B-17's

[DSandberg]

I've been following these level bomber threads with great interest, and I agree that some good ideas are being run up the flagpole here. I think it is very telling that few or even no level bombers are actually being destroyed by flak during low level naval attack tests.

I can accept the idea that such attacks can potentially score the high numbers of hits we see in UV 1.11, as long as such attacks become more difficult to prosecute and sustain over time than they currently are. At this point I'm thinking that the mentioned increase in repair times for damaged large aircraft, combined with some sort of increase in the effectiveness of massed low level AAA vs large slow aircraft (at least enough to allow a few destroyed aircraft) might be just enough to make this type of attack a little bit less of an uber-weapon than it currently is.

There's my opinion ... you know what to do with it.

- David

[emorbius44]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joel Billings
I have brought up the issue of level bombers being too good bombing ships (and maybe other targets as well) at low altitude (especially heavy bombers) to both Gary and Mike. The simple answer at this time is that the current state of the game is not considered a bug. >>>

I think you should do a MAJOR reconsideration of that position. Right now B-17's can hit patrol boats with an accuracy that rivals Anni Oakley. This is flat out absurd. I just had a TF annihalted by B-17's from cooktown attacking gili-gili. Being May 1942, one should expect that historically given the time period, troop training level, morale, etc that while some transport hits might be expected one would not expect to see mutitple hits on patrol boats and destroyers, probably with a hit rate of 75% or more.
It essentially makes the game unplayable as an offensive can simply be shut down by deploying some B-17 shipbusters to stop it cold. My dismay at watching the results is exceeded only by your willingness to stand by them. Frankly I'm stunned by this position. After playing this game almost non-stop I have lost most of my enthusiam for it and if WITP is to have the same system then I'll pass......I don't think I'll be the only one.

Bob

[dgaad]

Originally posted by emorbius44

Originally posted by Joel Billings
I have brought up the issue of level bombers being too good bombing ships (and maybe other targets as well) at low altitude (especially heavy bombers) to both Gary and Mike. The simple answer at this time is that the current state of the game is not considered a bug. >>>

I think you should do a MAJOR reconsideration of that position. Right now B-17's can hit patrol boats with an accuracy that rivals Anni Oakley. This is flat out absurd. I just had a TF annihalted by B-17's from cooktown attacking gili-gili. Being May 1942, one should expect that historically given the time period, troop training level, morale, etc that while some transport hits might be expected one would not expect to see mutitple hits on patrol boats and destroyers, probably with a hit rate of 75% or more.
It essentially makes the game unplayable as an offensive can simply be shut down by deploying some B-17 shipbusters to stop it cold. My dismay at watching the results is exceeded only by your willingness to stand by them. Frankly I'm stunned by this position. After playing this game almost non-stop I have lost most of my enthusiam for it and if WITP is to have the same system then I'll pass......I don't think I'll be the only one.

Bob

What is your historical and logical evidence for suggesting that the performance of B-17s should be adjusted? What do you propose be actually done in the way of adjustment to B-17s?

[Kavik Kang]

I am not only talking about B17s, I am talking about all big bombers. I know a lot about WWII history compared to your average person, but not like a true grognard. So I am not debating anyone's historical data. I am only speaking about concepts in game design, which I have a lot of experience with. My opinion is simple and having said it twice already it doesn't need to be resated.

I just love any kind of navy game, in water or space, and this one is a lot like an old game I played called Carrier at War. Although loading transports is an uneccessarly mystical experience, I can live with all the little quirks that I know of. The one I would really like too see, though, is less of a threat to the carriers from land-based air. Not no threat, just less of a threat.

[Chiteng]

I am sorry you wont convince Dhaad of anything with regards to B-17's. He has read some article on skip-bombing and that has cemented his opinion. I offer the performance of the B-17's
at Midway as an example of how they DONT hit moving ships.

I offer Morrison who flatly states that only ONE destroyer
that was NOT moving was ever hit by a B-17. But that doesnt matter to Dhaad. He will site some article that actually pertains mostly to B-25s in late 1943 as an example of how B-17's could have been used. It is useless.

