Author Topic: A New War  (Read 3766 times)

Offline TW9

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1118
      • http://www.tedwilliams.com
A New War
« on: November 20, 2014, 07:44:07 PM »
I think the game within the game of AH has gone pretty stale over the years and no matter what is done the same issues are still here or new ones arise. If you scroll the forums all the way back 10 years earlier you'll see a lot of the same complaints even though much has changed. But the focus of the game has not. It's still capture bases, win the war.

I think the focus of this game should not be just capturing as many of your opponents bases as possible. In my opinion to "WIN THE WAR" you should be required to be successful in all phases of the game. Not just one. So instead I think there should be a point system in place. The goal should be for each country to reach an established amount of points. Whichever country reaches whatever the set number of points is wins the war.

You get points by killing people (planes, gv's ect) bombing stuff, and well, capturing bases. Pretty much you can get points by doing whatever it is you like to do in this game. Whichever country does it the most and fastest wins the war.

The point system would be balanced so that you'd get more points for attacking a larger country than you would attacking the smaller one. I think this would make players more inclined to find a front more equal or even one where they are disadvantaged.

Also, I think there should be clear fronts that are determined by the amount of players on at any given time (i think there is something similar to this already in game). Only frontal bases would be active. They would be double layered. The front of the front and rear of the front. Only these bases and the strats tied to them will be active. Meaning only these bases can be attacked or captured. All CVs would be active but their ports would be only if they're part of the active front. Deactivated bases and their strats cannot be attacked nor can they be upped from. They will receive no damage and will not give any points even if they were.

HQ and the main strats tied to HQ will always be active and give points for damage done to them. Bases immediately around HQ will also be active but cannot be captured. I think these zones should give bonus points whether attacking or defending them.

Strats should be returned back to early AHII and late AH1. Where you could completely demolish a strat and directly effect the capabilities of a base (remember the 25% fuel days?). When bases are captured, instead of it switching over to the other country, there would be a set down time (10 mins?) which would allow the victors to land, rearm, and what not. During this time, they can even ransack and pillage the base which in turn would replenish whichever strat damage has been done to their bases on the same front. IE if your bases are currently at 50% fuel you'll get boosted up 25% or 50% whichever is determined.

I think this would consolidate the players online into generally the same zones instead of scattered across large maps. Maps would reset more often which is always good. People could do whatever it is they enjoy doing in this game and still help their country WIN.

I've been playing off and on since 99 or 2000. I've stopped playing many times. Eventually, I come back to see my old friends and fly the old birds. Once that initial excitement wears off I realize it's still the same old game I quit many times over. It's still take off fly for 10-15mins, MAYBE get into a fight, run out of gas and land. I feel the game was a lot more fun when we had 200-300 players on and each country had maybe 30 fields each. Now I am not asking to back to that but it would be nice to get into similar action where I'm pretty much guaranteed to run into someone each and every sortie. And I can still help my team win by doing what I like and not be called a furballer or strat dweeb or whatever. Pretty much everyone's style of playing would help their team win.


On a separate note. I've referenced as much as possible and I cannot find any instance in WWII where a long range bomber way out in the Pacific carpet bombed a CV from a high alt bomber. If I am wrong then please by all means correct me, but I think CV's were only ever sunk in WWII via dive bombers or torpedo. That being said I think any bomber's that can only be upped with the "bomber" mode checked should have their bombs set that they can only effect strats and hangars.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2014, 07:52:53 PM by TW9 »
Quote from: sax
The community lacks personality , thank #@# for TW9 or
there would'nt even be anyone --------- left .
Quote from: Krusty
Edit2: BAN the ass-hat. That's not skuzzy, that's a tard named TW9

Offline TW9

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1118
      • http://www.tedwilliams.com
Re: A New War
« Reply #1 on: November 20, 2014, 07:45:34 PM »
Edit: So I've been corrected but my opinion still stands:

(AG, 7AF, 370.24 Battle of Midway)

SIGNAL OFFICER
12 June 1942


Secret                    Priority

WD CSA (By Cable)

Army part in Midway Battle reurad 185/9 was as follows:

