WWII USAAF/USAF made the wrong choice in bomber making

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Fishbed



Please be advised I don't give a damn. Please be advised I don't come here to get lectured either, especially by people who introduce themselves as "the majority of us".


If he's not happy, he can put it where it belongs and selling it back on ebay. Been there, been playing, been like that, wondering "what the hell". The difference is I probably don't have that kind of frustration in my life that may make me come over the forum and start to annoy people in somekind of a virtual non-existant clan fight. I dislike biased flaming opinions enough - but what I hate most are those who want to justify their bias by accusing everyone else of being biased first. That's cheap flaming.

Complain, fine. But don't start to make up a war out of nothing, like, yeah, the forum is crawling with this "AE = Allied Edition" crap. Like if bugs had a country or programmers were either Japanese or American revisionists... Doesn't sound like the recommendable "I am coming in peace" tone I am looking for in this forum.

YEAH THE GAME IS SOOOOO BIASED AND BROKEN.
So go back to Counterstrike and leave big people alone.

Fishbed, be advised that for the most part I agree with what you say, if not how you say it. RevRick had an outstanding point. Civility is requested,respected and expected here. Just because you are right (or think that you are right) does not give you the right to be uncivil. If you can't act like the "Big people" , MAYBE YOU should go back to Counterstrike. Or at least take a time out and consider your post. And I DO GIVE A DAMN! So take your own advice. At very least you owe RevRick and apology. What do you expect "The Chaplain of WITP" to do? Condone poor behavior?


Now how about we all take ten minutes, grab a cup of coffee and cool off? [:)]

Steve, what the hell? I owe him an apology because I am supposed to turn the other cheek when a man of God comes knocking on my nose? I am not living in a free country to surrender my freedom of speech to people who are supposed to be closer to God than I am.
People like our honorable Reverend (God bless him though, although I am no believer) starting their speechs with "WE something, WE something" are the very reason why I definitely dislike every single patronizing aspect of that big holy business out there.
Thanks, but no thanks, he's the one getting his feet wet, he deals with it. All due respect.

But yeah, sorry for being uncivil. I am just tired of not looking at the same forum anymore, I'd better emigrate. People here used to complain less and play more, and pay a little more respect to developers.

Well, for what it's worth, he does speak for me. The one thing on these threads that make me downright uncivil, is unciviltiy. Whatever your relgious or other belifs, there is no need to consider anything but this (as far as RevRick goes) through out his time here he has been a very good influence on the forum, never being unpleasant or being anything other than a voice of reason, and CIVILITY. In other words, a true gentleman. When he speaks it's generally worth listening to. Many others have filled the same role (RRAPTASSO for one) , but most get frustrated and move on. And I do belive that he sums up the feelings that most of us have had (and do have). This is a special place. People come, and go, and occassionally come back.

But if you are concerned about the forum changing , do what we used to say in Maine about the weather. Wait a moment, it will change. You've been a forumite for a long time. You know how the complexion of the forum is always changing. Go back to the early days of WITP forum and look at all the mindless complaining. It was new. As AE is now. As people get used to it, the complaints will die down. And go back to debating "sunk vs. scuttled" or "Zero vs. Wildcat". What we have here is a simple case of being frustrated with the frustrated! And like all things , it too shall pass.

You are asset to this forum, as a long time resident. Don't go away. But take a moment to peruse those old WITP threads from the early days. You'll see that nothing ever changes. "Kids" will always complain. As I heard from my 1st day in the USN , "A bitchin' sailor is a Happy sailor". So there's a lot of happy people out there, who are mostly upset that they have been beaten by a bunch of ones and zeros!

Keep the faith brother, and stay. [:)]

[Fishbed]

ORIGINAL: Walloc

Any how, i'd like to apologiese if i offended any one with my inital comments that ppl see as biased.

Very apparently cluttered up the issue.

Sorry,

Rasmus

Sorry for being an ass Rasmus. Good luck with your uber-kates, who are way too uber to my view too anyway.

