ATTACK BOMBER

ATTACK BOMBER (Full Version)

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

Message

Herrbear -> ATTACK BOMBER (8/13/2010 9:26:51 PM)
A number of bombers, especially various types of B-25s, are designated "Attack Bomber". In game terms, what does that designation do? Thank you.

JohnDillworth -> RE: ATTACK BOMBER (8/13/2010 9:46:55 PM)
capable of low level naval attack. Probably capable of low level attack in general which means strafing.

ckammp -> RE: ATTACK BOMBER (8/13/2010 9:48:54 PM)
A bomber that is designated an "Attack Bomber" will, when set to fly a low-level mission, carry the plane's full bomb load on the mission. Any non-"Attack Bomber" will, when set to fly a low-level mission, carry half the plane's usual bomb load. "Low-level" missions are attack missions with an altitude under 6000'. The following Allied planes are designated as "Attack Bombers": A-20A1 A-20G A-26B B-25D1 B-25G B-25H B-25J11 PBY-1H Japan has no planes designated as "Attack Bombers". Hope this helps.

Herrbear -> RE: ATTACK BOMBER (8/13/2010 9:49:10 PM)
Thank you John and ckammp

John Lansford -> RE: ATTACK BOMBER (8/13/2010 11:27:56 PM)
Attack bomber apparently means "always attack at very low level", because it doesn't matter what altitude I set my B-25D1's at; they always drop down and strafe their target, whether it's on a port, ground, airport or naval mission.

spence -> RE: ATTACK BOMBER (8/14/2010 2:04:06 AM)
quote: The following Allied planes are designated as "Attack Bombers": A-20A1 A-20G A-26B B-25D1 B-25G B-25H B-25J11 PBY-1H The list includes only 1 USN plane. That is in error. All USN bombers were trained for low level naval attack. When one; the PB4Y-2 Privateer, was at last designed specifically for the US Navy, several modifications were made both by the manufacturer (to the basic B-24) and in the field to enhance its usefulness for low level naval attack: 1} the two stage supercharger was removed from all of the engines since it helped performance only at high altitude 2) the ball turret in the belly was removed since attack from below was deemed unlikely (except by submarines) and the side turrets were at least capable of firing at targets in excess 30 ft below the bomber (although aiming accurately was not really possible for the gunners) 3) the twin vertical stabilizers of the B-24 were replaced by a single (tall) vertical stabilizer to enhance low level stability. 4) in the field the planes were modified by mounting 2 (or more) 20mm guns under the nose for the purpose of strafing. Masthead (height) bombing was the principle and preferred method of attack for all USN Patrol/Bomber type aircraft. Patrol plane commanders (not necessarily the #1 pilot but usually he) were expected to conduct their attacks in accordance with that general doctrine. Additional attack bombers at least for naval attack ought to include: PB4Y-1s and PB4y-2s, PV-1s and PV-2s, PBJs, PBMs, PB2Y-5s, and any PBY attacking at night (certain allowances were made for an aircraft that even had a terminal velocity of 90 kts so daytime attacks were not promoted by PBYs).

ckammp -> RE: ATTACK BOMBER (8/14/2010 2:36:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spence quote: The following Allied planes are designated as "Attack Bombers": A-20A1 A-20G A-26B B-25D1 B-25G B-25H B-25J11 PBY-1H The list includes only 1 USN plane. That is in error. All USN bombers were trained for low level naval attack. When one; the PB4Y-2 Privateer, was at last designed specifically for the US Navy, several modifications were made both by the manufacturer (to the basic B-24) and in the field to enhance its usefulness for low level naval attack: 1} the two stage supercharger was removed from all of the engines since it helped performance only at high altitude 2) the ball turret in the belly was removed since attack from below was deemed unlikely (except by submarines) and the side turrets were at least capable of firing at targets in excess 30 ft below the bomber (although aiming accurately was not really possible for the gunners) 3) the twin vertical stabilizers of the B-24 were replaced by a single (tall) vertical stabilizer to enhance low level stability. 4) in the field the planes were modified by mounting 2 (or more) 20mm guns under the nose for the purpose of strafing. Masthead (height) bombing was the principle and preferred method of attack for all USN Patrol/Bomber type aircraft. Patrol plane commanders (not necessarily the #1 pilot but usually he) were expected to conduct their attacks in accordance with that general doctrine. Additional attack bombers at least for naval attack ought to include: PB4Y-1s and PB4y-2s, PV-1s and PV-2s, PBJs, PBMs, PB2Y-5s, and any PBY attacking at night (certain allowances were made for an aircraft that even had a terminal velocity of 90 kts so daytime attacks were not promoted by PBYs). The list is not "in error"; the list simply includes all planes in AE that are designated as Attack Bombers. IIRC, the reason for not expanding the list of Attack Bombers to include more Navy planes such as the PB4Y-2 Privateer was for play-balance. Of course, all the Navy planes you listed can easily be designated as Attack Bombers by doing so in the editor.

