Skip Bombing PORT attacks - very truly effective , maybe a bit too...

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
cverbrug
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Belgium

Skip Bombing PORT attacks - very truly effective , maybe a bit too...

Post by cverbrug »

Hi all,

We just had a thread about low lew naval attacks, seems that the game deals different with low level port attacks...

In our game we had a few low level 100ft port attacks with 4EB and 2EB's.
As far as I can see the bomb load in these attacks was not halved, and the results are impressive, especially for the 4E bombers.
Not only you get sometimes 7 out of the 8 bombs one single plane is carying hitting 3 different targets (yes the same plane hitting 3 different targets), it seems also impossiibe to stop these 100fr flying AC with CAP

For low level (100ft) naval attacks there has been a patch to(partly) solve issues these kind of 100 ft attacks were too effective (like halving the bomb load..etc).

See the reports below, of a few of these port attacks at 100 ft.

OUR QUESTION:
*do other players also experience port attacks a bit too effective to be realistic, or is the game working now as it should be?
*what ways could there be to balance this, in terms of a new patch or house rules
*Is there an argument in halving the bomb load for naval attacks at sea and not for attacks versus ships in port ?

Combat Reports:
Morning Air attack on Hong Kong , at 77,61

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 15 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 3
Ki-44 Tojo x 5



Allied aircraft
A-29A Hudson x 5
DB-3M x 3
B-17E Fortress x 9


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
DB-3M: 1 destroyed
B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
xAKL Shingetsu Maru
BB Fuso, Bomb hits 8, on fire
xAK Soyo Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
BB Ise, Bomb hits 7, on fire
DD Tachikaze, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
xAK Kamoi Maru
xAK Atlas Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
xAK Anyo Maru, Bomb hits 1

Japanese ground losses:
23 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
Vehicles lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)



Port hits 7

Aircraft Attacking:
5 x A-29A Hudson bombing from 100 feet *
Port Attack: 2 x 250 lb GP Bomb
1 x DB-3M bombing from 100 feet *
Port Attack: 5 x 100 kg GP Bomb
2 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 100 feet
Port Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 100 feet
Port Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
47th I.F.Chutai with Ki-44 Tojo (5 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(3 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead
24th Sentai/B with Ki-27b Nate (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 9000
Raid is overhead


Morning Air attack on Hong Kong , at 77,61

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 33 NM, estimated altitude 6,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 1
Ki-44 Tojo x 2



Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 9


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 3 damaged

Japanese Ships
CL Kitakami, Bomb hits 2
BB Fuso, Bomb hits 10, heavy fires
BB Ise, Bomb hits 9, heavy fires
xAK Maya Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
xAK Keisho Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire



Port hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
5 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 100 feet
Port Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
4 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 100 feet
Port Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
24th Sentai/B with Ki-27b Nate (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters to 4000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 106 minutes
47th I.F.Chutai with Ki-44 Tojo (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 1 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 5000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 31 minutes


Morning Air attack on Batangas , at 79,78

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 18 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 6



Allied aircraft
Hudson I x 24
P-40E Warhawk x 13


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Hudson I: 1 destroyed, 6 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed

Japanese Ships
CL Oi, Bomb hits 6
CA Chokai, Bomb hits 5, on fire
CL Natori, Bomb hits 4
CM Tsubame
xAKL Kumakawa Maru
xAK Oigawa Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
TB Tomozuru, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk

Japanese ground losses:
23 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled



Port hits 1
Port fuel hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x Hudson I bombing from 100 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
5 x Hudson I bombing from 100 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
3 x Hudson I bombing from 100 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
7 x P-40E Warhawk strafing at 100 feet

CAP engaged:
Tainan Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 6 on standby, 0 scrambling)
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 8 minutes

Morning Air attack on Hong Kong , at 77,61

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 23 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 10
Ki-44 Tojo x 5



Allied aircraft
A-29A Hudson x 3
DB-3M x 2
B-17E Fortress x 3


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
DB-3M: 1 destroyed
B-17E Fortress: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Ise, Bomb hits 2
BB Fuso, Bomb hits 3



Port hits 4
Port fuel hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 100 feet
Port Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
10th I.F.Chutai with Ki-27b Nate (8 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(8 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 9000
Raid is overhead
47th I.F.Chutai with Ki-44 Tojo (5 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(3 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead
24th Sentai/B with Ki-27b Nate (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 9000
Raid is overhead

