Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: surviving the heavies

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> RE: surviving the heavies Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 4:12:11 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mickbeau1

As the Allied I would gladly trade some 4E bombers for some 1E army fighters early in the war.

I was wondering how much does changing bombing altitudes affect accuracy? Perhaps a house rule limiting the minimum height the HB's can bomb at?


This, of course, would impose a completely ahistorical rule on the game.

Historically, heavy bombers were used effectively in bombing shipping - but only at very low (about 100') altitude. B-24s operating from China badly hurt IJN shipping necessitating (in part) an offensive to deprive the B-24s of their bases. They also supposedly hit/sank numerous IJN warships. The B-24s used radar at night, and one bomber could bomb and hit multiple targets per night. Some of the individual claims are suspect, but there isn't much doubt they were hitting and sinking ships with minimal resources. Of course, this kind of radar-directed night-bombing is not represented in WITP (nor are many other technological advances).

Skip-bombing tactics were also first developed in B-17s. Masthead height attacks were carried out early in the war by other aircraft, but the bombs were dropped directly on targets, not skipped. Faster aircraft were used once the technique was shown to be feasible, and the B-17s were used for other more appropriate duties.

(in reply to mickbeau1)
Post #: 91
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 4:20:39 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		in my game in 5/42 I'm much more concerned where are 4E bombers than allied carriers

_____________________________


(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 92
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 4:29:24 PM   
pauk


Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mickbeau1

As the Allied I would gladly trade some 4E bombers for some 1E army fighters early in the war.
I was wondering how much does changing bombing altitudes affect accuracy? Perhaps a house rule limiting the minimum height the HB's can bomb at?


One of things that would help is that 4E bomber worth 2 points (there are many variations of that but you get the point)


_____________________________


(in reply to mickbeau1)
Post #: 93
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 4:51:01 PM   
jolly_pillager

 

Posts: 206
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline 		Alfrake is correct...the heavy bomber groups are now heavily damaged and their morale is in the pits. I am unsure if the effects are worth the cost...especially considering that their alternate mission (transporting supply to Nanning) is much more pressing than killing 5 Oscars a turn (and much less dangerous).

I think the bomber offensive against Rangoon (a total of 1 small and 2 medium raids) is now suspended at least until Calcutta makes size 5 or until I can provide escorts.

Overall I will say that this offensive was less than successful...although it wasn't a disaster by any means (which makes it stand out compared to most allied attempts in early 42).

What this also shows is that you cannot rely on a single airbase...it is too easy to mass force against a single target...a dispersed group of bases with fighters on LRCAP is much more robust.

From the sustainablity perspective these sorts of raids are unsustainable at any sort of reasonable loss rate...morale plunges after every mission and the attrition is limiting the number of replacements in my pool...which is reducing my ability to base, for example, a Liberator squadron at Midway on long range patrol.

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 94
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 5:38:17 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		Allied 4e bombers teach you what you -should- be doing anyway. Don't mass your planes, or you're going to get killed. Spread out your AF. Same for Allies vs. IJN BB runs. Spread out your AF. (of course, Ollie just threw that in my face, by bombarding my AF Camrah Bay, but I claim "coffee deprived" for that error in judment).

They -can- fly unescorted. But if you send -real- fighters vs. them, and in sufficient quantities, you can knock them down. Are you gonna lose planes and pilots? Yep. Lots even. But if he returns from a mission with 5 B-17s shot down, and 30 damaged, it's going to take about 10 days to repair those damaged aircraft, and "repair" the morale. If you can bomb the AF they're coming from, while all those damages are on the AF, so much the better. If you can't, you're going to have to LRCAP the AF that he's attacking, flying from other AFs. But that DOES work. 6 squadrons at four airfields is far better than 6 squadrons at one airfield. Six at one is just a begging target.

"I'm more afraid of allied 4e bombers in May '42, than USN CVs".

You should be.

Despite what folks believe, it's very hard to get unescorted Allied 4e bombers to launch vs. KB. The -can- launch, but that doesn't guarentee that they will (in fact, they likely won't). I'm not talking about 2 CVs. I'm talking about "real" KB, all 6 CVs. It's nearly impossible to make that roll to go unescortd vs. 120 fighters (unless you've got a LOT of bombers). Not impossible, but -very- unlikely. Against 2 CVs, not so hard. But against all 6, it's -very- hard.

