Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question

[Dili]

So in attack against Pearl Harbour Zeros didnt went with attack force? . 4E unless in a diferents physics Universe couldnt achive the results they achieve now because when a 4E drops 20 bombs is only making one bombing calculation. If the Japanese put 5 Carriers all fighters in CAP it is possible to have a CAP of 100 aircraft (not counting down time).
 

Its doctrine and organization was entirely devoted to the launching offensive strikes.

 
Yes. And?  Not much different for  US in that period.
 

If, as at Midway, the enemy launched first it was in a pickle. 

 
Same for USA. Yorktown got inop and late sunk by a comparative small attack package in Midway. Only in 1944 USA would achieve a good CAP with picket ships and many CVE/CVLs with enough fighters for escort, TF's grew to 1000 aircraft and only with that and early warning there is way to work a reliable CAP. In 1942 it was the same for both sides. They could have destroyed each other ( a small example occured in  Coral Sea), no chances at all for the reduced CAP have effect if the attack force cames with fighters for escort.
 
The advantages in earlier war of concentration of power in a big package with lack of earlier warning makes the attack the best defense. What is surprising is the lame resources invested in recon. Maybe the Samurai spirit worked against such menial jobs.

[castor troy]

from the AAR of Moses vs Jwilkerson:


Burma: He has BB's that sweep through Akyab occasionally trying to catch my BB TF. This turn my bombers hit. 32 B17E's attacked and the very first planes hit the BB Fuso. Slowed down this BB was then hit 18 times!!!! Of course 500 lb bombs can't hurt BB's much. But it is on fire and it make me feel very good.


lol, isn´t it? [:D] Don´t know the alt but I had to smile while reading this and thinking about the recently started thread. Not a bad hit rate for such a big plane going in against a BB at high speed.

Wonder why it took so long to hit the German BBs that were at anchor and not moving at all...

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

from the AAR of Moses vs Jwilkerson:


Burma: He has BB's that sweep through Akyab occasionally trying to catch my BB TF. This turn my bombers hit. 32 B17E's attacked and the very first planes hit the BB Fuso. Slowed down this BB was then hit 18 times!!!! Of course 500 lb bombs can't hurt BB's much. But it is on fire and it make me feel very good.


lol, isn´t it? [:D] Don´t know the alt but I had to smile while reading this and thinking about the recently started thread. Not a bad hit rate for such a big plane going in against a BB at high speed.

Wonder why it took so long to hit the German BBs that were at anchor and not moving at all...

Probably because of camouflage, the swarms of radar vectored fighters and heavy flak... iirc the German planes were hit relatively often, with bombs that damaged their superstructure, etc. And the bombs did end up crippling them.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: castor troy

from the AAR of Moses vs Jwilkerson:


Burma: He has BB's that sweep through Akyab occasionally trying to catch my BB TF. This turn my bombers hit. 32 B17E's attacked and the very first planes hit the BB Fuso. Slowed down this BB was then hit 18 times!!!! Of course 500 lb bombs can't hurt BB's much. But it is on fire and it make me feel very good.


lol, isn´t it? [:D] Don´t know the alt but I had to smile while reading this and thinking about the recently started thread. Not a bad hit rate for such a big plane going in against a BB at high speed.

Wonder why it took so long to hit the German BBs that were at anchor and not moving at all...

Probably because of camouflage, the swarms of radar vectored fighters and heavy flak... iirc the German ships were hit relatively often, with bombs that damaged their superstructure, etc. And the bombs did end up crippling them.

Add to that the fact that the attacks against the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau in the French ports were almost exclusively flown at night.

The attacks on the Tirpitz were in daylight, and if I remember correctly, the strike that sunk her yielded one or two direct hits, along with several near misses. Of course, near misses count too, when you're using Tallboy bombs...[:D]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: castor troy

from the AAR of Moses vs Jwilkerson:


Burma: He has BB's that sweep through Akyab occasionally trying to catch my BB TF. This turn my bombers hit. 32 B17E's attacked and the very first planes hit the BB Fuso. Slowed down this BB was then hit 18 times!!!! Of course 500 lb bombs can't hurt BB's much. But it is on fire and it make me feel very good.


lol, isn´t it? [:D] Don´t know the alt but I had to smile while reading this and thinking about the recently started thread. Not a bad hit rate for such a big plane going in against a BB at high speed.

Wonder why it took so long to hit the German BBs that were at anchor and not moving at all...

Probably because of camouflage, the swarms of radar vectored fighters and heavy flak... iirc the German planes were hit relatively often, with bombs that damaged their superstructure, etc. And the bombs did end up crippling them.

hmm, the camouflage was pretty much a joke on dozens of British recon photos I have seen in the years. They were under nets but they were still easily to discover if you know where they are and when in port it was known where they are. As for the Tirpitz, there were those smoke installations that worked or worked not at times and the fighters, oh well, there were perhaps a dozen or two? Nothing that I can see that justifies a hit rate of 18 out of 32 bombers on a MOVING target.

This is the Gneisenau in Brest:

edit, new photo, first one too small...

[castor troy]

and here a photo during an attack with lots of smoke, still the two ships are perfectly visible IMO, why should you miss them if it´s so easy to hit such a "small" target?







just look at the splashes! Those bomber crews were probably drunk to miss those sitting ducks... [;)]

[donnie_1974_texas]

I have to agree with Castor on this one. I do not see many instances of B17s or other heavies hitting too many fast moving ships, admittedly in the Pacific they weren't used this way that often - perhaps there is a reason why?

Interestingly enough, like I said before, if, as a player, you use the heavies at 20-30,000 feet, they seem to be modelled pretty well in their performance; maybe a tad too effective versus industry targets that were a little more decentralized in a 60 mile hex than can be depicted in the scale of the game, but overall, they work pretty well here.

For flak, in the stock databases - well, the light flak just isn't there. The heavy flak has an abstract model to it, and, flak guns are disabled way too easily by airfield attacks. After two attacks on an airfield with 200 flak guns by 40 B17s, trust me, you don't have any flak guns that are not disabled. Sound realistic?

As far as Betty's on long range strike, yes, torpedo availability is a big problem. In general it is way too high. So, as usual, the model can be exploited at the extremes and as pointed out somewhere above by another poster, if one guy is taking advantage of it, the other player probably is going to respond anyway he can.

As for long range strikes as a whole, these should be toned down. From looking at mission records, you just don't see planes flying 2,000 miles in a day and then doing it again day after day. So I think fatigue should play a bigger role for aircraft, I could care little about the morale roll, in general, if the boss man orders a strike, well, it flew. If the pilots were fatigued or the planes in need of routine maintenance, uhhh, ops losses went way up.

As for air to air combat, try something like Brian's mod and, yes, some bombers will get through. I have been running a 1945 head to head campaign just for kicks and Japan can get some bombers through against even all of TF 57...that could get scary for the Allies in 1944/1945...armor values were upped for the Allies a little too much in the last mod but I understand those are coming back down in the 1.4 version coming soon.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

and here a photo during an attack with lots of smoke, still the two ships are perfectly visible IMO, why should you miss them if it´s so easy to hit such a "small" target?







just look at the splashes! Those bomber crews were probably drunk to miss those sitting ducks... [;)]

Yes - it really looks like they are bombing from 6000 feet, doesn't it? [8|]

[whippleofd]

RTLFC:

Ummm...so...like....ummmmm.......

Was "he" sunk or scuttled? [:D]

*runs and hides*

Whipple

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: castor troy

and here a photo during an attack with lots of smoke, still the two ships are perfectly visible IMO, why should you miss them if it´s so easy to hit such a "small" target?







just look at the splashes! Those bomber crews were probably drunk to miss those sitting ducks... [;)]

Yes - it really looks like they are bombing from 6000 feet, doesn't it? [8|]

So? And why didn´t they?

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: castor troy

and here a photo during an attack with lots of smoke, still the two ships are perfectly visible IMO, why should you miss them if it´s so easy to hit such a "small" target?







just look at the splashes! Those bomber crews were probably drunk to miss those sitting ducks... [;)]

Yes - it really looks like they are bombing from 6000 feet, doesn't it? [8|]

So? And why didn´t they?

Because flak would have eaten them up. German flak was much more intense (by all accounts i've seen) than that seen in the Pacific Theater of Operations.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso





Yes - it really looks like they are bombing from 6000 feet, doesn't it? [8|]

So? And why didn´t they?

Because flak would have eaten them up. German flak was much more intense (by all accounts i've seen) than that seen in the Pacific Theater of Operations.

I bet 10 AA regiments (Japanese) at one place would have been a LOT more effective than what the Germans had at Brest.... [;)] you know what it looks like in the game to place a dozen AA regiments somewhere... poof poof.... 100 flak guns disabled... 100 hits on ships in port...

and to come back to what the thread started about, IMO it´s essential to have a house rule about those 4Es, because even if their hit rate would be modeled realistic (which surely isn´t), everything else is far off so IMO you need to see that as a trade off.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: castor troy





So? And why didn´t they?

Because flak would have eaten them up. German flak was much more intense (by all accounts i've seen) than that seen in the Pacific Theater of Operations.

I bet 10 AA regiments (Japanese) at one place would have been a LOT more effective than what the Germans had at Brest.... [;)] you know what it looks like in the game to place a dozen AA regiments somewhere... poof poof.... 100 flak guns disabled... 100 hits on ships in port...

and to come back to what the thread started about, IMO it´s essential to have a house rule about those 4Es, because even if their hit rate would be modeled realistic (which surely isn´t), everything else is far off so IMO you need to see that as a trade off.

Yes, well then maybe there should be a house rule about concentrating IJA AA regiments as well.

Let us also point out ONCE AGAIN that the most effective use of 4 EB against shipping by the Allies IRL is not modelled in the game (night attacks using radar). So, why is THAT not a trade off?? This always seems to be ignored in "4 EB hit too often" arguments - whereas, if you put this into the equation, maybe Allied EB's don't hit enough.

[Yamato hugger]

Night attacks using radar arent conducted in squadron / group formations. They are individual attacks by individual planes. In game terms this means NAVAL SEARCH.

(I love saying that as often as I can).

Attacks by hundreds of 4E bombers against ships at sea has no precident in history. If it was effective in the least, why did they have all them 2E bombers? They wouldnt have had a use for them because the big boys could do the same job and do it from a longer range. 4E bombers dont belong on naval strike missions. Period.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Night attacks using radar arent conducted in squadron / group formations. They are individual attacks by individual planes. In game terms this means NAVAL SEARCH.

(I love saying that as often as I can).

Attacks by hundreds of 4E bombers against ships at sea has no precident in history. If it was effective in the least, why did they have all them 2E bombers? They wouldnt have had a use for them because the big boys could do the same job and do it from a longer range. 4E bombers dont belong on naval strike missions. Period.

And i will point out again that it (night search) is not represented in the game.

And i will also point (again) out that hundreds of B-17s did not attack because the IJN commanders were not foolish enough to have their fleet within range of such concentrations... and so eventually the B-17s and B-24s were assigned other duties (patrol, bombing bases, etc.) It was not because aircraft were not ABLE to hit moving ships (although you can argue about the numbers of hits) - it was because the ships steered clear of the danger historically.

And once again, you have chosen to split off part of the argument to bolster your argument... "4 EB bombers couldn't hit moving ships" - they did it all the time at night - "well, let's ignore night attacks from the number of hits they could make - so they can't hit moving ships"

IF you want to make a compromise - you must offer something in return. The game (and it is a game, not a sim) has eliminated the night attacks on shipping - and you are now insisting that this is a separate issue. So, in terms of a boxing match (for the air war) - the right arm has been cut off the Allied boxer, and now you are insisting that the left arm be tethered as well.

i am not talking about some future game - i am talking about what is going on in this game. You can not fix the problem in this game without changing the game engine, i think, so that is not going to happen.

If you are interested in a compromise - you must offer something in return, not just insist one side give up its one most effective air weapon, while the IJ industry can (for instance) out-produce the Allies in fighters, make vast numbers of aircraft that were only prototypes (yet excluding Allied ability to do so), etc., etc.

If it was effective in the least, why did they have all them 2E bombers? 4E bombers dont belong on naval strike missions. Period.

4 EB could and did conduct naval strikes*, however, it was cheaper to use 2 EB to do so (much cheaper to build a 2 EB and train a smaller crew)**, while 4 EB were used for other more "lucrative" purposes (whacking individual ships at night - when they had essentially no defenses.)

*As i have previously sited in the Med campaign, the Allied 4 EB crews had it down to a routine business to sink enemy shipping by concentrating around 50-60 tons on bombs on a ship. This is an instance where Axis shipping DID come into 4 EB range - and suffered accordingly.

** Since 2EB were faster and more maneuverable than 4 EB, the skip bombing attacks were also more effective with these aircraft. Also (again) - skip bombing was EASIER to train (and so less experienced crews were able to conduct these) and they had LOWER casualty rates - which again is just the opposite of what is in the game.

[Yamato hugger]

Rabul was within 4E bomber range for 2 years. They bombed the port. They never bombed ships at sea (in group formations) that I am ever aware of, and certainly not on a routine basis. Single 4E bombers didnt attack convoys that I am aware of. They attacked individual ships at sea.

As for the game not doing night search, I have to admit this surprises me because PacWar was very good about not only conducting night searches, but naval strikes at night as well. But you needed very high experienced groups to do it. It IS possible that is also modeled in this game. Try it using 90 experience groups. I wouldnt be surprised if it works (I wouldnt be surprised if it doesnt either).

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Rabul was within 4E bomber range for 2 years. They bombed the port. They never bombed ships at sea (in group formations) that I am ever aware of, and certainly not on a routine basis. Single 4E bombers didnt attack convoys that I am aware of. They attacked individual ships at sea.

As for the game not doing night search, I have to admit this surprises me because PacWar was very good about not only conducting night searches, but naval strikes at night as well. But you needed very high experienced groups to do it. It IS possible that is also modeled in this game. Try it using 90 experience groups. I wouldnt be surprised if it works (I wouldnt be surprised if it doesnt either).

The point is they COULD bomb ships in formation as evidenced by the Med operations. Why they didn't is another discussion which i don't think i want to get into right now except to say 2EB eventually did a number on shipping in Rabaul using low level tactics, so why bother using an expensive resource when you have a cheaper one to do the job more effectively?

As for bombing on patrol at night in the game: it doesn't work - (unless you have a sub in the same hex) at least with groups in the mid-high 80's. i've never been able to get bombers into the 90s as Allied as they get rotated home first. Also, you can't assign bombers to PATROL at night - just to go on naval strike missions.


EDIT: i will also point out that 4 EB did bomb in formation and sink ships (including warships up to cruiser size) in the PTO - but more notable of their successes came when they got more experience and when there were more 4EB available, and when 2 EB had already pretty much taken over the job at low level.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso





Because flak would have eaten them up. German flak was much more intense (by all accounts i've seen) than that seen in the Pacific Theater of Operations.

I bet 10 AA regiments (Japanese) at one place would have been a LOT more effective than what the Germans had at Brest.... [;)] you know what it looks like in the game to place a dozen AA regiments somewhere... poof poof.... 100 flak guns disabled... 100 hits on ships in port...

and to come back to what the thread started about, IMO it´s essential to have a house rule about those 4Es, because even if their hit rate would be modeled realistic (which surely isn´t), everything else is far off so IMO you need to see that as a trade off.

Yes, well then maybe there should be a house rule about concentrating IJA AA regiments as well.

Let us also point out ONCE AGAIN that the most effective use of 4 EB against shipping by the Allies IRL is not modelled in the game (night attacks using radar). So, why is THAT not a trade off?? This always seems to be ignored in "4 EB hit too often" arguments - whereas, if you put this into the equation, maybe Allied EB's don't hit enough.

sorry, but this makes me smile! [:)] Yeah, let´s have a house rule about not stacking more than 1 AA regiment per base (which sounds realistic). It doesn´t matter for the Japanese and it´s only a disadvantage for the Allied. A dozen AA regiments does the same like one AA regiment - NOTHING... NOTHING against 4E bombers coming in in hundreds at 6000 ft at broad daylight to bomb ships anchored in port. Then they achieve a hundreds hits for losing two or three bombers with another dozen damaged.
Not putting a dozen AA regiments in a base is a disadvantage for the Allied! Why? Because the ground casualties go down! That´s the only difference of having dozens of base forces, or no base forces at a Japanese base.

Lol, hope you can smile too. Your comparisons are not something I can understand...

[castor troy]

There are things wrong on both sides. I´m sure 95% of the players and forum members are agreeing here. Though what makes me always wonder is why are there so few things I can complain about when I play the Allied side and I´m already nearly entering 44 in one game. The things I find to complain about are so minor, they are swept away by all the things I have on hand that weren´t there in real life (like thousands of bombers ready every day). The AFBs complain about thousands of Japanese second generation fighters, but IMO those who complain about this are just NUTS, yeah NUTS, because those thousands of second generation IJA fighters are shot down in a much higher rate than first generation fighters in real life. So what´s there to complain about? All my Allied fighters in late 43 are achieving even higher kill rates than in real life - this against FAR BETTER planes that were in the air in real life. And against FAR BETTER pilots than in real life as well. And no, I´m not playing someone who just started with WITP, in fact he kicked my a** even more that would someone call "normal" for 41/42.

So as the Allied player I can complain about... mmm, perhaps the fact that I have unlimited bomber sorties every day that can´t be stopped at all in 9 out of 10 times with kill rates somewhere between 10 and 20:1. Yeah, that´s something I can complain about. But wait, I´m the Allied player, so why should I complain about that? 4E bombers alone will win the war. IN THE GAME! If you can´t win the war with your 4Es alone, then you´re a bad player... [:D] Or are limiting them "a bit" (like with max 4Es at a base, altitude...). There were those who thought in real life also that bombers can win a war, those were wrong - in real life. In the game, the 4Es are the number one weapon. 100 times better than the Betty that´s so hated by AFBs. In 42 you can´t sink IJN BBs with them - everything else will be sunk at no costs. Every base will be destroyed by raids of hundreds every day (so realistic). In 43 I can sink EVERY IJN ship including BBs as the big bombs are triggered. The die rolls for it are not hard to achieve when every 4E crew is above 80 exp at that time. If it isn´t, let them fly daily a dozen hexes to and from a target and they will be above 80 exp soon.

The biggest problem is all the complaints on and on are coming from the fact that 80% of the PBEM players never even entered 43. If you´re an Allied player in mid 43 and are still complaining than I´m sorry for you. Mostly you will get something to complain because YOU did something wrong, not the game is giving you a disadvantage.

Just as a reminder: If I would lose 6 4Es every day a month then at the end of the month there would be 30 bombers less in the pool (production in stock around 150 until mid 44 - then 300 or so). 30 bombers less... [:D] I´m not losing 180 4E bombers a month... [:D] Again, the 4Es win the war in WITP. Not the ships, not the CVs, not the Marines, the USSAF 4E bombers.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Night attacks using radar arent conducted in squadron / group formations. They are individual attacks by individual planes. In game terms this means NAVAL SEARCH.

It´s a great compromise to trade the night attacks of single flying B-24s with day attacks of 200+ 4E bombers... [8|]