RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports

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 >> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/25/2004 10:20:32 PM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

pasternakski, it is not realy A Historical, Idealy we would be able to chuse our load out for these planes either torps or bombs but that debate has long since past. It is clear that Medieum bombers of both sides atacked ships in anchorages, which in Witp are clasified as ports so allowing this is not realy A Historical. Thier still being short changed, either way.

Ron Saueracker, if so... Cool !:) How about the Army Bombers?

< Message edited by Brady -- 4/25/2004 8:23:27 PM >

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 61

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/25/2004 10:25:15 PM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Medieum bombers of both sides atacked ships in anchorages, which in Witp are clasified as ports

Where did I dispute this?

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 62

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/25/2004 10:40:32 PM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

"I see you advocating an ahistorical model of anti-shipping attacks in ports just because it would favor the Japanese. "

I beleave this line lead me to think that you felt that since WiTP clasifiys anchorages as ports that allowing twin engined atack planes to atack them was A historical. And this again is not realy favoring the Japanese, they will pay a high price for doing a torpedo atack, and Beauforts will be able to do the same thing.

(in reply to pasternakski)

Post #: 63

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/25/2004 10:52:44 PM

Capt. Harlock

Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline

quote:

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).

Assuming that game coding makes it impossible to institute differnet rules for different size ports, I would regretfully ban medium bombers from torpedo attacks in port. In fact, I would advise banning ALL bomber torpedo attacks in ports beginning Spring 1942, since it can be safely assumed everyone was busy installing anti-torpedo netting. I do not recall any successful air torpedo attack on docked ships after Pearl Harbor. (Ships at anchor performing amphibious unloading would obviously still be vulnerable.)

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 64

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/25/2004 11:26:19 PM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

Sorta on topic...goes toward showing the operational use of 500KG bombs from Twin engined Japanese Naval Bombers aganst ships...

The Imperial Japanese Navy (41-45) by Dull, p.40:

" The Prince of Wales received one torpedo forward, and one aft on her port side, and 5 evenly spaced on her starbord side. She was hit twice aft by 1,100 pound bomb's, and was damaged in her starboard quarter by a near miss"

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)

Post #: 65

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/26/2004 1:31:13 AM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

I hate to drag this topic back to the game, but there are two issues here, only one of which has been raised.
1) (actively being discussed above) - is it physically possible for a WW2 multiengined torp bomber to torpedo ships in a port? This is by no means simple: torpedoes have trouble attacking ships in shallow water, planes have trouble getting low enough if the port is surrounded by hills, the torp has to have a long enough run to arm, etc etc. However, a Port hex (as has been pointed out above) includes up to 60 miles of sea as well. If you disallow torp attacks in port for these reasons, why not equally in any coast hex? This leads on to the (IMHO) more important issue
2) what capability is required for the game to work? I can imagine all sorts of gamey abuses of a 'no torps in port' rule (sprint the TF up to the port, and disband, giving unrealistically low chances of torpedo attacks. Conversely, the LB TB could be massed and cripple TF in a way that isn't historic (although we need to ask WHY this wasn't done in practice, not just that it wasn't)

How's about some prediction of which rule is most likely to need a fix later (given that Joel has ruled out port specific rules).

I favour a low number of torp bombers allowed on each attack - or possibly a low % chance of any torps allowed, but with a full sqd or air unit allowed if the check is passed (reflects the unusual situation where ships are 'correctly' positioned for torp attack)

Just my 2p...

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 66

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/26/2004 1:34:47 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
I can imagine all sorts of gamey abuses of a 'no torps in port' rule (sprint the TF up to the port, and disband, giving unrealistically low chances of torpedo attacks.

I already addressed this. Why is it "gamey" or unrealistic for ships to be ordered into the safe haven of a port upon arriving at their destination?

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to HMSWarspite)

Post #: 67

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/26/2004 1:36:14 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, They are not safe. They can still be bombed.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to pasternakski)

Post #: 68

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/26/2004 2:37:04 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, They are not safe. They can still be bombed.

Of course. But they can't be torpedoed, otherwise, you might as well go ahead and wander around in the road like a bunch of ducks, because you're ducks no matter where you go if ports don't give you protection against torpedo attacks.

The same thing is true if the game allows Japanese LBA to show up in significant numbers with Brady's version of tactical nuclear weapons. How many 500 or 800 kg bombs were made and delivered to bases with the capacity to receive, store, and arm aircraft with them?

