Holy Moley, this can't be right.

[Nikademus]

I think the G4M and G3M preform much as would be expected. If properly escorted, they are very very dangerous because they carry torpedoes and you dont need many hits from them to cause some angst.

On the same token, if they attack unescorted or with not enough of one against strong defenses.........suddenly there are many openings on the home islands for the few, the proud, the cannon fodder.

Also Betty and Nell pilots are as irreplacable as the carrier boys. Kill that initial batch of elite blokes and the replacements arn't nearly as dangerous.

So i'd say the planes are well balanced, unlike their cousin counterparts the B-25 and 26 which benefit from a near B-17 like immunity to attack in most cases

[Dnil]

3 good books on the subject:

"Warpath Across the Pacific"--B-25s--345th Bomb Group

"We Flew Alone"--U.S. Navy B-24, PB4Y operations in the pacific

"Above an Angry Sea"--same as above, but part II starting in Oct-44 to Aug-45

Good stuff on low level bombers.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Originally posted by pasternakski
Mog, if this is so, it is absolutely ridiculous and highlights one of the many problems with altitude assignment mechanics in the UV system. Nobody in his right mind would order those LBs to fly at 100 feet all the way to their target. The game should have, instead of a "100 foot" setting, a "skip bomb/strafe" setting that treats planes assigned to these missions the same way that torpedo bombers are treated (fly at assigned altitude, then adjust to 200 ft. for final attack run).

Amen. Just need four settings: high, medium, low and strafing/skip-bombing. Leave the details to the AI subordinate commander.

[Piiska]

Originally posted by LargeSlowTarget
Amen. Just need four settings: high, medium, low and strafing/skip-bombing. Leave the details to the AI subordinate commander.

Ditto, especially for WITP

[Yamamoto]

Originally posted by LargeSlowTarget
Amen. Just need four settings: high, medium, low and strafing/skip-bombing. Leave the details to the AI subordinate commander.

I LIKE having altitude settings. If we lost altitude settigns we'd lose aircraft maximum altitude as a plane characteristic because it would be meaningless. Also, climb rate might also be meaningless. No game is improved by removing features.

Yamamoto

[crsutton]

Hi, I don't know, they sank 1 BB 1 BC 1 CA and hit 1 CV and a load of transports. They also damaged at least 1 CA and 2 CL [/B][/QUOTE]

Nope, the overall record was pretty bad. Not just pretty bad but dismal. When you take out the Prince of Wales and Repulse, the war record of Japanese land based air against Allied shipping was virtually non exsistant. There were a few sucessful attacks as you mentioned but considering what the Allies were doing to Japanese ships, the record is poor. This is not the case in UV.

The fact is once the Guadacanal campaign started up til the advent of suicide attacks, Japanese land based air hardly sank anything at all. Only one CA, was sunk and a few DDs. The record against cargo ships is even more dismal with only a hadfull sunk. Bergerud points out that by the time bettys were attacking the transports of the invasion fleet off of Lunga in August of 1942, the average Allied cargo ship had just as many AA guns as the Prince of Wales did when she went down. Not only that but they were better guns as well. Betty and Nells were just simply not durable enough to get through the curtain of AA fire that Allied TFs could put up and they had virtually no sucess during the campaign or thereafter.

Compared to the success of Allied bombers against Japanese shipping-the vaunted nells and bettys were all but useless.

[Snigbert]

Nope, the overall record was pretty bad. Not just pretty bad but dismal. When you take out the Prince of Wales and Repulse, the war record of Japanese land based air against Allied shipping was virtually non exsistant.

Why wouldnt you count the Pow and Repulse? Force Z didnt count?

How many Japanese CVs, BBs and CAs were sunk by US LBA in comparison...that we should call the Japanese record dismal?

[mogami]

Originally posted by crsutton
Hi, I don't know, they sank 1 BB 1 BC 1 CA and hit 1 CV and a load of transports. They also damaged at least 1 CA and 2 CL

Nope, the overall record was pretty bad. Not just pretty bad but dismal. When you take out the Prince of Wales and Repulse, the war record of Japanese land based air against Allied shipping was virtually non exsistant. There were a few sucessful attacks as you mentioned but considering what the Allies were doing to Japanese ships, the record is poor. This is not the case in UV.

