Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The complaint that torpedo range is "too great" is essentially bogus.
Study, for example, The Hunting of Force Z (book title). It is pretty clear that Japanese naval bombers would even conduct recon missions with torpedo armament, and could actually do so to greater ranges then our code allows.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay


... Since we cannot do that, and I think that the level 4 air base restriction is already good enough, it is my belief that increasing the supply cost (or requirement) for loading torpedoes is a possible way of bringing to the game a more realistic feel of aerial operations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay


... Since we cannot do that, and I think that the level 4 air base restriction is already good enough, it is my belief that increasing the supply cost (or requirement) for loading torpedoes is a possible way of bringing to the game a more realistic feel of aerial operations.

Isn't the level 4 airbase restriction already part of the rules for all Level Bombers such as Nells, Bettys, Beauforts and so forth. 7.2.2.17 indicates that if level bombers attack from an airfield less than 4 + (Max Load/6500) rounded down that they attack with an extended range bomb load. This would mean that they cannot attack with a torpedo load. Now that doesn't stop torpedo planes such as Vildebeests, Swordfishes, Kates and so forth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay


... Since we cannot do that, and I think that the level 4 air base restriction is already good enough, it is my belief that increasing the supply cost (or requirement) for loading torpedoes is a possible way of bringing to the game a more realistic feel of aerial operations.

Isn't the level 4 airbase restriction already part of the rules for all Level Bombers such as Nells, Bettys, Beauforts and so forth. 7.2.2.17 indicates that if level bombers attack from an airfield less than 4 + (Max Load/6500) rounded down that they attack with an extended range bomb load. This would mean that they cannot attack with a torpedo load. Now that doesn't stop torpedo planes such as Vildebeests, Swordfishes, Kates and so forth.

This is why I said that I believe the level 4 AF restriction is already good enough when people started talking about restricting torpedo missions to even larger airfields. My feeling is that there should be some additional cost for conducting torpedo missions beyond the level 4 AF restriction without just increasing the base size required.

quote:

I disagree - there are way too many level 4 airfields. At least at level 6 airfields you would be restricted to the (many) larger and more important airfields where it's conceivable that they would stockpile torpedos.

And I think the same should go for operating 4E Hvy Bmbrs - require level 6 airfields for normal operation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2

quote:

I disagree - there are way too many level 4 airfields. At least at level 6 airfields you would be restricted to the (many) larger and more important airfields where it's conceivable that they would stockpile torpedos.

And I think the same should go for operating 4E Hvy Bmbrs - require level 6 airfields for normal operation.

Hmmm, if a level 6 AF would be required to lanch a torp or 4E attack then virtually all pacific island would be unusable. It could be done if damage done by the the Jap 250 KG AP bomb ( then standard naval attack ordnance) would be increased by about 150%..... If not so, allied ships become almost impossible to sink. I once hit Wasp with 10 bombs, and she remained afloat with 50 sys and 50 float damage.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

The problem with your idea, Big B, is that it would preclude the use of torpedo armed Betties from bases from which they historically launched. This is why I believe the airbase size restriction is already fine, just that we need to add in some sort of increased supply cost/requirement to make the model more realistic.

quote:


Big B wrote:

Well, there are a number of Pacific Islands that can be built up to level 6 air fields. I believe that includes - Guam, Tinian, Saipan, Truk, Kwajalien, Eniwitok, Tarawa, Rabaul, Lae, Palau, Midway, Pearl Harbor, Lunga, Noumea...and a number more that I can't think of off the top of my head.

quote:


BradfordK wrote:

The problem with your idea, Big B, is that it would preclude the use of torpedo armed Betties from bases from which they historically launched.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Ron, aren't rudders just torpedo catchers?


Big B, I like that idea, but it isn't only Betties and Nells that we are concerned with, it's also the Beauforts (lest we be subjected to the "allied fanboy" taunt again!).

quote:

What other bases did Betties launch from carrying torpedoes?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

What other bases did Betties launch from carrying torpedoes?

The argument that Bettys never flew from a particular base with torpedoes is invalid in my opinion. We could also apply that logic to Kates or to allied heavies that we launch from any capable base. Do we want to restrict where an aircraft can fly from with a particular load or should it be more of an availability restriction?

I don't think the issue with torpedoes or 1000lb bombs should be limited by base size. It should be limited by availability. When you stop to consider that loading a torp on a Kate is not much different from loading one on a Nell or Betty, it makes sense. The biggest difference is that the bomb bay doors must be removed on a Betty to load torps but aside from that the load crew and ground equipment required is virtually the same. Any field capable of supporting a Betty would be capable of loading torps.

The same goes for 1000lb bombs for the Allied player. The loading procedures, equipment and load crews were the same as those required for 500lb bombs. The bomb carts are identical. Any field capable of supporting heavy bomber operations should be able to carry 1000lbers. The aircraft gross weight remained within its weight limits regardless of whether it was 8-10 500lbers or 4-5 1000lbers.

I think the same should apply to PT boats and reloading their torpedoes. PT tenders certainly could load torps whenever and where ever required so long as they were in sheltered waters. Even at those bases that did not have a PT tender such as Rendova early on, PT crews were able to load torpedoes from lighters or from shore. And Rendova is a small port.

And what about Dutch minelayers? With the current base restrictions on loading mines, where do they go to reload mines without MLEs? Certainly not Dutch territory. (A little of topic but one of my peeves)

So if historical accuracy is the goal, then the ordnance itself must be limited to reflect historical production levels. And that requires a code change.

Chez

quote:

I don't think it's a matter of restricting missions from bases, I think it's just an "expedient" to try to limit over broad torpedo availability, as was done with Allied LB 1000lb AP bombs.

quote:


Nice example... but even then not all of Betty/Nell carried torpedoes - some of them carried bombs for that mission!


BTW, why was that (historically speaking)?

Was it because of lack of torpedoes (i.e. they gave torpedoes, as most dangerous weapon, only to best crews)?

quote:

Ignoring for a moment the illogic of the different port size requirements, the rules otherwise make perfect sense. In my memory not one single person has ever complained about these rules; what then is the argument that would make it reasonable that any location with a level 4 airbase would have unlimited torpedoes available every day for as many aircraft as could be squeezed onto the place? It is only realistic to put some limit on this. A torpedo is a piece of machinery every bit as complex as an aircraft engine, which (in the case of IJ) must be built one by one in factories and inventories of which are carefully managed. I don't say necessarily that they should have to be built like a/c engines (although it isn't a bad idea); just that there should be some limit on availability, perhaps based on port size as in the case of PTs and of larger warships.

quote:

OK - so what? Players may not be playing with the same operational assignments. And IF you restrict torpedo bombing to reduce transport losses, don't you also impact warship losses exactly the same way? I don't see quite what the point of this is:

IF the capability exists, what is the problem?"


DID the capability exist?

quote:

As far as the rest of the smaller Islands - you could still fly/base torpedo bombers on them - B5N Kates, TBF Avengers, etc, and Med Bmbrs can still operate off of them with bombs. You just wouldn't turn every atoll into a Betty base with torpedoes ...nor the US Army 8th air Force

quote:

Sorry, I wasn't thinking about Beauforts...I never heard a complaint about "Uber Beauforts"! lol

But that (the AFB taunt/label) is why I keep linking the over represented Torpedo dropping Bettys with the same over represented Allied 4E Hvy Bmbrs.