[Fishbed]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve




Fishbed, be advised that for the most part I agree with what you say, if not how you say it. RevRick had an outstanding point. Civility is requested,respected and expected here. Just because you are right (or think that you are right) does not give you the right to be uncivil. If you can't act like the "Big people" , MAYBE YOU should go back to Counterstrike. Or at least take a time out and consider your post. And I DO GIVE A DAMN! So take your own advice. At very least you owe RevRick and apology. What do you expect "The Chaplain of WITP" to do? Condone poor behavior?


Now how about we all take ten minutes, grab a cup of coffee and cool off? [:)]

Steve, what the hell? I owe him an apology because I am supposed to turn the other cheek when a man of God comes knocking on my nose? I am not living in a free country to surrender my freedom of speech to people who are supposed to be closer to God than I am.
People like our honorable Reverend (God bless him though, although I am no believer) starting their speechs with "WE something, WE something" are the very reason why I definitely dislike every single patronizing aspect of that big holy business out there.
Thanks, but no thanks, he's the one getting his feet wet, he deals with it. All due respect.

But yeah, sorry for being uncivil. I am just tired of not looking at the same forum anymore, I'd better emigrate. People here used to complain less and play more, and pay a little more respect to developers.

Well, for what it's worth, he does speak for me. The one thing on these threads that make me downright uncivil, is unciviltiy. Whatever your relgious or other belifs, there is no need to consider anything but this (as far as RevRick goes) through out his time here he has been a very good influence on the forum, never being unpleasant or being anything other than a voice of reason, and CIVILITY. In other words, a true gentleman. When he speaks it's generally worth listening to. Many others have filled the same role (RRAPTASSO for one) , but most get frustrated and move on. And I do belive that he sums up the feelings that most of us have had (and do have). This is a special place. People come, and go, and occassionally come back.

But if you are concerned about the forum changing , do what we used to say in Maine about the weather. Wait a moment, it will change. You've been a forumite for a long time. You know how the complexion of the forum is always changing. Go back to the early days of WITP forum and look at all the mindless complaining. It was new. As AE is now. As people get used to it, the complaints will die down. And go back to debating "sunk vs. scuttled" or "Zero vs. Wildcat". What we have here is a simple case of being frustrated with the frustrated! And like all things , it too shall pass.

You are asset to this forum, as a long time resident. Don't go away. But take a moment to peruse those old WITP threads from the early days. You'll see that nothing ever changes. "Kids" will always complain. As I heard from my 1st day in the USN , "A bitchin' sailor is a Happy sailor". So there's a lot of happy people out there, who are mostly upset that they have been beaten by a bunch of ones and zeros!

Keep the faith brother, and stay. [:)]

Leaving? That would be like asking a drunken sailor to get off the booze [;)]

Sorry for being an ass to you too, Reverend.

[RevRick]

Steve, what the hell? I owe him an apology because I am supposed to turn the other cheek when a man of God comes knocking on my nose? I am not living in a free country to surrender my freedom of speech to people who are supposed to be closer to God than I am.
People like our honorable Reverend (God bless him though, although I am no believer) starting their speechs with "WE something, WE something" are the very reason why I definitely dislike every single patronizing aspect of that big holy business out there.
Thanks, but no thanks, he's the one getting his feet wet, he deals with it. All due respect.

But yeah, sorry for being uncivil. I am just tired of not looking at the same forum anymore, I'd better emigrate. People here used to complain less and play more, and pay a little more respect to developers.

Okay, since you seem to want the scoop - Here it is. I have been on this board, or it's predecessor in the old PacWar days since 1997. That is not bragging - that is background experience. We have debated heatedly, passionately, and at times even with anger, but in the extreme majority of the times, always civilly, about almost anything that can be discussed via this medium about the War in the Pacific. Almost NEVER was there a personal invective involved. From the Old PacWar, Uncommon Valor, WitP, and now WitPAE boards, this has been the standard. And, (AGAIN!!!) virtually all of us have asked, and received a modicum of respect and civility from each other. Usually a gentle reminder of the expected demeanor on the board is enough. That alone is why a number of us have been posting for years with each other, and have enjoyed it, and continue to do so.

