surviving the heavies

[Mr.Frag]

Last save I got was from Robert on Sat 14th ... if it was after that, I haven't seen 'em

[moses]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

My contention has been that it is much simpler than that. Its just that there are too many bombers in general. So no need to complain or argue about these other things. Just fix the replacement rates.

The rate itself will not fix the problem by itself ... The problem is they last too long overall ... too many flight ready aircraft (on both sides of the fence). Driving the rate down just means people will build up longer, but in the end it will still be massive numbers in one attack.

Need that rot rate to deal with this one once and for all. Nothing else will really fix it, it just seems to move the issue somewhere else.

I agree with you here.

Its just that your fix (and the alternative way that I suggested) both would seem to require a code change. While you have given very slight indications that there might be some hope here others indicate that this is pretty much a closed issue. Since I have no contact with the developers I cannot evaluate if this is even a possibility.

I would love to see your idea implemented. I just don't know if its even on the table and probably never will until the patch is issued and I read the notes.

Changes to replacement rates on the other hand are much easier to implement and I almost wonder if it could even be done as some sort of optional mini-patch. i.e. If you want the lower rates download 1.8b and you got em. If not leave it alone.

Dropping all bomber replacements would seem to fix not all but at least the worst problems. i.e. harder to get MASS 4E bombardments and mass 4E navel attacks in 42 early 43.

You're fix would be better but is it on the table??[:)]

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Unfortunately, I don't always take the high road with these people and tend to fire back with full broadsides.

Use 16"/50's ... they penetrate better [:D]

Especially if you are Diehl quoting that........

[Mr.Frag]

I honestly don't know moses. If Mike likes it, he'll do it on his own when time permits.

One thing you can do (works fairly equally for both sides) ... group limit per base ...

Bombers:

size < 4 = no bombers beyond single engine

4 = 1 group max (squadrons 3x)

5 = 2 groups max

6 = 3 groups max

7+ = unlimited

Fighters:

1 group per every 2 points of airfield size

Others:

Unlimited

A lot of the problem also comes from the fact that overstacking units to a high enough level basically bypasses the intended penalty rule as we didn't think like that when we tested it.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Chez I hope my comments have not been offensive to you. I have simply tried to assign the correct cause to percieved problems.

No worries there, Moses. You've done nothing to offend me.

I don't mind when people find errors in my data. It helps further my knowledge and often offers a view I hadn't yet considered. It's only when people call others stupid or uninformed, who insist theirs is the only correct view or attack me personally that I find offensive. Unfortunately, I don't always take the high road with these people and tend to fire back with full broadsides.

I agree that replacement rates for many aircraft are too high. I think that a big problem is also the ability to instantly replace losses in pilots and aircraft. If we had to bring these to the front (or the unit to the rear), it would go a long way towards correcting the issue.

Chez

If we had to bring these to the front (or the unit to the rear), it would go a long way towards correcting the issue.

By severing the hard coded link between supply and resources we could accomplish this sufficiently despite the abstract nature of the model. Removing all this free front line supply and making the player ship it in would make it work.

[Mr.Frag]

Removing all this free front line supply and making the player ship it in would make it work.

What does Japan controlled free supply have to do with Allied Heavy bombers (which I might add destroy that supply faster then it is generated)

[moses]

Ron:

While I would not mind some changes to supply it will not help this particular problem.


Allied bombers (the biggest issue here) will not really be effected by any supply changes unless they are extremely drastic.

Currently I sit with 3 Austrailian bases at 900,000 supply+. New Zealand and Numea are also stocked with several hundred thousand supply each. Ankerage has several hundered thousand. Of course my bases in India are as full as I want. And I stopped sending supply months ago. And I never did anything special before that. Its Oct 42.

It would take some drastic supply changes to stop my bombers this way.

[bradfordkay]

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Sorry, but you aren't right and you know it. Arguing that B17 wasn't bad at naval attack with NEAR MISSES in one mission is funny."


His point was that only 8 bombers with extremely limited experience (only their second combat mission ever) came very close to hitting a Japanese CV that was maneuvering at speed. Are you trying to say that a lrger number of more experienced bombers had absolutely no chance to do any better? That argument doesn't compute...

Pauk responded:

Please be consistent. As i recall, the ASW was tweaked for "historical arguments" sake. Japs didn't have developed ASW so it doesn't matter if you double, triple your ASW effort - we have now situation that is extremely hard for Jap naval ASW to locate and attack enemy.

Ok, i'm fine with that and don't have objecitions. Same should aply for B17 on naval attack - they were bad at naval attack and that's it.

What annoys me most is that same agruments are OK for Allies, but not for Japanese..."


I'm not quite sure where you're getting the inconsistency part of my argument. I was not involved in any arguments about Japanese ASW, as I don't have a lot of knowledge on that matter...

The fact is that B17s and other level bombers were used in anti-shipping roles. You may recall that B17s hit a Japanese destroyer during the warmup to the Guadalcanal landings. It has been pointed out earlier in this thread that the initial experiments with skip bombing in the SWPac area were done by B17s.

Personally, I feel that all level bombers are getting too many hits on moving shipping, but the game is consistent in offering that extra accuracy to both sides. Now, how the players use the bombers is up to them, and can cause quite ahistoric results.

[Mr.Frag]

You may recall that B17s hit a Japanese destroyer during the warmup to the Guadalcanal landings.

Memory serves, they were discussing just how unlikely it was that they could be hit when it happened [:D]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Removing all this free front line supply and making the player ship it in would make it work.

What does Japan controlled free supply have to do with Allied Heavy bombers (which I might add destroy that supply faster then it is generated)

I'm talking about the model generally. If the free supply was not there in equal proportion to resources, players would need to ship supply into the forward areas and build it up enough to regenerate TOE, thereby making the work. (think of the supply brought in as actual replacement aircraft etc). Presently it is obvious that this is basically not necessary because of all the supply generating every day in the forward areas and satisfying the TOE regeneration demands.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: moses

Ron:

While I would not mind some changes to supply it will not help this particular problem.


Allied bombers (the biggest issue here) will not really be effected by any supply changes unless they are extremely drastic.

Currently I sit with 3 Austrailian bases at 900,000 supply+. New Zealand and Numea are also stocked with several hundred thousand supply each. Ankerage has several hundered thousand. Of course my bases in India are as full as I want. And I stopped sending supply months ago. And I never did anything special before that. Its Oct 42.

It would take some drastic supply changes to stop my bombers this way.

And seperating the hard coded link between supply and resources will allow the modders to make some drastic supply changes to stop my bombers this way.

[Ron Saueracker]

When it comes to accuracy, just change the device ratings for this through the editor. I did it for ship, plane and PT launched torps, as well as ASW weapons and worked well (more so for the torps than ASW because of the old ASW model).

[ChezDaJez]

The fact is that B17s and other level bombers were used in anti-shipping roles. You may recall that B17s hit a Japanese destroyer during the warmup to the Guadalcanal landings. It has been pointed out earlier in this thread that the initial experiments with skip bombing in the SWPac area were done by B17s.

That DD was conducting rescure operations on a damaged ship and was tied alongside at the time. As far as I know, there aren't any instances of B-17s hitting warships on the open sea and underway from high altitude except during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea.

It is true that the B-17 was originally intended as a fleet interdiction aircraft when first designed. By the time the war started however, the B-17 was being promoted for use against land targets where it would prove much more effective. It continued to be used for naval search and attack in the Pacific because it was the only long range aircraft available with a significant bomb load until the B-24 became available. It simply didn't have the means to hit moving ships at sea with any degree of certainty. The Norden bombsight was designed strictly for land attack and had no means of adjustment for moving targets.

The only battle where they showed any significant effectiveness at altitude was the Battle of the Bismarck Sea where they conducted operations against 8 transports and 4 DDs. The B-17s bombed from 7000 feet while swarms of B-25s, A-20 Bostons and Beauforts used low altitude and skip bombing tactics. The B-17s claimed 5 ships sunk including a DD and 4 others heavily damaged. The B-17s actually sank only one ship, the KYOKUSEI MARU, a troop transport and damaged 2 others. The remainder were sunk by the 2E aircraft.

Be that as it may, the B-17 was withdrawn from Pacific theater combat operations in late spring of 43 and relegated to support duties until the fall of 43.

I agree with you that level bombing accuracy is too high for both sides but the problem is amplified by the B-17 because each bomb is treated separately and the B-17 carries a lot of them.
Chez

[moses]

I think though that despite what some say I don't really see that the 4E bomber is much of a ship killer in the game. I have had success in a couple of situations.

1.) Against ships operating in range of large numbers of my bombers with no aircover whatsoever. This is really a crazy situation. Why risk your ships like this. But its a game and no real lives are at risk so why not.

2.) Smallish carrier forces operating within range of my bombers for days on end. Again something which does not reflect historical practice.

In each case what I see are large numbers of ineffective bombing attacks until a lucky hit is scored. This is followed by numerous hits against the now crippled ship or ships. In one instance I can remember I attacked a carrier TF with 80 some 4E bombers and a couple dozen other aircraft (hudsons and such). The strikes were all ineffective until a 2E bomber put a 500lb bomb into a carrier. After this the carrier was hit several more times by the 4E bombers and over the next couple days savaged by these bombers until sunk.

I don't think any of this is unrealistic. I don't contend that 4E bombers should be good ship killers. Only that if you mass larger than historical numbers of bombers and employ them against TF's that are acting in a somewhat non-historical and risky manner then it is reasonable to expect a significantly greater than historical number of hits.

[spence]

I just finished going through the TROMs of all IJN cruisers and destroyers at the Combined Fleet website. Here is the data. Ships sunk or damaged by Navy/USMC aircraft are not included nor is any ship damaged in the Solomons unless the type of a/c is clearly identified as an Allied twin engine bomber. I did include several ships damaged or sunk in the waters near New Guinea wherein the type of a/c inflicting the damage is unspecified. I believe it reasonable to assume in those cases that the a/c were from the USAAF or RAAF and were most likely twin or 4-engine bombers.

SHIP//AIRCRAFT RESPONSIBLE//DATE//NOTES

MUTSUKI// B-17 //8-25-42//TIED ALONGSIDE CRIPPLED KINRYU MARU RESCUING SURVIVORS//SUNK
MIKAZUKI//B-25//7-28-43//GROUNDED WHEN BOMBED//SUNK
MOCHIZUKI//PBY//10-24-43//SUNK BY BOMB NOT TORPEDO INCIDENTALLY
YAYOI//???//9-11-42//SUNK NEAR GOODENOUGH ISLAND
SHIRAYUKI//???//3-3-43//SKIP BOMBED IN BATTLE OF BISMARK SEA//SUNK
SHINONOME//DUTCH FLYING BOAT//12-17-41//PLANE IN GVT-7//SUNK
OBORO//B-26//10-17-42//ALEUTIANS//SUNK
HATSUHARU//B-26//10-17-42//HEAVILY DAMAGED IN ALEUTIANS
ARIAKE//B-24//12-26-42//HEAVILY DAMAGED//B-25//7-28-43//SUNK
SHIRATSUYU//B-17//11-29-42//MEDIUM DAMAGE
HARASUME//B-25//6-8-44//SUNK
UMIKAZE//B-17//11-18-42//SUNK
ASASHIO//????//3-3-43//SUNK IN BATTLE OF BISMARK SEA
ARASHIO//????//3-3-43//SUNK IN BATTLE OF BISMARK SEA
HAYASHIO//UNSPECIFIED USAAF BOMBERS//11-24-42//SUNK NEAR NEW GUINEA
AMATSUKAZE//B-25//4-6-45//SUNK
TOLKITSUKAZE//????//3-3-43//SUNK IN BATTLE OF BISMARK SEA
HAGIKAZE//B-17//8-19-42//HEAVILY DAMAGED - SAME CONVOY AS MUTSUKI
KIYONAMI//B-25//7-20-43//SUNK
KIYOSHIMO//UNSPECIFIED USAAF BOMBERS//12-26-44//SUNK
AKISHIMO//B-25//11-10-44//HEAVY DAMAGE
UME//B-25 AND P-38//1-31-45//SUNK
KAEDE//B-25 AND P-38//1-31-45//SUNK
NIRE//B-29//6-22-45//IN PORT
YUBARI//B-24 AND PBY//11-18-43//DAMAGED
TENRYU//B-17//10-1-42//DAMAGED
KISO//BEAUFORT//10-21-43//DAMAGED BY 250 LB BOMB
ABUKUMA//B-24//10-26-44//SUNK-PREVIOUSLY DAMAGED-MAX SPEED 20
ISUZU//B-24//4-6-45//DAMAGED
OYODO//B-24//12-26-44//2 DIRECT HITS BUT 1 WAS A DUD - LIGHT DAMAGE
ASHIGARA//B-25//12-26-44//DAMAGED
AOBA//B-17//4-3-43//SKIP BOMBED WHILE MOORED - BOMB SET OFF TORPEDOS WHICH NEARLY SINK SHIP - BEACHED TO PREVENT SINKING - PERMANENT ENGINE DAMAGE REDUCES TOP SPEED TO 25 KTS FOR REMAINDER OF WAR

From the data it would appear that Allied level bombers accounted for a fair number of fast naval vessels underway at the time of their demise. Of note re the Battle of the Bismark Sea is that only one of the 4 DDs sunk was sunk by skip bombing; the others evidently by conventional level bombing. I'm sure that some other source would detail what type of a/c scored the hits on those DDs but I'm too tired to go look right now.[;)]

[ChezDaJez]

I just finished going through the TROMs of all IJN cruisers and destroyers at the Combined Fleet website. Here is the data. Ships sunk or damaged by Navy/USMC aircraft are not included nor is any ship damaged in the Solomons unless the type of a/c is clearly identified as an Allied twin engine bomber. I did include several ships damaged or sunk in the waters near New Guinea wherein the type of a/c inflicting the damage is unspecified. I believe it reasonable to assume in those cases that the a/c were from the USAAF or RAAF and were most likely twin or 4-engine bombers.

MUTSUKI// B-17 //8-25-42//TIED ALONGSIDE CRIPPLED KINRYU MARU RESCUING SURVIVORS//SUNK
MIKAZUKI//B-25//7-28-43//GROUNDED WHEN BOMBED//SUNK
MOCHIZUKI//PBY//10-24-43//SUNK BY BOMB NOT TORPEDO INCIDENTALLY
YAYOI//???//9-11-42//SUNK NEAR GOODENOUGH ISLAND
SHIRAYUKI//???//3-3-43//SKIP BOMBED IN BATTLE OF BISMARK SEA//SUNK
SHINONOME//DUTCH FLYING BOAT//12-17-41//PLANE IN GVT-7//SUNK
OBORO//B-26//10-17-42//ALEUTIANS//SUNK
HATSUHARU//B-26//10-17-42//HEAVILY DAMAGED IN ALEUTIANS
ARIAKE//B-24//12-26-42//HEAVILY DAMAGED//B-25//7-28-43//SUNK
SHIRATSUYU//B-17//11-29-42//MEDIUM DAMAGE
HARASUME//B-25//6-8-44//SUNK
UMIKAZE//B-17//11-18-42//SUNK
ASASHIO//????//3-3-43//SUNK IN BATTLE OF BISMARK SEA
ARASHIO//????//3-3-43//SUNK IN BATTLE OF BISMARK SEA
HAYASHIO//UNSPECIFIED USAAF BOMBERS//11-24-42//SUNK NEAR NEW GUINEA
AMATSUKAZE//B-25//4-6-45//SUNK
TOLKITSUKAZE//????//3-3-43//SUNK IN BATTLE OF BISMARK SEA
HAGIKAZE//B-17//8-19-42//HEAVILY DAMAGED - SAME CONVOY AS MUTSUKI
KIYONAMI//B-25//7-20-43//SUNK
KIYOSHIMO//UNSPECIFIED USAAF BOMBERS//12-26-44//SUNK
AKISHIMO//B-25//11-10-44//HEAVY DAMAGE
UME//B-25 AND P-38//1-31-45//SUNK
KAEDE//B-25 AND P-38//1-31-45//SUNK
NIRE//B-29//6-22-45//IN PORT
YUBARI//B-24 AND PBY//11-18-43//DAMAGED
TENRYU//B-17//10-1-42//DAMAGED
KISO//BEAUFORT//10-21-43//DAMAGED BY 250 LB BOMB
ABUKUMA//B-24//10-26-44//SUNK-PREVIOUSLY DAMAGED-MAX SPEED 20
ISUZU//B-24//4-6-45//DAMAGED
OYODO//B-24//12-26-44//2 DIRECT HITS BUT 1 WAS A DUD - LIGHT DAMAGE
ASHIGARA//B-25//12-26-44//DAMAGED
AOBA//B-17//4-3-43//SKIP BOMBED WHILE MOORED - BOMB SET OFF TORPEDOS WHICH NEARLY SINK SHIP - BEACHED TO PREVENT SINKING - PERMANENT ENGINE DAMAGE REDUCES TOP SPEED TO 25 KTS FOR REMAINDER OF WAR

It's well documented that skip bombing by heavy and medium bombers was highly effective against shipping. The question is how effective was the B-17 AT ALTITUDE against ships actually underway and at sea.

BTW, there are a few errors with the Combined Fleet TROMs. Some examples follow:

Yayoi was sunk by B-25s skip bombing.

Shinonome was sunk by an explosion, possibly a mine. There were no survivors. The Dutch claimed her but other ships with her reported no air attacks at the time.

The Ariake was in the North Pacific waiting for KB to arrive for escort back to the home islands after PH. She also participated in the Darwin raids in Feb 42.

Tenryu was anchored at Rabaul when hit. Damage was not extensive and was repaired in Rabaul. She was sunk by the SS Albacore 2 months later.

Arashio, Shirayuki and Talikitsukaze were all sunk by B-25s at the Battle of Bismarck Sea. The Asashio is credited to both B-25s and B-17s depending upon the source used.

Hayashio was sunk by skip bombing B-25s. One of my books has a picture of her being bombed.

I used Morrison, Bergstrom, Lundstrom and Dull's "The Imperial Japanese Navy" book plus multitude of internet sites. I like to double and triple chack data because so much of it is just a rehash of someone else's data.

Anyhooo... I would sure hate to be on the deck of a Japanese ship when B-25s or B-17s came skip bombing. That must have been one scarey sight!

Chez

[Feinder]

"The question is how effective was the B-17 AT ALTITUDE against ships actually underway and at sea. "

I think we can all agree, as did the powers that be in WW2, that at altitude, they were not terribly effective. "At altititude" being defined as 15 - 20k , which was the expected altitude that they would be bombing from (and indeed did attemped early on). In my Midway example, it -IS- impressive that they managed to -almost- hit Soryu (manuvering at 26kts vs. torpedos, from 16,000'). But -almost- doesn't do you much good operationally.

I have not done the research on "lower level boming altitudes", as in <10k, so I won't make any assertions if accuracy improved. I don't even know how often they bombed at the lower altitudes (esp since it would be against perscribed training procedures).

But the lack of effectiveness at 20k, is the very reason they switched to skip bombing in the first place.

A caviate' on skip bombing. The group commanders felt that it was actually -easier- to train a new pilot to skip bomb in the first place, so I'm not sure why the skill check is in WitP. But whatever.

[Nikademus]

The 17's weren't particularly more accurate against moving targets at the 8-10k range. the crews disliked bombing at these alts because according to some crewers, 9k or thereabouts was the optimum alt for the Japanese AA gunners.

The skill check in WitP is of course....an abstraction, to represent the fact that the crews needed some kind of training to preform this type of mission. Kenney certainly believed so as he carefully monitored the intial training sessions.

[Feinder]

Nik, what -is- the point of skip bombing in WitP? Seriously. Between the skill checks, the extra flak, the morale hit, and higher chance at a belt armor hit, I can't see the point.

Do you get individual rolls for the bombs, instead of the "stick" attacks from altitude? If that were the case, it would be useful.

I never use skip bombing because my crews at 70 exp (reasonable chance to pass check for skip bombing), are also adaquate at 6k, and I don't have to put up with the the flak, morale hit, and useless belt hits.

-F-

[Nikademus]

Skip bombing can be devestating in the game and has been demonstrated in the past....hence the toning down efforts in the code (not the exp check...that was always there) It's particularily effective against merchants and lightly protected warships. It's not as important vs docked TF's as they can be hit fairly easy by high exp groups.