Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal?

Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? (Full Version)

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

Message

grisouille_slith -> Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? (2/7/2014 3:07:55 PM)
Dear all I play a Dababes C scen 30 as the japanese player (we are playing the first of january 1942). My opponent used his level bomber/recco planes in naval attack at 1000 feet, and they are deadly. The Catalina seems to have a very good accuracy - it's a naval killer with more than 10 xAK sunk in one month. He used even the A24 Banshee not in a dive role, but as a level bomber at 1000 feet (accurracy of 50%!!) Have you remarked such results? Do you think it's historically accurate? If not do you use some Home rules? Thank you for your comments/remarks[&o]

witpqs -> RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? (2/7/2014 3:15:33 PM)
If you have soft targets - not much/any AA - without escorts then that is certainly realistic as they can get as low as they need to obtain hits.

Feltan -> RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? (2/7/2014 3:29:49 PM)
Take note: those are not unusual results, but the number of Catalina's and Banshees is limited. Get a couple of good air-to-air engagements and that capability will quickly dissipate. Regards, Feltan

btd64 -> RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? (2/7/2014 3:36:22 PM)
Feltan, How true.[:(][:(] Cheers [sm=00000436.gif]

grisouille_slith -> RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? (2/7/2014 4:35:58 PM)
Thank you for your comments. I don't know if this is going to change your comments, but in fact, I've just remarked that most of the attacks are at 100 feet and not 1000 feet..

witpqs -> RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? (2/7/2014 5:07:36 PM)
Doesn't change my comment very much, but you should expect more ops losses for the attackers, depending upon their pilots' experience ratings.

dr.hal -> RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? (2/7/2014 5:14:06 PM)
Where any of the attackers lost to AA fire? Did any of your merchants have any AA???

JocMeister -> RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? (2/7/2014 6:37:25 PM)
The problem with attacks that low is that it messes up the detection times. Going that low means that even with the very best allied late war radars you will get only a couple of minutes of warning. Not enough for CAP to be able to respond. I would talk to your opponent and ask him to avoid going that low. I think it was Captain Cruft that did a lot of testing with this. Going in low he could sink any allied Navy regardless of CAP.

Feltan -> RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? (2/7/2014 6:42:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister The problem with attacks that low is that it messes up the detection times. Going that low means that even with the very best allied late war radars you will get only a couple of minutes of warning. Not enough for CAP to be able to respond. I would talk to your opponent and ask him to avoid going that low. I think it was Captain Cruft that did a lot of testing with this. Going in low he could sink any allied Navy regardless of CAP. For fighters to strafe, I am working under the understanding that altitude HAS to be set to 100. For the other aircraft, I can see your point. Regards, Feltan

Gaspote -> RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? (2/7/2014 7:34:13 PM)
I always try to have air cover over convoy or amphibious TF if I know ennemy bombing is possible. I don't know if air cover will failed to intercept if bomber are at 100feet but they succefully intercepted at 1000feet in my PBEM.

dr.hal -> RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? (2/7/2014 8:17:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister The problem with attacks that low is that it messes up the detection times. Going that low means that even with the very best allied late war radars you will get only a couple of minutes of warning. Not enough for CAP to be able to respond. I would talk to your opponent and ask him to avoid going that low. I think it was Captain Cruft that did a lot of testing with this. Going in low he could sink any allied Navy regardless of CAP. Would it help reaction time if you put your CAP at 100 ft, 1000 ft or 2000 ft? 100 is on par, 1k is slightly above and thus detection time a bit better??? 2K gives them that altitude advantage of a bounce.....

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? (2/7/2014 9:51:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister The problem with attacks that low is that it messes up the detection times. Going that low means that even with the very best allied late war radars you will get only a couple of minutes of warning. Not enough for CAP to be able to respond. I would talk to your opponent and ask him to avoid going that low. I think it was Captain Cruft that did a lot of testing with this. Going in low he could sink any allied Navy regardless of CAP. The bolded is the whole point. The trade-off is ops losses and flak. If players don't do the merchant upgrades, which are almost all AA, doom on them. Recently one opponent tried a DD bombardment of one of my Aleutian bases in late April 1942. Easy points, right? 74 low and mean P-39s on Naval strike said no. Morning Air attack on TF, near Umnak Island at 169,52 Weather in hex: Overcast Raid spotted at 18 NM, estimated altitude 2,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 5 minutes Allied aircraft P-39D Airacobra x 74 Allied aircraft losses P-39D Airacobra: 3 damaged Japanese Ships DD Ushio, Bomb hits 1, on fire DD Amagiri, Shell hits 9, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage DD Sazanami, Shell hits 3, Bomb hits 1, on fire DD Yamagumo, Shell hits 2 DD Kuroshio, Shell hits 2, on fire DD Natsushio, Shell hits 1, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage Aircraft Attacking: 21 x P-39D Airacobra bombing from 100 feet Naval Attack: 1 x 500 lb SAP Bomb 3 x P-39D Airacobra bombing from 100 feet 25 x P-39D Airacobra bombing from 100 feet Naval Attack: 1 x 500 lb SAP Bomb 25 x P-39D Airacobra bombing from 100 feet Naval Attack: 1 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

Gaspote -> RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? (2/7/2014 10:44:08 PM)
Did you attack before or after the bombardment ? It seems he badly plans his retreat because you got him so close to the objective. Although the P39 is a deadly lowN attack, strafe ships to reduce AA and bomb in the same time and 37mm disable AA guns too.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? (2/8/2014 12:19:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gaspote Did you attack before or after the bombardment ? It seems he badly plans his retreat because you got him so close to the objective. Although the P39 is a deadly lowN attack, strafe ships to reduce AA and bomb in the same time and 37mm disable AA guns too. I take back the bombardment. It was a surface raid into Umnak. There was a bombardment of Adak that same week. He got his bag too, sinking several xAKs and a DD and APD. The P-39s were the coup de grace of a long day for the IJN. TBs, DBs, PBYs, and finally the fighters. I saw the raid coming. That doesn't remove the fact that low-level fighters on Naval attack can be very effective, even early in the war. In my game with 1EyedJacks he did dozens of Oscar attacks with 60kg bombs on the harbor defense ships at Singers. Sank a bunch of them. I don't know how much detail Lokasenna is relating in his AAR of our game, but the fighting around the Aleutians has been fierce for five months now. JFBs should carefully read what he has done. He has half, I have half. He understands that Japan may not want to cede all of the chain to the Allies too early.

JocMeister -> RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? (2/8/2014 1:04:22 PM)
Bullwinkle, Knowing that you can blast an entire CV fleet regardless of CAP numbers by setting everything to 1000ft. Do you really care about extra OPS and Flak losses? Probably not... [:)] As I said I havn�t tried this myself but Captain Cruft has the details somewhere in his AAR.

Captain Cruft -> RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? (2/8/2014 1:56:28 PM)
The enhanced flak in the Beta prevents the "whole fleet sinking" phenomenon. However low-level NavB is still very effective. We have HRed it in our game so that only F, FB and AB types can do it.

Louisvillan -> RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? (2/8/2014 6:09:58 PM)
I think you need to take a balanced approach to the question. First issue is training levels....In early 42, most of the allied bomber crews lack the experience to pull off low altitude attacks against shipping. In my campaign against the Jap AI, the KB raided Sydney and Brisbane in June 42. I had a three day warning (PBY's spotted them coming through the Solomons). I was able to scramble fighters and medium bombers to Brisbane. I set the B-25 Mitchell's and B-26 Marauders to 1000 ft Naval Attack........ the ensuing battle was great (3 US Carriers slipped in behind them), but the land based bombers sat it out on the beach. Afterwards a check of their skill levels revealed LowN skills in the low 20s. Secondly, skip bombing was part of the historical aspect. General Kenney developed the tactic after he took over the South West Pacific's Fifth Air Force in late 42. His basic complaint was that his bombers were dropping lots of bombs against Japanese ships, but not hitting anything. B-25's, B-26's and A-20's all were used to skip bomb. By 43-44 they were ripping ships up and down the New Guinea coast. Since I play against the AI, I use historical restraint (at least I tell myself I do). It's November 42, and I am just getting bomber squadron crews to training levels that could support skip bombing. Since I am not worried about the AI getting it's feelings hurt, I am going to skip bomb. It's up to me to try and keep the number of units using this down to a realistic level. But agreeing to NOT use medium bombers for Naval Bombing at 100 feet would be to ignore a valid historical tactic..... (by the way, the historical Japanese were flat footed unable to come up with an answer to skip bombing other that putting more AA guns on their ships). Use of PBY's for low level bombing has been discussed in other threads. They are slow and at low levels very accurate in bombing runs. Unfortunately, this makes them very vulnerable to fighters and AA. In they early stages of the war, you just don't have enough of them to cover your Naval Search and ASW needs to risk burning them up on Naval Attacks (IMHO). Maybe this comes into the "Cheesy Tactics" discussion. Too much of something too soon in the game may seem unfair.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? (2/8/2014 7:59:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister Bullwinkle, Knowing that you can blast an entire CV fleet regardless of CAP numbers by setting everything to 1000ft. Do you really care about extra OPS and Flak losses? Probably not... [:)] As I said I havn�t tried this myself but Captain Cruft has the details somewhere in his AAR. You aren't playing with the Babes alterations to flak. We are. USN DP guns are a serious threat, for one example.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? (2/8/2014 7:59:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft The enhanced flak in the Beta prevents the "whole fleet sinking" phenomenon. However low-level NavB is still very effective. We have HRed it in our game so that only F, FB and AB types can do it. So no historical 4E skip bombing?

