Jap LBA dive bombers...

Jap LBA dive bombers... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room

Message

Streptokok -> Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/17/2009 1:17:13 PM)
Why were Sonias, Marys and Anns changed to LevelBomber role in AE? Stripped me off LBA dive bombers and some things just make no sense. Sonia wich looks almost like Stuka, and we all know that Stuka was natural-born diver, is some crappy ligh level bomber in AE, why change it from DB? As a DB they had some use, light bombers in AE are just plain crap. Sonia had short leg in stock too, but you could still capture places like Jolo and put Sonias on it, they would cover route to Manila/Bataan just fine (sometimes really sloughtering merchant ships TFs). Ida was short legged recon in stock in AE its complete uselles light bomber crap. Anyway, turn after turn they do no damage at all (at least you cant see any damage done): quote: Morning Air attack on 58th Chinese Corps, at 85,53 (Kiukiang) Weather in hex: Light cloud Raid spotted at 24 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 11 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-36 Ida x 25 Japanese aircraft losses Ki-36 Ida: 1 damaged Aircraft Attacking: 25 x Ki-36 Ida bombing from 6000 feet Ground Attack: 4 x 30 kg GP Bomb Morning Air attack on 72nd Chinese Corps, at 85,54 (Nanchang) Weather in hex: Overcast Raid spotted at 43 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 14 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-27b Nate x 7 Ki-51 Sonia x 9 No Japanese losses Aircraft Attacking: 9 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing from 5000 feet Ground Attack: 4 x 50 kg GP Bomb Also attacking 50th Chinese Corps ... Also attacking 72nd Chinese Corps ... quote: Morning Air attack on 72nd Chinese Corps, at 85,54 (Nanchang) Weather in hex: Heavy rain Raid spotted at 29 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 13 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-36 Ida x 25 Japanese aircraft losses Ki-36 Ida: 1 damaged Aircraft Attacking: 25 x Ki-36 Ida bombing from 6000 feet Ground Attack: 4 x 30 kg GP Bomb Also attacking 50th Chinese Corps ... Also attacking 72nd Chinese Corps ... Also attacking 50th Chinese Corps ... Also attacking 72nd Chinese Corps ... Morning Air attack on 3rd New Chinese Corps, at 85,54 (Nanchang) Weather in hex: Heavy rain Raid spotted at 29 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 10 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-27b Nate x 7 Ki-51 Sonia x 12 No Japanese losses Aircraft Attacking: 12 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing from 5000 feet Ground Attack: 4 x 50 kg GP Bomb Also attacking 78th Chinese Corps ... Also attacking 3rd New Chinese Corps ... quote: Morning Air attack on 3rd New Chinese Corps, at 85,54 (Nanchang) Weather in hex: Clear sky Raid spotted at 16 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 7 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-27b Nate x 1 Ki-36 Ida x 25 Japanese aircraft losses Ki-36 Ida: 1 damaged Aircraft Attacking: 25 x Ki-36 Ida bombing from 6000 feet Ground Attack: 4 x 30 kg GP Bomb Also attacking 72nd Chinese Corps ... Also attacking 3rd New Chinese Corps ... Also attacking 72nd Chinese Corps ... Also attacking 3rd New Chinese Corps ... Morning Air attack on 50th Chinese Corps, at 85,54 (Nanchang) Weather in hex: Clear sky Raid spotted at 12 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 3 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-27b Nate x 6 Ki-51 Sonia x 12 No Japanese losses YAY! DAMAGE INFLICTED! Allied ground losses: 4 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Aircraft Attacking: 12 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing from 5000 feet Ground Attack: 4 x 50 kg GP Bomb Also attacking 78th Chinese Corps ... Also attacking 50th Chinese Corps ... quote: Morning Air attack on 72nd Chinese Corps, at 85,54 (Nanchang) Weather in hex: Heavy cloud Raid spotted at 11 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 4 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-36 Ida x 25 Japanese aircraft losses Ki-36 Ida: 1 damaged Aircraft Attacking: 25 x Ki-36 Ida bombing from 6000 feet Ground Attack: 4 x 30 kg GP Bomb Also attacking 3rd New Chinese Corps ... Also attacking 72nd Chinese Corps ... Also attacking 3rd New Chinese Corps ... Also attacking 72nd Chinese Corps ... Anyway, is 6000 feet to high for thesee guys?

Mynok -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/17/2009 2:17:48 PM)
Don't go below 6000' because then you switch skill sets to LowGnd from GndB.

treespider -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/17/2009 2:57:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Streptokok Why were Sonias, Marys and Anns changed to LevelBomber role in AE? Because they were level bombers...and not "Dive" Bombers quote: Stripped me off LBA dive bombers and some things just make no sense. Sonia wich looks almost like Stuka, and we all know that Stuka was natural-born diver, is some crappy ligh level bomber in AE, why change it from DB? Because it wasn't a "Dive"Bomber...IIRC it had no dive brakes. quote: As a DB they had some use, light bombers in AE are just plain crap. Sonia had short leg in stock too, but you could still capture places like Jolo and put Sonias on it, they would cover route to Manila/Bataan just fine (sometimes really sloughtering merchant ships TFs). Ida was short legged recon in stock in AE its complete uselles light bomber crap. Anyway, turn after turn they do no damage at all (at least you cant see any damage done): These types were all Army types and used against Ground troops...I imagine you are causing some disruption to the targetted units even if no casualties are inflicted.

Q-Ball -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/17/2009 6:28:30 PM)
I would replace them with Lillys and Sallys as soon as possible. They are somewhat useful as trainers, or at a forward airbase, but for the most part, they fly and carry a bomb, and that's about the only thing nice you can say. Certainly, don't BUILD any.

Terminus -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/17/2009 8:04:12 PM)
Like Treespider said, they were changed because THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE. The IJA's light bombers were 99.5% worthless. Don't like it? Make a mod. The Sonia might "look like a Stuka" to you, but it had no dive brakes, and without those, you're not dive bombing anything.

SireChaos -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/17/2009 11:28:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus Like Treespider said, they were changed because THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE. The IJA's light bombers were 99.5% worthless. Don't like it? Make a mod. The Sonia might "look like a Stuka" to you, but it had no dive brakes, and without those, you're not dive bombing anything. Any aircraft can be a dive bomber... once.

thegreatwent -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/18/2009 12:36:56 AM)
quote: Any aircraft can be a dive bomber... once. Funny, that is what they became[;)]

Dili -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/18/2009 12:38:38 AM)
In what class the shallow close support dive is better represented? They probably get better classified as fighter bombers.

Dr. Duh -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/18/2009 2:52:28 AM)
Is the altitude setting factored into the accuracy/effectiveness of attack missions by level bombers? If so I'm guessing that the way to represent "better accuracy through shallow dives" is simply to set the altitude somewhere in the 100'-5000' range. I think there is a bit of a problem in the way altitude for Air missions is defined. On p.154 it says this about the altitude setting: "The Current Altitude displays the altitude that the aircraft will fly at when flying to and from the target hex". On first glance this would seem reasonable since most missions are assumed to fit a fixed attack profile: 1. Level bombers are assumed to attack at the same level they fly in at. 2. The profile for a Dive bomber attack is simplified to always assume it starts from 2000'. 3. A torpedo attack always assumes a drop to low level (100'?) to perform the attack run. Squadrons designated "dive bombers" are always assumed to perform dive attacks. Squadrons designated torpedo bombers are always assumed to perform torpedo attacks on ships if they have torpedoes. If they are carrying bombs they are treated as level bombers (correct?) I guess the only reason you'd need to know an altitude defined by the player is to model CAP and AA interaction. For this I suppose the design decision was to model it as two interactions - one that occurs at the designated altitude that the mission flys in at for CAP and an initial AA shot, and then an additional interaction at the beginning of the fixed profiles for dive and torpedo attacks. However, in the section about (fighter) sweeps (p. 150), it mentions that "If the group attacks at 100�, the planes will also attempt to strafe the target...". OK, so to set fighters to do a strafing attack, pick "sweep" as the mission and set the altitude to 100'? But wait - what happened to the altitude setting being the altitude it flies to/from the target at? Well I guess for fighters if you set altitude to 100' then it doesn't mean they actually flew all the way to the target nap-of-the-earth, but rather than add another control to the air mission UI, it's OK to conflate the meaning of the altitude setting in this case because... (well, I'm guessing here) because if you're putting fighters on a strafing mission then we can assume they have nothing interesting happen to them where we'd need to know what altitude they flew in at - always assume that any CAP/AA only interacts with them after they've started their strafing run and are at 100'? Oh, something else I can't remember where I saw it (on the forum) - if the altitude setting is below 6000' on a naval attack it uses the low-level naval attack skill rather than the naval bombing skill? I vaguely recall from years ago when I first played witp that there were various discussions on the forum about how this setting would be what you use to designate skip-bombing. So anyway, I guess my questions would be: 1. if you set a sweep-capable aircraft to sweep at 100' (strafe), what does it attack? an airfield? does this attack assume only cannons/guns are used or if bombs are carried is their effect also included? 2. if you set fighters/fighter-bombers on airfield,port,naval, or ground attack... a) do you set their altitude to 10K' or whatever you want to designate them to fly in at (and be intercepted by CAP) and then it's implicit that to actually attack they drop to low level and perform a strafing attack? b) or does it make the assumption of an implicit strafing attack for fighters-only and for fighter-bombers if the altitude is set high it assumes the FB makes a level-bombing attack instead? c) or if the altitude is set too high is it just assumed that cannons etc aren't used and it is always/only a level-bombing run, and that the only way to get F/FB to use their cannons is to set the altitude to 100'? d) or do F/FB do nothing at all on these attack missions unless they have some bombs because the only way to get them to use their cannons air-to-ground is to assign them to a sweep mission?

Streptokok -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/18/2009 7:51:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus Like Treespider said, they were changed because THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE. The IJA's light bombers were 99.5% worthless. Don't like it? Make a mod. The Sonia might "look like a Stuka" to you, but it had no dive brakes, and without those, you're not dive bombing anything. Ur telling me Japs rather dived in twin-engined IIb Jillys with internal bomb bay (how do you dive bomb from internal bomb bay???) than Sonias? Man compared to stock AE just doesnt feel right...

treespider -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/18/2009 8:00:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Streptokok quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus Like Treespider said, they were changed because THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE. The IJA's light bombers were 99.5% worthless. Don't like it? Make a mod. The Sonia might "look like a Stuka" to you, but it had no dive brakes, and without those, you're not dive bombing anything. Ur telling me Japs rather dived in twin-engined IIb Jillys with internal bomb bay (how do you dive bomb from internal bomb bay???) than Sonias? You mean like the internal Bomb Bay on the SB2C Helldiver? quote: Man compared to stock AE just doesnt feel right... Maybe because its more historical...[:)]

rattovolante -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/18/2009 8:30:07 AM)
I think you just have to find the right kind of target for these planes. For example: quote: Morning Air attack on 108th RAF Base Force, at 54,60 (Tavoy) Weather in hex: Thunderstorms Raid spotted at 27 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 7 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-27b Nate x 4 Ki-30 Ann x 6 No Japanese losses Allied ground losses: 15 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Aircraft Attacking: 6 x Ki-30 Ann bombing from 10000 feet Ground Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb Note that this was in thunderstorms, and with just 6 planes. In any case, the objective of this raid wasn't to inflict casualties but to harass the enemy, forcing it out of move mode, increasing disruption, etc. In other words, slow and wear it down to prevent it from fleeing. I also use the ones with a camera as scout bombers (bomb a hex you would know more about) but I don't know if this actually works in game (i.e., if it has better chances to increases detection than a non-camera equipped aircraft). For what it's worth, I plan to keep building these planes until I run out of engines, for all their limits I think they're still more useful as planes than as surplus engines anyway ;) Edit: the later lilies are dive bombers IIRC

Streptokok -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/18/2009 8:35:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider quote: ORIGINAL: Streptokok quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus Like Treespider said, they were changed because THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE. The IJA's light bombers were 99.5% worthless. Don't like it? Make a mod. The Sonia might "look like a Stuka" to you, but it had no dive brakes, and without those, you're not dive bombing anything. Ur telling me Japs rather dived in twin-engined IIb Jillys with internal bomb bay (how do you dive bomb from internal bomb bay???) than Sonias? You mean like the internal Bomb Bay on the SB2C Helldiver? quote: Man compared to stock AE just doesnt feel right... Maybe because its more historical...[:)] Its a game. Its suposed to feel like WWII but its not suposed to be all historical. Because its a game [:'(]

