Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Torpedo Ordnance

 
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: Torpedo Ordnance Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Torpedo Ordnance - 12/3/2009 9:05:55 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
The main restricting factors on Japanese torpedo bombers in AE is that they seriously have about as much, if not less combat survivability than Dutch Falcons. (No, I'm not trying to joke or exaggerate. And the same applies to all starting Japanese bombers.) Unlike RL, they also aren't hard to intercept when flying high-altitude bombing missions, because CAP never fails to intercept in general, unless worn down by earlier attacks. I found, that the only way to slow down the attrition of irreplaceable pilot cadres (or to stop it under Patch 2, which seems to make maintaining the starting pilot quality actually possible) is to bomb only undefended/well-supressed targets and to launch naval attacks only in the areas where Allies have no air cover, or during large naval battles, when you can hope to put a torpedo into something big (and enemy, hopefully, is in disarray by the time Betties arrive).

< Message edited by FatR -- 12/3/2009 9:06:08 AM >

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 61
RE: Torpedo Ordnance - 12/3/2009 9:26:38 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

The main restricting factors on Japanese torpedo bombers in AE is that they seriously have about as much, if not less combat survivability than Dutch Falcons. (No, I'm not trying to joke or exaggerate. And the same applies to all starting Japanese bombers.) Unlike RL, they also aren't hard to intercept when flying high-altitude bombing missions, because CAP never fails to intercept in general, unless worn down by earlier attacks. I found, that the only way to slow down the attrition of irreplaceable pilot cadres (or to stop it under Patch 2, which seems to make maintaining the starting pilot quality actually possible) is to bomb only undefended/well-supressed targets and to launch naval attacks only in the areas where Allies have no air cover, or during large naval battles, when you can hope to put a torpedo into something big (and enemy, hopefully, is in disarray by the time Betties arrive).



No Kidding! Just why did you think the Japanese Aircrews called their Betty's "Flying Cigars"? To get the very long ranges achieved with Bettys, Nells, and even Kates, they were lightly-built flying gascans. They were supposed to be "toast" when met by any serious opposition historically..., which is why the Zero was built with very long range (and similar weaknesses) to escort them! You can probably count their successes against targets with adequate CAP during the entire war on the thumbs of one hand...

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 62
RE: Torpedo Ordnance - 12/3/2009 12:07:06 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

To train in torpedo bombing, put the torpedo-equipped group on training with a secondary mission of naval attack.
To improve low level skills, set the altitude to 100' with the appropriate secondary mission and it will train in the low level bombing.

Actually, before Patch 2 you need to set altitude to 100 if you want to train NavT. Under Patch 2, you need to set a group on using torpedoes.

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 63
RE: Torpedo Ordnance - 12/3/2009 12:32:20 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline
There are now Bettys flying out of Timor against my Darwin supply TF's.  Last night 14 of them got past my CAP and sank 3 transports, with 5 torpedo hits.  That's a hit rate of over 35%, pretty good against merchant ships even with fighter escorts.  Lautern is a size 5 base so the stacking/supply penalties aren't applicable, but I was still surprised by their accuracy.

(in reply to Sheytan)
Post #: 64
RE: Torpedo Ordnance - 12/3/2009 12:51:27 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

No Kidding! Just why did you think the Japanese Aircrews called their Betty's "Flying Cigars"?

I think there might be another reason for this particular nickname. Just look at photos of G4M.

quote:

To get the very long ranges achieved with Bettys, Nells, and even Kates, they were lightly-built flying gascans. They were supposed to be "toast" when met by any serious opposition historically..., which is why the Zero was built with very long range (and similar weaknesses) to escort them! You can probably count their successes against targets with adequate CAP during the entire war on the thumbs of one hand...

