Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 50 ships in day and night)... Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/21/2004 5:05:49 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

IMHO, the problem lies in fact that individual aircraft attack individual targets with individual bombs!


Correct with is completely impossible in large raids. Bombs are simply dumped out based on the leaders actions in a large pattern. We have documented records that clearly state that puttng together raids of 12 B-17's due to the poor command and control facilities took an hour for takeoffs and almost 2 hours for landing until the Allies built their superfields for the B-29's at Tinian.

As Mike would have it, 90 B-29's fly single ship and each one picks their own target? hmm, so, lets see, 90 x 1000 yards = 90,000 yards or a line of bombers 45 MILES long. Yea, ok Mike, sure. That happened all the time.


FRAG Now you are "straw dogging". RAF Bomber Command made all it's raids during
the war with each bomb aimer making his own run. Halsey's 1000 plane carrier raids
in 1945 didn't drop as 'formations". When 180 Japanese A/C attacked PH in one "raid"
they didn't line up nose to tail to do it---nor did theystay in a single large formation and
drop their weapons on the signal of the lead bombadier. For that matter, even your
rather silly example of a 45-mile long "bomber stream" takes only 10 minutes to cross
the target area at 240 mph. Hardly a long period for a bomber attack.

_____________________________


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 121
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/21/2004 7:14:37 AM   
Mr.Frag


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

FRAG Now you are "straw dogging". RAF Bomber Command made all it's raids during
the war with each bomb aimer making his own run. Halsey's 1000 plane carrier raids
in 1945 didn't drop as 'formations". When 180 Japanese A/C attacked PH in one "raid"
they didn't line up nose to tail to do it---nor did theystay in a single large formation and
drop their weapons on the signal of the lead bombadier. For that matter, even your
rather silly example of a 45-mile long "bomber stream" takes only 10 minutes to cross
the target area at 240 mph. Hardly a long period for a bomber attack.


once again, mixing the wars Mike

RAF had excellent radio target identification coupled with pathfinders to bring the boy in on target. Even then, the records clearly show that hitting within a mile of the planned target was good.

As for Halsey, get serious, there is no comparison between a bunch of single engine high performance aircraft flying off a crap load of carriers in rather short range attacks compared against massed raids of heavy bombers. It didn't happen in the Pacific because the ranges and command and control simply did not exist. You can keep dreaming that it did all you want, but massed airpower of heavies like were seen in ETO simply could not and did not exist.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 122
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/21/2004 8:05:47 AM   
Xargun

 

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline
I also believe that port defenses are out of whack. In my PBEM my opponent fly 6 or 12 B-17s into a port and hammered 3-4 merchies. WHich I am not mad about - I didn't think he could reach the port.. What I am mad about is that his B-17s flew in at 1000 feet and I think I damaged 2 of them. I had 4 complete AA regiments there, plus 4-5 other units including base forces with their own AA guns - not to mention the AA from the ships themselves (were over 50 ships in port at the time) and I damaged 2 ??? I should have shot down half of them and damaged the rest with that much AA.

Xargun

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 123
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/21/2004 9:28:34 AM   
Ron Saueracker


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

ORIGINAL: Xargun

I also believe that port defenses are out of whack. In my PBEM my opponent fly 6 or 12 B-17s into a port and hammered 3-4 merchies. WHich I am not mad about - I didn't think he could reach the port.. What I am mad about is that his B-17s flew in at 1000 feet and I think I damaged 2 of them. I had 4 complete AA regiments there, plus 4-5 other units including base forces with their own AA guns - not to mention the AA from the ships themselves (were over 50 ships in port at the time) and I damaged 2 ??? I should have shot down half of them and damaged the rest with that much AA.

Xargun


I don't think the AA units fire in all cases. Those B-17s should havebeen riddled. This game can be so bloody when it is not called for (CAP gauntlet) yet Care Bear like when you would expect it like low level attacks vs heavily defended targets like yours Xargun.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Xargun)
Post #: 124
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/21/2004 2:16:34 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
Do a simple test. Take every Southern Army AA unit and put them in 1 base with a HQ and a ton of supply. Launch a raid. See how many get pounded by Flak.