But everyone once in a while someone comes along who may or may not already have his nose out of joint, be it from real life or cyber life, and decides to smack someone (for virtually no reason) and then defend it as a "right". Or, perhaps, one with a flamethrower mentality arrives. When it gets carried away, the Moderators decide to step in. When someone posts a line such as "You can go to hell." that is taking the first step beyond the bounds of the decorum those of us who have enjoyed this board and the fellowship for some time think appropriate. I mentioned it in a cautionary post - nothing more. I did not report the post the the Mods, nor PM them, nor just come up and recommend an outright ban for a while. I cautioned you specifically about the language and tone employed. I, too, have that right. That specific comment was not appropriate nor expected on this board. If you think it was, so be it. We will let the discussion take its course, and see what is decided later.

One more point. I am not 'holier than thou', which your post seems to imply. I can cuss, fight and drink with the best of them, but because of my calling, I choose not to. I found you post offensive, and potentially dangerously unacceptable. So, I posted. It what I said offended you. I apologize. Do you have the capacity to apologize for telling someone to "go to hell?."

Shalom
Rev. Rick

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Walloc

And I respond by saying:

1. Dig up some factual numbers on hit rates. What should the % be at 27,000 feet for a Kate? Is 5 or 10% too high?

For what i know its never been attempted. So gona be hard to find concret numbers.
We do have numbers from 4E bombers tho. A lot more stable platform bombing from that height. The average hit was in in the lower single digits % when trying to hit a factory or other precision targets. Not necesarrily much smaller than a AF. One can only assume that a kate unsuited for that kinda bombing in bad weather would be significantly lower.

How about some two engine bombers at 7000m?





"The land attackers went in high at 7,000 meters...At Clark a mixed force of Type 1 and Type 96 Rikko dropped 636 60 kg bombs - a little over 42 tons at 1236. The pattern was perfect. Not a single bomb strayed more than 60 meters outside the perimiter of the field."

From a book about the Betty....


I'll grant you that these are not Kates and that the weather was decent and there was no CAP...however the hit % was apparently higher than single digits.

All I'm suggesting is that before you get exasperated about a particular report you need to look and see if it was possible...the game doesn't allow alternate loadouts so historically perhaps the 144 Kates would be carrying 6 or 8 60kg bombs for the mission so instead of 288 bombs being delivered it could have been 864 bombs or 1152 bombs, but alas that is not possible with the game as designed...

[RevRick]

I just saw your post, Fishbed. Apology accepted and offered. We just try to enjoy what little time we have to do such things as immerse ourselves in this game, and sometimes it gets a bit dicey..and sometimes passionately so. I have been known to do so myself quite often.

Keep on, Brother!!!

Shalom;
Rev Rick

[AW1Steve]

Here's a stupid question. Torpedo bombers fly at the cruise altittude before they go in at torpedo-dropping height. I noticed that the Kates seem to take a lot of damage at 27,000 feet. Flack wouldn't reach them in an accurrate manner. P-40's would not be all that maneveable. Could the Kates be cruising at 27K , then decending to 200'? I know that they are not carrying bombs , but do they know that? Can we get one of the developers to weight in here? You have got to admit that would go along way to explaining both the accurracy and loses. [&:]

[RevRick]

Yeah. That does seem a "tad" extreme, even for 144 Kates - almost like the 54 torpedo hits at Pearl Harbor I got in one of my earlier starts. And, oh, there was weeping and great gnashing of teeth!

[Dili]

Poltava 21 June 1944. Around 70 B-17 destroyed plus Soviet planes.
Operation Bodenplatte a German attack only with fighters: 1000 destroyed or damaged 400-500 allied planes.

The issue is bombing altitude.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Poltava 21 June 1944. Around 70 B-17 destroyed plus Soviet planes.
Operation Bodenplatte a German attack only with fighters: 1000 destroyed or damaged 400-500 allied planes.

The issue is bombing altitude.

