RE: 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

Pier5 -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 6:41:45 AM)

That's a good point. It's all or nothing. I think the best compromise is to prohibit multi-engine aircraft utilizing torpedoes in port attacks, but permit Kates, only Kates to use torpedoes in port. This will allow the PH attack to occur, but should severely restrict the possibility of torpedo attack afterwards.

Pier5



pasternakski -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 7:12:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

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:

"... 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?"


You might note that he doesn't give us the choices that you guys are asking for.


Ahhh, some of us were asking that level bombers not be allowed to use torpedoes against ships in port. As you can see from the very passage you quoted, Joel says that this would be easy and would be done if we could present justification for it.

You are mad at us because ... ?



Brady -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 7:23:00 AM)

To recover a couple points that seam to of been missed recently in this thread:

1) WiTP clasifys Anchorages as ports, many anchorages were atacked using twin engined Torpedo bombers and often in WW2. Dident Beauforts make a torpedo atack or two in ports/ anchorages as well?

2) If Japanese Medeieum and CV launched Leval bombers atacked a port facility or shiping in port, they typicaly used the prefered land atack weapon the # 80 (800KG) Bomb's or 500 KG bombs. Since Witp does not allow this (I beleave) the only way to aproach the letahlity of these weapons is to allow torpedos to be used, though even this is not that great a deal as they will pay a bigger price in terms of loss to ack for doing so.

3) The Torpedoes modified at pearl used I beleave a very simple woden fin that was sliped over the rear of the torpedo, nothing complex, so I doubt redoing this would be a big deal.



bradfordkay -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 7:28:15 AM)

I'm not mad at anyone.

It's just that I felt that he had asked a specific question and no one was addressing his question, everyone was just going off on another tangent. Maybe they can do what you want, but - in case they can't - why not respond to his specific question? At least then 2by3 would get a feeling for which one of the options they proposed was most acceptable to us.



pasternakski -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 7:43:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

To recover a couple points that seam to of been missed recently in this thread:

1) WiTP clasifys Anchorages as ports, many anchorages were atacked using twin engined Torpedo bombers and often in WW2. Dident Beauforts make a torpedo atack or two in ports/ anchorages as well?

2) If Japanese Medeieum and CV launched Leval bombers atacked a port facility or shiping in port, they typicaly used the prefered land atack weapon the # 80 (800KG) Bomb's or 500 KG bombs. Since Witp does not allow this (I beleave) the only way to aproach the letahlity of these weapons is to allow torpedos to be used, though even this is not that great a deal as they will pay a bigger price in terms of loss to ack for doing so.

3) The Torpedoes modified at pearl used I beleave a very simple woden fin that was sliped over the rear of the torpedo, nothing complex, so I doubt redoing this would be a big deal.


I agree with (1) and (2), with the only reservation that torpedoes not be substituted for correct loadouts. If the 500 kg and 800 kg bombs were delivered BY THE TYPES OF AIRCRAFT THAT ACTUALLY CARRIED THEM, fine. I don't like your frequent suggestion that "well, such-and-such aircraft did or could have carried them in 1945, so all aircraft types from 1941 on should be allowed to."

As for (3), there was a lot more to it than "wooden fins." Check sources, please.



Brady -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 8:29:06 AM)

1 & 2 ) I posted some good referances above, to indicate this, without geting carried away, as I am proan to do on ocashion[:)], thier is a lot of evidance that the types listed above could and did carry these weapons. Prety much the Navy planes Mavis, Emily, Betty, Nell, kate and Jill , Grace, Francis* could do the 800 KG bomb normal ranges or the 500 KG bomb for longer ranged mishions. The Ki-21 could do two 500 KG bombs and the Peggy one I belave, I nead to check further though to be shure on the later and other twin Army types. Thier is also operational evidance.

3 ) Just from memory that was, I will look tomarow to make shure and provide a source, kinda tierd now.

* The P1Y (Francis) could actualy do 1,000 KG of bombs.



Burkowski -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 3:03:33 PM)

Brad and Pier 5's points make the most sense to me... IF it's a choice (and the waters are so muddy now [forgive the pun]) between multi-engine bombers' torps in all ports or none), then it should be none.... in this case CAPABILITY (sorry, Brady) is not enough of an argument... we all know too much to accept these ahistoric attacks and their first turn bonanzas for the IJN without leaving a bad taste, even if we are rooting for Jap success... in this simulation, it's the same as reading fiction, we are shooting for the overall experience and that includes a strong dose of "suspension of disbelief," in order to "buy" the situation.. if Bettys are torping capital ships in Singapore harbor, e.g., it just doesn't wash...

IMHO, best case is that tactical torp bombers (Kates et al) should be able to do it and multi-engines not... not sure anymore at this point if Joel and co. are offering that option and/or if first-turn rules will rule...
The IJN is gonna lose this war and we know that... let's not artificially sweeten the early pot to make the outcome more palatable...

Burkowski



Luskan -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 4:18:24 PM)

The reason you weren't given the choice youw ant (the percentage idea) is because we already do this. A percentage of all level bombers on port attacks use bombs, even if they are in torp range.

This argument has been covered months ago.

Timjot, I thought so too - but I've got those photos and they just aren't the same ones as the Ironbottom sound.

Also - keep in mind the hexes are 6 mile hexes. In some areas of the solomons there are more "harbour" hexes than there are "sea" hexes. Just too easy for the gamey disband exploit.



panda124c -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 5:13:22 PM)

The problem with allowing torpedo attacks against targets in protected (natural protection) harbors is the restrictions on dropping torpedos.
From Torpedo Bomber by Ralph Barker

"At Abbotsinch a brief explanation of the mechanics of the torpedo was followed by a series of lectures and demonstrations on the art of dropping it. Here the vital factors were height and speed, so that the torpedo made a good entry into the water, neither ricocheting along the surface due to being dropped too low or at too great a speed , nor diving to the bottom throught being dropped too high or too slow a speed, correct sighting; and keeping the aircraft stady just before and just after the drop

If the torpedo entered the water badly, it swerved or set off at an angle. But even after a good drop, the torpedo oscillated in depth following it's plunge for some distance before it settled down to its depthe setting. It took some 300 yards for the torpedo to settle down. This was called the recovery range, and within this distance the pistol would arm itself. To this had to be added the distance between the actual drop and the point of entry into the water, making a safe range for a drop of not less than five hundred yards."

So as you can see there is a need to get down to speed and altitude quickly so that a proper drop can be made. Single engine a/c are much more manuaverable than multi engine a/c therefor the single engine a/c can attain the proper attack attitude much quicker (use less distance for setup) than a multi engine a/c. In a protected harbor there are physical obstructions that have to be avoided, manuvered around. Bottom line multi engine a/c need much more room to manuver (setup) for a torpedo attack than do single engine a/c, thus severly limiting the use of multi engine a/c for torpedo attacks in close areas. For this reason multi engine a/c should not be able use torpedo attacks against targets in a protected harbor (this does not apply to an open anchorage, such as GC).

The allies solved this particular problem with 'skip bombing'.

By the by the above mentioned book is an excelent read, the story of RAF Torpedo bombers.



pasternakski -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 7:11:36 PM)

Thank you for that quote and cite, pbear, it is consistent with the understanding I came to when looking into this a long time ago.

It's not so much the torpedo (although modifications to it and its guidance system were necessary for the Pearl Harbor attack) but the weapon delivery system. I understood Brad to say that it would be possible to prohibit level bombers from attacking with torpedoes in harbors while allowing such attacks by single-engine torpedo planes in limited circumstances. This is the solution I would favor.

I can't agree that TFs disbanding into a port in order to avoid aerial torpedo attack would be "gamey." Isn't protection from enemy attack one of the major things ports are for?



Brady -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 7:26:00 PM)

After going over sections from At Dawn we Slept this AM, Namely Chapter 40 p.320...

In sumery, using the standard model II torpedo they consistantly were able to make drops that did not excead 20 meters depth, and the torpedoes ran fine and true. The Problem was they neaded to not excead 10 metters depth. The Technishions at Mitsubishi had been working on a new fin already, and it was normaly acheaveing a 12 metter depth, The crewes were able to consistantly get 10 metter depth drops out it and it ran fine and true after drop. In testing 1 in 3 would bottom out, so he was still pleased with the results. The New Torpedo was the Type II (modell II) Imporved. All that was new on it was the fin.



Pier5 -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 7:33:25 PM)

I wonder if it would be practical to add torpedo nets at this stage of the game. All ports except PH would be automatically equipped with them, which would prohibit torpedo attack by anything. Anchorages, as defined by Brady, clearly do exist which might be successfully attacked by torpedo bomers of all types, would not have torpedo nets. PH would be equipped with torpedo nets (by hard code) immediately after Dec. 7. If this is practical from a coding perspective, it might come closest to satisfying the historical situation with ahistorical means.

I also think that, in addition to the special torpedoes, the Kate crews practiced for months dropping these torpedoes on known targets in a known position. Time for such training for a particular target would probably not be available under wartime demands, making the PH attack a unique opportunity which probably would not occur again elsewhere.

Pier5



pasternakski -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 7:45:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

After going over sections from At Dawn we Slept this AM, Namely Chapter 40 p.320...

In sumery, using the standard model II torpedo they consistantly were able to make drops that did not excead 20 meters depth, and the torpedoes ran fine and true. The Problem was they neaded to not excead 10 metters depth. The Technishions at Mitsubishi had been working on a new fin already, and it was normaly acheaveing a 12 metter depth, The crewes were able to consistantly get 10 metter depth drops out it and it ran fine and true after drop. In testing 1 in 3 would bottom out, so he was still pleased with the results. The New Torpedo was the Type II (modell II) Imporved. All that was new on it was the fin.


Thanks, Brady, good info.

It reinforces my opinion that use of torpedoes at Pearl Harbor was a one-off thing. The preparation, research, and so on just wouldn't be available for battles of opportunity far from supply sources where such modified weapons would be available (standard CV loadouts would include torpedoes for general naval attack purposes).

Level bombers - no, CV torpedo planes - yes, limited to large harbors only.



Brady -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 7:45:49 PM)

The Designers of the Pearl Harbor Atack were concerned about the presence of Torpedo nets, and this is mentioned in Chapter 40 sighted above, to get around this they detailed a couple men from each flight to atack the Nets should they exist, a means was developed for doing this and they felt confident they could suxcead in doing so. They were to fly their planes into the ran thng and punch a hole in it. Aparently torpedoes could be used for this but they dident creat a big enough opening, so the planes were added to make shure.

They did train hard to be shure, but the skills they aquired could be used anywhear, namely comming in a restricted place and acheaving the specified height at the right spead and droping at X distance from target.

Torpedo nets were not everywhear all the time (in Harbors), during the war and not all ships were protected by them when they were available.



Brady -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 7:58:20 PM)

All this gets us back to the base problem at hand, how WiTP defines a port, which is a very genral term in the game since open anchorages are included in this, which were frequently atacked by Twin engined planes brandishing torpedos. I dont mean to harp on this ponit but I am concerned that it is geting lost in the shufel again.

Since we all know that atacks were made frequently aganst ships in anchorages during the war by multi engined planes, and that when atacking ports that were restriceted in size the larger bomb types were used by the Japanese. Why not allow this to hapen as it is presently in the Game? The Japanese will pay a higer price for doing so under the present mechanism and the results will be not out of wack from those acheaved hsitoricaly in terms of damage to the enemy so why go the extream and propose it be removed entirely?

Just a bit more info, well over 100 of the Type II Improved Torpedos were delevered to the fleat before it sailed for Pearl Harbor, and I beelave they used around 40 or so in the atack, I am not shure how many more were deleaved after that. It should be notied that the 20 metter depth acheaed normaly(using the unmodified torpedos) would be suficient for use in most harbors anyway.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 8:00:28 PM)

Just playing the devils advocate here ...

So you guys are perfectly ok with hundreds of B-17's doing skip bombing on a port with it's MUCH lower climb rate to pull out yet you have a problem with a much faster, more powerful aircraft dropping torpedoes? I'm not sure I follow the logic. Japan did well at PH, why would she not continue to produce torpedoes that could be used in such a manner after such a success?

I have yet to see a single reason that says they could not do it due to some mechanical or technical reason. I would understand if we were talking about another type of aircraft that was not known for flying with torpedoes suddenly loaded up torpedoes and went on port attacks.

Anyone care to dig up a map that shows the port at Singapore in detail that would prove one way or the other that the port could not be attacked in such a matter?



bradfordkay -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 8:17:18 PM)

quote:

Anyone care to dig up a map that shows the port at Singapore in detail that would prove one way or the other that the port could not be attacked in such a matter?


I wish I had a scanner. My Jane's Fighting SHips of WW1 has a tiny little chart of Singapore. Keppel Harbor is rather narrow, the western end varying between 500 yards to 1100 yards across and 2400 yards long. The eastern part has a large island in the midst and appears to vary from 150 yards to 900 yards wide and runs also about 2400 yards esat-west. Then there is Singapore Road, the anchorage, which is roughly 6000 yards by 9000 yards. Any ships out here are definitely at risk from LBA torpedo attacks.



Pier5 -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 8:21:26 PM)

Brady, I am not suggesting torpedo nets were everywhere. That's why I referred to it as ahistorical. I suggested this as a means of simulating what we are trying to get to. Preventing torpedo attack in areas where such attacks were not practical could be resolved by "pretending" that these ports have torpedo nets and "pretending" that these nets are impervious. This would have the advantage of allowing any ports that can be demonstrated to be suitable for torpedo attack to be excluded from the torpedo net hard coding. Simpson Harbor comes to mind. It certainly is wide open, but I don't know about the depth. B-25's skip bombed there several times. If this can be coded without a huge hassle, I think it offers a reasonable solution.

Pier5



Mr.Frag -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 8:58:45 PM)

You guys, if you really wanted to make a good arguement against a Singapore blitz, you should be thinking along a totally different tact ...

Every modified torpedo that could be produced was given to KB to make the attack on PH, meaning that there could not have been any available for other attacks. That is far more compelling a reason to simply state that Singapore can not be attacked in such a manner until at least a couple of weeks later. It is completely backed by historical fact and doesn't involve any debates about the technical capabilities of the platforms.

Now, because of the mechanics of gameplay, this will have to be a player agreed to rule. I just can't see 2by3 coding a special rule like this when they have already solutioned it via the historical first turn and the variable historic first turn, all of which prevent this type of attack.



Brady -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 8:59:06 PM)

cc, we could pretend as well that the Torpedoes were representaive of the larger destructive capacity inhearent in the larger bombs the Japanese commonly employed aganst such targets but are absent from WiTP for god's know what reasion, as well. But I see you point it is reasionable, it is just the reasion for neading to employ it is not imo. I recal Beauforts making torp atacks aganst anchorages and ports as well, but I nead to find a more specific referance....



Mike Scholl -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 9:00:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Just playing the devils advocate here ...

So you guys are perfectly ok with hundreds of B-17's doing skip bombing on a port with it's MUCH lower climb rate to pull out yet you have a problem with a much faster, more powerful aircraft dropping torpedoes? I'm not sure I follow the logic. Japan did well at PH, why would she not continue to produce torpedoes that could be used in such a manner after such a success?

I have yet to see a single reason that says they could not do it due to some mechanical or technical reason. I would understand if we were talking about another type of aircraft that was not known for flying with torpedoes suddenly loaded up torpedoes and went on port attacks.

Anyone care to dig up a map that shows the port at Singapore in detail that would prove one way or the other that the port could not be attacked in such a matter?

I'm not "comfortable" with 4-engined strategic bombers "skip-bombing" at all. I'm sure
someplace somebody tried it..., but it certainly was not standard practice and should be
prohibited. Both "skip bombing" and the use of "para-frags" were rather specialized forms of combat and generally limited to a few specific air groups. If 2by3 can't set
the game up to reflect this, then it would be better to leave it out rather than have it
open for players to abuse. It's the same basic type of problem as torpedo planes in
ports.



Brady -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 9:01:42 PM)

Mr. Frag, acording to At Dawn We Slet, well over 100 were loaded abord the CV's that atacked Pearl harbor, I belave only 40 or so were used in the atack their. SO their should be enough for another atack. And The Normal unmodified Torpedo would work fine in any harbor with a depth of just over 20 Meters, how deep is Singapore harbor?



Mr.Frag -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 9:08:48 PM)

quote:

Mr. Frag, acording to At Dawn We Slet, well over 100 were loaded abord the CV's that atacked Pearl harbor, I belave only 40 or so were used in the atack their. SO their should be enough for another atack. And The Normal unmodified Torpedo would work fine in any harbor with a depth of just over 20 Meters, how deep is Singapore harbor?


Sure, when KB gets back to Japan and can transfer them over and they can be shipped out to other areas for use ... It is just not going to happen in the first week of december.

20 Meters?????? Thats 60 odd feet. You mixing feet and meters? Singapore is about 10.4 meters, but god only knows it's state during the war (a lot of dredging has probably happened).

(edit ... noticed you said regular torps)



Brady -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 9:15:21 PM)

Thats what they finished and loaded at the time of the depature for Pearl, I dont know off hand how many Type II (model II ) Improved were built and issued after that. So it is poaable that more were issued to other fleat units and certainly likely that the CV's from Pearl would of had enough for another sortie.

The Book mentions Metters when discussing the depth issue, the unmodified ones would do fine in 20 Metters depth, the modified ones were good in 10 metters depth.



