Some VERY PRELIMINARY testing of Strategic Bombing

[ADavidB]

Let's put it this way, if Ollie sent 400 B-29s (unescored) vs Tokyo, he be lucky to get 100 thru (see other thread for B-29 losses opposed). That's maybe 10,000 fires. And now he can't fly for at least 4 days. In the current model, he does marginal damage, and fires are gone in 2 days.

So, strategic bombing won't help an Allied player to win a game either. I guess that GG wanted the Allies to have to invade Tokyo. [;)]

(That, of course, brings to mind the old problem of invading Tokyo in Pacwar - you could invade and capture it, but it would revert to Japanese control the next day...)

Oh well... too bad... now to plan my invasion of the Kuriles, Sakahin and Hokkaidou...

Thanks -

Dave Baranyi

[String]

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

Fire reduced by 10% for 12 hours is just ridiculous. Even the firestorms in Hamburg, Tokyo or Dresden were mostly over the day after. I think some hundred of fires remaining from the previous day may be sufficient.

Maybe they are enough to increase the damaged done by a night raid, as more bombers will find the target.

i think the fires are reduced TO 10%, not BY 10%

[Feinder]

I believe he was disagreeing with my suggestion that fires be reduced BY 10% every 12 hours, instead of the current situation that is TO 10% every 12 hours.

I'll certainly point out that only reducing BY 10% every 12 hours, means basically impossible to ever put them out. I can play devil's advocate... :^)

Of course, to futher muddle things, it could be argued by a certain person whose name starts with "N" and ends in "ickademous" that, "Fire damage in WitP is spread out over days. Sure in real life, fires were quickly contained. But the fire damage over 3 - 4 days in WitP represents the 3 - 4 hours hour of fire-fighting in real life. Yeah. We meant to do that..."

[8|]

Just watching the fire burn, so to speak (pun intended).

No offense intended.

I suppose I should fire off a copy of my test scenario to AL, now that I'm home.

-F-

[AmiralLaurent]

ORIGINAL: String

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

Fire reduced by 10% for 12 hours is just ridiculous. Even the firestorms in Hamburg, Tokyo or Dresden were mostly over the day after. I think some hundred of fires remaining from the previous day may be sufficient.

Maybe they are enough to increase the damaged done by a night raid, as more bombers will find the target.

i think the fires are reduced TO 10%, not BY 10%

Yes I know but someone suggested that reducing them by 10% will be better.

[AmiralLaurent]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Got you PM Admiral. Will send you test scenario with instructions when I get home in a few hours.

-F-

Thanks Feinder, I will see it tomorrow. It's 2a.m. here in France. Have a good night.

[ChezDaJez]

I don't think your knowledge base is sufficient to allow you to speak with any authority on this matter. By your training you are capable of recognizing the symptoms and knowing how to react. That does not make you an expert on decompression, an expert on internal medicine, or more qualified to read the Army's medical tests in re effects of decompression on aircrews. Nor does it make you better able to judge the durability of B-29s. You've had to work real hard to craft one ambiguous case of a observation blister coming off of a B-29 into an 'obvious case of ED' even though the account says nothing about ED (just decompression and lots of paper blowing around forward) and even though the conclusion is highly suspect under the circumstances.

If decompression were a problem "worthy of modeling in a strategic game" you'd find a strong documentary record of B-29 aircrew complaints. Such a record does not exist.

I'll take your last sentence first. I don't believe I ever mentioned modeling it in the game. I simply refuted the numerous inaccuracies you had and still have concerning the potential effects of decompression on people and aircraft.

And you are right. I am no expert on decompression but I am a damn sight more knowledgeable about it than someone who has only read about it in a book. Not only do I have extensive training in hypoxia and explosive/rapid decompression events, I have actual experience in real life ED. What are your qualifications concerning ED and its effects on people and aircraft? Please tell me it's something more than what you read in a 60 year old army report or saw on the Mythbusters.

You choose to disregard the report of a B-29 crew that experienced an ED event which killed a crewmember. You also choose to ignore all the classic signs of ED as reported by that same crew. Signs such as "fog", a "swoosh" sound, forcible ejection of a crewmember and papers blowing around. The pilots state in several places the word "decompression." In my universe, Occam's Razor states that the simplest explanation tends to be the most correct. Your universe must be so convulyed as to not be able to apply the principle of Occams' Razor.

