Author Topic: time once again for the toughen the CV "discussion"  (Read 1309 times)

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
time once again for the toughen the CV "discussion"
« Reply #60 on: October 10, 2002, 08:50:24 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
I also believe that this was the last time that heavy bombers even attempted to attack CV's.
lazs


Actually, they didn't have many opportunities to hit CV's since we generally kept B29's and B17's out of reach of enemy CV infested areas.  Midway was an exception since the enemy came to us.

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
time once again for the toughen the CV "discussion"
« Reply #61 on: October 10, 2002, 08:52:02 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
The hits were not even verified.   lazs


Lazs, 4 of the pilots "Verified" hits.  Why do you think they reported them smoking?

Offline Preon1

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 571
time once again for the toughen the CV "discussion"
« Reply #62 on: October 10, 2002, 09:06:27 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
preon... as widewing stated... no land based bomber ever killed a CV.    If realism is what we want then we need to make it so that land based bombers can't kill CV's

lazs


I'm not trying to say that bombers can and should kill CVs.  I do remember watching a thing on the history channel where the US tried attacking Japaneese boats with high alt B-17s.  The Japs just started swimming in circles and not a single bomb hit... ever.

In the MA, I imagine the same would happen as it did then but you have to keep in mind that there are people that are getting better with their simulated planes than WWII pilots ever DREAMED of being.  In which case it should be possible for a bomber to hit a CV that isn't trying to dodge it.  You can't discount a thing in the MA just because it never happened (else the 262 would NEVER be able to shoot down a spit-I)

what I WAS trying to say was that if a couple of bombs managed to find thier way on the deck of a carrier (be it from jabo or bomber) then those bombs should do damage.  If the worry is that there isn't a balanced amount of naval combat, why not just put more boats in the water?  Imagine the islands map with a port on every piece of land.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
time once again for the toughen the CV "discussion"
« Reply #63 on: October 10, 2002, 09:19:31 AM »
none of em sank rip.   Obviously... they couldn't all have put all those bombs they claimed into the carrier now could they?
lazs

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
time once again for the toughen the CV "discussion"
« Reply #64 on: October 10, 2002, 09:27:02 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
none of em sank rip.   Obviously... they couldn't all have put all those bombs they claimed into the carrier now could they?
lazs


Agree, but you said "none hit" above. Just clarifying it for you.  Back out gently now, so it doesn't look like you lost an arguement over historical facts. ;)

Offline Urchin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5517
time once again for the toughen the CV "discussion"
« Reply #65 on: October 10, 2002, 09:36:46 AM »
I thought I read somewhere that the only ship the B-17s managed to actually HIT was a destroyer that had stopped dead in the water to pick up survivors from some other ship (that some other aircraft may have sunk, I can't remember).  Supposedly the Captain was told that there were B-17s overhead and he responded with something like "They haven't managed to hit anything yet, have they?"  Then his destroyer got blown apart lol.  The captain actually survived.

Offline Shiva

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
      • http://members.cox.net/srmalloy/
time once again for the toughen the CV "discussion"
« Reply #66 on: October 10, 2002, 09:45:20 AM »
Quote
Keep in mind that when one or two guys sink a carrier, they're often depriving 20 or 30 people of their fun. It's a numbers thing.


By sinking a CV, you're "depriving 20 or 30 people of their fun" -- and freeing a bunch of your countrymates of the necessity to defend a field against capture, so they can furball or attack somewhere else.

It's a tradeoff. You may be honked off because someone took your CV away from you, preventing you from furballing or attacking from it, but the people you are furballing against or attacking may be just as interested in getting rid of you, and taking out your launch point is the most effective way to do it.

Offline Sox62

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1159
Re: CV Furballs
« Reply #67 on: October 10, 2002, 10:53:28 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by llyr69
J_A_B:

20-30 furballers and no one can be bothered to defend their CV?


 This is a valid point.

I've killed CV's by divebombing,and I've killed them many times in a Lancaster,and I was never higher than 12k in the buff or fighter when starting my attack.

I can count on less than one hand how many times there has been a cap to greet me.I was shot down(this is in Lancasters)by the cap exactly ONCE.

The actual gripe here,imho,is some people want to "Make the CV harder to sink so we can endlessly vulch  bases for longer periods of time."

Offline AKDejaVu

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5049
      • http://www.dbstaines.com
time once again for the toughen the CV "discussion"
« Reply #68 on: October 10, 2002, 11:13:38 AM »
As far as CV damage goes...

Make the damage an individual levies on a CV last for a shorter period of time... say 10 minutes.  Take the respawning/returning aspect out of it.

Perhaps its also time to un-neuter the ACK.  I've not seen so many spend so much time in there unharmed in some time.  I cannot remember the last time I've seen flak do any damage to something.  Hell.. bombers can fly straight in and over a CV group still.

Other than that... defend the CV or shut up.  They are strategic elements of the game and should be treated as such.  If it happens to support a furball along the way then so be it... but that should not be their expected use and it should not be the primary consideration when calculating damage-to-sink.

AKDejaVu

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8804
time once again for the toughen the CV "discussion"
« Reply #69 on: October 10, 2002, 11:46:57 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Widewing


Poop, you would have loved the brawl we had tonight. Our CV haunted the Bish for 4 hours and was still going strong when I logged. About 10 Rooks and an equal number of Bish were having a ball. Well, the Rooks were anyway. :D

 


A quick follow up to the original post.

One of the SBDs that I lost was to a Spitfire. This was a very interesting fight, in that under normal circumstances the Spit would have been splashed without undue trauma.

