RE: B-29 Attack on Carriers from 26 Hexes

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: B-29 Attack on Carriers from 26 Hexes

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: B-29 Attack on Carriers from 26 Hexes

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: B-29 Attack on Carriers from 26 Hexes - 10/8/2006 2:35:55 PM

goodboyladdie

Posts: 3469
Joined: 11/18/2005
From: Rendlesham, Suffolk
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SamCole

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I won't comment...

This is the most suprising post of the month.

(in reply to SamCole)

Post #: 31

RE: B-29 Attack on Carriers from 26 Hexes - 10/8/2006 3:21:21 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
As far as I am aware I've ever had a Betty or Nell find and attack a TF outside of 8 to 9 hexes (480-540 miles) in any game I have yet played. And I agree with Chez, sending aircraft over 1,000 miles to attack a spotted target should be next to impossible to succeed.

The only possibility I could see of B-29s finding ships to bomb at 1,000+ miles out is in a case, as dtravel says, where planes are sent out with anti-shipping ordinance to a specific location and told to simply attack anything they find. And I just don't see sending any planes, let alone B-29s out over a thousand miles of ocean in hopes of finding a needle in a haystack somewhere. It would be much more profitable to send them to mine harbors or some other target with a relatively high probability of success. Otherwise it's almost sure to be a waste of gas and potential operational losses.

EXACTLY!!!

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 32

RE: B-29 Attack on Carriers from 26 Hexes - 10/8/2006 4:25:07 PM

spence

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

I can't see any USAAF General ordering 100 B-29s (I don't know how many did this thing)to fly off to some piece of ocean 1000 miles away either. US Navy PB4Ys did this sort of thing though they didn't operate in large numbers (1-2) and they didn't go tangle with Jap CVTFs other than to report position, course and speed.

In a game where the IJN and IJA get along just fine (in the AARs one sees Oscars, Tonys and Franks escorting G3s/G4/D4s/B5s etc all the time) its somewhat difficult to get too outraged about this particular exploit. It's not historical but hardly the only thing that is not historical and as far as historical is concerned the game is not all that demanding of the Japanese Player.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 33

RE: B-29 Attack on Carriers from 26 Hexes - 10/8/2006 11:08:55 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, The fix is easy. (and something I have done since my very first game) Never let any type of aircraft make a naval strike beyond it's escorted range. You don't actually have to provide escorts. (so Betty/Nell never attack beyond 11 hexes and allied strikes are limited even further before long range fighters arrive)

It's silly to use B-29 on naval strikes. Just bomb the ports (dummy)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 34

RE: B-29 Attack on Carriers from 26 Hexes - 10/8/2006 11:13:13 PM

ChezDaJez

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

quote:

Just bomb the ports (dummy)

Now don't go giving them any more ideas, Mogami!

I'm having a hard enough time as it is!

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 mogami)

Post #: 35

RE: B-29 Attack on Carriers from 26 Hexes - 10/8/2006 11:15:03 PM

ChezDaJez

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

quote:

Well, my argument wasn't meant to specifically flame you Chez. My apologies if it seems like it was.

No worries, dtravel. No apology was necessary.

Chez

_____________________________

(in reply to dtravel)

Post #: 36

RE: B-29 Attack on Carriers from 26 Hexes - 10/8/2006 11:23:23 PM

pauk

Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline

i'm intersted which patch original poster uses?

I have impression that in last patch long range strikes are penaltized if not forbidden...

(inmy experience 80 % Allied or Japanese LBA wont attack their targets outside the escort range - i had problems with Japs LBA to attack target 8 hexes away although i had escort assigned and no enemy CAP was present)

_____________________________

(in reply to ChezDaJez)

Post #: 37

RE: B-29 Attack on Carriers from 26 Hexes - 10/8/2006 11:34:18 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Allied heavy bombers never check for escorts. (However I don't let them make naval strikes beyond escort range)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 10/8/2006 11:35:38 PM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to pauk)

Post #: 38

RE: B-29 Attack on Carriers from 26 Hexes - 10/9/2006 3:25:57 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Allied heavy bombers never check for escorts. (However I don't let them make naval strikes beyond escort range)

Problem is two-fold. First, with their "Flying Fortress" idea the Allies didn't think they needed any escorts. Secondly, because of number one, they didn't have any long-ranged escorts available until mid-war. Even the designers of this game would have had a tough time justifying limiting the range of a B-17/24 to than of a P-40 "escort". Personally, I only permit myself "naval strikes" with the B-17's in the Philippines, and against KB if it shows up in range----both of which are basically "all hands to the pumps" situations in my opinion.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 39

RE: B-29 Attack on Carriers from 26 Hexes - 10/9/2006 4:45:08 AM

Kadrin

Posts: 183
Joined: 5/5/2005
From: Orange, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Allied heavy bombers never check for escorts.

