How to combat the B-17

[paulkenny]

Is there a trick for the Japanese player to have some success against the B17 in mid 42? Some combination of plane and altitude? day after day my zeroes and Oscars are getting chewed up against the american bombers, very frustrating.

[Numdydar]

Bombard their bases with ships [:D]

[khyberbill]

I dont know. Ask my opponents, they are shooting them down, day after day.

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: paulkenny

Is there a trick for the Japanese player to have some success against the B17 in mid 42? Some combination of plane and altitude? day after day my zeroes and Oscars are getting chewed up against the american bombers, very frustrating.

There's not much you can do. While B-17 D-models are rather easy to shot down, E- and F-models are PITA.

First of all, you need more fighters than there's bombers. Try to set up CAP traps, even Oscars are going to shot down a few 4Es if you have enough planes in the air. Fighter pilots should have high experience and air skill, don't waste mediocre pilots vs. 4Es.

Ki-45 should be best bomber interceptor in mid 1942, but I've never had much luck with them. Maybe combination of best pilots and Ki-45?

But best way to kill 4Es is airfield bombing. Too bad that's not always possible.

[crsutton]

in mid 1942, you have long range zeros and air superiority. The best defense against Allied heavies is to locate their base and bomb them. Even if you lose a lot more bombers than him, the replacement rate is so pitiful that it pays off. Force him to be defensive about his bombers. Even if he just moves them it will cost him time and give him fewer sorties. You will have better fighters capable of taking them on later but you will never solve the problem. Best to go after them early and try to keep his losses higher than his replacement rate. I am an Allied player but this is exactly what I would do it I were playing the Japanese. I would rate killing heavy bombers on the ground right up there with sinking Allied carriers in importance.

[Pascal_slith]

Yes. As an allied player never base your heavies in a coastal base. You don't want to be vulnerable to shore bombardment if you can help it.

[Erkki]

ORIGINAL: paulkenny

Is there a trick for the Japanese player to have some success against the B17 in mid 42? Some combination of plane and altitude? day after day my zeroes and Oscars are getting chewed up against the american bombers, very frustrating.

You dont. In my experience if the incoming bomber formation has more than 20, you can throw pretty much anyt number of fighters against them and the best they can do is 5-6 damaged 1-2 kills. Worst I have seen was 28 of them bombing Rabaul at 8,000 feet, I had over 80 fighters engage them, then they flew over 80 heavy guns, then attacked by 20 fighters more, and I got just 4. They killed 7 or 8 of mine in the air and about 10 more on the ground, bombers that had their mission cancelled.

If your opponent keeps using them and you know their targets and CAP them, you can attrit them in the long run but prepare to get lots of planes and pilots wasted. Allies get about 360 heavy bombers in 42 + those arriving with units + those they have in the beginning, so you need to kill about 1 every 3 or 4 days, for probably an extra fighter of yours a day.

If Allies only use them together with the hammer or hit & run theres not much you can do. A dozen of them will even penetrate KB's 150-Zero CAP and the game gives them a bonus in that they will never turn back, even if unescorted, meeting huge CAP or casualties, even with low morale.

In my (limited) experience Ki-45 works the best, Zero does have cannons but its so slow it will take huge casualties even with elite pilots. Everything else you have is also either too slow, machine gun armed or both. I'm waiting to see how Ki-61-Ic and Ki-61-Id (2 centerline cannons, 2 wing HMGs, service rate 2) will work against them, hoping the best, expecting the worst. [:(]

[Nemo121]

Actually the game model is actually quite good as re: B-17 survivability once damage is taken. The problem with the game model is the excessively accurate defensive firepower being put out by the bombers - their hand-aimed MGs are deemed to be as accurate as centre-line MGs, which is hokum.

With that said the key to taking them down is to ensure you can make multiple damaging attack runs on the enemy 4-engined bombers. Ideally this means having 2 to 3 times the number of defending fighters as bombers. What you want is to see a lot of firing passes causing damage. The law of averages states that when you have 50 bombers facing 150 fighters and each fighter attack has a 50% chance of causing damage that by the time the 101st fighter makes an attack run each of the 4-engined bombers will have taken damage. At that point in time the remaining 50 attack runs will cause even more damage to up to 25 of the bombers.

