Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

night torpedo attack

 
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 >> night torpedo attack Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
night torpedo attack - 1/18/2020 3:35:53 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 3501
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
In pre-turn, December 7.41 there are two Japanese Nell squadrons at Saigon: Bihoro Ku K-1 and Genzan Ku K-1 set up flying night operations - naval attack - torpedo

I have always changed them to day operations, because I have thought that night naval attack is a waste of time and AVgas... I mean, I can't even set naval search to try to spot targets, it is hard enough to find them at daylight

... I am missing something with night naval attacks?
Post #: 1
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/18/2020 3:49:57 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 24206
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
AFAIK the December 7th turn does not have the first set of phases, the night phases. That's why (other than magic move) TF's don't move as far on the December 7th turn.

_____________________________


(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 2
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/18/2020 3:55:37 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 3501
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
OK good to know I was correct on changing to day

but in general, any success with night naval attacks?

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 3
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/18/2020 4:00:25 AM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
They work, but you need highly experienced pilots, great and aggressive leader, good DL, and it would seem high moonlight will also help. This is my experience yours may vary. I really do not use it much, so I do not have any real attacks to show you.

< Message edited by BillBrown -- 1/18/2020 4:02:18 AM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 4
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/18/2020 10:53:44 AM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 3196
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline
I have done some with PBYs. It is hit or miss, so to speak but it is better if the air group does its own search.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 5
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/18/2020 3:06:17 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 3501
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
looks like it is more feasible to do with flying boat squadrons; because torpedo bombers can't do naval attacks with a % on search (patrols, eg PBYs, can)

I can think about some scenarios when this can work... but probably not on 1st turn, from Saigon

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 1/18/2020 3:07:03 PM >

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 6
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/18/2020 4:09:38 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 3196
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline
The torpedo bombers CAN have a search percentage.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 7
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/18/2020 4:37:44 PM   
RADM.Yamaguchi


Posts: 370
Joined: 6/30/2019
Status: offline
I had some nells make a run at american CVs at night in march or april '42. i think moonlight was about 45% or so. No hits but i think it got my opponent's attention.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 8
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/18/2020 4:56:05 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 3501
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The torpedo bombers CAN have a search percentage.


no

unless it is scenario decision




Attachment (1)

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 9
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/18/2020 5:00:50 PM   
RADM.Yamaguchi


Posts: 370
Joined: 6/30/2019
Status: offline
i'm playing scenario 2 and no the nells and betties cannot search with naval attack flying at night. I had some Mavis' in the same hex on night search. they must have worked together on this one i think.

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 10
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/18/2020 5:37:45 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5193
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

can think about some scenarios when this can work... but probably not on 1st turn, from Saigon


The torpedo bombers on the first turn are actually bombing Singapore that night to inflict the damage that keeps Singapore from starting to entrench right off. The so called Historical 1st Turn is not that historical since the same bombers get to change their mission to daytime naval attack so that the PoW/Repulse can get sunk (only 8 out of 10 times I suppose) on that same day as the bombing of Singapore took place by the same bombers.

(in reply to RADM.Yamaguchi)
Post #: 11
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/18/2020 6:33:01 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 3501
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
from memory, Singers start damaged, so it will take some days to start entrenchment, regardless of 1st day bombing

and I don't think the 2 squadrons doing night attack torpedo would bomb Singapore... unless I am missing something

will check

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 1/18/2020 6:39:35 PM >

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 12
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/18/2020 6:36:36 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 13683
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

from memory, Singers start damaged, so it will take some days to start entrenchment

and I don't think the 2 squadrons doing night attack torpedo would bomb Singapore... unless I am missing something

will check

I think he was saying you can set that night torpedo attack but the lack of a night phase in the first turn means it will not fly.
I think he meant that, historically, the IJ flew the night raids on Singapore that might explain why the port starts out 50% damaged.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 13
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/18/2020 6:36:52 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 3501
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
this is one of the 2 squadrons doing night attack torpedo

are you saying this squadron will then bomb Singapore later on the day?






