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: SEAC is back in the fight !!!!

 
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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! Page: <<   < prev  50 51 [52] 53 54   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/17/2006 2:06:40 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
key issue Speedy is 2 days of Landings do not work even if all you are landing are support squads your troops will shock attack on day 2 as well I did it on Majuro and wrecked 2 Divisions you need to land everything in 1 phase accept the shock attack then rest for a week and begin reducing the forts.

Every time you shockl attack you wreck your divisions.

So basically

DD - 2 Heavies close the AF and Port
DD - 1 4 BB's in 2 TF Bombards and Heavies got 50/50 on Ground Attack and Port Attack
DD BB's hit em again !!!! 2 Divs, Corps HQ, Base Force and 3 Armoured Regt (Minimum) land and shock attack probably at 0 - 1
DD + 1 Pull off landing NO additoinal troops - unless 1-1 or better achieved launch bombardment attack only
DD + 2 - 4 Rearm Battleships rest Ground troops pound from air 100% ground attacks and enough port and AF to keep em closed and hurt supplies - if B29's are available use on Port to wipe out supplies
DD + 5 Battleships bombard and Corps launches General assault

If not successfull land second wave and rinse and repeat until atoll taken

I aim for 7 - 10 days per atoll so 20 - 30 days after I hit Wake I want to be landing on Iwo Jima

Andy

< Message edited by Andy Mac -- 11/17/2006 2:11:05 PM >

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1531
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/17/2006 2:09:21 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
Interesting Andy.

Thanks.

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1532
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/17/2006 3:28:15 PM   
rtrapasso


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

ORIGINAL: VSWG

Do you have more links regarding the US pilot training program?



OK - found this one:

http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t52.htm
for USAAF
80,744 "aircrew" trained during the Dec 1942 (yes, 1942) to Aug 1945 - some 26860 in 1943, 36854 in 1944. This is pilots for duty, and excludes folk reassigned to training command.

EDIT: Not sure why this excluded the first year of the war. About 1/2 of the total were fighter types.

< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 11/17/2006 3:34:36 PM >

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 1533
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/18/2006 12:22:16 AM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

80,744 "aircrew" trained during the Dec 1942 (yes, 1942) to Aug 1945 - some 26860 in 1943, 36854 in 1944.


I believe those figures also include navigators, bombadiers and gunners, not just pilots.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 1534
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/18/2006 12:52:15 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
USAAF isnt the problem anyway its Carrier Pilots I need .... it would even help if PBY Sqns pulled pilots from the army pool I just need more pilots and more Hellcatsd !!!

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 1535
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/18/2006 7:34:31 PM   
sprior


Posts: 8596
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Portsmouth, UK
Status: offline
I can attest to the fact that the Andy Mac Assault System (TM) works...

_____________________________

"Grown ups are what's left when skool is finished."
"History started badly and hav been geting steadily worse."
- Nigel Molesworth.



(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1536
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/18/2006 9:18:35 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Aye but in our game the BB's went home to early and I lost 50% of my MSW's ---- believe me that hurt Simon !!!

OK my pest control is going slowly Japs are still dug in and holding but I will get them soon !!!!

In the meantime a convoy with 100,000 men and more supplies covered by fleet carriers has left Darwin for Malaya these troops should convince PZB I am serious

In fact a lot of these troops are garrison forces which will help taking Singapore and then free up the Malaya Assault Divisons for the next operations

I am really looking long and hard at trying something in India after I secure Singapore just to open up a new front.

