Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Disastrously Poor Navy DB Performance

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Disastrously Poor Navy DB Performance Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Disastrously Poor Navy DB Performance - 11/27/2009 5:41:04 AM   
Xxzard

 

Posts: 440
Joined: 9/28/2008
From: Arizona
Status: offline 		Here's the report, this is from an AI game.
Morning Air attack on TF, near Manado at 74,96

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 17



Allied aircraft
Albacore I x 18
Sea Hurricane Ib x 3
F4F-3 Wildcat x 6
F4F-4 Wildcat x 6
SBD-2 Dauntless x 15
SBD-3 Dauntless x 59
TBD-1 Devastator x 12


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Albacore I: 1 destroyed, 13 damaged
F4F-3 Wildcat: 1 destroyed
SBD-2 Dauntless: 1 destroyed, 9 damaged
SBD-3 Dauntless: 1 destroyed, 21 damaged
TBD-1 Devastator: 1 destroyed, 6 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Kaga, Torpedo hits 2, on fire



Aircraft Attacking:
11 x SBD-3 Dauntless diving from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
15 x SBD-3 Dauntless diving from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
15 x SBD-3 Dauntless diving from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
17 x SBD-3 Dauntless diving from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
14 x SBD-2 Dauntless diving from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
10 x TBD-1 Devastator launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
5 x Albacore I bombing from 15000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x Albacore I launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Mk XII Torpedo

So, 74 dauntless bombers attack one lumbering carrier, and not one scores a hit. My my, if this was the performance level at Midway we would have been in big trouble. Now before you say, well it still was hit by torpedos so that makes up for it, I will tell you that since it was an AI game and I had the lesiure of playing the turn over. I did that, because in the first turn, not a single bomb or torpedo hit Kaga. Not a single hit from 104 strike aircraft!!! I only got some hits after I went back and raised altitude for the torpedo bombers. Even then, the only hits were from the Albacores.

I have noticed a drop off in the performance of my airgroups as time has gone on, but this is crazy. Furthermore, although these guys have lost some of their number in action by this point, I would have thought the increase in experience for those who survived to be even more experienced than they started out as. They were not fatigued, morale was high.

So is it the weather then? The afternoon attack went in again, and this time actually hit something, but only with the first three bombs.

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Manado at 74,96

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 12



Allied aircraft
Sea Hurricane Ib x 3
Martlet II x 4
F4F-3A Wildcat x 4
F4F-3 Wildcat x 4
SBD-3 Dauntless x 22


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Sea Hurricane Ib: 2 destroyed
F4F-3A Wildcat: 1 destroyed
F4F-3 Wildcat: 1 destroyed
SBD-3 Dauntless: 2 destroyed, 9 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Kaga, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Shirakumo, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Wakaba, Bomb hits 1, on fire



Aircraft Attacking:
7 x SBD-3 Dauntless diving from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
15 x SBD-3 Dauntless diving from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
Kaga-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters to 7000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 5 minutes

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring a Akagi class CV
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Shirakumo


So what? 22 Dauntlesses smash what 74 could not. Personally, I feel that moderate rain roughly equals heavy cloud, so is this just a case of terrible die rolls on the morning attack?


_____________________________
Post #: 1
RE: Disastrously Poor Navy DB Performance - 11/27/2009 7:12:48 AM   
GB68

 

Posts: 113
Joined: 8/4/2009
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline 		I agree,, it seems very poor. But some factors you might have missed. In the AM raid, moderate rain does have  a significant effect. As opposed to the PM raid where the CV has already taken 2 torpedo hits, so has presumably lost some speed and manuevre. So, in theory, easier to hit.

But, to add to your point, I have found similiar effects with Japanese DBs as well. Once in a PBEM game, I attacked with 4 KB carriers a Transport TF docked and unloading at Suva. In fact I kept getting the "AK xxx caught unloading" in the combat replay. All Kates had to use bombs because of exhausted torpedo ordanance. The result, 115 attack planes, 4 hits!!! On a docked , unloading TF?? The weather was "light rain"

The defining factor, I am not sure, but it seems to me the weather plays a huge role. Maybe too big a role?


_____________________________

"Are you going to come quietly, or do I have to use earplugs?"
- Spike Milligan

(in reply to Xxzard)
Post #: 2
RE: Disastrously Poor Navy DB Performance - 11/27/2009 8:09:02 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		Weather, leaders, altitude, luck etc.

I have found that my USN DBs *usually* work fine, now and then I get battle where for example 34 DBs do not get any hits.

Make sure you have good leaders in your CV air units, I have found units led by ensigns with air-rating in low 30's...


_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to GB68)
Post #: 3
RE: Disastrously Poor Navy DB Performance - 11/27/2009 9:41:15 AM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Weather, leaders, altitude, luck etc.

