House rule 4Es

[Chris21wen]

B 25 G & H models get the "Bombing and Strafing at Low Naval Attack" message, when set for Nav 5k ft.

Only planes I think do this. I think its related to their armament and all those forward firing weapons. They
are some of the most awesome (and feared) planes, range 11. I had to trade out my NavB pilts of LowNav after I saw this.

They are not the only ac that skip bomb. Any ac classified as an attack bomber will but that depends on the scenario for insatnce in scenario #1 there is no B25G, The AB in this scenario are A20 A1 & G, B-26B, B-25 H & J11 and the PBY-1H. You are correct on the forward guns.

All MB will attack at low altitudes with half their load but the normal attack is a standard level bonbing not skip bombing and accuracy is limited even at 100'. Note that there is a random chance that one or two ac will skip bomb.

These reports are same MB (not AB) unit attacking same target at 5000', 10000' and 100'. The units lowN avg is 34. Also each unit attacked twice per turn.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 30, 45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Kuroshima at 99,61

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 74 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 22 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-25J1 Mitchell x 28
P-47N Thunderbolt x 45

Allied aircraft losses
B-25J1 Mitchell: 11 damaged
B-25J1 Mitchell: 5 destroyed by flak

Japanese Ships
BB Nagato
CV Junyo
CV Ikoma

Aircraft Attacking:
22 x B-25J1 Mitchell bombing from 5000 feet
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

Carrier support unable to supply air cover..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allied aircraft losses
B-25J1 Mitchell: 24 damaged
B-25J1 Mitchell: 1 destroyed by flak

Japanese Ships
CV Junyo
BB Nagato
CV Ikoma

Aircraft Attacking:
24 x B-25J1 Mitchell bombing from 5000 feet
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

Carrier support unable to supply air cover..

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 30, 45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allied aircraft losses
B-25J1 Mitchell: 18 damaged
B-25J1 Mitchell: 7 destroyed by flak

Japanese Ships
CV Junyo, Bomb hits 1
BB Nagato
CV Ikoma

Aircraft Attacking:
23 x B-25J1 Mitchell bombing from 1000 feet
Naval Attack: 3 x 500 lb SAP Bomb (Half load)

Carrier support unable to supply air cover..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allied aircraft losses
B-25J1 Mitchell: 12 damaged
B-25J1 Mitchell: 1 destroyed by flak

Japanese Ships
CV Ikoma
BB Nagato

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x B-25J1 Mitchell bombing from 1000 feet
Naval Attack: 3 x 500 lb SAP Bomb (Half load)

Carrier support unable to supply air cover..

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 30, 45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allied aircraft losses
B-25J1 Mitchell: 28 damaged
B-25J1 Mitchell: 3 destroyed by flak

Japanese Ships
CA Myoko, Shell hits 5, Bomb hits 2, on fire
DD Wakazakura
DD Katsura
DD Azura
CV Ikoma, Bomb hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
27 x B-25J1 Mitchell bombing from 100 feet (4 ac skip bombed)
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 lb SAP Bomb (Single bomb. Is it halved again?)

Carrier support unable to supply air cover..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allied aircraft losses
B-25J1 Mitchell: 10 damaged
B-25J1 Mitchell: 1 destroyed by flak

Japanese Ships
BB Nagato
DD Azura
DD Katsura
CV Ikoma

Aircraft Attacking:
10 x B-25J1 Mitchell bombing from 100 feet (3 ac skip bombed)
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 lb SAP Bomb (Single bomb. Is it halved again?)

Carrier support unable to supply air cover..

[Chris21wen]

I tried the same test using 4e and got similar results as above.

Next the AB, same unit, target etc but lowN for unit is now 60. Never noticed before but lowG, lowN but when a scenario starts these rating are adjusted dependant upon aircraft type. Suppose it makes sense,

Result are considerably different. Here's the 5000' report.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 30, 45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Kuroshima at 99,61

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 77 NM, estimated altitude 6,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 22 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-25J11 Mitchell x 28
P-47N Thunderbolt x 67

Allied aircraft losses
B-25J11 Mitchell: 28 damaged
B-25J11 Mitchell: 3 destroyed by flak

Japanese Ships
BB Nagato, Bomb hits 11, heavy fires
DD Hatsuume
CV Ikoma, Bomb hits 7, heavy fires
CV Junyo, Bomb hits 5, heavy fires
DD Katsura, Shell hits 13
DD Azura, Shell hits 28
CA Myoko

Aircraft Attacking:
28 x B-25J11 Mitchell bombing and strafing from low level
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

Carrier support unable to supply air cover..
Fuel storage explosion on CV Ikoma

This all brings me back to my argument, 'is the house rule for no low naval attacks using HB/MB attacking ships necessary anymore?'

[Maallon]

That was FIVE hits and not four!

I meant that 4E Bombers would still carry 4 bombs, sorry the way I wrote it is very misleading.

They started training for LowNaval on the 8th of January. I once had ONE 300 kg bomb hit on an IJN CA that sank it - magazine explosion! But B-25s would have six 500lb or halved at three bombs while the DB7 (A-20s) would only have four 500lb bombs halved at two bombs. Some of those bomber pilots have LowNaval skills in the 60s. I might concentrate the pilots with the best LowNaval skills into a few units with B-25s while the rest would start bombing oil production and ground units. But I need to get more Allied fighter units in the area with good pilots . . .

But those short ranged TIVs or whatever those Dutch planes are do quite nicely with three 250kg bombs at low level. Too bad the Dutch don't get more pilots during the war . . .

Yeah, this magazine explosions are rare but very deadly in the game. I usually don't get the chance to train the Dutch Pilots that high in LowN skills. In my previous games Japan was already invading Java in February/March.

As far as 4Es going after the KB or any IJN carrier groups, give them a good long range escort fighter with qualified pilots and have them fly at 20k. Essentially that would be one heck of a fighter sweep which can't be normally be done against carriers. Worse would be those 2E attack bombers flying faster at 20k with all of that forward firing firepower. Worse would be if you could have those A-26s go on anti-fighter sweeps . . .

There are certainly many ways to game the game.
Do ABs follow fighter or bomber logic during air combat though? Given that they don't have a different MVR rating for altitude bands, I think they follow bomber logic, meaning they will try to fly past the CAP and not try to engage it.
I have no safe file to try it out myself at the moment.

But if those 4Es had to face the task forces AAA FOUR times to drop those bombs one at a time, their losses would go up - especially their OPs losses and failure to Return To Base losses.

Still worth it! Even if I lost 70 4E Bombers during the attack, if I can cripple KB that way it is absolutely worth it.
Japan will never recover from that loss. Depending on the date, the time it takes to get 70 new 4E Bombers as the Allies can range from half a year to 1.5 months.

[Maallon]

This all brings me back to my argument, 'is the house rule for no low naval attacks using HB/MB attacking ships necessary anymore?'

Interesting observations. Did 4E Bombers also only carry one bomb if they skip bombed? This could be a game changer.
Do you also tested this with MB and HB Squadrons who have pilots with high LowN skills?

[BBfanboy]

I looked through the manual section on Air Units and the Special Rules but could not find the info on Attack Bombers flying low altitude so I think the info came from Alfred - there is a high Skill or Experience level (70?) required for pilots to make a successful skip-bombing attack. So setting bombers to Naval Attack at 100 or 1000 feet does not automatically mean skip bombing is carried out. That may explain some of the results seen in the tests above. I am unclear if that applies to the whole squadron (having the high average training/experience level) or individual pilots. If it applies to individual pilots the animation should show some pilots attacking at 100' and some at 1000 feet (when set to LowN attack).

[RangerJoe]

It depends upon the 4E bomber as to how many bombs that they carry. Look at the B-24 versions as well as the B-29s to see just how many bombs that they carry.

It does not matter if the attack bombers use the bomber routines, if any fighter makes a head on attack they will get chewed up. If the fighters don't have any armor, then they are flamers.

My game now is at the 27th of February 1942. That Dutch bomber attack was so good because the ships were not moving but all of the pilots had LowNaval skills in the 50s and 60s. My strategy is to mob the Japanese fleets with as many bombers as is possible to hopefully get some hits - at least when I can, when the IJN comes with carriers now I don't have enough good fighters to compete with their fighters. I only have two British carriers in the DEI but no American ones, one of the British ones is the Hermes . . .

[Chris21wen]

This all brings me back to my argument, 'is the house rule for no low naval attacks using HB/MB attacking ships necessary anymore?'

Interesting observations. Did 4E Bombers also only carry one bomb if they skip bombed? This could be a game changer.

They don't skip bomb, they level bomb no matter the altitude.

MB/HB never skip bombed as a unit. The attacks were always level bombing from a height. I worked this out from the animation were normally went in in 3s or 4s and the report states bombing form xx feet. At 5k a full bomb load was used, 1K half and at 100' half again, MB used one while the HB used two.

AB always skip if set to <5000'. Animation show them going in in 1s or 2s and the report states bombing from low level. They always used a full load.

When you watch a MB/HB animation some ac go in in 1s or 2s. This is why I say some may skip bomb but that's a guess. The report doesn't mention anything about it.

Do you also tested this with MB and HB Squadrons who have pilots with high LowN skills?

Not then but I have now.

You can't do it immediately a scenario starts, MB/HB pilots automatically have lowN skill around 30, AB have a lowN around 60. For this reason I had to transfer out all the pilots and replace with vets from other units with lowN around 60.

In the test the only appreciable diference to any attack at 5k was fewer ac losses. I didn't run it a over many rurns but I guess hit are liekly to be more.
At 1K hits were higher but not my much, losses still lower.
At 100' hits higher still, shell mainly.
Bomb loads were as before.

I did notice that at <1K there seemed to be more of a randomness to th raid taking place??

[RangerJoe]

I would not go by the animation as to what is actually happening in this instance. You always see the aircraft going head to head even if a fighter is attacking from the stern, nor do you see aircraft evading nor aircraft smoking and leaving the fight.

[Maallon]

Again, thanks for sharing your observations.
Interesting that LowN and LowG seem to mainly influence survivability, according to your tests.
I would have assumed that there is a bigger influence on accuracy as well. Guess another interesting test would be to see how a high NavB skill influences the results, even at 1k and 100'. Though I think the broad consensus(which I am part of) is that NavB doesn't help at low altitudes, I dont think there was ever a official statement from the developers what each individual skill does or is used in what situations. At least I am not aware of it.

By the way, this is not an invitation from my side to spend your free time with further tests.
So please don't feel obligated to have to do something, that you don't want to.
I may start up a new game at some point and do tests on my own.

I also noticed in my games that Naval attacks at low altitudes like 1k sometimes don't happen, even with clear weather.
Currently I assume that is due to the fact that it is harder to find your target on the open sea, when flying so low.
It also seems to get worse, the further away the target is from the AF.

[RangerJoe]

You need good Naval Search coverage for the area, night naval search would also be helpful. For me, ASW search has also attacked surface vessels as well so that might also help. The closer the airbase to the target TF would/should also help as well. Good leadership is needed as it always is needed.

[Chris21wen]

I only ran these tests over a few times/days so I cannot say what the long term effects are.

I've now tested a AB unit with lowN around 35, not the usual 60+ that is normally generated by the game and there is definitely a difference here. Reduced number of bomb hits but strafe didn't alter much.

As to NavB on level bombing, it does affect bomb hits no matter what height you bomb form. I tested it before but height also affects hits.

There are other factors involved in any attack so just lowing lowN or navB, height, moral, air skill, exp etc. When testing you can't alter a specific pilot skill you have to change the pilots which means other skills chnage as well. Therefore definitive proof is not possible, all you can do is look at the trends.

[Chris21wen]

It's the donfall scenario I was using and when I carried out these tests there was always one escort and no enemy air activity. The bombing unit was set to 30% search, approx 20ac.

The target was always found in every test run I made but the bombing unit did not always fly. Could be weather could other things but the trend was for MB/HB flying at <1K to somtimes not attack.