quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

4E bombers vs moving ships were notoriously ineffective. It was almost impossible to hit a maneuvering target from 20,000 feet. In the time it takes a bomb to fall that far a ship moving at 15 kts is a quarter of a mile from where it was when the bombs were released. Plus, a 4E bomber does require a bomb run of some seconds duration that is relatively undisturbed by maneuvering such as might be required to track a ship that was maneuvering in an effort to avoid being hit by bombs.

[image]local://upfiles/10816/866C1D16A4C2468F9C954667B387CA63.jpg[/image]

quote:

There are plenty of "exploits" in the game on both sides that call for work. Let's get them all into play and work
on some fixes.

quote:

My experience has been that the heavy bombers are pretty worthless against TFs at sea, but can be deadly against those in port.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

While we are talking about things that "never happened", let's bring up the Japanese players who use their
BB's (not BC's) all over the Pacific to exploit the failings of the "bombardment" rules. Please show me ONE
example of this actually happening in the War. Japanese Naval doctrine was to keep these in home waters
for the "Decisive Naval Battle". Japanese players a-historically use them all over to pound ports and airfields.
And then complain bitterly when the Allied players use massed 4-engined bombers to exploit another weakness
in the games programming.

There are plenty of "exploits" in the game on both sides that call for work. Let's get them all into play and work
on some fixes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

While we are talking about things that "never happened", let's bring up the Japanese players who use their
BB's (not BC's) all over the Pacific to exploit the failings of the "bombardment" rules. Please show me ONE
example of this actually happening in the War. Japanese Naval doctrine was to keep these in home waters
for the "Decisive Naval Battle". Japanese players a-historically use them all over to pound ports and airfields.
And then complain bitterly when the Allied players use massed 4-engined bombers to exploit another weakness
in the games programming.

There are plenty of "exploits" in the game on both sides that call for work. Let's get them all into play and work
on some fixes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

quote:

My experience has been that the heavy bombers are pretty worthless against TFs at sea, but can be deadly against those in port.

Has anyone every run a series of test cases concerning level bomber against moving ships ? I may do this, but was curious if anyone has previously performed this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

While we are talking about things that "never happened", let's bring up the Japanese players who use their
BB's (not BC's) all over the Pacific to exploit the failings of the "bombardment" rules. Please show me ONE
example of this actually happening in the War. Japanese Naval doctrine was to keep these in home waters
for the "Decisive Naval Battle". Japanese players a-historically use them all over to pound ports and airfields.
And then complain bitterly when the Allied players use massed 4-engined bombers to exploit another weakness
in the games programming.

There are plenty of "exploits" in the game on both sides that call for work. Let's get them all into play and work
on some fixes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zeta16

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

While we are talking about things that "never happened", let's bring up the Japanese players who use their
BB's (not BC's) all over the Pacific to exploit the failings of the "bombardment" rules. Please show me ONE
example of this actually happening in the War. Japanese Naval doctrine was to keep these in home waters
for the "Decisive Naval Battle". Japanese players a-historically use them all over to pound ports and airfields.
And then complain bitterly when the Allied players use massed 4-engined bombers to exploit another weakness
in the games programming.

There are plenty of "exploits" in the game on both sides that call for work. Let's get them all into play and work
on some fixes.

Then since the allies never attack from Darwin into the DEI that should never happen. Come on, there where a lot of things that did not happen in the war that people do. So if we are always going to pick on the Japanese lets conform the allies to do what they did in the war too. This is a game people will do things that did not happen, however 4E bombers being more lethel is a game issue not play issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

While we are talking about things that "never happened", let's bring up the Japanese players who use their
BB's (not BC's) all over the Pacific to exploit the failings of the "bombardment" rules. Please show me ONE
example of this actually happening in the War. Japanese Naval doctrine was to keep these in home waters
for the "Decisive Naval Battle". Japanese players a-historically use them all over to pound ports and airfields.
And then complain bitterly when the Allied players use massed 4-engined bombers to exploit another weakness
in the games programming.

There are plenty of "exploits" in the game on both sides that call for work. Let's get them all into play and work
on some fixes.

