Heavy Bomber Losses

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Heavy Bomber Losses

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 >> Heavy Bomber Losses

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 3:18:44 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Hi all,

***Now must clarify this is not a rant or negative on the game but a query as to how the end decision was made***

What was used to substantiate the rate at which heavy bombers are shot down. Or in other words how did Matrix decide that loss rates against Tony's and Tojo's would be above 1:1?

The reason I ask this is that in my experience and from reading others AAR's. Sending unescorted Libs and Forts against a base with either of the above on CAP will in general lead to losses above 1:1 sometime even 5 or 6:1. My knowledge (granted not an expert on WW2 but know a fair bit I think) was that Forts and Libs sustained 1:1 losses or at worst 2:1 against 190's. Now once more in my opnion the 190 was a superior bomber destroyer than either the Tony or Tojo.

As I say its not a dig (this is a great game) i'm just intrigued as to what criteria was used to make heavy bombers so vulnerable in my opinion.

Regards,

Steven

Post #: 1

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 3:59:34 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

You need better specifics.

A raid of how big?

What altitude?

Radar involved?

Heavy bombers are tough but not made of kryptonite.

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 2

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 4:04:13 PM

Captain Cruft

Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline

Well I don't know about fighters beginning with 'T' since I haven't got that far yet.

However in my last PBEM turn I had 4 Rufe float fighters of avg exp 69 shoot down 4 B-17s which came over at 6,000 ft for the loss of one plane only.

Seems a bit much to me.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 3

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 4:29:46 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Hi Frag,

I know they are not made of Kryptonite. Aluminium right

Here are examples from AAR's in AAR section:

Day Air attack on Rabaul , at 61,88

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 9

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 38

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 1 destroyed, 7 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 2 destroyed, 15 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
61 casualties reported

Airbase hits 5
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 11

Aircraft Attacking:
All B-17E Fortress bombing at 6000 feet

--------------------

Day Air attack on Rabaul , at 61,88

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 11
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 18

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 13

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 10 destroyed, 3 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
5 casualties reported

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 9

Aircraft Attacking:
5 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 6000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 6000 feet

---------------------

Day Air attack on Rabaul , at 61,88

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 7
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 22

Allied aircraft - this attack was completely turned away!
B-17E Fortress x 14

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 6 damaged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day Air attack on Wewak , at 52,81 - again a weak B-17 attack is fended of.
By Tonys this time, the Daitai at Wewak now got 14 kills.

Japanese aircraft
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 18

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 7

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 6 destroyed, 5 damaged

------------------------

Day Air attack on Rabaul , at 61,88 - the heavies that went to Rabaul were again fended of!

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 11
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 19

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 29

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 9 destroyed, 11 damaged

------------------

Day Air attack on Rabaul , at 61,88 - then Liberators from Lunga joined in and received a rough handling as well. Rabaul got away all
but unscatched!

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 10
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 19

Allied aircraft
B-24D Liberator x 39

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 damaged
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 2 destroyed, 4 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-24D Liberator: 25 destroyed, 19 damaged

Runway hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
23 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 6000 feet
6 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 6000 feet

----------------------

Day Air attack on Rabaul , at 61,88 - once again the B-17s are turned away!

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 8
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 20

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 23

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 5 destroyed, 7 damaged

----------------

The above are taken from PZB's game vs David. I know Freeboy has commented on his B29's getting mauled unescorted during daytime against Zeta.

As say bud its not a moan just I think it may not be accurate. I know they are not invincible hence the 8th and Pac airforces decided to escort them but even when unescorted they were near enough 1:1 losses.

Anything else I can provide?

Regards,

Steven

(in reply to Captain Cruft)

Post #: 4

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 4:53:08 PM

tsimmonds

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

6000 feet is pretty low for 4E during the day. What were the non-FOW'd losses for the turn, how many of those losses were due to A2A and how many to AAA?

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 5

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 4:58:16 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Hi,

I'm not sure. It was taken from PZB's AAR. I still think the a2a loss ratio isn't 1:1 (that is taking into account the 190 which was a better aircraft!)

I tell you what i'll do though. I'll run a load of tests tonight from 45 campaign. Bombing Jap with B29. I'll also try B17/B24 if I can get the time (have to try and do my 1st Jap turn in campaign. At least 6 hours and counting.......)

What are others thoughts on heavy bomber a2a losses?

Regards,

Steven

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 6

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 5:00:00 PM

Tom Hunter

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline

Steven,

FoW usually doubles loss reports in the combat report. That is historical for fighter pilots by the way, bomber gunners reported shooting down as many as 10 times the actual number they killed.

So in this fight:
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 8
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 20
Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 23
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 2 damaged
Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 5 destroyed, 7 damaged

Its likely the Americans lost 2-3 B17s.

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 10
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 19
Allied aircraft
B-24D Liberator x 39
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 damaged
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 2 destroyed, 4 damaged
Allied aircraft losses
B-24D Liberator: 25 destroyed, 19 damaged

About 12 destroyed, this seems a little high to me but they are flying at really low altitude.

