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

[KWG]

ORIGINAL: el hefe

Estimates of German casualties due to the carpet bombing during Operation Cobra were estimated at about 700. Reported US casualties from the same bombardment were right around 600. There was a reason why carpet bombing was not continued regularly after Cobra. Namely that it just wasn't efficient and strategic bombers were not a good tool for close air support. You also had tremendous push back from the strategic bomber force for being employed inthis non standard application of combat power. It took Eisenhower getting involved to force the carpet bombing operation. Obviously the casualties inflicted to friendly forces compared to enemy forces was not acceptable and the result severely impacted the relationships between the air and ground commanders.

Trey

Yes, Ive addressed each of those points in detail in previous posts in this thread and others. "just wasn't efficient" read my posts.

" Unfortunately, perfection in the employment of comparatively new tactics, such as this close-support carpet bombing, is attainable only through the process of trial and error, and these regrettable losses were part of the inevitable price of experience" -Eisenhower

And from that experience..

No stronger endorsement of the air support in Normandy can be found than Omar N. Bradley's letter to AAF Commanding General "Hap" Arnold at the end of September 1944. "I cannot say too much for the very close cooperation we have had between Air and Ground," Bradley wrote. "In my opinion, our close cooperation is better than the Germans ever had in their best days."

[RedLancer]

So as a test I setup Cobra using B&P. 8th USAAF flying on one day at 15,000ft and set to a minimum 500 aircraft per mission. As 1288 bombers were assigned two missions flew. FOW set to Off

Here is the first strike results:

[RedLancer]

and the second strike:

[RedLancer]

My quick maths says 520 damaged and destroyed. Not too far from the 600-700 quoted historically.

The issue appears not to be the losses per strike but what might of happened if instead of one strike there were many more and should that be allowed. Why should n't it?

Save attached if you want to run your own tests.

[KWG]

HMMMM... as Ive posted before, Air Power in this aspect may be UNDER strength.

Most of the hexes I'am hitting are 3 divisions thick.

[RedLancer]

I'm trying to compare historic and game data in a similar circumstance. A very basic scientific technique of minimising variables.

[KWG]

Great Test.

"HMMMM... as Ive posted before, Air Power in this aspect may be UNDER strength."

Iam not complaining ... FATE is such a big factor. Many times I hit nothing.


Whats in the hex you are bombing? Recon level?

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: el hefe

Estimates of German casualties due to the carpet bombing during Operation Cobra were estimated at about 700. Reported US casualties from the same bombardment were right around 600. There was a reason why carpet bombing was not continued regularly after Cobra. Namely that it just wasn't efficient and strategic bombers were not a good tool for close air support. You also had tremendous push back from the strategic bomber force for being employed inthis non standard application of combat power. It took Eisenhower getting involved to force the carpet bombing operation. Obviously the casualties inflicted to friendly forces compared to enemy forces was not acceptable and the result severely impacted the relationships between the air and ground commanders.

Trey

Great point Sir. Not sure where u find your data, but as with WitE its always almost 100% dead on.

Which is the point I have been tring to make.

and Liquadsky+my self were able to "carpet bomb" France before we even invaded and do 5-10 (me), LS 10-20K per turn.

This simply was not historical as per your data.

Again to be 100% clear: I am not saying bombing as KWG is doing was not possible or should be nerfed out of game if its done for a few turns but never ending carpet bombing is the same as never ending fuel/HQBu's on eastern front.

I am saying carpet bombing for 10-20K per turn / 60 to 70% of total loses for 10 turns is simple not historical or possible during WW II.

Sure its possible in game but was it possible during Normandy from May to August week after week.

[KWG]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

My quick maths says 520 damaged and destroyed. Not too far from the 600-700 quoted historically.

The issue appears not to be the losses per strike but what might of happened if instead of one strike there were many more and should that be allowed. Why should n't it?

Save attached if you want to run your own tests.

Ive seen around a 1,000 or more in some accounts, not sure how they account for the ones that were obliterated as the entire Fallschirmjäger attachment.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

The data is correct but your use of the data in this argument is not. You cannot compare the game data and historic data unless the circumstances match. In this game they do not as neither side is playing historically.

If you want to use historical data we will need to build a scenario that replicates the bombing conducted for Cobra. I think T1 of Breakout and Pursuit could be modified to do this.

As your know RL I always look at snowballs and exploits during CG's.

We don't need to run a test, we already have a test case/backed up by other tested (in AAR thread) so whats the point of running a test to prove my test is right, because we alrdy have the data.

Unending carpet bombing simply is no different then unending HQBU's or any other exploit.

I know it was done at different times during the war for 1 or 2 weeks at most, but not 10 weeks in a row causing 10-20K lose and 60-70% of the loses done by bombing.

As el hefe pointed out why it was hardly ever done, friend fire.

WitW simply does not model friend fire, there is NO debate about this none. A player sending 10,000's of strategic bombers to bomb a hex with 20+ times and get zero friend deaths for 10 weeks is silliness as per el hefe

[DTomato]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: el hefe

Estimates of German casualties due to the carpet bombing during Operation Cobra were estimated at about 700. Reported US casualties from the same bombardment were right around 600. There was a reason why carpet bombing was not continued regularly after Cobra. Namely that it just wasn't efficient and strategic bombers were not a good tool for close air support. You also had tremendous push back from the strategic bomber force for being employed inthis non standard application of combat power. It took Eisenhower getting involved to force the carpet bombing operation. Obviously the casualties inflicted to friendly forces compared to enemy forces was not acceptable and the result severely impacted the relationships between the air and ground commanders.

Trey

Great point Sir. Not sure where u find your data, but as with WitE its always almost 100% dead on.

