Level bombers are sneaky

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Level bombers are sneaky

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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Level bombers are sneaky

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Level bombers are sneaky - 12/30/2002 10:53:04 PM

Piiska

Posts: 132
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline

This is more of a question, rather than anything else. Historically speaking, how easy it was for level bombers to make a successful attack on enemy taskforce protected by a cap or LR-Cap?

You see, this is something I see regularly in UV 2.20: A flight of 4 B-17 or 6 Hudsons, or 12 B-25, manage to attack and hit ships that have 15-40 Zeros on Cap. Most surprising about this, is that the level bombers attack alone without escort and the ships they hit are not only slow transports but also fast fleet carriers, cruisers and destroyers.

When the level bombers are escorted and come under fire, they usually turn and run, but when they attack alone they just press on. Usually they don�t even get fired at, but even if they do, only one plane usually gets damaged or shot down. It almost seems as if the Cap only has one go, which either results to loss of one fighter or one bomber. Then it�s all over and the bombing run commences.

Also, their bombing accuracy is very impressive. If 4 Allied medium bombers, of any model, make it through the cap, in about 1/4 of the cases they score a hit -sometimes they score two. Not only they hit slow APs, they also strike fast CVs and their escorts rather regularly.

One hit in every four attacks may seem reasonable, but if you think there is about four attacks per day, that means the level bombers score almost once per day. Given the attacks on CV forces, it means that the level bombers score hits on CV taskforces almost every time a CV TF comes within their range for more than few days.

I�m not making this up either. I�m currently playing head to head against myself to learn more about some of the aspects of UV and in my campaign (17), all the damage caused to Japanese carriers are caused by level bombers. Undamaged Zuikaku was hit once by 4 attacking A-20 in spite of CAP of 25 Zero and CVL Shoho has been hit twice; first in an attack by 9 unescorted Hudsons and immediately afterwards it was struck again by 12 un-escorted B-25.

Similarly, unescorted flights of 4-6 B-17s have damaged and sunk several APs, MSWs and PC at Gasmata, Woodlark and Rabaul. All the attacks have been unescorted as well and most of the TF were protected by either Cap or LR-Cap. Given this, I�m less scared of the escorted strikes, than I�m scared of the un-escorted ones.

Especially flights of 4 un-escorted B-17s have proved to be a real threat to Japanese supply shipping, as they seem to be able to slip even through cap of 35 Zeros (has happened twice, the other time they scored a hit on CA).

It does not seem to make a difference if the Cap is normal or LR. The unescorted bombers just seem to slip through unhindered and score hits roughly 1/4 of the times.

So how was this historically? I know that in some cases (Midway, if I�m not mistaken), a flight of B-17s attacked Japanese carriers. I think they managed to avoid being attacked by Cap, because they were so high, but I think they also missed because of their high altitude.

But in UV the attacking level bombers have always attacked at 6000ft. I would imagine that if 4-12 unescorted level bombers tried to attack a CV taskforce protected by 15-40 Zeros, they would get slaughtered at that altitude. Or at least they would have such a hard time dodging bullets that their accuracy would be greatly hindered.

Anyway, I�m suspecting there is something odd about the air-air routine where un-escorted level bombers are attacked by the Cap.

Firstly, it seems the fighters are able to get only one shot in, and secondly the unescorted bombers don�t turn away as often as they do when they are escorted.

Level bombers also seem too accurate agaisnt ships, however, I have no idea how often they scored hits historically. It could be the hit frequency in UV is historical, but it may seem high in the game, because the pace of operations is much faster than it was historically.

Has anyone else seen this?

Post #: 1

- 12/30/2002 11:15:49 PM

Toro

Posts: 578
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: 16 miles southeast of Hell (Michigan, i.e.), US
Status: offline

Piiska,

One of the big changes in 2.2 was to reduce the ability of B-17s to shoot down CAP (Japanese fighters now often "avoid" contact with heavy bombers -- or maybe just 17s?). This was quite a heated discussion on the forum for a while. Unfortunately, I can't speak to the accuracy of level bombers vs shipping, but it seems that what I've read suggests that these a/c should not be this accurate against ships. However, that is tempered by my lack of stats, as noted.

(in reply to Piiska)

Post #: 2

- 12/30/2002 11:22:12 PM

Piiska

Posts: 132
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline

I know the tweaking process and to me the air-air model seems excellent in all regards -except this.

For some reason the unescorted bombers don't get engaged and they don't turn away. This added to their (maybe) high accuracy makes them very effective against ships when they fly unescorted. I don't know what's happening.

Maybe somebody else seen the same?

(in reply to Piiska)

Post #: 3

- 12/31/2002 4:55:04 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Piiska
[B]I know the tweaking process and to me the air-air model seems excellent in all regards -except this.

For some reason the unescorted bombers don't get engaged and they don't turn away. This added to their (maybe) high accuracy makes them very effective against ships when they fly unescorted. I don't know what's happening.

Maybe somebody else seen the same? [/B][/QUOTE]

I refer to it as the "pick and peck problem." It happens a lot in my experience, and it's very annoying. You pull together all your assets and plan a campaign. You set sail. Three Bettys or four B-17s or whatever show up and stick a bomb in your flagship, causing moderate damage. Soon, another little group shows up and blasts a hole in a fully loaded 3,000-capacity transport, slowing it to six knots and screwing up your entire landing schedule. Next day, a torpedo from some puny flight of desperate army pilots lays 40 flotation and 10 fire damage on one of your fleet carriers (incidentally blasting a fourth of her AA armament into oblivion). And so on. There doesn't seem to be any way to protect yourself from this sort of thing. It happens every time.

