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: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers

 
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: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers - 12/14/2020 4:30:39 AM   
rustysi


Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

Thus the use of delayed fuze.


Yeah, I've seen films where the splash of the bomb itself causing the plane to crash.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 31
RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers - 12/14/2020 12:14:33 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		No doubt timed fuzes help, but it still was a high skill operation:

Here is an A20 hitting a Japanese merchant...at Wewak in 1944.






Btw, as far as I know, there is no JFB HR that prevents twin engine bombers from pursuing this tactic. Most of the HR I see are limited to 4E HB, and even then a lot of the time it is ok for USN to do skip bombing.

I have played HR games and no HR games. Whatever the two players decide is ok by me...just have fun.


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 12/14/2020 12:23:13 PM >

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 32
RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers - 12/15/2020 3:48:24 AM   
rustysi


Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

Btw, as far as I know, there is no JFB HR that prevents twin engine bombers from pursuing this tactic


No is looking to restrict everything, the 'real problem' seems to be with the 4E's, because of the number of bombs they carry.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 33
RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers - 12/17/2020 9:51:59 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline 		Is the amount of bombs halved at 100-1000 feet? It seems the Dutch 139Wh bomber only carries ONE bomb instead of the default THREE bombs.

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 34
RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers - 12/17/2020 11:34:49 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline 		Well, 3/2 = 1.5 round down is one right?

No doubt the JFBs have a different view.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 35
RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers - 12/17/2020 11:50:23 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline 		Well, it just seems strange to fly a twin-engine bomber with just one bomb. The standard bomb for 139WH is a 300kg (600lb) bomb. Would make more sense to fly with i.e two 150kg (300lb) bombs when the code halves uneven load of bombs. Accounts of skip bombing mention releasing a stick of two to four bombs. It just feels like 139WH is a retarded dive-bomber.

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 36
RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers - 12/17/2020 2:04:00 PM   
Encircled


Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Well, it just seems strange to fly a twin-engine bomber with just one bomb. The standard bomb for 139WH is a 300kg (600lb) bomb. Would make more sense to fly with i.e two 150kg (300lb) bombs when the code halves uneven load of bombs. Accounts of skip bombing mention releasing a stick of two to four bombs. It just feels like 139WH is a retarded dive-bomber.


Well, in the game, you have a simple choice

Fly at low level with one bomb, and maybe hit something, or fly higher to get three bombs, and watch them all miss, almost all the time

_____________________________


(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 37
RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers - 12/17/2020 8:41:29 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Well, 3/2 = 1.5 round down is one right?

No doubt the JFBs have a different view.


Um, not sure what you're referring to here... If it is that bomb load is cut in half at 1k' and below, I have no different view.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 38
RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers - 12/18/2020 12:42:36 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Well, it just seems strange to fly a twin-engine bomber with just one bomb. The standard bomb for 139WH is a 300kg (600lb) bomb. Would make more sense to fly with i.e two 150kg (300lb) bombs when the code halves uneven load of bombs. Accounts of skip bombing mention releasing a stick of two to four bombs. It just feels like 139WH is a retarded dive-bomber.


The code halves the bombload of not-attack bombers bombing ships at low level. It looks like it rounds fractions down.


quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Um, not sure what you're referring to here...


I am referring to IJ players demanding a house rule that there should be no level bombing of ships at all from aircraft below 10k ft, they don't think the built in penalty is sufficient.

< Message edited by Ian R -- 12/18/2020 12:46:13 AM >

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 39
RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers - 12/18/2020 2:45:19 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

I just did some searches and found this, per CR Sutton:

quote:

Yes, all non-attack type level bombers use the reduced bomb load when bombing ships below 6k. Attack type bombers (late B25s for example) use their full load and when set below 6k will always drop down to 100 feet and strafe and bomb. The strafing should suppress return AA fire. Fighters and fighter bombers when set to naval attack at 1,000 feet and lower will drop down and attack at 100 feet. They will strafe but I do not think they suppress flak. At all other heights fighters level bomb.....&

Against light naval targets I always set medium bombers to 1,000 feet. The reduced bomb load is compensated by better accuracy.


https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3842892&mpage=1&key=bombers%2Clow%2Caltitude?

It seems the developers already built in a reduction.



Later the code was changed to make the difference between Low Level and "High" Level bombing 2000 feet instead of 6000. At that height the heavy bombers probably would get a lot of hits with no bomb load reduction.


Nope - "Low" only kicks in at 1000. At 2000 it uses standard skill.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 40
RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers - 12/18/2020 2:46:16 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Well, it just seems strange to fly a twin-engine bomber with just one bomb. The standard bomb for 139WH is a 300kg (600lb) bomb. Would make more sense to fly with i.e two 150kg (300lb) bombs when the code halves uneven load of bombs. Accounts of skip bombing mention releasing a stick of two to four bombs. It just feels like 139WH is a retarded dive-bomber.


The code halves the bombload of not-attack bombers bombing ships at low level. It looks like it rounds fractions down.


quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Um, not sure what you're referring to here...


I am referring to IJ players demanding a house rule that there should be no level bombing of ships at all from aircraft below 10k ft, they don't think the built in penalty is sufficient.


I mean... I guess I should say this is the only house rule I don't care about it.

I'd agree to it instantly because I'd never do it - not because it's too effective, but because it's the very opposite.

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 41
RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers - 12/18/2020 3:34:49 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		2E medium Torpedo bombers that bomb low carry the full bomb load if there setting is for "Torpedo" and not "Bombs" so the Japanese have an advantage there early. Think of Betties and Nells dropping six bombs at low level, with the long legged Nell (ain't she a beauty with those lovely, long legs?) going out to 21 hexes? Think of the Thundering Heard trying to escape from Manila getting hit by those. Plus, those 2Es can fly with a full load of bombs that way from even a level 2 airfield.