My elite B25's are helping out my subs hitting escorts at Brunei

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 11/06/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 43,49

Japanese Ships
TK Shinkoku Maru, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
SS Atule

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Kweiyang , at 41,35

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zeke x 126
N1K1-J George x 75
D4Y Judy x 9
B7A Grace x 34
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 105
Ki-84-Ia Frank x 72

No Japanese losses


Allied ground losses:
11 casualties reported

Airbase hits 12
Runway hits 204

Aircraft Attacking:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Kweiyang , at 41,35

Japanese aircraft
B7A Grace x 18

No Japanese losses

Runway hits 10

Aircraft Attacking:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Kweiyang , at 41,35

Japanese aircraft
B7A Grace x 26

No Japanese losses

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 9

Aircraft Attacking:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Chungking , at 43,32

Japanese aircraft
J2M Jack x 26
P1Y Frances x 52
Ki-84-Ia Frank x 138
Ki-46-III Dinah x 5

No Japanese losses


Allied ground losses:
23 casualties reported

Airbase hits 5
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 112

Aircraft Attacking:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Singapore , at 23,50


Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 33


Allied aircraft losses
B-24J Liberator: 2 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
174 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Airbase hits 13
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 31

Aircraft Attacking:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Hollandia , at 49,79


Allied aircraft
P-40N Warhawk x 4
PB4Y Liberator x 8


No Allied losses

Runway hits 5

Aircraft Attacking:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wewak , at 52,81


Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 36
F4U-1D Corsair x 21
F6F-5N Hellcat x 18
Hurricane II x 14
Kittyhawk III x 21


No Allied losses

Runway hits 10

Aircraft Attacking:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 55th Division, at 81,84


Allied aircraft
F6F Hellcat x 3
F4U-1D Corsair x 22
P-40N Warhawk x 26


No Allied losses

Aircraft Attacking:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 4th Engineer Regiment, at 24,45


Allied aircraft
Liberator VI x 6
Beaufighter VIC x 16
Mosquito FB.VI x 11
B-25J Mitchell x 60
B-24J Liberator x 26


No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
165 casualties reported

Aircraft Attacking:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 4th Engineer Regiment, at 24,45


Allied aircraft
F6F Hellcat x 5
F4U-1D Corsair x 3
TBM Avenger x 8
P-38J Lightning x 3
B-25J Mitchell x 42


No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
153 casualties reported

Aircraft Attacking:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 84th Chinese Corps, at 43,35

Japanese aircraft
D4Y Judy x 24
B7A Grace x 56
Ki-102a Randy x 10

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 18th/A Division, at 52,81


Allied aircraft
F-5A Lightning x 1


No Allied losses

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 6th/B Division, at 24,45


Allied aircraft
F6F Hellcat x 9
F4U-1D Corsair x 9
TBM Avenger x 15
Beaufighter VIC x 3
Beaufighter Mk 21 x 3
P-38J Lightning x 16


No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
47 casualties reported

Aircraft Attacking:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 26th Special Base Force, at 23,44


Allied aircraft
P-40N Warhawk x 58


No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
29 casualties reported

Aircraft Attacking:
58 x P-40N Warhawk bombing at 2000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Brunei at 32,57


Allied aircraft
P-40N Warhawk x 22
B-25J Mitchell x 43


No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
TK Akatuki Maru, Bomb hits 7, on fire, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Lautem at 33,78

Japanese aircraft
D4Y Judy x 15

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 11

Japanese aircraft losses
D4Y Judy: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged


Allied Ships
AK Arkansan, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AK Jupiter, Bomb hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Brunei at 32,57


Allied aircraft
P-40N Warhawk x 4
B-25J Mitchell x 17


No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
AK Kinmon Maru, Bomb hits 10, on fire, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Brunei at 32,57


Allied aircraft
P-40N Warhawk x 25
B-25J Mitchell x 21


Allied aircraft losses
B-25J Mitchell: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
PC Nichi Maru #1
PC PC-61, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
PC PC-52, Bomb hits 8, on fire, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Georgetown

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 7908 troops, 106 guns, 9 vehicles, Assault Value = 144

Defending force 1309 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 36

Allied max assault: 250 - adjusted assault: 76

Japanese max defense: 31 - adjusted defense: 13

Allied assault odds: 5 to 1


Japanese ground losses:
73 casualties reported

Allied ground losses:
70 casualties reported
Guns lost 6


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Mersing

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 17701 troops, 141 guns, 210 vehicles, Assault Value = 413

