House rules for level bomber naval attacks

[niceguy2005]

In my PBEM game the question has come up "are level bomber attacks too accurate at altitudes below 10,000 feet?" I would like to know if anyone has come up with, or has even considered coming up with a house rule about altitude and level bomber naval attacks. If so, what is it?

I make most of my attacks at 6,000 - 8,000 feet. I seem to recal this being a somewhat common altitude for naval attack, unless skip bombing was employed. I could be wrong or given the witp game engine it may produce ahistorical results.

I would first like to thank anyone who replies to this thread.

Second, I would like to ask that anyone responding please stick to the discussion. There have been plenty of other threads debating the merits of level bomber naval attack, production levels of bombers, etc., please direct those comments to another thread.

Thanks.

[spence]

Allied level bombers attacked Japanese ships from every conceivable altitude in real life. Only JFBs see a need of a house rule to hamstring the Allies.

[mlees]

Being able to answer your question intelligently would require having access to historical bombing data. And I have no idea where to start. (The USAAF Strategic Bombing Survey?)

I you are willing to entertain "gut feelings", or the perception of the accuracy, I would have to say that it seems as if level bombing antinaval strikes at any altitude are probably more accurate ingame than IRL.

Lower level bombing is more accurate than higher level bombing.

Stock game AA may be less effective than IRL.

[bradfordkay]

In my games, I restrict my 4E bombers to 10,000 feet and above, unless the circumstances are dire (major attack threatening a major base - in which case the crews are willing to take extra risks).

[DFalcon]

The only problem seems to be with the heavy four engine bombers. The game gives too large a modifier for the number of bombs in the bomb load. The large number of bombs carried by the four engine bombers gives them a dispraprtionate advantage when used for naval strikes.

In my PBEM as the allies I proposed that four engine level bombers on naval stike be set to 10,000ft and above. Even with this restriction I recently had 18 or so B-17s score 6 hits on a CV. This is in a Mod with a 75% reduction in the number of bombs carried by the B-17.

So yes I have used a house rule and it is not crippling. Although I see no reason to restrict all level bombers in this way, just the heavies.

As a side note in my PBEM as the Japanese with no restrictions 12 B-17s flying from a level 4 airfield (reduced bomb load) scored 8 hits on a DD in a fast transport TF.

[Graycompany]

I am Niceguy2005's Pbem opponent. We are having a great game, and have adjusted as we go along to try and stay within the "game" and some issues, while aloing either side to have tactics and strategy that does not always have to follow a historical path. Niceguy is a great player and does not exploit any known bugs or loopholes in the game. My problem is that I find it difficult to beleive that B-17's can hit a small fast surface group (warship) not transports at the rate it has been happening in our game. During the invasion of celyon his 4E bombers hit a number of transports fleets, which I dont have a problem with. The accuracy, while not outstanding, was good. the 2nd day of the Invasion iIhad a surface fleet set to bombard that was 9 hexes out. I parked it there knowing full well nothing but LRB could hit it. which they did, doing small damage but enough to disrupt and make me rethink the bombardment. During the battle of Java his B-17 did major damage to my Invasion fleets as well as Surface groups, the Damage to one of my Ca's was alarming. This last instance which is the reason for the open question on the forum was a Bombardment group going from PM to thursday island, the bombarment went off fine, had a fast group with mostly Ca's Cl's and DD's. After the Bombardment they returned to PM, which had a small cap over them and his B-17's attacked(in port) which while not docked( an not disbanded) might account for their accuracy, which damaged a Ca and a Cl' ( not saying how much). I noticed that they were at 8000 which is not uncommon for his bombing style. My concern is knowing that this run I am making, the only thing that can hit me at all is 4E bombers. He does not over use his 17's or 24's keeps to historic levels and squadrons ( much appreciated). I on the other hand do bomb at the same level with mass bombers( a mistake that the IJA IMO made by not doing) with effectivness. So his last 4 attacks by 4E's have knocked out of commison for a time 2 Ca's CL' and a BB as well as a number of DD's and a horde of transports. Am I wrong here in my concern, or should I shut up and take it like a Nip? My thought is that the Big Bombers would be at a higher alt, and I have no wish to take this tactic away, and if this is a tactic that is not Buggy in game terms, I wanted to know what others felt?[8|]

[spence]

Until such time as Japanese twin engine bombers are modified such that they only carry torpedoes with the same frequency as their real life counterparts AND the relative inaccuracy of their aerial torpedoes is correctly modelled I see no reason to further hamstring the Allied LBA.  Numerous threads in the past have inquired into Japanese aerial torpedo usage and into the effectiveness of said attacks when they did occur.  The attack on Force Z was THE exception to the rule with regards to effectiveness and for the first six months the only land based torpedo attack at all.  That the planes were capable of carrying torpedos is not an issue nor is it an issue that the Japanese would like to have carried torpedos all the time but circumstances beyond the control of the local commanders often dictated otherwise and G3s and G4s and G5s continued to carry bombs as often or more often than torpedoes for the rest of the war.  And though they scored some hits later in the war for the most part they failed miserably to inflict operationally significant losses, by which I mean losses that caused the Allied fleets to change their objective or withdraw.   
 
