Allied LBA for Naval Operations (Full Version)

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



Message

Malagant -> Allied LBA for Naval Operations (12/3/2014 5:30:47 PM)

I'm struggling to find an early war plane that can do anything but make splashes around Japanese shipping.

Of course A-24s do nicely, as do the Marine SBDs, but are there any Army planes that folks tend to have success with in either Naval or ASW roles?

Thanks!



crsutton -> RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations (12/3/2014 6:22:54 PM)

No ideal plane in the early going. Medium bombers at 1,000 feet vs light shipping but the 500 lb bombs won't do much against larger warships. Train them in low naval. For ASW, radar equipped planes are best but until you get them train anything in ASW. Including Whiraways, Vincents, and any other obsolete thing that carries bombs. They will help a little and provide you with a cadre of experienced pilots when you get better equipment. By mid war, all American Naval multi engine bombers and patrol planes have both radar and good bomb loads. They are all great for ASW. The Avenger has radar as well. Truly a very useful aircraft.



geofflambert -> RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations (12/3/2014 6:35:53 PM)

It's not the plane's fault, it's the air crews. They have to be trained properly and that's a lot of work for you. Also you need to train some for ASW. I like Marauders for that among others(not for training mind you). B-25s would be great against shipping.



HansBolter -> RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations (12/3/2014 7:06:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

It's not the plane's fault, it's the air crews. They have to be trained properly and that's a lot of work for you. Also you need to train some for ASW. I like Marauders for that among others(not for training mind you). B-25s would be great against shipping.


B-25s at 1000 ft. with adequately trained pilots( big caveat)are murder against unarmored shipping.
P39s at 100 ft. are just as dangerous to unarmored shipping.

Against armored warships the stringbags are actually the only real early war alternative to the dive bombers.




GreyJoy -> RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations (12/3/2014 8:04:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

It's not the plane's fault, it's the air crews. They have to be trained properly and that's a lot of work for you. Also you need to train some for ASW. I like Marauders for that among others(not for training mind you). B-25s would be great against shipping.


B-25s at 1000 ft. with adequately trained pilots( big caveat)are murder against unarmored shipping.
P39s at 100 ft. are just as dangerous to unarmored shipping.

Against armored warships the stringbags are actually the only real early war alternative to the dive bombers.





B25s with good crews can easily sink even CAs. i've had many many CAs badly damaged (and even sunk) by low-running B25s with their 4x500lb bombsat 1000 feet



Lokasenna -> RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations (12/3/2014 8:49:05 PM)

I use B-25s at 100 feet. Sank at least one "new" IJN CL that way not so long ago. A magazine explosion actually, IIRC, so perhaps not a fair comparison... but I believe they put a bad hurting on her sister ship at the same time.

Train for strafe when you attack at 100 feet. I used the attack bomber variant, B-25D1. Good guns on the front of it, too. And fast, so can punch through CAP (especially when there is no radar present).

P-39s, and to a lesser extent P-40s, also work on strafe. And later, when the Corsairs get bombs....



geofflambert -> RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations (12/3/2014 11:07:18 PM)

I don't understand why they didn't make the B-25s torpedo capable, they certainly could carry the load.



AW1Steve -> RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations (12/3/2014 11:29:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I don't understand why they didn't make the B-25s torpedo capable, they certainly could carry the load.


In real life they couldn't. But the B-26 could. It can't in the game. Personally I blame the JFB Mafia! [:D][:D][:D](HUMOR FOLKS, I'm jest funnin'!!!) [:D][:D][:D]



msieving1 -> RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations (12/4/2014 1:44:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I don't understand why they didn't make the B-25s torpedo capable, they certainly could carry the load.


For the first half of the war, the Mark 13 torpedo was notoriously unreliable, and had to be dropped from about 50 feet altitude and 110 knots, which was hardly survivable in a two engine bomber. The USN had pretty much given up on the Mark 13 by 1943, only returning to it in the second half of 1944 after significant improvements had been made. The USAAF never had much interest in torpedoes.



Dili -> RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations (12/4/2014 4:32:10 AM)

Because fighting ships is not in the first priorities in the mission of Army Air Force.
They had no interest into spending resources training crew on how to drop a torpedo, that is too specific and too seaborne for them.

We mere wargamers approach this issues as whole, they approach from the mission objective: Air Domination, Douhetian City bombing, Anti Air Mission, Army Support etc. Only in the last there is something for attacking ships.
After all the Navy has aircrafts too and it is their mission to fight other ships, not the Army Air Force.



Alfred -> RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations (12/4/2014 6:29:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Malagant

I'm struggling to find an early war plane that can do anything but make splashes around Japanese shipping.

Of course A-24s do nicely, as do the Marine SBDs, but are there any Army planes that folks tend to have success with in either Naval or ASW roles?

