Unhistorical Air system - WAD but a poor design in my opinion

[KWG]

Many of the things you have brought up have already been replied to in the other threads.

Evaluating Bradley’s Decision

Half a century later, the debate over the Cobra disaster has lost none of its vitality.Today, typing on a keyboard far from the terror of the hedgerows, it is a simple task to point out the shortfalls of the bombing plan.On that July day, the issue seemed very different.An officer at the front concluded:

I believe every man in the company will agree that if we have such an attack again they would want the bombing just where it was, right to our lines.We would rather take the ones that fall on us to get the effect on the Germans in front of us.


The issue, however, was not whether or not the bombing should have been conducted, but if the commanders had done everything possible to mitigate the risks.



Another problem during Cobra was that commanders hadn't ensured that the ground troops were adequately prepared.Even though troops were supposed to withdraw 1,200 yards from the no bomb line, some units were positioned as close as 800 yards or less.Others pulled back shortly before the air strike, but were not told to dig-in.The 2d Battalion, 120th Infantry Regiment, for example, which was hit hard on July 24, was deployed in battle formation preparing to attack, not dug-in and protected. Lieutenant Chester H. Jordan in the 3rd Battalion, 47th Infantry Regiment recalled, “I reasoned the Germans would be in no shape to throw anything at us so why dig a hole.”When the attack started his platoon “cheered the bomber on like kids at a football game,” until the first short bombs began to land.[25]The failure to take protective cover was invitation to disaster.

The preconditions for disaster were the cumulative result of three critical failures; inadequate coordination with the supporting air forces, inability to mark the forward positions of ground forces, and the lack of warning and protection of the troops.But, what the reports fail to fully emphasize is that none of these shortfalls were beyond General Bradley's control.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I do not condone any trolling. KWG is not trolling - he is providing information to support his opinion (which I infer is that his use of airpower is legitimate). If every time someone posted their concerns about the game and the Dev Team speed of response I classed it as trolling, some would have been banned ages ago.

Posting a quote is not providing any historical or in game data.

Its a quote trolling for an answer that has nothing to do with data.

That's what leads to the personal attack silliness and gets threads off topic.

Why its called trolling. Gets people off topic - see its working all ready [8D]

[KWG]

Germany has not been bombed for 10 weeks and no V-1 sites have been bombed.

THAT IS NOT TRUE

?????

[KWG]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I do not condone any trolling. KWG is not trolling - he is providing information to support his opinion (which I infer is that his use of airpower is legitimate). If every time someone posted their concerns about the game and the Dev Team speed of response I classed it as trolling, some would have been banned ages ago.

Posting a quote is not providing any historical or in game data.

Its a quote trolling for an answer that has nothing to do with data.

That's what leads to the personal attack silliness and gets threads off topic.

Why its called trolling. Gets people off topic - see its working all ready [8D]

Where is my data?
RIGHT WHERE YOU LEFT IT.
quote:KWG was nice enough to post this on operation Cobra panzer lehr Bayerlein left a remarkable account of the effects of the COBRA bombing and ground assault on his already war-weary command.
In response to postwar interrogation he wrote:
We had the main losses by pattern bombing, less by artillery, still less by tanks and smaller arms.
The actual losses of dead and wounded were approximately:
by bombing 50%
by artillery 30%
by other weapons 20%

[KWG]

You are more than likely going to win, or have you crunched the data and hexs ,till the end, and it shows a possible different ending?

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: KWG

Germany has not been bombed for 10 weeks and no V-1 sites have been bombed.

THAT IS NOT TRUE

?????

That's a statement not proof.

I do not remember seeing a single city or V site bombed after your invasion.

Mybee I missed it do you have any proof?

[KWG]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: KWG

Germany has not been bombed for 10 weeks and no V-1 sites have been bombed.

THAT IS NOT TRUE

?????

That's a statement not proof.

I do not remember seeing a single city or V site bombed after your invasion.

Mybee I missed it do you have any proof?

You have the turn so its in your hands. Here is collaborating proof from a similar statement

[Peltonx]

So no one is going to refute the data?

I don't see anything to refute the in game or historical data

Does anyone think the in game or historical data is wrong?

If so do your have data to support it?

I am sure there is other data that shows different % ratio's but from what I have found and others when we were looking at WitE ratios in
dev forum these #'s are all close.