As I've said before, the logistical situation presented to the historical combatants precluded a lot of this "let's go banzai bazillions of tons of ordnance onto the hated enemy fleet" nonsense. If every base had bomb trees sprouting a regular harvest measured in megatons and had aircraft handling capabilities on the order of what it takes to keep the Imperial Starfleet in action, it would be different.

I prefer to play a historical simulation.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 69

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/26/2004 3:28:33 AM

Rendova

Posts: 405
Joined: 2/28/2004
From: Atlanta
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

As I've said before, the logistical situation presented to the historical combatants precluded a lot of this "let's go banzai bazillions of tons of ordnance onto the hated enemy fleet" nonsense. If every base had bomb trees sprouting a regular harvest measured in megatons and had aircraft handling capabilities on the order of what it takes to keep the Imperial Starfleet in action, it would be different.

Silly pasternakski 800kg bombs didn't grow on trees they were transported to the front by the Wooden hulled tanker fleet!

(in reply to pasternakski)

Post #: 70

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/26/2004 3:51:31 AM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

How much evidance do you nead??? We have sean on these boards a ton of evidance shwoing the capacitys of Japanese CV's and the Numbers of these 500 and 800 KG bombs they alone carried, we have referances commming from scades of books showing they could carry them, photos shoing them on the planes photos shoing the equipment used to load them, and even acounts of them being used in action both from CV's and from land based planes. While it is true they pack a Big punch and are far more effective per hit, it should be remembered that only one of these 800 kg bombs could be carried by Bettys and Nells, and the Army types could do I beleave two 500 KG bombs (The Ki 21 could and I beleave the rest I nead to double check those figures). So their will be fewer of them falling from the sky than 250 KG bombs so the hit percentage will be lower, or should be, but at least if they hit they will do some damage. That is if they are indead made available for use. I think presently only the Kates and I hope the Jills and the Grace can use these, but even that is not fully know to me.

(in reply to Rendova)

Post #: 71

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/26/2004 4:35:26 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

How much evidance do you nead??? We have sean on these boards a ton of evidance shwoing the capacitys of Japanese CV's and the Numbers of these 500 and 800 KG bombs they alone carried, we have referances commming from scades of books showing they could carry them, photos shoing them on the planes photos shoing the equipment used to load them, and even acounts of them being used in action both from CV's and from land based planes. While it is true they pack a Big punch and are far more effective per hit, it should be remembered that only one of these 800 kg bombs could be carried by Bettys and Nells, and the Army types could do I beleave two 500 KG bombs (The Ki 21 could and I beleave the rest I nead to double check those figures). So their will be fewer of them falling from the sky than 250 KG bombs so the hit percentage will be lower, or should be, but at least if they hit they will do some damage. That is if they are indead made available for use. I think presently only the Kates and I hope the Jills and the Grace can use these, but even that is not fully know to me.

Do you ever read your own posts (or are they just as incomprehensible to you as they are to everyone else)? You admit no less than five times here that you do not know whether you are correct in your assertions about Japanese aircraft anti-shipping bomb loadouts.

Furthermore, just about all of your pictures have been shown to be either ambiguous or downright misleading. Besides, what does one grainy old black-and-white photo do to demonstrate strategic use of armaments? I do not recall a single instance of material quoted or cited by you supporting the idea that Japanese aircraft ought to be differently armed in combat than they were historically.

So the Japanese built ten or twenty special-use bombs. Does that mean they should pop up for general use all over the Pacific in all circumstances? The Allies built many special-use munitions, as well. I don't see you wringing your hands and trotting out all kinds of "It looks like Joe Garagiola was there to me" photos concerning them.

The game's in beta. Give it a rest, already.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 72

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/26/2004 5:05:27 AM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

The Only types I am gray on bombload wise are the Army types, I did not mention, the Lilly and Helln namely, I am certain they could cary at lest one 500KG bomb but posably two, that is what i nead to check.

I have posted several referances for the use of 500KG and 800 KG weapons in the past, since you follow my posts so closely I figured you would noticed this, if nead be I can repost what I have already mentioned again.

800KG and 500KG bombs are not special use weapons, they were comonly used and their is a ton of material to suport this, some of wich is in this thread. The only speical use 800KG bombs were those used at pearl, their were different types of No. 80 bombs in service.

(in reply to pasternakski)

Post #: 73

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/26/2004 6:29:33 AM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

Man, reading the new AAR's and seeing what happens to Betty's and Nell's during port attacks (ineffective, and high aircraft losses

) with torpedeos after Pearl Harbor, having the ability/option to hit ships in ports with bombs may not be such a bad idea after all.

