Should the "Zero" Bonus be retained?

[jwilkerson]

Well neither the Zero Bonus - nor Sept 1941 are in AE ...
[:D]

[Flying Tiger]

Well neither the Zero Bonus - nor Sept 1941 are in AE ...
[:D] 

 
Good one Jeff.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Well neither the Zero Bonus - nor Sept 1941 are in AE ...
[:D]

It's the whole "grassy knoll thing" all over again.........................

[TheElf]

So...what did we decide then?

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: TheElf

So...what did we decide then?

Who is "we"? [8D]


Leo "Apollo11"

[Nomad]

I think Joe cast the deciding vote.

[:D]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Well neither the Zero Bonus - nor Sept 1941 are in AE ...
[:D]

[esteban]

I'd argue yes on keeping the Zero bonus.  Its a reflection of the bull-headed Allied command not taking the Japanese air force serously, and ignoring Chennaults advice on how to beat these aircraft in combat.

But since it only lasts for 4 months and it winds down a lot the last month or two of that time period, its hardly a deal breaker.

Much more important is to get the air combat model accurate.  Right now in WitP if 5 squadrons on each side mix it up, the first of those 5 squadrons on each side has to fight EVERY enemy squadron, with the result that that first squadron gets cut to pieces whether you win or lose the larger air engagement. 

Its also much more important to get operational losses, mission availability/turnaround, basing multiple hundreds of Allied aircraft on size 2 and 3 airfields and pilot training right. 

[madgamer2]

Now that the point has been raised about large plane attacks by the Jap AI I think we all have seen what I ham seeing in my current game against a Jap AI. The Jap AI takes the smaller to mid sized airfields in PI and puts and flies a larger number from those fields than one would think possible. I always thought it was a product of making the game even by giving the AI the ability to do this sort of thing.
This Is why I thought that most PBEM players have a house rule about the number of aircraft units that can be based on an air base by its size. Is there any kind of limitation in the game as it is now played about the number of aircraft in relation to the air base size?

Madsgamer

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: madgamer

Now that the point has been raised about large plane attacks by the Jap AI I think we all have seen what I ham seeing in my current game against a Jap AI. The Jap AI takes the smaller to mid sized airfields in PI and puts and flies a larger number from those fields than one would think possible. I always thought it was a product of making the game even by giving the AI the ability to do this sort of thing.
This Is why I thought that most PBEM players have a house rule about the number of aircraft units that can be based on an air base by its size. Is there any kind of limitation in the game as it is now played about the number of aircraft in relation to the air base size?

Madsgamer

Current games, I don't think so. You still need to have enough ground support units, but IIRC AE will have the airfield size limitation more enhanced, to prevent over-population.

[Cmdrcain]

If theres a new system, hope it solves the  thing I'm seeing in a PBEM WITP game to wit
too often The Big Bombers, B17/B24/British ones even if say 40-60 zeros/oscars hit like 20-30 Bombers unescorted.. the thing I see is  few if any  go Boom, sure a bunch get damage but fly through to Bomb me but come on now... That many zeros or oscars and I should see 5-10 bombers explode...

Allie Bombers seem too invulnerable..

If its going be based on MVR the zeros/oscars having better MVR and able shoot up unescorted bombers should be able  splash alot of thyem.

[Fishbed]

Well yes Zeroes are an issue maybe, but I don't see Oscars torching 4Es on a daily basis... They just lacked historically any kind of the needed punch to do so, except if they ram them...!

[mdiehl]

Nothing wrong with the overwhelming majority of B-17s mashing through an encounter with a 40-60 Zeroes, apart from the idea that the Japanese could have put 40-60 interceptors against any raid outside of the Home Islands. The Zero lacked the killing power necessary to be reliably a good interceptor against 4Es. And the Oscar was utterly hopeless for the task.

[TheElf]

The B-17 is a bad example in the Pacific. It never operated in any numbers to warrant the reputation it got in the ETO. Additionally those that lament the loss of "too many" B-17s to Fighters often cite the mutually supportive formations they flew in and the withering volume of fire they could produce.

This is a problematic arguement as the typcial formation was no more than 10, more frequently they operated in single digit formations or as single ships on Naval Seach & Destroy missions.

Further the Combat Box as we know wasn't even invented until summer/fall of 42' and that was in the ETO.

The only thing the B-17 had going for it was it's own defensive fire, which was considered weak and poorly positioned until the E model debuted. In early months of the WitP a good number of Fortresses were C/D Models.

Still it's ruggedness served it well against the weak armament of the IJ fighters, though they were by no means invincible.

Oh, and one Oscar would be hard pressed to bring any fort down, but a group of them certainly could. And it was more likely that this was the situation in the early months of the war, before they were relegated to Hacks and transports...around early '43 if I recall.

