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: 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 >> RE: Heavy Bomber Losses Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/8/2005 6:06:47 AM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline 		I am kinda in the middle.

I think the losses to the bombers are a bit high but no more so than any where else in the game.

What is bothering me is the lack of Japanese fighters being shot down by bombers. I know, they were not as good at that as they had thought during the war.
But the heavies did shoot down some fighters and we are talking Rufes which are essentially flying gas cans.
Slow flying gas cans.

I had noticed this earlier in my testing and playing but with the Japanese.
The later Sallies & Betties are not that poorly armed but i have never seen a Japanese bomber shoot anything down.
So the bomber accuracy or targeting needs a little tweaking.

I say a little Mike Wood, we don't need to turn all bombers into flying fighter killers.

I swear BTR air combat worked so much better...

Mike

_____________________________



(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 121
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/8/2005 6:12:38 AM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline 		I don't want to hype the CHS here but i think it is pertinant.

One thing that has always bothered me about this game is the lack of altitude mattering in combat.

I have always thought that something as simple as 3 levels, low/medium/high and a mod (-1/0/+1) at each altitude for each plane set in the editor. Have this affect mnvr.

But since it is not there i have tried to show the difference slightly artificially because it was important.

Japan spent a great deal of time working on a high altitude aircraft for this reason.

The max altitudes listed for many aircraft are a joke; the Zero can fly to 30,000ft but can not so much as bank slightly without stalling. In other words no air combat.

So what i have done in the CHS is all Japanese aircraft that were known for their high altitude limitations, i lowered the max altitude a bit. Changed a few allied planes down as well.

This will give immunity zones to some allied bombers and will show why the Japanese built the Tojo and the Jack.

Mike

_____________________________



(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 122
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/8/2005 9:00:01 AM   
Tristanjohn


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

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

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?...
I find it hard to say if it is right or wrong at this point in time as I have limited time to experiance 1.5. I will note that if the Allied players is flying B-17s at 6,000 feet... losses will be significantly higher than they were during the war: he is making a choice as commander that would have gotten him hung by his own men during the war.


I agree if you mean day attacks. I've only flown those on a limited basis and at relatively high altitudes over bases. I think I did chance one or two lower-altitude flights over Rabaul in my game with Chez, but at the time I was fairly sure there was no good flak in that port. If I recall on my second raid I was in for a rude awakening, as he'd stuffed the port full of heavy AA units, and I paid the price accordingly.

Japanese flak wasn't the greatest, but I imagine it would do some damage if bombers came over at only a mile up or so. I will send bombers in at 9,000 or 6,000 and even 1,000 feet at night, depending on the base and the known strength of flak there. But that's another animal.

(in reply to Culiacan Mexico)
Post #: 123
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/8/2005 4:49:58 PM   
Speedysteve

 

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

Here is the first set of tests results:

B24 vs A6M2

First set of tests - 2 BG vs 4 Daitai - multiple days of continuous action.

B24 exp - 57
Zero experience - 80

Altitude 15,000.

No flak present.

Port Moresby - Rabaul.

1st attack - 75 B24 vs 68 A6m - 7 B24 lost. 7 Zero lost.
2nd attack - 108 vs 49 - 27 B24 lost. 4 Zero lost (fatigue and morale on B24 was in 20's now).
3rd attack - 56 vs 65 - 13 lost vs 6 lost. Many B24 turned back
4th attack - 44 vs 42. 8 lost vs 3 lost.

Test 2.

1st attack - 84 B24 vs 72 A6M - 10 B24 lost. 4 Zero lost.
2nd attack - 89 B24 vs 65 A6M - 16 B24 lost. 7 Zero lost.
3rd attack - 72 B24 vs 61 A6M - 8 B24 lost. 5 Zero lost.
4th attack - 55 B24 vs 58 A6M - 6 B24 lost. 1 Zero lost.

More results in a bit.

