B17 Losses too heavy

[doktorblood]

ORIGINAL: Toast

I actually had a recent similar experience as Japanese player in one of my PBEM. The Allied player flew two massive raids on Milne Bay and my Zero went up to intercept and damaged a large number of them. I am at work so don't have access to the combat reports but each raid was about 200 unescorted B-17's and I interrcepted with a about 50 Zero's and damaged over 45 in each encounter. Not that many were shot down (maybe one or two on each raid - but I may be remebering this wrong - the second raid was definitely 45 damaged and only one destroyed) but this was the combat reports with FOW on. My opponent, Arstavidios, can give a better idea of the final effects. But they must have been bad because he hasn't flown any raid like that in over two weeks. Kind of strange all these results are over Gili Gili.

I guess that is evidence that Ki-61, not A6m2 is the culprit in these shootdowns, which makes sense because it is much more heavily armed.

[testarossa]

Sorry for not being clear. Unarmed, outnumbered, surprised B-17 lost 1 a/c from 12. So, yes, B-17 losses are too heavy in WitP.

[Hornblower]

For what its worth, i haven't noticed any overly heavy b-17 or b-24 losses in my game. I think it comes down to how the player uses them- to a degree. For my part i commit them when they are rested, and then for only 3-4 days in a row before i rest them again. Often i'll have one group or squadron on and another off, then rotate. keeping my crews rested but still sustain the pressure on the target.

They almost always fly in the 15-20k alt area. The more opposition i expect the higher they go. And, if i suspect strong fighter opposition they don't go anywhere near the target without p-38 escorts.

[Lemurs!]

Remember this test is B17E's, which are not as tough or heavily armed as even a B17F, agaibst essentially FW190s. Remember the only Ki61 modeled in WITP is pretty much the last version with 4 excellent 20mm cannon. fairly heavy tough aircraft.
Good platform.

Mike

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Remember this test is B17E's, which are not as tough or heavily armed as even a B17F, agaibst essentially FW190s. Remember the only Ki61 modeled in WITP is pretty much the last version with 4 excellent 20mm cannon. fairly heavy tough aircraft.
Good platform.

Mike

Also, most of the E's that made it to the Pacific were the early models with the almost useless remote control ( Bendix ) belly turret, though I don't know if the game takes that into account ( it should ! ).

[scout1]

Also, most of the E's that made it to the Pacific were the early models with the almost useless remote control ( Bendix ) belly turret

Why useless ?

[ChezDaJez]

The gunner was in the fuselage near the waist gunners, not actually in the turret and used a system of mirrors to attempt to locate the enemy. He had a very limited field of view. So absolutely useless that only the 1st 113 B-17Es were built with them before converting to the Sperry turret.

One other thing, the Japanese discovered the same weakness in the B-17 as the Germans did... the nose. The enemy didn't need many hits to take out the pilots or a couple of engines from that angle, especially if 20mm cannon equipped.

It had only a .30 cal mg in the nose to defend against frontal attacks. Many units did unauthorized field work to install .50s there until the B-17F came along later that year. Boeing also sent kits out to the fields to upgrade the nose with a chin turret like the B-17G model in late 43.

Chez

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: scout1

Also, most of the E's that made it to the Pacific were the early models with the almost useless remote control ( Bendix ) belly turret

Why useless ?

Extract from following link http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avb171.html

The first B-17E rolled off the production line at the end of September 1941. Flight experience quickly showed that the remote-controlled belly turret was impractical. Trying to track an attacking fighter through a periscope was all but impossible, and much worse caused severe nausea and motion sickness.

