Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: T35 - Spying on Bristol

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> After Action Reports >> RE: T35 - Spying on Bristol Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: T35 - Spying on Bristol - 4/16/2020 9:58:31 PM   
loki100


Posts: 6612
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: bomccarthy

I have only played as WA against the AI, so I don't know how effective it would be for the Luftwaffe to run nuisance bombing raids on England - either very high level raids (at 30k+ ft or very low level raids at 1k ft). It might cause a human WA player to retain some FC units for defense-only.

One problem with the game post-D-Day is that V-1 raids are not represented. These caused FC to keep its fastest fighters in England for months after the invasion.


its a total waste of effort to do strat bombing in the UK. I'd struggle to think of a factory group that would really matter and the LW is not configured for the mission. I guess the way to make it feasible is -ve VP for say manpower centres. The concept of leaving the cities to sleep outside had dropped off by 1943 (& was disruptive to British production) but its something that people would probably have done again if they felt threatened.

and yes, the RAF kept both fast planes and good pilots back for that, but on the other hand the v-weapons repair fast and can cost an allied player much needed VP if they fail to pay enough attention, so I think they already consume quite a lot of allied resources.

_____________________________


(in reply to bomccarthy)
Post #: 91
RE: T35 - Spying on Bristol - 4/16/2020 10:11:29 PM   
loki100


Posts: 6612
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: GloriousRuse

...
Step 3: The allies, seeing their are no day fighters, jump to daylight raids for increased damage and to avoid night fighters.

Step 4: The germans are re-presented with the issue of step 2. Admitteedly, there is one other decision they could make besides "defend forward" and that would be "scrap the NFs early and use the proceeds to fight." Which admittedly is a decision with a much longer loop than the WA, who merely would then have to tick "night" again while bombing.





The flaw is the Allied NF have value (in places considerable) as day fighters, the German NF are completely useless so can't be repurposed. SO not only do you get more VP you render 25-30% of the axis fighters redundant - so its an unrealistic gain, with advantages and no response.

In the main I don't care about ahistoric, its a game not a re-enactment. You want to send virtually every allied FB to the Med in 1943, I'm not going to complain. You still need to get enough bases and in truth the allies need that commitment or they ate going to be stuck on the historical timeline. if the LW turns up en-masse in response ... well.

If you fight FC over the Ruhr you'll trade planes at 1-1, that is a simple way to lose. The AI does this as it doesn't abandon the west of Germany or France. You can run FC into the ground in 1943 (I've simply run out of available fighters by November) as the reward is that the Germans are using untrained pilots in mid-44.

If BC by day had a cost to the Allies I'd see it as a decision with trade offs, it doesn't & in there is my core concern - and why I don't do it. There's load of stuff not in the game about bomber tactics as well nutters like Harris that stopped this happening. Even when BC went over to day bombing in mid-44 it was less effective than 8AAF as it had hardwired doctrinal problems in doing it.

_____________________________


(in reply to GloriousRuse)
Post #: 92
RE: T35 - Spying on Bristol - 4/16/2020 10:50:22 PM   
GloriousRuse

 

Posts: 248
Joined: 10/26/2013
Status: offline
And I guess the question would really come down to a matter of would losing the LW to do it actually change the outcome? If committing the LE west translates to less VPs in return for a dead LW, then it’s a decision. If it just means a dead LW for no change, then it’s not.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 93
RE: T35 - Spying on Bristol - 4/17/2020 7:14:49 AM   
EddyBear81

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 2/10/2012
Status: offline
Wouldn't setting up an FC AS directive over the Ruhr similar to escorting bombers ? In the same vein as the 8th AF tactic of sending the Mustangs in sweeps ahead of the bomber force ?
And if you do not commit LW, then the AS flights would be a waste, just as the RAF fighter sweeps over France were a waste in 1941.

My guess is that there is a flaw in the mechanic : AS directive only take off if there is enemy planes airborne. So if you don't commit LW, then FC does not lose anything (flak + op losses). This is not logical. Am I right ?

(in fact, the whole concept of Air Defence is lacking in WitW : there is very limited options for the defender, aside setting AS to fight at the preferred altitude. No "small packets vs "big wings" decisions, no aggressive patrolling, no "planes on alert", no "109s cover the Sturmbocke" rules...)

