Patrol Flying Boats - 100 feet, naval attack

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Patrol Flying Boats - 100 feet, naval attack

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Patrol Flying Boats - 100 feet, naval attack

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Patrol Flying Boats - 100 feet, naval attack - 10/24/2014 10:26:59 AM

Yaab

Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

Made a test to see if patrol boats can attack with bombs at 100 feet, especially Emily which takes 4 x 250kg bombs as replacement for its 2 x 45cm torpedoes. Patrol boats unlike level bombers are not penalised for flying at 100 feet and can take full amount of bombs, plus they are more durable and more manoeuvrable than level bombers.

Tested in the Guadalcanal scenario for three turns. Two small air groups based at Rabaul.

Turn 1: two attacks
Turn 2: no attacks (unable to locate target)
Turn 3: one attack

Heavy losses to shipborne flak, pilots killed.

Ships attacked were travelling on the Milne Bay - Port Moresby axis

------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Milne Bay at 99,134

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 11 NM, estimated altitude 6,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
H6K4 Mavis x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
H6K4 Mavis: 2 damaged

Allied Ships
xAP Rhesus, Bomb hits 3, and is sunk

Allied ground losses:
837 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 33 destroyed, 58 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x H6K4 Mavis bombing from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg AP Bomb

------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Milne Bay at 99,134

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 40 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
H8K1 Emily x 2

Japanese aircraft losses
H8K1 Emily: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied Ships
xAP Murada, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage

Allied ground losses:
215 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 9 destroyed, 12 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
1 x H8K1 Emily bombing from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg AP Bomb, 2 x 250 kg AP Bomb

------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Milne Bay at 99,134

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 13 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Japanese aircraft
H6K4 Mavis x 3

No Japanese losses

Allied Ships
xAK Empire Hawk, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires

Allied ground losses:
97 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 9 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x H6K4 Mavis bombing from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg AP Bomb

Massive explosion on xAK Empire Hawk

< Message edited by Yaab -- 10/24/2014 11:34:48 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: Patrol boats - 100 feet, naval attack - 10/24/2014 10:32:19 AM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

Very, very misleading title Yaab.
Patrol Boats (PB) can't fly.
Patrol Flying Boats can fly.

Something that large and ponderous may have success against shipping with very light flak, but I would never want to try using them against heavily armed warships.

For the Allies one of the best anti-shipping airframes is the P39, drawback obviously being its short legs.

The Japanese being bigger on flying boats than the Allies, and having deeper airframes pools in general, may well have enough to risk their loss using them in an attack role.

The Allies simply don't have depth to warrant using them in this role.

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 10/24/2014 11:35:22 AM >

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to Yaab)

Post #: 2

RE: Patrol boats - 100 feet, naval attack - 10/24/2014 10:35:26 AM

Yaab

Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

Title changed.

As for flak, it was strange to see an Emily disintegrate during the bombing run. After the combat animation has ended, there was a "pilot killed" message displayed. I guess the Emily was hit by a 8-12 cm shell from a DP gun mounted on xAK/xAP.

< Message edited by Yaab -- 10/24/2014 11:38:12 AM >

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 3

RE: Patrol boats - 100 feet, naval attack - 10/24/2014 10:36:13 AM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Title changed.

Just poking fun

Interesting exercise for sure.

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 10/24/2014 11:36:36 AM >

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to Yaab)

Post #: 4

RE: Patrol boats - 100 feet, naval attack - 10/24/2014 12:56:39 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

The problem for both the allies and Japanese , is that you never have enough MPA (maritime patrol aircraft)to begin with. If you use long range MPA aircraft for bombing attacks , with what will you find targets for them to attack?

You might have better luck using patrol aircraft in this manner at night , or in very bad weather conditions. I seem to recall that in the "Thousand Mile War" scenario Emily aircraft are devastating.

_____________________________

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 5

RE: Patrol boats - 100 feet, naval attack - 10/24/2014 2:53:11 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

Ref "Naval Attacks"....I have used Catalinas very successfully against merchant shipping in daylight at 5000-6000 feet with torpedoes, generally light losses.
Much different situation against warships where torpedo hits are rare and my losses soar.

< Message edited by m10bob -- 10/24/2014 3:54:41 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 6

RE: Patrol boats - 100 feet, naval attack - 10/24/2014 7:02:51 PM

jmalter

Posts: 1673
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob
Ref "Naval Attacks"....I have used Catalinas very successfully against merchant shipping in daylight at 5000-6000 feet with torpedoes, generally light losses.
Much different situation against warships where torpedo hits are rare and my losses soar.

