Matrix Games Forums

What a waste!!

I don't know of a single instance where the IJN used the B5N Kate Torpedo Bomber as a Level Bomber vs moving ships.

They were used successfully as LB vs anchored and stationary targets (i.e. Pearl Harbor), but scampering ships?

NOT!

On Naval Attack, they should either carry Torps, or not fly at all...

Obviously you have experienced this phenomenon but is there a chance torpedoes were used up and bombs substituted? The Kate was a torpedo bomber so give us more info on the circumstances.

I'm sure Dadman knows this but I'll post it anyway for anyone who doesn't know it. B5Ns carry torpedoes on normal range missions and bombs on extended range missions. Just set their altitude high (10000-15000) and they won't suffer much flak when they do their level bombing. I'd rather have them dropping 250kg bombs than not flying at all.

Yamamoto

What a waste!!

I don't know of a single instance where the IJN used the B5N Kate Torpedo Bomber as a Level Bomber vs moving ships.

They were used successfully as LB vs anchored and stationary targets (i.e. Pearl Harbor), but scampering ships?

NOT!

On Naval Attack, they should either carry Torps, or not fly at all...

Kates flying off the Ryujo did make several level bombing attacks against the (moving) ABDA fleet around the time of Java Sea. The attacks failed to hit anything and were only made because the ships torpedo stocks weren't in useable condition.

The IJN also used the Kates as level bombers for attacks against ships in harbour (not docked) on several occasions.

Both the USN and the IJN trained in level bombing as a form of naval attack with their torpedo bombers prior to the war and did expect to use that method in some form against enemy fleets.

As far as I know, with the exception of the attack at Java Sea, carrier-based torpedo bombers only ever carried torpedos in strikes against enemy ships underway in open ocean during the time of UV.

Posted by Yamamoto

Just set their altitude high (10000-15000) and they won't suffer much flak when they do their level bombing. I'd rather have them dropping 250kg bombs than not flying at all.

I agree with Admiral Dadman. My preference would be not to have them fly at all if they aren't carrying torps. The only aircraft that I want flying on extended range strikes (if at all) are the dive-bombers. This is because the long range strike rarely decides the issue and normally requires a closer range strike to follow up the next day.

I don't want my torpedo bombers shot down or damaged and their crews fatigued from extended range strikes when they could be decisive the next day, especially when the expectations for them hitting a warship with a bomb are virtually nil.

Unfortunately, it's in the game so you have to live with it. However, it would be interesting to know what the historical commanders thought of the idea of making such attacks.

As the Theatre Commander, the Player should be able to set doctrine for his forces.

In the year (wow, it's really been a year) of playing this game, I have been occasionally frustrated by the misguided operational doctrine of the game in handling certain aspects. One of my pet peeves is the handling of Torpedo Bombers.

Being that they are slow and low flying on their attack run, they are at the mercy of AA and CAP.

Originally posted by Drex
Obviously you have experienced this phenomenon but is there a chance torpedoes were used up and bombs substituted? The Kate was a torpedo bomber so give us more info on the circumstances.

That would be fine and dandy if UV measured ship's stores in that fashion.

To name one specific instance, I set up my IJN CV TF to be right at 7 hexes (Max Normal Range) from where I expected my target to be, which was 1 hex NW of Tassafaronga. My Opponent had a strong CAP over this force, so my CV TF instead chose a TF @ Lunga 2 hexes further. This made an attack at Normal Range into heavy opposition into one at EXTENDED Range into almost as heavy opposition! Needless to say, it was a slaughter.

Originally posted by Drongo
As far as I know, with the exception of the attack at Java Sea, carrier-based torpedo bombers only ever carried torpedos in strikes against enemy ships underway in open ocean during the time of UV.

In the Battle of Leyte Gulf, when Adm Kurita's Center Force fell upon Taffy 3, the TBF Avengers ran out of torps and carried bombs instead. That's the only other time I know of.

The IJN was torpedo-centric. Both in Surface doctrine as well as Carrier tactics. UV doesn't model that part of CV doctrine very well.

