Originally posted by wulfie
Combat aircrew put the mission first in real life in my experience (note: I'm not a pilot, but I've worked very closely with combat aircrew for no small number of years - maybe some of our combat aircrew can comment on this to give a better perspective).
Widewing, you have a point that attrition rates in the MA are insanely high with regards to real life. But HT is correct that the primary goal was to meet mission objectives. 'Perfectly' planned missions put the enemy at as much risk as possible while putting your own assets at as little risk as possible while still putting them in a position to complete their mission. If the mission plan goes bad and the risk factor goes up for the good guys it's still pretty rare to scrub the mission altogether.
WW2 air combat history is loaded with examples of experienced aircrew who committed to action when high casualties were almost a certainty, because planning went wrong but they 'still had a mission to accomplish'.
Torpedo Squadron 8 could have called off the attack and returned to their CV when their fighter cover did not materialize. But they knew other attacking aircraft were on the way and they had the holy grail of targets for USN attack pilots in 1942: IJN CVs.
So they were shot down to the man, with 1 survivor from the whole squadron. Not a smart move if your 'primary objective' is to get home safe. But those guys single handedly changed the course of the entire war in the Pacific. The IJN CAP overcommited when attacking them (not bad judgement really - if there are torpedo bombers attacking your CVs, you don't spare on effort to kill them all before they get into effective attack range), leaving only 1 fighter 'high'...and when the 2 groups of USN dive bombers appeared there was zero aerial opposition and the defensive DD based AAA screens for the CVs were totally disrupted due to torpedo evasion maneuvers. Everyone knows the end result.
I think people are jumping to certain conclusions that are eroneous.
In October 1943, the 8th Air Force suspended bombing missions beyond the range of escorts due to heavy losses. The mission is not viable if unsustainable casualties result. Virtual suicide missions were never ordered unless there existed no alternative other than annihilation.
Offering the debacle of the VT squadrons at Midway doesn't wash. Those TBDs were supposed to receive cover. You can bet that Spruance would not have ordered them in virtually unprotected. What you have described was a snafu, not the mission design.
Resources must be husbanded, it takes more than a year to train a pilot. Any commander who is reckless with his personnel will very quickly find himself without a command.
In any military organization, the primary responsibility of command is to maintain the combat effectiveness of the organization. That means not wasting combat power, personnel and equipment. Obtaining objectives with minimum loss IS the goal of every commander. Anything less is not tolerated for long.
Now Hitech, milkrunning as done in the game, hitting isolated complexes many miles in the rear is anything but realistic. First, these would (and should) be captured! Secondly, no bombs were wasted on bypassed outposts. That was the whole reason for bypassing them, not to expend resources on insignificant targets!
You asked my my opinion, and I gave it to you. Is surviving boring? Hardly! I land about 90% of my sorties, maintaining decent numbers and ranking, while killing a great many enemy. So what does that indicate? It shows that one need not get their bellybutton shot off to be successful.
You may not wish to change the relationship between K/D and K/T, K/S, but consider isolating field captures from bomber scores, and throw the guys a bone who do well in the early war fighters by factoring ENY into the scoring equation.
My regards,
Widewing
