What I'm REALLY waiting for!

What I'm REALLY waiting for! (Full Version)

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

Message

Bart_Breedyk -> What I'm REALLY waiting for! (5/14/2002 4:07:29 AM)
OK, I had pretty much finished this post and decided to put up a quick disclaimer at the beginning. As you read this, please bear in mind that I am NOT a military man nor anything more than an amateur Historian with an interest in the Pacific Theatre. As such, these are my opinions, and since I wrote this entirely from memory without access to the few books I have on the subject, some of my 'facts' may very well be in error. Please feel free to comment on what I have written here, I just ask you refrain from flaming me, as I will not respond to these kinds of messages at all. I AM interested in your views on this subject, let's please just agree to keep it civil. There, now that I have that off my chest, please continue! :) As much as I am anticipating the impending arrival of Uncommon Valor in my mailbox, it will merely whet my appetite for War in the Pacific. I very much look forward to trying out different strategies on both sides to see if they will make any signficant difference on the war's outcome. The best weapons the Americans had were their factories, but what would have been the impact of streamlining some of their production? Now, alot of my decisions which follow have the benefit of nearly 60 years of hindsight, but then what the hell, this IS a game after all. Some of the production oriented things I would like to try are; 1) Scrap Torpedo bomber squadrons completely! Convert all of these aircrew to divebombers (specifically Dauntlesses), likewise do away with torpedo bomber production in lieu of Dauntless production. Now, understand I don't have anything against the Avenger, an excellent aircraft from what I've read, but it seems to me that the divebomber squadrons did far more damage in the war than any of the torpedo bombers did. OK, there's Pearl Harbour, Taranto, and the Bismarck to name a few, but I feel that these are exceptions. The first two were agains large, stationary targets at anchor in harbours, and the last was a lucky hit that jammed the rudder, but HOW many vessels of all nations were sunk by dive bombers? Too many to name. So, in order to keep production and logistics to a minimum, do away with torpedo bomber squadrons completely and concentrate on a more effective platform, the dive bomber. 2) Commit to only one aircraft design per type, as follows; Heavy Bomber: B24 for it's better bomb load (I believe) and range over the B17 Medium Bomber: The B25 just for it's incredible versatility, mounted everything from bombs and rockets, to bunches of .50 calibre MG's and even a 75mm cannon! Naval Fighter: Probably the Hellcat, although my heart is with the Corsair. There really isn't alot of differences between the two, but the F6F was in production for quite ahwile before the Corsair. Naval Bomber: Well, see above. Land based Fighter: The P38, although the P51 is more maneuverable, an extra engine is alot of comfort when flying over vast areas of the Pacific Ocean. Hmmm, maybe the Corsair could fit into this role. 3) Naval vessel construction; The most important vessel in the theatre could, arguably, be the merchant vessel. Without supplies, the best men and the best war machines are completely useless, and to that end I would make sure a steady supply of these workhorses left the shipyards. The second vessel I would concentrate on would be the fleet submarine. Ton for ton the submarines were the most capable naval unit of the war and if the US were to produce as many as she could, the waters around the Japanese home islands would become a very dangerous place. In order to free up manufacturing and supply resources for the merchies and the subs, I would probably scrap, or at least severly curtail, Battleship production. Each one of these big old boys would free up a lot of steel for other projects that would bear fruit much quicker than the battlewagons. Lastly, but CERTAINLY NOT the least important, the Carriers. The Second world war was the 'coming out' party for the carrier, and the US certainly mastered this new naval power. Here I believe I would sacrifice Escort and Jeep carriers in favour of fleet carriers. The primary job of a carrier is to carry, fuel, and arm aircraft and no ship did this better than the US Fleet carrier. I realize the escort carriers had their role to fulfill, especially with convoy escort duties, but I wonder if their job could have been fulfilled just as, or more, easily by fleet carriers, once US production got up to full steam. I have to admit that it does seem a bit of a waste, though. Destroyer and cruiser production I would probably not touch at all, except for maybe sticking with one design per class. I certainly don't want any of those nice, shiny new Essex class carriers steaming out of port without a sizable destroyer escort! Army and Marine production I would not touch at all, except maybe to concentrate on the Marines a bit more, specifically making sure they had plenty of landing craft to fulfill whatever tasking comes their way. In the end, I guess you could say that I believe that the US 'out produced' Japan, I'm just interested to see if the war could have been shortened abit with the few tweaks I mention here. As always, comments are most welcome. Bart

