Low altitude 4E pix (Full Version)

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



Message

spence -> Low altitude 4E pix (4/6/2008 3:29:14 PM)

The USN operated its 4Es at low altitude. Just some pix.

[image]local://upfiles/9007/EF40D9DBAE2F417D9D213D2FD97C18AB.jpg[/image]



spence -> RE: Low altitude 4E pix (4/6/2008 3:30:03 PM)

another

[image]local://upfiles/9007/64E1C057F94F4C1C8D6E8FFEABB819C3.jpg[/image]



spence -> RE: Low altitude 4E pix (4/6/2008 3:31:07 PM)

another - says it all

[image]local://upfiles/9007/1601C9AA73FC4B008C2DC4BDCACF31A7.jpg[/image]



spence -> RE: Low altitude 4E pix (4/6/2008 3:37:34 PM)

All these photos and alot of other interesting stuff to be found at VPNavy.com: squadron histories, seaplane tender histories, aircraft histories, crew histories...all kinds of stuff.



Dixie -> RE: Low altitude 4E pix (4/6/2008 3:42:04 PM)

Thanks, those are some nice pics. 

On the topic of USN bombers, am I correct in assuming that they usually flew individually?  Similar to Coastal Command and the LW Fw-200 usage?



spence -> RE: Low altitude 4E pix (4/6/2008 3:53:15 PM)

From what I've read in many of the VPNavy accounts several aircraft would cooperate in making attacks on shipping. I'm not sure whether the aircraft were dispatched together or whether a/c from adjacent patrol sectors were called in or what.

In at several accounts one attacking a/c strafed the target (in the case of a Privateer that's a 10 x .50 cal broadside) while another ran in low to make a bombing attack at masthead height (the first ceased fire just as the other one arrived at the drop point).




RUPD3658 -> RE: Low altitude 4E pix (4/7/2008 1:46:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

another - says it all

[image]local://upfiles/9007/1601C9AA73FC4B008C2DC4BDCACF31A7.jpg[/image]


I guess there was no house rule for 4E bombers' altitude IRL[8D]



JeffroK -> RE: Low altitude 4E pix (4/7/2008 10:19:52 AM)

IMHO, the bombs have too high accuracy & effect ratings.

Players shopuld be able to bomb at will, realising they were not as accurate of effective at hoped.

I also think "tweaking" the japanese aerial torp accuracy would be of value.



Son of Jorg -> RE: Low altitude 4E pix (4/7/2008 10:37:02 AM)

Well I think the house rule is there because IRL there were no 100+ 4-E air strikes targeting ships on the open sea, like there can be in WitP. No one doubts that 4-E bombers were used in low level attacks, but they were individuals on patrol or small groups as described.



castor troy -> RE: Low altitude 4E pix (4/7/2008 11:25:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

IMHO, the bombs have too high accuracy & effect ratings.

Players shopuld be able to bomb at will, realising they were not as accurate of effective at hoped.

I also think "tweaking" the japanese aerial torp accuracy would be of value.



They may have a too high accuracy but for sure not a too high effect rating. They have a too low effect rating IMO. No WWII took as many bomb hits and survived as we see in the game all the time.



John Lansford -> RE: Low altitude 4E pix (4/7/2008 11:30:15 AM)

Thanks for the VP link; it's very interesting.  Now I'm trying to figure out why all my PB2Y's are being converted to Lockheed Venturas (resulting in a MUCH smaller search radius)... [&:]



spence -> RE: Low altitude 4E pix (4/7/2008 1:42:25 PM)

quote:

Thanks for the VP link; it's very interesting. Now I'm trying to figure out why all my PB2Y's are being converted to Lockheed Venturas (resulting in a MUCH smaller search radius)...


WitP shortchanged the Ventura's range by around 900 miles. IRL they were used on bombing strikes that, on the WitP map, would be around 14 hexes such as Truk from Tinian and Balikpapan from Leyte.

Another important distinction is that the 4E bombers used in the posts above were USN rather than USAAF. The pilots' training and doctrine were different. The Privateer (PB4Y-2) had a lot of specifically Navy modifications that enhanced it's ability to attack at low altitude: most notably; the superchargers were removed from the engines because the plane was NEVER going to operate at over 10000 ft. The ball turret was removed to save weight and increase range AND because the only enemy that was going to get underneath a PB4Y-2 was a submarine.



