In side the magic box of the air system

[LiquidSky]

ORIGINAL: KWG

For the game to be HISTORIC...


When the Allies and the Germans go toe to toe at close strengths it will have to be the ALLIED AIR POWER that breaks the Germans.

Ummm...no. For the game to be HISTORIC... when the allies and the germans go toe to toe, it is the successive (failed) attacks with infantry, artillery...armour that attrit the Germans to the point where they could no longer hold the ground. (breaks the Germans)

This does not say that allied airpower did nothing. But it certainly did not kill off the German army while the allies stood by and waited on the ground.

[KWG]

For those that are new and think they have walked in on a bar fight that covers several threads[;)]

[KWG]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky

ORIGINAL: KWG

For the game to be HISTORIC...


When the Allies and the Germans go toe to toe at close strengths it will have to be the ALLIED AIR POWER that breaks the Germans.

Ummm...no. For the game to be HISTORIC... when the allies and the germans go toe to toe, it is the successive (failed) attacks with infantry, artillery...armour that attrit the Germans to the point where they could no longer hold the ground. (breaks the Germans)

This does not say that allied airpower did nothing. But it certainly did not kill off the German army while the allies stood by and waited on the ground.

Ummm... in context of my statement... yes.

I knew that was on the way.

Well of course, and Iam aware of that of that in it's context... And it was the Allied Air that was used to make the difference and to keep from having to do that to extreme or to even fail and be thrown back , defeated.

Then why didnt/dont the Germans attack the Allies and defeat them before they just sit and be attritioned.

As Eisenhower told his son when he arrived in Normandy, of the Normandy campaign "if not for the Allied Air Force I would not be here."


What was it that broke open the German lines? Failed ground attacks? German offense?

[LiquidSky]

It was Patton's tanks that broke open the German lines. After a month and a half of fighting.

I would argue that the only 'historical' use of unit bombing was the carpet bombing by the 8th airforce. Unit bombing should be removed from the game. It is an unhistorical use of airpower.

Airpower was used either in conjunction with ground attacks to attack fixed areas (The ground support mission) or to stop/slow the movement of troops/supply to the front lines. (Interdiction mission) when it was sent to bomb enemy troops. The unit bombing mission serves no historical purpose.

I agree that airpower was helpful in defeating the germans. Its just a question of scale.

Rank this in order of damage done to German units:

The Red Army
The Red Airforce
The Allied Army
The Allied Airforce

I think even my 13 year old daughter could rank this properly. Yet you are arguing that the Allied Airforce should be ranked 1st. And the game is acting like it is. I say it is a pretty distant last.

[KWG]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky


It was Patton's tanks that broke open the German lines. After a month and a half of fighting.

I would argue that the only 'historical' use of unit bombing was the carpet bombing by the 8th airforce. Unit bombing should be removed from the game. It is an unhistorical use of airpower.

Airpower was used either in conjunction with ground attacks to attack fixed areas (The ground support mission) or to stop/slow the movement of troops/supply to the front lines. (Interdiction mission) when it was sent to bomb enemy troops. The unit bombing mission serves no historical purpose.

I agree that airpower was helpful in defeating the germans. Its just a question of scale.

Rank this in order of damage done to German units:

The Red Army
The Red Airforce
The Allied Army
The Allied Airforce

I think even my 13 year old daughter could rank this properly. Yet you are arguing that the Allied Airforce should be ranked 1st. And the game is acting like it is. I say it is a pretty distant last.

It was what moved the scales to the Allies favor. Force magnifier.

Yet you are arguing that the Allied Airforce should be ranked 1st

Where?




Ive not even said the casualty rate is correct only that it can be done and done more. Most of what Ive posted gets ignored OR twisted out of context and formed as a basis for a tangent counter argument.

I would argue that the only 'historical' use of unit bombing was the carpet bombing by the 8th airforce.

Only 'historical' use by the 8th?

Finally, requests for indirect attacks, made through the normal staff machinery, could in exceptional circumstances become de facto "impromptu indirect" missions. There are several examples on record of urgent requests for attacks on targets in the German rear being actioned the same day the target become known. For instance on 30 June, during the course of the EPSOM offensive, the Army reported that German armor was concentrating in the Villers Bocage area, then about a dozen kilometres in the German rear, threatening the flank of the British advance." Headquarters Advanced AEAF hurriedly passed a request back to Bomber Command, and at 2000 hours of that same day, 232 heavy bombers struck the target area.
????

unhistorical- what does that mean? so is alot of things. Unrealistic? to not land at Normandy is unhistorical therefore Unrealistic.

unhistorical if so, There needs to be several things removed. Total disbanding the Luftwaffe, no attacks, etc. Where does it stop?


