The ZPK blimp (Full Version)

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



Message

margeorg -> The ZPK blimp (5/24/2014 4:10:59 PM)

Hello,


Iīm somewhat disappointed about the performance of these ZPK blimps in WitPAE. According to the sources amongst their best abilities was their endurance. They could stay out on patrol longer than a Cataline, f.e. However, this isnīt reflected in their performance ingame. Their range is mediocre, they are of limited usefulness for ASW patrols, due to that short range.

Anyone knows why they were so much crippled in the game?



Spurius Evidens -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/24/2014 5:00:56 PM)

They're not very fast you know, with a cruise speed in Wikipedia of 58mph, and I suspect faced with any sort of serious headwind would be able to make very little progress at all. Perhaps the designers have taken into account that much of the time that will have been the case? It would certainly be highly inaccurate to calculate it's range based on the assumption that there would never be any wind. Just my guess.



pmelheck1 -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/24/2014 5:26:59 PM)

The blimps could stay up for hours to be sure but are painfully slow. From the ground it almost seems you can walk faster.

Also consider the ZPK could stay aloft for more than 24 hours so the ZPK would have to shorten it's range to what it could cover in a 24 or 12 hour period. WITP:AE uses 24 hour turns with no provisions for aircraft that can stay aloft over several turns. For a 12 hour period they can only cover Approx 720 miles now halve that if they return to base during the same 12 hour phase. It works out to 9 hexes at cruse speed and I think during a search rather than just flying at cruise speed to a destination would slow things down a bit or a 2 hour turn around time plus launch and recovery. A PBY on the other hand would fly twice as far in the same period. Rather than a long range I would expect a much higher chance of detection of subs plus giving a very high detection level that would take days to go away.



crsutton -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/24/2014 5:47:46 PM)

In game terms not very useful or important for that matter. I converted them all to patrol planes.



jmalter -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/24/2014 6:06:27 PM)

Useful in the early war for protecting the West Coast. In a PBEM game I'd convert them after enough radar-equipped Cats became available. I've kept them in my current AI game, purely for sentimental reasons.

I think they're OK in the detection department, they're among the first airframes to get radar. I'll hazard a guess that the devs limited their operational range to conform to historical use.



Lokasenna -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/24/2014 7:43:36 PM)

I've debated moving them forward just to mess with my opponents. I still might. They have better patrol range than Seagulls...I think.



kbfchicago -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/24/2014 8:04:06 PM)

I always attributed short range to slow speed (round trip time on patrol).

Use them for "search" (vs ASW) to maximize their modest range and high detection rate for IJN subs along west coast. Other AC and ASW TF take care of sub kill'n. They are also a handy platform to generate trained search pilots for the many patrol sqdns that arrive in '43-44 (40% search, 40% train, 20% rest). In my case (at least on '43) my worthy IJ opponent has concentrated his subs forward in combat areas, leaving the West Coast, for the most part, a "quiet" front.

Kevin



dr.hal -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/24/2014 8:24:44 PM)

One could argue that they are relatively silent as well... and as a bomb platform they would have great accuracy. If they get equipted with radar, they might be very good sub killers in poor visibility or night... not sure if the get any bonus, but as there are so few of them, I suspect not.



Chickenboy -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/24/2014 9:16:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

One could argue that they are relatively silent as well... and as a bomb platform they would have great accuracy. If they get equipted with radar, they might be very good sub killers in poor visibility or night... not sure if the get any bonus, but as there are so few of them, I suspect not.


One could argue that they would be easy targets for sub-based AAA. A welcome benefit to the enemy-"Hey look! Aerial target practice! And it's moving slower than a tow target too! Thanks, Allies!"



dr.hal -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/24/2014 9:48:34 PM)

Now Chickenboy I did say in poor visibility or at night with radar.... which changes the picture somewhat...You are selectively repackaging my statement.



jmalter -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/25/2014 6:35:58 PM)

IIRC an airframe uses its 'reduced payload' when assigned to ASW - but the ZPK's reduced payload (4 x 250lb bombs) is the same as its normal payload!

Also, I get hardly any patrol contacts on subs from NavS missions (I use 6000' alt), nor do I get contacts on surface TFs from ASW missions (flown at 1000'). I get a lot of obvious wrong contacts when patrols identify a friendly TF as enemy, but very, very few 'cross-mission' contacts on actual enemy TFs. Is this a function of search altitude?



Lokasenna -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/25/2014 6:58:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

IIRC an airframe uses its 'reduced payload' when assigned to ASW - but the ZPK's reduced payload (4 x 250lb bombs) is the same as its normal payload!

Also, I get hardly any patrol contacts on subs from NavS missions (I use 6000' alt), nor do I get contacts on surface TFs from ASW missions (flown at 1000'). I get a lot of obvious wrong contacts when patrols identify a friendly TF as enemy, but very, very few 'cross-mission' contacts on actual enemy TFs. Is this a function of search altitude?


In previous threads on Nav Search, altitude has come up... My takeaways:

1) Higher altitude means better chance of detection (the guys can see more of the ocean from way up there) but a lower DL (hard to tell if that's a DD or a CL from 20,000 feet).

2) Lower altitude means lower chance of detection, but much better DL if you do sight something.

3) Nav Search will detect subs and sometimes attack them.

4) ASW mostly attacks subs, but detects them as well.

5) It is important to have both NavS and ASW groups working together if at all possible. I use NavS on 6k or higher, and ASW on 2k or sometimes even 1k.


I usually leave my NavS groups at 6k, but will adjust altitude when appropriate. Sometimes I will have groups at different altitudes searching the same arcs.



jmalter -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/25/2014 9:08:28 PM)

Thanks for your answer, Lokasenna.

I've been getting the feeling that Night ops from ASW/NavS groups are important, tho' only radar-equipped airframes are useful. This puts add'l stress on the limited # of Allied patrol-plane assets.



AW1Steve -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/25/2014 9:20:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

One could argue that they are relatively silent as well... and as a bomb platform they would have great accuracy. If they get equipted with radar, they might be very good sub killers in poor visibility or night... not sure if the get any bonus, but as there are so few of them, I suspect not.


One could argue that they would be easy targets for sub-based AAA. A welcome benefit to the enemy-"Hey look! Aerial target practice! And it's moving slower than a tow target too! Thanks, Allies!"



It only happened once. http://www.naval-airships.org/Default.aspx?pageId=660682
And of course the crew made repeated runs over the U-boat with a jammed bomb rack. On the last two runs , the ordanceman was allegedly kicking the bombs trying to get them to fall. All the Blimp had was a single forward firing machine gun. But in fairness , the Blimps had a phenomenal record , they could refuel from ships , land on carriers , and even hover. Several of them actually picked up survivors from the water. And they were not much slower than a helicopter. But MUCH longer ranged and with tremendous loiter ability. A MPA that can stay over a prosecution for hours is said to have great staying power. A blimp could stay for DAYS. One Blimp , the Snow Goose , did an endurance flight for weeks. [:)]
http://airshipworld.blogspot.com/2008/01/snow-bird-record-breaking-airship.html



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/25/2014 9:34:24 PM)

And their pilots' insignia was pretty interesting too.



[image]local://upfiles/31387/DEFEA99380904F48B6BFE6021CA11D3A.jpg[/image]



Chickenboy -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/26/2014 5:22:32 AM)

Dr. Hal, et. al.,

Although my previous post was in levity, the up-gunned U-boats of the Kriegsmarine were a formidable concern of the Allies in the mid-late war in the Atlantic. They shot down several large 4EB-sometimes those very ships that simultaneously claimed them in turn. A blimp would have represented the ultimate "soft target" that rationalized their 'stay on the surface and fight' orders.



margeorg -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/26/2014 9:57:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Dr. Hal, et. al.,

Although my previous post was in levity, the up-gunned U-boats of the Kriegsmarine were a formidable concern of the Allies in the mid-late war in the Atlantic. They shot down several large 4EB-sometimes those very ships that simultaneously claimed them in turn. A blimp would have represented the ultimate "soft target" that rationalized their 'stay on the surface and fight' orders.


