B17s vs IJN CAs

[Honda]

Yeah, PDU is the single biggest underachiever in WitP. So much was expected, and the end result was so devasting on the game it can now be called Strategic Bombing in the Pacific. The point of playing late war Japanes (and midwar as it seems) is not to win. The goal is to succed at doing as much damage as possible WHILE getting stomped. Much of stomping is done by heavies, but enough is enough. With PDU you can mass as many heavies on each point of contact with Japs as was historicaly available for the whole PTO. Hello! Bad news! So now we have an even more unbalanced game. How can it be fun playing the allies with so much unstoppable material? It becomes the question of math, not strategy or tactical prowess.
And before someone says it WAS a question of math in RL - duh, it was - I'll just mention that the Allied operations even in late war were executeded very carefully with much attention to detail. This detail in WitP dissapears in late '42 with PDU and '43 without it unless, of course Jap player does exeptionaly well by taking Karachi and releaving Allied player of tons of reinforcements. Even then, it's a one sided show where Jap can only profit if Allies make cardinal mistakes.
Frustrating...[:(]

[Gen.Hoepner]

Yeah, PDU is the single biggest underachiever in WitP. So much was expected, and the end result was so devasting on the game it can now be called Strategic Bombing in the Pacific. The point of playing late war Japanes (and midwar as it seems) is not to win. The goal is to succed at doing as much damage as possible WHILE getting stomped. Much of stomping is done by heavies, but enough is enough. With PDU you can mass as many heavies on each point of contact with Japs as was historicaly available for the whole PTO. Hello! Bad news! So now we have an even more unbalanced game. How can it be fun playing the allies with so much unstoppable material? It becomes the question of math, not strategy or tactical prowess.
And before someone says it WAS a question of math in RL - duh, it was - I'll just mention that the Allied operations even in late war were executeded very carefully with much attention to detail. This detail in WitP dissapears in late '42 with PDU and '43 without it unless, of course Jap player does exeptionaly well by taking Karachi and releaving Allied player of tons of reinforcements. Even then, it's a one sided show where Jap can only profit if Allies make cardinal mistakes.
Frustrating...

cannot agree more!
Those games started with old 4Es replacement rates are even in a worse situation

[Rainerle]

ORIGINAL: tabpub



Well, since that task group is putting out about as much flak as ONE North Carolina (ok, add in a Bristol class DD or 2) I would not expect much from the flak. I would presume the bombers were at 6-8 thousand.

Hi,

well if you think that downing one and damaging 18 planes out of ~400 low and slow flying bombers in tight formation flying straight and level while expending most of the AA ammo is realistic ? (How many cries of anguish would be heard if those ships were really substituted by NC ?)

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
The B-17 was used extensively in the maritime interdiction role during the Japanese invasion of the Philippines and at Midway. It also flew hundreds of naval patrols loaded with bombs. They did hit a couple of transports that were unloading troops in the PI but again the ships were stopped. If you have any info regarding them hitting a warship at sea, I'ld like to know about it.

Very true, but then again there was never a single instance of 400+ heavy bombers trying to attack a single TF at low altitude. Historically, the TF wouldn't have gone there. It might have gone after a base with 30 heavy bombers, but it's pretty clear that the results of that attack would have worked out historically as well, particularly if they'd tried to bomb from historical altitudes of 10-15k vs. ships. Realize that this whole situation is first and foremost well outside the bounds of what was actually done in WWII before looking at the results and deciding it could never have happened.

Personally, I've found heavy bombers a lot easier to manage if I keep them in smaller groups. Supplying a single base with 400+ and actually keeping op losses under control and planes in the air creates a situation where that base becomes practically your entire logistical focus. Derby is not getting all its supply by land given its situation, so he must be sending TFs there. Have you tried closing it off with subs? Do you have any undamaged bases in range that could get Bettys or Nells to cover possible sea resupply routes? What do you control on New Guinea?

Even with that said, I think most Japanese players accept that bases in range of Australia will eventually be pulverized, but it does take time, supplies and replacement bombers for the Allied player to keep up any kind of bombing campaign. You could also look for breaks in the bombing if you want to try to bombard - if he's actually flying all the heavies at once rather than rotating them, he will have to stand them down, most likely after a week of sustained ops and they do take a while to repair and recover morale.

Regards,

- Erik

[Fishbed]

The only warship that I know of that was hit by a B-17 was DD that was tied along side another damaged ship. Both were dead in the water. The captian of the destroyer had such complete disregard for the B-17 in the naval attack role that they didn't even attempt to fire at it. Next thing they knew 3 bombs hit the DD sinking it. I believe thise was somewhere in the Solomons.

This is our beloved Mutsuki in August 1942. [:)]
In fact he didn't even tried to engage evasive action - it must be said that he was in complete rescue mission at this moment, but for sure apparently he had not a high opinion about the anti-naval abilities of the Fortress...

AJ

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

The only warship that I know of that was hit by a B-17 was DD that was tied along side another damaged ship. Both were dead in the water. The captian of the destroyer had such complete disregard for the B-17 in the naval attack role that they didn't even attempt to fire at it. Next thing they knew 3 bombs hit the DD sinking it. I believe thise was somewhere in the Solomons.

This is our beloved Mutsuki in August 1942. [:)]
In fact he didn't even tried to engage evasive action - it must be said that he was in complete rescue mission at this moment, but for sure apparently he had not a high opinion about the anti-naval abilities of the Fortress...

AJ

At least one CA was hit by B-17s (iirc) and sent back to Japan for repairs during the initial PI campaign. The ship was not moving, however (i think it was docked).

However, the B-17 was retired from bombardment duties relatively early in the Pacific campaign (used for other purposes, though), and replaced by the B-24. The B-24 DID sink moving ships, including warships, including one (damaged) CA but also DDs and other warships. So to say heavy bombers couldn't hit or sink warships at sea is a mis-statement. They could and did.

[mdiehl]

Actually if the quads were set to some low attack altitude then they in fact should obtain quite a few hits. The fact that a good deal of them were destroyed by flak suggests that these bombers attacked from low altitude. I don't see a problem here. Nor do I see a problem with massing quads for this use from that airbase .. in the context of a game that makes bombardment TFs inordinately powerful, uber CAPs, and the "zero bonus," the use of B17s and B24s in this manner does not strike me as "unfair" or "gamey." Ahistorical tactic yes, but then what in this simulation constrains any of the players to historical tactics?

[tsimmonds]

but then what in this simulation constrains any of the players to historical tactics?

Don't you mean "simulation"?[;)]

[mdiehl]

Say "game" if you like. People here don't seem to distinguish between the two.

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

If you have any info regarding them hitting a warship at sea, I'ld like to know about it.

Chez

I am pretty sure that B-24's sank the CL Abukuma in the battle of Leyte.

Granted, she was damaged the night before by a torp from PT's.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

If you have any info regarding them hitting a warship at sea, I'ld like to know about it.

Chez

I am pretty sure that B-24's sank the CL Abukuma in the battle of Leyte.
Granted, she was damaged the night before by a torp from PT's.

From "Combined Fleets":
25 October 1944: The Battle of the Surigao Strait:
In the early hours, when entering the Surigao Strait, the force is attacked by American PT-boats. The ASHIGARA, NACHI, ABUKUMA and DesDivs 7 and 18 maneuver for a single-column attack formation.

Binit Point, Panaon Island. In the darkness, Lt (j.g.) I. Mike Kovar's PT-137 approaches to within 900 yards of a destroyer. Kovar launches a torpedo, but it runs deep and passes underneath the destroyer. The destroyer snaps on her searchlight and opens fire on the PT-137.

As Kovar struggles to escape, his errant torpedo continues on and hits the unseen ABUKUMA near the No. l boiler room. At 0325, the night sky is illuminated by an explosion. 30 of the ABUKUMA's crewmen are killed.

After emergency repairs, the ABUKUMA, down by the bow, resumes course at slow speed. At 0445, Captain Hanada increases speed to 20 kts. At 0535, he reverses course and joins the other units of Shima's force retiring from Surigao.

At 0830, Rear Admiral Kimura's flag is transferred to the destroyer KASUMI. The destroyer USHIO is ordered to escort the ABUKUMA to Cagayan. Because of the American air threat, the force proceeds to Dapitan arriving at 2230. Repairs are made throughout night.

26 October 1944:
Departs for Coron with the USHIO.

Sulu Sea. Between 1006-1044, the ABUKUMA suffers three attacks by Consolidated B-24 "Liberator" bombers of the 5th Group, 13th Air Force. At 1006, she takes a direct hit near the No. 3 140-mm gun mount. At 1020, B-24 bombers of the 33rd Squadron, 22nd Group, 5th Air Force score two direct hits aft that start heavy fires. Power is lost, the steering gear breaks down and her speed falls off. The fire spreads to the aft engine and torpedo rooms. At 1037, four Type 93 "Long Lance" oxygen-propelled torpedoes explode.

Off Negros Island. Between 1100-1130, the ABUKUMA's crew abandons ship. At 1142 hours, she sinks by stern at 09-20N, 122-32E with the loss of 250 crewmen. Captain Hanada and 283 crewmen are rescued by the USHIO.

[ChezDaJez]

Personally, I've found heavy bombers a lot easier to manage if I keep them in smaller groups. Supplying a single base with 400+ and actually keeping op losses under control and planes in the air creates a situation where that base becomes practically your entire logistical focus. Derby is not getting all its supply by land given its situation, so he must be sending TFs there. Have you tried closing it off with subs? Do you have any undamaged bases in range that could get Bettys or Nells to cover possible sea resupply routes? What do you control on New Guinea?

Morning, Erik.

I understand that historically this type mission would never have been tried against such a huge force. However, there is presently no other way of combating them. Desparate times require desparate measures.

I have tried closing off Derby with subs but lost 4 off them fairly quickly. My opponent uses a least one group of B-17s to hunt for them and then sends ASW TFs after them. I keep them moving but eventually they get caught for no gain. I now station 2 Glen equipped subs off the the SW coast of Australia to search for them but so far have failed to spot any significant convoys. He has not sent any convoys around the north coast of Oz.

I own all of New Guinea and to date he has left it alone so I am quite well dug in there with several groups of fighters and bombers and plenty of troops.

As far as attacking with Bettys, its too far. He owns Timor still but those airfields are constantly being bombed by my Bettys to keep them closed. My nearest airfield is Maumere which is entirely shut down. He shifted to Derby when I kept raiding Darwin. He moved several groups of fighters there so now I no longer go there due to heavy losses. He also has over 150K troops at Darwin so I expect an invasion to come against Amboina in the near future.

I think the biggest problem related to the game here is the number of replacement heavy bombers the Allies get early on. For him to be employing somewhere around 600 of them this early is not historical either. Neither flak nor fighers are effective (as was true IRL) in stopping or even slowing them. He has lost about 80 4Es to my fighters and over 100 to ops but they just can't be stopped.

BTW, I should be receiving another turn this afternoon and will post a screen shot covering the damage to my TF.

Chez

[rtrapasso]

If you have any info regarding them hitting a warship at sea, I'ld like to know about it.

I've quoted various sources about the 5th(?) AF B-24s successes against shipping (including warships) in the past and you might be able to find them with searches. If you can't and are still interested, i'll see if i can dig them up.

[rtrapasso]

This is from one of my posts in the thread "B-29s and the airwar in asia":
fb.asp?m=760105


According to Louis Brown's Radar History of WWII - part of this was actually provoked by B-24s raiding shipping at night using radar(pp. 366-367): "... the champions of maritime destruction were those flying with the 14th Air Force from Liuchow, China, over the Formosa Straits and South China Sea. In the five months after their first flight on 24/25 May 1944, this unit sank 250,000 tons of merchant shipping, three cruisers and three destroyers in addition to damaging or possibly sinking another 100,000 tons of shipping and seven naval vessels. Shipping was so dense that targets frequently had to selected from several, and the had to ignore 60% of ships sighted during their first two months. Destruction of these ships cut off supplies sorely needed for the defense of the Philippines. And this from a base where operations had to 'measured in pints of gasoline and ounces of bombs', owing to the extreme difficuty of flying supplies from Burma over the Himalayas. The destruction caused by this handful of bombers became so painful that the Japanese Army forced the Chinese back and captured Liuchow on 11 November 1944 thereby ending the 14th's commerce raiding. That such a measure was necessary to stop the sinkings demonstrates the complete absence of Japanese night-fighter capability. ... For want of airborne radar an army had to move."

[moses]

400 bombers to attack 9 puny ships with no fighter cover coming in from 300 miles???!!!!

I'd have the planes come in individually at 10,000 feet. Drop the bombs and then fly about on the outside of the fleet emptying my machine guns on the ships.

After and hour and 40 bomb runs or so do the ships even have any ammo left? How about three hours?? Sooner or latter the AA fire has to slack off and then you start coming in at lower and lower altitude.

By the 200th bomb run I suspect you're flying in at 500 feet against zero AA. Kinda hard to miss now.

Never happened because no Japanese conmander would put his ships in such as horrible situation.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: moses

400 bombers to attack 9 puny ships with no fighter cover coming in from 300 miles???!!!!

I'd have the planes come in individually at 10,000 feet. Drop the bombs and then fly about on the outside of the fleet emptying my machine guns on the ships.

After and hour and 40 bomb runs or so do the ships even have any ammo left? How about three hours?? Sooner or latter the AA fire has to slack off and then you start coming in at lower and lower altitude.

By the 200th bomb run I suspect you're flying in at 500 feet against zero AA. Kinda hard to miss now.

Never happened because no Japanese conmander would put his ships in such as horrible situation.

Neither were there orbiting hordes of bombers at these numbers. Imagine 400 FW Condors doing this to a Murmansk convoy![8D]

[moses]

Agreed but the point at issue should not be that bombers are too effective. I think 400 bombers would have sunk all 9 ships.

The real issue is how can a base far from any reliable supply line, base 400 bombers in late 42.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: moses

Agreed but the point at issue should not be that bombers are too effective. I think 400 bombers would have sunk all 9 ships.

The real issue is how can a base far from any reliable supply line, base 400 bombers in late 42.

Well, CHS with its more accurate (Andrew Brown) map probably addresses this.

How come the issue is not "how can IJN TFs pull off bizarre, ahistorical bombardment missions?" The one time they tried this (bombarding a base without having Japanese troops engaged in the fight) in real life, a few tactical bombers mauled them (Midway). Yet, as people have mentioned, when someone does something ahistorical, and someone does something ahistorical back, one side cries foul.

[mdiehl]

question is why the Japanese player allowed the Allies to construct such a massive forward air base and get all of those supplies there.

As to what could be done. We know that the Luftwaffe was never able to mass 400 condors if it wanted to. We also know the USAAF massed 400+ bomber formations on numerous occasions (although never all from just one base). So within the realm of plausibility, having a 400 Allied bomber strike is not implausible. It just wasn't done in the PTO prior to 1944.

So you have to ask yourself whether or not you want the Allied player to be allowed to employ in the PTO logistical efforts and massed bomber formations used in the ETO in 1943 and not used in the PTO until 1944. IMO it's not the craziest thing that WitP allows.... not by half.

[Ron Saueracker]

Reminds me of Snigbert's sig...how did it go? "If one uses ahistorical methods one will get ahistorical results!"

Yup.[&o]