In responce to Dhaads request that someone state how a B-17 should be used 'ingame':

I suggest that it be limited to recon, asw and strategic bombing.

However I see nothing wrong with allowing it to come in at 100 feet over the airbase. I just think that the flak algorithm be upped
to make it NOT cost effective.

Heck right now you can use the B-17's to attrit Zeros over Rabual
because you KNOW the B-17 wont get more than damaged.
That is flatly silly.

[strollen]

Originally posted by emorbius44

I think you should do a MAJOR reconsideration of that position. Right now B-17's can hit patrol boats with an accuracy that rivals Anni Oakley. This is flat out absurd. I just had a TF annihalted by B-17's from cooktown attacking gili-gili. Being May 1942, one should expect that historically given the time period, troop training level, morale, etc that while some transport hits might be expected one would not expect to see mutitple hits on patrol boats and destroyers, probably with a hit rate of 75% or more.
Bob [/B]

J7B test showed a hit rate of 35% against larger targets (CVs etc) . This has been my experience also. I agree 75% would be to much, but 1/3 is exactly in line with the data I posted from an actual B17 raid in the Bismark sea.

If you are really getting a 75% hit rate than something needs to be fixed. However, I am skeptical, that you are actually seeing that instead just focusing on few bad results. Save the next 6-10 combat reports that you have where B17 are attacking ships. Edit them and post the results. (including any major damage to the ships prior to the attack and if they were docked plus difficulty level). I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong when shown convincing data.

Finally, remember that one 500 lb hit on PC is basically enough to sink/leave it dead in the water so subsquent attacks are going to be much more accurate. This is true to a less extent for a destroyer.

My problem in a PBEM game is that darn B17 aren't attacking naval targets!

[doomonyou]

Originally posted by Chiteng
I am sorry you wont convince Dhaad of anything with regards to B-17's. He has read some article on skip-bombing and that has cemented his opinion. I offer the performance of the B-17's
at Midway as an example of how they DONT hit moving ships.

I offer Morrison who flatly states that only ONE destroyer
that was NOT moving was ever hit by a B-17. But that doesnt matter to Dhaad. He will site some article that actually pertains mostly to B-25s in late 1943 as an example of how B-17's could have been used. It is useless.

In responce to Dhaads request that someone state how a B-17 should be used 'ingame':

I suggest that it be limited to recon, asw and strategic bombing.

However I see nothing wrong with allowing it to come in at 100 feet over the airbase. I just think that the flak algorithm be upped
to make it NOT cost effective.

Heck right now you can use the B-17's to attrit Zeros over Rabual
because you KNOW the B-17 wont get more than damaged.
That is flatly silly.

Please consider the folliwng information from http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/features/b17history/

--Autumn of 1943 almost saw the end of daylight bombing. The raid on Schweinfurt and Regensburg had been extremely costly. Of the 376 bombers that began the raid, 60 were lost to fighters or flak and another 162 had been damaged to some extent. In one raid, almost half the 8th Air Force’s B-17s were destroyed or damaged to a serious extent. The bombing of Germany had been put off for a full month while the Allies considered their options. To this point, the Luftwaffe had won the battle of Germany.

Please note that this is the worst most terrible most awful casulties ever suffered in a raid by the 8th air. Those bomber flew in daylight, unescorted for SIX HOURS OVER CONSTANTLY DEFENDED enemy territory. The flak weapons used against them were vastly superior to Japanese gear in that regard, and were guided by superior fire control systems. I would also point out that Me109s and Fw190s were superb planes, far better than the zero at bomber attacks. I am quite sure that the reponse to this will be that they were flying high, and we are talking about flying low. I can assure you that schweinfurt was without exception or qualification the most heavily flak defended individual target in the history of AAA and that at least five hundred fighter attacked teh formations at one time or another over thier flight in or out. against this litteral hell on earth that I remind you last six hours against an enemy whose tactics and equipment were quite optimized to fight at high altitudes, the b-17's destroyed rate was LESS THAN 20%. A low level bombing raid passing over a task force would be with AAA range for less than four minutes no matter how the ships were arranged and no matter how alert and on top of things the japanese crew are/were. Each bomber carries either 8 or 10 bombs (at lower alt's the thicker air would allow a far heavier bomb load than the european theatre). If six b-17s attack a convoy and each only hits with 10% of thier bomb load at what is point blank range, than that's still gonna be one hit per plane.

