Torpedo Attacks in Ports (Full Version)

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



Message

TIMJOT -> Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/24/2004 6:10:43 AM)

As per request I posted this to its own thread so as to not interfer with Raver's & Luskan's AAR

quote:

Joel Billings

Other posters have already addressed the ways you can force more historical first turn results. I'm interested in this statement above. Why was it impossible? We already know that we can't track who is in dry dock and who is not. We strongly believe that torpedo bombers need to be able to use some torpedoes in port (because they did historically). If there is a reason that the Level Bombers should not use torpedoes in port, I'd like to hear it. It would not be that hard for us to force them to drop bombs (of course they would have to do it in all port attacks, not just certain ports) if you can explain the reasons for this. Given that we have to do it for all ports, would you want us to limit Level Bombers to just using bombs in port? As an alternative we could also have only some use torpedoes to represent that some ships are in positions that cannot be attacked by torpedoes (as we are doing currently for all torpedo attacks in port). If so, please present your case for this. Thanks
.

Thanks for your reply Joel. Here is my case. The question really shouldnt be "why not" but rather "why should they". To my knowlegde there is not a single documented case of a Multi-engine Medium level bomber ever making a torpedo attack inside a port. Taranto and PH proved that given the right aircraft, circumstances, location, planning and training; airial torp attack of a port was possible. The operative word here however is "RIGHT AIRCRAFT" and unlike Kates and Swordfish, Med level bombers like Bettys/Nells/B-26s due to there size, wieght, minimum speed requirements, and handleing characteristics require a far far longer and unobstuctive attack run, with at least 1500 to 2000 yrds release point cushion from the target. Natural formations, Docks, Cranes, Jetties, Breakers ect... make such a flight path unlikely in all but the huge natural "anchorages" like Truk Lagoon and Manus.

In the case of Singapore Naval base and Cavite it was not only unlikely but impossible. Singapore Naval base was located on the Landward side of the Island up the shallow Jahore strait that made PH depth seem like a bottomless pit. The strait itself was not much more than a mile wide in most places. Cavite likewise was a very small harbor enclosed by Sangley point on one side and a man-made breaker on the other.

Again we have to ask if it were possible why were not all these multiple PH carried out? The Japanese were sufficiently worried about the POW and Repulse that they detached a singificant part of the 11 airfleet to counter them. Yet they did not launch an torpedo attack on the Singapore Naval pase on the morning of the 8th even though the ships remained in port until 1700 late that afternoon. When they did finally attack they used only level bombers. Likewise the IJN repeatedly level bombed Shipping at Great Keppel Harbor Singapore over a two month period but never once attacked with torpedos. Cavite Naval base in the Philipines was attacked on Dec 10th by Betty & Nells level bombing at 20,000 never attacked with torpedos. The result one sub sunk another damaged along with a few auxilleries. There were other opportunities as well. Soerebaya Naval base in Java was Leveled bombed by Bettys/Nells multiple times but no torp attacks were attempted. Darwin was also repeatedly bombed by Bettys/Nells but again never with torpedos.

The fact is no Betty or Nell ever made a torpedo attack within a port nor did any other multi-engine med level bomber in the Pacific or ETO. So why is this capability modeled in the game?

Again since some single engine carrier a/c did torp attack in ports I can see allowing it in the game, but truth be told it wasnt that easy for them either. You need to look no further than the fact that in the 4 other Kido Butai port attacks in the war Darwin, Tjlaptap, Colombo and Tricomolee the IJN did not attempt a single torp attack. The Kates were instead utilized as level bombers only.

Thanks again for your time and consideration.

Regards.



Brady -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/24/2004 6:18:27 AM)

Off hand, what comes to mind is reading of the Betty atacks aganst shipping off henderson and Guadacanal, depending on how the game adresses ports like this, or lables them them, they did repeadaly a tack shiping in this port area using Bettys as torpedo bombers.

Some of the targets you mention above were also prety far ranged mishions ones that the use of a torpedo would of been prohibative on given the range mechanics for long range bombloads in UV I am not shure if this is so in WiTP.



TIMJOT -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/24/2004 6:21:11 AM)

quote:

I have seen a photo - can't find it, of betties or nells coming in across a harbour mouth, dropping torps at ships at anchor - I think it was vs allied transports at PM.


Luskan,

I am guessing the photo you are refering to is the quite famous one of the Aug 8th 1942 torpedo attack of Bettys at Lunga. These ships were not dropping anchore at a port but were rather manuvering under full steam out in the middle of ironbottom sound.



