Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 50 ships in day and night)...

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 50 ships in day and night)...

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] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 50 ships in day and night)...

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 50 sh... - 12/18/2004 2:27:49 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

Like I promised here are my comprehensive v1.40 Port bombing tests!

Description:

I created brand new custom scenario for this testing.

There are only 3 islands present: Marcus Island, Wake Island and Midway. Marcus Island is IJN base while Midway is USN base. For this test Wake Island is made Japanese base with both Port and Airbase (and SPS) of 6.

There is nothing (no LCU's and aircraft) at Wake Island except ships in port.

Weather is always clear.

FoW is OFF.

Two B-29's groups have their default leaders (50's/60's ratings) while their EXP and morale is set to 70.

The B-29's have to fly 14 HEXes from Midway to Wake Island.

The B-29's attack from 10000ft.

In Japanese held port there are 10x AO, 10x TK and 30x AP ships (all sizes and shapes).

5 consecutive runs of scenario in day (i.e. daytime bombings):

********************************************************************************

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/01/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63

Allied aircraft
B-29 Superfortress x 89

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
TK Amatsu Maru, Bomb hits 4, on fire
AP Aratama Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Ayo Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AP Banshu Maru #21, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
AP Achou Maru, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
AP Akashisan Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
TK Akebono Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AO Hayasui, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AO Kazahaya, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Awajisan Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AP Ayato Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire
AO Iro, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Aiyo Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire
AP Arabia Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Asama Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AP Anrugu Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AP Atuta Maru, Bomb hits 1
AO Naruto, Bomb hits 1
AP Arizona Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
TK Choran Maru, Bomb hits 2, heavy damage
AO Erimo, Bomb hits 1, on fire
TK Arima Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Azuchi Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Ayaha Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AP Chichibu Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AP Atsuta Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Africa Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Amakasu Maru #1, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Arugun Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Aki Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Astuga Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Gokoku Maru, Bomb hits 1
TK Akatsuki Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Aikoku Maru, Bomb hits 1

Port hits 10
Port supply hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
36 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
27 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
8 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
4 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
8 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet

********************************************************************************

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/01/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63

Allied aircraft
B-29 Superfortress x 92

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
AP Gokoku Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Anrugu Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Anzan Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AO Hayamoto, Bomb hits 3, on fire
AP Arabia Maru, Bomb hits 1
TK Akatuki Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Azuchi Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AP Hakone Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Awa Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Atsuta Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Arizana Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AP Astuga Maru, Bomb hits 1
TK Azuma Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AO Takasaki, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Aiyo Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
TK Akebono Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AP Argentina Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AO Erimo, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AO Naruto, Bomb hits 1
AP Aikoku Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Akashisan Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AO Kazahaya, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AO Hayasui, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Banshu Maru #21, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
TK Akatsuki Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Awajisan Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Africa Maru, Bomb hits 1
TK Eiho Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
TK Arima Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Arizona Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire

Port hits 5
Port fuel hits 2
Port supply hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
36 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
27 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
12 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
4 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
4 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet

********************************************************************************

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/01/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63

Allied aircraft
B-29 Superfortress x 87

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
AP Amakasu Maru #1, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Ayato Maru, Bomb hits 1
AO Takasaki, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Banshu Maru #21, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AO Sunosaki, Bomb hits 1
AP Arizona Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Africa Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
TK Eiho Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Arugun Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Awajisan Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Asama Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Arizana Maru, Bomb hits 1

Port hits 4
Port fuel hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
20 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
36 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
14 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
5 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet

********************************************************************************

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/01/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63

Allied aircraft
B-29 Superfortress x 86

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
TK Eiyo Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
TK Azuma Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AO Notoro, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Awajisan Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AO Iro, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Arizona Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AO Hayamoto, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AP Arizana Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
TK Arima Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Achou Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Asama Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire
AO Sunosaki, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AP Amakasu Maru #1, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AP Azuchi Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AP Aiyo Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AP Astuga Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Anzan Maru, Bomb hits 1
AO Erimo, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AO Naruto, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Aki Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Arabia Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Arugun Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
TK Akebono Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire

Port hits 5
Port fuel hits 3
Port supply hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
24 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
27 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
6 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
13 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
4 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
6 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet

********************************************************************************

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/01/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63

Allied aircraft
B-29 Superfortress x 90

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
AP Arugun Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Astuga Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AO Hayamoto, Bomb hits 3, on fire
AO Naruto, Bomb hits 1
TK Akebono Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Atsuta Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Arabia Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Argentina Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Anrugu Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
TK Amatsu Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Hakone Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Africa Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AO Iro, Bomb hits 1
AP Akashisan Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Arizona Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Ayaha Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Ayo Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Amakasu Maru #1, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Awajisan Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Aikoku Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Gokoku Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AO Kazahaya, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Azuchi Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Chichibu Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
TK Eiyo Maru, Bomb hits 1

Port hits 4
Port supply hits 4

Aircraft Attacking:
24 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
36 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
4 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
13 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
4 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet

********************************************************************************

1 run of scenario in day (i.e. night bombings) for comparison only:

********************************************************************************

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/02/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63

Allied aircraft
B-29 Superfortress x 36

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
AP Argentina Maru, Bomb hits 1
TK Arima Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Arizana Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Aki Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Chichibu Maru, Bomb hits 1

Port hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
18 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
18 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet

********************************************************************************

Discussion:

IMHO the daytime destruction of ships in port is still very very high.

Also even new v1.40 results at night seems a bit high.

What is your opinion of this gentleman?

Can someone give historic results of similar raids in WWII?

Leo "Apollo11"

P.S.
I can have my custom TEST scenario's available if needed.

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

Post #: 1

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/18/2004 2:32:25 PM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

There is no historical precedent for this. B29's did not conduct port attacks IIRC.

But they do look way over powered for port attacks during the day. Try some B17's and other types. Maybe it has to do with the mongo bomb loads that B29's carry.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 2

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/18/2004 3:44:36 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

Give this a try with combat ships in port as well, if you have time.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to 2ndACR)

Post #: 3

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/18/2004 3:48:22 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

Conclusions? Here is mine.

I've said all along that ships in ports inWITP are like huge fat sows nested together in a big round target shape. Bombing,especially high level is too accurate, doubly so due to the damage model...no near misses, no non critical areas to hit. Ships are all spread all over the place and are often protected by torpedo nets, artificial moles, barrage balloons,camoflaged etc. Conversely, port hits are rarely scored in contrast to number of ships and multiple hits on ships.

Recommendation: cut bombing vs ships in port accuracy by 75% minimum. Increase chance for a port hit.

Not related to this thread but here goes. During development, it was decided to allow twin engine bombers and larger aircraft to torpedo ships in port (disbanded). I asked for this decision to be reversed because I know of not one single occurence of this happening during the war in any theatre (not talking roadsteads here,but ports). Nobody else could point one out after I challenged them to point out a single historical precedent. Yet it is still in. Pilots and bomber commanders knew that ports were too difficult an obstacle course to allow the long runs neccessary to launch from non 1E tactical bombers. Granted,since there is no limit to port capacity for some unknown reason, I suppose it must be assumed that disbanding does not neccesarily mean tied up in a slip, stuck in a bay, resting in drydock, behind net defences,behind other ships etc. Many would be outside the main port in more vulnerable roadsteads. Do to this abstraction, some torp attacks could be allowed, but not at this extremely high probability. So,this being the case...

Recommendation: reduce the chance of 2E and 4E bombers using torps vs ships in ports by at least 75%.

Why is it so easy to A) damage a port and B) repair it? Further, considering we have no operational limit for ports, damage is almost meaningless.

Recommendation. Allow more port hits but have the hits do much less damage. Increase the repair time needed to repair ports. Perhaps limit/restrict disbandement in ports damaged beyond 50%. Limit/restrict docking beyond 75% damage. Maybe introduce an operations maximum for ports and have this effected by damage.

When targeting cities, ports, allow some chance for crossover hits as these facilities were not exactly seperated from each other by some invisible forcefield. In fact, they are basically the same thing, just a different side of the tracks.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to 2ndACR)

Post #: 4

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/18/2004 3:58:52 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Give this a try with combat ships in port as well, if you have time.

Regards,

- Erik

Erik you read my mind... I was just doing it right now...

I will post results in few minutes.

BTW "2ndACR", I can't use the B-17 because their range is 13 while distance between my islands is 14 (the only thing that I can do is increase the endurance of plane but that would be unrealistic).

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 5

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/18/2004 4:08:49 PM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

Well shucks. I could have sworn that the B17 would hit Wake from Midway. I know I saw a raid from there in one of my PBEM games.

Oh well.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 6

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/18/2004 4:14:59 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

As requested here are test results against warships!

Description:

I created brand new custom scenario for this testing.

