Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
You may have something there Kitakami. Have JAPAN develop a small but effective 4EB force and see the reverse take effect!

Not really...but it does sound good.

Have had a very busy couple of days and haven't been able to Post very much. Hadn't seen this massive discussion until just now. I do love the reading, thinking, and arguing. Keep at it gang!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bif1961

Colonel Hans Von Luck, in his book "PANZER COMMANDER'" related what one of his subordinate commander's Lt Rosen of his 4th company of 503rd Tiger BN stated, that the air bombardment of early morning 18 July was the worst air bombardment of the war, although we were in foxholes under the 62 ton Tiger VI tanks, we had a lot of casualties. Some of the 62 ton tanks were blow in the air like playing cards landing on their sides and backs with craters 30 feet across, it was so bad that two soldiers committed suicide during the attack because of the psychological effects. Of my 14 Tiger VI none operational after the air bombardment. all were covered with earth, some had their engines clogged and others their mainguns disadjusted, however by the afternoon a few were operational." The bombardment affect other elements of Col Von Lucks' Kampf Group, His 1st, 2nd Infantry Battalion were heavily affected and all contact was cutoff, though he doesn't give exact casualty figures it was clear that major portions of his Kampf Group were heavily hit and major portions were combat ineffective. This from a well dug in and dispersed target and in this game the units were not dug in or prepared for the attack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hans

Every time the JFBs start lamenting how overpowered 4Es are I feel compelled to step in an remind them of their own incredibly overpowered tool....Netties.

The effect they have in hindering naval movement behind the front lines for the Allies is incredible.
You can't move anything without air cover or Nettie drivers with 99 experience and 99 skill will put a fish into your ships 100% of the time.
If even one plane leaks through the CAP it is guaranteed to deliver a fish into a hull.

How many JFBs offer to nerf their Netties in compensation for that almost standard request for nerfing 4Es?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hans
If even one plane leaks through the CAP it is guaranteed to deliver a fish into a hull.

quote:

ORINAL: Bullwinkle

As has been discussed MANY times, before many posters were in the forum, the abstractions in the game models preclude anything even approaching Allied mastery of the CAS role, especially the use of real anti-armor FBs, napalm, anti-personnel para-frags, and late-war rockets. The Allies can't drop bridges to stop logistics or LCU reinforcements as they did many times in both the PTO and ETO (look at the P-47-led anti-RR campaign pre-Anzio breakout for one example.) In the game the USMC, who became uber-masters of low-altitude, precision CAS in 1944-45 (numerous footage is available on-line), are excluded from this tactic in island warfare.

The Allies are severely restricted in the game as to the ability to surge their air forces. They don't have ground attack from anything BUT 4E and 2E bombers with iron bombs. Critics of this constantly run home to Cobra and 4E while ignoring the massive destruction wreaked by single-engine and dual-engine dedicated FB and fighters in FB configuration. In the game the Mosquito is a meatloaf. Corsairs strafing are laughed at. Put some napalm tanks on the wings and no more laughing. And yeah, you'd get 400 casualties (not KIA) from a division standing in the open against 50 Mosquitos on a low-level run.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bif1961

The bombardment affect other elements of Col Von Lucks' Kampf Group, His 1st, 2nd Infantry Battalion were heavily affected and all contact was cutoff, though he doesn't give exact casualty figures it was clear that major portions of his Kampf Group were heavily hit and major portions were combat ineffective. This from a well dug in and dispersed target and in this game the units were not dug in or prepared for the attack.

quote:

To make it pefectly clear when it comes to carpet bombings i in no way dispute the disruption they caused and the temporary reduced combat ability. Also casulties DO occure, no doubt. My question is. Are casulties produced by air bombings(Note i use the word air bombing as its a general issue) verifibly in line with what the game gives you within certain amount of belivebility. Or are they skewer and if so by what magnitude and what does that impact wise do to the land campaigns/engine.
Ill repreat it again im looking at the casulties produced im not questioning the other effects.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
You may have something there Kitakami. Have JAPAN develop a small but effective 4EB force and see the reverse take effect!

Not really...but it does sound good.

Have had a very busy couple of days and haven't been able to Post very much. Hadn't seen this massive discussion until just now. I do love the reading, thinking, and arguing. Keep at it gang!

As John3 doesnt seem to mind that i've for a brief periode, highjacks his thread. ill respond to some of the posts.