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 74

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/26/2004 7:11:39 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

So you guys are perfectly ok with hundreds of B-17's doing skip bombing on a port with it's MUCH lower climb rate to pull out yet you have a problem with a much faster, more powerful aircraft dropping torpedoes?

Its not a good comparison. Skip bombing requires far shorter drop distance, a minimum sustained level flight, speed is not a problem, and docks, jettys, breakers ect... do not hinder the bombs strike path. By the way, I believe B-17s were the first planes to attempt skip bombing, BUT NO I personally would not allow them to do it in Ports either.

quote:

I'm not sure I follow the logic. Japan did well at PH, why would she not continue to produce torpedoes that could be used in such a manner after such a success?

Well they didnt. Lets see after PH Kido Butai attack the port of Darwin (NO TORPS USED); then the port of Tjlaptap (NO TORPS USED); the port of Colombo (NO TORPS USED); the port of Tricomolee (NO TORPS USED). I am unaware of any other port attacks undertaken by KB during the war, with or without modified torpedos.

quote:

I have yet to see a single reason that says they could not do it due to some mechanical or technical reason. I would understand if we were talking about another type of aircraft that was not known for flying with torpedoes suddenly loaded up torpedoes and went on port attacks.

No, not a single reason, just MANY reasons. Briefly; Attack run distance, airspeed, manuverabilty, drop distance, as related to multi- engine Medium bomberse capabilities or lack there of. Regardless, its quite the contrary. Since we know it was NEVER DONE. Its really up to it's proponents to prove that it could be done, in order for it to be included into the game. Dont you think?

quote:

Anyone care to dig up a map that shows the port at Singapore in detail that would prove one way or the other that the port could not be attacked in such a matter?

I do have some maps and charts, I will have to dig them up. But I think some are confused. Singapore Harbor (Keppel) and Singapore (Changi) Naval base are two seperate enties. Singapore Naval base was located within the narrow Jahore strait. It was only about a mile wide. A Betty/Nell would have to drop its torps on the beach to get enough distance to target. By the way the Japanese attacked shipping at Keppel harbor over a dozen times, BOMBS ONLY, NEVER TORPEDOS. They mangaged to sink just one vessel "Empress of Asia"

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 75

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/26/2004 7:27:39 AM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

"Well they didnt. Lets see after PH Kido Butai attack the port of Darwin (NO TORPS USED); then the port of Tjlaptap (NO TORPS USED); the port of Colombo (NO TORPS USED); the port of Tricomolee (NO TORPS USED). I am unaware of any other port attacks undertaken by KB during the war, with or without modified torpedos. "

Prety much all of these harbors were reconed before the atacks, and since their was not realy any signafagant shiping in many and no shiping in the others I can see why they opted to not make torp atacks. They also atacked the port facilatys and Repair shops at some of these and I beelave oil storage facilitys at some as well, Tricomolee, and Colombo were subjected 800KG bombs from Kates which caused considerable damage. If nead be I can transcride passages from The Imperial Japanes navy which detail the atacks on these ports.

"No, not a single reason, just MANY reasons. Briefly; Attack run distance, airspeed, manuverabilty, drop distance, as related to multi- engine Medium bomberse capabilities or lack there of. Regardless, its quite the contrary. Since we know it was NEVER DONE. Its really up to it's proponents to prove that it could be done, in order for it to be included into the game. Dont you think?"

Certainly it was done, and this was show above, and it was done repadealy, by Japanese Twins and I beelave Beauforts...Ya see WiTP like UV clasifys anchorages as ports, so given this we have to say that it was done, based on how WiTP defines Ports.

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 76

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/26/2004 7:27:53 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

quote:

I do have some maps and charts, I will have to dig them up. But I think some are confused. Singapore Harbor (Keppel) and Singapore (Changi) Naval base are two seperate enties. Singapore Naval base was located within the narrow Jahore strait. It was only about a mile wide. A Betty/Nell would have to drop its torps on the beach to get enough distance to target. By the way the Japanese attacked shipping at Keppel harbor over a dozen times, BOMBS ONLY, NEVER TORPEDOS. They mangaged to sink just one vessel "Empress of Asia"

Actually, you are attributing to Jahore Strait a greater width than did I. The greatest width I had mentioned was 1100 yards, which is slightly over one half mile, and that was Keppel Harbour. My chart didn't show Changi, but the strait must be the eastern half I had mentioned. I feel that the only place in Singapore where ships would be vulnerable to torpedoes would be in Singapore Road, which is wide open. Probably few ships would anchor out there, unless an awful lot of ships are in harbour.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 77

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/26/2004 7:33:59 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Brady

quote:

All this gets us back to the base problem at hand, how WiTP defines a port, which is a very genral term in the game since open anchorages are included in this, which were frequently atacked by Twin engined planes brandishing torpedos.

Brady you keep saying that, I dont even know of any achorages where Bettys or Nells attacked with torpedos. Care to list a few? Bettys did attack shipping underway off Lunga on Aug.8,42 they lost 18 out of 24 and scored one hit. The Chicago was sunk by Betty w/torps out in the slot, but niether case were within an anchorage.

quote:

Since we all know that atacks were made frequently aganst ships in anchorages during the war by multi engined planes

There you go again

. We all certainly do NOT know this to be the case. FREQUENTLY??? I am not even sure it was ever done. Still waiting for some evidence please, some specifics, you know...dates? locations?

All the evidence I have heard so far was Luskan's recollection of seeing a photo of a Betty that looked like it was attacking ships at anchore.

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 78

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/26/2004 7:43:44 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
Actually, you are attributing to Jahore Strait a greater width than did I. The greatest width I had mentioned was 1100 yards, which is slightly over one half mile, and that was Keppel Harbour. My chart didn't show Changi, but the strait must be the eastern half I had mentioned. I feel that the only place in Singapore where ships would be vulnerable to torpedoes would be in Singapore Road, which is wide open. Probably few ships would anchor out there, unless an awful lot of ships are in harbour

.

Yup its in the eastern half of the strait. I dont have the charts in front of me. the mile was a rough estimate from my recollection. It certainly wasnt more than 2000yrds. I agree Singapore Roads as most other Roads for that matter were succeptible to torpedo attack. Depth being the main hindering factor.

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 79

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/26/2004 7:52:05 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, I don't think it is a big deal. Just use bombs. Ships DIW are easy enough to hit and enough damage will be done to

A. Make the attacks worth while
B. Discourage players from sitting in ports in enemy LBA range.

I think the Japanese advocates should cut and run. Over the course of the war more Japanese ports will be bombed then Allied ports. Leave the torpedos (1 group) for PH attack and from then on only use bombs. 500kg 800kg and 1k or 2k bombs when loaded on multi engine bombers are enough to cause more damage then I am willing to risk.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 80

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/26/2004 7:52:30 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

My Jane's (WWI era) lists the depth at ten fathoms:

Singapore. Coaling Station. Good roads. Average anchorage. 10 fathoms. Tanjong Pagar Docks: (1) Victoria, 467x65x20; (2) Albert, 478x60x21. Keppel Harbour: (1) 400x47x16; (2) 450x52x19; (3) King's, 846x100x34, (Dreadnought and to take any warship).

Keep in mind that this is WW1 era, I expect that there were a few more docks built in the next 25 years, but I don't have access at this moment to any pertinent info.

My guess is that depth listing is for the main channel in Johore Strait.

< Message edited by bradfordkay -- 4/26/2004 5:55:19 AM >

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 81

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/26/2004 8:37:41 AM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

In General I think Mogami is corect, I would rather have the larger bombs and forgo torp atacks if posable in ports with Multi engined aircraft, if were can use the larger bombs, the amount of loss from AA fire is not worth it.

Their are several examples of Bettys making Torpedo ataks on Allied Shiping off Guadacanal, a place in UV that was a size 3 port. The sortied thier looking for ships anchored or otherwise on many ocashions:

From Mitsubishi Type 1 Rikko Unitts of WW2:

p.46

"The Next Morning* 4th Ku went back properly armed with torpedos" This was Aug. 8(posable9th).

The 10th they went backto hit ships unloading but they had puled out that night.

The 12th of Novemeber saw another torpedo atack aganst shiping at Lunga.

* The previous day they wanted to do a torp atack but time would not alow for a rearming of the planes so they went with bombs.

So we have 4 example of Bettys making atacks aganst an area clasified in the Game as a Port, whear they were or would rather of been using torpedos.

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 82

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/26/2004 4:32:17 PM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Their are several examples of Bettys making Torpedo ataks on Allied Shiping off Guadacanal, a place in UV that was a size 3 port. The sortied thier looking for ships anchored or otherwise on many ocashions:

From Mitsubishi Type 1 Rikko Unitts of WW2:

p.46

"The Next Morning* 4th Ku went back properly armed with torpedos" This was Aug. 8(posable9th).

