(Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific



Message


Chiteng -> (7/15/2003 7:10:25 AM)

I'm not sure which part of my post was an attack, or which part was a lie...if there are other people who support the idea that B-17s are extremely overpowered, I haven't seen them. Am I going to go through every thread looking for references to B-17s to check? No thanks.
**********************************************
When you say that someone is delibretly ignoring evidence
that is an attack Snigbert, and it is also snide.
You refuse to read the comments of the other posters,
therefore you choose to ignore the fact that I am not alone.
That makes it willfull. You are not correct, it is not just me.

The problem with such statements is that YOU are choosing what
evidence is and is not, we dont agree on that. Therefore there
is no way to do as you ask. I choose what 'I' consider evidence =)

*********************************************
So, if you want to convince me that there is a problem with B-17s (which seems to be your assertion in this thread), can you provide:

1. Tests run with the editor which show consistently unrealistic accuracy in B-17 bombing missions against ships
*************************************************
I have done that Snigbert, the evidence was ignored or minimized
as trivial. If I actually did post more, you would claim it was fabricated. What purpose then would be served? Except to waste my time?

************************************************
2. Sources that state B-17s were never used for these missions, or were incapable of being used for these missions
*************************************************
No one that I know of has ever stated that they were incapable,
But ONE One Ton bomb isnt a large capability. That is what the B-17 carried.

*********************************
3. Tests which consistently show the B-17 has a higher durability than was historically true
**********************************
And who then gets to be the arbiter of what 'historically true' means? By what standards does that get evaluated?


*******************************************
In the games I have played with 2.30 I haven't observed any results from B-17s that I felt were dubious. Nor have I seen any of the above evidence presented, if it has been perhaps you can direct me to the thread.
********************************************
You just stated the problem. 'that I felt were dubious'
Why would I direct you to a thread when you have already stated that you refuse to read this one? What point again
would be served?

You see I dont have to agree with your parameters. And I dont.
Just read Morrison(one source) you will NOT see operations
being designed around the capabilities of the B-17.
You will not see Japanese operations curtailed because of the
capabilities of the B-17(at least fleet ops)

The B-17 did NOT dominate the war in the Pacific. The CV did.
The NAVY, not the army.




Ron Saueracker -> Re: Re: Maybe you should be getting more sleep (7/15/2003 7:14:59 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]Yes it was a complaint about S boats and the Mk-10 [/B][/QUOTE]

The question of S Boat servicability and Mk 10 effectiveness has been brought up many times. It's less a question of the over effectiveness of the torpedo and more that of the S Boat's overrated operational servicability in game terms. S Boats were pigs that spent more time in upkeep than effectively conducting patrols.

This brings up a point I've mentioned a few times in the past. There is no real operational limitation for any ship in the game any way. Ships are just icons with ratings. Most other aspects/units of/in the game deal with fatigue, morale etc, but ships and their crews are not represented as well. If a ship is greivously damaged, a player can still use it if he so chooses. In the game, a mechanism exists (some may dispute this;) ) to minimize the chance of unescorted bomber airgroups attacking high CAP dense targets. Players routinely, on the other hand, advocate the use of strategies based on the use of various minor ships as cannon fodder and decoys, and just thrust merchants into harms way. For a naval game, I find this flawed and believe it should be altered.

Ships should have a morale rating governing their performance in addition to their combat ratings.

Allied ships should suffer from a constant reduction in performance down to a base level due to the stripping of ships veteran crews to man the new construction. IJN should suffer less from this as they tended to maintain the core of the crew strength and had a reduction in fleet size over time instead of the massive inflation of the size of US Navy.

I find the system damage aspect acceptable but once a ship reaches a certain degree of "damage", a period of forced upkeep should be triggered.

Sub crews should have a rest and refit period after each patrol, usually in the two week range as was done historically to deal with special nature of sub duty.

Ships were never used as they are in the game. They required training periods and generally operated in divisions and squadrons or rather static TFs (in terms of individual capital ships and escorts). We can just mix and match with no positive or negative effects on their performance.

There are many other issues which can be brought up regarding naval aspect of this game. The above are just a few. Right now the air aspect is dominant in a theatre where all three elements (land/air/sea) went hand in hand.




madflava13 -> (7/15/2003 7:39:20 AM)

Just a quick interjection -
Chiteng, maybe I misread your post, so please correct me if I did so, but I believe you said that B-17s only carried one 1-ton bomb. That isn't true. If you meant something else, I apologize, but that would be an incorrect statement. They usually carried multiple 500 pound bombs, although availability of ordinance at forward bases may have varied. P-47s could carry one 1-ton bomb, and I know B-17s had a bigger lift capacity than P-47s...




Chiteng -> (7/15/2003 7:46:19 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13
[B]Just a quick interjection -
Chiteng, maybe I misread your post, so please correct me if I did so, but I believe you said that B-17s only carried one 1-ton bomb. That isn't true. If you meant something else, I apologize, but that would be an incorrect statement. They usually carried multiple 500 pound bombs, although availability of ordinance at forward bases may have varied. P-47s could carry one 1-ton bomb, and I know B-17s had a bigger lift capacity than P-47s... [/B][/QUOTE]


The standard anti-shipping bomb at Midway for the B-17 was one
2000pound bomb.

Please note the 'anti-shipping' preface.

I am well aware it had a variety of ordinance. But that was for
ground attacks.




madflava13 -> (7/15/2003 7:54:06 AM)

What was used at Midway isn't necessarily what was standard. I reference this site: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap16.htm

As well as numerous text references to B-17 anti-shipping attacks involving multiple 500 lb. bombs vs. one 2000 pounder. I can quote the books if you'd like. I think the 2000 lb. bomb reflects the B-17's use as a scout/raider at Midway as opposed to an anti-shipping strike. With the one bomb, the Fortresses could stay aloft longer and therefore search more ocean before attacking...

In UV/WitP terms, the B-17s will be making attacks on TFs already sighted by other assets, so I believe the 6,000lb bombload of 500 lb bombs is more accurate for an "everyday" anti-shipping strike.




Ron Saueracker -> (7/15/2003 8:03:37 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]I'm not asking them to change ONLY the B-17, I am asking them to change all land based bombers to be more realistic. If you want test results to prove they are rediculous, I'm more then happy to mock up games in the editor to prove that point many times over.

I think we are looking at five separate problems here that represent themselves as the one.

(a) AA defenses are poorly modelled in relation to larger aircraft.

(b) Effectiveness of larger aircraft is far too high.

(c) Larger bombers do not divert when encountering heavy resistance (ie: save the plane and aircrew, you can always hit the target later)

(d) ground troops do not have adequate defensive bonus against air attacks. (air alone can eliminate a base)

(e) mass raids of aircraft including extremely high numbers of aircraft, beyond the command and control that existed in 1942/43.

These all merge together into one Overpowered LBA statement yet are actually 5 separate issues.

While attempting to make the game historical, UV includes every air grup there was, but this causes a problem because realistically they rotated in and out of the theater. Players are not subject to this reality which produces the scaling problem. We routinely fly Ploesti level raids on a daily basis yet the losses are not there producing the ability to repeat this pattern of abuse. If the AA was tuned up and the effects lessened and the ability to stage beyond 5 squadrons per base put in, the end result would be the players would have to rotate their forces around to be able to conduct Linebacker level plans which we take for granted now. The rate AA guns are disabled in the game means that after 3+ days, there are no more AA guns. Funny how even after YEARS of Iraq getting pounded by the USA with 1990+ technologies they STILL had stuff left to lob shots at planes in the no fly zone. Ground targets are just not that easy to kill.

I really want this fixed as it leads down the path of the game requiring no skill, no planning, not much of anything...