(in reply to GloriousRuse)
Post #: 94
RE: T35 - Spying on Bristol - 4/17/2020 8:04:28 AM   
loki100


Posts: 6612
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: EddyBear81

Wouldn't setting up an FC AS directive over the Ruhr similar to escorting bombers ? In the same vein as the 8th AF tactic of sending the Mustangs in sweeps ahead of the bomber force ?
And if you do not commit LW, then the AS flights would be a waste, just as the RAF fighter sweeps over France were a waste in 1941.

My guess is that there is a flaw in the mechanic : AS directive only take off if there is enemy planes airborne. So if you don't commit LW, then FC does not lose anything (flak + op losses). This is not logical. Am I right ?

(in fact, the whole concept of Air Defence is lacking in WitW : there is very limited options for the defender, aside setting AS to fight at the preferred altitude. No "small packets vs "big wings" decisions, no aggressive patrolling, no "planes on alert", no "109s cover the Sturmbocke" rules...)


Fighters on escort missions act different to those on an AS in the game code.

In an AS, they go looking for a fight and prioritise A2A, on an escort they will ignore enemy fighters at the wrong altitude and generally look for less combat.

As a player you can optimise this by how you schedule the bombing and AS days - in part this will depend on if the Axis player is using AS for the defence (almost certainly as it stops small groups of fighters wandering off to odd corners of the map) or auto-intercept.

I've just dug into my last AI game and by the end of October 43 - practically the end of the first phase of the airwar, I was getting near 2-1 losses on axis fighters - and I was playing pretty casually as I had FoW off as I wanted to test some ideas about bombing approaches, I could have done more if I'd sat down and worked on my set ups. This would have escalated as I gained the longer range US fighters so that is basically burning out FC in AS over the Ruhr. The only negative side was much higher pilot losses but that is a minimal concern for the main UK/US pools.

_____________________________


(in reply to EddyBear81)
Post #: 95
T36 - oh well my fun didn't last long - 4/17/2020 9:55:46 AM   
loki100


Posts: 6612
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online
T36 – 4 March 1944

Oh well, it was nice while it lasted.



Small, rather pointless, pay off in terms of VP.

Usual day raids by BC, 8 AAF mostly bombing v-weapon launch sites, fuel around Hamburg and Kassel.



Decided not to pull back in Italy.



Tried a new fighter deployment in Germany – with not exactly very high expectations.

Weather seems to be remaining clear for next turn.


_____________________________


(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 96
RE: T36 - oh well my fun didn't last long - 4/17/2020 1:26:22 PM   
John B.


Posts: 3575
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline
That's a nice scowl on the picture of Mackensen. And there are never pointless VP payoffs. :)

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 97
RE: T36 - oh well my fun didn't last long - 4/17/2020 1:56:17 PM   
loki100


Posts: 6612
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: John B.

That's a nice scowl on the picture of Mackensen. And there are never pointless VP payoffs. :)


yep, imagine what he'd look like if something had really gone wrong ...

_____________________________


(in reply to John B.)
Post #: 98
RE: T35 - Spying on Bristol - 4/17/2020 8:39:14 PM   
bomccarthy


Posts: 388
Joined: 9/6/2013
From: L.A.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: bomccarthy

I have only played as WA against the AI, so I don't know how effective it would be for the Luftwaffe to run nuisance bombing raids on England - either very high level raids (at 30k+ ft or very low level raids at 1k ft). It might cause a human WA player to retain some FC units for defense-only.

One problem with the game post-D-Day is that V-1 raids are not represented. These caused FC to keep its fastest fighters in England for months after the invasion.


its a total waste of effort to do strat bombing in the UK. I'd struggle to think of a factory group that would really matter and the LW is not configured for the mission. I guess the way to make it feasible is -ve VP for say manpower centres. The concept of leaving the cities to sleep outside had dropped off by 1943 (& was disruptive to British production) but its something that people would probably have done again if they felt threatened.

and yes, the RAF kept both fast planes and good pilots back for that, but on the other hand the v-weapons repair fast and can cost an allied player much needed VP if they fail to pay enough attention, so I think they already consume quite a lot of allied resources.


Would it be worth the effort to bomb the ports where the Allied invasion forces are likely to prep? No VPs, but could the LW inflict enough damage to delay invasion prep in early '44 (and cause FC to retain assets for the air defense of England)?

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 99
RE: T35 - Spying on Bristol - 4/17/2020 9:52:33 PM   
loki100


Posts: 6612
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: bomccarthy


quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: bomccarthy

I have only played as WA against the AI, so I don't know how effective it would be for the Luftwaffe to run nuisance bombing raids on England - either very high level raids (at 30k+ ft or very low level raids at 1k ft). It might cause a human WA player to retain some FC units for defense-only.

One problem with the game post-D-Day is that V-1 raids are not represented. These caused FC to keep its fastest fighters in England for months after the invasion.


....


Would it be worth the effort to bomb the ports where the Allied invasion forces are likely to prep? No VPs, but could the LW inflict enough damage to delay invasion prep in early '44 (and cause FC to retain assets for the air defense of England)?


Not sure, there are specific rules around port bombing that increase operational losses, you'd have to pick the right one and bomb it right down to effectively level #1. Now I tend to start preparing with a couple of N African TF in December, so that is around 20-24 turns, they'd get well over say 60 PP even in #2 level port. My usual choice is to use Glasgow and Belfast for the reinforcement TF (you have around 15-18 turns to build up with these). There is no way those are feasible targets for sustained bombing in early 1944.

In effect there are a lot of valid 4+ ports, you'd have to guess right and be able to sustain, thats a lot of things have to fall your way.

I think my basic complaint would be removed if either (a) the German NF had any utility at day (they don't); or, (b) you could repurpose them to day fighters - lets face it by late Jan 44 the German player is awash in interchangeable perfectly decent Bf-109s, the constraint is pilots and air units.

_____________________________


(in reply to bomccarthy)
Post #: 100
RE: T35 - Spying on Bristol - 4/18/2020 11:29:55 PM   
GloriousRuse

 

Posts: 248
Joined: 10/26/2013
Status: offline

Loki may face some real life delays, so, as per tradition - analysis of something we've been chatting with over e-mail.

Truck Bombing - The Final Frontier?

There is a bit of conventional wisdom in AARs that bombing trucks is a high pay off strategy, cutting the legs out from under the Germans sometime in '44. And while the underlying logic that less trucks = bad news for the Heer is pretty incontrovertible, the question is whether strategic bombing is the means to do it. Somewhat unintentionally we've set up a one experiment on the matter by how Loki and I have approached the truck problem.

We'll be using T38 files for each of these; I'm on a different computer, but found the old e-mail from last game for comparison.

Anyhow, lets start with production:

Production

The Germans have a theoretical plant based production of 539 truck points (each is, in fact, 10 trucks if all goes well; talk about confusing my initial estimates) a week as of T38; given major foreign plants start falling in '44, this 5,390 is a reasonable enough per turn estimate. Or that's the theory at any rate - but does it hold up in practice? Between T38-T48 in my old game the truck plants were running at an average 93% undamaged. This produced 18.5k trucks in 10 turns.

WOAH. Not at all what pure theory tells us to expect. That'd be 19.9k trucks every 10 turns if left unmolested, or just under 2k per turn. Hence my delay for editing.

In addition, the German repair services funnel many trucks back. Back of the napkin says that as of T38 they were sending in 1,500 a week.

So, 3,500 trucks a turn and only 2k of that is bombable. This is pretty close to what I built last game, though that number is a bit lower than it could be, because of course Loki bombed trucks up front. In comparison, with Loki's truck offensive in full swing, the first 9 turns of the last game saw 13k trucks built in plants (not repaired) as compared to 18k - a state which existed through fall '43 - so there may be another ~10k built over the course of the game I'm not seeing. Still, it's a helpful guide if not 100% reliable.

And if you are playing with the EF off, only 40% of it is routed west by default. So a true per turn production of 1,400 (possibly 1500?), of which 800 is bombable.

In other words, even if not one truck factory ever got seized (they will be) there'd be ~144.4k west bound trucks in a game, and only ~86.8k of them are up for being bombed out of production.

What can strat air do to that?