The 10th they went backto hit ships unloading but they had puled out that night.

The 12th of Novemeber saw another torpedo atack aganst shiping at Lunga.

* The previous day they wanted to do a torp atack but time would not alow for a rearming of the planes so they went with bombs.

So we have 4 example of Bettys making atacks aganst an area clasified in the Game as a Port, whear they were or would rather of been using torpedos.

Brady where did you learn to add. First you list 2 ATTACKS not four ( wanting to attack counts for attacks now????) niether of which were against ships within an anchorage.

The hex you refer to encompasses Tuligi harbor, which was ablsolutely imune to Med.Bomer torp attack. Tuligi IS for all pracitical purposes the Harbor for Guadacanal. Most supplies were unloaded there and then transhiped to Lunga by smaller craft. Any "Docked" or dispanded ships should be considered within the safe confines of Tuligi.

Now, I believe it is still be possible to attack with Torps, any undocked TFs within that hex via "NAVAL ATTACK" as well as Invasion TFs offloading troops over a enemy beach or Base Hexes. THIS represents the types of attacks to which you are refering to does it not? NOBODY was suggesting the Betty/Nells should not be allowed to attack undocked TFs with Torpedos.

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 83

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/26/2004 5:05:26 PM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

My Jane's (WWI era) lists the depth at ten fathoms:

Singapore. Coaling Station. Good roads. Average anchorage. 10 fathoms. Tanjong Pagar Docks: (1) Victoria, 467x65x20; (2) Albert, 478x60x21. Keppel Harbour: (1) 400x47x16; (2) 450x52x19; (3) King's, 846x100x34, (Dreadnought and to take any warship).

Keep in mind that this is WW1 era, I expect that there were a few more docks built in the next 25 years, but I don't have access at this moment to any pertinent info.

My guess is that depth listing is for the main channel in Johore Strait.

Hi Bradfordkay, I think we are talking past each other. I am agreeing with you. However I still think you have the wrong impression. Singapore Changi Naval base is located on the North landward side of the island, within the "Jahore Strait" The strait between Malaya and Singapore Island. This is where the Eastern Fleet was based. Singapore City's harbor (Keppel) is located on the south of the Island along the "Malacca Strait" The strait between Singapore and Sumatra.

Not sure to what extent Singapore Roads was used during the war. It is used extensively today, filled with ships waiting to dock. I do know however that the Brits sent some 10 odd reinforcement convoys to Singapore during the campaign, totalling some 54 AP/AKs and 52 warships, carry more than 2 Divisions worth of troops and tons of supplies, guns, and a/c. These ships were attacked repeatedly by high level bombers but NEVER by torp bombers. The results were one ship sunk. Now given that Singapore was a high priority, I would think that given the poor results from bombing, the IJN would if it COULD have attacked Keppel Harbor with Torps. That they did not at Keppel or at the Naval base even though the 22nd Air flottillas Torp bombers were dispatched to Indo-china specifically to deal with the threat of Force Z speaks volumns whether if was possible or not.

Regards

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 84

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/26/2004 5:06:58 PM

Rainerle

Posts: 463
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: Burghausen/Bavaria
Status: offline

Well obviously 2by3 has to add a harbour limit for ships. When the port is full you cannot disband your TF, period. If you want to free space build a new TF. Those TF's then can be sunk by torpedo attack normally. my 0.02 Euros

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 85

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/26/2004 5:26:01 PM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

TIMJOT :

It was late and I was tierd and so it was a bit worse than my ushual wrting stile, in a nut shell the above shows 4 seperate instances when the Japanese would of, or did use torpedos to atack ships off Guadacanal, Not Tuligy, in each instance the ships they were after were unload or suporting the troops on Guadacanal, in some cases they were anchored ships they were after, in one other they were warned the atack was comming and started to bug out, but non the less this very area is classified as a port in UV and I asume WiTP.

But this is largely mute at present, owing to the preferance for the Larger Bombs in these types of atacks do to the high atration levals attributed to torpedo ataks.

(in reply to Rainerle)

Post #: 86

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/26/2004 6:06:05 PM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

TIMJOT :

It was late and I was tierd and so it was a bit worse than my ushual wrting stile, in a nut shell the above shows 4 seperate instances when the Japanese would of, or did use torpedos to atack ships off Guadacanal, Not Tuligy, in each instance the ships they were after were unload or suporting the troops on Guadacanal, in some cases they were anchored ships they were after, in one other they were warned the atack was comming and started to bug out, but non the less this very area is classified as a port in UV and I asume WiTP.

