RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question

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: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question

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 >> RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question - 4/10/2010 7:21:08 PM

P.Hausser

Posts: 416
Joined: 8/16/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fletcher

House Rules will be the best option...

a) NO 4E bombers attacks at Naval Attack or
b) Any 4E bombers at Naval Attack mission must be at 10,000+ feet altitude.

Your allied opponent could use his B-25/A-20/B-26s for the skip-bombing tactics avoiding use of his 4Es (B-17 were used in RL with amazing outcomes).

best wishes

Limiting it all together would be to extreeme I think,
setting a alt min is better.

_____________________________

(in reply to Fletcher)

Post #: 31

RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question - 4/12/2010 2:38:57 AM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

Seems 10000 ft is the average alt for the 4e...House Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: P.Hausser

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fletcher

House Rules will be the best option...

a) NO 4E bombers attacks at Naval Attack or
b) Any 4E bombers at Naval Attack mission must be at 10,000+ feet altitude.

Your allied opponent could use his B-25/A-20/B-26s for the skip-bombing tactics avoiding use of his 4Es (B-17 were used in RL with amazing outcomes).

best wishes

Limiting it all together would be to extreeme I think,
setting a alt min is better.

< Message edited by bigred -- 4/12/2010 2:39:12 AM >

(in reply to P.Hausser)

Post #: 32

RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question - 4/12/2010 2:49:25 AM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

...� I believe it was Operation Cobra in Europe where the 4E bombers plastered their targets and when the ground pounders went to do their thing they couldn't advance due to the severe cratering of the area...end of operation.

Todd, I think that was the Normandy break-out op, and if I recall, the bombers mistakenly bombed Bradley's own troops not once but twice!

True, my uncle was on the recieving end of cobra...1st Division.

(in reply to Joe D.)

Post #: 33

RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question - 4/12/2010 3:31:13 AM

Misconduct

Posts: 1864
Joined: 2/18/2009
From: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Status: offline

I for one agree 4 engined bombers regardless should not be allowed below 10,000 ft for naval strikes, I mean if it was done in the war its one thing, however with so few actual missions based at low alt its pretty much exploiting the game for gain. If you really want 100ft naval strikes, then downgrade the 4E's to B-25J's and have fun. There's a huge difference from an arcade shoot them up and attempting to at least follow the courses of war. Houses rules have always been in place to keep exploiting to a minimum, yes its quite possible B-29s could of flown at 100ft and carpet bombed the KB and in AE its always a possibility, however in real life it didn't happen so there has to be a median to least be honest with yourself.

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 34

RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question - 4/12/2010 4:05:58 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

In old threads there were sources posted and lots of examples. That gave me the understanding that it was done plenty in the war.

I find better uses for 4EB than mass naval bombing, but I also think the game engine in AE takes care of any potential abuse.

(in reply to Misconduct)

Post #: 35

RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question - 4/12/2010 8:39:02 AM

castor troy

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

You shouldn�t overestimate the strength of 4Es on naval attack though. In my PBEM I had just an example that more or less once again blew me out of my chair due to the inability of bombers harming enemy shipping (both 4E and medium). All my crews had 65-70 nav skill as this is the only thing they get taught in flight school (the ground bombing is taught during ground attacks

).

It was depressing.

Morning Air attack on TF, near Portland Roads at 93,132

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 33 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 2

Allied aircraft
B-17F Fortress x 9
B-24D Liberator x 4
B-26 Marauder x 6

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-17F Fortress: 6 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 3 damaged
B-26 Marauder: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
CA Mogami
CA Mikuma
CA Kumano

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x B-17F Fortress bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 8 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 10 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
6 x B-26 Marauder bombing from 6000 feet
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
6 x B-17F Fortress bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 8 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
3rd Ku S-1 Det B with A6M2 Zero (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Portland Roads at 93,132

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 30 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 1

Allied aircraft
B-26 Marauder x 30

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-26 Marauder: 14 damaged

Japanese Ships
CA Mikuma
CA Suzuya
CA Mogami
CA Kumano
DD Harusame

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-26 Marauder bombing from 6000 feet
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
12 x B-26 Marauder bombing from 6000 feet
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
12 x B-26 Marauder bombing from 6000 feet
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
3rd Ku S-1 Det B with A6M2 Zero (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Portland Roads at 93,132

