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: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question

 
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: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/27/2007 6:05:38 PM   
donnie_1974_texas

 

Posts: 77
Joined: 2/11/2007
Status: offline 		Most interesting on the to hit stats. 28 tons of bombs is approximately 120 500-lb bombs. I would think if 5% hit then, well, that would be about 6 bomb hits which on a merchant ship would almost certainly sink her.

Not quite that way in WitP. Agree on all counts about historicity, etc. on the 4e bombers. Interestingly enough, I am running a 1945 scenario head to head to test some of these things. It turns out if the bombers are flown more historically then things actually play out not so bad. For example, 360 B29s bombed Tokyo resources with no fighter opposition at extended range. Damaged 200 of the 900 resources, lost 5 planes to Ops and about 40 damaged to Flak. Resource damage may be a little high, but, not bad off.

Ran again but created additional flak in Hammamatsu. Placed about 480 75 and 105 mm guns there for Japan. No fighters. Flew the B29s at 15,000 feet. Raid of 188 planes. Combat report showed 4 destroyed by flak, real loss in the aircraft losses screen was actually about 40 with the four bomber groups only mustering about 80 undamaged aircraft for the next day.

Problem - well, set them on city attack again for the next day and almost all 80 planes flew again even though morale was down in the teens. I think the issues are really:

1) you think after flying 1,200 miles, bombing, returning 1,200 miles that any plane is going to be ready to go out the next day on any more than a maybe recon, scouting missions. high tempo ops don't affect bomber availability enough. Long range is not taken into account - That was probably a 12-16 hour mission from breifing, to flight, to return, etc.

2) flak - if I bomb the airfield, well, it's all disabled and then the next day's strikes don't get hurt at all by it.

3) diminishing returns on strategic strikes should be more pronounced - damage 200 of 900 resources on day 1 - OK, day 2 strikes - not as many. The last 30-50% of industry should be pretty hard to kill.

B29 bombers on port attack - 20 hexes (normal range) roughly - Dacca to Hainan. About 30 ships in port. Bombers strike at 25,000 feet. 122 planes - 28 hits. Seems about right, once again - this was a port strike, no fighter opposition, limited flak, and merchant/aux targets in the port. Expect to get hurt if you park your boats like this.

I think the problems with the models lie more on the extremes which, interestingly enough, is where most players seem to play.

(in reply to 1EyedJacks)
Post #: 31
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/27/2007 6:27:17 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Pretty sure a single plane is allowed a single hit by the routine, that is a B17 is not going to land a whole stick of bombs on a ship.


quote:

Don't know if that was a change in one of the later patches but I know that in v1.6 it was possible to obtain more hits vs ships than there were 4e bombers attacking.


Anyone know if this was fixed?


quote:

Curiously, i just discovered in the Med (where Axis DID face massed B-17s), Allied pilots calculated that it took 28 tons of bombs to sink a merchantman... so, they would mass on a ship, drop (about) 56 tons of bombs, and generally (gleefully) watch the victim sink.


I am interested where you get that info since i am in making a WITM40. From my reading big 4E mostly attacked against harbours seldom open sea - and i wonder the economics rationale behind attacking a sole merchant with 20-40 4E -, against convoys would be more justified. Btw against harbours the result wasnt very good at least against Italian BBs in Harbour at least a couple times escaped damage by 4E's.

Another problem is that there is not bomb duds. I am not sure if the game allows them despite having the editor space to fill like in torpedos.
For example the British GP bombs(100-500lb) were a crap in 1940/41 had a 10-15% failure rate.

I will also have to model Ploesti raids and historically the 4E dont get a good picture in it despite a big not moving target.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 32
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/27/2007 6:35:56 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

I am interested where you get that info since i am in making a WITM40. From my reading big 4E mostly attacked against harbours seldom open sea - and i wonder the economics rationale behind attacking a sole merchant with 20-40 4E -, against convoys would be more justified. Btw against harbours the result wasnt very good at least against Italian BBs in Harbour at least a couple times escaped damage by 4E's.