I was headed back to the CV for landing with 6 kills in the bank (3 Ju 88s, P-51D, P-38L and a Ki-67) I had taken off with just 25% fuel (plenty for this situation). However, I extended the sortie to chase down a damaged Ki-67, which took me nearly a half sector from the ship. Arriving in the immediate area of the TG, I discovered CPR having a tough time with a Spitfire. A quick check of my vitals indicated about 5% fuel and 38 rounds of .50 cal remaining. Well, I figured I would see if I could drive the Spit off of CPR’s Corsair. So, I headed straight for them. As the range dropped to about 800 yards, I see that the F4U is smoking and the Spit is right behind. I took a long-range snapshot from about 700 yards out and see a few hit strikes on the Spitfire. He ignores the hits and shoots off CPR’s wing. With that, he breaks up to the right and I follow. My guns are empty now, but the safest place to be is behind the Spitfire. Around and around we go. I watch the Spit’s nose drop and he dives to gain some separation. I follow, forcing him to maneuver vertically as the SBD easily turns inside the Supermarine. I had numerous opportunities for shots, but no ammo to shoot. A glance at my fuel indicator shows the needle hovering a hair above zero. I need to disengage immediately or find myself flying a 7,000 lb glider. With that the Spit executes a hard climbing break to the left. This is probably my only chance, so I break right, drop the nose and run for the TG, about 5 miles away. My hope is to get under the ack umbrella, cut the engine and fly a deadstick approach until short final, where I’ll restart for the landing. But, there’s not enough gas and the engine quits. Things are desperate now. I push the nose down a bit and engage auto-angle to keep my speed loss to a minimum. With that set, I jump into the rear cockpit and man the twin .30s. The Spit is closing quickly now, and I open fire at 700 yards, scoring solid hits, causing the Spitfire to smoke. However, my SBD is taking hits too. Finally, the wing lets go and I bail out.

I believe that the Spitfire likely had to ditch when his engine quit from lack of coolant. The pilot of the Spitfire, well known in the MA as a very good stick, was damn lucky I had no ammo or he would have not survived the first break turn. As it was, I exacted revenge twice (once with 5” gun) before I logged for the night.

What the reader should understand is that in terms of dogfighting ability, the SBD shines as a first-rate brawler. Indeed, it can make an average pilot like myself look good. However, it is essential that anyone flying the SBD as fighter have solid gunnery skills. There’s not much firepower available, and not a whole lot of ammo to begin with. Therefore, it is not the aircraft for those who tend to “pray and spray” out of habit. It will reward you with empty magazines and little to show for your trouble. With care and good marksmanship, you can even vulch successfully with the Dauntless (killed a pair of P-47s a few days ago, but they suck up a lot of ammo).

Typical of any aircraft, the three magic factors leading to success are Speed, Altitude and Stealth. However, when flying the SBD an additional factor applies; Vision. Always fly the SBD in the F3 mode. Don’t jump into the cockpit until you are ready to go to guns. Take advantage of the presumed second set of Mk.I eyeballs belonging to the gunner. I sometimes shoot from F3 mode, and do all of my dive-bombing runs from this observation point.

Finally, if you want to fly Jabo missions, there are better aircraft than the SBD. If you want to fly bomber missions, there are much better aircraft. Likewise, there are many very capable fighters available. So why fly the SBD? It’s the challenge of it. So, if you enjoy a challenge, give the SBD a go. If nothing else, you will have a lot of fun. And gentlemen, fun is the ultimate goal.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8804
time once again for the toughen the CV "discussion"
« Reply #70 on: October 10, 2002, 12:06:40 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ripsnort


Agree, but you said "none hit" above. Just clarifying it for you.  Back out gently now, so it doesn't look like you lost an arguement over historical facts. ;)


Rip, no carriers were damaged by the B-17s, none. The USAAF claims were soundly disproved, even before the war was over. All four Japanese carriers where undamaged and fully operational at the time the first Navy TBDs arrived. Moreover, the B-17 attack did more harm than good. It forced the Japanese fleet to maneuver, and it ended up 50 miles distant from where it was expected to be encountered by the U.S. Navy aircraft. In fact, some squadrons never found it. If not for the intuition and good fortune of Wade McClusky, the American dive-bombers would have missed the Japanese formation by 30 miles. This would have meant that none of the four fleet carriers would have been damaged or sunk by Spruance's first wave. That very well could have spelled disaster for American forces.

My regards,

Widewing
« Last Edit: October 10, 2002, 02:17:56 PM by Widewing »
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
time once again for the toughen the CV "discussion"
« Reply #71 on: October 10, 2002, 02:07:02 PM »
uhhh rip.... I don't believe I said "none hit"...  I said none verified and I meant that.   I also said none sunk and I meant that.
lazs

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8804
time once again for the toughen the CV "discussion"
« Reply #72 on: October 10, 2002, 02:14:02 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
uhhh rip.... I don't believe I said "none hit"...  I said none verified and I meant that.   I also said none sunk and I meant that.
lazs


This is confirmed by reading this: Battle of Midway

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
time once again for the toughen the CV "discussion"
« Reply #73 on: October 10, 2002, 02:23:55 PM »
I already pointed him to one account of Midway, it seems Lazs cannot lose a BBS arguement, so he just continually banters on about nothing he knows about. ;)

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
time once again for the toughen the CV "discussion"
« Reply #74 on: October 10, 2002, 02:26:25 PM »
One other thing I'd like to point out that is a crack in your foundation, Lazs...B17's never trained to hit moving ships insofar as I know of...we, otoh, practice it continually.  That is to say that they did not have the opportunity to become proficient at hitting a moving target as we do online.  Therefore, regardless if it happened then or not does not necessarily dictate what we do today online. ;)