Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!To End All Wars: Artillery
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Allied CVs, early wwar

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Allied CVs, early wwar Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/3/2012 6:49:58 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
I think that Allied carriers should be used actively very early in the game, when Japanese long-range torpedo bomber and search forces are relatively numerically weak and probably concentrated in DEI. One certainly should not risk a carrier battle at this stage, but if you know for sure where KB is, that is a good opportunity to raid where it isn't. (Aleutians usually is a weak spot early on.) Even if material effects of carrier raids are small, they might distract the Japanese forces from the key theatres and make your opponent more cautious.

From about May of 1942 (after 4/42) upgrades Allied carrier forces can fight KB with confidence, assuming a battle on Allies' turf and no major losses previously. I think that from that point they are best used as a deterrent against further Japanese expansion and preferably hidden from view.


As about Netties - it should be remembered that they can be sent to attack at 1k, greatly reducing detection range. In my experience low-altitude raids very often get through even fairly large CAPs, by sacrificing their escorts. Keeping some fighter groups low is highly recommended for the Allies, when going against LBA (same goes for the Japanese and Allied skipbombers), but in a carrier battle such CAP configuration might be counterproductive.

< Message edited by FatR -- 7/3/2012 7:02:06 PM >


_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to KPAX)
Post #: 31
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/3/2012 7:14:01 PM   
Titanwarrior89


Posts: 3086
Joined: 8/28/2003
From: arkansas
Status: offline
Remember, its not a historical game...its ahistorical so with the Jap player keeping his carriers together in a KB mass, the odds of a midway, coral sea or a santa cruz islands battle happening is low(in the early years 42, 43).  If the allied player does go head to head against KB, the odds are your going to get the worst of it.  So as mention above keep your carriers away from KB.  You'll find that that coming up thru the slot(the canal) as was done historically will be very hard in this game against a seasoned player....due the KB and betties.

I know it makes for a long boring game in the early years but thats how it is.......But myself normally can't go that long, so I end up losing my CV's or half my naval force.  So i usually call it sometime in 43.  So hang in there, remember in the game its not who won or lost but ride to get there. 

< Message edited by Titanwarrior89 -- 7/3/2012 7:26:00 PM >


_____________________________

"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours".

"Mama, There's Rabbits in the Garden"

(in reply to icepharmy)
Post #: 32
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/3/2012 8:16:15 PM   
cantona2


Posts: 3463
Joined: 5/21/2007
From: Gibraltar
Status: offline
Concentrate and hide. Once you pin point where the KB is raid some bases to raise XP then use them to support your first moves in SOPAC

_____________________________

1966 was a great year for English Football...Eric was born



Banner by rogueusmc

(in reply to icepharmy)
Post #: 33
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/3/2012 9:14:25 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25305
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
same goes for the Japan player too. Allied players tend to concentrate as well even though back in the day the US was willing to send less than the fully Monty. However, this being said [again] I have fought against some crafty opponents on both sides of the fence who carefully split their assets in places in order to acomplish multiple goals simotaniously.

All moves entail risk. The con of Concentration is that you can only cover one angle at a time and the map is huge. Certainly for big efforts, max concentration is the rule. I did split my KB once into two 3 CV parts That caused some angst when i caught some juicy targets

(in reply to Titanwarrior89)
Post #: 34
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/3/2012 9:51:04 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9786
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
You think Allied CV's early war are weak...bite me! I knew exactly where they were...one of my subs even had the temerity to scratch Yorktown's paint with a torpedo the day before the big exchange on the 15th.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 35
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/3/2012 10:22:40 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 3910
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline
quote:

Now if at Midway part of the IJN CAP was kept or sent back up after the TBs attacked, again we might have had an alternate ending.