Bombing Campaigns

Let us run three possible bombing campaign scenarios:

Scenario 1: The Wildly Unrealistic Perfect Campaign. Let's say you crushed every truck plant for all 95 turns of the game that matter: 86.8k trucks of westward production would be stopped. That's a lot of trucks. Vast amounts of trucks. And if my tactical losses last game are a guide, a little over half of the tactical losses the Germans suffer. Completely unobtainable, but that's the upper bound.

Scenario 2: Ruthless bombing of the core. The top 6 factories cover about 50% of German truck production. If you made their constant attack your highest priority in the air campaign while still earning VPs, maybe you could keep them at say, an average of 75% destruction at the cost of less VP focus and ignoring many other materiel targets. At some point your recon is going to fail you or weather will intervene, so 75% is nicely optimistic. That's 33.2k trucks. Hmm. That would be quite a chunk - but both games have shown higher losses in Italy.

Scenario 3: Partial priority. By contrast, Loki had less than 10% (7.9%, specifically) of the truck production off line by T38 in our old game, with some higher numbers in good weather and the early game less and less focus as the game progressed. What started as an initial bomb out the core effort got swamped in the realities of V-weapons, tanks, VPs, and trying to break the German depot network. I think we can agree that Loki is quite good at bombing things, and paid a fair amount of effort to trucks when he thought he could afford to. I had produced (not repaired) 61k trucks by that point - against a theoretical max of 76k. Applying the old "Russia gets everything" effect, that means 6k trucks never made it to my brave pixeltruppen in Italy.

As the game progressed, this fell off because there are lots of calls on the bombers. If we say he held at 7.9% (he didn't) for the rest of the game by sending what he could when he could, he'd destroy another 2.8k trucks headed west. For a game total of 8.7k denied production.

What IS a lot of Trucks?

For comparison, in our old game where I was the baddies, I had lost 48k trucks by T38. I had an active pool of 8.5 trucks and another 10k in depots left at the time, for 18.5k ready to go.

In our current game, Loki has figured out much better than I how to commit mech to Italy, and has lost 58k trucks. I'm also running some interdiction experiments that may affect that, but it's a pretty consistent given that when the Germans move heavy units, trucks suffer. We might extrapolate that the 6k trucks I never received, well, he did. So lets call it ~14.5k in the kitty since he is very sensibly not telling. If I'm right, the ground game was worth more than a reasonably focused strat air campaign in '43. Hopefully he'll chime in when we're done to see if I'm laughably off or not.

And to further the issue the truck feedback loop won't be seen until NWE kicks off and the Germans commit enough forces to really strain the stocks needed for supply and heavy division movement. In our previous game, I entered the invasion with pretty assured movement for the panzers. Only the utter slugfest in Picardy really brought the issue up, and frankly they retained enough MP to be locally dangerous until we were fighting on the banks of the Rhine. How much of this is proving a negative - they would have been 50 MPs and 20 CV if more trucks! - versus the natural result of panzers being your go to formations that get pounded, interdicted, and called forward at every real fight, well that's an unknown.

Conclusion

The conventional wisdom on this one is mathematically right - you CAN seriously affect trucks - but to pursue it to a point where it outpaces the delta that might occur as a result of different ground action requires a very high dedication on the part of the air campaign. Like most things from the air in WitW, it's viable to do some touch up on the cheap, but to really be outstanding you need to go all in.

And this is a good thing. Because it means that to truly get results, the allied player really needs to make a decision and follow through. In this case almost certainly at the cost of VPs not taken, tanks not bombed, and depots unmolested.




< Message edited by GloriousRuse -- 4/19/2020 12:38:30 AM >

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 101
T36 - quite enjoying the rain - 4/19/2020 9:59:56 AM   
loki100


Posts: 6612
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online
T37 – 11 March 1944

Well a quiet turn as my weather forcast was wrong, heavy rains over NW Europe and the Allies undertook no more attacks in Italy.

VP of +5.

OOB



Ground losses, allies have lost 94 troop ships but I presume have stopped any moves from Italy to the UK for now.



Air losses.



Weather next turn, looks like heavy rain so another chance to rest and recover.




