RE: Sweep vs Escorts

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: Sweep vs Escorts

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 >> RE: Sweep vs Escorts

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/17/2010 10:45:21 AM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

So my tests are ignored?�

Tests should be run with FOW OFF, ADVANCED WEATHER EFFECT OFF and getting their results from Intelligence screen Aircraft losses. Otherwise they are null and void.

Your tests are not the same. Multiple squadrons is just going to confuse the issue.

My tests are as I said, one squadron vs one squadron, absolutely no other factors - no split CAP, no nothing. I'm not interested in what split CAP does, if anything. I'm interested if maneuverability bands do anything. Your tests are not going to show that, and if they did, it'd be too bound up in all the other factors you have included.

The P40K and the Zero are good ones to test because they have a drastic alteration in their performance at altitude. There are no other random factors in that stuff besides maneuverability, and the results to me look basically identical.

Conclusion : if maneuverability does anything it's so subtle as to be hard to spot.

Your post confirms that you didn't even look at my tests.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 151

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/17/2010 10:47:59 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

I think he did, but I think he also tries to prove something that is not worth proving.

What Sardaukar showed, and this is basically what I tried to explain all the time is that high altitude does have an impact, as it does in real life.
Its just not the "god feature" you are making of it.

There are ways to counter it and there are multiple factors that influence A2A. Ignoring them you do this at your own peril.

_____________________________

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 152

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/17/2010 11:00:07 AM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

As I said in previous posts, putting incomparable a/c against each other will result different outcomes.

Planes matter, a lot. Every account I have read about Pacific Air War says so. It is in game. Live with it, because it is historical.

What I wanted to say with my small test is that Altitude advantage is a killer IF certain other factors are also for sweeper. My tests show that if those factors are not there, altitude advantage is not very hot stuff. Note that in my tests, IJ pilots remained un-edited with same exp. air & def.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 153

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/17/2010 11:50:04 AM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

So basically you want to show that a low performer is dead meat against an enemy pilot who dives on him?

Whats the news? If dead pilots could talk this would be confirmed by both sides of the fight.

You were the one saying you wouldn't put everything at maximum altitude because you would try to operate in an altitude band which gives you maximum comparative advantage. The P40K vs Zero test proves that even with quite large maneuverability differentials due to altitude there is no discernable impact on the outcome.

So, as I said right at the very beginning, I would just ignore maneuver bands, because they don't do anything, or if they do, it is so minor that you will never notice.

The huge impact altitude has and the negligible impact decent maneuverability has is pushing all the combat up into the stratosphere, as high as every frame can go. The sole reason to fly low atm is bombing accuracy.

Split CAP, well, thats an even more complex system and so it's even harder to determine what is going on. However, given the fact that altitude is so huge a modifier, I wouldn't be surprised if the situation is...

Sweep at 35k feet
CAP A at 20k feet
CAP B at 10k feet

Sweepers dive on CAP B, are now at 10k feet, get the bounce
CAP A dives on sweepers as they are now below CAP A, get the bounce

You can make an argument that says split CAP works, but it's difficult to unravel why it works because you have so many factors. Given the base case of 1 squadron vs 1 squadron and what seems to happen, I would assume that the split CAP thing is all about altitude as well.

Incidentally you didn't get stratosweeps in WITP. The altitude advantage was clearly not as crushing as it is in AE. You also didn't get stratosweeps IRL, so clearly something is wrong.

_____________________________

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 154

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/17/2010 11:52:54 AM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
Your post confirms that you didn't even look at my tests.

Got quite interesting results in my next test, which would indicate that Split CAP works.

I had 2 US P-40E units (av exp. 58) set to 50% CAP at altitudes of 20 000 and 10 000. Sweepers were again Rufes at 32810. Note, US had radar in all these tests. Fighters engaged were approx. same as with one unit 100% CAP in previous tests.

You got 2 squadrons on CAP. Now you got 3 actors all interacting with one another, a far more complex system than 2. You're not testing maneuverability in isolation at this point, there's all sorts that could be going on.

_____________________________

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 155

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/17/2010 12:13:32 PM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

EUBanana I have a proposal.

Read from where this discussion started, reconsider what you are trying to prove.

