Matrix Games Forums

A look through the keyhole #10!The Age of Shadows on Distant Worlds starts now!Paypal System UpdateDistant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!Armageddon invasion starts in 2014Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!Servers UpdateThe Deal goes Fourth!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Question about a Combat Report

 
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 >> Tech Support >> RE: Question about a Combat Report Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Question about a Combat Report - 1/28/2012 11:37:02 AM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 579
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline
I estimate that, had GreyJoy's full potentially available CAP of 1183 fighters engaged the first raid, about 90% of the Graces and all of the Judies would have been shot down or damaged prior to the attack run.

The remaining Graces would probably have scored about 5 torpedo hits.

But, only just over 40% of the available CAP actually engaged and as a consequence the TF took 31 torpedo and 3 bomb hits in that first attack.

(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 31
RE: Question about a Combat Report - 1/28/2012 11:43:56 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 4959
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

I estimate that, had GreyJoy's full potentially available CAP of 1183 fighters engaged the first raid, about 90% of the Graces and all of the Judies would have been shot down or damaged prior to the attack run.

The remaining Graces would probably have scored about 5 torpedo hits.

But, only just over 40% of the available CAP actually engaged and as a consequence the TF took 31 torpedo and 3 bomb hits in that first attack.


I think so...

I probably was too concerned about High Altitude incoming Kamikaze attacks and dispersed my CAP in too many altitude bands.
This, with a clearly unlucky dice and roll, caused my CAP to be mostly out of position during the first attack.
And, having tried to follow the first attack, my CAP has been found out of position also for the following second attack.

I imagine the second attack having chosen a different route...so while my CAP has been shiftet towards the incoming route of the first wave, the second attack arrived at its back catching it with its pants down...


(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 32
RE: Question about a Combat Report - 1/28/2012 12:09:56 PM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 579
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline
It was hard luck but I must commend you, you have shown considerable maturity and sportsmanship.

But the campaign is far from over, GreyJoy, so, in the words of Di Falco: "Vada a bordo, cazzo!"



< Message edited by CT Grognard -- 1/28/2012 12:10:12 PM >

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 33
RE: Question about a Combat Report - 1/28/2012 12:19:44 PM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 579
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline
What I do find interesting is how understated the Japanese aircraft losses were in the combat report that GreyJoy saw - 46 (as opposed to the actual 145).

That's quite a serious fog of war - but surely it's in the wrong direction? Surely historically fighter jocks OVERCLAIMED air-to-air kills?

(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 34
RE: Question about a Combat Report - 1/28/2012 12:36:28 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 4959
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

What I do find interesting is how understated the Japanese aircraft losses were in the combat report that GreyJoy saw - 46 (as opposed to the actual 145).

That's quite a serious fog of war - but surely it's in the wrong direction? Surely historically fighter jocks OVERCLAIMED air-to-air kills?



if you look at the replay you will see many of those "unreported kills".

As LoBaron tought (sp!?) some time ago, you always have to read a turn mixing the information from the reply, the combat report and the intel screen

I "read" the kills in the combat report as the "witnessed kills"...those who are for sure because someone witnessed to that kill of yours...while in the reply you see, more or less, what happens in reality...and the intel screen will tell you later which are the witnessed kills + the probable kills (those who have not been witnessed but are highly probable)

(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 35
RE: Question about a Combat Report - 1/28/2012 12:37:49 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 4959
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard


But the campaign is far from over, GreyJoy, so, in the words of Di Falco: "Vada a bordo, cazzo!"




LOL

Aboard of which one of my sinking ships?...i just have the pleasure of a big spectrum of choices

(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 36
RE: Question about a Combat Report - 1/28/2012 12:46:47 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 4959
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

Interesting.

So only 509 Allied fighters managed to eventually engage the main strike - or 43% of the total fighters theoretically able to contest the raid.

This against a Japanese force numbering 474 fighters and 269 bombers. Only 444 (60%) of the Japanese aircraft were engaged by the Allied CAP, but higher levels of the bombers were engaged (75% of the Graces and 74% of the Judies, as opposed to on average 47% of the Japanese fighters).

The Allied CAP shot down 34% of the Graces and 48% of the Judies they actually engaged.

Just over 21% of the Japanese fighters engaged by the CAP were shot down. Let's simplistically assume half the Allied CAP went for the bombers and half went for the escorts, you had then 254 Allied fighters engaging 241 Japanese fighters. The Allied fighters suffered only 2.8% losses, or 7 fighters to 51.

Let's assume the bombers damaged by the CAP on approach turned away from their attacks. Therefore this left 140 Graces and 16 Judies for an attack run on the Allied carriers. Of these, 15 Graces (10.7%) and 6 Judies (38%) were shot down by flak. This (simplistically) left 125 Graces and 10 Judies to attack. 31 of the Judies (25%) scored torpedo hits and 3 of the Judies (30%) scored bomb hits.

