Matrix Games Forums

For the first time in what seems like months, the Allies split up their bombing runs here. It will give me a chance to nail some bombers with exclusive LRCAP positions.

Rahaeng finally falls, but no Allied units are in pursuit mode. The Northern triangle should be able to retreat without a problem now.

Allies strike at Maebashi with very little success...but with more success at Hamamatsu hitting the Ha45 factory there. The Allies seem currently focused on engines and fighters. Tony production is down to 2+ planes per day from 5. Frank is down to 13 per day from 16. Jack production is still climbing thanks to the factory at Nagasaki. Zeke and Oscar production untouched. All these losses are since the beginning of the invasion of Hokkaido and not from last night.

To offset the plane losses on eastern Honshu and Hokkaido, I have started expanding the fighters in Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and I might do Harbin.

Japanese fighters did a good job versus Allied sweepers; but I guessed wrong and had fighters north in what I had hoped to be an attractive bait hex, plus I had two squadrons up front to sweep (they didn't fly). I would have been able to really inflict the bomber losses if they were at Hamamatsu...oh well, I seem always to guess wrong when it comes to traps and such.

So, the lightest plane loss day that I can remember in quite a while. We are but one day away from the B29 rolling off the factory lines...18 built per month for the next 6 months.

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Allies strike at Maebashi with very little success...but with more success at Hamamatsu hitting the Ha45 factory there. The Allies seem currently focused on engines and fighters. Tony production is down to 2+ planes per day from 5. Frank is down to 13 per day from 16. Jack production is still climbing thanks to the factory at Nagasaki. Zeke and Oscar production untouched. All these losses are since the beginning of the invasion of Hokkaido and not from last night.

To offset the plane losses on eastern Honshu and Hokkaido, I have started expanding the fighters in Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and I might do Harbin.

Japanese fighters did a good job versus Allied sweepers; but I guessed wrong and had fighters north in what I had hoped to be an attractive bait hex, plus I had two squadrons up front to sweep (they didn't fly). I would have been able to really inflict the bomber losses if they were at Hamamatsu...oh well, I seem always to guess wrong when it comes to traps and such.

So, the lightest plane loss day that I can remember in quite a while. We are but one day away from the B29 rolling off the factory lines...18 built per month for the next 6 months.

B29

Be ready, he has already got ~50 B-29 in new arriving squadrons in Aden. He can withdraw those a/c and put them to work over Japan in 1 - 2 weeks ( it take time to get flight ready those beast )

ORIGINAL: MrKane
Be ready, he has already got ~50 B-29 in new arriving squadrons in Aden. He can withdraw those a/c and put them to work over Japan in 1 - 2 weeks ( it take time to get flight ready those beast )

I figured he might get some early, I can't remember what our reinforcement delay is (if any) and about 20 days ago I really layered the fighter defense deep from Hokkaido assuming that B29s could show up anytime.

At least the most important cities have fighters and AA. Some of the smaller industry locations don't...

Thanks for the warning![&o]

B29s are fragile and the game seems to ignore their tremendous speed. They will be shot down just as easily as B24s. Erik never had any trouble to intercept them despite them in many cases being faster then the defending fighters. Their main advantage is the range but that doesn´t apply in your game since your opponent is already within B24 range.

Don´t worry about them too much. [:)]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

B29s are fragile and the game seems to ignore their tremendous speed. They will be shot down just as easily as B24s. Erik never had any trouble to intercept them despite them in many cases being faster then the defending fighters. Their main advantage is the range but that doesn´t apply in your game since your opponent is already within B24 range.

Don´t worry about them too much. [:)]

Best defence of B-29 was altitude, they were flaying high and most of Japan fighters did not have time and climb ability to reach them before they drop bombs and turn back. However it seems to me that in this game nobody is using them this way, most of players are using them the same way as they use B-24. If you flaying B-29 at 10k is is not surprise they will get broken by empire fighters They role is to bomb city form high altitude or low at night. They are not tactical bombers in game as they were not RL.

ORIGINAL: MrKane
Best defence of B-29 was altitude, they were flaying high and most of Japan fighters did not have time and climb ability to reach them before they drop bombs and turn back. However it seems to me that in this game nobody is using them this way, most of players are using them the same way as they use B-24. If you flaying B-29 at 10k is is not surprise they will get broken by empire fighters They role is to bomb city form high altitude or low at night. They are not tactical bombers in game as they were not RL.

