Sustained bombing? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific



Message


Chiteng -> Sustained bombing? (6/24/2003 7:59:58 PM)

Example:

Say Port Moresby is maxxed out 9 airfield 9 port with plenty
of supply and support and baseforces.

You put all your medium bombers there (seems a sensible move)
and you target say Buna.

Now the Range to target is minimal. You have all the supply you will ever need. You have the airforce HQ IN Port Moresby.
You suffer few if any losses as you pound Buna.

BUT after two to three days you cant fly reasonably well any longer. Your fatigue is high and your morale is dropping.
If you keep doing it for say a week to support an invasion,
you will need to evac to Australia to recover.

This directly contradicts the evidence of BOTH Bomber Command and the Eighth airforce. They didnt need to periodicly evac to Scotland to rest. They just kept bombing. Excpet for the break in the Autumn of 1943 I dont recall 8th being grounded for anything except bad weather.

However in UV it is common to ground things to recover lost morale. What exactly is going on?




Mr.Frag -> (6/24/2003 10:27:21 PM)

I beg to differ ...

The actual documentation quite clearly states that the poor basing coupled with malaria coupled with logistics problems coupled with poor food coupled with no rest resulted in extreme fatigue and morale problems with the air crews.

Any crew forced to fly every day is going to go down the tubes in a few days, even against a target that has no defense.

Do not compare aircrews sitting around at a nice comfie base having tea and crumpets to aircrews in the pacific theater who were lucky to get cooked food now and then.




Chiteng -> (6/24/2003 10:36:09 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]I beg to differ ...

The actual documentation quite clearly states that the poor basing coupled with malaria coupled with logistics problems coupled with poor food coupled with no rest resulted in extreme fatigue and morale problems with the air crews.

Any crew forced to fly every day is going to go down the tubes in a few days, even against a target that has no defense.

Do not compare aircrews sitting around at a nice comfie base having tea and crumpets to aircrews in the pacific theater who were lucky to get cooked food now and then. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hmm like I stated there is an abundance of supply at PM.
Tea and Crumpets notwithstanding. There is no logistical problem
and they have ample support. No shortage of housing, or planes.
Malaria may indeed exist. But the same thing happens when you bomb Cairn from Townsville.
There is no Malaria there.

So where is the difference again? Only in the game engine.




mogami -> 100 percent (6/24/2003 10:39:25 PM)

Hi, You don't send 100 percent every day. Bomber command did not fly 100 percent per day. You keep a few units back to replace tired ones. If a group gets too beat up you return it to Austraila and replace it with a new group from there. This is really a simple idea. If you try to fly every group every day you are not operating in the same manner as the historic units.

Quit inventing problems and saying it is the game. This is common sense doctrine.




Mr.Frag -> (6/24/2003 10:47:57 PM)

Chiteng,

You got a site I can bomb your with 986 MB worth of WW II USAF war records in PDF form?

It includes every single mission flown from Dec 7, 1941 until Sep 15, 1945.

I'd pump them up somewhere, but obviously, they are rather large.

Some of your postings are quite well detailed, but when it comes to the AF, you are "off in the wild blue yonder" ;)

The realities of the Pacific Theater: More soldiers were "too sick to fight" then "killed in the line of duty".




Chiteng -> Re: 100 percent (6/24/2003 10:53:18 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, You don't send 100 percent every day. Bomber command did not fly 100 percent per day. You keep a few units back to replace tired ones. If a group gets too beat up you return it to Austraila and replace it with a new group from there. This is really a simple idea. If you try to fly every group every day you are not operating in the same manner as the historic units.

Quit inventing problems and saying it is the game. This is common sense doctrine. [/B][/QUOTE]
What problem do you think I am inventing?
'IF' the game model cant explain why bombing from Townsville
to Cairn somehow causes more fatigue than bombing from
Lympne to Calais, I have to ask WHY.

And this is the appropriate forum to ask that question.




mogami -> Re: Re: 100 percent (6/24/2003 10:59:46 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]What problem do you think I am inventing?
'IF' the game model cant explain why bombing from Townsville
to Cairn somehow causes more fatigue than bombing from
Lympne to Calais, I have to ask WHY.

