WitP Fantasy vs Reality

[Chiteng]

Because Luskan didnt want me to continue posting in his thread,
I have started a new thread, on the same subject.

No matter how good other aspects of the game may be,
if we assume an Mdiehl like posture with regards to IJN
capabilities, it will be a very poor simulation.

Yes you can kludge some type of 'victory conditions' together
and wave that in front of the player to claim that the Japs can win,
but that will be a hollow claim.

If we dont get actual control of the US production, the game
will be less than PacWar, which would be quite sad.

If we DO get control of US production, then the designer must anticipate what the impact will be.

The 'reality' is that plane attrition on four engine bombers was high. I am NOT talking about planes being shot down.
I am talking about planes being scrapped.

Again averaging 10% per month. (active planes only)
So a force of 1000 B-17 fully deployed and conducting operations
could be expected to lose 100 planes, regardless of enemy action.

The B-17 was an expensive weapon system. So much so that
it was phased out, and replaced by the B-24.

It was NOT casually sent to chase DD.

In certain critical combats like Midway YES it was commited,
and hit nothing.

THAT is the key point.

In the time frame on UV, exactly ONE DD was hit by a B-17.
I recall NO instance of ANY ship underway that was hit by a B-17.
Not even subs. Although in the Atlantic, the B-24 DID score impressive kills. I dont recall any IJN subs sunk by B-24,
although I am sure it must have happened.

Some people would pretend that the lack of any hits by B-17
is because the Japs kept their navy out of range. That is silly.
The Japs were on the offensive several times. They didnt
conduct the offensives with just transports!

I have seen an aerial picture of Rabual that clearly shows the Shoho in the harbor fueling. The assertion that the ships
never entered Rabual is silly. They did.
Did they stay? That isnt important. What IS important is the Harbor WAS used.

No, possibly not for extended repairs, or refits or drydocks.
But it WAS used. They ships DID go there.

If a strike from Cooktown could have sunk ships in
Rabual, I am sure it would have been done.

But Cooktown was NOT a major base for the USN, nor was Cairn.
They based out of Townsend. That tends to be ignored in UV.
Was there a reason? YES, the railroad was there.

Another thing, B-17s at extended ranges suffered MUCH greater
attrition. If you lose an engine or two, it is harder to get back
if your a long way from the airbase.

In summary, I cant say how the B-17 is modeled in WitP.
I am not in the playtest. No one is telling us anything.
But I can say that if it is a direct port from UV, and if the US player
DOES get total control of the production, it will be a problem.

I am more concerned about getting an accurate simulation,
than in playing checkers.
Checkers with a handicap at that.

[denisonh]

Originally posted by Chiteng

[snip]
Some people would pretend that the lack of any hits by B-17
is because the Japs kept their navy out of range. That is silly.
The Japs were on the offensive several times. They didnt
conduct the offensives with just transports!

[snip]

Are you referring to my comments as "pretending?". Before you call my comments silly, please provide proof that I am incorrect in my assessment. I think it is poor form to deride my comments without disproving my statements.

And to keep posting the same points in multiple threads in multiple forums is paramount to SPAM.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by denisonh
Are you referring to my comments as "pretending?". Before you call my comments silly, please provide proof that I am incorrect in my assessment. I think it is poor form to deride my comments without disproving my statements.

And to keep posting the same points in multiple threads in multiple forums is paramount to SPAM.

I just did. The Japs were on the offensive. They didnt conduct the offensive with transports.

When you get to decide what you consider 'proof', then there is no standard of 'proof' that you cant reject. Therefore trying to
'prove' anything is a waste of time.

If you feel I am spamming, by all means complain to the MOD.

[Fred98]

The name of the place is Townsville.

And nobody in their right mind would go there because it is hot and humid and filled with Queenslanders !

[denisonh]

Originally posted by Chiteng
I just did. The Japs were on the offensive. They didnt conduct the offensive with transports.

When you get to decide what you consider 'proof', then there is no standard of 'proof' that you cant reject. Therefore trying to
'prove' anything is a waste of time.

If you feel I am spamming, by all means complain to the MOD.

What "offensive" and where?

The only case that I can think of where IJN naval TFs got somewhere close to 400 miles of a US base where B-17s were stationed was the Battle of Coral Sea.

How far from Townsville to Milne Bay? If the IJN got within 400 miles, than I may stand corrected.

