Float plane Success

Float plane Success (Full Version)

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

Message

coreyjones -> Float plane Success (10/18/2013 11:09:19 PM)
In my current Pbem i am having great success using pby's, do-24's, and the little single engine float planes in the naval combat role. It has not broken into 42 yet and my opponent is getting a little suspicious of my success. My floatplanes are getting have a 70% success rate on their runs and i am sinking at least 3-4 cargoes a turn. I set my bit float planes to 1000 feet bombs only and my single engine float planes to 100 feet. Is this kind of success rare or is there a bug, i have not changed pilots in any of the squadrons or anything but yet they seem to hit cargoes like its a walk in the park. My thinking is due to the low speed of the floatplanes and the low speed of the cargoes makes them a easy target for my bombs. its even better on rainy days when my boys can fly under the cap unmolested and plop bombs on the decks of waiting cargoes. So whats going on here and i am cheating or working the system in some way?

jmalter -> RE: Float plane Success (10/19/2013 3:38:33 AM)
I don't think its a bug, & I don't think you're cheating, neither. Early '42, you'll need any crutch you can lean on - if you find one, exploit it! Your success w/ patrol aircraft & floatplanes has 3 components: - your pilots' moderate to good combat skills - your enemy's lack of air-cover & ship-borne flak - your targets are old & slow, w/ near-zero combat skill (crew experience & captain's rating) Your opponent can't expect to send unprotected convoys into areas where you retain viable airgroups and not suffer losses. If he hasn't knocked back your air, he'll pay the price. For added fun, get an AirHQ to a position where it can supply torps to your PBYs. Each plane can carry 2, then they can really bring the hurt.

HexHead -> RE: Float plane Success (10/19/2013 5:10:03 AM)
I love the Catalinas, but it's all too easy to get 'Cat-happy'. As another has noted, the Allies get only so many and not as many as one might think. It's not a bad idea to conserve them for NavSrch; the range is great, although, due to small squadron size, I have them usually no more than 9 (early war). Eyeballs on the waves are important. Zekes seem to have a hard time with them, for some reason. They seem to survive well, but, with use and time, they can get chewed up as anti-shipping platforms.

Mike Solli -> RE: Float plane Success (10/19/2013 9:20:16 AM)
Those Do-24Ks carry 300kg bombs. If one of those things hits a Japanese tin foil merchant, well, that's that. I hate those things. [:D]

bigred -> RE: Float plane Success (10/19/2013 2:51:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: srv24243 In my current Pbem i am having great success using pby's, do-24's, and the little single engine float planes in the naval combat role. It has not broken into 42 yet and my opponent is getting a little suspicious of my success. My floatplanes are getting have a 70% success rate on their runs and i am sinking at least 3-4 cargoes a turn. I set my bit float planes to 1000 feet bombs only and my single engine float planes to 100 feet. Is this kind of success rare or is there a bug, i have not changed pilots in any of the squadrons or anything but yet they seem to hit cargoes like its a walk in the park. My thinking is due to the low speed of the floatplanes and the low speed of the cargoes makes them a easy target for my bombs. its even better on rainy days when my boys can fly under the cap unmolested and plop bombs on the decks of waiting cargoes. So whats going on here and i am cheating or working the system in some way? I recall from UV days that planes on NavSearch would also on occasion drop a bomb on a TF to the point this was more effective than nav attack because of possible enemy cap. In AE do planes on navS also make attacks?

PaxMondo -> RE: Float plane Success (10/19/2013 3:06:04 PM)
In my game, Andy has those things carrying AT least 2 torps each. They pop up all over the place with their range. I really hate Doniers!

kbfchicago -> RE: Float plane Success (10/19/2013 5:47:03 PM)
I don't know about "70%" hit rates but have always had good luck early on with Kingfishers, PBYs, and Dutch Do24s. My IJN opponent quickly learned not to leave his light ships unprotected with at least a nominal RCAP. Into Feb '43 in our second game and I still leverage PBYs for torpedo strikes when the opportunity looks good (no or limited RCAP). Hate that the Brit and Aussie PBYs can't carry torps... what's worked for me; - spend some time on nav attack training for patrol pilots (primary is still nav search). - Don't get greedy against a PBEM opponent, they learn quickly to cover. Picking the wrong opportunity or going back to the same target one too many times can be very costly - The PBYs and Do24s can also harass with city and port bombing, potentially driving an IJN player to thin out the front line fighter resources.

