RE: Allied aircraft production figures

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Allied aircraft production figures

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Allied aircraft production figures

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/14/2006 4:30:06 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

I'm with treespider here: we're looking at Allied aircraft production. If (IF) the numbers are wrong, fix them. If not, don't. I don't care what this means for game balance; WitP will be a better game for every step it comes closer to reality. Japanese production is a different matter, for a different thread.

Sounds as if someone actually got the point. As long as the Japanese Player has the ability to "fiddle" with his production it's pretty safe to say that he will do better than his historical counterparts. Hindsight makes that almost certain, and I don't think most players object to it in principle as long as it can't be carried to rediculous extremes. But the Allies are stuck with whatever the designers give them - so whatever they recieve should be at least as historically accurate as possible. The arguement that "they don't need it" is a "red herring". That's not the question. The question is "what did they actually get?" as opposed to "what does the game give them?". And there seems to be a significant discrepancy (not so much in number of A/C as in the types recieved and when) that is worth exploring and correcting. It doesn't matter if the F6f's or whatever sit in a "pool" or are used at the front..., what matters is that a reasonably accurate number of them (historically speaking) are available to the Allied player when they should be.

Game balance in favour of the Japanese seems to be the norm. Why else would someone concoct a respawn design? To eliminate 4 Essexes, a half a dozen cruisers, a few dozen destroyers and subs; basically a force stronger than KB was eliminated is the answer. Given this I'm not surprised by any "oversight" present in the game.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 91

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/14/2006 4:41:52 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Game balance in favour of the Japanese seems to be the norm.

Let's be fair to the scenario designer. We've all been playing this for about two years now and we just now found this "issue". It's a bit much to say this was intentional to handicap the allies in some ways.

I think it's more a simple oversight. I also doubt the designer realized that a crafty Japanese opponent could take all the SRA oil virtually untouched if he simply avoided the oil bases to last.

I think he assumed the Japanese production would be less than optimal in most/all games and so he toned down the allied production so as not to make them over powerful. Instead he designed a scenario that has Japan out producing the allies for the entire war in most games.

I do agree the respawn gimik was a balance issue and I�m paying for it in my game. I carefully preserved my carriers for a counter-attack in early 1943. Well it�s the end of 1942 now and I have almost a full year to go till my next CV reinforcement. So I�ll spend 1943 with just 6 CV�s and if I take any losses early in 1943 I�m hosed because the historic builds won�t show up in 1943 as they should.

I almost feel like I should have intentionally gotten my CV�s sunk so I�d have something coming in during 1943..

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 92

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/14/2006 4:59:29 PM

VSWG

Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk

lots of folks forgeting one important thing... if we really want to make the game closer than reality then there is more important things to do. Bigger numbers to Allies (i'm not against that if the numbers are wrong) will mean that game will actually will not be closer than reality.... instead of begining 45 it will be finished in 44...catch 22... right?

is this kind of reality we are talking about?

The fact that increasing Allied production would cause most games to end in 1944 (which is a highly subjective assertion anyway) is not an argument against fixing Allied production. It's just evidence that something else is wrong with the game, too. Whatever this "something else" is, it should not prevent us from using the correct numbers.

Of course, I would prefer that fixing Allied AC production would go hand in hand with addressing other issues (which would - or would not) conserve game balance. But "game balance" shouldn't be the judge who decides which changes are implemented or not - "history" should. And if this means that the Allies are strengthend and game balance changes, then yes, I think it should be implemente anyway.

< Message edited by VSWG -- 8/14/2006 5:01:37 PM >

(in reply to pauk)

Post #: 93

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/14/2006 5:00:51 PM

pauk

Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk

Jim, can you make up your mind?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
I also would like the Japanese curtailed to historical production limits as well.

quote:

All the Japanese fanboys seem to be missing my point entirely. I am not advocating the reduction of Japanese industry. I am simply pointing out the glaring fact that Japan out produces the US for the entire game due to fixed factories that cannot upgrade for the most part.

The first describes a situation he would "like to see...., and the second makes the point that while he would "like to see it", he's not "pushing for it to be implemented". Be fair, Pauk..., grabbing things "out of context" is rarely helpfull.

You didn't get the point. It is all about controversy of his two posts

, not that he is pushing...we can't push because we don't have a stick (fortunatly)

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 94

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/14/2006 5:04:34 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk
What about your start as Japan (did you already started this game or it is currently on hold)?

Currently on hold. Not sure if I'm going to start one or not at this point, guess I'm hoping for a new patch first.

