How to get Tinian in shape for B-29's

[String]

ORIGINAL: jomni

Yup building 3 levels beyond max is possible but it takes more time than usual.
So the question is, can you hold the island once the US starts their invasions?

Yes, sure, they have unlimited troop limits. But if you pour everything into those islands, then be prepared to lose everywhere else and have them turned into nice big POW camps.

[JohnDillworth]

Regardless, I agree that the rules seem to preclude the possibility of launching the big raids that historically occurred.

well that is the thing. this is not a theoretical discussion of what might have been. the big raids were launched from Tinian. Therefore the ability must have existed. So to discuss if the correct base size is silly. It actually really happened, many many times. Therefore the base size, in actual practice, is higher than represented in the game. Hawaii never actually launched these raids so the theoretical discussion might take place for that base. But there is no doubt massive raids were launched from Tinian that can not be presently replicated in the game.

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Regardless, I agree that the rules seem to preclude the possibility of launching the big raids that historically occurred.

well that is the thing. this is not a theoretical discussion of what might have been. the big raids were launched from Tinian. Therefore the ability must have existed. So to discuss if the correct base size is silly. It actually really happened, many many times. Therefore the base size, in actual practice, is higher than represented in the game. Hawaii never actually launched these raids so the theoretical discussion might take place for that base. But there is no doubt massive raids were launched from Tinian that can not be presently replicated in the game.

Its not so simple as that in AE terms Tinian operated overstacked just look at this pictures with 250 B29s thats overstacked. Even if it were level 9 it still wouldnt launch massive raids the engine just doesnt do it. The fact that even with undamaged aircraft it took 3 days shows it was running into some real life limits.

Persaonally nothing should be level 9 unless it has at least 4 air fields ( not runways) .

[wwengr]

The B-29 Raids were launched from six different fields in the Marianas.

Tinian had the North Field which operated until March, after which operations were transferred to the larger West Field. At peak Tinian had no more than 1 Bomb Wing - 4 Bomb Groups composed of 12 Squadrons total (313th Bomb Wing until march, 58th Bomb Wing after).

Saipan had the 73rd Bomb Wing (similar composition) on Isley Field on Saipan. The Seventh Air Force had a handful of assorted squadrons on East Field in Saipan.

Guam had two Bomb Wings operating, 313th and 315th, on North Field and Northwest Field respectively. Also, Guam had a few Seventh Airforce Squadrons on Agana Field.

I think the issue isn't that Tinian is undersized in the Game, but rather Guam is undersized at SPS 5.

The Marianas B-29's operated for a period of 250 days flying the first mission on December 8, 1944 and the final mission on August 14, 1945. The largest single day was August 1, 1945 when 784 B-29's struck targets in Japan. The smallest day flown was on August 6, 1945 when 3 aircraft flew to drop the first atomic bomb.

During that 250 day period missions were flown on 116 days (134 days with no mission flown - 46% of days). Of the 116 days, 186 days had less than 100 aircraft flying missions about 75% of all days) (19 days had missions totaling 100-199 aircraft; 10 days had 200-299 aircraft; 5 days had 300-399 aircraft; 10 days had 400-499 aircraft; 10 days had 500-599 aircraft; and 2 days had greater than 700 aircraft.

References:

• United States Army Air Forces in the Central Pacific Area
• U.S. Army Air Forces in World War II: Combat Chronology
• Air Force Historical Research Agency

One other note: A large number of the missions flown were aerial mining, recconassaince, and naval search missions

[freeboy]

Those numbers are great, but remember Japan was not a target rich environment buyt hte end of the war, so in theory we could have seen much more should the need for them been in existance... my point being those numbers probably are not a good indication of potential if we are using history as our yardstick...
intersting though...

[wwengr]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

Those numbers are great, but remember Japan was not a target rich environment buy the end of the war, so in theory we could have seen much more should the need for them been in existance... my point being those numbers probably are not a good indication of potential if we are using history as our yardstick...
intersting though...

History is the yardstick here. If what you say was true, then we should have seen the operational tempo decrease toward the end. Exactly the opposite the tempo increased continuously and was at its peak in the days preceding the surrender of Japan. Curtis LeMay would rather have dropped bombs on rubble and ash than let up. The Generals were not sitting on their thumbs for lack of targets. Every effort was being made to drive Japan to capitulate and to that end, they were working all resources as hard they could. Massive resources were spent to keep the Marianas bases operating as fast as they could and they put every plane they could over targets in Japan.

Hundreds of planes were lost to "operationall losses" and in the historical narratives there were numerous examples of Tinian's operations being disrupted by a single aircraft mishap on the airfield. Why do the photos of Tinian show the field jam packed aircraft parked nose to tail between the runways? Look at a topo map. There was no where else to put them. There was barely space to move a single aircraft let alone move ammunition, crews, fuel, and maintenance vehicles too.

One thing is clear if you look at the chronology. The best tempo that could be sustained was a big attack about every three days, but that occurred only for short bursts. Here is the data set derived from the offical chronology. Have a look yourself.