Agreed. Hence my question. Would the damage be considered extreme if the Kates were at 200 feet? Could the program be treating the attack as a torpedo attack with bombs? [&:]

[Buck Beach]

I have long suspected that the developers here and in WITP have purposefully increased a weighted average dice throw to assist towards historical events. Yes, the Japanese did kick ass in Darwin, hence, there will be a greater chance that they will rule in the game, even from 27,000 feet if the PBEM player was foolish enough to use the Kates from that altitude (the odds of the Gods were with him). I am sure this also happens with ships and is the principal reason for included a historical "sunk date"

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: treespider




"The land attackers went in high at 7,000 meters...At Clark a mixed force of Type 1 and Type 96 Rikko dropped 636 60 kg bombs - a little over 42 tons at 1236. The pattern was perfect. Not a single bomb strayed more than 60 meters outside the perimiter of the field."

Ah ha, your response is flawed. 7000 meters is only about 23,100 ft.[:D]
[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: treespider


"The land attackers went in high at 7,000 meters...At Clark a mixed force of Type 1 and Type 96 Rikko dropped 636 60 kg bombs - a little over 42 tons at 1236. The pattern was perfect. Not a single bomb strayed more than 60 meters outside the perimiter of the field."

From a book about the Betty....

I'll grant you that these are not Kates and that the weather was decent and there was no CAP...however the hit % was apparently higher than single digits.

I dont see it as a very good example. To booth the attackers had strategic surprise to an extended that a rule is included in the game to cover that example specificly. Including a 100% hit rate.

I like the picture is tho. Clear all the way to ground from 7000m. Not what I would expect in a hex with heavy rain. I would expect clouds then. Sure u cant say 100% that u couldnt see the AF from 8km altitude the chance is u wouldnt or at lased ur run be obstructed. Why else have weather effects.

All I'm suggesting is that before you get exasperated about a particular report you need to look and see if it was possible...the game doesn't allow alternate loadouts so historically perhaps the 144 Kates would be carrying 6 or 8 60kg bombs for the mission so instead of 288 bombs being delivered it could have been 864 bombs or 1152 bombs, but alas that is not possible with the game as designed...

It was a full extended range. So i wouldnt consider that kinda number of bombs particular realistic. If i understand ur reasoning in case of 60kg bombs in regards to hitting more than 1 target. U migth see more hits but less effect in hitting more targets.

Why i still find the 133 "hits" with out much a reason.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Walloc

ORIGINAL: treespider


"The land attackers went in high at 7,000 meters...At Clark a mixed force of Type 1 and Type 96 Rikko dropped 636 60 kg bombs - a little over 42 tons at 1236. The pattern was perfect. Not a single bomb strayed more than 60 meters outside the perimiter of the field."

From a book about the Betty....

I'll grant you that these are not Kates and that the weather was decent and there was no CAP...however the hit % was apparently higher than single digits.

I dont see it as a very good example. To booth the attackers had strategic surprise to an extended that a rule is included in the game to cover that example specificly. Including a 100% hit rate.

I provided this example since you stated that 4E bombers at altitude had low hit %.

What difference does surprise play? The airfield is not moving and the airplane is still at 7,000m - with or without surprise.

I like the picture is tho. Clear all the way to ground from 7000m. Not what I would expect in a hex with heavy rain. I would expect clouds then. Sure u cant say 100% that u couldnt see the AF from 8km altitude the chance is u wouldnt or at lased ur run be obstructed. Why else have weather effects.

Well I suppose it wasn't raining over the Darwin Airfield when the bombs were dropped in your game example, so perhaps the skies were completely clear there...perhaps elsewhere in the hex it was raining but not at the point of attack...so perhaps its the inverse of something like that cartoon character that has the rain cloud following him around raining only on him.

A much better question would be - Why are the aircraft even dropping bombs if the weather is heavy rain?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Truthfully, the Kate did not have the equipment, nor it's crews the training, to do more than hit the ground from over 27,000 feet! These are TORPEDO bombers, with a secondary role as light attack planes! I'd be amazed if anyone can show even one historical example of them carrying out an attack from over 10,000 feet..., let alone over 20,000. The whole thing just isn't right at all.

I see no one has "lept into the breech" to disprove my assertion....

Still no takers, eh? I'll add another challenge to it. Can anyone prove that a Kate could cruise at 27,500 feet WITH a torpedo or equivalent bomb load? That's something else I doubt a great deal. [&:]

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Truthfully, the Kate did not have the equipment, nor it's crews the training, to do more than hit the ground from over 27,000 feet! These are TORPEDO bombers, with a secondary role as light attack planes! I'd be amazed if anyone can show even one historical example of them carrying out an attack from over 10,000 feet..., let alone over 20,000. The whole thing just isn't right at all.

I see no one has "lept into the breech" to disprove my assertion....

Still no takers, eh? I'll add another challenge to it. Can anyone prove that a Kate could cruise at 27,500 feet WITH a torpedo or equivalent bomb load? That's something else I doubt a great deal. [&:]

Better yet - How many dogfights took place at 25,000'+?

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Walloc
I dont see it as a very good example. To booth the attackers had strategic surprise to an extended that a rule is included in the game to cover that example specificly. Including a 100% hit rate.

I provided this example since you stated that 4E bombers at altitude had low hit %.

What difference does surprise play? The airfield is not moving and the airplane is still at 7,000m - with or without surprise.

No the airfield was moving but the expectation of no opposition as well as the no opposition makes its much more of a parade ground excercise than under "real" combat conditions. Hench the need to make a special rule just for that.

In the fall of 1944, only seven per cent of all bombs dropped by the Eighth Air Force hit within 1,000ft of their aim point; even a fighter-bomber in a 40 degree dive releasing a bomb at 7,000 ft could have a circular error (CEP) of as much as 1,000 ft. It took 108 B-17 bombers, crewed by 1,080 airmen, dropping 648 bombs to guarantee a 96 per cent chance of getting just two hits inside a 400 by 500 ft area (a German power-generation plant.)
Operations analysis in the U.S. Army Eighth Air Force in World War II Af Charles W. McArthur

I like the picture is tho. Clear all the way to ground from 7000m. Not what I would expect in a hex with heavy rain. I would expect clouds then. Sure u cant say 100% that u couldnt see the AF from 8km altitude the chance is u wouldnt or at lased ur run be obstructed. Why else have weather effects.

ORIGINAL: treespider

Well I suppose it wasn't raining over the Darwin Airfield when the bombs were dropped in your game example, so perhaps the skies were completely clear there...perhaps elsewhere in the hex it was raining but not at the point of attack...so perhaps its the inverse of something like that cartoon character that has the rain cloud following him around raining only on him.

A much better question would be - Why are the aircraft even dropping bombs if the weather is heavy rain?

Its possible, but considering that u have among others light overcast, overcast, rain conditions. IIRC a light rain too. Apparently heavy rain is on the bad side and not the occational shower. Else the describtion doesnt make much sense comparibly speaking.
At leased to some extend hindering any bombing and run in. Sure its question why the bomb at all.

Any how Tree since u are refusing to enter into a discussion on the subject, but is rather ill stick to my guns, i dont see much points in continuing it.

If u think that kates can level bomb from 8km altitude and get that acuraccy thats naturally ur progative. I just disagree.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: treespider
Better yet - How many dogfights took place at 25,000'+?

Quite a number, but virtually all were associated with high altitude American 4-engined bomber missions. (B-17's and -24's in Europe, B-29's in the Pacific) Otherwise missions (especially Naval Missions) were flown at lower (medium) altitudes..., and the dogfights they engendered took place at the same heights.

[Panther Bait]

Your both right. I find it almost impossible that a Kate could get that high with bombs onboard. And I doubt the P-40's would have been doing much "booming and zooming" at that altitude either. Really the whole raid is a bit flaky. The zeros would probably have been the most comfortable, but even they would probably be mostly flying straight and level to maintain altitude.

It took me a long time playing the better flight sims to get an appreciation of what high-altitude flying was like. I think it was the Janes F-15E strike eagle game that really hammered home how poorly planes fly near their service altitude. Straight and level is ok, but try to bank sharply and oops. At least you have a lot of altitude to recover from the spin.

[Nikademus]

a few....better question: how many dogfights occured above 30,000 feet? [;)]