B-17E production cut?

[Grotius]

I'm curious why the new patch cuts B-17E replacement rates to 10 per month, down from 25. If I recall correctly, that's the same number we got in Uncommon Valor, which represented only a small portion of the wider theater. I do think B-17s have been overabundant in the past, but I wonder if this cut is a bit too drastic.

[Nikademus]

B-17 production devoted to the entire Pacific in general was very small in preportion to the total output. IIRC it was on the order lf 1 out of 4 produced went to the Pacific in 42/early 43 and was eventually phased out completely in favor of the B-24

[Mike Scholl]

Nick is right. This is much more in line with the actual arrival of B-17's in the Pacific Theatre. Now if we could only keep them from being shot down like clay pigeons, and get the Tony production into line with reality, we'd be on our way to finding something else to complain about.

[Jim D Burns]

Well according to this site:

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research ... omber2.htm

a total of 3,959 B-17's were built if you add up all the post B-17C planes (B-17D, B-17E and B-17F) built before the B-17G. So if 25% went to the Pacific, that's 989 that went to the Pacific. The game runs for 51 months Dec 41 to Mar 46, so 989 divided by 51 is 19 planes a month if the production is spread out over the entire war. I think either far less than 25% went to the pacific, or there has been a drastic over-cut of the planes production.

Based on the serial numbers at the above site, it appears all 3,959 planes were built before the end of 1942. Also the B-17G's have serial numbers that show their production began in 42, so the erlier models were probably quickly phased out. So that means 989 B-17's were earmarked for the Pacific by the end of 1942. So 13 months production would be 76 planes a month.

Jim

[Erik Rutins]

Keep in mind there is the replacement rate and the production rate - add both together to get the number of B-17s per month.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Keep in mind there is the replacement rate and the production rate - add both together to get the number of B-17s per month.

I'm simply showing that the original number of 75 a month was correct, the new 40 a month I believe is a nerf to appease Japanese complainers and not based on actual numbers produced.

Just my humble opinion.

Jim

[doktorblood]

I don't know why everybody is hung up on B-17. This plane wasn't a war winner it the Pacific ... in fact it wasn't very effective for most of the missions players assign to it, airfield and port strikes.

The Japanese weren't impressed with it and most of the time their skippers wouldn't even bother to evade a high level bomber strike. The JAAF considered B-25 gunships to be the most effective bombers against airfields and ports.

[Subchaser]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Well according to this site:

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research ... omber2.htm

a total of 3,959 B-17's were built if you add up all the post B-17C planes (B-17D, B-17E and B-17F) built before the B-17G. So if 25% went to the Pacific, that's 989 that went to the Pacific. The game runs for 51 months Dec 41 to Mar 46, so 989 divided by 51 is 19 planes a month if the production is spread out over the entire war. I think either far less than 25% went to the pacific, or there has been a drastic over-cut of the planes production.

Based on the serial numbers at the above site, it appears all 3,959 planes were built before the end of 1942. Also the B-17G's have serial numbers that show their production began in 42, so the erlier models were probably quickly phased out. So that means 989 B-17's were earmarked for the Pacific by the end of 1942. So 13 months production would be 76 planes a month.

Jim

Only 282 B-17 were in commission in PTO during the war in bomber configuration.

[Bradley7735]

The real problem is that off map factories (replacement rate) never goes away. So, you'll end up getting B-17E's all war long. If they were represented as a factory (only) and upgraded to the B-24, then it'd be better. You could have a 50 factory that would change planes. Instead of 50 replacements for B-17E and 50 replacements for B-24 (100 planes per month instead of 50.)

I know the drawback to having on map factories is that japan could affect production (bombing them), while in reality, only a few factories were even remotely vulnerable.

[myros]

Also add the units that already come equiped with B17s (at start and as units added later) and you add a few hundred right there. The new figures are just about right ... especialy when you figure in that many b17s spent weeks/months at a time grounded due to lack of parts, just because they were 'in theatre' doesnt mean they were flying missions. The game has to aproximate many factors and the new numbers do so more accurately IMO.

Also from a game standpoint it adds more strategy when you have to be more careful where those planes are used, the old numbers pretty much gave you hundreds of b17s to squander which was neither accurate nor fun ;p As long as your smart with the planes you get the numbers dont limit you that much anyway.

M

[pauk]

greetings... Jim, you can look at the this thread. Subchaser put details there:

http://www.matrixgames.com/default.asp? ... 6%23815313

[bradfordkay]

The problem being that Boeing factories never changed production to B24s. I believe that B17 production continued to the end of the war, with B29 production coming from new plants. Am I wrong here (not digging for my reference works or Google at the moment)?