       That some Allied air commanders were overly enamored with the idea of high altitude precision bombing and thought that it had some relevance to antiship strikes is not denied.   The unsuccessful B-17 attacks at Midway are mistakenly held up as the model for all 4E bomber attacks for the war.  Almost no mention is made of the deadly attacks made by Navy PB4Y-1s and PB4Y-2s against Japanese merchant shipping and their escorts which were consistently at masthead height or only a little higher and which featured 1 plane firing its .50s as a "broadside" at the enemy AAA while the other plane in the section bombed.  If you wander through the TROMs of Japanese warships as I have you find that 4E bombers scored hits on moving Japanese warships on multiple occasions (I listed the instances in some thread about a year ago but can't remember the name now).  The frequency was frankly pretty close to the frequency with which the Nells and Bettys scored with their torpedoes IRL.
 
The game allows the Allied Player to set the altitude...that may be buggy on a game of this overall scale...it imposes a penalty on air group morale inversely proportional to bombing altitude.  That seems fair.  In general the Japanese never really operated within range of powerful Allied LBA IRL.  If the Japanese finds that he can't sail full in the face of Allied LBA in the game perhaps that's because in IRL he couldn't and the player shouldn't. 
 
   

[Oliver Heindorf]

I included in one of my pbems the "raver rule", these were suggestions by raver and they are fine [:)] :

in 1942 allied bombers can go down to 14000 feet

in 1943 allied bombers can go down to 9000 feet. in 7/43 I can go to 100 feet OR 9000 feet or higher.

in 44 I am free to select. This is to reflect the game engine limitations and it is historic as well.

[Graycompany]

ORIGINAL: spence

.  In general the Japanese never really operated within range of powerful Allied LBA IRL.  If the Japanese finds that he can't sail full in the face of Allied LBA in the game perhaps that's because in IRL he couldn't and the player shouldn't. 

  

I would disagree with this. From PM there are numerous bases, Buna, Lae, Rabaul ect ect, all within Range of LBA in which shipping often sailed. This happned through 1942 well into late 1943. Not to mention after Guam, Saipan fell to the Allies, shipping in and around this area as well into the Phillipines was at risk.

[RevRick]

In general I agree. Meaning, that I usually keep to those limits for bombing attacks. However, there are some proviso. If an enemy occupied hex is adjacent to one in which my forces are built up, and I know there is no, or insignificant AAA present, my heavies will come in as low as 6,000, but usually stick to 10K. If enemy BB's are close to my air base, or main base, all bets are off - as I assume the would be in real life. Enemy Amphibs with the same location are also considered fair game for anything that can hit them. And in the meantime I will wait for Matrix to figure out how to stop the Imperial Japanese Water Spigot from flushing the Pacific of my amphibs, et al, with Japanese torpedos. I think the idea of handling them like 1000# APs on carriers sounded theoretically appropriate.

[rockmedic109]

In my current {vs the AI} game, I use 9000' for 2e and 11000' for 4e.  Since I don't have to worry about SF, Pearl or Aden/Karachi being bombed, I don't have plans to modify this.  I will allow skip bombing, but don't have any crews able to do so yet.
 
I earlier had thought starting the war with a 15000' height and lowering 1000' every year of the war, but I figured this might be too much work.

[anarchyintheuk]

Against fast, maneuverable targets 4e bombers should rarely hit. Part of the problem in this instance is that the IJN player can absolutely rely on setting a bombardment tf x number of hexes away and the allied player can only strike back w/ lrb. Irl the Combined Fleet commander could only dream of being able to warp in and out of dauntless/avenger/beaufort range.

[spence]

[blockquote]quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

.  In general the Japanese never really operated within range of powerful Allied LBA IRL.  If the Japanese finds that he can't sail full in the face of Allied LBA in the game perhaps that's because in IRL he couldn't and the player shouldn't. 

