How to correct the over effective low level bombing

[Black Cat]

I have always believed in a rough 1:10:100 ratio on Specific Content Internet Forums like this.

For every 1 post ( or poll ) responded to there are 10 folks who read but don`t respond for any number of reasons, and 100 who don`t read ( but own the product/or have an interest ) hence no response possible.

Others may have more hard facts about the process.

[Ron Saueracker]

I second dgaad. Great approach to the problem.

[murx]

Just an idea,

how about comparing 'this part of the engine' with another wargame trying to recreate some similiar historical events.
With bombing, bombers and CAP Battle over Britain and Bombing the Reich (from Talonsoft IIRC) comes into mind. Even though both focus on the strategical air theater they still have to get bomber precision, CAP and flak into a logical concept.

In that game :
Yes lower altitude result in much better accuracy, but the gain in accuracy below 6k feet doesn't weight up on high (flak) protected targets. Not mentioning the CAP ability targeting low altitude aircraft with minimal climbing ability.

And for P2P vs 'historical accuracy' :
If a game uses 'historical' designs it should IMHO try to use just the technical ability, not punish ahistorical use. Likewise - if a B-17 could use 'skip-bombs' with good precision let the player do so; arguing that skip-bombs weren't (in numbers) available at that & that date is a bit 'unfair' because if they were used more effectivly in their historical counterpart the production would have been higher and research would have been faster.

It's up to hard technical research to find the best value/mechanism within a game.
If B-17 use skip-bombs with 75% accuracy at 1000 feet it might be techically correct (so I don't know), effect of flak might or might not be correct at 1000 feet - but the former has nothing to do with the latter.

Degrading one or upgrading the other might make a game P2P playable and balanced or at least fair but is it really what players (esp. wargamers) want ?

Concluding I just want to advice to focus why B-17 should be more or less accurate or FlaKs more or less effective - don't try to mix them up

just my 2 cents ...

murx

[dgaad]

Originally posted by emorbius44



This game is supposed to reflect operations AS THEY HAPPENED.
that is to say a number of paremeters are not player controlable and should reflect historical practice. Perhaps you can provide me with how many combat vessels were successfully attacked and repeatedly hit by B-17's prior to midway?
I read another post where B-17's blew through a carrier CAP and hit a CV with four bombs.

Bob

1. As you well know, there is no example of B-17s attacking a carrier group at low altitude during the war. Does this mean a game rule or tweak should prevent it?

2. B-17s were first used at low altitude to attack enemy craft in October 1942, after spending months of training on a hitherto unheard of and unused technique termed "skip bombing". This was well after Midway.

What are the rules / tweaks you are suggesting exactly?

The Japanese never used Kamikazes until October, 1944. Do you think it would be a good rule to impose on a game that the Japanese could not use Kamikazes until that date? What if the Allies are really successful and invade Okinawa in November, 1943 (first use of Kamikazes was Leyte Gulf 1944)?

Point is : a good simulation provides the framework with realistic capabilities and realistic results. It avoids placing special rules to prohibit operational uses that were not known or discovered until a certain date. Instead, good simulations focus on "conditional allowance" = once the historical conditions forced the recognition of a certain tactic, then in the game when a similar set of conditions the tactic is "discovered" or "allowed". UV does this by making skip bombing far less effective for airgroups which have experience under 75, and dangerous to the pilot if their experience is under 55. Most allied bombing airgroups start with experience ratings of around 60. (all of the above is IIRC).

I think the designers of UV were aware that B-17s did skip bombing, and were also aware of the several months of training they did before they used the tactic in real combat. So, they fashioned rules to reflect these conditions. And, they work well.

If you want a game that straight-jackets players into only historical play, this game is probably not for you.

Players tend to jump right in on skip bombing because of these forums, or their knowledge of history, or sometimes even beccause of their lack of knowledge of history, game mechanics. I played Japanese in one game, and sent transport down to Buna very early in the game. Predictably, I got hit with B-17s at low level. However, since I protected the group with heavy CAP, half of the B-17s were destroyed, the rest damaged, and very few hit my ships. The Allied player was no doubt surprised, since he said something to the effect "It will be some time before I try that again."