You will also note that the crew indicates that they were hit a single 20mm shell in the cockpit and yet the right side blister and gunner were "sucked" (their words, not mine) out of the aircraft. Tell ya what. I'll quote the pilot and copilot's experience:

Suddenly, there was an explosion, and the interior of the plane filled with fog (classic sign of ED). I didn't know what the noise was, but I knew that we had taken some kind of hit and had depressurized, causing the warm air inside the airplane to vaporize. For a few seconds, the fog was too thick to see anything, but Iyelled for everyone to get on a mask at the same time I was grabbing for mine and hooking it to my helmet. We knew from past experience that if the hole in the plane was not too big, we could put something over it--a magazine, a cushion, anything that would cover the space and then the pressure would build back quickly, so I wanted everyone to look for holes.

I looked around me to see if we had any holes in the front end, and I just happened to look up, right over my seat, and saw blue sky through a hole about four inches in diameter, just above my head. I turned to see where the shell had hit, and there was a big scar on the armor plate behind my seat, about six inches behind me. Later, we surmised that when the 20mm shell hit the armor plate, the bullet shattered, and the fragments ricocheted back and hit the navigator and radio operator. ...snip

snip... "His blister must have blown, and he went out and took the sight with him, and he still had control of the turret."
The turret was still firing in a steady blast, so I said, "Hit his switch and take control of the turret and then see what has happened."
The tail gunner, Sgt. Joe Duemig, spoke up, "I saw him go out and watched his chute open, but some of the fighters left us and started making passes at him. I can still see him floating down." (He was declared MIA)

We soon discovered that when Sgt. Hornyia was sucked out the opening, he knocked the gun sight off the pedestal, but the heavy electric cable that connected with the gun computers did not break, and the slip stream of the airplane was holding the sight against the side of the airplane, depressing the trigger. Obviously, the gunner did not have his seat belt fastened or he would never have been pulled out of the plane. In his excitement about the fighters, he had unfastened his belt so that he could turn and fire more easily without being hindered.\

Bob Moss recalls the explosion in the plane and the events that followed: Fighters attacked us as we turned back over the Straits of Formosa heading toward China. A tremendous "swoosh" scattered papers and other items as the aircraft, at that instant, lost cabin pressure. The crew in the back reported the side blister was gone and so was Sgt. Hornyia. A shell had exploded over the co-pilot's position injuring Lt. Weinberg and Sgt. Klaver. Other damage to the plane involved the wiring in the bomb bay, the oxygen system, etc.

They mention just one 20mm cannon shell that caused an ED event, killed one crewman and forced them into an emergency landing at a fighter base. Cables, wiring, O2 system and a side blister all damaged or destroyed by a single 20mm shell that magically traveled throughout the aircraft and through several pressurized compartments causing all this damage because you say ED can't cause structural damage on a B-29. Are we back to the JFK magic bullet theory again?

Tell ya what. I'll even go a little further and provide some details on 1500 or so people killed due to decompression effects during flight. I found these after a brief search. Some you've already mentioned like the Aloha bird but of course failed to state that someone died from being sucked out.

DeHavilland Comet

Date- Place- Type aircraft- airline- remarks

4/20/57 over Turkey, Super Constellation, unknown, 1 passenger sucked through a window after the window blew out causing explosive decompression. Landed safely.

10/19/62 over Connecticutt, Convair CV-340, unknown, flight attendant sucked out when pressure seal on rear door failed at 4000 feet causing explosive decompression. Landed safely.

3/3/74, over France, DC-10, Turkish Airlines, 346 people died when cargo door blew off causing explosive decompression that collapsed cabin floor severing control cables. Crashed.

4/4/75, Viet Nam, C-5A, USAF, 155 people died when explosive decompression caused by failure of rear ramp seal caused 2 hydraulic pumps to fail and cut control cable to tail section. Plane crash landed in rice paddy, 175 survivors.

