Matrix Games Forums

I vaguely remember someone mentioning something about level bombers were not able to make torpedo attacks in ports. From research myself and others on the WITP Test Team have been doing we've yet to find an historical example of level bombers making torpedo attacks in ports. We're throwing this out to see if anyone has knowledge about this.

Mike

Taranto?

Not level bombers but air dropped torpedoes were used at night against the BBs moored at the anchorage. Is there any reason why torpedo equipped level bombers couldn't have done the same thing (serious question as I certainly don't know)?

Same question for a day attack (obviously worse flak and higher chance of enemy fighters intercepting).

If I rember correctly Toranto was done by Swordfish. I remember something about the run in distance being quite long for level bombers.

Originally posted by Drongo
Taranto?

Not level bombers but air dropped torpedoes were used at night against the BBs moored at the anchorage. Is there any reason why torpedo equipped level bombers couldn't have done the same thing (serious question as I certainly don't know)?

Same question for a day attack (obviously worse flak and higher chance of enemy fighters intercepting).

well couldnt you say the same for the pearl harbor attack? why torpedo equipped level bombers couldnt have done the same thing as the jap kates did?

Depends on whether teh port has torpedo nets installed or not.

Torpedo weapons were theoretically available to a variety of aircraft of several nations, including seaplanes, flying boats, level bombers and dedicated carrier torpedo bombers. But only the latter often used them. In many cases (I think the B-26 is an example) the torpedo capability was NEVER used. That does not mean it should not be allowed, IMHO. The EFFECTIVENESS of torpedo bombers, of whatever type, in port is a function of things like the presence or absense of torpedo nets - which I do not see in UV - unless they are part of being "in port." Torpedo nets should come at a cost, not just in supply points, but in terms of time (operations points?). OTH they would have complicaed the Japanese attack at PH. The ONE level bomber force to use torpedoes a good deal was the IJN, and late in the war the IJA actually did joint level bomber raids with the IJN - so much for "they didn't do joint." We do not actually know what many of those raids targets were - they were not doing a good job of surviving late in the war - but it appears that island bases functioning as ports were targets.

Originally posted by iceboy
well couldnt you say the same for the pearl harbor attack? why torpedo equipped level bombers couldnt have done the same thing as the jap kates did?

Those were specially modified torpedoes built specifically for the PH attack (and they had only 40, hence the 2nd wave contained no torpedo carrying aircraft)

Only other Pacific example i can think of was the Rabaul raid in 43.

Short of researching the defences and depths of every major port harbor covered in the game, i think the conservative route is probably the best one, meaning that warships in the game that are disbanded into a port (i.e. not part of any TF) should only be suseptible to bombing attacks. Another reason for it being, the actual positioning of the warships is abstracted, so some warships might be in a drydock (at a size 10 port at least), others might be close to shore in waters too shallow for conventional torpedoes, some might be tied up next to other ships and thus shielded.

Originally posted by elcid
In many cases (I think the B-26 is an example) the torpedo capability was NEVER used.

Sorry but you're wrong there. Check sources on the Battle Of Midway. The USAAF B-26's were equipped with torpedos and sent out to attack the IJN. No hits recorded and two Marauders lost.

The book "Black Cat Raiders" mentions several night attacks on Japanese shipping in ports by PBYs equipped with Torpedos. Their armament was often 1 Torp under one wing and 2 500Lb bombs under the other... I can find specific page numbers if you'd like. These attacks were conducted mostly against merchant shipping, but the occasional DD or CL/CA was caught at Bougainvile...
Hope that helps.

Howard Mitchell of Wiltshire posted the following in a similar thread in UV. I think that it shows what can be done with aircraft in the game.


***************


The below is from 'German Capital Ships of World War Two' by M. J. Whitley, ISBN 0-85368-970-9, an excellent book. Companion volumes cover cruisers, destroyers and smaller vessels. It describes an attack on the Gneisenau in port at Brest in April 1941:

The resources of Coastal Command were not great, as far as torpedo attacks were concerned, at that moment; only No. 22 Squadron was available and its Beauforts were at St Eval in Cornwall. Nine aircraft were on line, with only six crews
available. There were many problems facing the attacking force, flak batteries ashore and on the ships, net defences, the restricted room for manoeuvre and the limited zone for dropping the torpedoes.

Nevertheless, an attack was ordered for
the pre-dawn of 6 April. Three Beauforts were armed with parachute mines to blow up any torpedo nets, while the other three were to carry torpedoes. In the event, only four aircraft took off, the torpedo bombers and one of the mine-laden aircraft. Of these, only X/22 managed to get in an attack, which resulted in a torpedo hit, the loss of the aircraft (N1016) and the award of a posthumous VC for its captain, Flying Officer Campbell.

The aircraft was spotted by Gniesenau at the last moment, low down and approaching from the south over the mole. Despite the heavy flak barrage, the Beaufort successfully launched its torpedo before being shot down into the harbour. The torpedo struck Gneisenau on the starboard side, compartments IV and V, causing considerable damage and flooding. The outer hull and 'Wallgang' bulkhead in this region were virtually destroyed and the torpedo bulkhead from frame 51 to 62 badly distorted, its upper edge being ripped away from the armoured deck. Bulkhead 62 was damaged, as was the longitudinal bulkhead between No. 1 turbine room and the starboard shaft tunnel. The starboard shaft and bearings were also displaced. Water and oil fuel flooded through the ruptured plating and bulkheads, rapidly filling up the after flak T/S, its associated switch and amplifier rooms. Flooding was also extensive in Nos. 1 and 3 turbine rooms, No. 1 generator room and the lower rooms of 'C' turret structure.

