Hello? chirp chirp anyone out there?

[perdue3]

See Rule #4

[Brooke]

See Rule #4

[Brooke]

I have flown torpedo bombers in every scenario and every "This Day in WWII" event that has had torpedo bombers in it.  That includes flying mostly B5N's in "This Day:  Coral Sea", B5N's in "This Day: Pearl Harbor", and TBM's for half the time in the Coral Sea scenarios and B5N's for half the time in scenarios.  Since Coral Sea is a side-switch event, it is by definition exactly balanced.  However, it is my opinion that the B5N and TBM as torpedo bombers do not give that much difference in effect.  The reason is, as I have stated, that regardless of which one you are in, you have to approach a known location for an extended distance at sea level and 200 mph while focusing on your line up to target.  In that situation, it doesn't matter all that much whether you are in a TBM or a B5N.  I didn't do particularly better in the TBM than the B5N -- mostly it depended what the cap and escort were like.  If the ship wasn't defended, then either one is the same (hit with a torpedo).  If the ship is well defended, then either one is the same (will be shot down).

[Brooke]

I-16 subbing for G.50 has happened. 110-C for KI-45 has happened. Did that hurt immersion?

There is more of course. For some reason TBM is immune to being switched out for something closer to a TBD.

1941-1945 Pacific it is going to have a TBM. Just say that from now on.

There haven't been any scenarios with I-16's, so I don't know about that.  We did use the 110 as a substitute in some Rangoon's.  Yes, subs do hurt immersion.  But, when you don't have the actual plane available, you then have to pick something.  It's a matter of judgement what to pick.  We each, apparently, have different opinions or judgements on what is best.

[Brooke]

Just want to add that the TBM thing is a major minus in PTO scenarios -

I'm not sure if you flew in Coral Sea or Coral Sea 2009 scenarios, but if you are talking about FSO's, I have no idea if FSO's with TBM's in them are a lot different than how scenarios went.  In most of the scenarios, I was a GL of a torpedo bombing squadron.  There was no lack of us at times getting slaughtered in TBM's.  Usually, that was on the deck.  With some altitude, we avoided getting slaughtered whether we were in B5N's or TBM's -- until we were on the deck. The B5N was a magnificent diver with excellent high-speed handling.  A Zero couldn't easily shoot down a B5N at altitude if the pilot is alert, as he could just dive to 400-500 mph, where the B5N handles great but the Zero is very heavy on the controls.

as for the rest of it, seems like the same issues are brought up over and over, people get banned, people are told to back off, people are told that their opinions don't matter - but really - these issues are glaring and perhaps it would be nice to see some recognition of these issues.

I'm not sure if "by the rest of it" you mean anything else I wrote, but if I disagree with something for reasons, I don't change my mind just because someone brings up the same point again and again with no new information.  I wouldn't expect anyone else to do so, either.  In scenarios, the only way a person gets banned is by being disruptive and failing to tone it down after being asked to do so (sometimes repeatedly over a long period of time).  When you say "people get banned, people are told", you are being a bit overzealous with your implication.  One or two people have been banned from scenarios in the past 10 years.  I don't think I've told anyone that his opinions don't matter.  I'm always up for discussing opinions.

[Brooke]

I just looked through "This Day in WWII:  Coral Sea" logs.  There have been 7 runnings of it.  The US (with TBM's) sank 4 ships in total, and the IJN (with B5N's) sank 7 ships in total.

[Brooke]

My scenario results in TBM's vs. B5N's.

Coral Sea 2005.
TBM, 2 torp hits, shot down 2 times.
B5N, 3 torp hits, shot down 3 times.

Coral Sea 2009.
TBM, 3 torp hits, shot down 4 times.
B5N, 2 torp hits, shot down 3 times.

[Brooke]

Folks, from that data, it looks like TBM's and B5N's are similar in effect.

[LCADolby]

No experience trying to chase them down on the deck in an A6M2 I see.

A later war sub for early and mid; From that data, A stacked deck, a loaded die, and Pure bloody mindedness not the see sense, logic and reason.

[SIM]

Did I miss a link for the event write-up?


Considering the supposed arguments, without an event write-up, seems rather petty to me.......

[Brooke]

No experience trying to chase them down on the deck in an A6M2 I see.

No, I have done that as well occasionally.  And then there is the great deal of my experience being in TBM's that are chased down by A6M2's.  I don't think that you have flown TBM's in Coral Sea scenarios, though.  Nevertheless, my argument isn't that TBM's are fast as judged by A6M's.  See below for a very precise explanation of what I am saying.

A later war sub for early and mid; From that data, A stacked deck, a loaded die, and Pure bloody mindedness not the see sense, logic and reason.

