Idea how to finally balance the bombers (Allied and Japanese) in WitP...

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

"Never argue with an idiot. He'll just drag you down to his level, and beat you with experience." - Mark Twain

(* sigh *)

-F-

Its true I guess. When someone makes 5 posts to prove something and not one of them says anything, well. . . [:'(]

(Especially when the 5 posts were in response to me saying that "To my knowledge no 4 engine bomber ever hit a moving ship at sea in combat.". But I attack people. /sigh.)

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: scout1

I believe the Tirpitz was sunk by some 4 engine Lancasters using "Tallboy" bombs..??(Stationary but from a high altitude,12 to 16,000 feet.)

My memory is a little fuzzy on this one, but she wasn't underway at the time, was she ?

No, she was docked.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: spence

The Allied heavy bombers were not very effective bombing ships from high altitude. The IJN Nells/Bettys appear to have had exactly one good day: the day they got the Repulse and Prince of Wales. I asked those who support the gross over-rating of the G3s/G4s to provide further examples of successful torpedo attacks subsequent to the attacks on Force Z and they did: mentioning the sinking of the Chicago in early 43, a hit on Intrepid during one of the Marshall Islands invasions, hitting Houston(2) and Canberra(2) off Formosa and about 3 other instances. That would seem to be 6 successful torpedo attacks between Dec 10, 1941 and Aug 15, 1945. The Chicago and Intrepid attacks occurred at night and I don't think there were any night fighters about (certainly not in the case of Chicago). The others were daytime attacks that suffered great attrition due to the "Ronson's" (as their crews so lovingly referred to them) well know foibles.
It is interesting that no one cited any torpedo attacks at all during the DEI campaign after the Force Z attack: although there were many attacks on ships during that time it seems the IJN preferred to drop bombs from high altitude. At this they were not notably more successful than the USAAF against manuevering warships at sea (think they sank a Dutch DD and damaged Houston and either Marblehead or Boise).
In any case I don't think historical record in any way supports the ability of the IJN to fly 4-5 Daitai of twin engine bombers into East Baka AF and launch a 100 of them loaded with torpedos that afternoon against some Allied TF that can't run fast enough from its raid the day before to get out of range. Nor do I find it plausible that when that 100 plane raid goes in they score 15-20 torpedo hits on various ships (even if they do get shot to pieces the hits are out of line with their historical performance other than that 1 good day against Force z).

All too true. [:(]

[Yamato hugger]

Nor do I find it plausible that when that 100 plane raid goes in they score 15-20 torpedo hits on various ships (even if they do get shot to pieces the hits are out of line with their historical performance other than that 1 good day against Force z).

Not going to look it up, but didnt a Betty and/or Nell torpeedo attack on a transport group south of Guadlecanal score some pretty impressive hits as well? I seem to recal something to that effect. Will look it up later if I get a chance.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: scout1

I believe the Tirpitz was sunk by some 4 engine Lancasters using "Tallboy" bombs..??(Stationary but from a high altitude,12 to 16,000 feet.)

My memory is a little fuzzy on this one, but she wasn't underway at the time, was she ?

No, she was docked.

She wasn't docked. She lay at anchor in the fjord at Tromso "protected" by nets. [:D]

[bradfordkay]

Not going to look it up, but didnt a Betty and/or Nell torpeedo attack on a transport group south of Guadlecanal score some pretty impressive hits as well? I seem to recal something to that effect. Will look it up later if I get a chance.

On August 8 (second day of the landings), 27 torpedo laden Betties left Rabaul to strike at the invasion fleet. They were sigtned by coastwatchers, but took a northern swing and came in over Florida Island instead of Savo Is. One torpedo hit the DD USS Jarvis and one Betty crashed into the transport George F Elliot. The Jarvis was heavily damaged and the Elliot was eventually scuttled in shallow water.

Reports are that only five of the Betties made it back to Rabaul, and this was an attack where they missed a lot of the CAP )only three Wildcats managed to engage them: each claimed a Betty and one claimed a Zero).

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: Feinder
"Never argue with an idiot. He'll just drag you down to his level, and beat you with experience." - Mark Twain
-F-

Its true I guess. When someone makes 5 posts to prove something and not one of them says anything, well. . . [:'(]

(Especially when the 5 posts were in response to me saying that "To my knowledge no 4 engine bomber ever hit a moving ship at sea in combat.". But I attack people. /sigh.)

