optimime escort altitude for strafing FBs

[wga8888]

If I define a FB group for a 100 ft strafing naval attack (or base attack), what altitude should be set or a escorting set of F or FB operating from the same base? 100ft seems to infer they will get bounced.
--
When escort is flying from a closer base than the attack planes, I use the same altitude for both groups and hope the escorts show up. But flying escort at 100ft to be at same altitude as strafing FB does not seem logical.

[RangerJoe]

No, it is not logical. The optimum altitude depends upon your fighters and altitude of the enemy's CAP.

[Alfred]

1.  The historical strafing air action is enabled in AE by setting an air unit to the "Sweep" air mission at 100'.  Sweeps do not get fighter cover in the form of escorts.
 
2.  Setting any of the land attack mission profiles to 100' is not a true strafing action.  AE does not do WWII CAS well.  There is no good reason to misuse air assets attempting to do so, the ROI is poor.
 
Alfred

[BBfanboy]

Getting "the bounce" involves diving at high speed from above, shooting at the target aircraft, passing below it and using the built-up speed to zoom back up. It is very difficult to bounce an aircraft at 100' and level out before dirt or water becomes a problem.

[wga8888]

Thanks for the input. I have a logical mind (engineer); at times that works against me by assuming too much.
Sweep at 100 a low level attack needing no escort and not expected to be bounced.
Is Naval Attack at 100 treated the same as a sweep? (does not need escort?)
--
I will find out today as my PBEM IJN opponent sends me the result of my USN orders sent last night (9 hour time difference). Vs his base (likely with CAP and ships in port) I sent 1] a high altitude fighter sweep and 2] F escorts at 5000, MB at 5000, TBs at 5000 (Beaufighter VIII) and FB at 100 on a Naval Attack primary/Port secondary attack. Results will tell me if there will be an attack in a single attack for broken down separate attacks with the B, TB, and FB with the escorts allocated to some of the attacks?
--
Unless the ships in port damaged last turn attempt to escape, I expect the Beaufighter VIII to attack with bombs again in the range 2 port attack. I was just guessing if my planes with attack together or be destroyed in piecemeal attacks, and minor followup piecemeal attacks. It takes about a month to recover from disastrous air battles; but it is only a 5 month scenario. We strive to complete two turns a day, I lack discretionary time to experiment with an AI game.
--
I wish to do a FB 100 foot naval attack elsewhere but do not know if I need to use escorts and/or what altitude escorts should use. A severe group loss removes the group from play for rest of scenario at this point. Having to guess how the game works as at manual does not provide details of how things actually work is a gamble. One has to commit, then see results and interpret how the game actually works.
---
Then there are the variable combat results due to all the random numbers in Gary Grigsby series of combat formulas. Given game pace, I have to commit using my best guess. Another risk is bad staff work due to unintended incorrect settings despite double/triple check (sweep instead of escort; naval search instead of naval attack, wrong altitude, undefined or wrong target selected). They are many ways to lose a short game; without necessarily learning what went wrong to benefit the next attempt/game.
---
The big advantage of the Pacific vs Land Grigsby games (such as WITE) is combat is not resolved during a players turn. I have had too many WITE, War in Europe, etc opponents return to save during turn to erase, iterate combat results to optimize a bad combat outcome.

[Lokasenna]

No, Naval Attack at 100 feet will be able to use escorts.

Also, I am pretty sure that it uses the Strafe skill and not Low Naval skill (which is at 1000 feet).

I put fighter pilots with high Air/Strafe/Defense skills in my attack bombers for this reason.

[rustysi]

I have a logical mind (engineer);

Pfft. I was an electronic tech for over 40 years, and the last thing I thought about engineers was that they were logical.[:D]

You guys over thought the crap out of everything.[:'(]

The last person I listened to when I had a problem that I couldn't solve was an engineer. That was the correct response 95+% of the time.[8|]

My best experience was when I was on the phone with an engineer and I was describing to him what a system was doing. He said, 'that's impossible'. My simple response was, 'don't tell me, I'm looking right at it', and I hung up the phone. When they finally decided to check, we got a hardware mod that we installed to correct the problem.

The next person I took the least advice from was a programmer. Especially when we had new SW and everything was fine the day before. My go to response was, whatda you mean its my hardware, the dammed thing worked yesterday, before you changed the program.

I always hated when these over educated nitwits refereed to me and my guys/gals as 'just technicians'. That occurred over the course of my career. From the military all the way through retirement.

But I digress. Rant over.[:D]

Ewe, definitely a flashback.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

I have a logical mind (engineer);

Pfft. I was an electronic tech for over 40 years, and the last thing I thought about engineers was that they were logical.[:D]

You guys over thought the crap out of everything.[:'(]

The last person I listened to when I had a problem that I couldn't solve was an engineer. That was the correct response 95+% of the time.[8|]

My best experience was when I was on the phone with an engineer and I was describing to him what a system was doing. He said, 'that's impossible'. My simple response was, 'don't tell me, I'm looking right at it', and I hung up the phone. When they finally decided to check, we got a hardware mod that we installed to correct the problem.

The next person I took the least advice from was a programmer. Especially when we had new SW and everything was fine the day before. My go to response was, whatda you mean its my hardware, the dammed thing worked yesterday, before you changed the program.

I always hated when these over educated nitwits refereed to me and my guys/gals as 'just technicians'. That occurred over the course of my career. From the military all the way through retirement.

But I digress. Rant over.[:D]

Ewe, definitely a flashback.

Many times, the more education that they get, the stupider they get.

But, old man, you saw a sheep as a flashback? Just what were you doing with that ewe? [8|] Are you a Scotsman per chance?

[rustysi]

But, old man, you saw a sheep as a flashback? Just what were you doing with that ewe? Are you a Scotsman per chance?

Dude.[:D]

[wga8888]

Still with the question is what altitude does escort have fly at to actually escort a 100 foot strafe attack. In the last three turns I have set base with escorts and bombers at 5000 for naval attack and FB at 100 naval attack. Three days FB fly alone without escort (bombers and escorts did not fly at all) with high losses for enemy fighters over enemy TF and no strafing hits vs CA/CL/DD with cannon or MG, 1 bomb hit out of a combined 25 planes. I am out of FB (P39 and Beaufighters) now for several weeks as they rebuild.
--
In Grigsby's Pacific War, land bomber effectiveness vs naval target is reduce to 1/3 of what it would be vs land targets. Now in turn 75 of pbem AE Guadalcanal campaign; my A20, B25, B26, Beauforts have yet to hit a enemy ship at sea, typically bombing at 5000, at times suffering severe losses from enemy Claudes and Zeros. Then again my Marine and Army divebombers have not hit a enemy ship at sea either. In this scenario, the USN/Aus pilot experience is typically in the low 50s.

[RangerJoe]

You need to look at their Naval Bombing skill rating, not their experience. Even in a short scenario, train your pilots. Preferably, do not attack with your fighters.

In PacWar, I had Spitfires strafe and sink the damaged Yamato.

[wga8888]

I am attempting strafing with fighter-bombers. I have the understanding all the forward firing MGs and cannon, say as on the Beaufighters are intended for strafing. Low maneuverability and speed are not fortes for combat vs fighters. FB at 100 ft with Escorta at 5000 from the same base has on 3 of 3 times have FBs fly alone and be beat up by enemy fighters.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: wga8888

I am attempting strafing with fighter-bombers. I have the understanding all the forward firing MGs and cannon, say as on the Beaufighters are intended for strafing. Low maneuverability and speed are not fortes for combat vs fighters. FB at 100 ft with Escorta at 5000 from the same base has on 3 of 3 times have FBs fly alone and be beat up by enemy fighters.

Escorts should be within 1000 or 2000 feet of escorted aircraft altitude, preferably above.

[wga8888]

Thanks. That is more insight than exists in the manual.
--
I have learned that F escort at 5000 with Bombers at 5000 and FB at 100 usually results in FB attacking alone without escort (and 3/3 times no bombers or F flying at all).
--
By similarity, what happens when a CV strike of say F escort at 10000, DB at 10000 and TB at 5000 fly together? One CV typically has 1 F group. Cannot be defined to escort both types of bomber. Will have to test in AI game. Bad outcome is fatal in a short scenario.

[RangerJoe]

Your TBs drop to 200 feet to drop torpedoes so you can also set them to fly at 10,000 feet and they will attempt to fly together.

If your bombers and fighters are at the same base with the same altitude, the program figures that you want them to fly together. If the FBs are at a different altitude, there is a lower chance that they will fly with the others.

[wga8888]

Thanks for the insight. From my WITP campaign play I flew my CV F, DB, TB together at the same altitude (10000+). In the few combine plane attacks vs ships so far in my AE scenario pbem game, the TB dropped bombs at ships from the high altitude vs targets 2 hexes from its level 5 airfield. Likely everything else in a Gary Grigsby game, there is a lot of variability in outcome, through a series of formulas, usually with each having a random number in the numerator and denominator. Making conclusions base on one or two iterations is subject to erroneous conclusions. But only get a few chances in scenario play.

[rustysi]

the TB dropped bombs at ships from the high altitude vs targets 2 hexes from its level 5 airfield.

For LBTB to launch torps the base must be able to supply torps, not all can. These torps are supplied by HQ units.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

the TB dropped bombs at ships from the high altitude vs targets 2 hexes from its level 5 airfield.

For LBTB to launch torps the base must be able to supply torps, not all can. These torps are supplied by HQ units.

In most cases, the HQ supplies the torps. It just has to be in range. The base itself can't have a yellow or red !, signifying low supplies - I think.

I think in some cases, bases can supply torpedoes on their own? To be honest, I am probably going to have an HQa at those bases anyways so I really don't know/remember anymore.

[RangerJoe]

HQs supply the torpedoes.

[rustysi]

I think in some cases, bases can supply torpedoes on their own?

AFAIK no. Its as you said, HQ's that are in range supply the torps.