The fact is once the Guadacanal campaign started up til the advent of suicide attacks, Japanese land based air hardly sank anything at all. Only one CA, was sunk and a few DDs. The record against cargo ships is even more dismal with only a hadfull sunk. Bergerud points out that by the time bettys were attacking the transports of the invasion fleet off of Lunga in August of 1942, the average Allied cargo ship had just as many AA guns as the Prince of Wales did when she went down. Not only that but they were better guns as well. Betty and Nells were just simply not durable enough to get through the curtain of AA fire that Allied TFs could put up and they had virtually no sucess during the campaign or thereafter.

Compared to the success of Allied bombers against Japanese shipping-the vaunted nells and bettys were all but useless. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi, It is impossible to prove a negative. However I would offer the lack of Japanese LBA ship kills is partly due to the allies knowing better then to send ships into range. No targets, no kills. Then when they began their operations they provided plenty of aircover. It is because players in UV keep sending uncovered ships into range that loses are so high not because the Betty and Nell are over rated. If these were real ships you'd first see a reduction not in their being sunk but in their being placed where they could be attacked. When players change the dynamics of how the war was fought the results will not be historical. It does not prove the engine is flawed. The only real question is how many ships Japanese LBA would have sunk had they 20 months of targets. They proved in the actual war they could sink underway warships. They carried ship lethel loads. Even late in the war Japanese aircraft hit allied ships. I don't see the problem here.

In UV/WITP unescorted Betty/Nell are slaughtered by CAP.

[crsutton]

Originally posted by LargeSlowTarget
Amen. Just need four settings: high, medium, low and strafing/skip-bombing. Leave the details to the AI subordinate commander.

Actually, a very good idea.

[crsutton]

Originally posted by Mogami
[.

. [/B]

Hi, It is impossible to prove a negative. However I would offer the lack of Japanese LBA ship kills is partly due to the allies knowing better then to send ships into range. No targets, no kills. Then when they began their operations they provided plenty of aircover. It is because players in UV keep sending uncovered ships into range that loses are so high not because the Betty and Nell are over rated. If these were real ships you'd first see a reduction not in their being sunk but in their being placed where they could be attacked. When players change the dynamics of how the war was fought the results will not be historical. It does not prove the engine is flawed. The only real question is how many ships Japanese LBA would have sunk had they 20 months of targets. They proved in the actual war they could sink underway warships. They carried ship lethel loads. Even late in the war Japanese aircraft hit allied ships. I don't see the problem here.

In UV/WITP unescorted Betty/Nell are slaughtered by CAP. [/B][/QUOTE]

[crsutton]

Originally posted by crsutton
Hi, It is impossible to prove a negative. However I would offer the lack of Japanese LBA ship kills is partly due to the allies knowing better then to send ships into range. No targets, no kills. Then when they began their operations they provided plenty of aircover. It is because players in UV keep sending uncovered ships into range that loses are so high not because the Betty and Nell are over rated. If these were real ships you'd first see a reduction not in their being sunk but in their being placed where they could be attacked. When players change the dynamics of how the war was fought the results will not be historical. It does not prove the engine is flawed. The only real question is how many ships Japanese LBA would have sunk had they 20 months of targets. They proved in the actual war they could sink underway warships. They carried ship lethel loads. Even late in the war Japanese aircraft hit allied ships. I don't see the problem here.

In UV/WITP unescorted Betty/Nell are slaughtered by CAP.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, excellent point. More targets more success. Even the Japanese did not lose too many transports in the campaign because they just quit using them due to the danger.

However, the effectiveness of Allied AA against Japanese bombers is established, not a theory. Allied air cover was a prime consideration, but it was effective AA that shot down most Japanese airplanes that were attacking ships. Attacking ships was difficult for even tough planes like B25s. For bettys and nells, it was nothing short of a death sentence. By August of 1942, Allied TFs had sufficent AA armament to shoot them down or drive them off.

Really, the mechanics of the game works well as most of my kills with bettys and nells are againts small TF that are unprotected. However, I was originally making the comparison to Allied mediums, which proved themselves to be much better ship killers than the Japanese bombers.