Rasmus

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

...Here in game 60 bombers cause 911 casulties. Thats 15 casulties per sortie vs the historic rate at around a more realistic 0.1-0.3 per sortie. Off by a factor of 50-1 to 150-1.

Rasmus

No, the 60 bombers did not cause "911 casualties". Misreading what the game is actually doing and reporting is a standard mistake which is consistently repeated.

The correct metric has always been to look at the devices affected. Which in this case means only 4 destroyed plus 105 temporarily out of action. The real effect of the "60" bombers is 4 destroyed devices plus the unreported disruption/fatigue/morale effect.

The reported #casualties in a Combat Report has never meant what people continuously ascribe to it. This game is not that granular that individual soldiers are taken into account in the land combat algorithms. They only take into account devices.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc
Not really. If u had a unit with lot of damaged devices those would be permantly destroyed instead of damaged. So that argument comes down to a question of pure chance on what the attacked unit happen to has in number of damaged vs undamaged devices. If the unit in question had alot of damaged devices the number of destroyed(permanent) would be much higher.
As to a disruption effect of airpower is very real and can be/should be reflected in the fatigue and disruption value of an attacked unit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hans

Every time the JFBs start lamenting how overpowered 4Es are I feel compelled to step in an remind them of their own incredibly overpowered tool....Netties.

The effect they have in hindering naval movement behind the front lines for the Allies is incredible.
You can't move anything without air cover or Nettie drivers with 99 experience and 99 skill will put a fish into your ships 100% of the time.
If even one plane leaks through the CAP it is guaranteed to deliver a fish into a hull.

How many JFBs offer to nerf their Netties in compensation for that almost standard request for nerfing 4Es?

Sincerely I still do not well understand the complaints against the efficiency of the Netties;

They were there IRL; in those numbers; they'd been always aggressive and caused endless headache and pain to the allies, from Malay and the Indian Ocean to the Solomons; even in advanced 1943 Allies would have got a guaranteed bombs or torpedo attack from Betties, deadly, more often than not at sea skimming altitude, if not for persistent Allied fighter cover;

Japanese tried hard with them even in 1944 at night and later, only heavy allied fighter cap + AA kept them at bay;

Me personally never have the luxury to have 90% EXP + 90% NTorp crews beyond the first 5 months of war...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hans
If even one plane leaks through the CAP it is guaranteed to deliver a fish into a hull.

well they were that effective in their happy days, let's say untill the end of Guadalcanal campaign;

Precision and training of Japanese navy air crews at the beginning of the war was extraordinary; even legendary and the prime comparative parameter since;

the precision of Netties attack on Force Z astounded the British, they achieved what, 80 % of hits?

what the hit percentage on the Hornet in Midway? Very high.

And on the Lexington?


If I transfer a group of Netties from a location 800 miles far, I don't have it guaranteed they shall take off the following day;
and the airodrome needs to be good enough;

And I need torpedoes; and supply; and support; it does really not come by itself;

and the training?!?

BTW Allied attackers become that deadly as well not that late;

quote:

ORINAL: Bullwinkle

As has been discussed MANY times, before many posters were in the forum, the abstractions in the game models preclude anything even approaching Allied mastery of the CAS role, especially the use of real anti-armor FBs, napalm, anti-personnel para-frags, and late-war rockets. The Allies can't drop bridges to stop logistics or LCU reinforcements as they did many times in both the PTO and ETO (look at the P-47-led anti-RR campaign pre-Anzio breakout for one example.) In the game the USMC, who became uber-masters of low-altitude, precision CAS in 1944-45 (numerous footage is available on-line), are excluded from this tactic in island warfare.

The Allies are severely restricted in the game as to the ability to surge their air forces. They don't have ground attack from anything BUT 4E and 2E bombers with iron bombs. Critics of this constantly run home to Cobra and 4E while ignoring the massive destruction wreaked by single-engine and dual-engine dedicated FB and fighters in FB configuration. In the game the Mosquito is a meatloaf. Corsairs strafing are laughed at. Put some napalm tanks on the wings and no more laughing. And yeah, you'd get 400 casualties (not KIA) from a division standing in the open against 50 Mosquitos on a low-level run.

I'm 100% for a separate CAS air mission, to be flown at the land combat impulse;

the sturdiness of the Sonias and Idas shall teach something out of Allied contemptousness in China an Luzon fields!