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 27 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 1

Allied aircraft
B-17F Fortress x 6

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-17F Fortress: 4 damaged

Japanese Ships
CA Kumano
CA Mikuma

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-17F Fortress bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 8 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
3rd Ku S-1 Det B with A6M2 Zero (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Portland Roads at 93,132

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 14 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24D Liberator x 4

Allied aircraft losses
B-24D Liberator: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
CA Mikuma

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 10 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Portland Roads at 93,132

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 25 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 1

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 11
B-17F Fortress x 9
B-24D Liberator x 19
B-26 Marauder x 6

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 2 damaged
B-17F Fortress: 4 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 5 damaged
B-26 Marauder: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
CA Mikuma
DD Suzukaze
CA Kumano
CA Suzuya
DD Harusame
CA Mogami

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x B-17F Fortress bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 8 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
5 x B-26 Marauder bombing from 6000 feet
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
5 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 10 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
11 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 8 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
6 x B-17F Fortress bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
10 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 10 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 10 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
3rd Ku S-1 Det B with A6M2 Zero (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Portland Roads at 93,132

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 33 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-24D Liberator x 8
B-26 Marauder x 33

Allied aircraft losses
B-24D Liberator: 1 damaged
B-26 Marauder: 9 damaged

Japanese Ships
CA Mogami
CA Suzuya
CA Kumano
CA Mikuma

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-26 Marauder bombing from 6000 feet
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb GP Bomb
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 10 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
12 x B-26 Marauder bombing from 6000 feet
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 10 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
9 x B-26 Marauder bombing from 6000 feet
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
6 x B-26 Marauder bombing from 6000 feet
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Portland Roads at 93,132

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 19 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-26 Marauder x 13

Allied aircraft losses
B-26 Marauder: 1 destroyed, 9 damaged

Japanese Ships
CA Mikuma
CA Suzuya

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x B-26 Marauder bombing from 6000 feet
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

158 highly skilled bombers dropping something like 1000x500 lb for not a single hit? Go figure if that�s right or wrong, I for my part made a decision. This leads to the old discussion, let 158 Betties/Nells attack, all armed with torpedoes and you won�t have a single cruiser left I guess. The imbalance (yes, imbalance) between highly skilled bombers attacking with bombs and highly skilled bombers attacking with torps is off as 158 bombers armed with bombs would have been a major threat to such a TF. And they probably would be nearly the same threat as 158 bombers armed with torps. The problem is that the torp bombers would whipe out the TF while the bomb bombers don�t get a single hit.

One also should note the flak effect of such a Japanese TF, especially this ridicoulos "pre attack" flak fire a Japanese TF gets. When watching the replay, about one third of the damaged bombers are actually hit by this pre flak fire. This is probably the most unrealistic design desicision that was done as there�s no real life example for implementing it like it is now.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 4/12/2010 8:42:17 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 36

RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question - 4/12/2010 11:20:27 AM

P.Hausser

Posts: 416
Joined: 8/16/2009
Status: offline

Try the same ops from 6k and you will sink it all.

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 37

RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question - 4/12/2010 11:46:15 AM

spence

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

Actually there is a real historical precedent for the pre-CAP flak.
It's what the Japanese used for fighter direction instead of radios and a trained team of officers and men to interpret radar data. Didn't clog up officer's country and left plenty of room in the superstructure for a Kabuki Theater you see. The historical precedent stops very, very far short of actually inflicting ANY losses on any attacking aircraft whatsoever at any time during the entire course of the war.

But back to the main topic.

I posted a link to a navy patrol bomber site that includes Official After Action Reports and some photos. It is notable that throughout the multiple reports of action that the altitude of the attack is consistently reported at 100 to 200 ft. The planes are 4E flying boat PB2Ys. The intensity of the flak is always reported as a matter of fact but the writers indicate that the altitude of their attack was not influenced by it.

