Matrix Games Forums

Let's face it, they lost to furballs w/ no discernable reproductive capability and a fleet w/ a squid for an admiral. The empire deserved to lose.

Huh? the empire won!

Whoops, watching star wars out of order again [:(]

ORIGINAL: pad152

Geez, I guess somebody never heard of Fighter Escort[8|].

It's funny nobody complains when unescorted Japanese bombers get hammered![&:]

Someone has to keep up the B17 invincibility myth don't they?

ORIGINAL: 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that shows otherwise, I'll look at the results, but this is just another one of those threads based on thin air with no historical references at all.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a) a historical reference showing the activity actually took place.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).

This happened all the time in Europe until the Mustang became available. And in the PTO the Allies regularly flew unescorted bomber raids with both medium and heavy bombers due to a lack of fighers with sufficient range until 1945.

You said "No commander with half a brain would risk aircraft and aircrews in such a manner." Is that so? Doolittle, Kenney, LeMay, none of these guys had half a brain, eh? It makes you wonder how the Allies ever managed to win the war--and in both theaters, too!

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).

There's all sorts of historical data available. The problem seems to be that 2by3 never bothered to get that historical data into its models.

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]

The Japanese didn't have the wherewithal that the Germans did in terms of rugged fighters and AA, yet according to the results someone brought to the board they experience many times better results.

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).

Again, your argument simply doesn't hold water. This was considered a rational act in World War II by the Allies and it gave war-winning results. You say the same thing when it comes to ASW combat: "Quit sending the subs close to ports, that's dumb!"

Really?

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.

Why does morale plummet so much? For that matter, why don't planes fly when they're told to fly? Did the Allies run their bombing programs according to democratic votes taken each morning or the night before? Is that the way it was?

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

You define historic play as silly. That doesn't make good sense. Does it?

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

THis isn't a one-way issue. If you want to see a real slaughter why don't you test an unescorted Japanese bomber strike and see what you get!

Huge difference! It was night and day between the medium (Japan didn't own a heavy bomber) flying-gascans the Japanese flew and the heavy bombers (or mediums, for that matter) the Allies flew.

Don't you realize that?

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Speedy

We all know what will happen with that. They will and should get slaughtered. A Betty ain't a Fort

True, but Betties wern't nearly as easy to bring down as most people think. Check out Frank's and Lundstrom's work on Guad. (in reference to the standard G4M raids on Lunga airfield)

I own Lundstrom's stuff and I've read Frank closely. I sure don't recall either one of those historians billing the Betty as anything other than what it was: a flimsy bomber that was very prone to explode when tracers got at its gas tanks. The rear gun was okay but as long as pilots avoided rear approaches they were more than okay.

The only true limiting factor on shooting down Bettys (assuming one caught them--they had decent speed) was the limited ammo carried, on F4Fs especially.

ORIGINAL: asdicus
…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…

Over 95% of all B-17 combat sorties were flown in Europe, and the last operation lose was on September 15, 1943.

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Hi all,

Here is the first set of tests results:

B24 vs A6M2

First set of tests - 2 BG vs 4 Daitai - multiple days of continuous action.

B24 exp - 57
Zero experience - 80

Altitude 15,000...

15,000? Did the B-17s normally fly combat missions at this altitude in 1942?


The 43rd Bomb Group

“…first year there, most of the bombing was from high altitude--as high as 30,000 feet where the B-17 could out-perform fighter planes and avoid antiaircraft fire…”

The 43rd Bomb Group

...By the end of January 1943 the 43rd Bombardment Group's aircraft strength had been greatly reduced as a result of the hard service the B-17's had seen for more than six months. Of the 55 B-17's on hand, approximately 20 were undergoing depot repair at all times. Perhaps 50 percent of the remainder were in daily combat mission, and a quarter of these were used regularly for reconnaissance flights. Consequently, there were no more than 14 planes for a striking force…

http://www.kensmen.com/

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
...IOW, he would be better off testing 5 B17's against 3 Zeroes?...

