Just to clearify: we are not discussing why the Japanese player is able to field late war high skill pilots en masse. Thats another story and
not part of this thread. This impacts the ability of the game to reflect historical late war situations, but its easy to understand why and how.
We want to find out how the combat calculations compare to history. For this we need at least a roughly historical setup, as described above.
What sense would it make to do clean sandbox scenarios with equal forces setups if we haven´t got the comparision vallues?
Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat
I'm not thinking about repeating history, but playing the game.
A model well simulate the history may not be suitable for a game because in a game you need balance.
A model simulate history result is only good when Jap player only have 50/50 pilots when allied have 70/70.
However in a real game Jap have better pilots and they will inflict much more damage to historical Allied forces.
CV vs CV is another thing, but the whole pacific fleet beat up by a few hundreds, not even thousands of LBA?
Come on!
A model well simulate the history may not be suitable for a game because in a game you need balance.
A model simulate history result is only good when Jap player only have 50/50 pilots when allied have 70/70.
However in a real game Jap have better pilots and they will inflict much more damage to historical Allied forces.
CV vs CV is another thing, but the whole pacific fleet beat up by a few hundreds, not even thousands of LBA?
Come on!
As swift as wind;
As calm as wood;
Invasion like flames;
Defense like rocks.
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat
A last suggestion: This discussion is also not about the abilityy of the Japanese player to field 100% modern late war planes.
We want historical.
So it should be made sure that at least half of the attacking IJN/IJA groups have planes which are outdated, such as old Zero versions,
one or the other Oscar, and a whole lot of Kates.
It is still not an exact recreation of history, but with such setups we could start making comparisions to scenarios that happened in WWII.
Is it understandable where this is leading to?
Your test was well executed, but I am in no way surprized at the results. But I am not because I am aware that it is not a recreation
of history. It puts a US CV taskforce in the range of an air army with high skill pilots, late war equipment and numbers to back it up.
This did never happen in WWII. If it did, the result would have been a bloodbath.
We want historical.
So it should be made sure that at least half of the attacking IJN/IJA groups have planes which are outdated, such as old Zero versions,
one or the other Oscar, and a whole lot of Kates.
It is still not an exact recreation of history, but with such setups we could start making comparisions to scenarios that happened in WWII.
Is it understandable where this is leading to?
Your test was well executed, but I am in no way surprized at the results. But I am not because I am aware that it is not a recreation
of history. It puts a US CV taskforce in the range of an air army with high skill pilots, late war equipment and numbers to back it up.
This did never happen in WWII. If it did, the result would have been a bloodbath.
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat
ORIGINAL: hades1001
I'm not thinking about repeating history, but playing the game.
A model well simulate the history may not be suitable for a game because in a game you need balance.
A model simulate history result is only good when Jap player only have 50/50 pilots when allied have 70/70.
However in a real game Jap have better pilots and they will inflict much more damage to historical Allied forces.
CV vs CV is another thing, but the whole pacific fleet beat up by a few hundreds, not even thousands of LBA?
Come on!
Yes, but this is off topic.
This game tries to attribute stats to every single unit as close as possible matching the historical counterparts. If you use an ahistorical setup you will obviousely get an ahistorical result.
If you do not want to compare with history, what do you want to prove?
Your first test tells you a single thing, and this was obvious long before this discussion even began:
A dedicated strike force of good modern planes, with highly skilled pilots, and high numbers, will deliver a world of hurt to any CV TF venturing in its path.
Is this unrealistic? In a historical sense maybe, because it never happened in RL. In a tactical sense, HELL NO. Looks right as it should.
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat
I think the post is about to find out the right number of turns the A2A model should use when large CAP presents.
And my test simply indicate that the tweaked EXE is not good enough yet.
