RE: Betty Bombers

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: Betty Bombers

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 >> RE: Betty Bombers

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/18/2006 7:50:09 PM

Xargun

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline

I always set my Nells and Bettys to range 15 (Max range to use torps), altitude 15k (they attack in groups of 9 instead of 4 usually) with 30% set to Naval Search. This usually gets a good attack against any enemy TF spotted within range. Sometimes I use range 11 so I am sure the fighters based there can escort as well.

If you want to cover a simple base like 6 hexes away, set the range for 7 hexes and your bombers will cover that base fine and be within figher cover range as well.

For bombing runs, I set them to 10k altitude so they can hit - which they do occaisionally at that altitude. Any lower and my flak loses are greatly increased. IJA LR Bombers are not very good at absorbing flak hits.

Also, sometimes LR Bombers will not fly against targets with heavy CAP without fighter escorts - so that may be part of your problem too.

I agree that the major problem with the Allies using 1k bombs is that it is not their normal loadout compared to IJA LR Bombers designed to carry torps. But I feel the flak penalty at attacking at 200 feet is a good equalizer as it mows up any attacking groups - especially against high AA targets like US CVs and BBs.

Xargun

(in reply to 06 Maestro)

Post #: 31

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/18/2006 8:03:42 PM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oznoyng

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Only if they pass the exp/leadership tests too I think.

Yes - and that is why I pointed out earlier that it seems unfair that G4Ms and G3Ms always attack with torps while allies don't get their big stick.

Maybe the Japanese always pass their exp/leadership die rolls and the allies just don't that often - but if thats the case it seems pretty lame.

Standard armament for the Betty is a torp. Standard armament for the Allied LBA is 500lbers. The check performed is to allow Allied LBA to use bigger bombs than their standard armament. As far as I know, Japanese planes do not get that bonus. Keep in mind that you get fewer chances to hit with the 1k and 2k bombs. With IJN damage control as it is, a single 500lb bomb hit can be devastating to all but the high armor ships.

Well the standard bomb for G4Ms and G3Ms are also 500lbrs I believe - it's their anti-shipping armament that is the torp.

Standard bomb load for US bombers is also 500lbrs - but they don't get a standard alternate anti-shipping loadout like the Japanese do..

So it depends on how you look at it. As a Japanese player would you want your Bettys to rarely get to use a torpedo - although they have a theoretical chance to get one?

< Message edited by Big B -- 1/18/2006 8:05:06 PM >

(in reply to Oznoyng)

Post #: 32

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/18/2006 8:13:32 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oznoyng

With IJN damage control as it is, a single 500lb bomb hit can be devastating to all but the high armor ships.

Tell me about it.

(in reply to Oznoyng)

Post #: 33

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/18/2006 8:14:47 PM

doktorblood

Posts: 648
Joined: 2/14/2003
Status: offline

I get SBD and Helldiver to drop 1000 LB AP almost all of the time if the victims are in normal range. Level bombers aren't supposed to load 1000 LB AP. USAAF didn't have them in their inventory. Sinking warships was the Navy's job.

_____________________________

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 34

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/18/2006 8:21:10 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

I get SBD and Helldiver to drop 1000 LB AP almost all of the time if the victims are in normal range. Level bombers aren't supposed to load 1000 LB AP. USAAF didn't have them in their inventory. Sinking warships was the Navy's job.

SBDs and Helldivers are dropping 1000 lb GP bombs not AP. At least in the stock scenario and in Niks mod (any other mods I haven�t tried).

(in reply to doktorblood)

Post #: 35

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/18/2006 8:28:24 PM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

I get SBD and Helldiver to drop 1000 LB AP almost all of the time if the victims are in normal range. Level bombers aren't supposed to load 1000 LB AP. USAAF didn't have them in their inventory. Sinking warships was the Navy's job.

I'm not so sure about that.

First of all the B-17 was built to be an anti-shipping weapon, not a city destroyer.

I'm sure the AAF had every bit of ordinance you could imagine and then some.

(in reply to doktorblood)

Post #: 36

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/18/2006 8:43:19 PM

Nikademus

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

B-17's generally loaded up with varying numbers of 100lb - 600lb bombs with the loadout standardizing closer to 500-600lb GP as the war progressed in 42. Based on readings of the concept, 250-500lb bombs would be the idea weapon of the B-17 anti ship idea as a good number of them could be carried. The idea was to saturate the target area so that a hit would be all but unavoidable.