Defending force 2295 troops, 2 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 21

Allied max assault: 718 - adjusted assault: 254

Japanese max defense: 14 - adjusted defense: 5

Allied assault odds: 50 to 1


Japanese ground losses:
128 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Allied ground losses:
8 casualties reported


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Khota Bharu

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 3596 troops, 0 guns, 170 vehicles, Assault Value = 104

Defending force 1652 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 19

Allied max assault: 174 - adjusted assault: 63

Japanese max defense: 8 - adjusted defense: 1

Allied assault odds: 63 to 1


Japanese ground losses:
914 casualties reported

Allied ground losses:
4 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Japanese Unit(s) surrounded at Khota Bharu


(in reply to sprior)
Post #: 1537
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/20/2006 12:48:42 AM   
duckenf

 

Posts: 189
Joined: 7/1/2004
From: London, UK
Status: offline
wil you be hitting Singapore with port attacks to chew up supply? How long do you think it will take him to run through his supply in Singapore (if ever)? If you can keep the airfield there closed he won't be able to fly in supplies or troops (or alternatively evac fragments) and presumably the repair costs will also burn up some supply.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1538
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/20/2006 12:50:55 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
I expect once I turn to it to destroy his supply stockpile in 2 - 3 weeks of intensive bombing by heavies. To supply it I am bringing in more supplies on the next convoy as well as troops to make it fall fast.

I just need to clear my rear areas first

Andy


(in reply to duckenf)
Post #: 1539
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/20/2006 12:53:51 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
I Have over 3,200 Carrier aircraft and am recieving 60 !!!! pilots a month - my OPS losses are higher than that by a considerable margin seriously guys something has to be done about this I cannot believe that the USN was only training 720 pilots a year PLEASE PLEASE FIX THIS .

As you can see below my pilot xp is falling steadily in my carrier fighters 803sqn is not on the list and is 76 xp






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1540
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/20/2006 1:09:00 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
So far in this war the allies have lost

TB's

TBD 50
TBF 97
TBM 620

DB
SBD 652
SB2C 596

Fighters
F6F 1,674
FM2 643
F4F 581
F2A 14
F4 F3 14
F4U 1D 268

Total 5,209 USN aircraft destroyed so far (take of 2 or 300 for marines) and we will assume 5,000 over 36 months of war so 138 per month battle casualties and I get 60 pilots a month - people wonder why my pilot quality drops ?

To all Japanese players ATTTRT the allies with CRAP attrition is your friend

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1541
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/20/2006 1:13:12 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
p.s. just so you know I am not the only one suffering the Japanese have lost

A6M5 6,565
A6M2 2,860
Oscar II 4,426

As oscar II and A6M5 are recent additons and I suspect PZB hasnt been training them but even so thats a lot of Japanese planes destoyed

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1542
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/20/2006 5:40:11 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
But Andy surely if you just spread the load a little by bringing more US Army fighter units into the fray so that the USN wouldn't have to take most of the losses in this attritional fighting things would go better?

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1543
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/20/2006 9:47:56 AM   
duckenf

 

Posts: 189
Joined: 7/1/2004
From: London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I Have over 3,200 Carrier aircraft and am recieving 60 !!!! pilots a month - my OPS losses are higher than that by a considerable margin seriously guys something has to be done about this I cannot believe that the USN was only training 720 pilots a year PLEASE PLEASE FIX THIS .


Andy, if a low supply of pre-trained pilots is the problem, you can train your squadrons on his isolated units just as he does in China with his air units. This is a self-imposed limit you have taken and it seems the clear way around the limits of the engine.

Production of aircraft is not so easily solved -- but better trained pilots will surely limit you losses and take some of the pressure off.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1544
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/20/2006 10:13:02 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Nemo I cannot operate Army fughters from my Carriers so how I am to spread the load protecting my TF's I am unsure of especially as LRCAP operates at 25% over carrier TF's.

I use P40N's, P38J's to LRCAP transports when I can bt they are not efficient.

