Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: castor troy






I bet 10 AA regiments (Japanese) at one place would have been a LOT more effective than what the Germans had at Brest.... [;)] you know what it looks like in the game to place a dozen AA regiments somewhere... poof poof.... 100 flak guns disabled... 100 hits on ships in port...

and to come back to what the thread started about, IMO it´s essential to have a house rule about those 4Es, because even if their hit rate would be modeled realistic (which surely isn´t), everything else is far off so IMO you need to see that as a trade off.

Yes, well then maybe there should be a house rule about concentrating IJA AA regiments as well.

Let us also point out ONCE AGAIN that the most effective use of 4 EB against shipping by the Allies IRL is not modelled in the game (night attacks using radar). So, why is THAT not a trade off?? This always seems to be ignored in "4 EB hit too often" arguments - whereas, if you put this into the equation, maybe Allied EB's don't hit enough.

sorry, but this makes me smile! [:)] Yeah, let´s have a house rule about not stacking more than 1 AA regiment per base (which sounds realistic). It doesn´t matter for the Japanese and it´s only a disadvantage for the Allied. A dozen AA regiments does the same like one AA regiment - NOTHING... NOTHING against 4E bombers coming in in hundreds at 6000 ft at broad daylight to bomb ships anchored in port. Then they achieve a hundreds hits for losing two or three bombers with another dozen damaged.

Lol, hope you can smile too. Your comparisons are not something I can understand...

Let's reverse this for your argument: No Allied 4EB on naval strike and the Japanese can put 10 AA regiments in a hex... does this make sense??

My point is (again) IF you want compromise - you must offer something to compromise with. So far, it has been in terms of game construction "compromises":

(1) Allied 4 EB are not allowed night radar patrols.
(2) Allied 2 EB are not allowed to attack at skip-bombing levels at under 60 exp., and even then it doesn't work until they get into 70s experience, they have high losses, and they take huge morale hits (see prev. notes on actual skip bombing attacks).
(3) Japan can outmanufacture the Allies fighters.
(4) Japan can field fighters they only had as prototypes.
(5) Japan can switch over production lines without pause to new types (whereas it took months and months in reality)
(5) Japan can use 100's of Bettys, Nells for torpedo strikes (while as has been recently noted elsewhere on the forum, they had neither the training nor the torpedoes to do so.) Exactly how many ships were torpedoed by Bettys and Nells in reality? How does that compare to the number of ships bombed by Allied 4 EB?
(6) No intel as to where/when IJN intentions and ships would be (no, the SigInt in the game really is not anything like the intel MAGIC provided.)
(7) Japan gets around 1 Million tons in extra shipping;
etc. etc. etc.

But - the Allied player should NOW additionally compromise the use of 4 EB on naval strike because THAT is unrealistic?? Of course, none of the other compromises are unrealistic???... What do the Allies get in return for such a compromise??

In games, one makes compromises with one's opponents in terms of house rules. i think that is the way it will be for the forseeable future.

EDIT: In as far that you can not see my points (as you have stated), then there really is no point for further argument on my part.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso




Yes, well then maybe there should be a house rule about concentrating IJA AA regiments as well.

Let us also point out ONCE AGAIN that the most effective use of 4 EB against shipping by the Allies IRL is not modelled in the game (night attacks using radar). So, why is THAT not a trade off?? This always seems to be ignored in "4 EB hit too often" arguments - whereas, if you put this into the equation, maybe Allied EB's don't hit enough.

sorry, but this makes me smile! [:)] Yeah, let´s have a house rule about not stacking more than 1 AA regiment per base (which sounds realistic). It doesn´t matter for the Japanese and it´s only a disadvantage for the Allied. A dozen AA regiments does the same like one AA regiment - NOTHING... NOTHING against 4E bombers coming in in hundreds at 6000 ft at broad daylight to bomb ships anchored in port. Then they achieve a hundreds hits for losing two or three bombers with another dozen damaged.

Lol, hope you can smile too. Your comparisons are not something I can understand...

Let's reverse this for your argument: No Allied 4EB on naval strike and the Japanese can put 10 AA regiments in a hex... does this make sense??


no, this makes no sense at all IMO. I never said "no 4EB on naval strike". Never... Though, I said (and what´s this thread about) you have to think about either a number of 4Es on naval strike, a number of 4Es at a base, a min alt for 4Es on naval attack, only 4Es with min exp. of x on naval strike and so on...

