Rare AA experiment that doesnt work

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: guctony

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Agree with various posts here - the Allies can not sustain 30% losses per raid of 4EB. You got darn effective results.

Agree with various posts here - the Allies can not sustain 30% losses per raid of 4EB. You got darn effective results.

Ok you are right But if I insist overstaking in 10 raids theorically He can bag up 3000 planes. to his 300.

He will not try it in short term. Bu my intimidating uber-filled base concept has to be changed.

Thats what the RAF found out in the BoB and the Germans in ´44. The key tactic when bombing raids cannot be stopped is dispersal.
Old story. [;)]

[PresterJohn001]

Lots of airbases, disperse your aircraft. Decline the fight. Losses greatly reduced, they can't shut down every airbase and the free airbases when you lose them are nothing. allies can build up airbases in a few days. Occasional ambush. I found that concentrated fighters worked well once or twice but then losses reduced morale and the fight went out of them. Also from mid '43 onwards the allies seem to have fighter superioritory. Maybe the George is good, don't know coz i can't convert any squadrons i can use to it ffs. I'll save that winge for the next time i get a bad turn. [;)]

[Puhis]

Here is my test, called PBEM game.

Last turn 104 allied 4Es bombed at 9000 ft my main Burma airbase. There was 85 75mm AA guns. Result was as depressing as usual: not a single allied bomber lost, not even operational. Airbase totally destroyed. This was not 1st or 2nd bombing run, more like 30th. 75 mm guns are rubbish. Japanese AA units are pure rubbish.

It's February 1943 and I'm still waiting when flak is going to kill first 4E bomber... [:@][8|][:@][8|]

Apparently I have to bring 500 flak guns to get some kills... [:@]

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Puhis
It's February 1943 and I'm still waiting when flak is going to kill first 4E bomber...

Defending calls for multiple vectors, as attacking does.

Feb 18th 1943 and you have exactly 8 heavy bomber A2A kills total?
5 not counting the B17Ds?

Your opponent must have had either a whole lot of milk runs because you avoid capping bases with lots of AA, or he is not using heavies against heavily defended targets.

[Nomad]

I try very hard to not fly them into heavily defended bases. I have not felt that I have to. I am comfortable with how the game is going. But, I think that the war will be getting hotter and hotter in the coming weeks and months.

[PresterJohn001]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Puhis
It's February 1943 and I'm still waiting when flak is going to kill first 4E bomber...

Defending calls for multiple vectors, as attacking does.

Feb 18th 1943 and you have exactly 8 heavy bomber A2A kills total?
5 not counting the B17Ds?

Your opponent must have had either a whole lot of milk runs because you avoid capping bases with lots of AA, or he is not using heavies against heavily defended targets.

to be fair its a lose lose situation for the Japanese. Try to defend airbases and takes lots of losses due to bomber sweep and uber death bomb swarm - multiple bomb runs destroy cap, force it to the ground and then it gets blown up by subsequent bomb runs - but you kill a few bombers - or don't defend, less losses and then "you're not doing it right"

[aprezto]

The answer is "kill them on the ground".
 
That was sooooo much easier said than done. But you can make use of their high maintenance requirement to hit them when they're grounded. This is far easier to accomplish when they are being used from Island bases as you can add bombardment missions to your arsenal.
It is also worth using KB to hit them on the ground - the heavy bombers are the allies best asset. I believe in more so than their carriers (just opinion - don't shoot me). It is therefore worth trying airfield raids with them to get the heavies on the ground.
 
This tactic becomes less and less viable as time goes by. Mainly because heavy bomber numbers and variants get large enough to absorb the losses and also because heavy bomber bases become very heavily defended, both against a KB raid, and against a bombardment (+ surface combat TFs to clear out defenders) such that the return can just be too expensive.
 
Still, watch out for opportunities to kill them this way

[CV 2]

Well I think its fair to say that the 4E bombers are far more effective in the game than they were in the real war or the US wouldnt have built a single B-25.

[aprezto]

ORIGINAL: CV 2

Well I think its fair to say that the 4E bombers are far more effective in the game than they were in the real war or the US wouldnt have built a single B-25.

Hmm, not sure about that. The smaller planes could operate from much smaller airfields, had less maintenance and supply overheads, are far less multi-role, and are far easier to build.

I'm not expert but I'm pretty certain there'd still have been a place, and a pretty important one, for the B-25s and their ilk to fill.

[oldman45]

A typical raid in 43 over New Guinea;

12 -14 B-24's at 12k to suppress the flak, followed by 20 or so B-25's carrying para frags to destroy the a/c on the ground. Find an AAR where players use so few A/C. We are human and we are gamers so we want 100's of bombers and hundreds of fighters. I find that when you fight the AI and use "normal" numbers things work really well. Once you start throwing hundreds of planes the engine has problems.

Just my 2 cents.

