Heavy Bomber Losses

[freeboy]

ok, we are missing each other, Z is correct in that last part regarding THE IN GAME USE.. not in his response.. If one uses heavies, and does not have anumerical advantage they tend to die badly.. .. weather or not this is true to life I will not judge.. and you are absolutely correct in that :

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.

I think the issue is smaller raids.. the pacific was a much different theater primarily due to the distances in the heavy campeign... I am not intenrtionaly attemptingto piss you off, really[X(]

[Tom Hunter]

I think its possible that several people are right while argueing.

There is no question the B17s claimed far more kills than they ever got. But that does not mean that they did not shoot down more fighters than any other class of plane. I had not given it much thought but Tristanjohn could easily be right about that.

In the two raids quoted above B17 claimed between 8 and 10 times the number of kills they actually got. My memory is that this is pretty typical for the war as a whole. So they claimed about 500 kills. They actually got 60. Did any other type of plane kill 60 German fighters during on those two days? I doubt it.

The B17 spent more time in the war than the P51 or P47 so it had more years to rack up the kills. It flew when German fighters were plentiful over Germany but could not be found anywhere else. B17s had the opportunity (which they did not want, thats for sure) to get kills when no other planes could fly to the battle area. Do that long enough and you rack up a lot of kills even if the enemy is kicking your ass while you do it.

As for the fighter claims in the Battle of Britian the British usually claimed twice as many kills as they actually got. This also seems typical for the war, I have seen it elsewhere, for example in Fighters In The Desert as well. The reason for this is simple, when a fighter shoots an enemy there are not 9 other guys also hammering away. When a ball turret gunner in a B17 opens up he has dozens of buddies firing on the same plane. If the plane blows up a bunch of them are going to think it was thier bullets that did it and claim the kill.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

ok, we are missing each other, Z is correct in that last part regarding THE IN GAME USE.. not in his response.. If one uses heavies, and does not have anumerical advantage they tend to die badly.. .. weather or not this is true to life I will not judge.. and you are absolutely correct in that :

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.

I think the issue is smaller raids.. the pacific was a much different theater primarily due to the distances in the heavy campeign... I am not intenrtionaly attemptingto piss you off, really[X(]

I'm not at all pissed or irritated or anything like that. Calm down. You're being polite, which is all I ask.

One factor which would have (might have--I don't have the statistics for this, but it seems to fit the case as I understand it) affected Allied losses negatively would be lack of flight discipline in route to, over the target and upon return. This was a lesson learned the hard way by the Allies in Euirope. Formation integrity meant a lot.

I mention this for the reason that before General Kenney took over command in Australia discipline of the then-existent ad hoc Allied bomber force of this and that was reportedly atrocious. Kenney soon righted this, though, and in the main he ran the show for the majority of time when USAAF assets were involved, so I don't think it's a big issue in terms of the overall loss figures, but I thought I'd throw that in there for the sake of being complete.

Smaller formations, to a degree, might well be another factor. What I don't know is how many bombers in a "larger" formation would be necessary to represent a better defensive flight package. Come to think of it, I don't remember ever reading something like that either way. For sure two planes flying together can offer mutally-supporting fire along their common axis, and three or four sounds better still to me. No matter how many in total, though, there are always going to be planes left out on the flanks and above and below with their far sides not mutually defensible by other planes in the group, so where that all leads I'm not certain.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

I think its possible that several people are right while argueing.

There is no question the B17s claimed far more kills than they ever got. But that does not mean that they did not shoot down more fighters than any other class of plane. I had not given it much thought but Tristanjohn could easily be right about that.

Well, it isn't a case of me being right or wrong, it's simply a statistic I've read along the way and I'm willing to throw out there for whatever it's worth. I only did so as a point of instruction as to how deadly B-17s were to enemy fighters that came within range of the Fort's .50s. Whatever the actual kill numbers were, B-17s shot down Me-109s in round numbers over Germany, and Me-109s were built one whole helluva lot more sturdily than Zeros. So, extrapolate for yourselves on that one.

