Have you ever survived the war??

[Dominicrigg]

I was just thinking today, in all the games i have had, simulating the pacific campaign and the atlantic I have never survived the war.

I always play "realistically" so if i get killed or captured then i start again, and though i have come close a few times i have never actually survived!! Always record numbers of tonnage (into 100,000 some missions lol) but always high risk.

I think that is one of the challenges i will have to give myself for sh3, and be more cautious about sinking shipping!!!

Anyone here master of evasion and managed to survive?

[bertgang]

Playing AoD campaigns, I survived the war two times, as follows:

1) abandoning an heavyly damaged sub (survived as POW)
2) accepting a land duty (survived as flotilla's commander)

In both cases, that happened during 1941

Never had great success, nor survived, in following years.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dominicrigg:
I was just thinking today, in all the games i have had, simulating the pacific campaign and the atlantic I have never survived the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Usually simulations have simulated the chances of survival very poorly indeed. Survivability is not generally regarded as an important aspect of a simulation (possibly because the people who make simulations think that sim fans are just in it for arcade-style excitement), which is why I've spent most of my game time fixing such inconsistencies in unofficial 'realism' mods (because I think sim fans appreciate more than just short-term thrills - I think sim players are mature enough to get a bigger thrill from a realistic simulation experience even if that means it's not always as exciting as Doom or Half-Life).

I hope SH3 will be different, so that I don't have to make a mod to scale down its difficulty so that it's possible to survive a tour of duty (which, by the way, was never the entire war - this needs to be simulated too).

The worst sims in this regard are the IL-2 series. They are horribly unrealistic in terms of survivability. I would estimate that the game makes WW2 air combat appear more than ten times as deadly as it actually was.

These days, when aspects such as crew management are simulated, it's very frustrating when a game doesn't allow you to survive long enough to manage the crew effectively. This was a big problem with B-17 II: one of the game's major features was effectively negated by a poorly balanced survivability quotient.

[Messervy]

After you (Beeryus) told me about IL2, I started a career as a Finnish pilot offcourse. I am still learning the tricks but I managed to survive 3 three missions so far. No kills, most of the time I am lost in space and only here and there I get to see "Ivan".
So far I find it very realistic since I am a rookie.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Messervy:
After you (Beeryus) told me about IL2, I started a career as a Finnish pilot offcourse. I am still learning the tricks but I managed to survive 3 three missions so far. No kills, most of the time I am lost in space and only here and there I get to see "Ivan".
So far I find it very realistic since I am a rookie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just don't go near any anti-aircraft guns - they're about 100 times more accurate than the real thing. And never ever attack ships - I don't care if you're ordered to. If you want to survive, don't even go near an enemy ship.

The Finnish campaign is the best. I rarely played any other campaign.

[blue_76]

yes, a few hits by depth charges and a red screen.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif wasn't my idea of realism.. most uboats were capable of taking on much more damage from depth charges.. SH2 was notorious for that, tune up realistic damage to 100% and u'll see what i mean http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif i know that uboats suffered heavy casualties during WW2.. but what good is a sim when u don't stand a chance of survival at all?
i also never survived till the end of the war, because i preffer full realism and start over if i die.
the movie 'das boot' gives u a pretty good idea how a typical depth charge attacks were. not all uboats were the same, some were better built than others.. some could take more damage, but most could take more than a few hits i think.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by blue_76:
yes, a few hits by depth charges and a red screen.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif wasn't my idea of realism... what good is a sim when u don't stand a chance of survival at all? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I completely agree. Survivability should be modelled so that the sim is balanced to give a crew a realistic chance (i.e. 25%) of surviving the war. Of course that doesn't mean that the game should do the electronic equivalent of flipping a coin, but there are ways of balancing weapon effectiveness and damage tolerances so that subs can survive as well as they really did.

I've read about subs surviving 300 or more depth charges. They had to get the charge really close to the sub in order to do damage, so most charges did nothing more than make noise. Basically, in 1939 to 1942, U-Boats shouldn't be much bothered by destroyer attacks, whereas after that, the tide should turn (because of the Allied technological advantage) and it should be hard to survive even one patrol. It will be interesting to see how well the developers create this balance.

[HeibgesU999]

I know a lot of folks say the DD's in sh2 were to accurate, but if you took evasive manuevers they almost never hit you.

As soon as the DC's drop if you go to flank speed, change course, and depth, just like they did in real life, I guarantee they will not get you more than 5% or the time.

But if you stay at silent running, don't change course, and don't change speed, you are dead meat.

imho, the dc dropping AI was the best thing about sh2.

and it is very possible to lose the dd's also, once they are dropping on you.

[Dominicrigg]

Mmm i think the games are pretty spot on for survivabilty.

I mean i used to survive years, if not months, and in real life there are very few instances of people surviving the war as u-boat captains.


As for sturmavik i would say the same again, im playing it now, and my last game i made 13 missions with 8 kills and 4 ground hits before i was made pow for ejecting over balaclava http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Again i think its very accurate, you know to be an ace was 5 kills, and not many people made it near 5 kills.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dominicrigg:
Mmm i think the games are pretty spot on for survivabilty. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You think that and you've played IL-2? The survival rate for that game is about two weeks, whereas the actual average survival rate for a WW2 pilot was around 3 years.

All current flight sim games overstate casualties by a factor of at least ten: it's almost like a rule. War simply wasn't as deadly as most current wargames portray it. If it was, most nations would run out of people and equipment within months. All you have to do in order to see this is to look at the facts and figures. War is brutal and deadly, sure, but games based on war are positively suicidal. If I had to stake my life on the results of a war-based simulation or be in any of the wars that such games simulate, I'd go to war - no question it's FAR safer.

Look at B-17 II for example. In real life, two out of every three 8th Air Force crews survived a tour; yet in the game it's virtually impossible to survive. The odds are stacked so high against you that the average crew survives around 4 missions. That's about 5% of the real length of time that a crew could expect to survive.

No simulation that I know of that was built in the last 20 years has had a realistic possibility of survival. None of them even get close. U-Boat sims come closest simply because the real survival rate was so low.

[Lanzfeld]

Well part of the attraction of seeing your crew in SH-3 is maybe you won't take as many chances as you would just playing a "game". You will learn to like these guys and you will use your head more......maybe??? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[Dominicrigg]

Well im not sure i agree with you, B-17's problem (i only played the first) is the shoddy flying ai. It will in most cases crash the plane when its still flyable. If you take over you will survive a lot longer, you just have to be willing to take the pilots seat and fly for a few hours...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A standard tour for a heavy bomber crew was 25 combat missions; however, most didn't make it half way. After the U.S. Army Air Forces gained air superiority, the magic number was raised to 30 and then 35 missions. Aircrew members completing their tour were inducted into the "Lucky Bastards Club."

On May 17, 1943, Maj. Robert K. Morgan and his crew joined this exclusive club first, and were sent home. Morgan piloted a B-17 called the "Memphis Belle," and its crew's story became the basis for a film documentary and more recently a major Hollywood motion picture.

"The combat scenes in the new movie were very accurate and believable, but the way the crew acted wasn't," said Morgan, now 78. "They weren't very professional. We were all business.

"We were all very young guys, and the odds of surviving weren't very good. This was before we started receiving fighter escorts, so the chances of buying the farm were high," said Morgan, who was assigned to the 91st Bomb Group at Bassingbourn. "There weren't any milk runs or easy missions. We were very fortunate to come back every time.

"I lost my right and left wingmen a couple of times," said the retired colonel who now lives in North Carolina. "After that you start asking yourself 'Why me? Why did I come back and not them?' There has to be some reason or you were just **** lucky." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As for fighter command again i dont think survivability was that high, i cant find any stats at the moment though but your chances of surviving the war would be very low if you got in on the action. You could (and can in sturmovik) fly like the red baron and you will survive a long time, ive tried it.

Red baron used to stay high and let his men fight, and zoom down and take out easy targets or damaged planes. Then zoom back up to safety high again. This can be done with faster prop planes of ww2 also and if you stay safe and keep looking round you can last a long time in sturmovik! (long time being 20 missions + lol)

Its a fine balance really and i think they do a cool job in most games, again cant comment on sh1 and 2 but in aces of the deep it was very good for survivability.

[marky1984]

i never got to play the original silent hunter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif - BIG disappointment http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

they shoulda made it in a windows version and not stupid dos

my copy of SH2 was recently cracked and is beyond repair, and its not quite in my budget yet to replace it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[bertgang]

I believe that the possible wrong side of susims (AoD included) isn't exactly the surivability factor, as Beeryus said, but something more related to the encounter system of the games.

Unlike real submariners, I never had the experience of a totally uneventful patrol, where you burn all your fuel spotting nothing at all; I always had some target to sink by torpedoes or gunfire, taking my risks to be successfull.

