Allied 4E bombers best ship killers

[pasternakski]

Why? And why make this kind of unsupported assertion in a thread intended to discuss the effectiveness of Allied four-engined bombers against ships in port?

[BlackVoid]

Sorry for my English.

These issues are similar. No CAP, no surface and no sub intercepts in hexes where planes/ships pass through.
This means that some strategies that could have been possible in real life, cannot be done in the game.

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

You often see Betty fly 1,200 miles, torpedo some ships, fly home, fly back again and torpedo some more ships, then go home - 4,800 miles and two attacks in the same day.

Why all the caterwauling about how unfair Allied heavy bomber performance is?

well, japanese pilots are samurai, not conscript pilots[:D][;)]

[Sonny]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Sonny

There is another problem with 4 engine level bombers aside from their accuracy on naval attacks - the fact that they get to fly naval attacks twice in a turn. Include that with their accuracy on naval attacks and you have an uber weapon. 21 B-17s flying from Darwin to Kendari (range 13) twice in a day AND getting at least one bomb hit each time on destroyers. When you add to all the the fact that heavy bombers now repair faster with 1.40, well what can I say?[:-]

You have a legitimate point, but why are you limiting it to 4-engined bombers (the allies)
Any WWII aircraft/crew that's flown a mission of more than 250 miles (out and back) is
pretty much finished for the day. The controlling factor should be hexes flown, not the
number of engines. Unless you are just a "Japanese Fan-boy" looking to hamper the
Allies, you should be complaining about virtually ANY BOMBER flying more than one
mission a day. It happen several times in close-support situations, or when the Cactus
Air Force was bombing a convoy 50 miles away, but not in normal operations.

Actually I was thinking any bomber flying extended range should not fly twice but there would probably somebody mentioning how this or that group did it - so I didn't get into it.

I can see single engine and maybe two engine aircraft being "turned around" (refueled, rearmed, etc.) and flying twice in a day. I just cannot picture a four engine bomber flying max distance and doing that.

So not only are they too accurate, they fly naval attacks (which they seldom did IRL) as often as dive bombers. Just doesn't seem right.

[Ron Saueracker]

I think all a/c should only fly once a day at this scale, or limit it to Air Combat TFs. The attempt to add tactical flexibility naval ops has unfortunately muddled the LBA aspect.

[Halsey]

On that note. LBA can only fly one mission per day. If they flew in the AM they become ineligible to fly in the PM. Night is another seperate phase.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

On that note. LBA can only fly one mission per day. If they flew in the AM they become ineligible to fly in the PM. Night is another seperate phase.

You're right. The really weird air mission model screws me up. Little dribblets of a/c flying everywhere instead of as squadrons.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Sonny

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


You have a legitimate point, but why are you limiting it to 4-engined bombers (the allies)
Any WWII aircraft/crew that's flown a mission of more than 250 miles (out and back) is
pretty much finished for the day. The controlling factor should be hexes flown, not the
number of engines. Unless you are just a "Japanese Fan-boy" looking to hamper the
Allies, you should be complaining about virtually ANY BOMBER flying more than one
mission a day. It happen several times in close-support situations, or when the Cactus
Air Force was bombing a convoy 50 miles away, but not in normal operations.

Actually I was thinking any bomber flying extended range should not fly twice but there would probably somebody mentioning how this or that group did it - so I didn't get into it.

I can see single engine and maybe two engine aircraft being "turned around" (refueled, rearmed, etc.) and flying twice in a day. I just cannot picture a four engine bomber flying max distance and doing that.

So not only are they too accurate, they fly naval attacks (which they seldom did IRL) as often as dive bombers. Just doesn't seem right.

SONNY It's about TIME, not aircraft range. Almost none of the A/C in WITP "cruised"
at more than 150-180 miles-per-hour. So if you allow an hour for "briefing and readying"
the planes, then fly 250 miles to the target, attack it, and fly 250 miles back, what with
forming up and waiting for the last A/C to land. thats 4 more hours. Now you need to
rest the crews and re-ready all the A/C, which takes at least another hour or two.

That one attack has pushed you to or beyond the half-way point of your 12 hour day.
Every additional 180 miles flown (out and back) adds two hours. That's why I said that
distance flown should be the CRITICAL CONSIDERATION. Only in a few rare instances
of carrier combat or defensive attacks on an invader are the two sides close enough
for more than one strike to be possible. A Mavis or even a Betty can fly a tremendous
distance..., but to do so it has to take off before dawn and land after dark...; which isn't
practical against a naval target when you have to wait for the "dawn patrol" to even
tell you if there is a target, and where to go to find it. There are only so many hours
in a day.

[Sonny]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Sonny

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


You have a legitimate point, but why are you limiting it to 4-engined bombers (the allies)
Any WWII aircraft/crew that's flown a mission of more than 250 miles (out and back) is
pretty much finished for the day. The controlling factor should be hexes flown, not the
number of engines. Unless you are just a "Japanese Fan-boy" looking to hamper the
Allies, you should be complaining about virtually ANY BOMBER flying more than one
mission a day. It happen several times in close-support situations, or when the Cactus
Air Force was bombing a convoy 50 miles away, but not in normal operations.

Actually I was thinking any bomber flying extended range should not fly twice but there would probably somebody mentioning how this or that group did it - so I didn't get into it.

I can see single engine and maybe two engine aircraft being "turned around" (refueled, rearmed, etc.) and flying twice in a day. I just cannot picture a four engine bomber flying max distance and doing that.

So not only are they too accurate, they fly naval attacks (which they seldom did IRL) as often as dive bombers. Just doesn't seem right.

SONNY It's about TIME, not aircraft range. Almost none of the A/C in WITP "cruised"
at more than 150-180 miles-per-hour. So if you allow an hour for "briefing and readying"
the planes, then fly 250 miles to the target, attack it, and fly 250 miles back, what with
forming up and waiting for the last A/C to land. thats 4 more hours. Now you need to
rest the crews and re-ready all the A/C, which takes at least another hour or two.

That one attack has pushed you to or beyond the half-way point of your 12 hour day.
Every additional 180 miles flown (out and back) adds two hours. That's why I said that
distance flown should be the CRITICAL CONSIDERATION. Only in a few rare instances
of carrier combat or defensive attacks on an invader are the two sides close enough
for more than one strike to be possible. A Mavis or even a Betty can fly a tremendous
distance..., but to do so it has to take off before dawn and land after dark...; which isn't
practical against a naval target when you have to wait for the "dawn patrol" to even
tell you if there is a target, and where to go to find it. There are only so many hours
in a day.

You're right, it is more accurate/realistic but I just was making it simple. Extended range = one flight a day.