Heavy Bomber Losses

[Djordje]

Speedy, can you do a new test, same as before, just this time set B17 exp to 80 and Zero exp to 45? This should represent most of the mid war battles, once Japanese have lost most of their trained pilots.

[Speedysteve]

Hi Djordje,

I can do that.

Regards,

Steven

[Speedysteve]

Question for the testers, mods, makers etc -

Do you want me to continue tests on this or is the general concensus all is working as should be historically? I can and will do more tests if wanted but if not I won't waste my time and will devote more time to PBEM [8D]

Regards,

Steven

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Please list even three examples of a "Group-sized" bomber raid that suffered losses on the scale
shown in SPEEDY's tests (25 to 33% bomber casualties with loss ratios of 5-8 : 1).

I'm going to turn that one around on you Mike ...

Please list even three examples of a group sized bomber raid while Japan still had an airforce.

FRAG. So you are saying you couldn't find even ONE example to back up your claims?

Not sure how you turned this into a question of raid size from a discussion of wildly inflated loss ratios, but after I've had a day's sleep I'll try to find you some examples of both size and losses from the real world to disprove your assertions. We're talking about raild of under 100 A/C that actually met Japanese opposition? And I assume you mean before mid 1943 by "while the Japanese still had an airforce"---implying they still had a reasonable number of trained pilots?

It will give me something to do at work tonight..., 12 hour shifts tend to drag.

[asdicus]

I would like urge matrix to be very cautious about messing with the allied heavy bomber loss rates and effectiveness. In my opinion the game should be left alone in this area - my reasoning is simple - high loss rates compensate for excessive aircraft production.

In scenario 15 b-17 e production is 75 planes a month I believe or 900 planes a year for the whole war. You can see the real production figures for different us army aircraft from

http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/wwwroot/wor ... _war2.html

check out table 76 from the air forces statistical digest

In 1941 b-17 production was 144 planes, 1942 1412 planes and 1943 4179 planes. It would be fair to assume the vast majority of these planes either went to europe or were kept in the usa for training. Instead of 75 planes a month 25 planes a month or even less would be a more sensible estimate for scenario 15 replacements.

Any excess loss rate for allied heavy bombers is easily compensated by these excessive replacement rates. As it is unlikely that the number of replacements will be changed the game should be left alone for the sake of a fair contest.

[Speedysteve]

Hi Asdicus,

If production and losses are too high then shouldn't it potentially be looked at?

Regards,

Steven

[Sardaukar]

Speedy: I ment with Oscars to try with aircraft that should have very hard time to shoot down B-17 due to their armament no matter what experience. If they still can destroy lots of B-17, then it's bit of concern. Maybe B-17 etc. armour needs to be upped ? Or durability..or...well, I donno [:'(]

Cheers,

M.S.

[Mr.Frag]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Please list even three examples of a "Group-sized" bomber raid that suffered losses on the scale
shown in SPEEDY's tests (25 to 33% bomber casualties with loss ratios of 5-8 : 1).

I'm going to turn that one around on you Mike ...

Please list even three examples of a group sized bomber raid while Japan still had an airforce.

FRAG. So you are saying you couldn't find even ONE example to back up your claims?

Not sure how you turned this into a question of raid size from a discussion of wildly inflated loss ratios, but after I've had a day's sleep I'll try to find you some examples of both size and losses from the real world to disprove your assertions. We're talking about raild of under 100 A/C that actually met Japanese opposition? And I assume you mean before mid 1943 by "while the Japanese still had an airforce"---implying they still had a reasonable number of trained pilots?

It will give me something to do at work tonight..., 12 hour shifts tend to drag.

Mike, I'm not the one complaining about loss rates being too high. I don't need back up my claims as I am not making any claims here. You tossed down a gauntlet to me and in going through the mission logs for the USAAF (which lists every single flight flown) I don't see any group level activity which is the complaint here. If someone wants to provide data that shows otherwise, I'll look at the results, but this is just another one of those threads based on thin air with no historical references at all.

