B17 Losses too heavy

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: ArticFire
Yup. Apples and Oranges. Find a historical account of B17's fighting oscars and nates and you'll have a leg to stand on.

Good point, but problem is that B-17's seem to have evaded such encounters most of the time by flying at altitudes higher than 20,000 feet[;)].

[ChezDaJez]

I find Robert Mikesh's book, "Zero!" to be a very nice reference and one of the most detailed books (at least in English). It contains a lot of anecdotal and performance data on the various versions. It gives comparisons to many of the Allied aircraft it was in combat with. I found it to be well written and very well researched.

There is a decent book called "Hayabusa" by Richard Beuschel about the Ki-43 Oscar series. Not as comprehensive as "Zero!" but still informative.

I tend to look for the single subject books like those above. I haven't found a comprehensive Japanese aircraft book that gives substantial detail on each aircraft. Doesn't mean there aren't any, just I haven't read one yet. There are plenty that will give you the basic details on the different aircraft. All depends on what your are looking for. I like to get beyond the performance and armament data and read about the people who flew them. Black and white data can often give the wrong inpression but the people who used often provide many missing details.

Chez

[testarossa]

Thanks Chez.

[ChezDaJez]

This is from Guadalcanal by Richard B.Frank. I think this is a reasonably unbiased book. He uses both official US Navy/Marine Records and the research of Japanese source material done by John Lundstrom. He Frequently compares kills claimed versus losses actually reported.

The losses overall are fairly even with a slightly greater Air-to-Air loss for the Zero. Of course the Zero A2A losses are not solely from the F4F (total P39/400 A2A losses are 13). One thing these numbers don't show are that the F4F operating off Henderson were frequently outnumbered and that the IJN pilots didn't exploit this due to poor coordination IIRC. Although this doesn't show the specific tactics used or how each battle played out (did I mention the US was outnumbered?) it gives a good picture of actual results.

I would hardly call this a mauling, but that was probably the view of the pilots who were usually outnumbered.

My $.02

Thanks for the great reply. I have never read this book and I'm going to have to find a copy. This is the type of clear, hard data from a published source that I like best. I like to compare sources like this against others. I don't believe that any one book can provide the total "truth." The truth will probably never be totally known. It was war and people weren't exactly worried about detailing the hows and whys for future historians but sources such as this can go a long ways towards building a better picture.

BTW, Morison is the author that indicated the Wildcats were routinely mauled by Zeros. One point Morison does bring up and this book might also is that many Wildcats might very well had become losses if they weren't fighting in close proximity to Henderson. Some of the Zero losses came, not from being shot down outright, but from crashing due to battle damage on their return flight.

Chez

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Balikpapan

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_n9204386

As the person who started this thread a while back, I must say that I had thought it had out lived its usefulness some days ago, though recently it has “reawoken”. So I though I’d summarize some things for the sake of clarity.

My original post had the purpose of reporting some results I had gotten as Japanese player in a PBEM campaign game with TommyG. Even though I was the Japanese player I was reporting results that looked a bit out of whack. Losses of 51 B17s ( out of 67 flying ) to 8 fighters ( out of 83 flying if I remember correctly … 43 Tony’s and 40 Zeros. ).

A similar result was obtained a few days later in that same game and posted here.

Save files were sent to Mr. Frag with passwords for both sides. I haven’t seen a report back yet, but hopefully one will be forth coming shortly.

Some of you have pointed out that B17s are too powerful, and possibly thus implying the heavy losses are an effective counter balance.

Some have indicated comparisons with Europe are invalid, were large ( 100+ ) unescorted B17 strikes did not suffer such heavy losses even in the face of the most effective opposition the B17s ever did face ( in the Schweinfurt raids ).

I have mentioned that Balikpapan raids of later 1944 as possible comparison ( the first 2 raids were large and unescorted ).

And finally I might point out that though I have been called by some, an “Allied Fan Boy” for starting this post. That of my 800 roughly PBEM campaign game turns ( that I’ve played to date ) 750 of them have been playing the Japanese, only 50 of them have been as the Allies and that game ( CHS ) is only into late January 1942, so I haven’t had the opportunity to drive large B17 missions mnyself ( yet ! ). But in several of my games B17s have been able to dominate a given area if used on mass.

There are too many B17s in the stock game, everyone I believe has agreed to this. This fact in and of itself encourages more of a “throw away” attitude towards these beasts because if they get beat up you just pull out the remnants, press the “replace” boo-tawn … and pretty soon you’re ready to go try again !

B17s are ship killers. Used at 5000 or even 1000 feet, B17s can devastate entire groups of ships. This is not to say B17s did not bomb ships during the real way. In fact they probably spent as much time bombing ships in the real war, as they did doing anything else, but they get not get so many hits. So the accuracy factor is the issue. I have not seen any indication that this will be modified.

Used on mass B17s can control the airspace, in a given area by knocking out the major airbase in that area and suppressing smaller airbases before the large one can recover.

It was actually this last fact that led me as the Japanese player in my game with TommyG to try to mount the kind of defense I did mount with the 70+ Zeros and Tonys ( actually there were about 200 fighters on the ground, but I was using LRCAP and only 70 or so showed up at the fight ). The only problem was that the results were TOO GOOD !!!

Since the B17 did not fly large ( multi-group ) missions in the real Pacific war ( why ? Lack of suitable basing and difficulty maintaining the planes in inhospitable conditions – and lack of sufficient total numbers to overcome these other shortcomings ) the only possible comparisons can come from later B24 missions in the Pacific or from Early ( pre-escort ) missions in Europe. {{{ BTW since the game doesn't model these difficulties sufficiently, Allied players CAN launch large raids and this push us into the situtation that causeed this thread }}}

Some have said that comparisons with Europe are invalid. A few words on that topic.

There are two set of factors to consider. One set regarding B17 effectiveness, the other set regarding fighter defensive effectiveness, and then there are the results.

So on the one hand we have the Japanese fighters and B17s in the Pacific and on the other hand we have the German fighters and B17s in Europe. The result sets are the results in my game with TommyG and the results for unescorted multi-group B17s attacks in Europe ( mostly in 1943 ).

Note that the results that we obtained in the game 51/67 and 48/105 or 78% and 45% losses were extremely higher than the 26% and 19% loss rates achieved by the Germans during their best 2 days at Schweinfurt.

Further I would submit that German fighter defenses were clearly superior to Japanese fighter defenses.

1. Radar, German use of radar was much more prevalent in the fighter defense system for mainland Europe than Japans use of radar for her out lying possessions. Japanese homeland defense in 1945 begin to approach the German system in Europe, but was fighting a rather different beast, the B29.
2. Fighter bases. Outwardly copying the British system, the Germans used large number of small fighter bases. This meant that it was more difficult to knock out the fighter defense in an area on the ground, due to greater dispersion and it was cheaper to get more planes in the air faster due to not having to build a few large bases.
3. Ground Controllers. Based on input, primarily from the radar, the ground controllers would attempt to predict the targets and thus flight paths of the incoming bombers and vector fighter units onto their paths.
( Note all the above were first used by the British against the Germans in the Battle of Britain, but the Germans not desiring to stand on principal considered the techniques thus validated and put them into practice on their side of the moat ).
4. Experience. While the pre-war Japanese ( Army and Navy ) pilots had considerable experience, much of it was against the Chinese. German pilots however, by 1942-43 had experience against the British as well and much more formidable opponent. I’ve read accounts ( from AVG and from Russian during the 2 border incidents ) that Japanese fighter pilots and air commanders did not understand massed tactics nor air superiority campaigns.

Because the results in our game EXCEED the best results the Germans ever got and if we agree the German fighter defense were better than the Japanese, then the RL results obtained by the Germans, should form an upper bound for results obtainable by the Japanese and thus if the results we get in the game are HIGHER than this upper bound we can question that result.

Once the results in the game are less than or equal to the German results, then comparisons are less useful, but as long as the results we are getting are HIGHER than the results obtained by the more effective force, I would humbly submit that comparisons are valid.

Treespider was nice enough to post a link to an article containing a description of the Balikpapan raids. Based on looking at that, only the first of the 5 raids reall yfits the profile that Frag has asked us for. Multi-group, unescorted against effective Japanese fighter opposition. So I sill need to get at least one more. But here is an excerpt from the linked article:


The B-24s of the Sth and the 13th Air Forces, based respectively on Owi and Numfoor in the Schouten Islands, conducted the first mission against Balikpapan. Flying the 2,600-mile roundtrip from Owl and Numfoor required 3,500 gallons of fuel-more than 11 tons-per plane. Because the bomb load added another 1 1/4 tons, ammunition had to be halved to reduce weight. Even so, the B-24s were 12,000 pounds over the recommended payload when they began the sortie. Soon after midnight on September 30, 1944, 72 Liberators, 48 from the 13th and 24 from the Sth, rumbled off the 7,000-foot runways at Numfoor and Owi and disappeared into the darkness on their way to Balikpapan.

Although Japan was increasingly strapped for aircraft, it had reserved some of its best planes to defend the refineries; (this showed the importance attached to them). During the mission, fierce resistance over the target resulted in the loss of five Liberators, two of which crashed on their way back to Numfoor, and 15 were damaged. Poor visibility prevented them from accurately bombing, and the results left much to be desired.

Note that 72 B24s flew the mission and at most 7 ( 10% ) could be attributable to being lost to the fighters.

( and yes someone has said that I should argue for higher fighter losses and not for lower bomber losses .. actually I should ask for both .. but this post is already way too long ! )

[treespider]

Just read an interesting account...

On November 11, 1943, the 307th participated in the largest (my emphasis added) aerial strike of the South Pacific War. In conjunction with United States naval elements, group bombers pounded enemy war and merchant ships at Rabaul, New Guinea. Amidst swarms of Japanese “Zeros” and heavy anti-aircraft fire, 307th aircraft released their bombs, leaving the port of Rabaul in complete ruin.

from...http://www.307bwassoc.org/history.htm

Cross-referenced with the US Strategic Bombing Survey p155

"Six days later (edit: 11 November) two Uunited States carrier forces again raided Rabaul, followed the same day by a strike of some 40 B-24's from Solomon bases."

Other sources put 185 carrier based planes in the raid.

Short of the B-29 Raids over Japan....IRL are there any instances of 100+ plane raids by the Allies not involving carriers?

Maybe the B-17's durability should be raised but at the same time as I've said earlier operational losses to everyone need to be drastically raised and possibly increase the supply usage of aircraft or bombers as well so sorties aren't being flown everyday or every other day for that matter. Notice iun the article the one pilot had only flown 30 some odd missions in one year. These changes would go a long way to preventing the European style air war we see being waged..

[ArticFire]

The B-24s of the Sth and the 13th Air Forces, based respectively on Owi and Numfoor in the Schouten Islands, conducted the first mission against Balikpapan. Flying the 2,600-mile roundtrip from Owl and Numfoor required 3,500 gallons of fuel-more than 11 tons-per plane. Because the bomb load added another 1 1/4 tons, ammunition had to be halved to reduce weight. Even so, the B-24s were 12,000 pounds over the recommended payload when they began the sortie. Soon after midnight on September 30, 1944, 72 Liberators, 48 from the 13th and 24 from the Sth, rumbled off the 7,000-foot runways at Numfoor and Owi and disappeared into the darkness on their way to Balikpapan.

Although Japan was increasingly strapped for aircraft, it had reserved some of its best planes to defend the refineries; (this showed the importance attached to them). During the mission, fierce resistance over the target resulted in the loss of five Liberators, two of which crashed on their way back to Numfoor, and 15 were damaged. Poor visibility prevented them from accurately bombing, and the results left much to be desired.

In regards to the above , first how many exactly was "some" of it's best planes? Was it 70+ fighters ? Probly not. Even the later part of the artical mentions getting bounced by 20-50 enemy aircraft. Thats a huge margin for error. Not to mention it had this to say about the 20-50 Jap aircraft -

Most of the enemy aircraft were Zekes and Hamps. Others were Petes (older observation floatplanes) and Emilys (four-- engine flying boats that flew higher than the Liberators and parachuted phosphorous bombs on them). The U.S. pilots took evasive action to avoid the bombs, but this reduced the cohesion of their formation.

Even if you figure "most" to mean about 2/3rds that means only 13-33 or so real figher planes. I would have to check but I dont' think you can even use Pete's or Emilys in a CAP roll in WiTP.