Sinjen -> (5/14/2002 4:23:46 AM)
Well, in some ways I see your point about torpedo bombers. However, your overlooking the effect they may have had on defensive cap formations when they attacked. The torp bombers came in low and slow forcing the cap to come down to the same level to chase them over the waves. Its hard as a fighter pilot not to want to dive down with all that energy and get the easy kills. This could setup things so the dive bombers could come in completely unharassed by the cap that was wave-hopping after torpedo bombers. This of course was shown in the movie "Midway." I am not going to say I know for sure if it was realistic. However, I know that torpedo squadrons suffered extremely high attrition while dive-bombers were considerably lower. Perhaps some of our more knowledgeable lurkers here could elaborate on whether the combined attack of torp and dive bombers was made more effective due to this historically.

Scouters -> Torpedo Bombers (5/14/2002 6:38:43 AM)
Are there any history buffs who could explain why the USN kept torpedo bombers in use for such a long time? Why not put all SBD's on carriers until the TBF was available in significant numbers? -Scouters

Johnny Canuck -> (5/14/2002 7:44:41 AM)
Torpedo bombers played an important part in the Battle of Matapan, and the destruction of Force Z was due to aerial torpedoes. Also, the battleship Musashi was sunk on 24 October 1944 on the way to Leyte Gulf by USN carrier-based torpedo bombers. I'm not 100% sure about this, but I believe that most USMC land-based bomber squadrons were converted from dive-bombers to torpedo-bombers in 1944 because the torpedo-bombers could also be used as level bombers against land targets and so used could carry a larger payload than the Dauntless dive-bomber. Sinjen - You are right about Midway, but the timing of the dive-bombers arriving just after the torpedo bombers had drawn the Zeros down to sea level was an accident. In fact, I believe that the plan had been the opposite, in that the dive-bombers would attract the attention of the Zeros while the more vulnerable torpedo bombers snuck in to launch their torpedoes.

byron13 -> (5/14/2002 8:31:48 AM)
Barticus: As for the general message in your post that you would like to have free reign over your production, I don't argue with you. If you look through the threads in this forum, you will see that the "production thing" has been debated to death. There are some that would prefer a strictly historical production system for good reasons. I think most of us agree that a good compromise is for the game to allow for both historical production and an optional ahistorical production system for those people like you that want to play around with "what ifs." As for the torpedo bomber comments, I'm sure you will get some very knowledgeable replies. I would guess that torpedo bombers were a very good idea pre-war. No one could foresee whether they would be effective in an actual war, but the concept is very good. A torpedo carries a bigger wallop than most bombs - especially pre-war - and can do considerably more damage since it hits below the waterline. I could also see where it might even be more accurate in tests since you only have a one dimensional aiming problem, e.g., how much to lead the target, rather than a two-dimensional problem with dropping a bomb. I can't quote any statistics on effectiveness once the war started - especially against well-defended fleets. While they certainly weren't designed to be CAP-bait for the benefit of the SDB's, I'm confident that the brass did consider the high/low approach to be an advantage in that it did cause problems for any CAP, and this problem was exemplified at Midway. I would also guess that torpedo bombers were at least as effective and probably more so than SDB's against merchant shipping where the torpedo bomber could bear in very close to the target without much fear of CAP or AA. I'm sure someone will comment with historical data on that last point. How effective they are in a computer game is obviously subject to the programmer's biases. Personally, I'm going to keep them in, but I support you in your efforts to be allowed the option to not produce them.

