Allied aircraft production figures

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: treespider
So lets estimate 40% of US fighter production went to the Pacific - 40% of 99950 = 39,980 and Japan produced 30,447. Roughly a 4:3 ratio.

I'm not willing to assume this at all for one reason. First let me say I admit I don't have a document in front of me that says x number of planes went to this theatre, but I do have the reference document I linked and this statistic alone I think proves about 80%-90% of naval aviation aircraft operated in the Pacific theatre.

Total action sorties by theatre for US navy and marine air:

Central Pacific.....152,443
South Pacific.....41,204
Southwest Pacific.....88,358
North Pacific.....790
Atlantic.....1,161
Southeast Asia.....117

Refer to page 18 of the document I linked above bottom of chart.

As you can see it appears the US navy and marines only flew 1,161 sorties outside the scope of WitP for the entire war. I think this is strong evidence that at a minimum 80% of navy aviation production should be allocated to the Pacific (probably more like 90% realistically). 40% of USAAF production is fine pending a source to prove otherwise, but no way you have a case for naval aviation.

Jim

[aztez]

ORIGINAL: pauk

lots of folks forgeting one important thing... if we really want to make the game closer than reality then there is more important things to do. Bigger numbers to Allies (i'm not against that if the numbers are wrong) will mean that game will actually will not be closer than reality.... instead of begining 45 it will be finished in 44...catch 22... right?

is this kind of reality we are talking about?

Definately not. I would like to see this product be better and more to simulation.

I do agree that there are many issues in the game that needs to be tweaked or changed. (For both sides)

PS: Sardaukar I want the combat replay!!! [:D][:D]

[Sardaukar]

Will get it after i get home !! [:'(]

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: treespider
So lets estimate 40% of US fighter production went to the Pacific - 40% of 99950 = 39,980 and Japan produced 30,447. Roughly a 4:3 ratio.

I'm not willing to assume this at all for one reason. First let me say I admit I don't have a document in front of me that says x number of planes went to this theatre, but I do have the reference document I linked and this statistic alone I think proves about 80%-90% of naval aviation aircraft operated in the Pacific theatre.

Total action sorties by theatre for US navy and marine air:

Central Pacific.....152,443
South Pacific.....41,204
Southwest Pacific.....88,358
North Pacific.....790
Atlantic.....1,161
Southeast Asia.....117

Refer to page 18 of the document I linked above bottom of chart.

As you can see it appears the US navy and marines only flew 1,161 sorties outside the scope of WitP for the entire war. I think this is strong evidence that at a minimum 80% of navy aviation production should be allocated to the Pacific (probably more like 90% realistically). 40% of USAAF production is fine pending a source to prove otherwise, but no way you have a case for naval aviation.

Jim

However an "Action Sortie" as defined by the document to which you are referencing is

ACTION SORTIES Number of planes taking off on a mission which eventuated in an attack on an
enemy t a r g et or in aerial casbat, or both.

This is not an accurate way to determine the number of aircraft assigned to a theater.


I refer you to my earlier post in which I provide the data for US Navy and Marine Aircraft by type.

Year.....Combat..........Trans...........Trainer..........Other..........Total..........Total 1st Line Combat Pac. Th. (Hawaii to India)
12/43...15,164............1367............9057.............304.............25892........8268
12/44...25780.............2437............7883.............621.............36721........13065
8/45.....19402.............2876............7280.............977.............30535........14648

As can be seen roughly 50% of US Navy and Marine Combat aircraft were assigned to the Pacific.

[Sardaukar]

Indeed. Number of combat sorties is bit irrelevant since 1000 sorties can be performed by either 10 planes flying 100 sorties each..or 100 planes flying 10 sorties each... It's about airplane production anyway, not about intensity of combat operations. In former case, plane numbers count, not sorties.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: pauk

Jim, can you make up your mind?

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
I also would like the Japanese curtailed to historical production limits as well.

All the Japanese fanboys seem to be missing my point entirely. I am not advocating the reduction of Japanese industry. I am simply pointing out the glaring fact that Japan out produces the US for the entire game due to fixed factories that cannot upgrade for the most part.

The first describes a situation he would "like to see...., and the second makes the point that while he would "like to see it", he's not "pushing for it to be implemented". Be fair, Pauk..., grabbing things "out of context" is rarely helpfull.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: treespider
As can be seen roughly 50% of US Navy and Marine Combat aircraft were assigned to the Pacific.

All it says is about 50% were in 1st line groups. It does not say they were not in the Pacific if not assigned to the 1st line groups. The games aircraft pools represent these non-1st line units. Or are you saying there were just as many naval aviation groups in the Atlantic theatre as there were in the Pacific? If so I’d like to see some documentation backing up that assumption.

Even if the 1,161 action sorties had 10 times as many non-action sorties flown per action sortie as the Pacific action sortie groups had, it is still a pretty small percentage compared to the total number of sorties flown in the Pacific. Your argument that 50% of naval aviation was assigned outside the Pacific will need a lot more evidence than the table you’ve given I think.

Jim

Edit: P.S. It also makes no sense. Other than convoy escort there was no real need for naval aviation in the Atlantic/European theatre.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: treespider
As can be seen roughly 50% of US Navy and Marine Combat aircraft were assigned to the Pacific.

All it says is about 50% were in 1st line groups. It does not say they were not in the Pacific if not assigned to the 1st line groups. The games aircraft pools represent these non-1st line units. Or are you saying there were just as many naval aviation groups in the Atlantic theatre as there were in the Pacific? If so I’d like to see some documentation backing up that assumption.

Even if the 1,161 action sorties had 10 times as many non-action sorties flown per action sortie as the Pacific action sortie groups had, it is still a pretty small percentage compared to the total number of sorties flown in the Pacific. Your argument that 50% of naval aviation was assigned outside the Pacific will need a lot more evidence than the table you’ve given I think.

Jim

from Page 6 (page 31 printed on the bottom) middle colum of this document...

http://www.history.navy.mil/download/ww2-11.pdf

When the war ended in Europe, eight fleet air wings were operating in the Atlantic area, with nine in the Pacific.

9 out of 17 is roughly 50% or to be exact 52.94%

EDIT: My error - this part of the article was solely refering to Patrol Planes.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: treespider
9 out of 17 is roughly 50% or to be exact 52.94%

Well now you're cherry picking. There were thousands more aircraft in the land based naval and marine aircraft groups. I doubt many operated in the Atlantic other than some patrol/search groups. I also doubt the air wings operating in the Atlantic were all Fleet CV group size. I think most were probably on the small CVE's.

Jim

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: VSWG

I'm with treespider here: we're looking at Allied aircraft production. If (IF) the numbers are wrong, fix them. If not, don't. I don't care what this means for game balance; WitP will be a better game for every step it comes closer to reality. Japanese production is a different matter, for a different thread.

Sounds as if someone actually got the point. As long as the Japanese Player has the ability to "fiddle" with his production it's pretty safe to say that he will do better than his historical counterparts. Hindsight makes that almost certain, and I don't think most players object to it in principle as long as it can't be carried to rediculous extremes. But the Allies are stuck with whatever the designers give them - so whatever they recieve should be at least as historically accurate as possible. The arguement that "they don't need it" is a "red herring". That's not the question. The question is "what did they actually get?" as opposed to "what does the game give them?". And there seems to be a significant discrepancy (not so much in number of A/C as in the types recieved and when) that is worth exploring and correcting. It doesn't matter if the F6f's or whatever sit in a "pool" or are used at the front..., what matters is that a reasonably accurate number of them (historically speaking) are available to the Allied player when they should be.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: VSWG

I'm with treespider here: we're looking at Allied aircraft production. If (IF) the numbers are wrong, fix them. If not, don't. I don't care what this means for game balance; WitP will be a better game for every step it comes closer to reality. Japanese production is a different matter, for a different thread.

Sounds as if someone actually got the point. As long as the Japanese Player has the ability to "fiddle" with his production it's pretty safe to say that he will do better than his historical counterparts. Hindsight makes that almost certain, and I don't think most players object to it in principle as long as it can't be carried to rediculous extremes. But the Allies are stuck with whatever the designers give them - so whatever they recieve should be at least as historically accurate as possible. The arguement that "they don't need it" is a "red herring". That's not the question. The question is "what did they actually get?" as opposed to "what does the game give them?". And there seems to be a significant discrepancy (not so much in number of A/C as in the types recieved and when) that is worth exploring and correcting. It doesn't matter if the F6f's or whatever sit in a "pool" or are used at the front..., what matters is that a reasonably accurate number of them (historically speaking) are available to the Allied player when they should be.

Game balance in favour of the Japanese seems to be the norm. Why else would someone concoct a respawn design? To eliminate 4 Essexes, a half a dozen cruisers, a few dozen destroyers and subs; basically a force stronger than KB was eliminated is the answer. Given this I'm not surprised by any "oversight" present in the game.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Game balance in favour of the Japanese seems to be the norm.

Let's be fair to the scenario designer. We've all been playing this for about two years now and we just now found this "issue". It's a bit much to say this was intentional to handicap the allies in some ways.

I think it's more a simple oversight. I also doubt the designer realized that a crafty Japanese opponent could take all the SRA oil virtually untouched if he simply avoided the oil bases to last.

I think he assumed the Japanese production would be less than optimal in most/all games and so he toned down the allied production so as not to make them over powerful. Instead he designed a scenario that has Japan out producing the allies for the entire war in most games.

I do agree the respawn gimik was a balance issue and I’m paying for it in my game. I carefully preserved my carriers for a counter-attack in early 1943. Well it’s the end of 1942 now and I have almost a full year to go till my next CV reinforcement. So I’ll spend 1943 with just 6 CV’s and if I take any losses early in 1943 I’m hosed because the historic builds won’t show up in 1943 as they should.

I almost feel like I should have intentionally gotten my CV’s sunk so I’d have something coming in during 1943..

Jim

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: pauk

lots of folks forgeting one important thing... if we really want to make the game closer than reality then there is more important things to do. Bigger numbers to Allies (i'm not against that if the numbers are wrong) will mean that game will actually will not be closer than reality.... instead of begining 45 it will be finished in 44...catch 22... right?

is this kind of reality we are talking about?

The fact that increasing Allied production would cause most games to end in 1944 (which is a highly subjective assertion anyway) is not an argument against fixing Allied production. It's just evidence that something else is wrong with the game, too. Whatever this "something else" is, it should not prevent us from using the correct numbers.

Of course, I would prefer that fixing Allied AC production would go hand in hand with addressing other issues (which would - or would not) conserve game balance. But "game balance" shouldn't be the judge who decides which changes are implemented or not - "history" should. And if this means that the Allies are strengthend and game balance changes, then yes, I think it should be implemente anyway.

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: pauk

Jim, can you make up your mind?

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
I also would like the Japanese curtailed to historical production limits as well.

All the Japanese fanboys seem to be missing my point entirely. I am not advocating the reduction of Japanese industry. I am simply pointing out the glaring fact that Japan out produces the US for the entire game due to fixed factories that cannot upgrade for the most part.

The first describes a situation he would "like to see...., and the second makes the point that while he would "like to see it", he's not "pushing for it to be implemented". Be fair, Pauk..., grabbing things "out of context" is rarely helpfull.

You didn't get the point. It is all about controversy of his two posts[;)], not that he is pushing...we can't push because we don't have a stick (fortunatly)[:)]

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: pauk
What about your start as Japan (did you already started this game or it is currently on hold)?

Currently on hold. Not sure if I'm going to start one or not at this point, guess I'm hoping for a new patch first. [;)]

Jim

[Andy Mac]

I freely admit that Jim and I are on a different page on this one but I would just repeat I only play the allies and I have played about 10 games now to 43 and in all of them PDU or not after 4/43 and P40N's I have never had a shortage of Land Basd Fighters and I have had my head handed to me on at least one occasion with another in progress.&nbsp;<I&nbsp;do really really hate losing Grrrrr but Kudos to enforcer and Dennis who just sank 2 Essex and 2&nbsp;Independence&nbsp;class in late 43 with KB against Hellcats>
&nbsp;
In GAME terms I think the designers got it just about right Allied production while irritating (apart form Hellcats) is never a constraint for me and I am a little carefree with air losses - attrition is my friend !!!! [:D][:D]
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
In GAME terms I think the designers got it just about right Allied production while irritating (apart form Hellcats) is never a constraint for me and I am a little carefree with air losses - attrition is my friend !!!! [:D][:D]

I posted the data on naval and marine losses for the entire war above at about 3,000 air frames. I'm curious what are your naval aviation and marine losses (AAA and air to air only) for your three games if you still have them?

Jim

[Andy Mac]

I will check it out tonight I have 5 live games as allies at moment and probably have stats for the others somewhere

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I freely admit that Jim and I are on a different page on this one but I would just repeat I only play the allies and I have played about 10 games now to 43 and in all of them PDU or not after 4/43 and P40N's I have never had a shortage of Land Basd Fighters and I have had my head handed to me on at least one occasion with another in progress. <I do really really hate losing Grrrrr but Kudos to enforcer and Dennis who just sank 2 Essex and 2 Independence class in late 43 with KB against Hellcats>

In GAME terms I think the designers got it just about right Allied production while irritating (apart form Hellcats) is never a constraint for me and I am a little carefree with air losses - attrition is my friend !!!! [:D][:D]

So it could be argued that increasing the pools (if the numbers are too low) would have no effect on game balance while increasing historic accuracy, no? [;)]

[pauk]

Andy and I agreed on Hellcats already.