I agree - playing against the IJ AI, I staffed a Cat sqn w/ high NavT skill pilots. Paired w/ a 2nd Cat group at the same base dedicated to NavS, they did rather well defending the Port Moresby area against invasion convoys. Attacking a Bombardment TF would result in heavy losses, but they often got a torp hit against a CA.
I attribute their success to the 2xTorpedo ordnance load, & having a co-located search group.

During combat replays, I'd occaisionally hear an unexplained Kaboom! This would be either:
- somewhere, someone ate a mine, or
- a long-range IJ flying boat just turned one of my (loaded) TKs into a furiously-burning derelict.

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 7

RE: Patrol boats - 100 feet, naval attack - 10/24/2014 8:54:07 PM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

more manoeuvrable than level bombers.

Bizarre. A 4 engine patrol should not be more maneuverable than a Nell or a Betty.

quote:

I attribute their success to the 2xTorpedo ordnance load, & having a co-located search group.

Yeah, the game don't deals well with quantities. With torpedos is worse. No plane should have two torpedos for this reason.

_____________________________

(in reply to jmalter)

Post #: 8

RE: Patrol boats - 100 feet, naval attack - 10/24/2014 9:14:46 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

more manoeuvrable than level bombers.

Bizarre. A 4 engine patrol should not be more maneuverable than a Nell or a Betty.

quote:

I attribute their success to the 2xTorpedo ordnance load, & having a co-located search group.

Yeah, the game don't deals well with quantities. With torpedos is worse. No plane should have two torpedos for this reason.

Say's who? If the 4 motor has a hell of a lot more power , larger control surfaces and power assist , you'd be surprised. A Ferrari weights a heck of a lot more than a Volkswagen bug. Which would you bet on?

If you've got enough thrust , you have a whole different airplane. As a practical example , ever hear of the Avro Manchester? A two engine bomber. And a failure. Throw two more engines on that pig , and make some minor changes and you've got the Avro Lancaster! a Whole different airplane!

I'm just saying........

_____________________________

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 9

RE: Patrol boats - 100 feet, naval attack - 10/24/2014 9:16:11 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

The problem for both the allies and Japanese , is that you never have enough MPA (maritime patrol aircraft)to begin with. If you use long range MPA aircraft for bombing attacks , with what will you find targets for them to attack?

You might have better luck using patrol aircraft in this manner at night , or in very bad weather conditions. I seem to recall that in the "Thousand Mile War" scenario Emily aircraft are devastating.

Nells.

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 10

RE: Patrol boats - 100 feet, naval attack - 10/24/2014 9:23:07 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

The problem for both the allies and Japanese , is that you never have enough MPA (maritime patrol aircraft)to begin with. If you use long range MPA aircraft for bombing attacks , with what will you find targets for them to attack?

You might have better luck using patrol aircraft in this manner at night , or in very bad weather conditions. I seem to recall that in the "Thousand Mile War" scenario Emily aircraft are devastating.

Nells.

Ask Chickenboy.....he'll confirm that the Emily's are devastating. I hate that name! Right after Andre shellacked my BB's with Emily's , I went out to dinner. My wife couldn't understand why I glared when the waitress told us her name. You guessed it, Emily!

_____________________________

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 11

RE: Patrol boats - 100 feet, naval attack - 10/24/2014 10:25:13 PM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

more manoeuvrable than level bombers.

Bizarre. A 4 engine patrol should not be more maneuverable than a Nell or a Betty.

quote:

I attribute their success to the 2xTorpedo ordnance load, & having a co-located search group.

Yeah, the game don't deals well with quantities. With torpedos is worse. No plane should have two torpedos for this reason.

Say's who? If the 4 motor has a hell of a lot more power , larger control surfaces and power assist , you'd be surprised. A Ferrari weights a heck of a lot more than a Volkswagen bug. Which would you bet on?

If you've got enough thrust , you have a whole different airplane. As a practical example , ever hear of the Avro Manchester? A two engine bomber. And a failure. Throw two more engines on that pig , and make some minor changes and you've got the Avro Lancaster! a Whole different airplane!

I'm just saying........

Yeah i heard of it

Well i went only to wiki and the Nell weight is suprisingly low at 8000kg, if true had way less wing loading and more specific power than Emily - i suspect the data on wiki is a mix of various version or conditions.
To get worse Emily is far from aerodynamic. Mavis is even worse regarding power but in game has more maneuverability than Emily. Ok that it had less wing loading but the value overall difference is a mystery.

