House rules for level bomber naval attacks

[bradfordkay]

IIRC, the skip bombing technique originated in a B-17 unit, but was quickly adapted to the more maneuverable twin engined bombers.



Nik, I have never felt the need to try skip bombing, as I have always felt that in UV/WITP the results from 6000' were "somewhat" high (the usual b(r)ad die rolls would result in snakeyes too often for my taste, but that's not an indictment of the game but rather what I've learned to experience since picking up AH games in the sixties).

Since starting my first CHS game, I have switched my 4E bombers to 11,000' for naval attack in order to hamstring them somewhat. As mentioned before, crucial situations will allow lower attmpts, but VERY rarely. I usually average around 16,000' for land targets.

I will use 4E bombers against naval targets up until the point when I actually have enough 2E bombers to do the job. I must be the typical American commander, but I never feel like I have enough 2E (especially B-25s) bombers in the SoPac and SWPac areas until Feb '43 at the earliest. That's partly because I rarely switch units among historical commands, except for those few being rescued from the PI and NEI.

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: 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.....

Not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. What I'm saying is that bombing "normally" from 6K and higher, an attack on a convoy may result in one or two ships being hit and damaged. But the convoy continues its mission. The same attack as a 100' strafe/skip-bomb strike will sink or cripple nearly every ship in the convoy, stopping it from completing its mission.

[Nikademus]

I understand that. By a good number of hits, i'm not talking the occasional bomb hit or two for damage. Hit rates are higher, thus more effective.

[Speedysteve]

I never feel the need to do it. I'm more than happy with the results I can achieve from 6-10K compared to the potential loss of extra planes, pilots and morale/fatigue hits from 100 feet

[spence]

Taken from a Navy PB4Y-1

[spence]

Another low altitude attack by a PB4Y-1

[spence]

The USAAF had a thing for high altitude bombing with their 4E types.  The USN was not so afflicted.

[spence]

PB4Y-1 exchanges greetings with a U-boat (U-848).

[RUPD3658]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

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.

You do not know what a great resourse you are not using.

B-17s set at 6000 feet (in the flak gap) have been my only fear so far in my game vs KDonovan. We are in September of 42 and they have been the only thing that could either stop me in my tracks or make me pause and reconsider.

If I send a TF within range it gets plastered. Even the Super KB with extra fighter squadrons can't stop more than a 100 plane B-17 strike without enough getting through to cause harm. 150 would sink ships and 200 would decimate the KB.

If I have a AF with tons of planes it gets plastered. Massed Zeros can barely stop them and Oscars can do little more than damage them. Even when I baet them in the air, enough get through to destroy just as many on the ground.

I have found that my fighters lose 1 plane for every 3 B-17s they manage to shoot down.

B-24s are actually easier to defend against since they are less durable. B-25s are little more than target practice.

The B-17 is the Allied super weapon for the 1st 6 months of the war just as the KB is for the Japanese. I would sleep much better if all Kenny used them for is naval patrol. Catalina and Coronados do just fine in this role.

[Andy Mac]

Agreed if KB closes then I would class that as an emrgancy
 
Last couple of games I have gotten suckered into sending B17's to India and then no Invasion so I havent had the opportunity to use them on anti sipping
 
The few I have in SOPAC are better on search

[tsimmonds]

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.)

But then none of you listen to me anyways 'cause I only play against the AI.  [:'(]

We listen to ya when you talk sense, like that[;)]

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

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.)

But then none of you listen to me anyways 'cause I only play against the AI.  [:'(]

We listen to ya when you talk sense, like that[;)]

Then you should be listening to me at all times.

[spence]

From US Army Air Forces in World War II - Chaper 5: Battle of the Bismarck Sea. Photo captioned: "Direct Hit from a B-24". The bomber was well below 10000 ft though I can't judge the altitude.

[spence]

Another pic from the same sight...captioned "Crippled Destroyer"...apparently taken by a level bomber and once again well below 10000 ft. There are some additional pics showing skip bombing attacks, etc.