_____________________________


(in reply to GloriousRuse)
Post #: 102
RE: T35 - Spying on Bristol - 4/19/2020 12:42:25 PM   
loki100


Posts: 6612
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: GloriousRuse


Loki may face some real life delays, so, as per tradition - analysis of something we've been chatting with over e-mail.

Truck Bombing - The Final Frontier?

There is a bit of conventional wisdom in AARs that bombing trucks is a high pay off strategy, cutting the legs out from under the Germans sometime in '44. And while the underlying logic that less trucks = bad news for the Heer is pretty incontrovertible, the question is whether strategic bombing is the means to do it. Somewhat unintentionally we've set up a one experiment on the matter by how Loki and I have approached the truck problem.
...



Small observation about this. The rules for factory production are different to those for factory VP and its easy to mix them up (of course v-weapon and U-boat rules are different).

Lets take a 20 HI factory and assume it has 5 pts of bomb damage.

For VP that is 5 units of value for the bombing score. If you get the damage to 20 then that is 20 units of value.

For production a factory either produces 100% or 0%. You get this outcome by damage*2/size. So in our case the 5 bits of damage becomes 10/20, in other words the factory has a 50/50 chance of producing.

Now I know that trucks are outside the VP score model but basically if you knocked out say 20 pts of a large truck factory (if I recall Mainz is 70) then the loss to production is variable but that factory won't work 1 turn in 3 or 4. If you've knocked it to 35 pts of damage, it won't produce.

I think overall the game does an excellent job in modelling the strategic air war. It actually doesn't really work but it does make an additional bit of damage. So by this stage, I'd largely lost interest in trucks. The intent, as with tank bombing is that you want to make a mess of rebuilds and make it harder for the Pzrs to recover.

Overall as an allied player I tend to find I run out of ideas for strategic bombing about now. The lower VP multiplier starts to hurt, the feedback loops are already created and it becomes a case of keeping the v-weapons as low as possible and taking out some very specific production elements.

You could make a case that post the landings in France, the Allies should have committed their strategic assets to essentially supporting operational actions but of course they didn't know the war was going to end in 9 months.


_____________________________


(in reply to GloriousRuse)
Post #: 103
RE: T35 - Spying on Bristol - 4/19/2020 4:46:56 PM   
GloriousRuse

 

Posts: 248
Joined: 10/26/2013
Status: offline
I think there may be some WitE conflation going there - or just as likely, I'm misreading the living manual:

From 21.2.2

"Damage is applied to an entire factory, not to individual factory points. The damage level of a factory is also the probability that the factory will not produce on a given turn. For example 100 damage means no production, while 25 damage means 25 percent chance of no production and a 75 percent chance of full production. For example a FW-190 aircraft factory with 12 factory points, or size 12, which had 40 damage would have a 60 percent chance of producing 12 aircraft and a 40 percent chance of producing 0 aircraft."

I know the old WitE method was 2*damage, as are rails now? But as I said, I'm not as familiar with the game manual.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 104
RE: T35 - Spying on Bristol - 4/19/2020 4:58:30 PM   
John B.


Posts: 3575
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline
And this turn the Allies had one unlucky bastard who clearly was the third person to light is cigarette from a single match while in the trenches. :)

The allies really did not go all in on oil and transportation until right about the time of Normandy so it could be argued that had they switched the bombers to operational attacks the German war economy would have enabled them to last longer than 9 months. One of those interesting counterfactuals that can never be resolved.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 105
RE: T35 - Spying on Bristol - 4/19/2020 7:16:39 PM   
loki100


Posts: 6612
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: GloriousRuse

I think there may be some WitE conflation going there - or just as likely, I'm misreading the living manual:

From 21.2.2

"Damage is applied to an entire factory, not to individual factory points. The damage level of a factory is also the probability that the factory will not produce on a given turn. For example 100 damage means no production, while 25 damage means 25 percent chance of no production and a 75 percent chance of full production. For example a FW-190 aircraft factory with 12 factory points, or size 12, which had 40 damage would have a 60 percent chance of producing 12 aircraft and a 40 percent chance of producing 0 aircraft."

