Bombardment?

[adarbrauner]

ORIGINAL: scout1

Is there any advantage/disadvantage relative to daytime vs night bombardment ?

There should be. But I'm profoundly sorry for having said that, really.

[Canoerebel]

I am not aware of any difference between the effectiveness of daylight and nighttime bombardments.

The only reason I can think of that I would "want" to arrange a daytime bombardment is to avoid the possibility that my opponent might send in an enemy surface combat TF during nighttime hours to interdict my TF (bombardment TFs perform at a disadvantage to combat TFs).

Over the years, I have come to use bombardment TFs only sparingly until the Allies have achieved a certain dominance where the risks of enemy intervention (by air or sea) are low. Early in the game, these situations are relatively rare. Sometimes, though, you have a very strong feeling for whether you've caught the enemy unaware. Then it's fun to use a bombardment TF.

Too, we're all familiar with how bombardment runs sometimes go astray, hanging up at the target hex and getting clobbered by air attack during daylight hours. Bombardment carriers a pretty high risk factor, so generally I prefer not to risk high-value ships on tactical missions early in the game.

[BBfanboy]

Dan the other reason is that enemy units in a non-base hex are hard to bombard at night because you lose all the D/L you had on them the turn before and it is hard to get enough D/L again during the night phase. So, setting remain on station to get a daylight bombardment is more likely to get results than just letting them run in and out.

[geofflambert]

There's another issue here worthy of some consideration. Is either day or night bombardment superior to close support of an amphib landing? Add the surface units to the amphib TFs as escorts and they will perform counterbattery fire etc.. They will also conserve their ammunition and may be available to counter enemy surface TFs.

I'm forgetting whether I figured this out or not. I used to have the problem that if I ordered a TF to do a bombardment it would, once the mission was accomplished, run home. Now it could have at least provided some flak support if it remained in the target hex, even if it had expended its large caliber ammo in the bombardment. Maybe I figured out how to do both (bombard and defend) but I generally don't use bombardment as a support for an amphibious landing, rather employ the naval artillery in close support.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

There's another issue here worthy of some consideration. Is either day or night bombardment superior to close support of an amphib landing? Add the surface units to the amphib TFs as escorts and they will perform counterbattery fire etc.. They will also conserve their ammunition and may be available to counter enemy surface TFs.

I'm forgetting whether I figured this out or not. I used to have the problem that if I ordered a TF to do a bombardment it would, once the mission was accomplished, run home. Now it could have at least provided some flak support if it remained in the target hex, even if it had expended its large caliber ammo in the bombardment. Maybe I figured out how to do both (bombard and defend) but I generally don't use bombardment as a support for an amphibious landing, rather employ the naval artillery in close support.

Embedding your bombarding ships in the Amphib TF is better because they will only shoot at opposing LCUs, not like a Bombardment TF - waste ammo blowing up the AF and port that you hope to take. Whether because they are shooting at fewer targets or the enemy exposes himself to shoot at the incoming invasion, the embedded BBs/CAs/CLs/DDs seem to inflict more casualties than a sail-alone Bombardment TF.

[Canoerebel]

Isn't the detection level issue mitigated or negated by setting bombardment TF floatplanes to night reconnaissance of the targets?

My experience is that bombardment TFs at night (using floatplanes for recon) can have a devastating impact. There hasn't been a single occasion in the game where I felt the need to orchestrate a daylight bombardment, and I don't think that my results have suffered.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Isn't the detection level issue mitigated or negated by setting bombardment TF floatplanes to night reconnaissance of the targets?

My experience is that bombardment TFs at night (using floatplanes for recon) can have a devastating impact. There hasn't been a single occasion in the game where I felt the need to orchestrate a daylight bombardment, and I don't think that my results have suffered.

I think I would concur with that. The question is whether it is wise to do it in direct conjunction with an amphib landing. Do the bombardment a week ahead of D-Day, go to port and reload then join the invasion TF.

[Canoerebel]

The one thing I've noticed about bombardments is that the first is always the most effective, at least during a single day. If you have six bombardment TFs lined up to hit an enemy hex, the first will have dramatically better results than the next five. I think that "effect" (if it is an effect and not a total figment of my imagination) disappears with time, but I'm not sure how long is needed to "reset." Sometimes bombardments on days two and three still seem to suffer from the hangover of the big bombardment on day one.

if that's truly the case it would make sense to combine all bombardment TFs into a single TF. That's just a hypothesis of mine that's not yet been tested or elevated to "theory."

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
I think that "effect" (if it is an effect and not a total figment of my imagination) disappears with time, but I'm not sure how long is needed to "reset." Sometimes bombardments on days two and three still seem to suffer from the hangover of the big bombardment on day one.

I am a total figment of your imagination, but I do not disappear with time. If you're the sort to remember your dreams, you know I appear even there. Now, as to the effectiveness of consecutive bombardments, think of it this way: The first is thick with the goo of half-digested Cap'n Crunch cereal, the following are just the dry-heaves.

That did not constitute a product endorsement.

[scout1]

ORIGINAL: Trugrit

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

ORIGINAL: Alfred

You have already been told, in your own created thread, how to do a daylight bombardment.

It doesn't work.

OK, I get like 3 to 4 different colored bands with F4 ..... The inner green band I'm assuming is the 1 turn movement band, what about the others ?

It can be done.
You just don’t know what you are doing.

Some things in this game have to be done in a certain sequence.

What you want is a tactical picture just like the one below.
Use the F4 key to show the naval movement range circles.

I like to run in surface Task forces and then change to bombardment when I have the correct tactical picture.

You want to be two movement phases to the target as shown.
Then, first change the destination to the target.
Then change the mission to bombardment.
Set the Task Force to remain on station and run the turn.

The task force will move to the target and bombard in daylight.

[scout1]

ORIGINAL: scout1

ORIGINAL: Trugrit

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner



It doesn't work.

OK, I get like 3 to 4 different colored bands with F4 ..... The inner green band I'm assuming is the 1 turn movement band, what about the others ?

It can be done.
You just don’t know what you are doing.

Some things in this game have to be done in a certain sequence.

What you want is a tactical picture just like the one below.
Use the F4 key to show the naval movement range circles.

I like to run in surface Task forces and then change to bombardment when I have the correct tactical picture.

You want to be two movement phases to the target as shown.
Then, first change the destination to the target.
Then change the mission to bombardment.
Set the Task Force to remain on station and run the turn.

The task force will move to the target and bombard in daylight.

OK, I get like 3 to 4 different colored bands with F4 ..... The inner green band I'm assuming is the 1 turn movement band, what about the others ?

[HansBolter]

Ya know if you just turn on the hex outlines you can count em and not have to use the circles.......

[BBfanboy]

The two circles are to show cruise speed and full speed ranges.

[adarbrauner]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I am not aware of any difference between the effectiveness of daylight and nighttime bombardments.

The only reason I can think of that I would "want" to arrange a daytime bombardment is to avoid the possibility that my opponent might send in an enemy surface combat TF during nighttime hours to interdict my TF (bombardment TFs perform at a disadvantage to combat TFs).

Over the years, I have come to use bombardment TFs only sparingly until the Allies have achieved a certain dominance where the risks of enemy intervention (by air or sea) are low. Early in the game, these situations are relatively rare. Sometimes, though, you have a very strong feeling for whether you've caught the enemy unaware. Then it's fun to use a bombardment TF.

Too, we're all familiar with how bombardment runs sometimes go astray, hanging up at the target hex and getting clobbered by air attack during daylight hours. Bombardment carriers a pretty high risk factor, so generally I prefer not to risk high-value ships on tactical missions early in the game.

" 03:00 on 6 June 1944, Texas and the British cruiser Glasgow entered the Omaha Western fire support lane and into her initial firing position 12,000 yd (11,000 m) offshore near Pointe du Hoc at 04:41,[clarification needed] as part of a combined total US-British flotilla of 702 ships, including seven battleships and five heavy cruisers.[44][45][A 8][47] The initial bombardment commenced at 05:50, against the site of six 15-centimetre (6 in) guns, atop Pointe du Hoc.[11] When Texas ceased firing at the Pointe at 06:24, 255 14-inch shells had been fired in 34 minutes—an average rate of fire of 7.5 shells per minute, which was the longest sustained period of firing for Texas in World War II.[44] While shells from the main guns were hitting Pointe du Hoc, the 5-inch guns were firing on the area leading up to Exit D-1, the route to get inland from western Omaha. At 06:26, Texas shifted her main battery gunfire to the western edge of Omaha Beach, around the town of Vierville. Meanwhile, her secondary battery went to work on another target on the western end of "Omaha" beach, a ravine laced with strong points to defend an exit road. Later, under control of airborne spotters, she moved her major-caliber fire inland to interdict enemy reinforcement activities and to destroy batteries and other strong points farther inland.[11]
By noon, the assault on Omaha Beach was in danger of collapsing due to stronger than anticipated German resistance and the inability of the Allies to get needed armor and artillery units on the beach. In an effort to help the infantry fighting to take Omaha, some of the destroyers providing gunfire support closed near the shoreline, almost grounding themselves to fire on the Germans. Texas also closed to the shoreline; at 12:23, Texas closed to only 3,000 yd (2,700 m) from the water's edge, firing her main guns with very little elevation to clear the western exit D-1, in front of Vierville. Among other things, she fired upon snipers and machine gun nests hidden in a defile just off the beach. At the conclusion of that mission, the battleship attacked an enemy anti-aircraft battery located west of Vierville.[44]
On 7 June, the battleship received word that the Ranger battalion at Pointe Du Hoc was still isolated from the rest of the invasion force with low ammunition and mounting casualties; in response, Texas obtained and filled two LCVPs[48] with provisions and ammunition for the Rangers.[47]:131 Upon their return, the LCVPs brought thirty-five wounded Rangers to Texas for treatment of which one died on the operating table. Along with the Rangers, a deceased Coast Guard sailor and twenty-seven prisoners (twenty Germans, four Italians, and three French) were brought to the ship. The prisoners were fed, segregated, and not formally interrogated aboard Texas, due to the ship bombarding targets or standing by to bombard, before being loaded aboard an LST for transfer to England.[49] Later in the day, her main battery rained shells on the enemy-held towns of Formigny[50] and Trévières to break up German troop concentrations. That evening, she bombarded a German mortar battery that had been shelling the beach. Not long after midnight, German planes attacked the ships offshore, and one of them swooped in low on Texas's starboard quarter. Her anti-aircraft batteries opened up immediately but failed to hit the intruder. On the morning of 8 June, her guns fired on Isigny, then on a shore battery, and finally on Trévières once more.[11]
After that, she retired to Plymouth to rearm, returning to the French coast on 11 June. From then until 15 June, she supported the army in its advance inland. By 15 June, the troops had advanced to the edge of Texas's gun range; her last fire support mission was so far inland that to get the needed range, the starboard torpedo blister was flooded with water to provide a list of two degrees which gave the guns enough elevation to complete the fire mission. With combat operations beyond the range of her guns on 16 June, Texas left Normandy for England on 18 June."

4 days of sustained land bomrbadment.

Without being forced to move away for one day, and retry the following day having care to reach the beach at daylight ONLY, and even so for one day bombardment only.

And that's because it's not a Gualdalcanal like situation wehre enemy air activity would make it prohibitive if not during night hours.


Even though this has been amply discussed before, there are still some cheap sarcastic comments here and there (not of canoerebel) on the issue, but for me is fine.

