Float plane Success

[spence]

While also remember reading that a PBY ferried torpedoes to Henderson Field during the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal I am virtually certain that the actual attacks (on BB Hiei) were carried out by TBFs.

Been looking through the VPNavy.com site which has histories of all the PBY (and other VP/VPB squadrons from WW2). Although there is ample evidence that VP type aircraft carried out a lot of attacks on ships everything I've run across so far has been attacks with bombs (except the previously mentioned Midway attack).

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

ORIGINAL: spence

The only successful torpedo attack by a PBY that history acknowledges seems to be the one that scored on the Akebono Maru at Midway.

I seem to recall reading in The Cactus Airforce that Grier's personal plane, a PBY being used to ferry torpedos into Guadalcanal, was jury rigged for manual release & got a hit. I believe this was during The Naval Battle for Guadalcanal, but I'm at the office and am going totally from memory (not good at the best of times).

See my post above.

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
See my post above.

I missed it. My apologies.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
See my post above.

I missed it. My apologies.

No, no....no apologies needed. Was just pointing out that I mentioned it, albeit with less detail than you.

I just happened to read about it very recently as I am rereading Fire in the Sky right now.

[spence]

It seems that there were (possibly) a few more torpedo attacks by PBYs.

So far there seem to be ZERO torpedo attacks by the IJN equivalents at any time during the war.
It would seem that the H6K and H8K's torpedo capability was theoretical at best, similar to the B-25s or PV-1/2's capability to carry a torpedo into battle. The Bombs/Torpedoes option does not exist for the B-25 or PV-1/PV-2 or the B-26, for that matter, which actually did carry out torpedo attacks (admittedly unsuccessful and with minimal training). Since these US bombers can not launch torpedoes in the game (and therefore have no reason to train for such attacks) what justifies the double whammy from the Japanese search planes?

[Dili]

The crews certainly weren't trained in it, their big size would also make them a wonderful target.
Maybe make a H8K version with torpedoes, but the issue is howeasy is for the crew to have torpedo capability.

Btw we had this discussion already: tm.asp?m=2451364&mpage=1&key=&#2453027

[inqistor]

ORIGINAL: srv24243

In my current Pbem i am having great success using pby's, do-24's, and the little single engine float planes in the naval combat role. It has not broken into 42 yet and my opponent is getting a little suspicious of my success. My floatplanes are getting have a 70% success rate on their runs and i am sinking at least 3-4 cargoes a turn. I set my bit float planes to 1000 feet bombs only and my single engine float planes to 100 feet. Is this kind of success rare or is there a bug, i have not changed pilots in any of the squadrons or anything but yet they seem to hit cargoes like its a walk in the park. My thinking is due to the low speed of the floatplanes and the low speed of the cargoes makes them a easy target for my bombs. its even better on rainy days when my boys can fly under the cap unmolested and plop bombs on the decks of waiting cargoes. So whats going on here and i am cheating or working the system in some way?

My guess is that defensive armament of Japanese cargo ships just can not reach planes at even mid-altitude, so they aim unopposed.

ORIGINAL: Dili

The HQ "torpedo depot rule" only affects the availability of torpedoes. It does nothing to improve the odds of a successful mission. Pilots must be highly trained in the NavT skill and also not be put off their aim by having to dodge defending fighters in order to be successful in prosecuting their torpedo attacks.

I don't see how anyone can say the game results are off because HQs can provide the supply of torpedoes. After all there still has to be a means of increasing the cost of using torpedoes and allowing Kates to access them. The HQ rule seems a fair solution to me once you realise the devs concluded it was impracticable to track in inventory a discrete torpedo device.

It seems to me that HQ rule appeared because good enough NavT skill is easier to get widespread than IRL. Players resort to use search planes to use in torpedo attack because they have success with them, but how trained a crew of a Do-24 got in torpedo warfare? There is also the deal with 2 fishes and how the game manages odds when many quantities are involved like the issues it has with bombs.
While torpedoes are rarer than a 250kg bomb they weren't rarer than a 800kg bomb, neither were dependent of an existence of an HQ nearby.

