A loadout revisited.

A loadout revisited. (Full Version)

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

Message

Ron Saueracker -> A loadout revisited. (1/8/2006 6:05:12 PM)
Back in Beta it was decided very arbitrarily that 2E bombers could attack ships disbanded in port with torpedoes. I said "noway![:)]" and challenged anyone to find one example of this happening in the war and I'd agree. They never did but it made it in anyway. Hmmmm.[:-] Oh, many cited the Lunga Roads attacks by Betties during Guadalcanal but for arguements sake, Lunga is not a port perse (it is an open anchorage). Disbanded ships in my view are ships nestled into piers, drydocks, warped together in nests etc, in a port which is geographically and physically difficult to fly through and drop torps effectively other than 1E tactical types. Further, seeing as size 3 ports and larger are exempt from sub attack due to net defences I figured the same should work for ports vs torpedo attack as every major harbor had some sort of anti torpedo netting/booms etc. I was just wondering if after all this time anyone actually found an example.[:)] This is sort of like a scavenger hunt question. One real example is all I'm looking for.[;)]

aletoledo -> RE: A loadout revisited. (1/8/2006 7:02:56 PM)
pearl harbor perhaps? or are you only looking for 2e bombers?

Ron Saueracker -> RE: A loadout revisited. (1/8/2006 8:54:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aletoledo pearl harbor perhaps? or are you only looking for 2e bombers? And PH was REALLY a special case considering the USN felt the harbor too shallow for torp drops and did not deploy the anti torpedo defences. But yeah, looking for 2E bombers using torps against ships in a port. Not just restricted to pacific either. This is why I was against it. It did not happen because it probably could not happen. Look at Bari for example. Why did the Germans not use torps?

Dutchgy2000 -> RE: A loadout revisited. (1/8/2006 8:54:37 PM)
[ London Gazette, 13 March 1942 ]. Over Brest Harbour, France, 6 April 1941, Flying Officer Kenneth Campbell, 22 Squadron, Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. In recognition of most conspicuous bravery. This officer was the pilot of a Beaufort aircraft of Coastal Command which was detailed to attack an enemy battle cruiser in Brest Harbour at first light on the morning of 6th April 1941. The aircraft did not return but it is known that a torpedo attack was carried out with the utmost daring. The battle cruiser was secured alongside the wall on the north shore of the harbour, protected by a stone mole bending around it from the west. On rising ground behind the ship stood protective batteries of guns. Other batteries were clustered thickly round the two arms of land which encircle the outer harbour. In this outer harbour near the mole were moored three heavily-armed anti-aircraft ships, guarding the battle cruiser. Even if an aircraft succeeded in penetrating these formidable defences, it would be almost impossible, after delivering a low-level attack, to avoid crashing into the rising ground beyond. This was well known to Flying Officer Campbell who, despising the heavy odds, went cheerfully and resolutely to the task. He ran the gauntlet of the defences. Coming in at almost sea level, he passed the anti-aircraft ships at less than mast-height in the very mouths of their guns and skimming over the mole launched a torpedo at point-blank range. The battle cruiser was severely damaged below the water-line and was obliged to return to the dock whence she had come only the day before. By pressing home his attack at close quarters in the face of withering fire on a course fraught with extreme peril, Flying Officer Campbell displayed valour of the highest order. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ron Saueracker -> RE: A loadout revisited. (1/8/2006 8:57:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dutchgy2000 [ London Gazette, 13 March 1942 ]. Over Brest Harbour, France, 6 April 1941, Flying Officer Kenneth Campbell, 22 Squadron, Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. In recognition of most conspicuous bravery. This officer was the pilot of a Beaufort aircraft of Coastal Command which was detailed to attack an enemy battle cruiser in Brest Harbour at first light on the morning of 6th April 1941. The aircraft did not return but it is known that a torpedo attack was carried out with the utmost daring. The battle cruiser was secured alongside the wall on the north shore of the harbour, protected by a stone mole bending around it from the west. On rising ground behind the ship stood protective batteries of guns. Other batteries were clustered thickly round the two arms of land which encircle the outer harbour. In this outer harbour near the mole were moored three heavily-armed anti-aircraft ships, guarding the battle cruiser. Even if an aircraft succeeded in penetrating these formidable defences, it would be almost impossible, after delivering a low-level attack, to avoid crashing into the rising ground beyond. This was well known to Flying Officer Campbell who, despising the heavy odds, went cheerfully and resolutely to the task. He ran the gauntlet of the defences. Coming in at almost sea level, he passed the anti-aircraft ships at less than mast-height in the very mouths of their guns and skimming over the mole launched a torpedo at point-blank range. The battle cruiser was severely damaged below the water-line and was obliged to return to the dock whence she had come only the day before. By pressing home his attack at close quarters in the face of withering fire on a course fraught with extreme peril, Flying Officer Campbell displayed valour of the highest order. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well done! I wonder if this is the only time this happened. Anyway, it proves it can be done. You win a cookie![:)][&o]

