A quick list of pro-USN bias.

[Snigbert]

Yes a few betty's get shot down and you lose a few to operations losses, same happens with the B17, its got more engines, more armour self, sealing tanks, and a **** load more guns. But they still get them shot down damaged and suffer operation losses.

The difference is that the B-17 was a better aircraft than the Betty or the Nell, and it is reflected as such in the game. This bothers some people as being unbalanced towards the Americans. People who claim they want historical accuracy, but can't tolerate the manifestation of historical accuracy in the game when it results in one side being superior to the other.

I have posted AAR Snigbert, what a pity you decided to ignore it.

I haven't seen an AAR, or a link to the thread in either of your two recent threads where you've brought the subject up. If you expect people to go searching the forums to find evidence to support your assertion for you, then you're crazy. Provide us with the information yourself if you want to prove your point.

[Nikademus]

We hatz the Baggins........wants the precious back we does...


LBA strike effectiveness against moving ships seems to be well balanced now. The only problem there is that flak effectiveness and disruption could be better. at least against the big level bombers. ship based flak vs tactical bombers is another issue.

But as mentioned by a few others its base and achorage effectiveness that needs addressing. Ironically this is not a B-17 issue.

I had a PBEM with Soulblazer where i found my transports bedeveled by a string of penny packet attacks by twin engine level bombers. avg # 4-6 per raid. The first couple of times they struck home, i wrote it off to bad luck. As others have said, LBA were indeed capable of hitting ships, more so if stationary. However after the next raid, and the next and the next and the next (some with multiple bomb hits!) both us began to see a problem.

In comparison, SB sent in some dive bombers to further muddle things up. Dive bombing of course is inherently a more precise method of delivering ordinance, doubly so against stationary targets. They scored zip on a frequent basis in comparison. Yet the lumbering bombers, attacking at 6k+, scored extremely consistantly. Now one can of course, find examples of ships struck by LBA. This is not the issue...the issue was the frequencey and consistancy of the hits. Had our game continued i think he would have had a book's worth of reported "hits" vs the smattering we have in the history books

Yes both sides kept valauble ships away from LBA. This to me is a no brainer. They were not playing a game. The stakes were higher, the risks real. Therefore you dont take chances. Even one hit on a carrier at anchor, even if 1000 other attempts miss, can ruin an operation or upset a timetable.

Achored ship.....airbase, ground units....all the same problem in my book. LBA is a tad bit too accurate for my tastes against all of them, and it gets exponentially worse as raid sizes increase until you get 100+ raids that can do something like this all at the same time:

Airbase hits 7
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 110
Port Hits 12
Port Supply hits 4

Ship A 2 bomb hits, captain has fit
Ship B
Ship C 1 bomb hit, heavy damage, crew gets shore leave
Ship D
Ship E
Ship F 4 bomb hits, vegetable locker suffers critcal hit, captain grabs history book to check for historcal poss that he now must go swimming

When one considers the square milage of an average sized base, results such as the above would make a 1991 air force whistle in appreciation. And since there are no "smart" weapons employed here the bombers must have litterally saturated the base and achorage with bombs. Shore bombardments as i always say, produce consistantly similar results. The disabling and killing of guns and soldiers regardless of size of base or entrenchments exaserbates the issue further


side note: 2000LB GP bombs btw were a rare commodity and were seldom used in AS attacks.

[Jocko]

Hi,

I'm new to this board. Bought the game about a month ago. I love it already. I played the Commodore 64 version of this game when I was in High School. Been waiting 15 years for UV!!!

I was looking through some of Chiteng's posts. I believe there is a post from him (last post was May 28) (sorry, I don't know how to link the post) that shows a transport getting 1 bomb hit from some b-17's. I'm not sure if there are more AAR's from him with B-17 examples.

Since I'm new, I don't know of the LBA thing is broken or not, but I know the B-17 was used as an anti-shipping weapon. I believe B-17 crews reported BB Haruna sunk about 6 times before Coral sea.

BTW, this forum rocks!! I love the AAR's (currently waiting more from Wobbly and Herbieh.) Also sorry that Luskan and Raverdave had the CV mess from their great AAR. Can't wait for WITP.

[Snigbert]

I'm new to this board. Bought the game about a month ago. I love it already. I played the Commodore 64 version of this game when I was in High School. Been waiting 15 years for UV!!!

Welcome aboard!

You might want to quit playing UV now, before you've alienated your wife and kids, dont remember who your friends were, develop that pale white glow of someone whose only exposure to light is from sitting crouched in front of a 19 inch monitor 20 hours a day...

