RE: p-38E in 9/42

RE: p-38E in 9/42 (Full Version)

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

Message

Shark7 -> RE: p-38E in 9/42 (11/18/2010 2:53:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson The field conditions in the Pacific were very primitive compared to Europe. B-17s except in emergencies didn't even operate based out of Port Morseby until later in the war when it had been built up. Early in the war they were based in Australia and on long missions they would fly up to Morseby, top up the tanks and then fly on to their targets eventually returning to their bases in Australia. (Yes, I know the game doesn't have this ability, it would be tough to program in.) In the 8th AF, units often had a lot of spare aircraft so their available strength could stay somewhere around full strength. Even at that most bomber squadrons flew at diminished strength most of the time and units did not fly missions every day. Most of the time the bomber units would be on for one day with one or two off. Only for special full efforts were all bomber units stood up at once. One of these being the "Big Week" in early 44 when every unit flew every day and it took weeks to get all the bombers back on line afterward. The general formula for service ratings is one point per engine, plus one for liquid cooled engines. Some planes known for being temperamental have one added. The P-38E was an early model that still had teething problems. It never saw combat. The F was the first combat ready version. The F4U-1 is another plane with a higher service rating because it was a pain to maintain with a lot of problems that were later worked out. Late war when the F4U-1D was on carriers, they had more maintenance problems than the F6Fs. One reason the Navy standardized on the F6F to begin with was that it was so easy to maintain and keeping fighters at full strength is critical on a carrier. It was out of desperation from the kamikaze threat and a shortage of F6F units that put Corsairs on the carriers late in the war. Bill Am I right in thinking that there were many missions over Europe where the bombers all came back with at least some battle damage? I know the saving grace of the B-17 was its amazing ability to take punishment and still get the crew home, as can be witnessed from the various pictures of B-17s with missing ailerons, etc.

wdolson -> RE: p-38E in 9/42 (11/18/2010 10:41:59 PM)
During the dark days of the strategic bombing campaign when the Germans had the advantage, the Germans would usually concentrate on one or a few boxes of bombers and could end up damaging most planes in a box. It did happen that every bomber in a squadron was damaged or shot down, but I don't think there was ever a raid in which every single bomber in the raid was damaged, unless it was a fairly small raid. I believe the Schweinfurt Raid was the worst of the raids as far as Allied losses go. I think one squadron only had one plane return. Some groups got pretty badly mauled. In that raid I think 70-80% of the B-17s participating were damaged or lost. Bill

Kadrin -> RE: p-38E in 9/42 (11/19/2010 2:04:29 AM)
Schweinfurt was indeed the worst raid in World War 2, 60 of 291 B-17s were lost, and a further 17 that made it back either crashed or were written off due to damage.

Reg -> RE: p-38E in 9/42 (11/19/2010 7:50:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson During the dark days of the strategic bombing campaign when the Germans had the advantage, the Germans would usually concentrate on one or a few boxes of bombers and could end up damaging most planes in a box. It did happen that every bomber in a squadron was damaged or shot down, but I don't think there was ever a raid in which every single bomber in the raid was damaged, unless it was a fairly small raid. I believe the Schweinfurt Raid was the worst of the raids as far as Allied losses go. I think one squadron only had one plane return. Some groups got pretty badly mauled. In that raid I think 70-80% of the B-17s participating were damaged or lost. Bill From: http://www.100thbg.com/ Black Week - Munster quote: 100TH BOMB GROUP (HEAVY) Munster - 10 Oct 1943 The Group (100th BG) put up 18 aircraft along with 2 from the 390th BG to make it an even 20. Six Aircraft aborted over the sea, one of which being a 390th a/c. That left 13 100th Bomb Group aircraft to carry on towards Munster. Here is the fate of those 13 Crews.... <see link above> A/C 42-6087 "ROYAL FLUSH" 418TH LD-Z The only crew to return from the mission with two engines shot out and two crew members seriously wounded.

