Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers

Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (Full Version)

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

Message

MButtsworth -> Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/6/2020 11:12:57 PM)
I was wondering what was the correct altitude for two engine bombers conducting a naval attack? I read 100 feet but I am not sure if that is too low. Any ideas? And what about B17s on naval attack? There is so much I do not know or have forgotten in my 8 year break from the game. Matthew Buttsworth

BBfanboy -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/6/2020 11:43:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MButtsworth I was wondering what was the correct altitude for two engine bombers conducting a naval attack? I read 100 feet but I am not sure if that is too low. Any ideas? And what about B17s on naval attack? There is so much I do not know or have forgotten in my 8 year break from the game. Matthew Buttsworth It depends. Attacking a battleship with bombs, especially an American one after mid-1942, will be very different from attacking a convoy of xAKLs and PBs. So the answer is "Go as low as you dare, but not below 2000 feet unless your pilots are trained in low naval attack." A few 2E bombers are designated Assault Bombers, usually with a lot of forward firing guns. These should train in Low Naval attack at 1000 feet and Strafe at 100 feet. In addition, some 2E bombers like the B-25D1 and subsequent models can also be used as low level naval bombers but they do not get the Assault bomber bonus of no reduction in bomb load (AFAIK), so they will carry half the normal bomb load. Low level bombers are also vulnerable to heavy flak. In PBEMs, the players often agree to a rule against using 4EBs below 10,000 feet but the game itself does not restrict them. Both sides have 2EBs that can carry torpedoes instead of bombs. You can set any altitude you like for the them and they will descend to 200' to drop their torps before climbing back to the altitude you set. Higher altitude is better for flak avoidance, but sometimes a very low approach is better to sneak under CAP. Air warfare is a game of measure and counter-measure and you must try to be unpredictable against a human player,

Nomad -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/7/2020 12:18:26 AM)
B-25D1 bombers are attack bombers.

Lokasenna -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/7/2020 4:40:39 AM)
If you have attack bombers, you can/should use them at 100 feet. Note that they appear to use the Strafing skill at that altitude, not low-naval. Attack bombers are not penalized in terms of bomb load for flying at this altitude. It's been a long time, but there may also be something of a bonus for attack bombers when strafing: I think they might suppress some flak from ships. I may be misremembering. Clearly, I need my games to reach late 1943 with regular turns so I can use them and remember from experience.

Ian R -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/7/2020 5:53:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MButtsworth I was wondering what was the correct altitude for two engine bombers conducting a naval attack? I read 100 feet but I am not sure if that is too low. Any ideas? And what about B17s on naval attack? There is so much I do not know or have forgotten in my 8 year break from the game. Matthew Buttsworth There used to be some skip bombing code for low level attacks by 2E and the like. It was decommissioned in one of the patches. Nonetheless, 2E bombers with high skills in low-nav tend to get more hits down on the deck than tootling around at 17,000 feet. So I send them in at 1000 ft to use the low nav skill (once trained). B17s flying at 1000 feet seems unlikely to me, they're for sinking ships in port flying at between 5000 and 8000 feet, conducting searches and bombing airfields. There are often comments on this board about allied 4Es flying below 10k ft being "non-historical". I am not sure what the sources for that view are. The accounts I have seen all say that air warfare in the Pacific was usually conducted at much lower altitudes than in the European theatre.

Sardaukar -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/7/2020 8:05:50 AM)
I use 1000 ft for naval bombing. I don't use 4E for that before 1943 because I consider it "gamey". 2E bombers are deadly at 1000 ft and attack bombers drop automatically to 100ft to skip bomb and strafe. Downside is that you don't often do much against BBs because of their heavy belt armour.

BBfanboy -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/7/2020 10:47:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna If you have attack bombers, you can/should use them at 100 feet. Note that they appear to use the Strafing skill at that altitude, not low-naval. Attack bombers are not penalized in terms of bomb load for flying at this altitude. It's been a long time, but there may also be something of a bonus for attack bombers when strafing: I think they might suppress some flak from ships. I may be misremembering. Clearly, I need my games to reach late 1943 with regular turns so I can use them and remember from experience. I remember it the same - not a bonus per se, but the multiple forward firing mgs have a better chance of suppressing the AA.