In reality what will happen is that some of the first series of attacks 1-100 will get lucky and get a lucky kill and avoid attacking an undamaged bomber in order to already double up on the already damaged bombers so with 150 fighters attacking 50 bombers with a 50% rate of damaging the bombers per firing run by the time 50 fighters have attacked, hitting 25 bombers, the 51st to 100th fighters will already have a 50% chance of attacking an already damaged bomber.

So the more you outnumber the bombers the more likely you are to get multiple attacks on already damaged bombers and the more likely they are to fall out of the sky NOT as a result of a single devastating pass but, rather, as a result of cumulative damage.

I've used this observation to plan defences which have downed 100+ B-17s in a day so it works. It all depends on massing enough fighters to generate multiple attacks on already damaged bombers. Once you do that the enemy loss rate per sortie of 4-engined bombers will begin skyrocketing since you will no longer be relying on the 1 to 2% "critical hit" kills which is all you'll get until you reach this level of overmatch. It is a little like the application of the Lanchester Laws to air combat.


Obviously cannons are better than MGs and centre-lined is better than wing-mounted BUT focussing on armaments etc misses the point. Armaments don't matter much except insofar as it translated into fewer firing passes per bomber damaged. What really matters is hitting that number of firing passes which begins to guarantee the same bomber being hit for the third time. Once that happens they begin to drop, even if the attacking planes are relatively lightly armed.

[pompack]

And don't underestimate the effect of range; I have often lost four or five to ops losses after combat that produced only damaged a/c. The longer the range, the fewer damaged bombers get home.

[LoBaron]

This also suggests that the priority should be on fighters which can take a beating, to allow for firing passes even if they
already had been damaged by defensive fire.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Actually the game model is actually quite good as re: B-17 survivability once damage is taken. The problem with the game model is the excessively accurate defensive firepower being put out by the bombers - their hand-aimed MGs are deemed to be as accurate as centre-line MGs, which is hokum.

With that said the key to taking them down is to ensure you can make multiple damaging attack runs on the enemy 4-engined bombers. Ideally this means having 2 to 3 times the number of defending fighters as bombers. What you want is to see a lot of firing passes causing damage. The law of averages states that when you have 50 bombers facing 150 fighters and each fighter attack has a 50% chance of causing damage that by the time the 101st fighter makes an attack run each of the 4-engined bombers will have taken damage. At that point in time the remaining 50 attack runs will cause even more damage to up to 25 of the bombers.

In reality what will happen is that some of the first series of attacks 1-100 will get lucky and get a lucky kill and avoid attacking an undamaged bomber in order to already double up on the already damaged bombers so with 150 fighters attacking 50 bombers with a 50% rate of damaging the bombers per firing run by the time 50 fighters have attacked, hitting 25 bombers, the 51st to 100th fighters will already have a 50% chance of attacking an already damaged bomber.

So the more you outnumber the bombers the more likely you are to get multiple attacks on already damaged bombers and the more likely they are to fall out of the sky NOT as a result of a single devastating pass but, rather, as a result of cumulative damage.

I've used this observation to plan defences which have downed 100+ B-17s in a day so it works. It all depends on massing enough fighters to generate multiple attacks on already damaged bombers. Once you do that the enemy loss rate per sortie of 4-engined bombers will begin skyrocketing since you will no longer be relying on the 1 to 2% "critical hit" kills which is all you'll get until you reach this level of overmatch. It is a little like the application of the Lanchester Laws to air combat.


Obviously cannons are better than MGs and centre-lined is better than wing-mounted BUT focussing on armaments etc misses the point. Armaments don't matter much except insofar as it translated into fewer firing passes per bomber damaged. What really matters is hitting that number of firing passes which begins to guarantee the same bomber being hit for the third time. Once that happens they begin to drop, even if the attacking planes are relatively lightly armed.

On the defensive guns, was it not the large number of guns one each aircraft combined with formation flying that proved deadly? Historically, a B-17 that was on its own or fell out of formation was very vulnerable, but with the formations the US and British used, the bombers made up for their individual weakness with the shear amount of lead they could put into the air. And with the formations, you never faced a single aircraft, but all nearby aircraft were positined correctly to help defend the one under attack.

I think the game does a fair job of simulating the strict formation flying the Allies used to help protect their bombers. It does it by overpowering individual aircraft, but the end result is fair IMO.

