Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ltfightr

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

quote:

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

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.

What makes you think B-17 claims for enemy kills are any more inaccurate than the same claims made by fighter pilots or the crews of other bombers?

Look. Those are the statistics. If you don't like them, get someone to change them somehow. After all this time I doubt your success in that endeavor, but go for it if you've a mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

How do the stats you quote show that B-17 claims were more or less inaccurate than fighter claims?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

quote:

ORIGINAL: ltfightr

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.

As far as I know these were counted as operational losses. And no, it is not the same. If the game engine has these planes shot out of the sky pilot losses will necessarily be greater. Also, I was talking mainly about B-17s coming back from missions over Germany, not Ricecake Heaven. The Japanese put up nowhere near the kind of air defense anywhere that I'm aware of that the Allies routinely encountered over Germany on just about every mission.

Big difference.

Finally, you haven't bothered to address the little item of Japanese figher losses.

Mind you, I'm not saying the model is right or wrong in this instance, though I suspect it is wrong based on my brief PBEM experience to date. Maybe one day I'll be more sure of that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zeta16

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

quote:

ORIGINAL: ltfightr

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.

As far as I know these were counted as operational losses. And no, it is not the same. If the game engine has these planes shot out of the sky pilot losses will necessarily be greater. Also, I was talking mainly about B-17s coming back from missions over Germany, not Ricecake Heaven. The Japanese put up nowhere near the kind of air defense anywhere that I'm aware of that the Allies routinely encountered over Germany on just about every mission.

Big difference.

Finally, you haven't bothered to address the little item of Japanese figher losses.

Mind you, I'm not saying the model is right or wrong in this instance, though I suspect it is wrong based on my brief PBEM experience to date. Maybe one day I'll be more sure of that.

What's so wrong, In my PBEM with freeboy I have lost 20 fighters to heavies in an attack just to the bombers which were unescorted. Why would you want to fly an plane unescorted in this game? If you escort things nothing like this will happen. In the game with freeboy he lost a lot of heavy bombers by flying day after day pretty much at max range without fighter escort. He lost of planes this way. Just play like a normal commander did and wierd things will not happen. People get into to much of hissy fit over examples which come from totally unhistorical play, if you play the game as real commander did wierd and wild results are just not going to happen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

Zeta16 is absolutely correct, I choose to use my heavies do to my percieved need to push up the ground campaign do to my at sea looses... classic case of a dog chasing its tail.. but I learned that if you commit enough planes you can push the enemy back...

quote:

As far as I know these were counted as operational losses. And no, it is not the same. If the game engine has these planes shot out of the sky pilot losses will necessarily be greater. Also, I was talking mainly about B-17s coming back from missions over Germany, not Ricecake Heaven. The Japanese put up nowhere near the kind of air defense anywhere that I'm aware of that the Allies routinely encountered over Germany on just about every mission.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

ok, we are missing each other, Z is correct in that last part regarding THE IN GAME USE.. not in his response.. If one uses heavies, and does not have anumerical advantage they tend to die badly.. .. weather or not this is true to life I will not judge.. and you are absolutely correct in that :

quote:

As far as I know these were counted as operational losses. And no, it is not the same. If the game engine has these planes shot out of the sky pilot losses will necessarily be greater. Also, I was talking mainly about B-17s coming back from missions over Germany, not Ricecake Heaven. The Japanese put up nowhere near the kind of air defense anywhere that I'm aware of that the Allies routinely encountered over Germany on just about every mission.

I think the issue is smaller raids.. the pacific was a much different theater primarily due to the distances in the heavy campeign... I am not intenrtionaly attemptingto piss you off, really

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

I think its possible that several people are right while argueing.

There is no question the B17s claimed far more kills than they ever got. But that does not mean that they did not shoot down more fighters than any other class of plane. I had not given it much thought but Tristanjohn could easily be right about that.

quote:

In the two raids quoted above B17 claimed between 8 and 10 times the number of kills they actually got. My memory is that this is pretty typical for the war as a whole. So they claimed about 500 kills. They actually got 60. Did any other type of plane kill 60 German fighters during on those two days? I doubt it.

The B17 spent more time in the war than the P51 or P47 so it had more years to rack up the kills. It flew when German fighters were plentiful over Germany but could not be found anywhere else. B17s had the opportunity (which they did not want, thats for sure) to get kills when no other planes could fly to the battle area. Do that long enough and you rack up a lot of kills even if the enemy is kicking your ass while you do it.

quote:

As for the fighter claims in the Battle of Britian the British usually claimed twice as many kills as they actually got. This also seems typical for the war, I have seen it elsewhere, for example in Fighters In The Desert as well. The reason for this is simple, when a fighter shoots an enemy there are not 9 other guys also hammering away. When a ball turret gunner in a B17 opens up he has dozens of buddies firing on the same plane. If the plane blows up a bunch of them are going to think it was thier bullets that did it and claim the kill.

quote:

How does the game count such a a/c?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zeta16

What's so wrong, In my PBEM with freeboy I have lost 20 fighters to heavies in an attack just to the bombers which were unescorted. Why would you want to fly an plane unescorted in this game? If you escort things nothing like this will happen. In the game with freeboy he lost a lot of heavy bombers by flying day after day pretty much at max range without fighter escort. He lost of planes this way. Just play like a normal commander did and wierd things will not happen. People get into to much of hissy fit over examples which come from totally unhistorical play, if you play the game as real commander did wierd and wild results are just not going to happen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

How do the stats you quote show that B-17 claims were more or less inaccurate than fighter claims?

Well... It doesn't. I just happen to think that when you got multiple gunners shooting at a single target that you are going to get multiple claims for any aircraft shot down. But maybe my logic is askew.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

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...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

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...

Bullshit.

...On August 17, 1943, Maj. Gen. Ira C. Eaker, commanding general of Eighth Air Force, launched his most ambitious operation up to that time—a twin strike on the Messerschmitt aircraft factory at Regensburg and the ball-bearing production center at Schweinfurt, both in southern Germany. Regensburg, the more distant target, was 430 miles inside occupied Europe...

Heavy Losses

Thus, of the 376 B-17 Flying Fortresses that set out from England to bomb the two important targets, sixty were destroyed... another fifty-five aircraft, which had been damaged beyond immediate repair, and three more were lost during the return flight. In the short term, the twin attacks and that on the French airfield deprived Eighth Air Force of 118 bombers—nearly one-third of the force committed on August 17.

Despite bomber crew reports to the contrary, their return fire did not inflict serious losses on the German fighters. The Luftwaffe lost only twenty-seven fighters during the two great air battles.



Meet Them Head-On

One solution was to attack the heavy bombers head-on. When the bomber was hit from that direction, its armor gave little protection, and four or five 20-mm hits were enough to knock down the plane. Moreover, the bombers had fewer guns firing forward, and the high closing speed gave them little chance to engage the fighters…

… “One accurate half-second burst from head-on and a victory was guaranteed.”…

…The head-on attack required skillful flying and accurate shooting. The best pilots amassed high victory totals using such tactics…


Copyright Air Force Association.


http://www.afa.org/magazine/1993/0993Against.asp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
As far as I know the most B-17s shot down in a single flight was 69 over Berlin. So that's worst still. And then don't forget about Big Week in 1944, when the Forts were virtually employed as flak and fighter magnets in an effort to attrit the Luftwaffe with both those B-17s and their escorting Mustangs. There's no doubt the 8th took a pounding during the war. I think we've all seen the picture.

But so what? What you point out re head-on attacks only wants to say that B-17s were easier to shoot down from the front, not easy. There's a difference.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
Meanwhile, we're not actually talking about the war over Europe here but the war over Ricecake Heaven, where B-17 opposition was nowhere near as stiff. You do agree with that, do you not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
What makes you think B-17 claims for enemy kills are any more inaccurate than the same claims made by fighter pilots or the crews of other bombers?

