Matrix Games Forums

Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at War
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop (J) vs CF (A)

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop (J) vs CF (A) Page: <<   < prev  63 64 [65] 66 67   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/17/2013 10:32:46 PM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3714
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
That is my initial thought. KB was moving to Babel anyway, and so will move there, but so far no further. Trying to hyper warp all over the map is no good. Still, my plans for the Kuriles were to have all in place by March 1. He came a little early, but really couldn't sustain a lodgment up here without naval superiority.

_____________________________


(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 1921
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/17/2013 11:59:05 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7049
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
For the Kuriles I'd consider a move now a gift. You can isolate it and wipe it out over time. The LBA should be able to take some of the invasion out as well if he's only got CVE's for protection.

It seems to me a call for the KB so he can move/reinforce elsewhere without too much worry. I'd keep things in the shadows until you know the extent of what is happening.

A tad jealous of the 'beer on the porch' weather! It's socked in and chilly in London, as usual. I remember those perfect spring days in the South from my 6 years in NC. Such a great time of year there.

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 1922
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/18/2013 12:39:35 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3706
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
The retreat order was premature.

Alfred

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 1923
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/18/2013 7:52:08 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4244
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

What is he up to? Invasion is possible, but with the carrier inferiority he faces for some months yet, any troops landed in the Kuriles would be cut off and destroyed in detail. He may just be raiding, perhaps as a feint for a move elsewhere. Or, he could be planning a move in the Aleutians, using this CVE TF as distant cover to keep the IJN away. We will treat it like the real thing but watch for signs of a feint. KB is already planning to move out for Babel, and that move will be accelerated. Admiral Tanaka will leave Truk for Japan as well.

What do y'all think is going on?


Escort carriers in the Northern Pacific? My bet is that he is counting on bad weather to allow his ships to escape. (he certainly can't count on speed.)

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 1924
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/21/2013 10:04:42 PM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3714
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
February 25, 1943

All quiet in the Kuriles. Not so much in Burma.

Subs

I-180 torpedoes and sinks the kamikaze xAK trying to re-supply Broome. The appearance of this vessel proves that the Allied beachhead here is already suffering supply issues.

ASW harasses Seawolf near Singers.

5th Fleet

Despite a significant augmentation of already robust air search patterns, the Allied CVEs are nowhere to be seen. Surprisingly, the damaged AMC is still afloat, and the fact that she is neither attacked nor spotted by enemy CV air means the enemy TF made a big move back. Was this a feint? Is CF pulling back before a quick run in, hoping to catch us returning to normal? Cribtop Intel doesn't know for sure, but believes the fact the Allies didn't bull ahead once spotted significantly decreases the odds this was an invasion.

SE Fleet

Milne Bay goes to airfield 3. Tomorrow we begin loading up engineers from Gasmata to move out to the DEI. The SE Fleet AO's defenses are nearing completion.

Burma

Allied air flies in numbers and gets good hits on our divisions withdrawing from Chittagong. After the move phase, only two infantry divisions are still in the clear hex, and they should get into the jungle tomorrow. The whole army will march back to CB and then advance on Akyab. Intention is to use an armored regiment to cut off the base in hopes we can force a surrender. This would open up CF's right flank and leave a decent sized Indian force in danger of total isolation, which would in turn put 17th and 15th Armies on the edge of the central valley and put the Commonwealth right into disarray. Then the monsoon will come and curtail what CF is capable of in this AO.

The Allies, probably thinking they were facing a recon unit, try a DA in the road hex between Prome and Toungoo. I suspect CF was surprised to find the dug in 1st IJA Armored Division. Odds were 1:16, casualties 954(4) vs 69(1). The three LCUs committed to the attack (two Indian Divisions and a Brit recon unit), show tons of minuses from weeks of unopposed bombing by Helens. We imagine they are pretty roughed up.

A few more surprises. CF has finally gotten a base force to Meiktila as today's recon shows 20-some fighters. Two big Tojo groups will sweep tomorrow, followed up by all our Helens hitting the airfield. Also, a sub on picket duty south of Ceylon picks up a TF reported as 4 ships, including a CA. Could be an ASW TF, could be something more interesting.

