Matrix Games Forums

As per request I posted this to its own thread so as to not interfer with Raver's & Luskan's AAR

Joel Billings

Other posters have already addressed the ways you can force more historical first turn results. I'm interested in this statement above. Why was it impossible? We already know that we can't track who is in dry dock and who is not. We strongly believe that torpedo bombers need to be able to use some torpedoes in port (because they did historically). If there is a reason that the Level Bombers should not use torpedoes in port, I'd like to hear it. It would not be that hard for us to force them to drop bombs (of course they would have to do it in all port attacks, not just certain ports) if you can explain the reasons for this. Given that we have to do it for all ports, would you want us to limit Level Bombers to just using bombs in port? As an alternative we could also have only some use torpedoes to represent that some ships are in positions that cannot be attacked by torpedoes (as we are doing currently for all torpedo attacks in port). If so, please present your case for this. Thanks

.

Thanks for your reply Joel. Here is my case. The question really shouldnt be "why not" but rather "why should they". To my knowlegde there is not a single documented case of a Multi-engine Medium level bomber ever making a torpedo attack inside a port. Taranto and PH proved that given the right aircraft, circumstances, location, planning and training; airial torp attack of a port was possible. The operative word here however is "RIGHT AIRCRAFT" and unlike Kates and Swordfish, Med level bombers like Bettys/Nells/B-26s due to there size, wieght, minimum speed requirements, and handleing characteristics require a far far longer and unobstuctive attack run, with at least 1500 to 2000 yrds release point cushion from the target. Natural formations, Docks, Cranes, Jetties, Breakers ect... make such a flight path unlikely in all but the huge natural "anchorages" like Truk Lagoon and Manus.

In the case of Singapore Naval base and Cavite it was not only unlikely but impossible. Singapore Naval base was located on the Landward side of the Island up the shallow Jahore strait that made PH depth seem like a bottomless pit. The strait itself was not much more than a mile wide in most places. Cavite likewise was a very small harbor enclosed by Sangley point on one side and a man-made breaker on the other.

Again we have to ask if it were possible why were not all these multiple PH carried out? The Japanese were sufficiently worried about the POW and Repulse that they detached a singificant part of the 11 airfleet to counter them. Yet they did not launch an torpedo attack on the Singapore Naval pase on the morning of the 8th even though the ships remained in port until 1700 late that afternoon. When they did finally attack they used only level bombers. Likewise the IJN repeatedly level bombed Shipping at Great Keppel Harbor Singapore over a two month period but never once attacked with torpedos. Cavite Naval base in the Philipines was attacked on Dec 10th by Betty & Nells level bombing at 20,000 never attacked with torpedos. The result one sub sunk another damaged along with a few auxilleries. There were other opportunities as well. Soerebaya Naval base in Java was Leveled bombed by Bettys/Nells multiple times but no torp attacks were attempted. Darwin was also repeatedly bombed by Bettys/Nells but again never with torpedos.

The fact is no Betty or Nell ever made a torpedo attack within a port nor did any other multi-engine med level bomber in the Pacific or ETO. So why is this capability modeled in the game?

Again since some single engine carrier a/c did torp attack in ports I can see allowing it in the game, but truth be told it wasnt that easy for them either. You need to look no further than the fact that in the 4 other Kido Butai port attacks in the war Darwin, Tjlaptap, Colombo and Tricomolee the IJN did not attempt a single torp attack. The Kates were instead utilized as level bombers only.

Thanks again for your time and consideration.

Regards.

Off hand, what comes to mind is reading of the Betty atacks aganst shipping off henderson and Guadacanal, depending on how the game adresses ports like this, or lables them them, they did repeadaly a tack shiping in this port area using Bettys as torpedo bombers.

Some of the targets you mention above were also prety far ranged mishions ones that the use of a torpedo would of been prohibative on given the range mechanics for long range bombloads in UV I am not shure if this is so in WiTP.

I have seen a photo - can't find it, of betties or nells coming in across a harbour mouth, dropping torps at ships at anchor - I think it was vs allied transports at PM.

Luskan,

I am guessing the photo you are refering to is the quite famous one of the Aug 8th 1942 torpedo attack of Bettys at Lunga. These ships were not dropping anchore at a port but were rather manuvering under full steam out in the middle of ironbottom sound.