TIMJOT -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/24/2004 6:24:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Off hand, what comes to mind is reading of the Betty atacks aganst shipping off henderson and Guadacanal, depending on how the game adresses ports like this, or lables them them, they did repeadaly a tack shiping in this port area using Bettys as torpedo bombers.

Some of the targets you mention above were also prety far ranged mishions ones that the use of a torpedo would of been prohibative on given the range mechanics for long range bombloads in UV I am not shure if this is so in WiTP.


Brady Iron bottom sound was not a port. Niether was Lunga Roads for that matter. Tuligi was a harbor/port but no Betty ever launched a torp inside there.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/24/2004 6:25:14 AM)

TIMJOT. Thank you for making the case against this activity so clearly and forcefully.
The game would be FAR better if the ONLY torpedo attack allowed against a Port was
a "special bonus" given for the attempt at PH. While I realize that in some cases and
in some anchorages it would be a possibility. the possibility of totally ahistoric use far
outweighs the benefits of catering to those instances where it would be possible. Joel
and Company----PLEASE consider this request.



TIMJOT -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/24/2004 6:30:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Off hand, what comes to mind is reading of the Betty atacks aganst shipping off henderson and Guadacanal, depending on how the game adresses ports like this, or lables them them, they did repeadaly a tack shiping in this port area using Bettys as torpedo bombers.

Some of the targets you mention above were also prety far ranged mishions ones that the use of a torpedo would of been prohibative on given the range mechanics for long range bombloads in UV I am not shure if this is so in WiTP.


Both Sinagapore and Cavite were closer to bases in indo-china and Formosa respectively than Rabaul was from Lunga, so range was not a factor. Neither was Timore to Darwin or Soreabaya from Kendari was out of range for a Betty/Nell torp attack. IIRC, I believe the round trip range for Betty/Nell with torps was around 750 nautical miles.



Brady -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/24/2004 6:30:51 AM)

I would aree,except the key part of my statement, was how does WiTP define what is a harbor? IN UV that area off henderson was a Harbot size 3, yet historicaly several atacks were made their by Bettys carring torpedos.

It could be reasioned that their were many areas and ports whear it could of happened, and in WiTP we will find instances that would potentialy allow for this to be so.

A posable counter point and argument for allowing this (torpedos) is that I beleave Bettys and Nells dont cary the 500KG and 800 KG bombs they could of on port atack mishions, the larger bombs were very devastating to ships and port facilitys. the Torpedos in a way represent this destructive capacity.


"Both Sinagapore and Cavite were closer to bases in indo-china and Formosa respectively than Rabaul was from Lunga, so range was not a factor. Neither was Timore to Darwin or Soreabaya from Kendari was out of range for a Betty/Nell torp attack. IIRC, I believe the round trip range for Betty/Nell with torps was around 750 nautical miles. "

My coment had more to do with how WiTP handels range and bombload issues than reality, their are presently TONS of range issues with WITP and the aircraft they have modled, at least the CV planes, I havent sean the figures for teh land based planes.



Damien Thorn -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/24/2004 6:32:03 AM)

Joel,

I see no reason not to keep the level-bomber torpedo attacks in the game. Just because something wasn't done doesn't mean it can't be done. I suspect the reason it wasn't done has more to do with wanting to face reduced flak from altitude and nothing to do with the attack being impossible.

I'm sure level bombers are able to do skip bombing at ships in port (something allied planes will do often in 1944-45) so torpedo attacks should be allowed too.



decourcy -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/24/2004 6:40:49 AM)

I generally am on the side of the 'axis fanboys' if i were to say I was on anyones side.
I think Mike Scholl wines about things that are so minor as to be laughable and forgets this is supposed to be a game as well as a simulation. It has always been a problem creating a WW2 Pacific game, getting a game that is worth playing due to the heavy disparity of force.

Does that mean i support ahistorical ideas? no, not really. But, some things are not that important.

That all being said, I agree with both Timjot and Brady here. Probably torpedo attacks should not be allowed in 'port attacks' after Pearl AND the Japanese should actually use their full bomb arsenal. The 500kg & 800kg bombs will be a bit more impressive than the 250kg plinkers.

Michael



TIMJOT -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/24/2004 6:49:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

Joel,

I see no reason not to keep the level-bomber torpedo attacks in the game. Just because something wasn't done doesn't mean it can't be done. I suspect the reason it wasn't done has more to do with wanting to face reduced flak from altitude and nothing to do with the attack being impossible.

I'm sure level bombers are able to do skip bombing at ships in port (something allied planes will do often in 1944-45) so torpedo attacks should be allowed too.



Damien, faceing flak from low altitude from ships out at sea did not seem to deter them. Skip bombing is an entirely different beast. First depth is not factor and release points are much closer are just some of the differences that comes to mind.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/24/2004 6:56:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

I would aree,except the key part of my statement, was how does WiTP define what is a harbor? IN UV that area off henderson was a Harbot size 3, yet historicaly several atacks were made their by Bettys carring torpedos.

"Both Sinagapore and Cavite were closer to bases in indo-china and Formosa respectively than Rabaul was from Lunga, so range was not a factor. Neither was Timore to Darwin or Soreabaya from Kendari was out of range for a Betty/Nell torp attack. IIRC, I believe the round trip range for Betty/Nell with torps was around 750 nautical miles. "

It was more on the order of 600 miles under good circumstances for a group of aircraft.
But unfortunately for all of us, you are correct about 2by3's decision NOT to distinguish
"anchorages" from "ports"---and it is the true basis of the problem. And being in "beta" it's unlikely to be fixed. Leaving us (the players) with the disgusting choice of either
supporting the totally ahistorically allowing of Torpedo attacks in ports where they were
impossible----or supporting not allowing Torpedo attacks in anchorages where they were
historically possible and occurred. Sort of like the old torturers taunt that he would give
your a choice..., "Which of your testicles would you like placed in the vice?"



Brady -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/24/2004 7:12:05 AM)

"Which of your testicles would you like placed in the vice"

Well the small one of course[:)]



bradfordkay -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/24/2004 7:28:02 AM)

I will repreat my vote here, in case Joel doesn't see it on the AAR thread (sorry gang for anwering there, but it was a response to a direct request from Joel). I think that due to the inability of the game engine to distinguish an anchorage from a port, the best compromise is to allow either only a certain percentage of the ships in port to be attacked with torpedoes, or only a certain percentage of the attacking a/c to be armed with torpedoes. From Joel's comments, I gather that the latter is easier to do. It isn't a perfect simulation of the situation, but I think that it is the best compromise. Sorry for feeling like I have to repeat myself.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/24/2004 8:18:49 AM)

This is SAD..., but do to the original "poor decision" your compromise may well be
the best available. One suggestion for it's implementation would be to reduce the
percentage allowed based on the size of the "port". That would at least make the
"anchorage ports" (which tend to be the smaller ones in the game) more vulnerable
than the "real ports".



Brady -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/24/2004 8:48:13 AM)

That sounds prety good realy Mike, now if we can get the Biger bombs on those Nells and Bettys, and Hellens, the Bigger ports and the ships in them would suffer acordingly:)


[img]http://www.myphotodrive.com//uploads/649_G3M-18s.jpg[/img]



Mike Scholl -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/24/2004 8:56:54 AM)

I'll go with your bigger bombs if the heavier loads decrease the operational range.
One of the things that bothers me about all bombers is the "combat range" always
seems to be based on the minimum load/maximum fuel figures---but the bombload
is generally the largest amount the A/C could stagger into the air with. This goes
for both sides, but shows up the most in the Japanese because of their lighter weight,
fewer engines, and exceptionally long range. I wish they could get some variation
into the mix.



Brady -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/24/2004 9:06:02 AM)

Well odely enough in the case of the Japanese Bombers the Bombs, take the No. 80 land bombs the 800 KG ones, they weighed the same as the Torpedos, so were still talking a prety decent range hear. In UV the Betts/Nells carred two 250 KG bombs on the Long range Mishions, so were looking at a 500 KG bomb. I am not nescessarly saying UV had it right (the bomb range issue you mention), but that based on that all that neads changing is the bomb size.

Emily Load out scan Showing some of the Bomb options(torpedos shown on another scan):


[img]http://www.myphotodrive.com//uploads/649_emily2.jpg[/img]



pad152 -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/24/2004 9:25:21 AM)

quote:

I think that doe to the inability of the game engine to distinguish an anchorage from a port,


Whose to say, that a ship is not at anchorage even if there is a port? Ships wait all the time for their turn at loading/unloading where do you think they wait? What you want now to start counting birthing slots, number of docks, cranes, tucks, or USGS maps of each port, Huh?