And this coming from a JFB who has to face them constantly. [X(]

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Actually the game model is actually quite good as re: B-17 survivability once damage is taken. The problem with the game model is the excessively accurate defensive firepower being put out by the bombers - their hand-aimed MGs are deemed to be as accurate as centre-line MGs, which is hokum.

With that said the key to taking them down is to ensure you can make multiple damaging attack runs on the enemy 4-engined bombers. Ideally this means having 2 to 3 times the number of defending fighters as bombers. What you want is to see a lot of firing passes causing damage. The law of averages states that when you have 50 bombers facing 150 fighters and each fighter attack has a 50% chance of causing damage that by the time the 101st fighter makes an attack run each of the 4-engined bombers will have taken damage. At that point in time the remaining 50 attack runs will cause even more damage to up to 25 of the bombers.

In reality what will happen is that some of the first series of attacks 1-100 will get lucky and get a lucky kill and avoid attacking an undamaged bomber in order to already double up on the already damaged bombers so with 150 fighters attacking 50 bombers with a 50% rate of damaging the bombers per firing run by the time 50 fighters have attacked, hitting 25 bombers, the 51st to 100th fighters will already have a 50% chance of attacking an already damaged bomber.

So the more you outnumber the bombers the more likely you are to get multiple attacks on already damaged bombers and the more likely they are to fall out of the sky NOT as a result of a single devastating pass but, rather, as a result of cumulative damage.

I've used this observation to plan defences which have downed 100+ B-17s in a day so it works. It all depends on massing enough fighters to generate multiple attacks on already damaged bombers. Once you do that the enemy loss rate per sortie of 4-engined bombers will begin skyrocketing since you will no longer be relying on the 1 to 2% "critical hit" kills which is all you'll get until you reach this level of overmatch. It is a little like the application of the Lanchester Laws to air combat.


Obviously cannons are better than MGs and centre-lined is better than wing-mounted BUT focussing on armaments etc misses the point. Armaments don't matter much except insofar as it translated into fewer firing passes per bomber damaged. What really matters is hitting that number of firing passes which begins to guarantee the same bomber being hit for the third time. Once that happens they begin to drop, even if the attacking planes are relatively lightly armed.

On the defensive guns, was it not the large number of guns one each aircraft combined with formation flying that proved deadly? Historically, a B-17 that was on its own or fell out of formation was very vulnerable, but with the formations the US and British used, the bombers made up for their individual weakness with the shear amount of lead they could put into the air. And with the formations, you never faced a single aircraft, but all nearby aircraft were positined correctly to help defend the one under attack.

I think the game does a fair job of simulating the strict formation flying the Allies used to help protect their bombers. It does it by overpowering individual aircraft, but the end result is fair IMO.

And this coming from a JFB who has to face them constantly. [X(]

I think you both are right about the topic.

The base issue is simply that until late war no large heavy bomber formations were used, or no effort was made to counter them, until late war in the PTO,
but the players use them.
Historically there just werent targets worth of grinding down with massive raids there. Most attacks were of tactical nature with a dozen planes.

The Germans dreaded defensive fire from heavy bomber formations, even elite units as JG26. And fighters as the FW190 was reportedly
hard to bring down with the radial and the armor. The 109s was a bit worse but compared to a Zero like a tank.

[Nemo121]

Shark etc,

I have no issue with bomber boxes being modelled. There is however an issue with HOW they are modelled in-game. I explained this and solutions in an AAR.

To test it for yourself send b-17s in at night vs 50 or 60 night fighters and compare the outcome -particularly who fires first to experience over Germany and Japan.

The problem is not the overpowering of individual aircraft at all. It is the logarithmic effects of massing - the exact opposite.

[PaxMondo]

As Nemo says, the only thing that I have had any success with is numbers. 2:1 minimum, 3:1 is better, 4:1 can really, really put the hurt on. Zeros better than Oscars, but numbers are most important. Through mid-43 you only have to "win" a few times with this tactic to really cut down on the 4E's as their replacement rates are so low. I have no idea how to handle the late '45 replacement rates (playing Downfall now to try and figure that one out).

[Sredni]

Cap is disruptive to the bombers effectiveness as well I think, even if they don't damage the bombers themselves.

[mdiehl]

The problem with the game model is the excessively accurate defensive firepower being put out by the bombers - their hand-aimed MGs are deemed to be as accurate as centre-line MGs, which is hokum.

