Battle of Britain Effect

[JerseyJohn]

One of the greatest advantages the British had during the air battle over Britain was the ability to recover their own downed surviving pilots while German aircrews shot down over their teritories were captured and damaged planes could not be recovered. The British in turn suffered the reciprocal effect, along with their American Allies, later in the war when bombing occupied Europe.

I was wondering what opinions would be on air/bomber fleets incurring higher losses attacking targes on a land mass where their side does not have any territorial holdings.

This would elevate operations such as Battle of Britain type campaigns and Allied bombing missions from isolated England/Malta etc., into a new realm where they wouldn't be undertaken frivolously.

[ February 11, 2003, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[nonsuch]

This would elevate operations such as Battle of Britain type campaigns and Allied bombing missions from isolated England/Malta etc., into a new realm where they wouldn't be undertaken frivolously. [/QB]

[SeaWolf_48]

Very good point JJ about pilots bailing out over there own territory and being able to fly the next day for their country. I think it would be easy to do, but the programmers at SC are already pissed at you and me for trying to make the game more historic (there's that dreaded word).

[JerseyJohn]

SeaWolf_48

You said it! And thanks for the good word.

NonSuch

Sea Lion is only one aspect of the situation; the reverse would also be considered, British and American aircraft operating over Axis occupied Europe.

Good point about the British outproducing the Germans in fighters even while the Battle was waging. Goering, ironically, cut fighter production on the very day his fighters sufferred their highest losses. As chief of the airforce the man was inept, as was his buddy Ernst Udet. Too much party politics. Germany had too many people doing jobs others could have done better. I think Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain were the first two instances where this was shown to be true.

[ February 11, 2003, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Be careful of the conculsions you are drawing.

You may want to consider the effect radar had. It acted as a force multipler, since it allowed the smaller number of British aircraft to have some idea of where the Germans were, hence, allowing them to concentrate on that area.

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka

Radar was a double edged sword, the Germans had it as well and the Allies suffered from it when crossing the channel to fly over Europe same as the Germans did in flying over Britain.

But the point here is whether there should be heavier losses in conducting air operations for the Germans in Britain (unless they hold some of it's territory) and the British/Americans over Europe; again, unless they hold some of it's territory. The idea being to reflect the total loss of otherwise lightly damaged planes that might otherwise have been recovered and also of pilots/flight crews who bailed out over territory seperated entirely by water, where they could not be rescued.

[ February 12, 2003, 03:53 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

But the point here is whether there should be heavier losses in conducting air operations for the Germans in Britain (unless they hold some of it's territory) and the British/Americans over Europe; again, unless they hold some of it's territory. The idea being to reflect the total loss of otherwise lightly damaged planes that might otherwise have been recovered and also of pilots/flight crews who bailed out over territory seperated entirely by water, where they could not be rescued.

Does anyone have any numbers to show what effect this had on the percentage of losses? Its easy to pick out one or two things, and say that we should make changes to reflect that this happened. But it is much harder to prove that it had a significant enough effect for it to be reflected in a game or simulation.

Thats why I mentioned radar, especially because of the reference to the Battle of Britain. It was a significant factor in that it negated the purely numerical advantage the Lutfwaffe had.

[ February 12, 2003, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka

Wouldn't it be the normal procedure to agree on a concept then investigate the specific numbers. . Aside from which accurate numbers on something this specific are probably not even available. Accurate figures on total losses in general are difficult to find as different figures were posted by both sides.

It's a very simple premise based on what innumerable Axis and Allied fliers and air commanders from Adolf Galland to Hap Arnold and Bomber Harris said throughout the air war regarding the high loss rates of their missions.

Germany suffered huge losses over Britain and the inability to nurse damaged planes all the way home was a factor. Downed Luftwaffe air crews who jumped over Britain were lost for the rest of the war. That pretty much covers all the German air crews who weren’t actually killed in combat, doesn’t it?

Britain's losses over occupied Europe were so great that she abandoned day time escorted raids in formation in favor of night bombing. Except for the relatively small number who were passed back to Britain via the underground, the rest were lost to Britain for the duration of the war.