So if you want to setup a test to see if WiTP can reflect this , run 70 B17's against 13-30 Zekes and see what you come up with. I'd run one test for each , with 13 and with 33.

If you get a bunch of dmaged B17's against these odds and a couple destroyed we will see that actually things are not wonky at all. However if most of the bomber squadren is destroyed then obviously things will be slightly off.

[Burzmali]

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

However I thought (correct me if I am wrong) that I read a post from Frag about the odds of a plane getting shot down in any given combat. This post then went on to say (paraphrasing) that if there is a 1 in 10 chance of a plane getting shot down, in 5 on 5 combat you will get diverse results, because it may be that all the planes will miss, but when 100 planes fight 100 planes the law of averages starts to have a much stronger effect, and the casualty rate goes way up.

That makes sense if and only if that 1 in 10 chance is per enemy fighter. Therefore, in a 5 v. 5 match, each plane has a somewhere ~45% chance of getting shot down, but in a 100 v. 100 damn near every plane will be shot down...

[ChezDaJez]

I was looking through the 43rd Bomb Group website http://www.kensmen.com/ and found several bits of information concerning Japanese fighter attacks, skip bombing and formation techniques. They were assigned to the 5th Air Force and saw combat in New Guinea.

From the main page, select "History of the 43rd Bomb Group" then scroll down and select "Lessons Learned in Combat."

Elsewhere on the site is a listing of all aircraft that were assigned to the group (B-17 and B-24)

I thought it pretty interesting.

Chez

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Burzmali

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

However I thought (correct me if I am wrong) that I read a post from Frag about the odds of a plane getting shot down in any given combat. This post then went on to say (paraphrasing) that if there is a 1 in 10 chance of a plane getting shot down, in 5 on 5 combat you will get diverse results, because it may be that all the planes will miss, but when 100 planes fight 100 planes the law of averages starts to have a much stronger effect, and the casualty rate goes way up.

That makes sense if and only if that 1 in 10 chance is per enemy fighter. Therefore, in a 5 v. 5 match, each plane has a somewhere ~45% chance of getting shot down, but in a 100 v. 100 damn near every plane will be shot down...

Except that it doesn't work. From virtually any direction you approach it, a B-17 will have at LEAST 2 50cals firing on you---and they and others will continue to have you in their "cone of fire" as you pass and pull away. Several flying together just multiply this. Even from the front. where until the G model there was generally just a single 50 in the nose, if you were a bit higher than the bomber the top turret could engage, and a bit lower gave the ball turret a shot (and staying perfectly alligned gave a head on collision)
Japanese 20mm's with their low rate of fire and looping trajectory did not outrange the Brownings---and the 7.7 mg certainly didn't either.

Japanese fighters were for the most part lightly built and vulnerable to damage..., while the B-17 was a
by-word for durability even when heavily damaged. Even their opponants commented in wonder. Yet in that 100 vs 100 example Frag is so fond of, the losses are totally one-sided. 100 bombers, but only 10-15 Japanese fighters. It's a "red herring" to cover a bogus result.

In real life, in a perfectly executed 'bomber trap" by the Japanese, they might have taken down 20 of 100 bombers, with 30 or so more limping back damaged. The target would still have been bombed---and 15-20 fighters would have been knocked down as well. In a more normal engagement, they might have shot down 5-10, and lost the same---and the bombing would have still been heavy. On the other end of the "possibility curve", the fighter's would be inneffective, bringing down less than 5 bombers and losing 10 of their own---and the bombing would be devastating. Note that in the game as it stands now
NONE of these result's are as common as a one-sided massacre of the bombers. It's bogus, and will remain so until losses in a "one day turn" are brought into the realms of reason.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: ArticFire

The B-24s of the Sth and the 13th Air Forces, based respectively on Owi and Numfoor in the Schouten Islands, conducted the first mission against Balikpapan. Flying the 2,600-mile roundtrip from Owl and Numfoor required 3,500 gallons of fuel-more than 11 tons-per plane. Because the bomb load added another 1 1/4 tons, ammunition had to be halved to reduce weight. Even so, the B-24s were 12,000 pounds over the recommended payload when they began the sortie. Soon after midnight on September 30, 1944, 72 Liberators, 48 from the 13th and 24 from the Sth, rumbled off the 7,000-foot runways at Numfoor and Owi and disappeared into the darkness on their way to Balikpapan.