That's fine to have interesting combat experiences, and to become a decorated ace in short time, but obiouvsly it increases too your exposure to dangers.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dominicrigg:
Well im not sure i agree with you, B-17's problem (i only played the first) is the shoddy flying ai. It will in most cases crash the plane when its still flyable. If you take over you will survive a lot longer, you just have to be willing to take the pilots seat and fly for a few hours... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AI is only one problem. It makes survivability significantly worse, but it only represents about a quarter of the problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A standard tour for a heavy bomber crew was 25 combat missions; however, most didn't make it half way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's simply not true. 2/3 of all 8th Air Force combat crews survived a tour. I've studied this intensely. The facts are readily available.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"After the U.S. Army Air Forces gained air superiority, the magic number was raised to 30 and then 35 missions. Aircrew members completing their tour were inducted into the "Lucky Bastards Club." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But that means very little. The Lucky Bastards Club is merely a name that implies that a person was lucky to survive a tour. That is true - 1/3 of crews were unlucky.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>On May 17, 1943, Maj. Robert K. Morgan and his crew joined this exclusive club first, and were sent home. Morgan piloted a B-17 called the "Memphis Belle," and its crew's story became the basis for a film documentary and more recently a major Hollywood motion picture. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, this says nothing. Memphis Belle was probably one of the first B-17s to fly combat missions in Europe. Its survival was most likely a matter of being at the front of the line and in the lucky 66%.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"We were all very young guys, and the odds of surviving weren't very good. This was before we started receiving fighter escorts, so the chances of buying the farm were high," <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is subjective. He doesn't tell us what 'high' means. High might mean 99%, it might mean 20%. In fact, over the whole war it was 33%. In our modern life, we all have about a 1 in 4 chance (25%) of dying from cancer. That may seem low on the face of it, but it's too darned high for my liking. A low percentage chance suddenly seems too high when it's hanging over your head as an imminent threat, as it was for combat aircrews.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"There weren't any milk runs or easy missions. We were very fortunate to come back every time." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course they were. But that doesn't mean that every mission resulted in casualties. The potential for death existed - that's what he's saying.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As for fighter command again i dont think survivability was that high, i cant find any stats at the moment though but your chances of surviving the war would be very low if you got in on the action. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chances of survival in fighter combat over the whole war were around 50%. Again, the words 'low survivability' are meaningless. Who knows what precisely those words mean. Russian pilots probably had a much worse survivability chance than German pilots, but if we are to discuss this matter, feelings about survivability and vague and undefined words like 'lucky', 'low' or 'high' mean nothing. We need facts. We need to take a B-17 squadron, or a Russian fighter squadron, and track every mission it took part in, and look at the figures. Without the facts there is only conjecture, and that's likely to be way off. Find the facts for yourself. I've looked them up myself, but all I can do is tell you what I've found. Clearly you don't believe me, but you can't know the truth unless you look into it properly. All you have is your opinion based on vague words like 'high' and 'luck' read in books written by people who had an incentive to make their experience seem exciting and death-defying (because mere words never explain the excitement of it so you have to exaggerate). Their experience was all these things, but that doesn't tell us exactly HOW death-defying it was, and that's what we need to find out for the purposes of this discussion.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You could (and can in sturmovik) fly like the red baron and you will survive a long time, ive tried it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So have I. But even when flying VERY carefully it's almost impossible to survive the war. I would say the chances are worse than 9 to 1 against surviving in the game, yet many pilots (around 50% of all combat pilots) did it in reality.

You seem to be basing your argument on feelings about how dangerous combat flying 'should be' rather than on statistics showing how dangerous it actually was. My argument is based on stats. I've examined every combat flight of the 8th Air Force, and stats for the Battle of Britain. War flying was dangerous (30 to 50% were killed), but that doesn't mean it was the suicide that today's games make it out to be.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bertgang:
Unlike real submariners, I never had the experience of a totally uneventful patrol, where you burn all your fuel spotting nothing at all; I always had some target to sink by torpedoes or gunfire, taking my risks to be successfull. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Real U-Boat crews only rarely had uneventful patrols (perhaps 2 out of 10 missions were uneventful). In AoD I had the occasional uneventful patrol. But in SH2 I think it's impossible to have such no-contact missions.

I agree that uneventful patrols should be modelled, if only by skipping them with a note telling you that a patrol was uneventful, and updating your calendar to reflect the time spent.

[Yarrick_]

Above all that, in the first posts, someone says things about the DD and the depth charges and so on... and I say: who cares? The problem are the **** planes! Specially from 1943-1944. THe AA guns are not enough, they have great advantage over you, and if you can't detect them and dive...
In fact, +-55% of the boats were sunked by planes. Maybe more, I think. The fact is that the destroyers seem no big problem for me.

Think that: destroyers had not the technology to fight you effectively in 1939-41 and were changed by smaller escorts from then, navigated by rookie sailors. Destroyers maybe were keep for valuable targets, such as battleships / troop transports, while the cargo ships were protected by the escorts, and they do not seem a big problem for me. Maybe a U-boat can even win some of them in a surface engagement, with a good deck gun team.

Bereyus, I think that people have a chance of 1 to 3 to get Cancer in their life, but where do you find that one of every 4 people would die of it? I think that this is too high!

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yarrick_:
Above all that, in the first posts, someone says things about the DD and the depth charges and so on... and I say: who cares? The problem are the **** planes! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is true. However, depth charges were used effectively - not to kill subs, but to keep them underwater until they were forced to surface and scuttle. Unfortunately, depth charges have never been used in this way in a game. Their effects are always overmodelled and are often the major factor in destroying subs in sub games.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Bereyus, I think that people have a chance of 1 to 3 to get Cancer in their life, but where do you find that one of every 4 people would die of it? I think that this is too high! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a long time since I read that statistic. I could be remembering it wrongly. My point was to say that however 'low' a statistic is (10%, 20% etc.), it's always way too darned high if you're under its threat. Personally, my ideal death would be an instantaneous squashing with no advance notice. Anything that is more likely than that to kill me contains too much risk, no matter how small the odds. I would prefer that instantaneous squashing was the number one cause of death, but I don't think it's going to happen unless an enormous (and very dark-coloured) meteor is headed our way - and knowing my luck, I'd be completely on the other side of the planet when it hit.

[Dominicrigg]

I really cant be arsed to argue with you since im going to bed, and wasnt really looking for an argument. But since your point holds no water for me and you seem unwilling to back it up with evidence as i have done then i will ignore it for now.

Good to know that my points are "opinion based on vague words" and yours are solid gold correct (with no evidence just what seems similarly like conjecture).

I never claimed to know the stats for air war, but did make a small effort to find some evidence, guess they must teach ****e history in England! (thats why american war movies make no sense!!) We will have to agree to disagree again on this one!

ps some more made up history for you
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
18 Dec 1939 - Twelve out of twenty four Wellington bombers are shot down by German fighters during an attack on German warships at Wilhelmshaven. The aircraft were detected by two experimental German radar installations which then guided enemy fighters to the area. After this, daylight RAF raids on Germany are suspended and crews trained in night flying.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Thirty-three RAF Blenheims attack German forces in Holland, losing 3 aircraft in the process. Later that day, 32 Battles attempt to attack enemy columns advancing through Luxembourg; 13 are lost to anti-aircraft fire and a further 10 shot down by fighters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 11 May 1940 - Seven out of eight Battles fail to return from an attack on enemy forces in Luxembourg. No. 114 Sqn's Blenheims are annihilated on the ground in a low-level German raid.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 12 May 1940 - In an attack on the Maas bridges, four out of five Battles are shot down. Fg Off Garland and Sgt Gray are later posthumously awarded the first air VCs of the War.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>14 May 1940 - German forces break through the French front at Sedan. All remaining RAF Battles and Blenheims are ordered to attack pontoon bridges and troops in the area. Out of 71 aircraft, 39 are shot down - the highest loss in an operation of this size ever sustained by the RAF. A Luftwaffe raid on Rotterdam city centre by 57 He111s results in 814 civilian casualties and causes a massive outcry from neutral countries. Whilst the bombers were en route a delegation from the Dutch government was preparing to discuss surrender terms, but the attempt to call off the bombing by German commanders was only partially successful.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like that one also highlights bombing of civilians for no real reason. Though many here claim Germany "did it by accident to london". Though i know it is so with such history the claims ring hollow.

Dont want to be biased so i even put one here for your argument since you provided no evidence just flowery words

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 15 May 1940 - After a week of heavy fighting, the Dutch Army finally capitulates at 11 am. By nightfall, the RAF in France had lost 205 aircraft, including 86 two-seat Fairey Battles. During the night, RAF Bomber Command's air offensive against Germany begins - 99 aircraft attack industrial targets in the Ruhr. No aircraft are lost through enemy action.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Everyone got home!!

Ohh poop, we are back to bad news again though...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 17 May 1940 - Twelve Blenheims attack enemy tanks and troops near Gembloux. Ten are shot down by fighters and one by ground fire.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would carry on but i really need to get to bed, early start tommorow!

[Farside498]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:

Look at B-17 II for example. In real life, two out of every three 8th Air Force crews survived a tour; yet in the game it's virtually impossible to survive. The odds are stacked so high against you that the average crew survives around 4 missions. That's about 5% of the real length of time that a crew could expect to survive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, not entirely true mate, at the moment i have a savegame which has a bomber which has survived 24 missions, the crew, all alive only injured. i have it on medium-hard, cant remember as i dont have it installed, i'd gladly send you the savegames i have so you can see for yourself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dominicrigg:
But since your point holds no water for me and you seem unwilling to back it up with evidence as i have done then i will ignore it for now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see how your points can be 'backed up by evidence' when you yourself point out that you haven't even looked at a single statistic. At least I have studied the statistics. Sure, I'm not posting links here because my studies were done 2 years ago. To claim that your unwillingness to investigate is worth as much as a real investigation I carried out is nonsense. Besides, I'm not asking you to take my word for it. What I am asking of you is that you find out the facts before you claim your ignorance represents the truth. You're unwilling to do that, so why should I dig for facts and quotes that you probably won't be swayed by? Your argument is based on blind faith in a certain level of survivability that never existed in reality because it is completely manufactured by your mind.

And if you can't understand that the quotes you've used are absolutely useless as a gauge of real crew losses, there's not much point in discussing this matter any futher.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dominicrigg:
Dont want to be biased so i even put one here for your argument since you provided no evidence just flowery words

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 15 May 1940 - After a week of heavy fighting, the Dutch Army finally capitulates at 11 am. By nightfall, the RAF in France had lost 205 aircraft, including 86 two-seat Fairey Battles. During the night, RAF Bomber Command's air offensive against Germany begins - 99 aircraft attack industrial targets in the Ruhr. No aircraft are lost through enemy action.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Everyone got home!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Single examples, or examples of single days, or single actions, no matter whose argument they support, are always inconclusive and are never usually representative. I could be hit by a meteorite tomorrow, but it doesn't mean that the same will happen to everyone else. My experience is by its very nature subjective, and what we have to find when we're balancing a simulation is an objective reality around which to base a bell curve which encompasses all experiences. You have to do a wider study if you are to find facts that mean something in reference to the question at hand.