John Lansford -> RE: Low altitude 4E pix (4/7/2008 2:47:04 PM)

Yeah, I've seen merchant ships absorb a dozen 500 pound bomb hits and not sink for days afterward, if then. IMO all merchant ships are too damage resistant from wherever the damage comes from; not many AK's would survive even one torpedo hit yet I see them doing that all the time.



crsutton -> RE: Low altitude 4E pix (4/7/2008 5:16:36 PM)

My wife's father flew Hudsons, Venturas and Liberators in the South Pacific as a Navy pilot.  He died a few years back but liked to talk about his flying days. He said that they only got superficial training in high altitude bombing and never really practiced it. The expectation was that they were going to be low for any bombing attack and that is pretty much the way they did it.

He told me that the only real reason to fly a Navy bomber at altitude was to ice up beer.



niceguy2005 -> RE: Low altitude 4E pix (4/7/2008 7:16:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

IMHO, the bombs have too high accuracy & effect ratings.

Players shopuld be able to bomb at will, realising they were not as accurate of effective at hoped.

I also think "tweaking" the japanese aerial torp accuracy would be of value.

It's hard to make an apples to apples comparison, because games can't be 100% representations of RL. However, Allied anti-shipping was extremely effective by mid-war. Japanese anti-shipping was extremely from the start...they just didn't always use torps.

IMO one of the problems with the game is that for both sides LBA naval attacks are too large. I don't think there was ever a 50 plane Betty naval attack, or a 60 plane B-17 naval attack.



Bombsight -> RE: Low altitude 4E pix (4/7/2008 10:07:58 PM)

There might not have been 40, 50 or 60 plane raids in an individual sense. If you look at the game as summarizing actions into one AM or PM time frame, then several raids comprising that many aircraft could conceivably have occurred.



spence -> RE: Low altitude 4E pix (4/7/2008 10:41:16 PM)

quote:

IMO one of the problems with the game is that for both sides LBA naval attacks are too large. I don't think there was ever a 50 plane Betty naval attack, or a 60 plane B-17 naval attack.



IIRC the attack on Repulse and Prince of Wales involved about 80 Bettys/Nells though some made high altitude bombing attacks (with only marginally better results than Allied bombers had from altitude) rather than torpedo attacks.



rtrapasso -> RE: Low altitude 4E pix (4/8/2008 12:53:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

Thanks for the VP link; it's very interesting. Now I'm trying to figure out why all my PB2Y's are being converted to Lockheed Venturas (resulting in a MUCH smaller search radius)...


WitP shortchanged the Ventura's range by around 900 miles. IRL they were used on bombing strikes that, on the WitP map, would be around 14 hexes such as Truk from Tinian and Balikpapan from Leyte.

Another important distinction is that the 4E bombers used in the posts above were USN rather than USAAF. The pilots' training and doctrine were different. The Privateer (PB4Y-2) had a lot of specifically Navy modifications that enhanced it's ability to attack at low altitude: most notably; the superchargers were removed from the engines because the plane was NEVER going to operate at over 10000 ft. The ball turret was removed to save weight and increase range AND because the only enemy that was going to get underneath a PB4Y-2 was a submarine.

Most planes have their range rather drastically reduced to make up for operational fuel usage (circling to wait for a squadron to form up, flying around bad weather, flak concentrations, etc.) i am not sure they just used a flat percentage or what, though.



Swayin -> RE: Low altitude 4E pix (4/8/2008 1:22:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
He told me that the only real reason to fly a Navy bomber at altitude was to ice up beer.



mmm.... beer.



spence -> RE: Low altitude 4E pix (4/8/2008 1:36:00 AM)

quote:

Most planes have their range rather drastically reduced to make up for operational fuel usage (circling to wait for a squadron to form up, flying around bad weather, flak concentrations, etc.) i am not sure they just used a flat percentage or what, though


Knocking off 900 miles seems a bit drastic actually. IMHO your statement would approxiamate truth only if the word "ALLIED" were inserted after "Most".



marky -> RE: Low altitude 4E pix (4/8/2008 5:02:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Swayin


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
He told me that the only real reason to fly a Navy bomber at altitude was to ice up beer.



mmm.... beer.



[sm=00000436.gif]


[image]http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d85/mrky84/ThisisBEEERR.gif[/image]



rtrapasso -> RE: Low altitude 4E pix (4/8/2008 2:11:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

Most planes have their range rather drastically reduced to make up for operational fuel usage (circling to wait for a squadron to form up, flying around bad weather, flak concentrations, etc.) i am not sure they just used a flat percentage or what, though


Knocking off 900 miles seems a bit drastic actually. IMHO your statement would approxiamate truth only if the word "ALLIED" were inserted after "Most".



Yes, well i suspect the same as well, but didn't want to start another Japan vs. Allied bias flame thread...



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.203125