RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (Full Version)

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



Message

oldman45 -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/3/2010 3:09:46 AM)

Skip bombing was in fact not easy. You had to maintain speed and altitude on the run in, if you released too soon or too late you would miss the ship. There are a few photographs around the net of an A-20 or B-25 getting caught in its own bomb blast.



mike scholl 1 -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/3/2010 5:01:03 AM)

No form of bombing was "easy"...., except maybe "area bombing". But there is no rational justification for making "skip bombing" as difficult as the game makes it. I mean, dive bombers sometimes hit the ground or the ocean if they didn't pull out soon enough. Do they require a skill of "80"?



EUBanana -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/4/2010 10:54:46 AM)

When you use attack bombers you do get some special skip bombing messages. "Attack bomber strafes target!" or something like that. They bomb as well as strafe, though/

Beaufighters at 100' also seem to be able to strafe AND bomb at the same time.

I think the bombs are far less accurate than the guns though, so you get the impression that bombs are not being dropped at all - I'm pretty sure that they are, they are just missing.



spence -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/4/2010 11:03:31 AM)

The problem with that is that skip-bombing was far more accurate than level bombing from altitude and the historical record shows a much higher percentage of hits.



spence -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/4/2010 11:04:18 AM)

The problem with that is that skip-bombing was far more accurate than level bombing from altitude and the historical record shows a much higher percentage of hits.

The first attacks in the Battle of the Bismarck Sea scored hits with 28 out of 37 bombs dropped.




treespider -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/4/2010 11:27:35 AM)

Why did not the entire Allied Air Force skip bomb from day 1 of the war?



spence -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/4/2010 11:47:37 AM)

Because the doctrine (way of training and of planning) of the USAAF was to employ bombers for high altitude precision bombing. So that's what the upper echelons of command wanted and that is the way the USAAF fought except when individual officers decided to stick their personal necks out trying something different and were fortunate by having it work.

Even so a plane commander could be reprimanded by for not following doctrine:
In the last fading light of twilight a PV-1 attacked and sank a coastal freighter. The pilot deviated from doctrine which called for multiple attacks and instead dropped his entire load in the first attack. Three of the bombs missed but the fourth struck home and apparently detonated a munitions cargo. The pilot's statement that he felt there was not enough light (time) left for a second attack was termed inadequate in the endorsement to the official report of the action. So even success is not foolproof.



treespider -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/4/2010 11:50:30 AM)

Ahhh... so the game is coded to reflect the doctrine of the USAAF?



spence -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/4/2010 12:09:42 PM)

It penalizes low level attacks (not just skip-bombing) by most bombers by halving the bombload when attacking below 6000 ft (I think that's the dividing line). Can't think of a technical reason for that.

From what I can see in the data base all USN 2E and 4E bombers will suffer the same penalty even though their doctrine from before the war for naval attack was
"don't fire til you see the whites of their eyes" . Due to a bureaucratic agreement between the Army and the Navy the Navy didn't have any 2E/4E planes (bombers) other than amphibs pre-war but that was the doctrine for the patrol planes from which all the 2E/4E derived.



treespider -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/4/2010 12:53:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

It penalizes low level attacks (not just skip-bombing) by most bombers by halving the bombload when attacking below 6000 ft (I think that's the dividing line). Can't think of a technical reason for that.



So why did not all bombers attack below 6000 feet during the war?



mike scholl 1 -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/4/2010 5:03:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Why did not the entire Allied Air Force skip bomb from day 1 of the war?



Because the "attack profile" for the mission wasn't worked out until the end of 1942..., and the "gunships" that made it so effective weren't available until early 1943?



mike scholl 1 -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/4/2010 5:07:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

So why did not all bombers attack below 6000 feet during the war?




Against naval targets, almost all did! Early in the war, B-17's were so valuable for reccon they were generally limited to high altitude attacks which proved very ineffective..., but as more and better A/C became available even B-24's were going after naval targets from low altitude.



Nikademus -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/4/2010 5:21:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

So why did not all bombers attack below 6000 feet during the war?



Threat level.





crsutton -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/4/2010 7:15:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

So why did not all bombers attack below 6000 feet during the war?



Threat level.






Yep, my friend's dad was a navy patrol pilot and flew venturas and PBYs. He told me that his prewar training focused on high altitidue bombing as that was the doctrine for all level bomber pilots. But once the fighting started it quickly became apparent that low level was the only way. New Navy crews that arrived after 1943 rarely got any training in high altitude bombing.

He told me that they only time he ever flew his planes at high altitudes was when they "needed to ice up some beer".



mike scholl 1 -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/4/2010 8:21:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

So why did not all bombers attack below 6000 feet during the war?



Threat level.






Yep, my friend's dad was a navy patrol pilot and flew venturas and PBYs. He told me that his prewar training focused on high altitidue bombing as that was the doctrine for all level bomber pilots. But once the fighting started it quickly became apparent that low level was the only way. New Navy crews that arrived after 1943 rarely got any training in high altitude bombing.

He told me that they only time he ever flew his planes at high altitudes was when they "needed to ice up some beer".



EXACTLY! There is no justification in history for the difficulty the game imposes on low level naval attacks. In fact, as crsutton points out, it was easier and much more effective. Which explains the thousands of "gunships" built to use this attack profile exclusively.

So can someone "in the know" please explain why the game doesn't recognize this fact?



JohnDillworth -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/4/2010 8:53:52 PM)

a word on "doctrine". this was the law, the way the military organization did things and it came from the top. It was not easy to change and it was not done below the high command level. Doctrine was what altitude your bombers attacked from, what formation your fighters flew in and how deep you set your torpedoes. The high altitude naval bombing doctrine did not work and was changed. the torpedoes did not work and and it took commanders going against doctrine to try and make them work. But they were so f&^*$d up that changing the depth only help a little. General Kenny was high enough up and smart enough to modify his doctrine, and modify his planes in the field. Another example was B-29 bombing of the home islands. High altitude daylight raids had some success, but low level incendiary raids were devastating



Nikademus -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/4/2010 9:07:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Yep, my friend's dad was a navy patrol pilot and flew venturas and PBYs. He told me that his prewar training focused on high altitidue bombing as that was the doctrine for all level bomber pilots. But once the fighting started it quickly became apparent that low level was the only way. New Navy crews that arrived after 1943 rarely got any training in high altitude bombing.

He told me that they only time he ever flew his planes at high altitudes was when they "needed to ice up some beer".


It'd be preferable for the accuracy bonus as long as the AA and intercept threat didn't outweigh it.




castor troy -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/5/2010 7:38:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

So why did not all bombers attack below 6000 feet during the war?



Threat level.






Yep, my friend's dad was a navy patrol pilot and flew venturas and PBYs. He told me that his prewar training focused on high altitidue bombing as that was the doctrine for all level bomber pilots. But once the fighting started it quickly became apparent that low level was the only way. New Navy crews that arrived after 1943 rarely got any training in high altitude bombing.

He told me that they only time he ever flew his planes at high altitudes was when they "needed to ice up some beer".



EXACTLY! There is no justification in history for the difficulty the game imposes on low level naval attacks. In fact, as crsutton points out, it was easier and much more effective. Which explains the thousands of "gunships" built to use this attack profile exclusively.

So can someone "in the know" please explain why the game doesn't recognize this fact?





I canīt see where this problem with lownav attacks is because my bombers on lownav work just fine, in fact they seem to be working too fine. Every IJN convoy ending up in range of my bombers on lownav is chewed up. And I bet if I had figured out that lownav would be the way to go from day one, then I had 70 lownav skilled crews in February 42. Similar to real life, I first trained everyone on navbomb, to find out it wasnīt effective at all. Then I changed "doctrine" and started training lownav. Now that I field 70 skilled lownav crews Iīve pretty much got the equivalent of the IJN shipkillers armed with torps. They can do more damage to anything with torps, but my bombers hardly can be stopped.



EUBanana -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/5/2010 3:06:26 PM)

Indeed. Training is very relevant. So you aren't really being penalised beyond not starting with any lownav trained pilots.

Unfortunately there arent all that many Allied bombers until the end of 1942 so really early war skip bombing is almost a moot point.



USSAmerica -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/5/2010 3:32:53 PM)

So is the consensus that given high skill values for LowNav, bombing from 100' increases accuracy and number of hits enough to outweigh the 50% bomb load carried?

If so, I'm going to get a couple of backwater bomber squadrons started on LowNav training right away.  [:)]



castor troy -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/5/2010 4:32:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

So is the consensus that given high skill values for LowNav, bombing from 100' increases accuracy and number of hits enough to outweigh the 50% bomb load carried?

If so, I'm going to get a couple of backwater bomber squadrons started on LowNav training right away.  [:)]



Iīve had Bolos with 2x500lb bombs achieve loads of hits on an enemy xAKL TF just recently. Not skip bombing at 100ft but bombing at 1000ft. Due to lownav skill also valid for skip bombing, I doubt they would have scored less hits on 100ft. Havenīt tested it though so I canīt be sure about. If they would score less hits it could be a flaw though.

Anyway, halve the bombload isnīt really a disadvantage with my 70skilled crews. A B-25 still drops 3 bombs and thatīs easily enough to score hits. A B-25D1 drops itīs full load.



JohnDillworth -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/5/2010 4:50:44 PM)

quote:

So is the consensus that given high skill values for LowNav, bombing from 100' increases accuracy and number of hits enough to outweigh the 50% bomb load carried?