_____________________________


(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 1925
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/21/2013 10:33:33 PM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3714
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
Alfred,

I have enormous respect for your opinion and really wanted Chittagong, but I suffered from the lack of IJ airbases in range. I found myself unable to recover DIS from the initially successful ground attacks due to Allied bombing and unable to keep Cox's Bazaar open for LRCAP purposes. Finally and most importantly, I couldn't save my gains in reduction of fort levels because I can't reach Chittagong with bombers. Thus CF rebuilt to level three forts. I know I can bombard with the IJN to work over Chittagong, but that can't solve the air superiority issues, and the bombing plus damage from ground assaults threatens to hollow out my divisions.

I'm very open to trying for the base because of the strategic benefits, but from a tactical perspective I'm stymied. As far as additional assets I have one reasonably fresh infantry division and a small armored unit. How would you take the base in these circumstances?

< Message edited by Cribtop -- 3/21/2013 10:36:33 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 1926
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/21/2013 10:39:35 PM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3714
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
PS - Regarding the Kuriles, I agree that an invasion would be a desperation move at this point. CF couldn't maintain control of the seas and anything he lands in the next 6 plus months would thus be doomed in the long run. Knowing he is defanged in terms of fleet carriers takes a lot of his options off the table, which is nice.

_____________________________


(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 1927
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/22/2013 11:15:41 PM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3714
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
February 26, 1943

Subs

I-2 misses a UK DD near Koggala. Looks like yesterday's sighting was indeed an ASW TF rather than anything more aggressive.

Truant is chased off by convoy escorts near Groot Natoena.

5th Fleet

No sign of the Allied CVEs, or anything else for that matter.

SE Fleet

Buna goes to airfield 3.

Burma

We sweep Meiktila and find 24 P-40Es on CAP, rising in dribs and drabs throughout the combat sequence. By the end, 42 crack Tojos shoot down or cause the Ops loss of... 24 P-40Es! What a massacre. Two new aces are minted today. We lose one Tojo (pilot is WIA). Nice. Then over 100 Helens hit the airfield for good measure.

The Allies try a BA at Taung Gyi. Raw AS is 1433:814, and we have level 4 plus forts in x3 terrain. Cribtop HQ feels good here. Also, we posted a large number of arty units to the base, and they inflict 138(5) casualties in counter-bombardment. We hope those guns will hurt CF during the fire phase if he tries a DA.

Our AS at Taung Gyi is slightly diminished because we detached an IJA brigade and two arty units to join the RTA Cavalry Division one hex to the East. This move was made necessary by the imminent arrival of the UK 2nd Division, which marched down from Lashio. We will move reinforcements up to make sure the enemy can't break through here.

China

We try a night attack at Chengtu, which is very overcrowded after the enemy air force had to retire from its previous roost at Kweiyang. As we hoped, results are good, with several planes destroyed and damaged.

< Message edited by Cribtop -- 3/22/2013 11:18:07 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 1928
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/25/2013 10:27:24 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7049
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

We sweep Meiktila and find 24 P-40Es on CAP, rising in dribs and drabs throughout the combat sequence. By the end, 42 crack Tojos shoot down or cause the Ops loss of... 24 P-40Es! What a massacre. Two new aces are minted today. We lose one Tojo (pilot is WIA). Nice. Then over 100 Helens hit the airfield for good measure.


Do you guys use a 2nd best maneuver band HR or anything like that? I've been wondering why the P-40 is so much worse than historical. In my games we have the 2nd best band rule and it just can't defend dives from Tojos or even Zeros.

I have a feeling if it could fly higher it would fare better.


_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 1929
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/26/2013 4:15:06 AM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3714
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
We don't. We keep altitudes far closer to historical, though, based on a sliding scale over time. I think the Tojo dominance in this particular game is a result of early victories leading to an upward spiral of Japanese pilots and a corresponding downward spiral of Commonwealth pilots.

My guys are silly good, pushing 80 average quality on all Tojo units. There was a point a few months back where I could just "feel" that casualties had caused a drop off for CF in Burma. He even commented how often my planes live or even win in situations where he got the bounce.

