Slitherine

quote:

Let's face it, they lost to furballs w/ no discernable reproductive capability and a fleet w/ a squid for an admiral. The empire deserved to lose.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Geez, I guess somebody never heard of Fighter Escort.

It's funny nobody complains when unescorted Japanese bombers get hammered!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag



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that shows otherwise, I'll look at the results, but this is just another one of those threads based on thin air with no historical references at all.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a) a historical reference showing the activity actually took place.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

Hi Frag,

As I originally mentioned when I started this topic I just wondered if they were too high or not. As mentioned I don't have detailed figures to hand of PTO. I was basing my thoughts/queries on the durability of heavy bombers per se and my knowledge of ETO. Based upon that I carried out my tests on unescorted bomber raids.

I'm not here to p*ss peeps off or to moan for the sake of moaning. As i've postulated above if you and the other mods, testers, makers think all is well and good considering the historical situation of PTO then thats cool i'll leave it well alone.

In short, all i've wanted to know is the A2A model correct based for heavies vs fighters based upon historical principles? If so great. If you think it needs tweaking i'm here to help by doing tests etc if needed.

Regards,

Steven

I understand Steven, this is the basis for many such threads. Someone does something and feels it to be too high or too low when they get the result.

The key to finding the answer is to dig into history and see if that type of activity happened. If it did happen, and it happened more then once can an expected pattern of results be drawn for the purposes of tuning?

In this case, we are dealing with large raids of bombers against protected targets. Historically it did not appear to happen in a timeframe that would provide valid data. Historically, no commander with half a brain would risk aircraft and aircrews in such a manner (which is why the game is programmed to have morale plummet into the 20's).

quote:

Now we get to what should the results be and this is a much tougher question as there is no historical data available. You have on one side that the heavies were capable of taking a great deal of abuse and still making it back to base (the fact that many never flew again is removed from the history books due to how the USA counted operational losses).

quote:

You have on the other side that Japan while not being the smartest kid on the block for starting a war they could not win did have aircraft and pilots capable of shooting down aircraft given enough time and warning. It was not their best skill certainly, but that also does not mean that the Allies could have simply stopped producing fighters and built nothing but heavy bombers as they were more effective then fighters at shooting Japanese down.

quote:

Somewhere in the middle of these two extremes, one picks what seems reasonable for what is actually a really silly action. (sending large numbers of slow bombers against protected targets).

quote:

a) Morale plummets
b) neither side takes excessive losses

Now we get into the second part of the problem:

Players ignore the fact that their morale has plummeted and *continue* this silly action. Morale can't plummet further as it has already cratered. Now what? The only option is to cause losses.

quote:

Decreasing the losses is effectively a request to reward silly play. Why would you want to reward silly play?

quote:

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

THis isn't a one-way issue. If you want to see a real slaughter why don't you test an unescorted Japanese bomber strike and see what you get!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

We all know what will happen with that. They will and should get slaughtered. A Betty ain't a Fort

True, but Betties wern't nearly as easy to bring down as most people think. Check out Frank's and Lundstrom's work on Guad. (in reference to the standard G4M raids on Lunga airfield)

quote:

ORIGINAL: asdicus
…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…

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

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...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
...IOW, he would be better off testing 5 B17's against 3 Zeroes?...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
...Secondly, no matter how unhappy a crewman might be about going up, shooting at people who are trying to kill you is an act of self-preservation, not morale…

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Let's face it, they lost to furballs w/ no discernable reproductive capability and a fleet w/ a squid for an admiral. The empire deserved to lose.

Huh? the empire won!

Whoops, watching star wars out of order again

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


[I own Lundstrom's stuff and I've read Frank closely. I sure don't recall either one of those historians billing the Betty as anything other than what it was: a flimsy bomber that was very prone to explode when tracers got at its gas tanks. The rear gun was okay but as long as pilots avoided rear approaches they were more than okay.

quote:


The only true limiting factor on shooting down Bettys (assuming one caught them--they had decent speed) was the limited ammo carried, on F4Fs especially.

quote:

ORIGINAL: asdicus

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


[I own Lundstrom's stuff and I've read Frank closely. I sure don't recall either one of those historians billing the Betty as anything other than what it was: a flimsy bomber that was very prone to explode when tracers got at its gas tanks. The rear gun was okay but as long as pilots avoided rear approaches they were more than okay.

Then you didnt' read the books very carefully. A G4M was flimsy compared to a B-17. However they did not go down in droves per short burst as is often assumed by people whenever they entered combat.

quote:


The only true limiting factor on shooting down Bettys (assuming one caught them--they had decent speed) was the limited ammo carried, on F4Fs especially.

quote:

Such a statement could be said of any fighter aircraft when attacking a target.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: asdicus

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.