I know the old WitE method was 2*damage, as are rails now? But as I said, I'm not as familiar with the game manual.


well I'll admit I can't find it back, and exactly the same text is in the draft WiTE2 manual, but I am sure its in the game. I think its why a factory with >50 damage shows red either in the bombing map mode or the factory map mode. I could also be talking mince - which is not impossible

quote:

ORIGINAL: John B.

And this turn the Allies had one unlucky bastard who clearly was the third person to light is cigarette from a single match while in the trenches. :)

The allies really did not go all in on oil and transportation until right about the time of Normandy so it could be argued that had they switched the bombers to operational attacks the German war economy would have enabled them to last longer than 9 months. One of those interesting counterfactuals that can never be resolved.


aye, I really should kill some more of them ... imagine how embarassing it must be to end up as the only casualty in a given week


I've pushed Overy's The Bombing War a few times as I think its both a well written overview and it takes the -for the lack of a better word - dialetic between theory and practice and how that affected bombing strategy.

So in the 1930s the mindset was the 'bomber will get through' (proved to be basically correct) and this would lead to massive war ending damage as cities were reduced to rubble (nope). Early practice (say 39-41) did little to resolve this, everyone could grab the data they wanted but basically the German attack on the UK failed at every level (morale, actual hit on production, closing the ports) and the British attacks on Germany were more dangerous to incautious cows than German production.

I think the best view is in the end strategic bombing was a failure due to accuracy and an under-estimate of resilience. The only country where the population rebelled under bombing was Italy and that stands out as the eg of a state that did very little to protect or help its citizens (the Nazis put a lot of effort into this as did the Soviets).

But it clearly diverted resources. Something like 60% of German shell production was AA, and that is a lot of artillery and AT rounds not being fired at the Allies or the Soviets. So it becomes a bit of a prisoners dilemna with a lot of sunk costs (on the allied side).

Specifically, an enduring issue in all the WiTx games is an under-statement of the fuel position of the Germans by mid-44. The pity is this then removes the scope to try a fuel centred bombing campaign as a test, the only real reason to hit fuel or oil is the VP.

edit - so in effect, ignoring what they hit or missed, did the Allies force the Germans to divert more resources (pro-rata) into the strategic war than they did? To me that is the only metric that ends up making sense, especially if the actual damage done is factored in

< Message edited by loki100 -- 4/19/2020 7:19:06 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to GloriousRuse)
Post #: 106
T38 - testing out the Ruhr - 4/19/2020 8:14:18 PM   
loki100


Posts: 6612
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online
T38 – 18 March 1944

More allied gains in Italy



8 AAF attacked tank production around Plauen, and v-weapons on the Baltic. Tactical Air hit the launch sites in France.

BC did its usual day raids. Just to make the point, I set up an AS with about 25% of Jagd 2, the results were predictable.



Pulled back a bit in Italy, no point losing anything.



Looks like rain next week (again).

_____________________________


(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 107
RE: T38 - testing out the Ruhr - 4/19/2020 9:13:28 PM   
John B.


Posts: 3575
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline
I have tended towards the idea that the Allied strategic bombing campaign was more effective at eroding Germany that people give it credit for. Overy has a very good book. If you pick up Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze he discusses the declines in German production starting in 1943 extensively. In addition, Vol V/IIB of Germany and the Second World War (a 10 volume set edited by the German Research Institute for Military History) comments about how German production of coal, steel, oil, electricity and so on collapsed by the end of 1944 (the index of raw material production set at 100 for 1942 was only 62 by December 1944).

Sorry, not trying to hijack your thread, just a topic I find to be very interesting.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 108
RE: T38 - testing out the Ruhr - 4/19/2020 10:11:53 PM   
loki100


Posts: 6612
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: John B.

I have tended towards the idea that the Allied strategic bombing campaign was more effective at eroding Germany that people give it credit for. Overy has a very good book. If you pick up Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze he discusses the declines in German production starting in 1943 extensively. In addition, Vol V/IIB of Germany and the Second World War (a 10 volume set edited by the German Research Institute for Military History) comments about how German production of coal, steel, oil, electricity and so on collapsed by the end of 1944 (the index of raw material production set at 100 for 1942 was only 62 by December 1944).

Sorry, not trying to hijack your thread, just a topic I find to be very interesting.


och, fully agree, its one of those topics that repays careful study.