JocMeister -> RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? (2/8/2014 8:45:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister Bullwinkle, Knowing that you can blast an entire CV fleet regardless of CAP numbers by setting everything to 1000ft. Do you really care about extra OPS and Flak losses? Probably not... [:)] As I said I havn�t tried this myself but Captain Cruft has the details somewhere in his AAR. You aren't playing with the Babes alterations to flak. We are. USN DP guns are a serious threat, for one example. Ah, I am in my other game. Havn�t really seen the effects yet though! [:)] That being said. Even losing a couple of hundred planes for the exchange of whatever is in the sights is probably something most would jump on. But perhaps the enhanced flak in the BETA throws the aim of enough so it becomes a moot point?

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? (2/8/2014 10:17:04 PM)
j

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? (2/8/2014 10:22:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister Bullwinkle, Knowing that you can blast an entire CV fleet regardless of CAP numbers by setting everything to 1000ft. Do you really care about extra OPS and Flak losses? Probably not... [:)] As I said I havn�t tried this myself but Captain Cruft has the details somewhere in his AAR. You aren't playing with the Babes alterations to flak. We are. USN DP guns are a serious threat, for one example. Ah, I am in my other game. Havn�t really seen the effects yet though! [:)] That being said. Even losing a couple of hundred planes for the exchange of whatever is in the sights is probably something most would jump on. But perhaps the enhanced flak in the BETA throws the aim of enough so it becomes a moot point? Sorry. Trying to type with a hand brace and I keep hitting random keys because my hand is too big. What I said bwfore I erasd it is maybe you've been playing the late game so long you think losing a couple hundred planes is no big deal? [:)] At 1000 feet against CVs you lose all DBs. Flak does mess up aim, yes. Going in at 1000 feet makes damage result in ops losses. Also runs up fatigue. LAter on the Babes AA code will matter more as AA upgrades are done. So far I'm happy with what I'm seeing. I guess I don't look for engine holes. I just do what I think ought to be done to get hits while not becoming too predictable. Fighters down low can work, but not every day. MAybe in 1945 when the AA castels are running around they don't either. But there's no magic altitude I've seen. Everything in the air game that looksa easy turns oout to have a cost somewhere.

JocMeister -> RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? (2/9/2014 6:52:14 AM)
Really looking forward to seeing the DBB changes in effect. Just hit 43 and we havn�t had any major combat yet. Very much doubt I will ever play a "vanilla" game again. What have you done with your hand?

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? (2/10/2014 12:11:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister Really looking forward to seeing the DBB changes in effect. Just hit 43 and we havn�t had any major combat yet. Very much doubt I will ever play a "vanilla" game again. What have you done with your hand? rying to fix an elboiw. It's all connected. [:)]

JocMeister -> RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? (2/10/2014 1:51:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister Really looking forward to seeing the DBB changes in effect. Just hit 43 and we havn�t had any major combat yet. Very much doubt I will ever play a "vanilla" game again. What have you done with your hand? rying to fix an elboiw. It's all connected. [:)] Hope it get sorted for you! Get well. [:)]

David The Great -> RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? (2/16/2014 12:12:02 PM)
It seems that often people try to correct mistakes they make with a house rule. There is always a trade off between a tactic you choose and the results you get. One should ask himself what the reason is why they find themselves in this situation . In my opinion, to many games have to many rules.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.6875