RE: Brady Translation

RE: Brady Translation (Full Version)

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

Message

madflava13 -> RE: Brady Translation (2/22/2004 9:32:56 PM)
For me that won't cut it, because all the "evidence" you've provided still only amounts to a cite from one book and multiple photographs that have no frame of reference. There's no date or other caption on the photos. For all I know, they could have been taken on one day. Who knows without some more information? You can collect all your evidence into one post if you'd like, but it still amounts to weak evidence in my mind. Before you state something as fact you need multiple seperate sources. You have not done so. Multiple unlabeled photographs don't equal proof in my mind, no matter how many you produce. Authentication is the key word here, and you've not provided it.

Nikademus -> RE: Brady Translation (2/22/2004 9:35:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brady Nikademus, I showed in a former post or two that acording to sources at the Naval Histrical sight, at least two ships at pearl were hit with or bombed with these lighter Bombs, and i have explained Brady that the wave one mission of the Val's at PH was airfield suppression, not naval attack. your "source" only quotes a sailor who 'thought' he saw a Val drop quote "a couple of bombs" (read: not a "trio" of bombs if your contention is correct) I do not consider this "conclusive evidence" Wave two WAS a naval attack. USS Nevada absorbed a great deal of this strike. There is NO reference to her being attacked or struck by a 60kg bomblet. Does this indicate Vals had 3 bombs as standard loadout? not in my book. quote: in adation to this their is the land based sortie you sight and the Sant Cruz referance assuming Lundstrum is wrong, while a bit scetchy they do point to their use aganst Naval targets, certainly far more so that say A Wildcat which has the abaility in the Game to be used in a Naval strike capacity even though having done so very few times. The loadout of these land based Vals was 2 x 60kg ONLY. Not 1 x 250kg and 2 x 60kg that you want so badly for all naval attacks. quote: Part of the problem with finding a referance to the lighter bombs is the simply the way they work, the larger ones make holes in things that can and could me meashured, the lighter ones simply blow up and would of hit in or near the impact point of the 250 KG bomb, if they did at all. . Uh uh, that doesn't wash. We have mounds of proof of bomb hits of a majority of calibers and types. Were 60kg's standard load, and with Vals carrying two each....there would be PLENTY of potential for observations of use, recorded hits and damage. quote: Half the Val Photos I posted were clearly of D3A2's, and since these only built during the war they would half to be wartime shot's, of the other D3A1, one was in a paint scheam that was almost ashuradely wartime and the other could of been, I could repost and give detailed descripions of each pick and others if you like. Again, if they were traing they would of likely been using traing bombs, of which I can post scans of, they are very differnt from real Bombs. I've said my piece on the photos. I will not repeat it anymore. Accept it or disagree as you wish Japanese naval doctrine for Dive bombers did not include "tactics" for suppressing AA fire as you implied. The principle tactical dilemma explored by the Japanese was the "acknowlegement" that at the time of attack they might suffer heavy losses so the emphasis was on achieving as large a # of hits with heavy anti ship bombs as possible to score a decisive blow. Suppressing AA is useless if the bombers have already made their attack and suffered heavy losses. This is straight out of Kaigun and Sunburst which Do NOT at any point state that the Japanese used 60kg's as a standard part of naval attack. Closest you get, is Nagumo's failed experiement at Eastern Solomons where he sent in the Dive bombers first in the 1st wave to "damage" the enemy to the point where it was safe enough to send in the Torpedo bombers for the 2nd wave to reduce their losses and increase success rates due to attacking slowed and damaged warships. The tactic cost Nagumo potential victory. As Mogami said.....we can leave it up to the programmers.