So possibly one instance, though someone with better reference material than I can make that call.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by denisonh
What "offensive" and where?

The only case that I can think of where IJN naval TFs got somewhere close to 400 miles of a US base where B-17s were stationed was the Battle of Coral Sea.

How far from Townsville to Milne Bay? If the IJN got within 400 miles, than I may stand corrected.

So possibly one instance, though someone with better reference material than I can make that call.

The B-17s never left Townsville?
That is news to me.

Trying to re-take Guadalcanal, is an offensive.

[denisonh]

Originally posted by Chiteng
The B-17s never left Townsville?
That is news to me.

Trying to re-take Guadalcanal, is an offensive.

I am not sure what you mean about "not leaving Townsville". The US did not base B-17s permenantly at PM until after Coral Sea.

Interception of Naval forces at ranges in excess of 400 miles in the open ocean with a heavy bomber whose cruising speed is around 180mph is **** near impossible in anything other than clear weather with a shadowing search plane on the TF (not a good combination).

So if the IJN never gets close enough, it's an event that never happens.

Hard to hit a target if you never get the chance.

I do not believe they ever got close enough to Townsville for B-17s to attempt naval interception, but like I said, I may be wrong.

As for Gudalcanal, the hearest B-17s were based in Espitu Santo at Luganville, in excess of 400 miles away from Guadalcanal. And the IJN did not hang around during the day, so they were way away from any B-17s.

When the Allies based B-17s in Gudalcanal, it was secure, and no significant IJN naval TFs got anywhere near there.

Even during the Battle of Santa Cruz, the IJN CVs were well in excess of 400 miles from Luganville.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by denisonh
I am not sure what you mean about "not leaving Townsville". The US did not base B-17s permenantly at PM until after Coral Sea.

Interception of Naval forces at ranges in excess of 400 miles in the open ocean with a heavy bomber whose cruising speed is around 180mph is **** near impossible in anything other than clear weather with a shadowing search plane on the TF (not a good combination).

So if the IJN never gets close enough, it's an event that never happens.

Hard to hit a target if you never get the chance.

I do not believe they ever got close enough to Townsville for B-17s to attempt naval interception, but like I said, I may be wrong.

As for Gudalcanal, the hearest B-17s were based in Espitu Santo at Luganville, in excess of 400 miles away from Guadalcanal. And the IJN did not hang around during the day, so they were way away from any B-17s.

When the Allies based B-17s in Gudalcanal, it was secure, and no significant IJN naval TFs got anywhere near there.

Even during the Battle of Santa Cruz, the IJN CVs were well in excess of 400 miles from Luganville.

**********************************************
Interception of Naval forces at ranges in excess of 400 miles in the open ocean with a heavy bomber whose cruising speed is around 180mph is **** near impossible in anything other than clear weather with a shadowing search plane on the TF (not a good combination).

**************************************************

And yet a strike from Cooktown to Rabual at the extreme range
of the B-17 is EXACTLY what happened in the combat report I posted. AND against a CAP of 57 fighters.

AND they suffered no loss.

[denisonh]

Originally posted by Chiteng
**********************************************
Interception of Naval forces at ranges in excess of 400 miles in the open ocean with a heavy bomber whose cruising speed is around 180mph is **** near impossible in anything other than clear weather with a shadowing search plane on the TF (not a good combination).

**************************************************

And yet a strike from Cooktown to Rabual at the extreme range
of the B-17 is EXACTLY what happened in the combat report I posted. AND against a CAP of 57 fighters.

AND they suffered no loss.

Now back to the well worn and inadequate example.

I was referencing trying to find a task of warships moving at 20-25 knots in the open ocean, like the CVs at Midway, where B-17s intercepted the CVs and washed the flight decks with the splashes from 500lb bombs (good weather and more search assets than you can shake a stick at).

The fact that no major warship other than that DD (I believe that was in the Bismark Sea by B-17s out of PM maybe?) was hit by B-17 implies they ample opportunity. That is not true and what I am trying to point out. With you reasoning behind why B-17s can should never be able to hit an IJN warship must be based on analysis of the opportunies, or lack there of, when trying to construct a model to deal with situations that never historically happened (IJN warship within 300 miles during the day of a large Allied airbase with B-17s...)

Most of the encounters the B-17 had with shipping was in and around Rabaul. Transports moving in and around Rabaul and warships in the open ocean are two different things.