No WW II bombers could fly attack missions against targets with adequate CAP (at heights that allowed to hit anything smaller than a city) without taking prohibitive losses. That's why Allied bomber offensive against Germany only succeeded at imposing acceptable rate of attrition on Luftwaffe after appearance of long-range escorts. And in fact, until late in the war, G4M fared quite well, except on long-range, low-altitude, small-group (importance of never actually having sufficient numbers of combat-ready planes for the task during Guadalcal and Solomons campaigns cannot be underestimated - the biggest Betty torpedo attacks at Guadalcanal consisted of only about two dozen planes) torpedo attacks against large well-protected convoys and task forces.

If we want to talk about history, about 20 Betties were lost during the entire conquest of DEI, including sinking of Force Z, bombing of Singapore, demolishing of multiple Allied airfields and weeks of ground-pounding at Bataan. Just try to achieve this in the game. My total grand campaign loss figure for G4M is 114 by late March of 1942, including 37 a2a and 32 flak. Even though I was relatively restrained with them after the first month. Even after raising durability for Netties by 4 through the editor, to keep it on par with other large 2E bombers. So, don't try to justify their extreme in-game fragility by history. I suspect (and this is not meant as a criticism, BTW) that making Japanese LBA relatively deadly in its attacks, but fragile, and Allied their opposite, was made for the reasons of overall play balance.




< Message edited by FatR -- 12/3/2009 12:53:03 PM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 65
RE: Torpedo Ordnance - 12/3/2009 1:08:52 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9547
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

No WW II bombers could fly attack missions against targets with adequate CAP (at heights that allowed to hit anything smaller than a city) without taking prohibitive losses. That's why Allied bomber offensive against Germany only succeeded at imposing acceptable rate of attrition on Luftwaffe after appearance of long-range escorts. And in fact, until late in the war, G4M fared quite well, except on long-range, low-altitude, small-group (importance of never actually having sufficient numbers of combat-ready planes for the task during Guadalcal and Solomons campaigns cannot be underestimated - the biggest Betty torpedo attacks at Guadalcanal consisted of only about two dozen planes) torpedo attacks against large well-protected convoys and task forces.

If we want to talk about history, about 20 Betties were lost during the entire conquest of DEI, including sinking of Force Z, bombing of Singapore, demolishing of multiple Allied airfields and weeks of ground-pounding at Bataan. Just try to achieve this in the game. My total grand campaign loss figure for G4M is 114 by late March of 1942, including 37 a2a and 32 flak. Even though I was relatively restrained with them after the first month. Even after raising durability for Netties by 4 through the editor, to keep it on par with other large 2E bombers. So, don't try to justify their extreme in-game fragility by history. I suspect (and this is not meant as a criticism, BTW) that making Japanese LBA relatively deadly in its attacks, but fragile, and Allied their opposite, was made for the reasons of overall play balance.



"Flying Cigar" changed quickly to "Flying Cigarette Lighter"...for obvious reasons.

US medium bombers flew regularly unescorted missions against for example Rabaul, even when there was large amount of fighters operating from there. Of course they preferred escort, but could and did fly attack missions against defended Japanese bases with reasonable loss rates. Heavy bombers like B-17 and B-24 did that even more. This is at least what "Fire in the Sky" says.

Factors in this was Zero's and other Japanese fighters' inadequate armament and structural weakness to be good bomber interceptors. This was augmented by US bombers being very sturdy in comparison.

Betty was created as "Super Nell", to be able to assist IJN Kido Butai carrier force in "decisive battle" and was thus given extraordinary range. Tradeoff, of course, with tragic consequences to IJN bomber crews. Also, it's range was so high that it outranged Zero. This made it's outstanding range quite useless, since Betty did not have much chance to survive against fighter defense. They would have been better off having comparable range with Zero and use more armour, self-sealing tanks and better defensive armament. As it was, Betty (and Nell) was horribly vulnerable to fighters and AA.

There are good quotes in "Fire in the Sky" from Japanese IJNAF officers, how B-17 and B-24 caused unsolved problem to IJNAF in Rabaul. they just did not have right tools to counter heavy bomber formations, especially with fighter escort. And Rabaul was probably best defended IJN/IJA base in aerial sense..and it was where IJN land based forces virtually ceased to be viable fighting force in late 1943.