SouthernAP -> Photography is not always the truth (2/22/2004 10:37:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brady AA Supreshion figures only for strikes aganst Heavely aremd ships, as was the inteneded role of the lighter Bombs when so carried as noted above as well, for strikes aganst Ligher ships and for airfield and ground atack these would be fairly effective weapons, this is why they are shown above to be used for such strikes, and are shown in photos as well. Even lighter bombs could be usefull aganst Ships as evidanced by the Sinking of: A Japanese DD of Wake by a Wildcat armed with 100 pound bombs, which aparently hit the Depth charges and promply sunk her with all hands. First off the strike by the Marines against this DD was a lucky strike. The only way to add luck to any game is through the use of dice. Second of all with regards to USN doctrine of fitting thier fighters with bomb racks was an attempt by the admirals through the late 20's and early 30's for the role of flak suppression. They did train with thier use but as stated in a very good book on USN divebombing tactics Destined for Glory: Dive Bombing, Midway, and the Evolution of Carrier Airpower by T. Wildenburg publised in 1998, in it he stated that by mid-30's all of the USN fighter commanders and a larger number Captains and even Adm Reeves and Towers realized that flak suppression was not the job of fighters and rather thier role was to protect the fleet from opposing aircraft and protect the bombers on thier way to thier pitch over points. After that no guns on any ships would be able to elevate high enough to engage USN/USMC divebombers in thier 65-75 degree dives. This is how all the Scout bombers and bombing units trained was dives near the verticle 90 plane. No one else in the world went to this extreme everyone else went to towards a dive bombing angle of 50-55degrees though this assures a very, very accurate delievery of the weapons it still enables a number of mounts such as the 1.1in AA guns and even the 20mm guns to effectively engage the targets. In this book he also mentions the pratice of carrying 100lb bombs by SBD units. They did do this during scouting flights during the early carrier raids. But dropped it after Coral Sea since it decreased the range and the bombs were proven ineffective against anything short of wooden fishing fleet of Japanese. As I stated in a previous post that was one of the one that disappeared in this topic, for all wee know the two pictures you posted of Vals could be from any time and any place early in the war. Heck the shot of the two painted in green taking off from a jungle field could of been from a unit that might of been based in the Philippines or home islands preparing to do a kamaikaze strike. The shot of the Val taking off from a carrier could be it flying in support of operations in China or even against the British Indian Ocean bases. Photograhpy does not make a vaild reference. Finally, this is a truth that everyone has known for since the first heavier then aircraft took off from the ground. For every ounce in weight that you add to the aircraft the more drag you add and the less fuel you carry. The less fuel you carry and the more drag you have the less range you have. The less range you have the closer you have to be to the bad guys. Closer you are to him the greater chance he has a chance to see you. Can you see where this is going? The whole idea is to see the bad guy first get in your licks first and hopefully put a big enough hurt on him that they won't be able to return the favor to you. Also just because an aircraft is listed as capable of carrying weapons doesn't always mean that it did so during combat or even together with other loads. I know that my favorite post war aircraft the AD-1 Skyraider was rated to carry torpedos. It only used that capability once during the Korean war to destroy the slucie gates of a hydroelectric dam in N. Korea. The rest of the time they carried bombs and rockets depending on the mission.

