RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 50 ships in day and night)...

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: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 50 ships in day and night)...

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: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 50 ships in day and night)...

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/23/2004 2:17:50 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

And just to bury people in some more numbers (but mostly 'cause I only just now thought of it), here are the percentages figured as (Total # hits) divided by (# of aircraft).

B-29s vs. Merchants: 83.15, 57.61, 21.84, 54.65, 43.33. Avg: 52.12
B-29s vs. Warships: 75.00, 61.11, 77.91, 66.67, 50.00. Avg: 66.14
B-29s w/50 EXP vs. Merchants: 31.33, 53.66, 72.00, 81.18, 61.71. Avg: 60.57
B-29s w/50 EXP vs. Warships: 71.79, 54.65, 45.57, 60.26, 55.29. Avg: 57.51
B-17Es vs. Merchants: 100.00, 66.67, 107.61, 69.57, 61.37. Avg: 81.64
B-17Es vs. Warships: 33.33, 46.15, 46.59, 42.22, 30.12. Avg: 39.68
B-25Cs vs. Merchants: 60.42, 113.04, 55.43, 96.84, 72.83. Avg: 79.71
B-25Cs vs. Warships: 57.29, 57.30, 57.78, 47.31, 56.52. Avg: 55.24
B-29s @30K vs. Merchants: 10.00, 7.59, 8.05, 11.24, 13.95. Avg: 10.17
B-29s @30K vs. Warships: 14.12, 6.82, 24.14, 3.66, 6.85. Avg: 11.12
B-29s vs. Merchants w/AAA: 87.36, 94.51, 51.22, 60.71, 77.78. Avg: 74.31
B-17Es vs. Merchants w/AAA: 103.45, 63.74, 49.44, 97.80, 69.89. Avg: 76.86
B-25Cs vs. Merchants w/AAA: 31.91, 44.68, 44.09, 34.04, 78.72. Avg: 46.69
B-29s vs. No ships in port: 28.09, 22.50, 33.33, 16.67, 27.59. Avg: 25.64

I planed today to ask some kind soul to do statistics on my TEST runs and when I woke up I found out that you already did it - thanks!

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to dtravel)

Post #: 181

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/23/2004 3:28:17 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Thanks Leo,

No problem at all... those tests were old wish of mine (and on my personal "to do" list)...

quote:

You have confirmed what I suspected. Does not matter if you have AAA in a base or not, it will not effect the accuracy at all of the raid.

Also, if you are the Japanese, you can not stop any Allied heavy bomber raid from plastering it's target.

Yes...

But what puzzles me most is that I think I discovered two separate issues with my tests:

#1
Every separate bomber attacks every separate target with separate bombs.

This is, I think, what causes results I found out with my tests where too many ships are hit.

#2
Ineffective AAA.

I think that slow and big juicy targets bombers are at 10000 ft = 3000 m should be much much more damaged with concentration of AAA guns I placed in last batch of my tests (84x 105 mm AA Gun + 48x 75 mm AA Gun).

BTW, I served my army time in Air Force (SA-3 base) and I learned quite a lot about SAMs and AAA.

Basically effectiveness of AAA depends on:

a)
Size of attacking aircraft.

b)
Speed of attacking aircraft.

c)
Altitude of attacking aircraft.

d)
Durability and armor of attacking aircraft.

e)
Rate of fire of AAA.

f)
Accuracy of AAA.

g)
Effect of AAA on target when there is a hit.

Unfortunately I now seriously doubt that WitP calculates all this when it simulates AAA vs. aircraft combat.

Since all data (except for "a" - aircraft size and "e" rate of fire) exist in WitP already I think that further enhancement of AAA is possible especially since we can derive the missing ("a" - aircraft size and "e" rate of fire) for other data we already have...

What do you think gentleman?

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to 2ndACR)

Post #: 182

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/23/2004 6:38:36 PM

BoerWar

Posts: 506
Joined: 6/12/2004
From: Arlington, VA
Status: offline

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoerWar

Another interesting item I note from Apollo's runs are that these bombers are able to go every day. This did not happen in reality, it took days and even weeks between raids to plan and refit major bombing formations. Look at Derek's data. The minimum turn around is 3 days. As others in this thread have noted the heavy bombers in the game should be experiencing more fatigue and or morale loss as a way to simulate an extended planning period.

Look again. He ran the same day over and over. All of the Combat Reports are for 06/01/44.