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 14
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/18/2020 6:43:25 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 3501
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

from memory, Singers start damaged, so it will take some days to start entrenchment

and I don't think the 2 squadrons doing night attack torpedo would bomb Singapore... unless I am missing something

will check

I think he was saying you can set that night torpedo attack but the lack of a night phase in the first turn means it will not fly.
I think he meant that, historically, the IJ flew the night raids on Singapore that might explain why the port starts out 50% damaged.



if it is an abstraction, then it is OK. I mean PoW and Repulse sank 3 days after PH, but for gameplay purposes it is good that it all happens on the "special turn"

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 15
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/18/2020 6:50:46 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 3196
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

from memory, Singers start damaged, so it will take some days to start entrenchment

and I don't think the 2 squadrons doing night attack torpedo would bomb Singapore... unless I am missing something

will check

I think he was saying you can set that night torpedo attack but the lack of a night phase in the first turn means it will not fly.
I think he meant that, historically, the IJ flew the night raids on Singapore that might explain why the port starts out 50% damaged.



if it is an abstraction, then it is OK. I mean PoW and Repulse sank 3 days after PH, but for gameplay purposes it is good that it all happens on the "special turn"



True, otherwise they would not go there.

Actually, Admiral Phillips was in Manila and in talks to combine the Asiatic surface fleet elements with Force Z. Think of how that would have worked out, especially if Force Z did not do its suicide foray. I think that was what the Marblehead and four DDs were doing, going to Batavia first and then to Singapore. Think if the Houston and Boise were also included.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 16
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/19/2020 1:19:28 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 13683
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

from memory, Singers start damaged, so it will take some days to start entrenchment

and I don't think the 2 squadrons doing night attack torpedo would bomb Singapore... unless I am missing something

will check

I think he was saying you can set that night torpedo attack but the lack of a night phase in the first turn means it will not fly.
I think he meant that, historically, the IJ flew the night raids on Singapore that might explain why the port starts out 50% damaged.



if it is an abstraction, then it is OK. I mean PoW and Repulse sank 3 days after PH, but for gameplay purposes it is good that it all happens on the "special turn"


It depends on where you were standing. On that side of the date line, the war started on Dec. 8th, so it was only two days later that Pow and Repulse were sunk.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 17
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/19/2020 2:11:42 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5193
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

On that side of the date line, the war started on Dec. 8th


Irrespective of the date one considers the war to have started some of the bombers which practiced torpedo attacks prior to Pearl Harbor to attack Force Z bombed Singapore at 0430 or so on Dec 8th, 1941. The exact casualties of that attack are known as are the exact number of bombers (17) however I figure their bombing was extraordinary in the extreme to have inflicted 50% damage on the port (IIRC) preventing fortification in the game. IRL the British did next to nothing to fortify the island of Singapore until "the enemy was at the gates". In the game the Allied Player is saddled with some seriously stupid peacetime attitudes for multiple turns.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 18
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/19/2020 3:53:59 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9047
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

They work, but you need highly experienced pilots, great and aggressive leader, good DL, and it would seem high moonlight will also help. This is my experience yours may vary. I really do not use it much, so I do not have any real attacks to show you.

+1

They can be very effective, particularly as initial attacks as they will drain a lot of AA supply (ships shoot blindly using up incredible amounts of ordnance. It really helps when the flights come in in dribble and drabs. Andy AI removes this tactic in the Ironman Nasty versions by increasing the AI ship AA supply levels).

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 19
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/19/2020 4:42:16 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 3501
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

On that side of the date line, the war started on Dec. 8th

however I figure their bombing was extraordinary in the extreme to have inflicted 50% damage on the port (IIRC) preventing fortification in the game. IRL the British did next to nothing to fortify the island of Singapore until "the enemy was at the gates". In the game the Allied Player is saddled with some seriously stupid peacetime attitudes for multiple turns.