I have placed 6 AA units in a base and still only damage 2-5 bombers, yet go after 2 Allied CA's and watch 90% of your strike force get butchered.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 125
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/21/2004 5:45:21 PM   
The Gnome


Posts: 1233
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Do a simple test. Take every Southern Army AA unit and put them in 1 base with a HQ and a ton of supply. Launch a raid. See how many get pounded by Flak.

I have placed 6 AA units in a base and still only damage 2-5 bombers, yet go after 2 Allied CA's and watch 90% of your strike force get butchered.


Not just CA's, AAA power seems to explode in power with just a few DD's in the TF.

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 126
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/21/2004 7:04:03 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
I think more AAA and enhanced effect would help. If fatigue/morale and accuracy of bombing would suffer more when attacking bases with AAA units, it'd be fine. High altitude bombing would be less affected, but should be even more inaccurate (more "port hits", less ship hits ?). If air units would be more fatigued or having morale hit attacking heavily defended base, those attacks would be less frequent.

Cheers,

M.S.

(in reply to The Gnome)
Post #: 127
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/21/2004 7:56:37 PM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline
Yes, I said it before, there was a reason that heavy bombers didn't fly during the day at less than 20,000 feet.

Auto weapons will shred bombers... again, maybe not shooting that many down but damaging virtually every plane in the raid at 1000 feet.

Mike

_____________________________



(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 128
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/21/2004 9:11:18 PM   
BoerWar


Posts: 506
Joined: 6/12/2004
From: Arlington, VA
Status: offline
I was hoping this thread would get around to AAA. That is the problem. I've had the same problem with my opponents conducting B-17 raids on ships at sea from 1000-5000 feet. Because the bombers are low they have actually scored some hits. Problem is few if any get shot down. At that altitude those slow fat bombers should be easy picking, however, not so with WITP. Fix AAA so that it is more effective against big slow targets and the rest will fix itself.

Bombers cruising over a fleet anchorage should get carved up due to the amount of AAA concentrated in the area. If they are willing to take the losses then they should be able to score some hits. However, who would want to score a few hits on some ships at anchor if your bomber force gets carved up in return?

(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 129
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/21/2004 9:15:08 PM   
Ron Saueracker


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

ORIGINAL: BoerWar

I was hoping this thread would get around to AAA. That is the problem. I've had the same problem with my opponents conducting B-17 raids on ships at sea from 1000-5000 feet. Because the bombers are low they have actually scored some hits. Problem is few if any get shot down. At that altitude those slow fat bombers should be easy picking, however, not so with WITP. Fix AAA so that it is more effective against big slow targets and the rest will fix itself.

Bombers cruising over a fleet anchorage should get carved up due to the amount of AAA concentrated in the area. If they are willing to take the losses then they should be able to score some hits. However, who would want to score a few hits on some ships at anchor if your bomber force gets carved up in return?


Exactly

_____________________________





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

(in reply to BoerWar)
Post #: 130
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/21/2004 9:49:32 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
Hmm, possibly a bonus to AA againt heavys as they are a much larger target to hit?

I agree about the use of heavys under 6K, frankly they should all augger in and be written off as ops losses on landing due to the pilot falling asleep at the controls after that kind of abuse

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 131
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/21/2004 10:42:49 PM   
BoerWar


Posts: 506
Joined: 6/12/2004
From: Arlington, VA
Status: offline
quote:

Hmm, possibly a bonus to AA againt heavys as they are a much larger target to hit?

I agree about the use of heavys under 6K, frankly they should all augger in and be written off as ops losses on landing due to the pilot falling asleep at the controls after that kind of abuse


Seems reasonable to me. Having seen a few of these guys lumber by at airshows you can see why they wouldn't come near AAA below 20-30K.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 132
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/21/2004 10:45:52 PM   
2ndACR


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

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Hmm, possibly a bonus to AA againt heavys as they are a much larger target to hit?