On B-17s, only three of the gun-positions on the E-models were "hand aimed." The rest (top, rear, and ball) were as stable (more so, actually) and had as good sighting mechanisms as any sight on any Japanese a.c. On the G models there was a forward turret postion. Only the waist gun single mounts were not mounted on large stable mounts.

On B-29s all of the guns were mechanically servoed and could be slaved to one firing station or apportioned among different gunners. The ones slaved to the Fire Director were more accurate than any gun on any Japanese a.c. B-29s shot down about 12 Japanese fighters for each B-29 lost to fighters. It was unusual for Japanese a.c. to survive long enough to even ram a B-29, and although that did happen, relatively few were lost that way. Most were lost to flak, and even those loss rates weren't very high compared to B-17s operating in the ETO.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

As Nemo says, the only thing that I have had any success with is numbers. 2:1 minimum, 3:1 is better, 4:1 can really, really put the hurt on. Zeros better than Oscars, but numbers are most important. Through mid-43 you only have to "win" a few times with this tactic to really cut down on the 4E's as their replacement rates are so low. I have no idea how to handle the late '45 replacement rates (playing Downfall now to try and figure that one out).

Yes, and as a counter to the counter, LRCAP in the same hex as the bomber attack. even with a small group of fighters is an very effective counter to massed Japanese defenders. As they will soak up a lot of those initial passes and damage fighters. My experience is that even minor damage to an unarmored fighter will put it out of the fight. It is a chess game out there.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

As Nemo says, the only thing that I have had any success with is numbers. 2:1 minimum, 3:1 is better, 4:1 can really, really put the hurt on. Zeros better than Oscars, but numbers are most important. Through mid-43 you only have to "win" a few times with this tactic to really cut down on the 4E's as their replacement rates are so low. I have no idea how to handle the late '45 replacement rates (playing Downfall now to try and figure that one out).

Yes, and as a counter to the counter, LRCAP in the same hex as the bomber attack. even with a small group of fighters is an very effective counter to massed Japanese defenders. As they will soak up a lot of those initial passes and damage fighters. My experience is that even minor damage to an unarmored fighter will put it out of the fight. It is a chess game out there.

If the allies can sweep or LRCAP a hex that they are using 4E's on, AFAIAC that hex is in deep kimchi. [:D]

I'm only referring to attempting to thwart unescorted 4E attacks in my above comments.

When the Bolts/Stangs come on board, it becomes very difficult to achieve the numerical superiority as I am discovering in my DownFall game. As I said, I'm still trying to figure out how to survive with the high replacement rates and the escorts/sweeps. I haven't yet. May not even be completely possible.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
The problem is not the overpowering of individual aircraft at all. It is the logarithmic effects of massing - the exact opposite.

Nemo sorry, was slow to get what you were pointing to exactly.

Your original proposal to reduce HB defence accuracy was to work against the overpowered defensive fire increase when massing bombers.

Is there anything new on this topic?
Problem could be that it makes small HB formations more vulnerable (ahistorically vulnerable?)

Changing how defensive fire is calculated would require a code change right?

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

As Nemo says, the only thing that I have had any success with is numbers. 2:1 minimum, 3:1 is better, 4:1 can really, really put the hurt on. Zeros better than Oscars, but numbers are most important.

Actually no. Numbers (beyond about 40-60 planes, at least with 1942-43 Japanese radar) are only important as far as they allow CAP to absorb damage (including planes out of fuel and ammo). That's because the lenght of engagement is limited by distance of detection, regardless of how many planes one has on CAP. Concentrate 300 Oscars on CAP, and the only result will be bigger losses on ground.

In my opinion, the only way to combat 4Es early in the game, at least if these aren't misused by the Allied player, is multi-stage planning aimed at attriting them. The defensive perimeter should include clusters of 2-3 closely positioned airbases where 4E threat is expected, as to enable fighter dispersion and make shutting them down more difficult (just accept operating with insufficient air support for now, all early-war Jap planes have good service ratings anyway), opportunities for counterbombing and naval bombardments of 4E airfields should be looked for, decent CAP, preferably, consisting of Zeros and Ki-45s should be combined with concentration of flak. Unless the Allied player is unusually patient, or plainly better at tactics, this can whittle down 4E numbers, and keep them at manageable levels, at least in 1942.