A few newbie questions

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: brian800000

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Assign 20% of the squadron to rest and their fatigue level and operational losses should reduce.  I do that and have now built up quite a surplus of patrol planes (early '44).

When I put the sqadrons on 50% search, what are they doing with the other 50% of their time? I assumed it was basically rest.

Unless you specify a percentage to rest, the remaining pilots/planes are on standby to launch what ever primary mission type you have selected for the squadron. Even if that mission is Naval Search and you set 50% to Search, the other 50% are not stood down, and sleeping, etc, but are "ready" to launch. There is much more benefit for reducing fatigue and morale problems if you specifically order a percentage to rest.

[henry1611]

ORIGINAL: USS America

Unless you specify a percentage to rest, the remaining pilots/planes are on standby to launch what ever primary mission type you have selected for the squadron. Even if that mission is Naval Search and you set 50% to Search, the other 50% are not stood down, and sleeping, etc, but are "ready" to launch. There is much more benefit for reducing fatigue and morale problems if you specifically order a percentage to rest.

This is the approach I have used in the past, and the approach that would seem to make the most sense. However, with this approach I have not seen the number of missions spread evenly among the pilots.

Take a squadron with a Training mission set at 30% Train/70% Rest over several turns. In my experience, the 30% of pilots who flew the mission on the first turn are largely the same 30% of pilots who fly missions on subsequent turns. The majority of the remaining pilots (i.e., those who rested on the first turn) do not fly missions on subsequent turns. I do not see an even spread of missions among all of the pilots over several turns. Some pilots fly 12 missions, while other pilots fly 0 missions.

Recently, I have started to set the squadron at 30% Train while leaving the other patrol levels at 0%. With that setting, I have seen all of the pilots rotate through flying missions. The number of missions, experience increase and fatigue seem to be spread more evenly among the pilots with this approach.

I have not done an in-depth study of this by any means, so I can't say with certainty that this is the result for all percentage settings or all types of missions. It is just what I have seen, especially on Training, Naval Search, ASW and CAP missions.

I use "Rest" to limit the number of pilots/planes that will fly a mission on a particular turn. If I want a naval strike by only half the squadron and I want the remaining half to not fly at all, I will set the squadron at 50% Rest.

Has anyone else used this approach or should I go back to setting the squadron to at least some percentage of rest?

[inqistor]

ORIGINAL: brian800000
In regards to #1, the west coast units are crashing quite a bit as well. A few squadrons are closing in on 50% op losses in less than 3 months.

Extended range is the problem. I do not think normal mission range can have great impact. Not, when you actually not fighting at that distance.

In regards to #2, I'm referring to units for which rest mode isn't an option. For example, those at Singapore while it is under siege. What is best to do with those units? (I'm not discussing those that are completely ineffective that should be evacuated, but those that are perhaps 60/90, that could be much better with repairs but are still useful in their current state).

Not much you can do. Putting them in reserve will keep them from being targeted. But with enemy presence repairs are slow.

[brian800000]

This is good stuff. Thanks everybody.

[Mac Linehan]

That is still too far. Anything beyond 12 hexes is going to be iffy regarding actually spotting anything, and even 12 hexes is more than the range listed on page 217 of the manual.

The longer the search range the higher the fatigue and ultimately the greater the potentail for operational losses. At a range of 16 the marginal return IMO is not worth it.

Operational losses are also greatly affected by pilot (in)experience.

Alfred

USS America:

Unless you specify a percentage to rest, the remaining pilots/planes are on standby to launch what ever primary mission type you have selected for the squadron. Even if that mission is Naval Search and you set 50% to Search, the other 50% are not stood down, and sleeping, etc, but are "ready" to launch. There is much more benefit for reducing fatigue and morale problems if you specifically order a percentage to rest.



Alfred, USS America:

very useful clarifications. I incorrectly assumed that non assigned percentages were resting.
Thank You.

Mac

[obvert]

So earlier I was discouraged from having units on 30 CAP and 30 train, for the purpose of defending bases where attack is possible but less likely while building up the pilot experience. (I did change most to full train, then got hit by a Nell attack on two transports and lost half a base force. This is in Akyab and the Nells are in Tavoy).