I agree about the use of heavys under 6K, frankly they should all augger in and be written off as ops losses on landing due to the pilot falling asleep at the controls after that kind of abuse


I will accept that. And add that the bonus should increase the lower they fly. So you can fly them at treetop level, but you will pay a heavy price in destroyed/damaged a/c to do it.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 133
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/21/2004 10:55:19 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline
Small calibre AA (20 or 30mm) won't reach too high, if I recall correctly. 6000 feet is doable though.
75mm+ is able to reach high flying bombers, but actual hits were still hard to get. I'm not at home, but I seem to remember reading that the vast amount of men and material invested in the mass AA batterys of Europe did not seem to be very efficient. The AA battery reassures the folks on the ground, though... (The famous German 88mm AA gun was designed from the start to hit stuff really high, hence the heavy punch it has versus ground targets only 1000 meters away.)

Does the game model ALL AA calibres the SAME way? (for example, to pull numbers out of the "air", all AA guns are at 100% up to 10,000 feet; 75% up 15,000 feet; 50% etc.,)
Or is there a "seperate combat results chart" for light AA as apposed to heavy AA?

(in reply to BoerWar)
Post #: 134
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/22/2004 12:09:24 AM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
I will take BTR style flak anyday over what we have here. At least in BTR, I could beat the snot out of an air raid with AA fire.

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 135
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/22/2004 12:36:37 AM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

Does the game model ALL AA calibres the SAME way? (for example, to pull numbers out of the "air", all AA guns are at 100% up to 10,000 feet; 75% up 15,000 feet; 50% etc.,)
Or is there a "seperate combat results chart" for light AA as apposed to heavy AA?


I think that all we know for sure is that each type of AA gun has a maximum range. If the aircraft are higher up than that max range, they are safe from that gun.

Beyond that, who know.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 136
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/22/2004 2:38:16 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

FRAG Now you are "straw dogging". RAF Bomber Command made all it's raids during
the war with each bomb aimer making his own run. Halsey's 1000 plane carrier raids
in 1945 didn't drop as 'formations". When 180 Japanese A/C attacked PH in one "raid"
they didn't line up nose to tail to do it---nor did theystay in a single large formation and
drop their weapons on the signal of the lead bombadier. For that matter, even your
rather silly example of a 45-mile long "bomber stream" takes only 10 minutes to cross
the target area at 240 mph. Hardly a long period for a bomber attack.


once again, mixing the wars Mike

RAF had excellent radio target identification coupled with pathfinders to bring the boy in on target. Even then, the records clearly show that hitting within a mile of the planned target was good.

As for Halsey, get serious, there is no comparison between a bunch of single engine high performance aircraft flying off a crap load of carriers in rather short range attacks compared against massed raids of heavy bombers. It didn't happen in the Pacific because the ranges and command and control simply did not exist. You can keep dreaming that it did all you want, but massed airpower of heavies like were seen in ETO simply could not and did not exist.


No FRAG..., you are straw-dogging again. The RAF used Radio beams and airborn radars
to enable the Pathfinders to set up and mark an "aiming point", but the rest of the
bomber stream bombed individually on that mark. And it's true that early in their
efforts they were lucky to hit the right province. But as the Pathfinders gained exper-
iance and the guidence systems improved, the target marking became more accurate.
and if the target was marked accurately, Bomber Command wrecked it. Ask the folks
in Hamburg, Lubeck, Dresden, etc. And target marking is beside the point in this dis-
cussion because we are talking about daylight raids. Each bombadier can see the target
for themselves.

