B-29 Attacks on japanese Homeland--Losses

Odin · Post by **Odin** » Wed Jan 15, 2003 1:14 pm

I don´t know what i´m doing wrong, but in nearly every attack the japanese Flak eats up my B29...with a 60 Aircraft strike, i often lose 30 or so!

Only Flak, no fighters.

That cannot be true...can someone tell me about it?

Aussie · Post by **Aussie** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 5:35 am

That seems a little excessive, even when bombing a city like Tokyo in daylight. I find my B-29 losses in daylight raids are around 10 - 15. Try night missions or get the B-29s to fly higher!

Odin · Post by **Odin** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 11:38 am

Nice idea but how can i let them fly higher?

This losses cannot be realistic...simply too high.

Aussie · Post by **Aussie** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 4:01 am

Hi Odin,

I was joking about the flying high bit. Maybe some other players here have had similar losses to yours during B-29 missions?

Dan

Jeremy Pritchard · Post by **Jeremy Pritchard** » Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:53 pm

I am back from a long break from PacWar.

For 3.2 I think B-29's will be modeled something like this...

(Changes only)
B-29
Dogfight: 16
Cannon: 0
Capacity: 40
Durability: 100

This will represent the tactic of high level bombing.

Dogfight is doubled (from 8) because their high altitude will give them a 'manoever' bonus from enemy fighters intercepting.

The cannon rate is zero, as at this altitude there would be nothing to shoot at.

Capacity is cut in half (from 80) because very high level bombing is much more innacurate (resulting in more misses).

Durability is doubled (from 53) because the bombers were so high that very few Japanese fighters could actually reach them, and those that did were not able to press their attack as well should the bombers have been at a lower altitude.

HOPEFULLY the scenario should follow this...

#1. 30 B-29's attack Tokyo.

#2. 40 A6M5's and Ki-style fighters intercept.

#3. Experience is equal (barring the inevitable human playing better then historic Japan and keeping some elite pilots alive by 1944)

#4. Japanese fighters attack, durability disparity is much less from conventional heavy bombers (i.e., B-29 has 16 vs 8, while the A6M5 has 25). The A6M5 'hits' 10 bombers.

#5. Due to the B-29 high durability, none of the 10 bombers are destroyed. However, due to 0 cannon rates by the B-29 any 'hit' A6M5's are just damaged and not destroyed (possibly from trying to go above their cieling of operation).

#6. Flak, attacks directly against durability. The Japanese home Islands have both Port and Airfields of around 9 (which make for high flak levels). With the increased durability of B-29 bombers, only the heaviest of IJA AA can reach them, resulting in very few B-29's hit by Flak.

Hopefully this will decrease the losses to the B-29, but not make it into an invincible weapon of destruction (I might cut the bomb load by 1/4 if 1/2 is too powerful).

Unfortunately, if I do this, B-29's will always have to operate at the highest altitudes (since statistics in PacWar are fixed). So for those who love their heavy capacity B-29's, they might be in for a disappointment.

Denniss · Post by **Denniss** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 3:17 am

Durability is too high with 100 - nearly no chance of shooting some of them down

Especially with a long game running into 1946 the japs should have some fighters capable of flying very high

Give us a durability of 80 or 90 but give the japanese the (small) chance to shoot some of them down

I have no statistics available but I thought the US Airforce lost some of their B29 ??!?

Aussie · Post by **Aussie** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:05 am

I am at a bit of a loss to understand the B-29 changes in light of historical events: As you know the USAAF tried high altitude 'precision' bombing of Japan early in the piece, without any real success. When they switched to low altitude saturation bombing with incendiary bombs, well that really nailed Japan. I wouldn't mind loosing some extra B-29s if it means that more damage can be done quicker to Japanese industry. The end (i.e. win) justifies the losses, as was the case with strategic bombing in the European theatre.

My 10 cents worth (incl. GST)...

Dirtdog20 · Post by **Dirtdog20** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 8:06 am

I agree with Aussie here. Look at Iwo Jima, the reason the Marines were ordered to take the island was because of B-29 losses going to and coming back from Japan. Also it game them an emergency base. According to General H.M. Smith USMC (R) memoirs 40 B-29's used Iwo before the 27 day operation was over and according to Army records in a few month 1,449 B-29's with 15,938 crewmen were able to use Iwo. He also states that taking Iwo allowed them to increase thier loads by 5000 lbs of bombs and fuel. P. 231 "Coral And Brass" H.M.Smith USMC (R) and Percy Finch; Bantam Books; Toronto, New York, London, Sydney, Auckland 1987 Ed.
Also if I am not mistaken the firebombing raids of Tokyo killed and displaced more people than the Nagasaki A-Bomb. If anything the B-29 should do alot of damage and the durability as it is now means that there will be losses but I have never had what I considered prohibitive losses in destroyed aircraft. Remember the losses listed in combat reports are damaged and destroyed. Damaged aircraft fly again, and again , and again.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon Jan 20, 2003 8:19 am

Also another reason to take Iwo Jima and Bonin Island is to put long ranged fighters there. They can do sweeps and knock down the fighter opposition. By this time, the replacement experience for Japan is like 20 or 30. It only takes a few weeks of fighter sweeps to make the fighter opposition ineffective.

mdiehl · Post by **mdiehl** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 2:06 am

These B29 mods are strange. Why would you eliminate the cannons? If attacked by fighters they can't shoot anything down. The B29 had the best fire control system of any bomber in the war, and it had a demonstrably good record of shooting down Japanese fighters that came near it, in the infrequent circumstances where Japanese fighters came near them.

