RE: Oscar v B17E (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

castor troy -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 9:53:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

Does anyone have actual accounts of Japanese Pilots taking down huge numbers of B-17's and B-24s? I mean I never remember hearing any after action reports on american sides suggesting the japanese had any success at any part of the war in taking down 4 engine bombers. Some creditable claims I have read that further disprove every Japanese Fan boy here, are aces like Saburo Sakai who sat behind an F4F and put almost 1,000 rounds of 7.7mm into it and the plane wouldn't drop, were talking F4F here not a B-17.

The ki-43's in Burma, what level of success were they having? How many were being brought down 1-2? or typical japanese over-excelled combat reports with hundreds of "B24's shot down".

My biggest problem with the whole "American 4 Engines are overpowering" argument is fact I don't see proof Japan had any success.

Granted my argument is this - Japan didn't have the Fw-190 or Me-262, but relied on aircraft that were underpowered, undergunned, and had no armor protection - even when they gained stats in one area, other areas were still under-stated. You can say the Ki-84 and N1Jk George were top of the line models coming out of Japan, but look how late in the war they came out, what pilots did the Japanese have left?

This debate can go on forever and ever, lets all just reach some mutual agreement Japan did not have a real "bomber interceptor" and that's just how the war went. Hell why can't we argue who had the best legs in ww2?





why did the Allied employ fighters then? Not saying Japanese fighters were bomber killers but they were surely not something that a bomber crew was happy about when a couple of dozens would show up. Whenever something is shooting at you and can kill you or your comrade you quickly get away from the "invincible" thinking.



xj900uk -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 10:29:33 AM)

Just been looking up a few things last night. The IJAAF standard tactic for attacking bombers (whether two engined or four) was to fly in single file one behind the other up under the tail (6 o'clock low) and pump loads of mg rounds into its belly. This was the correct tactic in WWI against two-seaters, and the IJAAF had a lot of success with it in China in the 30's (mainly because the Chinese bombers were crap and had no defensive armament to cover their 6 o'clock low position) so never saw any need to change it or official training prior to '44.
The IJN was a bit more flexible. People like Sakai et al took one look at the early model B17's flying unperturbed after they had pumped all of their ammo into them and went back for a bit of a think and talk amongst themselves afterwards over the odd glass of rice wine. They eventually came up with everyone concentrating their fire against one bomber (usually one on the side) although intiially again they would attack singly or in pairs and making a series of high-angle-off fast slashing attacks (usually from 10 or 2 o'clock high) in order to make things difficult for the gunners. Even the early Zero's had 2 x 20mm cannon but they didn't make that much impression on B17c's and Sakai and his commarades often took it as a personal challenge to try and bring down a B17 or two - they were very mucht eh bane of his life in '42



mike scholl 1 -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 11:34:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

why did the Allied employ fighters then? Not saying Japanese fighters were bomber killers but they were surely not something that a bomber crew was happy about when a couple of dozens would show up. Whenever something is shooting at you and can kill you or your comrade you quickly get away from the "invincible" thinking.



Believe I raised this point before..., but perhaps we are focusing on the wrong part of the story. Historically Allied fighters shot down most of these "interceptors" BEFORE they got to the bombers, so maybe the question should be "Why isn't this happening in AE?" Why are the 4-engined "heavies" having to do the work of fighters?



Misconduct -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 12:49:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

Does anyone have actual accounts of Japanese Pilots taking down huge numbers of B-17's and B-24s? I mean I never remember hearing any after action reports on american sides suggesting the japanese had any success at any part of the war in taking down 4 engine bombers. Some creditable claims I have read that further disprove every Japanese Fan boy here, are aces like Saburo Sakai who sat behind an F4F and put almost 1,000 rounds of 7.7mm into it and the plane wouldn't drop, were talking F4F here not a B-17.

The ki-43's in Burma, what level of success were they having? How many were being brought down 1-2? or typical japanese over-excelled combat reports with hundreds of "B24's shot down".

My biggest problem with the whole "American 4 Engines are overpowering" argument is fact I don't see proof Japan had any success.