_____________________________


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 1930
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/26/2013 9:28:04 AM   
obvert


Posts: 7049
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
I checked and didn't see an actual HR in the beginning on altitude. Have you developed a system since? I'm curious as I'd like to use something that doesn't allow the uber-sweeps at 40k but also makes sure each side has some ability to move things around and react to the other player and the equipment.

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 1931
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/26/2013 1:19:32 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 7123
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: online
This is my HR in my current game vs Olorin. We are only in early '43, but it seems to be working well.

Fighter Altitude Rules:
Combat altitude from:
Dec 1941 - May 1942 20,000
June 1942 - Dec 1942 25,000
1943 30,000
1944--45 Whatever


_____________________________


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 1932
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/26/2013 1:30:30 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5080
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Michael,

How are your P40s doing? Are they dying (1:10 or worse) in droves like mine do or can they be used in your game?

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 1933
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/26/2013 1:40:31 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7049
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

This is my HR in my current game vs Olorin. We are only in early '43, but it seems to be working well.

Fighter Altitude Rules:
Combat altitude from:
Dec 1941 - May 1942 20,000
June 1942 - Dec 1942 25,000
1943 30,000
1944--45 Whatever



Even in 44-45 open doors seem to invite a lot of max altitude sweeps. Did the US planes ever fly up there at 40k? I think max altitude would still heavily favor the US planes getting the dive on even 3rd gen Japanese airframes with max in the 36-39k range.

The dive is the thing that changes everything, obviously, and although it was a valid and well used tactic in the war, it's tough when it produces the 10:1 results seen on both sides at different times in the war. 3:1 I could handle.

One thing Torsten and I are trying is using the 2nd best band thing for sweeps only. Thus Cap can get above them, favoring the defender but making the choice difficult at which bands to use as the spread gets wider later in the war. Maybe.

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 1934
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/26/2013 1:41:29 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 7123
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: online
quote:

Michael,

How are your P40s doing? Are they dying (1:10 or worse) in droves like mine do or can they be used in your game?


My P-40Ks are holding their own vs Mr Tojo. One of the keys of A2A combat are numbers. Losses are near even when the numbers are even in the skies. If I can get near 1.5 to 1 odds, then his Tojo take some serious losses. Which of course he can replace.

I see Damian's thread in Tech Support as a good thing and feel that there are issues with A2A. One of the things I would like to see modeled would be for the Allies to have the three groups of 25 fighters be able to combine into a 75 plane FG starting sometime in '43 and continue throughout the end of the game. I already know I'll be doing some mod stuff for my next game.

_____________________________


(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 1935
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/26/2013 2:15:08 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5080
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

quote:

Michael,

How are your P40s doing? Are they dying (1:10 or worse) in droves like mine do or can they be used in your game?


My P-40Ks are holding their own vs Mr Tojo. One of the keys of A2A combat are numbers. Losses are near even when the numbers are even in the skies. If I can get near 1.5 to 1 odds, then his Tojo take some serious losses. Which of course he can replace.

I see Damian's thread in Tech Support as a good thing and feel that there are issues with A2A. One of the things I would like to see modeled would be for the Allies to have the three groups of 25 fighters be able to combine into a 75 plane FG starting sometime in '43 and continue throughout the end of the game. I already know I'll be doing some mod stuff for my next game.


Can we switch P40s? I think mine are broken!

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 1936
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/26/2013 2:23:08 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 7123
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: online
quote:

Even in 44-45 open doors seem to invite a lot of max altitude sweeps. Did the US planes ever fly up there at 40k? I think max altitude would still heavily favor the US planes getting the dive on even 3rd gen Japanese airframes with max in the 36-39k range.

The dive is the thing that changes everything, obviously, and although it was a valid and well used tactic in the war, it's tough when it produces the 10:1 results seen on both sides at different times in the war. 3:1 I could handle.


There is already a penalty for use of your fighters above 30k in increased fatigue and op losses. So, from your point of view here, the Allies would be denied a technological advantage of being able to fly higher than Japanese planes. Why?? Japan has the advantage of producing huge number of fighters, so this may allow the Allies a way to balance the equation to some degree. Remember, I play both sides so I'm not coming at this as a AFB.

_____________________________


(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 1937
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/26/2013 3:25:22 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7049
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

quote:

Even in 44-45 open doors seem to invite a lot of max altitude sweeps. Did the US planes ever fly up there at 40k? I think max altitude would still heavily favor the US planes getting the dive on even 3rd gen Japanese airframes with max in the 36-39k range.