The argument about the 10 - or 20, 30, no matter how much AA regiments is not worht discussing as they don´t do ANYTHING. I´m only getting pissed off when playing the Jap side to see what a dozen AA regiment or a dozen base forces can do... Nothing. As an Allied player I shake my head when I´m told how many AA guns were at that base I just bombed to dust from 10.000 ft while losing one or two of my 120 attacking B-24.


My point is (again) IF you want compromise - you must offer something to compromise with. So far, it has been in terms of game construction "compromises":

(1) Allied 4 EB are not allowed night radar patrols.
If you take ALL those super duper night radar attacks on ships together of the whole war, perhaps this would be the same as allowing ONE bomber group in the game do day light attacks on shipping?


(2) Allied 2 EB are not allowed to attack at skip-bombing levels at under 60 exp., and even then it doesn't work until they get into 70s experience, they have high losses, and they take huge morale hits (see prev. notes on actual skip bombing attacks).
70 exp? You don´t have problems to get your bombers to 70 exp, do you? They start out at 60 (stock, many mods) and reach 70 within 25-35 missions. Never had any problems at all having high exp. bomber squadrons. I don´t need and don´t do skip bombing, B-25, B-26 are soooo effective at 6000 ft that I´m extremely happy with that - really happy.

(3) Japan can outmanufacture the Allies fighters.
If my opponent wants to produce 1000 Tojo, Tony, Jack, George, I have no problem with that. P-51, Corsair, Spit, Hellcat and THUNDERBOLT (IMO best US fighter in the game, even better than Corsair) eat them all. If I only would have P-40 and Hurris, okay that would be different, still my fighters are achieving kill rates far better than in real life. Add to that the thousands of planes the 4Es destroy on the ground and you probably have a kill rate that is 2-4 times higher than in real life. The more the Japanese produces, the higher the losses.


(4) Japan can field fighters they only had as prototypes.
that´s true. Though the only two that have "some" effects are the Reppu and the Shinden. Both are in late 45 where the game is lost anyway and most games will never get there at all as the Japanese will quit most times in late 44, early 45 at the latest as there´s no sense in playing on if you haven´t done as good as PzB for example (taking out China AND India).

(5) Japan can switch over production lines without pause to new types (whereas it took months and months in reality)
correct, what should I say about that? Put the arrival dates back two or three months? Didn´t the designers read some books on when those planes should arrive? Something for the mods (which they do anyway).

(5) Japan can use 100's of Bettys, Nells for torpedo strikes (while as has been recently noted elsewhere on the forum, they had neither the training nor the torpedoes to do so.) Exactly how many ships were torpedoed by Bettys and Nells in reality? How does that compare to the number of ships bombed by Allied 4 EB?
that doesn´t compare to 4Es. How can you compare that. It isn´t a matter of comparison. We are talking about 4E bomber alt against ships to achieve results you can look at without having to . I have to do that if I see 100 4Es coming in achieving 50 hits.

Now the Betty/Nell problem. Yeah, it´s the same bullshit! I don´t know how often I wanted restrictions for torpedoe availability. I´m not a designer of this game. Tell them, you are in the team now, aren´t you. Then there has just to be a rework on all the damage routines on ships, fires, flooding, damage by bombs... as a side note, as deadly as those Betties are in 41/42, going through the years the 4Es are dozen times more deadly against ships due to their numbers, the bomb load... and again, I love to see tac bombers going in at ships, I´m looking like this: [8|] when I see those "strategic bombers" going against ships. I never ever had a problem with 2E bombers (of any side) attacking ships at ANY alt.


(6) No intel as to where/when IJN intentions and ships would be (no, the SigInt in the game really is not anything like the intel MAGIC provided.)
no it isn´t! It´s far better than MAGIC ever was. Perhaps it´s always like this: I´m playing the Japanese side, I´m always hitting bad die rolls. I´m playing the Allied side, I´m always getting super die rolls. There hasn´t been a major invasion that I didn´t know of before as the US. If the Japanese want to go serious about a base / area and they have to prep their troops you get ample numbers of sigints about that. And then I don´t need CV Akagi heading for Midway, because when I see a dozen IJA divisions prepping for India / Australia then CV Akagi will be there also to cover those invasions - most likely. If not, say good bye to the invasion and say good bye to your Japanese opponent also, as he might quit after loosing a hundred ships and 100.000 men.


(7) Japan gets around 1 Million tons in extra shipping;
etc. etc. etc.
correct, again, tell the designers to read a book before going to work on a game like this. Why not having a house rule to have a given number of AKs at Osaka. 1 million would be 150 big AKs, wonder how much are in the game.


But - the Allied player should NOW additionally compromise the use of 4 EB on naval strike because THAT is unrealistic?? Of course, none of the other compromises are unrealistic???... What do the Allies get in return for such a compromise??

In games, one makes compromises with one's opponents in terms of house rules. i think that is the way it will be for the forseeable future.

I have and had games where I had a dozen of house rules that would be called as a disadvantage for me, while only one or two that would be an advantage for me. Result was that I liked the game far more than some of those hey ho, I´m the American Santa Clause and I´m coming to get you with my 500 B-24 I have just stationed on Kwajalein. Please bring up the 50 planes on cap (out of 100) so the 700 escort fighters have some fun also... ho ho ho...[8|]


EDIT: In as far that you can not see my points (as you have stated), then there really is no point for further argument on my part.

All you say is nice and mostly true. But it´s like telling me not to throw a cherry pit at you because that is unrealistic while you throw a rock back which would be unrealistic too.

Again, there is NOTHING that effects the game as much as Allied 4E bombers. Nothing. Not everything that is wrong on the Japanese side together would equal up the ability of those planes.

[Yamato hugger]

I did, and always will say no 4E bombers on naval strike. As for 10 AA regiments in the same hex I say why not? Other than CHS, AA is ineffective anyways (my first CHS game was an eye opener). Why shouldnt either player be allowed to concentrate their AA if its needed?

I mean after all, there HAS to be SOME reason the USAAF went from daylight bombing at 30,000+ feet to night bombing at 7,000 feet. Could it be because observed AA fire was that accurate? What other explaination could there be? 30,000 feet wasnt enough to avoid the interceptors. I suppose it could be the scenery is better up there and they had to switch to night bombing to keep the guys concentrating on their jobs, but Im willing to bet it had something to do with AA fire.

[spence]

It had to do with accuracy...they weren't hitting anything useful from 30000 ft. The fact that AAA fire was less effective down low was a side benefit.

[rtrapasso]

..

[donnie_1974_texas]

Correct. The switch from 30,000 feet + down to night bombing at 7,000 feet was because the accuracy of the B29 at that altitude was very poor due to the high winds from the jet stream over Japan. I am not sure whether the AA was less effective at 7,000 feet because it was a switch to night or not though.

[Dili]

Well i would say that they choosed to attack at 7000ft at night instead 7000ft at day because AAA.
 
I think the japanese torpedo bombers should be dealt by expanding the Axis airplane slots and making G3M and G4M's with only bomb capability for squadrons that didnt trained with torpedos.

[spence]

I think the japanese torpedo bombers should be dealt by expanding the Axis airplane slots and making G3M and G4M's with only bomb capability for squadrons that didnt trained with torpedos.

There is a bit of a problem with finding out which squadrons trained for the mission.
I'm becoming somewhat convinced that all squadrons were "mission capable" for torpedo attack BUT those that didn't practice it CONSTANTLY were absolutely no good at it. The groups that attacked PoW and Repulse practiced in the time frame immediately before the war began and made their attacks on PoW/Repulse immediately after the war began. They did very well. And they suffered pretty negligible losses in the attack. Their next outting with torpedos (same units) was 6 months later and it was a bust (against cruisers at Coral Sea). The same sort of generally dismal performances were repeated by the same units in the Solomons after that (though losses certainly contributed to a generalized loss of experience for the units at any mission).

The night attacks on USS Chicago were also carried out by units with special and recent training. Again, the unit(s) that succeeded in hitting USS Houston (II) and USS Canberra off Formosa were specially and recently trained.

Other than these more or less notorious attacks Betty/Nell successes with torpedos were exceedingly few and far between.

[Yamato hugger]

You are missing the point.

WHY were they at 30,000 feet to begin with? And if flak was so much worse at 7,000 feet, WHY didnt they bomb in daylight at 7,000 feet?

