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 >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/27/2004 2:41:09 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
Diesel, it'd been awhile since I read anything about Bismark Sea, in my memory it was all mediums and fighters, but you're right, the heavys did get in their licks too. Not so good against maneuvering warships maybe, but just fine vs merchies (and therefore, I suppose, against ships in port). Something about the horizontal-bombing-vs-ships-in-port execution seems to need tweaking though.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to diesel7013)
Post #: 211
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/27/2004 3:30:43 PM   
Apollo11


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
I will try to do some tests on Sunday...


No time on Suday... sorry guys...


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 Apollo11)
Post #: 212
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/27/2004 3:36:18 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
Who gave you permission to have a life beyond WitP?

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 213
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/27/2004 9:38:32 PM   
dtravel


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

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
I will try to do some tests on Sunday...


No time on Suday... sorry guys...



Gift Certificate Redemption Day kept you busy?

_____________________________

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 #: 214
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/27/2004 10:26:18 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

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


The problem is that while your arguement holds water in Europe, it doesn't in the
Pacific. There weren't any real "strategic" targets in range in 1942-43, so the "heavies"
were used as patrol planes, and to strike targets like Rabaul, and to "soften up" islands
for invasions. The were important as much for their longer range and self-defending
capabilities as their bomb loads. If an enemy TF showed up, they would make an attack
on that as well, though generally with limited effectiveness as they weren't very good at
hitting moving targets from 10,000 feet. In the Pacific, they WERE used as "jacks-of-
all-trades". Only the B-29's were held to more "strategic" roles like city smashing and
mining---mostly because they had the range to reach "strategic" targets. And had a
Japanese TF been sighted heading for their bases in the Marianas in 1945, you can be
sure they would have tried their hand at naval attack as well.

_____________________________


(in reply to BoerWar)
Post #: 215
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/27/2004 10:58:29 PM   
33Vyper


Posts: 542
Joined: 10/20/2004
From: New Westminster BC
Status: offline
What about changing the 4E bombers so that they are not able to be set to naval attack? Instead they could only be given orders to suppress airfields or do city bombing attacks against industry. Those things that they were designed to do. Lets just face it the big 4E bombers were not designed for low level shipping attacks or dive bombing attacks. IRL they were used to bomb cities/airfields/ports/ground units into submission or at least cause large scale disruption.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 216
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/28/2004 12:44:19 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
The first aircraft to employ skip-bombing techniques were B-17s. B-17s and other 4E bombers attacked naval targets in and out of port (with no great success) throughout the war. Any limitation on what role they may be employed in is ahistorical.

Other than the "flash in the pan" success the Bettys/Nells had on Dec 10, 1941 against Prince of Wales and Repulse their level of success against shipping was pretty low. Such success as they did "enjoy" was at night when they could hide in the darkness while making their run in. When faced with seriousfighter opposition and/or flak a l'americain the Bettys and Nells earned and deserved the reputation as "one shot lighters/Ronsons" that their crews gave them.

(in reply to 33Vyper)
Post #: 217
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/28/2004 1:20:49 AM   
DrewMatrix


Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline
Re 4 engines forr this and 2 engines for that:

You sort of wind up using what you have. (Didn't somebody famous just say that on TV?).

Like using Escort Carriers against the Japanese BBs at Leyte Gulf (or was it Samar?). That should never have been allowed. Everyone knows Escort Carrier planes only can fly ASW missions.

The Japanese should have demanded that the Umpire disallow that and give them a win.

And the Japanese should have complained the Game Designer gave players too much freedom of action in the Game Forum, too

< Message edited by Beezle -- 12/27/2004 11:23:16 PM >


_____________________________


Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 218
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/29/2004 3:38:23 PM   
Apollo11


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

Gift Certificate Redemption Day kept you busy?


Nah...

BTW, no time on Monday and Tuesday as well... will try today...


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 #: 219
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/29/2004 6:10:36 PM   
IKerensky

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 6/7/2001
Status: offline
Err, I was wondering something that your test perhaps could show:

Is the number of actual ships at the port alter the number of hits on ships...

Seems pretty obvious but the trick is = are they miss converted to hit on ship or port/supply hit converted to ship hit ?

In the first case then we have a problem as this means that each bomb is tested TWICE to see if it hit or not, and that probably make large bomb carrier that much more efficient...

If the Hit on port/installation keep in number but we have more and more ships hits then perhaps ... I dont know. Some testing really needed there I feel.

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 220
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/29/2004 9:27:39 PM   
dtravel


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

ORIGINAL: KERENSKY

Err, I was wondering something that your test perhaps could show:

Is the number of actual ships at the port alter the number of hits on ships...

Seems pretty obvious but the trick is = are they miss converted to hit on ship or port/supply hit converted to ship hit ?

In the first case then we have a problem as this means that each bomb is tested TWICE to see if it hit or not, and that probably make large bomb carrier that much more efficient...

If the Hit on port/installation keep in number but we have more and more ships hits then perhaps ... I dont know. Some testing really needed there I feel.


This is one of the things that I asked Apollo to do in these tests he keeps blowing off. (Just yanking your chain, Apollo. ) We have B-29 runs with and without ships but the percentages are too low to draw any firm conclusions (random chance playing too large a role, need either higher hit %s or lots more B-29 runs). So I've asked him to do the same with smaller bombers that have higher hit %s.

_____________________________

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 IKerensky)
Post #: 221
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/29/2004 11:00:40 PM   
IKerensky

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 6/7/2001
Status: offline
Well I will probably tell something stupid but what about applying some quick big number test to avoid having to run several test:

First try a 10.000 bombers each with 1 bomb then 1 bomber with 10.000 bombs. 5 runs of each and you will have pretty confirmation if the hitting is by bombers or by bombs. If it is by bomb then you can train by having modifier bombers with 1.000 bombs...

Multiplying the bomb launched by test will have the same effect than multiplying the test, statistically, no ?

(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 222
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/30/2004 4:32:23 AM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline
Go take a look at the statistics and analysis I posted about a week (?) ago. Since some of the hit percentages when figured by hits/aircraft exceed 100%, it seems likely that the calculations are per bomb. But we can never tell for certain by testing, only someone with access to the source code can say. (It could be that the program checks by aircraft with a possibility of multiple hits based on aircraft type or payload. That's not strickly "by plane" or "by bomb". It is impossible for us to say.)

_____________________________

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 IKerensky)
Post #: 223
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/30/2004 4:12:10 PM   
Apollo11


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

This is one of the things that I asked Apollo to do in these tests he keeps blowing off. (Just yanking your chain, Apollo. )


Shame on you... shame on you...

Sorry but the "RealLife (TM)" got me this week...


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 #: 224
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/30/2004 6:05:59 PM   
tsimmonds


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

Sorry but the "RealLife (TM)" got me this week...


Is that an RTS? I think I've heard of it....

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 225
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 12/30/2004 8:58:05 PM   
dtravel


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

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

This is one of the things that I asked Apollo to do in these tests he keeps blowing off. (Just yanking your chain, Apollo. )


Shame on you... shame on you...

Sorry but the "RealLife (TM)" got me this week...



"Details, details, details.", he said dismissively.

You'll get to them when you get to them. I'll just keep myself busy in the meantime by ribbing you incessantly.

_____________________________

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 #: 226
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 1/1/2005 8:49:44 PM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline
Two days, time to rib Apollo.

Rib.



_____________________________

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 dtravel)
Post #: 227
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 1/2/2005 9:58:49 AM   
Apollo11


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

Two days, time to rib Apollo.

Rib.




Do you really want me to get killed by her and thus loose all tests (and posts and PBEMs) by me in future?


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 #: 228
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 1/2/2005 10:03:14 AM   
dtravel


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

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

Two days, time to rib Apollo.

Rib.




Do you really want me to get killed by her and thus loose all tests (and posts and PBEMs) by me in future?


Just tell her its the only way you can get any peace from this annoying American who keeps pestering you every time you turn your computer on.

_____________________________

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 #: 229
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 1/2/2005 10:50:15 AM   
Apollo11


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Do you really want me to get killed by her and thus loose all tests (and posts and PBEMs) by me in future?


Just tell her its the only way you can get any peace from this annoying American who keeps pestering you every time you turn your computer on.


I will really really try to do some tests today... I promise!


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 #: 230
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 1/2/2005 2:03:50 PM   
Apollo11


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

As promised here are test results against against port only when B-29's are substituted by B-17E's - everything else is same as in previous tests (see below for more details and cross-check with similar test in past)!


IMPORTANT NOTE:
In order to achieve this I just changed aircraft type used by bomber groups from B-29 to B-17E. This way all pilots are same and leaders are also the same. I also changed B-17E endurance to match the endurance of B-29 (without this they would lack range).


Description:

I created brand new custom scenario for this testing.

There are only 3 islands present: Marcus Island, Wake Island and Midway. Marcus Island is IJN base while Midway is USN base. For this test Wake Island is made Japanese base with both Port and Airbase (and SPS) of 6.

There is nothing (no LCU's and aircraft) at Wake Island and no ships in port.

Weather is always clear.

FoW is OFF.

Two B-17E's groups have their default leaders (50's/60's ratings) while their EXP and morale is set to 70.

The B-17E's have to fly 14 HEXes from Midway to Wake Island.

The B-17E's attack from 10000ft.