[Nikademus]

Here are the numbers according to Salecker's "Fortress Against the Sun (The B-17 in the Pacific) He listed every 17 that fought in the Pacific by serial number: (I've left out the already produced B-17 C and D's of course)

180 x B-17E
49 x B-17F

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

The problem being that Boeing factories never changed production to B24s. I believe that B17 production continued to the end of the war, with B29 production coming from new plants. Am I wrong here (not digging for my reference works or Google at the moment)?

You're right, I'm sure. But, the problem gets bad because the B-17E never stops getting replacements. The factory that produces some of them will upgrade, and lessen the problem, but replacements never stop.

This is a problem for all early model planes (TBD, SBD, F4F, etc etc). When you get to 8/45, you'll have thousands of early model planes being produced. Most of these should have stopped by now.

[Gregg]

I have to pipe in here.
B17 usage and availability in WitP is way, way too high.[:(]
Less than 300 B-17's were ever used in the Pacific in a bomber configuration, and of then only about 120 were B17E's and less than 50 were B17F's. No B17G's were ever sent to the Pacific. B17E production was finished in mid 1942, when B17F production started. Thus, additional (new production) B17E's should stop by mid 1942, and B17E replacements should stop with a few months after that. All B17's going to the Pacific should stop by the end of 1942.
Yes, if the top brass in Washington had wanted to, they could have sent more B17's to the Pacific, but there would have been a lot of Political Points paid to do so! The B17 fanboys should be forced to pay the points for addition B17's sent to the Pacific after late 1942, and for B17's sent to the Pacific in excess of say 300 total.
It is only mid Feb 1942, and my PBEM opponent is already massing 60 plus B17 raids.
I'm not complaining that he is doing so, as the game mechanics permit it.
But still, the largest B17 raid ever flown in the Pacific was less than 30 aircraft!
The B17 was replaced by the B24 in the Pacific for reasons of greater range and slightly greater bomb load at any given range; and because the greater ruggedness of the B17 vs the B24 was not needed in the Pacific.
I also have to say the LB30 is vastly over stated in the game, as most all the LB30's in the Pacific were used as transports. [:(]
That point I'm certain of, as my father drove LB30's in the Indo-China area during 1942!
In the 7 months he was in the area; he did not drop a single bomb, and only saw Japanese aircraft a couple times.
Gregg

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

The real problem is that off map factories (replacement rate) never goes away. So, you'll end up getting B-17E's all war long. If they were represented as a factory (only) and upgraded to the B-24, then it'd be better. You could have a 50 factory that would change planes. Instead of 50 replacements for B-17E and 50 replacements for B-24 (100 planes per month instead of 50.)

I know the drawback to having on map factories is that japan could affect production (bombing them), while in reality, only a few factories were even remotely vulnerable.

How about having factories in the USA base, where it could only be bombed if the US West Coast was captured?

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

The real problem is that off map factories (replacement rate) never goes away. So, you'll end up getting B-17E's all war long. If they were represented as a factory (only) and upgraded to the B-24, then it'd be better. You could have a 50 factory that would change planes. Instead of 50 replacements for B-17E and 50 replacements for B-24 (100 planes per month instead of 50.)

I know the drawback to having on map factories is that japan could affect production (bombing them), while in reality, only a few factories were even remotely vulnerable.

How about having factories in the USA base, where it could only be bombed if the US West Coast was captured?

You could do the US planes at that base. But, to be perfect, you'd need to put the British factories there as well. There's no immune base for the factories located in Great Britain. You also might run out of the 20 slot limit on factories at a base. You could always add a few more 'USA' bases and fill them up as well. I guess you can make a "Canada" base and put the British factories there. But, they'd be at risk from betties out of Anchorage or Juneau.

I still think factories, even though slightly vulnerable, would be the best solution to this. Really, once F6F's and FM-2's come along, F4F's need to stop production. Same thing with all other planes. It only breaks when a new version is actually produced at a smaller quantity than the older version. I don't know if that happens with any plane in the game, though.

[bradfordkay]

Why not just choose an end date for production? B17E replacements stop on 9/44 or some such? Wouldn't this be easier?

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Why not just choose an end date for production? B17E replacements stop on 9/44 or some such? Wouldn't this be easier?

I didn't think you could put in an end date. But, now that you mention it, I never thought to look.

[Feinder]

Looks in.

Shakes head.

Starts to say something.

Decides that nobody is listening anyways.

Walks out.

[8|]

-F-