  
[/blockquote]


I would disagree with this. From PM there are numerous bases, Buna, Lae, Rabaul ect ect, all within Range of LBA in which shipping often sailed. This happned through 1942 well into late 1943. Not to mention after Guam, Saipan fell to the Allies, shipping in and around this area as well into the Phillipines was at risk.

 
The IJN risked destroyers, the occasional CL, various auxiliaries and merchies in the face of Allied LBA but rarely risked major fleet units:  CAs, BBs and CVs.  Midway comes to mind as one instance where they brought their CVs into range of a relatively powerful Allied base with level bombers at it.  The B-17 drivers launched ineffective attacks from high altitude (but I am fairly certain that one salvo of bombs straddled an IJN carrier and if that is the case then the attacks might well have been characterized in an altogether different way).  In the Guadalcanal Campaign they also sailed major fleet units within range of Henderson Field to their cost though the attacks suffered were generally not from level bombers.  They never ventured South of the Solomons Chain into the range of large numbers of B-17s.  Even prior to the Battle of the Bismarck Sea the IJN had had several DDs and a CL damaged significantly or sunk by level bombers in the waters near New Guinea so they wouldn't risk their larger ships.

[spence]

A quick stroll through the TROMs at Combined Fleet (interrupted by mundane work matters) revealed the following IJN warships hit by level bombers in New Guinean waters in late 1942.

DD YAYOI sunk (9-10-42)
CL TENRYU damaged (9-11-42)
DD URAKAZE sunk (8-25-42)
DD HAGIKAZE damaged (8-19-42) actually I think this was in the Solomons but I forgot to check - in any case hit by a bomb from a B-17 and severely damaged

The TROMs for these ships also mentioned several AP/AK types sunk by level bombers in New Guinean waters in the same time frame if not the same attacks.

[Cathartes]

ORIGINAL: mlees
I you are willing to entertain "gut feelings", or the perception of the accuracy, I would have to say that it seems as if level bombing antinaval strikes at any altitude are probably more accurate ingame than IRL.

I believe this pretty well sums it up. High elevation bombing of DD/cruisers/BB/CVs never yielded spectacular results. Consistent, measurable success came in ports/at anchor. Fast moving capital ships should be difficult to hit for level bombers, and if they come down low they should pay a hefty AA price for it.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Graycompany

ORIGINAL: spence

.  In general the Japanese never really operated within range of powerful Allied LBA IRL.  If the Japanese finds that he can't sail full in the face of Allied LBA in the game perhaps that's because in IRL he couldn't and the player shouldn't. 

  

I would disagree with this. From PM there are numerous bases, Buna, Lae, Rabaul ect ect, all within Range of LBA in which shipping often sailed. This happned through 1942 well into late 1943. Not to mention after Guam, Saipan fell to the Allies, shipping in and around this area as well into the Phillipines was at risk.

Buna was captured in 1/43. By the end of the campaign the IJA was starving.

Absent supply by barge/submarine, Lae was effectively cutoff after the Bismarck Sea battle in 3/43.

Due to the distance between PM (and future bases) and Rabaul, it was far harder to isolate. Probably not until 3/44 or so.

[goodboyladdie]

I thought the entire point of playing these games was to see if you could do better than what occurred in real life. If IRL Army heavy bombers usually delivered attacks on shipping from too great a height to be effective against a moving target, should we repeat the error? Naval bombers delivered from lower altitude and shipping attacks in Europe were at medium to low level as a matter of course, so this could have filtered through to Army Air Force groups. The default heights are a good guide. Naval attack is set at 6000 feet for level bombers. If you have inexperienced or low morale groups, they suck. If they are experienced they are a lot more effective. That sounds pretty realistic to me.

[Nikademus]

A relevent question to ask would be......are skip bombing tactics necessary in the game? (meaning....does any allied player feel the need to use them?)

[Andy Mac]

Yes I have several times for the critical emergancy attack that must not fail.
 
The morale hit, exp requirement and AA punishment is brutal so I cannot use it often
 
When PZB was attacking New Britain a few months back I used B24J's on Skip Bombing to good effect.
 
 

[Jakerson]

I think it’s not that hard to level bomb a ship as it is a target that you can clearly identify from air and see trough your targeting apparatus. Especially at clear weather bombardier see and know exactly when to drop bombs.

Level bomber could also make his bombing run from direction that bomb drop in the way that intersects with multiple ships at convoy.

Bombing a land buildings or ground troops was much more difficult at time as identifying target had much more difficult causing sometimes all bombers to drop bombs at wrong coordinates this is something that wont happened in ship bombing.