I have offered up a few ideas:

SPS of base governs aircraft size (overbuilding does not help LBA)

Altitude penalties at a severe level (Ploesti like results)

Upgrading of Flak damage to realistic levels against slow flying low flying aircraft

Double interceptions against large raids (bonus due to amount of radio chatter required)

Maximum # of squadrons at a base

All of these or variations of these would shift UV back in the hands of the Navy, which is where it should be. This is the pacific theater. It was the USN that won, not the USAF. The surrender was signed on a warship, not a warplane! [/B][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=red]Right On![/COLOR] [B]Right On![/B] :cool:




Ron Saueracker -> (7/15/2003 8:24:42 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dwesolick
[B]God, I hate to wade into this cesspool of a thread but I've just got to say that Snig is an upstanding guy and I haven't seen a single post of his that intentionally (or otherwise) "mis-represents" the truth. He is always courteous, informative, and helpful (unlike some) in his posts.

He is, on the other hand, a very devious and wily PBEM opponent! ;) [/B][/QUOTE]

Sniggy's starting to make me pull ever precious hair out of my scalp! :D




Nikademus -> Level bombers vs ships (7/15/2003 10:22:21 AM)

Part of the reasoning of the bomber proponents (as an alternative to building expensive navies) was that while it was acknowledged that level bombing was inherently inaccurate as opposed to say, dive bombing, it was theorized prewar that this inaccuracy could be negated by flying in mass, controlled by a skilled bombedier in the lead unit , under whose direction the target ship(s) would be saturated by mass bombs dropped from the bombers at high altitude, usually multiple 500lb GP ones.

Given the # dropped it was figured that at least some would have a good chance of scoring against their target(s) while the high altitude negated to a large degree the threat of AA.

This rosy expectation turned out to be not quite so simple a solution as wartime experience bore out.

This is not to say that heavy bombers couldn't or didn't on occasion drop singular bombs on ships but it was not the normal methodology.

Wherein lies the real problem with LBA. with the larger bombers capable of carrying nearly a dozen GP bombs each, that makes it hard to miss against base targets and anchored ships. The moving ship issue has been addressed, but the saturation of base targets and anchored ships remains. The B-17 only stands out here because it happens to have a large loadout of GP bombs but the effect can be produced with just about any bomber in the game.

Adjust the math that defines the "virtual area" by which the game engine defines the critical area of bases and their anchorages and i think a better more historical result would be achieved

That and yes, land based flak against big lumbering bombers is far too ineffective which allows low altitude strikes even against better defended targets

Lastly, disruption effects by flak and CAP also need to be enhanced. The morale failure rule was a good step in the right direction but more is needed.




Veer -> (7/15/2003 10:43:17 AM)

The problem with the B17 I believe is not only are they too accurate in general vs Naval targets, but while in the game mechanics altiude has an impact on accuracy (leading most players to set Alt at <10,000 ft), it has no altitude on the penetration abilities of the bomb. There was a reason the army decided to fly B17s and other level bombers at 15,000+ ft - range, and the fact that falling AP bombs are a lot more effective from a higher altitude.




madflava13 -> (7/15/2003 10:55:38 AM)

I've cited it multiple times before, but Saburo Sakai's book "Samurai!" is the only first person account from the Japanese side for this time period that I know of. He describes very small formations (4 or less) of B-17s delivering devastatingly accurate bombing runs against the fighter base at Lae. These are runs from 10K+ that score almost 100% hits on runways and buildings. B-17s were uber weapons in the Pacific against bases they could reach. They weren't ship killers and they didn't capture or hold land. But they knocked the hell out of any base they could get to and very rarely were they shot down in any numbers... While the bases weren't knocked out often (it's pretty easy to patch up a dirt strip), facilities, maintenance crews and aircraft caught on the ground were frequently killed and damaged/destroyed in significant numbers.

The proof is in the pudding. I challenge anyone here to read Sakai's book and tell me how UV has it wrong regarding B-17 attacks against bases...

For the record, in real life Japan did NOT have large AAA at Lae, only smaller low level types, so these B-17 strikes I'm speaking of weren't bothered by Flak - they were attacked by fighters during their strikes though. I'll quote specific passages if anyone wants me to.




Nikademus -> (7/15/2003 11:14:22 AM)

I've read Sakai.