800kg bombs were pretty common. Just check CV armaments:

Unryû-class
72 × 800 kg bombs
288 × 250 kg bombs
456 × 60 kg bombs
36 × Type 91 torpedoes

Of course those were not the AP type used in Pearl Harbor.

[poodlebrain]

Japanese merchant vessels carried at most medium machine guns for AA defense in 1941, and they had nothing more than lookouts for detection of enemy aircraft. Any Allied aircraft fortunate to locate Japanese merchant shipping had an excellent opportunity to get real close before being engaged, and any engagement wasn't very effective.

[Dili]

My guess is that defensive armament of Japanese cargo ships just can not reach planes at even mid-altitude, so they aim unopposed.

At mid altitude was difficult to achieve any bomb hit for not trained crews.

800kg bombs were pretty common.

ok but still just double the number of torpedoes. Do you have a complement for one of early war carriers?

[spence]

quote:

800kg bombs were pretty common.



ok but still just double the number of torpedoes. Do you have a complement for one of early war carriers?

_____________________________

According to A Zimm in his analysis of the PH attack the performance of the 800 kg bomb warrants its own rule similar to the USN dud torpedo rule: roughly 60% duds or low order detonations amongst the bombs that hit. Naturally one bomb that did function as intended (the one that detonated the Arizona's magazine) seems to have obscured the fact that most of the rest didn't cause any significant damage to anything.

As I understand it the 800 kg bomb was a converted 16" shell; presumably main gun ammunition for the Nagato Class BBs. Since Nagato never fired in anger on anything until late 1944 there is little data to gauge the dud rate of that 16" ammunition unless one counts the one round that did blow up the HIJMS Mutsu.

So I certainly hope that the Japanese have an improved version by the mid/late war that functions better than its antecedent.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

800kg bombs were pretty common.



ok but still just double the number of torpedoes. Do you have a complement for one of early war carriers?

_____________________________

According to A Zimm in his analysis of the PH attack the performance of the 800 kg bomb warrants its own rule similar to the USN dud torpedo rule: roughly 60% duds or low order detonations amongst the bombs that hit. Naturally one bomb that did function as intended (the one that detonated the Arizona's magazine) seems to have obscured the fact that most of the rest didn't cause any significant damage to anything.

As I understand it the 800 kg bomb was a converted 16" shell; presumably main gun ammunition for the Nagato Class BBs. Since Nagato never fired in anger on anything until late 1944 there is little data to gauge the dud rate of that 16" ammunition unless one counts the one round that did blow up the HIJMS Mutsu.

So I certainly hope that the Japanese have an improved version by the mid/late war that functions better than its antecedent.

There was a production variant later, not the conversion that was used in the Pearl Attack.

Here is a US NAVY document from Dec. 45 detailing Japanese bomb types that lists this bomb. It doesn't mention the production numbers or dud rate, but does state this had a larger explosive capacity than the earlier model.

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200E-0465-0531%20Report%200-23.pdf

[mind_messing]

As the opponent here, I'll pitch in -

Looking at the first month of our game, the only thing that's really stood out has been the very high hit rates of the flying boats. I've been aggressive, pushed hard and as a result left a great deal of ships and task forces uncovered, allowing Allied strikes to sortie.

From what I've seen as a result of this, the following stand out:

- Very high hit rates from the flying boats. Whenever they fly, it's more than common for two, three or even four bomb hits on a single ship.
- The same results have not applied to other Allied aircraft types. In one incidence, 12 A-24 Banshee bombers failed to cause any hits to a IJN invasion force, while four Catalina's managed three bomb hits (one on a heavy crusier). Compared to the flying boats, the craptastic Dutch and British bombers have not made even a mild impact.
- The hit rate doesn't seem related to pilot skill, seeing as my opponent hasn't conducted any serious lownav training (or had time to, for that matter), and that the pilot skill limitation does not seem to apply to flying boats.


All in all, the results seem a little out of whack. It's rare for flying boats not to land a bomb on target in 1941-early '42, but the opposite for every other Allied bomber.

[HexHead]

I've sent PBYs against shipping and, for some reason, IJ CAP has a difficult time with them. Often, six Zeroes jump a flight of Cats and all the Cats survive to make runs. Not all the time, but surprisingly (to me) often.

Usually going in at 3000 feet or so. Maybe CAP is too high?