_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 66
RE: Torpedo Ordnance - 12/3/2009 3:20:07 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5366
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
The problem is not so much the availability of torpedoes to feed the Nettys but rather a gross overstatement of the ability of even excellent torpedo bomber aircrew to hit a target.

In real life the KB sent 40 torpedo bombers against Pearl Harbor. With NO fighter opposition and negligible flak the 40 bombers scored 20 or 21 hits (or, if you credit a midget sub with one; 19 or 20 hits). That approximates 50% hits against unmoving targets under ideal circumstances. AE quite consistently provides around 80% hits for torpedo armed bombers in the PH attack.

(AE also allows the KB to increase the number of torpedo-armed planes in the certain knowledge that no anti-torpedo nets are in place: certainty not available to the planners of the attack. Additionally all ships are subject to torpedo hits because mooring inboard or sitting in drydock etc are not accounted for at all).

I'll admit to not having a day to day count of torpedo armed sorties by the units of the KB but from battle accounts it appears that the KB's Kates scored 14 hits in the remainder of 1941 and all of 1942: 7 hits on 3 different US CVs and 7 more hits on the USS Meredith. That is not all that much better than the TBDs/TBFs of the USN.

Now this thread is not about the KBs Kates. It's about IJN LBA. The ability of the Nettys to score torpedo hits is similarly overstated. AE serves up the PoW and Repulse on a golden platter in the GC game (It's at least "bronze" platter). IRL, after the Nettys had their way with those ships they never made a similarly effective torpedo attack against warships during the entire course of the war. They appear to have suffered some availability problems during the DEI campaign since they never made another torpedo attack. They had their chances at the end of the Singapore Campaign but appear not to have wasted any expensive torpedoes on the merchies fleeing the falling fortress. A typical AE attack would have 6 Nettys attack a pair of freighters and score 4-5 hits. Just too many hits is the problem.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 67
RE: Torpedo Ordnance - 12/3/2009 5:05:07 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

"Flying Cigar" changed quickly to "Flying Cigarette Lighter"...for obvious reasons.

US medium bombers flew regularly unescorted missions against for example Rabaul, even when there was large amount of fighters operating from there. Of course they preferred escort, but could and did fly attack missions against defended Japanese bases with reasonable loss rates. Heavy bombers like B-17 and B-24 did that even more. This is at least what "Fire in the Sky" says.

On what page? Because, somehow, it was necessary to put fighter airfield within short range of Rabaul to attack it successfully, as sending unescorted bombers at altitudes was way too costly (night bombings and high-altitude raids allowed survival, but rarely allowed doing real harm). This goes both for medium and heavy bombers. And in fact Fire in the Sky explicitly mentions, on p. 648, that until January 1944 (when attrition began to tell), attacks on Rabaul were supposed to include two fighters per bomber.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
Betty was created as "Super Nell", to be able to assist IJN Kido Butai carrier force in "decisive battle" and was thus given extraordinary range. Tradeoff, of course, with tragic consequences to IJN bomber crews. Also, it's range was so high that it outranged Zero. This made it's outstanding range quite useless, since Betty did not have much chance to survive against fighter defense. They would have been better off having comparable range with Zero and use more armour, self-sealing tanks and better defensive armament. As it was, Betty (and Nell) was horribly vulnerable to fighters and AA.

