WWII USAAF/USAF made the wrong choice in bomber making

[Walloc]

So why allow them. If they produce results that the engine cant cope with. Why Give a Zero a max 30k+ altitude if every1 agree they couldnt fight up there?
If they never was up there no point in giving them that high a max altitude if it screws with the combat routine.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Nikademus]

every bomber, not just Kates, can bomb up to the max altitude setting in the editor. Every fighter, not just the Zero, can CAP, escort or Sweep from the max altitude in the editor. SAIEW from stock.

You are able to alter this however, using that same editor.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

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

You get my point...[;)]

[Walloc]

Futher updates in the tech support forum. I suspected a bug and its possibly found.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[ChezDaJez]

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....

Prove what? That this is a JFB conspiracy to rob all AFB of their enjoyment? The hit rate does appear excessive however I'm willing to bet that this is an issue with the routine and not with any perceived JFB cheat. I'm also willing to bet that you could take any group from any nationality flying any bomber with similar experience levels and achieve similar results.

Why does everything have to be a JFB conspiracy with you?

Chez

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Walloc

Futher updates in the tech support forum. I suspected a bug and its possibly found.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

If so....

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

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....

Prove what? That this is a JFB conspiracy to rob all AFB of their enjoyment? The hit rate does appear excessive however I'm willing to bet that this is an issue with the routine and not with any perceived JFB cheat. I'm also willing to bet that you could take any group from any nationality flying any bomber with similar experience levels and achieve similar results.

Why does everything have to be a JFB conspiracy with you?

Chez

What in the name of God are you talking about? Who said ANYTHING about a "JFB conspiracy" (except you?).

My only points were that the Kate was a low level Naval Torpedo and Attack Bomber that lacked the capability to be making attacks at 27,500 feet! And a challenge to provide any historical evidence that it was ever used in such a manner.

Apparently you can't disprove any of the assertions I made..., so you are going the "bury it in BS route". Give it a rest...[8|]

[castor troy]

The pilots were probably high exp and that´s the reason the game enabled them to hit that much. Surely not realistic but don´t blame the game, blame the one that sent them in at max altitude. Wouldn´t 20.000 ft have been better? But then, in PBEM you want to limit your losses as much and soon the gamer turns out to do whatever possible to limit his losses, thus going in at max alt if this gives him excellent result and low losses. Unfortunately the game can´t prevent everything that seems strange.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

It is worth noting though that in thier sole raid on Darwin, the KB did tremendously well and virtually destroyed the place - the port was not fully rebuilt until 1946 and was of virtually no use to the Aussie war effort from that point on.  In fact it has been argued that the Darwin raid actually did more (strategic) damage than Pearl Harbour to the Allies...

You must have seen the movie!

It was far from "virtually destroyed", though heavily damaged. As it was 2500 miles up a dirt track and wasnt part of the Allied strategy unless a Timor Invasion was planned, and tthe USN ran invasions out of worse anchorages, it did not rate a high priority in being developed, a dug in fuel oil tankage was continually delayed and not finished during the war.

I've read a lot about Australia in WW2, and have never seen any argument that the Darwin raid was worse for the Allied war effort than Pearl Harbor.

[Knavey]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

It is worth noting though that in thier sole raid on Darwin, the KB did tremendously well and virtually destroyed the place - the port was not fully rebuilt until 1946 and was of virtually no use to the Aussie war effort from that point on.  In fact it has been argued that the Darwin raid actually did more (strategic) damage than Pearl Harbour to the Allies...

You must have seen the movie!

Go on...name it...you know you want to. I personally haven't seen this one although my wife checked it out from the local library and has been asking me to watch it with her.

It can't be as bad as "The movie that shall not be named", correct?

[Mistmatz]

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.

An addendum to the Poltava attack. This attack happened after midnight, though I don't know how visibility and moonlight was at that night, nor what kind of planes did the attack at what level.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

It is worth noting though that in thier sole raid on Darwin, the KB did tremendously well and virtually destroyed the place - the port was not fully rebuilt until 1946 and was of virtually no use to the Aussie war effort from that point on.  In fact it has been argued that the Darwin raid actually did more (strategic) damage than Pearl Harbour to the Allies...