I think that there is some measure of agreement that adjustments are in order, but as for it being the "silver bullet" in UV I do not buy it.

And I am tired of this example.

Not to mention I have never seen an Australian based B-17 (mine or my opponents) hit TFs at Rabaul.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by denisonh
Now back to the well worn and inadequate example.

I was referencing trying to find a task of warships moving at 20-25 knots in the open ocean, like the CVs at Midway, where B-17s intercepted the CVs and washed the flight decks with the splashes from 500lb bombs (good weather and more search assets than you can shake a stick at).

The fact that no major warship other than that DD (I believe that was in the Bismark Sea by B-17s out of PM maybe?) was hit by B-17 implies they ample opportunity. That is not true and what I am trying to point out. With you reasoning behind why B-17s can should never be able to hit an IJN warship must be based on analysis of the opportunies, or lack there of, when trying to construct a model to deal with situations that never historically happened (IJN warship within 300 miles during the day of a large Allied airbase with B-17s...)

Most of the encounters the B-17 had with shipping was in and around Rabaul. Transports moving in and around Rabaul and warships in the open ocean are two different things.

I think that there is some measure of agreement that adjustments are in order, but as for it being the "silver bullet" in UV I do not buy it.

And I am tired of this example.

Not to mention I have never seen an Australian based B-17 (mine or my opponents) hit TFs at Rabaul.

Set up some dummy combats and try it. You will.

[Drongo]

Posted by Chiteng

Again averaging 10% per month. (active planes only)
So a force of 1000 B-17 fully deployed and conducting operations
could be expected to lose 100 planes, regardless of enemy action.

Another thing, B-17s at extended ranges suffered MUCH greater
attrition. If you lose an engine or two, it is harder to get back
if your a long way from the airbase.

Which is handled in UV and will be in WitP.
If you are talking about B-17s operating from Cooktown against targets at Rabaul, operational losses for that range will normally be around 5% per mission. This is obviously excluding aircraft damaged/shot down by CAP and Flak. If this is a complaint, what exactly is UV doing wrong?

It was NOT casually sent to chase DD.

I don't know if anything is ever done casually in wartime but B-17s operating out of Northern Australia and Espiritu Santo during 1942 were often used regularly in small groups for armed recon/naval attack missions. Their targets were everything from merchants to cruisers up to CVs (like the attack on the Ryujo, IIRC). These attacks occured both in conjunction with major operations and independently.

In the time frame on UV, exactly ONE DD was hit by a B-17.I recall NO instance of ANY ship underway that was hit by a B-17.

Incorrect. There was more than one warship that was hit by B-17s during the timeframe of UV and many of these were underway. Most accounts from the time won't bother to list those ships that were hit unless they were sunk, crippled or part of a major battle.

ONE DD (the Mutsuki) was hit and sunk on the 25th of August '42 by B-17's. This may be the one you keep incorrectly referring to as the only hit on a DD. The Mutsuki took 3 direct hits from a high altitude attack by 8 B17s while she was stopped in open ocean. Another destroyer, the Uzuki, was damaged by the same stick of bombs. The Uzuki was underway at the time.

19th Aug '42 - While bombarding US positions (and underway), IJN DD Hagikaze was struck by a bomb dropped from 3 high Alt B17's. She survived and after finally fixing her steering, sailed to Rabaul for repairs.

14 September '42 - The cruiser Myoko is attacked by ten B-17's of the 11th Bomb Group from high altitude. The Myoko was underway in open ocean, well north of the Solomons at the time. She suffers light damage from a hit, knocking out some of her AA mounts.

24th September '42 - The IJN cruiser Yura suffers slight damage from being hit by one of the bombs dropped by a small group of B-17s flying at medium altitude. The Yura was underway off the Shortland Islands when the attack occured.

Enough examples for you? In reference to your UV AAR with a transport being hit, note that the above hits were achieved by small formations of B-17s. I selected only those which were confirmed by both sides and that occured around the Solomons during the period of UV. Some others occured around Rabaul within the same timeframe (not including those made by skip bombing attacks).

Have we heard the last of "only one DD was ever hit" and "no ship was hit while underway"?

But Cooktown was NOT a major base for the USN, nor was Cairn. They based out of Townsend. That tends to be ignored in UV. Was there a reason? YES, the railroad was there.

