Matrix Games Forums

and before this goes on much longer, someone will have to take a look at their accuracy. If this had been for real in 1942 - we would still be arguing over the relative merits of sushi - but it would be in Japanese language school in Georgia.

RevRick wrote:and before this goes on much longer, someone will have to take a look at their accuracy. If this had been for real in 1942 - we would still be arguing over the relative merits of sushi - but it would be in Japanese language school in Georgia.

this is gonna get us back into the old argumment of pro japanese slant to the game. The bettys as you say seem very accurate almost as if theres a code to give them a hit or two no matter how many are killed and or damaged according to the action report. The problem is also those torpedos are about the most desturctive weapon in the game. I agree with you these planees should be toned down a bit but apparentlly the powerrs that be insist of havbing this in there-to keep the Jjapanese side players happy?

Give them some bait to fly at with quality cap, Nell's & Betty's are made of rice paper, they don't live very long. Once you decimate the starting groups, they are no longer a threat. Once you get some AA upgrades on your ships, they become embarrassing.

I accept the Betty's punishment for now, but their day will come. Currently PM has been closed by daily raids of 100 Betty and 50 Nells in Scenerio 19 late autumn. They come from Rabaul mostly.

But my strategy has been to preserve carriers, attrite Jap supply transports and surface fleets. Now I am attriting Jap fighter pilots. Early in 1943, I will be ending the sky darkening air fleets of Betty's using massive CAP over bait surplus high value warships, like CV's for example. I have used the tactic before in scen 17 and have knocked down a hundred in a day. Yes, you lose ships, but your pilots are pretty good after depleting the Jap fighter groups, and they eat the Betty's breakfast.

Hi all,

RevRick wrote:and before this goes on much longer, someone will have to take a look at their accuracy. If this had been for real in 1942 - we would still be arguing over the relative merits of sushi - but it would be in Japanese language school in Georgia.

First of all I must say that most of my PBEM games were played with me as
Japanese player and that I won many of them in scenario #19 (I also played
many PBEMs as allied player).

I would also like to say that I hope that this thread will not deviate into
Japanese vs. US debates we had before (i.e. "us " vs. "them" including
"fanboy" names)...


The "Nell" and "Betty" were brave aircraft designs and they did prove
themselves historically (best example is of course destruction of British
"Force Z").

Therefore, in my mind, there is no doubt at all that the concept of such very
long range torpedo bomber was successful and when employed skilfully and under
preferable circumstances (read no or weak enemy air opposition) they were very
powerful.


This is, IMHO, exactly what we have in our UV.


When properly used and under preferable circumstances the "Betty" / "Nell" can
bring devastating blows to allied player.

But (there is always but) this "Betty" / "Nell" threat can be counter played
by skilful allied player (using proper tactics/strategy).


Therefore, IMHO, the "Betty" / "Nell" long range torpedo bombers are no "uber
weapons" in UV PBEMS and if allied player is good and Japanese player is to
aggressive with them the results are always mass slaughter of "tinder stick"
Japanese bombers.

In other words - if allied player has proper CAP/LRCAP over his bases and TFs
he is almost 99% safe...


Leo "Apollo11"

Peter Weir wrote:this is gonna get us back into the old argumment of pro japanese slant to the game. The bettys as you say seem very accurate almost as if theres a code to give them a hit or two no matter how many are killed and or damaged according to the action report. The problem is also those torpedos are about the most desturctive weapon in the game. I agree with you these planees should be toned down a bit but apparentlly the powerrs that be insist of havbing this in there-to keep the Jjapanese side players happy?

This has all been gone through before:
1 They do not always hit
2 (and this is important): STAY OUT OF LBA RANGE UNLESS YOU HAVE CAP
3 Think hard about it even when you do have CAP
4 Bettys are a strictly limited resource in the historical scenarios (in the ahistoric there are more....but listen to the great 'B17 are overrated' debate and consider!)
5 Believe me, it is relatively easy to manage them... use rules 2 and 3 a lot, advance slowly, build up fighter bases, and generally do not give them easy targets. Grind them down, and chase them away.

HMSWarspite wrote:This has all been gone through before:
1 They do not always hit
2 (and this is important): STAY OUT OF LBA RANGE UNLESS YOU HAVE CAP
3 Think hard about it even when you do have CAP
4 Bettys are a strictly limited resource in the historical scenarios (in the ahistoric there are more....but listen to the great 'B17 are overrated' debate and consider!)
5 Believe me, it is relatively easy to manage them... use rules 2 and 3 a lot, advance slowly, build up fighter bases, and generally do not give them easy targets. Grind them down, and chase them away.

