Problems with US Level Bomber accuracy and hitting own minefields

[NorthStar]

Originally posted by Bax
Exactly, and that's why we shouldn't be allowed to set bombing alt for heavy, four-engined bombers to anything less than 10,000ft. At the very least, there should be some kind of morale or fatigue penalty for forcing B-17's to fly lower than say 10,000ft. Maybe an increased stress level having to fly through all the flak.

Not everyone will agree with me, but there you have it.

Speaking of B-17's, has anyone manaed to shoot down a B-17 with an A6M2 yet in the early part of the war? I have yet to see this. My A6M2 CAP fly at 18,000ft, and yet whenever they take on the B-17's(unescorted, btw) at 6,000ft...they run away like little screaming girls. I know this was implemented in 2.20 to prevent the huge Zeke losses of previous releases, but jeez...

1. For a lot of people, the whole point of a game like this is to play with different tactics that COULD have been used. To restrict the game to only tactics that WERE used would, IMHO, be too limiting. Following that logic, we get to no use of PBYs and Bombers for mass supply/troop transport, no building of bases where they were not built, no ability to turn off Japanese sub doctrine, etc. If any or all of this suit your fancy and playing style, feel free to make house rules. However, IMHO, I don't see why military DOCTRINE should be hard coded into the system. And before anyone says it, I don't think we should have 50,000 switches for all the options.

2. There IS a morale penalty for flying Level Bombers at low altitude (less than 5,000 feet, IIRC).

3. Multi-engine bombers (especially the B-17s) WERE very difficult for Japanese fighters to destroy. They simply didn't have the fire power to cause critical damage easily. I personally find that in small numbers, B-17s are regularly DAMAGED by even small flights of Zeros. In large numbers, the protect each other well, as they were designed to do.

4. Watch fighter fatigue. It seems to be the biggest factor in determining if a flight of fighters is driven away. The Area 51 tests found, if IIRC, that there is a particulary steep change (suddnely, lots of fighters are driven off) after about 30 fatigue.

[Bax]

Howdy NorthStar,

1. Yep, agreed. I realize my opinion would run counter to some people who want more freedom of action to do things that weren't necessarily done in "real life". But I still wouldn't mind being restricted in such a way.

2. I know there is a morale penalty for bombers that fly below 6,000 ft. That's why I used the number of 10,000. I think there should be a penalty for four-engined heavies below 10,000ft. I did RTFM, btw!

3. Absolutely, you'll get no argument out of me. The heavies were difficult to for the Japanese to shoot down. But they still managed to do it. I just have not seen it yet at all in any of my games since 2.20. In fact, because of this, I don't even bother with CAP at some of my rear bases anymore. Might as well use the fighters somewhere else.

4. Yep, managing fatigue is a key factor. I always rest my boys when they get above 30 in fatigue.

[Mr.Frag]

3. Multi-engine bombers (especially the B-17s) WERE very difficult for Japanese fighters to destroy. They simply didn't have the fire power to cause critical damage easily. I personally find that in small numbers, B-17s are regularly DAMAGED by even small flights of Zeros. In large numbers, the protect each other well, as they were designed to do.

I agree that the heavy bombers were difficult to shoot down. This seems to be protrayed quite nicely within the game as large numbers damaged but few destroyed.

BUT

when 20+ CAP (two groups of skilled 88 & 90 A6M2 Zeros) fail to stop 3 Hudsons (not a heavy bomber!) with an experience value of 61 (from the editor) which then proceed to get multiple hits on a small group of 3 ships I get a tad annoyed to say the least. While I can understand the CAP not being terribly effective at shooting down the planes, they should at least cause them to divert. That would be realistic.

If you find skill level 61 level bombers penetrating skill level 90 fighters assigned to cap over their own base fair and normal, then I guess we are not going to agree here. I find it downright silly that even with skilled rested cap patrolling over bases that have lots of AA that the unskilled unescorted bombers still sink ships in high quantities.