I believe that historically the failure was doctrinal. During the early war American subs were not allowed to do anything. By the end of the war, by altering that assinine theory of combat (no surfacing, nothing during daylight, etc) they ran out of ships to kill.

As far as the zeros, read this quote from the same source

--Against the Japanese the big bombers were a little bit more adept at protecting themselves. Zeros and Claudes were not particularly effective in bringing the big bomber down due to the small caliber guns and the armor plating of the B-17s. The light construction of the Japanese planes also meant that the lightly armed Fortresses actually had a chance against a Zeke. Unfortunately, the B-17s were most vulnerable when on the ground. Most were destroyed on the ground within a week after the attack and a couple were actually captured intact in the Philippines when the island was overrun.

The Japanese had air superiority over the Phillipines the way we had air superiority in the Persian Gulf war. Yet almost no b-17's were lost in the air. They were captured on the f'ing ground (F@#$ YOU MACARTHUR!!!)

Lastly I would point out that playing as the USN I have had japanese LBA (which was historically quite dangerous to ships due to superb handling both tactically and strategically) torpedoe my ships like target barges. This is not a case of one side has, other side doesn't

[Chiteng]

What is your point? That high level sweeps over Rabual are realistic as far as using them to get rid of Zeros?

The Zeros could choose to NOT ENGAGE above a certain
altitude, that isnt a possibility in UV.

I am more than aware of all the ramifications and peturbations
of the 8th airforce of Germany. I do not agree actually about the
flak over Schwienfurt. I would say certain areas of Berlin
win hands down. But its a minor point.

The point is this. The invasion convoy for Port Moresby
was NOT destroyed by B-17s, in fact it wasnt destroyed at all.
They turned back after losing their aircover.

The slaughter in the Bismarks were NOT B-17s but B-25s
specially trained to do it.

The point is that the B-17s as this game portrays them cannot be countered. They make the Japanese NOT want to play.
If no one plays the game we all lose.

[emorbius44]

Originally posted by dgaad



What is your historical and logical evidence for suggesting that the performance of B-17s should be adjusted? What do you propose be actually done in the way of adjustment to B-17s?

B-17's are too accurate against naval targets, especially this early in the war. I am aware that the original B-17's that escaped the phillipines tormented the Japanese later on and hit a number of transport ships but right now the B-17, at least from the games I've played, seems to be more accurate at hitting a small, highly mameuverable navals vessel then an SBD, VAL, TBF or Kate.
Hitting a ship is like trying to hit a bridge and hitting bridges or ships in WWII wasn't very easy for level bombers. B-17's were so innacurate against combat ships that the Japanese had contempt for them and only one hit was registered against a destroer in WWII. My DD got hit about as often as Tom Hank's Higgins boat hitting Omaha beach. I don't believe skip bombing was done from 1000 feet. Specifically the level bombing algorithm for B-17's is skiewed and should be adjusted to reflect what they could realistically accomplish.

[emorbius44]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by strollen


J7B test showed a hit rate of 35% against larger targets (CVs etc) . This has been my experience also. I agree 75% would be to much, but 1/3 is exactly in line with the data I posted from an actual B17 raid in the Bismark sea.

If you are really getting a 75% hit rate than something needs to be fixed. However, I am skeptical, that you are actually seeing that instead just focusing on few bad results. Save the next 6-10 combat reports that you have where B17 are attacking ships. Edit them and post the results. (including any major damage to the ships prior to the attack and if they were docked plus difficulty level). I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong when shown convincing data.

