Thoughts on 4-E effectiveness and PBEM restrictions for them?

[Grfin Zeppelin]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I have heard a lot of complaints about the power of 4Es from Japanese players. But have never heard of one complaining about the miracle of every betty and nell in the game having the ability to use torpedoes. Likewise, the Allies players are quick to defend the prowess of their mighty heavies but bemoan the killing power of said bettys and nells.....War is hell.[;)]

If you never have heard a Japanese player complain about Netties you dont read this forum at all. These are hands off the planes Japanese players complain the most about.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Yakface

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy




Yes. And when combined with the inappropriately accurate gunnery from the 4EBs, this was a doubly large problem.

Just because the CAP isn't hitting doesn't mean they aren't screwing up the aim.

Yes, but screwing up the aim at night is a pyrrhic victory when you lose many more fighters in A2A against the bombers than would ever be destroyed by the bombing.

non-night fighter shooting at bombers works fine - the game designers just forgot to reduce the effectiveness of the bomber's defensive fire at night. That makes it HR territory IMO

This is entirely untrue. You might lose 3-5 in the air, or you might lose 90 on the ground.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I have heard a lot of complaints about the power of 4Es from Japanese players. But have never heard of one complaining about the miracle of every betty and nell in the game having the ability to use torpedoes. Likewise, the Allies players are quick to defend the prowess of their mighty heavies but bemoan the killing power of said bettys and nells.....War is hell.[;)]

If you never have heard a Japanese player complain about Netties you dont read this forum at all. These are hands off the planes Japanese players complain the most about.

Looks like you misinterpreted his post, m'lady. He's been around.

I always wondered why B-25's were never fitted for torpedoes. I knew B-26s had been, but it turns out a version of the B-25 was fitted for torpedoes, but, IIRC never had an opportunity to use one.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I have heard a lot of complaints about the power of 4Es from Japanese players. But have never heard of one complaining about the miracle of every betty and nell in the game having the ability to use torpedoes. Likewise, the Allies players are quick to defend the prowess of their mighty heavies but bemoan the killing power of said bettys and nells.....War is hell.[;)]

If you never have heard a Japanese player complain about Netties you dont read this forum at all. These are hands off the planes Japanese players complain the most about.

Looks like you misinterpreted his post, m'lady. He's been around.

I always wondered why B-25's were never fitted for torpedoes. I knew B-26s had been, but it turns out a version of the B-25 was fitted for torpedoes, but, IIRC never had an opportunity to use one.

B-26b's were torpedo capable. But NOT in this game.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Anachro

What would your thoughts be on restricting 4-Es to, say, 20k+ altitude? Fair?

Not if they are painted Blue. But everybody seems to think Naval 4 engines were just B-24's painted blue. They weren't. They were Maritime Patrol bombers. Finding and sinking ships is what they did. But one has to pull teeth and cite 25 different sources to get anyone to acknowledge that here. [:(]

[geofflambert]

I tend to run them in at 10k. I get expected results with minimal flak loss over most targets. I see no valid reason to restrict them in any way.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I tend to run them in at 10k. I get expected results with minimal flak loss over most targets. I see no valid reason to restrict them in any way.

You are probably not going to be much use against naval targets at that altitude. I generally attack at 1,000 feet. But you can generally only expect decent results with crews that have been highly trained in low level naval attack. And at that altitude , you are going to take losses. That's the trade off. A B-24 is a big aircraft , and with all that AAA fire aiming at it , you will lose at a minimum 10%. Not to mention 30-40% of your aircraft will be damaged.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I have heard a lot of complaints about the power of 4Es from Japanese players. But have never heard of one complaining about the miracle of every betty and nell in the game having the ability to use torpedoes. Likewise, the Allies players are quick to defend the prowess of their mighty heavies but bemoan the killing power of said bettys and nells.....War is hell.[;)]

If you never have heard a Japanese player complain about Netties you dont read this forum at all. These are hands off the planes Japanese players complain the most about.

Sorry Countess , but I need to SLIGHTLY disagree on a minor, but significant point. Japanese players complain about how fragile these planes are, not their ability to inflict mayhem. But there are many accounts of crews hating the fact that "Betties" and "Nells" WERE extremely flammable. In boxing terms, you'd say that they were "long armed with a glass jaw". Deadly, but vulnerable.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I tend to run them in at 10k. I get expected results with minimal flak loss over most targets. I see no valid reason to restrict them in any way.

You are probably not going to be much use against naval targets at that altitude. I generally attack at 1,000 feet. But you can generally only expect decent results with crews that have been highly trained in low level naval attack. And at that altitude , you are going to take losses. That's the trade off. A B-24 is a big aircraft , and with all that AAA fire aiming at it , you will lose at a minimum 10%. Not to mention 30-40% of your aircraft will be damaged.

If you're attacking from 1000 with a B-24, you should pull the altitude up to 2000. Or am I incorrect in "remembering" that non-attack bombers conducting Low Ground attacks (as in, 1000 feet) have their payload cut in half?

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I have heard a lot of complaints about the power of 4Es from Japanese players. But have never heard of one complaining about the miracle of every betty and nell in the game having the ability to use torpedoes. Likewise, the Allies players are quick to defend the prowess of their mighty heavies but bemoan the killing power of said bettys and nells.....War is hell.[;)]

If you never have heard a Japanese player complain about Netties you dont read this forum at all. These are hands off the planes Japanese players complain the most about.

Sorry Countess , but I need to SLIGHTLY disagree on a minor, but significant point. Japanese players complain about how fragile these planes are, not their ability to inflict mayhem. But there are many accounts of crews hating the fact that "Betties" and "Nells" WERE extremely flammable. In boxing terms, you'd say that they were "long armed with a glass jaw". Deadly, but vulnerable.

And very slow. Like, TBD-slow.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I tend to run them in at 10k. I get expected results with minimal flak loss over most targets. I see no valid reason to restrict them in any way.

You are probably not going to be much use against naval targets at that altitude. I generally attack at 1,000 feet. But you can generally only expect decent results with crews that have been highly trained in low level naval attack. And at that altitude , you are going to take losses. That's the trade off. A B-24 is a big aircraft , and with all that AAA fire aiming at it , you will lose at a minimum 10%. Not to mention 30-40% of your aircraft will be damaged.

If you're attacking from 1000 with a B-24, you should pull the altitude up to 2000. Or am I incorrect in "remembering" that non-attack bombers conducting Low Ground attacks (as in, 1000 feet) have their payload cut in half?

I really don't know. I was going for accuracy vice bomb load. I'll try 2000' next time, thanks.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin



If you never have heard a Japanese player complain about Netties you dont read this forum at all. These are hands off the planes Japanese players complain the most about.

Sorry Countess , but I need to SLIGHTLY disagree on a minor, but significant point. Japanese players complain about how fragile these planes are, not their ability to inflict mayhem. But there are many accounts of crews hating the fact that "Betties" and "Nells" WERE extremely flammable. In boxing terms, you'd say that they were "long armed with a glass jaw". Deadly, but vulnerable.

And very slow. Like, TBD-slow.

Actually more like B-17 or B-24 slow. That's not too bad. Especially when dropping torpedoes. Even modern aircraft that drop torpedoes (like a P-3 or other MPA planes) need to slow down when dropping torpedoes, even when parachute equipped. [:)]

[geofflambert]

I never put B-17s or B-24s on Naval attack. I might have got some hits if they were doing Naval Search, but that would likely be at 6k. Maybe I should have used them more aggressively, likely I'll never know as I'm a Japanese player now.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I never put B-17s or B-24s on Naval attack. I might have got some hits if they were doing Naval Search, but that would likely be at 6k. Maybe I should have used them more aggressively, likely I'll never know as I'm a Japanese player now.

Oh NO! What did you do with "The Gorn Identity"?

[spence]

Picture of US Navy 4E attacking merchie. Just curious: how does one fit 10000 ft between the attacking plane (tiny dot up and to the left of the ship) and the ship?

USN planes were trained at the outset to conduct Naval Attack from the lowest possible level. The PB4Y2 had the belly turret and the turbochargers removed from their DESIGN because the USN was not a great fan of HIGH ALTITUDE PRECISION BOMBING. Not sure that the USN and the USAAF were all that close.

(Meanwhile IJA fighters providing close escort to IJN bombers is perfectly fine?)

[SheperdN7]

Geez, you've really opened a can of worms here Sean. I think 4E aircraft are more so deadly because of their durability and armour combination, not neccesarily their payload and "accuracy" of their payload hitting the target (which in this case is a ship).

Now I've never played more than a few turns as the allies, so I truly can't say how effective B-17's are at low level naval bombing but what I CAN say is that as a JFB when a restriction on 4E naval bombing altitude is placed at say 10000 feet, I feel a lot more confident in my convoys getting through than if there was no restriction.

Just a question though on the historical accuracy of low level naval bombing- the FW-200 Condor was a 4E aircraft that (I believe) was dominant at sinking allied merchant shipping. Now there is no way that a plane like that bombing from 10000 feet would achieve as many hits as they did. They would've had to have gone to a lower altitude to achieve such success.

My point is, if they did it in RL, why can't we do it in the game? All because its "too good"? Well, maybe it was "too good" in RL but they still did it.

[spence]

The point of the picture post was that the USN and the USAAF had entirely different perspectives on how to use a 4E or 2E bomber. The USAAF wanted to damage unmoving land targets and their concerns were enemy fighter defenses (not entirely realized prior to combat) and enemy flak (which was recognized as a hazard from the beginning). The USN wanted to sink ships which obviously were able to move and thus avoid hits. With such completely divergent aims why anybody imagines a different doctrine developing is beyond me.

[Yakface]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Yakface

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna




Just because the CAP isn't hitting doesn't mean they aren't screwing up the aim.

Yes, but screwing up the aim at night is a pyrrhic victory when you lose many more fighters in A2A against the bombers than would ever be destroyed by the bombing.

non-night fighter shooting at bombers works fine - the game designers just forgot to reduce the effectiveness of the bomber's defensive fire at night. That makes it HR territory IMO

This is entirely untrue. You might lose 3-5 in the air, or you might lose 90 on the ground.

90 - at night - you're kidding me. If that were the case there would be a much more serious problem with 4E: insane accuracy when bombing at night.

Whichever way round, there is a problem with the way the game handles the whole area of night bombing of ports/airfields. Just say no.

[geofflambert]

I've never done much night bombing on either side and don't plan to do it much unless I revert to being an Allied player. If you are doing strategic bombing it can make sense to do it at night. Tactical bombing at night is nearly worthless most of the time. It often (with 4Es) can be worthless in daylight. We need to stop arguing about nothing. 4Es are not good platforms for attacking ships regardless of altitude. There were atypical examples from history but they were atypical. The job of a plane with that much range is Naval Search until they are replaced with better planes. Those better planes will be a version of the B-24. You don't have the option of building more PBYs so there's no way round depending on 4Es to get the job done. If we could have PDU on for the Allied player and he could build 2 to 3 times as many PBYs, that would be very dangerous.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I've never done much night bombing on either side and don't plan to do it much unless I revert to being an Allied player. If you are doing strategic bombing it can make sense to do it at night. Tactical bombing at night is nearly worthless most of the time. It often (with 4Es) can be worthless in daylight. We need to stop arguing about nothing. 4Es are not good platforms for attacking ships regardless of altitude. There were atypical examples from history but they were atypical. The job of a plane with that much range is Naval Search until they are replaced with better planes. Those better planes will be a version of the B-24. You don't have the option of building more PBYs so there's no way round depending on 4Es to get the job done. If we could have PDU on for the Allied player and he could build 2 to 3 times as many PBYs, that would be very dangerous.

Boy I'd like to play against you. I think I'd have fun. [:D]