Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

bombing land installations - ? for gregor

 
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] >> Carriers At War >> bombing land installations - ? for gregor Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
bombing land installations - ? for gregor - 6/12/2007 11:09:07 PM   
fabforrest

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 6/30/2006
Status: offline 		have played several coral sea, midway and eastern solomons scenarios and have launched both land-based and carrier-based air strikes against the likes of midway, henderson field, gilli gilli, port M. i have yet to record even ONE hit. i don't recall air strikes being terribly effective before, but i think some hits were allowed. what is the point of even having them?
Post #: 1
RE: bombing land installations - ? for gregor - 6/12/2007 11:39:13 PM   
kkoovvoo

 

Posts: 253
Joined: 10/1/2004
From: Slovakia
Status: offline 		You can smash enemy ACs on the ground.

_____________________________


(in reply to fabforrest)
Post #: 2
RE: bombing land installations - ? for gregor - 6/12/2007 11:53:14 PM   
Rebel Yell


Posts: 470
Joined: 6/21/2003
From: The Woodlands, TX USA
Status: offline 		Can you damage airfields, or temporarily shut them down with enough effective raids?

_____________________________

I used to enjoy these forums. So many people that need the green dot now.

(in reply to kkoovvoo)
Post #: 3
RE: bombing land installations - ? for gregor - 6/13/2007 2:43:44 AM   
Gregor_SSG


Posts: 681
Joined: 3/6/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fabforrest

have played several coral sea, midway and eastern solomons scenarios and have launched both land-based and carrier-based air strikes against the likes of midway, henderson field, gilli gilli, port M. i have yet to record even ONE hit. i don't recall air strikes being terribly effective before, but i think some hits were allowed. what is the point of even having them?


Well, we put them in because they did happen but early in the war they are, as you have discovered, almost completely ineffectual. High level bombing usually involves dropping a lot bombs to put a few holes in a runway, which are promptly filled in and normal service resumed. If you put enough bombs on an airfield then you might hit some planes and reduce the spot number, thus slowing the field's ability to launch and recover raids but again this is mostly temporary.

Henderson Field on Gudalcanal managed to keep operating, though sometimes only just, despite the regular attentions of bombers of all types plus bombardments from submarines up to battleships.

Later in the war, when the US had fighters powerfull enough to make excellent fighter bombers, and much larger numbers of planes, they discovered that carrier based air could, in complete contravention of pre-war thinking, take on and suppress land bases. If you hit land bases in the Phillipines Sea scenario you should see different results.

Gregor

_____________________________

Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
See http://www.ssg.com.au and http://www.ssg.com.au/forums/
for info and free scenarios.

(in reply to fabforrest)
Post #: 4
RE: bombing land installations - ? for gregor - 6/13/2007 3:08:20 AM   
AVisme

 

Posts: 37
Joined: 4/13/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

Later in the war, when the US had fighters powerfull enough to make excellent fighter bombers, and much larger numbers of planes, they discovered that carrier based air could, in complete contravention of pre-war thinking, take on and suppress land bases. If you hit land bases in the Phillipines Sea scenario you should see different results.

Gregor


if you play the US AI in the last scenario you can expect to watch all your island air bases turn to swiss cheese !

(in reply to Gregor_SSG)
Post #: 5
RE: bombing land installations - ? for gregor - 6/13/2007 9:40:47 PM   
fabforrest

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 6/30/2006
Status: offline 		"Well, we put them in because they did happen but early in the war they are, as you have discovered, almost completely ineffectual. High level bombing usually involves dropping a lot bombs to put a few holes in a runway, which are promptly filled in and normal service resumed. If you put enough bombs on an airfield then you might hit some planes and reduce the spot number, thus slowing the field's ability to launch and recover raids but again this is mostly temporary."

this knowledge gives me concern that the IJN commander, especially in the midway scenario, can gain an advantage.  as you (and we all) know, one of nagumo's tasks was to reduce midway's air field.  it was the vacillation over whether to rearm and launch a second strike that let to him experiencing the carrier equivalent of getting caught with his pants down (loaded decks).  when i play IJN in midway, i usually launch an air strike against midway because i feel like i am "supposed" to.  i might not do this against a human opponent which would give me an advantage.

knowing that an air strike is going to do me no good at all makes it highly unlikely that i would launch one.  maybe the VP conditions should reward a strike.

(in reply to AVisme)
Post #: 6
RE: bombing land installations - ? for gregor - 6/13/2007 10:36:54 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		I am reading the history of Force H operating in the Mediterranean - it's fascinating how many times they sent handful of Stringbangs to bomb some airfield on Sardinia or Sicily, and have claimed to have rendered it unoperational for some hours or even days. Not the same thing as Pacific, but interesting nonetheless.

_____________________________


(in reply to fabforrest)
Post #: 7
RE: bombing land installations - ? for gregor - 6/13/2007 11:17:50 PM   
themattcurtis

 

Posts: 287
Joined: 2/9/2005
Status: offline 		They were knocking the Italians around, right?

Hell, the attack on Pearl Harbor was inspired by the Royal Navy's ability to wallop Italian battleships in port, using a smattering of obsolete Swordfish.

Didn't take much to beat the Regia Marina.

But the Med could offer some great user-made scenarios. Think of the Aquila actually entering the war.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 8
RE: bombing land installations - ? for gregor - 6/13/2007 11:42:38 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: themattcurtis
But the Med could offer some great user-made scenarios. Think of the Aquila actually entering the war.


It's fascinating what British did in the Med with like a couple squadrons of biplanes. It's as if dozen of Swordfish were strategic asset comparable with 2-3 carrier-loads of IJN or USN aircraft with best pilots in the Pacific.

Anyhow, Italians don't need the Aquila, they have land bases close enough, they just needed better pilots and admirals (especially the admirals).

_____________________________


(in reply to themattcurtis)
Post #: 9
RE: bombing land installations - ? for gregor - 6/14/2007 3:40:04 AM   
Gregor_SSG


Posts: 681
Joined: 3/6/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fabforrest

"Well, we put them in because they did happen but early in the war they are, as you have discovered, almost completely ineffectual. High level bombing usually involves dropping a lot bombs to put a few holes in a runway, which are promptly filled in and normal service resumed. If you put enough bombs on an airfield then you might hit some planes and reduce the spot number, thus slowing the field's ability to launch and recover raids but again this is mostly temporary."

this knowledge gives me concern that the IJN commander, especially in the midway scenario, can gain an advantage. as you (and we all) know, one of nagumo's tasks was to reduce midway's air field. it was the vacillation over whether to rearm and launch a second strike that let to him experiencing the carrier equivalent of getting caught with his pants down (loaded decks). when i play IJN in midway, i usually launch an air strike against midway because i feel like i am "supposed" to. i might not do this against a human opponent which would give me an advantage.

knowing that an air strike is going to do me no good at all makes it highly unlikely that i would launch one. maybe the VP conditions should reward a strike.



This is really a design question - how much of history are we going to force you to repeat and how much do we leave up to you. We've decided that although Nagumo had to deal with Midway, he didn't have to do it without knowing where the US carriers were. After all, the strategy here was really about forcing a decisive carrier battle.

That's why the victory conditions allow a Draw even if the Japanese fail to invade Midway itself, unlike say Wake Island where you are punished with an Allied Decisive if you fail to invade.

So its up you how to deal with Midway and when.

Gregor



_____________________________

Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
See http://www.ssg.com.au and http://www.ssg.com.au/forums/
for info and free scenarios.

(in reply to fabforrest)
Post #: 10
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Carriers At War >> bombing land installations - ? for gregor Page: [1]
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

4.234