Torpedoes...

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Torpedoes...

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Torpedoes...

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Torpedoes... - 11/3/2003 11:47:59 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

Things that make it difficult to use torpedoes against ships in a port (as
opposed to an "anchorage") are the need for a relatively long over-water approach to line it up AND to allow the "fish" to balance it's depth and arm
itself PLUS deep enough water to do the same. Even dropped from a very
low and slow aircraft, the torpedo fluctuates widely in depth until it regains
it's preset level. Many harbours are either too shallow or don't allow for a
mile or so of open water run-in for the A/C and the torpedo. The swordfish
at Taranto were more or less the ultimate in "low and slow"---while the Kates
used at PH needed both specially fitted torpedoes and months of extra training
to be able to use them against "Battleship Row", which was opposite the ONLY
area allowing for a long enough "run in".
Big coral atolls such as Ulithi, Truk, and Kwajalien would allow for torpedo
use, and the "anchorages" used in amphibious landings would generally be large
enough and open enough, with only a question of depth. Pre-war ports in
general were lacking in one of the requirements, especially for an aircraft as
large as a Betty. How the game will balance this remains to be seen, but from
what I've seen in test results torpedo use and the range at which torpedo-
bombers can use them are pretty generous.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 1

- 11/5/2003 9:48:51 AM

CynicAl

Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline

[QUOTE=Mr.Frag]
More then happy to drop 800 kg bombs from altitude instead of getting shot to heck and back on torpedo flight profiles. Funny how no one is complaining about the 800 kb bombs I nailed the BB's with ... or did you guys not notice them in your haste to complain about torpedoes?

[/QUOTE]
I did notice, but I figured I'd said my piece on the subject already. Since you brought it up, though...

The Japanese dropped fifty 800kg bombs at Pearl Harbor. Bombing from medium altitude, on a clear day, against very limited opposition (light flak and NO fighters - this was the first wave), they scored fourteen hits on large, stationary targets. Of those fourteen hits, thirteen were detonated outside the armor, were broken up by the armor, or were simply duds. One out of the fifty was a shipkiller. That's bordering on a fluke, there.

You appear to have scored five such hits, not counting the PT boats. (Even an 800kg dud, falling from 12k, would likely sink a PT boat - assuming that you could hit a PT boat with one, or that anyone would ever try to.) Five flukes. That's stretching the bounds of probability.

But "stretching" is not "breaking," and your original post said you more usually see one to three BBs sunk, with several more heavily damaged. That's much more in accordance with reality, so I'm inclined to put this down as a massive fluke - the sort of thing that is bound to happen sooner or later if you run the simulation enough times, as is the reverse scenario (with no BBs sunk, or even more than moderately damaged). So keep testing.

_____________________________

Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 2