The New Guinea campaign destroyed the IJAAF and IJN AF primarly caused by LBA but then the Marianas (which are out of range of all LB Fighters) broke the USN.

It takes 6 months USN pilots just to fill up my CVR's for !!!

If I operate in 44 and 45 under 100% LBA that means a grinding campagn with very limited ability to bypass cut off bases sorry but that is not acceptable. The USN historically did operate independenty rememeber it wasnt the PI or Malaya that caused these problems it was the Marianas where the allies DID operate without LBA

(in reply to duckenf)
Post #: 1545
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/20/2006 10:18:52 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Medck sorry but I dont accept that

Japanese players 'feel' they should have more pilots I personally dont agree but hey they want quick results so they ground attack train to very high level its bullshit but there you are

The USN DID produce more trained pilots I only want what was actually historically produced the alllies were training tens of thousands of pilots per year and I get 60 !!! a month with perhaps another 100 per month on newly arriving carriers even if the USN ONLY produced 10,000 in 44 I am getting shorted to the tune of 8,000 pilots.

I refuse to exploit a game mechanic in order to train pilots in this way I just wont do it just give me historical numbers or even something getting close to it and I will be happy

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1546
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/20/2006 2:36:06 PM   
rtrapasso


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

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

80,744 "aircrew" trained during the Dec 1942 (yes, 1942) to Aug 1945 - some 26860 in 1943, 36854 in 1944.


I believe those figures also include navigators, bombadiers and gunners, not just pilots.

Chez



Don't think so - as i mentioned, about 1/2 were fighter types (single-seat aircraft)... the numbers in bombers would be EXTREMELY low if it were all types (gunners, navigators, etc.) They break down number of "aircrew" per aircraft type, and if it were ALL types, the number of persons per aircraft would be extremely low. Co-pilots (i am pretty sure) would be counted in this total, as they are actually trained pilots. For instance 1000 bombers of the B-17/B-24 class would suck up more than the remaining "aircrew" for any year (once you exclude known single seat type aircraft). This would leave pretty much zilch for B25s, B-26s, etc.

There were some 12,000+ B-17s produced during WW2. Not all of them went to USAAF, but most of them did - say 10,000. That would require 100,000 men to man them with pilots, navigators, gunners, etc. That is more than the total aircrew produced during the entire war by USAAF. And don't forget there were 19,000 B-24 types also produced during the war. Say another 10000 of them went to the USAAF (probably low estimate) - that would require another 100,000 men. That's 200,000 men required, and this is MUCH more than less than 27000 or so heavy bomber types trained (by the chart). Admittedly, not all these bombers were flying at one time, but you get the idea. On the other hand, 27000 pilots about matches what i would expect from a production of 29000 heavy bombers (again, some going to other services such as Great Britain, the USN, etc.), esp considering not all these aircraft would have been available at one time.

Also, if all types (navigators, gunners) were included in the total were true, it would mean the USN was outproducing the USAAF in pilots by a good deal, and i don't believe that.

< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 11/20/2006 2:44:15 PM >

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 1547
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/20/2006 4:41:24 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Andy,
I just checked to see if you had posted this low Navy pilot problem on the thread that Pry is doing for data base changes, which you did.

It seems unrealistic that at this stage of the war that the USN was getting "ONLY" 2 pilots per day.

Does anyone know if this number was modified in either CHS or RHS??


_____________________________


(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 1548
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/20/2006 4:50:53 PM   
timtom


Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

80,744 "aircrew" trained during the Dec 1942 (yes, 1942) to Aug 1945 - some 26860 in 1943, 36854 in 1944.


I believe those figures also include navigators, bombadiers and gunners, not just pilots.

Chez



Don't think so - as i mentioned, about 1/2 were fighter types (single-seat aircraft)... the numbers in bombers would be EXTREMELY low if it were all types (gunners, navigators, etc.) They break down number of "aircrew" per aircraft type, and if it were ALL types, the number of persons per aircraft would be extremely low. Co-pilots (i am pretty sure) would be counted in this total, as they are actually trained pilots. For instance 1000 bombers of the B-17/B-24 class would suck up more than the remaining "aircrew" for any year (once you exclude known single seat type aircraft). This would leave pretty much zilch for B25s, B-26s, etc.

