TB or not TB ?

[ElvisDaKing]

Hi

I am currently in July 1943, (playing PBEM, SC 1) and have below production ongoing :
A6M5c Zero
D4Y3 Judy
B6N2 Jill

Obvioulsy my opponent has now F6F Hellcat to protect his carriers...


Considering the speed of different airplanes
F6F-3 Hellcat = 373
A6M5c Zero = 336
A6M5 Zero = 351
D4Y3 Judy = 357
B6N2 Jill = 299


I am planning to ground my B6N2 Jill squadrons and only keep D4Y3 Judy onboard when going for CV vs CV battle
I know torpedo hits are best, but 500kg bombs can be also devastating against CV especially if multiple hits..

My point is that the Jill is going to slow down all my strike force and give more opportunities and more time for the USN fighters to shotdown my planes...

So i am also thinking of dedicating the A6M5c for CAP and A6M5 for escort of my fast Judy strike....

TB would be redeployed onboard when B7A2 Grace, speed 352, enter in production...


Any thoughts, comments ?

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: ElvisDaKing

...My point is that the Jill is going to slow down all my strike force and give more opportunities and more time for the USN fighters to shotdown my planes...

Not correct.

Alfred

[Lowpe]

Can't tell you how many times I have seen your tactic gamed out and it almost never ends well.

Far more important are pilot skills, dl, range, weather, altitude settings, Escort/CAP settings, bb soaks, AA, proper leaders, and engaging on your terms.

[Chickenboy]

Any deficit (real or imagined) that may be overcome by excluding 300 B6N2s is not worth the exclusion of such firepower. You're missing the forest for the trees.

[GetAssista]

Even if you replace TB for DB 1:1, you'd still miss the firepower of torpedoes (on average fewer hits but much higher damage. Bomb hits cannot rack up flotation damage and slow down ships as effectively as torpedoes do, especially against heavier armored ships. One torp hit can well be a difference between enemy TF running away / failing to leave your reach. Or you running away successfully vs them gaining on you on the second day.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: ElvisDaKing

...My point is that the Jill is going to slow down all my strike force and give more opportunities and more time for the USN fighters to shotdown my planes...

Not correct.

Alfred

Words from the guy who really knows what happens behind the scenes.

During transit, all aircraft are on cruise speed to conserve fuel, and they slow to the cruise of the slowest squadron.
During combat everyone is at full speed and the squadrons separate to do their attack profiles. The fighters should be fastest and get to the enemy CAP first, tying them up while the bombers move to their drop positions.

Some of the enemy CAP almost always break free to attack the bombers, but usually some bombers are not attacked by CAP and break through the AA to deliver their ordinance - and (working) torps are better than bombs!

[jamesjohns]

The best weapon Japan has is the torpedo and the best way to get into the side of an enemy CV is with high quality pilots

[ITAKLinus]

Am I wrong or bombs are actually more devastating than torpedo against CV in mid late game due to:
A) more hits
B) 800Kg ones are huge
C) CVs go down because of fire and various internal explosions that are actually easier to get its bombs
D) they trash flying decks differently from torped hits

?



I mean, we all know that Vals are rubbish and torpedo are much better than those 250Kg bombs but when you start getting 500 and 800Kg ones I suppose they are better.

I would also like to explore whether the extremely low attack from TB actually creates more losses due to flak than the dive bombing

[Lokasenna]

It depends on what damage the bomb does.

Assuming they actually deal typical damage (sometimes hits deal minimal damage), torpedoes seem to me to be more likely to sink a CV in 3 hits or so.

Bomb hits, even 800kg ones, can sometimes not cause much damage either, and overall they are less likely to cause flooding. If a bomb hit doesn't start a big fire, you're not going to sink a USN CV with 3x 800kg bomb hits.

[ITAKLinus]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

It depends on what damage the bomb does.

Assuming they actually deal typical damage (sometimes hits deal minimal damage), torpedoes seem to me to be more likely to sink a CV in 3 hits or so.

Bomb hits, even 800kg ones, can sometimes not cause much damage either, and overall they are less likely to cause flooding. If a bomb hit doesn't start a big fire, you're not going to sink a USN CV with 3x 800kg bomb hits.

I do agree but... Are we going to get 3 torpedo hits OR 3 bombd hits? Or it's rather 3 torpedo and 10 bombs hits?

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

Am I wrong or bombs are actually more devastating than torpedo against CV in mid late game due to:
A) more hits
B) 800Kg ones are huge
C) CVs go down because of fire and various internal explosions that are actually easier to get its bombs
D) they trash flying decks differently from torped hits

?



I mean, we all know that Vals are rubbish and torpedo are much better than those 250Kg bombs but when you start getting 500 and 800Kg ones I suppose they are better.

I would also like to explore whether the extremely low attack from TB actually creates more losses due to flak than the dive bombing

You are wrong.

Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

It depends on what damage the bomb does.

Assuming they actually deal typical damage (sometimes hits deal minimal damage), torpedoes seem to me to be more likely to sink a CV in 3 hits or so.

Bomb hits, even 800kg ones, can sometimes not cause much damage either, and overall they are less likely to cause flooding. If a bomb hit doesn't start a big fire, you're not going to sink a USN CV with 3x 800kg bomb hits.

I do agree but... Are we going to get 3 torpedo hits OR 3 bombd hits? Or it's rather 3 torpedo and 10 bombs hits?

ITAKLinus,

You are fundamentally not understanding the game mechanics. Obtaining a hit is not dependent on the type of device.

Alfred

[ITAKLinus]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

It depends on what damage the bomb does.

Assuming they actually deal typical damage (sometimes hits deal minimal damage), torpedoes seem to me to be more likely to sink a CV in 3 hits or so.

Bomb hits, even 800kg ones, can sometimes not cause much damage either, and overall they are less likely to cause flooding. If a bomb hit doesn't start a big fire, you're not going to sink a USN CV with 3x 800kg bomb hits.

I do agree but... Are we going to get 3 torpedo hits OR 3 bombd hits? Or it's rather 3 torpedo and 10 bombs hits?

ITAKLinus,

You are fundamentally not understanding the game mechanics. Obtaining a hit is not dependent on the type of device.

Alfred

Yeah but my point is that since bombs are carried by DBs and Torpedoes by TBs one device (bombs actually) is intrinsically more accured than the other.

Or am I wrong in identifying dive bombers as more accurate?



Maybe is my poor English and me being a total newcomer to the game, but I hope I have expressed what I mean.

[Lokasenna]

I thought we were, in fact, talking about choosing between torpedoes and bombs.

Torpedoes are multiple times more likely to sink ships than bombs are. That's kind of their point.

[rustysi]

800Kg ones are huge

Historically these bombs were not used in very large numbers. In addition to that they had a rather large dud rate.

Now I don't have a magic ball into the mechanics or code of the game, but it seems to me that both these things are modeled into said game. From my experiences WRT Pearl Harbor it looks to me like the damage done by these bombs isn't high at all, in most cases. To me this can be explained, magazine explosion or some sort, lots of damage. Other times the minimal damage seems like it can only be attributed to a dud or the fact that this weapon had a rather small explosive charge WRT its weight. It was a great perpetrator, but didn't always make a big bang.

As for the dud rate, I'm pretty sure you can find this in the game data tables.

The relative rarity of the weapon seems to be reflected in the fact that the unit must have a rather high experience level to carry the thing, and must also pass a check on top of that. Now I have no idea if this includes the later Judy's that carry this weapon as I've never played that far into the game, but its true WRT other aircraft in the early game.

So until I hear of lots of these weapons taking out large numbers of Allied shipping I have my reservations about their usefulness. Personally I prefer to let water into ships with torps when I want them sunk. JMHO. YMMV.[:)]

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

800Kg ones are huge

Historically these bombs were not used in very large numbers. In addition to that they had a rather large dud rate.

Now I don't have a magic ball into the mechanics or code of the game, but it seems to me that both these things are modeled into said game. From my experiences WRT Pearl Harbor it looks to me like the damage done by these bombs isn't high at all, in most cases. To me this can be explained, magazine explosion or some sort, lots of damage. Other times the minimal damage seems like it can only be attributed to a dud or the fact that this weapon had a rather small explosive charge WRT its weight. It was a great perpetrator, but didn't always make a big bang.

As for the dud rate, I'm pretty sure you can find this in the game data tables.

The relative rarity of the weapon seems to be reflected in the fact that the unit must have a rather high experience level to carry the thing, and must also pass a check on top of that. Now I have no idea if this includes the later Judy's that carry this weapon as I've never played that far into the game, but its true WRT other aircraft in the early game.

So until I hear of lots of these weapons taking out large numbers of Allied shipping I have my reservations about their usefulness. Personally I prefer to let water into ships with torps when I want them sunk. JMHO. YMMV.[:)]

I believe the autocorrect should have changed your word to penetrator vs. perpetrator! [:D]

The 800 kg bombs were old 16" naval shells, probably armour piercing, which explains the small explosive charge - most of the weight was the thick steel walls of the weapon. I can imagine that the navy used the oldest/time expired naval shells to convert to bombs rather than use their new stock which Nagato and Mutsu needed. That would explain the dud rate.

[inqistor]

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

Am I wrong or bombs are actually more devastating than torpedo against CV in mid late game due to:
A) more hits
B) 800Kg ones are huge
C) CVs go down because of fire and various internal explosions that are actually easier to get its bombs
D) they trash flying decks differently from torped hits

?



I mean, we all know that Vals are rubbish and torpedo are much better than those 250Kg bombs but when you start getting 500 and 800Kg ones I suppose they are better.

I would also like to explore whether the extremely low attack from TB actually creates more losses due to flak than the dive bombing

Technically, Japan don't get 800kg bomb as standard load. D4Y4 is purely Kamikaze plane, and shouldn't be able to release this bomb (but it does in-game). Now, there was actually different 800kg bomb, quite widely used, but with penetration worse, than 500kg. That one is not modelled in-game.
I suspect, that you will get more hits from DB, and that will probably even close CV deck, but I doubt that will sink ship. Japanese fires can really get out of control, but US damage-control is far better. Only torpedoes will sink anything.
As for flak, I vaguely recall someone from Dev Team mentioning, that there are at least two phases for AA fire, and DB gets shots at approaching altitude first, and then at diving one, so low flying TBs will probably get higher loses, especially from all those short range MGs.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: inqistor

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

Am I wrong or bombs are actually more devastating than torpedo against CV in mid late game due to:
A) more hits
B) 800Kg ones are huge
C) CVs go down because of fire and various internal explosions that are actually easier to get its bombs
D) they trash flying decks differently from torped hits

?



I mean, we all know that Vals are rubbish and torpedo are much better than those 250Kg bombs but when you start getting 500 and 800Kg ones I suppose they are better.

I would also like to explore whether the extremely low attack from TB actually creates more losses due to flak than the dive bombing

Technically, Japan don't get 800kg bomb as standard load. D4Y4 is purely Kamikaze plane, and shouldn't be able to release this bomb (but it does in-game). Now, there was actually different 800kg bomb, quite widely used, but with penetration worse, than 500kg. That one is not modelled in-game.
I suspect, that you will get more hits from DB, and that will probably even close CV deck, but I doubt that will sink ship. Japanese fires can really get out of control, but US damage-control is far better. Only torpedoes will sink anything.
As for flak, I vaguely recall someone from Dev Team mentioning, that there are at least two phases for AA fire, and DB gets shots at approaching altitude first, and then at diving one, so low flying TBs will probably get higher loses, especially from all those short range MGs.

Bombs will sink ships more lightly armored than CAs just fine. CVLs, CVEs, CLs, DDs... they all sink to 800kg bombs.

But you really have to rack up the hits on Essex-class CVs and Baltimore CAs to sink them with even 800kg bombs, barring catastrophic damage results. We're talking 7+ hits for a CV, vs. 3 torpedo hits, to put them in "probably sunk" territory.

As for BBs? You really need to bring the torpedoes. Bombs rarely sink the modern BBs, especially USN but also sometimes IJN.

[Barb]

All true - but also think of how hits (damage) compliment each other... Damaged ship is easier to hit. Basic chance to hit with torpedo is probably lower than with bomb (device accuracy?), not to mention the losses to flak...

Basically you want damage all these categories one helping the other:
1 - suppress flak - any bomb hit does that, the more bombs, the better (SB2C Helldiver/Vengeance all the way here...)
2 - Damage the ship - probably easier with bombs (helps also close the deck) - any 500kg/1000lb will do the job (D4Y Judy or SBD Dauntless will do)
3 - Cause enough fires/flotation - put more bombs or torpedo hits - easier to do on damaged ship
4 - Cause ammo/fuel storage explosions - I think any penetrating hit has a chance to do, so more hits, more chances

In ideal world you would want to have succeeding waves of:
IJ: say strafing+bombing Ki-45 Nicks/any FB - then D4Y Judy/DB Grace - B6N Jills/TB Grace
US: say strafing+bombing whatever with bombs (later F4U/P-38/P-47/A-20s/B-25s, etc) - then SB2C Helldiver/Vengeance - TBD/TBM Avanger

P.S.: D4Y4 with 800kg bomb was meant as Kamikaze - not deployed operationally on normal sorties either from deck or land. I am not sure if the 800kg bomb was wired tight to the plane, or it was intended to be released just before the crash (as usual with other bombs carried by kamikaze). For the purpose of the game the D4Y4 should be used only for Kamikaze missions, while D4Y3 for all other missions.

Edit: for "Limey" Armoured Fleet carriers you are basically just without (2) - as bombs will fail to penetrate, they will just serve in flak suppression role (1).

[Lokasenna]

Bombs seem to have a higher chance of ammo/fuel storage explosions.