Hello? chirp chirp anyone out there?

[Devil 505]

Zeke's have done fine vs. TBM's in the scenario and "This Day" events.

Not when you factor in protecting the CV. By the time the TBM's are dealt with, the carrier is critically damaged or sunk.

The Zero has more and more speed advantage as alt increases (see above -- it's 70 mph advantage at 15k).  But there is already a limit to TBM's being at zero altitude and 200 mph substantially before target (well, if they want to hit anything with their torp).

The idea here is to eliminate the TBM's ability to dive from high altitude to ridiculous speed, while also giving the defenders a height advantage that could be converted into a realistically usable speed advantage.

[Brooke]

Ya know....it might be a band aid over the problem but.....limiting numbers of TBMs in early war frames to compensate could be an idea.

Coral Sea scenarios and "This Day in WWII:  Coral Sea" are already balanced.  The data proves that they are balanced, with the IJN winning about as many times at the USN.

[LCADolby]

See Rule #4

[Brooke]

Not when you factor in protecting the CV. By the time the TBM's are dealt with, the carrier is critically damaged or sunk.

That was already covered.  See data above.

The idea here is to eliminate the TBM's ability to dive from high altitude to ridiculous speed, while also giving the defenders a height advantage that could be converted into a realistically usable speed advantage.

Both B5N's and TBM's can dive to high speed.  So can SBD's, D3A's, and lots of other planes.  If a pilot with altitude is willing to blow altitude to avoid you, you will have a harder time shooting him down.  That's just physics.  But . . . all torpedo bombers -- TBM's, B5N's, Ju 88's, and Ki-67's -- are at 100 ft altitude and 200 mph near target.  There's your huge advantage as a defender.  That's why torpedo bombers are so very easy to shoot down that the vast majority of them (even Ju 88 formations and Ki-67 formations) die every mission they go out.

[Brooke]

See Rule #4

You say "X is important."   I then get the available data, analyze it using the major method of analysis used by all fields of science, and see what the data says.  It turns out it that the data shows X not being important (if you measure importance in frame outcome, torpedo hits, torpedo bombers lost, or enemy fighters shot down by torpedo bombers).  Then, you ignore this data and accuse me of being the irrationally stubborn one.

That is irony.

[LCADolby]

Brooke, theory doesn't always work in practise. Had you done any science experiments at school you would already know that and be fully open to what the players are trying to tell you.

[Tank-Ace]

Brooke, I honestly don't understand how you can compare loss rates of two different torpedo bombers with significantly different capabilities, being attacked by two different fighters, and just say "oh yeah, they're interchangeable", when you yourself have noted a 20% difference in loss rates.

Literally the only similarities is the mission profile, and the 5 minutes or so before ordnance release.


How many TBM's and B5N's are killed during their attack run vs prior to their attack run? How many are killed after the attack run?

Loss rates due to CV ack should actually be higher for the B5N's simply because its a more fragile aircraft. Is that accounted for in your statistics?

[Zoney]

My friends, please remember, the team that sets these events up is 100% volunteer.

If you really want to become more involved in developing these events you could volunteer your time and I imagine you would have a lot more input.  I think anyone looking in from outside might not have as much information as the design and implementation team.  I believe the team is unbiased and working to put out a fun, fair, and enjoyable event.

If we could just tone down the rhetoric, stop with the little snarky comments, and at least show some respect to the work that has gone into making this happen, we will all enjoy it more.  Including the CM team.  They deserve to have fun too.  I wouldn't take that job for anything.  These guys certainly have a thicker skin than I do.

I am looking forward to flying this event and future events.  I'm not saying that the CM team is being driven to quit, but what if they finally have had enough, throw up their hands and say they are done?  Who will take their place?  You?  And how will you deal with the 10% of players that do nothing but complain?  I'm a 90%'er......we have fun every time, because we go in with a positive attitude and reap the rewards.

[Tank-Ace]

My friends, please remember, the team that sets these events up is 100% volunteer.

If you really want to become more involved in developing these events you could volunteer your time and I imagine you would have a lot more input.  I think anyone looking in from outside might not have as much information as the design and implementation team.  I believe the team is unbiased and working to put out a fun, fair, and enjoyable event.

If we could just tone down the rhetoric, stop with the little snarky comments, and at least show some respect to the work that has gone into making this happen, we will all enjoy it more.  Including the CM team.  They deserve to have fun too.  I wouldn't take that job for anything.  These guys certainly have a thicker skin than I do.

I am looking forward to flying this event and future events.  I'm not saying that the CM team is being driven to quit, but what if they finally have had enough, throw up their hands and say they are done?  Who will take their place?  You?  And how will you deal with the 10% of players that do nothing but complain?  I'm a 90%'er......we have fun every time, because we go in with a positive attitude and reap the rewards.