There were some 12,000+ B-17s produced during WW2. Not all of them went to USAAF, but most of them did - say 10,000. That would require 100,000 men to man them with pilots, navigators, gunners, etc. That is more than the total aircrew produced during the entire war by USAAF. And don't forget there were 19,000 B-24 types also produced during the war. Say another 10000 of them went to the USAAF (probably low estimate) - that would require another 100,000 men. That's 200,000 men required, and this is MUCH more than less than 27000 or so heavy bomber types trained (by the chart). Admittedly, not all these bombers were flying at one time, but you get the idea. On the other hand, 27000 pilots about matches what i would expect from a production of 29000 heavy bombers (again, some going to other services such as Great Britain, the USN, etc.), esp considering not all these aircraft would have been available at one time.

Also, if all types (navigators, gunners) were included in the total were true, it would mean the USN was outproducing the USAAF in pilots by a good deal, and i don't believe that.


Is it not that they're counting crews, not individuals?

Thus the 10 individuals of a B-17 crew (or however many they were) counts as one crew, while the single individual of a P-38 also counts as one crew.


_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 1549
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/20/2006 4:51:24 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
The US Navy gets 200 pilots per month in RHS EOS... Experience has been gutted though.

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 1550
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/20/2006 4:56:18 PM   
rtrapasso


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

80,744 "aircrew" trained during the Dec 1942 (yes, 1942) to Aug 1945 - some 26860 in 1943, 36854 in 1944.


I believe those figures also include navigators, bombadiers and gunners, not just pilots.

Chez



Don't think so - as i mentioned, about 1/2 were fighter types (single-seat aircraft)... the numbers in bombers would be EXTREMELY low if it were all types (gunners, navigators, etc.) They break down number of "aircrew" per aircraft type, and if it were ALL types, the number of persons per aircraft would be extremely low. Co-pilots (i am pretty sure) would be counted in this total, as they are actually trained pilots. For instance 1000 bombers of the B-17/B-24 class would suck up more than the remaining "aircrew" for any year (once you exclude known single seat type aircraft). This would leave pretty much zilch for B25s, B-26s, etc.

There were some 12,000+ B-17s produced during WW2. Not all of them went to USAAF, but most of them did - say 10,000. That would require 100,000 men to man them with pilots, navigators, gunners, etc. That is more than the total aircrew produced during the entire war by USAAF. And don't forget there were 19,000 B-24 types also produced during the war. Say another 10000 of them went to the USAAF (probably low estimate) - that would require another 100,000 men. That's 200,000 men required, and this is MUCH more than less than 27000 or so heavy bomber types trained (by the chart). Admittedly, not all these bombers were flying at one time, but you get the idea. On the other hand, 27000 pilots about matches what i would expect from a production of 29000 heavy bombers (again, some going to other services such as Great Britain, the USN, etc.), esp considering not all these aircraft would have been available at one time.

Also, if all types (navigators, gunners) were included in the total were true, it would mean the USN was outproducing the USAAF in pilots by a good deal, and i don't believe that.


Is it not that they're counting crews, not individuals?

Thus the 10 individuals of a B-17 crew (or however many they were) counts as one crew, while the single individual of a P-38 also counts as one crew.




Well, that could be - but then it still would approximately equal the number of pilots produced which is what we are interested in here. Of course, the co-pilot for a heavy bomber crew is also a pilot, so it would actually underestimate the number of pilots produced if this is the case. However, since in the game you don't require a co-pilot in a B-17/B-24/B-29, etc., then it is a wash (in game turns).

(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 1551
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/20/2006 5:00:26 PM   
rtrapasso


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

The US Navy gets 200 pilots per month in RHS EOS... Experience has been gutted though.



As noted, it should be around 1700 pilots per month (as previously noted) less crews for a/c on new ships... doesn't sound "Realistic" to me, esp. if they are gutting experience. And this was at the REDUCED rate of pilot production when the USN realized it wasn't going to need all those pilots (in March 1943, iirc.) The rate would have remained much higher if things had gone as badly for the Allies as they have in this game.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 1552
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/20/2006 5:10:11 PM   
timtom


Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Well, that could be - but then it still would approximately equal the number of pilots produced which is what we are interested in here.



Quite. In WitP. "pilot" is an abstraction of "crew", I would think, so if my understanding of the data presented by you is correct, then it offers us the exact number of "personnel entities" available to operate "aircraft entities".

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 1553
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/20/2006 5:19:13 PM   
rtrapasso


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Well, that could be - but then it still would approximately equal the number of pilots produced which is what we are interested in here.



Quite. In WitP. "pilot" is an abstraction of "crew", I would think, so if my understanding of the data presented by you is correct, then it offers us the exact number of "personnel entities" available to operate "aircraft entities".


Yes, except that WITP doesn't break it down into "type" aircraft. Instead all pilots are lumped into pools.

(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 1554
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/20/2006 5:34:13 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Well unfortunately WiTP doesn't let you set the number of graduates on a per year basis. it would be great if it did but it doesn't thus we are left with averaging.

And any number we average has to include the low-replacement months of 1941 and 1942.

RHS EOS gives the Americans 700 pilots per month. That is 8,400 aircrew per year. I keep hearing the figure that about 1/3rd of aircrew went to the Pacific. Multiple the 8,400 by 3 and you will end up with 25,200.

To me that seems reasonable. The Americans get more than they really did in 1941 and 42, about the right number in 1943 and less than they actually trained in 1944 and 45.


However one wrinkle is that they get ADDITIONAL pilots in terms of reinforcement squadrons so, really, if the 1/3rd allocation is correct the Allies are getting more aircrew in the Pacific than they did in 41, 42 and 43 and probably only a little too few in 44 and 45.


I think in stock the numbers were far too low but in EOS they seem pretty good to me ( if you leave aside the experience levels).

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 1555
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/20/2006 5:58:30 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, The 8th Airforce alone lost 79,265 aircrew over germany. (18,000 aircraft) (The British lost another 75,000+)
Of course not every ac lost meant a pilot had been lost and not every aircrew lost meant an aircraft had been lost. And the USA numbers do not include the other Airforces operating against germany

(understand that in a single 1000 bomber raid over Germany you would have 100,000 aircrew in the bombers and 600-800 more in escorts)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 11/20/2006 6:08:17 PM >


_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 1556
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/20/2006 5:59:41 PM   
rtrapasso


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well unfortunately WiTP doesn't let you set the number of graduates on a per year basis. it would be great if it did but it doesn't thus we are left with averaging.

And any number we average has to include the low-replacement months of 1941 and 1942.

RHS EOS gives the Americans 700 pilots per month. That is 8,400 aircrew per year. I keep hearing the figure that about 1/3rd of aircrew went to the Pacific. Multiple the 8,400 by 3 and you will end up with 25,200.

To me that seems reasonable. The Americans get more than they really did in 1941 and 42, about the right number in 1943 and less than they actually trained in 1944 and 45.


However one wrinkle is that they get ADDITIONAL pilots in terms of reinforcement squadrons so, really, if the 1/3rd allocation is correct the Allies are getting more aircrew in the Pacific than they did in 41, 42 and 43 and probably only a little too few in 44 and 45.


I think in stock the numbers were far too low but in EOS they seem pretty good to me ( if you leave aside the experience levels).



700 pilots per month *might* be approximately accurate for USAAF, i think. it would be grossly inadequate for USN/USMC from what i can figure out. A lot more than 1/3 of the later's pilots went to the Pacific. Only some ASW squadrons were manned by USN in the Atlantic/Carib. theaters, except for Ranger and some cruiser seaplanes. Many of the ASW squadrons on the Atlantic/Carib. were actually USAAF units. These did not see extremely heavy combat (a la Pacific Theater), so it wasn't as if they were soaking up loads of replacements.