The Red Airforce > The Allied Airforce ? that would be interesting to compare and if only due to time as oppose to efficiency.

[Helpless]

(The ground support mission) or to stop/slow the movement of troops/supply to the front lines. (Interdiction mission) when it was sent to bomb enemy troops. The unit bombing mission serves no historical purpose.

There is no bomb unit mission in the game. You order a ground attack, which is basically interdiction with ground unit priority, based on current recon levels. Pure interdiction does exactly the same job, just with delayed effect.

Yet you are arguing that the Allied Airforce should be ranked 1st. And the game is acting like it is.

Beside HQ bombing issue and don't see it being the case.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: KWG

For the game to be HISTORIC...


When the Allies and the Germans go toe to toe at close strengths it will have to be
the ALLIED AIR POWER that breaks the Germans.

But as seen in picture as per Sig and myself

the exploit hits HQ's which means they are under 90% toe in some cases as low as 70% which is a -3 to commander rolls

Which effects every single roll.

This causes loses/misses ect ect

Lets stick to the data and not get off on personal issues.

1. you had no idea you were using a poor design/bug/exploit.
2. its effects HQ' massively
3. ToE effects commander rolls.
4. Commander rolls effect EVERY SINGLE ROLL so a 7 commander goes down to 4. This alone is HUGE as all WitE people know and I am guessing most here do.
5. Because of -30% rolls more losses happen during ground combat that never should have happened.
6. because of exploit Germany suffers more loses to HQ and more losses during ground combat.

This issue is massive which is why WitE players have house rules its effects are just not loses to the HQ's its loses to ground forses because of lost rolls which never should have been lost.

Again stick to the data.

As you said more then once you really don't have much of an idea what your doing.

You need to understand this is not all about our game and you winning.

Its about following the data no matter where it leads.

Our game and chances are every game is effected by this - not because people new what they were doing but because system is WAD, but with a massive problem.

The problem effects every single roll during ground combat if a Corp HQ takes more then 500 in loses. Your best bombing run was vs a HQ unit and several others.

So I had 3 Corp HQ rolling with lower then normall commander ratings.

This also effect logistics - MP's replacements ect ect

Again look at the data, follow it - what are the effects in game to EVERYONES game not just ours.


5.

[HMSWarspite]

+1 to Helpless

NO one, but no one, has argued that the game would have been like this IF Pelton had not defended to the max in Normandy. Again, with the exception of HQ which I think we all admit looks off, where is the evidence that anything is wrong?

The Allies never tried this. There is no data. SO please don't quote history. DO not ask which armed force did the most damage to the German army. DO not quote Cobra at us.

The situation is Pelton defended to the max, well forward. KWG has bombed him a lot. Could this have happened in RL? Yes (although I think the German army should not be able to supply itself for long in such circumstances and so this should be looked at). The Germans could have tried to fight statically. The Allies could have tried to make France look like the far side of the moon.

What would the casualties be? I don't know. The only think I do know is THEY SHOULD NOT BE THE SAME AS HISTORY.

Oh, and just in case anyone has forgotten, this does not seem to be a game winning strategy for the WA. The only issue here seems to be wounded pride.

Lets limit our whining to the things that matter. As I said, out of this I have HQ losses to air attack, other effects of Air on HQs, and how is Pelton supplying this army? I think a pre-invasion massive depot spamming exercise needs to be looked at, because it bears no resemblance to any likely possibility I can see. Rommel could not get the forts he wanted so how would hundreds of thousands of tons on supply be on hand?

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: KWG

For the game to be HISTORIC...


When the Allies and the Germans go toe to toe at close strengths it will have to be
the ALLIED AIR POWER that breaks the Germans.

But as seen in picture as per Sig and myself

the exploit hits HQ's which means they are under 90% toe in some cases as low as 70% which is a -3 to commander rolls

Which effects every single roll.

This causes loses/misses ect ect

Lets stick to the data and not get off on personal issues.

