Anemic SBD Production (Full Version)

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



Message

spence -> Anemic SBD Production (5/10/2010 11:35:44 AM)

I am in August 42 of an AI game. All six of the USN CVs are still afloat (more or less). Their air groups are near to but not completely full with SBD-3s. The Marines have only one squadron with a full complement of SBD-3s on the whole map. A few other squadrons have 2 or 3 SBD-3s but most of Marine Corps aviation is still flying Vindicators. The pool of replacement aircraft (SBD-3) is always nearly dry.

The data base does not include the SBD-4 which was close to identical to the SBD-3 (except for the electrical system). 780 were produced.

The USN had only one CV and a few CVEs in the Atlantic in 1942 that were operating SBDs of any stripe. By 1943 the air complements of the CVEs were filled with TBFs rather than SBDs. Few SBDs were used by the shore establishment in the Atlantic Theater.

The availability of SBD-3s (and SBD-4s?) seems way too low. Sure "Germany First" sent a lot of resources in the other direction but from all I can find anywhere the production of SBDs was overwhelmingly devoted to the Pacific such that both the USN and the USMC could maintain most or all of their dive-bomber squadrons at near full strength with the most "modern (obsolescent)" plane available.

A shortage of these planes does not seem right and seems to impose unhistorical constraints on the Allied Players operations.



Rainer -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/10/2010 11:42:52 AM)

My experience too.
It may be that the devs did this to slow down the Allies in the earlier phases for the benefit of game balance. But I think it is a bit too harsh.



Misconduct -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/10/2010 11:46:46 AM)

Yeah there was this discussion long ago, the numbers are suppose to be realistic, however at the current build rate you can't even run near a Japanese Airbase that has sizable amount of Zeros, because after one or two battles you can easily strain your fighter/DB reserves. Right now I am around 12/42 and running way short on F4F's and begging for replacements.



CaptBeefheart -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/10/2010 12:01:32 PM)

All '42 USN carrier aircraft production numbers seem low to me as well. However, you have to admit it's fun flying F2Bs and SBC-4s until Feb. '43, with a lot of USMC birds on the decks as well.



Smeulders -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/10/2010 12:14:59 PM)

This discussion has indeed been started a couple of times, if I remember correctly from the previous threads then.
a) SBD-4 is rolled into SBD-3 production
b) The number are relatively accurate



castor troy -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/10/2010 12:34:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainer

My experience too.
It may be that the devs did this to slow down the Allies in the earlier phases for the benefit of game balance. But I think it is a bit too harsh.



doubtfully that they did it to slow down the Allied advance, I guess their research brought up these numbers and so far the numbers were pretty much spot on. You shouldnīt forget the aircraft that come in with reinforcement squadrons too. Not many in 42 but there are a couple of fully equipped squadrons in early 43 for example.

I know the pain about not having enough SBD-3s though. And itīs just the old issue with the Allied being pinned to historical correct numbers of everything while the Japanese can produce "whatever they want".



SuluSea -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/10/2010 12:40:22 PM)

Here is the discussion.


http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2220477

Developers believe the numbers are historical so......................



Misconduct -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/10/2010 1:10:32 PM)

What problem I have, when I withdrawn some of my carrier Scouting squadrons before 1/43 - I didn't get any upgrade to my other dive bombing squadron, also I got 4 Marine Dive bombing squadrons in return, which depleted my pool. I had to go back a save because I was hoping I didn't get bugged like this.

Only thing I find highly stupid is fact the numbers are SO low, I get so many squadrons with 2 planes, 16 pilots - and yet I have none in reserve to fill the squadron even half way.

So your choices are to not send your carriers out - so you can max out every squadrons aircrafts, or leave these other squadrons empty so you have a reserve to work with your carriers.



JohnDillworth -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/10/2010 3:59:25 PM)

proably historical but the game does not play out that way. US losses 4 carriers. If the US had not lost any carriers production of the SBD would almost certainly have increased or SBD's would have been reallocated. I believe another 160 should be placed in the reserve pool in the anticipation that 4 carriers will not be sunk



Misconduct -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/10/2010 4:27:52 PM)

Thats true john never thought of it that way, actually just looked at the production numbers for the SBD, if its correct then the game is pretty darn close to reatistic.

SBD-1 Marine Corps version without self-sealing fuel tanks, 57 built.
SBD-2 Navy version with increased fuel capacity and different armament but without self-sealing fuel tanks, starting in early 1941, 87 builtSBD-3 began manufacture in early 1941. It provided increased protection, self-sealing fuel tanks, and four machine guns, 584 built.This is 728 total aircraft built, I have roughly 348 in Action right now, with 57 losses.

So granted with over 2,400 SBD-5's being built, I guess I need to simply not lose any untill SBD-5's are in production.