If it is that a plane down low is at disadvantage then please note that there was noone
in this thread who ever doubted it. I said it myself several times and everybody else with
basic knowledge about aircraft and the physics involved confirmed.

So theres nothing to discuss because this is how it was in the war and is in the game.

On the other hand if it is, like you said in your post #92 that altitude is a "God stat", which implies that there is no defense against the high alt sweep whatsoever
which can put what happens back into a realistic context again, then please reread the last two pages, mainly the tests performed by Sardaukar, the 5 minute combat that
I set up, and what our conclusions on that topic are.

If you still think afterwards that we are wrong with our conclusions be aware that this results in nothing
else as limiting yourself in your capabilities where it is not neccesary.

If you leave out or neglect important aspects in a discussion it can happen that it leads you to wrong or circular conclusions
that benefit neither yourself nor anybody else.
I know this myself and it happens to me also (see posts 125 and 126 in this thread for example).

As it is I think there is not much left to discuss with the exception defending ones ego.

_____________________________

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 156

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/17/2010 12:22:16 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
On the other hand if it is, like you said in your post #92 that altitude is a "God stat", which implies that there is no defense against the high alt sweep whatsoever
which can put what happens back into a realistic context again, then please reread the last two pages, mainly the tests performed by Sardaukar, the 5 minute combat that
I set up, and what our conclusions on that topic are.

Out of all the things directly and tactically influenced, it is a god stat, yes.

I do not expect Zeroes to be able to beat P38s even if out of kindness they fly lower than Zeroes.

I do not expect newbies to be able to defeat aces if they fly below the enemy.

And neither of those factors will influence what altitude you decide to place your squadrons at. It does not matter if you have aces. It does not matter if you have newbies. It does not matter if you have P38s, P40Ks, Zeroes or Oscars or probably even Buffaloes. You will place them at maximum altitude to gain optimal results. There is no reason to place them anywhere else. Those optimal results will likely still be bad results if they are Buffaloes crewed my monkeys against Zeroes crewed by aces, but they will be as good as you can get.

There likely is an exception with split CAP, in which case you might want a low level squadron as bait to try and draw high fliers down. That is still showing though, or could still be showing (it is hard to interpret a complex system like that with all sorts of variables) that the only reason to play with altitude settings is to be above the enemy.

And maneuverability bands do nothing. They do nothing. I think the P40K test proves that beyond all doubt.

_____________________________

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 157

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/17/2010 12:36:44 PM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

Uh hu.

With exactly this point of view you run out of ideas the moment the opponent has an arframe that can go higher than your own.
I fight such airframes with success on a regular basis (also depending on if my opponent doesn�t pull another trick out of his sleeve except altitude naturally if its PBEM).
And I don�t use altitude.

Anyway, this topic is losing momentum don�t you think?

_____________________________

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 158

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/17/2010 12:36:57 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I�won�t promise anything as playing a GC PBEM alone�will be�the upper�limit because I don�t have so much sparetime, but I will try
to provide a series of creps from time to time if you like. We are planning to do an AAR anyway, my contribution in it will be low though...

posting the combat reports without any comment shouldn�t take longer than 20 secs, perhaps you can find time to do that. copy, paste...

_____________________________

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 159

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/17/2010 12:39:56 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

This one isn't actually a test but it just happened in my pbem. it just kinda proves to me that there's reason to put single squadrons on anything but their ceiling altitude.

Night Air attack on Lunga , at 114,138

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Japanese aircraft
G3M3 Nell x 7
G4M1 Betty x 13

Allied aircraft
Beaufighter Ic x 5

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M3 Nell: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 1 destroyed, 3 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Beaufighter Ic: 1 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed on ground

Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 9

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x G4M1 Betty bombing from 6000 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb, 4 x 60 kg GP Bomb
6 x G3M3 Nell bombing from 6000 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb, 4 x 60 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
No.30 Sqn RAAF with Beaufighter Ic (1 airborne, 3 on standby, 1 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 26500 , scrambling fighters to 26000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 57 minutes

Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

We got 5 Beaufighters at 26,500'. We got an incoming raid at 6000'. It's night time. It's very cloudy. There's radar on the ground but there's only 7 minutes warning, and their altitude estimate is out by 6000'. And the Beaufighters manage to still engage and still shoot down two opponents.