OK, how about this. The day prior these bombers leveled Guadalcanal. The next day, this:

Day Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 9

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 34
LB-30 Liberator x 6

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
PG Choko Maru #2, Bomb hits 4, on fire
DD Yamagumo
PC Ch 24, Bomb hits 6, on fire, heavy damage
PC Takunan Maru #10, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 12000 feet
2 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 12000 feet
2 x LB-30 Liberator bombing at 12000 feet
2 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 12000 feet
2 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 12000 feet
4 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 12000 feet
4 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 12000 feet
4 x LB-30 Liberator bombing at 12000 feet
4 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 12000 feet
4 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 12000 feet
4 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 12000 feet
4 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 12000 feet

If apollo runs them day after day I have little doubt that most will keep coming back.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 183

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/23/2004 7:58:06 PM

IKerensky

Posts: 374
Joined: 6/7/2001
Status: offline

Err, whenb you tested you give B-29 stats of Betty right ? but did you take out 2 engine from thems ? because I think that engine number is the 1st criterium of survival for aircraft...

Also remembering BTR Flak is the number 1 cause of losses to strat bombers.... but in this game anything except USN flak is pretty pointless....

(in reply to BoerWar)

Post #: 184

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/23/2004 8:36:19 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: KERENSKY

Err, whenb you tested you give B-29 stats of Betty right ? but did you take out 2 engine from thems ? because I think that

Only Japanese aircrfat have engines in WitP database - US aircraft doesn't have them at all (and they still fly)...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to IKerensky)

Post #: 185

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/23/2004 8:40:21 PM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
I planed today to ask some kind soul to do statistics on my TEST runs and when I woke up I found out that you already did it - thanks!

De Nada. A few requests, if you don't mind? (As you have time, energy and inclination, of course.)

Can you do some runs with your modified B-17s and B-25s against empty ports? As I said, the numbers with B-29s are too low to be certain, but I suspect that level bombers will have a serious drop in the hit percentages against an empty port. That would, personally, feel wrong. I think they should have the same hit percentages, just spread out over more or less targets. Varying the numbers of merchant vessels would also be informative I think, but I don't know how much effort it is to set up these tests.

Also, since B-29s are "supposed" to be used for Strategic Bombing, can you put some industry on Wake and run some City Attacks? Some runs with B-17s and B-25s for comparison would be nice too, Santa.

(I know I said B-29s have trouble hitting the broadside of a city, but it was intended to just be color. Might be useful to see if its true or not.

)

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 186

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/23/2004 9:08:31 PM

BoerWar

Posts: 506
Joined: 6/12/2004
From: Arlington, VA
Status: offline

There is a very good reason why things that we are seein occur regularly with 4E bombers didn't happen very often during WWII. Doctrine, the U.S. and British bomber commands of the time ascribed to the airpower theory of Douhet. He believe that airpower had primacy and if it was used properly it could win a war single handedly. Army and Naval forces were supporting forces to the greater strategic battle. Read for yourself.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/6win90.html

Hap Arnold and all the bomber boys that went through bomber command training were true believers. The Army Air Corp probably built B-25/26's just to keep to keep higher command from requesting that their precious strat bombers be used to support tactical level action. There aren't many instances during WWII where strat bombers were used at the tactical level. Midway where desparation and the survival of their base was at stake and Normandy where Ike insisted come to mind.

If you don't want to make major changes to the game system perhaps 4E bombers should only be able to conduct Port attacks and naval attacks (coordinated naval attacks by 4E bombers should not be allowed since they only did it when someone put a gun to their head).

Otherwise you could devise another attack option (Strategic Attack) that would be the only option (other than naval attack) for 4E bombers. Strategic attack could only be used against major population centers or sites where resources/industry exist. Strategic attack would focus damage on industry/resources/accumulated manpower while doing significantly less damage to colocated ports/airfields/ground combat units.

(in reply to dtravel)

Post #: 187

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/23/2004 9:14:47 PM

BoerWar

Posts: 506
Joined: 6/12/2004
From: Arlington, VA
Status: offline

quote:

If you don't want to make major changes to the game system perhaps 4E bombers should only be able to conduct Port attacks and naval attacks (coordinated naval attacks by 4E bombers should not be allowed since they only did it when someone put a gun to their head).

I mean't City attack not port attack.

(in reply to BoerWar)

Post #: 188

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/23/2004 10:00:07 PM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

You point out the difference between Doctrine and Capability.

Personally, I'm not discussing Doctrine here. Not snubbing such a discussion, just not what I think we are exploring here.

