Help with B29s! (Full Version)

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



Message

JocMeister -> Help with B29s! (4/16/2013 2:25:05 PM)

Background

I finally reached that time in the game that allied players always dream of! B29s! I was certainly looking forward to trying to mount a strategic campaign. I found a good target. Had a perfect airfield in range and let fly!

quote:

Morning Air attack on Medan , at 46,76

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 63 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 19 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5c Zero x 18



Allied aircraft
B-29-1 Superfort x 101


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-29-1 Superfort: 2 destroyed, 30 damaged


Oil hits 139



This of course looks like a really nice result and I was very pleased for a while. Until I opened the turn and OPS losses were counted. I lost 21 B29s and 16 pilots. This is of course quite alarming. If you are unfamiliar with the allied side this is the first version of the B29. You get 18 per months of those. Losses like these are of course unsustainable.

I did some testing around in a sandbox hitting oil from 4 Hexes away. While the result in the game is a lot higher than what I usually got in the sandbox they are still really severe. Using four 16 plane squadrons hitting 18 Japanese fighters on CAP the losses after OPS is counted usually ends up around 10-12 planes.

I also tested putting up an equal CAP (64 Fighters) and the results usually landed between 30 and 40 B29s lost after OPS losses.

This actually goes pretty much hand in hand with my earlier experiences in my PBEM. When doing unescorted (outside sweep range) bombings I use the following RoT:
- 1.0 4E lost for each airborne fighter on CAP (when Georges)
- 0.7 4Es lost for each airborne fighter on CAP (non Georges)

This has proven pretty accurate on most occasion. Sometimes a little lower and sometimes a little higher.

Looking at the B29 stats they are not that different from the B24s. Slightly higher durability (70 against 61) and of course faster. But not fast enough to get away from enemy fighters. So based on earlier experiences with B24s perhaps its not that strange with the high losses in B29s.

This results led me to try some night bombings in my sandbox. Results are not encouraging and seem largely like a waste of time. I have done far too little testing to say something definitive but at a first glance hitting oil in night strikes won´t give much.

So my question goes out to you allied players that have gotten as far as I have. How do you use your B29s? Is a strategic bombing campaign possible at all outside fighter range? If not how have you been using them?



towers58 -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/16/2013 2:33:22 PM)

I use them to support my next invasion. That usually means hitting the airfields that could interfere with my amph TF's.



Crackaces -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/16/2013 3:05:31 PM)

quote:

So my question goes out to you allied players that have gotten as far as I have. How do you use your B29s? Is a strategic bombing campaign possible at all outside fighter range? If not how have you been using them?


Both of my PBEM games ended before I could deploy B-29's ...[8D]

I try and not think historical with any platform, but to evaluate what the game designers/programers have set up. Besides the debate on modeling air power, most of the games these days is some varient of scenario #2, which does not represent the historical dearth of IJ pilots and planes that left Japan almost defensless to the B29 onslaught. So, as you astutely put it, in this game the B-29 is no more than a big B-24 with extended range in my book. And not enough of them are produced to engage in a war of attrition.

However, range in my opinion is an extermly important factor because of the way the air model works. Very simply, detection happends in this game at the target hex. Because that is the way the game works, putting up effective CAP requires basing aircraft at or near potential targets. That means to me that the deeper a strike package can go -- the more targets to defend. This in turn forces the enemy to cover more bases resuilting in the thinning of potenital CAP. So I beleive there is a cat and mouse game that the Allies have to force the IJ into making a mistake and then the Allies drop the hammer, rather than having the capabilites to force the issue in the face of resistance. Especally in Scenario #2 where the IJ produce endless airframes.

So from my perspective, B29's are best based to threaten multiple targets, and when deployed with multiple supporting platforms including the threat of shore bombardment [who wants their fighter platforms to be smashed by a quick BB TF :) ] -- force the IJ into a defense in depth. Then use the B29's to strike deep at less defended targets as the situation unfolds.

My .02 ...



Lecivius -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/16/2013 3:59:38 PM)

How did you get such a large group to fly? Is this Stock, or a Beta upgrade?

Reason I ask is I am finishing up an RA game. It's 1945, and I can't get my groups to fly a coordinated strike. They are flying 14 hexes from a lvl 9 AF with over 300K in supply, they have 5 times the support needed, and their HQ unit is on premise. I know there is an issue with coordination in the beta's, but with my 29's flying piecemeal I have given up any sort of SAC campaign.



btd64 -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/16/2013 4:38:32 PM)

The accuracy at higher attitudes is not that good but the higher you go, the better right? what is the highest alltitude a George can go? There must be an alltituted where the bomber are safer and the enemy fighters cant go.[sm=innocent0001.gif]
Cheers [sm=00000436.gif]

B29's are a HIGH alltitute bomber[;)]



Sardaukar -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/16/2013 5:06:33 PM)

I think 10k was way too low to fly with B-29 at this stage. It gives free lunch to both fighters and heavy flak.



jmalter -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/16/2013 8:41:50 PM)

these Service Level 5 airframes need lots of TLC! Staff w/ only your bestest pilots (75+ Exp, 80+ GrdB). Assign Commanders w/ high lead/insp. Give each sqn 4 reserve planes. Fly only from lvl 8/9 airfields (where AS is doubled under the current betas). Provide bulk Aviation Support (1 per engine, not 1 per plane). Be sure your AS LCUs are free of fatigue & disruption.

Use LeMay tactics! that is, 7000' at NIGHT. At 0% rest, you'll need at least 2-3 days of stand-down after each raid. For continuous ops, use 60% rest.

I use continuous Night ops, & fly only when moonlight is 50% or greater. Repair/maintenance is v. slow, less than 1.5 planes per turn. Results against HI and shipyards has been decent, losses light so far (7 Ops, 3 Flak) w/ 30 (!) A2A kills credited on IJ night-fighters. (hmm, some of those kills might have accrued to the pilots earlier in the war when they were flying daylight w/ other plane types.) I've only flown about 21 turns of B-29 ops so far.

B-29s are a huge battle-axe, if you keep the sqns sharp you can do great damage by taking small slices over time at Night w/ sustainable losses.



jmalter -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/17/2013 12:19:00 AM)

add'l thoughts:

I'm playing DBB_B(lite)scen#26, my 1st passel of B-29-1s arrived at Aden (4 BGs of XX Bomber Command, each of 4 BSs of 7 planes). I downgraded 1 BS from each BG to A-29s & left them at Aden for Training, using those 28 B-29s to fill out the other 12 BS w/ reserves. It took over 1-1/2 months to ship them to Bombay, then fly them to China & let their plane/pilot fatigue calm down, before they started ops. During this time, the sqns were stood-down as I culled the best bomber pilots from all other USArmy sqns & xferred them to the B-29s. I didn't want to increase plane fatigue by using them to train pilots, the B-29 isn't a trainer airplane!

I'm using Hangchow (AF8) & Ningpo (AF9) as B-29 bases, each has > 75k supply and includes 1 sub-unit of 4 F-7A Liberator recons (daylight recon at 23k' of B-29 targets, these guys are taking losses) & 2 sqns of 12+2 Chinese P-40Ns (for point-defense CAP, don't want to lose B-29s to enemy attacks on my airfields).

That basing reqs 312 airsupport at each base, divide by 2 for the lvl 8+ double-AS bonus = 156 AS req'd. I didn't have enough AS during the 1st month, & repair rates were only ~1 per day during that time.

My attacks have been limited to Nagasaki, Fukuoku & Keijo (max range 15). All 6 groups at each base are assigned the same target, usually a specific industry (shipyard or HI) and a series of port-attacks on Nagasaki ruined the CVEs/DDs reported to be docked there. When a group is reduced to 7+2, it is invariably stood down.

The groups rarely co-ordinate & are often reported as straying, some attacks are canceled due to weather. but the target hits gradually add up over time. you need to recon the bases you attack, to see if the enemy is repairing the damage you cause. IMO its best to cause some damage to several industries in each target hex, rather than concentrate on one type in an attempt to wipe it out. If the enemy is set to repair his factories, he can only repair 1 point per factory per day (at a cost of 1000 supply). So you'll force him to spend more supply by damaging a variety of targets.

Look to the future as well. My reinf track shows that I've got 12 BS of 10 B-29-1s (XXI Bomber Cmd) arriving at USA EC in the next 20 days. While each has 10 a/c assigned, I'll need 48 planes to fill them w/ reserves, and must find ~150 crack pilots to staff them. Should they go to lvl7 bases in the Marianas, or to lvl9 bases in east Hokkaido? I don't have enough AS at either one! The 12 existing 7-plane sqns in China will upsize to 10 in 3 months, needing another 36 planes, 48 pilots, & 36 add'l AS at both China bases.

