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  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 10:20:59 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		hi Those are attacks against a TF in a port hex but not in the port. Thye are allowed in WITP and use the Naval attack not the Port attack mission.

Lunga is not a port TF's can disband in in UV or WITP before engineers expend supply to expand it. (Thats what makes Tulagi important early on. It is a size 3 port at start but cannot support a decent airfield. The two bases are both required to control the area while Lunga is expanded)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 4/27/2004 3:25:50 PM >

_____________________________






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

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 151
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 10:25:10 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		The TF's in the later examples were unloading for some time(off henderson not Tulgi), and in November after months of ocupation the Allied Enginers would of created at least a size 3 port, again this is very loose.

< Message edited by Brady -- 4/27/2004 8:28:27 PM >

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 152
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 11:05:26 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Yes I know they were unloading in a hex that also can contain a port.
In Aug 1942 it is not a port in WITP that TF can disband in. So it is exposed to naval attack.
I don't think the US had built the port of Lunga by Nov 1942. In UV they will. (within a few weeks of landing the engineers and supply)

Here is the deal. A TF is not a port attack. If the target is a TF the port will not defend it and you will have torpedos if in range. You will not damage the port in such attacks. Don't use examples of attacks against TF to justify attacks against ports.
When you attack a port you are not attacking a TF. The game will equip a portion of the aircraft with torpedos (but you will not always get hits) Port attacks will not damage a TF in that hex. Don't use attacks against ports to justify results against TF.
A TF is a group of ships considered to have powerplants on line and able to make headway.
Ships in port are assumed to be cold iron (in major ports the ships are getting power and water from shore rather then making themselves)
You can always tell a ship in port. (It is not part of a TF) Ships in TF can be inside the port
(listed as docked but docked is not a correct discription 100 percent of time. A TF in port is safe from submarine attack if port is over size 3. It is never safe from Naval Attacks (even torpedo aircraft) However ships not part of TF in a port should be assumed to be nested or tied up to pier. There are some who worry about what ship is inboard or outboard not me. All I care about is what attacks these ships are exposed to. Here it is port attack and not Naval attack.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 4/27/2004 4:08:37 PM >

_____________________________






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

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 153
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 11:17:55 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		TY Mogami, for explaing it clearly.

So in general do enginers work slower in WiTP than they did in UV?

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 154
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/28/2004 12:26:05 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		Baah! Pearl Harbor and the attack at Taranto were the only successful battles using torpedo bombers against ships in port during WW2. Both of these operations entailed advanced planning to make them possible. Quit throwing out the one and two plane sorties as examples of this happening all the time in WW2. This should only be considered for a special one turn, or one port affair, period!

_____________________________


(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 155
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/28/2004 12:32:22 AM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline 		Halsey, that's pretty much the way it looks to me, too. It's a bunch of coulda woulda shoulda done it, but they didn't really do it did they, and why not? Because they decided it was not fair? Too effective? No, because it was not do-able.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 156
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/28/2004 12:33:53 AM   
brisd


Posts: 614
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline 		Joel - thanks for the post concerning this feature of WITP. Lots of good, healthy discussion on these pages and I agree that the game should not be delayed over this one item. Players can work around it if they don't think it is accurate to depicting 'WITP'. Some of the solutions proposed are fine, with Mr Frag's, Mogami's and your possible resolution being A-OK by me. Someone said leaving your ships exposed to bomber attack in port is foolish to start with whether by torpedo or bomb. Now back to the beta testing!

_____________________________

"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."-Note sent with Congressman Washburne from Spotsylvania, May 11, 1864, to General Halleck. - General Ulysses S. Grant

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 157
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/28/2004 12:42:13 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		I understand the IJN players want this capability to slaughter as many USN ships early in the war. Later on they will wish it wasn't available when US CV TF's with 300+ TBF's and TBM's are strolling around the Pacific in 44 and later.