One could well therefore argue that the Allied flak was nowhere near as effective as it should have been.

In the next attack that really turned the screws in, most of the Allied CAP was out of place having contested the initial raid, and you had 208 Allied fighters (or 18% of the total fighters theoretically able to contest the raid) engaging 93 Japanese aircraft.

In this raid, the Allied fighters shot down 58% of the Jills and 44% of the fighters they engaged.

This left 28 Jills for the attack run - 2 (7%) were shot down by flak. The remaining 26 then scored 11 torpedo hits (42%).

The actual story here is of a first raid consisting of 509 Allied fighters contesting 743 Japanese aircraft (including a very strong Japanese fighter escort), in heavy cloud. The Allied fighters shot down 130 aircraft for the loss of only 7. No problem here.

In the second raid, 208 Allied fighters engaged 93 Japanese aircraft, again in heavy cloud (albeit this time with not such a strong fighter escort). The Allied fighters shot down 50 aircraft for the loss of only one. Again, no problem here.

I think, if anything, what can be complained about by Allied players is how ineffective the Allied flak was against the bombers that managed to get through the CAP.



mmm...everything in your statements works but you have to consider that a LARGE portion of the attack bombers engaged (both on the first and on the second wave) were engaged only AFTER the attack. So a LOT more of those Jills and Graces had a chance of delivering their ordinances before being engaged (and shot down)...so their hit% is probably a lot lower than what you rapresented.

The key factor here was exactly this one imho: my CAP was way out of position and even those fighters who managed to arrive and engage the enemy ....they simply arrived too late...when the torpedoes had already been delivered...
I bet that if they engaged earlier (even with the same numbers) the attacking formations would have been distrupted a lot more, thus leading to a much inferior accurancy of the launching operations...

have you ever played IL2Sturmovik 1946? I had quite extensively.... when you are in for a bombing or a torpedo run in a betty or in a Kate you have to allineate and to keep your route steady...if a fighter engages you all the banks and evasive manouvres you have to do result in 90% of times in you losing the correct attacking posture...and you simply miss your target...


(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 37
RE: Question about a Combat Report - 1/28/2012 1:59:47 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2025
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

Interesting.

So only 509 Allied fighters managed to eventually engage the main strike - or 43% of the total fighters theoretically able to contest the raid.

This against a Japanese force numbering 474 fighters and 269 bombers. Only 444 (60%) of the Japanese aircraft were engaged by the Allied CAP, but higher levels of the bombers were engaged (75% of the Graces and 74% of the Judies, as opposed to on average 47% of the Japanese fighters).

The Allied CAP shot down 34% of the Graces and 48% of the Judies they actually engaged.

Just over 21% of the Japanese fighters engaged by the CAP were shot down. Let's simplistically assume half the Allied CAP went for the bombers and half went for the escorts, you had then 254 Allied fighters engaging 241 Japanese fighters. The Allied fighters suffered only 2.8% losses, or 7 fighters to 51.

Let's assume the bombers damaged by the CAP on approach turned away from their attacks. Therefore this left 140 Graces and 16 Judies for an attack run on the Allied carriers. Of these, 15 Graces (10.7%) and 6 Judies (38%) were shot down by flak. This (simplistically) left 125 Graces and 10 Judies to attack. 31 of the Judies (25%) scored torpedo hits and 3 of the Judies (30%) scored bomb hits.

One could well therefore argue that the Allied flak was nowhere near as effective as it should have been.

In the next attack that really turned the screws in, most of the Allied CAP was out of place having contested the initial raid, and you had 208 Allied fighters (or 18% of the total fighter
In this raid, the Allied fighters shot down 58% of the Jills and 44% of the fighters they engaged. s theoretically able to contest the raid) engaging 93 Japanese aircraft.


This left 28 Jills for the attack run - 2 (7%) were shot down by flak. The remaining 26 then scored 11 torpedo hits (42%).

The actual story here is of a first raid consisting of 509 Allied fighters contesting 743 Japanese aircraft (including a very strong Japanese fighter escort), in heavy cloud. The Allied fighters shot down 130 aircraft for the loss of only 7. No problem here.

In the second raid, 208 Allied fighters engaged 93 Japanese aircraft, again in heavy cloud (albeit this time with not such a strong fighter escort). The Allied fighters shot down 50 aircraft for the loss of only one. Again, no problem here.

I think, if anything, what can be complained about by Allied players is how ineffective the Allied flak was against the bombers that managed to get through the CAP.


I couldn't agree more

_____________________________


(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 38
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> RE: Question about a Combat Report Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.152