House rules for level bomber naval attacks

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Perhaps i should rephrase a little [;)] Outside of the critical type emergency, those situations where many a kitchen sink is called for for throwing purposes....do Allied players feel the need to use skip bombing tactics?

[DuckofTindalos]

Not really... They're too costly...

[RUPD3658]

As a Japanese player the thought of skip bombing B-29s is frighting. [X(]

I see no real need to have a house rule. Almost every advantage for one side or the other comes out even in the end.

[Sardonic]

I doubt you could skip bomb a B-29. It simply isnt that manuverable

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: 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|]

There are problems on both sides, not to mention the basic game mechanics problems. From your description, I would venture to guess that you have probably already made more surface bombardments than the Japanese did during the entire war. On the other side, because of their limited numbers, B-17's and 24's were rarely used as naval strike aircraft, being too valuable for reccon and base attacks (They did carry a few bombs on reccon missions, but generally dropped them from 15 to 20,000 feet with more damage to fish than the Japs). The primary naval attack aircraft of the Allies were their 2-engined bombers - but unfortunately the game's movement/night mechanics mean they will hardly ever be in range to be used historically. So about the best a pair of "history fanboy" opponants can achieve seems to be the paths of "restraint" you two are trying to follow.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Sardonic

I doubt you could skip bomb a B-29. It simply isnt that manuverable

Or more rationally, it's too damned expensive for such "flak-eating" missions. Also, why risk such a large crew when an A-26 can do the job so much better?

[Andy Mac]

B29's arent really used on any naval bombing mission they are to valuable as search AC and as bombers of Airbases etc
 
B17's are rarely worth using on naval attack except as last resort until the PB4Y's start arriving in numbers they are to valuable in a search role.
 
Again I will use them on naval attack if I must but there are better uses for them .
 
B24J's I am more flexible with and will have the odd Sqn sitting on LR Naval Attack 50% search as they are dammed handy in that role
 
B25J's are the best I have so many good XP B25 groups that I would use these on skip bombing if I have the opportunity

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: 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.

Perhaps i should rephrase a little [;)] Outside of the critical type emergency, those situations where many a kitchen sink is called for for throwing purposes....do Allied players feel the need to use skip bombing tactics?

Barge hunting where decent Fighter-Bombers are not available.

(And by the way, the game already penalizes this in a way. No more than four of any plane's forward facing guns will fire in a strafing/skip-bombing attack. So all those B-25Js with their eight cheek mounted 50's? Only four of them will fire.)

[Nikademus]

what about merchants and warships at sea?

[dtravel]

I'd do it against merchants with high (80+, like the manual states) experience 2E bombers but if I had a choice not against warships because of the AAA.  I don't do it at all with 4E because it doesn't "feel" historically right.  (Trying to play by the spirit of the rules, not the loopholes.)
 
But then none of you listen to me anyways 'cause I only play against the AI.  [:'(]

[Nikademus]

Yes, but do you think you "Need" too? Thats my point. For example.....i'm playing an AI game, mid 42. I have semi veteran exp LBA's running regular raids on nearby Japanese TF's attempting to supply/deliver to it's bases for the AI's offensive. I have none on skip bombing because i'm getting decent returns at 6000-10000 feet. (Using B26's and Hudsons).

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: dtravel

I'd do it against merchants with high (80+, like the manual states) experience 2E bombers but if I had a choice not against warships because of the AAA.  I don't do it at all with 4E because it doesn't "feel" historically right.  (Trying to play by the spirit of the rules, not the loopholes.)

Well said.

As to 4E bombers, I am not aware of a single, documented instance of a 4E bomber hitting a manuvering warship outside of coastal waters at any altitude in real life.

Now historically, 2E bombers were devastating when used in mass. The Americans called it "skip bombing", but the Germans did it first and called in the "Swedish Turnip", damned if I know why.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: pompack

ORIGINAL: dtravel

I'd do it against merchants with high (80+, like the manual states) experience 2E bombers but if I had a choice not against warships because of the AAA.  I don't do it at all with 4E because it doesn't "feel" historically right.  (Trying to play by the spirit of the rules, not the loopholes.)

Well said.

As to 4E bombers, I am not aware of a single, documented instance of a 4E bomber hitting a manuvering warship outside of coastal waters at any altitude in real life.

