I have these consentrated in Port Moresby and Lunga, all tageting Rabaul airfield at 11,000 ft.
Thing is, they seem to lose morale very quickly, and every day I have to rotate groups in and out of training.
Is this normal ?
<There is no supply problem in those bases>.
B17/b24
Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid
..
Is use them to bomb Rabaul too, but if possible based in Gili Gili, with plenty of P-38 escorts....i prefer 16000 feet with 17000 feet escort height.
Keeps them out of flak range...at 11000 feet they can take to much damage in my opinion.
Make shure they rest after every raid.
Resting...not training.
Real Combat is training enough;)
Keeps them out of flak range...at 11000 feet they can take to much damage in my opinion.
Make shure they rest after every raid.
Resting...not training.
Real Combat is training enough;)
I too use them at 15,-16,000 feet,but the morale is still more a problem than I believe it needs to be..(Especially painful with B-24's,and IMHO that's just WRONG!!!!)
Of course I don't commit LRB's till they have experience,and escorts are pretty much a must..
But still,relegating good planes like B-24's just to appease an
inhistorical morale/loss problem is just not right..
FWIW,more B-24's were built than B-17's,(and it was NOT a cost consideration.It had a better payload,greater range,and was a faster plane,(with the famous "Davis wing")....
Of course I don't commit LRB's till they have experience,and escorts are pretty much a must..
But still,relegating good planes like B-24's just to appease an
inhistorical morale/loss problem is just not right..
FWIW,more B-24's were built than B-17's,(and it was NOT a cost consideration.It had a better payload,greater range,and was a faster plane,(with the famous "Davis wing")....
...
Yes....i think this morale thing has still too much impact...in WW2 the fighter pilots for example had to scramble very often day for day...not only circling the base but doing intercepts.
Flying over the base and wait for an attack, if it ever comes, should be NO problem for a fighter pilot...i think it is boring for them...thats all.
And back to our bombers:
I think its much easier to fly with an aircraft where you have place to move a little bit around than sitting in a single seat fighter.
Flying over the base and wait for an attack, if it ever comes, should be NO problem for a fighter pilot...i think it is boring for them...thats all.
And back to our bombers:
I think its much easier to fly with an aircraft where you have place to move a little bit around than sitting in a single seat fighter.
-
pasternakski
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm
Re: ...
Originally posted by Odin
And back to our bombers:
I think its much easier to fly with an aircraft where you have place to move a little bit around than sitting in a single seat fighter.
Tell that to the B-17 tail gunner who had to slide down a chute to his position and sit there in a space about the size of a coffin for ten or twelve hours.
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
Apparently Morale is less the psychological sense and more a combination of A/C fatigue, parts supply, and just basic combat readiness of the unit. I had the same question re: my Zeros in one of my PBEM games. New Guinea is rampant with Malaria and that factors into morale or Combat readiness if you will. A Units CO does have an effect on these numbers, but concerning B-17s it is very difficult to get them to stay healthy in large numbers.
This is not too far from the truth in the South Pacific. If you're interested I put a large quote from Fire in the Sky by Bergerud over on the LRB (Long Range Bomber poll) by Raverdave. Might give you some perspective on the role of the B-17 in SOPAC.
Regards
Elf
showthread.php?s=&threadid=39273
This is not too far from the truth in the South Pacific. If you're interested I put a large quote from Fire in the Sky by Bergerud over on the LRB (Long Range Bomber poll) by Raverdave. Might give you some perspective on the role of the B-17 in SOPAC.
Regards
Elf
showthread.php?s=&threadid=39273
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES
I remember reading the Stephen E. Ambrose book called "The Wild Blue" which followed the wartime career of George McGovern, who flew B-24s over Europe. McGovern made the point the the B-24s were a real handful to fly, in compared to the B-17s.
A flight in a B-24 would wear the pilot out, "I've seen pilots at the end of a mission that were so exhausted they literally had to be lifted out of the pilot's seat by the crew" McGovern recalled.
And this from another B-24 pilot, Guyon Phillips "You could never trim the son-of-a-gun, and had to horse it around constantly".
The B-24s were also more complicated than the B-17s, and this is reflected in the game where B-24s constantly have more ships being "repaired" than the B-17 squadrons. It is a pain, but realistic IMHO.
A flight in a B-24 would wear the pilot out, "I've seen pilots at the end of a mission that were so exhausted they literally had to be lifted out of the pilot's seat by the crew" McGovern recalled.
And this from another B-24 pilot, Guyon Phillips "You could never trim the son-of-a-gun, and had to horse it around constantly".