Read "Shattered Sword". You will find that no ONE controlled the IJN CAP. The re-cycling of the CAP at the whim of the CAP pilots on individual ships is what kept the IJN flight decks busy throughout all the Midway and VT squadron attacks and is also EXACTLY WHAT KEPT THE IJN ATTACK PLANES IN THE HANGARS until the SBDs and the 1000 lb bombs arrived. The IJN was studying the feasibility of a Fighter Direction Center BY THE END OF THE WAR but had never implemented such a thing.

But I digress.

Actually what I felt needed to be said is that before any unit of the IJNAF had ever had scored one single "live shot" against a real target, the Fleet Air Arm of the RN had crippled 3 battleships in harbor at Taranto, hit the BB Vittorio Veneto and CA Pola with torpedoes while underway (stopping the Pola DIW), and scored 3 torpedo hits on the Bismarck (just listing the most notable of attacks by FAA units). Not withstanding their utterly obsolete attack aircraft and small air groups they had been operating under the wings of the Italian and German Air Forces in the Mediterranean (admittedly somewhat reluctantly but also effectively) for over a year by the time that Pearl Harbor happened. I suppose if there had been a wholesale change in FAA aircrew in late 1941 there might be some justification for the pretty awful ratings that the Brit carrier air groups possess compared to the IJN but I've never found any evidence that such a thing occurred.

Although we'll never really know what might have happened the RN FAA had aircraft that possessed radar and could have fought the IJN carriers at night while all the KB Aces were asleep in their beds (or at least mostly blind).

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 36
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/4/2012 1:05:08 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25305
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

You think Allied CV's early war are weak...bite me! I knew exactly where they were...one of my subs even had the temerity to scratch Yorktown's paint with a torpedo the day before the big exchange on the 15th.



Nein....I think YOU are weak. I will root out those weak branches you call muscles.......



(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 37
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/4/2012 1:34:32 AM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

need to have the 4 x Kongo BB with your carriers
to distract some of the dauntlesses

also helps to fight outside of TBD range, and sometimes, out of F4F range as well.. but that is more of a roll of the dice

actually the most disconcerting thing would be an allied player who strips his carriers of fighters, and packs them full of SBD and TBF, sets no CAP (you can's stop a zero + kate strike anyway) and rocks you with a full wildcat + dauntless + avenger strike, and there is no way the KB fighters will stop that

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 38
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/4/2012 2:54:09 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 7127
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

You think Allied CV's early war are weak...bite me! I knew exactly where they were...one of my subs even had the temerity to scratch Yorktown's paint with a torpedo the day before the big exchange on the 15th.






I think the general consensus has always been. Never take on KB-"unless" Treespider is your opponent. Then you can safely figure that you have about a 80% chance of sinking at least six of his carriers.

We call it Treespider's Law.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 39
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/4/2012 11:50:54 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 3849
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

i do agree that a better design than the betty was needed, something fast and heavily armed+armored



Ju-88?

_____________________________


(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 40
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/4/2012 8:52:55 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
The IJN spent nearly 4 years wishing that all this was true. In the real world the Bettys (and Nells) had one really good day against ships (Prince of Wales and Repulse). That same torpedo corps went after the Lexington in February and then Adm Crace's TF at Coral Sea without any effect. After that they spent the rest of their existence completely justifying their reputation (amongst their own crews) as RONSONs (a type of cigarette lighter). The occasional torpedo hit they scored hardly justifies the expenditure of aircrew that went along with it.

Okay, let's count successes of Betties after PoW and Repulse:

CV:1 damaged
BB:1 damaged (disputed, might be B6N)
CA:1 sunk, 3 damaged
CL:3 damaged (or 4, if USS Birmingham was also torpedoed by G4M on 10/08/43, can't find definite information about the attacker's type anywhere)
A bunch of lesser ships (AV Langley, both APAs lost by USN during the war, a couple of destroyers), I'm far too lazy to count exactly.