To me, the core thing is that the Germans simply couldn't replace their losses by 1944, esp vs the Soviets but increasingly the Western Allies were doing some serious damage to. Against that background, Strategic Bombing had an impact, even if in simply making a bad situation worse?

Nows its a bit silly to say this, but remove those combat losses and strategic bombing wasn't going to win the war in any meaningful sense. So its the synergy of the two dynamics.

And one of the reasons I really like WiTW is it captures that big chunky dynamic really well - hence the validity of GR's post re truck bombing.

_____________________________


(in reply to John B.)
Post #: 109
RE: T38 - testing out the Ruhr - 4/20/2020 12:15:10 AM   
John B.


Posts: 3575
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline
Oh I fully agree with you on the inability of strat bombing to win a war on its own (prior to August 45 of course :)). But, I'm sure it shortened it by a significant amount of at least several months. I have the same feeling about WiTPAE, to me it presents some of the same strategic dilemmas faced by both sides and, if you're both looking for the same sort of game house rules can take care of things like a day bombing campaign by BC that the players don't find to be realistic.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 110
T39 - don't look at Italy - 4/20/2020 6:49:48 AM   
loki100


Posts: 6612
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online
T39 – 25 March 1944

This is not going very well:



Usual day bombing by BC over the Ruhr.

Another unsucessful interception by day fighters – which I think ends my desire to provide evidence as to why this is not a good idea. Note this is not even the FC planes, its simply putting up axis day fighters against allied night fighters - doing the reverse would be extremely silly.



8 AAF at Magdeburg and the v-weapons. For the most part my fighers decided to ignore them, I'm going to swap over to auto-intercept and see if that makes any difference.

Unescorted raids on the v-weapon launch sites.

Decide on a couple of switches. The fighters in the Ruhr move into NE France, fear a return of the Allied fighters but it might pay off. Commit LW-Italy into a massive GS commitment, alter defensive pattern in the Baltic.

Looks like more rain for next turn.



_____________________________


(in reply to John B.)
Post #: 111
RE: T39 - don't look at Italy - 4/20/2020 9:56:09 AM   
EddyBear81

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 2/10/2012
Status: offline
OK, I think that settles the matter !

Indeed, given the forces compositions, the RAF should have been trashed. And it's not even a case where the LW failed to make contact, as proven by the 13 planes lost (an astonishing 50% loss rate).

It's a pity.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 112
RE: T39 - don't look at Italy - 4/20/2020 12:17:31 PM   
loki100


Posts: 6612
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: EddyBear81

OK, I think that settles the matter !

Indeed, given the forces compositions, the RAF should have been trashed. And it's not even a case where the LW failed to make contact, as proven by the 13 planes lost (an astonishing 50% loss rate).

It's a pity.


aye, that is good axis day fighters up against repurposed allied night fighters, if I'd hit a FC sweep it would have been far worse.

So basically this eliminates the axis NF from the game, increases bombing VP and there is no sensible response built around using up the axis day fighters. That its ahistoric

_____________________________


(in reply to EddyBear81)
Post #: 113
RE: T39 - don't look at Italy - 4/20/2020 8:20:44 PM   
bomccarthy


Posts: 388
Joined: 9/6/2013
From: L.A.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: EddyBear81

OK, I think that settles the matter !

Indeed, given the forces compositions, the RAF should have been trashed. And it's not even a case where the LW failed to make contact, as proven by the 13 planes lost (an astonishing 50% loss rate).

It's a pity.


aye, that is good axis day fighters up against repurposed allied night fighters, if I'd hit a FC sweep it would have been far worse.

So basically this eliminates the axis NF from the game, increases bombing VP and there is no sensible response built around using up the axis day fighters. That its ahistoric


Which Allied aircraft got the kills, the Beaufighters or Mosquitos? The Mosquito is close to the German day fighters in speed, but I wonder if the code is giving too much weight to firepower.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 114
RE: T39 - don't look at Italy - 4/20/2020 9:48:17 PM   
loki100


Posts: 6612
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: bomccarthy


quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: EddyBear81

OK, I think that settles the matter !

Indeed, given the forces compositions, the RAF should have been trashed. And it's not even a case where the LW failed to make contact, as proven by the 13 planes lost (an astonishing 50% loss rate).

