The Return of Uber B17s

[Oleg Mastruko]

It's me again Please take a look at these results:

Two Jap TFs make a bombardment attacks at Luganville and PM.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/19/42

Naval bombardment of Port Moresby, at 10,40

(this is 2 BBs, 3 CAs, and several CLs and DDs)

Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 10
Port hits 10
Port supply hits 6

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Luganville, at 53,53

(this is BB, 3 CAs, and several CLs and DDs)

Allied aircraft


Allied aircraft losses
no losses

Airbase hits 9
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 30


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

A day later, a B17 units retaliates against Gili.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/20/42

Air attack on Gili Gili , at 17,42

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 6

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 12

no losses

no losses

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 280
Guns lost 2

Airbase hits 9
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 26

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x B-17E Fortress at 33000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 33000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 33000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 33000 feet

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

So - two strong Bombardment TFs, bombarding two bases that I know have aircraft and infantry and various other units, managed to kill 0 men, and 0 aircraft, and made some holes on the runway.

OTOH, 12 B17s, bombing from 33.000 feet (with CAP Zeros unable to attack them because they are "too high") managed to kill 280 men, and destroy 2 guns. Making roughly the comparable number of supply and service hits as Bombardment TFs in the process.

B17 have like, what, 12 500 lb bombs per plane, so with 12 planes thats 144 500 lb bombs dropped from near stratosphere.

Naval bombardment forces on the other hand fired like hundreds of 16", 14", 8", 6", 5" ammo at what is point blank range, and didn't manage to destroy a single plane on the ground, nor did they kill anyone. Nor they destroyed any guns.

Do you think this is realistic and OK? Do you think I have no reason to complain? Am I in particulary bad mood today or are these results indeed screwed up? I'd like to hear arguments from all sides.

PS. Same turn, replayed under 1.20, produced 410 men lost, and 2 Zeros lost (on ground, presumably) from B17 attack. Gimme hundereds of B17 and uber-subs and I'll sell BBs and CVs for scrap metal!

Sorry to be in particulary nitpicking mood today, but someone has to be I guess.

O.

[siRkid]

I don't know what to tell you but here is the results from a bombing raid I did (1.3) and it is very diffrent. I had my B17s at 10000 and I had a lot of planes damaged but remember the FOW effect. Maybe others can post their results.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/22/43

Air attack on Rabaul , at 21,28

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 6
A6M2 Zero x 18
A6M5-B Zeke x 3
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 18

Allied aircraft
F6F Hellcat x 12
B-17E Fortress x 19

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2-N Rufe x 1 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 2 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 2 damaged
A6M5-B Zeke x 1 destroyed
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F6F Hellcat x 1 damaged
B-17E Fortress x 3 destroyed
B-17E Fortress x 14 damaged

LCDR C.Muto of EI-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 5

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 3

Airbase hits 4
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 11

Attacking Level Bombers:
2 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet
4 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet
2 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet
2 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 10000 feet

[Oleg Mastruko]

Kid, Jap CAP obviously affected your B17s.

CAP in my game is unable to get to B17 at 33.000 feet, and I do not want to "ask" or "beg" my opponent to lower his planes. He does not have to do that.

I have only Zeros, their ceiling in this game is set to 32.280 feet or something like that. Maybe Tony fighters (I see Jap player in your game has them) would be able to get to B17s at 33k feet?

Regardless of all that I think:

a) B17s should not be that efficient from 33k feet, even in no CAP situation, or if CAP cannot get to them.

b) Even if CAP planes can't get to 33k feet, bombers should be affected by the very existence of CAP, and their efficacy lowered. It seems to me that bombers from my game produce results as if they are on "clean" bombing runs (ie. totally unmolested by CAP).

O.

[siRkid]

Oh I agree with your point I was just wondering if its a one off or if others are having the same results? I'll see if I can't make some test runs tonight.