You grit your teeth and complete your campaign because your strength was overwhelming. Your next operation is delayed six to nine months due to the damage to ships you were counting on having around for awhile.

Fortunately, your opponent is subject to the same crap, which helps a little.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Piiska)

Post #: 4

- 12/31/2002 5:46:51 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

New routines were added that greatly increase the probability of a bomber group or section breaking off their attack if hit often enough by defending fighters. (A 'hit' can be either a damaged or destroyed, though destroyed is better)

If and when this occurs is dependant primarily on the morale of the bomber group. Generally this system works very well though there are a few characteristics or tendancies which should be noted for better understanding when viewing the 'results'

"light fighters" such as the A6M and Ki-43 will tend to avoid "heavy" bombers such as the B-17 and B-24 and is shown by the msg "[Plane type] driven off by defensive fire" msg. To further curb the old pseudo-fighter problem created by the heavily armed bombers, attacking planes will not close the range beyond '3' when attacking Allied heavy bombers. A large majority will fire from ranges 4-6. While this greatly reduces bomber acc against the fighters it will also make it very hard for the fighters to score "destroyed" vs "damaged" hits

While Japanese light fighters are given "permission" by the coding to close the range to 1 or 2 against medium American bombers (armed with .50cal guns), this does not happen, again due to the firepower rating of the bombers so downing B-25's and B-26's or driving them off before they are able to make their attack runs is often very hard to do as, like the 17 and 24 models, they will almost always score "damages" vs "destroyed" which will less adversely affect the attacked group, hence you see less "breaking off msgs". The IJN player is forced to consol himself with what i term "revenge" kills as heavily hit medium (and heavy) bomber formations will tend to suffer much higher operational losses vs a lightly or unopposed attack run. Japanese fighter-bombers and i believe armored fighters are exempt from the "driven off" msg. Medium bombers do not get the "driven off by defensive fire" bonus at all.

The issue of closure does not exist for other medium bomber types (Japanese, and some allied, armed with light defensive machine guns such as the Hudson for example) and attacking fighters will gladly close the range to 1 and 2 which will lead to much higher casualties and a greater chance to drive away some or even all of the bombers unless well escorted due to losses.

As to the question of "historical" Well it is a highly debated subject and one i'm not going to re-open save to mention that the one biggest difference in "doctorine" that players use as opposed to real life is altitude. Players will often tend to attack both land and sea targets from much lower than was done initially. Once exp gets up there i find that level bomber attacks against docked targets in particular are quite effective at heights of 6000 to 10000 feet, especially as the AI never guards its transports with sufficient levels of AA. I find hitting warships at sea a much harder proposition for level bombers unless skip bombing. As one who beta tested the current patch, i will say that 2.20 is far far better than 2.0 and 2.1 were in terms of bomber vs fighter interaction. Various attributes were discussed and debated and a final decision was reached, at least for the current patch. Any further tweaks of the air model will probably have to wait for WitP.

Japanese players may get a little frustrated seeing enemy B-25/26/17/24's bludgeon their way through their CAP's to make their runs (when in sufficent #'s that is) however in balance to this, the planes will often suffer high operational losses due to fatique and damage and of course, the CAP itself will no longer consistantly suffer equal to higher losses in return. B-17 losses will be acutely felt as at first, no replacements are available and even once they start, its a mere trickle so frequent and unabashed use of B-17's on agressive offensive posture missions will quickly cadre your bomber squadrons. For example, in my current campaign, i'm at Feb of 43 and i still have 5 BS's of 17's disbanded in order to fill out the remaining squadrons. Attacking Rabaul now, unescorted, against heavy CAP is often costly. The CAP rarely downs one outright, but they hit them alot, leading to a good half dozen operational write-off's at the end of the day.Losses would be even higher if it wern't for the fact that i'm bombing at 21,000+ feet as well, negating much of the considerable AA there. This, along with the accuracy penalty make fighter escorts much more vital than in pre 2.20 days.

Smaller 'penny packet' groups of bombers will often have a much higher statistical chance of 'slipping in' vs larger formations and can avoid some or even all of a CAP patrol, especially if the base does not have any radar or other early warning system.

As far as operational pace is concened....it is faster in UV, because there is a far less % of damaged or unservicable aircraft present at bases that are not under more or less constant attack or harrasement by the enemy. Historically, bases had a 'paper' strength, and an 'actual' strength, often as much as 50% lower in the harsh climate of the SoPac theater. UV tends to go more with the "paper" strength figure. Factoring this in would admitedly be a headache as one would have to contend with additional variables such as service life of parts (such as engines for example), how hard and how often the plane is used and more detailed tracking of damages and whether or not it gets fixed in time for the next mission. In WitP's case, you also have region to contend with too. Finally a even more intricate and detailed supply listing might be required.

(in reply to Piiska)

Post #: 5

Brief, Historical - 12/31/2002 9:58:34 AM

CynicAl

Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline

As far as the "historical" aspect goes, look what happened to Princeton and Franklin - both victims of attacks by single bombers, not major raids. Even as late as 1945, when the fighters were better, the radar was better, and the CAP and FDO techniques were better, a small raid could sometimes slip through. I wouldn't be surprised to see this happening from time to time in 1942-43; but I wouldn't expect it to be a daily event, much less 3-4 times daily.

_____________________________

Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.

(in reply to Piiska)

Post #: 6