The answer was to replace the remote-control turret with a Sperry "ball" turret with the 113th B-17E. The gunner crawled into the ball turret after takeoff and sat straddled by the two guns while aiming down between his legs. The ball turret could cover almost the entire lower hemisphere below the Fortress and could be directed accurately. However, it generally required a gunner of relatively small stature, and the gunner could not wear a parachute while he occupied it. Another disadvantage was that there was no room to store spent cartridges inside the turret, and the rain of cartridges from the ball turret could pose a hazard in formation flying.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Hornblower

For what its worth, i haven't noticed any overly heavy b-17 or b-24 losses in my game. I think it comes down to how the player uses them- to a degree. For my part i commit them when they are rested, and then for only 3-4 days in a row before i rest them again. Often i'll have one group or squadron on and another off, then rotate. keeping my crews rested but still sustain the pressure on the target.

They almost always fly in the 15-20k alt area. The more opposition i expect the higher they go. And, if i suspect strong fighter opposition they don't go anywhere near the target without p-38 escorts.

I asked this question two days ago. Now here's the answer. To model the last Tony as the first is goofy, especially in light of the way the company treats other planes--for example, the Hurricane.

Well, last Tony or first, B-17E or some other model, the results shown thus far in this thread are completely over the top.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Problem is that this thread was started by a JAPANESE player complaining that the loss rates were absurd..., and he was the one shooting them down!

As I recall it was similar the last time this cropped up, with a Japanese player wondering how his float planes could shoot down so many B-17s. And that was at Milne Bay, too, wasn't it?

My Rufes shot down 100+ heavies over Gili Gili in 2 months.

[tabpub]

Sounds like the Gili Gili Triangle in action to me....woooo..woooo..WOOOOO...<haunting ghosty sound>

[Tristanjohn]

The test will be delayed until I can run off a couple weeks (game time) of turns in order for half of Tom's B-17s which were at Cookstown to recuperate at Townsville, then for these to be ferried back to Cookstown for the assault on Milne Bay. The planes I sent back to Townsville were in sad shape--40/40 (morale/fatigue) and like that. When I run the test all B-17s will have morale equal to or greater than 70, with fatigue no greater than 10. That's how I operate my bombers in the game. I figure that helps to slow down the air system, plus it seems to give me good results--of course, I haven't had to fight japanese super planes yet, as my first PBEM was with Lemurs scenario 15 mod.

Just for the record, Cookstown looks like this: 100% support, Air HQ, supply >2x, airfield level 5, port level 4. So there are no culprits there. While the B-17s are getting healthy the airfield at Cookstown will be beefed up to level 6 (it's around a 73% build at the moment).

Anyway, the morale and fatigue of some of those heavies might have been part of the problem. Hard to say as I don't have Gary's air-to-air-combat formulas in hand. Let's just say it couldn't have helped.

However, the big bugaboo will probably turn out to be the Tonys represented in the game, and this is how that shakes out.

The game is in the first week of October 1942. Already there are Tonys on the board. Problem is the Tony didn't first see combat until the spring (one source says February) of 1943. So right away the game has it wrong in that department.

Just as bad, the Tony modeld is not representative of the first run of Tonys but rather some intermediate-to-latter run of Tonys. The model listed is Ki-61 KAIc, nomenclature I cannot verify with any source. Whatever model the game wants to simulate, it's on the board too soon and is decked out with armament the Japanese didn't have until late 1943, early 1944 as far as I know.

My information shows the Tony had a service ceiling of going on 38,000 feet. The game says it's only 32,810 feet. For the Ki-100 (again, presumably the 1945 model) the game assigns a service ceiling of 36,090. That may or may not be close to reality as I don't know how well the Mitsubishi engine performed at higher altitudes. I would assume it performed as well, if not better, then the early-model Tonys that were driven by licensed German liquid-cooled in-line engines, but I don't know that for sure. I do know the latter rendition of the Tony (somewhere over a hundred of them) were strong enough to catch B-29s at higher altitudes, which is a pretty good calling card.

Bottom line: per the norm it's all one big fantasy. The reinforcement schedule and OOB are mistaken. The game models two airplanes with curious nomenclature and both have the wrong specs, and one of these plane models appears several months too early. Just in time, in fact, to butcher B-17s over Milne Bay. Otherwise everything's peachy keen.

