Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Don't forget that a "near miss" can be better than an actual hit, causing holes to appear in the hull which would let water into the ship. That is generally not a good thing. A "near miss" 20 yards away from the ship would do the most damage, according to what I read, and these may show up in the game as "hits" causing flooding and other shock damage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Don't forget that a "near miss" can be better than an actual hit, causing holes to appear in the hull which would let water into the ship. That is generally not a good thing. A "near miss" 20 yards away from the ship would do the most damage, according to what I read, and these may show up in the game as "hits" causing flooding and other shock damage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Not even close to this hit rate, which i am surprised many try to not talk about.

In the Med 107 sqn doing this type of work in 1941 - so even historically earlier than this was wiped out in a couple months with more than half the crews dead.

Not sure what your point is here. Are you talking about some other group fighting in the mediterranean? Why?

Have a quick read. I'm actually right now reading through this part of the war, and any transport moving without air cover was sunk if found. Period.

The hit rate above is pilots attacking tankers. Ever seen a tanker turn?

The Concord is an old CL with virtually no air defences and there is a to of precedent for this, as Marblehead was knocked out by a much higher attack from 2E bombers, from about 15-17k feet.

It works the same for both sides and if you feel there is something amiss that needs to be HRed, fine, but no one else is going to care unless you properly test it against other types.

My point is that you are wrong, as an example your non sequitur about Marblehead, now even an hit at high level that is mostly luck in all war is evidence of a pattern of a low level high hit level?

Should i bring innumerable instances of failure to hit standing still ships?

Tell me when you got 70% bomb hit rate in a bomb attack against shipping?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Don't forget that a "near miss" can be better than an actual hit, causing holes to appear in the hull which would let water into the ship. That is generally not a good thing. A "near miss" 20 yards away from the ship would do the most damage, according to what I read, and these may show up in the game as "hits" causing flooding and other shock damage.

When I see this kind of damage from bombs I presume it is the bombs that hit the side armour and did not penetrate. Such hits could still cause system damage, engineering damage and fires through spalling the armour or sending bomb fragments through unarmoured parts of the ship.
The flooding I imagine as distortion of the hull or armour mounting. That could happen whether the bomb exploded on the surface of the armour or in the water alongside.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
Probably 99% of all Japanese bomber pilots had never dropped a bomb (or a torpedo) on a moving ship prior to Dec 7th, 1941. The Japanese bomber pilots' combat experience, if any, consisted of dropping bombs from high altitude on defenseless Chinese civilians.

quote:

... and sinking the USS Panay as well as a sizeable part of the Chinese Navy, including cruisers Ning Hai, Ping Hai, Ying Swei and Chao Ho, the gunboats Chu Yiu, Chu Yu, Yung Chi, Yung Chien, Hsien Ning, Ming Seng, Yat Sen, Chiang Chen, Chung Shan and Chien Kang, as well as the torpedo boats Hu Peng, Hu Oah, Hu Ying and Hu Chen - all sunk by Japanese aviation in 1937/38.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

You just need to read and do not take an example or two as a pattern.

Italian level bombers bombers sunk Juno and other destroyers, hit the bridge of Gloucester and put it out of the combat, damaged with near misses HMS Eagle that she could not be at Taranto mission, all from high level bombing, they also put once more a dozen of bombs around Ark Royal and none hit. None of that success and can hide the fact that it was small reward for the number of bombing missions done.

There are also several instance of 3 or 4 British torpedo bombers be unable to hit a damaged merchant almost standing still in good weather, that does not takes the fact that they had several success in the Med.

They are success and absurd success like 13 aircraft having a 50% often success or in this case 70% hit rate. That does not happen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

This whole thing begs a question how torpedo bombers with bombs would fare in ASW missions against subs?

In one of may restarts I lost a USN sub to 250kg bomb from an aircraft of KB. The sub was trying to intercept the KB. It was probably second or third day of the war. There was no message about in-game, and the ops/combat report were silent about it too. The sub just appeared as sunk in the sunk ship screen with 250kg bomb being stated as the last thing that had hit the sub. I guess it was sunk by a Kate with ASW as its secondary mission.

I wonder what happens if you put a torpdeo bomber squadron on land and fly ASW mission overs some sub-infested waters. Players normally use other aircraft type (Sonias, Wirrawy etc) to perform such mundane missions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

You just need to read and do not take an example or two as a pattern.

Italian level bombers bombers sunk Juno and other destroyers, hit the bridge of Gloucester and put it out of the combat, damaged with near misses HMS Eagle that she could not be at Taranto mission, all from high level bombing, they also put once more a dozen of bombs around Ark Royal and none hit. None of that success and can hide the fact that it was small reward for the number of bombing missions done.

There are also several instance of 3 or 4 British torpedo bombers be unable to hit a damaged merchant almost standing still in good weather, that does not takes the fact that they had several success in the Med.