Brady -> RE: Brady Translation (2/22/2004 11:08:00 PM)
1)From a Post by Nikademus: "Contrary to US reports, the aircraft [D3A] did not carry a pair of underwing 60kg bombs. None of the carrier-based kanbaku did." This statemnt is plane wrong based on: * "Instead, the underwing containers held aluminum powder to be dropped on the water as a marker to aid the post attack rendevous." As we have sean From: , this is prety much bogus as well. "Damage control parties wrongly thought that one of these non-existant 60kg bombs had detonated. " Now since the Planes did not cary wing mounted (or so the refrences sugest) it must of been a 60 KG bomb. John Lundstrom, First Team and the Guad campaign. footnote that acompanies the paragraph: The Kodaochoshos are explicit on armament; for the navagational markers and the 250kg bombs, see OpNav 30-3mm, Handbook of Japanese Explosive Ordinance (15 Aug 1945) This in general is incorect based on: TM-1985 and , OPNAV 30-3M which does not suport this in any way, and the refrences from the naval historical center as well as discount this. ............................................................................ 2) http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/wwii/pearl/ph75.htm This show Two not one witness in different locations seeing bombs from Vals, 60 KG bombs as they must of been being used aganst a Ship, that is the second refrence. "The first warning of the attack on board was the noise of explosions. The Officer-of-the-Deck the, at about 0755, saw a Japanese dive bomber come in very close and drop a couple of bombs. He sounded general quarters and, as the guns were manned, fire was opened with all A.A. guns, using ammunition from the ready boxes. The machine guns opened up first, and the 3", using preset fuze setting of 2.5 seconds, shortly afterwards. The starboard 3" gun was blanked off through a large arc, by the crane on the dock but managed to fire from time to time. The machine guns on the Motor Torpedo Boats on deck opened fire shortly after the Ramapo. " The Gunner officer observed: "First observed that a bombing attack was in progress about 0755. I heard a couple of explosions and rushed out on deck just in time to see a Japanese dive bomber come in very close and drop a couple of bombs" The Only Dive bombers at Peral were Val's and if the one they observed droped more than one bomb it must of been carying Wing bombs. " Buried in the Same sight is a refrence regarding bombs which were preportedly smaller than the 250 KG type that impacted a BB and caused damage on deck but did not penatrate, in fact mention was made of several hits, I can dig up the exact link if nescessary, but it would show another ship hit with them. ..................................................................... 3) As to the potential effectivenss of smaller bombs on a Naval target: p.24 Wildcat the F4F in WW2: Bomb equiped F4F-3 carying 100 pounders hit the fantial of the Kisaragi with a 100 poundr(and MG fire) and set off the depth charges, the destroyer promptly sank with all 150 crewmen. ............................................................................. 4)p. 49 - "The D3A1/2's main weapon was a single 250kg bomb carried in a swing displacement crutch under the central fuselage. Wing loadings were usually of two 60kg light bombs on underwing racks under both wings. These could be released either separately or as one combined bomb load according to target and circumstances." This statemet shows the plane was indead capable of and intended to be used to cary a three bombload. From: * and suported by **. ............................................................................... 5)p.51 - "60kg Bomb - There were two types, one for use against naval targets and the other against land targets. The latter, although known commonly as the '60kg' bomb, was actually of 58kg (128lb) and used an impact firing pin. These were used against parked aircraft on the ground at Ford Island and Hickham Field in the Pearl Harbor strike. Against naval targets, they had a mainly flak-suppression role." Hear we see how the 60KG bomb was offered in two primary configurations, one clearly intended to atack a naval target and the other could be used for various atacks, if the Naval bomb type was not intended for use why mention it? From: , and suported by ** .................................................................................... 6)P.73 describing the attack on Wake Island - "The fourteen 'Vals' from Soryu were each armed with a single 250kg bomb, and were commanded by Lieutenent Commander Takashige Egusa. They had an escort of nine Zeros. The fifteen 'Vals' from Hiryu, each of which was armed with four 60 kg bombs (all that were left aboard), were commanded by Lieutenant Michio Kobayashi and had an escort of nine more Zeros." The interesting thing about this is that it possibly suggests an alternative armament of four 60 kg bombs. I've seen reference to there being 5 bomb racks in all but I've never seen a photo of or description of that that I recall. p.74 describing a later attack on Wake - "In total, the 'Vals' took part in two separate sorties that day. At 0409, Soryu launched a force of six Vals led by Lt. Masataka Ikeda, escorted by six Zero fighters whose leader Lt. Seiji Suganami, was a classmate of Ikeda. The dive-bombers attacked the island from 0530 to 0545 dropping six 250kg bombs of which four appeared to be direct hits on military targets, with two misses. The Vals then conducted some strafing passes and all returned safely to their carrier at 0718 without damage or casualties. The second wave consisted of six D3A1s, led by Lieutenant Michio Kobayashi from Hiryu, which launched at 0500 and again had a six-Zero escort. Again, they only had 60kg bombs and they dropped two of these each on military facilities and conducted strafing runs between 0645 and 0650. Bullet holes were found on ten of the Hiryu aircraft but none were lost or put out of action by these hits and there were no injuries. The surviving 5in batteries were the main targets and appeared to have been well hit. There followed three further attacks by the Kates from both carriers which used up the final stocks of the 60kg bombs on Hiryu." He states that the raid on the Darwin airfield used only the 60kg bombs as well and there's at least a couple of combat reports in the book that reference the use of the wing bombs, but they weren't generally used. " This clearly shows a lot of use of the 60KG bombs for various atacks across a wide range of targets, from CV's no less, clearly the bomb type was carried by the Japanese CV's and put to use on several ocashions. This From: * ........................................................................ 7)From Nicadurmos,seems that a set of land based D3A's did indeed launch a raid on Lunga carrying the bomblets early on....however again....it was not a STANDARD loadout....they ONLY carried the bomblets vs the "normal" loadout of 1 x 250kg SAP for anti ship work. They attacked and damaged an auxilery vessel. The mission nor the armament was what i would consider 'standard'. the mission was a 1way suicide mission and the armament was improvised and not very effective. This does show agin the use of the lighter bombs aganst shiping, the 4th such referance, though it canot be said to be improvised as an aramament given the above mentioned referances. ............................................................................................. Including the Naval historcal center sight, their are over 6 different sources being sighted hear. Including Lundstums refrence to the Sant Cruz... * = Aichi D3A1/2 Val" by Peter Smith = OPNAV 30-3m & TM-1985-5 *= Refrences for the Vals preformance and bombload other than Smiths book, they include Francillion, Enclipida of Combat aircraft of WW2, and several other aircraft refrence books. ........................................................... Regreatably the strongest evidance is chosen to be compleatly ignored hear and this is the wealth of photographic evidance.