BTW, I try to simulate my scenario based on Greyjoy's AAR. here it is:
I tried a few times but fail to get coordinate strike in any run.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Uruppu-jima at 130,52
Weather in hex: Clear sky
Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 24 minutes
Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 114
A6M5 Zero x 103
G4M1 Betty x 120
G4M2 Betty x 28
N1K1-J George x 541
P1Y1 Frances x 113
Allied aircraft
Corsair II x 33
Hellcat I x 22
Seafire IIC x 8
Beaufighter VIc x 7
Spitfire VIII x 18
P-39N2 Airacobra x 6
P-39N1 Airacobra x 17
P-40N5 Warhawk x 26
FM-1 Wildcat x 17
FM-2 Wildcat x 178
F4U-1A Corsair x 148
F6F-3 Hellcat x 365
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3a Zero: 4 destroyed
A6M5 Zero: 1 destroyed
G4M1 Betty: 3 destroyed, 23 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 1 destroyed by flak
G4M2 Betty: 1 destroyed, 8 damaged
G4M2 Betty: 1 destroyed by flak
N1K1-J George: 2 destroyed
P1Y1 Frances: 2 destroyed, 22 damaged
P1Y1 Frances: 1 destroyed by flak
Allied aircraft losses
Beaufighter VIc: 1 destroyed
FM-2 Wildcat: 1 destroyed
F4U-1A Corsair: 2 destroyed
F6F-3 Hellcat: 1 destroyed
Allied Ships
CVE Casablanca, Torpedo hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
CVE Nassau, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
CVE Breton, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
CVE White Plains, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
CVE Kitkun Bay, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
CVE Liscome Bay, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
CVE Manila Bay, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
CVE Hoggatt Bay, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
CVE Natoma Bay, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
CVE Rudyerd Bay
CVE Shah, Torpedo hits 1
CVE Steamer Bay, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CVE Sargent Bay, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage
CVE Saginaw Bay, Torpedo hits 1
CVE Begum, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
CVE Altamaha, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CLAA Prince Robert
CVE Suwannee, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
CVE Shipley Bay, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
CVE Sitkoh Bay
CVE Barnes, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
CVE Kalinin Bay, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
DE Manning
CVE Shamrock Bay, Torpedo hits 1
DE Donaldson
And my test simply indicate that the tweaked EXE is not good enough yet.
BTW, I try to simulate my scenario based on Greyjoy's AAR. here it is:
I tried a few times but fail to get coordinate strike in any run.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Uruppu-jima at 130,52
Weather in hex: Clear sky
Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 24 minutes
Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 114
A6M5 Zero x 103
G4M1 Betty x 120
G4M2 Betty x 28
N1K1-J George x 541
P1Y1 Frances x 113
Allied aircraft
Corsair II x 33
Hellcat I x 22
Seafire IIC x 8
Beaufighter VIc x 7
Spitfire VIII x 18
P-39N2 Airacobra x 6
P-39N1 Airacobra x 17
P-40N5 Warhawk x 26
FM-1 Wildcat x 17
FM-2 Wildcat x 178
F4U-1A Corsair x 148
F6F-3 Hellcat x 365
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3a Zero: 4 destroyed
A6M5 Zero: 1 destroyed
G4M1 Betty: 3 destroyed, 23 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 1 destroyed by flak
G4M2 Betty: 1 destroyed, 8 damaged
G4M2 Betty: 1 destroyed by flak
N1K1-J George: 2 destroyed
P1Y1 Frances: 2 destroyed, 22 damaged
P1Y1 Frances: 1 destroyed by flak
Allied aircraft losses
Beaufighter VIc: 1 destroyed
FM-2 Wildcat: 1 destroyed
F4U-1A Corsair: 2 destroyed
F6F-3 Hellcat: 1 destroyed
Allied Ships
CVE Casablanca, Torpedo hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
CVE Nassau, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
CVE Breton, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
CVE White Plains, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
CVE Kitkun Bay, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
CVE Liscome Bay, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
CVE Manila Bay, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
CVE Hoggatt Bay, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
CVE Natoma Bay, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
CVE Rudyerd Bay
CVE Shah, Torpedo hits 1
CVE Steamer Bay, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CVE Sargent Bay, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage
CVE Saginaw Bay, Torpedo hits 1
CVE Begum, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
CVE Altamaha, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CLAA Prince Robert
CVE Suwannee, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
CVE Shipley Bay, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
CVE Sitkoh Bay
CVE Barnes, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
CVE Kalinin Bay, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
DE Manning
CVE Shamrock Bay, Torpedo hits 1
DE Donaldson
As swift as wind;
As calm as wood;
Invasion like flames;
Defense like rocks.