[adarbrauner]

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I am not aware of any difference between the effectiveness of daylight and nighttime bombardments.

The only reason I can think of that I would "want" to arrange a daytime bombardment is to avoid the possibility that my opponent might send in an enemy surface combat TF during nighttime hours to interdict my TF (bombardment TFs perform at a disadvantage to combat TFs).

Over the years, I have come to use bombardment TFs only sparingly until the Allies have achieved a certain dominance where the risks of enemy intervention (by air or sea) are low. Early in the game, these situations are relatively rare. Sometimes, though, you have a very strong feeling for whether you've caught the enemy unaware. Then it's fun to use a bombardment TF.

Too, we're all familiar with how bombardment runs sometimes go astray, hanging up at the target hex and getting clobbered by air attack during daylight hours. Bombardment carriers a pretty high risk factor, so generally I prefer not to risk high-value ships on tactical missions early in the game.

It just happened to me to stumble over this report, of an over and amply known situation to all (hopefully), thus I felt it normal to post it on the wave of some recent replies on the subject;

" 03:00 on 6 June 1944, Texas and the British cruiser Glasgow entered the Omaha Western fire support lane and into her initial firing position 12,000 yd (11,000 m) offshore near Pointe du Hoc at 04:41,[clarification needed] as part of a combined total US-British flotilla of 702 ships, including seven battleships and five heavy cruisers.[44][45][A 8][47] The initial bombardment commenced at 05:50, against the site of six 15-centimetre (6 in) guns, atop Pointe du Hoc.[11] When Texas ceased firing at the Pointe at 06:24, 255 14-inch shells had been fired in 34 minutes—an average rate of fire of 7.5 shells per minute, which was the longest sustained period of firing for Texas in World War II.[44] While shells from the main guns were hitting Pointe du Hoc, the 5-inch guns were firing on the area leading up to Exit D-1, the route to get inland from western Omaha. At 06:26, Texas shifted her main battery gunfire to the western edge of Omaha Beach, around the town of Vierville. Meanwhile, her secondary battery went to work on another target on the western end of "Omaha" beach, a ravine laced with strong points to defend an exit road. Later, under control of airborne spotters, she moved her major-caliber fire inland to interdict enemy reinforcement activities and to destroy batteries and other strong points farther inland.[11]
By noon, the assault on Omaha Beach was in danger of collapsing due to stronger than anticipated German resistance and the inability of the Allies to get needed armor and artillery units on the beach. In an effort to help the infantry fighting to take Omaha, some of the destroyers providing gunfire support closed near the shoreline, almost grounding themselves to fire on the Germans. Texas also closed to the shoreline; at 12:23, Texas closed to only 3,000 yd (2,700 m) from the water's edge, firing her main guns with very little elevation to clear the western exit D-1, in front of Vierville. Among other things, she fired upon snipers and machine gun nests hidden in a defile just off the beach. At the conclusion of that mission, the battleship attacked an enemy anti-aircraft battery located west of Vierville.[44]
On 7 June, the battleship received word that the Ranger battalion at Pointe Du Hoc was still isolated from the rest of the invasion force with low ammunition and mounting casualties; in response, Texas obtained and filled two LCVPs[48] with provisions and ammunition for the Rangers.[47]:131 Upon their return, the LCVPs brought thirty-five wounded Rangers to Texas for treatment of which one died on the operating table. Along with the Rangers, a deceased Coast Guard sailor and twenty-seven prisoners (twenty Germans, four Italians, and three French) were brought to the ship. The prisoners were fed, segregated, and not formally interrogated aboard Texas, due to the ship bombarding targets or standing by to bombard, before being loaded aboard an LST for transfer to England.[49] Later in the day, her main battery rained shells on the enemy-held towns of Formigny[50] and Trévières to break up German troop concentrations. That evening, she bombarded a German mortar battery that had been shelling the beach. Not long after midnight, German planes attacked the ships offshore, and one of them swooped in low on Texas's starboard quarter. Her anti-aircraft batteries opened up immediately but failed to hit the intruder. On the morning of 8 June, her guns fired on Isigny, then on a shore battery, and finally on Trévières once more.[11]
After that, she retired to Plymouth to rearm, returning to the French coast on 11 June. From then until 15 June, she supported the army in its advance inland. By 15 June, the troops had advanced to the edge of Texas's gun range; her last fire support mission was so far inland that to get the needed range, the starboard torpedo blister was flooded with water to provide a list of two degrees which gave the guns enough elevation to complete the fire mission. With combat operations beyond the range of her guns on 16 June, Texas left Normandy for England on 18 June."

4 days of sustained land bomrbadment.

Without being forced to move away for one day, and retry the following day having care to reach the beach at daylight ONLY, and even so for one day bombardment only.

And that's because it's not a Gualdalcanal like situation wehre enemy air activity would make it prohibitive if not during night hours.


Even though this has been amply discussed before, there are still some cheap sarcastic comments here and there (not of canoerebel) on the issue, but for me is fine.

[dave sindel]

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I am not aware of any difference between the effectiveness of daylight and nighttime bombardments.

The only reason I can think of that I would "want" to arrange a daytime bombardment is to avoid the possibility that my opponent might send in an enemy surface combat TF during nighttime hours to interdict my TF (bombardment TFs perform at a disadvantage to combat TFs).

Over the years, I have come to use bombardment TFs only sparingly until the Allies have achieved a certain dominance where the risks of enemy intervention (by air or sea) are low. Early in the game, these situations are relatively rare. Sometimes, though, you have a very strong feeling for whether you've caught the enemy unaware. Then it's fun to use a bombardment TF.

Too, we're all familiar with how bombardment runs sometimes go astray, hanging up at the target hex and getting clobbered by air attack during daylight hours. Bombardment carriers a pretty high risk factor, so generally I prefer not to risk high-value ships on tactical missions early in the game.

It just happened to me to stumble over this report, of an over and amply known situation to all (hopefully), thus I felt it normal to post it on the wave of some recent replies on the subject;

" 03:00 on 6 June 1944, Texas and the British cruiser Glasgow entered the Omaha Western fire support lane and into her initial firing position 12,000 yd (11,000 m) offshore near Pointe du Hoc at 04:41,[clarification needed] as part of a combined total US-British flotilla of 702 ships, including seven battleships and five heavy cruisers.[44][45][A 8][47] The initial bombardment commenced at 05:50, against the site of six 15-centimetre (6 in) guns, atop Pointe du Hoc.[11] When Texas ceased firing at the Pointe at 06:24, 255 14-inch shells had been fired in 34 minutes—an average rate of fire of 7.5 shells per minute, which was the longest sustained period of firing for Texas in World War II.[44] While shells from the main guns were hitting Pointe du Hoc, the 5-inch guns were firing on the area leading up to Exit D-1, the route to get inland from western Omaha. At 06:26, Texas shifted her main battery gunfire to the western edge of Omaha Beach, around the town of Vierville. Meanwhile, her secondary battery went to work on another target on the western end of "Omaha" beach, a ravine laced with strong points to defend an exit road. Later, under control of airborne spotters, she moved her major-caliber fire inland to interdict enemy reinforcement activities and to destroy batteries and other strong points farther inland.[11]
By noon, the assault on Omaha Beach was in danger of collapsing due to stronger than anticipated German resistance and the inability of the Allies to get needed armor and artillery units on the beach. In an effort to help the infantry fighting to take Omaha, some of the destroyers providing gunfire support closed near the shoreline, almost grounding themselves to fire on the Germans. Texas also closed to the shoreline; at 12:23, Texas closed to only 3,000 yd (2,700 m) from the water's edge, firing her main guns with very little elevation to clear the western exit D-1, in front of Vierville. Among other things, she fired upon snipers and machine gun nests hidden in a defile just off the beach. At the conclusion of that mission, the battleship attacked an enemy anti-aircraft battery located west of Vierville.[44]
On 7 June, the battleship received word that the Ranger battalion at Pointe Du Hoc was still isolated from the rest of the invasion force with low ammunition and mounting casualties; in response, Texas obtained and filled two LCVPs[48] with provisions and ammunition for the Rangers.[47]:131 Upon their return, the LCVPs brought thirty-five wounded Rangers to Texas for treatment of which one died on the operating table. Along with the Rangers, a deceased Coast Guard sailor and twenty-seven prisoners (twenty Germans, four Italians, and three French) were brought to the ship. The prisoners were fed, segregated, and not formally interrogated aboard Texas, due to the ship bombarding targets or standing by to bombard, before being loaded aboard an LST for transfer to England.[49] Later in the day, her main battery rained shells on the enemy-held towns of Formigny[50] and Trévières to break up German troop concentrations. That evening, she bombarded a German mortar battery that had been shelling the beach. Not long after midnight, German planes attacked the ships offshore, and one of them swooped in low on Texas's starboard quarter. Her anti-aircraft batteries opened up immediately but failed to hit the intruder. On the morning of 8 June, her guns fired on Isigny, then on a shore battery, and finally on Trévières once more.[11]
After that, she retired to Plymouth to rearm, returning to the French coast on 11 June. From then until 15 June, she supported the army in its advance inland. By 15 June, the troops had advanced to the edge of Texas's gun range; her last fire support mission was so far inland that to get the needed range, the starboard torpedo blister was flooded with water to provide a list of two degrees which gave the guns enough elevation to complete the fire mission. With combat operations beyond the range of her guns on 16 June, Texas left Normandy for England on 18 June."

4 days of sustained land bomrbadment.

Without being forced to move away for one day, and retry the following day having care to reach the beach at daylight ONLY, and even so for one day bombardment only.

And that's because it's not a Gualdalcanal like situation wehre enemy air activity would make it prohibitive if not during night hours.


Even though this has been amply discussed before, there are still some cheap sarcastic comments here and there (not of canoerebel) on the issue, but for me is fine.

I would suggest that you re-read geofflambert's post # 44. The mission you are describing that USS Texas performed at D-Day can be accomplished in the game by including a BB ( or other surface combat ship) in the amphibious task force. A BB in the amphibious TF will conduct the "bombardment" you have outlined and will suppress enemy units. This is a different function than a "bombardment mission" as defined in WITP AE. That mission in game is a tactic primarily designed to target airfields and other base infrastructure.

[Trugrit]

Dave,

I don’t think your advice will do any good.

Adarbrauner is fixated on this issue and is locked into a perpetual “Do-loop”.

Intervention does not seem to work at all.

All we can do is wish him well, and I do wish him well.

K

[Canoerebel]

Newcomers to the game may see little things that aren't "exact" representations of WWII in the Pacific Theater and then have a desire to "fix" them. Some of them don't have enough experience to understand that the game is massive, complex, old, and in many ways now "set." It's not a perfect representation, but it's by far the best out there. We who have played it for awhile know these things and accept them as part of the game, the same way chess players understand that bishops move only diagonally and that we can't change that.

In AE, players do not have the option of flying B25s off of Allied carriers. So we don't have the option of exactly replicating the Doolittle Raid. A newcomer might chaffe at that (and some then dig in and waste time and energy arguing that the rules should be changed; i.e., the game engine) to allow it. Experienced players - and those newcomers more flexible and less rigid in their approach to gaming - understand that little things like this don't detract from the overall game. We are still able to be immensely creative in our approach to the war, and the game can closely approximate the war (or vary greatly, if we choose to play whacky mods).

AE's little warts and abstractions are nothing more than a small blemish on Ingrid Bergman's cheek or a mole on Marilyn Monroe's. In many ways, little flaws just enhance the overall beauty of what we are beholding.