow be detrimental to the capacity of that port as in real life it would be with ships sitting on thier bottoms taking up mooring space or blocking the ingress and egress.

Might make some players think twice about piling up 200+ ships in some ports as well, which is probably as ahistorical as anything else being bandied about. Ulithi notwithstanding.

I dunno.

But probably too late in the process now.[:)]