An example of unreality

[madflava13]

Chiteng,
1. Any number of other factors could allow the B-17s to make it through - clouds, etc. Also, those 57 Zeros aren't all attacking at once. Thats the total number around. Some may be climbing to intercept, etc. So that number is misleading. There's not enough data there to make a conclusion.

2. My example is a situation where Japan's best pilots were in perfect position, ready to fight, expecting to fight, etc. and the B-17s still got through and scored a hit. Although there weren't 57 Zeros present, if we followed your line of thought, no hits would have been scored and a couple B-17s should have been downed. Yet this DIDN'T HAPPEN.

[denisonh]

The B-17s default altitude should be 10,000 ft or higher. They operated at a variety of altitudes depending on the mission, the weather and the target.

I am not sure that your statment they never did is true either. In all those days of operating on different targets in different conditions, to say an event like that NEVER HAPPENED, you need to prove your assertion, or it will be simply conjecture based on your understanding, not fact.

[madflava13]

Also, in my REAL LIFE example, a hit was scored from 20,000 feet. Why is it this is the historical reality, yet you can't accept a hit from 6,000 feet where the liklihood is much greater? (less time to maneuver out of the way, etc.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by madflava13
Also, in my REAL LIFE example, a hit was scored from 20,000 feet. Why is it this is the historical reality, yet you can't accept a hit from 6,000 feet where the liklihood is much greater? (less time to maneuver out of the way, etc.

By His own account Saburi states they had already started the bomb run. The hit could have occured before interception.

You didnt answer the question, neither did Denisonh
How many examples do you need? You see I know it happens all the time. I see it. I just need to know what it will take
to convince you, or if it is even possible to convince you.

[denisonh]

If you refer to it happeneing too frequently in the game, that may be the case. As I do not use my B-17s normally for naval attack except when absolutely neccessary, I do not experience all these situations. (I fly them in good weather to bomb airfields and ports, in addition to naval search, their major historical roles)

I just recently had a raid where I lost 10 B-17s of 39 at a target within normal range.

Air attack on Lunga , at 38,40

Japanese aircraft

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 39

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-46 Dinah x 2 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 2 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 1 damaged
G3M Nell x 2 destroyed
G3M Nell x 1 damaged
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress x 1 destroyed
B-17E Fortress x 9 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 85

Airbase hits 12
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 31


They were fresh with single digit fatigue at 11,000 feet flying from Luganville. The battle report does not show all by any means when it comes to aircraft losses and even damage. (I think it is called "Fog of War")

B-17s can be shot down. I have seen plenty of instances. And battle reports do not tell the whole story.

Like I said before, that there is more work that needs to be done with regard to LBA.

But as a possible outcome, your example is plausible, it is not "unreality".

[Snigbert]

Just for the record, I would hardly call 1 hit from 9 B-17s 'smart bomb accuracy'. How many bombs does each B-17 hold, 8000 kgs of bombs? So you are dropping 32 bombs per plane, for 288 bombs and only scoring 1 hit.

That's only approximately a .3% hit rate, not what I would call 'smart bomb' accuracy.

[Mike_B20]

I tend to lose quite a few B17's early in scenario 17.
Invariably lose a few changing bases and recently lost 4 on a Luganville - Lunga mission.
They all fell asleep at the wheel on the way home...there was no flak damage.

I think the main trouble with B17's unbalancing the game is simply the fact there are so **** many of them later on, not that they really too effective in smaller numbers.

I know many people complain about the 50 cals are too effective and the Japs did a lot better than is evident in UV, blah blah blah but I just read about some of the first experiences by the B17's at Guadalcanal.

One of the first missions shot down 3 zeros with no loss, also they were effective in the slot against transports and on one occasion even sunk one of Tanakas destroyers as it lay up beside a sinking transport rescuing ssurvivors.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by denisonh
If you refer to it happeneing too frequently in the game, that may be the case. As I do not use my B-17s normally for naval attack except when absolutely neccessary, I do not experience all these situations. (I fly them in good weather to bomb airfields and ports, in addition to naval search, their major historical roles)

I just recently had a raid where I lost 10 B-17s of 39 at a target within normal range.

