|
TIMJOT -> (11/3/2003 2:31:35 AM)
|
[QUOTE=madflava13]Timjot,
I'm not referring to massive carrier attacks, I'm talking about strikes such as Halsey's attacks in the Phillipines/Formosa regions, etc. Attacks where one or two planes find a freighter or other ship holed up somewhere and sink it. A lot of those attacks used torpedos. I'll try to scrounge up some sources later on. I know I've seen photos of those strikes as well.
I agree some ports were not suitable for torpedo attacks. However, unless there is the ability to code in the game the exact geography of each and every port, there's no real way to restrict it.
For example, Simpson harbor at Rabaul was huge - an S boat penetrated quite some distance into it early in the war. I don't know whether torpedo attacks were carried out there ever, but if a whole sub can get in there, surely a TBF could drop a torpedo. Wewak harbor was penetrated by the Wahoo in 1942 I believe - she sank a Chidori class PC in there. Clearly planes could do the same. Truk as you mentioned was a huge lagoon - definitely ok to use torps there.
The main problem isn't getting enough room to have the torp arm, its the problem of approach and pull-out for planes. US torpedos only needed a few hundred yards of run-time to arm. Almost every port in the world of any consequence has that much room. In my opinion, there's also certainly enough ports in the game where a torpedo bomber could approach from seaward, drop and then pull out in time. I think the minority of ports are the ones where this isn't possible. I would even say PH is such a port, but the Japanese still managed to pull it off with their mods. In that respect I think this is a feature that should still be included.
You may have a point with respect to twin engine bombers. They'd certainly require more room for approaches and drops. I just don't want to see CV-based torpedo attacks taken out because they didn't happen historically. I think they could have happened in many ports, and therefore should still be in the game. My two cents...[/QUOTE]
I think you might be surprised just how few ports were suitable for torpedo attacks. Regarding subs, they are not really pertinent to the discussion. Minus subnets and mines any sub can pentrate a harbor. Planes need much more room and a clear flight path to launch attacks than a sub. Its really not just a matter of arming. Ports have jetties, breakers, sandbars, warfs, piers, floating docks torp nets ect... that tend to get in the way of planes flying in 100s mph. This is less a problem in large natural anchorages like Truk, but there arent that many Truks in the pacific. Manus and Rabaul's Port Simpson comes to mind as they were large but not very developed ports.
Again look at history the USN did not use torp bombers in the Kure/Yokosuka Pearl harbor revenge raids in 1945. Kido Butai did not use torp bombers at Darwin, Colombo, and Tricomalee. Actually Pearl Harbor is a good example just how difficult it is. The IJN torp pilots trained for months for the attack yet despite a large stationary broadside target (Battleship row) only about dozen torpedos out of some 40 torpedo bombers taking part, found their mark. We have to assume the vast majority of those torps either failed to arm, got stuck in the mud or failed to raze to the proper depth.
That being said, since as you stated the game engine doesnt really differentiate betweens ports, harbors, anchorages, and roads. So there is probably no easy way to model it realistically. Maybe instead of restricting torp attacks in ports. All that is needed is additional disruptions hits on torpedo bombers to limit their effectiveness in ports.
Regards
|
|
|
|