I mean, how? How on earth? I put it to you that that is almost an impossibility. Some people seem to think you can fly under CAP. We can have arguments about glint and things, and I have some sympathy for the reasons presented as to why flying under CAP is not an option. But at night, in clouds, with almost no warning, and with a 20,000' altitude difference.

This happens every night, btw, so it's not just luck.

The Beaus may as well stay at their ceiling altitude. Why not?

< Message edited by EUBanana -- 7/17/2010 12:41:03 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 160

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/17/2010 12:45:21 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

Actually it looks like one guy in that squadron made both of those kills.

I got no idea if he was the guy up at 26,500 or one of the ones waiting on the deck.

If he was one of the ones on the deck, then perhaps there is good reasoning, as deck to 6000' is easy enough.

If he was the guy at 26,500, then there isn't, but we will unfortunately never know.

In any case - they are staying at 26k.

_____________________________

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 161

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/17/2010 12:55:43 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

Looks like, trying to read between the lines, 'time to reach interception 57 minutes' implies that those on the ground presumably would have not have time to intercept the enemy, and only the one at 26k feet did.

But who knows.

_____________________________

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 162

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/17/2010 5:15:40 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

What you guys need to do is make a new scenario, giving the P-40 identical stats to the Zero (IE copy the Zero stats into the P-40 slot) then run the altitude tests. That removes the variables that you are not concerned with testing and will give you less skewed results.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 163

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/17/2010 6:40:53 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

What you guys need to do is make a new scenario, giving the P-40 identical stats to the Zero (IE copy the Zero stats into the P-40 slot) then run the altitude tests. That removes the variables that you are not concerned with testing and will give you less skewed results.

I did actually try to sic Zeroes on Zeroes, but it won't let you do that.

_____________________________

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 164

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/17/2010 6:50:47 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

You have to edit a scenario to do it, so the DB/Scenario editor is the only way to do it. In fact building a new one with just 2 bases, one scenario with both having radar and both without, and setting up an existing allied plane with the stats of the zero would be ideal.

I know how to do it, but I have no interest in actually doing it.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 165

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/17/2010 7:13:02 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

You have to edit a scenario to do it, so the DB/Scenario editor is the only way to do it. In fact building a new one with just 2 bases, one scenario with both having radar and both without, and setting up an existing allied plane with the stats of the zero would be ideal.

I know how to do it, but I have no interest in actually doing it.

It isn't actually necessary. Thats why you do a few control scenarios first and change just one factor.

If you see different results, its because of the factor you changed.

_____________________________

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 166

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/19/2010 2:15:31 PM

Nomad

Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline

Then let me put this one in from my PBEM. It shows that altitude does NOT always trump everything else.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Myitkyina , at 64,42

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 32 NM, estimated altitude 32,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 16
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 41

Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIb Trop x 59
Hurricane IIc Trop x 29
P-39D Airacobra x 6
P-400 Airacobra x 5

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 3 destroyed
Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 8 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane IIb Trop: 1 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra: 1 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
13 x Hurricane IIb Trop sweeping at 30000 feet *
7 x Hurricane IIc Trop sweeping at 30000 feet *
2 x Hurricane IIb Trop sweeping at 30000 feet *
2 x Hurricane IIb Trop sweeping at 30000 feet *
2 x Hurricane IIb Trop sweeping at 30000 feet *
2 x Hurricane IIb Trop sweeping at 30000 feet *
2 x Hurricane IIc Trop sweeping at 30000 feet *
1 x P-400 Airacobra sweeping at 19000 feet
2 x P-39D Airacobra sweeping at 19000 feet
2 x Hurricane IIb Trop sweeping at 30000 feet *

CAP engaged:
3rd Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
11 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 32810 , scrambling fighters between 32000 and 32810.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 35 minutes
11th Sentai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
10 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 35000 , scrambling fighters to 35000.
Raid is overhead
59th Sentai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 35000 , scrambling fighters to 35000.
Raid is overhead
77th Sentai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (0 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
11 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 35000 , scrambling fighters to 35000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 38 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 167

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/19/2010 3:05:44 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
Your post confirms that you didn't even look at my tests.