I was looking through some of Chiteng's posts. I believe there is a post from him (last post was May 28) (sorry, I don't know how to link the post) that shows a transport getting 1 bomb hit from some b-17's. I'm not sure if there are more AAR's from him with B-17 examples.

If all there is is 1 example of a ship being hit by a bomb, that's pretty weak. There are plenty of examples of B-17 flights scoring a single hit on vessels underway. APs and AKs are more likely to be hit because of their slow speed (yes, speed is a factor in determining hit probability, that's why subs get so few hits on destroyers for example).



I believe B-17 crews reported BB Haruna sunk about 6 times before Coral sea.

Evidently they didn't stress modesty when teaching how to write after action reports to their LBA crews.

[BillBrown]

If I remember right, Adm Crace's Crusier/Destroyer force was attacked by B-17s who reported 2 BBs sunk.

[CEDeaton]

Originally posted by BillBrown
If I remember right, Adm Crace's Crusier/Destroyer force was attacked by B-17s who reported 2 BBs sunk.

General Billy Mitchell's dried up old corpse just smiled so big that his lower jaw came loose!

Not sure I understand the major disagreement with LBA vs ground target effectiveness. We're bombing entire bases here. The B-17 was used to take out much smaller targets in Europe all the time. Getting regular hits on a runway, port facility or troop concentration shouldn't be all that hard given a Norden bombsight and someone that knows how to use it.

Given a few practice runs to get the hang of it, I'd imagine I could probably throw a thousand marbels out the window of a Cessna at 6000 feet and probably hit something the size of a runway at least that many times. (Though I doubt the airport manager would appreciate it!)

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Snigbert
Yes a few betty's get shot down and you lose a few to operations losses, same happens with the B17, its got more engines, more armour self, sealing tanks, and a **** load more guns. But they still get them shot down damaged and suffer operation losses.

The difference is that the B-17 was a better aircraft than the Betty or the Nell, and it is reflected as such in the game. This bothers some people as being unbalanced towards the Americans. People who claim they want historical accuracy, but can't tolerate the manifestation of historical accuracy in the game when it results in one side being superior to the other.

I have posted AAR Snigbert, what a pity you decided to ignore it.

I haven't seen an AAR, or a link to the thread in either of your two recent threads where you've brought the subject up. If you expect people to go searching the forums to find evidence to support your assertion for you, then you're crazy. Provide us with the information yourself if you want to prove your point.

The difference between the B-17 in the game and reality is that the B-17 in REALITY did get shot down. Not mysteriously fall apart
during flight. Not get lost on the way home, but get damaged enough that the plane could no longer fly. It happened
to the B-29 also. In fact it happened enough that the Navy invaded Iwo Jima to secure a base close enough for
fighter escorts. THAT is the reality Snigbert, you simply chose to ignore it. Just like you choose to ignore the other posters that complaining about LBA as well. I wonder what the total B-17 lost to enemy action is. Anyone have a source?

As for performing to your satisfaction, when I get a public apology
I will consider it. Until then....

[CEDeaton]

Oh look! It's 4:10 pm on the east coast. High school must be out now.

[dwesolick]

Originally posted by Chiteng
It happened
to the B-29 also. In fact it happened enough that the Navy invaded Iwo Jima to secure a base close enough for
fighter escorts. Anyone have a source?

According to Kenneth Werrell in "BLANKETS OF FIRE: US Bombers over Japan During WWII", Iwo Jima was taken, not so much as a figher base, but as a safe haven for B-29s returning from Japan. According to Werrell, 82% of 29s landing on Iwo did so for fuel, not reasons of damage.

Further, of 513 B-29s lost by XX Airforce, only 148 were attributed to "enemy action" (flak, fighters, rammers). The rest were mainly due to operational causes. The Japanese air defenses (fighter and flak) were so inadequate that Lemay felt quite comfortable stripping the guns from the planes and sending them in at low level (as to whether the CREWS felt comfortable with this, well..... )

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by CraigDeaton
General Billy Mitchell's dried up old corpse just smiled so big that his lower jaw came loose!

Not sure I understand the major disagreement with LBA vs ground target effectiveness. We're bombing entire bases here. The B-17 was used to take out much smaller targets in Europe all the time. Getting regular hits on a runway, port facility or troop concentration shouldn't be all that hard given a Norden bombsight and someone that knows how to use it.

