Allied Bomber performance ques

[spence]

Medium & High Level bombers were useless against ships. The IJN knew this and usually equipped their G4M's to carry torpedos, although not all the IJAAF were aware of this.

Actually the IJN/IJAF did not know this all that well. With special intense training the IJN created a group of torpedo toting Bettys and Nells for the express purpose of taking out the Prince of Wales and Repulse. This they did in what amounted to a singular event. For the remainder of the war the Bettys and Nells achieved very little with their torpedoes and died in droves attempting to attack in that fashion. Frankly the nearly omnipotent and incredibly deadly IJN torpedo bombers (all types) one finds in the game keep things interesting as a game but did not really exist.

Even though the same units that attacked PoW and Repulse remainded in the DEI area for the rest of that campaign all further attacks by their G4s and G3s were with bombs and from high altitude (above 10000 ft). They scored hits with no great regularity though their performance was slightly better than the Allied level bombers operating in the same campaign. USAAF B17s and other level bombers operating at medium altitudes achieved reasonable scores against ships including DDs and CLs in 1942 near the Solomons and New Guinea. The Captain of the Mutsuki may have scoffed when the B17 came over but he was not alone in being unpleasantly surprised. At least one DD and several transports were damaged/crippled by medium altitude level bombing at the Battle of the Bismark Sea before the famed skip-bombing attacks even went in.

[jrcar]

The FEAR of the Japanese aircraft though usually meant that Allied ships stayed out of reach, which had the effect of not giving many targets to fly against, and therefore little/no data to evaluate their performance

Cheers

Rob

[Mistmatz]

For the testing what was the morale of the units?

Taking losses or fatigue results in fewer planes per attack thus lowering the chances for a successful attack. Where was the HQ for the attackers, within range or not?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: jrcar

The FEAR of the Japanese aircraft though usually meant that Allied ships stayed out of reach, which had the effect of not giving many targets to fly against, and therefore little/no data to evaluate their performance

Unless of course they were sailing into a combat zone to invade or re-supply a base. Just like the ABSOLUTE TERROR the Japanese had for B-17's kept their ships from sailing within their reach unless they were invading or re-supplying a forward combat zone! [:D] Your arguement holds no water whatsoever..., as nobody purposely sailed where enemy air power held sway unless their mission demanded it.

[jackyo123]

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz

For the testing what was the morale of the units?

Taking losses or fatigue results in fewer planes per attack thus lowering the chances for a successful attack. Where was the HQ for the attackers, within range or not?

All pretty high. I don't remember precisely, but I generally stand down any unit that doesnt have morale of 70 or higher.

[jrcar]

Yes but invasion TF had CV air cover, or ground aircover, to at least attempt parity to reduce the risk. WITP players (myself included) take far more risk than real life, and expose ships more in real lif and therefore get hit and sunk by Netties more than in real life, giving us more data poits than real life

So it is hard to say if they are too good based on real life.

The allies were certainly worried enough about the impact of having a certain airfield in the Solomons become a base to attack Noumea from the air and therefore hit their ships that the conducted an invasion before said base became operational and before the were really ready to do so...

Cheers

Rob

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: jrcar

The FEAR of the Japanese aircraft though usually meant that Allied ships stayed out of reach, which had the effect of not giving many targets to fly against, and therefore little/no data to evaluate their performance

Unless of course they were sailing into a combat zone to invade or re-supply a base. Just like the ABSOLUTE TERROR the Japanese had for B-17's kept their ships from sailing within their reach unless they were invading or re-supplying a forward combat zone! [:D] Your arguement holds no water whatsoever..., as nobody purposely sailed where enemy air power held sway unless their mission demanded it.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: jrcar

Yes but invasion TF had CV air cover, or ground aircover, to at least attempt parity to reduce the risk. WITP players (myself included) take far more risk than real life, and expose ships more in real lif and therefore get hit and sunk by Netties more than in real life, giving us more data poits than real life

You don't take enough risks. Send another carrier TF to Japan. [:'(]

[spence]

The FEAR of the Japanese aircraft though usually meant that Allied ships stayed out of reach, which had the effect of not giving many targets to fly against, and therefore little/no data to evaluate their performance

Actually it was the Allies who sailed repeatedly into the reach of the IJN Netties.

In the DEI they had no choice and their ships endured multiple, usually ineffective high altitude bombing attacks. The ships of ABDAFLOT were destroyed by IJN cruisers and destroyers with only a very secondary role played by IJN/IJAF planes. Meanwhile US CVs repeatedly and successfully conducted raids in areas supposedly dominated by IJN a/c.

Late in the war it was TF38/58 and friends who repeatedly and successfully encroached on waters supposedly dominated by IJN/IJAF "torpedo toting" bombers and who repeatedly slaughtered them while simultaneously inflicting serious damage to Japanese ships and facilities.

The Japanese initially exploited an overwhelming superiority in air power with their ships to venture within range of Allied bombers. Predictably poor results were obtained by the relatively small number of mainly obsolescent Allied aircraft in Malaya, the Philippines, the DEI, and Ceylon.

Guadalcanal/The Solomons/New Guinea mid42-43 was the tipping point. Both sides risked their capital ships within range of the enemy's air power. Both sides suffered for it but if one looks at the instrument of suffering for the Allies, it was the ships of the IJN (and carrier air); whereas Allied LBA repeatedly inflicted losses on the Japanese to the extent that the IJN ultimately determined to remove its ships entirely from its reach.

It was the Japanese who "feared to tread" within reach of Allied bombers; hardly the other way round.

[AirGriff]

Well, if the air dales are less effective at ship killing in AE, then I suppose that opens up the rather fun possibility of more naval clashes, eh?

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: AirGriff

Well, if the air dales are less effective at ship killing in AE, then I suppose that opens up the rather fun possibility of more naval clashes, eh?

It certainly does. I've had loads of surface combat in my grand campaign, less so in Guadalcanal though.

Surface ships are easily the most effective antishipping assets the Allies have in the early war, at least. If you can get a cruiser SAG onto a convoy, dead convoy. It's happened many times in my game now, probably had 30-40 convoy ships and escorts go into the bag now on the receiving end of 6", 8", or even 14" shells. [:)]

Japanese cruisers and battleships are far more important than they were, too. Where there is a Jap SAG, the Allies suffer or are held off. No Jap SAG -> trouble. Given a BB is immune to bombs, I'd be aggressive with Japanese battleships in the early game where there are no Allied CVs.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

... Given a BB is immune to bombs, I'd be aggressive with Japanese battleships in the early game where there are no Allied CVs.

Ok, so I'm not whacko ... I was seeing the same thing and was wondering if it was just random odds or what.... Yeah, lot's of surface action ...great stuff... Just had a 2BB+6DD mtg on each side near Buna ... USN got sadlly mauled by those long lance torp. Shell hits were fairly even, USN maybe a tad ahead. But Everything but one USN BB at the bottom of the sea for 1 IJN DD, and the last BB had 2 torp hits, so may not make it back. IJN group will be in repairs for a while, yes, but not lost by any means.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: spence

Actually it was the Allies who sailed repeatedly into the reach of the IJN Netties.

In the DEI they had no choice and their ships endured multiple, usually ineffective high altitude bombing attacks. The ships of ABDAFLOT were destroyed by IJN cruisers and destroyers with only a very secondary role played by IJN/IJAF planes. Meanwhile US CVs repeatedly and successfully conducted raids in areas supposedly dominated by IJN a/c.

Late in the war it was TF38/58 and friends who repeatedly and successfully encroached on waters supposedly dominated by IJN/IJAF "torpedo toting" bombers and who repeatedly slaughtered them while simultaneously inflicting serious damage to Japanese ships and facilities.

The Japanese initially exploited an overwhelming superiority in air power with their ships to venture within range of Allied bombers. Predictably poor results were obtained by the relatively small number of mainly obsolescent Allied aircraft in Malaya, the Philippines, the DEI, and Ceylon.

Guadalcanal/The Solomons/New Guinea mid42-43 was the tipping point. Both sides risked their capital ships within range of the enemy's air power. Both sides suffered for it but if one looks at the instrument of suffering for the Allies, it was the ships of the IJN (and carrier air); whereas Allied LBA repeatedly inflicted losses on the Japanese to the extent that the IJN ultimately determined to remove its ships entirely from its reach.

It was the Japanese who "feared to tread" within reach of Allied bombers; hardly the other way round.

Oh? Can you name one operation during Guadalcanal campaign when allies operated beyond the range of their fighter cover (either land-based or from carriers)? There were none, and they still took significant losses from LBA. (Japanese, on the other hand, tried to do so all the time, which was the main reason for their failure.) As about ABDA fleet, Japanese land-based air power was one of the main factors, that reduced it to impotency, forced it to stay under fighter umbrella until the last desperate fight, and allowed Japanese to face little naval opposition in DEI until the invasion of Java... even though Japanese apparently didn't even care that much about ABDA ships, using Betties mostly to demolish Allied airfields (Betties flew against allied warships about 3 times during the entire DEI campaign: on 4th February, Marblehead was severely damaged, and Houston, as well as De Ruyter lightly damaged, with one G4M lost to flak; on 15th February no hits on Allied cruiser force; on 27th February Langley was sunk).

The same pattern was repeated later in the war. Allies never tried to operate within the effective reach of Japanese LBA without fighter cover.

[xj900uk]

I'm sorry, but early on the Japanese put heavy reliance on the torpedo bomber (Nell, Beatty and especially Kate) as the ultimate ship-killer, and spent hours/days/weeks training their crews in the art of dropping torpedos & created some deadly efficient squadrons.  They always viewed the torpedo plane as being the danger-weapon in the Pacific, and I suppose in the hands of the Japanese it was - witness how at Midway they were so determined to wipe out the TBD's they didn't really bother to worry about the SBD's overhead until it was far too late, not realising that the TBD was equipped with a crap torpedo even more useless than the plane itself.
The Nell, Beatty & Kate could all sink a ship with (in theory) one hit from their very good torpedo's, but in practice were slow, weighed down by their loads and very vulnerable to any kind of organised FDO-defence. The Nells & Beattys were little more than slow, large, flying fuel tanks,  tending to flare up very spectacularly when hit,  whilst the Kate actually was obsolete by Dec '41 & out of production (started up soon after as the Jill wasn't available),  although the IJN solderred on with it for as long as possible and at least used it as best they could with the shallow dive attack, which reached speeds of around 250 knots and at least made them hard to catch.
 
Honestly,  if there were no Allied fighters around I believe the Japanese torpedo bombers would have had a field day in the Pacific.  For further proof, look at what one small carrier (think it was the Ruiho but may be wrong) equipped with a dozen Kates did in the Indian ocean in March-April - over quarter of a million tons of British Empire shipping went to the bottom for the loss of two kates (one through AA fire, the other non-combat).  Best ever returns for torpedo carrying planes in WWII by a long chalk!

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: xj900uk


Honestly,  if there were no Allied fighters around I believe the Japanese torpedo bombers would have had a field day in the Pacific.  For further proof, look at what one small carrier (think it was the Ruiho but may be wrong) equipped with a dozen Kates did in the Indian ocean in March-April - over quarter of a million tons of British Empire shipping went to the bottom for the loss of two kates (one through AA fire, the other non-combat).  Best ever returns for torpedo carrying planes in WWII by a long chalk!

250.000 tons of shipping? Pretty much overrated IIRC. Going from memory, the Ryujo was the CVL that launched the first strikes in the Bay of Bengal but there were also something like half a dozen IJN cruisers. Alltogether 20 or so ships were sunk by this force which surely didn´t account for 250.000 tons. And one other thing I doubt is that all the anti shipping strikes from Ryujo were flown with torps but if you have any evidence for that I would be glad if I would stand corrected.

Would be interesting how many ships were sunk by bombs, by torps and how many were actually sunk by the cruisers or destroyers.

edit: this is the TROM of Ryujo for the raid you mentioned and there was quite a force with her. It doesn´t say anything about what was sunk nor who sunk what.

1 - 9 April 1942:
Assigned to "C" Operations which is activated 1 April. With CHOKAI, KUMANO, SUZUYA, MOGAMI, MIKUMA, YURA and four destroyers of DesDiv 20 depart same day. Operate against shipping during this period.

6 April 1942:
Launch strikes against Cocanada and Vizagapatam, on the northern Indian coast.

11 April 1942:
Arrive at Singapore.

13 April 1942:
Depart Singapore for Indochina.

[John Lansford]

The Japanese BB's are NOT invulnerable to bombs in AE.  The AI sent Nagato and several DD's and a CL raiding around Pearl Harbor, and I chased them NW with two CV's bombing them the whole way.  I never could close the range enough to use torpedoes, but got at least 20 hits on Nagato with 1000 lb bombs, and she's been on the Sunk list long enough now to believe she truly was lost.

[Barb]

xj900uk
There were actualy 3 or 4 airgroups of G3M/G4M that used torpedoes in combat.
Flying low they were vulnerable to both fighters and flak. Japanese actually prefered 27-plane formation (V of V of V) each with 3x250kg bombs (and some 15 or 60kg) in something resembling what B-17 formation bombing of ships had tried. Flying high they were less likely to be intercepted by CAP, less vulnerable to flak and could fly faster.

In Midway Japanese didnt detected SBDs until first planes (of VB-6?) were already in their dives.

Kates were used from smaller and slower carriers as Jill needed much more speed to take off (thus needing bigger and faster carriers).

As to Bay of Bengal raid:
Suzuya, Kumano, Shirakumo - 10 ships: EXMOOR, MALDA, AUTOCLYCUS, SHINKUAN, MALDA(different one), INDOR, SILKSWORTH, SELMA CITY, GANGES, finished off BIENVILLE
Ryujo - 2 ships sunk, 3 damaged: damages BIENEVILLE, damages DARDANUS (1x60kg bomb), sink SINKIANG, damages VAN DER CAPELLEN (sank 2 days later), damages ANGLO CANADIAN
Mogami, Mikuma, Amagiri - 5 ships: finishes off DARDANUS and sinks GANDARA, tanker ELSA, cargo ship DAGFRED, HERMOD
Yura, Yugiri, Asagiri - 3 ships: BATAVI, BANJOEWANG, TAKSANG
That is 20 ships sunk in which Ryujo sunk two, helped to sunk other 3. Ryujo's main role in this operation was naval search.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Barb

As to Bay of Bengal raid:
Suzuya, Kumano, Shirakumo - 10 ships: EXMOOR, MALDA, AUTOCLYCUS, SHINKUAN, MALDA(different one), INDOR, SILKSWORTH, SELMA CITY, GANGES, finished off BIENVILLE
Ryujo - 2 ships sunk, 3 damaged: damages BIENEVILLE, damages DARDANUS (1x60kg bomb), sink SINKIANG, damages VAN DER CAPELLEN (sank 2 days later), damages ANGLO CANADIAN
Mogami, Mikuma, Amagiri - 5 ships: finishes off DARDANUS and sinks GANDARA, tanker ELSA, cargo ship DAGFRED, HERMOD
Yura, Yugiri, Asagiri - 3 ships: BATAVI, BANJOEWANG, TAKSANG
That is 20 ships sunk in which Ryujo sunk two, helped to sunk other 3. Ryujo's main role in this operation was naval search.

thanks for this info. Ships sunk by Ryujo were even less than I thought but it´s the direction I was thinking of considering ships sunk by the CVL. You can hardly argue that this was the best ever you can get from torpedo carrying aircraft I guess.[;)] Did they even carry torps?

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

The Japanese BB's are NOT invulnerable to bombs in AE.  The AI sent Nagato and several DD's and a CL raiding around Pearl Harbor, and I chased them NW with two CV's bombing them the whole way.  I never could close the range enough to use torpedoes, but got at least 20 hits on Nagato with 1000 lb bombs, and she's been on the Sunk list long enough now to believe she truly was lost.

Well, enough bombs will move the earth. [:)] 20+ bomb hits will cause enough fires to sink anything. You would only be able to get that many hits with an airbase that can chase the enemy, ie a CV, and I did say, 'so long as no CVs are around'.

But Allied LBA does not generally use 1000lb bombs, and in the early war, when surface ships are having their finest hour, you'll be up against Dutch Martins with 300kg bombs or Blenheims with 500lbers. I'd watch out for Vildebeest - they have a very short range so not a problem - but aside from them, I'd roam around the Java Sea, Makassar Strait, off the PI etcetera with impunity with Japanese BBs in the first few months.

[String]

ORIGINAL: spence

Medium & High Level bombers were useless against ships. The IJN knew this and usually equipped their G4M's to carry torpedos, although not all the IJAAF were aware of this.

Actually the IJN/IJAF did not know this all that well. With special intense training the IJN created a group of torpedo toting Bettys and Nells for the express purpose of taking out the Prince of Wales and Repulse. This they did in what amounted to a singular event. For the remainder of the war the Bettys and Nells achieved very little with their torpedoes and died in droves attempting to attack in that fashion. Frankly the nearly omnipotent and incredibly deadly IJN torpedo bombers (all types) one finds in the game keep things interesting as a game but did not really exist.

Even though the same units that attacked PoW and Repulse remainded in the DEI area for the rest of that campaign all further attacks by their G4s and G3s were with bombs and from high altitude (above 10000 ft). They scored hits with no great regularity though their performance was slightly better than the Allied level bombers operating in the same campaign. USAAF B17s and other level bombers operating at medium altitudes achieved reasonable scores against ships including DDs and CLs in 1942 near the Solomons and New Guinea. The Captain of the Mutsuki may have scoffed when the B17 came over but he was not alone in being unpleasantly surprised. At least one DD and several transports were damaged/crippled by medium altitude level bombing at the Battle of the Bismark Sea before the famed skip-bombing attacks even went in.

Care to name those DD's and CL's, aside from the Mutsuki which was stationary at the time it was hit anyway

[xj900uk]

Thanks for the clarification,  I will have to look up the book/publication which states that the Ryujo's forray into the Indian ocean in April '42 was so successful & let you know (so you can read it).  Not saying it's correct though as I do accept history books can be proved wrong.