m10bob -> RE: A loadout revisited. (1/8/2006 10:21:53 PM)
Not torpedoes, but I thought "Wallis mosquitoes" had tried to hit the Tirpitz in Norway, but the web reports I found indicated the Mosquito was not structurally sound for this type of bomb.

dtravel -> RE: A loadout revisited. (1/8/2006 10:29:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: ORIGINAL: Dutchgy2000 [ London Gazette, 13 March 1942 ]. Over Brest Harbour, France, 6 April 1941, Flying Officer Kenneth Campbell, 22 Squadron, Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. In recognition of most conspicuous bravery. This officer was the pilot of a Beaufort aircraft of Coastal Command which was detailed to attack an enemy battle cruiser in Brest Harbour at first light on the morning of 6th April 1941. The aircraft did not return but it is known that a torpedo attack was carried out with the utmost daring. The battle cruiser was secured alongside the wall on the north shore of the harbour, protected by a stone mole bending around it from the west. On rising ground behind the ship stood protective batteries of guns. Other batteries were clustered thickly round the two arms of land which encircle the outer harbour. In this outer harbour near the mole were moored three heavily-armed anti-aircraft ships, guarding the battle cruiser. Even if an aircraft succeeded in penetrating these formidable defences, it would be almost impossible, after delivering a low-level attack, to avoid crashing into the rising ground beyond. This was well known to Flying Officer Campbell who, despising the heavy odds, went cheerfully and resolutely to the task. He ran the gauntlet of the defences. Coming in at almost sea level, he passed the anti-aircraft ships at less than mast-height in the very mouths of their guns and skimming over the mole launched a torpedo at point-blank range. The battle cruiser was severely damaged below the water-line and was obliged to return to the dock whence she had come only the day before. By pressing home his attack at close quarters in the face of withering fire on a course fraught with extreme peril, Flying Officer Campbell displayed valour of the highest order. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well done! I wonder if this is the only time this happened. Anyway, it proves it can be done. You win a cookie![:)][&o] I have bolded the part that I think is relevant to the discussion. [;)]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: A loadout revisited. (1/8/2006 11:42:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dtravel quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: ORIGINAL: Dutchgy2000 [ London Gazette, 13 March 1942 ]. Over Brest Harbour, France, 6 April 1941, Flying Officer Kenneth Campbell, 22 Squadron, Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. In recognition of most conspicuous bravery. This officer was the pilot of a Beaufort aircraft of Coastal Command which was detailed to attack an enemy battle cruiser in Brest Harbour at first light on the morning of 6th April 1941. The aircraft did not return but it is known that a torpedo attack was carried out with the utmost daring. The battle cruiser was secured alongside the wall on the north shore of the harbour, protected by a stone mole bending around it from the west. On rising ground behind the ship stood protective batteries of guns. Other batteries were clustered thickly round the two arms of land which encircle the outer harbour. In this outer harbour near the mole were moored three heavily-armed anti-aircraft ships, guarding the battle cruiser. Even if an aircraft succeeded in penetrating these formidable defences, it would be almost impossible, after delivering a low-level attack, to avoid crashing into the rising ground beyond. This was well known to Flying Officer Campbell who, despising the heavy odds, went cheerfully and resolutely to the task. He ran the gauntlet of the defences. Coming in at almost sea level, he passed the anti-aircraft ships at less than mast-height in the very mouths of their guns and skimming over the mole launched a torpedo at point-blank range. The battle cruiser was severely damaged below the water-line and was obliged to return to the dock whence she had come only the day before. By pressing home his attack at close quarters in the face of withering fire on a course fraught with extreme peril, Flying Officer Campbell displayed valour of the highest order. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well done! I wonder if this is the only time this happened. Anyway, it proves it can be done. You win a cookie![:)][&o] I have bolded the part that I think is relevant to the discussion. [;)] Yes, that is relevant. Did not see this. I wonder if anyone can find another example? My point is, why allow something in the game to be repeated every time a port is attacked that was never done, or done once by one guy who died? Still makes little sense to me from an accuracy standpoint.

