2Es and air support in PTO

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
Leandros
Posts: 1934
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:03 pm
Contact:

RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO

Post by Leandros »

Certainly, but what do we say to the original poster's question: Is it according to RL to use the 2E bombers for ground (close air) support?

I have just gone through Kenney's book: "General Kenney Reports". Such use is mentioned often, but, as I have mentioned in a previous posting, I believe these missions have been much over-shadowed by the spectacular anti-shipping and airfield-cleaning missions, because those were easier to quantify.

Just my opinion.

I would like to add to another opinion aired here, that ground (close air) support was not flown because of losses
incurred in low-level strafing and bombing. I dare say that naval (destroyers and merchants) and airfield targets
were usually better defended than troops in the field.

Fred
River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D3 ... rw_dp_labf
User avatar
Leandros
Posts: 1934
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:03 pm
Contact:

RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO

Post by Leandros »

ORIGINAL: wdolson

My father rode in the nose with a 35mm motion picture camera, but it was common for them to fly the glass nose planes with the nose empty. Along with the seat for the bombardier, there was also 4X 0.50 machine guns in the nose. My father said almost every B-25 he saw in the Pacific had the glass nose with the 4X 0.50s as well as the package guns on the side. This was true when flying with both the 5th and 11th AFs.

Bill

Kenney also mentions, as do books about Pappy Gunn, that the dorsal turrets on the modified B-25s could be locked
forward to increase the fire-power in strafing attacks. Even so, it was still operated by its gunner.

Fred
River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D3 ... rw_dp_labf
User avatar
LargeSlowTarget
Posts: 4800
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France

RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO

Post by LargeSlowTarget »

ORIGINAL: Leandros

Certainly, but what do we say to the original poster's question: Is it according to RL to use the 2E bombers for ground (close air) support?

I have just gone through Kenney's book: "General Kenney Reports". Such use is mentioned often, but, as I have mentioned in a previous posting, I believe these missions have been much over-shadowed by the spectacular anti-shipping and airfield-cleaning missions, because those were easier to quantify.

Just my opinion.

I would like to add to another opinion aired here, that ground (close air) support was not flown because of losses
incurred in low-level strafing and bombing. I dare say that naval (destroyers and merchants) and airfield targets
were usually better defended than troops in the field.

Fred

The answer is "Yes, but...".

2Es certainly have been used for ground support, both in the direct CAS and the indirect interdiction / battlefield isolation / softening-up roles.

But the role emerged and evolved during the war and single-engine planes proved to be better suited while 2Es were more profitably used in other roles, like low-level attacks on ships and airfields, or attacks on LOCs and supply dumps. The quantity of ground support missions compared to other missions - no idea.

Now, the game does not distinguish between direct and indirect ground support and has no dedicated mission for the interdiction of LOC / supply distribution - only the supply hits when attacking bases. Attacking ground forces in or near a contested hex would qualify as direct and indirect ground support. However, pounding an enemy LCU to dust which is located far away from friendly ground forces has no real equivalent IRL.
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO

Post by wdolson »

ORIGINAL: wdolson

My father rode in the nose with a 35mm motion picture camera, but it was common for them to fly the glass nose planes with the nose empty. Along with the seat for the bombardier, there was also 4X 0.50 machine guns in the nose. My father said almost every B-25 he saw in the Pacific had the glass nose with the 4X 0.50s as well as the package guns on the side. This was true when flying with both the 5th and 11th AFs.

Bill
ORIGINAL: Leandros
Kenney also mentions, as do books about Pappy Gunn, that the dorsal turrets on the modified B-25s could be locked
forward to increase the fire-power in strafing attacks. Even so, it was still operated by its gunner.

Fred

The top turret was moved forward on the B-25 with the H version to make it easier for the top gunner to use his turret guns in the strafing role.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
Leandros
Posts: 1934
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:03 pm
Contact:

RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO

Post by Leandros »

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I have never read about B-17s skip bombing operationally. They had the maneuverability, but by the time they started skip bombing B-17s were too valuable for the recon and long range bombing role.

