Posts: 3890
Joined: 8/10/2008 From: Lone Star Nation Status: offline
I recently read Frank's excellent book on Guadalcanal. I was intrigued to read that R Area Air Force float planes, usually Petes, were effective in an anti-PT boat role. Anyone ever tried this in the game?
Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004 From: Austria Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: Cribtop
I recently read Frank's excellent book on Guadalcanal. I was intrigued to read that R Area Air Force float planes, usually Petes, were effective in an anti-PT boat role. Anyone ever tried this in the game?
you can use everything that carries some bombs in low nav attacks when the pilot got decent low nav skill. One or two 30kg bombs will do a PT in. MG hits won't until you get lots of dozen which you hardly will achieve. Bombs matter, cannon hits can do the trick too if you get enough hits but none of the float planes got cannons.
Actually E13A1b and E16A1 have 1 and 2 20mm cannons respectively. Though by the time they become available(unless heavily R&D'd) PT boats are unlikely to be one of the top threats...
< Message edited by Erkki -- 5/4/2014 7:05:14 PM >
Actually E13A1b and E16A1 have 1 and 2 20mm cannons respectively. Though by the time they become available(unless heavily R&D'd) PT boats are unlikely to be one of the top threats...
And your average PT boat starts to fill up with 20mm, 37mm and even 40mm Guns vs unarmored Petes, they can hold their own.
20mm cannons will not be enough. Seems one hit by 60kg bomb = 20-25 hits by 20mm round. Plus, you need to swamp a PT with fighters to maximise hits and float fighters groups are actually small.
20mm cannons will not be enough. Seems one hit by 60kg bomb = 20-25 hits by 20mm round. Plus, you need to swamp a PT with fighters to maximise hits and float fighters groups are actually small.
Having been on the receiving end, early in the game Zeros can sink PT with only their 20 mm cannon. Often takes multiple combats and sometimes over multiple days, but the damage is meaningful and adds up.
In the right situation, PTs can be a minor thorn for the IJ early advance. Once air superiority has been achieved, Zeros on naval attack at 100 ft altitude are an effective counter-measure.
Yes, over multiple days they can be sunk. But if you only have one day (two Naval Attack missions) to sink them before they are, for example, LRCAPped, the 20mm cannons may not be enough.
Posts: 3890
Joined: 8/10/2008 From: Lone Star Nation Status: offline
Good replies - thanks. Maybe Oscars/Zeros with 60kg bombs would work well? I may experiment with float planes at night, though. Their low speed may be helpful. IRL it seemed flares plus low speed plus bombs did the trick.
Well, this is interesting. Navy float fighters can perform Naval Attack during night, while navy land based fighters cannot perform Naval Attack during night. Does anybody know why?
Posts: 3890
Joined: 8/10/2008 From: Lone Star Nation Status: offline
Hmm, this is crying out for someone to test!
PS - Imagine a bombardment TF with float planes set 1/2 to recon the target and 1/2 to close range, low altitude Nav Attack. Could help ward off the PTs.
< Message edited by Cribtop -- 5/8/2014 7:56:06 PM >
Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004 From: Austria Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: Cribtop
Hmm, this is crying out for someone to test!
PS - Imagine a bombardment TF with float planes set 1/2 to recon the target and 1/2 to close range, low altitude Nav Attack. Could help ward off the PTs.
doesn't night naval movement happen prior to night air attacks? Lol, watched so many thousands of turns of combat replays and I can't tell.
Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012 From: Iowan in MD/DC Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: castor troy
quote:
ORIGINAL: Cribtop
Hmm, this is crying out for someone to test!
PS - Imagine a bombardment TF with float planes set 1/2 to recon the target and 1/2 to close range, low altitude Nav Attack. Could help ward off the PTs.
doesn't night naval movement happen prior to night air attacks? Lol, watched so many thousands of turns of combat replays and I can't tell.
It depends on when the TF arrives at the bombardment zone. Sometimes it's during the naval movement phase, other times it's afterwards.
It's also entirely possible that the TF will bombard first and run into PTs second. Not likely, but possible.
Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005 From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960 Status: offline
Actually aircraft weren't very effective in the anti-PT Boat role. PT Boat combat losses were very low due to direct enemy action in the air or on the surface:
Out of 531 PTs placed in US Navy service, 69 were lost: 5 - destroyed by enemy surface ship gunfire; 1 - rammed by enemy ship; 1 - rammed enemy ship; 1 - enemy aircraft strafing; 4 - enemy bombings; 2 - kamikaze attacks; 5 - enemy shore batteries; 4 - enemy mines; 1 - damaged by enemy fire then destroyed; 2 - lost in transit, tanker torpedoed by enemy. Total: 26 lost by enemy action.
Additional losses: 18 - grounded in enemy waters and destroyed to prevent capture; 3 - destroyed to prevent capture; 3 - destroyed by US aircraft; 2 - destroyed by Australian aircraft; 2 - destroyed by US ships; 1 - destroyed by enemy shore fire or wild shot from US warship; 5 - grounded/destroyed outside enemy waters or in storms; 6 - fire or explosion in port; 3 - collisions. Total: 43 lost by accidents, friendly fire or sea conditions.