The dive is the thing that changes everything, obviously, and although it was a valid and well used tactic in the war, it's tough when it produces the 10:1 results seen on both sides at different times in the war. 3:1 I could handle.


There is already a penalty for use of your fighters above 30k in increased fatigue and op losses. So, from your point of view here, the Allies would be denied a technological advantage of being able to fly higher than Japanese planes. Why?? Japan has the advantage of producing huge number of fighters, so this may allow the Allies a way to balance the equation to some degree. Remember, I play both sides so I'm not coming at this as a AFB.


The penalty for using planes above 30k seems negligible in my experience. At least compared to what I've read about fatigue and altitude sickness, etc. caused by flying over 30k. I can keep planes on CAP daily and not lose moral or get too high a fatigue level for quite a while, up to a week until I have to switch them out.

The Allies get on average between 5-10:1 for 31k+ sweeps against the best IJ planes in my game. Doesn't even seem to matter if there are numbers present if it's P-47/Corsair/Spit VIII. That kind of ratio is cost prohibitive for the IJ economy and pilot training. Which means I wouldn't even try to match those numbers using production.

When the altitude is the same, the ratio goes down. Most of this seems to be the dive. The Allies should win these battles, just maybe not at the numbers I see here. Maybe more like 3-5:1I would think.

On the other end, in the beginning the ratio should also be closer and the Tojo should not get 10:1 against the P-40. It should be closer to 2-3:1 at best I would say.

< Message edited by obvert -- 3/26/2013 3:28:10 PM >


_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 1938
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/26/2013 5:54:18 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2619
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
quote:

The penalty for using planes above 30k seems negligible in my experience


Not to confuise this game and reality but, 30K in a non pressurized aircraft with simple O2 mask is not a critical altitude. Things do not start to really get to be a problem where a O2 mask and a suit to keep warm is about 45K feet. Then after that pressurized O2 is required. At 63,000 feet blood boils .. so a pressurized suit is needed.

Beyond these factors flying a turbocharged aircraft at 40,000 feet has a different problem. Heat .. rather the inability to shed heat and engine wear ..

_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 1939
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/26/2013 6:29:39 PM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3714
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
We are informally using something pretty close to Michael's chart, but I would be surprised if either one of us goes much above 25K for quite a while.

Michael is right about numbers, too. I consistently use the 42 plane Sentai as my crack units and fight the Allies in dribs and drabs on sweeps. A series of 42:9 battles with you on sweep is a recipe for lopsided kill counts. Conversely, the smaller Allied units face a united Tojo CAP that does well against his sweeps. Not as lopsided, of course, but still well in my favor and with minimal pilot losses to boot as I'm over my base. Also, CF hasn't been able to put pressure on me on other fronts due to the naval situation, so I can cluster just about all my Tojos in Burma. Spare Sentai wait in Bangkok and rotate in and out of the frontline as needed.

< Message edited by Cribtop -- 3/26/2013 6:31:29 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 1940
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/26/2013 7:00:14 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7049
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

The penalty for using planes above 30k seems negligible in my experience


Not to confuise this game and reality but, 30K in a non pressurized aircraft with simple O2 mask is not a critical altitude. Things do not start to really get to be a problem where a O2 mask and a suit to keep warm is about 45K feet. Then after that pressurized O2 is required. At 63,000 feet blood boils .. so a pressurized suit is needed.

Beyond these factors flying a turbocharged aircraft at 40,000 feet has a different problem. Heat .. rather the inability to shed heat and engine wear ..


I'll have to find it again, but I read something a while back that led me to believe there were significant factors increasing fatigue and pilot difficulties at altitudes of 30k and up. I'l have a look for it later.

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 1941
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/27/2013 1:04:12 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3706
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

The penalty for using planes above 30k seems negligible in my experience


Not to confuise this game and reality but, 30K in a non pressurized aircraft with simple O2 mask is not a critical altitude. Things do not start to really get to be a problem where a O2 mask and a suit to keep warm is about 45K feet. Then after that pressurized O2 is required. At 63,000 feet blood boils .. so a pressurized suit is needed.