Although Japan was increasingly strapped for aircraft, it had reserved some of its best planes to defend the refineries; (this showed the importance attached to them). During the mission, fierce resistance over the target resulted in the loss of five Liberators, two of which crashed on their way back to Numfoor, and 15 were damaged. Poor visibility prevented them from accurately bombing, and the results left much to be desired.

In regards to the above , first how many exactly was "some" of it's best planes? Was it 70+ fighters ? Probly not. Even the later part of the artical mentions getting bounced by 20-50 enemy aircraft. Thats a huge margin for error. Not to mention it had this to say about the 20-50 Jap aircraft -

Most of the enemy aircraft were Zekes and Hamps. Others were Petes (older observation floatplanes) and Emilys (four-- engine flying boats that flew higher than the Liberators and parachuted phosphorous bombs on them). The U.S. pilots took evasive action to avoid the bombs, but this reduced the cohesion of their formation.

Even if you figure "most" to mean about 2/3rds that means only 13-33 or so real figher planes. I would have to check but I dont' think you can even use Pete's or Emilys in a CAP roll in WiTP.

So if you want to setup a test to see if WiTP can reflect this , run 70 B17's against 13-30 Zekes and see what you come up with. I'd run one test for each , with 13 and with 33.

If you get a bunch of dmaged B17's against these odds and a couple destroyed we will see that actually things are not wonky at all. However if most of the bomber squadren is destroyed then obviously things will be slightly off.

Since you are so sure you're right and won't do any research on your own to answer your own questions - I will do the research. My memory of this battle is that the B24 formation was "bounced" several times during its passage. In game terms this could still be one intercept. WITP doesn't represent multiple intercepts for one bomber mission ... you have to be flying cover cap that can arrive over the target ( unlike real life ! ). These formations included Naval formations under the command of Fuchita ( of Pearl Harbor fame ) as well as Army formations.

There is no reason to run the test you suggest as that is not the scenario we are discussing.

But I'll keep looking ( despite the fact that I'm moving and my books are in boxes ) and try to get you the WHOLE story !!!
( I have the book - in one of those boxes .. that is just about the Balikpapan raids and nothing else - which is why it is so frustrating not to have it at my finger tips as I would normally !!! )

[ArticFire]

Your right I havn't done any research on it. However I'm not the one trying to make a case the the american bombers should be indistructable. As soon as you show some in theator evidence of large B17 squadrens flying happily threw equal to greater number japanese fighter CAP and rolling out with a paultry 10-20% loss rate or less.

Keep in mind thow as soon as you prove this point (or the dev surrender to the vocal minority on this) and it gets adjusted you inherently will make japanese LB's more survivable also , since as best I can tell the game does not really make a distinction between them in combat routines. I mean if I fly 100 betty's against CAP and it knocks out 75% of them thats wonky too right?

[GoofTrooper]

Does it mention how much further the zero pilots had to fly compared to the allied pilots???

The flights from Rabaul were some of the longest fighter pilot escort/dogfight and back routes in history. Really amazing that they did this and anyone survived. Very wasteful use of a lot of great pilots. Saburo Sakai's story is really something to read about here....
[/quote]

Yes it does mention this although I don't know if the losses are recorded as operational or A2A in the numbers. In the individual accounts it is explained in more detail (i.e. definitely shot down, never returned, etc.). The Japanese had to take off and be over target by a certain time in order to make the return trip to Rabaul before the sunset. After the US figured this out, it gave them a time frame for an attack and to maximize their CAP accordingly. Great book though!

I believe it is difficult to get an accurate picture of the combat performance of the Zero vs. F4F (and model correctly in any game), as there are so many variables to consider when calculating true combat potential. Training, doctrine, aircraft performance, firepower, operating conditions all contribute to an airplanes overall combat performance. I don't think anyone would argue that the A6M was more maneuverable in a low speed turn fight, but that’s not the only thing that contributes to combat success. If it were, then the overall loss ratios would be different. I think this is where the true weakness of the Zero comes into play. For any great advantage there is usually a trade off. Armor and safety where sacrificed to reduce weight, making a lighter, more maneuverable, longer ranged fighter (The land based A6M3 did not have the range to reach Guadalcanal). The long range is what enabled the Zero to make the flight all the way to Guadalcanal (greater force projection) but combined with the weaker armor (not to mention self sealing tanks) also contributed to greater losses. If the Japanese wanted to use the Zero to its maximum potential (force projection), they would also expose the weakness inherent in the design (I'm specifically referring to the campaign of Guadalcanal), lowering the overall combat potential. Given the pilot replacement pitfall, one would have to question this design philosophy, but hindsight is better then foresight.

There are many other issues to consider when making a comparison of two weapon platforms but I covered one of the more important ones specific to the A6M2. I doubt that any game could model all the possible variables necessary to give better historical results, as combat is more complicated then black&white performance specs. I still love WITP though!

Thanks for the replies and sorry for military jargon. Nutrition is a force multiplier!

$.04

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: ArticFire

Your right I havn't done any research on it. However I'm not the one trying to make a case the the american bombers should be indistructable. As soon as you show some in theator evidence of large B17 squadrens flying happily threw equal to greater number japanese fighter CAP and rolling out with a paultry 10-20% loss rate or less.

WHY NOT? THEY "HAPPILY" FLEW ALL OVER EUROPE AGAINST MUCH HEAVIER OPPOSITION WITH A MUCH LOWER AVERAGE LOSS RATE. AND 10-20 PERCENT ISN'T "PAULTRY"---IT'S A SHOWSTOPPER.
MEANS THE STATISTICAL CHANCE OF SURVIVING 25 MISSIONS IS ABOUT ZERO. AN OVERALL AVERAGE LOSS RATE OF 5% PER MISSION WAS MORE THAN COULD BE SUSTAINED IN THE LONG RUN.

Keep in mind thow as soon as you prove this point (or the dev surrender to the vocal minority on this) and it gets adjusted you inherently will make japanese LB's more survivable also , since as best I can tell the game does not really make a distinction between them in combat routines. I mean if I fly 100 betty's against CAP and it knocks out 75% of them thats wonky too right?

AGAIN WITH THE RED HERRINGS... THE JAPANESE DON'T EVEN HAVE A 'STRATEGIC BOMBER' IN THEIR INVENTORY. COMPARING BETTY'S AND B-17'S IS SILLY. ONE IS A LOW TO MEDIUM ALTITUDE LONG-RANGED NAVAL ATTACK PLANE, THE OTHER A HIGH ALTITUDE STRATEGIC BOMBER. ONE IS TWIN ENGINED AND LIGHTLY CONSTRUCTED TO MAXAMIZE RANGE, THE OTHER 4-ENGINED, BALANCED AND HEAVILY ARMED AND CONSTRUCTED TO FIGHT IT'S WAY OVER A TARGET. UNFORTUNATELY, YOU MAY BE RIGHT ABOUT THE GAME NOT MAKING A DISTINCTION (I HOPE YOU AREN'T) BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE WERENT DISTINCT AND NOTABLE DISTANCES.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: ArticFire

Your right I havn't done any research on it. However I'm not the one trying to make a case the the american bombers should be indistructable. As soon as you show some in theator evidence of large B17 squadrens flying happily threw equal to greater number japanese fighter CAP and rolling out with a paultry 10-20% loss rate or less.

Keep in mind thow as soon as you prove this point (or the dev surrender to the vocal minority on this) and it gets adjusted you inherently will make japanese LB's more survivable also , since as best I can tell the game does not really make a distinction between them in combat routines. I mean if I fly 100 betty's against CAP and it knocks out 75% of them thats wonky too right?

Well I spent most of the past 2 hours downloading Vol 4 and Vol5 of the "Blue Books" ( the USAAF official history of its activities in WWII ) ... but alas ... not enough detail ... and excerpt follows ( from pages 318-319 of Vol 5 ) ...