Frankly, that's what you've got the "crappy" fighters like the P-39 and RDAF for. They suck on CAP, but they have the range to escort out to 5-8 hexes, all you're really looking for his head count (you need about 1 escort for every 3 on CAP to trigger a launch). Your escorts will get torn up, but at least the 4e bombers will launch (and they -will- get torn up vs. KB, but they'll do plenty in return).

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to jolly_pillager)
Post #: 95
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 5:49:49 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		True that. Against AI almost all IJN CVs I've killed as Allies have been sunk by land-based bombers. B-17s etc. can be very effective when you can get them to launch..which can be pain in the butt.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 96
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 5:52:43 PM   
hawker


Posts: 849
Joined: 6/25/2005
From: Split,Croatia
Status: offline
quote:

True that. Against AI almost all IJN CVs I've killed as Allies have been sunk by land-based bombers. B-17s etc. can be very effective when you can get them to launch..which can be pain in the butt.


You sink those carriers becouse of stupid game engine when comes to 4E bombers. In RL you cant fine not ONE example of that.

_____________________________


Fortess fortuna iuvat

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 97
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 6:06:03 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		Please don't make a historical RL comparison regarding 4e bombers attacking Japanese CVs.

Then I'd have to question the lack of RL examples of Japanese amphibous invasions at India, Ceylon, Australia, Noumea, Suva, Pago-Pago, Palmyra, Johnston, and the Hawiian Islands.

You can't cry foul on one, and enjoy the other.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to hawker)
Post #: 98
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 6:29:08 PM   
hawker


Posts: 849
Joined: 6/25/2005
From: Split,Croatia
Status: offline
quote:

Please don't make a historical RL comparison regarding 4e bombers attacking Japanese CVs.

Then I'd have to question the lack of RL examples of Japanese amphibous invasions at India, Ceylon, Australia, Noumea, Suva, Pago-Pago, Palmyra, Johnston, and the Hawiian Islands.

You can't cry foul on one, and enjoy the other.


Invasions of Australia,India etc. is something that player decide and it is not failure of game engine.
4E bombers is the biggest mistake of WITP. Where in RL you can find that B-17 ever hit DD or similar class ship.That is almost impossible,to hit ship of that size which steams 30 knots. In WITP that is happen in regular basis(read:everyday)
4E IS NOT NAVAL ATTACK WEAPON,sure you know that but you hold your side as allied fan boy

_____________________________


Fortess fortuna iuvat

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 99
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 6:43:40 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		"Allied fan-boy".

I've been called worse.

I'm not going to get into the debate of "4e vs. shipping". The short is, there is mounds of historical data that support the fact that they were frequently used, and quite effect. Frankly, it's not worth my time to dredge it all up again for somebody new. That debate has gone on about 37 times in this form. Look up the facts before before making an assumption. It's not necessary for me to do your homework for you.

I'll be the first to admit that there are great inaccuracies in the 4e bomber model in WitP. But my point is that if you complain about the historical accuracy for the 4e model in WitP, you should check the historical (in)accuracy of Japanese production, supplies, japanese shipping, ground combat, ampibious invasions...

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to hawker)
Post #: 100
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 6:53:10 PM   
hawker


Posts: 849
Joined: 6/25/2005
From: Split,Croatia
Status: offline
quote:

I'm not going to get into the debate of "4e vs. shipping". The short is, there is mounds of historical data that support the fact that they were frequently used, and quite effect. Frankly, it's not worth my time to dredge it all up again for somebody new. That debate has gone on about 37 times in this form. Look up the facts before before making an assumption. It's not necessary for me to do your homework for you.

I'll be the first to admit that there are great inaccuracies in the 4e bomber model in WitP. But my point is that if you complain about the historical accuracy for the 4e model in WitP, you should check the historical (in)accuracy of Japanese production, supplies, japanese shipping, ground combat, ampibious invasions...