madflava13 -> RE: Brady Translation (2/22/2004 11:29:08 PM)
Brady, without authentication, all the photos in the world mean exactly squat. Thats the point we're trying to get across to you. I can post photos all day long, but unless I can show with conclusive evidence where they came from and what the circumstances surrounding them are, they mean nothing. One of my favorite quotes is "Whenever you assume, you make an ass out of "u" and me..." What you're doing is assuming a system-wide practice based on two instances (one of which is an unreliable first hand account of "a couple of bombs") and many unsupported photographs. If you had more than the same two instances you're harping on, or if there were photographs that were conclusively labeled "D3A1s taking off from "X ship" to strike "Y target" on "Z date," then I might be convinced. Finally, and this is simply a personal plea that I hope you don't take the wrong way, but is there any way you can run your posts through Word or some other program for a spell-check? I think you have a lot of good things to contribute here, and I've enjoyed hearing your fresh perspective on issues in this game, but it's really hard to read your posts sometimes...

Brady -> RE: Brady Translation (2/22/2004 11:43:22 PM)
"Brady, without authentication, all the photos in the world mean exactly squat" I would agree with this in general, howeaver I have a few books that help me to see things in photographs, I will do an example after this post. "one of which is an unreliable first hand account of "a couple " I am asuming nothing, I am trying to show this did hapen, granted a lot of the show is from photos which as we all know dont go over well hear. Their were two (2) men who witnessed this as well, not one. "Finally, and this is simply a personal plea that I hope you don't take the wrong way, but is there any way you can run your posts through Word or some other program for a spell-check? I think you have a lot of good things to contribute here, and I've enjoyed hearing your fresh perspective on issues in this game, but it's really hard to read your posts sometimes... " If you could sugest one I would be willing to try it.

Brady -> RE: Brady Translation (2/23/2004 12:55:15 AM)
Below we see a Val D3A1, the paint scheam is Type S, paint scheam, two solid collors one upper one lower, this scheam was active in 42-45 time frame,Tail code identifys this plane as belonging to the 33rd naval airgroupe, operational in the Indonishian theater in late 42. Note the bomb points on the wings, this is revelent because these are Comonly sean in Photos . [img]http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/421457064/0.jpg[/img] [img]http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/421457072/0.jpg[/img] The primary source for the above observations is: Japanese Naval Air Force Camouflage and Markings World War II, by Donald W. Thorpe, though I have a couple other books that help as well.

pasternakski -> RE: Photos (2/23/2004 1:02:30 AM)
Okay, we see the bomb points under the wingtips, something I have seen at least a hundred times before. What does this do to advance an argument that the standard loadout for Vals - including carrier-based aircraft - was one 250-kg. bomb and two 60-kg. bombs?

mogami -> I-boat float planes (2/23/2004 1:08:22 AM)
Has anyone mentioned that certain I-boats have floatplanes onboard now? E14Y1 "Glenn" I just noticed this and I have played 34 turns now as Japan. (I assumed all the scouting was allied PBY) I'm going to bomb Washington.......(state)

Brady -> RE: I-boat float planes (2/23/2004 1:32:47 AM)
"Has anyone mentioned that certain I-boats have floatplanes onboard now? E14Y1 "Glenn" I just noticed this and I have played 34 turns now as Japan. (I assumed all the scouting was allied PBY) " WOW, now that Is cool:) "Okay, we see the bomb points under the wingtips, something I have seen at least a hundred times before. What does this do to advance an argument that the standard loadout for Vals - including carrier-based aircraft - was one 250-kg. bomb and two 60-kg. bombs? " Because if they were not going to be used they would be removed, in some phots they are taken off.

Brady -> RE: I-boat float planes (2/23/2004 1:56:57 AM)
D3A2, from the Nagoya NAG (tail code characters read Na Ko), this unit was for land and Carrier traing for Vals and Kates, in service from 4/1/42 to 8/45. [img]http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/421457111/0.jpg[/img] Previously posted Pick, shows D3A2's, unknow unit, 42 or later(type and paint scheam donte this), all bombed up and looking for love, location unknow, though it looks like the war Zone and a not training base, which were typicaly large well built up airfields. [img]http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/421453201/0.jpg[/img]

Brady -> RE: I-boat float planes (2/23/2004 3:09:02 AM)
From Smiths Book: [img]http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/421457157/0.jpg[/img] Below Priviously posted, D3A1, taking off from what is most certainly the Akagi, collor scheam looks to be Type 0, one collor over all (except antiglar engine cowling), Collor is Either Medieum Gray, or light gray, if the former it is 42 ish (which matches with the Akaki Island configuration shwon in the pic), or the later (light gray) which would place the time frame between 38-43, dificult to tell, though the tower and the first schem seam to be in sink: [img]http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/421453203/0.jpg[/img]

SouthernAP -> RE: I-boat float planes (2/23/2004 7:52:10 AM)
First off sorry to those with slow connections. D3A's taking off from a carrier. No visable references to 60kg bombs on the wings [image]http://www.aviation-history.com/aichi/d3a-2a.jpg[/image] A D3A1 in flight somewere with only a 250kg bomb [image]http://www.ijnafpics.com/JB&W/D3A-1.jpg[/image] D3A's taking off from a carrier with only a 250kg bomb [image]http://www.ijnafpics.com/B&W/jnavals2.jpg[/image] D3A inflight with only a 250kg [image]http://www.ijnafpics.com/JB&W3/D3A-14.jpg[/image] D3A infligth with only a 250kg. [image]http://www.ijnafpics.com/JB&W4/D3A-51.jpg[/image]

Brady -> RE: I-boat float planes (2/23/2004 5:24:41 PM)
Their are several photos showing D3A's with just the one bomb, and their are several showing them with the 3 bombs present, for long range flights the vals only carried the one bomb, this has never been in dispute. .................................................................................................................. Bellow posted in reply to an inquiry of mine on another thread: I suppose IJN aircraft enthusiasts must have this Val series No.30 october,1972,Bunrin-Do Co. Got this at Wembly Model Engineering Exhibition 1979. Have no other books of Vals,though. BTW2 There was an interesting crew story of a Val, where his Hiko-tai(land -based)had to use 60 kgs bombs on South Dacota class BB off Bugen Ville in late 1943 (several hits observed), their initial order was to attack enemy convoy vessels.He regretted having not carried 250 kg AP. His minute description of how he met with sworms of cap fighters, then after all the fighters�having flown away, the on-set of severe AA screens from a circular group-formation of this US fleet (the formation was totally intact regardless attacks)leaving it�s beautiful wakes behind,is found in this book. BR This does the use of the 60KG bombs vs a Naval target.

