An example of unreality

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Wed May 28, 2003 4:42 am

This is a perfect example of why I hate what Matrix is allowing the
B-17 to do. It was NOT used that way.

That ship was NOT in port, it was NOT docked.

Also the CAP was NOT fatigued or low morale.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Rabaul at 21,28

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 13
A6M2 Zero x 44

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 9

no losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress x 3 damaged

Japanese Ships
AP Hakusan Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AP Arizona Maru
AP Nichibi Maru

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 26

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x B-17E Fortress at 7000 feet
2 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet
4 x B-17E Fortress at 6000 feet

------

madflava13 · Post by **madflava13** » Wed May 28, 2003 5:41 am

Can't a B-17 get lucky once in awhile? I agree the port attacks are a problem - hits every raid are not realistic, and maybe its just me, but I've yet to see B-17s hit anything underway

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Wed May 28, 2003 5:50 am

Originally posted by madflava13
Can't a B-17 get lucky once in awhile? I agree the port attacks are a problem - hits every raid are not realistic, and maybe its just me, but I've yet to see B-17s hit anything underway

I just said that shop wasnt in port, it also wasnt docked.

It was in the Rabual hex yes. But that is all.

denisonh · Post by **denisonh** » Wed May 28, 2003 6:02 am

The results are unlikely, yet not impossible.

If all three had been hit, then I might concur, but one bomb hit?

You can find a better "example of unreality" than that.

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Wed May 28, 2003 6:12 am

Originally posted by denisonh
The results are unlikely, yet not impossible.

If all three had been hit, then I might concur, but one bomb hit?

You can find a better "example of unreality" than that.

The fact that it never happened and any commander
that ordered such an attack would be considered reckless?

6k feet unescorted with the accuracy of a smart bomb.

44 zeros intercept at an alt where they manuver best.
But the flying tank just shrugs it off at 4-1 plus odds
and still makes its run.

No I dont think so Denisonh, but it ISNT rare, there are MANY
such examples. It is an outright fantasy of Matrix.

Mr.Frag · Post by **Mr.Frag** » Wed May 28, 2003 6:18 am

The issue he is complaining about is not the bomb hit guys, it's the fact that 9 bombers flew into 57 fighters and they simply laughed and continued on to bomb the ships.

The hit is rather incidental because the planes should not have been flying still therefore the bomb should not have been around to be dropped in the first place because shot down planes tend to not be very useful at dropping bombs on target

denisonh · Post by **denisonh** » Wed May 28, 2003 6:22 am

Originally posted by Chiteng
The fact that it never happened and any commander
that ordered such an attack would be considered reckless?

6k feet unescorted with the accuracy of a smart bomb.

44 zeros intercept at an alt where they manuver best.
But the flying tank just shrugs it off at 4-1 plus odds
and still makes its run.

No I dont think so Denisonh, but it ISNT rare, there are MANY
such examples. It is an outright fantasy of Matrix.

"The fact it never happened". Of course, this is a battle report from UV. I am sure that it will be difficult to find the exact day that 9 B-17s flew to attack shipping near Rabaul, met 44 Zeros, had three aircraft damaged, and scored a bomb hit.

But,

Unescorted B-17s strikes at Rabaul were standard business in 42-43. They scored hits on shipping near Rabaul on multiple occaisons. I am sure they ran into CAP on occaisons as well. I do not have the histroical resources to other than what is on the web to research such incidents.

If you expect 44 Zeros to be be a force field preventing any sort of penetration, you are expecting unreality.

LBA does need to be adjusted in the game, but this is not a good example.

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Wed May 28, 2003 6:26 am

Originally posted by denisonh
"The fact it never happened". Of course, this is a battle report from UV. I am sure that it will be difficult to find the exact day that 9 B-17s flew to attack shipping near Rabaul, met 44 Zeros, had three aircraft damaged, and scored a bomb hit.

But,

Unescorted B-17s strikes at Rabaul were standard business in 42-43. They scored hits on shipping near Rabaul on multiple occaisons. I am sure they ran into CAP on occaisons as well. I do not have the histroical resources to other than what is on the web to research such incidents.

If you expect 44 Zeros to be be a force field preventing any sort of penetration, you are expecting unreality.

LBA does need to be adjusted in the game, but this is not a good example.

And again I dont agree. But I am sure we can find more such
examples. How many will it take? 10? 20? 50? 100?
What is the breakpoint?