[Sharkosaurus rex]

My on-hand info about the Ki-61. I'll look for some other stuff too.

The inital production model was the Ki-61-I Model I, and delivery of planes started in Aug 1942. It was armed with 2x7.7mm and 2x12.7mm machine-guns. Successive improvements in the armament led to the Model IA with 2x7.7mm fuselage and 2x20mm wing-mounted cannons. Model IB had 4x12.7mm and Model IC had 2x12.7mm and 2x20mm, and Model ID 2x12.7mm and 2x30mm.

Total production of the Ki-61-I series fighters amounted to 2,734. It's first operational appearance was in April 1943 in New Guinea, and was encountered virtually all combat zones after that.

In Sept 1942, to offset certain maintenance difficulties encountered with the Ha-40 engine, Kawasaki began to evolve the Ki-61-II, utilising the new Ha-140 which promised to develop 1,400hp. The first Ki-61-II Model 2 were completed in Aug 1943- BUT difficulties with the engine and structural changes to the air frame prevented this model from further development. SO, attention was then devoted to the Ki-61-IIa Model 2A, with strengthened airframe and the wings and and armament of the Ki-61-Ic. The Model 2B had 4x20mm cannon. Only 374 Model 2s were finished due to heaps of production problems- one of which was making more airframes than were completed engines. So the Ha-112-II radical engine was fitted and the Ki-100 was born! The Ki-100 then took over production of the series.

Stats for the Ki-61-Ib Model IB:
max spd- 368mph @ 15,945
operational ceiling- 38,060ft
normal range- 373miles

[Hortlund]

What bothers me here is the complete absence of Matrix-staff.

Looks like when they cant obfuscate an issue with random bullshit (Mogamis ASW "stats" anyone?) they just ignore it until the thread drops off page one. Then a couple of weeks later when the topic resurfaces they'll just post something along the lines of "stop beating that dead horse, this was discussed ages ago".

I dunno, matrix has had a pretty good reputation for being good with patches and listening to customers. That goodwill is being burned up pretty rapidly over various issues in the latest releases. *shrug* its their company, they can do whatever they want. But right now they are bleeding goodwill.

[Sharkosaurus rex]

I have found some extra stuph from a Bill Gunston book:

Max speed:
Model I 348mph
Model II 379mph
Ki-100 367mph

initial climb:
Model I+II 2,200ft/min
Ki-100 3,280ft/min

ceiling:
Model I 32,800
Model II 36,089
Ki-100 37,729

range:
Model I+II 990-1,100 miles
Ki-100 1,243 miles

Armament:
Ki-61-Ia 2x20mm, 2x7.7mm
Ki-61-id 2x30mm, 2x7.7mm
Ki-61-IIb 4x20mm
Ki-100 2x20mm, 2x12.7mm, and 2x250kg bombs

History:
first flights service delivery
Ki-60 March 1941
Ki-61-I Dec 1941 Aug 1942
Ki-61-II Aug 1943
Ki-100 1 Feb 1945

Gunston says the prototype was completed in Dec 1941 and flew well, reaching a speed of 368mph. During the first half of 1942 the prototype was extensively tested, performing very well against a captured P-40E and a Bf 109E sent to Japan by sub. The sub also brought 800 Mauser MG 151 cannon. After some modifications to make servicing easier and to further increase manoeuvrability they went into action around New Guinea in April 1943.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Sharkosaurus rex

I have found some extra stuph from a Bill Gunston book:

Max speed:
Model I 348mph
Model II 379mph
Ki-100 367mph

initial climb:
Model I+II 2,200ft/min
Ki-100 3,280ft/min

ceiling:
Model I 32,800
Model II 36,089
Ki-100 37,729

range:
Model I+II 990-1,100 miles
Ki-100 1,243 miles

Armament:
Ki-61-Ia 2x20mm, 2x7.7mm
Ki-61-id 2x30mm, 2x7.7mm
Ki-61-IIb 4x20mm
Ki-100 2x20mm, 2x12.7mm, and 2x250kg bombs

History:
first flights service delivery
Ki-60 March 1941
Ki-61-I Dec 1941 Aug 1942
Ki-61-II Aug 1943
Ki-100 1 Feb 1945

Gunston says the prototype was completed in Dec 1941 and flew well, reaching a speed of 368mph. During the first half of 1942 the prototype was extensively tested, performing very well against a captured P-40E and a Bf 109E sent to Japan by sub. The sub also brought 800 Mauser MG 151 cannon. After some modifications to make servicing easier and to further increase manoeuvrability they went into action around New Guinea in April 1943.

Listen. The Tony was fundamentally a modified license-built Messerschmitt Bf 109E--indeed, it was mistaken for such by the Allies when first encountered over Papua New Guinea. (A mere glance at its profile should verify this much.) The engine that powered it was the Daimler-Benz fuel injected, supercharged DB 601A which developed 1,175 hp (at 2,400 rpm). Now this was a very good powerplant for its time, but even so it was late-1939 technology and only gave the 109E a top speed of 354 mph (at 12,480 feet) and a best climb rate of 2,990 ft/min up to 13,000 feet. Keep in mind the 109E weighed in at around 5,600 pounds (7,500 pounds loaded) and its endurance was just a shade over an hour of flight time. The Tony, with a considerably larger wing (about 40 square feet larger) weighed in at going on 5,798 pounds (some 7,700 pounds loaded) for the Ki-61 series and over that by the time the Ki-100 arrived. Also keep in mind that the power figures given are for take-off and emergency power up around 16,000 feet, and was only available to the Messerschmitt using 96-octane C3 fuel, something the Japanese did not have. At 25,000 feet the power output for the DB 601A engine dropped to 850 hp. What the power figure would have been with, say, 87-octane fuel or something like that is anyone's guess. I have no hard data for that kind of study--and believe me I've looked for it all over.

In any event, the Bf 109E, a lighter plane, had a cruising range of 412 miles at 62.5 percent rated power (249 mph), with an initial climb rate of 3100 ft/min and a service ceiling of 36,000 feet. Its fuel tank was 400 liters, or 106 U.S. gallons, which means it was consuming avgas at the rate 3.9 miles per gallon. The Tony incorporated a larger main fuel tank of 145 gallons, which means at best the Bf 109E might expect a range of less than 565 miles using that tank--but then you'd also have to figure in the added weight of this extra gasoline.

Gasoline weighs around 6.1 pounds per gallon, which will vary depending on additives and temperature. But just using that base figure, this adds another 238 pounds to the Tony's load over the Messerschmitt without the drops tanks. Add in the drop tanks, 53 gallons each, and the extra gasoline load comes to another 646 pounds.

So, we know 1) the avgas the Japanese used wasn't the best, 2) the Tony intrinsically weighed more than the Messerschmitt, so 3) the endurance figure of 565 miles for the latter would need to be discounted further. Exactly how much it needs to be discounted is impossible for me to say, but the conservative published endurance figure of 373/684 (w/2x drop tanks) miles sounds about right.

If we accepted Gunston's figure of 1,000 miles of endurance then the heavier Tony (especially with those drop tanks hanging from its wings) would need to get 4.4 miles per gallon, which would be an increase of 113 per cent over the Bf 109E--a lighter airplane using superior fuel[/i]. So we can see that isn't happening.

The first Tonys had no cannon but four MGs. Their effectiveness against heavy bombers was practically nil (about what you'd expect from a Zero) and the large reason why so many subsequent Tonys were configured in an effort to find an effective fighter interceptor. There were initially problems with the Daimler-Benz engine operating in the tropics, especially overheating and lack of enough power, but these issues were slowly addressed. The Mauser was a good enough cannon, but ammo was the issue, as it was somewhat esoteric (electrically fired) and definitely in short supply. The Ho-5 20mm took care of that eventually, but this required time.