Granted my argument is this - Japan didn't have the Fw-190 or Me-262, but relied on aircraft that were underpowered, undergunned, and had no armor protection - even when they gained stats in one area, other areas were still under-stated. You can say the Ki-84 and N1Jk George were top of the line models coming out of Japan, but look how late in the war they came out, what pilots did the Japanese have left?

This debate can go on forever and ever, lets all just reach some mutual agreement Japan did not have a real "bomber interceptor" and that's just how the war went. Hell why can't we argue who had the best legs in ww2?





why did the Allied employ fighters then? Not saying Japanese fighters were bomber killers but they were surely not something that a bomber crew was happy about when a couple of dozens would show up. Whenever something is shooting at you and can kill you or your comrade you quickly get away from the "invincible" thinking.


Fighters were employed because of the need for air supremacy. Fighters between 1930-1940 were being designed away from the true dog fighter rolls of Ww1 and switching to Intercepting roles based on every country's fear that while fighters had such short range for the time being, the real threat was based on bombers. The American's were an awkward country militarily, with the idea of the B17 and being that it could fly to its target and back without an escort fighter.

Nothing has ever been invincible, one could argue the F-22 Raptor we have today is invincible, at least till someone else designs something to match it, then what?




Misconduct -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 12:53:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

why did the Allied employ fighters then? Not saying Japanese fighters were bomber killers but they were surely not something that a bomber crew was happy about when a couple of dozens would show up. Whenever something is shooting at you and can kill you or your comrade you quickly get away from the "invincible" thinking.



Believe I raised this point before..., but perhaps we are focusing on the wrong part of the story. Historically Allied fighters shot down most of these "interceptors" BEFORE they got to the bombers, so maybe the question should be "Why isn't this happening in AE?" Why are the 4-engined "heavies" having to do the work of fighters?



I am having a hard time seeing the situation, is there an AAR with the combat reports showing escorting is a problem? I am flying raids to Lae right now from Moresby and usually 20xP-40's and 15xP39s escort around 50 B-17s against 65 Ki-45 Nicks and 25 Zeros and I generally Lose 1-2 P39s and P40s every raid, but no bombers get touched.



Miller -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 1:51:40 PM)

I my game now at April 44 I often see small raids of 3-6 4E going in against 50-100 fighters on CAP (Tojos and/or Franks). The average result seems to be a couple of damaged 4E, maybe one shot down. They never abort a mission, no matter how heavy the opposition. My pilots are on average 60 overall skill, 70-75 air skill.



castor troy -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 2:15:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Misconduct


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

why did the Allied employ fighters then? Not saying Japanese fighters were bomber killers but they were surely not something that a bomber crew was happy about when a couple of dozens would show up. Whenever something is shooting at you and can kill you or your comrade you quickly get away from the "invincible" thinking.



Believe I raised this point before..., but perhaps we are focusing on the wrong part of the story. Historically Allied fighters shot down most of these "interceptors" BEFORE they got to the bombers, so maybe the question should be "Why isn't this happening in AE?" Why are the 4-engined "heavies" having to do the work of fighters?



I am having a hard time seeing the situation, is there an AAR with the combat reports showing escorting is a problem? I am flying raids to Lae right now from Moresby and usually 20xP-40's and 15xP39s escort around 50 B-17s against 65 Ki-45 Nicks and 25 Zeros and I generally Lose 1-2 P39s and P40s every raid, but no bombers get touched.




90 enemy fighters only take down 4 or 5 of your fighters and don´t even get to your bombers? You seem to be playing a complete different game than me.



John Lansford -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 2:30:41 PM)

My fighter pilots at Chittigong would love to see --only-- 90 fighters overhead.  The usual amount is somewhere between 120-200 daily, escorting a small handful of bombers.  What's wierd is the AI hasn't even tried to attack Chittigong, and has withdrawn from Cox's Bazaar, but the mass fighter escorts still keep showing up.



Who Cares -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 2:46:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

It looks to me like their skill AND their EXP in the 70s. Which seems reasonable to me given that you stated they've been in combat for a couple months. What do you think it should be? And on what criteria do you base this opinion?

I guess at this point it is fair to say that I am not sure what exactly you are complaining about....