I will tell you why. They were at 30,000 feet because observed AA fire was chewing them up lower than that. They flew at night because Jap gunners couldnt see them and they didnt have RADAR directed AA guns (something I doubt the game takes into effect, but I could be wrong on that. Meaning a difference in accuracy of day and night AA guns).

[Dili]

Did the Japanese had any torpedo school? Italians had torpedo school and bomber squadriglia changed it's name from Bomber to Torpedo, Germans trained in Italy too and are easy to determine which units had torpedos. A couple of squadrons for Japanese is much better than all squadrons torpedo trained. Anyway the 4E problem is bigger because Japanese torpedo bombers are slaughtered when CAP starts to be effective and the evenly bad pilots that arrive in later years turn the units inefective. Of course if there is an agressive naval campaign by allies at war start it is no surprising that PW and Repulse are joined by others.

[spence]

They were at 30000 ft because they were designed to operate at 30000 ft by Boeing and their doctrine was formulated based on that operating altitude. That is why they were at 30000 ft.

As it became apparent that the character of Japanese industry (dispersed amongst housing etc) did not lend itself to "precision" bombing and results from 30000 ft were not what was expected Gen Lemay decided to throw the book on "daylight precision bombing" out the window, maximize and optimize (read incendaries) the loading of the bombers and to burn Japan down. It was NOT because Japanese flak was worse than German Flak.

[donnie_1974_texas]

Exactly! In fact the B-29 was designed for long range high altitude, high speed (for a bomber) bombing runs. At 30,000 feet, a lot of times the CAP could not get up to altitude fast enough to make a coordinated attack.

Flak was relatively ineffective at this altitude.

Interestingly enough, in the WitP game, if I tested flying 200 B-29s against Tokyo at 15,000 feet with 300 flak guns firing at the planes, and almost every time, guess what - the flak works...you will see 30-40 planes destroyed and another 100-120 damaged...Go to 30,000 feet - and well flak losses go down a lot, but so do hits...

But, in the same WitP game fly at 7,000 feet in daylight, tough luck for those AA gunners - all the DP and 105s won't shoot and the light stuff (which is prettly much not in the game) can't hurt the high armor/durability bombers.

And again, in the game, fly an airfield attack at 15,000 feet into those same 300 flak guns, they may hurt you on raid 1, but on raid 2...no resistance because they are all disabled.

When the US switched to night raids, the B-29s flew lower and were effective. Flak was far less effective at night because they could not observe fire nor did they have good radar control systems for their guns (if any...). The B-29s also dropped a bunch of armament off for higher speed and higher bomb load but also in recognition because they could because of the poor Japanese night fighter defenses (although the bomber crews didn't much like the idea of losing the guns...).

Now, unfortunately the same game doesn't do much for allowing some of the other things the heavies were very effective at that have been pointed out as above.

[jwilkerson]

There is a US Air Force History web site - with a number of the "classics" online as PDFs ... there are a couple of descriptions of LeMay's thinking as he launched the first B-29 night raid on Japan. IIRC there was a list of factors, including weather (jet stream - unknown at the time) use of less fuel to climb so high, heavier bomb load, and the "hope" that the flak was not optimized for this altitude. This flak idea was a "theory" LeMay had, but he agonized about it - per these articles - on the day before they went in. Several of his staff officers thought he was nuts. Turned out the flak was less. Later on (after Okinawa) the B-29s started comming in at "medium" altitudes during the day, ranging from about 12,000 to about 18,000 and with a few exceptions (like the second Tokyo raid) flak was poor at these altitudes as well - no real reason is given for that, but the losses and damaged plane totals are given for every raid. This stuff is worth reading if you're interested in the topic.

But I recommend downloading the big PDFs before trying to open them unless you have a really good line.

Here is the index ...

http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/titleindex.htm

[anarchyintheuk]

They were at 30k because of tactics formed over in Europe. Higher the alt, lower the losses. Over Japan once they found out how inaccurate their bombing was and how low their flak losses were they decided to change from highlevel 'pinpoint' to lowlevel 'screw it, blow up the whole city' targetting. A comparison w/ the altitudes of Bomber Command raids would be useful. Guess I'll go look that up.

[Wolfie1]

Wasn't the Norden Bomb sight optimised for 30K - wasn't that another reason to operate at that altitude?

[Yamato hugger]

The 8th Airforce bombadiers that bombed at 20,000 feet in 43 didnt seem to think so.