H8K2's potential

[guctony]

I would like to ask for general consensus on H8K2.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/h8k.htm

In the spects its has 8x250 kg bombload. Which makes it the heaviest bomber in IJN arsenal. But I never seen it drop more then 2x250kg. Also being a recon plane it should have photo recon ability from the stock. If we can reach a general agreement I will plan to ask future opponents to modify H8K2 accordingly.

[spence]

In general, more bombs means less range. And a very important word modifying the word reconnaissance is MARITIME. In its primary role there was nothing to take pictures of except water. Its job was to find tiny needles in gigantic haystacks...endurance and range were the most important attributes.

[CT Grognard]

What spence said.

[CT Grognard]

Read about Operation K, where two H8K2s armed with four 250kg bombs each attempted a reconnaissance of Pearl Harbor and bombing of the repair yard in March 1942.

[obvert]

Also, most of the IJN recon designated planes don't have cameras built in until late, so it would be hard to justify this one having one. I'm sure this was done to approximate not only the ability of the various sides to acquire images but also how those were processed and used. The Allies simply had a better more efficient and respected system of utilizing recon, sigint and other information and putting it into practice.

The Japanese actually made better cameras and had better lens technology, so it's the only thing I can think of for why the recon planes like the Dinah and Babs would not have a camera (but an Ida would!).

Before thinking this should have more bomb load, think about the max load of a B-17, then look at it's in game load. Also all 4E designed to use in patrols over large bodies of ocean have a reduced load when compared to similar or identical models intended for land targets.

[wdolson]

Sea planes were fairly vulnerable to damage. A few relatively minor flak holes in the hull could result in a loss of the plane upon landing. They were also expensive to build and they were the only ultra long range aircraft available for most of the war.

Using them offensively was fairly rare. The use of PBYs as night raid bombers, the Black Cats was an exception rather than the rule. Wear and tear on the airframes proved to be very high.

The Japanese attempted to harass Pearl Harbor and gain some intelligence with sea planes (Operation K), but when the USN occupied their refueling station at French Frigate Shoals, that plan pretty much died after one attempt.

That's the only time I know of that Emilys were used offensively. They may have been used occasionally for nighttime harassment missions, but it was rare.

Players tend to use sea planes ahistorically in game anyway. I don't think anything should be done to encourage that.

Bill

[guctony]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Sea planes were fairly vulnerable to damage. A few relatively minor flak holes in the hull could result in a loss of the plane upon landing. They were also expensive to build and they were the only ultra long range aircraft available for most of the war.

Using them offensively was fairly rare. The use of PBYs as night raid bombers, the Black Cats was an exception rather than the rule. Wear and tear on the airframes proved to be very high.

The Japanese attempted to harass Pearl Harbor and gain some intelligence with sea planes (Operation K), but when the USN occupied their refueling station at French Frigate Shoals, that plan pretty much died after one attempt.

That's the only time I know of that Emilys were used offensively. They may have been used occasionally for nighttime harassment missions, but it was rare.

Players tend to use sea planes ahistorically in game anyway. I don't think anything should be done to encourage that.

Bill

For history oriented games You are 100% right I can not argue with that. But when few house rules and more game playing comes forward. I think it can be done

Guctony

[Stvitus2002]

Players tend to use sea planes ahistorically in game anyway

I tried this with two squadrons of H8K's based at Andaman island,approx. 30 AC.
A night port raid on Columbo at 7000ft,recon showed many ships in port,but
no hits were scored for a loss of 14 AC and some very experienced pilots.

An expensive lesson. I leave the Emily's where they belong, on Patrol & ASW missions.


WO 0/0

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Warrant officer 0/0

Players tend to use sea planes ahistorically in game anyway

I tried this with two squadrons of H8K's based at Andaman island,approx. 30 AC.
A night port raid on Columbo at 7000ft,recon showed many ships in port,but
no hits were scored for a loss of 14 AC and some very experienced pilots.

An expensive lesson. I leave the Emily's where they belong, on Patrol & ASW missions.


WO 0/0

I've had the opposite experiance. Floatplanes on naval attack almost never miss.

[EHansen]

I thought that float planes and patrol aircraft were two different types of aircraft?

[John 3rd]

I've seen more then a few Allied players use their PBY as TT carriers and they have paid a heavy price for that. The Emily as a Torp platform is magnificent but would be horrifically vulnerable as well.

[Lokasenna]

In my game with Bullwinkle, PBYs are mediocre. They've gotten some hits with torpedoes.

More deadly, and it seems something may be wacky with the code, are the USN floatplanes with 2x 250-lb. bombs. Frequently, if I leave any xAKs (or even DMSes!) around with no CAP, Kingfishers and Seagulls will plant bomb after bomb square on every ship in sight. Typical hit rate is around 66% of the raid's entire bomb load [X(].