Bart_Breedyk -> (5/14/2002 9:07:54 AM)
Well, I guess the short version of my post is that I WOULD like control over production in order to experiment with different force mixes. I also realize that the intended mission of a combined torpedo/dive bomber attack was to be a co-ordinated attack on the target, but that seemed to be rather difficult to accomplish. One thing is for sure, the US was lucky that their dive bombers arrived over the Japanese carriers exactly when they did (at Midway). Johnny: I know that the Musashi was sunk by multiple torpedo and bomb hits, however, since the Avenger was a torpedo bomber which was also capable of carrying a bomb load, I can't say for sure whether that aircraft was the only one responsible for her sinking. While the torpedo bomber proved effective at both Matapan, and against Force Z, both of these battles were fought when the defending vessels had no CAP whatsoever. I also can see the advantages a torpedo would have over a bomb, I can only imagine damage below the waterline would be more difficult to repair. All in all, I guess we'll all have to wait for the game to be released before we know for sure. Byron: It seems to me that the compromise that you mention would be a perfect solution to the production question.

Ranger-75 -> (5/14/2002 9:52:33 AM)
I like the idea of streamlining production, you can do it with the current version of Pac War. I settle on one type at a time until a better one comes along. Start with P40s move to P38, then P47 finish with P51s. Only producing one at a time. The pools grow substantially leaving plenty of "left overs" for the Dutch and even the Chinese air groups. I keep one British fighter and fighter-bomber in production too. The thing about torpedo bombers depends on one's perspective. The Japanese made much better use of their torpedo bombers than the US, this was due to a lot of different condisitons; 1: The planes, the B5N Kate was much better than the TBD Devastator but the Avenger was far superior to the Kate and was equal to the B6N Jill, which arrived on the scene after Japanese naval aviation was at rock bottom. 2: The torpedos, the Japanese type 91 areial torpedo could initially be dropped from a higher height (200ft vs 50 ft) and at a faster speed (200 mph vs 110 mph) than the US Mark 13 aerial torpedo. ths restrictions on US Mark 13s contributed to the losses suffered at midway, however, one month prior when there was proper fighter escort and a reduced Japanese CAP, the Devastators helped sink the CVL Shoho, getting several hits. also by the later part of the War, the same Mark 13, with some simple modifications could be dropped from 2000 feet at 400MPH, quite an improvement. The Mark 13, by the way did not suffer from the Mark 14 (sub launched) torpedo's problems with running too deep nor expolldong and broken firing pins, etc. It also had a bigger warhead from the start than even the later model Japanese type 91s. The Mark 13 had an overall 40% hit rate, not bad at all. By the way, the type 93 (long lance, 24in) torpedo was ONLY used on surface ships, not in subs or aircraft. That was a fine torpedo, but it does not bear in this situation. 3: CAP and escorts, the IJN usually sent out coordinated strikes which included fighter escorts. They also usually kept a CAP over their carrier TFs. They also concentrated their CAP efforts on enemy torpedo planes thereby further contributing th the losses of US torpedo squadrons. The US, early in the war had a difficult time making coordinated strikes, and the poor TBDs sufferred. 2 out of 3 TBD squadrons at Midway had no fighter escort, the sufferred 15 of 15 and 12 of 14 losses. The one that did have an escort managed to get 4 planes back (they had only 6 Wildcats as escort) The early US CAP fighter direction was also not as good as it was later, allowing some planes to get through. Note though out of the 18 planes in the first Japanese strike at the Yorktown (at Midway, 6 Zeros, 12 Vals) only 5 planes made it back. Of the second strike only 3 I think made it back. The Vals could suffer just as bad as the Kates. It was the poor performance of the Devastators that made the US shy away from usaing Avengers as torpedo bombers initially, however, at Eastern Solomns and Santa Cruz, they showed that with escort they could get through and score hits. That plus the fact that the Avenger was a good dive bomber too, kept the US from fully using their Avengers as torpedo bombers. Lastly, about US heavy bombers, the B24 initially had both a longer range and a heavr bomb load than the B17, but later modifications to the B17 allowed it to approach the B24 on both counts. The B17 was far eaiser to fly and was much more durable. It also had a better armamanet of 11-15 well placed M2 .50 caliber MGs than the B24. That didn;t matter since the US high command transferred all the B17s to Eurpoe during 1942 for the air war over there, leaving the B24 (with its initial longer range) in the Pacific, where the longer range helps.