Steven

(in reply to Tristanjohn)
Post #: 124
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/8/2005 5:54:28 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		SPEEDY More information please. At what range were the Heavy's attacking? And were the attacks continued on a daily or every-other-day basis? The game gives very excessive fatigue and morale losses to heavy bomber attacks even when the results are good and the losses low.

_____________________________


(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 125
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/8/2005 6:06:40 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

All I can tell you is that I have seen the formulas GG used to use for A2A combat and the morale was every bit as important as the experience and other factors. Whether he still uses pretty much the same formula I can only guess. Besides, since there is not an SP ranking for the crews, or at least none that I have seen, and how morale is a key (no matter how insignificant it may cureently be) to the unseen fomula, wouldn't you say that it just might fit into the morale category? If there aren't any crew variables other than exp/mor then obviously the other intangibles fit in one or the other category or are omitted altogether.



And as I said earlier, the system is flawed, and getting worse. You defend the results by saying that this is the way GG designed the system. I say that totally ahistoric results indicate the system doesn't work. If it did, the results would be more historic.

If an automobile bursts into flames and blows up whenever it is hit from behind..., you don't say that it's a great car because that was the way it was designed! You pay off a pile of nasty lawsuits, and re-design the car so that it doesn't explode when hit from behind. "The system was designed to produce lousy results" is NOT a defense of the system---it's a damning condemnation.

_____________________________


(in reply to Charles2222)
Post #: 126
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/8/2005 6:18:08 PM   
Speedysteve

 

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

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

SPEEDY More information please. At what range were the Heavy's attacking? And were the attacks continued on a daily or every-other-day basis? The game gives very excessive fatigue and morale losses to heavy bomber attacks even when the results are good and the losses low.


Hi Mike,

I'll post more results in a sec. They were launching from size 8 airfield at PM to Rabaul. The above test was to show what happens on CONTINUOUS days bombing. One day after another with no rest.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 127
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/8/2005 6:35:12 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		Test 2.

1 B24D BG from size 8 airfield PM against 2 A6M2 Daitai Rabaul. Each attack is launched fresh = Morale in 90's and 0 fatigue for each group concerned.

B24 exp - 56
A6M2 exp - 80
Altitude - 15,000 feet. No flak

21 B24 vs 22 A6M2 - 6 B24 lost vs 1 Zero lost.
30 vs 33 - 11 lost v 1 lost
36 vs 27 - 10 lost vs 0 lost
29 vs 32 - 10 lost vs 1 lost
32 vs 31 - 5 lost vs 1 lost
34 vs 30 - 6 lost vs 0 lot
30 vs 27 - 8 lost vs 0 lost
31 vs 31 - 3 lost vs 1 lost
35 vs 27 - 9 lost vs 1 lost
31 vs 36 - 9 lost vs 3 lost.

Average losss per raid - 7.8 B24 vs 0.8 A6M2!

Test 3.

Identical to above EXCEPT both B24 and A6M2 exp = 54

37 vs 31 - 7 lost vs 3 lost
32 vs 25 - 4 lost vs 2 lost
27 vs 39 - 4 lost vs 1 lost
37 vs 33 - 6 lost vs 2 lost
37 vs 32 - 5 lost vs 2 lost
27 vs 22 - 4 lost vs 1 lost
34 vs 18 - 1 lost vs 0 lost
37 vs 25 - 7 lost vs 1 lost
34 vs 29 - 4 lost vs 2 lost
34 vs 33 - 1 lost vs 2 lost

Average losses per raid - 4.3 B24 vs 1.5 A6M!

Test 4.

Same as above EXCEPT B24 exp = 60. A6M exp = 75. ALSO larger groups of planes involved.

70 vs 74 - 26 lost v 8 lost
68 vs 65 - 29 lost vs 5 lost
151 vs 75 - 40 lost vs 15 lost
95 vs 76 - 32 lost v 11 lost
83 vs 72 - 28 lost vs 6 lost
117 vs 78 - 43 lost vs 11 lost
110 vs 88 - 36 lost vs 7 lost
81 vs 74 - 31 lost vs 8 lost
97 vs 85 - 39 lost vs 5 lost
114 vs 83 - 37 lost vs 11 lost

Average loses per raid - 34.1 B24 vs 8.7 A6M!

