B-17's

[juliet7bravo]

Ah, wrong. "Lighter" caliber AA weapons during this period accounted for probably something like 90+% of flak kills, as well as composing the majority of Japanese AA weapons. Larger caliber AA weapons really only came into their own with radar controls and VT fuses. Prior to that, it was mainly luck of the draw. By lowering the altitude you're just getting down to where you're within their engagement envelope. What was Nimitz's quote about the Army Air Corp in general? Something like "Bombing from the stratosphere where it was safe"?

Talking anti-shipping strikes, you can't terrain hop or anything...you're just a big slow slow target over the sea. The bigger you are means that you're just that much easier to get a piece of. Very little armor on a B17 really, none on the fuel tanks or engines, so armor isn't much of a factor. IJN light AA was crap, due to slow mount speeds, low sustained ROF, and a low effective ceiling, but by getting down to that level you're giving it every opportunity for success...which is why they were doing high altitude bombing to begin with. They can't kill you if they can't reach you.

[mdiehl]

Ah, *not* wrong because almost all kills scored by lighter caliber AA weapons occurred at ranges less than 1000 feet. The discussion was "what risk might level bombers experience from flak at 1000-3000 feet?" My answer: primarily from large caliber weapons. Large caliber weapons are area weapons with burst charges set by fuse. A B17 is big plane, but there's alot of plane on which a hit by a piece of shrapnel has no effect. So target size is not a critical variable. With bursting flak, it's *all* about accurately estimating target speed and altitude.

If you're talking about skip bombing or torpedo bombing it is another matter, since the altitude is optimally around 200 feet. In skip-bombing, light AA was a great threat, even to B17s as the anecdotal examples here and in the skip-bombing thread indicate.

What a surprise. Nimitz (navy) speaks scornfully of army airpower.

[Ron Saueracker]

Why not limit the altitude of aircraft? One has to wonder why the B 17 was not used in 1000 ft missions more often if they were this accurate. Let history be the rule. This is not a what might have been question, it's a why not.

Jennifer:

In case I missed the answer if already present on this thread. The Mutsuki was the DD hit by high altitude B17s and it was during the Eastern Solomons battle. She was part of Tanaka's transport TF and was alongside the Kinryu Maru rescuing survivors.

I believe LBA accuracy is going to be vastly toned down soon enough.

[dpstafford]

Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
I believe LBA accuracy is going to be vastly toned down soon enough.

Insider scoop???

[Wilhammer]

http://www.warships1.com/W-Tech/tech-075.htm

[Joel Billings]

I have brought up the issue of level bombers being too good bombing ships (and maybe other targets as well) at low altitude (especially heavy bombers) to both Gary and Mike. The simple answer at this time is that the current state of the game is not considered a bug.

I asked Gary what he would do if it was shown that this tactic is more powerful in the game than it could have been in real life. His first suggestion was to increase the flak level at lower altitudes, as this would be the cleanest fix, with the least implications on other parts of the game. He also said that it was his goal that heavy flak losses would keep players from doing a lot of this in the game, and thus the suggestion to increase flak if it isn't currently having the desired impact. The only big possible downside is that a fix might kill torpedo bombers more than desired, and this would especially hurt the Japanese (currently the side that is already tougher to play).

When I asked Mike what he thought, he said that in his opinion (from several tests he ran along with his game experience with UV) the flak impact is considerable on low altitude attacks and he thinks the game is doing as Gary wanted it to. He doesn't believe it needs to be changed. His arguements sounded valid to me. Thus, the decision was made not to patch this in 1.2 as other more serious issues need fixing, and there is not a consensus on this issue or what to do about it.

Initially reading this thread, I had a gut level reaction to just go ahead and increase the low level flak and be done, but ultimately ended up not pushing for a fix now. I don't usually like design by polling, but I'm interested in getting some quantifiable feedback on this issue. I need to say up front that there is no guarantee that we will do anything here as our group may have a different opinion than the poll even after seeing the poll results. But with this in mind, I suggest someone make up a poll that asks whether we should do one of the following in a future patch:

Increase impact of low level flak against all air attacks
Increase impact of low level flak against level bombers only
Increase impact of low level flak against level bombers (but do not increase flak for torpedo/strafe/skip bombing attacks, i.e. ultra low level)
Leave the flak alone and don't change anything
Leave the flak alone but I want something else changed to make it harder for low level attacks

Hopefully this post gives you a better idea of where we are on this issue, even if it doesn't satisfy your particular view of the issue.