Streptokok -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/18/2009 8:37:48 AM)
Ki-30 Ann are the only ones I build also. They can reach 8 hex if I recall corectly and carry 250kg bomb. Unlike Ida's bombload of 4x30 kg [8\|] and shorter leg (6 hex?)...

treespider -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/18/2009 8:39:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Streptokok Its a game. Its suposed to feel like WWII but its not suposed to be all historical. Because its a game [:'(] Hey that's why there is an editor...you want Stukas in the Pacific ...have at it. For those of us who want close to historical, there's little need to edit.

bklooste -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/18/2009 10:24:34 AM)
quote: Because it wasn't a "Dive"Bomber...IIRC it had no dive brakes. Thats a BAD reason , dive breaks are needed when the stresses exceeded the structure for stronger non aerodynamic frame they didn't need dive breaks because they wouldn't go fast enough even in vertical dive. I would prefer some Research which said dive angle was less than 30 degrees from vertical makes a dive bomber. If a plane used a shallow dive like a Ju-88 its not but if it did than its a dive bomber. Sonias may have just gone it at 6000' and dived till 2000' at a similar angle to a Ju 87 and hence gain the accuracy of a dive bomber ( though not the avoidance of AA at 20K' ) . I don't know i just think dive breaks is a terrible way to judge it they determine the length of dive ( in relation to the aerodynamics of the frame) . Note the Ju-88 has dive breaks till 43 but IMHO its not a dive bomber ( though it could) .

EUBanana -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/18/2009 10:27:56 AM)
Wirraways got reclassified as light bombers so now Australia doesn't have a single fighter aircraft. So its not all bad for the Jap-lovers, is it.

bklooste -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/18/2009 10:35:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana Wirraways got reclassified as light bombers so now Australia doesn't have a single fighter aircraft. So its not all bad for the Jap-lovers, is it. But the Wirraway CA-16 had dive breaks ....According to this it should at least be a dive bomber ;-) What about the Boomerang ?

castor troy -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/18/2009 10:58:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bklooste quote: Because it wasn't a "Dive"Bomber...IIRC it had no dive brakes. Thats a BAD reason , dive breaks are needed when the stresses exceeded the structure for stronger non aerodynamic frame they didn't need dive breaks because they wouldn't go fast enough even in vertical dive. I would prefer some Research which said dive angle was less than 30 degrees from vertical makes a dive bomber. If a plane used a shallow dive like a Ju-88 its not but if it did than its a dive bomber. Sonias may have just gone it at 6000' and dived till 2000' at a similar angle to a Ju 87 and hence gain the accuracy of a dive bomber ( though not the avoidance of AA at 20K' ) . I don't know i just think dive breaks is a terrible way to judge it they determine the length of dive ( in relation to the aerodynamics of the frame) . Note the Ju-88 has dive breaks till 43 but IMHO its not a dive bomber ( though it could) . I would want to see a Sonia diving the way a Stuka dived. Guess it would come down in several pieces...

Historiker -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/18/2009 11:14:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana Wirraways got reclassified as light bombers so now Australia doesn't have a single fighter aircraft. So its not all bad for the Jap-lovers, is it. If we should ever play together, you can have 1000 Wirraway fighters. Even the Nate is an air-superiority fighter against that thing...

