Torpedo bombers and bombing accuracy

[Yaab]

Scen 001v5, Allies vs Jap AI

-------------------

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Masbate at 80,83

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 19 NM, estimated altitude 20,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A5M4 Claude x 9
B5N1 Kate x 8

No Japanese losses

Allied Ships
CL Boise, Bomb hits 2, on fire

Aircraft Attacking:
8 x B5N1 Kate bombing from 15000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb

---------------------------
16 bombs, 2 hits, 12,5% hit rate from 15,000 feet

[Yaab]

Scen 001v5, Allies vs Jap AI

Now, this is something I see for the first time.

An udamaged, fast, maneuvering DD hit from 14,000 feet in light rain.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Bataan at 78,77

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 103 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 44 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A5M4 Claude x 15
B5N1 Kate x 15

Allied aircraft
P-35A x 2
P-40B Warhawk x 5
P-40E Warhawk x 8

Japanese aircraft losses
A5M4 Claude: 1 destroyed
B5N1 Kate: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
DD John D. Ford, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires

Aircraft Attacking:
11 x B5N1 Kate bombing from 14000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb

[RangerJoe]

You should see them bombing from 1000 feet.

[Yaab]

Well, that was Jap AI attacking my ship.

So far, I have seen xAKLs, CLs and CAs hit by Kates from high altitude. This is the first time I see a DD getting hit. I wonder if Kates can hit a PT this way?

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Well, that was Jap AI attacking my ship.

So far, I have seen xAKLs, CLs and CAs hit by Kates from high altitude. This is the first time I see a DD getting hit. I wonder if Kates can hit a PT this way?

Knowing how well 1E torpedo bombers hit with their bombs it's still very, very rare to score such a hit on an udamaged DD. But the chance is there so not completely unlikely.

[Dili]

DD might be hit from high level bombing.

High level h bombing hit by Regia Aeronautica as an example.
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic ... 5&t=227751

[Yaab]

Interesting.

However, more details is needed.

For example, take HMS Juno skinking. There is no altitude given for the Canto bombers.
https://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chron ... S_Juno.htm

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Interesting.

However, more details is needed.

For example, take HMS Juno skinking. There is no altitude given for the Canto bombers.
https://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chron ... S_Juno.htm

From that link:

J or JAVELIN-Class Destroyer ordered from Fairfields at Govan, Glasgow on 25th March 1937 under the 1936 Build Programme and laid down on 5th October 1937 and intended to be named JAMAICA. However the name was changed to JUNO before launch on 8th December to allow the selected name to be given to a new COLONY Class cruiser. The new name had been introduced in 1757 for a 5th Rate and last used for a cruiser built in 18945 and sold in 1920. This destroyer was the 9th to carry the name. Build was completed on 25th August 1939

It was last used for a cruiser built in 18945!

WOW! The ship was built and then traveled backwards in time! [X(]

Edited for:

Under high level bombing attack by five CANT Z1007 aircraft and hit by three bombs which split ship in two abaft the bridge structure sinking her in less than two minute. 116 of ship’s company lost their lives including one RAN rating, five locally Entered Maltese and a NAAFI Canteen employee. 96 survivors were rescued, by HMS KINGSTON, HMS KANDAHAR and HMS NUBIAN. Five of those rescued later died.

[Dili]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Interesting.

However, more details is needed.

For example, take HMS Juno skinking. There is no altitude given for the Canto bombers.
https://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chron ... S_Juno.htm

High level bombing is usually considered from 10000ft and higher.

[Professor Chaos]

Was this ever resolved?

I'm playing Andy Mac's updated Scenario 2 vs Japanese AI, and some Devastators from Lexington ran out of torpedo sorties. They then attacked some Japanese transports with GP bombs, and performed with very high accuracy from 15k feet. (This is May 1942).


Another strange thing I noticed is that when mixed Dauntless/Devastator groups attacked Japanese surface or transport TFs, the Dauntlesses tended to attack the high-value targets (BB or AP), but Devastators with torpedoes only attacked the small escort ships (DD or TB). Is there something about the targeting algorithm that would make the Devastators only attack the small fry?

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Professor Chaos

Was this ever resolved?

Not convinced there was anything to be resolved in the first place.

Much of the previous discussion stems from the fact that torpedo bomber pilots are very good at generating bomb hits on ships, while neglecting the fact that torpedo bomber pilots tend to have the highest experience and skills as a requirement of the role.

I'm playing Andy Mac's updated Scenario 2 vs Japanese AI, and some Devastators from Lexington ran out of torpedo sorties. They then attacked some Japanese transports with GP bombs, and performed with very high accuracy from 15k feet. (This is May 1942).


Another strange thing I noticed is that when mixed Dauntless/Devastator groups attacked Japanese surface or transport TFs, the Dauntlesses tended to attack the high-value targets (BB or AP), but Devastators with torpedoes only attacked the small escort ships (DD or TB). Is there something about the targeting algorithm that would make the Devastators only attack the small fry?

Quite a lot. Mainly how good your detection level was on the enemy task force, but a whole bunch of other factors as well. Generally speaking, the higher value stuff tends to get the most ordinance thrown at it, but from my experience, there's compensation to make sure that the big ships don't act as total bomb sponges.

That in itself is broadly historical, there was quite a lot of effort spent on distributing damage as equally as possible, as there was the recognition that in most scenarios it was better to spread out your ordinance when attacking enemy ships rather than complete overkill on a handful of ships.

There is more info on this on the forums, but I don't have the reference immediately to hand.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Quite a lot. Mainly how good your detection level was on the enemy task force, but a whole bunch of other factors as well. Generally speaking, the higher value stuff tends to get the most ordinance thrown at it, but from my experience, there's compensation to make sure that the big ships don't act as total bomb sponges.

That in itself is broadly historical, there was quite a lot of effort spent on distributing damage as equally as possible, as there was the recognition that in most scenarios it was better to spread out your ordinance when attacking enemy ships rather than complete overkill on a handful of ships.

There is more info on this on the forums, but I don't have the reference immediately to hand.

IME, flak thrown up by the bigger ships has an effect of deterring low-flying TBs. Unless the TB leader is a real fire-eater on the aggression scale, he will tend to go after ships with weaker flak. Low value xAKs are often chosen when there are more valuable but better armed xAPs or AMCs present. In SC or Air Combat TFs, the TBs seem to target DDs and old CLs rather than the well-armed Modern CLs, CAs, BBs and CVs.

[Professor Chaos]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

IME, flak thrown up by the bigger ships has an effect of deterring low-flying TBs. Unless the TB leader is a real fire-eater on the aggression scale, he will tend to go after ships with weaker flak. Low value xAKs are often chosen when there are more valuable but better armed xAPs or AMCs present. In SC or Air Combat TFs, the TBs seem to target DDs and old CLs rather than the well-armed Modern CLs, CAs, BBs and CVs.

I was wondering if it had something to do with avoiding high flak targets. It was surprising how many of the Dauntlesses were damaged by AA from the Japanese BBs, especially at this early point in the war.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Quite a lot. Mainly how good your detection level was on the enemy task force, but a whole bunch of other factors as well. Generally speaking, the higher value stuff tends to get the most ordinance thrown at it, but from my experience, there's compensation to make sure that the big ships don't act as total bomb sponges.

That in itself is broadly historical, there was quite a lot of effort spent on distributing damage as equally as possible, as there was the recognition that in most scenarios it was better to spread out your ordinance when attacking enemy ships rather than complete overkill on a handful of ships.

There is more info on this on the forums, but I don't have the reference immediately to hand.

IME, flak thrown up by the bigger ships has an effect of deterring low-flying TBs. Unless the TB leader is a real fire-eater on the aggression scale, he will tend to go after ships with weaker flak. Low value xAKs are often chosen when there are more valuable but better armed xAPs or AMCs present. In SC or Air Combat TFs, the TBs seem to target DDs and old CLs rather than the well-armed Modern CLs, CAs, BBs and CVs.

I'm absolutely certain that Alfred has commented on the priority of what gets attacked by aircraft in a naval attack setting. From memory, the type of ships (BB and CV at the top) mattered, as did tonnage.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Professor Chaos

Was this ever resolved?

Not convinced there was anything to be resolved in the first place...

Exactly.

I will repeat what I have said before.

The devs read what was posted on the forum. Whenever a prima facie case was established that an issue might exist (not limited to only issues raised in the Tech sub-forum), they investigated it. One of two outcomes would usually then result from their private endeavours; either a change was instituted and documented in a patch note, or after taking into account what actually transpired,there was no real issue to address.

It always pays dividends to closely read the patch notes.

Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Professor Chaos

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

IME, flak thrown up by the bigger ships has an effect of deterring low-flying TBs. Unless the TB leader is a real fire-eater on the aggression scale, he will tend to go after ships with weaker flak. Low value xAKs are often chosen when there are more valuable but better armed xAPs or AMCs present. In SC or Air Combat TFs, the TBs seem to target DDs and old CLs rather than the well-armed Modern CLs, CAs, BBs and CVs.

I was wondering if it had something to do with avoiding high flak targets. It was surprising how many of the Dauntlesses were damaged by AA from the Japanese BBs, especially at this early point in the war.

Poor Japanese CAP capability means a greater reliance, in relative terms, on their flak engaging the attention of Allied bombers.

Flak strength is not fed into the detection routines. Of course, flak strength has an impact on whether an enemy bomber is able to deliver its ordnance, and how well is the aim.

