RE: surviving the heavies

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: surviving the heavies

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> RE: surviving the heavies

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: surviving the heavies - 1/19/2006 12:07:45 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

Ron:

While I would not mind some changes to supply it will not help this particular problem.

Allied bombers (the biggest issue here) will not really be effected by any supply changes unless they are extremely drastic.

Currently I sit with 3 Austrailian bases at 900,000 supply+. New Zealand and Numea are also stocked with several hundred thousand supply each. Ankerage has several hundered thousand. Of course my bases in India are as full as I want. And I stopped sending supply months ago. And I never did anything special before that. Its Oct 42.

It would take some drastic supply changes to stop my bombers this way.

And seperating the hard coded link between supply and resources will allow the modders to make some drastic supply changes to stop my bombers this way.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to moses)

Post #: 151

RE: surviving the heavies - 1/19/2006 12:10:44 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

When it comes to accuracy, just change the device ratings for this through the editor. I did it for ship, plane and PT launched torps, as well as ASW weapons and worked well (more so for the torps than ASW because of the old ASW model).

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 152

RE: surviving the heavies - 1/19/2006 2:32:43 AM

ChezDaJez

Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline

quote:

The fact is that B17s and other level bombers were used in anti-shipping roles. You may recall that B17s hit a Japanese destroyer during the warmup to the Guadalcanal landings. It has been pointed out earlier in this thread that the initial experiments with skip bombing in the SWPac area were done by B17s.

That DD was conducting rescure operations on a damaged ship and was tied alongside at the time. As far as I know, there aren't any instances of B-17s hitting warships on the open sea and underway from high altitude except during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea.

It is true that the B-17 was originally intended as a fleet interdiction aircraft when first designed. By the time the war started however, the B-17 was being promoted for use against land targets where it would prove much more effective. It continued to be used for naval search and attack in the Pacific because it was the only long range aircraft available with a significant bomb load until the B-24 became available. It simply didn't have the means to hit moving ships at sea with any degree of certainty. The Norden bombsight was designed strictly for land attack and had no means of adjustment for moving targets.

The only battle where they showed any significant effectiveness at altitude was the Battle of the Bismarck Sea where they conducted operations against 8 transports and 4 DDs. The B-17s bombed from 7000 feet while swarms of B-25s, A-20 Bostons and Beauforts used low altitude and skip bombing tactics. The B-17s claimed 5 ships sunk including a DD and 4 others heavily damaged. The B-17s actually sank only one ship, the KYOKUSEI MARU, a troop transport and damaged 2 others. The remainder were sunk by the 2E aircraft.

Be that as it may, the B-17 was withdrawn from Pacific theater combat operations in late spring of 43 and relegated to support duties until the fall of 43.

I agree with you that level bombing accuracy is too high for both sides but the problem is amplified by the B-17 because each bomb is treated separately and the B-17 carries a lot of them.
Chez

< Message edited by ChezDaJez -- 1/19/2006 2:36:21 AM >

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 153

RE: surviving the heavies - 1/19/2006 2:50:28 AM

moses

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline

I think though that despite what some say I don't really see that the 4E bomber is much of a ship killer in the game. I have had success in a couple of situations.

1.) Against ships operating in range of large numbers of my bombers with no aircover whatsoever. This is really a crazy situation. Why risk your ships like this. But its a game and no real lives are at risk so why not.

2.) Smallish carrier forces operating within range of my bombers for days on end. Again something which does not reflect historical practice.

In each case what I see are large numbers of ineffective bombing attacks until a lucky hit is scored. This is followed by numerous hits against the now crippled ship or ships. In one instance I can remember I attacked a carrier TF with 80 some 4E bombers and a couple dozen other aircraft (hudsons and such). The strikes were all ineffective until a 2E bomber put a 500lb bomb into a carrier. After this the carrier was hit several more times by the 4E bombers and over the next couple days savaged by these bombers until sunk.

I don't think any of this is unrealistic. I don't contend that 4E bombers should be good ship killers. Only that if you mass larger than historical numbers of bombers and employ them against TF's that are acting in a somewhat non-historical and risky manner then it is reasonable to expect a significantly greater than historical number of hits.

(in reply to ChezDaJez)

Post #: 154

RE: surviving the heavies - 1/19/2006 3:29:10 AM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

I just finished going through the TROMs of all IJN cruisers and destroyers at the Combined Fleet website. Here is the data. Ships sunk or damaged by Navy/USMC aircraft are not included nor is any ship damaged in the Solomons unless the type of a/c is clearly identified as an Allied twin engine bomber. I did include several ships damaged or sunk in the waters near New Guinea wherein the type of a/c inflicting the damage is unspecified. I believe it reasonable to assume in those cases that the a/c were from the USAAF or RAAF and were most likely twin or 4-engine bombers.

