|
Post by williammiller on May 11, 2020 8:40:28 GMT -6
Show me reliable evidence of any combat mission in history where carrier-based TBs carried more than one torp each. Rather than getting caught up in whether or not it historically happened, is it possible, in your opinion, that sometime during the 1950’s that a nation could prioritize a two torpedo bomber? This is sim is a bit ‘what if’ when it comes to historical accuracy anyway. I just hope we all remember that. I think from where my perspective is I would like to hear the argument of why using or developing and researching for that matter a two torpedo bomber wouldn’t be worth it. Now this is a reasonable argument for possible allowance, thank you. It would go well with the potential addition of doctrinal choices I would like to add to the game, along with perhaps a tech tree item or two to enable it on an operational/technical level.
|
|
Warspite
Full Member
Sky of blue/And sea of green
Posts: 230
|
Post by Warspite on May 11, 2020 9:03:18 GMT -6
Doctrinal choices sounds interesting. I hope they can be added to the game.
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 11, 2020 10:58:06 GMT -6
1) "If you have a source that carrier borne torpedo planes capable of carrying 2 torpedoes would not carry 2 torpedoes on a strike mission please do enlighten me" Asking someone to 'prove a negative' is a rather well-known fallacy, as you have to eliminate all potential counter-possibilities for the claim to be proven in this particular case. Let's try this: Show me reliable evidence of any combat mission in history where carrier-based TBs carried more than one torp each. 2) "b ecause all ive seen is a singular mission against a dam in north korea where every part of the missions circumstances except that 8 planes took part with 8 torpedoes is unknown basing all data on a singular attack of which we do not know the circumstances is VERY misleading" Firstly, if you put in a modicum of effort you can find significant information about the raid in question, *including* the official report of it. Secondly, nowhere did I claim my whole argument was based on that singular raid...I rather clearly pointed out multiple reasons why 2 torps would not be carried by carrier aircraft, with the raid as a singular illustration of carrying a single torp in combat. christian - If you continue to...I'll be nice and call it..."misrepresenting"...my statements, we are going to have a problem. Are we clear on this? 2) no other torpedo equipped raids happened so there are no other raids you can base it off of ? you have no other raids to take data from quote wiki which is not a good source but i have been unable to find anything disproving either of the linked sources to said wiki quote and one of them states that it is the only time from 1945 that a raid against surface targets was conducted with torpedoes looking through navypedia no north korean vessel were sunk by torpedo attack and none were attacked by torpedoes and neither can i find any wars with torpedo bombers between 1945 and 1950 secondly the ad-4 cant carry 2 torpedoes and even the ad-7 cant carry 2 torpedoes despite a better engine and strengthened wing hardpoints (payload chart later in this reply) 1) except its not when you made said claim yet when i ask for a source you cant give me one and instead say that ignoring your burden of proof and wiki says " Nevertheless, it has been said whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim." this is to avoid people making negative claims and using the prove a negative fallacy as protection against the burden of proof which you have just done thus whether you made a negative of positive claim does not matter you still have to back up the burden of proof since you made a negative claim i am of course asking you to prove said negative claim aka burden of proof what i am asking you to source is this claim which you put up i have highlighted the bits i want you to source the burden of proof lies on you and i expect you to fulfill it and no its not misinterpreting your quote i specifically asked quote me "If you have a source that carrier borne torpedo planes capable of carrying 2 torpedoes would not carry 2 torpedoes on a strike mission please do enlighten me" which is exactly what you claimed "no in-service carrier-based torpedo bomber carried more than 1 torpedo on actual missions"quote you upon reading a bit further into this i found something interesting 1 the skyraider cant carry 2 torpedoes according to its payload manual i.imgur.com/5M8JcPy.pngi.imgur.com/cKiWUnq.pngi.imgur.com/cKiWUnq.pngi.imgur.com/uFckj3N.pngthus my statement of it being able to carry 2 torpedoes is wrong (mk43 and 57 is the torpedoes and they can only be used on the central hardpoint) and so is your statement of is wrong we are both wrong the skyraider could in the first spot not carry 2 torpedoes thus said raid against said dam has 0 relevance anymore when discussing torpedo bombers with 2 torpedoes "A publicity photo shot does not realism make" publicity photos does not make the photos any less relevant and i fail to see why it would the pictures (multiple) showing the AM-1 mauler carrying 3 torpedoes and several bombs are as real as they are and were taken during armament tests for both aircraft during which an unofficial max payload record was set upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/AM-1s_armed.jpg/220px-AM-1s_armed.jpgpbs.twimg.com/media/D1AQ9tgX0AASO-d.jpglh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/3F5DitbNBp1SYOYeI7DaAXUGsjbfuiIZfqNyPgXjK6zSLX48xMSJiqjtxRoAgC8hHZtAw8dcpedyRKlvxWP_OULwZAMoQmgVi0Qwo8vV2NUi.pinimg.com/originals/a9/89/59/a98959040afa5b70ea9cd3ff0b872457.jpglive.staticflickr.com/3230/4556569330_6e0f87c7ce_z.jpgwww.airwar.ru/image/idop/aww2/am1/am1-15.jpgforum.warthunder.com/uploads/monthly_2019_11/image.png.9266317e67304f746627831cbb3a3122.pngwas unable to aquire the AM-1 mauler flight manual due to a price of 15 dollars though whether you believe or not in these photos the flight manual of a BTD-1 should convince you i.imgur.com/xoHCuWs.pngBTD devastator flight manual "(3) UNDER FUSELAGE: 1 OR 2 - MARK 13-1 OR 13-2 TORPEDOES"
