Search aircraft on the attack

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Search aircraft on the attack

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 >> Search aircraft on the attack

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Search aircraft on the attack - 7/24/2004 4:38:53 PM

moses
Matrix Elite Guard

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline

I have seen quite a few ships damaged by lone bomber aircraft being used in search mode. I have no problem with this except when it happens in hexes heavily protected with CAP. The damage is not usually that great but it is irritatingwhen your CAP is stopping numerous organized strikes each turn and then a single plane flies over and pings one of your destroyers. These aircraft seem to ignore flak and CAP.

So my question is has anyone seen these planes being shot down or engaged by CAP or shot down by flak?

Post #: 1

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 7/24/2004 4:45:20 PM

hithere
Matrix Veteran

Posts: 432
Joined: 4/13/2004
From: Atlanta
Status: offline

I have seen my search planes both shot down by cap and damaged/destroyed by flak...you can look in the aircraft losses screen and it will tell you the amound lost by flak, air to air, operations, etc.......

< Message edited by hithere -- 7/24/2004 9:45:39 AM >

_____________________________

Quote from one of my drill sergeants, "remember, except for the extreme heat, intense radiation, and powerful blast wave, a nuclear explosion is just like any other explosion"

(in reply to moses)

Post #: 2

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 7/24/2004 4:46:37 PM

Apollo11
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

I have seen quite a few ships damaged by lone bomber aircraft being used in search mode. I have no problem with this except when it happens in hexes heavily protected with CAP. The damage is not usually that great but it is irritatingwhen your CAP is stopping numerous organized strikes each turn and then a single plane flies over and pings one of your destroyers. These aircraft seem to ignore flak and CAP.

So my question is has anyone seen these planes being shot down or engaged by CAP or shot down by flak?

I asked about this time and time again in UV and I was told that those lone "Naval Search" aircrfat were prone to CAP and FLAK (i.e. AAA) but I still didn't like that behavior one bit (I thik you can still find those threads of mine in UV forums)...

BTW in UV once you had very proficient (EXP vise) squadron in "Naval Search" they were unstopable and the dreaded "Naval Search" attack routine (i.e. where single aircraft would do the sight->identify->attack) happened almost every turn.

Please note that I have yet to see this in WitP (but I am not that much advanced in time in my TEST games vs AI)...

Leo "Apollo11"

(in reply to moses)

Post #: 3

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 7/24/2004 5:01:10 PM

AmiralLaurent
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline

I am currently finishing an UV PBEM. It's 10 September 1943 and I am IJN. Most of my operationnal fighter units are in Rabaul, that is packed with with Base Forces and my Allied opponent sends no day raid against the harbour.

But he has a high-exp PB4Y Liberator that is able to slip into the CAP and in the last week sinks a MSW, damages a sub and hits a MSW I was obliged to dock and that was destroyed in a night port attack. My CAP (60-100 fighters depending of the day-weather) is unable to shot down these bombers and will lose around 2 Zeroes each week to PB4Y bombers.
On the other hand when PB4Y or B-24D try to attack Rabaul in a normal raid, they suffer enough losses so my opponent stopped this raid, while my CAP lost fewer planes.

So I agree there is a serious problem here, at least in UV but only when units are over 90 exp. SO you have to play a lot before seing it. But it is nevertheless totally unrealistic. I can't see how a single bomber may cross a CAP of 90 planes and bomb an undocked ship in Rabaul.

It seems to me that:
1) patrol plane checks to survive the CAP and AA of the hex
2) if survived, patrol plane tests to see if it attacks something
During the part 2) the CAP is totally ignored. A patrol to arrive in sight of a ship and a naval attack on a ship is not the same thing.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 4

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 7/24/2004 5:25:25 PM

Apollo11
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

I am currently finishing an UV PBEM. It's 10 September 1943 and I am IJN. Most of my operationnal fighter units are in Rabaul, that is packed with with Base Forces and my Allied opponent sends no day raid against the harbour.

