Low Level Naval Attacks

[mike scholl 1]

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

Because the "attack profile" for the mission wasn't worked out until the end of 1942..., and the "gunships" that made it so effective weren't available until early 1943?

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: treespider

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

Against naval targets, almost all did! Early in the war, B-17's were so valuable for reccon they were generally limited to high altitude attacks which proved very ineffective..., but as more and better A/C became available even B-24's were going after naval targets from low altitude.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: treespider

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

Threat level.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: treespider

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

Threat level.

Yep, my friend's dad was a navy patrol pilot and flew venturas and PBYs. He told me that his prewar training focused on high altitidue bombing as that was the doctrine for all level bomber pilots. But once the fighting started it quickly became apparent that low level was the only way. New Navy crews that arrived after 1943 rarely got any training in high altitude bombing.

He told me that they only time he ever flew his planes at high altitudes was when they "needed to ice up some beer".

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: treespider

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

Threat level.

Yep, my friend's dad was a navy patrol pilot and flew venturas and PBYs. He told me that his prewar training focused on high altitidue bombing as that was the doctrine for all level bomber pilots. But once the fighting started it quickly became apparent that low level was the only way. New Navy crews that arrived after 1943 rarely got any training in high altitude bombing.

He told me that they only time he ever flew his planes at high altitudes was when they "needed to ice up some beer".

EXACTLY! There is no justification in history for the difficulty the game imposes on low level naval attacks. In fact, as crsutton points out, it was easier and much more effective. Which explains the thousands of "gunships" built to use this attack profile exclusively.

So can someone "in the know" please explain why the game doesn't recognize this fact?

[JohnDillworth]

a word on "doctrine". this was the law, the way the military organization did things and it came from the top. It was not easy to change and it was not done below the high command level. Doctrine was what altitude your bombers attacked from, what formation your fighters flew in and how deep you set your torpedoes. The high altitude naval bombing doctrine did not work and was changed. the torpedoes did not work and and it took commanders going against doctrine to try and make them work. But they were so f&^*$d up that changing the depth only help a little. General Kenny was high enough up and smart enough to modify his doctrine, and modify his planes in the field. Another example was B-29 bombing of the home islands. High altitude daylight raids had some success, but low level incendiary raids were devastating

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Yep, my friend's dad was a navy patrol pilot and flew venturas and PBYs. He told me that his prewar training focused on high altitidue bombing as that was the doctrine for all level bomber pilots. But once the fighting started it quickly became apparent that low level was the only way. New Navy crews that arrived after 1943 rarely got any training in high altitude bombing.

He told me that they only time he ever flew his planes at high altitudes was when they "needed to ice up some beer".

It'd be preferable for the accuracy bonus as long as the AA and intercept threat didn't outweigh it.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: Nikademus




Threat level.

Yep, my friend's dad was a navy patrol pilot and flew venturas and PBYs. He told me that his prewar training focused on high altitidue bombing as that was the doctrine for all level bomber pilots. But once the fighting started it quickly became apparent that low level was the only way. New Navy crews that arrived after 1943 rarely got any training in high altitude bombing.

He told me that they only time he ever flew his planes at high altitudes was when they "needed to ice up some beer".

EXACTLY! There is no justification in history for the difficulty the game imposes on low level naval attacks. In fact, as crsutton points out, it was easier and much more effective. Which explains the thousands of "gunships" built to use this attack profile exclusively.

So can someone "in the know" please explain why the game doesn't recognize this fact?

I can´t see where this problem with lownav attacks is because my bombers on lownav work just fine, in fact they seem to be working too fine. Every IJN convoy ending up in range of my bombers on lownav is chewed up. And I bet if I had figured out that lownav would be the way to go from day one, then I had 70 lownav skilled crews in February 42. Similar to real life, I first trained everyone on navbomb, to find out it wasn´t effective at all. Then I changed "doctrine" and started training lownav. Now that I field 70 skilled lownav crews I´ve pretty much got the equivalent of the IJN shipkillers armed with torps. They can do more damage to anything with torps, but my bombers hardly can be stopped.

[EUBanana]

Indeed. Training is very relevant. So you aren't really being penalised beyond not starting with any lownav trained pilots.

Unfortunately there arent all that many Allied bombers until the end of 1942 so really early war skip bombing is almost a moot point.

[USSAmerica]

So is the consensus that given high skill values for LowNav, bombing from 100' increases accuracy and number of hits enough to outweigh the 50% bomb load carried?

If so, I'm going to get a couple of backwater bomber squadrons started on LowNav training right away.  [:)]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: USS America

So is the consensus that given high skill values for LowNav, bombing from 100' increases accuracy and number of hits enough to outweigh the 50% bomb load carried?

If so, I'm going to get a couple of backwater bomber squadrons started on LowNav training right away.  [:)]

I´ve had Bolos with 2x500lb bombs achieve loads of hits on an enemy xAKL TF just recently. Not skip bombing at 100ft but bombing at 1000ft. Due to lownav skill also valid for skip bombing, I doubt they would have scored less hits on 100ft. Haven´t tested it though so I can´t be sure about. If they would score less hits it could be a flaw though.