Is splitting between any task (like CAP or Search) and training bad in any way? Do they perform less well, or get more fatigue or ops losses? Seems like this would be a good idea for those in between units, almost trained up, and in between bases, close enough to attack but not within any fighter range.

As for patrols in less frequented areas, seems like you could have them training for other tasks, like ASW, while on 30 or 50 search. So something like 40 search, 30 train ASW, 30 rest. Would this cause any problems?

[brian800000]

I had put a regiment, defense battalion, and CD unit at Canton so that it was at a little over 5,000 men. Enough supplies were there so that it wasn't practical to wipe them out. The Japanese attacked it with a large carrier fleet and landed quite a few troops, but the invasion was quickly defeated.

So the question comes up: if an enemy puts close to 6k of combat troops on an atoll, is it effectively impossible to take? If not, how do you do it?

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: brian800000

I had put a regiment, defense battalion, and CD unit at Canton so that it was at a little over 5,000 men. Enough supplies were there so that it wasn't practical to wipe them out. The Japanese attacked it with a large carrier fleet and landed quite a few troops, but the invasion was quickly defeated.

So the question comes up: if an enemy puts close to 6k of combat troops on an atoll, is it effectively impossible to take? If not, how do you do it?

A 6k garrison is roughly only 200 AV. Thus barring fortification levels and disruption, a division would suffice. To be on the safe side, a 2 division assault will defeat the 6k garrison.

Alfred

[USSAmerica]

Yes, Brian, an attacker can bring as many troops as he can carry to an atoll invasion.  He lands, kicks butt as quickly as he can, and then reloads as quickly as he can, leaving behind a garrison under the stacking limit.  This limits his severe supply burn penalty for overstacking to just a few turns. 

In general, atolls are very expensive to attack and take when well defended, but almost impossible to defend if the attacker decides to pay the extra supply costs for a few turns to bring a few divisions to the party. 

[brian800000]

Another question: I've trained a number of medium bombers for naval attack, and they are bombing at 7k. They are up to 60+ in naval bombing skill, and to date they have been highly effective in making huge splashes around enemy ships. Less effective at hitting them.

Have I done something wrong, had bad luck, or are level bombers from 7k just worthless on naval attack?

[brian800000]

Believe it or not, another question. [:)]

Before attacking a base, how do you get a sense of what is there? I'm about to land a couple of Aussie Divisions on Luganville, and have been sending a B17 group as recon to give me a heads up on what is there. I still don't have a good handle on it. But when I eventually want to attack the Marianas or the Marshall Islands, you can't send recon planes. Is there a way to get a sense of what is there besides the random SigInt report, or do you just make a guess and find out when your guys land on shore?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: brian800000

Believe it or not, another question. [:)]

Before attacking a base, how do you get a sense of what is there? I'm about to land a couple of Aussie Divisions on Luganville, and have been sending a B17 group as recon to give me a heads up on what is there. I still don't have a good handle on it. But when I eventually want to attack the Marianas or the Marshall Islands, you can't send recon planes. Is there a way to get a sense of what is there besides the random SigInt report, or do you just make a guess and find out when your guys land on shore?

By the time you're ready to invade the Marianas you'll have recon planes with a range of 32, which can base from Eniwetok.

[wdolson]

You can also train some carrier units to do recon.  There are some recon versions of navy fighters that are carrier capable.  I know the F6F-3P is.

Bill

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: brian800000

Another question: I've trained a number of medium bombers for naval attack, and they are bombing at 7k. They are up to 60+ in naval bombing skill, and to date they have been highly effective in making huge splashes around enemy ships. Less effective at hitting them.

Have I done something wrong, had bad luck, or are level bombers from 7k just worthless on naval attack?

Most people around here do use their medium bombers on naval attack. I personally think it is a misallocation of resources. If well trained in naval attack skill and operating from a low enough altitude they will get some hits but not enough to make it really worthwhile. Concentrate medium bombers on land targets, sea targets should be primarily reserved to dive and torpedo bombers (or other plane types capable of laucning a torpedo).

To get a good feel for the effectiveness of any particular tactic or strategy, you would be well rewarded in reading various AARs rather than just asking these sorts of questions out of context in this thread. AARs provide the necessary context to properly appraise your own performance and to understand why some things work better under some circumstances and not others.