Dili -> RE: Float plane Success (10/20/2013 5:44:08 PM)
One of the game bias: Floatplanes. Either side. For example the Glen submarine launched is another.

nashvillen -> RE: Float plane Success (10/20/2013 5:56:31 PM)
Personally, I love it when the Allied player uses Search planes for naval attacks. Just a couple fighters in cap and the search aircraft pool dries up quickly. Even some floatplanes in a AV or CS will serve as a counter to this. Big and slow, nice targets!

PaxMondo -> RE: Float plane Success (10/20/2013 11:16:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nashvillen Personally, I love it when the Allied player uses Search planes for naval attacks. Just a couple fighters in cap and the search aircraft pool dries up quickly. Even some floatplanes in a AV or CS will serve as a counter to this. Big and slow, nice targets! +1 It is what the Rufe was designed for and a perfect counter.

HansBolter -> RE: Float plane Success (10/21/2013 12:05:20 PM)
Gloat all you want you JFBs about how great target they make. Allied players desperate to have some impact early on, no matter how small, are all too happy to give you the targets. I am somewhat loathe to use the Do24Ks in this role though as they are too valuable to me in shuttling the Dutch from island to island to facilitate my Dutch concentration strategy. You know the fun won't last as the Allies don't have sufficient pools to sustain their use in this role for very long. I do however always train my PBY pilots in NAV attack so they will have a better chance of getting hits while searching and always reserve at least one squadron to use on NAV attack. Having a long range pickle delivery gives the Japs a small taste of what it's like to have to shepherd every back water move against the Nettie nemesis. And in answer to Big Red, yes search planes can and do attack. The in game reporting usually reports both your search plane and ASW plane attacks on enemy ships, although its only in the flash reports and not logged in the OPs report you can access in game for the last turn. Finding the listing of enemy search plane attacks on your ships requires opening one of the several additional ops reports in the save folder that can't be accessed in game. We all know that sometimes we gat a random report of ship sinking we didn't have any idea had ever been damaged. Usually this can be attributed to the fact that the ship was shadowed or spotted by a search plane and bombed by it a few turns previously. An exhaustive search of the out-of-game ops reports for the last few turns usually turns up a listing of it being attacked by the search plane. Search reports give listings of either TFs or sometimes individual ships. I have often wondered if there is a link between those reports and attacks by search planes. Does identifying an individual ship mean that the search plane will have a greater likelihood of attacking it than if it has only identified the entire TF without singling out an individual ship?

crsutton -> RE: Float plane Success (10/21/2013 4:22:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HexHead I love the Catalinas, but it's all too easy to get 'Cat-happy'. As another has noted, the Allies get only so many and not as many as one might think. It's not a bad idea to conserve them for NavSrch; the range is great, although, due to small squadron size, I have them usually no more than 9 (early war). Eyeballs on the waves are important. Zekes seem to have a hard time with them, for some reason. They seem to survive well, but, with use and time, they can get chewed up as anti-shipping platforms. Yes, the cats and Emilys are quite deadly. The real reason is that they both carry two torpedoes rather than one and have a higher chance of success as a result. However, a good opponent can deal with them. It is pretty easy to set CAP traps for them. American cats are so precious in the first two years of the war that you really can't afford to lose them in this way. So yes, they are a bit overpowered but easily dealt with-just takes a little planning.

Dili -> RE: Float plane Success (10/21/2013 5:21:42 PM)
In war for successful torpedoing - not saying about the odd lucky hit - an unit had to be trained in it and usually almost exclusively, that is why the game results are off. Instead of the HQ torpedo depot rule it should have been increasing the quality of torpedo pilot for an hit.

