Major complaint....

[fudgums]

Doesn't help when in LW PTO. The allies outnumbered the japs 5 to 1

[Krusty]

Yep...they could fly at 30K.

Could... didn't.

B17s only could fly at 30k. B24s couldn't get past 27k. On top of that, out of the 30-or-so examples posted there, you'll note only ONE is 30k, and only 1-2 are 27k, the rest being 25k and lower.


And you can't discount 12k and 16k, either. In a 1000-plane bomber mission, MORE planes were low than were high. Only the top 1/3 of a box formation of bombers would even reach 20k. The lower 1/3 and middle 1/3 went down as low as 10k. and 15k respectively.

DrDea keeps posting misleading and/or flaming posts in these threads. The case is most certainly NOT closed.

[DrDea]

 Flaming? Please.The record presented shows that the average there was 23 to 25K alt. That pretty much sums up what alot have been saying.Thats a normal alt for the B26 as shown by pilot logs.
  I dont know why you keep beating this dead horse even when proof is provided. Your obvious lean to the LW planes comes to mind.That or your just trolling. Its even possible that your just sticking your fingers in your eyes and screaming  LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA   I cant SEE you.
 Let it go Krusty.Its embarrassing.

[palef]

I'd argue the point that one man's flight log represents the mission profile for all ETO B26 missions, particularly as there is a lot of documentation about B26 Groups flying between 10 and 15k and hitting transport junctions.

Everyone seems to have skipped past the teleporting buff formations too. The Western Front FSOs aren't fun, and certainly aren't worth interupting time with my kids on the weekends for. The PTO ones are fantastic and deeply immersing. I didn't do Rangoon (mercifully by the sound of it) but last Friday's frame was baffling.

[BnZs]

The speed and altitude of buffs seem to be roughly correct.

The lethality of defensive fire though is highly debatable though.

I don't think the k/d ratio of buffs vs. fighters is born out by actual German losses during the war vs. buffs...even B-17s.

[Stoney]

I don't think the k/d ratio of buffs vs. fighters is born out by actual German losses during the war vs. buffs...even B-17s.

Well, that could be skewed by how determined the fighter is in AH.  German tactics were usually very quick, hit and run attacks conducted while diving through a formation.  AH interceptors have a tendency to be much more impatient, and linger in the attack, thus making themselves much more vulnerable to defensive fire.  That's not to say that the concentration of fire isn't higher in AH, but I think the interceptor tactics have more to do with them getting shot down more frequently, rather than the way defensive guns work.  Just my opinion--I could be wrong.

[Anaxogoras]

Well, that could be skewed by how determined the fighter is in AH.  German tactics were usually very quick, hit and run attacks conducted while diving through a formation.  AH interceptors have a tendency to be much more impatient, and linger in the attack, thus making themselves much more vulnerable to defensive fire.  That's not to say that the concentration of fire isn't higher in AH, but I think the interceptor tactics have more to do with them getting shot down more frequently, rather than the way defensive guns work.  Just my opinion--I could be wrong.

The interceptors rarely have more than 20 minutes between the time bombers are spotted to the time they drop on their target.  The interceptors do not have dedicated ground control tracking the bombers as soon as they're over France, telling them where to go to set up for a head-on pass.  In other words, "bad" bomber interceptor tactics are required by the restraints of FSO.

Scoring also doesn't help these unhistorical kill ratios.  It's a huge success to die shooting down a single bomber because it's a net gain of 8 points, + whatever points that bomber would have scored hitting a target. 

Therefore, for the defending side, aiming for pure attrition vs bomber formations is a rationally optimal strategy; it's only because of the desire for something more historical on the part of the players that this strategy is not put in place.

