Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >>

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 7/16/2003 8:10:57 AM

Ron Saueracker

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]Ahh I misunderstood:

My comments as to your posts were some source you listed
of B-17 attacks against shipping. The source listed the number
of planes and the tonnage dropped. Dividing the tonnage by the number of planes gave 2000pounds.

It wasnt Midway, it was some transport convoy.

As for Midway, yes indeed I have read all about it.
The B-17 bombed from a high altitude, missed and went home.
End of story. [/B][/QUOTE]

Actually, I believe a transport was struck by a 500 lb bomb by B 17s prior to the CV exchange. This was the TF covered by CVL Zuiho.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 121

B-17 bombs - 7/16/2003 8:33:45 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]Ahh I misunderstood:

My comments as to your posts were some source you listed
of B-17 attacks against shipping. The source listed the number
of planes and the tonnage dropped. Dividing the tonnage by the number of planes gave 2000pounds.

It wasnt Midway, it was some transport convoy.

As for Midway, yes indeed I have read all about it.
The B-17 bombed from a high altitude, missed and went home.
End of story. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi, 2000 pounds per plane could be
1x2klb
2x1klb
4x500lb
8x250lb
20x100lb

per plane. (or mix of bombs)

2x500lb
4x250lb (ad nausem)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 122

Re: B-17 bombs - 7/16/2003 8:49:20 AM

dwesolick

Posts: 593
Joined: 6/24/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B] (ad nauseum) [/B][/QUOTE]

Well said.

_____________________________

"The Navy has a moth-eaten tradition that the captain who loses his ship is disgraced. What do they have all those ships for, if not to hurl them at the enemy?" --Douglas MacArthur

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 123

Re: B-17 bombs - 7/16/2003 8:50:10 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, 2000 pounds per plane could be
1x2klb
2x1klb
4x500lb
8x250lb
20x100lb

per plane. (or mix of bombs)

2x500lb
4x250lb (ad nausem) [/B][/QUOTE]

It could also be one 2000 pound bomb.

Which of course is nowhere near maximum bombload for the plane.

_____________________________

�It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.�

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 124

- 7/16/2003 9:38:18 AM

madflava13

Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]That is unlikely. Sources frequently disagree. What is likely is that
you dont wish to see the model changed, and would attempt
to find a source that would prevent that. That is all that is likely. [/B][/QUOTE]

Chiteng,
I guess I'm going to have to admit confusion here. Of course sources disagree. That's why it's important to read a number of sources. Maybe I misread the gist of this post by you, but isn't the whole purpose of us debating here to try and find some consensus? You make it seem like I have some sinister goal with regards to how this game will be designed. If I found a source that showed B-17s making X number of hits on average against Y number of ships, and it was a source that you could look at and back up with other sources, wouldn't that be a good thing? I mean it might not be the answer you or me or whomever wanted to see, but if we could find sources that did give an answer, that would be the goal we're going for, correct? It seems to me, and I admit this is what I took from your post, not any fact I can prove, but it seems to me that you just don't want anyone to prove you wrong.

I'm certainly not smart enough to hatch an evil plot to subvert 2by3/Matrix programmers. I've been trying to for some time, but the force is strong with Mr. Grigsby...

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 125

We hates Baggins - 7/16/2003 10:09:20 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Nasty Baggins stole precious, we hates all Baggins

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 126

Side dishs - 7/16/2003 10:19:14 AM

decourcy

Posts: 65
Joined: 12/17/2002
From: Michigan
Status: offline

Baggins tastes good with nasty chips though.

Or so i have been told. um-huhh.

Mike

_____________________________

Tae Kwon Leep is the Wine of Purity
not the Vinegar of Hostility.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 127

- 7/16/2003 10:21:07 AM

BillBrown

Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline

What I find so very interesting is that I have a PBEM opponent that swears that the Japanesse can not be beaten. That everyting is tilted toward Japan. He talks about my IJN 'uber' CVs and such. Of course we started playing a senario 19 with 120% IJN commitment and he immediatly started garrisioning all those forward bases he has. Maybe he and Chiteng should have a discussion. ;)

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 128

- 7/16/2003 10:26:37 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

BillBrown - This is precisely the reason why Matrix will only take claims of imbalance seriously if there is any evidence presented to support it. Everyone has an opinion one way or the other. People ranting one way or the other using examples of 'this one time I got beat real bad and it wasn't fair' dont carry a lot of weight. When they have replays and show consistently inaccurate results, then someone will point out the problem to the developers.