I've not had time to test against other plane types yet but I still think the above is showing a trend already. We know that heavies were used without escort in the Pacific and they didn't achieve loss rates like the above. Even the LW didn't achieve these sort of results against unescorted heavies.

I still think this is a great game but maybe the vulnrability of heavies should be toned down a little. Sure it should not be wise to fly without escort but these guys could look after themeslves better than they are doing at present in my opinion. Will do more tests in due course.

Regards,

Steven

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 128
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/8/2005 7:53:49 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		I would say that the losses of the Allied heavies need to be toned down considerably...,
and the losses of the Japanese are rediculously light.

_____________________________


(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 129
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/8/2005 8:00:34 PM   
Mr.Frag


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

We know that heavies were used without escort in the Pacific and they didn't achieve loss rates like the above.


Steven, thats not really a valid statement to make. *Small* numbers of unescorted raids took place with low numbers of aircraft.

That is not the same to say that two entire bomber groups attacked a defended airbase against multiple wings of combat air patrol with no escort.

Sending multiple groups (64+) aircraft anywhere without escort and expecting survival is being silly. People really need to stop playing selective reading when discussing what happened historically.

_____________________________


(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 130
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 12:01:42 AM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		As an experienced bomber campeigner.. Frag is correct
I also note that I want to take air supperiory I send wave after wave of bombers.. when I can afford to lose them.. I lose them bat they do get airbase hits and anything that gets left after the base gets shut I bomb to nothing... makes the jap player worry as I can more easily replace bombers than he can fighters.. this one tactic allowedd me against Zeta 16 to push his planes back and alow free access for aks/aps in my 43 slingshot advance through NG and SRA.. previous I lost Hundreds of Ships... It really was ugly and I teetered on the edge of a Jap auto victory.. 42 was really tough and I needed a way to use what I had after taking a cv and bb beating in 42, he also lost BB's, most of his carrier planes survived..
Back to the ?.. I lost planes.. alot of planes.. but igf you have 2-3 hundred.. you can hit him several turns in arow and knock out the base.. under 150 is pretty much a wast unless you get some CV support or fighters.. not argueing wehter it is accurate or not because I just do not care that much, it is close enough to force historical chioces on the actors and that is ok by me... these choices are.. luanch unescorted and suffer.. and maybe if you have the guts for it waste your air groups whiile pushing back the enemy.. and as the Japs.. due you defend or withdraw in the face of such oppisition, and if You are playing the japs against me.. good luck standing your ground..

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 131
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 5:16:30 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

We know that heavies were used without escort in the Pacific and they didn't achieve loss rates like the above.


Steven, thats not really a valid statement to make. *Small* numbers of unescorted raids took place with low numbers of aircraft.

That is not the same to say that two entire bomber groups attacked a defended airbase against multiple wings of combat air patrol with no escort.

Sending multiple groups (64+) aircraft anywhere without escort and expecting survival is being silly. People really need to stop playing selective reading when discussing what happened historically.


FRAG On what sources do you base these statements? There were hundreds of "modest" size raids made by Allied heavies in the Pacific (less than 100 A/C);
and very few were escorted because the Allies lacked fighters with the range to
do so. The losses were nothing like what the game is producing---and the Japanese
interceptors suffered much greater losses than the game is producing. Please list
even three examples of a "Group-sized" bomber raid that suffered losses on the scale
shown in SPEEDY's tests (25 to 33% bomber casualties with loss ratios of 5-8 : 1).
It just didn't happen that way....

_____________________________


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 132
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 5:33:15 AM   
Mr.Frag


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

Please list even three examples of a "Group-sized" bomber raid that suffered losses on the scale
shown in SPEEDY's tests (25 to 33% bomber casualties with loss ratios of 5-8 : 1).


I'm going to turn that one around on you Mike ...

Please list even three examples of a group sized bomber raid while Japan still had an airforce.