Alfred

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: Professor Chaos

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

IME, flak thrown up by the bigger ships has an effect of deterring low-flying TBs. Unless the TB leader is a real fire-eater on the aggression scale, he will tend to go after ships with weaker flak. Low value xAKs are often chosen when there are more valuable but better armed xAPs or AMCs present. In SC or Air Combat TFs, the TBs seem to target DDs and old CLs rather than the well-armed Modern CLs, CAs, BBs and CVs.

I was wondering if it had something to do with avoiding high flak targets. It was surprising how many of the Dauntlesses were damaged by AA from the Japanese BBs, especially at this early point in the war.

It is always interesting to compare a FOW combat report that says you had more planes lost or damaged, than went on the strike, with what the airgroup looks like the next turn - a lot of damage seems to be fixed over-night, or was over-claimed. It's similar to where 6 strike aircraft hauling 1 bomb each report 8 ship hits.

[Professor Chaos]

Well far be it for a lowly newb like me to dispute Alfred, but one is tempted to call shenanigans. I re-ran some turns, and here are combat reports from three days of air attacks by Devastators equipped with bombs against various Japanese TFs in May 1942. Every such attack is recorded here:

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Deboyne Islands at 103,135

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 9 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Allied aircraft
TBD-1 Devastator x 15

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
xAK Genoa Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire

Aircraft Attacking:
15 x TBD-1 Devastator bombing from 15000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

Massive explosion on xAK Genoa Maru
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring xAK Genoa Maru

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Port Moresby at 97,132

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 14 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 19
TBD-1 Devastator x 15

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
TB Hayabusa, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk

Aircraft Attacking:
15 x TBD-1 Devastator bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 500 lb GP Bomb

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring TB Hayabusa

Morning Air attack on TF, near Goodenough Island at 101,131

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 4 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 1 minutes

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 19
TBD-1 Devastator x 15

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
xAP Haruna Maru
xAP Hie Maru, Bomb hits 6, and is sunk

Aircraft Attacking:
15 x TBD-1 Devastator bombing from 15000 feet *
Naval Attack: 2 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring xAP Hie Maru

Morning Air attack on TF, near Deboyne Islands at 103,134

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 16 NM, estimated altitude 20,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 19
TBD-1 Devastator x 15

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
BB Kirishima, Bomb hits 4
BB Kongo, Bomb hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
15 x TBD-1 Devastator bombing from 15000 feet *
Naval Attack: 2 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

Morning Air attack on TF, near Deboyne Islands at 103,134

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 14 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 19
TBD-1 Devastator x 15

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
DD Kuretake, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:
15 x TBD-1 Devastator bombing from 15000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Goodenough Island at 101,131

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 11 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 19
F4F-4 Wildcat x 19
TBD-1 Devastator x 15

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
xAP Haruna Maru, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
PB Chitose Maru

Aircraft Attacking:
15 x TBD-1 Devastator bombing from 15000 feet *
Naval Attack: 2 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring xAP Haruna Maru

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Deboyne Islands at 103,134

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 17 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 19
TBD-1 Devastator x 15

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
DD Kuretake, on fire, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:
15 x TBD-1 Devastator bombing from 15000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

In every attack except the last, the Devastators scored bomb hits from 10,000 or 15,000 feet. Even in clouds, rain, and thunderstorms. Even against small ships like DDs and TBs. (The average NavB skill of the squads (Lexington, Saratoga, Hornet) ranged from 40 to 63). Two of these attacks scored 20% hits from 15,000 feet.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: Professor Chaos

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

IME, flak thrown up by the bigger ships has an effect of deterring low-flying TBs. Unless the TB leader is a real fire-eater on the aggression scale, he will tend to go after ships with weaker flak. Low value xAKs are often chosen when there are more valuable but better armed xAPs or AMCs present. In SC or Air Combat TFs, the TBs seem to target DDs and old CLs rather than the well-armed Modern CLs, CAs, BBs and CVs.

I was wondering if it had something to do with avoiding high flak targets. It was surprising how many of the Dauntlesses were damaged by AA from the Japanese BBs, especially at this early point in the war.

It is always interesting to compare a FOW combat report that says you had more planes lost or damaged, than went on the strike, with what the airgroup looks like the next turn - a lot of damage seems to be fixed over-night, or was over-claimed. It's similar to where 6 strike aircraft hauling 1 bomb each report 8 ship hits.

I always imagined that to be like the damage to aircraft in shore bombardments - the "aircraft damaged" number is actually the number of damaging hits inflicted in total, not the number of individual aircraft damaged. So in flak terms if an aircraft gets some flak damage approaching the target and more damage as it departs, that could be two on the "aircraft damaged" count.

[witpqs]

I do remember this being a topic of discussion long ago but I don't remember what the conclusion was. Are you running the very latest version? It's possible they did make a change to address this.