In the two raids quoted above B17 claimed between 8 and 10 times the number of kills they actually got. My memory is that this is pretty typical for the war as a whole. So they claimed about 500 kills. They actually got 60. Did any other type of plane kill 60 German fighters during on those two days? I doubt it.

The B17 spent more time in the war than the P51 or P47 so it had more years to rack up the kills. It flew when German fighters were plentiful over Germany but could not be found anywhere else. B17s had the opportunity (which they did not want, thats for sure) to get kills when no other planes could fly to the battle area. Do that long enough and you rack up a lot of kills even if the enemy is kicking your ass while you do it.

That's a valid point, too. But I think I mentioned this with re to no escorts over most of German territory before the Mustangs arrived. (Or perhaps that was in a different thread.)

As for the fighter claims in the Battle of Britian the British usually claimed twice as many kills as they actually got. This also seems typical for the war, I have seen it elsewhere, for example in Fighters In The Desert as well. The reason for this is simple, when a fighter shoots an enemy there are not 9 other guys also hammering away. When a ball turret gunner in a B17 opens up he has dozens of buddies firing on the same plane. If the plane blows up a bunch of them are going to think it was thier bullets that did it and claim the kill.

Something like that. But again, my only contention is that the B-17 was lethal to Me-109s over Europe and probably doubly so versus the Zero. Now the only place to go from there is to figure out if the game has that right. And like I said, I'm not sure yet. But I don't think it does . . . based on my limited PBEM experience to date.

[Mr.Frag]

How does the game count such a a/c?

Ops loss, damaged aircraft cracks up on landing.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Zeta16

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.

Why would you fly a bomber unescorted? How about because the bombers have twice the range of any potential escort? As was the case in Europe before the P-51's were available. "Totally unhistorical play"? Not hardly. Using the A/C exactly as they were designed to be used is more likely. In Europe, this was found to be a mistake in design philosophy. Against underarmed and lightly built Japanese A/C it worked just fine.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Hi String,

I don't have them for Pacific Theatre. I'm basing my feelings on the 8th's experience against a better bomber destroyer (FW190).

If people think the loss rate for heavy bombers in a2a is right then thats cool. I just thought i'd express my views that in my opinion there are shot down a little too much.

Do people want me to carry out tests tonight?

As say just thoughts and this game still rocks [8D]

One of the few things people consider is how far did the bombers have to fly? Two hexes distance would decrease losses as opposed to ten hexes. You put 6000ft and 10 hexes together and the result is very likely to be high losses.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Can you imagine a waist gunner, a ball gunner, and the rear gunner all shooting at the same plane and two of them say to themselves "No, it wasn't my bullets that did it."

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: 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...

Bullshit.

...On August 17, 1943, Maj. Gen. Ira C. Eaker, commanding general of Eighth Air Force, launched his most ambitious operation up to that time—a twin strike on the Messerschmitt aircraft factory at Regensburg and the ball-bearing production center at Schweinfurt, both in southern Germany. Regensburg, the more distant target, was 430 miles inside occupied Europe...

Heavy Losses

Thus, of the 376 B-17 Flying Fortresses that set out from England to bomb the two important targets, sixty were destroyed... another fifty-five aircraft, which had been damaged beyond immediate repair, and three more were lost during the return flight. In the short term, the twin attacks and that on the French airfield deprived Eighth Air Force of 118 bombers—nearly one-third of the force committed on August 17.

Despite bomber crew reports to the contrary, their return fire did not inflict serious losses on the German fighters. The Luftwaffe lost only twenty-seven fighters during the two great air battles.



Meet Them Head-On

One solution was to attack the heavy bombers head-on. When the bomber was hit from that direction, its armor gave little protection, and four or five 20-mm hits were enough to knock down the plane. Moreover, the bombers had fewer guns firing forward, and the high closing speed gave them little chance to engage the fighters…

… “One accurate half-second burst from head-on and a victory was guaranteed.”…

…The head-on attack required skillful flying and accurate shooting. The best pilots amassed high victory totals using such tactics…


Copyright Air Force Association.


http://www.afa.org/magazine/1993/0993Against.asp

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

ORIGINAL: 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...