That's... a very good tally for a plane of which only 2435 (I hope you realise that this is a quite small number for a plane that also was the main ground attacker and one of the main searchplanes of IJNAF) were produced and which was on the losing side. In fact, I don't think any other purely land-based plane on both sides can boast a comparable list. Add here important operational results achieved by repulsing Allied cruisers at Makassar Strait, and by numerous airfield and port attacks during the Japanese offensive in Philippines, Malaya and DEI, as well as far less triumphant, but still vital for holding the line as long as Japs did, action over Darwin, Port Moresby and Solomons, and I fail to see how G4M career can be considered anything other than illustrious. Impossibility of the odds placed against IJNAF land-based bomber force is a weak reason to condemn a plane's design.

That said, Stormwolf is far in the realm of exaggeration too.

< Message edited by FatR -- 7/4/2012 8:54:16 PM >


_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 41
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/4/2012 10:19:00 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 3910
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline
quote:

Okay, let's count successes of Betties after PoW and Repulse:

CV:1 damaged
BB:1 damaged (disputed, might be B6N)
CA:1 sunk, 3 damaged
CL:3 damaged (or 4, if USS Birmingham was also torpedoed by G4M on 10/08/43, can't find definite information about the attacker's type anywhere)
A bunch of lesser ships (AV Langley, both APAs lost by USN during the war, a couple of destroyers), I'm far too lazy to count exactly.

That's... a very good tally for a plane of which only 2435 (I hope you realise that this is a quite small number for a plane that also was the main ground attacker and one of the main searchplanes of IJNAF) were produced and which was on the losing side. In fact, I don't think any other purely land-based plane on both sides can boast a comparable list. Add here important operational results achieved by repulsing Allied cruisers at Makassar Strait, and by numerous airfield and port attacks during the Japanese offensive in Philippines, Malaya and DEI, as well as far less triumphant, but still vital for holding the line as long as Japs did, action over Darwin, Port Moresby and Solomons, and I fail to see how G4M career can be considered anything other than illustrious. Impossibility of the odds placed against IJNAF land-based bomber force is a weak reason to condemn a plane's design.


That's roughly the same number of a/c as the Fairey Swordfish with the same record of combat success (approximately). Not too many threads from the IJN fanboys complaining about how the game portrays such an invidious British invention though.

Point is that the G3/G4 failed in their mission of sea control. I am not denying that they could score the occasional success but the pre-war concepts held by Combined Fleet were not justified by events.

Perhaps the effectiveness of weapons systems should not be knowable for certain by the players. Let them guess whether their investment is worthwhile until it is proved in combat. And let the values for penetration and accuracy vary some from game to game.

As it stands the IJ Player is perfectly content to risk his BBs in all sorts of ways because he knows for sure that Allied LBA can't score any damaging hits (except the occasional fire) for the first 8 months or so. Even the 1000 lbers delivered by US carrier air most probably will not seriously harm IJN BBs. Such historical certainty allows for very unhistorical play. Even if the real reason that such operations were not undertaken was that the IJN Admirals restrained themselves this is supposed to be a game about the IJN and its command authority really was part of the picture.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 42
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/5/2012 2:13:05 AM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
G3M / G4M was successful as an area denial weapon

Nimitz and crew were more concerned about the betty than the ijn carriers ,

and they stayed away from japanese LBA after midway.. they even abandoned the marines on guadalcanal
due to the concern of betties from rabaul..

and they only started offensives once japanese LBA was worn down and large numbers of essex were available

< Message edited by Commander Stormwolf -- 7/5/2012 2:35:40 AM >


_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 43
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/5/2012 9:21:36 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 3910
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline
quote:

quote:

Okay, let's count successes of Betties after PoW and Repulse:

CV:1 damaged
BB:1 damaged (disputed, might be B6N)
CA:1 sunk, 3 damaged
CL:3 damaged (or 4, if USS Birmingham was also torpedoed by G4M on 10/08/43, can't find definite information about the attacker's type anywhere)
A bunch of lesser ships (AV Langley, both APAs lost by USN during the war, a couple of destroyers), I'm far too lazy to count exactly.