Damien Thorn -> RE: I-boat float planes (2/23/2004 6:03:37 PM)
Not that this is 100% relevant to the discussion at hand but the D3A also had it's standard range reduced to 7 in the UV patch where it aquired the 2 sixty kg bombs. It wasn't a free addition. Before there existed a range (8) where the Japanese could launch a normal range strike and the US could only respond with long-range dive-bombers. Now that is not possible. I think there has been enough evidence presented in this thread to show that the D3As were capable of carrying the 250 and 2 60 kg bombs and it should be left that way.

Brady -> RE: I-boat float planes (2/24/2004 5:32:39 AM)
This is a bit more interesting: .................................................................. ---is found in this Val book of 1972. Chief Sgt.Ichigi Eiichi fought under senior lieut. Takahashi of ZAUIKAKU , then he was forwarded from Truk to a land base near Rabaul with his Val. The day after his arrival, 3 A.M. heand his Hiko-tai receives order to attack US cargo vessels off Taro-Kina. Carry extra fuel tank instead of 1 x 250 kg bomb, but only 2 x 60 kgs.See friedly light cruisers/bbs seemingly not in good shape,headig back home to Rabaul. Spot enumerous amounts of enemy fighters in the south of Bugen Ville. Friendly Zekes move forward to intercept. Other Zekes fly in gigzags behind of them for protection. He thinks,such a lot of enemy fighters must be a proof of existance of a big game below,and all the Vals drop extra fuel-tanks. More than 100 enemy fighters come approaching. He sees one zero vs. 2 -4 enemy fighers fighting here and there in the air above. Sees many Zekes and Vals ablaze and in smokes,falling down. Suddenly he notices enemy fighters disappear from the sight. Can now hehold a splendidly formed circular-fleet formation just below their noses. His narration goes on until he safely gets back to the base. -- it�s too long to tell at one breath.. BR/mucho

madflava13 -> RE: I-boat float planes (2/24/2004 9:03:10 AM)
Brady - asking a huge favor here -- every time you want to post? Please type it into Word or Word Perfect first. Then run a spell check... Cut and past to Matrix, ok? Sorry, but the fact of the matter is - when I can actually understand what you're saying, I have a hard time giving it any credit because of the errors. I know that seems cheap, but I personally have such a hard time crediting anyone who can't spell anything... I've read your posts and you have great things to say -- please don't let us lose them in the spelling errors...

Brady -> RE: I-boat float planes (2/24/2004 5:44:16 PM)
Posted on another forum, I beleave the felow who is doing the posting Is Japanese and his spelling is a bit off, but then so is mine, I am not faultiing but I am trying to post his replys as they come: "Judging from the afore-mentioned one CV-Zuikaku Val prior to taxing out with the 3x bombs-loads on a Philippine land base in� late 1944�, the bombing mission of this Vals is undoubtedly supposed to be for any US Fleet off the Philippines (also according to the caption). BR " madflava13 , I do see your point, and yes it does sound cheap, and I do relise that this is a probelm for some folks, frankely if some want to flick me sh!t over the spelling I figure i deserve it for the suffering some must indure who do indead take the time to sort the chaf from my posts to get to the meat of the matter. I dont have word perfect, or any other such programe curently on my PC.

Brady -> RE: I-boat float planes (2/26/2004 6:47:12 AM)
Slightly off topic, but I wanted to put this hear for future referance: It has come to my atention that Kates used the # 80 land bomb hear as well from another forum: "During Indian Ocean Kido Butai's Type 97s used 800kg land bombs exclusively, whereas Type 99s used 250kg exclusively. The 800kg land bombs really did a number on dock facilites in Ceylon, etc., and one has to wonder what the outcome of an attack on the PHNYd might have been! Wenger " ................................................................................................... A bit more detail regarding the use of 60 KG bombs from Lundstrums book: Lundstrom's 'The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign". There are a couple of references to Val attacks with 60 kg bombs. In one instance a fuel barge was hit, causing heavy burn casualties on a converted destroyer along side. The later Val 22 had four wing racks for 60 kg weapons. ' Cheers! Greg "

