Swordfish not TB in RHS?

[Accipiter]

This was recently brought to my attention in an EOS I'm engaged in from the Allied player. In RHS, the Swordfish (III) is no longer a torpedo bomber but rather reclassified as a level bomber without torpedoes. Is this intentional and if so, what is the reasoning behind it?

[Ron Saueracker]

Me thinks it is because this mark was used as an anti submarine warfare patrol aircraft exclusively.

[el cid again]

Just so. In fact, before the Pacific War began, it appears the Swordfish had become regarded as unsuitable for use as a torpedo bomber. [This is disputed by some - but it is what my FAA aircraft book says]. In any case, the plane was chosen to introduce for the first time two new and "secret" weapons: rockets and radar. In RHS the Swordfish has both.

Because they could find the enemy at night - and lead attacks - the British commander in the Indian Ocean believed he had a significant tactical advantage at night. When the Kiddo Butai sorteed into that area, he was caught out of position for maintenance reasons, and we don't know if he was right - or not? RHS allows you to explore this question.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Just so. In fact, before the Pacific War began, it appears the Swordfish had become regarded as unsuitable for use as a torpedo bomber. [This is disputed by some - but it is what my FAA aircraft book says]. In any case, the plane was chosen to introduce for the first time two new and "secret" weapons: rockets and radar. In RHS the Swordfish has both.

Because they could find the enemy at night - and lead attacks - the British commander in the Indian Ocean believed he had a significant tactical advantage at night. When the Kiddo Butai sorteed into that area, he was caught out of position for maintenance reasons, and we don't know if he was right - or not? RHS allows you to explore this question.

Really? [8D] Do your device additions allow night strikes without the target TF being spotted earlier that night phase via sub or coast watcher? I've tried night strikes before with FAA and unless a sub was in the hex or the target TF was in a friendly coast watcher hex, nothing ever launched. Coupled with the fact that night strike missions arbitrarily prohibit day strikes, attempting hight naval strikes was generally suicidal.

[el cid again]

I have not played enough to know. But night attacks in WITP are very rare birds. Radar should help.

Anyway - radar and rockets certainly work well in the daylight! According to testers, the rockets are nasty - and possibly far too effective.

[CJ Martin]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
According to testers, the rockets are nasty - and possibly far too effective.

Could it be because they are listed as aircraft cannons, and thus might be getting multiple shots per rail? I'd like to understand this, as I'd love to add them to my 1943 mod. I wonder what would happen if you set them as GP bombs with a range greater than 0?

I'm very curious...

-CJ

[el cid again]

It is time to find out. We are going to do a series of human vs human tests to gather data.

[Sardaukar]

How about changing rockets from cannons to PGM ? That class might work better.

[CJ Martin]

Not sure if PGM actually means anything within the game - might just be something there for a "future product". Worth a try.

In RHS, each rocket launcher is modelled (i.e. if an aircraft could carry 8 rockets, there are 8 rocket devices a weapons slot). I wonder if the PGM setting doesn't work, what if the aircraft loadout was changed to just a single rocket device? We don't actually know how many "shots" an "aircraft cannon" gets each round, so I'm not sure this will work - but it would make them less effective than they are now in RHS.

I need to build a simple late war testing scenerio so I can sandbox some of this stuff.

-CJ 

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

How about changing rockets from cannons to PGM ? That class might work better.

We don't know much about how PGM work - or if they work at all? We don't know how to rate them
properly? Anyway a rocket is NOT a PGM - and presumably a PGM is way too likely to hit.
While we rated the rockets as guns, we defined the ROF as 1 - and I think that works fairly well.
Planes should not be making more than one pass per minute.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: CJ Martin

Not sure if PGM actually means anything within the game - might just be something there for a "future product". Worth a try.

In RHS, each rocket launcher is modelled (i.e. if an aircraft could carry 8 rockets, there are 8 rocket devices a weapons slot). I wonder if the PGM setting doesn't work, what if the aircraft loadout was changed to just a single rocket device? We don't actually know how many "shots" an "aircraft cannon" gets each round, so I'm not sure this will work - but it would make them less effective than they are now in RHS.

I need to build a simple late war testing scenerio so I can sandbox some of this stuff.

-CJ 

It is my theory rockets might be simulated in "packs" of pairs - that is you must mount 2 or 4 (etc) - one on each side.
IF we have a problem - of which I am not yet convinced. So far I have not had any "uber" rocket battles.
And remember - some (Axis) rockets are supposed to be ANTI BOMBER weapons - I want a device that is not limited to ships - also that the rockets hurt land units. Guns work vs planes, ships and land units - hence my choice to modify them.

[Sardaukar]

Drongo did AI mod for stock scenario and reported that rockets as PGM class do work. Isn't Okha also in PGM class in stock, btw ?