Finally, remember that one 500 lb hit on PC is basically enough to sink/leave it dead in the water so subsquent attacks are going to be much more accurate. This is true to a less extent for a destroyer.


1943!!!!! 1943!!!! 1943!!!! THAT is when the battle of Bismark sea happened. It was a major turning point in the war(precisely because of it's innovation. One reason is was so effective is the Japanese commanders assumed it was a torpedo attack, PRECISELY because the allies did it so RARELY up to this point they had never heard of it being done before, maneuvered their ships and that increased the effectiveness of the attack) but it didn't happen until 1943!!! I wish poeple would quit using that as an example. If this is to be a simulation of the war in the south pacific using 1943 tactics in May '42 is like giving ships the kind of AAA oirdinance they had in 1943 in 1942.
Your point might be much more valid in 1943 but early in the game and these planes bombed from 1000 feet, not 100.

[CynicAl]

Originally posted by emorbius44
1943!!!!! 1943!!!! 1943!!!! THAT is when the battle of Bismark sea happened. It was a major turning point in the war(precisely because of it's innovation. One reason is was so effective is the Japanese commanders assumed it was a torpedo attack, PRECISELY because the allies did it so RARELY up to this point they had never heard of it being done before, maneuvered their ships and that increased the effectiveness of the attack) but it didn't happen until 1943!!! I wish poeple would quit using that as an example. If this is to be a simulation of the war in the south pacific using 1943 tactics in May '42 is like giving ships the kind of AAA oirdinance they had in 1943 in 1942.
Your point might be much more valid in 1943 but early in the game and these planes bombed from 1000 feet, not 100.

The B-17s at the Battle of the Bismarck Sea weren't skip bombing. They made level bombing runs at moderately low altitude, though still higher than 1000'.

On a more general note, employing historically available troops and equipment in ahistorical ways is pretty much the whole point of the game. Of the genre, even. If you have to do it exactly the way it was done IRL, why bother?

[Chiteng]

The POINT as you call it is playing the game.
If one side has a lock...people STOP playing.

I dont care if a crew on a B-17 that had special munitions made
can skip bomb forever. The FACTS are the standard anti-shipping
load of a B-17 was TWO 2000 pound bombs. PERIOD.

They didnt use torpedoes or cluster munitions or magnetic mines.

They used two big blockbusters that rarely hit anything.

Why? because it was in the book. and the munition was there.

[Raverdave]

The Battle of the Bismark sea........................

A convoy of 6 AP's 2 AK's and 8 DD's left Rabal on March 1 bound for Lae, with seven thousand troops loaded.

March 2, B-17's and B-24 attack the convoy, sinking one AP.

March 2 (night) RAAF lunches a night torpedo attack.....all torps missed.

March 3 10:15am 180 aircraft attack the convoy, B-17s, B-25s, A-20s, Beaufighters, and P-38s. The aircraft attacked at different hights and direction, with the B-17 coming in at 7000 feet and B-25s of the 3rd Light Bombardment Group, A.K.A 3rd attack group coming in at low level to skip-bomb. The Zero cap was tangled up with the B-17s allowing the medium bombers to slip in with little hinderance from the CAP. At the end of the attack at 10:30am, all seven APs and AKs were sinking for the loss of 1 B-17, 1 B-25 and 3 P-38s. (Note that 59 Japanese aircraft were claimed to be shotdown).

A second raid was launched in the afternoon and strafed the rafts and lifeboats.

[CynicAl]

Originally posted by Chiteng
The POINT as you call it is playing the game.
If one side has a lock...people STOP playing.

I dont care if a crew on a B-17 that had special munitions made
can skip bomb forever. The FACTS are the standard anti-shipping
load of a B-17 was TWO 2000 pound bombs. PERIOD.

They didnt use torpedoes or cluster munitions or magnetic mines.

They used two big blockbusters that rarely hit anything.

Why? because it was in the book. and the munition was there.

If you'd read my post, you might have noticed that I wasn't talking about skip bombing except to say that the B-17s at Bismarck Sea weren't doing it. You might also have caught the phrase, "Using historically available troops and equipment..." (emphasis added).