Alfred -> RE: Float plane Success (10/21/2013 11:37:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili In war for successful torpedoing - not saying about the odd lucky hit - an unit had to be trained in it and usually almost exclusively, that is why the game results are off. Instead of the HQ torpedo depot rule it should have been increasing the quality of torpedo pilot for an hit. The HQ "torpedo depot rule" only affects the availability of torpedoes. It does nothing to improve the odds of a successful mission. Pilots must be highly trained in the NavT skill and also not be put off their aim by having to dodge defending fighters in order to be successful in prosecuting their torpedo attacks. I don't see how anyone can say the game results are off because HQs can provide the supply of torpedoes. After all there still has to be a means of increasing the cost of using torpedoes and allowing Kates to access them. The HQ rule seems a fair solution to me once you realise the devs concluded it was impracticable to track in inventory a discrete torpedo device. Alfred

rustysi -> RE: Float plane Success (10/22/2013 12:26:25 AM)
OK, so I don't know how common this tactic was, but there's definitely historical reference here. During the battle of Midway first contact with the Japanese was made the evening before the big battle when a PBY spotted the invasion force. Said PBY attacked and hit a transport, but alas the torp while piercing the hull was a dud. Also let's not forget the 'Black Cats' which scoured Japanese sea lanes nightly. Although they were radar equipped so I doubt they were around in early '42.

HansBolter -> RE: Float plane Success (10/22/2013 11:53:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi OK, so I don't know how common this tactic was, but there's definitely historical reference here. During the battle of Midway first contact with the Japanese was made the evening before the big battle when a PBY spotted the invasion force. Said PBY attacked and hit a transport, but alas the torp while piercing the hull was a dud. Also let's not forget the 'Black Cats' which scoured Japanese sea lanes nightly. Although they were radar equipped so I doubt they were around in early '42. A PBY was also equipped with torpedoes at Guadalcanal and successfully delivered a fish into a transport. I believe this was "field rigged" to a PBY not set up for torpedo carry and delivery.

crsutton -> RE: Float plane Success (10/22/2013 4:54:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi OK, so I don't know how common this tactic was, but there's definitely historical reference here. During the battle of Midway first contact with the Japanese was made the evening before the big battle when a PBY spotted the invasion force. Said PBY attacked and hit a transport, but alas the torp while piercing the hull was a dud. Also let's not forget the 'Black Cats' which scoured Japanese sea lanes nightly. Although they were radar equipped so I doubt they were around in early '42. Yes, it is a frequently quoted historical reference. But I don't see much evidence that it was a common practice. There were better planes for dropping torpedoes on both sides. Cats had too many other important roles to play to be wasted as torpedo bombers. Emily's as well. But in the game every American cat and Japanese Emily can use torpedoes. I don't think the commonwealth cats can. But with effective counter measures, they are no more than a minor nuisance. I think most times a cat flew armed, it was with depth charges for ASW purposes.

Dili -> RE: Float plane Success (10/22/2013 6:25:22 PM)
quote: The HQ "torpedo depot rule" only affects the availability of torpedoes. It does nothing to improve the odds of a successful mission. Pilots must be highly trained in the NavT skill and also not be put off their aim by having to dodge defending fighters in order to be successful in prosecuting their torpedo attacks. I don't see how anyone can say the game results are off because HQs can provide the supply of torpedoes. After all there still has to be a means of increasing the cost of using torpedoes and allowing Kates to access them. The HQ rule seems a fair solution to me once you realise the devs concluded it was impracticable to track in inventory a discrete torpedo device. It seems to me that HQ rule appeared because good enough NavT skill is easier to get widespread than IRL. Players resort to use search planes to use in torpedo attack because they have success with them, but how trained a crew of a Do-24 got in torpedo warfare? There is also the deal with 2 fishes and how the game manages odds when many quantities are involved like the issues it has with bombs. While torpedoes are rarer than a 250kg bomb they weren't rarer than a 800kg bomb, neither were dependent of an existence of an HQ nearby. HQ rule is just a trick to control the deluge of Nells and Betties torpedo attacks that were also much more common than IRL since all Japanese bomber crew appeared that could get good enough NavT skills. Maybe all crew without torpedo training should start with zero instead of some two digits value? Now the decision to fix a problem depends the resources needed tinker with the code formulae about hits chance vs NavT or another option was to make a model of Nells/Betties torpedo able and other models only with bombs, a less flexible decision. In the end the HQ decision that was taken could well be the best one, but there is no mistake that was done to stop widespread torpedo attacks.

spence -> RE: Float plane Success (10/22/2013 9:56:37 PM)
The "Black Cats" (which actually seem to be several different squadrons) conducted many naval successful attacks in the Solomons in the latter half of 42 and 1943 but it seems that those attacks were with bombs rather than torpedoes. The only successful torpedo attack by a PBY that history acknowledges seems to be the one that scored on the Akebono Maru at Midway. By the same token I have never heard of a single successful attack by one of the Japanese equivalents. Lots of a/c on both sides could physically lift a torpedo but never made a real life attack on an enemy ship. US twin engine bombers that fit into this category for sure are the B-25 and the USN's PV-1 and PV-2. The B-26 actually carried a torpedo into action at Midway and in the Aleutians without any success in either place. The field expedient was thereafter discontinued. Bombs were found to do a better job with lower losses amongst the attacking a/c.

Lecivius -> RE: Float plane Success (10/23/2013 5:52:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spence The only successful torpedo attack by a PBY that history acknowledges seems to be the one that scored on the Akebono Maru at Midway. I seem to recall reading in The Cactus Airforce that Grier's personal plane, a PBY being used to ferry torpedos into Guadalcanal, was jury rigged for manual release & got a hit. I believe this was during The Naval Battle for Guadalcanal, but I'm at the office and am going totally from memory (not good at the best of times).

spence -> RE: Float plane Success (10/23/2013 10:30:39 PM)
While also remember reading that a PBY ferried torpedoes to Henderson Field during the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal I am virtually certain that the actual attacks (on BB Hiei) were carried out by TBFs. Been looking through the VPNavy.com site which has histories of all the PBY (and other VP/VPB squadrons from WW2). Although there is ample evidence that VP type aircraft carried out a lot of attacks on ships everything I've run across so far has been attacks with bombs (except the previously mentioned Midway attack).

HansBolter -> RE: Float plane Success (10/24/2013 12:04:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lecivius quote: ORIGINAL: spence The only successful torpedo attack by a PBY that history acknowledges seems to be the one that scored on the Akebono Maru at Midway. I seem to recall reading in The Cactus Airforce that Grier's personal plane, a PBY being used to ferry torpedos into Guadalcanal, was jury rigged for manual release & got a hit. I believe this was during The Naval Battle for Guadalcanal, but I'm at the office and am going totally from memory (not good at the best of times). See my post above.

Lecivius -> RE: Float plane Success (10/24/2013 2:26:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter See my post above. I missed it. My apologies.

HansBolter -> RE: Float plane Success (10/24/2013 4:15:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lecivius quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter See my post above. I missed it. My apologies. No, no....no apologies needed. Was just pointing out that I mentioned it, albeit with less detail than you. I just happened to read about it very recently as I am rereading Fire in the Sky right now.

spence -> RE: Float plane Success (10/24/2013 10:38:55 PM)
It seems that there were (possibly) a few more torpedo attacks by PBYs. So far there seem to be ZERO torpedo attacks by the IJN equivalents at any time during the war. It would seem that the H6K and H8K's torpedo capability was theoretical at best, similar to the B-25s or PV-1/2's capability to carry a torpedo into battle. The Bombs/Torpedoes option does not exist for the B-25 or PV-1/PV-2 or the B-26, for that matter, which actually did carry out torpedo attacks (admittedly unsuccessful and with minimal training). Since these US bombers can not launch torpedoes in the game (and therefore have no reason to train for such attacks) what justifies the double whammy from the Japanese search planes?

