bombing land installations - ? for gregor

[fabforrest]

have played several coral sea, midway and eastern solomons scenarios and have launched both land-based and carrier-based air strikes against the likes of midway, henderson field, gilli gilli, port M. i have yet to record even ONE hit. i don't recall air strikes being terribly effective before, but i think some hits were allowed. what is the point of even having them?

[kkoovvoo]

You can smash enemy ACs on the ground.

[Rebel Yell]

Can you damage airfields, or temporarily shut them down with enough effective raids?

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: fabforrest

have played several coral sea, midway and eastern solomons scenarios and have launched both land-based and carrier-based air strikes against the likes of midway, henderson field, gilli gilli, port M. i have yet to record even ONE hit. i don't recall air strikes being terribly effective before, but i think some hits were allowed. what is the point of even having them?

Well, we put them in because they did happen but early in the war they are, as you have discovered, almost completely ineffectual. High level bombing usually involves dropping a lot bombs to put a few holes in a runway, which are promptly filled in and normal service resumed. If you put enough bombs on an airfield then you might hit some planes and reduce the spot number, thus slowing the field's ability to launch and recover raids but again this is mostly temporary.

Henderson Field on Gudalcanal managed to keep operating, though sometimes only just, despite the regular attentions of bombers of all types plus bombardments from submarines up to battleships.

Later in the war, when the US had fighters powerfull enough to make excellent fighter bombers, and much larger numbers of planes, they discovered that carrier based air could, in complete contravention of pre-war thinking, take on and suppress land bases. If you hit land bases in the Phillipines Sea scenario you should see different results.

Gregor

[AVisme]

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

Later in the war, when the US had fighters powerfull enough to make excellent fighter bombers, and much larger numbers of planes, they discovered that carrier based air could, in complete contravention of pre-war thinking, take on and suppress land bases. If you hit land bases in the Phillipines Sea scenario you should see different results.

Gregor

if you play the US AI in the last scenario you can expect to watch all your island air bases turn to swiss cheese !

[fabforrest]

"Well, we put them in because they did happen but early in the war they are, as you have discovered, almost completely ineffectual. High level bombing usually involves dropping a lot bombs to put a few holes in a runway, which are promptly filled in and normal service resumed. If you put enough bombs on an airfield then you might hit some planes and reduce the spot number, thus slowing the field's ability to launch and recover raids but again this is mostly temporary."

this knowledge gives me concern that the IJN commander, especially in the midway scenario, can gain an advantage.  as you (and we all) know, one of nagumo's tasks was to reduce midway's air field.  it was the vacillation over whether to rearm and launch a second strike that let to him experiencing the carrier equivalent of getting caught with his pants down (loaded decks).  when i play IJN in midway, i usually launch an air strike against midway because i feel like i am "supposed" to.  i might not do this against a human opponent which would give me an advantage.

knowing that an air strike is going to do me no good at all makes it highly unlikely that i would launch one.  maybe the VP conditions should reward a strike.

[Oleg Mastruko]

I am reading the history of Force H operating in the Mediterranean - it's fascinating how many times they sent handful of Stringbangs to bomb some airfield on Sardinia or Sicily, and have claimed to have rendered it unoperational for some hours or even days. Not the same thing as Pacific, but interesting nonetheless.

[themattcurtis]

They were knocking the Italians around, right? [:D]

Hell, the attack on Pearl Harbor was inspired by the Royal Navy's ability to wallop Italian battleships in port, using a smattering of obsolete Swordfish.

Didn't take much to beat the Regia Marina.

But the Med could offer some great user-made scenarios. Think of the Aquila actually entering the war.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: themattcurtis
But the Med could offer some great user-made scenarios. Think of the Aquila actually entering the war.

It's fascinating what British did in the Med with like a couple squadrons of biplanes. It's as if dozen of Swordfish were strategic asset comparable with 2-3 carrier-loads of IJN or USN aircraft with best pilots in the Pacific.

Anyhow, Italians don't need the Aquila, they have land bases close enough, they just needed better pilots and admirals (especially the admirals).

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: fabforrest

"Well, we put them in because they did happen but early in the war they are, as you have discovered, almost completely ineffectual. High level bombing usually involves dropping a lot bombs to put a few holes in a runway, which are promptly filled in and normal service resumed. If you put enough bombs on an airfield then you might hit some planes and reduce the spot number, thus slowing the field's ability to launch and recover raids but again this is mostly temporary."

this knowledge gives me concern that the IJN commander, especially in the midway scenario, can gain an advantage. as you (and we all) know, one of nagumo's tasks was to reduce midway's air field. it was the vacillation over whether to rearm and launch a second strike that let to him experiencing the carrier equivalent of getting caught with his pants down (loaded decks). when i play IJN in midway, i usually launch an air strike against midway because i feel like i am "supposed" to. i might not do this against a human opponent which would give me an advantage.

knowing that an air strike is going to do me no good at all makes it highly unlikely that i would launch one. maybe the VP conditions should reward a strike.

This is really a design question - how much of history are we going to force you to repeat and how much do we leave up to you. We've decided that although Nagumo had to deal with Midway, he didn't have to do it without knowing where the US carriers were. After all, the strategy here was really about forcing a decisive carrier battle.

That's why the victory conditions allow a Draw even if the Japanese fail to invade Midway itself, unlike say Wake Island where you are punished with an Allied Decisive if you fail to invade.

So its up you how to deal with Midway and when.

Gregor