Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget




This uncanny accuracy during daylight is something that might be explained away, but when you see them coming in at night in 0% moonlight and getting multiple hits on pinpoint targets, while shooting down droves of night-fighters to boot without suffering much themselves, then you start wondering...

Thank You LST. I have stayed out of this thread due to my strong feeling on this subject. You, politely, hit the nail on the head.

Add to that the ability of 40-50 4EB to inflict 1,000+ Casualties on troops in Lvl-6 Forts and we're moving farther into the fantasy realms...

I held back, but wondered if someone else would add this in. If you know my games you know that I ask for (and inflict on myself playing the Allies) an HR for no more than 50 bombers o night strike against any one port/airfield. The DBB AA makes night strikes slightly less lethal, but not enough.

In the war the Brits tested and proved early on that hitting an airfield at night, even with the many landmarks and guides at night in Europe, was next to impossible. In the Pacific it was even harder. There are a few cases where it worked, but usually later in the war. Not to say the early 4Es especially didn't try it a lot, but they certainly didn't sink 70-90% of ships in port, and definitely didn't hit 50% of the aircraft on a busy base.

There is a great book on the difficulties (and amazing perseverance and achievements) of the 4Es that started it new PI and moved to OZ throughout the early part of the war, called Fortress Against the Sun by Gene Eric Salecker. A really good read. Also talks about the tactics of Japanese pilots trying to bring them down and how many they'd routinely hit with their defensive guns.

Yep my opponent and I by mutual agreement limit night missions to one unit per theater per night. That keeps it sane. Massive night bombing has no real business in the simulation. It just did not happen that way except attacks against city centers.

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Oops, just noticed this.

Ever see Allied... 2E bombers down any Japanese fighters? The fact is that you all have it wrong. The combat animation usually doesn't visually show non 4E bombers from either side downing enemy fighters, instead you have to note whether a text message says a critical hit was inflicted.

Sorry Alfred, I know your knowledge of the game is far more in depth than mine, but here I have to disagree. I always watch the combat animations, and I must say I have seen 2E bombers down Japanese fighters directly. Mitchel's are usually rather good at this in my experience. This is of course with early Japanese fighters. i.e. Nate's, Oscar's, and A6M2's, as their frames are rather weak. Not sure about Tojo's, but I'll watch more closely and report back what I find.

I have never noticed it with 1E bombers, but I'll be on the lookout now.[:D]

We restrict 4Es by no ground attacks in open terrain but otherwise any base or other terrain is fair game. Works pretty well.

We restrict 4Es by no ground attacks in open terrain but otherwise any base or other terrain is fair game. Works pretty well.

That's obviously because troops moving in open terrain are way to easy to spot. No air commander worth his salt would deign to attack easy targets.

ORIGINAL: spence

We restrict 4Es by no ground attacks in open terrain but otherwise any base or other terrain is fair game. Works pretty well.

That's obviously because troops moving in open terrain are way to easy to spot. No air commander worth his salt would deign to attack easy targets.

Yeah, where's the challenge in that?

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: spence

We restrict 4Es by no ground attacks in open terrain but otherwise any base or other terrain is fair game. Works pretty well.

That's obviously because troops moving in open terrain are way to easy to spot. No air commander worth his salt would deign to attack easy targets.

Yeah, where's the challenge in that?

They must be a decoy to hide the really important troop movement.

Say what you want. Yes, I think a lot of things are way nerfed towards the Japanese player. (Come on now-every betty and nell torpedo capable!) However, that said, I think between matched players that the Allied player should always win. So, I really don't care. Let it go. [8|]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Oops, just noticed this.

Ever see Allied... 2E bombers down any Japanese fighters? The fact is that you all have it wrong. The combat animation usually doesn't visually show non 4E bombers from either side downing enemy fighters, instead you have to note whether a text message says a critical hit was inflicted.