But he has a high-exp PB4Y Liberator that is able to slip into the CAP and in the last week sinks a MSW, damages a sub and hits a MSW I was obliged to dock and that was destroyed in a night port attack. My CAP (60-100 fighters depending of the day-weather) is unable to shot down these bombers and will lose around 2 Zeroes each week to PB4Y bombers.
On the other hand when PB4Y or B-24D try to attack Rabaul in a normal raid, they suffer enough losses so my opponent stopped this raid, while my CAP lost fewer planes.

So I agree there is a serious problem here, at least in UV but only when units are over 90 exp. SO you have to play a lot before seing it. But it is nevertheless totally unrealistic. I can't see how a single bomber may cross a CAP of 90 planes and bomb an undocked ship in Rabaul.

It seems to me that:
1) patrol plane checks to survive the CAP and AA of the hex
2) if survived, patrol plane tests to see if it attacks something
During the part 2) the CAP is totally ignored. A patrol to arrive in sight of a ship and a naval attack on a ship is not the same thing.

Yes... we think alike on this (and experienced same thing)...

Here is what I wrote in UV hreads about this (again I am to early in WitP campaigns to see such things yet so the only reason we repeat this is the message from poster):

"Naval Search" deadly sight->identify->attack routine is unstoppable

Explanation:

In my PBEMs (and my single player H2H tests) I almost never intercepted the dreaded "Naval Search" attack routine (i.e. where single aircraft would do the sight->identify->attack).

I tried LRCAP but to no avail (I varied the altitudes as well and in my single player H2H tests I even had the altitudes 100% matched)...

The aircraft with experienced crews (and Hudson's are extremely known to be that way after some time - and they have the range as well) will attack with 100% impunity using "Naval Search" attack routine.

Please note that I had cases where my MSW was 1 HEX from Rabaul and fully rested, high morale 27 plane elite Zero squadron was doing LRCAP over it (again please note that this is just 1 HEX from their base) but still the single Hudson on "Naval Search" come to do search mission and sink my valuable MSW additionaly.

There is no way of stopping them...

Also please note that in UV v2.30 we now finally have historic level bomber accuracy vs. moving ships (i.e. that level bombing is inaccurate against moving ships - just as it should be) but this does not apply to "Naval Search" attack routine (i.e. where single aircraft would do the dreaded routine of sight->identify->attack) - they would never miss.

IMHO, clearly a big problem.

Leo "Apollo11"

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)

Post #: 5

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 7/24/2004 5:46:56 PM

Oleg Mastruko
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Yes... we think alike on this (and experienced same thing)...

Against the same opponent

Seriously, personally I don't know what to think of it, it's not just a one-dimensional problem. There is a website somewhere with a detailed day-to-day account of the Pacific war, listing each and every action that happened, however small and insignificant. Reading through that I was VERY surprised to see numerous single plane actions like "single PBY Liberator operating from PM attacked shipping off the coast of New Guinea, sinking two barges and damaging another" or "single Catalina on patrol attacked shipping here and there" etc. Once I checked that particular site I changed my mind as regards "single plane actions" in UV, especially from the Allied side.

So, in general, I consider these attacks realistic. Though, as USN, I never perform them "on purpose". I just need to have many planes on patrol, so as not to be surprised, and if those planes happen to attack a barge or two, or a MSW, I see that as additional bonus, but it's not their primary mission IMO.

ALSO, I played many games as IJN but never was on the receiving end of this "problem" - losing a couple of barges daily at most, but I considered that realistic, and nothing to complain about. I had perhaps 1 or 2 MSWs bombed in this manner in the course of the long campaign. Losing a MSW is very painful in UV, because you can't build any additional MSWs.

But, as I understand, in WITP you're free to build more MSWs so it's not nearly as important as in UV?

Oleg

_____________________________

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 6

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 7/24/2004 6:07:38 PM

Apollo11
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Yes... we think alike on this (and experienced same thing)...