ORIGINAL: Brady

Off hand, what comes to mind is reading of the Betty atacks aganst shipping off henderson and Guadacanal, depending on how the game adresses ports like this, or lables them them, they did repeadaly a tack shiping in this port area using Bettys as torpedo bombers.

Some of the targets you mention above were also prety far ranged mishions ones that the use of a torpedo would of been prohibative on given the range mechanics for long range bombloads in UV I am not shure if this is so in WiTP.

Brady Iron bottom sound was not a port. Niether was Lunga Roads for that matter. Tuligi was a harbor/port but no Betty ever launched a torp inside there.

TIMJOT. Thank you for making the case against this activity so clearly and forcefully.
The game would be FAR better if the ONLY torpedo attack allowed against a Port was
a "special bonus" given for the attempt at PH. While I realize that in some cases and
in some anchorages it would be a possibility. the possibility of totally ahistoric use far
outweighs the benefits of catering to those instances where it would be possible. Joel
and Company----PLEASE consider this request.

ORIGINAL: Brady

Off hand, what comes to mind is reading of the Betty atacks aganst shipping off henderson and Guadacanal, depending on how the game adresses ports like this, or lables them them, they did repeadaly a tack shiping in this port area using Bettys as torpedo bombers.

Some of the targets you mention above were also prety far ranged mishions ones that the use of a torpedo would of been prohibative on given the range mechanics for long range bombloads in UV I am not shure if this is so in WiTP.

Both Sinagapore and Cavite were closer to bases in indo-china and Formosa respectively than Rabaul was from Lunga, so range was not a factor. Neither was Timore to Darwin or Soreabaya from Kendari was out of range for a Betty/Nell torp attack. IIRC, I believe the round trip range for Betty/Nell with torps was around 750 nautical miles.

I would aree,except the key part of my statement, was how does WiTP define what is a harbor? IN UV that area off henderson was a Harbot size 3, yet historicaly several atacks were made their by Bettys carring torpedos.

It could be reasioned that their were many areas and ports whear it could of happened, and in WiTP we will find instances that would potentialy allow for this to be so.

A posable counter point and argument for allowing this (torpedos) is that I beleave Bettys and Nells dont cary the 500KG and 800 KG bombs they could of on port atack mishions, the larger bombs were very devastating to ships and port facilitys. the Torpedos in a way represent this destructive capacity.


"Both Sinagapore and Cavite were closer to bases in indo-china and Formosa respectively than Rabaul was from Lunga, so range was not a factor. Neither was Timore to Darwin or Soreabaya from Kendari was out of range for a Betty/Nell torp attack. IIRC, I believe the round trip range for Betty/Nell with torps was around 750 nautical miles. "

My coment had more to do with how WiTP handels range and bombload issues than reality, their are presently TONS of range issues with WITP and the aircraft they have modled, at least the CV planes, I havent sean the figures for teh land based planes.

Joel,

I see no reason not to keep the level-bomber torpedo attacks in the game. Just because something wasn't done doesn't mean it can't be done. I suspect the reason it wasn't done has more to do with wanting to face reduced flak from altitude and nothing to do with the attack being impossible.

I'm sure level bombers are able to do skip bombing at ships in port (something allied planes will do often in 1944-45) so torpedo attacks should be allowed too.

I generally am on the side of the 'axis fanboys' if i were to say I was on anyones side.
I think Mike Scholl wines about things that are so minor as to be laughable and forgets this is supposed to be a game as well as a simulation. It has always been a problem creating a WW2 Pacific game, getting a game that is worth playing due to the heavy disparity of force.

Does that mean i support ahistorical ideas? no, not really. But, some things are not that important.

That all being said, I agree with both Timjot and Brady here. Probably torpedo attacks should not be allowed in 'port attacks' after Pearl AND the Japanese should actually use their full bomb arsenal. The 500kg & 800kg bombs will be a bit more impressive than the 250kg plinkers.

Michael

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

Joel,

I see no reason not to keep the level-bomber torpedo attacks in the game. Just because something wasn't done doesn't mean it can't be done. I suspect the reason it wasn't done has more to do with wanting to face reduced flak from altitude and nothing to do with the attack being impossible.

I'm sure level bombers are able to do skip bombing at ships in port (something allied planes will do often in 1944-45) so torpedo attacks should be allowed too.

Damien, faceing flak from low altitude from ships out at sea did not seem to deter them. Skip bombing is an entirely different beast. First depth is not factor and release points are much closer are just some of the differences that comes to mind.

ORIGINAL: Brady

I would aree,except the key part of my statement, was how does WiTP define what is a harbor? IN UV that area off henderson was a Harbot size 3, yet historicaly several atacks were made their by Bettys carring torpedos.

"Both Sinagapore and Cavite were closer to bases in indo-china and Formosa respectively than Rabaul was from Lunga, so range was not a factor. Neither was Timore to Darwin or Soreabaya from Kendari was out of range for a Betty/Nell torp attack. IIRC, I believe the round trip range for Betty/Nell with torps was around 750 nautical miles. "

It was more on the order of 600 miles under good circumstances for a group of aircraft.
But unfortunately for all of us, you are correct about 2by3's decision NOT to distinguish
"anchorages" from "ports"---and it is the true basis of the problem. And being in "beta" it's unlikely to be fixed. Leaving us (the players) with the disgusting choice of either
supporting the totally ahistorically allowing of Torpedo attacks in ports where they were
impossible----or supporting not allowing Torpedo attacks in anchorages where they were
historically possible and occurred. Sort of like the old torturers taunt that he would give
your a choice..., "Which of your testicles would you like placed in the vice?"

"Which of your testicles would you like placed in the vice"

Well the small one of course[:)]

I will repreat my vote here, in case Joel doesn't see it on the AAR thread (sorry gang for anwering there, but it was a response to a direct request from Joel). I think that due to the inability of the game engine to distinguish an anchorage from a port, the best compromise is to allow either only a certain percentage of the ships in port to be attacked with torpedoes, or only a certain percentage of the attacking a/c to be armed with torpedoes. From Joel's comments, I gather that the latter is easier to do. It isn't a perfect simulation of the situation, but I think that it is the best compromise. Sorry for feeling like I have to repeat myself.

This is SAD..., but do to the original "poor decision" your compromise may well be
the best available. One suggestion for it's implementation would be to reduce the
percentage allowed based on the size of the "port". That would at least make the
"anchorage ports" (which tend to be the smaller ones in the game) more vulnerable
than the "real ports".

That sounds prety good realy Mike, now if we can get the Biger bombs on those Nells and Bettys, and Hellens, the Bigger ports and the ships in them would suffer acordingly:)

I'll go with your bigger bombs if the heavier loads decrease the operational range.
One of the things that bothers me about all bombers is the "combat range" always
seems to be based on the minimum load/maximum fuel figures---but the bombload
is generally the largest amount the A/C could stagger into the air with. This goes
for both sides, but shows up the most in the Japanese because of their lighter weight,
fewer engines, and exceptionally long range. I wish they could get some variation
into the mix.

Well odely enough in the case of the Japanese Bombers the Bombs, take the No. 80 land bombs the 800 KG ones, they weighed the same as the Torpedos, so were still talking a prety decent range hear. In UV the Betts/Nells carred two 250 KG bombs on the Long range Mishions, so were looking at a 500 KG bomb. I am not nescessarly saying UV had it right (the bomb range issue you mention), but that based on that all that neads changing is the bomb size.

Emily Load out scan Showing some of the Bomb options(torpedos shown on another scan):

I think that doe to the inability of the game engine to distinguish an anchorage from a port,

Whose to say, that a ship is not at anchorage even if there is a port? Ships wait all the time for their turn at loading/unloading where do you think they wait? What you want now to start counting birthing slots, number of docks, cranes, tucks, or USGS maps of each port, Huh?

All ports in UV/Witp are the same the only different is size over time. Just trying to research what ports had what and when from 1941-1945 is a complete waste. All ships load/unload at the same time, this is completely unrealistic but, you got to remember this is an operational game and not a shipping port simulator!

I know, why doesn't the game simulate the number and height of barrage balloons at each port to prevent low flying aircraft.[8|]

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N Kate: 4 destroyed when hitting barage baloon(s) [:'(]

Ki-21 Load out showing 500KG bombs:

Ok.. here's probably a stupid question.. but could torpedo attacks only be allowed if there are more than a certain number of ships in a port based on port size to reflect the ships waiting to berth?