This is from An Army at Dawn : The War in North Africa, 1942-1943
(Liberation Trilogy) by Atkinson, Rick.

i am listening to a recording, so i can't give you a page number, but it is towards the end describing Allied attacks on Axis shipping trying supply Tunisia.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 33
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/27/2007 7:41:25 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		Thanks rtrapasso . I have found the diary of USAAF at http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/wwii/usaf/html/ 

Another problem with big bombing is that if the  leader navigation -or pathfinders- is right a good bombing can be disastrous against a target but if it is not all of them can fail. So the variations can be extreme: an obliterated target or a just one or two bombs in some factory parking and in practice zero damage. The discussions about Norden bomb sight and the use of Radar Mapping are a good indication of problems of 4E against Europe.

http://www.vectorsite.net/ttwiz_04.html#m2

"After the Battle of Britain, RAF Bomber Command began to ramp up night attacks against German cities. Unfortunately, although Bomber Command reported grand results from the raids, an independent analysis based on daylight air reconnaissance performed in the summer of 1940 showed that half the bombs fell on open country. Only one bomb in ten actually hit the intended target."



http://www.vectorsite.net/ttwiz_05.html#m1

Spacialist Liberators with radars:

"The first aircraft carrying preproduction LABs, modified Consolidated Liberators known as "Snoopers", reached service in the South Pacific in August 1943. They used LAB with the new SCR-717 radar, and the system proved extremely effective, with bombers roaring in on Japanese ships in the night at a few hundred meters and blowing them out of the water. Said one Snooper pilot: "We flew in the dark most of the time and we'd attack at about eight hundred or a thousand feet, and you couldn't miss at that altitude, you know."

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 34
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/28/2007 12:36:10 AM   
Barb


Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline 		I think the main thing in effectiveness of any bombers, 4E, 2E, Bettys, and all around (like sinking the KB after 200 4E bombers strike) is hard to resolve.
Because behind all this, the responsibility is in the man sitting in front of the PC. A2A is bloody.. but how many air combats with hundreds of planes occured in history over one place?
When the player puts unhistorical numbers in one place, what will do the other? He will put more and more numbers to outnumber the other.
So instead of two US carriers contra 2 japanese carriers battle, the only battle aviable in WITP is KB vs TF57...
So it is with the planes. Do you want to bomb something? Why do you try it historicaly with weeks of air raids of 30 bombers escorted by 20 fighters against some airfiled, when you could clear it with one strike with 200 bombers escorted by 150 fighters?
In reality each day there was many missions, many fights here and there with squadron, group sized units. Players are instead using whole Air army.
I have seen this in my PBEM in China. My "enemy" was bombing one airfield with 150 bombers and 200 oscars as escorts. what can I do against? Only to mass my fighters in parity or to outnumber his.

So i think it is not a problem of a game (duds were among any type of ammuniton, bombers were more or less efficient in different altitudes....), but mainly a problem of players.


_____________________________


(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 35
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/28/2007 3:22:52 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		Yes. And more planes increase the chances that many will not hit the target while increasing the chance the one will hit.

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 36
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/28/2007 5:44:52 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		The ability to easily put together a strike against a mobile target is indeed something of a problem with the WITP engine but the ability of (I really hate to say it) the KB to put 100 fighters in the air which intercept every strike is also a problem when compared to KB's actual ability to defend itself. That is really what made it vulnerable. Its doctrine and organization was entirely devoted to the launching offensive strikes. If, as at Midway, the enemy launched first it was in a pickle. The real "Miracle at Midway" was that it took so long for the Americans to approach on 2 different axises with multiple squadrons. It was certainly not the intent of Adm Spruance/Fletcher that their squadrons attack one at a time the way things occurred for the first 3 hours. Since KB is given capabilities it never possessed (Midway actually constitutes the one and only time that KB ever attempted to establish air supremacy for a subsequent invasion) it really "deserves" to face difficulties it never faced (4Es at low altitude) for the exact same reason.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 37
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/28/2007 6:02:18 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		"Midway actually constitutes the one and only time that KB ever attempted to establish air supremacy for a subsequent invasion"

That's first time i heard something like that...

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 38
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/29/2007 1:43:44 AM   
Barb


Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline 		Maybe he wanted to say "Only KB was attempting to establish air supermacy for subsequent invasion." Without any LBA in range.

_____________________________


(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 39
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/29/2007 5:03:45 AM   
spence

 

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

"Midway actually constitutes the one and only time that KB ever attempted to establish air supremacy for a subsequent invasion"

That's first time i heard something like that...


