|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 12, 2020 7:36:46 GMT -6
oldpop2000 There is nothing wrong with your historical anecdotes and in fact I like them. But you need to make it clear that you are just talking about historical anecdotes, not in game features. When you gave your historical anecdote about medium bombers also being able to function as sub hunters, berte took that as you meaning that this is an in game functionality and after he asked if that is true, you again gave him an historical anecdote that this happened historically, which he took as meaning it works like that in game too. I quite agree. Can I suggest using the quote function, attributing to Historical Notes or Historical Anecdote as required? This will allow the passing on of invaluable knowledge. Better solution, do your own research and learn. I won't participate in this thread to disturb you. 🤔
|
|
|
Post by pashahlis on Jun 12, 2020 16:26:52 GMT -6
@fredrik W thank you!
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Jun 13, 2020 11:35:43 GMT -6
Here are some characteristics that distinguish dive bombers from torpedo bombers in RTW2. As with most systems in the game the relative effectiveness of each type varies considerably over the course of the game.
Torpedo bombers are the only effective aerial weapon early in the game and remain deadly through much of the game. Torpedo bombers are the most effective means of attacking battleships and battle cruisers, but have a difficult time attacking more agile ships. They are always more vulnerable than dive bombers and become increasingly so as the game progresses. Though I don't do this, I have read players state that they abandon torpedo bombers during the post WW2 period in the game because of their high attrition rates during strikes.
Dive bombers appear later and take time and development effort to obtain the ability to carry a bomb load that is effective, but when they reach their maximum bomb load they become existential threats to even capital ships. Dive bombers are less vulnerable to CAP and AA fire. Dive bombers, on average, tend to be more accurate than torpedo bombers, though their weapons are generally less deadly. They are more effective than torpedo bombers when attacking smaller ships. They never run out of primary weapons as can occur with torpedo bombers in a long battle. Dive bombers are more likely to cause fires, on carriers in particular. Even a single bomb hit that ignites a fire has the ability to mission-kill a carrier or destroy it outright. Historically, their accuracy and their potential ability to mission-kill a carrier with a single hit were the reasons why they were enthusiastically embraced by both the Japanese and the Americans prior to WW2.
|
|
|
Post by polygon on Jun 13, 2020 14:36:56 GMT -6
Eventually I'm going to try doing a game where I only use fighters on my carriers, and rely on their small bombs and glide bombing to do strikes. It probably won't work well but it will be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by dia on Jun 13, 2020 18:22:29 GMT -6
Here are some characteristics that distinguish dive bombers from torpedo bombers in RTW2. As with most systems in the game the relative effectiveness of each type varies considerably over the course of the game. Torpedo bombers are the only effective aerial weapon early in the game and remain deadly through much of the game. Torpedo bombers are the most effective means of attacking battleships and battle cruisers, but have a difficult time attacking more agile ships. They are always more vulnerable than dive bombers and become increasingly so as the game progresses. Though I don't do this, I have read players state that they abandon torpedo bombers during the post WW2 period in the game because of their high attrition rates during strikes. Dive bombers appear later and take time and development effort to obtain the ability to carry a bomb load that is effective, but when they reach their maximum bomb load they become existential threats to even capital ships. Dive bombers are less vulnerable to CAP and AA fire. Dive bombers, on average, tend to be more accurate than torpedo bombers, though their weapons are generally less deadly. They are more effective than torpedo bombers when attacking smaller ships. They never run out of primary weapons as can occur with torpedo bombers in a long battle. Dive bombers are more likely to cause fires, on carriers in particular. Even a single bomb hit that ignites a fire has the ability to mission-kill a carrier or destroy it outright. Historically, their accuracy and their potential ability to mission-kill a carrier with a single hit were the reasons why they were enthusiastically embraced by both the Japanese and the Americans prior to WW2. Personally I never abandoned torpedo bombers late game, but I definitely reduced their squadron size and pulled them from smaller CVLs after I noticed the only hits they were getting was from ships already crippled by dive bombers.
|
|
|
Post by pashahlis on Jun 14, 2020 17:27:39 GMT -6
jwsmith26 Thank you! All questions have been answered in-depth then, thanks!
|
|
|
Post by tordenskjold on Jun 15, 2020 5:57:30 GMT -6
By the way, is it justified to omit TBs from land airbases once MBs are available? I guess that the duties TBs would fulfill on carriers (scouting, torpedo attacks) are carried out more efficiently and at longer ranges by PBs and MBs, or is there any point in having them there as well?