Against the same opponent

quote:

Seriously, personally I don't know what to think of it, it's not just a one-dimensional problem. There is a website somewhere with a detailed day-to-day account of the Pacific war, listing each and every action that happened, however small and insignificant. Reading through that I was VERY surprised to see numerous single plane actions like "single PBY Liberator operating from PM attacked shipping off the coast of New Guinea, sinking two barges and damaging another" or "single Catalina on patrol attacked shipping here and there" etc. Once I checked that particular site I changed my mind as regards "single plane actions" in UV, especially from the Allied side.

So, in general, I consider these attacks realistic. Though, as USN, I never perform them "on purpose". I just need to have many planes on patrol, so as not to be surprised, and if those planes happen to attack a barge or two, or a MSW, I see that as additional bonus, but it's not their primary mission IMO.

ALSO, I played many games as IJN but never was on the receiving end of this "problem" - losing a couple of barges daily at most, but I considered that realistic, and nothing to complain about. I had perhaps 1 or 2 MSWs bombed in this manner in the course of the long campaign. Losing a MSW is very painful in UV, because you can't build any additional MSWs.

But, as I understand, in WITP you're free to build more MSWs so it's not nearly as important as in UV?

Oleg

I agree that such attacks are possible but they were always (historically) against undefended asset. When you have LRCAP dedicated to protect single ship I don't think any suprise is possible to happen in regular flow of events...

Leo "Apollo11"

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 7

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 7/24/2004 6:13:15 PM

moses
Matrix Elite Guard

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline

My concern is not with attacks at sea but with attacks on heavily defended ports or landing sites. I would think that a single hudson on a search mission which even glimpsed an enemy fighter or two would not fly right over the port and try to drop bombs. I would think a morale check would be required for him to even hang around the area and maybe try to report from a distance what he sees in the port.

Of course if a search aircraft encouters a barge, transport, or sub crusing undefended why not attack it?

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 8

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 7/24/2004 7:34:46 PM

Captain Cruft
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline

I haven't seen much of this in WitP yet. The IJN has some very elite Patrol and/or Level Bomber units which would exhibit the behaviour. Possibly the fact that naval search is now a lot less effective at long ranges is limiting it.

(in reply to moses)

Post #: 9

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 7/25/2004 1:15:25 PM

DoomedMantis
Matrix Elite Guard

Posts: 1922
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

They are affected by CAP and Flak, but it doesnt show up on the combat replay

_____________________________

I shall make it a felony to drink small beer.

- Shakespeare

(in reply to Captain Cruft)

Post #: 10

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 8/17/2004 11:47:19 PM

brisd
Matrix Hero

Posts: 614
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline

I have been playing scenario 15 campaign (Ver 1.21) vs the Allied Hard AI and have seen alot of naval attacks by patrolling Dutch aircraft, often 1 or 2 hits a day. Most of these are in hexes with CAP and once a light CV TF consisting of two CVE's were attacked and the CVE Taiho seriously damaged. This was with good, rested CAP with no other air attacks. If I were the Allies, I'd scrap all my bombers and build more Do-24K2's

. I can see a patrol aircraft finding a TF at sea with no CAP and dropping some bombs and scoring a hit or two but these results are a concern, IMHO.

_____________________________

"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."-Note sent with Congressman Washburne from Spotsylvania, May 11, 1864, to General Halleck. - General Ulysses S. Grant

(in reply to DoomedMantis)

Post #: 11

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 8/18/2004 12:01:16 AM

Bradley7735
Matrix Elite Guard

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

Search planes sank the Kinugasa (or the Furutaka). Sure, she was already damaged, but two SBD search plane bombed and sunk her the next morning.

Search planes very heavily damaged the Zuiho just before one of the major carrier battles (I think it was Santa Cruz). 2 SBD search planes both hit the Zuiho and neither were even attacked, except by light flack after their pullout.

A solo japanese bomber sank the Princeton. (I don't know if it was a search plane, but it wasn't part of a large raid)

Do you still think that search planes can't hit heavily defended targets? I'm not disputing that there may be problems with the game (maybe they hit too often, or avoid CAP too often), but historically, it was possible, especially with US search planes (they were frequently armed searches) Read "Helldivers" (can't remember the author). HE's got a whole chapter devoted to armed searches.

In my game (me vs japan AI), I see PBY's hit ships about once every 10 to 20 days. I lose one to two per week to CAP or flak. It doesn't seem broken to me, but I haven't tested it.

bc

(in reply to brisd)

Post #: 12

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 8/18/2004 1:38:47 AM

Hartley
Matrix Veteran

Posts: 255
Joined: 6/2/2003
Status: offline

Are we talking about 100% Naval Search ?

I never once saw these squadrons attack anything other than subs in UV.

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 13

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 8/18/2004 2:37:42 AM

irishman
Matrix Veteran

Posts: 256
Joined: 6/13/2004
From: Emerald Isle
Status: offline

Just to agree with the sentiments expressed. In a PBEM my opponents Level bombers 'can't hit a barn door with a shovel' but the DO24K-2s get through and hit ships in ports with large AAA and 50+ CAP! Any single aircraft sent on Naval attack wouldn't get within 30 miles of the target.
I think the Matrix guys need to check if the CAP and AAA is applied in the same way against Naval search as against Naval attack.

_____________________________

The greater the difficulty, the greater the glory - Cicero

(in reply to Hartley)

Post #: 14

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 8/18/2004 4:36:22 AM

brisd
Matrix Hero

Posts: 614
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: irishman

Just to agree with the sentiments expressed. In a PBEM my opponents Level bombers 'can't hit a barn door with a shovel' but the DO24K-2s get through and hit ships in ports with large AAA and 50+ CAP! Any single aircraft sent on Naval attack wouldn't get within 30 miles of the target.
I think the Matrix guys need to check if the CAP and AAA is applied in the same way against Naval search as against Naval attack.

That is exactly what I am seeing. It is not that single aircraft shouldn't be able to hit ships, it just seems this particular aircraft (Do24k-2's) are VERY good at it, even in heavily defended ports and task forces. It is almost as if they are ignoring AAA and CAP as irishman noted.

_____________________________

"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."-Note sent with Congressman Washburne from Spotsylvania, May 11, 1864, to General Halleck. - General Ulysses S. Grant

(in reply to irishman)

Post #: 15

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 8/18/2004 8:09:45 AM

brisd
Matrix Hero

Posts: 614
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline

This past turn, 1/5/42, I had four ships hit by Do-24K2's on patrol. All four were in task forces docked at bases with CAP.
Not sure if this is a bug or just very aggressive search aircraft, the AI in on "Hard" setting? Has anyone else besides Irishman seen this or comment? Thanks!

_____________________________

"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."-Note sent with Congressman Washburne from Spotsylvania, May 11, 1864, to General Halleck. - General Ulysses S. Grant

(in reply to brisd)

Post #: 16

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 8/18/2004 3:10:34 PM

Apollo11
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: brisd

This past turn, 1/5/42, I had four ships hit by Do-24K2's on patrol. All four were in task forces docked at bases with CAP.
Not sure if this is a bug or just very aggressive search aircraft, the AI in on "Hard" setting? Has anyone else besides Irishman seen this or comment? Thanks!

So in WitP it is same story as in UV (I haven't gone that far in campaign in WitP to see it for myself though)...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to brisd)

Post #: 17

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 8/18/2004 3:30:41 PM

Oleg Mastruko
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: brisd

This past turn, 1/5/42, I had four ships hit by Do-24K2's on patrol. All four were in task forces docked at bases with CAP.
Not sure if this is a bug or just very aggressive search aircraft, the AI in on "Hard" setting? Has anyone else besides Irishman seen this or comment? Thanks!