1623/3d-Nine (9) B-17's attacked enemy vessels including 5 BB or CA - with bombs 24x600 lb - 12x500b - five known hits - one probable - one near - altitude 8 to 12,000 ft - observed results: first BB hit, second BB or CA and one larg transport afire. Water line hit amidships on large AP or AK - Own losses none.
0710/4th - Four (4) B-26's attacked enemy group of CV, BB, CA, DD with torpedoes - three hits - one CV hit twice, another CV hit once - intense small calibre AA fire from side of hangar deck - Zeros intercepted - two B-26's lost in attack - another two crash landed at Midway - two Zeros shot down.
1810/4th - Fourteen (14) B-17's bombed same target - altitude 20,000 - 44x500 lb and 72x600 lb bombs - five hits - two probable - eleven near hits - three CV hit and set afire- one Zero shot down - own losses none.
1830/4th - Six (6) B-17's bombed target - altitude 3600 feet - 3x500 lb, 5x600 lb bombs - two hits, two near hits - DD sunk - hit on CV already afire - four Zeros shot down - one Zero damaged - own loss none.
1830/4th - Four (4) B-17's bombed same target - altitude 25,000 - 28x500 lb - one hit, one probable, one near - CA set afire - own losses none.
0830/5th - Eight (8) B-17's bombed two BB or CA altitude 20,000 feet - 39x500 lb bombs - one hit, two probable, seven near - own losses none.
1815/5th - Seven (7) B-17's - 56x500 lb bombs on CA - altitude 15,000 - Three hits, four near hits, own losses none.
1825/5th - Five (5) B-17 - 8x300 lb and 15x600 lb bombs on CA - results not observed - one B-17 missing - one B-17 landed in water off Midway out of gas - one crew lost.

Totals: 9 attacks - 22 hits - 6 probable and 46 near hits - 10 Zeros shot down, 2 Zeros damaged - 1 BB hit, 2 BB or CA, 3 CV, and 1 large AK or AP set afire, 1 large AK hit - 1 DD sunk by bombs - 2 CV hit with 3 torpedoes. These are army plane results and entirely independent of Navy action. Results will show some duplication because at different times same ship was attacked by both Army and Navy. Part two figures given are later and modify those contained in my personal letter of 7 June.

My comments follow:
1. Navy assuemd command of the Army bombers prior to Battle of Midway. All Army units based at Midway came under the direct command of the senior Naval air officer at Midway. This command set up has the disadvantage that Naval air commanders do not know the capabilities of Army equipment and personnel.

2. Some of the lessons learned follow:

We were not reinforced with heavy bombers from the mainland as soon as expected. A special situation existed, but such may always be the case. We should have on hand ample bombers and pursuit planes to meet our tactical requirements.

At our air bases scattered throughout the Pacific we must have an ample supply of fuel, bombs, and ammunition, as well as a supply of fuel, bombs, and ammunition, as well as a supply of spare parts, special equipment, and sufficient maintenance personnel to take care of the equipment likely to be based there until reinforcements can be brought in. There must also be available equipment for clearing and repairing runways rapidly. The supplies and personnel should be sent from mainland as our assets are limited.

Fuel lines, tanks electric pumps, etc., are vulnerable. There must always be an alterate means of rapid re-fueling. We should have ample reserve of bomb and torpedo loading equipment.

The B-25's and B-26's are effective torpedo aircraft. Ample supply of re-inforced torpedoes, however, must be made available, our crews trained in their use, and our ordnance personnel trained and equipped to maintain these torpedoes.

Torpedo attacks against Jap carriers approach suicide unless other forms of attack are made simultaneously in order to diperse the carrier's heavy defensive fire.

More training is badly needed by our gunners. Tow target airplanes and reels for aerial and anti-aircraft gunnery training are badly needed.

Value of near bomb misses has been greatly exaggerated. Effort should be made to hit the ship.

In Army and Navy there is uncertainty as to the correct type of fuze to use against various types of ships. Recommend Chief of Army Air Force make careful study and inform all bombardment units as to fuzes. This matter should be coordinated with the Navy.

Reconnaissance agencies should be used fully. Combat crews at Midway were nearly exhausted when the battle opened because of fruitless sweeps in formation.

All heavy bombers should be provided with two combat and two maintenance crews to get the full value out of the airplane.

Army and Navy must both develop better fighter and pursuit aircraft. Both the P-39 and the P-40 types are deficient in performance at high altitudes.

Much radio deception used by Japs. Authentication of tactical messages is essential.

Jap fighters do not like to attack B-17's while in close formation.