This is not ignored in UV at all. High levels of supply reach Townsville from Brisbane via the road/rail network as represented by the roadway hexes. Cooktown does not enjoy this benefit. Players are free to choose which base they stage their heavy bombers from (regardless of historical choice) but they are still forced to do so within the historical constraints of airbase size, support and supply. The use of Cooktown as a major heavy bomber base requires the shipping of appropriate engineers, support and an almost continuous series of supply convoys.

Once again, what exactly is UV doing wrong in its modelling of the situation?

And yet a strike from Cooktown to Rabual at the extreme range of the B-17 is EXACTLY what happened in the combat report I posted.

This strike occured at that range in UV only because your ships were present in a base location (regardless of whether they were passing through, etc). If they had been one hex out from Rabaul in open ocean, they would almost certainly not have been attacked from Cooktown. If you have a complaint about the distance over which the naval strike travelled, it should be directed at the way UV handles the detection of ships in a base location rather than the B-17.

Out of curiosity, what were the ships doing at Rabaul? Were they passing through or had they just ended their movement there?

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Drongo
Posted by Chiteng


Which is handled in UV and will be in WitP.
If you are talking about B-17s operating from Cooktown against targets at Rabaul, operational losses for that range will normally be around 5% per mission. This is obviously excluding aircraft damaged/shot down by CAP and Flak. If this is a complaint, what exactly is UV doing wrong?




I don't know if anything is ever done casually in wartime but B-17s operating out of Northern Australia and Espiritu Santo during 1942 were often used regularly in small groups for armed recon/naval attack missions. Their targets were everything from merchants to cruisers up to CVs (like the attack on the Ryujo, IIRC). These attacks occured both in conjunction with major operations and independently.



Incorrect. There was more than one warship that was hit by B-17s during the timeframe of UV and many of these were underway. Most accounts from the time won't bother to list those ships that were hit unless they were sunk, crippled or part of a major battle.

ONE DD (the Mutsuki) was hit and sunk on the 25th of August '42 by B-17's. This may be the one you keep incorrectly referring to as the only hit on a DD. The Mutsuki took 3 direct hits from a high altitude attack by 8 B17s while she was stopped in open ocean. Another destroyer, the Uzuki, was damaged by the same stick of bombs. The Uzuki was underway at the time.

19th Aug '42 - While bombarding US positions (and underway), IJN DD Hagikaze was struck by a bomb dropped from 3 high Alt B17's. She survived and after finally fixing her steering, sailed to Rabaul for repairs.

14 September '42 - The cruiser Myoko is attacked by ten B-17's of the 11th Bomb Group from high altitude. The Myoko was underway in open ocean, well north of the Solomons at the time. She suffers light damage from a hit, knocking out some of her AA mounts.

24th September '42 - The IJN cruiser Yura suffers slight damage from being hit by one of the bombs dropped by a small group of B-17s flying at medium altitude. The Yura was underway off the Shortland Islands when the attack occured.

Enough examples for you? In reference to your UV AAR with a transport being hit, note that the above hits were achieved by small formations of B-17s. I selected only those which were confirmed by both sides and that occured around the Solomons during the period of UV. Some others occured around Rabaul within the same timeframe (not including those made by skip bombing attacks).

Have we heard the last of "only one DD was ever hit" and "no ship was hit while underway"?




This is not ignored in UV at all. High levels of supply reach Townsville from Brisbane via the road/rail network as represented by the roadway hexes. Cooktown does not enjoy this benefit. Players are free to choose which base they stage their heavy bombers from (regardless of historical choice) but they are still forced to do so within the historical constraints of airbase size, support and supply. The use of Cooktown as a major heavy bomber base requires the shipping of appropriate engineers, support and an almost continuous series of supply convoys.

Once again, what exactly is UV doing wrong in its modelling of the situation?




This strike occured at that range in UV only because your ships were present in a base location (regardless of whether they were passing through, etc). If they had been one hex out from Rabaul in open ocean, they would almost certainly not have been attacked from Cooktown. If you have a complaint about the distance over which the naval strike travelled, it should be directed at the way UV handles the detection of ships in a base location rather than the B-17.

Out of curiosity, what were the ships doing at Rabaul? Were they passing through or had they just ended their movement there?

I was quoting Morrison. An author who you should be familiar with.
I dont have time to argue this now, maybe later today.

[mogami]

Hi, Many people to this day believe only 1 ship underway was ever struck by a bomb dropped by a B-17. (All claims by B-17 crews to have hit a ship are discounted)

I don't have a problem with UV. I don't like the B-17 as Japan but that would be true if they never attacked ships. (They attack airfields and supply).
Myself I rarely use B-17 against ships. And never send any type of mission below 6k.
My last 100 plane naval attack reported 4 hits on a Japanese TF refueling at Shortlands. (B-17's bases on Lunga)

I send them against ships once in a while but mostly bomb airfields and ports. (Where they will hit ships as well)
My main weapon against Japanese Navy ships is carrier type aircraft. (and the medium bombers that carry torpedos)

The problem the Japanese face is once the US have long range fighter escort. The medium bombers can attack beyond the range of Japanese carrier planes.

[Drongo]

Posted by Mogami

Hi, Many people to this day believe only 1 ship underway was ever struck by a bomb dropped by a B-17. (All claims by B-17 crews to have hit a ship are discounted)

True. The only ones I mentioned were those that were also confirmed by Japanese sources. If I'd posted the list of B-17 crew claims, it would have covered half the Japanese fleet.

I was quoting Morrison. An author who you should be familiar with.

Yes, I liked his work as a musician as well.

This was the first I'd seen that you were quoting him. I'd seen a post elsewhere in which you were "flatly stating it" as an established fact without a reference to Morrison.

[denisonh]

Originally posted by Drongo
Posted by Chiteng


Which is handled in UV and will be in WitP.
If you are talking about B-17s operating from Cooktown against targets at Rabaul, operational losses for that range will normally be around 5% per mission. This is obviously excluding aircraft damaged/shot down by CAP and Flak. If this is a complaint, what exactly is UV doing wrong?




I don't know if anything is ever done casually in wartime but B-17s operating out of Northern Australia and Espiritu Santo during 1942 were often used regularly in small groups for armed recon/naval attack missions. Their targets were everything from merchants to cruisers up to CVs (like the attack on the Ryujo, IIRC). These attacks occured both in conjunction with major operations and independently.



Incorrect. There was more than one warship that was hit by B-17s during the timeframe of UV and many of these were underway. Most accounts from the time won't bother to list those ships that were hit unless they were sunk, crippled or part of a major battle.

ONE DD (the Mutsuki) was hit and sunk on the 25th of August '42 by B-17's. This may be the one you keep incorrectly referring to as the only hit on a DD. The Mutsuki took 3 direct hits from a high altitude attack by 8 B17s while she was stopped in open ocean. Another destroyer, the Uzuki, was damaged by the same stick of bombs. The Uzuki was underway at the time.

19th Aug '42 - While bombarding US positions (and underway), IJN DD Hagikaze was struck by a bomb dropped from 3 high Alt B17's. She survived and after finally fixing her steering, sailed to Rabaul for repairs.

14 September '42 - The cruiser Myoko is attacked by ten B-17's of the 11th Bomb Group from high altitude. The Myoko was underway in open ocean, well north of the Solomons at the time. She suffers light damage from a hit, knocking out some of her AA mounts.

24th September '42 - The IJN cruiser Yura suffers slight damage from being hit by one of the bombs dropped by a small group of B-17s flying at medium altitude. The Yura was underway off the Shortland Islands when the attack occured.

Enough examples for you? In reference to your UV AAR with a transport being hit, note that the above hits were achieved by small formations of B-17s. I selected only those which were confirmed by both sides and that occured around the Solomons during the period of UV. Some others occured around Rabaul within the same timeframe (not including those made by skip bombing attacks).

Have we heard the last of "only one DD was ever hit" and "no ship was hit while underway"?




This is not ignored in UV at all. High levels of supply reach Townsville from Brisbane via the road/rail network as represented by the roadway hexes. Cooktown does not enjoy this benefit. Players are free to choose which base they stage their heavy bombers from (regardless of historical choice) but they are still forced to do so within the historical constraints of airbase size, support and supply. The use of Cooktown as a major heavy bomber base requires the shipping of appropriate engineers, support and an almost continuous series of supply convoys.

Once again, what exactly is UV doing wrong in its modelling of the situation?




This strike occured at that range in UV only because your ships were present in a base location (regardless of whether they were passing through, etc). If they had been one hex out from Rabaul in open ocean, they would almost certainly not have been attacked from Cooktown. If you have a complaint about the distance over which the naval strike travelled, it should be directed at the way UV handles the detection of ships in a base location rather than the B-17.

Out of curiosity, what were the ships doing at Rabaul? Were they passing through or had they just ended their movement there?

Facts make a much stronger arguement, don't you think?:)

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by Drongo
Posted by Mogami


True. The only ones I mentioned were those that were also confirmed by Japanese sources. If I'd posted the list of B-17 crew claims, it would have covered half the Japanese fleet.



Yes, I liked his work as a musician as well.

This was the first I'd seen that you were quoting him. I'd seen a post elsewhere in which you were "flatly stating it" as an established fact without a reference to Morrison.

Drongo,

You might also want to add the ships sunk or damaged by By B17s in and around the PI and NEIs earlier in 1942.

The claim of Lt Kelly sinking the BB Haruna notwithstanding, confirmed hits and losses....

IIRC, 2 Tankers ( one of 10,000 tons off Linguyen ) 4 Marus, Two MSWs ( either by hits or near misses ), 1 Repair ship.

Damaged by hits or near misses

1/2 dozen other Marus, 1 sea Plan tender "Chitose" (reported as a CV ) Several Cruisers and DDs.

The formations used in these attacks were seldom more than 9 and usually substantially less ( three being common ). The example of 9 B-17s scoreing 1 hit on a transport is well within the bounds of reality. Particularly within the confines of a harbor regardless if it was docked or not.

Why are we still talking about this? Is anyone getting combat TFs underway destroyed by B-17s anymore?

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Drongo
Posted by Mogami


True. The only ones I mentioned were those that were also confirmed by Japanese sources. If I'd posted the list of B-17 crew claims, it would have covered half the Japanese fleet.



Yes, I liked his work as a musician as well.

This was the first I'd seen that you were quoting him. I'd seen a post elsewhere in which you were "flatly stating it" as an established fact without a reference to Morrison.

So?

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by denisonh
Facts make a much stronger arguement, don't you think?:)

As I stated, when the detremination of what YOU consider a fact
is up to YOU. Thus no standard of proof will ever be acceptable.

Yes I am not surprised.

YOU like the B-17 as it is, you dont want it changed.
Thus all your arguments are biased to that end.

You agree with Drongo because you think his statement strengthens that position. I do not. I will not.

[mogami]

Originally posted by Chiteng
As I stated, when the detremination of what YOU consider a fact
is up to YOU. Thus no standard of proof will ever be acceptable.

Yes I am not surprised.

YOU like the B-17 as it is, you dont want it changed.
Thus all your arguments are biased to that end.

You agree with Drongo because you think his statement strengthens that position. I do not. I will not.

Hi, What is interesting is design and actual use. The B-17 was not designed as a city bomber. (No American in this period would advocate designing and producing bombers intended to bomb civilian targets) It was meant to "Sweep the oceans of enemy ships" (Billy Mitchell spinning in his grave) The intent was for large numbers of B-17s to fly over enemy TF's and bomb. In practice there were never enough B-17's in the Pacific for this. (And the German Navy never presented a suitable target)

Now I'm not really sure what the complaint is. In my PBEM games
(I am allied in all currently active games) I have only flown perhaps a half dozen naval strikes with B-17's (the smallest contained 60 bombers the largest 104-my attempt to use the weapon as designed) The most bomb hits I've seen for a single mission was 4. (TF in port not open water)(range 19)

[denisonh]

Originally posted by Chiteng
As I stated, when the detremination of what YOU consider a fact
is up to YOU. Thus no standard of proof will ever be acceptable.

Yes I am not surprised.

YOU like the B-17 as it is, you dont want it changed.
Thus all your arguments are biased to that end.

You agree with Drongo because you think his statement strengthens that position. I do not. I will not.

You never present any specific evidence. You make statements of "fact" without any support.

And I may like the B-17, but what you percieve as "bias" is someone who is questioning your statements of "fact".

I have already made it clear that adjustments need to be made.

Adjustments, not wholescale change, as it can be a better simulation if the basing, accuracy, and personnel lethality corrected.

But it is not broke as it stands, and I do not see it as the "game-killer" as you present.

1/2 of my current active PBEM games are as IJN, and do not see it your way.