It is true that Large bomber formations such as were seen in Europe weren't common
in the Pacific until late in the War. But large targets weren't either, until Japan itself
came within range. 40-60 "heavies" were generally more than enough to deal with
the kind of targets actually present, especially as Japanese opposition was generally
ineffective against B-17's and B-24's at 12,000 feet or more. I use Halsey's raids as
a max example. If hundreds and hundreds of single engined carrier planes could form
up and fly to a port, then split up and all go after individual targets at the same time
effectively before heading "home", then I can't see why you think bombers can't do the
same. And no, I don't mean they would dive-bomb, or anything else silly. Just make
aimed runs at individual targets before reuniting again to head back.

I do think the folks complaining about a few B-17's bombing from low altitude not get-
ting enough damage have a point. And provided that Betties and Nells (flying torches)
trying the same thing are appropriately shredded, I'm all for it.

_____________________________


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 137
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/22/2004 3:07:55 AM   
sveint


Posts: 3556
Joined: 1/19/2001
From: Glorious Europe
Status: offline
quote:

Hmm, possibly a bonus to AA againt heavys as they are a much larger target to hit?


Spot on!

Make those Japanese AA units worth the supply they are consuming...

< Message edited by sveint -- 12/21/2004 3:08:23 PM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 138
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/22/2004 12:00:00 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
Big morale hit maybe ?? Attacking heavily defended targer was very much mentally exhaustive for air crews...especially on light aircraft. There is a reason why we refer AAA as "Flak"....and that's German abbreviation. That alone should tell something about the effects on air crews. Even Pierre Closterman (33 air combat victories) tells in his book "Big Show" how his unit prohibited use of words Flak in or AAA in their mess when serving in RAF.

Cheers,

M.S.

(in reply to sveint)
Post #: 139
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/22/2004 12:05:10 PM   
Apollo11


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Hmm, possibly a bonus to AA againt heavys as they are a much larger target to hit?

I agree about the use of heavys under 6K, frankly they should all augger in and be written off as ops losses on landing due to the pilot falling asleep at the controls after that kind of abuse


Interesting idea!!!

That way (and since they were historically such large and slow low-maneuverable targets) we can effectively eliminate the things I shown in my tests because AAA looses would be terrifying!!!

Great thinking Raymond!


Perhaps the best way for this would be:

#1 4-Engine bombers

The slower the bomber is (data from aircraft info) and the lower its maneuverability is (data from aircraft info) the greater chance of enemy AAA to catch it.

#2 2-Engine bombers

The slower the bomber is (data from aircraft info) and the lower its maneuverability is (data from aircraft info) the greater chance of enemy AAA to catch it (but since 2-engine bomber is smaller than 4-engine bomber that chance should be 2x lower than for #1 above i.e. 4-engine bombers).


What do you think gentleman?


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 #: 140
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/22/2004 4:12:08 PM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
Another attempt by Japanese Fan Boys to skewer this game further away from history in your favor.

Get used to the fact that the Allied players have strategic bombers and when they are in range they will destroy your industry. That's what they did in real life and you want "realism" so deal with it.

As for all this heavy flak damage - once again you're trying to make your side stronger and the allied weaker. You complain that there was no precision bombing but conversely there was no precision AA either. You just shot it up in the air and if it hit something it hit ... most didn't.

And as far as Mr. Frag's statement about 90 bombers being too much over the target here are some facts about a number of B-29 air raids over Japan (taken from a web site - http://home.att.net/~sallyann2/b29.html - about the 9th Bombardment Group and also "The Rising Sun"):

25 Feb 1945          Tokyo                 201 B-29s
9/10 Mar 1945       Tokyo                 298 B-29s with only 14 lost
13 Mar 1945          Osaka                 300+ B-29s
16/17 Mar 1945     Kobe                   306 B-29s with the air rad lasting 2 hours 10 minutes
15/16 Apr 1945     Tokyo/Kawasaki   300+ aircraft with only 13 aircraft lost 
23 May 1945         Tokyo                  562 B-29s ... pg 837, "The Rising Sun"
26 May 1945         Tokyo                  502 B-29s ... pg 837, "The Rising Sun"
30 May 1945         Yokohama            517 B-29s ... pg 838, "The Rising Sun"
01 Jun 1945          Osaka                  458 B-29s
1/2 Aug 1945        Nagoaka              750 B-29s


It should also be noted that on the 1/2 August 1945 Nagoaka raid the B-29's had something like a 3000 mile run and dropped 6260 tons of bombs. The US 8th Air Force in Europe, in it's best effort over Cologne, Germany on 11 October 1944 dropped only 2923 tons in a 650 mile run.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 141
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/22/2004 4:18:08 PM   
Ron Saueracker


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

ORIGINAL: dereck

Another attempt by Japanese Fan Boys to skewer this game further away from history in your favor.