To be clear I like WitW as I did WitE,
but all games have flaws modeling history and people will find these flaws some quicker then others.

There is nothing wrong with admitting this and fixing it. I also gave ideas for fixing the issie in this thread so I am not just trashing the game, but giving ideas on how to fix the issue as I have always done in the past no matter the exploit pro german or pro allied.

[RedLancer]

The data is not wrong but your use of the data in your argument is.

- I do not doubt your data is correct but the use of it in this context is utterly flawed. History is not being followed so historic data has no validity.
- The use of Cobra or Goodwood ( or Totalise or Charnwood or Tractable or Bluecoat) to prove a point in this argument is flawed as in these instances the air attacks were on a single day and not over a week as is being employed.
- Your data will only be valid if you set up a scenario that models Cobra or Goodwood accurately - same squadrons, same units in the hex and same duration - i.e. one day out of seven.
- You criticise people mixing quotes with data but then do so yourself. Your quote on how pilots recognised enemy territory is out of context as Cobra used red artillery smoke and cerise panels to mark the target not French locals.
- There is no exploit but KWG is pushing the game to the limit as you yourself do.
- Your play in Normandy is unhistoric because:
-- You are rotating formations - the Germans did not have enough to do this.
-- Although German defensive doctrine did have fall back lines they were not normally ten miles behind they were less so that means they were in the same hex - on the Bourguebus Ridge there were 5 lines going back 6 miles - here you have them up to 3 hexes / 30 miles deep.
-- There were no significant fall back fortifications built and no fortified units employed in Normandy.
-- You have Panzer formations in reserve - I cannot find an example where a unit was held back for over a week.
-- If you stockpiled depots from 1943 then that is ahistoric.
-- If you don't attack that is ahistoric.
- Your past history does not provide you carte blanche as the arbiter of what is correct in any 2by3 game.

[DTomato]

When looking at history and why things did -- or more importantly, did not -- happen, it's important to ask WHY.

So in the case of battlefield carpet bombing, there are two possible explanations for why the Allies didn't do it:

1) They were stupid or unimaginative.
2) There were technological and doctrinal barriers. And as a matter of fact, Allied ground commanders were not thrilled with carpet bombing after 8th Air Force, which was actually not trained or equipped for pinpoint bombing, killed a lot of American troops in Normandy. Meanwhile, the Bomber Barons screamed every time a B-17 or Lancaster was diverted from the Bomber Offensive.

Which brings up one of the problems with a game like WITW: What level of command are you simulating? The Allied commander loses VPs for not strategic bombing, which suggests that he has a boss above him setting priorities. So does that mean that he shouldn't be able to overrule Hap Arnold and "Bomber" Harris and use their heavies for carpet bombing?

On the other hand, the Germans have all sorts of advantages that the real generals didn't, like the privilege of being able to withdraw from parts of France and Italy without being sent before a firing squad. So maybe the Allies need to have an ahistorical capability of their own.

Michael

[Seminole]

The different lose ratio is caused by an poorly designed air system... There is no strategy or tactic, its an exploit of the system that give 70% of loses caused by bombing. Historically that simply was not possible, so the design is poor. 70% of loses were caused by artillery.

You're calling his strategy and tactics an exploit, but that's semantics.
From the information you yourself provided Cobra exacted 50% losses from the air on Panzer Lehr, and KWG has made a much larger and longer commitment in his Super Cobra, so 50% strikes me as the floor in light of his concentration, and as importantly yours.

If he is doing 20x the historical amount of tactical bombing, should he still only cause 'historical' casualties with it?
If so, why?

There is no If we know he is based on his and my data, so that's not a question.

So we agree he is making a larger commitment, as are you (in terms of human targets), so please address the actual question: Should he only cause 'historical' casualties, if so, why in light of his different application of firepower? What's the logic behind your expectation?

We know the same thing can be done by simply bombing troops on the coast before u even invade.

That's conjecture, not data.
Several important differences. Do you put 3 divisions per hex on the coast? Maximum aerial recon detection value is 4, whereas troops in contact can reach 10.
Lower troop concentration and lower recon values don't support the notion that 'the same thing' can be done before invasion.

Why did Operation Cobra last less than a week historically?