Given a few practice runs to get the hang of it, I'd imagine I could probably throw a thousand marbels out the window of a Cessna at 6000 feet and probably hit something the size of a runway at least that many times. (Though I doubt the airport manager would appreciate it!)

The major problem Craig, is that the bombers (not just B-17's) are able to do all that you described at the same time in UV.

If 100 bombers are attacking an airfield, and conditions are good. Yes, i think they'd have a good chance of making a alot of holes. Same goes for other facilities or say an anchored priority ship or close group of ships.

Not all at once though. Also, the prewar expectations on the pinpoint accuracy of the bombers, Norden or no-Norden proved to be overly optimistic, particuarily when it came to the SoPac theater. Add other variables such as weather, flak, CAP, fatigue, lack of exp etc etc and it got more and more muddied. Many a raid proved marginal to ineffective requiring a continuous and massive attrtional war that lasted two+ years. Right now you dont really see that.

Have no problem with high exp/veteran bomber crews that are well protected from CAP's (escorts!) and mindful of flak, scoring well, but even then, i dont expect them to cover an entire geographical area and hit every priority target there is. Its not realistic by any means.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by dwesolick
According to Kenneth Werrell in "BLANKETS OF FIRE: US Bombers over Japan During WWII", Iwo Jima was taken, not so much as a figher base, but as a safe haven for B-29s returning from Japan. According to Werrell, 82% of 29s landing on Iwo did so for fuel, not reasons of damage.

Further, of 513 B-29s lost by XX Airforce, only 148 were attributed to "enemy action" (flak, fighters, rammers). The rest were mainly due to operational causes. The Japanese air defenses (fighter and flak) were so inadequate that Lemay felt quite comfortable stripping the guns from the planes and sending them in at low level (as to whether the CREWS felt comfortable with this, well..... )

By late war, the loss ratio from combat/op loss ("accidents") had flip flopped entirely due to the distintigration and degredation of the Japanese air forces so the period makes for a poor example on bomber effectiveness.

Also the B-29 suffered numerous teething troubles after it's debut which created signifigant op loss issues. As such the figures posted above dont suprise me at all. I would expect such a battered airforce to be able to put up not much of a 'conventional' defense. Hence the need for "special" air corps like the Kamakaze

Same thing happened to the Luftwaffe, only slower.

[mogami]

Hi, I lose over a 100 B-17 every game (Scen 19) I don't fly in bad weather. I don't fly morale below 80. I don't fly fatigue over 10.
And I provide escorts when and where possible. (So my groups tend to fly once every 10 days)I fly at 9k (or higher) I don't lose 100 B-17 to operations. I lose them to enemy fighters and AA.

As Japan I shoot down B-17's (just never enough)

But I'll agree with Chineng on a few points.

I dont think well ever see
Warrant Officer Kiyomi Katsuki match his actual war record. (He shot down a B-17 while flying a Pete float plane off Chitose)(near Guadalcanal)
He finished the war with 16 confirmed kills (2 in Bi-plane) He shot down PBY, B-25 (He seems to have had a knack for shooting down scout/recon planes and flying boats and these things are not easy to shoot down)

The main use of the B-17 for me is to scare the Japanese out of using bases in range. (Don't let my recon spot ships in port in range of my B-17) Also they are very usefull for hitting airfields in range of where I intend on moving a TF.

When I first began playing PBEM it was an automatic that Zuikaku or Shokaku would be hit by a LBA strike. (The culprit then was usally a Hudson) I had a bad habit of lowering my CAP when I thought I was in secure waters. They never sank one of my carriers but for 3-4 PBEM in a row I always was sending one back to Japan before Aug 42. (I still get caught at least once a game no matter what side with my CAP down.)(Flying CAP also uses OP points and slows the TF down. When I'm on a high speed run I keep all aircraft in the hanger)

Erik R tore me apart with B-17's in our last game (pre fix) I wrecked the IJN trying to bombard the bases they were at.

(I did shoot a few down but often the airfield was so damaged I could never get enough fighters in the air.) It stinks when you have a group of Zeros with 27 ac and only 8-9 are flyable and B-17's are pounding you every turn. (This was the game that convinced me it was folly to build any airfield in range of B-17. You just trap your support units and airgroups for nothing. Now I build a cluster of smaller bases rather then the large monster base.