A few B-17s vs a small number of Japanese Army/Navy fighters was the historical norm during this period.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
...Secondly, no matter how unhappy a crewman might be about going up, shooting at people who are trying to kill you is an act of self-preservation, not morale…

[&:]


"The moral is to the physical as three is to one…"
Napoleon

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Let's face it, they lost to furballs w/ no discernable reproductive capability and a fleet w/ a squid for an admiral. The empire deserved to lose.

Huh? the empire won!

Whoops, watching star wars out of order again [:(]

Tut tut Frag. I kinda see the Empire like the Japs apart from the fact they didn't have the upper hand and shouldn't have won. The empire on the the other hand.....poor effort....poor.

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


[I own Lundstrom's stuff and I've read Frank closely. I sure don't recall either one of those historians billing the Betty as anything other than what it was: a flimsy bomber that was very prone to explode when tracers got at its gas tanks. The rear gun was okay but as long as pilots avoided rear approaches they were more than okay.

Then you didnt' read the books very carefully. A G4M was flimsy compared to a B-17. However they did not go down in droves per short burst as is often assumed by people whenever they entered combat.

The only true limiting factor on shooting down Bettys (assuming one caught them--they had decent speed) was the limited ammo carried, on F4Fs especially.

Such a statement could be said of any fighter aircraft when attacking a target.

ORIGINAL: 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.

Had a rotten day and night, and didn't get to as much research as I'd hoped by a long sight. But I did find one very interesting thing. Of ALL the B-17 C's, D's, E's and F's produced by the United States---the grand total that went to the Pacific with units and as replacements was 275. By the time the F's were coming on line, the decision had been made to use B-24's in the Pacific and reserve B-17 production for Europe.

These numbers certainly support your (and others) contention that B-17's are far to generously supplied in the game. Could explain why ahistorically large B-17 raids seem so common. In 1942, 3 to 20 would pretty much cover the spread as far as raid size by B-17's. Of course, the games loss ratios between Heavies and Japanese fighters is out of kilter as well. Hopefully both can be corrected.

Hi Mike,

I agree that the numbers of planes in supply seem to be a bit high as others have mentioned. This would lead to larger raids in the game like you say and as such would allow for operations and the war as a whole to proceed faster than happened.

However, I think Mike (?) alluded to that if too much was tinkered with it would have other consequences.

Regards,

Steven

6000 feet is for bases with no defenses or already pounded to bits. Even lighter AA could be effective at 6000 ft and your heavies do not maneuver well. More enemy fighters will be attacking from above, making both you and your excort which is at around 9000 ft less able to defend. This give them a tactical advantage. You should expect to get pasted. Get the bombers higher.

Hey

My B17 book says:
the 7th BG was moved to India after the Java campaign. It started on Java with 80 B17s of all versions and lost no fewer than 58 to enemy action or accident (including 19 destroyed on the grd).
The 4th, 11th, 19th, and 43th BG each had four sqds of 17 planes= 4x4x17=272 These units primarily used B17Es.
The B17s were phased out of the APcific war for the B24.
Rarely more than 50% of the units were ready for sorties on any given day. The elements and weather and jungle a/f didn't help ops. Of course ALL planes are operating in the same conditions, but the B17s were more complex and were more susceptible to the wear and tear and poor conditions.

During seven months of operations- the 11th BG lost six B17s to enemy action and 12 to the weather.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


[I own Lundstrom's stuff and I've read Frank closely. I sure don't recall either one of those historians billing the Betty as anything other than what it was: a flimsy bomber that was very prone to explode when tracers got at its gas tanks. The rear gun was okay but as long as pilots avoided rear approaches they were more than okay.

Then you didnt' read the books very carefully. A G4M was flimsy compared to a B-17. However they did not go down in droves per short burst as is often assumed by people whenever they entered combat.