(in reply to P.Hausser)

Post #: 38

RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question - 4/12/2010 11:55:09 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: P.Hausser

Try the same ops from 6k and you will sink it all.

no you won�t. Note that not even the medium bombers have hit something from 6k. 65-70 naval skill.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 4/12/2010 11:58:10 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to P.Hausser)

Post #: 39

RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question - 4/12/2010 11:58:04 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Actually there is a real historical precedent for the pre-CAP flak.
It's what the Japanese used for fighter direction instead of radios and a trained team of officers and men to interpret radar data. Didn't clog up officer's country and left plenty of room in the superstructure for a Kabuki Theater you see. The historical precedent stops very, very far short of actually inflicting ANY losses on any attacking aircraft whatsoever at any time during the entire course of the war.

But back to the main topic.

I posted a link to a navy patrol bomber site that includes Official After Action Reports and some photos. It is notable that throughout the multiple reports of action that the altitude of the attack is consistently reported at 100 to 200 ft. The planes are 4E flying boat PB2Ys. The intensity of the flak is always reported as a matter of fact but the writers indicate that the altitude of their attack was not influenced by it.

I know what was done historically, but that�s by no means what is happening in the game. Like I�ve said above, about one third of the damaged bombers was damaged by the pre Cap flak and that�s why I say this feature is totally obsolete if you justify it with real life happenings. It was, like you say, mostly for fighter direction but not to achieve 1/3 of the flak hits on the enemy. Of course a ship that is in range of the strike would fire at the aircraft but that doesn�t justify it either in the way it is now IMO.

_____________________________

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 40

RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question - 4/12/2010 10:37:33 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

I still use the house rule from WITP. Army 4E bombers are allowed at naval attack only if they are above 10,000 feet.

However, I do not apply this to the Navy PBY Liberators. These pilots were trained in low level naval attacks and that is what I use them for. I recounted this once before here but I knew a former PBY Liberator pilot who passed on about six years ago. He told me that the only times he ever flew his aircraft at high altitides was when they wanted to ice down their beer....

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to P.Hausser)

Post #: 41

RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question - 4/12/2010 11:47:11 PM

minnowguy

Posts: 85
Joined: 7/12/2005
From: St Louis
Status: offline

Here's a video of a B17 doing practice skip bombing runs against a hulk in Port Moresby harbor: http://b17blackjack.com/trailer/mov/skip-bomb.html This was in Sept/Oct 1942.

In the crew section (http://b17blackjack.com/crew/mccullar/index.html) they describe the same plane attacking a convoy via skip bombing. Apparently the flak was pretty severe.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 42

RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question - 4/23/2010 3:11:57 AM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

P.Hausser and I had a raid where My understanding is 6xb17s@6000ft sank 7xAKs on one mission, no cap, clear, off Java. March42. senario2 AE.
Currently we placed a 12000ft limit on nav attack...

< Message edited by bigred -- 4/23/2010 3:12:41 AM >

(in reply to minnowguy)

Post #: 43

RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question - 4/23/2010 8:00:41 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred

P.Hausser and I had a raid where My understanding is 6xb17s@6000ft sank 7xAKs on one mission, no cap, clear, off Java. March42. senario2 AE.
Currently we placed a 12000ft limit on nav attack...

and in my ongoing PBEM vs Rainer, my B-17 and B-24 (at 10.000ft) together with B-26 (at 6.000ft) with navbomb skill between 65-70 have dropped something like 1800 x 500lb bombs in several attacks against cruisers, destroyers and a lot of freighters for not even a single bomb hit. NOT ONE. Can be read in my AAR with all the detailed combat reports. My dive bombers are killers but my medium bombers are useless. No, not really, I can send them in on naval attack to go in before the dive bombers with their escort as the heavy bombers would then clear the sky from enemy fighter opposition so I won�t have my escorting fighters shot to pieces. I would like to have the option to put another 6 x .50 cal in my 4E bombers and use them without bombs, just to do figther-BOMBER sweeps. But they have been 99% useless on naval attack despite I�ve spent 10 months of training everything that goes into a bomber on naval attack... now at the end of 42, I can start over training again...

< Message edited by castor troy -- 4/23/2010 8:01:22 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 44

RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question - 4/23/2010 1:23:55 PM

Dili

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

Bombing results IRL have great variability i see in reports dozens of level bombers failing to hit damaged ships which it means non maneuvering at all. Even with torpedo bombers that happens.