When questioning something, two things are required:

a) a historical reference showing the activity actually took place.
b) results in game showing the large difference in results consistantly.

When not providing a), there is little point tossing off 5 pages worth of posts about b) as it is just conjecture.

I have simply requested a) be provided as I can't find any of them. You turned it around that I had to prove a) didn't happen [:D]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent


I agree heavy bombers are too high, but their replacement rates are even too much higher.

And the Luftwaffe kill ratio vs US heavy bombers was over 3 to 1. What really hurts the Luftwaffe was the escorts ?

Most of the heavy bombers actions in RL were one BG or less vs one Daitai/Sentai or less. Essentially because in RL aircraft, and especially heavy bombers, were more difficult to support than in WITP. So both sides were unable to fly as much as we do in the game.

You could very well be right about inflated replacement rates. You are certainly correct about the relatively small (compared to Europe) size of the air actions in the Pacific. 50 heavy's would have been a "massive raid" in the 1st year of the war, and 50 fighters a large response. The big raids in the game are another unfortunate result of the designers choice to make basing and support BASE related rather than dependent on the size of the A/C. Only a few bases can be built up to fully support heavy bombers in the game, but once they are built, hundreds can be based there. So operational raid size is automatically concentraited.

I would dissagree with you over the bomber-fighter loss ratio in Europe. What I've seen says it was closer to 1 to 1. But in either case, the comparison is not really that valid because in Europe the bombers were flying over hundreds of miles of enemy controlled territory and bases and the attacks could continue for hours with the fighters rotating up and back, sometimes attacking 2-3 times during a raid. In the Pacific, many raids weren't even intercepted because of lack of warning---and if interception took place it was a limited time event. The whole "intensity level" depicted in the game is about an order of magnitude too high.

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
I would dissagree with you over the bomber-fighter loss ratio in Europe. What I've seen says it was closer to 1 to 1.

I agree Mike. The average figure is closer to 1:1. There are individual combats where the ratio is 3 or even 4:1 but not the average.

As I say though i'm not going to beat a dead horse. If the makers, mods etc want me to do more testing and see a purpose of it I will if not then I will continue playing my PBEMs. I will await their response.........

Regards,

Steven

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag


Mike, I'm not the one complaining about loss rates being too high. I don't need back up my claims as I am not making any claims here. I have simply requested a) be provided as I can't find any of them. You turned it around that I had to prove a) didn't happen [:D]

Actually Frag, you are making a claim. You are claiming that the inflated loss ratios in the game ARE accurate. I am saying they are not. Both are "claims" which require support to be believable. I'll see what I can do to back mine up tonight.

[Mr.Frag]

Actually Frag, you are making a claim. You are claiming that the inflated loss ratios in the game ARE accurate. I am saying they are not. Both are "claims" which require support to be believable. I'll see what I can do to back mine up tonight.

Ok, want to play it that way eh? [:D]

My *claim* is that these air battles never even took place therefore the results have no historical data to base the "in game" results against. This means they are neither correct nor incorrect.

The same holds true for a lot of threads discussing things. They never actually happened therefore the results have no basis in fact so they cannot be anything other then the opinion of a collection of folks of what might have happened.

The latest batch of PH threads are a classic examply of this. According to history, the USA made every mistake humanly possible to aid the Japanese in pulling off the results they got ... this is akin to them rolling a perfect string of snake eyes on the dice. Realistically, this is a one in a million result yet look at all the complaints that suddenly people are not sinking 6 BB's [:D]

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag



Mike, I'm not the one complaining about loss rates being too high. I don't need back up my claims as I am not making any claims here. You tossed down a gauntlet to me and in going through the mission logs for the USAAF (which lists every single flight flown) I don't see any group level activity which is the complaint here. If someone wants to provide data that shows otherwise, I'll look at the results, but this is just another one of those threads based on thin air with no historical references at all.

