Oscar v B17E

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: Oscar v B17E

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

Does anyone have actual accounts of Japanese Pilots taking down huge numbers of B-17's and B-24s? I mean I never remember hearing any after action reports on american sides suggesting the japanese had any success at any part of the war in taking down 4 engine bombers. Some creditable claims I have read that further disprove every Japanese Fan boy here, are aces like Saburo Sakai who sat behind an F4F and put almost 1,000 rounds of 7.7mm into it and the plane wouldn't drop, were talking F4F here not a B-17.

The ki-43's in Burma, what level of success were they having? How many were being brought down 1-2? or typical japanese over-excelled combat reports with hundreds of "B24's shot down".

My biggest problem with the whole "American 4 Engines are overpowering" argument is fact I don't see proof Japan had any success.

Granted my argument is this - Japan didn't have the Fw-190 or Me-262, but relied on aircraft that were underpowered, undergunned, and had no armor protection - even when they gained stats in one area, other areas were still under-stated. You can say the Ki-84 and N1Jk George were top of the line models coming out of Japan, but look how late in the war they came out, what pilots did the Japanese have left?

This debate can go on forever and ever, lets all just reach some mutual agreement Japan did not have a real "bomber interceptor" and that's just how the war went. Hell why can't we argue who had the best legs in ww2?



why did the Allied employ fighters then? Not saying Japanese fighters were bomber killers but they were surely not something that a bomber crew was happy about when a couple of dozens would show up. Whenever something is shooting at you and can kill you or your comrade you quickly get away from the "invincible" thinking.
xj900uk
Posts: 1344
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:26 pm

RE: Oscar v B17E

Post by xj900uk »

Just been looking up a few things last night. The IJAAF standard tactic for attacking bombers (whether two engined or four) was to fly in single file one behind the other up under the tail (6 o'clock low) and pump loads of mg rounds into its belly. This was the correct tactic in WWI against two-seaters, and the IJAAF had a lot of success with it in China in the 30's (mainly because the Chinese bombers were crap and had no defensive armament to cover their 6 o'clock low position) so never saw any need to change it or official training prior to '44.
The IJN was a bit more flexible. People like Sakai et al took one look at the early model B17's flying unperturbed after they had pumped all of their ammo into them and went back for a bit of a think and talk amongst themselves afterwards over the odd glass of rice wine. They eventually came up with everyone concentrating their fire against one bomber (usually one on the side) although intiially again they would attack singly or in pairs and making a series of high-angle-off fast slashing attacks (usually from 10 or 2 o'clock high) in order to make things difficult for the gunners. Even the early Zero's had 2 x 20mm cannon but they didn't make that much impression on B17c's and Sakai and his commarades often took it as a personal challenge to try and bring down a B17 or two - they were very mucht eh bane of his life in '42
mike scholl 1
Posts: 1265
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:20 pm

RE: Oscar v B17E

Post by mike scholl 1 »

ORIGINAL: castor troy

why did the Allied employ fighters then? Not saying Japanese fighters were bomber killers but they were surely not something that a bomber crew was happy about when a couple of dozens would show up. Whenever something is shooting at you and can kill you or your comrade you quickly get away from the "invincible" thinking.


Believe I raised this point before..., but perhaps we are focusing on the wrong part of the story. Historically Allied fighters shot down most of these "interceptors" BEFORE they got to the bombers, so maybe the question should be "Why isn't this happening in AE?" Why are the 4-engined "heavies" having to do the work of fighters?
User avatar
Misconduct
Posts: 1851
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:13 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Contact:

RE: Oscar v B17E

Post by Misconduct »

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

Does anyone have actual accounts of Japanese Pilots taking down huge numbers of B-17's and B-24s? I mean I never remember hearing any after action reports on american sides suggesting the japanese had any success at any part of the war in taking down 4 engine bombers. Some creditable claims I have read that further disprove every Japanese Fan boy here, are aces like Saburo Sakai who sat behind an F4F and put almost 1,000 rounds of 7.7mm into it and the plane wouldn't drop, were talking F4F here not a B-17.

The ki-43's in Burma, what level of success were they having? How many were being brought down 1-2? or typical japanese over-excelled combat reports with hundreds of "B24's shot down".

My biggest problem with the whole "American 4 Engines are overpowering" argument is fact I don't see proof Japan had any success.

Granted my argument is this - Japan didn't have the Fw-190 or Me-262, but relied on aircraft that were underpowered, undergunned, and had no armor protection - even when they gained stats in one area, other areas were still under-stated. You can say the Ki-84 and N1Jk George were top of the line models coming out of Japan, but look how late in the war they came out, what pilots did the Japanese have left?

