Torpedo vs Dive Bombers

[pcasey]

In my most recent German game I ended up building a lot of torpedo bombers ... like exclusively fighers and torpedo bombers on ships, with a smattering of medium bombers and float planes on land.

I build all of zero dive bombers.

My assumption, based on other wargames I've played, is that torpedo bombers were my primary ship killing weapon since a torpedo hit was much more likely to sink a ship than even a large, 2000 point AP bomb.

It occurred to me tonight through that I was making an assumption that might be a bad one.

So question is, in game, is there a use case for dive bombers in conjunction with torpedo bombers?

More accurate?
Different damage profile e.g. starts fires or something?
Something else?

[ramjb]

Well the game currently does not limit torpedo usage, something that was a real consideration in real life (those weapons were neither infinite, nor cheap ). Apart of that, I do think Dive Bombers are very worthwhile to have.


Dive bombers are far more accurate and as such, more effective at the time of hitting nimble ships as destroyers and even cruisers, while being as deadly to them as torpedo bombers are.

Bombs are even bigger enemies to carriers than torpedoes, if those bombs can be put into their hangars; also, it's not only easier to score hits on carriers, they mess their structure and cut short aircraft operations; dive bombers usually knock them out of the fight for good while a carrier with proper antitorpedo protection will still be able to operate aircraft even after a couple torpedo hits.

TBs are much more effective when it comes down to outright sink battleships. Then again if a battleship has been "softened" and slowed down by some bomb hits, torpedo bombers will be much more likely to achieve hits on them, particularily if the target battleship is a fast one.

On land attack missions TB gliding attacks are much less accurate than DBs pinpoint attack - it's far more likely to destroy the objective in a single wave if Dive Bombers are involved.


The overall conclussion is that dive bombers do have very valid roles in-game that Torpedo Bombers aren't as good on. And a combined DB and TB force synergizes very well.

[admkotyatkin]

May 30, 2019 23:25:44 GMT -6 pcasey said:

In my most recent German game I ended up building a lot of torpedo bombers ... like exclusively fighers and torpedo bombers on ships, with a smattering of medium bombers and float planes on land.

I build all of zero dive bombers.

My assumption, based on other wargames I've played, is that torpedo bombers were my primary ship killing weapon since a torpedo hit was much more likely to sink a ship than even a large, 2000 point AP bomb.

It occurred to me tonight through that I was making an assumption that might be a bad one.

So question is, in game, is there a use case for dive bombers in conjunction with torpedo bombers?

More accurate?
Different damage profile e.g. starts fires or something?
Something else?

According to the experience I had, torpedo bombers are the primary damage dealears untill the AP bombs become available. Torpedos do damage according to the torpedo tech you have, I assume. They are less accurate though, and need time to hit after the salvo was done. Dives, on the other hand, are more accurate in my games in terms of hits but do less damage per squadron attack. Also, they perform much better when bombing land targets, as torpedo bombers level bomb the land targets according to my check. As for the payload - depends on the tech. I assume that when AP bombs are researched they also may pierce the deck armor and say hello to the citadel like what happened to Yamato, but I didn't have this in my games as I usually employ torpedo bombers only on my CVs. Also, bombs do more damage to structure per my check.

[christian]

it really depends

before ap bombs are available dive bombers are really only usefull against unarmored carriers light cruisers and destroyers they are more accurate but they still fail to do much against the other ships except for superstructure damage

once ap bombs are unlocked these become engine room sniping bois they like to knock atleast a few knots off the enemy and also tend to do quite significant damage (turrets flooding and such) overall they become quite decent

torpedo bombers remain really good they are the primary means of sinking capital ships because when you send in a squad of 20 torpedo bombers against an enemy carrier you are gonna get atleast 5 torpedo hits on the carrier which usually results in sinking

overall i like to use a mix so on my 196 plane fleet carrier which has a 100 plane strike force i like to use as follow

50 torpedo bombers 30 dive bombers and 20 fighters

i usually tend to have 40 fighters on each and fill the rest with 50 more tb bombers for reserve and then 26 dive bombers

it does leave me weak to large carrier attacks because of the fighter escort numbers lacking but my aa is specifically buffed for that purpose


also when adding an armored flight deck to carriers 3.5 inches is minimum for ap bombs while 2 inches can protect from decently sized normal bombs (sap)

[mycophobia]

Actually I find early dive bombers tends to be way more deadly when they miss XD... and said near miss explode underwater causing serious ruptures lol. I lost a BC to a 600lb bomb that ruptured its hull and slowed it down to 22 knot, allowing enemy BCs to catch up.

Torpedo bombers are definately more damaging at any stage of the game, but they will have a hard time landing hits early on, and a hard time surivivng against AA/fighters later on. Still they should be your go to for quite a while since early dive bombers just don’t have the punch needed to be more than a nuisance to large ships. Dive bombers will give reliable results through most tech levels, and later on can become extremely deadly.

Also worth noting high end TDS will make ships very resistant to torpedos for a modest weight cost. On the otherhand, fairly substantial investment in deck armour is needed before it can block a 2000lb AP bomb. So that sounds something worth considering depending if your enemy have TDS lv4.

[jorgencab]

In real life then dive bombers and torpedo bombers were a very effective combined arms weapon. Against armoured ships such as a battleship or say a British CV with an armoured deck you needed the dive bombers to distract and suppress AA so the torpedo bombers could attack successfully. As far as I remember not a single British CV was sunk by a Kamikaze plane for example, they basically just bounced of their flight decks...   

Torpedo bombers were not just less accurate they were also much more vulnerable to AA fire.

This was something that both Japan and the US learned relatively early in the war, something the British struggled to incorporate into their CV airings.


Dive bombers was also way more effective logistically when attacking soft targets. Not sure if the game tracks bombs and torpedo storage on the CV, but it should. Torpedoes take up way more space and is far more expensive. This was very important in real life.

Another thing that the game don't model which I think it should is ammunition cost in general. The reason why countries went with certain calibre of weapons had much to do with logistics and production of ammunition as well as the calibre of the weapons themselves. Someone that used too wide of an array of naval gun calibre would face both logistical and industrial problems or at least more maintenance ans supply costs. Conventional wars are mostly won by industry and the efficient use of it.

[Noname117]

In my Austria-Hungary playthrough I noticed that torpedo bombers seemed to be much better than dive bombers in the teens, 20s, and maybe early 30s at which point dive bombers began reigning supreme and torpedo bombers struggled to damage enemy ships. Or maybe that was just me fighting Britain rather than one of my normal enemies. But yeah, dive bombers seem better in the late 30s and 40s at least.

[spartyon]

On a similar note, has anyone replaced their dive bombers with fighters late game and have them conduct their naval strike missions? By late game, fighters can carry more bombs and would be more survivable but I dont know if the accuracy lost would be worth it.

[garrisonchisholm]

That is an interesting idea- I'll give that a go.

Personally I prefer a 2-1 ratio of TB to DB, though casualties are higher in the TB ranks their damage is more meaningful.

[platypusoffail]

I found that very late game torpedo bombers become more important. Against ships with very heavy anti-air my dive bombers were consistently missing. On the other hand, torp bombers often took significant damage but they got their hits in. I should go run some exercises with my end-game fleet to see if there is any truth to that impression.

[jwsmith26]

May 31, 2019 3:35:44 GMT -6 christian said:

it really depends

before ap bombs are available dive bombers are really only usefull against unarmored carriers light cruisers and destroyers they are more accurate but they still fail to do much against the other ships except for superstructure damage

once ap bombs are unlocked these become engine room sniping bois they like to knock atleast a few knots off the enemy and also tend to do quite significant damage (turrets flooding and such) overall they become quite decent

torpedo bombers remain really good they are the primary means of sinking capital ships because when you send in a squad of 20 torpedo bombers against an enemy carrier you are gonna get atleast 5 torpedo hits on the carrier which usually results in sinking

overall i like to use a mix so on my 196 plane fleet carrier which has a 100 plane strike force i like to use as follow

50 torpedo bombers 30 dive bombers and 20 fighters

i usually tend to have 40 fighters on each and fill the rest with 50 more tb bombers for reserve and then 26 dive bombers

it does leave me weak to large carrier attacks because of the fighter escort numbers lacking but my aa is specifically buffed for that purpose


also when adding an armored flight deck to carriers 3.5 inches is minimum for ap bombs while 2 inches can protect from decently sized normal bombs (sap)

I apologize for being off subject but that's quite a carrier you describe above, christian. Would you mind posting a design screen for that beast?  Have you run into any difficulties operating this ship's air group?

[dorn]

May 31, 2019 6:13:08 GMT -6 spartyon said:

On a similar note, has anyone replaced their dive bombers with fighters late game and have them conduct their naval strike missions? By late game, fighters can carry more bombs and would be more survivable but I dont know if the accuracy lost would be worth it.

I did, it gives you more variability however fighters are much worse hitting target than dive bombers.

Torpedo bombers seems to me less dangerous than it were in history.
My 26000 carrier was hit by 3 torpedoes and was able still 22 knots and operated aircrafts. After a other 2 hits she was unoperatable and heavy damaged but able to make 16 knots and she could probably took another torpedo.

Dive bombers are more dangerous later but I was unable to have heavier than 1400 lb bomb even through efforts in 1955. 5" of deck armour is usually enough to protect ship to this bomb making dive bombers more suited against cruisers, destroyers and carriers.

[Blothorn]

Torpedo hits in the game are highly variable, which I think is true to life--large ships could take fair numbers of torpedoes to the TDS, or sink to a few critical hits outside (or below, if the ship is heeling).

I like dive bombers--they are much more accurate against small ships, which is important given how little control we have over target priority, and I think somewhat more against unslowed ships. A wave of DBs followed by a wave of TBs is a great combo--dive bombers slow targets and reduce AA effectiveness in preparation for the TBs finishing ships off.

[mycophobia]

May 31, 2019 9:42:05 GMT -6 dorn said:

May 31, 2019 6:13:08 GMT -6 spartyon said:

On a similar note, has anyone replaced their dive bombers with fighters late game and have them conduct their naval strike missions? By late game, fighters can carry more bombs and would be more survivable but I dont know if the accuracy lost would be worth it.

I did, it gives you more variability however fighters are much worse hitting target than dive bombers.

Torpedo bombers seems to me less dangerous than it were in history.
My 26000 carrier was hit by 3 torpedoes and was able still 22 knots and operated aircrafts. After a other 2 hits she was unoperatable and heavy damaged but able to make 16 knots and she could probably took another torpedo.

Dive bombers are more dangerous later but I was unable to have heavier than 1400 lb bomb even through efforts in 1955. 5" of deck armour is usually enough to protect ship to this bomb making dive bombers more suited against cruisers, destroyers and carriers.

I cant be certain but I feel its either country-based or related to some tech that isn't being clear about its effect. As Japan im stuck with 1000 lb till 1950(even when giving double priority to bomb loads), at which point I finally got 1400lb. As the French I only developed dive bomber by 1938, and is lobbing around 1600lb by 40 or 41, and 2000lb by around 43-44.

[Blothorn]

Are you playing with varied techs? I wonder if it plays with relative development rates for different aircraft types, so it isn't so clear which types are best from the outset.