treespider -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/18/2009 11:43:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bklooste quote: Because it wasn't a "Dive"Bomber...IIRC it had no dive brakes. Thats a BAD reason , dive breaks are needed when the stresses exceeded the structure for stronger non aerodynamic frame they didn't need dive breaks because they wouldn't go fast enough even in vertical dive. I would prefer some Research which said dive angle was less than 30 degrees from vertical makes a dive bomber. If a plane used a shallow dive like a Ju-88 its not but if it did than its a dive bomber. Sonias may have just gone it at 6000' and dived till 2000' at a similar angle to a Ju 87 and hence gain the accuracy of a dive bomber ( though not the avoidance of AA at 20K' ) . I don't know i just think dive breaks is a terrible way to judge it they determine the length of dive ( in relation to the aerodynamics of the frame) . Note the Ju-88 has dive breaks till 43 but IMHO its not a dive bomber ( though it could) . So its a BAD reason to not classify something as something it really wasn't? Francillon makes no mention of the KI-51 being utilized as a dive-bomber, but does provide the description: "Single-engined ground attack and tactical reconnaisance aircraft. All metal construction with fabric controlled surfaces." whereas Francillon specifically describes the D3A Val as: "Single engine carrier borne and land based dive bomber or bomber trainer." The book Dive Bomber in the Stackpole Military History Series says this about the Ki-51- "...in its primary role as a scout the bombs were light." "Code named 'Sonia' by the Allies, the Ki-51 was a very successful type in its limited dive bombing role,..." So taking those descriptions into consideration, IN ADDITION, to the fact it had no dive brakes the designer probably decided the Sonia should be classified as a Light Bomber instead of a Dive Bomber. As mentioned if you disagree there is also the editor.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/18/2009 12:13:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bklooste quote: Because it wasn't a "Dive"Bomber...IIRC it had no dive brakes. Thats a BAD reason , dive breaks are needed when the stresses exceeded the structure for stronger non aerodynamic frame they didn't need dive breaks because they wouldn't go fast enough even in vertical dive. I would prefer some Research which said dive angle was less than 30 degrees from vertical makes a dive bomber. If a plane used a shallow dive like a Ju-88 its not but if it did than its a dive bomber. This is called "Glide Bombing", not "Dive Bombing"! And a Ju-88 COULD dive at 70+ degrees, which none of the IJA light bombers were capable of. Sonias may have just gone it at 6000' and dived till 2000' at a similar angle to a Ju 87 and hence gain the accuracy of a dive bomber ( though not the avoidance of AA at 20K' ) . I don't know i just think dive breaks is a terrible way to judge it they determine the length of dive ( in relation to the aerodynamics of the frame) . Note the Ju-88 has dive breaks till 43 but IMHO its not a dive bomber ( though it could) . The Japanese Army's close support aircraft were built for and operated in the same manner as the Red Army's Su-2 and Il-2 Attack Bombers. Sturmoviks couldn't "dive bomb", and neither could Sonias or Anns or Lilys or anything else the IJA owned. The Japanese just forgot to add the armor that made the Russians effective, and were left with the worst of both worlds.

PMCN -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/18/2009 12:46:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mynok Don't go below 6000' because then you switch skill sets to LowGnd from GndB. I have asked about this and finally in a totally different place I get the answer. Thank you, things like this should be in the manual...I will now move my bombers up a few thousand feet from (4000 to 6000). Explains a bit why maybe they haven't been doing so good. At least due to inertia I left my main bomber force at 7000. They now have leader skill focus ground attack and skills in the 60-80s. By fluke of luck I have my naval bombing done at 6000' though, of course, hitting a ship with a bomb is hard...15 level bombers missed a CVL off borneao one time. Another thing is that target density should be factored in. I sent my Chinese bombers to attack a force of 50K men moving down a road in open rice paddies...I killed 30 troops...uhm. This is what we call a "target rich environment" and while I didn't expect thousands killed 30 troops is a wee tad bit on the low side. Columns of men and guns moving down a road are difficult to miss compared to men in fox holes.

Streptokok -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/18/2009 1:08:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Paul McNeely quote: ORIGINAL: Mynok Don't go below 6000' because then you switch skill sets to LowGnd from GndB. I have asked about this and finally in a totally different place I get the answer. Thank you, things like this should be in the manual...I will now move my bombers up a few thousand feet from (4000 to 6000). Explains a bit why maybe they haven't been doing so good. At least due to inertia I left my main bomber force at 7000. They now have leader skill focus ground attack and skills in the 60-80s. By fluke of luck I have my naval bombing done at 6000' though, of course, hitting a ship with a bomb is hard...15 level bombers missed a CVL off borneao one time. Another thing is that target density should be factored in. I sent my Chinese bombers to attack a force of 50K men moving down a road in open rice paddies...I killed 30 troops...uhm. This is what we call a "target rich environment" and while I didn't expect thousands killed 30 troops is a wee tad bit on the low side. Columns of men and guns moving down a road are difficult to miss compared to men in fox holes. I send my light bombers on piles of chinese units daily, problem is,as you said, 1 out of 10 attacks kills 30 troops. And no Ida attack ever killed 1 soldier, at least it wasnt mentioned in report. I know no lvl bomber should go below 6000, I asked coz maybe theres something new, like light bombers being used as close support so I wonder if below 6k they would do some damage. Aparently not, tried Idas on 100ft - 1000 ... - 7000ft. Not a single kill in report. So Ida, Mary and Sonias are promptly gounded and replaced by mostly Anns because of Anns 250kg bomb/8 hex range/highest cruise speed among light bombers/they use Ha-5 engine. Some squads were converted to Lillys and will be converted to Lilly DB version when it becomes available. This makes a good Jap decision or does anyone have a better sugestion?