By the way, we tend not to want to impose an artificial limit on the player just because doctrine kept that option from being used in real life. That's why IJN sub doctrine is an optional rule.

Joel

[Ron Saueracker]

Insider? No, it's just that most issues that are of this length seem to be addressed soon enough. For example, the land combat routines.

[Ron Saueracker]

Portland used (ineffectually) her 8" guns to engage low flying torpedoe planes by errupting water gysers in front of a/c. Maybe they didn't work against nimble Kates but I wonder what they'd do against 4 engined barn dorrs. Probably quite scary for other ships in TF, too.

[HMSWarspite]

Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
Portland used (ineffectually) her 8" guns to engage low flying torpedoe planes by errupting water gysers in front of a/c. Maybe they didn't work against nimble Kates but I wonder what they'd do against 4 engined barn dorrs. Probably quite scary for other ships in TF, too.

Fairly standard tactic for desparate big gun ships. Known as a splash barrage. Even worked occasionally with BB main armament, although whether they ever hit anything, or just put them off their aim, I don't know.

[brisd]

First off, the flak values for low level attacks seem to me fine, the tactical bombers suffer accordingly as well as IJN level bombers.

What I haven't heard is a good argument why three beat up B17's left over from Clark Field with no spares can fly through 21 Zeros, at high morale, experience and low fatigue and striking alone HUNDREDS of miles from their bases against fully operational ships and get four hits and lose no aircraft? If it happened once during the war, I'd say ok, there is a chance. I mean my ICON, BISMARCK, was fatally damaged by a few biplanes so ships are vulerable to aircraft, no argument there. It is not as if the CV had no CAP, was anchored or 100 miles off shore. The CAP was set for 10000 by the way in my example but I understood that CAP will adjust to attack at whatever level the bombers are.

I have no problems with players trying ahistorical strategies, I do it myself.

Don't increase the flak values against all aircraft.

Fix the B17 issue.

I will no longer play the Japanese with this flaw in the game and suggest all who do demand unlimited subs and no damage control advantage to allies to slightly balance the issue. I probably am going to cancel my pbem games which were alot of fun till this happened (two different games) but in good conscious I can't continue. Overall I have been pleased with this wargame and I was looking forward to WITP but it sounds from Joel's feedback that the solutions proposed are going to cause more harm than good.

And why bring up the Yamato being sunk by hundreds of tactical bombers? It has nothing to do with this discussion.

Still disgusted...

[elmo3]

Thanks for the answer Joel. I also agree that design by polling is a bad idea. Better for people to post actual results of low level level bombing or send game files to the Matrix team for review IMO.

[zed]

I tell my IJNAFand IJAAF pilots when intercepting level bombers to just try and distract them so as to throw their aim off. I dont care if they shoot down any, so long as only a few of my ships are hit.
The bombers are just to accurate, its not a question of AA, its I dont think you can get that many hits on ships dealing with AA fire and fighter interceptors. I had 8 hudsons get 8 hits on 2 ships, while 8 zeros were flying interception. Thats just not possible. Anything other than Hudsons and I would believe it.

[Spooky]

The poll asked by Joel is now available ...
Please vote

Spooky

[Joel Billings]

Surprise?

Sorry you're still disgusted. With CAP, anything can happen. If unlikely things are happening all the time that's different. On any given day 3 planes can sneak in undetected (before good radar). Also, zeros had a very hard time against B-17's. However, it sounds like your complaint is the invulnerability of the B17? Or is it the accuracy? Or both? I offered a possible simple solution to the problem I thought was being described. Remember that increased flak will throw off the aim of the bombers (as well as hurt them). The problem I see here is I don't see agreement on the extent of the problem, let alone the solution.

Joel

[brisd]

Joel,

I have been very negative in my posts on this subject and I am sorry for that. I am truly disgusted and that is coming through. I am stating that the results seem wrong. I leave it to others more capable of finding a solution. The flak seems accurate now as is, the aircraft (B17) and its ability to score multiple hits in May 42 at 1000 ft, despite CAP and flak, is what I am confused and angry about. I appreciate your comments and offer of a solution.

[juliet7bravo]

Well, give a couple days to set up a test scenario, game it out under different variables, and package the results, and I'll give you all the quantifiable feedback you can desire.

My "gut instinct" working hypothesis is that flak isn't effective enough overall, and much less effective at low levels than it should be. Based on the indisputable (har har) figure of more than 60% US AC losses from flak in the Pacific overall, I don't much see how this can be argued. If anything, I'd speculate that flak losses in UV should be abnormally high given that probably a higher percentage of air combat takes place over heavily defended base hexes, or against TF's with relatively high flak values. Especially since the default level bombing altitude is only 6000 ft.

As a starting point, perhaps people could post the current AC loss stats for their current game? Total # lost, and then the breakdown by cause, and by side (also if it's with a large amount of low level bombing. This would give a broad sample to be compared against the test results done under "controlled" circumstances.

[dgaad]

Joel :

The problem with the solution you offered is that the code apparently cannot distinguish between SIZES of aircraft, in particular the size difference between medium bombers such as the B-26 and heavy bombers such as the B-17. Are we left with a distinguish variable of "Level Bombers", "Dive Bombers", "Torpedo Bombers", and "Fighter Bombers", etc?

Is there any size of target variable here?

The only change I would like to see is a very slightly increased AA value versus large bombers of the B-17/B-24 type at altitudes of 3000 feet or less. Can you make a change of this nature that, basically, only affects 4 engine bombers, and not affect medium or 2 engine bombers?

[Kavik Kang]

Flak at low level (1000 feet) is obviously a little too weak, I assumed everyone already believed that. That is part of the problem, but the real problem when it comes down to people actually playing this game is that the level bombers are too effective at low altitude. As gamers, you don't concern yourself with the fact that each level bomber shot down means 8-10 people die. Maybe they would have been this effective in real life if used in this way, but they would never have been used in this way (at least by the allies, and bye the Japs only in the end).

In order to compensate for this issue within a simulation, it is often necessary to intentionally scew the system in an unrealistic way in order to force realistic results. This is one of those cases, and it is probably necessary to adjust both low level bombing effectiveness and low level flak to slightly unrealistic levels to achieve a correct end result among players. In other words, to make up for the fact that you aren't considering the lives of the crews... you care about your planes, so that is where you need to feel the pain. Less effect and more detriment will solve this problem and achieve a more realistic end result.

Of course, all these comments are pointless if they don't plan a gameplay patch in the future:-)

[doomonyou]

But everything in this game is "unrealistic". My educated guess is that b-17's were never used this way because probably 25% coming back from each mission would be shot down or more likely badly damaged. But I know as a player that I will be getting more. I KNOW that the japanese player cannot afford the losses in ships that I can trade him in planes that I can afford to write off on landing. In may of 1942 in RL the Allies didn't know that the Jap's would choke on a logisitics side over a three year period. They had to husband what they had (the scenario starts realistically with around 20 or so B-17's in the THEATRE, which I blow through in about three weeks knowing that the damaged beyond repair planes are fully replaceable).

This is of course why all grognard wargames seem unrealistic when you get down to it. We as people know everything that is going to happen so we subconciously go about our business differently NO MATTER HOW WELL THE MODEL IS PUT. Try playing a civil war game with an engine that perfectly models the combat mechanics. It will always be unfair to the Allied player that the Japanese can frankly make a carrier battle group that probably cannot be defeated in combat, because although the Japanese did have the assets they never made use of them. As the Allied player I can always nail the Japanese guy if he's around PM because I know I can lose every bomber and S-boat in the game and it won't matter so long as I trade them for three Jap carriers. I mean Scenario 17 assumes midway NEVER happened and the Japanese still don't have enough combat power to make it a 50 50 bet.

If you change the b-17's, than it will be mines and subs, and changing those, it will be something else...because the core of the issue lays elsewhere

IMHO

[dgaad]

Originally posted by doomonyou
My educated guess is that b-17's were never used this way because probably 25% coming back from each mission would be shot down or more likely badly damaged. IMHO

I say again : B-17s WERE used this way. Just not often.