_____________________________

"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 129

- 7/16/2003 10:31:35 AM

nelmsm1

Posts: 1041
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

I do like my games to be historically accurate but not locked into history. I am not as well versed as most of you replying to this thread but just how much time did B-17's spend attacking ships at sea? I really can't think it would have been enough to unequivocaly say that B-17's could or couldn't hit ships at sea but I won't argue if someone tells me different. Now then I have to think it would be in the realm of possibility for a group of B-17's flying in formation dropping on the leader's drop that something would have to get lucky enough to hit or even have a damaging near miss, and if it was possible then I would like the game to have it possible. Meanwhile I'll let you detail oriented grognards argue about, I'm just going to play the game and thank the designers of this forum for including the ignore feature.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 130

- 7/16/2003 10:33:13 AM

BillBrown

Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline

I agree with that Snigbert. The one big thing I wish would be changed is the extremely accurate airstrikes on moving targets. It seems like as soon as a TF is spotted, every air unit( land and sea ) knows exactly where the TF is. What I remember about this time is that both sides had troubles coordinating information. To me there should be many more "unable to find target" results when air units are attacking task forces. At least in the first few months.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 131

- 7/16/2003 10:43:41 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

I agree, lack of coordination could be better reflected by the engine. For example, the battle of Savo Island occurred largely because of a failure of SWPAC spotting planes to relay the information to SOPAC forces that IJN cruisers were seen heading down the slot.
Air forces located with an air headquarters and carrier based planes should be less effected by disorganization, but as it is now it seems like anytime a task force is spotted every air group in range gets a shot at them if they meet the neccessary conditions.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 132

opposing view - 7/16/2003 10:56:17 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Everyone see's events in a different light. I go crazy when my airgroups attack every sighted TF. But they get it wrong. The large strike hits the small TF while the small unescorted strikes go after the large TF's (with CAP)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 133

Amen! - 7/16/2003 2:25:49 PM

CEDeaton

Posts: 149
Joined: 4/16/2003
From: Plano, TX
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, Everyone see's events in a different light. I go crazy when my airgroups attack every sighted TF. But they get it wrong. The large strike hits the small TF while the small unescorted strikes go after the large TF's (with CAP) [/B][/QUOTE]

Yep, I bet we've all been burned by that one enough times that we've probably come to expect it by now!

I had a company commander years ago that used to say that every battle is full of surprises and that no plan will ever survive contact with the enemy. The best leaders are the ones that learn how to deal with that fact, and the bad ones get to go home in a box because they didn't learn it soon enough.

There's another phrase that keeps ringing in my ears over this whole pointless argument that my Grandmother always said when I was growing up - "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". Now that I think of it, I don't recall her ever once recommending that constant whining at the cook was a viable solution! ;)

_____________________________

Semper Fi,
Craig

It's always pilot error. Sometimes the idiot just doesn't know how to fly a broken aircraft.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 134

B17's - 7/16/2003 4:53:55 PM

Bobthehatchit

Posts: 1478
Joined: 4/27/2003
From: GREAT BRITAIN
Status: offline

[QUOTE]I see no reason to accept that B-17 routinely dropped 500pound[/QUOTE] Posted by Chiteng. But they were capable of dropping them, so your point is what?

[QUOTE]As for Midway, yes indeed I have read all about it. The B-17 bombed from a high altitude, missed and went home. End of story.[/QUOTE]

And they could have just as easily have hit???

[QUOTE]Bettys can be shot down. It isnt as big a problem.[/QUOTE] Yes a few betty's get shot down and you lose a few to operations losses, same happens with the B17, its got more engines, more armour self, sealing tanks, and a **** load more guns. But they still get them shot down damaged and suffer operation losses.

When i play allies i generally stuggle to keep my B17 groups at at even half there full strengths after a few bombing missions, hardly the game winning weapon..

Are you saying then that the B17 can't and should not bomb shipping and should not drop 500/250 pounders? Why it did not do it during the uv period? The plain was capable of this, and as the commander in cheif you can order your B17 to concentrate on going after shipping if you wish.