There are only 3 islands present: Marcus Island, Wake Island and Midway. Marcus Island is IJN base while Midway is USN base. For this test Wake Island is made Japanese base with both Port and Airbase (and SPS) of 6.

There is nothing (no LCU's and aircraft) at Wake Island except ships in port.

Weather is always clear.

FoW is OFF.

Two B-29's groups have their default leaders (50's/60's ratings) while their EXP and morale is set to 70.

The B-29's have to fly 14 HEXes from Midway to Wake Island.

The B-29's attack from 10000ft.

In Japanese held port there are 2x CV, 3x BB, 6x CA and 8x DD ships (all sizes and shapes).

5 consecutive runs of scenario in day (i.e. daytime bombings):

********************************************************************************

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/01/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63

Allied aircraft
B-29 Superfortress x 88

Allied aircraft losses
B-29 Superfortress: 7 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Kaga, Bomb hits 12, on fire, heavy damage
BB Kongo, Bomb hits 9, on fire
BB Nagato, Bomb hits 11, on fire
CV Akagi, Bomb hits 15, on fire
BB Yamato, Bomb hits 5, on fire
CA Atago, Bomb hits 1
DD Naganami, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Kazegumo, Bomb hits 1, on fire

Port hits 6
Port fuel hits 3
Port supply hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
36 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
20 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
11 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
6 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
6 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
4 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
2 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet

********************************************************************************

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/01/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63

Allied aircraft
B-29 Superfortress x 90

Allied aircraft losses
B-29 Superfortress: 5 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Akagi, Bomb hits 11, on fire
CA Tone, Bomb hits 1
CV Kaga, Bomb hits 10, on fire, heavy damage
CA Takao, Bomb hits 1
BB Yamato, Bomb hits 6, on fire
BB Nagato, Bomb hits 12, on fire
BB Kongo, Bomb hits 3
CA Haguro, Bomb hits 1
DD Naganami, Bomb hits 1

Port hits 7
Port fuel hits 1
Port supply hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
27 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
20 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
11 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
7 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
9 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
10 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet

********************************************************************************

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/01/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63

Allied aircraft
B-29 Superfortress x 86

Allied aircraft losses
B-29 Superfortress: 8 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Akagi, Bomb hits 15, on fire
CV Kaga, Bomb hits 13, on fire, heavy damage
BB Kongo, Bomb hits 5, on fire
CA Haguro, Bomb hits 2
CA Tone, Bomb hits 4
CA Myoko, Bomb hits 1
BB Nagato, Bomb hits 11, on fire
BB Yamato, Bomb hits 4, on fire
CA Takao, Bomb hits 1

Port hits 4
Port fuel hits 3
Port supply hits 4

Aircraft Attacking:
27 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
27 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
9 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
13 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
4 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet

********************************************************************************

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/01/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63

Allied aircraft
B-29 Superfortress x 87

Allied aircraft losses
B-29 Superfortress: 7 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Kaga, Bomb hits 7, on fire, heavy damage
CA Myoko, Bomb hits 1
BB Nagato, Bomb hits 9, on fire
BB Kongo, Bomb hits 15, on fire
CV Akagi, Bomb hits 10, on fire
CA Tone, Bomb hits 1
BB Yamato, Bomb hits 4
CA Takao, Bomb hits 1
CA Atago, Bomb hits 1

Port hits 4
Port fuel hits 2
Port supply hits 3

Aircraft Attacking:
20 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
20 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
20 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
14 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
5 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
2 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet

********************************************************************************

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/01/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63

Allied aircraft
B-29 Superfortress x 90

Allied aircraft losses
B-29 Superfortress: 9 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Kaga, Bomb hits 15, on fire, heavy damage
CV Akagi, Bomb hits 5, on fire
BB Nagato, Bomb hits 6
BB Yamato, Bomb hits 8, on fire
BB Kongo, Bomb hits 2

Port hits 6
Port supply hits 3

Aircraft Attacking:
36 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
20 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
19 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet

********************************************************************************

1 run of scenario at night (i.e. night bombing) for comparison only:

********************************************************************************

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/02/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63

Allied aircraft
B-29 Superfortress x 35

Allied aircraft losses
B-29 Superfortress: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Yamato, Bomb hits 1
CV Akagi, Bomb hits 1
BB Kongo, Bomb hits 1
CV Kaga, Bomb hits 1

Port hits 1
Port supply hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
15 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
20 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet

********************************************************************************

Discussion:

Although there are large number of hits (which is too high IMHO) the SYS damage is rather low because all impacts were against BB/CA ships that have armour. When CV was hit the SYS damage was always high (flight deck was penetrated because there was no armour).

