A quick list of pro-USN bias.

Uncommon Valor: Campaign for the South Pacific covers the campaigns for New Guinea, New Britain, New Ireland and the Solomon chain.

Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid

Post Reply
User avatar
CEDeaton
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 9:55 am
Location: Plano, TX
Contact:

Post by CEDeaton »

Originally posted by Chiteng
Then Snigbert you have chosen to ignore the other posters
that agree with me that the B-17 vs shipping is ahistorical.
Your characterization of the argument it simply untrue and I am
surprised at you. You normally do not misrepresent or lie.


Wow! Misrepresent is a word I might be willing to live with if it were directed at me (as long as it was made clear by the poster that he felt it was unintentional), but "Lie"?!! C'mon man, cut us some slack here! So maybe he missed a post or two. Big deal. Who has time to read all this stuff anyway? I don't even know the poster you're talking about and I'M P*SSED OFF for him. Or are you just one of those people who can never be wrong about anything?

It's just a game and we're supposed to be here to discuss things rationally. Grow up, get over yourself, and consider all 6400 of your posts "ignored" - and oh yeah, GET A LIFE!!.
Semper Fi,
Craig

It's always pilot error. Sometimes the idiot just doesn't know how to fly a broken aircraft.
Chiteng
Posts: 1174
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Raleigh,nc,usa

Post by Chiteng »

Originally posted by CraigDeaton
Wow! Misrepresent is a word I might be willing to live with if it were directed at me (as long as it was made clear by the poster that he felt it was unintentional), but "Lie"?!! C'mon man, cut us some slack here! So maybe he missed a post or two. Big deal. Who has time to read all this stuff anyway? I don't even know the poster you're talking about and I'M P*SSED OFF for him. Or are you just one of those people who can never be wrong about anything?

It's just a game and we're supposed to be here to discuss things rationally. Grow up, get over yourself, and consider all 6400 of your posts "ignored" - and oh yeah, GET A LIFE!!.


Ignore exists =) I suggest you use it then =)

I do discuss things 'rationally' and I am able to make a point
w/o personal attacks =)
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic
User avatar
dwesolick
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2002 7:33 am
Location: Colorado

Post by dwesolick »

God, I hate to wade into this cesspool of a thread but I've just got to say that Snig is an upstanding guy and I haven't seen a single post of his that intentionally (or otherwise) "mis-represents" the truth. He is always courteous, informative, and helpful (unlike some) in his posts.

He is, on the other hand, a very devious and wily PBEM opponent! ;)
"The Navy has a moth-eaten tradition that the captain who loses his ship is disgraced. What do they have all those ships for, if not to hurl them at the enemy?" --Douglas MacArthur
Chiteng
Posts: 1174
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Raleigh,nc,usa

Post by Chiteng »

Originally posted by dwesolick
God, I hate to wade into this cesspool of a thread but I've just got to say that Snig is an upstanding guy and I haven't seen a single post of his that intentionally (or otherwise) "mis-represents" the truth. He is always courteous, informative, and helpful (unlike some) in his posts.

He is, on the other hand, a very devious and wily PBEM opponent! ;)


Yes that is normally how I view his posts as well.
However his claim that only one poster is complaining about
the B-17 issue is simply not true. Possibly he is expressing a pro-B-17 bias of his own. I cant say.

Simply reading this thread will show you that he is wrong
to state that it is one 'one' poster. And that is merely this thread.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic
Chiteng
Posts: 1174
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Raleigh,nc,usa

Here we go again

Post by Chiteng »

With the stated request of the board MOD in mind:

This thread was dead and buried. I cannot imagine why
it was ressurected, but it was.

Vic has made it quite clear that he doesnt wish to see such flaming in this forum.

Today I have been the target of three unprovoked flames(so far) by:
Snigbert
dwesolick
CraigDeaton

I am posting this now, because for some reason people try and potray 'me' as somehow the perp, even tho I flame no one.