I perosnally don't see the B17 as a very effective ship hunter, most of their raids result in very little damage if they hit at all, especially when bombing from altitude. But the fact remains that they can and did bomb shipping and they did hit it.

_____________________________

"Look at yours before laughing at mine". Garfield 1984.

Wanted: ISDII Low millage in Imperial gray.

Just my 2 pence worth.
I might not be right.
Hell I am probaby wrong.
But thats my opinion for what its worth!

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 135

- 7/16/2003 7:05:52 PM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13
[B]Chiteng,
I guess I'm going to have to admit confusion here. Of course sources disagree. That's why it's important to read a number of sources. Maybe I misread the gist of this post by you, but isn't the whole purpose of us debating here to try and find some consensus? You make it seem like I have some sinister goal with regards to how this game will be designed. If I found a source that showed B-17s making X number of hits on average against Y number of ships, and it was a source that you could look at and back up with other sources, wouldn't that be a good thing? I mean it might not be the answer you or me or whomever wanted to see, but if we could find sources that did give an answer, that would be the goal we're going for, correct? It seems to me, and I admit this is what I took from your post, not any fact I can prove, but it seems to me that you just don't want anyone to prove you wrong.

I'm certainly not smart enough to hatch an evil plot to subvert 2by3/Matrix programmers. I've been trying to for some time, but the force is strong with Mr. Grigsby... [/B][/QUOTE]

No I didnt suggest a conspiracy either =)

There are several issues that cause what you see.
Some people simply dont like what I have to say. Mdeihl is
a good example. In my world, if you see something you dont like
You 'might' make a comment that you dont agree, and then move on. Oddly enough, that isnt what happens here.

Then there are people that are delibretly trying to 'impose' their vision of not only what the game should be, but attempt to preclude any deviation from that vision. Pasternaski is such a poster. However I have played Gary's games for many years
and I dont think Gary is quite so foolish as to allow one person
to predjudice a design.

Then there are the people who simply are bored and see a fight and want to participate. That is by far the most common post I see. I dont respect such people because boredom isnt a good enough excuse for some of the things I see posted.

Some people I could forgive (like Mdeihl) is they would only be civil. But he refuses. I can only control 'my' actions not his.

He sees what I have to say as somehow 'threatening' the 'real truth' as he sees it. (ie Japan and Germany never had any substantive edge throughout the war)
I obviously dont agree, so there is a clash. However I am civil,
even when I dont agree.

Other people for whatever reason just want to see me taken down, any way they can do it. I have already said the easiest
way to do that is quote JFD in a manner that supports your argument. But no one ever does that.
Otherwise, the struggle goes on.

I dont wish to see a game dominated by B-17 that never get shot down and can hit ships at sea.

It is obvious (to me) that a ship moving at 33 knots is harder
to hit than one moving at 5 knots. But is there anything
in the game engine that suggests that reality is part of the game?
Who knows? It isnt documented.

The B-17 was an EXPENSIVE weapon system, its wasnt risked
casually.

To use it in such a manner is ahistorical.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 136

- 7/16/2003 7:07:50 PM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
[B]BillBrown - This is precisely the reason why Matrix will only take claims of imbalance seriously if there is any evidence presented to support it. Everyone has an opinion one way or the other. People ranting one way or the other using examples of 'this one time I got beat real bad and it wasn't fair' dont carry a lot of weight. When they have replays and show consistently inaccurate results, then someone will point out the problem to the developers. [/B][/QUOTE]

I have posted AAR Snigbert, what a pity you decided to ignore it.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 137

Re: B17's - 7/16/2003 7:11:51 PM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bobthehatchit
[B]Posted by Chiteng. But they were capable of dropping them, so your point is what?

And they could have just as easily have hit???

Yes a few betty's get shot down and you lose a few to operations losses, same happens with the B17, its got more engines, more armour self, sealing tanks, and a **** load more guns. But they still get them shot down damaged and suffer operation losses.

When i play allies i generally stuggle to keep my B17 groups at at even half there full strengths after a few bombing missions, hardly the game winning weapon..

Are you saying then that the B17 can't and should not bomb shipping and should not drop 500/250 pounders? Why it did not do it during the uv period? The plain was capable of this, and as the commander in cheif you can order your B17 to concentrate on going after shipping if you wish.