This debate can go on forever and ever, lets all just reach some mutual agreement Japan did not have a real "bomber interceptor" and that's just how the war went. Hell why can't we argue who had the best legs in ww2?



why did the Allied employ fighters then? Not saying Japanese fighters were bomber killers but they were surely not something that a bomber crew was happy about when a couple of dozens would show up. Whenever something is shooting at you and can kill you or your comrade you quickly get away from the "invincible" thinking.

Fighters were employed because of the need for air supremacy. Fighters between 1930-1940 were being designed away from the true dog fighter rolls of Ww1 and switching to Intercepting roles based on every country's fear that while fighters had such short range for the time being, the real threat was based on bombers. The American's were an awkward country militarily, with the idea of the B17 and being that it could fly to its target and back without an escort fighter.

Nothing has ever been invincible, one could argue the F-22 Raptor we have today is invincible, at least till someone else designs something to match it, then what?

ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z Intel Core I7 2800k Corsair Hydro Heatsink Corsair Vengeance DD3 24GB EVGA GTX 580 Western Digital 1.5TB Raid 0 Windows 7
User avatar
Misconduct
Posts: 1851
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:13 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Contact:

RE: Oscar v B17E

Post by Misconduct »

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: castor troy

why did the Allied employ fighters then? Not saying Japanese fighters were bomber killers but they were surely not something that a bomber crew was happy about when a couple of dozens would show up. Whenever something is shooting at you and can kill you or your comrade you quickly get away from the "invincible" thinking.


Believe I raised this point before..., but perhaps we are focusing on the wrong part of the story. Historically Allied fighters shot down most of these "interceptors" BEFORE they got to the bombers, so maybe the question should be "Why isn't this happening in AE?" Why are the 4-engined "heavies" having to do the work of fighters?

I am having a hard time seeing the situation, is there an AAR with the combat reports showing escorting is a problem? I am flying raids to Lae right now from Moresby and usually 20xP-40's and 15xP39s escort around 50 B-17s against 65 Ki-45 Nicks and 25 Zeros and I generally Lose 1-2 P39s and P40s every raid, but no bombers get touched.
ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z Intel Core I7 2800k Corsair Hydro Heatsink Corsair Vengeance DD3 24GB EVGA GTX 580 Western Digital 1.5TB Raid 0 Windows 7
User avatar
Miller
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:14 am
Location: Ashington, England.

RE: Oscar v B17E

Post by Miller »

I my game now at April 44 I often see small raids of 3-6 4E going in against 50-100 fighters on CAP (Tojos and/or Franks). The average result seems to be a couple of damaged 4E, maybe one shot down. They never abort a mission, no matter how heavy the opposition. My pilots are on average 60 overall skill, 70-75 air skill.
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: Oscar v B17E

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: castor troy

why did the Allied employ fighters then? Not saying Japanese fighters were bomber killers but they were surely not something that a bomber crew was happy about when a couple of dozens would show up. Whenever something is shooting at you and can kill you or your comrade you quickly get away from the "invincible" thinking.


Believe I raised this point before..., but perhaps we are focusing on the wrong part of the story. Historically Allied fighters shot down most of these "interceptors" BEFORE they got to the bombers, so maybe the question should be "Why isn't this happening in AE?" Why are the 4-engined "heavies" having to do the work of fighters?

I am having a hard time seeing the situation, is there an AAR with the combat reports showing escorting is a problem? I am flying raids to Lae right now from Moresby and usually 20xP-40's and 15xP39s escort around 50 B-17s against 65 Ki-45 Nicks and 25 Zeros and I generally Lose 1-2 P39s and P40s every raid, but no bombers get touched.


90 enemy fighters only take down 4 or 5 of your fighters and don´t even get to your bombers? You seem to be playing a complete different game than me.
John Lansford
Posts: 2664
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 12:40 am

RE: Oscar v B17E

Post by John Lansford »

My fighter pilots at Chittigong would love to see --only-- 90 fighters overhead.  The usual amount is somewhere between 120-200 daily, escorting a small handful of bombers.  What's wierd is the AI hasn't even tried to attack Chittigong, and has withdrawn from Cox's Bazaar, but the mass fighter escorts still keep showing up.
Who Cares
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:37 pm

RE: Oscar v B17E

Post by Who Cares »

ORIGINAL: TheElf

It looks to me like their skill AND their EXP in the 70s. Which seems reasonable to me given that you stated they've been in combat for a couple months. What do you think it should be? And on what criteria do you base this opinion?

I guess at this point it is fair to say that I am not sure what exactly you are complaining about....