I find delibrete insults churlish and non-productive.
However I do defend myself when I am attacked.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic
User avatar
CEDeaton
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 9:55 am
Location: Plano, TX
Contact:

Post by CEDeaton »

Originally posted by dwesolick
God, I hate to wade into this cesspool of a thread but I've just got to say that Snig is an upstanding guy and I haven't seen a single post of his that intentionally (or otherwise) "mis-represents" the truth. He is always courteous, informative, and helpful (unlike some) in his posts.

He is, on the other hand, a very devious and wily PBEM opponent! ;)


Outstanding! I'm glad to hear that (and thanks for the recommendation dwesolick). SNIG, as soon as you get some free space on your dance card, I'd love a game with a wily PBEM opponent. You can pick the scenario and I'll let you have either the Flying Forts or the Betty's (your call) - and I promise not to grouse too much (publicly or privately) if you hand me my tail!

;)
Semper Fi,
Craig

It's always pilot error. Sometimes the idiot just doesn't know how to fly a broken aircraft.
Hades
Posts: 539
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by Hades »

its a game
"History admires the wise, but it elevates the brave."
-Edmund Morris


Image
[img]http://publish.hometown.aol.com/kenkbar ... tual-b-o-b
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

Post by Ron Saueracker »

Originally posted by Chiteng
Have you ever read an account of Jutland?
The only reason Sheer had even a small chance of success
is because the Brits had LIMITED ANCORAGE.
They were forced to split their fleet into three parts because
they simply did NOT have enough room in the ports.

Those big ships need ALOT of room to dock.


Incorrect! The Grand Fleet was split in response to political and homefront pressure to stop the bombardment of towns such as Scarborough by the German scouting fleet of battlecruisers under Hipper. Therefore, the Grand Fleet was split between Harwich, Rosyth and Scapa Flow, to allow some chance of both engaging the 1st SG and appeasing the coastal citizens who were wondering why the fleet they paid for was not keeping the "Huns from killing their babies."

I will agree that the "disbanded in port" and "docked" abilities in the sim are rather abstract and offer both too little protection from getting hit by bombs during a port raid and too much vs a naval air attack. It simply is a function of the game's mechanics.
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
Chiteng
Posts: 1174
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Raleigh,nc,usa

Post by Chiteng »

Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
Incorrect! The Grand Fleet was split in response to political and homefront pressure to stop the bombardment of towns such as Scarborough by the German scouting fleet of battlecruisers under Hipper. Therefore, the Grand Fleet was split between Harwich, Rosyth and Scapa Flow, to allow some chance of both engaging the 1st SG and appeasing the coastal citizens who were wondering why the fleet they paid for was not keeping the "Huns from killing their babies."

I will agree that the "disbanded in port" and "docked" abilities in the sim are rather abstract and offer both too little protection from getting hit by bombs during a port raid and too much vs a naval air attack. It simply is a function of the game's mechanics.


If that were true...why not just stick them all in Harwich? Or Rosyth? Because there was NO ROOM.

After all the Brits only had what 36 capital ships?
(I cant recall the exact number)
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic
Snigbert
Posts: 765
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Worcester, MA. USA

Post by Snigbert »

I'm not sure which part of my post was an attack, or which part was a lie...if there are other people who support the idea that B-17s are extremely overpowered, I haven't seen them. Am I going to go through every thread looking for references to B-17s to check? No thanks.

So, if you want to convince me that there is a problem with B-17s (which seems to be your assertion in this thread), can you provide:

1. Tests run with the editor which show consistently unrealistic accuracy in B-17 bombing missions against ships

2. Sources that state B-17s were never used for these missions, or were incapable of being used for these missions

3. Tests which consistently show the B-17 has a higher durability than was historically true

In the games I have played with 2.30 I haven't observed any results from B-17s that I felt were dubious. Nor have I seen any of the above evidence presented, if it has been perhaps you can direct me to the thread.