4/20/78, over Russia, B-707, Korean Airlines, fired on by Russian fighter after straying off course. Cannon fire caused explosive decompression. 1 passenger died of bullet wounds, 1 died of an air embolism. Landed safely.

2/24/84, Hawaii, B-747, United Airlines, Nine passengers died after being sucked out of the aircraft during explosive decompression when cargo door latch failed. Landed safely.

8/12/85, over Japan, B-747, Japan Air Lines, rear pressure bulkhead failed causing explosive decompression. Extensive structural failure including severed control cables. Plane flew for over 30 minutes before striking mountain. 546 dead.

4/28/88, near Hawaii, B-737, Aloha Airlines, explosive decompression caused by structural failure due to metal fatigue. 1 flight attendant sucked out and killed. Landed safely.

6/10/90, over England, BAC 1-11, British Airways, Windshield blew out at 17000 feet, sucking the pilot from underneath his seatbelt and partially out through the opening. Only his legs remained inside the aircraft. Two crewmembers were able to hang on to his legs. Pilot remained in this position for 15 minutes with his face pressed against the outside of the side cockpit window. Plane landed safely. Miraculously the pilot survived with only broken bones and frostbite. Documented on TLC show called "Ripped from the Sky." Landed safely.

7/9/97, over Brazil, Fokker 100, TAM Airlines, 1 passenger died when sucked through a 6 foot hole on the opposite side of the aircraft. Explosive decompression caused by 7oz bomb placed under a man's seat in an unsuccessful suicide attempt- he lived. Landed safely.

How about hypoxia? Remember Payne Stewart?

10/25/99 over central US, Lear 35, charter jet, 6 people, including famed golfer Payne Stewart, died when crew and passengers were incapacitated from hypoxia during rapid decompression event while climbing to 39000 feet. Plane eventually reached an altitude of 49000 feet and crashed into a field due to fuel starvation after flying nearly 3 hours with a dead crew. The crew never attempted to use oxygen

There are plenty more examples to be found it you care to do the searching.

You also said:

I know alot about the Comets. Sudden decompress was an initiating factor for the crashes. The underlying cause was poor design. The Comets sacrificed a lot of structural integrity of the airframe by using passenger windows that were (a) much too large, and (b) too numerous for an aircraft of that size.

Obviously you didn't know enough. The explosive decompression had nothing to do with the size of the windows. It did have everything to do with having square corners on the windows that allowed the metal to crack at these points which in turn lead to explosive decompression due to structural failure. The first cracks to appear during investigational hydrostatic testing appeared at the corner of a cargo window (about the size of today's airliner windows). That is why you will never see a window with square corners on an aircraft.

Oh, this plane, the Comet, that you claim was "just a lousy design" is still flying today. Its called the Nimrod and it is a RAF patrol plane that has amassed the best safety record of any military aircraft ever.

So, please, gather some facts and then come calling. Your opinions don't count for crap when based on something you know nothing about. I don't really care if you find my opinion obnoxious or not. At least it's based on training and experience.

I WILL POST NO MORE ON THIS SUBJECT AS THIS THREAD IS OSTENSIBLY ABOUT A DIFFERENT MATTER.

Chez

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

About range, I made some tests and yes I was a bit too optimistic about fatigue recuperation. Raids will be flown rather every 4-6 days than every 3 days.

Which is totally inaccurate. Check the spacing of the first big Fire-Bombing raids (maximum efforts) LeMay sent in. Every Other day! Not every third or fifth or whatever. The stood down for 5 days before hand to get all the A/C ready, and a percentage still turned back with mechanical difficulties, but crew fatigue wasn't the factor the game makes it. I don't object to the amount accrued, but the "recovery rates" are rediculous. These are young healthy men, not a collection of geriatrics.

[mogami]

Hi, For only about the millionth time. Fatigue is not just the pilot. It is also the aircraft.
(they can fly but some of them will turn back because of problems)
When you fly a group often the fatigue is the aircraft. (it's ready but needs work to get back to prime condition. Fatigue is also impacted by local conditions. (aircraft get more fatigued in jungles, bad weather, low supply)

[mogami]

Repost Feb 2003


Hello...

I am posting tthe following for informative purposes.

