B17s vs IJN CAs

[Nikademus]

Magazine explosions can only be triggered by belt or deck armor hits

[;)]

[spence]

OK

But the database error regarding the turret armor on IJN CAs really ought to be fixed. The 150 value is just plain wrong, wrong , wrong.

[tabpub]

After reading some more of this, I was thinking what would have happened if the bombers had hit you with the 1000# AP (or is it the 2000#GP) optional loadout? I forget the date that those become available....but anyhow, if they had, we can assume that they would have gotten 1/2 the hits (based on the smaller loadout), but would have penetrated and caused much more severe damage presumably. IF this had occurred, what would your...hm, say opinion been of that?

[Rainerle]

Hi,
sorry but I still think the number of hits is too high.
let's see how level bombing works:
Bomber aquires target and sets approach which will take him over target flying straight and level (cause if he doesn't the bomb will not fall straight). Now with a mobile target the bomber has to constantly reaquire his aim which means he always has to break off straight and level flight and start again. Then of course he should not aim at where the target is right now but rather where it is supposed to be when the bomb reaches sea level. This would be guessing (or maybe anticipating) on the bombers part. On the other hand the skipper would know the same and change course constantly in order not to be where those bombers lining for the attack right now could hit you. As I see it a hit from a level bomber at that altitude has few to do with skill from the pilot but with blunder from the skipper. Just try it: Have a friend pull a skateboard slowly on a rope in front of a building and then try to hit it with a tennis ball from the 3rd or 4th floor. If you succeed go further and have the board take evasive acton (ask a second buddy to pull in a different direction with a second rope at their own discretion) and don't just let the ball drop but give it lateral speed (simulating bomber speed) by rolling it over a ramp. Sure you don't even get close to the board.

I know this sounds very strict but hey, IRL even freighters could make divebombers miss just by turning the rudder at the right time.

[Erik Rutins]

Note that the smalller bomber attacks weren't really a problem. When 300-400 bombers come in at once though, as the original poster pointed out, they can pretty much carpet bomb a section of ocean. I'm not sure .8% hits in that case is too many, given the scenario presented. I agree that in general, level bombers were relatively hopeless with respect to maneuvering warships, but they never tried this many.

Regards,

- Erik

[Admiral DadMan]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Note that the smalller bomber attacks weren't really a problem. When 300-400 bombers come in at once though, as the original poster pointed out, they can pretty much carpet bomb a section of ocean. I'm not sure .8% hits in that case is too many, given the scenario presented. I agree that in general, level bombers were relatively hopeless with respect to maneuvering warships, but they never tried this many.

Regards,

- Erik

[font="Trebuchet MS"]Now, against previously damaged slow moving ships, they're fairly effective, and I'd say that's on the money:[/font]

[font="Courier New"]AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/22/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 91,100


Allied aircraft
TBF Avenger x 4


Allied aircraft losses
TBF Avenger: 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Soryu, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
[font="Trebuchet MS"] {She was hit on the previous day by 8 x 1000lb and 1 Torpedo}[/font]

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x TBF Avenger launching torpedoes at 200 feet


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 91,100


Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 18


Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Soryu, Bomb hits 6, on fire, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:
2 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 6000 feet
4 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 6000 feet
4 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 6000 feet
4 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 6000 feet
4 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 6000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/font]

[rtrapasso]

Just try it: Have a friend pull a skateboard slowly on a rope in front of a building and then try to hit it with a tennis ball from the 3rd or 4th floor. If you succeed go further and have the board take evasive acton (ask a second buddy to pull in a different direction with a second rope at their own discretion) and don't just let the ball drop but give it lateral speed (simulating bomber speed) by rolling it over a ramp. Sure you don't even get close to the board.

Sounds like a valid comparison, except you should be using hand grenades instead of tennis balls!!![:D][:'(]

(just kidding...)
PS - (we need a smiley with an explosion in it!!)