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to pauk)

Post #: 95

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/14/2006 5:16:57 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

I freely admit that Jim and I are on a different page on this one but I would just repeat I only play the allies and I have played about 10 games now to 43 and in all of them PDU or not after 4/43 and P40N's I have never had a shortage of Land Basd Fighters and I have had my head handed to me on at least one occasion with another in progress. <I do really really hate losing Grrrrr but Kudos to enforcer and Dennis who just sank 2 Essex and 2 Independence class in late 43 with KB against Hellcats>

In GAME terms I think the designers got it just about right Allied production while irritating (apart form Hellcats) is never a constraint for me and I am a little carefree with air losses - attrition is my friend !!!!

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 96

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/14/2006 5:20:07 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
In GAME terms I think the designers got it just about right Allied production while irritating (apart form Hellcats) is never a constraint for me and I am a little carefree with air losses - attrition is my friend !!!!

I posted the data on naval and marine losses for the entire war above at about 3,000 air frames. I'm curious what are your naval aviation and marine losses (AAA and air to air only) for your three games if you still have them?

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 97

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/14/2006 5:24:17 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

I will check it out tonight I have 5 live games as allies at moment and probably have stats for the others somewhere

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 98

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/14/2006 5:27:09 PM

VSWG

Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I freely admit that Jim and I are on a different page on this one but I would just repeat I only play the allies and I have played about 10 games now to 43 and in all of them PDU or not after 4/43 and P40N's I have never had a shortage of Land Basd Fighters and I have had my head handed to me on at least one occasion with another in progress. <I do really really hate losing Grrrrr but Kudos to enforcer and Dennis who just sank 2 Essex and 2 Independence class in late 43 with KB against Hellcats>

In GAME terms I think the designers got it just about right Allied production while irritating (apart form Hellcats) is never a constraint for me and I am a little carefree with air losses - attrition is my friend !!!!

So it could be argued that increasing the pools (if the numbers are too low) would have no effect on game balance while increasing historic accuracy, no?

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 99

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/14/2006 5:40:11 PM

pauk

Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline

Andy and I agreed on Hellcats already.

_____________________________

(in reply to VSWG)

Post #: 100

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/14/2006 5:47:32 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

It could be argued but it is a stretch as I said I dont run out so tripling the pools would have zero impact on game balance each of the main fighters/fighter bombers has a role so as the allies you wouldnt want to over concentrate anyway so more wouldnt actually matter to be honest

P39D remarkably good low level fighter and excellent in Ground Attacks at short range pretty good barge killer as well

P51D is arrive late and P51B isnt that great anyway

P47'sC and D good FB's and very good barge killers but not great range very hard to kill

P40N's Great long range FB but not as robust as the P47

P38's LR Escort Fighter

F4U Good Air Superioirty and CAP Fighter but short range

It is the mix of aircraft that is excellent tripling the pools would allow the allies to perhaps concentrate on one of these types but they all have there uses and actually only operating P38's say is sub otimal for the allies

I suspect most people drop P39's as soon as possible but the other obvious canditate to drop is probably the P40N but I find that plane invaluable as its the only ground attack fighter that can operate at range 5 the USAAF gets.

Andy

(in reply to VSWG)

Post #: 101

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/14/2006 5:53:50 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
EDIT: My error - this part of the article was solely refering to Patrol Planes.

Yep I've done a bit more digging and according to this article:

http://www.history.navy.mil/download/ww2-33.pdf

Fleet Air Wings could consist of any number and type of squadrons.

quote:

On 1 November 1942, Patrol Wings
were designated Fleet Air Wings as
the basic structure for shore-based air
and were to be composed of any types
of aircraft required by the wing to perdorm
its assigned functions in a peculiar
area of operation.

But the PEAK size of the Atlantic patrol aviation was reached in late 43 and consisted of 25 patrol squadrons (about 300 planes) and 20 bombing squadrons (about 320 planes). Therefore the only other naval aviation in the Atlantic would be those aircraft assigned to the CVE's or CV's in the hunter killer groups. Nowhere near 50% I think.

quote:

From November 1943 through the
end of May 1944, the U-boats were important
to Germany only in that they
kept Allied shipping in convoy and tied
down increasing numbers of antisubmarine
warfare forces. During this
period, Atlantic patrol aviation grew to
peak at 25 patrol and 20 bombing
squadrons.