And this is the appropriate forum to ask that question. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi, Who flew from Lympne to Calais everyday for a week?
Show me 1 bomber group in Europe where the same pilots flew missions every day for a week. (At that rate bomber crews would need replacing every month even without loss)
Bomber command flew mostly unopposed night missions. But they still did not fly the same groups days on end.
Your inventing a problem by trying to maintain unrealistic operations. The game prevents this by fatigue and morale. (It makes you behave normaly.) If I want to bomb Buna everyday I send enough bombers from different groups every day. (once you damage the airfield/port you don't need as many bombers per day to keep it damaged) This is simple logic for me. Where does it lose you?




AmiralLaurent -> (6/24/2003 11:07:10 PM)

You can try another Grisby's games "12 O'Clock High" that is about ETO and MTO warfare.
You will see that if you send all Bomber Command or 8th AF several days in a row, fatigue will rise and morale and accuracy drop as in UV.

In both games, if you rest one day, raid one day (either your whole force or raid with 50% everyday), morale will stay good (if losses are low).

Historically, most bomber squadrons fly only 10-15 times a month, even when supplies were plenty. If you bomb Cairns from Townsville, in UV, most medium bombers units will fly two times a day. That is possible only for a short period.




crsutton -> (6/24/2003 11:09:40 PM)

Mr. Frag is right here. You can not expect to send crews up every day. It was not done historically except in critical situations or for very short periods. Crews were rested between missions. To send a crew up on a daily basis will do them in very quickly. Generally an air crew was sent home after 30 to 40 missions. You don't hear of crews getting sent home after 40 days in the theater. It took months or ever a year or more to complete a tour. That's because they were not flying every day.

Food and comfort were only part of the equation. Combat missions were extremely draining-especially the brief moments of extreme danger when in actual contact with the enemy. The adrenalin rush during combat was extreme and many times a pilot would be physically drained and exhausted after a brief period of combat. To put a human being in that position for three or four days in a row might cause a total system failure and combat shock. This is why air crews were rested for a few days after a mission-if possible.

Listen to Mogami. Send half your planes on one day then give them a day off. You will do fine and still close down the airbase soon enough.




Chiteng -> (6/24/2003 11:13:34 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AmiralLaurent
[B]You can try another Grisby's games "12 O'Clock High" that is about ETO and MTO warfare.
You will see that if you send all Bomber Command or 8th AF several days in a row, fatigue will rise and morale and accuracy drop as in UV.

In both games, if you rest one day, raid one day (either your whole force or raid with 50% everyday), morale will stay good (if losses are low).

Historically, most bomber squadrons fly only 10-15 times a month, even when supplies were plenty. If you bomb Cairns from Townsville, in UV, most medium bombers units will fly two times a day. That is possible only for a short period. [/B][/QUOTE]

I wish I could, in BOTR my B-26 are routinely shattered by
flak. Doesnt matter what route they take. It makes certain they wont be used again for a week. If intercepted, its even worse.




BillBrown -> (6/25/2003 7:18:53 AM)

The thing I would like is some way to set up bombing like this without haveing to go in every turn and choose which squadrons to fly. I think there should be some way to set bomber squadrons to a level of effort or something. For this case, normal operations might have about 60 - 70 of the aircraft and crews flying each day. The one thing I dislike is going through all of the squadrons every day and making decisions about which fly and which don't. I am supposed to be a theator commander, not every squadron commander.




Drex -> (6/25/2003 10:15:39 AM)

i'm sorry Bill but I think alot of the players like control of their bomber and fighter groups and will fight to the death to keep it.




BillBrown -> (6/25/2003 10:37:02 AM)

I didn't really rule out complete control. If you want you can have them all set for max effort. That would correspond to how uv treats the air units now. I just think a setting for say rest, minimum effort, normat, and max effort would be nice. There are many times thoughout the game where you want to have continual bombing runs but not at max effort every day.