mogami -> Val and 60kg (2/27/2004 9:41:16 PM)
Hi, The 60kg dropped during PH strike were droped by Kate not Val. The Val in PH strike force did not have wing bomb mounts. Bombs used in strike. Bombs: � Type 99 #80 mark 5 - 800 kg armor�piercing, for attacking capital ships � Type 99 #25 Model 1Ordinary bomb, for attacking ship targets � Type 98 #25 Land bomb - 250 kg bomb, for attacking land targets � Type 97 #6 Land bomb � 60 kg bomb, for attacking land targets Torpedo: � Type 91 Modification 2 � 800 kg The deployment of the weapons is as follows: 800 kg bombs: high level Kates � Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, Hiryu 250 kg ordinary bombs: second wave Vals - Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, Hiryu 250 kg land bombs: first wave Vals � Shokaku, Zuikaku Mix of 60 kg and 250 kg land bombs: second wave Kates - Shokaku, Zuikaku Torpedo: Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu, Soryu

Brady -> RE: Val and 60kg (2/27/2004 9:54:27 PM)
Yes I just saw this report, in fact from another source Mogami, the case for their use from Vals at pearl was the weakest realy, aparently the Bombs that did not penatrate on the BB example sighted above were the land bomb types carried by the Vals that detonated , and the ones that pentrated were the Anti Shiping bombs.

Brady -> RE: Val and 60kg (2/29/2004 6:25:35 AM)
In respons to questions I put forth on another forum regarding this subject: ................................................................................................................ Posted By: John Lundstrom Date: Saturday, 28 February 2004, at 9:10 a.m. In Response To: Re: No VB 60kg Bombs at PH (brady) Brady, your specific questions I believe refer to my account of the Battle of Santa Cruz. The kodochoshos (combat logs) for every mission describe the bombs used (800 kg, 250 kg or 60 kg), so the payloads of the planes are known, but they may have also carried and dropped other non-explosive devices. I found several instances in the 1942 carrier battles where Japanese planes dropped something that the USN thought were bombs, but the kodos show they carried no bombs. On 7 May 42 at Coral Sea, three Kates made a horizontal run against the Neosho and Sims nearly two hours before the fatal attack and dropped something that the USN thought were bombs. Yet these Kates all carried torpedoes, not bombs, and they never attacked with torpedoes. Likewise at Santa Cruz a single Japanese plane in a glide bomb run dropped something that disrupted efforts to tow the Hornet. Photos show that plane was a Kate, which had to be one of the contact planes that carried no bombs or torpedoes. Also in the Zuikaku Val that hit the Hornet the 250-kg bomb failed to explode (it was discovered inside the ship), but the USN thought because of the damage that lighter bombs also carried by the Val had detonated. They also, I recall, found aluminum powder spread around. The kodos show those Vals only had 250 kg bombs and no 60s. Obviously in these instances something other than light 60 kg bombs were being employed. I discovered in OPNAV 30-3M Handbook of Japanese Explosive Ordnance (15 Aug 45), p. 248, reference to Navy Navigation Markers that seem to fit the bill. I may be wrong, & my access to Japanese sources is limited, but these navigation markers seem the only plausible explanation for these odd events. Believe me, I know that my work is strictly preliminary and that access to new information will surely modify and correct what I have written. That's the way history works. All I can plead is that I took my best shot at the time (10+ years ago) based on all the evidence I could find. All historians make mistakes. I reserve my contempt only for those who don't do their homework before writing.