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

Rasmus, by heaven's sake, please, provide the sources; books, articles, web sites etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

Guadalcanal, Betties

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

One other comment for discussion.

Most of the time the discussion about 4EB in ground support goes one of two ways. The first is the comparison to the large carpet bombing raids during Normandy, which were generally area bombing, i.e. you take a large number of bombers and attempt to saturate an area target. The natural follow on argument is that the in-game raids are typically much smaller (number of bombers per raid) and much more effective (no of casualties per raid or sortie) than any of the carpet bombing raids. Most likely true that if hundreds/thousands of planes carpet bombing couldn't generate the in-game casualties rates, than much smaller semi-blind carpet bombing raids wouldn't be able to either.

The second is the idea that 4EBs are being used as close-air-support similar to how the Allies used P-47s and Typhoons (and other planes) in the CAS role. The argument is that these planes are way to large and unmanueverable to perform those kind of duties, particularly relative to 2EBs like the Boston/Havoc/A-20/A-26 or even B-25s. And even though B-17s were used to develop the skip-bombing technique which required some ability to manuever, that argument against CAS-type support is reasonable.

Well, what if the in-game 4EB usage is something different. Could you use 4EB on more of a targeted strike type of operation from mid- to low- altitude with 4EB groups "trained" to do so. Team them up with some kind of ground spotter organization, and it doesn't seem impossible that they would be much more effective than the semi-blind carpet bombing raids. Particularly if they are attacking large numbers of troops in open terrain in view of said spotters and in smaller more-controllable formations, a squadron or two at a time. So was this ever done in real-life, not probably not. Is it still more effective than would have been possible if it was tried, probably.

People also like to mention about the theoretical troop densities of 10K to 20K soldiers in a 40-mile hex, but in reality those troops would concentrated in a much smaller area proximate to the enemy troops in the hex, not to mention concentrated around road/rail networks, etc. In general, in they are in contact with the enemy in open terrain, the Allies are probably going to have a fairly decent idea where the enemy troops and support echelons are located.

Mike

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

One other comment for discussion.

Most of the time the discussion about 4EB in ground support goes one of two ways. The first is the comparison to the large carpet bombing raids during Normandy, which were generally area bombing, i.e. you take a large number of bombers and attempt to saturate an area target. The natural follow on argument is that the in-game raids are typically much smaller (number of bombers per raid) and much more effective (no of casualties per raid or sortie) than any of the carpet bombing raids. Most likely true that if hundreds/thousands of planes carpet bombing couldn't generate the in-game casualties rates, than much smaller semi-blind carpet bombing raids wouldn't be able to either.

The second is the idea that 4EBs are being used as close-air-support similar to how the Allies used P-47s and Typhoons (and other planes) in the CAS role. The argument is that these planes are way to large and unmanueverable to perform those kind of duties, particularly relative to 2EBs like the Boston/Havoc/A-20/A-26 or even B-25s. And even though B-17s were used to develop the skip-bombing technique which required some ability to manuever, that argument against CAS-type support is reasonable.

Well, what if the in-game 4EB usage is something different. Could you use 4EB on more of a targeted strike type of operation from mid- to low- altitude with 4EB groups "trained" to do so. Team them up with some kind of ground spotter organization, and it doesn't seem impossible that they would be much more effective than the semi-blind carpet bombing raids. Particularly if they are attacking large numbers of troops in open terrain in view of said spotters and in smaller more-controllable formations, a squadron or two at a time. So was this ever done in real-life, not probably not. Is it still more effective than would have been possible if it was tried, probably.

People also like to mention about the theoretical troop densities of 10K to 20K soldiers in a 40-mile hex, but in reality those troops would concentrated in a much smaller area proximate to the enemy troops in the hex, not to mention concentrated around road/rail networks, etc. In general, in they are in contact with the enemy in open terrain, the Allies are probably going to have a fairly decent idea where the enemy troops and support echelons are located.

Mike

I like the idea Mike,

3 comments.

1. The safety ranges during the carpet bombings was of such distance that the training and inherent small size of such "small raid group" would have be significantly lowered. As the common distance between the FLOT(forward of own troops) and the FLET(forward line of enemy troops) is normally less than the carpet bombing safety distances. If your able to do that it has a leg to stand on, if not it doesnt.

2. As the idea counts on having ground spotters. The distance to the enemy, that is having large forces in open terrain cant be longer than view ranges, obviously. The question begs how often did u enemy have large forces in open terrain in clear view of the enemy lines and stayed there long enough to call in a raid.