Bullshit.

...On August 17, 1943, Maj. Gen. Ira C. Eaker, commanding general of Eighth Air Force, launched his most ambitious operation up to that time—a twin strike on the Messerschmitt aircraft factory at Regensburg and the ball-bearing production center at Schweinfurt, both in southern Germany. Regensburg, the more distant target, was 430 miles inside occupied Europe...

Heavy Losses

Thus, of the 376 B-17 Flying Fortresses that set out from England to bomb the two important targets, sixty were destroyed... another fifty-five aircraft, which had been damaged beyond immediate repair, and three more were lost during the return flight. In the short term, the twin attacks and that on the French airfield deprived Eighth Air Force of 118 bombers—nearly one-third of the force committed on August 17.

Despite bomber crew reports to the contrary, their return fire did not inflict serious losses on the German fighters. The Luftwaffe lost only twenty-seven fighters during the two great air battles.



Meet Them Head-On

One solution was to attack the heavy bombers head-on. When the bomber was hit from that direction, its armor gave little protection, and four or five 20-mm hits were enough to knock down the plane. Moreover, the bombers had fewer guns firing forward, and the high closing speed gave them little chance to engage the fighters…

… “One accurate half-second burst from head-on and a victory was guaranteed.”…

…The head-on attack required skillful flying and accurate shooting. The best pilots amassed high victory totals using such tactics…


Copyright Air Force Association.


http://www.afa.org/magazine/1993/0993Against.asp

As far as I know the most B-17s shot down in a single flight was 69 over Berlin. So that's worst still. And then don't forget about Big Week in 1944, when the Forts were virtually employed as flak and fighter magnets in an effort to attrit the Luftwaffe with both those B-17s and their escorting Mustangs. There's no doubt the 8th took a pounding during the war. I think we've all seen the picture.

But so what? What you point out re head-on attacks only wants to say that B-17s were easier to shoot down from the front, not easy. There's a difference.

Meanwhile, we're not actually talking about the war over Europe here but the war over Ricecake Heaven, where B-17 opposition was nowhere near as stiff. You do agree with that, do you not?

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
As far as I know the most B-17s shot down in a single flight was 69 over Berlin. So that's worst still. And then don't forget about Big Week in 1944, when the Forts were virtually employed as flak and fighter magnets in an effort to attrit the Luftwaffe with both those B-17s and their escorting Mustangs. There's no doubt the 8th took a pounding during the war. I think we've all seen the picture.

But so what? What you point out re head-on attacks only wants to say that B-17s were easier to shoot down from the front, not easy. There's a difference.

The B-17F was highly vunerable to attack from the front even after modifications were made in an attempt to deal with this problem in the field. The American crews knew it, the Germans knew it, and even the commanding officer knew it, thus the B-17G.

B-17F
The "F" was the first B-17 variant to be produced by all of the "B.V.D." companies (Boeing, Lockheed/Vega, and Douglas). Because of the pressing demand for the Flying Fortress, Boeing provided blueprints and cooperation for the B-17 to be built at the Douglas plant in Long Beach and the Vega plant in Burbank. Altogether, they would turn out 3405 B-17Fs: 2300 by Boeing, 605 by Douglas, and 500 by Lockheed/Vega. The first B-17F flew in May, 1942.

From the outside, the "F" closely resembled the "E;" only the unframed, bubble-style plexiglass nose appeared different. Internally, over 400 changes made the B-17F a better bomber: new Wright R-1820-97 Cyclone engines (capable of 1380 hp in short bursts), paddle-bladed propellers, a stronger undercarriage, external bomb racks, better brakes, carburetor intake filters, etc..

B-17F's participated in the January 27, 1943 raid on Wilhelmshaven, the first USAAF mission over Germany. The Luftwaffe pilots quickly identified the B-17's vulnerability to head-on attack. Field modifications, typically jury-rigged machine guns, didn't help much. The stage was set for the B-17G, the definitive variant of the Flying Fortress.