So,you telling me that 4E used in RL with same results like in WITP. Please tell me your source,is it No1 from "Alan Ford" or some similar source
I totally agree with you in other things that you mention.

_____________________________


Fortess fortuna iuvat

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 101
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 6:57:09 PM   
hawker


Posts: 849
Joined: 6/25/2005
From: Split,Croatia
Status: offline 		Anyway,i dont wanna debate anymore about 4E. It brings me only enemies on this forum.

_____________________________


Fortess fortuna iuvat

(in reply to hawker)
Post #: 102
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 6:58:09 PM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I have not seen these possible solutions to the Allied 4-E problems like I will suggest.
1) To get the B-17's from Pearl and West Coast to India, they can only ferry thru size 4 AF's. The Allies had no size 4 AF in the Central and South Pacific for some time. If they go thru a size 1 or 2 then, operational losses are adjusted accordingly. That means Canton and Noumea need to be build up faster. Right now they get to India in about 10 days with the fragments catching up before Christmas.
2) Can the re-inforcement schedule be adjusted to change the rate of reinforcement/replacement of aircraft like the B-17E's to look like 10 per month to start and then have another line in later '42 or '43 to add another 10 per month or more. This way they increase in increments rather than just one flat rate??

Another issue is the ability to upgrade or downgrade planes to get them where they are needed. Example: downgrade P-40B's in Pearl or West Coast on day one and by day two they are available to the AVG in Burma/India. I guess Cap't Kirk and Sotty are in the Enterprise transporting them to one side of the world to another...


Wrong. As early as prior to May-June 1942 the Americans were using Tongatapu as an alternate staging area for aircraft on the South Pacific ferry route.

Source is "Inspection Report by South Pacific Advanced Base Inspection Board, Rear Admiral R.E. Byrd, senior member", page 263 of Volume IV, History of United States Naval Operations in World War II.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 103
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 7:03:07 PM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

"Allied fan-boy".

I've been called worse.

I'm not going to get into the debate of "4e vs. shipping". The short is, there is mounds of historical data that support the fact that they were frequently used, and quite effect. Frankly, it's not worth my time to dredge it all up again for somebody new. That debate has gone on about 37 times in this form. Look up the facts before before making an assumption. It's not necessary for me to do your homework for you.

I'll be the first to admit that there are great inaccuracies in the 4e bomber model in WitP. But my point is that if you complain about the historical accuracy for the 4e model in WitP, you should check the historical (in)accuracy of Japanese production, supplies, japanese shipping, ground combat, ampibious invasions...

-F-


B-24s were especially useful as anti-shipping aircraft and were frequently used in skip-bombing/low level attacks on Japanese ships.

quote:


Used extensively as anti-ship bombers, the Liberator pilots would often employ skip-bombing tactics on their targets.


Source: page 110, Aces of the Pacific.

Some people tout historical accuracy but when that historical accuracy is detrimental to their side (THE JAPS) they cry fowl. You should get a dictionary and look up the term hypocracy.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 104
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 7:07:48 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		The reason CV's get sunk by 4E bombers is because you can attack with huge formations of bombers early. I strongly expect that 100 heavy bombers converging on a CV TF would score some hits as in the game.

IRL it never happened because IRL these huge bomber formations did not exist until late in the war. And if/when these huge formations exist the Japanese would be darn sure to stay away.

(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 105
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 7:30:19 PM   
hawker


Posts: 849
Joined: 6/25/2005
From: Split,Croatia
Status: offline
quote:

The reason CV's get sunk by 4E bombers is because you can attack with huge formations of bombers early. I strongly expect that 100 heavy bombers converging on a CV TF would score some hits as in the game.

IRL it never happened because IRL these huge bomber formations did not exist until late in the war. And if/when these huge formations exist the Japanese would be darn sure to stay away.




_____________________________


Fortess fortuna iuvat

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 106
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 7:56:29 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
quote:

The reason CV's get sunk by 4E bombers is because you can attack with huge formations of bombers early. I strongly expect that 100 heavy bombers converging on a CV TF would score some hits as in the game.

IRL it never happened because IRL these huge bomber formations did not exist until late in the war. And if/when these huge formations exist the Japanese would be darn sure to stay away.


