Low Level Naval Attacks

[JohnDillworth]

I would think strafing would be the easiest skill. I mean this is the P-38 theory. Everything is pretty much in the center (at least for the b-25's). Just line it up and hold the trigger. Splashes and tracers will tell you where the bullets are going. 8+ 50 cal guns from a plane going 200+ mph in a 1 or 2 foot circle must have mad a hell of a mess out of any un-armored ship.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

Beats me. The ones I train for low level naval (gunship models of the A-20, A26, and B-25) always seem to strafe no mater what levels I set them at.

yes, attack bombers always strafe... other medium bombers will stay at their preset alt to bomb... note that not all B-25 are attack bombers, the B-25C for example is a medium level bomber.

Which is why I specifically stated "gunship models".

[John Lansford]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: jay102

What's the best altitude for level bomber naval attack when skill is around 60-70? 

5000? 1000? 100?

Beats me. The ones I train for low level naval (gunship models of the A-20, A26, and B-25) always seem to strafe no mater what levels I set them at.

Same with me. Every one of my B-25D1 squadrons strafe whatever target I assign them, on whatever mission they're on. I can set them to 10000 feet and they still strafe; I can only assume they drop down to 100' and then climb back up after they're done.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: jay102

What's the best altitude for level bomber naval attack when skill is around 60-70? 

5000? 1000? 100?

Beats me. The ones I train for low level naval (gunship models of the A-20, A26, and B-25) always seem to strafe no mater what levels I set them at.

Same with me. Every one of my B-25D1 squadrons strafe whatever target I assign them, on whatever mission they're on. I can set them to 10000 feet and they still strafe; I can only assume they drop down to 100' and then climb back up after they're done.

I don't think they carried bombsights. So bombing at 10,000 feet would be hard.

But not impossible as they could use a lead bomber with a bombsight and all drop together. Don't know if they actually did that though. I think that by 1943 the preferred way to hit an airfield or port was at very low level. Line abreast, all guns firing, drop the eggs and then get t he hell out of dodge. Don't know for sure though

[oldman45]

ORIGINAL: crsutton



I don't think they carried bombsights. So bombing at 10,000 feet would be hard.

But not impossible as they could use a lead bomber with a bombsight and all drop together. Don't know if they actually did that though. I think that by 1943 the preferred way to hit an airfield or port was at very low level. Line abreast, all guns firing, drop the eggs and then get t he hell out of dodge. Don't know for sure though

That is exactly what they did except they got to use para frags [8D] Oh to get the parafrags back...[&o] Infact if they thought there would be heavy AAA, they would send in B-24's to hit the place first and soften up the defences before the B-25's and/or the A-20's came in. At least they did that in New Guinea

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I don't think they carried bombsights. So bombing at 10,000 feet would be hard.

Absolutely correct! Which begs the question that of WHY the US chose to build thousands of these "gunship variants", and retrofit kits for other models if the mission profile was so difficult to fly? I think 60 exp and 60 skill would be more than enough to master it. "80" is suspiciously high...

[JohnDillworth]

If it's a skip bombing attack would the combat report specifically say it. I have some B-26's with good low level naval attack having some success, but they are set to bomb at 100ft and their experience is int he 60's and 70's.


Morning Air attack on TF, near Buna at 99,129

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 16 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 1



Allied aircraft
B-26 Marauder x 4


No Japanese losses

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
xAP Mizuho Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage

Japanese ground losses:
65 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 4 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)



Aircraft Attacking:
4 x B-26 Marauder bombing from 100 feet (22nd BG/2nd BS / V US Bomber Cmnd)
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
33rd Sentai with Ki-27b Nate (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters to 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 134 minutes

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I don't think they carried bombsights. So bombing at 10,000 feet would be hard.

Absolutely correct! Which begs the question that of WHY the US chose to build thousands of these "gunship variants", and retrofit kits for other models if the mission profile was so difficult to fly? I think 60 exp and 60 skill would be more than enough to master it. "80" is suspiciously high...

From readings, it was acutally EASIER for inexperienced crews in 2 EBs to conduct these attacks, with lower casualties from AA than from "high level"... this is not what happens in game, i think.

The attacks were pioneered by the B-17, but it was found that the speedier 2EBs were better at it.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

From readings, it was acutally EASIER for inexperienced crews in 2 EBs to conduct these attacks, with lower casualties from AA than from "high level"... this is not what happens in game, i think.

The attacks were pioneered by the B-17, but it was found that the speedier 2EBs were better at it.