Logistics

Are you suggesting the Allies didn't have enough bombs?
Source?

Accuracy was problematic.For medium bombers to have a 95 percent chance of hitting a 6,000 square foot target, they had to drop 600 bombs (medium bombers were considered 2.5 times more accurate than Cobra's main punch, the heavy bombers).

You're going apples and oranges here. We're not talking about dropping a bomb on a single building.
Do you think you're hiding a division inside of 6,000 sq. ft. - 60x100! Did you stick your panzer division inside a barn?
For comparison, a football field is 57,600 sq. ft, and you're not hiding a division inside of one of those either.
From the source you're quoting:
"90 percent fell within a thousand yards of the target."

NO as per the above post. HVY bombers were useless and even medium next to useless tring to hit a target, in other words they were usless tacticly.

You're being misleading with the notion of 'target' in this context. We're talking about carpet bombing, not trying to drop one in a pickle barrel.

What targets?

You tell me, how many divisions do you have at Normandy?
Your quote about fighter pilots with maps on their knees refers to interdiction, not carpet bombing from level bombers with on-board navigators and bombardiers. That's apples and oranges again...

[KWG]

ORIGINAL: DicedT

When looking at history and why things did -- or more importantly, did not -- happen, it's important to ask WHY.

So in the case of battlefield carpet bombing, there are two possible explanations for why the Allies didn't do it:

1) They were stupid or unimaginative.
2) There were technological and doctrinal barriers. And as a matter of fact, Allied ground commanders were not thrilled with carpet bombing after 8th Air Force, which was actually not trained or equipped for pinpoint bombing, killed a lot of American troops in Normandy. Meanwhile, the Bomber Barons screamed every time a B-17 or Lancaster was diverted from the Bomber Offensive.

Which brings up one of the problems with a game like WITW: What level of command are you simulating? The Allied commander loses VPs for not strategic bombing, which suggests that he has a boss above him setting priorities. So does that mean that he shouldn't be able to overrule Hap Arnold and "Bomber" Harris and use their heavies for carpet bombing?

On the other hand, the Germans have all sorts of advantages that the real generals didn't, like the privilege of being able to withdraw from parts of France and Italy without being sent before a firing squad. So maybe the Allies need to have an ahistorical capability of their own.

Michael

"there was no real cooperation….no one was commanding the Air Force so to speak "


"Op COBRA was a dichotomy. It forced a conceptual revolution in the application of strategic and tactical air power that would resonate through history to meet its epoch in modern fighter bombers and RPAS - Remotely Piloted Aircraft System. To achieve this, the application of strategic air power for Op COBRA, which was viewed as simplistic and primal, used these high-yield strategic assets in an unknown and untested tactical role. The inherent frustrations between the land commanders desire for this tactical ‘silver bullet’, and the airmen’s desire to strike strategic targets to cripple the bigger Nazi beast was articulated well by Brigadier Williams, Montgomery’s LO to the Allied Expeditionary Air Force (AEAF):[color=##990000] ‘there was no real cooperation….no one was commanding the Air Force so to speak [/color] , and Tedder [Eisenhower’s Second in Command] had to try and command because Leigh-Mallory [Commander and tactically focussed head of the Allied Expeditionary Air Force]… didn’t have any control over Bert Harris [Chief of British strategic bombing assets] at all, anyway. The result was, and its significant I think, that this awful phrase grew up: ‘selling a target’ . And that’s what you had to do, you see, if you wanted the Air Force to do something.'"




Once the Germans ran, the tactical bombing by ALL Air Forces dropped off and did not start up again until Market-Garden, Bulge, Germany


If the historical German's defense had been as good as Pelton's, this is what the Allies would have done.

[Harrybanana]

In my opinion the WA Player should be allowed to use his heavy bombers for Tactical bombing if he wishes. But, as I have said numerous times, the problem is that in the game they are far more effective in this role then they were historically. I ran some tests. In one test I used the heavies of BC to "Unit" bomb a number of German units at 17,000 feet. I then reloaded and used a similar number of twin engine bombers and FBs of 2nd Tac to "Unit" bomb the same units at 12,000 feet (the FBs were equipped with bombs not rockets). The heavies killed almost twice as many men as the twin engine bombers and FBs did while sustaining fewer casualties and morale loss. I personally do not believe this is historical. I also support the comments of others that the heavies should add some extra MPs to the bombed hexes for the ensuing friendly ground movement.

