Torpedo Attacks in Ports

[Brady]

Or, would the higher number of ships yield a higher number of hits on more ships, or a lower number of ships more on a few ships?

[bradfordkay]

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?

I agree that every port will have vessels waiting in the anchorage to unload. This isn't to say that all ships in any TF will be vulnerable in any port, or that no ships in any TF will be vulnerable.

That is why I feel that Joel's compromise is the best idea. None of us wish to wait for 2by3 to research all the charts for all the ports to decide what percentage of how many ships would be vulnerable in each specific port. I say that we should just allow a certain percentage of a/c to carry torpedoes on a port attack (or naval attack against vessels in port) and be done with it.




Seperate matter: Brady et al, could you please limit the size of the photos that you post here? Your bloody schematics took so long to download that I had to go take a shower while waiting to be able to post a reply (hitting STOP meant that the photos were incomplete and for some reason I was then unable to make any response - it is as if the forum won't allow us to make a comment unless we have seen all the evidence posted herein!).

[Brady]

bradfordkay: I apoligise for that, to be clearly read they neaded to be big, after I saw just how big they were i stoped posting them.

[Damien Thorn]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
That is why I feel that Joel's compromise is the best idea.

I too could live with the compromise of 1/2 the planes cary torpedoes and the othe half cary the equivilent bombload (800 kg since the torpedo weighed about 1700 pounds).

[brisd]

I don't think limiting the number of torpedos for each strike is a solution. It wouldn't have happened that way historically and as the operational commander, why would I limit myself to not having the biggest bang for the buck. This reminds me of the B-17's in early UV that were acting as tactical bombers and made the game unplayable to me. Here's my take:

1. What are the requirements for a sucessful torpedo attack? Can a medium bomber really make a torpedo run against a docked ship with limited approaches? Obviously against an alerted major port, AA and anti-torpedo nets would make such a mission futile.

2. I believe best solution is to define a MAJOR port and make it invulerable to medium bomber torpedo attack. Why? Because no attempt was ever made to attack such facilities. I think if Japan thought they could perform such a mission, they would have. Same of Allies.

3. But I think tactical torpedo bombers should still be allowed to torpedo ANY port, as they did in PH. Perhaps some ports, like size 9 and above would be exempt?

4. If I am able to attack a port on turn one with surprise benefit as Japan and have this capability, I will use it EVERY time. The combat results of the beta AAR speak volumes as to effectiveness of such attacks against a sleeping port. What would be results against a fully alerted port? Some more testing is in order.

******
CLARIFICATION on #2: No attacks like these were attempted as far as I know, anyone have any evidence? I am open to all input on why some ports at some point in game timeframe can be attacked and not at other times. Perhaps it can be a high risk mission on highly trained crews could/would attempt? Say 80%+ experienced pilots can load torps for example?

[pasternakski]

I think that brisd's post is a very sensible one, but I think we need to stop and consider a little here.

I remember awhile back that we were discussing this very matter (mdiehl's input seemed to be very informative), and two things became very clear:

-the torpedoes in the Pearl Harbor attack were specially fitted not to plunge too deep when dropped
-Kates and other single-engine torpedo planes have more flexibility when making their attack runs than Bettys and other twin-engine, level-bomber types

As I recall, the assertion was made that special fitting of torpedoes was something that could be done only as a part of long-range planning where such an attack as occurred at Pearl Harbor is anticipated and special ordnance prepared for it. Such weapons would not be carried as a routine matter on carriers (or, for that matter, at land bases).

The attack run point, I believe, was that level bombers would not be able, within the confined space of an anchorage or harbor, to stabilize, orient, and deliver their torpedoes consistently (and again, the depth of plunge problem presents itself).

I wonder if it would be possible for the veterans of that discussion to refresh it in order to answer the concerns about in-harbor torpedo attacks being voiced here.

[Rendova]

Does anyone know if air dropped torpedoes had a run to arm minimum distance? I would imagine they did to prevent the torp from going off when they hit the water. This would cause a problem when dropping in a port as well.

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: Rendova

Does anyone know if air dropped torpedoes had a run to arm minimum distance? I would imagine they did to prevent the torp from going off when they hit the water. This would cause a problem when dropping in a port as well.

I dont know the minimum run time required but I do know that the standard drop distance for a Betty/Nell was close to 1500 to 2000 yards. I believe this distance had more to do with allowing enough room for its breakaway. Understand that the low speed, low altitude performance of these larger aircraft left a lot to be desired. You couldnt just dive these planes into a port, level off at sea level, manuever this way and that to pick out a target, line up said target, drop its torp with a 2000 yard cushion and then just quickly pop back up out and away.

Again I have to ask why is this capability in the game, when there is absolutely no historical precedence or basis for it? For that matter how can you accurately model the effectiveness of such attacks without a single example to base it on?

