RE: American torpedo bombers - Is this a bad roll or normal?

RE: American torpedo bombers - Is this a bad roll or normal? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room

Message

wdolson -> RE: American torpedo bombers - Is this a bad roll or normal? (1/29/2014 12:52:11 PM)
At Pearl Harbor the torpedo bombers were aiming at stationary targets which are pretty easy to hit. All the torpedo carry Kates had crews that had seen combat in China and they trained very heavily for that particular mission within a bay in Japan. Japan's pre-war naval aviator program was the toughest and longest in the world. I believe most of the crews were in their mid-20s and had been training for many years. US torpedo bomber crews by 1944 were horribly out of practice. Few had dropped a live torpedo in their careers. Avenger accuracy with live drops at the Philippine Sea and Leyte were awful. By the time of the attack on the Yamato in April 45, they had gotten their mojo back. That particular point is not germane to this discussion since the crews in question were trained for torpedo skill (their real war counter parts were probably somewhat lower).

LoBaron -> RE: American torpedo bombers - Is this a bad roll or normal? (1/29/2014 1:19:33 PM)
Besides what Bill said, picking average results from random AARs hints at a 45% hit probability on average. So if you average out @"80%+" you are one very lucky sandboxer Spence. [;)]

Gaspote -> RE: American torpedo bombers - Is this a bad roll or normal? (1/29/2014 1:49:29 PM)
300 TB, I think they were so much, torpedo hitted each others so only a few of them really hit a ship [:D]

witpqs -> RE: American torpedo bombers - Is this a bad roll or normal? (1/29/2014 2:10:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson quote: Two issues here, Allies torpedo bombers ARE treated differently, the Japanese torpedoes are more effective, this is a known fact. quote: ORIGINAL: Spidery Looking in DBB, the Japanese torpedo has an accuracy of 31 and the American of 27. However, the American one has a range of 6 as opposed to the Japanese one of 2. Hypothetically, if the torpedoes are being dropped at a longer range then the code may significantly reduce the chance of a hit against a target of small size and high manoeuvrability, such as a DD. Presumably, there is a compensating reduction in the exposure to flak. I haven't looked at this section of code, but I strongly doubt there is any bias in the code for nationality. It sounds like something in the DB is wrong if the Mk 14 has a range of 6 and the IJN aerial torpedo has a range of 2. IJN torpedoes had longer range than US torpedoes. Bill It's a bit mystifying why the OP considers it a "known fact" when developers have debunked that sort of claim many times in the past. There is one thing that would make a significant difference, depending on game date. The dud rate of the USN aerial torpedoes is (in the game and was IRL) horrible until certain fixes were made. This is reflected in the game by the same code that 'fixes' all (meaning including submarine) torpedoes in two steps on certain dates. After the second of those fix dates, torpedoes in the game have a dud rate of at most 10%. Here is the manual section. quote: 6.4.2.1 NOTE ON TORPEDO DUDS In January 1943, all torpedoes with a dud rate of greater than 49 have their dud rates reduced by 20. In September 1943, all torpedoes with an adjusted dud rate greater than 20 have their dud rates lowered to 10. Allied torpedoes were notoriously inefficient in the early stages of the Pacific War, and this rule reflects their slow but steady improvement over the years. Note: if the Realism option “Reliable USN Torpedoes” (see section 2.4.7) is selected, this rule does not apply – no torpedoes will have dud rates higher than 10%. Second is the part of Bill's post that I put in bold. I wonder if that range difference causes the combat routines to allow the USN TBs to 'release' their torpedoes at greater range, thereby incurring a lower chance to hit? A similar thing happens sometimes in surface battles with the Japanese Long Lance, getting launched at very long range and missing (presumably when the commander/crew fail checks to get closer before launching).

hades1001 -> RE: American torpedo bombers - Is this a bad roll or normal? (1/29/2014 2:53:09 PM)
My personal experience with US torpedo bombers are very, very bad. Compare to Japanese torpedo pilots who has about the same level of experience/skills, they are pure crap. It's either the planes or the torpedoes to blame. I take them only because I need to deal with Japanese battleships. However,given this hit rate, I probably won't use them again. Any other ways to deal with battleships effectively?　1000lb bombs just don't work.

jeffk3510 -> RE: American torpedo bombers - Is this a bad roll or normal? (1/29/2014 3:33:33 PM)
Using a an Allied torp bomber's default load until the torpedo dud rate is lowered in 43 is a very good tactic.

spence -> RE: American torpedo bombers - Is this a bad roll or normal? (1/30/2014 7:31:16 PM)
quote: US torpedo bomber crews by 1944 were horribly out of practice. Few had dropped a live torpedo in their careers. Avenger accuracy with live drops at the Philippine Sea and Leyte were awful. By the time of the attack on the Yamato in April 45, they had gotten their mojo back. From what I've found at Philippine Sea only 6 TBMs from VT-24 (Belleau Wood) actually carried torpedoes. They got one hit on Hiyo. Not that good maybe but the sample size is pretty small too. At Leyte the US VTs hit BB Musashi, CA Myoko, CV Zuikaku, CVL Zuiho, and CL Noshiro with both Musashi and Zuikaku collecting at least ten torpedo hits each. In Musahi's TROM and in the other Center Force TROMs from Combinedfleet.com there is also repeated mention of being hit by 1000 lb and even 500 lb AP bombs. Having never gotten to the latter stages of the game, does it only allow American dive bombers to carry the 1000 lb SAP which can be employed from turn 1?

LoBaron -> RE: American torpedo bombers - Is this a bad roll or normal? (1/30/2014 10:04:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson It sounds like something in the DB is wrong if the Mk 14 has a range of 6 and the IJN aerial torpedo has a range of 2. IJN torpedoes had longer range than US torpedoes. Bill Bill, I did a bit of research, and I do not think there is a DB problem. The values reflect the historical performance at least according to my high level research (I am sure John or Don could chime in with much more accurate data...) First (but I guess that was a typo), the USN airdropped torp is the 22in MK13 Torp, not MK 14. Second, the range of the MK13 in the DB seems to be the best possible approximate of the MK13-1. http://www.hnsa.org/doc/torpedomk13/torp005.htm cites a range between 4000 (MK13) and 6000 (MK13-1) yards, the WitP AE DB uses a range of 6(K yards). In comparision the http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTJAP_WWII.htm cites the IJN 18in Type91 torp with 2200 yards, the WitP DB again shows best approximate at range of 2000 yards. The IJN torp accuracy in the DB is higher by about 23% in comparision, looking at the historical torpedo max speeds this seems plausable. So, if the torp range results in a radically different hit rate, this is definitely not an error in the database, but instead in how the data is used by the game engine. And for this to be the case the often reported and dreaded "laser guided accuracy" of MK 13s launched by Catalinas does not support the theory very well. Finally, from personal experience I must say that, in case I do not inadvertedly set the damned Avengers to NavS again, I achieved satisfying results depending on the environment. e.g.: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on TF, near Shikuka at 130,44 Weather in hex: Overcast Raid spotted at 18 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 7 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M5 Zero x 3 Allied aircraft TBM-1C Avenger x 38 Japanese aircraft losses A6M5 Zero: 2 destroyed Allied aircraft losses TBM-1C Avenger: 3 destroyed, 12 damaged TBM-1C Avenger: 1 destroyed by flak Japanese Ships CVE Hosho CVE Unyo, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk CVE Taiyo, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk Edit: [X(] I never noticed that my Avengers shot down 2 Zeros in that battle. Must have been a Saburo Sakai moment... or: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Ketoi-jima at 131,45 Weather in hex: Light rain Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 36 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M5 Zero x 7 Allied aircraft FM-2 Wildcat x 24 TBM-1C Avenger x 26 No Japanese losses Allied aircraft losses FM-2 Wildcat: 1 destroyed TBM-1C Avenger: 5 damaged Japanese Ships BB Haruna, Torpedo hits 1 BB Hiei, Torpedo hits 2 CA Nachi BB Mutsu, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk Aircraft Attacking: 6 x TBM-1C Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo 6 x TBM-1C Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo 7 x TBM-1C Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo 7 x TBM-1C Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo

crsutton -> RE: American torpedo bombers - Is this a bad roll or normal? (1/30/2014 11:59:25 PM)
Unlucky turn. It happens. Still I doubt if your opponent is all giddy about the results...[;)]

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.28125