'Tis light as a feather... No Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Strategic Bombing combat modelling....

Post by Nemo121 »

October 4th 1945....

Today was a great day for Japan ( not that I told PH that ).

1. My ambush off the Aleutians worked moderately well... not as well as I would have liked but we can't have everything.

2. The USN is beginning to sniff around the Kuriles and confirming some of my strategic assessments re: likely landing sites. I have to play the level of resistance just right though. I want to give him the right values so that his strategic calculus yields the results I want. Too much or too little and he'll go somewhere I don't want.

3. The USAAF began sweeping Japan in order to break the backbone of Japan's fighter force before the bombers come back. Excellent, every day he sweeps is another day for me to get truly formidable fighters into service. AGain, the key will be feeding him enough pilots and planes to get him to think his attacks are a great success whilst not actually allowing them to cripple my fighter force. A difficult task but one which should be enjoyable to try. I plan to do this by sending up large numbers of utterly expendable Ki-61s, A6M5s and suchlike ( utterly expendable because they don't have sufficient armour or armament to be bomber killers, aren't fast enough or manoeuvrable enough to tangle with fighters and don't carry sufficient bombs to be useful kamis ) with poor pilots ( 40 Exp, 40 A2A skill rookies ) and let them be shot down in droves. This will show him excellent exchange rates whilst not actually touching the core of my fighter force ( the guys I'm looking to move into J7W1s, Ki-94IIs etc ). My bet is that if I preserve the cream of the crop at the expense of losing the middle-quality guys ( 40 to 50 Exp ) I can fend his fighters and bombers off and buy enough time to train up the utter rookies ( 20 to 30 Exp ) guys. It is a gamble but I have to offer some resistance to buy myself the time I need to build some J7W1 and Ki-94 squadrons (I'm already making an average of 12 J7W1 per day and should make about 22 Ki-94 II per day once they begin production---- any day now ).

If you look at the losses from today you will see that, initially, the losses look massively in PH's favour. He lost 36 planes to 230 Japanese planes. That is a more than 6:1 exchange rate. Look at it in more detail though.... 72 of my planes were kamis. So, they don't count toward the A2A total. Still, that leaves him with a loss of 36 planes to destroy 158. That's still about 4.5 to 1. Pretty good isn't it? Well, not when you look deeper.

The Ki-84as made a very obvious move into Shanghai ( along with Ki-115 amphibians ) in the hopes of diverting the Allied bombers from the Home Islands - which they did successfully. So those 31 planes were the cost of a maskirovka. I've identified that the maskirovka works and have also found out a cheaper way to make it work next time ( basically using amphibians which won't be destroyed when he bombs the airfield since they aren't based at the airfield ). That takes it down to 36: 127 ( and I didn't lose a single pilot from the Ki-84a squadron as I'd taken steps to place them beyond the reach of his 500lbers ).


When you look at the other planes I've lost only the N1K5J ( 15) and Ki-84r ( 9 ) are even first-line now ( and they'll be very much second-line once the J7W1 and Ki-94 II fully enter service ). In total I lost 24 planes I would be willing to put into the air at the end of the month. Everything else I lost was either a kamikaze or a plane which has no more utility come November 1945.


In terms of pilots I lost about 110 pilots. Of them 72 flew kamis. So I only lost 38 pilots killed from those who flew fighters vs the Allies. Of those 38 only about 12 came from the Georges or Franks. The rest were utterly expendable. Obviously it'd be better if I didn't have to make these sorts of trade-offs ( pilots and planes for strategic breathing room ) but Japan in Armaggedon doesn't have ANY good options left. It is all about choosing the least worst option. I think this mix of pilot and plane losses is my best chance to encourage sweeps without actually letting those sweeps achieve anything of value.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Adak Island at 162,52

