Effective ground attack

[Odin]

I´m playing Operation Cartwheel, i captured all bases at New Gunea except Madang, but my ground forces are already marching toward it.

To soften up this base, i use B-25 from Port Moresby, first at 6000 feet. After awful results, i switched them to 100 feet...see what happens:eek: :


Air Attack Madang

Allied aircraft

78 x B25
4 x A-20 (Recon)



Japanese Ground losses

1478 Troops
5 Port hits
4 Vehicles

Bloody Hell.

The 5 following raids killed each time 400-700 Troops...not bad, but can it be true?

And it seems no longer repairs on airfield and port...the port has 100% damage,no change since the 3rd Raid...

[Subchaser]

It can be FoW and japanese losses are not that ugly. Did you check how many points you got after this raid?

[Odin]

...no, i will check it next time...but would be very nice...

[Mr.Frag]

4 Vehicles

You were attacking Japan ??? Someone been messing with the editor upgrading a few engineers?

[Mike Scholl]

Originally posted by Odin
I´m playing Operation Cartwheel, i captured all bases at New Gunea except Madang, but my ground forces are already marching toward it.

To soften up this base, i use B-25 from Port Moresby, first at 6000 feet. After awful results, i switched them to 100 feet...see what happens:eek: :


Air Attack Madang

Allied aircraft

78 x B25
4 x A-20 (Recon)



Japanese Ground losses

1478 Troops
5 Port hits
4 Vehicles

Bloody Hell.

The 5 following raids killed each time 400-700 Troops...not bad, but can it be true?

And it seems no longer repairs on airfield and port...the port has 100% damage,no change since the 3rd Raid...

UNFORTUNATELY, the results you are seeing probably ARE
pretty accurate in the game. I say unfortunately, because in
historical reality, the troop losses are WAY out of line on the
high side. WWII wasn't "Desert Storm" or "Iraqi Freedom",
and despite what the Air Force fans would like to believe it was
actually very difficult to inflict large troop losses on a defending
force. They tend to spread out and get into holes in the ground
when your aircraft arrive. UV has a bad problem with this..,
especially with very low altitude air attacks. Wish they would
fix it. One of the patches helped---but troop losses are still way
too high.

[AmiralLaurent]

And even in Irak, small arms fire was able to damage Apache.

Machine-gun fire from INF units should be enough to hit many and down some of your 100-feet flying planes. Also I read somewhere that ground hits and own bombs or explosion of ground targets were responsible of 30 % of losses in FB low-level attacks. I haven't seen operationnal losses go up if you attack at low alt.

Losses by bombing are definetly too high. A B-17 attack should close an airfield or sink some ships, not kill or main 500-1000 soldiers on the ground almost every time.

One of the most destructive bombing against troops in WWII was on 25 July 1944 for the opening of the Cobra operation. German losses are estimated at 1000 killed and some thousands of wounded/POW. 843 B-17, 647 B-24 and seven 9th Air Force groups bombed the German troops (while four other medium bombers bombed in error US lines).

UV achieved the same with 5 or 10 % of the planes and on daily basis.

On the contrary, artillery bombardment losses are too low. And for example, guns of troops besieging one base should hit sometimes the port or airfield, and disable planes and ships.

[Mr.Frag]

Agreed completely. Land based bombers are completely out of control in this game. Always have been, looks like they always will be.

Patches to bring them back within fold didn't actually accomplish anything, they just altered how players put them to use. This obviously was not their goal in the patching, but players will always find a method to exploit weaknesses in game engines.

Level bombers set to attack at 100 feet over land should suffer 50+% losses coupled with an automatic 0% moral setting and a 75% fatigue setting. Couple to this a supply usage rate of 10x normal due to the requirement for special munitions required to actually bomb ground targets from this altitude.

B-17/24's should have the 100 foot setting removed completely, as no aircraft of that size with that poor a climb rate is going to be used at that altitude. The darn plane had a wing span of 103 feet, bank the plane and your wing tip is going to get hit by a wave! Flying at 100 feet is will pretty much require full power on the engines. The 24 was even worse at 110 feet. Now, for those of you who are going to debate this point, there is no way that a B-17/24 is going to fly to target at 25,000 feet where it actually flies at a decent speed, then dive down to these silly heights for attack, then climb all the way back up for the flight home. We are talking planes that have climb rates of a few hundred feet per minute. While climbing, the plane is completely helpless, flying just above stall speeds.

The smaller 2 engined bombers where used and had some effectiveness at low altitudes, but UV has a problem with scaling. They generally had climb rates 2-3 times as great as the heavies.