Raverdave -> (5/14/2002 12:58:27 PM)
No I think that the torp bomber is being sold short here. When they were able to get an hit the target they did a fantasic job....look at the Hornet....still under steam even after 4 to 6 hits from dive bombers but it was the torp strikes that stopped her dead in the water. And don't forget what the RN did to el Duce's navy with a few old swordfish. Certainly if the torp bombers were left to "go it alone" they suffered, but in a combined attack that was well planned and executed with dive bombers and fighters they did well.

Admiral DadMan -> (5/14/2002 10:20:32 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Barticus [B]Johnny: I know that the Musashi was sunk by multiple torpedo and bomb hits, however, since the Avenger was a torpedo bomber which was also capable of carrying a bomb load, I can't say for sure whether that aircraft was the only one responsible for her sinking. [/B][/QUOTE] For the record, Musashi took 17 bomb and 19 torpedo hits in the Sibuyan Sea on 24 October 1944. :)

Armorer -> (5/14/2002 11:41:51 PM)
Greetings, Just a note regarding the effectiveness of torpedo bombers. First, if you wish to do away with them, I agree, there should be that option. God knows, I've wanted to in many of GG's games. In all of his games ( at least the ones I've played ), he seems to have modeled the American TBs using their performance from June through October of 1942, when, as near as I can tell, they scored zero hits on Japanese warships. As such, they are nearly useless in his games (PacWar, Carrier Strike, Guadalcanal Campaign - going way back I know). This is very ahistorical - as Ranger said previously, the Mark 13 was dramatically improved, and once this happened, American TB performance improved drastically. That doesn't happen in any of GG's games that I've played. I'm hoping that UV and WitP both do a better job of modeling late war American TB performance. Heck, even the early war Mark 13 was adequate if the conditions were right (which admittedly was very rare), i.e. the Japanese CAP could be neutralized and a coordinated attack could be delivered, with both the dive bombers and torpedo bombers arriving on target at the same time. Witness the attack on the Shoho at Coral Sea - when both the [I]Yorktown[/I] and the [I]Lexington[/I] attacked the [I]Shoho[/I] simultaneously. Both carrier's air groups arrived over the Japanese carrier simultaneously and in full strength. In minutes, as many as 11 bombs and 7 torpedoes sent the [I]Shoho[/I] to the bottom. There were 22 TBDs involved in the attack - how many of you have ever managed to get 7 hits with 22 attackers ( TBD or TBF ), in any of Gary's games. Don't get me wrong: I don't want to sound like I'm attacking Gary. I love his games, and still play them after more than 10 years. I just feel he got this aspect wrong and hope he has made some adjustments in the games we're all waiting for. BTW, here's a great link if you want to see an awesome sequence of pictures showing the [I]Shoho[/I] dying. [URL]http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/coralsea/cs-3.htm[/URL] Just scroll down to the bottom. Best, Randy

Admiral DadMan -> (5/14/2002 11:49:20 PM)
"Scratch one Flattop!"

sbond -> (5/16/2002 2:46:10 AM)
I to can not wait for War in the Pacific, this game is just a stop gap until they get the big one out :)

thantis -> (5/16/2002 3:15:27 AM)
The Avenger became the standard US Carrier bomber of the war, for the reason that it could be just as effective as level/dive bombing as it was a torpedo bomber. It was also one of the only bomber aircraft that could be retrofitted with radar. The Devastator Torpedo Bomber was a disaster, and the replacement to the Dauntless (the Helldiver) took too long to get into production. The Avenger could carrier twice the bombload of the Helldiver at a greater range, and was just a better aircraft for the period (not many Jap ships left to torpedo, and bombload was considered more important). Towards the end of the war, less than 10% of aircraft on US Carriers were dive bombers, the rest were fighters and Avengers. It was the beginning of true multi-purpose aircraft, and with fighters able to carry 500 - 1000lbs of bombs on their own, the mission-specific dive bomber became obsolete. With the trend on US carriers during the war to carry more and more fighters (up to 2/3 of the aircraft on the carrier) the crews needed bombers that could fulfill more than one combat role, and the Avenger was the best aircraft we had available. Carrier Construction - Of course the Navy would have loved more Fleet carriers earlier in the war, but given that construction times on the Essex-class were still 14 months + at full production there was an immediate need at the beginning of the war for more carriers. The US Navy couldn't afford to wait for Fleet Carriers in early 1942, so converting ships to light and escort carriers was an easy way to redress the balance and provide more air cover for their forces in the Pacific. Roosevelt actually pressed the idea of escort and light carriers on the Navy (who really weren't interested), but Roosevelt believe they could provide excellent anti-submarine protection. Even into mid-1943 there were never enough carriers to go around, and any additional hulls were much appreciated by the marines and sailors in the area. Other Classes - The US Navy would have been much better served by not commissioning the Alaska-class Battlecruisers (which were huge white elephants with no real mission left to fill), and getting at least two to three more Essex-class for the same amount of effort that would have been ready much sooner anyway. The US did manage to keep the number of destroyer classes to a relative minimum, but with the advancing technology (including radar and improved fire control) it was not always possible to retrofit and upgrade the existing designs (many built under the Washington Naval Treaty's limitations), so new designs were necessary to take full advantage of the new technology. The US also built several hundred DE's (destroyer-escorts) as a stop-gap measures until more destroyers could be built to deal with the German submarine menace in the North Atlantic and provide proper escorts for the Carriers in the Pacific. See also the production of CLAA's (dedicated anti-aircraft cruisers) which also pulled yeoman duties during the Solomons Campaign, suffering heavy losses in the numerous surface actions there (including the Atlanta & Helena - including the five Sullivan Brothers). Battleship production was curtailed, with the Iowas being the only new battleships completed during the war- (although the Pearl Harbor survivors were extensively updated). Battleships also pulled yeoman duties at bombardment ships, assisting some of the tougher landings in the Pacific. Landing ship production was in high gear beginning in 1942, but remember that the Germany-first strategy meant the Eisenhower got first crack and the landing craft resources - you have Operation Torch in 1942/43, Sicily and Italy in 1943, and Overlord in 1944. After Overlord, you find the massive transfer of resources to the Pacific which allowed all of those landings at Guam, Saipan, Tinian, the Philipines, Iwo Jima & Okinawa. If the US only had Japan to worry about, the war in the Pacific probably would have ended at least a year earlier than historically, but the war against Germany required the most in committed resources - although the Pacific Front was by no means ignored, just certain items were rarer in the Pacific Theater than in Europe.

madflava13 -> (5/16/2002 10:34:13 PM)
US torp bombers had a major effect later in the war. Besides the aforementioned roles, they were the number 1 CAS aircraft of the war for the CVs covering landings - they were also used as aerial FOs during many of the landings. In addition, they did torpedo a huge number of ships, we just don't hear about it because many of them were merchants in and around Truk, the Phillipines and Formosa during TF 38/58 strikes. I am all for letting players pick and choose what they want to produce - just don't say the Avengers didn't do a good job!