B-17G
This version fairly bristled with defensive firepower: 13 Browning .50 caliber machine guns. Chin, dorsal, ventral, and tail turrets each mounted a pair of guns (8). Left- and right- side guns in the cheeks and waist added 4 more. And a single, rear-firing gun on the top of the fuselage made 13. No wonder Luftwaffe pilots suffered from "vier motor schreck" ("four-engine fear").

The most distinctive change was the "chin" turret, sticking out below the nose. It looks like an after-thought, and it was. But the two machine guns there addressed the B-17's earlier vulnerability.

With 8,680 produced between July 1943 and April 1945, the "G" was the most numerous B-17 variant: 4,035 B-17Gs by Boeing, 2,395 by Douglas, and 2,250 by Lockheed/Vega. The vast majority of surviving B-17s are "G"s.

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
Meanwhile, we're not actually talking about the war over Europe here but the war over Ricecake Heaven, where B-17 opposition was nowhere near as stiff. You do agree with that, do you not?

No disagreement there.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
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….

…Col. Claude E. Putnam, the commander of the 306th BG, who estimated in 1943 that only 10% of the gunners who could theoretically have fired at an enemy aircraft really did so, and that at least four gunners needed to fire to have a 50% probability to shoot an enemy aircraft down. The commander of the 308th shared his doubts, wondering whether the guns were not more a hazard than a protection…

Courage and Air Warfare –
The Allied Aircrew Experience in the Second World War
by Mark K. Wells
(Frank Cross, London, 1995).


“…Even the best all-round armament was never enough. Deep penetrations in German territory turned out to be extremely costly. The most famous examples are the attacks on Regensburg and Schweinfurt: The first attack, on 17 August, resulted in the loss of 60 bombers out of a force of 363. Some consolation was found in the claims by the gunners, which amounted to a total of 228 enemy fighters shot down; even after careful evaluation of claims the 8th AF estimated the German losses to be between 148 and 100. In fact the Luftwaffe had lost only 25 fighters. A repeat attack on 14 October gave a confirmation, if any was necessary: 65 more B-17s were lost. The initial claim of enemy fighters downed was even higher than in the first attack, 288; but even the official figure of 104 was way above the real German loss: 35…”


http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... un-de.html

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
As far as I know the most B-17s shot down in a single flight was 69 over Berlin. So that's worst still. And then don't forget about Big Week in 1944, when the Forts were virtually employed as flak and fighter magnets in an effort to attrit the Luftwaffe with both those B-17s and their escorting Mustangs. There's no doubt the 8th took a pounding during the war. I think we've all seen the picture.

But so what? What you point out re head-on attacks only wants to say that B-17s were easier to shoot down from the front, not easy. There's a difference.

The B-17F was highly vunerable to attack from the front even after modifications were made in an attempt to deal with this problem in the field. The American crews knew it, the Germans knew it, and even the commanding officer knew it, thus the B-17G.

B-17F
The "F" was the first B-17 variant to be produced by all of the "B.V.D." companies (Boeing, Lockheed/Vega, and Douglas). Because of the pressing demand for the Flying Fortress, Boeing provided blueprints and cooperation for the B-17 to be built at the Douglas plant in Long Beach and the Vega plant in Burbank. Altogether, they would turn out 3405 B-17Fs: 2300 by Boeing, 605 by Douglas, and 500 by Lockheed/Vega. The first B-17F flew in May, 1942.

From the outside, the "F" closely resembled the "E;" only the unframed, bubble-style plexiglass nose appeared different. Internally, over 400 changes made the B-17F a better bomber: new Wright R-1820-97 Cyclone engines (capable of 1380 hp in short bursts), paddle-bladed propellers, a stronger undercarriage, external bomb racks, better brakes, carburetor intake filters, etc..

B-17F's participated in the January 27, 1943 raid on Wilhelmshaven, the first USAAF mission over Germany. The Luftwaffe pilots quickly identified the B-17's vulnerability to head-on attack. Field modifications, typically jury-rigged machine guns, didn't help much. The stage was set for the B-17G, the definitive variant of the Flying Fortress.