The B-24s were also more complicated than the B-17s, and this is reflected in the game where B-24s constantly have more ships being "repaired" than the B-17 squadrons. It is a pain, but realistic IMHO.
Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
The B-24s were rotated to the Pacific, because they did have a longer range than the B-17s, and because the Japanese fighters were much less effective against them than the German Lufwaffe.
But all things considered, what about the B-29 crews that flew 16 - 18 hour missions?! Holy crap that's a long time in the air! And those "crew quarters" with the bunks and such that you see in the cut-aways were "optional", meaning they more often than not, were NOT in place operationally (they were often stripped out to save weight).
It's just something that we often don't think about. You fly 8 hours to create an event (dropping your bombs), that takes about 1 minute. Then fly back 8 more hours.
-F-
But all things considered, what about the B-29 crews that flew 16 - 18 hour missions?! Holy crap that's a long time in the air! And those "crew quarters" with the bunks and such that you see in the cut-aways were "optional", meaning they more often than not, were NOT in place operationally (they were often stripped out to save weight).
It's just something that we often don't think about. You fly 8 hours to create an event (dropping your bombs), that takes about 1 minute. Then fly back 8 more hours.
-F-
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me
A couple of years ago, I had the opportunity to take a ride in the
B-24 flown by the Collingswood(?) Foundation when they visited
Burbank.The ride lasted about 45 mins at approx 1500'-2000'
feet. I stood at the left waist gunner's station to take some pix.
The wind,noise, vibration, etc, even at that altitude and low speed
were amazing. I cannot imagine how those men flew deep penetration missions at 25k feet for 10-12 hrs with someone
shooting at them in a '24 or '17. They really had big brass ones.
B-24 flown by the Collingswood(?) Foundation when they visited
Burbank.The ride lasted about 45 mins at approx 1500'-2000'
feet. I stood at the left waist gunner's station to take some pix.
The wind,noise, vibration, etc, even at that altitude and low speed
were amazing. I cannot imagine how those men flew deep penetration missions at 25k feet for 10-12 hrs with someone
shooting at them in a '24 or '17. They really had big brass ones.
You lucky bugger!Raverdave:These planes still make cross-country tours. When I
took my flight, the cost was $300(US). I have no idea what the fee is now. After my flight, I called my father, who was a B-17
bombardier. I asked him how they could fly in those things day after day under the conditions they did. His answer was simple:
'that's what we had, so that's what we used."
took my flight, the cost was $300(US). I have no idea what the fee is now. After my flight, I called my father, who was a B-17
bombardier. I asked him how they could fly in those things day after day under the conditions they did. His answer was simple:
'that's what we had, so that's what we used."
B-29s...
At least B-29s had pressurized & heated cabins; B-17s and 24s didn't. I think I'd take 18 hours in a B-29 easier than 8 in a B-17.
It's not clear to me that the B-24 is SO much harder to maintain than the B-17 as it is represented in UV.
Also, UV may underrate the effective range advantage of the B-24 (at least it's not as bad as some of the later Pacwar database updates that incomprehensibly gave B-17s the same range and LARGER bomload than the B-24; I think they were using data including underwing hardpoint bombs on the B-17 which were almost never used and certainly never used in the Pacific.)
Another interesting issue are B-25s and B-26s. If anything B-26s should have more of a "maintenance gap" compared to B-25s, which were very easy to maintain, than B-17s do over B-24s.
The main reason the B-26s were withdrawn in the Pac according to Bergerud was that is that they require nice long, level, concrete runways, B-25s had a MUCH MUCH MUCH shorter takeoff length.
Not certain how this could be represented in UV. Maybe let B-25s operate without penalty from size 3 fields? Of course, I think fields are built up a little too quickly and that would make it seem even worse, and not like American level bombers need help. Maybe move the size 4 cutoff up to size 5? And then have B-25s fully functional on Size 4 fields?
It's not clear to me that the B-24 is SO much harder to maintain than the B-17 as it is represented in UV.
Also, UV may underrate the effective range advantage of the B-24 (at least it's not as bad as some of the later Pacwar database updates that incomprehensibly gave B-17s the same range and LARGER bomload than the B-24; I think they were using data including underwing hardpoint bombs on the B-17 which were almost never used and certainly never used in the Pacific.)
Another interesting issue are B-25s and B-26s. If anything B-26s should have more of a "maintenance gap" compared to B-25s, which were very easy to maintain, than B-17s do over B-24s.
The main reason the B-26s were withdrawn in the Pac according to Bergerud was that is that they require nice long, level, concrete runways, B-25s had a MUCH MUCH MUCH shorter takeoff length.
