|
Local Yokel -> RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea (9/23/2008 1:23:26 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheElf
quote:
ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheElf
quote:
ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
While I'm about it, I count 20 torpedo drops by the TBD's. With Sho. charging around with a 34 knot capability and the Mark 13's having a speed IRO 33.5 knots, isn't a 20% hit+detonation rate just the teensiest bit on the fortunate side?
Are you saying that 24 Virtually unscathed TBDs should NEVER be able to score 4 Torp hits on a CV?
No, I'm not, because that's not the state of affairs revealed by the combat report.
24 TBD's participate in the attack. Of these, 4 are shot down, and 16 take damage. That leaves only 4 unscathed machines. Of course, I can have no idea how many of these casualties occurred before weapons release and how many after - from the defender's perspective I would hope my CAP and gunners would concentrate on those attackers who had yet to release their weapons.
Likewise I have no idea whether there is any correlation between the number of undamaged TBD's and the number of torpedo hits obtained. The fact that in both cases that number is 4 may be entirely fortuitous.
The other thing I know is that, whilst the Mark 13 later became a highly reliable aerial torpedo in a wide range of drop conditions, such wasn't the case in May 1942. This from the Navweps site:
"The early models were handicapped by the need to drop them low and slow - 50 feet (15 m) and 110 knots - which made the torpedo planes carrying them more vulnerable to attack. The torpedoes themselves were found to be prone to defects. In mid-1943, an analysis of 105 torpedoes dropped at speeds in excess of 150 knots found that 36 percent ran cold (did not start), 20 percent sank, 20 percent had poor deflection performance, 18 percent gave unsatisfactory depth performance, 2 percent ran on the surface and only 31 percent gave a satisfactory run. The total exceeds 100 percent as many torpedoes had more than one defect."
What I'm saying, therefore, is that with possibly as few as 4 aircraft in optimal condition to stay within the small airspeed/altitude window required for a successful drop, the attainment of 4 hits out of 20 is a good outcome for the attackers.
And that's before any account is taken of the target's capacity to evade or outrun such torpedoes as were running 'hot, straight and normal'. For a comparison, take a look at dumpy ole' Kaga's dismissal of the Torpedo 6's attack at Midway. The attackers split into two 7-plane divisions to catch her in a simultaneous assault from two directions, but the coordination isn't quite there, and Okada is able point his stern at both divisions' drop so that she combs the wakes of each. This at a maximum speed six knots less than the 34 knots of which Shokaku is potentially capable in the attack under consideration.
Hey, I merely suggested, in mild terms, that the attackers had somewhat fortunate results. Given the factors referred to above, I stand by that. What I said isn't open to re-interpretation as a claim that 'This could never have happened.' I've seen enough of the part played by fortune to know better. I only hope that the result posted IS a reflection of such fortune, rather than the norm.
I didn't intend to come off defensive. I genuinely wanted to know if your statement was intended to question the legitimacy of the result or just a casual observance. Just curious.
Your reply in either case was unnecessary as most of what you stated is in consideration by the code already. We have dud hits and FoW often provides misleading reports. In fact, though I don't remember, it is entirely possible that of the 4 hits, at least one was a dud. Also in this case the IJN attackers report no less than 6 torpedo hits on Lex in three different engagements and I can assure you she is alive and well with no more than 50 float damage.
I also tend to agree that this result is MOST fortunate, but also hold to the belief that something like this is POSSIBLE, however given varying circumstances you'd also find it's PROBABILITY would vary proportionally.
We only have a handful of CV vs CV clashes from which to draw conclusions. I would submit that there are endless possibilities vis a vis the end state of any one match. Had there been opportunity to replay each of the CV battles as we know them I would fully expect the results to be different each time. So much of it was left to chance...
Oh, and by unscathed I meant by the CAP. A TBD attack that has managed to sneak past the CAP would be in order and at least able to deploy a proper anvil attack up until the point where AAA became and overriding factor and would thus benefit from something approaching better than average results. Something that didn't happen IRL...
Elf, sorry, on re-reading my reply I see I may have adopted an excessively combative tone, and if so I apologise.
No, not my intention to challenge the result's legitimacy; it was a perfectly feasible outcome, albeit fortunate for the USN. It also crossed my mind that FoW might have played a part in what was reported.
It seems there's little or no difference between us in our assessment of the degree to which fortune played a part, and it's good to see it confirmed that the code takes account of the factors I mentioned. I agree completely with what you say about the likelihood that a repeat of each engagement will play out differently, and elsewhere I've commented on the danger of extrapolating too much from the handful of clashes that actually took place, be they on sea or in the air.
If it is accepted that this was an outcome that was unusually favourable to the USN, then, yes, it is one that should only occur occasionally. Otherwise there are two possibilities to consider. First, that some shortcoming in the combat resolution mechanism is skewing the results away from one's preconception of what they should be. Second, that the mechanism and its inputs are good - in which case it's time to ask whether, perhaps due to the dearth of historical evidence, such preconceptions are themselves wrong.
|
|
|
|