United States Bomber losses over Germany were so high that they were halted till long range fighters were introduced. And after that they were still very high. No, I do not have the stats and refuse to look them up till there's some indication the concept itself is accepted. As was the case with Britain, a relatively small number were able to return via the underground, but the overwhelming majority were POWs till the War’s end.

As stated and restated, it is not intended as a rule that specifically affects the Germans bombing England. The reverse also applies, it also affects the British bombing occupied Europe.

Your statement about radar negating the German superiority in numbers is true enough concerning the Battle of Britain but has nothing to do with the number of irretrievable losses from aircraft shot down regardless of radar’s impact.

And, as far as radar is concerned, the Germans also possessed it and on roughly the same level as Britain. As stated earlier, the British were equally foiled by it in their own runs over the Reich.

This game topic is based upon a very simple reality. Losses are heavier when there is no means of recovering aircraft and crews who would otherwise make it to friendly lines were it not for a water barrier. It’s up to Hubert to either accept the premise as significant or not and if so to decide upon a percentage that was affected. Even if it were as low as 10% of total losses, a very conservative estimate, it would still be significant.

[ February 12, 2003, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

JerseyJohn

Wouldn't it be the normal procedure to agree on a concept then investigate the specific numbers. The whole world is not made up of statisticians.

Yes. But we are talking about SC and the things we would want SC to reflect. SC cannot, nor should it attempt to reflect minor items that did not effect the overall outcome.

It's foolish to even imagine losses were not substantially heavier due to missions being flown over enemy territory without a land connection to originating bases.

I agree that losses were heavier if you didn't have the ability to recover your pilots or aircraft. I don't agree that the increase is significant enough for it to be included in SC.

Germany suffered huge losses over Britain and this was a factor.

Agree, but here is the crux of the matter. Why? What were the major reasons that allowed this to occur? If the game system reflects this without "special rules", you can recreate the Battle of Britain within SC. I know radar was one of them.

Britain's losses over occupied Europe were so great that she abandoned day time escorted raids in formation in favor of night bombing.

United States Bomber losses over Germany were so high that they were halted till long range fighters were introduced. And after that they were still very high.

As above, what were the major reasons behind this? And does SC reflect it?

It's a very simple premise based on what innumerable Axis and Allied fliers and air commanders from Adolf Galland to Hap Arnold and also on the high loss rates reported. Why complicate it. Either you agree with the idea or you don't.

Not trying to complicate, just trying to point out that wargames can only handle the major reasons. That 80/20 rule. If they can capture the 20% of the reasons that caused 80% of the effect, the system is good.

I don't like to disagree with something without offering an alternative. Nor do I like to point out a problem unless I believe there is a solution.

Hubert gets bombarded with suggestions. Even if they are valid ones, I don't think he should encourage us one way or the other. We all have different tastes, so its fun to read the different things people want.

But we do need to remember what SC is. As a game, its an elegant, simple and realistic representation of the essence of WWII. For this reason alone, it will go down as a classic. As a simulation of WWII, is where it falls short. Almost 99% of the suggestions address this. And why? Because the Germans, Russians, Americans, etc don't act the way they did historically. Address those problems without destroying what SC is, and Hubert will have a cash cow for the rest of his life.

Thats why I think its important when offering suggestions to concentrate on the one's that will capture that 80% effect. Otherwise we might as well wonder why there are not artillery units.

[Liam]

Although the Hurricane was the most prolific Fighter availabe to the British. It still was competitive with the ME109 IMHO... I have ran several simulators, and one considered the most historical for flight Models of both the ME109 and Spitfires. Of the era, models and the Spitfire is an awesome aircraft... The 109 would measure up like this

Armament------------------Spitfire

Armanent---------109 low amount of cannons then degrades further

Spitfire was faster, MUCH better turnfighter... It held it's E<energy> better than the 109. In most cases during an assualt the 109 was best used as a Quick Launch aircraft as it climbed to high alts and performed decently. Though was considered a 2nd class fighter! The Spitfire however throughout the war is considered all in all unbeatable on same alts. It has better range and short of Climb and 10 minutes of WEP vs 20 minutes in the 109 there isn't any pros for the Germans. It's one flaw would be it's durability. Though that isn't even that bad. It is such a great aircraft I believe that if I were to face any other aircraft of the War I would destroy them, and the ME262/Corsair/P51 all great craft but still not in large #s or the right places.. The 51 is also IMHO a B&Z fighter<boom & zoom> which wasn't really ideal for a Battle of Britian... When a lot of strafing at low alts was conducted. Corsair a Pac fighter sooo...and the 262 never in great #s and made a fighter bomber..