What I think we are testing here is Capability. Were the 4E bombers capable of dropping bombs on ports? Well, yes, of course they were. The ports usually were below the bombers in altutude, after all.

How good at it were/could they have been? Welllllll, that's up for debate. First step is find out what the current game is programmed to do. Then we can argue about whether they should be more or less good at it.

Then we'll argue over whether they should be doing it or not. Lots of arguing around here.

(All right, all right, "polite civilized debate". Feel better now?

)

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

(in reply to BoerWar)

Post #: 189

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/23/2004 10:18:06 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoerWar

There is a very good reason why things that we are seein occur regularly with 4E bombers didn't happen very often during WWII. Doctrine, the U.S. and British bomber commands of the time ascribed to the airpower theory of Douhet. He believe that airpower had primacy and if it was used properly it could win a war single handedly. Army and Naval forces were supporting forces to the greater strategic battle. Read for yourself.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/6win90.html

Hap Arnold and all the bomber boys that went through bomber command training were true believers. The Army Air Corp probably built B-25/26's just to keep to keep higher command from requesting that their precious strat bombers be used to support tactical level action. There aren't many instances during WWII where strat bombers were used at the tactical level. Midway where desparation and the survival of their base was at stake and Normandy where Ike insisted come to mind.

If you don't want to make major changes to the game system perhaps 4E bombers should only be able to conduct Port attacks and naval attacks (coordinated naval attacks by 4E bombers should not be allowed since they only did it when someone put a gun to their head).

Otherwise you could devise another attack option (Strategic Attack) that would be the only option (other than naval attack) for 4E bombers. Strategic attack could only be used against major population centers or sites where resources/industry exist. Strategic attack would focus damage on industry/resources/accumulated manpower while doing significantly less damage to colocated ports/airfields/ground combat units.

I understand, but players should be allowed to devise their own doctrine based on the realistic capablities. In effect they are the air chiefs. Or, if you prefer, they are holding guns to the heads of their air commanders. House rules would suffice for those who agree on the limitation.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 12/23/2004 8:18:30 PM >

(in reply to BoerWar)

Post #: 190

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/23/2004 11:50:07 PM

BoerWar

Posts: 506
Joined: 6/12/2004
From: Arlington, VA
Status: offline

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoerWar

There is a very good reason why things that we are seein occur regularly with 4E bombers didn't happen very often during WWII. Doctrine, the U.S. and British bomber commands of the time ascribed to the airpower theory of Douhet. He believe that airpower had primacy and if it was used properly it could win a war single handedly. Army and Naval forces were supporting forces to the greater strategic battle. Read for yourself.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/6win90.html

Hap Arnold and all the bomber boys that went through bomber command training were true believers. The Army Air Corp probably built B-25/26's just to keep to keep higher command from requesting that their precious strat bombers be used to support tactical level action. There aren't many instances during WWII where strat bombers were used at the tactical level. Midway where desparation and the survival of their base was at stake and Normandy where Ike insisted come to mind.

If you don't want to make major changes to the game system perhaps 4E bombers should only be able to conduct Port attacks and naval attacks (coordinated naval attacks by 4E bombers should not be allowed since they only did it when someone put a gun to their head).

Otherwise you could devise another attack option (Strategic Attack) that would be the only option (other than naval attack) for 4E bombers. Strategic attack could only be used against major population centers or sites where resources/industry exist. Strategic attack would focus damage on industry/resources/accumulated manpower while doing significantly less damage to colocated ports/airfields/ground combat units.

I understand, but players should be allowed to devise their own doctrine based on the realistic capablities. In effect they are the air chiefs. Or, if you prefer, they are holding guns to the heads of their air commanders. House rules would suffice for those who agree on the limitation.

OK, if that is the case lets include the option to build 4E bombers for Japan. They were techically capable, they just didn't build them because it didn't fit their doctrine. How about suicide bombers who will go in and blow up ports and airfields. Let Japan invest more in Chem/bio warfare. How about Kamikazes in 1941.

You can't divest yourself of basic doctrine and then pretend you are still simulating WWII. It wasn't just one leader that needed to be replaced it was the whole way they did business. The only reason the US/UK had those 4E bombers was to support their strategic air campaign vision. If we're playing fantasy WWII lets go all the way.

Personally, I think players should be able to devise thier own strategy and tactics. You have to rewrite history all the way back to the 20's if you are going to allow doctrine changes.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 191

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/24/2004 12:46:57 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoerWar

OK, if that is the case lets include the option to build 4E bombers for Japan. They were techically capable, they just didn't build them because it didn't fit their doctrine. How about suicide bombers who will go in and blow up ports and airfields. Let Japan invest more in Chem/bio warfare. How about Kamikazes in 1941.

You can't divest yourself of basic doctrine and then pretend you are still simulating WWII. It wasn't just one leader that needed to be replaced it was the whole way they did business. The only reason the US/UK had those 4E bombers was to support their strategic air campaign vision. If we're playing fantasy WWII lets go all the way.

Personally, I think players should be able to devise thier own strategy and tactics. You have to rewrite history all the way back to the 20's if you are going to allow doctrine changes.

I respectfully disagree.

What you are saying is that IJN Submarine Doctrine should be forced On all the time? It's mixing apples and oranges to contend that production choices (other than those accounted for in the game) are the same as use doctrine. If so then CV's, BB's, and everything else (all ships, planes and land units) could only be used according to very historic guidelines. Not much of a game, just (as someone previously pointed out) 'a movie you watch on your computer'.

My basic position is that the game reproduce what was there and let us try our hand at it. Japanese abiltities to change historic production, as built into the game, are probably necessary to make a real go of it, playability wise. No big deal. Introducing all kinds of other stuff is why the database and scenarios (heck, even the very map!) are open to editing.

Thanks, Developers!

Having 4E bombers for Japan is a very interesting thought and would make a great mod.

(in reply to BoerWar)

Post #: 192

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/24/2004 2:41:52 AM

IKerensky

Posts: 374
Joined: 6/7/2001
Status: offline

Well for once I agree,

Production IS dictated by Strategy, not the other way around. No Strategical bomber in Luftwaffe because it wasn"t part of their Strategy.

All allied countries devote a LARGE part of their war economy and design potentiel on building the tools for their Strategical Bombing Campaign, thoses weapons where assumed to be used in the way they were designated: as Strategical bomber.

And many of the allied weakness come from those strategy goes into tactic flaw: Initial CW tank without HE ammo, Sherman initially not supposed to engage ennemy tank, job for the M-10.... And in front of the event they had to adapt.

People speak as being the head of airforce you are the one to decide how to use your asset. Not really, look at battle of Britain and the Big Wings versus Small Wings battle. Remember the allmighty Weaponary Lobbies that are making bucks and paying for the president elections... Many of the strategic choice escape military command.

Also the Strategical Air Wings aren't under the command of Tactical forces... And thus will quite never get tactical assignement, except exceptionnal situation when they are sollicitated ( D-Day support, Sub Pen bombing ). You have Tactical bombers under your tactical command, use them for tactical bombing.

BTW anyone pretending B29 and such are lining up to bomb the port probably never see one of thoses beast fly... Even B1� is far from nibble. Box Flying isn't only a defensive formation, it is also the best way for them to fly and actually insure some part of the target will be fly over...

Finnaly I will keep with my main protest:
- Bombs should'nt be handled one by one for level bomber and pilot skills shouldn't been taken into account for thus.
- The game need to handle the package as a full, this will be far easier to simulate and cross with historical figure. We got no data on what bomb hit what with what effect, but we can easily get the curb about what amount of Bomb Tons delivered at what altitude to what target amount in Damage/Time of rebuild/Down time.
- Check my previous post in this thread.

Also just to add something that just hit me:
- Ships should be the hardest thing to hit when you target a port, simply because they tend to be on the very exterior of your target and usually in port bombing you fly from sea to land, or land to sea ( something with wind direction and thus ) so trying to hit the ship mind you have a lot of chance to put your package into water.

Frankly what will we lost if we add the Strat Bomber wasn't used to hit ships in port, you are not allowed to do so, line ? Isn't it the easiest way to fix the whole thing ? I always thought Strat will be limitated to city bombing... Using them in tactical role is clearly exploiting their huge bomb number load.... 40 roll at 2.5% is a certain hit. 10 B29 bombing at 0.25% are sure to hit at least once, at 2.5% they hit ten times at that is just too much.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 193

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/24/2004 3:05:59 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

Kerensky,

I still prefer to have the choice of how to use the B29's. If it comes down to limiting B29 use for a playability issue (because it's so crushing to the Japanese player), then so be it. No big deal.

If B29 use at will is allowed, then (as I think you're saying) let's make their performance as close to reality as we can (given the game's limits).

(in reply to IKerensky)

Post #: 194

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/24/2004 6:46:27 AM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

I'd like to have some more test runs before I say anything for certain, but at this point I'm not sure we can say that heavy bombers attacking ports is broken. Take a look at those hit percentages I posted earlier. At best, the B-29s are getting a hit rate of about 1.5%. They are getting as many hits as they are because they are dropping so many bombs, 40 bombs per plane. Apollo's test runs are involving more than 3,500 bombs. They are literally carpet bombing the entire harbor area (and everything else within five miles, at least).

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 195

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/24/2004 11:32:02 AM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

Can you do some runs with your modified B-17s and B-25s against empty ports? As I said, the numbers with B-29s are too low to be certain, but I suspect that level bombers will have a serious drop in the hit percentages against an empty port. That would, personally, feel wrong. I think they should have the same hit percentages, just spread out over more or less targets. Varying the numbers of merchant vessels would also be informative I think, but I don't know how much effort it is to set up these tests.

Also, since B-29s are "supposed" to be used for Strategic Bombing, can you put some industry on Wake and run some City Attacks? Some runs with B-17s and B-25s for comparison would be nice too, Santa. (I know I said B-29s have trouble hitting the broadside of a city, but it was intended to just be color. Might be useful to see if its true or not. )

I will try to do some tests on Sunday...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to dtravel)

Post #: 196

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/24/2004 11:53:04 AM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Kerensky,

I still prefer to have the choice of how to use the B29's. If it comes down to limiting B29 use for a playability issue (because it's so crushing to the Japanese player), then so be it. No big deal.

If B29 use at will is allowed, then (as I think you're saying) let's make their performance as close to reality as we can (given the game's limits).

Players should never have a choice to use assets and execute moves etc that were not an option historically or even possible physically for that matter. This game is allowing that at the moment and that's why we have thread after thread of discussion. If people want the fantasy stuff, YOU guys use the editor and add laser guided bombs or fiddle with aircraft durability. This is supposed to be an attempt at a historical wargame and the stock scenarios should have the historical performance characteristics and realistic game mechanics as the default setting. Should not be the other way around.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 197

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/24/2004 4:12:00 PM

diesel7013

Posts: 245
Joined: 5/2/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

< Running into the fray to throw in my two cents >

Many people have made the case - but to quickly restate - in the European theather, there were several instances of both German and British, and even US medium and heavy bombers making tactical attacks against surface ships in port - all the way from merchants to battleships and even subs - with varios degrees of success...
This was possible because the British had specific units put aside for these purposes, the Germans did not have a specific Strategic 'vision' for their bombers, and the US was not firm in its use of its bombers for only 'strategic' bombing ( though they only has a few instances of giving its forces over to tactical uses ).

In the Pacific - it was entirely different. The Pacific US Army Air Corps strategic forces were vehemently against the use of the B-29 for anything other than bombing Japaneese cities. The 17's and 24's were for use in a patrol, island smashing, tactical sense. Lemay believed ( as did several others ) that the B-29's would finally and once and for all prove the validity of the Stratigic Bombing Theory - that you could win a war from the air ( IMHO since proven wrong - stratic bombing w/ feet on the ground is what you need ) and was unwilling to use the 29's for anything else. There were many instances of the Navy and Army asking for the 29's use in tactical bombing ( Okinawa and other islands ) but they were told NO!!!

The reasons were mainly political and had nothing to do with capabilities...

In WITP - you are not restricted to the political therories that restricted the use of the 29's, or really any other platform... If you want to use them to pound coral, hit airfields, sink ships, you can...

In practial terms, by '43 - the 17's and 24's were effective ship sinkers - a good pilot in either vessel could sink a merchant while at sea, much less while in port... imagine what a 29 could do to something in port???

In game terms, the port of Tokyo ( and elsewhere ) represents ALL of the ports and harbors and anchorages, ect.. in the geographical area represented in the hex - hundreds of vessels could and were in various parts of these areas during the war... the game then can represent any air attack from either land bases or CV bases aircraft against a hex and all the areas it represents, not just a specific port area...
THUS, if you want to send 100 B-29's against a hex to hit ships in port, you have to consider what that represents, ships in port, unloading, loading, in trasit, at anchorage waiting for a slip to load/unload, ect... 29's with their heavy bombload, COULD be effective against these targets ( HL or ML level bombing ) and SHOULD be allowed...

Remember, its a simulation and a game. It allows you to try out things that didn't happen in real life... either realistic or not... and allows you to study how the war might have unfolded if different choices were made

For instance, how much sooner would Japan have been choked off from all of its shipping if the 29's have been used to assist in a manner other than just dropping mines??

anyway, my 2 cents!!

_____________________________

We few, We happy few, We band of brothers

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 198

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/24/2004 4:29:33 PM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

-- Japanese AA ineffective even at low altitude --

Pgs 16-17 - US Strategic Bombing Survey

On 9 March 1945, a basic revision in the method of B-29 attack was instituted. It was decided to bomb
the four principal Japanese cities at night from altitudes averaging 7,000 feet. Japanese weakness in
night fighters and antiaircraft made this program feasible. Incendiaries were used instead of high-explosive
bombs and the lower altitude permitted a substantial increase in bomb load per plane. One
thousand six hundred and sixty-seven tons of bombs were dropped on Tokyo in the first attack. The
chosen areas were saturated. Fifteen square miles of Tokyo's most densely populated
area were burned to the ground. The weight and intensity of this attack caught the Japanese by surprise.
No subsequent urban area attack was equally destructive. Two days later, an attack of similar magnitude
on Nagoya destroyed 2 square miles. In a period of 10 days starting 9 March, a total of 1,595 sorties
delivered 9,373 tons of bombs against Tokyo, Nagoya, Osake, and Kobe destroying 31 square miles of
those cities at a cost of 22 airplanes. The generally destructive effect of incendiary attacks against
Japanese cities had been demonstrated.

-- low altitude bombing easier on plane's engines

Pg 17 - US Strategic Bombing Survey - Pacific War

Bombing altitudes after 9 March 1945 were lower, in both day and night attacks. Japanese opposition
was not effective even at the lower altitudes, and the percentage of losses to enemy action declined as
the number of attacking planes increased. Bomb loads increased and operating losses declined in part
due to less strain on engines at lower altitudes. Bombing accuracy increased substantially, and averaged
35 to 40 percent within 1,000 feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks from 20,000 feet or lower.

-- low level attacks - hindsight mentioned in survey

pg 29 - US Strategic Bombing Survey - Pacific War

Capture of the Gilbert Islands produced limited strategic results. Attacks on Rabaul and other bypassed
positions were continued longer and in greater volume than required. The effectiveness of high-level
attack in softening up prepared defenses and in sinking maneuvering ships was overestimated. Prior to
the occupation of the Marianas, B-29s could have been more effectively used in coordination with
search, low-level attacks and mining in accelerating the destruction of Japanese shipping,
or in destroying oil and metal plants in the southern areas, than in striking the Japanese "Inner Zone"
from China bases.

Pg 372, The Pacific Campaign: The U.S.-Japanese naval War 1941-1945

In a remarkable but sadly ignored demonstration of the suppressed art of low level precision-bombing
two B-29s came down from an area raid and in a low-level run neatly knocked out the main dry dock at
Singapore to close it to the Japanese fleet.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to diesel7013)

Post #: 199

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/24/2004 4:46:19 PM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

quote:

In practial terms, by '43 - the 17's and 24's were effective ship sinkers - a good pilot in either vessel could sink a merchant while at sea,

I'm not convinced of this, can you offer any documentation?

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to diesel7013)

Post #: 200

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/24/2004 8:49:15 PM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

I will try to do some tests on Sunday...

As you have time, energy and inclination. (Meant to include that in the post.) Enjoy your Christmas.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 201

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/24/2004 10:34:06 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

diesel7013,

Good post - well said.

Ron,

quote:

Players should never have a choice to use assets and execute moves etc that were not ... even possible physically for that matter.

B29's were capable of bombing ports, airfields, and ships at sea. The only thing that kept them from being used that way was doctrine. It was possible and is realistic. How effective they would be in such roles is a different question.

quote:

Players should never have a choice to use assets and execute moves etc that were not an option historically...

The game allows Japanese players to turn off IJN Submarine Doctrine and use those assets differently, but for what they were realistically capable of. That is a good thing. It was not an option historically strictly because of doctrine, just like restrictions on B29 use.

I support the same choice for all aspects of the game where it is possible or practical (I realize that playability is an issue and that might pose some limitations).

(in reply to diesel7013)

Post #: 202

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/24/2004 10:46:38 PM

Zeta16

Posts: 1199
Joined: 11/20/2002
From: Columbus. Ohio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

diesel7013,

Good post - well said.

Ron,

quote:

Players should never have a choice to use assets and execute moves etc that were not ... even possible physically for that matter.

B29's were capable of bombing ports, airfields, and ships at sea. The only thing that kept them from being used that way was doctrine. It was possible and is realistic. How effective they would be in such roles is a different question.

quote:

Players should never have a choice to use assets and execute moves etc that were not an option historically...