Not certain how this could be represented in UV. Maybe let B-25s operate without penalty from size 3 fields? Of course, I think fields are built up a little too quickly and that would make it seem even worse, and not like American level bombers need help. Maybe move the size 4 cutoff up to size 5? And then have B-25s fully functional on Size 4 fields?
I think there are some good suggestions here, regarding the maintanance level of the aircraft, and their airfield usage. But we should also consider how already difficult it is to learn UV. Adding unit specific qualifications for airfield size, accellerated repair rates (or decellerated), search arcs, etc. would verly likely to prove problematic.
Such a level of detail makes an already complicated game, that much more confusing. Compound that with such subtleties as "B-26s are faster to repair than B-17s, which are faster to repair than B-24s, wich are faster to repair than B-29s..." or "Most level bombers need a level 4 AF, excpet B-25s which can us a 3, and B-26s which need a 5..." and so on, and so on. You can see how it might become even more overwhelming than it already is.
The correlary this is that, many us are VERY knowlegable in the US or even Commonwealth units, but there are probably just as many minor variations in runway requirements and repair rates for the Japanese units, but none of us are versed well enough to actually know what the differences are. It doesn't seem appropriate to have all these modifications for the Allies, and none for the Axis, simply because the information is not as available. Consider the time that must be spent researching to validiate all the claims about B-26 repair rates and runway length, and then having to find comparable situations for the Japanese.
Such subtleties have a greater potentional to bring on complaints than satifaction in fact. The reality is that only a VERY FEW number of buyers actually visit, much less register and participate these forums. Many buy the game, and NEVER update. Even so, you can go to the Matrix site, and never even click on the small link that says "formums". So with so many subtleties, you've not got alot of buys who can't understand why the B-26s can't launch from a level 4 AF, or why they can't, even if it says so in the manual.
The solution is in the editor. I don't think it's Matrix's responsablity to create such minor variations. They have already said that they are providing a full unit editor for WitP. This way, players can "tweak" the statistics of units, to what may have been a (subjectively) more accurate representation of the historical unit or situation. But again, I think this is the responsability of the player base to create an insanely detailed mod. It is Matrix's responsibility to provide us with a good engine and an accurate "vanilla" model to start with.
Interesting Discussion.
-F-
*** And yes, it was VERY cold in the B-17s and B-24s. The crews were provided with heated suits because the cabins were not pressurized, but it's still REALLY f-ing cold at 24,000'. I was actually thinking that it would be "rather problematic" when a B-29 was hit, because you're rapidy DEpressurizing...
Such a level of detail makes an already complicated game, that much more confusing. Compound that with such subtleties as "B-26s are faster to repair than B-17s, which are faster to repair than B-24s, wich are faster to repair than B-29s..." or "Most level bombers need a level 4 AF, excpet B-25s which can us a 3, and B-26s which need a 5..." and so on, and so on. You can see how it might become even more overwhelming than it already is.
The correlary this is that, many us are VERY knowlegable in the US or even Commonwealth units, but there are probably just as many minor variations in runway requirements and repair rates for the Japanese units, but none of us are versed well enough to actually know what the differences are. It doesn't seem appropriate to have all these modifications for the Allies, and none for the Axis, simply because the information is not as available. Consider the time that must be spent researching to validiate all the claims about B-26 repair rates and runway length, and then having to find comparable situations for the Japanese.
Such subtleties have a greater potentional to bring on complaints than satifaction in fact. The reality is that only a VERY FEW number of buyers actually visit, much less register and participate these forums. Many buy the game, and NEVER update. Even so, you can go to the Matrix site, and never even click on the small link that says "formums". So with so many subtleties, you've not got alot of buys who can't understand why the B-26s can't launch from a level 4 AF, or why they can't, even if it says so in the manual.
The solution is in the editor. I don't think it's Matrix's responsablity to create such minor variations. They have already said that they are providing a full unit editor for WitP. This way, players can "tweak" the statistics of units, to what may have been a (subjectively) more accurate representation of the historical unit or situation. But again, I think this is the responsability of the player base to create an insanely detailed mod. It is Matrix's responsibility to provide us with a good engine and an accurate "vanilla" model to start with.
Interesting Discussion.
-F-
*** And yes, it was VERY cold in the B-17s and B-24s. The crews were provided with heated suits because the cabins were not pressurized, but it's still REALLY f-ing cold at 24,000'. I was actually thinking that it would be "rather problematic" when a B-29 was hit, because you're rapidy DEpressurizing...
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me