[Dominicrigg]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Your argument is based on blind faith in a certain level of survivability that never existed in reality because it is completely manufactured by your mind.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

rofl your priceless!!!

I still dont see any quotes, and the way you dismiss my facts is very skillfull... (or maybe just didnt see them...)

ps i said i never claimed to know the stats
how in the world does that change to

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>when you yourself point out that you haven't even looked at a single statistic <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If your recolection of a convo you read 2 seconds ago is so hazy maybe, just maybe the stats you read from 2 years ago are also a bit out?

Doh!! Anyway really to bed now, night!!

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dominicrigg:
rofl your priceless!!!

I still dont see any quotes, and the way you dismiss my facts is very skillfull... (or maybe just didnt see them...) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man, I am not going to try to explain to you any more why your facts are not representative, and I certainly am not going to take lessons in scientific evaluation methodology from you when you've displayed no ability to use such methodology yourself.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Farside498:
Ah, not entirely true mate, at the moment i have a savegame which has a bomber which has survived 24 missions, the crew, all alive only injured. i have it on medium-hard, cant remember as i dont have it installed, i'd gladly send you the savegames i have so you can see for yourself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, a single example is not necessarily representative. This is crucial to understanding the problem.

Even in a virtually suicidal sim, individual players will get the occasional result that defies the norm - that is the essence of a bell curve. The question is not whether it ever happens (the law of probability states that it HAS TO HAPPEN occasionally). The question is, does it happen regularly? If 2 out of every three of your campaigns result in a live crew retiring after 25 missions, then I'm wrong and the sim is well-balanced. But I doubt that you have had that experience. In fact I'll go further: I think it is virtually impossible for any player to have had that experience. The game is so unbalanced that it is a virtual impossibility for a player to run a series of campaigns that are representative of the reality of crew losses.

[mlody111]

I really dont want to get into this heated debate, but I really must say just this.

Why dont you honor us with your extensive study (if you remember it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif) instead of just claiming you have done this. You are making these accusations, Beeryus. So it is you who has to provide proof otherwise.

BTW: What Does grammer have anything to do with this? I enjoy reading extremely long run on sentences, Beeryus.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mlody111:
Why dont you honor us with your extensive study (if you remember it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif) instead of just claiming you have done this. You are making these accusations, Beeryus. So it is you who has to provide proof otherwise. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HE'S making the accusations - HIM - NOT ME! I came up with the bloody numbers in the first place. HE is questioning them, but he has no numbers to back up his belief. I agree that those who make accusations have the burden of proof, but that person is Dominicrigg. He needs to come up with the proof to back his accusations up.

I'm merely demanding that if people want to discuss this issue, they should at least be willing to look for hard and measurable facts rather than ignoring such things and instead pretending that individual subjective (also vague and non-measurable) war stories are representative of the overall experience of combat flying in the 8th Air Force. I'm not sure why demanding that we talk in terms of hard facts should be so controversial or distasteful. If we don't use facts we may as well be living in the dark ages, using gut feelings and superstition rather than reason, visiting witch doctors, and smearing bat droppings on our head to prevent baldness.

I don't have anything at hand that relates to the study I did, except for my memory of it. I don't tend to keep notes around the house relating to studies I do on the games I play. I can show a link to the patch I made for the game, and I can direct you to books that I found useful, but that's about it. Those who have used my patches can tell you how effective and realistic they are, but I don't keep a list of those people either. My point is not that I have better facts. My point is only that I have at one time looked at them. My opponents in this discussion, on the other hand, seem to sneer at the very idea of research. Why should I be the only one with the burden of proof? Surely anyone can see that they have that same burden. It's incredible to me that it's easier for some people to believe a person who cites meaningless war stories, and who himself admits that he hasn't seen statistics, over someone who has done actual hard research. You shouldn't be placing all the onus on me. You should believe NEITHER person. If you're at all interested in the truth, you need to look up the facts yourself and check BOTH of our assertions out. I say that close to 66% of 8th Air Force combat aircrew survived their first tour, while Dominic says that many more died. Heck, even his assertion is vague because he doesn't have a clue what the figures are. But don't take my word for it: look it up! It can't be very difficult to find some source for this.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BTW: What Does grammer have anything to do with this? I enjoy reading extremely long run on sentences, Beeryus. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've removed those references because in retrospect I think they were a bit unfair.

[Beeryus]

Here's a link to 8th Air Force losses:

http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8aflosses.shtml

Look down the list of aircraft losses from the various bomb groups. The HEAVIEST losses for any bomb group are around one plane for every two missions flown. That translates to a casualty rate of somewhere around 50% per tour (higher than my figure of 33% but don't forget these are only the units that sustained heavy losses). Think about that. Only one plane lost out of an entire bomb group every two missions - and those figures represent units that took HEAVY losses. In B-17 II if you get one bomber lost on a mission you've had a very very lucky day. Most missions involve two or three bombers shot down (and that's just out of the six planes around you at your height level - meaning it doesn't take into account the low and high groups). Thus the game ROUTINELY overstates losses by a large factor ( at least 4 to 6) compared to the WORST average historical bomb group losses.

Now look at the heaviest losses per raid. The Stuttgart mission had the heaviest losses (the Ploesti raid doesn't count because it was a low-level raid so there were no B-17s involved). 17% of bombers that went out didn't come back. In the game that translates to one out of every six planes not returning from the heaviest mission of the war - the worst mission ever. So we can see quite easily from this that the game ROUTINELY exaggerates losses EVEN OVER THE WORST HISTORICAL MISSION by a factor of two or three.

Remember these are comparisons with the worst historical missions. Let's look at the other side of the coin. Look down the list again. The groups with the lightest losses had one plane (out of an entire bomb group) lost for every five missions. That means that in the course of a single plane's 25-mission tour, a grand total of 5 planes (on average) would be lost (a loss rate of around 20% per tour - lower than my figure of 33%). In the game B-17 II it's not unusual to see 5 planes lost in a single mission. However, we'll take the more conservative 2 to 3 planes lost per mission. Thus, we find that the game overstates losses versus the lightest historical casualty rates by a factor of around 10 to 15.

Like I said, the facts are readily available to anyone who bothers to look for them. I simply typed "8th Air Force statistics" and entered a search. I've never visited that particular website before, but there are the facts, a mouse-click away. Nevertheless, I don't expect DominicRigg to believe me - he has his war stories and they give him a vague undefinable feeling that the losses were far worse than the mere facts show, and he thinks he can take that to the bank.

[bertgang]

Really interesting statistics; maybe each single mission was less dangerous than we usually think.

On the other hand, other statitics show that - during the whole war - some units suffered casualtyes over 150% their force; a thing possible when an unit, slowly annihilated, was rebuilt using remplacements.

If that is true, as often was for infantry, the survival rate for single men wasn't so high as it could seem.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bertgang:
Really interesting statistics; maybe each single mission was less dangerous than we usually think.

On the other hand, other statitics show that - during the whole war - some units suffered casualtyes over 150% their force; a thing possible when an unit, slowly annihilated, was rebuilt using remplacements.

If that is true, as often was for infantry, the survival rate for single men wasn't so high as it could seem. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The death rate for crew, as I recall, was lower than for aircraft. I think aircraft losses were around 44% per tour for the 8th Air Force B-17s (again, you can check it on that website), whereas crew losses (as I said in various posts above) were around 33%.

The statistics I've mentioned above take into account all aircraft - replacements too. Some units lost well over 150% of their force during the war (the 91st Bomb Group lost 197 planes, but that still only translates to a loss rate of just over one aircraft every two missions). You would only have to endure those kinds of losses for 50 missions to lose your entire complement of 24+ aircraft and some groups flew over 300 missions). The point is, crews were not forced to fly throughout the war. Their responsibility was only 25 to 35 missions. That's how so many survived - because over 25 to 35 missions the chances of survival were about 66%.

The "casualties over 150% their force" figure is misleading because it suggests that losses must have been huge. But what it fails to take into account is that over the long term, 150% of your force isn't a lot. Sure, if you only have 25 aircraft and you lose 37 over the course of the war, that seems like a lot, but when you consider the total planes including replacements (which in this case would be 62 - that's 25 plus 37) it's just over half. Plus, you have to take into account the fact that crews are rotating into and out of combat, so they're not flying the 40+ missions they would need to fly in order to give themselves a better than even chance to die. A plane might carry two or three crews, and might do two or three tours, before it gets shot down.

[bertgang]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
The point is, crews were not forced to fly throughout the war. Their responsibility was only 25 to 35 missions. That's how so many survived - because over 25 to 35 missions the chances of survival were about 66%. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, at it seems, the best way to survive the war was retirement, when possible.

An option, maybe, for outstanding veterans, but a forced choice for lot of men phisically or mentally unable to continue the fight.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bertgang:
An option, maybe, for outstanding veterans, but a forced choice for lot of men phisically or mentally unable to continue the fight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure if airmen were automatically allowed to do a second tour if they wanted to. I think they had to request it. After you did a tour you were considered to have done your duty. I don't think anyone was forced to do another tour - I may be wrong, but that's the impression I get.

[Beeryus]

This discussion reminds me of the scene in the movie Memphis Belle when (I think it's the navigator) is calculating the odds of survival when the pilot decides to go around. He crosses out his earlier estimate of 2/1 and writes "3/1" meaning that their odds of surviving a go around have gone down to three to one against. This sort of thing is where people get their information - it's bu11$hit, but people believe it. If their odds were 3/1 then 18 out of 24 bombers would have been shot down. It never happened in the movie, and it never happened in real life. Statistically speaking, you could go around on a bomb run 18 times and still have a better than even chance of getting home in one piece.