For awhile I was convinced the B-17 unbalanced the game.
Then I played 20 PBEM games Scenario 19 200 percent Japanese 100 percent USN all as USN. Since I don't employ the B-17 in the manner that I felt was unfair I was interested in seeing how large an impact it would make. (Since I thought I lost because of B-17, I assumed the Japanese would roll over me. Thats why I began so many games. I did not think they would last long.
I lost 3 out of 20. (The first one where Arto showed me how fast Japan can move) (Bosun to a surprise attack on Brisbane in Nov 42 Where he closed the airfield and sat with all his CV 1 hex away to keep the USN away. I had just ordered the garrsion to move to Rockhampton since another Div was coming in.)(Note to self. Increase scout planes in Rockhampton/Brisbane area)

Now the other games I did not win because the B-17 ruled the waves. It was because the Japanese do not have the staying power to engage in a slugging match for 19 months. They run out of stuff. (And many humans throw alot of stuff away for nothing) Now I guess if you add an allied player who uses B-17 to the mix it can make you angrey. But the B-17 are most likely not the real reason for Japan getting beat. (In the game with Erik I over reacted and threw my long range plan out the window and went on the hoof against him and lost the units I needed to win.
I should have prepared a lot more. (I ordered transports that were simply moving troops forward between my bases to sail to try to take Koumac. The escort and protection was Ad Hoc and failed so when it was over I had lost a lot of material for no purpose at all. (He always had time to see what was coming and since he was closer could react faster)

Oh Well. Just wanted to let Chiteng know that I do understand where he is coming from. I've been there. I've played a lot of PBEM since I first learned to hate the B-17. Now I see it is just part of a much larger monster. You have to win before the B-17 grow into Godzilla (I mean at start there are only 20 B-17 on map and no replacements. They can't destroy you) Kill them in the egg.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, I lose over a 100 B-17 every game (Scen 19) I don't fly in bad weather. I don't fly morale below 80. I don't fly fatigue over 10.
And I provide escorts when and where possible. (So my groups tend to fly once every 10 days)I fly at 9k (or higher) I don't lose 100 B-17 to operations. I lose them to enemy fighters and AA.

As Japan I shoot down B-17's (just never enough)

But I'll agree with Chineng on a few points.

I dont think well ever see
Warrant Officer Kiyomi Katsuki match his actual war record. (He shot down a B-17 while flying a Pete float plane off Chitose)(near Guadalcanal)
He finished the war with 16 confirmed kills (2 in Bi-plane) He shot down PBY, B-25 (He seems to have had a knack for shooting down scout/recon planes and flying boats and these things are not easy to shoot down)

The main use of the B-17 for me is to scare the Japanese out of using bases in range. (Don't let my recon spot ships in port in range of my B-17) Also they are very usefull for hitting airfields in range of where I intend on moving a TF.

When I first began playing PBEM it was an automatic that Zuikaku or Shokaku would be hit by a LBA strike. (The culprit then was usally a Hudson) I had a bad habit of lowering my CAP when I thought I was in secure waters. They never sank one of my carriers but for 3-4 PBEM in a row I always was sending one back to Japan before Aug 42. (I still get caught at least once a game no matter what side with my CAP down.)(Flying CAP also uses OP points and slows the TF down. When I'm on a high speed run I keep all aircraft in the hanger)

Erik R tore me apart with B-17's in our last game (pre fix) I wrecked the IJN trying to bombard the bases they were at.

(I did shoot a few down but often the airfield was so damaged I could never get enough fighters in the air.) It stinks when you have a group of Zeros with 27 ac and only 8-9 are flyable and B-17's are pounding you every turn. (This was the game that convinced me it was folly to build any airfield in range of B-17. You just trap your support units and airgroups for nothing. Now I build a cluster of smaller bases rather then the large monster base.

For awhile I was convinced the B-17 unbalanced the game.
Then I played 20 PBEM games Scenario 19 200 percent Japanese 100 percent USN all as USN. Since I don't employ the B-17 in the manner that I felt was unfair I was interested in seeing how large an impact it would make. (Since I thought I lost because of B-17, I assumed the Japanese would roll over me. Thats why I began so many games. I did not think they would last long.
I lost 3 out of 20. (The first one where Arto showed me how fast Japan can move) (Bosun to a surprise attack on Brisbane in Nov 42 Where he closed the airfield and sat with all his CV 1 hex away to keep the USN away. I had just ordered the garrsion to move to Rockhampton since another Div was coming in.)(Note to self. Increase scout planes in Rockhampton/Brisbane area)