B-17G
This version fairly bristled with defensive firepower: 13 Browning .50 caliber machine guns. Chin, dorsal, ventral, and tail turrets each mounted a pair of guns (8). Left- and right- side guns in the cheeks and waist added 4 more. And a single, rear-firing gun on the top of the fuselage made 13. No wonder Luftwaffe pilots suffered from "vier motor schreck" ("four-engine fear").

The most distinctive change was the "chin" turret, sticking out below the nose. It looks like an after-thought, and it was. But the two machine guns there addressed the B-17's earlier vulnerability.

With 8,680 produced between July 1943 and April 1945, the "G" was the most numerous B-17 variant: 4,035 B-17Gs by Boeing, 2,395 by Douglas, and 2,250 by Lockheed/Vega. The vast majority of surviving B-17s are "G"s.

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
Meanwhile, we're not actually talking about the war over Europe here but the war over Ricecake Heaven, where B-17 opposition was nowhere near as stiff. You do agree with that, do you not?

No disagreement there.

You've more or less answered your own question there re the B-17 F vis-a-vis the B-17 G. [:)]

And I'm glad you agree that conditions were different in the Pacific than over Europe. So, what's your opinion of the model? Does WitP have it right or no?

[doktorblood]

Col. Claude E. Putnam, the commander of the 306th BG, who estimated in 1943 that only 10% of the gunners who could theoretically have fired at an enemy aircraft really did so, and that at least four gunners needed to fire to have a 50% probability to shoot an enemy aircraft down. The commander of the 308th shared his doubts, wondering whether the guns were not more a hazard than a protection…

I've always wondered about that while watching bomber movies. With all of those guys blasting away in swirling turrets and swinging their .50 cals wildley I wonder how many times they ventilated their fellow bombers ... or maybe shot off their own stabilizer or some other important piece of their own ride.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
....And I'm glad you agree that conditions were different in the Pacific than over Europe. So, what's your opinion of the model? Does WitP have it right or no?...

I find it hard to say if it is right or wrong at this point in time as I have limited time to experiance 1.5. I will note that if the Allied players is flying B-17s at 6,000 feet... losses will be significantly higher than they were during the war: he is making a choice as commander that would have gotten him hung by his own men during the war. [;)]

Mission To Rabaul January 5, 1943

American Side of the Mission
January 5, 1943 Mission 4L Six B-17s and six B-24s took off from 7-Mile Drome, Port Moresby to bomb the harbor, shipping and the airfield at Rabaul, New Britain. The American formations arrived over Rabaul in three groups, at different local times:

First Raid - 2 B-17s bomb Vunakanau dispersal area, and are intercepted by 12-15 Zekes. The B-17 crews claim to have downed 7 Zekes.

Second Raid - 6 B-24s attach ships in Rabaul's Harbor, they are intercepted by 12-15 fighters mostly Zekes but possible "Me 109s". They B-24 crews claim to have downed 2 Japanese fighters.

Third Raid - 4 B-17s. Rabaul ships. Intercepted by 8-10 Zekes and possible Haps. No claims.

American Losses
Two B-17s were lost, B-17F 41-24538 and B-17F "San Antonio Rose" 41-24458 with Brigadier General Kenneth Walker, Commanding General V Bomber Command aboard.

Misidentifcation of Me-109
In the South Pacific, there were many reports of 'Me-109s', often when pilots confused the Ki-61 Tony for that aircraft. In this case, the aircraft were not Ki-61s as the first unit with this type (68th Sentai) did not arrive at Rabaul until April 1943, three months later.
Later


Japanese Side
Both the Japanese Navy (Zeros) and Army (Oscars) intercepted this raid. The army and navy shared Rabaul air defence. The navy took the early shift and intercepted the first raid. The army apparently took the later shift and took on the B-17/B-24 formation. The evidence points to the fact that Walker's B-17 was shot down by a lightly armed Ki-43-I fighter. The fact that there was some recognition discrepancies in the raid may be additional evidence that Ki-43 Oscars (less familiar aircraft) were involved, and mistaken as HAPS or Me-109s.