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Jun 15, 2020 10:16:27 GMT -6
By the way, is it justified to omit TBs from land airbases once MBs are available? I guess that the duties TBs would fulfill on carriers (scouting, torpedo attacks) are carried out more efficiently and at longer ranges by PBs and MBs, or is there any point in having them there as well? As with many decisions in RTW2 the answer depends on many variables. Time frame, location and your current technology level will alter the equation. Prior to the development of medium bombers and dive bombers TBs represent the only effective way of attacking ships from the air. Even after medium bombers are developed, MBs are not very effective against ships until they develop the ability to carry torpedoes. Once they develop this ability they become effective land-based attack aircraft that usually have a substantial range advantage over TBs, though they are never quite as good at putting torpedoes into enemy ships as TBs. Adding glide bombs to their arsenal makes them even more deadly. Depending on your financial situation, the additional cost to maintain MBs may also impact your decision to use them. Range is consistently an issue for land-based TBs, especially early in the game when range is quite limited. Regional location is another consideration when deciding which aircraft to deploy on land bases. Depending on the nation you are playing this could be a major issue. Many Japanese battles occur further from land bases than, say, Italian battles. For instance, land-based TBs are much more likely to be within range of a battle that takes place in the Adriatic than a battle that takes place in almost any location in SE Asia. Throughout the time frame of the game, range will negatively impact the value of land-based TBs, especially those that operate in the Pacific where range tends to preclude their use in many battles. The greater range of medium bombers, even early versions that are unable to carry a torpedo, generally make them a better bet for land bases in the Pacific regions. The immediate value of land-based TBs also depends somewhat on your current stance in the war. If you are expecting to be defending against enemy invasions, TBs will be more valuable in the threatened area because the enemy has to approach your shores during an invasion. If you are on the offensive TBs often lack the range to reach the invasion area, especially in many Pacific locations, so bases expected to be used in support of an invasion are often better stocked with MBs. The game is quite flexible in allowing transfer of aircraft between bases so the decision to deploy TBs into threatened bases based on the current strategic situation can be made on a per-turn basis. I do not consider PBs a suitable aircraft type for anti-shipping duties. They are quite valuable for search (preserving MBs and TBs for attack duties) and play a major ASW role, but they are ineffective as attack aircraft and are seldom a good choice to replace TBs in this role.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 15, 2020 14:32:14 GMT -6
By the way, is it justified to omit TBs from land airbases once MBs are available? I guess that the duties TBs would fulfill on carriers (scouting, torpedo attacks) are carried out more efficiently and at longer ranges by PBs and MBs, or is there any point in having them there as well? ..... I do not consider PBs a suitable aircraft type for anti-shipping duties. They are quite valuable for search (preserving MBs and TBs for attack duties) and play a major ASW role, but they are ineffective as attack aircraft and are seldom a good choice to replace TBs in this role. Well, they were deadly at night in the Pacific. Read "The Black Cat Raiders of WWII" They sank thousands of tons of Japanese shipping at night. Maybe the game could institute that kind of night operation. One squadron sank over 157,000 tons of shipping. Sounds deadly to me. Possibly the game could put a research item in the game to develop night flying and allow the flying boats to perform such missions. Could be fun... not for the opponent I'll bet.
|
|
berte
Full Member
BANNED
Posts: 109
|
Post by berte on Jun 15, 2020 15:13:00 GMT -6
..... I do not consider PBs a suitable aircraft type for anti-shipping duties. They are quite valuable for search (preserving MBs and TBs for attack duties) and play a major ASW role, but they are ineffective as attack aircraft and are seldom a good choice to replace TBs in this role. Well, they were deadly at night in the Pacific. Read "The Black Cat Raiders of WWII" They sank thousands of tons of Japanese shipping at night. Maybe the game could institute that kind of night operation. One squadron sank over 157,000 tons of shipping. Sounds deadly to me. Possibly the game could put a research item in the game to develop night flying and allow the flying boats to perform such missions. Could be fun... not for the opponent I'll bet. The game, IMO, does a very poor job at letting you know there is night flying technology. Instead, all you ever get is a generic warning that your planes will suffer more attrition to dusk/night landings and going from NOT being able to launch and land at night to being able to with no notices. There’s massive room for improvement here. jwsmith26
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Jun 15, 2020 15:27:28 GMT -6
I absolutely agree that aerial night operations could use some improvements. This is almost certainly going to be addressed in the DLC.
Historically, planes covered by the RTW2 classification of "PB" did massive damage to shipping, especially in the Pacific against the Japanese, though they were seldom used in the kind of combat operations that are covered in RTW2 battles. They probably should be given an anti-shipping role in the game, as well as their current ASW role.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 15, 2020 15:59:09 GMT -6
I absolutely agree that aerial night operations could use some improvements. This is almost certainly going to be addressed in the DLC. Historically, planes covered by the RTW2 classification of "PB" did massive damage to shipping, especially in the Pacific against the Japanese, though they were seldom used in the kind of combat operations that are covered in RTW2 battles. They probably should be given an anti-shipping role in the game, as well as their current ASW role. Be aware that certain electronic technology is required to be truly effective. I have the book referenced and I could find the types. I suspect airborne radar, specifically the ASE which the Army called SCR-521. They were delivered in early 1942. Here is a link that describes different ASV or air to surface search sets. www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Radar/Radar-10.htmlpacificeagles.net/asv-mark-ii-ase-radar/www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=y-JwmYO_IOswww.vpnavy.com/blackcats_history.htmlI can review the book and see what else was added besides a black coat of paint. Hope those links provided help the team. It would be very interesting. The British used this system also, so anyone could have it. Update: The plane will need the development of flame arrestors so they can't be seen in the air. 🙄 Update: Another item that will need to be researched is a radio altimeter. It works by sending a signal from an antenna on the bottom of the bird to the ground and from the reflected signal, determine the height of the aircraft above the ground. The signal has to be frequency modulated. The difference between the time the signal is sent and receive is converted to altitude due to d=ct, where c is the speed of light which is constant. Very cool, but a pain to work on, trust me. The Radio or Radar altimeter measures the absolute altitude above ground not the pressure altitude of a standard altimeter. Note: this technology can be utilized by many different types of aircraft, medium bombers, torpedo bombers, fighters etc. Human's are not happy with darkness and this makes them vulnerable. This means that night attacks can be very successful, if the aircraft is well equipped and the crews are trained for such missions.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 16, 2020 7:51:15 GMT -6
Just a summary of the information in my previous post. This is relevant to introducing night flying and attacks into the game, not historical anecdotes.
1. The plane will need an air search radar, range will depend on the possible targets.
2. The plane will need a radar or radio altimeter
3. The plane will need a flame arrestor for the engine exhaust
4. Plane must be painted black and the crews selected and trained for night flying.
|
|
|
Post by polygon on Jun 16, 2020 12:53:22 GMT -6
Eventually I'm going to try doing a game where I only use fighters on my carriers, and rely on their small bombs and glide bombing to do strikes. It probably won't work well but it will be interesting. I recently had a battle (1940s/80% tech rate) where I employed this strategy as Germany. I sent out 20 fighters on a bombing mission with 500kg bombs. I was initially excited, because I got about half a dozen reports of hits, which seemed like a promising hit rate! But in the battle log, pretty much all of them were near misses or just false reports lol
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Jun 16, 2020 13:38:03 GMT -6
I absolutely agree that aerial night operations could use some improvements. This is almost certainly going to be addressed in the DLC. Historically, planes covered by the RTW2 classification of "PB" did massive damage to shipping, especially in the Pacific against the Japanese, though they were seldom used in the kind of combat operations that are covered in RTW2 battles. They probably should be given an anti-shipping role in the game, as well as their current ASW role. Be aware that certain electronic technology is required to be truly effective. I have the book referenced and I could find the types. I suspect airborne radar, specifically the ASE which the Army called SCR-521. They were delivered in early 1942. Here is a link that describes different ASV or air to surface search sets. www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Radar/Radar-10.htmlpacificeagles.net/asv-mark-ii-ase-radar/www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=y-JwmYO_IOswww.vpnavy.com/blackcats_history.htmlI can review the book and see what else was added besides a black coat of paint. Hope those links provided help the team. It would be very interesting. The British used this system also, so anyone could have it. Update: The plane will need the development of flame arrestors so they can't be seen in the air. 🙄 Update: Another item that will need to be researched is a radio altimeter. It works by sending a signal from an antenna on the bottom of the bird to the ground and from the reflected signal, determine the height of the aircraft above the ground. The signal has to be frequency modulated. The difference between the time the signal is sent and receive is converted to altitude due to d=ct, where c is the speed of light which is constant. Very cool, but a pain to work on, trust me. The Radio or Radar altimeter measures the absolute altitude above ground not the pressure altitude of a standard altimeter. Note: this technology can be utilized by many different types of aircraft, medium bombers, torpedo bombers, fighters etc. Human's are not happy with darkness and this makes them vulnerable. This means that night attacks can be very successful, if the aircraft is well equipped and the crews are trained for such missions. Indeed, and Britain had ASV MkI operational in 1940, with the improved MkII following only months later. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASV_Mark_II_radarRadio Altimeters should not be mandatory - but they should make torpedo attacks in general more successful and reduce the risk of an operational loss. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Beaufort demonstrates the typical issues with torpedo strikes - but also details 2 successful night attacks by aircraft not equipped radio altimeters.
|
|