Allied LBA for Naval Operations

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

Malagant
Posts: 372
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 1:30 am

Allied LBA for Naval Operations

Post by Malagant »

I'm struggling to find an early war plane that can do anything but make splashes around Japanese shipping.

Of course A-24s do nicely, as do the Marine SBDs, but are there any Army planes that folks tend to have success with in either Naval or ASW roles?

Thanks!
"La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas!"
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations

Post by crsutton »

No ideal plane in the early going. Medium bombers at 1,000 feet vs light shipping but the 500 lb bombs won't do much against larger warships. Train them in low naval. For ASW, radar equipped planes are best but until you get them train anything in ASW. Including Whiraways, Vincents, and any other obsolete thing that carries bombs. They will help a little and provide you with a cadre of experienced pilots when you get better equipment. By mid war, all American Naval multi engine bombers and patrol planes have both radar and good bomb loads. They are all great for ASW. The Avenger has radar as well. Truly a very useful aircraft.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations

Post by geofflambert »

It's not the plane's fault, it's the air crews. They have to be trained properly and that's a lot of work for you. Also you need to train some for ASW. I like Marauders for that among others(not for training mind you). B-25s would be great against shipping.

User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7191
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations

Post by HansBolter »

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

It's not the plane's fault, it's the air crews. They have to be trained properly and that's a lot of work for you. Also you need to train some for ASW. I like Marauders for that among others(not for training mind you). B-25s would be great against shipping.

B-25s at 1000 ft. with adequately trained pilots( big caveat)are murder against unarmored shipping.
P39s at 100 ft. are just as dangerous to unarmored shipping.

Against armored warships the stringbags are actually the only real early war alternative to the dive bombers.

Hans

User avatar
GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm

RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations

Post by GreyJoy »

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

It's not the plane's fault, it's the air crews. They have to be trained properly and that's a lot of work for you. Also you need to train some for ASW. I like Marauders for that among others(not for training mind you). B-25s would be great against shipping.

B-25s at 1000 ft. with adequately trained pilots( big caveat)are murder against unarmored shipping.
P39s at 100 ft. are just as dangerous to unarmored shipping.

Against armored warships the stringbags are actually the only real early war alternative to the dive bombers.



B25s with good crews can easily sink even CAs. i've had many many CAs badly damaged (and even sunk) by low-running B25s with their 4x500lb bombsat 1000 feet
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations

Post by Lokasenna »

I use B-25s at 100 feet. Sank at least one "new" IJN CL that way not so long ago. A magazine explosion actually, IIRC, so perhaps not a fair comparison... but I believe they put a bad hurting on her sister ship at the same time.

Train for strafe when you attack at 100 feet. I used the attack bomber variant, B-25D1. Good guns on the front of it, too. And fast, so can punch through CAP (especially when there is no radar present).

P-39s, and to a lesser extent P-40s, also work on strafe. And later, when the Corsairs get bombs....
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations

Post by geofflambert »

I don't understand why they didn't make the B-25s torpedo capable, they certainly could carry the load.

User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations

Post by AW1Steve »

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I don't understand why they didn't make the B-25s torpedo capable, they certainly could carry the load.

In real life they couldn't. But the B-26 could. It can't in the game. Personally I blame the JFB Mafia! [:D][:D][:D](HUMOR FOLKS, I'm jest funnin'!!!) [:D][:D][:D]
User avatar
msieving1
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:24 am
Location: Missouri

RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations

Post by msieving1 »

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I don't understand why they didn't make the B-25s torpedo capable, they certainly could carry the load.

For the first half of the war, the Mark 13 torpedo was notoriously unreliable, and had to be dropped from about 50 feet altitude and 110 knots, which was hardly survivable in a two engine bomber. The USN had pretty much given up on the Mark 13 by 1943, only returning to it in the second half of 1944 after significant improvements had been made. The USAAF never had much interest in torpedoes.
-- Mark Sieving
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations

Post by Dili »

Because fighting ships is not in the first priorities in the mission of Army Air Force.
They had no interest into spending resources training crew on how to drop a torpedo, that is too specific and too seaborne for them.

We mere wargamers approach this issues as whole, they approach from the mission objective: Air Domination, Douhetian City bombing, Anti Air Mission, Army Support etc. Only in the last there is something for attacking ships.
After all the Navy has aircrafts too and it is their mission to fight other ships, not the Army Air Force.
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations

Post by Alfred »

ORIGINAL: Malagant

I'm struggling to find an early war plane that can do anything but make splashes around Japanese shipping.

Of course A-24s do nicely, as do the Marine SBDs, but are there any Army planes that folks tend to have success with in either Naval or ASW roles?

Thanks!

You should read posts #354-356 inclusive from this thread to understand how to use your airforce effectively.

tm.asp?m=2580654&mpage=12&key=naval%2Cattack&#2719225

Too often advice is given on airforce use which is not that useful.

Alfred
User avatar
Barb
Posts: 2503
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:17 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations

Post by Barb »

Also cost for producing a single aerial torpedo versus 4-6x 500 lbs GP bombs with correct timers against shipping would still be several times higher for torpedo...
Not to mention the work-hours, maintenance requirements and use - torpedo can be used only against ships, while with the 500 lbs GP it was the question of putting up a different fuse and you can use them for anything :D
Image
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: Dili

Because fighting ships is not in the first priorities in the mission of Army Air Force.
They had no interest into spending resources training crew on how to drop a torpedo, that is too specific and too seaborne for them.

We mere wargamers approach this issues as whole, they approach from the mission objective: Air Domination, Douhetian City bombing, Anti Air Mission, Army Support etc. Only in the last there is something for attacking ships.
After all the Navy has aircrafts too and it is their mission to fight other ships, not the Army Air Force.


And with the development of effective skip bombing tactics why would they want to invest in a much less reliable and more difficult way to attack shipping? Sinking capital ships was really the Navy's role.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations

Post by Dili »

Skip bombing is also an art in itself. I don't think there were much skip bombing compared to plain bombing.
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations

Post by geofflambert »

I always trained up crews on Naval bombing for the Banshees.

User avatar
Barb
Posts: 2503
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:17 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations

Post by Barb »

Army thought it could sink ships by sinking them from medium to high altitudes... (you know, the "hitting barrel by high altitude precision bombing"). Only realities of war showed these believes are not going to happen.
Image
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations

Post by wdolson »

Skip bombing was relatively easy to learn, though it took a bomber loaded for bear with lots of forward firing armament.

Overall, bombing proved to be much more effective against unarmored and lightly armored targets. VT-10 pioneered night bombing with TBFs at low altitude. They sank a lot of merchant ships with mast height bombing. Skip bombing for medium bombers was much more effective than torpedoes. Rockets also was better than the use of torpedoes for lightly and unarmored targets.

By late war the only reason for using torpedoes was going after heavily armored targets like battleships.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
jcjordan
Posts: 1900
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 8:00 am

RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations

Post by jcjordan »

IIRC the naval version of the Mitchell had the capabilities to carry a torpedo but by the time they came into service it just wasn't needed. In game they don't have that setting unless someone has modded it
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations

Post by Dili »

In the Mediterranean the rule for the RAF was anything less than 2000-3000t not to waste a torpedo. Obviously not always followed and several time mistaken too.
User avatar
Trugrit
Posts: 1186
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 12:31 pm
Location: North Carolina

RE: Allied LBA for Naval Operations

Post by Trugrit »

Late war the navy developed high altitude high speed torpedo drops.

They used wooden stabilizers!

You might find this video interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R552QfbD8AU

K
"A man's got to know his limitations" -Dirty Harry
Post Reply

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