STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question

STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (Full Version)

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

Message

P.Hausser -> STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/9/2010 4:18:20 PM)
Hello, I have a question about strategic bombers on naval attack. I have several times experienced B 17s conducting naval attack on ships currently at sea, and find that they frequently hit the target. The bombing altitudes used have been between 6 000 - 8 000 feet and 9 000 - 11 000 feet. Out of in total 9 individual attack phases with an average of +/ - 10 strategic bombers in average per mission I find their sucsess ratio to be very high - a lot higher than I would assume that B 17s ever could have been on naval attack from any altitude? I am now in May of 1942 and have already lost 2 captiol ships ( 2 heavy cruisers) and one of them was at sea when it was attacked by B 17s, it took 6 500 lbs from them and sunk. I would assume that this ship would be doing 30 knots, shooting all its anti aircraft-guns and zig-zaging... Of course the few B17 s could have been lucky this time, however I find them to have "Dauntless like" preformance against cargo-ships when operating from lower altitudes... I understand that many of you operates with HR´s regarding this? [&:][&:]

tocaff -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/9/2010 4:23:14 PM)
B-17s had a hard enough time hitting a stationary target, let alone a moving one. Many players set HRs with a minimum altitude for 4E bombers set to Naval Attack or ban it altogether. I think that the use of 4E bombers should be banned for ground attack roles also. I believe it was Operation Cobra in Europe where the 4E bombers plastered their targets and when the ground pounders went to do their thing they couldn't advance due to the severe cratering of the area...end of operation.

chesmart -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/9/2010 4:24:20 PM)
You are lucky my bombers with experience 60ish and nav exp 60ish are lucky if they hit a ship every 20 attacks at altitude 5000. Now if I put them at 100 thats another story but the casualties are horrendous.

P.Hausser -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/9/2010 4:30:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: che200 You are lucky my bombers with experience 60ish and nav exp 60ish are lucky if they hit a ship every 20 attacks at altitude 5000. Now if I put them at 100 thats another story but the casualties are horrendous. Their LowN pilotskill are probably not as developed.

chesmart -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/9/2010 4:47:01 PM)
Yes I train them at the same altitude I bomb. Do your planes attack TFs in the open or in port ?

Joe D. -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/9/2010 4:51:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tocaff ... I believe it was Operation Cobra in Europe where the 4E bombers plastered their targets and when the ground pounders went to do their thing they couldn't advance due to the severe cratering of the area...end of operation. Todd, I think that was the Normandy break-out op, and if I recall, the bombers mistakenly bombed Bradley's own troops not once but twice!

sfbaytf -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/9/2010 5:46:54 PM)
We have no house rule in my game. In general I've refrained from bombing ships with 4Es and when I do it's usually at 8000 feet or more, with lousy results. however when I get desperate or just feel mean I will send some B-24s on a 100 feet shipping raid. They do get beat up by fighters and flak, but they are also pretty effective. I get a good number of 500 pound bomb hits on ship. Occasionally I'll get some 50 cal hits from their strafing to boot. Usually after one of my opponents "Imperial Nuclear subs" scores a hit, I'll retaliate with a 100 foot B-24 raid on his ships.

Fletcher -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/9/2010 6:22:40 PM)
House Rules will be the best option... a) NO 4E bombers attacks at Naval Attack or b) Any 4E bombers at Naval Attack mission must be at 10,000+ feet altitude. Your allied opponent could use his B-25/A-20/B-26s for the skip-bombing tactics avoiding use of his 4Es (B-17 were used in RL with amazing outcomes). best wishes

mike scholl 1 -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/9/2010 9:49:46 PM)
Couple of things to remember here. B-17's/24's got a poor rep for bombing ships at sea in the Pacific..., but the bombing results generally cited were from A/C flying "naval search" singly or in very small numbers from high altitudes. Exceptions where they were on "naval attack" are mostly oddities like Midway where everything "in the barn" was tossed against KB. Actual attacks on shipping by the "heavies" were in general "port attacks", where they attacked from lower altitudes with fair success. But there simply aren't any examples to compare of 50+ 4-eng. bombers making a naval strike, so it's impossible to say what they could or couldn't do in such circumstances.