So, let me know what I am lying about, if you please...
"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
Chiteng
Posts: 1174
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Raleigh,nc,usa

Post by Chiteng »

I'm not sure which part of my post was an attack, or which part was a lie...if there are other people who support the idea that B-17s are extremely overpowered, I haven't seen them. Am I going to go through every thread looking for references to B-17s to check? No thanks.
**********************************************
When you say that someone is delibretly ignoring evidence
that is an attack Snigbert, and it is also snide.
You refuse to read the comments of the other posters,
therefore you choose to ignore the fact that I am not alone.
That makes it willfull. You are not correct, it is not just me.

The problem with such statements is that YOU are choosing what
evidence is and is not, we dont agree on that. Therefore there
is no way to do as you ask. I choose what 'I' consider evidence =)

*********************************************
So, if you want to convince me that there is a problem with B-17s (which seems to be your assertion in this thread), can you provide:

1. Tests run with the editor which show consistently unrealistic accuracy in B-17 bombing missions against ships
*************************************************
I have done that Snigbert, the evidence was ignored or minimized
as trivial. If I actually did post more, you would claim it was fabricated. What purpose then would be served? Except to waste my time?

************************************************
2. Sources that state B-17s were never used for these missions, or were incapable of being used for these missions
*************************************************
No one that I know of has ever stated that they were incapable,
But ONE One Ton bomb isnt a large capability. That is what the B-17 carried.

*********************************
3. Tests which consistently show the B-17 has a higher durability than was historically true
**********************************
And who then gets to be the arbiter of what 'historically true' means? By what standards does that get evaluated?


*******************************************
In the games I have played with 2.30 I haven't observed any results from B-17s that I felt were dubious. Nor have I seen any of the above evidence presented, if it has been perhaps you can direct me to the thread.
********************************************
You just stated the problem. 'that I felt were dubious'
Why would I direct you to a thread when you have already stated that you refuse to read this one? What point again
would be served?

You see I dont have to agree with your parameters. And I dont.
Just read Morrison(one source) you will NOT see operations
being designed around the capabilities of the B-17.
You will not see Japanese operations curtailed because of the
capabilities of the B-17(at least fleet ops)

The B-17 did NOT dominate the war in the Pacific. The CV did.
The NAVY, not the army.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

Re: Re: Maybe you should be getting more sleep

Post by Ron Saueracker »

Originally posted by Chiteng
Yes it was a complaint about S boats and the Mk-10


The question of S Boat servicability and Mk 10 effectiveness has been brought up many times. It's less a question of the over effectiveness of the torpedo and more that of the S Boat's overrated operational servicability in game terms. S Boats were pigs that spent more time in upkeep than effectively conducting patrols.

This brings up a point I've mentioned a few times in the past. There is no real operational limitation for any ship in the game any way. Ships are just icons with ratings. Most other aspects/units of/in the game deal with fatigue, morale etc, but ships and their crews are not represented as well. If a ship is greivously damaged, a player can still use it if he so chooses. In the game, a mechanism exists (some may dispute this;) ) to minimize the chance of unescorted bomber airgroups attacking high CAP dense targets. Players routinely, on the other hand, advocate the use of strategies based on the use of various minor ships as cannon fodder and decoys, and just thrust merchants into harms way. For a naval game, I find this flawed and believe it should be altered.

Ships should have a morale rating governing their performance in addition to their combat ratings.

Allied ships should suffer from a constant reduction in performance down to a base level due to the stripping of ships veteran crews to man the new construction. IJN should suffer less from this as they tended to maintain the core of the crew strength and had a reduction in fleet size over time instead of the massive inflation of the size of US Navy.

I find the system damage aspect acceptable but once a ship reaches a certain degree of "damage", a period of forced upkeep should be triggered.

Sub crews should have a rest and refit period after each patrol, usually in the two week range as was done historically to deal with special nature of sub duty.

Ships were never used as they are in the game. They required training periods and generally operated in divisions and squadrons or rather static TFs (in terms of individual capital ships and escorts). We can just mix and match with no positive or negative effects on their performance.

There are many other issues which can be brought up regarding naval aspect of this game. The above are just a few. Right now the air aspect is dominant in a theatre where all three elements (land/air/sea) went hand in hand.
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
madflava13
Posts: 1501
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Alexandria, VA

Post by madflava13 »

Just a quick interjection -
Chiteng, maybe I misread your post, so please correct me if I did so, but I believe you said that B-17s only carried one 1-ton bomb. That isn't true. If you meant something else, I apologize, but that would be an incorrect statement. They usually carried multiple 500 pound bombs, although availability of ordinance at forward bases may have varied. P-47s could carry one 1-ton bomb, and I know B-17s had a bigger lift capacity than P-47s...
"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."
Chiteng
Posts: 1174
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Raleigh,nc,usa

Post by Chiteng »

Originally posted by madflava13
Just a quick interjection -
Chiteng, maybe I misread your post, so please correct me if I did so, but I believe you said that B-17s only carried one 1-ton bomb. That isn't true. If you meant something else, I apologize, but that would be an incorrect statement. They usually carried multiple 500 pound bombs, although availability of ordinance at forward bases may have varied. P-47s could carry one 1-ton bomb, and I know B-17s had a bigger lift capacity than P-47s...



The standard anti-shipping bomb at Midway for the B-17 was one
2000pound bomb.

Please note the 'anti-shipping' preface.

I am well aware it had a variety of ordinance. But that was for
ground attacks.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic
User avatar
madflava13
Posts: 1501
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Alexandria, VA

Post by madflava13 »

What was used at Midway isn't necessarily what was standard. I reference this site: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap16.htm

As well as numerous text references to B-17 anti-shipping attacks involving multiple 500 lb. bombs vs. one 2000 pounder. I can quote the books if you'd like. I think the 2000 lb. bomb reflects the B-17's use as a scout/raider at Midway as opposed to an anti-shipping strike. With the one bomb, the Fortresses could stay aloft longer and therefore search more ocean before attacking...

In UV/WitP terms, the B-17s will be making attacks on TFs already sighted by other assets, so I believe the 6,000lb bombload of 500 lb bombs is more accurate for an "everyday" anti-shipping strike.
"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

Post by Ron Saueracker »

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
I'm not asking them to change ONLY the B-17, I am asking them to change all land based bombers to be more realistic. If you want test results to prove they are rediculous, I'm more then happy to mock up games in the editor to prove that point many times over.

I think we are looking at five separate problems here that represent themselves as the one.

(a) AA defenses are poorly modelled in relation to larger aircraft.

(b) Effectiveness of larger aircraft is far too high.

(c) Larger bombers do not divert when encountering heavy resistance (ie: save the plane and aircrew, you can always hit the target later)

(d) ground troops do not have adequate defensive bonus against air attacks. (air alone can eliminate a base)

(e) mass raids of aircraft including extremely high numbers of aircraft, beyond the command and control that existed in 1942/43.

These all merge together into one Overpowered LBA statement yet are actually 5 separate issues.

While attempting to make the game historical, UV includes every air grup there was, but this causes a problem because realistically they rotated in and out of the theater. Players are not subject to this reality which produces the scaling problem. We routinely fly Ploesti level raids on a daily basis yet the losses are not there producing the ability to repeat this pattern of abuse. If the AA was tuned up and the effects lessened and the ability to stage beyond 5 squadrons per base put in, the end result would be the players would have to rotate their forces around to be able to conduct Linebacker level plans which we take for granted now. The rate AA guns are disabled in the game means that after 3+ days, there are no more AA guns. Funny how even after YEARS of Iraq getting pounded by the USA with 1990+ technologies they STILL had stuff left to lob shots at planes in the no fly zone. Ground targets are just not that easy to kill.

I really want this fixed as it leads down the path of the game requiring no skill, no planning, not much of anything...

I have offered up a few ideas:

SPS of base governs aircraft size (overbuilding does not help LBA)

Altitude penalties at a severe level (Ploesti like results)

Upgrading of Flak damage to realistic levels against slow flying low flying aircraft

Double interceptions against large raids (bonus due to amount of radio chatter required)

Maximum # of squadrons at a base

All of these or variations of these would shift UV back in the hands of the Navy, which is where it should be. This is the pacific theater. It was the USN that won, not the USAF. The surrender was signed on a warship, not a warplane!


