RE: Help with B29s! (Full Version)

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



Message

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/19/2013 2:55:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: nashvillen

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


And work on the nose art.



Schanilec -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/19/2013 4:48:58 PM)

This is all very interesting. I'm at the point in my game (1 April 1944) where I have B-29's arriving at Aden in the last few days. Twentieth Air Force and 20th HQ sailing to Aden from EC.

But in the mean time, over in the Marshall's. I'm having a hell of a time dislodging the Japanese form Roi-Namur and at the same time I'm also making a landing on Eniwetok.

But from what I have read on this thread the B-29 situation should be very interesting once they reach India and China .

Thanks boys.[&o]

What great fun.[:)]



JocMeister -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/20/2013 6:32:11 AM)

For those interested I found this site yesterday:

http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t165.htm

According to that site the XX Bomber command lost 22 planes to enemy fighters between 7/44 and 8/45. Something I managed to lose in one day. [:D]



LoBaron -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/20/2013 7:29:23 AM)

Historically, B-29s had an extremely low mission frequency (sometimes several weeks between major raids)
- usually against unprepared targets.

If intercepted at all in ī44 it was done by green pilots in small unorganized attacks. Most of the veterans
were either dead or flying combat in the PI, or the Bonins.

Initially the HI defense fighters flew airframes lacking the ability to climb to alitude fast enough for interception,
or dropped in performance so much that they were outrun by the heavies. There was only basic air raid warning, often
spotters only, cutting the reaction times down to a fraction of the required.

In early ī45, when finally slightly better equipped and trained HI defense units were available, they were kept at bay
by LR fighter escorts and sufferd extreme loss rates per mission.

Only few enemy fighters ever reached the B 29. Most Superfortressī lost in a2a were due to unconventional attacks,
usually ramming by indvidual attacking fighters.

Thats the reason for the low a2a loss rate, and the reason why most PBEMs never match ingame situations in that regard.
All Japanese players know the B-29 will come and are prepared. They have the radar, the Pilot quality, the numbers, and
the plane types to counter.

I always have to smile when such comparisions are attempted. It is as futile as comparing in game sub war to reality.
No Japanese PBEM Player is dumb enough to replicate the ASW tactics used by the Japanese in WWII.

20/20 hindsight is a b**ch... [:D]




JocMeister -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/20/2013 8:16:47 AM)

LoBaron,

Just for the record I was not trying to make a comparison with the game. [:)] I have been trying to read up on the subject as I have little knowledge of this part of the war. I found the numbers quite interesting. Especially when compared to the ETO (something I have better knowledge of). The strategic bombing of Japan seems pretty dull compared with the German one. [:)] As you say when B29s entered the war it was already more or less won in the air. Hence the astonishingly low losses.

Iīve actually have had quite a hard time locating books on the subject. So tips on that would be welcome! Some equivalent of "The mighty Eighth" that gives a broad overview for someone not well read on the subject.



LoBaron -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/20/2013 10:19:23 AM)

Sorry JocMeister, I did not want to suggest you personally were making this comparision.

I just wanted to point out what to consider if one attempts to compare, as this topic simply is bound to produce comparisions.
If an unexpected result requires investigation, and a historical example exist that offers itself to base a comparision
on, the first question always needs to be:
"Does the historical situation REALLY mirror the situation ingame down to a detail level known and supported."

If the answer is "no", this does not make comparision impossible per default, but then such a comparision needs to be
always done with the identified differences in context.

If this prerequisite for comparision is skipped, the comparision is worthless. Happens much too often on the forums.



Re B-29 literature: Yes, I know what you mean, there is not too much available, and TBH many books are simply boring.
The rest is at least 50% Enola Gay stuff.

A long time ago I read a very good book written from a Japanese perspective, about the Japanese Superfortress intercepters. Donīt
remember the exact name, something like "Fighting the Dragon", or "Dragon Fighters" I think. Enjoyed it very much but am not
completely sure about the accuracy.

What I can also reccommend is "Final Assault On The Rising Sun: Combat Diaries of B-29 Air Crews Over Japan" Chester W. Marshall
and Warren E. Thompson.

