Allied Strategic Bombing and its simulation in the present engine.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

I feel that it is only slightly underplayed in this game, the best improvement would be the ability for bombers to attack garrisoned cities, not the corps. But i hate it when people say that the Allied bombing campaign is over-rated. Without it, WW2 in Europe wouldve lasted for atleast 2 more years. Maybe more. You see, Bomber command and the allied 8th, 9th, and 15th air forces chewed up so much of the german war effort that it was harder for the germans to concentrate most of their energies to the Ostfront. Not to mention almost destoying the german economy.

Please weigh in on your thoughts on Strategic Bombing and it's portrayal in the game.

(Its not just the finns, im this supportive/ fanatical about the 8th Airforce as well )

CvM

[arby]

Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:

Please weigh in on your thoughts on Strategic Bombing and it's portrayal in the game.

CvM

No.

Okay, okay, if you insist. First, your contention that the bombing almost destroyed the German economy is unsubstantiated by the available evidence, at least if you look at production figures. In fact, there's some evidence to support the claim that it didn't have much effect on the economy. I'm of the opinion that it probably had more effect on transportation, and just tying up German units, than it did on the actual production capacity of the German economy.

As to the game, I think it's seriously under-represented, as is the other strategic component, sub warfare. There are several reasons for this, the most significant of which is the garrison rule, although that might not be as big a factor as some claim; after all, reinforcing or replacing the garrison can often cost more than the loss of MPP's from the resource. Still, I'd like to see it changed; the present rule simply encourages the creation of air fleets, which are more effective against ground units, at the expense of strat bombers.

Another reason is that the bombers start out so weak, and the Allies have other research priorities that divert attention from them. I'd like to see British bombers start the game at L1, and American at L2. I think this would be more accurate from an historical standpoint as well.

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:

... the best improvement would be the ability for bombers to attack garrisoned cities, not the corps

CvM

--------------------------------------------------

I agree that the garrisoned city should be able to be attacked/disrupted. This is the only way to stop your opponent from operating units from a thousand miles away into the city area in one week.

Sincerely,

Ken

[SixthArmy]

I'd like to see British bombers start the game at L1, and American at L2. I think this would be more accurate from an historical standpoint as well

I agree w/ that because US and British heavy bombers were better than German designs. So there should be a way for the US/Brits to start w/ bombers that are superior to the German counterpart. But bofe should start out at L1 because I don't think the US bombers were much better than the lancaster. I could be very wrong of course.

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by arby:

I'm of the opinion that it[stategic bombing] probably had more effect on transportation, and just tying up German units, than it did on the actual production capacity of the German economy.

-------------------------------------------------

Yes! Disrupt the transportation system and unit movement. This is why Rommel wanted his panzer units so close to the landing zones.

--------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------

This needs to be considered too.

Sincerely,

Ken

[zappsweden]

This puts the game in a whole new perspective. If bombing not inly affects production but also transportation i think there is need for more details in the game.

MPP should then be replaced by

Manpower

Industry

Transportation system

Oil

raw material (from mines)

This will mean that reinforcing or building a new unit will cost the same amount of manpower but may cost the industry different.

I think this could be a good system for Strategic command 2.

[Malleus]

Studies have shown that the Allied strategic bombing had neglible little effect on the German war effort, only seriously impacting it when transportation facilities (rail junctions, etc.) were put out of commission, thus preventing raw materials and components from reaching the relevant factories.

After the war it became clear that strategic bombing could have ended the war much earlier had power generation facilities been the priority target (no electricity, no production), but the strategic bombers weren't smart enough to figure that out.

As Yogi Berra used to say, "You can look it up."

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by Malleus:

Studies have shown that the Allied strategic bombing had neglible little effect on the German war effort, only seriously impacting it when transportation facilities (rail junctions, etc.) were put out of commission, thus preventing raw materials and components from reaching the relevant factories.

After the war it became clear that strategic bombing could have ended the war much earlier had power generation facilities been the priority target (no electricity, no production), but the strategic bombers weren't smart enough to figure that out.

As Yogi Berra used to say, "You can look it up."

Studies are inconclusive about the economic effect. Or rather, the results are difficult to ascertain, and different studies have reached radically differing conclusions, usually dependent on the agenda of those running the studies.

Jeff Heidman

[pzgndr]

MPP should then be replaced by

Manpower

Industry

Transportation system

Oil

raw material (from mines)

No! Keep the game simple please. The generic, abstract MPP works fine. We can eventually tweak resource values and unit costs as the game evolves to achieve better economic balance without making the game more complicated or requiring players to micromanage resources.

[Zeres]

I agree that the American bombers should start at tech 2 and the British at tech one....Maybe that will keep my uncontrollable urge to disband the Brittish bomber at the beginning in check.Because it's friggin' useless...

[Malleus]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Studies are inconclusive about the economic effect. Or rather, the results are difficult to ascertain, and different studies have reached radically differing conclusions, usually dependent on the agenda of those running the studies.

Jeff Heidman

I have no intention of starting a stupid flamewar over this and will say no more about it, but your statements are both wrong and badly out of date.

[husky65]

Originally posted by Malleus:

Studies have shown that the Allied strategic bombing had neglible little effect on the German war effort, only seriously impacting it when transportation facilities (rail junctions, etc.) were put out of commission, thus preventing raw materials and components from reaching the relevant factories.