Were they all really hit or was it just FOW? I think it has to do something with everything you mention, certainly with "hard" setting as well.

Also, Do24 carries great amount of ordnance in this game. I believe this has something to do with "hit percentage" while on search as well.

But then again Dutch solo Do24 sunk one of the first IJN DDs in the war, so...

O.

_____________________________

(in reply to brisd)

Post #: 18

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 8/18/2004 4:28:30 PM

Arkady
Matrix Elite Guard

Posts: 1262
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: 27th Penal Battalion
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hartley

Are we talking about 100% Naval Search ?

I never once saw these squadrons attack anything other than subs in UV.

depends on altitude I think (set them to 1000 feets)

when playing japanese, as counter measure I employed float-fighters (Rufe) => in current game "Yamamoto's Prophecy" (end of Jan 43) they have around 50 kills mostly on naval search airplanes!

--
In WITP I'm at the beginning and no problems with search planes yet

_____________________________

(in reply to Hartley)

Post #: 19

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 8/18/2004 4:42:14 PM

Captain Cruft
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline

Well I've thought about this and decided I rather like this feature. It allows "odd" events to happen rather than the usual "more numbers wins". Also, it's the only non-suicidal way the Japanese are going to sink anything in the later stages of the war.

Anyway, the search planes do have to get through CAP/AA before they get to spot the ships so why is it a problem? CAP = 60% does not mean 60% of fighters in the air at all times. I would guess that in this case the game is only "fighting" the search plane against the 3-4 planes actually in the air. No scrambling the whole squadron for a single search plane ...

(in reply to Arkady)

Post #: 20

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 8/18/2004 4:45:58 PM

Apollo11
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Well I've thought about this and decided I rather like this feature. It allows "odd" events to happen rather than the usual "more numbers wins". Also, it's the only non-suicidal way the Japanese are going to sink anything in the later stages of the war.

Anyway, the search planes do have to get through CAP/AA before they get to spot the ships so why is it a problem? CAP = 60% does not mean 60% of fighters in the air at all times. I would guess that in this case the game is only "fighting" the search plane against the 3-4 planes actually in the air. No scrambling the whole squadron for a single search plane ...

Please read the old post above (especially from me).

BTW, you can even have LRCAP over single ship TF 1 HEX from base (or in base) and yet the "Naval Search" aircraft will go through and bomb that ship you wanted to protect (in UV this was usually MSW which was irreplecable)...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Captain Cruft)

Post #: 21

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 8/18/2004 4:47:54 PM

spence
Matrix Legion of Merit

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

USS Hancock was hit by a single plane that avoided CAP and flak in 1945. The Americans had fleet defense pretty wired by then but still the occasional "leaker" happened. Don't think the plane involved was an armed search plane though.

Don't feel all that sorry for the Japanese fan boys who put up 150 Zeroes on CAP over one of their "Death Stars" and without any Fighter Direction Center or even radios in 9/10's of the planes intercept EVERY raid with pretty much the whole force (in UV- don't know about WiTP). Suuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrre - just like real.

(in reply to Arkady)

Post #: 22

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 8/18/2004 4:56:36 PM

Captain Cruft
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Well I've thought about this and decided I rather like this feature. It allows "odd" events to happen rather than the usual "more numbers wins". Also, it's the only non-suicidal way the Japanese are going to sink anything in the later stages of the war.

Anyway, the search planes do have to get through CAP/AA before they get to spot the ships so why is it a problem? CAP = 60% does not mean 60% of fighters in the air at all times. I would guess that in this case the game is only "fighting" the search plane against the 3-4 planes actually in the air. No scrambling the whole squadron for a single search plane ...

Please read the old post above (especially from me).

BTW, you can even have LRCAP over single ship TF 1 HEX from base (or in base) and yet the "Naval Search" aircraft will go through and bomb that ship you wanted to protect (in UV this was usually MSW which was irreplecable)...