PS:
Mavis maneuver 22, Sunderland 7 . I think this is one more confirmation that there is some difference hardcode between Axis and Allies game sides to justify this difference.

< Message edited by Dili -- 10/24/2014 11:28:39 PM >

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 12

RE: Patrol boats - 100 feet, naval attack - 10/25/2014 7:50:04 AM

Yaab

Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

I did some more testing in Guadalcanal scenario and observed some interesting things.

1) Mavis and Emilys are hit by shipborne flak consistently, even though they have higher manoeuvre rating than the Japanese level bombers. I guess the manoeuvre rating of patrol boats is used differently in flak dodging calculations than the bombers' one.

2) Warhawk/Kittyhawak can destroy patrol boats with their 0.50 caliber guns. I always thought that one needed to have cannons in order to destroy high durability aircraft such as Emily (durability 48, armor 1). During the tests, a lonely Kittyhawk on CAP destroyed one Emily outright and damaged another one. I vaguely remember a war story, when an Aircobra pilot couldn't destroy an Emily with the Aircobra's 37mm cannon - the Emily just soaked up the damage and soldiered on.

3) 100 feet naval attack probably uses Strafing skill.

This is interesting. Emilys and Mavis couldn't hit an American DD at Milne Bay, yet a Zero group always scored some hits. Both groups have 80 exp pilots with 45 LowNav Skill, but the Zero pilots have Strafing skill of 70. I guess LowNaval skill may only be used at 1000-5000 feet, and not at 100 feet.

EDIT: Actually, Mavis are made of paper. Three Wildcats destroyed two Mavis instantly over Tassafaronga, suffering no defensive fire from Mavis at all. Emilys fared better and came home damaged. The patrol boats suffer a strange inertia at 100 feet - they don't defend themselves with their MGs and cannons. Strange...

< Message edited by Yaab -- 10/25/2014 9:56:30 AM >

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 13

RE: Patrol boats - 100 feet, naval attack - 10/25/2014 11:51:18 AM

Rising-Sun

Posts: 2082
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline

That's interesting, I gotta try that someday. But I normally use those boats for long range patrol, incase carrier fleet are spotted.

_____________________________

(in reply to Yaab)

Post #: 14

RE: Patrol boats - 100 feet, naval attack - 10/25/2014 5:42:30 PM

Yaab

Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

I wouldn't use Mavis again at 100 feet - it is too fragile and packs only 2 x 250kg bombs. Emily is ok, though it enters the war at a later date and its numbers are limited.

Basically, the ideal attacking force at 100 feet would be Emily (4 x 250kg AP bombs), Jake ( 4 x 60 kg GP bombs) and Zeros ( 2 x 7.7mm MGs, 2 x 20mm cannons, and 2 x 60kg GP bombs). You can attack anything from a small PT to a average-AA DD with such a force. CAs, BBs and CVs are a no-go, though.

(in reply to Rising-Sun)

Post #: 15

RE: Patrol boats - 100 feet, naval attack - 1/29/2015 3:13:36 PM

Yaab

Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

Retested after a long hiatus.

Emilies still don't use their defensive weapons. Not a single message saying "Wildcat driven away by defensive fire". Naval Attack at 6000 feet. Turkey-shoot for Wildcats.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Tulagi at 114,137

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
H8K1 Emily x 5

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 13

Japanese aircraft losses
H8K1 Emily: 3 destroyed

No Allied losses

CAP engaged:
VF-3 with F4F-4 Wildcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 6000 , scrambling fighters between 5000 and 6000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 12 minutes
VF-6 with F4F-4 Wildcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 8000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 23 minutes
VF-71 with F4F-4 Wildcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 11000 , scrambling fighters to 5000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 22 minutes

(in reply to Yaab)

Post #: 16

RE: Patrol boats - 100 feet, naval attack - 1/29/2015 3:46:29 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

I don't think the AI differentiate between any aircraft at 100 feet. They all attack the same way except the attack bombers can suppress AA fire. I have used Cats with 500 lb bombs with success at 1,000 feet but to tell the truth I use torpedoes whenever I can as the Cats (and Emilys/Mavis) carry two torpedoes making the likely hood of success much higher. You won't see much in the way of MG hits with a Mavis at 100 feet as they only have one forward firing MG and I am not sure if it needs to be a fixed mg in order to strafe. But AA and cap will take a toll on any un-escorted bomber. I wish you could put a cautious commander in charge of a "patrol" type bomber and it would then only go after safer targets such as merchant convoys. But the game does not work that way so they are really subject to Cap traps and not much use in naval interdiction. Even the most cautious commander seems to want to fly right into the devil's mouth..