Coach Zuck -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/8/2020 6:06:50 AM)
What bombers are considered Attack Bombers? Allied/Japanese

castor troy -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/8/2020 10:03:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Coach Zuck What bombers are considered Attack Bombers? Allied/Japanese the Japanese don't have attack bombers

rustysi -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/8/2020 11:08:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: Coach Zuck What bombers are considered Attack Bombers? Allied/Japanese the Japanese don't have attack bombers +1

rustysi -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/8/2020 11:12:27 AM)
To view the Allied attack bombers go to the menu bar at the top of the game page. Select 'show all land based planes' (or some such). Turn off the plane groups, then select the heading 'AB', for attack bombers, and there you go.

fcooke -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/8/2020 8:34:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: MButtsworth I was wondering what was the correct altitude for two engine bombers conducting a naval attack? I read 100 feet but I am not sure if that is too low. Any ideas? And what about B17s on naval attack? There is so much I do not know or have forgotten in my 8 year break from the game. Matthew Buttsworth It depends. Attacking a battleship with bombs, especially an American one after mid-1942, will be very different from attacking a convoy of xAKLs and PBs. So the answer is "Go as low as you dare, but not below 2000 feet unless your pilots are trained in low naval attack." A few 2E bombers are designated Assault Bombers, usually with a lot of forward firing guns. These should train in Low Naval attack at 1000 feet and Strafe at 100 feet. In addition, some 2E bombers like the B-25D1 and subsequent models can also be used as low level naval bombers but they do not get the Assault bomber bonus of no reduction in bomb load (AFAIK), so they will carry half the normal bomb load. Low level bombers are also vulnerable to heavy flak. In PBEMs, the players often agree to a rule against using 4EBs below 10,000 feet but the game itself does not restrict them. Both sides have 2EBs that can carry torpedoes instead of bombs. You can set any altitude you like for the them and they will descend to 200' to drop their torps before climbing back to the altitude you set. Higher altitude is better for flak avoidance, but sometimes a very low approach is better to sneak under CAP. Air warfare is a game of measure and counter-measure and you must try to be unpredictable against a human player, IIRC B-17s the pioneers of skip and were used against ships at the Canal, even nailing a DD from altitude.

Sardaukar -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/8/2020 9:18:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fcooke quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: MButtsworth I was wondering what was the correct altitude for two engine bombers conducting a naval attack? I read 100 feet but I am not sure if that is too low. Any ideas? And what about B17s on naval attack? There is so much I do not know or have forgotten in my 8 year break from the game. Matthew Buttsworth It depends. Attacking a battleship with bombs, especially an American one after mid-1942, will be very different from attacking a convoy of xAKLs and PBs. So the answer is "Go as low as you dare, but not below 2000 feet unless your pilots are trained in low naval attack." A few 2E bombers are designated Assault Bombers, usually with a lot of forward firing guns. These should train in Low Naval attack at 1000 feet and Strafe at 100 feet. In addition, some 2E bombers like the B-25D1 and subsequent models can also be used as low level naval bombers but they do not get the Assault bomber bonus of no reduction in bomb load (AFAIK), so they will carry half the normal bomb load. Low level bombers are also vulnerable to heavy flak. In PBEMs, the players often agree to a rule against using 4EBs below 10,000 feet but the game itself does not restrict them. Both sides have 2EBs that can carry torpedoes instead of bombs. You can set any altitude you like for the them and they will descend to 200' to drop their torps before climbing back to the altitude you set. Higher altitude is better for flak avoidance, but sometimes a very low approach is better to sneak under CAP. Air warfare is a game of measure and counter-measure and you must try to be unpredictable against a human player, IIRC B-17s the pioneers of skip and were used against ships at the Canal, even nailing a DD from altitude. https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2020/03/13/wwii-pioneers-of-skip-bombing/ B-17s pioneered it, mainly because they were only planes with range to reach Rabaul.

Moltrey -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/8/2020 11:43:23 PM)
MB, just be sure to NOT use an altitude of 100ft unless it is an Allied Attack Bomber or a squadron you want to have strafe a target. I made the mistake early on of assuming "Oh, hey... ASW mission, the lower, the better, right?" Uhh... NO. All the west coast B-25's I assigned to ASW at 100ft did was occasionally attempt to strafe sub contacts. Needless to say, not one hit was ever registered. By the way, 1000ft seems to work OK for ASW. Others here may have a different recommendation based on their experiences.

bradfordkay -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/10/2020 4:08:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi To view the Allied attack bombers go to the menu bar at the top of the game page. Select 'show all land based planes' (or some such). Turn off the plane groups, then select the heading 'AB', for attack bombers, and there you go. This check tells me that B25G Mitchells are also classified as attack bombers - at least in the DBB scenario.

Ian R -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/10/2020 4:19:43 PM)
Reading this thread just reinforces my opinion that house rules limiting allied bombers to above 10k ft are a sop to the JFBs - for game reasons, not reality. Has anyone got some real objective evidence to support the allied bombers being restricted to going high? Timotheus and Barb - I'm looking at you. Surely you have some references to backup your claims, so please link them so we can have a look.

bradfordkay -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/10/2020 4:31:32 PM)
My recollection is that in the game 4E bomber squadrons that are well trained in naval bombing have a tendency to receive an obscene amount of hits on ships at sea when bombing below 10,000', so many PBEMs have the house rule that limits such use. I think that it is due to the number of bombs a 4E bomber carries compared to a 2E one.

Ian R -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/10/2020 5:26:29 PM)
I'm guessing the same IJ players who demand that house rule, are the ones who bail out and disappear from the PBEM in mid 43, when their grand domination plan fails. Say Again - Has anyone got some real objective evidence to support the allied bombers being restricted to going high?

Moltrey -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/10/2020 8:03:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R Reading this thread just reinforces my opinion that house rules limiting allied bombers to above 10k ft are a sop to the JFBs - for game reasons, not reality. Has anyone got some real objective evidence to support the allied bombers being restricted to going high? Timotheus and Barb - I'm looking at you. Surely you have some references to backup your claims, so please link them so we can have a look. Ian: I can't say I have a significant sample size, but in learning as Allies I have transferred all my B-17s to Cagayan airfield regularly. There they are (if memory serves) within normal bombing range of Babeldaob. I have tried the typical 10k altitude level bombing with (expected) poor results. However, when I have a decent number of B-17s survive the surprise attack on Clark Field, setting up daylight low level bombing missions staggered between 2000 and 5000ft has garnered some serious, albeit unconfirmed walloping of Japanese ships in harbor and the surrounding area. I don't remember details on the hits and type scored as it has been months since I last did the raids. Seems to work pretty well. Sometimes you get lucky and shoot down a number of Claude fighters too with some damage but very low losses. Not sure if is statistically relevant, but there you go.

mind_messing -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/10/2020 11:39:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R Reading this thread just reinforces my opinion that house rules limiting allied bombers to above 10k ft are a sop to the JFBs - for game reasons, not reality. Has anyone got some real objective evidence to support the allied bombers being restricted to going high? Timotheus and Barb - I'm looking at you. Surely you have some references to backup your claims, so please link them so we can have a look. All house rules are a sop, in one form or another. In this particular case, the argument was that 4E bombers were very effective on naval attack missions because their large bombload meant they'd have a much higher chance of landing a hit, and their defensive armament and high durability meant IJ CAP struggles to inflict losses. Taken to the extreme, you could train NavB pilots for your B-29s in an effort to scour the seas of IJ shipping, should you wish. If such a strategy would be effective and what counters there are to it I will leave as an exercise to the reader :)

rustysi -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/11/2020 6:12:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R Reading this thread just reinforces my opinion that house rules limiting allied bombers to above 10k ft are a sop to the JFBs - for game reasons, not reality. Has anyone got some real objective evidence to support the allied bombers being restricted to going high? Timotheus and Barb - I'm looking at you. Surely you have some references to backup your claims, so please link them so we can have a look. [sm=nono.gif] This isn't going to be easy... The way I look at things like this have to do with the limitation of the code as it is written. Its generally done as a 'one size fits all' so to speak. So bombing is bombing, no such thing a bombing an airfield is different from bombing a city. Is different from bombing a TF, etc. I think its common knowledge here that the more bombs an A/C carries the better a chance of a hit. Now that works fine when you're bombing a city, but not so much when bombing a TF. IOW, if I 'walk' a sting of bombs through a city what one misses the next may hit something. When it comes to a TF, if I walk bombs across it a miss is basically a miss, no matter how many bombs are in the sting. At best you'll get one hit per plane. Hence the restriction of the reduced bomb load when bombing from 1k'. If not too many hits. Now when it comes to HB's they carry a good number of bombs, and therefore have a greater chance of multiple hits. By restricting their altitude these number of hits will be diminished, which will reflect their chance of hits to a more accurate level. Now I'm not disparaging the game or how the code is written. Things have to be as they are for many reasons, and one of them is economics. If the game is written to accommodate each instance it would take forever code (if that is even possible) and cost a fortune. Most of us don't have pockets like the Pentagon to dive into.[:D] Of course all this is JMHO as I perceive things. Just as it is for your outlook.

Ian R -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/11/2020 7:50:38 AM)
I just did some searches and found this, per CR Sutton: quote: Yes, all non-attack type level bombers use the reduced bomb load when bombing ships below 6k. Attack type bombers (late B25s for example) use their full load and when set below 6k will always drop down to 100 feet and strafe and bomb. The strafing should suppress return AA fire. Fighters and fighter bombers when set to naval attack at 1,000 feet and lower will drop down and attack at 100 feet. They will strafe but I do not think they suppress flak. At all other heights fighters level bomb.....& Against light naval targets I always set medium bombers to 1,000 feet. The reduced bomb load is compensated by better accuracy. https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3842892&mpage=1&key=bombers%2Clow%2Caltitude� It seems the developers already built in a reduction.

BBfanboy -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/11/2020 8:49:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R I just did some searches and found this, per CR Sutton: quote: Yes, all non-attack type level bombers use the reduced bomb load when bombing ships below 6k. Attack type bombers (late B25s for example) use their full load and when set below 6k will always drop down to 100 feet and strafe and bomb. The strafing should suppress return AA fire. Fighters and fighter bombers when set to naval attack at 1,000 feet and lower will drop down and attack at 100 feet. They will strafe but I do not think they suppress flak. At all other heights fighters level bomb.....& Against light naval targets I always set medium bombers to 1,000 feet. The reduced bomb load is compensated by better accuracy. https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3842892&mpage=1&key=bombers%2Clow%2Caltitude? It seems the developers already built in a reduction. Later the code was changed to make the difference between Low Level and "High" Level bombing 2000 feet instead of 6000. At that height the heavy bombers probably would get a lot of hits with no bomb load reduction.

Moltrey -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/11/2020 12:56:35 PM)
So... have all the community gnashing of grognard teeth over heavy bomber house rules been a wasted exercise then? (not that THAT ever happens... [8\|]) If the Devs "have already built in a reduction", then is it acceptable enough for most players? Somehow my intuition tells me it won't be, strictly due to most players "HB low altitude OP" beliefs were formed based on game execution direct/2nd hand (replay) observation. Which of course "validates" said beliefs, right? I am all for hidden data and random factors in WITP:AE, but it does tend to bring out Alfred to correct or amend statements repeatedly (likely the source of his legendary snappish behavior). You could make a case that this sort of arguing is what all us Grogs are best at- chasing our collective tails on details that aren't truly important in the grand scheme of things.

rustysi -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/11/2020 6:33:24 PM)
quote: Later the code was changed to make the difference between Low Level and "High" Level bombing 2000 feet instead of 6000. At that height the heavy bombers probably would get a lot of hits with no bomb load reduction. I repeat.

BBfanboy -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/11/2020 10:27:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi quote: Later the code was changed to make the difference between Low Level and "High" Level bombing 2000 feet instead of 6000. At that height the heavy bombers probably would get a lot of hits with no bomb load reduction. I repeat. You and I have heard all this stuff before, but a lot of new players have bought the game recently and need to hear what has already been hashed out. It is still a personal judgement call whether the Allied player should agree to decrease 4EB of naval targets to give the Japanese player a less frustrating game (and perhaps make it last a bit longer).

Ian R -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/11/2020 11:34:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi quote: Later the code was changed to make the difference between Low Level and "High" Level bombing 2000 feet instead of 6000. At that height the heavy bombers probably would get a lot of hits with no bomb load reduction. I repeat. You and I have heard all this stuff before, but a lot of new players have bought the game recently and need to hear what has already been hashed out. It is still a personal judgement call whether the Allied player should agree to decrease 4EB of naval targets to give the Japanese player a less frustrating game (and perhaps make it last a bit longer). So, no-one has put forward any evidence that there is anything historically wrong with the modeling. And at some point in a patch the penalty was actually reduced. Should the allied player ask for a house rule that the IJ player has to divide his xAKs and TKs into two halves - one to take stuff to the front and come home empty, and one to go out empty and bring back raw materials? That is historically accurate. ;-)

Lowpe -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/13/2020 1:28:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi quote: Later the code was changed to make the difference between Low Level and "High" Level bombing 2000 feet instead of 6000. At that height the heavy bombers probably would get a lot of hits with no bomb load reduction. I repeat. You and I have heard all this stuff before, but a lot of new players have bought the game recently and need to hear what has already been hashed out. It is still a personal judgement call whether the Allied player should agree to decrease 4EB of naval targets to give the Japanese player a less frustrating game (and perhaps make it last a bit longer). So, no-one has put forward any evidence that there is anything historically wrong with the modeling. And at some point in a patch the penalty was actually reduced. Should the allied player ask for a house rule that the IJ player has to divide his xAKs and TKs into two halves - one to take stuff to the front and come home empty, and one to go out empty and bring back raw materials? That is historically accurate. ;-) As I understand it, low level bombing was exceptionally dangerous to the planes pursuing it as the explosion shockwave could knock down planes and this is not modeled in game... So it was a high skill, high reward endeavor. Massed 4E low altitude bombing really can devastate the KB, especially when used in conjunction with a carrier clash.

Sardaukar -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/13/2020 10:26:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lowpe quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi quote: Later the code was changed to make the difference between Low Level and "High" Level bombing 2000 feet instead of 6000. At that height the heavy bombers probably would get a lot of hits with no bomb load reduction. I repeat. You and I have heard all this stuff before, but a lot of new players have bought the game recently and need to hear what has already been hashed out. It is still a personal judgement call whether the Allied player should agree to decrease 4EB of naval targets to give the Japanese player a less frustrating game (and perhaps make it last a bit longer). So, no-one has put forward any evidence that there is anything historically wrong with the modeling. And at some point in a patch the penalty was actually reduced. Should the allied player ask for a house rule that the IJ player has to divide his xAKs and TKs into two halves - one to take stuff to the front and come home empty, and one to go out empty and bring back raw materials? That is historically accurate. ;-) As I understand it, low level bombing was exceptionally dangerous to the planes pursuing it as the explosion shockwave could knock down planes and this is not modeled in game... So it was a high skill, high reward endeavor. Massed 4E low altitude bombing really can devastate the KB, especially when used in conjunction with a carrier clash. Thus the use of delayed fuze.

rustysi -> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers (12/14/2020 4:27:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi quote: Later the code was changed to make the difference between Low Level and "High" Level bombing 2000 feet instead of 6000. At that height the heavy bombers probably would get a lot of hits with no bomb load reduction. I repeat. You and I have heard all this stuff before, but a lot of new players have bought the game recently and need to hear what has already been hashed out. It is still a personal judgement call whether the Allied player should agree to decrease 4EB of naval targets to give the Japanese player a less frustrating game (and perhaps make it last a bit longer). So, no-one has put forward any evidence that there is anything historically wrong with the modeling. And at some point in a patch the penalty was actually reduced. Should the allied player ask for a house rule that the IJ player has to divide his xAKs and TKs into two halves - one to take stuff to the front and come home empty, and one to go out empty and bring back raw materials? That is historically accurate. ;-) [8\|] It is simply this... Due to the code making the number of bombs dropped a factor in the ability to hit a target, HB's tend to get more hits on maneuvering TF's at sea than they might get historically. This can make Japan's desperate situation even more so. Doesn't mean that HB's didn't hit targets at sea, they did. Just seems that at lower altitudes they seem to punch above their weight. Again, play the way you wish. As I've said before, 1000 players, 1000 ways to play the game.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.09375