That heavy bombers stationed in Hawaii are not immobilized but can be used effectively in support of the fleet and outlying bases was again proved by this battle.

B-17's are too short ranged for operations in this area. Every effort should be made to produce and deliver the B-29 and B-32 types to this area.

It must be realized that it is no disgrace to have aircraft caught on the ground under certain circumstances. To avoid the stigma commanders are exhausting crews and equipment and may enter combat low on fuel.

There is a tendency to rush attacks on surface vessels at long ranges at the expense of planning and coordination. In many instances a few additional minutes expended for proper preparation may mean the difference between success and failure.

High level bombing is an effective means of destroying warships, but enough airplanes must be used to insure sufficient hits.

In execution the Jap attack on Midway resembled the attack on Oahu.

Jap carriers take lots of punishment. Two experienced American carrier commanders state that one 1,000 lb bomb hit is worth much more than two 500 lb hits.

Vital installations must be well protected against air attacks where dispersion and concealment are impracticable.

Many tires were blown out and damaged by anti-aircraft shell fragments on runway at Midway. Runways must be kept clear of these fragments.

EMMONS.          


(Lt. Gen. Delos C. Emmons, CG, Hawaiian Dept., Fort Shafter, T.H.)

A TRUE COPY.

[Signed]
STEWART H. JONES
1st Lt., Air Corps



Source: United States Army Air Corps

« Last Edit: November 20, 2014, 07:56:41 PM by TW9 »
Quote from: sax
The community lacks personality , thank #@# for TW9 or
there would'nt even be anyone --------- left .
Quote from: Krusty
Edit2: BAN the ass-hat. That's not skuzzy, that's a tard named TW9

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: A New War
« Reply #2 on: November 20, 2014, 08:57:09 PM »
On a separate note. I've referenced as much as possible and I cannot find any instance in WWII where a long range bomber way out in the Pacific carpet bombed a CV from a high alt bomber. If I am wrong then please by all means correct me, but I think CV's were only ever sunk in WWII via dive bombers or torpedo. That being said I think any bomber's that can only be upped with the "bomber" mode checked should have their bombs set that they can only effect strats and hangars.

Just because no aircraft carrier on either side was sunk by level bombers does not mean they need to be nerfed in game to prevent them from doing it.  It would also be unrealistic as the primary anti-maritime aircraft used were level bombers like the B-17 and B-24 by the USAAF until they handed over the duties and level bombers (B-24s) to the USN in 1943.  In AIRCRAFT TACTICAL BULLETIN 3-43, the B-17 heavy bomber groups in the 5th AF were praised for their high level bombing work against Japanese shipping during the battle.

ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline TW9

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1118
      • http://www.tedwilliams.com
Re: A New War
« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2014, 09:13:30 PM »
Just because no aircraft carrier on either side was sunk by level bombers does not mean they need to be nerfed in game to prevent them from doing it.  It would also be unrealistic as the primary anti-maritime aircraft used were level bombers like the B-17 and B-24 by the USAAF until they handed over the duties and level bombers (B-24s) to the USN in 1943.  In AIRCRAFT TACTICAL BULLETIN 3-43, the B-17 heavy bomber groups in the 5th AF were praised for their high level bombing work against Japanese shipping during the battle.

ack-ack

Good points AKAK and <S> Btw. Ya my fix is probably drastic but what I think is unrealistic is the ability to nail and sink a moving cv at high altitude with 1 set of bombers. Some of the reports show that even with a high amount of bombs, less than a handful actually hit and only 1 time critically.
Quote from: sax
The community lacks personality , thank #@# for TW9 or
there would'nt even be anyone --------- left .
Quote from: Krusty
Edit2: BAN the ass-hat. That's not skuzzy, that's a tard named TW9

Offline SysError

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1009
Re: A New War
« Reply #4 on: November 20, 2014, 09:23:15 PM »

I think the focus of this game should not be just capturing as many of your opponents bases as possible. In my opinion to "WIN THE WAR" you should be required to be successful in all phases of the game. Not just one. So instead I think there should be a point system in place. The goal should be for each country to reach an established amount of points. Whichever country reaches whatever the set number of points is wins the war.


I think that you are on to something here.

+1

 :aok
=======================
SysError

Dante's Crew

Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate

Offline WWhiskey

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3122
Re: A New War
« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2014, 09:41:51 PM »
 Turpitz



 I do agree that some game changes would be awesome,, but no reason to take away an aircraft/ GV's abilities to preform missions. There May be some other way!