I have found that my USN DBs *usually* work fine, now and then I get battle where for example 34 DBs do not get any hits.

Make sure you have good leaders in your CV air units, I have found units led by ensigns with air-rating in low 30's...




were those ensings assigned by default or are we speaking about the (or one of many) leader bug(s)?

_____________________________


(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 4
RE: Disastrously Poor Navy DB Performance - 11/27/2009 3:25:24 PM   
Xxzard

 

Posts: 440
Joined: 9/28/2008
From: Arizona
Status: offline 		I'll also mention that in the first raid, the attacking groups did not attack in any particular order, so there was a chance for at least some of the DB's to score after the first torpedo hit.

The first time I played this turn, the first three bombs hit Kaga in the second attack, exactly the same as the second time I played it over. Except that first time, the Kaga had not been torpedoed.

I suppose the most likely explanation is weather. Maybe moderate rain is more severe or better at obscuring targets than I imagined.

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 5
RE: Disastrously Poor Navy DB Performance - 11/27/2009 6:49:56 PM   
mariandavid

 

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline 		For what it is worth Peter C Smith's books on divebombers (he has written about 20!) emphasises the very large number of external factors - cloud cover, wind, air temperature at various levels, is target steering straight, evading, into wind, across wind etc etc etc. It seems that historically as well as in AE dive bombing was a very chancy business and that the only strong modifier was excellent training and very good leaders.

(in reply to Xxzard)
Post #: 6
RE: Disastrously Poor Navy DB Performance - 11/28/2009 12:04:51 AM   
Runnersan

 

Posts: 136
Joined: 6/11/2008
Status: offline 		Today, i have better fight:) My brave pilots attacked USN destroyers. 36 kates and 32 Vals. Destroyers were dead in water... Effect 3 torpedo hits.... I understand that it is hard for level bomber to hit moving fast destroyer, but why dive bombers with good crews, couldn't hit destroyers wih 0 speed?

(in reply to mariandavid)
Post #: 7
RE: Disastrously Poor Navy DB Performance - 11/28/2009 12:41:32 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		While I was invading Lunga in 8/42, the AI sent Hyuga and Chikuma plus some DD's to break up the party.  I had a surface TF there and they fought inconclusively, both sides losing a DD and Hyuga taking numerous 8" non-penetrating hits.  On the way in to the fight, she got hit by about 4 1000 lb bombs from two CV's, full strike from all 4 DB squadrons.  On the way out she got hit by those same DB squadrons, now depleted from losses and flak damage, but still about half strength.  She was a bit slower so I hoped she'd get hit more, but still only took 2 more hits.  This on a 23 knot BB that was slowed from damage and the DB's were the best the USN had to offer.

(in reply to Runnersan)
Post #: 8
RE: Disastrously Poor Navy DB Performance - 11/28/2009 10:06:42 PM   
Xxzard

 

Posts: 440
Joined: 9/28/2008
From: Arizona
Status: offline 		Yeah, 1000 lb SAP bombs won't penetrate battleship deck armor. Which is unfortunate, because the TBD's perform so poorly they often don't lend much help.

Well, a few days later, there is another attack, this time on the carrier Junyo, with two different CV DB airgroups, and they smashed the CV with the first three bombs. So, it's certainly not an across the board problem.

_____________________________


(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 9
RE: Disastrously Poor Navy DB Performance - 11/28/2009 10:10:46 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Train. Train, train, train, train, train.

In stock WitP, you could ignore air unit training and get a reasonable result (according to the standard of the air model, which wasn't good). In AE, if you don't train your pilots, they won't perform well.

And I'm not talking General Training. Train your carrier groups in Naval Attack if you expect them to do well in Naval Attack. Otherwise, they won't.



_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Xxzard)
Post #: 10
RE: Disastrously Poor Navy DB Performance - 11/29/2009 3:52:36 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		Where do you see the unit (as opposed to the pilot/commander) stats for specific skills?

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 11
RE: Disastrously Poor Navy DB Performance - 11/29/2009 5:46:49 PM   
d0mbo

 

Posts: 592
Joined: 8/21/2009
From: Holland
Status: offline 		Just got a cruiser division wacked by american carrier planes in the guadalcanal scenario. So i can safely say: DB's and TB's DO still bite. Seems to me luck is involved :)

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 12
RE: Disastrously Poor Navy DB Performance - 12/4/2009 1:46:32 PM   
xj900uk

 

Posts: 1340
Joined: 3/22/2007
Status: offline 		You also have to remember that up until PH SBD's had primarily been intended for use in attacking shore targets (or scounting/reconissance).  It was primiarly up to the TBD's to hit ships (in theory).
Until late '41 SBD crews were first trained to hit stationary shore targets with GP bombs

(in reply to d0mbo)
Post #: 13
RE: Disastrously Poor Navy DB Performance - 12/4/2009 10:12:14 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Train. Train, train, train, train, train.


