Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Oscar v B17E

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Oscar v B17E Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/22/2010 3:27:22 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

Does anyone have actual accounts of Japanese Pilots taking down huge numbers of B-17's and B-24s? I mean I never remember hearing any after action reports on american sides suggesting the japanese had any success at any part of the war in taking down 4 engine bombers. Some creditable claims I have read that further disprove every Japanese Fan boy here, are aces like Saburo Sakai who sat behind an F4F and put almost 1,000 rounds of 7.7mm into it and the plane wouldn't drop, were talking F4F here not a B-17.

The ki-43's in Burma, what level of success were they having? How many were being brought down 1-2? or typical japanese over-excelled combat reports with hundreds of "B24's shot down".



Ki-43's brought down 22 B-24's over the course of the Burma campaign in exchange for 18 of their own number. Typical actions tended to be squadron level bombing runs which was a norm outside of the massive strategic bombing campaigns of Europe and over Japan in 44/45. Interceptors similarily were small in #.

4E's were generally the toughest to bring down but it could still be done. Bergerud documented one notable occurance where A6M's downed 4 x B-17's in one mission and shot up the survivors. USAAF mission planners never discounted the danger of enemy fighter defenses and planned their missions to minimize their apperance and impact. The obtainment of long range escorts was a major priority of air commanders like Kenney. Loss of a bomber (and crew) was only one part of the equation (and the worst case scenario). Damage to plane, wounding and death of crewmembers and disruption or aborting entirely of a mission were all factors that could occur if enemy defenses were strong. Wargamers tend to get "tunnel vision" and focus on kills only. Granted, in games like WitP, this is understandable as often with the exponential effect of large-mass formations, only outright kills yield tangible results [in-game]. When players get pounded by air to ground and protest, the argument naturally orbits around kill result comparisons creating the disconnect.


The problem is (and this is Vanilla, not AE, haven't gotten a PBEM to the point of mass 4Es in a PBEM AE game yet) that 3-6 B-17/24/29, even against huge odds, not only don't get shot down, they won't turn away either. You have 3 B-17s versus a cap of 50-60 aircraft and they just keep coming. I think at that point them not aborting missions is a bit unbelievable.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 121
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/22/2010 4:14:51 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Even the most cursory examination of actual combat episodes reveals that unescorted 4E raids against major and active Japanese bases weren't even contemplated until the advent of B-29s.


This has been refuted numerous times already, my work here is done.

You know very episodic bombing of absolute backwaters like Nauru and Wake does not really refure this even one time. Edge cases can always be found, but your own source only confirms, that unescorted Allied LBA should not be able to suppress Japanese bases before B-29s, and historically it wasn't even tried.


I can't see the difference between the allies deciding to concentrate 4es to suppress an air base on 12/8/41 and the IJN establishing an effective asw doctrine on 12/7/41. To me both are in the realms of fantasy but one side shouldn't be limited if the other isn't.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 122
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Oscar v B17E Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.266