Their skill was in the high 60s and some 70s 4 months ago when the "bombing campaign" began. It isn't THIS experience I am commenting on. Its the "training" experience. You can get a pilot from 20 experience to 70 in 2-3 months as is in the game. Now lest memory fail me, a US pilots training was 13 months. So to get to 36 experience (for the sake of argument) which is roughly what they are at when they become available "in game" is 13 months. Figure 1 month of that teaching them to walk and talk like US soldiers means 36 experience in 12 months or 3 skill points PER MONTH. But once on the map, they gain 1 to 3 skill points per day (if you count the "experience", whatever their primary training is, and defense 1 each). "Training" should result in at most 1 point a week not 1 a day. Seems that's about the rate a pilot is getting in combat under current model. And again, combat should increase skill at a much faster rate than "training". MUCH faster. Not saying it should zoom into the 90s, but what I AM saying is that 2 pilots at skill 30 for example, one in training and 1 in combat. The one in combat should gain skill MUCH FASTER (assuming he survives) than the one "in training". As is, this isn't true.

(Ed. maybe you should look at the code for the ground units experience.)

Again we are also not addressing the issue of bombers flying max range, at night, every night for months and 5 total planes lost and no crew losses. Not going to let this slip away either.

I seriously doubt the ratio of unescorted raids in the real war was anything near what I am experiencing either but this will be another topic after I gather more data on what I am seeing.
User avatar
Misconduct
Posts: 1851
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:13 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Contact:

RE: Oscar v B17E

Post by Misconduct »

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1





Believe I raised this point before..., but perhaps we are focusing on the wrong part of the story. Historically Allied fighters shot down most of these "interceptors" BEFORE they got to the bombers, so maybe the question should be "Why isn't this happening in AE?" Why are the 4-engined "heavies" having to do the work of fighters?

I am having a hard time seeing the situation, is there an AAR with the combat reports showing escorting is a problem? I am flying raids to Lae right now from Moresby and usually 20xP-40's and 15xP39s escort around 50 B-17s against 65 Ki-45 Nicks and 25 Zeros and I generally Lose 1-2 P39s and P40s every raid, but no bombers get touched.


90 enemy fighters only take down 4 or 5 of your fighters and don´t even get to your bombers? You seem to be playing a complete different game than me.

I am playing AE, no mods December 8th Campaign.
ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z Intel Core I7 2800k Corsair Hydro Heatsink Corsair Vengeance DD3 24GB EVGA GTX 580 Western Digital 1.5TB Raid 0 Windows 7
User avatar
SuluSea
Posts: 2402
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:13 pm

RE: Oscar v B17E

Post by SuluSea »

ORIGINAL: Who Cares


Again we are also not addressing the issue of bombers flying max range, at night, every night for months and 5 total planes lost and no crew losses. Not going to let this slip away either.

I've been playing this game since release atleast 4 hours a day I don't game the system and bomb at night. My HB fly from size 5 airfields or better and I still have op losses flying nowhere near max range.

I have losses from flying less than 25 missions against lightly defended targets and maybe 5 missions against targets with fighters, I also don't put bomber pilots with expierience of 33 and 34 in front line crews so it's hard for me to believe these numbers from what I see in my game.

"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer
Who Cares
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:37 pm

RE: Oscar v B17E

Post by Who Cares »

The screen shots are there, all you have to do is look. Of course you are free to have your opinion, but the truth is right in front of you.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Oscar v B17E

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: Who Cares

You can get a pilot from 20 experience to 70 in 2-3 months as is in the game.

I haven't seen that with even a single pilot. You can train them up in a skill to about 70 in a few months, but not experience. Or is the skill what you mean?
User avatar
frank1970
Posts: 941
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Bayern

RE: Oscar v B17E

Post by frank1970 »

Somehow the whole discussion made a long way from the starting post until now.
Imho, the problem is, that the bomber gunners are possibly too good in shooting down fighters and the moral of the bombers is possibly too high. I am quite sure, that 3 B24s would have run for their lifes, when attacked by about 50 Japanese fighters.
If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!

"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"

User avatar
m10bob
Posts: 8583
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 9:09 pm
Location: Dismal Seepage Indiana

RE: Oscar v B17E

Post by m10bob »

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

ORIGINAL: Rainer

You don't know who The Elf is, do you?

Whatever you wish to express, please do not contribute to the number of misinformed players trying to frustrate the developers of WitP/AE.
If and when the developers stop their valued work we all will be lost.


I'll second this!

me too


Me as well.(I have always hated people who ganged up on one person, but gosh...when one just flaunts their ignorance as if it were virtue.........................)
Image

User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Oscar v B17E

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: castor troy

why did the Allied employ fighters then? Not saying Japanese fighters were bomber killers but they were surely not something that a bomber crew was happy about when a couple of dozens would show up. Whenever something is shooting at you and can kill you or your comrade you quickly get away from the "invincible" thinking.


Believe I raised this point before..., but perhaps we are focusing on the wrong part of the story. Historically Allied fighters shot down most of these "interceptors" BEFORE they got to the bombers, so maybe the question should be "Why isn't this happening in AE?" Why are the 4-engined "heavies" having to do the work of fighters?

Excellent point. I find it is just better to send the heavies in without escort as escort just means dead pilots for me.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
Misconduct
Posts: 1851
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:13 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Contact:

RE: Oscar v B17E

Post by Misconduct »

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: castor troy

why did the Allied employ fighters then? Not saying Japanese fighters were bomber killers but they were surely not something that a bomber crew was happy about when a couple of dozens would show up. Whenever something is shooting at you and can kill you or your comrade you quickly get away from the "invincible" thinking.


Believe I raised this point before..., but perhaps we are focusing on the wrong part of the story. Historically Allied fighters shot down most of these "interceptors" BEFORE they got to the bombers, so maybe the question should be "Why isn't this happening in AE?" Why are the 4-engined "heavies" having to do the work of fighters?

Excellent point. I find it is just better to send the heavies in without escort as escort just means dead pilots for me.

I noticed if you just send in 200 4e's and flatten an airfield, you won't need escort period, guess the little boys can sit in the cushy hotels and take care of the aussie women.
ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z Intel Core I7 2800k Corsair Hydro Heatsink Corsair Vengeance DD3 24GB EVGA GTX 580 Western Digital 1.5TB Raid 0 Windows 7
Whisper
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:23 pm
Location: LA

RE: Oscar v B17E

Post by Whisper »

ORIGINAL: m10bob
Me as well.(I have always hated people who ganged up on one person, but gosh...when one just flaunts their ignorance as if it were virtue.........................)
Me too. AE is just fine, and the devs did a real good job with what they had to work with.
[rant ON]If AE was a perfect simulation of everything, a lot more people would be complaining about how their results are different from history. Why? because they don’t have the knowledge, training, or inclination, or experience to handle the hundreds of administrative or logistical details the a real commander has to do on the fly. So they will roach, and when they roach they will whine.

They expect some computer program to be the perfect staff and have the perfect solution every time. They don’t try to operate like they should, no, everybody looks at how to cheat the system and then whines when they can. If they are not smart enough to understand the different things that must happen for a real commander to do his job and a real unit to be effective, and just sit there and wait for a computer program to make the decisions for them, the will get what they deserve. They should internalize some of what is happening to them and learn from it. There is always that one lt counting mess kits that is so concerned about missing forks.

Six different countries are playing this game and have a field day but they play by doctrine and they don’t play by finding a cheat. If wargamers would get over themselves and try to think like the commanders they pretend to be they will see this game as a learning experience. I am not offended when things do not work out like they expected and they want to know why, but I am very offended by the demands of the ignorant, lazy, arrogant, and supercilious so-called experts to have everything work to their daily wants.

I am a currently serving member of the USMC, so don’t even begin with that have you seen bullets crap. [rant OFF]
User avatar
chesmart
Posts: 904
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:51 pm
Location: Malta

RE: Oscar v B17E

Post by chesmart »

If you read who cares posts you will find a very negative attitude regarding this game and how it is programmed, Personally i think he is a troll. Quite a pity i missed this thread would have been fun. Regarding the air model if you are interested in knowing how it was historically I would recommend to read Samurai by Saburo Sakai and you will see the problems the Japanese had with 4 engined bombers.

Devs like ELF and the others got a raw game AI wise and made it playable.

Quite a pity i missed the beginning of this thread.


P.S. If any trolls does not know who Saburo Sakai is there is Wikipedia enjoy !
CV Zuikaku
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:25 pm
Location: Legrad, Croatia

RE: Oscar v B17E

Post by CV Zuikaku »

The Oscars, Zeroes or Nates flown by green pilots vs. B-17/24s are not the issue here! They are doing bad as they shoul'd be ang bomber's gunners shoul'd give them hell. The problem is when 50+ N1K1s flown by highly experienced pilots (exp varies from 70s to 90s, air skills from 70's to 80s, majority with 200+ combat missions and many of them aces) intercept formation of 3-6 B-24s and bomber gunners give them hell. 9 out of 10 times. When bomber gunners are shooting at fighters 10-15 times before fighters even got one chance to shoot them back.... I think that is the problem... never happened in real life, but that just don't feels right... think about it... 50 armoured, fast and heavily armed fighters vs. 3 bombers and bombers are giving them hell... be JFB or AFB but that is unexplainable- so please explain if you can.... 50 FW-190s would surely shread them to peaces... N1K1s are not Fw-190s, but should not be that bad...
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”