Heck if you read this article:

http://www.history.navy.mil/download/ww2-30.pdf

The few naval aviators operating in the 2-4 spotting squadrons that were involved in Overlord or Dragoon trained to use Army fighters (Spits, P-51's, etc.). They didn't even use naval air frames for the most part. They did fly a few F6F's I think but not much else.

Jim

< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 8/14/2006 5:59:56 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 102

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/14/2006 9:02:26 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

In any event what still has yet to be done (other than by the game designer) is an analysis of IRL aircraft production that was sent to the Pacific theater. Even in the case of the Hellcat the total numbers of all the variants really aren't all that far off. Reallocating the majority of the night-fighter variant to day-fighter would account for the apparent discrepancy in numbers in the case of the Hellcat.

Two discussions are taking place - the first is Jim's rough analysis of US air production. I contended the analyisis was not accurate because of Jim's assumption of an 8 month production window. In the first three aircraft I looked at Jim's assumption was off by 5000 aircraft.

The second discussion concerns US vs Japanese Aircraft production. I am not arguing that the Japanese should be able to out produce the US. Nor am I suggesting in anyway that Japanese production as represented in the game is accurate. I was merely pointing out the IRL production comparison of total US Production vs Japanese Production.To hear some people talk about the industrial capacity of the United States you would think that the US was outproducing Japan in the neighborhood of 10-1 in aircraft. So I presented the IRL production comparison, however to make those numbers meaningful a determination needs to be made of how many US aircraft were sent to the Pacific.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 103

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/14/2006 11:45:32 PM

mefi

Posts: 61
Joined: 8/6/2006
Status: offline

First line combat aircraft in the Pacific.

Jan. 43 - 3537 vs 3200
Jan. 44 - 11442 vs 4050
Jan. 45 - 17976 vs 4600
July. 45 - 21908 vs 4100

Naval aircraft commissioned and leaving for the Pacific from Naval Air Station New York totalled 46000 planes from October 1941 to the end of war against Japan (this out of a total of 100 000 planes ferried by the units involved). source: Official History: Air Ferry Squadron One (VRF-1), Floyd Bennett Field, Brooklyn, New York,

If that figure is typical for other areas of aircraft manufacture, then you can construct a curve where c.45% of all US production becomes available for use in the Pacific but graduate it so that monthly totals start off much lower (as a percentage of the total) and end much higher as the war progresses. edit: Of course a figure of 45% based on planes being transferred from the East Coast would be extremely conservative but it would still add another 20 000 planes or so to the US.

Not really sure how fiddling with production numbers will help things - if the game lasts beyond the auto-victory point, then aren't the Allies almost guaranteed the victory as it is? The real boom in aircraft production wasn't until 1943 so increased production won't change much there.

< Message edited by mefi -- 8/15/2006 12:14:33 AM >

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 104

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/15/2006 5:41:03 AM

jolly_pillager

Posts: 206
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline

I think people might be missing another point as well...

The U.S. sent as many aircraft to the Pacific as they felt were needed (at least after, say, '43). To say that they only had 45% of their airforce in theater and that this is all they should get regardless of Japanese actions is silly.

If the Japanese had increased fighter production to the point where (as an example) they were forcing the Hellcat pools to run dry from attrition, then more Hellcats would have been made available. Period.

Any game that remotely allows the Japanese Empire to outproduce the U.S. in airframes...or even seriously compete with it in late 43 onwards is simply wrong.

This being said, I think that this is hiding a much larger problem...bombing bases unopposed to gain astronomical experience ratings far too quickly.

If a barely trained rookie has a 30 experience and a trained (that is to say proficient) pilot has a 55, then it should take 3 months to get from one to the other (which is, coincidentalt, as much as it takes on the 'training' mission...which was researched for accuracy in this regard).

Using ground attack missions to get the same results in a fraction of the time is a game exploit. It doesn't matter how many people do it...it doesn't matter if it MUST happen to keep the game going, it is an intentional abuse of the game rules to achieve a result not intended by the design (which clearly assumes training will advance at a historical rate...why else put in the training mission?).

The upshot of this exploit is to create unrealistically heavy attrition which leads to much greater stress on airframe manufacturing then was historical...which favors the side that can customize it's production, naturally.

The point is that there are many variables at work here interacting with each other, and the only good way out is to push for maximum historical accuracy at every turn for OOB and production abilities and then tweak the results generator to get historical loss ratios. Model history well and you will get historical outcomes.

(in reply to mefi)

Post #: 105

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/15/2006 11:58:26 AM

Jakerson

Posts: 565
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline

Not all USA produced planes went operating in the pacific USA donated 14,795 Aircraft (fighters and bombers) to Soviet Union as Lend Lease for example.