Cad908 -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/10/2010 6:48:08 PM)

I am also in an AI game versus the Japanese and have had the same problems. All six carriers are in service, though three took serve damage and a month in dry dock. The Japanese kept sending two CV's at Brisbane where I had lots of land based fighters and was close to a repair port. These actions severely depleted my SBD3 pools, fighter and torpedo pilots. I am now in February 1943 and the pace slowed down the last six months, the Japanese AI has few carriers left. I have 85 SBD3's in pool and all six carriers are fully stocked, in total I have lost 131 SBD3's. Only a couple of the Marine DB groups are in SBD3's and I had to upgrade down two of the Navy replenishment groups to old Helldivers and, I think, SBD2's. Those two groups account for 74 of the 85 SBD3's I have in pool.

Funny though, you can train loads of replacement DB pilots, the Kingfisher float plane groups can train for naval attack (the pilots come out a "float group" but have worked fine on my carriers. The are supposed to lose some skill by this transfer, but I have not seen it), but have no planes while you cannot train any torpedo replacement pilots, but generally have lots of planes. I have had to dedicate the first replenishment torpedo group to training and have resized and pulled off all the groups from my first CVE's to train torpedo and fighter pilots. I have just started to have fighter replacements available and will get some good torpedo pilots in the next few months.

SBD5's start coming online in May 1943 at something like 88 per month. Later on you get the better Helldivers and at that point you will have no problems. I would not use the first Helldivers, with a service rating of 3, on my carriers. I did in my first game and regretted that I did.

This certainly limits the tempo of operations as an allied player. Against the AI you can get by, but in PBEM I would drastically alter my tactics. Historical, yes, but that is an interesting discussion. A good Japanese PBEM opponent will exploit this, and you have no real counter.



witpqs -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/10/2010 7:25:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

This discussion has indeed been started a couple of times, if I remember correctly from the previous threads then.
a) SBD-4 is rolled into SBD-3 production
b) The number are relatively accurate



My recollection too.



treespider -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/10/2010 8:07:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

US losses 4 carriers. If the US had not lost any carriers production of the SBD would almost certainly have increased ...


Somewhere in Washington...late 1942...whilst preparing a report for The Honorable Frank Knox, Secretary of the Navy...Earnest J King ponders the following request...Admiral King the war is going swimmingly ...we have yet to lose any carriers...let's ramp up production of the SBD-3.

One would think that IRL with the loss of 4 carriers the US would surely "ramp up" production...maybe they did and that is what is reflected in the IRL production numbers...so perhaps those numbers should actually be downgraded if the US doesn't take the historical losses.



bradfordkay -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/10/2010 8:24:49 PM)

Conversely, Forrest, do you think that the Navy Dept would allow the six extant CVs to be running around with half strength (or less) VB squadrons for any length of time?



CarnageINC -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/10/2010 10:10:37 PM)

It all comes back around to 'Europe First' which the entire allied production system is based off of.  Tanks and 4e's were more important than building more SBD's until mid war.



Misconduct -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/10/2010 10:17:43 PM)

What percentage did the pacific war get? 10%? Knowing the equiptment and tanks sent to europe, I would believe less then that.



spence -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/10/2010 10:31:25 PM)

My point initially was that SBD production went overwhelmingly to the Pacific. The Army was in charge in Europe and they didn't like the A-24 much and the Navy didn't have much use for SBDs with all but one of their CVs in the Pacific. 4 CVEs supported the North Africa invasion and at least some had SBDs in their airgroups but the shore establishment didn't use SBDs at all as far as I can tell. Another significant fact to the discussion is that I find an October 1942 beginning for production of SBD-5s. If one takes 70% of SBD-3 production (584 planes) as going to the Pacific before Oct 1942 one comes up with around 21 a/c (the game#) per month sent to the Pacific however that discounts entirely all SBD-4 production (780 planes total) prior to whatever startup date one uses for SBD-5 production.

"The First Team" details pretty extensively that there was a shortage of carrier fighters in early 1942. But for a shortage of both carrier fighters and dive bombers to persist throughout 1942 doesn't jibe with any history of the war I've ever read.



SuluSea -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/10/2010 11:22:34 PM)

In Fire in the Sky Bergerud states despite Europe first the United States sent more manpower to the Pacific Theater in 1942 than it did to Europe.




packerpete -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/11/2010 12:04:24 AM)

There was also a severe shortage of SBD's that was not alleviated until after the midway battle. Less decks to fill and less combat loses due to the general lul afterward until the Guadalcanal campaign.



JohnDillworth -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/11/2010 12:23:20 AM)

quote:

Conversely, Forrest, do you think that the Navy Dept would allow the six extant CVs to be running around with half strength (or less) VB squadrons for any length of time?