Originally posted by Drongo
Kates flying off the Ryujo did make several level bombing attacks against the (moving) ABDA fleet around the time of Java Sea. The attacks failed to hit anything and were only made because the ships torpedo stocks weren't in useable condition.

The IJN also used the Kates as level bombers for attacks against ships in harbour (not docked) on several occasions.

Didn't some Nells (and probably Bettys) attack Force Z with bombs, prior to torpedo attacks during the famous action that resulted in destruction of Force Z?

Well I know Nells aren't "true" torpedo bombers like Kates but they have torpedo capability and I'd say most of us UV players would prefer them to attack a BB with torps if at all possible.

Also, I was surprised to find out how many bomb attacks Kates made against shipping in harbor and airbases, as explained in book "Midway - Japanese perspective". They used 800 kg bombs for such attacks, which, sadly, aren't available in UV...

O.

Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
In the Battle of Leyte Gulf, when Adm Kurita's Center Force fell upon Taffy 3, the TBF Avengers ran out of torps and carried bombs instead. That's the only other time I know of.

CS Nisshin was apparently sunk by (among others) bomb carrying Avengers, take a look at:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/Nisshin.htm

Oleg

I´m shure if the japanese decided to do bomb runs at moving ships at open sea, they will do it at low altidude.

Should be no problem for a Kate to hit a ship at say 300 meters.

Using a Kate at level bombing at 6000 feet is simply a ABM, not more i think.

If I'm not mistaken the Japanese had two types of B5N carrier-based bombers: the B5N1 and the B5N2

(B5N1) Three-seat carrier-based bomber

* Navy Type 97 Carrier Attack Bomber Model 11 (B5N1 Model 11).

* One 7.7 mm machine-gun, manually-aimed, in rear cockpit
Underwing racks for two 250 kg bombs or six 60 kg bombs

* Carrier qualification trials were carried out at the same time the new bomber was flying its first combat missions in China in the spring of 1938. Armed with bombs, the B5N1 was used as a single-engined level bomber, in a fashion similar to a twin-engined machine.


(B5N2) Three-seat carrier-based torpedo-bomber

* B5N2 Model 12, or Type 97 Carrier Attack Bomber Model 12

* Twin 7.7 mm machine-guns, manually-aimed, in rear cockpit

* Fuselage rack for one 800 kg (18-inch) torpedo or three 250 kg bombs

* First flew in December 1939

* By the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, the B5N2 had totally replaced the B5N1 in all front-line units, both land- and carrier-based. Commander Mitsuo Fuchida was the aerial commander for the Hawaiian Operation; he flew in a B5N2 as observer/bombardier, and was also lead bombardier of the 49 Kates used as level bombers in the first wave. All of the B5N2 level bombers carried a single 1,653-lb. bomb made from a remanufactured armor-piercing shell. The 40 planes earmarked for the actual torpedo attack were led by Lt. Cdr. Shigeharu Mutara.

* After Pearl Harbour, the Kate did most of its later combat flying from land installations, figuring prominently in the Solomons, Marianas, and Philippines campaigns. Its last carrier-based engagement was the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June 1944. Insufficient performance, and poor crew and fuel-tank protection, contributed to staggering losses in all these campaigns, and so the Kate was relegated to second line and training units by the end of 1944. But the B5N2 found a new lease on life because it still had excellent long range endurance; it was used for maritime reconnaissance and anti-submarine patrol, in areas where Allied fighters were unlikely to be encountered.

So historically, it appears that the Kate was used as both a torpedo bomber and as a level bomber. As a level bomber it should only be attacking shore/harbour-based targets, and as a torpedo bomber it should be attacking sea-based targets.

Even so, as the war progressed it was simply out-classed by Allied fighters and ship anti-air armament.

So Admiral DadMan I think you are correct: the kate should NOT be used as a level bomber when it attacks SEA-based targets, a mission for which it is wholly unsuited.


A Kate from the carrier Zuikaku leaving Pearl Harbor; Hickam Field lies below.