You must have seen the movie!

It was far from "virtually destroyed", though heavily damaged. As it was 2500 miles up a dirt track and wasnt part of the Allied strategy unless a Timor Invasion was planned, and tthe USN ran invasions out of worse anchorages, it did not rate a high priority in being developed, a dug in fuel oil tankage was continually delayed and not finished during the war.

I've read a lot about Australia in WW2, and have never seen any argument that the Darwin raid was worse for the Allied war effort than Pearl Harbor.

All things are relative. Pearl Harbor was a huge , major facility. It could absorb a lot of damage (and still be usefull). Darwin had little to begin with (it was still under developement). In auto insurance terms , Darwin was closer to being "totalled", that is it's repair would near equal it's original worth.

[xj900uk]

Sorry, just been looking up the Kate deployment & capabilities in WWII.
 
At PH and also Darwin the Kate was used as a medium-altitude attack bomber releasing (at Pearl 800kg improvised AP bombs) ordanance from between 9 & 12,000 feet.  No confirmed reporting of it being used above these altitudes, in fact it was rarely (if ever) used as such during WWII, although it often was during Chinese operations 1937-41 where it usually carried 1 x 250 kg bomb + 4 or 8 x 60 kg bomblets for 'land' (ie civilian) operations.  The 60kg bomblets were only carried if the range was short.
 
Re the Zero it often flew up to 30,000+,  Subaro Sakai in his autobiography notes it & there were also several other occasions where this happened, often to catch high-flying recce aircraft. As the war err wore on & the B29's were often flying at 30,000'+ this became mroe of a requirement for home-defence interceptors.  The A7M Sam/Reppu (final incarnation of the Zero) could get up to over 40,000'...

[morganbj]

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

.... and leave big people alone.

Well, you may be big, but you're not grown up. I agree with Rev Rick. The purpose of these forums is for the AE community to discuss issues they are concerned with -- even those who's opinions the readers may not like.

But, your message is clear. YOU are the arbiter of who should post and not post. And YOU are the arbiter of who should own and play the game. Wow.

[Fishbed]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

.... and leave big people alone.

Well, you may be big, but you're not grown up. I agree with Rev Rick. The purpose of these forums is for the AE community to discuss issues they are concerned with -- even those who's opinions the readers may not like.

But, your message is clear. YOU are the arbiter of who should post and not post. And YOU are the arbiter of who should own and play the game. Wow.

Now maybe when you'll be done teaching me to behave like a Zorro from the 25th hour, you may finish reading the topic and get off Tornado... Any chance?

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

.... and leave big people alone.

Well, you may be big, but you're not grown up. I agree with Rev Rick. The purpose of these forums is for the AE community to discuss issues they are concerned with -- even those who's opinions the readers may not like.

But, your message is clear. YOU are the arbiter of who should post and not post. And YOU are the arbiter of who should own and play the game. Wow.

BJ perhaps you are aware of the old saying "a day late and a dollar short"? Fishbed has been taken to task, responded, apologized and pretty much the matter has been settled.[:-] While you might resent having not been present during the punchup , it's over. Short of throwing gasoline on a dead fire , in hopes that something will flame up, what do you hope to accomplish? [&:] Let it go, play nice , and let's try once again to get this discussion back on track as to was this bombing attack a fluke, a flaw or a feature. [8|]

If you truly respect RevRick , maybe you will respect his last comments on the subject and let the flames die. Again.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
and let's try once again to get this discussion back on track as to was this bombing attack a fluke, a flaw or a feature. [8|]

Sounds like it may have been a fluke as opposed to a flaw....see HERE

[Nikademus]

it might not be a fluke.


it could be a conspiracy. [:'(]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

it might not be a fluke.


it could be a conspiracy. [:'(]

At the risk of being accused of making a personal attack, it would take someone from Seattle to suggest that! [:D]

[Nikademus]