Matrix Games Forums

BBfanboy wrote: Sat Jun 22, 2024 2:40 pm

Lowpe wrote: Sat Jun 22, 2024 9:54 am I can remember a column in tracker that was Accuracy? for bomb devices. If I recall correctly the smaller the bomb device the less accurate it was...

That is correct.

So, perhaps then the relative concern is accuracy rather than bomb size when targeting strategic city assets.

Attempting a coordinated land/sea air strike:

sub enters base, remain on station.

USN CV force and SAG close to within 6-10 hexes of target base with normal speed. Some land based fighters perform LRCAP over the SAG if possible.

CV squadron sweeps from closer range. Lightnings sweep from long range (and also some LRCAP from land).

CV squadrons perform bombing runs if within range. Runways are targeted, but other things as well...

Land based air heavy bombers strike target from multiple bases with multiple HQas and at varied altitude by HQa.

Depending upon the target there may be Desrons and subs behind an island to catch fleeing ships, etc.

I can see a target where the role of the CV force only provides long range sweeps...and perhaps long range CAP to help with the bombers strike. The land based air squadrons have been at their bases for multiple days, and are rested and in decent shape assigned to their local HQa.

These are daytime strikes and I am giving no thought to weather. Good DL ahead of time.

The only other thing I can think of is a night time bombing run on the runways and perhaps a potential followup night time ship bombardment....but I use 2E bombers for all non manpower night bombing, and they need to be in range which might be tricky.

I am trying out this tactic on an island...where I hope the threat is minimal to our CV force. I hope to work out the kinks prior to using it around Honshu and Korea but it should be a key tactic going forward.

Lowpe wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2024 2:12 pm

BBfanboy wrote: Sat Jun 22, 2024 2:40 pm

Lowpe wrote: Sat Jun 22, 2024 9:54 am I can remember a column in tracker that was Accuracy? for bomb devices. If I recall correctly the smaller the bomb device the less accurate it was...

That is correct.

So, perhaps then the relative concern is accuracy rather than bomb size when targeting strategic city assets.

Larger bombs have a larger "BOOM" but more bombs give a greater chance of a hit. I do not know if the size of the boom makes a difference to industry or not but I would presume that it would.

RangerJoe wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2024 2:53 pm I do not know if the size of the boom makes a difference to industry or not but I would presume that it would.

Unsure too. I can see scoring hits with small bombs and not damaging the industry target. Heck, once the target is damaged there always seems to be a chance not to damage it further with hits. Number of hits seems subject to fog of war.

I think I tested Sonia's on damaging runways in China....and recall that bomb size does play a role in damage done to runways. Supply destruction too, I think Alfred commented upon this in one of my AARs...

I wanted to test the 4,000 pound bombs in Downfall...and I plan on testing using the 2 1,000 pound bombs that some US fighters carry (seems like a waste since they are better used as fighters).

I do know that the damage done isn't linear in the real world. A 1,000 pound bomb doesn't do twice the damage of a 500 pounder. I believe that is also shown in the effects column of tracker...

I think in game you are generally better off dropping multiple small bombs over less large bombs with some noticeable exceptions. Port strikes with ships in port can benefit from bigger bombs (especially if BBs are present) comes to mind.

Lowpe wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2024 3:07 pm

RangerJoe wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2024 2:53 pm I do not know if the size of the boom makes a difference to industry or not but I would presume that it would.

Unsure too. I can see scoring hits with small bombs and not damaging the industry target. Heck, once the target is damaged there always seems to be a chance not to damage it further with hits. Number of hits seems subject to fog of war.

I think I tested Sonia's on damaging runways in China....and recall that bomb size does play a role in damage done to runways. Supply destruction too, I think Alfred commented upon this in one of my AARs...

I wanted to test the 4,000 pound bombs in Downfall...and I plan on testing using the 2 1,000 pound bombs that some US fighters carry (seems like a waste since they are better used as fighters).

I do know that the damage done isn't linear in the real world. A 1,000 pound bomb doesn't do twice the damage of a 500 pounder. I believe that is also shown in the effects column of tracker...

I think in game you are generally better off dropping multiple small bombs over less large bombs with some noticeable exceptions. Port strikes with ships in port can benefit from bigger bombs (especially if BBs are present) comes to mind.

One reason why more hits on industry does not necessarily mean more damage is that a hit may actually be on something that is already damaged. Pounding the rubble into smaller pieces and dust really should not matter to those parts that are not damaged. So the idea of diminishing returns comes into play when the target has something like 100 Resources (or whatever industry) and there are 10 hits that damage ten resources. Then more hits occur but the first hit has a 90% chance of hitting an undamaged resource. So once there are relatively few undamaged resources left, they are harder and harder to hit. At least, that is how I presume it works.

Some of the interesting (to me) tactics I am working on:

Base Protection

Shipping lane protection

TF protection

Coordinated Naval/Land based bombing. Is this even possible? Perhaps I should say Cooperative instead but I would like to get to coordinated. Close escorts vs sweeping escorts. LRCAP's role over targets.

Bombing for Victory Points

IJ Fighter Attrition/Dispersal

Rolling invasions/Air Drops/ -- moving the point of contention.

Suppression of bypassed IJ bases

Submarine empowerment

PT boat patrols

Mobile ship repair bases

Good luck on your campaign sir.

Lowpe wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2024 11:49 pm Some of the interesting (to me) tactics I am working on:

Base Protection

Have you ever tried the Spit VIII for point defense (i.e. CAP set to 0 range)? To me, that's the best airplane for the job. I try to keep at least a squadron at my forward bases.

Good luck with the campaign! I think us AFBs will learn a few things from you.

Cheers,
CB

Jan 26, 1944

Another big day coming up as IJN surges their combat navy forward to threaten Ningpo. Moonlight is darn scarce, and weather weanies are predicting thunderstorms. Our PT Boats and Destroyers will meet the IJN at least one hex outside of Ningpo, I don't want to put any larger warship out to sea given how dangerous the IJN is with their Long Lances. Of course our Fleet Carriers and CVLs need to make a hasty retreat...and we can expect Japan to surge every ship they have at us.

We bombarded Shanghai and Hangchow giving us solid intel, looks like Shaohing will be a contested hex for a while with the arrival of the IJA 14th Division. Shaohing is currently being held by two LRP Brigades, but Armor will punch thru tomorrow.

Also sent a squadron of heavies to each base there: Shanghai, Hangchow and Shaohing. Hit an AMc and an AG at Shanghai...while we bombed the runways at the other bases.
Our CV TF was following a troop convoy into Ningpo from Foochow, while the troopships made Ningpo, the CV fleet diverged one hex, but the SAGs didn't. I need to have the CVs follow the troopships, and a SAG follow the CVs?

Need to work on my land/sea air strike doctrine....I had a squadron of P38s sweeping, but also put some on LRCAP over the target. Perhaps this slowed down their arrival? Also, I noticed I failed to have an solid TF Commander in place but he did get off an escorted strike -- they just arrived before the sweepers. I wonder if the IJ air attacks on the CV TF caused the air controllers to hold back the sweepers...or if a better Air skilled Commander would have changed things. I think having two CV fleets, one one hex ahead and designed strictly for defense, while the other one hex behind designed for sweeping and bombing.? Perhaps one is a CV fleet, and the 2nd lagging is made up of CVEs?

The LRCAP was two 12 plane squadrons of Corsairs, set to 60% coverage over the SAG (not the CV TF), and 4 planes should have shown up, but we got 2 which is what the CV penalty for LRCAP did? Or just bad die rolls? Or just accounting for the 7 hex range?

My Long range cap was way too high, given the CAP's orders. Also my sweepers were way too high from the CV. Perhaps that alone explains the arrival order? CV strikes, HB strikes, Sweepers....

Morning Air attack on Babeldaob , at 90,97

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 79 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 34 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5b Zero x 1
A6M5c Zero x 1
A6M8 Zero x 26
Ki-43-IV Oscar x 1

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 2
F6F-3 Hellcat x 30
SB2C-1C Helldiver x 28

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
F6F-3 Hellcat: 3 destroyed
SB2C-1C Helldiver: 15 destroyed, 2 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x SB2C-1C Helldiver bombing from 9000 feet
Airfield Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
286 Ku S-1 with A6M8 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(5 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 5 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 7000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 9 minutes
3 planes vectored on to bombers
26th Sentai with Ki-43-IV Oscar (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(1 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 7000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes
284 Ku S-1 Det A with A6M5c Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 8000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 19 minutes
Ominato Ku S-1 with A6M8 Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 1 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters between 6000 and 13000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes
7 planes vectored on to bombers
253 Ku S-2 with A6M5b Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 8000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 6 minutes
202 Ku S-1 Det A with A6M8 Zero (0 airborne, 6 on standby, 1 scrambling)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters between 6000 and 14000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 22 minutes
6 planes vectored on to bombers

Japan is consistently sending in low altitude strikes against our shipping...along with a few kamikazes from high altitude. He likes recon planes...solid tactics. The Beaufighter are I believe bleeding LRCAP. Which is pretty interesting.

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Shanghai at 93,56

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 36,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 22 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-46-II Dinah x 3

Allied aircraft
Beaufighter VIc x 3
FM-1 Wildcat x 9
F4U-1A Corsair x 88
F6F-3 Hellcat x 120

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-46-II Dinah: 1 destroyed

No Allied losses
CAP engaged:
No.27 Sqn RAF with Beaufighter VIc (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(3 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 10000.
Raid is overhead

Ships damaged by Heavies:

At Babeldoab:

Japanese Ships
xAK Shinanogawa Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
xAK Kazan Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
ARD Meyungs ARD, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
xAK Yasukawa Maru, Bomb hits 1
AMc Wa 10, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
ACM Banshu Maru #56, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
ACM Banshu Maru #52, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
xAKL P-11, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
xAK Kazan Maru, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Yasukawa Maru, Bomb hits 1
xAKL Konsan Maru, Bomb hits 1
ARD Meyungs ARD, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk

hit at Shanghai:
AMc Lushan Maru, Bomb hits 1
AG Unkai Maru #1, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage

Ships Sunk:

Well, it is a start!

I wonder if different industry types are easier to destroy than others. Nice damage from 250# bombs. Both attacks were done with 0 DL. Chinnampo.

I tried getting DL on Osaka,but not much came back....I want to track down and identify the still building aircraft factories. Since Sam hasn't shown up yet, I suspect I want to really prioritize hitting those.

CaptBeefheart wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2024 5:45 am

Lowpe wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2024 11:49 pm Some of the interesting (to me) tactics I am working on:

Base Protection

Have you ever tried the Spit VIII for point defense (i.e. CAP set to 0 range)? To me, that's the best airplane for the job. I try to keep at least a squadron at my forward bases.

Good luck with the campaign! I think us AFBs will learn a few things from you.

Cheers,
CB

It is great in that role, but also great in hitting the stacked altitude enemy CAP sweeping at 15k to 20k. Very agile.

BananaConvention wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2024 5:00 am Good luck on your campaign sir.

Thanks!

The IJN surface fleet approaching Ningpo...that last TF is interesting. As a JFB, I would always assume an Allied fleet showing that would be an invasion force. Japan surely can't have more than 33 or so prep to land a division? With no aerial bombardment prior? Japan does have 8/10 DL on Ningpo, and surely realizes there is a Division plus defense there.

Although, Japan has been super aggressive on the defense, and done strange invasions like this prior....notably at Donggala. So who knows?

We have to prevent the IJN from entering Ningpo, which does have 150 mines, or at least prevent them from engaging our troop transports unloading there in the night phase. They are unloading supplies, a full 36AV Combat Engineering unit, and the remnants of the 1st Australian Div (12 motorized support ).

Looks like Shanghai will get 7 CMc/CM worth of mines....Shanghai is currently protected by a long MTB that I failed to sink in two engagements today.

Of note, If I mouseover my task forces they are listed from high task force numbers to low, i.e. in descending order. I wonder if that holds true for enemy sightings too?

We are looking at 6 to 7% moonlight and thunderstorms forecasted.

Pardon my chicken scratch, but Lee, Burke and Burton cobble together a plan of attack....the goal fend off the IJN SAGs from Ningpo, but send our heavy cruiser SAGs to close with the IJN Carriers in the dark of night, or at daybreak while flooding the area with submarines.
Of course the last time the IJN was close to Ningpo...they retreated.

Turn is away, and I neglected to get some LRCAP up over the KB hunting cruisers....however, I don't really expect them to make it to their destinations...we will see. 3 Heavy Cruisers and 6-7 Destroyers for a chance at nailing a fleet carrier or perhaps stricken ships. Bargain. Just leery of the no moonlight and thunderstorms.