1. you had no idea you were using a poor design/bug/exploit.
2. its effects HQ' massively
3. ToE effects commander rolls.
4. Commander rolls effect EVERY SINGLE ROLL so a 7 commander goes down to 4. This alone is HUGE as all WitE people know and I am guessing most here do.
5. Because of -30% rolls more losses happen during ground combat that never should have happened.
6. because of exploit Germany suffers more loses to HQ and more losses during ground combat.

This issue is massive which is why WitE players have house rules its effects are just not loses to the HQ's its loses to ground forses because of lost rolls which never should have been lost.

Again stick to the data.

As you said more then once you really don't have much of an idea what your doing.

You need to understand this is not all about our game and you winning.

Its about following the data no matter where it leads.

Our game and chances are every game is effected by this - not because people new what they were doing but because system is WAD, but with a massive problem.

The problem effects every single roll during ground combat if a Corp HQ takes more then 500 in loses. Your best bombing run was vs a HQ unit and several others.

So I had 3 Corp HQ rolling with lower then normall commander ratings.

This also effect logistics - MP's replacements ect ect

Again look at the data, follow it - what are the effects in game to EVERYONES game not just ours.


5.

So why isnt KWG rolling your army all round western France, with all these negative command checks. Oh? Wait. Do negative command checks have no effect unless there is ground combat?

PELTON, you have changed your argument throughout these threads, have shown no sign of listening to anybody, and this whole subject is now boring me. Have you played your turn in the AAR recently?

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: KWG

For the game to be HISTORIC...


When the Allies and the Germans go toe to toe at close strengths it will have to be
the ALLIED AIR POWER that breaks the Germans.

But as seen in picture as per Sig and myself

the exploit hits HQ's which means they are under 90% toe in some cases as low as 70% which is a -3 to commander rolls

Which effects every single roll.

This causes loses/misses ect ect

Lets stick to the data and not get off on personal issues.

1. you had no idea you were using a poor design/bug/exploit.
2. its effects HQ' massively
3. ToE effects commander rolls.
4. Commander rolls effect EVERY SINGLE ROLL so a 7 commander goes down to 4. This alone is HUGE as all WitE people know and I am guessing most here do.
5. Because of -30% rolls more losses happen during ground combat that never should have happened.
6. because of exploit Germany suffers more loses to HQ and more losses during ground combat.

This issue is massive which is why WitE players have house rules its effects are just not loses to the HQ's its loses to ground forses because of lost rolls which never should have been lost.

Again stick to the data.

As you said more then once you really don't have much of an idea what your doing.

You need to understand this is not all about our game and you winning.

Its about following the data no matter where it leads.

Our game and chances are every game is effected by this - not because people new what they were doing but because system is WAD, but with a massive problem.

The problem effects every single roll during ground combat if a Corp HQ takes more then 500 in loses. Your best bombing run was vs a HQ unit and several others.

So I had 3 Corp HQ rolling with lower then normall commander ratings.

This also effect logistics - MP's replacements ect ect

Again look at the data, follow it - what are the effects in game to EVERYONES game not just ours.


5.

So why isnt KWG rolling your army all round western France, with all these negative command checks. Oh? Wait. Do negative command checks have no effect unless there is ground combat?

PELTON, you have changed your argument throughout these threads, have shown no sign of listening to anybody, and this whole subject is now boring me. Have you played your turn in the AAR recently?

Slow down.

Follow the data do not ignore it.

1. Bombing as seen in the data caused higher then normal losses to HQ's
2. a side effect same as WitE, (which is why players have house rules)is lower commander rolls.

I have not changed any thing from the AAR to this point.

1. I played 19 game with one having wildly different ratios - Why at the time I had no idea because I am stupid.
I sent out a red flag and it was ignored.
2. I dug deeper and started another thread putting up another red flag saying weird ratio's were from bombing - Why at the time I had no idea because I am stupid.
3. I dug deeper spending allot of time (low IQ)to find this. Sig is smarter he figured it out in a hour (High IQ)

Nothing has changed, only difference is most people now can see it as an issue that 2by3 will fix as they always do.

Its a snowball effect causing issues in other areas of the game - that's the data which = higher then normal ratio's

I personally have no issue with off ratio's if they are caused by player skills and not an issue with one of the games systems.

not sure what a possible fix is, I don't code and really am a general dumb ass when it comes to air sysem.

[Walloc]

Sigup,

Did u note what type of terrain u did the attacks in?