This is how the air-to-air combat system is coded and functions. The most important factors are squadron leader skills, pilot/crew skill, maximum speed. cruise speed, climb rate, maneuver, durability, radio, armor and gun factor. I cannot easily post the equations, as there are hundreds of them. Many of these variables combine in each equation. The most important effect of each variable is listed, below.
______________________________________________________________

MANUEVER

The maneuver variable is a combination of acceleration in level flight, turn rate and roll rate. It is most important in fighter versus fighter dog fighting. Pilots in aircraft with significantly maneuver will try to make the fight a maneuvering contest. If they succeed, they will a greater chance to fire at the rear of the enemy fighter or fire without being fired at. If they succeed or no will be strongly influenced by the relative maneuver, squadron commander skills, pilot skills and aircraft advantage.

Maneuver: A6M2 - 35, P-40 - 31, F2A - 29, F4F - 32. As can be seen, the Zero has he advantage in maneuver. The F4F is also a fairly spry aircraft.
______________________________________________________________

MAXIMUM SPEED

The maximum speed variable is how fast the aircraft can travel in level flight. It is most important in fighter versus fighter dog fighting and fighter versus bomber combat, as well. Pilots with a significant maximum speed will try to avoid dog fights and make slashing attacks against enemy aircraft. In the case of fighters attacking bombers, the fighters will be able to make more attacks against slower bombers. In the case of fighters versus fighter combat, a very fast fighter may fire deflection as it passes an enemy fighter, go head to head or fly past one fighter to attack another from the rear. If they succeed or no will be strongly influenced by the relative speed, squadron commander skills, pilot skills and aircraft advantage.

Maximum Speed: A6M2 - 332, P-40 - 362, F2A - 321, F4F - 320. As can be seen, the P-40 has the advantage in maximum speed. This allows the P-40 dive through the formation at high speed.
______________________________________________________________

CRUISE SPEED

A higher cruise speed will allow the aircraft to get to the target in a shorter time. In the case of attacks versus shipping, the chance of locating the ships is increased. In all cases, fatigue is less than with a slower aircraft.

Cruise Speed: A6M2 - 207, P-40 - 275, F2A - 161, F4F - 155. As can be seen, the P-40 has the advantage in cruising speed.
______________________________________________________________

CLIMB RATE

The climb rate is very important in determining how many combat air-patrol aircraft are able to engage and if they engage enemy aircraft from above or below. A high climb rate will increase the chances of the fighter engaging the bomber from the best angle. Diving on the enemy bomber or climbing towards it, depending on the pilot skill and gun locations on the bomber. All other factors equal, it is usually better to dive on the bombers, as the fighter speed will be greater. Against enemy fighters, a higher climb rate allows the fighter to more easily escape from an enemy fighter who is behind him, forcing the enemy fighter to use deflection fire. A high climb rate makes for a better interceptor.

Climb Rates: A6M2 - 2640, P-40 - 2083, F2A - 2200, F4F - 1950. As can be seen, the Zero has the advantage in climb rate.
______________________________________________________________

DURABILITY:

The durability factor is the toughness the plane. An aircraft with a higher durability can sustain more damage before being shot down, can fight better when damaged and can land with more damage. Some bombers with an extremely high durability, when combined with a very high gun factor, may discourage brittle enemy aircraft without self sealing fuel tanks and a limited gun factor with from attacking. So, against the B-24, a Nate or A2M6 might only make one or two passes and fire at a greater range, before retiring. A George, on the other hand might press the attack.

Durability: A6M2 - 22, P-40 - 29, F2A - 28, F4F - 29. As can be seen, the Zero has a significant disadvantage in durability and combined with a zero armor, no self-sealing fuel tank, this aircraft must use the high maneuver rate to avoid getting hit.
______________________________________________________________

GUN FACTOR

The gun factor is the relative firepower of the aircraft. In the case of aircraft with guns that fire other than directly forward, such as bombers, it is the aggregate firepower. So, a dive bomber might be able to fire at an aircraft above and to the rear. Each weapon is fired separately and therefore the firepower factor is never used in combat. But indicates a greater chance to damage enemy aircraft, or when strafing, units or ships.