Brady -> RE: Val and 60kg (2/29/2004 5:41:40 PM)
More From Lundstrum: .......................................................... To answer your questions, I found no case from May to Nov 42 of a D3A1 launched on a strike from a carrier where anything but the 250 kg-size bomb was carried. I also found at least two occasions on long range strikes to Guadalcanal where land-based D3A1s carried only two 60 kg bombs. I have not researched any missions by D3A2s. That being said, I know carrier-based D3A1s did fly anti-sub patrols and very likely carried 2 60 kg bombs. I personally do not know of any occasion where D3A1s carried one 250 kg and two 60 kg bombs at the same time. Regarding the 800-kg bombs, that was the standard load for the B5N2 Kates when attacking land targets, although the 6 Ryujo Kates did carry 6 60 kg in the 24 Aug 42 strike on Guadalcanal where it was hoped to catch the US planes on the ground. I never heard any mention of 500 kg bombs during this period. .................................................................................................... His research pertains only to the time frame mentioned above May to Nov. ....................................................................... Somthing else that has just come to my atention, and posted by: Do you have access to a copy of AICHI D3A1/2 VAL, by Peter C. Smith, published in the UK by The Crowood Press, 1999 ISBN 1 86126 278 7? States that both D3A1/D3A2 had provision for five bomb racks, one under fuselage (for 250kg bomb) and two under each wing (for 60kg bomb); but includes table that states max bomb load for both was 310kg/783lb. Also states that a 500kg bomb could be carried if the rear gunner was left out and very rarely done. Only two photos showing mixed bomb load: A photo of a Val carrying three bombs, caption: "A 'Val' bombed-up with under-wing bomb load in place poses for the camera on a shore base in Japan. Author's collection from D3A Type 99 Carrier-Borne Dive-Bomber Manual" Photo showing bomb under fuselage and bomb under wing is captioned: "An Aichi 'Val' dive-bomber taking off from an airstrip on a south-west Pacific island during the Rabaul campaign, 1943. Koujin-sha"

Brady -> RE: Val and 60kg (2/29/2004 10:18:05 PM)
Another : Mixed bomb load: example found. 27 Oct 1944 suicide mission. "At 0700, three 'Vals' of the TEMPEI (Warriors of Heaven) unit took off from Nichols Field, at the south of Manila, each armed with 250kg and four 60kg bombs. These 'Vals' belonged to 701st Kokutai's KOGEKI DAI 102 HIKOTAI (No. 102 Special Attack unit)." A fourth Val of the SHISEI (True Loyalty) Unit also carried the mixed bomb load. Photo: Posted by JFL; Credit: Peter C. Smith, "Aichi D3A1/2 Val," p.117

Brady -> RE: Val and 60kg (6/11/2004 6:07:10 AM)
Punted for Lemurs.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Brady Translation (6/11/2004 7:05:34 AM)
I don't see B-26s with torps, different size bombs like 500lb, 1000lb on B-17s etc. Why the big hubbub? Like, Mogami, I thought the 60kgs were range influenced in WITP.

Mr.Frag -> RE: Val and 60kg (6/11/2004 7:52:07 AM)
quote: Mixed bomb load: example found. 27 Oct 1944 suicide mission. "At 0700, three 'Vals' of the TEMPEI (Warriors of Heaven) unit took off from Nichols Field, at the south of Manila, each armed with 250kg and four 60kg bombs. These 'Vals' belonged to 701st Kokutai's KOGEKI DAI 102 HIKOTAI (No. 102 Special Attack unit)." A fourth Val of the SHISEI (True Loyalty) Unit also carried the mixed bomb load. Seriously, can we stop with this 3 planes once during the entire war of 4,000,000,000 sorties flew with a different bomb because some schmuck in supplies screwed up and the plane had to take off with what was lying around that day. It really gets are silly. It takes long enough to cycle through every single air group without having to cycle through every single possible weapon that could be stuck on a plane coupled with the fact that the entire supply system is abstracted down to the fact you don't actually have to ship the correct weapons to the correct base so the correct aircraft can fly with the correct weapon based on you choosing the correct weapon loadout for the correct mission type based on the correct report from correctly configured search aircraft flying and reporting back in real time so you can correctly stop the game every 10 minutes and correctly issue tactical orders to allow the aircraft to even fly. Much as i would love to sink your AK's that happen to be carrying torpedoes so your aircraft no longer have any and I can laugh my arse off as your little 250kg bombs ping pong off my armor, it is not in the scale of the game. If it didn't happen at least at a squadron level, give it up. The game does not go to the unit level. It will never go to the unit level. You can't deal with issuing orders to 10,000 individual aircraft.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.8125