Bettys tended to explode when tracers got into their gas tanks, that's what I wrote and that's what both Frank and Lundstrom wrote.

Do I need to go into Lundstom's Guadacanal book and quote chapter and verse? And is that the only author you have confidence in? This stuff is written all across the wide breadth of World War II history. It is no secret. It is common knowledge. Why do we have to have these arguments?

The only true limiting factor on shooting down Bettys (assuming one caught them--they had decent speed) was the limited ammo carried, on F4Fs especially.

Such a statement could be said of any fighter aircraft when attacking a target.

No, it could not be so stated, at least not accurately.

One of the limiting factors for Japanese fighters versus B-17s (or mediums like the B-25 for that matter) was the rugged quality of construction of these Allied aircraft as much as anything else. Add to that the relatively weak firepower of most of Japan's fighters (all of its early-war Navy fighters) vis-a-vis the sturdily-built bombers flown by the Allies. In point of fact the A6M2's MGs (7.7mm Type 97) were unsuited even for fighting the Wildcat much less a B-17, and its 20mm cannon was both slow-firing and inaccurate.

While we're at it, let's keep in mind the Japanese Army and Navy used different weapons and different ammunition. There was little cooperation between these two services, they went their own separate ways when it came to weaponry, and as a result the Japanese military had more types of guns and ammunition in service during WWII than any other belligerent.

The Army's 20mm cannon was better, for instance. The Type 1 (Ho-5), which replaced the Type 97 (Ho-3) might have been Japan's best fighter gun in service. It was based on Browning's .50 technology and had a rate of fire of 850 rpm (up from 400 rpm) with a muzzle velocity of 750 m/s, not completely bad. (By the way, that muzzle velocity represented a drop of 70 m/s from the Ho-3's 820 m/s due to the cartridge case being reduced from 125mm to 94mm in an effort to save weight. So there was a compromise in that respect.)

The IJN started the war with the 20mm Type 99 Model 1, a derivative of the Swiss Oerlikon F. This fired a heavy projectile but with a low rate of fire (490 rpm), and also a low muzzle velocity (555 m/s) which meant it didn't have much pentrating power. It was also innaccurate beyond 80 meters or so due its poor ballistic characteristics. A better variant of this gun was the Model 2. For this weapon the Japanese used the Swiss Oerlikon L as its starting point of development. It employed a bigger cartridge case (101mm long instead of the 72mm of the Model 1) and a longer barrel, which increased accuracy, plus the muzzle velocity was raised to a more acceptable 750 m/s. (And I believe they even increased the rate of fire of this weapon later in the war, but that's another matter.)

The thing is, the Type 99 Model 2 didn't come into service until the A6M5's arrived.

Meanwhile, F4F-4 Wildcats were armed with six very reliable Browning .50 M2 MGs (750 rpm, 870 m/s) which had superb hitting power and excellent ballistic characteristics and so they accurately poured a lot destructive firepower into targets at long range and tended to rip up whatever air object Japanese that was struck. There are accounts of entire wings being shaved off Bettys and Zeros from this .50 Cal fire--hell, there are pictures of this happening. Go watch the Military Channel one night.

Anyway, the Allied .50s were extremely destructive weapons--in fact, these are still in service today, and for both the M2 and M3 models. (The latter, developed after the war, increased the rate of fire to 1200 rpm.)

So, we have better Allied weaponry firing at relatively flimsy Japanese aircraft versus worse Japanese weaponry firing at Allied aircraft of much superior construction.

Is the image clearer?

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: 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.

Had a rotten day and night, and didn't get to as much research as I'd hoped by a long sight. But I did find one very interesting thing. Of ALL the B-17 C's, D's, E's and F's produced by the United States---the grand total that went to the Pacific with units and as replacements was 275. By the time the F's were coming on line, the decision had been made to use B-24's in the Pacific and reserve B-17 production for Europe.

