Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
ORIGINAL: Anachro
7.4.2.3 KAMIKAZES
Once a squadron is converted to Kamikaze, it may only conduct three Mission types – Kamikaze, Training, and Stand Down. The Kamikaze Mission is a variant of the Naval Attack Mission, which of course if successful means unit casualties.
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
ORIGINAL: Aurorus
ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth
full stop. the complaint was that 4EB were not operationally used to bomb ground troops. John said he was fine with 2EB, but 4 EB should not be allowed. I called BS. 4EB can, and were, and should be, allowed to bomb troops. There track record is short...but it certainly happened to great effect.
Allied generals were concerned with the inaccuracy of the 4 engine bombers as close support bombers, not the effectiveness of 4 EBs on ground troops. Everyone acknowledged that they were very effective against ground troops.
That 4 EB were not used frequently against ground troops in WWII has more to do with allied strategic decisions than the aircraft capabiities. The allies chose to use them against airbases, railheads, and industry. There is no reason that an allied player in WiTP should be bound by this strategic decision, just as the Japanese player should not be forced to send 4 of his carriers half way across the Pacific blind in support of an invasion of an insignificant atoll.
In my opinion, the game engine handles all aspects of the airwar very well. That is just my opinion. If I did not think so, I would not enjoy the game.
Everyone points to the single big example of Cobra for 4EB. How about the massive 'friendly fire' casualties that happened in several the Bocage attacks there. Didn't the army lose a 3-Star General who went to watch and got killed when they bombed short?
Simple reality, as alluded to earlier, is that the game engine simply cannot handle it.
EX: June 5th Turn just run in Dan and I's game. A 32 plane Liberator attack at Batangas against troops in Sz-4 Forts, not moving, two AA units present, and CAP. Result: 1 Liberator shot down, 11 Damaged to AA/Fighters, and 404 Japanese Cas on the ground.
ORIGINAL: Mike Dubost
Well, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I would like to point out a fact that no one has mentioned yet. While it is true that Leslie McNair (the highest ranking American casualty of the ETO) was killed, this was partly due to the approach.
In his memoirs, General Bradley spoke about the friendly fire issue. His statement (note, I have not seen this in detail elsewhere, so be advised it is one credible source only) was that he had planned to have the bombers approach along the front. The Army Air Corps over-ruled him and insisted that it had to be perpendicular to the front. My recollection is that he stated that he never wanted to have another carpet bombing mission that came in perpendicular to the front, not necessarily no carpet bombing at all.
Please consider that when objecting to the example of Cobra. Could the planners of other missions have agreed to a perpendicular approach? Yes, possibly. Would it have made the bombing as effective as you see in game? I don't have enough knowledge of the technology of the time to say.
ORIGINAL: Mike Dubost
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
ORIGINAL: Aurorus
Allied generals were concerned with the inaccuracy of the 4 engine bombers as close support bombers, not the effectiveness of 4 EBs on ground troops. Everyone acknowledged that they were very effective against ground troops.
That 4 EB were not used frequently against ground troops in WWII has more to do with allied strategic decisions than the aircraft capabiities. The allies chose to use them against airbases, railheads, and industry. There is no reason that an allied player in WiTP should be bound by this strategic decision, just as the Japanese player should not be forced to send 4 of his carriers half way across the Pacific blind in support of an invasion of an insignificant atoll.
In my opinion, the game engine handles all aspects of the airwar very well. That is just my opinion. If I did not think so, I would not enjoy the game.
Everyone points to the single big example of Cobra for 4EB. How about the massive 'friendly fire' casualties that happened in several the Bocage attacks there. Didn't the army lose a 3-Star General who went to watch and got killed when they bombed short?
Simple reality, as alluded to earlier, is that the game engine simply cannot handle it.
EX: June 5th Turn just run in Dan and I's game. A 32 plane Liberator attack at Batangas against troops in Sz-4 Forts, not moving, two AA units present, and CAP. Result: 1 Liberator shot down, 11 Damaged to AA/Fighters, and 404 Japanese Cas on the ground.