They might not always hit but they USALLY hit and oiften with multiple hits on the targets. I know that early in the ahistorical scenarios many players prefer theseplanes are all over htr eplace and deadly. I wanted to see about long term effects tho so the past week or so iv'e been playing veruss the computer in the historical Guadacanl scnario and have finally gotten the test past the 1943 mark. Ocasionally Ill stop and throw the head to head switch to see whats up with the japanese side. It disturbs to see how aweful the ai plays with squadrons of zeros and kates especially run down to where you'd think they couldn't fight anyomore-high fatigue and very low moarle in the 20's regularly. These polanes do still attackhowever especially from shortland and are sometimes effective with hits even against terrific rested cap at Rusell and Lunga and Tulagi. I notice the AI for some reason has a load of betty bombers sitting at Truk now. Most of thesesquadrons are in the 6 and 9 strength category but theyre still very high experience except for one of them which was like 56. Do the japanese have a problem getting pilot replacements? I know these pilots are supposed to be lower quality but I didn'tread anywhere that the Japanese suffered from a lack of them.

I have seen a turn in the game results the longer I play in favor of the Allies in this game but still in the beginning the Japanese do have better results against allied air power than what Ive been able to read so while the overall game blance might be about right there still seems to be something given to the japanese strating out and this lasts pretty much through the entire first year of play.

I've three squadrons of P38's now which seem to upgrade the P39 squadrons-do you know if these planes are programed to recover fatigue and moral more slowly than other fighters? These planse seem to get tired real fast sometimes after just one mission, and then take a long time to come back, where my wildcats will rest up right away after a mission or two. Havent seen anything of Corsairs yet so I don't know how they'll do against the Japanese planes. The P38's seem to hold their own tho.

I don't see anything unreal about the B17's as mine are always taking operational loses after missions. I fly them out of Port Morsby and attack the japanese air base on Rabaul withy them as Mogami suggested and this seems to work but only very slowly as hits on japanese planes are few. Does anyone know what the effect is for having that air headquartrs in Morsby along with my bombers? Does it make these planes fly better or more often or what?

Hi Peter,
In my PBEM games as IJN I have been very careful to husband my Betties and Nells for the final showdowns.

However in our Battle of the Eastern Solomons our CVs squared off and my Nells from Shortlands hit the Washington. 38 Nells attacked. Got 2 torp hits; that's about 5%. Lost 7 Nells with another 20 damaged. I was combat ineffective for over a week. In my experience they are not uber weapons. 5% hits is not excessive. How many Betties were flying against you? One thing to remember is the beginning Nell/Betty pilots are highly experienced. Probably average above 80. Many many pilots in the 90s.

I have also been on the receiving end of attacks by high exp SBDs. They don't miss much either. That last group of 4 planes always sticks you with a couple.

Quark

Peter Weir wrote:
I've three squadrons of P38's now which seem to upgrade the P39 squadrons-do you know if these planes are programed to recover fatigue and moral more slowly than other fighters? These planse seem to get tired real fast sometimes after just one mission, and then take a long time to come back, where my wildcats will rest up right away after a mission or two. Havent seen anything of Corsairs yet so I don't know how they'll do against the Japanese planes. The P38's seem to hold their own tho.

Peter,

You will LOVE the Corsairs when you get them !

Yes the P-38s seem to tire quicker than other fighters....but I found that only when they were being used as long range CAP or Escort. Considering the longer distance that they can (and do) fly this is to be expected. If you have three squadrons then ONLY use one in three each day so that the other two are getting two days of full rest. Also are you committing them to the front line to early? It is important to make sure that Moral is as high as you can get it (try for the 90's but the low 80's is also ok).
Hope this helps.

[QUOTE=Apollo11]Hi all,

First of all I must say that most of my PBEM games were played with me as
Japanese player and that I won many of them in scenario #19 (I also played
many PBEMs as allied player).

I would also like to say that I hope that this thread will not deviate into
Japanese vs. US debates we had before (i.e. "us " vs. "them" including
"fanboy" names)...


The "Nell" and "Betty" were brave aircraft designs and they did prove
themselves historically (best example is of course destruction of British
"Force Z").


Therefore, in my mind, there is no doubt at all that the concept of such very
long range torpedo bomber was successful and when employed skilfully and under
preferable circumstances (read no or weak enemy air opposition) they were very
powerful.


This is, IMHO, exactly what we have in our UV.


When properly used and under preferable circumstances the "Betty" / "Nell" can
bring devastating blows to allied player.

**************
First, Apollo, that is not what I had in mind - and I consider myself an "adequate" player and naval historian. What gripes me no end about the Uber Bettys is a three/four plane attack against a 12-16 plane CAP unescorted which consistently, as in 65+ percent of the time, gets two-four torpedo hits on ships in port, or at anchor. The four plane raids escorted by 125 or so A6M variants is also relatively absurd in that one must think that no one on board the ships shoots anything other than spitwads at the Betty's because they also get the same number of hits in the majority of cases. THere might be an excuse for that with the distraction of other aircraft in the sky.

When I get a 50-75 plane raid, with squadron level Betty strength against a moderate 25-50 plane CAP (If I am ever so fortunate to raise one at an early stage of the game) I expect to absorb damage. I do NOT expect for the bloody things to fly in unescorted, against a superior CAP, and fly away unscathed with multiple hits. My uncle used to talk about them being the flying cigarette lighter because all you had to do was make one pass on the thing getting hits near the engine, and it was burning like a barn struck by lightning.

*************************

But (there is always but) this "Betty" / "Nell" threat can be counter played
by skilful allied player (using proper tactics/strategy).

********************

Usually by attrition, and proper husbanding of fighter resources only.

****************************

Therefore, IMHO, the "Betty" / "Nell" long range torpedo bombers are no "uber
weapons" in UV PBEMS and if allied player is good and Japanese player is to
aggressive with them the results are always mass slaughter of "tinder stick"
Japanese bombers.

In other words - if allied player has proper CAP/LRCAP over his bases and TFs
he is almost 99% safe...

*******
In the words of the great Flabatt speaking ex-catherdra from his navel - BULL ROAR!!! The only way to be 99% safe is if your CAP is F-16's before November 42, or if you sitting in port south of Townsville or Luganville.

Raverdave wrote:Peter,

You will LOVE the Corsairs when you get them !

Yes the P-38s seem to tire quicker than other fighters....but I found that only when they were being used as long range CAP or Escort. Considering the longer distance that they can (and do) fly this is to be expected. If you have three squadrons then ONLY use one in three each day so that the other two are getting two days of full rest. Also are you committing them to the front line to early? It is important to make sure that Moral is as high as you can get it (try for the 90's but the low 80's is also ok).
Hope this helps.

Thx for the feedback and yes I try to rest my fighter squadrons until their morale is high and fatigue is low. Ive no problem with wildcats in this case and have learned to only fly them around ZLunga when ships come in with supply so theyre always rested with high morale. I can see somewhat more fatigue for P38s if they fly long range cap but not for just flying around the base and still they get more fatigue than wildcats and always seem to recover more slowly--a lot more slowly so I cant see that at all. Also until you get three P38s that isn't possible and seems like concession to the system more than anything realistic.

looking froward to getting Corsairs to fly! Its been a long time getting just this far in 1943 tho it goes pretty fast agaisnt the computer playingat night.

Quark wrote:Hi Peter,
In my PBEM games as IJN I have been very careful to husband my Betties and Nells for the final showdowns.

However in our Battle of the Eastern Solomons our CVs squared off and my Nells from Shortlands hit the Washington. 38 Nells attacked. Got 2 torp hits; that's about 5%. Lost 7 Nells with another 20 damaged. I was combat ineffective for over a week. In my experience they are not uber weapons. 5% hits is not excessive. How many Betties were flying against you? One thing to remember is the beginning Nell/Betty pilots are highly experienced. Probably average above 80. Many many pilots in the 90s.

I have also been on the receiving end of attacks by high exp SBDs. They don't miss much either. That last group of 4 planes always sticks you with a couple.

Quark

Thats fine but on the whole i think bettys get a lot higher percentage than 5! Espcially in the beginning around Port morsby and Gilli anything that mobes is a good bet to get mauled. Dont know about handling them as the japanese, suppose I should try that tho I prefer to play the Allies-Ilook best in a white hat! The compute tho has tukced them al away at Truk and haven't seen any flying for a couple of months now or more. As I said theyre all sitting up there insmall suqadrons and all but one of them had high expereience so I wonder about the japanese getting enouhg pilots not just good ones. Or is it lacvk of betty replacements? No biggie, they cant do a lot o f damage to us up there.

Hello Peter,

I find that the Lightning Squadrons (at least the first few) are not all that effective. However I put this down mainly to the Squadron Leader. For fighters especially the Squadron Leader is vastly important as he controls morale loss/recovery and even fatigue recovery. There are other factors involved such as base size but the SL seems to be the key one. Fatigue and morale basically determines how often the and how effectively they fight.

The Lightnings upgrade from the P39 Squadrons and their SLs are poor in general.

Hoplosternum wrote:Hello Peter,

I find that the Lightning Squadrons (at least the first few) are not all that effective. However I put this down mainly to the Squadron Leader. For fighters especially the Squadron Leader is vastly important as he controls morale loss/recovery and even fatigue recovery. There are other factors involved such as base size but the SL seems to be the key one. Fatigue and morale basically determines how often the and how effectively they fight.

The Lightnings upgrade from the P39 Squadrons and their SLs are poor in general.

It's like were typing here live!

Yeah I see that too with squadron leaders and some of these for the allies are ridiculously low. I've read elsewhere where these ratings effect play quite a bit but how can a leadre rating effect hconditions of planes and crew at the same time? werent the P38's rugged? I basically have the impression when ou take all these things together and roll them up you have the japanese doing very well at the start which sort of bring us back to the same old argument abput advatages. There was talk of Morison being a ba d source but I dont buy it completely and no matter he cant be completely wrong with all the stuff he's written and theres little in there to indicate the sort of results I see in the game early on at lerast. Against the AI I have sort of beeten up against the Japanese especially its Cvs which it lost in a big battle around Gilli twice. The computer brouhgt back it carriers a second time when thye were still beat up and the loss of those and there planes helped a lot getting as far as I have. But even looking at that the totals for kills doesnt feel right according to what Ive read and this going into 1943 and agsint the computer still andd all its bad play. So I dont know what to say. No expert at all, just starting to read more about this but it seems the japanese are given a lot more at the start than they acaully had and the torpedo planes do seem tohit much more than the 5% someone else stated for a battle against BBs.

RevRick wrote:and before this goes on much longer, someone will have to take a look at their accuracy. If this had been for real in 1942 - we would still be arguing over the relative merits of sushi - but it would be in Japanese language school in Georgia.

Lots of things depends on how we use our resources. We really can't do 'historical', because in a way there is no such thing. Ofcource things did happen and there are numbers which show the results.

CV battles are good example about this, people demand historical about something that doesn't have good base to evaluate 'historical'.

As other players have told, Bettys are dangerous only if there is no CAP, or if they are having wery strong escorts... And even then usually US can achieve pretty good results if choosing right when to fight and when not...

Most dangerous thing in Bettys in my opinions is their long search range... And night bombing can be nuicance.

Hi all,

RevRick wrote: > This is, IMHO, exactly what we have in our UV.
>
> When properly used and under preferable circumstances the "Betty" / "Nell"
> can bring devastating blows to allied player.

What gripes me no end about the Uber Bettys is a three/four plane attack
against a 12-16 plane CAP unescorted which consistently, as in 65+ percent of
the time, gets two-four torpedo hits on ships in port, or at anchor. The four
plane raids escorted by 125 or so A6M variants is also relatively absurd in
that one must think that no one on board the ships shoots anything other than
spitwads at the Betty's because they also get the same number of hits in the
majority of cases. THere might be an excuse for that with the distraction of
other aircraft in the sky.

When I get a 50-75 plane raid, with squadron level Betty strength against a
moderate 25-50 plane CAP (If I am ever so fortunate to raise one at an early
stage of the game) I expect to absorb damage. I do NOT expect for the bloody
things to fly in unescorted, against a superior CAP, and fly away unscathed
with multiple hits. My uncle used to talk about them being the flying
cigarette lighter because all you had to do was make one pass on the thing
getting hits near the engine, and it was burning like a barn struck by
lightning.

In my UV experience I have also seen what you describe above:


#1 Unescorted Betty/Nell ship attack vs. enemy CAP

With small opposing enemy CAP (around 10) Betty/Nell bombers always do well
and can score hits but with 20+ enemy CAP I always saw massacre of Betty/Nell
bombers (I have seen 20-30 Betty/Nell losses in single attacks).

Please note that in UV there is 9 plane CAP "scare limit" for bombers (i.e. if
there is less than 9 enemy CAP present the bombers can and will go unescorted
and can easily pass the morale check for mission - Mogami told us that long
ago).

Also I remember reading that with 30x30 nm HEXes in UV the small CAP opposing
small number of attackers can result in almost no air combat at all (i.e.
reasoning that they simply missed each other).

IMHO, I find above situations quite acceptable playing as both Japanese or
Allied player in PBEM.


#2 Escorted Betty/Nell ship attack vs. enemy CAP

When Betty bombers are escorted (usually by strong Zero force) the enemy
defending CAP is really hard pressed especially if escorting fighters have 1:1
or advantage.

In such cases I always see that Betty/Nell bombers start ship attack almost
unscratched.

Again, IMHO, I find above situations quite acceptable playing as both Japanese
or Allied player in PBEM.


Also, let's not forget ship AAA that can further decimate the Betty/Nell
attack once they actually start their torpedo runs. With big AAA values on
Allied ships this can be devastating (and damaged Betty/Nell bombers many
times fail to return home especially if they are attacking long way from
home).


NOTE:
You mention "anchored" ships above. This is not correct since Betty/Nell
bombers can only attack enemy ships using "Naval Attack" with torpedoes when
they are at sea or docked/undocked in base.

When ships are at anchor this means that they are disbanded and the only way
to attack them is to use "Port Attack" (in that case Betty/Nell bombers only
use bombs and can not use torpedoes).

> But (there is always but) this "Betty" / "Nell" threat can be counter played
> by skilful allied player (using proper tactics/strategy).

Usually by attrition, and proper husbanding of fighter resources only.

Of course!

It's extremely hard to have Betty squadrons properly equipped (if you can have
them at 75% you are very lucky) and for Nell's it's hopeless (just 6
replacements per month)...

> Therefore, IMHO, the "Betty" / "Nell" long range torpedo bombers are no
> "uber weapons" in UV PBEMS and if allied player is good and Japanese player
> is to aggressive with them the results are always mass slaughter of "tinder
> stick" Japanese bombers.
>
> In other words - if allied player has proper CAP/LRCAP over his bases and
> TFs he is almost 99% safe...

In the words of the great Flabatt speaking ex-catherdra from his navel - BULL
ROAR!!! The only way to be 99% safe is if your CAP is F-16's before November
42, or if you sitting in port south of Townsville or Luganville.

I beg to disagree here...

The key here is IMHO:

#1
Allied player should never place his ships in Betty/Nell range unless his CAP
is stronger (or adequate) than possible Japanese escort that would come with
attacking Betty/Nell bombers.


#2
Japanese player should never use his Betty/Nell bombers unescorted and only
send them with proper escort able to overcome enemy CAP.

Japanese player should also make sure not to waste his valuable Betty/Nell
assets on futile and stupid attacks (like them attacking from Lunga against
few PG/PC ships at Noumea).


Yes... both #1 and #2 above are hard demands but they are achievable and
doable for both sides...


Leo "Apollo11"

Can someone tell me where to get some 'super' Betties?
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 07/24/42

Weather: Clear

Air attack on Luganville , at 53,53

Japanese aircraft
G3M Nell x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell x 1 damaged

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x G3M Nell at 3000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 53,66

Japanese Ships
SS I-29

Allied Ships
DD Wilkes, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Luganville at 53,53

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 12

Allied aircraft
P-400 Airacobra x 8

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty x 4 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 10 damaged


Allied Ships
CA Portland
DMS Hovey
DD MacDonough
DD Lang

Attacking Level Bombers:
2 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Wunpuko at 51,51

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 12
B5N Kate x 19

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N Kate x 3 destroyed
B5N Kate x 10 damaged


Allied Ships
CL Hobart
DD Morris
CA Astoria
DD Arunta
DD Henley


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Wunpuko at 51,51

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 17
G3M Nell x 4
G4M1 Betty x 21

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 destroyed
G3M Nell x 5 damaged
G4M1 Betty x 2 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 14 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat x 3 destroyed

ENS E. Kakimoto of F2/Tainan Daitai is credited with kill number 2

Allied Ships
DD Patterson
DD Maury
CA New Orleans
CA Astoria
CA Salt Lake City

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
1 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
1 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G3M Nell at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Wunpuko at 51,51

Japanese aircraft
G3M Nell x 4

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 9

no losses

no losses

Allied Ships
PG Tui, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

Attacking Level Bombers:
4 x G3M Nell at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Wunpuko at 51,51

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 13
B5N Kate x 11

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 10

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N Kate x 2 destroyed
B5N Kate x 10 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat x 3 damaged

Allied Ships
DD Henley
DD Bagley
CA New Orleans


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Wunpuko at 51,51

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 7
G3M Nell x 4
G4M1 Betty x 7

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 10

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell x 1 destroyed
G3M Nell x 3 damaged
G4M1 Betty x 2 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 4 damaged


Allied Ships
CL Hobart
DD Patterson
CA Astoria

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G3M Nell at 200 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Nevea

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 818 troops, 6 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 0 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles

Japanese assault odds: 26 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Nevea base !!!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There were a lot of aircraft flying around to put 2 torps into a PG!!

Note that most of the strikes were escorted and none of them ran into any large CAP.

Therefore, in my mind, there is no doubt at all that the concept of such very long range torpedo bomber was successful and when employed skilfully and under preferable circumstances (read no or weak enemy air opposition) they were very powerful.

I only agree with part of this statement. They should be effective against NO enemy aircraft opposition. Even against weak opposition they should be shot down in swarms and their accuracy should decline precipitously. Every unescorted Betty attack on a US TF with CAP resulted in the overwhelming slaughter of the Betties and little to no damage to the US. This started in February 1942 when Yorktown raided Rabaul. An 18 plane group of Betties went for Yorktown in the face of a 12-plane CAP. 15 Betties were destroyed and none of them scored a hit. The same lesson was repeatedly learned on and after August 1942 when Betties made runs on US TFs operating south of the Solomons and Santa Cruz Isl groups well outside the range of land based Zeroes. Again, the Betties were horrendously slaughtered, with proportional loss rates approaching 100% and no significant damage inflicted.

Betties should be tender and easy meat on the table unless they're escorted. When escorted, they should be easy to chew up in large numbers with the caveat that you will lose some F4Fs to the A6Ms while the F4Fs are wrecking up the Betties. Their effectiveness as ship killers only occurred when attacking unprotected (no CAP) vessels.

Hi, The problem with light CAP and Betty attacks is often the CAP does not make contact. When light CAP (9 or fewer fighters) Does make contack it does well. 2 P39D sqdns assigned 30 percent CAP will put up 12-14 AC (without radar) This has been enough for me to protect TF's from unescorted attacks. If I have radar and it works it results in slaughter of the Betty. Use the P-40 and F4F to protect bases in range of escorted strikes. You know when a TF will arrive (enter range of LRCAP) There is no need to fly at other times. The Japanese will make their airfield or port attacks at night when it is near impossible to stop. (Before the arrival of night fighters)
I admit I sometimes allow unescorted Betty attacks but there is no excuse for it.
Just having a CAP greater then 9 ac will prevent the majority. If the Japanese do attack they should most often be destroyed and score very few hits.
(48 P-39D have slaughtered every attack I've seen)

OK, I have seen a little of the Superbetty phenom now. Several airstrikes of unescorted Betties flying from Rabaul to Cairns, blowing past a 2:1 CAP set at 30% (2 radar sets in place, flown by well rested mean exp 69 pilots flying P39s) and sinking ships in the harbor. Thrice. In each case 18 approx Betties with casualties of "3 destroyed 13 damaged." Similar problems with greatly outnumbered Vals and Kates living longer than they should.

IMO the problem IS indeed the durability of Japanese a/c. The lack of self-sealing fuel tanks should not be considered a "lack of armor" it should be considered BOTH a lack of armor and a durability penalty.

In the real world, every time an unescorted Betty group ran into a fighter CAP it got slaughtered. On a mission of the range from Rabaul to Cairns I'd expect those destroyed vs damaged rates to be inverted from the results that I achieved. In effect -- 18 Betties raid, 13 destroyed, 3 damaged and mission abort.

This hasn't been a major strategic problem game wise. I'm just point out an obvious and egregious departure from historical likelihood. The Japanese stopped using Betties in unescorted airstrikes against targets likely ot have CAP in August 1942 because every time they tried, less than 10% of the airplanes launched returned from the mission.