Jap LBA dive bombers...

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Because it wasn't a "Dive"Bomber...IIRC it had no dive brakes.

Thats a BAD reason , dive breaks are needed when the stresses exceeded the structure for stronger non aerodynamic frame they didn't need dive breaks because they wouldn't go fast enough even in vertical dive. I would prefer some Research which said dive angle was less than 30 degrees from vertical makes a dive bomber. If a plane used a shallow dive like a Ju-88 its not but if it did than its a dive bomber.

Sonias may have just gone it at 6000' and dived till 2000' at a similar angle to a Ju 87 and hence gain the accuracy of a dive bomber ( though not the avoidance of AA at 20K' ) . I don't know i just think dive breaks is a terrible way to judge it they determine the length of dive ( in relation to the aerodynamics of the frame) . Note the Ju-88 has dive breaks till 43 but IMHO its not a dive bomber ( though it could) .

So its a BAD reason to not classify something as something it really wasn't?

Francillon makes no mention of the KI-51 being utilized as a dive-bomber, but does provide the description:

"Single-engined ground attack and tactical reconnaisance aircraft. All metal construction with fabric controlled surfaces."

whereas Francillon specifically describes the D3A Val as:

"Single engine carrier borne and land based dive bomber or bomber trainer."

The book Dive Bomber in the Stackpole Military History Series says this about the Ki-51-

"...in its primary role as a scout the bombs were light."

"Code named 'Sonia' by the Allies, the Ki-51 was a very successful type in its limited dive bombing role,..."



So taking those descriptions into consideration, IN ADDITION, to the fact it had no dive brakes the designer probably decided the Sonia should be classified as a Light Bomber instead of a Dive Bomber.

As mentioned if you disagree there is also the editor.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Because it wasn't a "Dive"Bomber...IIRC it had no dive brakes.

Thats a BAD reason , dive breaks are needed when the stresses exceeded the structure for stronger non aerodynamic frame they didn't need dive breaks because they wouldn't go fast enough even in vertical dive. I would prefer some Research which said dive angle was less than 30 degrees from vertical makes a dive bomber. If a plane used a shallow dive like a Ju-88 its not but if it did than its a dive bomber. This is called "Glide Bombing", not "Dive Bombing"! And a Ju-88 COULD dive at 70+ degrees, which none of the IJA light bombers were capable of.

Sonias may have just gone it at 6000' and dived till 2000' at a similar angle to a Ju 87 and hence gain the accuracy of a dive bomber ( though not the avoidance of AA at 20K' ) . I don't know i just think dive breaks is a terrible way to judge it they determine the length of dive ( in relation to the aerodynamics of the frame) . Note the Ju-88 has dive breaks till 43 but IMHO its not a dive bomber ( though it could) .

The Japanese Army's close support aircraft were built for and operated in the same manner as the Red Army's Su-2 and Il-2 Attack Bombers. Sturmoviks couldn't "dive bomb", and neither could Sonias or Anns or Lilys or anything else the IJA owned. The Japanese just forgot to add the armor that made the Russians effective, and were left with the worst of both worlds.

[PMCN]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Don't go below 6000' because then you switch skill sets to LowGnd from GndB.

I have asked about this and finally in a totally different place I get the answer. Thank you, things like this should be in the manual...I will now move my bombers up a few thousand feet from (4000 to 6000). Explains a bit why maybe they haven't been doing so good. At least due to inertia I left my main bomber force at 7000. They now have leader skill focus ground attack and skills in the 60-80s. By fluke of luck I have my naval bombing done at 6000' though, of course, hitting a ship with a bomb is hard...15 level bombers missed a CVL off borneao one time.

Another thing is that target density should be factored in. I sent my Chinese bombers to attack a force of 50K men moving down a road in open rice paddies...I killed 30 troops...uhm. This is what we call a "target rich environment" and while I didn't expect thousands killed 30 troops is a wee tad bit on the low side. Columns of men and guns moving down a road are difficult to miss compared to men in fox holes.

[Streptokok]

ORIGINAL: Paul McNeely

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Don't go below 6000' because then you switch skill sets to LowGnd from GndB.

I have asked about this and finally in a totally different place I get the answer. Thank you, things like this should be in the manual...I will now move my bombers up a few thousand feet from (4000 to 6000). Explains a bit why maybe they haven't been doing so good. At least due to inertia I left my main bomber force at 7000. They now have leader skill focus ground attack and skills in the 60-80s. By fluke of luck I have my naval bombing done at 6000' though, of course, hitting a ship with a bomb is hard...15 level bombers missed a CVL off borneao one time.

Another thing is that target density should be factored in. I sent my Chinese bombers to attack a force of 50K men moving down a road in open rice paddies...I killed 30 troops...uhm. This is what we call a "target rich environment" and while I didn't expect thousands killed 30 troops is a wee tad bit on the low side. Columns of men and guns moving down a road are difficult to miss compared to men in fox holes.

I send my light bombers on piles of chinese units daily, problem is,as you said, 1 out of 10 attacks kills 30 troops.
And no Ida attack ever killed 1 soldier, at least it wasnt mentioned in report.
I know no lvl bomber should go below 6000, I asked coz maybe theres something new, like light bombers being used as close support so I wonder if below 6k they would do some damage.
Aparently not, tried Idas on 100ft - 1000 ... - 7000ft. Not a single kill in report.

So Ida, Mary and Sonias are promptly gounded and replaced by mostly Anns because of Anns 250kg bomb/8 hex range/highest cruise speed among light bombers/they use Ha-5 engine.
Some squads were converted to Lillys and will be converted to Lilly DB version when it becomes available.

This makes a good Jap decision or does anyone have a better sugestion?

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Paul McNeely



Another thing is that target density should be factored in. I sent my Chinese bombers to attack a force of 50K men moving down a road in open rice paddies...I killed 30 troops...uhm. This is what we call a "target rich environment" and while I didn't expect thousands killed 30 troops is a wee tad bit on the low side. Columns of men and guns moving down a road are difficult to miss compared to men in fox holes.

Don't confuse poor Chinese pilots with 1930's technology bombing some Japanese strung out on 46 miles of road with the US Air Forces destruction of the Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard.

[rattovolante]

ORIGINAL: Streptokok

I send my light bombers on piles of chinese units daily, problem is,as you said, 1 out of 10 attacks kills 30 troops.
And no Ida attack ever killed 1 soldier, at least it wasnt mentioned in report.

Weird, I am having Ida kills reported.

This is from my last PBeM turn:

Morning Air attack on 78th Chinese Corps, at 84,54

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 13 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 1
Ki-36 Ida x 24



No Japanese losses


Allied ground losses:
19 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Aircraft Attacking:
24 x Ki-36 Ida bombing from 10000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 30 kg GP Bomb
1 x Ki-27b Nate diving from 10000'
Ground Attack: 2 x 50 kg GP Bomb

Of course, low losses for 24 planes, but I think the Chinese troops were in combat mode, not move mode (again, the whole point of most of my light bomber strikes is to force LCU to stay in combat mode).

Don't ask me why the Nate joined in, I don't remember what orders I had given the Nate unit... (and IIRC Nates couldn't effectively dive in real life)

I will try to take notes of light bomber usage and performance during the next turns... so far I never paid them much attention, but they seemed to work fine to me.

[treespider]

My Ida's work just fine...considering they are not A-10's firing wire guided munitions...they keep the opponent in Combat mode and inflict some disruption....as well as raising the supply requirement of the defending unit.

Morning Air attack on 74th Chinese Corps, at 79,57 (Kukong)

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 28 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 7
Ki-36 Ida x 21

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-36 Ida: 1 damaged

Allied ground losses:
6 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
21 x Ki-36 Ida bombing from 15000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 30 kg GP Bomb

[bklooste]

I would want to see a Sonia diving the way a Stuka dived. Guess it would come down in several pieces...

Me too that should be the condition not whether it had Dive Brakes ( eg the Ju88had DIve brakes but was seldom used like a Ju-87 , i could just imaging the pull out for the other crew members)

I don't know if the Sonia did but it could dive like a Stuka without dive brakes ! What dive breaks allow you to do is to dive like a Stuka form 20000' instead of 6000' obviously modified by the airframe strength and aerodynamics some planes could prob dive from 20K like a Stuka without Air brakes ( with a v strong un aerodynamic air frame) . Im guessing the team just said no dive breaks so we wont make it a dive bomber. However it may have been used in China just like a Stuka but diving from 6000 feet or even 8-12K and just as accurate.

Anyone have some real data on how the Ki-51 was used ?

[bklooste]

Aircraft Attacking:
21 x Ki-36 Ida bombing from 15000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 30 kg GP Bomb

Is that 4 30kg bombs hit or 21 * 4 = 84 * 30 kg bombs dropped ?

6 casualties for 84 30kg bombs is pretty abysmal even by WWI standards. Wouldn't the Japanese have flown MUCH lower vs the Chinese ?

[Streptokok]

It should be 21x4 since Ida stats say each a/c carries 4 bomb(lets)...

[bklooste]

So its a BAD reason to not classify something as something it really wasn't?

Francillon makes no mention of the KI-51 being utilized as a dive-bomber, but does provide the description:

"Single-engined ground attack and tactical reconnaisance aircraft. All metal construction with fabric controlled surfaces."

whereas Francillon specifically describes the D3A Val as:

"Single engine carrier borne and land based dive bomber or bomber trainer."

The book Dive Bomber in the Stackpole Military History Series says this about the Ki-51-

"...in its primary role as a scout the bombs were light."

"Code named 'Sonia' by the Allies, the Ki-51 was a very successful type in its limited dive bombing role,..."



So taking those descriptions into consideration, IN ADDITION, to the fact it had no dive brakes the designer probably decided the Sonia should be classified as a Light Bomber instead of a Dive Bomber.

Thats fine but you said they didnt dive because they had no dive brakes which may not be the case , precursors for the Ju-87 dived without Air brakes. And the Ju-88 had dive brakes but didnt dive.

I would ignore dive brakes completely and just see what the actual planes did. I dont care whether the Sonia is or is not a dive bomber as long as its how its actually used. Stackpoles quote on limited could be taken as its main role was scouting and dive bombing was its limited secondary role and it is a book on dive bombers. This makes a lot of sense as in China Japan needs a LOT of recon.

Personally i think it is a level bomber but a low level one , if it was a dive bomber the armour plating would be different. The IJAAF considered them effective and were well aware of the performance of the Navy pre Val (D1A) dive bombers in the Shanghai operations in 37. They could have built a Val variant. Again is the AE lack of effectiveness due to being used wrong eg should they be used as a low level bomber ? What was the normal altitude the Ann was used at ?

[rattovolante]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Is that 4 30kg bombs hit or 21 * 4 = 84 * 30 kg bombs dropped ?

6 casualties for 84 30kg bombs is pretty abysmal even by WWI standards.

Well, keep in mind we're talking about 21 planes bombing a 40 nautical miles hex, how many square miles/kilometers is that? (too lazy to do the math)

I guess the report means "21 Idas took part in a bombing raid, flying at 10k ft, equipped with a load of 4x30 kg bombs each", rather than "a total of exactly 84 bombs were dropped on suitable targets", or even "suitable targets were found for all the 84 bombs".

Against the AI I experienced large differences on bombing effectiveness depending on detection level in the hex. I think this represents not dispersing the strike over the whole hex but concentrating them having a rough idea of where the enemy troops are within the hex (which is abstracted by the game)

[Streptokok]

ORIGINAL: rattovolante

Well, keep in mind we're talking about 21 planes bombing a 40 nautical miles hex, how many square miles/kilometers is that? (too lazy to do the math)

Ur saying my pilots are so dumb that they drop bombs all over 40 mile hex instead of bombing the actual enemy? [:-]

[rattovolante]

As I see it, the order is "bomb this hex", not "bomb this unit". If you have no accurate report of enemy positions within the hex I expect bombing results to be real bad, as the bombers have to disperse, scout the area, and then bomb when they find anything (if they find anything at all).

As far as I can tell, when the game says things like

2 x DB-3M bombing from 11000 feet *
Ground Attack: 5 x 100 kg GP Bomb

it doesn't mean that the aircrafts actually dropped 10 x 100 kg bombs on target, just that 2 aircrafts loaded with 5 bombs each took part in the strike. Maybe they didn't find the target and didn't drop any bomb.

See what happened here in my PBeM last turn. The TF these IJA planes were sent to attack had already been sunk in the same phase by IJN Betties - so they found nothing. Should we presume that the pilots still dropped bombs in the open sea? I guess the phrase "9 x Ki-48-Ib Lily bombing from 10000 feet" doesn't mean that they dropped any bombs, but they were positioned to do so, had they found any enemy ship in the hex.

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Calayan at 82,69

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 43 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 5
Ki-27b Nate x 31
Ki-30 Ann x 11
Ki-48-Ib Lily x 9

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x Ki-48-Ib Lily bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 4 x 100 kg SAP Bomb
5 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 4 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
11 x Ki-30 Ann bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb

BTW, since I'm on this thread, I keep getting results from my Idas. I don't know why they have no effect in your game, maybe FoW? [:(]

Morning Air attack on 3rd New Chinese Corps, at 84,55

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 23 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-36 Ida x 25

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
37 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
25 x Ki-36 Ida bombing from 10000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 30 kg GP Bomb

[Streptokok]

Dont know, they just dont. Anyway I replaced them with Anns and Lillys. They were not worth keeping around...

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Because it wasn't a "Dive"Bomber...IIRC it had no dive brakes.

Thats a BAD reason , dive breaks are needed when the stresses exceeded the structure for stronger non aerodynamic frame they didn't need dive breaks because they wouldn't go fast enough even in vertical dive. I would prefer some Research which said dive angle was less than 30 degrees from vertical makes a dive bomber. If a plane used a shallow dive like a Ju-88 its not but if it did than its a dive bomber.

Sonias may have just gone it at 6000' and dived till 2000' at a similar angle to a Ju 87 and hence gain the accuracy of a dive bomber ( though not the avoidance of AA at 20K' ) . I don't know i just think dive breaks is a terrible way to judge it they determine the length of dive ( in relation to the aerodynamics of the frame) . Note the Ju-88 has dive breaks till 43 but IMHO its not a dive bomber ( though it could) .

I would want to see a Sonia diving the way a Stuka dived. Guess it would come down in several pieces...

I am willing to bet the skin would peel off just before the wings break.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Streptokok

ORIGINAL: rattovolante

Well, keep in mind we're talking about 21 planes bombing a 40 nautical miles hex, how many square miles/kilometers is that? (too lazy to do the math)

Ur saying my pilots are so dumb that they drop bombs all over 40 mile hex instead of bombing the actual enemy? [:-]

You also have to take into account several other factors:

Japanese bomb sights were not as advanced as Allied bomb sights
Wind
Altitude
Fortification
Enemy Dispersement
Flak Coverage


Each of these factors will effect ground attack outcomes. Generally, the lower an aircraft drops its bombs from, the more accurate as you eliminate some of the uncontrollable factors.

If the enemy is highly dispersed or heavily fortified, it makes them harder to hit. Dispersement means you never have large concentrations in any one spot, and a well fortified infantry unit will be hard to spot in the first place.

Bomb sight problems are simply a technology issue. The American bomb sight eventually became very good at predicting where the bombs would land...its much like sighting in a rifle scope...the better your scope, the better your adjustments thus improving accuracy.

Flak Coverage. This is a distraction, but it is hard to concentrate on a target with someone trying to kill you. Self preservation instict kicks in at some point.

[Deca]

ORIGINAL: Dr. Duh

Is the altitude setting factored into the accuracy/effectiveness of attack missions by level bombers? If so I'm guessing that the way to represent "better accuracy through shallow dives" is simply to set the altitude somewhere in the 100'-5000' range.

I think there is a bit of a problem in the way altitude for Air missions is defined. On p.154 it says this about the altitude setting: "The Current Altitude displays the altitude that the aircraft will fly at when flying to and from the target hex". On first glance this would seem reasonable since most missions are assumed to fit a fixed attack profile:

1. Level bombers are assumed to attack at the same level they fly in at.
2. The profile for a Dive bomber attack is simplified to always assume it starts from 2000'.
3. A torpedo attack always assumes a drop to low level (100'?) to perform the attack run.

Squadrons designated "dive bombers" are always assumed to perform dive attacks. Squadrons designated torpedo bombers are always assumed to perform torpedo attacks on ships if they have torpedoes. If they are carrying bombs they are treated as level bombers (correct?)

I guess the only reason you'd need to know an altitude defined by the player is to model CAP and AA interaction. For this I suppose the design decision was to model it as two interactions - one that occurs at the designated altitude that the mission flys in at for CAP and an initial AA shot, and then an additional interaction at the beginning of the fixed profiles for dive and torpedo attacks.

However, in the section about (fighter) sweeps (p. 150), it mentions that "If the group attacks at 100’, the planes will also attempt to strafe the target...". OK, so to set fighters to do a strafing attack, pick "sweep" as the mission and set the altitude to 100'? But wait - what happened to the altitude setting being the altitude it flies to/from the target at? Well I guess for fighters if you set altitude to 100' then it doesn't mean they actually flew all the way to the target nap-of-the-earth, but rather than add another control to the air mission UI, it's OK to conflate the meaning of the altitude setting in this case because... (well, I'm guessing here) because if you're putting fighters on a strafing mission then we can assume they have nothing interesting happen to them where we'd need to know what altitude they flew in at - always assume that any CAP/AA only interacts with them after they've started their strafing run and are at 100'?

Oh, something else I can't remember where I saw it (on the forum) - if the altitude setting is below 6000' on a naval attack it uses the low-level naval attack skill rather than the naval bombing skill? I vaguely recall from years ago when I first played witp that there were various discussions on the forum about how this setting would be what you use to designate skip-bombing.

So anyway, I guess my questions would be:

1. if you set a sweep-capable aircraft to sweep at 100' (strafe), what does it attack? an airfield? does this attack assume only cannons/guns are used or if bombs are carried is their effect also included?
2. if you set fighters/fighter-bombers on airfield,port,naval, or ground attack...
a) do you set their altitude to 10K' or whatever you want to designate them to fly in at (and be intercepted by CAP) and then it's implicit that to actually attack they drop to low level and perform a strafing attack?
b) or does it make the assumption of an implicit strafing attack for fighters-only and for fighter-bombers if the altitude is set high it assumes the FB makes a level-bombing attack instead?
c) or if the altitude is set too high is it just assumed that cannons etc aren't used and it is always/only a level-bombing run, and that the only way to get F/FB to use their cannons is to set the altitude to 100'?
d) or do F/FB do nothing at all on these attack missions unless they have some bombs because the only way to get them to use their cannons air-to-ground is to assign them to a sweep mission?

Above is an extremely valid series of questions that would be of great benefit to the community if they could be adequately & accurately answered.

Anyone?

[PaxMondo]

bump.  Trying to understand the air mission altitudes and effects ...

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Streptokok

Why were Sonias, Marys and Anns changed to LevelBomber role in AE?
Stripped me off LBA dive bombers and some things just make no sense.
Sonia wich looks almost like Stuka, and we all know that Stuka was natural-born diver, is some crappy ligh level bomber in AE, why change it from DB?
As a DB they had some use, light bombers in AE are just plain crap. Sonia had short leg in stock too, but you could still capture places like Jolo and put Sonias on it, they would cover route to Manila/Bataan just fine (sometimes really sloughtering merchant ships TFs).

Think of them as a Sturmovik..., with slower speed, worse armament, and no armor! In other words, suitable only for bombing unarmed and helpless Chinese peasants. [:D]