jrcar -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/9/2010 11:22:56 PM)
In the DEI B-17 were used to attack Japanese naval forces, but most of the time that was while/near unloading. These were small packets of around 8 aircraft (all that was available at the time) from memory. It is a legitimate mission for them, and if the Allies are training on Naval attack then they aren't training/using them on something else! I'm in favour though of limiting 4E use from bases, such as no more than a group (and all from the same group) at a base. This limits early war raids to a max of 32 aircrfat (4x8), but many groups have only 3 squadrons, and some of the most useful groups on 2 that can be in 4E bombers. Cheers Rob

Central Blue -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/9/2010 11:52:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: P.Hausser Hello, I have a question about strategic bombers on naval attack. I have several times experienced B 17s conducting naval attack on ships currently at sea, and find that they frequently hit the target. The bombing altitudes used have been between 6 000 - 8 000 feet and 9 000 - 11 000 feet. Out of in total 9 individual attack phases with an average of +/ - 10 strategic bombers in average per mission I find their sucsess ratio to be very high - a lot higher than I would assume that B 17s ever could have been on naval attack from any altitude? I am now in May of 1942 and have already lost 2 captiol ships ( 2 heavy cruisers) and one of them was at sea when it was attacked by B 17s, it took 6 500 lbs from them and sunk. I would assume that this ship would be doing 30 knots, shooting all its anti aircraft-guns and zig-zaging... Of course the few B17 s could have been lucky this time, however I find them to have "Dauntless like" preformance against cargo-ships when operating from lower altitudes... I understand that many of you operates with HR´s regarding this? [&:][&:] It happened IRL. For example, B-24's of the 308th bombardment group received a DUC for interdiction of shipping in the South China Sea. B-17's flew at various levels in the Battle of the Bismark Sea. That's just scratching the surface. From Air Force Magazine: On Oct. 15, 1944, five months after joining the Group, Carswell won his first major distinction. Late that afternoon, he took off from an advance base at Liuchow on a solo sweep over the South China Sea. About 150 miles east of Hong Kong, he found a formation of six naval vessels. In a first attack through the concentrated fire of those heavily armed warships, Carswell's crew got two direct hits on a cruiser, blowing it up. Using his remaining bombs, Carswell made three runs on a destroyer, scoring one direct hit and two near misses that put the ship out of action.

spence -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/9/2010 11:53:39 PM)
quote: b) Any 4E bombers at Naval Attack mission must be at 10,000+ feet altitude. The 4E bomber could do and did do quite well against ships manuevering at sea when: 1) it was employed at low level 2) the commander accepted the inevitable losses that occurred to enemy flak as "the price of doing business". Way too much stock is placed on the famous photos taken of the KB carriers at Midway being attacked from 20000 feet by B-17s. Attacks by B-17s and B-24s at the Battle of the Bismarck Sea were made from between 6-8000 feet and IIRC a DD and several transports were hit and disabled by them even before the B-25s did their skip-bomb thing. The USN employed patrol bomber PB4Y-1s to attack shipping underway at sea from very low (3 digit) altitudes; the rule of thumb being that 100 feet of altitude for each 100 lbs of bomb would allow for only a slight bump from the bomb blast. At Uboat.net there is a series of photos of an attack on a German Uboat in the Atlantic by both USN and USAAF planes. The USAAF B-25s are attacking from 5000. The USN bombers (forgot what type(s)) are much much closer and are taking photos that almost show what color the flak gunners' eyes are. www.uboatarchive.net/U848.htm [image]local://upfiles/9007/15A2AB9263084F00BE90D212669F8C2A.jpg[/image] Not the Uboat but you get the idea.

Jim D Burns -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/10/2010 2:57:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fletcher House Rules will be the best option... a) NO 4E bombers attacks at Naval Attack or b) Any 4E bombers at Naval Attack mission must be at 10,000+ feet altitude. Your allied opponent could use his B-25/A-20/B-26s for the skip-bombing tactics avoiding use of his 4Es (B-17 were used in RL with amazing outcomes). best wishes Banning low level 4e attacks outright is the opposite extreme of having no limits set. A good medium can be reached if you simply use the house rule my opponent and I are using in our current PBEM game. Only one 4e unit per base can be set to a mission lower than 10k (any kind of mission, not just naval attacks). That way you can set 200 4e planes to naval attack if you want, but only one of the units can be at low altitude. The high level planes may score an occasional hit, but you’re not going to sweep the seas clean of enemy shipping with this rule. Jim

Halsey -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/10/2010 3:28:14 AM)
The USN/USMC 4E patrols should not be included in the restriction. I agree with the rest of the ruling though.[;)]

witpqs -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/10/2010 4:31:57 AM)
With the separate skills for Naval rather than Ground bombing I just don't think its' necessary.