_____________________________

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 37

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/18/2006 8:48:15 PM

Feinder

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

Please, let's not let this one go down the B-17 toilet also.

-F-

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 38

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/18/2006 8:53:36 PM

Nikademus

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

If your referring to the Surviving the heavies thread....there's one and one way to flush any thread.....make the thread personal by accusing or implying someone is part of a cabel determined to undermine one's favorite device. In the end, people will believe what they want. Thats fine with me. Just thought this info would be useful.

< Message edited by Nikademus -- 1/18/2006 8:55:58 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 39

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/18/2006 8:59:08 PM

Feinder

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

Not directed at you Nik.

I'm just saying for all the

over B-17s, I'd leave them out of a thread about Bettys/Nells if possible. It's only going set off the same old arguments that get beaten to death.

I think the real question boils down to

a. What was the standard equipment for Anti-Shipping strikes for Bettys.
b. What was the standard equipment for Anti-Shipping strike by USAAF bombers.

I really have no idea what the answer is to either of those questions.

I just think that singling out the B-17s, will just escalate the

unnecessarily.

-F-

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 40

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/18/2006 9:13:43 PM

Nikademus

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

a. What was the standard equipment for Anti-Shipping strikes for Bettys.
b. What was the standard equipment for Anti-Shipping strike by USAAF bombers.

-F-

a.) the torpedo was the standard AS device for the G4M. Thats what the plane was primarily designed to do...attack ships at long range, and the Japanese were wedded to the torpedo as the decisive anti ship weapon. However, that said....it was subject to torpedo availability. When those G4M's attacked the Lex? Rabaul hadn't yet received their torpedoe allotment so they had to attack with bombs. (bad move) When the G4M's attacked Lunga on the first day of the invasion, they attacked with bombs because they were loaded up for an airfield attack when the invasion call came down and the decision was made to send them immediately out to attack (another mistake IMO)

b) There was no 'standard'...at least not during the first half of the war. Thats one of the things i gleaned from FatS...the 17's carried a bewildering number of different loadouts (both size and number of bombs) dependant in part on range to target and available ordinances, however based on my notes....the average bomb load settled more and more on the 500-600lb GP range as the USAAF logistcal net stablized and grew. Makes sense in a way...these bombs are most versitile....good for smothering bases and good for attacking lightly protected ships and merchants. At war's start it was more hodge podge....alot of missions with light bombs and bomblets. As mentioned, WitP has to give bombers a standard loudout for normal and extended range, so based on what i've read, the decision to go with the 500lb GP is a logical one though for normal loadouts they assume maximum loadout which was often not the case. (it also contributes to the plethora of hits scored)

_____________________________

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 41

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/18/2006 9:21:20 PM

Feinder

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

I would have thought th 500# would be standard, but I really have no idea. And yes, the 17s used all sorts of payloads, but part of the reason for that would simply because of their larger capacity; it simply gave more options to begin with.

But like I said, I couldn't say who carried what, other than guessing.

-F-

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 42

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/18/2006 9:24:43 PM

ChezDaJez

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

quote:

You set your land based fighters to sweep and they attacked the carrier TF? Never heard of that. I always thought they would only attack an airfield on sweep. Or did you assign them to escort a small number of land based bombers?

He had just invaded Pomala and his carriers were in the base hex there so the sweep actually targeted his LCUs. I figured his CAP was set to LRCAP to cover the transports so I knew my fighters would get intercepted, which they did. The combat report below lists the results of the sweep.

Day Air attack on 1st USMC Division, at 32,69

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 13
A6M3 Zero x 51
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 23
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 24

Allied aircraft
Fulmar x 16
F4F-4 Wildcat x 20

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 4 destroyed
A6M3 Zero: 9 destroyed
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 1 destroyed
Ki-61 KAIc Tony: 5 destroyed, 4 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Fulmar: 14 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat: 15 destroyed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 1st USMC Division, at 32,69

Japanese aircraft
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 21
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 34

Allied aircraft
Fulmar x 2
F4F-4 Wildcat x 5

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-61 KAIc Tony: 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Fulmar: 2 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat: 5 destroyed

These were my best land-based fighters (mid-70s experience). He also had launched a strike against my carriers 4 hexes away so many of his fighters escorted the bombers. I don't think he knew my carriers were in the area. They were in port at Taraken waiting for his invasion of the Celebes. They set sail as soon as he invaded and he had no chance to detect them prior to the battle.