SuluSea -> RE: p-38E in 9/42 (11/19/2010 12:50:38 PM)
In the PBEM I'm currently involved which we have a HR that a planes ceiling is the second manuever band the P-38E's are real killers, my best unit has a 130-11 kill ratio but I've been flying them to this point without droptanks, yesterday two units with droptanks swept Rangoon at 28,000 and met up with Nicks, Oscars and Zekes the end result from what I counted was a 33-2 with two grounded airframes. Since it's August of '42 the F model just started building and the P-40K starts building in September I feel the Japanese player will be in for some tough sledding once I'm able to bomb industry (HR-4/43) I've dedicated alot of time to pilot training and getting my best pilots and leaders to the tip of the spear but somehow think these numbers wouldn't be as lopsided with working radar. My opponent is not a happy camper nor would I so I agreed to a 20,000 feet limit for CAP and sweep to see what happens from there. If flying the E model at a large airbase with 250 plus air support you shouldn't have too much trouble getting them airborne, flying them from a small airbase with limited air support they'll spend too much time on the ground. My opponent states he is building the feared Tojo [:'(] now so hopefully for our game the airwar starts to get closer to center.

Shark7 -> RE: p-38E in 9/42 (11/19/2010 2:12:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kadrin Schweinfurt was indeed the worst raid in World War 2, 60 of 291 B-17s were lost, and a further 17 that made it back either crashed or were written off due to damage. I think the raid on Ploesti might be worse for loss percentage though. 177 B-24s, 54 lost outright, 55 damaged (repairable). That is about a 30% loss with 30% damaged. Although, the Germans were probably much better equipped to deal with the 4Es than the Japanese, due to the heavier armor of the late model 109s and 190s.

Icedawg -> RE: p-38E in 9/42 (11/19/2010 5:19:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton The P38 E was a complex plane compaired to other Allied fighters but in game the difference between a service rating of 3 vs 2 is quite onerous. I have whined about this before but nobody pays me much heed [;)], service ratings are one of the nicest new features to aircraft in AE but I think they really have it backwards. As it is now the Japanese player with most of his early war fighters having service rating of one to the Allies two or three really hold a distinct advantage in that he can normally put his fighters back up in the air very fast. The reality was that by late 42 Japan was already suffering severe shortages of parts and trained mechanics at front line bases. It was not uncommon for 50% of the aircraft at an advance base to be grounded for lack of parts and the Allies destroyed many on the ground. Allied planes were more complex but even with spot shortages of parts the Allies were in a much better postion to keep those complex aircraft in the air than Japan was able to keep her more simpler planes flying. This is not the effect we see in game until much later when the Japanese service ratings get pretty bad. Isn't this more an indication of poor supply and low replacements than of service rating? IF adequate supply and mechanics had been available, the planes would have been relatively easy to service, right?

mike scholl 1 -> RE: p-38E in 9/42 (11/19/2010 7:55:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icedawg quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton The P38 E was a complex plane compaired to other Allied fighters but in game the difference between a service rating of 3 vs 2 is quite onerous. I have whined about this before but nobody pays me much heed [;)], service ratings are one of the nicest new features to aircraft in AE but I think they really have it backwards. As it is now the Japanese player with most of his early war fighters having service rating of one to the Allies two or three really hold a distinct advantage in that he can normally put his fighters back up in the air very fast. The reality was that by late 42 Japan was already suffering severe shortages of parts and trained mechanics at front line bases. It was not uncommon for 50% of the aircraft at an advance base to be grounded for lack of parts and the Allies destroyed many on the ground. Allied planes were more complex but even with spot shortages of parts the Allies were in a much better postion to keep those complex aircraft in the air than Japan was able to keep her more simpler planes flying. This is not the effect we see in game until much later when the Japanese service ratings get pretty bad. Isn't this more an indication of poor supply and low replacements than of service rating? IF adequate supply and mechanics had been available, the planes would have been relatively easy to service, right? Not really..., you can't deliver what you don't produce. And Japan lacked the huge pool of trained and backyard auto mechanics the US had to draw from because her automotive industry was primitive and small.