_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 133
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 9:05:12 AM   
Charles2222


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

All I can tell you is that I have seen the formulas GG used to use for A2A combat and the morale was every bit as important as the experience and other factors. Whether he still uses pretty much the same formula I can only guess. Besides, since there is not an SP ranking for the crews, or at least none that I have seen, and how morale is a key (no matter how insignificant it may cureently be) to the unseen fomula, wouldn't you say that it just might fit into the morale category? If there aren't any crew variables other than exp/mor then obviously the other intangibles fit in one or the other category or are omitted altogether.



And as I said earlier, the system is flawed, and getting worse. You defend the results by saying that this is the way GG designed the system. I say that totally ahistoric results indicate the system doesn't work. If it did, the results would be more historic.

If an automobile bursts into flames and blows up whenever it is hit from behind..., you don't say that it's a great car because that was the way it was designed! You pay off a pile of nasty lawsuits, and re-design the car so that it doesn't explode when hit from behind. "The system was designed to produce lousy results" is NOT a defense of the system---it's a damning condemnation.


Mike I don't think this model is working off the BTR model, or the USAAF model for that matter, but that's where the ground was being laid. It's not a carbon-copy is what I'm trying to say (not that you said that). In any event my main purpose was to make it clear to you that there is no such thing as self-preservation in the ranking of the crews. You can imagine it as fatigue or morale, in there somewhere perhaps, but there had never been any s-p rankings in any of GG's games that I've seen. I'm not exactly sure there should be either, because if s-p makes so much of a difference as you said, what makes you think B17 crews have more s-p than Zero or Betty pilots? Part of s-p, in fact, I would say the majority of it, probably has a lot more with knowing how and when to retreat (such as going flat to the ground instead of continually firing away) than being a legendary rambo, which certainly B17 pilots weren't known to have nothing but rambo crews.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 134
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 9:08:52 AM   
Charles2222


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

We know that heavies were used without escort in the Pacific and they didn't achieve loss rates like the above.


Steven, thats not really a valid statement to make. *Small* numbers of unescorted raids took place with low numbers of aircraft.

That is not the same to say that two entire bomber groups attacked a defended airbase against multiple wings of combat air patrol with no escort.

Sending multiple groups (64+) aircraft anywhere without escort and expecting survival is being silly. People really need to stop playing selective reading when discussing what happened historically.


IOW, he would be better off testing 5 B17's against 3 Zeroes?

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 135
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 1:25:11 PM   
Speedysteve

 

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

I don't have in depth knowledge of Heavy bomber missions in PTO so I will bow down to superior knowledge IF the case is that few large unescorted heavy bomber missions were flown in the PTO then so be it.

I do still think the loss rate is high though. Even unescorted heavy raids in ETO didn't get these ratios against 190's etc. I'm not one of these whiners who want change for the sake of it though. I've done some tests and these are my results.

If the majority think all is ok I will leave this alone now. If you do want more tests to be done Frag or think I should do them with different parameters then just let me know.

Onwards with this great game!

Regards,

Steven

(in reply to Charles2222)
Post #: 136
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 1:33:21 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		Numbers seem to bit high, but generally I don't have problems with that. Unescorted bomber raids were bad idea against determined fighter opposition anyway. Maybe CHS-folks can make some adjustments to planes etc. ?

Speedy, can you change the Zeros to Oscars and run the test again ? If they achieve something similar, then I'll get bit concerned.

Cheers,

M.S.

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 137
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 1:43:41 PM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline
I agree heavy bombers are too high, but their replacement rates are even too much higher.

And the Luftwaffe kill ratio vs US heavy bombers was over 3 to 1. What really hurts the Luftwaffe was the escorts ?

Most of the heavy bombers actions in RL were one BG or less vs one Daitai/Sentai or less. Essentially because in RL aircraft, and especially heavy bombers, were more difficult to support than in WITP. So both sides were unable to fly as much as we do in the game.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 138
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 2:01:22 PM   
Speedysteve

 

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

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Numbers seem to bit high, but generally I don't have problems with that. Unescorted bomber raids were bad idea against determined fighter opposition anyway. Maybe CHS-folks can make some adjustments to planes etc. ?