I dont recall any incident where B-17 raided Rabual when it was unsupressed and at such high odds. I dont think you will find ANY
account where 9 B-17 were jumped by 57 fighters and simply shrugged it off. If you find such an account I would like to read it.
Please post it.

madflava13 · Post by **madflava13** » Wed May 28, 2003 6:37 am

Chiteng, I don't have an example of 40+ Zeros - still looking, but here's one for you...
From Saburo Sakai's "Samurai!" (pg. 84). Sakai relates a conversation he had with a fellow pilot who encountered B-17s over Balikpapan on Jan. 24, 1942.
"'It was incredible out there today,' Tanaka said. 'We caught the Fortresses just right, and over and over I pressed home the attacks against the B-17s. At least twice I caught a bomber perfectly. I could see the bullets hitting and the cannon shells exploding in the airplanes. But they wouldn't go down!' Tanaka looked almost haggard. 'These **** bombers are impossible,' he spat disgustedly, ' when they work into their defensive formations.' He went on to relate how his attack had, however, disrupted the B-17s bombing run, causing many of the bombs to fall harmlessly into the open sea. Only one ship was hit, a big oil tanker,and that was blazing fiercely when Tanaka left Balikpapan to return

Tanaka is the other fighter pilot, not the famous admiral...
So there's an example of the B-17's invulerability, and also an example of how occasionally they did get the lucky hits...

denisonh · Post by **denisonh** » Wed May 28, 2003 6:39 am

Originally posted by Chiteng
And again I dont agree. But I am sure we can find more such
examples. How many will it take? 10? 20? 50? 100?
What is the breakpoint?

I dont recall any incident where B-17 raided Rabual when it was unsupressed and at such high odds. I dont think you will find ANY
account where 9 B-17 were jumped by 57 fighters and simply shrugged it off. If you find such an account I would like to read it.
Please post it.

I know that the 5th would run missions to Rabaul for several consecutive days (something I can't do in UV without grounding the squadron for a month to repair). I am sure there should be a fair number of missions that were intercepted by CAP over Rabaul.

I would like to see the some of the outcomes of these engagements myself. I do know that the 5th lost many more aircraft to AA fire and operational losses than to Air combat. (Particularly B-17s).

Feel free to show me where they got slaughtered by a big CAP. Seems if that would have been the case, that the 5th AF wouldn't have bombed Rabaul as frequently as they did with unescorted heavy bombers (although did resort to night bombing because of the flak at times). I would like someone with some specific examples to chime in.

My main issue is the effectiveness and the point that Mr Frag has pointed out about overbuilding and basing.

madflava13 · Post by **madflava13** » Wed May 28, 2003 6:43 am

A few pages later, Sakai relates how he and his flight bounced a flight of 8 B-17s, and he pressed home no fewer than 6 attacks on the same bomber, the last from 50 yards out, exhausting his ammo... The B-17 did eventually go down, but not while Sakai was in the area - Recon finally found the wreckage. Those beasts could take a beating, so even when you see 40+ planes, its still possible they made it through - the B-17 kill by IJN pilots was rare indeed.

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Wed May 28, 2003 6:46 am

Originally posted by madflava13
Chiteng, I don't have an example of 40+ Zeros - still looking, but here's one for you...
From Saburo Sakai's "Samurai!" (pg. 84). Sakai relates a conversation he had with a fellow pilot who encountered B-17s over Balikpapan on Jan. 24, 1942.
"'It was incredible out there today,' Tanaka said. 'We caught the Fortresses just right, and over and over I pressed home the attacks against the B-17s. At least twice I caught a bomber perfectly. I could see the bullets hitting and the cannon shells exploding in the airplanes. But they wouldn't go down!' Tanaka looked almost haggard. 'These **** bombers are impossible,' he spat disgustedly, ' when they work into their defensive formations.' He went on to relate how his attack had, however, disrupted the B-17s bombing run, causing many of the bombs to fall harmlessly into the open sea. Only one ship was hit, a big oil tanker,and that was blazing fiercely when Tanaka left Balikpapan to return

Tanaka is the other fighter pilot, not the famous admiral...
So there's an example of the B-17's invulerability, and also an example of how occasionally they did get the lucky hits...

And I will state flatly that it isnt a case of a lucky hit.
What alt was Tanaka talking about. What was the weather like?

In the game it happens ALL THE TIME. It ISNT LUCK.

That is why the US player does it. Because he knows that
he can get away with it.

I have read NO accounts where 9 B-17 were bounced by 57 planes. (In the Pacific that is)
I would really like to read such an account.
And this wasnt late war CAP with poor pilots.

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Wed May 28, 2003 6:48 am

Originally posted by denisonh
I know that the 5th would run missions to Rabaul for several consecutive days (something I can't do in UV without grounding the squadron for a month to repair). I am sure there should be a fair number of missions that were intercepted by CAP over Rabaul.

I would like to see the some of the outcomes of these engagements myself. I do know that the 5th lost many more aircraft to AA fire and operational losses than to Air combat. (Particularly B-17s).

Feel free to show me where they got slaughtered by a big CAP. Seems if that would have been the case, that the 5th AF wouldn't have bombed Rabaul as frequently as they did with unescorted heavy bombers (although did resort to night bombing because of the flak at times). I would like someone with some specific examples to chime in.

