B17s vs IJN CAs

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The Boeing 294/XB15 is a codesign of the Boeing 299. Both were designed from the ground up in response to the 1934 USAAF RFP for a vlr bomber and used a common set of basic blueprints (so the 299 was not a developmental consequence of the 294). The only major difference between the 294 and the 299 was that the 294 was Boeing's liquid-cooled in-line engine design study; in contrast the 299 was Boeing's air-cooled radial engined design study of the same basic aircraft.

XB15 in test...

Boeing Model 294 (XB-15) and Boeing Model 299 (XB-17 -> B-17) were _NOT_ same aircraft and were _NOT_ same USAAF contract proposals! [:-]

The Model 294 was much bigger than Model 299 - the Model 299 was result of completely different USAAF contract proposal and, like I already wrote, was scaled down "smaller brother" of slightly older Model 294!


I especially liked when you wrote "The only major difference between the 294 and the 299 was that the 294 was Boeing's liquid-cooled in-line engine design study"... ROFL... what an understatement...



XB-15

Span: 149 ft
Length: 88 ft
Wing area: 2780 sq ft
Gross weight: 65000 lb

B-17E

Span: 103 ft
Length: 73 ft
Wing area: 1420 sq ft
Gross weight: 40260 lb


BTW, Boeing, just like every other aircraft company, used it's knowledge and blueprints from every single previous model they made (or made plans for) - so with every "breakthrough" in design from previous designs newer design benefits (whether civilian or military).

As for B-17 (i.e. Model 299) not looking similar to Model 247... well... if you don't see it then what can be said...


Leo "Apollo11"

[mdiehl]

Boeing Model 294 (XB-15) and Boeing Model 299 (XB-17 -> B-17) were _NOT_ same aircraft and were _NOT_ same USAAF contract proposals!

The Model 294 was much bigger than Model 299 - the Model 299 was result of completely different USAAF contract proposal and, like I already wrote, was scaled down "smaller brother" of slightly older Model 294!


I especially liked when you wrote "The only major difference between the 294 and the 299 was that the 294 was Boeing's liquid-cooled in-line engine design study"... ROFL... what an understatement...

Read my post dood. 2 USAAF contracts. 1 basic response. I did not say they were identical, I said they were basically the same plane with different engines. And yeah, the 247 *had to* have a longer wing because it was seriously underpowered using the in-line engines. (Here's a hint. Think A6M "Zero." You can go faster or up to a point you can increase lift by increasing wing size.)

By the way, the Boeing 247 wasn't based on or substantially designed from a "civil" design either.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I did not say they were identical, I said they were basically the same plane with different engines.

Oh my... ROFL...

So what does your sentence "The only major difference between the 294 and the 299 was that the 294 was Boeing's liquid-cooled in-line engine design study." means?


How can these two be same (please note that I used B-17E as comparison and not XB-17)?

XB-15

Span: 149 ft
Length: 88 ft
Wing area: 2780 sq ft
Gross weight: 65000 lb

B-17E

Span: 103 ft
Length: 73 ft
Wing area: 1420 sq ft
Gross weight: 40260 lb




BTW, I never liked people who think that they know the best every single time and all the time - you must be champion of them "Miedhel" (or whatever your name is since you never used your real name here)...

When confronted with documented arguments instead of admitting mistake you always try to "weasel yourself out" but always fail miserably... it's sad and pathetic...


Leo "Apollo11"

[mdiehl]

The last recourse of the guy whose argument has no logical support is to start defaming the opposition. I like your latest: "Weasel." Since you are the current opponent/lunch, does that make you a "rat?"

you must be champion of them "Miedhel" (or whatever your name is since you never used your real name here)...

It's not so hard. Start by reading. It's "mdiehl." A brilliant wit like you ought to be able to work it out without remedial assistance.

[mdiehl]

How can these two be same (please note that I used B-17E as comparison and not XB-17)?

I did not say they were identical. I can tell you how you get from A to B if that is in fact what you are interested in. By increasing the thrust you can reduce wing surface (and therefore length). That in turn reduces drag. The result is a faster plane with the ability to meet the specified range requirements. (This is, of necessity, a simplification).

