Catalina's over rated

[findmeifyoucan]

Someone explain to me how in the first week of the GC Scen 2, 4 Devastator torpedo bombers can miss my heavy carrier in the KB traveling at 30 knots and with just 3 Catalina's on my CVL traveling at 26 knots two out of the three torpedoes hit doing major damage?

Land based float planes are better for attacking naval ships with torpedoes than trained naval carrier pilots in actual real torpedo bomber planes?? roflmao

[noguaranteeofsanity]

Really need more information before any one can comment, such as the combat report.

Also, what was the experience of the pilots involved? It is quite possible that the Naval Torpedoing (NavT) skill of the Catalina pilots, is just as high, or even higher, than the Naval Bombing (NavB) skill of the Devastator pilots.

Then what altitude did they attack at? The dive bombers might have been too high or low, to perform dive bombing attacks and instead, might of attacked using glide or level bombing, which are less accurate.

Another detail that might help, is the make up of the task forces, for example is the CVL sailing in the KB TF or in another TF?

Edit: I should drink my coffee before answering, apologies I confused devastators and SBDs.

[Smeulders]

Air cover ? A Devastor dodging CAP might perform worse than a Catalina that gets a clear run.

[Ambassador]

At this small scale (4 then 3 planes), your result is not statistically significant.  It's like throwing a bunch of dice, and you'd get four low results on the first set, and two high results on the second set (out of the same number of dice as in your example).  Despite all the details, research and complexity, the luck/random factor is still present, like IRL.

[Terminus]

If you were playing the other side, you'd be whining about how "over rated" the Emily was...[8|]

[findmeifyoucan]

Actually neither got a clear run. Seperate task forces and in both cases the Devistators and Catalina's had to deal with CAp, Zero's in both cases. It is not likely experience was a factor as it was only 2 days after Pearl Harbour so no real time to change pilot's for the better. lol

[Captain Cruft]

The Catalinas and Mavises and Emilies all carry two torpedoes. So, I reckon that means that a 40 NavT pilot flying one of these crates is the equivalent of an 80 NavT pilot in a CV based torpedo bomber ... These patrol planes are all a lot harder to shoot down too.

[findmeifyoucan]

Details on these two battles are as follows,
10x Catalina's coming in on CVL TF at 7k feet against 12 Zero's Cap, 3 get through of which 2 out of 3 torpedoes hit for major damage. First of all 10 Catalina's with no escort getting through against 12 Zero's? Hello, is anyone out there???

11 F4f's, 24 Dauntless, 15 Devastator's coming in on KB TF with 30 Zero's CAP, 20 SBD's and 4 Devastator's get through, 7x sbd bomb at 4k feet, 13x sbd bomb at 2k feet and 4 Devastator's at 200 feet.

Just one bomb hit and no torpedoes hit at all. Not that I am complaining or anything being Japanese but it just does not make sense to me. Especially at the beginning of the war when the Americans have virtually no experience. Dec 9, 41. Common on now. Let's get serious here.

[Ambassador]

Leaking CAP is a feature that was much sought after.  And it's normal.  And if you had played WitP earlier, you'd be happy to see that, because it means that later in the war, your kamikazes will be able to get through multi-hundred Hellcats CAP.

And as said above : Catalinas have two torpedoes each, so they shot SIX of them, and hit twice : hit rate of 33%, which is not extraordinary.  The Devastators have 0 ?  Well, both have four misses.  Against warships, a missing torpedo is the rule rather than the exception, and it's respected here.

It was a good attack, yes, but not unrealistic.  And as I said : with such small numbers involved, anything can happen, and you certainly can't conclude that the PBYs are over-rated.[:)]

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: findmeifyoucan

Details on these two battles are as follows,
10x Catalina's coming in on CVL TF at 7k feet against 12 Zero's Cap, 3 get through of which 2 out of 3 torpedoes hit for major damage. First of all 10 Catalina's with no escort getting through against 12 Zero's? Hello, is anyone out there???

11 F4f's, 24 Dauntless, 15 Devastator's coming in on KB TF with 30 Zero's CAP, 20 SBD's and 4 Devastator's get through, 7x sbd bomb at 4k feet, 13x sbd bomb at 2k feet and 4 Devastator's at 200 feet.

Just one bomb hit and no torpedoes hit at all. Not that I am complaining or anything being Japanese but it just does not make sense to me. Especially at the beginning of the war when the Americans have virtually no experience. Dec 9, 41. Common on now. Let's get serious here.