It does look like they are getting murdered even at 29 to 12 ( one kill for every 2.5 fighters) kill ratio but I do have to ask what are they doing down at 6,000 feet?

Personally I bomb between 12,000 feet and 24,000 feet almost all the time. Maybe that is why I never murdered Japanese airbases the way so many other players do, on the other hand maybe that is why I never took these kind of losses either.

< Message edited by Tom Hunter -- 5/4/2005 5:01:18 PM >

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 7

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 5:03:01 PM

String

Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline

How about giving historical examples of unescorted daylight raids at 6000 ft with similar numbers of bobmers vs similar cap.

(in reply to Tom Hunter)

Post #: 8

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 5:03:13 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Hi guys,

Thanks for the heads up Tom.

This is also from AAR and these flew at 30,000.

Japanese aircraft
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 24

Allied aircraft
F-5A Lightning x 5
B-17E Fortress x 70
B-24D Liberator x 40

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-61 KAIc Tony: 1 destroyed, 6 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 7 destroyed, 16 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 5 destroyed, 5 damaged

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 5

(in reply to Tom Hunter)

Post #: 9

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 5:05:48 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Hi String,

I don't have them for Pacific Theatre. I'm basing my feelings on the 8th's experience against a better bomber destroyer (FW190).

If people think the loss rate for heavy bombers in a2a is right then thats cool. I just thought i'd express my views that in my opinion there are shot down a little too much.

Do people want me to carry out tests tonight?

As say just thoughts and this game still rocks

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 10

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 5:08:24 PM

Tom Hunter

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline

Here are some of my raids for comparison:

I knew Songakhia was full of fighters so I came in high:

Day Air attack on Songkhia , at 24,43
Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 21
Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 21
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
Ki-21 Sally: 1 destroyed
Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 7 damaged
Runway hits 1
Aircraft Attacking:
18 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 24000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 24000 feet

Here is one where no one gets hurt on either side, this happened 2 or 3 days in a row with 14-17 B17s and 6 Zeros at 14,000 feet each time.

Day Air attack on Kendari , at 33,71

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 6
Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 17
No Japanese losses
Allied aircraft losses
Dec. 15, B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed, 3 damaged, Dec 16, B-17E Fortress: 2 damaged
Aircraft Attacking:
10 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 14000 feet
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 14000 feet

Personally I don't like the Tonys because they would inflict larger losses but still much less than the other player was taking at 6,000 feet.

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 11

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 5:54:56 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

Heavy bombers at low altitude means 100% of the cap is going to intercept successfully.

It is always a trade off between safety and effectiveness. You want to come in low to get higher damage, you pay the price in AA & Cap damage.

Higher means less AA and Cap.

(in reply to Tom Hunter)

Post #: 12

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 6:09:28 PM

Lemurs!

Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline

Are those losses for bombers also including flak? That could be a fair portion.

Also, remember not to jump on changing bomber stats. This loss weirdness has much to do with the way kills are gained. It seems to line up a plane with an opposing plane. If plane #1 gets a kill then it lines up with plane #2 enemy. If it kills that it goes to #3.
We have all seen these kill chains.
This is an artifact of the AtA system not the bombers per se.
I don't mind pilots getting second kills but i would like the chance that they go for each additional kill lowered SLIGHTLY.

I think that would have a good effect on this.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 13

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 6:10:30 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

You want me to do some tests Ray or is all cool and through testing it was ok too? In short could it just be the odd random occurence, maybe i'm seeing the bombers flying too low?

I guess it could be that most people fly between 6 and 15000 feet instead of the early 20's which they did over Europe = higher losses?

Regards,

Steven

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 14

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 6:18:26 PM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

You should run some tests. I don't think pulling data out of AAR's is a good idea. You don't know how fatigued the bombers are (they seem to hit Rabaul from far away every turn). You don't know the exp of the defending fighters (they have been pretty successful for quite some time).

Crappy, tired, demoralized pilots coming in low altitude bombers would probably get creamed by expert, well rested pilots in a relatively good plane.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 15

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 6:20:34 PM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

ok, Let me say that I am also no expert in either life history or blah blah.. enough said there..

In outr pbem spanning nearly the entire war, I found the MAIN determining factor is the ratio of fighters to bombers if unescorted.. the highter the ratio the higher the number downed and damaged. once I can field over 150 heavies, it is hard for the enemy to compoete, and if he can you know I am looking for a air base to know out... hope thathelps.. on a historical note I too was surprised when small numbers are involved.. but that only happened ealy and I think the "pilot" experience.. really the crew for a 17 had something to do with loses

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 16

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 6:25:19 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Ok i'll try and get some tests in and record the results. This is provided I get my Jap turn 1 done and my 2 turns of BTR done.