Look. Those are the statistics. If you don't like them, get someone to change them somehow. After all this time I doubt your success in that endeavor, but go for it if you've a mind….

quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
As far as I know the most B-17s shot down in a single flight was 69 over Berlin. So that's worst still. And then don't forget about Big Week in 1944, when the Forts were virtually employed as flak and fighter magnets in an effort to attrit the Luftwaffe with both those B-17s and their escorting Mustangs. There's no doubt the 8th took a pounding during the war. I think we've all seen the picture.

But so what? What you point out re head-on attacks only wants to say that B-17s were easier to shoot down from the front, not easy. There's a difference.

The B-17F was highly vunerable to attack from the front even after modifications were made in an attempt to deal with this problem in the field. The American crews knew it, the Germans knew it, and even the commanding officer knew it, thus the B-17G.

B-17F
The "F" was the first B-17 variant to be produced by all of the "B.V.D." companies (Boeing, Lockheed/Vega, and Douglas). Because of the pressing demand for the Flying Fortress, Boeing provided blueprints and cooperation for the B-17 to be built at the Douglas plant in Long Beach and the Vega plant in Burbank. Altogether, they would turn out 3405 B-17Fs: 2300 by Boeing, 605 by Douglas, and 500 by Lockheed/Vega. The first B-17F flew in May, 1942.

From the outside, the "F" closely resembled the "E;" only the unframed, bubble-style plexiglass nose appeared different. Internally, over 400 changes made the B-17F a better bomber: new Wright R-1820-97 Cyclone engines (capable of 1380 hp in short bursts), paddle-bladed propellers, a stronger undercarriage, external bomb racks, better brakes, carburetor intake filters, etc..

B-17F's participated in the January 27, 1943 raid on Wilhelmshaven, the first USAAF mission over Germany. The Luftwaffe pilots quickly identified the B-17's vulnerability to head-on attack. Field modifications, typically jury-rigged machine guns, didn't help much. The stage was set for the B-17G, the definitive variant of the Flying Fortress.


B-17G
This version fairly bristled with defensive firepower: 13 Browning .50 caliber machine guns. Chin, dorsal, ventral, and tail turrets each mounted a pair of guns (8). Left- and right- side guns in the cheeks and waist added 4 more. And a single, rear-firing gun on the top of the fuselage made 13. No wonder Luftwaffe pilots suffered from "vier motor schreck" ("four-engine fear").

The most distinctive change was the "chin" turret, sticking out below the nose. It looks like an after-thought, and it was. But the two machine guns there addressed the B-17's earlier vulnerability.

With 8,680 produced between July 1943 and April 1945, the "G" was the most numerous B-17 variant: 4,035 B-17Gs by Boeing, 2,395 by Douglas, and 2,250 by Lockheed/Vega. The vast majority of surviving B-17s are "G"s.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
Meanwhile, we're not actually talking about the war over Europe here but the war over Ricecake Heaven, where B-17 opposition was nowhere near as stiff. You do agree with that, do you not?

No disagreement there.

quote:

Col. Claude E. Putnam, the commander of the 306th BG, who estimated in 1943 that only 10% of the gunners who could theoretically have fired at an enemy aircraft really did so, and that at least four gunners needed to fire to have a 50% probability to shoot an enemy aircraft down. The commander of the 308th shared his doubts, wondering whether the guns were not more a hazard than a protection…

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
....And I'm glad you agree that conditions were different in the Pacific than over Europe. So, what's your opinion of the model? Does WitP have it right or no?...

quote:

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

quote:

Col. Claude E. Putnam, the commander of the 306th BG, who estimated in 1943 that only 10% of the gunners who could theoretically have fired at an enemy aircraft really did so, and that at least four gunners needed to fire to have a 50% probability to shoot an enemy aircraft down. The commander of the 308th shared his doubts, wondering whether the guns were not more a hazard than a protection…

I've always wondered about that while watching bomber movies. With all of those guys blasting away in swirling turrets and swinging their .50 cals wildley I wonder how many times they ventilated their fellow bombers ... or maybe shot off their own stabilizer or some other important piece of their own ride.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy


I think i'm right in saying that on average the losses over Europe for heavy bombers vs enemy fighters was 1:1.
Steven