Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question

[1EyedJacks]

Hi, can anyone tell me if there is still a bug regarding bombers attacking shipping at altitudes below 10k? I seem to remember an altitude range to keep the bombers out of - something like 6k thru 9k was the range in which bombers were to accurate? Or maybe it was something about a flak-free zone?

Does it make a difference if the bombers are 2E or 4E bombers when flying below 10k against shipping?

[Yamato hugger]

Between 6 and 9 is the infamous "flak gap". It isnt that there is no flak, it just its too high for the light guns, and too low for the big ones. This being in stock games. Most mods correct this problem.

[castor troy]

If he attacks shipping then there is no flak gap IIRC as ship based flak is treated different. Though the flak gap exists (the Japanese flak gap... [:D]) when you attack land targets.

If you are allowed to, then set your bombers on 6000 ft naval attack which is the best altitude to attack ships with level bombers IMO.

[spence]

There is no flak gap vs shipping.

If you're not the "ATATT" IJN the most effective altitude in the game against shipping for most level bombers is 1000 ft - you will get substantially more hits. 100 ft is even better but you'll not have any sqdrns experienced enough to do it (If they're under 80 exp they will seldom launch if set to 100 ft). The thing is you will also get hit by flak a lot more the lower you go and you'll take an additional morale hit which after a couple of missions might well put your sqdrn out of action until you withdraw it and rest it for 2 weeks. But if hits are what you want or need then go in at 1000 ft.

As for opponents who say it's gamey to attack with 4E bombers at any altitude under 10000000000000 ft (or whatever) tell them to "READ A BOOK" if all they want is to repeat history.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: spence

There is no flak gap vs shipping.

If you're not the "ATATT" IJN the most effective altitude in the game against shipping for most level bombers is 1000 ft - you will get substantially more hits. 100 ft is even better but you'll not have any sqdrns experienced enough to do it (If they're under 80 exp they will seldom launch if set to 100 ft). The thing is you will also get hit by flak a lot more the lower you go and you'll take an additional morale hit which after a couple of missions might well put your sqdrn out of action until you withdraw it and rest it for 2 weeks. But if hits are what you want or need then go in at 1000 ft.

As for opponents who say it's gamey to attack with 4E bombers at any altitude under 10000000000000 ft (or whatever) tell them to "READ A BOOK" if all they want is to repeat history.

Spence and I are in total agreement on this, but for those folks Spence refers to regardings the myths of 4 engine-bombers, the first real low-level "skip-bombing" type attacks in Pappy Gunn/Gen Kinneys' area was done by B 17's.
It was realized that with the possibility of loss amongst these planes being highter at this low level, it would be more prudent to revert to B 25's and A 20's..


http://www.afa.org/magazine/valor/0594valor.asp

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: spence

There is no flak gap vs shipping.

If you're not the "ATATT" IJN the most effective altitude in the game against shipping for most level bombers is 1000 ft - you will get substantially more hits. 100 ft is even better but you'll not have any sqdrns experienced enough to do it (If they're under 80 exp they will seldom launch if set to 100 ft). The thing is you will also get hit by flak a lot more the lower you go and you'll take an additional morale hit which after a couple of missions might well put your sqdrn out of action until you withdraw it and rest it for 2 weeks. But if hits are what you want or need then go in at 1000 ft.

As for opponents who say it's gamey to attack with 4E bombers at any altitude under 10000000000000 ft (or whatever) tell them to "READ A BOOK" if all they want is to repeat history.

Spence and I are in total agreement on this, but for those folks Spence refers to regardings the myths of 4 engine-bombers, the first real low-level "skip-bombing" type attacks in Pappy Gunn/Gen Kinneys' area was done by B 17's.
It was realized that with the possibility of loss amongst these planes being highter at this low level, it would be more prudent to revert to B 25's and A 20's..


http://www.afa.org/magazine/valor/0594valor.asp

the problem we see in the game though is if you allow 4Es to skip bomb or bomb at low altitude is that soon you find out that 200 B-24 show up over KB to clobber it with no chance to defend against. And not just the number is "strange".

I know, there are also unlimited Betty torps, thousands of second generation IJA fighters, too much IJN shipping....

but the question remains, even if the first skip bombing runs were made by B-17s, why haven´t I read about 200 B-17s doing skip bombing runs against ships? If you want to play an all is possible game, no problem. Otherwise use house rules to make it at least "playable"...

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: spence

There is no flak gap vs shipping.

If you're not the "ATATT" IJN the most effective altitude in the game against shipping for most level bombers is 1000 ft - you will get substantially more hits. 100 ft is even better but you'll not have any sqdrns experienced enough to do it (If they're under 80 exp they will seldom launch if set to 100 ft). The thing is you will also get hit by flak a lot more the lower you go and you'll take an additional morale hit which after a couple of missions might well put your sqdrn out of action until you withdraw it and rest it for 2 weeks. But if hits are what you want or need then go in at 1000 ft.

As for opponents who say it's gamey to attack with 4E bombers at any altitude under 10000000000000 ft (or whatever) tell them to "READ A BOOK" if all they want is to repeat history.

Spence and I are in total agreement on this, but for those folks Spence refers to regardings the myths of 4 engine-bombers, the first real low-level "skip-bombing" type attacks in Pappy Gunn/Gen Kinneys' area was done by B 17's.
It was realized that with the possibility of loss amongst these planes being highter at this low level, it would be more prudent to revert to B 25's and A 20's..


http://www.afa.org/magazine/valor/0594valor.asp

the problem we see in the game though is if you allow 4Es to skip bomb or bomb at low altitude is that soon you find out that 200 B-24 show up over KB to clobber it with no chance to defend against. And not just the number is "strange".

I know, there are also unlimited Betty torps, thousands of second generation IJA fighters, too much IJN shipping....

but the question remains, even if the first skip bombing runs were made by B-17s, why haven´t I read about 200 B-17s doing skip bombing runs against ships? If you want to play an all is possible game, no problem. Otherwise use house rules to make it at least "playable"...

About the time B-17s were experimenting with this, they were being withdrawn from most combat duties and their job being taken over by B-24s.

B-24s had duties that kept them busy elsewhere, and skip-bombing duties were turned over to speedier B-25s, etc. Losses at 100' were lower than attacking from higher altitude, and it took less training. Of course, this is just the opposite from what happens in the game.

B-24s as mentioned did carry out numerous bombing attacks at 1000' - at night (not in game). Usually these were individual attacks - there weren't squadrons conducting them all at once.

[Gem35]

You can also mod the game and remove all the 4 engine bombers so KB can sail around and destroy everything in it's path just like it happened historicaly.
While you are modding, why not get rid of all Allied fighter planes like the corsair and lightning.
That way KB for sure won't ever have to deal with fighter cover and sail around destroying everything in it's path as happened historicaly.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Gem35

You can also mod the game and remove all the 4 engine bombers so KB can sail around and destroy everything in it's path just like it happened historicaly.
While you are modding, why not get rid of all Allied fighter planes like the corsair and lightning.
That way KB for sure won't ever have to deal with fighter cover and sail around destroying everything in it's path as happened historicaly.

I don´t even know if I should take such a statement serious...

If you want to play a PBEM where 200 4E bombers are used in one day to attack KB, or no matter what other task force, then just go ahead and be happy with it... hopefully you will find someone to play longer then 2 weeks.

Wonder if I´m a strategic genius but when I´m playing Allied (longest game is so far in 10/43) I had no problems to deal with KB even with not being a smart ass while using "strategic bombers" in masses on naval attack. A B-25 on 6000 ft does a good job and you get "realistic" results.

Using 200 4E bombers at once at 100 ft, 1000 ft, 6000 ft naval attack results in more hits on ships than what 200 bombers achieved against factory complexes bigger than the town I live in...

just weird, but as I said, if you like be happy, I´m happy with you!

There is so much "wrong" in the game, wonder why people want to make it even worse...

[Charbroiled]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Gem35

You can also mod the game and remove all the 4 engine bombers so KB can sail around and destroy everything in it's path just like it happened historicaly.
While you are modding, why not get rid of all Allied fighter planes like the corsair and lightning.
That way KB for sure won't ever have to deal with fighter cover and sail around destroying everything in it's path as happened historicaly.

I don´t even know if I should take such a statement serious...

If you want to play a PBEM where 200 4E bombers are used in one day to attack KB, or no matter what other task force, then just go ahead and be happy with it... hopefully you will find someone to play longer then 2 weeks.

Wonder if I´m a strategic genius but when I´m playing Allied (longest game is so far in 10/43) I had no problems to deal with KB even with not being a smart ass while using "strategic bombers" in masses on naval attack. A B-25 on 6000 ft does a good job and you get "realistic" results.

Using 200 4E bombers at once at 100 ft, 1000 ft, 6000 ft naval attack results in more hits on ships than what 200 bombers achieved against factory complexes bigger than the town I live in...

just weird, but as I said, if you like be happy, I´m happy with you!

There is so much "wrong" in the game, wonder why people want to make it even worse...

So, is it "OK" to attack a TF with 200 Betty's?

[goodboyladdie]

Hi Mike

I read these replies and am even more confused! Is 9000ft an ok height for 4E on Naval Attack in the esteemed opinions of forum members? How much of a difference will the extra 1000ft make if set at 10000ft as per Mike's request? I traditionally use 6000ft because it is the default Naval Attack setting for the game and is quite effective. I think the problem with early war Jap ships is that their AAA is pants. Mike and I are playing Iron Storm and his ships have a lot more AA guns. In the incident that caused our discussion on a revision of our House Rules I managed to get a few hits on three or four of his CVs. It cost me over 120 planes over a two day turn, although some of those were fghters over PH. I think this was quite realistic (due to NikMod leakers - in stock I would have lost all planes for no hits with the ZB still in effect) and I think only 10 bombs out of the hundreds dropped actually scored hits. My success against the straggling Kaga the next day was down to the fact that she had been left behind by the rest of the KB and is not really an accurate test/measure. The vulnerability of the unarmoured flight decks of the Jap CVs, even to 500lb bombs, is something that Alikchi mentions in his set up notes.

I am happy to compromise as it is vitally important that both Mike and I enjoy the game. Mike did the same for me when he did not attack Singapore using the first turn surprise advantage so that I could get my RN CVs out at sea where they would have been in real life with the Brit's increased preparedness levels in the Iron Storm scenario. It's a great game and I am very grateful to Mike for taking me on, even though he is so very busy.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Gem35

You can also mod the game and remove all the 4 engine bombers so KB can sail around and destroy everything in it's path just like it happened historicaly.
While you are modding, why not get rid of all Allied fighter planes like the corsair and lightning.
That way KB for sure won't ever have to deal with fighter cover and sail around destroying everything in it's path as happened historicaly.

I don´t even know if I should take such a statement serious...

If you want to play a PBEM where 200 4E bombers are used in one day to attack KB, or no matter what other task force, then just go ahead and be happy with it... hopefully you will find someone to play longer then 2 weeks.

Wonder if I´m a strategic genius but when I´m playing Allied (longest game is so far in 10/43) I had no problems to deal with KB even with not being a smart ass while using "strategic bombers" in masses on naval attack. A B-25 on 6000 ft does a good job and you get "realistic" results.

Using 200 4E bombers at once at 100 ft, 1000 ft, 6000 ft naval attack results in more hits on ships than what 200 bombers achieved against factory complexes bigger than the town I live in...

just weird, but as I said, if you like be happy, I´m happy with you!

There is so much "wrong" in the game, wonder why people want to make it even worse...

So, is it "OK" to attack a TF with 200 Betty's?

Can´t remember that I said that... Did I? For me it´s 90% as wrong as 200 B-17s. 90% because of the fact that at least it was a Navy bomber, not an Army bomber and it was a medium, tactical bomber, not a heavy, mostly strategic bomber...

And if you read my previous posts, I clearly said that there are enough other things wrong, also on the Japanese side. Using 200 4E bombers on 100 or 1000 ft on naval attack just makes it worse, surely NOT better...

[Gem35]

I just get tired of folks complaining about the game, it's been out for almost 4 years and you still cry about the 4E bombers, or the game has so many things wrong.
The OP asked about what altitude folks fly their bombers at, not what is "wrong" with the game.
/hijack off.

[Charbroiled]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

ORIGINAL: castor troy





I don´t even know if I should take such a statement serious...

If you want to play a PBEM where 200 4E bombers are used in one day to attack KB, or no matter what other task force, then just go ahead and be happy with it... hopefully you will find someone to play longer then 2 weeks.

Wonder if I´m a strategic genius but when I´m playing Allied (longest game is so far in 10/43) I had no problems to deal with KB even with not being a smart ass while using "strategic bombers" in masses on naval attack. A B-25 on 6000 ft does a good job and you get "realistic" results.

Using 200 4E bombers at once at 100 ft, 1000 ft, 6000 ft naval attack results in more hits on ships than what 200 bombers achieved against factory complexes bigger than the town I live in...

just weird, but as I said, if you like be happy, I´m happy with you!

There is so much "wrong" in the game, wonder why people want to make it even worse...

So, is it "OK" to attack a TF with 200 Betty's?

Can´t remember that I said that... Did I? For me it´s 90% as wrong as 200 B-17s. 90% because of the fact that at least it was a Navy bomber, not an Army bomber and it was a medium, tactical bomber, not a heavy, mostly strategic bomber...

And if you read my previous posts, I clearly said that there are enough other things wrong, also on the Japanese side. Using 200 4E bombers on 100 or 1000 ft on naval attack just makes it worse, surely NOT better...

No offence meant.[&o] I just have a problem with constraints on allied 4E (which seems to be the rave lately), but no constrants on other aspects of the game that effect Japan.

Recently, I agreed to a 20,000 ft min ceiling for 4E naval attacks. In hind sight I should have never agreed. My opponent took Midway in the first week and is now attacking PH with everything (and I do mean everything) in mid January 42. I'm not complaining about him attacking Midway or PH, because there was no houserule against this, but if I had known that this was the type of game we were going to play I would have seen no reason to agree to limits to 4Es.

[Barb]

In my PBEM we are using 4E 15,000ft rule and for 2E 6,000ft until 1/43 (as a result of old doctrine), few units (no more then 1-2 squadrons) are allowed to fly lower at same time.

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

Hi Mike

I read these replies and am even more confused! Is 9000ft an ok height for 4E on Naval Attack in the esteemed opinions of forum members? How much of a difference will the extra 1000ft make if set at 10000ft as per Mike's request? I traditionally use 6000ft because it is the default Naval Attack setting for the game and is quite effective. I think the problem with early war Jap ships is that their AAA is pants. Mike and I are playing Iron Storm and his ships have a lot more AA guns. In the incident that caused our discussion on a revision of our House Rules I managed to get a few hits on three or four of his CVs. It cost me over 120 planes over a two day turn, although some of those were fghters over PH. I think this was quite realistic (due to NikMod leakers - in stock I would have lost all planes for no hits with the ZB still in effect) and I think only 10 bombs out of the hundreds dropped actually scored hits. My success against the straggling Kaga the next day was down to the fact that she had been left behind by the rest of the KB and is not really an accurate test/measure. The vulnerability of the unarmoured flight decks of the Jap CVs, even to 500lb bombs, is something that Alikchi mentions in his set up notes.

I am happy to compromise as it is vitally important that both Mike and I enjoy the game. Mike did the same for me when he did not attack Singapore using the first turn surprise advantage so that I could get my RN CVs out at sea where they would have been in real life with the Brit's increased preparedness levels in the Iron Storm scenario. It's a great game and I am very grateful to Mike for taking me on, even though he is so very busy.

<laughter>. Hi Carl. I hear you on the confusion. I'm beginning to think we should scrap the 10k rule and let you continue to set the altitude of your bombers to anything your heart desires. It sounds like there is no "flak-gap" for naval attacks, which is what my poor memory seemed to recall from reading the forum.

I had also thought the house rule of 10k for 4E bombers was to keep things "realistic" as people posting seemed to think the number of hits by 4E bombers were "unrealistically" (if that is a word <grin>) in favor of the big bombers. This rule might be driven by the "Japanese Fanboyz" though.

My experience in the Iron Storm Mod is that there is very little I can throw at the 4Es as Japan. Even with the dreaded zero bonus in effect it appears the 4E bombers fly to-and-fro w/o worries of japanes fighters...

Still, I'll be getting Tojo's earlier in this game and there are things I can do strategically to help mitigate the effects.

Carl, what I'd like to recommend is that we watch this thread for a day or two and if nothing further comes up regarding a problem with the actual game mechanics, then we should probably scrap the 10k rule and let you use 4E bombers as you choose.

Also, thanks very much for sticking with me while I'm dealing with challenges at work. I really enjoy the mod, the toys that are available in this mod, and the excellent game you have been playing as the allied faction. Things are insanity-cubed at work right now but I really expect things to return to normal by late August <fingers crossed>.

[goodboyladdie]

Hi Mike

I'll try 9000ft and see what happens, if that's ok with you? I may even try 10000ft or 12000ft dependent on how scared I am of the big bad Japanese wolf at the time. I would not want you to feel in any way cheated. Bearing in mind the limited numbers of 4E I have available until at least June 42, I think a greater height to cut down on casualties is something that the Allies might well have considered. After June 1942, perhaps we could discuss it again as the tactical situation changes as we each get more capable fighters? How robust is your 4E bomber? Would it stand up to Allied flak at 6000ft? If you are planning to use yours higher, I am happy to do the same. I expect that when I eventually go on to the offensive and you are defending we'll be adjusting the HR to suit the strategic/tactical situation again.

As always my friend, it is a pleasure to play you. I am very lucky in having you and Scott as opponents. I see the unresolved issues that others seem to have with their opponents and am very grateful to have mine. [&o]

[spence]

The complaints against "200 4E bombers attacking KB at 1000 ft" seem mostly to revolve around the idea that USAAF doctrine did not support/include/advocate such attacks. The problem as I see it is that IJN doctrine did not support/include/advocate bringing KB anywhere near a place that could base 200 4E bombers. If that meant surrendering 1000 miles of ocean to the Allies then that's what KB did.
They were raiders not stand up fighters for air supremacy and the IJN recognized that. The game enhances the ability of KB to perform in the latter role. If the IJN Player is going to "experiment" with rather unlikely air supremacy missions against large concentrations of Allied LBA he should be prepared for the possible consequences and not cry foul when the Allied Player refuses to play by the "historical" rules.

(The concept of asymmetric warfare where one side follows rules/conventions and the other is free to ignore them has no place in a game about WWII IMHO.)

[Dili]

Do the 4E or for that matter any bomber with many bombs&nbsp; have a diferent routine to atack ships and land? I remember reading here that many bombs increase much more the damage while attacking air bases.&nbsp;I remember the extent of damage was significant. The problem of biggers attacking a ship&nbsp; is that probably the routine is the same and there is a chance that a full stick of bombs hit a ship when that is complete irrealistic&nbsp;and the routine should have invalidate a second hit.

[spence]

Pretty sure a single plane is allowed a single hit by the routine, that is a B17 is not going to land a whole stick of bombs on a ship.