3. Most convincingly to me. If we encountered the conditions as in 2. Why not just use artillery. U alrdy have a trained ground spotter crews that just need to pick up the phone. Call the artillery central and call in a seemigly much more cost effective option in this case. 878 British artillery tubes was directed on to the assembly area of 9.SS as they tried to set up the counter attack at the flanks of Epsom. Welcome to the western front. That was pretty effective use of a force u alrdy had in place for these conditions. Why bother using 4E resources that could be used else where and most likely wasnt any where so cost effective.


Kind regards,
Rasmus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

The second is the idea that 4EBs are being used as close-air-support similar to how the Allies used P-47s and Typhoons (and other planes) in the CAS role. The argument is that these planes are way to large and unmanueverable to perform those kind of duties, particularly relative to 2EBs like the Boston/Havoc/A-20/A-26 or even B-25s. And even though B-17s were used to develop the skip-bombing technique which required some ability to manuever, that argument against CAS-type support is reasonable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

And I will add that there is no greater excitement than the final year of this game playing as Japan, whenever that year occurs. Your back is to wall, limited everything, and a mighty sword hangs over your head on almost every turn by a weakening thread.

What joy!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

The second is the idea that 4EBs are being used as close-air-support similar to how the Allies used P-47s and Typhoons (and other planes) in the CAS role. The argument is that these planes are way to large and unmanueverable to perform those kind of duties, particularly relative to 2EBs like the Boston/Havoc/A-20/A-26 or even B-25s. And even though B-17s were used to develop the skip-bombing technique which required some ability to manuever, that argument against CAS-type support is reasonable.

At least for me this is not my second argument.

My argument is that the game fails to model tactics and weapons (FBs and the roles/weapons I spoke of up-thread) which constituted most of the Allied land air war effort ex-strat bombing cities. CAS simply isn't really in the game, and it was the root of Allied air superiority for at least 1944-45, and somewhat earlier by theater.

So, the devs (really GG, not Henderson), AS COMPENSATION, made 2E and 4E Ground attacks more effective than history (COBRA, etc.) To compete with the ahistorical Japanese air effort, which over time JFBs have learned to make truly monumental, probably in excess of what the devs envisioned. So, any effort to argue AE ground 4E results against history will fail. They weren't intended to be historical. Any more than the ability to see patrolling submarines at 200 NM ranges in daylight, when they were at periscope depth, is historical. It's abstracted, and you can't pull one thread without the whole blanket coming apart.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

The second is the idea that 4EBs are being used as close-air-support similar to how the Allies used P-47s and Typhoons (and other planes) in the CAS role. The argument is that these planes are way to large and unmanueverable to perform those kind of duties, particularly relative to 2EBs like the Boston/Havoc/A-20/A-26 or even B-25s. And even though B-17s were used to develop the skip-bombing technique which required some ability to manuever, that argument against CAS-type support is reasonable.

At least for me this is not my second argument.

My argument is that the game fails to model tactics and weapons (FBs and the roles/weapons I spoke of up-thread) which constituted most of the Allied land air war effort ex-strat bombing cities. CAS simply isn't really in the game, and it was the root of Allied air superiority for at least 1944-45, and somewhat earlier by theater.

So, the devs (really GG, not Henderson), AS COMPENSATION, made 2E and 4E Ground attacks more effective than history (COBRA, etc.) To compete with the ahistorical Japanese air effort, which over time JFBs have learned to make truly monumental, probably in excess of what the devs envisioned. So, any effort to argue AE ground 4E results against history will fail. They weren't intended to be historical. Any more than the ability to see patrolling submarines at 200 NM ranges in daylight, when they were at periscope depth, is historical. It's abstracted, and you can't pull one thread without the whole blanket coming apart.

I agree. I almost added a side note about FBs and CAS to my last point, but didn't want to seem like I was piling on.

By 1944, most of US fighters, and some of the British, had FB loadouts available that included 2000-3000 lbs of bombs, plus rockets in many cases and of course thousands of rounds of 50 cal. To put that in perspective, the short-range loadout of a B-17 or B-24 was about 8000 lbs of bombs. So about 3 FBs = 1 4EB, and the FBs can sortie more often from closer airfields (in a land campaign) and be more accurate on smaller targets. In reality, the FBs are way more effective than 4EB could ever be in a ground support role.

Mike