I'm probably the only Allied player here who flies my 4E bombers at 20k feet in most situations. I just hate flak losses...a lot.

ORIGINAL: Sangeli

ORIGINAL: MrKane
Best defence of B-29 was altitude, they were flaying high and most of Japan fighters did not have time and climb ability to reach them before they drop bombs and turn back. However it seems to me that in this game nobody is using them this way, most of players are using them the same way as they use B-24. If you flaying B-29 at 10k is is not surprise they will get broken by empire fighters They role is to bomb city form high altitude or low at night. They are not tactical bombers in game as they were not RL.

I'm probably the only Allied player here who flies my 4E bombers at 20k feet in most situations. I just hate flak losses...a lot.

When I took B-29s from 12,000 ft to 15,000 ft flak hits seemed to drop dramatically, and they got great bomb hits (not as much disrupted by flak I guess). The difference really surprised me. Is much more really gained by going to 20,000 ft?

ORIGINAL: witpqs
When I took B-29s from 12,000 ft to 15,000 ft flak hits seemed to drop dramatically, and they got great bomb hits (not as much disrupted by flak I guess). The difference really surprised me. Is much more really gained by going to 20,000 ft?

Well I was still taking flak losses at 15k feet (as in, planes outright destroyed by flak shown in the combat report) so I brought it up to 20k feet. But believe it or not I still occasionally lose planes at 20k feet too. Another advantage of flying at 20k feet (or even higher) is that you can also fly your escorts higher as well without worrying as much about whether they will fly together. The combination of all the factors (including the ones MrKane mentioned) definitely does reduce losses by a fair amount in all situations.

That being said, you definitely notice a drop in the number of hits. It's just a trade of mission survival rate at the cost of less damage dealt. I think for most routine missions you're better off flying high since retaining pilots and planes is very important. But if you're going after a target of opportunity and the potential damage you can do outweighs the extra losses you might take then obviously go fly low.

The big difficulty I think is evaluating the differences in survivability and hit percentage as a function of altitude. I really don't have a strong idea on the magnitude of the differences...I just notice that one is higher than the other. This would be an excellent thing to test if someone has some free time. I wonder if Alfred is a lurker in this AAAR....

ORIGINAL: Sangeli

ORIGINAL: witpqs
When I took B-29s from 12,000 ft to 15,000 ft flak hits seemed to drop dramatically, and they got great bomb hits (not as much disrupted by flak I guess). The difference really surprised me. Is much more really gained by going to 20,000 ft?

Well I was still taking flak losses at 15k feet (as in, planes outright destroyed by flak shown in the combat report) so I brought it up to 20k feet. But believe it or not I still occasionally lose planes at 20k feet too. Another advantage of flying at 20k feet (or even higher) is that you can also fly your escorts higher as well without worrying as much about whether they will fly together. The combination of all the factors (including the ones MrKane mentioned) definitely does reduce losses by a fair amount in all situations.

That being said, you definitely notice a drop in the number of hits. It's just a trade of mission survival rate at the cost of less damage dealt. I think for most routine missions you're better off flying high since retaining pilots and planes is very important. But if you're going after a target of opportunity and the potential damage you can do outweighs the extra losses you might take then obviously go fly low.

The big difficulty I think is evaluating the differences in survivability and hit percentage as a function of altitude. I really don't have a strong idea on the magnitude of the differences...I just notice that one is higher than the other. This would be an excellent thing to test if someone has some free time. I wonder if Alfred is a lurker in this AAAR....

I have noticed substantial improvement flying over the flak.

Some of the weaker 8cm Japanese flak tops out around 23K, the stronger at 27K. This early, before a lot of the 12 cm upgrades, the Allies probably could get by flying around 20-23K and minimize flak and disruption losses....probably only important over a few heavily guarded AA bases. You aren't going to fly over the 12 cm.

Turn is away, trying to score some beasties over in Indochina...

Even with the B29 coming due, I get the four cannon Jack. Looking forward to him![:)]

Alfred has chimed in from time to time. Given all the variables, and unknowns, I don't see how you could test in conclusively. Perhaps enough for some guidelines.

I have noticed the B29s can arrive over the target very early in the day, before sweeps a lot of times. So perhaps I will get some good shots at them.