I recently read Frank's excellent book on Guadalcanal. I was intrigued to read that R Area Air Force float planes, usually Petes, were effective in an anti-PT boat role. Anyone ever tried this in the game?
Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004 From: Austria Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: Big B
Actually aircraft weren't very effective in the anti-PT Boat role. PT Boat combat losses were very low due to direct enemy action in the air or on the surface:
Out of 531 PTs placed in US Navy service, 69 were lost: 5 - destroyed by enemy surface ship gunfire; 1 - rammed by enemy ship; 1 - rammed enemy ship; 1 - enemy aircraft strafing; 4 - enemy bombings; 2 - kamikaze attacks; 5 - enemy shore batteries; 4 - enemy mines; 1 - damaged by enemy fire then destroyed; 2 - lost in transit, tanker torpedoed by enemy. Total: 26 lost by enemy action.
Additional losses: 18 - grounded in enemy waters and destroyed to prevent capture; 3 - destroyed to prevent capture; 3 - destroyed by US aircraft; 2 - destroyed by Australian aircraft; 2 - destroyed by US ships; 1 - destroyed by enemy shore fire or wild shot from US warship; 5 - grounded/destroyed outside enemy waters or in storms; 6 - fire or explosion in port; 3 - collisions. Total: 43 lost by accidents, friendly fire or sea conditions.
I recently read Frank's excellent book on Guadalcanal. I was intrigued to read that R Area Air Force float planes, usually Petes, were effective in an anti-PT boat role. Anyone ever tried this in the game?
Like in the discussion aircraft vs subs this is about the same I guess. I doubt that there even were lots of air attacks on PTs. 5 were destroyed by Allied aircraft so how hard would it be to kill a PT in a strafing run? That was friendly fire and hopefully that wasn't that common and still 5 being destroyed. Probably not that much harder than to kill a truck or two? To bring it back to a discussion about the game, it's not unrealistic that Japanese could sink a sub. What makes it unrealistic or better say unhistoric is the use of hundreds of bombers on patrol against enemy subs. That's probably the main difference to what happened in real life. And while Allied fighter aircraft were perfectly suited for strafing attacks, later Japanese fighters that carried more than 120 of 20mm cannon rounds should be perfectly able to harm a PT. As to me, I have never read any reports of Japanese aircraft hunting PT boats though. Guess that would be more like a target of opportunity that would be strafed during an attack on a base when opposition allows it or on the way to/from a target.
I wouldn't want to be on a wooden ship of that size when being strafed by an aircraft. Not even if that aircraft only got 2 x 7.62mm.
Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005 From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960 Status: offline
Agreed, but the fact that in all of the war - only ONE PT Boat was lost to straffing (listed below) suggests that straffing was not a great answer to kill PT Boats for various reasons.
quote:
ORIGINAL: castor troy
quote:
ORIGINAL: Big B
Actually aircraft weren't very effective in the anti-PT Boat role. PT Boat combat losses were very low due to direct enemy action in the air or on the surface:
Out of 531 PTs placed in US Navy service, 69 were lost: 5 - destroyed by enemy surface ship gunfire; 1 - rammed by enemy ship; 1 - rammed enemy ship; 1 - enemy aircraft strafing; 4 - enemy bombings; 2 - kamikaze attacks; 5 - enemy shore batteries; 4 - enemy mines; 1 - damaged by enemy fire then destroyed; 2 - lost in transit, tanker torpedoed by enemy. Total: 26 lost by enemy action.
Additional losses: 18 - grounded in enemy waters and destroyed to prevent capture; 3 - destroyed to prevent capture; 3 - destroyed by US aircraft; 2 - destroyed by Australian aircraft; 2 - destroyed by US ships; 1 - destroyed by enemy shore fire or wild shot from US warship; 5 - grounded/destroyed outside enemy waters or in storms; 6 - fire or explosion in port; 3 - collisions. Total: 43 lost by accidents, friendly fire or sea conditions.
I recently read Frank's excellent book on Guadalcanal. I was intrigued to read that R Area Air Force float planes, usually Petes, were effective in an anti-PT boat role. Anyone ever tried this in the game?
Like in the discussion aircraft vs subs this is about the same I guess. I doubt that there even were lots of air attacks on PTs. 5 were destroyed by Allied aircraft so how hard would it be to kill a PT in a strafing run? That was friendly fire and hopefully that wasn't that common and still 5 being destroyed. Probably not that much harder than to kill a truck or two? To bring it back to a discussion about the game, it's not unrealistic that Japanese could sink a sub. What makes it unrealistic or better say unhistoric is the use of hundreds of bombers on patrol against enemy subs. That's probably the main difference to what happened in real life. And while Allied fighter aircraft were perfectly suited for strafing attacks, later Japanese fighters that carried more than 120 of 20mm cannon rounds should be perfectly able to harm a PT. As to me, I have never read any reports of Japanese aircraft hunting PT boats though. Guess that would be more like a target of opportunity that would be strafed during an attack on a base when opposition allows it or on the way to/from a target.
I wouldn't want to be on a wooden ship of that size when being strafed by an aircraft. Not even if that aircraft only got 2 x 7.62mm.
Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Petes vs PTs 
Petes vs PTs - 
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