Some VERY PRELIMINARY testing of Strategic Bombing

[Belphegor]

you mentioned at the start that manpower bombing starts fires but doesn't affect manpower.... does it reduce your stockpiles of manpower if it doesn't affect the actual 'manpower' in the hex?

[mogami]

Hi, I think to be really as effective as history you need to have Japan out of supply.
Out of supply they won't repair and AA will be cut to 25 percent when it fires at all and CAP will be limited.
Trying to bomb Japan while it remains in supply is going to be hard. If the Japanese player can't afford to repair or fight back the bombing will accumulate.

There is no one "Silver Bullet" that kills Japan. You need to combine efforts.
1. Reduce import of resource and oil
2. Bomb production targets that aid defense (aircraft/engine)
3. Then comence bombing targets like manpower

[Feinder]

Only time for one test (and half of it borked), but I'm tired. More tomorrow.

-F-

Check out the day manpower hits. The one hit per bomber hypothesis was obviously wrong. Altho the actual damage caused was disappointing.

Code: Select all

 TEst #1 - Manpower (fresh start)
 
 Wow.  Take a look at the daytime manpower hits.  Definately the 1 hit per plane goes out the window...
 
 =====
 AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/04/45
 
 [no night attack]
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Day Air attack on Tokyo , at 66,43
  
  
 Allied aircraft
 B-29 Superfortress x 94
  
  
 No Allied losses
  
 Manpower hits 217
  
 Aircraft Attacking:
 37 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 6000 feet
 33 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 6000 feet
  9 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 6000 feet
  6 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 6000 feet
  5 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 6000 feet
  2 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 6000 feet
  2 x B-29 Superfortress bombing at 6000 feet
 
 
 
 68 HI actually damaged.
 None permanently destroyed.
 No other facilities damaged.
 7650 fires.
 138 points awarded.
 Damage confirmed on B-29 target selection.
 Average group fatige = 48 and 48.  I noticed they started about 15 for both groups.
 Ops losess = 10 damaged, 0 destroyed.
 Points and ops losses confirmed on Allied VP screens.
 
 
 [Stood down day squadrons, so as not to muddle things, and maybe the night-owls will launch.]
 
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/05/45
 
 [NO NIGHT ATTACK ... 37 B-29s unable to locate target.  Dumb-asses.]
 
 
 Interesting to note - The fires had gone down to 76 in just one day.  Manual says fires = fires/10 every 12 hours, so I guess that's working. divided by 10, every 12 hours.
 

[Feinder]

Agreed Mog,

The wrinkle being is that, it's (appeartly) quite hard to get Japan low on supply. If Japanese player doesn't over-expand, the (appearent) observation of most Japanese players is that, supply isn't critical. It has to be managed, definatetly. But it never looks like the native China situation.

My VERY limited experience as Japan is my Campaign '45 game vs. Oliver. I can tell you that, supply is NOT an issue. But that's my ONLY experience as Japan (and our game isn't even that old, and Ollie is probably pissed at me for sitting on the turn for 2 days to run these tests... *grin*).

But the question back to you as a sake sipper, "If you say that to really hurt Japan with strategic bombing, Japan must be low on supplies. So as an experienced Japanese player, do you think that the average Japanese player will have supply issues, enough to fulfill your "shortage" comment?"

Curious.

-F-

[Feinder]

you mentioned at the start that manpower bombing starts fires but doesn't affect manpower.... does it reduce your stockpiles of manpower if it doesn't affect the actual 'manpower' in the hex?

I don't know the answer to that. All I can say is that the "manpower as industry" is not damaged. I don't know if it reduced the manpower points that have been accumulated. FWIW, I doubt it reduces the pool, since I don't THINK it reduces the HI pool when you bomb HI. It's an excellent question tho.

-F-

[Bradley7735]

According to Admiral Laurent, japan proper starts with over 6,000 resources. That means Japan produces 6,000 supply per day (I think that's more than all of Allied China) without taking HI production into account. I know Japan proper has some oil as well, so they are probably making at least another 1,000 supply from HI production.

It's the chicken and the egg syndrome. How do you stop Japan from producing supply if you can't bomb the supply generators first?

The more I look at Japanese production at the start of the game, the more I think it's over-estimated by about a factor of at least 5. (ok, maybe not that much). Who has played Japan and really had a map wide supply or fuel shortage? and I'm not talking about bases in the pink. I'm talking about lots of bases in the red. And actually having to make tactical and strategic decisions based on global fuel supplies?

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

Those results are getting "uglier" with each test. I sure can't see any reason to try strategic bombing if that is what I can expect.

I'm becoming more convinced that an Allied player can't obtain the points necessary to win this game.

Thanks again for the tests.

Dave Baranyi

You want to see something ugly I should post the results I've got from actual game-play instead of a controlled test.

[ChezDaJez]

Who has played Japan and really had a map wide supply or fuel shortage?