Dili -> RE: Float plane Success (10/24/2013 11:37:13 PM)
The crews certainly weren't trained in it, their big size would also make them a wonderful target. Maybe make a H8K version with torpedoes, but the issue is howeasy is for the crew to have torpedo capability. Btw we had this discussion already: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2451364&mpage=1&key=�

inqistor -> RE: Float plane Success (10/26/2013 9:34:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: srv24243 In my current Pbem i am having great success using pby's, do-24's, and the little single engine float planes in the naval combat role. It has not broken into 42 yet and my opponent is getting a little suspicious of my success. My floatplanes are getting have a 70% success rate on their runs and i am sinking at least 3-4 cargoes a turn. I set my bit float planes to 1000 feet bombs only and my single engine float planes to 100 feet. Is this kind of success rare or is there a bug, i have not changed pilots in any of the squadrons or anything but yet they seem to hit cargoes like its a walk in the park. My thinking is due to the low speed of the floatplanes and the low speed of the cargoes makes them a easy target for my bombs. its even better on rainy days when my boys can fly under the cap unmolested and plop bombs on the decks of waiting cargoes. So whats going on here and i am cheating or working the system in some way? My guess is that defensive armament of Japanese cargo ships just can not reach planes at even mid-altitude, so they aim unopposed. quote: ORIGINAL: Dili quote: The HQ "torpedo depot rule" only affects the availability of torpedoes. It does nothing to improve the odds of a successful mission. Pilots must be highly trained in the NavT skill and also not be put off their aim by having to dodge defending fighters in order to be successful in prosecuting their torpedo attacks. I don't see how anyone can say the game results are off because HQs can provide the supply of torpedoes. After all there still has to be a means of increasing the cost of using torpedoes and allowing Kates to access them. The HQ rule seems a fair solution to me once you realise the devs concluded it was impracticable to track in inventory a discrete torpedo device. It seems to me that HQ rule appeared because good enough NavT skill is easier to get widespread than IRL. Players resort to use search planes to use in torpedo attack because they have success with them, but how trained a crew of a Do-24 got in torpedo warfare? There is also the deal with 2 fishes and how the game manages odds when many quantities are involved like the issues it has with bombs. While torpedoes are rarer than a 250kg bomb they weren't rarer than a 800kg bomb, neither were dependent of an existence of an HQ nearby. 800kg bombs were pretty common. Just check CV armaments: quote: Unry�-class 72 � 800 kg bombs 288 � 250 kg bombs 456 � 60 kg bombs 36 � Type 91 torpedoes Of course those were not the AP type used in Pearl Harbor.

poodlebrain -> RE: Float plane Success (10/26/2013 5:30:00 PM)
Japanese merchant vessels carried at most medium machine guns for AA defense in 1941, and they had nothing more than lookouts for detection of enemy aircraft. Any Allied aircraft fortunate to locate Japanese merchant shipping had an excellent opportunity to get real close before being engaged, and any engagement wasn't very effective.

Dili -> RE: Float plane Success (10/26/2013 7:37:58 PM)
quote: My guess is that defensive armament of Japanese cargo ships just can not reach planes at even mid-altitude, so they aim unopposed. At mid altitude was difficult to achieve any bomb hit for not trained crews. quote: 800kg bombs were pretty common. ok but still just double the number of torpedoes. Do you have a complement for one of early war carriers?

spence -> RE: Float plane Success (10/26/2013 9:15:46 PM)
quote: quote: 800kg bombs were pretty common. ok but still just double the number of torpedoes. Do you have a complement for one of early war carriers? _____________________________ According to A Zimm in his analysis of the PH attack the performance of the 800 kg bomb warrants its own rule similar to the USN dud torpedo rule: roughly 60% duds or low order detonations amongst the bombs that hit. Naturally one bomb that did function as intended (the one that detonated the Arizona's magazine) seems to have obscured the fact that most of the rest didn't cause any significant damage to anything. As I understand it the 800 kg bomb was a converted 16" shell; presumably main gun ammunition for the Nagato Class BBs. Since Nagato never fired in anger on anything until late 1944 there is little data to gauge the dud rate of that 16" ammunition unless one counts the one round that did blow up the HIJMS Mutsu. So I certainly hope that the Japanese have an improved version by the mid/late war that functions better than its antecedent.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.046875