< Message edited by Halsey -- 4/27/2004 4:45:25 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 158
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/28/2004 1:01:20 AM   
Mr.Frag


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

I understand the IJN players want this capability to slaughter as many USN ships early in the war. Later on they will wish it wasn't available when US CV TF's with 300+ TBF's and TBM's are strolling around the Pacific in 44 and later.


There is no ability to slaughter ships unless you happen to stick them in harms way. It drives me nuts when people come up with these blanket statements.

Mogami sunk 1 of my ships as I fled on turn #2, because I was on a conference call while forming up all my TF's and forgot to issue orders to one of them. I didn't run away on turn #1 which I should point out is completely legitimate should someone care to use this dreaded port attack option. EVERYONE else escaped the fate of this dreaded attack that people keep going on and on about.

Sometimes I want to slap Luskan with his banana for even posting that silly first turn. If Luskan can use Torpedo attacks on port on turn one, then Raver should have formed every ship he owned into task forces and did a "Sir Robin" at both Singapore and PH.

You can't have it both ways. Either both players go full out do whatever you want from game start, or both players accept the historical first turn options presented in the game.

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 159
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/28/2004 1:24:32 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		I think Mogami stated it nicely. Surface TF's are fair game in a port. But, can anyone provide any conclusive information showing that air carried torpedo attacks were made against ships docked in port? Except for Taranto and Pearl Harbor, it just didn't happen. Those operations took extensive planning and rehearsals to carry out. That is why they didn't happen all the time.

_____________________________


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 160
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/28/2004 1:30:25 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		USS Pennsylvania was torpedoed by a Japanese torpedo plane, while at anchor on Aug 12, 1945....Saipen (Buckner Bay)

Fortunately she was in condition Zeb at the time, otherwise she might have been damaged even more seriously than she was.

_____________________________


(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 161
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/28/2004 1:41:35 AM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline 		Good find....but Buckner Bay is off the southeast coast of Okinawa. It is a moderately protected anchorage, but there is no way it could be considered a port by any stretch of the imagination. The entrance is 15 km wide....check it out:
http://webpages.charter.net/jquinn503/map.htm

< Message edited by irrelevant -- 4/27/2004 6:44:02 PM >

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 162
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/28/2004 1:55:12 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		I stand corrected.

However it does highlight the problem of what is defined as a PORT in the game.

_____________________________


(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 163
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/28/2004 2:15:50 AM   
pasternakski


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

ORIGINAL: Halsey

I think Mogami stated it nicely. Surface TF's are fair game in a port. But, can anyone provide any conclusive information showing that air carried torpedo attacks were made against ships docked in port? Except for Taranto and Pearl Harbor, it just didn't happen. Those operations took extensive planning and rehearsals to carry out. That is why they didn't happen all the time.


I know that we have been severely criticized because of our inattention to the fact that geography is different from weapons systems, but my opinion is unchanged. It is, actually, reinforced by what has been said by testers and staff.

We are talking about game, not real-world, mechanics here. Yes, the hexes are 60 nm across. Still, the game must provide a framework within which the players can play the game. If ships are disbanded into a port, one set of rules must apply concerning the enemy's ability to attack them and which weapons they can employ. If ships are docked, but still incorporated into a task force structure, another set of rules governs.

The map is not a collection of satellite photographs. It is a means of rationalizing terrain conditions. Why else would LCUs look like they are swimming around 20 miles at sea, when the actuality is that the graphic depiction of the port merely puts them in that position for information reference purposes?

The players in this game ought to have the certainty that, when they disband a TF into a "port," those ships will not be subject to aerial torpedo attack from level bombers. When they are still assigned to TF command and are merely "docked," torpedo attack ought to be possible for all aircraft capable of executing anti-shipping torpedo attacks.

That gives certainty to the attacking player, as well.

The only problem remaining is for the game to define what is a "port" as opposed to what is an "anchorage." The level 3 development has been an answer in UV. Why not in WitP (at that or another level)?