I have a good grasp of sense, logic, and reason and a long education in and then a professional background in science and analysis.  There are lots of occasions (in physics, biology, chemistry, engineering, economics, social policy, finance, etc.) where people have an opinion:  "X is very important.  If you have X, clearly it changes things."  This is based on the person's thoughts, but to see if it really is true, you use a couple of tools on actual data to verify whether those thoughts are correct or mistaken.  The tools are statistical analysis and especially regression analysis.  It is a fancy name for a straightforward, simple-to-understand technique.  Regression analysis is used in situations where an effect can be due to lots of different variables, including the one that you are interested in.  In other words, you are interested in finding out if X is really important or not, but there are also variables Y and Z that matter.  So what you do is that you look at past data and compare all of the cases you can find where Y and Z are the same (or as similar as you can get given the data) and the only (or then main) difference is that X is changing.  Then, if there is a statistically significant difference in result between when X is one value vs. another value, you know that X is significant.  If there is no statistically significant difference, the changes to X are not significant.

What I have shown you above is a quick version of regression analysis on past data, compared results when X = TBM and when X = B5N, and found that the result does not vary significantly.

Thus, the feeling that TBM's are a significant advantage is not born out by the data.

The one caveat to the analysis is that, if the A6M2 and D3A are significantly more capable than the F4F and SBD, it could mask the B5N being worse in effect than the TBM.  This is because I have no data of events where both sides have the same fighters and divebombers and only the torpedo bombers are being varied.

Note in the above that I am definitely *not* saying that TBM's are harder to catch under some circumstances (namely going full speed) than TBD's or B5N's.  What I am saying is that the data says that it doesn't matter.  This might be because most torpedo bombers are lost on their run to target, on the deck, toward a known target, when they are going ~200 mph no matter what their top speed is, for a substantial distance, while the pilot has to focus on his flying and can't man his guns.  But the explanation doesn't matter -- the data shows what it shows.

When data shows that a result goes contrary to your thoughts on the matter, sense, logic, and reason demand that you update your thoughts. 

[Brooke]

Other times that I have used analysis for a scenario was in figuring out if Fireflies are reasonably even compared to Tigers in a particular scenario setting.  Some folks thought yes, and that it should be equal numbers of Fireflies to Tigers, some thought no, and that there should be more Fireflies than Tigers.  Some folks had very strong opinions and arguments in each camp, accusing people in the other camp of not knowing what they were talking about, bringing into play all sorts of stats on gun power, statistics on the tanks, various lines of reasoning, anecdotes and stories of personal experience in the tanks, etc.  The data showed the actual effect.

[Brooke]

By the way, for those of you reading the above and thinking that you can't reconcile your personal experience with it, keep in mind that it was an analysis in a specific context:  the Coral Sea scenarios and "This Day in WWII" events.  If there were different goals (like bombing ships or land targets from altitude and at high speed instead of using torpedoes slow and on the deck) or different settings (like ack not being turned way, way down), that could significantly increase the effect of the TBM vs. the B5N.  The TBM might be way more effective in the MA or in FSO's, for example.

The data above is just for scenarios and This Day events.

[Tank-Ace]

Payload doesn't matter because all US torpedo bombers in Coral Sea and Midway scenarios use torpedoes.

Fair point.

However, the B5N is, I suspect, less sturdy than the TBD, has no forward-firing gun at all, and would have Japanese skin in the scenarios (because of how skins are implemented on the servers).  So, immersion of having a bunch of Japanese-marked torpedo bombers has to be considered, along with those other factors.

I believe the 75mph speed differential would be more of an issue than toughness. The issue isn't in actually shooting them down, but rather in catching them, when we have only about 25mph on them at their attack altitude, and the A6M isn't really known for its low drag airframe and high power engine allowing it to maintain speeds in excess of Vmax for any period of time.

For the gun, lets be honest, it was a single .30 caliber machine gun mounted in an aircraft that was still rather under powered, and none too great in a fight.

As for the immersion, I believe Krusty made us a Ki-45 skin for the 110C for the Road to Rangoon setup. Given that the TBD and TBM aren't identical twins either, I would think a change in skin would be perfectly sufficient to alleviate any problems.

Also, we have tested TBM's in several runnings of Coral Sea, and it is not unbalancing at all.  In those runnings, the IJN side has done about as well as the US side.  What ends up mattering is whether or not there is CAP and, if so, whether or not there is strong escort.  If there is CAP and not strong-enough escort, the TBM's get annihilated just like B5N's do.  It boils down to the fact that, whether you are in a TBM, B5N, or TBD, you are approaching for a considerable distance on the deck at low speed, so top speed of the plane ends up not mattering much in actual runnings of the setup.

Given the Deck speed of the TBD was less than 200mph, the A6M's can have significant rates of closure on them at their attack altitude, even just at Vmax. However, we have to spend longer periods of time closing on the TBM's, making the CAP's job easier.

And to be clear, its not that I think the TBM CAN'T be balanced, just that the B5N2 would require less balancing, as well as more closely emulating the TBD.

So, some of your points are correct, and are not a surprise to or ignored by the CM team, but you are missing some other points that we need to consider.  Your preference on which set of things is more important isn't wrong -- but it is your preference, that one set outweighs the other.

HTC will add the TBD at some point, I bet, and we won't have to pick.

Heres hoping they pull a fast one like they did with the P-47M then.

[HB555]

"This entire discussion is getting blown out of proportion and escalating for no good reason.

Please, EVERYONE, wind your bleedin necks in.  Cease jibes and personal attacks, stop being so damn thin skinned.  "

OK, my opinion doesn't matter anyhow.