[crsutton]

[
Why wouldnt you count the Pow and Repulse? Force Z didnt count?

How many Japanese CVs, BBs and CAs were sunk by US LBA in comparison...that we should call the Japanese record dismal? [/B][/QUOTE]

[crsutton]

[
Why wouldnt you count the Pow and Repulse? Force Z didnt count?

As I stated before, the PW and Repulse carried insufficient AA armament-hardly more than a mid war transport would carry. They were also sailing with little escort, close to land, and on a foolish bungled mission from the get go. Count them if you want but you missed the point of my post since I was refering to a later period of the war.

How many Japanese CVs, BBs and CAs were sunk by US LBA in comparison...that we should call the Japanese record dismal? [/B][/QUOTE]

Very few, simply because the IJN wisely followed a policy of not risking capital ships within range of Allied LBA. (Apparently somebody learned from the Prince of Wales-Repulse disaster) This was a key component of the Solomons campaign. It was only under heavy pressure that the naval authorities agreed to send BB down the slot to bombard Lunga. Both sides avoided operating warships in range of LBA.

[HMSWarspite]

Originally posted by crsutton
[
Why wouldnt you count the Pow and Repulse? Force Z didnt count?

As I stated before, the PW and Repulse carried insufficient AA armament-hardly more than a mid war transport would carry. They were also sailing with little escort, close to land, and on a foolish bungled mission from the get go. Count them if you want but you missed the point of my post since I was refering to a later period of the war.

How many Japanese CVs, BBs and CAs were sunk by US LBA in comparison...that we should call the Japanese record dismal?

Very few, simply because the IJN wisely followed a policy of not risking capital ships within range of Allied LBA. (Apparently somebody learned from the Prince of Wales-Repulse disaster) This was a key component of the Solomons campaign. It was only under heavy pressure that the naval authorities agreed to send BB down the slot to bombard Lunga. Both sides avoided operating warships in range of LBA.

I am afraid you have just shot down your own argument.

"... the PW and Repulse carried insufficient AA armament-hardly more than a mid war transport would carry."

PW: 16x5.25 DP, 24 2pdr pom pom, 16 0.5"mg (some transport!)
R: 13x 4" AA, 24 2pdr pom pom, 8x20mm, 16 0.5"mg
OK, under armed by 1941 US full TF standards, and very by 1944/5, but not "hardly more than a mid war transport would carry."

"...close to land". I think you will find they sank c50miles from land. The proximity of land did not effect the engagement

"...on a foolish bungled mission from the get go"
Only relevant because it got them attacked in the first place, not relevant to the air attack success.

The sinking of two major warships (albeit one old) does count for air power. As you point out, this attack (more than almost any other) stopped the use of major fleet elements in range of LBA except where someone was despirate. I do not see any evidence that the Betty/Nells are overrated.

Oh, and for the record, the initial high level bombing scored a hit on Repulse from c17-21kft (accounts vary slightly), and several near misses, on a sqd steaming at 25kts. They also managed up to 5 torp hits on a target doing 15kts + and manoevring (slowing due to damage). Incidentally, Repulse's dodging of torpedoes was rated as very skillfull, and only after being slowed did they start hitting more frequently. All in all I think it counts for air skill!

[mogami]

Hi, In WITP
Prince of Wales AA factor 1824
Repulse AA factor 888

midwar transport AA factor 212

[crsutton]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HMSWarspite
I am afraid you have just shot down your own argument.

"... the PW and Repulse carried insufficient AA armament-hardly more than a mid war transport would carry."

PW: 16x5.25 DP, 24 2pdr pom pom, 16 0.5"mg (some transport!)
R: 13x 4" AA, 24 2pdr pom pom, 8x20mm, 16 0.5"mg
OK, under armed by 1941 US full TF standards, and very by 1944/5, but not "hardly more than a mid war transport would carry."

I stand corrected. However, my point is and was that after the initial successes of the early months of the war, Japanese LBA accomplished very little against Allied shipping. Japanese bombers just were not built strong enough for effective torpedo bombing or for much of anything else for that matter.