crsutton -> RE: ATTACK BOMBER (8/14/2010 5:05:47 AM)
Well, the only difference is that the PBY privateer is going to carry half as many bombs at low level. It is still enough as I have used my B-25Cs and hudsons at low level and they still get the hits.

spence -> RE: ATTACK BOMBER (8/14/2010 9:58:36 AM)
quote: IIRC, the reason for not expanding the list of Attack Bombers to include more Navy planes such as the PB4Y-2 Privateer was for play-balance. Of course, all the Navy planes you listed can easily be designated as Attack Bombers by doing so in the editor. Play balance is what belongs in the editor

Sardaukar -> RE: ATTACK BOMBER (8/14/2010 10:35:25 AM)
There is also the issue that heavy planes rarely carried full bomb load when required to do violent maneuvering...prelude to disaster, that one. I doubt any 4-engined plane carried full bomb load on low-level missions like that. Flying something like "attack bomber" was dangerous business as it was and 4-E bombers were too expensive to use, casualty-wise.

crsutton -> RE: ATTACK BOMBER (8/14/2010 5:07:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar There is also the issue that heavy planes rarely carried full bomb load when required to do violent maneuvering...prelude to disaster, that one. I doubt any 4-engined plane carried full bomb load on low-level missions like that. Flying something like "attack bomber" was dangerous business as it was and 4-E bombers were too expensive to use, casualty-wise. Good point, and many times the Navy patrol planes and shore based Avengers were carrying depth charges instead. Unless on a dedicated attack mission the real purpose for them was naval patrol and ASW. Of course, I suppose that would be dependent on location. Aircraft patroling shipping lanes would most likely have bombs.

Sardaukar -> RE: ATTACK BOMBER (8/14/2010 5:31:55 PM)
About attack bombers: Bit off topic, but for example B-26, while pound for pound lot better attack bomber than B-25, was delegated to Europe (where they did really good job). Fire in the Sky has good reasons why, starting from pilot nicknames for it like "Martin Murderer" or "Flying Prostitute" (no visible means of support)..or sayings like "One a day in Tampa Bay" for training casualties. Very fast, very powerful, very high wing-loading, very high landing speed...in that time planes like that were called "hot". Also like "if you lost engine in takeoff with B-25, you could come out of that OK..if you lost an engine in takeoff with B-26, you were dead unless you were very good or lucky." But comments like "when we hit target and there were Zeros around, B-25s could lose maybe half of their planes, we (B-26s) maybe one if they were lucky" tells the other side of the coin. B-26 was better plane in combat, but required very good maintenance, experienced pilots and good airfields, none easily available in South Pacific. Thus, B-26 went to Europe to have great career there and B-25 to Pacific to have great career there. What is often lost in discussion is that planes like F4F Wildcat and B-25 were forgiving planes for pilot error (apart from "ground loop" in former), but planes like F4U and B-26 were not. Ops losses for inexperienced pilots flying "hot" combat planes would send forum screaming if they were actually implemented to AE.

RevRick -> RE: ATTACK BOMBER (8/14/2010 7:05:50 PM)
I want someone to do the Douglas BD-1 (A-20C) with a loadout of one torpedo for normal range, and two 500 lbers for extended range, and have the USN purchase several squadrons worth for the Marines. Replace several squadrons of SBDs and TBF's with that bird. And, have them in play in 1942, say around June... hmmmmm.

spence -> RE: ATTACK BOMBER (8/14/2010 11:45:38 PM)
quote: There is also the issue that heavy planes rarely carried full bomb load when required to do violent maneuvering...prelude to disaster, that one. I doubt any 4-engined plane carried full bomb load on low-level missions like that. Flying something like "attack bomber" was dangerous business as it was and 4-E bombers were too expensive to use, casualty-wise. Navy PB4Y-2s operated singly or in pairs on 1300 mile sector searches carrying 4000 lbs of payload. They were tasked to report and then attack whatever shipping they found in their sectors. They did so from low altitude. The Privateer was also one of the first planes to have different modules (electronics mostly) for different missions such as ASW. 3 squadrons were equipped/trained to deliver SWOD Bat guided bombs (which was not particularly successful due to the generally high humidity mucking up the guidance electronics).

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.71875