That's... a very good tally for a plane of which only 2435 (I hope you realise that this is a quite small number for a plane that also was the main ground attacker and one of the main searchplanes of IJNAF) were produced and which was on the losing side. In fact, I don't think any other purely land-based plane on both sides can boast a comparable list. Add here important operational results achieved by repulsing Allied cruisers at Makassar Strait, and by numerous airfield and port attacks during the Japanese offensive in Philippines, Malaya and DEI, as well as far less triumphant, but still vital for holding the line as long as Japs did, action over Darwin, Port Moresby and Solomons, and I fail to see how G4M career can be considered anything other than illustrious. Impossibility of the odds placed against IJNAF land-based bomber force is a weak reason to condemn a plane's design.



That's roughly the same number of a/c as the Fairey Swordfish with the same record of combat success (approximately). Not too many threads from the IJN fanboys complaining about how the game portrays such an invidious British invention though.


I guess I misspoke about the FAA Swordfish. Before the first RIKKO had fired a single war shot Swordfish had:

SUNK: 4 Battleships (although all in harbor and 2 were raised) and 5 DD with torpedoes along with sinking 2 DD with bombs.
DAMAGED 3 BB (2 underway), 1 CA (underway) and 3 DDs with torpedoes (including crippling hits on the Italian CA Pola and German BB Bismarck which allowed surface ships to catch and subsequently sink them)

The Swordfish also sank many many submarines and merchant ships throughout the war. Seems the Swordfish had a better record than the RIKKO.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 44
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/6/2012 3:14:13 PM   
Mundy


Posts: 676
Joined: 6/26/2002
From: Neenah
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

You think Allied CV's early war are weak...bite me! I knew exactly where they were...one of my subs even had the temerity to scratch Yorktown's paint with a torpedo the day before the big exchange on the 15th.






I think the general consensus has always been. Never take on KB-"unless" Treespider is your opponent. Then you can safely figure that you have about a 80% chance of sinking at least six of his carriers.

We call it Treespider's Law.


For what it's worth, only one of my CVs survived in the end. Hornet was untouched by the arial battle, only to get put down by a lurking sub the next day. The dirty tricks department put York away for awhile after a SSX ran amok in Noumea.

Ed-


_____________________________


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 45
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/6/2012 3:31:47 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4738
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

You think Allied CV's early war are weak...bite me! I knew exactly where they were...one of my subs even had the temerity to scratch Yorktown's paint with a torpedo the day before the big exchange on the 15th.






I think the general consensus has always been. Never take on KB-"unless" Treespider is your opponent. Then you can safely figure that you have about a 80% chance of sinking at least six of his carriers.

We call it Treespider's Law.



_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 46
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/6/2012 4:09:01 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18003
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
Even the 1000 lbers delivered by US carrier air most probably will not seriously harm IJN BBs. Such historical certainty allows for very unhistorical play.


Ummm...no.

USN-delivered 1000-lb bombs are quite unhealthy for BBs. I've had several seriously harmed by fires and SYS damage rendered by these weapon systems.

_____________________________


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 47
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/6/2012 4:12:24 PM   
Mundy


Posts: 676
Joined: 6/26/2002
From: Neenah
Status: offline
Fires are bad.

In the above fight, Lex had roughly 45 sys and 35 flt. However, she had 98 fires and only lasted a day.

Ed-

_____________________________


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 48
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/6/2012 4:26:55 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18003
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
Seems the Swordfish had a better record than the RIKKO.


Meh. The Swordfish had a different record than the Rikko because it was used in a very different naval war than the Pacific. In spite of its limitations, and the absence of a good follow-on design in the early to mid-war, it did well enough to justify its existence. It was a useful tool for the Allied naval war effort.

