el cid again
Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
|
Actually,
AAA losses should be much higher because AA itself is more effective. This is because guns with no ceiling have a ceiling now; because there are more warning systems; and because there are lots more AA guns - including even AAMG.
It is a mixed bag: some AAA had far too great a ceiling - and most was rated at the absolute ceiling to the absolute range of the gun. One gun had 250% of ceiling and several had 200%. RHS uses LESS than ceiling - it uses effective ceiling - and it limits AA range to = ceiling (to the nearest thousand yards). Thus the volumn of space at risk is generally less.
Durability was too high - and was lowered to help raise operational losses. However, we found we had lowered it too far, and now have applied a K of 2. We could use a higher constant (say 3 or 4) if statistical analysis suggests this is correct. The price of this is we will DECREASE operational attrition - which we wished to increase.
Pearl Harbor is not typical. Aside from special things which happen if first turn surprise is on, I have disabled many of the AAA guns. Normally it would be very expensive to fly over that place! Tests should not be done on the first day sitution - to get a more normal outcome.
Anti-air warfare is my Navy specialty, and I was trained originally on a version of the 3 inch 50 - to a standard of "hit with the first round." To that end we were only permitted to fire one round per tube - 2 per mounting - to see if we really had solved the fire control problem correctly? This using WWII era synchro servo controlled FC systems.
I do believe that - in conditions where you can see the target visually or on radar - AAA is a good deal more effective than most people think it is. Or at least potentially so - IF you have detected the target in time to man the mounts, warm up the computers, load the guns, etc. AND IF you are good at what you do.
A complicating factor is that you can affect your losses by your operational tactics. For example, a 3 inch AA gun of the classic type normal in 1941 has a ceiling of 22,000 feet (due to fuse limitations) - and you can elect to come in above that level. Similarly, you can avoid all MMG if you are above 2000 feet, all HMG if you are above 4000 feet,
and all medium AAA if you are above about 12000 feet. Losses can run from 30 to 120, depending on the tactics you select. The statistical normal case is 2 battleships sunk IF you permit the Kates to go in with 800 KG bombs - and that is right. [We only admit 2 losses at PH - both still there. Technically there was a third - although the ship didn't sink until 1946 - and then not at Pearl! But she was never useful again and did ultimately sink.]
The Kiddo Butai may sail anywhere it wants to sail - and it will sail for about a week - and arrive with full tanks!
To compensate for that, RHS has taken half the tankers and they won't appear for two weeks. You are NOT required to attack Hawaii.
If anyone has statistical studies, or recommendations for K, I am interested. We have a system that may be relatively valid, but it may be skewed. We can adjust this and need to know what results are occurring in order to understand any possible adjustment.
|
Printable Version
RE: Dutch Bombers - 
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