The fact that UV allows players to mass their aircraft and throw hundreds of bombers at a single target at this kind of an altitude is just stupid. It is impossible. Period. Just the radio chatter alone to try and organize the flow of aircraft into and out of the target area would result in every fighter within hundreds of miles being vectored in to the radio signals. They would be making enough noise that fighters would have time to fly out, intercept, return, refuel, rearm, fly out, intercept again, and still be back refueled and rearmed for CAP service over the actual base.

One other sore point here, Low flying bombers negate the greatest ability that the bombers had, flying in a combat box formation where all their guns supported each other, so there should also be a large penalty applied to their firepower.

This has got to be the biggest part of UV that I really hate. Folks who leave the planes at their default altitude, my hat's off to you, you at least try and have some reality.

[pasternakski]

Excellent post, Mr. Frag. I particularly endorse your suggestion that the 100 ft. altitude be eliminated for heavy bombers (maybe the 1000 ft. as well).

This, to me, highlights the biggest problem with the UV system's handling of LBA (and aircraft in general, for that matter). Missions and altitudes are rather "generic" across the board for all aircraft types. Yes, there is some restraint based on classification, but all in all, you have B-17s capable of flying the same mission as a Beaufighter, PB4Ys usable as massed heavy bomber squadrons, and so on.

I think that more specialization of roles needs to be built into the design. Even within general types, like "medium bombers," specific aircraft models should be limited to mission types they were actually capable of performing. B-25s and B-26s, for example, were not twin sisters. The B-25 was a much more effective aircraft in the naval strike role (and was one of the most flexible aircraft used by the Allied air forces in WWII), while the B-26 held its own in the conventional level-bomber attack of stationary targets mode, but was not an effective anti-shipping weapon. A-20s had limited bomb loads, but were suited to low-level naval attack due to their maneuverability at low altitudes and airframe toughness.

B-17s and B-24s need to be constrained to roles in which they were historically useful - lumbering massed formations at medium to high altitude striking stationary targets (including ships in port) and long-range search, recon, and, to a limited extent, ASW.

One last thing to add. The idea that everything you can throw into the air can be effective at ASW is just wrong. If nothing else, crew training acts as a limitation on this ability. Further, there are just physical limitations on some aircraft types that prevent them from being effective in this role.

In short, I think that the designers need to re-think their entire approach to aircraft capabilities as modeled in the game, along the lines that Mr. Frag suggests. It needs to be borne in mind, however, that you don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Allied LBA was extremely dangerous to the IJN, within limitations, and should not just be made ineffective across the board. B-25s should still strike fear into the hearts of Japanese TF commanders, and other aircraft types should still be good at what they were good at (Japanese LBA, particularly as reflected by Bettys and Nells, seems fairly well done, although I agree with those who think that torpedo attack ranges are rather too long).

[crsutton]

Yes, some major tweaking is in order here. Night attack are way too effective as well, generally causing more damage than daylight attacks. Neither side bombed at night that much.

However, it is important to note that land based air was the prime force in the South Pacific campaign. The land battles took place in order to capture and support airfields. Land based air severely limited naval options for both sides and especially so for the Japanese. As it is, a strong carrier TF with good CAP can operate with impunity. Surface forces can run in and plaster a base with little risk. That in itself just don't feel right. Perhaps the designers weighted the game towards the naval aspect for interest purposes as we all tend to love those ships too much. In my opinion there are a lot of things that can be tweaked a bit.

[denisonh]

Originally posted by Mr.Frag

{snip}
This has got to be the biggest part of UV that I really hate. Folks who leave the planes at their default altitude, my hat's off to you, you at least try and have some reality.

Well said Mr Frag and Pasternakski.

Although I think the default Altitude is too low for the B-17. They should be operating at 10,000 and above for most missions other than search and ASW.

And the Low level bombers should not be killing personnel but decimating planes on the ground (and cratering the runway). That was the big effect for low level bombing by the Allied bombers.

[denisonh]

Originally posted by crsutton
Yes, some major tweaking is in order here. Night attack are way too effective as well, generally causing more damage than daylight attacks. Neither side bombed at night that much.

However, it is important to note that land based air was the prime force in the South Pacific campaign. The land battles took place in order to capture and support airfields. Land based air severely limited naval options for both sides and especially so for the Japanese. As it is, a strong carrier TF with good CAP can operate with impunity. Surface forces can run in and plaster a base with little risk. That in itself just don't feel right. Perhaps the designers weighted the game towards the naval aspect for interest purposes as we all tend to love those ships too much. In my opinion there are a lot of things that can be tweaked a bit.