Right On! Right On! :cool:
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

Post by Ron Saueracker »

Originally posted by dwesolick
God, I hate to wade into this cesspool of a thread but I've just got to say that Snig is an upstanding guy and I haven't seen a single post of his that intentionally (or otherwise) "mis-represents" the truth. He is always courteous, informative, and helpful (unlike some) in his posts.

He is, on the other hand, a very devious and wily PBEM opponent! ;)


Sniggy's starting to make me pull ever precious hair out of my scalp! :D
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

Level bombers vs ships

Post by Nikademus »

Part of the reasoning of the bomber proponents (as an alternative to building expensive navies) was that while it was acknowledged that level bombing was inherently inaccurate as opposed to say, dive bombing, it was theorized prewar that this inaccuracy could be negated by flying in mass, controlled by a skilled bombedier in the lead unit , under whose direction the target ship(s) would be saturated by mass bombs dropped from the bombers at high altitude, usually multiple 500lb GP ones.

Given the # dropped it was figured that at least some would have a good chance of scoring against their target(s) while the high altitude negated to a large degree the threat of AA.

This rosy expectation turned out to be not quite so simple a solution as wartime experience bore out.

This is not to say that heavy bombers couldn't or didn't on occasion drop singular bombs on ships but it was not the normal methodology.

Wherein lies the real problem with LBA. with the larger bombers capable of carrying nearly a dozen GP bombs each, that makes it hard to miss against base targets and anchored ships. The moving ship issue has been addressed, but the saturation of base targets and anchored ships remains. The B-17 only stands out here because it happens to have a large loadout of GP bombs but the effect can be produced with just about any bomber in the game.

Adjust the math that defines the "virtual area" by which the game engine defines the critical area of bases and their anchorages and i think a better more historical result would be achieved

That and yes, land based flak against big lumbering bombers is far too ineffective which allows low altitude strikes even against better defended targets

Lastly, disruption effects by flak and CAP also need to be enhanced. The morale failure rule was a good step in the right direction but more is needed.
User avatar
Veer
Posts: 377
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 11:26 am
Location: Excuse me

Post by Veer »

The problem with the B17 I believe is not only are they too accurate in general vs Naval targets, but while in the game mechanics altiude has an impact on accuracy (leading most players to set Alt at <10,000 ft), it has no altitude on the penetration abilities of the bomb. There was a reason the army decided to fly B17s and other level bombers at 15,000+ ft - range, and the fact that falling AP bombs are a lot more effective from a higher altitude.
In time of war the first casualty is truth. - Boake Carter
User avatar
madflava13
Posts: 1501
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Alexandria, VA

Post by madflava13 »

I've cited it multiple times before, but Saburo Sakai's book "Samurai!" is the only first person account from the Japanese side for this time period that I know of. He describes very small formations (4 or less) of B-17s delivering devastatingly accurate bombing runs against the fighter base at Lae. These are runs from 10K+ that score almost 100% hits on runways and buildings. B-17s were uber weapons in the Pacific against bases they could reach. They weren't ship killers and they didn't capture or hold land. But they knocked the hell out of any base they could get to and very rarely were they shot down in any numbers... While the bases weren't knocked out often (it's pretty easy to patch up a dirt strip), facilities, maintenance crews and aircraft caught on the ground were frequently killed and damaged/destroyed in significant numbers.

The proof is in the pudding. I challenge anyone here to read Sakai's book and tell me how UV has it wrong regarding B-17 attacks against bases...

For the record, in real life Japan did NOT have large AAA at Lae, only smaller low level types, so these B-17 strikes I'm speaking of weren't bothered by Flak - they were attacked by fighters during their strikes though. I'll quote specific passages if anyone wants me to.
"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."
Post Reply

Return to “Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific”