Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: MButtsworth

I was wondering what was the correct altitude for two engine bombers conducting a naval attack? I read 100 feet but I am not sure if that is too low.
Any ideas?
And what about B17s on naval attack?
There is so much I do not know or have forgotten in my 8 year break from the game.

Matthew Buttsworth

quote:

ORIGINAL: MButtsworth

I was wondering what was the correct altitude for two engine bombers conducting a naval attack? I read 100 feet but I am not sure if that is too low.
Any ideas?
And what about B17s on naval attack?
There is so much I do not know or have forgotten in my 8 year break from the game.

Matthew Buttsworth

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

If you have attack bombers, you can/should use them at 100 feet. Note that they appear to use the Strafing skill at that altitude, not low-naval. Attack bombers are not penalized in terms of bomb load for flying at this altitude.

It's been a long time, but there may also be something of a bonus for attack bombers when strafing: I think they might suppress some flak from ships. I may be misremembering. Clearly, I need my games to reach late 1943 with regular turns so I can use them and remember from experience.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Coach Zuck

What bombers are considered Attack Bombers?
Allied/Japanese

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Coach Zuck

What bombers are considered Attack Bombers?
Allied/Japanese

the Japanese don't have attack bombers

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: MButtsworth

I was wondering what was the correct altitude for two engine bombers conducting a naval attack? I read 100 feet but I am not sure if that is too low.
Any ideas?
And what about B17s on naval attack?
There is so much I do not know or have forgotten in my 8 year break from the game.

Matthew Buttsworth

It depends. Attacking a battleship with bombs, especially an American one after mid-1942, will be very different from attacking a convoy of xAKLs and PBs. So the answer is "Go as low as you dare, but not below 2000 feet unless your pilots are trained in low naval attack."

A few 2E bombers are designated Assault Bombers, usually with a lot of forward firing guns. These should train in Low Naval attack at 1000 feet and Strafe at 100 feet. In addition, some 2E bombers like the B-25D1 and subsequent models can also be used as low level naval bombers but they do not get the Assault bomber bonus of no reduction in bomb load (AFAIK), so they will carry half the normal bomb load. Low level bombers are also vulnerable to heavy flak.

In PBEMs, the players often agree to a rule against using 4EBs below 10,000 feet but the game itself does not restrict them.

Both sides have 2EBs that can carry torpedoes instead of bombs. You can set any altitude you like for the them and they will descend to 200' to drop their torps before climbing back to the altitude you set. Higher altitude is better for flak avoidance, but sometimes a very low approach is better to sneak under CAP. Air warfare is a game of measure and counter-measure and you must try to be unpredictable against a human player,

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: MButtsworth

I was wondering what was the correct altitude for two engine bombers conducting a naval attack? I read 100 feet but I am not sure if that is too low.
Any ideas?
And what about B17s on naval attack?
There is so much I do not know or have forgotten in my 8 year break from the game.

Matthew Buttsworth

It depends. Attacking a battleship with bombs, especially an American one after mid-1942, will be very different from attacking a convoy of xAKLs and PBs. So the answer is "Go as low as you dare, but not below 2000 feet unless your pilots are trained in low naval attack."

A few 2E bombers are designated Assault Bombers, usually with a lot of forward firing guns. These should train in Low Naval attack at 1000 feet and Strafe at 100 feet. In addition, some 2E bombers like the B-25D1 and subsequent models can also be used as low level naval bombers but they do not get the Assault bomber bonus of no reduction in bomb load (AFAIK), so they will carry half the normal bomb load. Low level bombers are also vulnerable to heavy flak.

In PBEMs, the players often agree to a rule against using 4EBs below 10,000 feet but the game itself does not restrict them.

Both sides have 2EBs that can carry torpedoes instead of bombs. You can set any altitude you like for the them and they will descend to 200' to drop their torps before climbing back to the altitude you set. Higher altitude is better for flak avoidance, but sometimes a very low approach is better to sneak under CAP. Air warfare is a game of measure and counter-measure and you must try to be unpredictable against a human player,

IIRC B-17s the pioneers of skip and were used against ships at the Canal, even nailing a DD from altitude.

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

To view the Allied attack bombers go to the menu bar at the top of the game page. Select 'show all land based planes' (or some such). Turn off the plane groups, then select the heading 'AB', for attack bombers, and there you go.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Reading this thread just reinforces my opinion that house rules limiting allied bombers to above 10k ft are a sop to the JFBs - for game reasons, not reality.

Has anyone got some real objective evidence to support the allied bombers being restricted to going high?

Timotheus and Barb - I'm looking at you. Surely you have some references to backup your claims, so please link them so we can have a look.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Reading this thread just reinforces my opinion that house rules limiting allied bombers to above 10k ft are a sop to the JFBs - for game reasons, not reality.

Has anyone got some real objective evidence to support the allied bombers being restricted to going high?

Timotheus and Barb - I'm looking at you. Surely you have some references to backup your claims, so please link them so we can have a look.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Reading this thread just reinforces my opinion that house rules limiting allied bombers to above 10k ft are a sop to the JFBs - for game reasons, not reality.

Has anyone got some real objective evidence to support the allied bombers being restricted to going high?

Timotheus and Barb - I'm looking at you. Surely you have some references to backup your claims, so please link them so we can have a look.

quote:

Yes, all non-attack type level bombers use the reduced bomb load when bombing ships below 6k. Attack type bombers (late B25s for example) use their full load and when set below 6k will always drop down to 100 feet and strafe and bomb. The strafing should suppress return AA fire. Fighters and fighter bombers when set to naval attack at 1,000 feet and lower will drop down and attack at 100 feet. They will strafe but I do not think they suppress flak. At all other heights fighters level bomb.....&

Against light naval targets I always set medium bombers to 1,000 feet. The reduced bomb load is compensated by better accuracy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

I just did some searches and found this, per CR Sutton:

quote:

Yes, all non-attack type level bombers use the reduced bomb load when bombing ships below 6k. Attack type bombers (late B25s for example) use their full load and when set below 6k will always drop down to 100 feet and strafe and bomb. The strafing should suppress return AA fire. Fighters and fighter bombers when set to naval attack at 1,000 feet and lower will drop down and attack at 100 feet. They will strafe but I do not think they suppress flak. At all other heights fighters level bomb.....&

Against light naval targets I always set medium bombers to 1,000 feet. The reduced bomb load is compensated by better accuracy.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3842892&mpage=1&key=bombers%2Clow%2Caltitude?

It seems the developers already built in a reduction.

quote:

Later the code was changed to make the difference between Low Level and "High" Level bombing 2000 feet instead of 6000. At that height the heavy bombers probably would get a lot of hits with no bomb load reduction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

Later the code was changed to make the difference between Low Level and "High" Level bombing 2000 feet instead of 6000. At that height the heavy bombers probably would get a lot of hits with no bomb load reduction.

I repeat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

Later the code was changed to make the difference between Low Level and "High" Level bombing 2000 feet instead of 6000. At that height the heavy bombers probably would get a lot of hits with no bomb load reduction.

I repeat.

You and I have heard all this stuff before, but a lot of new players have bought the game recently and need to hear what has already been hashed out. It is still a personal judgement call whether the Allied player should agree to decrease 4EB of naval targets to give the Japanese player a less frustrating game (and perhaps make it last a bit longer).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

Later the code was changed to make the difference between Low Level and "High" Level bombing 2000 feet instead of 6000. At that height the heavy bombers probably would get a lot of hits with no bomb load reduction.

I repeat.

You and I have heard all this stuff before, but a lot of new players have bought the game recently and need to hear what has already been hashed out. It is still a personal judgement call whether the Allied player should agree to decrease 4EB of naval targets to give the Japanese player a less frustrating game (and perhaps make it last a bit longer).

So, no-one has put forward any evidence that there is anything historically wrong with the modeling. And at some point in a patch the penalty was actually reduced.

Should the allied player ask for a house rule that the IJ player has to divide his xAKs and TKs into two halves - one to take stuff to the front and come home empty, and one to go out empty and bring back raw materials? That is historically accurate. ;-)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

Later the code was changed to make the difference between Low Level and "High" Level bombing 2000 feet instead of 6000. At that height the heavy bombers probably would get a lot of hits with no bomb load reduction.

I repeat.

You and I have heard all this stuff before, but a lot of new players have bought the game recently and need to hear what has already been hashed out. It is still a personal judgement call whether the Allied player should agree to decrease 4EB of naval targets to give the Japanese player a less frustrating game (and perhaps make it last a bit longer).

So, no-one has put forward any evidence that there is anything historically wrong with the modeling. And at some point in a patch the penalty was actually reduced.

Should the allied player ask for a house rule that the IJ player has to divide his xAKs and TKs into two halves - one to take stuff to the front and come home empty, and one to go out empty and bring back raw materials? That is historically accurate. ;-)

As I understand it, low level bombing was exceptionally dangerous to the planes pursuing it as the explosion shockwave could knock down planes and this is not modeled in game...

So it was a high skill, high reward endeavor.

Massed 4E low altitude bombing really can devastate the KB, especially when used in conjunction with a carrier clash.

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

Later the code was changed to make the difference between Low Level and "High" Level bombing 2000 feet instead of 6000. At that height the heavy bombers probably would get a lot of hits with no bomb load reduction.

I repeat.

You and I have heard all this stuff before, but a lot of new players have bought the game recently and need to hear what has already been hashed out. It is still a personal judgement call whether the Allied player should agree to decrease 4EB of naval targets to give the Japanese player a less frustrating game (and perhaps make it last a bit longer).

So, no-one has put forward any evidence that there is anything historically wrong with the modeling. And at some point in a patch the penalty was actually reduced.

Should the allied player ask for a house rule that the IJ player has to divide his xAKs and TKs into two halves - one to take stuff to the front and come home empty, and one to go out empty and bring back raw materials? That is historically accurate. ;-)