RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks

RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

Nikademus -> RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks (8/25/2006 2:40:48 AM)
Yes, but do you think you "Need" too? Thats my point. For example.....i'm playing an AI game, mid 42. I have semi veteran exp LBA's running regular raids on nearby Japanese TF's attempting to supply/deliver to it's bases for the AI's offensive. I have none on skip bombing because i'm getting decent returns at 6000-10000 feet. (Using B26's and Hudsons).

pompack -> RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks (8/25/2006 2:47:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dtravel I'd do it against merchants with high (80+, like the manual states) experience 2E bombers but if I had a choice not against warships because of the AAA. I don't do it at all with 4E because it doesn't "feel" historically right. (Trying to play by the spirit of the rules, not the loopholes.) Well said. As to 4E bombers, I am not aware of a single, documented instance of a 4E bomber hitting a manuvering warship outside of coastal waters at any altitude in real life. Now historically, 2E bombers were devastating when used in mass. The Americans called it "skip bombing", but the Germans did it first and called in the "Swedish Turnip", damned if I know why.

Nikademus -> RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks (8/25/2006 2:58:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pompack quote: ORIGINAL: dtravel I'd do it against merchants with high (80+, like the manual states) experience 2E bombers but if I had a choice not against warships because of the AAA. I don't do it at all with 4E because it doesn't "feel" historically right. (Trying to play by the spirit of the rules, not the loopholes.) Well said. As to 4E bombers, I am not aware of a single, documented instance of a 4E bomber hitting a manuvering warship outside of coastal waters at any altitude in real life. Now historically, 2E bombers were devastating when used in mass. The Americans called it "skip bombing", but the Germans did it first and called in the "Swedish Turnip", damned if I know why. which again leads to my question to the players; Do they feel, outside of emergency situations where desperate tactics can be called for, that they even need to contemplate skip bombing against warships or merchants or are they seeing adequate returns at heights of 6-10k using 2E or 4E or both... Like i said, i'm find esp against merchants, i don't need to even contemplate skip bombing.

ctangus -> RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks (8/25/2006 3:09:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus which again leads to my question to the players; Do they feel, outside of emergency situations where desperate tactics can be called for, that they even need to contemplate skip bombing against warships or merchants or are they seeing adequate returns at heights of 6-10k using 2E or 4E or both... Like i said, i'm find esp against merchants, i don't need to even contemplate skip bombing. In non-desparate moments, only against barges, since the LBs won't attack them any higher. (And only if there's no fighter-bombers nearby.) I'm getting decent results with 2Es from 6-10K also. I almost never use 4Es on naval attack anymore. Again, only in desparate moments or if I have something spotted but my 2Es don't have the range. They get a fair number of hits just from naval search and I like to know what's out there.

dtravel -> RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks (8/25/2006 3:30:23 AM)
Do I need to skip bomb? No, I don't "need" to bomb at any altitude less than 30,000'. Do I want to stop the convoy as opposed to just hit a couple of ships in it? Yes. They didn't "need" to skip bomb in the real war. They would have destroyed the Japanese Merchant Marine with 5,000' bombing runs too. It was just faster and more efficient to hit with more than 1 out of 50 bombs. [:'(]

mogami -> RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks (8/25/2006 3:33:37 AM)
Hi since UV I have used a standard 6k for both sides level bombers on naval attack. 10k for ground attack. If it gets too rough I go up to 15k. (I bomb cities with B-29 at 15k)

Nikademus -> RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks (8/25/2006 3:37:35 AM)
really? I don't agree with that accessment. LBA seemed pretty abysmal which includes the occasional hits...hence skip bombing. If players feel no particular compulsion to bomb at very low altitudes, including skip bombing then i'd say thats a good indicator that LBA might be a tad too effective overall. The Japanese merchant captains were certainly not all that concerned as Bismarck Sea developed....they thought it would be SOP for evasion. Imagine their suprise.....