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 24 minutes

Japanese aircraft
D4Y4 Judy x 30



Japanese aircraft losses
D4Y4 Judy: 18 destroyed

Allied Ships
DE William C. Miller
TK Esso Richmond, Kamikaze hits 1, heavy fires
TK Watertown
TK Elizabeth Kellogg
DE Martin
DE Lyman
TK Spencer Kellogg
DE Mitchell
TK Brandywine
DE Manlove
TK Gulfbelle
TK Ruth Kellogg



Aircraft Attacking:
26 x D4Y4 Judy flying as kamikaze
Kamikaze: 1 x 800 kg GP Bomb

Hmm, the Judys did very poorly. I had sent them as I was hoping for some CVEs and had visions of 800 Kg bombs turning 3 or 4 CVEs into artificial reefs. Ah well, I suppose not every raid can be a success.


Heavy smoke from fires obscuring TK Esso Richmond


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Adak Island at 162,52

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 42,400 feet.
Estimated time to target is 20 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIIa Oscar x 42

42 flew to get 23 hits. An EXCELLENT result which justifies my kamikaze training. This is the first unit I put into action which had a significant number of "trained" kamikaze pilots ( defined as pilots with LOW NAVAL SKILL of 50. Faced with no fighter opposition and almost no FlAK these kamis really had a field day.



Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-IIIa Oscar: 25 destroyed

Allied Ships
xAK George H. Powell, Kamikaze hits 2, on fire
TK Ruth Kellogg, Kamikaze hits 1, heavy fires
xAK George E. Waldo, Kamikaze hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

SC PC-786
xAK George L. Curry, Kamikaze hits 1
xAK George Davidson, Kamikaze hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
xAK George M. Pullman, Kamikaze hits 2, on fire

SC PC-787
xAK George Middlemas, Kamikaze hits 3, and is sunk
SC-1273, Kamikaze hits 1, and is sunk
xAK George H. Himes, Kamikaze hits 1, on fire
SC-1067, Kamikaze hits 1, and is sunk

xAK George D. Prentice
xAK George H. Williams, Kamikaze hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
SC PC-784
SC-1069
SC PC-788
DE Martin, Kamikaze hits 1, heavy damage
DE Mitchell
TK Caliche, Kamikaze hits 1, heavy fires
DE William C. Miller
TK Spencer Kellogg, Kamikaze hits 1, heavy fires


Aircraft Attacking:
42 x Ki-43-IIIa Oscar flying as kamikaze
Kamikaze: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb

I know that 3 ships sank immediately following this attack. I suspect that any of the xAKs which suffered three hits will also sink and the ones which suffered 2 hits should be in danger also although most of those will probably survive. Several of the TK which were hit had their fuel cargos catch fire also so they will probably sink. All in all I expect 3 TK, 3xAK and the 2 SC to sink following this attack. 8 ships for 80 planes. Not a bad exchange rate for me. Not bad at all.



Kamikazes committed:
Ki-43 IIIa: 42
A6M7: 14
D4Y4: 30

Escorts:
0

Escorts Lost:
0


Total Kamis Committed: 86
High Approach ( >30,000 feet ): 86
Medium Approach ( 1,000 feet to 30,000 feet ) : 0
Low ( 100 to 1,000 feet ) : 0

Hits:
H: 25
M: 0
L: 0

Kamis destroyed by Allied fighters: 12

Kamis destroyed by FlAK: 4

Kamis which attacked ships: 70

Kamis which hit ships: 25


Number of Ships attacked:
xAK: 10
TK: 9
DE: 7
SC: 7

NB: If a ship was attacked by two different kami groups in the same day it still counts as two attacks. The idea here is to give an estimate of the number of times ships were subjected to attack by kamis.


Number of hits achieved:
xAK: 18
TK: 4
DE: 1
SC: 2

NB: If a single ship was hit 3 times then it will be counted as 3 separate hits here.


Ships confirmed sunk:
xAK: 1
SC: 2


P.s. The green square is a CV TF he keeps pushing into the Yellow Sea... Definitely staking a claim there. It is just outside of easy kami range from Shanghai and Saishu To so I'm leaving it be. If he moves another 2 hexes north though I may make an effort to take out the CV TF. For right now it doesn't impact my plans at all and gives him a sense of achievement and security so allowing it to live is the better option. Only when he threatens something I really NEED ( or gives me the opportunity for a quick victory as at the Aleutians) will I resist him.