I will shortly. In my current PBEM, its Sep 42 and I am nearly out of oil and HI is now falling fast. I still have plenty of supply and enough fuel for the moment. I figure I have about 3-4 months of fuel left. I also have about 9 months of supply left.

My opponent is on the move in Burma and I've basically conceded everything north of Rangoon. I have a massive evac effort going on from Rangoon as I don't have enough supply in Burma or northern Malaya to put up an effective defense. Thankfully, this is the only place (so far) that he is on the offensive. Once he gets Mandalay built up, I will lose more supply centers.

This all stems from the massive damage the oil fields in the SRA incurred when I captured them.

Chez

[madmickey]

First does anybody know if the "game models" B-29 crew fatigue correctly? The B-29 used pressurized cabin, this would cause significantly reduce fatigue than ordinary bomber per miles flow. Also this game does not model the changes in B-29 that LeMay initiated of removing guns and increasing bomb load, comfortably of plane (without guns crew could move around in the cabin flying at lower altitudes reduces problem with pilot dealing with Jet stream). This may allow B-29 fly at normal range to Japan from the Marianas. Even planes from Guam could carry 20,000 lbs of bombs. The game does not include bombing radar on B-29s and radar controlled tail guns (I am not certain if all B-29 carried the latter).

[mdiehl]

Fatigue was generally lower on Allied heavy bombers than on mediums because B-24 and B-29 heavies had an "autopilot" function that made non-critical portions of a mission easier to fly. Fatigue on heavies and mediums in general should be lower per mission than in single-pilot craft.

According to Ambrose in The Wild Blue George McGovern and his co-pilot actually fell asleep flying his B-24 across the Atlantic but the autopilot kept the plane more or less in the right area despite everybody in cockpit taking a nap for a couple hours.

The other question is how many reserve pilots per airgroup. Most US heavy bomber groups had 1.5-2.5:1 ratio of available flight crew (pilot, co pilot, navigator) to available aircraft by1944. So you should get more good missions from late war heavy bombers despite fatigue merely through flight crew rotation.

[ChezDaJez]

The B-29 used pressurized cabin, this would cause significantly reduce fatigue than ordinary bomber per miles flow.

That pressurized cabin also had a downside. If the plane took battle damage to the cabin, there was often explosive decompression that could be catastrophic at altitude. Burst eardrums, ruptured intestines, loss of consciousness and more were all possibilities not too mention the ever present possibility of loss of structual integrity.

Chez

[madmickey]

I also forgot to mention, does this games model use of small incendiary bomb instead of big GP bombs? I think I not. B-29 was less tiring per miles than even other heavy bombers because it was pressurized.

[mdiehl]

That pressurized cabin also had a downside.

No, not really.

I doubt that explosive decompression was a serious problem. The pressure differential between sea level and 30,000 feet was not enough to inflict most of the problems of which you speak. Certainly not enough to cause structural damage or damage to internal organs in most people under most circumstances. Ruptured eardrums maybe but that depends on whether the cabin pressure was a full 1 atomosphere (which I doubt). Unconsciousness was only likely if the auxiliary oxy lines and the backup oxy bottles also failed.

I've never read of a B-29 operating at high altitude lost solely or primarily due to sudden decompression of the cabin. I doubt that it ever occurred.

[ADavidB]

ORIGINAL: dereck

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

Those results are getting "uglier" with each test. I sure can't see any reason to try strategic bombing if that is what I can expect.

I'm becoming more convinced that an Allied player can't obtain the points necessary to win this game.

Thanks again for the tests.

Dave Baranyi

You want to see something ugly I should post the results I've got from actual game-play instead of a controlled test.

That's where using B-29s for airfield suppression and port bombing sounds better every days. Set them up within escort range of Corsairs and wipe out bases down to the bedrock! [:D]

In any event, if strategic bombing is working so poorly, you should probably invade the Kuriles and Sakahin Island, then use your heavy bombers to pound the bases and troops in Hokkaido into dust and invade. That's your best possible way to gain points.

Good luck -

Dave Baranyi

[mdiehl]

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:XZ ... sion&hl=en

In America, ED research was conducted primarily in Ohio by physiologists at the Aero MedicalLaboratory at Wright Field, Dayton (H.M. Sweeney, A.P. Gagge & F.G. Hall), and the Laboratory ofAviation Physiology at The Ohio State University, Columbus (F.A. Hitchcock). In Britain, studieswere conducted mostly at Farnborough by the Flying Personnel Research Committee. In Germany, EDresearch was done primarily at the Erprobungsstelle in Rechlin (T.H. Benzinger) and theLuftfahrtmedizinisches Forschungsinstitu in Berlin (H.G. Clamann).Their findings showed that while ED was uncomfortable and frightening, only rarely did it produceserious injuries. Intra-abdominal and alveolar pressures increased as gases expanded, forcing air out ofthe lungs, concomitant with transient changes in blood pressure (decrease), intracranial pressure(increase), and respiration (inhibition). There were some cases of serious injury resulting from ED,however; if the subject’s glottis was closed during ED, alveolar tissue tore, resulting in barotrauma andgas embolism, and in one reported case, death. The incidence of DCS following ED, however, was notsignificantly greater than what occurred in aviators flying in unpressurized aircraft at similar altitudes. Gun firing tests made on the pressurized fuselage of the XB-29 Superfortress prototype, at WrightField, demonstrated that during ED, winds reached 145 mph winds inside the crew tunnel thatconnected the two pressurized cabins. Accident reports filed by B-29 aircrews indicated that injurieso ccurred when these high-speed winds slammed into unrestrained airmen, knocking them about thepressure cabin, and in one case, almost sucking the crewman out of the aircraft.