Chez

_____________________________

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 castor troy)

Post #: 43

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/18/2006 9:26:06 PM

Nikademus

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

There's little guesswork involved. Its in FatS (Fortress Against the Sun) But yes, as mentioned, as the war moved on, the USAAF logistical net matured and 'standardized' ordinance to help facilitate ease of delivery and availability and the 500lb GP in mass production became more and more the standard loadout. The long supply line to Oz and to other pacific bastions is often cited but (my personal opinion) rarely appreciated. It makes sense that the USAAF would attempt to standarize and minimize the bomber ordinances as much as possible in order to maximize availability and numbers. The 500lb'er was the ideal 'general purpose' workhorse.

_____________________________

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 44

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/18/2006 9:26:45 PM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

Forgive me, but...

" Torpedo attacks have their own set of checks coupled with additional "serious" AA penalties. "

Except when they are allowed to drop those torpedoes from 18000 feet. Then the AA penalties are negated...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 45

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/18/2006 9:40:25 PM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

I didn't really want to hi-jack the Betty thread - I just brought up my displeasure with the way (by comparisson) allied LB are handled.

The B-17 reference was just to illustrate that these planes very much were designed with potent anti-shipping capabilities.

By the way guys - IF B-25s and B-26s got to CHOOSE 1000lb bombs for Naval Attack (like I understand they could have done and did ITRW) - then just maybe people wouldn't upgrade so many bomber units to 4E....

B

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 46

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/19/2006 1:23:39 AM

ChezDaJez

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

quote:

The B-17 reference was just to illustrate that these planes very much were designed with potent anti-shipping capabilities.

Except the Norden bombsight wasn't

.

Ok, back on track.

Chez

< Message edited by ChezDaJez -- 1/19/2006 1:24:09 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 47

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/19/2006 3:55:49 AM

spence

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

I just posted a list of every IJN DD/CL/CA directly hit by Allied level bombers during the course of the war (based on the TROMs posted at the Combined Fleet website) in the "Surviving the Allied Heavies" thread in the War Room. A long time ago there was a discussion of how effective Bettys/Nells really were with their torpedos. I can't remember if anybody made an actual list but certainly many volunteered incidents where the Bettys scored after their famous success against PoW and Repulse. I wonder which list (if both exist) is actually longer.

(in reply to ChezDaJez)

Post #: 48

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/19/2006 4:11:55 AM

Oznoyng

Posts: 818
Joined: 4/16/2004
From: Mars
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Forgive me, but...

" Torpedo attacks have their own set of checks coupled with additional "serious" AA penalties. "

Except when they are allowed to drop those torpedoes from 18000 feet. Then the AA penalties are negated...

Torpedos are always dropped at 200 feet, regardless of the altitude at which they cruise to target.

_____________________________

"There is no Black or White, only shades of Grey."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 49

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/19/2006 4:15:55 AM

Oznoyng

Posts: 818
Joined: 4/16/2004
From: Mars
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

I didn't really want to hi-jack the Betty thread - I just brought up my displeasure with the way (by comparisson) allied LB are handled.

The B-17 reference was just to illustrate that these planes very much were designed with potent anti-shipping capabilities.

By the way guys - IF B-25s and B-26s got to CHOOSE 1000lb bombs for Naval Attack (like I understand they could have done and did ITRW) - then just maybe people wouldn't upgrade so many bomber units to 4E....

B

Unfortunately, you compared apples to bananas. If you take an Allied medium with a standard loadout of a torpedo, then the plane in question will use torpedos at normal range, and substitute bombs for the torpedo at extended range. However, the Allied LBA (if it carries 2 bombs) can substitute 1 1000 lber for 2 500 lbers. The Betty will always carry the 500 lb bombs and never gets the option to upgrade to a 1000 lb bomb. So much for Japanese bias, huh?

_____________________________

"There is no Black or White, only shades of Grey."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 50

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/19/2006 4:58:39 AM

Mynok

Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

Did the Japanese even have a 1000lb bomb? I know the Vals carried a 250kg (~500lb) AP bomb, and the Kates carried a 800kg anti-ship bomb at Pearl (which was a modified BB shell), but I don't know if they had a 1000lb (400kg~) anti-ship bomb. The Jills had a 500kg anti-ship bomb later in the war didn't they?