I have a feeling this isn't true.

I've had a few opportunities for Beauforts, B-24's, IL-4c's and Swordfish (Hermes disbanded in port) to hit the mini-KB off Ceylon during a 3 day raid. No fighter escort was availible (all was on CAP over Colombo) and all planes on Naval Attack, max range, altitude 10,000. Yet during the 3 days of the raid only the Swordfish off Hermes launched, and then proceeded to get thoroughly annihilated.

_____________________________

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 40

RE: B-29 Attack on Carriers from 26 Hexes - 10/9/2006 6:16:09 AM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kadrin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Allied heavy bombers never check for escorts.

I have a feeling this isn't true.

I've had a few opportunities for Beauforts, B-24's, IL-4c's and Swordfish (Hermes disbanded in port) to hit the mini-KB off Ceylon during a 3 day raid. No fighter escort was availible (all was on CAP over Colombo) and all planes on Naval Attack, max range, altitude 10,000. Yet during the 3 days of the raid only the Swordfish off Hermes launched, and then proceeded to get thoroughly annihilated.

There are so many reasons why an air unit will not fly that it is impossible to tell why it didn't. The worse part is that I'm pretty d*mn sure not all of them are documented or have been discovered by the players. Not to mention the one rule that literally says that they may not fly for no reason at all.

Personally, I think Mogami's artifical range limit is even more bogus and gamey than the perceived "problem". (Not that I agree there even is a problem with US 4-engine bombers flying anti-shipping strikes.) Most of the real life anti-shipping strikes flown by heavy bombers were against merchant marine targets. Why would they expect to need fighter escort for that?

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

(in reply to Kadrin)

Post #: 41

RE: B-29 Attack on Carriers from 26 Hexes - 10/9/2006 7:58:39 AM

Kadrin

Posts: 183
Joined: 5/5/2005
From: Orange, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

There are so many reasons why an air unit will not fly that it is impossible to tell why it didn't. The worse part is that I'm pretty d*mn sure not all of them are documented or have been discovered by the players. Not to mention the one rule that literally says that they may not fly for no reason at all.

This is true, I guess. Though I did have all known requirements covered:

Level 9 AF/Port, 800k supply, 4x the amount of Aviation Support required, Air HQ present, high unit morale (99), low fatigue (0), aggresive commanders (all with 60+) with good Air Skill (also 60+), the Jap TF was spotted twice a day by Patrol Planes, range was 4 hexes, 3 hexes and 6 hexes (from day 1 to day 3), AF not overloaded (only 140 some bombers, and 80 odd fighters).

I really don't know what else I could have done to make these guys fly.

But back on topic, there should be a range limit to naval strikes just because of the time involved from sighting to actually reaching the target. The only way those B-29's could have hit that TF was if there was a PBY or something shadowing it for hours reporting its location, heading, approx. speed frequently to the incoming B-29's (which is plausible).

But how long could something like that shadow a TF before it had to return to base? And would they shadow a TF and leave the rest of their search pattern unobserved? Would they send additional aircraft to shadow the TF (possibly at the cost of other search patterns)?

I would say yes they'd abandon their search to shadow something major (a CV TF, invasion TF, SC TF containing large vessels), but how about a few merchant ships?

Just some of my thoughts on this.

_____________________________

(in reply to dtravel)

Post #: 42

RE: B-29 Attack on Carriers from 26 Hexes - 10/10/2006 6:21:49 AM

The Duke

Posts: 94
Joined: 3/1/2005
From: Austin, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kadrin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Allied heavy bombers never check for escorts.

I have a feeling this isn't true.

I've had a few opportunities for Beauforts, B-24's, IL-4c's and Swordfish (Hermes disbanded in port) to hit the mini-KB off Ceylon during a 3 day raid. No fighter escort was availible (all was on CAP over Colombo) and all planes on Naval Attack, max range, altitude 10,000. Yet during the 3 days of the raid only the Swordfish off Hermes launched, and then proceeded to get thoroughly annihilated.

There are so many reasons why an air unit will not fly that it is impossible to tell why it didn't. The worse part is that I'm pretty d*mn sure not all of them are documented or have been discovered by the players. Not to mention the one rule that literally says that they may not fly for no reason at all.

Personally, I think Mogami's artifical range limit is even more bogus and gamey than the perceived "problem". (Not that I agree there even is a problem with US 4-engine bombers flying anti-shipping strikes.) Most of the real life anti-shipping strikes flown by heavy bombers were against merchant marine targets. Why would they expect to need fighter escort for that?

