Changes to B-17s in 1.5

[afspret]

I think that the some changes should be made to the B-17s in 1.5. In particular the B-17G should be changed to B-17F. The upgrade path for the B-17E should then be changed to the B-17F, then the B-24D and then the B-24J. The current path has B-17E units skipping the B-24D and using the B-17E until the B-24J becomes available.

Also, why are there not RIAF units in the game? There were several Hurricane and Vegenance units that were in action in Burma.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: afspret

I think that the some changes should be made to the B-17s in 1.5. In particular the B-17G should be changed to B-17F. The upgrade path for the B-17E should then be changed to the B-17F, then the B-24D and then the B-24J. The current path has B-17E units skipping the B-24D and using the B-17E until the B-24J becomes available.

Also, why are there not RIAF units in the game? There were several Hurricane and Vegenance units that were in action in Burma.

You are going to like the big mod.

[Buck Beach]

[/quote]

You are going to like the big mod.
[/quote]

Not if you can't play it against the AI[:(][:(]

[Subchaser]

ORIGINAL: afspret

I think that the some changes should be made to the B-17s in 1.5. In particular the B-17G should be changed to B-17F. The upgrade path for the B-17E should then be changed to the B-17F, then the B-24D and then the B-24J. The current path has B-17E units skipping the B-24D and using the B-17E until the B-24J becomes available.

Actually there are more things that should be corrected. B-17 force is overpowered in stock scenarios, groups can grow up to 48 aircraft strong, replacement rate is way too high… As it is now B-17 groups are one of the major instruments in stopping Japanese advance in ’42, however… in reality Forts, despite all their potential might did surprisingly little in 1942.
Allied player should not be able to maul Japanese forces in ‘42 with 200 heavies strong sledgehammer, there were no raids ala Sweinfurt early in the war. In fact there were no even 50 aircraft strong raids. B-17s were real nightmare for the ground personnel, even fresh aircraft that had just arrived from States were under repair for a week or two cause several thousand miles flight to the frontline usually took a lot out of planes, overhaul was required. It was pain in the @ss to launch just 15 or 20 Forts for a single raid, awful climate and shortage of spare parts was the major hassle. Typical early war raid was usually only 3-12 aircraft strong.
And for the reasons unknown… Allied player has one additional B-17 group, 39th BG, available right from the start. It was training unit until 4/44 when group received B-29 bombers.

The table below gives a clear picture of B-17 strength in PTO

POA (Pacific Ocean) - area covering island groups across the central Pacific where eight B-17 squadrons served with the 7th Air Force, until transferred to the FEAF. FEAF – (Far East Air Forces) applied to Australia, New Guinea and Solomon Islands where B-17s served with the 5th and 13th Air Forces in 16 squadrons at different times. CBI – (China-Burna-India) theatre found only a maximum of two B-17 squadrons operating in India and Burma with the 10th Air Force. According to “Fortress Against The Sun” by Rene Salecker only 282 B-17 (in bomber configuration) were in commission in PTO in ’41-’43.

The figures given cover only bomber configured B-17s and not those designated for other purposes such as transport or air-sea rescue. For example, there were an average of 20 B-17Gs converted as airborne lifeboat carriers and for special transports with the 20th Air Force in the Marianas Islands during the summer of 1945. Neither do the figures include second-line aircraft used for training and communications work. An average 120 war-weary B-17s were in hand for such duties during the period may’44 – may’45. Alaska - 11th Air Force engaged in operations against Japanese in the Aleutian Islands area and had a single B-17 squadron for a couple of months.

During autumn ’42 the strongest B-17 force ever summoned in Pacific was operating from Australian airbases, 5th AF groups had 124 Forts in september, but this is total number, only 76 aircraft were air capable. In WitP Allied player runs kind of embryonic 8th AF, and can knock dust out of Japanese industries if within the range… already in summer 42.

[AmiralLaurent]

The fact that a B-17 or B-29 is requiring as much aviation personnel and base space as a Lysander is helping people to build strategic air forces far more powerful than in RL.