Well, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I would like to point out a fact that no one has mentioned yet. While it is true that Leslie McNair (the highest ranking American casualty of the ETO) was killed, this was partly due to the approach.
In his memoirs, General Bradley spoke about the friendly fire issue. His statement (note, I have not seen this in detail elsewhere, so be advised it is one credible source only) was that he had planned to have the bombers approach along the front. The Army Air Corps over-ruled him and insisted that it had to be perpendicular to the front. My recollection is that he stated that he never wanted to have another carpet bombing mission that came in perpendicular to the front, not necessarily no carpet bombing at all.
Please consider that when objecting to the example of Cobra. Could the planners of other missions have agreed to a perpendicular approach? Yes, possibly. Would it have made the bombing as effective as you see in game? I don't have enough knowledge of the technology of the time to say.
ORIGINAL: Aurorus
ORIGINAL: Mike Dubost
Well, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I would like to point out a fact that no one has mentioned yet. While it is true that Leslie McNair (the highest ranking American casualty of the ETO) was killed, this was partly due to the approach.
In his memoirs, General Bradley spoke about the friendly fire issue. His statement (note, I have not seen this in detail elsewhere, so be advised it is one credible source only) was that he had planned to have the bombers approach along the front. The Army Air Corps over-ruled him and insisted that it had to be perpendicular to the front. My recollection is that he stated that he never wanted to have another carpet bombing mission that came in perpendicular to the front, not necessarily no carpet bombing at all.
Please consider that when objecting to the example of Cobra. Could the planners of other missions have agreed to a perpendicular approach? Yes, possibly. Would it have made the bombing as effective as you see in game? I don't have enough knowledge of the technology of the time to say.
As I mentioned, Cobra is probably not comparable for a number of reasons, especially in that in Cobra the 4 EBs were used in close support. Using 4 EBs to bomb rear echelon positions, which is more comparable to what John experienced here, was commonplace in the Asian theater, especially in Burma, and the casualty estimates that the WiTP is generating are very much in line with those reported in these types of missions.
The allies did not do this more frequently, because they used the 4 EBs more frequently to establish air superiority by hitting Japanese airfields. That is also why the allies did not make a habit of losing 18 B-29s in one raid to 100 Japanese fighters. There is a tradeoff for all things. If the allies want to use their 4 EBs to attack ground troops and not to establish air superiority, they must expect to take heavy 4 EB loses.
ORIGINAL: MechFO
Your "source" being a straight reprint of period dispatches without any cross checking or correlating. Rule of thumb, divide reported losses by a factor of anything from 3 to 10 to reach something that might be accurate. And that's for relatively easily counted items such as AFV's or planes.
Casualty figures by their nature are even harder to count so the range of mistakes will probably be even higher.
ORIGINAL: Aurorus
ORIGINAL: MechFO
Your "source" being a straight reprint of period dispatches without any cross checking or correlating. Rule of thumb, divide reported losses by a factor of anything from 3 to 10 to reach something that might be accurate. And that's for relatively easily counted items such as AFV's or planes.
Casualty figures by their nature are even harder to count so the range of mistakes will probably be even higher.
My source is Grehan and Mace, who have publised extensively on the second world war. Their sources are the actual After Action Reports. When you open your combat report, that is what you are seeing... an After Action Report... that is designed... even in the graphics, to look like a WWII After Action Report. There is even a typewriter sound.
ORIGINAL: Aurorus
If you want to corroborate allied After Action Reports with those of the Japanese, you will at pains to do so. The Japanese war archives are scattered and partial. As with Germany, many documents were destroyed, both by the axis government figures and in the general destruction of Germany and Japan in the final years of the war. Keep in mind that most of the history of the war, until fairly recently, was based almost exclusively on allied After Action Reports. It was only about 20 years ago that an Englishman, who was a colleague of mine at the time at university, wrote the first history of the Normandy campaign that used both German and English-language sources. It was his doctorial dissertation, and I believe is now a published book.