Their skill was in the high 60s and some 70s 4 months ago when the "bombing campaign" began. It isn't THIS experience I am commenting on. Its the "training" experience. You can get a pilot from 20 experience to 70 in 2-3 months as is in the game. Now lest memory fail me, a US pilots training was 13 months. So to get to 36 experience (for the sake of argument) which is roughly what they are at when they become available "in game" is 13 months. Figure 1 month of that teaching them to walk and talk like US soldiers means 36 experience in 12 months or 3 skill points PER MONTH. But once on the map, they gain 1 to 3 skill points per day (if you count the "experience", whatever their primary training is, and defense 1 each). "Training" should result in at most 1 point a week not 1 a day. Seems that's about the rate a pilot is getting in combat under current model. And again, combat should increase skill at a much faster rate than "training". MUCH faster. Not saying it should zoom into the 90s, but what I AM saying is that 2 pilots at skill 30 for example, one in training and 1 in combat. The one in combat should gain skill MUCH FASTER (assuming he survives) than the one "in training". As is, this isn't true.

(Ed. maybe you should look at the code for the ground units experience.)

Again we are also not addressing the issue of bombers flying max range, at night, every night for months and 5 total planes lost and no crew losses. Not going to let this slip away either.

I seriously doubt the ratio of unescorted raids in the real war was anything near what I am experiencing either but this will be another topic after I gather more data on what I am seeing.



Misconduct -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 3:25:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Misconduct


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

why did the Allied employ fighters then? Not saying Japanese fighters were bomber killers but they were surely not something that a bomber crew was happy about when a couple of dozens would show up. Whenever something is shooting at you and can kill you or your comrade you quickly get away from the "invincible" thinking.



Believe I raised this point before..., but perhaps we are focusing on the wrong part of the story. Historically Allied fighters shot down most of these "interceptors" BEFORE they got to the bombers, so maybe the question should be "Why isn't this happening in AE?" Why are the 4-engined "heavies" having to do the work of fighters?



I am having a hard time seeing the situation, is there an AAR with the combat reports showing escorting is a problem? I am flying raids to Lae right now from Moresby and usually 20xP-40's and 15xP39s escort around 50 B-17s against 65 Ki-45 Nicks and 25 Zeros and I generally Lose 1-2 P39s and P40s every raid, but no bombers get touched.




90 enemy fighters only take down 4 or 5 of your fighters and don´t even get to your bombers? You seem to be playing a complete different game than me.


I am playing AE, no mods December 8th Campaign.



SuluSea -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 4:32:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Who Cares


Again we are also not addressing the issue of bombers flying max range, at night, every night for months and 5 total planes lost and no crew losses. Not going to let this slip away either.



I've been playing this game since release atleast 4 hours a day I don't game the system and bomb at night. My HB fly from size 5 airfields or better and I still have op losses flying nowhere near max range.

I have losses from flying less than 25 missions against lightly defended targets and maybe 5 missions against targets with fighters, I also don't put bomber pilots with expierience of 33 and 34 in front line crews so it's hard for me to believe these numbers from what I see in my game.




Who Cares -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 4:44:04 PM)

The screen shots are there, all you have to do is look. Of course you are free to have your opinion, but the truth is right in front of you.



witpqs -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 6:05:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Who Cares

You can get a pilot from 20 experience to 70 in 2-3 months as is in the game.


I haven't seen that with even a single pilot. You can train them up in a skill to about 70 in a few months, but not experience. Or is the skill what you mean?



frank1970 -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 6:23:10 PM)

Somehow the whole discussion made a long way from the starting post until now.
Imho, the problem is, that the bomber gunners are possibly too good in shooting down fighters and the moral of the bombers is possibly too high. I am quite sure, that 3 B24s would have run for their lifes, when attacked by about 50 Japanese fighters.



m10bob -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 6:59:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735


quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainer

You don't know who The Elf is, do you?

Whatever you wish to express, please do not contribute to the number of misinformed players trying to frustrate the developers of WitP/AE.
If and when the developers stop their valued work we all will be lost.



I'll second this!


me too



Me as well.(I have always hated people who ganged up on one person, but gosh...when one just flaunts their ignorance as if it were virtue.........................)



crsutton -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 7:04:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

why did the Allied employ fighters then? Not saying Japanese fighters were bomber killers but they were surely not something that a bomber crew was happy about when a couple of dozens would show up. Whenever something is shooting at you and can kill you or your comrade you quickly get away from the "invincible" thinking.



Believe I raised this point before..., but perhaps we are focusing on the wrong part of the story. Historically Allied fighters shot down most of these "interceptors" BEFORE they got to the bombers, so maybe the question should be "Why isn't this happening in AE?" Why are the 4-engined "heavies" having to do the work of fighters?



Excellent point. I find it is just better to send the heavies in without escort as escort just means dead pilots for me.



Misconduct -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 7:42:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

why did the Allied employ fighters then? Not saying Japanese fighters were bomber killers but they were surely not something that a bomber crew was happy about when a couple of dozens would show up. Whenever something is shooting at you and can kill you or your comrade you quickly get away from the "invincible" thinking.



Believe I raised this point before..., but perhaps we are focusing on the wrong part of the story. Historically Allied fighters shot down most of these "interceptors" BEFORE they got to the bombers, so maybe the question should be "Why isn't this happening in AE?" Why are the 4-engined "heavies" having to do the work of fighters?



Excellent point. I find it is just better to send the heavies in without escort as escort just means dead pilots for me.


I noticed if you just send in 200 4e's and flatten an airfield, you won't need escort period, guess the little boys can sit in the cushy hotels and take care of the aussie women.



Whisper -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 8:18:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob
Me as well.(I have always hated people who ganged up on one person, but gosh...when one just flaunts their ignorance as if it were virtue.........................)

Me too. AE is just fine, and the devs did a real good job with what they had to work with.
[rant ON]If AE was a perfect simulation of everything, a lot more people would be complaining about how their results are different from history. Why? because they don’t have the knowledge, training, or inclination, or experience to handle the hundreds of administrative or logistical details the a real commander has to do on the fly. So they will roach, and when they roach they will whine.

They expect some computer program to be the perfect staff and have the perfect solution every time. They don’t try to operate like they should, no, everybody looks at how to cheat the system and then whines when they can. If they are not smart enough to understand the different things that must happen for a real commander to do his job and a real unit to be effective, and just sit there and wait for a computer program to make the decisions for them, the will get what they deserve. They should internalize some of what is happening to them and learn from it. There is always that one lt counting mess kits that is so concerned about missing forks.

Six different countries are playing this game and have a field day but they play by doctrine and they don’t play by finding a cheat. If wargamers would get over themselves and try to think like the commanders they pretend to be they will see this game as a learning experience. I am not offended when things do not work out like they expected and they want to know why, but I am very offended by the demands of the ignorant, lazy, arrogant, and supercilious so-called experts to have everything work to their daily wants.

I am a currently serving member of the USMC, so don’t even begin with that have you seen bullets crap. [rant OFF]



chesmart -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 8:45:34 PM)

If you read who cares posts you will find a very negative attitude regarding this game and how it is programmed, Personally i think he is a troll. Quite a pity i missed this thread would have been fun. Regarding the air model if you are interested in knowing how it was historically I would recommend to read Samurai by Saburo Sakai and you will see the problems the Japanese had with 4 engined bombers.

Devs like ELF and the others got a raw game AI wise and made it playable.

Quite a pity i missed the beginning of this thread.


P.S. If any trolls does not know who Saburo Sakai is there is Wikipedia enjoy !



CV Zuikaku -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 9:55:11 PM)

The Oscars, Zeroes or Nates flown by green pilots vs. B-17/24s are not the issue here! They are doing bad as they shoul'd be ang bomber's gunners shoul'd give them hell. The problem is when 50+ N1K1s flown by highly experienced pilots (exp varies from 70s to 90s, air skills from 70's to 80s, majority with 200+ combat missions and many of them aces) intercept formation of 3-6 B-24s and bomber gunners give them hell. 9 out of 10 times. When bomber gunners are shooting at fighters 10-15 times before fighters even got one chance to shoot them back.... I think that is the problem... never happened in real life, but that just don't feels right... think about it... 50 armoured, fast and heavily armed fighters vs. 3 bombers and bombers are giving them hell... be JFB or AFB but that is unexplainable- so please explain if you can.... 50 FW-190s would surely shread them to peaces... N1K1s are not Fw-190s, but should not be that bad...