< Message edited by pasternakski -- 4/27/2004 7:19:49 PM >

_____________________________

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 Halsey)
Post #: 164
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/28/2004 2:20:57 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline 		Good reply, Mogami, but I am still somewhat confused. I remember a thread a looong time ago about being in port and docked and whatnot.

If no one chooses to respond to my questions, I'm fine with it. I can wait to read the instructions. But, in the hopes someone will answer . . .

A TF in port but not docked is subject to naval attack. We consider this something like a fleet at anchorage at Ulithi, offloading supplies at a port not large enough to disband in, or maybe at anchor offshore near the port. Basically, the TF maintains its cohesion and remains under power - maybe a temporary stay or in preparation for leaving.

When disbanded, the ships in the former TF lose their cohesion and just lie around at anchor inside the port. Many are tied up to wharves or whatnot refitting, refueling, etc. These are not subject to naval attack but will be subject to port attack. Their proximity to the port and their stationary position makes them subject to attack when the port is attacked.

I guess my confusion is over TFs that are in port but docked. I gather if you have a TF that is IN port, it MUST be docked. What is the analogy for this? A TF quickly dumping supplies on the dock and then sailing in the morning? I also gather that one actually selects whether a TF is docked or not. If it is not docked, is it then considered to not be in the port? Is an example of this a supply TF with orders to return home after disgorging its supplies?

Anyway, I can wait for the directions if no one answers. If only they would release the darned thing. What about pre-orders? I got some money burnin' a hole in my pocket!

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 165
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/28/2004 2:31:08 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		"Port" means many things:

(a) Ship is tied up to a pier being actively loaded or unloaded.

(b) Ship is swinging at anchor, engines not running.

(c) Ship is in a dry dock/repair yard being actively worked on.


(a) might be attackable, it very much depends on the actual port and it's defenses

(b) might actually be (b1) in a protected anchorage or (b2) in an unprotected anchorage

(c) is the only clear cut case where 100% of the time you can say it's immune!

(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 166
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/28/2004 2:37:40 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline 		Sheesh. So repairs don't work like they did in PacWar, i.e., disband in a port and the civilians immediately get to work on damage. In WitP, you actually have to select a ship to be worked on?

I've got a ton of questions, but I'm not going to annoy anyone anymore. Ahhh, the weather's beautiful outside, and I'm going to go home!

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 167
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/28/2004 2:46:57 AM   
Rendova


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

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag


(c) Ship is in a dry dock/repair yard being actively worked on.


(c) is the only clear cut case where 100% of the time you can say it's immune!


Well I don't know..... if you dropped a live torpedo right on top of a ship in drydock I think you still might do some damage, or at least your make the poor demo guys that had to go out and disarm the thing sweat a little.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 168
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/28/2004 2:55:13 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		I think you hit the nail on the head. Players want to be able to decide when and where to take the risk, but we also want the certainty of knowing when and where they are protected too.


"Long live the Banana!"

< Message edited by Halsey -- 4/27/2004 7:03:14 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 169
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/28/2004 3:04:25 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		"(c) is the only clear cut case where 100% of the time you can say it's immune! "

Well not realy, their were floating drydocks...SWo a Torpedo would defenataly bugger that.And Many ships were severaly damaged in Drydock during port raids by bombers.

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 170
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/28/2004 3:07:16 AM   
Mr.Frag


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

I think you hit the nail on the head. Players want to be able to decide when and where to take the risk, but we also want the certainty of knowing when and where they are protected too.


The only certainty in war is that people die...

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 171
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/28/2004 4:15:37 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		Except that a good commander weighs his options before putting their men in harms way. At least, that is what good commanders do. In reality and in wargames.

Brady, Did you say bomb a drydock? That's a port attack, the question is whether you can have a torpedodivebomber attack a ship in port, isn't it? If it was so easy to knock a drydock out, how come St Nazaire had to de taken out by commandos, when it was within bomber range.