ORIGINAL: MrKane

Best defence of B-29 was altitude, they were flaying high and most of Japan fighters did not have time and climb ability to reach them before they drop bombs and turn back. However it seems to me that in this game nobody is using them this way, most of players are using them the same way as they use B-24. If you flaying B-29 at 10k is is not surprise they will get broken by empire fighters They role is to bomb city form high altitude or low at night. They are not tactical bombers in game as they were not RL.

I remember watching an interview with a B29 pilot that flew a lot of missions over the HI. He said they never, ever worried about Japanese fighters. He said they were flying in low though (don´t think he specified what he meant by "low") and could usually see Japanese fighters trying to climb to intercept altitude long after they already dropped their bombs. But the B29 were so fast the fighters could never catch up.

In my experience flying with B29s in daytime (even at high altitude) is a death sentence. As I said before the game doesn´t seem to take the bombers speed into account and losses will be exactly the same as if you were flying 100MPH slower B24s. The few times I tried this my RoT of 1 lost 4E for each airborne fighter was spot on.

Kind of funny how it works in the game. Currently reading a book on the Guadalcanal campaign. On several occasion small number of B17s shot down a lot of Japanese fighters. Can´t remember the exact event but 8 B17s shot down 7 Zeroes while on anti shipping duty up the slot for no own losses. In the game this role is reversed. [:D]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

ORIGINAL: MrKane

Best defence of B-29 was altitude, they were flaying high and most of Japan fighters did not have time and climb ability to reach them before they drop bombs and turn back. However it seems to me that in this game nobody is using them this way, most of players are using them the same way as they use B-24. If you flaying B-29 at 10k is is not surprise they will get broken by empire fighters They role is to bomb city form high altitude or low at night. They are not tactical bombers in game as they were not RL.

I remember watching an interview with a B29 pilot that flew a lot of missions over the HI. He said they never, ever worried about Japanese fighters. He said they were flying in low though (don´t think he specified what he meant by "low") and could usually see Japanese fighters trying to climb to intercept altitude long after they already dropped their bombs. But the B29 were so fast the fighters could never catch up.

In my experience flying with B29s in daytime (even at high altitude) is a death sentence. As I said before the game doesn´t seem to take the bombers speed into account and losses will be exactly the same as if you were flying 100MPH slower B24s. The few times I tried this my RoT of 1 lost 4E for each airborne fighter was spot on.

Kind of funny how it works in the game. Currently reading a book on the Guadalcanal campaign. On several occasion small number of B17s shot down a lot of Japanese fighters. Can´t remember the exact event but 8 B17s shot down 7 Zeroes while on anti shipping duty up the slot for no own losses. In the game this role is reversed. [:D]

Crew B-17 had tendency to report a lot of kills usually twice or triple more enemy fighters than they were actually facing .
As you can assume being under attack and busy fighting for life does no help keeping track. And not only B-17 crews, it was general rule during WWII.
A few examples:
- 12th June 1943, 77 Zeros were send to attack allied shipping near Guadalcanal. They were intercepted by ~50 allied fighters.
Allied pilots reported 31 confirmed kills, however Japan report says: 3 Zeros return due malfunction, 9 did not return at all.
- 16th June 1943, 24 D3A escorted by 70 Zeros were send again to attack allied ships around Guadalcanal. Allied reports says: 32 confirmed D3A kills and 49 Zeros. As you can see they shoot down more Vals than Japanese actually send on this mission.

This kind of pattern is repeat itself on both side during whole conflict.

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Alfred has chimed in from time to time. Given all the variables, and unknowns, I don't see how you could test in conclusively. Perhaps enough for some guidelines.

The same way you would test any scientific hypothesis. Control the variables and take lots of samples.

EDIT: You could test this on a given Japanese base configuration and running bombing missions at different heights on the same turn over and over. Maybe in a scenario it could be pretty easily done. I'm actually very curious about the bombing accuracy as a function of altitutde because I don't think anyone here has the slightest clue to be honest.

ORIGINAL: MrKane

Crew B-17 had tendency to report a lot of kills usually twice or triple more enemy fighters than they were actually facing .
As you can assume being under attack and busy fighting for life does no help keeping track. And not only B-17 crews, it was general rule during WWII.
A few examples:
- 12th June 1943, 77 Zeros were send to attack allied shipping near Guadalcanal. They were intercepted by ~50 allied fighters.
Allied pilots reported 31 confirmed kills, however Japan report says: 3 Zeros return due malfunction, 9 did not return at all.
- 16th June 1943, 24 D3A escorted by 70 Zeros were send again to attack allied ships around Guadalcanal. Allied reports says: 32 confirmed D3A kills and 49 Zeros. As you can see they shoot down more Vals than Japanese actually send on this mission.

