Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

B-17s and Warships

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> B-17s and Warships Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 6:16:18 PM   
John III

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 3/29/2005
From: La Salle, CO
Status: offline 		I would like to vent, yet once agian, at the powers of B-17s to do things they NEVER did during the war.

I just staged a raid against Noumea in late-March 42 with the KB--Hiryu, Soryu, Shokaku, and Zuikaku. During the course of the turn, I was attacked by 25 or so fighters, 8 Dauntlesses, and 12 B-17s. My CAP of 63 Zeroes tore into them. At the end, the B-17s dropped their loads and hit Hiryu with 2 bombs. Next day--they hit her with THREE bombs. She is now in deep trouble due to a plane that NEVER scored a hit on a Japanese carrier during the WHOLE war.

The B-17 was a fantastic plane that helped win the war for the Allies; however, it SUCKED against any form of shipping. Doubt if anything can be done about this but it drives me nuts!

Anyone else concur and/or disagree???
Post #: 1
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 6:21:37 PM   
Sharkosaurus rex


Posts: 467
Joined: 10/19/2004
From: under the waves
Status: offline 		But the Allied players don't fly at 20-25k that their war-time counter-parts did. He might have been flying at the usual 6k which is apparently the best height for attacking shipping with level bombers in the game. The 6k altitude works the same for all level bombers.

_____________________________

Is Sharkosaurus rex the biggest fish in the sea?
Why don't you come in for a swim?

(in reply to John III)
Post #: 2
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 6:44:10 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		As far as I know IJN carriers were only attacked by B-17s once, at Midway. You can't really blame the B-17 for IJN carriers not sailing into attack range. A lack of historical results sometimes means a lack of historical opportunity. Furthering what Shark said, you can make B-17s more effective by attacking at a lower altitude, just like you can make the IJN a pretty good ASW fleet by actually escorting convoys or forming hunter-killer groups (something they didn't really do during WW2).

(in reply to Sharkosaurus rex)
Post #: 3
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 7:10:14 PM   
dpstafford


Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sharkosaurus rex

But the Allied players don't fly at 20-25k that their war-time counter-parts did. He might have been flying at the usual 6k which is apparently the best height for attacking shipping with level bombers in the game. The 6k altitude works the same for all level bombers.

A good argument that "altitude" should have been abstracted out of WITP and only historical results implemented. Every represented level bomber can achieve ahistorical results by bombing at unrealistic altitudes in the game as is. The inclusion of player controlled "altitude" is one of the very few actual design flaws in WITP (as opposed to coding flaws of which there are many).

(in reply to Sharkosaurus rex)
Post #: 4
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 7:18:33 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		not for long.....



_____________________________


(in reply to Sharkosaurus rex)
Post #: 5
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 7:27:49 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		These were my bombers. The first flight was flying at 15,000 ft I believe and I think I had 20 or more attack. (12 may have been the number that go through the zero's.) The carriers were sitting 120 miles south of Numea. I had SBD's and a load of fighters also supporting the attack. I got two hits from the B17's but the SBD did the real damage landing a 1000 lb bomb.

The next day they hit the Hiryu, at 10,000 ft, which was covered by only 5 zero's and showed signs of significant damage. 3 bombs hit the crippled carrier. I don't know that it will get away as the carrier is still well within B17 range and I should get another strike. Plus his retreat path is toward luganville/Efeat(sp??) where I also have airfields.

I don't know how accurate the simulation is here since I don't recall a single instance where a large flight of heavy bombers attacked a large fleet. The only incident I know of is Midway which I think involved only a half-dozen aircraft attacking on thier own.

(in reply to dpstafford)
Post #: 6
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 7:34:55 PM   
dpstafford


Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

not for long.....



OK, so what do you know that the rest of us don't. And please, stick to the topic at hand....

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 7
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 7:57:25 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		many tings......many tings.


Wait for 3.0 of my mod.

_____________________________


(in reply to dpstafford)
Post #: 8
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 8:05:59 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dpstafford

A good argument that "altitude" should have been abstracted out of WITP and only historical results implemented.

At that speed I may as well watch a movie as play WiTP. I favor historical capabilities used how the players choose. The results are often beyond what was achieved in real life because players can use thier forces differently and find different opportunities.

If bombing at 6,000 ft give B-17's greater chance to hit, it also gives them a greater chance to be hit by flak and greater ops losses.

Just offering my take on the historical results thing...

(in reply to dpstafford)
Post #: 9
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 8:10:43 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		Besides the SINGLE attack by Nells on PoW/Repulse, show me where Bettys and Nells regulary managed to put topedoes into Allied vessels.

Oh, but you weren't going to complain about that bit of fantasy, were you.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 10
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 8:18:23 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		The Chicago at Renell Island.

Another bit of fantasy you convienently forget.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 11
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 8:21:35 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sharkosaurus rex

But the Allied players don't fly at 20-25k that their war-time counter-parts did. He might have been flying at the usual 6k which is apparently the best height for attacking shipping with level bombers in the game. The 6k altitude works the same for all level bombers.


Actually in the Pacific when B17s were flying their "anti-shipping" patrols in 1942 ... they routinely operated at 5,000 feet and bombed ships from this altitude ... however, the number of attested hits on warships moving at sea is very low ... in fact I can't recall any ... though one CA was hit early while at anchor in Davao ... but at anchor means not moving. House rule disallowing B17 from flying Naval strike mission is one possibility. B17s could still hit occasional ships while flying Naval Search mission, which would allow them roughly their historical capability.



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Sharkosaurus rex)
Post #: 12
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 8:31:24 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		3 ships and 2 strikes.

Compare that to a week of activity in WitP.

Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about Japanese LBA carrying torps. Do I personally think it's excessive? Sure. But do I actually care? No.

But to complain that B-17s hit his carriers...? Bah. The reason B-17s didn't hit Japanese carriers in WW2, was because
a. Unlike WitP player, the IJN wisely kept their carriers out of B-17 range.
b. There weren't very many carriers left to hit after Midway.

On the other hand, if you'd like, can post over 100 strikes on Japanese shipping in the space of only about 4 months, made by B-17s and 24s.

It just annoys me the inane "I like to play the Japanese, and I want to be able to clobber the Allies. Where are my power-ups and extra health-packs!". Japan didn't have a snow-balls chance in hell after 7:56am on December 7th. But because of the endless whining, this game goes farther and farther into the realm of Fantasy.



-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 13
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 8:33:04 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sharkosaurus rex

But the Allied players don't fly at 20-25k that their war-time counter-parts did. He might have been flying at the usual 6k which is apparently the best height for attacking shipping with level bombers in the game. The 6k altitude works the same for all level bombers.


Actually in the Pacific when B17s were flying their "anti-shipping" patrols in 1942 ... they routinely operated at 5,000 feet and bombed ships from this altitude ... however, the number of attested hits on warships moving at sea is very low ... in fact I can't recall any ... though one CA was hit early while at anchor in Davao ... but at anchor means not moving. House rule disallowing B17 from flying Naval strike mission is one possibility. B17s could still hit occasional ships while flying Naval Search mission, which would allow them roughly their historical capability.



iirc - B-24s did something similar and hit and sank (or at least were given credit for) several IJN warships, up to cruiser size.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 14
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 8:34:04 PM   
dpstafford


Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Wait for 3.0 of my mod.

Uh....which one is your mod again???

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 15
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 8:42:10 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		the oh so originally named "NikMod" at spooky's site. (if anyone has a better name i'm all for it)

3.0 not deployed yet. Still working on it but i'm juggling several balls right now so its a bit slow going. Current version does help with B-17 naval a bit as i lowered bomb loadout.



_____________________________


(in reply to dpstafford)
Post #: 16
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 8:42:20 PM   
Gem35


Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline 		Feinder, I'm glad you are on my side.

(in reply to dpstafford)
Post #: 17
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 8:43:19 PM   
EasilyConfused

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/11/2005
Status: offline 		Why is this posted in the war room? If you have a complaint, do it in the correct forum, so people who don't want to hear it can ignore it.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 18
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 8:43:45 PM   
dpstafford


Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
At that speed I may as well watch a movie as play WiTP. I favor historical capabilities used how the players choose. The results are often beyond what was achieved in real life because players can use thier forces differently and find different opportunities.

If bombing at 6,000 ft give B-17's greater chance to hit, it also gives them a greater chance to be hit by flak and greater ops losses.

Problem is that since B-17's were never used historically at 6000 ft against warships at sea, the results we get doing so in WITP is just somebody's guess. And probably a bad one. My suggestion of abstracting altitude out of the game solves the problem neatly. And makes the game more realistic (which is NOT a dirty word).

Now get yourself back to that Hollywood movie version on WITP where Benifer Quafflack wipes out the entire IJN in his low flying B-17.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 19
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 8:45:23 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

3 ships and 2 strikes.


4 ships in 3 strikes. The Chicago was first hit in the evening. Then the next day another Betty strike came in an hit the Chicago and an escorting DD. Also, one of the DDs damaged during the landings at Lunga was believed sunk by Betties the next day as it retired from Guadancanal.

Lets call that 5 ships in 4 strikes.


(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 20
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 9:04:13 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		To return to the original post---the bombers were not flying at 6,000 ft but at 15,000. So the issue is not altitude.

The real issue here, I think, is how the carriers are employed. I had a large airbase at Numea with 40+ B17's, 16 SBD's and between 60-80 fighters. I have 3 smaller supporting airbases in the immediate vicinity all with fighters.

The carriers came down straight from the north between Suva and Numea and then moved west to a position two hexes south of Numea. There was no apparent effort made to suppress my airbases as his carrier strikes all hit shipping or my port. I saw his carriers two turns out so I was able to reset my aircraft settings to best defend against carriers.

So my aircraft got a free shot and I got lucky. I got two 500lb bomb hits from the B17's but the real killer was the 1000lb bomb from the one SBD that got through. I have no way of knowing for sure but I suspect this one hit did most of the damage.


(in reply to dpstafford)
Post #: 21
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 9:06:57 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

Problem is that since B-17's were never used historically at 6000 ft against warships at sea, the results we get doing so in WITP is just somebody's guess.


Again, B-24s WERE employed in this fashion with good results. B-17s had been largely phased out of front-line duties by that point.

(in reply to dpstafford)
Post #: 22
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 9:33:29 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dpstafford

Problem is that since B-17's were never used historically at 6000 ft against warships at sea, the results we get doing so in WITP is just somebody's guess. And probably a bad one. My suggestion of abstracting altitude out of the game solves the problem neatly. And makes the game more realistic (which is NOT a dirty word).


Abstracting out altitude would not make the game more realistic, it would make it more abstract. That would be fine if that's what you want. Most players want a greater degree of control - look at all the posts on altitude of CAP, bombers versus flak, etc. Abstracting by taking the historical results and applying them in a statistical way (I only assume this is what you mean - please correct if otherwise ) is not more realistic, because it leaves out the choices that were not made during the war but that could have been made.

Coming up with a more accurate model for hits by aircraft at various altitudes, etc. would be, well, more accurate. By the way, if the real deal (historical/actual capability) is fewer hits at 6,000 ft, then I'm all for it. It would be great if the hit model for aircraft attacking ships were even more sophisticated, but that would only happen with, say, WiTP II.

Also by the way, this extends to such things as readiness rates for aircraft. On that score we have a model that does not distinguish between aircraft types, so we're kinda stuck with what we have. I realize that (with maybe minor changes excepted) we have what we have at this point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dpstafford
Now get yourself back to that Hollywood movie version on WITP where Benifer Quafflack wipes out the entire IJN in his low flying B-17.

Low blow.

(Hey, if that a Ben Affleck poster I see behind you? )

(in reply to dpstafford)
Post #: 23
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 9:44:47 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		hey!

it was perfectly normal for fighter jocks already assigned to a fighter squadron to reassign to be bomber pilots. Especially if they have big chins. (they figure it's additional armor against flak)



_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 24
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 10:53:16 PM   
testarossa


Posts: 952
Joined: 9/24/2004
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline 		Not to put some more gas into the fire...

Any level bomber will get higher hit probability the lower the altitude. Except the ones with Norden sight which suffer penalty below 5000 ft (or is it 6000?). The consequences are higher Op losses, higher flack losses and drastic drop in morale and something like 20-30 fatigue. This is actually a last resort tool. I used it once for B-17E against the Death Star and scored 1 hit (i lost 9 from 24 a/cs).

But i use B-25, B-26 and Hudsons usually on Naval strike with 50% search at 6000ft. As soon as they detect something i reduce range to normal and drop the altitude to 1000 ft and search to 20%. Twin engined bombers suffer much less Op losses, get less fatigue and morale drop is acceptable.