Looks like the chief cause of injuries was unrestrained crewmen being knocked about when the pressure equalized. And then only in the vicinity of the tube-tunnel that linked the fore and aft sections of the plane.

Clearly not a significant problem in WW2. No "catastrophic" effects noted in the tests unless you hapen to be the one in a million who almost got sucked out of a plane or had some cardiovascular problem that went undetected or some other strange circumstance.

Also the effect would be limited to the compartment that was ruptured. IIRC the B-29 had three compartments. Forward crew. Mid-section tunnel. Aft crew. Each isolated by a sealed door.

By the way. The one guy I talked to (a B-29 fire control operator at PASM) said that when they got near the target area the crew compartment pressures were reduced to something tolerable but lower than 1 atm or in some planes the cabin press was reduced to external and the crew all donned their oxy-kits. FWIW.

[madmickey]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

The B-29 used pressurized cabin, this would cause significantly reduce fatigue than ordinary bomber per miles flow.

That pressurized cabin also had a downside. If the plane took battle damage to the cabin, there was often explosive decompression that could be catastrophic at altitude. Burst eardrums, ruptured intestines, loss of consciousness and more were all possibilities not too mention the ever present possibility of loss of structual integrity.

Chez

First with LeMay changes the B-29 flew to Japan at lower altitudes using normal 20,000 bomb load. Decompression at lower altitude was less significant.
Second regarding small holes causing explosives decompression at higher altitudes.
"There is one more vivid memory of a lesson learned during transition training. Crew compartments were pressurized and we could fly at high altitude without wearing an oxygen mask. That was great, but it had some interesting consequences. The urinal was a funnel connected to a small holding tank then through a valve and a tube to the outside. Open the valve, and a rush of inside air quickly flushed out any liquid in the system. Then you closed the valve so that higher pressure air from inside the plane could not escape. The proper procedure was to hold the funnel in position, flush the tank with liquid through the funnel, move the funnel, open the valve to flush, then close the valve. You were not likely to forget this sequence more than once. If you opened the valve before moving the funnel, the outrush of air could do real damage to any body part that was close enough to get caught. That device had some real suction at 20,000 feet."
http://home.att.net/~sallyann2/last-mission.html
Do not take Goldfinger too seriously.
From the above website
"The possibility of explosive decompression was ever present. The Army Air Forces required that all crew members' tooth fillings be replaced with airtight ones so their teeth would not explode in the event of a rapid decompression. I had a large number of fillings replaced by an AAF dentist. It was the most painful price I had to pay for admission to the B-29 aircrew."

[mdiehl]

If you opened the valve before moving the funnel, the outrush of air could do real damage to any body part that was close enough to get caught.

Well, I think we can safely assume that a crewmember standing near a small shrapnel hole suddenly inflicted on the aircraft was unlikely to have his, err, organ dangling out there unless he happened to be using the urinal at the time. [X(]

[madmickey]

Clarification Under Lemay B-29 flew their incendiary raids at 5000 to 8000 feet using 6 lb incendiary bombs.

[rtrapasso]

"The possibility of explosive decompression was ever present. The Army Air Forces required that all crew members' tooth fillings be replaced with airtight ones so their teeth would not explode in the event of a rapid decompression. I had a large number of fillings replaced by an AAF dentist. It was the most painful price I had to pay for admission to the B-29 aircrew."

The US Armed Forces have done some strange things about health that didn't make a lot of sense. Hundreds (or maybe thousands, don't recall the numbers off hand) of guys in the submarine service got radiation to shrink their tonsils and adenoids to prevent problems with their Eustachian tubes during dives. As far as i know, there was no data to back this up. This dental thing sounds like a similar scheme.

The Navy guys that got radiated tended to die from cancers arising in the radiated areas (years later, of course).

[madmickey]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

If you opened the valve before moving the funnel, the outrush of air could do real damage to any body part that was close enough to get caught.

Well, I think we can safely assume that a crewmember standing near a small shrapnel hole suddenly inflicted on the aircraft was unlikely to have his, err, organ dangling out there unless he happened to be using the urinal at the time. [X(]

agreed. and I brought up the Goldfinger comment because most people who watched the movie think that a pistol shot in a plane would cause a plane to crash. Remember that Alhoa Airways 737 that lost the top part of 25 feet of cabin and still landed.