denisonh -> RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks (8/25/2006 4:11:29 AM)
It would help to have some mechanisms in place to replicate the problems associated with unloading transports at a beachhead as opposed to being underway in the open sea. Two entirely diffierent targets for LBA. It would be even better to have a routine that has the less aggressive skipper "pull pitch", stop offloading and head to sea. Sitting ships unloading vs ships underway do not seem to be distinguished, and unloading ships are not penalized at all for being attacked.

niceguy2005 -> RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks (8/25/2006 5:28:54 AM)
DId the Allies employ only skip bombing techiniques at the Battle of the Bismark sea, because as I recall it was a great big turkey shoot employing all sorts of bombers, including B-25, but not heavies. Also, IIRC they did not skip bomb in that battle as the techinque had not yet been perfected, but I could be wrong. In that battle I know that not only transports were sunk but numerous destroyers. I am also have read reports of all sorts of 2E bombers scoring tremendous success against Japanese shipping from late 43 on from all altitudes. Still, it appears rare that 4E bombers participated in these attacks. I agree with the poster that this must have been a doctrine issue. I suspect this may have had something to do with the manueverability and speed of the aircraft. B-17s may have been too good a target for AA to fly lower level missions, not that they couldn't hit the target. In terms of house rule or not, i would tend to lean toward the side of maybe installing a house rule that says heavies bomb above 10,000 feet. I all honesty I don't think it will make much of a difference anyway. It also does seem to be fair to say that many of the games innaccuracies tend to balance out the game. I have noticed that I tend to fly a lot of my b-17 missions at the limits of the planes range, over very hostile territory and unescorted. I'm not sure that the bomber groups historically would have been put through that type of abuse.

Skyros -> RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks (8/25/2006 5:57:08 AM)
I believe the employed a mixture of attacks at the Battle of the Bismark Sea. The only handy source that I have is Bergerud's Fire in the Sky he cite the 43rd Bomb Group sending out three waves of B17s on March 2,1943. Bombing from an altitude between 6 and 8,000 feet they sank two and mabye a third transport.(pg590) On the same page he cites B17s, A-20s, Beaufighters and B-25s attacking from medium altitude and also skip bombing. Just one source I do not know how accurate he is.

bradfordkay -> RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks (8/25/2006 7:24:49 AM)
IIRC, the skip bombing technique originated in a B-17 unit, but was quickly adapted to the more maneuverable twin engined bombers. Nik, I have never felt the need to try skip bombing, as I have always felt that in UV/WITP the results from 6000' were "somewhat" high (the usual b(r)ad die rolls would result in snakeyes too often for my taste, but that's not an indictment of the game but rather what I've learned to experience since picking up AH games in the sixties). Since starting my first CHS game, I have switched my 4E bombers to 11,000' for naval attack in order to hamstring them somewhat. As mentioned before, crucial situations will allow lower attmpts, but VERY rarely. I usually average around 16,000' for land targets. I will use 4E bombers against naval targets up until the point when I actually have enough 2E bombers to do the job. I must be the typical American commander, but I never feel like I have enough 2E (especially B-25s) bombers in the SoPac and SWPac areas until Feb '43 at the earliest. That's partly because I rarely switch units among historical commands, except for those few being rescued from the PI and NEI.

dtravel -> RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks (8/25/2006 8:59:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus really? I don't agree with that accessment. LBA seemed pretty abysmal which includes the occasional hits...hence skip bombing. If players feel no particular compulsion to bomb at very low altitudes, including skip bombing then i'd say thats a good indicator that LBA might be a tad too effective overall. The Japanese merchant captains were certainly not all that concerned as Bismarck Sea developed....they thought it would be SOP for evasion. Imagine their suprise..... Not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. What I'm saying is that bombing "normally" from 6K and higher, an attack on a convoy may result in one or two ships being hit and damaged. But the convoy continues its mission. The same attack as a 100' strafe/skip-bomb strike will sink or cripple nearly every ship in the convoy, stopping it from completing its mission.

Nikademus -> RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks (8/25/2006 3:57:09 PM)
I understand that. By a good number of hits, i'm not talking the occasional bomb hit or two for damage. Hit rates are higher, thus more effective.