Speedy, can you change the Zeros to Oscars and run the test again ? If they achieve something similar, then I'll get bit concerned.

Cheers,

M.S.


I can do but is it worth it? If others think it's worth testing this too i'll spend the time on it. Do the testers think anything is up here or are you all agreed that its working as is realistically?

Regards,

Steven

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 139
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 2:04:09 PM   
Speedysteve

 

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

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent


I agree heavy bombers are too high, but their replacement rates are even too much higher.

And the Luftwaffe kill ratio vs US heavy bombers was over 3 to 1. What really hurts the Luftwaffe was the escorts ?

Most of the heavy bombers actions in RL were one BG or less vs one Daitai/Sentai or less. Essentially because in RL aircraft, and especially heavy bombers, were more difficult to support than in WITP. So both sides were unable to fly as much as we do in the game.


Hi Laurent,

AFAIK only rarely did the LW achieve over 3:1 odds. Here we have 7:1 at times.

P.S. What happened to you on BTR forum?

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 140
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 2:26:44 PM   
Djordje

 

Posts: 537
Joined: 9/12/2004
Status: offline 		Speedy, can you do a new test, same as before, just this time set B17 exp to 80 and Zero exp to 45? This should represent most of the mid war battles, once Japanese have lost most of their trained pilots.

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 141
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 2:28:44 PM   
Speedysteve

 

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

I can do that.

Regards,

Steven

(in reply to Djordje)
Post #: 142
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 5:33:59 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		Question for the testers, mods, makers etc -

Do you want me to continue tests on this or is the general concensus all is working as should be historically? I can and will do more tests if wanted but if not I won't waste my time and will devote more time to PBEM

Regards,

Steven

(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 143
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 5:36:33 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Please list even three examples of a "Group-sized" bomber raid that suffered losses on the scale
shown in SPEEDY's tests (25 to 33% bomber casualties with loss ratios of 5-8 : 1).


I'm going to turn that one around on you Mike ...

Please list even three examples of a group sized bomber raid while Japan still had an airforce.


FRAG. So you are saying you couldn't find even ONE example to back up your claims?

Not sure how you turned this into a question of raid size from a discussion of wildly inflated loss ratios, but after I've had a day's sleep I'll try to find you some examples of both size and losses from the real world to disprove your assertions. We're talking about raild of under 100 A/C that actually met Japanese opposition? And I assume you mean before mid 1943 by "while the Japanese still had an airforce"---implying they still had a reasonable number of trained pilots?

It will give me something to do at work tonight..., 12 hour shifts tend to drag.


_____________________________


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 144
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 5:39:06 PM   
asdicus

 

Posts: 260
Joined: 5/16/2002
From: Surrey,UK
Status: offline 		I would like urge matrix to be very cautious about messing with the allied heavy bomber loss rates and effectiveness. In my opinion the game should be left alone in this area - my reasoning is simple - high loss rates compensate for excessive aircraft production.

In scenario 15 b-17 e production is 75 planes a month I believe or 900 planes a year for the whole war. You can see the real production figures for different us army aircraft from

http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/wwwroot/world_war2/world_war2.html

check out table 76 from the air forces statistical digest

In 1941 b-17 production was 144 planes, 1942 1412 planes and 1943 4179 planes. It would be fair to assume the vast majority of these planes either went to europe or were kept in the usa for training. Instead of 75 planes a month 25 planes a month or even less would be a more sensible estimate for scenario 15 replacements.

Any excess loss rate for allied heavy bombers is easily compensated by these excessive replacement rates. As it is unlikely that the number of replacements will be changed the game should be left alone for the sake of a fair contest.

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 145
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 5:41:40 PM   
Speedysteve

 

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

If production and losses are too high then shouldn't it potentially be looked at?

Regards,

Steven

(in reply to asdicus)
Post #: 146
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 5:41:46 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		Speedy: I ment with Oscars to try with aircraft that should have very hard time to shoot down B-17 due to their armament no matter what experience. If they still can destroy lots of B-17, then it's bit of concern. Maybe B-17 etc. armour needs to be upped ? Or durability..or...well, I donno

Cheers,

M.S.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 147
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 5:55:08 PM   
Mr.Frag


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

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Please list even three examples of a "Group-sized" bomber raid that suffered losses on the scale
shown in SPEEDY's tests (25 to 33% bomber casualties with loss ratios of 5-8 : 1).


I'm going to turn that one around on you Mike ...

Please list even three examples of a group sized bomber raid while Japan still had an airforce.


FRAG. So you are saying you couldn't find even ONE example to back up your claims?

Not sure how you turned this into a question of raid size from a discussion of wildly inflated loss ratios, but after I've had a day's sleep I'll try to find you some examples of both size and losses from the real world to disprove your assertions. We're talking about raild of under 100 A/C that actually met Japanese opposition? And I assume you mean before mid 1943 by "while the Japanese still had an airforce"---implying they still had a reasonable number of trained pilots?

It will give me something to do at work tonight..., 12 hour shifts tend to drag.



Mike, I'm not the one complaining about loss rates being too high. I don't need back up my claims as I am not making any claims here. You tossed down a gauntlet to me and in going through the mission logs for the USAAF (which lists every single flight flown) I don't see any group level activity which is the complaint here. If someone wants to provide data that shows otherwise, I'll look at the results, but this is just another one of those threads based on thin air with no historical references at all.

When questioning something, two things are required:

a) a historical reference showing the activity actually took place.
b) results in game showing the large difference in results consistantly.

When not providing a), there is little point tossing off 5 pages worth of posts about b) as it is just conjecture.

I have simply requested a) be provided as I can't find any of them. You turned it around that I had to prove a) didn't happen

_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 148
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 5:59:35 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent


I agree heavy bombers are too high, but their replacement rates are even too much higher.

And the Luftwaffe kill ratio vs US heavy bombers was over 3 to 1. What really hurts the Luftwaffe was the escorts ?

Most of the heavy bombers actions in RL were one BG or less vs one Daitai/Sentai or less. Essentially because in RL aircraft, and especially heavy bombers, were more difficult to support than in WITP. So both sides were unable to fly as much as we do in the game.


You could very well be right about inflated replacement rates. You are certainly correct about the relatively small (compared to Europe) size of the air actions in the Pacific. 50 heavy's would have been a "massive raid" in the 1st year of the war, and 50 fighters a large response. The big raids in the game are another unfortunate result of the designers choice to make basing and support BASE related rather than dependent on the size of the A/C. Only a few bases can be built up to fully support heavy bombers in the game, but once they are built, hundreds can be based there. So operational raid size is automatically concentraited.

I would dissagree with you over the bomber-fighter loss ratio in Europe. What I've seen says it was closer to 1 to 1. But in either case, the comparison is not really that valid because in Europe the bombers were flying over hundreds of miles of enemy controlled territory and bases and the attacks could continue for hours with the fighters rotating up and back, sometimes attacking 2-3 times during a raid. In the Pacific, many raids weren't even intercepted because of lack of warning---and if interception took place it was a limited time event. The whole "intensity level" depicted in the game is about an order of magnitude too high.

_____________________________


(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 149
RE: Heavy Bomber Losses - 5/9/2005 6:03:11 PM   
Speedysteve

 

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

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
I would dissagree with you over the bomber-fighter loss ratio in Europe. What I've seen says it was closer to 1 to 1.


I agree Mike. The average figure is closer to 1:1. There are individual combats where the ratio is 3 or even 4:1 but not the average.

As I say though i'm not going to beat a dead horse. If the makers, mods etc want me to do more testing and see a purpose of it I will if not then I will continue playing my PBEMs. I will await their response.........

Regards,

Steven

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Heavy Bomber Losses Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   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

1.008