Air Transport Operational Losses

[chazz]

This seems way, way out of wack. I am training up my crews but after a few turns they are 50% down in a/c numbers
due to ops losses.

Am I missing something???

n.b. I know about the search feature in this forum but it's cumbersome in the extreme.

Thanks for any help/advice.

[cohimbra]

Well, we need more info. Anyway, set TR train=100%, alt=2.000, range=0. No one op loss in 500 turns.

[dr.hal]

Yes as cohimbra says, please supply a lot more information. What were the circumstances in which these operational losses occurred? What where your game and move settings? What was the experience level, fatigue, leadership, etc. of the unit(s) involved. There are too many unknowns before anything constructive can be offered. Hal

[rustysi]

Do you have enough AS devices at the base to support your ops? What size is the base? Seems like we have more questions than you do. Hence we need more info.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: chazz

This seems way, way out of wack. I am training up my crews but after a few turns they are 50% down in a/c numbers
due to ops losses.

Am I missing something???

n.b. I know about the search feature in this forum but it's cumbersome in the extreme.

Thanks for any help/advice.

Did you actually try it?

Using the obvious search term "transport losses" in the main AE forum quickly brought up relevant threads. Entry #2 on the returned list was a thread titled "Re: Transport plane operational losses", and entries #3 and #4 (this one being a post from me) are from another relevant thread titled "Re: A/C frame fatigue question + ops losses". Both of these threads are relevant. The above search query also returns other relevant threads but they are not as detailed as the two I have pointed out.

Other search terms, such as "operational losses" will also return relevant threads. Quite often gems of information is found by looking up posts from certain individuals in returned search threads with unpromising titles as those contained posts have the relevant answers.

It is very important to remember the following comment made by wdolson on 8 October 2014:

The ops losses in game are way below historical. If they were anywhere near historical most players would be screaming. At a peace time tempo, ops losses are low, but corners are cut in combat theaters, plus the threat level goes up. My father told me that for a combat unit that flew a mission in which they did not see any combat at all, a 4% ops loss rate was considered normal and acceptable. Imagine the screams if player's 25 aircraft USAAF fighter squadrons were losing a plane a day, each.

Quite interesting that this comment is found in a thread titled "Operational Losses Out of Wack" and opened by you. This 2014 thread covers the same ground.

Alfred

[Sredni]

edit: I tried the search box at the bottom of the forum and it only returned a handfull of non useful threads, but the search link at the top of the screen had a whole list of threads pertaining to transport losses. A question for alfred: Do you have to manually scroll through the list of all matrix forums each time you use the search function to find the WitP AE forum, or is there some easy way to select it when conducting a search?



For the OP, operational losses are indeed annoying, but as has been pointed out they are a tiny fraction of what they were IRL. The route taken by transports flying supplies into china from india was paved with aluminum. Honestly I don't see how the allies could end the war with any planes left if our operational losses were that high though.

In game there doesn't seem to be much you can do other then basic things. Train Train Train, until your pilots are all over 50% xp. Operate out of large airfields (no overstacking), with extra aviation support. Don't run your planes into the ground and let their fatigue levels get too high (planes and pilots). Don't operate at excessive ranges.

For transports specifically, I remember reading once that the destination airfield (for AF-AF missions) should be built up as well, but that may just be speculation.

[Alfred]

Sredni,
 
Yes.[:)]
 
Both wdolson and witpqs have on several occasions explained how they use Google to search the Matrix site.  It is certainly an effective way but I'll let them explain the mechanics.  I however prefer to use the internal Matrix search engine for the reasons I have previously stated when explaining how to run Matrix searches.  As it has been sometime since I last explained how to do it, now is as good a time as any to show how it can be done.
 
1.  Click on "Search" at the top of the forum screen.
 
2.  On the "Matrix Search Screen";
 
(A) ensure the following parameters are in place.
 