Now historically, 2E bombers were devastating when used in mass. The Americans called it "skip bombing", but the Germans did it first and called in the "Swedish Turnip", damned if I know why.

which again leads to my question to the players; Do they feel, outside of emergency situations where desperate tactics can be called for, that they even need to contemplate skip bombing against warships or merchants or are they seeing adequate returns at heights of 6-10k using 2E or 4E or both...

Like i said, i'm find esp against merchants, i don't need to even contemplate skip bombing.

[ctangus]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

which again leads to my question to the players; Do they feel, outside of emergency situations where desperate tactics can be called for, that they even need to contemplate skip bombing against warships or merchants or are they seeing adequate returns at heights of 6-10k using 2E or 4E or both...

Like i said, i'm find esp against merchants, i don't need to even contemplate skip bombing.

In non-desparate moments, only against barges, since the LBs won't attack them any higher. (And only if there's no fighter-bombers nearby.)

I'm getting decent results with 2Es from 6-10K also.

I almost never use 4Es on naval attack anymore. Again, only in desparate moments or if I have something spotted but my 2Es don't have the range. They get a fair number of hits just from naval search and I like to know what's out there.

[dtravel]

Do I need to skip bomb?  No, I don't "need" to bomb at any altitude less than 30,000'.  Do I want to stop the convoy as opposed to just hit a couple of ships in it?  Yes.
 
They didn't "need" to skip bomb in the real war.  They would have destroyed the Japanese Merchant Marine with 5,000' bombing runs too.  It was just faster and more efficient to hit with more than 1 out of 50 bombs.  [:'(]

[mogami]

Hi since UV I have used a standard 6k for both sides level bombers on naval attack. 10k for ground attack. If it gets too rough I go up to 15k. (I bomb cities with B-29 at 15k)

[Nikademus]

really?

I don't agree with that accessment. LBA seemed pretty abysmal which includes the occasional hits...hence skip bombing. If players feel no particular compulsion to bomb at very low altitudes, including skip bombing then i'd say thats a good indicator that LBA might be a tad too effective overall. The Japanese merchant captains were certainly not all that concerned as Bismarck Sea developed....they thought it would be SOP for evasion. Imagine their suprise.....

[denisonh]

It would help to have some mechanisms in place to replicate the problems associated with unloading transports at a beachhead as opposed to being underway in the open sea. Two entirely diffierent targets for LBA.

It would be even better to have a routine that has the less aggressive skipper "pull pitch", stop offloading and head to sea.

Sitting ships unloading vs ships underway do not seem to be distinguished, and unloading ships are not penalized at all for being attacked.

[niceguy2005]

DId the Allies employ only skip bombing techiniques at the Battle of the Bismark sea, because as I recall it was a great big turkey shoot employing all sorts of bombers, including B-25, but not heavies. Also, IIRC they did not skip bomb in that battle as the techinque had not yet been perfected, but I could be wrong. In that battle I know that not only transports were sunk but numerous destroyers. I am also have read reports of all sorts of 2E bombers scoring tremendous success against Japanese shipping from late 43 on from all altitudes.

Still, it appears rare that 4E bombers participated in these attacks. I agree with the poster that this must have been a doctrine issue. I suspect this may have had something to do with the manueverability and speed of the aircraft. B-17s may have been too good a target for AA to fly lower level missions, not that they couldn't hit the target.

In terms of house rule or not, i would tend to lean toward the side of maybe installing a house rule that says heavies bomb above 10,000 feet. I all honesty I don't think it will make much of a difference anyway.

It also does seem to be fair to say that many of the games innaccuracies tend to balance out the game. I have noticed that I tend to fly a lot of my b-17 missions at the limits of the planes range, over very hostile territory and unescorted. I'm not sure that the bomber groups historically would have been put through that type of abuse.

[Skyros]

I believe the employed a mixture of attacks at the Battle of the Bismark Sea. The only handy source that I have is Bergerud's Fire in the Sky he cite the 43rd Bomb Group sending out three waves of B17s on March 2,1943. Bombing from an altitude between 6 and 8,000 feet they sank two and mabye a third transport.(pg590) On the same page he cites B17s, A-20s, Beaufighters and B-25s attacking from medium altitude and also skip bombing.

Just one source I do not know how accurate he is.