Gun Factor: A6M2 - 12, P-40 - 18, F2A - 12, F4F - 18. As can be seen, the A6M2 and F2A have a smaller gun factor. Should you look at the actual weapons on the aircraft, you will see that limited ammunition, short range or inaccurate weapons will hinder the aircrafts ability to shoot down enemy aircraft.
______________________________________________________________

RADIO

Many Japanese aircraft lack radios. The lack of a radio makes it harder to intercept incoming attacks with sufficient aircraft, which reduces a squadrons CAP ability.
______________________________________________________________

LEADER SKILLS

Most calculations include the leaders skills. He can make his pilots/crews use better combat tactics, better coordinate attacks and defenses, increase repair rates for aircraft, increase morale and decrease pilot/crew/ground crew/aircraft fatigue. It is a good thing to make sure the leader is highly skilled.
______________________________________________________________

PILOT/CREW SKILL

All calculations include the pilot/crew skill factor. It is important.
______________________________________________________________

FATIGUE

The fatigue variable is a calculated and accumulative assessment of the pilot/crew, ground crew and aircraft physical condition. It is used in most combat and many non-combat calculations. Flying a lot of missions will increase fatigue and make the group less effective.
______________________________________________________________

MORALE

The group morale factor is a calculated and accumulative assessment of the pilot/crew and ground crew general fitness. It also includes group Intel and mission preparation time, as lead time is needed to fly missions, some longer than others.
______________________________________________________________

ADVANTAGE

Not a variable, but a calculated value, the aircraft with the advantage has a greater chance to implement the tactic the pilot would choose. It increases the chances of the pilot to bouncing an enemy aircraft and increases the chances for aircraft to evade.
______________________________________________________________

Hope this information Helps You to undersand the what is going on, beneath the hood.

Bye...

Michael Wood

[Knavey]

Nice repost Mog,

Hadn't seen that one before.

Thanks,

[AmiralLaurent]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

About range, I made some tests and yes I was a bit too optimistic about fatigue recuperation. Raids will be flown rather every 4-6 days than every 3 days.

Which is totally inaccurate. Check the spacing of the first big Fire-Bombing raids (maximum efforts) LeMay sent in. Every Other day! Not every third or fifth or whatever. The stood down for 5 days before hand to get all the A/C ready, and a percentage still turned back with mechanical difficulties, but crew fatigue wasn't the factor the game makes it. I don't object to the amount accrued, but the "recovery rates" are rediculous. These are young healthy men, not a collection of geriatrics.

First all B-29 in Marianas were grounded for 6 days. In game terms, that means FAT = 0 for all. At the time there was roughly 500 B-29 in Marianas.

Then on the night of the 9-10, 325 B-29 sent over Tokyo, 279 bombed, 14 lost

One day rest

Then on the night of the 11-12, 310 B-29 sent against Nagoya, 285 bombed, 1 lost

One day rest

Then on the night of the 13-14, 301 B-29 sent against Osaka, 274 bombed, 2 lost

Two day rest

Then on the night of the 16-17, 330 B-29 sent against Kobe, 307 bombed, 3 lost

60-70 of bombers flying every two nights, means that each B-29 flew every 3 days. In RL there were more crew than bombers, so every crew will fly every 5-7 days, even in this maximum effort week.
In WITP the optimum is to fly every 4 days but I think you can do such a maximum effort for a week.

[AmiralLaurent]

Below is the list of Japanese towns with strategic target (format name number of strategic targets/manpower points
Tokyo 3667/110
Nagoya 1886/47
Kitakyushu 1810/42
Toyama 1417/20
Osaka 1398/48
Nagasaki 1325/18
Hiroshima 1225/36
Gumma 1166/16
Okayama 1061/19
Sapporo 1022/44
Maizuru 1013/15
Aomori 960/30
Takumatsu 905/15
Hamamatsu 859/20
Niigata 606/25
Akita 460/14
Sendai 365/18
Shimuzu 364/9
Kyoto 358/21
Kanazawa 232/10
Nagoka 185/15
Hakodare 146/10
Toyahara 115/10
Matsuyama 90/28
Matsue 90/10
Asahigara 90/24
Sasebo 34/1

Total (in 1945 scenario, basis of Feinder mod): 22 849 strategic points (= 45 698 points for damaging them all).

In game terms, Kitakyushu and Toyama are just one hex farther than Tokyo from Saipan. Any raid on the targets with 900+ points may score 500 strategic points with 200 bombers, and there are 14 targets, so fighters can't be everywhere. Also Niigata and Akita have 100 oil centers each.

My first test tonight or this week-end will be to try manpower attacks on Osaka and Nagasaki. Both bases have roughly the same number of targets, but Osaka has 2.5 more manpower. I am curious to see if one target will be more damaged than the other.

[Feinder]

CRUISE SPEED

A higher cruise speed will allow the aircraft to get to the target in a shorter time. In the case of attacks versus shipping, the chance of locating the ships is increased. In all cases, fatigue is less than with a slower aircraft.

Cruise Speed: A6M2 - 207, P-40 - 275, F2A - 161, F4F - 155. As can be seen, the P-40 has the advantage in cruising speed.

* Shouldn’t this be the opposite? Slower cruise speed would mean longer time to target and thus higher fatigue…? *** Oh wait, "less than with slower aircraft". Nevermind.

===

Gun Factor: A6M2 - 12, P-40 - 18, F2A - 12, F4F - 18. As can be seen, the A6M2 and F2A have a smaller gun factor. Should you look at the actual weapons on the aircraft, you will see that limited ammunition, short range or inaccurate weapons will hinder the aircrafts ability to shoot down enemy aircraft.

* Except that ammunition is NOT modeled.

[tabpub]

60-70 of bombers flying every two nights, means that each B-29 flew every 3 days. In RL there were more crew than bombers, so every crew will fly every 5-7 days, even in this maximum effort week.
In WITP the optimum is to fly every 4 days but I think you can do such a maximum effort for a week.

AL (may I call you AL?):

I know that this is just testing and I haven't tried/done this, but if I were mounting a long distance bombing campaign in this simulation/game, I would take 1/4 to 1/3 of my groups and fold them into others to get more pilots and planes into them. Actually, 1/2 would probably be the best; there would be totally fresh crews ready for a 2nd day effort.
So, your sequence would be:
Day 1: Attack
Day 2: 2nd group of pilots attack; first rest, bringing fatigue down to around 10
Day 3: rest; first set should be around 0 fatigue now, 2nd at 10.
Day 4: resume with relatively fresh pilots
Ad Nausem....

Additionally, there will always be weather considerations. I might not attempt to fly missions in Tstorm weather if the abort rate/don't find target rate seems too high to justify it.

Now, this would reduce your "surge"capability, as you are effectively halving your groups, but should maintain their effectiveness over a longer period of time. Additionally, as you are not replacing planes in operational groups, there would be no supply drawn for them onsite, lessening the amount needed at the base; replacements for these groups would be in the form of the new formations that are arriving in the queue, including the disbanded ones that started the process 90 days before. Pretty much like how the Japanese manage their limited pilot resources.

I have done this with fighter groups in the past, especially ones that are doing long range missions or CAP; seems to work all right for them and would think that it would work fine for bombers. Perhaps one of you boffins would try that out and see how it goes; I have a bit too much going on right now to take the time right now and don't have a game to that point to try it myself.

[Feinder]

As a "tweak" that idea, it might not be a bad idea to allow extra pilots for airgroups (using the "get pilot" button). Esp later in the war, there were certainly more aircrews available, so that planes could fly more often. This would essentially be the same thing that you're saying Tapub.

I know you can draw extra pilots already, by splitting a group. Usually the sub groups don't split the pilots evenly, like they do the aircraft. So you have to draw pilots for one or more of the sub-squadrons, because half of the group's pilots went into the "/A" squadron. In this case, you need fill out the sub-squadrons with pilots (or they won't fly). The "/A" squadron will at least have an excess of pilots. I don't know what happens when you recombine tho. I assumed this was a bug, and don't do it intentionally (other than to fill out my sub squadrons so that they'll fly). But I figured it only "encouraged" the leader/pilot loss bug(s), and I rarely every split my squadrons at this point.

-F-

[AmiralLaurent]

Yes you can call me AL, TP [:'(]

From preliminary test, the best sequence should be to divide the B-29 in two forces (A and B) of rougly equal strength. And not disband any group.

Sequence is of 4 days:

Day 1: force A bombs, force B flies recon (one target by group)
Day 2: force A rests, force B flies recon (one target by group)
Day 3: force A flies recon (one target by group), force B bombs
Day 4: force A flies recon (one target by group), force B rests
Day 5: back to Day 1

If bad weather cancels a raid, just don't count this day.

Flying recon implies only 1 or 2 crews of 50 flying so has little influence on the fatigue total. And it helps to increase accuracy.

Your idea to disband heavy groups to have a higher number of AC and crew may be good, and I will test it when I have time, but I think having a greater number of groups is better. By the way it may be an idea when the second B-29 group to disband it into the first, as it will return 90 days later and still be in time to join the B-29 super-fleet in 1945.

You underestimate the fatigue of B-29 crew flying 20-25 hexes from Mariannas, but more trials should be done before I can tell more about it. For the moment I'm sure any unit flying will have 40-50 fatigue at the end of the day. I doubt they will arrive at 0 in 2 days. They may rest of 10 points per phase (night and day) but I am not sure.

[Nikademus]

Cruise speed impacts endurance which impacts range of the aircraft device.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

Yes you can call me AL, TP [:'(]

From preliminary test, the best sequence should be to divide the B-29 in two forces (A and B) of rougly equal strength. And not disband any group.

Sequence is of 4 days:

Day 1: force A bombs, force B flies recon (one target by group)
Day 2: force A rests, force B flies recon (one target by group)
Day 3: force A flies recon (one target by group), force B bombs
Day 4: force A flies recon (one target by group), force B rests
Day 5: back to Day 1

If bad weather cancels a raid, just don't count this day.

Flying recon implies only 1 or 2 crews of 50 flying so has little influence on the fatigue total. And it helps to increase accuracy.

Your idea to disband heavy groups to have a higher number of AC and crew may be good, and I will test it when I have time, but I think having a greater number of groups is better. By the way it may be an idea when the second B-29 group to disband it into the first, as it will return 90 days later and still be in time to join the B-29 super-fleet in 1945.

You underestimate the fatigue of B-29 crew flying 20-25 hexes from Mariannas, but more trials should be done before I can tell more about it. For the moment I'm sure any unit flying will have 40-50 fatigue at the end of the day. I doubt they will arrive at 0 in 2 days. They may rest of 10 points per phase (night and day) but I am not sure.

These are the average fatigue values for my four "groups" of 8 squadrons which bombs every 4 days. I don't see how you could reduce fatigue to a point where they will fly more than every fourth day. And regardless of the propoganda Mogami is putting out I still say this is just another way this game has HOSED the allied player.


Group #1 (just completed bombing mission) ... 41.75 fatigue
Group #2 (currently ready for mission) .......... 5.25 fatigue
Group #3 (resting 3 days) ............................ 12 fatigue
Group #4 (resting 2 days) ............................ 22.38 fatigue

[tabpub]

If bad weather cancels a raid, just don't count this day.

Flying recon implies only 1 or 2 crews of 50 flying so has little influence on the fatigue total. And it helps to increase accuracy.

Your idea to disband heavy groups to have a higher number of AC and crew may be good, and I will test it when I have time, but I think having a greater number of groups is better. By the way it may be an idea when the second B-29 group to disband it into the first, as it will return 90 days later and still be in time to join the B-29 super-fleet in 1945.

You underestimate the fatigue of B-29 crew flying 20-25 hexes from Mariannas, but more trials should be done before I can tell more about it. For the moment I'm sure any unit flying will have 40-50 fatigue at the end of the day. I doubt they will arrive at 0 in 2 days. They may rest of 10 points per phase (night and day) but I am not sure.

AL:
Yes, you are correct in the fatigue situation, forgot the in/out effect of fatigue counting hexes. As to the bad weather, that would be why I wouldn't risk the mission in a Tstorm forecast; too great a probability of "can't find target" coming up and gaining the fatigue while not striking the enemy, unless you are feeling lucky that day.

The recon point is good, though, I might divide a group just for the purpose of flying recon missions alone; that way you can recon 2-3 targets per day and confuse the enemy as to the next target and make them shuffle things around. Later, would prefer to secure closer bases to use dedicated recon craft for the job though; I don't remember, but don't the P51 recon variants have quite the long range? This would be more efficient of course, not wearing out bomber crews on recon. Plus, I have noted that some recon groups do it "right" and shuffle missions between pilots, while some tend to concentrate on a couple of good pilots, to the detriment of piling up huge fatigue on them. Have to watch out for this behaviour.

As to the 45 super fleet, I agree. Even if I had the bases to hit Japan earlier, I would still consider other theaters for the 29 initially; SEAC and northern AUS come to mind. Hit and threaten resources in periphery of the Empire and gain some experience. Or if China is an option, a group or two there could work over mainland bases in China/Manchuria before the big show in 45. This all presumes that the IJ is not collapsing and is holding an historical line of defense. And remember that the numbers that XXI Bomber Command were putting up was in 45, starting in March as I recall; after the XX Bomber Command was removed from India/China operations and basically disbanded into XXI BC.

As a "tweak" that idea, it might not be a bad idea to allow extra pilots for airgroups (using the "get pilot" button). Esp later in the war, there were certainly more aircrews available, so that planes could fly more often. This would essentially be the same thing that you're saying Tapub.

F:
eek....I don't know if that type of thing is a good path to go down. Unrestricted "pilot getting" could be misused; to the point of people going haywire getting pilots and then complaining that the pools are dry and saying that is a bad design decision thing. I think that I would just stick to the current system. Disbanding gives you extra pilots and frames, lessening both overall fatigue and effects of operational losses on your plane pool.

There are many ways to skin a cat as they say. This is just my opinion of how I might go about it. A lot of things depend on situations:

Have you attritted the enemy to the point that they don't have large #'s of high exp pilots? Sending unescorted groups against better pilots/planes than historical will cause higher loss rate than expected.

Have you worked up the bomber groups to reasonable skill levels? Early groups should seek out milk run targets to work up on for a bit before seeking the bigger targets.

Get some closer bases to use for fighters. Either to try to fly as escort or failing that, to sweep a target prior to the bomber stream hitting it. Works for the recon base aspect also.

Don't forget the FLEET! Hitting Japan is not just the USAAF's job! If you have succeeded in gutting the IJN by this timeframe, the mobile tac air from the carriers can and should be used to hit targets and to soften up the air defense of the Home Islands. Use the bombardment option also; they were done.

As you might have noted, this is almost a perfect reconstruction of the course of the war.
There is a reason that the war went the way it did and while it could have gone in slightly different directions (the old bypass PI for Formosa debate), it did basically have to happen the way it did. Geography, logistics and aircraft ranges dictated most all decisions on the campaign. I guess what I am getting at is the synergy of all the things working together. I wouldn't expect to "win" the war merely by taking the Marianas in June of '44 and reducing the Home Islands to ash in 6 months. ESPECIALLY with hindsight and capable IJ play working against the Allies; you know that in a full campaign both sides KNOW the significance of certain things that our forebears were not aware of.

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: dereck

And regardless of the propoganda Mogami is putting out I still say this is just another way this game has HOSED the allied player.

Hi, OK how about this. Rather then this testing lets do it under actual conditions.

Scenario 10
You Japan
Me Allies
Starting date 1/4/45
Starting score Japan 31154
Allies 14746
If you have not surrendered by Sept 1 1945 you win. Meaning the game cannot last more then 8 months.

Not to be considered a grudge match but played in the name of science. (Lets find out one way or the other if I am propagada)

These tests are very interesting but they keep omiting very important data.
Like who is commanding these bomb groups.
experiance and command of support and HQ units. (basicly Chain of command from top to bottom)
You write the AAR

If Dereck is too busy then I ask one of the interested parties (Tabpub?) to run the Japanese. I think this test is important and requires an objective narrater. I don't have time toi write novels but I will record data prior to sending heavy bombers out.

In Scenario 10 there are 13 on map B-29 BG (13x48=624 B-29) replacement rate is at least 75 per month. Siapan and Tinian are Allied but not Iwo Jima.