B-17's No Longer Effective From High Altitude?

[Admiral DadMan]

Scenario 19,
Human Allied vs. IJN AI:

These are bombing missions from Port Moresby to Rabaul using v2.0.


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 09/25/42

Air attack on Rabaul , at 21,28

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 9
A6M2 Zero x 50
A6M3 Zero x 13
Ki-43-Ia Oscar x 4

Allied aircraft
F-5A Lightning x 2
B-17E Fortress x 35

no losses

no losses

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x B-17E Fortress at 33000 feet
6 x B-17E Fortress at 33000 feet
4 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
3 x B-17E Fortress at 33000 feet
4 x B-17E Fortress at 33000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 33000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 33000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...<snip>...

...<snip>...

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 09/26/42

Air attack on Rabaul , at 21,28

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 4
A6M2 Zero x 58
Ki-43-Ia Oscar x 6

Allied aircraft
F-5A Lightning x 2
B-17E Fortress x 46

no losses

Allied aircraft losses
F-5A Lightning x 1 destroyed
B-17E Fortress x 1 damaged

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x B-17E Fortress at 33000 feet
4 x B-17E Fortress at 33000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 33000 feet
9 x B-17E Fortress at 33000 feet
5 x B-17E Fortress at 33000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 33000 feet
6 x B-17E Fortress at 33000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 33000 feet
4 x B-17E Fortress at 33000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 33000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 33000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In v1.40, I had been scoring Airbase hits, Airbase Supply Hits, and Runway hits, enough to close the base for air ops. Now, nada for 5 turns of plastering it with 30-50 bombers!

It's not fatigue or morale, as I have not changed any settings from what were fairly rested Air Groups.

What changed??

[mogami]

Hi, Can you post the results from 33k feet with 1.40? and weather for all bombing runs

[Admiral DadMan]

A curious thing: when I went to use the Uninstall icon in the UV folder, it said I was running 1.40.

The game says 2.0.

My control Panel has 1.0 - 1.4, but no 2.0.

Finally, for grins, I fired up True Update, and it is now downloading my 2.0... again...

I'll let you know....

[Pawlock]

Two very easy ways to tell if have 2.0 installed or not, first from the initial start , opponent screen. In bottom right hand corner is the version No; also a sure fire way is all aircraft Squadrons now have an extra "stand down button"

[mogami]

Hi, "Oh Magoo you've done it again"

[Admiral DadMan]

Originally posted by Pawlock
Two very easy ways to tell if have 2.0 installed or not, first from the initial start , opponent screen. In bottom right hand corner is the version No; also a sure fire way is all aircraft Squadrons now have an extra "stand down button"

It fired up as 2.0. I have also noticed slower progam executions too.

All of the patched features worked as described, i.e., Stand Down, TF's attacked while docked, CV Air Group expansion limits, CV Air Group replacements only while docked or in port.

All features worked.

I even re-booted my machine.

Download complete, now installing (God Bless Cable MoDem!)

(Why oh why can't the Installer remember WHERE I installed it!?!?)

[Pawlock]

Originally posted by Admiral DadMan

All of the patched features worked as described, i.e., Stand Down, TF's attacked while docked, CV Air Group expansion limits, CV Air Group replacements only while docked or in port.

Found the Attacking Tf while docked out the hard way, first turn returned from my opponent my oilers tf was attacked at Rockhampton from Gili!! first time ever I seen them fly that far to my dismay;( . Seems I have to station Cap there too now.

[mogami]

Hi, Again I am not basing anything on programing knowledge.

Getting hits on un- damaged target versus getting more hits on plastered target. I think you could be putting the enemy back to zero without actully being able to recognize further damage.

I mean it is easier to tell 10 percent (or 10 hits) on undamaged target then to define damage or number of hits on target that has been completly flattened. (At 33k hard to tell) I would not assume in any change in reporting to have orgin in change to 2.00
You might just be at the point of dimishing returns. (in which case to check you lower number of bombers per strike to see if you can keep airfield closed)

[Admiral DadMan]

Re-running turns now.

2.0 is a definate memory hog. I used to be able to have email and one or two browsers open with little problem, now I get graphic errors in UV when alt+tab-ing back to it.

[mogami]

Hi, OK I stopped trying to keep other programs running during turns because of need to restart program for each new PBEM game. As a result I never saw this occur in testing. The new zip feature made it impossible to remain online and just download/make/send turns since you have to restart program for each new game.

[Admiral DadMan]

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 09/25/42

Air attack on Rabaul , at 21,28

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 9
A6M2 Zero x 78
A6M3 Zero x 20

Allied aircraft
F-5A Lightning x 1
B-17E Fortress x 9

no losses

Allied aircraft losses
F-5A Lightning x 1 damaged

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Lunga , at 38,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 3

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 52
SBD Dauntless x 47
TBF Avenger x 10

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
SBD Dauntless x 1 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 3 damaged
TBF Avenger x 1 destroyed
TBF Avenger x 1 damaged

MAJ J. Dobbin of VMF-223 is credited with kill number 3

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 102

Airbase hits 7
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 22

Attacking Level Bombers:
Where are the Dauntlesses?
9 x TBF Avenger at 6000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I gave the B-17's a day off, and then sent 'em up again:

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 09/27/42

Air attack on Rabaul , at 21,28

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 9
A6M2 Zero x 72

Allied aircraft
F-5A Lightning x 1
B-17E Fortress x 7

no losses

Allied aircraft losses
F-5A Lightning x 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 17

Runway hits 1

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

[mogami]

Hi, seems OK to me.