As you can see there is 90 cargo ships, 105 submarine hunters these all are needed to be subtracted from USA production that go Pacific. So even when USA in theory out produced Japan practically other theatres like Europe and Lend Lease leach quite sizeable partition of USA ships and Planes.

Here is full list what USA donated to Communist Soviet Union during WW 2:
Aircraft.............................14,795
Tanks.................................7,056
Jeeps................................51,503
Trucks..............................375,883
Motorcycles..........................35,170
Tractors..............................8,071
Guns..................................8,218
Machine guns........................131,633
Explosives..........................345,735 tons
Building equipment valued.......$10,910,000
Railroad freight cars................11,155
Locomotives...........................1,981
Cargo ships..............................90
Submarine hunters.......................105
Torpedo boats...........................197
Ship engines..........................7,784
Food supplies.....................4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment.......$1,078,965,000
Non-ferrous metals..................802,000 tons
Petroleum products................2,670,000 tons
Chemicals...........................842,000 tons
Cotton..........................106,893,000 tons
Leather..............................49,860 tons
Tires.............................3,786,000
Army boots.......................15,417,000 pairs

(in reply to jolly_pillager)

Post #: 106

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/17/2006 2:39:08 PM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Sorry Treespider I was venting and the jist of my post wasn't really aimed at you personally. Just seems like I'm talking to a brick wall sometimes. To me it's obvious the US is way underrepresented, so doing a plane by plane analysis seemed like an utter waste of time.

Here's an interesting read:

http://www.history.navy.mil/download/ww2-7.pdf

Of note is the numbers for naval aviation roles at the time of Okinawa:

quote:

Naval Aviation now numbered
41,000 aircraft, 60,000 pilots,
33,000 nonpilot officers, and almost
338,000 enlisted personnel.

41,000 aircraft. Even if only half were in the Pacific, that's over 20,000 naval aircraft in operation in the Pacific after years of heavy losses had already taken their toll and air losses had begun to diminish dramatically. But I bet a lot more than half were in the Pacific by the time Okinawa rolled around.

Note the number of extra pilots, I doubt the US even gets half of 60,000 pilots for all services for the entire game combined.

Jim

If you want to get slightly off an AFB accusation as being justifiable, in your case, then you might want to address just why it was that you completely ignored my post when I questioned your seeming spurious method of, what I felt, were sheer ignorance of anything logical concerning IJ plane production. I have no idea of either side's plane production but looking at what I thought you were saying it was apparent that you were making whopping large over-estimations of what logic would dictate that IJ is capable of in this game. In fact, I had not counter-responded to your ignoring my points simply because I thought you had some massive blinders on and couldn't be taken seriously. For such a fundamental flaw concerning IJ, I would find it difficult to believe that you would get the USA right.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 107

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/17/2006 3:10:43 PM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mefi

First line combat aircraft in the Pacific.

Jan. 43 - 3537 vs 3200
Jan. 44 - 11442 vs 4050
Jan. 45 - 17976 vs 4600
July. 45 - 21908 vs 4100

Naval aircraft commissioned and leaving for the Pacific from Naval Air Station New York totalled 46000 planes from October 1941 to the end of war against Japan (this out of a total of 100 000 planes ferried by the units involved). source: Official History: Air Ferry Squadron One (VRF-1), Floyd Bennett Field, Brooklyn, New York,

If that figure is typical for other areas of aircraft manufacture, then you can construct a curve where c.45% of all US production becomes available for use in the Pacific but graduate it so that monthly totals start off much lower (as a percentage of the total) and end much higher as the war progresses. edit: Of course a figure of 45% based on planes being transferred from the East Coast would be extremely conservative but it would still add another 20 000 planes or so to the US.

Not really sure how fiddling with production numbers will help things - if the game lasts beyond the auto-victory point, then aren't the Allies almost guaranteed the victory as it is? The real boom in aircraft production wasn't until 1943 so increased production won't change much there.

I can tell your figures are wrong on one basis alone. Operation Olympic saw the Japanese with I think it was 5,000 aircraft ready (or 6,000) for that one invasion alone.

(in reply to mefi)

Post #: 108

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/17/2006 3:46:37 PM

mefi

Posts: 61
Joined: 8/6/2006
Status: offline

First line combat aircraft on those dates Charles_22? As far as I know, Japanese planning had allowed for c.2500 fighter aircraft for Olympic and c.3000 suicide planes of every type, make and description.