That given, I will usually take a flight in a Spitifire and bring home 2-3 kills even if aircraft is ditched from leaking oil/fuel.. wounded..

Whilst the 109 is maxed at about 1-2 kills and definitely not VS bombers or more durable craft...So I believe any exprience the Germans had was really not going to matter...esecially when your fighting for your patch of turf. You're Family is down there!

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka

You're quoting my unedited posting. After reading it I decided to bring it down a couple of notches and withdrew it altogether to work on it offline.

The revised version doesn't have significantly different views but I tried to drop the insinuation that you're knit-picking and it dropped that "you either agree with it or you don't" line. I hate that sort of statement but sometimes in first drafts things like that sneak in. Anyway, sorry my first draft, the one you reacted to, wasn't as diplomatic as the revised version.

Yes, I understand your points, that it's a matter of degree, and that's what I'm attempting to establish.

As for bombarding Hubert with suggestions, I think Hubert should be the one to judge this. If he decides he doesn't want anymore input, and that seems unlikely, it should be Hubert who comes out and says he doesn't want any more suggestions for updates and SC II. To date I haven't seen that.

Also, and I don't mean this to sound personal or harsh, but it has to be: as you make new suggestions yourself, how can you turn around and tell others that their ideas are merely an annoying waste of Hubert's time and resources?

Much as I respect your opinions and you as an individual, that sort of insinuation isn't right. I don't mean this as a put down, but it comes off as condescending and gives very bad vibes to others, almost as though they aren't entitled to offer their thoughts.

As for things being unpractical, etc., if Hubert is concerned about this he should state specific paramaters. He never has and my guess he never will because he obviously enjoys being exposed to a wide range of suggestions. Presumably he knows very well the majority of contributors know very little about progamming and glosses through things that aren't possible with his game engine or one he plans to use further down the road.

Those suggestions he doesn't want to incorporate remain exactly that -- suggestions. But I have yet to see the man write anything about people wasting his time with impossible nonsense.

[ February 12, 2003, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

Liam

Great Info. Appreciate it but what are your thoughts on the original topic? Should air units making runs from Europe against Britain and vica versa incur higher losses if their country doesn't have a foothold on the enemy side of the English Channel?

I'm getting the feeling we'll soon be dealing with Cortez, Montezum, Gehngis Kahn and the rest of our old buddies from that fantastic What-If Forum of yours. Which might not be too bad; I happen to miss them.

[kurt88]

I agree with your idea, JerseyJohn.But what would be the deciding factor?And more importantly:what could the player do to reduce this loss.I'm aware of the Gun-Laying-Radar feature,but what would you think of Ant-Aircraft units?

They could cover a certain amount of hexes,any attack on a unit,city,port or mine would then indure increased losses.Also they could only be moved by an 'operate' order at a higher cost.

[SeaWolf_48]

To Liam

Well, the Spitefire. Is this the same subject as JJ's topic?

Anyway can't resist.... The Spitefire was a great plane, but not that better than the Me-109f or g model. The spite was slower than the 109 above 10k feet, by about 25 mph. Later models of the 109 were even faster than the f and g models. Germany produced the 109 fighter thru the whole war (6 years), and the firepower of the 109 much greater. They were used to attack B-17's because of their 20mm cannons. I don't have my books with me now but I will confirm all stats tonight. Also German air tactics were also better than the british Vic formation, which they changed later in 1941 to the german four finger or lose duce formation. The german fighters would have done much better if they would have had drop tanks, which they did recieve later.

I've read a lot on this subject, both german and american writers (and some British), about which plane, which tactics, which training was the best.

Here it becomes subjective....

Best plane P-51D most kills for fighter, longest range, fastest speed. Best fighter in Europe with good tactics.

Best tactics, German, adapted by the US

Best training, USAAF pilot had 500 hours of training before combat, T-38 one of the best trainers.

Best fighter arm during the war, US Navy (Marine) fighter formations. Navy pilots are the best, learning to land on a carrier weeds out the weak.