Rest on my knowledge on that topic is from the internet and minor chapters where it is addressed in other books, like Ronald
H. Spectors great "Eagle against the Sun".



obvert -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/20/2013 5:39:12 PM)

Now that my AAR has caught up to this date, I'd like to add a few details. Such an odd turn after a few years gameplay with very mediocre results trying to hit much slower, less durable, less powerful 4E bombers with much better planes and more experienced pilots.

This was a strange situation for me, as I didn't plan on having the A6M5c there. At 335mph I didn't think they'd even get a shot at B-29s. They were set 2k above the bombers, so I guess had a dive, but how didi they hit so many? There is a bit of AA in the base, but not enough to produce that result.

The most interesting part of the result for me is that no Japanese fighters were lost. NONE. These are still zeros, even if they do have armor, and should suffer quite a lot against the defenses of 101 B-29s. My usual 'successful' rate of loss vs kills against 4Es is approaching 1:1 when massed at 100+ bombers and not escorted.

Only 7 fighters were airborne when the attack was seen by radar, and the raid was detected 19 minutes before arrival, but the fighters needed 34 minutes to get all planes to altitude and in position. The pilots were only 50-55 exp and 70 skill, with one 70 exp group leader. I had thought I'd put a better group here but later realized it was sent elsewhere and I had another here stood down upgrading planes. I must have thrown this one in as a stop-gap.

Finally, the bombing mission was actually quite a success. THe raid destroyed more than 2/3 of the oil at Medan, in one day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 That's a lot of oil hit for one strike!

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x B-29-1 Superfort bombing from 9000 feet *
City Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
254 Ku S-1 with A6M5c Zero (2 airborne, 5 on standby, 11 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 13000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 34 minutes

The very same day I had a crack group of 34 J2M3 Jack at Hollandia take on roughly 200 4E, so the ratio of fighters to bombers is nearly the same. They did significantly worse than the fighters at Medan, had much better and more experienced pilots 60-75 exp), and lost quite a few planes. (I think about 4-5 from the first wave shown below, then more later battling with the stragglers).

The Jacks also had a shorter time listed to get all planes into the fight, in this case well below the time to target for the raid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Hollandia , at 93,116

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 78 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 22 minutes

Japanese aircraft
J2M3 Jack x 34

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 22
B-24D Liberator x 10
B-24D1 Liberator x 57
B-24J Liberator x 99
PB4Y-1 Liberator x 11
PBJ-1D Mitchell x 15


Japanese aircraft losses
J2M3 Jack: 1 destroyed, 7 damaged
J2M3 Jack: 1 destroyed on ground
D4Y3 Judy: 4 destroyed on ground
A6M5 Zero: 4 destroyed on ground
B6N2 Jill: 1 destroyed on ground

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 3 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged
B-24D1 Liberator: 2 destroyed, 10 damaged
B-24J Liberator: 13 damaged
PB4Y-1 Liberator: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged
PBJ-1D Mitchell: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Airbase hits 37
Airbase supply hits 13
Runway hits 92

Aircraft Attacking:
13 x PBJ-1D Mitchell bombing from 10000 feet
Airfield Attack: 6 x 500 lb GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
S-602 Hikotai with J2M3 Jack (0 airborne, 23 on standby, 0 scrambling)
11 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 6000 and 15000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 15 minutes



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/20/2013 7:08:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

For those interested I found this site yesterday:

http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t165.htm

According to that site the XX Bomber command lost 22 planes to enemy fighters between 7/44 and 8/45. Something I managed to lose in one day. [:D]


Yeahbut their fighters flew on avgas, not rice. [:)]



LoBaron -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/20/2013 7:56:38 PM)

Just a wild guess with not enough data, but I dont see anything too surprising. And it has less to do with your own units than
with the B-29 crews.

It is def skill that hurts attacking fighters. Def skill works two ways, because it improves chance to kill/damage opposing fighters,
and this is logically followed by less fighters attacking every round, less repeated attacks by those still attacking, and lower morale
and higher fatigue on average. Over the time of the battle this has an extremely strong cumulative effect.

The units arriving with B-29s have close to no def skill (and exp avg in the med 30s). On the contrary, other units using
heavies usually already had a lot of time to up their stats.

Most of my veteran heavies already hit or have long passed the 70exp/65-70 def skill mark, the B-29 crews are completely green in
comparision...




JocMeister -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/21/2013 7:37:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Sorry JocMeister, I did not want to suggest you personally were making this comparision.

I just wanted to point out what to consider if one attempts to compare, as this topic simply is bound to produce comparisions.
If an unexpected result requires investigation, and a historical example exist that offers itself to base a comparision
on, the first question always needs to be:
"Does the historical situation REALLY mirror the situation ingame down to a detail level known and supported."

If the answer is "no", this does not make comparision impossible per default, but then such a comparision needs to be
always done with the identified differences in context.

If this prerequisite for comparision is skipped, the comparision is worthless. Happens much too often on the forums.



Re B-29 literature: Yes, I know what you mean, there is not too much available, and TBH many books are simply boring.
The rest is at least 50% Enola Gay stuff.

A long time ago I read a very good book written from a Japanese perspective, about the Japanese Superfortress intercepters. Donīt
remember the exact name, something like "Fighting the Dragon", or "Dragon Fighters" I think. Enjoyed it very much but am not
completely sure about the accuracy.

What I can also reccommend is "Final Assault On The Rising Sun: Combat Diaries of B-29 Air Crews Over Japan" Chester W. Marshall
and Warren E. Thompson.

Rest on my knowledge on that topic is from the internet and minor chapters where it is addressed in other books, like Ronald
H. Spectors great "Eagle against the Sun".


No problem! Just wanted to make it clear. [:)]

The realization that this game is just that (a game) and has very little to do with the actual war besides names and location was a pretty sad one. But as I wrote in CRs AAR I guess we should be happy the Jap side has been given a big boost or we wouldnīt see many games at all.

But I wonder how a game with a historical Japan would look. Iīm starting to think the devs might have gotten it very close to reality gameplay wise. Strip away the fantasy pilot training, Air ASW, PDU ON and give Japan the historical production and resources and I think we would perhaps get pretty close to the actual war. Would love to see such a game AARed! [:)]

For example, how would my B29 raid have looked against Oscars with EXP 20-30? As someone wrote in CRs AAR it quite funny how some Japanese players make claims on how unhistorical an allied advance in Burma is while they themselves play a Japanese side almost completely stripped of all the historical restraints Japan suffered from. Not intending this as a JFB/AFB thing but rather a reflection on how quickly both sides draws comparisons with the real war.

Uhm, kind of got off topic there...!

Thank you for the tip on the books. Iīll go on Amazon hunting for them!



JocMeister -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/21/2013 7:38:42 AM)

Forum hiccup.

Double post...



LoBaron -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/21/2013 9:33:57 AM)

Let me get this straight: You realized this is a game - and not a 1:1 recreation of WWII - by you finding out the Japanese players
do not autocollapse and implode in ī44?

WitP AE it is no simulation of WWII, but I thought this was obvious. With player decisions it canīt be.

It is a simulation of "what ifs", based on historical (or as close to historical as possible with the current engine) capabilities
and skills of individual units and devices, leaders, terrain,...but modified by hindsight, lack of a political aspect, and by such
minor facts as players not being responsible for the pixel lifes of their soldiers - which often leads to pretty hilarious decisions.

Your personal wish for "what ifs" would require your opponent to repeat the historical errors Japan made in the war, from lack of
coordination between army and navy to the failure to establish a working pilot training programme. I doubt such a game would be fun or
at all interesting. This is not something the Japanese were not capable of. Its just, they did not realize it was required to wage
war. Thats a difference.


PS: I never understood the AFB/JFB whiner discussion and in general ignore it. If you havenīt played both sides, more so if you lack deep knowledge
on the game, you usually have no idea what you are talking about.

Those few who did play both sides in PBEM, GreyJoy is a good recent example of such a player, quickly realize what the true difficulties for
each side are. Those players usually get very modest with their complaints about the other sidesī capabilities. And in general rise to be very good
players...



GreyJoy -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/21/2013 9:43:12 AM)

Cannot but agree. You need to play both sides. And when you switch from the allies to the japs, i can assure you that you will really understand how well this game is balanced



JocMeister -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/21/2013 11:32:06 AM)

Sigh...[8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Let me get this straight: You realized this is a game - and not a 1:1 recreation of WWII - by you finding out the Japanese players do not autocollapse and implode in ī44?


