Posted by Chiteng
"This was the first I'd seen that you were quoting him. I'd seen a post elsewhere in which you were "flatly stating it" as an established fact without a reference to Morrison."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So?
It was an observation.
Had I seen you mention that your view of this particular element of UV's "unreality" was based around S. E. Morisons "statement", I could have pointed out from the beginning that the view was not factually correct.
Instead, I was allowing for the possibility that the opinion was your own and may well have been based on a solid knowledge of all available sources on the subject. In effect, that you may have come across some evidence that disproved the examples I knew of and showed that only one ship was really ever hit.
The facts are then, that small groups of B-17s operating at medium to high altitudes were able to hit naval targets that were underway on multiple occasions. The fact that several of these targets were warships of various sizes should show you that your original AAR (which involved a single hit on a slow moving transport) was entirely feasible when compared to history. If they did hit warships underway, they could (and did) hit moving transports.
I do think that large CAP and Flak concentrations should have a greater effect on strike accuracy. I do think that there should be a chance of damaged aircraft aborting their run, rather than leaving it to just a morale failure. I do think that heavy bomber use below the 6k mark should require some form of special training before being allowed. I do think that the ability of heavy bombers to routinely smash bases with ease should be at least reviewed by 2x3/Matrix, as should the current way that fatigue affects are handled for very long range strikes.
These are just my preferences which I think would improve the historical feel of the game but I can live without them.
As to the 6k + altitude anti-shipping strike accuracy for B-17s, I don't see them regularly getting hit rates that differ from the historical.
You personally may not like it but to change that aspect to your satisfaction would just mean we would be left with results that aren't historical, something you've argued against the whole time.
Posted by Mogami
Now I'm not really sure what the complaint is. In my PBEM games (I am allied in all currently active games) I have only flown perhaps a half dozen naval strikes with B-17's (the smallest contained 60 bombers the largest 104-my attempt to use the weapon as designed) The most bomb hits I've seen for a single mission was 4. (TF in port not open water)(range 19)
That's been my experience as well. As part of the UV 2.3 beta test, I ran a series of ten strikes of 100+ B-17s (all with 75+ exp and starting fatigue 0) at 6000 ft from Cooktown against an IJN CV force sitting in Port Moresby. The CV TF consisted of all of the main 6 IJN fleet carriers and 9 DD escorts.
To ensure that the (unescorted) B-17 strikes would launch, no Japanese CAP was put up, the only defence was the TFs flak.
Of the 10 strikes -
5 missed all the ships in the TF
2 reported that they hit a CV but in fact inflicted no damage at all
1 strike managed a single hit on a DD (50% damage)
1 got a single hit on a CV which caused only 11 sys damage
1 got a single hit on a CV which caused 30% damage with very minor fires and flooding.
Each strike would cost the USN an average of 8 B-17s destroyed with another 40 damaged. This, combined with a fatigue of 50+, would effectively leave the B-17 force incapable of any major effort for several days (which is why each mission had to be started by re-loading a save of the turn prior to any strike).
Hardly an effective way of hurting a CV TF.
A similar set of tests that I ran for strikes at 100 feet were a strange affair. The only targets attacked in the CV TF were the 9 DDs which the B-17s both strafed and occasionally hit with bombs (normally 2/3 of the DDs suffered med damage through to being crippled or sunk). Not only did the CVs avoid being attacked, the US suffered an average loss of 20+ a/c destroyed and 60+ damaged. Fatigue was once again high with morale plummeting into the teens.
When the tests were run at 1000 ft, the trade off for the US was at it's best. While the B-17s would regularly have about 20 a/c destroyed and 60+ damaged, they would normally manage to hit 2 CVs, sometimes with as many as 2 or 3 bombs. This is the point when you were glad that most IJN CV TFs would probably be well escorted, have good CAP and normally not be sitting docked in a port that's well in range of allied strikes.