Also note that lots and lots of equipment and weapons were destroyed on ships that suffered semi low SYS damage (BBs/CAs) and lost of fires were started.

Again the overall number of hits for day and night is high...

Leo "Apollo11"

P.S.
I can have my custom TEST scenario's available if needed.

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 7

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/18/2004 4:22:53 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Well shucks. I could have sworn that the B17 would hit Wake from Midway. I know I saw a raid from there in one of my PBEM games.

Oh well.

Not in WitP world... sorry...

BTW, the B-29 "Normal" range is 20 thus 14 HEXes in my test falls comfortably in it. Since B-29 can carry 40x 500 lb bombs and B-17 12 the B-29 is roughly 3x more effective bomb load wise (although 3x B-17 have better chance of hitting than 1x B-29)...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to 2ndACR)

Post #: 8

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/18/2004 4:39:23 PM

Jorm

Posts: 545
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Melbourne
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Not related to this thread but here goes. During development, it was decided to allow twin engine bombers and larger aircraft to torpedo ships in port (disbanded). I asked for this decision to be reversed because I know of not one single occurence of this happening during the war in any theatre (not talking roadsteads here,but ports). Nobody else could point one out after I challenged them to point out a single historical precedent.

3rd December 1940, 2x SM79's torpedoed HMS Glasgow while at anchor in Suda bay, ie in port

September 1940 6x beauforts of 22 Sqn made night torp attacks against shipping in Cherbourg harbour

FO K. Cambell of 22 Sqn (Beauforts) won a VC (Postumous) for putting a torp into Gneisenau while Docked

< Message edited by Jorm -- 12/18/2004 2:47:43 PM >

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 9

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/18/2004 4:55:27 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Not related to this thread but here goes. During development, it was decided to allow twin engine bombers and larger aircraft to torpedo ships in port (disbanded). I asked for this decision to be reversed because I know of not one single occurence of this happening during the war in any theatre (not talking roadsteads here,but ports). Nobody else could point one out after I challenged them to point out a single historical precedent.

3rd December 1940, 2x SM79's torpedoed HMS Glasgow while at anchor in Suda bay, ie in port

September 1940 6x beauforts of 22 Sqn made night torp attacks against shipping in Cherbourg harbour

FO K. Cambell of 22 Sqn (Beauforts) won a VC (Postumous) for putting a torp into Gneisenau while Docked

Excellent! I found out about the Gneisenau after my first comments on this
about six months ago, but that was it. Were the Glasgow and merchants in other examples actually IN the tight confines of the harbor as opposed to middle of a bay, exposed onthe outside of a nest etc.?

That was pretty quick but Idoubt if many other examples areout there. In WITP, you can get this result during a 12 hour phase. Seems too common an occurance to me by a wide margin.

Thanks for the replay. What areyour thoughts on this Jorm?

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Jorm)

Post #: 10

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/18/2004 5:27:42 PM

2Stepper

Posts: 948
Joined: 1/19/2003
From: North Burbs of Omaha
Status: offline

Well, I'm going to attempt to weigh in on this, partly because its interesting, but also because "in principle" at least I agree with the way the B29 tests went.

First off, I noted some variation in the amount of hits in all instances. Not a wide variation, but there is one none the less. This is interesting because as level bombers make their run, they're attempting to put a "stick" of bombs down over a target area. They may nail that stick, they may miss it a bit...

The ability to do damage to anchored vessels then becomes a case of 1, what are they bombing? Is it the port or the ships, or both? Second, is the skills of the crews involved. If you have highly skilled bomber crews with clear weather, they're going to put between 60-80% of their bombs on the stick depending on wind variations. And third frankly how many warheads can you put on the foreheads of your target. More the merrier.

By that particular time in the war, our crews were VERY experienced at killing things on the ground when the weather was favorable.

Apollo, what might prove interesting in your experiment there is dropping the experience of the crews to try and make it relative to experience and strength of bombers early in the war. Say dropping it from 60 to 40 or 35. THEN make the flight under the same conditions.