It's a pity.


aye, that is good axis day fighters up against repurposed allied night fighters, if I'd hit a FC sweep it would have been far worse.

So basically this eliminates the axis NF from the game, increases bombing VP and there is no sensible response built around using up the axis day fighters. That its ahistoric


Which Allied aircraft got the kills, the Beaufighters or Mosquitos? The Mosquito is close to the German day fighters in speed, but I wonder if the code is giving too much weight to firepower.


A mix but the Beaufighters were surprisingly effective

The issue with the Mosquitos is the wider issue, the night version are as good as the day version so they are (rightly) an adaptable useful fighter. I certainly tend to put the Med ones onto day missions and use them as a much needed longer ranged escort.

But here's the details, I assume the 2 missing kills were operational losses (none were actually shot down by the bombers):




to make it all more annoying/confusing, there is no real difference in relative experience, these weren't some of the lower experience formations I have in quieter sectors

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by loki100 -- 4/20/2020 9:50:51 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to bomccarthy)
Post #: 115
RE: T39 - don't look at Italy - 4/20/2020 9:59:10 PM   
GloriousRuse

 

Posts: 248
Joined: 10/26/2013
Status: offline
And, of course, for this case the single seat interceptors are outnumbered nearly 3:1 and fighting above their optimal altitude - and in some cases even then, they're low on smash compared to the guys dropping in from 26K. Just to confuse the issue further. I wonder what it would look like if the BC flew into one of the A2A ambushes that the 8th occasionally hits? Not that Loki should try that now that mustangs roam freely, but I do wonder about how feasible it'd be in '43...

However, after this demonstration I fired Harris for his wrong-headed views.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 116
RE: T39 - don't look at Italy - 4/21/2020 7:36:58 AM   
loki100


Posts: 6612
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: GloriousRuse

And, of course, for this case the single seat interceptors are outnumbered nearly 3:1 ...


which is a nearly inevitable result when 25% of my fighters are rendered out of the game with this approach. I have around 1,000 useable Bf-109s, 300 Fw-190s in the pools, if I could swap the German NF to use them, then I'd have the planes to match your day operations.

Unlike the allies, there is no way is it of any sense to let German NF operate by day

_____________________________


(in reply to GloriousRuse)
Post #: 117
RE: T39 - don't look at Italy - 4/21/2020 8:14:33 AM   
EddyBear81

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 2/10/2012
Status: offline
Could this issue be solved by a house rule like "no usage of Allied NF by day" ? If the BC quads fly unescorted, are they trashed ?

Also, I have the same feeling as bomccarthy : the firepower is overvalued in the game, which explains why the Bf-109 struggles (even with high exp pilots) whereas the Fw-190 fares better.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 118
RE: T39 - don't look at Italy - 4/21/2020 9:05:18 PM   
bomccarthy


Posts: 388
Joined: 9/6/2013
From: L.A.
Status: offline
I don't have the game open (I'm supposed to be working right now), so I can't see the aircraft values in the editor, but a quick check of my library revealed that the Mosquito XIII was some 20 mph slower than either the Bf-109G or the Fw-190A. And, something that big certainly could not maneuver with the late single-engined fighters. While they were fast enough to avoid losses, they were too slow and unwieldy to achieve more than a few kills in daylight (night kills were largely due to radar coupled with surprise).

Also, the Mosquito XIII had a Merlin 21 series engine - single-stage, two-speed supercharger which fell off in performance above 20k feet. This means that its best altitude was similar to that of the Fw-190.

I think that the best solution might be to allow the Axis player to spend admin points to convert night fighter units to day fighter, or require a certain number of turns retraining as day fighters (and vice-versa), just as with retraining fighter units to bomber units. I have no idea if either idea is possible within the game code.

(in reply to EddyBear81)
Post #: 119
RE: T39 - don't look at Italy - 4/22/2020 3:07:24 AM   
GloriousRuse

 

Posts: 248
Joined: 10/26/2013
Status: offline
In the interests of running objective tests without cluttering Loki's AAR, I've put up the initial results of a Xhoel Style air ambush in the War Room.

(in reply to bomccarthy)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> After Action Reports >> RE: T35 - Spying on Bristol Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.250