In the best of all possible worlds the game should make some allowance for US carriers "not" getting sunk. There should be an extra 288 SBD's in reserve. This reserve decreases by 72 each time a carrier is sunk before 1943. That is part of the problem with historical number of aircraft and no control over production. It yields un- realistic situations. I realize the intention is to limit the allies ability early in the war, but the lack of fuel in the SW pacific for the first 6 months really hampers the allies enough already.



eMonticello -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/11/2010 1:21:28 AM)

I'm not sure where you can squeeze another aircraft in the El Segundo plant. Unfortunately for us, the Tulsa plant that produced the SBD-5 wasn't active until August 15, 1942. I suspect that Douglas needed several months to set up SBD production in Oklahoma. Of course, if you are willing to produce the SBD-4 over a medium or heavy bomber, I guess you could use the Long Beach or Santa Monica plant.



treespider -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/11/2010 1:47:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Conversely, Forrest, do you think that the Navy Dept would allow the six extant CVs to be running around with half strength (or less) VB squadrons for any length of time?



No. I imagine they would have consolidated the SBD's at hand and equipped the Marines with other types...

As vast as US production was, it was not the boundless cornucopia that people would like it to be...

For as much whining and bitching about Japanese aircraft construction...why not simply use the editor provided with the game ---eliminate the Japanese aircraft factories...and give the Japanese their historical allotment of airframes ..."problem" solved....or simply enjoy the game as is.

Or use the editor and give the US a build rate of 10,000 of everything..."problem" solved.....or simply enjoy the game as is.



bradfordkay -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/11/2010 3:08:07 AM)

I enjoy the game as it is, but your post just begged for a "devil's advocate" to tackle it... [;)]

I'm playing with PDU off, which means that right now (mid-March '42) one of my front line carriers is equipped with Curtuss SBC Helldivers... I have to be very careful with my use of my air assets with PDU off in this game.



Misconduct -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/11/2010 5:06:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I enjoy the game as it is, but your post just begged for a "devil's advocate" to tackle it... [;)]

I'm playing with PDU off, which means that right now (mid-March '42) one of my front line carriers is equipped with Curtuss SBC Helldivers... I have to be very careful with my use of my air assets with PDU off in this game.



Hornet comes with SBC Helldivers.



bradfordkay -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/11/2010 6:49:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Misconduct


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I enjoy the game as it is, but your post just begged for a "devil's advocate" to tackle it... [;)]

I'm playing with PDU off, which means that right now (mid-March '42) one of my front line carriers is equipped with Curtuss SBC Helldivers... I have to be very careful with my use of my air assets with PDU off in this game.



Hornet comes with SBC Helldivers.



Shhhh..... loose lips sink ships.... [:-]



showboat1 -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/11/2010 3:05:27 PM)

In my first game I've been keeping my carriers pretty close to Hawaii and avoiding any real engagements (though I did bomb the Mutsu pretty heavily while escorting a convoy to Canton Island) so I haven't run into SBD shortages, yet. I have noticed that my few VMSB squadrons are taking a long time to get up to full strength so I have started keepinf them in SB2U's. The number of F4F's and SBD's have been keeping me on a pretty historical strategy so far.



JohnDillworth -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/11/2010 4:54:42 PM)

I suspect after June 6th 1942 the Allies would have figured out that the SBD was the single most important weapon in their arsenal and would have canceled any other plane to produce it to fill out their available carriers. If it was 6 carriers or 60, they would have filled them out



Misconduct -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/11/2010 5:09:16 PM)

One thing I just noticed, I have been dive bombing at 11,000ft and seem to be getting higher losses, I recently switched to 17,000ft and instead of attacking with 4 dive bombers, im getting 8-9 and less losses and higher hits.

I ran into the Musashi Battleship attempting to bombard Pearl at 12/25/42 and Had scored 12 hits from 36 dive bombers at 17,000 ft. Second test I ran again from 17,000ft I scored 15 of 36 hits. First 3 attempts I ran at 11,000ft and scored 2 total in 3 attempts at 11,000ft.
Biggest difference is instead of attacking with 4, im attacking with 8-9 now, with usually 1 or 2 stragglers.
Also the Loses were incredibly different, 1 loss in 3 attempts at 17,000 ft and 8 losses at 11,000ft.

Take this with a grain of salt cause I really have no clue what the hell im doing lol.



Nikademus -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/11/2010 5:15:33 PM)

ahem....THIS was the most important weapon in America's arsenal.



[image]local://upfiles/452/C2B26437212F4C679C6AA1D31C72C078.gif[/image]



Nomad -> RE: Anemic SBD Production (5/11/2010 5:24:21 PM)

And I found the distributer:



[image]local://upfiles/4176/43B412FC9BF949ACB0CACA35A6EFB035.jpg[/image]



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.140625