Beyond these factors flying a turbocharged aircraft at 40,000 feet has a different problem. Heat .. rather the inability to shed heat and engine wear ..


I'll have to find it again, but I read something a while back that led me to believe there were significant factors increasing fatigue and pilot difficulties at altitudes of 30k and up. I'l have a look for it later.


It isn't a preset hard limit. The additional ill effects come in when flying a single engine aircraft at 80% of it's maximum ceiling. See post #48 of this thread.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2558845&mpage=2&key=altitude%2Cfatigue�

Alfred

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 1942
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/27/2013 1:10:17 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3706
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

Alfred,

I have enormous respect for your opinion and really wanted Chittagong, but I suffered from the lack of IJ airbases in range. I found myself unable to recover DIS from the initially successful ground attacks due to Allied bombing and unable to keep Cox's Bazaar open for LRCAP purposes. Finally and most importantly, I couldn't save my gains in reduction of fort levels because I can't reach Chittagong with bombers. Thus CF rebuilt to level three forts. I know I can bombard with the IJN to work over Chittagong, but that can't solve the air superiority issues, and the bombing plus damage from ground assaults threatens to hollow out my divisions.

I'm very open to trying for the base because of the strategic benefits, but from a tactical perspective I'm stymied. As far as additional assets I have one reasonably fresh infantry division and a small armored unit. How would you take the base in these circumstances?


I'd like to see a screenshot of the area showing force dispositions etc before providing considered commentary. But the order to retreat is without any doubt premature as your position would not have deteriorated in the time before your inbound bombardment TF arrived. Are you so certain that the enemy position is not equally suffering?

Alfred

(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 1943
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/27/2013 1:16:41 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3706
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

quote:

Michael,

How are your P40s doing? Are they dying (1:10 or worse) in droves like mine do or can they be used in your game?


My P-40Ks are holding their own vs Mr Tojo. One of the keys of A2A combat are numbers. Losses are near even when the numbers are even in the skies. If I can get near 1.5 to 1 odds, then his Tojo take some serious losses. Which of course he can replace.

I see Damian's thread in Tech Support as a good thing and feel that there are issues with A2A. One of the things I would like to see modeled would be for the Allies to have the three groups of 25 fighters be able to combine into a 75 plane FG starting sometime in '43 and continue throughout the end of the game. I already know I'll be doing some mod stuff for my next game.


I don't share your thoughts.

A less than optimum orchestrated operation being smashed is never a good basis for making hasty judgements. Nor have the posters there bothered to do their sums; instead immediately jumping onto the bandwagon because it reinforces their prejudices.

Having American 75 plane fighter groups would fix zero (pun intended). How long then before the Japanese players start to complain about going up with much smaller units against the 75lb gorillas.

Alfred

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 1944
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/27/2013 1:44:02 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7049
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

The penalty for using planes above 30k seems negligible in my experience


Not to confuise this game and reality but, 30K in a non pressurized aircraft with simple O2 mask is not a critical altitude. Things do not start to really get to be a problem where a O2 mask and a suit to keep warm is about 45K feet. Then after that pressurized O2 is required. At 63,000 feet blood boils .. so a pressurized suit is needed.

Beyond these factors flying a turbocharged aircraft at 40,000 feet has a different problem. Heat .. rather the inability to shed heat and engine wear ..


I'll have to find it again, but I read something a while back that led me to believe there were significant factors increasing fatigue and pilot difficulties at altitudes of 30k and up. I'l have a look for it later.


It isn't a preset hard limit. The additional ill effects come in when flying a single engine aircraft at 80% of it's maximum ceiling. See post #48 of this thread.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2558845&mpage=2&key=altitude%2Cfatigue�

Alfred


Thans Alfred. Very informative thread on this in game.

I should have made it more clear, but my statement was referring to actual historical situations and evidence that flying high posed many problems for pilots during the war period, especially early in the war. Thus high sweeps as practiced in game would seemingly not produce better performance based on some of this information.

Found the very short paper highlighting effects on the body above 18,000ft.

