Flying Boats (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message


WO Katsuki -> Flying Boats (8/13/2012 10:21:17 PM)


my opponent has a corps of PBY flying boats operating out of manila, sinking tons of my transports around luzon,

and it seems that my sallies can't take them out (both airfield and port attack don't do any damage, and yes the PBYs are stood down for the day (they didn't have any targets left) I sent 100 sallies for 3 days an no hits scored. the airbase has 100 dmg and all the warhawks were destroyed, but no catalinas

are flying boats invulnerable on the ground?




Yaab -> RE: Flying Boats (8/13/2012 10:47:45 PM)

Are they ever on the ground?




WO Katsuki -> RE: Flying Boats (8/13/2012 10:51:41 PM)


seem to be on Naval Torpedo mode, waiting for my transports to come around, lost a pile of transports to the 2xMark 13 wielding PBYs

guess he's using B-17s for Nav search




bk19@mweb.co.za -> RE: Flying Boats (8/13/2012 11:15:22 PM)

Flying boats are generally not parked on the ground....

Hint here is in the name.....

They fly and land on water....





jmalter -> RE: Flying Boats (8/13/2012 11:27:22 PM)

being water-based, they seem to be 'protected' to an extent, an airfield attack generally will not target them, and they can continue to fly when the airfield is 100% suppressed. also it seems that they draw on land-based AVsupport, if naval AVsupport from AVD/AVP ships has been destroyed.





oldman45 -> RE: Flying Boats (8/14/2012 12:29:03 AM)

I wonder if fighters at 100ft doing a port attack would have any effect?




foliveti -> RE: Flying Boats (8/14/2012 3:33:05 AM)

Try giving your transports fighter cover. The flying boats get chopped up pretty quickly if you have fighters covering them. Perhaps you are trying to move forward a little too quickly if you can't give them land based or carrier based fighter cover.




Icedawg -> RE: Flying Boats (8/14/2012 3:28:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: foliveti

Try giving your transports fighter cover. The flying boats get chopped up pretty quickly if you have fighters covering them. Perhaps you are trying to move forward a little too quickly if you can't give them land based or carrier based fighter cover.


+1

Also, airfield attacks can work. In my game against Khyberbill, I destroyed a few and damaged a ton "on the ground" (actually, in the water). He had about 90 of them (according to recon) at Batavia. I hit the airfield with about 100 Netties based at Singkawang. For a couple of consecutive turns, I got combat reports showing 3 or 4 destroyed and about 20 damaged.




TheLoneGunman -> RE: Flying Boats (8/14/2012 4:43:11 PM)

Setting up LRCAP of a juicy bait TF of xAKs and xAKLs is always a good way to get the PBYs to stop attacking. Make sure you calculate how far you need to be to keep his own fighters out of escort range.




kbfchicago -> RE: Flying Boats (9/22/2012 3:24:59 PM)

I've used this PBY technique...much to the annoyance of my worthy IJN opponent who would much rather use his fighters to protect his stikes or sweep the skies. It stops when the transports get any kind of figther protection, at that point the PBYs migrate South (stay'n alive...as the song goes...) and fall back into NavSearch mode. I have lost float planes in airbase attacks, can not recall loosing any in port attacks...although you do lose the AV spt ships. They do seem to transparently "share" between AV ship type and land base support. Since floats are not tied to runways on land I can see where Manila keeps'em flying even though the runways are cratered.

Kevin




crsutton -> RE: Flying Boats (9/22/2012 5:03:21 PM)

I would suggest to your opponent that you limit these attacks. Otherwise you and he will find that your emily flying boats are even more deadly at this sort of thing than his catalinas and can return the favor. Either way works.




Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Flying Boats (9/22/2012 5:14:03 PM)


flying boats' main weakness is their low speed, so they suffer against flak + fighters

but their payload will do heavy damage




Dili -> RE: Flying Boats (9/22/2012 8:59:14 PM)

Gamey.




Joe D. -> RE: Flying Boats (9/22/2012 9:10:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

being water-based, they seem to be 'protected' to an extent, an airfield attack generally will not target them, and they can continue to fly when the airfield is 100% suppressed. also it seems that they draw on land-based AVsupport, if naval AVsupport from AVD/AVP ships has been destroyed.


So port attacks are useless as well?




LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Flying Boats (9/22/2012 10:01:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Gamey.


Not quite. Asiatic Fleet Cats were used for naval strikes in the opening days (no other planes available), albeit usually armed with bombs and not torps.

By Dec 13th, 11 out of 28 Cats had been lost to AA and CAP - so LRCAP your convoys and the threat should diminish.

Maybe use of air torps should be limited to Naval Air HQs, so Far East USAAF HQ would not be able to supply torps to those Cats.




Biggus63 -> RE: Flying Boats (9/23/2012 4:47:33 AM)

I dont see it as all that gamey. They have the capability do to so even if it's not standard doctrine. Much innovation in warfare has to do with thinking outside the box and I don't see it as gamey in the sense that using B-17s for skip bombing would be. If an opponent used it against me I'd regard it as a legitimate tactic and take steps to counter it. If that's gamey then so is using Japanese subs against commerce targets.




jmalter -> RE: Flying Boats (9/23/2012 5:25:03 AM)

i've had some success at sinking Mavis FPs w/ combined airfield/port bombing, but those kills didn't start happening until their base AF/P was pert' near 100% ruined. i assume they were damaged planes that couldn't repair b/c of trashed airfield service facilities. even so, those losses accrued slowly, mebbe 1 destroyed every 3 days.

has anyone had success w/ strafing/low-ground attacks vs. either the port or airfield, to sink FPs?




mike scholl 1 -> RE: Flying Boats (9/23/2012 8:40:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Gamey.