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Yaab)

Post #: 17

RE: Patrol boats - 100 feet, naval attack - 1/29/2015 10:32:36 PM

czert2

Posts: 508
Joined: 2/10/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Retested after a long hiatus.

Emilies still don't use their defensive weapons. Not a single message saying "Wildcat driven away by defensive fire". Naval Attack at 6000 feet. Turkey-shoot for Wildcats.

hmm, do others pb uses defensive fire (sunderland, mavis....etc) or it general problem for all boats flying that low ?

(in reply to Yaab)

Post #: 18

RE: Patrol boats - 100 feet, naval attack - 1/30/2015 5:24:49 AM

Hyacinth

Posts: 83
Joined: 9/1/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

The problem for both the allies and Japanese , is that you never have enough MPA (maritime patrol aircraft)to begin with. If you use long range MPA aircraft for bombing attacks , with what will you find targets for them to attack?

You might have better luck using patrol aircraft in this manner at night , or in very bad weather conditions. I seem to recall that in the "Thousand Mile War" scenario Emily aircraft are devastating.

Nells.

Ask Chickenboy.....he'll confirm that the Emily's are devastating. I hate that name! Right after Andre shellacked my BB's with Emily's , I went out to dinner. My wife couldn't understand why I glared when the waitress told us her name. You guessed it, Emily!

LOL!

I just got an aircraft encyclopedia about fighters and bombers.
Emily is listed as the best flying boat of WW2 and an extremely effective naval bomber.
Even when facing enemy fighters with its good armament and durability, it was just underproduced to have more effect.

_____________________________

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 19

RE: Patrol boats - 100 feet, naval attack - 1/30/2015 3:36:00 PM

Numdydar

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

Well with PDU On you can fix that in the game

(in reply to Hyacinth)

Post #: 20

RE: Patrol boats - 100 feet, naval attack - 1/30/2015 3:50:36 PM

Hyacinth

Posts: 83
Joined: 9/1/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Well with PDU On you can fix that in the game

How many groups can use it?

< Message edited by Hyacinth -- 1/30/2015 4:51:05 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Numdydar)

Post #: 21

RE: Patrol boats - 100 feet, naval attack - 1/31/2015 9:51:52 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

How many groups can use it?

Not too many. Even with PDU on you can only use them in PA units. So take all Mavis and convert them to Emily and there you go. Also keep in mind these A/C are expensive. One will cost you 144 HI, that's four single engine fighters.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Hyacinth)

Post #: 22

RE: Patrol boats - 100 feet, naval attack - 1/31/2015 10:32:52 PM

Numdydar

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

You can expand the number of squadron by using the CV hat trick. Not sure if it would work with PBs though.

Split a squadron, move one of the splits to a CV and expand to fit CV. Once that is done and the squadron's size is now bigger, do the same for the other half. Now you have two much bigger squadrons than you had before.

As rustysi pointed out, this will take a lot of HI just for the plane. That cost does not include the HI cost for 4 engines. So they are definitely not cheap

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 23

RE: Patrol boats - 100 feet, naval attack - 1/31/2015 11:23:05 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

That cost does not include the HI cost for 4 engines.

I thought 144 was the cost for each plane? Four engines at 18/engine=72. Plus a like amount for the airframe, +72=144. No?

_____________________________

(in reply to Numdydar)

Post #: 24

RE: Patrol boats - 100 feet, naval attack - 2/1/2015 12:14:07 AM

Hyacinth

Posts: 83
Joined: 9/1/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

You can expand the number of squadron by using the CV hat trick. Not sure if it would work with PBs though.

Split a squadron, move one of the splits to a CV and expand to fit CV. Once that is done and the squadron's size is now bigger, do the same for the other half. Now you have two much bigger squadrons than you had before.

As rustysi pointed out, this will take a lot of HI just for the plane. That cost does not include the HI cost for 4 engines. So they are definitely not cheap

I dont think you can move patrol planes to CVs, so that limits the plane only to patrol.
You could train pilots and produce planes just for attack but that would still be small scale.

_____________________________

(in reply to Numdydar)

Post #: 25