This is very true.

The largest single formation of B-17s that I know of, was 18. Certainly not 220+ that you can in WitP. Historically, they were maintanance nightmares. The 5th AF (Kenny), had about 40% operational at any one time (less than half!). Of that 40%, a quarter of them were usually used for search and liason duties. If he had 30% of his planes available for strike, it was a good day.

But when those 30% hit something, it was gone.

It was flights of only 8 - 12 B-17s that demolished Rabaul. Not the 120+ it takes in game.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to moses)
Post #: 107
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 7:58:33 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hawker

quote:

Please don't make a historical RL comparison regarding 4e bombers attacking Japanese CVs.

Then I'd have to question the lack of RL examples of Japanese amphibous invasions at India, Ceylon, Australia, Noumea, Suva, Pago-Pago, Palmyra, Johnston, and the Hawiian Islands.

You can't cry foul on one, and enjoy the other.


Invasions of Australia,India etc. is something that player decide and it is not failure of game engine.
4E bombers is the biggest mistake of WITP. Where in RL you can find that B-17 ever hit DD or similar class ship.That is almost impossible,to hit ship of that size which steams 30 knots. In WITP that is happen in regular basis(read:everyday)
4E IS NOT NAVAL ATTACK WEAPON,sure you know that but you hold your side as allied fan boy


BATTLESHIP BOMBARDMENTS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE STRATEGIC WEAPONS EITHER, just one example.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to hawker)
Post #: 108
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 8:18:00 PM   
Tophat1815

 

Posts: 1824
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

quote:

Original Feinder:

Moses, I'm also curious about the pool numbers of like Japanese workhorses like A6M2, the Betty/Nell, the Oscar, Kate/Val. For all of my opponents, they have all indicated that "air-frames" are not a problem. It seems to me that the production rates for Allied aircraft is overstated, just as japans abilty to produce them is overstated.


I am not currently playing as Japan. I played several before but I think the most recent was under patch 1.3. Maybe JohnIII , my current opponent could enlighten us on japanese airframes.

I compiled my 4E bomber data last turn. This is combined B-17, B-24, and LB-30. I have lost 600 planes, I have 503 planes active on the map, and 641 in my replacement pool. So as of late Oct 42 I have had access to 1744 heavy bombers.

Accurate??????????How many planes were even operating in Europe in this time frame?


a very,very good question. I think your solution about reducing the number of 4E bombers is a good one. The sheer number of bombers the Allies can send against japan is staggering. Its also a GAME BREAKER.
Yes the japanese can produce airframes at an accelerated rate and this allows them to: "make a game of it",for a greater portion of the GAME then before this ability.
As you have all pointedout this isn't a replay of history,its a MonsterWargame based on the Pacific War.

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 109
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 9:39:30 PM   
hawker


Posts: 849
Joined: 6/25/2005
From: Split,Croatia
Status: offline
quote:

BATTLESHIP BOMBARDMENTS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE STRATEGIC WEAPONS EITHER, just one example.


But BBs do a lot less damage Ron.

_____________________________


Fortess fortuna iuvat

(in reply to Tophat1815)
Post #: 110
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 9:41:14 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
Japanese accelerated airframe production is offet by the Allies specially designed Japanese Airframe Reduction Device (JARD), also known as the Corsair. In fact, if the Japanese could *not* build way more airframes than they historically did, they would have none at all pretty quickly once the Corsair arrives.

(in reply to Tophat1815)
Post #: 111
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 9:41:56 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
quote:

The reason CV's get sunk by 4E bombers is because you can attack with huge formations of bombers early. I strongly expect that 100 heavy bombers converging on a CV TF would score some hits as in the game.


Actually, it's a bit of a crap-shoot. Sorry to drag my PBEM opponnets into it, but my own experience in PBEM is what I will offer. Disclaimer : Results not guarenteed and may vary by customer.

In my game vs. Erstad, I had about 120 B-17s (unescorted) launch vs. four CVs of KB in July 1942 (who is still on the offensive by the way). I lost about 40 destroyed, probably 50 damaged. I shot down down about 20 Zeros. About 40 actually made attacks at 6000', and zero hits. The upside is, I'll take 30 dead elite Zero pilots, and I'm sure I made Erstad crap his pants. And this launch was the first launch of 4e bombers vs. KB of the entire game.

In my game vs. Parker (02-42), I had a single sqdn (16) of B-17s escorted by 24 P-40Bs launch vs. all 6 units of KB. The P40s were thrahsed, and I probably lost 5 B-17s, and 5 damages. I scored one ping-pong on the Haruana.

A second time in my game vs. Parker, I had about 20 B-17s launch at 6000', escorted by about 20 RDAF suicide fighters, vs. Hiryu and Soryu. I lost about 8 B-17s (plus all the RDAF fighters, don't care). I shot down about 5 Zeros, and scored a hit on each of Hiryu and Soryu.

Don't know the extent of the damage tho, since we had a replay bug that turn, and I never got to see the attack (going by the combat reports he sent). I think I might have hurt Soryu, but I know Hiryu is still in the area and launching strikes.

(* shrug *)

In my two single games, those are the only times that my B-17s have ever launched vs. KB.

My team game (06-42), I'm not in charge of the B-17s (Knavey is), but I don't think they've ever launched vs. KB.

I can't offer more examples, because there aren't any. Party because my opponents are smart enough to stay clear of AF(6) bases, and partly because it really, REALLY, tough to get them to launch in the first place.

-F-

< Message edited by Feinder -- 1/17/2006 9:43:59 PM >

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to moses)
Post #: 112
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 9:59:48 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		Feinder: I basically agree with your views and this supports my diagnosis of the problem. There is nothing really wrong here with the model. Bombers are not too powerful and really I think they are too weak. They are not really all that strong in the anti-ship mode.

There are just too many of them.

When 200 heavy bombers show up over your airfield you are truly doomed IRL.

If 200 4E bombers had launched a coordinated strike against a carrier force I have to think they would hit something. I mean a ship can dodge and weave a few bombers coming in. But 200??

I envision the game of bombardment. Remember high school?? Youy can dodge a few balls but at the end of the game when 30 kids are all throwing at once???????

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 113
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 10:27:05 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
quote:

If 200 4E bombers had launched a coordinated strike against a carrier force I have to think they would hit something. I mean a ship can dodge and weave a few bombers coming in. But 200??


They were actually quite accurate. They didn't attack capital ships very often (partly because Japan didn't go parading them around within range of the B-17s to begin with). But they certainly put the smack on plenty of DDs and convoys.

I was reading an account by the Akagi's CAG commander at Midway, as he watched Capt. Sweeny's B-17s bomb the Soryu (I'd have to double-check that, I think it was the Soryu the B-17s went after). They didn't even bother to vector CAP vs. the B-17s, because they didn't think they could do much against them (and they had plenty worry about with with the planes from torpedo planes and B-26s from Midway at the time). There were 8 B-17s that came in at 15 - 20,000' and they -still- managed 2 near miss. The Akagi CAG thought that the Soryu had surely been hit, because the eruption of water around the Soryu was taller than the forcastle and had completely obscured the ship. The B-17s -DID- miss. But Soryu -DID- suffer damage (albeit very minor) from splnters from one of the near misses.

But that was 8 green pilots whose only anti-shipping experinece had been bombing the transport convoy the day before (several of them, it was only their second combat mission).

But those were green pilots at 20,000' vs. a target that was maneuvering to avoid a torpedo attack. Frankly, I was impressed.

-F-

< Message edited by Feinder -- 1/17/2006 11:29:34 PM >

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to moses)
Post #: 114
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 10:32:09 PM   
Tophat1815

 

Posts: 1824
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

the dramatic "SLASH",that resulted from $E's dropping ordinance from a height contributed to the innaccurate claims of hits.
So ahh FEINDER: "There were 8 B-17s that came in at 15 - 20,000' and they -still- managed 2 near hits. The Akagi CAG thought that the Soryu had surely been hit, because the eruption of water around the Soryu was taller than the forcastle and had completely obscured the ship. The B-17s -DID- miss. But Soryu -DID- suffer damage (albeit very minor)" these 2 near hits were infact misses that caused minor damage with a dramatic flair correct?