While I would hate to agree with the unflappable T. (no one else does, why should I? ) , in this matter I believe he is 100% spot on. Training is a LOT more important in AE. US DB's were not the greatest just prior to the war.

As Halsey was rumored to have said Dec 5, 1941 while watching an dive bombing exercise "Tell Lt. Finch, from me, that he could not hit a bull in the butt with a base fiddle"

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 14
RE: Disastrously Poor Navy DB Performance - 12/8/2009 8:02:14 AM   
johnbruning

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Oregon
Status: offline 		Gentlemen,

I have no idea how this aspect of the game was programmed, or what factors the code uses to come up with the number of hits in a particular raid, or how those factors are weighted. However, I do know there are plenty of historical examples from 1942-1945 in the Pacific showing how even experienced and well-led dive bomber units can still totally blow an attack. One needs only to look at some of the missions flown by the Kido Butai's veteran crews south of Java to see this phenomenon in action. Turn to the U.S. side, and take a look at what happened at Midway AFTER the Japanese carriers had been sunk. Fifty-Eight Dauntlesses tried to sink a destroyer and didn't score a single hit.

Also, remember the raid on Tulagi at the start of Coral Sea. Weather and changes in altitude in the tropical environment caused the SBD's telescopic sight to fog up, which ruined the accuracy of many drops.

There are many other examples all the way through Leyte and the final strikes on Kure Harbor at the end of the war. Dive bombing could be exceptionally accurate, or a complete failure. Weather--a small cloud in the wrong place at the wrong time--rain, wind, a bad tactical position, flak, etc. could all wreck a dive bombing run.

Having that wild variation factored into the game is actually kinda cool, from where I stand.

My two cents.

Regards,

John Bruning
John Bruning

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 15
RE: Disastrously Poor Navy DB Performance - 12/8/2009 1:33:59 PM   
xj900uk

 

Posts: 1340
Joined: 3/22/2007
Status: offline 		Dive bombers have serious problems with clouds, particularly if they are beneath them & they can't see the target...

(in reply to johnbruning)
Post #: 16
RE: Disastrously Poor Navy DB Performance - 12/9/2009 2:01:23 AM   
Xxzard

 

Posts: 440
Joined: 9/28/2008
From: Arizona
Status: offline 		Speaking of which, there was recently a rainy day (which is fairly rare in AZ) with low clouds and moderate to severe rain, and I thought, there is no way I would try and fly a dive bomber in this, and no way would I hit anything even if I did.

What really got me originally was that the hex did not have a clouds icon, it looked clear, but I think now that the moderate rain reported in the combat report probably drastically decreased the DB accuracy.

_____________________________


(in reply to xj900uk)
Post #: 17
RE: Disastrously Poor Navy DB Performance - 12/9/2009 1:36:36 PM   
xj900uk

 

Posts: 1340
Joined: 3/22/2007
Status: offline 		Interesting update from my campaign against the AI - it's January '42 and the Japanese are spreading south fast - Rabaul & Kirinawa have both fallen & there are landings all along the NE coast of PNG.  Lexington & Enterprise in their TF supporting the rapid development of Noumea, Luganville & Efate head north towards New Britain, obviously out of range of Japanese LR search planes as guess what they encounter a small but powerful Japanese TF heading SW around Rabaul towards the SE coast of Australia,  no doubt to cause as much mischief amongst the lightly escorted Allied shipping that is scurrying around.  Jap TF consists of the Battlecruiser Hiei,  a light cruiser, and at least three or four destroyers when they encounter Big 'E' and Lady Lex quietly moving north and, despite the bad weather, the US carriers succeed in launching two big strikes both of which find their targets - the result is that the light cruiser takes one bomb hit and is reported sunk,  Hiei takes up to a dozen 1000 lber hits (even allowing for over-exaduration from exuberiant US pilots,  it's taken a real battering) and another destroyer takes two bomb hits (but oddly doesn't seem to sink).  The only black spot is the TBD's - in all 48 attack the Japanese TF and not a single fish is seen to hit...

Overall though the US carrier bombers seme to have done pretty well,  out of about seventy sorties in the day against unescorted but fast-moving surface warships they must have reported something like twenty hits or near misses.  Losses were light - four TBD's shot down by flak, another through Op Losses & one damaged SBD seems to have crash-landed back on Lexington causing 6 system damage + 1 hull (nothing major)
 
Seems a pretty good result, albeit against air-less but unsuspecting surface ships.  Sounds quite close to what I would expect in real life, even including the poor performance of the TBD's.
Weather-wise,  it was a pretty cold wet day in the SW pacific, although there was sunshine and very few clouds over the target area...

(in reply to Xxzard)
Post #: 18
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Disastrously Poor Navy DB Performance Page: [1]
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

3.594