Andy Mac v String - this time no mercy.

[Andy Mac]

maybe Nemo but even then 150 bombers got through at 11,000 feet....

[Andy Mac]

No I think this dictates using USN Carriers as mobile delivery boys knowing what I now know I should have followed my original intention and unloaded the entire strike group of all 5 Carriers onto the Fijian AF's and got the carriers out of dodge I seriously considered it but felt it was to gamey.
 
The odd Sqn sure why not to beef up my naval attacks but 5 full carriers worth seemed like overkill !!!

[Nemo121]

Aye, I'm just wondering if the weather played a part....

It seems to me that either:

1. Your pilots were so disrupted by the enemy fighters that they did terribly in aiming the bombs or

2. The weather impacted you terribly badly - we can test if this is the case in a rerun or

3. You just got really, really, really unlucky - which happens in this game.

[Andy Mac]

I dont think it was 1 because watching the replay it looked like I got clear runs.
 
It couyld be 2. or 3. not sure.
 
Has anyone esle had a big carrier battle in mid 42 to compare results against ??
 
If this is typical it would be good to know. If it was just bad luck cest la vie

[Andy Mac]

A bit annoying because I also lost 2 Carriers at Ceylon because of that bug so thats me down 5 now which is not good

[ADB123]

I was just looking the numbers again - 397 Japanese bombers in the morning phase, 331 Japanese bombers in the afternoon phase. With the Air Model in AE you couldn't have stopped them even if you had 600 fighters in the air.

If Japanese players avoid the temptation to split their carriers they can do anything that they like in AE for at least the first year, probably year and a half.

The question now is - how to slow down the AE Super Japanese Death Star? (Or maybe in the case of AE, it is a Death Galaxy...)

Actually, the question really is - where can you defend where you can bring 300 to 400 good land-based fighters and 300 to 400 good land based bombers into play against the KB?

[ADB123]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

No I think this dictates using USN Carriers as mobile delivery boys knowing what I now know I should have followed my original intention and unloaded the entire strike group of all 5 Carriers onto the Fijian AF's and got the carriers out of dodge I seriously considered it but felt it was to gamey.

The odd Sqn sure why not to beef up my naval attacks but 5 full carriers worth seemed like overkill !!!

Sure, dumping the planes and running is unhistorical, but I can't see any other way to fight off the Super KB Death Galaxy in AE in 1942.

Gamey is all relative in this case - the Game allows the Japanese player to amass an unbeatable force by historical standards - therefore the only answer is to do things that the Game allows you to do.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I underestimated how bad my aircraft were at hitting flat tops need to think this through a bit more

were they glide bombing?

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I underestimated how bad my aircraft were at hitting flat tops need to think this through a bit more

The weather over target for your first strike was "thunderstorms", which is, AFAIK, the worst weather possible. This probably was the main reason of the extremely low number of hits. The second strike was simply too small. And attacking the force consisting of every carrier Japan has with 4 CVs was a bad idea in general.

The enemy had thunderstorms too, didn´t really affect them it seems.

[wpurdom]

Shot up planes

Maybe your problem was that your pilots were shot up.

Let's leave aside the USN torpedo bombers for the moment and analyze each of the first strikes in terms of undamaged planes

You attacked with (undamaged) 15 SDB for 2 hits and 1 undamaged Albacore for 2 hits - 13.3% and 200% hit rate (all right it's not impossible for the damaged plane to hit. I was surprised your Albacores did so well, for me only the Swordfish seem to hit mobile warships.)

He attacked with (undamaged) 176 Kates for 11 hits and 94 Vals for 23, a 6.25% and 24.5% hit rate.

USN torpedo bombers

As far as the USN torpedo bombers are concerned, they essentially should not be able to hit a warship at this stage of the war:

The early problems with US Aerial torpedoes:

The early models were handicapped by the need to drop them low and slow - 50 feet (15 m) and 110 knots - which made the torpedo planes carrying them more vulnerable to attack. The torpedoes themselves were found to be prone to defects. In mid-1943, an analysis of 105 torpedoes dropped at speeds in excess of 150 knots found that 36 percent ran cold (did not start), 20 percent sank, 20 percent had poor deflection performance, 18 percent gave unsatisfactory depth performance, 2 percent ran on the surface and only 31 percent gave a satisfactory run. The total exceeds 100 percent as many torpedoes had more than one defect.

These problems were greatly reduced by the latter years of the war. Torpedoes had fin stabilizers, nose drag rings and tail shroud rings added, all of which worked to slow the torpedo after it was dropped so that it struck the water nose-first and at an acceptable speed. These improved the drop characteristics such that the recommended aircraft maximum launch parameters were increased to a height of 2,400 feet (730 m) and a speed of 410 knots.