Now the other games I did not win because the B-17 ruled the waves. It was because the Japanese do not have the staying power to engage in a slugging match for 19 months. They run out of stuff. (And many humans throw alot of stuff away for nothing) Now I guess if you add an allied player who uses B-17 to the mix it can make you angrey. But the B-17 are most likely not the real reason for Japan getting beat. (In the game with Erik I over reacted and threw my long range plan out the window and went on the hoof against him and lost the units I needed to win.
I should have prepared a lot more. (I ordered transports that were simply moving troops forward between my bases to sail to try to take Koumac. The escort and protection was Ad Hoc and failed so when it was over I had lost a lot of material for no purpose at all. (He always had time to see what was coming and since he was closer could react faster)

Oh Well. Just wanted to let Chiteng know that I do understand where he is coming from. I've been there. I've played a lot of PBEM since I first learned to hate the B-17. Now I see it is just part of a much larger monster. You have to win before the B-17 grow into Godzilla (I mean at start there are only 20 B-17 on map and no replacements. They can't destroy you) Kill them in the egg.

That doesnt solve the problem, and it ignores historical reality.
Fixing the model would be a better way.

WitP is not an isolated theater. If they actually have production,
REAL production, the artificial limit in UV (ie you run out of B-17)
wont apply. Every US player will simply jack up B-17 production
to match his losses.

Take the board game (SPI War in the Pacific) the B-17 effectiveness is the same as the Spitfire (in air to air combat)

in UV you can actually shoot down a Spitfire.


The whole point is that LBA are over emphasized. The CV are supposed to be the fearsome weapons of destruction.
NOT 9 lousy B-17 operating from a dirt strip.

[Snigbert]

The difference between the B-17 in the game and reality is that the B-17 in REALITY did get shot down. Not mysteriously fall apart during flight. Not get lost on the way home, but get damaged enough that the plane could no longer fly. It happened to the B-29 also. In fact it happened enough that the Navy invaded Iwo Jima to secure a base close enough for
fighter escorts. THAT is the reality Snigbert, you simply chose to ignore it. Just like you choose to ignore the other posters that complaining about LBA as well. I wonder what the total B-17 lost to enemy action is. Anyone have a source?
As for performing to your satisfaction, when I get a public apology
I will consider it. Until then....

Alright, since you are subtley shifting your complaint about the B-17 from their accuracy at hitting targets (which you have yet to provide any data or links to data for) to their survivability rate...do you intent to provide any data demonstrating that they have too high a survivability rate compared to historical losses? Or do you expect us to hunt down the data to support your argument for you? B-29 is a different plane which isn't in UV, so I dont see the relevance of the Iwo Jima argument.
I also dont see anyone else jumping to your defense (on the subject of B-17s being too accurate, or their survivability) in this thread or the previous one. Do you expect me to go searching the forum for people who support your argument, or should I just continue 'ignoring' them?
For some reason you seem to take my requests for data supporting your argument as an attack. I'm just not going to be convinced that you have a case unless you supply some evidence, and I'm not going to hunt it down myself. I have had over 100 B-17s lost in most of my games as Allies. I have not witnessed unrealistic accuracy from B-17s against naval targets. I can't imagine why I would be convinced by your argument when you have admitted that your tactic is to complain loudly in order to achieve some sort of perceived success that Mdiehl has achieved...
I'm not sure what I should apologize for either, for not providing your sources for you?

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Snigbert
The difference between the B-17 in the game and reality is that the B-17 in REALITY did get shot down. Not mysteriously fall apart during flight. Not get lost on the way home, but get damaged enough that the plane could no longer fly. It happened to the B-29 also. In fact it happened enough that the Navy invaded Iwo Jima to secure a base close enough for
fighter escorts. THAT is the reality Snigbert, you simply chose to ignore it. Just like you choose to ignore the other posters that complaining about LBA as well. I wonder what the total B-17 lost to enemy action is. Anyone have a source?
As for performing to your satisfaction, when I get a public apology
I will consider it. Until then....

Alright, since you are subtley shifting your complaint about the B-17 from their accuracy at hitting targets (which you have yet to provide any data or links to data for) to their survivability rate...do you intent to provide any data demonstrating that they have too high a survivability rate compared to historical losses? Or do you expect us to hunt down the data to support your argument for you? B-29 is a different plane which isn't in UV, so I dont see the relevance of the Iwo Jima argument.
I also dont see anyone else jumping to your defense (on the subject of B-17s being too accurate, or their survivability) in this thread or the previous one. Do you expect me to go searching the forum for people who support your argument, or should I just continue 'ignoring' them?
For some reason you seem to take my requests for data supporting your argument as an attack. I'm just not going to be convinced that you have a case unless you supply some evidence, and I'm not going to hunt it down myself. I have had over 100 B-17s lost in most of my games as Allies. I have not witnessed unrealistic accuracy from B-17s against naval targets. I can't imagine why I would be convinced by your argument when you have admitted that your tactic is to complain loudly in order to achieve some sort of perceived success that Mdiehl has achieved...
I'm not sure what I should apologize for either, for not providing your sources for you?