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 115
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 10:42:41 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		And because I always have lots to say...

Frankly, I can't imagine coordinating 200 B-17s vs. even a large TF. Considering the spacing of the aircraft, you'd have to split into flights of probably no more than 6 (actually historical). If there were 4 CVs in the TF, and in the center of the TF, you could probably send in 2 flights at a time, maybe 3. Considering a 6 mintue bomb run. And maybe you're lucky and the TF is "loose" to because it's been squirming around dodging torps, and hasn't reformed yet a pretty AAA box yet. You're still only gonne be able to send in about 4 flights. If you were VERY efficient at setting up your flights and their bomb runs, you're still looking at over an hour for time over target. You simply WOULDN'T send in 200 heavies, for that very reason (traffic jam).

You'd have to split up your attack into groups of 30 or so.

But then, in WitP you -can't- split up your groups. If you have 200 bombers at an AF (and that's harder to manage than most folks seem to think), there's no way to "realistically" trickle in the strikes, even if you wanted to.

--F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 116
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 10:48:19 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		**** Grr. I'm a dummy. I'm using it backwards. Soryu experienced NEAR MISSES. Not near hits.

Top hat -

You are correct, a near miss, is one that IS A MISS.

But is close enough to make you soil yourself.

A bomb hitting the water might as well be hitting asphalt. The bomb still goes off. A near miss is within or near the blast radius of the bomb. There are splinters from the bomb that cause superficial damage to the ship (but could probably hurt somebody at a AAA mount).

However, some near misses were quite destructive. A bomb detonating very, VERY close to a ship, causes a shockwave in the water, that can buckle hull plates and cause flooding. This did NOT happen inthe case of Soryu however as the bombs caused only shrapnel damage.

-F-

< Message edited by Feinder -- 1/17/2006 11:31:40 PM >

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Tophat1815)
Post #: 117
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 10:55:07 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		oh come on. Lets have 200 heavies flying in one big box formation. 20 planes wide, 10 deep. Everyone droppes at once. Dodge that KB!!!!!!!

How big would the impact area be???? Bring the photographer.



(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 118
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 11:47:03 PM   
pauk


Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder
But is close enough to make you soil yourself.

A bomb hitting the water might as well be hitting asphalt. The bomb still goes off. A near miss is within or near the blast radius of the bomb. There are splinters from the bomb that cause superficial damage to the ship (but could probably hurt somebody at a AAA mount).

However, some near misses were quite destructive. A bomb detonating very, VERY close to a ship, causes a shockwave in the water, that can buckle hull plates and cause flooding. This did NOT happen inthe case of Soryu however as the bombs caused only shrapnel damage.

-F-


Ok, I almost posses Angelina Jolie. I was near....

Sorry, but you aren't right and you know it. Arguing that B17 wasn't bad at naval attack with NEAR MISSES in one mission is funny.



_____________________________


(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 119
RE: surviving the heavies - 1/17/2006 11:59:41 PM   
Tophat1815

 

Posts: 1824
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder
But is close enough to make you soil yourself.

A bomb hitting the water might as well be hitting asphalt. The bomb still goes off. A near miss is within or near the blast radius of the bomb. There are splinters from the bomb that cause superficial damage to the ship (but could probably hurt somebody at a AAA mount).

However, some near misses were quite destructive. A bomb detonating very, VERY close to a ship, causes a shockwave in the water, that can buckle hull plates and cause flooding. This did NOT happen inthe case of Soryu however as the bombs caused only shrapnel damage.

-F-


Ok, I almost posses Angelina Jolie. I was near....

Sorry, but you aren't right and you know it. Arguing that B17 wasn't bad at naval attack with NEAR MISSES in one mission is funny.





Ahhhh,
Personally I get more than amight nervous when i see 120 wellingtons and their AVG bodyguard come roaring into Mandalay! Curse You ADAVID!!!!!!!! I shall have to remember to take my heart medication before his B-24's come calling. but you go right ahead pauk,the Allied bombers are not a problem.

< Message edited by Tophat1812 -- 1/18/2006 12:01:46 AM >

(in reply to pauk)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> RE: surviving the heavies Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

0.641