Admiral DadMan -> (5/17/2002 2:35:45 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by thantis [B]The Avenger became the standard US Carrier bomber of the war, for the reason that it could be just as effective as level/dive bombing as it was a torpedo bomber. [/B][/QUOTE] Level bomber yes, dive bomber, no. The Avengers had no dive brakes... [QUOTE][B] See also the production of CLAA's (dedicated anti-aircraft cruisers) which also pulled yeoman duties during the Solomons Campaign, suffering heavy losses in the numerous surface actions there (including the Atlanta & Helena - including the five Sullivan Brothers). [/B][/QUOTE] You're thinking of CLAA Juneau wrecked 12Nov42 by IJN warships at Battle of Guadalcanal then sunk by torpedo 13Nov42. Helena was a St. Louis Class CL sunk 5Jul43 after being hit by 3 Japanese torpedoes at Battle Of Kula Gulf [QUOTE][B] Landing ship production was in high gear beginning in 1942, but remember that the Germany-first strategy meant the Eisenhower got first crack and the landing craft resources - you have Operation Torch in 1942/43, Sicily and Italy in 1943, and Overlord in 1944. After Overlord, you find the massive transfer of resources to the Pacific which allowed all of those landings at Guam, Saipan, Tinian, the Philipines, Iwo Jima & Okinawa. [/B][/QUOTE] The Marianas campaingn (Saipain, Tinian, Guam) were still limited by the landing ship shortage, as they all came off within 1 month of NEPTUNE/OVERLORD

Svar -> (5/17/2002 7:48:37 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Admiral DadMan [B] You're thinking of CLAA Juneau wrecked 12Nov42 by IJN warships at Battle of Guadalcanal then sunk by torpedo 13Nov42. Helena was a St. Louis Class CL sunk 5Jul43 after being hit by 3 Japanese torpedoes at Battle Of Kula Gulf [/B][/QUOTE] Wow, I learn something new every day. I always thought the St. Louis and Helena were Brooklyn class cruisers but Jane's actually list those two as St. Louis class because of the new 5" gun arrangement. Unfortunately Jane's doesn't mention that during the war the 40 mm AA guns were increased to 20 in CL. 40,41, 28 in CL. 42,43, and 24 in the rest including CL. 49,50. Svar

Admiral DadMan -> (5/17/2002 9:59:52 AM)
Apparently the St Louis Class was essentially a modified Brooklyn..

Ranger-75 -> (5/18/2002 12:18:27 PM)
The only difference I can tell about the St Louis and Helena vs the rest of the Brooklyns was that these two last ships has 6 torpedo tubes each, but that was all before the war, after the war started there were numeroue refits invloving AA gun enhancement so that no two "class" ships were alike any more. You can adjust the Mark 13 torpedo's accuracy and range in the editor to make it more damaging. It already has a larger warhead rating that the Japanese type 91 torpedo.

Svar -> (5/18/2002 12:51:23 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ranger-75 [B]The only difference I can tell about the St Louis and Helena vs the rest of the Brooklyns was that these two last ships has 6 torpedo tubes each, but that was all before the war, after the war started there were numeroue refits invloving AA gun enhancement so that no two "class" ships were alike any more. You can adjust the Mark 13 torpedo's accuracy and range in the editor to make it more damaging. It already has a larger warhead rating that the Japanese type 91 torpedo. [/B][/QUOTE] The St. Louis and Helena were built with 8 5" 38 cal guns in dual mounts while the earlier Brooklyns were built with 8 5" 25 cal guns in single mounts. There were other small differences as well so the silhouette was slightly different.

showboat1 -> (6/30/2002 7:38:09 AM)
Whichtwo CL's had TT tubes. I thought that the only US cruisers with TT tubes were the Omaha and Atlanta classes. As far as torp bombers go, I agree that in PACWAR the US TB's get short changed. But hey, why not add the TBY Sea Wolf as a possibility. It was considered far superior to the TBM but the move to single seat attack craft meant it would never reach full scale service.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.25