The figures obviously account only for front line combat aircraft, not for every Ann dredged up out of storage barely able to stay in the air until it hit its target.

< Message edited by mefi -- 8/17/2006 3:47:53 PM >

(in reply to Charles2222)

Post #: 109

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/17/2006 3:47:04 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

quote:

ORIGINAL: mefi

First line combat aircraft in the Pacific.

Jan. 43 - 3537 vs 3200
Jan. 44 - 11442 vs 4050
Jan. 45 - 17976 vs 4600
July. 45 - 21908 vs 4100

Naval aircraft commissioned and leaving for the Pacific from Naval Air Station New York totalled 46000 planes from October 1941 to the end of war against Japan (this out of a total of 100 000 planes ferried by the units involved). source: Official History: Air Ferry Squadron One (VRF-1), Floyd Bennett Field, Brooklyn, New York,

If that figure is typical for other areas of aircraft manufacture, then you can construct a curve where c.45% of all US production becomes available for use in the Pacific but graduate it so that monthly totals start off much lower (as a percentage of the total) and end much higher as the war progresses. edit: Of course a figure of 45% based on planes being transferred from the East Coast would be extremely conservative but it would still add another 20 000 planes or so to the US.

Not really sure how fiddling with production numbers will help things - if the game lasts beyond the auto-victory point, then aren't the Allies almost guaranteed the victory as it is? The real boom in aircraft production wasn't until 1943 so increased production won't change much there.

I can tell your figures are wrong on one basis alone. Operation Olympic saw the Japanese with I think it was 5,000 aircraft ready (or 6,000) for that one invasion alone.

No..., you can't. The last comparison on the chart is for July of 1945; and Operation OLYMPIC was not scheduled to take place until the Spring of 1946. Even Operation CORONET wasn't to occur until November of 1945. More than adequate time for the Japs to produce and stash in the hills the number of A/C you mention that they hoped to have ready to Kamikaze the invasion force with.

Given the quality control problems the Japanese were facing in 1945, and the pitifully inadequate training the average pilot for one of these A/C could get with no fuel to fly with, I'm predicting that had it gone through, D-Day for CORONET would have made "The Great Mariana's Turkey Shoot" look like a reasonably "equal" encounter. Thousands of A/C with mechanical difficulties and pilots who barely earned the tital "novice" trying to take off and follow a few "veteran" guides to the landing grounds to be met by over 1000 "veteran" US Navy pilots in excellent Fighters with fully developed FDC and Radar tech to guide them. How many would have made "Double Ace" (let alone Ace) in one mission? The slaughter of these "sacrificial lambs" would have been appalling...., and a final condemnation of the "militarists" who started the war, and kept dragging it out long past the point of common sense, because they lacked the guts to admit they were wrong and had led the nation to disaster.

(in reply to Charles2222)

Post #: 110

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/17/2006 4:10:41 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

quote:

ORIGINAL: mefi

First line combat aircraft in the Pacific.

Jan. 43 - 3537 vs 3200
Jan. 44 - 11442 vs 4050
Jan. 45 - 17976 vs 4600
July. 45 - 21908 vs 4100

Naval aircraft commissioned and leaving for the Pacific from Naval Air Station New York totalled 46000 planes from October 1941 to the end of war against Japan (this out of a total of 100 000 planes ferried by the units involved). source: Official History: Air Ferry Squadron One (VRF-1), Floyd Bennett Field, Brooklyn, New York,

If that figure is typical for other areas of aircraft manufacture, then you can construct a curve where c.45% of all US production becomes available for use in the Pacific but graduate it so that monthly totals start off much lower (as a percentage of the total) and end much higher as the war progresses. edit: Of course a figure of 45% based on planes being transferred from the East Coast would be extremely conservative but it would still add another 20 000 planes or so to the US.

Not really sure how fiddling with production numbers will help things - if the game lasts beyond the auto-victory point, then aren't the Allies almost guaranteed the victory as it is? The real boom in aircraft production wasn't until 1943 so increased production won't change much there.

I can tell your figures are wrong on one basis alone. Operation Olympic saw the Japanese with I think it was 5,000 aircraft ready (or 6,000) for that one invasion alone.

Not directed necessarily at Charles 22 but to the forum as a whole...

Before trying to argue a point do some research to support your argument...do not come into arguments with statement like:

"I think it was..."
"I believe it was...''
"IIRC..."

Too many people around here try to argue points about history based on impressions they have developed over the course of their lifetime.