Nothing in it suggests to me that B-17's were "uber" and one must keep in mind that during Sakai's tenure at Lae, it was essentially an undeveloped base with little in the way of intrinsic defense other than the fighters stationed there.

Eric Bergerud's analysis of the SoPac campaign would indicate that it took far more than 4 bombers, B-17 or otherwise to badly damage and keep down an airbase. It also did not suggest in any way that level bombers, B-17 or otherwise, scored such consistant pinpoint accuracy against land targets. Otherwise the campaign would not have developed into the slogging match that it did




madflava13 -> (7/15/2003 11:30:07 AM)

Nik,
I understand what you're saying, and I agree in part. The airbase itself (the field) was never knocked out for a day, but the planes and facilites were trashed numerous times. That took its toll. I was responding more to the people who were complaining about high casualties and damaged aircraft because that was a reality. It's not hard to hit a base even from high altitude, and 48 500lb. bombs is gonna do a ****-**** no matter what. That's why I think the B-17 is still an uber weapon. There aren't enough of them for the Allies to swing the campaign with them (just like reality - otherwise it would have been 100 B-17s and not the 4 Sakai talks about), but they are accurate (against land), long ranged and heavily armed/armored aircraft, just like in real life.

I know Chiteng and others have expressed concerns about accuracy over water. I personally have not experienced that, so I don't see it as a problem. If it's happening to people and they can reproduce it in a save game, I'll join that camp instantly - B-17s could hit ships, but it was very rare. Any save game that shows B-17s as incessant ship-killers would indicate a problem to me.

Over land I see no problems besides the ineffectiveness of flak disruption. High losses to the Japanese are normal - we're talking a lot of bombs being dropped after all. Low losses to the B-17s (total loss, not talking about damage) is also normal - not many were shot down. I concur flak needs to be looked at, but most Japanese bases aren't going to have a lot of high altitude flak because there just wasn't that much to go around. Those bases are going to take losses from B-17s as a result.

That's my take on it, anyways.




Nikademus -> (7/15/2003 11:42:43 AM)

and i see what your saying as well mud (perhaps thats the more signifigant aspect of our exchange, the proof that two people can debate in honesty and civility ;) )

But i do disagree on the what is essentially a "look at the number of bombs dropped" aspect of viewing the problem. I do not doubt that on a number of occasions, heavy bombers (or any bombers) did cause sig damage to a base

However i felt the need to point out that Lae by itself serves as a poor example as it was small and under-maintained (which was why it was quickly abandoned once the PM mission failed initially)

Bergerud as mentioned specifically documented numerous times when bombing attacks, both against airbases and ground targets simply and often did not yeild tangible or long lasting results based on a variety of variables, including flak and CAP. Often many an air bombardment (and shore bombardment for that matter), yielded zero results which neccessitated the need for repeated and continuous strikes. His analysis also showed quite well that it was a very hard proposition to knock out and keep knocked out, an airbase (and I agree too with Mr Frag that the ease in which engineers and AA guns are disabled is way too easy, contributing further, to the two day knock out a large airbase tactic in UV)

I agree on your comments about the flak. Thats exactly my point. The Japanese were weak in the area of high alt flak. Yet in the game, they can attack at whim at any altitude, low altitude in particular, because even at low level, AA cannot disuade bombers, not just heavy bombers from attacking and quickly taking out all in their path, from guns to men to supplies. An Allied player never has to attack at higher alts if he doesn't really want too, there's no true danger.

It just didn't happen that way in real life.

Ironically what truely made airbases untendable is not represented well in the game. That tendancy is the aircraft themselves. They are not vulnerable enough on the ground and in the air they repair too quickly allowing players to keep up their high pace tactics.




TIMJOT -> (7/15/2003 11:56:38 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]The standard anti-shipping bomb at Midway for the B-17 was one
2000pound bomb.

Please note the 'anti-shipping' preface.