The game allows Japanese players to turn off IJN Submarine Doctrine and use those assets differently, but for what they were realistically capable of. That is a good thing. It was not an option historically strictly because of doctrine, just like restrictions on B29 use.

I support the same choice for all aspects of the game where it is possible or practical (I realize that playability is an issue and that might pose some limitations).

Also would people like to say that Japan could not use convoy's until a certain date in the war.

_____________________________

"Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: 'We the people.' 'We the people' tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us." -Ronald Reagan

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 203

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/24/2004 11:02:46 PM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

diesel7013,

Good post - well said.

Ron,

quote:

Players should never have a choice to use assets and execute moves etc that were not ... even possible physically for that matter.

B29's were capable of bombing ports, airfields, and ships at sea. The only thing that kept them from being used that way was doctrine. It was possible and is realistic. How effective they would be in such roles is a different question.

quote:

Players should never have a choice to use assets and execute moves etc that were not an option historically...

The game allows Japanese players to turn off IJN Submarine Doctrine and use those assets differently, but for what they were realistically capable of. That is a good thing. It was not an option historically strictly because of doctrine, just like restrictions on B29 use.

I support the same choice for all aspects of the game where it is possible or practical (I realize that playability is an issue and that might pose some limitations).

Do not trust what we are given as choices for doctrine in this game. For example..Allied sub doc. This has to be the most poorly researched feature in the game (

...actually, there are worse design models).Enough said..we should be able to play with this,as long as the combat model works for both approaches. With Allied ASW,there is no reason to try either commerce or fleet attrition tactics as Allied ASW destroys your subs regardless of your approach.

What I don't like are tactics based on flawed performance which is sooo common in this game. Need I list the myriad of examples or can you just accept this as true?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 204

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/24/2004 11:46:12 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

What I don't like are tactics based on flawed performance which is sooo common in this game. Need I list the myriad of examples or can you just accept this as true?

Ron,

We are in 'violent agreement' on this. Everything I write intends to convey the very same point.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 205

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/24/2004 11:47:48 PM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

What I don't like are tactics based on flawed performance which is sooo common in this game. Need I list the myriad of examples or can you just accept this as true?

Ron,

We are in 'violent agreement' on this. Everything I write intends to convey the very same point.

Screw you brother!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 206

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/25/2004 2:13:39 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 207

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/25/2004 3:59:00 PM

BoerWar

Posts: 506
Joined: 6/12/2004
From: Arlington, VA
Status: offline

The horse ain't dead yet. This discussion convinced me to pull out and reread my old copy of "B-17 Fortress at War", 1977, Roger Freeman. Some intersting obsevations.

- Pg36, During the early war period of retreat the B-17 was used extensively on tactical missions such as conducting airfield, naval and port attacks.

By and large these attacks weren't very successful. In 350 sorties against ships the crews claimed to have sunk 3 warships and 8 transports. A review of Japanese records showed that only 2 of the ships could have been hit by B-17's.

- B-17E had extensive maintenance problems when it appeared in Early 1942. Pg 37, "rarely did the number of B-17's dispatched on a mission run to double figures. Often only 3 or 4 aircraft composed a strike force."

- Pg 40, 5000-6000 feet was determined to be the optimum altitude to minimize the effect of AA fire. It was "too high for small arms fire and low enough to cause sighting difficulties for the heavier ship mounted guns." Some land attacks were conducted at 18000-20000 feet although most land bombing was conducted at medium altitude (undefined).

- The approved formation for naval attack was a vee of 5 aircraft sometimes a 6th was added between the trail bombers.

- Pg37, New Caledonia was unable to accomodate the 35 B-17E's of the 11th bomb group in July 1942. It wasn't until much later (undefined) that it was able to support this single bomb group.

Based on this info I think the B-17 should be able to conduct every kind of attack. The attrition rates probably need to be adjusted upward for the B-17 to more accurately reflect aircraft availability. Naval and port attacks should have a near zero probability of achieveing hits. 4E Bombers operating below 5000 feet ought to get torn up. The cap on the number of 4E bombers that can operate from a base ought to be tougher perhaps ((airfield size-4)squared)X25, which means a size 5 airfield could handle 25 - 4E bombers, size 6 airfield 100 - 4E bombers and so on.