The 5th AF bombed Rabaul at night on a number of occaisons.

Not sure of it's effectiveness.

[Mr.Frag]

However, it is important to note that land based air was the prime force in the South Pacific campaign. The land battles took place in order to capture and support airfields

I agree with you on this point to a certain extent, but I need to be very specific as to why.

The big bombers used a few of these fields for divert purposes, landing due to battle damage as opposed to ditching at sea. They did not regularly base out of them, as it would have caused undue risk to the navy to have to ship in the bombs and fuel. They moved forward very slowly once the area had been completely secured. High fuel use and high ammo use should constrain you in being able to move the big boys forward. This is why I suggested cranking up the supply use on the big boys.

When looking at the Pacific Campaign in this area, it was a function of island hopping to forward base the smaller tactical aircraft, not the larger level bombers. I think perhaps LBA could be shifted to a size 6 airfield being required to help resolve this particular problem. Yes, you should be able to get forward airbases running somewhat quickly for a few cap groups or some dive bombers etc, converting a small base into a 200+ heavy aircraft base requires a lot more effort and commitment.

I found a strategic study conducted in 1946 as to the impact of land based bombers in the Pacific theater. Overall, they did very little. Submarines had more impact in the Pacific then the Air Force. The Marines on the other hand did quite well with their forward based aircraft on the smaller bases. Percentage wise, you could remove everything from the Pacific that had 2 or more engines and it would have the effectiveness of 1-2 submarines.

Perhaps we can fix this with a simple rule:

The current rule: aircraft = airfield size x 50

Revise this to: engines = airfield size x 30

Either this, or impose some form of restriction as to how many squadrons can base out of an airbase. (perhaps size = max number of squadrons).

Simply put, the game does not scale well in the later stages. The only real solution is making the effects more trivial and imposing some realistic handling rules.

I honestly hope they sort this one out because while it is annoying now in UV, it will be an absolute writeoff in WitP. If we will be in the situation where the USA can simply sit back and wait for some bombers then completely close off every single production point by LBA'ing it out of existance towards the close of '42, it's going to be a dead game.

[crsutton]

Originally posted by pasternakski
Excellent post, Mr. Frag. I particularly endorse your suggestion that the 100 ft. altitude be eliminated for heavy bombers (maybe the 1000 ft. as well).

This, to me, highlights the biggest problem with the UV system's handling of LBA (and aircraft in general, for that matter). Missions and altitudes are rather "generic" across the board for all aircraft types. Yes, there is some restraint based on classification, but all in all, you have B-17s capable of flying the same mission as a Beaufighter, PB4Ys usable as massed heavy bomber squadrons, and so on.

I think that more specialization of roles needs to be built into the design. Even within general types, like "medium bombers," specific aircraft models should be limited to mission types they were actually capable of performing. B-25s and B-26s, for example, were not twin sisters. The B-25 was a much more effective aircraft in the naval strike role (and was one of the most flexible aircraft used by the Allied air forces in WWII), while the B-26 held its own in the conventional level-bomber attack of stationary targets mode, but was not an effective anti-shipping weapon. A-20s had limited bomb loads, but were suited to low-level naval attack due to their maneuverability at low altitudes and airframe toughness.

B-17s and B-24s need to be constrained to roles in which they were historically useful - lumbering massed formations at medium to high altitude striking stationary targets (including ships in port) and long-range search, recon, and, to a limited extent, ASW.

One last thing to add. The idea that everything you can throw into the air can be effective at ASW is just wrong. If nothing else, crew training acts as a limitation on this ability. Further, there are just physical limitations on some aircraft types that prevent them from being effective in this role.

In short, I think that the designers need to re-think their entire approach to aircraft capabilities as modeled in the game, along the lines that Mr. Frag suggests. It needs to be borne in mind, however, that you don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Allied LBA was extremely dangerous to the IJN, within limitations, and should not just be made ineffective across the board. B-25s should still strike fear into the hearts of Japanese TF commanders, and other aircraft types should still be good at what they were good at (Japanese LBA, particularly as reflected by Bettys and Nells, seems fairly well done, although I agree with those who think that torpedo attack ranges are rather too long).

Actually, some of the first skip bombing attacks were done by B17s attacking at night in November of 42. By April of 43 skip bombing by B17s was an accepted tactic-although I don't know how common. (but certainly not at 100 feet!) Once The A20s and B25 had been upgraded to straffers with the removal of the bombadier position and the addition of machine guns, low level attacks became the norm. The Beaufighter was designed to attack low and had little or no use at altitude. The Brits were way ahead of the US in these techniques. Even the lowly whirraway was effective as a low level ground support AC. Truth is Japanese AA was never that good.