A bit off topic because the 50% damage is a game feature, but there were some reasons Singapore was not properly fortified; at leasy from Percival's perspective (attached a link to his book on Malaya; quite a good read, and it is free)

https://thewarinmalaya.wordpress.com/

so from Perival's War on Malaya:
"The fact that no defences had been constructed on the north and west coasts of the island in pre-war days, and only limited defences even after the war started, has been the subject of much critical comment even in the highest quarters. It has been imputed to a lack of foresight on the part of successive general officers commanding. Such criticism is most unjust. In the first place, general officers commanding had no authority to construct defences when or where they liked. The defences of Singapore were built up in accordance with a War Office plan, though of course recommendations of the local commander always received consideration. Then there was the question of the object of the defences. It was quite definitely the protection of the Naval Base —not the defence of Singapore Island. Now a very ordinary principle of warfare is that you site your defence in advance of the object to be protected; the distance in advance depends upon the range of the enemy’s weapons and increases as that range becomes greater. The Naval Base itself lies on the north shore of Singapore Island, and it would have been sheer folly to have sited the defences also on the shores of that island allowing the enemy to bomb, shell, and machine-gun the Naval Base at will. It would have been very nice no doubt to have had defences there in addition to those up-country, but finance prohibited that. As has already been stated, the expenditure on the defences in Malaya was always strictly controlled from home, and such money as was made available, apart from the defences on the south coast of the fortress, was of course spent, and quite rightly so, on defence works on the mainland. Even for these works there was never sufficient money available."

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 20
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/19/2020 1:20:47 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 3196
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

On that side of the date line, the war started on Dec. 8th

however I figure their bombing was extraordinary in the extreme to have inflicted 50% damage on the port (IIRC) preventing fortification in the game. IRL the British did next to nothing to fortify the island of Singapore until "the enemy was at the gates". In the game the Allied Player is saddled with some seriously stupid peacetime attitudes for multiple turns.


A bit off topic because the 50% damage is a game feature, but there were some reasons Singapore was not properly fortified; at leasy from Percival's perspective (attached a link to his book on Malaya; quite a good read, and it is free)

https://thewarinmalaya.wordpress.com/

so from Perival's War on Malaya:
"The fact that no defences had been constructed on the north and west coasts of the island in pre-war days, and only limited defences even after the war started, has been the subject of much critical comment even in the highest quarters. It has been imputed to a lack of foresight on the part of successive general officers commanding. Such criticism is most unjust. In the first place, general officers commanding had no authority to construct defences when or where they liked. The defences of Singapore were built up in accordance with a War Office plan, though of course recommendations of the local commander always received consideration. Then there was the question of the object of the defences. It was quite definitely the protection of the Naval Base —not the defence of Singapore Island. Now a very ordinary principle of warfare is that you site your defence in advance of the object to be protected; the distance in advance depends upon the range of the enemy’s weapons and increases as that range becomes greater. The Naval Base itself lies on the north shore of Singapore Island, and it would have been sheer folly to have sited the defences also on the shores of that island allowing the enemy to bomb, shell, and machine-gun the Naval Base at will. It would have been very nice no doubt to have had defences there in addition to those up-country, but finance prohibited that. As has already been stated, the expenditure on the defences in Malaya was always strictly controlled from home, and such money as was made available, apart from the defences on the south coast of the fortress, was of course spent, and quite rightly so, on defence works on the mainland. Even for these works there was never sufficient money available."



Interesting. However, I hate it when there is an apparent error since it appears to be a sloppy work and thus may not be accurate. See if you can find any error here:

quote:

Early that morning almost a hundred Mitsubishi G3M and G4M twin-engined bombers, later code named “Nell” and “Sally” took off from bases in Indochina in search of Force Z.