Both the F-4u and F-6F with navy tactics and training would be hard to beat.

However the most german fighters shot down was not by a fighter, but the B-17.

[Liam]

The later versions of the 109 were improved but I'd like to see your figures on armament. The Spitfires were also diverse, with their various MKs series... I agree... However what was available during the BOB? The Merlin was more powerful than the Daimler Benz

I don't think that there should be a huge penalty for attacking over enemy territory... as your not penalizing other much more valid subjects..

[JerseyJohn]

Kurt

There wouldn't be any way of reducing the loss rate; it's only a matter of adding additional losses to air units fighting over territory where their downed pilots could not be recovered and where planes that otherwise might be salvaged are totally lost.

Liam

It isn't just a matter of fighting over enemy territory but enemy territory not connected by land. In other words, Germans over Britain and British/Americans over occupied Europe.

What it would amount to is, let's say an eleven point German fighter unit in 1940 conducts an attack from France to Britain and would lose 4 pts and instead he loses 5 representing additional losses for those who could not make it back. The same example only reversed would apply for Brits/Americans flying from Britain over France, Low Countries or Germany.

The effect sounds minor, but in cases where four or five airfleets are involved the results would be significant.

There would be no way to reduce or eliminate it except to establish a foothold on the enemies territory. It would need to be a minimum size, and that would allow damaged planes to make it safely to friendly lines.

[ February 12, 2003, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Liam]

Ahistorical maybe but when you give the Allies the ability to invade the Low Countries or prematurely Italy. Noone knows exactly for certian how the rest of the World would react to such actions. I think more thought should be given to them. Although, it's easy to lose good officers over enemy airspace! They're hard to replace...Expensive to train and in the German's case<a big contribution to their failure to stop Allied strategic bombing>....Many losses in Britian, lack of pilots towards the end of the war.. I would like a figure on how many German Officers<aces even> were in POW camps in Britian or N.Africa by 1943

[JerseyJohn]

Liam

We went through the numbers bit a few postings before your entry on the fighter planes!

[ February 12, 2003, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

I am hereby disassociating myself from this topic. Others should feel free to do with it as they may or can ignore it entirely. I'm going to put my time to more productive use, like watching some TV instead of wasting more of it on this dead end.

[ February 12, 2003, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

JerseyJohn

For future reference, feel free to say anything anyway you want to me. It won't bother me.

As for bombarding Hubert with suggestions, I think Hubert should be the one to judge this. If he decides he doesn't want anymore input, and that seems unlikely, it should be Hubert who comes out and says he doesn't want any more suggestions for updates and SC II. To date I haven't seen that.

I don't remember suggesting anywhere that we shouldn't be making suggestions to Hubert. I believe it was my statement that we should give some more thought to the type of suggestions that we offer to Hubert.

as you make new suggestions yourself, how can you turn around and tell others that their ideas are merely an annoying waste of Hubert's time and resources?

Maybe I should preface everything with "in my opinon". I have no illusions about being a diplomat. When I read suggestions that are good, I say so. When I read those that are frivolous, I say so. Maybe I can phrase my response in a nicer way, but the results would still be the same.

Much as I respect your opinions and you as an individual, that sort of insinuation isn't right. I don't mean this as a put down, but it comes off as condescending and gives very bad vibes to others, almost as though they aren't entitled to offer their thoughts.

Maybe this is another of those issues on how we view things. Criticism of an idea is not a criticism of the person or there self-worth. Its just a viewpoint on thier thoughts. Maybe I do come off as condescending when I respond to posts. Not my intent. Rather, I try to explain why I feel the suggestion should not be used. Not trying to show superior knowledge. Just trying to point out the why.

As for things being unpractical, etc., ...

I have yet to see the man write anything about people wasting his time with impossible nonsense.

We both agree. Everyone should suggest whatever they feel is important to them. Hubert can decide on what is important to him. But if there are impratical ideas, it should be pointed out.

Its like the issue with the map size in SC. It has been pointed out that the map size is a limitation of the software. So when someone suggests it be increased, we, not Hubert, should point out that it cannot be done in SC.