No?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
WitP AE it is no simulation of WWII, but I thought this was obvious. With player decisions it canīt be. It is a simulation of "what ifs", based on historical (or as close to historical as possible with the current engine) capabilities and skills of individual units and devices, leaders, terrain,...but modified by hindsight, lack of a political aspect, and by such minor facts as players not being responsible for the pixel lifes of their soldiers - which often leads to pretty hilarious decisions.

Your personal wish for "what ifs" would require your opponent to repeat the historical errors Japan made in the war, from lack of coordination between army and navy to the failure to establish a working pilot training programme. I doubt such a game would be fun or at all interesting. This is not something the Japanese were not capable of. Its just, they did not realize it was required to wage war. Thats a difference.


You got all that from what I wrote? Where did I write I personally wanted to play such a game? I actually said kind of the opposite if you re-read what I wrote. I simply speculated that if Japan is given the historical restraints we might actually see an outcome that is not too far off from the real war. Meaning the devs perhaps got the game pretty spot on. This I thought would be very interesting to read/see in an AAR. I still do.

Regarding the AFB/JFB comment I simply wrote that BOTH sides tend to draw comparisons to the real war despite it being a game with little attachment to the real war (as we already have established):

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
Not intending this as a JFB/AFB thing but rather a reflection on how quickly both sides draws comparisons with the real war.


You have been quite friendly and helpful in the past. Donīt know where your response came from. But I would appreciate in the future that if you find something I write unclear that you could ask me for clarification instead of drawing your own conclusions and then write what I perceive as a quite aggressive post?

It may be my own fault for writing quite hastily (I always do). I hope my intention with the post is now clear. I have no desire to argue and I canīt understand why almost every topic on this forum ends in people arguing.







LoBaron -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/21/2013 2:04:33 PM)

quote:

I simply speculated that if Japan is given the historical restraints we might actually see an outcome that
is not too far off from the real war.


Wrong.

If you THINK a bit beyond what you type, you will realize that this will not be the case. Hindsight makes it impossible.
Japan would get crushed would long before VJ day, standing much less chance of success than the Japanese did historically.

quote:

Regarding the AFB/JFB comment I simply wrote that BOTH sides tend to draw comparisons to the real war


Which would be perfectly legal, if done correctly. Something I explained in my above post.

But in truth, you wrote:

quote:

As someone wrote in CRs AAR it quite funny how some Japanese players make claims on how unhistorical an allied advance in Burma is while they themselves play a Japanese side almost completely stripped of all the historical restraints Japan suffered from.


which is quite different. Because it is an AFB/JFB thing. What was the point you were trying to make exactly, except that sometimes people complain without thinking first?


I get sarcastic if obviously intelligent people donīt think things through to the end before formulating an opinion or requesting sth, without being prepared that
someone can tell them that they are wrong.

I have neither the patience nor the motivation to interprete if what you write is different from what you want to say. If you post hastily but mean different, use more
time to post. And if you donīt like responses to your opinions, that could be considered as criticizm, or donīt want to hear that what you believe in might be wrong,
then donīt post at all. Otherwise deal with it. Pretty easy, no?

Hope that wasnīt too aggressive...



JocMeister -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/21/2013 5:57:12 PM)

I was clear enough in my first post. The comment about writing hasty was written as a courtesy.

Thank you for the tip on the book.






obvert -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/21/2013 6:51:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Just a wild guess with not enough data, but I dont see anything too surprising. And it has less to do with your own units than
with the B-29 crews.

It is def skill that hurts attacking fighters. Def skill works two ways, because it improves chance to kill/damage opposing fighters,
and this is logically followed by less fighters attacking every round, less repeated attacks by those still attacking, and lower morale
and higher fatigue on average. Over the time of the battle this has an extremely strong cumulative effect.

The units arriving with B-29s have close to no def skill (and exp avg in the med 30s). On the contrary, other units using
heavies usually already had a lot of time to up their stats.

Most of my veteran heavies already hit or have long passed the 70exp/65-70 def skill mark, the B-29 crews are completely green in
comparision...




I guess I have to assume he's using relatively poor pilots in the B-29s then? Seems very unlike Jocke who hold almost a 2:1 advantage in the air war currently and is usually meticulous about his air settings and pilots from what I can tell.

