Slitherine

quote:

The different lose ratio is caused by an poorly designed air system... There is no strategy or tactic, its an exploit of the system that give 70% of loses caused by bombing. Historically that simply was not possible, so the design is poor. 70% of loses were caused by artillery.

quote:

If he is doing 20x the historical amount of tactical bombing, should he still only cause 'historical' casualties with it?
If so, why?

There is no If we know he is based on his and my data, so that's not a question.

quote:

We know the same thing can be done by simply bombing troops on the coast before u even invade.

quote:

Why did Operation Cobra last less than a week historically?

Logistics

quote:

Accuracy was problematic.For medium bombers to have a 95 percent chance of hitting a 6,000 square foot target, they had to drop 600 bombs (medium bombers were considered 2.5 times more accurate than Cobra's main punch, the heavy bombers).

quote:

NO as per the above post. HVY bombers were useless and even medium next to useless tring to hit a target, in other words they were usless tacticly.

quote:

What targets?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DicedT

When looking at history and why things did -- or more importantly, did not -- happen, it's important to ask WHY.

So in the case of battlefield carpet bombing, there are two possible explanations for why the Allies didn't do it:

1) They were stupid or unimaginative.
2) There were technological and doctrinal barriers. And as a matter of fact, Allied ground commanders were not thrilled with carpet bombing after 8th Air Force, which was actually not trained or equipped for pinpoint bombing, killed a lot of American troops in Normandy. Meanwhile, the Bomber Barons screamed every time a B-17 or Lancaster was diverted from the Bomber Offensive.

Which brings up one of the problems with a game like WITW: What level of command are you simulating? The Allied commander loses VPs for not strategic bombing, which suggests that he has a boss above him setting priorities. So does that mean that he shouldn't be able to overrule Hap Arnold and "Bomber" Harris and use their heavies for carpet bombing?

On the other hand, the Germans have all sorts of advantages that the real generals didn't, like the privilege of being able to withdraw from parts of France and Italy without being sent before a firing squad. So maybe the Allies need to have an ahistorical capability of their own.

Michael

quote:

When looking at history and why things did -- or more importantly, did not -- happen, it's important to ask WHY.

So in the case of battlefield carpet bombing, there are two possible explanations for why the Allies didn't do it:

1) They were stupid or unimaginative.
2) There were technological and doctrinal barriers. And as a matter of fact, Allied ground commanders were not thrilled with carpet bombing after 8th Air Force, which was actually not trained or equipped for pinpoint bombing, killed a lot of American troops in Normandy. Meanwhile, the Bomber Barons screamed every time a B-17 or Lancaster was diverted from the Bomber Offensive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

In my opinion the WA Player should be allowed to use his heavy bombers for Tactical bombing if he wishes. But, as I have said numerous times, the problem is that in the game they are far more effective in this role then they were historically. I ran some tests. In one test I used the heavies of BC to "Unit" bomb a number of German units at 17,000 feet. I then reloaded and used a similar number of twin engine bombers and FBs of 2nd Tac to "Unit" bomb the same units at 12,000 feet (the FBs were equipped with bombs not rockets). The heavies killed almost twice as many men as the twin engine bombers and FBs did while sustaining fewer casualties and morale loss. I personally do not believe this is historical. I also support the comments of others that the heavies should add some extra MPs to the bombed hexes for the ensuing friendly ground movement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

Pelton seems to expect historical losses regardless of the game situation and tactics.
All seems a bit strange to me... I would say Middle Earth, but he's been so good in not using the term I will refrain😊.

Pelton, he's losing Vp every turn, so is not winning, he won't be able to keep it up for ever (winter etc), and you could easily mitigate it further. We really don't know how realistic this is, as there is no history to give direct precident and I haven't seen any real analysis in the elements except Cobra, and no real analysis of that.

I really don't think this definition of exploit will catch on (use of a feature or tactic in game that deviates from history and doesn't help you win- in which case most of my games are full of exploits!)

We all paid money for a product that claimed to model historical events during WW II

If that product is modeling a Desert Storm air system and not WW II something is wrong.

quote:

In game you are bombing 7 days a week. When exactly do the troops have time to attack the hex? The battle would be like this: Overnight....friendly troops back away from front line to safe distance (about a mile) Carpet bombing hits early morning. After bombing finished, troops move up to front line. Launch attack at noon. Fight until night. Back up to safe distance maybe getting a couple hours sleep. Next morning...Bomb..move up...attack....retreat....maybe sleep.

quote:


Earlier I had suggested that perhaps the strat bombers should leave enemy interdiction in the hex. Somebody countered with adding delay. Every day that a carpet bombing hits a hex, it should be somehow taking up time. Adding 3 delay per day could work, I liked the idea of enemy interdiction since that would cause the friendly fire associated with highly inaccurate bombing..but perhaps wouldn't add enough delay. Or maybe just have a house rule that you can only carpet bomb on one day of the week.

