Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? - 2/7/2014 3:07:55 PM   
grisouille

 

Posts: 612
Joined: 6/7/2007
Status: offline
Dear all

I play a Dababes C scen 30 as the japanese player (we are playing the first of january 1942). My opponent used his level bomber/recco planes in naval attack at 1000 feet, and they are deadly. The Catalina seems to have a very good accuracy - it's a naval killer with more than 10 xAK sunk in one month. He used even the A24 Banshee not in a dive role, but as a level bomber at 1000 feet (accurracy of 50%!!) Have you remarked such results? Do you think it's historically accurate? If not do you use some Home rules?

Thank you for your comments/remarks
Post #: 1
RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? - 2/7/2014 3:15:33 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 22230
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
If you have soft targets - not much/any AA - without escorts then that is certainly realistic as they can get as low as they need to obtain hits.

_____________________________


(in reply to grisouille)
Post #: 2
RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? - 2/7/2014 3:29:49 PM   
Feltan


Posts: 1150
Joined: 12/5/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
Take note:  those are not unusual results, but the number of Catalina's and Banshees is limited.  Get a couple of good air-to-air engagements and that capability will quickly dissipate.

Regards,
Feltan

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 3
RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? - 2/7/2014 3:36:22 PM   
btd64


Posts: 4544
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
Feltan, How true.
Cheers

_____________________________

Intel i7 3.4GHz,8GB Ram,1920x1080 rez

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DW Series-Beta Tester
TotS-Alpha Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

I don't like paying for the same real estate twice..Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to Feltan)
Post #: 4
RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? - 2/7/2014 4:35:58 PM   
grisouille

 

Posts: 612
Joined: 6/7/2007
Status: offline
Thank you for your comments.

I don't know if this is going to change your comments, but in fact, I've just remarked that most of the attacks are at 100 feet and not 1000 feet..

(in reply to grisouille)
Post #: 5
RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? - 2/7/2014 5:07:36 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 22230
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Doesn't change my comment very much, but you should expect more ops losses for the attackers, depending upon their pilots' experience ratings.

_____________________________


(in reply to grisouille)
Post #: 6
RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? - 2/7/2014 5:14:06 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 2982
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline
Where any of the attackers lost to AA fire? Did any of your merchants have any AA???

_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 7
RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? - 2/7/2014 6:37:25 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8261
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
The problem with attacks that low is that it messes up the detection times. Going that low means that even with the very best allied late war radars you will get only a couple of minutes of warning. Not enough for CAP to be able to respond.

I would talk to your opponent and ask him to avoid going that low. I think it was Captain Cruft that did a lot of testing with this. Going in low he could sink any allied Navy regardless of CAP.

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 8
RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? - 2/7/2014 6:42:39 PM   
Feltan


Posts: 1150
Joined: 12/5/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

The problem with attacks that low is that it messes up the detection times. Going that low means that even with the very best allied late war radars you will get only a couple of minutes of warning. Not enough for CAP to be able to respond.

I would talk to your opponent and ask him to avoid going that low. I think it was Captain Cruft that did a lot of testing with this. Going in low he could sink any allied Navy regardless of CAP.


For fighters to strafe, I am working under the understanding that altitude HAS to be set to 100. For the other aircraft, I can see your point.

Regards,
Feltan

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 9
RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? - 2/7/2014 7:34:13 PM   
Gaspote


Posts: 303
Joined: 6/30/2013
From: France
Status: offline
I always try to have air cover over convoy or amphibious TF if I know ennemy bombing is possible.
I don't know if air cover will failed to intercept if bomber are at 100feet but they succefully intercepted at 1000feet in my PBEM.

(in reply to Feltan)
Post #: 10
RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? - 2/7/2014 8:17:43 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 2982
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

The problem with attacks that low is that it messes up the detection times. Going that low means that even with the very best allied late war radars you will get only a couple of minutes of warning. Not enough for CAP to be able to respond.

I would talk to your opponent and ask him to avoid going that low. I think it was Captain Cruft that did a lot of testing with this. Going in low he could sink any allied Navy regardless of CAP.

Would it help reaction time if you put your CAP at 100 ft, 1000 ft or 2000 ft? 100 is on par, 1k is slightly above and thus detection time a bit better??? 2K gives them that altitude advantage of a bounce.....

_____________________________


(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 11
RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? - 2/7/2014 9:51:45 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11075
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

The problem with attacks that low is that it messes up the detection times. Going that low means that even with the very best allied late war radars you will get only a couple of minutes of warning. Not enough for CAP to be able to respond.

I would talk to your opponent and ask him to avoid going that low. I think it was Captain Cruft that did a lot of testing with this. Going in low he could sink any allied Navy regardless of CAP.


The bolded is the whole point. The trade-off is ops losses and flak. If players don't do the merchant upgrades, which are almost all AA, doom on them.

Recently one opponent tried a DD bombardment of one of my Aleutian bases in late April 1942. Easy points, right? 74 low and mean P-39s on Naval strike said no.

Morning Air attack on TF, near Umnak Island at 169,52

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 18 NM, estimated altitude 2,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 74

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 3 damaged

Japanese Ships
DD Ushio, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Amagiri, Shell hits 9, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Sazanami, Shell hits 3, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Yamagumo, Shell hits 2
DD Kuroshio, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Natsushio, Shell hits 1, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:
21 x P-39D Airacobra bombing from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
3 x P-39D Airacobra bombing from 100 feet
25 x P-39D Airacobra bombing from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
25 x P-39D Airacobra bombing from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 2/7/2014 10:55:23 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 12
RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? - 2/7/2014 10:44:08 PM   
Gaspote


Posts: 303
Joined: 6/30/2013
From: France
Status: offline
Did you attack before or after the bombardment ? It seems he badly plans his retreat because you got him so close to the objective.
Although the P39 is a deadly lowN attack, strafe ships to reduce AA and bomb in the same time and 37mm disable AA guns too.

< Message edited by Gaspote -- 2/7/2014 11:44:38 PM >

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 13
RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? - 2/8/2014 12:19:28 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11075
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gaspote

Did you attack before or after the bombardment ? It seems he badly plans his retreat because you got him so close to the objective.
Although the P39 is a deadly lowN attack, strafe ships to reduce AA and bomb in the same time and 37mm disable AA guns too.


I take back the bombardment. It was a surface raid into Umnak. There was a bombardment of Adak that same week. He got his bag too, sinking several xAKs and a DD and APD. The P-39s were the coup de grace of a long day for the IJN. TBs, DBs, PBYs, and finally the fighters. I saw the raid coming. That doesn't remove the fact that low-level fighters on Naval attack can be very effective, even early in the war. In my game with 1EyedJacks he did dozens of Oscar attacks with 60kg bombs on the harbor defense ships at Singers. Sank a bunch of them.

I don't know how much detail Lokasenna is relating in his AAR of our game, but the fighting around the Aleutians has been fierce for five months now. JFBs should carefully read what he has done. He has half, I have half. He understands that Japan may not want to cede all of the chain to the Allies too early.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Gaspote)
Post #: 14
RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? - 2/8/2014 1:04:22 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8261
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Bullwinkle,

Knowing that you can blast an entire CV fleet regardless of CAP numbers by setting everything to 1000ft. Do you really care about extra OPS and Flak losses? Probably not...

As I said I havn´t tried this myself but Captain Cruft has the details somewhere in his AAR.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 15
RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? - 2/8/2014 1:56:28 PM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline
The enhanced flak in the Beta prevents the "whole fleet sinking" phenomenon. However low-level NavB is still very effective. We have HRed it in our game so that only F, FB and AB types can do it.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 16
RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? - 2/8/2014 6:09:58 PM   
Louisvillan


Posts: 74
Joined: 1/18/2014
From: Louisville
Status: offline
I think you need to take a balanced approach to the question.

First issue is training levels....In early 42, most of the allied bomber crews lack the experience to pull off low altitude attacks against shipping. In my campaign against the Jap AI, the KB raided Sydney and Brisbane in June 42. I had a three day warning (PBY's spotted them coming through the Solomons). I was able to scramble fighters and medium bombers to Brisbane. I set the B-25 Mitchell's and B-26 Marauders to 1000 ft Naval Attack........ the ensuing battle was great (3 US Carriers slipped in behind them), but the land based bombers sat it out on the beach. Afterwards a check of their skill levels revealed LowN skills in the low 20s.

Secondly, skip bombing was part of the historical aspect. General Kenney developed the tactic after he took over the South West Pacific's Fifth Air Force in late 42. His basic complaint was that his bombers were dropping lots of bombs against Japanese ships, but not hitting anything. B-25's, B-26's and A-20's all were used to skip bomb. By 43-44 they were ripping ships up and down the New Guinea coast.

Since I play against the AI, I use historical restraint (at least I tell myself I do). It's November 42, and I am just getting bomber squadron crews to training levels that could support skip bombing. Since I am not worried about the AI getting it's feelings hurt, I am going to skip bomb. It's up to me to try and keep the number of units using this down to a realistic level. But agreeing to NOT use medium bombers for Naval Bombing at 100 feet would be to ignore a valid historical tactic..... (by the way, the historical Japanese were flat footed unable to come up with an answer to skip bombing other that putting more AA guns on their ships).