5 consecutive runs of scenario in day (i.e. daytime bombings):

********************************************************************************

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/01/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63


Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 86


No Allied losses

Port hits 12
Port fuel hits 3
Port supply hits 3

Aircraft Attacking:
48 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
20 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
15 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet

********************************************************************************

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/01/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63


Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 96


No Allied losses

Port hits 9
Port fuel hits 4
Port supply hits 5

Aircraft Attacking:
36 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
27 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
11 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
7 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet

********************************************************************************

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/01/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63


Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 75


No Allied losses

Port hits 7
Port fuel hits 4
Port supply hits 8

Aircraft Attacking:
36 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
20 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
7 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet

********************************************************************************

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/01/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63


Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 86


No Allied losses

Port hits 6
Port fuel hits 1
Port supply hits 3

Aircraft Attacking:
20 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
36 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
15 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet

********************************************************************************

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/01/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63


Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 78


No Allied losses

Port hits 7
Port fuel hits 5
Port supply hits 5

Aircraft Attacking:
24 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
48 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet

********************************************************************************


1 run of scenario at night (i.e. night bombing) for comparison only:

********************************************************************************

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/02/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63


Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 54


No Allied losses

Port hits 1
Port fuel hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
27 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
27 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet

********************************************************************************


Discussion:

At first glance it is obvious to note that there is drop in hits from B-17E's compared to B-29's. Since the number of used planes was same and for both planes the range to target was in "Normal" range the only apparent difference was the number of bombs carried. The B-29 on "Normal" range can carry 40x 500 lb bombs while B-17E can carry 12x 500 lb bombs.

Please note that originally Wake had 50000 supplies and 10000 fuel at start (one can calculate actual loss using number of hits and this info).


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 Apollo11)
Post #: 231
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 1/2/2005 2:23:30 PM   
Apollo11


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

As promised here are test results against against port only when B-29's are substituted by B-25C's - everything else is same as in previous tests (see below for more details and cross-check with similar test in past)!


IMPORTANT NOTE:
In order to achieve this I just changed aircraft type used by bomber groups from B-29 to B-25C. This way all pilots are same and leaders are also the same. I also changed B-25C endurance to match the endurance of B-29 (without this they would lack range).


Description:

I created brand new custom scenario for this testing.

There are only 3 islands present: Marcus Island, Wake Island and Midway. Marcus Island is IJN base while Midway is USN base. For this test Wake Island is made Japanese base with both Port and Airbase (and SPS) of 6.

There is nothing (no LCU's and aircraft) at Wake Island and no ships in port.

Weather is always clear.

FoW is OFF.

Two B-25C's groups have their default leaders (50's/60's ratings) while their EXP and morale is set to 70.

The B-25C's have to fly 14 HEXes from Midway to Wake Island.

The B-25C's attack from 10000ft.



5 consecutive runs of scenario in day (i.e. daytime bombings):

********************************************************************************

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/01/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63


Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 94


No Allied losses

Port hits 5
Port fuel hits 1
Port supply hits 3

Aircraft Attacking:
18 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
36 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
6 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
22 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
4 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
2 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet

********************************************************************************

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/01/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63


Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 93


No Allied losses

Port hits 12
Port fuel hits 4
Port supply hits 5

Aircraft Attacking:
36 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
27 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
11 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
4 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
8 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
4 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet

********************************************************************************

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/01/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63


Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 96


No Allied losses

Port hits 8
Port fuel hits 2
Port supply hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
48 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
27 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
21 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet

********************************************************************************

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/01/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63


Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 96


No Allied losses

Port hits 7
Port supply hits 4

Aircraft Attacking:
27 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
36 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
6 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
15 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet

********************************************************************************

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/01/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63


Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 93


No Allied losses

Port hits 5
Port fuel hits 1
Port supply hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
36 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
48 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
9 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet

********************************************************************************


1 run of scenario at night (i.e. night bombing) for comparison only:

********************************************************************************

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/02/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63


Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 40


No Allied losses

Port hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
20 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
20 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet

********************************************************************************


Discussion:

Again at first glance it is obvious to note that there is drop in hits from B-25C's compared to B-17E's and compared to B-29's. Since the number of used planes was same and for all three aircrfat types the range to target was in "Normal" range the only apparent difference was the number of bombs carried. The B-29 on "Normal" range can carry 40x 500 lb bombs, B-17E can carry 12x 500 lb bombs and B-25C can carry 6x 500 lb bombs.

Please note that originally Wake had 50000 supplies and 10000 fuel at start (one can calculate actual loss using number of hits and this info).


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 Apollo11)
Post #: 232
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 1/2/2005 9:09:01 PM   
dtravel


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

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Do you really want me to get killed by her and thus loose all tests (and posts and PBEMs) by me in future?


Just tell her its the only way you can get any peace from this annoying American who keeps pestering you every time you turn your computer on.