In my experience terrain has an IMHO unwarrented effect on air caused casulties and u might not have noted in ur tests. I say this because if one looks at the bombings / loss rates in german units that was near Caen vs those facing the Americans simplistic said. There is no evidence that those in "clear" hexes suffered any more from air than those in "bocage" terrain. I've never in a singel annicdotal story or AAR written by german officers ever read that being in those "clear" areas was any worse or better than those in Bocage. They seem to complain just as much about the jabo and air attacks in general. Nor does historic loss rates for those division in "clear" terrain give any indication of this.

See Harry Banana test in another thread with the 1300 ish sorties on 12 SS aka combat unit for 4400 casulties. Or more than 3 per sorties. With that in mind the nearly approximately 80k sorties of Allied single engine figther bomb loaded mission during normandy(not to say that all actually hit any targets or that all directly targeted "Manpower) would account for more than 300k alone(nearly 3 times actual casulties to all causes not counting MIA/pows. Nor allowing for any MB and HB caused casulties. While results migth vary in WiTW and depending on whom does the air campaigns some seems to get alot more missions of the same planes than others. Rarely less u dont fly at all do u get zero result mission(abort, no targets to drop bombs on, aborted cause of weather and so on) unlike in the real world.

For those that think the "combat" formation results doesnt look out of place. Im sorry but historicly u didnt come close to 1 kill per sortie. Clearly to get historic loss rates u hafta go well below 1 per sorties to reach historic levels. How many sorties u then do compared to historic levels is another matter.

I would suggest that ppl study the real effects of teh carpet bombs seems to be alot of mis information around. In 2 of the 5 big "carpet bombings" the actual number of corpses accounted by the BOAR Group for in the area of the bombings is less than number of fingers on a normal human being. Which is perfectly in line with the german sources on these 2 particualr attacks. A recent(2012) BNHD study into the two carpet bombings preceding Cobra that the casulties on the german side in terms of actual losses was significantly less than the blue fire ones. The actual number of german soldiers in teh bomb box it self is also a good clue. Futher If u look at the weekly reports of losses in Pz Lehr the week that encompassed the 2 bombings plus a weeks fighting and withdrawl, it isnt even in the top 5 of weeks of high losses for pz lehr in normandy. Neither suggesting that the bombings purely casulties wise did any thing statisically significant. The only carpet bombing mission with actual confirmed significant losses is the one at Goodwood. Including a good number of tanks and other armored vehicles.

As too Rundtsted opinion on the Cobra bombings. One should study his source which happens to be Fritz Beyerlein. As to his credability on the subject(and in general) i refere to the chapter at page 36 onwards in Zetterlings Normandy book.

Further more yes its true that 232 heavy bombers was used on Villers bocage at Epsom but unlike the implied reading in another thread it isnt used for attacking german troops. Like on both St Lo, St Vith and Houffaize in the ardennes the information on pz formation is heading into the area precipitate the launching of a HB strike on cites/road center/choke points purposfully with the rubble effect on cities in mind. To slow/halt the use of this roads in the cities. Trying to put a plug in the choke points these road centers was. This is best in game terms described as pure interdiction, hinder movement. No tanks or armored vehicles was in fact lost at Villers Bocage as a result of the city bombing. As the cities are far beind enemy lines the usual restriction regarding HB/carpet bombings are a non factor in these cases. As these was cities tho not large ones there was no targeting problems for HB hench their use on these targets.

Tank and Manpower are lost as a result of bombing strikes in Epsom causing losses in particular those that off seting the time table of the II SS Pz Corps planned counter attack, but this was done purely by medium bombers who purpousfully attack the concentration of ground forces(unlike the HB) that the until then unexperienced to western front conditions the 9th and 10th SS divisions commits. Live and learn. A bombardment of 672 British gun from 3 different British corps onto this concentration/assembly area makes this the the largest german attack in normandy you've never heard of.

Kind regards,
Rasmus

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Walloc

Sigup,

Did u note what type of terrain u did the attacks in?

In my experience terrain has an IMHO unwarrented effect on air caused casulties and u might not have noted in ur tests. I say this because if one looks at the bombings / loss rates in german units that was near Caen vs those facing the Americans simplistic said. There is no evidence that those in "clear" hexes suffered any more from air than those in "bocage" terrain. I've never in a singel annicdotal story or AAR written by german officers ever read that being in those "clear" areas was any worse or better than those in Bocage. They seem to complain just as much about the jabo and air attacks in general. Nor does historic loss rates for those division in "clear" terrain give any indication of this.