[Admiral DadMan]

I'm going to run some more turns, and see what happens.

I wonder if the fatigue/morale effect has been notched up?

[Nikademus]

Hi guys!

I havn't had more than a couple hours to test out 2.0 so far so its early yet, however i have to agree with Mogami, i dont see any serious problem here. Over-effective B-17's from max alt has been an ongoing complaint for some time. Assuming this isn't some 'bug' i'd say its fairly accurate. Bombing from such high altitude may be very safe, but it should also not be nearly as effective as say, bombing at low altitude or in the case with B-17's, my preffered altitude (19,000 feet....where only the biggest available IJN/A A.A. guns can take a crack at you.)

I've gotten good airbase results at that altitude with 2.0 using medium and heavy bombers....at least against the airbase itself i should say. Scoring destroyed or damages vs aircraft on the ground remains a rare occurance at all altitudes

If things have been reduced it may have to do with Matrix's promise that Ground combat casualties from the air would be greatly reduced since pre-2.0 it has been fairly easy to all but anhilate enemy ground formations from the air alone regardless of terrain or fortification level.

[Admiral DadMan]

Well, now B-17's don't hit Jack/Shat. They were designed to unload ordinance from high altitude on large stationary targets (like airfields, not ships). They went way too far the wrong way.

I know....

kwichyerbichin.

[Pawlock]

Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
Well, now B-17's don't hit Jack/Shat. They were designed to unload ordinance from high altitude on large stationary targets (like airfields, not ships). They went way too far the wrong way.

I know....

kwichyerbichin.

Why fly so high? really even if base is heavily defended by AA at around 15000ft the losses to flak are still minimal due to the robustness of the B17.
I was bombing Lunga for weeks on a regular basis, and it was'nt until I dropped below 10,000 that I sustained any significant losses.
If CAP present , go in at night, again losses here at night are negligable.
A heavy raid of B17's at say 3000 ft at night can put a airfield outta action in 1 go.

[mogami]

Hi, I don't think airfields are large targets (at 33k I mean)

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!!!

Finally... thank God...


Thank you Matrix/2By3 !!!


This was my old complain/bug and I kept repeating it on UV forums for ages.

The fact is that stratospheric air combat was impossible in 1942/1943 in
Pacific.

Please let us all remember that this is not 1943/1944 Europe (and even there
33000 ft was impractical/impossible).

This is Pacific.

The air there is humid and almost no aircraft had high altitude gear (together
with no appropriate pilot gear) and pressurized cockpits. Also don't forget
enormous loss of time to climb so high and loss of range/payload because of it
as well.


BTW, in all my games I have "house rule" that MAX altitude for any aircraft is
20000 ft. This is realistic for 1942/1943 and Pacific theatre of war.


Leo "Apollo11"

[Howard Mitchell]

I’m with Apollo11 on this one. Historically, going in at over 30,000 ft had both advantages and disadvantages. B-17s and B-24s didn’t do it, but B-29s were designed to.

The first flight over Tokyo since the Dolittle raid was by the B-29 ‘Tokyo Rose’ at 32,000 feet, which flew for a whole hour over the capital before heading off unscathed. Even in late 1944 intercepting Japanese fighters simply couldn’t reach its altitude.

Bombing from that height was a different matter. For example, on first raid on the Nakajima Musashio engine plant 111 B-29s took off to bomb from altitudes between 27,000 and 33,000 ft. Only 24 bombed the primary target due to clouds, and of the 240 bombs they dropped only 48 even fell within the factory perimeter. And this was a HUGE factory, producing 30% of Japanese aircraft engines.

Given that, I don’t think you could realistically expect B-17s much earlier in the war to either operate effectively at 33,000 ft or even hit anything if they did. It was simply beyond what they were capable of.

The best book I have seen on the B-29 bomber offensive is Kenneth Werrell’s ‘Blankets of Fire’ which you can get through Amazon. Well worth reading.

[derwho]

My one euro worth on the subject of strategic bombing.

High-altitude strategic bombing was never effective in the Pacific theater. The most important single thing Curtiss LeMay acheived was the lowering of strategic bombing altitudes.

73rd, 313th and 314th wings provided a total of 346 B-29's for the attack against Tokyo on March 9th 1945 from Guam. "Each wing was assigned a bombing altitude in bands varying from 5000 to 7800 feet." (Downfall: The End Of The Imperial Japanese Empire by Richard B. Frank)

The result was "a 15.8-square-mile burned-out scar in Tokyo" .. "verified crew reports of stupendous damage." Estimates of casualties vary, but concensus is about 150-200k dead. And this was fire-bombing at 5k-7.8k ft, you'd think that you could do that from a much higher altitude than normal HE bombs, and the target was a whole city!