Heavy Bomber Losses

[Lemurs!]

I am kinda in the middle.

I think the losses to the bombers are a bit high but no more so than any where else in the game.

What is bothering me is the lack of Japanese fighters being shot down by bombers. I know, they were not as good at that as they had thought during the war.
But the heavies did shoot down some fighters and we are talking Rufes which are essentially flying gas cans.
Slow flying gas cans.

I had noticed this earlier in my testing and playing but with the Japanese.
The later Sallies & Betties are not that poorly armed but i have never seen a Japanese bomber shoot anything down.
So the bomber accuracy or targeting needs a little tweaking.

I say a little Mike Wood, we don't need to turn all bombers into flying fighter killers.

I swear BTR air combat worked so much better...

Mike

[Lemurs!]

I don't want to hype the CHS here but i think it is pertinant.

One thing that has always bothered me about this game is the lack of altitude mattering in combat.

I have always thought that something as simple as 3 levels, low/medium/high and a mod (-1/0/+1) at each altitude for each plane set in the editor. Have this affect mnvr.

But since it is not there i have tried to show the difference slightly artificially because it was important.

Japan spent a great deal of time working on a high altitude aircraft for this reason.

The max altitudes listed for many aircraft are a joke; the Zero can fly to 30,000ft but can not so much as bank slightly without stalling. In other words no air combat.

So what i have done in the CHS is all Japanese aircraft that were known for their high altitude limitations, i lowered the max altitude a bit. Changed a few allied planes down as well.

This will give immunity zones to some allied bombers and will show why the Japanese built the Tojo and the Jack.

Mike

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
....And I'm glad you agree that conditions were different in the Pacific than over Europe. So, what's your opinion of the model? Does WitP have it right or no?...

I find it hard to say if it is right or wrong at this point in time as I have limited time to experiance 1.5. I will note that if the Allied players is flying B-17s at 6,000 feet... losses will be significantly higher than they were during the war: he is making a choice as commander that would have gotten him hung by his own men during the war. [;)]

I agree if you mean day attacks. I've only flown those on a limited basis and at relatively high altitudes over bases. I think I did chance one or two lower-altitude flights over Rabaul in my game with Chez, but at the time I was fairly sure there was no good flak in that port. If I recall on my second raid I was in for a rude awakening, as he'd stuffed the port full of heavy AA units, and I paid the price accordingly.

Japanese flak wasn't the greatest, but I imagine it would do some damage if bombers came over at only a mile up or so. I will send bombers in at 9,000 or 6,000 and even 1,000 feet at night, depending on the base and the known strength of flak there. But that's another animal.

[Speedysteve]

Hi all,

Here is the first set of tests results:

B24 vs A6M2

First set of tests - 2 BG vs 4 Daitai - multiple days of continuous action.

B24 exp - 57
Zero experience - 80

Altitude 15,000.

No flak present.

Port Moresby - Rabaul.

1st attack - 75 B24 vs 68 A6m - 7 B24 lost. 7 Zero lost.
2nd attack - 108 vs 49 - 27 B24 lost. 4 Zero lost (fatigue and morale on B24 was in 20's now).
3rd attack - 56 vs 65 - 13 lost vs 6 lost. Many B24 turned back
4th attack - 44 vs 42. 8 lost vs 3 lost.

Test 2.

1st attack - 84 B24 vs 72 A6M - 10 B24 lost. 4 Zero lost.
2nd attack - 89 B24 vs 65 A6M - 16 B24 lost. 7 Zero lost.
3rd attack - 72 B24 vs 61 A6M - 8 B24 lost. 5 Zero lost.
4th attack - 55 B24 vs 58 A6M - 6 B24 lost. 1 Zero lost.

More results in a bit.

Steven

[Mike Scholl]

SPEEDY More information please. At what range were the Heavy's attacking? And were the attacks continued on a daily or every-other-day basis? The game gives very excessive fatigue and morale losses to heavy bomber attacks even when the results are good and the losses low.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

All I can tell you is that I have seen the formulas GG used to use for A2A combat and the morale was every bit as important as the experience and other factors. Whether he still uses pretty much the same formula I can only guess. Besides, since there is not an SP ranking for the crews, or at least none that I have seen, and how morale is a key (no matter how insignificant it may cureently be) to the unseen fomula, wouldn't you say that it just might fit into the morale category? If there aren't any crew variables other than exp/mor then obviously the other intangibles fit in one or the other category or are omitted altogether.

And as I said earlier, the system is flawed, and getting worse. You defend the results by saying that this is the way GG designed the system. I say that totally ahistoric results indicate the system doesn't work. If it did, the results would be more historic.

If an automobile bursts into flames and blows up whenever it is hit from behind..., you don't say that it's a great car because that was the way it was designed! You pay off a pile of nasty lawsuits, and re-design the car so that it doesn't explode when hit from behind. "The system was designed to produce lousy results" is NOT a defense of the system---it's a damning condemnation.

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

SPEEDY More information please. At what range were the Heavy's attacking? And were the attacks continued on a daily or every-other-day basis? The game gives very excessive fatigue and morale losses to heavy bomber attacks even when the results are good and the losses low.

Hi Mike,

I'll post more results in a sec. They were launching from size 8 airfield at PM to Rabaul. The above test was to show what happens on CONTINUOUS days bombing. One day after another with no rest.

[Speedysteve]

Test 2.

1 B24D BG from size 8 airfield PM against 2 A6M2 Daitai Rabaul. Each attack is launched fresh = Morale in 90's and 0 fatigue for each group concerned.

B24 exp - 56
A6M2 exp - 80
Altitude - 15,000 feet. No flak

21 B24 vs 22 A6M2 - 6 B24 lost vs 1 Zero lost.
30 vs 33 - 11 lost v 1 lost
36 vs 27 - 10 lost vs 0 lost
29 vs 32 - 10 lost vs 1 lost
32 vs 31 - 5 lost vs 1 lost
34 vs 30 - 6 lost vs 0 lot
30 vs 27 - 8 lost vs 0 lost
31 vs 31 - 3 lost vs 1 lost
35 vs 27 - 9 lost vs 1 lost
31 vs 36 - 9 lost vs 3 lost.

Average losss per raid - 7.8 B24 vs 0.8 A6M2!

Test 3.

Identical to above EXCEPT both B24 and A6M2 exp = 54

37 vs 31 - 7 lost vs 3 lost
32 vs 25 - 4 lost vs 2 lost
27 vs 39 - 4 lost vs 1 lost
37 vs 33 - 6 lost vs 2 lost
37 vs 32 - 5 lost vs 2 lost
27 vs 22 - 4 lost vs 1 lost
34 vs 18 - 1 lost vs 0 lost
37 vs 25 - 7 lost vs 1 lost
34 vs 29 - 4 lost vs 2 lost
34 vs 33 - 1 lost vs 2 lost

Average losses per raid - 4.3 B24 vs 1.5 A6M!

Test 4.

Same as above EXCEPT B24 exp = 60. A6M exp = 75. ALSO larger groups of planes involved.

70 vs 74 - 26 lost v 8 lost
68 vs 65 - 29 lost vs 5 lost
151 vs 75 - 40 lost vs 15 lost
95 vs 76 - 32 lost v 11 lost
83 vs 72 - 28 lost vs 6 lost
117 vs 78 - 43 lost vs 11 lost
110 vs 88 - 36 lost vs 7 lost
81 vs 74 - 31 lost vs 8 lost
97 vs 85 - 39 lost vs 5 lost
114 vs 83 - 37 lost vs 11 lost

Average loses per raid - 34.1 B24 vs 8.7 A6M!

I've not had time to test against other plane types yet but I still think the above is showing a trend already. We know that heavies were used without escort in the Pacific and they didn't achieve loss rates like the above. Even the LW didn't achieve these sort of results against unescorted heavies.

I still think this is a great game but maybe the vulnrability of heavies should be toned down a little. Sure it should not be wise to fly without escort but these guys could look after themeslves better than they are doing at present in my opinion. Will do more tests in due course.

Regards,

Steven

[Mike Scholl]

I would say that the losses of the Allied heavies need to be toned down considerably...,
and the losses of the Japanese are rediculously light.

[Mr.Frag]

We know that heavies were used without escort in the Pacific and they didn't achieve loss rates like the above.

Steven, thats not really a valid statement to make. *Small* numbers of unescorted raids took place with low numbers of aircraft.

That is not the same to say that two entire bomber groups attacked a defended airbase against multiple wings of combat air patrol with no escort.

Sending multiple groups (64+) aircraft anywhere without escort and expecting survival is being silly. People really need to stop playing selective reading when discussing what happened historically.

[freeboy]

As an experienced bomber campeigner.. Frag is correct
I also note that I want to take air supperiory I send wave after wave of bombers.. when I can afford to lose them.. I lose them bat they do get airbase hits and anything that gets left after the base gets shut I bomb to nothing... makes the jap player worry as I can more easily replace bombers than he can fighters.. this one tactic allowedd me against Zeta 16 to push his planes back and alow free access for aks/aps in my 43 slingshot advance through NG and SRA.. previous I lost Hundreds of Ships... It really was ugly and I teetered on the edge of a Jap auto victory.. 42 was really tough and I needed a way to use what I had after taking a cv and bb beating in 42, he also lost BB's, most of his carrier planes survived..
Back to the ?.. I lost planes.. alot of planes.. but igf you have 2-3 hundred.. you can hit him several turns in arow and knock out the base.. under 150 is pretty much a wast unless you get some CV support or fighters.. not argueing wehter it is accurate or not because I just do not care that much, it is close enough to force historical chioces on the actors and that is ok by me... these choices are.. luanch unescorted and suffer.. and maybe if you have the guts for it waste your air groups whiile pushing back the enemy.. and as the Japs.. due you defend or withdraw in the face of such oppisition, and if You are playing the japs against me.. good luck standing your ground..
[X(][X(]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

We know that heavies were used without escort in the Pacific and they didn't achieve loss rates like the above.

Steven, thats not really a valid statement to make. *Small* numbers of unescorted raids took place with low numbers of aircraft.

That is not the same to say that two entire bomber groups attacked a defended airbase against multiple wings of combat air patrol with no escort.

Sending multiple groups (64+) aircraft anywhere without escort and expecting survival is being silly. People really need to stop playing selective reading when discussing what happened historically.

FRAG On what sources do you base these statements? There were hundreds of "modest" size raids made by Allied heavies in the Pacific (less than 100 A/C);
and very few were escorted because the Allies lacked fighters with the range to
do so. The losses were nothing like what the game is producing---and the Japanese
interceptors suffered much greater losses than the game is producing. Please list
even three examples of a "Group-sized" bomber raid that suffered losses on the scale
shown in SPEEDY's tests (25 to 33% bomber casualties with loss ratios of 5-8 : 1).
It just didn't happen that way....

[Mr.Frag]

Please list even three examples of a "Group-sized" bomber raid that suffered losses on the scale
shown in SPEEDY's tests (25 to 33% bomber casualties with loss ratios of 5-8 : 1).

I'm going to turn that one around on you Mike ...

Please list even three examples of a group sized bomber raid while Japan still had an airforce.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

All I can tell you is that I have seen the formulas GG used to use for A2A combat and the morale was every bit as important as the experience and other factors. Whether he still uses pretty much the same formula I can only guess. Besides, since there is not an SP ranking for the crews, or at least none that I have seen, and how morale is a key (no matter how insignificant it may cureently be) to the unseen fomula, wouldn't you say that it just might fit into the morale category? If there aren't any crew variables other than exp/mor then obviously the other intangibles fit in one or the other category or are omitted altogether.

And as I said earlier, the system is flawed, and getting worse. You defend the results by saying that this is the way GG designed the system. I say that totally ahistoric results indicate the system doesn't work. If it did, the results would be more historic.

If an automobile bursts into flames and blows up whenever it is hit from behind..., you don't say that it's a great car because that was the way it was designed! You pay off a pile of nasty lawsuits, and re-design the car so that it doesn't explode when hit from behind. "The system was designed to produce lousy results" is NOT a defense of the system---it's a damning condemnation.

Mike I don't think this model is working off the BTR model, or the USAAF model for that matter, but that's where the ground was being laid. It's not a carbon-copy is what I'm trying to say (not that you said that). In any event my main purpose was to make it clear to you that there is no such thing as self-preservation in the ranking of the crews. You can imagine it as fatigue or morale, in there somewhere perhaps, but there had never been any s-p rankings in any of GG's games that I've seen. I'm not exactly sure there should be either, because if s-p makes so much of a difference as you said, what makes you think B17 crews have more s-p than Zero or Betty pilots? Part of s-p, in fact, I would say the majority of it, probably has a lot more with knowing how and when to retreat (such as going flat to the ground instead of continually firing away) than being a legendary rambo, which certainly B17 pilots weren't known to have nothing but rambo crews.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

We know that heavies were used without escort in the Pacific and they didn't achieve loss rates like the above.

Steven, thats not really a valid statement to make. *Small* numbers of unescorted raids took place with low numbers of aircraft.

That is not the same to say that two entire bomber groups attacked a defended airbase against multiple wings of combat air patrol with no escort.

Sending multiple groups (64+) aircraft anywhere without escort and expecting survival is being silly. People really need to stop playing selective reading when discussing what happened historically.

IOW, he would be better off testing 5 B17's against 3 Zeroes?

[Speedysteve]

Hi guys,

I don't have in depth knowledge of Heavy bomber missions in PTO so I will bow down to superior knowledge IF the case is that few large unescorted heavy bomber missions were flown in the PTO then so be it.

I do still think the loss rate is high though. Even unescorted heavy raids in ETO didn't get these ratios against 190's etc. I'm not one of these whiners who want change for the sake of it though. I've done some tests and these are my results.

If the majority think all is ok I will leave this alone now. If you do want more tests to be done Frag or think I should do them with different parameters then just let me know.

Onwards with this great game! [:)]

Regards,

Steven

[Sardaukar]

Numbers seem to bit high, but generally I don't have problems with that. Unescorted bomber raids were bad idea against determined fighter opposition anyway. Maybe CHS-folks can make some adjustments to planes etc. ?

Speedy, can you change the Zeros to Oscars and run the test again ? If they achieve something similar, then I'll get bit concerned.

Cheers,

M.S.

[AmiralLaurent]

I agree heavy bombers are too high, but their replacement rates are even too much higher.

And the Luftwaffe kill ratio vs US heavy bombers was over 3 to 1. What really hurts the Luftwaffe was the escorts ?

Most of the heavy bombers actions in RL were one BG or less vs one Daitai/Sentai or less. Essentially because in RL aircraft, and especially heavy bombers, were more difficult to support than in WITP. So both sides were unable to fly as much as we do in the game.

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Numbers seem to bit high, but generally I don't have problems with that. Unescorted bomber raids were bad idea against determined fighter opposition anyway. Maybe CHS-folks can make some adjustments to planes etc. ?

Speedy, can you change the Zeros to Oscars and run the test again ? If they achieve something similar, then I'll get bit concerned.

Cheers,

M.S.

I can do but is it worth it? If others think it's worth testing this too i'll spend the time on it. Do the testers think anything is up here or are you all agreed that its working as is realistically?

Regards,

Steven

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent


I agree heavy bombers are too high, but their replacement rates are even too much higher.

And the Luftwaffe kill ratio vs US heavy bombers was over 3 to 1. What really hurts the Luftwaffe was the escorts ?

Most of the heavy bombers actions in RL were one BG or less vs one Daitai/Sentai or less. Essentially because in RL aircraft, and especially heavy bombers, were more difficult to support than in WITP. So both sides were unable to fly as much as we do in the game.

Hi Laurent,

AFAIK only rarely did the LW achieve over 3:1 odds. Here we have 7:1 at times.

P.S. What happened to you on BTR forum?