Sure ships can be damaged in drydock. I don't think that is the issue. The question is can ships be damaged by air carried torpedo attacks when not in an active surface TF in a port. That answer is no. Taranto and Pearl Harbor are the only instances in WW2 that it ever occured. ( Read previous threads )

< Message edited by Halsey -- 4/27/2004 8:51:47 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 172
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/28/2004 5:51:48 AM   
pasternakski


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

ORIGINAL: Brady
bugger


Of all the words you misspell, you get that one right...

_____________________________

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 #: 173
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/28/2004 6:11:04 AM   
Brady


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

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 174
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/28/2004 7:44:59 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I may have spotted one of the reasons why there is a torpedo controversy in the
first place. THE MAP IS WRONG. The "as the crow flys distance" from Saigon to
Singapore in the real world is 675 statute miles. On the game map its at least 100
miles shorter, and those 100 miles are a big point in deciding whether a Betty or
Nell can make a Torpedo attack.


Hi Mike,

IIRC, I believe the the max range of a torp carrying Betty/Nell is little over 700mi. At least thats the approximate distance between Rabaul and Lunga and we know Betty/Nells reached there. Besides this isnt just about Singapore or Cavite for that matter although they are the most evident in the AARs. Simply adding some sort of max port capacity to the game would make this problem go away and should make everyone happy.

I think you will find the distance from Rabaul to Lunga is just about 600 statute miles as
the crow flys..., and while the Japanese were certainly able to make torpedo attacks
there they were pretty much "at the end of their rope." At Lunga they had the great
advantage of knowing exavtly where the targets would be before they left---so there was
no need to allow a fuel "reserve" to search the area when they arrived. And there were
plaenty of "friendly checkpoints" on the route to avoid any navigation hazards. It was
about as good a situation for making a long ranged strike as they could hope to get.

The same is basically true of a strike on Singapore (the harbor wasn't going to move)
but the additional 75 miles out and 75 miles back were enough to make the "possible"
into the "totally unlikely". Which is why in reality they waited to intercept Phillips until
the range was down to about 450 miles---this gave them enough "search radius" when
they arrived at the "reported sighting" to hunt down the British TF and attack it with
great success. If the game keeps "stretching" the combat radius of the A/C involved,
it's going to end up playing out in strange and ahistoric ways. It needs to model the
realistic capabilities of the actual war for all airgroups and not be based on a few ex-
ceptional examples.

(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 175
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/28/2004 8:01:57 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Lol! before you Allied Fanboys are finished, you will have the Betty flying less distance the a B-25!

Empty: (G4M1) 14,860 lb (6,741 kg); (G4M2) 17,623 lb (7,994 kg); (G4M3) 18,500 lb (8,391 kg)
Loaded: (G4M1) 20,944 lb (9,500 kg); (G4M2,3) 27,550 lb (12,500 kg)
Maximum Overload: (G4M1) 28,350 lb (12,860 kg); (G4M2,3) 33,070 lb (15,000 kg)
Range at Maximum Overload: (G4M1) 3,132 miles (5,040 km); (G4M2) 2,982 miles (4,800 km); (G4M3) 2,262 miles (3,640 km)

The whole reason the darn things were paper thin was because of the range! There was NOTHING on the aircraft in the way of protection to keep the weight down to keep the RANGE up!

FRAG Nobody's suggestting anything of the sort. At 600 miles in Torpedo Mode the
Betty or the Nell pretty much outrange ALL Allied Medium Bombers in Bomber mode!
Even a B-17 started giving up payload for fuel at 600 miles In Bomber Mode a Betty
or Nell could outrange them considerably (though they certainly couldn't defend them-
selves as well, and their "maxium bombload" wasn't as large). I don't want a "super"
B-25 any more than I want a "super" G4M. What I'm asking for is reasonable historic
norms for ALL aircraft. The Betties and Nells and Mavis's and such get mentioned most
frequently because their real ranges are already extraordinary so when they get "over
stated" they are the most likely to produce problems.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 176
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/28/2004 8:33:38 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, The Japanese did attack Singapore. Just not on Dec 7. They attacked it quite often. They only sank 1 AP but they damaged a lot of ships.
The Landbased bombers that attacked Darwin in Feb 42 came from Amboina Island (about the same distance as Saigon to Singapore (1 hex more on WITP map) And Kendari.
Now Kendari is further away then Singapore from Saigon or Lunga from Rabaul. (But in WITP terms it is still not extend range of Betty/Nell but out of range of A6M2)