When questioning something, two things are required:

a) a historical reference showing the activity actually took place.
b) results in game showing the large difference in results consistantly.

When not providing a), there is little point tossing off 5 pages worth of posts about b) as it is just conjecture.

I have simply requested a) be provided as I can't find any of them. You turned it around that I had to prove a) didn't happen [:D]

Hi Frag,

As I originally mentioned when I started this topic I just wondered if they were too high or not. As mentioned I don't have detailed figures to hand of PTO. I was basing my thoughts/queries on the durability of heavy bombers per se and my knowledge of ETO. Based upon that I carried out my tests on unescorted bomber raids.

I'm not here to p*ss peeps off or to moan for the sake of moaning. As i've postulated above if you and the other mods, testers, makers think all is well and good considering the historical situation of PTO then thats cool i'll leave it well alone.

In short, all i've wanted to know is the A2A model correct based for heavies vs fighters based upon historical principles? If so great. If you think it needs tweaking i'm here to help by doing tests etc if needed.

Regards,

Steven

[Nikademus]

We dont think your pissing and moaning Steve. We have plenty of examples of those that would qualify as pissing and moaning. I'd say we're experts at telling the difference by now [;)] [:D] [:'(]

[Mr.Frag]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag



Mike, I'm not the one complaining about loss rates being too high. I don't need back up my claims as I am not making any claims here. You tossed down a gauntlet to me and in going through the mission logs for the USAAF (which lists every single flight flown) I don't see any group level activity which is the complaint here. If someone wants to provide data that shows otherwise, I'll look at the results, but this is just another one of those threads based on thin air with no historical references at all.

When questioning something, two things are required:

a) a historical reference showing the activity actually took place.
b) results in game showing the large difference in results consistantly.

When not providing a), there is little point tossing off 5 pages worth of posts about b) as it is just conjecture.

I have simply requested a) be provided as I can't find any of them. You turned it around that I had to prove a) didn't happen [:D]

Hi Frag,

As I originally mentioned when I started this topic I just wondered if they were too high or not. As mentioned I don't have detailed figures to hand of PTO. I was basing my thoughts/queries on the durability of heavy bombers per se and my knowledge of ETO. Based upon that I carried out my tests on unescorted bomber raids.

I'm not here to p*ss peeps off or to moan for the sake of moaning. As i've postulated above if you and the other mods, testers, makers think all is well and good considering the historical situation of PTO then thats cool i'll leave it well alone.

In short, all i've wanted to know is the A2A model correct based for heavies vs fighters based upon historical principles? If so great. If you think it needs tweaking i'm here to help by doing tests etc if needed.

Regards,

Steven

I understand Steven, this is the basis for many such threads. Someone does something and feels it to be too high or too low when they get the result.

The key to finding the answer is to dig into history and see if that type of activity happened. If it did happen, and it happened more then once can an expected pattern of results be drawn for the purposes of tuning?

In this case, we are dealing with large raids of bombers against protected targets. Historically it did not appear to happen in a timeframe that would provide valid data. Historically, no commander with half a brain would risk aircraft and aircrews in such a manner (which is why the game is programmed to have morale plummet into the 20's).

Now we get to what should the results be and this is a much tougher question as there is no historical data available. You have on one side that the heavies were capable of taking a great deal of abuse and still making it back to base (the fact that many never flew again is removed from the history books due to how the USA counted operational losses).

You have on the other side that Japan while not being the smartest kid on the block for starting a war they could not win did have aircraft and pilots capable of shooting down aircraft given enough time and warning. It was not their best skill certainly, but that also does not mean that the Allies could have simply stopped producing fighters and built nothing but heavy bombers as they were more effective then fighters at shooting Japanese down. [:D]

Somewhere in the middle of these two extremes, one picks what seems reasonable for what is actually a really silly action. (sending large numbers of slow bombers against protected targets).

a) Morale plummets
b) neither side takes excessive losses

Now we get into the second part of the problem:

Players ignore the fact that their morale has plummeted and *continue* this silly action. Morale can't plummet further as it has already cratered. Now what? The only option is to cause losses.

