berte
Full Member
BANNED
Posts: 109
|
Post by berte on May 4, 2020 0:34:59 GMT -6
I’ve played through a campaign until 1954 and have noticed starting around the mid 1940s that torpedo bombers are not as good as dive bombers in terms of the damage and hits that are done. I’m thinking that I should have already converted my entire air wing to dive bombers. This used to not be the case. Before 1940, torpedo bombers rule, after, not so much. Why is that?
Also, in the 1950s, what kind of plane should my carriers be using predominately? Just fighters that I can dual use? Or is there some way to get either dive bombers or torpedo bombers to use guided bombs? I’m not sure I’m doing it right. Maybe use torpedo bombers and change out the load out to H from T or is there some other type ordinance that’s not implemented yet?
Thank you!
|
|
|
|
Post by secondcomingofzeno on May 4, 2020 2:23:14 GMT -6
IIRC no torpedo bombers ingame carry more than 1 torpedo, when historically the 45 onwards ones could.
|
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on May 4, 2020 8:59:15 GMT -6
IIRC no torpedo bombers ingame carry more than 1 torpedo, when historically the 45 onwards ones could. While a couple of very late model torpedo bombers could theoretically carry 2 torps, no in-service carrier-based torpedo bomber carried more than 1 torpedo on actual missions, for various reasons (including scarcity/expense of the torps, range & handling issues, landing issues - you generally don't want to land with a torp, so if you have 2 torps & don't use them you have to jettison & waste 2 torps instead of 1, etc...)
As one late example, with the AD-4 Skyraider raid on the Hwachon Dam on May 1st 1951 during the Korean War, each aircraft only carried a single torpedo on the center-line, even though they could theoretically carry two (one under each inner-wing pylon).
|
|
|
|
Post by secondcomingofzeno on May 4, 2020 19:50:57 GMT -6
IIRC no torpedo bombers ingame carry more than 1 torpedo, when historically the 45 onwards ones could. While a couple of very late model torpedo bombers could theoretically carry 2 torps, no in-service carrier-based torpedo bomber carried more than 1 torpedo on actual missions, for various reasons (including scarcity/expense of the torps, range & handling issues, landing issues - you generally don't want to land with a torp, so if you have 2 torps & don't use them you have to jettison & waste 2 torps instead of 1, etc...)
As one late example, with the AD-4 Skyraider raid on the Hwachon Dam on May 1st 1951 during the Korean War, each aircraft only carried a single torpedo on the center-line, even though they could theoretically carry two (one under each inner-wing pylon).
I know it's 'theoretical', but we're already running fighters with 2 1000 bombs regularly, since when did that happen in WW2? |
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on May 4, 2020 21:11:07 GMT -6
"I know it's 'theoretical', but we're already running fighters with 2 1000 bombs regularly, since when did that happen in WW2?"
Actually, the above statement is not particularly accurate - there certainly were a number of instances where late-war fighters carried pairs of 1000-lb bombs on missions in late WW2, and even more-so in Korea - it's not that hard to find pretty clear evidence of that. There is, however, no evidence available that any single carrier torpedo plane *ever* carried more than one torp on any combat mission; to add to what I mentioned above, the difference in cost between a torp and a bomb was something on the order of as high as 50:1 so navies did not want (or in some cases afford) to waste them. Far, far fewer numbers of torps were available/carried on board than bombs, which is yet another factor.
So, what I stated above still stands as accurate, and are pertinent reasons for not including something that we believed would not be realistic.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by secondcomingofzeno on May 4, 2020 21:15:50 GMT -6
"I know it's 'theoretical', but we're already running fighters with 2 1000 bombs regularly, since when did that happen in WW2?" Actually, the above statement is not particularly accurate - there certainly were a number of instances where late-war fighters carried pairs of 1000-lb bombs on missions in late WW2, and even more-so in Korea - it's not that hard to find pretty clear evidence of that. There is, however, no evidence available that any single carrier torpedo plane *ever* carried more than one torp on any combat mission; to add to what I mentioned above, the difference in cost between a torp and a bomb was something on the order of as high as 50:1 so navies did not want (or in some cases afford) to waste them. Far, far fewer numbers of torps were available/carried on board than bombs, which is yet another factor. So, what I stated above still stands as accurate. Thank you. AM1 could carry THREE torpedoes. |
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on May 4, 2020 21:20:02 GMT -6
"I know it's 'theoretical', but we're already running fighters with 2 1000 bombs regularly, since when did that happen in WW2?" Actually, the above statement is not particularly accurate - there certainly were a number of instances where late-war fighters carried pairs of 1000-lb bombs on missions in late WW2, and even more-so in Korea - it's not that hard to find pretty clear evidence of that. There is, however, no evidence available that any single carrier torpedo plane *ever* carried more than one torp on any combat mission; to add to what I mentioned above, the difference in cost between a torp and a bomb was something on the order of as high as 50:1 so navies did not want (or in some cases afford) to waste them. Far, far fewer numbers of torps were available/carried on board than bombs, which is yet another factor. So, what I stated above still stands as accurate. Thank you. AM1 could carry THREE torpedoes. Yeap, and it never operationally carried more than one, due to safety and other issues I mention above.