[m10bob]

I may be missing something again, but what is wrong with using rockets?..If they were not effective on the planes in real life, they would not have used them to replace torpedoes (in the case of the "stringbags" and Albacores.
If the rockets seem too deadly, remember they are striking fragile merchantships with flammable cargo, (or people)..

[el cid again]

Ohka is indeed in stock and CHS, and it does work - but it is NOT a rocket - although it has rocket engines (3 of them
to be precise). A PGM is an anti-ship weapon only - like a torpedo on a torpedo bomber - and it is far more effective
than unguided rockets should be. We lack technical data on how this is supposed to work in the game (that missing tech manual again) - so we mostly guess and test. But clearly this rocket is not going to be an anti-bomber weapon - which all free flight rockets can be - and it also is not going to work strafing - which rockets are superb at. Why turn our B-25G and H into less effective strafers ? Why turn anti-bomber fighters into zero effect vs aircraft? I think guns is the right choice until we get real rockets that work.

Note there ARE rocket devices in stock - but they do not work.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I may be missing something again, but what is wrong with using rockets?..If they were not effective on the planes in real life, they would not have used them to replace torpedoes (in the case of the "stringbags" and Albacores.
If the rockets seem too deadly, remember they are striking fragile merchantships with flammable cargo, (or people)..

Having seen rockets IRL - and learned to direct attacking planes - you do have a point. I would not want to be on a ship - or land unit - or even an airplane in the path of FFAR

[spence]

So is the main antiship weapon of the RN carriers therefore a 5" (or whatever) rocket??? 

[el cid again]

I think the main weapon is the depth charge - but the 2 inch rockets matter - a lot - and they also beat up other ships - in particular enemy small craft.

[spence]

Frankly I don't see the Royal Navy or any other Navy arming its principle strike aircraft (no matter how obsolete) with a weapon that can not inflict serious harm on an armored enemy warship. I have no doubt that the Swordfish was relegated to non-front line service at some point and modified to carry other weaponry (thereby making it unsuitable for the torpedo bomber role). But not until some delivery system for 'real' warship-killers arrived.

[Wallymanowar]

While it is true that the Swordfish was relegated to ASW duties, I can only find that this was done after the famous 'Channel Dash' of the Scharnhorst and Gneisnau. This occurred in February, 1942. Since between the time the Swordfish was relegated to ASW duties and it was replaced by the Albacore and Avengers in frontline duty later in 1942, the RN only encountered the IJN once where the Swordfish could have been used in a Torpedo-bomber role. At that time, April 1942, HMS Hermes' squadron of Swordfish was ashore in Ceylon and was out of the action. Conceivably, if they were able, they would have been used as Torpedo-bombers, not as ASW aircraft or for firing rockets since they weren't fitted out for rockets until 1943. Thus, instead of reclassing the Swordfish as a level bomber, you should leave it as a torpedo-bomber because, as Spence points out

ORIGINAL: spence

Frankly I don't see the Royal Navy or any other Navy arming its principle strike aircraft (no matter how obsolete) with a weapon that can not inflict serious harm on an armored enemy warship. I have no doubt that the Swordfish was relegated to non-front line service at some point and modified to carry other weaponry (thereby making it unsuitable for the torpedo bomber role). But not until some delivery system for 'real' warship-killers arrived.

Instead, you should be probably think about changing the replacement date with Albacores or Avengers since these historically did come sooner than the stock database provides for and they are the correct historical replacements for the Swordfish.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: spence

Frankly I don't see the Royal Navy or any other Navy arming its principle strike aircraft (no matter how obsolete) with a weapon that can not inflict serious harm on an armored enemy warship. I have no doubt that the Swordfish was relegated to non-front line service at some point and modified to carry other weaponry (thereby making it unsuitable for the torpedo bomber role). But not until some delivery system for 'real' warship-killers arrived.

Well - you are right - except apparently you are confused about when this happened - or what the "'rea' warship-killers" were (at least in concept). Well before the Pacific War began the Swordfish was regarded as obsolete for strike duty - and no longer combat-effective as a torpedo carrier - presumably because it was so slow. For that reason it was selected for the ASW application: it was already a carrier plane and it had the ability to carry weight - so radar and rockets and depth charges would not hurt it at all - and "slow it down" was not very meaingful - since it never was fast in the first place. ASW planes are BETTER if slow - so it was in a sense close to ideal.

I have not done something ahistorical here: I followed the material on the Swordfish in my British book on Fleet Air Arm aircraft. NOT to show the plane in the form I did is ahistorical. I am correcting a flaw in stock and CHS - and as far as I know in all other mods. I "honored the data" - and it does not matter at all to me if this is widely known or esoteric. It is what it is - and we model what happened. Wether the British were smart (as I think) or dumb (as perhaps some think) is not the point: it is what they thought and did. So it is what you get to play with.