crsutton -> RE: p-38E in 9/42 (11/20/2010 1:03:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: Icedawg quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton The P38 E was a complex plane compaired to other Allied fighters but in game the difference between a service rating of 3 vs 2 is quite onerous. I have whined about this before but nobody pays me much heed [;)], service ratings are one of the nicest new features to aircraft in AE but I think they really have it backwards. As it is now the Japanese player with most of his early war fighters having service rating of one to the Allies two or three really hold a distinct advantage in that he can normally put his fighters back up in the air very fast. The reality was that by late 42 Japan was already suffering severe shortages of parts and trained mechanics at front line bases. It was not uncommon for 50% of the aircraft at an advance base to be grounded for lack of parts and the Allies destroyed many on the ground. Allied planes were more complex but even with spot shortages of parts the Allies were in a much better postion to keep those complex aircraft in the air than Japan was able to keep her more simpler planes flying. This is not the effect we see in game until much later when the Japanese service ratings get pretty bad. Isn't this more an indication of poor supply and low replacements than of service rating? IF adequate supply and mechanics had been available, the planes would have been relatively easy to service, right? Not really..., you can't deliver what you don't produce. And Japan lacked the huge pool of trained and backyard auto mechanics the US had to draw from because her automotive industry was primitive and small. Well, he has a point. We live in an AE fantasy land where Japan has plenty of planes, oil and pilots, and my subs won't do diddly squat to help sink their merchant marine. You might just as well figure that they are cranking out trained mechanics like funnel cakes at the state fair. It only makes sense. [:D] Yes, if you are playing scen #2 like me (big mistake) then it would be a fair guess that there would be plenty of Japanese mechanics on hand.

Heeward -> RE: p-38E in 9/42 (11/20/2010 4:32:22 AM)
The Schweinfurt–Regensburg mission results: From Wikipedia: "55 crews with 552 crewmen were listed as missing as a result of the August 17 1943 double-target mission. Approximately half of those became prisoners-of-war, and twenty were interned. 60 aircraft were lost over German-controlled territory, in Switzerland, or ditched at sea, with five crews rescued. Seven aircrew were killed aboard bombers safely returning to base, and 21 wounded. The 60 aircraft lost on a single mission more than doubled the highest previous loss at that time. 87 additional aircraft were damaged beyond economical repair, or had to be left behind in North Africa because of a lack of repair facilities, for a total loss of equipment to the Eighth Air Force of 147 B-17's (many of the 60 left behind in Africa were repaired and continued service with the Twelfth Air Force). 95 additional aircraft were damaged. Three P-47 Thunderbolts of the 56th Fighter Group and two RAF Spitfires were shot down attempting to protect the Schweinfurt force." A total of 376 Heavy Bombers participated with 60 loses and 87 write offs - 39% of the total aircraft. The News papers reported the lose of 60 planes and the use of approximately 300 bombers. In either case an unsustainable loss rate. " When the second attack on Schweinfurt came on October 14, the loss of more than 20% of the attacking force (60 out of 291 B-17s) resulted in the suspension of deep raids for five months." My father was in training with the Army Air force at this time of this raid, (navigation school I think). Due to severe loses his training cadre was canvassed for transfers to the Heavy Bomber units – either as new crews or replacements. He told me that the reported looses of the raids 20% these raids ripple through his class – with the general belief that going to the Europe and serving in Heavy Bombers was a one way trip either death or prison camp. They could do the math. No one from his class volunteered to goto the Eighth Airforce.