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 45

RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question - 4/23/2010 2:24:42 PM

Fletcher

Posts: 3386
Joined: 10/26/2006
From: Jerez, Spain, EU
Status: offline

Hi there
Would solve the question requesting to AE Team a new naval air attack for 4E bombers flying <10.000 feet with ONLY 1 bomb ?... Skip bombing was deadly, but bombers could no flight with a massive bomb payload... 1 bomb was throught by 1 4E at masthead altitude or using skip boming..I am not sure if this could be a reasonable request.
At Midway 17 B-17s flying in naval attack mission at high altitude and attack carriers with no hits. There are many examples of high altitude naval attack from 4E bombers unsuccesfully.. For the other hands, the problem is not if could be done or not, the question is if the game performs correctly that.. No, in my opinion, several 4E flying at low altitude get numerous hits on any kind of ship.
Of course, only IMHO.
Regards,
Ram�n

_____________________________

WITP-AE, WITE

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 46

RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question - 4/23/2010 7:50:57 PM

Zemke

Posts: 642
Joined: 1/14/2003
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: P.Hausser

Hello, I have a question about strategic bombers on naval attack.
I have several times experienced B 17s conducting naval attack on ships currently at sea, and find that they frequently hit the target. The bombing altitudes used have been between 6 000 - 8 000 feet and 9 000 - 11 000 feet.
Out of in total 9 individual attack phases with an average of +/ - 10 strategic bombers in average per mission I find their sucsess ratio to be very high - a lot higher than I would assume that B 17s ever could have been on naval attack from any altitude?
I am now in May of 1942 and have already lost 2 captiol ships ( 2 heavy cruisers) and one of them was at sea when it was attacked by B 17s, it took 6 500 lbs from them and sunk.
I would assume that this ship would be doing 30 knots, shooting all its anti aircraft-guns and zig-zaging...
Of course the few B17 s could have been lucky this time, however I find them to have "Dauntless like" preformance against cargo-ships when operating from lower altitudes...

I understand that many of you operates with HR�s regarding this?

This was one of my major problems with the original WitP, and I guess is still a problem. The were many cases where level bombers tried to attack ships at sea, but very very few hits. The exception would be low level skip bombing late in the war, and that was with 2E bombers. As one poster already alluded to, B-17 (all heavy bombers for that matter) had a hard enough time hitting stationary targets, much less a moving ship conducting evasive maneuvers. I think if you have already lost two capital ships while at sea, then the engine needs fixed, because level bombers just were not that effective no matter how trained they are. In other words the capabilities of units should mirror what happened during the war, and frankly 4E bombers just never had any success hitting moving ships, and all the heavy bomber fan fare cannot change the historical record.

< Message edited by Zemke_4 -- 4/23/2010 7:52:52 PM >

_____________________________

"Actions Speak Louder than Words"

(in reply to P.Hausser)

Post #: 47

RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question - 4/23/2010 7:59:05 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Bombing results IRL have great variability i see in reports dozens of level bombers failing to hit damaged ships which it means non maneuvering at all. Even with torpedo bombers that happens.

I have raids from Saipan hitting Iwo Jima anchored merchant TFs at 8-10k. Roughly 60 late-war B24s per. At most I get one 500lb bomb hit; at least half the time I get zero. It's very random, and no game-breaker by any means. I think this has been significantly changed from WITP.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 48

RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question - 4/23/2010 9:12:09 PM

Rainer

Posts: 1210
Joined: 11/21/2000
From: Neuching, Bavaria, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

and in my ongoing PBEM vs Rainer

I have no PBEM game with you.
Please use the forum name of your opponent so readers are not mislead.
Thanks.

_____________________________

WitP/AE
1.7.11.26b
Data base changes by Andy Mac October 16, 2012
Scen #1 Allied vs AI Level Hard Daily Turns
Art Mods by TomLabel and Reg
Topo Map by chemkid

WitW / Torch
1.01.37 - 1.01.44 beta

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 49

RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question - 4/24/2010 12:47:34 AM

spence

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

quote:

This was one of my major problems with the original WitP, and I guess is still a problem. The were many cases where level bombers tried to attack ships at sea, but very very few hits. The exception would be low level skip bombing late in the war, and that was with 2E bombers. As one poster already alluded to, B-17 (all heavy bombers for that matter) had a hard enough time hitting stationary targets, much less a moving ship conducting evasive maneuvers. I think if you have already lost two capital ships while at sea, then the engine needs fixed, because level bombers just were not that effective no matter how trained they are. In other words the capabilities of units should mirror what happened during the war, and frankly 4E bombers just never had any success hitting moving ships, and all the heavy bomber fan fare cannot change the historical record.