SHIP//AIRCRAFT RESPONSIBLE//DATE//NOTES

MUTSUKI// B-17 //8-25-42//TIED ALONGSIDE CRIPPLED KINRYU MARU RESCUING SURVIVORS//SUNK
MIKAZUKI//B-25//7-28-43//GROUNDED WHEN BOMBED//SUNK
MOCHIZUKI//PBY//10-24-43//SUNK BY BOMB NOT TORPEDO INCIDENTALLY
YAYOI//???//9-11-42//SUNK NEAR GOODENOUGH ISLAND
SHIRAYUKI//???//3-3-43//SKIP BOMBED IN BATTLE OF BISMARK SEA//SUNK
SHINONOME//DUTCH FLYING BOAT//12-17-41//PLANE IN GVT-7//SUNK
OBORO//B-26//10-17-42//ALEUTIANS//SUNK
HATSUHARU//B-26//10-17-42//HEAVILY DAMAGED IN ALEUTIANS
ARIAKE//B-24//12-26-42//HEAVILY DAMAGED//B-25//7-28-43//SUNK
SHIRATSUYU//B-17//11-29-42//MEDIUM DAMAGE
HARASUME//B-25//6-8-44//SUNK
UMIKAZE//B-17//11-18-42//SUNK
ASASHIO//????//3-3-43//SUNK IN BATTLE OF BISMARK SEA
ARASHIO//????//3-3-43//SUNK IN BATTLE OF BISMARK SEA
HAYASHIO//UNSPECIFIED USAAF BOMBERS//11-24-42//SUNK NEAR NEW GUINEA
AMATSUKAZE//B-25//4-6-45//SUNK
TOLKITSUKAZE//????//3-3-43//SUNK IN BATTLE OF BISMARK SEA
HAGIKAZE//B-17//8-19-42//HEAVILY DAMAGED - SAME CONVOY AS MUTSUKI
KIYONAMI//B-25//7-20-43//SUNK
KIYOSHIMO//UNSPECIFIED USAAF BOMBERS//12-26-44//SUNK
AKISHIMO//B-25//11-10-44//HEAVY DAMAGE
UME//B-25 AND P-38//1-31-45//SUNK
KAEDE//B-25 AND P-38//1-31-45//SUNK
NIRE//B-29//6-22-45//IN PORT
YUBARI//B-24 AND PBY//11-18-43//DAMAGED
TENRYU//B-17//10-1-42//DAMAGED
KISO//BEAUFORT//10-21-43//DAMAGED BY 250 LB BOMB
ABUKUMA//B-24//10-26-44//SUNK-PREVIOUSLY DAMAGED-MAX SPEED 20
ISUZU//B-24//4-6-45//DAMAGED
OYODO//B-24//12-26-44//2 DIRECT HITS BUT 1 WAS A DUD - LIGHT DAMAGE
ASHIGARA//B-25//12-26-44//DAMAGED
AOBA//B-17//4-3-43//SKIP BOMBED WHILE MOORED - BOMB SET OFF TORPEDOS WHICH NEARLY SINK SHIP - BEACHED TO PREVENT SINKING - PERMANENT ENGINE DAMAGE REDUCES TOP SPEED TO 25 KTS FOR REMAINDER OF WAR

From the data it would appear that Allied level bombers accounted for a fair number of fast naval vessels underway at the time of their demise. Of note re the Battle of the Bismark Sea is that only one of the 4 DDs sunk was sunk by skip bombing; the others evidently by conventional level bombing. I'm sure that some other source would detail what type of a/c scored the hits on those DDs but I'm too tired to go look right now.

< Message edited by spence -- 1/19/2006 3:40:18 AM >

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 155

RE: surviving the heavies - 1/19/2006 9:26:13 AM

ChezDaJez

Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline

quote:

I just finished going through the TROMs of all IJN cruisers and destroyers at the Combined Fleet website. Here is the data. Ships sunk or damaged by Navy/USMC aircraft are not included nor is any ship damaged in the Solomons unless the type of a/c is clearly identified as an Allied twin engine bomber. I did include several ships damaged or sunk in the waters near New Guinea wherein the type of a/c inflicting the damage is unspecified. I believe it reasonable to assume in those cases that the a/c were from the USAAF or RAAF and were most likely twin or 4-engine bombers.