These numbers certainly support your (and others) contention that B-17's are far to generously supplied in the game. Could explain why ahistorically large B-17 raids seem so common. In 1942, 3 to 20 would pretty much cover the spread as far as raid size by B-17's. Of course, the games loss ratios between Heavies and Japanese fighters is out of kilter as well. Hopefully both can be corrected.

Yes, the number of B-17s provided in the game is beyond reason. Not much research went into this . . . or . . . it was just another effort to make the game "more fun" to play. And the latter wouldn't surprise me, because the data you cite is more or less readily available.

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


Do I need to go into Lundstom's Guadacanal book and quote chapter and verse? And is that the only author you have confidence in? This stuff is written all across the wide breadth of World War II history. It is no secret. It is common knowledge. Why do we have to have these arguments?

Because you create them. I did not say for example that A G4M was as durable as a B-17 nor did i say that Lundstrom or Frank did not comment that the large gas tanks equipped with the G4M didn't make them flammable.

What I said was:

" Betties wern't nearly as easy to bring down as most people think. Check out Frank's and Lundstrom's work on Guad. (in reference to the standard G4M raids on Lunga airfield)"


G4M's did not go down in droves every or even most times that they engaged over Lunga airfield. They did not all "explode" instantly after a short burst nor did all the enemy bullets magically find their fuel tanks every time nor did said fuel tanks instantly explode every time they were pierced to create such pyrotechnics. Overall, the F4F's would pour fire into the G4M's which would damage them but they rarely didn't bring more than a couple down per engagement. Most made it back, but many with heavy damage and a good number written off on landing. Air combat in general is not nearly as bloody as most think. Thats the point Doc. Blood was making in his post and I agree with him. This viewpoint was also expressed by one Joe Foss....who when interviewed about his days over Lunga stated "Betties wern't so easy to bring down."

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


Do I need to go into Lundstom's Guadacanal book and quote chapter and verse? And is that the only author you have confidence in? This stuff is written all across the wide breadth of World War II history. It is no secret. It is common knowledge. Why do we have to have these arguments?

Because you create them. I did not say for example that A G4M was as durable as a B-17 nor did i say that Lundstrom or Frank did not comment that the large gas tanks equipped with the G4M didn't make them flammable.

What I said was:

" Betties wern't nearly as easy to bring down as most people think. Check out Frank's and Lundstrom's work on Guad. (in reference to the standard G4M raids on Lunga airfield)"


G4M's did not go down in droves every or even most times that they engaged over Lunga airfield. They did not all "explode" instantly after a short burst nor did all the enemy bullets magically find their fuel tanks every time nor did said fuel tanks instantly explode every time they were pierced to create such pyrotechnics. Overall, the F4F's would pour fire into the G4M's which would damage them but they rarely didn't bring more than a couple down per engagement. Most made it back, but many with heavy damage and a good number written off on landing. Air combat in general is not nearly as bloody as most think. Thats the point Doc. Blood was making in his post and I agree with him. This viewpoint was also expressed by one Joe Foss....who when interviewed about his days over Lunga stated "Betties wern't so easy to bring down."

In a relative sense they did go down in droves--relative to B-17s. For sure Wildcats shot down more Bettys than Zeros shot down B-17s, and it was much easier for them to do so.

I agree air combat was nowhere near as bloody as WitP paints it, but then I've been telling everyone who'd listen that the air model is off. By plenty. Who's that guy who opioned the other day that the air model is one of the best things about the game? What a joke!

Anyway, I haven't complained about the results of Japanese fighters vs. B-17s in the game. Yet. My comments are based on the results shown by the guy who started this thread, assuming those are accurate. If and when I'm convinced the results in the game from my own play are off, I'll start my own thread.

My object in this thread is to keep the discussion on track. If possible. And it ain't easy. Because there's a lot of stuff being said around here that just isn't so. Typically. [8D]