All the JFBs would got nutso if the real performance of the dreaded Netties was actually modelled. They had one good day and sank the PoW and Repulse. After that they scored only the very occasional hit and died in droves.

(in reply to Rainer)

Post #: 50

RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question - 4/24/2010 8:27:08 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainer

quote:

and in my ongoing PBEM vs Rainer

I have no PBEM game with you.
Please use the forum name of your opponent so readers are not mislead.
Thanks.

well, sorry, the 79 was missing...

Hope you weren�t in danger to be banned if someone thought I would be playing you.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 4/24/2010 8:28:05 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Rainer)

Post #: 51

RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question - 4/24/2010 8:31:09 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

This was one of my major problems with the original WitP, and I guess is still a problem. The were many cases where level bombers tried to attack ships at sea, but very very few hits. The exception would be low level skip bombing late in the war, and that was with 2E bombers. As one poster already alluded to, B-17 (all heavy bombers for that matter) had a hard enough time hitting stationary targets, much less a moving ship conducting evasive maneuvers. I think if you have already lost two capital ships while at sea, then the engine needs fixed, because level bombers just were not that effective no matter how trained they are. In other words the capabilities of units should mirror what happened during the war, and frankly 4E bombers just never had any success hitting moving ships, and all the heavy bomber fan fare cannot change the historical record.

All the JFBs would got nutso if the real performance of the dreaded Netties was actually modelled. They had one good day and sank the PoW and Repulse. After that they scored only the very occasional hit and died in droves.

IMO, it�s the discrepancy in hit rate between bombs and torps that is off. It�s not side dependent, Allied torpedo bombers like Beauforts do just as good as Betties for example. And Japanese level bombers are the same as Allied level bombers. What is hard to get for me though is that you definetely expect three dozen Betties wreck havoc on a convoy but on the other hand you have to accept that 1800 x 500lb bombs dropped don�t achieve a single hit. So torp plus crew skill 65-70 is a killer while bomb(s) plus crew skill 65-70 is only an annoyance. Considering the fact that the torp bomber drops one torp compared to a medium bomber dropping up to 6 bombs this doesn�t make it better. No way of course would I want to see bombers armed with bombs achieving anywhere near the kill rates of torp bombers because with halve that kill rate, the IJN would run out of ships within 6 months. I think the way to solve it is the way that the game has turned onto already: reduce the availability to drop torpedos. It was tried so far, but with "minimal" effects. All this together leads to the fact that in the game far more ships are sunk by aerial torps than in real life. I bet the aerial dropped torpedo is the number one cause for ship sinkings for the Japanese and it�s by far leading the list. This is pretty much wrong IMO.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 4/24/2010 8:37:27 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 52

RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question - 4/24/2010 3:43:46 PM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

Historically, the allies used 4e against merchant shipping... so are we argueing that they are too effective? seriously?
the allies use of bombers againt unarmed ships is historical fact.. now if we are say the engine needs tuning.. thats a different arguement..

(in reply to P.Hausser)

Post #: 53

RE: STRAT. Bombers On Naval Attack Question - 4/25/2010 11:11:59 PM

spence

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

quote:

Historically, the allies used 4e against merchant shipping... so are we argueing that they are too effective? seriously?
the allies use of bombers againt unarmed ships is historical fact.. now if we are say the engine needs tuning.. thats a different arguement..

The Allies effectively used 4e against merchant shipping and warships. The USN only needed to actually get some 4e to start using them in that fashion. The whole arguement is because the USAAF initially had some lame-brained idea that they could hit a ship from high altitude and were unfortunate or stupid enough to take pictures of their failures. But even the USAAF command figured it out eventually and adjusted their attacks to fit the circumstances rather than continuing to adhere to an ineffective tactic. It seems to me that those that choose to play the Japanese in this game believe that absolute anything Japanese is free for changing but the Allied Player must under all circumstances stick to the script for each and every failure.

(in reply to P.Hausser)

Post #: 54