The problem players have with this tactic is their own play. Never send any TF into LBA range without protection adequate to nullify or reduce the enemy air threat. If you get attacked by B-17s, persist in good tactics until the 17s are all sitting damaged at an airbase. Remember the Allied player gets NO 17 replacements until IIRC October, 1942. He cannot sustain a low level bombing campaign against your TFs if they are protected, and will pay a heavy price later since all of his B-17 groups will be understrength for the rest of the game. If you do it right, you should thank your lucky stars when you find an allied player fool enough to use his 17s aggressively in the opening phases of the campaign. It will help you later. You have much more to worry about from Mitchells, Marauders, Havocs, Beauforts and Wirraways.

Having to recommend the above tactics is just another reflection of the high simulation value of the game. And I hate giving recommendations to Japanese players, I really think they should do some thinking and find this stuff out of their own brilliant strategic repetoire.

[emorbius44]

Or
Having to recommend the above tactics is just another reflection of the high simulation value of the game. And I hate giving recommendations to Japanese players, I really think they should do some thinking and find this stuff out of their own brilliant strategic repetoire. [/B]

By all means! Let's ignore the fact that from 12/41 through 5/42 the allies were on the run, driven out of SE asia, the indies, phillipines and such. Short of equipment, dogged by Hap Arnold who didn't want to divert anything except clunkers to the pacific, no doubt in your world accelerating the skip bombing training (not used until late '42 by your own penetrating analysis) was totally possible given the wonderfull conditions, lavish equipment and supplies available at the time.
It might be noted that when McAurther was picked up out of the Phillipines he refused to go on the B-17's provided and used PT boats instead because the planes had inoperative supercharges and were generally wrecks.
Or perhaps someone like you already had the brilliant powers of clairvoyance and already had men training prior to Dec 1941.
My whole dispute with the B-17's is that this was a May 1942 attack which is alot different then an oct or dec 1942 attack, and because of it they're getting an abnormal amount of holes in one. it's as simple as that.

Bob

[Spooky]

Originally posted by murx
Just an idea,

how about comparing 'this part of the engine' with another wargame trying to recreate some similiar historical events.
With bombing, bombers and CAP Battle over Britain and Bombing the Reich (from Talonsoft IIRC) comes into mind. Even though both focus on the strategical air theater they still have to get bomber precision, CAP and flak into a logical concept.

In that game :
Yes lower altitude result in much better accuracy, but the gain in accuracy below 6k feet doesn't weight up on high (flak) protected targets. Not mentioning the CAP ability targeting low altitude aircraft with minimal climbing ability.

And for P2P vs 'historical accuracy' :
If a game uses 'historical' designs it should IMHO try to use just the technical ability, not punish ahistorical use. Likewise - if a B-17 could use 'skip-bombs' with good precision let the player do so; arguing that skip-bombs weren't (in numbers) available at that & that date is a bit 'unfair' because if they were used more effectivly in their historical counterpart the production would have been higher and research would have been faster.

It's up to hard technical research to find the best value/mechanism within a game.
If B-17 use skip-bombs with 75% accuracy at 1000 feet it might be techically correct (so I don't know), effect of flak might or might not be correct at 1000 feet - but the former has nothing to do with the latter.

Degrading one or upgrading the other might make a game P2P playable and balanced or at least fair but is it really what players (esp. wargamers) want ?

Concluding I just want to advice to focus why B-17 should be more or less accurate or FlaKs more or less effective - don't try to mix them up

just my 2 cents ...

murx

There is not skip bombing at 1000 feet ... only at 100 feet and skip bombing is really not the question - or at least - not yet

BTW, both Battle over Britain and Bombing the Reich were designed by Gary & Keith so we can assume that the bombing algorithms are not that different in UV

However, what I would like to know is why - if low altitude bombing was IRL as effective as in UV - it was not used more in WWII ?

Spooky

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Spooky


There is not skip bombing at 1000 feet ... only at 100 feet and skip bombing is really not the question - or at least - not yet

BTW, both Battle over Britain and Bombing the Reich were designed by Gary & Keith so we can assume that the bombing algorithms are not that different in UV

However, what I would like to know is why - if low altitude bombing was IRL as effective as in UV - it was not used more in WWII ?

Spooky

This is actually a good question. If I can rephrase your question, its really why was low level bombing with bombs not done sooner and more aggressively? Low level torpedo bombing was used effectively and aggressively long before the period of UV. Low level bomb attacks against ships were used, a lot, after the effectiveness of it was learned and used around about October 1942.

Prior to October 1942, the main anti-ship role for aircraft was torpedo and dive bombing, and usually required specialized aircraft, or specially modified aircraft, as well as specially trained aircrew. Skip bombing was something every bomber pilot that was NOT a torpedo bomber or dive bomber could learn and do, and didn't require special mods to the aircraft to be done effectively. Even the lumbering B-17 proved skip bombing could be done with that craft, which had been originally designed for high altitude attacks.

So, the real question is, what took so long? The simple answer is : no one thought of it. You could spend a lifetime finding examples in history of overlooked obvious solutions to problems of virtually every nature, from cultural to political to military, and never even scratch the surface. Why did it take 3 years for anyone to realize the absolute folly of massed charging of machine gun trench lines in WW1 ? Why did Napoleon think it was a good idea to invade Russia, or Spain? Why did the French charge 14 times at Agincourt against the massed firepower of English Longbows? Why did the Barbarians repeatedly attempt to engage formed, disciplined Roman troops expecting to win? Why did the Romans not form up their troops for battle at Adrianople in 375 A.D.? On and on, ad nauseum.

General Kenney did think up skip bombing several months before October 1942. IIRC he and some of his pilots came up with this idea in June, 1942, and had to go through the routine of proving the concept in theory and practicing, demonstrating the concept to observers, refining the concept through training, and then finally launching their first skip bombing attacks in October. New ideas are frequently ridiculed or ignored. Skip bombing had to go through the same trial to which new ideas have historically been subjected.

On a side note, let me speculate at how the skip bombing idea came up in the first place :

I would bet money that some heavy bombers were coming in to land at one of the bases near Townsville, where the airfield practically extended into the sea. They had bombs since they were doing some training. Probably one or more of the ships had not dropped its bombs due to a faulty release. The aircraft, coming in low for a landing, was over the water, and the faulty release suddenly decided to work. The altitude was around 300 feet. Everyone on the ground noticed that when the bomb hit the water, instead of blowing up it skipped like a rock until the nose of the bomb dipped to an angle sufficient to hit and engage the primer charge. Some lightbulbs went off right then.

This is pure speculation on my part.

[Ron Saueracker]

LBA at 1000 ft!:)

[dgaad]

No bombing takes place for level bombers at 100 feet in the game. I've never seen it. I believe the manual is incorrect, or something got lost in the translation there. The skip bombing altitude is actually 1000 feet in the game, and its only a symbolic "setting". Lets not get hung up on game settings or terminology, the debate is already vociferous

100 feet is strafing range.
1000 feet is skip bombing range.
2000-9000 feet is glide bombing range.
10000 feet is dive bombing range for dive bombers, high altitude bombing for level bombers.

Torpedo bombers will drop down to 200 feet and execute torpedo attacks regardless of their range. They are more accurate if their initial setting is low because they have less adjustment to make to get into torpedo launching position.

[Capt Cliff]

Hate to say it but low level bomber attacks are too devastating! Pappy Gunn didn't do his redesign of the A-20's until 12/42 and then on a limited basis! Maybe if you couldn't set medium bombers below 5000 feet until say 3/43 and B-17's can't be set below 10000 feet at all. This may solve the problem.

Remember it takes real brass ones to come barreling in at 1000 feet against deterimed triple A. The crew morale should go into the toilet.

[Spooky]

Originally posted by Capt Cliff
Maybe if you couldn't set medium bombers below 5000 feet until say 3/43 and B-17's can't be set below 10000 feet at all. This may solve the problem.

Well, I already use the "no medium bombers below 5000 feet" rule for all my games. Maybe Matrix/2by3 could add this as an option (like the IJN sub doctrine) in a forthcoming patch... and everybody will be happy

Spooky

[corbulo]

in the book "battle of bismark sea" by Lex Mcaulay
he states, p 193:
48 of the 137 500 lbs hits were at mast-eight attacks, only 11 hits were claimed for 124 500-lbs dropped 4-8000 feet.

to my calculations then, against soft targets(,ie, transport and destroyers) the % chance for skip bombing success is 35%. It is interesting to note that b-17s were never used extensively in this role. They were rather used to break up the convoy so that skip bombing could attack each ship individually, instead of facing massed AA fire. I am still reading to get the exact # of of planes involved. He only states that there were 193 bomber sorties, but he does not list how many b-17s there were versus skip bombers. Somebody tell me how many 500-lb bombs could a b-25 or a-20 carry?
How many could a b-17 carry. I assume the b-17s were the only ones carrying 1k lb bombs. He states that there were 253 1k bombs dropped which gave 19 hits, % = 7.5 % success rate.
I calculate out of the 193 total bomber sorties, 42 were made by b-17s who suffered 1 destoyed 4 badly damaged, 15 lightly damaged. (this had to have been done by zero fighters, who left the skip bombers alone and just went after the b-17s.

skip bombers breaks out to this (aa damage only):
2 destroyed 7 damaged out of 151 sorties.

[Capt Cliff]

The B-25C's normal bomb load was 3000 pounds but could be increased on the B-25C-1-NA with external underwing racks to a maximum of 5200 pounds. Ergo (6) 500 pounders in the bombay.

Also; http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap5.htm

And; http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/hi ... na/b25.htm

Finally; http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/b ... b025i.html

[Reiryc]

Hate to say it but low level bomber attacks are too devastating!

Hmm...the planets must be aligned funny or something because this is the first time I've agreed with anything you've posted.

Maybe I need to rethink my stance on the bombers out of principle. :p

Reiryc

[DSandberg]

Originally posted by Spooky

I already use the "no medium bombers below 5000 feet" rule for all my games.

That rule doesn't work too well when playing vs the AI.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by DSandberg


That rule doesn't work too well when playing vs the AI.

why's that? I dont believe the AI changes the default altitude rates at all leaving them at 6000 feet.

The scary thing is even at this height level bombers score alot of hits against ships.....i'd hate to see it at 1000 feet

[DSandberg]

Originally posted by Nikademus

why's that? I dont believe the AI changes the default altitude rates at all leaving them at 6000 feet.

The scary thing is even at this height level bombers score alot of hits against ships.....i'd hate to see it at 1000 feet

You could be right. Since I'm not aware of any way to tell what altitude attacking AI planes are at, and since those Bettys and Nells from Rabaul keep slapping the heck out of my surface forces, I just assumed the AI was taking advantage of the same ultra-effective low level bombing that I found myself resorting to with the B-17s to stay even with them.

Or maybe I just need some more practice ... :rolleyes:

- David

[Sabre21]

Hi Dsandberg

The Betty's and Nells using torpedoes have to come in at low altitude. I have suffered a few hits from them...but then again...they were very good in the early part of the war. Outside of the torpedo range though, I can't ever recall receiving a bomb hit on a ship from the AI low level betty or nell attacks on my moving TF's. Plus if I had any cap up, unescorted betty's rarely survive (depending on the ratio of course)..I have even seen air groups retreat from battle.

Andy

[Didz]

I'm with many of the others who have posted a reply rather than made a selection.

NONE OF THE ABOVE.

The effectiveness of low level bombing needs to be modelled on actual assessment of its effectiveness in combat conditions as does the effectiveness of AA fire against bombers delivering such an attack.

The options listed suggest an intention to conduct arbitary tweaking of the combat factors to produce an effect. I don't agree with this approach.

[Didz]

Originally posted by dgaad
No bombing takes place for level bombers at 100 feet in the game. I've never seen it. I believe the manual is incorrect, or something got lost in the translation there. The skip bombing altitude is actually 1000 feet in the game, and its only a symbolic "setting". Lets not get hung up on game settings or terminology, the debate is already vociferous

100 feet is strafing range.
1000 feet is skip bombing range.
2000-9000 feet is glide bombing range.
10000 feet is dive bombing range for dive bombers, high altitude bombing for level bombers.

Torpedo bombers will drop down to 200 feet and execute torpedo attacks regardless of their range. They are more accurate if their initial setting is low because they have less adjustment to make to get into torpedo launching position.

I agree with Dgaad and would ad that it was probably a mistake to define actually altitudes on these settings. It would have been a lot clearer and less contenscious of the settings had actually read.

Close Escort
High Altitude Escort
Strafing Attack
Skip Bomb
Glide Bomb
Dive Bomb
Carpet Bomb etc.

and left the altitude details to the flight leader.