Twenty seven G4M1 "Betty" bombers of the Tokao Kokutai, 23rd Koku Sentai took off from Kandari in the Celebes, while another twenty seven G3M1 "Nell" aircraft took off from Ambon. Their target was the airfields in Darwin.

A second raid occurred about 11.55 a.m. and lasted for about 20-25 minutes. This raid was 54 heavy bombers which flew at a great height and indulged in pattern bombing, more than 200 bombs being dropped according to one observer. These bombers were unescorted by fighters. This raid caused much damage to the surface of the RAAF Station and to the Hospital thereon. No attempt was made in the second raid to bomb the town or the port.

(d) The Aerodrome: The hangars and repairs shops were destroyed, the hospital damaged, and damage was also done to the hutments. The losses in aircraft were as follow:-

6 Hudsons destroyed on the ground
1 Hudson in hangar badly damaged
1 Wirraway badly damaged
2 P.40's destroyed on the ground
1 B.24 [Liberator] destroyed on the ground


The round trip to Darwin from Kendari is close to 400 miles further then the distance to Singapore from Saigon or Lunga from Rabaul. The Japanese stopped making these attacks after the Allies began putting up fighters over Darwin since they could not escort them.

I will also point out that the range from Lunga to Noumea is extended range so there will be no torpedo attacks from Lunga on Noumea. (Aircraft only carry half their bomb load at extended range.)

Those who invision taking Midway to stage port attacks also should know it is extended range. No torpedo attacks on ports from Midway to Pearl. (Take Johnson Island)

The A6M2 suffered because the IJN required it to have long range to escort G3M and G4M (delveloped along with A6M2) but it also had to be used by carriers. Had the IJN developed two fighters (one strictly land based and 1 strictly carrier based) they would have been able to design two more robust aircraft. The Landbased model would not have to be as light and the carrier model would only need 1/3 of the range.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 4/28/2004 2:00:57 AM >

_____________________________






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

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 177
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/28/2004 9:06:30 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		In case this was missed before:

"The G3M1 Model 11 could cary a 800KG payload for 1772 statute miles."

Above from Mitsubishi Type 1 Rikko Units of WW2, by Osamu Tagaya.
.........................................................................................................
From an edited post above in case it was missed:

Nells, have almost the same range as Bettys do they are very close.

Some Japanese Buff ranges from Francillion:

Peggy: Normal 1,740 miles , max 2,360 miles. **

Helen: Normal 1,243 miles, Max 1,833 miles (750kg normal,1K max bomb load)

Sally: Normal 932 miles, Max 1,680 miles (Normal 750KG, Max 1,000KG)

Ki-48: Normal 1,274 miles, Max 1,491 miles ***

Nell: Max range(G3M2) 2,365 Nauticle miles/ 2,722 st miles [ (G3M3) 3,871 st miles]*


* Bombload same a Bettys weight wise 800KG (thought the G4M2 and M3 could cary up to 1,000KG of bombs)

** Normal load 500KG, Max 800KG, Torpedo atack either a 800kg or a 1,070 kg Torpedo.

*** Varied depending on model,Ki-48-II 400KG Normal, 800 KG Max.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 178
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/28/2004 9:21:32 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		MOGAMI I never said the didn't attack Singapore. I said they couldn't quite make the
trip in TORPEDO-BOMBER mode. Flying in BOMBER mode, and especially with a reduced
payload, they could range out to about 1400 miles and back.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 179
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/28/2004 9:26:06 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		Torpedo mode in a Bety is: aprox. 1772 statute miles.

Almost the same in a Nell.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
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  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.305