At 0040 hours on 30 September the
first B-24 of the 5th Group roared down the runway at Kornasoren
and disappeared into the darkness. Planes of the 307th and 90th
Groups followed at one and one-half minute intervals until seventy-
two of the heavily loaded bombers were airborne. Nine hours later,
between 0933 and 0940 hours, the twenty-three planes of the 5th
Group which had made the group rendezvous were over the Pandan-
sari refinery at Balikpapan. After a last-minute change in heading to
avoid cumulus drifting over the target, they placed 60 per cent of their
bombs on the Pandansari refinery. When the twenty-three B-24's of
the 307th Group arrived five minutes later, the refinery was almost
completely covered, and seven planes bombed it by radar, five bombed
the paraffin point, and eleven dropped their bombs through the under-
cast without aiming. The 90th Group's twenty-three planes, last to ar-
rive, found solid cloud cover over Balikpapan, and only one of the
squadrons attempted to bomb the target, on ETA. Bomber crews had
been briefed to expect a strong AA reaction, but no one had foreseen
that the Japanese had been hoarding one of their best naval air units
for the defense of Balikpapan. These pilots were both calm and expe-
rienced. Two of them had picked up the bombers at the coast of the
Celebes and had flown with the Liberators to Balikpapan, keeping dis-
creetly out of range, obviously spotting for the AA and perhaps co-
ordinating fighter interceptions. In all, the 5th Group lost three B-24's
shot down by fighters or AA, while the 90th Group lost one B-24.
The three groups claimed to have destroyed nine of the hostile fight-
318

Despite the losses, this strike had demonstrated that long-range
missions to Balikpapan were practicable; there had been few turn-
backs, most of the planes having made their return to Noemfoor with
a little gasoline, and the cripples had been able to land at Sansapor and
Morotai.

But no totals of Japanese fighters. However, in reading about the second raid ... it may actually have some validity in the debate.

On 3 October the 5th and 307th Groups went back to Balikpapan.
According to the operations plan, the two groups were to bomb sepa-
rately, each divided into two twin-squadron sections. Each of the sec-
tions was supposed to go over the target in javelin-down formation
from 13,000to 15,000 feet. The 307th Group, leading for the day,
managed to get twenty of its planes over Balikpapan, and most of
them scored hits on the Pandansari plant, Some forty Japanese fight-
ers intercepted, however, beginning five minutes before the B-24’s
bombed and continuing all the way back to the coast of the Celebes.
Assisted by AA, these fighters shot down seven B-24’s’ at a cost of
twenty-four of their own number. In the hour-and-ten-minute inter-
ception, most of the B-24’s ran short of ammunition, and when the
Japanese broke off, two planes were entirely out. Meanwhile, the 5th
Bombardment Group’s planes, contrary to briefing, joined their sec-
tions closely at the rendezvous, whence they flew abreast, each section
javelin-down and as close together as possible. The Japanese largely
avoided this formation, and it encountered no losses. Eighteen B-24’s
bombed the Edeleanu plant and one bombed the Pandansari refinery.
As on the preceding mission most of the surviving planes returned to
Noemfoor and crippIes to Morotai and Sansapor.lls
Some change in tactics was evidently necessary, for never before
had the 307th Group had such damages and losses.

In this case it looks like we have 38 B24s being intercepted by "40" fighters.


In my experience with the WITP it really looks like the issue is not B17s or Zeros or Tonys or escorted versus unescorted ( sorry guys ) but really battles involving defending fighters numbering in the range 70+ ... I've "stumbled" into this ... but I've trashed the AVG by severely outnumbering it .. and I've repeated trashed large B17 raids with large numbers of fighters ... and now ADavidB has another thread going where "escorted" B17s are trashed by large numbers of defending fighters. More data indicating the issue is large numbers of defending fighters needing some kind of tweak in the system else this becomes the be-all-end-all ...

I'm not specifically striving for "play balance" as I don't know what that means. The WITP was inherently unbalanced - and a reasonably accurate representation will also be such ... I'm striving for systems and sub-system that are close enough that we will get approximately historical results if we make approximately historical choices. I do not take the designers to task for failing to produce a "perfect" game. Being a software guy ... I know that to produce a specific product with finite resources in a finite amount of time means perfection will not be acheived, especially when the scope is shall we say "unbounded" ! ). And when the scope is WITP at the individual ship/plane/sqaud level ... there is certainly a lot of room for error ! If minesweeper XYZ gets 2 extra depth charges on Tuesday instead of the historical Thursday ... somebody on the forum will point out the error ! But I believe the forum is a place where we point out issues and the powers that be decide what to do. I'm just pointing out an issue.

