Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Shipboard AA Performance

 
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: Shipboard AA Performance Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Shipboard AA Performance - 10/21/2010 4:39:13 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 13134
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: online
just for my friend, you want to read about the losses of the USN, I can´t offer you a version in Japanese, wonder if you would be able to read it. You will be perhaps amazed that the US lost around 4 times more marine dive and torpedo bombers to FLAK than they lost to enemy fighters.

http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf



_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 31
RE: Shipboard AA Performance - 10/21/2010 5:04:59 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 7576
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
If we generalize a lot, we could take guidance of historical capabilities from f.ex.:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Kamikaze/AAA-Summary-1045/index.html

Although the burden of ship defense against enemy air attacks fell largely upon our own carrier and land-based aircraft, approximately 7,600-7,800 enemy planes came within shipboard AA. range during the 45 months of the war.

Of these, an estimated 2,773, or 36 percent, were shot down by naval and merchant ships. In addition to these, the enemy expended 314 planes and pilots in suicide crashes on ships.


This is average for whole war and percentage was raising throughout the war.

Suicide attempts Hits on ships Damaging near misses Nondamaging misses AA successes Ships sunk
October 42 17 (40%) 6 (14%) 19 (46%) 25 (60%) 3
November 76 28 (37%) 12 (16%) 36 (47%) 48 (63%) 2
December 111 34 (31%) 17 (15%) 60 (54%) 77 (69%) 11
January 97 41 (42%) 22 (23%) 34 (35%) 56 (58%) 3
February 17 8 (47%) 2 (12%) 7 (41%) 9 (53%) 1
March 35 11 (31%) 7 (20%) 17 (49%) 24 (69%) 1
April 354 87 (25%) 62 (16%) 215 (60%) 267 (75%) 13
May 214 72 (34%) 31 (14%) 111 (52%) 142 (66%) 8
June 40 12 (30%) 7 (17%) 21 (53%) 28 (70%) 3
July 4 2 (50%) 2 (50%) 0 0 2 (50%) 1
August 9 2 (22%) 2 (22%) 5 (.56%) 7 (78%) 0
Total 999 314 (31%) 160 (16%) 525 (53%) 685 (68%) 46

From October 44 to August 45, AAA shot down or damaged 53-78% of kamikaze attackers that had got past fighters. I think we are quite far from that sort of performance in AE.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 32
RE: Shipboard AA Performance - 10/21/2010 5:17:20 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 7576
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
And from same source:

Non-Suicide Attacks
Although the number of non-suicide planes which attacked ships in the Okinawa campaign rose to unprecedented magnitude, they accomplished very little damage to our ships. The 1,234 such planes fired at by AA. sank no ships, damaged 24 of them. Two hundred sixty-two, or 21 percent of the planes were destroyed by AA. fire as compared with 15 percent of non-suicide planes destroyed in the Philippines. Table II details the results of non-suicide attacks at Okinawa. The failure of this type of attack is even more striking than the decrease in the effectiveness of suicide attacks.



This is more like it is in AE right now. Problem is that while only 21% of non-suicide attack planes were shot down, only 1.4% of those attacks resulted hit on ships. This is lot higher in AE.

Related to this:

The "kills" listed in the foregoing table occurred within sight of the ships being attacked. The 5,500 planes not shot down immediately were so harassed by antiaircraft gunfire that comparatively few were able to carry out their missions successfully. Damage to ships caused by enemy planes is outlined later in this chapter.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 33
RE: Shipboard AA Performance - 10/21/2010 5:17:24 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 13134
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: online
AA was lethal (Allied), it just isn´t as popular as reading reports about a couple of fighter pilots that became aces. Just read the reports of Allied bomber pilots reporting severe flak fire from Japanese ships in the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, or in the attacks on Rabaul. And this is just nothing compared to the "super task forces" that are created by Allied PBEM players in the game in late 43 or even later. I dare to say that Japanese flak fire in the Battle of the Bismarck Sea is just laughable compared to a late war USN CV TF.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 10/21/2010 5:20:20 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 34
RE: Shipboard AA Performance - 10/21/2010 8:13:25 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by FatR -- 10/21/2010 8:31:32 PM >

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 35
RE: Shipboard AA Performance - 10/21/2010 9:45:03 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1730
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
My theory that belongs to me is as follows.