MUTSUKI// B-17 //8-25-42//TIED ALONGSIDE CRIPPLED KINRYU MARU RESCUING SURVIVORS//SUNK
MIKAZUKI//B-25//7-28-43//GROUNDED WHEN BOMBED//SUNK
MOCHIZUKI//PBY//10-24-43//SUNK BY BOMB NOT TORPEDO INCIDENTALLY
YAYOI//???//9-11-42//SUNK NEAR GOODENOUGH ISLAND
SHIRAYUKI//???//3-3-43//SKIP BOMBED IN BATTLE OF BISMARK SEA//SUNK
SHINONOME//DUTCH FLYING BOAT//12-17-41//PLANE IN GVT-7//SUNK
OBORO//B-26//10-17-42//ALEUTIANS//SUNK
HATSUHARU//B-26//10-17-42//HEAVILY DAMAGED IN ALEUTIANS
ARIAKE//B-24//12-26-42//HEAVILY DAMAGED//B-25//7-28-43//SUNK
SHIRATSUYU//B-17//11-29-42//MEDIUM DAMAGE
HARASUME//B-25//6-8-44//SUNK
UMIKAZE//B-17//11-18-42//SUNK
ASASHIO//????//3-3-43//SUNK IN BATTLE OF BISMARK SEA
ARASHIO//????//3-3-43//SUNK IN BATTLE OF BISMARK SEA
HAYASHIO//UNSPECIFIED USAAF BOMBERS//11-24-42//SUNK NEAR NEW GUINEA
AMATSUKAZE//B-25//4-6-45//SUNK
TOLKITSUKAZE//????//3-3-43//SUNK IN BATTLE OF BISMARK SEA
HAGIKAZE//B-17//8-19-42//HEAVILY DAMAGED - SAME CONVOY AS MUTSUKI
KIYONAMI//B-25//7-20-43//SUNK
KIYOSHIMO//UNSPECIFIED USAAF BOMBERS//12-26-44//SUNK
AKISHIMO//B-25//11-10-44//HEAVY DAMAGE
UME//B-25 AND P-38//1-31-45//SUNK
KAEDE//B-25 AND P-38//1-31-45//SUNK
NIRE//B-29//6-22-45//IN PORT
YUBARI//B-24 AND PBY//11-18-43//DAMAGED
TENRYU//B-17//10-1-42//DAMAGED
KISO//BEAUFORT//10-21-43//DAMAGED BY 250 LB BOMB
ABUKUMA//B-24//10-26-44//SUNK-PREVIOUSLY DAMAGED-MAX SPEED 20
ISUZU//B-24//4-6-45//DAMAGED
OYODO//B-24//12-26-44//2 DIRECT HITS BUT 1 WAS A DUD - LIGHT DAMAGE
ASHIGARA//B-25//12-26-44//DAMAGED
AOBA//B-17//4-3-43//SKIP BOMBED WHILE MOORED - BOMB SET OFF TORPEDOS WHICH NEARLY SINK SHIP - BEACHED TO PREVENT SINKING - PERMANENT ENGINE DAMAGE REDUCES TOP SPEED TO 25 KTS FOR REMAINDER OF WAR

It's well documented that skip bombing by heavy and medium bombers was highly effective against shipping. The question is how effective was the B-17 AT ALTITUDE against ships actually underway and at sea.

BTW, there are a few errors with the Combined Fleet TROMs. Some examples follow:

Yayoi was sunk by B-25s skip bombing.

Shinonome was sunk by an explosion, possibly a mine. There were no survivors. The Dutch claimed her but other ships with her reported no air attacks at the time.

The Ariake was in the North Pacific waiting for KB to arrive for escort back to the home islands after PH. She also participated in the Darwin raids in Feb 42.

Tenryu was anchored at Rabaul when hit. Damage was not extensive and was repaired in Rabaul. She was sunk by the SS Albacore 2 months later.

Arashio, Shirayuki and Talikitsukaze were all sunk by B-25s at the Battle of Bismarck Sea. The Asashio is credited to both B-25s and B-17s depending upon the source used.

Hayashio was sunk by skip bombing B-25s. One of my books has a picture of her being bombed.

I used Morrison, Bergstrom, Lundstrom and Dull's "The Imperial Japanese Navy" book plus multitude of internet sites. I like to double and triple chack data because so much of it is just a rehash of someone else's data.

Anyhooo... I would sure hate to be on the deck of a Japanese ship when B-25s or B-17s came skip bombing. That must have been one scarey sight!

Chez

_____________________________

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 156

RE: surviving the heavies - 1/19/2006 5:21:52 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

"The question is how effective was the B-17 AT ALTITUDE against ships actually underway and at sea. "

I think we can all agree, as did the powers that be in WW2, that at altitude, they were not terribly effective. "At altititude" being defined as 15 - 20k , which was the expected altitude that they would be bombing from (and indeed did attemped early on). In my Midway example, it -IS- impressive that they managed to -almost- hit Soryu (manuvering at 26kts vs. torpedos, from 16,000'). But -almost- doesn't do you much good operationally.

I have not done the research on "lower level boming altitudes", as in <10k, so I won't make any assertions if accuracy improved. I don't even know how often they bombed at the lower altitudes (esp since it would be against perscribed training procedures).

But the lack of effectiveness at 20k, is the very reason they switched to skip bombing in the first place.

A caviate' on skip bombing. The group commanders felt that it was actually -easier- to train a new pilot to skip bomb in the first place, so I'm not sure why the skill check is in WitP. But whatever.

< Message edited by Feinder -- 1/19/2006 5:23:33 PM >

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to ChezDaJez)

Post #: 157

RE: surviving the heavies - 1/19/2006 5:38:15 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

The 17's weren't particularly more accurate against moving targets at the 8-10k range. the crews disliked bombing at these alts because according to some crewers, 9k or thereabouts was the optimum alt for the Japanese AA gunners.

The skill check in WitP is of course....an abstraction, to represent the fact that the crews needed some kind of training to preform this type of mission. Kenney certainly believed so as he carefully monitored the intial training sessions.

_____________________________

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 158

RE: surviving the heavies - 1/19/2006 5:51:34 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

Nik, what -is- the point of skip bombing in WitP? Seriously. Between the skill checks, the extra flak, the morale hit, and higher chance at a belt armor hit, I can't see the point.

Do you get individual rolls for the bombs, instead of the "stick" attacks from altitude? If that were the case, it would be useful.

I never use skip bombing because my crews at 70 exp (reasonable chance to pass check for skip bombing), are also adaquate at 6k, and I don't have to put up with the the flak, morale hit, and useless belt hits.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 159

RE: surviving the heavies - 1/19/2006 6:00:04 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Skip bombing can be devestating in the game and has been demonstrated in the past....hence the toning down efforts in the code (not the exp check...that was always there) It's particularily effective against merchants and lightly protected warships. It's not as important vs docked TF's as they can be hit fairly easy by high exp groups.

_____________________________

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 160

RE: surviving the heavies - 1/19/2006 6:04:50 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

So with skip bombing, do you get individual attacks with each bomb, and that's the difference betwen it an level bombing? Or is there a positive accuracy modifier or something if the attacks are still resolved as a stick?

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 161

RE: surviving the heavies - 1/19/2006 6:13:52 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

no change to my knowledge. each bomb makes it's roll.

_____________________________

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 162

RE: surviving the heavies - 1/19/2006 6:18:35 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

quote:

each bomb makes it's roll.

Ouch.

Question answered.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 163

RE: surviving the heavies - 1/19/2006 11:19:24 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

Speaking of skip bombing, just before coming to work I played a turn vs the AI in which I set a group of high experience B-26s to skip bomb in the presence of the KB (much reduced - 2CV, 3CVL). The only thing that piqued my interest in the following attack was that out of 33 bombers that penetrated the CAP every single one of them went after a heavy cruiser rather than any of the carriers. HUH? If that was a flukey bunch of die rolls I guess I can understand it but if that was the programed target selectivity that would be bad.
BTW in this game those B-26s have been carrying 1000 lb bombs right from the start of the scenario: May 42 (is that this thread?).

Oh and Chez I think you misread the entry about Ariake above. She was hit by a B-24 in December 1942, not 12/41.

In accounts I've read about the sinking of the Mutsuki the Japanese Captain made some comment like "B-17s never hit anything" just before the stick of bombs came down that blew him out of the water. It's interesting in that he was presumably present with the convoy the week before when a B-17 hit and heavily damaged another of the escorts, Hagikaze.

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 164

RE: surviving the heavies - 1/20/2006 4:16:18 AM

ChezDaJez

Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline

quote:

But the lack of effectiveness at 20k, is the very reason they switched to skip bombing in the first place.

I agree... and a B-17 on a skip bombing attack is the thing Japanese nightmares are made of!

quote:

The group commanders felt that it was actually -easier- to train a new pilot to skip bomb in the first place, so I'm not sure why the skill check is in WitP. But whatever.

Weapons delivery might be easier but the actual task of flying low is harder. A single hiccup on the stick is enough to put you into the water. P-3's typically operate at 200' when tracking subs or rigging ships. I've had more than 1 pilot almost give me dirty pants that low!

Chez

< Message edited by ChezDaJez -- 1/20/2006 4:22:39 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 165

RE: surviving the heavies - 1/20/2006 4:24:43 AM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

Have to agree with that, Chez.
A long time ago I was on the bridge of a USCG cutter when a Canadian S-2 (I think) came out of the clouds and flew over at less than masthead height. Watching however many tons of airplane coming "straight at you" at 300 mph is SCARY, VERY SCARY, even when you know there's no bombs involved (Canada was friendly in those days

(in reply to ChezDaJez)

Post #: 166

RE: surviving the heavies - 1/20/2006 5:10:08 AM

ChezDaJez

Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline

quote:

Oh and Chez I think you misread the entry about Ariake above. She was hit by a B-24 in December 1942, not 12/41.

You're right, I claim a typo!

Chez

_____________________________

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 167

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> RE: surviving the heavies