I've got USAAF base-forces at SanF & Pearl that I can ship out, & I've got 25 B-29-1s in the pool. Most USArmy fighter sqns have been training GrdB for several months, they've already got 65+ Exp & 70+ Air/Defn skill & have been taking to GrdB training 'like ducks to water'.

Near-term in the next 3 months, I'll need 84 planes to fill out arriving sqns & the upsize req'ments of existing sqns, plus at least 24 loss-replacement planes for a total of 108. Against that, I've got 25 planes in the pool & expected production (18 per month) of 54 for a total of 79 - I'm already 29 planes short, likely 3 of the arriving sqns will be downgraded to trainer A-20s, to put their 30 B-29-1s into the pool. 's okay - my potential airbases aren't fully capable to operate the remaining 9 sqns until more air-support is shipped in.

B-29-25 sqns (& production) start arriving in Nov '44, over the next 3 months I just have to keep the B-29-1 sqns happy & productive. Hvy AmphAssault is gonna fall on Honshu in Jan '45 - while these troops load & transit to targets, all my B-29s will target the Tokyo AF, at 7k', at Night.



AW1Steve -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/17/2013 12:19:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton

The accuracy at higher attitudes is not that good but the higher you go, the better right? what is the highest alltitude a George can go? There must be an alltituted where the bomber are safer and the enemy fighters cant go.[sm=innocent0001.gif]
Cheers [sm=00000436.gif]

B29's are a HIGH alltitute bomber[;)]


The B-29 was DESIGNED to be a high altitude bomber. But it was rushed into production before all the bugs were worked out with it's engines. Along with being a world class maintainance hog, the more you flew it high, the more the engine wore. And they had a very nasty habit of blowing up in flight. The issue wouldn't be fixed till Korea. Lemay's low altitude night bombing solved that problem.

And Norden bomb sight had trouble dealing with the jet streams encountered over Japan.



topeverest -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/17/2013 1:06:21 AM)

This is good advice. Dont feel forced to use assets in historical ways. 29's are superior weapons that can help an allied player behind in property reclaiming. Also, take what the empire gives to you until you have more long range fighters. Night attacks and being very unpredictable in target choice will disperse enemy strength - and effectiveness. lastly, as suggested, use excellent pilots, provide extra air support, use good commanders and air HQ, use altitude to your advantage, and dont overfly them.

Unless you are in a race to a particular end-date, in which case burn every asset you can!



jmalter -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/17/2013 3:13:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverest
Unless you are in a race to a particular end-date, in which case burn every asset you can!

cheers Andy M!

historically, early B-29 raids from China & the Marianas performed poorly as high-alt daylight bombers due to the factors stated by other posts above - not enough air-support, poor-quality airfields, low serviceability (buggy airplanes & not enough ground-crew), less-than-the-best aircrew skills & morale, jet-stream action, generally 'orrid weather over the targets, high ops-losses on takeoff & landing. Just a total CF until LeMay instituted the low-alt night fire-bombing program.

in our game, we can correct some of these probs! I felt bad for the OP when I read his 1st post, it must really have been sickening when he saw how many of his damaged planes became ops/write-off losses. It'll take 2 months of production to replace those losses.

another prob w/ the start of the B-29 campaign is a lack of high-alt 4E recon planes, you need them to monitor the damage you cause & the rate at which it's being repaired. F-7A Liberators are scarcer than hen's teeth, as are the Lightning recon types. USN PB4Y-1Ps might be the answer, you should have a 4-plane recon sub-unit at each B-29 base to photo-recce your B-29 targets for battle-damage analysis.



JocMeister -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/17/2013 10:14:45 AM)

Hey guys and thank you all for the advice! [:)][&o]

I´ve done a lot of testing in my sandbox last night. I played around with altitude, day/night and whatnot. I came to the exact same conclusion that jmalter advices. Its pretty obvious that daylight bombing against CAP regardless of altitude is a no no. Even at 30.000 ft losses are unsustainable. The losses are actually not very different at 30.000 and 6000. And not too surprising you don´t hit anything from the higher altitudes. This goes in line with what I have seen using "regular" 4Es throughout the game.

Crackaces are correct in his post. And this is something I have learned slowly during my game and are still struggling to come to terms with. This is game. A lot of things is not working as it did historically. This is another of those things. Its certainly disappointing but so is many things in the game. Still we play it...[:)]

With the help of Bullwinkle in my AAR I´ve got some very good advice on how to proceed. If you are interested here is the URL;

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3121206&mpage=32&key= Post #956

On the next page is the results of some quick tests from my sandbox in post #963

Sorry for not posting the stuff here but I don´t want my PBEM opponent to see it! [:)]







JocMeister -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/17/2013 10:19:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

How did you get such a large group to fly? Is this Stock, or a Beta upgrade?