Had a rotten day and night, and didn't get to as much research as I'd hoped by a long sight. But I did find one very interesting thing. Of ALL the B-17 C's, D's, E's and F's produced by the United States---the grand total that went to the Pacific with units and as replacements was 275. By the time the F's were coming on line, the decision had been made to use B-24's in the Pacific and reserve B-17 production for Europe.

These numbers certainly support your (and others) contention that B-17's are far to generously supplied in the game. Could explain why ahistorically large B-17 raids seem so common. In 1942, 3 to 20 would pretty much cover the spread as far as raid size by B-17's. Of course, the games loss ratios between Heavies and Japanese fighters is out of kilter as well. Hopefully both can be corrected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


Do I need to go into Lundstom's Guadacanal book and quote chapter and verse? And is that the only author you have confidence in? This stuff is written all across the wide breadth of World War II history. It is no secret. It is common knowledge. Why do we have to have these arguments?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


Do I need to go into Lundstom's Guadacanal book and quote chapter and verse? And is that the only author you have confidence in? This stuff is written all across the wide breadth of World War II history. It is no secret. It is common knowledge. Why do we have to have these arguments?

Because you create them. I did not say for example that A G4M was as durable as a B-17 nor did i say that Lundstrom or Frank did not comment that the large gas tanks equipped with the G4M didn't make them flammable.

What I said was:

" Betties wern't nearly as easy to bring down as most people think. Check out Frank's and Lundstrom's work on Guad. (in reference to the standard G4M raids on Lunga airfield)"


G4M's did not go down in droves every or even most times that they engaged over Lunga airfield. They did not all "explode" instantly after a short burst nor did all the enemy bullets magically find their fuel tanks every time nor did said fuel tanks instantly explode every time they were pierced to create such pyrotechnics. Overall, the F4F's would pour fire into the G4M's which would damage them but they rarely didn't bring more than a couple down per engagement. Most made it back, but many with heavy damage and a good number written off on landing. Air combat in general is not nearly as bloody as most think. Thats the point Doc. Blood was making in his post and I agree with him. This viewpoint was also expressed by one Joe Foss....who when interviewed about his days over Lunga stated "Betties wern't so easy to bring down."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


My object in this thread is to keep the discussion on track. If possible. And it ain't easy. Because there's a lot of stuff being said around here that just isn't so. Typically.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!
Have any of you ever fired a gun into a gas can? I have.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

The Model navy 20mm cannon was coming into service in the fall of '42 on the A6m3s.

The Betty, which had an empty weight of about the same as an A-20 has 36 durability while the B17 which weighs a bit more than twice as much has what a 69 durabilty and 1 armour.

Have any of you ever fired a gun into a gas can? I have.
I have fired tracer Hornsbys into a gas can from a .45... round after round. I can't get it to explode.

Gas vapor explodes, the gasoline itself does not. After a couple dozen rounds fired just above an open gas tank i did get it to explode. With tracers.

quote:

The Americans claimed every Betty quite often in the raids over the canal but those same Betties were back the next day.
I am amused by the American accounts of being outnumbered in WW2.

I have read American accounts of the Canal where we state that we shot down a hundred Zeroes but they just flew in 100 more the next day. Damn there are a lot of those Japs!

quote:

Then i read some accounts in Japanese from Rabaul saying they would go in lose 3 Zeroes, shoot down 8 Wildcats, feel good about it but then some escort carrier would fly in another squadron.
Wow there are a lot of those Americans.

It reminds me of figuring out which soldiers starved more in the US civil war... all of the books written from a southern point of view; we are starving, massive hardship, but we great personal fortitude we win the battle!

Then you read a nothern officer, and they complain that it is hardly surprising that we lose battles since we have very little food and it is weavily because of the disgusting war profiteers!
But we killed a southerner and jeez, he had fresh bacon, corn, tobacco, fruit, etc! It was a banquet!

The other guy always has more or less depending on who we need to impress.

Mike

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
...Still, how does all that impact the subject of this thread?...

quote:

Ahh the cult of the B-17, alive and well. God, I wish I had saved my post from the old UV debate on the merits of the great B-17(in the Pacific) and the “weak” Japanese Army and Navy air forces in early 1942. This horse has been beaten to death. But here we go again, a small dose of reality regarding the B-17 in the Pacific.

At first I saw the results of the combat and for about 30 seconds actually wondered why the invincible B-17 took such a beating. Then it became obvious. The Jap pilots that perpetrated that AAR had to be highly experienced, highly motivated, and had to use very bold tactics. But where would you find pilots like that in early 42’?!?!?