Conversely what you might try is a B17 raid from Port Morseby to Rabaul. That was a target well within their range and you can rerun the scenario against all types of ships and experience.

Point I'm getting at is while the damage loads that occur in these instances might be a "tad" high, I don't really think they're grossly unrealistic. Because if those ships are moored together and the bombers land their bombs on their sticks they're shooting for? There's going to be a LOT of damage doled out, PARTICULARLY if pilot experience is high with those bomb loads the B29s carry. Again, depending on what the target is. Be it ships in port or the port itself.

I suspect a B17 test from PM to Rabaul or something similar would prove interesting with a 50-55 exp level of the crews.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

< Message edited by 2Stepper -- 12/18/2004 9:29:57 AM >

_____________________________

"Send in the Infantry. Tanks cost money... the dead cost nothing..." :)

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 11

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/18/2004 6:50:34 PM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

I would agree that the % of hits is high, and that somthing should be done, what I am woundering is howeaver how will the "fix" effect planes that would conduct port atacks in a similar mishion profile that would historical have a better chance of hitting, planes like Kates or TBm's or B-25's, ect, planes that would be sortied under thame mishion type and cary considerably smaller bombloads, yet have a inhearenlty larger hit probablilty dispite the bomb load do to their plane type and training ?

_____________________________

Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to 2Stepper)

Post #: 12

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/18/2004 7:01:07 PM

2Stepper

Posts: 948
Joined: 1/19/2003
From: North Burbs of Omaha
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

I would agree that the % of hits is high, and that somthing should be done, what I am woundering is howeaver how will the "fix" effect planes that would conduct port atacks in a similar mishion profile that would historical have a better chance of hitting, planes like Kates or TBm's or B-25's, ect, planes that would be sortied under thame mishion type and cary considerably smaller bombloads, yet have a inhearenlty larger hit probablilty dispite the bomb load do to their plane type and training ?

Thats the thing though Brady, I don't think its THAT high really... no more'n 5% over what it probably should be. Due to experience of crews, bomb load and weather conditions.

Which is why I think a B17 test like I mentioned would be interesting. That, or toss in the typical weather that was prevalent in the pacific basin and try it again. I'd wager that the damage loads in the first B29 examples drop by nearly half.

Weather was a bigger factor in the Pacific bombing campaign then it was in Europe.

_____________________________

"Send in the Infantry. Tanks cost money... the dead cost nothing..." :)

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 13

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/18/2004 7:33:43 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

Always love these threads. On one hand people complain that they don't get enough hits, someone counters that they get too many hits

I think the answer is the lock the B-29 to city attacks only as it is simply too big a bomber to be used enmass against things like ports and airfields.

(in reply to 2Stepper)

Post #: 14

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/18/2004 7:41:21 PM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

quote:

I think the answer is the lock the B-29 to city attacks only as it is simply too big a bomber to be used enmass against things like ports and airfields.

Why bother to change the code when a house rule will suffice?

edit: Oops, I always forget about the AI.

< Message edited by irrelevant -- 12/18/2004 12:42:22 PM >

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 15

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/18/2004 7:48:07 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

I think the answer is the lock the B-29 to city attacks only as it is simply too big a bomber to be used enmass against things like ports and airfields.

Why bother to change the code when a house rule will suffice?

edit: Oops, I always forget about the AI.

I love it when people answer their own questions before I have to

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 16

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/18/2004 7:51:43 PM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Always love these threads. On one hand people complain that they don't get enough hits, someone counters that they get too many hits

I think the answer is the lock the B-29 to city attacks only as it is simply too big a bomber to be used enmass against things like ports and airfields.

Mr. Frag, I agree since minelaying is a subset of City Attack.

It nearly took a Presidential order to get the Army Air Force to allow the use of the B-29s for anything except "strategic" bombing. When Nimitz finally got them to bomb a few airfields as a anti-kamikaze measure they proved that they were certainly not a cost effective platform for the results achieved (from each a/c, one or two bombs hit the target and the other gazillion were short or long).

HOWEVER, when they were finally used for mining operations, they proved to be higly successful.

< Message edited by pompack -- 12/18/2004 11:54:05 AM >

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 17

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/18/2004 9:22:05 PM

ChezDaJez

Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline

B-29s (or B-17s for that matter) were not used against naval targets to a great degree and when they were (B-17s early in the war), the results were neglible.

Planners would target port facilities, not the ships in them unless it was an exceedingly high value target (CV, BB). They often left those for Tacair to handle. If a ship was DOCKED and the port was targeted, there was a good chance it would sustain damage as well. If you look at the wartime photos taken of shipping in naval harbors (ours and theirs), the ships were anchored separately and never clustered together when within range of enemy air. That was just the prudent thing to do.

Just think of them lonely bastards on those ammo ships, nobody wanted to be anywhere near them. They always got to anchor out past the entrance.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to 2Stepper)

Post #: 18

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/18/2004 9:28:00 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Always love these threads. On one hand people complain that they don't get enough hits, someone counters that they get too many hits

I think the answer is the lock the B-29 to city attacks only as it is simply too big a bomber to be used enmass against things like ports and airfields.

I think that this is not related exclusively to B-29's and their 40 500 lb bomb capability.

If you use large number of any kind of aircraft there will be way too many hits (here is where I am 100% agreeing with Ron)....

Leo "Apollo11"

P.S.
On Sunday I will artificially enlarge B-17 range to be able to use them in my test scenario. I will also use the B-25 the same way. Stay tuned!

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 19

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/18/2004 9:39:11 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

Here is one interesting thing o think about for all of us here...

What was the average dispersion of bombs over target (in meters or feet) for US bomber crews in WWII?

I am 100% positive that I read that even late at war and when using ground radar and Norden sight the dispersion of bombs was so high that "surgical" strikes were impossible and the only way to achieve results were using large number of bombers to saturate the target.

And now imagine large port with 50 or 100 ships anchored (i.e. they are in port using WitP game terms). The area of sea covered in such port is large and ships placed there are rather small targets (let's say 100 m long and 15 m wide). The only thing that goes to bomber crew's favor is that they are stationary...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 20

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/18/2004 10:16:28 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

Regarding B29's:

If they can bomb industrial areas why can't they bomb port areas? Let's fix the problem instead of hobbling B29's.

The better answer is to make a more dramatic difference in hits scored by level bombers depending on their altitude. That would address both the port & airfield side of the problem, and the ships-in-port side of the problem. It would also preserve player choice in tactics by not specifically limiting the B29. And, it would address the same issues with B17's, B24's , etc. when they are used to bomb ports & airfields.

1) Look at how many hits are gotten by LB's at 6,000 ft.
2) Adjust the hits at 6,000 ft. to be realistic. I'm sure everybody will agree on what realistic is.

3) Change the altitude modifier making a greater reduction per higher altitude than there is today. I'm sure everybody will agree on the amount of reduction too.

If city type attacks are already well balanced you might have to make adjustments to keep them well balanced (if this scheme would affect them - maybe they use different code?).

The same goes for TF attacks, both docked and at sea - are they already well balanced or do they need adjusting?

Reagarding torpedo attacks on ships in port:

Limit torpedo loadouts for port attacks to single engine TB's only. Also, increase the effect of flak on Torpedo loaded TB's making port attacks. That will make it less likely they obtain a hit and make the proposition more risky for the attacking planes (barrage balloons, etc. as mentioned by Ron).

< Message edited by witpqs -- 12/18/2004 8:18:28 PM >

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 21

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/18/2004 10:18:32 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

The problem is with the numbers game. If you send 12 bombers over the target, they have a fairly good chance of getting a good hit. If you send 2000, the first couple have a good chance, the rest can't even see the target anymore.

Really no way to deal with this except force controls to cap raid sizes. Not likely to happen this late in the dev phase.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 22

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/18/2004 11:07:00 PM

Xargun

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline

Hey Apollo.. care to rerun test with same leaders but with 55-60 experience groups to see if experience matters or if its just a numbers game ?

Thanks,

Xargun

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 23

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/18/2004 11:09:54 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun

Hey Apollo.. care to rerun test with same leaders but with 55-60 experience groups to see if experience matters or if its just a numbers game ?

Thanks,

Xargun

I will do it on Sunday if I manage to find enough time...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Xargun)

Post #: 24

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/18/2004 11:12:45 PM

Xargun

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

I will do it on Sunday if I manage to find enough time...

Leo "Apollo11"

If you don't send me the files and I'll run some tests..