Mmmh, apples and oranges.... We should distinguish between A) 'being able to do sth but unwilling to do it for some reason', i.e. Jap BBs not used for bombardments, or no convoys until too late, and B) 'badly wanting to do sth but being unable to do it or ineffective in doing so', i.e. CV air strike coordination [:D], Jap ASW, Allied 4E bombers hitting moving targets...

IMO 4E bombing accuracy in WitP is okay, there are just too many of them available for massed strikes. The Allies may have wanted to base 200+ B-17s at Port Moresby to bomb the heck out of every convoy to/from/at Rabaul - but it was impossible to stack and supply that many 4E-planes at that place IRL. In WitP, it's no problem as soon as the first large base force shows up. I still think it is a good idea to base the maintenance and 'air base capacity' requirements on number of engines rather than number of airframes, and to do away with the 'above 250 air support anything goes'-rule. This should lower the number of operational 4E bombers amassed at any single base to a more reasonable level.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigB

dude if it didnt exactly happen the way it happend in history books people are going to bitch and cry about it. Save your typing and just accept nobody will ever be happy unless it happens in their PBEM the way they read it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
Some of us wonder if some of the rest of us ever read it to begin with. [8D]

quote:

Original: doktorblood
Who knows how effective they might have been had they been massed in large numbers to carpet bomb some hapless transports?

I don't see any problem if the Allied player wants to concentrate all of his heavy bomber strength in one spot. He should be able to position his forces as he sees fit. If the Japanese player is dopey enough to park his fleet units in a port within range of 200 B-17 he deserves to get clobbered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
Some of us wonder if some of the rest of us ever read it to begin with. [8D]

Doesn't matter, just want to keep my 'posts counter' going up [:D]

quote:

Ryujo (Aircraft Carrier, 1933-1942) --High-Level Bombing Attack, 24 August 1942
In the afternoon of 24 August 1942, after Ryujo had been disabled by USS Saratoga's dive bombers and torpedo planes and while her crew was abandoning ship, she was the target of Army Air Force B-17 bombers. These bomb runs, well-photographed but little noticed by historians, missed the immobile aircraft carrier by wide margins, reinforcing the evidence already obtained during the Battle of Midway that high-level bombing was a very ineffective way of attacking ships.
This page features all the images we have of a 24 August 1942 high-level bombing attack on the Japanese aircraft carrier Ryujo.

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Here is an interesting web page from the Department of the Navy Naval Historical Center:

quote:

Ryujo (Aircraft Carrier, 1933-1942) --High-Level Bombing Attack, 24 August 1942
In the afternoon of 24 August 1942, after Ryujo had been disabled by USS Saratoga's dive bombers and torpedo planes and while her crew was abandoning ship, she was the target of Army Air Force B-17 bombers. These bomb runs, well-photographed but little noticed by historians, missed the immobile aircraft carrier by wide margins, reinforcing the evidence already obtained during the Battle of Midway that high-level bombing was a very ineffective way of attacking ships.
This page features all the images we have of a 24 August 1942 high-level bombing attack on the Japanese aircraft carrier Ryujo.

Interesting pics. Seems like the USN was not impressed with the results of this attack. Course that might just be a dig at the AAF! But I do suspect that AAF training and doctrine may have focused on priorities other than bombing ships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant
But I do suspect that AAF training and doctrine may have focused on priorities other than bombing ships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zeta16

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

While we are talking about things that "never happened", let's bring up the Japanese players who use their
BB's (not BC's) all over the Pacific to exploit the failings of the "bombardment" rules. Please show me ONE
example of this actually happening in the War. Japanese Naval doctrine was to keep these in home waters
for the "Decisive Naval Battle". Japanese players a-historically use them all over to pound ports and airfields.
And then complain bitterly when the Allied players use massed 4-engined bombers to exploit another weakness
in the games programming.

There are plenty of "exploits" in the game on both sides that call for work. Let's get them all into play and work
on some fixes.