"A publicity photo shot does not realism make" :-) |
|
|
|
Post by secondcomingofzeno on May 4, 2020 23:14:20 GMT -6
AM1 could carry THREE torpedoes. Yeap, and it never operationally carried more than one, due to safety and other issues I mention above.
"A publicity photo shot does not realism make" :-) Americans never operationally had 90000 ton battleships with diving shells and 6 inch DP secondaries. ;v Russia never built a fast battleship...Ever. The CSA didn't rise up in the 40's and build 300 submarines. ;v |
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on May 5, 2020 0:00:01 GMT -6
Yeap, and it never operationally carried more than one, due to safety and other issues I mention above.
"A publicity photo shot does not realism make" :-) Americans never operationally had 90000 ton battleships with diving shells and 6 inch DP secondaries. ;v Russia never built a fast battleship...Ever. The CSA didn't rise up in the 40's and build 300 submarines. ;v Sorry zeno, not going to argue this with you ad infinitum...we have both stated our points fairly completely by now I think, so I am moving on.
Have a great week. |
|
|
|
Post by secondcomingofzeno on May 5, 2020 1:24:23 GMT -6
Americans never operationally had 90000 ton battleships with diving shells and 6 inch DP secondaries. ;v Russia never built a fast battleship...Ever. The CSA didn't rise up in the 40's and build 300 submarines. ;v Sorry zeno, not going to argue this with you ad infinitum...we have both stated our points fairly completely by now I think, so I am moving on.
Have a great week. Yeh okay. |
|
|
|
Post by skoggatt on May 5, 2020 16:40:52 GMT -6
As far as the original question goes, I think it depends on what bomb load your dive bombers have access to more than tech level. Early on torps are the only weapons that can reliably sink BBs and CVs. Once you get into 800+ lb bombs dive bombers can pretty effectively attack any target, but with greater accuracy and fewer losses than torpedo bombers.
Regarding multiple torpedoes, I'd rather see multipurpose attack aircraft like the Skyraider be able to both dive bomb or drop torpedoes, thus replacing two types of aircraft. Or large anti ship rockets such as Tiny Tim offering a safer attack profile to torpedoes as AA gets more powerful late game.
|
|
berte
Full Member
BANNED
Posts: 109
|
Post by berte on May 5, 2020 16:59:36 GMT -6
As far as the original question goes, I think it depends on what bomb load your dive bombers have access to more than tech level. Early on torps are the only weapons that can reliably sink BBs and CVs. Once you get into 800+ lb bombs dive bombers can pretty effectively attack any target, but with greater accuracy and fewer losses than torpedo bombers. Regarding multiple torpedoes, I'd rather see multipurpose attack aircraft like the Skyraider be able to both dive bomb or drop torpedoes, thus replacing two types of aircraft. Or large anti ship rockets such as Tiny Tim offering a safer attack profile to torpedoes as AA gets more powerful late game. That's a really good answer. 1st for the OP, once 1000 lb bombs for DB's come into play, torpedo bombers just take too many losses. One statistic that I think is pretty easy to determine on your own is that around this timeline when DB's drop 1000 lb bombs, I usually have been running with a mix of half TB and half DB squadrons on carriers and I've noticed that the DB's get 2x or more hits than do the TB. This ratio only increases as time goes on to the point where I just do away with TB's alltogether. And the second part is yes, we need another aircraft type and Tech in the late 1940's early 50's that can Dive Bomb and drop Torpedoes. Or just make DB's capable of using Torpedoes and give us some compliment of torpedoes per DB plane onboard. In the early 1950's, TB's just get shot down too fast and get too few hits for it to even be worth justifying a single Squadron onboard. In the rare case the enemy doesn't have some type of carrier and I do, I'd like to use a DB that can equip a torpedo. |
|
|
|
Post by holoween on May 5, 2020 21:49:47 GMT -6
In the early 1950's, TB's just get shot down too fast and get too few hits for it to even be worth justifying a single Squadron onboard. In the rare case the enemy doesn't have some type of carrier and I do, I'd like to use a DB that can equip a torpedo.
I find this interesting because in the early 50s i phase out my last dive bombers because at that point im getting fighters with higher bomb load, more range and higher speed. I will always have at least 1 torpedo bomber squadron on each carrier though.
Torpedo bombers simply have the greatest ability to cripple even the largest ships with single hits. And their survivability is largely a function of proper escort because even if you shoot down 10 of the 20 attacking torpedo bombers with aa which is unlikely the remaining ones will still most likely get a hit or two which easily sinks smaller ships and cripples larger ships ability to evade followon attacks.
|
|
berte
Full Member
BANNED
Posts: 109
|
Post by berte on May 5, 2020 22:26:44 GMT -6
Fighters don't dive bomb. Do they? I'm not sure. That's why I keep DB's around. They are able to put a bomb through any type of Turret Top or Deck armor. Although most battleships are phased out by this point, BC's are still a threat.
holoween, how many escorts do you usually send with a bomber squadron... if say, you have four average type carriers and you've just spotted an enemy CV group?
|
|
|
|
Post by holoween on May 5, 2020 22:48:43 GMT -6
holoween, how many escorts do you usually send with a bomber squadron... if say, you have four average type carriers and you've just spotted an enemy CV group? Depends on how amy carriers there are but usually 1 fighter squadron for 2 bombers. If i expect more CAP 1 fighter squadron for 1 bomber squadron. |
|
