Sardaukar, your second quote is pretty interesting. However, there is a world of difference between RL Okinawa and the battle in which witpqs got his head handed to him.
First of all, most attacks in the Okinawa campaign were performed by small groups of aircraft and often by single aircraft. Small, fragmented strikes are naturally easier to repel by AAA (both in terms of planes shot down and prevention of damage to one's own ships) than huge and coordinated ones, which prevent concentration of fire on a few targets at a time.
Note, that the battle in question prominently features the effect of mass. Take day 1. In the initial morning raid 278 planes broke through to American ships and scored 30 hits. In the initial afternoon raid 291 planes reached ships and scored 44 hits. The secondary morning raids achieved 1 hit from 19 planes and the secondary afternon raid 1 hit from 36 planes, both on cripples. Remnant raids hit nothing. Also, while this might be a fluke, as far as I can see disproportionally many losses to AA fire happened during the first passes of each raid.
Also note, that the overall hit rate of 76 bombs and torpedoes from almost 650 planes (about 11,7%) is not at all awesome, even though these planes were flown by crack crews. The main reason why Japanese won is almost 650 attack planes breaking through to the ships (and this happened primarily due to strategic, operational and tactical mismanagement on the Allied part, plus, it must be admitted, some amount of bad luck). I'm frankly disturbed by the perspective of developers possibly introducing changes in the game model on the basis of this battle. The game should not be changed to compensate for such things.
Second, pilots quality. Someone said here it doesn't matter against AA, but this is all sorts of wrong. CnG had airgroups of quality never achieved by Japanese in the real war - a core of pre-war aces that had plenty of time and opportunity to study reports from the frontlines and adapt late-war anti-AA methods, such as making dives in groups of three and nine, instead of one by one - while still capable of attacking with both accuracy and determination. Still led by experienced commanders, and having the above-mentioned benefit of a massive strike, they by all rights should be more efficient in evading and suppressing (by quickly scoring disabling hits) enemy TFs' flak.
Third, planes quality. Alot of planes expended at Okinawa were obsolete models, compared to what CnG fielded.
won´t comment this post other than asking if you have read the loss rates to flak in Sardaukar´s post, or if you have even looked at the US losses the document shows I´ve posted a link. But perhaps you also have a couple of lines that justify the fact that a TF of, let´s say, 4 CV, 2 modern BB, 8 CA/CL and 11 Fletcher DD runs low on ammo after being attacked by something like 100 aircraft? If you can, you sure can come up with an explanation why a sub usually runs low on shells after sinking a single barge. This will sure be funny...
< Message edited by castor troy -- 10/22/2010 8:12:56 AM >