Japanese Navy Interception
First Raid - Japanese Mono. # 121 (Navy) says 3 B-17s raided Rabaul. 12 fighters intercepted (presumably navy Zeros). Claim 1 B-17 shot down.

Japanese Army Air Force Interception
Second Raid and Third Raid - Japanese Mono. # 37 (Army) says two air attacks by about 5 B-17s and B-24s (5 each?). Part of the 11th Sentai (Ki-43-I Oscars) intercepted and claimed 4 (including 3 doubtful).

A translated Japanese Army Intelligence is more specific about claims saying 2 B-17s (1 probable) and 2 Consolidated (probable) were shot down. Three Japanese aircraft were lost but all pilots were saved. The second B-17 limped close to Goodenough Island before ditching (403 BS). [this suggests the 403rd B-17 was the probable and Walker's bomber was the certain victory which might mean it was seen to crash]

Anti-Aircraft Fire
Significant, is that there is no report of damage to US a/c by AA guns. However, at least the heavy guns were in action.


Research notes by Richard Dunn


Actual losses
Americans 2 B-17s
Japanese 3 Fighters

Note: one B-17 was lost to a KI-43, while damage inflected to the Japanese ground/naval targets was very limited.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

Col. Claude E. Putnam, the commander of the 306th BG, who estimated in 1943 that only 10% of the gunners who could theoretically have fired at an enemy aircraft really did so, and that at least four gunners needed to fire to have a 50% probability to shoot an enemy aircraft down. The commander of the 308th shared his doubts, wondering whether the guns were not more a hazard than a protection…

I've always wondered about that while watching bomber movies. With all of those guys blasting away in swirling turrets and swinging their .50 cals wildley I wonder how many times they ventilated their fellow bombers ... or maybe shot off their own stabilizer or some other important piece of their own ride.

I did see combat footage that showed one B-17 'bombing' another B-17 that had strayed into its bomb path. The bombs passed right through the wing of the B-17 taking it down.

[Sharkosaurus rex]

The turrets and flexible guns were syncronised to the bombers silhouette so they couldn't damage their own plane if it was working correctly. This was a feature of all bombers even in WWI. Of course there was nothing to prevent you shooting at friendly bombers.

[Speedysteve]

Woah i've been away for half a day and things have moved on a fair bit!

I haven't had time to run my tests yet but I seriously plan to do what I class as a lot (maybe 60ish-100).

I think a lot of people have made valid points in here regarding claims and losses etc but thing to remember with this in my opinion is that EVERY nation whether flying fighters or bombers heavily over-claimed. It's off topic but if people needed it I have access to 8AF losses and claims over Europe and also Luftwaffe claims.

I think i'm right in saying that on average the losses over Europe for heavy bombers vs enemy fighters was 1:1. Now I know the Pacific is a different kettle of fish but I still think you can base things from the perspective of a certainty - Losses in Europe ran at 1:1 and this was against superior planes (versus bombers) (109's, 190's, 110's and 410's). I know combat heights and distances were different in the Pacific war but I really don't imagine losses could have been greater than 1:1 against Japanese fighters. Does anyone have to hand a lot of info on heavy bomber losses vs fighters over the Pacific.

As I say maybe the model is correct and i'm not here to bash it I really am not. I just want the game to model correctly and then we can play as we wish with it. I'll get to my tests when I can though and see what that brings up. It may well all be correct and this discussion unecessary.

Regards,

Steven

[Speedysteve]

Just to update all.

I am scheduling the tests in for this weekend. Will report back on Monday all being well.

Regards,

Steven

[String]

ORIGINAL: Speedy


I think i'm right in saying that on average the losses over Europe for heavy bombers vs enemy fighters was 1:1.
Steven

I assume that figure covers the whole war. However what was the loss ratio of unescorted heavy bombers vs enemy fighters?