[Black Cat]

Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko
It's me again Please take a look at these results:

Two Jap TFs make a bombardment attacks at Luganville and PM.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/19/42

Naval bombardment of Port Moresby, at 10,40

(this is 2 BBs, 3 CAs, and several CLs and DDs)

Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 10
Port hits 10
Port supply hits 6

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Luganville, at 53,53

(this is BB, 3 CAs, and several CLs and DDs)

Allied aircraft


Allied aircraft losses
no losses

Airbase hits 9
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 30


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

A day later, a B17 units retaliates against Gili.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/20/42

Air attack on Gili Gili , at 17,42

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 6

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 12

no losses

no losses

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 280
Guns lost 2

Airbase hits 9
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 26

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x B-17E Fortress at 33000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 33000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 33000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 33000 feet

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

So - two strong Bombardment TFs, bombarding two bases that I know have aircraft and infantry and various other units, managed to kill 0 men, and 0 aircraft, and made some holes on the runway.

OTOH, 12 B17s, bombing from 33.000 feet (with CAP Zeros unable to attack them because they are "too high") managed to kill 280 men, and destroy 2 guns. Making roughly the comparable number of supply and service hits as Bombardment TFs in the process.

B17 have like, what, 12 500 lb bombs per plane, so with 12 planes thats 144 500 lb bombs dropped from near stratosphere.

Naval bombardment forces on the other hand fired like hundreds of 16", 14", 8", 6", 5" ammo at what is point blank range, and didn't manage to destroy a single plane on the ground, nor did they kill anyone. Nor they destroyed any guns.

Do you think this is realistic and OK? Do you think I have no reason to complain? Am I in particulary bad mood today or are these results indeed screwed up? I'd like to hear arguments from all sides.

PS. Same turn, replayed under 1.20, produced 410 men lost, and 2 Zeros lost (on ground, presumably) from B17 attack. Gimme hundereds of B17 and uber-subs and I'll sell BBs and CVs for scrap metal!

Sorry to be in particulary nitpicking mood today, but someone has to be I guess.

O.

You are reporting to us what the Game After Action Reports tell you happened.

There is a Fog Of War in effect with this Report, you may or may not be getting the _True_ result.

To see the true result Save The Game, restart it after the attack in Hot seat Mode, play the Japanese and and see what the damage really was...

If you are really interested in seeing how the Game, and recent Patches work, play both sides in HS mode and see how things play out.......

[Oleg Mastruko]

Black Cat, if I understood right the posts on this forum - combat replay is the same for both players in PBEM? So, NO FOW during combat replay in PBEM - both players see what actually happened. (Different then when you play AI.)

IIRC this was made so, as otherwise you'd have to have two combat replays - one for Jap, one for US player. So this is compromise.

Sorry if I got something wrong here, I'd gladly let myself be corrected.

O.

[siRkid]

No FOW in PBEM is active. It is skewed for both plawers. I've seen the report show my carrier hit with 3 torps and 2 bombs only to find it undamaged when I load my turn. I've also seen reports of enemy carriers sunk only to run into them again later on.

Rick

[Oleg Mastruko]

Originally posted by Kid
No FOW in PBEM is active. It is skewed for both plawers. I've seen the report show my carrier hit with 3 torps and 2 bombs only to find it undamaged when I load my turn. I've also seen reports of enemy carriers sunk only to run into them again later on.

Rick

Ummm...

There are two issues at work here. From what I gathered - combat replay is the same for both players, and FOW-less in PBEM.

But there is another issue, and that is of seeing some ship being hit during CR, only to find it undamaged later. This is a known bug, that occurs very rarely, and unfortunatelly Matrix and 2by3 guys were unable to reproduce it, and debug it. It never happened to me, but it did to some of my opponents (rarely as I said).

Again, that's what I gathered reding these boards. If anyone knows more - please let us know.

O.

[Supervisor]

Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko


Ummm...

There are two issues at work here. From what I gathered - combat replay is the same for both players, and FOW-less in PBEM.