Bill

Kenney wrote (April 1943):

"ON ARRIVAL in Brisbane, I learned that Whitehead
really had been going to town during the past few days
attacking Jap shipping in Kavieng. The B-17s had been skip-bombing
the Nip vessels right in the harbour itself in broad
daylight and, without losses to themselves, had sunk or badly
damaged a heavy cruiser, two light cruisers, three destroyers
and two transports".

April 14th:

"Four of our B-17s managed to get through to Hansa Bay,
where they made three skip-bombing hits on a Jap cargo vessel
and sent it to the bottom, The cargo had probably been
unloaded but that was one more vessel the Nips couldn’t use
again".

Fred
River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D3 ... rw_dp_labf
User avatar
Barb
Posts: 2503
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:17 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO

Post by Barb »

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Thanks for all your replies.

Now I am confused. When B-25s or A-20s were called for a close ground support mission, they didn't bomb in formation, right? Their approach was probably more like the one used against ships and airfields - coming down low in groups of two or three? Single runs maybe? Because in the game you just a have this box formation of i.e 12 x B-25 pummeling LCUs as if they were bombing a strategic target.

No confusion necessary here. It all depends on target and attack profile.

E.G.: Target A - being a supply dump/troop camp/airfield in the rear - Attack profile can be either medium altitude bombing and/or strafing attack. In the case of medium altitude bombing the planes usually flew in formation. On low level strafing attack they formed a line to cover both target and flanks to suppress flak by machine gun fire and cover the target by parachute-retarded bombs to avoid skipping them around.

E.G.: Target B - being a pesky gun firing from a cave on a hill on a friendly troops - attack profile would call for either gliding approach by single planes in a row - strafing in and trying to put bomb directly the cave, or a low level approach by single planes in a row trying to skip-bomb into the entrance (if possible by terrain). Each time the planes would be strung out to approach well after the previous bomb to explode.

Target A being area target well away from friendly troops, with shortest possible exposure to AA fire and wide coverage by both MG fire and bombs.
Target B being near front line requiring accuracy while lengthening the exposure along the same approach path.

Game is not really that accurate to portray the specifics... LCU is LCU, whenever it contains a battalion of Guns, Infantry Division or few squads.
Image
User avatar
LargeSlowTarget
Posts: 4800
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France

RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO

Post by LargeSlowTarget »

ORIGINAL: Leandros
ORIGINAL: wdolson

I have never read about B-17s skip bombing operationally. They had the maneuverability, but by the time they started skip bombing B-17s were too valuable for the recon and long range bombing role.

Bill

Kenney wrote (April 1943):

"ON ARRIVAL in Brisbane, I learned that Whitehead
really had been going to town during the past few days
attacking Jap shipping in Kavieng. The B-17s had been skip-bombing
the Nip vessels right in the harbour itself in broad
daylight and, without losses to themselves, had sunk or badly
damaged a heavy cruiser, two light cruisers, three destroyers
and two transports".

April 14th:

"Four of our B-17s managed to get through to Hansa Bay,
where they made three skip-bombing hits on a Jap cargo vessel
and sent it to the bottom, The cargo had probably been
unloaded but that was one more vessel the Nips couldn’t use
again".

Fred

Anything written by Kenney should be taken with a generous dose of salt. Air Forces are known for over-claiming, and in this regard the 5th AAF was second only to the Japanese.
User avatar
Leandros
Posts: 1934
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:03 pm
Contact:

RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO

Post by Leandros »

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget


Anything written by Kenney should be taken with a generous dose of salt. Air Forces are known for over-claiming, and in this regard the 5th AAF was second only to the Japanese.

Over-claiming is a well-known "thing" with Kenney and his flyboys, but not necessarily type, or number, of missions
flown. A skip-bombing mission is a skip-bombing mission whatever the results, which was my point on this occasion.

Fred

River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D3 ... rw_dp_labf
adarbrauner
Posts: 1510
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:40 am
Location: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy

RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO

Post by adarbrauner »

As stated by Leandros and Buckrock, I also know that B 25s in particular were extensively used in direct, low altitude ground support/bombing/strafing in New Guinea...and at times, B 24 even...


BBFanboy: the way ground attack is (ab)used, in any altitude higher than 6-7 k feet, isn't fair neither realistic, in my opinion by any side which implements it.
adarbrauner
Posts: 1510
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:40 am
Location: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy

RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO

Post by adarbrauner »

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: crsutton


Yes, I know it was done. I have read about B17s skip bombing as well. Does that mean it was standard? The question is not about strafing ground units or bases in a tactical role but close air support. Two different things in my mind.

I have never read about B-17s skip bombing operationally. They had the maneuverability, but by the time they started skip bombing B-17s were too valuable for the recon and long range bombing role.

Bill


Well I think they were used...in the New Britain anti shipping operations, and extensively as well, I think.


For example against a famous and ill-fated resupply convoy from Rabaul to somewhere in eastern New guinea, at the end of 1943. Need to dig for some more details...
User avatar
LargeSlowTarget
Posts: 4800
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France

RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO

Post by LargeSlowTarget »

Not doubting that B-17s have been used for skip-bombing. Actually the 63rd Bomb Suadron equipped with B-17s pioneered this tactic. However, it was quickly found that the B-17s did not have enough forward-firing guns for flak suppression, plus there were not enough heavies available anyway. Kenney and Pappy Gunn then had the idea to modify B-20s and B-25s into strafers. They got a squadron of each just in time for the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, and the B-17s were withdrawn from skip-bombing missions. So yes, skip-bombing with a handful of B-17s did happen a few times - but that's about it.
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: crsutton


Yes, I know it was done. I have read about B17s skip bombing as well. Does that mean it was standard? The question is not about strafing ground units or bases in a tactical role but close air support. Two different things in my mind.

I have never read about B-17s skip bombing operationally. They had the maneuverability, but by the time they started skip bombing B-17s were too valuable for the recon and long range bombing role.

Bill

Bill, that was kind of a tongue and cheek reference. There actually was a recount from an early B17 pilot of him using a B17 for skip bombing but it is the only one that I know of. I vaguely remember threads from way back where the subject was hotly debated in the forum and this references was thrown out a few time as proof but of course was the only reference ever presented..

Oh no, I have read on in the thread and see that I have resurrected this monster....[X(]
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: 2Es and ground support in PTO

Post by geofflambert »

I have never heard of planes being used for ground support. What does the ground need support for anyway? And why would planes (1E, 2E or 4E) be any good at it? Did they bury B-25s anywhere they encountered quicksand? Why not use a C-47 instead?

User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO

Post by Lowpe »

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Oh no, I have read on in the thread and see that I have resurrected this monster....[X(]

As long as LST doesn't change his avatar, all is good.[:)]
User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5041
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO

Post by Yaab »

Laughing, huh?

Well, my head hurts right now. I have been trying to come up with some house rules concerning 2E medium bombers on Ground Attack mission. Here it is:

- found several instances of 2Es attacking "troop concentrations". These troops would be probably best represented by LCUs put in Reserve mode. Alas, there is no way of telling them from LCUs in Combat mode. Thus, my idea is to restrict the 2Es to attacking spotted LCUs in hexes in which no combat takes place. Basically , if an Allied unit is fighting a Jap unit in hex A, and in hex B there is a Jap unit, then this unit is treated as a troop concentration and is an elligible target for 2Es. Bombing would take place from the medium altitude of 10,000-15,000 feet like any other precision attack against bridges, railway stations, marshalling yards, dumps etc. performed in RL. The altitude band should stop this mission from turning itself into another CAS mission. This should also tie recon aircraft to 2Es more. Recons will scout the hexes beyond the front line in search of troop concentrations. The whole thing will probably work best on the Asia's mainland. We have 2Es with crew of 5-7 people and they have to be used conservatively.

-unglazed B-25s, A-20s and A-26s are exempt from this rule and can attack LCUs in hexes where combat takes place. They can attack LCUs from any altitude from 100 feet to the max available altitude. Here the crews range from 2-5 people, but aircraft are specfiically modified for the CAS role.

-LCUs in hexes where combat takes place can be attacked by fighters/fighter-bombers/dive bombers/light bombers. This is the dangerous CAS mission performed by aircraft with crews of 1-3 people max. Pilots are expendable, and the airframes are easy to replace.

Why all this?

1.Use the aircraft in their historic role, even though the game gives you the option to "powergame" and fly the hordes of 2E and 4Es at 6000 feet and pummel LCUs fighting in the hex without a single fratricide casualty in the entire war.

2.Limit the number of LCU casualties from air attacks. Let players experience frustration when strafing and bombing runs only kill a handful of the enemy in the hex when land combat takes place. Sort of like in the RL.

3.Make the land war more dependent on infantry, tanks and artillery. You do not have your 2Es on CAS anymore, you can bombard with arty, wait for Oscars and SBD to save the day[8|] or bring more LCUs to win the battle.

4. Slow down the operational tempo early war, which should pick up in 1944 when aircraft have more powerful bombs.

5. Encourage multi-skill training for army and navy pilots in support of ground operations.

User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Laughing, huh?

Well, my head hurts right now. I have been trying to come up with some house rules concerning 2E medium bombers on Ground Attack mission. Here it is:

- found several instances of 2Es attacking "troop concentrations". These troops would be probably best represented by LCUs put in Reserve mode. Alas, there is no way of telling them from LCUs in Combat mode. Thus, my idea is to restrict the 2Es to attacking spotted LCUs in hexes in which no combat takes place. Basically , if an Allied unit is fighting a Jap unit in hex A, and in hex B there is a Jap unit, then this unit is treated as a troop concentration and is an elligible target for 2Es. Bombing would take place from the medium altitude of 10,000-15,000 feet like any other precision attack against bridges, railway stations, marshalling yards, dumps etc. performed in RL. The altitude band should stop this mission from turning itself into another CAS mission. This should also tie recon aircraft to 2Es more. Recons will scout the hexes beyond the front line in search of troop concentrations. The whole thing will probably work best on the Asia's mainland. We have 2Es with crew of 5-7 people and they have to be used conservatively.

-unglazed B-25s, A-20s and A-26s are exempt from this rule and can attack LCUs in hexes where combat takes place. They can attack LCUs from any altitude from 100 feet to the max available altitude. Here the crews range from 2-5 people, but aircraft are specfiically modified for the CAS role.

-LCUs in hexes where combat takes place can be attacked by fighters/fighter-bombers/dive bombers/light bombers. This is the dangerous CAS mission performed by aircraft with crews of 1-3 people max. Pilots are expendable, and the airframes are easy to replace.

Why all this?

1.Use the aircraft in their historic role, even though the game gives you the option to "powergame" and fly the hordes of 2E and 4Es at 6000 feet and pummel LCUs fighting in the hex without a single fratricide casualty in the entire war.

2.Limit the number of LCU casualties from air attacks. Let players experience frustration when strafing and bombing runs only kill a handful of the enemy in the hex when land combat takes place. Sort of like in the RL.

3.Make the land war more dependent on infantry, tanks and artillery. You do not have your 2Es on CAS anymore, you can bombard with arty, wait for Oscars and SBD to save the day[8|] or bring more LCUs to win the battle.

4. Slow down the operational tempo early war, which should pick up in 1944 when aircraft have more powerful bombs.

5. Encourage multi-skill training for army and navy pilots in support of ground operations.


It is not so much the casualties-although that can be an issue. It is the ability of both sides to put in a massive land bombing attack that lay on so much disruption onto a stack of infantry that they just cave and are defeated. Happens all the time with the Allies in 42 and then Japan later on. But at least both sides can exploit it.
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: 2Es and ground support in PTO

Post by geofflambert »

ORIGINAL: Yaab
then this unit is treated as a troop concentration and is an elligible target for 2Es.

A single man is an eligible target for 2Bs, 2Cs and 2Ds. He is not eligible to become the letter L. If there is such a thing as a 2E I need to know where to find it. Please advise.

User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 19692
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: Yaab
then this unit is treated as a troop concentration and is an elligible target for 2Es.

A single man is an eligible target for 2Bs, 2Cs and 2Ds. He is not eligible to become the letter L. If there is such a thing as a 2E I need to know where to find it. Please advise.
The width measurement for my shoe size is 3E, so there must be some 2Es out there somewhere. On ponies, maybe? I think only geese and gorns get 4Es.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5041
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO

Post by Yaab »

Uhm, second thought. The 10,000 - 15,000 feet for 2ES attacking LCUs in non-combat hexes may be too restrictive. I am thinking of lowering it to 6,000 feet, the last altitude band for GrnB skill.

BTW, if interdiction mission is defined as battlefield isolation, then, when you fight in a one-hex island hex, the isolation thing is attacking ships with supplies and LCU reinforcements.
User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5041
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: 2Es and ground support in PTO

Post by Yaab »

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Laughing, huh?

Well, my head hurts right now. I have been trying to come up with some house rules concerning 2E medium bombers on Ground Attack mission. Here it is:

- found several instances of 2Es attacking "troop concentrations". These troops would be probably best represented by LCUs put in Reserve mode. Alas, there is no way of telling them from LCUs in Combat mode. Thus, my idea is to restrict the 2Es to attacking spotted LCUs in hexes in which no combat takes place. Basically , if an Allied unit is fighting a Jap unit in hex A, and in hex B there is a Jap unit, then this unit is treated as a troop concentration and is an elligible target for 2Es. Bombing would take place from the medium altitude of 10,000-15,000 feet like any other precision attack against bridges, railway stations, marshalling yards, dumps etc. performed in RL. The altitude band should stop this mission from turning itself into another CAS mission. This should also tie recon aircraft to 2Es more. Recons will scout the hexes beyond the front line in search of troop concentrations. The whole thing will probably work best on the Asia's mainland. We have 2Es with crew of 5-7 people and they have to be used conservatively.

-unglazed B-25s, A-20s and A-26s are exempt from this rule and can attack LCUs in hexes where combat takes place. They can attack LCUs from any altitude from 100 feet to the max available altitude. Here the crews range from 2-5 people, but aircraft are specfiically modified for the CAS role.

-LCUs in hexes where combat takes place can be attacked by fighters/fighter-bombers/dive bombers/light bombers. This is the dangerous CAS mission performed by aircraft with crews of 1-3 people max. Pilots are expendable, and the airframes are easy to replace.

Why all this?

1.Use the aircraft in their historic role, even though the game gives you the option to "powergame" and fly the hordes of 2E and 4Es at 6000 feet and pummel LCUs fighting in the hex without a single fratricide casualty in the entire war.

2.Limit the number of LCU casualties from air attacks. Let players experience frustration when strafing and bombing runs only kill a handful of the enemy in the hex when land combat takes place. Sort of like in the RL.

3.Make the land war more dependent on infantry, tanks and artillery. You do not have your 2Es on CAS anymore, you can bombard with arty, wait for Oscars and SBD to save the day[8|] or bring more LCUs to win the battle.

4. Slow down the operational tempo early war, which should pick up in 1944 when aircraft have more powerful bombs.

5. Encourage multi-skill training for army and navy pilots in support of ground operations.


It is not so much the casualties-although that can be an issue. It is the ability of both sides to put in a massive land bombing attack that lay on so much disruption onto a stack of infantry that they just cave and are defeated. Happens all the time with the Allies in 42 and then Japan later on. But at least both sides can exploit it.

In the game, all 2Es are idle, because there is no interdiction missions for them, so you pound LCUs with them. It sucks, it is unrealistic, it is game-breaking etc. Wish 2Es could at least target those immune oil/resources or inflict friendly casualties when on CAS missions. More house-rules than clicks. Meh.
Post Reply

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