And finally, I'd like to apologize for my remarks in my previous post. I am an advocate of "issues not people" and when I violate my own rules ( hopefully rarely ) it is usually because I'm angry with myself and just taking it out on the person "standing" in front of me at the time. I was late for an errand and stupidly went out to "peek" at the forum ... that was my first issue ... and the second one was that I have the source ... a book about nothing but the Balikpapan raids ... it has tons of detail including the name of the dog of the second Japanese pilot trailing the B24s ( kidding - but it has detail ! ) ... and this book is in my book boxes at my new house and not with me so I can't use it ... and the web is failing to give me the detail I need !!!! ... So that was frustration point #2 ... so anyway ... I owe you one ...


But I need to keep looking for the fighter data from the first raid ... and I will do so !

[Tom Hunter]

Mike,

I think you either missed Burzmali's point or I am misunderstanding yours.

He is agreeing with me, that (if Frag's description of the mechanics of air combat is correct) too many planes will get shots off and shot at, in a large battle and this will drive the casualty rates through the roof.

This problem actaully gets worse as you add firepower to the picture because as more guns fire the chance of the taget getting killed goes up.

There is an issue of survivability, guns firing and so on here and your describing it pretty well, but its not the biggest problem, at least as far as I can tell.

The number of times each plane gets shot at seems to be an even bigger problem. In the real world as the number of planes in a formation increases the chance that each one will not get shot at AT ALL goes up.

If one fighter attacks a formation of 1 bomber the chance the bomber will get shot at; Not hit or damaged, that is a seperate issue, and its the one most of the posts in this tread are focused on, I am staying out of that discussion, is 100%. Add another bomber and its 50%, for simplicty we will assume only one bomber can be attacked, but at some point the fighter runs out of ammo, range or time so under any circumstances the basic rule that increasing the number of bombers reduces the chance of each bomber being attacked still applies. If you push the numbers up to 10 bombers chances are very good that most of them will not be attacked.

If you add fighters the chance of any given bomber being attacked goes up again. So if its one fighter and one bomber its 100% chance of attack, if its 2 and 2 its still nearly 100% but its not 100% because the fighters might, either on purpose or by accident, attack only one of the two bombers.

This is even more true of fighters on fighters by the way.

Frag's description of the current combat system seems to be this:

(Number of fighters) x (number of attacks per fighter) / number of bombers = number of attacks on each bomber

But real combat should reserve some of the bombers from attack before any shots are fired, and also increase the number of attacks on some of the bombers.

That would reduce the problem with the B17s, it would reduce the problem with the Kamikazis and hopefully make a more interesting game.

[Lemurs!]

You know Joe, you are supposed to be stripping your floors and sending me turns not gabbing on the forum. Don't make me call your wife!

Mike

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

You know Joe, you are supposed to be stripping your floors and sending me turns not gabbing on the forum. Don't make me call your wife!

Mike

Eek you caught me !

Actually today window washers are crawling all over inside and out - so sanding is on hold until the afternoon ( whew ! )

[Burzmali]

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

Frag's description of the current combat system seems to be this:

(Number of fighters) x (number of attacks per fighter) / number of bombers = number of attacks on each bomber

But real combat should reserve some of the bombers from attack before any shots are fired, and also increase the number of attacks on some of the bombers.

That would reduce the problem with the B17s, it would reduce the problem with the Kamikazis and hopefully make a more interesting game.

Actually, I would wager dollars to donuts that the (number of attacks per fighter) is influenced by the number of targets, because something is forcing more attacks when the number of planes involved in increased, but the ratios haven't changed.

As a sidenote, could anyone who has posted results give a breakdown of kills/fighter per fighter type, i.e. 50 Zeroes shot down 25 bombers and 20 Tony's shot down 3 bombers?

[Lemurs!]

That would make sense Burzmali, I have noticed that very small fights often end with no attacks by either side.

What do you want to bet that the system is something like every fighter gets a 5% chance to attack each enemy target, modified for altitude considerations? That would explain why small fights are getting very few attacks and large fights are getting ridiculus numbers of attacks.

Mike