See Harry Banana test in another thread with the 1300 ish sorties on 12 SS aka combat unit for 4400 casulties. Or more than 3 per sorties. With that in mind the nearly approximately 80k sorties of Allied single engine figther bomb loaded mission during normandy(not to say that all actually hit any targets or that all directly targeted "Manpower) would account for more than 300k alone(nearly 3 times actual casulties to all causes not counting MIA/pows. Nor allowing for any MB and HB caused casulties. While results migth vary in WiTW and depending on whom does the air campaigns some seems to get alot more missions of the same planes than others. Rarely less u dont fly at all do u get zero result mission(abort, no targets to drop bombs on, aborted cause of weather and so on) unlike in the real world.

For those that think the "combat" formation results doesnt look out of place. Im sorry but historicly u didnt come close to 1 kill per sortie. Clearly to get historic loss rates u hafta go well below 1 per sorties to reach historic levels. How many sorties u then do compared to historic levels is another matter.

I would suggest that ppl study the real effects of teh carpet bombs seems to be alot of mis information around. In 2 of the 5 big "carpet bombings" the actual number of corpses accounted by the BOAR Group for in the area of the bombings is less than number of fingers on a normal human being. Which is perfectly in line with the german sources on these 2 particualr attacks. A recent(2012) BNHD study into the two carpet bombings preceding Cobra that the casulties on the german side in terms of actual losses was significantly less than the blue fire ones. The actual number of german soldiers in teh bomb box it self is also a good clue. Futher If u look at the weekly reports of losses in Pz Lehr the week that encompassed the 2 bombings plus a weeks fighting and withdrawl, it isnt even in the top 5 of weeks of high losses for pz lehr in normandy. Neither suggesting that the bombings purely casulties wise did any thing statisically significant. The only carpet bombing mission with actual confirmed significant losses is the one at Goodwood. Including a good number of tanks and other armored vehicles.

As too Rundtsted opinion on the Cobra bombings. One should study his source which happens to be Fritz Beyerlein. As to his credability on the subject(and in general) i refere to the chapter at page 36 onwards in Zetterlings Normandy book.

Further more yes its true that 232 heavy bombers was used on Villers bocage at Epsom but unlike the implied reading in another thread it isnt used for attacking german troops. Like on both St Lo, St Vith and Houffaize in the ardennes the information on pz formation is heading into the area precipitate the launching of a HB strike on cites/road center/choke points purposfully with the rubble effect on cities in mind. To slow/halt the use of this roads in the cities. Trying to put a plug in the choke points these road centers was. This is best in game terms described as pure interdiction, hinder movement. No tanks or armored vehicles was in fact lost at Villers Bocage as a result of the city bombing. As the cities are far beind enemy lines the usual restriction regarding HB/carpet bombings are a non factor in these cases. As these was cities tho not large ones there was no targeting problems for HB hench their use on these targets.

Tank and Manpower are lost as a result of bombing strikes in Epsom causing losses in particular those that off seting the time table of the II SS Pz Corps planned counter attack, but this was done purely by medium bombers who purpousfully attack the concentration of ground forces(unlike the HB) that the until then unexperienced to western front conditions the 9th and 10th SS divisions commits. Live and learn. A bombardment of 672 British gun from 3 different British corps onto this concentration/assembly area makes this the the largest german attack in normandy you've never heard of.

Kind regards,
Rasmus

My tests posts 1-15 terrain had little effect as per I could do the same thing to a HQ in a level 1 FZ in a mountain hex.
Weather showed same results as did a lvl 3 fort and cityes.

terrain or weather seemed to matter slightly about 15-20%

So 6000 in clear - 5000 in Mts, forest cities ect ect.

[RedLancer]

From a ground attack AD perspective can we now assume that this issue is just about too many losses from HQ bombing? Is anyone in their tests seeing anything that would indicate that the effects of terrain or fortification are not what you might expect?

Repeatable saves and clear statements of discontent are the answer to addressing problems.

This avoids two issues, firstly that there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics and secondly this...

When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

[Seminole]

I would suggest that ppl study the real effects of teh carpet bombs seems to be alot of mis information around. In 2 of the 5 big "carpet bombings" the actual number of corpses accounted by the BOAR Group for in the area of the bombings is less than number of fingers on a normal human being.