Technically, your odds of getting killed do indeed go up sharply when you go around on a bomb run, but they actually go from somewhere around 1 chance in 75 of getting killed (your average chance of dying on any mission) to around 1 chance in 40. Unfortunately, for dramatic purposes, the bombardier crossing out a realistic calculation for chance of death of 1/75 and writing "1/40" doesn't work quite as well as if he crosses out the imaginary, emotive, and just plain wrong figure of 2/1 and writes the equally wrong estimate of "3/1". In the movies, facts take a back seat to drama.

In reality, the final mission of Memphis Belle (its 26th, not its 25th as the movie states) featured no casualties whatsoever. The target (according to the official Memphis Belle website) was shipyards at Kiel, not Bremen. None of the crew were wounded (the only Belle crewman ever to be wounded was the tail gunner, and it wasn't during the final mission), the plane wasn't damaged, and the Belle wasn't even the first to complete a tour - it was just the one (out of a bunch of aircraft that were getting close to the magic number) that they decided to send the war reporter to. Also, it's not like surviving a tour was anything like the rare accomplishment that the film makes it out to be. Memphis Belle was one of the first to complete a tour because she was one of the first B-17s to start a tour in the ETO. She took part in the first bombing mission of the 91st Bomb Group, so she was always likely to be one of the first to get to 25.

Basically, what the makers of the movie did was take as their basis the bloodiest mission ever undertaken by the 91st Bomb Group, and pretend that that mission the Memphis Belle's last mission. The movie is a good portrayal of the worst horrors of WW2 bomber flying, but it is not representative of any single mission, nor of the general day-to-day reality of B-17 combat flying.

Sadly, simulations tend to be better at recreating movie versions of reality than they are at portraying the truth, so B-17 II looks less like any real mission and more like the fictitious (and excessively bloody) events in the movie Memphis Belle.

[Yarrick_]

I must say a thing I also stated in a post about the chances of finding enemy vessels for the u-boots.
Why you do want to always build a general statistic, if it is not so simple? Don't you think it may be also related to the battlefront you are?
Let me put an example: I never saw a map of German air defense facilityes & airport locations of WWII, and I doubt it exists, but what's sure is that for example, Berlin has not the same defense as Bremen, and it definetively has not the same defense than Ripen, or a bridge, etc...
So, it depends in the kind of target you were suposed to attack, and the targets your bombing group attacked. Groups who most often attacked cityes and factories must have suffered more casualites than bombing groups attacking bridges or ground troops.
If you play a game, it is so clear that you must do the more appealing missions, so they would not put you a bridge defended by only a pair of spreaded 88's cannons. They will make you fly "a great raid over Berlin" to gain your attention to the game. It's also a fact of playability & sales.

[SailorSteve]

I have a copy of The Military Book Club's WORLD WAR II: The Encyclopedia of Facts and Figures, and it provides a list of losses versus sorties for both Bomber Command and the Eighth and Fifteenth Air Forces by month. The worst month for the Eighth Air Force was May 1944, with 376 planes lost, but that was only 1.9% of the missions flown. The heaviest loss/sortie month was October 1943 with 186 planes lost, representing 6.6% of all missions flown.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yarrick_:
Why you do want to always build a general statistic, if it is not so simple? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said it was. But you must have a general statistic around which to base your bell curve. Without determining both the average and the two extremes for the model you're building, your model cannot be correctly balanced.

What makes you assume that I'm only interested in a general statistic? My examples come from each end of the casualty scale, so I'm trying to find a range. Anyone who is only interested in the average is an idiot. The average is only a base from which to work.

Of course the battlefront matters, but for the example above we are examining the whole 8th Air Force. We can focus in on certain bomb groups, but the numbers will not vary too much from the bell curve that the total 8th Air Force generates because the battlefront in this case is the same. Of course if we talk about other games, other historical activities we must be careful that we choose our data carefully so that we get a realistic simulation. For example, it is no use using stats which include boats sent to the Indian ocean to determine the reality of an Atlantic campaign. Of course you don't do that: rule 1 of statistical analysis is that your statistics must be relevant to the model you're building.

As for playability and sales, sure a game has to be entertaining, but isn't reality entertaining enough? Surely that's why simulation games exist - some players like to think that their game experience matches reality. I certainly would rather play a simulation than an arcade shooter any day of the week. Arcade may be exciting, but it lacks realism and depth. Excitement is not everything. If it was, all games would be arcade games. If all games were arcade games, I wouldn't even own a computer - that's how boring arcade games are to me. Any idiot can have good reflexes. I want a test of wits, of will, and of patience, and I'm not going to get that from a stupid arcade game. That's why I prefer chess to pong.

[U-551 Kapitan]

**** (this says dam), I hope I never get into an argument with Beeryus. His posts are so ****(this says dam) long I haven't been able to read one through fully yet. Nice one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by U-551 Kapitan:
**** (this says dam), I hope I never get into an argument with Beeryus. His posts are so ****(this says dam) long I haven't been able to read one through fully yet. Nice one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well some people can get their point across succinctly. I find that if I don't go into vast detail I will be misunderstood or at least misrepresented. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

[U-551 Kapitan]

Good tactic though, if the reader can't be bothered to read yur post, he'll just assume yur right.
Oh, and wtf is with that avatar? It's amazing to see a doll talking with intelligence and in so much detail. It's freaky.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by U-551 Kapitan:
Good tactic though, if the reader can't be bothered to read yur post, he'll just assume yur right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not a tactic I use. I would be offended if someone just skipped over my arguments and simply assumed I was right. Anyone who just assumes I'm right is an idiot. As I've said two or three times in this thread, I don't expect anyone to take my word for it - they have to find out for themselves, otherwise they run the risk of being as ignorant as they would be if they just took to heart a crappy old philosophy they found in a fortune cookie.

In my view the biggest problem this world faces is a lack of critical thinking. If a person blindly accepts a viewpoint without looking into its veracity, that person may as well not have been born with a brain.

[U-551 Kapitan]

I'm already ignorant and most probably an idiot. I'm not shying away from that fact. (But it does make me feel bad http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif)

[blue_76]

anyone know if we can choose to remain with a type II boat throughout the entire campaign?

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by blue_76:
anyone know if we can choose to remain with a type II boat throughout the entire campaign? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends how long your campaign lasted. Unless the game features operations in the Black Sea I'd expect it to be a general rule that Type IIs are retired in 1940. I don't think any Type II sailed into the Atlantic on combat patrol after 1940.

[blue_76]

still, i would've liked the challenge of commanding a typeII till the end of the war http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
i'd settle for the black sea if need be

[Dominicrigg]

Well i read through this and started to think i was going mad, no examples he says (i thought i had presented a wealth of evidence) "I dont need to give you examples!! Im right" says beeryus... Nice attitude man...

Well Beeryus i can thank you for editing those insults out as they are a sign someone is losing a debate, but i did see them lol

As to my education, im not going to let you sidetrack the point but i wouldnt take my lazyness in typing to be a lack of intelligence. It doesnt take intelligence to press a shift key, just im too lazy to bother. I am aware of the difference between there and their ect. Im not going to even bite and give you my education but i think it would suprise you. Im not a complete mongrel, though maybe next to your godlike intelligence i am? Also someones grasp of english doesnt validate an argument or weaken it...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yarrick_:
I must say a thing I also stated in a post about the chances of finding enemy vessels for the u-boots.
Why you do want to always build a general statistic, if it is not so simple? Don't you think it may be also related to the battlefront you are?
Let me put an example: I never saw a map of German air defense facilityes & airport locations of WWII, and I doubt it exists, but what's sure is that for example, Berlin has not the same defense as Bremen, and it definetively has not the same defense than Ripen, or a bridge, etc...
So, it depends in the kind of target you were suposed to attack, and the targets your bombing group attacked. Groups who most often attacked cityes and factories must have suffered more casualites than bombing groups attacking bridges or ground troops.
If you play a game, it is so clear that you must do the more appealing missions, so they would not put you a bridge defended by only a pair of spreaded 88's cannons. They will make you fly "a great raid over Berlin" to gain your attention to the game. It's also a fact of playability & sales. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is the best point i have seen made so far and he has hit the nail on the head. Im suprised beeryus hasnt insulted you for your english though, but there is still time...

Sadly this is the point he doesnt get, first of all the attrition rate you are now choosing to focus on is that of the 8th airforce, our argument is also with the russian/english/german airforce and u-boat force.

American B-17s didnt enter action until 17th August 1942. They hit "soft targets" in france while the RAF was bombing in Germany. These are the milk runs. Check out some of the return rates for missions where they flew over germany. Then realise EVERY mission in B-17 has you facing fighter escort and flak, then factor in your competance/incompetance and you realise its not a bad sim. (though bad ai flying)

As i have shown from my examples the attrition in the airforce was catastrophic. You dont seem to be able to grasp the statistics beeryus and that is your downfall.

Another sickening trait of yours is to dismiss primary evidence... How can you dismiss primary evidence??? How the **** can your recolections of 2 years ago be more valid then a man who fought in the war, then statistics from the Royal Airforce??? Sheesh if you had been in my debate classes you would have been out in round one (not only for the early use of insults lol)

Here i will use some more evidence from pilots who flew (though you dont think its valid) this time RAF Bomber command

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I think each guy in each crew really had one objective - to survive for that one tour, 30 missions. After your magic 30, you were allowed to go home.

On the first year I was in the squadron I only remember 10 crews finishing. We used to think that experience counted for a lot, because most of the guys would be lost on number two or three.

And then a bunch of guys would be lost between 25 and 30, and you wouldn't know what the hell to think. We had one squadron called Ghost Squadron cause during its first few months, only

one crew survived the tour. Once I got close to 10 missions, I started to feel pretty lucky.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Most guys lost on 2 or 3, see that? They are not flying in pink fluffy clouds, they are getting shot at... Now as Yarrick pointed out in games you are seeing action in every mission, pretty heavy action in the b-17 games. This is why their is a high loss in that game.

