Heavy Bomber Losses

[Lemurs!]

The Model navy 20mm cannon was coming into service in the fall of '42 on the A6m3s.

The Betty, which had an empty weight of about the same as an A-20 has 36 durability while the B17 which weighs a bit more than twice as much has what a 69 durabilty and 1 armour.

Have any of you ever fired a gun into a gas can? I have.
I have fired tracer Hornsbys into a gas can from a .45... round after round. I can't get it to explode.

Gas vapor explodes, the gasoline itself does not. After a couple dozen rounds fired just above an open gas tank i did get it to explode. With tracers.

The Americans claimed every Betty quite often in the raids over the canal but those same Betties were back the next day.
I am amused by the American accounts of being outnumbered in WW2.

I have read American accounts of the Canal where we state that we shot down a hundred Zeroes but they just flew in 100 more the next day. Damn there are a lot of those Japs!

Then i read some accounts in Japanese from Rabaul saying they would go in lose 3 Zeroes, shoot down 8 Wildcats, feel good about it but then some escort carrier would fly in another squadron.
Wow there are a lot of those Americans.

It reminds me of figuring out which soldiers starved more in the US civil war... all of the books written from a southern point of view; we are starving, massive hardship, but we great personal fortitude we win the battle!

Then you read a nothern officer, and they complain that it is hardly surprising that we lose battles since we have very little food and it is weavily because of the disgusting war profiteers!
But we killed a southerner and jeez, he had fresh bacon, corn, tobacco, fruit, etc! It was a banquet!

The other guy always has more or less depending on who we need to impress.

Mike

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


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]

Really? And here I thought you were going to go over chapter and verse vis-a-vis Lundstrom and Frank because you seemed to have some issue with what I said about G4M's not going down in droves.....which they didn't as I said.

Yep. that's keeping the thread on track about Heavy bomber losses allright.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!
Have any of you ever fired a gun into a gas can? I have.

Congratulations. How many gas cans came back to fight the next day?

[Iridium]

OK, been lurking a while a felt this needed to be adressed: Gas doesn't ignite without O^2, i.e. in full tanks. However, it could be said that there might be ample oxygen in a fuel tank after a trip to the designated target.

On the subject of whether Betty's were total balls of flame after a little gun fire? I'd say that this probably has it's basis in fact, though is also likely to be exaggerated by historians over the years. Fewer and fewer first hand accounts are available these days and its only going to get worse. I imagine that we might see people say that the M4 Sherman erupted in flames every time it was hit by enemy tank fire. We know that this occured at times and that it was frequent enough to worry people, but was it really every time?

Well, victors do write the history books, so maybe it won't be Shermans getting the bad rap...

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

The Model navy 20mm cannon was coming into service in the fall of '42 on the A6m3s.

The Betty, which had an empty weight of about the same as an A-20 has 36 durability while the B17 which weighs a bit more than twice as much has what a 69 durabilty and 1 armour.

Have any of you ever fired a gun into a gas can? I have.
I have fired tracer Hornsbys into a gas can from a .45... round after round. I can't get it to explode.

Gas vapor explodes, the gasoline itself does not. After a couple dozen rounds fired just above an open gas tank i did get it to explode. With tracers.

Your point?

The Americans claimed every Betty quite often in the raids over the canal but those same Betties were back the next day.
I am amused by the American accounts of being outnumbered in WW2.

I have read American accounts of the Canal where we state that we shot down a hundred Zeroes but they just flew in 100 more the next day. Damn there are a lot of those Japs!

I've never read an account of air battles over Guadacanal where the Americans claimed they shot down a hundred Zeros. What books do you read?

Then i read some accounts in Japanese from Rabaul saying they would go in lose 3 Zeroes, shoot down 8 Wildcats, feel good about it but then some escort carrier would fly in another squadron.
Wow there are a lot of those Americans.

It reminds me of figuring out which soldiers starved more in the US civil war... all of the books written from a southern point of view; we are starving, massive hardship, but we great personal fortitude we win the battle!

Then you read a nothern officer, and they complain that it is hardly surprising that we lose battles since we have very little food and it is weavily because of the disgusting war profiteers!
But we killed a southerner and jeez, he had fresh bacon, corn, tobacco, fruit, etc! It was a banquet!

The other guy always has more or less depending on who we need to impress.

Mike

Both sides tended to turn in kill rates that were blown up, the Japanese accounts somewhat more blown up than the American accounts from everything I've read.