Odin -> ... (6/25/2003 3:00:31 PM)

I normally use my B17 against Rabaul all together, and gave them up to 3 days holidays if the attack was sucessful enough....otherwise they have to fly the following day:D

What isnt that impressive is the bomb damage...ok in one raid i scored 40 port hits, but only 3 Supply hits....is it that hard to hit the supply dumps:confused:




Mike_B20 -> (6/25/2003 4:26:13 PM)

Odin, apparently each supply hit equals 10% of whatever was there, so your measly 3 Port supply hits wiped out 30% of the supplies.
Not too shabby really.:)




Apollo11 -> (6/25/2003 5:33:43 PM)

Hi all,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike_B20
[B]Odin, apparently each supply hit equals 10% of whatever was there, so your measly 3 Port supply hits wiped out 30% of the supplies.
Not too shabby really.:) [/B][/QUOTE]

It's not 30% (but close approximation)... :-)

Each damage point to port/airbase/supply is 10% of value but prevous damage is already calculated in this...


Leo "Apollo11"




Mike_B20 -> (6/25/2003 5:51:36 PM)

Ok, 27.2% :)




ctid98 -> Re: Re: Re: 100 percent (6/25/2003 7:53:22 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Bomber command flew mostly unopposed night missions.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I wouldn't say this is entirely true. A Lancaster Bomber had an average life expectancy of only 7 missions, hardly unopposed. ;)

Also, getting back to the main thread, the 8th AF expected an attrition rate of 2% per mission, doesn't sound that bad, except this means that if you flew everday none stop that in 50 days nobodies left !!! If you expect the same attrition rate for the South Pacific and then add in supply shortages etc you can see why you don't have planes flying long after 2 or 3 days.




mogami -> Re: Re: Re: Re: 100 percent (6/25/2003 8:39:08 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ctid98
[B]I wouldn't say this is entirely true. A Lancaster Bomber had an average life expectancy of only 7 missions, hardly unopposed. ;)

Also, getting back to the main thread, the 8th AF expected an attrition rate of 2% per mission, doesn't sound that bad, except this means that if you flew everday none stop that in 50 days nobodies left !!! If you expect the same attrition rate for the South Pacific and then add in supply shortages etc you can see why you don't have planes flying long after 2 or 3 days. [/B][/QUOTE]



Ssshhhhhh Don't mention the Lancaster bomber.....
Really Bomber command suffered 2 percent loss for the war. The hardest hit mission being the dam buster mission that suffered 49 percent loss. I know of at least 3 Lancasters that flew over 90 missions. (But if they had not given them all those "special" missions the loss rate would have been lower.)




Mr.Frag -> (6/25/2003 8:43:24 PM)

[QUOTE]The "Memphis Belle," a Boeing B-17, has been retired from active service in the European theater after 25 successful bombing missions. With its distinguished crew, which has remained intact since its formation 10 months ago, the ship has been returned to the United States for another-and no less important-mission.[/QUOTE]

I think this quote pretty much covers it. 25 missions in 300 days!

It was pretty rare to have a plane survive 25 missions let alone the aircrew of ten and the 8th AF certainly had all the comforts of home.




mogami -> B-17's (6/25/2003 8:50:18 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]I think this quote pretty much covers it. 25 missions in 300 days!

It was pretty rare to have a plane survive 25 missions let alone the aircrew of ten and the 8th AF certainly had all the comforts of home. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi, there were many B-17's with over 100 missions. (several crews) There are 2 parts of the story. The unescorted phase and the escorted phase. (There were several fighter groups that never lost a bomber to enemy fighters) (But still I would not have flown in a B-17 in 43)




Bobthehatchit -> (6/25/2003 11:14:24 PM)

I seem to remember reading on the forums that you could expect to write off 10% of plane used in combat due to actual combat damage and fatiuge to the air frames and engines?

A lot of planes were broken for parts and scrapped as they were no longer air worthy.

If this was historically the case you could not keep up a 100% effort for long, planes and crew would not be able sustain the preasure.

It takes time to repair the likes of a B17.