Misconduct -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 11:16:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: che200

If you read who cares posts you will find a very negative attitude regarding this game and how it is programmed, Personally i think he is a troll. Quite a pity i missed this thread would have been fun. Regarding the air model if you are interested in knowing how it was historically I would recommend to read Samurai by Saburo Sakai and you will see the problems the Japanese had with 4 engined bombers.

Devs like ELF and the others got a raw game AI wise and made it playable.

Quite a pity i missed the beginning of this thread.


P.S. If any trolls does not know who Saburo Sakai is there is Wikipedia enjoy !


One thing I learned is never hate on the Dev's, I swear every time you piss one off AE3 is delayed another 2 weeks.



Miller -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 11:18:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank

Somehow the whole discussion made a long way from the starting post until now.
Imho, the problem is, that the bomber gunners are possibly too good in shooting down fighters and the moral of the bombers is possibly too high. I am quite sure, that 3 B24s would have run for their lifes, when attacked by about 50 Japanese fighters.



I think Frank sums the problem up perfectly. The 4Es get through to bomb the target, no matter what the odds, whereas Allied 2E bombers seem to turn back if faced with heavy odds.

Most of us Jap players are not asking for more 4E shot down, rather simply that they turn back when faced with heavy odds....no way in real life would 10 unescorted 4E bombers try to get through a 100 fighter CAP.



TheElf -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/21/2010 12:15:25 AM)


ORIGINAL: Who Cares
quote:

Their skill was in the high 60s and some 70s 4 months ago when the "bombing campaign" began. It isn't THIS experience I am commenting on.

Ok. If I am to understand then, you don't have a problem with the way your high EXP, High Mission count crews are gaining EXP.

quote:

Its the "training" experience. You can get a pilot from 20 experience to 70 in 2-3 months as is in the game.

20 seems a bit low for the National average USAAC pilot. Are you sure it isn't more like 25-35?


quote:

Now lest memory fail me, a US pilots training was 13 months. So to get to 36 experience (for the sake of argument) which is roughly what they are at when they become available "in game" is 13 months. Figure 1 month of that teaching them to walk and talk like US soldiers means 36 experience in 12 months or 3 skill points PER MONTH. But once on the map, they gain 1 to 3 skill points per day (if you count the "experience", whatever their primary training is, and defense 1 each). "Training" should result in at most 1 point a week not 1 a day. Seems that's about the rate a pilot is getting in combat under current model. And again, combat should increase skill at a much faster rate than "training". MUCH faster. Not saying it should zoom into the 90s, but what I AM saying is that 2 pilots at skill 30 for example, one in training and 1 in combat. The one in combat should gain skill MUCH FASTER (assuming he survives) than the one "in training". As is, this isn't true.


Sounds like the game, the code, and what you are seeing is more at odds with your opinion or expectation based on your own unrelated experiences than it is with anything else. You seem to use the word "should" alot. What do you base these statements of what it "should" do on?

quote:


(Ed. maybe you should look at the code for the ground units experience.)


Why?

quote:

Again we are also not addressing the issue of bombers flying max range, at night, every night for months and 5 total planes lost and no crew losses. Not going to let this slip away either.

Why would you be flying a B-17 group at night for months? They were used primarily in a day role.


quote:

I seriously doubt the ratio of unescorted raids in the real war was anything near what I am experiencing either but this will be another topic after I gather more data on what I am seeing.

Let me get this straight...you are uipset your Escorts are not making their rendezvous at night?



TheElf -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/21/2010 12:22:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

I my game now at April 44 I often see small raids of 3-6 4E going in against 50-100 fighters on CAP (Tojos and/or Franks). The average result seems to be a couple of damaged 4E, maybe one shot down. They never abort a mission, no matter how heavy the opposition. My pilots are on average 60 overall skill, 70-75 air skill.


4E bombers, by design and doctrine, press on to the target. That was the way it was. They felt they could protect themselves. In most cases, especially in the PTO, they were right. In the game it would take the perfect storm of MOR loss, FAT, and a strong initial attack to force a withdrawal.

50-100 fighters on CAP will not ALL concentrate on 3-6 4E bombers. There is a point of diminishing returns on CAP allocating force to an intercept of a small raid. It may show 50-100 Fighters in the combat, but only a portion of that CAP will actually engage the small raid, lest there be another larger raid incoming as well.