Reason I ask is I am finishing up an RA game. It's 1945, and I can't get my groups to fly a coordinated strike. They are flying 14 hexes from a lvl 9 AF with over 300K in supply, they have 5 times the support needed, and their HQ unit is on premise. I know there is an issue with coordination in the beta's, but with my 29's flying piecemeal I have given up any sort of SAC campaign.



Its stock! [&o] I was flying from a level 9 AF with all squadrons attached to the same Air HQ and the Air HQ stationed at the same base.

We tried the BETA but quickly went back due to the exact reasons you have observed. My opinion is that it messes with too many things and its too hard to predict what it leads to. Its a shame to miss out on all the pure bug fixes though. [:(]



JocMeister -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/17/2013 10:22:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I think 10k was way too low to fly with B-29 at this stage. It gives free lunch to both fighters and heavy flak.


From just doing a few quick test it seemed that the later version of Japanese fighters can climb fast enough to get up to even 30k feet. Losses were almost the same on 10k as 30k. Jap base had radar and CAP was set to patrol on 15k.

I just did some 10-15 quick tests though so take it with a pinch of salt! [:)]



jeffk3510 -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/17/2013 4:14:42 PM)

10k is way too low to fly B29s over a contested base. If the base is shutdown and there isn't a CAP trap, then yes, send them in at 10k.



Lecivius -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/17/2013 4:35:30 PM)

The only way I have found to hit anything in Beta is to go at night, at 5-7k, and bomb manpower. The fires eventually begin to damage various industries. But the fires never seem to damage aircraft production facilities. Not sure on that as this is my only time getting this far, so I don't want to say anything other than observations. I have the exact same setup as described above, using Hangchow level 9 with the XX command and @ 1275 aviation support for the 6 squadrons of B 29's bombing Nagasaki. Each wave goes in independently, and with the lost aircraft to flying night missions usually means 3-5 bombers a wave. Each wave is met with 36 plus night fighters. The result is predictable, and operations cease after a week or less. Now these guys just sit [:(]



JocMeister -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/17/2013 6:56:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

10k is way too low to fly B29s over a contested base. If the base is shutdown and there isn't a CAP trap, then yes, send them in at 10k.


As I wrote in reply to Sardaukar altitude doesn´t seem to matter much. At least not from what my quick tests showed. I guess the late war Jap fighters at a base with radar have a good enough climb rate to get above the bombers anyway. I suffered about the same losses on 30k as 10k. Needless to say I got 1-5 oil hits from 30k with 100 B29s! [:D]



Barb -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/18/2013 10:48:16 AM)

Read something about 8th Air Force operations in Europe.. Usually no strike was on its own.
Observance No.1: Target several targets in the area on the same date - this will spread CAP due to "leaking"
Observance No.2: Use indirect approach - do not attack the most defended target - instead hit several weakly defended
Observance No.3: Use support strikes - night intruders, daylight medium strikes against air bases providing CAP, sweeps
Observance No.4: Use distance to your advantage - to spread out enemy defences (well this is not really an experience, because IRL bombers were intercepted along the way, not only over target)
Observance No.5: Get your fighters into target area!



btd64 -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/18/2013 5:12:38 PM)

I also thought I read or saw on Military channel that the japanese fighters were less effective at 30k feet. The B29 max alltitude is 33900 feet i believe. Has anyone else heard this. If so, why are the fighters so effective?

Cheers [sm=00000436.gif]



Treetop64 -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/18/2013 7:13:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton

I also thought I read or saw on Military channel that the japanese fighters were less effective at 30k feet. The B29 max alltitude is 33900 feet i believe. Has anyone else heard this. If so, why are the fighters so effective?

Cheers [sm=00000436.gif]


Maximum rated altitude does not mean an aircraft is gonna be cruising around at that altitude all the time, if ever. Maximum altitude is the highest theoretical altitude a given aircraft can possibly fly without stalling, but only under the thinnest of performance margins. That means that in order to reach that altitude, it's tanks are more empty than full and it isn't carrying anything.

Now, with a useful combat load and enough fuel to actually get somewhere and break things on the ground (and not straining and stalling by trying to pull all that weight up to 33.9k feet), it's gonna be flying much lower, more like 20-25,000 feet. IJA fighters have much less difficulty reaching targets at that altitude. However the B29s were fast, but sometimes not fast enough...