_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 21
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/19/2020 1:49:15 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 3501
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
Yes, but important to mention the error was made by the foreword writer, Allen Parfitt; not by Percival

and of course, Sally, Betty or Nell were American nicknames, maybe British writers were less used to them

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 22
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/19/2020 2:10:23 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 3196
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline
Yes, but reading the first part of the book there is a reference to a potential problem with General Dobbies religion (there was none) with no comment about the religion other than that. I had to look up the religion to see what it was. Either mention the religion but since there was no problem, don't even mention it. I realize that it was a different era, but still it is annoying.

Just like a book I read about the Dolittle Raiders that mentioned a Japanese torpedo that was 2 feet long and could travel 24 miles. Irritating to me.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 23
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/19/2020 2:40:28 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 3501
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
It also had some condescending or colonialist thoughts like:

"It is a great pity that the Japanese commanders allowed, and sometimes even ordered, the atrocities which were committed by their officers and men, but that again may be due in some measure to lack of time, since their country emerged from its isolation, in which to absorb fully the accepted doctrines of civilization."

but those attitudes, and some other errors are inevitable when you read from primary sources

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 24
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/19/2020 3:06:58 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 3196
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline
In the Philipines, apparently Colonel Tsuji Masanobu contacted Japanese units after the Bataan surrender to kill their prisoners. Some did, most did not, some even let their prisoners go. I believe General Homma had no knowledge of this but I am not sure. He escaped after the war and was never tried for war crimes.

Still, it was a different era and a different culture.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 25
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/19/2020 4:27:45 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9047
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

On that side of the date line, the war started on Dec. 8th

however I figure their bombing was extraordinary in the extreme to have inflicted 50% damage on the port (IIRC) preventing fortification in the game. IRL the British did next to nothing to fortify the island of Singapore until "the enemy was at the gates". In the game the Allied Player is saddled with some seriously stupid peacetime attitudes for multiple turns.



A bit off topic because the 50% damage is a game feature, but there were some reasons Singapore was not properly fortified; at leasy from Percival's perspective (attached a link to his book on Malaya; quite a good read, and it is free)

https://thewarinmalaya.wordpress.com/

so from Perival's War on Malaya:
"The fact that no defences had been constructed on the north and west coasts of the island in pre-war days, and only limited defences even after the war started, has been the subject of much critical comment even in the highest quarters. It has been imputed to a lack of foresight on the part of successive general officers commanding. Such criticism is most unjust. In the first place, general officers commanding had no authority to construct defences when or where they liked. The defences of Singapore were built up in accordance with a War Office plan, though of course recommendations of the local commander always received consideration. Then there was the question of the object of the defences. It was quite definitely the protection of the Naval Base —not the defence of Singapore Island. Now a very ordinary principle of warfare is that you site your defence in advance of the object to be protected; the distance in advance depends upon the range of the enemy’s weapons and increases as that range becomes greater. The Naval Base itself lies on the north shore of Singapore Island, and it would have been sheer folly to have sited the defences also on the shores of that island allowing the enemy to bomb, shell, and machine-gun the Naval Base at will. It would have been very nice no doubt to have had defences there in addition to those up-country, but finance prohibited that. As has already been stated, the expenditure on the defences in Malaya was always strictly controlled from home, and such money as was made available, apart from the defences on the south coast of the fortress, was of course spent, and quite rightly so, on defence works on the mainland. Even for these works there was never sufficient money available."