Pier5 -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 9:17:38 PM)

In UV, at least, bomb damage is primarily system damage and torpedo damage is primarily flotation damage. I assume WitP is similar. Thus, allowing torpedo attack to simulate 800 kg bombs does not result in equivalent damage. From a practical point of view, the real issue at PH, at least, was not whether the ship sank or not, but whether it capsized in the process. Generally, I think at Pearl, torpedoes are what is going to sink ships. Flooding a ship to keep it from blowing up is a great idea if you are in 45 feet of water.

Pier5



Mr.Frag -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 9:22:20 PM)

Brady, from what I read, the reason a few ships were late and had to hurry to catch up to KB was they they were loading the very last set of modified torpedoes. That means every single one that was made went to KB. I have no problems with more being made, but they would not be available until about the end of December.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 9:29:09 PM)

quote:

In UV, at least, bomb damage is primarily system damage and torpedo damage is primarily flotation damage. I assume WitP is similar. Thus, allowing torpedo attack to simulate 800 kg bombs does not result in equivalent damage. From a practical point of view, the real issue at PH, at least, was not whether the ship sank or not, but whether it capsized in the process. Generally, I think at Pearl, torpedoes are what is going to sink ships. Flooding a ship to keep it from blowing up is a great idea if you are in 45 feet of water.


They are not the same. the 800 kg bomb is a modified large caliber shell, it is not a torpedo. They do not do the saame damage either.

I do agree that flooding a ship (or for that matter BEACHING a ship) when in peril of capsizing was a common practice. Ships were designed to be counter-flooded to prevent it from rolling.

It would be a cool feature ... an added choice on top of the current scuttle. Ship would sit there stuck for xx turns, slowly repairing itself unable to move. Could only be done if in a hex that has a coast.

You'd need to bring in more ships to pull it off the beach assuming you wanted it back ... goes down the path of ship capture too. There is just a million and one features that could be added when you think about it. Perhaps in a patch or the next iteration of the series.



Brady -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 9:41:29 PM)

Not all 800 KG bombs were modified large caliber Naval shels, in fact very few of all those were used were, though at pearl Harbor the ones that were used were (modifed large caliber naval shels.

I agree that using a torpedo to simulate the effects of the larger bombs is not ideal, but it is all we have at present, I would realy prefer the larger bombs, flotation damage is great espichaly at sea but it is not likely to sink a ship in port unless it is hit several times. Bomb damage will hurt more of the offensive capacity of the ship potentialy, thus removing it from play for potentialy longer periouds of time. their are pros and cons to either method. Presently since the larger bombs are absent from the japanese twins the only way to even begine to acheave the potential destructive capacity is to use Torpedoes in part or in whole, though as mentioned above this will done at a price, namely higher losses.



pasternakski -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 9:48:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady
I agree that using a torpedo to simulate the effects of the larger bombs is not ideal, but it is all we have at present, I would realy prefer the larger bombs, flotation damage is great espichaly at sea but it is not likely to sink a ship in port unless it is hit several times. Bomb damage will hurt more of the offensive capacity of the ship potentialy, thus removing it from play for potentialy longer periouds of time. their are pros and cons to either method. Presently since the larger bombs are absent from the japanese twins the only way to even begine to acheave the potential destructive capacity is to use Torpedoes in part or in whole, though as mentioned above this will done at a price, namely higher losses.


Brady, I'm surprised at you. You have argued long and hard for your version of reality, with the linchpin of your position being that WitP is going to be ahistorical because of how it short-changes the Japanese. Now, all of a sudden, I see you advocating an ahistorical model of anti-shipping attacks in ports just because it would favor the Japanese.

I have been something of an admirer of your efforts in the past, but this costs you a lot in terms of credibility with me.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/25/2004 10:03:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Not all 800 KG bombs were modified large caliber Naval shels, in fact very few of all those were used were, though at pearl Harbor the ones that were used were (modifed large caliber naval shels.

I agree that using a torpedo to simulate the effects of the larger bombs is not ideal, but it is all we have at present, I would realy prefer the larger bombs, flotation damage is great espichaly at sea but it is not likely to sink a ship in port unless it is hit several times. Bomb damage will hurt more of the offensive capacity of the ship potentialy, thus removing it from play for potentialy longer periouds of time. their are pros and cons to either method. Presently since the larger bombs are absent from the japanese twins the only way to even begine to acheave the potential destructive capacity is to use Torpedoes in part or in whole, though as mentioned above this will done at a price, namely higher losses.

Don't know if I was seeing things but I'm pretty sure 800kg bombs were dropped on ships based in Batavia by IJN edium bombers in my test game. I will check.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.390625