[Liam]

I don't like to hear the "words" can't be done. That's a defeatist attitude. The figures I mentioned aren't very concrete and are a bit superflous in respect to 'other things'

If you don't wish to make a vast improvement to a SC2 or an update then don't. Though there should be little reason to produce such a product if you aren't willing to examine all the possibilities. I think what John was attempting to get at in this, was penalties for attacking nations to prevent invasions from being a fly bye. When in reality the German shortcommings in planning and in actual ability with their fighter & bomber aircraft would've made the Invasion of Britian a very farfetched wish.

They had obsolete aircraft, they had 20 miles of treacherous seas..Also if not the largest, one of the finest navies in all of history to destroy before she could deal with the Poorly equiped British land forces.

The RAF is legendary, it should be represented as such... The Luftwaffe has a notorious history as well, but relatively the high bomber losses on the Allied side was only due to experimental strategic bombing which isn't really covered in this game. For instance if a Corps is over a city, you cannot default to hit the MPPs of the city you're going to auto-attack the Unit. Which is Extremely off, as even Axis & Allies a board game offers you that option.

I like this game, I could love this game. You need to advance it... I've played wargames 60% of my life and I know my wargames... From the text only/board wargames/and to the modern high tech... Which I also use quite often... Playability, practicality, etc... are important

but detail is what draws the diehards!

DETAIL

[Shaka of Carthage]

Liam

So in SC terms what I am hearing? Do you belive that the UK Air units should start off with a higher tech and/or experience level than the Luftwaffe? I was suggesting that the Luftwaffe (actually all German units) start with two (2) experience bars to represent the better training and leadership. My viewpoint is more ground oriented. So do you feel that the Britsh Air unit(s) should start off with three (3) experience bars? (ie superior to Luftwaffe).

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka

I understand better now what your comments were directed at. They had me more puzzled than anything else; I never felt you were trying to be condescending or anything along those lines, it was just the message as I read it that caused the bewilderment.

Much of which stems from the fact that many of us, myself included, do not have a clear idea of what suggestions do or don't make sense in programming terms. What's more, we don't know how SC II will vary from SC or even if it will involve the same game engine, so all suggestions are only a shot in the dark.

I'd intended this topic to be a simple issue, more in the vein of a simple adjustment, something like "...if no land connection to friendly units +1 loss point" . As I said earlier this is not important for individual air fleets but would be significant when several are involved in a single action conforming into these conditions. It was never intended to be a big issue, only a thought.

Dissenting opinions are good. Constant mutual agreement never results in anything.

Well, I got to watch some TV, which was okay but the damn thing never responded to any of my questions. Very frustrating.

[ February 12, 2003, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

Liam

As always very interesting information and views. But what I'm asking about is really much simpler than any of that, just whether or not air units operating with no land connection to their own lines ought to incur heavier losses than those that have such a connection. The idea being, generally speaking, air crews who jump over enemy territory might make it back to their own lines normally but definitely won't make it back if there's a large body of water between themselves and friendly units.

To me it would be a matter of adding one loss point to such units. The purpose of this is to make it more difficult to simply line up a bunch of airfleets and decimate targets with no return path receiving normal casualties. I think this sort of penalty is valid and needed.

Too often Sea Lion succeeds because British units cannot hold defensive positions in Southern England due to an unrealistically large Luftwaffe hitting them with reckless abandon. At least this way an attacking air unit of 11 would have one loss point added by interceptors and another from ground fire, leaving it seriously weakened and needing to be reinforced the following turn instead of making another attack. This at least gives the defenders a fighting chance.

Invasions can be launched regardless of the season and Germany triumphant in France in June can batter Britain from the air till January, then somehow launch a winter invasion across the English Channel and North Sea. Impossible. Something has be used as an equalizer somewhere.

A similar case can be made regarding Malta. The aircraft there were intended to defend the island, which was primarily a sub base. But in the game that airfleet makes attacks against Sicily and Tripoli with impunity. Highly unlikely for the reasons stated all throughout this topic.

[Jim Boggs]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Dissenting opinions are good. Constant mutual agreement never results in anything.

Jersey John, My Old Friend:

Relax! Be Well!

[Edit]-BTW, here's some inside info. Save it and use it to your advantage one day, but don't TELL A SOUL. I've played Civ3 and Shaka is not from Carthage. He's from ZULULAND!!!!!!

[ February 12, 2003, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: Jim Boggs ]