[Belphegor]

I disagree that it would be impossible to get 400+ bombers operating out of Derby. Although the comparison is weak remember that Tinian (50 sq miles) housed over 400 aircraft, mostly B29 and equivalent in 44 and 45.

of course they didn't bomb shipping, and never did all 400 fly off during the same 6 hours.

I would agree with you if you said 400 in one mission, or on the same mission (to the same location; juicy TF in the wrong place notwithstanding I don't think all the air assets would have been committed) during a certain time period which might be what you meant (if you did I apologise for the misunderstanding).

Perhaps better penalties for large raids as far as operational aircraft are concerned. Or more supply needed to handle large raids. If the raid can happen because there is enough base suppport, and the airbase is large enough, and there are operational craft... any raid of over say 50% of the 4e aircraft at a base should raise the supply required exponentially. Make it very expensive to do that... not impossible, just painful on supply.

Considering the target size on the water I assume these bombers took a lesson from British Bomber Command and flew in a stream (so they all could get over the target) [;)]

ORIGINAL: moses

The first issue is how do the allies get 400+ heavy bombers operating out of Derby in late 42. Clearly impossible but I'll leave that for another thread.

But given that 400 heavy bombers are there what commander in his right mind would have sent nine surface ships into range of that mob without any fighter cover whatsoever. This is total insanity. This is something no commander would ever do. I don't know maybe you might try it during a path of severe weather but flying into enemy LBA without fighter cover is a big no-no.

I don't care what anyone thinks about the bombing ability of 4 engine bombers. Give me 400 bombers against your puny 9 ship TF sighted 300 miles out and you'll lose heavily. Hell the destroyers can probably be sunk just from the combined fire of 400 tailgunners.

Its one thing to dodge 5 or 6 bombloads dropped seperately from 20,000 ft. But 400 planes bombing from 4-6000 feet is a lot of dodging. After a while can the ships even keep up the AA fire? Sure there's not much historical precedent because the Japanese were not that nuts, but with such superiority there has to be a tactic that works.

In any event flying close to massive enemy LBA without air cover deserves punishment.

[rtrapasso]

I disagree that it would be impossible to get 400+ bombers operating out of Derby.

I think his point was that it would be impossible IN 1942 (in real life). Certainly, by latter (1944 and on) such things were possible.

With WITP (esp. with PDUs active) a LOT of ahistorical things are possible.

[ChezDaJez]

After reading some more of this, I was thinking what would have happened if the bombers had hit you with the 1000# AP (or is it the 2000#GP) optional loadout? I forget the date that those become available....but anyhow, if they had, we can assume that they would have gotten 1/2 the hits (based on the smaller loadout), but would have penetrated and caused much more severe damage presumably. IF this had occurred, what would your...hm, say opinion been of that?

I think it would have been the same. I was prepared to lose several of the ships if they were spotted. I knew the mission had a very low probability of success.

Even a 500lb AP bomb would have blasted these to bits. My main point is that the damage model should encompass non-penetrating hits as well, not just penetrating hits. As it is now, you basically have to start a large fire to cause any significant damage with a non-penetrating hit. There are many topside items that could be destroyed by a non-penetrating hit such as firecontrol directors, radars, torpedoes and guns to name a few. Its too bad that it wasn't modeled along the lines of Harpoon.

I also think that there should be a small chance for a bomb that normally would not penetrate to cause penetrating damage. You could think of it as the bomb hitting a non-armored portion of the deck such as the bow or stern or even going down the stack. You could also think of it as hitting a weak spot in the armor. Hits on torpedoes and DCs should also have a chance to cause a massive explosion.

Anyways, just my opinion.

Chez

[mdiehl]

Uh, cuz its in Australia and I didn't invade there! And I only tried a naval bombardment after all my other options (bombing, uh bombing and more bombing) were thwarted. You can call sending a bombardment TF against a heavily defended base stupid and ahistorical all you want, but the fact is massing 496 heavy bombers at Derby and another 225 at Imphal in August 1942 sure as hell isn't historical by any stretch of the imagination.

Peace man. If it was in Australia there wasn't anything you could do. That said, why is it so "ahistorical?" Are you claiming that the problem is that the Allies can build a major base there quickly or is it just the sheer weight of aluminum? It sounds like your complaint is the latter.

And I agree in general but then WitP gives so many ahistorical advantages and capabilities to the Japanese that it's IMO a "gamey Allied solution in the face of gamey Japanese capability."

As far as supplies go, you are obviously assuming that the supplies are coming from the east coast.

I was thinking you might bomb the place early and often but that has already been suggested and discussed. But you don't need to kill every Allied base, just the ones that are (a) in heavy bomber range of targets that you want to protect, and (b) ones that have been built up (which you can get from recon missions... well... you could in UV anyhow).

It is implausible for August 1942! 400 plane bomber raids didn't get started until the B-29 came along in late 44-early 45. Show me a raid where more than 100 B-17s or B-24s took part in a single raid prior to 1944. It wasn't done in the PTO before 44 because it couldn't be done.

It wasn't done in the PTO earlier because it was (a) not deemed necessary for the most part (what would you bomb other than the refineries?), and (b) most heavy bomber production was directed at Germany. It was not a case that it could not be done, nor that the tactics, training, doctrine, or other necessary prerequisites were not available.

In my opinion, and of course that may be worth nothing at all to you, it's *far more plausible* than for example allowing any player to set CAP levels greater than 30%. That was not done in 1942 because neither the IJN nor the USN fully appreciated how easy it was to penetrate CAP and how much damage could be done by one or two aircraft.

That's one of the things that I mean when I say the allies using heavies en masse in this fashion isn't the least plausible thing by half that WitP allows to occur.

I don't care if the allies use massed bomber raids. I do care that they are able to do so nearly 2 years before they were actually able to IRL. The replacement and production rates for them are way off. In my other thread, I computed that the number of 4E bombers my opponent has constitutes 53% of real life production as of 8/24/42. PDU allows each player to upgrade units to a non-historical path which is great but given the number of 4Es available, every US 2E unit can be converted to 4E before Aug 42. Using PDU means that gameplay is going to be ahistorical but it shouldn't mean that's going to be unrealistic.

Sorry I do not have much sympathy for that POV. PDU and Japanese production control allow a high degree of deviation from that which was SOP tactically and production wise. The argument that the Allies should not be allowed to do in 1942 something that they knew how to do in 1942 but did not do in the PTO until 1944 does not convince me. Especially when the Japanese *CAN* make uber bombardment TFs (which work rather well when the B17s aren't around), *CAN* optimize production, and when both sides can set CAP values to absurd levels. These are deemed "plausible" apparently by most. GIven that, I do not see Allied shenanegans with heavies being in any way inappropriate.

[moses]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

I disagree that it would be impossible to get 400+ bombers operating out of Derby.

I think his point was that it would be impossible IN 1942 (in real life). Certainly, by latter (1944 and on) such things were possible.

With WITP (esp. with PDUs active) a LOT of ahistorical things are possible.

Given that 400 bomber raids were not launched from England until well after 42 I think the idea of such raids originating from Derby to be quite absurd. No viable land supply route and a sea route of insane length.

IRL you can't just fly the 400 bombers there and then operate off 40,000 supply points of generic supply sent via an imaginary railroad. Nor can you send one huge supply convoy to dump off 400,000 SP and let the base operate off this for the next year. You need a dedicated, consistant, and flexable supply and communications system to sustain such a fleet of bombers.

Assuming you got this operation going, it would then be a relativly fixed operation. i.e. If Japan starts bombing Derby you can't just fly everything to Darwin and operate from there. It doesn't work that way.

In the game both sides can just fly their planes to a new base and start bombing immediately. This might be done for a small number of planes if you plan well in advance. But anything significant requires a lengthy logistical build-up.

[AmiralLaurent]

Concerning the damage model, I am pretty sure that any hit not penetrating the armor has the same probability of removing some weapon, either a PT machine gun or a 500lb bomb. So PT machinegun with their rapid rate of fire usually destroy more weapons/radar that a dozen bomb hits.

In RL, I think more than 50% of the upside of a ship is "occupied" by AA, radars, radio, targetting devices, guns, torpedo tubes, DC launchers and so on. So about 50% bombs should disable something.

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Just try it: Have a friend pull a skateboard slowly on a rope in front of a building and then try to hit it with a tennis ball from the 3rd or 4th floor. If you succeed go further and have the board take evasive acton (ask a second buddy to pull in a different direction with a second rope at their own discretion) and don't just let the ball drop but give it lateral speed (simulating bomber speed) by rolling it over a ramp. Sure you don't even get close to the board.

Sounds like a valid comparison, except you should be using hand grenades instead of tennis balls!!![:D][:'(]

And do it with thirty or forty of them, not just one.

(just kidding...)
PS - (we need a smiley with an explosion in it!!)

Best I could find on short notice:

[testarossa]

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

Concerning the damage model, I am pretty sure that any hit not penetrating the armor has the same probability of removing some weapon, either a PT machine gun or a 500lb bomb. So PT machinegun with their rapid rate of fire usually destroy more weapons/radar that a dozen bomb hits.

In RL, I think more than 50% of the upside of a ship is "occupied" by AA, radars, radio, targetting devices, guns, torpedo tubes, DC launchers and so on. So about 50% bombs should disable something.

If you read "Cruiser Takao" by Janusz Skulski, it's not only direct hits, but near misses by 500 and 1000 lb bombs, which were in effect working as torpedoes damaging unarmored underwater parts of the hull.

BTW this is the best book about IJN Heavy Cruisers.

[ADavidB]

Uh, cuz its in Australia and I didn't invade there! And I only tried a naval bombardment after all my other options (bombing, uh bombing and more bombing) were thwarted. You can call sending a bombardment TF against a heavily defended base stupid and ahistorical all you want, but the fact is massing 496 heavy bombers at Derby and another 225 at Imphal in August 1942 sure as hell isn't historical by any stretch of the imagination.

You need to keep a "flexible mind" in this game. If your opponent has 225 heavy bombers in Imphal and 496 in Derby, he doesn't have much of anything else, anywhere else, even with upgrading 2-engine bombers.

I don't waste my time trying to stop attacks of 100 Bettys and 100 Zeros with 90 experience pilots - I'll just loose planes. Instead I attack where they aren't. And while my opponent is flying his crack pilots from place-to-place to try to catch me, I simply attack elsewhere again.

The Game will "punish" you if you try to bang your head against the wall too much. There are lots of "soft spots", a Japanese player has lots of good options available to him, and you don't have to defend "everywhere" to the death.

It doesn't really matter if your opponent sends heavy bombers out to bombard useless bases. He can't reach anything useful from Australia anyway. Just pull back all but some minimum forces and just "pray" that your opponent does try to gain back the DEI while you have the out-of-range important bases. He has to use transports, and that's what the KB is for - to remove transport TFs from the map.

You want your opponent to send his bombers at extended range to hit useless bases - operational losses are your Friend! Let him waste his time, and go after more important spots. If you opponent is sending "the Cavalry over the hill" into Burma, let him, then invade India. Hit your opponent where he isn't.

Good luck -

Dave Baranyi

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: dtravel

(just kidding...)
PS - (we need a smiley with an explosion in it!!)

Best I could find on short notice:

Cool!!![8D]

[ChezDaJez]

It doesn't really matter if your opponent sends heavy bombers out to bombard useless bases. He can't reach anything useful from Australia anyway. Just pull back all but some minimum forces and just "pray" that your opponent does try to gain back the DEI while you have the out-of-range important bases. He has to use transports, and that's what the KB is for - to remove transport TFs from the map.

The problem is that he isn't bombing "useless" bases. He is bombing the bases that are critical to my defence and which forces me to move to "useless" bases. He is moving in Burma and just captured Mylitka (however you spell it) and is moving towards Mandalay. He uses his heavies to suppress my airfields and his Wellingtons to bomb troops. Only Rangoon remains operational in Burma. The attrition of my pilots is horrendous. More than 50% of my IJAAF units are below 65 experience now, the IJNAF only marginally higher. I am building Tonys and Tojos as fast as I can but they won't be ready for another month in any useful numbers.

In the SRA, he has laid waste to every base withing range of Darwin and Derby. Only Kendari is fully operational still and I do have several groups of very experienced fighters there. I have managed to close the bases on Timor so I have bought a little time there but I suspect he will invade Amboina within the next month or two, just as soon as the Wasp gets out there.. He has just landed troops on Kai Island so now I have to try to keep that base suppressed also.

My opponent is very methodical and only advances under his air umbrella. I can expected more of the same to come. I doubt its going to matter much longer anyways. With my critical oil situation, this game will be over by December 42. I have only 150k units of oil with about 750k of fuel on hand. Pretty soon my HI is going to dry up and my ships will rust in port. C'est la guerre!

Chez

[tabpub]

ORIGINAL: moses

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

I disagree that it would be impossible to get 400+ bombers operating out of Derby.

I think his point was that it would be impossible IN 1942 (in real life). Certainly, by latter (1944 and on) such things were possible.

With WITP (esp. with PDUs active) a LOT of ahistorical things are possible.

Given that 400 bomber raids were not launched from England until well after 42 I think the idea of such raids originating from Derby to be quite absurd. No viable land supply route and a sea route of insane length.

IRL you can't just fly the 400 bombers there and then operate off 40,000 supply points of generic supply sent via an imaginary railroad. Nor can you send one huge supply convoy to dump off 400,000 SP and let the base operate off this for the next year. You need a dedicated, consistant, and flexable supply and communications system to sustain such a fleet of bombers.

Assuming you got this operation going, it would then be a relativly fixed operation. i.e. If Japan starts bombing Derby you can't just fly everything to Darwin and operate from there. It doesn't work that way.

In the game both sides can just fly their planes to a new base and start bombing immediately. This might be done for a small number of planes if you plan well in advance. But anything significant requires a lengthy logistical build-up.

The best way to illustrate this would have been to tie bomber groups (squadrons also) for both sides to SPECIFIC ground support units. Instead of the generic "Aviation Support Regiments" that we have to work with. Then you could still fly your planes anywhere you liked, but if the support units weren't there to tend to them, you would be flying w/o proper support and take a large hit on operational planes. Kind of like the 17's early in the campaign, until the parts and mechanics caught up with them.
Fighters could be handled the same way, but they are a little simpler to work on and would probably not require dedicated support so much. Although, certain types might be excepted; 38's and Tonies come to mind in particular.

But, we don't have that system and might never have anything like that. Players might want to consider something like this then.

A. If the base only has "30" (as in AV support) type units, only fighters and F/B planes should operate from there

B. If the base has one or more "90" type units, that many 2 engine bombers can work out of there.

C. For the big boys, a "270" type unit must be there (or perhaps a 180, to reflect the Clark Field, Singapore situation beginning of the war)

That, and not abuse the limit of the AF too much or often.

[ChezDaJez]

It wasn't done in the PTO earlier because it was (a) not deemed necessary for the most part (what would you bomb other than the refineries?), and (b) most heavy bomber production was directed at Germany. It was not a case that it could not be done, nor that the tactics, training, doctrine, or other necessary prerequisites were not available.

Exactly. That's why its bogus to have that many heavy bombers available this early. Had I truely looked into what using PDU meant, I probably would have said no or incorporated some house rules to limit it.

As far as the production model goes, US production is already at full 1944 production from the start. If you want to make US production player controlled, that's fine. Just make sure it starts at historical numbers and has 70% of aircraft production destined for Europe. At least that would give the Allied fanboys something to do with all that excess supply.


Chez