EXACTLY! So why is this skill so difficult to aquire and use in the game? I mean even the "strafing results" which show up so often in place of actual bomb attacks make no sense. Those gunships had anywhere from 10-18 forward-firing .50 cals..., which means even a 5 second burst could be as many as 1000 rounds fired. And what do we see? 2,3,4 "hits". Not 2,3,or 400 "hits"; just 2,3,or 4. On a target the size of a ship! Very unbelievable....

[spence]

My father flew later model PV-1s/PV-2s for the USN. He described his bombsight as a dead bug on the windscreen. The original PV's had a glass nose and bombardier/bomb sight but that was modified to a solid nose with a chin pack of 3 extra .50 cals. The attack profile was a low level, high speed glide bombing attack, strafing on the run in with the five nose .50 cals plus the 2 additional .50 cals in the top turret. For an attack on a ship with 500 lb GP bombs the bombs would be released at about 500 ft. They also used 5" HVAR rockets fired in pairs rather than bombs towards the end of the war (4 launch rails on each wing).

A very similar attack profile was against land installations although they often used lighter bombs, got even lower, and went in faster.


I casually took note of the fact that it is possible to train any bomber for naval attack/torpedo. I imagine it only works for those with a toggle switch for bombs/torpedoes but I'm not actually sure and I haven't noticed any such.

Some early model B-26s actually made (ineffective) attacks with torpedoes. I've read that B-25s (presumably PBJs as well) could carry a torpedo. There is a photo with a showing the loading of a torpedo onto a PV-2 (captioned as on Attu in 1945). The bomb-bay of the PV-1 design was specifically modified in the PV-2 to allow a torpedo to be carried fully internally but as far as I know no PVs of any model made a real torpedo warshot.

Just curious, did the Devs slip in an ability for some (maybe particular squadrons) US 2E bombers to carry torpedoes? Probably not but I haven't been paying attention so I have to ask.

[oldman45]

Skip bombing was in fact not easy. You had to maintain speed and altitude on the run in, if you released too soon or too late you would miss the ship. There are a few photographs around the net of an A-20 or B-25 getting caught in its own bomb blast.

[mike scholl 1]

No form of bombing was "easy"...., except maybe "area bombing". But there is no rational justification for making "skip bombing" as difficult as the game makes it. I mean, dive bombers sometimes hit the ground or the ocean if they didn't pull out soon enough. Do they require a skill of "80"?

[EUBanana]

When you use attack bombers you do get some special skip bombing messages. "Attack bomber strafes target!" or something like that. They bomb as well as strafe, though/

Beaufighters at 100' also seem to be able to strafe AND bomb at the same time.

I think the bombs are far less accurate than the guns though, so you get the impression that bombs are not being dropped at all - I'm pretty sure that they are, they are just missing.

[spence]

The problem with that is that skip-bombing was far more accurate than level bombing from altitude and the historical record shows a much higher percentage of hits.

[spence]

The problem with that is that skip-bombing was far more accurate than level bombing from altitude and the historical record shows a much higher percentage of hits.

The first attacks in the Battle of the Bismarck Sea scored hits with 28 out of 37 bombs dropped.

[treespider]

Why did not the entire Allied Air Force skip bomb from day 1 of the war?

[spence]

Because the doctrine (way of training and of planning) of the USAAF was to employ bombers for high altitude precision bombing. So that's what the upper echelons of command wanted and that is the way the USAAF fought except when individual officers decided to stick their personal necks out trying something different and were fortunate by having it work.

Even so a plane commander could be reprimanded by for not following doctrine:
In the last fading light of twilight a PV-1 attacked and sank a coastal freighter. The pilot deviated from doctrine which called for multiple attacks and instead dropped his entire load in the first attack. Three of the bombs missed but the fourth struck home and apparently detonated a munitions cargo. The pilot's statement that he felt there was not enough light (time) left for a second attack was termed inadequate in the endorsement to the official report of the action. So even success is not foolproof.

[treespider]

Ahhh... so the game is coded to reflect the doctrine of the USAAF?

[spence]

It penalizes low level attacks (not just skip-bombing) by most bombers by halving the bombload when attacking below 6000 ft (I think that's the dividing line). Can't think of a technical reason for that.

From what I can see in the data base all USN 2E and 4E bombers will suffer the same penalty even though their doctrine from before the war for naval attack was
"don't fire til you see the whites of their eyes" . Due to a bureaucratic agreement between the Army and the Navy the Navy didn't have any 2E/4E planes (bombers) other than amphibs pre-war but that was the doctrine for the patrol planes from which all the 2E/4E derived.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: spence

It penalizes low level attacks (not just skip-bombing) by most bombers by halving the bombload when attacking below 6000 ft (I think that's the dividing line). Can't think of a technical reason for that.

So why did not all bombers attack below 6000 feet during the war?