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 17

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 6:33:37 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

Yep, test test test

As far as your comment about 17's actually breaking off, that only happens when they face serious firepower with crappy morale so you need to look into that.

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 18

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 6:43:27 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

No problem at all Frag. I will do tests and let you know how it goes. I'm sure all will be ok though

I will try to note numbers. Exp. Morale etc and try and save combat reports. (prob I have is no Internet at home can you believe it in this day and age! So i'll run tests at home and post reports from work.)

I'll try forts/libs/superforts against different targets at different heights against different opposition and several times.

Regards,

Steven

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 19

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 6:45:29 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

Alter the pattern of use too ...

ie: continuous, every other day, every 3rd day, etc

_____________________________

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 20

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 6:53:35 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Affirmative

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 21

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 7:06:35 PM

Mike Scholl

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Affirmative

Test it hard., Speedy. But you are going to find that the game gives unrealistically high losses to the US heavies---and unrealistically low losses to Japanese fighters attacking them. The results you will get will be just as silly as the results that had the heavies blasting TF's at sea..., and had everyone complaining. But since the problem you are talking about is Pro-Japanese, you will probably see very little support for your complaint.
I wish you well.

_____________________________

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 22

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 7:29:52 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Affirmative

Test it hard., Speedy. But you are going to find that the game gives unrealistically high losses to the US heavies---and unrealistically low losses to Japanese fighters attacking them. The results you will get will be just as silly as the results that had the heavies blasting TF's at sea..., and had everyone complaining. But since the problem you are talking about is Pro-Japanese, you will probably see very little support for your complaint.
I wish you well.

Hi Mike,

We'll see how the tests go. I don't class myself as either an Allied or Japanese fanboy. I'm sure we're all biased in certain ways but I like to see as accurate a model as possible. Of course the results are quite often distorted by player mis-use etc.

Has this 'issue' been raised before then?

Regards,

Steven

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 23

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 7:54:39 PM

DrewMatrix

Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

It is always a trade off between safety and effectiveness. You want to come in low to get higher damage, you pay the price in AA & Cap damage.

I generally start by bombing from extreme altitude (maybe 30K feet, maybe higher than a Zero can go - about 37K feet IIRC) when my units are low experience. They don't hit much but they do gain experience and they don't take many losses.

As I gain Exp I lower the altitude. I don't use 4 engine bombers below 11,000 feet, though. 2 engine bombers I go down to 6,000 feet.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 24

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 9:17:06 PM

pauk

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

greetings...

little bit off topic...but found interesting page...

http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8aflosses.shtml

_____________________________

(in reply to DrewMatrix)

Post #: 25

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 9:17:13 PM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

consider when the enemy is really suppressed and has few guns left to also bringthe heavies down a bit, find it helps

(in reply to DrewMatrix)

Post #: 26

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 10:23:53 PM

doktorblood

Posts: 648
Joined: 2/14/2003
Status: offline

These losses seem ok to me. Hard to tell from AARs ... how many lost to flak how many fighters destroyed on the ground etc. B-17Es were easy to shoot down with a head on attack.

_____________________________

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 27

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 10:35:20 PM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

These losses seem ok to me. Hard to tell from AARs ... how many lost to flak how many fighters destroyed on the ground etc. B-17Es were easy to shoot down with a head on attack.

These are just the sort of comments that drive me wild.

For your information B-17s were never easy to shoot down. There are countless pictures of beaten-up B-17s which made it back to base (especially from the European theater where flak and enemy interceptor factors were an order of magnitude at least greater than anything the Allies faced from the Japanese) with their air crews (mainly) still alive. The planes were often write-offs, to be sure, but make it back to base they certainly did.

There were more fighters shot down during World War II by B-17s than by any other aircraft, fighters included. Of course this figure might seem skewed to an extent due to the nature of the air war over Europe--after all, B-17s had a lot of German fighters to shoot at day in and day out, and until the Mustang became operational these bombers had to fly much of the way over Germany at least with no fighter escort at all. Regardless, that is a very pertinent statistic to keep in mind. They didn't call these puppies Flying Fortresses for nothing.

(in reply to doktorblood)

Post #: 28

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 10:41:33 PM

doktorblood

Posts: 648
Joined: 2/14/2003
Status: offline

Oh I'm sure B-17 crews claimed more scores than any others. Hell, gunners from every B-17 in the formation would be shooting at the same fighters; if one went down they all thought they hit it.

_____________________________

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 29

RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/4/2005 10:46:06 PM

ltfightr

Posts: 537
Joined: 6/16/2002
From: Little Rock AR
Status: offline

quote:

The planes were often write-offs, to be sure, but make it back to base they certainly did.

Ok so would you count that a/c as an opps loss or as a mission kill?
How does the game count such a a/c?

The end result no matter how it is counted it is still not in combat any more and is a loss.

_____________________________

Support the Boy Scouts buy Popcorn!
http://www.trails-end.com/estore/scouts/email_referral.jsp?id=3133025

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 30