Those B-17 groups had to be inexperienced, suffering from mid-low morale, had to be unescorted, and they must have been going into a large Japanese base hex defended by large numbers of top-notch fighter pilots who are well-rested, supplied, and supported. Uh…and they were.

If you want to talk about historical vs. ahistorical results lets use this formula that is prevalent in Naval Aviation.

Garbage in = Garbage out

Another way of saying that is

Ahistorical use = Ahistorical results

Here is a report that illustrates several things.
1. That the B-17 when used inappropriately IS NOT INVINCIBLE.
2. That Veteran Zero pilots used BOLD TACTICS (Big surprise right?)
3. That the B-17 WAS capable of sustaining heavy damage BUT WAS NOT INVINCIBLE under the right circumstances.
4. That after Feb 1943 the B-17 performed little more than recon and transport duties in the Pacific.
5. Operational damage is NOT just aircraft breaking down. It is an abstract amalgamation of Mechanical issues, supply, morale, and injured aircrew*

* This is vividly described in the following account

“In Feb 1943 a flight of 4 B-17s with an escort of 4 P-40s attacked Shortland Harbor near Bouganville. At this stage of the war over the Solomons some Japanese units showed signs of operational decline. Others, however, still had the old magic: Obviously the American raiders confronted Japanese veterans. A large flight of Zeroes jumped the Americans, destroyed three B-17s (that’s 75% folks), and scattered the escorts. The remaining B-17 was pursued by several Zeros for half an hour. Major H.H. Carroll, the Squadron’s flight surgeon, was a passenger on the flight and wrote this account soon after landing:

The fight ended up at 1,200’ with our pilot, Captain Thomas, flying full-bore. All of our machine-gun ammunition had been expended 20 minutes before the Zeroes left. The Zeroes used bold tactics. Some of the enemy planes approached to within 10 yds. Of the wingtips of the B-17, then executed a half roll on the same level. Sometimes, the enemy would climb, and at others, he would dive. One Zero flew in upside down and came about 10 feet above the bomber in a slight dive, firing down. Another one came in toward the nose, pulled straight up into a loop, and came back over upside down firing. Their tactics different and bolder than those observed previously in this area. The Zero pilots showed no fear of the B-17s guns. When they stared a pass they completed it.
The B-17 was riddled with 7.7 and 20mm bullets. One waist gunner and the bombardier had severe gunshot wounds. All gunners and the co-pilot received shrapnel wounds. #1 and #2 engines were functioning about 1/3 their normal efficiency. All twin cables had been severed by gun fire and that together with the great amount of torque made flying difficult and hazardous. It seemed impossible to get the ship home and a water landing was contemplated. Because two crew members were seriously wounded, Capt., Thomas tried one more thing. In order to keep the plane on an even keel, the pilot and co-pilot held the wheel control forward with their knees, and maintained sufficient left rudder to compensate for the torque. After manually cranking the gear and flaps down, a near perfect landing was made on Henderson Field even though both tires were flat.

Whether obvious or not at the time, this was one of the last bombing missions conducted by B-17s in the Pacific Theater. The Fort soldiered on as a recon and transport A/C, but the bombers were wearing out fast...”
--Fire in the Sky, Bergerud, p.275-76

Keep in mid this was FEB 43’. How many of that crew were ready for duty the next day? Of the rest of that Bomb group that witnessed only 25% of that day’s raid return, how many guys were raring to fly the next day? You think their morale dropped…? Yeah, I do too. How many replacement aircrew were teleported to Henderson field to fill in for the 30 dudes lost and 9 dudes injured?

Remember my equation from above?
Garbage in = Garbage out Ahistorical use = Ahistorical results

How many 21 plane, unescorted B-17 raids against well rested/supplied top-notch Zero pilots and Oscar pilots enjoying a 2:1 advantage over their own territory actually occurred in March 1942? Or the rest of the war for that matter? How successful was the B-17 when unescorted? Even in other theaters? Can you say Schweinfert?

By my calculations better than 50% of the raid returned. I’d say that was a pretty good result considering the situation those poor Bastages were put in. And there are people out there that have the nerve to wank about that kind of result. I bet those same people won’t be wanking about being able to field 48 B-17s on long range raids against Rabaul in Late 43’ or early 44’, but that $#!t didn’t happen either. When you change history, the results can not be historic. Pretty simple. That’s why this game exists. So you can do these things. You just better be prepared for the consequences.

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Good post, The Elf. I agree.

Cheers,

M.S.

quote:

OK, been lurking a while a felt this needed to be adressed: Gas doesn't ignite without O^2, i.e. in full tanks. However, it could be said that there might be ample oxygen in a fuel tank after a trip to the designated target.