All ports in UV/Witp are the same the only different is size over time. Just trying to research what ports had what and when from 1941-1945 is a complete waste. All ships load/unload at the same time, this is completely unrealistic but, you got to remember this is an operational game and not a shipping port simulator!

I know, why doesn't the game simulate the number and height of barrage balloons at each port to prevent low flying aircraft.[8|]

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N Kate: 4 destroyed when hitting barage baloon(s) [:'(]



Brady -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/24/2004 9:33:12 AM)

Ki-21 Load out showing 500KG bombs:


[img]http://www.myphotodrive.com//uploads/649_ki21loadout.jpg[/img]



Splinterhead -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/24/2004 2:07:24 PM)

Ok.. here's probably a stupid question.. but could torpedo attacks only be allowed if there are more than a certain number of ships in a port based on port size to reflect the ships waiting to berth?



Brady -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/24/2004 6:12:01 PM)

Or, would the higher number of ships yield a higher number of hits on more ships, or a lower number of ships more on a few ships?



bradfordkay -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/24/2004 6:53:59 PM)

quote:

Whose to say, that a ship is not at anchorage even if there is a port? Ships wait all the time for their turn at loading/unloading where do you think they wait? What you want now to start counting birthing slots, number of docks, cranes, tucks, or USGS maps of each port, Huh?


I agree that every port will have vessels waiting in the anchorage to unload. This isn't to say that all ships in any TF will be vulnerable in any port, or that no ships in any TF will be vulnerable.

That is why I feel that Joel's compromise is the best idea. None of us wish to wait for 2by3 to research all the charts for all the ports to decide what percentage of how many ships would be vulnerable in each specific port. I say that we should just allow a certain percentage of a/c to carry torpedoes on a port attack (or naval attack against vessels in port) and be done with it.




Seperate matter: Brady et al, could you please limit the size of the photos that you post here? Your bloody schematics took so long to download that I had to go take a shower while waiting to be able to post a reply (hitting STOP meant that the photos were incomplete and for some reason I was then unable to make any response - it is as if the forum won't allow us to make a comment unless we have seen all the evidence posted herein!).



Brady -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/24/2004 7:01:14 PM)

bradfordkay: I apoligise for that, to be clearly read they neaded to be big, after I saw just how big they were i stoped posting them.



Damien Thorn -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/24/2004 8:22:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
That is why I feel that Joel's compromise is the best idea.


I too could live with the compromise of 1/2 the planes cary torpedoes and the othe half cary the equivilent bombload (800 kg since the torpedo weighed about 1700 pounds).



brisd -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/24/2004 9:02:54 PM)

I don't think limiting the number of torpedos for each strike is a solution. It wouldn't have happened that way historically and as the operational commander, why would I limit myself to not having the biggest bang for the buck. This reminds me of the B-17's in early UV that were acting as tactical bombers and made the game unplayable to me. Here's my take:

1. What are the requirements for a sucessful torpedo attack? Can a medium bomber really make a torpedo run against a docked ship with limited approaches? Obviously against an alerted major port, AA and anti-torpedo nets would make such a mission futile.

2. I believe best solution is to define a MAJOR port and make it invulerable to medium bomber torpedo attack. Why? Because no attempt was ever made to attack such facilities. I think if Japan thought they could perform such a mission, they would have. Same of Allies.

3. But I think tactical torpedo bombers should still be allowed to torpedo ANY port, as they did in PH. Perhaps some ports, like size 9 and above would be exempt?

4. If I am able to attack a port on turn one with surprise benefit as Japan and have this capability, I will use it EVERY time. The combat results of the beta AAR speak volumes as to effectiveness of such attacks against a sleeping port. What would be results against a fully alerted port? Some more testing is in order.

******
CLARIFICATION on #2: No attacks like these were attempted as far as I know, anyone have any evidence? I am open to all input on why some ports at some point in game timeframe can be attacked and not at other times. Perhaps it can be a high risk mission on highly trained crews could/would attempt? Say 80%+ experienced pilots can load torps for example?



pasternakski -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 12:33:53 AM)

I think that brisd's post is a very sensible one, but I think we need to stop and consider a little here.