TheElf -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/21/2010 12:25:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

why did the Allied employ fighters then? Not saying Japanese fighters were bomber killers but they were surely not something that a bomber crew was happy about when a couple of dozens would show up. Whenever something is shooting at you and can kill you or your comrade you quickly get away from the "invincible" thinking.



Believe I raised this point before..., but perhaps we are focusing on the wrong part of the story. Historically Allied fighters shot down most of these "interceptors" BEFORE they got to the bombers, so maybe the question should be "Why isn't this happening in AE?" Why are the 4-engined "heavies" having to do the work of fighters?


It would seem that it is because the OP is flying his bombers at night....I could be wrong.



mike scholl 1 -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/21/2010 1:12:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

why did the Allied employ fighters then? Not saying Japanese fighters were bomber killers but they were surely not something that a bomber crew was happy about when a couple of dozens would show up. Whenever something is shooting at you and can kill you or your comrade you quickly get away from the "invincible" thinking.



Believe I raised this point before..., but perhaps we are focusing on the wrong part of the story. Historically Allied fighters shot down most of these "interceptors" BEFORE they got to the bombers, so maybe the question should be "Why isn't this happening in AE?" Why are the 4-engined "heavies" having to do the work of fighters?


It would seem that it is because the OP is flying his bombers at night....I could be wrong.



I didn't notice that..., and it would certainly explain the lack of escorts. But given the Japanese lack of radar-equipped interceptors, isn't the rate of interception kinda high for night raids?



Misconduct -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/21/2010 1:43:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

I my game now at April 44 I often see small raids of 3-6 4E going in against 50-100 fighters on CAP (Tojos and/or Franks). The average result seems to be a couple of damaged 4E, maybe one shot down. They never abort a mission, no matter how heavy the opposition. My pilots are on average 60 overall skill, 70-75 air skill.


4E bombers, by design and doctrine, press on to the target. That was the way it was. They felt they could protect themselves. In most cases, especially in the PTO, they were right. In the game it would take the perfect storm of MOR loss, FAT, and a strong initial attack to force a withdrawal.

50-100 fighters on CAP will not ALL concentrate on 3-6 4E bombers. There is a point of diminishing returns on CAP allocating force to an intercept of a small raid. It may show 50-100 Fighters in the combat, but only a portion of that CAP will actually engage the small raid, lest there be another larger raid incoming as well.


Thank you Elf you have answered the question.



Dili -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/21/2010 2:14:47 AM)

quote:

The American's were an awkward country militarily, with the idea of the B17 and being that it could fly to its target and back without an escort fighter.


"Bomber always get trough" it was a saying and a reality in the 30's, look at Spanish Civil War, which was the golden period for bombers. Many Bombers were faster than fighters and casualities were low, due also to small 7.7 fighter armament and inadequacy of early warning. Only with Hurricane,Bf109 things started to change and that was only possible due to more powerful engines.



TheElf -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/21/2010 3:55:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

why did the Allied employ fighters then? Not saying Japanese fighters were bomber killers but they were surely not something that a bomber crew was happy about when a couple of dozens would show up. Whenever something is shooting at you and can kill you or your comrade you quickly get away from the "invincible" thinking.



Believe I raised this point before..., but perhaps we are focusing on the wrong part of the story. Historically Allied fighters shot down most of these "interceptors" BEFORE they got to the bombers, so maybe the question should be "Why isn't this happening in AE?" Why are the 4-engined "heavies" having to do the work of fighters?


It would seem that it is because the OP is flying his bombers at night....I could be wrong.



I didn't notice that..., and it would certainly explain the lack of escorts. But given the Japanese lack of radar-equipped interceptors, isn't the rate of interception kinda high for night raids?


there is no evidence either way of Radar being present or not. The OP hasn't provided any in his screenshots.



LoBaron -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/21/2010 5:28:37 AM)

From the OP´s screenshot on post one I´d say The Elf hit the mark and hes flying at night.
Although identifying this takes a bit of imagination since it looks like this was somehow deliberately made unreadable...

Anyways, to me it seems that discussion is nearly over isn´t it?
Was fun to read though. [:D]



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.265625