As an example I'll use myself...in a prior discussion about the Soviet Union I was under the impression that the Soviets had drawn down their forces in the Far East in the winter of 1941 to support the war against Germany. I had acquired this impression based on readings of popular histories about the War in Russia and World War II in general. However, as was pointed out to me by one or two of the forums members, that was not necessarily the case. In my disbelief I thoroughly researched the topic and was surprised to learn that not only did the Soviet's not draw down their Far Eastern forces but that they actually steadily increased the strength of their Far Eastern Armies.

This episode taught me a very important lesson...prior to bringing a discussion to the forum or participating in a discussion try to do a modicum of research involving specific books and or other media covering that specific topic, as many times your impression of what is being discussed maybe wrong, because of errors in popular and/or general histories...

Now off of my soapbox - In the case of the discrepancy between the 5,000-6,000 that charles states and the 4100 the other poster cited ...is Charles' number solely 1st line or is it the total number of aircraft?

Just some ramblings ...

< Message edited by treespider -- 8/17/2006 4:12:06 PM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Charles2222)

Post #: 111

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/17/2006 4:41:50 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

IIRC often means that person doesn't just the moment remember the exact source, not that it's his own impression or that surce doesn't exist...

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 112

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/17/2006 9:38:18 PM

Hoplosternum

Posts: 690
Joined: 6/12/2002
From: Romford, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Not directed necessarily at Charles 22 but to the forum as a whole...

Before trying to argue a point do some research to support your argument...do not come into arguments with statement like:

"I think it was..."
"I believe it was...''
"IIRC..."

Too many people around here try to argue points about history based on impressions they have developed over the course of their lifetime.

Hmmm,

I don't really agree. Not in this argument anyway

Such referenced argument may be necessary for getting changes made to CHS / RHS scenarios but are not crucial here.

I don't think there is that much disagreement that IRL the allies produced more, and more of the advanced types, than the Japanese. Even if we exclude the ones going to Europe. Nor that in WitP the Japanese can out produce the allies, especially in the advanced types. The argument here is about whether a change should be made and if so to what extent.

Some argue that it's not a big issue when you actually play so who cares. Others that it is desirable that a Japanese player who can cause the allies such dreadful losses (and we are talking far worse than historical) gets rewarded that the allies suffer replacement difficulties. Some that the allies should always win such high attrition games as that was largely the policy they took and it greatly favours the side with the larger industrial base and pilot program and hence a change is essential. As to not do so penalises the allies from playing the strategy they did IRL while rewarding the Japanese for playing a long with the strategy that did so much to beat them.

Peoples thoughts and experience on these issues are important here. Too few games have gone the distance to give us much data and some of those that have are 'old style' games played with few if any restrictions (either self imposed or by house rules) which I suspect leads to far more bloody games. Hence issues with these games may not be issues in many other peoples games.

The actual historical numbers are sometimes less so. Even for those who seek historical accuracy. Thats because the game mechanisms do not acurately model aircraft.

Many of the planes produced on both sides were not replacing combat and ops losses or fitting out new units. They were simply replacing worn out aircraft. Currently this attrition is not modelled at all for either side. The ops losses look far too low as well. Plus there is the issue of air units having a very high (usually 100%) availability. Most squadrons are at full strength and fly at full strength all of the time. No one is ill, or has a dodgy engine or grounded due to lack of parts unless there is no aviation support. Of course they can mutinously refuse to fly

There is also the whole issue of the US simply sending what it needed IRL. So the actual numbers sent may be far less than could have been sent. Possibly the allies never were short of Hellcats in '44 but in this game if they are - unlike the Japanese - they cannot do anything to change it.

So I am not sure that demanding hard facts on numbers here is crucial. The argument is more about does the game need extra allied late war planes and if so which ones. In game experience and evidenced based on how the late war game players should hold a lot of weight. As of course the on going debate about what sort of game it should be. Should the Japanese have any chance of fending off the late war allies assuming they allies make no serious mistakes?

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 113

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/17/2006 10:59:13 PM

Nicholas Bell

Posts: 549
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline

Here's a great source to check out regarding this discussion:http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/aafsd/aafsd_list_of_tables_aircraftequipment.html

For example, here are USAAF aircraft deliveries by theater.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Hoplosternum)

Post #: 114

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/18/2006 12:54:10 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

Nice, Nic. You got one for the Navy?

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)

Post #: 115

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/18/2006 1:58:07 AM

Monter_Trismegistos

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline

Z.Flisowski "Burza nad Pacyfikiem"

Aircraft ready to counter Home Islands invasion:
Army: 800 fighters, 3000 ready for kamikaze
Navy: 5145 planes (2500 of it were trainers).