[Seminole]

When looking at history and why things did -- or more importantly, did not -- happen, it's important to ask WHY.

So in the case of battlefield carpet bombing, there are two possible explanations for why the Allies didn't do it:

1) They were stupid or unimaginative.
2) There were technological and doctrinal barriers. And as a matter of fact, Allied ground commanders were not thrilled with carpet bombing after 8th Air Force, which was actually not trained or equipped for pinpoint bombing, killed a lot of American troops in Normandy. Meanwhile, the Bomber Barons screamed every time a B-17 or Lancaster was diverted from the Bomber Offensive.

The main reason was that Ike didn't like the resulting friendly casualties (I'd wager General McNair's death weighed heavily), and that is something that is not being modeled here.
Another aspect is that the front became much more fluid after Cobra, so the opportunity to do the same sort of thing I think was largely lacking.

I've seen a lot of Allied players try to unit bomb and interdict me in Italy, and I guess the terrain (and recon value) is very mitigating, because it has been nowhere near as effective as Pelton has suffered in Normandy. I also don't have 3 divisions stacked in a hex, so the target density differs as well. I expect that distance to target and time of year factor as well.

I think that carpet bombing against units that are essentially static and in contact (meaning adjacent to friendlies with maxed detection levels) should be very effective, but the same type of bombing against targets that are only aerially reconned, and especially if they're fortified level 2 or higher, should not suffer nearly as much. Dummy positions, effective concealment, and bunkers to hide in go a long way to mitigating air power - even today.
I haven't done any testing to see how the game already differentiates these, my only observation is from the game is ineffective Allied efforts in Italy to replicate what KWG is doing in Normandy.

[KWG]

I seem to be having the same results in Italy on a much smaller scale due to aircraft numbers. Its Summer and good weather and in Europe its 9,000 attack aircraft.

I can also get recon levels of 100 a lot, where 99 use to be my max, until my tactics change.

Against myself, as Germans Ive used Napoleonic tactics with good results.





WiTE 2.0 - may be that people say enough are not killed by aircraft.

Aircraft will be VERY important in such a large area. And where the enemies' planes are will be very watched.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

In my opinion the WA Player should be allowed to use his heavy bombers for Tactical bombing if he wishes. But, as I have said numerous times, the problem is that in the game they are far more effective in this role then they were historically. I ran some tests. In one test I used the heavies of BC to "Unit" bomb a number of German units at 17,000 feet. I then reloaded and used a similar number of twin engine bombers and FBs of 2nd Tac to "Unit" bomb the same units at 12,000 feet (the FBs were equipped with bombs not rockets). The heavies killed almost twice as many men as the twin engine bombers and FBs did while sustaining fewer casualties and morale loss. I personally do not believe this is historical. I also support the comments of others that the heavies should add some extra MPs to the bombed hexes for the ensuing friendly ground movement.

Depending on the exact planes used, you might have had 3-6 times or more the number of bombs and the weight of explosive with the heavies... So I am not sure your test (as defined) is definitive. You would have to do do further experiments. Formally you need to do a Design of Experiments, but simplistically, now add a reduction in Heavies so the number/weight of bombs is similar. Also, how many of each test did you run? It is going to be variable...

[LiquidSky]

Carpet bombing is not an exact science. It cannot be done 'on demand'. In order for it proceed it must be planned in advance.

The front line has to be shifted back. The minimal safe distance for friendly units is supposed to be one mile. So before bombing, you have to disengage from the enemy and back up. These units are also out in the open...waiting for an attack to be launched and not dug in...

The area being bombed has to be marked somehow. The bombers are flying at over 20k feet. They are not dive bombers. They will not see units on the ground to bomb. The most common way of marking the are to be bombed is to follow geographical features...which means you may not even be able to bomb where the enemy really is. Other methods were tried...using coloured smoke from artillery for example, but they were not effective. (did I mention they bomb from over 20k feet?)

While being bombed, there is a huge psychological effect. The closest I can imagine is it would be like going to my in-laws for dinner. *shudder*. While there will be casualties, it will not be in proportion to the effort. Panzer Lehr which was supposedly 'wiped out' was still a viable division. The bombing covered a lot of their tanks with dirt, so they had to be dug out. That's not destroyed, that's disabled.

Only so many bombers can actually fly over the area. And after the bombs hit, there will be so much dirt, debris, smoke etc...concealing the battlefield. This will hinder other air operations.

The ground is chewed up. Since the bombs are falling indiscriminately rubble, bridges, roads...they will all be pockmarked, shellholed. It did make an advance difficult.

The B-17 was built with a purpose in mind. Nobody could wave a magic wand and turn it into a dive bomber. Or a tactical bomber. The use of fuel, crew, bombs...the time to prepare it for missions...the lack of any communication whatsoever with the army. (they only communicate general to general). Really...if they thought that it would be better to bomb random bits of ground in the hopes they can hit a German, they would have built a different airplane.

Sooooo...this leads me to the game. In game you can fly as many sorties as you want. With as many planes as you want. They drop their bombs like they are tactical aircraft that can see the target. You can fly at absurd altitudes (tree top bombing with b-17s) You can kill imaginary citizens of France. They never miss the target or hit friendly near by troops. The Strat bomber is just too effective at bombing units.

I am not against flying the mission...go crazy. The game already has a balance for that...you lose vps. Which should limit the number of times you fly the mission. What I am against is the amount of damage it causes. The kind of damage. The lack of any ground delay or effect on the allies.

The game just looks at the bombs. It says x number of bombs will do y amount of damage. And then multiply it by the number of bombs....it doesn't regulate the number of planes that should physically fly over the area. It assumes that no bombs ever hit an adjacent friendly unit. It pretends that the hex, despite any amount of bombing, would be as easy to walk through as a trip in a park.

In game you are bombing 7 days a week. When exactly do the troops have time to attack the hex? The battle would be like this: Overnight....friendly troops back away from front line to safe distance (about a mile) Carpet bombing hits early morning. After bombing finished, troops move up to front line. Launch attack at noon. Fight until night. Back up to safe distance maybe getting a couple hours sleep. Next morning...Bomb..move up...attack....retreat....maybe sleep.

If you say hey...I don't have to attack at all..well..whats to stop the Germans from hugging the front lines. A common tactic in places like Stalingrad when the enemy doesn't want to be shelled/bombed.

I think people are being naïve. Don't let Pelton's bad example justify what is a misuse of airpower. His argument is flawed in many ways, but deep down, there is a problem with how B-17's Lancasters etc...can be used exactly the same way as Mitchell's.


Earlier I had suggested that perhaps the strat bombers should leave enemy interdiction in the hex. Somebody countered with adding delay. Every day that a carpet bombing hits a hex, it should be somehow taking up time. Adding 3 delay per day could work, I liked the idea of enemy interdiction since that would cause the friendly fire associated with highly inaccurate bombing..but perhaps wouldn't add enough delay. Or maybe just have a house rule that you can only carpet bomb on one day of the week.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

Pelton seems to expect historical losses regardless of the game situation and tactics.
All seems a bit strange to me... I would say Middle Earth, but he's been so good in not using the term I will refrain😊.

Pelton, he's losing Vp every turn, so is not winning, he won't be able to keep it up for ever (winter etc), and you could easily mitigate it further. We really don't know how realistic this is, as there is no history to give direct precident and I haven't seen any real analysis in the elements except Cobra, and no real analysis of that.

I really don't think this definition of exploit will catch on (use of a feature or tactic in game that deviates from history and doesn't help you win- in which case most of my games are full of exploits!)

We all paid money for a product that claimed to model historical events during WW II

If that product is modeling a Desert Storm air system and not WW II something is wrong.

You have not shown that it doesn't model plausible WW2. It certainly isn't Desert Storm. Your front line would not be there by now if it was.

[KWG]

Reposts:



In an impassionioned January 1938 memo to the Secretary of War regarding the fate of the B17 program, which the civilian leaders wanted to abort, Andrews bolstered his overall argument in favor of the B17 and against mediums that would divert scarce funds needed for strategic bombers - by noting that, on the one hand, the long range B17 could be fitted with bomb-bay fuel tanks to render it even longer ranged, and on the other hand, it was so adaptable that its payload, with or without long-range tanks, could be tailored to specific missions, including medium-range, or even short-range, sorties in support of ground forces, at low level, with small bombs, whatever.