Use of PBY's for low level bombing has been discussed in other threads. They are slow and at low levels very accurate in bombing runs. Unfortunately, this makes them very vulnerable to fighters and AA. In they early stages of the war, you just don't have enough of them to cover your Naval Search and ASW needs to risk burning them up on Naval Attacks (IMHO).

Maybe this comes into the "Cheesy Tactics" discussion. Too much of something too soon in the game may seem unfair.


_____________________________

Fair Winds and Following Seas

(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 17
RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? - 2/8/2014 7:59:17 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11075
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Bullwinkle,

Knowing that you can blast an entire CV fleet regardless of CAP numbers by setting everything to 1000ft. Do you really care about extra OPS and Flak losses? Probably not...

As I said I havn´t tried this myself but Captain Cruft has the details somewhere in his AAR.


You aren't playing with the Babes alterations to flak. We are. USN DP guns are a serious threat, for one example.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 18
RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? - 2/8/2014 7:59:52 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11075
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

The enhanced flak in the Beta prevents the "whole fleet sinking" phenomenon. However low-level NavB is still very effective. We have HRed it in our game so that only F, FB and AB types can do it.


So no historical 4E skip bombing?

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 19
RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? - 2/8/2014 8:45:03 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8261
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Bullwinkle,

Knowing that you can blast an entire CV fleet regardless of CAP numbers by setting everything to 1000ft. Do you really care about extra OPS and Flak losses? Probably not...

As I said I havn´t tried this myself but Captain Cruft has the details somewhere in his AAR.


You aren't playing with the Babes alterations to flak. We are. USN DP guns are a serious threat, for one example.


Ah, I am in my other game. Havn´t really seen the effects yet though! That being said. Even losing a couple of hundred planes for the exchange of whatever is in the sights is probably something most would jump on. But perhaps the enhanced flak in the BETA throws the aim of enough so it becomes a moot point?

< Message edited by JocMeister -- 2/8/2014 9:47:08 PM >

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 20
RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? - 2/8/2014 10:17:04 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11075
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
j

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 2/8/2014 11:17:23 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 21
RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? - 2/8/2014 10:22:21 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11075
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Bullwinkle,

Knowing that you can blast an entire CV fleet regardless of CAP numbers by setting everything to 1000ft. Do you really care about extra OPS and Flak losses? Probably not...

As I said I havn´t tried this myself but Captain Cruft has the details somewhere in his AAR.


You aren't playing with the Babes alterations to flak. We are. USN DP guns are a serious threat, for one example.


Ah, I am in my other game. Havn´t really seen the effects yet though! That being said. Even losing a couple of hundred planes for the exchange of whatever is in the sights is probably something most would jump on. But perhaps the enhanced flak in the BETA throws the aim of enough so it becomes a moot point?


Sorry. Trying to type with a hand brace and I keep hitting random keys because my hand is too big.

What I said bwfore I erasd it is maybe you've been playing the late game so long you think losing a couple hundred planes is no big deal?

At 1000 feet against CVs you lose all DBs.

Flak does mess up aim, yes.

Going in at 1000 feet makes damage result in ops losses. Also runs up fatigue.

LAter on the Babes AA code will matter more as AA upgrades are done. So far I'm happy with what I'm seeing.

I guess I don't look for engine holes. I just do what I think ought to be done to get hits while not becoming too predictable. Fighters down low can work, but not every day. MAybe in 1945 when the AA castels are running around they don't either. But there's no magic altitude I've seen. Everything in the air game that looksa easy turns oout to have a cost somewhere.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 22
RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? - 2/9/2014 6:52:14 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8261
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Really looking forward to seeing the DBB changes in effect. Just hit 43 and we havn´t had any major combat yet. Very much doubt I will ever play a "vanilla" game again.

What have you done with your hand?

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 23
RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? - 2/10/2014 12:11:30 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11075
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Really looking forward to seeing the DBB changes in effect. Just hit 43 and we havn´t had any major combat yet. Very much doubt I will ever play a "vanilla" game again.

What have you done with your hand?


rying to fix an elboiw. It's all connected.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 24
RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? - 2/10/2014 1:51:36 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8261
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Really looking forward to seeing the DBB changes in effect. Just hit 43 and we havn´t had any major combat yet. Very much doubt I will ever play a "vanilla" game again.

What have you done with your hand?


rying to fix an elboiw. It's all connected.


Hope it get sorted for you! Get well.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 25
RE: Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? - 2/16/2014 12:12:02 PM   
David The Great

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 10/3/2008
Status: offline
It seems that often people try to correct mistakes they make with a house rule. There is always a trade off between a tactic you choose and the results you get.
One should ask himself what the reason is why they find themselves in this situation .
In my opinion, to many games have to many rules.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 26
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Naval attack at 1000 feet : is it normal? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.188