I shouldn't think so..., it's exactly the doctrine that the "Black Cats" used so successfully in the Central/South Pacific later in the war. Or by "gamey" do you mean helps the Allies rather than the Japanese? [8|]




RisingSun -> RE: Flying Boats (9/23/2012 10:42:52 AM)

Sometimes they are on the ground for repairs and upgrade. So normally they park in the water near the piers, docks, etcs.




Dili -> RE: Flying Boats (9/23/2012 12:31:11 PM)

I mean the crews were not trained in torpedoing and even if they did in real life the planes couldn't have the outstanding success levels we see in game.

For a successful torpedoing aircraft it implies that a plane must be maneuverable at low level to make corrections at last minute. Mavis, PBY's, Emilies had nothing for it. The Italians hated the S.84 that was supposed to replace the S.79 because of that and it was certainly still a better plane for torpedoing than a PBY. Even the Albacore was considered not a good improvement over Swordfish. Also the crews should be trained exclusively in torpedoing and units should be exclusive for that propose to have consistent results.

It was an error in WITP AE to have the bombers with same maneuverability in all altitude bands.




Chickenboy -> RE: Flying Boats (9/23/2012 1:10:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Biggus63

I dont see it as all that gamey. They have the capability do to so even if it's not standard doctrine. Much innovation in warfare has to do with thinking outside the box and I don't see it as gamey in the sense that using B-17s for skip bombing would be. If an opponent used it against me I'd regard it as a legitimate tactic and take steps to counter it. If that's gamey then so is using Japanese subs against commerce targets.

+1.

If his torpedo cats bother you, bait 'em, shoot 'em down with CAP or bomb them on the ground. In the early months, Allied Catalinas are a scarcity, he's very shortsighted if he's using up his reserves to knock off a few xAKs.

Then you can return the favor with your H8K1s.




Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Flying Boats (9/23/2012 5:45:52 PM)


quote:

a plane must be maneuverable at low level to make corrections at last minute. Mavis, PBY's, Emilies had nothing for it



not true.

a flying boat normally has a low wing loading, as it needs a low landing speed to land on water (technically it makes a belly crash landing)

compare Mavis 100 kg/m2 , Emily 150kg/m2, PBY 120 kg/m2

to the TBF Avenger's 180 kg/m2



the large wing area makes flying boats slow

compare with the B-26 marauder 230kg/m2, the secret to its speed was the small wing area (and thus low drag)

would say, according to your logic the B-26 would be an awful torpedo plane


heavy does not mean unmaneouverable, what matters is weight per wing area

for example the Avro Vulcan could run circles around the F-104 starfighter in a horizontal dogfight




Dili -> RE: Flying Boats (9/23/2012 5:49:40 PM)

quote:

according to your logic the B-26 would be an awful torpedo plane


It was.




btbw -> RE: Flying Boats (9/23/2012 6:01:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf


according to your logic the B-26 would be an awful torpedo plane


How many ships sunk by B-26 as torpedo bomber?




Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Flying Boats (9/23/2012 6:02:10 PM)


would say low speed and unreliable torpedoes are what made the PBY a bad torpedo plane

good turn rate doesnt help when zeroes and AA are taking you apart at 100 feet, at 100 mph




Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Flying Boats (9/23/2012 6:05:00 PM)


if mvr was important for torpedo planes, and you may be right, then PBY and Emily had no trouble in that category

Avenger was way less maneouverable, and it did okay




btbw -> RE: Flying Boats (9/23/2012 6:11:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf


if mvr was important for torpedo planes, and you may be right, then PBY and Emily had no trouble in that category

Avenger was way less maneouverable, and it did okay

Mvr dont affect only by wing load. It hard for make a tricks when u have 2-4 jumbos on wing.
Just try compare two torpedo bombers - Swordfish and Marauder. Good luck with trying score any hits on last plane which perfect as you think for torpedo bombing)




Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Flying Boats (9/23/2012 6:34:54 PM)



agree that its easier to maneouver into position in a swordfish than a marauder,
then you agree that low wing loading = high mvr


what would I prefer if i was forced at gunpoint to fly one of those into enemy flak + fighters?


B-26 with 300mph speed and heavy armor, will possibly survive (Battle of Midway)

Swordfish at 100mph, will sing waltzing matilda while you are crashing in the sea (Breakout of Scharnhorst)



Emily I would fly out of my own free will

high speed, low wing loading, durable


emily was so good because of its engines (1850 hp),

it was able to compensate for the penalties of being a flying boat, unlike Sunderland (1000 hp)


catalina would have been good if the war started in 1935 (weak fighters and flak), and it used reliable british Mk12 torpedoes





btbw -> RE: Flying Boats (9/23/2012 6:46:14 PM)

Flak it good answer on question why Avenger was born. Japan lost moment when targetted ship can kill outdated plane before plane going on last stage of attack (where need to have lowest speed and high mvr) and lost war because only a few planes can penetrate enemy defense and try score a hit.
So good torpedo bomber still must had lowest speed and good maneur, but have enough durability.
Marauder with too big lowest speed and low maneur cannot score any hits as torpedo bomber even with good durability.




mike scholl 1 -> RE: Flying Boats (9/24/2012 9:00:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

would say low speed and unreliable torpedoes are what made the PBY a bad torpedo plane
good turn rate doesn't help when zeroes and AA are taking you apart at 100 feet, at 100 mph


What "unreliable torpedoes"? Those were the Mk Xiv Submarine torpedoes that had all the problems. And the discussion was about PBY's operating at night, so WHAT "zeroes" do you refer too?




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.246094E-02