Torpedo bombers and bombing accuracy

[DesertWolf101]

Honestly, whether you think Greta is the new Joan of Arc or an extremely misguided person it's pretty obvious from her long standing platform that violence is not something she would push for.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Maallon

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Maallon



Not saying that you are wrong, because I am not following her every move and don't agree with absolutely everything she says, also she is young and fiery, a combination which can lead to unfortunate wording.
But for me to believe your exact statement you would need to send me the source. [:)]

There is even a video with her speaking in English.

Greta Thunberg turns heads when she threatens to put world leaders ‘against the wall’

Wearing what appeared to be a mass-produced plastic raincoat, on Friday fanatical 16-year-old climate change activist Greta Thunberg promised her followers that they would one day force the world’s leaders to do their bidding, one way or another.

“Unfortunately, we probably already know the outcome,” she said at a climate change protest in Italy, referring to she and her acolytes’ efforts to persuade world leaders to jettison the fruits of Western civilization so that the Earth may be saved from doom.

“World leaders are still trying to run away from their responsibilities but we have to make sure they cannot do that. We will make sure that we put them against the wall and they will have to do their job to protect our futures.”

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/12/14 ... ll-864506/

up against the wall in an inextricable situation; in great trouble or difficulty.
The image here is of someone facing execution by a firing squad.
See also: up, wall

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/up ... t+the+wall

This is exactly what I meant with unfortunate wording and also speaking in a second language.
Here is her apology and reasoning for that phrase:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50799233

Some public figures will issue an "apology" for something that they mean with a sorry excuse just so they will not lose their followers.

I doubt that many German fans will shout in the German language "Hail Victory" for any sporting events even if that is what they want to say.

[Maallon]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Maallon

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe




There is even a video with her speaking in English.

Greta Thunberg turns heads when she threatens to put world leaders ‘against the wall’



https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/12/14 ... ll-864506/



https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/up ... t+the+wall

This is exactly what I meant with unfortunate wording and also speaking in a second language.
Here is her apology and reasoning for that phrase:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50799233

Some public figures will issue an "apology" for something that they mean with a sorry excuse just so they will not lose their followers.

I doubt that many German fans will shout in the German language "Hail Victory" for any sporting events even if that is what they want to say.

First, in the source you mentioned, if you scroll further down, you will find these passage;

To be clear, there’s no evidence to suggest she was referencing executions. In fact, the teen grew up in Sweden, and it just so happens that the literal translation of the Swedish phrase “ställa mot väggen,” which means to hold someone accountable, is “set against the wall.” This could possibly explain her disconcerting choice of words.

Secondly, I agree with your analogy, but I am with DesertWolf101 here that she is definitely not someone who promotes violence to achieve her goals. And this specific case has a very clear reasoning why it was a mistake, so I would be inclined to believe it, as long this doesn't repeat itself.

[RangerJoe]

There are also other issues with that individual that I will not discuss here.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Maallon

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Why are people picking on Greta?

She seems like a nice young lady, and quite intelligent.

+1
I was asking myself the same question just now. [:D]

She has indicated her willingness to shoot people who disagree with her views. Among other things.

Fair enough then, I must have missed that.

[Wirraway_Ace]

How did a thread on torpedo bombers and bombing accuracy become a discussion of a teenage activist's word choice?

My instinct is that torpedo bombers hit (or near miss that count as a hit) at a higher rate than a full analysis of the historical record would support, but, BUT, without data, I am just another guy with an opinion. I do not have the time to analyze the historical record broadly nor test the game in sandbox mode enough times to get a reasonable sample, so I don't worry about it. CAP or LRCAP is the in-game solution.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

How did a thread on torpedo bombers and bombing accuracy become a discussion of a teenage activist's word choice?

My instinct is that torpedo bombers hit (or near miss that count as a hit) at a higher rate than a full analysis of the historical record would support, but, BUT, without data, I am just another guy with an opinion. I do not have the time to analyze the historical record broadly nor test the game in sandbox mode enough times to get a reasonable sample, so I don't worry about it. CAP or LRCAP is the in-game solution.

As the developers have said many times - "It's a game, not an historical simulation!". They set out to make a game that would challenge both sides, and to do that they had to work in some a-historic advantages for the Japanese side, including caliber of pilots and probably hit rates. This practice of comparing the game structure to history is fine for interests sake, but please don't make noises about it ruining the game!

[Yaab]

Not bad.

Scen001v5

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Bacolod at 79,85

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 10 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A5M4 Claude x 8
B5N1 Kate x 15

Allied aircraft
P-26A x 2

No Japanese losses

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
xAKL Corregidor, Bomb hits 6, and is sunk

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

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

How did a thread on torpedo bombers and bombing accuracy become a discussion of a teenage activist's word choice?

My instinct is that torpedo bombers hit (or near miss that count as a hit) at a higher rate than a full analysis of the historical record would support, but, BUT, without data, I am just another guy with an opinion. I do not have the time to analyze the historical record broadly nor test the game in sandbox mode enough times to get a reasonable sample, so I don't worry about it. CAP or LRCAP is the in-game solution.

As the developers have said many times - "It's a game, not an historical simulation!". They set out to make a game that would challenge both sides, and to do that they had to work in some a-historic advantages for the Japanese side, including caliber of pilots and probably hit rates. This practice of comparing the game structure to history is fine for interests sake, but please don't make noises about it ruining the game!

Not sure about the op but for me it's not about torpedo bomber accuracy in the game vs real life (history) but torpedo bomber accuracy compared to medium bomber accuracy in naval attacks. There must be either two different routines for them or medium bombers are bugged, for what reason ever. We know that each bomb gets it's own die roll so a B-25 dropping six 500lb bombs from 5000ft should have three times the chances of an Avenger dropping 2 500lb bombs from 5000ft (this is what heavy bombers made so ridicoulosly effective in nav bombing in WITP). Both times 70 nav skill, same exp. Just to find out the Avengers would hit probably five times more often than the B-25 would do. Hit rates of 70 nav skill medium bombers like a Sally, Helen, Marauder or Mitchell are so bad I've stopped using them in a nav attack role, no matter if 2000ft or 6000ft. 1000ft and fully trained (70) low nav doesn't work either. Attack bombers work.

In WITP medium bombers worked perfectly fine in a nav attack role.

[BBfanboy]

I don't know what your targets were CT, but in general the Allied flak was far more fearsome than the Japanese had. And flak is a big factor in calculating attack results. The Allies also had better bomb sights.

As for Avenger vs B-25 (MB not AB) hit rates, I am guessing the naval aircraft could fly at a lower speed than the B-25 and thus have more time on target. I don't know if that was factored into the abstracted calculation, but it could have been.

I am also unsure about how the attack profile for an Attack Bomber figures into an approach made at 5000 feet - does the bomber stay at the ordered 5K, or does it drop down to low level attack altitude the way TBs do?

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I don't know what your targets were CT, but in general the Allied flak was far more fearsome than the Japanese had. And flak is a big factor in calculating attack results. The Allies also had better bomb sights.

As for Avenger vs B-25 (MB not AB) hit rates, I am guessing the naval aircraft could fly at a lower speed than the B-25 and thus have more time on target. I don't know if that was factored into the abstracted calculation, but it could have been.

I am also unsure about how the attack profile for an Assault Bomber figures into an approach made at 5000 feet - does the bomber stay at the ordered 5K, or does it drop down to low level attack altitude the way TBs do?

If I remember correctly, the Attack Bombers drop to a lower altitude.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Not bad.

Scen001v5

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Bacolod at 79,85

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 10 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A5M4 Claude x 8
B5N1 Kate x 15

Allied aircraft
P-26A x 2

No Japanese losses

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
xAKL Corregidor, Bomb hits 6, and is sunk

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

I made an audible sigh reading this post.

Let's frame this another way.

If:

- you were a highly trained pilot, with substantial training and extensive experience in naval attacks

AND

- you were sent to attack a single, slow, plodding freighter, with limited AA armament

AND

- you faced no effective opposition from enemy fighters or AA that left you with all the time in the world to set up attack runs

....what is the level of success that you'd expect to see?

As before, still not convinced there's a basis to this.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

How did a thread on torpedo bombers and bombing accuracy become a discussion of a teenage activist's word choice?

My instinct is that torpedo bombers hit (or near miss that count as a hit) at a higher rate than a full analysis of the historical record would support, but, BUT, without data, I am just another guy with an opinion. I do not have the time to analyze the historical record broadly nor test the game in sandbox mode enough times to get a reasonable sample, so I don't worry about it. CAP or LRCAP is the in-game solution.

As the developers have said many times - "It's a game, not an historical simulation!". They set out to make a game that would challenge both sides, and to do that they had to work in some a-historic advantages for the Japanese side, including caliber of pilots and probably hit rates. This practice of comparing the game structure to history is fine for interests sake, but please don't make noises about it ruining the game!

Not sure about the op but for me it's not about torpedo bomber accuracy in the game vs real life (history) but torpedo bomber accuracy compared to medium bomber accuracy in naval attacks. There must be either two different routines for them or medium bombers are bugged, for what reason ever. We know that each bomb gets it's own die roll so a B-25 dropping six 500lb bombs from 5000ft should have three times the chances of an Avenger dropping 2 500lb bombs from 5000ft (this is what heavy bombers made so ridicoulosly effective in nav bombing in WITP). Both times 70 nav skill, same exp. Just to find out the Avengers would hit probably five times more often than the B-25 would do. Hit rates of 70 nav skill medium bombers like a Sally, Helen, Marauder or Mitchell are so bad I've stopped using them in a nav attack role, no matter if 2000ft or 6000ft. 1000ft and fully trained (70) low nav doesn't work either. Attack bombers work.

In WITP medium bombers worked perfectly fine in a nav attack role.

Need to stump up the data if that's the position you're adopting.

[Yaab]

Date with Kate

RESTART XIV campaign scen001v5, Allies

After 12 days of sitting as a bait at Masbate (two hexes away from Legaspi), TF8404(CA Pensacola, CL Boise plus 2 DDs) suffering an average DL of 10/10 for the whole time, and shrugging off several Nell attacks from different altitudes, finally found its match in Kates. The CA/CL pair had a total of 24 DP guns to dsirupt Kates' targeting, while the DDs trusted their speed (33 knots) and manuverability (71 rating).

--------


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

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 15 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Japanese aircraft
B5N1 Kate x 10

No Japanese losses

Allied Ships
CA Houston, Bomb hits 3, on fire
CL Boise, Bomb hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
10 x B5N1 Kate bombing from 10000 feet *
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CA Houston

20% hit rate

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

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 2 NM, estimated altitude 20,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 0 minutes

Japanese aircraft
B5N1 Kate x 15

No Japanese losses

Allied Ships
CA Houston, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Stewart, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL Boise

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

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CA Houston
almost 25% hit rate
------
CA Pensacola sinks, DD Stewart sinks.

There are really two aircraft in this game:

B-17 bombing from 10,000 feet or less + being a fighter-killer at night

Kate with bombs

[Sardaukar]

I have suspicion that torpedo bombers might drop down low level when attacking, while original altitude is 15k.

At least hit numbers would suggest that.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I have suspicion that torpedo bombers might drop down low level when attacking, while original altitude is 15k.

At least hit numbers would suggest that.

No. Alfred specified that dropping down is part of a torpedo attack profile, not a bombing profile. It isn't the plane type that determines this, it's the mission profile.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I have suspicion that torpedo bombers might drop down low level when attacking, while original altitude is 15k.

At least hit numbers would suggest that.

No. Alfred specified that dropping down is part of a torpedo attack profile, not a bombing profile. It isn't the plane type that determines this, it's the mission profile.

Actually not true with Attack Bombers. So, I have suspicion something like that might be in code that might be bug in torpedo bomber bombing code.

Since getting those hits from 15k altitude would be ridiculous.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I have suspicion that torpedo bombers might drop down low level when attacking, while original altitude is 15k.

At least hit numbers would suggest that.

No. Alfred specified that dropping down is part of a torpedo attack profile, not a bombing profile. It isn't the plane type that determines this, it's the mission profile.

Actually not true with Attack Bombers. So, I have suspicion something like that might be in code that might be bug in torpedo bomber bombing code.

Since getting those hits from 15k altitude would be ridiculous.

If I remember correctly, the Fubuki was sunk by a B-17. Those pilots had not trained on naval bombing whereas I do believe that the Naval Kates would have trained dropping bombs. Somehow, somewhere, I remember reading about those Kates flying level, dropping bombs, damaging some ships and even sinking at least one of them!

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I have suspicion that torpedo bombers might drop down low level when attacking, while original altitude is 15k.

At least hit numbers would suggest that.

No. Alfred specified that dropping down is part of a torpedo attack profile, not a bombing profile. It isn't the plane type that determines this, it's the mission profile.

Actually not true with Attack Bombers. So, I have suspicion something like that might be in code that might be bug in torpedo bomber bombing code.

Since getting those hits from 15k altitude would be ridiculous.

Not sure what you mean about "Not true with attack bombers"? If you set them to naval attack and they carry bombs they drop down to attack because the default mission is Low Naval, which I suppose is based on aircraft type. That overrides the altitude setting.

With the TBs, the weapon carried sets the mission and thus the profile. If it were possible to drop a torpedo from altitude I am sure the Kates would do that.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy



No. Alfred specified that dropping down is part of a torpedo attack profile, not a bombing profile. It isn't the plane type that determines this, it's the mission profile.

Actually not true with Attack Bombers. So, I have suspicion something like that might be in code that might be bug in torpedo bomber bombing code.

Since getting those hits from 15k altitude would be ridiculous.

If I remember correctly, the Fubuki was sunk by a B-17. Those pilots had not trained on naval bombing whereas I do believe that the Naval Kates would have trained dropping bombs. Somehow, somewhere, I remember reading about those Kates flying level, dropping bombs, damaging some ships and even sinking at least one of them!

Fubuki was sunk by CA San Francisco at Cape Esperance, but there was a DD sunk by a B-17. I think it was stopped to pick up survivors from a troop convoy that was being mauled. Easier target for the B-17s.

The Kates that dropped AP bombs at Pearl Harbour would have trained in that, and they had to drop from fairly high altitude to get the bomb up to speed before impact. But again, their targets were stationary.