Which is the point I have been tring to make.

and Liquadsky+my self were able to "carpet bomb" France before we even invaded and do 5-10 (me), LS 10-20K per turn.

This simply was not historical as per your data.

Again to be 100% clear: I am not saying bombing as KWG is doing was not possible or should be nerfed out of game if its done for a few turns but never ending carpet bombing is the same as never ending fuel/HQBu's on eastern front.

I am saying carpet bombing for 10-20K per turn / 60 to 70% of total loses for 10 turns is simple not historical or possible during WW II.

Sure its possible in game but was it possible during Normandy from May to August week after week.

Pelton, the Allies lose the vast majority of WITW games. Regular carpet bombing is one the ways that the Allies compensate. If carpet bombing is nerfed, what are you, as the most experienced German player, willing to give up on the German side in the name of game balance?

[KWG]

I am saying carpet bombing for 10-20K per turn / 60 to 70% of total loses for 10 turns is simple not historical or possible during WW II.

Sure its possible in game but was it possible during Normandy from May to August week after week.

Why not? They started the bombing back up for Market-Garden, Bulge, Germany, North Italy

[KWG]

Its not a "I WIN". the German player gets even more bonuses from this.


Bomb the Allies!!!! You get VPs for It.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

How is doing something that *costs* you VPs an exploit while leaving your troops entrained for months isn't?

Your new I am guessing?

This is called a work around.

historically bombings killed 10-15% of loses from June to September.

In game bombing is causing 60-70% of loses. The combat ratio on the ground WHICH 2by3 HAS RIGHT is 1to2 when Germans loss.

Does everyone understand this as it is supported by the data 1+1=2

OK as per the data I am losing 10-20k per turn to bombing and 5 to 10 to ground combat.

Again this is the data for 10 weeks.

So Germany is only getting VP's for the troops it kills at a 1 to 2 ratio.

WA are not losing 5-10k per turn from ground combat because the planes are killing them.

This is called a work around.

It should be costing WA 10-15k per turn in loses, but because of the never ending carpet bombing it cost 2-4k ( KWG was nice enough to post ratios)

There is no refuting the data as Red lancer agrees my data is right and so is KWG's data he was nice enough to post-thks bro

If its right KWG using his work around is killing of 10-20k germans per turn for ten turn that normally would have to be killed by ground combat.

This is simply WitE stuff, done that been there ect ect.

My data is 90% right (no is one perfect) and so is the fact that 10-15% OF LOSSES were from bombing not 60-70% so KWG has worked around the VP system by exploiting a poor designed air system.

This is simple math nothing amazing.

You can kill the messagener as per normal, but as per normal (Ok 75% of the time no one perfect hehehe) the message and data and explit/work around is what it is.

Happy New Year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[KWG]

Good stuff 20k to bombing, which is still lower then KGW's 25-30K per turn not counting interdiction just bombing

He could simply not even invade and cause 20-30k loses.

but not 10 weeks in a row causing 10-20K lose

Which is it?


Seems like someone is deciding not to finish the game.

It should be costing WA 10-15k per turn in loses, but because of the never ending carpet bombing it cost 2-4k ( KWG was nice enough to post ratios)

Like some of the other accusations against me , not quite truthful.

[KWG]

This is simple math nothing amazing.

YOU THINK???!.... MAYBE BECAUSE IAM BOMBING YOUR TROOPS AND NOT YOUR CIVILIANS.

[KWG]

WA are not losing 5-10k per turn from ground combat because the planes are killing them.

So if I only attacked with one division at a time and was suffering 20-30k per turn would that be because your defense is too strong therefore exploiting a poor designed ground combat system?


Another ignored post and unanswered question.

[HMSWarspite]

Pelton, what is it you don't understand? You cannot use historical losses to judge the desired result because there is no historical period where this tactic was used. You seemed to start getting this because you now seem to imply the error is that WA carpet bomb for 10 weeks. But you're now back on the losses... Which is it?

Oh, and the reason the allies didn't do it for 10 weeks? Several I would guess:
1. Never had to face a 30 mile deep German line that was absolutely packed with troops
2. It takes bombers away from SB of Germany, which cuts the damage to Germany (deemed vital by the majority of decision makers). In game terms, it loses VP... oh, just like is happening here.
3. The whole Normandy campaign was only 10 weeks, after which the Germans obligingly put their head in a noose and collapsed.

And no one thinks you could bomb for 10 weeks straight once the lines solidified in winter. Once the weather improved, there was no need...

[bairdlander2]

Maybe Pelton and KWG should restart and use the same units,leaders,ag's,attack the same hexes,same dates as historical and see if results are historical[&:]

[Great_Ajax]

I don't know what the game answer should be but there should be logical consequences for those actions. Continued use of carpet bombing in close proximity of friendly ground forces would have probably resulted in:

1. Continued friendly ground losses. There was just no way to coordinate massive bomber strikes at high altitude with enemy camouflaged targets on the ground. Air attacks does as much damage psychologically as it does physically and repeated friendly casualties as a result of carpet bombing is going to have some major negative morale impacts on your ground troops.

2. You're going to have major friction between your air and ground commanders and they aren't going to be nearly as cooperative. As a supreme commander, this is not the kind of relationships that I would want.

3. Air Commanders are going to fight tooth and nail to prevent having to be placed in this role which means probably morale losses for strategic bomber groups being used in a way that they were not trained and the results of which consistently results in friendly casualties.

4. Carpet bombing wasn't any more effective than normal close air support with single engine aircraft so why continue?

Finally, units were not obliterated by aerial bombardments any more than they were obliterated by massive artillery bombardments. Fighting soldiers are surprising resilient in fixed fighting positions.


Trey