My main issue is the effectiveness and the point that Mr Frag has pointed out about overbuilding and basing.

There is the equally valid argument that the Japs didnt place as much CAP as a player will.
A CAP of 12 planes ISNT what I am talking about.

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Wed May 28, 2003 6:49 am

Originally posted by madflava13
A few pages later, Sakai relates how he and his flight bounced a flight of 8 B-17s, and he pressed home no fewer than 6 attacks on the same bomber, the last from 50 yards out, exhausting his ammo... The B-17 did eventually go down, but not while Sakai was in the area - Recon finally found the wreckage. Those beasts could take a beating, so even when you see 40+ planes, its still possible they made it through - the B-17 kill by IJN pilots was rare indeed.

A flight isnt 57+ planes

denisonh · Post by **denisonh** » Wed May 28, 2003 6:52 am

Originally posted by Chiteng
And I will state flatly that it isnt a case of a lucky hit.
What alt was Tanaka talking about. What was the weather like?

In the game it happens ALL THE TIME. It ISNT LUCK.

That is why the US player does it. Because he knows that
he can get away with it.

I have read NO accounts where 9 B-17 were bounced by 57 planes. (In the Pacific that is)
I would really like to read such an account.
And this wasnt late war CAP with poor pilots.

Just curious, but if you have never read about any accounts of 9 B-17s being bounced by 57 Japanese fighters, how sure of the outcome can you be?

Who is right if there is no such account? What is the most reasonable event(s) to extrapolate results for an encounter of this nature?

madflava13 · Post by **madflava13** » Wed May 28, 2003 6:53 am

I'm sorry - should have included that info - the B-17s were at 20,000 feet, the IJN attacked from 18,000 - climbed and attacked during the bomb run and then for some time following - this is the first attack. The second one I mentioned, where Sakai was present, the B-17s were again near 20,000 and the IJN was at 22,000 (learned they needed to be higher).
There was no mention in either fight of the weather, so I assume it was at least marginal to good, otherwise the IJN wouldn't be running their standing patrols over Balikpapan (speculation on my part).

In reference to your example, I'd say a hit from 20,000 is much harder than one from 6,000, which only reinforces my point that the B-17s get lucky every once in awhile - not all the time as you say, but occasionally. I've never had a hit with a B-17 on TF underway (i.e. not in port) - my guess is that as players, "our mileage may vary", but your example is not 1) ahistorical nor 2) beyond the realm of comprehension...

denisonh · Post by **denisonh** » Wed May 28, 2003 6:56 am

And more importantly, when analyzing the results of a probabilistic model, multiple observations need to be included so as to address the LIKLIHOOD of an event, since that is the real issue with the model.

Single observations do not mean jack $hit. That is the real problem in combat modeling is the lack of good data for building these probabilistic models. You need multiple observations to determine effects of all the different inputs such as weather, day/night, numbers of aircraft, type of aircraft, etc....

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Wed May 28, 2003 6:56 am

Originally posted by madflava13
I'm sorry - should have included that info - the B-17s were at 20,000 feet, the IJN attacked from 18,000 - climbed and attacked during the bomb run and then for some time following - this is the first attack. The second one I mentioned, where Sakai was present, the B-17s were again near 20,000 and the IJN was at 22,000 (learned they needed to be higher).
There was no mention in either fight of the weather, so I assume it was at least marginal to good, otherwise the IJN wouldn't be running their standing patrols over Balikpapan (speculation on my part).

In reference to your example, I'd say a hit from 20,000 is much harder than one from 6,000, which only reinforces my point that the B-17s get lucky every once in awhile - not all the time as you say, but occasionally. I've never had a hit with a B-17 on TF underway (i.e. not in port) - my guess is that as players, "our mileage may vary", but your example is not 1) ahistorical nor 2) beyond the realm of comprehension...

Then the answer is ...how many examples do you need before you sdmit it is ahistorical?

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Wed May 28, 2003 6:58 am

Originally posted by denisonh
Just curious, but if you have never read about any accounts of 9 B-17s being bounced by 57 Japanese fighters, how sure of the outcome can you be?

Who is right if there is no such account? What is the most reasonable event(s) to extrapolate results for an encounter of this nature?

Your statement ignores the fact that the US DIDNT DO
what you see in that example.

Late in 1943 using B-25 yes they bombed at low alt.
That example ISNT late 1943.

denisonh · Post by **denisonh** » Wed May 28, 2003 7:02 am

Originally posted by Chiteng
Then the answer is ...how many examples do you need before you sdmit it is ahistorical?

Define ahistorical in this context.

The fact that any situation that happens in the game that did not happen in real life is ahistorical. That covers a great many things, and essentially, everything in the game past turn 1!

To say the outcome is unrealistic, I say no. Unlikely yes, unrealistic no. Given that you have produced no examples to prove your point, I doubt the veracity of your claim that it us unreality.