Image
Attachments
arma.jpg
arma.jpg (105.55 KiB) Viewed 275 times
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
FatR
Posts: 2522
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:04 am
Location: St.Petersburg, Russia

RE: Strategic Bombing combat modelling....

Post by FatR »

Amphibious planes do get destroyed in airfield attacks all the time, any of them. What made you think otherwise?
The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Strategic Bombing combat modelling....

Post by Nemo121 »

Hmm, it must be damned rare then. I haven't had it happen once in the current game...

Well the next day was very quiet. He did a few more sweeps near Nagasaki and I brought in some fresh units to counter them... nothing overwhelming. I also committed my "last" unit of J7W1s ( the last of the two which began the game with J7W1s ) to action and did some psyops surrounding its employment. In the meantime 12 J7Ws are coming off the assembly line every day and by week's end a solid core of 100 of them will be ready for deployment over Osaka.

My spidey sense is tingling. I think we're 1 to 2 weeks from an invasion. My training needs another month to complete the current training cycle but, such is life, we'll go with what we have. Anyways, since I sense an attack I'm beginning to deploy bomber formations from their training bases into bases slightly closer to the front.

In terms of kamis today about 50 wasted themselves on a PT TF. None hit of course. I hope he doesn't use this as a dodge when he invades. It would screw up the kami attacks immensely.

Kamikazes committed:
Ohka: 29
ki-115: 14
Ki-43 IIIa: 42
A6M7: 14
D4Y4: 30

Escorts:
0

Escorts Lost:
0


Total Kamis Committed: 86
High Approach ( >30,000 feet ): 86
Medium Approach ( 1,000 feet to 30,000 feet ) : 0
Low ( 100 to 1,000 feet ) : 43

Hits:
H: 25
M: 0
L: 0

Kamis destroyed by Allied fighters: 12

Kamis destroyed by FlAK: 6

Kamis which attacked ships: 111

Kamis which hit ships: 25


Number of Ships attacked:
xAK: 10
TK: 9
DE: 7
SC: 7
PT: 6

NB: If a ship was attacked by two different kami groups in the same day it still counts as two attacks. The idea here is to give an estimate of the number of times ships were subjected to attack by kamis.


Number of hits achieved:
xAK: 18
TK: 4
DE: 1
SC: 2

NB: If a single ship was hit 3 times then it will be counted as 3 separate hits here.


Ships confirmed sunk:
xAK: 1
SC: 2
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
Captain Cruft
Posts: 3749
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: England

RE: Strategic Bombing combat modelling....

Post by Captain Cruft »

I am a bit underwhelmed with the Shinden playing Downfall. They don't do too well against fighters it seems, even with good pilots, or at least not well enough to make a difference. This might be something to do with the low manouver rating perhaps?

The Me-262s on the other hand consistently kick butt, they just a week to recover from each mission ...
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Strategic Bombing combat modelling....

Post by Nemo121 »

The problem with the Shinden is the 30mm cannon. They are in the centreline but since the base accuracy of the 30mm is so low it only generates as much of a hit % as wing-mounted 20mm cannon.

What this really means is that the Shinden was optimised for anti-bomber duties


Of course, in real life, the situation dictated the armament and it'd have been child's play to swap out the 4 x 30mm cannon for 6 x 20mm cannon during the design.


In the next iteration of EA ( due out later tonight ) I swapped out the 4 x 30mm cannon for 6 x 20mm cannon. I left everything else the same. I think the difference in outcomes in fighter vs fighter battles speaks for itself and the outcome vs bombers isn't that much worse.


Of course the thing with the Shinden is that it isn't an ueber-fighter ( and neither is the Ki-94 II ). They just happen to be the best fighters the IJAAF and IJNAF have in the closing stages of the war which can afford to be produced. The Ki-201 is excellent but its requirement of two engines and serviceability doom it.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Strategic Bombing combat modelling....

Post by Nemo121 »

Hmm, anyone know how to attach a zip file containing the scenario files?

Either that or PM me and I'll mail it to you.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
Captain Cruft
Posts: 3749
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: England

RE: Strategic Bombing combat modelling....

Post by Captain Cruft »

Rename it to .TXT - must be < 1,000kb
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Strategic Bombing combat modelling....

Post by Nemo121 »

Ok, lets see if that works.


In other news I managed to get a half-dozen A6M7 kamis into a CVE TF but unfortunately they all dived into the sea. USAAF fighter sweeps continue and I continue to feed them about 20 poor ( Ki-43 IV, Ki-61c/ds, A6M5s ) and 20 good ( Ki-84, N1K5 etc ) fighters a day. In return about 30 P51Ds and P51Hs go down a day. Overall I'd have to put that in the win column for me.

The bombers stood down today. Weather was rotten though so I figure weather just scrubbed the mission. I'm down to under 2/3rds of my starting HI but I'm still managing to save just under 40% with armaments turned off ( as I have 60,000 armaments in reserve and will let that draw down a little before I begin production up again. ). That'll drop to just under 30% once the Ki-94 II enters service as building 500 of those per month is going to be a major drain on resources.

I'm also beginning to filter the first significant number of graduates from the kami training programme ( >50 LOW NAVAL skill ) into my Ohka, Tsurugi and Patsy squadrons. The Ki-43 IIIs are getting a few as well.

Defences are building nicely and after turning off ALL reinforcements across the map it looks like the issue I had with thousands of unnecessary IJA Engineer Squads being built may have corrected itself. I'll slowly begin turning on reinforcements in one base after another along the primary invasion corridor until I can figure out what triggered the bug.


My prediction for tomorrow... A B29 raid on Shimonosoeki. I've been docking hundreds of ships there as a lure and pulled out all but about 50 expendables today. Hopefully that'll lure the B29s in to a 400 fighter CAP.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
Captain Cruft
Posts: 3749
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: England

RE: Strategic Bombing combat modelling....

Post by Captain Cruft »

Downloaded OK but won't load. Think this is due to missing AI data file - aei070.dat
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Strategic Bombing combat modelling....

Post by Nemo121 »

This should work.
Attachments
Armaggedon.txt
(768.66 KiB) Downloaded 12 times
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Strategic Bombing combat modelling....

Post by Nemo121 »

Well, the game isn't dead. PH has had the turn for a week today but tells me he should get it back to me by the end of the weekend. I think he's been busy with family obligations. I think in the meantime I'll have forgotten all my plans though [8D]

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Strategic Bombing combat modelling....

Post by Nemo121 »

Well, the Allies swept Nagasaki with about 200 fighters. My fighters there contested the enemy strikes and about 100 were shot down. In return about 35 P-51 Hs and 15 P-47s were downed. I lost 30 Ki-84s, 30 N1K5Js, 5 or so J7W1 and about 15 or so A6M8s and A7M2s. My pilot losses weren't too bad. About 1/3rd were KIA, 1/3rd WIA and 1/3rd still in action.

I'm pulling these airgroups out to rebuild and will replace them from central Japan. As things stand now a bit of a pattern is being created. Airgroups are reformed and rebuilt in eastern Japan, they move into central Japan once their planes and pilots are back to full strength and then they move to western Japan ( Nagasaki etc ) when the airgroups in western Japan have been mauled. Usually an airgroup will survive two days of combat in western Japan before it has so many damaged airframes that it is better to move it by rail all the way west and replace it with a rebuilt squadron.

Of course soon PH will vary things up with bomber raids into central and eastern Japan but I'm strong enough there to make those costly also.


Still no sign of the Ki-94 II. Damn it. I NEED that plane.


In other news only 3 kamis launched today but they all got through a strong CAP of over 100 fighters and one Ki-74 managed to hit an enemy Tanker. Otherwise things are going well. HI is up over 40,000, manpower is climbing again as almost all replacements are turned off and my naval movement of troops and material is continuing almost unabated without interference.

Image
Attachments
arma.jpg
arma.jpg (120.1 KiB) Viewed 275 times
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Strategic Bombing combat modelling....

Post by Nemo121 »

I'll give a full report later. Basically today comprised PH smashing Keijo with B-29s. They wiped out 91 HI at 20,000 feet ( hardly underpowered). In one way I feel a bit sorry for him cause he doesn't realise yet just how rapidly his desire to fly at 20,000 feet with B29s is going to let me take him apart in our mirror game. Ah well, that's for later.

I lost 3 subs today but managed to sink a CVE and a DD in return. 30 x F4U4 Corsairs went down with the CVE which means that that CVE was mounting an all-fighter airgroup...

Elsewhere I lost the usual 100+ fighters in A2A in return for 31 USAAF P51Hs and P-47s. I continue to build up my J7W1 units in Tokyo, slowly filtering them forward into Osaka once they are fully repaired. Until I have Tokyo and Osaka covered with them I won't be venturing any farther forward. I am fine with losing pilots over Nagasaki at this rate for another fortnight or so. Why a fortnight? Simple, the Ki-94 II went into service today... In a fortnight's time I'll be able to put 200 Ki-94IIs into the air over a single base and ambush his fighter force. Until then I'm playing my cards close to my chest with respect to the Ki-94s.


The Allies counter-invaded in the Aleutians and took one of the islands off me and got very brave and pushed forward into an island just 2 hexes from Kyushu. They ran into an entrenched regiment and tomorrow I plan to:
a) airlift in another regiment,
b) sweep, sweep, sweep the skies over this island and
c) send in roughly 200 Ki-43 kamikazes and 100 Ohkas.
d) commit conventional strike groups.

If he sticks around he's going to find the surface group he committed to the invasion significantly attrited tomorrow. Since I still hold the island ( and the initial Allied attack failed ) I believe I can order a sweep and STILL recover my own downed pilots - which will keep my pilot losses low.


The entry of the Ki-94 II into the war combined with the J7W1 changes the aerial math significantly. Basically I am making 539 Ki-94 II per month and 317 J7W1s. That is a total of 850 first-rate fighters ( equivalent to the P-51 H ) per month. They should be a little superior to the P47N and P-51D. This should reduce my losses significantly. Right now I'm losing about 50 second-line ( Ki-84r, N1K5J, A7M2, Ki-100II ) planes per day with an additional 50 third-line ( J2M5, Ki-61s, A6Ms fighters ) per day. I should be able to eliminate the third-line losses, reduce the second-line losses and incur about 30 first-line losses per day if I choose to oppose his strikes.

Overall going from 100+ fighters a day lost to about 60 per day ( 30 pilots per day ) lost whilst blunting the P-51 H sweeps is a bargain I'll take.

As time goes by and the Ki-84r becomes more outdated ( I don't really find it that effective ) I'll transition its production ( an additional 260 fighters ) to kamikazes. That'll give the IJAAF 500 fighter kamis per month which can fly high and fast - the best combination for kami missions.

27 Ki-74s sortied and all but 1 got through the enemy CAP. Unfortunately only 2 hit their targets. Still, an AKA and a USN CL took a solid hit each. In other news the USN is beginning to venture farther and farther north into the Yellow Sea. I'm letting them, no point cutting off fingers when a little patience could let me cut off the whole hand.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
jrcar
Posts: 2301
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: Seymour, Australia

RE: Strategic Bombing combat modelling....

Post by jrcar »

I'm looking forward to seeing the Aleution plan unfold...

Cheers

Rob
AE BETA Breaker
User avatar
SoliInvictus202
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:24 pm
Location: Austria

RE: Strategic Bombing combat modelling....

Post by SoliInvictus202 »

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
I lost 3 subs today but managed to sink a CVE and a DD in return. 30 x F4U4 Corsairs went down with the CVE which means that that CVE was mounting an all-fighter airgroup...




who's your opponent again? [:D]
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 11130
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Strategic Bombing combat modelling....

Post by PaxMondo »

How would you rate the Tsurugi as a Kami?&nbsp; On paper it looks good, but ...
Pax
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Strategic Bombing combat modelling....

Post by Nemo121 »

Rob,
I see how what I wrote could be confusing... I'm not going to fight him in the Aleutians... That operation was just an opportunity to get a shot at some CVEs/CVLs I saw stooging around there and also an attempt to gauge whether he was building up bases there etc etc.

No, I'm going to hit the landing 92 miles from Kyushu hard. I amn't able to gather quite as many forces as I would have preferred as, rather unfortunately, my 6 primary kamikaze units ( 4 x Ki-43 III units, 1 x D4Y4 unit and 1 x B7A2 unit ) were all in the process of upgrading/rebuilding after attacks so they are only able to commit about 50% of their force to this attack. Still it looks like I should be able to commit about 75 Ki-43 IIIs, 20 dive-bombers, a dozen or more single-engined torpedo bombers and about 100 twin-engined kamis ( G4Ms or Frances ). In addition I am trying to concentrate a significant conventional strike group - something on the order of 600 to 700 planes if I can manage it.

I've been waiting for the opportunity to get a US Army formation stranded on a beach... What I mean by this is a situation where I hold the base, can bring more troops in and bog the Allies down such that they have to commit further amphibious assets and SC TFs to either reinforce or rescue the troops trapped on the beach. This is my first proper opportunity to do so and will serve as a small testbed for the response I am planning when he hits my real defences.

I'll detail the precise makeup of forces committed to this action once I finish moving them into position...


SoliInvictus...
Well, to be fair to PH that CVE might have been carrying a replenishment squadron. Even if it wasn't it is quite a different thing to post a large Marine squadron on a CVE taking up all its space as opposed to puttin 90 fighters on a CV. Personally I see nothing wrong with doing what he did and his views, expressed in another thread, wouldn't stop me doing so so I don't mind him doing it.

In other news he emailed me today saying that in another PBEM he is playing he is seeing four-engined bombers interacting inappropriately with fighters ( far too many fighters, especially the twin-engined Zerstoerer types ) getting damaged before they even get a shot off. I look forward to seeing what he makes of the mods in the current iteration of EA.


PaxMondo:
The Ki-115 is ok but not great. For any kamikaze attack there are three phases each of which needs to be transitioned in order to get a hit.
1. A2A phase. The higher and faster you fly the less likely the enemy CAP will intercept you. Low level strikes ( 100 feet ingress ) gets spotted far too easily by radar with the end result that low level strikes get intercepted far too readily by CAP. WW2 radars simply weren't that effective at spotting low-flying airplanes and most definitely there is no modifier for ships in a coastal hex vs low level attacks ( in reality these low level attacks would get lost in ground clutter and only become visible when they flew over water - by which time it was often too late to attack them ). With that said radar works well for most situations, it just doesn't suffer sufficient limitations vs low level attacks IMO.

Ki-115s don't fly particularly high or fast and so they are quite prone to being spotted and intercepted quite some distance from the target. Most Ki-115s I've sent out have been shot down by CAP before diving on their targets. This contrasts sharply with my experience of Ki-74s and Ki-43 IIIs which can fly high and fast enough to get through the CAP before it concentrate.


2. FlAK. The Ki-115 is fragile. It often gets blasted out of the air by FlAK when Ki-43 IIIs and Ki-74s survive. It does better than the Ohka and other low-level only attackers though.


3. Damage done.... The Ki-115 beats the Ki-43III and Ki-74 here. If you can get rid of the CAP and wear the enemy AAA ammunition levels down then Ki-115s will do very well. Also bear in mind you can build two Ki-115s for the cost of a single Ki-43 III. Hitting with an 800 Kg bomb means putting anything less than a BB into a repair yard and one hit may even stop a CV from operating. Two definitely will.