I don't know about the Japanese, but the Americans at least tried hard to figure truth from fiction afterward. Their debriefings were serious if the proper brass was around.

Still, how does all that impact the subject of this thread?

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
...Still, how does all that impact the subject of this thread?...

What is the subject of this thread? That ahistorically large bombing groups of B-17 flying bombing at ahistorically flight levels against ahistorically large groups of Japanese interceptors are suffering ahistorically losses/ratios? Most likely.

Are historical size bombing groups of B-17 flying at historical flight levels against historic level of Japanese interceptor suffering ahistorical losses? Doesn’t seem to be the issue or what is being tested.


For the record, I don’t care if after extensive testing the programmers increase/decrease B-17 losses and/or increase/decrease Japanese fighter losses… as long as it better approximates history. But people complaining that their +100 B-17 raids are taking too heavy losses or running test to prove something of this nature… do virtually nothing.

Historically, B-17 vs Japanese fighters were small actions which lead to casualties on both sides to even out for the most part. If the game doesn’t model this (all other factors at historical levels) or someone runs extensive test showing this not to be the case, then I will fully support ‘change’. But those who are unhappy that there +100 B-17 raids at 6,000 feet is taking high loss rates while claim the losses aren’t historical…. is something else.

[TheElf]

I posted this example of one of the LAST B-17 Missions in the Pacific back when the LAST B-17 lovers thread was still kicking. Being that it is midnight and I have an early day rather than waste time and energy on this dead horse I thought I'd just recycle this post.

Ahh the cult of the B-17, alive and well. God, I wish I had saved my post from the old UV debate on the merits of the great B-17(in the Pacific) and the “weak” Japanese Army and Navy air forces in early 1942. This horse has been beaten to death. But here we go again, a small dose of reality regarding the B-17 in the Pacific.

At first I saw the results of the combat and for about 30 seconds actually wondered why the invincible B-17 took such a beating. Then it became obvious. The Jap pilots that perpetrated that AAR had to be highly experienced, highly motivated, and had to use very bold tactics. But where would you find pilots like that in early 42’?!?!?

Those B-17 groups had to be inexperienced, suffering from mid-low morale, had to be unescorted, and they must have been going into a large Japanese base hex defended by large numbers of top-notch fighter pilots who are well-rested, supplied, and supported. Uh…and they were.

If you want to talk about historical vs. ahistorical results lets use this formula that is prevalent in Naval Aviation.

Garbage in = Garbage out

Another way of saying that is

Ahistorical use = Ahistorical results

Here is a report that illustrates several things.
1. That the B-17 when used inappropriately IS NOT INVINCIBLE.
2. That Veteran Zero pilots used BOLD TACTICS (Big surprise right?)
3. That the B-17 WAS capable of sustaining heavy damage BUT WAS NOT INVINCIBLE under the right circumstances.
4. That after Feb 1943 the B-17 performed little more than recon and transport duties in the Pacific.
5. Operational damage is NOT just aircraft breaking down. It is an abstract amalgamation of Mechanical issues, supply, morale, and injured aircrew*

* This is vividly described in the following account

“In Feb 1943 a flight of 4 B-17s with an escort of 4 P-40s attacked Shortland Harbor near Bouganville. At this stage of the war over the Solomons some Japanese units showed signs of operational decline. Others, however, still had the old magic: Obviously the American raiders confronted Japanese veterans. A large flight of Zeroes jumped the Americans, destroyed three B-17s (that’s 75% folks), and scattered the escorts. The remaining B-17 was pursued by several Zeros for half an hour. Major H.H. Carroll, the Squadron’s flight surgeon, was a passenger on the flight and wrote this account soon after landing:

The fight ended up at 1,200’ with our pilot, Captain Thomas, flying full-bore. All of our machine-gun ammunition had been expended 20 minutes before the Zeroes left. The Zeroes used bold tactics. Some of the enemy planes approached to within 10 yds. Of the wingtips of the B-17, then executed a half roll on the same level. Sometimes, the enemy would climb, and at others, he would dive. One Zero flew in upside down and came about 10 feet above the bomber in a slight dive, firing down. Another one came in toward the nose, pulled straight up into a loop, and came back over upside down firing. Their tactics different and bolder than those observed previously in this area. The Zero pilots showed no fear of the B-17s guns. When they stared a pass they completed it.
The B-17 was riddled with 7.7 and 20mm bullets. One waist gunner and the bombardier had severe gunshot wounds. All gunners and the co-pilot received shrapnel wounds. #1 and #2 engines were functioning about 1/3 their normal efficiency. All twin cables had been severed by gun fire and that together with the great amount of torque made flying difficult and hazardous. It seemed impossible to get the ship home and a water landing was contemplated. Because two crew members were seriously wounded, Capt., Thomas tried one more thing. In order to keep the plane on an even keel, the pilot and co-pilot held the wheel control forward with their knees, and maintained sufficient left rudder to compensate for the torque. After manually cranking the gear and flaps down, a near perfect landing was made on Henderson Field even though both tires were flat.