And yet, its survival rate somehow was generally great for the first half of 1942, and pretty decent even later, except in the conditions I outlined above. Until Allied air superiority became overwhelming, anyway. Defensive armament of Betties was pretty heavy for most of its times (up to 4x20mm by late war), although improvements often were slow to appear in mass production, and I don't see how Japanese could possibly improve it, without magically improving their weapon industry. As about the range, Betties needed it, because IJN could not allow special searchplanes, at least not in adequate numbers. I'm not informed enough to tell, whether some of it was really extraneous. Betty construction was very durable and the only real (although major) vulnerability was fuel tanks. Their main problem was in the fact that Japanese command too often sent them to missions where no WW II bomber could have fared well (at least with the numbers Japanese had in RL).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
There are good quotes in "Fire in the Sky" from Japanese IJNAF officers, how B-17 and B-24 caused unsolved problem to IJNAF in Rabaul. they just did not have right tools to counter heavy bomber formations, especially with fighter escort.

Fire in the Sky does not provide much Japanese viewpoint, and I don't remember these quotes, so, please, page numbers again? And anyway, the main problem Japanese were unable to solve is called "Allied numerical superiority". Fire in the Sky tends to gloss over it. But, you know, the biggest Betty airfield attack in South Pacific consisted of 44 planes, while formations of 60+ bombers (with 200 or more sorties per day overall) were standard for major Allied raids by second half of 1943.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
And Rabaul was probably best defended IJN/IJA base in aerial sense..and it was where IJN land based forces virtually ceased to be viable fighting force in late 1943.

In February 1944. And the real deathblow was the destruction of Truk, which not only stripped Rabaul of new planes to maintain the battle of attrition, but also made defending it essentially meaningless.

< Message edited by FatR -- 12/3/2009 5:07:33 PM >

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 68
RE: Torpedo Ordnance - 12/3/2009 6:41:15 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5366
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
IIRC the aircrew called them "Ronsons". The shape of the hull of a Betty might be roughly similar to a cigar but hardly to a cigarette lighter. I think the analogy the aircrew had in mind is that the aircraft "lit up" easily.

When, after sinking the PoW and Repulse, did the Nettys ever accomplish anything remotely as significant. They had a good day. It was not the norm. Torpedo bombers get too many hits.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 69
RE: Torpedo Ordnance - 12/3/2009 6:52:32 PM   
Gilbert


Posts: 243
Joined: 8/8/2009
From: Hendaye, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence


When, after sinking the PoW and Repulse, did the Nettys ever accomplish anything remotely as significant. They had a good day. It was not the norm. Torpedo bombers get too many hits.


Answer is yes. Look at the battle of Rennel Island wher CA Chicago was sunk by them.
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rennell_Island

Regards
Gilbert

_____________________________

UMI YUKABA
"If I go away to sea, I shall return a corpse awash, if duty calls me to the mountain, a verdant will be my pall, thus for the sake of the Emperor, I will not die peacefully at home...."

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 70
RE: Torpedo Ordnance - 12/3/2009 6:55:17 PM   
Zacktar


Posts: 169
Joined: 6/23/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

When, after sinking the PoW and Repulse, did the Nettys ever accomplish anything remotely as significant.


I've been meaning to ask this question myself, particularly concerning their roles as torpedo bombers. I think that stock WITP and especially UV gave these machines far too much credit as terrors of the waves that they never were in the actual war.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 71
RE: Torpedo Ordnance - 12/3/2009 6:58:44 PM   
Zacktar


Posts: 169
Joined: 6/23/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gilbert

Look at the battle of Rennel Island wher CA Chicago was sunk by them.
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rennell_Island

Regards
Gilbert

I hadn't remembered that one, but if I'm reading that page correctly it looks like that was a night attack (assisted by flares and floatlights, it says, although I'm not sure that 19:38 would be night in that area, even in January) that still involved significant losses to the attackers.

(in reply to Gilbert)
Post #: 72
RE: Torpedo Ordnance - 12/3/2009 7:23:55 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

A Command Hq (with sufficient supply) can act as an Air Hq for torpedo supply purposes if no Air Hq is in range.


Plus you need the supply available at the base:
for AF 4+, you 2 times (or 1 time with an air/command hq present) base's required supply
for AF 3, you 5 times (or 1 time with a air/command hq present) base's required supply
for AF 2, you 6 times (or 2 times with a air/command hq present) base's required supply
for AF 1, you 7 times (or 3 times with a air/command hq present) base's required supply




In the GUAD scenario, my Emily's are not able to arm TORPS at Truk. I have 3 HQ's plus 17K supplies against a requirement of 3.7K at a 7(4) air base. Based upon the above, I should be able to arm TORPS correct? What am I missing here?

Thanks.

Bump. Anyone have any info/insights/data?

Thanks.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 73
RE: Torpedo Ordnance - 12/3/2009 7:48:14 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
The second attack was an unescorted attack by daylight and against a target with fighter cover, and that's when most casualties happened. Overall, Betties launched very few daylight torpedo attacks, IIRC only 8 for the entire war, partially because there simply were too few Betties and daylight torpedo attacks in RL circumstances (long range, no supporting planes to supress flak from the ships) were rightfully seen as highly risky. All but two happened in highly unfavorable circumstances (a long-range attack by a small group of attacking planes, enemy CAP, strong flak from massed ships). In these attacks (not counting PoW and Repulse), they sank one cruiser and one destroyer, plus one or two transports. They proved quite vulnerable to flak, but that was a common result for torpedo bombers in general.

In AE, you can outproduce RL Japan by leaps and bounds. In RL, slightly more than 2400 Betties was built, most of them relatibely late in the war, and past the time of successful Japanese attacks. In AE you start the game building 1.37 G4M per day, that's sligtly less than 14 every ten days or about 500 per year; not counting possible expansions and eventual switching of G3M production. With more Netties available, there naturally will be more attacks, and these attacks will be larger, more effective

(in reply to Zacktar)
Post #: 74
RE: Torpedo Ordnance - 12/4/2009 2:02:31 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
...To get the very long ranges achieved with Bettys, Nells, and even Kates, they were lightly-built flying gascans...


I seem to recall reading somewhere two things about JAP air production.

1. they had limited success with engine development (as did most nations) and so they had essentially 2 or 3 good engines.

2. there original engine designs were focused around (to some extent) fuel usage. this limited their output in horsepower.

Think about the Merlin. Early war about 600hp, by war end +2000hp.

Nak HA-35 - 1100 take off, 1000 hp @20,000 ft

Double the power is a big deal in aircraft performance.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 75
RE: Torpedo Ordnance - 12/4/2009 9:15:34 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

There are now Bettys flying out of Timor against my Darwin supply TF's.  Last night 14 of them got past my CAP and sank 3 transports, with 5 torpedo hits.  That's a hit rate of over 35%, pretty good against merchant ships even with fighter escorts.  Lautern is a size 5 base so the stacking/supply penalties aren't applicable, but I was still surprised by their accuracy.


High but not unrealistic.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 76
RE: Torpedo Ordnance - 12/4/2009 12:21:12 PM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
...To get the very long ranges achieved with Bettys, Nells, and even Kates, they were lightly-built flying gascans...


I seem to recall reading somewhere two things about JAP air production.

1. they had limited success with engine development (as did most nations) and so they had essentially 2 or 3 good engines.

2. there original engine designs were focused around (to some extent) fuel usage. this limited their output in horsepower.

Think about the Merlin. Early war about 600hp, by war end +2000hp.

Nak HA-35 - 1100 take off, 1000 hp @20,000 ft

Double the power is a big deal in aircraft performance.



Their engines also weren't necessarily designed for fuel economy, rather they were engineered for decreased weight and radius. On average, the Japanese engines were considerably smaller in size and displacement than their allied counterparts. Their excellent economy came in part due to the lightness of their aircraft and to the Japanese figuring out a way to lean out the fuel mixture without tearing up the engine.

