HMSWarspite
Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Smirfy
None of my *sniping* is unsubstantiated of your 70,000 47,000 Bomber crews were KIA and another 8,100 were killed in accidents. The Typhoon losses are way out of whack. Fighter command lost 4,790 aircraft the whole war in six months in Italy I have lost 1300 fighters or Fighter bombers and 980 level bombers totalling 2500 pilots/aircrew killed in action. All this without the luftwaffe for 4 months as its down to 200 sorties a turn. Italy is a low intensity theatre. As I said Figther Command and 2nd tactical airforce did not send pilots to their deaths Flak was worked out by inteligence and recce and the pilots briefed by flak specialists each op these measures were adopted by the 8th airforce. 696 Flak losses and 1476 operational losses is nonsense. I dont attack airbases because I knew from reading AAR's Flak was totally out of whack
For instance I have now as many operational Wellington X losses in Italy as Bomber command endured the whole war and one quarter of total losses for the aircraft. And bomber comand was on freaking night ops
Lancaster operational losses 0.16%
Halifax operational losses 0.24%
Wellington operational losses 0.72%
Mosquito operational losses 0.13%
Stirling operational losses 0.32%
Hampden operational losses 1.26%
Blenhiem operational losses 0.81%
Whitley (widow maker) operational losses 1.43%
etc etc or 0.35% for bomber command *mainly night ops*
It has to said RAF operational losses hugely diminished as the war went on.
OK, thank you for those numbers. However you cannot just use raw numbers to compare with the game. How many sorties were flown in RL and the game to achieve those losses? If the air forces in the game are over or underused losses should change accordingly. Also, the number of units to fly those missions is a factor; a few planes flying hard will likely have higher losses than a larger force on the same number of sorties.
You need to stop looking at aircrew losses because the game abstracts them; I would stick to a/c losses if I were you.
Why is the absence of LW in game relevant? How many LW sorties were being flown in RL and how many RL losses were Air - Air?
I do not know where you get the idea that air commands didn't attack flak traps. I know both examples are not FC/2TAF, but Adm Vian (commander of the RN Pacific Carriers) criticised one sqd for not taking enough flak losses as he interpreted that as meaning they weren't pressing home their ground attacks (in reality they had had a long time to perfect their attack technique and could get the entire attack in from 4 directions at once, in one very quick but effective pass). Also when 8AF had broken the LW, the escorts were ordered to descend to low level and free range. This was heavily criticised as causing excessive losses but was continued anyway. If Flak had prevented attacks, the Allies probably would not have won!
When you say ops losses decreased later in the war, I think you will find the rate dropped not the total... the number of aircraft and sorties would not allow an absolute drop.
Are your Op loss rates RL or game? Oh, and you haven't forgotten that the FTS, OCUs and so on are not in game? Given the production is usually the full rate produced (for the game) Ops loss rates need to be high to avoid excessive plane stocks. Of course, I have already commented and requested prod/pool changes.
Having said all this, I have not played enough to know what I think of losses in game. I do know that most war games suffer from 'too much/too fast' syndrome. I.e. the game has insuficient 'drags' on the player to limit ahistorically intense activity.
How many games are your experiences based on?
< Message edited by HMSWarspite -- 1/23/2015 5:56:38 PM >
_____________________________
I have a cunning plan, My Lord
|
Printable Version
Some air questions. - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread