B17 Losses too heavy

[AmiralLaurent]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Sharkosaurus rex

Then it is not historical

Gasp! SHOCKING!!![X(][8|]

Well, WITP doesn't take in account the variable performance of planes at different alt, and that is no surprise. That leaves us with planes able to fly exactly the same between 100 feet and their max alt. The main problem in GG's game is that this max alt is the theorical max alt (in trials away from frontline) and not the practical max alt.
Most WW2 pilots never flew over 30 000 feet and those who did remembered these special battles. On the other hand in game B-17 will always fly abover 32000 feet, except if there is no opposition at all.

[madmickey]

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Sharkosaurus rex

Then it is not historical

Gasp! SHOCKING!!![X(][8|]

Well, WITP doesn't take in account the variable performance of planes at different alt, and that is no surprise. That leaves us with planes able to fly exactly the same between 100 feet and their max alt. The main problem in GG's game is that this max alt is the theorical max alt (in trials away from frontline) and not the practical max alt.
Most WW2 pilots never flew over 30 000 feet and those who did remembered these special battles. On the other hand in game B-17 will always fly abover 32000 feet, except if there is no opposition at all.

Actually P-39 and P-40 have built in performance penalty a lesser peanlty could have been included for other planes.

[Sharkosaurus rex]

For simplistic use all planes could have the same one manoeuvre point per 1k penalty. But for different models of planes it could have kicked in at different altitude. So planes with high altitude performance would have their penalty starting at 23-26k. And planes more prone to altitude would start lower. Have different optimum heights for each plane. Maybe thrwon in a some speed reductions too?

[String]

Hm, my experience has shown A2A to be much less effective at high altitudes..

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Looks like we need to avoid using large groups of bombers, if we wish to avoid heavy losses of those bombers. I noticed something like that once, when I had two bomber groups involved in an attack. When I only use one bomber group the losses don't seem so high.

So first the designers put too many B-17's in the game. Then they make it possible to base far to many at a single base. Then they create a set of maps and air ranges that
make only the B-17's able to reach most Japanese targets, encouraging the Allies to mass these assets to be able to do anything in the game. And now they've made the
B-17's rediculously vulnerable to Japanese fighters to try "fix" the mess. How many "wrongs" do they think it takes to make a "right"?

I haven't finished my first cup of coffee yet and here you are starting me up! [8D]

That's precisely what the designers have done (or rather, up until this time have been in the process of doing, taking into consideration changes made to the patches), and one does tend to wonder when this worrying cycle of flawed logic will end. The results shown in these two examples from Joe's PBEM with Tommy are, as you've lebeled them, ridiculous, indeed, break this portion of the air model from the Allied point of view.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson




After waiting a couple of days for some Thunderstorms in Papua to pass over ... TommyG came back again with a repeat B17 raid on Gili Gili and I came up again with the same groups of Tony's and A6M2s ... results were substantially the same and are posted below. So we are now sure we have a "repeatable" event ( at least until TommyG runs out of B17s !!! ).

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 10/08/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Gili Gili , at 56,94

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 38
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 41

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 105

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 3 destroyed, 2 damaged
Ki-61 KAIc Tony: 4 destroyed, 9 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 41 destroyed, 23 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 32000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 32000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 32000 feet
5 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 32000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is sobering. I wonder if it's new to v1.5. With v1.4 I'd use B-17s at 20,000 feet for day raids to avoid the worst effects of the heavy flak Chez had piled in Rabaul, which was sufficient at that time.

I wonder if you could persuade Tommy to send another flight over, this time at a lower altitude to see if that's the issue or not. If you get similar results, we're in trouble.

In general, these results are unacceptable, of course--they render the air model broken in this respect.

There may be a # of factors .. my pet theory is that large numbers of fighters ( over 50 ? ) is the primary problem ... and I didn't figure out that large numbers of fighters caused geometrically increasing numbers of losses until a few weeks ago ... and these raids with TommyG are the first pure "tests" with large numbers of fighters on one side and large numbers of pure bombers on the other ...

I think TommyG is done "testing" with his B17s in our game ... though we could use the saves to perform additional tests ... right now I don't have time ( and I owe you a move first anyway !!! ) but TommyG and I sent the saves from the first instance to Frag .. I haven't seen a report back .. but we should have one shortly.

The thing to do, Joe, is keep the saved turns and re-run this scenario with 1) bombers at decreasingly lower altitudes, 2) then with fewer opposing fighters, in incremental steps, at decreasingly lower altitudes, then finally 3) fewer bombers at decreasingly lower altitudes being opposed by fewer fighters in incremental steps. Along the way we could keep an eye on the effects of AA fire and operational casualties, both of which seem to be non-factors at the moment. (How much AA is in Milne Bay?)

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Well I'm finally going to join the "B17 losses too heavy" Fanboy club.

Note results from air attack below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Gili Gili , at 56,94

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 30
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 42

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 69

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed, 3 damaged
Ki-61 KAIc Tony: 4 destroyed, 10 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 47 destroyed

Japanese ground losses:
46 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
2 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 32000 feet
2 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 32000 feet...

32000 feet?

Your losses do to air combat at that altitude should have been virtually none.

IMO

Losses to Zeros ought to have been none, period. A Zero at 32,000 feet was next to useless. A Tony, on the other hand, had some ability up there, but not all that much for the earlier models.

I'm up north in the mountains at the moment and not working on my normal machine, so I don't have access to my library or regular set of bookmarks and can't research this readily. However, the "Tony" had a number of configurations. Which one is represented in the game? Are various models given?

The first was only armed with 2x 12.7mm and 2x 7.7mm MGs, that's for sure. Eventually the Japanese sneaked in some German Mauser 20mm cannon, but as I recall the ammo for that gun was somewhat esoteric (I think it was electrically fired) and in any event it was definitely in short supply (it could only be "smuggled" in by submarine means). Later on the Japanese fitted the Tony with their own 20mm cannon. That was the Ho-5 as I recall, but--you can check that for yourself, it could have been something else--but that didn't happen right away as it wasn't available yet.

My point is that while the heavier and faster "Tony" proved effective versus the rather out-moded P-40s which Kenney had at his disposal, they were not at all effective against heavy bombers--those MGs just didn't do enough damage. Also, the Tony had engine issues along the way--overheating, the want of more power, etc. I know the Japanese finally upgraded that original in-line piston engine with one that was more powerful.

Finally, keep in mind that the "Tony" which appeared in 1943 was not the same "Tony" (which went back to an air-cooled radial engine) that proved to be so effective in 1945 versus B-29s. Not the same animal at all.

So, which "Tony" are we talking about here? What kind of specs does the game give for it?

Be that as it may, operational losses ought to show up somewhere, yet they do not. This could be just a statistical aberation due to the small sample--we're only talking about two test runs. Remember, the war's average ratio of sorties to operational losses in this theater was 307:1. The lack of casualties to AA fire at that altitude is a good sign--except for the heaviest AA pieces, it should have no practical effect at over six miles up.

[TommyG]

We're way ahead of you. Joe is running turns where my bombers attack at altitudes decreasing by 5000 ft per turn down to 12000 ft and separate turns with the number of bombers decreasing by 25+/- per turn. So far, data reveals that bombers seem not to fly mission if formation is less than 50 against 100+ cap. Contols are not ideal and data is only preliminary

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Sharkosaurus rex

Only the P39 and P400 are affected by high altitude. -1 man per 1k ft pver 10k

As far as I know that's true, and the 10,000-foot threshold is too low as well. Another mistake.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Sharkosaurus rex

For simplistic use all planes could have the same one manoeuvre point per 1k penalty. But for different models of planes it could have kicked in at different altitude. So planes with high altitude performance would have their penalty starting at 23-26k. And planes more prone to altitude would start lower. Have different optimum heights for each plane. Maybe thrwon in a some speed reductions too?

It's not that simple. Each plane has its own flying characteristics. A Thunderbolt,, for example, gave its best performance at higher altitude, whereas a Zero, for instance, was best below 18,000 feet at fairly low speeds. All this one-size-fits-all stuff simply doesn't work, and is laughable in a game which models individual pilot attributes within an 8-hour-pulse time scale.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

B-17 losses are too low [:'(]

You have way too many of them and use them for missions they never flew so the rate of loss can not be compared to what historically happened. If you want to put them mostly on naval search (just like in 1941/42) your loss rates will drop down and fit in with history.

B-17s weren't used mostly on recon missions in 1942. That was merely one of their functions.

Look, the game is off here by over two orders magnitutde. Out of two tests of B-17s flying a mission over Milne Bay the ratio of bomber mission to fighter kills is 1.74:1. whereas historically for the entire war in this theater the ratio was 245:1.

Loud alarm bells ought to be ringing at Corporate Central. They are here.

[TommyG]

I don't understand your ratio. To my way of figuring, my two Milne Bay missions reulted in 100 lost bombers and only 22 lost fighters, or approx 5:1 in favor of the fighters. I do agree with your conlusion "what the f***".

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: TommyG

I don't understand your ratio. To my way of figuring, my two Milne Bay missions reulted in 100 lost bombers and only 22 lost fighters, or approx 5:1 in favor of the fighters. I do agree with your conlusion "what the f***".

I stated the ratio as mission sorties to bomber losses to fighters. During the war in this theater that ratio was 245 sorties to each bomber lost to fighter action (245:1), whereas the ratio from these past two missions of yours comes to 1.75:1. Big difference.

You want to use a ratio of [x bombers lost] : [y fighters lost], which is a different deal. No bad, just different. Go get that data from the survey and present it. The story will be no happier, I guarantee you that.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: TommyG

I don't understand your ratio. To my way of figuring, my two Milne Bay missions reulted in 100 lost bombers and only 22 lost fighters, or approx 5:1 in favor of the fighters. I do agree with your conlusion "what the f***".

Okay, I'll present the data from the bombing survey myself.

First of all, the enemy losses from the game's combat report are mere estimates, with FOW busily at work. We'd need to see the actual losses to be working with hard figures. Second, you're adding in damaged planes as well as fighters killed. Can't do that. It pollutes the data and compromises the study. So, we'll correct that and use the estimated number of fighters shot down from the two combat reports, which happens to be 12 (five the first mission, seven the second mission).

So, what we really have from the game (again, working only with estimated Japanese casualties) is a ratio of 100:12 or 8.3:1, not 5:1 as you believe.

The historical figures look like this.

During the entire war in the FEAF theater, according to the survey, 231 bombers were killed due to enemy fighter action, while 1,344 enemy fighters were lost to bomber kills. That's a ratio of 231:1,344 or 1:5.81.

So the game has it as 8.3:1, reality was 1:5.81.

See what I mean? That is what you call a cockeyed result. It is almost literally a mirror image of reality. In other words, backward. Or, as Nik would love to tell me . . . just more typical Schuler bullshit, a feeble effort to "hijack" this otherwise engrossing thread.

[testarossa]

I remember vaguely that on Dec 7, 1941 B-17D group was intercepted by Zeroes over PH, and attacked. One of the unarmed B-17 was shot down.

“…In the midst of the Hickam action twelve unarmed B-17's being ferried from the mainland arrived over Oahu. Eight of them managed to land at Hickam, and of the other four two came down at Haleiwa, one at Bellows, and one on a golf course near the northern tip of Oahu. Enemy action destroyed one of the planes and badly damaged three others.”

[freeboy]

just athought.. If I am allies in Pbem, too many b17's shot down.. if Japan..."those bastards never fall out of the sky"

just a morose thought

[Mike Scholl]

Problem is that this thread was started by a JAPANESE player complaining that the loss rates were absurd..., and he was the one shooting them down!

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: testarossa

I remember vaguely that on Dec 7, 1941 B-17F group was intercepted by Zeroes over PH, and attacked. One of the unarmed B-17 was shot down.

“…In the midst of the Hickam action twelve unarmed B-17's being ferried from the mainland arrived over Oahu. Eight of them managed to land at Hickam, and of the other four two came down at Haleiwa, one at Bellows, and one on a golf course near the northern tip of Oahu. Enemy action destroyed one of the planes and badly damaged three others.”

I'm not clear as to how this impacts the present thread, but as long as you bring this incident up . . . as far as I know all twelve B-17s landed "safely" as it were, though I suppose that depends on how one defines these things. Anyway, here's an ongoing thread started some years ago by a gentleman who periodically updates it with new information: Pearl Harbor 8-16

This is the first post in that series: Pearl Harbor 1-16

As you can see, this thread is part of a WWII mailing list. Pretty good stuff. There are other sources which will verify this account in one phase or another, but I found this guy's writing and presentation to be the best package--he adds some interesting details.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Problem is that this thread was started by a JAPANESE player complaining that the loss rates were absurd..., and he was the one shooting them down!

As I recall it was similar the last time this cropped up, with a Japanese player wondering how his float planes could shoot down so many B-17s. And that was at Milne Bay, too, wasn't it?

[Toast]

I actually had a recent similar experience as Japanese player in one of my PBEM. The Allied player flew two massive raids on Milne Bay and my Zero went up to intercept and damaged a large number of them. I am at work so don't have access to the combat reports but each raid was about 200 unescorted B-17's and I interrcepted with a about 50 Zero's and damaged over 45 in each encounter. Not that many were shot down (maybe one or two on each raid - but I may be remebering this wrong - the second raid was definitely 45 damaged and only one destroyed) but this was the combat reports with FOW on. My opponent, Arstavidios, can give a better idea of the final effects. But they must have been bad because he hasn't flown any raid like that in over two weeks. Kind of strange all these results are over Gili Gili.