Whether obvious or not at the time, this was one of the last bombing missions conducted by B-17s in the Pacific Theater. The Fort soldiered on as a recon and transport A/C, but the bombers were wearing out fast...”
--Fire in the Sky, Bergerud, p.275-76

Keep in mid this was FEB 43’. How many of that crew were ready for duty the next day? Of the rest of that Bomb group that witnessed only 25% of that day’s raid return, how many guys were raring to fly the next day? You think their morale dropped…? Yeah, I do too. How many replacement aircrew were teleported to Henderson field to fill in for the 30 dudes lost and 9 dudes injured?

Remember my equation from above?
Garbage in = Garbage out Ahistorical use = Ahistorical results

How many 21 plane, unescorted B-17 raids against well rested/supplied top-notch Zero pilots and Oscar pilots enjoying a 2:1 advantage over their own territory actually occurred in March 1942? Or the rest of the war for that matter? How successful was the B-17 when unescorted? Even in other theaters? Can you say Schweinfert?

By my calculations better than 50% of the raid returned. I’d say that was a pretty good result considering the situation those poor Bastages were put in. And there are people out there that have the nerve to wank about that kind of result. I bet those same people won’t be wanking about being able to field 48 B-17s on long range raids against Rabaul in Late 43’ or early 44’, but that $#!t didn’t happen either. When you change history, the results can not be historic. Pretty simple. That’s why this game exists. So you can do these things. You just better be prepared for the consequences.

[Sardaukar]

Good post, The Elf. I agree.

Cheers,

M.S.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Good post, The Elf. I agree.

Cheers,

M.S.

Not sure what the above is supposed to indicate - but in mid-1942 B17s routinely fly over the New Britain/New Ireland area unescorted on missions against Kavieng and Rabaul - and for the most part shot down any Zeros foolish enough to come near them with little or no loss to themselves.

[rtrapasso]

OK, been lurking a while a felt this needed to be adressed: Gas doesn't ignite without O^2, i.e. in full tanks. However, it could be said that there might be ample oxygen in a fuel tank after a trip to the designated target.

Well, maybe. There is a tape i have somewhere demonstrating the actual effects of firearms, including demos of trying to shoot through car doors, engine blocks, gas tanks, etc.

The guys making this tried really hard to get a half-empty gas tank to explode, firing at with bullets, tracers, and finally APIT (armor piercing incendiary tracer) - nothing they did got that gas tank (automobile type removed from the car) to go up (until they used an exterior source of a couple of buckets of gasoline and a torch), so it is not an easy thing to do.

BTW - a .357 magnum AP round (reported to be able to shoot through a car lengthwise in the press) made a nick on an engine block (maybe 1/4" deep), and none of the handgun rounds tested (including .44 mag) nor .223 rifle would RELIABLY penetrate a car door. On the other hand, a shotgun SLUG went through the car door, through the front of a bullet-proof (kevlar) vest, through the back of the vest, through the other car door on the other side of the car, and kept going.

[Lemurs!]

Pasternakski, 12 came back on a return sortie the next day. [:)]

My point was to show, as other posters noted, that one person says that 'a betty exploded, probably because of unprotected fuel tanks' and it eventually becomes 'betties always explode'.

The Sherman is a great example. The German MkIV is a basic, decent tank to historians. But, the Sherman has a rep as a death trap, people will claim daily that we needed 5 shermans to do anything because 4 would be destroyed etc.
But, in point of fact the sherman was as good or slightly better than the MkIV.

And i would not say that the Americans were more honest either during or after the war as to losses. I find the Americans and the Russians to have been the most dishonest of WW2 while the British were the most honest. The Japanese were middle of the road.

As to Zero losses a number of American written annals of the Canal mention over a period of a week or two the Japanese(by our count) losing a hundred Zeroes, but it didn't help because our intelligence sources listed 100 more flying into Rabaul.

Trist, you seem to have read one book, and that is great because Lundstrom is an above average author. However, many people have read other books giving ideas as fact that are more properly termed exageration or are downright misnomers.