I don't know if the players can track this, and if Pelton wants to put up his before and after air execution saves I am willing to look through them, but how can we determine to what extent these bombing casualties are coming directly from the attack, and how many from losses due to damaged/disruption and stacked fatigue factors?
'Losses' from a combat perspective are not the same as corpses accounted.
I have always seen diminishing returns from bombing with respect to 'killing', and this is in line with Pelton's observation:

"Why so many loses on 1 day then the 3000-5000 men, 200-500 guns and 50-200 AFV’s lost to 40-50 planes then next to nothing the other 6 days."

Naval interdiction worked this way initially. Day 1 would be an enormous value, and the subsequent days would be small, I wasn't sure if it was because a max was being hit, or the cumulative effects of lower morale/fatigue as the week wore on was the culprit. V1.00.37 made some naval interdiction changes, and I want to say it was on this forum that Helpless mentioned the values would be spread out and not so concentrated on day 1.

The HQs, especially the high level ones with several tens of thousands of men, are supposed to be largely abstractions, right? Or do we imagine 40k typists, etc. from Oberkommando der Luftwaffe is really crammed into a 10 mile hex?
I think the air system may need to take into account this abstraction by in some sense 'obscuring' a portion of the HQ subject to bombardment.

[Seminole]

From a ground attack AD perspective can we now assume that this issue is just about too many losses from HQ bombing?

I think the 'problem' isn't HQs per se, but support squads (and vehicles?). My guess is that support squads are very squishy, and easily susceptible to bombardment, and since that and vehicles is all that makes an HQ they stand out due to concentration.

What I do notice when I look through all the bombing reports with no kills in my own experience is that they still have lots of disruption. Any way for us to observe how many losses are coming from damaged/disrupted elements failing checks and going into the losses column?

[KWG]

Lets stick to the data and not get off on personal issues.

I dont like to be accused of saying things I did not say.

As you said more then once you really don't have much of an idea what your doing.

More taken out of context.

I said I dont know every little rule and know every little number in order to try and max the system

I try and just play the game.

I know what Iam doing.

I know the depot system and can send the majority of supplies exactly where I want them.

Before this interdiction bug , and sometimes with it, I can get very high levels of interdiction. Look at my examples in the interdiction tutorial thread.

I can get level 100 recon.

I know how to combat and move. etc.

[:)] and if the game would let me, I would know how to set the tension in the tracks on my tanks for mud or dry. Or do a ambush patrol with the 508th.
Or know to not lay a white phosphorus round on its side.[:D]

And I know how to do dumb things - lots of practice



Seriously...

Again stick to the data.

Lets. bombing with heavy bombers:

They did it, the missions were possible, the ground troops wanted more of it, some in command wanted more of it.
[/b]
Is any of what I just said NOT historical data?

You need to understand this is not all about our game and you winning.

Is that what they call projection?

How many times have I said, you will probably win, I am not playing to win I am just playing the game.

If I was playing to win I would not be doing what Iam doing. Up until the invasion the VPs were moving my way just about every turn. I would just strategically bomb.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
This avoids two issues, firstly that there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics and secondly this...

That might be ur view John and thats how that is. Instead one can rely on statements/claims from persons there, like:

Germans lost 400 800 tanks in a blacing inferno at the fields Prokorovka.
Stukas/HS129 destoying whole russian tank bde's in a fell swoop.
Pz Lehr being totally oblitereated in the carpet bombings.
All tank from Pz Lehr at the front at the Cobra being knocked out.
Whole german divisions leaving Normandy with 200 men and 15 tanks.
300 tanks claimed destroyed by air at Mortain.

These kinda statements/myths and many more was taking for granted for 50 years after war as it was first level sources. Actual ppl at the spot saying this so how could it be wrong.
It toke some to actual fact check stuff like that, looking at figurs and among other statistic to see if these what was shown to be myths actually held up.

If underlining if we say that the devs beleive or of what baseline of some particular within the game is clearly off. What does saves matter to influence that?

ORIGINAL: Seminole

I would suggest that ppl study the real effects of teh carpet bombs seems to be alot of mis information around. In 2 of the 5 big "carpet bombings" the actual number of corpses accounted by the BOAR Group for in the area of the bombings is less than number of fingers on a normal human being.