now to double torpedo or not to ? 2 pages ago you denied double torpedoes on the grounds of "something that we believed would not be realistic. " quote you williamyet "This is sim is a bit ‘what if’ when it comes to historical accuracy anyway" quote berte
made you completely change your mind and ignore your previously historically based reason for not implementing torpedo bombers i actually do not know whether you now support is neutral or against the idea of double torpedoes on torpedo bombers on one hand you have supported it on another hand you bashed someone for suggesting it my intire point has been that double torpedoes should have a place in the game of course not without penalties but they should be in game i suggest you and i take this up on discord as to not clog up the forums im Woah#6559 on discord
|
|
|
Post by griffin01 on May 11, 2020 11:31:32 GMT -6
Christian, this is a bad hill to die on. If I were you I'd drop it, or at least made the tone more pleasant.
|
|
|
Post by cogsandspigots on May 11, 2020 12:20:51 GMT -6
I think that we’re getting to involved in the nitty gritty of if anyone ever *did* use multiple torpedo bombers, and not if they *should* in the context of RtW2. In our timeline, there was nothing on Earth that was worth sending multiple torpedo bombers to attack, not after their creation. In RtW2, a target worthy of a torpedo bomber carrying two torpedoes is a more than common occurrence. And I think the relevance to the game is more important to this conversation than if they were ever used operationally in real life.
And not to just be contrarian, I do absolutely agree they should be an option in game. There is both enough historical precedence for their existence (if not necessarily use), and PLENTY of relevant in game application.
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 11, 2020 13:15:46 GMT -6
I think that we’re getting to involved in the nitty gritty of if anyone ever *did* use multiple torpedo bombers, and not if they *should* in the context of RtW2. In our timeline, there was nothing on Earth that was worth sending multiple torpedo bombers to attack, not after their creation. In RtW2, a target worthy of a torpedo bomber carrying two torpedoes is a more than common occurrence. And I think the relevance to the game is more important to this conversation than if they were ever used operationally in real life. And not to just be contrarian, I do absolutely agree they should be an option in game. There is both enough historical precedence for their existence (if not necessarily use), and PLENTY of relevant in game application. especially since ship tonnage very quickly goes quite high in game compared to real life where few battleships still sailed and the only targets for torpedo bombers were carriers and cruisers (with the occasional iowa for the soviets) and by the 60s the soviets had very few ships worth using torpedoes on and SAP bombs and rockets would have been able to deal with the intirety of the russian surface fleet in game by the 60s nations still have a ton of carriers (for all nations) a few BB and BCs these require quite a bit more to sink thus improved torpedo bombers would be nice
|
|
|
Post by tbr on May 11, 2020 15:43:38 GMT -6
Christian, the "Mk43" and "Mk57" are "Special Weapons", i.e. nuclear bombs, not torpedoes (you might be confused with the Mk43 anti-submarine LWT). You have not posted a link to any document that shows torpedo payload for the Skyraider. I suspect the documents one can find on the 'net date from after the Mk13 (the straight runnin ant-surface ship aerial torpedo) was finally removed from service in the early 1950's. The documents you link include gun pods (e.g. the SUU 11/A with the M134 whose "unpodded" in-service date was 1963) whose entry into service are more than a decade later (i.e. they date from the mid-sixties or later), so it would fit that they would not show a weapon system long out of service.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 11, 2020 16:13:17 GMT -6
I suspect the documents one can find on the 'net date from after the Mk13 (the straight runnin ant-surface ship aerial torpedo) was finally removed from service in the early 1950's. Not all of them. Ordnance table on the third page of the PDF: "Torp. 2160# Wings & Fuse. 3" - three 2,160lb torpedoes, one under the fuselage and two under the wings. Presumably, the under-wing torpedoes would go on the points which have "Stores up to 3000 pounds" on the documents that christian linked.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on May 11, 2020 16:19:31 GMT -6
christian - Either tone it down a few notches or you will be taking a break from the forums...last warning. I have said all I am going to say concerning multiple torp carriage, and frankly I have no desire to sort through a disorganized wall of text & waste more time on this particular subject with you.