Anyway, halve the bombload isn´t really a disadvantage with my 70skilled crews. A B-25 still drops 3 bombs and that´s easily enough to score hits. A B-25D1 drops it´s full load.

[JohnDillworth]

So is the consensus that given high skill values for LowNav, bombing from 100' increases accuracy and number of hits enough to outweigh the 50% bomb load carried?

If so, I'm going to get a couple of backwater bomber squadrons started on LowNav training right away.  

I think so. I have a bunch training now and it's April 42. I am getting hits at 100ft from B-26's. The combat report does not mention skip bombing so I presume it is just regular bombing for now. Some of the pilots have low N at highs 60's low 70's so in a few months I should have some hard core skip bombers

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: USS America

So is the consensus that given high skill values for LowNav, bombing from 100' increases accuracy and number of hits enough to outweigh the 50% bomb load carried?

Something else I'd like to see the justification for. When LeMay brought his B-29's down to lower level night attacks they were able to INCREASE the bomb load, not decrease it.

[USSAmerica]

Probably a game balance mechanism to keep low level naval bombing from taking over the game.

[JohnDillworth]

Probably a game balance mechanism to keep low level naval bombing from taking over the game.

Perhaps, like I said, I am going to train like hell for it to create the optimum conditions and pilots. If it does not work then it is a "feature".
The way I see it is the chance to make allies "Netties". Long reach medium range aircraft that are deadly to unprotected shipping. Of course by the time the conditions are right, the Japanese offense bold is hot. At least against the AI

[Rob Brennan UK]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: USS America

So is the consensus that given high skill values for LowNav, bombing from 100' increases accuracy and number of hits enough to outweigh the 50% bomb load carried?

Something else I'd like to see the justification for. When LeMay brought his B-29's down to lower level night attacks they were able to INCREASE the bomb load, not decrease it.

By flying through thicker air and avoiding the jet stream. Going from 10k alt to 100ft does make a differance in air density but no where near enough as the B29's did under LeMay.

Also flying at wave top height really takes a toll on pilot fatigue and a plane needs as much agility as possible to avoid crashing into the waves. Maybe this is the raison-d'etre for 1/2 bomb load.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

By flying through thicker air and avoiding the jet stream. Going from 10k alt to 100ft does make a differance in air density but no where near enough as the B29's did under LeMay. Agreed..., but it in no way justifies HALVING the bombload...

Also flying at wave top height really takes a toll on pilot fatigue and a plane needs as much agility as possible to avoid crashing into the waves. Maybe this is the raison-d'etre for 1/2 bomb load.

Except that they didn't fly the whole mission at "wave-top height"..., just a few minutes during the attack itself. We need a better justification than that, Rob. It might make some sense for the "gunships" with their heavy armament and ammunition loadout..., but then where are the hundreds of .50 cal "hits" we should be seeing? And why do most of them never drop ANY bombs at all?

[rtrapasso]

The USAAF didn't work out skip bombing until 1943 (iirc)... it isn't just dropping bombs from low altitude, they also had to make special delay fuses so that you didn't blow yourself up with your target... not sure they always got it right though, as some folks have pointed out... i expect a normally fused bomb would explode when it hit the water rather than skip.

The Brits WERE bombing from "masthead height" from the beginning of the Pacific war, but they hadn't developed the "skip" technique, i AFAIK they didn't have special bombs... their results weren't nearly as good as the later "skip" technique. i expect they had a lot of problems with the bombers being damaged with their own bombs... i don't recall the exact details, but i am pretty sure they pretty much abandoned it due to high casualties.

Back in the OLD WITP, i think it was specifically stated (on at least one occasion) that the restrictions on skip bombing were a play-balance issue.

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Back in the OLD WITP, i think it was specifically stated (on at least one occasion) that the restrictions on skip bombing were a play-balance issue.

Ok, I'm seriously NOT trying to be argumentative here. I've already made mention I'm an AFB, so my POV may be wrong, but how can you set up a balance issue where the Japanese side has so many advantages ( Kate accuracy, aerial torpedo accuracy, AV values, RORSAT capabilities etc) and keep taking away what ever the allied side found that worked and overcame their deficiencies (doctrine, torpedoes etc.) . From my amateur POV this appears sorta biased.

[Central Blue]

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

you have to train strafe too

How does one train to strafe?

Fill up a few of your restricted fighter units with low air skill pilots and set them to train on strafing. You can then rotate them into the early bomber units that you know will upgrade to an attack bomber when they reach strafing skill=60 and begin training them for low nav, low ground, nav search, and then general to polish their air skill and max their defense and experience. By the time you have sufficient numbers of attack bombers for sustained operations you should have a nicely trained cadre. You will certainly have a fine force for a surge like the Battle of the Bismark Sea.