I agree that the 100 dur rating is excessive. OTOH, Japanese flak should not be prohibitively strong. The way to fix the flak losses is to reduce Jpns flak strength, IMO, not increase B29 durability.

pasternakski · Post by **pasternakski** » Tue Jan 21, 2003 2:11 am

I agree with these last five excellent posts.

IntellWeenie · Post by **IntellWeenie** » Thu Jan 23, 2003 7:19 pm

Also, the mainr reason for switching to low-level night bombing was to increase bomb damage, not avoid Japanese defenses. While losses were kept relatively small by flying very high, bomb accuracy went to pot. Moving lower solved the accuracy problem, but necessitated the move to night flying to avoid heavier a/c losses.

Jeremy's new ratings would work OK for the first phase of B-29 tactics, but how do you represent the later night bombing tactics?

I would rather see the numbers optimized for night missions.

Capt. Harlock · Post by **Capt. Harlock** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 1:27 am

Let shout from my soapbox once again: Pacific War is NOT supposed to re-create the events of the WWII Pacific Theatre exactly. The reason it is the extroardinary achievement that it is, is that it is also an outstanding "What If" tool. What if the Japnese had invaded Australia? What if the Americans had lost at Midway? And, obviously, what if different bombing tactics had been tried against Japan? (I have assembled two USN carrier TF's and a BB TF and sailed them right into Tokyo. I lost two CV's, but there was major factory damage.)

Jeremy, please remember that Pacific War can now go way into extra innings. If the Japanese player can keep his Oil supplies up, and his economy going, then it is quite possible the later Japanese fighters could have reached high altitudes. Optimising aircraft characteristics for their historical uses is just wrong, IMHO. Aircraft should be given their actual capabilities, and then it should be up to the player to find the best use for them.

Aussie · Post by **Aussie** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 5:27 am

PW is a great ‘’what if’ tool, but this scenario seems absurd: “What if the Americans continued with an ineffective strategy of bombing from the stratosphere” You don’t really need to run a computer game to find that one out.

Aircraft should be given their actual capabilities, and then it should be up to the player to find the best use for them.

The actual capabilities for the B-29 are being changed here, which doesn’t allow a player to put them to their best use.

pasternakski · Post by **pasternakski** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 5:37 am

Originally posted by Aussie
Aircraft should be given their actual capabilities, and then it should be up to the player to find the best use for them.

The actual capabilities for the B-29 are being changed here, which doesn’t allow a player to put them to their best use.

This makes perfect sense to me. If the game system is not providing a reasonable framework within which to apply equipment (in this case, aircraft) types, it is the shortcomings in the system that have to be addressed, not the equipment modeling data.

The B-29 and the strategic bombing campaign over Japan are fascinating subjects to explore through the medium of this excellent game (yes, I know it has flaws that cannot be remedied). To be "hardcoded" into a specific strategy defeats the purpose, IMHO.

Aussie · Post by **Aussie** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 5:54 am

I have just thought of a great (but probably not possible) way of allowing alternate strategic bombing approaches - Allow the player the option of assigning B-29 groups a) day missions, with the statistics Jeremy proposed OR b) night missions with the original B-29 stats.

henhute6 · Post by **henhute6** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 11:41 am

Aussie, that would propably need two different plane types (B-29 day and B-29 night variant). Unfortunately plane type slots are limited. So which plane to take away?

Aussie · Post by **Aussie** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 12:02 pm

Henhute6, good question, I think 'most of the minor plane types have already been taken away and replaced.

henhute6 · Post by **henhute6** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 2:49 pm

Originally posted by Capt. Harlock
Let shout from my soapbox once again: Pacific War is NOT supposed to re-create the events of the WWII Pacific Theatre exactly. The reason it is the extroardinary achievement that it is, is that it is also an outstanding "What If" tool. What if the Japnese had invaded Australia? What if the Americans had lost at Midway?

Pacific War can be at least partially a "What if" tool. In game against AI I'm still having an offensive in 1946. One problem is that those short ranged bomber interceptors like J7W Shinden and Ki-201 Karyu do not suit very well to support attacks. Of course aircraft designs would be quite different in such a situation (heavy bombers and long range fighters).

B-29 Attacks on japanese Homeland--Losses

B-29 Attacks on japanese Homeland--Losses

Higher?

B-29's