This kind of pattern is repeat itself on both side during whole conflict.

True of course. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Sangeli
EDIT: You could test this on a given Japanese base configuration and running bombing missions at different heights on the same turn over and over. Maybe in a scenario it could be pretty easily done. I'm actually very curious about the bombing accuracy as a function of altitutde because I don't think anyone here has the slightest clue to be honest.

This is the way I usually test things. I make a small scenario with what I need and run it a couple of hundred times. Its very easy to set up once you get the hang of the editor. And with the small area and low number of units processing the turn takes only a couple of seconds. So you can cram a lot of test runs in only a couple of hours.

Without having tested altitude outside my actual PBEM with Erik I can say that at least night accuracy drops off tremendously above 10-12k. At 20k you will seldom hit anything. And considering you will still lose 20-30 B29s to NFs and OPS its better to go down low as the small increase in losses to AA pales in comparison to OPS/NFs.

April 31, 1944

More night bombing goodness courtesy of the Allies. They seem fixated on Nagoya, this time it is with Ventura's which haven't proved too deadly in night bombing attacks in the past.

Today they come in around 13K; the radar gives plenty of just enough time for the Irvings to arrive in dribs and drabs but all manage to intercept.

A Pete wanders too close and is shot down by 50 calibers on a Ventura. No Venturas' are lost but many damaged. No damage to Nagoya.[8D]

Over Honshu, two sweeps of Tokyo by Spitfires, and we manage to inflict some good losses on them for once! The first squadron loses all but a few planes. The Spitfires are really tough, especially when they cooperatively sweep with big numbers, but when they arrive in a single squadron first I really nailed them.

Perhaps my fear of them has been based on the fact that they often arrive late, after several sweeps from other planes, and thus they are diving into a depleted, tired, fighter CAP.

The Thunderbolts sweep Gifu...several squadrons.

Over in Indochina, my targeted LRCAP misses bombers, as the Allies concentrate on the open hex of death. Shucks.[:-]

Only one attack in Indochina, against the recently cut off 4th ID, now bolstered by the presence of the 4th Tank Rgt and about 6 units of heavy artillery. These units are 23 miles into their retreat to the clear hex of death, and then onto Bangkok.

The weary Japanese meet the even more weary Commonwealth & Yanks in the Jungle and manage to get a 1-12 result, disabling a fair number of tanks, but not killing them. I may issue orders for a bombardment next turn, and perhaps I can knock out some of the disabled afvs.

Retreat going very well...although I am worried about the 2000 AFVs at Rahaeng; the 800 AFVs against the 4th ID are held in check for now by a combination of terrain and heavy artillery, but I suspect there might be a tense fight in the clear hex of death NW of Bangkok, unless I get my timing down perfect.

The clear hex of death saw the might of the Allied airforces bomb them in the afternoon. I am cycling in fresh divisions from Bangkok, and moving out disrupted divisions to Bangkok. 2 days for an ID to make the move; 1 day for the 1st Tank Div thanks to the excellent roads. The 14th ID arrived in the clear hex today. Without this tactic, there is no way I could hold the clear hex of death, plus most of the losses received are merely disablements and disruptions while the Japanese flak works overtime and drops a few bombers each day (especially divebombers which the Allies are very fond of using).

The positions North and East of Bangkok are shaping up nicely, 1500 AV on the jungle road, 700 AV in Bangkok and the town to the north (Ayuthia) and some reserves east of Ayuthia. A very nasty line; I don't like it one bit, and probably won't try to hold it for long. The Vinh line is getting troops that have been thru the grinder, plus almost all support troops and is shaping up nicely.

I have the feeling it will take the Allies a month to re-organize, before they can make another big push.

Once upon a time I had nice troops positioned...but now there are a lot of splinters as Japan pulls from the extended Empire. That the Allies have let me do this, pretty much uncontested, must go down as one of the greatest mistakes of the war.

Most of the serious combat units and AA are back already, and here we see the plethora of construction units returning. The Engineers are needed on the islands and on Honshu where digging in still happening.

It is enough to drive anyone with OCD crazy. Crazier.[:D]

ORIGINAL: Sangeli
because I don't think anyone here has the slightest clue to be honest.

+1. Just imperfect memory and anecdotal evidence.[:D]