Alfred

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: brian800000

Another question: I've trained a number of medium bombers for naval attack, and they are bombing at 7k. They are up to 60+ in naval bombing skill, and to date they have been highly effective in making huge splashes around enemy ships. Less effective at hitting them.

Have I done something wrong, had bad luck, or are level bombers from 7k just worthless on naval attack?

Most people around here do use their medium bombers on naval attack. I personally think it is a misallocation of resources. If well trained in naval attack skill and operating from a low enough altitude they will get some hits but not enough to make it really worthwhile. Concentrate medium bombers on land targets, sea targets should be primarily reserved to dive and torpedo bombers (or other plane types capable of laucning a torpedo).

To get a good feel for the effectiveness of any particular tactic or strategy, you would be well rewarded in reading various AARs rather than just asking these sorts of questions out of context in this thread. AARs provide the necessary context to properly appraise your own performance and to understand why some things work better under some circumstances and not others.

Alfred

MBs are useful in both roles, although I disagree that DB/TB can take over the same roles that a naval attack trained medium bomber
squad.

Range makes a real difference. If your mission is naval denial, deterrence or ASW, a good anti shipping medium bomber squad simply can
cover more territory.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: brian800000

Another question: I've trained a number of medium bombers for naval attack, and they are bombing at 7k. They are up to 60+ in naval bombing skill, and to date they have been highly effective in making huge splashes around enemy ships. Less effective at hitting them.

Have I done something wrong, had bad luck, or are level bombers from 7k just worthless on naval attack?

Most people around here do use their medium bombers on naval attack. I personally think it is a misallocation of resources. If well trained in naval attack skill and operating from a low enough altitude they will get some hits but not enough to make it really worthwhile. Concentrate medium bombers on land targets, sea targets should be primarily reserved to dive and torpedo bombers (or other plane types capable of laucning a torpedo).

To get a good feel for the effectiveness of any particular tactic or strategy, you would be well rewarded in reading various AARs rather than just asking these sorts of questions out of context in this thread. AARs provide the necessary context to properly appraise your own performance and to understand why some things work better under some circumstances and not others.

Alfred

MBs are useful in both roles, although I disagree that DB/TB can take over the same roles that a naval attack trained medium bomber
squad.

Range makes a real difference. If your mission is naval denial, deterrence or ASW, a good anti shipping medium bomber squad simply can
cover more territory.

LoBaron,

Notwithstanding my high regard for your analytical capabilities, I don't think you have quite understood my point.[:)] Remember my comment was given to an Allied player still in the early stages of the war.

Yes, as I indicated well trained medium bombers at a suitable height can land bombs on ships. And yes medium bombers do tend to have a greater range. The point is whether it is the best use of them. Consider the following factors which detract from the superficial attractiveness of using medium bombers on naval strike missions.

1. Unescorted bomber strike packages are liable to be shreded by enemy cap. The greater range of a medium bomber over that of a dive/torpedo bomber is therefore not the important range factor. What is the determinative range factor is that of the escorting fighters.

2. My specific comment distinguished between torpedo and bomb carrying medium bombers (and also PBYs etc). Against merchantmen, even 100lb GP bombs can be deadly, let alone 500lb GP bombs. Against Japanese warships, those 500lb GP bombs are much less effective, and against anything bigger than a destroyer will usually bounce off. Only dive and torpedo bombers (with a very few other planes) carry the necessary ordnance to gain full value for any hits they are capable of delivering after having run the gauntlet of Japanese CAP and AA.

3. Most medium bombers consume more supply per sortie than do dive/torpedo bombers. Hence even if they could generate the same hit ratio (which they do not) as similarly skilled dive/torpedo bombers, medium bombers are a more expensive way of delivering their ordnance on target, which even when delivered, causes on average less damage to enemy ships.

4. Most medium bomber pilots enter the game with a much higher ground attack than naval attack skill. Concentrating their primary training on ground attack rather than on naval attack will considerably shorten the time period before the unit becomes combat ready. There really is little value in throwing untrained units into combat before they are ready; doing so will generally just turn them into cannon fodder and fail to achieve their targets anyway. Appropriate player patience is necessary.