[CV 2]

ORIGINAL: aprezto

ORIGINAL: CV 2

Well I think its fair to say that the 4E bombers are far more effective in the game than they were in the real war or the US wouldnt have built a single B-25.

Hmm, not sure about that. The smaller planes could operate from much smaller airfields, had less maintenance and supply overheads, are far less multi-role, and are far easier to build.

I'm not expert but I'm pretty certain there'd still have been a place, and a pretty important one, for the B-25s and their ilk to fill.

True. In real life. But - not in the GAME.

Look at the comparison between a B-17E and A B-25B:
B-17 durability 68 gun value 29. B-25 durability 42 gun value 14. Basically means 2 B-17s would be lost where 3 B-25s would be. And B-17 will kill 2 times as many attacking fighters as B-25.

Operations:
B-17 can fly any mission the B-25 can.
*** Level 2 or 3 airfield (yes in the GAME a B-17 can operate from a level 2 airfield).
- B-17 4 500lb out to 15 hexes.
- B-25 3 500lb out to 10 hexes.
Higher op losses for both aircraft.
*** Level 4 airfield.
- B-17 4 500lb out to 15 hexes.
- B-25 6 600lb out to 12 hexes.
Higher op losses for B-17.
*** Level 5+ airfield.
- B-17 8 500lb out to 18 hexes.
- B-25 6 600lb out to 12 hexes.

There is no advantage in the GAME for using a B-25 v a B-17 EXCEPT on level 4 airfields.

Now change the GAME so 4E bombers HAVE to have a minimum level 5 airfield to operate and you have a reason for the smaller aircraft. And a minimum level 4 (or maybe 3?) for 2E aircraft to fly as well I would think. Remove ground support and naval attack missions from 4E bombers and again, more reason to operate 2E aircraft. But as the GAME is right now, there is no reason in the world not to operate solely 4E bombers.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: CV 2

ORIGINAL: aprezto

ORIGINAL: CV 2

Well I think its fair to say that the 4E bombers are far more effective in the game than they were in the real war or the US wouldnt have built a single B-25.

Hmm, not sure about that. The smaller planes could operate from much smaller airfields, had less maintenance and supply overheads, are far less multi-role, and are far easier to build.

I'm not expert but I'm pretty certain there'd still have been a place, and a pretty important one, for the B-25s and their ilk to fill.

True. In real life. But - not in the GAME.

Look at the comparison between a B-17E and A B-25B:
B-17 durability 68 gun value 29. B-25 durability 42 gun value 14. Basically means 2 B-17s would be lost where 3 B-25s would be. And B-17 will kill 2 times as many attacking fighters as B-25.

Operations:
B-17 can fly any mission the B-25 can.
*** Level 2 or 3 airfield (yes in the GAME a B-17 can operate from a level 2 airfield).
- B-17 4 500lb out to 15 hexes.
- B-25 3 500lb out to 10 hexes.
Higher op losses for both aircraft.
*** Level 4 airfield.
- B-17 4 500lb out to 15 hexes.
- B-25 6 600lb out to 12 hexes.
Higher op losses for B-17.
*** Level 5+ airfield.
- B-17 8 500lb out to 18 hexes.
- B-25 6 600lb out to 12 hexes.

There is no advantage in the GAME for using a B-25 v a B-17 EXCEPT on level 4 airfields.

Now change the GAME so 4E bombers HAVE to have a minimum level 5 airfield to operate and you have a reason for the smaller aircraft. And a minimum level 4 (or maybe 3?) for 2E aircraft to fly as well I would think. Remove ground support and naval attack missions from 4E bombers and again, more reason to operate 2E aircraft. But as the GAME is right now, there is no reason in the world not to operate solely 4E bombers.

B-25 makes more sense for tactical missions for a number of reasons:

1. Easier maintenance.
2. Crew of 6 for B-25 versus crew of 10 for B-17/24 (less manpower intensive).
3. Cheaper construction.
4. Easier to operate from primitive airfields.
5. Better low level performance, which was found to be more effective in the Pacific Theatre.

[CV 2]

ORIGINAL: Shark7


B-25 makes more sense for tactical missions for a number of reasons:

1. Easier maintenance.
2. Crew of 6 for B-25 versus crew of 10 for B-17/24 (less manpower intensive).
3. Cheaper construction.
4. Easier to operate from primitive airfields.
5. Better low level performance, which was found to be more effective in the Pacific Theatre.

Yes. In the real world. That is NOT the case in the GAME.

My position is, it SHOULD be.

So how does one make the 2E aircraft important in the GAME? To me the solution is simple, remove the "tactical" missions from 4E bombers. Ground support was something they were ill equipped to do. I know of 2 instances where 4E bombers were used as "ground support", and both of those were in Europe. Naval strike is also something they were ill equipped to do. I know of no strike of 4E aircraft flying in formation against moving ships at sea that were successful. Individual attacks, yes (game terms - naval SEARCH not strike). Formation attacks, no.