Ol_Dog -> rest (6/26/2003 1:35:21 AM)

My Dad flew 35 missions in a B-24 from mid Sept 44 - mid March 45, along with a few turn backs and 2 crash landings. His Group flew about every other day, with each squadron flying about twice a week - weather permitting. (in Italy)




Nikademus -> (6/26/2003 5:22:09 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bobthehatchit
[B]I seem to remember reading on the forums that you could expect to write off 10% of plane used in combat due to actual combat damage and fatiuge to the air frames and engines?

A lot of planes were broken for parts and scrapped as they were no longer air worthy.

If this was historically the case you could not keep up a 100% effort for long, planes and crew would not be able sustain the preasure.

It takes time to repair the likes of a B17. [/B][/QUOTE]

an attempt in a previous patch was made to simm this a bit more. It was needless to say.....very unpopular and was partially nixed.

Truth of the matter was that the SoPac theater was very very hard on machines leading to a near constant surplus of pilots to planes.

Certainly you would not see so many squadrons with 100% servicable aircraft as they are in UV , and many of the planes damaged in the game should really stay damaged for longer periods than they do but would probably again be an unpopular thing to gripe about.

A prime example i always cite for the doubtful, is, load any one scenerio and check aircraft squadrons.....you will almost always find them with a ratio of servicable and unserviable planes as one would expect to find on any given day depending on how hard the unit has fought....but let them sit for a day or two, (assuming adequate or near adequate av support) and they will all click over to the servicable catagory. Its one of the components of what makes LBA so overpowering in places.

Carriers are a partial exception, usually having almost all serivcables being small and highly maintained air units sheltered from the elements when in the hangers though even then a few would usually crop up unservicble due to damage or mechanical failure during a cruise/patrol

VIII airforce, benefited not only from a more tempermant climate but also a very large and well developed infrastructure which had priority throughout much of the war so repair rates would have been superior to the SoPac.....the situation there in general was the exact polar opposite of the air force in Oz in 5/42 before General Kenney's arrival......the units in Austrailia were in sad shape then and morale was rock bottom.




pry -> Just the Facts (6/26/2003 5:48:19 AM)

Official USAAF History Vol 4 pages 7 - 10


U.S. air units in the Southwest Pacific-regarded as “pitiably inade-
quate” for their task-consisted on 31 June I 942 of I,602 officers and
18,116 enlisted men with a paper strength of two heavy, two medium,
and one light bombardment groups, three fighter groups, two trans-
port squadrons, and one photographic squadron. Of the heavy groups,
the 43d would not be ready to carry its share of the burden until
autumn, a fact which forced the 19th Group and its veterans of the
Philippine and Java campaigns to continue as the mainstay for heavy
bomber operations. The 38th Bombardment Group (M), which was
to be equipped with B-25’s, did not have its planes in commission until
mid-September and even then two of its squadrons, the 69th and 70th,
actually served on assignment to the South Pacific. The 22d Bombard-
ment Group (M) had been in operation with its B-26’s since April;
the 3rd Bombardment Group (L) having incorporated the remnants
of the 27th Group after the fall of Java, fought in July under the ex-
perienced leadership of Col. John Davies with an assortment of planes
which included twenty-two A-24’s, thirty-eight A-20’s, and seventeen
B-25’s. All bomber groups were based within Australia, and for strikes
against Rabaul and intervening targets they used the fields at Port
Moresby only as a staging point, in part because of the frequent bomb-
ing raids delivered against Moresby by the enemy’s 25th Air Flotilla.

The heavy bombardment missions pulled the B-17's away from their
home bases at Townsville for thirty-six to forty-eight hours, includ-
ing approximately eighteen hours in actual flight, and levied a heavy
drain upon the air crews. Of the fighters, the three groups were re-
ported on 1 May to be 100% per cent complete with a 50 per cent
reserve. By July, two squadrons of the 35th Fighter Group equipped
with P-400’s had moved up to Port Moresby. The 8th Fighter Group
had withdrawn its P-39’s to Australia, while the P-40’s of the 49th
Fighter Group continued to concentrate upon the defense of Darwin.