The most important factor in level bombing attacks against shipping is number of bombs, experience, and altitude. Of course this is not a dogma, just an opinion.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 25
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 11:01:07 PM   
John III

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 3/29/2005
From: La Salle, CO
Status: offline 		I KNEW by starting this thread that EVERYONE would jump in! Rather entertaining...

As a Japanese player, I am NOT a 'fan boy' in this area. The simple truth is based upon DOCTRINE. As with the Japanese Sub Thread (being consistent) currently running, I believe that Doctrine shapes everything. As players, we want to do things differentely and complain when we cannot. Problem is, and I think the game designers have this right, you simply cannot change 20+ years of Naval and Air Doctrine overnight.

Army Bombers SUCKED at hitting ANY moving target from High Altitude. Weren't trained for it and couldn't do it. Now against a land base--LOOK OUT!



(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 26
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 11:02:48 PM   
John III

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 3/29/2005
From: La Salle, CO
Status: offline 		Why is this in the war room? Look at the great tactics and strategy discussion going on! That is why...

(in reply to John III)
Post #: 27
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 11:18:18 PM   
EasilyConfused

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/11/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John III

Why is this in the war room? Look at the great tactics and strategy discussion going on! That is why...


That would include pretty much every thread in the general forum. Someone always mentions how they do something in game. Its not a big deal or anything, its just that when I see the thread title I assume its related to a strategy with B-17s, not an argument about the accuacy of the simulation.

(in reply to John III)
Post #: 28
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 11:25:40 PM   
Toast

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 10/14/2004
From: Charlotte, NC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: testarossa

Not to put some more gas into the fire...

Any level bomber will get higher hit probability the lower the altitude. Except the ones with Norden sight which suffer penalty below 5000 ft (or is it 6000?). The consequences are higher Op losses, higher flack losses and drastic drop in morale and something like 20-30 fatigue. This is actually a last resort tool. I used it once for B-17E against the Death Star and scored 1 hit (i lost 9 from 24 a/cs).

But i use B-25, B-26 and Hudsons usually on Naval strike with 50% search at 6000ft. As soon as they detect something i reduce range to normal and drop the altitude to 1000 ft and search to 20%. Twin engined bombers suffer much less Op losses, get less fatigue and morale drop is acceptable.

The most important factor in level bombing attacks against shipping is number of bombs, experience, and altitude. Of course this is not a dogma, just an opinion.



The real question here, to determine if the game is "unrealistic" is how often does this happen in a game. In my 200+ PBEM turns of playing both as the Japanese and the Allies, I have never seen it happen. I've had B-17's plaster a port where several ships were docked and did significant damage, but never a ship at sea. If it is a very rare occurance, I can live with that. It is realistic in my opinion that the B-17's might be able to get a lucky hit every once in a while. If the Japanese put their capital ships in harms way enough, they will get hit by some B-17's.

And I think it is not a question of doctrine per se. The Americans thought before the war that the B-17's would be excellant anti-ship weapon. Experience proved otherwise but throughtout the first half of 1942, they tried to employ them that way. And then there is the issue of expediency and theater emergencies. If the KB sailed past a base with B-17's and started to attack Allied shipping to the rear, I think the Allies would have sent the B-17's after the KB. And they could have gotten lucky.

As moses pointed out in his post, you made the cardinal sin of placing un-reduced airbases between your carrier force and it's home base. No commander would have left surviving air units across his line of communications. WHen you make bold and risky moves like that, you have to be aware that things can go terribly wrong.


(in reply to testarossa)
Post #: 29
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/21/2005 11:33:17 PM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline 		At the start of "The Imperialism" the Japanese CVs raided South to Noumea, something that they never did historically.

During the raid they found and sunk the Enterprise in port. The Japanese never sank a US CV in port.

The fact that I left the Enterprise exposed has nothing to do with the arguement. It could not possibley be my fault, its a-historical and I want my CV back.

Of course the truth is I did something stupid and got bombed. Get used to it, what were you doing steaming around there without suppressing the airfields?

I'll point out that later on in the same game I did a CV raid without planning the suppression strikes well enough and lost the Saratoga. I am about as sympathetic as an abandond parking lot covered with broken glass. Something was going to get you, and as Moses said it was the diver bombers that really nailed your ship, the B17s are just icing.

< Message edited by Tom Hunter -- 7/21/2005 11:34:54 PM >

(in reply to EasilyConfused)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> B-17s and Warships Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
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

2.139