The last Tony model (Ki-100 with the Mitsubishi radial engine) was available for Okinawa, and it seems less than 300 were built.

Anyway, as it evolved the Tony turned into a pretty good interceptor, and became, on balance, perhaps the best fighter plane the Japanese possessed during the war. But the Tony was not available in October of 1942, with 20mm cannon much less, and at no point in the war, no matter its armament, did it shoot down heavy bombers in droves, and its in-game endurance in hexes should be expressed more like 11/5/3 at best.

We need to get real here. All this self-gratuitous upgrading and early-arrival of Japanese airplanes, while more and more Allied aircraft I find to be downgraded to a rather silly extent, is beginning to turn me off big time to this game. There's a definite pattern to this ongoing nonsense, and it leads only to stupid play.

[Sharkosaurus rex]

I was just offering my meager on-hand reference info not trying to frudge an early entry on an aircraft type or give them freeze-rays.

I have the empty weight of an Ki-61-1 5,798lb, Ki-61-II 6,294, Ki-100 5,567
And the take-off weight of an Ki-61-I 7,659lb, Ki-61-II 8,4433, Ki-100 7,705lb

and the Bf109E-7 was 4,440 ib empty and 6,100ib for take-off. (this was the version equiped with provision for a drop tank.)

[Sharkosaurus rex]

The Germans were already using 87 octane fuel in their fighters during the Battle of Britain, having already used up most of their prewar stocks. Only the Bf110C-4 was still using the 96 octance C3 fuel in an effort to squeeze some extra performance out of the twin-engined plane.

The RAF was using 100 Octane fuel which produced a better performance for their planes. Giving the Spitifres and Hurricanes a chance to compete. When the RAF run into similar problems of using up their pre-war stocks they brought new quanilties from the USA (and the USA was only producing 40,000 barrels of it a day).

As Stalin once said,"It was a war of engines and octanes."

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

Listen. The Tony was fundamentally a modified license-built Messerschmitt Bf 109E--indeed, it was mistaken for such by the Allies when first encountered over Papua New Guinea.

Hi

don't know if this statement is true (and don't want and cannot dispute if you're right with this) but it seems to me that the Allies (or at least the Americans) were always assuming that they encountered German planes (or German license-build planes) when encountering Japanese planes that showed a good performance. As if the Japanese had not been able to produce some "advanced" equipment by using some own ideas or technological research[;)]!

Just noticed this when reading American reports about Japanese planes during WW2...

K

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

Listen. The Tony was fundamentally a modified license-built Messerschmitt Bf 109E--indeed, it was mistaken for such by the Allies when first encountered over Papua New Guinea.

Hi

don't know if this statement is true (and don't want and cannot dispute if you're right with this) but it seems to me that the Allies (or at least the Americans) were always assuming that they encountered German planes (or German license-build planes) when encountering Japanese planes that showed a good performance. As if the Japanese had not been able to produce some "advanced" equipment by using some own ideas or technological research[;)]!

Just noticed this when reading American reports about Japanese planes during WW2...

K

This was the one case in which they were right. The Germans sold the Japanese an Me-109, and Japanese engineers used the DB-601 as a prototype to design their own inline engine (variations were for ease of manufacture by Japanese firms---but still caused a lot of trouble because of the high tolerances and specs, and because Japanese A/C mechanics had no experiance working with inline engines of this sophistication.) The air frame was modified as well for Japanese manufacture. It really doesn't look all that much like an Me-109---but it looks SO dissimilar to other Japanese A/C designs that it's easy to see whay the Allies thought it was a German design.

TJ is right about it overall. In the game it arrives too well armed and far too dependeble.
IRL it was a "crapshoot" for it's first year---if the pilot got a "good one", then it was a reasonable match for current allied A/C. But he never knew when or if it was going to go "sour" on him and develop some kind of mechanical problem. About the only way to represent that in the game would be to have a die-roll at take-off and 30-60% randomly are sidelined for repairs. The rest are then good aircraft.