ChezDaJez -> RE: A loadout revisited. (1/9/2006 4:01:39 AM)
quote: done once by one guy who died? I think the fact that he died is irrelevant. The fact that he, and he by himself, completed his mission before dying is. The closest thing that I could find on the Pacific side (other than PH) so far was the Kwajalein raid by the Enterprise in Feb 42. 9 TBDs launched against shipping in Kwaj lagoon with torpedoes, evidently with some success. Granted those are 1E bombers and it is a large lagoon however many of the same obstacles would be present. I wouldn't think it would be that big a deal for Bettys or Beauforts to raid an enemy harbor. After all, Japanese midget subs penetrated Sidney harbor sinking a barracks ship and US subs penetrated Tokyo Bay on several occasions despite extensive anti-torpedo netting. I would expect that if subs could do it, aircraft could too. Chez

Ron Saueracker -> RE: A loadout revisited. (1/9/2006 4:57:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez quote: done once by one guy who died? I think the fact that he died is irrelevant. The fact that he, and he by himself, completed his mission before dying is. The closest thing that I could find on the Pacific side (other than PH) so far was the Kwajalein raid by the Enterprise in Feb 42. 9 TBDs launched against shipping in Kwaj lagoon with torpedoes, evidently with some success. Granted those are 1E bombers and it is a large lagoon however many of the same obstacles would be present. I wouldn't think it would be that big a deal for Bettys or Beauforts to raid an enemy harbor. After all, Japanese midget subs penetrated Sidney harbor sinking a barracks ship and US subs penetrated Tokyo Bay on several occasions despite extensive anti-torpedo netting. I would expect that if subs could do it, aircraft could too. Chez My point is this. I think too many open anchorages and large lagoons with little or no actual port infrastructure get too high port size values. To me a lagoon or anchorage, while big or not, is simply a lagoon and as such, can serve as a dock facility but really, it should not be larger than a size 2 (should not be able to disband ships and be proof vs subs and there is no capacity limit in the game anyway). Stick a whack of support ships there as the US did with Ulithi, Majuro etc but this in no way compares to a Soerabaja, Singapore, San Francisco, Kure or Sydney. I can see 2E bombers torping ships in Truk, but at Mare Island? By differentiating between true honest to goodness ports and simple yet large anchorages/lagoons by limiting the latter to size 2, the ships here would still be subject to naval air strikes with torpedoes but ports with proper defences and difficult physical features are minimum size 3 to allow disbanding of ships and restricting 2E and larger aircraft to bombs only would not be hard swallow and would mimic the reality of the situation better than allowing the rare to become the norm as is now thecase.

ChezDaJez -> RE: A loadout revisited. (1/9/2006 5:22:41 AM)
quote: but at Mare Island? Could possibly have been done at Alameda, certainly Los Angeles harbor. I think the best way to model it is to have two variables. One to indicate port size (or the number of ships that can be present: anchored or docked) and one indicating the level of infrastructure at that port. This system could also be applied to airfields. Unfortunately, that would require a rewrite. <sigh> Chez

Ron Saueracker -> RE: A loadout revisited. (1/9/2006 7:19:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez quote: but at Mare Island? Could possibly have been done at Alameda, certainly Los Angeles harbor. I think the best way to model it is to have two variables. One to indicate port size (or the number of ships that can be present: anchored or docked) and one indicating the level of infrastructure at that port. This system could also be applied to airfields. Unfortunately, that would require a rewrite. <sigh> Chez I suggest that ships at Alameda are still in a TF but docked...they are not disbanded and in the tight confines of the yard.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.015625