I will really really try to do some tests today... I promise!



I don't know why you are objecting to my giving you ribs so much.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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 #: 233
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 1/2/2005 9:31:00 PM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline
Okay, here are the average hit % for all the daylight port bombing test run by Apollo11. Methodology is as described in an earlier post. I am just going to give the average hit % for each of the tests to make it easier to read. The offer to share the Excel spreadsheet used to generate these still stands.

B-29 vs. CV/BB: 1.65%
B-29 vs. AK/AP: 1.30%
B-29 (exp 50) vs. CV/BB: 1.44%
B-29 (exp 50) vs. AK/AP: 1.51%
B-29 (30K alt) vs. CV/BB: 0.28%
B-29 (30K alt) vs. AK/AP: 0.25%
B-29 vs. AK/AP (w/AAA): 1.86%
B-29 vs. empty port: 0.64%

B-17E vs. CV/BB: 3.31%
B-17E vs. AK/AP: 6.80%
B-17E vs. AK/AP (w/AAA): 6.41%
B-17E vs. empty port: 1.64%

B-25C vs. CV/BB: 9.21%
B-25C vs. AK/AP: 13.29%
B-25C vs. AK/AP (w/AAA): 7.78%
B-25C vs. empty port: 2.16%


Analysis and observations is following post.

_____________________________

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 #: 234
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 1/2/2005 9:49:17 PM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline
Hmmm, some interesting things stand out for me.

1) Experience seems to have little, if any, effect on accuracy. Perhaps it kicks in at the 80+ or 90+ level, I don't know.
2) Altitude has a great deal of effect.
3) AAA does little to reduce accuracy of the 4-engine bombers, but has a strong effect on 2-engine bombers.

There are also two additional observations which I believe 2by3 needs to look into:

4) Warships are harder to hit than cargo ships. This would seem to indicate that even when they are anchored and docked, the manuverability rating of the ship affects whether it is hit or not. I'm having a little trouble picturing this. (The Akagi sailing around Truk harbor, dodging bombs, towing the dock behind her? )

5) Hit percentages drop significantly when the port is empty. The number of hits drops to anywhere from 1/2 to 1/6 as many. At first impression, this doesn't seem right to me. Too severe a drop off IMHO. Some drop off I can understand, but not this much.

_____________________________

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 dtravel)
Post #: 235
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 1/3/2005 3:39:11 PM   
Apollo11


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel




Ribs are fine but I think it would be wise not to mention food on furums because one survey here showed that most of people here are overweight and holiday season we just had was great opportunity to add few more kilos / pounds...


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S. I Hope you liked the tests...

_____________________________



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 #: 236
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 1/3/2005 5:13:47 PM   
ltfightr


Posts: 537
Joined: 6/16/2002
From: Little Rock AR
Status: offline
4) Warships are harder to hit than cargo ships. This would seem to indicate that even when they are anchored and docked, the manuverability rating of the ship affects whether it is hit or not. I'm having a little trouble picturing this. (The Akagi sailing around Truk harbor, dodging bombs, towing the dock behind her? )


I can see that warships could be harder to hit (how much harder I dont know) just from the AAA diffrences. A CV should be able to put up a lot more flack than a AK and the path of least resistance might find a few more planes drifting to the AK out of self-preservation (maybe this is where moral/exp checks could be a factor).

_____________________________


(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 237
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 1/3/2005 9:52:48 PM   
dtravel


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

ORIGINAL: ltfightr
I can see that warships could be harder to hit (how much harder I dont know) just from the AAA diffrences. A CV should be able to put up a lot more flack than a AK and the path of least resistance might find a few more planes drifting to the AK out of self-preservation (maybe this is where moral/exp checks could be a factor).


Other tests indicate that AAA does not affect the accuracy of the four-engine bombers. Compare the results of the tests against AK/APs with and without the additional AAA units. The warships were hit less than the merchants with significantly more AAA than the warships have.

_____________________________

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 ltfightr)
Post #: 238
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 1/3/2005 10:07:47 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline
Your testing shows that the results against ships and land facilities should be reversed. Making it harder to hit shipping and easier to hit facilities. Nice work.


Amended
Credits: Apollo 11

So in an earlier thread players were asked to do some testing on their own. Will any of this pertinent data be evaluated for change? The TF strike co-ordination rule also comes to mind.

< Message edited by Halsey -- 1/3/2005 2:17:20 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 239
RE: Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 5... - 1/3/2005 10:12:05 PM   
dtravel


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

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Your testing shows that the results against ships and land facilities should be reversed. Making it harder to hit shipping and easier to hit facilities. Nice work.


Apollo did the heavy lifting for this, setting up and running the actual tests. I just organized the numbers he generated.

_____________________________

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 Halsey)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 7 [8] 9   next >   >>
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 >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.094