This game can't handle well this kind of massive airstrikes. On obvious reason is AA ammo usage, but there are other things too, for example most of the battles seem to be very bloody, and massive battles are massively bloody, and damages reduce AA effectiveness of ships.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 36
RE: Shipboard AA Performance - 10/21/2010 10:14:20 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Yes, this might well be the case. If what happened can be attributed to any deficiency in the game, then this deficiency is the relative ease of creating uber strike waves. Which makes carrier battles both bloody and swingy, as far as I can tell from AARs. If one side lucks out and launches a fully cohesive strike in good weather, even a stronger enemy stands a good chance of taking huge losses.

And maybe Japanese industry being too robust, although I didn't follow CnG AAR from the beginning and don't know if SRA was taken intact (which might somewhat justify increased production) or suffered significant damage (in which case Japanese production IS too robust, or maybe has too big allowance for player mistakes).

< Message edited by FatR -- 10/21/2010 10:19:07 PM >

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 37
RE: Shipboard AA Performance - 10/21/2010 11:12:10 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 24827
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
FatR, I did not say pilot quality doesn't matter. I said there are limits to what pilot quality can do versus the AA of the target (and meaning ships close to the target). The levels of pilot quality you are describing are already well past the point of no additional returns. There are no aerial ninja tricks to avoid supersonic projectiles in this sort of AA.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 38
RE: Shipboard AA Performance - 10/21/2010 11:16:06 PM   
cap_and_gown


Posts: 2742
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

FatR, I did not say pilot quality doesn't matter. I said there are limits to what pilot quality can do versus the AA of the target (and meaning ships close to the target). The levels of pilot quality you are describing are already well past the point of no additional returns. There are no aerial ninja tricks to avoid supersonic projectiles in this sort of AA.


Ahh, but that's where you are wrong: my pilots are ninjas of the sky!

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 39
RE: Shipboard AA Performance - 10/21/2010 11:33:46 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 24827
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

my pilots are ninjas of the sky!




(I wish I had time to find a good .jpg for that! )

(in reply to cap_and_gown)
Post #: 40
RE: Shipboard AA Performance - 10/22/2010 1:26:05 AM   
Nomad

 

Posts: 4651
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: online
Will a Sky Ninja do?






Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 41
RE: Shipboard AA Performance - 10/22/2010 5:23:55 AM   
tigercub


Posts: 1972
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline
I think the case has been made for more AMMO and better late war FLAK and nice to see experience helps flak too.

_____________________________


You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 42
RE: Shipboard AA Performance - 10/22/2010 8:11:46 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 13134
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

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 >


_____________________________


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 43
RE: Shipboard AA Performance - 10/22/2010 12:49:43 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
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...

Actually, I won't argue with this. AA artillery runs out of ammo too fast in the stock game. That's why JuanG's mods and Scen 70 added more.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 44
RE: Shipboard AA Performance - 11/10/2010 6:46:54 PM   
Sly

 

Posts: 56
Joined: 9/1/2010
Status: offline
I want to support Castor and Sardaukar and others  who thinking  that  allied  shipboard flak is to weak.
I have run some tests myself in Coral Sea Scenario.
Settings:
Lexington vs 17 D3A1 from Shokaku group with very experied pilots at 10.000ft, without a Cap, different weather.
Lex commander was Sherman, crew exp. about 50.
I run about 10 turns Lex without escort and then 10 turns Lex with 2 DD escorts.
Results:
1. there was 2 turns then nothing happend (its not easy to search one ship)
2. once Vals attacked but dont hit Lex, during the rain weather,
3. Other 17 times Lex was attacked and was sinking about 10 times (6-8 bomb hits).
And flak??
Only once I noticed flak fired some bomber flights BEFORE bombs run, realising point was normally between 1000-3000ft.
All other time flak fired (if any) after bombs run.
Effectivnes??
Flak  dont  destroy  any  aircraft in  20  raids  japs lost only one aircraft as opps lost. After each turn I chacked all Valls group and at most one aircraft was damaged status although more planes (3-5) has some damaged even with ready status.
Ammo usage??
Looked at Lex then she dont sunk, I undrestand that she fired only a few times. 6x5inch RS device 3 times, once 20mm oerlikon, once 0.5 MGs etc. And 1.1 inch x4 batteries on left or right or forward or center usually dont ever fired.
I think everyone can run his own tests but remark this all automatic weapon and 5inch-es dont fired during a dive from 10.000ft to 1000ft leads me to conclusion there is somethig wrong with allied AAA performence.
I hope it isnt because the effectivnes of DP guns in AAA area was lowerd down in last patch.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 45
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> RE: Shipboard AA Performance 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

0.180