The American units were deployed for the most part in areas
remote from the main centers of Australian population. Primitive liv-
ing conditions, lack of opportunity for recreation, unfamiliar rations,
the war weariness of men rescued from the Philippines and Java, the
inexperience and inadequate training of some of the more recently
arrived units, stagnancy in the promotion list, lack of adequate provi-
sion for hospitalization, and other such influences made it difficult to
maintain a necessary level of morale. And if it was difficult to hold at
a high level of efficiency the men who flew the planes, it was equally
difficult to maintain the equipment. Heavy tasks confronted the U.S.
Army Air Services under Maj. Gen. Rush B. Lincoln. His shops and
depots were more than 7,500 miles from the United States, shipping
space was at a premium, and the demands of other theaters often took
precedence. Even the planes dispatched over the South Pacific ferry
route" were subject to raids upon their incidental equipment at the
hands of US. air personnel stationed along the island chain, who
themselves were in dire need of parts.ll Australian industrial facilities
already were overburdened, the local transportation system was woe-
fully inadequate in the most critical areas, and a persistent shortage of
spare parts, trained mechanics, and service units, together with im-
perfect landing fields, hazardous weather, great distances, and unceas-
ing combat, made it difficult to keep more than 50 per cent of available
aircraft in commission. Even the estimated wastage factor of 20 per
cent was regarded as conservative, and the best efforts of representa-
tives of American and Australian commercial firms, who continued to
perform much of the repair work, were unable to meet the demand.

Other difficulties arose from the lack of reliable information con-
cerning a combat area known to only a few white men and for which
no adequate maps existed. Although an effective intelligence organi-
zation had been established at Brisbane and was operating under Air
Cdre. Joseph E. Hewitt, its evaluation of enemy activities suffered
from poor communication. However, it did have the benefit of reports
sent in by the coast watchers, a group of men of great daring and in-
genuity, Australians for the most part, who worked their way close
up to Japanese airfields and installations, sending back over their small
radio sets regular reports on enemy activity. Aerial reconnaissance
provided a second vital source of information but it was a function
which imposed a heavy burden upon the limited resources of the
Allied Air Forces. Planes searched for submarines 500 miles off the
coast of Australia, patrolled the East Indies and New Guinea, and
covered the sea and air lanes along New Britain, New Ireland, and the
northern Solomon's All bombardment squadrons occasionally per-
formed these missions, but it was the 435th Squadron of the 19th
Group which flew the majority of them in the New Guinea-New
Britain area through the summer and early autumn of 1942. Originally
flying two daily missions out from TownsviIle, by August this unit
moved four aircraft and eight crews up to Port Moresby and doubled
its missions to four per day.

Under the leadership of Maj. Karl Poliflca the 8th Photo Squadron
complemented the work of the 435th. After Flight A of the 8th had
reached Australia in April, Polifka in an F-4-a P-38 stripped of its
guns and equipped with special cameras for aerial mapping-had per-
formed almost single-handed the feat of mapping a large portion of
the eastern New Guinea and New Britain areas. In June, Flights B and
C arrived and a month later, in conjunction with the 435th, the
squadron was operating out of Port Moresby, although the base of
both units was 675 statute miles distant at Townsville. The normal
route led from Port Moresby up to Rabaul, thence back over Lae
and Salamaua, but the light F-4 often received a heavy battering
from weather as it crossed the equatorial front on the way up to
Rabaul. It was a task that extended plane and pilot to the limit, and in
time Wewak and Madang became the most distant 0bjectives.

{Sorry for the spacing here after scanning and OCR, copy and paste I am just glad you can even read it}

This is by far the best discription of the hardships faced by aircraft and especially the crews that i have encountered in my research. if anything the fatigue and morale in UV is underestimated. 20% to 50% aircraft down at any given point and still trying to maintain some sort of combat Ops Amazing

Paul




crsutton -> (6/27/2003 11:26:30 AM)

Yes, and Allied aircraft received much better care than Japanese. The Japanese were always critically short of skilled mechanics and spare parts. Many Japanese planes were destroyed on the ground as they were frequently out of service and unable to fly.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.515625E-02