Now for the german pilots and russians they faced more danger and of course would have higher attrition. German fighter pilots didnt get to retire like b-17 pilots after so many missions. It wasnt so "easy" as you put it to survive the war. Then take the russian aircrews, who were facing superior technology of the germans and superior numbers (in the air) it would rise even higher. They faced such a desperate battle Churchill who hated communism sent 2 squadrons of Hurricanes (with pilots!!) to help fight the germans.


OK here is a point i have picked up from you, you have a problem grasping the statistics you read. When you first posted in here that the death rates were too high i was interested but more then a little suspicious. After all this is coming from the guy who said <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> He [Truman] annihilated two cities and killed millions just to prevent the loss of military lives. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That qoute doesnt sound like its coming from the god of knowledge now does it?...

Quick lesson in statistics. First of all statistics are not a good way to learn history for many reasons. Statistics have no life, you can learn more history from talking to someone who was at the event or reading their writings then you can from reading 20,000 tons were sunk on blah blah date. Statistics are very easy to misinterpret and i have a feeling this is what you have done like you did with the atomic attack on japan (well not misinterpret as just make up...)

Let me give you an example

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> It's like like going to hell and coming back to paradise: Picadilly Circus, warm pubs, the good times you know. And then the next morning, back to hell. The fear, the flak, the searchlights.

This for me is the worst part of it, the worst. This to and from. Often, when we come back from a raid, I...I'm sitting back there all alone, I just cry, I cry like a baby. I have to. That's the only way to get out of it.

Of the 125,000 air crew who served in Bomber Command almost half, 55,500, were killed. One in every five was a Canadian, and by population Canada suffered the greatest loss: 9,919 pilots, navigators, flight engineers, bomb aimers and gunners. 900 of those Canadians are buried here at the Commonwealth war cemetery in Stonefall, Yorkshire. At the end of the war, fighter pilots were given a special campaign medal for their contribution to the war effort. Bomber pilots were refused similar recognition even though many more of them died in combat. They were treated as an embarrassment - they had been ordered into the skies over Germany to bomb cities, and then they were blamed for the civilian deaths that resulted.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ok so I analyse that like you statistically.

Of the 125,000 air crew who served in Bomber Command almost half, 55,500, were killed.

So 125,000 aircrew 55,500 died (44.4% of bomber command aircrew died over the whole of the war)

So he had a 50-50 chance of surviving the war if he start in 1939 right?? Whats he whining about, thats not that dangerous!

Wrong Beeryus!!! Go to the back of the classroom (lol joke http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif) You have to remember that is the total number of pilots who flew in the war. Thankfully Bertgang understands this and points out to you with his point about 150% attrition. The number of pilots in the war didnt start at that amount, there were new ones being recruited, old ones crashing, being captured, facing death. So its not 50%

Bomber command again :
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The medium bomber had a casualty rate of 4.5 per cent, which was remarkable, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

4.5% in one mission, 10 missions you have a 45% chance of death. 20 missions in all likelyhood you are dead. This was remarkable (he means good)

Ok if you are a **** pilot, your chances go down, so that 55% chance of making 10 missions is only maybe 30% for you. Thats how statistics work. All i can guess is that you are one of the unlucky few who dies early in sturmovik and who died early in real life. This happened to many in their first few missions because they didnt have the skill. Only a few aces survived the war, and most aces actually died at some point also. (im guessing this caus you have problems with AA fire and die near ships...)

For any survival rate even one of 90% some bad pilots are going to die on their first mission ect. Maybe you are one of those few and should play on an easier level?


I will take a tentative step into the arena of sub warefare which you also claim is too fatal in games...

57 U-Boats 27 of these suitable for atlantic patrols at the outbreak of war.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In the first 9 months of the war Donitz's fleet had shrunk- twenty-four U-boats had been lost, the majority to British escort ships, and by June there were barely more then a dozen ships at sea at any one time <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those are pretty heavy losses. Again in a game, your survival is based on as the two guys stated before (mlody111 Bertgang) , your willingness to get involved in the overwhelming amount of action presented and also your skill (or lack of it).

So with all your lack of evidence and really really bad attitude, you have failed to convince me the sims are very unbalanced for survival rates. I still think the games are pretty accurate for games, managing to balance fun and realism in one package. You did manage to convince me not to like you much though and made sure i wont be downloading any mods you make.

Finally i welcome anyone else who wants to enter this debate like mlody111, dont be afraid as i will not insult you unless you throw insults at me for lack of anything else. I love to hear educated opinions and would love to hear from someone who can actually show us some statistics and facts from the other side (as i have done for my argument)

pps some of this wont make sense as beeryus has edited his offensive posts thankfully...

[Dominicrigg]

Ooop another statistic of the easy to survive in "safe" 8th airforce

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The US Air Force suffered horrendous casualties in WW2, especially in early unescorted daylight bombing raids during 1943 over occupied Europe and Germany. One third of the total B-17 bomber (Flying Fortress) production of 12,731 went down during the war, and the Eighth and Fifteenth Air Forces' men killed in action totalled almost one hundred thousand men. At the Norfolk and Suffolk US air bases alone, over 6700 young Americans of the Second Air Division were killed in action. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Its really not looking good for your argument!

[SailorSteve]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dominicrigg:
Ooop another statistic of the easy to survive in "safe" 8th airforce

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The US Air Force suffered horrendous casualties in WW2, especially in early unescorted daylight bombing raids during 1943 over occupied Europe and Germany. One third of the total B-17 bomber (Flying Fortress) production of 12,731 went down during the war, and the Eighth and Fifteenth Air Forces' men killed in action totalled almost one hundred thousand men. At the Norfolk and Suffolk US air bases alone, over 6700 young Americans of the Second Air Division were killed in action. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Its really not looking good for your argument! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Domicrigg, what is this book you keep quoting from? All the U.S. Army Air Forces combined lost only 54,000 men during the course of the war, not the "almost one hundred thousand men" you quoted just for the Eighth and Fifteenth. Given the total U.S.A.A.F. enlistment number of 3.4 million, that's only 1.5%.

Total losses of Eighth and Fifteenth Air Force bombers of all types total 8046, for an average of 2.38%.

Total loss numbers for all U.S. heavy bombers was around 6000. This includes 12,000 B-17s and 18,000 B-24s, which brings the loss average to 20%, still high but not by nearly as much.

I think Beeryus' original point, that B-17 II: The Mighty Eighth greatly exagerates your chances of dying, is probably correct.

[jcurrens]

I've never been in a war so I can't say yes or no

[necrobaron]

From what I've read and veterans I've talked to, IL-2 doesn't exaggerate the danger and death involved in combat missions, although you probably see combat more frequently than you might've in real life on a typical patrol. IL-2's biggest problem is that the AI often dogfights incorrectly depending on what planes are involved. For example the big,heavy, and heavily armed AI P-47 will often try to get into a low-alt turn fight with lighter, more maneuverable opponents. This is suicide, as a heavy plane like a P-47 should fight at higher altitudes and using tactics like zoom 'n boom rather than turn 'n burn. In my experience this will result in much higher losses than there should be considering the enemy involved. However, this is simply an AI issue. The inherent dangers are still accurate. Unescorted bombers bounced by planes like FW-190s should get ripped to shreds and they do ingame. In the war, the US originally and mistakenly thought the armament on bombers alone would be enough to ward off marauding fighters, but combat losses got to be so high that they were forced to begin sending fighter escorts. P-47s were the first planes(besides the P-38 which didn't perform too well in the ETO) to really have the range required, and even then they usually had to return to base at a certain point leaving the bombers unescorted once again. It was better than nothing, but once the P-51 was introduced the escort problem was largely eliminated though losses still occurred.

I didn't mean to get so wordy, but air combat losses in WWII are not to be underestimated or taken lightly, be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

[U-551 Kapitan]

This is a great thread, one of my favourites. It's like watching a tennis match as Domincrigg and Beeryus hurl arguments at each other. Excellent.

But as jcurrens says, I have never been in a war, and so I can only speculate. From my beliefs, war was certainly dangerous. Simulations can be skewed more towards the action, because that is the only way to keep the gamers entertained. However, war in some cases can match and even surpass the action from a comuter game. The Battle of Britain saw non stop combat between the Jerries and Tommies, and the pilots life expectancy was only something like a week.

[Dominicrigg]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SailorSteve:


Domicrigg, what is this book you keep quoting from? QUOTE]

Sorry i should really post the sources too but im in such a rush and dont want to turn this into a university paper lol

Im on my way into town to do some christmas shopping (yes i leave it late!!) and here is one of the sources i used, i will find the others when i can, i am also using various history books of the second world war (too many to mention by name!)

Interesting number you put on us airforce losses but that seems very low to me, that includes the Pacific theatre also??

[QUOTE]Outside the American Air Museum at Duxford they have glass plates etched with plane symbols flown by that unit with 1 plane etched on the glass for every 10 aircraft lost. They are 10 feet high and 6 feet wide and the wall is around 150 feet long. It is set along the walkway to the main entrance to the American Air Museum. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From 8th airforce losses web (http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8aflosses.shtml)

Its just all a bit shocking to me because i live in yorkshire where we have so many of these monuments to dead fliers and soldiers, and the stats of beeryus of 3 years survival time are way out, if that was the case we wouldnt have half the monuments and the stories of horror by the pilots would not be quite the same...

Thats why i want someone to actually show me some numbers proving otherwise rather then just say im dumb and wrong ect... In one breath he says dont take his word for it that would be stupid, then in another he is saying shut up im right and i dont have to prove it... strange way to debate a point...