Above 18,000 feet, aircrew performance was frequently impaired by hypoxia, decompression sickness (DCS), and hypothermia.

http://physiology.yale.edu/Images/CMPhysio_Fulton-WWII_tcm36-10496.pdf

And this from the US Army Airforces Pilot's Information File.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XTyBFuWtesUC&pg=PT135&lpg=PT135&dq=effects+of+high+altitude+in+ww2&source=bl&ots=XHiqtjCu79&sig=RWS-tWma43cpWt8abmC0dVJRGS4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7-ZSUYqTCYql0QXQxYCoAw&redir_esc=y




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by obvert -- 3/27/2013 2:05:41 PM >


_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 1945
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/27/2013 3:53:12 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2619
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

The penalty for using planes above 30k seems negligible in my experience


Not to confuise this game and reality but, 30K in a non pressurized aircraft with simple O2 mask is not a critical altitude. Things do not start to really get to be a problem where a O2 mask and a suit to keep warm is about 45K feet. Then after that pressurized O2 is required. At 63,000 feet blood boils .. so a pressurized suit is needed.

Beyond these factors flying a turbocharged aircraft at 40,000 feet has a different problem. Heat .. rather the inability to shed heat and engine wear ..


I'll have to find it again, but I read something a while back that led me to believe there were significant factors increasing fatigue and pilot difficulties at altitudes of 30k and up. I'l have a look for it later.


It isn't a preset hard limit. The additional ill effects come in when flying a single engine aircraft at 80% of it's maximum ceiling. See post #48 of this thread.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2558845&mpage=2&key=altitude%2Cfatigue�

Alfred


Thans Alfred. Very informative thread on this in game.

I should have made it more clear, but my statement was referring to actual historical situations and evidence that flying high posed many problems for pilots during the war period, especially early in the war. Thus high sweeps as practiced in game would seemingly not produce better performance based on some of this information.

Found the very short paper highlighting effects on the body above 18,000ft.

Above 18,000 feet, aircrew performance was frequently impaired by hypoxia, decompression sickness (DCS), and hypothermia.

http://physiology.yale.edu/Images/CMPhysio_Fulton-WWII_tcm36-10496.pdf

And this from the US Army Airforces Pilot's Information File.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XTyBFuWtesUC&pg=PT135&lpg=PT135&dq=effects+of+high+altitude+in+ww2&source=bl&ots=XHiqtjCu79&sig=RWS-tWma43cpWt8abmC0dVJRGS4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7-ZSUYqTCYql0QXQxYCoAw&redir_esc=y




quote:

back that led me to believe there were significant factors increasing fatigue and pilot difficulties at altitudes of 30k and up. I'l have a look for it later


This page is assuming no equipment. You are comparing apples and oranges .. This huge page assumes no equipment. As far as hypoxia goes the break happends at 35K feet in that you need a sealed mask. ..But a simple face mask works quite well up to 35K feet. After that you have to have a sealed mask. This article will provide a much better feel of the problem of high altitude flight.(http://www.avweb.com/news/aeromed/181893-1.html)


As long as the fighter pilot had a sealed mask and a flight suit 41K - 44K is tiring but not fatal .. However, heat damage at high alttudes to the turbocharger is fatal to the engine over time, and the turbochargers of that day did not understand problems like "cooking." The oil becomes so thin with the latent heat, that the oil between the turbine bearings cooks and stops providing lubercation protection. It might be cold at altitude but the high-altutude density means no transfer of heat to the air and subsequnet cooling [Heck the TSIO-i360-LB of the 1970's did not understand these problems ] -I wish my article on Turbocharging in MOA magazine was still on line. I think I included a pdf version answering a thread 2 years ago in this forum when this came up ..

[I am waiting for someone to quote the FAR's on the 25,000' maxmium operating alttude for non-pressurized aircraft .. ]

< Message edited by Crackaces -- 3/27/2013 4:21:35 PM >


_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 1946
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/27/2013 7:06:41 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7049
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
This is perfect Crackaces. Not assuming anything, or comparing apples to oranges, just reaching for some information and trying to find more. What you've added is great. Not only are there issues with pilots but the planes, and especially the superchargers of the very high fliers.

All I'm trying to find out is what is plausible and a likely good rule in game to approximate the difficulties of flying up there.