(in reply to Oznoyng)

Post #: 51

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/19/2006 5:50:24 AM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oznoyng

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

I didn't really want to hi-jack the Betty thread - I just brought up my displeasure with the way (by comparisson) allied LB are handled.

The B-17 reference was just to illustrate that these planes very much were designed with potent anti-shipping capabilities.

By the way guys - IF B-25s and B-26s got to CHOOSE 1000lb bombs for Naval Attack (like I understand they could have done and did ITRW) - then just maybe people wouldn't upgrade so many bomber units to 4E....

B

Unfortunately, you compared apples to bananas. If you take an Allied medium with a standard loadout of a torpedo, then the plane in question will use torpedos at normal range, and substitute bombs for the torpedo at extended range. However, the Allied LBA (if it carries 2 bombs) can substitute 1 1000 lber for 2 500 lbers. The Betty will always carry the 500 lb bombs and never gets the option to upgrade to a 1000 lb bomb. So much for Japanese bias, huh?

Wait a second - the G3M and G4M always carry a torpedo at nomal range - ok?
A B-25 or B-26 carries 6 to 8 x 500lb bombs normal range - that's equivilant to 3 to 4 1000lb bombs.

I didn't say that they should carry torps - I said that if the Japanese automatically get torps for anti-shipping (IN NORMAL RANGE - FROM THE PROPER SIZED BASE - WITH SUPPLY ...OK?) why shouldn't the Americans get their 1000lb bombs for anti-shipping under those conditions - instead of having 7 different checks to pass first??!!

It's NOT apples to Bananas.

(in reply to Oznoyng)

Post #: 52

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/19/2006 6:26:28 AM

Oznoyng

Posts: 818
Joined: 4/16/2004
From: Mars
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oznoyng

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

I didn't really want to hi-jack the Betty thread - I just brought up my displeasure with the way (by comparisson) allied LB are handled.

The B-17 reference was just to illustrate that these planes very much were designed with potent anti-shipping capabilities.

By the way guys - IF B-25s and B-26s got to CHOOSE 1000lb bombs for Naval Attack (like I understand they could have done and did ITRW) - then just maybe people wouldn't upgrade so many bomber units to 4E....

B

Unfortunately, you compared apples to bananas. If you take an Allied medium with a standard loadout of a torpedo, then the plane in question will use torpedos at normal range, and substitute bombs for the torpedo at extended range. However, the Allied LBA (if it carries 2 bombs) can substitute 1 1000 lber for 2 500 lbers. The Betty will always carry the 500 lb bombs and never gets the option to upgrade to a 1000 lb bomb. So much for Japanese bias, huh?

Wait a second - the G3M and G4M always carry a torpedo at nomal range - ok?
A B-25 or B-26 carries 6 to 8 x 500lb bombs normal range - that's equivilant to 3 to 4 1000lb bombs.

I didn't say that they should carry torps - I said that if the Japanese automatically get torps for anti-shipping (IN NORMAL RANGE - FROM THE PROPER SIZED BASE - WITH SUPPLY ...OK?) why shouldn't the Americans get their 1000lb bombs for anti-shipping under those conditions - instead of having 7 different checks to pass first??!!

It's NOT apples to Bananas.

1) A torp was a normal load for a Betty
2) 1000 lb bombs were not normal loads for B-25's and B-26's.
3) Against all but BB's and possibly CA's, 500 lb bombs are more effective anti-shipping weapons.

So, yes. I think the way it works is reasonable.

_____________________________

"There is no Black or White, only shades of Grey."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 53

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/19/2006 7:17:44 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Forgive me, but...

" Torpedo attacks have their own set of checks coupled with additional "serious" AA penalties. "

Except when they are allowed to drop those torpedoes from 18000 feet. Then the AA penalties are negated...

Oznoyg replied:

Torpedos are always dropped at 200 feet, regardless of the altitude at which they cruise to target.

I don't want to hijack the thread, but apparently there's a bug that has been allowing some torpedo bombers (either side) to drop torpedoes from cruise altitude without dropping to 200 feet. It is apparent in the amount of AAA damage received. It's been discussed elsewhere, and I didn't want to switch this discussion to that little problem. Unfortunately, I couldn't resist the little barb, thus the "forgive me" at the beginning of that post.

Back to the regularly scheduled discussion...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Oznoyng)

Post #: 54

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/19/2006 10:26:12 AM

Sneer

Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline

you can't simply say 8 x500lb allows me to take 4x1000lb
loadout is ok but for many bombers 1000lb was not planned so it was not as easy
this translation was not linear in many cases.
mass is not everything as airframes were often not designed to have half amount but twice mass bombs

_____________________________

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 55

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/19/2006 12:26:29 PM

BlackVoid

Posts: 639
Joined: 10/17/2003
Status: offline

In a recent PBEM, I had more success with Betties than with the CV based Kates. I managed to lure my opponent into LBA range and he paid heavy with several CVs sunk by the Betties.
It is bast to use them in large numbers, with Zero escort. Set them to fly in high, they will drop to 200 ft anyway.

_____________________________

For Liberty! website

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 56

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/19/2006 2:57:58 PM

Feinder

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

I'm not going to throw my hat into this one but,

"Against all but BB's and possibly CA's, 500 lb bombs are more effective anti-shipping weapons. "

Do you really believe that?

-F-

_____________________________

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

(in reply to BlackVoid)

Post #: 57

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/19/2006 4:05:39 PM

Oznoyng

Posts: 818
Joined: 4/16/2004
From: Mars
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I'm not going to throw my hat into this one but,

"Against all but BB's and possibly CA's, 500 lb bombs are more effective anti-shipping weapons. "

Do you really believe that?

-F-

Yes, I do. Count up the number of IJN ships by type. The vast majority of them can be severely damaged by a 500 lb hit. Now, for each class, pick which you would rather drop: 2x500 lb bombs, or 1 x 1000lb bomb.

I'll do it here:
BB: 1000 lb
CA: 1000 lb
CV: 500 lb
CVL: 500 lb
CVE: 500 lb
CL: 500 lb
DD: 500 lb
PG: 500 lb
PC: 500 lb
MSW: 500 lb
APD: 500 lb
AP: 500 lb
AK: 500 lb
TK: 500 lb
AO: 500 lb

A few 500 bombs can disable an IJN carrier. Example: I took 1 bomb hit on a CVE and nearly lost her. She was around 10-12 hexes from a level 4 port with an AR and an Naval HQ. When she was hit, she was low 40's for sys, 30 float and 20 fire. By the time I got her to port, she was 68 sys, 89 float, and 0 fire with no additional attacks. She climbed as high as 94 float in port before recovering.

Any hit on an IJN ship has the potential to be fatal due to pathetic IJN damage control. Given the choice between hitting 1 ship and hitting 2 ships with half the force, I would take the latter.

1. IJN DC will make a 500 lb bomb look like a 1000 lb bomb
2. With 2 bombs instead of 1, I get twice the chance to inflict damage.
3. A severely damaged IJN ship will be out of action for quite a while, and that is almost as good as sinking it. A "mission kill" amounts to a kill against the IJN because the ship becomes far more vulnerable with each passing day.

The key thing (ignored) by the proponents of bigger bombs is that bigger bombs reduce your chances to hit by 50%. IJN DC will do a lot of your work for you if you hit even once, so I see the use of bigger bombs as a very mixed blessing as the Allies. I think I would use 1k or 2k bombs as a commander only if the force sighted was BB/CA heavy.

In any case, using bigger bombs is a simple matter to fix, just change the aircraft loadout.

_____________________________

"There is no Black or White, only shades of Grey."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 58

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/19/2006 4:12:50 PM

Nikademus

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

Yes the Japanese had a 500kg SAP bomb. They wern't as common as the 250's from what i've read but they were used by a few planes vs Repulse and PoW.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 59

RE: Betty Bombers - 1/19/2006 4:22:17 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

The key thing (ignored) by the proponents of bigger bombs is that bigger bombs reduce your chances to hit by 50%.

They do not actually ... thats why the big bomb boys want 'em so bad ... not only are the devestating, but they have higher hit rates.

Had the code gone the other way (ie original feature instead of added as a after the fact bonus), the accuracy of them would have been dealt with differently.

(in reply to Oznoyng)

Post #: 60