Merry Christmassssssssssssss http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by U-551 Kapitan:
The Battle of Britain saw non stop combat between the Jerries and Tommies, and the pilots life expectancy was only something like a week. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The life expectancy of a British BoB pilot was MUCH longer than that. I did a study on this. 43% of all British Battle of Britain pilots survived the war, and 77% survived the Battle of Britain - how on Earth could 77% of pilots survive the battle if the life expectancy was a week? Since 77% of pilots survived it can be surmised that life expectancy during the battle must have been around two times the length of the Battle (if 23% died in the battle you extrapolate in order to get to the 50% of pilots killed which is required to give a reasonably accurate average life expectancy rating). We know the Battle of Britain lasted 16 weeks and one day, thus the life expectancy of a British pilot in the Battle of Britain was about 35 weeks (around 8 months). You get that figure by taking your 16 weeks, dividing it by the 23% who died in the battle and multiplying the result by 50.

A British BoB pilot's chances of surviving the entire war were higher: 43% of British BoB pilots survived the war, so it follows that an average British pilot's life expectancy for the entire war was around 5 years (again, take the war's length of 68 months, divide by the percentage of dead and multiply by 50). Again, don't take my word for it: go to http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/roll.html and figure it out for yourself.

The popular gross misrepresentation of fact when it comes to battle facts is precisely what I'm talking about in this thread. There's this common myth that war and war flying in particular is much more dangerous than it is. For goodness sake, the reality is dangerous enough! Why do we feel the need to make it seem suicidal?

I've heard the "life expectancy of X weeks" thing time after time, and when I look up the stats it's NEVER true. NEVER! The most commonly expressed one is the WW1 pilot thing "life expectancy of two weeks", but what never seems to be admitted is that that statistic ONLY applied to brand new, poorly-trained pilots in the RFC in one particular month of the war (April 1917 - the worst month of the war for the British). Experienced pilots lasted much longer, and at other times the life expectancy was measured in months or years.

[Beeryus]

And I'm not responding to DominicRigg any longer. He has what amounts to a religious dogma that he's desperately clinging to, and my statistics are heresy. If he can't accept the facts as I'm presenting them, that's his problem.

If anyone thinks he makes any valid points, please re-post them on your own behalf and I will respond to them. I haven't read his latest post and I won't be reading any more of them.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by necrobaron:
From what I've read and veterans I've talked to, IL-2 doesn't exaggerate the danger and death involved in combat missions, although you probably see combat more frequently than you might've in real life on a typical patrol. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems like you're contradicting yourself here. Anyway, you go on to talk about AI problems. AI has something to do with it (for one thing AI escape routines are fundamentally flawed), but it's not the whole story, and AI flaws could be compensated quite easily by tweaking other areas of the sim if only the developers would confront the problem (which they won't - Oleg says he isn't interested in such things). The fact is, the game has a fundamental imbalance caused by the developers ignoring the issue we're talking about in this thread. We can convince ourselves that it's some insoluble problem to do with AI routines, but I assure you it is a simple balance issue.

I haven't done any real studies on the air war on the Russian front, but if we assume that the stats are within a range of a tenaciously-fought battle like the Battle of Britain we can surmise that a German pilot on the Russian front had a similar life expectancy as a British BoB pilot (the Russians would be far worse off). If that's the case, German pilot life expectancy has to have been measured at least in months, and since they had a distinct advantage in terms of technology and training I would estrimate that a German pilot on the Russian front had a life expectancy of over a year. IL-2 has an average life expectancy for German pilots of around two weeks. It just doesn't add up, however you count it. The game seems far too bloody, and if I'm to be convinced otherwise I need to see some statistics that prove that fighting the air war on the Russian front was at least ten times more deadly than any other air battle ever fought.

[U-551 Kapitan]

Oh my God. Beeryus' statistics are driving me insane! I don't understand them at all (I hate maths). And I really don't think you should be ignoring Dominicrigg, he has put forward some intelligent comments as you have, and I would have thought it childish to ignore someone who is arguing with you. Not only is it immature, but it could be seen as your losing your argument.

Anyway, my own studies from my avid fanatical obsession with the BoB, indicate how dangerous it was. The Luftwaffe were determined to take Britain, Hitler himself respected Britain and knew the dangers they posed, so he ensured that the Luftwaffe would do everything in their power to take Britain. But before they could put a landing force into action, they needed to gain air superiority over the skies of Britain. They threw everything they had at us, and the amount of Spitfires and Hurricanes that went down regularly and frequently was terrifying. I sincerely hope you are not besmirching their honour, saying that WWII was just a walk in the park. Statistics only go so far, and if you really want to know what happens in war, you need to abandon such data. If you want to know what war is, you need to be there. I -we- have no idea what it was like in WWII, all we know is that it was worse than anything imaginable.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by U-551 Kapitan:
Oh my God. Beeryus' statistics are driving me insane! I don't understand them at all (I hate maths). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've tried to explain them as well as I can. It is vitally important that people understand statistics, because if you don't understand them, you will dismiss them as unimportant and you'll have no accurate way of gauging the facts. Reading war stories only gives the emotional impact of war. This is important, but without the statistics, the emotion is only part of the story, and it can easily lead people to get an exaggerated appreciation of the dangers of war, as many people do, which is why we're having this conversation in the first place.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And I really don't think you should be ignoring Dominicrigg, he has put forward some intelligent comments as you have, and I would have thought it childish to ignore someone who is arguing with you. Not only is it immature, but it could be seen as your losing your argument. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I've made my points over and over again in argument with Dominic, but he won't even countenance the facts I've laid out, and he keeps going back to individual examples of the world's mnost bloody air battles. Focusing on the worst battle experiences without taking into account the easiest ones and all the ones inbetween is no way to accurately judge the facts. I can say that over and over again some more, but he's just not going to budge. At this point what Dominic is doing isn't argument - it's simply stating and restating his position in the hope that most people will eventually see it so much that they accept it as true. That's not convincement, it's propaganda.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Anyway, my own _studies_ from my avid fanatical obsession with the BoB, indicate how dangerous it was. The Luftwaffe were determined to take Britain, Hitler himself respected Britain and knew the dangers they posed, so he ensured that the Luftwaffe would do everything in their power to take Britain. But before they could put a landing force into action, they needed to gain air superiority over the skies of Britain. They threw everything they had at us, and the amount of Spitfires and Hurricanes that went down regularly and frequently was terrifying. I sincerely hope you are not besmirching their honour, saying that WWII was just a walk in the park. Statistics only go so far, and if you really want to know what happens in war, you need to abandon such data. If you want to know what war is, you need to be there. I -we- have no idea what it was like in WWII, all we know is that it was worse than anything imaginable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry, but what you've presented here is merely opinion. Statistics only go so far, but opinion doesn't really go anywhere. If you think posting the facts is 'besmirching the honour of WW2 veterans' I think you're trying to discuss this on an emotional level rather than a rational one. The facts are the facts, and the fact is that life expectancy in the Battle of Britain was 35 weeks, not one week. How can the facts besmirch anyone's honour? If anything, the idea that war flying was more dangerous than it actually was besmirches the honour of veterans, because it makes their real accomplishment pale into insignificance before the myth. The real accomplishments are amazing enough - why turn them into fantasy?

[U-551 Kapitan]

OK, so to you, everything in life is based upon facts. Nothing in this world is worth haviing emotion over. Are you even human, Beeryus? Because even the lowest form of a human has some emotion.
You have failed to even think about my thoughts on this matter. You simply dismissed them as you did with Dominic. Y'know there are more people in this world than yourself. You cannot propose a decent argument by denying someone's opinions and ruling your word is the only truth. Who do you think you are? God?
You cannot possibly tell me what war is like. Were you ever in WWII? I just cannot see how war is such a glorious thing to you. I cannot believe it, no one would be that blind.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by U-551 Kapitan:
OK, so to you, everything in life is based upon facts. Nothing in this world is worth haviing emotion over. Are you even human, Beeryus? Because even the lowest form of a human has some emotion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just amended my earlier post to show why emotion only gives part of the story. Anyway, in this discussion we are talking about how deadly battles were. That has nothing to do with emotion. It has to do with figures relating to death. If you try to bring emotion into this discussion we'll get off the subject and we'll move on to a subject that can have no resolution.

My point is that a simulation game has to give the player an experience that reflects hard fact. The emotion will come from the player, just as it came from the real participants. The facts are important because emotionality can skew the facts (as they clearly have done for many players). When we play a simulation, we need it to be factual. Fantasy and myth don't belong in historical simulations.

Yes, I didn't respond to most of your post. I didn't see anything in there except for opinion. For the purposes of this discussion we can't rely on opinion because opinion can be wrong. We need to focus on hard facts. Emotional retellings of war stories don't mean anything unless they're placed in a context that includes real facts and statistics.

Show me your studies. Show me how they contradict my figures.

Oh, and please, no more of this 'are you even human?' nonsense. We need to stay well away from character assassination. I assure you I'm human, and anyway, dehumanizing me won't make your argument any more convincing.

[U-551 Kapitan]

What do you mean by fantasy and myth exactly?

I really don't understand, before you were dismissing emotions completely, but now you are saying they only give part of the story? Please make your mind up, you are being unclear.

A simulation will be based on facts, yes, but that is the case every single time. What we were discussing is whether or not the real fighting was dangerous or not. You were noting that it was not as dangerous as the veterans made it out to be. I was defending them through the example of the BoB. Do you remember now? It seems you've attempted to do a topic loop and make it so that I was seen in the wrong. But I am still awaiting your answer: Were you in World War Two?

I'd be happy to show you my studies, but it will take a very long time to get all my old magazines out of the loft. But then again, I doubt anything would even come close to the clear and unmovable evidence that you hold close to your heart from 2 years ago. I mean look: "Show me how they contradict my figures." It's as though these figures of yours are of holy origin.

You claim to be a human? Where's your proof? I demand to see a scanned picture of your birth certificate on these forums.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by U-551 Kapitan:
What do you mean by fantasy and myth exactly? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fantasy and myth means saying that BoB life expectancy was a week when it was far longer. Fantasy and myth is saying that WW1 pilot life expectancy was two weeks when it was not. Fantasy and myth means that we prefer a romantic lie rather than the facts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I really don't understand, before you were dismissing emotions completely, but now you are saying they only give part of the story? Please make your mind up, you are being unclear. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Emotional retellings of war stories only give an idea of the feelings of participants, but emotions don't tell us anything about how many people actually died per month. Unless emotion can tell us how many people die, it is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. We are talking about survival, not feelings.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A simulation will be based on facts, yes, but that is the case every single time. What we were discussing is whether or not the _real_ fighting was dangerous or not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. But you don't get there by bringing emotions into the equation. Whether a battle was dangerous can ONLY be assessed by looking at facts and figures. No amount of writing about how scared people were, or how dangerous people felt the war to be, will help determine how ACTUALLY dangerous it was.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You were noting that it was not as dangerous as the veterans made it out to be. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When? I was making the point that it was not as dangerous as YOU made it out to be. You said that a Battle of Britain pilot's life expectancy was a week. I said it was 35 weeks. The only time I referred to the writing of veterans was in response to something Domninic posted, and I didn't refute anything that the veteran said. I merely put it into perspective, saying that any one person's experience was subjective, and not representative enough from which to base a realistic assessment of everyone's experience.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I was defending them through the example of the BoB. Do you remember now? It seems you've attempted to do a topic loop and make it so that I was seen in the wrong. But I am still awaiting your answer: Were you in World War Two? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What has that got to do with anything we're discussing? Do I need to have been in WW2 in order to count? We're talking about statistics here - how many people died over how long a period of time. What on Earth can a person's birth date have to do with that?

Look, if you can't talk about statistics and figures relating to life expectancy in battle, why are you here? So far your post is completely off topic. If you can't discuss the subject, take your commentary somewhere else so that the rest of us can think about the question of survival, which is what the thread is supposed to be about. I don't have the energy to discuss subjects as open-ended as emotion in wartime or whether facts are insulting to veterans. These subjects are beside the point, and I'm sorry, but I find them a little ridiculous, especially since the figures that you find disrespectful to veterans come from the official Royal Air Force website.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'd be happy to show you my studies, but it will take a very long time to get all my old magazines out of the loft. But then again, I doubt anything would even come close to the clear and unmovable evidence that you hold close to your heart from 2 years ago. I mean look: "Show me how they contradict my figures." It's as though these figures of yours are of holy origin. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The figures I posted for the Battle of Britain are only about two hours old. I went to the website I knew contained the figures relating to Battle of Britain pilots and I calculated the survival odds as I composed my post. I think my figures are accurate, but you can easily check them out yourself - just go to the website I cited and do the math. Really, it's not rocket science. You don't even need to get your old magazines. The website I referred to above has all the pilots listed and the numbers are compiled for how many died in the battle and in the war. All you have to do is do the calculation I've shown in my earlier post and you'll be able to check my results out. If you don't trust the way I've done the calculation, get a statistics guy in here to tell you if I've made a mistake. If you don't trust the BoB website from where I got the numbers (it's part of the RAF Ministry of Defence site, so I guess they may lie, but if they're lying I think someone would have caught it by now), by all means check it out elsewhere.

My statistics aren't 'holy', but if you're going to call them into question you have to show how they're wrong. I did the work to figure them out, so it's only right that you do a little work to check them, rather than dismissing them out of hand, which is what you've done so far.

[U-551 Kapitan]

Beeryus, you have not listened to one word I have been saying. Fantasy and myth is simply your mutterings about statistics. People didn't make wars about statistics, they made them beacuase of feelings. Certain feelings which you lack, Beeryus. And there is much more to physical danger, you seem to have completely disregarded mental danger, which, it just so happens, comes about from fear which you seem to have ignored after it was staring at you in the face.
And really Beeryus, I don't like to repeat myself, especially when everything has been recorded in writing, but I'll make a special exception just because I like you. I said that the only way to know what war was like was actually being there. Remember that? (I'm saying this an awful lot, for shame, Beeryus.) You cannot rely on statistics when your best friend is lying on the ground with five slugs in his chest, clawing at your foot to get you to help him. I could just imagine you in war, Beeryus, you'd be so confident thinking you would survive the entire war, that you'd be one of the first going back to Blighty, if you were lucky. So I shall ask again, for the third time, were you in WWII? The only way anybody can understand that ordeal was to have been there. Also, I see you are still referring to your precious statistics, which are of no use in the middle of a battle.

I also think you'll find that both of our topics are relevant. I am highlighting the low survivability in WWII whereas you are saying that WWII saw a high survivability rate. I'm glad you find the point of emotion and the horrors of war ridiculous, it just makes my side of the argument more justifiable. You are just about the most amazing person I have ever met.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by U-551 Kapitan:
Beeryus, you have not listened to one word I have been saying. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How can you even say that when I responded in detail to every single one of your points in your previous post?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Fantasy and myth is simply your mutterings about statistics... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, I've had enough of you too. If you can't accept the facts, that's fine, but don't try to pretend they aren't there. Why can't I get any reasonable discussion in this thread? I mean you'd think we could discuss this issue rationally and reach a conclusion. I mean the numbers we're talking about are RIGHT THERE on the RAF website, but instead of responding to the facts, my opponent is attacking my character, calling me inhuman (as if my argument would be any less convincing if it was posed by an alien), ranting on about emotions, how facts are disrespectful to veterans, and how you're affected by the horror of your comrades getting killed next to you. Honestly, I mean this is absolutely laughable. What has any of that got to do with figuring out how long a pilot is likely to survive?

I'm really sorry that you would prefer to discuss the emotional horror of war, but that issue is completely off topic. The fact that you're all emotionally distraught about your comrade dying next to you doesn't make him die twice, nor does it allow him to survive for another two weeks.

Is anyone else interested in pursuing this discussion properly, or am I just beating a dead horse here?

[U-551 Kapitan]

Yes, you respond, but they explain to me a man who is not taking in anything I am saying. Still you don't listen. The horrors of war have gotten people killed. People go mad in war, ending up getting themselves shot or worse. I have been making a point that statistics do not make up the whole picture of war. You have dismissed the emotional side of the war completely and refuse to listen to me. To you, war is just a set of numbers, and I find it difficult to understand why you are getting emotional over this if you do not believe in such things. So I shall specify once again, the emotional aspect of war kills just as much as the facts do. I too would have wished for a conclusion to this thread, one which is peaceful, but I am inclined to express my views on this matter, while you are trying to deny me my right to understand what is right and wrong. Its also nice to know you find war laughable, in your own words, you have discussed that you would laugh if your friend got shot right next to you? I doubt even you are capable of such things. Really, these items I have addressed are not OT, they do have a point. It was merely to try and get you to understand that there's more to war than statistics and that people -real- people die in war, however you continue to express your views that war was just an easy ride and there was nothing to it.

Also, whats with the subtle edits your making to your posts? It's making it very hard for me to keep up with what you're saying.

I never said I had enough of you, Beeryus. I am saddened that you wish to end it like this. You're (note I spelt it right for you?) a magnificent person, anyone with such strong beliefs has to be admired, I just pity that you have chosen the wrong set.

[Beeryus]

Again, if anyone finds anything in Dominicrigg or U-551 Kapitan's posts that they find convincing, please restate it in your own words and hopefully we can have a mutually respectful dialogue about it. As for the aforementioned duo, I'm not reading their posts - I'm just not going to get involved in any off-topic rant or ad-hominem flame war that they want to start.

[U-551 Kapitan]

Lol, this is unbelievable! He just ignores those who wish to make a point against him! There is nothing anyone can do, because if you do go against him, he'll just ignore you as well. Beeryus' argument is proof of a good argument turning sour. Throughout the entire argument, he did not take any of my ideas into account, and anything I stated was obviously off topic. This is priceless! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

[E.Thang]

I survived AOD, and SH2. (SH2 I had to reply the western approaches 3 times and one of the other ones a few times)

[SailorSteve]

U-551 Kapitan, I can see exactly what Beeryus is saying. You keep talking about the horrors of war, when the topic was about the chances of surviving. Of course the guy who got killed immediately had ZERO chance of surviving, but the fact is that the majority of airmen did come out of the war alive. When you talk to someone who saw people blown apart in front of him, of course you're talking about his emotions. But when you use the words "chance of surviving", or "survivability", then you are now talking about numbers and nothing else.

Beeryus is not a robot, nor is he without emotions, but what he originally commented on was the concept that B-17: The Mighty Eighth makes the player far more likely to get killed than a real-life bomber pilot. Your arguments are perfectly valid, but they have nothing to do with that topic.

[U-551 Kapitan]

But what I was saying was that emotions can get people killed in war. If a pilot saw his friend getting shot down, he'd most undoubtedly panic and try to defend the falling hulk by shooting anything that comes near, this would open him up as an easy target and he himself would not last long if he is concentrating more on defending his friend than his own safety. Otherwise, he would lose track of what was happening as he sees his friend's engine explode, so he leaves himself open for attack. I was also going on about the mental side and if you lose your marbles when you're up in the air, chances are you will be coming down hard.

[Dominicrigg]

Its a pity beeryus, that you chose to skip over my points and not read or answer them any more. If you had then maybe you would understand why you are wrong. Maybe if i had done the same thing and ignored your posts i wouldnt have had to go on this fools crusade to try to understand your statistics.

As for taking over the thread and the argument i think you will find i started the thread, and since most people will not dare argue with you for fear of being branded dumb and told they are not worth listening to i think you will find very few brave people willing to argue with you lol.

Thankyou though for showing some statistics and your working, it does infact show that my earlier point about your inability to grasp the stats was right! Go back and read my post about how to work out stats, read the post of bertgang about replacements.

To U-551 Kapitan i wouldnt bother arguing anymore. Every insult he throws at us is actually attributed to him, pigheadedness, inability to take in another argument ect.

So far to me this convo has gone like this :


Dom : anyone survived the war?

People : no its hard!!

Berryus : its wrong it wasnt that hard

Dom : well it seems right to me, it was tough!