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 116

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/18/2006 5:17:59 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Z.Flisowski "Burza nad Pacyfikiem"

Aircraft ready to counter Home Islands invasion:
Army: 800 fighters, 3000 ready for kamikaze
Navy: 5145 planes (2500 of it were trainers).

When? What is the date for the figures? Though in fact, if half of the Navy's were trainers, there's probably good reason to suspect that a considerable number of the Army's were as well..., which would make that figure of 4100 First Line Aircraft sound pretty accurate.

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)

Post #: 117

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/18/2006 8:00:07 AM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

quote:

ORIGINAL: mefi

First line combat aircraft in the Pacific.

Jan. 43 - 3537 vs 3200
Jan. 44 - 11442 vs 4050
Jan. 45 - 17976 vs 4600
July. 45 - 21908 vs 4100

Naval aircraft commissioned and leaving for the Pacific from Naval Air Station New York totalled 46000 planes from October 1941 to the end of war against Japan (this out of a total of 100 000 planes ferried by the units involved). source: Official History: Air Ferry Squadron One (VRF-1), Floyd Bennett Field, Brooklyn, New York,

If that figure is typical for other areas of aircraft manufacture, then you can construct a curve where c.45% of all US production becomes available for use in the Pacific but graduate it so that monthly totals start off much lower (as a percentage of the total) and end much higher as the war progresses. edit: Of course a figure of 45% based on planes being transferred from the East Coast would be extremely conservative but it would still add another 20 000 planes or so to the US.

Not really sure how fiddling with production numbers will help things - if the game lasts beyond the auto-victory point, then aren't the Allies almost guaranteed the victory as it is? The real boom in aircraft production wasn't until 1943 so increased production won't change much there.

I can tell your figures are wrong on one basis alone. Operation Olympic saw the Japanese with I think it was 5,000 aircraft ready (or 6,000) for that one invasion alone.

No..., you can't. The last comparison on the chart is for July of 1945; and Operation OLYMPIC was not scheduled to take place until the Spring of 1946. Even Operation CORONET wasn't to occur until November of 1945. More than adequate time for the Japs to produce and stash in the hills the number of A/C you mention that they hoped to have ready to Kamikaze the invasion force with.

Given the quality control problems the Japanese were facing in 1945, and the pitifully inadequate training the average pilot for one of these A/C could get with no fuel to fly with, I'm predicting that had it gone through, D-Day for CORONET would have made "The Great Mariana's Turkey Shoot" look like a reasonably "equal" encounter. Thousands of A/C with mechanical difficulties and pilots who barely earned the tital "novice" trying to take off and follow a few "veteran" guides to the landing grounds to be met by over 1000 "veteran" US Navy pilots in excellent Fighters with fully developed FDC and Radar tech to guide them. How many would have made "Double Ace" (let alone Ace) in one mission? The slaughter of these "sacrificial lambs" would have been appalling...., and a final condemnation of the "militarists" who started the war, and kept dragging it out long past the point of common sense, because they lacked the guts to admit they were wrong and had led the nation to disaster.

Yeah, just like the kamikazes at Okinawa! Does 29 sunk ships with many more damaged sound like it's worth a few hundred planes to you? Just how much fuel do you need to attack an invasion off your shores?

Yes, the chart stops at 7/45, and given the decision to use the bomb was much earlier than spring of '46 and how the Okinanwa losses persuaded the commander of that Olympic operation to favor the bomb instead, I would have to wonder if his idea wasn't the spring of '46 afterall, but considerably earlier (but maybe later post-poned to '46 if it 'must' go through). You do at least make the point that I cannot know the number of "home island" front line planes based on Olympic, but if you hadn't noticed the trend of the chart the numbers keep going down, so apparently there's something wrong if you can then admit then somehow the numbers jumped in either spring of '46 or an earlier attempt that the Olympic commander might have had in mind. I would have to venture that if the Olympic figures I saw were 5,000 IJ planes "just" for that operation, then these chart figures are bogus as surely they weren't expecting IJ to throw every single serviceable plane into that operation. The figures are for the entire Pacific and yet a mere six months later, defying the trend of the chart, they can put 5,000 into Olympic???? The total planes should be more like 3,500 for an Olympic and that's only if they threw everything into it if that chart has any relevance.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 118

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/18/2006 8:14:59 AM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mefi

First line combat aircraft on those dates Charles_22? As far as I know, Japanese planning had allowed for c.2500 fighter aircraft for Olympic and c.3000 suicide planes of every type, make and description.