I remember awhile back that we were discussing this very matter (mdiehl's input seemed to be very informative), and two things became very clear:

-the torpedoes in the Pearl Harbor attack were specially fitted not to plunge too deep when dropped
-Kates and other single-engine torpedo planes have more flexibility when making their attack runs than Bettys and other twin-engine, level-bomber types

As I recall, the assertion was made that special fitting of torpedoes was something that could be done only as a part of long-range planning where such an attack as occurred at Pearl Harbor is anticipated and special ordnance prepared for it. Such weapons would not be carried as a routine matter on carriers (or, for that matter, at land bases).

The attack run point, I believe, was that level bombers would not be able, within the confined space of an anchorage or harbor, to stabilize, orient, and deliver their torpedoes consistently (and again, the depth of plunge problem presents itself).

I wonder if it would be possible for the veterans of that discussion to refresh it in order to answer the concerns about in-harbor torpedo attacks being voiced here.



Rendova -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 12:44:20 AM)

Does anyone know if air dropped torpedoes had a run to arm minimum distance? I would imagine they did to prevent the torp from going off when they hit the water. This would cause a problem when dropping in a port as well.



TIMJOT -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 2:00:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rendova

Does anyone know if air dropped torpedoes had a run to arm minimum distance? I would imagine they did to prevent the torp from going off when they hit the water. This would cause a problem when dropping in a port as well.


I dont know the minimum run time required but I do know that the standard drop distance for a Betty/Nell was close to 1500 to 2000 yards. I believe this distance had more to do with allowing enough room for its breakaway. Understand that the low speed, low altitude performance of these larger aircraft left a lot to be desired. You couldnt just dive these planes into a port, level off at sea level, manuever this way and that to pick out a target, line up said target, drop its torp with a 2000 yard cushion and then just quickly pop back up out and away.

Again I have to ask why is this capability in the game, when there is absolutely no historical precedence or basis for it? For that matter how can you accurately model the effectiveness of such attacks without a single example to base it on?

As a few other posted I think the best compromise would be to disallow all Med bombers from torpedo attacks in ports BUT allow it for all single engine torpedo bombers (albeit with decreased effectiveness) in all ports. This should more than make up for the small handful of locations where theoretically Med.bomber torp attacks "might" have been possible Truk Lagoon, Manus, Uliti for example.



TIMJOT -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 3:00:16 AM)

quote:

4. If I am able to attack a port on turn one with surprise benefit as Japan and have this capability, I will use it EVERY time. The combat results of the beta AAR speak volumes as to effectiveness of such attacks against a sleeping port. What would be results against a fully alerted port? Some more testing is in order.


It speaks volumes as to the "OVER effectivenewss of such attacks. Practically the whole Eastern Fleet and Asiatic Subforce was destroyed. I agree what player wouldnt do it if allowed? I agree that at the very least Singapore and Manila ports should not suffer surprise on turn one unless we also assume that these super effective Med.Bomber torpedo attacks take place at night.[8|]


quote:

CLARIFICATION on #2: No attacks like these were attempted as far as I know, anyone have any evidence?


None that I know of either.

quote:

Perhaps it can be a high risk mission on highly trained crews could/would attempt? Say 80%+ experienced pilots can load torps for example?


Perhaps but this unfortunately would not prevent the turn one massacres because I believe all Betty/Nell groups start the war with 80% plus experience pilots.



bradfordkay -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 6:32:44 AM)

You forget one thing. Joel's post gave us the choice: Torpedoes allowed in all ports or torpedoes allowed in no ports.

For those who don't recall, here is his post on this subject:

" Other posters have already addressed the ways you can force more historical first turn results. I'm interested in this statement above. Why was it impossible? We already know that we can't track who is in dry dock and who is not. We strongly believe that torpedo bombers need to be able to use some torpedoes in port (because they did historically). If there is a reason that the Level Bombers should not use torpedoes in port, I'd like to hear it. It would not be that hard for us to force them to drop bombs (of course they would have to do it in all port attacks, not just certain ports) if you can explain the reasons for this. Given that we have to do it for all ports, would you want us to limit Level Bombers to just using bombs in port? As an alternative we could also have only some use torpedoes to represent that some ships are in positions that cannot be attacked by torpedoes (as we are doing currently for all torpedo attacks in port). If so, please present your case for this. Thanks."


You might note that he doesn't give us the choices that you guys are asking for. I thought that I would at least try to bring the discussion back into the parameters of the request that Joel made. Since they are trying to get the game to release, I don't think that they are going to give you the changes you are asking for. Why not at least respond to Joel's post in a constructive manner?



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.609375