Sorry Alfred, I know your knowledge of the game is far more in depth than mine, but here I have to disagree. I always watch the combat animations, and I must say I have seen 2E bombers down Japanese fighters directly. Mitchel's are usually rather good at this in my experience. This is of course with early Japanese fighters. i.e. Nate's, Oscar's, and A6M2's, as their frames are rather weak. Not sure about Tojo's, but I'll watch more closely and report back what I find.

I have never noticed it with 1E bombers, but I'll be on the lookout now.[:D]

We restrict 4Es by no ground attacks in open terrain but otherwise any base or other terrain is fair game. Works pretty well.

Do you also restrict netties to only making torpedo attacks in fighter escort range?

Or are they left free to tilt the game in Japan's favor while you agree to fight with one hand tied behind your back?

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Say what you want. Yes, I think a lot of things are way nerfed towards the Japanese player. (Come on now-every betty and nell torpedo capable!) However, that said, I think between matched players that the Allied player should always win. So, I really don't care. Let it go. [8|]

It isn't about who always gets to win. Its about who gets to win fairly.

Those of us who do care will not let it go.

It sounds like some comments are mentioning 'winning the war' as equivalent to 'winning the game'. The basic game scenarios (and many mods) do *not* equate the two. There are mods that strive to make them the same, which is great, but discussing 'winning the war' for mods that don't equate the two is asking for a different game.

We restrict 4Es by no ground attacks in open terrain but otherwise any base or other terrain is fair game. Works pretty well.

My line of thinking.

Say what you want. Yes, I think a lot of things are way nerfed towards the Japanese player. (Come on now-every betty and nell torpedo capable!) However, that said, I think between matched players that the Allied player should always win. So, I really don't care. Let it go.

+1

(Come on now-every betty and nell torpedo capable!)

Yes, the aircraft are, but the base is limited by an HQ that's in range. Its not really possible to have them everywhere. More than RL, yes, but not everywhere.

Look, here's how I see it... The game/code (whatever) has limits/restrictions on what is reasonably possible and what is not. I doubt that there's an algorithm for each type of possible attack. i.e. Airfield, ground, city, navel, etc. So the code is designed to do what needs to happen within the limits of the game. What's that? City bombing. This was probably the most important aspect of history that needs to be reflected in the software. At least IRT the game. So the design is to focus on that, and get the rest to work reasonable well. This is my take on what Nicodemus was saying. JMHO YMMV

Now that said, I've no input to the code these are just my views and opinions. I have to say though that some things accomplished by the use of 4E bombers seem to be, shall I say 'over the top'. So if I or anyone else wishes to have some kind of HR to limit these things, why on earth should anyone else care? As long as players agree that is that. I'd also like to add that I would never ask another player for an HR that I would not accept if I were playing his/her side.

TBH in one of my games as Japan I decided to try city bombing myself, just to see a bit of what happens. If you ask me its way too easy to destroy a city. All I did was on occasion night bomb Calcutta with whatever occasional bomber group I had left doing nothing. No more than 25-30 aircraft every second or third night. Well within a rather shot period I had about one third of Calcutta reduced to ashes. I thought that it was pretty easy, but in game terms I thought it worked. As this is what happened to Japan, and in the end what needs to be accomplished in the long run. At least within the scope of the game.

There you have my thoughts and views. If it means I'm not your PBEM opponent, so be it.

Ciao

Does anyone know about the speed settings of 4-E bombers during approach of an airstrike?
I imagine they would fly the distance at cruise speed, but before bombing, did they speed up to full speed?
If yes, How long did they remain on cruise speed? Or in other words, at what distance to target did they increase speed, if at all?

ORIGINAL: RichardAckermann

Does anyone know about the speed settings of 4-E bombers during approach of an airstrike?
I imagine they would fly the distance at cruise speed, but before bombing, did they speed up to full speed?
If yes, How long did they remain on cruise speed? Or in other words, at what distance to target did they increase speed, if at all?

I am not so sure they did always speed up for the bombing run. More speed = more bomb dispersal and less time for the bombardier to get the target in his sights. I would guess that if flak was heavy and accurate they would speed up more (but only if the lead bomber did - formation keeping), but if cloud or darkness shielded them a bit they would go slower.
After dropping the bombs they may have gone full speed to clear the target area for the next bomber group coming in.

"On a moonlight night in November 1942, six B- 17's roared along the deck at full speed into Rabaul Harbor....

As the result of prolonged practice, pairs of B-25's learned to attack a vessel at a gliding speed of 250 to 275 m.p.h., and knew the fire power of one B-25 would be raking the side of the vessel during the split second that the other strafed and bombed the beam."

Emphasis should be placed on the fact that in every case the intensity of the fire from the enemy vessels was decreased when the B-25C- Is opened fire on them. The bombing run made by each aircraft was at an altitude of about 10 to 15 feet at an average speed of about 250 MPH.

A War of Their Own: Bombers over the Southwest Pacific


It would depend on each mission, number of aircraft, formation and especially the altitude.

According to the 3d BG,
the following procedure in attacking shipping is recommended. High speed approach from medium altitude to a point about three miles from the target at an altitude of 1,000 to 1,500 feet. Then start violent "butterflying" at full throttle (side slips and rapid changes in altitude). At 1,500 yards from the target heavy A/A ceases to be effective and at that point, the plane should be at about 500 feet altitude. Fire one short sighting burst at 1,500 yards, then fire continuously from 1,200 yards in a full throttle, straight beam approach on the target; drop the bombs from between 500 feet and at masthead height when the previously selected reference point (a point on the airplane's nose) crosses the waterline of the ship. The pilots should remember that 50 caliber fire will drop about 100 feet in 1,000 yards when the plane is indicating 240 mph at sea level.

1942

Training Circular no. 46:

The report fully endorsed the concept and recommended that "training of pilots in these techniques be initiated at the earliest possible moment." Two of the attacks were deemed highly effective:

(1) Quartering front attack on armored surface vessels (more than one [ 1] inch of side armor plate) at maximum level flight speed and one hundred-fifty (150) feet to three-hundred (300) feet altitude, dropping one-thousand (1,000) pound or two-thousand (2,000) pound demolition bombs.

(2) Broadside attack on unarmored or lightly armored surface vessels (less than one [1] inch of side armor plate) at maximum level flight speed and at the minimum altitude necessary to clear the target, dropping demolition bombs of any appropriate size.

4E would usually be limited by their formation. As such in Europe the usual combat box would upon hitting IP spread form vertical to horizontal formation (hard to keep station on leader if he has throttle on the wall). Entering bombing area would also be done on prescribed speed, or more precisely on a speed which turned out to be able to be kept by all planes in formation (some being older ships, some modern, some painted, others in the "silver"). This should even be prescribed in an operation order. After bomb release the combat box will try to restack vertically, while turning and climbing/losing altitude to throw off flak. Again the Exit point would have defined speed, altitude and position of each box within stream/wing.

So not much possibility for full throttle. You have to stay in formation to survive, and for some ships this will require full throttle, for others backing a little. Actually only the box leader would keep the throttle in a position, most of the other pilots in a box would be playing with their throttles up and down most of the time to keep their place in formation.

As for individual attack, it is usually wisest to use what speed you can get

In the above I included the B25 for comparison.

One interesting fact on altitude is that

"Accomplish bombing at the lowest altitudes consistent with the type and amount of hostile anti-aircraft and fighter defenses .... In many cases it will be found that the losses from a single medium altitude mission will be less than the cumulative losses from the numerous high altitude missions required to produce comparative results."

Plus there is Speed VS RPM vs Manifold Pressure

With a full load of bombs, to lower speed I believe you want to still keep RPM up as you decrease speed. And Manifold Pressure figures into it as well. There are some good original "How to fly a B17" films on Youtube.