Get used to the fact that the Allied players have strategic bombers and when they are in range they will destroy your industry. That's what they did in real life and you want "realism" so deal with it.

As for all this heavy flak damage - once again you're trying to make your side stronger and the allied weaker. You complain that there was no precision bombing but conversely there was no precision AA either. You just shot it up in the air and if it hit something it hit ... most didn't.

And as far as Mr. Frag's statement about 90 bombers being too much over the target here are some facts about a number of B-29 air raids over Japan (taken from a web site - http://home.att.net/~sallyann2/b29.html - about the 9th Bombardment Group and also "The Rising Sun"):

25 Feb 1945          Tokyo                 201 B-29s
9/10 Mar 1945       Tokyo                 298 B-29s with only 14 lost
13 Mar 1945          Osaka                 300+ B-29s
16/17 Mar 1945     Kobe                   306 B-29s with the air rad lasting 2 hours 10 minutes
15/16 Apr 1945     Tokyo/Kawasaki   300+ aircraft with only 13 aircraft lost 
23 May 1945         Tokyo                  562 B-29s ... pg 837, "The Rising Sun"
26 May 1945         Tokyo                  502 B-29s ... pg 837, "The Rising Sun"
30 May 1945         Yokohama            517 B-29s ... pg 838, "The Rising Sun"
01 Jun 1945          Osaka                  458 B-29s
1/2 Aug 1945        Nagoaka              750 B-29s


It should also be noted that on the 1/2 August 1945 Nagoaka raid the B-29's had something like a 3000 mile run and dropped 6260 tons of bombs. The US 8th Air Force in Europe, in it's best effort over Cologne, Germany on 11 October 1944 dropped only 2923 tons in a 650 mile run.


How many ships were hit?

_____________________________





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

(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 142
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/22/2004 4:33:49 PM   
Apollo11


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

Another attempt by Japanese Fan Boys to skewer this game further away from history in your favor.

Get used to the fact that the Allied players have strategic bombers and when they are in range they will destroy your industry. That's what they did in real life and you want "realism" so deal with it.


Who here ever disputed that strategic bombing didn't destroy Japanese industry (by way of destroying Japanese cities with fire bombs)?

This can be done in WitP and, thus, all is OK.


But we here argue something completely different - usage of strategic bombers against ships...


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 dereck)
Post #: 143
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/22/2004 5:06:38 PM   
2ndACR


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

Any way to sway you to run a test against a port with a ton of AA units in it? If we are going to look at the effects of strategic bombers vs ships in port, we might as well look and see if about 6 AA units with alot of supply has any effect on the bombers.

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 144
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/22/2004 5:08:53 PM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
http://www.ww2guide.com/ww2faq.shtml#16

Q: Which was more effective against bombers, anti-aircraft fire (flak) or fighters?

A: This varied from theater to theater and even from mission to mission but overall flak brought down more Allied aircraft than any other single cause. In 1944, German flak destroyed 3,501 American aircraft - nearly 600 more than Luftwaffe fighters. Conversely, anti-aircraft fire over Japan not as effective. While more than 2,000 B-29s suffered various degrees of damage to flak, antiaircraft fire by itself was credited with downing just 29 of the giant bombers.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 145
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/22/2004 5:10:48 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
....plus 2400 emergency landings on Iwo Jima. Thanks, USMC!