Decreasing the losses is effectively a request to reward silly play. Why would you want to reward silly play?

[Speedysteve]

Hi Nik,

I should think you guys are [;)]

Is it worth me doing more tests on this or does all seem cool at your end?

P.S. I have just found some stats on USAAF wbiste on number of sorties in PTO. I was shocked at hoe few heavy bomber sorties were flown in general! [X(]

Regards,

Steven

[juliet7bravo]

Balls.

"Please list even three examples of a group sized bomber raid while Japan still had an airforce"

I believe the number mentioned was "64+ AC". Attacks on Rabaul. Operation Galvanic. Philippines prior to being invaded. Java. Ie Shima from Saipan/Tianian. Those are just off the top of my head, and none of these are exactly unknown or obscure. Rabaul probably the best example of large scale hvy/medium bomber attacks in the teeth of fierce Japanese resistence from fighters and both ship/ground based AA...far worse than anything discussed here, and the casualties were nowhere as high IIRC.

"Small scale unescorted raids"...went on all war, in every corner of the theater. Extremely common. Anything from single ship to virtually any number you care to choose, and in any role you care to choose. Snooper, interdiction NI, photo recon, bombing...whatever. Could start with the long range air attacks on GC by B-17s prior to the Marines landing if you want a specific instance, that's familiar and easily ref'ed. Complete with Japanese interceptors (even RUFES! Which incidentally DID NOT achieve an 11-1 kill/loss ratio against B-17s in actual low/mid-altitude combat...more like 1-1 when a RUFE accidentally rammed a B-17 on its way down IIRC).

And Mike...it doesn't matter what historical figures you come up with, or what the results of testing are. The end result will just be more misdirection coupled with willful ignorance.

[Speedysteve]

Hi Frag,

I respect what you say and to be honest from the data i've just seen on sorties of heavy bombers i'm beginning to think maybe there wasn't a lot of large unescorted heavy bomber missions in PTO.

I see what you're saying its kinda hard to model something that didn't happen historically yet us as players can attempt to play ahistorically = results that seem skewed since predicted results are based on an ahistorical situation.

I certainly saw morale plummet in these missions and losses on the 2nd consecutive day seemed to rocket.

This has been a good eye opener for me. In my Allied PBEM I will not be conducting a lot of large unescorted heavy bomber raids.

One thing has made me realise though is if you need any testing done I actually quite enjoyed it. So fire away if you want anything tested (financial compensation would logically follow [;)])

Regards,

Steven

[Nikademus]

Well if your asking me personally.....I'd recommend not knocking yourself out with more tests unless you really enjoy it. [;)] Lots of tests on this have already been done and posted internally and the issue is admitedly a complex one because as Frag and another intuitive poster already commented, tweaking bomber losses affects game play on a number of different levels. I recall the UV days and the things that players could do with unescorted raids.

That said, as far as the losses themselves are concerned. my opinion can be found in the AAR sub-forum. (beer wars) [;)]

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Well if your asking me personally.....I'd recommend not knocking yourself out with more tests unless you really enjoy it. [;)] Lots of tests on this have already been done and posted internally and the issue is admitedly a complex one because as Frag and another intuitive poster already commented, tweaking bomber losses affects game play on a number of different levels. I recall the UV days and the things that players could do with unescorted raids.

That said, as far as the losses themselves are concerned. my opinion can be found in the AAR sub-forum. (beer wars) [;)]

Hi Nik,

As I say i'm now, after a bit of searching, beginning to think large unescorted heavy bomber raids were not the norm in PTO.

I'm willing to do testing on other stuff if need (provided financial compensation follows [;)])

P.S. I've read your AAR and i'm sceptical of your views. I quote "Dont worry......forces heading towards Pearl, Karachi and Sydney even as we speak!". Are you insane? [;)]