The addition of the nose drag ring improved aerodynamic performance by stabilizing the torpedo in flight and reduced air speed by about 40 percent. It also acted as a shock absorber when the torpedo struck the water. The tail shroud ring improved the water run by reducing hooks and broaches and by eliminating much of the water roll which had characterized the earlier Mark 13s. Hot, straight and normal runs now approached 100 percent. To speed availability of the much improved torpedo, the Bureau of Ordnance had tail assemblies built with the shroud ring attached and then shipped these to the fleet for upgrading the existing inventory. By the fall of 1944, the modified torpedo was in general use by the front-line carrier units which were enthusiastic in their praise. On one occasion in early 1945, six torpedoes were dropped from altitudes between 5,000 and 7,000 feet (1,500 to 2,100 m). Five out of the six were observed to make their runs hot, straight and normal. By the end of the war, the USN considered the Mark 13 to be the best aircraft torpedo produced by any nation and it remained in service until 1950.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_WWII.htm

I've been told that the optimal release speed (reliability unknown) was actually closer to 80 MPH and was below the stall speed of a Devastator , though others more knowledgeable may correct me. So if your pilot does a perfect run, and manages to get the right approach going 110-200 knots after a 35 knot ship turning away from him so he has to swing around again and again to get the angle right (read Shattered Sword), there's a 31% chance that the torpedo will head in the direction he pointed it. Then there's a 40, 50, 60, 70% ?? chance the torpedo will be a dud if it hits

The advantage of Japanese torpedoes

A problem that plagues all aircraft torpedoes is stability on water entry. The U.S. never fully got the hang of it and experienced problems well into 1944. The major problem is spinning on entry. This causes the torpedo to "Fish Hook'' or turn sharply as the tall fins enter time water.

The Japanese approached the problem on two fronts. First they tested two types of detachable tail frames. The "box' and "X", see diagrams(click to see diagrams), were both used during WWII. While the Box was the most effective, it was impractical for confined bomb bays. Box units were used for under-fuselage and wing mounts....

Secondly, to futher combat "Fish Hooking" two small anti-spin flippers were first installed on Type 91, Mod 2 units, 1942, and all subsequent models. The pair of flippers were gyro controlled and located just forward of the tail fins. The Flippers in turn had detachable wooden fins of bath small and large designs. Small units were used more often. Both tail frames and "Flipper Slippers" slipped on and broke away on water entry.

Another problem was the drop envelope, how fast, how high, etc. The ideal condition with mast early units was at 180Kts and 350 feet with a 170 to 200 bow angle at 1000m. With, I might add, Lord knows haw many anti-aircraft guns blasting away at you. Rather unsettling thought, isn't it? An improper drop would cause the torpedo to dive to the bottom or porpoise and snap in half. A 4mm latex rubber sheath, extending back 24" from the nose aided in cushioning water impact shock. The sheath would shatter on impact.

IJNAF and IJAAF Aircraft Ordinance
Part I Aircraft Torpedoes
by Bryan Wilburn


What's the Allied Player to do?

Many suggest you get any full Marine SDB and fighter squadrons and put them on your decks. Many times your carriers have room. If they don't leave the Devastators behind.

And don't ever - ever tangle with a combination of KB and mini-KB before you either get Essex CVs or whittle him down. You just have to take compensation from the fact that super KB can only be in one place at a time.

[Nomad]

The dud rate for MK 13s at this date is 50%.

[DanielAnsell]

Those results are very disturbing. Just started a PBEM, and it looks like the best plan might well be to keep all Allied CVs far, far away from anything resembling Japanese carrier air power till 1944 in AE.

[Grfin Zeppelin]

ORIGINAL: Carny

Those results are very disturbing. Just started a PBEM, and it looks like the best plan might well be to keep all Allied CVs far, far away from anything resembling Japanese carrier air power till 1944 in AE.

Everyone who plays the Japanese against you will love you for that

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Carny

Those results are very disturbing. Just started a PBEM, and it looks like the best plan might well be to keep all Allied CVs far, far away from anything resembling Japanese carrier air power till 1944 in AE.

It was a war of attrition until late 1943. Live with it.

[janh]

30

I guess this was a reasonable outcome, though bad fortune of war. It could as well have worked out the other way, if any of the 50 TB had scored hits. But so is war.

The bleed over feature to other TFs is a great addition though.

[khyberbill]

Those results are very disturbing. Just started a PBEM, and it looks like the best plan might well be to keep all Allied CVs far, far away from anything resembling Japanese carrier air power till 1944 in AE.

That might be too conservative to win the war.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Carny

Those results are very disturbing. Just started a PBEM, and it looks like the best plan might well be to keep all Allied CVs far, far away from anything resembling Japanese carrier air power till 1944 in AE.

It was a war of attrition until late 1943. Live with it.

the question though is how the Allied actually attrited the Japanese when in real life there would be 100 SBDs achieving only 2 hits...

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: janh

30

I guess this was a reasonable outcome, though bad fortune of war. It could as well have worked out the other way, if any of the 50 TB had scored hits. But so is war.

The bleed over feature to other TFs is a great addition though.

for sure not reasonable, at least not relating to reality. I don´t want to make String´s victory smaller, excellent game play but the Allied hit rate was nothing but off if you want to get anywhere closer to reality. Such things would just not have happened if that number of bombers would scream down on IJN carriers. We´re not talking about idiots in flying junk but USN pilots in SBDs. And exactly those trashed the IJN carriers in the war. While doing this with far SMALLER numbers over the carriers.

Again, this is not critisizing String, just pointing out that it´s one of those very off results of a game that has nothing to do with reality.

[Andy Mac]

Cest la vie shit happens sometimes the greater the challenge the greater the glory

[Andy Mac]

Remember my plan worked perfectly as well.
 
I chose to do battle in 42 with KB, perfect positioning within 2 hexes so all my aircraft took part
 
150 bombers got through on a 1st strike.
 
Everything worked as planned but the hit rate was poor.
 
Next day my SBD's (orphans) with far less numbers sunk a CL DD TF
 
So I have to conclude it was just bad luck in which case there is no point getting irritated by it