Wrong, as one example - Hamburgs (raided in force in July 1943 and not attacked in force again for 12 months) production never exceeded 89% of the pre-july level.

another - 64000 man hours was the B & V blueprint figure to build a submarine (Type VII I believe), because of the July 43 raids the actual time taken was in the region of 120000 hours.

After the war it became clear that strategic bombing could have ended the war much earlier had power generation facilities been the priority target (no electricity, no production), but the strategic bombers weren't smart enough to figure that out.

Hindsight is 20/20 and the strategic bombing planners were dealing with what was practical then - for much of the war 'point targets' were not an achievable goal, the state of the art did not make it possible to hit them with any reliability.

By the time it was possible, it was more important to shut down transport and oil and that is what they went for in support of the invasion.

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by Malleus:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Studies are inconclusive about the economic effect. Or rather, the results are difficult to ascertain, and different studies have reached radically differing conclusions, usually dependent on the agenda of those running the studies.

Jeff Heidman

I have no intention of starting a stupid flamewar over this and will say no more about it, but your statements are both wrong and badly out of date.</font>

[Yohan]

I agree that the American bombers should start at tech 2 and the British at tech one....Maybe that will keep my uncontrollable urge to disband the Brittish bomber at the beginning in check.Because it's friggin' useless...

It is very handy to spot and attack subs as some German players will start to build them.

[ October 17, 2002, 05:59 AM: Message edited by: Yohan ]

[Malleus]

Cine spalã capul mãgarului în zadar pierde osteneala si sãpunul.

[Melchett]

Or, in the unpretentious form...

"He that washes an ass's head loses both his lye and his labour."

Jeff has been proven wrong by the power of the obscure Italian proverb :eek:

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by Melchett:

Or, in the unpretentious form...

"He that washes an ass's head loses both his lye and his labour."

Jeff has been proven wrong by the power of the obscure Italian proverb :eek:

Bummer.

Jeff

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

I agree that the allied bomber tech levels should be raised, but that can be fixed with the editor.

cvm

[Zeres]

It is very handy to spot and attack subs as some German players will start to build them.

---------------------------------------------

I suppose but at the beginning at least I find that I'd rather have a Brittish HQ.

[JerseyJohn]

I don't think this game can accurately depict the sort of strategic bombing the U.S. & British conducted over Germany and, to a lesser degree, France.

There are interesting points on both sides of the effectiveness issue.

A lot of German manpower was tied up in anti-aircraft activity, a documentary a few months back put the figure at a million men manning AA guns. It's hard to assess this in real terms as most of them were undoubtedly Hitler Youth and returned wounded veterans or 4-Fs; but that's still a lot of manpower.

Conversely, bomber units themselves tied up a lot of manpower and materials, it's a hard call.

It's also a hard call from a morale point of view. Twenty and thirty years ago historians always cited how the Britons weathered the Blitz and the Vietnamese endured American bombing, etc. and usually claimed it hardened a nation's determination and made them fight harder. I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now. Most people will fight on and endure if their country is at war, but I can't see how it helps to have your population sleeping with bombs crashing around them and having soldiers on leave see their home and even their entire home town in ruins, not to mention dead relatives and friends!

It also tied up major Luftwaffe formations. In it's later stages Luftwaffe losses against the raids were ruinous.

There's the what if about German Jets -- had Jet Fighters been up and running in '43, etc., and of course it would have been like the early days of "Mig Alley" only seven years early. The U.S. had no jet technology and Britain's was in it's infancy, so that possibility would most likely have kept strategic bombers out of the skies altoghther -- but, of course, Hitler wanted the Jets produced in a ground attack function, setting jet fighter production back an entire year or so!

After all that I guess I should state an opinion.

Yes, I think the strategic bombing campaign was an unqualified success. I think it greatly reduced both production and morale and, even if the mass carpet bombings had only a random destructive effect while still causing irreplacable losses to the Luftwaffe, that alone would have been enough.

Both Albert Speer and Adof Galland seemed impressed by it and Speer said a few more massive Firestorms like the one on Hamburg would have brought Germany to it's knees.

I know Germany still had considerable war production even during the strategic bombing -- imagine what it would have been with factories that were more than piles of rubble? Germany had to resort to contrived methods like dividing production among numerous scattered small shops instead of centralizing it -- how could that have been seen constructively?

Add to all that the disruption of the rail and communications network mentioned by other respondants. As Carl v-M' pointed out, it even effected tactical operations as troops had to be kept nearer the anticipated landed areas and were unable to move in daylight, etc..

When America used it's B-17s directly against troops they seem to have been very effective -- St. Lo is a prime -- maybe the only -- example.

Stray bombs killed American troops ending attempts to coordinate heavy bombers with ground troops, but that was an American perspective, other countries would have ignored friendly fire casualties as long as the bombing achieved it's main purpose, which it did in spades.

Anyway, as I said before, I think most of this falls beyond the game's intention.

It's a good game, a lot of fun, but not one that can be seen as an accurate historic simulation --which is not meant as a putdown, I like SC a lot the way it is now.

I mean, doesn't it feel odd to imagine calling your production people in and saying, "We need a few battleships and an aircraft carrier, here's the magic production points, get on it and have those ships ready next week!"

A WWII game that satisfies all of us would probably be unplayable!

-----

"We are on the march!"

Mussolini announcing his Greek campaign to Hitler.

[ October 19, 2002, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]