The G3/4 series was useful in its mission-to an extent. Then Japanese conceptual failures in design (armor, self-sealing fuel tanks, etc.), pilot training issues and usage (poor escort coordination at times) made its deployment a case of diminishing returns. On the whole, I can't be so dismissive of the successes of this airframe (it ONLY sank how many ships?) as to say that it wasn't at least modestly successful.

Furthermore, I would say that the capabilities of the G3/4 were respected enough to cause the Allies to alter their strategic goals in the Pacific IRL. If they were concerned about the IJ Guadalcanal buildup cutting off supply routes from CONUS-Australia, they weren't concerned about the range and naval interdiction capabilities of the Dave float planes or even the occasional Emily torpedo attack. They were concerned enough about the capabilities of the G3/4 series (and its range) at naval interdiction that they felt compelled to hold an invasion on a shoestring.

_____________________________


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 49
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/6/2012 4:57:21 PM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4009
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
How come the Allies never had a long-legged land based torpedo bomber? No need with their carrier striking power?

_____________________________

Follow our WiTPAE team PBEM game against bilbow and hartwig.modrow http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2965846&mpage=1&key=?

Follow my WITPAE PBEM game against Schanilec. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3495605

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 50
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/6/2012 5:48:33 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12264
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

How come the Allies never had a long-legged land based torpedo bomber? No need with their carrier striking power?



bombs worked very well (better than in the game IMO, compared to torps) so that there was no real need for torp bombers. What we see in the game with thousands and thousands of torp attacks through the years has nothing to do with real life. Torp availability in AE made it somewhat better but a smart IJ player will have enough air HQs where he needs them to fly 95% of the torp attacks he also flew in WITP where he didnt need those air HQs.

_____________________________


(in reply to jeffk3510)
Post #: 51
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/6/2012 6:06:38 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25305
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Meh. The Swordfish had a different record than the Rikko because it was used in a very different naval war than the Pacific. In spite of its limitations, and the absence of a good follow-on design in the early to mid-war, it did well enough to justify its existence. It was a useful tool for the Allied naval war effort.

The G3/4 series was useful in its mission-to an extent. Then Japanese conceptual failures in design (armor, self-sealing fuel tanks, etc.), pilot training issues and usage (poor escort coordination at times) made its deployment a case of diminishing returns. On the whole, I can't be so dismissive of the successes of this airframe (it ONLY sank how many ships?) as to say that it wasn't at least modestly successful.

Furthermore, I would say that the capabilities of the G3/4 were respected enough to cause the Allies to alter their strategic goals in the Pacific IRL. If they were concerned about the IJ Guadalcanal buildup cutting off supply routes from CONUS-Australia, they weren't concerned about the range and naval interdiction capabilities of the Dave float planes or even the occasional Emily torpedo attack. They were concerned enough about the capabilities of the G3/4 series (and its range) at naval interdiction that they felt compelled to hold an invasion on a shoestring.


The S-79sil had a different record too. Different situations, different combat environments. Apples and Oranges.


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 52
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/6/2012 6:11:00 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25305
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

How come the Allies never had a long-legged land based torpedo bomber? No need with their carrier striking power?



Couple reasons. First off, the USN pre-war was still largely gun-based. War plan Orange/Rainbow envisioned a fleet action to relieve the PI. The Japanese envisioned a defensive action to attrit this fleet. Yamamoto was an air enthusiaist and the Japanese in general saw the torpedo as an ideal means to acompish this attrition. Second....for 'defensive' the US envisioned high alt precision bombing as a possible solution to naval shore defense......hence the B-17.

The Japanese ended up under-estimating the problem of widely seperated bases lacking mutual protection and the US grossly overestimated the ability of high alt bombers hitting moving ships. It can also be noted (and has been by some authors) that the Japanese were so enthralled with long range that they failed to appreciate that being unescorted could produce problems and that crew fatigue would have an impact as well.

Live and Learn.