I've looked into it. Last I checked, they apparently had a rule that you had to be 21 or older, and I don't fit that requirement.

[Brooke]

Brooke, I honestly don't understand how you can compare loss rates of two different torpedo bombers with significantly different capabilities, being attacked by two different fighters, and just say "oh yeah, they're interchangeable", when you yourself have noted a 20% difference in loss rates.

There are a few reasons.  First is that they don't have to be the same as long as the TBD isn't significantly worse than the B5N.  Second is that the two fighters are different, yes, but they are contemporaries that aren't hugely different in top speed, where firepower and sturdiness are offset in different directions (i.e., f4f less firepower than a6m2 but sturdier so can have longer fire time on bomber shooting back).  Third is that, as explained above, 20% difference in loss rate isn't significant.

How many TBM's and B5N's are killed during their attack run vs prior to their attack run? How many are killed after the attack run?

Here are the logs:
http://ahevents.org/event-logs.html
The relevant ones are Coral Sea 2009 and "This Day in WWII:  Coral Sea".  If you do the analysis, make sure to gather enough data so that your statistics are sound (i.e., don't pick just a couple of frames to look at -- do them all).

Loss rates due to CV ack should actually be higher for the B5N's simply because its a more fragile aircraft. Is that accounted for in your statistics?

Well, since here you are missing the most-important and most-noted aspect of the setup, I'm thinking that you haven't flown in any of the Coral Sea scenarios or "This Day in WWII:  Coral Sea" events at all.  Am I wrong?

[Devil 505]

That was already covered.  See data above.

Both B5N's and TBM's can dive to high speed.  So can SBD's, D3A's, and lots of other planes.  If a pilot with altitude is willing to blow altitude to avoid you, you will have a harder time shooting him down.  That's just physics.  But . . . all torpedo bombers -- TBM's, B5N's, Ju 88's, and Ki-67's -- are at 100 ft altitude and 200 mph near target.  There's your huge advantage as a defender.  That's why torpedo bombers are so very easy to shoot down that the vast majority of them (even Ju 88 formations and Ki-67 formations) die every mission they go out.

Brooke, I hope this helps to explain to you why regardless of the data that you present, that using the TBM-3 in early war PTO setups is a problem and not at all historical.

There are 3 stages to mounting a successful torpedo attack.

1. Approach to target.
2. Attack run
3. Egress

The difference in the balance between the TBM and B5N is in stage 1. When the IJN intercepts TBM's, they still have a fair chance of reaching a suitable drop point. When USN fighters intercept B5N's, the fighter's hold all the cards, and only the luckiest pilots get to drop their ord.

If Aces High had the TBD, the comparable difficulties facing torpedo pilots would be fairly equal. As is with the TBM as a substitute, this is not even close. If the aircraft itself can't be realistically substituted for, then the manner in which the substitute is utilized must be governed in order to achieve parity.  

The logs from events only tells part of the story. I'm not saying that your data is not valid. It is valid, just incomplete. What is needed is a comprehensive study as to how the aircraft are employed, how many attackers make a torp run, success of attacks, the ability for defenders to mount attacks on torpedo planes, kills against torpedo planes, and effectiveness of tail gunners.

Should a study such as this be conducted, I am confident that the findings will bear the result of the TBM not being a wise choice for substitute without limitations.

Here's an example of the completely unrealistically (yet incredibly effective) method of using 20K TBM's to attack the carrier. Yes, most of the TBM's were shot down, but not before the carrier was crippled. It was finished off by a wave of unmolested SBD's, who went unopposed due to all the defenders needed to tackle the TBM's.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,348956.msg4608856.html#msg4608856

If a competent Allied planner would use these assets like this consistently, the Allies would never lose. It is merely dumb luck if attacks fail, whereas dumb luck applies to the IJN if the attack is successful.

[Brooke]

People here mostly have been polite, and I don't mind taking time to discuss what I see as reasons for things.

[Tank-Ace]

There are a few reasons.  First is that they don't have to be the same as long as the TBD isn't significantly worse than the B5N.  Second is that the two fighters are different, yes, but they are contemporaries that aren't hugely different in top speed, where firepower and sturdiness are offset in different directions (i.e., f4f less firepower than a6m2 but sturdier so can have longer fire time on bomber shooting back).

The A6M is also facing .50 caliber fire from the planes its shooting at, and only has 120rounds of 20mm cannon to use before it has to saddle up and hose down the TBM's with the 7.62mm's, which REALLY exacerbates the TBM's unhistorical firepower.

Third is that, as explained above, 20% difference in loss rate isn't significant.