LoBaron -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/18/2013 9:53:14 PM)

Against well trained opposition I would expect a high attrition rate of the B29s if they are not protected at all.

Also, at 10k a certain percentage of your losses will be due to AAA. B-29s have extremely bad mvr, and for bombers
mvr means the capability to evade flak.

I do not believe that you got 30 Superfortresses damaged by 18 Zekes. You are too low, not because high alt enables you to
evade fighters, but because you get further away from optimal AAA effectiveness.

I have a very high mission frequency on my B-29 units at the moment, but a recent result looks like this:
(two day turns, screenshot is from the days of the combat reports posted below)

I have to point out that this strike was supported by fighter sweeps, but as you can see there was
active CAP against the bomber formation itself.



2 day of attacks, range 17, enemy CAP present, 151 missions flown total, 4 bombers lost.



[image]http://image-upload.de/image/jF1TaN/07f59edc40.jpg[/image]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Sapporo , at 120,51

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 39 NM, estimated altitude 23,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 1
N1K1-J George x 29
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 16



Allied aircraft
B-29-1 Superfort x 78


Japanese aircraft losses
N1K1-J George: 1 destroyed, 3 damaged
Ki-45 KAIa Nick: 1 destroyed
Ki-44-IIc Tojo: 6 destroyed on ground
D4Y2 Judy: 2 destroyed on ground
D4Y1 Judy: 4 destroyed on ground
Ki-43-IIa Oscar: 11 destroyed on ground

Allied aircraft losses
B-29-1 Superfort: 2 destroyed, 4 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
18 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled



Airbase hits 26
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 53

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Sapporo , at 120,51

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 26 NM, estimated altitude 22,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 9
N1K1-J George x 2
Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 11
Ki-61-Id Tony x 1



Allied aircraft
B-29-1 Superfort x 73


Japanese aircraft losses
N1K1-J George: 2 damaged
N1K1-J George: 2 destroyed on ground
Ki-44-IIc Tojo: 11 damaged
Ki-44-IIc Tojo: 4 destroyed on ground
Ki-45 KAIa Nick: 3 destroyed on ground
Ki-43-IIa Oscar: 1 destroyed on ground
D4Y1 Judy: 2 destroyed on ground
D4Y2 Judy: 3 destroyed on ground

Allied aircraft losses
B-29-1 Superfort: 4 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
5 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled



Airbase hits 18
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 37



PS:
Imagine what could have happened to the Schweinfurth-Regensburg attack had they not been escorted by about 300
fighters on part of the inbound leg. The true loss rate of 60 bombers shot down and close to 100 heavily damaged would
have been exceeded by far.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/18/2013 10:31:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

PS:
Imagine what could have happened to the Schweinfurth-Regensburg attack had they not been escorted by about 300
fighters on part of the inbound leg. The true loss rate of 60 bombers shot down and close to 100 heavily damaged would
have been exceeded by far.


Look at the B-29's self-defense versus a B-17's as well. If there is CAP, they need escorts. Or night.



JocMeister -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/19/2013 8:05:58 AM)

LoBaron,

That could explain it to some degree. As I wrote I have not been able to replicate the 21/18 loss ratio again. But I did not notice any damage from flak but I´ll try to dig up the replay and look again. And it doesn´t explain the high losses I have been suffering in the sandbox. Usually 8-12 B29s lost against 18 Zeroes. There is no flak present. I´ve run enough tries in sandbox now (well over 100) to feel fairly certain that losses like that are what to be expected.

Is your game a PBEM or a AI game?



JocMeister -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/19/2013 9:03:05 AM)

Here is another quick test:

Attacker:
100 B29s EXP 60. AF attack 20k ft. Range 4 from Target

Defender
18 A6M5c (same I encountered in the PBEM), EXP 70, 50% CAP range 0 ALT: 15k. Radar present, no FLAK at base.


[image]local://upfiles/32406/7433890E44EC447CB7FA427D69B0CBDB.jpg[/image]



JocMeister -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/19/2013 9:13:14 AM)

Now it become really interesting! I´ve set it up similar to what you encountered in your game. Pretty dramatic difference. Why? [&:] I ran it enough times to make certain the results wasn´t some kind of fluke.

My test is consistent with everything I learned about the game so far and my own tests. How are you avoiding this? Only thing I can think of is that in your game the CAP has significantly lower EXP. I did a quick test lowering EXP of the defender to 30 and the results were pretty close to what you were getting. A lot of damaged planes (15-20) but only 2-5 actual losses. I guess fatigue caused by your earlier sweeps could also play a major part?