Xargun
sireric_69@yahoo.com

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 25

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/18/2004 11:26:09 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

I'm not sure of when it occurred but I believe the Luftwaffe pulled off a very devastating raid on the shipping in Naples harbor in late 1943. Sorry no statistics but I do seem to recall some kind of incident like this. Also I'm pretty sure it was high level bombing at night.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 26

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/19/2004 1:19:11 AM

Jorm

Posts: 545
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Melbourne
Status: offline

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm#dotjf

under the section THE AIR ATTACK AGAINST THE JAPANESE HOME ISLANDS, there is some useful information on bombing accuracy

might be helpful at this stage of the discussion

cheers
Paul

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 27

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/19/2004 2:01:56 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

Thanks Jojm, very interesting indeed. I've bolded some portions:

THE AIR ATTACK AGAINST THE JAPANESE HOME ISLANDS
Basic United States strategy contemplated that the final decision in the Japanese war would be obtained by an invasion of the Japanese home islands. The long-range bombing offensive from the Marianas was initiated in November 1944, with that in mind as the primary objective. As in Europe prior to D-day, the principal measure of success set for strategic air action was the extent
to which it would weaken enemy capability and will to resist our amphibious forces at the time of landings. This led, originally, to somewhat greater emphasis on the selection of targets such as aircraft factories, arsenals, electronics plants, oil refineries, and finished military goods, destruction of which could be expected to weaken the capabilities of the Japanese armed forces to resist at the Kyushu beachheads in November 1945, than on the disruption of the more basic elements of Japan's social, economic, and political fabric. Certain of the United States commanders and the representatives of the Survey who were called back from their investigations in Germany in early June 1945 for consultation stated their belief that, by the coordinated impact of blockade and direct air attack, Japan could be forced to surrender without invasion. The controlling opinion, however, was that any estimate of the effects of bombing on the Japanese social fabric and on the political decisions of those in control of Japan was bound to be so uncertain that target selection could safely be made only on the assumption that ground force invasion would be necessary to force capitulation.

With the benefit of hindsight, it appears that the twin objectives of surrender without invasion and reduction of Japan's capacity and will to resist an invasion, should the first not succeed, called for basically the same type of attack. Japan had been critically wounded by military defeats, destruction of the bulk of her merchant fleet, and almost complete blockade. The proper target, after an initial attack on aircraft engine plants, either to bring overwhelming pressure on her to surrender, or to reduce her capability of resisting invasion, was the basic economic and social fabric of the country. Disruption of her railroad and transportation system by daylight attacks, coupled with destruction of her cities by night and bad weather attacks, would have applied maximum pressure in support of either aim. This point of view was finally adopted. Although urban area attacks were initiated in force in March 1945, the railroad attack was just getting under way when the war ended.

The total tonnage of bombs dropped by Allied planes in the Pacific war was 656,400. Of this, 160,800 tons, or 24 percent, were dropped on the home islands of Japan. Navy aircraft accounted for 6,800 tons, Army aircraft other than B-29s for 7,000 tons, and the B-29s for 147,000 tons. By contrast, the total bomb tonnage in the European theater was 2,700,000 tons of which 1,360,000 tons were dropped within Germany's own borders.

Approximately 800 tons of bombs were dropped by China-based B-29s on Japanese home island targets from June 1944 to January 1945. These raids were of insufficient weight and accuracy to produce significant results.

By the end of November 1944, 4 months after seizure of the islands, the first of the long-range bomber bases in the Marianas became operational. The number of planes originally available was small and opposition was significant. Losses on combat missions averaged 3.6 percent. The tonnage dropped prior to 9 March 1945 aggregated only 7,180 tons although increasing month by month. The planes bombed from approximately 30,000 feet and the percentage of bombs dropped which hit the target areas averaged less than 10 percent. Nevertheless, the effects of even the relatively small tonnage hitting the selected targets were substantial. During this period, attacks were directed almost exclusively against aircraft, primarily aircraft engine, targets. The principal aircraft engine plants were hit sufficiently heavily and persistently to convince the Japanese that these plants would inevitably be totally destroyed. The Japanese were thereby forced into a wholesale and hasty dispersal program. The continuing pressure of immediate military requirements for more and more planes during the campaigns in the Pacific had prevented any earlier moves to disperse. When dispersal could no longer be avoided, the necessary underground tunnels, dispersed buildings, and accessory facilities such as roads, railroad spurs and power connections were not ready. As a result the decline in aircraft engine production, which shortages in special steels requiring cobalt, nickel and chrome had initiated in mid-1944, became precipitous.