They are success and absurd success like 13 aircraft having a 50% often success or in this case 70% hit rate. That does not happen.

You seem to not be reading yourself. I'm quoting from direct accounts of the Pacific War. not the Med. Different aircraft, methods, situations, ect.

You seem not to read the point I'm trying to make.

TEST IT.

If you have a problem with TB bobming test it against the control of other types. Otherwise, what you're saying is ... not relevant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

This whole thing begs a question how torpedo bombers with bombs would fare in ASW missions against subs?

In one of may restarts I lost a USN sub to 250kg bomb from an aircraft of KB. The sub was trying to intercept the KB. It was probably second or third day of the war. There was no message about in-game, and the ops/combat report were silent about it too. The sub just appeared as sunk in the sunk ship screen with 250kg bomb being stated as the last thing that had hit the sub. I guess it was sunk by a Kate with ASW as its secondary mission.

I wonder what happens if you put a torpdeo bomber squadron on land and fly ASW mission overs some sub-infested waters. Players normally use other aircraft type (Sonias, Wirrawy etc) to perform such mundane missions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

You just need to read and do not take an example or two as a pattern.

Italian level bombers bombers sunk Juno and other destroyers, hit the bridge of Gloucester and put it out of the combat, damaged with near misses HMS Eagle that she could not be at Taranto mission, all from high level bombing, they also put once more a dozen of bombs around Ark Royal and none hit. None of that success and can hide the fact that it was small reward for the number of bombing missions done.

There are also several instance of 3 or 4 British torpedo bombers be unable to hit a damaged merchant almost standing still in good weather, that does not takes the fact that they had several success in the Med.

They are success and absurd success like 13 aircraft having a 50% often success or in this case 70% hit rate. That does not happen.

You seem to not be reading yourself. I'm quoting from direct accounts of the Pacific War. not the Med. Different aircraft, methods, situations, ect.

You seem not to read the point I'm trying to make.

TEST IT.

If you have a problem with TB bobming test it against the control of other types. Otherwise, what you're saying is ... not relevant.

Irrelevant. First the fact these results are wrong by itself, i don't need to test them.
Are you sure? I have tested things and found that what I that was correct was not correct.

Second i play the game and can compare enough.
Comparing things without eliminating the differences produce errors. That is why a double blind experiment is the best. Just comparing things can lead to what you need to test for and what you need to reduce or eliminate for the test.

Third maybe you should ask with this kind of hit rate why air forces invested in torpedoes and dive bombers.
Torpedoes make holes in the hull, try to float a boat with a hole in it without patching the hole and see how long it stays on the surface. Dive bombers bombing put the bombers over the target without facing as many small caliber AAA from escorts, it is more accurate, and the bombs plunge onto the top of the armor at an angle that keeps it from bouncing off before exploding. Hopefully, the bomb penetrates the target. Towards the end of the war, many Avengers went out on shipping raids with bombs instead of torpedoes. But for armored men of war, torpedoes are the best option to put holes in the hull under the water line.

Just get any aircraft with 2 bombs and get 30-70+% hit rate.
Not always, it depends upon the target. But in many cases, the bombs are released closer to the target than the torpedoes are and that gives the target an opportunity to evade the torpedoes besides the obvious chance that the torpedo, which moves a little slower than the torpedo carrying plane which dropped it, does not have the correct course to impact the target.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Well, that was Jap AI attacking my ship.

So far, I have seen xAKLs, CLs and CAs hit by Kates from high altitude. This is the first time I see a DD getting hit. I wonder if Kates can hit a PT this way?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Interesting.

However, more details is needed.

For example, take HMS Juno skinking. There is no altitude given for the Canto bombers.
https://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-10DD-37J-HMS_Juno.htm

quote:

J or JAVELIN-Class Destroyer ordered from Fairfields at Govan, Glasgow on 25th March 1937 under the 1936 Build Programme and laid down on 5th October 1937 and intended to be named JAMAICA. However the name was changed to JUNO before launch on 8th December to allow the selected name to be given to a new COLONY Class cruiser. The new name had been introduced in 1757 for a 5th Rate and last used for a cruiser built in 18945 and sold in 1920. This destroyer was the 9th to carry the name. Build was completed on 25th August 1939

quote:

Under high level bombing attack by five CANT Z1007 aircraft and hit by three bombs which split ship in two abaft the bridge structure sinking her in less than two minute. 116 of ship’s company lost their lives including one RAN rating, five locally Entered Maltese and a NAAFI Canteen employee. 96 survivors were rescued, by HMS KINGSTON, HMS KANDAHAR and HMS NUBIAN. Five of those rescued later died.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Interesting.

However, more details is needed.

For example, take HMS Juno skinking. There is no altitude given for the Canto bombers.
https://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-10DD-37J-HMS_Juno.htm