Attacker:
Same as above but 20% rest added

Defender
Same setting before on both groups


[image]local://upfiles/32406/4167020D085F40399B843D5CD4FEBEB5.jpg[/image]



LoBaron -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/19/2013 11:37:51 AM)

JocMeister, simply combine the information from The Moose´s and my post, and then reconsider what you actually want to find out. [:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
Is your game a PBEM or a AI game?


PBEM


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
Now it become really interesting! I´ve set it up similar to what you encountered in your game. Pretty dramatic difference. Why? I ran it enough times to make certain the results wasn´t some kind of fluke.

My test is consistent with everything I learned about the game so far and my own tests. How are you avoiding this? Only thing I can think of is that in your game the CAP has significantly lower EXP.


--------->
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Against well trained opposition I would expect a high attrition rate of the B29s if they are not protected at all.


--------->
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
I have to point out that this strike was supported by fighter sweeps, but as you can see there was
active CAP against the bomber formation itself.


--------->
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Look at the B-29's self-defense versus a B-17's as well. If there is CAP, they need escorts. Or night.



quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
I guess fatigue caused by your earlier sweeps could also play a major part?


Absolutely. As well as causing morale drops resulting in less repeated attacks.



- You are expecting the B-29 of ´44 to perform as the B-17 of ´42. It is much more fragile in relation to the average opponents.

- You are expecting a situation usually not encountered by B-29s historically (which would be low losses against numerous, well organized, high skill opposition, with ample early warning), to produce a historical outcome.

Simply put, your expectations are wrong.


The B-29 is no air superiority weapon. It excells because of its range, and payload, and speed.
Range and payload do not tell you anything about performance in the face of opposition, speed advantage can be mitigated by early detection (in you example 65nm) and the speed of enemy fighters.




JocMeister -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/19/2013 1:56:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

- You are expecting the B-29 of ´44 to perform as the B-17 of ´42. It is much more fragile in relation to the average opponents.

- You are expecting a situation usually not encountered by B-29s historically (which would be low losses against numerous, well organized, high skill opposition, with ample early warning), to produce a historical outcome.

Simply put, your expectations are wrong.

The B-29 is no air superiority weapon. It excells because of its range, and payload, and speed.
Range and payload do not tell you anything about performance in the face of opposition, speed advantage can be mitigated by early detection (in you example 65nm) and the speed of enemy fighters.



I´ve come to realize this over the last few days. I´ll be the first one to admit I´m quite disappointed I´ll not be able to launch a strategic campaign like I envisioned. But then again its not the first time this game has that effect on me! [:D]

Its a slow process but I´m getting there. Its a game. Not reality. [:)]

EDIT: Messed up the quote...thingie!



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/19/2013 2:28:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

- You are expecting the B-29 of ´44 to perform as the B-17 of ´42. It is much more fragile in relation to the average opponents.

- You are expecting a situation usually not encountered by B-29s historically (which would be low losses against numerous, well organized, high skill opposition, with ample early warning), to produce a historical outcome.

Simply put, your expectations are wrong.

The B-29 is no air superiority weapon. It excells because of its range, and payload, and speed.
Range and payload do not tell you anything about performance in the face of opposition, speed advantage can be mitigated by early detection (in you example 65nm) and the speed of enemy fighters.

quote:



I´ve come to realize this over the last few days. I´ll be the first one to admit I´m quite disappointed I´ll not be able to launch a strategic campaign like I envisioned. But then again its not the first time this game has that effect on me! [:D]

Its a slow process but I´m getting there. Its a game. Not reality. [:)]



B-29 results are markedly different once you have P-51Ds in numbers in 1945. Until then, do nights, do deep and try to find bases without CAP. If you fly in daylight into 1944 "game" CAP you will be in pain. Don't fight it, just go along with it. 1944 is not like 1945 is not like 1942. [:)]



nashvillen -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/19/2013 2:36:44 PM)

Just keep them in CONUS and train with them. [;)]



JocMeister -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/19/2013 2:51:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

B-29 results are markedly different once you have P-51Ds in numbers in 1945. Until then, do nights, do deep and try to find bases without CAP. If you fly in daylight into 1944 "game" CAP you will be in pain. Don't fight it, just go along with it. 1944 is not like 1945 is not like 1942. [:)]


Roger roger! [:D]



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.75