Even in 42 with mediocre pilots and B-17Ds he was hitting more zeros than that strike of B-29s hit. I most likely won't know until much later when I can read his AAR what happened, but from my side it's odd.



LoBaron -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/21/2013 8:14:18 PM)

Yes, I said it was a wild guess. But there are only few alternative explanations.

Those other explanations would be:

1) It was simply a very bad day for the B-29s, in addition to a good one for your excellent leader.
2) The mvr of only 2 has some kind of impact on how easy the bombers are to hit (as compared to 7 on B24s) - I tend to rule that out, as to my best knowledge bombers mvr is only used for AAA calc)
3) There is a problem with the way the game engine handles turret guns (TT/BT), which would be most evident on the B29s, as the only non-turret mounted
gun the B29 has is the rear facing MG, whereas the B24s have side, front, and rear facing guns without turrets). If the last is true it might be a bug.

1) is possible
2) is pretty improbable
3) is possible, but personally I would expect such a bug to already have been identified long ago, if it existed.

So, from a probabilistic pov I would explain it with comparably low pilot quality, as it simply the easiest. The only prerequisite
would be that Jocke did not exchange the whole (green) pilot contingent of his B-29s before staging the attack. Only he will be able to tell you...

That does obviousely not rule out that one of the other explanations turns out correct.








Crackaces -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/21/2013 9:04:19 PM)

quote:

3) is possible, but personally I would expect such a bug to already have been identified long ago, if it existed.


That premise might be argued by the notion not a lot of games with public AAR's have involved B-29's .. many games end by SCLS ....



obvert -> RE: Help with B29s! (4/21/2013 10:05:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Yes, I said it was a wild guess. But there are only few alternative explanations.

Those other explanations would be:

1) It was simply a very bad day for the B-29s, in addition to a good one for your excellent leader.
2) The mvr of only 2 has some kind of impact on how easy the bombers are to hit (as compared to 7 on B24s) - I tend to rule that out, as to my best knowledge bombers mvr is only used for AAA calc)
3) There is a problem with the way the game engine handles turret guns (TT/BT), which would be most evident on the B29s, as the only non-turret mounted
gun the B29 has is the rear facing MG, whereas the B24s have side, front, and rear facing guns without turrets). If the last is true it might be a bug.

1) is possible
2) is pretty improbable
3) is possible, but personally I would expect such a bug to already have been identified long ago, if it existed.

So, from a probabilistic pov I would explain it with comparably low pilot quality, as it simply the easiest. The only prerequisite
would be that Jocke did not exchange the whole (green) pilot contingent of his B-29s before staging the attack. Only he will be able to tell you...

That does obviousely not rule out that one of the other explanations turns out correct.



Thanks for the options. Didn't think about maneuver.

As for option 3, I would think so as well, but I've been advised that the B-25D-1 using all of it's forward facing strafing guns in defense is 'known' and essentially unchangeable, so some issue with the B-29 guns could be similar.

It might be a while before I find anything else out in game as now he's bombing at night anyway.



artuitus_slith -> RE: Help with B29s! (5/4/2013 9:47:59 PM)

Just my opinion, but oil isn't the right target regardless. Instead hit the refineries. Destroying Japan's ability to refine the oil into useful products (supply and fuel) is a lot more efficient than hitting the oil, especially at this point in the game. Japan likely has plenty of surplus oil sitting around waiting to be refined, but that oil becomes useless if you destroy his ability to refine it into something useful. I imagine your opponent isn't going to bother repairing oil hits, but probably will repair refineries.

I'd almost be willing to trade 30 B-29s for 190+ refinery hits, since after 6 months or so of raids you could conceivable bring Japan's fuel making abilities to a grinding halt, and with it the ability of Japan to continue fighting effectively. Combined with raids on HI, you could force him to rely exclusively on reserves of supplies, making your job much easier.



LoBaron -> RE: Help with B29s! (5/4/2013 10:24:56 PM)

I agree that refineries are the bottleneck target, and hitting oil in ī44 usually does not harm the Japanese industry that much - except for VP for those who care.

Still, depending on the situation (range, CAP & AAA concentrations) you have to hit what you can hit. Refineries are much less distributed on the HI as are other industrial targets. If you can hit em without much trouble, great, if you cannot, hit something else. The nice thing about being in range of the HI is, there are a LOT of targets of opportunity.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.0625