Got quite interesting results in my next test, which would indicate that Split CAP works.

I had 2 US P-40E units (av exp. 58) set to 50% CAP at altitudes of 20 000 and 10 000. Sweepers were again Rufes at 32810. Note, US had radar in all these tests. Fighters engaged were approx. same as with one unit 100% CAP in previous tests.

You got 2 squadrons on CAP. Now you got 3 actors all interacting with one another, a far more complex system than 2. You're not testing maneuverability in isolation at this point, there's all sorts that could be going on.

It's impossible to test "split CAP" with 1 unit, you know...

_____________________________

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

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 168

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/19/2010 4:29:45 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
It's impossible to test "split CAP" with 1 unit, you know...

I know - but I wasn't testing split CAP, but maneuver bands.

My beef has always been that all that lovely data is essentially spurious.

Split CAP, well. You get split CAP anyway, unless every a/c has the same ceiling. They almost never do though, so putting everything at ceiling = split CAP by default.

I got Hurris, P38s, P40s, Beaufighters and Airacobras all intermingled, same as most people I guess. Not many bases with just one fighter type present unless it's a single squadron base.

< Message edited by EUBanana -- 7/19/2010 4:31:06 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 169

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/19/2010 4:42:05 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
It's impossible to test "split CAP" with 1 unit, you know...

I know - but I wasn't testing split CAP, but maneuver bands.

My beef has always been that all that lovely data is essentially spurious.

Split CAP, well. You get split CAP anyway, unless every a/c has the same ceiling. They almost never do though, so putting everything at ceiling = split CAP by default. I got Hurris, P38s, P40s, Beaufighters and Airacobras all intermingled, same as most people I guess. Not many bases with just one fighter type present unless it's a single squadron base.

that was exactly my thought...

_____________________________

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 170

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/19/2010 4:43:29 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Then let me put this one in from my PBEM. It shows that altitude does NOT always trump everything else.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Myitkyina , at 64,42

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 32 NM, estimated altitude 32,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 16
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 41

Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIb Trop x 59
Hurricane IIc Trop x 29
P-39D Airacobra x 6
P-400 Airacobra x 5

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 3 destroyed
Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 8 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane IIb Trop: 1 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra: 1 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
13 x Hurricane IIb Trop sweeping at 30000 feet *
7 x Hurricane IIc Trop sweeping at 30000 feet *
2 x Hurricane IIb Trop sweeping at 30000 feet *
2 x Hurricane IIb Trop sweeping at 30000 feet *
2 x Hurricane IIb Trop sweeping at 30000 feet *
2 x Hurricane IIb Trop sweeping at 30000 feet *
2 x Hurricane IIc Trop sweeping at 30000 feet *
1 x P-400 Airacobra sweeping at 19000 feet
2 x P-39D Airacobra sweeping at 19000 feet
2 x Hurricane IIb Trop sweeping at 30000 feet *

CAP engaged:
3rd Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
11 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 32810 , scrambling fighters between 32000 and 32810.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 35 minutes
11th Sentai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
10 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 35000 , scrambling fighters to 35000.
Raid is overhead
59th Sentai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 35000 , scrambling fighters to 35000.
Raid is overhead
77th Sentai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (0 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
11 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 35000 , scrambling fighters to 35000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 38 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

definetely correct. Same as it wouldn�t be correct to say "my squadrons n e v e r coordinate". Or in WITP times "my Wirraways n e v e r shoot something down"...

what you shouldn�t miss in your example though is the fact that you could have run into the problem that most of your fighters on Cap (set to fly higher than the incoming sweep) perhaps haven�t managed to get to that height in time and were dived on. Don�t know, I didn�t watch your replay.

Who won this fight? The side that got the dive or the side that got dived on? If the Hurricanes and Airacobras were dived on the whole engagement and they still shot down the enemy at a 10:1 rate then that would be the first time for me to see that.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 7/19/2010 4:46:38 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Nomad)

Post #: 171

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/19/2010 4:53:56 PM

Nomad

Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline

I'm the Allies and I don't watch much of the replays

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 172

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/19/2010 5:09:41 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
what you shouldn�t miss in your example though is the fact that you could have run into the problem that most of your fighters on Cap (set to fly higher than the incoming sweep) perhaps haven�t managed to get to that height in time and were dived on. Don�t know, I didn�t watch your replay.