I perosnally don't see the B17 as a very effective ship hunter, most of their raids result in very little damage if they hit at all, especially when bombing from altitude. But the fact remains that they can and did bomb shipping and they did hit it. [/B][/QUOTE]

When I see a Betty/Nell strike say of 30 planes.
If it is opposed by anything. UNLESS it is over-escorted
(ie more than 60 escorts)
I see them routinely lose 50% of their planes.
I do NOT see that happen to B-17.

Bettys are a lesser problem, although THAT model could use some fixing as well.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 138

- 7/16/2003 8:35:55 PM

AmiralLaurent

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline

B-17 quickname was 'Fortress'.
Betty quickname was 'Flying Lighter'. They had no blindage and no self-sealing tank.

For survability, you can compare Betties and Nell to Hudson and Beaufort. Any other Allied bombers had better protection and weapons.

The only real bug is the AA suppression by raids on base. Or the human losses by raids, both are way too high. AFAIK Rabaul was bombed almost daily from 1943 to the end of the war and there were still AA firing in 1945. Bombing should made damge to base services, airfield, port and supplies but kill/disable far less squads.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 139

- 7/16/2003 11:26:53 PM

BillBrown

Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline

Chiteng, could you point me to the AARs you have posted to support you position?

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 140

- 7/16/2003 11:51:39 PM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

[B]Yes a few betty's get shot down and you lose a few to operations losses, same happens with the B17, its got more engines, more armour self, sealing tanks, and a **** load more guns. But they still get them shot down damaged and suffer operation losses.[/B]

The difference is that the B-17 was a better aircraft than the Betty or the Nell, and it is reflected as such in the game. This bothers some people as being unbalanced towards the Americans. People who claim they want historical accuracy, but can't tolerate the manifestation of historical accuracy in the game when it results in one side being superior to the other.

[B]I have posted AAR Snigbert, what a pity you decided to ignore it.[/B]

I haven't seen an AAR, or a link to the thread in either of your two recent threads where you've brought the subject up. If you expect people to go searching the forums to find evidence to support your assertion for you, then you're crazy. Provide us with the information yourself if you want to prove your point.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 141

Precious - 7/17/2003 12:07:08 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

We hatz the Baggins........wants the precious back we does...

LBA strike effectiveness against moving ships seems to be well balanced now. The only problem there is that flak effectiveness and disruption could be better. at least against the big level bombers. ship based flak vs tactical bombers is another issue.

But as mentioned by a few others its base and achorage effectiveness that needs addressing. Ironically this is not a B-17 issue.

I had a PBEM with Soulblazer where i found my transports bedeveled by a string of penny packet attacks by twin engine level bombers. avg # 4-6 per raid. The first couple of times they struck home, i wrote it off to bad luck. As others have said, LBA were indeed capable of hitting ships, more so if stationary. However after the next raid, and the next and the next and the next (some with multiple bomb hits!) both us began to see a problem.

In comparison, SB sent in some dive bombers to further muddle things up. Dive bombing of course is inherently a more precise method of delivering ordinance, doubly so against stationary targets. They scored zip on a frequent basis in comparison. Yet the lumbering bombers, attacking at 6k+, scored extremely consistantly. Now one can of course, find examples of ships struck by LBA. This is not the issue...the issue was the frequencey and consistancy of the hits. Had our game continued i think he would have had a book's worth of reported "hits" vs the smattering we have in the history books

Yes both sides kept valauble ships away from LBA. This to me is a no brainer. They were not playing a game. The stakes were higher, the risks real. Therefore you dont take chances. Even one hit on a carrier at anchor, even if 1000 other attempts miss, can ruin an operation or upset a timetable.

Achored ship.....airbase, ground units....all the same problem in my book. LBA is a tad bit too accurate for my tastes against all of them, and it gets exponentially worse as raid sizes increase until you get 100+ raids that can do something like this all at the same time:

Airbase hits 7
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 110
Port Hits 12
Port Supply hits 4

Ship A 2 bomb hits, captain has fit
Ship B
Ship C 1 bomb hit, heavy damage, crew gets shore leave
Ship D
Ship E
Ship F 4 bomb hits, vegetable locker suffers critcal hit, captain grabs history book to check for historcal poss that he now must go swimming :)

When one considers the square milage of an average sized base, results such as the above would make a 1991 air force whistle in appreciation. And since there are no "smart" weapons employed here the bombers must have litterally saturated the base and achorage with bombs. Shore bombardments as i always say, produce consistantly similar results. The disabling and killing of guns and soldiers regardless of size of base or entrenchments exaserbates the issue further

side note: 2000LB GP bombs btw were a rare commodity and were seldom used in AS attacks.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 142

- 7/17/2003 12:21:18 AM

Jocko

Posts: 6
Joined: 6/27/2003
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline

Hi,

I'm new to this board. Bought the game about a month ago. I love it already. I played the Commodore 64 version of this game when I was in High School. Been waiting 15 years for UV!!!

I was looking through some of Chiteng's posts. I believe there is a post from him (last post was May 28) (sorry, I don't know how to link the post) that shows a transport getting 1 bomb hit from some b-17's. I'm not sure if there are more AAR's from him with B-17 examples.

Since I'm new, I don't know of the LBA thing is broken or not, but I know the B-17 was used as an anti-shipping weapon. I believe B-17 crews reported BB Haruna sunk about 6 times before Coral sea.

BTW, this forum rocks!! I love the AAR's (currently waiting more from Wobbly and Herbieh.) Also sorry that Luskan and Raverdave had the CV mess from their great AAR. Can't wait for WITP.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 143

- 7/17/2003 12:38:56 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

[B]I'm new to this board. Bought the game about a month ago. I love it already. I played the Commodore 64 version of this game when I was in High School. Been waiting 15 years for UV!!![/B]

Welcome aboard!

You might want to quit playing UV now, before you've alienated your wife and kids, dont remember who your friends were, develop that pale white glow of someone whose only exposure to light is from sitting crouched in front of a 19 inch monitor 20 hours a day...

[B]I was looking through some of Chiteng's posts. I believe there is a post from him (last post was May 28) (sorry, I don't know how to link the post) that shows a transport getting 1 bomb hit from some b-17's. I'm not sure if there are more AAR's from him with B-17 examples.[/B]

If all there is is 1 example of a ship being hit by a bomb, that's pretty weak. There are plenty of examples of B-17 flights scoring a single hit on vessels underway. APs and AKs are more likely to be hit because of their slow speed (yes, speed is a factor in determining hit probability, that's why subs get so few hits on destroyers for example).

[B] I believe B-17 crews reported BB Haruna sunk about 6 times before Coral sea.[/B]

Evidently they didn't stress modesty when teaching how to write after action reports to their LBA crews.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 144

- 7/17/2003 1:45:30 AM

BillBrown

Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline

If I remember right, Adm Crace's Crusier/Destroyer force was attacked by B-17s who reported 2 BBs sunk.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 145

FLASH!! Putting the pickle in the barrel is easy if ba... - 7/17/2003 2:34:45 AM

CEDeaton

Posts: 149
Joined: 4/16/2003
From: Plano, TX
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BillBrown
[B]If I remember right, Adm Crace's Crusier/Destroyer force was attacked by B-17s who reported 2 BBs sunk. [/B][/QUOTE]

General Billy Mitchell's dried up old corpse just smiled so big that his lower jaw came loose! :D

Not sure I understand the major disagreement with LBA vs ground target effectiveness. We're bombing entire bases here. The B-17 was used to take out much smaller targets in Europe all the time. Getting regular hits on a runway, port facility or troop concentration shouldn't be all that hard given a Norden bombsight and someone that knows how to use it.

Given a few practice runs to get the hang of it, I'd imagine I could probably throw a thousand marbels out the window of a Cessna at 6000 feet and probably hit something the size of a runway at least that many times. (Though I doubt the airport manager would appreciate it!)

_____________________________

Semper Fi,
Craig

It's always pilot error. Sometimes the idiot just doesn't know how to fly a broken aircraft.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 146

- 7/17/2003 4:10:47 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
[B][B]Yes a few betty's get shot down and you lose a few to operations losses, same happens with the B17, its got more engines, more armour self, sealing tanks, and a **** load more guns. But they still get them shot down damaged and suffer operation losses.[/B]

The difference is that the B-17 was a better aircraft than the Betty or the Nell, and it is reflected as such in the game. This bothers some people as being unbalanced towards the Americans. People who claim they want historical accuracy, but can't tolerate the manifestation of historical accuracy in the game when it results in one side being superior to the other.