5. Against land targets (either enemy LCUs or bases) the efficiency role is reversed. For that medium bombers are superior. It seems to me to be a waste of limited Allied resources to fritter away medium bomber airframes on missions which are not their forte (when much better suited and designed airframes are available for that task) and then find themselve with a much depleted airforce to carry out those tasks they are better suited for.

Alfred

[LoBaron]

Touché Alfred. [;)]

I have only read your post and so missed the context of your response.

[brian800000]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: brian800000

Another question: I've trained a number of medium bombers for naval attack, and they are bombing at 7k. They are up to 60+ in naval bombing skill, and to date they have been highly effective in making huge splashes around enemy ships. Less effective at hitting them.

Have I done something wrong, had bad luck, or are level bombers from 7k just worthless on naval attack?

Most people around here do use their medium bombers on naval attack. I personally think it is a misallocation of resources. If well trained in naval attack skill and operating from a low enough altitude they will get some hits but not enough to make it really worthwhile. Concentrate medium bombers on land targets, sea targets should be primarily reserved to dive and torpedo bombers (or other plane types capable of laucning a torpedo).

To get a good feel for the effectiveness of any particular tactic or strategy, you would be well rewarded in reading various AARs rather than just asking these sorts of questions out of context in this thread. AARs provide the necessary context to properly appraise your own performance and to understand why some things work better under some circumstances and not others.

Alfred

Thanks Alfred, but in a sense I'm asking this more as a general inquiry rather than for specific help in my game (which at this point is more of a tutorial for me to learn how to play the game). I've spent about 3.5 months training some medium bombers up to a decent naval bomb skill. I didn't use low naval bombing because some on the forum seemed to think the results were too effective. But now at 7k I'm not getting any results against APs and AKs. Those 3.5 months seem to have been wasted.

Now against the AI I'm not too concerned about running into CAP in an unexpected place, but I know if I was a Japanese player watching wave after wave of unescorted bombers I might be inclined to sneak a nearby carrier over to provide some CAP and cut those planes to pieces. If this tactic is ineffective against the AI, it would seem to be even moreso against a human--where it would also be reckless.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: brian800000
Thanks Alfred, but in a sense I'm asking this more as a general inquiry rather than for specific help in my game (which at this point is more of a tutorial for me to learn how to play the game). I've spent about 3.5 months training some medium bombers up to a decent naval bomb skill. I didn't use low naval bombing because some on the forum seemed to think the results were too effective. But now at 7k I'm not getting any results against APs and AKs. Those 3.5 months seem to have been wasted.

Now against the AI I'm not too concerned about running into CAP in an unexpected place, but I know if I was a Japanese player watching wave after wave of unescorted bombers I might be inclined to sneak a nearby carrier over to provide some CAP and cut those planes to pieces. If this tactic is ineffective against the AI, it would seem to be even moreso against a human--where it would also be reckless.

Twin engines were used on low nav missions and were very successful if the experience was decent. Thats why its so dangerous to venture in their range.
It is quite realistic as long as you leave the heavies up where they belong. [;)]

That for example ia a nice attack from a couple of twins in our PBEM recently, as always beautifully executed by Rob...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Soerabaja at 56,104

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 16



Allied aircraft
B-339D x 4
DB-7B x 3
B-25C Mitchell x 9
Hudson III (LR) x 10


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-339D: 2 destroyed
B-25C Mitchell: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
Hudson III (LR): 1 destroyed, 4 damaged

Japanese Ships
CM Yaeyama, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
CM Itsukushima
xAK Yamagata Maru, Bomb hits 2
xAK Ryuzan Maru, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires
xAK Yamahagi Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire



Aircraft Attacking:
8 x B-25C Mitchell bombing from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
3 x DB-7B bombing from 8000 feet
Naval Attack: 4 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
8 x Hudson III (LR) bombing from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 4 x 250 lb SAP Bomb

CAP engaged:
Tainan Ku S-1 Det A with A6M2 Zero (2 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 29000 , scrambling fighters to 8000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 25 minutes
Junyo-1 with A6M2 Zero (3 airborne, 7 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 32810 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 32000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 18 minutes
4 planes vectored on to bombers

The Brewsters really made a lot of difference by tangling with the Zekes.

[LoBaron]

PS: against the AI its maybe a bit unfair because it exposes their convoys too much, but against a human its absolutely ok
as he should now about how dangerous they are.