-
HansBolter
- Posts: 7457
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
- Location: United States
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat
wow the flak gunners took out three whole planes! [:D]
Hans
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat
Also i believe that by this time of war Jap won't have many 75/75 bomber pilots. Bomber pilots are hard to gain exp and 55/70 for Jap bomber pilots and 70/70 for Allied fighter pilots would be more appropriate.
As swift as wind;
As calm as wood;
Invasion like flames;
Defense like rocks.
-
HansBolter
- Posts: 7457
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
- Location: United States
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Just to clearify: we are not discussing why the Japanese player is able to field late war high skill pilots en masse. Thats another story and
not part of this thread. This impacts the ability of the game to reflect historical late war situations, but its easy to understand why and how.
and perhaps it should be what we are discussing.
why should the JFBs have thier dreams answered in an in game ability to create and unrealistically implausible uber airforce while the AFBs get shafted by being forced to work within thier historical airforce limitations?
Hans
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat
GreyJoy made a huge mistake and payed for it when running ships with paper armor and slow as hell into the range of
large landbased TB concentrations.
Must have been tough to watch.
I doubt that you will find anything worth reporting by testrunning this, except maybe that it was a bad idea.
It wont give you conclusions about the effect of the exe, because the only way to do this is to compare to historical setups.
large landbased TB concentrations.
Must have been tough to watch.
I doubt that you will find anything worth reporting by testrunning this, except maybe that it was a bad idea.
It wont give you conclusions about the effect of the exe, because the only way to do this is to compare to historical setups.
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
wow the flak gunners took out three whole planes! [:D]
Flak is recalibrated in Babes scenarios. It's doubtful we will see it rolled into Scen 1 or 2.
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
perhaps it should be what we are discussing.
why should the JFBs have thier dreams answered in an in game ability to create and unrealistically implausible uber airforce while the AFBs get shafted by being forced to work within thier historical airforce limitations?
At least you got sufficiently off topic that I feel its time to call it a day now. [;)]
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
wow the flak gunners took out three whole planes! [:D]
Ah yes, but you can't tell from the combat report either how many planes damaged were as a result of being hit by the flak or how much was the bombing run disrupted by the flak.
Why, I'm quite confident that without the benefit of the protection offered by the flak, the CVE Rudyerd Bay would also have been hit and sunk.[:)]
Then of course any damaged planes which succumbed on the trip home are also not credited to the flak. That is the problem when one uses cash accounting instead of accrual accounting in the combat report.[;)]
Alfred
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat
BTW, the escort George shot down over 100 hellcats and corsairs, when the lost of Jap is around 300 Planes.
I didn't expect the escort be this strong. Maybe high exp and skill has a positive impact on the A2A result?
In my experience escort fighters won't shot down these many CAP fighter and they suffer a heavy losses. In my test they lost almost equal Jap and Allied fighters. Anyone know the reason?
I didn't expect the escort be this strong. Maybe high exp and skill has a positive impact on the A2A result?
In my experience escort fighters won't shot down these many CAP fighter and they suffer a heavy losses. In my test they lost almost equal Jap and Allied fighters. Anyone know the reason?
As swift as wind;
As calm as wood;
Invasion like flames;
Defense like rocks.
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat
michaelm,
I'm not sure if there's a hard limit on the number of fighter rounds or not but if there is I just thought I'd suggest moving away from a hard limit and moving to a limit based solely on the number of fighters available and the time available for them to make their firing passes.
The reason being that a hard limit on the number of fighter passes would actually have the result of, effectively, imposing a limit on the effective CAP which can be placed over a base or TF irrespective of the number of planes available.