But this is largely mute at present, owing to the preferance for the Larger Bombs in these types of atacks do to the high atration levals attributed to torpedo ataks.

ONE MORE TIME. In each case the ships were underway and manuevering out in the slot not at anchore. Again undocked TFs CAN be attacked within the hex by Torp bombers via Naval ATTACK. THIS is what your Examples represent. Specifically an invasion TF offloading troops at Lunga can be ATTACKED by torp loaded Betty/Nells set on NAVAL ATTACK. IF the base is captured and any ship docked or dispanded there ARE IN TULIGI HARBOR and thus imune to torp attack.

Your big bomb make up therory does not hold water do to the historical whoaful effectiveness of Level boming against shipping as oppose to torpedos. Some Examples; Prior to the Lunga Torp attack on 8.8/42 the IJN Level bombed the Lunga invasion TF on 8/7/42 and got one hit. As I mentioned before Level bombers made dozen attacks on Keppel Harbor Singapore and sank just one ship. Level bombers attacked Cavite on 12/10/41 and sank one Sub. Now compare those results with the AARs and you have a overwhelming overcompensation for any absence of larger ordnance. Torps are ship killers level bombing "Seldom is". Frankly I have nothing against bigger bombs based on range. Can you tell me what size bombs where used at Lunga, Darwin, Soerebaya, Keppel, Cavite? What ever they were they certainly were not very effective against shipping.

< Message edited by TIMJOT -- 4/26/2004 4:08:46 PM >

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 87

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/26/2004 6:26:32 PM

Damien Thorn

Posts: 1107
Joined: 7/24/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT
Frankly I have nothing against bigger bombs based on range.

Since the 800 kg bomb weighs the same weight as a torpedo the range would be the same.

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 88

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/26/2004 7:56:13 PM

Rendova

Posts: 405
Joined: 2/28/2004
From: Atlanta
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

TIMJOT :

It was late and I was tierd and so it was a bit worse than my ushual wrting stile, in a nut shell the above shows 4 seperate instances when the Japanese would of, or did use torpedos to atack ships off Guadacanal, Not Tuligy, in each instance the ships they were after were unload or suporting the troops on Guadacanal, in some cases they were anchored ships they were after, in one other they were warned the atack was comming and started to bug out, but non the less this very area is classified as a port in UV and I asume WiTP.

But this is largely mute at present, owing to the preferance for the Larger Bombs in these types of atacks do to the high atration levals attributed to torpedo ataks.

ONE MORE TIME. In each case the ships were underway and manuevering out in the slot not at anchore. Again undocked TFs CAN be attacked within the hex by Torp bombers via Naval ATTACK. THIS is what your Examples represent. Specifically an invasion TF offloading troops at Lunga can be ATTACKED by torp loaded Betty/Nells set on NAVAL ATTACK. IF the base is captured and any ship docked or dispanded there ARE IN TULIGI HARBOR and thus imune to torp attack.

Your big bomb make up therory does not hold water do to the historical whoaful effectiveness of Level boming against shipping as oppose to torpedos. Some Examples; Prior to the Lunga Torp attack on 8.8/42 the IJN Level bombed the Lunga invasion TF on 8/7/42 and got one hit. As I mentioned before Level bombers made dozen attacks on Keppel Harbor Singapore and sank just one ship. Level bombers attacked Cavite on 12/10/41 and sank one Sub. Now compare those results with the AARs and you have a overwhelming overcompensation for any absence of larger ordnance. Torps are ship killers level bombing "Seldom is". Frankly I have nothing against bigger bombs based on range. Can you tell me what size bombs where used at Lunga, Darwin, Soerebaya, Keppel, Cavite? What ever they were they certainly were not very effective against shipping.

I have to agree with Timjot, the examples sited by brady the ships were underway and out in the middle of the channel between Tulagi and Lunga, not in a harbor like Brisbaine, or Singapore. Another thing Brady you can't count "well they would have used torps but didn't because it was too late/the ships left/etc" as exapmles of attacks. There were no attacks. They other thing these examples fail to prove is that Medium bombers could achieve the wholesale slaughter of ships in ports that has been seen in AAR's.

< Message edited by Rendova -- 4/26/2004 12:58:17 PM >

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 89

RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/26/2004 8:22:50 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

And back into the breach we go ...

So, the 200+ cargo ships that happened to be anchored off Noumea and Efate somehow should be magically immune too?

(in reply to Rendova)

Post #: 90

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports