Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Kadrin

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Allied heavy bombers never check for escorts.

I have a feeling this isn't true.

I've had a few opportunities for Beauforts, B-24's, IL-4c's and Swordfish (Hermes disbanded in port) to hit the mini-KB off Ceylon during a 3 day raid. No fighter escort was availible (all was on CAP over Colombo) and all planes on Naval Attack, max range, altitude 10,000. Yet during the 3 days of the raid only the Swordfish off Hermes launched, and then proceeded to get thoroughly annihilated.

There are so many reasons why an air unit will not fly that it is impossible to tell why it didn't. The worse part is that I'm pretty d*mn sure not all of them are documented or have been discovered by the players. Not to mention the one rule that literally says that they may not fly for no reason at all.

Personally, I think Mogami's artifical range limit is even more bogus and gamey than the perceived "problem". (Not that I agree there even is a problem with US 4-engine bombers flying anti-shipping strikes.) Most of the real life anti-shipping strikes flown by heavy bombers were against merchant marine targets. Why would they expect to need fighter escort for that?

ORIGINAL: dtravel

There are so many reasons why an air unit will not fly that it is impossible to tell why it didn't. The worse part is that I'm pretty d*mn sure not all of them are documented or have been discovered by the players. Not to mention the one rule that literally says that they may not fly for no reason at all.

This is true, I guess. Though I did have all known requirements covered:

Level 9 AF/Port, 800k supply, 4x the amount of Aviation Support required, Air HQ present, high unit morale (99), low fatigue (0), aggresive commanders (all with 60+) with good Air Skill (also 60+), the Jap TF was spotted twice a day by Patrol Planes, range was 4 hexes, 3 hexes and 6 hexes (from day 1 to day 3), AF not overloaded (only 140 some bombers, and 80 odd fighters).

I really don't know what else I could have done to make these guys fly.


But back on topic, there should be a range limit to naval strikes just because of the time involved from sighting to actually reaching the target. The only way those B-29's could have hit that TF was if there was a PBY or something shadowing it for hours reporting its location, heading, approx. speed frequently to the incoming B-29's (which is plausible).

But how long could something like that shadow a TF before it had to return to base? And would they shadow a TF and leave the rest of their search pattern unobserved? Would they send additional aircraft to shadow the TF (possibly at the cost of other search patterns)?

I would say yes they'd abandon their search to shadow something major (a CV TF, invasion TF, SC TF containing large vessels), but how about a few merchant ships?

Just some of my thoughts on this.

ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: Kadrin

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Allied heavy bombers never check for escorts.

I have a feeling this isn't true.

I've had a few opportunities for Beauforts, B-24's, IL-4c's and Swordfish (Hermes disbanded in port) to hit the mini-KB off Ceylon during a 3 day raid. No fighter escort was availible (all was on CAP over Colombo) and all planes on Naval Attack, max range, altitude 10,000. Yet during the 3 days of the raid only the Swordfish off Hermes launched, and then proceeded to get thoroughly annihilated.

There are so many reasons why an air unit will not fly that it is impossible to tell why it didn't. The worse part is that I'm pretty d*mn sure not all of them are documented or have been discovered by the players. Not to mention the one rule that literally says that they may not fly for no reason at all.

Personally, I think Mogami's artifical range limit is even more bogus and gamey than the perceived "problem". (Not that I agree there even is a problem with US 4-engine bombers flying anti-shipping strikes.) Most of the real life anti-shipping strikes flown by heavy bombers were against merchant marine targets. Why would they expect to need fighter escort for that?

I didn't realize B29 strikes from 26 hexes, against my fleet CV task force, qualified as 'anti-shipping'.

[8|]

ORIGINAL: The Duke

ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: Kadrin



I have a feeling this isn't true.

I've had a few opportunities for Beauforts, B-24's, IL-4c's and Swordfish (Hermes disbanded in port) to hit the mini-KB off Ceylon during a 3 day raid. No fighter escort was availible (all was on CAP over Colombo) and all planes on Naval Attack, max range, altitude 10,000. Yet during the 3 days of the raid only the Swordfish off Hermes launched, and then proceeded to get thoroughly annihilated.

There are so many reasons why an air unit will not fly that it is impossible to tell why it didn't. The worse part is that I'm pretty d*mn sure not all of them are documented or have been discovered by the players. Not to mention the one rule that literally says that they may not fly for no reason at all.

Personally, I think Mogami's artifical range limit is even more bogus and gamey than the perceived "problem". (Not that I agree there even is a problem with US 4-engine bombers flying anti-shipping strikes.) Most of the real life anti-shipping strikes flown by heavy bombers were against merchant marine targets. Why would they expect to need fighter escort for that?

I didn't realize B29 strikes from 26 hexes, against my fleet CV task force, qualified as 'anti-shipping'.

[8|]

That's called "an unexpected bonus". [:'(]

Well I want to be fair in my PBEM as the Allies.
What is a fair range then for the B17 would you gents say for Naval Attack strikes. Would you ban them altoghter, or just the B29 Platform?

A large strike of LBA would launch against any precisely located TF target - such as the IJN strikes against the transports in Ironbottom Sound (from Rabaul).  My guess is that a large strike would not launch against a TF at more than around 350 miles unless the TF was being continuously shadowed by a search plane(s) AND there was a good likelihood that the shadowing would continue during the preparation, launch and transit of the strike aircraft.  I'm not sure what the range from Saigon to the Force Z but aside from the general area being fairly well covered by IJN search aircraft, the strike groups had been trained and deployed specifically to deal with Force Z.  IMHO the range of the strike was atypical of IJN doctrine but since attacking Force Z was the raison d'etre of those three groups and their primary target was known to be at sea even before it was sighted doctrine was ignored in this case.   Incidentally my guess as to the longest range naval strike of the war would be the attack on Hiryu (approx 1830 local time, 4 June 42) NW of Midway by B-17s that had flown directly from Oahu.    
     Attacks on targets of opportunity by individual or small flights of long range aircraft was certainly not uncommon.  The VPBs of the USN did so all the time attacking naval/merchant targets 700-1000 miles from base; however they did not launch to attack those specific targets but rather any that they found.  Similarly, individual or small flights of IJN (not so sure about IJA) bombers would attack targets of opportunity at long range as well (but with bombs).
    
     An attack by B-29s on a naval target 1600 miles away is a bit over the top but then again so is 300 well supplied, well rested medium bombers sitting on the tarmack while the KB steams around 200 miles offshore launching airstrikes at the same base or port. 
 
      

I have had Betties and Nells attack TFs at 10 hexes. It happened a couple of times and of course it was where I didn't want them to attack.

Thought you folks should know - my PBEM opponent has agreed not to use B-29s in naval attack.....
 
Of course, w/ PDU-on he can still fan out 500+ B24s about 800 miles in any given direction to rain death upon KB....but that's better than 1500 miles of raining death [8|]
 
He just took the southern base in Mindanao, and turned it from a 0 airbase to a 2 in 2 days.....size 5 max, things are going to get ugly quick around Luzon....