So let's look at the commonalities. Overall shape, placement of defensive armament, basic configuration, placement of landing gear. The XB15 and XB17 are quite similar. One achieves long range using underpowered engines, a high drag large wing, and LOTS of gasoline in that wing.

Both were initiated as a response to 1934 USAAF rfos. Both rolled out in 1939. Both are 4-engined designs with similar defensive armament layout. The big difference is the engines and that in turn allowed the B17 to be a faster (and smaller) plane.

Neither the XB15 nor the XB17 are substantially derived from their civil predecessors. So your initial claim that they were derived from or based on a civilian design remains incorrect. Likewise your characterization of the XB17 as a derivative of the XB15 is also incorrect.

[Kwik E Mart]

now i've seen it all on this forum...arguments over design/test versions of a plane...or whatever...[>:][>:][>:]

[ChezDaJez]

What was the final damage once all the fires were put out?

Regards,

- Erik

Current damage levels for the ships:

Name......sys/flt/fire Damaged systems
CA Atago 7/0/5 4-5/40in guns, 2-25mm AA, 1 torp launcher
CA Haguro 12/0/11 4-5/40in guns
CA Nachi 8/0/6 2-25mm AA
CA Mogami 9/0/8 4-5/40in guns, 2-25mm AA, 2 torp launchers
CL Oi 99/71/16 1-5.5in gun

Fires are under control and much smaller. Increased damage to weapons has been minimal. The Oi has been dispatched into an escort TF. The other ships are withdrawing for repair.

My opponent stated that he never detected the ships until the turn they were attacked. The bombers were set for naval attack primary, airfield attack secondary and were at 10,000 feet. He said this is his standard procedure. Given the number of bombers attacking, I assume they simply carpet-bombed the ocean.

I ran some quick math:
494 bombers participating, 410 attacked the targets (The others failed to locate)
46 bomb hits
46/410= 11.2% of bombers hitting
46/(410*12)= 0.9% of bombs dropped hit.

Based on these numbers, especially the percentage of bombs dropped versus bombs hit, I would have to say that the accuracy was not unreasonablly accurate. So that leaves the damage model and the number of bombers available at this point in the game as suspect elements.

I do wish that the damage model was a little more detailed. Realistically, the Haguro, struck by 17 bombs, should be a floating wreck and the Mogami, struck by 9 bombs shouldn't be far behind. I understand that a bomb has to penetrate to casue major damage but when the Oi suffers a system damage of 99 and loses only a single 5.5 inch gun, something is fishy. Her radar is still listed as operational.

The main problem though is the number of bombers available so early. The number of heavy bombers produced in WitP through 8/24/42 totals about 1150. That accounts for over 52% of all US heavy bomber production in real life through that date. Considering that Europe had the priority for heavy bombers, it would seem something doesn't wash. My understanding is that Pacific air forces were only allocated about 30% of production which would equate to somewhere around 650 heavy bombers. I have the numbers to back that up.

Anyways, I tried a stupid move and was lucky I didn't pay a heavier price. I truely believe though that the number of heavy bombers available to the allies so early tips the game in favor of the allies much earlier than was historically possible. Part of the problem may be related to the fact that we have PDU on and the allied player can convert every 2E bomber unit into heavy bombers. Not very historical but then again being able to convert most Japanese army fighter units to Tojos and Tonies isn't either. So beware what you ask for with PDU, you just might "get" it.

Chez

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

What was the final damage once all the fires were put out?

Regards,

- Erik

Current damage levels for the ships:

Name......sys/flt/fire Damaged systems
CA Atago 7/0/5 4-5/40in guns, 2-25mm AA, 1 torp launcher
CA Haguro 12/0/11 4-5/40in guns
CA Nachi 8/0/6 2-25mm AA
CA Mogami 9/0/8 4-5/40in guns, 2-25mm AA, 2 torp launchers
CL Oi 99/71/16 1-5.5in gun

Fires are under control and much smaller. Increased damage to weapons has been minimal. The Oi has been dispatched into an escort TF. The other ships are withdrawing for repair.