Below is the TROM from Combined Fleet of HIJMS AKAGI

quote:

7 December 1941:
Two strike waves launched against Pearl Harbor on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. AKAGI's torpedo planes are instrumental in sinking the battleships USS OKLAHOMAand WEST VIRGINIA. Nagumo orders a withdrawal following recovery of the second attack wave.

23 December 1941:
Return with KAGA, SHOKAKU and ZUIKAKU to Hashirajima.

25 December 1941:
Arrive at Kure.

5 January 1942:
Carrier Striking Force (Car Divs 1, 5) departed Hashirajima, shifting over to Iwakuni.

8 January 1942:
Depart Iwakuni for Truk.14 January 1942:
Arrive at Truk.

17 January:
Departs Truk as part of the attack forces for the invasion of Rabaul and itsenvirons. Sorties with Crudiv 8.

20-22 January 1942:
Carried out air strikes against Rabaul, Kavieng, and Rabaul (again on the 22nd), respectively.

27 January 1942:
Returned to Truk.

1 February 1942:
Departs Truk in an attempt to catch the enemy carrier force thatattacked the Marshall Islands.

8 February 1942:
Arrives at Palau, having abandoned the pursuit of the American fleet.

15 February 1942:
Departs Palau with KAGA, CarDiv 2, and Crudiv 8, screened by DesRon 1 for the attacks on Davao and Port Darwin, Australia.

19 February:
Raid on Port Darwin launched. Sunk or damaged 9 ships, including the U.S. destroyer PEARY, and 18 aircraft destroyed.

21 February 1942:
Arrives at Staring Bay.

25 February 1942:
Departs Staring Bay with the Striking Force to cover the invasion of Java.

9 March 1942:
Return to Staring Bay after the fall of Java.

26 March-23 April:
Striking Force (less KAGA) departs Staring Bay with BatDiv 3, Crudiv 8, and DesRon 1 for "Operation C" ---the raid into the Indian Ocean. Strikes launched againstRoyal Navy bases at Columbo and Trincomalee, Ceylon. Important sinkings include the light carrier HMS HERMES and cruisers HMS CORNWALL and HMS DORSETSHIRE.

19 April 1942:
Less CarDiv 5, which detaches with screen to head for New Guinea for "Operation MO" (Battleof the Coral Sea) operations, the AKAGI and Striking Force departs Mako in high speed attempted pursuit of the "Doolittle Raiders" - carriers USSHORNET and ENTERPRISE, which have just struck the Tokyo Bay area with aircraft on the 18th.

22 April 1942:
Return to Hashirajima.

25 May 1942:
Departed Hashirajima as flagship of VADM Nagumo's Carrier Striking Force (CarDivs 1,2). CarDiv 5 unable to participate, due to damage to SHOKAKU and aircraft losses to ZUIKAKU suffered at Coral Sea on 8 May.

4 June 1942:
Launched strikes against Midway Island. Subsequently engaged and attacked by numerous enemy land and carrier-based aircraft. At 1026 attacked by three aircraft from U.S.S. ENTERPRISE (CV-6). One direct hit is scored amidships in the vicinity of the island, starting a fire in the hangars, a second rips through the fantail and explodes under the port quarter, while the third is a near-miss port-side forward. (Note 2). Although normally the damage would have been moderate, the vessel is currently engaged in preparing a strike,with the result that the single bomb hit induce explosions among armed and fueled aircraft within hangars and start a raging aviation gasoline fire. Since she was in a maximum turn at the time, AKAGI's rudder is damaged, and soon jams at 20 degrees to port, leaving her going in wide circles. Unable to command the fleet from her now, at 1046 VADM Nagumo Chuichi transferred flag first to NOWAKI, then to NAGARA. AKAGI's engines work erratically, with the ship starting and stopping, but she goes dead in the water for good at 1350. By 1600 all non-essential personnel have left the ship, though Captain Aoki and a damage control party remain aboard. The vessel burns through the evening and next night, but remains afloat.

5 June 1942:
Sunk: Scuttled



Pretty much a string of raids.

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 40
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/29/2007 6:09:26 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		So in attack against Pearl Harbour Zeros didnt went with attack force? . 4E unless in a diferents physics Universe couldnt achive the results they achieve now because when a 4E drops 20 bombs is only making one bombing calculation. If the Japanese put 5 Carriers all fighters in CAP it is possible to have a CAP of 100 aircraft (not counting down time).

quote:

Its doctrine and organization was entirely devoted to the launching offensive strikes.