Leo "Apollo11"

Well OK maybe it is a bit broken, I don't know. The lack of response from testers/devs would seem to indicate that they don't consider it a problem however ...

I am sincerely hoping that I never have to resort to gamey stuff like LRCAPing a single MSW in this game:

a) Mines seem to have been toned down a bit
b) You get effectively an infinite number of minesweepers
b) The map is much bigger, mining a single particular base is less important

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 23

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 8/18/2004 5:43:26 PM

tsimmonds
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

quote:

USS Hancock was hit by a single plane that avoided CAP and flak in 1945. The Americans had fleet defense pretty wired by then but still the occasional "leaker" happened. Don't think the plane involved was an armed search plane though.

This was on March 11, 1945 at Ulithi which at the time was felt to be "safe" due to it being several hundred miles from any operating Japanese airbase. The plane was a Frances that was on a super-long-range kamikaze mission.

The main objective of the Japanese raid was to attack American ships anchored in Ulithi Atoll. When Japanese intelligence found that large numbers of Task Force 58 ships were at Ulithi, the air raid was to be carried out March 10, 1945. However, a mix-up in decoding intelligence-transmissions from Truk forced a delay of the mission, and the attack was postponed until the next day.

The operation involved twenty-four Frances bombers from Japan's Azusa Special Attack Unit, based at Minami Daito Shima, 800 miles from Ulithi. Emily flying-boats and other land based bombers were to assist the flight, providing weather reconnaissance, advance patrols, and guides to lead the twenty-four bombers to Ulithi. Bad luck, poor maintenance, and other troubles began to plague the flight. One of the Emily guides disappeared, six of the bombers had to turn back because of engine trouble, and the flight, already thirty minutes behind schedule, was forced to climb above clouds, losing critical visual navigation checkpoints.

When they descended through the overcast some eight hours later, supposedly on top of Ulithi, they were near Yap Island, 120 miles west of Ulithi because of a navigational error and unexpected head winds.(It led our American commanders at the time to assume the planes were from Yap Island.) Instead of the original twenty-four bombers, only two reached Ulithi, well after dark. They started their suicide attacks at 2005.

A twin-engine Japanese bomber (Frances) hit the flight deck aft, starboard side exploding between flight and gallery decks at frame 205-210, destroying planes in vicinity of flight and hangar decks, the CO2 Room, Aviation Repair Shop, and the fantail. Personnel in the near vicinity were killed or injured, fire broke out in the hangar deck aft, 40-MM and 20-MM ammunition was detonated.

Final casualties: 26 killed, 3 missing and 105 wounded.

(Edited to add details of kamikaze raid)

< Message edited by irrelevant -- 8/18/2004 10:50:25 AM >

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 24

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 8/18/2004 6:05:27 PM

UncleBuck
Matrix Hero

Posts: 633
Joined: 10/31/2003
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: offline

Well A lone plane even a bomber is difficult to intercept. Even with primitive radar A Lone PbY or PB4Y might not be seen. As for Cap, it is Combat Air Patrol. They fly a pre-arranged pattern through out the patrol sector. If you have there range set to say 4, they are patroling over 4 hexes. How many times have you seen CAP from a base, that was not on LR CAP cover a TF in adjacent hexes? As for dropping bombs and hitting sighted targets, why not? Most of the time they are un-defended. If the cap has not intercepted them, Drop the bombs, what is there to lose for the bomber?

UB

_____________________________

(in reply to Captain Cruft)

Post #: 25

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 8/18/2004 7:51:36 PM

moses
Matrix Elite Guard

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline

Just seems wrong when you place you're level bombers on naval attack and they take heavy losses for several turns with no results. Then you set them all to naval search and you take few if any losses and start getting hits.

Look at it from the point of view of a Catalina pilot. As you approach the port you don't see any CAP so you approach closer. As you get within a mile or so all you see are a couple fighters which are not yet in a position to engage you. Do you:

A) Make a sighting report on the port, take pictures and get away having fully completed your mission.