Yeah, a lot of people forget that WWII came at the heels of the Great Depression. No one had enough money for anything in the Democratic countries. Further, Great Britain, while certainly concerned about it Far East Jewels, had just recently withstood a threat of invasion of its homeland. Finally, the cost of constructing defenses in Asia was enormous and to what end? They didn't have the forces to man them anyway. No point constructing another Maginot line unless you can actually man the defenses …

Just my opinion...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 26
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/19/2020 5:02:17 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 5694
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury



... A bit off topic because the 50% damage is a game feature, but there were some reasons Singapore was not properly fortified; at leasy from Percival's perspective (attached a link to his book on Malaya; quite a good read, and it is free)

https://thewarinmalaya.wordpress.com/

so from Perival's War on Malaya:
"The fact that no defences had been constructed on the north and west coasts of the island in pre-war days, and only limited defences even after the war started, has been the subject of much critical comment even in the highest quarters. It has been imputed to a lack of foresight on the part of successive general officers commanding. Such criticism is most unjust. In the first place, general officers commanding had no authority to construct defences when or where they liked. The defences of Singapore were built up in accordance with a War Office plan, though of course recommendations of the local commander always received consideration. Then there was the question of the object of the defences. It was quite definitely the protection of the Naval Base —not the defence of Singapore Island. Now a very ordinary principle of warfare is that you site your defence in advance of the object to be protected; the distance in advance depends upon the range of the enemy’s weapons and increases as that range becomes greater. The Naval Base itself lies on the north shore of Singapore Island, and it would have been sheer folly to have sited the defences also on the shores of that island allowing the enemy to bomb, shell, and machine-gun the Naval Base at will. It would have been very nice no doubt to have had defences there in addition to those up-country, but finance prohibited that. As has already been stated, the expenditure on the defences in Malaya was always strictly controlled from home, and such money as was made available, apart from the defences on the south coast of the fortress, was of course spent, and quite rightly so, on defence works on the mainland. Even for these works there was never sufficient money available."



The above quote doesn't come close to explaining the restrictions which were imposed upon Percival before and during the Malayan campaign.

1. Throughout the whole of Malaya, not just in Singapore itself, any defensive preparation which cost 500 pounds (includes capital and labour costs) had to be approved by the civilian Governor.

2. The Governor was under strict instructions that nothing was to be entertained if it impacted adversely upon the colony's rubber production. This meant that no local civilian labour could be diverted from rubber production and processing to military preparations. No labour employed on the rubber plantations, no labour employed to transport rubber to the docks, no stevedoring labour; none could be used for military purposes. Nor could rubber trees be cut down to provide fields of fire for artillery (the one thing which doctrinally the British army post WWI overly relied upon to hold ground), nor roads cut through the plantations.

3. As a result of 1 and 2 above, Percival was forced to use the untrained Indian soldiers to build military infrastructure. This in turn meant that necessary military training needs could not be met.

Alfred

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 27
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/19/2020 5:37:41 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 24206
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury



... A bit off topic because the 50% damage is a game feature, but there were some reasons Singapore was not properly fortified; at leasy from Percival's perspective (attached a link to his book on Malaya; quite a good read, and it is free)

https://thewarinmalaya.wordpress.com/

so from Perival's War on Malaya:
"The fact that no defences had been constructed on the north and west coasts of the island in pre-war days, and only limited defences even after the war started, has been the subject of much critical comment even in the highest quarters. It has been imputed to a lack of foresight on the part of successive general officers commanding. Such criticism is most unjust. In the first place, general officers commanding had no authority to construct defences when or where they liked. The defences of Singapore were built up in accordance with a War Office plan, though of course recommendations of the local commander always received consideration. Then there was the question of the object of the defences. It was quite definitely the protection of the Naval Base —not the defence of Singapore Island. Now a very ordinary principle of warfare is that you site your defence in advance of the object to be protected; the distance in advance depends upon the range of the enemy’s weapons and increases as that range becomes greater. The Naval Base itself lies on the north shore of Singapore Island, and it would have been sheer folly to have sited the defences also on the shores of that island allowing the enemy to bomb, shell, and machine-gun the Naval Base at will. It would have been very nice no doubt to have had defences there in addition to those up-country, but finance prohibited that. As has already been stated, the expenditure on the defences in Malaya was always strictly controlled from home, and such money as was made available, apart from the defences on the south coast of the fortress, was of course spent, and quite rightly so, on defence works on the mainland. Even for these works there was never sufficient money available."