The B-24 raids against various islands were airfield or port strike missions (dont forget, in the GAME port strike missions take out shore guns so the bombing at Iwo for example would qualify as port strike rather than ground strike).

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Puhis
It's February 1943 and I'm still waiting when flak is going to kill first 4E bomber...

Defending calls for multiple vectors, as attacking does.

Feb 18th 1943 and you have exactly 8 heavy bomber A2A kills total?
5 not counting the B17Ds?

Your opponent must have had either a whole lot of milk runs because you avoid capping bases with lots of AA, or he is not using heavies against heavily defended targets.

No matter how hard you try, "you are playing it wrong" argument [8|] can't explane why 75 mm AA guns can't even scratch 4E bombers...

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I find that when you fight the AI and use "normal" numbers things work really well. Once you start throwing hundreds of planes the engine has problems.

That is what I think too. I think the engine can handle well "historical" numbers and tactics, but PBEM players especially use very ahistorical tactics.

That is something I really miss, the historical feel of the battles...


(IMO biggest flaws at the moment are overpowered 4E bombers and endless dive, Dive, DIVE!!!)

[LoBaron]

Come on Puhis, the "you are playing it wrong argument"? [8|]

I observed something which indicated two possible explanations, and Nomad says its the second one. I was just interested if one of my observations is true.
Are you feeling a bit thin skinned today?

I don´t know how many heavies 80 75mm guns should kill, more so because I don´t know the timeframe this flak concentration exists or the intentensity
or average altitude of the raids.
I do see quite a number of op losses though, and there could be a relation to flak concentration.


PrestorJohn: Yes I know you cannot beat an Allied Uber Deathstar. But you can attrit it. You got more stuff to throw in the air.
As I said in my first post, one tactic is dispersal. You can CAP a single base even though the squads on (LR)CAP duty are spread over everal different bases.
The "being destroyed on the ground" argument works against force concentration, not against CAP in general.

aprezto added another important point. If you can kill the beasts on the ground go for it. You cannot do this all the time but it works on some instances.

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I don´t know how many heavies 80 75mm guns should kill,

Well I know. More than 0...

[toselli]

Puhis,
I think you are looking at numbers in the wrong way. The intel report will list a plane as lost to flak only if it is outright destroyeed over your base. That, especially for a Allied 4E, is a very rare event. Nonetheless, if you look at bomber losses there are almost 200 of them listed as OP losses; those are planes that are damaged by your flak and fighters and lost on their way back home. Even accounting for a slight exageration due to FOW, in my opinion that is a very high number of bombers lost for early 43.

I am a Japan player exclusively and, in my experience, Allied 4E are not the devil that most players describe them to be, as they can be countered with the right tactics.

Jeffrey

[Puhis]

If you look at the last turn, 104 bombers and 85 flak guns. Not a single 4E was lost. My opponent confirmed that.
If you look at the total losses, there's only one flak loss (B-17D). Maybe some of the op. losses are indeed damaged by flak. I know that perfectly well.

But the fact remains: 75 mm AA guns can't shoot down any 4Es (over my airbase). Which doesn't sound right. That base is probably the most bombed one, and there's biggest concentration of AA guns. They occasionaly shot down 2E bomber, but not a single 4Es.


AA units don't gain any experience, at least I haven't see any. So this might be a experience problem really. When units spend months shooting bombers, you would assume they would learn at least something...

[beppi]

ORIGINAL: CV 2

ORIGINAL: Shark7


B-25 makes more sense for tactical missions for a number of reasons:

1. Easier maintenance.
2. Crew of 6 for B-25 versus crew of 10 for B-17/24 (less manpower intensive).
3. Cheaper construction.
4. Easier to operate from primitive airfields.
5. Better low level performance, which was found to be more effective in the Pacific Theatre.

Yes. In the real world. That is NOT the case in the GAME.

My position is, it SHOULD be.

So how does one make the 2E aircraft important in the GAME? To me the solution is simple, remove the "tactical" missions from 4E bombers. Ground support was something they were ill equipped to do. I know of 2 instances where 4E bombers were used as "ground support", and both of those were in Europe. Naval strike is also something they were ill equipped to do. I know of no strike of 4E aircraft flying in formation against moving ships at sea that were successful. Individual attacks, yes (game terms - naval SEARCH not strike). Formation attacks, no.

The B-24 raids against various islands were airfield or port strike missions (dont forget, in the GAME port strike missions take out shore guns so the bombing at Iwo for example would qualify as port strike rather than ground strike).

For the point 1. maintenance this is already in the game and quite effective. The B25 with their service rating of 2 outshine any 4E Bomber in that case. With B25 you can do a daily bombardment with a lot more operable planes. With 4E you can only keep around 50% operable if do you daily runs.

I like my B25 for ground support and would take 40 more each month for 20 less B24-J.