I am well aware it had a variety of ordinance. But that was for
ground attacks. [/B][/QUOTE]

I am not sure about Midway, but in well over a 100 sorties against *SHIPPING* in the Philipines, NEI, and the SOPAC, B-17s and B-24s used almost exclusively 500lb bombs.

Come to think of it, I seem to recall an aerial photo the Hiryu or Soryu manuvering wildly to avoid rows of bombs from a B-17 attack. Those particular bombers at least were not carrying single 2000lbs bombs.




Snigbert -> (7/16/2003 12:51:13 AM)

[B]The proof is in the pudding. I challenge anyone here to read Sakai's book and tell me how UV has it wrong regarding B-17 attacks against bases...[/B]

I didn't get the impression from Sakai that that B-17 was more or less effective than the B-25 and B-26.




madflava13 -> (7/16/2003 2:43:55 AM)

Snigbert,
True the majority of the attacks he was exposed to were from the Med bombers at low level, many times at night. But B-17 attacks were effective and it was much more difficult to defend against them because of the heavy armament/toughness they exhibited. That was the message I was trying to get across.




Bobthehatchit -> B17's (7/16/2003 3:55:18 AM)

Regardless of how many time people re-argue this point, the B17 was cable of hitting ships, and it did historically within the period of uv and during the rest of war in the pacific.

So it is clear the B17 has the capability to drop bombs on and damage enemy shipping if the player so wishes?

If ten b17's drop strings of 500 pounders on a transport tf the likelyhood is you are goning to get a few hits, this is not that unrealistic, how many times do they go out on a raid and hit nothing?

:mad:

I find the ijn Betty's and nells to be much more effective ship killers even with cap flying cover they usually score big when ever they get the chance. They carry less muntions, are less durable than a B17, which is a well armoured stable platform..

I mean a heavily loaded transport is not going to be that manoeuvrable so its going to struggle to avoid bombs that are dropped on it.:confused:




CEDeaton -> What it takes to put the pickle in the barrel (7/16/2003 5:09:23 AM)

At the bottom of this message is an excerpt, straight from the B-17 Pilot Training Manual found at [URL=http://www.stelzriede.com/ms/html/mshwpmn1.htm#bomb][/URL] that hopefully will suffice for even the most stubborn grogs. It's a bit long to read, but it is very illuminating on this subject if you take the time to understand a bit about the physics of the task at hand.

It's clear that B-17's can - and did - hit shipping targets both while underway and while in port during the course of the war. It wasn't easy to get a hit, especially on a target at sea where there is much less available with which the bombardier can estimate crosswinds that affect both bomb drift and speed over ground(or sea) because of lack of good ground references. Getting the target speed right might still have been the easiest part since you'd know about how long a Maru, etc. is so you could get pretty close on this one. Proper altitude settings are also critical to accurate bombing. For the non-pilots in the group, in those pre-GPS days, you mainly calibrated your altimeter based on a known altitude at the home field and a with Barometric pressure reading taken at ground level. These are provided shortly before takeoff and sometimes updated in-flight when the data is known. Since there weren't generally going to be friendly weather reports coming out of "Injun Country", in-flight updates while over the target are very unlikely or innaccurate at best so a big swing in the weather between takeoff and tarhget really is a problem.

BUT if you are dropping a bomb every 1/10th of a second in a salvo mode, for instance, at a cruise speed of 170mph, then you are letting one go every 25 feet traveled. Thus, eight 500lb bombs dropped "in a vacum in space" should land in a string that is roughly 200 feet long. Therefore, getting the windage, altitude and airspeed calibrated correctly is still important, but the bomb pattern provides a "cushion" against any bad settings. Keep in mind that in UV we are also generally talking about raids carried out at well under the 20,000 feet assumed in the example below, so modify the circural error probability proportionately for an idea of what the pilot and bombardier were really up against at a given altitude and then draw your own conclusions. (This ought to be good for another 5000+ posts from a few of the whiny posters, but at least this time they'll actually have some real info to work with. :D)

If there was an area where we might realistically degrade Level bomber performance, I personally think it might be against overwater targets that are further from friendly bases and most particularly when the weather is marginal/bad and Barometric pressures would have been literally and figuratively "all over the map". So....


[QUOTE]Here's the straight dope from the USAAF[/QUOTE]


"Consider the following conditions which affect the bomb dropped from an airplane:

ALTITUDE: Controlled by the pilot. Determines the length of time the bomb is sustained in flight and affected by atmospheric conditions, thus affecting the range (forward travel of the bomb) and deflection (distance the bomb drifts in a crosswind with respect to airplane's ground track).

TRUE AIRSPEED: Controlled by the pilot. The measure of the speed of the airplane through the air. It is this speed which is imparted to the bomb and which gives the bomb its initial forward velocity and, therefore, affects the trail of the bomb, or the distance the bomb lags behind the airplane at the instant of impact.

BOMB BALLISTICS: Size, shape and density of the bomb, which determines its air resistance. Bombardier uses bomb ballistics tables to account for type of bomb.

TRAIL: Horizontal distance the bomb is behind the airplane at the instant of impact. This value, obtained from bombing tables, is set in the sight by the bombardier. Trail is affected by altitude, airspeed, bomb ballistics and air density, the first three factors being controlled by the pilot.

ACTUAL TIME OF FALL: Length of time the bomb is sustained in air from instant of release to instant of impact. Affected by altitude, type of bomb and air density. Pilot controls altitude to obtain a definite actual time of fall.

GROUNDSPEED: The speed of the airplane in relation to the earth's surface. Groundspeed affects the range of the bomb and varies with the airspeed, controlled by the pilot. Bombardier enters groundspeed in the bombsight through synchronization on the target. During this process the pilot must maintain the correct altitude and constant airspeed.

DRIFT: Determined by the direction and velocity of the wind, which determines the distance the bomb will travel downwind from the airplane from the instant the bomb is released to its instant of impact. Drift is set on the bombsight by the bombardier during the process of synchronization and setting up course.

....HOLDING ALTITUDE AND AIRSPEED: As the bombardier proceeds to set up his course (synchronize) , it is absolutely essential that the pilot maintain the selected altitude and air- speed within the closest possible limits. For every additional 100 feet above the assumed 20,000-foot bombing altitude, the bombing error will increase approximately 30 feet, the direction of error being over. For erroneous airspeed, which creates difficulty in synchronization on the target, the bombing error will be approximately 170 feet for a 10 mph change in airspeed. Assuming the airspeed was 10 mph in excess, from 20,000 feet, the bomb impact would be short 170 feet."




Chiteng -> Re: B17's (7/16/2003 5:45:16 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bobthehatchit
[B]Regardless of how many time people re-argue this point, the B17 was cable of hitting ships, and it did historically within the period of uv and during the rest of war in the pacific.

So it is clear the B17 has the capability to drop bombs on and damage enemy shipping if the player so wishes?

If ten b17's drop strings of 500 pounders on a transport tf the likelyhood is you are goning to get a few hits, this is not that unrealistic, how many times do they go out on a raid and hit nothing?

:mad:

I find the ijn Betty's and nells to be much more effective ship killers even with cap flying cover they usually score big when ever they get the chance. They carry less muntions, are less durable than a B17, which is a well armoured stable platform..

I mean a heavily loaded transport is not going to be that manoeuvrable so its going to struggle to avoid bombs that are dropped on it.:confused: [/B][/QUOTE]

I see no reason to accept that B-17 routinely dropped 500pound
anti-shipping bombs. In fact the posts from madflava indicate
that actually they did use the 2000pound bomb in the few cases
they hit something. The idea that the B-17 was dropping cluster bombs on shipping is hardly proven. In fact it may be wishfull thinking from the 'pro-B17 people'




Chiteng -> Re: B17's (7/16/2003 5:46:07 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bobthehatchit
[B]Regardless of how many time people re-argue this point, the B17 was cable of hitting ships, and it did historically within the period of uv and during the rest of war in the pacific.

So it is clear the B17 has the capability to drop bombs on and damage enemy shipping if the player so wishes?