If B-17s were requiring 2 or 3 air support squads each and overcrowd airfield using 3 "spaces" instead than one, it would be more difficult to use them.

Also I don't understand why a base with 500 or 1000 aircraft only needs 250 aviation support points. An army with 4000 INF/ART/ARM squads needs 4000 support squads, aviation should be the same !

Then is the problem that B-17 fly in WITP as huge air armadas extremely well coordinated. And that AA fire is inexistent against such armadas when it should at least shoot at the first waves until silenced by bombs and smoke. It is non-sense that a 20-plane raid suffered always more losses to (ground-based) AA fire than a 200-plane raid.

At least one of the change of v1.5 will reduce the disponibility of planes (including heavy bombers that seem to me to have a greater need of repairs than other aircrafts... probably due to the long range of the flights) as a group slit in squadron and an united group will now repair planes at the same rate.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

Then is the problem that B-17 fly in WITP as huge air armadas extremely well coordinated. And that AA fire is inexistent against such armadas when it should at least shoot at the first waves until silenced by bombs and smoke. It is non-sense that a 20-plane raid suffered always more losses to (ground-based) AA fire than a 200-plane raid.

Hi,

this is not true (at least in my games): Last turn in my PBEM vs. Jagdfluger a night attack by about 150 B-17 from PH vs. Johnson scored 1 runway hit and destroyed one plane on the ground (altitude was 15K). Losses were 7 B-17 due to flak and 46 damaged planes (combat report, less were damaged in reality, and only one OP loss). My opponent has lots of AA units at Johnson. Ostensibly the Japanese flak did quite well here (and not for the first time).

K

[timtom]

To Kereguelen:

Do you know whether your opponent had any TF's at Johnson? I believe the ships AAA are added to the overall defence, and a ship-mounted 25mm is a damn sight more effective than the ground-based ditto (in the game anyway[:)]).

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: timtom

To Kereguelen:

Do you know whether your opponent had any TF's at Johnson? I believe the ships AAA are added to the overall defence, and a ship-mounted 25mm is a damn sight more effective than the ground-based ditto (in the game anyway[:)]).

Hi,

as far as I know (actually I'm quite sure about this) there were no Japanese TF's there (and certainly no ships in port). Btw, from my experience you're right about ship based AA in general.

K

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Subchaser

ORIGINAL: afspret

I think that the some changes should be made to the B-17s in 1.5. In particular the B-17G should be changed to B-17F. The upgrade path for the B-17E should then be changed to the B-17F, then the B-24D and then the B-24J. The current path has B-17E units skipping the B-24D and using the B-17E until the B-24J becomes available.

Actually there are more things that should be corrected. B-17 force is overpowered in stock scenarios, groups can grow up to 48 aircraft strong, replacement rate is way too high… As it is now B-17 groups are one of the major instruments in stopping Japanese advance in ’42, however… in reality Forts, despite all their potential might did surprisingly little in 1942.
Allied player should not be able to maul Japanese forces in ‘42 with 200 heavies strong sledgehammer, there were no raids ala Sweinfurt early in the war. In fact there were no even 50 aircraft strong raids. B-17s were real nightmare for the ground personnel, even fresh aircraft that had just arrived from States were under repair for a week or two cause several thousand miles flight to the frontline usually took a lot out of planes, overhaul was required. It was pain in the @ss to launch just 15 or 20 Forts for a single raid, awful climate and shortage of spare parts was the major hassle. Typical early war raid was usually only 3-12 aircraft strong.
And for the reasons unknown… Allied player has one additional B-17 group, 39th BG, available right from the start. It was training unit until 4/44 when group received B-29 bombers.

The table below gives a clear picture of B-17 strength in PTO

POA (Pacific Ocean) - area covering island groups across the central Pacific where eight B-17 squadrons served with the 7th Air Force, until transferred to the FEAF. FEAF – (Far East Air Forces) applied to Australia, New Guinea and Solomon Islands where B-17s served with the 5th and 13th Air Forces in 16 squadrons at different times. CBI – (China-Burna-India) theatre found only a maximum of two B-17 squadrons operating in India and Burma with the 10th Air Force. According to “Fortress Against The Sun” by Rene Salecker only 282 B-17 (in bomber configuration) were in commission in PTO in ’41-’43.

The figures given cover only bomber configured B-17s and not those designated for other purposes such as transport or air-sea rescue. For example, there were an average of 20 B-17Gs converted as airborne lifeboat carriers and for special transports with the 20th Air Force in the Marianas Islands during the summer of 1945. Neither do the figures include second-line aircraft used for training and communications work. An average 120 war-weary B-17s were in hand for such duties during the period may’44 – may’45. Alaska - 11th Air Force engaged in operations against Japanese in the Aleutian Islands area and had a single B-17 squadron for a couple of months.

During autumn ’42 the strongest B-17 force ever summoned in Pacific was operating from Australian airbases, 5th AF groups had 124 Forts in september, but this is total number, only 76 aircraft were air capable. In WitP Allied player runs kind of embryonic 8th AF, and can knock dust out of Japanese industries if within the range… already in summer 42.

Agree completely. The UV repl rates provided a much better "feel" for the problems of B-17 operations. As your table indicates, PNG was not being starved of replacements in order to build up anywhere else (except in Europe of course[:D])

Drastically reducing the B-17 repl rate seems like an easy fix ([8|]) that would help a lot. Combine that with the upgrade changes in 1.5 and it would result in small B-17 units that would upgrade to B24D as soon as possible. In reality, I believe that most of the B17 units were "Withdrawn" as they ran down in strength in late 42.

[Nikademus]

Another factor is that the bomber always carries a max load (extended range excepted)
In reality the Pacific B-17's carried a variety of load numbers.....rarely a full load. Sometimes it was as little as 4 bombs, I'd say a very rough average was more like 8 bombs per bomber.

For 1.5 B-17 replacement rate is being examined. It turns out the game was spitting out around 75 a month....thats worthy of the Eighth Air Force. [X(]

[freeboy]

ok.. can someone answer this.. if we change the upgrade paths.. will not hte factories still put out the same old stuff for the Allies? I mean whats the point of having a tone of groups that we cannot replace planes due to factory constraints.. or can the Allies now tinker?

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

ok.. can someone answer this.. if we change the upgrade paths.. will not hte factories still put out the same old stuff for the Allies? I mean whats the point of having a tone of groups that we cannot replace planes due to factory constraints.. or can the Allies now tinker?

The Allies get so much stuff they generally don't need to tinker. For example, in 1.4 there are excess P38 and insufficient P40 in 1Q43. 1.5 will allow you to change P40 groups that have no replacements for P38 that have dozens if not hundreds in the pool; a considerable sacrifice I know[:'(]

The B24D pool is ENORMOUS by 1Q43 since there are so few units and so many replacements. Again no sacrifice to change B17s in for B24Ds.

Same thing for Marine Wildcats exchanging for Corsairs.

Now I have to admit that the people who want to change P40s into P51s will have a severe shortage, but I think P38Js will serve me nicely [:D]

Now in late 44 there will be insufficient replacements to change all of the above units, but there are usually too many units to deploy by then anyway. Just use some older types for backwater security. IIRC 1.5 will also let you go backward to trade in your high-profile types for the more mundane types if you over-indulge[:)]

[Nikademus]

sorry...no tinkling on the Allied production schedules. [;)]

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: Subchaser

Actually there are more things that should be corrected. B-17 force is overpowered in stock scenarios, groups can grow up to 48 aircraft strong, replacement rate is way too high… As it is now B-17 groups are one of the major instruments in stopping Japanese advance in ’42, however… in reality Forts, despite all their potential might did surprisingly little in 1942.
Allied player should not be able to maul Japanese forces in ‘42 with 200 heavies strong sledgehammer, there were no raids ala Sweinfurt early in the war. In fact there were no even 50 aircraft strong raids. B-17s were real nightmare for the ground personnel, even fresh aircraft that had just arrived from States were under repair for a week or two cause several thousand miles flight to the frontline usually took a lot out of planes, overhaul was required. It was pain in the @ss to launch just 15 or 20 Forts for a single raid, awful climate and shortage of spare parts was the major hassle. Typical early war raid was usually only 3-12 aircraft strong.
And for the reasons unknown… Allied player has one additional B-17 group, 39th BG, available right from the start. It was training unit until 4/44 when group received B-29 bombers.

The table below gives a clear picture of B-17 strength in PTO

POA (Pacific Ocean) - area covering island groups across the central Pacific where eight B-17 squadrons served with the 7th Air Force, until transferred to the FEAF. FEAF – (Far East Air Forces) applied to Australia, New Guinea and Solomon Islands where B-17s served with the 5th and 13th Air Forces in 16 squadrons at different times. CBI – (China-Burna-India) theatre found only a maximum of two B-17 squadrons operating in India and Burma with the 10th Air Force. According to “Fortress Against The Sun” by Rene Salecker only 282 B-17 (in bomber configuration) were in commission in PTO in ’41-’43.

The figures given cover only bomber configured B-17s and not those designated for other purposes such as transport or air-sea rescue. For example, there were an average of 20 B-17Gs converted as airborne lifeboat carriers and for special transports with the 20th Air Force in the Marianas Islands during the summer of 1945. Neither do the figures include second-line aircraft used for training and communications work. An average 120 war-weary B-17s were in hand for such duties during the period may’44 – may’45. Alaska - 11th Air Force engaged in operations against Japanese in the Aleutian Islands area and had a single B-17 squadron for a couple of months.

During autumn ’42 the strongest B-17 force ever summoned in Pacific was operating from Australian airbases, 5th AF groups had 124 Forts in september, but this is total number, only 76 aircraft were air capable. In WitP Allied player runs kind of embryonic 8th AF, and can knock dust out of Japanese industries if within the range… already in summer 42.

greetings...

indeed, very interesting data. I always ask my self did allies realy have such strength so early in the game. Saw many "uber" air fleets pounding AF's, industry, etc... But i assumed, if B-17 are present in those numbers so early in the game, then they are really existed in Pacific theatar.

Now, i would like hear opinions from the experts (Pry?). If Subchaser's data are accurated why we have so many B-17 in the game?

[Nikademus]

The reality in the SW and S Pac areas was that it was very hard to maintain the heavy bombers. (Me gots "Fortress Against the Sun" too....useless for determining bomber effectiveness vs targets and enemy fighters...but very relevent in regards to maintenance and logistics issues and B-17 characteristics and fighting tactics)

The author states that even by late 42, Kenney and company were slowly losing the attrition battle due to heavy usage of the few 17's they had operational coupled with a sporadic trickle of reinforcements from either the States or from quieter areas (such as Hawaii) Combat losses were reported as few. It was the logistics and general wearing out of the planes coupled with primitive conditions that kept more planes on the ground than in the air.

Lack of spare parts was the biggest culprit. The WitP AV support routine does not make a distinction between the maintenance requirements of say, a single engine fighter and a big four engine bomber. 2b3 "did" experiment with a harsh 4E repair rate rule in UV but due to very vocal player complaints, this rule was eased to the point where you can pretty much keep any BG (17's or not) operational assuming AV pointage and supply.

[Grotius]

2b3 "did" experiment with a harsh 4E repair rate rule in UV but due to very vocal player complaints, this rule was eased to the point where you can pretty much keep any BG (17's or not) operational assuming AV pointage and supply.

I remember that repair rule; I thought it was reasonable, and I'm bummed to hear it's been watered down.

For 1.5 B-17 replacement rate is being examined. It turns out the game was spitting out around 75 a month....thats worthy of the Eighth Air Force.

Glad to hear it's being examined. It does seem too easy to build up a massive armada of heavy bombers early in the war.

[Oleg Mastruko]

B17s are currently ridicolously overpowered in WITP. I think it is the only weapon system I would be complaining about right now...

Anything to tone them down would be welcome. Lowering the replacement rate would be welcome (and obviously realistic), but IMO it would not be enough. Players can still amass ridicolous amounts of B17 and send them on scorched earth missions that will wipe whole air armies in one go. Bombing effectiveness should be drastically reduced.

There's another problem if I might add... aircraft are equally vulnerable on ground and in the air. In B17 raids in my game it's always the Nates that die like flies, much more than other aircraft. B17 on the other hand are as durable on the ground as they are in the air. Why? Well I assume it's because various durability factors come into play as if it's aerial fight. A bomb is a bomb is a bomb. If a bomb lands on a grounded plane it will be destroyed, be it B17 or a Nate. In other words - durability should be "equalised" when doing air vs. ground calculations, so that it affects the results less than in pure air to air combat.

Oleg

[Bombur]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

B17s are currently ridicolously overpowered in WITP. I think it is the only weapon system I would be complaining about right now...

-Agree completely

Anything to tone them down would be welcome. Lowering the replacement rate would be welcome (and obviously realistic), but IMO it would not be enough. Players can still amass ridicolous amounts of B17 and send them on scorched earth missions that will wipe whole air armies in one go. Bombing effectiveness should be drastically reduced.

-My question is how are allied medium bombers working in bombing airfield missions? Are they much less effective than B-17´s? I´ve made some tests with night bombing with B-17´s and G4M´s and it seems that G4M´s are less efficient even after adjustment for bombloads (I must do more tests, of course).

There's another problem if I might add... aircraft are equally vulnerable on ground and in the air. In B17 raids in my game it's always the Nates that die like flies, much more than other aircraft. B17 on the other hand are as durable on the ground as they are in the air. Why? Well I assume it's because various durability factors come into play as if it's aerial fight. A bomb is a bomb is a bomb. If a bomb lands on a grounded plane it will be destroyed, be it B17 or a Nate. In other words - durability should be "equalised" when doing air vs. ground calculations, so that it affects the results less than in pure air to air combat.

-Hmmm...not sure, if a bomb lands close to a plane (let us wonder, 40 meters) it could destroy a Nate but not a B-17.

[Bombur]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The reality in the SW and S Pac areas was that it was very hard to maintain the heavy bombers. (Me gots "Fortress Against the Sun" too....useless for determining bomber effectiveness vs targets and enemy fighters...but very relevent in regards to maintenance and logistics issues and B-17 characteristics and fighting tactics)

The author states that even by late 42, Kenney and company were slowly losing the attrition battle due to heavy usage of the few 17's they had operational coupled with a sporadic trickle of reinforcements from either the States or from quieter areas (such as Hawaii) Combat losses were reported as few. It was the logistics and general wearing out of the planes coupled with primitive conditions that kept more planes on the ground than in the air.

Lack of spare parts was the biggest culprit. The WitP AV support routine does not make a distinction between the maintenance requirements of say, a single engine fighter and a big four engine bomber. 2b3 "did" experiment with a harsh 4E repair rate rule in UV but due to very vocal player complaints, this rule was eased to the point where you can pretty much keep any BG (17's or not) operational assuming AV pointage and supply.

-Maybe we could lower the durability of B-17´s to simulate attrition losses? And you´re correct, we should get back those UV rules.

[medicff]

This sounds like a jap fan boy club thread to me. I agree the power of the 4E should be toned down somewhat but not too much as the game is simulating having the planes (in proper numbers) but the allied doctrine of not using them shouldn't be completely penalizing the allied fan boys who choose to use them more aggressively. The slow repair rate takes into account already the problem of keeping them flying (They absolutely cannot go everyday). Unless of course we take away all the jap unrealistic advantages.[;)]