Hmmm,

I have some different info. In 1943, the Kriegsmarine experimented with augmented AA weponry on U-Boats. Six of them traded their 1 x 2cm and 1 x 8,8cm guns for 1 x 3,7cm and 2 x 2cm quadruple-mounts (Flak-Vierling). Boats converted this way were called "Flak-Falle" (AA trap). The concept was to stay afloat during an aicraft attack and trying to shot down the attacker. This concept horribly failed with 5 boats being sunk by aircraft, and the sixth one returning to France badly damaged (the whole nautical personell on the bridge was killed during the attack, and the boats doctor had to bring the boat back with his limited navigational skills).

After this failure the Flak-Falle concept was given up.



geofflambert -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/26/2014 6:07:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

And their pilots' insignia was pretty interesting too.



[image]local://upfiles/31387/DEFEA99380904F48B6BFE6021CA11D3A.jpg[/image]


Well equipped for going around in circles.



geofflambert -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/26/2014 6:14:29 PM)

The west coast should only be a training area for ASW air crews (except the ZPKs). Use them to spot for some of those ASW ships rated 6 or 8 (as well as your search planes). I never send subs into a ZPK's zone, it's a good way to get sunk.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/26/2014 6:31:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

And their pilots' insignia was pretty interesting too.



[image]local://upfiles/31387/DEFEA99380904F48B6BFE6021CA11D3A.jpg[/image]


Well equipped for going around in circles.


I wonder if it was a USN "political" thing? IOW, they were "half an aviator" to the carrier guys.



Chickenboy -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/26/2014 8:06:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: margeorg

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Dr. Hal, et. al.,

Although my previous post was in levity, the up-gunned U-boats of the Kriegsmarine were a formidable concern of the Allies in the mid-late war in the Atlantic. They shot down several large 4EB-sometimes those very ships that simultaneously claimed them in turn. A blimp would have represented the ultimate "soft target" that rationalized their 'stay on the surface and fight' orders.


Hmmm,

I have some different info. In 1943, the Kriegsmarine experimented with augmented AA weponry on U-Boats. Six of them traded their 1 x 2cm and 1 x 8,8cm guns for 1 x 3,7cm and 2 x 2cm quadruple-mounts (Flak-Vierling). Boats converted this way were called "Flak-Falle" (AA trap). The concept was to stay afloat during an aicraft attack and trying to shot down the attacker. This concept horribly failed with 5 boats being sunk by aircraft, and the sixth one returning to France badly damaged (the whole nautical personell on the bridge was killed during the attack, and the boats doctor had to bring the boat back with his limited navigational skills).

After this failure the Flak-Falle concept was given up.


Yes, but the Flak-Falle boats were a failed experiment in a handful of Type IXs if memory suits. Mid-late war armament on the vast majority of Type VIIs was a significant upgrade from early war. So much so that thin-skinned patrol aircraft were generally ill advised to initiate a slow, low level drop over a U-boat 'fighting it out' on the surface. Many instances of such attacks going dreadfully awry for the bomber and the bomber crew.

The idea of a programmatic routine wherein a dirigible attacks into the teeth of an upgunned U-boat is laughable. In a tragic sort of way.

@AW1Steve-were there *any* instances of dirigibles getting even a partial credit for a u-boat kill? Here's one that went "the wrong way" for the dirigible crew against a type VIIC.

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/naval-aviation-centennial-blimp-vs-u-boat/

Other than great loitering time, there were much better airborne ASW platforms out there.



Chickenboy -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/26/2014 8:24:47 PM)

Interesting Appendix here...

http://www.history.navy.mil/avh-vol2/Appen3.pdf

The RAF lost some 700 [X(] aircraft in encounters with U-boat AAA. The US lost some 57 from the U-boats alone. So the fight was most decidedly not one-way.



Lokasenna -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/26/2014 9:08:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

And their pilots' insignia was pretty interesting too.



[image]local://upfiles/31387/DEFEA99380904F48B6BFE6021CA11D3A.jpg[/image]


Well equipped for going around in circles.


I wonder if it was a USN "political" thing? IOW, they were "half an aviator" to the carrier guys.


Half aviator, half sailor. At least that's my take on it. A blimp may be closer to a ship than a plane.



AW1Steve -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/26/2014 9:15:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: margeorg

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Dr. Hal, et. al.,

Although my previous post was in levity, the up-gunned U-boats of the Kriegsmarine were a formidable concern of the Allies in the mid-late war in the Atlantic. They shot down several large 4EB-sometimes those very ships that simultaneously claimed them in turn. A blimp would have represented the ultimate "soft target" that rationalized their 'stay on the surface and fight' orders.


Hmmm,

I have some different info. In 1943, the Kriegsmarine experimented with augmented AA weponry on U-Boats. Six of them traded their 1 x 2cm and 1 x 8,8cm guns for 1 x 3,7cm and 2 x 2cm quadruple-mounts (Flak-Vierling). Boats converted this way were called "Flak-Falle" (AA trap). The concept was to stay afloat during an aicraft attack and trying to shot down the attacker. This concept horribly failed with 5 boats being sunk by aircraft, and the sixth one returning to France badly damaged (the whole nautical personell on the bridge was killed during the attack, and the boats doctor had to bring the boat back with his limited navigational skills).

After this failure the Flak-Falle concept was given up.


Yes, but the Flak-Falle boats were a failed experiment in a handful of Type IXs if memory suits. Mid-late war armament on the vast majority of Type VIIs was a significant upgrade from early war. So much so that thin-skinned patrol aircraft were generally ill advised to initiate a slow, low level drop over a U-boat 'fighting it out' on the surface. Many instances of such attacks going dreadfully awry for the bomber and the bomber crew.

The idea of a programmatic routine wherein a dirigible attacks into the teeth of an upgunned U-boat is laughable. In a tragic sort of way.

@AW1Steve-were there *any* instances of dirigibles getting even a partial credit for a u-boat kill? Here's one that went "the wrong way" for the dirigible crew against a type VIIC.

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/naval-aviation-centennial-blimp-vs-u-boat/

Other than great loitering time, there were much better airborne ASW platforms out there.


I have NO IDEA. And frankly , don't really care. WW2 ASW for aircraft was not really about killing U-boats. And aircraft might carry 4-8 depth charges. A destroyer 80-200. There's just not much killing power there. If they killed a sub , great. That's gravy. Their mission was to SUPPRESS sub attacks. In CORD-OPS they assisted surface ships and provided a great force multiplier. They patrolled ahead of the convoys , sighted the subs and held them down while warning the convoy to go around. In the case of area defense, they were superb.An example was the STRAB (Straights of Gibraltar). Once aircraft had MAD , the patrolled the STRAB , in a boring , difficult way , requiring several aircraft to cover each other when turning (and MAD becomes useless). Blimps could leisurely patrol back and forth. The STRAUB was thereafter closed to U-boats.

And while I have no idea (and can find no-records of how many subs blimps sunk or assisted in sinking , one statistic I've heard continuously trumpeted (and never successfully challenged) is that no ship escorted by a blimp was ever sunk by a submarine. [X(]



tocaff -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/27/2014 12:13:35 AM)

That record of never losing one of your charges is the highest level of accomplishment.



Chickenboy -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/27/2014 5:51:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
And while I have no idea (and can find no-records of how many subs blimps sunk or assisted in sinking , one statistic I've heard continuously trumpeted (and never successfully challenged) is that no ship escorted by a blimp was ever sunk by a submarine. [X(]


Meh. If their coverage was so limited as to restrict their long-range escort value, this statistic is almost meaningless.

I also dispute your suggestion that historically airborne ASW was to suppress U-boats exclusively. They turned into damn efficient predators in the mid-late war against the U-boats. Particularly in the Bay of Biscay air ASW offensives.