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 146
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/22/2004 5:15:15 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
Ah, but you can not compare German to Japanese. Germany was way ahead on AA tech plus the 8th very rarely came in at 10,000 feet over a target. Because there was a ton of Flak that would shred them and make them dogmeat for the fighters.

So are you trying to tell me that 6 AA batt of 80 75mm or 105mm AA guns are not going to effect any allied bombers? Even in real life, any allied raid performed at 10,000 feet or lower against that would be shot to pieces. May not destroy them, but it will dang sure fill your planes with holes.

It is one thing to go after an area target like a city, quite another to be going after the ship in a harbor.

(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 147
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/22/2004 5:21:45 PM   
Apollo11


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Any way to sway you to run a test against a port with a ton of AA units in it? If we are going to look at the effects of strategic bombers vs ships in port, we might as well look and see if about 6 AA units with alot of supply has any effect on the bombers.


I will try to do that today (when i get home from work)...

Any special list of Japanese AAA units you guys want me to test in this new test?

Any special US plane you guys want me to test (B-29/B-17/B-25) in thsi new test?


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 #: 148
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/22/2004 6:32:20 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
I guess a combination of AA Regiments and AA batt. They are armed about the same, the Reg are bigger of course.

I guess they can engage the same bomber types as above.

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 149
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/22/2004 7:32:19 PM   
Apollo11


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

As promised here are test results against transport when there are Japanese AAA units present - everything else is same as in previous tests (see below for more details and cross-check with similar test in this same thread when no AAA was present)!


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 are 7 Japanese LCU's (1x 2nd Fleet HQ, 2x Heavy AA Bn and 4x AA Rgt) at Wake Island together with 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 87


Allied aircraft losses
B-29 Superfortress: 14 damaged

Japanese Ships
AP Akashisan Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Hakone Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Africa Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AP Gokoku Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
TK Azuma Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Arizona Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
TK Eiyo Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AO Hayasui, Bomb hits 3, on fire
AP Azuchi Maru, Bomb hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
AO Iro, Bomb hits 3, on fire
AO Sunosaki, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AP Asama Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Anzan Maru, Bomb hits 1
TK Choran Maru, Bomb hits 1
AO Kazahaya, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Aiyo Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AP Ayato Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AO Hayamoto, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Ayo Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AP Achou Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
TK Fujisan Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Ayatosan Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AO Takasaki, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AP Awajisan Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AP Atuta Maru, Bomb hits 1
AO Naruto, Bomb hits 1
TK Eiho Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
TK Akatuki Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Atsuta Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Ayaha Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Aratama Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AO Notoro, Bomb hits 1
AP Anrugu Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Awa Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Amakasu Maru #1, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Japanese ground losses:
531 casualties reported
Guns lost 20

Port hits 8
Port fuel hits 1
Port supply hits 7

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
15 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 91


Allied aircraft losses
B-29 Superfortress: 27 damaged

Japanese Ships
AP Amakasu Maru #1, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Arizona Maru, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
AO Ondo, Bomb hits 2, on fire
TK Arima Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Awa Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Aiyo Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
TK Azuma Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Gokoku Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
TK Eiyo Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Akashisan Maru, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
AP Atsuta Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Aratama Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire
TK Amatsu Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AO Iro, Bomb hits 3, heavy damage
TK Fujisan Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AO Sunosaki, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Arizana Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Ayaha Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Awajisan Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AO Hayamoto, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Arabia Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire
AO Hayasui, Bomb hits 3, on fire
AP Anrugu Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AP Ayo Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Argentina Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Hakone Maru, Bomb hits 4, on fire
AP Arugun Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Chichibu Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AO Erimo, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AO Kazahaya, Bomb hits 3, on fire
AP Aikoku Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Asama Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
TK Akatsuki Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AO Notoro, Bomb hits 1, on fire
TK Akatuki Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
TK Akebono Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire

Japanese ground losses:
737 casualties reported
Guns lost 25

Port hits 8
Port fuel hits 3
Port supply hits 5

Aircraft Attacking:
27 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
36 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
5 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
15 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
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 82