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 1947
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/27/2013 7:46:07 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2619
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

This is perfect Crackaces. Not assuming anything, or comparing apples to oranges, just reaching for some information and trying to find more. What you've added is great. Not only are there issues with pilots but the planes, and especially the superchargers of the very high fliers.

All I'm trying to find out is what is plausible and a likely good rule in game to approximate the difficulties of flying up there.


Yes the information you provided is if you do not have any O2 equipment or it fails. The faillure part is particularly distressing because as pilots get high altitude training find out .. unconsciousness and subsequnet death are insidious and rapid above 35,000 feet. But the real problem not reflected in the game quite yet is the toll not on the pilots given the stuff works most of the time, but the toll on aircooled turbocharged reciprocating aircraft engines. I can say from experiece just flying point to point with a "modern" aircooled turbocharged reciprocating aircraft engine no IJ trying to shoot me down .. that keeping that baby flying was expensive and fraught with downtime. The two worst engines were the TSIO-360-LB and the TSIO- 520-K, along with the GTSIO-520-D. The latter requires a TBO of 800 hours. High altitude flying at 25,000 feet worsened my problem greatly needing Top overhauls and Turbocharger rebuilds that was not as frequent flying non-turbochanged aircraft below 18,000 feet. I can imagine the stress of 40K feet. I was reading the Wiki for the P&W R2800 Double Wasp and desgin expectations for 50 hours of frontline service!

Ok back to the AAR!

_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 1948
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/28/2013 12:03:02 AM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3714
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
February 27, 1943

Cool discussion about high altitude ops. Also, the numerous posts may freak out CF if he's paying attention to the boards, so thanks for the maskirovka!

Alfred, I'll get a screenshot up. My main issue was starting to see my divisions get degraded without a method to suppress enemy fort construction. Until forts dropped I couldn't win, and my ability to continue attacking to drop forts was fast disappearing due to DIS from both my own ground attacks and the enemy air attacks.

Subs

A Lily reports a hit on Trusty near Singapore. This is about the 100th claim by a Japanese pilot or ASW skipper that this particular sub has been hit.

SE Fleet

Nadi makes airfield 6. Tanaka Force, which sortied some time ago in response to the sighting of a large enemy SCTF near Luganville, returns to Truk.

Burma

We sweep Meiktila but find no CAP. Recon shows 4 fighters now at Schwebo, probably the survivors of the P-40 group.

Allied air switches to the port at Cox's Bazaar now that 17th Army has left the Chittagong hex. This tells Cribtop Intel that CF believes we will go for a sea evacuation, which of course is not our intention.

The Allies again BA Taung Gyi and again IJA arty does a good job, inflicting 93(2) casualties. 33rd Division is shifting from unthreatened Prome toward Taung Gyi.

< Message edited by Cribtop -- 3/28/2013 12:06:12 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 1949
RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop ... - 3/29/2013 7:14:20 PM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3714
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
February 28, 1943

February ends with a bang... Or two.

Subs

This has not been a glorious game for either side's silent service. Today, however, the brave crew of I-155 (which somehow always ends up one of my best subs across multiple games), does their part. Spotting a big SCTF near Busselton containing CA Astoria, CLs Leander and Achilles, and 4 DDs, the sub torpedoes both Leander and Astoria in two separate attacks and escapes without a hit in return. Nice. Leander is badly damaged with a critical hit and engine damage, Astoria less so but still hurting. The enemy ships already sported smoke before being hit. Criptop Intel speculates they were heading out of Perth towards Sydney to finish repairing battle damage from Exmouth.

A mini-sub long on station in Chittagong harbor is DC'd and sunk by what looks like a DD FT TF.

Gar duds on a supply laden AMC near Toyohara. Trusty is bombed again near Groote Natoena by a Lily.

5th Fleet

With the departure of the enemy CVE, we resume the garrisoning of the Kuriles.

Southern Army

Sabang forts go to 6, Dobo forts to 1.

Burma

The Allied air force keeps after the port at Cox's Bazaar.

< Message edited by Cribtop -- 3/29/2013 7:29:21 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 1950
Page:   <<   < prev  63 64 [65] 66 67   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Wait, I can't read Cuttlefish's new AAR? - Cribtop (J) vs CF (A) Page: <<   < prev  63 64 [65] 66 67   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.141