(in reply to jeffk3510)
Post #: 53
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/6/2012 6:25:42 PM   
Onime No Kyo


Posts: 16628
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

How come the Allies never had a long-legged land based torpedo bomber? No need with their carrier striking power?



Couple reasons. First off, the USN pre-war was still largely gun-based. War plan Orange/Rainbow envisioned a fleet action to relieve the PI. The Japanese envisioned a defensive action to attrit this fleet. Yamamoto was an air enthusiaist and the Japanese in general saw the torpedo as an ideal means to acompish this attrition. Second....for 'defensive' the US envisioned high alt precision bombing as a possible solution to naval shore defense......hence the B-17.

The Japanese ended up under-estimating the problem of widely seperated bases lacking mutual protection and the US grossly overestimated the ability of high alt bombers hitting moving ships. It can also be noted (and has been by some authors) that the Japanese were so enthralled with long range that they failed to appreciate that being unescorted could produce problems and that crew fatigue would have an impact as well.

Live and Learn.


Can't it be argued instead that the Allies in general never saw the torpedo as a viable weapon (vis "the USN was gun crazy")? The British, or for that matter the French, never put much effort into developing a long range, land-based TB despite the likelihood of it being very effective in N.Atlantic conditions?


_____________________________

"Mighty is the Thread! Great are its works and insane are its inhabitants!" -Brother Mynok

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 54
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/6/2012 7:07:29 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
Have to say it again,

japanese didn't understand that because 90% of their atoll bases were water,
best thing to do was use that space for flying boats with torpedoes (and they had the fastest flying boat in the world, the emily)

so instead of 50 zeroes and 50 betties, you could fit 150 zeroes and 150 emilies on a size 3 or size 4 atoll

, a few of these atolls put together (like the marshall islands), and a USN counter-offensive would be quite difficult


taking out some of the fuel from the emily (don't need 30 hex range, 15 will do fine) and putting lots of armor or more ordnance
would have made it a truly devastating weapon - the only problem would be the high cost in materials, H8K1 was about 16 tons, and H8K2 was 18 tons


the concept of the long range torpedo plane, with escort and high performance oxygen torpedoes was a brilliant one

just implemented with a few flaws

(and using their few precious betties to attack allied airfield didn't help either)

< Message edited by Commander Stormwolf -- 7/6/2012 7:13:21 PM >


_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 55
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/6/2012 7:13:31 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25305
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

Can't it be argued instead that the Allies in general never saw the torpedo as a viable weapon (vis "the USN was gun crazy")? The British, or for that matter the French, never put much effort into developing a long range, land-based TB despite the likelihood of it being very effective in N.Atlantic conditions?



I think it would be more accurate to say the US saw the torpedo as too expensive and preferred bombs being targeted into pickle barrels with the amazing Norden bombsite and advertised to Congress as the ultimate in Cheap defense....more so given that at high alt the precious (and expensive) bombers would be more immune to counter-attack :)

The FAA was the black sheep stepchild of the RAF and was also starved of funds. Funds for big bombers were focused on continental bombing primarily pre-war

(in reply to Onime No Kyo)
Post #: 56
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/6/2012 7:16:18 PM   
Onime No Kyo


Posts: 16628
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

Have to say it again,

japanese didn't understand that because 90% of their atoll bases were water,
best thing to do was use that space for flying boats with torpedoes (and they had the fastest flying boat in the world, the emily)

so instead of 50 zeroes and 50 betties, you could fit 150 zeroes and 150 emilies on a size 3 or size 4 atoll

, a few of these atolls put together (like the marshall islands), and a USN counter-offensive would be quite difficult


taking out some of the fuel from the emily (don't need 30 hex range, 15 will do fine) and putting lots of armor or more ordnance
would have made it a truly devastating weapon - the only problem would be the high cost in materials, H8K1 was about 16 tons, and H8K2 was 18 tons


the concept of the long range torpedo plane, with escort and high performance oxygen torpedoes was a brilliant one

just implemented with a few flaws

(and using their few precious betties to attack allied airfield didn't help either)


In my opinion you spend too much time double guessing historical decisions. I agree that this can be fun, but (also in my opinion) it doesnt have much of a place in a discussion of historical reality.

Good point on the reasoning behind the development of float planes in the 20s and 30s but aside from that there is, unfortunately, not a lot to go on in your post aside from speculation.

< Message edited by Onime No Kyo -- 7/6/2012 7:17:34 PM >


_____________________________

"Mighty is the Thread! Great are its works and insane are its inhabitants!" -Brother Mynok

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 57
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/6/2012 7:23:46 PM   
Onime No Kyo


Posts: 16628
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

Can't it be argued instead that the Allies in general never saw the torpedo as a viable weapon (vis "the USN was gun crazy")? The British, or for that matter the French, never put much effort into developing a long range, land-based TB despite the likelihood of it being very effective in N.Atlantic conditions?



I think it would be more accurate to say the US saw the torpedo as too expensive and preferred bombs being targeted into pickle barrels with the amazing Norden bombsite and advertised to Congress as the ultimate in Cheap defense....more so given that at high alt the precious (and expensive) bombers would be more immune to counter-attack :)

The FAA was the black sheep stepchild of the RAF and was also starved of funds. Funds for big bombers were focused on continental bombing primarily pre-war



I dont disagree. Besides Billy provided what was seen as ample proof that bombs could to the job. But torpedo development in the USN was in general a good decade behind even the British, much less the Japanese. I'm referring not only to the air launched kind but also the sub and ship-borne varieties (how much difference is there between them in an engineering sense?).

As an aside on the FAA/RAF.....I thought that the FAA was only concerned with shipboard aircraft (CVs and scout spotter planes) and the RAF was responsible for coastline defense for lack of a better term. I can see how there might not have been any interest in the RAF to develop a land-based TB but was this in fact the case?

< Message edited by Onime No Kyo -- 7/6/2012 7:24:42 PM >


_____________________________

"Mighty is the Thread! Great are its works and insane are its inhabitants!" -Brother Mynok

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 58
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/6/2012 7:32:06 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25305
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
your right. Coastal Command was responsible for patrol/ASW duties, however it too tended to only get 2nd hand equipment. Once the war began and stepped up, Harris begrudged every large modern bomber to anything other than his Bomber Command.

The Japanese viewpoint was different keep in mind because they were focused on the Decisive Battle so an attack on an invading fleet was paramount in their thoughts. the UK faced no similar threat and had the still had quantitively the most powerful navy in the world at the time (but along with an extremely tight budget).

As such there wasn't alot of fiscal room to develop a 2nd naval line of defense nor was there seen a pressing need.....hence the FAA remained stuck with torpedo biplanes and went down the dead end corridor of the multi-purpose aircraft such as the Skua and Roc.

(in reply to Onime No Kyo)
Post #: 59
RE: Allied CVs, early wwar - 7/6/2012 7:35:00 PM   
Onime No Kyo


Posts: 16628
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

your right. Coastal Command was responsible for patrol/ASW duties, however it too tended to only get 2nd hand equipment. Once the war began and stepped up, Harris begrudged every large modern bomber to anything other than his Bomber Command.

The Japanese viewpoint was different keep in mind because they were focused on the Decisive Battle so an attack on an invading fleet was paramount in their thoughts. the UK faced no similar threat and had the still had quantitively the most powerful navy in the world at the time (but along with an extremely tight budget).

As such there wasn't alot of fiscal room to develop a 2nd naval line of defense nor was there seen a pressing need.....hence the FAA remained stuck with torpedo biplanes and went down the dead end corridor of the multi-purpose aircraft such as the Skua and Roc.



What about the Med?

_____________________________

"Mighty is the Thread! Great are its works and insane are its inhabitants!" -Brother Mynok

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Allied CVs, early wwar Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.106