My opponent stated that he never detected the ships until the turn they were attacked. The bombers were set for naval attack primary, airfield attack secondary and were at 10,000 feet. He said this is his standard procedure. Given the number of bombers attacking, I assume they simply carpet-bombed the ocean.

I ran some quick math:
494 bombers participating, 410 attacked the targets (The others failed to locate)
46 bomb hits
46/410= 11.2% of bombers hitting
46/(410*12)= 0.9% of bombs dropped hit.

Based on these numbers, especially the percentage of bombs dropped versus bombs hit, I would have to say that the accuracy was not unreasonablly accurate. So that leaves the damage model and the number of bombers available at this point in the game as suspect elements.

I do wish that the damage model was a little more detailed. Realistically, the Haguro, struck by 17 bombs, should be a floating wreck and the Mogami, struck by 9 bombs shouldn't be far behind. I understand that a bomb has to penetrate to casue major damage but when the Oi suffers a system damage of 99 and loses only a single 5.5 inch gun, something is fishy. Her radar is still listed as operational.

The main problem though is the number of bombers available so early. The number of heavy bombers produced in WitP through 8/24/42 totals about 1150. That accounts for over 52% of all US heavy bomber production in real life through that date. Considering that Europe had the priority for heavy bombers, it would seem something doesn't wash. My understanding is that Pacific air forces were only allocated about 30% of production which would equate to somewhere around 650 heavy bombers. I have the numbers to back that up.

Anyways, I tried a stupid move and was lucky I didn't pay a heavier price. I truely believe though that the number of heavy bombers available to the allies so early tips the game in favor of the allies much earlier than was historically possible. Part of the problem may be related to the fact that we have PDU on and the allied player can convert every 2E bomber unit into heavy bombers. Not very historical but then again being able to convert most Japanese army fighter units to Tojos and Tonies isn't either. So beware what you ask for with PDU, you just might "get" it.

Chez

So that leaves the damage model and the number of bombers available at this point in the game as suspect elements.

I do wish that the damage model was a little more detailed. Realistically, the Haguro, struck by 17 bombs, should be a floating wreck and the Mogami, struck by 9 bombs shouldn't be far behind. I understand that a bomb has to penetrate to casue major damage but when the Oi suffers a system damage of 99 and loses only a single 5.5 inch gun, something is fishy. Her radar is still listed as operational

We tried but can't win them all. Changing the damage model would have meant that the old code/model could not be used probably so would have cost money. Otherwise not sure why a more detailed model than the krypton based paint job one was not used.

[ChezDaJez]

question is why the Japanese player allowed the Allies to construct such a massive forward air base and get all of those supplies there.

Uh, cuz its in Australia and I didn't invade there! And I only tried a naval bombardment after all my other options (bombing, uh bombing and more bombing) were thwarted. You can call sending a bombardment TF against a heavily defended base stupid and ahistorical all you want, but the fact is massing 496 heavy bombers at Derby and another 225 at Imphal in August 1942 sure as hell isn't historical by any stretch of the imagination.

As far as supplies go, you are obviously assuming that the supplies are coming from the east coast. They more likely are coming from Perth or even Wyndham as I know he has several convoys a month coming from India to Perth. And every sub I send to interdict has been damaged or sunk by his strong ASW forces. For all I know he has every transport plane assigned to the Allies in Australia for the sole purpose of keeping Derby supplied.

The fact of the matter is that neither you or anybody else can stop the allies from building any base to any size they want in Australia. To think otherwise is assinine. I would like to hear how you would have prevented the Allies from building Derby into a large base.

As to what could be done. We know that the Luftwaffe was never able to mass 400 condors if it wanted to. We also know the USAAF massed 400+ bomber formations on numerous occasions (although never all from just one base). So within the realm of plausibility, having a 400 Allied bomber strike is not implausible. It just wasn't done in the PTO prior to 1944.

It is implausible for August 1942! 400 plane bomber raids didn't get started until the B-29 came along in late 44-early 45. Show me a raid where more than 100 B-17s or B-24s took part in a single raid prior to 1944. It wasn't done in the PTO before 44 because it couldn't be done.

So you have to ask yourself whether or not you want the Allied player to be allowed to employ in the PTO logistical efforts and massed bomber formations used in the ETO in 1943 and not used in the PTO until 1944. IMO it's not the craziest thing that WitP allows.... not by half.

I don't care if the allies use massed bomber raids. I do care that they are able to do so nearly 2 years before they were actually able to IRL. The replacement and production rates for them are way off. In my other thread, I computed that the number of 4E bombers my opponent has constitutes 53% of real life production as of 8/24/42. PDU allows each player to upgrade units to a non-historical path which is great but given the number of 4Es available, every US 2E unit can be converted to 4E before Aug 42. Using PDU means that gameplay is going to be ahistorical but it shouldn't mean that's going to be unrealistic.

I actually don't have a problem with the number of hits achieved. If you break the percentage down by individuals bombs, each bomb had a 0.8% hit rate with about 9% of the attacking aircraft getting a hit. There is a problem with the damage model which I feel is abstracted too much.

Chez

[Admiral DadMan]

Ok, time for my $1 in here (inflation, yanno?).

I think that the damage model is poor in that with so many topside bomb hits, there should be very few working weapons on that ship. And don't torpedos EXPLODE when a bomb lands amongst them? (see: Mikuma, Battle of Midway).

System damage has too long been a catch-all abstraction for measuring a ship's ability, or marginalizing it to retard players from going nuts. There are plenty of examples of ships with topsides in shambles, but still able to make fleet speed.

Anyway, for those of you who bitch about IJN CAs being over-armored, USN CAs for the most part are equal in that department.

[ADavidB]

I would like to hear how you would have prevented the Allies from building Derby into a large base.

Unless you are playing one of the v1.7x betas, Derby is a malarial base. Therefore, the Japanese player can stop it from being built big by:

- Attacking it early and often with bombardment TFs
- Bombing it regularly with Bettys, Nells and Sallys
- Invading it

Cheers -

Dave Baranyi

[ChezDaJez]

How come the issue is not "how can IJN TFs pull off bizarre, ahistorical bombardment missions?" The one time they tried this (bombarding a base without having Japanese troops engaged in the fight) in real life, a few tactical bombers mauled them (Midway). Yet, as people have mentioned, when someone does something ahistorical, and someone does something ahistorical back, one side cries foul.

I wouldn't have had to try a "bizarre, ahistorical bombardment" if there weren't "bizarre, ahistorical numbers of heavy bombers" around.

Anyways, if this was 1944 I wouldn't be griping but its August 1942 for goodness sakes! (well, okay, I'ld still be griping but at least it would be more realistic[:'(])

Chez

[ChezDaJez]

Unless you are playing one of the v1.7x betas, Derby is a malarial base. Therefore, the Japanese player can stop it from being built big by:

- Attacking it early and often with bombardment TFs
- Bombing it regularly with Bettys, Nells and Sallys
- Invading it

Attacking it early and often is an option. The only problem here is knowing which base is being built to house bombers. Darwin, Derby, Broome and Wyndham have all been built to the maximum allowed as have all the bases on the east coast. Not knowing where (or when) my opponent would choose to begin his offensive means that I have to cover as many potentialities as I can.

His bombing offensive from NW Australia came out of the blue. Maumere is my only airbase within Betty range of Derby. Unfortunately, my Zeros can't fly that far. And the few raids I tried took heavy losses. Now Maumere is just a smoking hole in the ground as the nicely experienced Tony group stationed there got wiped out in one raid (11 shot down, 17 destroyed on the ground). Scratch that idea.

Sure, I could have invaded it. But my troops were heavily engaged in taking the SRA until May. In this case, he started his offensive in Burma about a month ago and is slowly advancing under his air umbrella. I had to divert many of my land and air forces to Malaya for defence. If those troops were in Australia right now, he would be knocking on Singapore's door. Even if there was no offensive in Burma, any invasion troops would simply have been fodder in Australia for his bombers. Read Gen Hoepner's AAR concerning his foray into Australia. His troops have been bombed to smithereens.