As a few other posted I think the best compromise would be to disallow all Med bombers from torpedo attacks in ports BUT allow it for all single engine torpedo bombers (albeit with decreased effectiveness) in all ports. This should more than make up for the small handful of locations where theoretically Med.bomber torp attacks "might" have been possible Truk Lagoon, Manus, Uliti for example.

[TIMJOT]

4. If I am able to attack a port on turn one with surprise benefit as Japan and have this capability, I will use it EVERY time. The combat results of the beta AAR speak volumes as to effectiveness of such attacks against a sleeping port. What would be results against a fully alerted port? Some more testing is in order.

It speaks volumes as to the "OVER effectivenewss of such attacks. Practically the whole Eastern Fleet and Asiatic Subforce was destroyed. I agree what player wouldnt do it if allowed? I agree that at the very least Singapore and Manila ports should not suffer surprise on turn one unless we also assume that these super effective Med.Bomber torpedo attacks take place at night.[8|]

CLARIFICATION on #2: No attacks like these were attempted as far as I know, anyone have any evidence?

None that I know of either.

Perhaps it can be a high risk mission on highly trained crews could/would attempt? Say 80%+ experienced pilots can load torps for example?

Perhaps but this unfortunately would not prevent the turn one massacres because I believe all Betty/Nell groups start the war with 80% plus experience pilots.

[bradfordkay]

You forget one thing. Joel's post gave us the choice: Torpedoes allowed in all ports or torpedoes allowed in no ports.

For those who don't recall, here is his post on this subject:

" 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."


You might note that he doesn't give us the choices that you guys are asking for. I thought that I would at least try to bring the discussion back into the parameters of the request that Joel made. Since they are trying to get the game to release, I don't think that they are going to give you the changes you are asking for. Why not at least respond to Joel's post in a constructive manner?

[Pier5]

That's a good point. It's all or nothing. I think the best compromise is to prohibit multi-engine aircraft utilizing torpedoes in port attacks, but permit Kates, only Kates to use torpedoes in port. This will allow the PH attack to occur, but should severely restrict the possibility of torpedo attack afterwards.

Pier5

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

You forget one thing. Joel's post gave us the choice: Torpedoes allowed in all ports or torpedoes allowed in no ports.

For those who don't recall, here is his post on this subject:

"... 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?"


You might note that he doesn't give us the choices that you guys are asking for.

Ahhh, some of us were asking that level bombers not be allowed to use torpedoes against ships in port. As you can see from the very passage you quoted, Joel says that this would be easy and would be done if we could present justification for it.

You are mad at us because ... ?

[Brady]

To recover a couple points that seam to of been missed recently in this thread:

1) WiTP clasifys Anchorages as ports, many anchorages were atacked using twin engined Torpedo bombers and often in WW2. Dident Beauforts make a torpedo atack or two in ports/ anchorages as well?

2) If Japanese Medeieum and CV launched Leval bombers atacked a port facility or shiping in port, they typicaly used the prefered land atack weapon the # 80 (800KG) Bomb's or 500 KG bombs. Since Witp does not allow this (I beleave) the only way to aproach the letahlity of these weapons is to allow torpedos to be used, though even this is not that great a deal as they will pay a bigger price in terms of loss to ack for doing so.

3) The Torpedoes modified at pearl used I beleave a very simple woden fin that was sliped over the rear of the torpedo, nothing complex, so I doubt redoing this would be a big deal.

[bradfordkay]

I'm not mad at anyone.

It's just that I felt that he had asked a specific question and no one was addressing his question, everyone was just going off on another tangent. Maybe they can do what you want, but - in case they can't - why not respond to his specific question? At least then 2by3 would get a feeling for which one of the options they proposed was most acceptable to us.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Brady

To recover a couple points that seam to of been missed recently in this thread:

1) WiTP clasifys Anchorages as ports, many anchorages were atacked using twin engined Torpedo bombers and often in WW2. Dident Beauforts make a torpedo atack or two in ports/ anchorages as well?

2) If Japanese Medeieum and CV launched Leval bombers atacked a port facility or shiping in port, they typicaly used the prefered land atack weapon the # 80 (800KG) Bomb's or 500 KG bombs. Since Witp does not allow this (I beleave) the only way to aproach the letahlity of these weapons is to allow torpedos to be used, though even this is not that great a deal as they will pay a bigger price in terms of loss to ack for doing so.

3) The Torpedoes modified at pearl used I beleave a very simple woden fin that was sliped over the rear of the torpedo, nothing complex, so I doubt redoing this would be a big deal.