No sense putting all that hardware in the nose of a B25 and then making bomb runs at 10,000 feet. They were designed to fly low and shoot up everything in sight and that is how they were used. As Japanese air power became less effective, all Allies bombers tended to come in lower and lower.

[denisonh]

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
I agree with you on this point to a certain extent, but I need to be very specific as to why.

The big bombers used a few of these fields for divert purposes, landing due to battle damage as opposed to ditching at sea. They did not regularly base out of them, as it would have caused undue risk to the navy to have to ship in the bombs and fuel. They moved forward very slowly once the area had been completely secured. High fuel use and high ammo use should constrain you in being able to move the big boys forward. This is why I suggested cranking up the supply use on the big boys.

When looking at the Pacific Campaign in this area, it was a function of island hopping to forward base the smaller tactical aircraft, not the larger level bombers. I think perhaps LBA could be shifted to a size 6 airfield being required to help resolve this particular problem. Yes, you should be able to get forward airbases running somewhat quickly for a few cap groups or some dive bombers etc, converting a small base into a 200+ heavy aircraft base requires a lot more effort and commitment.

I found a strategic study conducted in 1946 as to the impact of land based bombers in the Pacific theater. Overall, they did very little. Submarines had more impact in the Pacific then the Air Force. The Marines on the other hand did quite well with their forward based aircraft on the smaller bases. Percentage wise, you could remove everything from the Pacific that had 2 or more engines and it would have the effectiveness of 1-2 submarines.

Perhaps we can fix this with a simple rule:

The current rule: aircraft = airfield size x 50

Revise this to: engines = airfield size x 30

Either this, or impose some form of restriction as to how many squadrons can base out of an airbase. (perhaps size = max number of squadrons).

Simply put, the game does not scale well in the later stages. The only real solution is making the effects more trivial and imposing some realistic handling rules.

I honestly hope they sort this one out because while it is annoying now in UV, it will be an absolute writeoff in WitP. If we will be in the situation where the USA can simply sit back and wait for some bombers then completely close off every single production point by LBA'ing it out of existance towards the close of '42, it's going to be a dead game.

I am not an Air Force fanboy by any means, but think that it is an unfair assessment downplaying the effects of LBA on the the conduct of the campaign in the South Pacific, particularly in NG.

The Fifth AF established air superioity by destroying a huge number of aircraft on the ground, suppressed Japanese strongpoints (like Rabaul and Kavieng)through continuous bombing of airfields ports and shipping, and interdicted enemy shipping by damaging, sinking or turning them back. They also provided a great deal of close air support and were crucuial in the conduct of the ground campaigns around Buna and Lae.

Medium bombers such as the A-20 proved to be very effective in low level bombing of airfields, barges, and shipping.

The NG campaign would have been much more difficult if the the Japanense airforce had been allowed to set up operations in NG and not devastated on the ground by the 5th AF at Wewak.

Granted, B-17s were primarily based out of large airfields, but the medium bombers worked out of smaller airfields forward very effectively(the A-20 is a good example).

And one consideration in guagin effects is the shipping turned back without damage. That is not represented in UV. Not many skippers would want to anchor and unload with enemy LBA around, so they would turn back without unloading, or at best wait until dark.

UV has doen quite a bit to fix some of the problems with the over effectiveness of LBA, but still have some major work to do.

But I would hope that it does not make them "ineffective".

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by crsutton
Actually, some of the first skip bombing attacks were done by B17s attacking at night in November of 42. By April of 43 skip bombing by B17s was an accepted tactic-although I don't know how common. (but certainly not at 100 feet!) Once The A20s and B25 had been upgraded to straffers with the removal of the bombadier position and the addition of machine guns, low level attacks became the norm. The Beaufighter was designed to attack low and had little or no use at altitude. The Brits were way ahead of the US in these techniques. Even the lowly whirraway was effective as a low level ground support AC. Truth is Japanese AA was never that good.

No sense putting all that hardware in the nose of a B25 and then making bomb runs at 10,000 feet. They were designed to fly low and shoot up everything in sight and that is how they were used. As Japanese air power became less effective, all Allies bombers tended to come in lower and lower.

Yep, the B-25, especially the "J" model, was a nasty low-level machine in the right hands.

The B-17 skip bombing experiment was just that - and short lived, to boot. The final judgment was that aircraft designed for anti-shipping duty should be used for that purpose, while heavy bombers were reverted to their designed use, as well. B-17 skip bombing disappeared from the list of authorized missions almost as soon as it was tried. One major reason was that it could only be effective without unacceptable risk of loss to AA against merchant shipping and other lightly armed vessels. It must have been quite a sight, though, to see a low-altitude B-17 flying right at you, gun stations blazing away, bomb bay doors open, dropping half a dozen 500 pounders that started skipping like flat rocks and spinning in mid-splash headed straight for the ship you were on.

[Mr.Frag]

But I would hope that it does not make them "ineffective".

I'd be happy enough if they simply disabled the altitude setting as a start. Then we can all reassess where things are at and go from there. Realistically, there are only certain bases that had the ability to stage large aircraft. the current overbuild ability defies logic.

Hows this sound:

Bases that do not have a SPS value of 4 can not house 4 engine bombers, bases that do not have a SPS value of 2 can not fly two engine bombers.

This realistically would limit you to building up bases that existed for real, yet limit the overbuilding ability that lets you put B-17's on SPS 1 bases that you turn into size 4 airfields. This makes you use your smaller tactical aircraft exactly like they were used, on the smaller bases as you leapfrog your way to Truk, with your bigger boys always to the rear, using their range to open up the path.

The interesting point here is this will make certain bases more key then they are now as the USA can pretty much ignore and overbuild their way around certain key locations as we sit today.

[Subchaser]

<As Japanese air power became less effective, all Allies bombers tended to come in lower and lower>

And Japanese troops ability to disperse and to hide tended to rise higher and higher. Japs were quite good in the art of camouflage. Every move provokes a countermove (although it’s not the best example of countermove here).

Perhaps problem here is not in allied bombers but in Japanese troops discipline, which must be drastically rise… or may be it is siren shortage there

One of the main UV problems is that there is no tactics evolution modeled. All 1943-44 tricks work fine in 1942- skip bombing, low level bomb runs etc.

Btw, I think that it’s allright with Odin example, 1500 japs gathered in the port to see 4 brand new Nissan bulldozers, just arrived from Japan. Of course in this moment they were an easy target for 82 allied bombers, stealthy approached them at 100ft altitude and suddenly drop several tons of napalm… exhibition of Japanese industry remarkable achievements turned into another blood bath. Shocking!!!

[Cap Mandrake]

Interesting thread...I find the use of PBY's in massed high altitude bomber raids PARTICULARLY annoying. Although, I have to admit some admiration for the chap who conceived of the idea.



***********Edit*****************


Hold on..I found a pic of PBY's used on the Schweinfurt raid in Germany I take back what I said about historical inacuracy.


***********************

[Odin]

Originally posted by Subchaser
<As Japanese air power became less effective, all Allies bombers tended to come in lower and lower>

And Japanese troops ability to disperse and to hide tended to rise higher and higher. Japs were quite good in the art of camouflage. Every move provokes a countermove (although it’s not the best example of countermove here).

Perhaps problem here is not in allied bombers but in Japanese troops discipline, which must be drastically rise… or may be it is siren shortage there

One of the main UV problems is that there is no tactics evolution modeled. All 1943-44 tricks work fine in 1942- skip bombing, low level bomb runs etc.

Btw, I think that it’s allright with Odin example, 1500 japs gathered in the port to see 4 brand new Nissan bulldozers, just arrived from Japan. Of course in this moment they were an easy target for 82 allied bombers, stealthy approached them at 100ft altitude and suddenly drop several tons of napalm… exhibition of Japanese industry remarkable achievements turned into another blood bath. Shocking!!!

Hehehe:D

Today i will start this game as head to head and take a look into Madang, to see what happens to the units there....i will post it here.

But these vehicles....can they be tanks?

[Drex]

Originally posted by pasternakski
Yep, the B-25, especially the "J" model, was a nasty low-level machine in the right hands.

The B-17 skip bombing experiment was just that - and short lived, to boot. The final judgment was that aircraft designed for anti-shipping duty should be used for that purpose, while heavy bombers were reverted to their designed use, as well. B-17 skip bombing disappeared from the list of authorized missions almost as soon as it was tried. One major reason was that it could only be effective without unacceptable risk of loss to AA against merchant shipping and other lightly armed vessels. It must have been quite a sight, though, to see a low-altitude B-17 flying right at you, gun stations blazing away, bomb bay doors open, dropping half a dozen 500 pounders that started skipping like flat rocks and spinning in mid-splash headed straight for the ship you were on.

That's probably why they preferred to use skip-bombing at night and used it at Rabaul.