Also these planes regularly returned to base with dead crew members. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to incur a percentage of pilot losses on damaged aircraft. This would keep the 4E aircraft invincibility from driving crew training level to unrealistic heights.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 208

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/25/2004 5:54:31 PM

doomonyou

Posts: 144
Joined: 6/26/2002
Status: offline

I have been lurking for this discussion for a while. A couple of points to throw in (and they get back down in the trench)

-AAA effectiveness is not that bad in this IMHO. German anti-air defenses were not only more sophisticated technologically, they were vastly more numerous and the allies had to fly over miles and miles of them. Japan and its assets were hampered terribly by the fact that most of thier "good stuff" was/is on the coast. No flying over 600 miles of occupied territory. Approached correctly a place like Rabal or Truk or Tokyo Bay might have engagement envelopes for AA guns of the time of something like 90 seconds. Without Proximity rounds, This means each gun (75mm or larger here, not little ones which will be out of range generally) might have 6-8 shots at say 15000feet, perhaps only 3-4 at 25000). German massed AAA fire around significant sights like Berlin or Ploesti still left large formations to return to base. Given that Japan due to geography and general technology couldn't have replicated even 1/10 of the German AAA capability against incoming allied bombers, AAA seems okay to me.

-All this talk about doctrine ignores the fact that since America could read Japans codes they used thier naval air to smash the japanese at midway. This is a HUGE issue that cannot be ignored. I CANNOT replicate this in WITP nor would I expect to. Had the allies not had this ability would Lemay been told to shut up and sent a 130 b-17 raid against rabaul harbor? Would 24 plane b-17 units out of a still held wake island or PM be given practice doing antishipping raids? Maybe Not or Maybe, but that's what simulations are for.

-As far as hitting shipping, I have been running large 8000 foot raids against passing Japanese ships from PM, Kendari and Amibona (sp?). When they go out, something like say 30 liberators out of Ambonia will fly against two PG's and an AP and hit two of the three. Given that they dropped something on the order of 400+ bombs from perfect alitiude without serious opposition again, I don't see it as that strange. People may claim that since those bombers only bombed in boxes they would just spray and pray. Or maybe they were told to break up into three plane elements and attack in order. This type of doctrinal change is certainly on the level of say Japan's CV's never ever splitting up and staying in deathstar for the whole war. That is, it isn't gamey in the sense of teleport abuse or a glitch, its just something that nobody did, but certainly could have done.

Interestingly when the deathstar approached kendari in my game, even with 80+ 2E and 4e bombers, twenty torpedo bombers and 70 fighter escorts (all assorted) I was unable to do anything to them other than lose half the planes (although I did land one lucky bomb on a CVL which then caught fire and was later torpedos by one of the K subs six of which were patrolling the area). My oppenent withdrew the deathstar really just because of that lucky bomb hit and general attrition after trying to pound kendari and meeting the half dozen base units and two AAA units stationed there (kates do not like that it seems).

-The only thing in this game that is really odd is that supply is not much of a constraint. In my games the house rule is that 4E planes may only fly once per week from bases without 75K in supplies, or up to three times per week from 100K+. This is because of exactly the previous point. those 30 liberators dropped 100 tons of bombs against just three ships. Given packaging, I believe that even a large cargo ship could probably not take on more than 300-500 tons of bombs. If you try with this style house rule, it really seems to make it work okay, as it just represents the Allies using filthy amounts of material superiority agaisnt the japanese. Again I would doubt that at the start of the war there were enough gp 500lb bombs in the entirity of the Allied possessions to maintain my style of bombing for more than two days. After the delivery of 200+ 4e bombers and a nice railroad of some thirty cargo ships a week however, I don't see it as gamey.

(in reply to BoerWar)

Post #: 209

RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/26/2004 4:54:56 AM

diesel7013

Posts: 245
Joined: 5/2/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Evidence was asked for regarding the effectivness of 17's and 24's bombing ships at sea...

See no further than the Battle of Bismark Sea - 25's, 26's, 17's, and I believe 24's were used to sink 8 Japaneese transports as well as 4 DD's and heavily damaged 4 others... The medium bombers began with skip bombing and the heavies finished them off w/ level bombing ( though I believe some heavy pilots were experimenting with the skip bombing as well at this time )...

These aircraft COULD have been used against ships in port... Just reading a book I got for Christmas discussing US plans for TRUK... in late '43 and early '44 were considering a heavy B-24 raid of the port and shipping in a campaing to run them out in addition to the use of carrier planes - even discussed dropping the atomic bomb there instead of Japan but changed their mind as they wanted to make a bigger psychological impact...

It's a game - what COULD we do vs. what actually did happen...

_____________________________

We few, We happy few, We band of brothers

(in reply to doomonyou)

Post #: 210