With only 7 minutes warning that seems very likely.

I noticed from my CAP tests that even if you have sweepers coming in at 5000' when the CAP is at 35,000' - even then, you will see the sweepers diving on victims and shooting them down. And in turn being dived on.

I'm 95% sure that happens because the sweepers are shooting down scrambling aircraft right as they take off from the base.

I suppose a test with decent Allied radar would perhaps answer that definitively, but really, it isn't all that relevant.

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 173

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/19/2010 5:37:13 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

I'm the Allies and I don't watch much of the replays

the replays seem to be essential to get a picture of what is happening though

_____________________________

(in reply to Nomad)

Post #: 174

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/19/2010 5:39:50 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
what you shouldn�t miss in your example though is the fact that you could have run into the problem that most of your fighters on Cap (set to fly higher than the incoming sweep) perhaps haven�t managed to get to that height in time and were dived on. Don�t know, I didn�t watch your replay.

With only 7 minutes warning that seems very likely.

I noticed from my CAP tests that even if you have sweepers coming in at 5000' when the CAP is at 35,000' - even then, you will see the sweepers diving on victims and shooting them down. And in turn being dived on.

I'm 95% sure that happens because the sweepers are shooting down scrambling aircraft right as they take off from the base.

I suppose a test with decent Allied radar would perhaps answer that definitively, but really, it isn't all that relevant.

I never figured out which estimation I should go with though. You get the message on top of the report like

Raid spotted at 32 NM, estimated altitude 32,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

but then you also get messages for each squadron individually and they usuall differ:

3rd Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
11 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 32810 , scrambling fighters between 32000 and 32810.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 35 minutes
11th Sentai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
10 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 35000 , scrambling fighters to 35000.
Raid is overhead
59th Sentai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 35000 , scrambling fighters to 35000.
Raid is overhead
77th Sentai with Ki-43-Ic Oscar (0 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
11 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 4 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 35000 , scrambling fighters to 35000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 38 minutes

_____________________________

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 175

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/19/2010 6:30:25 PM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

If you really want to test the effect of maneuver bands I�d suggest you eliminate the dive by setting
two different airframes (the optimum would be a classic high alt performer and a very nimble low alt plane)
at the same altitude bands, so run tests at 9k, 15k, 20, 25k, 30k.

If you don�t use split CAP the dive is too strong and probably influences the results too much to get valuable results.

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 176

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/19/2010 7:26:55 PM

invernomuto

Posts: 986
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline

quote:

If you don�t use split CAP the dive is too strong and probably influences the results too much to get valuable results.

I think that this is exactly what EUBanana is trying to demonstrate with his test

However, we have too few test to try to estimate how the A2A model works, we need more test run to weight the importance of alt band IMHO.

_____________________________

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 177

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/19/2010 8:14:44 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

quote:

If you don�t use split CAP the dive is too strong and probably influences the results too much to get valuable results.

I think that this is exactly what EUBanana is trying to demonstrate with his test
However, we have too few test to try to estimate how the A2A model works, we need more test run to weight the importance of alt band IMHO.

And it�s actually the first time I get to hear this from above�s poster...

_____________________________

(in reply to invernomuto)

Post #: 178

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/19/2010 9:10:08 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
And it�s actually the first time I get to hear this from above�s poster...

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 179

RE: Sweep vs Escorts - 7/19/2010 9:20:18 PM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

Hehe I knew this would happen.

If you think twice though I never said anything else.
EUBanana tries to prove that an average pilot who gets dived on by an average pilot is dead.
And that , if you play dumb against a sweep that has altitude advantage, you lose.

Wow big surprize. I don�t need to test something like that.

I never said this isn�t so. It was in the war. Its in the game. Whats so special about that?

What Nomad, Sardaukar, Nemo and me tried to show, and probably many others already are aware of: the dive is not almighty if you
don�t play dumb. Its just another feature.
And if you know what youre doing you can negate it.

See post #156...and those before.

Night gents.

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 180