[mdiehl]

The B-17 is a bad example in the Pacific. It never operated in any numbers to warrant the reputation it got in the ETO. Additionally those that lament the loss of "too many" B-17s to Fighters often cite the mutually supportive formations they flew in and the withering volume of fire they could produce.

True. And as you mentioned in the PTO B-17s never flew in the large formations used in Europe. Mostly that was because of a lack of strategic targets, and a lack of decent bases from which to operate many B-17s. In Mac's command they moreover tended to get used for recon and as VIP shuttles.

Further the Combat Box as we know wasn't even invented until summer/fall of 42' and that was in the ETO.

I'm not sure that is accurate. As I recall the B-17 combat box was invented in 1940 USAAF war games with P-39s as the opfor.

The only thing the B-17 had going for it was it's own defensive fire, which was considered weak and poorly positioned until the E model debuted. In early months of the WitP a good number of Fortresses were C/D Models.

True 'nuf.

Still it's ruggedness served it well against the weak armament of the IJ fighters, though they were by no means invincible.

Right. But even the Zeke's armament was rather weak compared to your garden variety ME-109 much less FW 190, and the B-17s defensive armament was much more effective against Zeroes than against German types. IMO, had a unit as big as a heavy bomb group conducted Box type strategic raids on, say, a Japanese airfield, even unescorted the Japanese would have been the worse for the wear from any interception combat.

Oh, and one Oscar would be hard pressed to bring any fort down, but a group of them certainly could. And it was more likely that this was the situation in the early months of the war, before they were relegated to Hacks and transports...around early '43 if I recall.

Not saying it'd be impossible, but a group of Oscars might lose half the group trying to bring down a single B-17. The B-17s defense has the Oscar's offense outranged, the Oscar is slow, and it's .30cal would take a very long time to do sufficient damage to a fort absent a very lucky hit.

I think the point of contention was whether or not "40-60" Oscars would maul an unescorted B17 heavy bomb group. We agree that the likelihood of 40-60 of Japanese anything (not enough Japanese a.c. logistical support on most outlying bases) intercepting a "group" (not enough B17 groups in the PTO) is far fetched. But a whole bunch of Oscars or even Zekes bumping into an actual B-17 box is IMO one of those 'hypotheticals' that would have made the B-17 look like the largely impregnible fortress the USAAF hoped it could be.

[TheElf]

I think the point of contention was whether or not "40-60" Oscars would maul an unescorted B17 heavy bomb group. We agree that the likelihood of 40-60 of Japanese anything (not enough Japanese a.c. logistical support on most outlying bases) intercepting a "group" (not enough B17 groups in the PTO) is far fetched. But a whole bunch of Oscars or even Zekes bumping into an actual B-17 box is IMO one of those 'hypotheticals' that would have made the B-17 look like the largely impregnible fortress the USAAF hoped it could be.

Probably. A no kidding ETO Style combat box would be a formidable opponent even for 40-60 Oscars. There would be blood...

I'll have to research the box thing. I was operating from memory. Forgot where I saw that...maybe in my signed and personalized copy of Col. Robert Morgan's book, the Memphis Belle?

[mdiehl]

Forgot where I saw that...maybe in my signed and personalized copy of Col. Robert Morgan's book, the Memphis Belle?

OK. My copy of the USAAF's abbreviated official history ("With Courage..") puts the use of the first squadron sized boxes in 1942. Smaller "mutual support" formations were used from the outset.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Forgot where I saw that...maybe in my signed and personalized copy of Col. Robert Morgan's book, the Memphis Belle?

OK. My copy of the USAAF's abbreviated official history ("With Courage..") puts the use of the first squadron sized boxes in 1942. Smaller "mutual support" formations were used from the outset.

Sounds about right...

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Oh, and one Oscar would be hard pressed to bring any fort down, but a group of them certainly could. And it was more likely that this was the situation in the early months of the war, before they were relegated to Hacks and transports...around early '43 if I recall.

It was difficult, but not impossible. Ki-43's managed to bring down a number of heavies throughout the fighting over Burma, and not due to numbers deployed which were small sized interceptions. On the downside, the small interception sizes made such work exceptionally dangerous for the defenders as well.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Oh, and one Oscar would be hard pressed to bring any fort down, but a group of them certainly could. And it was more likely that this was the situation in the early months of the war, before they were relegated to Hacks and transports...around early '43 if I recall.

It was difficult, but not impossible. Ki-43's managed to bring down a number of heavies throughout the fighting over Burma, and not due to numbers deployed which were small sized interceptions. On the downside, the small interception sizes made such work exceptionally dangerous for the defenders as well.

Agree wholeheatedly Nik. By "Group" I meant more than one. [;)]