Please remember that even the game models the fact that a Hudson has a gun value of 10 and a durability of 32 compaired to your mythical B-17G with it's gun value of 39 and it's durability of 69 that can shoot back as good as it gets...

What I want explained is why all level bombers seem to perform as it they are B17-G's

[Grumbling Grogn]

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
I really have to disagree with you there. A level bomber (even with the Norden bombsight) does not have anywhere near the accuracy of a dive bomber or torpedo bomber...

...which has nothing to do with the comparison you made.

You compared 1,000 plane raids conducted in the European Theater at altitudes of 20,000' + to small raids against ships, in port with bombers at 6,000 feet in the Pacific Theater.

The issue of dive bomber accuracy VS level bomber accuracy was never even raised. :rolleyes:

[Bax]

What I want explained is why all level bombers seem to perform as it they are B17-G's

I want to know if the B-17's the Allies had at the time in Australia at the beginning of scenario 17 were B-17E's, or if they were still using C and D models, without tail guns. That would make a difference in their defensive performance.

[SoulBlazer]

In my current new PBEM game as Japan, in May 1942, my squadron of Zeros is shooting down Hudsons at a good rate -- raids of three often have one or two shot down and others damaged for only a plane lost or damaged. Remember also many of those bombers come from Australia -- it's a LONG flight, and damaged planes often crash. (For the same reason, I'm hesitant to let my bombers from Rabul attack PM -- sure, they can do it, but there better be carriers or something in port!)

I'll post exact losses here if anyone is interested.

[dpstafford]

Originally posted by SoulBlazer
Remember also many of those bombers come from Australia -- it's a LONG flight, and damaged planes often crash. (For the same reason, I'm hesitant to let my bombers from Rabul attack PM -- sure, they can do it, but there better be carriers or something in port!)

Quit. Operational losses are often damaged planes that don't make it back to base after long-distance raids. So, damaging large numbers of B17's, especially if they are flying all the way from Australia, will result is some after-action losses!

[Sonny]

Originally posted by NorthStar
1. For a lot of people, the whole point of a game like this is to play with different tactics that COULD have been used. To restrict the game to only tactics that WERE used would, IMHO, be too limiting. ............

The problem here is that while allowing doctrines that COULD have been used, the design of the game seems to make the results not comparable to those doctrines which deviate from what actually happened. And as you have seeen from the forum everything (even things that did happen) are subject to different points of view and conjecture.

So perhaps allowing heavy bombers to bomb ships at altitudes lower than what they normally did in this theater should be allowed BUT with proportional consequences. Further, it seems to many that those consequence, as now programmed, are not proportional so folks are just suggesting house rules or asking Matrix to either - make the consequences go along with the action or limit the action because the consequences cannot be programmed/determined.

[Mr.Frag]

While on this topic, would someone care to explain why a strike that can't locate it's target is not hit by flak anyways when the target happens to be a base hex ... Just cause you can't see through the clouds to bomb on target doesn't mean the guys on the ground are not shooting flak at you

[crsutton]

Yes, the B17s are way to accurate as are the mediums when bombing at altitude.

I generally send my bombers in at 1000 feet with great results, but casualties are high.

I even send my B17s in against ships at that height with great sucess ( this really should not happen)

Bear in mind that as Allied forces gained superiority and skill, bombing attacks went in a lower altitudes with much greater sucess. Skip bombing and treetop bombing was pretty much the norm as allied fighter superiority grew.

In the game, once my bombers have gained sufficient experience, I send them in at 100 feet against ships. The results are mind blowing, as well as my own casualties high. I find that after a few sucessful missions my bomber squadrons need to stand down due to drastic morale and fatigue accumulation. But you should see those transports burn!!!

[Grumbling Grogn]

Sounds to me like this may be a reason to adjust/add a morale check for the bomb runs instead of adjusting accuracy.