Sredni -> RE: p-38E in 9/42 (11/20/2010 5:35:50 AM)
I've been mulling p-38's over in my head for the past couple days while reading this thread off and on, and I think one of the biggest impediments to using them effectively that I see, that people on the other side may not, is the 2 engines. Each squadron of p-38's takes up a full field of your airfield. Each airfield supports 50 engines, that's 25 p-38's right there. This is unaffected by hq's, as well so you can only support 1 group per field until you reach the magic 9 field. Compare a level 8 field with a 5 range HQ and p-38's vs p-40's. It can fit 8 p-38 squadrons (400 engines), or 13(I think, correct me if my understanding of the rules is off) normal single engine groups (325 engines). Now that I think about it... 8+5 might make the field unlimited administratively (but still not for engines), so you might be able to fit 16 p-40 groups there (400 engines). Level 4 airfield? That field can only fit 4 groups. And nothing else. (and does that count the extra 4 planes you can get per group as well? I'm not sure how that math works out, whether you'd have to limit each group to just 25 instead of 25+4) Considering what a major impact airplanes in the air has on combat having p-38's limited to half the number of aircraft per airfield as other normal fighters (until you get to level 9 airfields) I don't really see the issue here. apologies for going back on topic after the thread has wandered so far afield heh [8D]

Alpha77 -> RE: p-38E in 9/42 (11/28/2010 10:02:52 PM)
Also have now some experience with P38Es. They are not super planes, like the OP suggested. But they are very usefull as LR escort or sweeping of airfields. You just need to bring some more air support and pause them 2-3 days then they will fly in greater numbers. My P38E unit at PM did a good job as escort for B17s and B25s also they can provide LR CAP over supply fleets sailing from Townsville for example. They are not killers however just "Good", but my pilots are also only average at best, so guess with super pilots even P38es will be kind of "super". I have no real super pilot group to test this, well British have some, but they have already a good plane: Hurricane.Also P38 are not available for the British..... Maybe someone with super pilots can test this [;)] REG bombing in Europe: You should note that Germans had much better planes to fight bombers than Japs. Just take a look at the later or midwar versions of FW190s. They had so much options on arming them up to 30mm cannon and rockets etc. This was called "Ruestsaetze". Also the Luftwaffe brought in sometimes heavy planes like BF110 or JU88 also with rockets or heavier guns. Of course later when the US escorts were better and more numerous this proved to be difficult. Of course the planes with the heavy weapons were not very agile anymore and probably prey of P47s + P51s....... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rüstsatz (Wiki link but ok)

wdolson -> RE: p-38E in 9/42 (11/29/2010 1:18:49 AM)
It would be pretty easy to make a sand box and test it. Start the scenario editor, open say the Coral Sea scenario (it's the smallest, so a good choice for this sort of thing). Save as another scenario number (now you have a complete copy of the Coral Sea scenario). You can then chop and play with it as much as you want. You can make an exp 90 P-38E group if you want and see how they fare against high exp Japanese pilots flying Zeros or anything else. It's a little bit of a learning curve for the editor, but it's not as steep as for the game itself and playing around with the editor might teach you some things about the game. Bill

ChezDaJez -> RE: p-38E in 9/42 (11/29/2010 5:53:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: Icedawg quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton The P38 E was a complex plane compaired to other Allied fighters but in game the difference between a service rating of 3 vs 2 is quite onerous. I have whined about this before but nobody pays me much heed [;)], service ratings are one of the nicest new features to aircraft in AE but I think they really have it backwards. As it is now the Japanese player with most of his early war fighters having service rating of one to the Allies two or three really hold a distinct advantage in that he can normally put his fighters back up in the air very fast. The reality was that by late 42 Japan was already suffering severe shortages of parts and trained mechanics at front line bases. It was not uncommon for 50% of the aircraft at an advance base to be grounded for lack of parts and the Allies destroyed many on the ground. Allied planes were more complex but even with spot shortages of parts the Allies were in a much better postion to keep those complex aircraft in the air than Japan was able to keep her more simpler planes flying. This is not the effect we see in game until much later when the Japanese service ratings get pretty bad. Isn't this more an indication of poor supply and low replacements than of service rating? IF adequate supply and mechanics had been available, the planes would have been relatively easy to service, right? Not really..., you can't deliver what you don't produce. And Japan lacked the huge pool of trained and backyard auto mechanics the US had to draw from because her automotive industry was primitive and small. Mike has this correct. The average Japanese did not have the "shade tree mechanic" experience or mentality that allied mechanics had from years of tinkering around with automotive engines and other mechanical devices. Japan was only a few decades into the industrial age. The average Japanese mechanic also could not hope to match the average allied mechanic's ability to jury rig. Another issue with Japanese aircraft maintenance was the near complete lack of spare parts in the field later in the war. Japan's industrial capacity was churning out sufficient parts to build new aircraft but they couldn't maintain a decent supply of parts. This was one of the reasons that the Ki-61 Tony had such a dismal service record. With it's extremely tempermental engines, it needed spare parts that often could not be found. And even when available, the machining tolerances were often too great to allow for reliable use. Another issue lay in the design of certain Japanese aircraft. The A6M series Zero was one. It had a very straightforward, simple and strong design that made it easy to build. But repairing battle damage was another thing entirely. For example, if one of the wings was damaged and needed replacing, you just couldn't remove the damaged wing. Both wings had to be removed as they were built as a single unit. That meant suspending the fuselage from a special cradle and removing most of the cockpit assembly as the top of wing center section was the floor of the cockpit. Made for quick production but very slow repair. Chez

ChezDaJez -> RE: p-38E in 9/42 (11/29/2010 6:18:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Reg quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson During the dark days of the strategic bombing campaign when the Germans had the advantage, the Germans would usually concentrate on one or a few boxes of bombers and could end up damaging most planes in a box. It did happen that every bomber in a squadron was damaged or shot down, but I don't think there was ever a raid in which every single bomber in the raid was damaged, unless it was a fairly small raid. I believe the Schweinfurt Raid was the worst of the raids as far as Allied losses go. I think one squadron only had one plane return. Some groups got pretty badly mauled. In that raid I think 70-80% of the B-17s participating were damaged or lost. Bill From: http://www.100thbg.com/ Black Week - Munster quote: 100TH BOMB GROUP (HEAVY) Munster - 10 Oct 1943 The Group (100th BG) put up 18 aircraft along with 2 from the 390th BG to make it an even 20. Six Aircraft aborted over the sea, one of which being a 390th a/c. That left 13 100th Bomb Group aircraft to carry on towards Munster. Here is the fate of those 13 Crews.... <see link above> A/C 42-6087 "ROYAL FLUSH" 418TH LD-Z The only crew to return from the mission with two engines shot out and two crew members seriously wounded. The 100th BG supposedly was a special case. According to "Flying Fortress" by Edward Jablonski, the 100th became known as the "Bloody 100th" after an incident that occurred during the 14 Aug 1943 Regensburg raid. Apparently, a B-17 piloted by Capt. R. Knox was heavily damaged with 2 engines shot out by German fighters. His B-17 drifted back through the formation and then was seen to lower its landing gear. This was interpreted by the German fighters as a sign of surrender and several formed an escort to guide him to a nearby airfield. The B-17 gunners suddenly opened up on the escorting fighters. The wheels were raised and the B-17 headed for home as best it could. German fighters tore it apart within seconds and then proceeded to concentrate on the remainder of the group. 9 of 24 B-17s were lost with 9 others heavily damaged on this mission. The legend is that the 100th BG was marked for special attention from German fighters thereafter but this is possibly one of those legends that pop up every now and then. The 100th didn't lose any bombers on its next 4 missions and 100th BG losses for the war were about the same as other BGs. Chez

Sheytan -> RE: p-38E in 9/42 (12/1/2010 10:02:58 AM)
Spoke to my Dad today about this issue regarding maintance of P38s. My Father was a mechanic and armorer assigned to a air base squadron that supported P38s in India. He says any asserition these birds were difficult to maintain in the field is nonsense. I have a number of photos he gave me of himself and comrades servicing these birds at a unimproved airfield in India while the squadrons flew missions into Burma.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.828125