Matrix Games Forums

Gentlemen of knowledge. A little help deciphering what I am seeing here


Afternoon Air attack on Auckland , at 115,185
Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 39 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 16 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 58
B5N1 Kate x 30
B5N2 Kate x 100

Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 16

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed
B5N1 Kate: 2 damaged
B5N2 Kate: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 3 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed on ground
B-17E Fortress: 15 destroyed on ground
Hudson III (LR): 1 destroyed on ground
B-17D Fortress: 3 destroyed on ground
Vincent I: 2 destroyed on ground
SBD-3 Dauntless: 6 destroyed on ground
LB-30 Liberator: 1 destroyed on ground
Vildebeest IV: 2 destroyed on ground

Allied ground losses:
11 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Airbase hits 31
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 131

Aircraft Attacking:
17 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 5000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
17 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 2000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
15 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 3000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
13 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 4000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
5 x B5N1 Kate bombing from 2000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
5 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 14000 feet *
9 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 4000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
4 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 14000 feet *
5 x B5N1 Kate bombing from 4000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
5 x B5N1 Kate bombing from 4000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
5 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 3000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
5 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 3000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
4 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 2000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
5 x B5N1 Kate bombing from 3000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
5 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 2000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
5 x B5N1 Kate bombing from 5000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
5 x B5N1 Kate bombing from 3000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
5 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 4000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
5 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 5000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
49th PG/7th PS with P-40E Warhawk (1 airborne, 2 on standby, 13 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters to 25000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 40 minutes

Obivously I have been caught with my pants down and just had my heavy bomber force pulverised.
However, as you'll note, the date is early in the war and I've basically got nothing else to defend NZ with, so I felt obliged to use the tools I had.

I no longer have that arrow in the quiver unfortunately.

So, Noting I have very little in the way of fighters to defend Auckland, I had put some faith in AAA. There is over 200 pieces of AAA located here. As you can see in the combat report the raid is not seen until about 16 minutes out, does this affect AAA accuracy?
What you'll also note, is that the kates drop to 3-5k feet to drop their bombs, which is why they are so ruthlessly efficient. But at this height even the smallest calibre AAA should be banging away like crazy. Why then do I only damage a couple of the kates?

Why do the kates drop so low?

Glide bombing. It seems you were the victim of a little bad luck; though your P-40s would normally do little to damage the raid, they should have broken it up a little minimizing the damage (ouch),

Does glidebombing sidestep AAA?

Was the base over stacked?  If a base is over stacked, there are not enough dispersal areas for planes and bombing raids will destroy a lot of aircraft.

There are a lot of factors in AA effectiveness.  The skill level of the AA units is going to count.  Length of warning is another.  I would expect a little better result from 200 AA pieces, but there is also the luck of the roll.

Bill

What was th breakdown of AA types
 
You are relying on your 20 - 40mm AA guns at 3 - 5000 feet.
 
 

skill level of the AAA varies from exp 40 to about exp 60 - so not fantastic.
 
Yes radar warning was basically non-existant. I didn't know this was that important - thought it more for CAP take-off response.
 
Not sure if base was overstacked. There are more groups there than there size airfield (7), but there is a air HQ, and not all groups had orders. However, I am not that purturbed with the fact I lost alot of aircraft (well actually I am, of course, but that's not my point here) I am more worried that the AAA seemed so utterly ineffective.
 
Andy - not sure of the break down. There are to US coastal AAA units, Auckland CD unit and the rest are native AAA components to base units or assault units (kiwi brigades). I would say (warning assumption) that this would be majority small calibre.

Were your AA units in combat mode or were they eventually enjoying a day at the beach?

I believe AA is not very effective against single engine aircraft. I have ben trying to figure it out, but have not had much success. It think the algorithm may count engines first. anything with more than one gets hit hard. after that maneuverability comes into play. Therefore fighters almost never get hit by flack. Single engine bombers somewhat, but not much. You have run into a bit of bad luck too.

I believe it does minimize AAA. Dito wdolson's thought. If the base was over-stacked...

Tell that to my Vals and Kates, esp. my Kates!

ORIGINAL: jetjockey

I believe it does minimize AAA. Dito wdolson's thought. If the base was over-stacked...

Not sure I am following the thinking:

Because the base was overstacked the AAA didn't fire?

The combat mode might be an issue. Definately the assault units were resting. So the lead time might count them out. All units with decent engineering components are in combat mode.

JohnDillworth: if your hypothesis has legs then I am basically defenceless against KB strikes against my airfields. That doesn't seem the way things have gone in the past.

Sorry, I was unclear.

Two thoughts: 1) glide bombing reduces the effectiveness of AAA.

2) Over-stacking may have lead to high casualties.

Jetjockey.
 
I certainly concur with the second thought - difficult not to do this with heavy bombers when you want a decent fleet, when there are only 8 in a flight. However, I suppose there's the rub. If you want a decent strike force you have to chance your arm they'll be hit on the ground.
 
Which comes back around to the 1st point. If glidebombing makes AAA this ineffective this basically means you cannot base heavy bombers (or other rare aircraft) in any single location reachable by KB's kates in 42. The Japanese player would definately trade 1 or 2 lost kates for 30 heavy bombers.

ORIGINAL: aprezto
Not sure I am following the thinking:

Because the base was overstacked the AAA didn't fire?

The combat mode might be an issue. Definately the assault units were resting. So the lead time might count them out. All units with decent engineering components are in combat mode.

JohnDillworth: if your hypothesis has legs then I am basically defenceless against KB strikes against my airfields. That doesn't seem the way things have gone in the past.

AA will only fire if the unit is in combat mode. If most were at rest then they didn't fire.

Bill

aprezto:

I would not say ineffective, just less effective (at least WRT large caliber AAA).

I would agree though that it is unwise to concentrate bombers near KB without a VERY strong fighter cover. I've taken advantage of this reality several times in my PBEM.

ha ha! strong allied fighter coverage in April '42. Now there's an oxymoron!
 
Point taken though. At least move them around. However, I don't have many options in NZ. Wellington is fighting for dear life and only managed to hang on against a 2-1 shock attack result last turn. So it's Christchurch or Auckland - I'll give PzB enough dues that he can whittle down the options...

Don't be so dismissive of allied fighters. In May '42 I made the mistake of striking Suva without suppressing the Allied fighters with sweeps first. My Zeros handled the CAP roughly, but a number P-39s got through and just tore into my Vals (I think they were low on ammo by the time they reached the Kates). I easily replaced the aircraft, the pilots though…

I will not be making that mistake again anytime soon.

Keep the long game in mind: you can't afford massive losses, but if you fight a good "Rearguard action," your losses will be replace, his won't.

Hi Jetjockey;
 
This is true, and in fact the Warhawks that were on CAP managed to knock down a few zeros, but they never got to the bombers. Unfortunately, with no radar, and more importantly, only one other fighter squadron available, a more numerous fighter CAP was unavailable.
 
There-in lies another problem with being the defender - you don't necessarily know where the enemy is going to strike. With the very short legs on allied fighters, being able to fly reinforcements in as difficult, if not quite impossible.
 
So I don't think I was necessarily being dismissive of allied fighters, more the numerousy. You can't be everywhere in numbers, and I wasn't in NZ.
 
To give you more of the situation, he did very well at faking an attack on Oz. Had he done so there would have been far higher defensive fighter numbers to resist him with.

These are not the results I typically see from Allied AAA. In my experience, planes releasing from low altitude (diving divebombers and glidebombing torpedo bombers) take casualties and lose accuracy even if just one AA unit is present. Even when I sent KB Kates at 9k (the altitude at which they do levelbombing, yet go above most of small-calibre flak) to bomb Colombo in my ongoing Japanese PBEM (in January 1942 at that moment), 6 planes were lost in a single raid. Considering that the chance of pilot loss when a plane is destroyed by flak is practically 100%, such losses exclude a sustained bombing campaign.

As the perpetrator I must admit that the results were surprisingly good.
After being at the receiving end of 60 4Es I got bit desperate and tried all the tools I had to get at them.
- The KB's long range Kate's seemed the best option (can stay out of range for a LBA counterattack - 9 hexes).
 
Ordered the Kates to bomb from 10k feet, seems like the dropped to 3-5k feet before releasing their load.
 
Personally I've still not made up my mind about AA guns efficacy in AE.
I know that even the most well organized flak party (Germany 43-45) needed a lot of guns, radar and coordination to bring down
bombers. Low flying attack ac were more vulnerable, even at PH when obtaining suprise quite a few were shot up.

Stacking xx LBA units in a single field would make dispersal difficult and increase vulnerability to this kind of attack.
Mind you that I sent 4-5 battleships to bombard Auckland (detection levels were something like 9/10) and I didn't knock over a single ac.
- Sending in 9 Zero's to strafe the fields cost me 2 fighters. It was when a formation of Betties was allowed to bomb rather undisturbed from 10k feet that I decided it was worth the risk of sending in my elite naval bombers to suppress the 4E threat.