Andy Mac v PZB ....The Allies Fight Back

[Andy Mac]

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

[Andy Mac]

p.s. just so you know I am not the only one suffering the Japanese have lost

A6M5 6,565 [X(][X(]
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

[Nemo121]

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?

[duckenf]

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.

[Andy Mac]

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

[Andy Mac]

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

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

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.

[ny59giants]

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. [&o]

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??

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

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.

[Nemo121]

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

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: timtom

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez



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).

[rtrapasso]

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.

[timtom]

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".

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: timtom

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.

[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).

[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. 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)

[rtrapasso]

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.

[rtrapasso]

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).

[mogami]

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)

[rtrapasso]

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.