Idea how to finally balance the bombers (Allied and Japanese) in WitP...

[Feinder]

This took me about 2 minutes on Google...

03/01/43

Fifth AF

A-20's bomb and strafe forces at Guadagasal and along trails throughout Mubo, Komiatum, and Salamaua area. B-17's bomb runway at Gasmata. B-24's carry out single-plane attacks on shipping off Soemba and Soembawa, and in Solomon Sea."

[Feinder]

Oops...

Here's another...

03/06/43

Tenth AF

4 B-24's over Burma bomb shipping near Pagoda Pt, scoring near misses. On return flight, they strafe lighthouse on Alguada Reef, a lightship off China Park, and a radio station at Diamond I. 3 B-24's intending to bomb Pazundaung bridge fail to reach tgt. 1 manages to bomb A/F at Pagoda Pt. The others return to base without bombing. 6 B-24's unsuccessfully attack Myitnge bridge.

[Feinder]

And another...

03/06/43

Fifth AF

A-20's hit Guadagasal area. Single B-24's attack shipping off Manus and off Talasea, and hit A/F at Gasmata.





March was a busy month. Should I continue?

-F-

[Feinder]

And just so nobody thinks the B-17 got left out of the fun....


03/08/43

NAAF

NASAF B-17's and B-25's attack shipping between Tunisia and Sicily, claiming destruction or heavy damage of several motor vessels. Other B-17's hit shipping and M/Y at Sousse. P-38's escort the bomb missions. Ftrs of NATAF fly several rcn and patrol missions along Tunisian First Army (British) battlefront while WDAF P-40's and Spitfires hit rear of columns attacking Medenine from the W.








Again. If they weren't effective at the mission. They wouldn't still be flying the mission in 1950.

-F-

[Bombur]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Just because you don't know specificially of where they hit something (or that they happen to miss at Midway), doesn't mean they weren't good at it. The very mission to which the B-17 and B-24 were initially concieved was for ANTI-SHIPPING, not strategic bombing. Many of the squadrons of the Pacific were used in anti-shipping (easy enough to pull up the sqdn histories). If they never hit anything, do think they would still have been using B-24s off of Korea in ANTI-SHIPPING patrols in the 1950s...?

-F-

Hi, the B-17´s actually sunk ships, but most of them were slower transports or docked ships. Level bombing was extremely inaccurate against maneuvering warships. No major warship was sunk by heavy bombers in Pacific war (althought some DD´s were, but according to the Japanese, the first DD to be sunk by an B-17 was). In WiTP the heavies can effectively interdict naval sea and they sank DD´s and CL´s in a regular basis..

http://www.angelfire.com/fm/odyssey/2-b17.htm

.....
An indication of the relative ineffectiveness of the Fortress in its anti-shipping role is provided by the observation that at Midway the Japanese fighters did not consider it worthwhile to attack the B-17s. While this in part expressed their respect for the defensive firepower of the Fortress, it was more an expression of the Japanese contempt for high-level bombing as a method of attack on ships - the Japanese high command, especially that of the Navy, had never believed in it.
....
A quotation which expresses this contempt (although it also demonstrates that high-level bombing was not completely ineffective, at least against stationary vessels) follows -

[On 25 August 1942 a Japanese troop convoy bound for Guadalcanal had been attacked by SBD Dauntless dive-bombers of the US Marine Corps and several ships had been hit]

"Another hit on the 9300 ton Kinryu Maru . . . gutted her with fire and brought her to a stop.
Tanaka [the Japanese admiral commanding the convoy and its escort] . . . ordered Mutsuki to close the windward side of the transport to take off her passengers and crew.

"At 1015 eight Flying Fortresses from Espiritu Santo appeared over Tanaka's force. Commander Hatano, Mutsuki's skipper, glanced up at them and casually returned to his rescue work.

"Consequently, when the 'Forts' let go a pattern of bombs, his destroyer was dead in the water. After three bombs had struck, she was dead under the water . . .

"Commander Hatano emerged, dripping, to remark quaintly that 'Even the B-17s could make a hit once in a while.' He claimed that his ship was the first to be hit by horizontal bombing during the war."
...............
However, even against stationary targets high-level bombing proved to be far less accurate than the pre-war demonstrations by Mitchell and others would have suggested. The perhaps superior-to-average skill of those involved in the demonstrations would not be enough to fully explain the discrepancy.

[scout1]

For Naval strikes, I would say that limiting each level bomber to a single hit possibility is in general the most accurate solution. I know there were exceptions, but for the sake of being able to play at all, the rules need to be guided by the normal results. Most of the rest of the attack methods cited involved only one bomb anyway (skip being an exception that could easily be dealt with by giving the few squadrons allowed to use it a slightly increased accuracy base). Overall, the "no more than one hit per plane limit" to naval strikes seems quite reasonable, with the actual chances of a hit being governed by attack type and pilot skill.

Mike,

I concur. Heavy bombers making level bomb runs produced quite a spread (depending on altitude). Given, the size of the targets (naval), only one could hit. Matter of physics. Now a near miss could also ruin your day as a ship driver too. But if you had one near miss, odds are (again depending on altitude dropped from, direction of approach relative to the target, etc ....), you won't get a second "hit". Also need to consider drop time (time for gravity) and the speed of the target. Skippers sometimes chose not to drive a straight line. Kinda makes it hard for high flying a/c to hit anything.

But one other item is the additional bonus for multiple bombers. Bombers came overhead in formation, not one long line. This improved the chances of getting A hit, maybe a near miss too). The game engine treats the affair as a bomber parade flying overhead. Now I've seen the argument that the turn represents a complete day (24 hrs), and that you'll get multiple passes to drop bombs but this only has 2 flight Ops (morning and afternoon).

[Feinder]

I maintain my position that they were constantly used for anti-shipping missions. If they never hit the target, they would have found a different mission.

When considering the 1% accuracy rating vs. ships, that's actually not too bad.

"The first year of B-29 operations over Japan was disappointing. One hundred eighty-eight men were lost during those operations, 116 of them at sea. The Superfortresses had dropped 1,550 tons of explosives during seven missions, but only one bomb in 50 hit within 1,000 feet of the aiming point. "

I suppose we shouldn't let 'em bomb airfields or industry either. Because the mighty B-29 had only a 2% accuracy rating vs. stationary industrial centers.

Just take 'em out of the game altogether, becuase heavy bombers obviously made no contribution to winning the war, with measly 1 or 2 percent accuracy rating.

If you -really- want to see a dismal hit percentage, shall I find the statistic that shows the number of rounds fired vs. the number of soldiers killed in action...?

-F-

[scout1]

I maintain my position that they were constantly used for anti-shipping missions. If they never hit the target, they would have found a different mission.

When considering the 1% accuracy rating vs. ships, that's actually not too bad.

"The first year of B-29 operations over Japan was disappointing. One hundred eighty-eight men were lost during those operations, 116 of them at sea. The Superfortresses had dropped 1,550 tons of explosives during seven missions, but only one bomb in 50 hit within 1,000 feet of the aiming point. "

I suppose we shouldn't let 'em bomb airfields or industry either. Because the mighty B-29 had only a 2% accuracy rating vs. stationary industrial centers.

Just take 'em out of the game altogether, becuase heavy bombers obviously made no contribution to winning the war, with measly 1 or 2 percent accuracy rating.

If you -really- want to see a dismal hit percentage, shall I find the statistic that shows the number of rounds fired vs. the number of soldiers killed in action...?

Don't get me wrong. Let'em do antiship missions. The hit percentages they did have was because they could drop alot, something should eventually hit. My guess though is that they excelled more at the slower transports, not because of the ship speed, but due to the fact the pilots would drop his load at a lower altitude. Not as much risk coming in "low" on a transport "TF" compared to a surface group. Hit rate should be a function of altiitude and target speed (though this may too complex for this type of game).

[Bombur]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I maintain my position that they were constantly used for anti-shipping missions. If they never hit the target, they would have found a different mission.

-But you are forgetting fog of war. Results of heavy bombers vs. naval tagets were always overestimated, so they kept B-17´s on naval attack missions. Don´t remember than the B-17´s claimed to have sunk the Haruna and claimed an important role in Midway.

[Yamato hugger]

Just because you don't know specificially of where they hit something (or that they happen to miss at Midway), doesn't mean they weren't good at it. The very mission to which the B-17 and B-24 were initially concieved was for ANTI-SHIPPING, not strategic bombing.

Concieved mission and actual mission not one in the same. SR71 was originally concieved of as a fighter (Rand McNally Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft pg 481).

B-24's carry out single-plane attacks on shipping off Soemba and Soembawa, and in Solomon Sea.

"Attacks on shipping" is the words they use when no hits were scored.

4 B-24's over Burma bomb shipping near Pagoda Pt, scoring near misses

"Near misses"

Single B-24's attack shipping off Manus and off Talasea, and hit A/F at Gasmata.

Again "attacks on shipping", but they hit the airfield.

NASAF B-17's and B-25's attack shipping between Tunisia and Sicily, claiming destruction or heavy damage of several motor vessels. Other B-17's hit shipping and M/Y at Sousse.

B-17s hit shipping in a harbor. Docked. Not moving. Not "at sea". And the hit the rail yard. No seperation of the B-17s and the B-25's on the shipping at sea. I dont doubt the B-25's scored hits, but you see here? They claimed that they "hit" shipping. None of the prior did they claim hits.

March was a busy month. Should I continue?

Nope, you've pretty well proven my point. Thank you.

[m10bob]

I believe the Tirpitz was sunk by some 4 engine Lancasters using "Tallboy" bombs..??(Stationary but from a high altitude,12 to 16,000 feet.)
Let's not forget the FW 200 Condor "anti-shipping" plane,and the Short Sunderland,(and any other 4 engine plane,if subs can count as a "ship" ??)

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

My opinion for what its worth is they should have a modifier built in as to AC type hitting targets. To my knowledge no 4 engine bomber ever hit a moving ship at sea in combat. While B-17 (et al) were very effective at bombing factories ect, they werent terribly useful in an anti-ship mode. Likewise, dive bombers were never used to any significant degree vs factory targets.

I believe Stuka dive bombers and Val's,etc were used against buildings......

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

My opinion for what its worth is they should have a modifier built in as to AC type hitting targets. To my knowledge no 4 engine bomber ever hit a moving ship at sea in combat. While B-17 (et al) were very effective at bombing factories ect, they werent terribly useful in an anti-ship mode. Likewise, dive bombers were never used to any significant degree vs factory targets.

I believe Stuka dive bombers and Val's,etc were used against buildings......

Never said they werent. Never said they werent used against factories either. I said "to a significant degree".

Condor was a recon plane, not a strategic bomber. Im not well versed on British history nor reported claims of hits/sinkings vs actual hits sinking of British aircraft. You could very well be correct.

[Feinder]

"Never argue with an idiot. He'll just drag you down to his level, and beat you with experience." - Mark Twain

(* sigh *)

-F-

[spence]

The Allied heavy bombers were not very effective bombing ships from high altitude. The IJN Nells/Bettys appear to have had exactly one good day: the day they got the Repulse and Prince of Wales. I asked those who support the gross over-rating of the G3s/G4s to provide further examples of successful torpedo attacks subsequent to the attacks on Force Z and they did: mentioning the sinking of the Chicago in early 43, a hit on Intrepid during one of the Marshall Islands invasions, hitting Houston(2) and Canberra(2) off Formosa and about 3 other instances. That would seem to be 6 successful torpedo attacks between Dec 10, 1941 and Aug 15, 1945. The Chicago and Intrepid attacks occurred at night and I don't think there were any night fighters about (certainly not in the case of Chicago). The others were daytime attacks that suffered great attrition due to the "Ronson's" (as their crews so lovingly referred to them) well know foibles.
It is interesting that no one cited any torpedo attacks at all during the DEI campaign after the Force Z attack: although there were many attacks on ships during that time it seems the IJN preferred to drop bombs from high altitude. At this they were not notably more successful than the USAAF against manuevering warships at sea (think they sank a Dutch DD and damaged Houston and either Marblehead or Boise).
In any case I don't think historical record in any way supports the ability of the IJN to fly 4-5 Daitai of twin engine bombers into East Baka AF and launch a 100 of them loaded with torpedos that afternoon against some Allied TF that can't run fast enough from its raid the day before to get out of range. Nor do I find it plausible that when that 100 plane raid goes in they score 15-20 torpedo hits on various ships (even if they do get shot to pieces the hits are out of line with their historical performance other than that 1 good day against Force z).

[scout1]

I believe the Tirpitz was sunk by some 4 engine Lancasters using "Tallboy" bombs..??(Stationary but from a high altitude,12 to 16,000 feet.)

My memory is a little fuzzy on this one, but she wasn't underway at the time, was she ?

[Milman]

If we look that way than we need to balance betty and nell bombers . Afther PoW and Repulse they didn't hit nothing of importance . In game main treat in 42' for allied CV isn't Kb it is those 2 bombers which have unhistorical number of sink ships by their attacks .

[m10bob]

Yes,Scout1,you are correct !!..That's why I said it was "stationary"..The reason the bombers attacked from so high up (3 miles),is because the ship was in a fjiord surrounded by mountains..It actually took 3 seperate raids and the ship took 3 direct hits,finally causing the ship to roll over,killing 1000 crewman..[:(]

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

In UV there was rule that made LBA's in naval attack mode only attack with 1 bomb but i do not think that is the case anymore.

I believe it is in the WITP manual...

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: spence

The Allied heavy bombers were not very effective bombing ships from high altitude. The IJN Nells/Bettys appear to have had exactly one good day: the day they got the Repulse and Prince of Wales. I asked those who support the gross over-rating of the G3s/G4s to provide further examples of successful torpedo attacks subsequent to the attacks on Force Z and they did: mentioning the sinking of the Chicago in early 43, a hit on Intrepid during one of the Marshall Islands invasions, hitting Houston(2) and Canberra(2) off Formosa and about 3 other instances. That would seem to be 6 successful torpedo attacks between Dec 10, 1941 and Aug 15, 1945. The Chicago and Intrepid attacks occurred at night and I don't think there were any night fighters about (certainly not in the case of Chicago). The others were daytime attacks that suffered great attrition due to the "Ronson's" (as their crews so lovingly referred to them) well know foibles.
It is interesting that no one cited any torpedo attacks at all during the DEI campaign after the Force Z attack: although there were many attacks on ships during that time it seems the IJN preferred to drop bombs from high altitude. At this they were not notably more successful than the USAAF against manuevering warships at sea (think they sank a Dutch DD and damaged Houston and either Marblehead or Boise).
In any case I don't think historical record in any way supports the ability of the IJN to fly 4-5 Daitai of twin engine bombers into East Baka AF and launch a 100 of them loaded with torpedos that afternoon against some Allied TF that can't run fast enough from its raid the day before to get out of range. Nor do I find it plausible that when that 100 plane raid goes in they score 15-20 torpedo hits on various ships (even if they do get shot to pieces the hits are out of line with their historical performance other than that 1 good day against Force z).

From what I read the torpedo run was actually a very poor use of Betties in reality, their very weak durability and the fact that a torpedo run is about the most dangerous attack form a bomber can do meant they got chopped to pieces by AA fire and were thus ineffective.

Whereas their strength was actually high level bombing of land bases, as they were fast enough to get in, bomb, and get out again before the defenders had time enough to gain altitude in time to intercept the fast moving Betties. Sort of like the Schnellbomber concept the Germans aimed for with the Flying Pencil.