Both sides have ahistorical tactics available to them which make the game much harder on the other player. I take it that you always play with historical IJN sub doctrine on? And never create a super carrier force by massing ten CVs and CVLs in one or two whopping TFs, right?

[Raverdave]

Also have read about the exploits of the eleventh airforce up in the Aleutians during '42 and early '43. Makes for interesting reading......seems that it was a Colonel Eareckson whom pioneered skipbombing.

[juliet7bravo]

My tests don't show anything being broken. They POSSIBLY identify areas that need further tweaking and refining for optimal play balance. The B-17 is (and was) a valuable tool for the Allies. It wasn't, however, an "Uber-Weapon".

The Battle of the Bismark Sea isn't strictly relevant. The B-17's bombed (mainly) from 3-7000', and in actuality they hit ONE transport, and about 5 more "near misses". What is more telling and pertinent is that the B-17's lost one AC to flak, the rest had the piss seriously shot out of them, and were down for repairs for a considerable time afterward. This from what would be considered a relatively lightly armed (flak) convoy.

I THINK flak is slightly underdone in general. I THINK naval flak is even more underdone. I THINK ground accuracy is fine, if anything, considering CAP will degrade accuracy, it's slightly low. I THINK naval bombing accuracy is to high, especially considering that all TF's are considered to be moving/evading. This accuracy rate in turn needs to be looked at while remembering the B-17 had 12 bombs on board, and the tests were conducted without any CAP/LRCAP. Also, the tests conducted prior to any of the IJN ships had their light AA suites upgraded...their flak ability really was pretty anemic. On the other hand, I'm using 6 AA Bn. for the ground tests...which is probably an ahistorically large amount of concetrated flak to be using as a baseline. I'm the one doing them, and the tests are pretty inconclusive to me, precisely because of all the variables and permutations possible.

What to do is a different story. We can scream "THE SKY IS FALLING", and stampede Matrix into rushing out and degrading the B-17 to the point of uselessness, or continue to test and come up with a balanced fix...IF anything needs fixed. Anything they do is going to have serious repercussions throughout game balance. There is nothing in my test results that show a radical game-killing bug. IMO, what they show is that there MIGHT be the need for some modest tweaking to a variety of interlocking game aspects. It might be repair time, it might be accuracy, it might be flak values, it could be a limit to the number of B-17's per attack...could be as simple as the B-17 durability rating needing revised downward slightly to turn some of the "flak damaged" into "flak kills". Probably, IMO, it's a combo of these factors and others I don't know anything about. Big changes have big impacts, and probably in places we don't want them.

[elmo3]

I'll add the following regarding the Battle of Bismarck Sea from McGee's book The Solomons Campaigns 1942-43 from page 257:

3 Wednesday...USAAF B-17's and B-24's (5th Air Force), escorted by P-38's, cary out high-level bombing attacks, while B-25's and A-20's and RAAF Beaufighters and Bostons carry out relentless low-level skip and mast-head bombing attacks and strafing runs against enemy ships....Due to the nature of the battle, wartime analysts deemd it neither "possible from pilots'accounts to determine which ships were hit by which bombs" nor "possible to determine exactly how and when each vessel was sunk.".

So other than skip bombing it would seem there was no low level boming used in this battle.

I'm half way through this 639 page book of the campaign and have yet to read one account of B-17's or B-24's being used in low altitude attacks. Not to say there weren't any, but none worth recounting apparently. There are plenty of references to higher altitude bombing, with some of it being relatively ineffective such as on page 178 where 14 Flying Fortresses dropped 56 bombs on a dead in the water Hiei, "...only one of which possibly hit.".

Regarding CAP and bombers see pg 183 when 15 unescorted Flying Fortresses bombed transports approaching Savo Island on 14 November: "...from an altitude of 3 miles they loosed 15 tons of bombs over the transports, scoring one hit and several near misses. Zekes were present in equal numbers to the Forts and a lively aerial skirmish ensued, six of the enemy falling victims to the American gunners."

People are free to draw thier own conclusions, as I'm sure we all will.

[elmo3]

While I'm on a roll here is a quote from pg 68 regarding US AA guns and Japanese high altitude bombing: "The 90-mm anti-aircraft batteries could and did keep enemy planes at a respectful altitude - say 27,000 feet - but even from that height the Japanese high-level bombers, who were unprovided with the Norden bombsight, managed to lay their "eggs" with care and no mean accuracy."

[Reiryc]

Originally posted by Joel Billings
The formulas are set up to significantly reduce the chance of a long range airstrike engaging a naval target that is not in a base/beach hex. Anything over 10-15 hexes is much less likely. However, maybe this isn't working to the degree that some would like. I would guess this is happening more to TF's that are hanging around for long periods of time while spotted by the enemy, thus allowing the max detect level to build up (I say guess because I'm not sure about the formulas involved).

Joel

I think might be an area that you should look closer at...

Maybe more disruption should occur, even if artificially so, for level bombers that encounter flak and CAP. This might reduce the effectiveness of level bombers at 1000 feet without penalizing smaller torpedo planes.

While I look for more historical accuracy in a game, I also realize that due to the very nature of it being a game, that it also needs to be playable in a fun fashion from both sides. Thus some areas that may not be as historically accurate need to be 'fudged' to help create some sense of gaming balance that is reasonable without turning the game into pure fantasy.

I realize this is a tall order, but maybe the amount of disruption is just the place that some kind of balance can be achieved to avoid the gamey tactics currently in use, without removing them altogether.

Reiryc

[dgaad]

Originally posted by juliet7bravo
My tests don't show anything being broken. They POSSIBLY identify areas that need further tweaking and refining for optimal play balance. The B-17 is (and was) a valuable tool for the Allies. It wasn't, however, an "Uber-Weapon".

The Battle of the Bismark Sea isn't strictly relevant. The B-17's bombed (mainly) from 3-7000', and in actuality they hit ONE transport, and about 5 more "near misses". What is more telling and pertinent is that the B-17's lost one AC to flak, the rest had the piss seriously shot out of them, and were down for repairs for a considerable time afterward. This from what would be considered a relatively lightly armed (flak) convoy.

I THINK flak is slightly underdone in general. I THINK naval flak is even more underdone. I THINK ground accuracy is fine, if anything, considering CAP will degrade accuracy, it's slightly low. I THINK naval bombing accuracy is to high, especially considering that all TF's are considered to be moving/evading. This accuracy rate in turn needs to be looked at while remembering the B-17 had 12 bombs on board, and the tests were conducted without any CAP/LRCAP. Also, the tests conducted prior to any of the IJN ships had their light AA suites upgraded...their flak ability really was pretty anemic. On the other hand, I'm using 6 AA Bn. for the ground tests...which is probably an ahistorically large amount of concetrated flak to be using as a baseline. I'm the one doing them, and the tests are pretty inconclusive to me, precisely because of all the variables and permutations possible.

What to do is a different story. We can scream "THE SKY IS FALLING", and stampede Matrix into rushing out and degrading the B-17 to the point of uselessness, or continue to test and come up with a balanced fix...IF anything needs fixed. Anything they do is going to have serious repercussions throughout game balance. There is nothing in my test results that show a radical game-killing bug. IMO, what they show is that there MIGHT be the need for some modest tweaking to a variety of interlocking game aspects. It might be repair time, it might be accuracy, it might be flak values, it could be a limit to the number of B-17's per attack...could be as simple as the B-17 durability rating needing revised downward slightly to turn some of the "flak damaged" into "flak kills". Probably, IMO, it's a combo of these factors and others I don't know anything about. Big changes have big impacts, and probably in places we don't want them.

I am in complete agreement Julie. Proceed with any changes with caution. A perfect simulation will be played with perfect historical hindsight and less consideration for the loss of human life, resulting in apparent ahistorical outcomes. People would rather play a glorious lie, than the harsh truth.