How many people believe that the 250kg bomb was the main bomb used by Japan in an anti ship role during WW2? I mean everyone knows the 800kg was a conversion of a battleship round (was it 14"? or 16"? hmmm....) used only at Pearl don't they?
Actually, the 500kg bomb was widely used and probably about even in number of drops with the 250kg bomb. There was another 800kg bomb used fairly commonly by a few level bombers during the war as well. We 'learn' many things by playing Pacwar and WitP but remember it is just a game.

My point, oh so friendly one, is that we need to really look at things before we decide what is broken, not just rant and rave.

The P39 was the plane that had the lowest per opposed sortie loss rate in the European theater. This is represented in this game by giving it 2 armour and 32 durability which is above the larger, heavier, known to be durable P40.

But, its armour was hardly heavier than any other American aircraft and every Japanese account says the plane was easy to cut in half even with 2 7.7mm Mgs. Hmm... Which is it?
The Americans lost 21 P400s (with the same armour and structure as a P39D) on the Canal in what, a week?

Kind of the same with the Shturmavik. We all 'know' it was the heaviest armoured plane around! But actually its armour, all though all around, was actually very thin compared to the standard plate used on fighters at this time and if you read the design papers on it you find that the bathtub was designed for only one purpose; to keep out shrapnel from light flak bursts.
The plane actually took very heavy losses.

Mike

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
...Still, how does all that impact the subject of this thread?...

What is the subject of this thread? That ahistorically large bombing groups of B-17 flying bombing at ahistorically flight levels against ahistorically large groups of Japanese interceptors are suffering ahistorically losses/ratios? Most likely.

Are historical size bombing groups of B-17 flying at historical flight levels against historic level of Japanese interceptor suffering ahistorical losses? Doesn’t seem to be the issue or what is being tested.


For the record, I don’t care if after extensive testing the programmers increase/decrease B-17 losses and/or increase/decrease Japanese fighter losses… as long as it better approximates history. But people complaining that their +100 B-17 raids are taking too heavy losses or running test to prove something of this nature… do virtually nothing.

Historically, B-17 vs Japanese fighters were small actions which lead to casualties on both sides to even out for the most part. If the game doesn’t model this (all other factors at historical levels) or someone runs extensive test showing this not to be the case, then I will fully support ‘change’. But those who are unhappy that there +100 B-17 raids at 6,000 feet is taking high loss rates while claim the losses aren’t historical…. is something else.

Agreed.

First thing to do would be to get the numbers of planes right, then fly them correctly.

There are more B-17s than we should have in the game. I asked about this a looooong time ago. Received no answer. [8D] But it's not just the B-17s. The Japanese side of the board is equally stretched. Everything's running too fast, assets being piled on top of hexes like nobody's business. It can get to be a farce in no time at all.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Trist, you seem to have read one book, and that is great because Lundstrom is an above average author. However, many people have read other books giving ideas as fact that are more properly termed exageration or are downright misnomers.

That's somewhat amusing. A couple years ago on the UV forum I was accused of reading just one author, too, only that time it was Morison instead of Lundstrom. Now I'm accused of having read only Lundstrom.

I'd say you guys need to get your story straight. [8D]

[Mr.Frag]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Trist, you seem to have read one book, and that is great because Lundstrom is an above average author. However, many people have read other books giving ideas as fact that are more properly termed exageration or are downright misnomers.

That's somewhat amusing. A couple years ago on the UV forum I was accused of reading just one author, too, only that time it was Morison instead of Lundstrom. Now I'm accused of having read only Lundstrom.

I'd say you guys need to get your story straight. [8D]

Must be a conspiracy! Quick, call the moderator! Oops, I am the moderator. Hmm, maybe I'm in on it [:D]

Still waiting for your Save 12/10/41 TJ

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Trist, you seem to have read one book, and that is great because Lundstrom is an above average author. However, many people have read other books giving ideas as fact that are more properly termed exageration or are downright misnomers.

That's somewhat amusing. A couple years ago on the UV forum I was accused of reading just one author, too, only that time it was Morison instead of Lundstrom. Now I'm accused of having read only Lundstrom.

I'd say you guys need to get your story straight. [8D]

Must be a conspiracy! Quick, call the moderator! Oops, I am the moderator. Hmm, maybe I'm in on it [:D]

Still waiting for your Save 12/10/41 TJ

I replied yesterday and my email client said it went through okay. I'll try again.

[Mr.Frag]

No, you sent me 12/11/41 again [:D]

I now have 5 of them.