Makes you play a little differently, that's for sure. The rest of you AFBs need to learn this. Maybe there'd be less whinging about early war Japanese benefits [;)].

[guctony]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I've seen more then a few Allied players use their PBY as TT carriers and they have paid a heavy price for that. The Emily as a Torp platform is magnificent but would be horrifically vulnerable as well.

well H8K2 has a potential usage time and area. around mid 1942 to 1943. But when you know that you will throw anything you find to the wall in 1944 and 1945 its hard to resist throwing earlier. One of the earliest throw is H8K2.

It has decent range, defensive power,load capacity, etc. Infact In my current game one of them hit a lone BB early on the game. I also use it as a affective airlift unit.

I could prefer 50 H8K2 to 200 G4. I think reluctant Admiral could mass produce H8K2 instead of G3 for example.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

In my game with Bullwinkle, PBYs are mediocre. They've gotten some hits with torpedoes.

More deadly, and it seems something may be wacky with the code, are the USN floatplanes with 2x 250-lb. bombs. Frequently, if I leave any xAKs (or even DMSes!) around with no CAP, Kingfishers and Seagulls will plant bomb after bomb square on every ship in sight. Typical hit rate is around 66% of the raid's entire bomb load [X(].

Makes you play a little differently, that's for sure. The rest of you AFBs need to learn this. Maybe there'd be less whinging about early war Japanese benefits [;)].

Glad it's not just me that thinks this. If my IJN Kate pilots struggle to put a bomb on a destroyer, then there's no way low-skilled floatplane pilots should be able to either.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Sea planes were fairly vulnerable to damage. A few relatively minor flak holes in the hull could result in a loss of the plane upon landing. They were also expensive to build and they were the only ultra long range aircraft available for most of the war.

Using them offensively was fairly rare. The use of PBYs as night raid bombers, the Black Cats was an exception rather than the rule. Wear and tear on the airframes proved to be very high.

The Japanese attempted to harass Pearl Harbor and gain some intelligence with sea planes (Operation K), but when the USN occupied their refueling station at French Frigate Shoals, that plan pretty much died after one attempt.

That's the only time I know of that Emilys were used offensively. They may have been used occasionally for nighttime harassment missions, but it was rare.

Players tend to use sea planes ahistorically in game anyway. I don't think anything should be done to encourage that.

Bill

Don't forget the PBY's and "The Kiska Blitz". [:D]

[spence]

Glad it's not just me that thinks this. If my IJN Kate pilots struggle to put a bomb on a destroyer, then there's no way low-skilled floatplane pilots should be able to either.

The horizontal bombing of ships from 10000 feet was not particularly successful for either side. The IJN put 50 horizontally bombing B5Ns over Pearl Harbor where they had tactical surprise and non-moving targets (at 9000 ft altitude). They got 10 hits (and six were for all practical purposes duds although one exploded with spectacular results on USS Arizona).

IJN pilots gained a wealth of experience dropping bombs on virtually undefended cities in the China War. For the overwhelming majority their first real "war shots" occurred on Dec 7th 1941. That applies to their battle experience dropping bombs or torpedoes. In point of fact the majority of the IJN pilots experience consisted of what they were trained to do. For B5Ns bombing training consisted of dropping from multiple thousand feet while flying horizontally.

For US patrol/float plane pilots bombing training consisted of dropping from several hundred feet (as opposed to several thousand feet). The type of attack was a shallow diving attack termed a "masthead attack". The name pretty much says just how high these guys were when they passed over their targets. As a rule of thumb they were taught a one to one correspondence between the pounds of the bomb and the feet of altitude from which it needed to be dropped: 100 lb from 100 feet, 250 lb bomb from 250 feet, 500 lb bomb from 500 feet. They got the hits because they were lower and the ship had much less time to move out of the way.

[geofflambert]

Don't forget another capability of the Emily. It's capacity to carry supplies and/or troops (troops who lack heavy equipment) is prodigious. That alone requires one to think about just using them as trainers until you need them for another purpose, a special operation perhaps. Use Bettys, Nells, Babs or Dinahs to do most of your naval search (along with Jakes and Alfs of course).

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: spence

Glad it's not just me that thinks this. If my IJN Kate pilots struggle to put a bomb on a destroyer, then there's no way low-skilled floatplane pilots should be able to either.

The horizontal bombing of ships from 10000 feet was not particularly successful for either side. The IJN put 50 horizontally bombing B5Ns over Pearl Harbor where they had tactical surprise and non-moving targets (at 9000 ft altitude). They got 10 hits (and six were for all practical purposes duds although one exploded with spectacular results on USS Arizona).

IJN pilots gained a wealth of experience dropping bombs on virtually undefended cities in the China War. For the overwhelming majority their first real "war shots" occurred on Dec 7th 1941. That applies to their battle experience dropping bombs or torpedoes. In point of fact the majority of the IJN pilots experience consisted of what they were trained to do. For B5Ns bombing training consisted of dropping from multiple thousand feet while flying horizontally.

For US patrol/float plane pilots bombing training consisted of dropping from several hundred feet (as opposed to several thousand feet). The type of attack was a shallow diving attack termed a "masthead attack". The name pretty much says just how high these guys were when they passed over their targets. As a rule of thumb they were taught a one to one correspondence between the pounds of the bomb and the feet of altitude from which it needed to be dropped: 100 lb from 100 feet, 250 lb bomb from 250 feet, 500 lb bomb from 500 feet. They got the hits because they were lower and the ship had much less time to move out of the way.

So you're telling me that the pre-war USN pilots station in the Phillipines and DEI were trained enough to get approx 66% hit rates on Japanese ships at the outbreak of war? Was this training pre-war, or developed during it?

Sorry, but no. It's a qurik in the games code. If the pilots LowNav skills were high enough (to cover the training you mention), I'd understand, but not at average 25 skill levels.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: spence

Glad it's not just me that thinks this. If my IJN Kate pilots struggle to put a bomb on a destroyer, then there's no way low-skilled floatplane pilots should be able to either.

The horizontal bombing of ships from 10000 feet was not particularly successful for either side. The IJN put 50 horizontally bombing B5Ns over Pearl Harbor where they had tactical surprise and non-moving targets (at 9000 ft altitude). They got 10 hits (and six were for all practical purposes duds although one exploded with spectacular results on USS Arizona).

IJN pilots gained a wealth of experience dropping bombs on virtually undefended cities in the China War. For the overwhelming majority their first real "war shots" occurred on Dec 7th 1941. That applies to their battle experience dropping bombs or torpedoes. In point of fact the majority of the IJN pilots experience consisted of what they were trained to do. For B5Ns bombing training consisted of dropping from multiple thousand feet while flying horizontally.

For US patrol/float plane pilots bombing training consisted of dropping from several hundred feet (as opposed to several thousand feet). The type of attack was a shallow diving attack termed a "masthead attack". The name pretty much says just how high these guys were when they passed over their targets. As a rule of thumb they were taught a one to one correspondence between the pounds of the bomb and the feet of altitude from which it needed to be dropped: 100 lb from 100 feet, 250 lb bomb from 250 feet, 500 lb bomb from 500 feet. They got the hits because they were lower and the ship had much less time to move out of the way.

Right, but within the game engine...~30-40 skill in NavB Kingfisher/Seagull pilots getting so many hits against moving targets at sea? Comparable to ~70 skill TB pilots? I still think something's fishy in the floatplane NavB code or something.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: spence

Glad it's not just me that thinks this. If my IJN Kate pilots struggle to put a bomb on a destroyer, then there's no way low-skilled floatplane pilots should be able to either.

The horizontal bombing of ships from 10000 feet was not particularly successful for either side. The IJN put 50 horizontally bombing B5Ns over Pearl Harbor where they had tactical surprise and non-moving targets (at 9000 ft altitude). They got 10 hits (and six were for all practical purposes duds although one exploded with spectacular results on USS Arizona).

IJN pilots gained a wealth of experience dropping bombs on virtually undefended cities in the China War. For the overwhelming majority their first real "war shots" occurred on Dec 7th 1941. That applies to their battle experience dropping bombs or torpedoes. In point of fact the majority of the IJN pilots experience consisted of what they were trained to do. For B5Ns bombing training consisted of dropping from multiple thousand feet while flying horizontally.

For US patrol/float plane pilots bombing training consisted of dropping from several hundred feet (as opposed to several thousand feet). The type of attack was a shallow diving attack termed a "masthead attack". The name pretty much says just how high these guys were when they passed over their targets. As a rule of thumb they were taught a one to one correspondence between the pounds of the bomb and the feet of altitude from which it needed to be dropped: 100 lb from 100 feet, 250 lb bomb from 250 feet, 500 lb bomb from 500 feet. They got the hits because they were lower and the ship had much less time to move out of the way.

So you're telling me that the pre-war USN pilots station in the Phillipines and DEI were trained enough to get approx 66% hit rates on Japanese ships at the outbreak of war? Was this training pre-war, or developed during it?

Sorry, but no. It's a qurik in the games code. If the pilots LowNav skills were high enough (to cover the training you mention), I'd understand, but not at average 25 skill levels.

So I understand what you're saying and I think I may have a work around for you, unless you already know it. I was having a similar experience and all I started doing was accompanying TF that weren't well escorted with a CS or AV that could fly Petes on CAP. They don't seem to shoot down any opponents but they keep the seaplanes/floatplanes off your back. Of course don't operate them within range of fighter coverage.[:-]