More re: Black Cat Ops. (From Black Cat Raiders, by Richard C. Knott):
In October of 1942, intelligence indicated there was a build up of Japanese units at Tonelei Harbor on the southern end of Bougainville. In response, "At dusk on October 22, three PBYs of VP-11, with torpedoes tucked under their port wings, took off from Espiritu Santo. Each plane also carried two 500-pound bombs under its starboard wing." (Pg. 75).
One pilot remembered: "We slammed a torpedo into an armed transport ship. We also attacked an unknown combatant ship with skip bombs with questionable success." (pg. 77)

Another attack on the same harbor in late December of 1942 is described as having been carried out with torpedoes. (pg. 86)

I'll mention more attacks if people want to hear about them, but my point is that level bombers (PBYs at least) did in fact make torpedo attacks on harbors.

Was Tonelei Harbor a harbor or just an achorage like Lunga where Betties torpedoed us ships?

Mike-
The book discusses a breakwater and destroyers guarding the "entrance to the harbor." There's no diagram, but this led me to believe it was an actual harbor. Sorry I can't be more specific, I just am not that familiar with the geography.
Chris

I think Mike is talking specifically about multi-engine bombers. In that vein I think it would probably depend on the plane and the size of the harbor.

Very small twin engine planes like he Beaufort and very slow/high lift planes like the PBY could probably make attacks in some harbors. However relatively large and heavy a/c like Bettys, Nells and B-26s need very long, strait and unobstructed flight paths to make torp runs. They can't simply dip down in a few hundred meters and swiflty climb away. Their weight and speed needed to maintain lift prohibits this. Does anyone seriously think a Betty could launch a torp in a cramp and enclosed port like Pearl Harbor?

Another differential Mike brings up and should be consider is ports, harbors and anchorages. They are not the same. For example Manila bay is a huge body of water and a harbor by definition, but the Port of Cavite within that bay was tiny and protected by jetti's, breakers, docks ect...there is just no way Betty's or Nells could launch torps there and I am assuming is why the port was attacked by high level bombing.

So I guess in short, IMO whether multi-engine a/c can make torp attacks in harbor should depend on each individual a/c specs and performance characteristics and the size of the port in question.

TIMJOT-
I agree with you that it should be determined by performance specs -- however, I've seen many photos of B-26s and B-25s skip bombing in harbors. Wouldn't that be the same type of approach needed for a torp attack? I mean you have to be low level and line up the bombs just like torpedos...

While you all are searching for examples of Twin-Engine
bombers using torpedoes in harbors, TRY TO FIND ANY
EXAMPLES OF SUCH ATTACKS at ranges greater than 600 miles.
UV allows Betties and Nells to make such attacks out to 990
miles, which by historical standards is WAY too far. Much of
the discussion above would be unnecessary if the torpedo-
carrying abilities of such aircraft were limited to realistic ranges.

Mike, again, my sources are limited, so I am only going to comment on the PBYs --
Many of those attacks on Bougainville were launched from Espiritu Santo. The PBYs had to refuel at Tulagi on the way back though, but the first leg was longer than 600 miles, I believe. I don't know how to model that sort of thing in UV/WiTP though -- Do you fudge it to represent a refueling stop, or do you limit it and prevent attacks such as those that historically happened? I don't know where to draw the line.

Originally posted by madflava13
Mike, again, my sources are limited, so I am only going to comment on the PBYs --
Many of those attacks on Bougainville were launched from Espiritu Santo. The PBYs had to refuel at Tulagi on the way back though, but the first leg was longer than 600 miles, I believe. I don't know how to model that sort of thing in UV/WiTP though -- Do you fudge it to represent a refueling stop, or do you limit it and prevent attacks such as those that historically happened? I don't know where to draw the line.

I was referring to strikes of 600 miles out, 600 miles back.
There were undoubtedly a couple of odd-ball missions that would
exceed this by special execution (American ingenuity), and the
Japanese used their Emily flying boats to deliver a couple of
torpedo strikes at about 1000 miles (with small success, and
discontinued as Emilies were too few and too valuable for reccon).
The game needs to limit it's ranges to something historically
realistic in a general sense---gamers will find ways to push the envelope without the game inviting abuse.

Originally posted by madflava13
TIMJOT-
I agree with you that it should be determined by performance specs -- however, I've seen many photos of B-26s and B-25s skip bombing in harbors. Wouldn't that be the same type of approach needed for a torp attack? I mean you have to be low level and line up the bombs just like torpedos...

Ports? I dont know about that. I know of strikes in the open like the Bismark and South China Seas. In large lagoons, anchorages and bays like Truk, Rabaul, and Manilla bay, but skip bombing within ports? Cant say it didnt happen, I just dont know of any. What ports are you speaking of?

Originally posted by Mike Scholl
While you all are searching for examples of Twin-Engine
bombers using torpedoes in harbors, TRY TO FIND ANY
EXAMPLES OF SUCH ATTACKS at ranges greater than 600 miles.
UV allows Betties and Nells to make such attacks out to 990
miles, which by historical standards is WAY too far. Much of
the discussion above would be unnecessary if the torpedo-
carrying abilities of such aircraft were limited to realistic ranges.

Mike,

Just curious why the descrepency in range. Is a single torpedo heavier than a typical bomb load of a Betty or Nell?