[RTHolmes]

Smoking loon if you want to call bomber runs at 280 mph grossly inaccurate you need PROOF sir.
Not pilot accounts, nothing that can be subjective, or interpreted. Real life hard core data that shows what speeds given planes actually attacked at. And you'd need it for more than 1 such attack. If you want to make the case that what we have is wrong. Then the burden of proof is on you sir. You have to make the case and prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

http://www.398th.org/History/Veterans/History/Jordan/Jordan_Missions_Info.html#jordan_19440509
B-17 150mph IAS @19,000' = 210mph TAS

http://www.398th.org/History/Diaries/Will/Diary_Will.html
B-17 25,000' 230mph TAS (155mph IAS)

http://www.b24.net/stories/Keilman2.htm
B-24 160mph IAS @18,000' = 220mph TAS

http://b24.net/stories/COPP.htm
B-24 160mph IAS @24,000 = 235mph TAS

All well below Max Cruise (Rich) power settings, as you would expect. Bear in mind that fuel comsumption at Mil Power is almost double that of Max Cruise.

I believe the burden of proof that typical bomb runs were made at 280mph is now yours ...

[PFactorDave]

The interceptors rarely have more than 20 minutes between the time bombers are spotted to the time they drop on their target.  The interceptors do not have dedicated ground control tracking the bombers as soon as they're over France, telling them where to go to set up for a head-on pass.  In other words, "bad" bomber interceptor tactics are required by the restraints of FSO.

Honestly, I think that this is the weak link for FSO.  I'd like to see a scenario that had a proper bomber to escort ratio.  Then the Axis defender ratio should also be much much lower compared to bombers.  Then have one of the FSO staff people vector the Axis fighters onto their bomber targets.  I imagine a scenario where there are lots and lots of bombers with a relatively small number of escort fighters being attacked by a relatively small number of Axis fighters.  Ideally, the bombers would tighten up their boxes and fly in a more historical fashion, including a reduced altitude to allow for a slower forward speed and holding the formation tight.  Basically, FSO would benefit if these scenarios were more about getting the bombs on target and less about the fighters that are escorting.  Honestly, it really is unforgivable to have the escorts outnumbering the bombers by a two to one ratio.

I'm rambling a bit.  I'll stop now.  Maybe I can get my thoughts together and post something more coherent later.

[Squire]

"being attacked by a relatively small number of Axis fighters"

We cant go near strictly historical OOB ratios in many FSOs (not all, I said many...) the howls of protest would be deafening, from either Allied or Axis sides. We need to make it historical AND playable, and that is sometimes a fine rope to walk over, but we do try.

What you have to appreciate is that air combat in WW2 often went along the lines of this: Side #1 has 10 squadrons of bombers and 10 squadrons of escorts attacking 5 targets. Side #2 has 5 squadrons in the area of defending fighters, and intercepts 3 of the 5 raids, ignoring the other 2. That was real life. In FSO, the other 6 squads from side #1 (3 bombers and 3 fighter) would see no enemy a/c in the frame, and they would complain about "lack of action". So thats the problem; if you guys ask for "ultimate realism" understand what you are asking for. It means missions flown with a good chance of seeing *nothing* but some flak. Thats not the only problem, but its one of them.

Add to that that most air combats involved only a few passes on each other before disengaging, often only damaging @ 10 percent of the other force, and maybe, maybe on a good day, shooting down 2-5 percent on a mission. Out of 300 bombers, you would damage 30 and shoot down 15 lets say. That would be considered "heavy" action.

[DrDea]

 Ive flown both sides of this so Im not in anyway biased. What we did when we flew interceptor was send someone out to scout thus giving the remaining fighters more time to set up for the attack.
  I did not see ONE case of this the last 3 frames.
  Now I dont want to bust on any CIC's in here because theres a lot of hard work involved but whats so hard about taking 3 or 4 guys and sending them hell bent for leather in a search pattern? The benefits FAR out weigh any loss of 3 or 4 guys not being in the group. In fact if they draw off a few over eager "MINE MINE MINE MINE" guys so much the better I myself once flew scout the last scenario before this one and gave the guys a good 10 min heads up.
  Bombers to high,bombers to fast, This drama started because the Axis had a sound victory,calling for reducing points for bombers so as not to be a serious crushing victory. But it wasnt a fair frame???
  I can see saying it was skewed when ya lose the battle but to ask for even MORE side imbalance after a crushing victory to me is just being stupid.