No Snigbert none of that applies. The argument between you and me YOU personalized. I didnt. I corrected you, and you still refuse
to admit that you were wrong.

I do not perform to anyone elses standards, I perform soley to mine. I have not changed my argument in any way. The B-17
is over emphasized in the game. THAT is my argument.
The invincibility of it, and its ability to hit ships moving at high speed are simply aspects of its over-emphasization.

Words like 'unreasonable' are subjective, they vary from person to person. The same can be true for 'unrealistic'.
Why should I accept your versions of what that means?
I have my own opinions =)

Mr. Frag and Nickodemus have made supporting posts. Possibly you missed them.

W/o a common and accepted standard for what 'proof' is,
trying to 'prove' something on this forum is a waste of time.
Evidence exists, you just dont see it.

[Ron Saueracker]

Chiteng!!! I think we understand your point of view. Why repeat it incessantly? What can be gained by constantly bringing up the same point? You now have NINE or TEN pages of attention. That should suffice.:rolleyes:

[Snigbert]

I've read Mr. Frag and Nikademus' posts, and they are pointing out that there is a problem in general with LBA. Neither of them are picking on the B-17, they have issues with AAA, High Altitude bombers, etc. As Nikademus says: The major problem Craig, is that the bombers (not just B-17's) are able to do all that you described at the same time in UV.


Your argument has been that the problem lies with the B-17 being indestructable and overly accurate. To quote you: The B-17 is over emphasized in the game. THAT is my argument.

I dont see how the two overlap? They see the problem being the LBA system, you have a problem with a specific plane model. Unless of course you want to change your point again to be more in line with what they are saying.

So, you see I have not ignored them, they are argueing a different point...one which I agree with more or less. I dont think the problem is something with the B-17, which you keep bringing up and beating away at.

What should I admit being wrong about?

A common and accepted method of proving something on this forum would be to run tests and compare the data to historical data. If you were able to provide this perhaps this issue would have made it into the discussion on the development board as a legitimate problem needed to be addressed.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Snigbert
I've read Mr. Frag and Nikademus' posts, and they are pointing out that there is a problem in general with LBA. Neither of them are picking on the B-17, they have issues with AAA, High Altitude bombers, etc. As Nikademus says: The major problem Craig, is that the bombers (not just B-17's) are able to do all that you described at the same time in UV.


Your argument has been that the problem lies with the B-17 being indestructable and overly accurate. To quote you: The B-17 is over emphasized in the game. THAT is my argument.

I dont see how the two overlap? They see the problem being the LBA system, you have a problem with a specific plane model. Unless of course you want to change your point again to be more in line with what they are saying.

So, you see I have not ignored them, they are argueing a different point...one which I agree with more or less. I dont think the problem is something with the B-17, which you keep bringing up and beating away at.

What should I admit being wrong about?

A common and accepted method of proving something on this forum would be to run tests and compare the data to historical data. If you were able to provide this perhaps this issue would have made it into the discussion on the development board as a legitimate problem needed to be addressed.

Well as a wargammer, I have a solution to misuse of other plane types. I shoot them down. An imperfect solution to be sure,
but far easier than trying to get Matrix to solve the issue.
However....with the B-17, that isnt an option. As the Jap I have no means NOT EVEN bombing allied airfields that will destroy
enough B-17s to stop them from being used in an anti-shipping role. CAP is a joke Flak is a joke.

Yes some B-17 are lost to operational losses YES that is true,
but it ISNT something the Japs can influence.

Thus there is no counter to the B-17 in a game context. They are invincible.

Other LBA I can at least ambush. That is why I am far less concerned.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
Chiteng!!! I think we understand your point of view. Why repeat it incessantly? What can be gained by constantly bringing up the same point? You now have NINE or TEN pages of attention. That should suffice.:rolleyes:

I didnt ressurect this thread. Aim your remarks at those who did.
I have attacked no one. I will however defend myself.

[Snigbert]

I'd look forward to your apology, if I thought you were capable.