On 9 March 1945, a basic revision in the method of B-29 attack was instituted. It was decided to bomb the four principal Japanese cities at night from altitudes averaging 7,000 feet. Japanese weakness in night fighters and antiaircraft made this program feasible. Incendiaries were used instead of high-explosive bombs and the lower altitude permitted a substantial increase in bomb load per plane. One thousand six hundred and sixty-seven tons of bombs were dropped on Tokyo in the first attack. The chosen areas were saturated. Fifteen square miles of Tokyo's most densely populated
area were burned to the ground. The weight and intensity of this attack caught the Japanese by surprise. No subsequent urban area attack was equally destructive. Two days later, an attack of similar magnitude on Nagoya destroyed 2 square miles. In a period of 10 days starting 9 March, a total of 1,595 sorties delivered 9,373 tons of bombs against Tokyo, Nagoya, Osake, and Kobe destroying 31 square miles of those cities at a cost of 22 airplanes. The generally destructive effect of incendiary attacks against Japanese cities had been demonstrated.

Thereafter, urban area attacks alternated with visual and radar attacks against selected industrial or military targets. In April, an extensive program of sowing minefields in channels and harbors at night was added. In the aggregate, 104,000 tons of bombs were directed at 66 urban areas; 14,150 tons were directed at aircraft factories; 10,600 tons at oil refineries; 4,708 at arsenals; 3,500 tons at miscellaneous industrial targets; 8,115 tons at air fields and sea-plane bases in support of the Okinawa operation; and 12,034 mines were sown.

Bombing altitudes after 9 March 1945 were lower, in both day and night attacks. Japanese opposition was not effective even at the lower altitudes, and the percentage of losses to enemy action declined as the number of attacking planes increased. Bomb loads increased and operating losses declined in part due to less strain on engines at lower altitudes. Bombing accuracy increased substantially, and averaged 35 to 40 percent within 1,000 feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks from 20,000 feet or lower.

Monthly tonnage dropped increased from 13,800 tons in March to 42,700 tons in July, and, with the activation of the Eighth Air Force on Okinawa, would have continued to increase thereafter to a planned figure of 115,000 tons per month, had the war not come to an end.

Three-quarters of the 6,740 tons of bombs dropped by carrier planes on the Japanese home islands were directed against airfields, warships, and miscellaneous military targets, and one-quarter against merchant shipping and other economic targets. Most of the warships sunk in home ports had already been immobilized for lack of fuel. The accuracy of low-level carrier plane attack was high, being at least 50 percent hits within 250 feet of the aiming point. The attack against the Hakodate-Aomori rail ferries in July 1945 sank or damaged all twelve of the ferries, 17 steel ships, and 149 smaller ships.

(in reply to Jorm)

Post #: 28

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/19/2004 3:11:58 AM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

quote:

I'm not sure of when it occurred but I believe the Luftwaffe pulled off a very devastating raid on the shipping in Naples harbor in late 1943. Sorry no statistics but I do seem to recall some kind of incident like this. Also I'm pretty sure it was high level bombing at night.

Almost everything under the sun has happened once. But if it was effective, why didn't it happen all the time? There had to be some factor that prevented this from being repeated night after night, like it would be in WitP....

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 29

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/19/2004 3:40:14 AM

Cap Mandrake

Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

If you ask me.....and nobody did....B-29's were not used in this role because the Japanese had enough sense to avoid large concentrations of ships at the stage in the war when the US could mass 90 bomber B-29 raids. Not to mention the fact that the B-29's were extremely valuable ($). Quite possibly, one B-29 was worth more than the 40 year old rusitng,(insert name) Maru. The B-29 buildout and development actually cost more than the Manhattan project

A 90 bomber B-29 raid attacking a relatively small target would spread out for many miles. The attack would last forever...4 bombers..pause 4 bombers..pause etc etc etc. If there were a capable AA defence, they would pour it in on the tail of the column if they came in on the same heading at the same airspeed and same altititude...especially at 10,000 ft.

I'm not sure B-29's ever attacked at 10,000 ft. in daylight???

I'm guessing a B-29 on a short range low altitude mission of this type might carry 200 bombs (mix of 250 and 500 HE's) x 90 bombers= 18000 bombs

using the first example that is 55/18,000 = 0.3%