The "averaging" over the years also neglects the problem of what happens if things not going well for the Allies. It would assume that pilot production would be decreased even if things go horribly wrong. The USN decreased pilot production in 1943 because they didn't need them - but what if they DID need them.

Also, as per the article quoted, in Dec 1941, "The Secretary of the Navy approved an expansion of the pilot training program from the existing schedule of assigning 800 students per month to one calling for 2,500 per month thereby leading to a production of 20,000 pilots annually by mid-1943." So, even in Dec 1941, the USN was apparently producing 800 pilots per month. If you even took that as the average (which it is clearly not), the USN replacement rate is WAY too low.



(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 1557
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/20/2006 6:03:39 PM   
rtrapasso


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, The 8th Airforce alone lost 79,265 aircrew over germany. (18,000 aircraft) (The British lost another 75,000+)
Of course not every ac lost meant a pilot had been lost and not every aircrew lost meant an aircraft had been lost.



As Mogami has stated (in other words): in this case, aircrew is stated in total numbers of men, not in the # of crews lost. The later would be (at most) 18,000 crews if 18000 ac were lost. (The training figures quoted (apparently) means total number of crews, not total number of men. Just so we are comparing apples to apples).

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 1558
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/20/2006 6:08:30 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, Correct for example in that 1000 plane raid. If each ac lost 1 man you would lose 1000 men but not a single ac. Each bomber has at least 2 pilots. So to launch the raid you need 2000 pilots and then the pilots for the escorting fighters. WITP only tracks the pilot. (it assumes pilots have aircrew as needed) since there are no aircrew other then pilots in WITP you don't need to train them.

If you put too many pilots in pool you invite a more bloody war. If you put too few for one side you increase the capabilty of the enemy. The safest path if you must err is to give USA too many and Japan too few. The Allies do not have airfields to hurt Japan prior to the pool levels not mattering while you force the Japanese into fighting the war with pilot conservation and training factor into Operation planning. Plus the Allied player is not allowed to expand production of aircraft. So while he might be able to PDU he has to use number of AC provided. What you don't want is Japan over producing aircraft and having access to too many pilots. (they just go beserk)
We know how many ac Japan had at start. It's these pilots that matter most. (I've always been able to train replacements without needing the pools)
If you want to allow Japan to expand the size of the airforce then just invent more groups but make them empty and make the Japanese player train the pilots on map. (that takes care of the post expansion period without gifting Japan magic pilots) (they get the magic aircraft but must really train the pilots)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 11/20/2006 6:22:01 PM >


_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 1559
RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! - 11/20/2006 6:27:31 PM   
rtrapasso


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

ORIGINAL: Mogami


If you put too many pilots in pool you invite a more bloody war. If you put too few for one side you increase the capabilty of the enemy. The safest path if you must err is to give USA too many and Japan too few. The Allies do not have airfields to hurt Japan prior to the pool levels not mattering while you force the Japanese into fighting the war with pilot conservation and training factor into Operation planning. Plus the Allied player is not allowed to expand production of aircraft. So while he might be able to PDU he has to use number of AC provided. What you don't want is Japan over producing aircraft and having access to too many pilots. (they just go beserk)



Yes, well this is the problem that can develop in WITP - and it appears HAS developed in this particular game: Japan can outproduce the Allies in fighters and in trained pilots.

If one wants to stick with the original WITP model - fine. But a "Historical Scenario" should have historical numbers, no?

EDIT: i don't know the actual numbers of aircraft/pilots each side has - i am basing my statement on the numbers that show up on the AAR results posted, from statements other players have made, and from calculations i have made based on my own games.

< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 11/20/2006 7:03:11 PM >

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 1560
Page:   <<   < prev  50 51 [52] 53 54   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: SEAC is back in the fight !!!! Page: <<   < prev  50 51 [52] 53 54   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

1.438