Maritime Patrol Torpedo Bombers

[Nitros14]

So these are a little nuts right? Large airframe naval bombers with massive range and absurdly high naval attack. I feel like if aircraft this large were this effective in real life the British would've had to base their fleet in Canada to avoid it being sunk in port.

Were any land based anti-ship bombers of WW2 this big? Surely they would've been sitting ducks for anti-air fire on an attack run? Assuming they could hit a ship.

The Mitsubishi G4M did achieve a range of 3700km by sacrificing literally everything else for range but it was considered a medium bomber and weighed 6750kg empty.

B-29 superfortresses are a large airframe and in real life they weighed 33,800kg empty.

Is the ideal naval bomber really a B-29?

 

[Eisscrat]

If i remenber correctly the B17 was planned to use as a naval bomber but sucks.
The FW 200 were sucessfull as a long range recon plane and heavily damaged the Empress of Britain.

 

[Nitros14]

I will say playing today with the new hotfix the rebalanced weight/thrust stuff does make this a little better.

 

[Findell_HOI]

Well i mean technically in the War they did use some Lancasters with 10,000 lb bombs to take out the Tirpitz but that was a ship in port so it would only count as a port strike in this game.

Another thing that has bugged me about this is you can only get Naval Attack from Torpedos Tactical Bombers no longer have any naval attack from their bomb bays anymore. They really did just drop bombs from way up on ships while they were engaged with other planes and fleets.

 

[Putuna]

Large 4 engine aircraft did make good naval bombers believe it or not. The Germans, Americans, British, Japan, and Italy all had 4 engine bombers which they used as maritime patrol/raiders. The Germans fw200 for example was one of there better naval bombers and it was a large 4 engine aircraft. The Italians had 4 engine and 3 engine torpedo bombers that were very deadly. It doesn't seem like it would work but in reality yes they were extremely effective.

Flying boats were extremely dangerous to submarines and were responsible for many destoryed german submarines. Flying boats were often even larger and slower then the 4 engine bombers equivalents, but had even more range.

AAA in WW2 was really not very good at the beginning of the war. The game kinda models this badly by making planes bad early but extremely deadly to ships later on. The reality was kinda the opposite radar, proximity fuzes, better sights, and gun design made AAA extremely effective toward the tail end of the war. Espically US AAA because they had proximity fuzes and used them to great effect against Japan in 44-45. Which is generally where people get there idea of the effectiveness of AAA from.

 

[Louella]

Were any land based anti-ship bombers of WW2 this big?

A handful of four-engined torpedo-capable aircraft existed. The Kawanishi H6K and H8K both could carry two torpedoes. There's also the Consolidated PB2Y Coronado, also carried 2 torpedoes. And the PB4Y-2 Privateer carried torpedoes as well. The British four-engined maritime patrol aircraft usually used depth charges, as their main role was anti-submarine work.

Most torpedo bombers were twin engined.

 

[Nephandus]

There were a couple of them actually: The B-25 Liberator was used from Iceland to close the black gap, the FW 200 Condor mentioned above, the Short Sunderland Flying Boat of the British, the German BV 222 Viking.

IIRC the Maritime Patrol Bombers had more impact than the smaller Aircraft that are currently marked as Naval Bombers

 

[Descolata]

Heavy Naval Bombers should get annihilated by any kind of ship launched fighters, which would make Escort Carriers (cruiser conversions is the best we got at the moment) useful. Assuming they get carrier fighters to actually fight land based naval strikes...

Otherwise, uncontested heavy maritime patrol craft should SLAUGHTER. Historically, they only worked during the day when there were no fighters and at night when the fighters didn't really work (lack of Radar makes it HARD).

In a contested battle, Torpedo and Dive bombers are much better due to actual agility. They worked fine during the day and didn't just get wrecked.

 

[Alexander 'The Grape']

I'm fine with them having a ton of Naval Attack but their Naval Targeting shouldn't stack. Why does adding 3 torpedos instead of 1 make you 3x more accurate??

 

[Dimmie_Dumm]

Why does adding 3 torpedos instead of 1 make you 3x more accurate??

Oh, man... and I thought SH armor increasing incoming torpedo critical hit chance or cruisers having access to better DP guns than battleships are the most ridiculous things about this 'rebalance'.

 

[Happy Trigger]

What I don't get is why we need to put a torpedo in the first module, to unlock Naval Patrol Mission? Shouldn't Recon Camera do it, especially when the plane is not gonna engage anything, as in the description of the mission?

About medium frames, why we can't put a torpedo in the first module? If we want to make a dedicated NAV, we wouldn't lose time adding modules that we don't care for.

About ship detection. Can we use one aircraft to detect ships and other to attack them, or all of the them need detection?

 

[Happy Trigger]

I was forgetting... Wings of Recon Planes are made of 10 planes. Wings of Naval Patrol are made of 100 planes, but they don't attack any ship, and cost at least 1/3 more IC.

 

[mursolini]

Large 4 engine aircraft did make good naval bombers believe it or not. The Germans, Americans, British, Japan, and Italy all had 4 engine bombers which they used as maritime patrol/raiders. The Germans fw200 for example was one of there better naval bombers and it was a large 4 engine aircraft. The Italians had 4 engine and 3 engine torpedo bombers that were very deadly. It doesn't seem like it would work but in reality yes they were extremely effective.

Flying boats were extremely dangerous to submarines and were responsible for many destoryed german submarines. Flying boats were often even larger and slower then the 4 engine bombers equivalents, but had even more range.

True, but I wish they would restrict torpedo module to just smaller and medium frames, while large have to use bombs, depth charges and anti-ship missiles.
4-6 engine torpedo bomber is ludicurous, 4 engine level bomber is a huge problem for ships.

AAA in WW2 was really not very good at the beginning of the war. The game kinda models this badly by making planes bad early but extremely deadly to ships later on. The reality was kinda the opposite radar, proximity fuzes, better sights, and gun design made AAA extremely effective toward the tail end of the war. Espically US AAA because they had proximity fuzes and used them to great effect against Japan in 44-45. Which is generally where people get there idea of the effectiveness of AAA from.

It wasn`t that effective in 44-45. US navy largely managed to destroy incoming enemy air with CAP, and whatever was left it`s AA barely managed. Despite increased effectiveness.

Radar made carrier air groups actually capable of withstanding air attacks, but no carriers = dead ships.

Heavy Naval Bombers should get annihilated by any kind of ship launched fighters, which would make Escort Carriers (cruiser conversions is the best we got at the moment) useful. Assuming they get carrier fighters to actually fight land based naval strikes...

Look how well German fighters fared against strategic bombers in 1943. They killed a bunch, but never really managed to stop even unescorted missions.

You need that fighter armed with heavy guns, and you need them to have armor and extra ammo. And then, you run into climb rate. And then, you become basically Luftwaffe, delivering 1 strategic bomber killed for each 20-40 sorties.

Otherwise, uncontested heavy maritime patrol craft should SLAUGHTER. Historically, they only worked during the day when there were no fighters and at night when the fighters didn't really work (lack of Radar makes it HARD).

Heavy planes, with defensive turrets can take a tonne of punishment, and still fly.

In a contested battle, Torpedo and Dive bombers are much better due to actual agility. They worked fine during the day and didn't just get wrecked.

Except the did get wrecked. Just look how "well" carrier air wings did in 1942. Over 50% cassualty rate in single battle, and on unfavorable cases, 50% or more cassualties on single sortie.

 

[Znail]

True, but I wish they would restrict torpedo module to just smaller and medium frames, while large have to use bombs, depth charges and anti-ship missiles.
4-6 engine torpedo bomber is ludicurous, 4 engine level bomber is a huge problem for ships.

It wasn`t that effective in 44-45. US navy largely managed to destroy incoming enemy air with CAP, and whatever was left it`s AA barely managed. Despite increased effectiveness.

Radar made carrier air groups actually capable of withstanding air attacks, but no carriers = dead ships.

Look how well German fighters fared against strategic bombers in 1943. They killed a bunch, but never really managed to stop even unescorted missions.

You need that fighter armed with heavy guns, and you need them to have armor and extra ammo. And then, you run into climb rate. And then, you become basically Luftwaffe, delivering 1 strategic bomber killed for each 20-40 sorties.

Heavy planes, with defensive turrets can take a tonne of punishment, and still fly.

Except the did get wrecked. Just look how "well" carrier air wings did in 1942. Over 50% cassualty rate in single battle, and on unfavorable cases, 50% or more cassualties on single sortie.

Naval combat is not at all like strat bombing. Strat bombing were done at high altitude while even bombing a ship had to be done decently low as neither the plane nor the bombs were invisible and if dropped high up so could the ships just dodge them. Torpedo bombers of course had to fly at sea level, so even more vulnerable to fighters.

 

[Descolata]

True, but I wish they would restrict torpedo module to just smaller and medium frames, while large have to use bombs, depth charges and anti-ship missiles.
4-6 engine torpedo bomber is ludicurous, 4 engine level bomber is a huge problem for ships.

It wasn`t that effective in 44-45. US navy largely managed to destroy incoming enemy air with CAP, and whatever was left it`s AA barely managed. Despite increased effectiveness.

Radar made carrier air groups actually capable of withstanding air attacks, but no carriers = dead ships.

Look how well German fighters fared against strategic bombers in 1943. They killed a bunch, but never really managed to stop even unescorted missions.

You need that fighter armed with heavy guns, and you need them to have armor and extra ammo. And then, you run into climb rate. And then, you become basically Luftwaffe, delivering 1 strategic bomber killed for each 20-40 sorties.

Heavy planes, with defensive turrets can take a tonne of punishment, and still fly.

Except the did get wrecked. Just look how "well" carrier air wings did in 1942. Over 50% cassualty rate in single battle, and on unfavorable cases, 50% or more cassualties on single sortie.

50% casualties vs. 100% for Maritime Air Patrol when contested by CAP. And the MAPs all died without slain ships, while the Torp and Dive bombers took prizes.

 

[mursolini]

Naval combat is not at all like strat bombing. Strat bombing were done at high altitude while even bombing a ship had to be done decently low as neither the plane nor the bombs were invisible and if dropped high up so could the ships just dodge them. Torpedo bombers of course had to fly at sea level, so even more vulnerable to fighters.

That is assuming you don`t fly in formation of 4+ bombers, and "decently or undecently high" is subjective.
As for ship dodging, that was a similar problem with torpedoes, and people figured out saturation attack.

50% casualties vs. 100% for Maritime Air Patrol when contested by CAP. And the MAPs all died without slain ships, while the Torp and Dive bombers took prizes.

Maritime air patrol was not maritime bombers. their goal was scouting. Case of Land based NAVs would be Mediterranean, and cassualties there were nowhere near 100.