In Italy heavy bombers used regularly in tactical bombing.

Pacific- B17s used in some missions as "DIVE BOMBERS".
Some bombing missions had the B17 flying in below 3,000 feet. B17s made strafing runs.

The B17 was mainly designed to bomb ships.



Doolittle, always the innovator:
" We have developed a very efficient type of anti-aircraft marking. Twelve AA guns can mark a straight line something over 2 miles long with about a 400-yard interval between bursts. This will be ideal for marking front line troops."

In a 10 mile hex you could start the bombing miles behind the frontline.

In game you are bombing 7 days a week. When exactly do the troops have time to attack the hex? The battle would be like this: Overnight....friendly troops back away from front line to safe distance (about a mile) Carpet bombing hits early morning. After bombing finished, troops move up to front line. Launch attack at noon. Fight until night. Back up to safe distance maybe getting a couple hours sleep. Next morning...Bomb..move up...attack....retreat....maybe sleep.

Even before this came up thats one thing that Ive given a lot of time to, how the air engine is day by day and the ground is one "open" week. And it would apply to more than just this. Its averaged out for all week for all air attacks. whether B17, B25, P47. And to other conceptS in the game. The engine allows for play.

Earlier I had suggested that perhaps the strat bombers should leave enemy interdiction in the hex. Somebody countered with adding delay. Every day that a carpet bombing hits a hex, it should be somehow taking up time. Adding 3 delay per day could work, I liked the idea of enemy interdiction since that would cause the friendly fire associated with highly inaccurate bombing..but perhaps wouldn't add enough delay. Or maybe just have a house rule that you can only carpet bomb on one day of the week.

That could be said of all air attacks

The Strat bomber is just too effective at bombing units.

And Tiger Tanks have too thick of a armor

The ground is chewed up. Since the bombs are falling indiscriminately rubble, bridges, roads...they will all be pockmarked, shellholed. It did make an advance difficult.

What do 1,000 artillery guns do?

How long do you wait for the dust to settle, before you fire the smoke shells?


Look at the Bombing Lab thread. The Allies knew where the German staff car was parked.

A raid of 300 aircraft hit a hex, they separate into 10 groups of 30 to hit their target locations.



IF THE GERMANS DEFENSE WAS AS PELTONS OR STRONGER WHAT WOULD THE ALLIES HAVE DONE. WHAT DID THEY ALMOST DO IN REAL LIFE?

[LiquidSky]

Pacific theatre doesn't count for anything. Different war, different enemy, different air defences.

And again, I am not against using Strat bombers tactically. I am against their effect. The difference between 'other air attacks' and carpet bombing is the level of coordination. Other air attacks are either in contact with the ground through air liaison officers, or are nimble enough to find their own targets.

Carpet bombing is neither. They must fly high to avoid the flak infested German held areas. (Look up operation Tidal Wave for what happens to low flying strat bombers) They cannot see their targets. All 'innovations' for trying to guide them to a target were unreliable. Nobody on the ground could contact the strat bombers once they were in the air. And failure wanst an option. Bombing your own troops is a catastrophe to avoid.

Any tactical bombing they did in Italy was ineffective. They learned from those mistakes which is why they moved to carpet bombing. You have to saturate an area to get any effect at all, otherwise you are just throwing bombs away to make holes in the ground.

So to get any effect at all you need to be flying high, and in a large number. Without any communications once you start. Against a dug in, alerted enemy. With a huge time delay between the bombing and any attack that might take place. Without any real assurance that you are even bombing in the right place. With bombs that land somewhere within 2000 yards of where you think you are dropping them.

The game allows you to fly 16000 aircraft in 250,000 sorties over a couple of hexes. And then march an allied army into it like nothing was going on without any consequence whatsoever.

So again...not against using strat bombers tactically. All for it really. GO for it...yay team!

I am against the effect. They are not tactical bombers...just bigger! They are not a replacement for the B-25 or the A-20. Or even FB's. They are not better then them at the job of bombing the enemy.

I use my B-25s and other tactical bombers to bomb the Ruhr. If they did a better job then B-17s I would complain as well. Not that I wasn't allowed to use them in the first place.