The figures obviously account only for front line combat aircraft, not for every Ann dredged up out of storage barely able to stay in the air until it hit its target.

I can't tell you what sort of planes they had ready for Olympic, as the book didn't go into that much detail. they showed 2,500 kamikaze and 2,500 regular IIRC. It was either that or 3,000 apiece, but I'm thinking it was 2,500 (don't have the book with me). What does front-line aircraft mean anyway? The best variant of each model? I assume, naturally, that the US planes on the CV's were considered front-line of course. Regardless of that, it takes far less ability for a plane, for those that were rigged that way, for somebody to crash it into a ship than to dogfight. IOW, every allied plane while usually better, aside from piloting, had a totally different role. In the case of what kamikazes they might intercept they had to shoot them down, not just nick them, etc. I would have to wonder also, whether any allied pilot had much of any training on being able to tell the difference betrween a kamikaze and a regular plane. Perhaps that could be most easily told if the kamikazes had escorts, or a larger number of planes, escorts or not, than just regular planes going out on a standard mission.

It might be the case that trying to engage kamikazes accompanied by regular IJ planes, might be a considerably more difficult than fighting either type by themselves. Part of the difficulty fighting the kamikazes of course would be the factor of the allied fighters finding some time where they would have to let them go in order to trust the flak would get the rest of them, or else face the flak themselves too. I think Okinawa proved the flak alone wasn't close to being adequate for kamikazes.

(in reply to mefi)

Post #: 119

RE: Allied aircraft production figures - 8/18/2006 8:19:56 AM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

quote:

ORIGINAL: mefi

First line combat aircraft in the Pacific.

Jan. 43 - 3537 vs 3200
Jan. 44 - 11442 vs 4050
Jan. 45 - 17976 vs 4600
July. 45 - 21908 vs 4100

Naval aircraft commissioned and leaving for the Pacific from Naval Air Station New York totalled 46000 planes from October 1941 to the end of war against Japan (this out of a total of 100 000 planes ferried by the units involved). source: Official History: Air Ferry Squadron One (VRF-1), Floyd Bennett Field, Brooklyn, New York,

If that figure is typical for other areas of aircraft manufacture, then you can construct a curve where c.45% of all US production becomes available for use in the Pacific but graduate it so that monthly totals start off much lower (as a percentage of the total) and end much higher as the war progresses. edit: Of course a figure of 45% based on planes being transferred from the East Coast would be extremely conservative but it would still add another 20 000 planes or so to the US.

Not really sure how fiddling with production numbers will help things - if the game lasts beyond the auto-victory point, then aren't the Allies almost guaranteed the victory as it is? The real boom in aircraft production wasn't until 1943 so increased production won't change much there.

I can tell your figures are wrong on one basis alone. Operation Olympic saw the Japanese with I think it was 5,000 aircraft ready (or 6,000) for that one invasion alone.

Not directed necessarily at Charles 22 but to the forum as a whole...

Before trying to argue a point do some research to support your argument...do not come into arguments with statement like:

"I think it was..."
"I believe it was...''
"IIRC..."

Too many people around here try to argue points about history based on impressions they have developed over the course of their lifetime.

As an example I'll use myself...in a prior discussion about the Soviet Union I was under the impression that the Soviets had drawn down their forces in the Far East in the winter of 1941 to support the war against Germany. I had acquired this impression based on readings of popular histories about the War in Russia and World War II in general. However, as was pointed out to me by one or two of the forums members, that was not necessarily the case. In my disbelief I thoroughly researched the topic and was surprised to learn that not only did the Soviet's not draw down their Far Eastern forces but that they actually steadily increased the strength of their Far Eastern Armies.

This episode taught me a very important lesson...prior to bringing a discussion to the forum or participating in a discussion try to do a modicum of research involving specific books and or other media covering that specific topic, as many times your impression of what is being discussed maybe wrong, because of errors in popular and/or general histories...

Now off of my soapbox - In the case of the discrepancy between the 5,000-6,000 that charles states and the 4100 the other poster cited ...is Charles' number solely 1st line or is it the total number of aircraft?

Just some ramblings ...

I can get the book when I get home if it really matters. I can't recall their stating of what the quality would be, but as I made the point just a few moments ago, at least for kamikaze aircraft the amount of quality of the plane is considerably less important since it's essentially a flying bomb anyway.

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 120

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Allied aircraft production figures