Speedysteve -> RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks (8/25/2006 5:02:37 PM)
I never feel the need to do it. I'm more than happy with the results I can achieve from 6-10K compared to the potential loss of extra planes, pilots and morale/fatigue hits from 100 feet

spence -> RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks (8/25/2006 5:19:13 PM)
Taken from a Navy PB4Y-1 [image]local://upfiles/9007/60DB03EDEFAB43F59E3F075A1F7CE4E2.jpg[/image]

spence -> RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks (8/25/2006 5:20:11 PM)
Another low altitude attack by a PB4Y-1 [image]local://upfiles/9007/8AEE454046924775A38157817B40A999.jpg[/image]

spence -> RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks (8/25/2006 5:22:27 PM)
The USAAF had a thing for high altitude bombing with their 4E types. The USN was not so afflicted.

spence -> RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks (8/25/2006 7:53:42 PM)
PB4Y-1 exchanges greetings with a U-boat (U-848). [image]local://upfiles/9007/DCEC6D31B20A44C8A13B51BD73713D89.jpg[/image]

RUPD3658 -> RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks (8/26/2006 12:39:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac B17's are rarely worth using on naval attack except as last resort until the PB4Y's start arriving in numbers they are to valuable in a search role. You do not know what a great resourse you are not using. B-17s set at 6000 feet (in the flak gap) have been my only fear so far in my game vs KDonovan. We are in September of 42 and they have been the only thing that could either stop me in my tracks or make me pause and reconsider. If I send a TF within range it gets plastered. Even the Super KB with extra fighter squadrons can't stop more than a 100 plane B-17 strike without enough getting through to cause harm. 150 would sink ships and 200 would decimate the KB. If I have a AF with tons of planes it gets plastered. Massed Zeros can barely stop them and Oscars can do little more than damage them. Even when I baet them in the air, enough get through to destroy just as many on the ground. I have found that my fighters lose 1 plane for every 3 B-17s they manage to shoot down. B-24s are actually easier to defend against since they are less durable. B-25s are little more than target practice. The B-17 is the Allied super weapon for the 1st 6 months of the war just as the KB is for the Japanese. I would sleep much better if all Kenny used them for is naval patrol. Catalina and Coronados do just fine in this role.

Andy Mac -> RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks (8/26/2006 12:43:56 AM)
Agreed if KB closes then I would class that as an emrgancy ;) Last couple of games I have gotten suckered into sending B17's to India and then no Invasion so I havent had the opportunity to use them on anti sipping The few I have in SOPAC are better on search

tsimmonds -> RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks (8/26/2006 3:48:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dtravel I'd do it against merchants with high (80+, like the manual states) experience 2E bombers but if I had a choice not against warships because of the AAA. I don't do it at all with 4E because it doesn't "feel" historically right. (Trying to play by the spirit of the rules, not the loopholes.) But then none of you listen to me anyways 'cause I only play against the AI. [:'(] We listen to ya when you talk sense, like that[;)]

dtravel -> RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks (8/26/2006 5:24:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: irrelevant quote: ORIGINAL: dtravel I'd do it against merchants with high (80+, like the manual states) experience 2E bombers but if I had a choice not against warships because of the AAA. I don't do it at all with 4E because it doesn't "feel" historically right. (Trying to play by the spirit of the rules, not the loopholes.) But then none of you listen to me anyways 'cause I only play against the AI. [:'(] We listen to ya when you talk sense, like that[;)] Then you should be listening to me at all times.

spence -> RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks (8/26/2006 6:41:04 PM)
From US Army Air Forces in World War II - Chaper 5: Battle of the Bismarck Sea. Photo captioned: "Direct Hit from a B-24". The bomber was well below 10000 ft though I can't judge the altitude. [image]local://upfiles/9007/BB045F8B5FAA41FD9F5C2A9EC2E0ED77.jpg[/image]

spence -> RE: House rules for level bomber naval attacks (8/26/2006 6:43:11 PM)
Another pic from the same sight...captioned "Crippled Destroyer"...apparently taken by a level bomber and once again well below 10000 ft. There are some additional pics showing skip bombing attacks, etc. [image]local://upfiles/9007/3F8CC7B2FD514087B617396490154A01.jpg[/image]

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.84375