But there is another issue, and that is of seeing some ship being hit during CR, only to find it undamaged later. This is a known bug, that occurs very rarely, and unfortunatelly Matrix and 2by3 guys were unable to reproduce it, and debug it. It never happened to me, but it did to some of my opponents (rarely as I said).

Again, that's what I gathered reding these boards. If anyone knows more - please let us know.

O.

I think what Kid meant to say is that, yes, there is FOW in the combat replay. What both players see is the same report, but it is affected by the FOW. So, not everything that you see happen is accurate. (This is different than the variable combat replay bug that has been reported elsewhere.)

Plus, items like coastwatcher reports (that should only be seen by the Allied player) are left out of the report (though the ships that were sighted by the coastwatchers show on the map once the Allied player loads the game itself - the announcement that they were seen is all that is suppressed).

This is how I understand it...

[CynicAl]

Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko
b) Even if CAP planes can't get to 33k feet, bombers should be affected by the very existence of CAP, and their efficacy lowered. It seems to me that bombers from my game produce results as if they are on "clean" bombing runs (ie. totally unmolested by CAP).

O.

Why? The A6M2 couldn't get to 33k, it had a ceiling of 32,810 feet. That's a hard and fast limit - the plane could NOT go higher. A fully fueled and armed Zero might not even reach that high - and imperfect maintenance (common on both sides in SoPac/SoWestPac, but generally worse for Japanese forces) would lower the theoretical maximum still further. So how would you suggest these fighters go about interfering with bombing runs that are taking place well over their heads, out of their reach?

Not to mention the time it would take for even the relatively fast-climbing Zero to reach 32k (possibly giving the bombers a chance to get in and out before the CAP could climb to their height), or the rather sluggish performance of the Zero at very high altitudes (probably giving the bombers a chance to flat outrun the CAP).

So no, A6M2s should not be able to interfere with a B-17 formation flying at 33k. How effective the B-17s would be from that height is a different question...

[siRkid]

Originally posted by Rowlf
I think what Kid meant to say is that, yes, there is FOW in the combat replay. What both players see is the same report, but it is affected by the FOW. So, not everything that you see happen is accurate. (This is different than the variable combat replay bug that has been reported elsewhere.)

Plus, items like coastwatcher reports (that should only be seen by the Allied player) are left out of the report (though the ships that were sighted by the coastwatchers show on the map once the Allied player loads the game itself - the announcement that they were seen is all that is suppressed).

This is how I understand it...

Thanks, this is what I was getting at.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Originally posted by CynicAl

Why? The A6M2 couldn't get to 33k, it had a ceiling of 32,810 feet. That's a hard and fast limit - the plane could NOT go higher.

So, no Zero EVER, never flew to, say, 32,815 feet, and you have hard evidence to support it?

If so, may I at least expect them to shoot from 32,810 feet at bombers flying exactly 190 feet (60-some meters) above them?

This is ridicolous. What bothers me is that opponent has weapon I can't do anything against. In reality, had the allies indeed run bombing runs from 33.000 feet, inflicting HORRIBLE casualties from that high, Japs would put some turbochargers in their Zeros so as to make them climb additional 3k feet or something, or they would bring a fighter that is capable of hurting B17. I can't do neither in this game.

As it is, game mechanics leave me with one option only - watching B17 massacre my infantry turn after turn after turn. Some fun, eh...

O.

[juliet7bravo]

Sakai mentions the "record" altitude for the Zero at 37K and change...and it would be totally ineffective, as all it could do was stay in the air. Also mentions hitting PM at 30k and change, and this was with poorly maintained AC out of Lae. The Zeros were more or less ineffective, and it took them like 2 hours to gain the altitude.

From 33,000 though, the B-17 would be lucky to hit Rabaul, let alone do significant damage. Basically, they'd be targeting the area around the bay, and hoping they accidentally hit something. Only thing high altitude bombing ever accomplished was to kill alot of civvies by burning them alive...dug in troops, camoflaged ground installations, forget it. Tail gunner could pee out the back as they went by and at least get some personal satisfaction out of the trip.