Beerysu : no i studied it, it wasnt.

Dom : well look at this and this and this, they
seem like high losses

Beeryus : your wrong, im right.

Dom : ummm look at this and this, they are high losses too.

Beeryus : your wrong im right.

Dom : ermmm can you actually show us some info
Beeryus : no your not worth it, find out yourself

Kapitan : yeah show us some stats beer

Dom : ermmm i was, it all looks bad to me.
Look (more stats)

Beeryus : You're dumb, you type badly shut up...

Dom : ermmm ok... here are some more stats, i think your dumb and cant work them out.

Beeryus : I dont have to prove myself to you shut up im not listening, anyone else want to argue with me?

I was waiting to be shown how the life expectancy for a pilot was but so far nothing... Your argument has truly got nowhere.

For the stats let me show you again (though i dont know why since you are not even looking...)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 'The Few' were 2353 young men from Great Britain and 574 from overseas, pilots and other aircrew, who are officially recognised as having taken part in the Battle of Britain <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok so pilots and other aircrew, there are even some ground crew in there who "filled in" for maybe one mission and then flew no more. So they are messing your stats up. They are not taking part in the war beyond one flight (maybe recon ect)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>544 lost their lives during the period of the Battle, and these are marked by an asterisk. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So Beeryus style calculations :
So 18.5% of all men involved, even for one mission, in the battle of britain died...

1 in 5 men didnt make it through the battle of britain battle of britain lasted 16 weeks so life expectancy was 80 weeks! WTF!! thats totally wrong!

1 in 5 of total fliers survived. As i said before, new ones getting recruited, old ones getting shot down. To find a truly realistic life expectancy we need to find the starting strength, weekly strength, finishing strength of the squadrons, not just total men involved. This number includes men flying only one mission which totally messes calculations up. You have a man fly one mission then sit in a cabin the rest of the battle he massively raises life expectancy of the fliers, though he shouldnt have been added in as you have.

Not to mention in our fierce argument we have all forgotten one thing. In sturmovik when you get shot down, more often then not you will survive (i do) and many times in the RAF people bailed out also. This again makes the stat of deaths invalid. As dangerwise many were shot down and bailed out. For the raf they bailed into friendly territory so this danger is totally ignored in your stats as they didnt die.

Ive sort of lost my way now as my freinds here and i had to rush that last bit, i have to go out now and hope this makes sense. I will probably redo this post later when i have time.

I call a cease to hostilities over christmas!!! lol ww1 style. Merry christmas to everyone and dont drink too much. (mainly because im not going to have time to come back here!!)

No hard feelings to anyone even beeryus :P im interested in the truth in this in the end as i hope you all are. If that ends with me being proven wrong then so be it!

[U-551 Kapitan]

Yeah! Let's all go and play a game of football! Lol.
Yeh, we should all put the last couple of days on this thread behind us in the name of Christmas. I don't like having enemies, even if I sometimes try to make some.

[SailorSteve]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by U-551 Kapitan:
But what I was saying was that emotions can get people killed in war. If a pilot saw his friend getting shot down, he'd most undoubtedly panic and try to defend the falling hulk by shooting anything that comes near, this would open him up as an easy target and he himself would not last long if he is concentrating more on defending his friend than his own safety. Otherwise, he would lose track of what was happening as he sees his friend's engine explode, so he leaves himself open for attack. I was also going on about the mental side and if you lose your marbles when you're up in the air, chances are you will be coming down hard. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm sorry, but none of that has anything whatsoever to do with someone's chances of surviving a battle, or the war.

[U-551 Kapitan]

Really? I thought it would have something to do with surviving. Madness in the air gets pilots killed, they can stall, crash or make themselves easy targets for the enemy. Think about it.

[dizeee]

hats off to beeryus....
very comprehensive read. i did some readings myself in the recent years with the very same point on mind, and i can say is that your on the right track. totally.
this topic touches a very sensitive fieled in war simulations. how "exciting" or "eventfull" was actual ww2 combat. naval , airial or landcombat. and especialy to the the dismay of ppl like u551 and domini, the AVERAGE combat experience was, by a very large margin, no way as dangerous as most computer simulations, ww2 movies or even ww2 books from veterans, want to make us believe in.
after watching a movie like "saving private ryan" would you have thought that only 50% of all american combat troops, from overlord to veday, actually fired their weapon in combat? and that only 30% fired aimed shots?
reality is full of facts like these...

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by U-551 Kapitan:
Really? I thought it would have something to do with surviving. Madness in the air gets pilots killed, they can stall, crash or make themselves easy targets for the enemy. Think about it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is absolutely true, but it only contributes to the statistics - it doesn't alter them. The numbers of dead and missing are added up AFTER THE FACT and so they account for all the various contributions - including emotional contributions such as fear, cowardice, bravery, etc. We realise that emotions are an important part of battle, and these aspects are an inherent part of the statistics. Statistics don't ignore emotional factors: on the contrary, the statistics include them. How could it be otherwise? If the stats didn't include people killed by some emotional factor, then there would be a vast number of dead unaccounted for, but that's not the case. Every dead or missing combatant, no matter what the cause, is accounted for.

You seem to assume that statistics are completely separate from the emotional factors that can get people killed, but the statistics are full of dead people who were killed not simply by the technical aspects of war (calculations of bullet trajectories and armour plate) but by the emotional factors as well.

Thus, when you're calculating survival odds, you no longer need to consider emotional factors because they are an inherent part of the final toll. The emotions already exist within the numbers.

[Beeryus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dizeee:
this topic touches a very sensitive fieled in war simulations. how "exciting" or "eventfull" was actual ww2 combat. naval , airial or landcombat. and especialy to the the dismay of ppl like u551 and domini, the AVERAGE combat experience was, by a very large margin, no way as dangerous as most computer simulations, ww2 movies or even ww2 books from veterans, want to make us believe in. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thing I don't understand is when people say I'm trying to downplay the veterans' achievements. Downplay? I'm showing their achievements for what they were, no more, no less. The people who exaggerate their achievements (i.e. people who make war movies that make it seem like people routinely had to survive through a veritable holocaust of gun- and shell-fire, or people who make simulations that make it appear as if a tour of duty in a B-17 was tantamount to suicide) are the ones doing real damage - they make the reality pale in comparison to a mythic level of achievement that no human could possibly attain, and so when someone's granddad says quite truthfully that he never even shot his rifle, people bred on sensationalist war movies or computer simulations might assume he's lying or they assume he was cowardly or just unlucky. In fact, he did his part too, and was just as heroic for taking the same initial risk as those who were in the thick of the action. I believe this is the real harm that exaggerating the truth (in an honest but misguided attempt to make ordinary men look extraordinary) does: it makes heroes (who joined up just like everyone else, but whose experience measured up to true reality and not to some video game's exaggerated version of reality) look like cowards or shirkers.

If my uncle came here and told his World War 2 experiences, I'm sure they would pale in comparison with what we've been led to believe by computer games. This is why I feel it's important for computer simulations to be balanced so that they don't wildly exaggerate, so that they portray as true an experience as possible while retaining the fun factor.

Five people out of my family have been soldiers in wartime in the 20th century, and two were killed (one died years after WW1 due to the after-effects of gas inhalation). Their experiences weren't written in any book, but their experiences mattered as much as any published author or accaimed hero. Everyone involved did their part, and some paid a price. When we make the experience of war seem as if it was a suicidal holocaust fought by supermen, we do a disservice to all the veterans who did their part by doing what was necessary, by doing what was humanly possible, by surviving dangerous yet survivable odds in a war where the odds of survival were dangerous and sometimes deadly, but not suicidal.

As I've said before - the reality is heroic enough: it doesn't need embellishment.

[SailorSteve]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dizeee:
after watching a movie like "saving private ryan" would you have thought that only 50% of all american combat troops, from overlord to veday, actually fired their weapon in combat? and that only 30% fired aimed shots?
reality is full of facts like these... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Likewise the movie Memphis Belle. Every event in that movie-the exploding thermos, the damaged Bf-109 ramming the B-17-all of it really happened...but none of it happened to the Memphis Belle. They took a lot of different war stories and put them together for the movie. In fact, when he made his 1943 documentary of the same title, William Wyler rode along on several missions, including the last one. The squadron was attacked, planes were shot down, but not one shot was fired at the Memphis Belle herself. For those guys the chance of surviving the war was 100%.

U-551 Kapitan, you're absolutely right-the emotional factors you mentioned do affect your PERSONAL chance of living or dying. So do training, equipment and blind luck. This doesn't change the AVERAGE chance of dying, which for U.S. airmen was about one in five. That seems pretty high, but look at it the other way: four out of five came home safely.

In a game about flying B-17s, there should be a chance of dying on your very first mission. There should also be a chance of flying 25 without ever getting shot at. If that never happens, then the sim is wrong.

[U-551 Kapitan]

I really hate war movies which glorify war (that'll be all the oldie propaganda movies then), stuff like The Longest Day with cigar chomping Mitchum. SPR was shockingly realistic in its day, but these days it does not seem much of a likely story. Band of Brothers is more realistic (probably just because its based on a true story), but I have yet to find something which would derogate (this a word?) the realism on offer (argh, this sentence didn't come out right). Winters fired his last shots in Holland and went through Bastogne, Haganeu and Berlin without firing his weapon. The officer at the end was suprised at this. So movies (or mini series in this case) can be realistic in some occasions.
I understand what people are getting at, but games are well on their way to becoming realistic. BiA offers a balance between action and no action. There is meant to be sections at base camp with your men and there are long stretches without seeing the enemy. I can't validate this until the game is actually out, but the devs do want to make this as realistic as possible, I mean, if you haven't already go on their site + dl the E3 demo vid, they recreated an entire virtual Normandy using strategic maps, so that fence you see WILL have been their in WWII. Also, events ingame happen exactly when they're meant to, eg, hearing shelling on Carentan in the distance.