Actually, you are wrong. A Japanese DD was sunk by a B-17 in the slot during the Guadalcanal Campaign. As it was
a fairly high altitude attack, all parties concerned were relatively suprised. When the lack of defense allowed level
bombers to attack from very low altitudes (such as the FW-200's made in the Atlantic) accuracy was reasonable if
not overwhelming. Most B-17 anti-shipping attacks on moving ships in the Pacific weren't made from low altitudes as
they were made by search A/C.

[SpitfireIX]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Just because you don't know specificially of where they hit something (or that they happen to miss at Midway), doesn't mean they weren't good at it. The very mission to which the B-17 and B-24 were initially concieved was for ANTI-SHIPPING, not strategic bombing. Many of the squadrons of the Pacific were used in anti-shipping (easy enough to pull up the sqdn histories). If they never hit anything, do think they would still have been using B-24s off of Korea in ANTI-SHIPPING patrols in the 1950s...?

-F-

As mentioned, B-17s were used for skip bombing in 1942-1943; many hits were scored on moving ships. As for high altitude bombing, the myth is much greater than the reality. See here.

[SpitfireIX]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Actually, you are wrong. A Japanese DD was sunk by a B-17 in the slot during the Guadalcanal Campaign. As it was
a fairly high altitude attack, all parties concerned were relatively suprised. When the lack of defense allowed level
bombers to attack from very low altitudes (such as the FW-200's made in the Atlantic) accuracy was reasonable if
not overwhelming. Most B-17 anti-shipping attacks on moving ships in the Pacific weren't made from low altitudes as
they were made by search A/C.

No, that destroyer wasn't moving. See interrogation of a Japanese officer after the war at

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/IJO/IJO-60.html

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

To my knowledge no 4 engine bomber ever hit a moving ship at sea in combat.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Actually, you are wrong.

How could I be wrong about not knowing of any 4 engine bomber hits on ships at sea?

Person 1: I dont know.

Person 2: you are wrong!

Huh?

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

To my knowledge no 4 engine bomber ever hit a moving ship at sea in combat.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Actually, you are wrong.

How could I be wrong about not knowing of any 4 engine bomber hits on ships at sea?

Person 1: I dont know.

Person 2: you are wrong!

Huh?

Well, the way it was phrased ("as far as I know") makes it sound a little bit on the authoratative side when in fact it was simply misguided. Do some searches on the net. Most of this stuff is easy to find. Better still, read a book, then a few more, and a few more after that . . . pretty soon, even when you can't recall the exact details of one thing or another you'll spot the "myths" from the "realities." The big problem with this game, overall, is that too much myth was installed. Whether that was due to ignorance or not I don't know. I do know that Gary's Pacific games look and play pretty much alike going all the way back these many years, and there's probably a reason for that. My guess is he's looking to make the games more fun to play (from the Japanese side), plus he just might be too stubborn to admit that many of his more basic conclusions, like the performance of Zeroes and Bettys, for example, happen to be false.

[Feinder]

(not in reply to any particular person)

B-17s were used against shipping.
B-24s were used against shipping.
Bettys were used against shipping.
Nells were used against shipping.

They had very low accuracy rates. But it was obviously sufficient to convince the powers that be, that it was a worthwhile mission.

Frankly, it doesn't matter what you belive, or how much you whine about it. It doesn't change the fact that it is so.

=

The fundamental problem is not that Bettys or Nells carry torpedos vs. shipping half-way across the Pacific.

The fundamental problem is not that B-17s or B-24s carry large payload vs. shipping across the other half of the Pacific.

The fundamental problem is not the accuracy of the B-17s or the torpedoes.

The fundamental problem is not whether B-17s should be able to drop one bomb vs. a naval target, or 6.

==

The fundamental problem is the pace and intensity of operations. It doesn't matter if if it's a B-17, a B-24, a Betty, or a Nell. The problem is that, you can mass together 60 of them (insert medium bomber here), and absolutely annialate anything that comes within their action radius, on 6 out of 7 days a week. When you have 60 B-17s dropping 8x bombs each (if we go by "stick" and give one hit roll), you're still talking about getting a two, maybe 3 hits each strike (and that falls within the 1% accuracy rating). Now, you launch that same stike, 5 days a week. You still attain the "maintain" 1% accuracy rating, but now you've crippled 6 ships, which is far more than would have been historical. There shouldn't be 60 bombers launching to begin with, let alone having them in the air 6 days a week. It doesn't matter if they're B-17s or Bettys. But because players employ them in completely a-historical situations, you get completely a-historical results.

-F-

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: Feinder
"The first year of B-29 operations over Japan was disappointing. One hundred eighty-eight men were lost during those operations, 116 of them at sea. The Superfortresses had dropped 1,550 tons of explosives during seven missions, but only one bomb in 50 hit within 1,000 feet of the aiming point. "

I suppose we shouldn't let 'em bomb airfields or industry either. Because the mighty B-29 had only a 2% accuracy rating vs. stationary industrial centers.

greetings...

B-29 were uneffective in the early stage of strategic bombing. They bombed from high attitude, but jet stream over the Japan caused miserable results.

Due to jet stream over the Japan (Japanese used jet stream for their famos balloon attack on USA), B-29 swithced to attack at the lower attitude, so i guess their accuracy percent increased later.

[Yamato hugger]

Due to jet stream over the Japan (Japanese used jet stream for their famos balloon attack on USA), B-29 swithced to attack at the lower attitude, so i guess their accuracy percent increased later.

Have you ever seen the planned "bat attack" on Japan where they considered strapping an incinderary to a bat and releasing thousands of them over Japan? The ballon thing made me think of that.

[ChezDaJez]

They had very low accuracy rates. But it was obviously sufficient to convince the powers that be, that it was a worthwhile mission

I think that was because, at least as far as the Allies were concerned, they were scraping the bottom of the barrel and were willing to try anything. They even hung torpedoes on a PBYs at Midway and sent them out (even hit a transport too)Sending out everything they had was probably how they discovered that the B-25 and B-26 were suited for low-level attacks.

Torpedo attack was a mission the Bettys trained for. Whether the game models their actual effectiveness is a matter of opinion. Sometimes they did very well, sometimes they didn't, but they were trained for it whereas our 4E crews were not.

just my .02 cents.

Chez

[tsimmonds]

The fundamental problem is the pace and intensity of operations. It doesn't matter if if it's a B-17, a B-24, a Betty, or a Nell. The problem is that, you can mass together 60 of them (insert medium bomber here), and absolutely annialate anything that comes within their action radius, on 6 out of 7 days a week. When you have 60 B-17s dropping 8x bombs each (if we go by "stick" and give one hit roll), you're still talking about getting a two, maybe 3 hits each strike (and that falls within the 1% accuracy rating). Now, you launch that same stike, 5 days a week. You still attain the "maintain" 1% accuracy rating, but now you've crippled 6 ships, which is far more than would have been historical. There shouldn't be 60 bombers launching to begin with, let alone having them in the air 6 days a week. It doesn't matter if they're B-17s or Bettys. But because players employ them in completely a-historical situations, you get completely a-historical results.

True dat. Wish there was some way to tone things down. A lot.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

(not in reply to any particular person)

B-17s were used against shipping.
B-24s were used against shipping.
Bettys were used against shipping.
Nells were used against shipping.

They had very low accuracy rates. But it was obviously sufficient to convince the powers that be, that it was a worthwhile mission.

Frankly, it doesn't matter what you belive, or how much you whine about it. It doesn't change the fact that it is so.

=

The fundamental problem is not that Bettys or Nells carry torpedos vs. shipping half-way across the Pacific.

The fundamental problem is not that B-17s or B-24s carry large payload vs. shipping across the other half of the Pacific.

The fundamental problem is not the accuracy of the B-17s or the torpedoes.

The fundamental problem is not whether B-17s should be able to drop one bomb vs. a naval target, or 6.

==

The fundamental problem is the pace and intensity of operations. It doesn't matter if if it's a B-17, a B-24, a Betty, or a Nell. The problem is that, you can mass together 60 of them (insert medium bomber here), and absolutely annialate anything that comes within their action radius, on 6 out of 7 days a week. When you have 60 B-17s dropping 8x bombs each (if we go by "stick" and give one hit roll), you're still talking about getting a two, maybe 3 hits each strike (and that falls within the 1% accuracy rating). Now, you launch that same stike, 5 days a week. You still attain the "maintain" 1% accuracy rating, but now you've crippled 6 ships, which is far more than would have been historical. There shouldn't be 60 bombers launching to begin with, let alone having them in the air 6 days a week. It doesn't matter if they're B-17s or Bettys. But because players employ them in completely a-historical situations, you get completely a-historical results.

-F-

Because the game system allows players to do this is the problem. Take away those unreal attributes listed above by you as "unimportant" and there'd be no issue of play imbalance/ahistoricity to the point of laughability. Redesign of the base/supply model would help loads in this direction, as has been pointed out elsewhere so many times it makes my head swim.

The game mechanics aren't even close to having been "realistically" conceived, so why wonder when play comes back in an ahistorical manner?

This is a fun game to play. Realistic it ain't. [;)]

[Bombur]

-I think the antiship ability of Nells and Betties must be downgraded, just like the ability of heavy bombers to hit moving warships or destroy grounded aircraft (althought their ability to destroy supplies should be increased). However, it must be noticed that the allies usually avoided opeartions or warships too close (300 nm) from bases where the Japanese had Nells or Betties until they got massive air superiority. If such operations were attempted in South Pacific before Rabaul was too weakened and the USN got air superiority, the USN would have probably lost more ships to these planes. My suggestion for Betties is to decrease durability to 30 and see what happens. They still must be treated with respect, but their losses will increase even if there isn´t air cover over their targets.
-Btw: Another way to decrease the effectiveness of Nells/Betties is to make their torpedo less accurate.

[bradfordkay]

The whole Guadalcanal campaign was within torpedo carrying range of Rabaul, and yet I can only come up with information on that one attack on US shipping. Something must have held them back - it was a while before the Cactus Air Force was strong enough to be a real deterrent (remember, they did keep coming to Lunga to bomb the airfield).

[Bombur]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

The whole Guadalcanal campaign was within torpedo carrying range of Rabaul, and yet I can only come up with information on that one attack on US shipping. Something must have held them back - it was a while before the Cactus Air Force was strong enough to be a real deterrent (remember, they did keep coming to Lunga to bomb the airfield).

-I don´t consider 660 miles an effective range for a torpedo bomber attack. You must locate target before you launch an attack, and Guadalcanal was relatively far from patrol planes. It takes about three hours for Betties to reach target, not counting the time needed to refuel, rearm the bombers, during all the time the position of targets can change drastically, so your recon data is not reliable, unless you´re attacking docked ships. I don´t know what was the pattern of ships operations in Guadalcanal, but I doubt if the USN kept them too much time exposed to enemy air attacks, unless they had adequate air cover. It´s possible the Japanese felt they would have been more useful bombing the airfields (a target that doesn´t need to be located and doesn´t move...). It seems that when US ships started to operate closer to Rabaul the frequency of attacks increased, I don´t know. But it may be also the fact that the Japanese felt their bombers were too vulnerable for torpedo attacks vs even unprotected ships (as the result of the mentioned attack suggests), and it wasn´t worth to use them for this purpose unless a really good target was in range (like a cruiser or carrier).


-Here is the report of that Betty attack

http://www.angelfire.com/fm/compass/G4M.htm



The first attacks on Allied forces to be made following the Guadalcanal landings were carried out by G4Ms flying from Rabaul. An attack on the US transports by 26 Betties was to demonstrate to Allies and Japanese alike the vulnerability of the G4M to anti-aircraft fire. At least 17 Betties were shot down. One aircraft damaged by gunfire made a suicide crash on the transport George F. Elliott. The resulting fire destroyed the ship - this was the only damage inflicted by Japanese air attacks in reaction to the Allied landings.

G4Ms operated throughout the six months of fighting on Guadalcanal, suffering heavy losses. By early 1943 the Japanese Navy had developed new techniques for night torpedo attack. These were put into effect on the night of 29/30 January 1943 in the Battle of Rennell Island, in which Betties torpedoed and sank the heavy cruiser Chicago. G4Ms repeatedly harassed US task groups in night attacks from this time until almost the end of the war, occasionally inflicting heavy damage - for example in February 1944 when a Betty torpedoed the Essex Class carrier Intrepid after Task Force 58's raid on the Japanese base of Truk in the Caroline Islands.