Three points:

First the above post about random events generating odd results hit the nail on the head. You could try this battle 100 times and never see similar results. For example, we know if you flip a coin 1000 times you will get darn close to 500 heads and 500 tails; however, flip that coin only ten times and you may very well get eight heads and two tails. Small sample sizes can really screw up statistics. Don't forget the IJN had no radar and most of there planes had no radios. I could foresee a set of circumstances where the bulk of the CAP got caught on the wrong side of the TF and was unable to intercept the PBY's

Second is I take umbrage at the title of your thread. Quite frankly I am getting a little tired of people posting on how this is broke or that is overpowered, etc. etc. etc. based on one battle. Put the Battle of Savo Island or Kula Gulf into an AE style combat report and tell me what it looks like (Hint: go look over in the WiTP Forum for posts by a guy named Knavey). Certainly we all are interested in seeing some of the quirky little combat results the game throws at us, but I for one would like these things presented as "Hey, look what happened" or "You'll never beleive this" rather than, "This game is borked". The Devs put a lot of time into this project for no remuneration. I think we owe them a level of respect when we address issues.

Lastly, your comment about the neophyte USN is off base IMHO. Yes, the pilots of the KB were trained to a high level. The USN flight training was not far behind. The first aircraft carrier of the war sunk by opposing aircraft from an enemy carrier was Japanese not American (Shoho). The first carrier vs carrier battle saw the USN give almost as good as it took (especially considering that many believe Lexington would have been saved if DC methods developed later in the war had been in place). Through the first two CV vs CV battles the IJN lost four CV and a CVL balance by two CV for the USN. Japan ran amok the first six months of the war because the forces against them were ill-equipped, ill-trained, and poorly supported. Once they met an evenly matched foe that was well supported they were first blunted then turned back.

JOMHO

(Edit: fighting a two day long headache - meds made for some sloppy grammar/spelling)

[Erkki]

What other ships were there in the TF?

Those Catalinas are so slow and as they have to approach at the deck, you'd think crossfire from the CVL and 3-4 DDs would cut them apart. How many escorts did it have? I often see good part of the attacks going after DDs and such when there'd be a CV, presumably because these ships position themselves between the attack and high-value targets. AFAIK it was standard tactics to place a DD where the torpedo should be dropped at its extreme ranges. Any closer and the bomber would have to fly over the DD and all its guns.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

If you were playing the other side, you'd be whining about how "over rated" the Emily was...[8|]

INDEED![:D]

[Chickenboy]

Emily.....[;)]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Emily.....[;)]

A ballet dancer I knoew whan I was 19-YO . . .

Emilyyyyyyyy. [:)]

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Emily.....[;)]

A ballet dancer I knoew whan I was 19-YO . . .

Emilyyyyyyyy. [:)]

I bet your Emily was more fun [;)]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: stuman


I bet your Emily was more fun [;)]

Except when she kicked. That hurt.

She married and went to grad school with a friend of mine. Had a kid. Afterward, wow. Just wow. I didn't know skin could stretch like that . . .

[PresterJohn001]

A little harsh on the OP i think. Catalinas on torpedo attack do seem overly effective, as are for that matter Emilys. As a Japanese player i occasionally use Emilys as attack planes, i don't bother training their Naval torp skill(ie its below 40) and i get a decent number of hits.

A semi decent CAP stops Emilys and Catalinas, and both plane types are too valuable to use reguarly in the attack role.

[crsutton]

Yes, I found the cats to be a bit too accurate and deadly with the torpedoes. Problem is that using them on torpedo attack causes you to burn through them quite quickly and you don't get many replacments. I used them a few times with sucess in my games but my opponents just starting setting CAP traps for them and I gave it up. They are just too important as patrol planes to use as attack bombers. Emilys are the same. I relish the opportunity to shoot them down.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Yes, I found the cats to be a bit too accurate and deadly with the torpedoes. Problem is that using them on torpedo attack causes you to burn through them quite quickly and you don't get many replacments. I used them a few times with sucess in my games but my opponents just starting setting CAP traps for them and I gave it up. They are just too important as patrol planes to use as attack bombers. Emilys are the same. I relish the opportunity to shoot them down.

Exactly my experiences. The ones in the PI are great for attacking the landing TFs that have little air cover on the first few turns. As they start encountering CAP the attrition rate quickly empties the pool and the allied player is forced to convert them to to search operations.

The need to replenish the squads at Pearl and distribute air search cover across the shipping lanes to OZ is too great for the allied player to be able to afford to feed the daily replacement rate into units constantly attrited from naval attack missions.


p.s. I disagree with your quote. Some people, like me, have an inherent need to whine. We cannot be happy without it. I typically whine loudest when I am winning and whine the most while I'm winning. Nonwhiners just have no concept and are clueless when it comes to understanding whiners. The types that whine only when losing are rank amatuers that give true whiners a bad name. [:D]

[crsutton]

"I whine therefore I am" Descartes