Something I Hope is Fixed in AE

[herwin]

I sent an invasion convoy to southern Sumatra, escorting it with a CVE and several destroyers, plus a SAG built around the Musashi and 5 CAs. My opponent managed to avoid the SAG and hit the convoy with his own SAG of about equal strength, and did significant damage to the CVE. I formed an escort TF around the CVE and a DE and sent it back to a port. During the trip to the port, the CVE was hit by several PBYs, made it into port and was finally sunk by a last pair of PBYs.

[mdiehl]

Nothing about your account bespeaks of a need to fix anything. Japanese CVE = highly inflammable underarmored undeprotected slow-moving bomb magnet. I don't see how your example is indicative of a need for a fix.

[Elouda]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Nothing about your account bespeaks of a need to fix anything. Japanese CVE = highly inflammable underarmored undeprotected slow-moving bomb magnet. I don't see how your example is indicative of a need for a fix.

Yes, and PBYs are clearly the ultimate strike aircraft.

I can certainly see something wrong here - but I think its part of the overall overeffectiveness of naval search strikes.

[mdiehl]

Yes, and PBYs are clearly the ultimate strike aircraft.

I think you have to distinguish between "unlikely" and "impossible." I have no problem with the IDEA of a torp armed PBY catching a Japanese CVE -- depending on the CVE and the speed of the convoy with which the CVE travels. PBYs torpedoed several Japanese ships during the actual war.

Is it commonplace that PBYs torpedo ships? Not by the AARs. If anything in WitP is too successful with torps, it's Betties and IJN surface vessels.

[wdolson]

Using torpedoes is tougher in AE.  Aerial torpedoes are a limited resource.  You want to save them for bigger targets.

Bill

[pad152]

If WITP AE doesn't ship this year, I may have to get this!

[Dili]

I think from what herwin says there were a couple hits by PBY's so "unlikely" seems to be a way off.

I can see AE fixing this 2 ways: specific crew training, don't remember if there is a Torpedo training, if there is bundle called Naval Attack Training, with that maybe Patrol Aircraft still can build a lot of experience putting a bomb this or there and use it for torpedo attack so not much difference , less torpedos availability.

[mdiehl]

Well, from a realism point of view, after the first hit, whose likeliness (from a historical pov) must consider which CVE was waxed (some Japanese CVEs were hardly worth of the designation... "auxiliary flight-deck sporting yacht" is a good descriptor for some of them), a second hit was more likely.

No fix required. American PBY crews were trained in the deployment of torpedoes and DCs. PBYs were designed with a view to one possible load out to include two torpedoes. The thing is that load was rarely used, because there were better torpedo delivery systems available, and because the PBY was an outstanding depth charge attack plane.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: herwin

I sent an invasion convoy to southern Sumatra, escorting it with a CVE and several destroyers, plus a SAG built around the Musashi and 5 CAs. My opponent managed to avoid the SAG and hit the convoy with his own SAG of about equal strength, and did significant damage to the CVE. I formed an escort TF around the CVE and a DE and sent it back to a port. During the trip to the port, the CVE was hit by several PBYs, made it into port and was finally sunk by a last pair of PBYs.

Harry does not say the PBY's hit the CVE with torpedoes, only that the PBY's hit the CVE.

[castor troy]

If the PBYs hit the CVE during daylight then they were on patrol and the CVE was hit by 500lb GP bombs. PBYs only attack with torps when set on nav attack and this only is possible when set to night attack.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Yes, and PBYs are clearly the ultimate strike aircraft.

I think you have to distinguish between "unlikely" and "impossible." I have no problem with the IDEA of a torp armed PBY catching a Japanese CVE -- depending on the CVE and the speed of the convoy with which the CVE travels. PBYs torpedoed several Japanese ships during the actual war.

Is it commonplace that PBYs torpedo ships? Not by the AARs. If anything in WitP is too successful with torps, it's Betties and IJN surface vessels.

One PBY hit occurred offshore and two in port. Aerial torpedoes are at a distinct disadvantage in harbour, especially if nets are deployed.

[JeffroK]

I thought the problem was that your SAG didnt fight his SAG
 
One PBY hit occurred offshore and two in port. Aerial torpedoes are at a distinct disadvantage in harbour, especially if nets are deployed.

Maybe its only a short list, but ports where torpedos caused damage, lets see...
 
Taranto,  Pearl Harbor,  any others.
 
I think you got a bad run of the die roll, have you had any good days in your favour?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I thought the problem was that your SAG didnt fight his SAG

One PBY hit occurred offshore and two in port. Aerial torpedoes are at a distinct disadvantage in harbour, especially if nets are deployed.

Maybe its only a short list, but ports where torpedos caused damage, lets see...

Taranto,  Pearl Harbor,  any others.

I think you got a bad run of the die roll, have you had any good days in your favour?

The problem is that high experience aircraft in naval search generate far too many bomb/torpedo hits.

[m10bob]

Still a good site on this topic:http://www.daveswarbirds.com/blackcat/


and here, a torpedo attack:http://www.daveswarbirds.com/cactus/jackcram.htm

[Bliztk]

The problem is that in the early stages of the conquest of SRA you can have a PBY Squadron that spots 10 TFs per turn, and in two-three weeks even dutch PBYs or Dorniers have pilots with experience ratings of 80+

[JeffroK]

Its not one sided, Emily & Mavis do the same at much greater range.
 
But define the problem, too many hits, too many spots ??
 
In this case, I'd be more concerned at the hit at sea, I'm sure that experienced Cat (or Mavis/Emily) pilots could find a damaged, and maybe burning, CVE in a harbour.
 
2 hits, maybe the rough end of the straw.
 
I dont think the game is broke, maybe it has too many results at the extreme ends of the ranges.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Its not one sided, Emily & Mavis do the same at much greater range.

But define the problem, too many hits, too many spots ??

In this case, I'd be more concerned at the hit at sea, I'm sure that experienced Cat (or Mavis/Emily) pilots could find a damaged, and maybe burning, CVE in a harbour.

2 hits, maybe the rough end of the straw.

I dont think the game is broke, maybe it has too many results at the extreme ends of the ranges.

The tails are far too thick.

[m10bob]

Since combat can only occur after contact, and these planes are all made to "search", I suspect the chances of "contact" is inherently greater, and therefore greater chance of activity/experience/combat.

[HansBolter]

Will search planes also be able to attack ships in no-fly bad weather hexes as they currently can in UV?

I sure hope not.

It happened to me in a UV PBEM game last night......twice in the same hex in the same turn.

[Nomad]

I wish CAP had a larger effect also. I am having a large fight at PM right now and I have about 300 fighters with 70% on CAP and I keep having Kates from Lae hit my AKs that are unloading at the docks. That seems a bit bogus to me.