[JohnDillworth]

Of the 116 days, 186 days had less than 100 aircraft flying missions about 75% of all days) (19 days had missions totaling 100-199 aircraft; 10 days had 200-299 aircraft; 5 days had 300-399 aircraft; 10 days had 400-499 aircraft; 10 days had 500-599 aircraft; and 2 days had greater than 700 aircraft.

OK,has anybody been able to reproduce those larger numbers? 35+ raids with over 100B-29's? I got a raid of 60 once from Calcutta but has anybody been able to regularly get 100+ b29 raids?

[Gunner98]

Haven't got there yet, but perhaps the real issue is that the sortie rate in WitP is high compared to RL so - given the size of the Marianas bases and the same 250 day time line - can you fly the same number of sorties (or more, or less) than historic? I agree that both Tinian and Guam are undersized based on historic fact BUT - if they were of historic size, would it unbalance or skew the end game?

B

[bsq]

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Of the 116 days, 186 days had less than 100 aircraft flying missions about 75% of all days) (19 days had missions totaling 100-199 aircraft; 10 days had 200-299 aircraft; 5 days had 300-399 aircraft; 10 days had 400-499 aircraft; 10 days had 500-599 aircraft; and 2 days had greater than 700 aircraft.

OK,has anybody been able to reproduce those larger numbers? 35+ raids with over 100B-29's? I got a raid of 60 once from Calcutta but has anybody been able to regularly get 100+ b29 raids?

Played through to October 45 before abandoning that game temporarily and I only once managed to get 120 B-29s over Tokyo using all 3 Marianas locations.

Even trying it by rotating groups or setting 2/3rds to rest I could not do it.

Here's what I think the in game issue is.

The airfields are over-stacked the moment you place more than a couple of Sqn's active.
Over-stacking causes:

• 25% of bombing missions to abort
• Higher than normal op losses
• Maintenance penalties

So the first point slews your ability to launch historical raids every three days because you have no idea what will launch (ie do you set 30% to ops or 40% to ops - to get 30% flying??)
The second point seriously degrades your ability to conduct any meaningful ops as your losses are so high.
The third point means that your damaged planes aren't ready when it's their turn again so your groups fly those that are (just off ops) adding more 'run of the mill' damage to those frames.

I have no idea why it was done, but for the airfields in the Marianas not to be able to support all the groups that were placed there needs to be explained in terms of the in game mechanics - because as things stand (whilst it may be WAD) it's not as it was IRL - even with figures that wwengr has come up with.

[Sardaukar]

Are you having Air HQ or several there? Air HQ with command range off 3 or more should alleviate some of the overstacking problems.

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: bsq



I have no idea why it was done, but for the airfields in the Marianas not to be able to support all the groups that were placed there needs to be explained in terms of the in game mechanics - because as things stand (whilst it may be WAD) it's not as it was IRL - even with figures that wwengr has come up with.

It CAN support them , the designer decoded hostorically some of these fields operated overstacked which i agree with. If they were in England or Hawaii with a bit of time to work the raids would have been far better organised and coordinated .

[bsq]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Are you having Air HQ or several there? Air HQ with command range off 3 or more should alleviate some of the overstacking problems.

Yes indeed, I have the XXI at Tinian and the XX at Saipan (the 7th AF is at Rota and there is a USN Command at Guam - can't recall which).
This gives me a maximum of 12 administered groups at these locations - about 1/2 of what is required and considerably less than there was IRL.

My reading of the rules is that only the best HQ adds its command rating to the group numbers - so as the best allied HQs have a command rating of 5, then that's all you can add.

[bsq]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

ORIGINAL: bsq



I have no idea why it was done, but for the airfields in the Marianas not to be able to support all the groups that were placed there needs to be explained in terms of the in game mechanics - because as things stand (whilst it may be WAD) it's not as it was IRL - even with figures that wwengr has come up with.

It CAN support them , the designer decoded hostorically some of these fields operated overstacked which i agree with. If they were in England or Hawaii with a bit of time to work the raids would have been far better organised and coordinated .

Saipan and Tinian served but one purpose in the war - to operate B-29s. They did so in such a fashion as vast tracts of the Japanese cities were obliterated.

I live in Lincolnshire, an area bigger than a single hex in WITP-AE, crammed full of airfields in WWII and it did not support anywhere near the number of bombers that Saipan, Guam and Tinian did.
The raids from the Marianas were coordinated, planned and executed properly. Nothing was done on a 'shoestring'. It housed a numbered air force, headed up by possibly the best architect strategic bombing that the US ever produced (Spaatz fans might disagree). The fact that crews flew once in three days probably had a lot to do with crew fatigue, maintenance and planning cycles (plan, bomb, BDA, plan etc) in the same way as it still does today.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: bsq


[
Over-stacking causes:

• 25% of bombing missions to abort
• Higher than normal op losses
• Maintenance penalties

Increased ops losses are determined by plane vs AF size, not by overstacking, I think.

What manual says about effects are:

p214
If a base has less Aviation Support than is required, level bomber offensive missions are reduced by 25%.

If an Airfield has too many aircraft (physical space) or groups (administrative) present, then the airfield is deemed overstacked. And is indicated by an ‘*’ next to the airfield.

An overstacked airfield affects how many aircraft can be launched, casualties from attacks and aircraft repairs.

A 9+ airfield does not suffer from overstacking.

An airfield can operate 50 single engine (or 25 two engine, or 12 four engine) planes per AF size or 1 group per AF size. The best Air HQ of the same command as the base which is within range can add its command radius to the number of groups that can be administrated, or if not in the same command, the nearest HQ will add ½ its command radius to the number of groups.
In addition, groups at rest or in training only count as 1/3 for the purposes of counting aircraft at the base, and don’t count at all against the number of of groups. Split groups only count as individual groups if they are attached to different HQs.

[Sardaukar]

So, apparently, those bases should be changed to be under command of that Air HQ, If I read that correctly.

[wwengr]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

So, apparently, those bases should be changed to be under command of that Air HQ, If I read that correctly.

Not exactly. The Command Headquarters that the Base and the Air HQ are attached to must be the same.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: wwengr

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

So, apparently, those bases should be changed to be under command of that Air HQ, If I read that correctly.

Not exactly. The Command Headquarters that the Base and the Air HQ are attached to must be the same.

Yes, I think you are correct. [8D] Even though changing the base under AirHQ would surely guaranteee that. [:D]

[wwengr]

ORIGINAL: bsq


...This gives me a maximum of 12 administered groups at these locations - about 1/2 of what is required and considerably less than there was IRL...

Look at this article and note the dates United States Army Air Forces in the Central Pacific Area

Tinian never had more than 12 squadrons located on the entire island at one time. The sole exception was the 509th Composite Group that had 15 planes. During their time on Tinian, they flew very few missions and only launched two or three planes when they did. Their sole purpose was to drop two atomic bombs on Japan. So, you could say that was 13 Air Groups on Tinian, at peak.

EDIT: I misread the dates. At peak, Tinian had 24 Squadrons in 8 Bomb groups plus the 509th composite, hence a total of 25 Air Groups physically located on Tinian.

Saipan had 12 squadrons of B-29's. For a short period of time early in the Marianas bombing campaign, 30th Bomb group had three squadrons of Liberators there, but these were moved out when the B-29 raids started to pick up. There were also 3 fighter squadrons, 2 night fighter squadrons, 1 photo recon squadrons, and 1 transport squadron on Saipan at points, but most were not there during peak B-29 ops.

Guam had 24 squadrons of B-29's at peak plus a hand full of other assorted squadrons. Guam is the base that is undersized.

[wwengr]

Including bombing, aerial mining, recon, and naval search missions, the operational tempo for June, July, and August produced daily average numbers of sorties of 128, 168, and 201 aircraft respectively (note that August was only 14 days). All three bases, built out to the maximum with an Air HQ will effectively allow a total of 33 active squadrons on mission status (plus count 1 at each base for all squadrons on training or rest) and 274 4E aircraft (87 on each of Tinian and Saipan - size 7' 100 on Guam - size 8).

Let's look just at August and ask is it possible to maintain daily strikes of 201 aircraft. Since aircraft in squadrons on training or rest count as 1/3, then the total number of aircraft that can be on all three bases is X = 201 + 73/(1/3) = 420 total B-29's (201 flying out of 420 - about half of all squadrons on rest on any given day). If you micro-manage your ops, it should be possible for short a short duration without over-stacking.

IRL - The B-29 Operations from the Marianas for lost 267 aircraft to Operational Losses (not due to combat). Also on any given raid over Japan more than 1/4 of all aircraft never made it to drop bombs on their assigned target. if you want to mimic what happened to the best extent possible, go ahead and overstack, but understand that the shocking number of ops losses actually occured and the high rate of mission aborts occured.

Understand that the algorithm is a complex model with both deterministic and Monte Carlo elements. If you understand a little about computer modelling and the nature of modelling complex systems, then you know that it is exceptionally difficult to build an algorithm that works very much like real life. It could be done, but then the AE team would be a bunch of professors at a large number of universities working with scientists at JPL and Sandia and AE would be due out in Septemeber of 2019 with an affordable price tag of only $27,921.13 per user license.

[JohnDillworth]

Tinian never had more than 12 squadrons located on the entire island at one time.

Still something missing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Field_%28Tinian%29. 265 hardstands were built in North field alone. So with an average squadron size of 10 planes there are more than 2 hardstands for each bomber? Even if we go with the 12 squadrons at 10 planes each that leaves a theoretical capacity of 120 bombers. At that is at North field alone. Add to that West field and Tinian should have been able to comfortably support 100 bomber raids day after day, providing the aircraft are available. Clearly, the game does not allow that.