[ciril]

I am on the receiving end of Oleg's naval bombardment. The report he saw and pasted here do not quite match the results I'm seeing in the next planning phase.

As Black Cat suggested, the only sure way to test is a HS game.

[CynicAl]

Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko


So, no Zero EVER, never flew to, say, 32,815 feet, and you have hard evidence to support it?

No, I said no A6M2 ever got above 32,810 feet. The later A6M3 and A6M5 had higher ceilings. 36.5k and 38k respectively, IIRC.

If so, may I at least expect them to shoot from 32,810 feet at bombers flying exactly 190 feet (60-some meters) above them?

As I said before, it took the Zero quite some time to get all the way up to that altitude. J7B was kind enough to give somewhat more specfic information - two hours to reach altitude. You expect the B-17s to orbit over your airfield for two hours just so your fighters can get up to a high enough altitude to maybe take a few potshots? (It took the A6M2 just under 8 minutes to reach ~20k, so even having them 2/3s of the way there won't help you much - it's the last 10-12k that kill you.)

This is ridicolous. What bothers me is that opponent has weapon I can't do anything against. In reality, had the allies indeed run bombing runs from 33.000 feet, inflicting HORRIBLE casualties from that high, Japs would put some turbochargers in their Zeros so as to make them climb additional 3k feet or something, or they would bring a fighter that is capable of hurting B17. I can't do neither in this game.

The Japanese eventually did develop versions of the A6M which were marginally more capable at altitude. It wasn't exactly a field modification, though, it was an improved engine in a modified airframe. And it took time. At the start of the war, Japan didn't have a fighter capable of intercepting effectively at 30k+, because it had never occurred to them that they might need one. It took time to: first, modify existing types; then, to develop new and improved aircraft. Due to the vagaries of Japanese production, they didn't start large-scale production of really capable aircraft until quite late in the war, by which time shortages of strategic materials and skilled labor crippled the Japanese aviation industry.

As it is, game mechanics leave me with one option only - watching B17 massacre my infantry turn after turn after turn. Some fun, eh...

O.

If you were paying attention, I very specifically didn't address the issue of B-17 accuracy from 33k. In fact, I agree that it's too high and should be reduced. I just don't think the mere existence of CAP should be a factor in that, especially in this case where the would-be interceptors haven't got a prayer of catching the bombers.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Originally posted by CynicAl

No, I said no A6M2 ever got above 32,810 feet. The later A6M3 and A6M5 had higher ceilings. 36.5k and 38k respectively, IIRC.

You obviously missed the irony in my post... So, I should rephrase and ask "So, no A6M2 never EVER got to 32,815 feet and you have hard evidence to support it?" Anyway, forget it...

Originally posted by CynicAl

As I said before, it took the Zero quite some time to get all the way up to that altitude. J7B was kind enough to give somewhat more specfic information - two hours to reach altitude. You expect the B-17s to orbit over your airfield for two hours just so your fighters can get up to a high enough altitude to maybe take a few potshots? (It took the A6M2 just under 8 minutes to reach ~20k, so even having them 2/3s of the way there won't help you much - it's the last 10-12k that kill you.)

WTF? I guess the much discussed altitude setting means I want my CAP to patrol, wait and orbit at given altitude (30-some k feet) in advance, waiting for enemy to arrive. So theoretically they should already be on a given altitude when bombers arrive. Otherwise, what's the use of altitude setting? They may as well be on the runway, if you think that game simulates "two hours of climbing" (which of course it does not).

Of course, "waiting" at 32.000 feet would be ridicolously unrealistic too, but if enemy insists on using 33k feet level bombing, I must find some coutermeasures, isn't it, however gamey they may be?

Point is - this whole "stratospheric" air combat and bombing issue is ridicolous, the way it is implemented now (and I think we even agree on that to some degree).

