Heavy Bomber Losses

[Speedysteve]

Affirmative

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Affirmative

Test it hard., Speedy. But you are going to find that the game gives unrealistically high losses to the US heavies---and unrealistically low losses to Japanese fighters attacking them. The results you will get will be just as silly as the results that had the heavies blasting TF's at sea..., and had everyone complaining. But since the problem you are talking about is Pro-Japanese, you will probably see very little support for your complaint.
I wish you well.

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Affirmative

Test it hard., Speedy. But you are going to find that the game gives unrealistically high losses to the US heavies---and unrealistically low losses to Japanese fighters attacking them. The results you will get will be just as silly as the results that had the heavies blasting TF's at sea..., and had everyone complaining. But since the problem you are talking about is Pro-Japanese, you will probably see very little support for your complaint.
I wish you well.

Hi Mike,

We'll see how the tests go. I don't class myself as either an Allied or Japanese fanboy. I'm sure we're all biased in certain ways but I like to see as accurate a model as possible. Of course the results are quite often distorted by player mis-use etc.

Has this 'issue' been raised before then?

Regards,

Steven

[DrewMatrix]

It is always a trade off between safety and effectiveness. You want to come in low to get higher damage, you pay the price in AA & Cap damage.

I generally start by bombing from extreme altitude (maybe 30K feet, maybe higher than a Zero can go - about 37K feet IIRC) when my units are low experience. They don't hit much but they do gain experience and they don't take many losses.

As I gain Exp I lower the altitude. I don't use 4 engine bombers below 11,000 feet, though. 2 engine bombers I go down to 6,000 feet.

[pauk]

greetings...

little bit off topic...but found interesting page...

http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8aflosses.shtml

[freeboy]

consider when the enemy is really suppressed and has few guns left to also bringthe heavies down a bit, find it helps

[doktorblood]

These losses seem ok to me. Hard to tell from AARs ... how many lost to flak how many fighters destroyed on the ground etc. B-17Es were easy to shoot down with a head on attack.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

These losses seem ok to me. Hard to tell from AARs ... how many lost to flak how many fighters destroyed on the ground etc. B-17Es were easy to shoot down with a head on attack.

These are just the sort of comments that drive me wild.

For your information B-17s were never easy to shoot down. There are countless pictures of beaten-up B-17s which made it back to base (especially from the European theater where flak and enemy interceptor factors were an order of magnitude at least greater than anything the Allies faced from the Japanese) with their air crews (mainly) still alive. The planes were often write-offs, to be sure, but make it back to base they certainly did.

There were more fighters shot down during World War II by B-17s than by any other aircraft, fighters included. Of course this figure might seem skewed to an extent due to the nature of the air war over Europe--after all, B-17s had a lot of German fighters to shoot at day in and day out, and until the Mustang became operational these bombers had to fly much of the way over Germany at least with no fighter escort at all. Regardless, that is a very pertinent statistic to keep in mind. They didn't call these puppies Flying Fortresses for nothing.

[doktorblood]

Oh I'm sure B-17 crews claimed more scores than any others. Hell, gunners from every B-17 in the formation would be shooting at the same fighters; if one went down they all thought they hit it.

[ltfightr]

The planes were often write-offs, to be sure, but make it back to base they certainly did.

Ok so would you count that a/c as an opps loss or as a mission kill?
How does the game count such a a/c?

The end result no matter how it is counted it is still not in combat any more and is a loss.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

Oh I'm sure B-17 crews claimed more scores than any others. Hell, gunners from every B-17 in the formation would be shooting at the same fighters; if one went down they all thought they hit it.

What makes you think B-17 claims for enemy kills are any more inaccurate than the same claims made by fighter pilots or the crews of other bombers?

Look. Those are the statistics. If you don't like them, get someone to change them somehow. After all this time I doubt your success in that endeavor, but go for it if you've a mind.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: ltfightr

The planes were often write-offs, to be sure, but make it back to base they certainly did.

Ok so would you count that a/c as an opps loss or as a mission kill?
How does the game count such a a/c?

The end result no matter how it is counted it is still not in combat any more and is a loss.

As far as I know these were counted as operational losses. And no, it is not the same. If the game engine has these planes shot out of the sky pilot losses will necessarily be greater. Also, I was talking mainly about B-17s coming back from missions over Germany, not Ricecake Heaven. The Japanese put up nowhere near the kind of air defense anywhere that I'm aware of that the Allies routinely encountered over Germany on just about every mission.

Big difference.

Finally, you haven't bothered to address the little item of Japanese figher losses.

Mind you, I'm not saying the model is right or wrong in this instance, though I suspect it is wrong based on my brief PBEM experience to date. Maybe one day I'll be more sure of that.

[doktorblood]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

Oh I'm sure B-17 crews claimed more scores than any others. Hell, gunners from every B-17 in the formation would be shooting at the same fighters; if one went down they all thought they hit it.

What makes you think B-17 claims for enemy kills are any more inaccurate than the same claims made by fighter pilots or the crews of other bombers?

Look. Those are the statistics. If you don't like them, get someone to change them somehow. After all this time I doubt your success in that endeavor, but go for it if you've a mind.

Oh...you mean statistics like the Oct. 14 8th AF raid on Regensberg/Schweinfurt?

Bomber Losses -65
Claims for enemy fighters destroyed -288
Officially credited enemy fighters destroyed -104
Actual German fighter losses -35

You see? I don't have to have anything changed.

or how about the Aug. 17 raid ...

Bomber Losses -60
Claims for enemy fighters destroyed -228
8th AF estimate of enemy fighter losses-100-140
Actual German fighter losses -25

[anarchyintheuk]

How do the stats you quote show that B-17 claims were more or less inaccurate than fighter claims?

[doktorblood]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

How do the stats you quote show that B-17 claims were more or less inaccurate than fighter claims?

Well... It doesn't. I just happen to think that when you got multiple gunners shooting at a single target that you are going to get multiple claims for any aircraft shot down. But maybe my logic is askew.

[anarchyintheuk]

Sounds logical to me. Any chance that source had a list of what the luftwaffe claimed for those missions?

[Zeta16]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: ltfightr

The planes were often write-offs, to be sure, but make it back to base they certainly did.

Ok so would you count that a/c as an opps loss or as a mission kill?
How does the game count such a a/c?

The end result no matter how it is counted it is still not in combat any more and is a loss.

As far as I know these were counted as operational losses. And no, it is not the same. If the game engine has these planes shot out of the sky pilot losses will necessarily be greater. Also, I was talking mainly about B-17s coming back from missions over Germany, not Ricecake Heaven. The Japanese put up nowhere near the kind of air defense anywhere that I'm aware of that the Allies routinely encountered over Germany on just about every mission.

Big difference.

Finally, you haven't bothered to address the little item of Japanese figher losses.

Mind you, I'm not saying the model is right or wrong in this instance, though I suspect it is wrong based on my brief PBEM experience to date. Maybe one day I'll be more sure of that.

What's so wrong, In my PBEM with freeboy I have lost 20 fighters to heavies in an attack just to the bombers which were unescorted. Why would you want to fly an plane unescorted in this game? If you escort things nothing like this will happen. In the game with freeboy he lost a lot of heavy bombers by flying day after day pretty much at max range without fighter escort. He lost of planes this way. Just play like a normal commander did and wierd things will not happen. People get into to much of hissy fit over examples which come from totally unhistorical play, if you play the game as real commander did wierd and wild results are just not going to happen.

[freeboy]

Zeta16 is absolutely correct, I choose to use my heavies do to my percieved need to push up the ground campaign do to my at sea looses... classic case of a dog chasing its tail.. but I learned that if you commit enough planes you can push the enemy back...

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Zeta16

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: ltfightr



Ok so would you count that a/c as an opps loss or as a mission kill?
How does the game count such a a/c?

The end result no matter how it is counted it is still not in combat any more and is a loss.

As far as I know these were counted as operational losses. And no, it is not the same. If the game engine has these planes shot out of the sky pilot losses will necessarily be greater. Also, I was talking mainly about B-17s coming back from missions over Germany, not Ricecake Heaven. The Japanese put up nowhere near the kind of air defense anywhere that I'm aware of that the Allies routinely encountered over Germany on just about every mission.

Big difference.

Finally, you haven't bothered to address the little item of Japanese figher losses.

Mind you, I'm not saying the model is right or wrong in this instance, though I suspect it is wrong based on my brief PBEM experience to date. Maybe one day I'll be more sure of that.

What's so wrong, In my PBEM with freeboy I have lost 20 fighters to heavies in an attack just to the bombers which were unescorted. Why would you want to fly an plane unescorted in this game? If you escort things nothing like this will happen. In the game with freeboy he lost a lot of heavy bombers by flying day after day pretty much at max range without fighter escort. He lost of planes this way. Just play like a normal commander did and wierd things will not happen. People get into to much of hissy fit over examples which come from totally unhistorical play, if you play the game as real commander did wierd and wild results are just not going to happen.

There are a couple of things wrong with your response. First, I didn't say (necessarily) that anything was wrong. In fact I went out of my way to say I didn't know one way or the other yet. Second, it is not ahistorical to fly B-17s from Port Moresby to Rabaul unescorted. That is precisely what the Allies did. They did so because they had to.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

Zeta16 is absolutely correct, I choose to use my heavies do to my percieved need to push up the ground campaign do to my at sea looses... classic case of a dog chasing its tail.. but I learned that if you commit enough planes you can push the enemy back...

Zeta was not absolutely correct. Zeta was absolutely wrong. At least on two crucial points.