Nemo121
Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
|
Sardaukar, alanschu,
The knee in the altitude is at 16000 feet. Above that your planes will attack in 9 plane sections, below that they will attack in sections of 4 or less. 9 plane sections seem to achieve more hits for a given number of payloads dropped against manoeuvring ships.
Since there seems to be a fair bit of confusion over what is best I'll give some examples from recent games:
1. Empires Ablaze game in late December 1941. I have established about 60 G3Ms and 12 at Rabaul, which is level 3. The Allies have established about 40 Wirraways in PM and are rushing troops and supplies there in multiple AK convoys covered by strong surface forces. I am happy to let this continue for strategic reasons but wish to take a toll on the shipping used in this operation. As such I want to attack these ships while they are unloading/covering the unloading. Since I only have a Level 3 airfield I cannot simply crush the enemy shipping with massed twin-engined torpedo bomer strikes in an afternoon so I have to go for a more prolonged level-bombing campaign.
So, I am left with going in at 100 feet, 1000, 2000, 6000, 11000, 16000, 21000 or higher ( these are the normal altitudes I choose from, your mileage may well vary but the exact height isn't as important as the relative heights).
1. At 100 feet I will get extremely accurate results since my planes will skip bomb but I will also lose a significant number of planes to damage from the light AAA mounted on the enemy destroyers, cruisers and merchants. So, high return, quick return but high loss rate + a huge morale hit such that I will have to stand down my airgroups for a couple of days after each skip-bombing attack.
2. 1000 to 2000 feet. Less effective than skip-bombing and still within the effective range of enemy machine-gun calibre AAA. Also 1000 feet causes a huge morale hit. So 1000 feet is a bit less effective than skip-bombing, results in almost the same losses, has the same devastating effect on morale but promises a quick return. At 2000 feet you lose even more effectiveness but in return the effect on your morale is less. Losses are probably the same as the light FlAK can reach up to at least 2000 feet.
3. 6000 feet. A significant decrease in effectiveness when compared to bombing at 1000 or 2000 feet BUT you are high above the lightest of the enemy FlAK so losses ( when attacking naval targets) and morale hits will be quite low ( 6000 feet of altitude when attacking ground targets defended by medium calibre AAA wil result in devastating losses, far higher than the 3% of sorties which is the maximum which can be sustained without catastrophic loss of experience in the medium term).
4. 11,000, 16,000 and 21,000 result in a fairly logarithmic decrease in the "to hit" percentage of any bombs dropped. These altitudes are only really useful when either:
a) you simply cannot afford any losses at all.
b) you are flying training missions where the important thing is the carrying out of a bombing raid, not the result.
c) flying lower will result in catastrophic losses which you wish to avoid.
d) you are "baiting" enemy CAP... I will explain what I mean by this later.
So, in the above example, when I faced Wirraways I figured I could clear the way easily enough with Zeroes such that my Bettys and Nells would not be heavily intercepted by enemy fighters. Since they weren't going to be intercepted and suffer massive losses I had the option of flying them day after day. Obviouly if they are going to be heavily intercepted their morale is going to be so shattered that they are not going to be fit to fly for several days afterward and one may then decide to send them in at 1000 or 2000 feet so that your "single shot attack" is maximally effective. So taking that into account I flew them in at 6000 feet and over the course of about 5 days of bombing missions I have scored about 30 x 250 Kg bomb hits for no loss. I haven't lost a Zero or Betty or Nell to enemy fire and have 3 or 4 enemy ships in sinking condition.
If you are facing a one shot deal then you should give serious consideration to going in at 1000 or even 100 feet. I particularly favour 100 foot strikes by torpedo planes when Allied CAPs get too strong as the very low altitude seems to protect them from most of the CAP ( you can maximise this by sending in a small group of bombers at 25000 feet+ so that your escorting fighters all escort at 28000 feet. For the sacrifice of 9 or so bombers in the high flight ( 25000 feet+) you can succesfully draw the enemy CAP out of position and ensure most of the torpedo bombers will get through. Their losses will be heavy but thats inevitable with Japanese torpedo bombers in any case.
So those are the considerations. Every mission requires weighing the four factors outlined above ( and a few others related to specific missions ) if you want to determine what the optimum strike profile is going to be. You always have to measure up your capabilities against those of the enemy CAP, enemy AAA, your morale, how quickly you need to achieve success, how much you can afford losses, what your morale is and what the inspirational qualities of your leader are ( repairs morale once they arrive back in base).
One other thing... IF you are sending Bettys etc out on long-range missions where they may not have fighter cover then look for bomber-qualified leaders with low aggression. These guys will attack the target BUT once they start getting shot down without fighter cover they will quickly bug out. An aggressiveness of 40 instead of 65 can be the difference between losing 4 planes and losing 14 on a single mission.
So, it is complicated, there's an interplay of many factors and only through trial and error will you find what works for you. I, personally, am a "get the results no matter what" kind of guy so I'm happy to order my torpedo bombers in at 100 feet if that will get me torpedo hits I otherwise won't get. These planes exist to torpedo ships, if they die in succeeding at that they are doing much better than those who survive by turning back without achieving their missions.
"Baiting" enemy CAP.... Your escorts fly 3000 feet higher than your bombers. Thus if enemy CAP is at 16000 feet and your bombers fly in at 11000 your escorts will fly at 14000. End result your escorts will not only be at a disadvantage because they are closely escorting the bombers ( within the defender's radar envelope) but also because they are at a lower altitude than the defending CAP. Now some may say that if you want to destroy the enemy CAP then all you have to do is run SWEEPs at maximum altitude and you can bait them whilst stacking the advantages in your favour. You are, of course, correct. That is, however, a brute force approach where you push superior force into the enemy's mass and wear them down with both sides knowing precisely what is being attempted. A good opponent who bears in mind that operational art is the art of stringing together a favourable set of acceptances of combat AND declinations of combat will simply decline to give you combat in the face of such sweeps. If, however, you send in some bombers at 26000 feet and your fighters are set to escort at 29000 you can usually bait the enemy into committing more and more fighters in an effort to stop the bombers when he would choose to conserve his fighters in the face of a sweep... Often they can also be unaware of the ramification of what is going on, being caught up in the dream of "stopping the bombers". Thus one can engage in maskirovka operations with your mission taskings and this should never be forgotten. A good rule of thumb is that 1/3rd of your total force ( navy, army and air force) should be engaged in maskirovka operations at all times.
|
Printable Version
Air Combat Sweep Missions - 
Read the thread that I started about the bounce, that brought up things I never thought could even be! 
Why shouldn´t I read what you´re typing? 
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