 I think try some different objectives for players
Remove Front line ORD
more perk points for factory resupply and spawn points or airfields better located to do so
more perk points for strategic bombing,IE factories or HQ,, these two together moves the heavy bomber war away from the front lines!
 remove base capture from the scoring system,, and lower the bomber perks for killing town buildings
Redo of GV spawn points for defense and more GV hangers on larger airfields ,
, small airfields without ORD close to the front lines, maybe even have the front line bases automatically loose ORD, this promotes fighting instead of bombing,,  or an allotment of X amount of ord per base, re supplied by the convoys and perishable,, 50 bombs every ten minutes or so,, ?  It seems crazy to think a base would have unlimited ORD if the ammo bunker is up.

These are just rough ideas of mine, anything to help with the game should be brought up IMHO and let me know why not on any of this,, like I said rough ideas off the top of my head

If we get a hundred new ideas,, even if 90 are stupid,, that leaves ten new ways to go with the game!
« Last Edit: November 20, 2014, 09:54:43 PM by WWhiskey »
Flying since tour 71.

Offline TW9

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1118
      • http://www.tedwilliams.com
Re: A New War
« Reply #6 on: November 20, 2014, 09:53:45 PM »
Turpitz



 I do agree that some game changes would be awesome,, but no reason to take away an aircraft/ GV's abilities to preform missions. There May be some other way!

 

I don't think it would take away anyone's abilities to perform missions. Everything would still be the same except for the overall goal of the game which currently is just capture bases to win the war. And when suggesting only activating frontal bases I don't mean squeezing everyone into 4 or 5 bases per front (well maybe if only 30 people are online) but something on the order of 10-15 bases per side per front during prime time. There would still be ample space to get out and climb your bombers, or potentially target a strategic base to sneak. Bases are still capturable but they just wouldn't stay that way. Or maybe to keep the capture bases people interested we can set zones so that instead, if a series of bases are captured they win the zone and get bonus points for that zone then it resets back to the original country after 10 minutes or so downtime. I'm just pondering but the current goal of winning the war just has to go.
Quote from: sax
The community lacks personality , thank #@# for TW9 or
there would'nt even be anyone --------- left .
Quote from: Krusty
Edit2: BAN the ass-hat. That's not skuzzy, that's a tard named TW9

Offline WWhiskey

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3122
Re: A New War
« Reply #7 on: November 20, 2014, 09:59:56 PM »
I'm just pondering but the current goal of winning the war just has to go.

 Maybe not go,,, but atleast become a lot less important!

I've argued some of this before and another idea may be to go back to an easier capture system as well so as to reduce the horde to a manageable number that can be defended against by a smaller force ,,   I. All for new ideas tho!
Flying since tour 71.

Offline TW9

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1118
      • http://www.tedwilliams.com
Re: A New War
« Reply #8 on: November 20, 2014, 10:44:11 PM »
Maybe not go,,, but atleast become a lot less important!



I'm just not seeing where anything would go or be less important. If you could point it out maybe I can counter.

I'll try to sum up my idea like this.

Lets say for a country to win a war they must earn 50000 points. Just throwing a number out there.

1. A player on Rooks. He enjoys bombing. Just likes blowing things up because he wears a nice set of Beats headphones with the base turned up and likes the sound the bombs make when they hit. So he bombs stuff, strats, hangers, towns, other players, whatever. He earns points for the Rooks helping them win in the process assuming these are active bases and strats. If in it's current format, if he were just out padding his score dropping ords out in the middle of nowhere would he be helping anyways? Im not seeing a loss in importance here.

2. A player for Nits likes GVing. He can park his happy rear in tank town all day spawn camp and kill things or he can sneak into a town or strat base and park an osti on a runway and still earn points for his country doing what he likes to do instead of just focusing on an overall aspect of the game he may or may not be interested in.

3. Another player for the Bish likes capturing bases. Lets just say his is name is Skyrock. He just likes to own things. Well he can still go around and capture bases which will earn points for the Bish towards winning the war. Only difference here is that the base gets returned or if we use a zone format where the base is returned after a country takes an entire zone (bonus points here :D).

4. Another player just likes to attack bases. He's that rare breed that will actually de-ack a base or bomb a town. He always brings a fighter w/ ordinance just incase a pesky gv is parked at the base (see reference 2). He too will earn points for his country for doing what he likes to do.

5. This player just likes to fight. He's that idiot you see on the deck in a tnb plane. Ya he dies a lot but it doesn't take him long to get back into the fight. The players are consolidated now to specific zones so there's no shortage of fights for this dweeb. His k/d is low but he gets a lot of kills per hour which in turn grants points to the country.

6. Alt monkey p38 or p51 or dora player. Whatever these players are flying now a days. They're the one's waiting like hawks above for player in reference 5 to get engaged for an easy kill. They don't get a lot of kills in a short period but have a high k/d so they are not getting killed a lot giving the other team points. Instead they are RTB with no ammo and 10 kills (4 of player 5) earning a lot of points for their country when they land. Again, people doing what they enjoy doing and still helping their country win the war.

From these references, I am just not seeing where anything is lost or less important. If anything everything you can possibly do in the game becomes important.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2014, 11:00:37 PM by TW9 »
Quote from: sax
The community lacks personality , thank #@# for TW9 or
there would'nt even be anyone --------- left .
Quote from: Krusty
Edit2: BAN the ass-hat. That's not skuzzy, that's a tard named TW9

Offline TW9

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1118
      • http://www.tedwilliams.com
Re: A New War
« Reply #9 on: November 20, 2014, 10:57:35 PM »
Player under current set up: Logs on and see's that his country is getting hammered on all sides and about to lose the war. He decides to leave and play another game or worse, spend time with his family.

Player under suggested set up: Logs on and see's that his country has reached 98% of the 50,000 point goal. He can't see what the status of the other countries are. Only they can see that. They could say on channel 200 their progress, but are they lying? He plays for Rooks and like the reference above his team is getting hammered on both fronts. Little do they know this is the worst thing they can do. His kid is tugging at his leg for attention. He looks down at his adorable son with a big warming smile and..... gives the kid his iPad. The kid distracted, he focuses on winning the war. He starts spawning IL2 out the hangers mowing down would be vulchers earning triple points in the process. Rooks win the war.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2014, 11:21:19 PM by TW9 »
Quote from: sax
The community lacks personality , thank #@# for TW9 or
there would'nt even be anyone --------- left .
Quote from: Krusty
Edit2: BAN the ass-hat. That's not skuzzy, that's a tard named TW9

Offline colmbo

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2246
      • Photos
Re: A New War
« Reply #10 on: November 20, 2014, 11:00:45 PM »
what I think is unrealistic is the ability to nail and sink a moving cv at high altitude with 1 set of bombers.

That's because the Norden in game has the accuracy that the actual Norden was reputed to have.  In hindsight we know that the Norden wasn't nearly as accurate as thought/hoped.

If the in game Norden was more realistic in accuracy you would see a lot less shipping sunk by level bombers.
Columbo

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."

Fate whispers to the warrior "You cannot withstand the storm" and the warrior whispers back "I AM THE STORM"

Offline WWhiskey

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3122
Re: A New War
« Reply #11 on: November 20, 2014, 11:13:13 PM »
When I started playing, I never gave a darn about winning the war,, I wanted to fly the planes and drive the tanks and shoot the enemy down,, on occasion even let one go , with the satisfaction that I could have killed him if I wanted to.
Many of the other players had that same mindset I believe,,,,,,, today, not so much.

 I never became the greatest fighter ace of them all,     most don't ,( there can be only one),, for those that can't fight all the time, there isn't much else to do but be fodder or capture bases,, they need other goals.
 
Your ideas sound great!  I'm just saying, those, along with 90 more and maybe we can come up with a solution or two,

 or maybe HT will implement your plan wholesale,, I'm not knocking your plan,, just offering some other ideas!
I had thought about starting a thread for new game play ideas but you already have one!
Flying since tour 71.

Offline TW9

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1118
      • http://www.tedwilliams.com
Re: A New War
« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2014, 11:26:36 PM »
When I started playing, I never gave a darn about winning the war,, I wanted to fly the planes and drive the tanks and shoot the enemy down,, on occasion even let one go , with the satisfaction that I could have killed him if I wanted to.
Many of the other players had that same mindset I believe,,,,,,, today, not so much.

 I never became the greatest fighter ace of them all,     most don't ,( there can be only one),, for those that can't fight all the time, there isn't much else to do but be fodder or capture bases,, they need other goals.
 
Your ideas sound great!  I'm just saying, those, along with 90 more and maybe we can come up with a solution or two,

 or maybe HT will implement your plan wholesale,, I'm not knocking your plan,, just offering some other ideas!
I had thought about starting a thread for new game play ideas but you already have one!

Yes, I understand your mindset. I'm much the same. I'd rather furball all day than focus on the war. But whenever I come back to play theres really no fighting going on. Just a big circle of droves where the big hordes avoid each other in a race to capture as many bases as possible. I just think a combat game is focused way too much on that when there are many aspects to be enjoyed.

I'm just trying to think of something where anyone doing whatever they like to do can be useful towards an overall goal instead of just being focused on 1 single aspect.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2014, 11:31:58 PM by TW9 »
Quote from: sax
The community lacks personality , thank #@# for TW9 or
there would'nt even be anyone --------- left .
Quote from: Krusty
Edit2: BAN the ass-hat. That's not skuzzy, that's a tard named TW9

Offline guncrasher

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17318
Re: A New War
« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2014, 11:48:51 PM »
Good points AKAK and <S> Btw. Ya my fix is probably drastic but what I think is unrealistic is the ability to nail and sink a moving cv at high altitude with 1 set of bombers. Some of the reports show that even with a high amount of bombs, less than a handful actually hit and only 1 time critically.


I have yet to sink a cv from high altitude.  well unless you consider 5.5k high altitude.  and I will sink a cv from that altitude well over more than  a handful of times.

I think you are over exaggerating the sinking of cv's.  I knew wildsdog would sink a cv from 1k. and there was even an academy to teach people how to sink a cv at that altitude using jet bombers.


semp
you dont want me to ho, dont point your plane at me.

Offline TW9

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1118
      • http://www.tedwilliams.com
Re: A New War
« Reply #14 on: November 21, 2014, 12:00:42 AM »
Hi Semp,

I based my "over-exaggeration" on an official report which I posted in this thread.

623/3d-Nine (9) B-17's attacked enemy vessels including 5 BB or CA - with bombs 24x600 lb - 12x500b - five known hits - one probable - one near - altitude 8 to 12,000 ft - observed results: first BB hit, second BB or CA and one larg transport afire. Water line hit amidships on large AP or AK - Own losses none.

36 bombs 5 hits + 1 probably and 1 near. None critical.

0710/4th - Four (4) B-26's attacked enemy group of CV, BB, CA, DD with torpedoes - three hits - one CV hit twice, another CV hit once - intense small calibre AA fire from side of hangar deck - Zeros intercepted - two B-26's lost in attack - another two crash landed at Midway - two Zeros shot down.

1810/4th - Fourteen (14) B-17's bombed same target - altitude 20,000 - 44x500 lb and 72x600 lb bombs - five hits - two probable - eleven near hits - three CV hit and set afire- one Zero shot down - own losses none.

116 bombs. 5 hits + 2 probable + 11 near. None critical

1830/4th - Six (6) B-17's bombed target - altitude 3600 feet - 3x500 lb, 5x600 lb bombs - two hits, two near hits - DD sunk - hit on CV already afire - four Zeros shot down - one Zero damaged - own loss none.

This is only instance in the report where a ship was confirmed sunk. And it was done from 3600 feet.

1830/4th - Four (4) B-17's bombed same target - altitude 25,000 - 28x500 lb - one hit, one probable, one near - CA set afire - own losses none.

28 bombs 1 hit + 1 probable + 1 near. None critical

0830/5th - Eight (8) B-17's bombed two BB or CA altitude 20,000 feet - 39x500 lb bombs - one hit, two probable, seven near - own losses none.

39 bombs 1 hit 2 probably 7 near. None critical

1815/5th - Seven (7) B-17's - 56x500 lb bombs on CA - altitude 15,000 - Three hits, four near hits, own losses none.

56 bombs 3 hits + 4 near. Nothing else reported on this one.

1825/5th - Five (5) B-17 - 8x300 lb and 15x600 lb bombs on CA - results not observed - one B-17 missing - one B-17 landed in water off Midway out of gas - one crew lost.

Nothing observed on this one.
Quote from: sax
The community lacks personality , thank #@# for TW9 or
there would'nt even be anyone --------- left .
Quote from: Krusty
Edit2: BAN the ass-hat. That's not skuzzy, that's a tard named TW9