I agree with (1) and (2), with the only reservation that torpedoes not be substituted for correct loadouts. If the 500 kg and 800 kg bombs were delivered BY THE TYPES OF AIRCRAFT THAT ACTUALLY CARRIED THEM, fine. I don't like your frequent suggestion that "well, such-and-such aircraft did or could have carried them in 1945, so all aircraft types from 1941 on should be allowed to."

As for (3), there was a lot more to it than "wooden fins." Check sources, please.

[Brady]

1 & 2 ) I posted some good referances above, to indicate this, without geting carried away, as I am proan to do on ocashion[:)], thier is a lot of evidance that the types listed above could and did carry these weapons. Prety much the Navy planes Mavis, Emily, Betty, Nell, kate and Jill , Grace, Francis* could do the 800 KG bomb normal ranges or the 500 KG bomb for longer ranged mishions. The Ki-21 could do two 500 KG bombs and the Peggy one I belave, I nead to check further though to be shure on the later and other twin Army types. Thier is also operational evidance.

3 ) Just from memory that was, I will look tomarow to make shure and provide a source, kinda tierd now.

* The P1Y (Francis) could actualy do 1,000 KG of bombs.

[Burkowski]

Brad and Pier 5's points make the most sense to me... IF it's a choice (and the waters are so muddy now [forgive the pun]) between multi-engine bombers' torps in all ports or none), then it should be none.... in this case CAPABILITY (sorry, Brady) is not enough of an argument... we all know too much to accept these ahistoric attacks and their first turn bonanzas for the IJN without leaving a bad taste, even if we are rooting for Jap success... in this simulation, it's the same as reading fiction, we are shooting for the overall experience and that includes a strong dose of "suspension of disbelief," in order to "buy" the situation.. if Bettys are torping capital ships in Singapore harbor, e.g., it just doesn't wash...

IMHO, best case is that tactical torp bombers (Kates et al) should be able to do it and multi-engines not... not sure anymore at this point if Joel and co. are offering that option and/or if first-turn rules will rule...
The IJN is gonna lose this war and we know that... let's not artificially sweeten the early pot to make the outcome more palatable...

Burkowski

[Luskan]

The reason you weren't given the choice youw ant (the percentage idea) is because we already do this. A percentage of all level bombers on port attacks use bombs, even if they are in torp range.

This argument has been covered months ago.

Timjot, I thought so too - but I've got those photos and they just aren't the same ones as the Ironbottom sound.

Also - keep in mind the hexes are 6 mile hexes. In some areas of the solomons there are more "harbour" hexes than there are "sea" hexes. Just too easy for the gamey disband exploit.

[panda124c]

The problem with allowing torpedo attacks against targets in protected (natural protection) harbors is the restrictions on dropping torpedos.
From Torpedo Bomber by Ralph Barker

"At Abbotsinch a brief explanation of the mechanics of the torpedo was followed by a series of lectures and demonstrations on the art of dropping it. Here the vital factors were height and speed, so that the torpedo made a good entry into the water, neither ricocheting along the surface due to being dropped too low or at too great a speed , nor diving to the bottom throught being dropped too high or too slow a speed, correct sighting; and keeping the aircraft stady just before and just after the drop

If the torpedo entered the water badly, it swerved or set off at an angle. But even after a good drop, the torpedo oscillated in depth following it's plunge for some distance before it settled down to its depthe setting. It took some 300 yards for the torpedo to settle down. This was called the recovery range, and within this distance the pistol would arm itself. To this had to be added the distance between the actual drop and the point of entry into the water, making a safe range for a drop of not less than five hundred yards."

So as you can see there is a need to get down to speed and altitude quickly so that a proper drop can be made. Single engine a/c are much more manuaverable than multi engine a/c therefor the single engine a/c can attain the proper attack attitude much quicker (use less distance for setup) than a multi engine a/c. In a protected harbor there are physical obstructions that have to be avoided, manuvered around. Bottom line multi engine a/c need much more room to manuver (setup) for a torpedo attack than do single engine a/c, thus severly limiting the use of multi engine a/c for torpedo attacks in close areas. For this reason multi engine a/c should not be able use torpedo attacks against targets in a protected harbor (this does not apply to an open anchorage, such as GC).

The allies solved this particular problem with 'skip bombing'.

By the by the above mentioned book is an excelent read, the story of RAF Torpedo bombers.

[pasternakski]

Thank you for that quote and cite, pbear, it is consistent with the understanding I came to when looking into this a long time ago.

It's not so much the torpedo (although modifications to it and its guidance system were necessary for the Pearl Harbor attack) but the weapon delivery system. I understood Brad to say that it would be possible to prohibit level bombers from attacking with torpedoes in harbors while allowing such attacks by single-engine torpedo planes in limited circumstances. This is the solution I would favor.

I can't agree that TFs disbanding into a port in order to avoid aerial torpedo attack would be "gamey." Isn't protection from enemy attack one of the major things ports are for?