Thanks!


You should read posts #354-356 inclusive from this thread to understand how to use your airforce effectively.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2580654&mpage=12&key=naval%2Cattack�

Too often advice is given on airforce use which is not that useful.

Alfred



Barb -> RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations (12/4/2014 10:10:16 AM)

Also cost for producing a single aerial torpedo versus 4-6x 500 lbs GP bombs with correct timers against shipping would still be several times higher for torpedo...
Not to mention the work-hours, maintenance requirements and use - torpedo can be used only against ships, while with the 500 lbs GP it was the question of putting up a different fuse and you can use them for anything :D



crsutton -> RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations (12/4/2014 3:21:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Because fighting ships is not in the first priorities in the mission of Army Air Force.
They had no interest into spending resources training crew on how to drop a torpedo, that is too specific and too seaborne for them.

We mere wargamers approach this issues as whole, they approach from the mission objective: Air Domination, Douhetian City bombing, Anti Air Mission, Army Support etc. Only in the last there is something for attacking ships.
After all the Navy has aircrafts too and it is their mission to fight other ships, not the Army Air Force.



And with the development of effective skip bombing tactics why would they want to invest in a much less reliable and more difficult way to attack shipping? Sinking capital ships was really the Navy's role.



Dili -> RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations (12/4/2014 3:44:09 PM)

Skip bombing is also an art in itself. I don't think there were much skip bombing compared to plain bombing.



geofflambert -> RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations (12/4/2014 3:55:51 PM)

I always trained up crews on Naval bombing for the Banshees.



Barb -> RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations (12/4/2014 8:16:00 PM)

Army thought it could sink ships by sinking them from medium to high altitudes... (you know, the "hitting barrel by high altitude precision bombing"). Only realities of war showed these believes are not going to happen.



wdolson -> RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations (12/5/2014 3:19:04 AM)

Skip bombing was relatively easy to learn, though it took a bomber loaded for bear with lots of forward firing armament.

Overall, bombing proved to be much more effective against unarmored and lightly armored targets. VT-10 pioneered night bombing with TBFs at low altitude. They sank a lot of merchant ships with mast height bombing. Skip bombing for medium bombers was much more effective than torpedoes. Rockets also was better than the use of torpedoes for lightly and unarmored targets.

By late war the only reason for using torpedoes was going after heavily armored targets like battleships.

Bill



jcjordan -> RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations (12/5/2014 4:09:10 AM)

IIRC the naval version of the Mitchell had the capabilities to carry a torpedo but by the time they came into service it just wasn't needed. In game they don't have that setting unless someone has modded it



Dili -> RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations (12/5/2014 4:41:28 AM)

In the Mediterranean the rule for the RAF was anything less than 2000-3000t not to waste a torpedo. Obviously not always followed and several time mistaken too.



Trugrit -> RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations (12/5/2014 10:48:56 AM)

Late war the navy developed high altitude high speed torpedo drops.

They used wooden stabilizers!

You might find this video interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R552QfbD8AU

K



crsutton -> RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations (12/5/2014 4:52:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Skip bombing is also an art in itself. I don't think there were much skip bombing compared to plain bombing.



You are right. But hitting a ship with a bomb or torpedo in any form of attack was an art. I would think that conventional level bombing at any altitude would be the hardest. I think with the common use of the gun equipped B25s and A20s that skip bombing (or some sort of glide bombing) became the norm by 1944. But I am not the authority on this.



jmalter -> RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations (12/5/2014 5:34:04 PM)

IIRC the Allies get ~4 sqds of Attack Bombers in '42. These guys need lots of Training in LowN to be effective, & must be based w/ sqds that are using NavS. A sqd of Cats, staffed by the nastiest NavT pilots you can find, can bring serious hurt. They carry 2 torps each, but of course are extremely vulnerable to enemy fighters & flak. I never had much luck w/ USArmy A-24s, often they'd not fly their mission.



wdolson -> RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations (12/5/2014 11:58:37 PM)

I've found that A-24s trained in naval attack with good squadron commanders are just as effective as Marine SBDs. Often SBDs are hard to come by in mid to late 1942 and the A-24s aren't subject to the competition for air frames between the USN and USMC. I rarely have many Marine units flying any modern SBDs by late 42.

Bill



crsutton -> RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations (12/6/2014 1:50:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I've found that A-24s trained in naval attack with good squadron commanders are just as effective as Marine SBDs. Often SBDs are hard to come by in mid to late 1942 and the A-24s aren't subject to the competition for air frames between the USN and USMC. I rarely have many Marine units flying any modern SBDs by late 42.

Bill


Agree, they are very handy in 42. They need a lot of training first which takes some time, but you get about 70-80 frames so why not make use of them?



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.25