Here's an example to illustrate what I mean:
1. Assume that there's a hard limit of 300 fighter passes in any combat no matter how many fighters or how long a time could pass from spotting the raid.
2. Assume that with a raid spotted 50 minutes out any fighter on CAP could make 5 firing passes on an unescorted bomber stream. One pass every 10 minutes.
3. So, spotting a raid 50 minutes out would mean that even with 500 fighters on CAP ( say over Tokyo or over a massive CV TF ) only 60 would actually engage, with the other 440 just circling around watching combat. Why? Simple, 60 fighters making 1 pass every 10 minutes can, over 50 minutes generate 300 firing passes.
Obviously, in the game more than 60 of these fighters would engage since they'd have to reach the enemy bombers ( and that would take time, limiting the amount of time available for firing passes once interception was made ) and some would be damaged by defensive fire such that others would take their place to continue making passes until the hard limit was reached.
Effectively a hard limit would mean that for raids detected at long range ( e.g by USN radars ) only a small amount of the CAP would actually engage but that portion of CAP would engage very decisively - which seems to be mirroring what we are seeing reported in late-war games. I've certainly noted situations where only a few of my USN squadrons or USAAF squadrons engage an incoming raid ( as shown by a few of the squadrons on CAP getting huge increases in the numbers of kills while others have no increase in kills at all ).
Obviously I'm not sure if there is a hard limit on number of firing passes but logically a hard limit would disproportionately penalise the side with the larger number of fighters on CAP and the better radar ( IOW, the USN CV TFs ) and might explain some of what we're seeing - where fighters engage opposing fighters, seem to use up most of their firing passes on the enemy fighters and then have so few passes left that they don't effectively engage and disrupt the bombers, allowing them to achieve outsize results vs USN CV TFs.
The best solution would be, IMO, to enable a toggle to set fighters to preferentially engage other fighters or enemy bombers ( and this would allow twin-engined zerstoerer types to be used much more historically ( as opposed to wasting themselves dogfighting with nimble single-engined opponents as currently happens ) ) but if there is a hard limit removing it and replacing it with a "number of firing passes per fighter per minute vs other fighters" and " number of firing passes per fighter per minute vs bombers" might go some way to remedying the situation and prevent the current situation where huge CAPs relatively frequently intercept but don't decisively engage enemy bomber formations.
I'm not sure if there's a hard limit on the number of fighter rounds or not but if there is I just thought I'd suggest moving away from a hard limit and moving to a limit based solely on the number of fighters available and the time available for them to make their firing passes.
The reason being that a hard limit on the number of fighter passes would actually have the result of, effectively, imposing a limit on the effective CAP which can be placed over a base or TF irrespective of the number of planes available.
Here's an example to illustrate what I mean:
1. Assume that there's a hard limit of 300 fighter passes in any combat no matter how many fighters or how long a time could pass from spotting the raid.
2. Assume that with a raid spotted 50 minutes out any fighter on CAP could make 5 firing passes on an unescorted bomber stream. One pass every 10 minutes.
3. So, spotting a raid 50 minutes out would mean that even with 500 fighters on CAP ( say over Tokyo or over a massive CV TF ) only 60 would actually engage, with the other 440 just circling around watching combat. Why? Simple, 60 fighters making 1 pass every 10 minutes can, over 50 minutes generate 300 firing passes.
Obviously, in the game more than 60 of these fighters would engage since they'd have to reach the enemy bombers ( and that would take time, limiting the amount of time available for firing passes once interception was made ) and some would be damaged by defensive fire such that others would take their place to continue making passes until the hard limit was reached.
Effectively a hard limit would mean that for raids detected at long range ( e.g by USN radars ) only a small amount of the CAP would actually engage but that portion of CAP would engage very decisively - which seems to be mirroring what we are seeing reported in late-war games. I've certainly noted situations where only a few of my USN squadrons or USAAF squadrons engage an incoming raid ( as shown by a few of the squadrons on CAP getting huge increases in the numbers of kills while others have no increase in kills at all ).
Obviously I'm not sure if there is a hard limit on number of firing passes but logically a hard limit would disproportionately penalise the side with the larger number of fighters on CAP and the better radar ( IOW, the USN CV TFs ) and might explain some of what we're seeing - where fighters engage opposing fighters, seem to use up most of their firing passes on the enemy fighters and then have so few passes left that they don't effectively engage and disrupt the bombers, allowing them to achieve outsize results vs USN CV TFs.
The best solution would be, IMO, to enable a toggle to set fighters to preferentially engage other fighters or enemy bombers ( and this would allow twin-engined zerstoerer types to be used much more historically ( as opposed to wasting themselves dogfighting with nimble single-engined opponents as currently happens ) ) but if there is a hard limit removing it and replacing it with a "number of firing passes per fighter per minute vs other fighters" and " number of firing passes per fighter per minute vs bombers" might go some way to remedying the situation and prevent the current situation where huge CAPs relatively frequently intercept but don't decisively engage enemy bomber formations.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat
The EXE michael provided feels to increase the engagement but it still doesn't feel right. Like Nemo said the CAP keep focus on the fighters and let most of the bombers pass, which looks odd to me.
As swift as wind;
As calm as wood;
Invasion like flames;
Defense like rocks.
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat
Just an FYI.
Damian suggested we upgrade to this BETA in our Armaggedon game ( Downfall-type scenario ) so we should soon have some more in-game clashes from a real PBEM ( not testbeds which can be set up by authors to slant one way or another rather easily ) to add more data points.
As to the examples given which are referred to as the Marianas Turkey Shoot: Hmm, about 1100 planes attacking into 900something and having a good mix of escorts and fighters. When I did a raid by raid accounting of the Marianas Turkey Shoot you actually found quite a few IJNAF planes making it through CAP and making attacks - and far, far less than the 50% FlAK kills people are claiming ( you have to remember kamis flew a very different attack profile than normal attackers and made themselves much, much easier FlAK targets. Not accounting for that really skews people's expectations ). I think there's a discussion to be had about just how many bombers made it through the CAP ( which seems too high ) but both sides of the debate here are retreating to the extremes and engaging in "end of the bell curve sniping" which REALLY isn't helpful at all.
As to this favouring the JFBs. Oh sweet j****s!!! Listen it negatively impacts both sides in different situations. In the same way as this seems to hurt USN CV TFs and their defence it ALSO hurts Japan's ability to put up an effective CAP over its bases when enemy bombers come calling AND also effects the IJN ability to provide CAP in '43/'44 when the Allies are hunting KB actively.
These things all cut both ways and labelling them as AFB or JFB issues just acts to stifle debate and move everyone into extremist corners where all that happens is sniping as opposed to constructive debate.
Damian suggested we upgrade to this BETA in our Armaggedon game ( Downfall-type scenario ) so we should soon have some more in-game clashes from a real PBEM ( not testbeds which can be set up by authors to slant one way or another rather easily ) to add more data points.
As to the examples given which are referred to as the Marianas Turkey Shoot: Hmm, about 1100 planes attacking into 900something and having a good mix of escorts and fighters. When I did a raid by raid accounting of the Marianas Turkey Shoot you actually found quite a few IJNAF planes making it through CAP and making attacks - and far, far less than the 50% FlAK kills people are claiming ( you have to remember kamis flew a very different attack profile than normal attackers and made themselves much, much easier FlAK targets. Not accounting for that really skews people's expectations ). I think there's a discussion to be had about just how many bombers made it through the CAP ( which seems too high ) but both sides of the debate here are retreating to the extremes and engaging in "end of the bell curve sniping" which REALLY isn't helpful at all.
As to this favouring the JFBs. Oh sweet j****s!!! Listen it negatively impacts both sides in different situations. In the same way as this seems to hurt USN CV TFs and their defence it ALSO hurts Japan's ability to put up an effective CAP over its bases when enemy bombers come calling AND also effects the IJN ability to provide CAP in '43/'44 when the Allies are hunting KB actively.
These things all cut both ways and labelling them as AFB or JFB issues just acts to stifle debate and move everyone into extremist corners where all that happens is sniping as opposed to constructive debate.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
-
HansBolter
- Posts: 7457
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
- Location: United States
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
perhaps it should be what we are discussing.
why should the JFBs have thier dreams answered in an in game ability to create and unrealistically implausible uber airforce while the AFBs get shafted by being forced to work within thier historical airforce limitations?
At least you got sufficiently off topic that I feel its time to call it a day now. [;)]
so....cut and run when faced with the real underlying issue.....Brave Sir Robin it is
I can live with that
and BTW Nemo is quite correct about the polarizing positions stifling constructive debate so I'll clock out of this thread now also since I have contributed to the polarization
Hans
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat
For what it's worth...i 100% agree with what Nemo said. Both about the Analysis of the problem and the suggested solutions. But, above all, i agree with the fact that this "problem" involves ALL of us, no matt the side we're playing.
That this is not a jfb's wet dream is clearly shown by the fact that the issue has been raised here by Rader....which isn't exaclty an allied fan boy!!!!
Under the present conditions Japan has serious problems to defend its skies, even when it has a strong and effective air force and tjhe allied arie unable to use otheir CVs or their fleet any close to a japanese lvl 9 AF post 1943...
I think we should all work togheder to help the devs instead of bitching each other in a fanboysm contest
That this is not a jfb's wet dream is clearly shown by the fact that the issue has been raised here by Rader....which isn't exaclty an allied fan boy!!!!
Under the present conditions Japan has serious problems to defend its skies, even when it has a strong and effective air force and tjhe allied arie unable to use otheir CVs or their fleet any close to a japanese lvl 9 AF post 1943...
I think we should all work togheder to help the devs instead of bitching each other in a fanboysm contest
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat
+1ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
For what it's worth...i 100% agree with what Nemo said. Both about the Analysis of the problem and the suggested solutions. ... I think we should all work togheder to help the devs instead of bitching each other in a fanboysm contest
(except for the spelling and typo's) [:D]
Pax
RE: Most of my air groups aren't participating in combat
ORIGINAL: hades1001
Saipan to Tokyo TEST 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Tokyo , at 114,60
Weather in hex: Heavy rain
Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 22,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes
Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 126
N1K1-J George x 359
Ki-43-IIIa Oscar x 33
Ki-43-IV Oscar x 118
Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 14
Ki-61-Ib Tony x 2
Ki-61-Ic Tony x 44
Ki-84b Frank x 49
Ki-84r Frank x 49
Ki-201 Karyu x 42
Allied aircraft
B-29-25 Superfort x 168
Japanese aircraft losses
N1K1-J George: 2 destroyed
Ki-43-IIIa Oscar: 1 destroyed
Ki-43-IV Oscar: 1 destroyed
Ki-84r Frank: 1 destroyed on ground
A6M7 Zero: 3 destroyed on ground
G4M2 Betty: 3 destroyed on ground
Ki-67-Ib Peggy: 4 destroyed on ground
Ki-9 Spruce: 2 destroyed on ground
P1Y1 Frances: 6 destroyed on ground
S1A1 Denko: 2 destroyed on ground
Ki-45 KAIc Nick: 1 destroyed on ground
Ki-51 Sonia: 1 destroyed on ground
Ki-46-III Dinah: 1 destroyed on ground
Allied aircraft losses
B-29-25 Superfort: 26 destroyed, 88 damaged
B-29-25 Superfort: 2 destroyed by flak
Airbase hits 14
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 34
Aircraft Attacking:
28 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 20000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
27 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 20000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
25 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 20000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
15 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 20000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
16 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 20000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
10 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 20000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
11 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 20000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
That seems like quite a few B-29s shot down, but try adding 50 or so escorts and I'd be curious what happens. I'd wager a significant drop in B-29 loss.
I'll try to do the turn late tonight Greyjoy... Jen is keeping me busy