Note: those 60 kg bombs are over twice as heavy as a 5"/38 caliber shell so they will do a lot of damage to soft skinned targets.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 42
RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers - 12/18/2020 3:41:02 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Concur on 'low' being 1,000 feet; easy to see when you train pilots.

I've noticed that Attack Bombers, even when set to 5,000 feet, drop down to low altitude for ground attack. I don't see many opportunities for Attack Bombers against naval targets, so I don't know if the same thing happens during naval attacks. Something to watch out for.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 43
RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers - 12/18/2020 4:42:26 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Concur on 'low' being 1,000 feet; easy to see when you train pilots.

I've noticed that Attack Bombers, even when set to 5,000 feet, drop down to low altitude for ground attack. I don't see many opportunities for Attack Bombers against naval targets, so I don't know if the same thing happens during naval attacks. Something to watch out for.


If you set attack bombers to 6000ft or higher, they level bomb, lower than that and they do their "attack bomber stuff".

_____________________________

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


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 44
RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers - 12/18/2020 4:44:20 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		I use my personal "house rule" vs. AI that 2-E bombers can use 1000ft but not 100ft and 4-E 6000ft lowest before 1943, then 1000ft.

_____________________________

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


(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 45
RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers - 12/18/2020 6:48:23 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I mean... I guess I should say this is the only house rule I don't care about it.

I'd agree to it instantly because I'd never do it - not because it's too effective, but because it's the very opposite.


At game start as Allies, low level naval bombing does seem pretty ineffective, but if you train the pilots in LowN they can be pretty good against merchies. Japanese merchies have little or no AA to deter the bombers and their escorts don't seem to be able to do deflection shots (leading the target accurately).

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 46
RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers - 12/18/2020 6:52:33 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

a house rule that there should be no level bombing of ships at all from aircraft below 10k ft


Not all. That's only in relation to the 4E's, and usually excludes the naval 4E's.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 47
RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers - 12/18/2020 6:57:18 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

Think of Betties and Nells dropping six bombs at low level,


Yeah, those 60Kg bombs aren't going to impact any warship above a DD, and try to get a hit on a DD from a level bomber.

BTW, no Japanese air unit has lowNav training at the start of the game.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 48
RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers - 12/18/2020 7:02:23 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I mean... I guess I should say this is the only house rule I don't care about it.

I'd agree to it instantly because I'd never do it - not because it's too effective, but because it's the very opposite.


At game start as Allies, low level naval bombing does seem pretty ineffective, but if you train the pilots in LowN they can be pretty good against merchies. Japanese merchies have little or no AA to deter the bombers and their escorts don't seem to be able to do deflection shots (leading the target accurately).


I stand by my statement, even assuming they were ace naval bombers. This is a poor use of the 4E assets.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 49
RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers - 12/18/2020 7:06:35 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

I mean... I guess I should say this is the only house rule I don't care about it.

I'd agree to it instantly because I'd never do it - not because it's too effective, but because it's the very opposite.


Coming from someone I consider a good player that plays the Allies this could make the whole discussion moot. And AFAIK he doesn't care for HR's.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 50
RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers - 12/18/2020 7:11:52 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I mean... I guess I should say this is the only house rule I don't care about it.

I'd agree to it instantly because I'd never do it - not because it's too effective, but because it's the very opposite.


At game start as Allies, low level naval bombing does seem pretty ineffective, but if you train the pilots in LowN they can be pretty good against merchies. Japanese merchies have little or no AA to deter the bombers and their escorts don't seem to be able to do deflection shots (leading the target accurately).


I stand by my statement, even assuming they were ace naval bombers. This is a poor use of the 4E assets.

I wasn't thinking of 4Es, as the conversation had drifted to include "Attack bombers" and 2E bombers that are not attack bombers. Heck, I even used Luzon P-40E fighters in LowN in the fighters to attack Japanese landings and they sank CA Chokai with 18 bomb hits - very lucky die rolls. Usually they just knock off a few merchants.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 51
RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers - 12/18/2020 7:30:42 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

Heck, I even used Luzon P-40E fighters in LowN in the fighters to attack Japanese landings and they sank CA Chokai with 18 bomb hits


Where are the Japanese fighters? Who are you playing? The AI?

I would think fighters would shred P-40's in that role.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 52
RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers - 12/18/2020 9:13:49 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

Heck, I even used Luzon P-40E fighters in LowN in the fighters to attack Japanese landings and they sank CA Chokai with 18 bomb hits


Where are the Japanese fighters? Who are you playing? The AI?

I would think fighters would shred P-40's in that role.

The AI - and the IJ fighters were all up at 10-15K level supporting their bomber raids. The AI doesn't sweep nor LRCAP as far as I can tell.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 53
RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers - 12/18/2020 11:02:44 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		The difference in altitude and no radar meant no interception.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 54
RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers - 12/19/2020 1:23:30 AM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Concur on 'low' being 1,000 feet; easy to see when you train pilots.

I've noticed that Attack Bombers, even when set to 5,000 feet, drop down to low altitude for ground attack. I don't see many opportunities for Attack Bombers against naval targets, so I don't know if the same thing happens during naval attacks. Something to watch out for.


If you set attack bombers to 6000ft or higher, they level bomb, lower than that and they do their "attack bomber stuff".

Thanks.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 55
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Naval Attack Altitude for two engine bombers Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.858