[B]I have posted AAR Snigbert, what a pity you decided to ignore it.[/B]

I haven't seen an AAR, or a link to the thread in either of your two recent threads where you've brought the subject up. If you expect people to go searching the forums to find evidence to support your assertion for you, then you're crazy. Provide us with the information yourself if you want to prove your point. [/B][/QUOTE]

The difference between the B-17 in the game and reality is that the B-17 in REALITY did get shot down. Not mysteriously fall apart
during flight. Not get lost on the way home, but get damaged enough that the plane could no longer fly. It happened
to the B-29 also. In fact it happened enough that the Navy invaded Iwo Jima to secure a base close enough for
fighter escorts. THAT is the reality Snigbert, you simply chose to ignore it. Just like you choose to ignore the other posters that complaining about LBA as well. I wonder what the total B-17 lost to enemy action is. Anyone have a source?

As for performing to your satisfaction, when I get a public apology
I will consider it. Until then....

_____________________________

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 147

- 7/17/2003 4:14:53 AM

CEDeaton

Posts: 149
Joined: 4/16/2003
From: Plano, TX
Status: offline

Oh look! It's 4:10 pm on the east coast. High school must be out now.

_____________________________

Semper Fi,
Craig

It's always pilot error. Sometimes the idiot just doesn't know how to fly a broken aircraft.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 148

Just the facts baby... - 7/17/2003 4:30:18 AM

dwesolick

Posts: 593
Joined: 6/24/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B] It happened
to the B-29 also. In fact it happened enough that the Navy invaded Iwo Jima to secure a base close enough for
fighter escorts. Anyone have a source?[/B][/QUOTE]

According to Kenneth Werrell in "BLANKETS OF FIRE: US Bombers over Japan During WWII", Iwo Jima was taken, not so much as a figher base, but as a safe haven for B-29s returning from Japan. According to Werrell, 82% of 29s landing on Iwo did so for fuel, not reasons of damage.

Further, of 513 B-29s lost by XX Airforce, only 148 were attributed to "enemy action" (flak, fighters, rammers). The rest were mainly due to operational causes. The Japanese air defenses (fighter and flak) were so inadequate that Lemay felt quite comfortable stripping the guns from the planes and sending them in at low level (as to whether the CREWS felt comfortable with this, well..... :) )

_____________________________

"The Navy has a moth-eaten tradition that the captain who loses his ship is disgraced. What do they have all those ships for, if not to hurl them at the enemy?" --Douglas MacArthur

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 149

Re: FLASH!! Putting the pickle in the barrel is easy i... - 7/17/2003 4:52:46 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CraigDeaton
[B]General Billy Mitchell's dried up old corpse just smiled so big that his lower jaw came loose! :D

Not sure I understand the major disagreement with LBA vs ground target effectiveness. We're bombing entire bases here. The B-17 was used to take out much smaller targets in Europe all the time. Getting regular hits on a runway, port facility or troop concentration shouldn't be all that hard given a Norden bombsight and someone that knows how to use it.

Given a few practice runs to get the hang of it, I'd imagine I could probably throw a thousand marbels out the window of a Cessna at 6000 feet and probably hit something the size of a runway at least that many times. (Though I doubt the airport manager would appreciate it!) [/B][/QUOTE]

The major problem Craig, is that the bombers (not just B-17's) are able to do all that you described at the same time in UV.

If 100 bombers are attacking an airfield, and conditions are good. Yes, i think they'd have a good chance of making a alot of holes. Same goes for other facilities or say an anchored priority ship or close group of ships.

Not all at once though. Also, the prewar expectations on the pinpoint accuracy of the bombers, Norden or no-Norden proved to be overly optimistic, particuarily when it came to the SoPac theater. Add other variables such as weather, flak, CAP, fatigue, lack of exp etc etc and it got more and more muddied. Many a raid proved marginal to ineffective requiring a continuous and massive attrtional war that lasted two+ years. Right now you dont really see that.

Have no problem with high exp/veteran bomber crews that are well protected from CAP's (escorts!) and mindful of flak, scoring well, but even then, i dont expect them to cover an entire geographical area and hit every priority target there is. Its not realistic by any means.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 150