Morning Air attack on Hong Kong , at 77,61

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 7
Ki-44 Tojo x 5



Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 8


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 3 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Fuso, Bomb hits 13, on fire
BB Ise, Bomb hits 12, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Yugumo, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CL Tama, Bomb hits 1



Port hits 3
Port fuel hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
2 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 100 feet
Port Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 100 feet
Port Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 100 feet
Port Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
10th I.F.Chutai with Ki-27b Nate (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 5000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 32 minutes
47th I.F.Chutai with Ki-44 Tojo (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 2 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 4000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 39 minutes

Morning Air attack on Batangas , at 79,78

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 14 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 15



Allied aircraft
Hudson I x 21
P-40E Warhawk x 12


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Hudson I: 3 destroyed, 6 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed

Japanese Ships
CA Chokai, Bomb hits 8
xAP Hikawa Maru, Bomb hits 1
CL Natori, Bomb hits 1
CL Oi, Bomb hits 6
DD Samidare, Bomb hits 1
xAK Sydney Maru #2
PB Kiso Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CM Tsubame, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk



Port hits 2
Port fuel hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x Hudson I bombing from 100 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
6 x Hudson I bombing from 100 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
6 x Hudson I bombing from 100 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
Tainan Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (1 airborne, 4 on standby, 10 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 33 minutes

As can be seen none of the bomb loads, neither te 4EB or the 2 EB are halved. One can argue about the realism for the halving, as the flight is not entirely at 100ft, and this is a port attack, so hitting a sitting duck is not that hard. A clear rule would benefit gameplay/balance.

Thx .
Christophe
Image
User avatar
m10bob
Posts: 8583
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 9:09 pm
Location: Dismal Seepage Indiana

RE: Skip Bombing PORT attacks - very truly effective , maybe a bit too...

Post by m10bob »

I can see one thing that might justify a bomb hitting more than one target.
In an enclosed port like Simpson Harbor, the ships might be close enough that an explosion on a ship might touch off other explosions on near-by ships?
The real life damage and blast area of a 500 or 1000 pound bomb is pretty remarkable.
Image

User avatar
cverbrug
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Belgium

RE: Skip Bombing PORT attacks - very truly effective , maybe a bit too...

Post by cverbrug »

as you can see the combar report concerns the very large port of Signapore which has naval yards, drydocks, archipelago, a very big bay,...but thats not really the main question, we are most concerned with the effectiveness of low level port attacks...is it like it should be (or not)...
Image
Moss Orleni
Posts: 201
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:36 am

RE: Skip Bombing PORT attacks - very truly effective , maybe a bit too...

Post by Moss Orleni »

Hi all,

Some additional information:
The attacks were carried out by heavy/medium bombers operating from Clark Field at normal range (15 hexes to Hong Kong, 2 hexes to Batangas).
In both cases no AA fire was encountered.
Ops losses (maintenance and repairs) are not visible in the report, but were pretty standard for this type of attacks (heavy bombers, AF 8, air HQ present, no shortage of supplies and aviation support).

Our PBEM game was started at the time using only one HR: no strategic bombing till July 1943. No other house rules are used.
Our opponent would like to add a HR restricting 4E low level attacks (not only skip bombing) because he believes the attacks below are unrealistic, gamey and not WAD.

IMO the most important questions are (numbered for your convenience [:)]):

1) Given the parameters of the attacks (ie air/ground protection, weather, attacking and defending aircraft types, numbers of CAP/Escorts/Bombers...), would you consider the results to be realistic?
2) Should low level port/air/ground attacks be governed by the same rules as low level naval (ie skip bombing) attacks in term of accuracy, reduced bomb loads and/or house rules?
3) In our game, given the house rules we accepted at the start of the PBEM, would you consider the attacks to be gamey and should we consider adding a new house rule at this point of the game?
4) Assuming that no rules are changed/house rules are added, what would be the best way to counter/mitigate the effects of these attacks? (fi putting up more CAP, more AA, not leaving capital ships in ports in normal range of major enemy air concentrations, ...)

All opinions are highly appreciated!
Cheers,

Moss

User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Skip Bombing PORT attacks - very truly effective , maybe a bit too...

Post by LoBaron »

Generally speaking I would implement a HR to forbid skip bombing with 4E´s.
 
Wasn´t really done historically.
Image
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: Skip Bombing PORT attacks - very truly effective , maybe a bit too...

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Generally speaking I would implement a HR to forbid skip bombing with 4E´s.

Wasn´t really done historically.


but invented by them? Would be the same as to restrict Betties from torp attacks I guess. They flew torp attacks but probably only 0.5% (?) of their attacks were flown with torps. Now tell me the % of torp attacks in the game. Asking this as a JFB.
Moss Orleni
Posts: 201
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:36 am

RE: Skip Bombing PORT attacks - very truly effective , maybe a bit too...

Post by Moss Orleni »

Note: the issue here is low level port attack, more specifically its effects under the circumstances decribed above.

Cheers,

Moss
David The Great
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:27 am

RE: Skip Bombing PORT attacks - very truly effective , maybe a bit too...

Post by David The Great »

In this case they were bombing Hong Kong with the ships docked. I think skip bombing is not the question against stationary targets in port ?
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Skip Bombing PORT attacks - very truly effective , maybe a bit too...

Post by LoBaron »

ORIGINAL: castor troy
ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Generally speaking I would implement a HR to forbid skip bombing with 4E´s.

Wasn´t really done historically.


but invented by them? Would be the same as to restrict Betties from torp attacks I guess. They flew torp attacks but probably only 0.5% (?) of their attacks were flown with torps. Now tell me the % of torp attacks in the game. Asking this as a JFB.


I agree with you, my suggestion referred to game balance though. Betties don´t get through thick CAP in serious numbers without escorts. Allied 4E´s do.
Image
Moss Orleni
Posts: 201
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:36 am

RE: Skip Bombing PORT attacks - very truly effective , maybe a bit too...

Post by Moss Orleni »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I agree with you, my suggestion referred to game balance though. Betties don´t get through thick CAP in serious numbers without escorts. Allied 4E´s do.

In this case, the issue is B-17E performing 100ft port attcaks against no AA and modest CAP.
Any thoughts on this (see my 4 questions above)?

Cheers,

Moss
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Skip Bombing PORT attacks - very truly effective , maybe a bit too...

Post by LoBaron »

No I would not consider it gamey because you did not have a HR for such occasions, but taking into account that the majority of bomb hits
(that would have to be verified through the combat replay though) were made by 4eng I would consider it a bit too extreme to be realistic, 
absence of AA and only light CAP for sure helped the results.

When not adding HR´s the best solution would be not to park major combatants in range of 4eng bombers. Increasing AAA and upping CAP will help but not
prevent those attacks IMO.

Image
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: Skip Bombing PORT attacks - very truly effective , maybe a bit too...

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

No I would not consider it gamey because you did not have a HR for such occasions, but taking into account that the majority of bomb hits
(that would have to be verified through the combat replay though) were made by 4eng I would consider it a bit too extreme to be realistic, 
absence of AA and only light CAP for sure helped the results.

When not adding HR´s the best solution would be not to park major combatants in range of 4eng bombers. Increasing AAA and upping CAP will help but not
prevent those attacks IMO.


The results do appear out of line with history, but parking major combatant in range of 4E bombers was not considered a good idea.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
User avatar
cverbrug
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Belgium

RE: Skip Bombing PORT attacks - very truly effective , maybe a bit too...

Post by cverbrug »

Thx Herwin,
I agree with it not being a good idea, but as these 4E bombers have a very long range, are able to fly even further on extended, such kind of very effetive results, would render 50% of the ports unusuable, especially if this becomes a turn-after-turn tactive of the allied player. I launched the question to see if the game engine is dealing with this appropriately and what could be done in future on this with a parch or balanced house rules (apart from closing down half of the ports in range of such 4E bombers of course)
Image
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: Skip Bombing PORT attacks - very truly effective , maybe a bit too...

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: cverbrug

Thx Herwin,
I agree with it not being a good idea, but as these 4E bombers have a very long range, are able to fly even further on extended, such kind of very effetive results, would render 50% of the ports unusuable, especially if this becomes a turn-after-turn tactive of the allied player. I launched the question to see if the game engine is dealing with this appropriately and what could be done in future on this with a parch or balanced house rules (apart from closing down half of the ports in range of such 4E bombers of course)

It actually was a tactic of the Allies. 4E attacks on a Japanese naval base usually resulted in the ships being pulled out. (See Mark Herman's essay on smothering tactics. He also has some very interesting postings on his blog.) It didn't take much.

The problems with low-level attacks were four: defending AA, bomb blast radius, pilot error, and most importantly, barrage balloons. At 500 feet, everything could hit the aircraft. The average angular miss distance was a few mils, which meant an aircraft filling the sights was going to be hit. Second--and this was a major problem at Ploesti--the blast radius of a heavy bomb was sufficiently large that no more than one bomber could follow a given path through the target safely. Following bombers were vulnerable to the blast of bombs dropped earlier. Third, take off and landing are the riskiest parts of a flight. Low-level flight at 200 mph (about 300 ft/sec) meant that a pilot error could easily translate into controlled flight into ground. Finally, and most importantly, barrage balloons (at a height of 5000 feet) were usually deployed around a naval base.

In game terms, no port attack should be allowed below 6000 feet.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: Skip Bombing PORT attacks - very truly effective , maybe a bit too...

Post by Alfred »

ORIGINAL: Moss Orleni
1) Given the parameters of the attacks (ie air/ground protection, weather, attacking and defending aircraft types, numbers of CAP/Escorts/Bombers...), would you consider the results to be realistic?

Not too many instances historically where major ports which housed major assets and were within range of enemy air, were left with no AA and only token CAP. So neither your opponent or yourself can fall back on the realistic argument to justify the action.

2) Should low level port/air/ground attacks be governed by the same rules as low level naval (ie skip bombing) attacks in term of accuracy, reduced bomb loads and/or house rules?

This is really a matter for the game engine. The fact that you started off with only one HR makes this question redundant.

3) In our game, given the house rules we accepted at the start of the PBEM, would you consider the attacks to be gamey and should we consider adding a new house rule at this point of the game?

Not gamey at all because firstly it is consistent with what was decided at the beginning, and secondly there are several counter measures available to your opponent. Having accepted to play the game with only one HR (no strategic bombing before mid 1943) it is incumbant upon him to come up with the appropriate tactical countermeasures, which in truth are not difficult to find and implement.

4) Assuming that no rules are changed/house rules are added, what would be the best way to counter/mitigate the effects of these attacks? (fi putting up more CAP, more AA, not leaving capital ships in ports in normal range of major enemy air concentrations, ...)

It really should not be up to you to tell your opponent how to counteract your tactic. But FYI some of the obvious tactics which could be employed are:

(a) bomb Clark Field. There are only a limited number of airfields in the Philippines which can sustain B-17 operations
(b) place AA and some proper CAP/LRCAP at the sites. Really if your opponent is unwilling to take sensible defensive measures, it does leave me wondering how competent a commander he is. It should be assumed that any base within range of the enemy can always be subject to attack
(c) turn the ports into ambush/attrition sites by withdrawing most of the ships but leaving something of limited value to encourage Allied attacks. The Chinese bombers have no replacements (the Hudsons do but only from August 1942) and the B-17E have limited replacements. Just using them on operations will reduce the number of available aricraft. Also they consume a lot of supplies so what is more important to the Allied position, bombing low value IJN ships in port or lengthening the siege on Luzon
(d) move the capital ships to safety. Once Clark Field falls Japanese ports will be out of range of B-17Es. This is another reason why you should not introduce a HR which really results from only a single transitory tactical consideration


Alfred
User avatar
m10bob
Posts: 8583
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 9:09 pm
Location: Dismal Seepage Indiana

RE: Skip Bombing PORT attacks - very truly effective , maybe a bit too...

Post by m10bob »

I think the key word here is "port"..Immovable targets.
Two days after the allies landed at Humboldt Bay near Hollandia, a single Japanese bomber managed to evade CAP and dropped a single string of bombs which destroyed the equivelant of 12 LST's of supplies and caused 125 casualties, (more than the number during the actual landing.)
The fires burned for four days.
Image

User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Skip Bombing PORT attacks - very truly effective , maybe a bit too...

Post by Nikademus »

SAIEW. Port attacks have always allowed too many hits on anchored ships while often hitting the port facilities at the same time. low level/skip bombing attacks only exaserbate existing condition.
User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7314
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: Skip Bombing PORT attacks - very truly effective , maybe a bit too...

Post by Q-Ball »

I have to agree with herwin here. 4E Port attacks should be effective, because they were IRL. But LOW-LEVEL ones shouldn't be; there were piles of reasons those would not be attempted. I would restrict them to above 6K ft, but otherwise 4Es should be able to Port Attack.

Don't park ships within 4E range is the moral of the story. When 1945 rolls around you probably don't have a choice, but that's a different story.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Skip Bombing PORT attacks - very truly effective , maybe a bit too...

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: Moss Orleni


1) Given the parameters of the attacks (ie air/ground protection, weather, attacking and defending aircraft types, numbers of CAP/Escorts/Bombers...), would you consider the results to be realistic?

Seems to be at the high-end of realistic at best, probably somewhat unrealistic. An important question that must be answered by the developers is: Where do these results fall into the range of possible results in the game engine? If these results are at the extreme, then we might just get these results rarely and live with them. If these results are in the middle of the curve, then we need to be concerned and either look to a patch or house rules.

2) Should low level port/air/ground attacks be governed by the same rules as low level naval (ie skip bombing) attacks in term of accuracy, reduced bomb loads and/or house rules?

No. Ship in ports are almost always stationary, and that's a major difference. Furthermore the defender has lots of options available to him: Barrage balloons are modeled (no player action needed), AA in any quantity should be devastating as even .50 cal type weapons will be well within range, fighters. Ports with major concentrations of ships need major protection or they are at risk.

However, I personally would be extremely unlikely to send 4EB's in at 1,000 ft. Sending them in at 100ft? I won't say there would never be such a desperate situation, but it would be holy cow-unlikely.

Such low level attacks by 2EB's (and all 1E planes) are most definitely fair game.

4EB's I think of as down to 6,000 ft (but usually higher against land targets, and a port should be protected like a land target). The naval 4EB's have a lot of historical use down to 500-1,000 ft, so I'm fine with them down to say 1,000 ft but only against soft naval targets (not bristling AA platforms).

I doubt the issue you've encountered would come up in my game because of my personal positions on using bombers.


3) In our game, given the house rules we accepted at the start of the PBEM, would you consider the attacks to be gamey and should we consider adding a new house rule at this point of the game?

House Rules are like underwear - what fits you and is comfortable might not do for someone else.

4) Assuming that no rules are changed/house rules are added, what would be the best way to counter/mitigate the effects of these attacks? (fi putting up more CAP, more AA, not leaving capital ships in ports in normal range of major enemy air concentrations, ...)

All 3 that you said: AA, CAP, get out o' Dodge! These were the historical problems to be addressed/lived with. There is also attacking the bomber bases, capturing the bomber bases, etc.

I disagree with herwin about no 4EB below 6,000 because barrage balloons are modeled in the game and people reports seeing the messages when planes hit them/their cables.
Central Blue
Posts: 695
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 5:31 pm

RE: Skip Bombing PORT attacks - very truly effective , maybe a bit too...

Post by Central Blue »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Generally speaking I would implement a HR to forbid skip bombing with 4E´s.

Wasn´t really done historically.

Actually it was. The first skip bombing tests in the Fifth Air Force were by B-17's of the 43rd Bomb Group flying night missions against the port of Rabaul.

The main reason it wasn't common early in the war was because of the shortage of heavies, and later the adoption of specially outfitted bombers like the A-20's and B-25, and their closer proximity to Japanese shipping http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/Books/Rodman/rodman.pdf

Aside from port attacks, skip-bombing/low-leval attack was later practiced by Navy Privateers and at night by specially equipped squadrons of B-24's. http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/EA ... june96.htm

The 308th Bomb Group specialized in low level attacks on shipping as described in their second DUC: http://books.google.com/books?id=Ndt0h2 ... &q&f=false

The primary deterrent to the use of this tactic is the shortage of heavies and trained pilots and their need for use in other roles. Secondly, the Japanese player should expect the tactic, and plan accordingly. I don't see the need for a house rule on low-level bombing missions, or skip bombing, for 4E bombers till one of the air devs steps forward and says there really ought to be a universal house rule because they just couldn't get it to work right.



USS St. Louis firing on Guam, July 1944. The Cardinals and Browns faced each other in the World Series that year
Image
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”