Perhaps I missed where you said that. If I'm understanding you correctly, and that, on average, TBM's survive 20% more often than B5N's, then that sounds like a fairly significant problem, given that, depending on how the specific event is set up, the axis will be scoring 20% less points from kills on bomber aircraft specifically because the TBM is being used as a sub for the TBD.

Here are the logs:
http://ahevents.org/event-logs.html
The relevant ones are Coral Sea 2009 and "This Day in WWII:  Coral Sea".  If you do the analysis, make sure to gather enough data so that your statistics are sound (i.e., don't pick just a couple of frames to look at -- do them all).

Before I do them, how will I know when they initiate their attack run? Now correct me if I'm wrong, but a point of yours seems to be that, since they all have to make an attack run, it should be the great equalizer. If that is true, we would expect that the majority of losses occur during the attack run.

Now let me be clear. If you provide me a way to do this, I will do it gladly. But upon initial inspection of the information contained in the logs, I will simply have to estimate when the attack run began based on the time each group scores their first hit on a ship (~5 minutes prior sound fair?), and assume that all bombers for that group began their attack run at the same time. Would this be a correct assessment?

Well, since here you are missing the most-important and most-noted aspect of the setup, I'm thinking that you haven't flown in any of the Coral Sea scenarios or "This Day in WWII:  Coral Sea" events at all.  Am I wrong?

I have not participated specifically in a Coral Sea event.

[Brooke]

The difference in the balance between the TBM and B5N is in stage 1. When the IJN intercepts TBM's, they still have a fair chance of reaching a suitable drop point. When USN fighters intercept B5N's, the fighter's hold all the cards, and only the luckiest pilots get to drop their ord.

My recollection based on my experience is:
1.  If intercepted on the way to target without substantial escort, we get shot down, whether we are in TBM's or B5N's.
2.  Mostly, we are not found on our way to target and are mostly shot down near the target.

If the aircraft itself can't be realistically substituted for, then the manner in which the substitute is utilized must be governed in order to achieve parity.  

There has been parity in the events. IJN and USN each win similar numbers of frames.

What is needed is a comprehensive study as to how the aircraft are employed,

They are employed in the same way.

how many attackers make a torp run, success of attacks, the ability for defenders to mount attacks on torpedo planes, kills against torpedo planes, and effectiveness of tail gunners.

This is part of the data above.

Should a study such as this be conducted, I am confident that the findings will bear the result of the TBM not being a wise choice for substitute without limitations.

So, if all past frames have been balanced (this is a true and incontrovertible fact), and a B5N is worse than a TBM in a way significant to outcome (your belief), and we substitute B5N's for all TBM's (your feeling of what we should do), what would happen in your view to balance then?

Here's an example of the completely unrealistically (yet incredibly effective) method of using 20K TBM's to attack the carrier. Yes, most of the TBM's were shot down, but not before the carrier was crippled. It was finished off by a wave of unmolested SBD's, who went unopposed due to all the defenders needed to tackle the TBM's.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,348956.msg4608856.html#msg4608856

It is a common argument to take one data point and use it to generalize instead of to use data that allows you correctly to draw statistical inferences.  Example:  "A large body of data shows that smoking is bad for you."  "Oh, yeah?  My Aunt Beatrice smoked 5 packs a day since she was 10 years old and lived to be 100."  In your case, it is one frame of an FSO (and I'm not sure if the setup of FSO's is close to the scenarios and "This Days" or not).  I'm using data of all frames of Coral Sea 2009 and all runnings of "This Day in WWII:  Coral Sea".  Also, for your one example of frame 3 of an FSO, I flew 9 frames of Coral Sea scenarios and four frame of "This Day:  Coral Sea" that support my conclusions.

If a competent Allied planner would use these assets like this consistently, the Allies would never lose. It is merely dumb luck if attacks fail, whereas dumb luck applies to the IJN if the attack is successful.

I don't think so.  I do that with my B5N's, too, and the effect of doing it in B5N's is the same as doing it in TBM's.  I would do it in TBD's, too.

[Brooke]

The A6M is also facing .50 caliber fire from the planes its shooting at, and only has 120rounds of 20mm cannon to use before it has to saddle up and hose down the TBM's with the 7.62mm's, which REALLY exacerbates the TBM's unhistorical firepower.

A6M's, according to the data, don't have a lot of trouble shooting down TBM's in the environment of the event.  Most of them are shot down every mission.

Perhaps I missed where you said that.

See above.

I will simply have to estimate when the attack run began based on the time each group scores their first hit on a ship (~5 minutes prior sound fair?), and assume that all bombers for that group began their attack run at the same time. Would this be a correct assessment?

Yes.

(Although, again, all of this arguing of fine points doesn't change the fact that the final result -- balance of the scenario -- is fine.)

I have not participated specifically in a Coral Sea event.

You should fly TBM's in the next scenario.  It will have them.