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: HexHead

I've sent PBYs against shipping and, for some reason, IJ CAP has a difficult time with them. Often, six Zeroes jump a flight of Cats and all the Cats survive to make runs. Not all the time, but surprisingly (to me) often.

Usually going in at 3000 feet or so. Maybe CAP is too high?

The problem isn't engaging the Cats. While they are tough to take down, even a CAP of a couple of Nates is enough to throw their aim off and damage a few.

My issue is flying boats with por lownav skills consistantly getting high rates - far higher than any other aircraft. It just seems out of whack. I've had turns where 6 Hudson bombers come in at a thousand feet and miss everything, then three Cats or Do24's attack at the same altitude and get three or four 500lb bomb hits.

[HexHead]

Even without considering historical modeling, etc., it seems a tad odd, yes.

[Lokasenna]

Bullwinkle's Seagulls messed up some of my lightly defended or undefended xAKs/xAKLs as well. And sunk a DMS or two, which is the only part of it that hurt. The hit rate did seem rather high - dropping 2x250 lb. bombs and getting on average a hit per plane seemed a bit much, but maybe he swapped pilots out. Either way, it didn't matter much. Just taught me to put some Nates on LRCAP. Pretty much anything beats off float planes and flying boats [;)].

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: spence

According to A Zimm in his analysis of the PH attack the performance of the 800 kg bomb warrants its own rule similar to the USN dud torpedo rule: roughly 60% duds or low order detonations amongst the bombs that hit. Naturally one bomb that did function as intended (the one that detonated the Arizona's magazine) seems to have obscured the fact that most of the rest didn't cause any significant damage to anything.

So not only are Kates way too accurate as level bombers, but the bombs they are using are way too effective as well. Bet that never shows up in a mod. [8|]

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: spence

According to A Zimm in his analysis of the PH attack the performance of the 800 kg bomb warrants its own rule similar to the USN dud torpedo rule: roughly 60% duds or low order detonations amongst the bombs that hit. Naturally one bomb that did function as intended (the one that detonated the Arizona's magazine) seems to have obscured the fact that most of the rest didn't cause any significant damage to anything.

So not only are Kates way too accurate as level bombers, but the bombs they are using are way too effective as well. Bet that never shows up in a mod. [8|]

Just Kates? How about Cats and Avengers as well? Keep in mind that the game doesn't really model near misses - a lot of the "hits" in a game could be near misses, which in some cases can cause more damage than a direct hit.

As for the dud bombs... does the game engine even support assigning a dud rate to a bomb? Just something players have to deal with.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

As the opponent here, I'll pitch in -

Looking at the first month of our game, the only thing that's really stood out has been the very high hit rates of the flying boats. I've been aggressive, pushed hard and as a result left a great deal of ships and task forces uncovered, allowing Allied strikes to sortie.

From what I've seen as a result of this, the following stand out:

- Very high hit rates from the flying boats. Whenever they fly, it's more than common for two, three or even four bomb hits on a single ship.
- The same results have not applied to other Allied aircraft types. In one incidence, 12 A-24 Banshee bombers failed to cause any hits to a IJN invasion force, while four Catalina's managed three bomb hits (one on a heavy crusier). Compared to the flying boats, the craptastic Dutch and British bombers have not made even a mild impact.
- The hit rate doesn't seem related to pilot skill, seeing as my opponent hasn't conducted any serious lownav training (or had time to, for that matter), and that the pilot skill limitation does not seem to apply to flying boats.


All in all, the results seem a little out of whack. It's rare for flying boats not to land a bomb on target in 1941-early '42, but the opposite for every other Allied bomber.

Don't loose sight of the fact that those Banshee drivers have skills in the 30s while the Cat drivers have skills in the 50s.

[coreyjones]

I dont think it matters much anymore.. Floatplane attacks have dropped considerably in last 10 -15 turns or so... : P Here is another question derailing the thread a bit.... if the vindicators had a max range of 44 hexes(which is godly) why is their combat radius complete crap. I cant touch the Kb unless i get at least 5 hexes close to it.. while the kates op range is about 8. No the vindicator has a max combat range of 8 hexes but with a max range of 44 shouldnt they be able to get a better combat range?