Overall though I think the Ki-115 is a middling performer which is cheap. It has a place in mass attacks but it isn't going to break through CAP in the way that high-flying Ki-43 IIIs or Ki-74s will OR that Ohkas will in V1.1 of EA ( Since the speed calculation vs %interception is borked I modified them to have huge manouevrability - above the statistical knuckle in the code - such that they can evade interception as one would expect a rocket bomb to be able to do on occasion ) and doesn't match the FlAK survivability of any of those three. It does however hit harder than the Ki-74 and Ki-43 III.

I would make a few of them but, really, my kami efforts are as follows:
1. Building 240 or so Ki-43 IIIs per month.
2. Building 192 Ki-74s per month
3. Building 350 or so Ohkas per month.
4. Using some of the 240 Ki-84rs built per month as Ohkas in months to come once the Ki-94 has replaced it in squadron service.

In terms of Ki-115s I'm building about 30 per month... Just enough to keep a squadron or two going which can't upgrade to anything else.

Overall though my view is that the Ohkas can devastate amphibious invasion TFs while they are unloading so that's why I build them and the 670 Ki-43 IIIs, Ki-84s and Ki-74s can fly high and fast enough to range out to Okinawa and hit enemy TFs there in spite of USN CAP. I haven't launched any full-scale attacks like that since I want to lure him in but I do have a line in mind which, when crossed, will see me mass all of my kami squadrons ( about 500 kamis ( this excludes the large number of Ohkas as they don't have the range for a long-range strike ) ) and send them in on a concentrated attack, with escorts, against the nearest USN CV TF.

Right now though I have to shuffle a few more air units around so I can attack the invasion TFs off Kyushu.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Strategic Bombing combat modelling....

Post by Nemo121 »

Question... Is there some altitude level where dive-bombers will level bomb?

I am VERY leery of sending them into the range of all the USN FlAK and am wondering about setting the torpedo and dive-bombers to level-bomb the USN shipping.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: Strategic Bombing combat modelling....

Post by Alfred »

According to a michaelm post, either bomb from over 20k or 1-9k.

Based on your criteria, you will have to go to at least 21K. Unless if you are satisfied with a glide bomb, in which case you can set to 15-19k.

Alfred
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Strategic Bombing combat modelling....

Post by Nemo121 »

Ok I've done a tally...

So, I have 744 fighters ordered to sweep - 97 Jacks, 28 Shindens, 382 Franks, 79 Ki-100s, 50 Ki-61 IIs, 53 Nicks and 56 A6M5s. Additionally i have 100 Ki-43 IVs escorting two different bases worth of raids.

I have about 200 Jills and Graces going in on bombing runs at 7,000 feet ( above Bofors and 20mm fire ), 350 Judys in action and 77 Seirans bombing. I have 325 or so Netties and torpedo-carrying Peggys. In addition I have 25 G9Ms. I have 200 Helens and Sallys and 23 Peggys conducting ground attack missions on the US forces ashore. Lastly, in terms of kamis I have about 40 Ki-115s, 40 Ohkas ( with another 150 ready to join in tomorrow ), 80 Ki-43 IIIs, about 20 Ki-74s and a small assortment of Vals, Kates etc available as kamis. On day 1 I can only commit 200 kamis to the battle but on Day 2 that should rise to about 300. I was caught in the middle of an upgrade cycle so my forces aren't all ready.

My hope is to simply swamp the CAP ( which has better pilots and planes ) with my sweeps and then mob the shipping such that my inferior pilots can get enough hits to sink whatever is there. Given that I am committing over 2,000 planes to the strikes tomorrow I expect to have a fair chance of swamping the CAP and getting stuck into the transports, escorts and ground troops. If I don't succeed I wil be committing the remnants of the IJN the next day to interfere with the amphibious TFs.

Elements of 3 additional Brigades are being flown in to bolster the Brigade already there.

My biggest worry is that all of my strike groups might make for a USN CV TF instead of the island itself. If that happens I could be slaughtered...
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”