Cyber Me -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/10/2010 4:59:16 AM)
B17s helped indirectly to sink the Hiei. As you Hiei was seriously damaged during the Battle of Guadalcanal suffering significant damage to steering, making it difficult for Hiei to disengage during the night. But damage control on Hiei had restored some steering and increases in speed. And Hiei was able to get slowly under way. But at dawn B17s from Noumea appeared on the horizon. Abe was forced to increase Hiei's speed to 15kn to avoid beginnning a sitting duck while near stationary during the repairs. The speed increase of put off the aim of the B17s causing them to miss the Hiei. But the increased pressures on the hull and steering caused during this short stint of full power undid a lot of the work the damage control teams had made. Ade was then forced to consider towing Hiei to safety but the threat of sub attacks and the appearance of even more planes soon added to Hiei's even worse unseaworthiness. An abandonned Hiei sank later that night.

castor troy -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/10/2010 8:44:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: P.Hausser Hello, I have a question about strategic bombers on naval attack. I have several times experienced B 17s conducting naval attack on ships currently at sea, and find that they frequently hit the target. The bombing altitudes used have been between 6 000 - 8 000 feet and 9 000 - 11 000 feet. Out of in total 9 individual attack phases with an average of +/ - 10 strategic bombers in average per mission I find their sucsess ratio to be very high - a lot higher than I would assume that B 17s ever could have been on naval attack from any altitude? I am now in May of 1942 and have already lost 2 captiol ships ( 2 heavy cruisers) and one of them was at sea when it was attacked by B 17s, it took 6 500 lbs from them and sunk. I would assume that this ship would be doing 30 knots, shooting all its anti aircraft-guns and zig-zaging... Of course the few B17 s could have been lucky this time, however I find them to have "Dauntless like" preformance against cargo-ships when operating from lower altitudes... I understand that many of you operates with HR´s regarding this? [&:][&:] my PBEM has got a hr on 4Es, the (the old one from WITP) that the Allied aren´t allowed to do naval bombing with 4Es (non Navy) below 10.000ft after 6/42. While I´ve used the bombers to some extend (9/42 now) they were far from beating everything in nav attacks. If weather is good, you can achieve nice results, as soon as you get a rainy day, you won´t hit anything with them.

castor troy -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/10/2010 8:48:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jrcar In the DEI B-17 were used to attack Japanese naval forces, but most of the time that was while/near unloading. These were small packets of around 8 aircraft (all that was available at the time) from memory. It is a legitimate mission for them, and if the Allies are training on Naval attack then they aren't training/using them on something else! I'm in favour though of limiting 4E use from bases, such as no more than a group (and all from the same group) at a base. This limits early war raids to a max of 32 aircrfat (4x8), but many groups have only 3 squadrons, and some of the most useful groups on 2 that can be in 4E bombers. Cheers Rob not really true jrcar [;)]. You train the pilots, not the bombers. And you can train the pilots in a crappy ac somewhere and then transfer them with 70 nav skill into a B-17 squadron to fly succesful naval strikes the next day without ever being flown in a B-17 before.

castor troy -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/10/2010 8:49:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Central Blue quote: ORIGINAL: P.Hausser Hello, I have a question about strategic bombers on naval attack. I have several times experienced B 17s conducting naval attack on ships currently at sea, and find that they frequently hit the target. The bombing altitudes used have been between 6 000 - 8 000 feet and 9 000 - 11 000 feet. Out of in total 9 individual attack phases with an average of +/ - 10 strategic bombers in average per mission I find their sucsess ratio to be very high - a lot higher than I would assume that B 17s ever could have been on naval attack from any altitude? I am now in May of 1942 and have already lost 2 captiol ships ( 2 heavy cruisers) and one of them was at sea when it was attacked by B 17s, it took 6 500 lbs from them and sunk. I would assume that this ship would be doing 30 knots, shooting all its anti aircraft-guns and zig-zaging... Of course the few B17 s could have been lucky this time, however I find them to have "Dauntless like" preformance against cargo-ships when operating from lower altitudes... I understand that many of you operates with HR´s regarding this? [&:][&:] It happened IRL. For example, B-24's of the 308th bombardment group received a DUC for interdiction of shipping in the South China Sea. B-17's flew at various levels in the Battle of the Bismark Sea. That's just scratching the surface. From Air Force Magazine: On Oct. 15, 1944, five months after joining the Group, Carswell won his first major distinction. Late that afternoon, he took off from an advance base at Liuchow on a solo sweep over the South China Sea. About 150 miles east of Hong Kong, he found a formation of six naval vessels. In a first attack through the concentrated fire of those heavily armed warships, Carswell's crew got two direct hits on a cruiser, blowing it up. Using his remaining bombs, Carswell made three runs on a destroyer, scoring one direct hit and two near misses that put the ship out of action. how much hits did he really score and what were those shis?

mike scholl 1 -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/10/2010 11:52:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fletcher House Rules will be the best option... a) NO 4E bombers attacks at Naval Attack or b) Any 4E bombers at Naval Attack mission must be at 10,000+ feet altitude. I might be willing to consider something like this..., if you also restricted Kates to no "naval attacks" except with torpedoes. Got real tired of seeing them scoring 50-75% hits and more from 9,000 feet against shipping in the open sea. That's WAY better than they did against anchored targets at PH...., in fact it's way better than they ever did against any bombing target!

Fletcher -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/10/2010 12:39:49 PM)
[&:] misunderstood ! When Kates flies at 9.000 feet, they down to 200 feet to launch their torpedoes (and eat Flak at 9,000 firts and then at 200 feet before launching)!

Nomad -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/10/2010 1:10:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fletcher [&:] misunderstood ! When Kates flies at 9.000 feet, they down to 200 feet to launch their torpedoes (and eat Flak at 9,000 firts and then at 200 feet before launching)! If you set them to not use torpedoes they use 250kg bombs and they are deadly accurate.

Fletcher -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/10/2010 1:33:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nomad quote: ORIGINAL: Fletcher [&:] misunderstood ! When Kates flies at 9.000 feet, they down to 200 feet to launch their torpedoes (and eat Flak at 9,000 firts and then at 200 feet before launching)! If you set them to not use torpedoes they use 250kg bombs and they are deadly accurate. that´s right ! but I misunderstood about torpedoes-armed Kates launching attacks at 9.000 feet.. I suppose my traslate is not correct :) Excuse me then

mike scholl 1 -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/10/2010 3:22:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nomad quote: ORIGINAL: Fletcher [&:] misunderstood ! When Kates flies at 9.000 feet, they down to 200 feet to launch their torpedoes (and eat Flak at 9,000 firts and then at 200 feet before launching)! If you set them to not use torpedoes they use 250kg bombs and they are deadly accurate. Aha! Another victim of "Kate Heavy Bombers".

Central Blue -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/10/2010 4:18:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: Central Blue quote: ORIGINAL: P.Hausser Hello, I have a question about strategic bombers on naval attack. I have several times experienced B 17s conducting naval attack on ships currently at sea, and find that they frequently hit the target. The bombing altitudes used have been between 6 000 - 8 000 feet and 9 000 - 11 000 feet. Out of in total 9 individual attack phases with an average of +/ - 10 strategic bombers in average per mission I find their sucsess ratio to be very high - a lot higher than I would assume that B 17s ever could have been on naval attack from any altitude? I am now in May of 1942 and have already lost 2 captiol ships ( 2 heavy cruisers) and one of them was at sea when it was attacked by B 17s, it took 6 500 lbs from them and sunk. I would assume that this ship would be doing 30 knots, shooting all its anti aircraft-guns and zig-zaging... Of course the few B17 s could have been lucky this time, however I find them to have "Dauntless like" preformance against cargo-ships when operating from lower altitudes... I understand that many of you operates with HR´s regarding this? [&:][&:] It happened IRL. For example, B-24's of the 308th bombardment group received a DUC for interdiction of shipping in the South China Sea. B-17's flew at various levels in the Battle of the Bismark Sea. That's just scratching the surface. From Air Force Magazine: On Oct. 15, 1944, five months after joining the Group, Carswell won his first major distinction. Late that afternoon, he took off from an advance base at Liuchow on a solo sweep over the South China Sea. About 150 miles east of Hong Kong, he found a formation of six naval vessels. In a first attack through the concentrated fire of those heavily armed warships, Carswell's crew got two direct hits on a cruiser, blowing it up. Using his remaining bombs, Carswell made three runs on a destroyer, scoring one direct hit and two near misses that put the ship out of action. how much hits did he really score and what were those shis? Try your favorite search engine. [:D]