Most of their radials were pretty good especially the early war ones like the Sakai 12 and 21. Their early designs were based largely on licensed technology sold or given by various allied countries including the U.S. Unfortunately for the Japanese, they were cut off from these primary sources once they started the war and immediately began to lag behind the technological curve. This was especially evident in the development of reliable turbo and superchargers. Allied horsepower increases were due in a large part to superior induction technology and larger displacements. Japanese HP was limited more from smaller displacements and lower octane fuel, 90 octane IIRC, plus troublesome superchargers.

As the war progressed, the Japanese did design several good radial engines but the lack of strategic materials and increasingly poor assembly quality led to severe maintenance issues in the field. The Japanese never did field a reliable inline engine. The Ha-40 by Kawasaki was a near identical copy of the DB-601 used in the Me-109 and other German aircraft but it failed in Japan because of the lack of chromium required for the crankshafts and other vital parts. It also failed because Japanese mechanics had scant training on it and extremely limited access to spare parts. The Ha-140 was an attempt to improve the HP and reliability of the Ha-40 but was even worse than the engine it was supposed to replace.

Chez


Edited to correct typo- DB-601 vice DB-901

< Message edited by ChezDaJez -- 12/5/2009 7:52:08 PM >


_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 77
RE: Torpedo Ordnance - 12/4/2009 2:56:53 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
The Japanese had two biggest, crippling problems with their aircraft production program, but reliance on foreign technology was not among them (Ki-61's heavily derivative was an exception by that time, and even then, it featured significant improvements over DB-601 and Bf-109E). The first was lack of unification and attempts to push too many new and revolutionary designs in production. Only USA, and, to a much, much lesser extent, Britain, had enough industrial power to pull off switching to new, significantly different plane designs during the war. Both Germany and USSR ended up producing two main lines of fighters (one mass-produced fighther type with inline engine, and another with radial engine), with every new mass-produced model being a direct derivative of a model already in mass production; USSR also ended the war with the improved versions of the bombers and attack planes that already were in production or close to production at the beginning (Germany introduced a few radical new designs during the war, but modifications of old types remained the workhorces of Luftwaffe). Japanese tried to introduce radically new designs, and build radically different fighters for different purposes (they wanted specialized interceptors, that had nothing in common with general purpose fighters, and so on).

The second problem, partially stemming from the first, was the widening gap between design and mass production/actual use in the field. Only Nakajima managed to invent fighters it was actually capable of buiding in numbers and keep passably reliable (before being screwed by material shortages, of course). Other major manufacturers created fighter designs which proved to be too revolutionary for Japanese aircraft plants and airfield services, such as Ki-61, J2M, N1K. As a result, they arrived too late and/or never arrived in real numbers and/or or were highly unreliable in the field. At the same time, new modifications of A6M/Ki-43 weren't paid enough attention and appeared too slowly. Japanese bombers suffered less from reliability problems, but new models still tended to arrive on the frontlines too late, because industry struggled with with putting radically new and too advanced planes in mass production (both B6N and D4Y suffered from that). Of course, shortages of strategical materials (and eventually just about everything) late in the war made the situation much worse.

< Message edited by FatR -- 12/4/2009 3:02:54 PM >

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 78
RE: Torpedo Ordnance - 12/4/2009 3:19:45 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

A Command Hq (with sufficient supply) can act as an Air Hq for torpedo supply purposes if no Air Hq is in range.


Plus you need the supply available at the base:
for AF 4+, you 2 times (or 1 time with an air/command hq present) base's required supply
for AF 3, you 5 times (or 1 time with a air/command hq present) base's required supply
for AF 2, you 6 times (or 2 times with a air/command hq present) base's required supply
for AF 1, you 7 times (or 3 times with a air/command hq present) base's required supply




In the GUAD scenario, my Emily's are not able to arm TORPS at Truk. I have 3 HQ's plus 17K supplies against a requirement of 3.7K at a 7(4) air base. Based upon the above, I should be able to arm TORPS correct? What am I missing here?

Thanks.

Bump. Anyone have any info/insights/data?

Thanks.