Chez

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

[(1) The number of hits obtained is very excessive given warships moving at full speed on the high seas. I can understand a few hits here and there simply from the sheer number of bombers involved but there is simply no way they would have been this accurate IRL.
Chez

I agree that the number of hits seems excessive, but there is no mention of what altitude the B-17's were bombing from. If they were low, or God forbid, "skip bombing", the numbers make more sense. If they are "skip-bombing, the numbers are probably low. IRL, due to the rather limited availability of B-17's and their usefullness in search, they rarely bombed from less than 15,000 feet. But with the collossal oversupply of aircraft on both sides in the game, an Allied Player is almost a fool not to bring them down to low levels. That's the real "villian" in the design.

[Feinder]

FWIW -

I love to employ B-17s as they were histocially (for search). Their range is better than the PBY. Wonderful. Too bad you -can't- deploy 3 or 4 B-17s to a AF(2) and use them for search (they'd never launch in game terms).

-F-

[ChezDaJez]

I agree that the number of hits seems excessive, but there is no mention of what altitude the B-17's were bombing from. If they were low, or God forbid, "skip bombing", the numbers make more sense. If they are "skip-bombing, the numbers are probably low. IRL, due to the rather limited availability of B-17's and their usefullness in search, they rarely bombed from less than 15,000 feet. But with the collossal oversupply of aircraft on both sides in the game, an Allied Player is almost a fool not to bring them down to low levels. That's the real "villian" in the design.

My opponent stated that they were set to Naval attack primary and airfield attack secondary with an altitude of 10000 feet. He never saw my TF until his bombers attacked.

I computed a hit rate of 0.8% given 46 bomb hits out of 4920 bombs dropped so that actually doesn't sound that far fetched. It also yields a 11% hit chance for each of the 410 bombers which seems somewhat excessive but not outside that possible, especially if you just think of it as carpet bombing a patch of ocean that had ships on it.

Chez

[rtrapasso]

I wouldn't have had to try a "bizarre, ahistorical bombardment" if there weren't "bizarre, ahistorical numbers of heavy bombers" around.

Sorry - seems i touched a nerve.[:(]

I agree that there are excessive 4E HBs in the standard game - especially with the PDU options on.

But naval bombardments are a pet peeve of mine in this game. I don't think i'm the only one to feel this way, but i seem to mention it more, perhaps. Sorry if i annoyed you severely.

[ChezDaJez]

Sorry - seems i touched a nerve.

Actually, someone else did. Didn't mean to catch you in the blast zone also.

Chez

[Gen.Hoepner]

There's simply no way to stop the allied-building up- huge air base- process.
If you had invaded Derby he prbably would have built up Darwin or something else. So now derby would be a smoking hole too.
In my game against MC i've invaded Northern Oz. I took it all. He built up Alice Springs and placed hundreds (something lime 500) 4Es by mid-summer 42. I tried to defend Daily Waters ( the closest base in AB's Map) several times with my crack fighter units. Results were horrible: hundreds of planes destroyed in the air. More on the ground. Hundreds of crack pilots died and tons of supplies burnt. There's no way of defending a base against these numbers, especially in 1942.
Probably the only way to go would be to place 1000 IJAF-IJN crack fighters ( 75 exp >) on a base...but the allies will simply move their bombers to somewhere else ( say, Burma or Cooktown, or PM is still in allied hands) and the process will go on unstoppable.

[spence]

In this specific case anyways, the damage model may not be to blame. None of their main guns were damaged by the 500 lbers cause they are given 6" of armor on their main gun turrets in the editor which is 5 inches too much. T
JAPANESE HEAVY CRUISERS OF ALL CLASSES HAD BUT ONE INCH (25mm) OF ARMOR ON THE TOP, SIDES, AND FACES OF THEIR MAIN GUN TURRETS. THAT ERROR IN THE DATABASE IS CERTAINLY ONE OF THE MOST GLARING..


There is no indication in the initial report whether any "turret hit"s were made by the B-17s but those haven't been especially rare from my experience. I'm not sure but I think a magasine explosion is a possibility with a turret hit. A 500 lber coming through the roof of a turret would have access to the upper handling room and the ready ammo therein at the very least. If the barbettes did not have armored decks inside them then that same 500 lber could penetrate to the lower handling room and the magasines. POOF!