If ten b17's drop strings of 500 pounders on a transport tf the likelyhood is you are goning to get a few hits, this is not that unrealistic, how many times do they go out on a raid and hit nothing?

:mad:

I find the ijn Betty's and nells to be much more effective ship killers even with cap flying cover they usually score big when ever they get the chance. They carry less muntions, are less durable than a B17, which is a well armoured stable platform..

I mean a heavily loaded transport is not going to be that manoeuvrable so its going to struggle to avoid bombs that are dropped on it.:confused: [/B][/QUOTE]

Bettys can be shot down. It isnt as big a problem.




CEDeaton -> Wouldn't it be nice... (7/16/2003 5:53:12 AM)

...if there was a verifiable fact sprinkled in some of these "poor me" whines every now and then.

Two words come immeadiately to mind SORE LOSER.




Chiteng -> Re: Wouldn't it be nice... (7/16/2003 6:00:26 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CraigDeaton
[B]...if there was a verifiable fact sprinkled in some of these "poor me" whines every now and then.

Two words come immeadiately to mind SORE LOSER. [/B][/QUOTE]

One can only wonder what your talking about.
What is being lost?
What is being won?
Who is saying 'poor me'?

Sounds like your erecting a straw man. =)




decourcy -> Verifiable Fact (7/16/2003 6:40:24 AM)

Chiteng,

Fact, the B17's at Efate under then Col. LaVerne Saunders bombed convoys coming down the slot regularly. It was not terribly accurate but there are several verified hits against Transports, barges, destroyers and at least one on a light cruiser.

2000lb bombs on a B17: as far as i know these were very rarely used and i can find no confirmation they were used at Midway. (I am not saying they were not, but i can find no evidence) The B17's bomb bay was poorly arranged and when they carried large bombs they had to be external not internal which would limit their range and speed due to drag. I do not know if this is true for every model.

Chiteng, did you ever notice that during the war the Japanese never exposed their carriers to LBA except in the first two months of the war. The US rarely did so till late '43. Hmmm, I wonder why??? Could it be that they realized that LBA could potentially hit them? wow!

You might want to think through some things before you decide you have any clue what you are talking about. You are one of those twits who follows ahistorical strategies and then pisses and moans that something ahistorical happened. I do not believe I have ever attacked another poster on a message board. You are a first that I could have done without. I actually agree with you on one or two of your ideas but your attacking of other posters, rudeness, and general bad attitude are just ugly.
grow up.

Mike




madflava13 -> (7/16/2003 6:51:47 AM)

Chiteng,
My comments re: Midway loads was simply me giving you the benefit of the doubt. I don't know what the B-17s carried in that battle as I've never read any detailed accounts of their actions at Midway. I assumed you had. Everything I have read about B-17s in anti-shipping strikes indicates they used the 500 pounders though. Midway may be different, I simply don't know.

I really wish I had my big volumes with me, but they're unfortunately in Minnesota while I'm stuck in Philly... Otherwise I'd offer more verifiable facts than I have on hand.




CEDeaton -> Re: Re: Wouldn't it be nice... (7/16/2003 7:03:24 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]One can only wonder what your talking about.

Sounds like your erecting a straw man. =) [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't recall referring to a "man"at all, or anyone in particular for that matter. Just the incessant pointless whining without verifiable facts to back up anything.

But if the shoe fits....




madflava13 -> A little OT, but... (7/16/2003 7:09:28 AM)

Since we've got a bunch of people reading and commenting here anyways, I wanted to bring up one thing that always bugs me with UV.
Historically during UV's time period and area, both sides operated night strikes on a regular basis. I'm not talking "Washing Maching Charlie" single plane strikes, I'm talking multiple B-26/B-25 hits on Lae from PM, etc. PBYs flew every night with much success as well. Currently, UV only has night strikes like these if a unit has high experience, but in the war, all units could attack at night. I'd love to see the chance to launch increased considerably, with the chance to hit tied into experience. Obviously lower skill units will suffer more operational losses, but they should at least launch as historically happened almost every night in this theater...
That seems more realistic and normal to me.

Can I get an Amen?




Chiteng -> Re: Verifiable Fact (7/16/2003 7:30:12 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by decourcy
[B]Chiteng,

Fact, the B17's at Efate under then Col. LaVerne Saunders bombed convoys coming down the slot regularly. It was not terribly accurate but there are several verified hits against Transports, barges, destroyers and at least one on a light cruiser.

2000lb bombs on a B17: as far as i know these were very rarely used and i can find no confirmation they were used at Midway. (I am not saying they were not, but i can find no evidence) The B17's bomb bay was poorly arranged and when they carried large bombs they had to be external not internal which would limit their range and speed due to drag. I do not know if this is true for every model.

Chiteng, did you ever notice that during the war the Japanese never exposed their carriers to LBA except in the first two months of the war. The US rarely did so till late '43. Hmmm, I wonder why??? Could it be that they realized that LBA could potentially hit them? wow!

You might want to think through some things before you decide you have any clue what you are talking about. You are one of those twits who follows ahistorical strategies and then pisses and moans that something ahistorical happened. I do not believe I have ever attacked another poster on a message board. You are a first that I could have done without. I actually agree with you on one or two of your ideas but your attacking of other posters, rudeness, and general bad attitude are just ugly.
grow up.

Mike [/B][/QUOTE]

I notice that alot of people that dont wish to see the B-17 model changed attempt to use this 'the japs didnt risk it' argument.
Even if that argument was valid(I dont agree, AND it cant be proven valid)that doesnt mean fear of LBA was the reason
'they didnt risk it'
You know NOTHING of how I play any game, or what strategy I may or may not use. Your assumptions are invalid.

I do not attack other posters, I do however defend myself when attacked. They could of course avoid attacking me, could they not?
As far as Rudeness I dont agree =) I am always civil and I make no personal attacks. Bad Attitude is something someone claims
when someone else disagrees with them. How surprising.




Chiteng -> Re: Re: Re: Wouldn't it be nice... (7/16/2003 7:31:53 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CraigDeaton
[B]I don't recall referring to a "man"at all, or anyone in particular for that matter. Just the incessant pointless whining without verifiable facts to back up anything.

But if the shoe fits.... [/B][/QUOTE]

It all depends on what you define as facts.
I have posted several AAR that clearly prove my position.
They were of course ignored.




Chiteng -> (7/16/2003 7:34:29 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13
[B]Chiteng,
My comments re: Midway loads was simply me giving you the benefit of the doubt. I don't know what the B-17s carried in that battle as I've never read any detailed accounts of their actions at Midway. I assumed you had. Everything I have read about B-17s in anti-shipping strikes indicates they used the 500 pounders though. Midway may be different, I simply don't know.

I really wish I had my big volumes with me, but they're unfortunately in Minnesota while I'm stuck in Philly... Otherwise I'd offer more verifiable facts than I have on hand. [/B][/QUOTE]

That is unlikely. Sources frequently disagree. What is likely is that
you dont wish to see the model changed, and would attempt
to find a source that would prevent that. That is all that is likely.




Chiteng -> (7/16/2003 7:38:00 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13
[B]Chiteng,
My comments re: Midway loads was simply me giving you the benefit of the doubt. I don't know what the B-17s carried in that battle as I've never read any detailed accounts of their actions at Midway. I assumed you had. Everything I have read about B-17s in anti-shipping strikes indicates they used the 500 pounders though. Midway may be different, I simply don't know.

I really wish I had my big volumes with me, but they're unfortunately in Minnesota while I'm stuck in Philly... Otherwise I'd offer more verifiable facts than I have on hand. [/B][/QUOTE]

Ahh I misunderstood:

My comments as to your posts were some source you listed
of B-17 attacks against shipping. The source listed the number
of planes and the tonnage dropped. Dividing the tonnage by the number of planes gave 2000pounds.

It wasnt Midway, it was some transport convoy.

As for Midway, yes indeed I have read all about it.
The B-17 bombed from a high altitude, missed and went home.
End of story.




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.048828