The above quote doesn't come close to explaining the restrictions which were imposed upon Percival before and during the Malayan campaign.

1. Throughout the whole of Malaya, not just in Singapore itself, any defensive preparation which cost 500 pounds (includes capital and labour costs) had to be approved by the civilian Governor.

2. The Governor was under strict instructions that nothing was to be entertained if it impacted adversely upon the colony's rubber production. This meant that no local civilian labour could be diverted from rubber production and processing to military preparations. No labour employed on the rubber plantations, no labour employed to transport rubber to the docks, no stevedoring labour; none could be used for military purposes. Nor could rubber trees be cut down to provide fields of fire for artillery (the one thing which doctrinally the British army post WWI overly relied upon to hold ground), nor roads cut through the plantations.

3. As a result of 1 and 2 above, Percival was forced to use the untrained Indian soldiers to build military infrastructure. This in turn meant that necessary military training needs could not be met.

Alfred



_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 28
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/19/2020 6:00:16 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 5988
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: online
quote:

They can be very effective, particularly as initial attacks as they will drain a lot of AA supply (ships shoot blindly using up incredible amounts of ordnance.


IRL U.S. carriers did not fire at night torp attacks, so as not to give their position away.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 29
RE: night torpedo attack - 1/19/2020 7:15:17 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 3196
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

On that side of the date line, the war started on Dec. 8th

however I figure their bombing was extraordinary in the extreme to have inflicted 50% damage on the port (IIRC) preventing fortification in the game. IRL the British did next to nothing to fortify the island of Singapore until "the enemy was at the gates". In the game the Allied Player is saddled with some seriously stupid peacetime attitudes for multiple turns.



A bit off topic because the 50% damage is a game feature, but there were some reasons Singapore was not properly fortified; at leasy from Percival's perspective (attached a link to his book on Malaya; quite a good read, and it is free)

https://thewarinmalaya.wordpress.com/

so from Perival's War on Malaya:
"The fact that no defences had been constructed on the north and west coasts of the island in pre-war days, and only limited defences even after the war started, has been the subject of much critical comment even in the highest quarters. It has been imputed to a lack of foresight on the part of successive general officers commanding. Such criticism is most unjust. In the first place, general officers commanding had no authority to construct defences when or where they liked. The defences of Singapore were built up in accordance with a War Office plan, though of course recommendations of the local commander always received consideration. Then there was the question of the object of the defences. It was quite definitely the protection of the Naval Base —not the defence of Singapore Island. Now a very ordinary principle of warfare is that you site your defence in advance of the object to be protected; the distance in advance depends upon the range of the enemy’s weapons and increases as that range becomes greater. The Naval Base itself lies on the north shore of Singapore Island, and it would have been sheer folly to have sited the defences also on the shores of that island allowing the enemy to bomb, shell, and machine-gun the Naval Base at will. It would have been very nice no doubt to have had defences there in addition to those up-country, but finance prohibited that. As has already been stated, the expenditure on the defences in Malaya was always strictly controlled from home, and such money as was made available, apart from the defences on the south coast of the fortress, was of course spent, and quite rightly so, on defence works on the mainland. Even for these works there was never sufficient money available."


Yeah, a lot of people forget that WWII came at the heels of the Great Depression. No one had enough money for anything in the Democratic countries. Further, Great Britain, while certainly concerned about it Far East Jewels, had just recently withstood a threat of invasion of its homeland. Finally, the cost of constructing defenses in Asia was enormous and to what end? They didn't have the forces to man them anyway. No point constructing another Maginot line unless you can actually man the defenses …

Just my opinion...


They did have the manpower but not enough equipment. Poor and indecisive leadership, and I will actually agree with Alfred on the poor training.

Just think if there was just one squadron of Matildas to stop the Japanese tanks.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> night torpedo attack Page: [1] 2   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

0.188