Torpedo bombers and bombing accuracy

[Gridley380]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

I don't recall off the top of my head but wasn't it only 6-8 Kates that put two torps into Yorktown at Midway?

Let's not forget that she'd never been fully repaired after the Coral Sea, then at Midway she took three bomb hits that left her dead in the water. She got back underway (all the way up to 20 kts), and THEN the torpedo bombers showed up.

(all per DANFS)

[spence]

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

I don't recall off the top of my head but wasn't it only 6-8 Kates that put two torps into Yorktown at Midway?



Let's not forget that she'd never been fully repaired after the Coral Sea, then at Midway she took three bomb hits that left her dead in the water. She got back underway (all the way up to 20 kts), and THEN the torpedo bombers showed up.

(all per DANFS)

And even after that it took 2 more torpedoes from I-168 to actually put her under.

[Macclan5]

What it feels like the very first time you play a GC scenario 1

[8D]

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

What it feels like the very first time you play a GC scenario 1

[8D]

Technically, the drawing is correct except for the misspelling of "sight" (unless the intention was just to indicate the location (site) of the laser on the torpedo)? [:'(]

[fcooke]

In her relatively short career Yorktown made quite the impact. Hurt at Coral Sea, raced back to Pearl, got patched up and then made it to Midway. Hit by the Vals in the first raid, but was so patched up that by the time the 2nd raid came in the Kates thought they were attacking a 2nd undamaged CV. I think (Monday morning QB here) that she could have got home with more 'aggressive' damage control, but alas she and the DD Hammann (sp?) ended up going down to the sub.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Dili

The expectation of hits by level bombing against warships in movement was about 1-2% maximum, and the maximum height was about 4000m or so for that to be valid, it was considered that the ship had time to maneuver if the bombs were released from higher level.

I also believe that the devs took into account the near misses of the actual combat in the early stages of the war when setting accuracy for devices. A minor hit might be less damaging than a near miss that broke the hull plating, as the one against Marblehead that sent her home and nearly sank her.

The attacks most often seen in game by TB are 1k-5k feet. So well below 4000m. The Kates attacking the dutch fleet during the Palembang invasion arrived and dropped from about 7k feet. They achieved I think one hit (a damaging near miss) out of about 30+ accumulated strikes.

This was the stage when flak was shooting without radar, without 40mm Bofors except on a few ships and with 5inch ammo on the American ships that was old and had a 75% dud rate. So often bombers passed multiple times without dropping to line up a shot.

At this stage the lesson was that you can't move fleet assets without air cover. So if ships are being hit and you think the air strikes are too accurate, use LR CAP or don't move ships into areas where your side doesn't have air superiority. [:)]

[Alpha77]

Navy planes (in general not only torp planes) of course will have a better hit chance per bomb drop then an army land bombing unit (even if exp/skill is the same as I understand it as per code ingame). I also sometimes suspect that slower (=older) planes might have better hit chances (eg. Jean and Vildebeest) ofc they are also more in danger from AA + CAP.

[Yaab]

ORIGINAL: Dili

I think i got better that that sometimes around 50%

You are right.

New high: 73% hit rate - 26 bombs, 19 hits against early-war ships with good AA weapons (TKs have lots of AA compared to early-war xAKs)

From a recent AAR

-------------------------------------------------

Morning Air attack on TF, near ... at 160,180

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 22 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
B5N2 Kate x 13

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N2 Kate: 1 damaged

Allied Ships
TK Manzanillo, Bomb hits 8, heavy fires, heavy damage
TK Alfred Clegg, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
CL Concord, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
AMC Prince Robert, Bomb hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:
13 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 1000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb

[Dili]

Now tell me no house rules are needed

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

Query: *in reality* a well-trained group of torpedo bombers attacking together would have a much higher chance of getting a hit vs. the same number of torpedo bombers (with equivalent pilots) attacking separately, as they could (and did) attack from multiple bearings, thus reducing or eliminating the ability of the target ship to turn into the spread (and thus reduce its target profile). A 'hammer and anvil' attack is a term I've seen used, can't remember if it is contemporary or modern. Is this replicated in the game at all?

The defender would also have to split their AA fire or ignore some attackers, making the attack runs easier, but I believe this is reflected in the game in general for air attacks.

The "hammer and anvil" attack is replicated to the extent that you have torpedo planes attacking from the front and the rear. I do not know if the coding will increase the hit percentage for the beam attackers, however. In real life, Captain Tenant on the Repulse was able to manuvar and avoid many torpedoes. When the torpedoes finally did hit, they were dropped by more aggressive pilots from a much closer range.

At a low altitude such as 1000 feet, hitting a large, slow ship with one or more bombs should not be that difficult for a highly trained pilot. Especially if there are few light AA guns firing although many trained pilots would ignore them. But if the plane was damaged and at what time during the bomb run the plane was damaged, that might make it difficult to control the plane at bomb release.

[Ian R]

13 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 1000 feet

High proficiency IJN pilots at low level, early war, no CAP to put them off their aim, good weather, early war ships with not all that useful 1.1" and 50 cals. Maybe some 3". Prince Robert has world war one type weapons at that point.

Also, was fog of war on? What did the TF look like in the allied turn?

I suspect the hit rate there is claimed, not actual.

So I'm telling you no house rules are needed. [:'(]

[Yaab]

TF's total flak assets:

16 x DP gun (3inch and 5inch)
16 x 0.5 Browning MGs
8 x 0.303 MGs

40 different guns/MGs verus 13 aircraft at 1000 feet, and still bombers' targeting wasn't disrupted in the slightest. We are approaching cloud cuckoo land.

[Ian R]

Nah, all of those .303s, 50 cals and obselete 3" won't hit squat.

What mark were the 5"?

What was the crew exp ratings of the ship/s mounting them? Were there captains the usual merchant ship wood ducks?

There is a lot that is going on under the hood here.

If 13 un-escorted kates attacked a USB CVTF in say March 1942 (when their crews have their warfaces on), yes I would suspect one lucky hit at most.

I do not see this as too much of an outlier.

I say let the IJ have their fun - and then bomb them from 8000 ft later.

[RangerJoe]

The .303s and even the .50s don't have that much reach out and touch kind of an effect. When they do hit, there is not as much damage. That is why the 20mm and the 40mm combination is so much better - especially the 40mm. The 5/25s are not as effective as the 5/38s, the 3/60s will do some damage but not as much as a 5 inch nor do they have the range to really reach out and touch the enemy aircraft.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

ORIGINAL: Dili

I think i got better that that sometimes around 50%

You are right.

New high: 73% hit rate - 26 bombs, 19 hits against early-war ships with good AA weapons (TKs have lots of AA compared to early-war xAKs)

From a recent AAR

-------------------------------------------------

Morning Air attack on TF, near ... at 160,180

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 22 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
B5N2 Kate x 13

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N2 Kate: 1 damaged

Allied Ships
TK Manzanillo, Bomb hits 8, heavy fires, heavy damage
TK Alfred Clegg, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
CL Concord, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
AMC Prince Robert, Bomb hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:
13 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 1000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb

I bomb from 1k with Jakes a lot as Japan and with Seagulls/Kingfishers as Allies. They are also effective from 1k feet.

You have to remember that in the actual war pilots and commanders were just learning what is possible with air assets. In game we already know, so we/AI set them more aggressively and get better results. The Japanese did do pretty well with all types though in the early going, including bombing from above 10k feet with LB/TB.

[Dili]

Not even close to this hit rate, which i am surprised many try to not talk about.

In the Med 107 sqn doing this type of work in 1941 - so even historically earlier than this was wiped out in a couple months with more than half the crews dead.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Not even close to this hit rate, which i am surprised many try to not talk about.

In the Med 107 sqn doing this type of work in 1941 - so even historically earlier than this was wiped out in a couple months with more than half the crews dead.

Not sure what your point is here. Are you talking about some other group fighting in the mediterranean? Why?

Have a quick read. I'm actually right now reading through this part of the war, and any transport moving without air cover was sunk if found. Period.

The hit rate above is pilots attacking tankers. Ever seen a tanker turn?

The Concord is an old CL with virtually no air defences and there is a to of precedent for this, as Marblehead was knocked out by a much higher attack from 2E bombers, from about 15-17k feet.

It works the same for both sides and if you feel there is something amiss that needs to be HRed, fine, but no one else is going to care unless you properly test it against other types.

[Yaab]

In this engagement, it is actually AMC Prince Robert that has the lousiest complement of flak (2 x 12pdr,8 x 0.303 cal). Anyway, this TF has enough DP guns to disrupt bomber targeting to zero hits - 16 DP guns vs 13 aircraft.

[RangerJoe]

How accurate are those DP guns without radar, without proximity fuses, without trained crews?

[Dili]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Dili

Not even close to this hit rate, which i am surprised many try to not talk about.

In the Med 107 sqn doing this type of work in 1941 - so even historically earlier than this was wiped out in a couple months with more than half the crews dead.

Not sure what your point is here. Are you talking about some other group fighting in the mediterranean? Why?

Have a quick read. I'm actually right now reading through this part of the war, and any transport moving without air cover was sunk if found. Period.

The hit rate above is pilots attacking tankers. Ever seen a tanker turn?

The Concord is an old CL with virtually no air defences and there is a to of precedent for this, as Marblehead was knocked out by a much higher attack from 2E bombers, from about 15-17k feet.

It works the same for both sides and if you feel there is something amiss that needs to be HRed, fine, but no one else is going to care unless you properly test it against other types.

My point is that you are wrong, as an example your non sequitur about Marblehead, now even an hit at high level that is mostly luck in all war is evidence of a pattern of a low level high hit level?

Should i bring innumerable instances of failure to hit standing still ships?

Tell me when you got 70% bomb hit rate in a bomb attack against shipping?