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
That was well said Poultry Man. We'll see what happens next turn as the troops try to hold Batangas. I've got over 200 fighters scheduled to be on LRCAP at either 15K or 30K. We'll see what happens...
ORIGINAL: MechFO
straight from amazon:
Despatches in this volume include Air Operations in Burma and Bay of Bengal 1 January to 22 May 1942 by General Wavell, the despatch on air operations in South-East Asia November 1943 to May 1944, by Air Chief Marshal Sir R.E.C. Peirse, the despatch on air operations in South-East Asia from June 1944 to May 1945, by Air Chief Marshal Sir Keith Park, and the despatch on air operations in South East Asia between May 1945 and September 1945, by Air Chief Marshal Sir Keith Park.

This unique collection of original documents will prove to be an invaluable resource for historians, students and all those interested in what was one of the most significant periods in British military history.
Published normally implies more than simple reprinting of somebody else's documents.
ORIGINAL: Aurorus
If you want to corroborate allied After Action Reports with those of the Japanese, you will at pains to do so. The Japanese war archives are scattered and partial. As with Germany, many documents were destroyed, both by the axis government figures and in the general destruction of Germany and Japan in the final years of the war. Keep in mind that most of the history of the war, until fairly recently, was based almost exclusively on allied After Action Reports. It was only about 20 years ago that an Englishman, who was a colleague of mine at the time at university, wrote the first history of the Normandy campaign that used both German and English-language sources. It was his doctorial dissertation, and I believe is now a published book.
So you agree you base your opinion of effectiveness on reports that without fail have been shown to have massively overestimated damage inflicted in each and every case where such reports have been cross checked. Thank you.
I don't have a problem with Allies using 4EBs on enemy ground troop targets as part of a concerted effort to break through fixed lines in general. But-to retain realism-the game should code for friendly casualties or the Allies should voluntarily limit the practice to keep with reality. As it stands now, the game will not code for *any* Allied casualties from ahistoric massed application of 4EBs in this role. And some Allied players seem to think that they have mastered the fog of war of communications between ground troops and air force pilots dropping from 10,000+ feet. Just because the game doesn't 'punish' that behavior doesn't mean that the game (or the player) is dealing with it realistically or 'fairly'.
ORIGINAL: Aurorus
ORIGINAL: Mike Dubost
Well, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I would like to point out a fact that no one has mentioned yet. While it is true that Leslie McNair (the highest ranking American casualty of the ETO) was killed, this was partly due to the approach.
In his memoirs, General Bradley spoke about the friendly fire issue. His statement (note, I have not seen this in detail elsewhere, so be advised it is one credible source only) was that he had planned to have the bombers approach along the front. The Army Air Corps over-ruled him and insisted that it had to be perpendicular to the front. My recollection is that he stated that he never wanted to have another carpet bombing mission that came in perpendicular to the front, not necessarily no carpet bombing at all.
Please consider that when objecting to the example of Cobra. Could the planners of other missions have agreed to a perpendicular approach? Yes, possibly. Would it have made the bombing as effective as you see in game? I don't have enough knowledge of the technology of the time to say.
As I mentioned, Cobra is probably not comparable for a number of reasons, especially in that in Cobra the 4 EBs were used in close support. Using 4 EBs to bomb rear echelon positions, which is more comparable to what John experienced here, was commonplace in the Asian theater, especially in Burma, and the casualty estimates that the WiTP is generating are very much in line with those reported in these types of missions.
The allies did not do this more frequently, because they used the 4 EBs more frequently to establish air superiority by hitting Japanese airfields. That is also why the allies did not make a habit of losing 18 B-29s in one raid to 100 Japanese fighters. There is a tradeoff for all things. If the allies want to use their 4 EBs to attack ground troops and not to establish air superiority, they must expect to take heavy 4 EB loses.
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Thanks for remembering that it was Leslie McNair. Could not remember his name whatsoever. Appreciate it!