Air attack on Lunga , at 38,40

Japanese aircraft

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 39

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-46 Dinah x 2 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 2 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 1 damaged
G3M Nell x 2 destroyed
G3M Nell x 1 damaged
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress x 1 destroyed
B-17E Fortress x 9 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 85

Airbase hits 12
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 31


They were fresh with single digit fatigue at 11,000 feet flying from Luganville. The battle report does not show all by any means when it comes to aircraft losses and even damage. (I think it is called "Fog of War")

B-17s can be shot down. I have seen plenty of instances. And battle reports do not tell the whole story.

Like I said before, that there is more work that needs to be done with regard to LBA.

But as a possible outcome, your example is plausible, it is not "unreality".

I see no CAP in that battle report.
I cant imagine how you lost 10 B-17

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Snigbert
Just for the record, I would hardly call 1 hit from 9 B-17s 'smart bomb accuracy'. How many bombs does each B-17 hold, 8000 kgs of bombs? So you are dropping 32 bombs per plane, for 288 bombs and only scoring 1 hit.

That's only approximately a .3% hit rate, not what I would call 'smart bomb' accuracy.

Only if we assume your math is correct. The anti-shiiping ordinance was actually a one ton bomb. Payload was highly variable.

[Odin]

PERFORMANCE:
Max. Speed:
B-17C & D: 323 mph
B-17E: 317 mph
B-17G: 287 mph (462 kph)
Cruising Speed:
B-17C & D: 250 mph
B-17E: 210 mph
B-17G: 182 mph (293 kph)
Service Ceiling (B-17G): 35,000 ft. (10,670 m)
Range (B-17G):
1,100 miles (1,760 km) with max bomb load

ARMAMENT: B-17G
Two 0.5 in. Browning MG in chin turret
Two 0.5 in. Browning MG in dorsal turret
Two 0.5 in. Browning MG in ventral ball turret
Two 0.5 in. Browning MG in tail turret
One 0.5 in. Browning MG in each waist
One 0.5 in. Browning MG in radio compartment
Two 0.5 in. Browning MG in nose sockets

BOMB LOAD:
6,000 lb. (2724 kg.) typical load carried internally
12,800 lb. (5800 kg.) maximum load carried
internally

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/UR ... tress.html

[Raverdave]

Originally posted by Chiteng
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.

Should not the B-17s have had to pass a moral check in the face of large numbers of fighters? That is the only part of this post that concerns me. The fact that ONE ship took ONE bomb hit....well tough tittys, it happens. Now if ALL of your ships had taken hits then yes I could see grounds for an argument, but they didn't.

Live with it.

[Odin]

I think so too.

9 B-17, that is 108 x 500lb bombs in normal range.

There could have been even more hits.

[Drongo]

I personally don't see a major problem with the way that UV handles the B-17 vs A6M clashes. Neither should be shot down in droves when a clash occurs.

I would advocate instead a change that better models the impact of being heavily engaged by CAP in relation to a bomber's ability to push on to the target and still deliver an accurate bombing run.

At the minimum, bombers damaged by hits from CAP and flak should incur a heavy accuracy penalty or even abort (something that exists in UV but I'm yet to see a B17 do unless it's operating at a very low morale).

I also agree in principle with altitiude restrictions for heavy bombers. Unfortunately, since the B17 at one point proved that it could carry out skip bombing under certain circumstances, it will probably be a contentious issue.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Odin
I think so too.

9 B-17, that is 108 x 500lb bombs in normal range.

There could have been even more hits.

The Raid came from Cairns. That wasnt normal range.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Raverdave
Should not the B-17s have had to pass a moral check in the face of large numbers of fighters? That is the only part of this post that concerns me. The fact that ONE ship took ONE bomb hit....well tough tittys, it happens. Now if ALL of your ships had taken hits then yes I could see grounds for an argument, but they didn't.

Live with it.

No I think I will continue to complain.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by Drongo
I personally don't see a major problem with the way that UV handles the B-17 vs A6M clashes. Neither should be shot down in droves when a clash occurs.

I would advocate instead a change that better models the impact of being heavily engaged by CAP in relation to a bomber's ability to push on to the target and still deliver an accurate bombing run.

At the minimum, bombers damaged by hits from CAP and flak should incur a heavy accuracy penalty or even abort (something that exists in UV but I'm yet to see a B17 do unless it's operating at a very low morale).