Another shameless bump. still looking for insight here.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 79
RE: Torpedo Ordnance - 12/5/2009 1:36:32 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
Bump.  Help?

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 80
RE: Torpedo Ordnance - 12/5/2009 8:09:09 PM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

Japanese tried to introduce radically new designs, and build radically different fighters for different purposes (they wanted specialized interceptors, that had nothing in common with general purpose fighters, and so on).


With the exception of the Shinden and a very few others, most Japanese fighter designs were not radical in nature. They were not radical engineering departures from their previous fighters. Design to meet different missions, true. But the engineering contained within them was conventional. Their use of substitiute materials in many cases was innovative but introduced an entire new set of growing pains.

Late war Japanese aircraft such as the George and the Frank had the potential to go 1 on 1 vs most allied aircraft but engine reliability issues severely limited their performance. In many cases, their engines were only able to develop less than 75% of their standard horsepower. Reduced oil pressure caused by excessive bearing tolerances and poorly performing superchargers were the main culprits. But when they worked, they could hold their own against allied opposition... assuming of course, a good pilot could be found to fly it.

And as you state, one of their biggest problems was the lack of coordination between the services. Each was highly secretive and took extreme measures to ensure the other service was kept in the dark. Yoshimura, in his book "Zero Fighter", tells the story of the A6M and the extreme security surrounding its development. Navy officials forbid Mitsubishi workers who worked on Army projects from even entering the hangar where the A6M prototype was developed.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 81
RE: Torpedo Ordnance - 12/6/2009 10:41:59 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

Japanese tried to introduce radically new designs, and build radically different fighters for different purposes (they wanted specialized interceptors, that had nothing in common with general purpose fighters, and so on).


With the exception of the Shinden and a very few others, most Japanese fighter designs were not radical in nature. They were not radical engineering departures from their previous fighters. Design to meet different missions, true. But the engineering contained within them was conventional. Their use of substitiute materials in many cases was innovative but introduced an entire new set of growing pains.

A whole new design, that uses virtually no major parts of the old, sharing maybe only weapons and some instruments is radical in the time of war. In RL, changing a plane's model on conveyor belt, when old and new models have so little in common, is a very complex and torturous process that can disrupt production almost as much as bombing of the factory and demands great deal attention from the designers, to direct the massive changes in production process, swiftly find causes of inevitable problems and stamp out teething troubles. And when the new model also requires high quality of craftsmanship, while you suffer from general shortages of qualified and experienced workforce, suitable engineering tools, and so on, it is highly likely to appear on the frontlines too late and in too little, too unreliable numbers. For the same reason (limited resources, primarily human resources), having up to 6 wholly different model lines of single-engined fighters in production at the same time is very wasteful. With the level of contol their military had over their industry, Japanese could have done better.






< Message edited by FatR -- 12/6/2009 10:56:28 PM >

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 82
RE: Torpedo Ordnance - 12/6/2009 10:46:09 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Bump.  Help?

I don't know. Maybe some bug in the game? In my GC game, there is no such problem even with less supplies.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 83
RE: Torpedo Ordnance - 12/6/2009 6:15:34 PM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

A whole new design, that uses virtually no major parts of the old, sharing maybe only weapons and some instruments is radical in the time of war.


Our definitions of "radical" differ. To me, an example of a radical aircraft would have been the Shinden. Aircraft such as the George and Frank were conventional designs and conventionally constructed. That they had quality problems with the manufacture and maintenance of these aircraft doesn't make them radical. Using your defintion, any new design would be radical. The Hellcat would be a radical departure from the Wildcat for example.

Given that the US was producing at least 5 different fighter aircraft in the late war (P-38, P-47, P-51, Hellcat, and Corsair), I would the only differnece in that regard would be that the US had the resources and manufacturing base to do it, the Japanese did not.

As to the rest of your posting, I agree. The Japanese shot themselves in the foot in every way possible. they certainly were experts on how not to wage a war.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 84
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Torpedo Ordnance Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
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

0.273