quote:

The Strat bomber is just too effective at bombing units.

quote:

The ground is chewed up. Since the bombs are falling indiscriminately rubble, bridges, roads...they will all be pockmarked, shellholed. It did make an advance difficult.

quote:

The bombers are flying at over 20k feet

quote:

The ground is chewed up. Since the bombs are falling indiscriminately rubble, bridges, roads...they will all be pockmarked, shellholed. It did make an advance difficult.

quote:

Several days later Patton flew over the battlefield in a light plane and saw where the Cobra bombs had landed. He was surprised, not at the extent of the damage but at the mildness of it. The craters were not "anywhere as great" as those in 1918.

quote:

All in all 60,000 hundred-pound bombs were to be dropped from an altitude of 8,000 feet.* Unfortunately, the might of the RAF Heavy Bomber Command had to be excluded. Their aircraft could carry only larger armaments whose giant craters would delay American tank forces pouring through the gap - a lesson learned only too well in Operation Goodwood.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



Carpet bombing is not an exact science. It cannot be done 'on demand'. In order for it proceed it must be planned in advance.

The front line has to be shifted back. The minimal safe distance for friendly units is supposed to be one mile. So before bombing, you have to disengage from the enemy and back up. These units are also out in the open...waiting for an attack to be launched and not dug in...

quote:


The area being bombed has to be marked somehow. The bombers are flying at over 20k feet.

quote:


They are not dive bombers. They will not see units on the ground to bomb. The most common way of marking the are to be bombed is to follow geographical features...which means you may not even be able to bomb where the enemy really is. Other methods were tried...using coloured smoke from artillery for example, but they were not effective. (did I mention they bomb from over 20k feet?)

While being bombed, there is a huge psychological effect. The closest I can imagine is it would be like going to my in-laws for dinner. *shudder*. While there will be casualties, it will not be in proportion to the effort. Panzer Lehr which was supposedly 'wiped out' was still a viable division. The bombing covered a lot of their tanks with dirt, so they had to be dug out. That's not destroyed, that's disabled.

Only so many bombers can actually fly over the area.

quote:


And after the bombs hit, there will be so much dirt, debris, smoke etc...concealing the battlefield. This will hinder other air operations.

The ground is chewed up. Since the bombs are falling indiscriminately rubble, bridges, roads...they will all be pockmarked, shellholed. It did make an advance difficult.

The B-17 was built with a purpose in mind. Nobody could wave a magic wand and turn it into a dive bomber. Or a tactical bomber. The use of fuel, crew, bombs...the time to prepare it for missions...the lack of any communication whatsoever with the army. (they only communicate general to general). Really...if they thought that it would be better to bomb random bits of ground in the hopes they can hit a German, they would have built a different airplane.

quote:

Sooooo...this leads me to the game. In game you can fly as many sorties as you want. With as many planes as you want. They drop their bombs like they are tactical aircraft that can see the target. You can fly at absurd altitudes (tree top bombing with b-17s) You can kill imaginary citizens of France. They never miss the target or hit friendly near by troops. The Strat bomber is just too effective at bombing units.

quote:

I am not against flying the mission...go crazy. The game already has a balance for that...you lose vps. Which should limit the number of times you fly the mission. What I am against is the amount of damage it causes. The kind of damage. The lack of any ground delay or effect on the allies.

The game just looks at the bombs. It says x number of bombs will do y amount of damage. And then multiply it by the number of bombs....it doesn't regulate the number of planes that should physically fly over the area. It assumes that no bombs ever hit an adjacent friendly unit. It pretends that the hex, despite any amount of bombing, would be as easy to walk through as a trip in a park.

In game you are bombing 7 days a week. When exactly do the troops have time to attack the hex? The battle would be like this: Overnight....friendly troops back away from front line to safe distance (about a mile) Carpet bombing hits early morning. After bombing finished, troops move up to front line. Launch attack at noon. Fight until night. Back up to safe distance maybe getting a couple hours sleep. Next morning...Bomb..move up...attack....retreat....maybe sleep.

If you say hey...I don't have to attack at all..well..whats to stop the Germans from hugging the front lines. A common tactic in places like Stalingrad when the enemy doesn't want to be shelled/bombed.

I think people are being naïve. Don't let Pelton's bad example justify what is a misuse of airpower. His argument is flawed in many ways, but deep down, there is a problem with how B-17's Lancasters etc...can be used exactly the same way as Mitchell's.


Earlier I had suggested that perhaps the strat bombers should leave enemy interdiction in the hex. Somebody countered with adding delay. Every day that a carpet bombing hits a hex, it should be somehow taking up time. Adding 3 delay per day could work, I liked the idea of enemy interdiction since that would cause the friendly fire associated with highly inaccurate bombing..but perhaps wouldn't add enough delay. Or maybe just have a house rule that you can only carpet bomb on one day of the week.

quote:

If I were fighting Pelton, I would be planning the follow up invasion to cut off his giant Kursk style front line. Where has he nicked all the troops from?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



Pacific theatre doesn't count for anything. Different war, different enemy, different air defences.

And again, I am not against using Strat bombers tactically. I am against their effect. The difference between 'other air attacks' and carpet bombing is the level of coordination. Other air attacks are either in contact with the ground through air liaison officers, or are nimble enough to find their own targets.

Carpet bombing is neither. They must fly high to avoid the flak infested German held areas. (Look up operation Tidal Wave for what happens to low flying strat bombers) They cannot see their targets. All 'innovations' for trying to guide them to a target were unreliable. Nobody on the ground could contact the strat bombers once they were in the air. And failure wanst an option. Bombing your own troops is a catastrophe to avoid.

Any tactical bombing they did in Italy was ineffective. They learned from those mistakes which is why they moved to carpet bombing. You have to saturate an area to get any effect at all, otherwise you are just throwing bombs away to make holes in the ground.

So to get any effect at all you need to be flying high, and in a large number. Without any communications once you start. Against a dug in, alerted enemy. With a huge time delay between the bombing and any attack that might take place. Without any real assurance that you are even bombing in the right place. With bombs that land somewhere within 2000 yards of where you think you are dropping them.

The game allows you to fly 16000 aircraft in 250,000 sorties over a couple of hexes. And then march an allied army into it like nothing was going on without any consequence whatsoever.

So again...not against using strat bombers tactically. All for it really. GO for it...yay team!

I am against the effect. They are not tactical bombers...just bigger! They are not a replacement for the B-25 or the A-20. Or even FB's. They are not better then them at the job of bombing the enemy.

I use my B-25s and other tactical bombers to bomb the Ruhr. If they did a better job then B-17s I would complain as well. Not that I wasn't allowed to use them in the first place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

I have had a further thought. A Division, or any combat unit on the ground, is not uniformly distributed. A company position will be a few hundred meters across. Then there will be a gap of maybe a few hundred meters, and another one. However if you move back, there might then be 1000m or more without significant permanent presence, or at most a few AA, MPs, support troops installing field telephones, etc. Then there might be a second line. about 5km back you might get Artillery, more supplies and lots of support troops. If a significant load on bombs fall on a position, there will be heavy casualties, but equally you might get lots of craters in empty fields if the drop is only 500m away. Equally a single unit should not be able to hit every weapon type in a division...
The main difference between FB/TacB, Mediums and Heavies is their ability to detect and or respond to the presence of troops/positions. A heavy raid, as Liquidsky points out largely bombs geography - if there are troops in the wood or not, the wood gets attacked. They might miss the wood but the main variable is are there troops on the relevant geography? FB/TB can react quicker, can possibly see positions, can certainly aim at them if seen etc. Mediums are in the middle (small formations have some responsiveness, large ones have to act like heavies).
I realise this might be too large a code drop, but one extra parameter in the equation would address all this - a 'ground attack targetting factor'. This would be a function of hex recce score, number of troops in the hex, weather (presumably as normal combat), and attacking formation type and size. This reflects the above reactiveness factor, combined with conventional factors like how well the enemy positions are known/can be seen, and troop density. Each bombing unit (sqd/group etc) then rolls to see if it is bombing enemy positions. If 'yes' (check passed), then full damage but only to a restricted number of element types (not across all - ie either tanks or infantry or art, not all - but each unit is independently checked), if 'no' there should be a small random chance of a few elements being affected (strays, people 'out and about' etc). I have not thought this through, but then you could have a/c type factors like:
FB/TacB: 0.9
Mediums: 0.5
Heavies: 0.3

There could be an additional factor or check to limit the effectiveness of very large raids (a single division only has c9 infantry battalions, so 10 units should not keep a linear effectiveness relative to 5 bombing units (and 20 relative to 10 etc).

Add a 'ground cratering' delay as a function of total weight of bombs dropped, and there you have it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: KWG

quote:

If I were fighting Pelton, I would be planning the follow up invasion to cut off his giant Kursk style front line. Where has he nicked all the troops from?

That may be why all the "activity" on the forum. And the careful slowness of completing his turn.
I landed in north Brittany this turn.

quote:

Looking to have a reasonable/logical argument, but I see no one refuting my data with a reasonable/logical argument.

quote:

How is doing something that *costs* you VPs an exploit while leaving your troops entrained for months isn't?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

quote:

How is doing something that *costs* you VPs an exploit while leaving your troops entrained for months isn't?

Leaving troops on trains costs VP too, because they don't count toward garrisons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

quote:

How is doing something that *costs* you VPs an exploit while leaving your troops entrained for months isn't?

Leaving troops on trains costs VP too, because they don't count toward garrisons.

quote:

If troops left on trains used up train/rail capacity and fatigued troops, as well as being unbelievably vulnerable to air and ground attack, I would allow it!