Allied aircraft losses
B-29 Superfortress: 18 damaged

Japanese Ships
AO Notoro, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Aikoku Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Ayaha Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
TK Akebono Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AP Aiyo Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Banshu Maru #21, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Asama Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AP Ayato Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Amakasu Maru #1, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AO Ondo, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AO Kazahaya, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AO Takasaki, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AO Erimo, Bomb hits 2
AP Awa Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Awajisan Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Aki Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Ayo Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Chichibu Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
TK Fujisan Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Aratama Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AO Sunosaki, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Arizana Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Atsuta Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Arugun Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Japanese ground losses:
307 casualties reported
Guns lost 13

Port hits 5
Port fuel hits 1
Port supply hits 3

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
7 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

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

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/01/44

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


Allied aircraft
B-29 Superfortress x 84


Allied aircraft losses
B-29 Superfortress: 6 destroyed, 16 damaged

Japanese Ships
AP Aikoku Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire
AP Atuta Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Ayaha Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Aki Maru, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
AO Takasaki, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
TK Eiho Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
TK Amatsu Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AO Kazahaya, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Arugun Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AP Africa Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
TK Akatuki Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Anzan Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Azuchi Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Aiyo Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Ayato Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Atsuta Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Aratama Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Amakasu Maru #1, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Awajisan Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AO Hayamoto, Bomb hits 1
AO Hayasui, Bomb hits 1
AP Akashisan Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Gokoku Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
TK Arima Maru, Bomb hits 1
AO Erimo, Bomb hits 1
AP Astuga Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
TK Eiyo Maru, Bomb hits 1
TK Fujisan Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire

Japanese ground losses:
307 casualties reported
Guns lost 14

Port hits 5
Port fuel hits 1
Port supply hits 4

Aircraft Attacking:
14 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
25 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
9 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 10000 feet
18 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
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: 19 damaged

Japanese Ships
AP Arizana Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
TK Arima Maru, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
AP Aki Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Ayato Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
TK Eiho Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire
AP Aikoku Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AO Ondo, Bomb hits 2, on fire
TK Akatsuki Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Amakasu Maru #1, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Arabia Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Ayatosan Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Africa Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire
AO Kazahaya, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AO Naruto, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Banshu Maru #21, Bomb hits 2, on fire
TK Akebono Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Arugun Maru, Bomb hits 1
TK Eiyo Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Achou Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AO Sunosaki, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AP Hakone Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AO Notoro, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Aiyo Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Aratama Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire
AP Anzan Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Akashisan Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Ayo Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AP Atuta Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Ayaha Maru, Bomb hits 1
AO Takasaki, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AO Erimo, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AO Iro, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Argentina Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire

Japanese ground losses:
394 casualties reported
Guns lost 19

Port hits 6
Port fuel hits 4
Port supply hits 5

Aircraft Attacking:
24 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
12 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
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 47


Allied aircraft losses
B-29 Superfortress: 5 damaged

Japanese Ships
AP Arizona Maru, Bomb hits 1
TK Arima Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Gokoku Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Aki Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Anrugu Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Argentina Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire

Japanese ground losses:
173 casualties reported
Guns lost 9

Port hits 2
Port fuel hits 1

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

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


Discussion:

I see no less hits than when no Japanese AAA was present (see my previous tests in this same thread for more info).

The only "strange" result was 4th daytime run where there were destroyed B-29's (in no other test run there were destroyed B-29's).


Note that Japanese AAA units consist of:


Heavy AA Bn (2 units used):

105mm AA Gun x18
13 mm AAMG (2) x 6


Heavy AA Rgt (4 units used):

105mm AA Gun x12
75mm AA Gun x12
13 mm AAMG (2) x 8


Thus there were (in total):

105mm AA Gun x84
75mm AA Gun x48
13 mm AAMG (2) x44


Also note that that there were _NO_ 20mm AA Gun in OOB because only IJN AAA units have it and there are no separate IJN AA units in OOB - therefore I had to use the IJA AAA units (although the height at which bombers attacked = 10000 ft would be too high for 25mm anyways)...


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 Apollo11)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 50 ships in day and night)... Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.352