O.

[CynicAl]

Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko
You obviously missed the irony in my post... So, I should rephrase and ask "So, no A6M2 never EVER got to 32,815 feet and you have hard evidence to support it?" Anyway, forget it...

Not missed. Ignored, because it's silly. Obviously, it's not possible to definitively prove that no A6M2 ever flew above 32,810 feet. To do so would require - at the very least! - a detailed inspection of the flight logs for every single flight of every single A6M2 looking for the max alt obtained, and would further require that all instruments were in good working order and observed attentively and correctly by pilots who may well have had other things on their minds at the time. Lucky for me I don't have to try.

The maximum attainable altitude ("ceiling") is a physical characteristic of an aircraft determined by its powerplant and aerodynamics. So when we see the ceiling of an aircraft listed as 32,810 feet, what that means is that test pilots, flying well-maintained aircraft, under optimum conditions, with no other job than to push the aircraft to its limits in order to find out just what those limits are, reported that the very highest the airplane would fly, even in ideal circumstances, was 32,810 feet. So if you want to claim that the aircraft could, in fact, fly higher than that, the burden of proof is on you. If you can find well-documented evidence of any A6M2 ever reaching an altitude above 32,810 feet, then you'll have a case.

WTF? I guess the much discussed altitude setting means I want my CAP to patrol, wait and orbit at given altitude (30-some k feet) in advance, waiting for enemy to arrive. So theoretically they should already be on a given altitude when bombers arrive. Otherwise, what's the use of altitude setting? They may as well be on the runway, if you think that game simulates "two hours of climbing" (which of course it does not).

Of course, "waiting" at 32.000 feet would be ridicolously unrealistic too, but if enemy insists on using 33k feet level bombing, I must find some coutermeasures, isn't it, however gamey they may be?

Point is - this whole "stratospheric" air combat and bombing issue is ridicolous, the way it is implemented now (and I think we even agree on that to some degree).

O.

My turn to say - WTF? I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you asking why setting your Zeros to fly CAP at 30k+ feet isn't working?

Trying to maintain a standing CAP at 30k+ feet with Zeros is a losing proposition - by the time they get there, they don't have enough fuel to stay there - not for long enough to make the idea practical. And if they're patrolling at a lower, more practical altitude, it's still going to take them a long time to climb to their ceiling - by the time they make the climb from 20k or 25k feet to 30k+, the bombers have been and gone.

Now, is all that modeled in the game? Explicitly, almost certainly not - as someone pointed out in the main forum, it would be an awful lot of work to include detailed flight models for each type of aircraft. But it seems to be implicitly modeled in the inability of fighters which top out at 32.8k feet to engage, or even disrupt, bombers flying at 33k feet. It's just not something you could reasonably expect the aircraft to do. Looking for countermeasures to the extreme-alt B-17s is fine and good, but the answer is correcting the B-17's performance, not fudging the Zero's numbers.

[ReDDoN45]

1.

Oleg, your PBEM enemy is a looooooooooser! Who uses aircraft regularly above 25k or makes this strange B-17 attacks, cheats! CHEAT! CHEAT! CHEAT! High altitude combat isn´t implemented. This seems to be a bug that he scores such results... propably 33000 is counted as 3000, because 30000 is the magic "0 - again".... have seen many games having bugs like that. B-17s wouldn´t even hit New Guniean soil from 33000. The bombs would drift so far of you could even see some craters on the neightboring island! Using B-17s regularly above 20k is crap, and cheating.... Targets in the pacific were **** small, much smaller than European targets, and there even hundreds of Bombers sometimes completely missed. Different wind layers and a thin film of clouds (almost unvisible from the ground) makes effective bombing almost impossible. For the Norden BS to wotk it must be centered on the target for min. a minute (for these alts). Even then the bombs can go off. YOu should make a house rule that only allows your enemy to use B-17s/B-24s in an alt higher than 20k (up to 25k migh then be permitted) when weather forecast is clear (as than they have achance for loacting and acquiring the target). Otherwise he must use them below 20k.

2.

This PBEM bug which many report as FOW, is a BUG!!!!
WHat´s that for a FOW when the Japanese player easily can watch the save001 file either and hence can see that there is a completely different execution phase going on. THough OOB, placement and day are exactly the same the entire resolution goes on different. Entire Carrier battles DON`t happen, because a reaction check didn´t occur, or bad weather hampers all operations. Many matrixgames have this OBEM bug... and I repeat: This is no FOW.
I think I found out about the reason for this happening. The replay file is just corrupt:

To avoid getting a corrupt (completely different to what really happened) replay file, the Jap player has to delete the old save 001 file before starting his turn, i.e. ---- download turn -------> unzip it ----------> delete save001 ----------> play turn
Now the replay save file is identic which what happened during execution phase in the beginning of jap´s turn.
DOn´t ask me why it´s like that.... I just watched it until now and checked, and since then we didn´t get this completely different replays.

Of course the game still has FOW, but this definetely not the result of FOW. My PBEM enemy reports that sometimes whole battles just didn´t appear in his replay phase. Air attacks of 100 planes on PM for Rabaul not being played! FOW? Even US night experience isn´t that bad, that they don´t know that they battled 4 CAs. This is a bug! and it happens quite oftne when the jap player doens´t delete the save001, before he makes his turn.
When you don´t believe me check it on your own.... I´ve almost used half a month to find it out!

[Spooky]

Originally posted by Reddon45

2.

This PBEM bug which many report as FOW, is a BUG!!!!
WHat´s that for a FOW when the Japanese player easily can watch the save001 file either and hence can see that there is a completely different execution phase going on. THough OOB, placement and day are exactly the same the entire resolution goes on different. Entire Carrier battles DON`t happen, because a reaction check didn´t occur, or bad weather hampers all operations. Many matrixgames have this OBEM bug... and I repeat: This is no FOW.
I think I found out about the reason for this happening. The replay file is just corrupt:

To avoid getting a corrupt (completely different to what really happened) replay file, the Jap player has to delete the old save 001 file before starting his turn, i.e. ---- download turn -------> unzip it ----------> delete save001 ----------> play turn
Now the replay save file is identic which what happened during execution phase in the beginning of jap´s turn.
DOn´t ask me why it´s like that.... I just watched it until now and checked, and since then we didn´t get this completely different replays.

Of course the game still has FOW, but this definetely not the result of FOW. My PBEM enemy reports that sometimes whole battles just didn´t appear in his replay phase. Air attacks of 100 planes on PM for Rabaul not being played! FOW? Even US night experience isn´t that bad, that they don´t know that they battled 4 CAs. This is a bug! and it happens quite oftne when the jap player doens´t delete the save001, before he makes his turn.
When you don´t believe me check it on your own.... I´ve almost used half a month to find it out!

There are 2 different bugs involved ... and not just only one :
1° In some very rare cases, if the Japanese player reloads the turn sent by the US player then the combat replay generated the second time by the Jap. player will be different from the first time while it should always be the same. It means that there is a bug in the "seed" system ... This bug is well known but AKAIK Matrix/2by3 has still not be able to solve it

2° The replay generated by the Jap. player may be "incomplete". The action is "processed" by the game but is not shown/recorded in the save001.dat replay. All the Japanese players that I know who have encountered this bug (since it is a bug on the Jap player computer) were using Windows 95/98/ME and not 2000/XP ... Maybe it is the beginning of an explanation ?

Spooky

[Yamamoto]

Originally posted by Reddon45

This seems to be a bug that he scores such results... propably 33000 is counted as 3000, because 30000 is the magic "0 - again".... have seen many games having bugs like that.

33000 may indeed be being counted as -232 feet. If the computer is recording the altitude as a two byte signed integer then 33000 would become -232. Someome should check this out, preferably with FoW turned off.

Yamamoto