Yes. And?  Not much different for  US in that period.

quote:

If, as at Midway, the enemy launched first it was in a pickle. 


Same for USA. Yorktown got inop and late sunk by a comparative small attack package in Midway. Only in 1944 USA would achieve a good CAP with picket ships and many CVE/CVLs with enough fighters for escort, TF's grew to 1000 aircraft and only with that and early warning there is way to work a reliable CAP. In 1942 it was the same for both sides. They could have destroyed each other ( a small example occured in  Coral Sea), no chances at all for the reduced CAP have effect if the attack force cames with fighters for escort.

The advantages in earlier war of concentration of power in a big package with lack of earlier warning makes the attack the best defense. What is surprising is the lame resources invested in recon. Maybe the Samurai spirit worked against such menial jobs.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 41
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/30/2007 6:12:38 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline 		from the AAR of Moses vs Jwilkerson:


Burma: He has BB's that sweep through Akyab occasionally trying to catch my BB TF. This turn my bombers hit. 32 B17E's attacked and the very first planes hit the BB Fuso. Slowed down this BB was then hit 18 times!!!! Of course 500 lb bombs can't hurt BB's much. But it is on fire and it make me feel very good.


lol, isn´t it? Don´t know the alt but I had to smile while reading this and thinking about the recently started thread. Not a bad hit rate for such a big plane going in against a BB at high speed.

Wonder why it took so long to hit the German BBs that were at anchor and not moving at all...



_____________________________


(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 42
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/30/2007 6:35:27 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

from the AAR of Moses vs Jwilkerson:


Burma: He has BB's that sweep through Akyab occasionally trying to catch my BB TF. This turn my bombers hit. 32 B17E's attacked and the very first planes hit the BB Fuso. Slowed down this BB was then hit 18 times!!!! Of course 500 lb bombs can't hurt BB's much. But it is on fire and it make me feel very good.


lol, isn´t it? Don´t know the alt but I had to smile while reading this and thinking about the recently started thread. Not a bad hit rate for such a big plane going in against a BB at high speed.

Wonder why it took so long to hit the German BBs that were at anchor and not moving at all...




Probably because of camouflage, the swarms of radar vectored fighters and heavy flak... iirc the German planes were hit relatively often, with bombs that damaged their superstructure, etc. And the bombs did end up crippling them.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 43
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/30/2007 6:45:32 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

from the AAR of Moses vs Jwilkerson:


Burma: He has BB's that sweep through Akyab occasionally trying to catch my BB TF. This turn my bombers hit. 32 B17E's attacked and the very first planes hit the BB Fuso. Slowed down this BB was then hit 18 times!!!! Of course 500 lb bombs can't hurt BB's much. But it is on fire and it make me feel very good.


lol, isn´t it? Don´t know the alt but I had to smile while reading this and thinking about the recently started thread. Not a bad hit rate for such a big plane going in against a BB at high speed.

Wonder why it took so long to hit the German BBs that were at anchor and not moving at all...




Probably because of camouflage, the swarms of radar vectored fighters and heavy flak... iirc the German ships were hit relatively often, with bombs that damaged their superstructure, etc. And the bombs did end up crippling them.


Add to that the fact that the attacks against the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau in the French ports were almost exclusively flown at night.

The attacks on the Tirpitz were in daylight, and if I remember correctly, the strike that sunk her yielded one or two direct hits, along with several near misses. Of course, near misses count too, when you're using Tallboy bombs...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 44
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/30/2007 8:54:15 PM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

from the AAR of Moses vs Jwilkerson:


Burma: He has BB's that sweep through Akyab occasionally trying to catch my BB TF. This turn my bombers hit. 32 B17E's attacked and the very first planes hit the BB Fuso. Slowed down this BB was then hit 18 times!!!! Of course 500 lb bombs can't hurt BB's much. But it is on fire and it make me feel very good.


lol, isn´t it? Don´t know the alt but I had to smile while reading this and thinking about the recently started thread. Not a bad hit rate for such a big plane going in against a BB at high speed.

Wonder why it took so long to hit the German BBs that were at anchor and not moving at all...




Probably because of camouflage, the swarms of radar vectored fighters and heavy flak... iirc the German planes were hit relatively often, with bombs that damaged their superstructure, etc. And the bombs did end up crippling them.



hmm, the camouflage was pretty much a joke on dozens of British recon photos I have seen in the years. They were under nets but they were still easily to discover if you know where they are and when in port it was known where they are. As for the Tirpitz, there were those smoke installations that worked or worked not at times and the fighters, oh well, there were perhaps a dozen or two? Nothing that I can see that justifies a hit rate of 18 out of 32 bombers on a MOVING target.

This is the Gneisenau in Brest:

edit, new photo, first one too small...






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by castor troy -- 7/30/2007 9:00:06 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 45
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/30/2007 9:01:19 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline 		and here a photo during an attack with lots of smoke, still the two ships are perfectly visible IMO, why should you miss them if it´s so easy to hit such a "small" target?








just look at the splashes! Those bomber crews were probably drunk to miss those sitting ducks...

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by castor troy -- 7/30/2007 9:02:39 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 46
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/30/2007 9:17:44 PM   
donnie_1974_texas

 

Posts: 77
Joined: 2/11/2007
Status: offline 		I have to agree with Castor on this one. I do not see many instances of B17s or other heavies hitting too many fast moving ships, admittedly in the Pacific they weren't used this way that often - perhaps there is a reason why?

Interestingly enough, like I said before, if, as a player, you use the heavies at 20-30,000 feet, they seem to be modelled pretty well in their performance; maybe a tad too effective versus industry targets that were a little more decentralized in a 60 mile hex than can be depicted in the scale of the game, but overall, they work pretty well here.

For flak, in the stock databases - well, the light flak just isn't there. The heavy flak has an abstract model to it, and, flak guns are disabled way too easily by airfield attacks. After two attacks on an airfield with 200 flak guns by 40 B17s, trust me, you don't have any flak guns that are not disabled. Sound realistic?

As far as Betty's on long range strike, yes, torpedo availability is a big problem. In general it is way too high. So, as usual, the model can be exploited at the extremes and as pointed out somewhere above by another poster, if one guy is taking advantage of it, the other player probably is going to respond anyway he can.

As for long range strikes as a whole, these should be toned down. From looking at mission records, you just don't see planes flying 2,000 miles in a day and then doing it again day after day. So I think fatigue should play a bigger role for aircraft, I could care little about the morale roll, in general, if the boss man orders a strike, well, it flew. If the pilots were fatigued or the planes in need of routine maintenance, uhhh, ops losses went way up.

As for air to air combat, try something like Brian's mod and, yes, some bombers will get through. I have been running a 1945 head to head campaign just for kicks and Japan can get some bombers through against even all of TF 57...that could get scary for the Allies in 1944/1945...armor values were upped for the Allies a little too much in the last mod but I understand those are coming back down in the 1.4 version coming soon.

(in reply to donnie_1974_texas)
Post #: 47
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/31/2007 12:30:49 AM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

and here a photo during an attack with lots of smoke, still the two ships are perfectly visible IMO, why should you miss them if it´s so easy to hit such a "small" target?








just look at the splashes! Those bomber crews were probably drunk to miss those sitting ducks...



Yes - it really looks like they are bombing from 6000 feet, doesn't it?

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 48
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/31/2007 2:38:29 AM   
whippleofd

 

Posts: 617
Joined: 12/23/2005
Status: offline 		RTLFC:

Ummm...so...like....ummmmm.......

Was "he" sunk or scuttled?

*runs and hides*

Whipple

_____________________________

MMCS(SW/AW) 1981-2001
1981 RTC, SD
81-82 NPS, Orlando
82-85 NPTU, Idaho Falls
85-90 USS Truxtun (CGN-35)
90-93 USS George Washington (CVN-73)
93-96 NFAS Orlando
96-01 Navsea-08/Naval Reactors

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 49
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/31/2007 10:24:24 AM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

and here a photo during an attack with lots of smoke, still the two ships are perfectly visible IMO, why should you miss them if it´s so easy to hit such a "small" target?








just look at the splashes! Those bomber crews were probably drunk to miss those sitting ducks...



Yes - it really looks like they are bombing from 6000 feet, doesn't it?




So? And why didn´t they?


_____________________________


(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 50
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/31/2007 1:49:01 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

and here a photo during an attack with lots of smoke, still the two ships are perfectly visible IMO, why should you miss them if it´s so easy to hit such a "small" target?








just look at the splashes! Those bomber crews were probably drunk to miss those sitting ducks...



Yes - it really looks like they are bombing from 6000 feet, doesn't it?