If so, I'm going to get a couple of backwater bomber squadrons started on LowNav training right away.  

I think so. I have a bunch training now and it's April 42. I am getting hits at 100ft from B-26's. The combat report does not mention skip bombing so I presume it is just regular bombing for now. Some of the pilots have low N at highs 60's low 70's so in a few months I should have some hard core skip bombers



mike scholl 1 -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/5/2010 5:07:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

So is the consensus that given high skill values for LowNav, bombing from 100' increases accuracy and number of hits enough to outweigh the 50% bomb load carried?



Something else I'd like to see the justification for. When LeMay brought his B-29's down to lower level night attacks they were able to INCREASE the bomb load, not decrease it.



USSAmerica -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/5/2010 5:19:06 PM)

Probably a game balance mechanism to keep low level naval bombing from taking over the game.



JohnDillworth -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/5/2010 5:41:30 PM)

quote:

Probably a game balance mechanism to keep low level naval bombing from taking over the game.
Perhaps, like I said, I am going to train like hell for it to create the optimum conditions and pilots. If it does not work then it is a "feature".
The way I see it is the chance to make allies "Netties". Long reach medium range aircraft that are deadly to unprotected shipping. Of course by the time the conditions are right, the Japanese offense bold is hot. At least against the AI



Rob Brennan UK -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/5/2010 5:45:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

So is the consensus that given high skill values for LowNav, bombing from 100' increases accuracy and number of hits enough to outweigh the 50% bomb load carried?



Something else I'd like to see the justification for. When LeMay brought his B-29's down to lower level night attacks they were able to INCREASE the bomb load, not decrease it.




By flying through thicker air and avoiding the jet stream. Going from 10k alt to 100ft does make a differance in air density but no where near enough as the B29's did under LeMay.

Also flying at wave top height really takes a toll on pilot fatigue and a plane needs as much agility as possible to avoid crashing into the waves. Maybe this is the raison-d'etre for 1/2 bomb load.



mike scholl 1 -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/5/2010 7:55:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

By flying through thicker air and avoiding the jet stream. Going from 10k alt to 100ft does make a differance in air density but no where near enough as the B29's did under LeMay. Agreed..., but it in no way justifies HALVING the bombload...

Also flying at wave top height really takes a toll on pilot fatigue and a plane needs as much agility as possible to avoid crashing into the waves. Maybe this is the raison-d'etre for 1/2 bomb load.


Except that they didn't fly the whole mission at "wave-top height"..., just a few minutes during the attack itself. We need a better justification than that, Rob. It might make some sense for the "gunships" with their heavy armament and ammunition loadout..., but then where are the hundreds of .50 cal "hits" we should be seeing? And why do most of them never drop ANY bombs at all?



rtrapasso -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/5/2010 9:12:08 PM)

The USAAF didn't work out skip bombing until 1943 (iirc)... it isn't just dropping bombs from low altitude, they also had to make special delay fuses so that you didn't blow yourself up with your target... not sure they always got it right though, as some folks have pointed out... i expect a normally fused bomb would explode when it hit the water rather than skip.

The Brits WERE bombing from "masthead height" from the beginning of the Pacific war, but they hadn't developed the "skip" technique, i AFAIK they didn't have special bombs... their results weren't nearly as good as the later "skip" technique. i expect they had a lot of problems with the bombers being damaged with their own bombs... i don't recall the exact details, but i am pretty sure they pretty much abandoned it due to high casualties.

Back in the OLD WITP, i think it was specifically stated (on at least one occasion) that the restrictions on skip bombing were a play-balance issue.



Lecivius -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/5/2010 11:54:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Back in the OLD WITP, i think it was specifically stated (on at least one occasion) that the restrictions on skip bombing were a play-balance issue.


Ok, I'm seriously NOT trying to be argumentative here. I've already made mention I'm an AFB, so my POV may be wrong, but how can you set up a balance issue where the Japanese side has so many advantages ( Kate accuracy, aerial torpedo accuracy, AV values, RORSAT capabilities etc) and keep taking away what ever the allied side found that worked and overcame their deficiencies (doctrine, torpedoes etc.) . From my amateur POV this appears sorta biased.



Central Blue -> RE: Low Level Naval Attacks (8/6/2010 12:22:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

you have to train strafe too

How does one train to strafe?


Fill up a few of your restricted fighter units with low air skill pilots and set them to train on strafing. You can then rotate them into the early bomber units that you know will upgrade to an attack bomber when they reach strafing skill=60 and begin training them for low nav, low ground, nav search, and then general to polish their air skill and max their defense and experience. By the time you have sufficient numbers of attack bombers for sustained operations you should have a nicely trained cadre. You will certainly have a fine force for a surge like the Battle of the Bismark Sea.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.125