• Search only - Topics and Replies
• Search term found in - Body
• Time filter - (check) within, All Topics
• Search terms - single-byte characters (eg Western)
• Return - top 300, results that match all words, minimum rank 0/1000
• Sort result by - (check) By Rank

(B) in the search term field, type in relevant term, leaving unchecked "less precise match" and "advanced search".  Depending on the quality of returns I'll have to try various similar search terms and if it is really proving to be a barren search I may even resort to checking the "less precise match" and "advanced search" options.
 
(C) I usually leave the author field blank but sometimes when I know a dev has already answered the question and I can't retrieve his reply I will type in the dev's name into the author field
 
(D) over at the "Search Forum" list I will scroll down to and select (this is critical):
 
(i) War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition and click OK for the search to look only at this forum.
 
(ii) after looking at the results returned in (i) above, I go through the same process for the sub forum "The War Room.  I always search in both places. 
 
Depending on the nature of the subject, I will also go through the same process for the Tech Support sub forum and the Scenario Design and Modding sub forum.  It is why I remind posters who bring inappropriate issues to the Tech sub forum that they should on the main AE mforum because it really does muck up the search function in addition to the other problems which I identify which result from that erroneous praxis.
 
Consequently on occasion I may search in four places the same search term; and then repeat it using a different search term.  As I have previously indicated, not infrequently I spend hours researching (even though I already know the answer) before posting my reply for searching the forum is only part of the exercise; searching the manual (and associated PDF documents) plus opening the game to verify the mechanical steps/specific scenario data etc is also involved.  Then all that remains is distilling the principles and organising the information to present it in a succinct and logical manner.
 
Luckily, some searches are quite quick and need only 10-15 minutes.  This is usually when I just need to refresh my memory and I just home in on dev comments and have no need to reread (again) all the returned threads.
 
You can see why wdolson and witpqs prefer to google as it is a much more rapier like thrust but the main problem with their approach is that one is more dependent on framing the search term and often the context can be missed.  I net a much wider information output but at a significantly higher cost in time.
 
Alfred 
 

[NigelKentarus]

At the top of this page, go to my subscribed forums and check which forums you regularly read. Then when you search you can select my subscribed forums and it will only display results from those forums. It definitely cuts down responses from a query that can cross multiple games.

[Trugrit]

Thanks Alfred,

There are a few points in your reply that I have missed when making my searches.
As always - many thanks.

Also important to point out to new players that Alfred has a very good memory which is
Combined with lots of hard and patient work.

I would say that well over 98% of all questions cover ground that has been studied before.

Alfred like any good tracker who sees a footprint in the dirt can tell which kind of animal he is looking at.
The ability to follow that animal’s trail comes with experience, good memory and a thorough knowledge
Of the location of all the possible water holes in the area.

Learning the game can be almost as much fun as playing it.

[dr.hal]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

It is very important to remember the following comment made by wdolson on 8 October 2014:

The ops losses in game are way below historical. If they were anywhere near historical most players would be screaming. At a peace time tempo, ops losses are low, but corners are cut in combat theaters, plus the threat level goes up. My father told me that for a combat unit that flew a mission in which they did not see any combat at all, a 4% ops loss rate was considered normal and acceptable. Imagine the screams if player's 25 aircraft USAAF fighter squadrons were losing a plane a day, each.

I can't recall where I read it, in fact I read it in more than one source, but the material pointed out that there were far more pilots killed in training than there were killed by the Japanese (as I further recall, this was just in the Pacific theater). Not sure if this holds true for Europe due to daylight bomber losses. This would appear to underscore what Bill said in 2014.

[Sardaukar]

Bit OT, but there was anecdote about B-26 training in Tampa Bay, in book Fire in the Sky.

Pilots said "One a day in Tampa Bay"...so training losses were quite severe. Of course B-26 was quite unforgiving plane for novice pilots.

[crsutton]

I lost 600 transport flying supplies over the hump to China in my last campaign. Sounds a bit historic to me.[;)] It is pretty much the same deal as with all other planes. Range, fatigue, morale, leadership, and plane fatigue to mention a few. I think with me it was plane fatigue more than anything else. I needed the supply bad so I kept them flying.

[rockmedic109]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I lost 600 transport flying supplies over the hump to China in my last campaign. Sounds a bit historic to me.[;)] It is pretty much the same deal as with all other planes. Range, fatigue, morale, leadership, and plane fatigue to mention a few. I think with me it was plane fatigue more than anything else. I needed the supply bad so I kept them flying.

Wasn't that route called the Aluminum Trail?

[Yaab]

ORIGINAL: chazz

This seems way, way out of wack. I am training up my crews but after a few turns they are 50% down in a/c numbers
due to ops losses.

Am I missing something???

n.b. I know about the search feature in this forum but it's cumbersome in the extreme.

Thanks for any help/advice.

There may be two things going on:

1. Low experience of your pilots. This will lead to more write-offs on landing.

2.Plane fatigue. Early transport planes have lower durability than fighters (see DC-2/3 vs Warhawks/Aircobras). Coupled with long routes and continuous missions, this may lead to higher losses.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

ORIGINAL: chazz

This seems way, way out of wack. I am training up my crews but after a few turns they are 50% down in a/c numbers
due to ops losses.

Am I missing something???

n.b. I know about the search feature in this forum but it's cumbersome in the extreme.

Thanks for any help/advice.

There may be two things going on:

1. Low experience of your pilots. This will lead to more write-offs on landing.

2.Plane fatigue. Early transport planes have lower durability than fighters (see DC-2/3 vs Warhawks/Aircobras). Coupled with long routes and continuous missions, this may lead to higher losses.

3. Delivering supplies to undersized airfields. No airfield at the receiving end is better for the transports than a level one airfield at the receiving end. You may not get as much supply through with an airdrop but you will likely take les operational losses than trying to deliver supplies to a level one airfield.
Which brings me to an only slightly OT question:

Saw the flash report yesterday that such and such a pilot died at the delivery end of a supply transport mission.
I presume that plane load of supplies was lost. If it had been troops is it safe to assume that plane load of troops would be lost?

I know that's how it should be, just not sure that's how it is.

[rustysi]

Wasn't that route called the Aluminum Trail?

Yes.

[kbfchicago]

+1 HansBolter's comment. I note distinctly higher attrition when going to undersized Airbases (or even airdropping) vs. a size 2 or higher base, with at least some base support seems to be best. Have not seen anyone post a detailed test of this but it just seems to make sense to me...worst to best; 1. Small base, higher chances of mishaps on both take off/landing, 2. air drop - extended air flight times, 3. capable base but no support for turn around, 4. capable base with turn around/local maint. assistance if needed.

Also remember to give the lads (and planes) a break occasionally and fly with 10 to 30% rest depending on level of sqdn fatigue.

[rustysi]

Also remember to give the lads (and planes) a break occasionally and fly with 10 to 30% rest depending on level of sqdn fatigue.

I think just having extra pilots and reserve A/C in the unit will accomplish the same thing. As much AS as possible is always a good thing too, IMHO.

[Yaab]

Thread resurrection.

No-one has addressed one thing yet, namely aviation support numbers at the RECEIVING airfield. If you fly 30 transport aircraft laden with supply to a level 6 airfield with just 20 aviation support squads there, will that affect operational losses on the return leg?

EDIT: Actually, I guess there are situations when the receiving airfield has no aviation support at all.

[Barb]

I doubt it. As Far As I Know the servicing is done only on the home base. So a Roll is made for a flight just as if it was a fighter/bomber mission - based on Plane fatigue, Pilot fatigue, Weather, Pilot exp, at least.
I am not sure which weather affects the results - that on home base only (just like fighter/bomber missions) = landing accidents, or the one on receiving end, or both ?

What works for me is to stand down planes in days where weather is Rainy/Thunderstorms in one of the Home/Delivery base. This way you usually take-of, fly, land, take-of, fly, land in rather nice weather. It also keeps plane/pilot fatigue down due to maintenance and service in "soaked in" days.