I didn't realize B29 strikes from 26 hexes, against my fleet CV task force, qualified as 'anti-shipping'.

(in reply to dtravel)

Post #: 43

RE: B-29 Attack on Carriers from 26 Hexes - 10/10/2006 8:44:50 AM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Duke

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kadrin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Allied heavy bombers never check for escorts.

I have a feeling this isn't true.

I've had a few opportunities for Beauforts, B-24's, IL-4c's and Swordfish (Hermes disbanded in port) to hit the mini-KB off Ceylon during a 3 day raid. No fighter escort was availible (all was on CAP over Colombo) and all planes on Naval Attack, max range, altitude 10,000. Yet during the 3 days of the raid only the Swordfish off Hermes launched, and then proceeded to get thoroughly annihilated.

There are so many reasons why an air unit will not fly that it is impossible to tell why it didn't. The worse part is that I'm pretty d*mn sure not all of them are documented or have been discovered by the players. Not to mention the one rule that literally says that they may not fly for no reason at all.

Personally, I think Mogami's artifical range limit is even more bogus and gamey than the perceived "problem". (Not that I agree there even is a problem with US 4-engine bombers flying anti-shipping strikes.) Most of the real life anti-shipping strikes flown by heavy bombers were against merchant marine targets. Why would they expect to need fighter escort for that?

I didn't realize B29 strikes from 26 hexes, against my fleet CV task force, qualified as 'anti-shipping'.

That's called "an unexpected bonus".

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

(in reply to The Duke)

Post #: 44

RE: B-29 Attack on Carriers from 26 Hexes - 10/14/2006 9:34:44 PM

ETF

Posts: 1748
Joined: 9/16/2004
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

Well I want to be fair in my PBEM as the Allies.
What is a fair range then for the B17 would you gents say for Naval Attack strikes. Would you ban them altoghter, or just the B29 Platform?

_____________________________

My Top Matrix Games 1) CMO MP?? 2) WITP/AE 3) SOW 4) Combat Mission 5) Armor Brigade

Twitter
https://twitter.com/TacticWargamer

(in reply to dtravel)

Post #: 45

RE: B-29 Attack on Carriers from 26 Hexes - 10/15/2006 12:37:24 AM

spence

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

A large strike of LBA would launch against any precisely located TF target - such as the IJN strikes against the transports in Ironbottom Sound (from Rabaul). My guess is that a large strike would not launch against a TF at more than around 350 miles unless the TF was being continuously shadowed by a search plane(s) AND there was a good likelihood that the shadowing would continue during the preparation, launch and transit of the strike aircraft. I'm not sure what the range from Saigon to the Force Z but aside from the general area being fairly well covered by IJN search aircraft, the strike groups had been trained and deployed specifically to deal with Force Z. IMHO the range of the strike was atypical of IJN doctrine but since attacking Force Z was the raison d'etre of those three groups and their primary target was known to be at sea even before it was sighted doctrine was ignored in this case.   Incidentally my guess as to the longest range naval strike of the war would be the attack on Hiryu (approx 1830 local time, 4 June 42) NW of Midway by B-17s that had flown directly from Oahu.
    Attacks on targets of opportunity by individual or small flights of long range aircraft was certainly not uncommon. The VPBs of the USN did so all the time attacking naval/merchant targets 700-1000 miles from base; however they did not launch to attack those specific targets but rather any that they found. Similarly, individual or small flights of IJN (not so sure about IJA) bombers would attack targets of opportunity at long range as well (but with bombs).

    An attack by B-29s on a naval target 1600 miles away is a bit over the top but then again so is 300 well supplied, well rested medium bombers sitting on the tarmack while the KB steams around 200 miles offshore launching airstrikes at the same base or port.

(in reply to ETF)

Post #: 46

RE: B-29 Attack on Carriers from 26 Hexes - 10/16/2006 7:40:36 PM

Mike Solli

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

I have had Betties and Nells attack TFs at 10 hexes. It happened a couple of times and of course it was where I didn't want them to attack.

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 47

RE: B-29 Attack on Carriers from 26 Hexes - 10/17/2006 1:48:50 AM

The Duke

Posts: 94
Joined: 3/1/2005
From: Austin, TX
Status: offline

Thought you folks should know - my PBEM opponent has agreed not to use B-29s in naval attack.....

Of course, w/ PDU-on he can still fan out 500+ B24s about 800 miles in any given direction to rain death upon KB....but that's better than 1500 miles of raining death

He just took the southern base in Mindanao, and turned it from a 0 airbase to a 2 in 2 days.....size 5 max, things are going to get ugly quick around Luzon....

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 48

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: B-29 Attack on Carriers from 26 Hexes

Page: << < prev 1 [2]