So? And why didn´t they?




Because flak would have eaten them up. German flak was much more intense (by all accounts i've seen) than that seen in the Pacific Theater of Operations.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 51
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/31/2007 2:23:30 PM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

and here a photo during an attack with lots of smoke, still the two ships are perfectly visible IMO, why should you miss them if it´s so easy to hit such a "small" target?








just look at the splashes! Those bomber crews were probably drunk to miss those sitting ducks...



Yes - it really looks like they are bombing from 6000 feet, doesn't it?




So? And why didn´t they?




Because flak would have eaten them up. German flak was much more intense (by all accounts i've seen) than that seen in the Pacific Theater of Operations.




I bet 10 AA regiments (Japanese) at one place would have been a LOT more effective than what the Germans had at Brest.... you know what it looks like in the game to place a dozen AA regiments somewhere... poof poof.... 100 flak guns disabled... 100 hits on ships in port...

and to come back to what the thread started about, IMO it´s essential to have a house rule about those 4Es, because even if their hit rate would be modeled realistic (which surely isn´t), everything else is far off so IMO you need to see that as a trade off.

_____________________________


(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 52
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/31/2007 2:35:53 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

and here a photo during an attack with lots of smoke, still the two ships are perfectly visible IMO, why should you miss them if it´s so easy to hit such a "small" target?








just look at the splashes! Those bomber crews were probably drunk to miss those sitting ducks...



Yes - it really looks like they are bombing from 6000 feet, doesn't it?




So? And why didn´t they?




Because flak would have eaten them up. German flak was much more intense (by all accounts i've seen) than that seen in the Pacific Theater of Operations.




I bet 10 AA regiments (Japanese) at one place would have been a LOT more effective than what the Germans had at Brest.... you know what it looks like in the game to place a dozen AA regiments somewhere... poof poof.... 100 flak guns disabled... 100 hits on ships in port...

and to come back to what the thread started about, IMO it´s essential to have a house rule about those 4Es, because even if their hit rate would be modeled realistic (which surely isn´t), everything else is far off so IMO you need to see that as a trade off.



Yes, well then maybe there should be a house rule about concentrating IJA AA regiments as well.

Let us also point out ONCE AGAIN that the most effective use of 4 EB against shipping by the Allies IRL is not modelled in the game (night attacks using radar). So, why is THAT not a trade off?? This always seems to be ignored in "4 EB hit too often" arguments - whereas, if you put this into the equation, maybe Allied EB's don't hit enough.


< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 7/31/2007 2:37:23 PM >

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 53
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/31/2007 3:32:46 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline 		Night attacks using radar arent conducted in squadron / group formations. They are individual attacks by individual planes. In game terms this means NAVAL SEARCH.

(I love saying that as often as I can).

Attacks by hundreds of 4E bombers against ships at sea has no precident in history. If it was effective in the least, why did they have all them 2E bombers? They wouldnt have had a use for them because the big boys could do the same job and do it from a longer range. 4E bombers dont belong on naval strike missions. Period.

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 7/31/2007 3:35:28 PM >

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 54
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/31/2007 3:54:29 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Night attacks using radar arent conducted in squadron / group formations. They are individual attacks by individual planes. In game terms this means NAVAL SEARCH.

(I love saying that as often as I can).

Attacks by hundreds of 4E bombers against ships at sea has no precident in history. If it was effective in the least, why did they have all them 2E bombers? They wouldnt have had a use for them because the big boys could do the same job and do it from a longer range. 4E bombers dont belong on naval strike missions. Period.



And i will point out again that it (night search) is not represented in the game.

And i will also point (again) out that hundreds of B-17s did not attack because the IJN commanders were not foolish enough to have their fleet within range of such concentrations... and so eventually the B-17s and B-24s were assigned other duties (patrol, bombing bases, etc.) It was not because aircraft were not ABLE to hit moving ships (although you can argue about the numbers of hits) - it was because the ships steered clear of the danger historically.

And once again, you have chosen to split off part of the argument to bolster your argument... "4 EB bombers couldn't hit moving ships" - they did it all the time at night - "well, let's ignore night attacks from the number of hits they could make - so they can't hit moving ships"

IF you want to make a compromise - you must offer something in return. The game (and it is a game, not a sim) has eliminated the night attacks on shipping - and you are now insisting that this is a separate issue. So, in terms of a boxing match (for the air war) - the right arm has been cut off the Allied boxer, and now you are insisting that the left arm be tethered as well.

i am not talking about some future game - i am talking about what is going on in this game. You can not fix the problem in this game without changing the game engine, i think, so that is not going to happen.

If you are interested in a compromise - you must offer something in return, not just insist one side give up its one most effective air weapon, while the IJ industry can (for instance) out-produce the Allies in fighters, make vast numbers of aircraft that were only prototypes (yet excluding Allied ability to do so), etc., etc.

quote:

If it was effective in the least, why did they have all them 2E bombers? 4E bombers dont belong on naval strike missions. Period.


4 EB could and did conduct naval strikes*, however, it was cheaper to use 2 EB to do so (much cheaper to build a 2 EB and train a smaller crew)**, while 4 EB were used for other more "lucrative" purposes (whacking individual ships at night - when they had essentially no defenses.)

*As i have previously sited in the Med campaign, the Allied 4 EB crews had it down to a routine business to sink enemy shipping by concentrating around 50-60 tons on bombs on a ship. This is an instance where Axis shipping DID come into 4 EB range - and suffered accordingly.

** Since 2EB were faster and more maneuverable than 4 EB, the skip bombing attacks were also more effective with these aircraft. Also (again) - skip bombing was EASIER to train (and so less experienced crews were able to conduct these) and they had LOWER casualty rates - which again is just the opposite of what is in the game.

< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 7/31/2007 4:29:50 PM >

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 55
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/31/2007 4:53:37 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline 		Rabul was within 4E bomber range for 2 years. They bombed the port. They never bombed ships at sea (in group formations) that I am ever aware of, and certainly not on a routine basis. Single 4E bombers didnt attack convoys that I am aware of. They attacked individual ships at sea.

As for the game not doing night search, I have to admit this surprises me because PacWar was very good about not only conducting night searches, but naval strikes at night as well. But you needed very high experienced groups to do it. It IS possible that is also modeled in this game. Try it using 90 experience groups. I wouldnt be surprised if it works (I wouldnt be surprised if it doesnt either).

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 7/31/2007 4:55:22 PM >

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 56
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/31/2007 5:06:45 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Rabul was within 4E bomber range for 2 years. They bombed the port. They never bombed ships at sea (in group formations) that I am ever aware of, and certainly not on a routine basis. Single 4E bombers didnt attack convoys that I am aware of. They attacked individual ships at sea.

As for the game not doing night search, I have to admit this surprises me because PacWar was very good about not only conducting night searches, but naval strikes at night as well. But you needed very high experienced groups to do it. It IS possible that is also modeled in this game. Try it using 90 experience groups. I wouldnt be surprised if it works (I wouldnt be surprised if it doesnt either).


The point is they COULD bomb ships in formation as evidenced by the Med operations. Why they didn't is another discussion which i don't think i want to get into right now except to say 2EB eventually did a number on shipping in Rabaul using low level tactics, so why bother using an expensive resource when you have a cheaper one to do the job more effectively?

As for bombing on patrol at night in the game: it doesn't work - (unless you have a sub in the same hex) at least with groups in the mid-high 80's. i've never been able to get bombers into the 90s as Allied as they get rotated home first. Also, you can't assign bombers to PATROL at night - just to go on naval strike missions.


EDIT: i will also point out that 4 EB did bomb in formation and sink ships (including warships up to cruiser size) in the PTO - but more notable of their successes came when they got more experience and when there were more 4EB available, and when 2 EB had already pretty much taken over the job at low level.

< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 7/31/2007 5:11:36 PM >

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 57
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/31/2007 5:32:53 PM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

and here a photo during an attack with lots of smoke, still the two ships are perfectly visible IMO, why should you miss them if it´s so easy to hit such a "small" target?








just look at the splashes! Those bomber crews were probably drunk to miss those sitting ducks...



Yes - it really looks like they are bombing from 6000 feet, doesn't it?




So? And why didn´t they?




Because flak would have eaten them up. German flak was much more intense (by all accounts i've seen) than that seen in the Pacific Theater of Operations.




I bet 10 AA regiments (Japanese) at one place would have been a LOT more effective than what the Germans had at Brest.... you know what it looks like in the game to place a dozen AA regiments somewhere... poof poof.... 100 flak guns disabled... 100 hits on ships in port...

and to come back to what the thread started about, IMO it´s essential to have a house rule about those 4Es, because even if their hit rate would be modeled realistic (which surely isn´t), everything else is far off so IMO you need to see that as a trade off.



Yes, well then maybe there should be a house rule about concentrating IJA AA regiments as well.

Let us also point out ONCE AGAIN that the most effective use of 4 EB against shipping by the Allies IRL is not modelled in the game (night attacks using radar). So, why is THAT not a trade off?? This always seems to be ignored in "4 EB hit too often" arguments - whereas, if you put this into the equation, maybe Allied EB's don't hit enough.



sorry, but this makes me smile! Yeah, let´s have a house rule about not stacking more than 1 AA regiment per base (which sounds realistic). It doesn´t matter for the Japanese and it´s only a disadvantage for the Allied. A dozen AA regiments does the same like one AA regiment - NOTHING... NOTHING against 4E bombers coming in in hundreds at 6000 ft at broad daylight to bomb ships anchored in port. Then they achieve a hundreds hits for losing two or three bombers with another dozen damaged.
Not putting a dozen AA regiments in a base is a disadvantage for the Allied! Why? Because the ground casualties go down! That´s the only difference of having dozens of base forces, or no base forces at a Japanese base.

Lol, hope you can smile too. Your comparisons are not something I can understand...


< Message edited by castor troy -- 7/31/2007 5:57:26 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 58
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/31/2007 5:46:38 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline 		There are things wrong on both sides. I´m sure 95% of the players and forum members are agreeing here. Though what makes me always wonder is why are there so few things I can complain about when I play the Allied side and I´m already nearly entering 44 in one game. The things I find to complain about are so minor, they are swept away by all the things I have on hand that weren´t there in real life (like thousands of bombers ready every day). The AFBs complain about thousands of Japanese second generation fighters, but IMO those who complain about this are just NUTS, yeah NUTS, because those thousands of second generation IJA fighters are shot down in a much higher rate than first generation fighters in real life. So what´s there to complain about? All my Allied fighters in late 43 are achieving even higher kill rates than in real life - this against FAR BETTER planes that were in the air in real life. And against FAR BETTER pilots than in real life as well. And no, I´m not playing someone who just started with WITP, in fact he kicked my a** even more that would someone call "normal" for 41/42.

So as the Allied player I can complain about... mmm, perhaps the fact that I have unlimited bomber sorties every day that can´t be stopped at all in 9 out of 10 times with kill rates somewhere between 10 and 20:1. Yeah, that´s something I can complain about. But wait, I´m the Allied player, so why should I complain about that? 4E bombers alone will win the war. IN THE GAME! If you can´t win the war with your 4Es alone, then you´re a bad player... Or are limiting them "a bit" (like with max 4Es at a base, altitude...). There were those who thought in real life also that bombers can win a war, those were wrong - in real life. In the game, the 4Es are the number one weapon. 100 times better than the Betty that´s so hated by AFBs. In 42 you can´t sink IJN BBs with them - everything else will be sunk at no costs. Every base will be destroyed by raids of hundreds every day (so realistic). In 43 I can sink EVERY IJN ship including BBs as the big bombs are triggered. The die rolls for it are not hard to achieve when every 4E crew is above 80 exp at that time. If it isn´t, let them fly daily a dozen hexes to and from a target and they will be above 80 exp soon.

The biggest problem is all the complaints on and on are coming from the fact that 80% of the PBEM players never even entered 43. If you´re an Allied player in mid 43 and are still complaining than I´m sorry for you. Mostly you will get something to complain because YOU did something wrong, not the game is giving you a disadvantage.

Just as a reminder: If I would lose 6 4Es every day a month then at the end of the month there would be 30 bombers less in the pool (production in stock around 150 until mid 44 - then 300 or so). 30 bombers less... I´m not losing 180 4E bombers a month... Again, the 4Es win the war in WITP. Not the ships, not the CVs, not the Marines, the USSAF 4E bombers.


< Message edited by castor troy -- 7/31/2007 6:03:27 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 59
RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question - 7/31/2007 5:49:01 PM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Night attacks using radar arent conducted in squadron / group formations. They are individual attacks by individual planes. In game terms this means NAVAL SEARCH.



It´s a great compromise to trade the night attacks of single flying B-24s with day attacks of 200+ 4E bombers...

_____________________________


(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.188