I'Losses' from a combat perspective are not the same as corpses accounted.

No not necesarrily so, but when in those 2 cases the battlefield is taken over within less than 24 hours. Considering the carnage that carpets bombing brought. In particular those buried under rubble. The germans might not have had the time/resources to recover its dead. Why it is importand to for one, as i said look at the german sources which is near no losses in these 2 cases. Then when u can actually fact check this with specific studies on the other side if they found masses of corpses or not as the case might be, is very good piece of evidence in the puzzle of what had taken place.

Kind regards,
Rasmus

[RedLancer]

Rasmus

I'm interested in the game being the best that there is.

My main point is that posting reams of game data is no help if we cannot replicate the situation in the game that creates the game data being quoted. It can also be very difficult to understand what argument the data is supporting. Data on its own is not an argument - it is just data. Saves provide a baseline from which to work. SigUp has nailed the situation here - a save and a clear statement that he thinks attacking an HQ causes too many losses. That allows the behaviour of the code to be investigated. This allows the Dev Team to conduct an empirical test and provide objective data we understand and concur with. Without this first step there is little we can do.

There is a parallel line which you have kindly provided; which is what results should the game be producing if the code behaves as intended. This data can be wildly different, employed very subjectively but I fully accept that recent scholarship has addressed a number of myths. As the game never follows history to the letter there can be a bit of leeway in what the answer should be. In most cases I think we do adopt a conservative approach that pleases both sides and results in a fun game which is the primary aim.

[Ralzakark]

The RAF’s operational research team No. 2 ORS examined the reults of heavy bomber attacks after operation TOTALISE in August 1944.

642 RAF heavy bombers dropped 3,460 tons of bombs on five German held locations flanking the attack. Knowing the German defensive strength in two of the villages they were able to work outline the likely destruction and casualties bombing might cause.

La Hogue had been held by 250 troops and 7 guns, deployed at a density of some 125 troops and three guns per 1,000 square yards. The ORS calculated that targeted in two raids each of 100 heavy bombers bombing would have caused 30 German casualties and destroyed one gun.

Rocqancourt was defended by some 700 troops and 26 guns deployed at a density of 175 troops and seven guns per 1,000 square yards. The ORS calculated that if targeted in four raids of 50 heavy bombers the bombing would have caused 45 casualties and destroyed at most three guns.

For COBRA the figures I have are some 1,000 casualties total from Panzer Lehr and its supporting paratroops on 25 July. This was from a raid of 1,490 B-17s and B-24s which dropped over 3,370 tons of bombs, 380 mediums and over 550 fighter-bombers. Bayerlein estimated that 50% of his casualties were from bombing. So 2,420 aircraft caused 500 casualties.

So in these examples it needed 6.7, 4.4 and 4.8 sorties to produce one casualty.

This is the permanent damage only of course, the short-terms effects were usually more significant as these raids preceded major ground assaults.

For GOODWOOD the British found that prisoners from a regiment of the 16th Luftwaffe division, which had been hit hard, could not walk in straight lines and had to stop by the side of the road when being escorted to prisoner of war camps. An astonishing 70% of them remained stone-deaf for 24 hours.

Bayerlein reported that the morale of his men was seriously affected: ‘The morale attitude of a great number of men grew so bad that they, feeling the uselessness of fighting, surrendered, deserted to the enemy or escaped to the rear, as far as they survived the bombing. Only particularly strong nerved and brave men could endure this strain… For me, who during this war was in every theatre committed at the points of the main effort, this was the worst I ever saw’.

In game terms the British examples are particularly interesting as the numbers of aircraft involved equate well with KWG’s ‘rug bombing’.

Information from Richard Hallion’s ‘Strike from the Sky’ and Ian Gooderson’s ‘Air Power at the Battlefront’.

[Ralzakark]

This might interest some people as well. For COBRA the USAAF had asked for a minimum of 3,000 yards between the target box and friendly troops. Bradley wanted to be closer so the heavy and medium bombers target bx was set no closer than 1450 yards, with the fighter-bombers attacing a narrow strip 1,200 – 1,450 yards away. Richard Hallion’s ‘Strike from the Sky’ shows what this looked like.

If I was clever it would even be the rightway round [:D]

It also shows how some 50% of the bombs missed the box, the majority being ‘long’ as aircrews were very conscious of the proximity of ground forces.