Then since the allies never attack from Darwin into the DEI that should never happen. Come on, there where a lot of things that did not happen in the war that people do. So if we are always going to pick on the Japanese lets conform the allies to do what they did in the war too. This is a game people will do things that did not happen, however 4E bombers being more lethel is a game issue not play issue.

quote:

Want to tear Japanese shipping around New Guinea/New Britain a new hole? Build up Port Moresby, fly in a hundred or so B-25s and Mauraders and B-17s, put them on Naval Attack with 10% search, set their altitude at 1000/2000/4000 feet (doesn't much matter from what I can see, so I usually let it ride at 1000) and . . . any and all Japanese ships foolish enough to shape a course under normal range of those bombers will be dutifully . . . savaged.

quote:

Yes, the idea of preserving the BBs for the final climactic battle with the US fleet was a major factor in Japanese doctrine

quote:

suppose that, for whatever reason, the Doolittle Raid had not taken place IRL.....The first time an Allied player managed to launch a squadron of B-25s on a suicide mission against Tokyo, some players would undoubtedly decry the action as "gamey," "unrealistic," etc. So what is and is not an "exploit" is not always black-and-white (sometimes it is, though).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zeta16

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

While we are talking about things that "never happened", let's bring up the Japanese players who use their
BB's (not BC's) all over the Pacific to exploit the failings of the "bombardment" rules. Please show me ONE
example of this actually happening in the War. Japanese Naval doctrine was to keep these in home waters
for the "Decisive Naval Battle". Japanese players a-historically use them all over to pound ports and airfields.
And then complain bitterly when the Allied players use massed 4-engined bombers to exploit another weakness
in the games programming.

There are plenty of "exploits" in the game on both sides that call for work. Let's get them all into play and work
on some fixes.

Then since the allies never attack from Darwin into the DEI that should never happen. Come on, there where a lot of things that did not happen in the war that people do. So if we are always going to pick on the Japanese lets conform the allies to do what they did in the war too. This is a game people will do things that did not happen, however 4E bombers being more lethel is a game issue not play issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zeta16

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

While we are talking about things that "never happened", let's bring up the Japanese players who use their
BB's (not BC's) all over the Pacific to exploit the failings of the "bombardment" rules. Please show me ONE
example of this actually happening in the War. Japanese Naval doctrine was to keep these in home waters
for the "Decisive Naval Battle". Japanese players a-historically use them all over to pound ports and airfields.
And then complain bitterly when the Allied players use massed 4-engined bombers to exploit another weakness
in the games programming.

There are plenty of "exploits" in the game on both sides that call for work. Let's get them all into play and work
on some fixes.

Then since the allies never attack from Darwin into the DEI that should never happen. Come on, there where a lot of things that did not happen in the war that people do. So if we are always going to pick on the Japanese lets conform the allies to do what they did in the war too. This is a game people will do things that did not happen, however 4E bombers being more lethel is a game issue not play issue.

You miss the point entirely. The air attack rules make it far to easy and rewarding too use large 4-engined bomber
formations for Anti-shipping attacks. The bombardment rules make them far too easy and rewarding to blast every-
thing on any coast.. Both are exploits of poorly designed rules and combat results. If Darwin is correctly shown
without Rail connections and difficult to supply in any meaningful quantity, and the Allies want to expend the shipping
resources to try and support an effort there, I have no problem with it. In the game as released, an Allied Offensive
from that area IS another exploit of a poor design choice, and belongs on the same list as the level bomber and bomb-
bardment foolishness. All need to be fixed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

4E bombers vs ships is not one but two completely different things.

4E bombers vs stationary ships should be vicious. The owners of such ships are gambling and must expect to pay the ante.

4E bombers vs moving ships were notoriously ineffective. It was almost impossible to hit a maneuvering target from 20,000 feet. In the time it takes a bomb to fall that far a ship moving at 15 kts is a quarter of a mile from where it was when the bombs were released. Plus, a 4E bomber does require a bomb run of some seconds duration that is relatively undisturbed by maneuvering such as might be required to track a ship that was maneuvering in an effort to avoid being hit by bombs.

[image]local://upfiles/10816/866C1D16A4C2468F9C954667B387CA63.jpg[/image]