|
|
berte
Full Member
BANNED
Posts: 109
|
Post by berte on May 11, 2020 16:38:07 GMT -6
Rather than getting caught up in whether or not it historically happened, is it possible, in your opinion, that sometime during the 1950’s that a nation could prioritize a two torpedo bomber? This is sim is a bit ‘what if’ when it comes to historical accuracy anyway. I just hope we all remember that. I think from where my perspective is I would like to hear the argument of why using or developing and researching for that matter a two torpedo bomber wouldn’t be worth it. Now this is a reasonable argument for possible allowance, thank you. It would go well with the potential addition of doctrinal choices I would like to add to the game, along with perhaps a tech tree item or two to enable it on an operational/technical level. That sounds really cool. I was thinking about it and I could imagine a nation like the USA not ever really considering this. I mean, they have plenty of carriers, planes, ships, etc., so why not er on the side of caution and just play to your strength, you wouldn’t ever need double torps? But take a nation like Italy. Their smaller economy and inability to keep up with the number of carriers and ships might lead them in another direction to reach parity on the playing field. I dunno. Food for thought.
|
|
berte
Full Member
BANNED
Posts: 109
|
Post by berte on May 11, 2020 16:43:24 GMT -6
And to follow up, I’m not sure this is the case, but does the game model plane payload and speed? Maybe it should? I can definitely see how planes wouldn’t carry their maximum payload because they’d need to evade enemy fire, especially planes carrying multiple torps, which altogether is an expensive package along with the plane and the pilot and this whole affair would only have a short decade maybe of viability as very soon missiles would do the same job, from further away and much more cheaply. Still like to see it considered. It might just be the thing that bridges that lethality gap before missiles come out which is currently missing in the game.
One more thing to consider. The world had had enough war by 1945. And conventional ways of killing your enemy were being re-evaluated. But say in our fictional games, this was only a regional war... quite possible to see strange technologically divergent paths being taken on the best ways to kill your enemy.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on May 11, 2020 17:16:58 GMT -6
And to follow up, I’m not sure this is the case, but does the game model plane payload and speed? Maybe it should? I can definitely see how planes wouldn’t carry their maximum payload because they’d need to evade enemy fire, especially planes carrying multiple torps, which altogether is an expensive package along with the plane and the pilot and this whole affair would only have a short decade maybe of viability as very soon missiles would do the same job, from further away and much more cheaply. Still like to see it considered. It might just be the thing that bridges that lethality gap before missiles come out which is currently missing in the game. One more thing to consider. The world had had enough war by 1945. And conventional ways of killing your enemy were being re-evaluated. But say in our fictional games, this was only a regional war... quite possible to see strange technologically divergent paths being taken on the best ways to kill your enemy. The game does model payload effects on maneuverability and speed...a fighter with a heavy load had better jettison its load else it will be in serious trouble .
We would likely add even more details to this in any DLC that comes out, but that would be just a bit later...
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 12, 2020 3:26:58 GMT -6
I suspect the documents one can find on the 'net date from after the Mk13 (the straight runnin ant-surface ship aerial torpedo) was finally removed from service in the early 1950's. Not all of them. Ordnance table on the third page of the PDF: "Torp. 2160# Wings & Fuse. 3" - three 2,160lb torpedoes, one under the fuselage and two under the wings. Presumably, the under-wing torpedoes would go on the points which have "Stores up to 3000 pounds" on the documents that christian linked. yeah ok i trust your source more than mine the skyraider could carry 3 torpedoes it is interesting though that the later variant cant carry the smaller torpedoes (mk43) on the inner wing pylons or atleast is not stated to be able to though also worth noting that with a max torpedo payload of all 3 torpedoes which is 6480 pounds and a combat plane weight of 15793 pounds gives it a 22,200 pound takeoff weight which makes it require a 25-28 knot carrier speed (in wind) to take off from the CVE 105 the CVE 105 is an escort carrier to take off from the USS oriskany the carrier would not need to make any speed and could basically stand still and still launch the plane at 20 knot speed the oriskany could launch the skyraider with its maximum possible payload of around 24000 pounds
|
|
|
Post by holoween on May 12, 2020 8:13:47 GMT -6
As an aside to the debate over multiple torpedos carried i fail to see the sensibility of it. If you could carry more than 1 torpedo rather than carrying more just make a larger torpedo. It will be cheaper overall and more likely to seriously damage the target.
|
|
|
Post by cogsandspigots on May 12, 2020 21:16:05 GMT -6
As an aside to the debate over multiple torpedos carried i fail to see the sensibility of it. If you could carry more than 1 torpedo rather than carrying more just make a larger torpedo. It will be cheaper overall and more likely to seriously damage the target. Standardization. Why have 2 torpedoes that only some planes can carry when you could have 1 torpedo that fits on all planes, and can be doubled up on the heaviest bombers? Anything to streamline logistics.
|
|