treespider -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/18/2009 1:40:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Paul McNeely Another thing is that target density should be factored in. I sent my Chinese bombers to attack a force of 50K men moving down a road in open rice paddies...I killed 30 troops...uhm. This is what we call a "target rich environment" and while I didn't expect thousands killed 30 troops is a wee tad bit on the low side. Columns of men and guns moving down a road are difficult to miss compared to men in fox holes. Don't confuse poor Chinese pilots with 1930's technology bombing some Japanese strung out on 46 miles of road with the US Air Forces destruction of the Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard.

rattovolante -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/18/2009 1:49:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Streptokok I send my light bombers on piles of chinese units daily, problem is,as you said, 1 out of 10 attacks kills 30 troops. And no Ida attack ever killed 1 soldier, at least it wasnt mentioned in report. Weird, I am having Ida kills reported. This is from my last PBeM turn: quote: Morning Air attack on 78th Chinese Corps, at 84,54 Weather in hex: Clear sky Raid spotted at 13 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 5 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-27b Nate x 1 Ki-36 Ida x 24 No Japanese losses Allied ground losses: 19 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Aircraft Attacking: 24 x Ki-36 Ida bombing from 10000 feet Ground Attack: 4 x 30 kg GP Bomb 1 x Ki-27b Nate diving from 10000' Ground Attack: 2 x 50 kg GP Bomb Of course, low losses for 24 planes, but I think the Chinese troops were in combat mode, not move mode (again, the whole point of most of my light bomber strikes is to force LCU to stay in combat mode). Don't ask me why the Nate joined in, I don't remember what orders I had given the Nate unit... (and IIRC Nates couldn't effectively dive in real life) I will try to take notes of light bomber usage and performance during the next turns... so far I never paid them much attention, but they seemed to work fine to me.

treespider -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/18/2009 1:55:00 PM)
My Ida's work just fine...considering they are not A-10's firing wire guided munitions...they keep the opponent in Combat mode and inflict some disruption....as well as raising the supply requirement of the defending unit. quote: Morning Air attack on 74th Chinese Corps, at 79,57 (Kukong) Weather in hex: Severe storms Raid detected at 28 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 13 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-27b Nate x 7 Ki-36 Ida x 21 Japanese aircraft losses Ki-36 Ida: 1 damaged Allied ground losses: 6 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Aircraft Attacking: 21 x Ki-36 Ida bombing from 15000 feet Ground Attack: 4 x 30 kg GP Bomb

bklooste -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/18/2009 2:19:55 PM)
quote: I would want to see a Sonia diving the way a Stuka dived. Guess it would come down in several pieces... Me too that should be the condition not whether it had Dive Brakes ( eg the Ju88had DIve brakes but was seldom used like a Ju-87 , i could just imaging the pull out for the other crew members) I don't know if the Sonia did but it could dive like a Stuka without dive brakes ! What dive breaks allow you to do is to dive like a Stuka form 20000' instead of 6000' obviously modified by the airframe strength and aerodynamics some planes could prob dive from 20K like a Stuka without Air brakes ( with a v strong un aerodynamic air frame) . Im guessing the team just said no dive breaks so we wont make it a dive bomber. However it may have been used in China just like a Stuka but diving from 6000 feet or even 8-12K and just as accurate. Anyone have some real data on how the Ki-51 was used ?

bklooste -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/18/2009 2:37:08 PM)
quote: Aircraft Attacking: 21 x Ki-36 Ida bombing from 15000 feet Ground Attack: 4 x 30 kg GP Bomb Is that 4 30kg bombs hit or 21 * 4 = 84 * 30 kg bombs dropped ? 6 casualties for 84 30kg bombs is pretty abysmal even by WWI standards. Wouldn't the Japanese have flown MUCH lower vs the Chinese ?

Streptokok -> RE: Jap LBA dive bombers... (9/18/2009 2:44:15 PM)
It should be 21x4 since Ida stats say each a/c carries 4 bomb(lets)...

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.019531