House Rules Update

[Wirraway_Ace]

Just checking to see what forum members are most using for house rules these days.

[borner]

seems to be much the same, but this is what I am seeing or asking for of late.
 
US 4e's with an altitude limit between10-15K.
No f4U's on carriers unless they upgrade while on ship. No transfering of groups from CV's to land bases to allow them to upgrade then to transfer back
no night carrier ops.
no AG's in a TF as they prevent aircraft from flying against it. (a nice trick someone used against me
no sub invasions
some players are asking for limits on PT groups.
 
 
Given the huge advantage the US has in the game, I am considering my nest one to end on 10-31-43, same point scale, just to see what difference it makes in giving the US two less months at the end.

[Wirraway_Ace]

I have added a multiple CV TF in the same hex limit of 2. I screwed up a game recently by putting 4 separate US CV TFs in the same hex following a Surface TF to keep them grouped. They hammered the entire KB because the KBs coordinated strikes kept going against the same single CV TF (even after it was sunk) and would not divert to hit the other CV TFs. Meanwhile, the US CV TFs were effortlessly coordinating their CAP and there small strikes evetually put all the major IJN CVs out of action except Kaga.

[Ike99]

Given the huge advantage the US has in the game, I am considering my nest one to end on 10-31-43, same point scale, just to see what difference it makes in giving the US two less months at the end.

Interesting.

Would definately make it much harder for them. One could also change the victory percentages.

1.25% being a minor victory and 1.50% being a major victory. That could be an option.

US 4e's with an altitude limit between10-15K.

I am not a big fan of control for the Allied Bombers altitude.

A houserule I could fully support is Allied 4E bombers score two points and not one when destroyed, perhaps even 3 points. Why would a small float plane or Zero with one pilot count as much as a massive B17 or B24 with 10 crew?!

The extra points would have to be added to the Japanese total manually but would be easy to do. Would probably work out well towards play balance.

At 3 points per 4E lost I´m thinking we would start seeing those 4E flying at higher altitudes naturally.

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

US 4e's with an altitude limit between10-15K.

I am not a big fan of control for the Allied Bombers altitude.

A houserule I could fully support is Allied 4E bombers score two points and not one when destroyed, perhaps even 3 points. Why would a small float plane or Zero with one pilot count as much as a massive B17 or B24 with 10 crew?!

The extra points would have to be added to the Japanese total manually but would be easy to do. Would probably work out well towards play balance.

At 3 points per 4E lost I´m thinking we would start seeing those 4E flying at higher altitudes naturally.

IKE, I agree with your logic on ground attacks by 4Es. VP losses more appropriate to the cost and crew size of these aircraft would naturally change behavior. However, because of their large bombloads, I believe the game engine significantly overcredits their ship hitting abilities on both Naval Attack & Seach Missions. High experience crews really exacerbate the problem. Even at higher VP costs, I would still fly them low (6,000) for both Naval Attack & Search missions because the losses are light and the payoff is high. Forcing them to fly higher produces more reasonable results in my opinion and was doctrinally correct for early war.

[xj900uk]

It was official US doctrine for big 4E bombers to fly higher & higher.  B17's started around 15-18k,  and by the end of the way B29 day bombers were operating at around 30,000 feet
The one exception was Curtis LeMay, who arrived in early '44 and proposed sending in B29's at night around 500 feet for incendiary attacks,  all the guns removed bar in the tail.  The results were catastrophic (for the Japanese)

[borner]

i think increasing the value of 4E losses is a good idea, but how many games come down to a couple hunderd points? I like the idea of limiting the total TF's of "real" warships in a hex. I agree that especially the US can form single CV TF's and rip apart Val's and Kates with AA fire. The downside is if one TF reacts away from the rest and gets caught with little air cover

[xj900uk]

Early on though throughout much of '42 the USN operated their carrier groups as single-CV-based Task Forces (Hornet & Enterprise operating together as TF16 during the Battle of Midway was very much the exception).  The Japanese were very good and skilled at operating up to 6 carriers together (like for the Hawaiian operation)
The FAA could operate two or more British carriers together,  their pilots & air controllers were trained for this, but in reality it didnt' happen very often (other than in the Med).  However, given the smaller airgroups involved,  this was a bit easier than with the US carriers

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

It was official US doctrine for big 4E bombers to fly higher & higher.  B17's started around 15-18k,  and by the end of the way B29 day bombers were operating at around 30,000 feet
The one exception was Curtis LeMay, who arrived in early '44 and proposed sending in B29's at night around 500 feet for incendiary attacks ...

I recall the reason for the drop in altitude was that bombers over Japan were flying so high as to encounter what would later be called "the jet stream".

[xj900uk]

Well actually it was because of the losses & ineffectiveness of the B29's - notwithstanding the fighter & AA defences (which weren't a patch on Germanys but were still causing enough concern) and more importantly the unreliability of the B29's - often more than 50% would be forced to turn back with one mechanical problem, defect or whatever of which the common-most were leaks from the pressurized cabins and heater malfunctions.  The B29 was a great bomber but it had been rushed into service before all of the kinks had been ironed out, also maintenance at the advanced bomber bases was... rushed to say the least.
 
LeMay of the 8th Air Force brought with him a lot of ideas, including a case study into Japanese cities and what would be the most effective way of wiping them out - they had looked at the rudimentary nature of Jap night-fighters, lack of radar, and above all the paper & wood construction of their houses and how closely packed they were all together. 
LeMay advocated leaving pin-point bombing of industry alone for a bit,  from 30,000' even with teh Norden bomb-sight results were not that good mainly due to unpredictable winds at high altitude and just going for mass area incendiary night bombing at low (500') altitude.
This had two main affects - first of all the Japanese cities were burned one by one to a cinder,  and secondly there were far fewer defects or bombers failing to reach the target due to mechanical problems

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: xj900uk
... LeMay advocated leaving pin-point bombing of industry alone for a bit,  from 30,000' even with teh Norden bomb-sight results were not that good mainly due to unpredictable winds at high altitude ...

I think those unpredictable winds at alt. were the "Jet Stream".

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

Early on though throughout much of '42 the USN operated their carrier groups as single-CV-based Task Forces (Hornet & Enterprise operating together as TF16 during the Battle of Midway was very much the exception).  The Japanese were very good and skilled at operating up to 6 carriers together (like for the Hawaiian operation)
The FAA could operate two or more British carriers together,  their pilots & air controllers were trained for this, but in reality it didnt' happen very often (other than in the Med).  However, given the smaller airgroups involved,  this was a bit easier than with the US carriers

Operating the US CVs as separate TFs works just fine within the game until you start putting multiple, separate CV TFs in the same hex. The game engine target selection can't deal with this well. A 100 aircraft coordinated IJN strike will hit only a single TF at a time and ignore the other carriers in the same target area. Meanwhile, the USN CAP is totalled for the entire hex.

The fact that the USN operated their airgroups separately for each CV in the early war period is modelled in the game by the coordination penalty.

[Ike99]

IKE, I agree with your logic on ground attacks by 4Es. VP losses more appropriate to the cost and crew size of these aircraft would naturally change behavior. However, because of their large bombloads, I believe the game engine significantly overcredits their ship hitting abilities on both Naval Attack & Seach Missions.

There is no doubt of this. The hit rates rival early smart bomb weapons from the 1990s. From me and Borners game.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 07/18/43

Air attack on TF, near Rabaul at 21,28


Allied aircraft
Hudson x 15
B-17E Fortress x 103


no losses

Japanese Ships
AP Sangetsu Maru, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
AP Kenyo Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AP Sado Maru, Bomb hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
AP Yamakuni Maru, Bomb hits 8, on fire, heavy damage
AP Tatsuwa Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Akigumo
AP Tokai Maru, Bomb hits 11, on fire, heavy damage
AP Yamura Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AP Tatsuta Maru, Bomb hits 4, on fire
DD Kagero, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
AP Shoan Maru
AP Syoka Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AP Meiyo Maru, Bomb hits 1
AP Teiyo Maru, Bomb hits 10, on fire, heavy damage
AP Toa Maru, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
DD Hayanami, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Shozan Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire
DD Oyashio, Bomb hits 2
AP Yamagiri Maru, Bomb hits 3, on fire
AP Taian Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire

69 bomb hits from 118 planes at 10,000 feet
18 of 20 ships hit

I don´t believe level bombers from World War 2 at 10,000 feet could have accomplished this. I´m not too sure even dive bombers could have.

[tocaff]

Yep, Joe is right that the B-29s discovered  the jet stream by accident.  The planes weren't where they expected to be and there you have it.  The B-29s that were used in WW II were the A model which was underpowered and they couldn't hope to cope with the jet stream's currents.

When LeMay ordered the defensive armament removed from the planes and the briefing was for a low level mission the air crews were in a state of frightened shock.  The mission was flown and the raid was there and gone before the Japanese could react.

[fuelli]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

69 bomb hits from 118 planes at 10,000 feet
18 of 20 ships hit

I don´t believe level bombers from World War 2 at 10,000 feet could have accomplished this. I´m not too sure even dive bombers could have.

Were these ships at anchor? If 118 Bombers lay a bombingcarpet of about 1400 bombs (I don´t know the exact numbers but I think the B17 carries at least 12 bombs which is already 1300 bombs) then 69 hits is an accuracy of about 5%. I don´t think this is extraordinary. If at sea and moving then this is a very good result but still does not feel way off for me.

[xj900uk]

Also there was no CAP, and probably little in the way of AA - Jap ships (looks like a few DD's + loads of freighters) had pretty poor AA especially for medium/high altitude and when compared to the US equivalent from the Autumn of '42 onwards.  Even a little CAP can spoil a bombers aim...

[Ike99]

Were these ships at anchor? If 118 Bombers lay a bombingcarpet of about 1400 bombs (I don´t know the exact numbers but I think the B17 carries at least 12 bombs which is already 1300 bombs) then 69 hits is an accuracy of about 5%.

The ships were not in port.

I think the accumulative percentage formula your using and the program uses it seems based on bomb count is a bad formula. With dive bombers or torpedo planes making their individual or 2, perhaps 3 group attacks on single ship targets works well. Level bombing is something different entirely.

It´s not like a B17 misses with one bomb but he gets 11 more attempts with his remaining bombs, then you move on for the next level bomber and its attempts and so on.

Effective carpet bombing requires a large, close formation of bombers flying toward a pre determined area defined within pre designated boundary on a pre determined plot and this is not easy on good days.

With ships none of this is possible.

First you would have to find the ships. Then you would have to assemble the formation and maneuver it towards them. This alone would be nightmarish. To simply turn such an enormous formation of 100+ 4E bombers 45 degrees would require many kilometres of turning space.

But assuming you were able to spot the ships, keep them in visual view, form the formation, turn the formation towards an intercept point with everyone understanding what´s going on and flying in the right direction then...then, hopefully the target ships do not make a course change. This would have been virtually impossible to do.

It was so difficult I´ve never read of a single carpet bomb attack against ships at sea in world war 2 or one even attempted. The closest I´ve seen is five B17 attempted to bomb the Japanese carrier force at Midway.

[Ike99]

Assuming the level bomber formation could see the ships I assume the ships could see the bomber formation too and also maneuver into a line follow anti air formation.

1, 5 or even 50 ships present a very small target area to hit for level bombers.

[fuelli]

ORIGINAL: Ike99


The ships were not in port.

I think the accumulative percentage formula your using and the program uses it seems based on bomb count is a bad formula. With dive bombers or torpedo planes making their individual or 2, perhaps 3 group attacks on single ship targets works well. Level bombing is something different entirely.



It´s not like a B17 misses with one bomb but he gets 11 more attempts with his remaining bombs, then you move on for the next level bomber and its attempts and so on.

Effective carpet bombing requires a large, close formation of bombers flying toward a pre determined area defined within pre designated boundary on a pre determined plot and this is not easy on good days.

With ships none of this is possible.

First you would have to find the ships. Then you would have to assemble the formation and maneuver it towards them. This alone would be nightmarish. To simply turn such an enormous formation of 100+ 4E bombers 45 degrees would require many kilometres of turning space.

But assuming you were able to spot the ships, keep them in visual view, form the formation, turn the formation towards an intercept point with everyone understanding what´s going on and flying in the right direction then...then, hopefully the target ships do not make a course change. This would have been virtually impossible to do.

It was so difficult I´ve never read of a single carpet bomb attack against ships at sea in world war 2 or one even attempted. The closest I´ve seen is five B17 attempted to bomb the Japanese carrier force at Midway.

Ok, if the ships where not anchored at port then the latter part of my post comes into play. Basically there was no formular I´m using. Taking into account that this was a transport convoy I would say the result is very good for the bombers. But far away from beeing light laser guided bombs. I would assume they haver a hit probability of mor then 50% which would be a factor of ten compared what happend in the acutual raid.
The circumstances of the attack you are describing seem to assume that the ships can move faster then the bombers. I would assume that a transport convoy moving in a typical box formation will take much longer to line up for effective AA defence then the bombers need to adjust to such a formation. Also I would assume the a bomber formation flying at 10000fett will most likely sight a transport fleet first as long as the transport fleet has no radar equipped ship in its formation. (Please people with knowledge and experience correct me if I´m wrong). I also would like to assume that a bomber is much faster and more manueverable the a transport ship I would assume that there is an advantage towards the bombers as long as the bombs are not released. As you said carpet bombing requires a large and close formation towards a pre determined target. I agree to the first two conditions and would assume that they are given with mor then 100 B17s involved. The third condition is true for hitting a stationary target surrounded by targets that are not destined to be hit. Like industrial complexes surrounded by civilian building. Something the the allies have done quiet often. The problem here was not to hit the civilian target which often failed, but the intended targets were hit nevertheless. Now in our example the bombers try to hit a moving target (moving at about 8-10 kn.) Now a new assumption: I assume that the bomber crews were at very high experience levels (this maybe not realistic because bomber crews would never reach such high levels but this is not the point we are arguing about) therefore I assume the know how to place their plane against a transport at 10000 feet so that at least one of the 12 bombs will be close to the target when it hits sea level is very high. Still I say 69 hits is e very good result for the bombers but kind of possible and therefore realistic and nt nearly comparable with laser guided bombs of nowadays.
The Midway B17 attacks you are referring to were at 20000feet and of course against fast moving carriers which can hardly be compared to transport ships.

But still what I want to say: Against a transport fleet anchored at port the given result seems to be most realistic. Against a transport convoy caught at sea the result seems to be very good for the allies (especially the hits on the destroyers) but not totally unrealistic and comparable to smart bombs as mentioned before.

But I also have to say that I do not have particularly knowledge on that special issue and everything I say is based on assumptions. I really would like to hear opinions from people who have fundamental knowledge and/or experience on that subject.

[Ike99]

I also would like to assume that a bomber is much faster and more manueverable the a transport ship

Faster yes, more maneuver. Definately not. A formation of 100 B17s would need half the country of France to do a 180 degree turn.

The circumstances of the attack you are describing seem to assume that the ships can move faster then the bombers.

Not move faster, but maneuver faster and put the raid on the thin part of a line of ships. I´m thinking a group of 10-15 ships would definately be able to spot a formation of B17s and out maneuver it to achieve this air defense formation before the bomb run.

Also I would assume the a bomber formation flying at 10000fett will most likely sight a transport fleet first as long as the transport fleet has no radar equipped ship in its formation.

One or two planes in and out of clouds yes, but 100 B17s flying together wouldn´t be that difficult to see either. 75 feet length and 103 feet wingspan for each one. Flashing a neon sign would not make their visibility any worse.[:D]

I would say the result is very good for the bombers. But far away from beeing light laser guided bombs. I would assume they haver a hit probability of mor then 50% which would be a factor of ten compared what happend in the acutual raid.

Can you imagine WWII B17s hitting a 20 meter wide area at 3100 meters high with a 50% hit rate using a level bombing sight!? Not me. Again, that´s early laser guided bomb accuracy. That´s like putting a thread through a needle hole that high.

Against a transport fleet anchored at port the given result seems to be most realistic. Against a transport convoy caught at sea the result seems to be very good for the allies (especially the hits on the destroyers) but not totally unrealistic and comparable to smart bombs as mentioned before.

I agree on this point. I have no doubt 100 B17s could smash a fixed location like a port at 10,000 feet. I´m not so sure about ships at sea. I´m not really even sure if such a huge formation of level bombers wouldn´t prove to be too unwieldy to even launch such an attack effectively.

I would assume that a transport convoy moving in a typical box formation will take much longer to line up for effective AA defence then the bombers need to adjust to such a formation.

Your describing a Atlantic anti submarine convoy formation or a carrier TF with valuable ships in the center. I´m describing something like this...actual Japanese ships.