The fact that they only carried 4-8 DCs was irrelevant. Their ability to place them astride a surfaced U-boat was more important than a destroyer's ability to chuck hundreds of 'em into the water at a submerged U-boat. In other words, they hunted by a very different methodology wherein their limited armament (DCs) was still sufficient for them to exact a terrible toll.

Also the CVE tactics of Wildcat/Avenger tandem hunting was designed to kill the U-boats, not just suppress them. If they wanted to suppress them exclusively, they would not have the tandem H/K tactical default.



geofflambert -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/27/2014 6:15:20 PM)

I believe that is a longstanding joke. One of you doesn't get it. I'm pretty sure it's your transspecies self, Chickenboy [:'(]



AW1Steve -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/27/2014 6:16:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
And while I have no idea (and can find no-records of how many subs blimps sunk or assisted in sinking , one statistic I've heard continuously trumpeted (and never successfully challenged) is that no ship escorted by a blimp was ever sunk by a submarine. [X(]


Meh. If their coverage was so limited as to restrict their long-range escort value, this statistic is almost meaningless.

I also dispute your suggestion that historically airborne ASW was to suppress U-boats exclusively. They turned into damn efficient predators in the mid-late war against the U-boats. Particularly in the Bay of Biscay air ASW offensives.

The fact that they only carried 4-8 DCs was irrelevant. Their ability to place them astride a surfaced U-boat was more important than a destroyer's ability to chuck hundreds of 'em into the water at a submerged U-boat. In other words, they hunted by a very different methodology wherein their limited armament (DCs) was still sufficient for them to exact a terrible toll.

Also the CVE tactics of Wildcat/Avenger tandem hunting was designed to kill the U-boats, not just suppress them. If they wanted to suppress them exclusively, they would not have the tandem H/K tactical default.


IN THE GAME the range is meaningless. I was discussing real life. Dispute away. You want to find SUBS , send your CV's out. And keep them on the same square for a week. You'll find them. [:D] But seriously. BTW , in the Bay of Biscay , the big killer wasn't Depth charges. It was rocket and gun fire. Depth charges work best against a submerged sub, not one in water too shallow to dive in.

Wildcat/Avenger teams were a "1st strike". They almost always were followed up by surface warships . Read some of the after action reports.

And lastly , I NEVER said that the only purpose of asw forces was to suppress subs. I said ESCORT forces were to support subs. HUNTER/KILLER forces were/are independent of convoys. Blimps were used for convoy protection , not hunter/killer. They attacked if they could , but there primary job was patrol. Hence ZP. Like VP. Only for lighter than air. Patrol aircraft are NOT dedicated ASW aircraft. They are multipurpose aircraft that also hunt subs. The USN did not have a truly dedicated ASW platform at that time. In the 1950's the VS designation , formerly "Fixed wing scouting" became "Fixed wing ASW". Since the TBM was no longer considered a torpedo plane , it became a dedicated ASW platform till replaced by the Grumman Guardian(S) , the S-2 Tracker and eventually the S-3 Viking (the USN's last ASW aircraft.) But in ww2 the TBF/TBM was still a multipurpose aircraft. The doctrine of hunting down and killing submarines with aircraft had still not been worked out. And really wouldn't be till the 1950's.



Chickenboy -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/27/2014 9:33:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

BTW , in the Bay of Biscay , the big killer wasn't Depth charges. It was rocket and gun fire. Depth charges work best against a submerged sub, not one in water too shallow to dive in.


I'll be you $10USD that air-delivered depth charges / depth bombs killed more subs in the Bay of Biscay offensives than air-delivered rockets or guns from above.



Chickenboy -> RE: The ZPK blimp (5/27/2014 9:35:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I believe that is a longstanding joke. One of you doesn't get it. I'm pretty sure it's your transspecies self, Chickenboy [:'(]


Don't you have a nice hot rock that needs sitting on, lizard? [:'(]



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.734375