Cap Mandrake -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/10/2010 4:50:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: P.Hausser Hello, I have a question about strategic bombers on naval attack. Hello, I have a question re. your Wikileaks link in your sig. It is overtly political and has no business here. And it is selectively edited bull ****..did I mention that?

P.Hausser -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/10/2010 5:36:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake Hello, I have a question re. your Wikileaks link in your sig. It is overtly political and has no business here. And it is selectively edited bull ****..did I mention that? Sorry, I don't know exactly what article you are referring to but I think it is this one. About the last part of your sentence US Officials has verified its authentic. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/04/06/us_military_official_confirms_video_is_of_controversial_firefight_in_baghdad/ I don't see what's political about my sig, it is pointing to a Website who im part of developing and the site is working on multiple different project of a purely "news" nature. If it is improper then I shall remove it of course. The site (wikileaks) is located in a "information harbor" and may publish things without having to take considerations to anything. The site has specialized itself in publishing state and company secrets who can not be published in most other western as well as estern medias due to local law. Boston Globe could not publish it either, but they link'ed to wikileaks instead.

witpqs -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/10/2010 6:34:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: jrcar In the DEI B-17 were used to attack Japanese naval forces, but most of the time that was while/near unloading. These were small packets of around 8 aircraft (all that was available at the time) from memory. It is a legitimate mission for them, and if the Allies are training on Naval attack then they aren't training/using them on something else! I'm in favour though of limiting 4E use from bases, such as no more than a group (and all from the same group) at a base. This limits early war raids to a max of 32 aircrfat (4x8), but many groups have only 3 squadrons, and some of the most useful groups on 2 that can be in 4E bombers. Cheers Rob not really true jrcar [;)]. You train the pilots, not the bombers. And you can train the pilots in a crappy ac somewhere and then transfer them with 70 nav skill into a B-17 squadron to fly succesful naval strikes the next day without ever being flown in a B-17 before. In reality the pilots would take time to get up to speed in any new airplane and that is a limitation in the entire pilot/airframe model. It applies to all pilot aircraft combination, and so equally affects both sides. However, in reality also, the skills of naval attack are retained by pilots no matter what platform they are flying.

Cap Mandrake -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/10/2010 6:46:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: P.Hausser quote: ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake Hello, I have a question re. your Wikileaks link in your sig. It is overtly political and has no business here. And it is selectively edited bull ***..did I mention that? Sorry, I don't know exactly what article you are referring to but I think it is this one. About the last part of your sentence US Officials has verified its authentic. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/04/06/us_military_official_confirms_video_is_of_controversial_firefight_in_baghdad/ I don't see what's political about my sig, it is pointing to a Website who im part of developing and the site is working on multiple different project of a purely "news" nature. If it is improper then I shall remove it of course. The site (wikileaks) is located in a "information harbor" and may publish things without having to take considerations to anything. The site has specialized itself in publishing state and company secrets who can not be published in most other western as well as estern medias due to local law. Boston Globe could not publish it either, but they link'ed to wikileaks instead. The images are authentic, but the sequence has been selectively edited to remove exculpatory video and audio. It has also been digitally zoomed and slowed down at points to allow careful scrutiny (without advising the viewer), which is the type of the thing that....surprise, surprise...a pilot does not have time or the ability to do in the middle of a battle. If you think there is anything about the release or the pr blitz associated with the release that is of a "purely news" nature then you have blinders on. quote:* The site (wikileaks) is located in a "information harbor" and may publish things without having to take considerations to anything. Yeah..no kidding. Like standards of journalistic behavior, you mean? It is a political document start to finish. It is purposely designed to malign the US and its military, a goal which you evidently share.

P.Hausser -> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question (4/10/2010 7:18:22 PM)
ok, well in my mind Wikipedia nor Wikileaks has any hidden agendas. Both has won a numerious amount of awards and prizes... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks This is the wrong forum for debating this, so lets get back on topic.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.890625