I also agree in principle with altitiude restrictions for heavy bombers. Unfortunately, since the B17 at one point proved that it could carry out skip bombing under certain circumstances, it will probably be a contentious issue.

agreed. Bombing accuracy seems little affected by CAP attacks, pressed home. Also dont have an issue with the rarity of 17's being shot down. Medium bombers are a different story

Dont think altitude restrictions are necessary. Instead.....heavy bombers should suffer an additional flak to hit penalty and disruption when skimming the waves to represent the big fat lumbering target that they would present. Even an AA U-boat could occasionally shoot down or badly damage a heavy bomber that tried to swoop down on them for a close range hug.

Similar to the rule that gives an additional flak round to torp bombers (but not cumulative as that would make torp bombers unable to make attacks)

[Luskan]

Knocking down a b17 - probably too much to ask, even at those odds.

However 5 zeroes a b17 should easily prevent any bombs landing on target - one bullet in any of the 4 engines or any of a mass of hydraulics and that baby is just about impossible to use accurately.

Also, perhaps repair rates for damaged b17s could be lengthened to balance gameplay?

On the other hand, if all you're complaining about is 1 500lbs bomb hit on a transport, you need to find something a little more convincing in your evidence - or you are going to get flamed.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by Luskan
Knocking down a b17 - probably too much to ask, even at those odds.

However 5 zeroes a b17 should easily prevent any bombs landing on target - one bullet in any of the 4 engines or any of a mass of hydraulics and that baby is just about impossible to use accurately.

Also, perhaps repair rates for damaged b17s could be lengthened to balance gameplay?

On the other hand, if all you're complaining about is 1 500lbs bomb hit on a transport, you need to find something a little more convincing in your evidence - or you are going to get flamed.

Dont see it happening, because Matrix already tried it and boy did the players howl. Aircraft repair in general is way too fast and all encompasing which contributes much to LBA's "uber-ness" the SOPac theater was very hard on machines.....particularily multi-engined bombers and most groups would be lucky to have 50-60% of their planes active at any one time. In UV.....give it several days (assuming enough aviation points) and all your airgroups are at 100% readiness.

[crsutton]

"With the Guadacalan campaign in full swing, our fighter pilots became desperate, but failed to achieve any notable advance in increasing the number of destroyed American bombers...On numerous occasious the Boeings flew undaunted on their bombing and reconnaissance missions despite the attacks of Zero fighters which swarmed about them and which the enemy's heavy machine guns too often destroyed."

"The four-engine B-17 and B-24 bombers were, generally speaking, the most difficult enemy aircraft for the Zeros to shoot down.....The fierce resistance with which the heavy American bombers opposed our fighters, unlike that of our own land based medium attack bombers, was a most serous problem. In my opinion, which is shared by many Japanese combat officers, the ability of the B-17 and the B-24 to defend themselves and carry on their intended missions despite enemy fighter opposition was a deciding factor in the final outcome of the war."

Bergerude P 553

Number of fighters were not necessairly the solution as the Japanese due to the samarai tradition and poor radio coordination were not very adept at group tactics in attacking bombers-an absolute must in bringing down heavily armed big planes as the Germans were to prove.

Does not matter how many planes you are talking about. While Zeros and Oscars were nimble little planes, they simply did not have the armor or armament to close with Allied heavies and really were not that great attacking mediums as well.

You are barking up the wrong tree here.

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by Chiteng
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.

Chiteng,

In 1941-42, USFEAF B-17s attacked shipping at Vigan, Legaspi, Linguyan, Davao, Tarakan, Balikapan, Kendari, Celebes Straits, Bali, Flores Straits, and Singora. At altitudes between 7,000 and 25,000 feet. Many of the instances there was CAP, shipping were underway and hits were recorded and confirmed. Most of the B-17 formations were 9 and under.

A single bomb hit is not outlandish, it could and did happen. The Flores straights off Bali and in the Celebes straights are two I can think of off the top of my head. I can even dig up the name of the Marus if you like.

The 57 Zero CAP doesnt neccessarily mean all 57 actually made contact. A hex is a big area. There is no way to expect that all 57 would be grouped together or that they all could coordinate and converge on such a small strike.