B) Launch an attack with your measly 50 lb bombs knowing that every AA gun will be firing at just you and knowing that those fighters will soon be in position to chase you down. Also realizing that there may be additional fighters which you have not yet visually identified in the area.

Option b really is a suicide mission and it will be the same for most any level bomber or patrol aircraft. If you don't have the speed to evade the enemy fighters you are not going to spend time unescorted over enemy bases.

< Message edited by moses -- 8/18/2004 11:52:56 AM >

(in reply to UncleBuck)

Post #: 26

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 8/18/2004 8:03:01 PM

UncleBuck
Matrix Hero

Posts: 633
Joined: 10/31/2003
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: offline

You seem to be assuming that any Fighters are in the area. I do not thik that the Search planes are encountering CAP and then attacking. It is probbly they see no CAP anywhere and then why not? In the case of the PB4Y it is carrying 10 500lb bombs, that is not measley. The PBY Catalina carries I beleive 2 or 4 500's or 2 torpedoes. None of that is Measley. Especially when you consider they do not have to change the flight profile to drop them. THey do not dive bomb they level bomb just hit the pickle switch and there they go. I do nto beleive the PBY's carry torpedoes on thier search missons.

UB

_____________________________

(in reply to moses)

Post #: 27

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 8/18/2004 8:47:02 PM

moses
Matrix Elite Guard

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline

My assumption is that over bases where there is significant CAP coverage there are normally at least a couple aircraft airborne most of the time. Even during gaps in coverage a naval search pilot with any survival instinct will assume CAP is present over any base hex where CAP has been operating. In general a pilot on a search mission will not attack any target presumed to be heavily defended.

Aircraft on search missions are armed in order to allow attacks against lightly defended targets which could be encountered during the mission. Targets such as subs, tranports, and crippled warships could often be engaged at acceptable risk. Otherwise the pilot conducts his mission which is to search and report.

(in reply to UncleBuck)

Post #: 28

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 8/18/2004 9:27:56 PM

UncleBuck
Matrix Hero

Posts: 633
Joined: 10/31/2003
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: offline

Right there you answered your own argument. the Patrol skipper beleives that it is acceptable level of risk. He timed it right, the CAP was not over the base and he is able to get a line up on the target. What is the problem? Heavily defended targets with lots of ASSIGNED cap does nto mean that there will be lots of planes up all the time. You are right I am sure there will be a flight up all the time, maybe 2 to 4 planes, but the rest are in ready position. If they get information as to a flight of planes coming they scramble. A lone plane ID'd as a PBY or other recon plane would probably not cause a scramble, and woudl not call for the CAP on Patrol at teh time to be re-vectored to the inbound, unless it was demed fairly easy. Why try to intercept a lone recon plane with your fighters? The Fule they burn increasing from cruise speed to intercept and that they woudl now be out of position from there normal CAP routine would not be very smart. You fly a specific CAP patteern to give coverage to the area, if you break that to go after teh lone plane you are throwing your patrol pattern out the window for littel gain. What ahppens when you leave your patrol area and miss the flight of attack planes coming? Woudl it be better to kill the scout that woudl tell the incoming guys, it is ok or let him in and attack the attack planes that are on the way?

UB

_____________________________

(in reply to moses)

Post #: 29

RE: Search aircraft on the attack - 8/18/2004 9:40:49 PM

Arkady
Matrix Elite Guard

Posts: 1262
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: 27th Penal Battalion
Status: offline

and do you have hit reports from search planes over ports or open sea ?

I have hit reports mostly over open sea only, over ports is my usual message after sighting folowed by message <Naval search Plane> damaged by flak or shot down and sometimes CAP pilots increase their score (one of my brave pilots over Saigon scored three hits on enemy patrols within a day)

Arkady

_____________________________

(in reply to moses)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Search aircraft on the attack

Page: [1] 2 next > >>