AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical

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 >> AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/21/2019 5:29:41 PM

Gridley380

Posts: 464
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline

I ran across this some years back but never got around to posting here:

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

Among other things, it claims over 2,000 kills by USN AA alone - which makes USN AA seem rather more lethal than I see in WITP:AE.

Granted, no WITP:AE campaign game is going to follow the historical course of the war all that closely, and as the report is from October of 1945 it may be based entirely on US claims and not Japanese actuals, but it still surprised me.

How many AA kills do you normally see in a full campaign game? Have you seen good data (including info from the Japanese side) on losses by cause?

Post #: 1

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/21/2019 5:46:31 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

The effectiveness of flak was bumped up noticeably about five years ago, as you're probably aware. It's now a significant factor in the game. Both naval flak and land-based flak are forces to be reckoned with.

It might or might not perfectly model what happened in the war but IMO it does a good job. I'd hate to see tinkering with it now, because the game has reached a level of maturity where any changes can throw things out of whack.

(in reply to Gridley380)

Post #: 2

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/21/2019 8:44:08 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

Once they put proximity fuses in a particular type of ammunition, the AA using it was extremely lethal. All reports of that sort tend to be exaggerations, but not by much I'd wager. By the time we get there in the game, usually things are pretty much over.

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 3

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/22/2019 1:03:49 AM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

This thread brings up an interesting question I haven't seen addressed in the forum. Proximity fuses were in some ways like the A-bomb, they changed everything, not just flak but antipersonnel artillery. While not specifically represented in the game, A-bombs are. It's been a long time since I played Allied against the AI, but what I recall is being proud (not in an Allied way, obviously) that I kept the Soviets out of all but one single hex in Korea. I don't recall having used the bomb. I don't think I did.

Who has, and what did you think about it, and what did you think about the results?

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 4

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/22/2019 1:07:30 AM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

Geoff, to answer your question would be a massive hijack of a thread. Your question is a really good one. Why not open a separate thread?

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 5

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/22/2019 3:04:24 AM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

This thread brings up an interesting question I haven't seen addressed in the forum. Proximity fuses were in some ways like the A-bomb, they changed everything, not just flak but antipersonnel artillery. While not specifically represented in the game, A-bombs are. It's been a long time since I played Allied against the AI, but what I recall is being proud (not in an Allied way, obviously) that I kept the Soviets out of all but one single hex in Korea. I don't recall having used the bomb. I don't think I did.

Who has, and what did you think about it, and what did you think about the results?

Re: the proximity fuse issue - I wonder if the programmers handled it the way they handled accuracy of naval gunfire - after you hit 1944 the game engine gives a surface combat gun boost to Allied warships that have radar.

Seems to me they could have boosted AA effectiveness similarly to account for VT fuses, unless they decided not to for game balance reasons. I agree with CR about not fiddling with it any more.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 6

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/22/2019 9:08:45 AM

Rising-Sun

Posts: 2082
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline

Depending on the devices (AA weapons), how accurate it is and its effects, as well crew experiences too.

_____________________________

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 7

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/22/2019 2:35:28 PM

RangerJoe

Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

I always did want to see Willy Pete with VT fuses on a Fire For Effect mission from some big guns - but not up close. Think of what that would do to infantry in the open, a bunch of vehicles getting POL, or a bunch of tanks getting resupplied with ammo.

I also wonder what Willey Pete would have done if fired against Japanese aircraft with a proximity fuse. Just a little hole in the fuel cell could become a big bang right away.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

�Illegitemus non carborundum est (�Don�t let the bastards grind you down�).�
― Julia Child

(in reply to Rising-Sun)

Post #: 8

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/27/2019 9:45:58 PM

Yaab

Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

I ran across this some years back but never got around to posting here:

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

Among other things, it claims over 2,000 kills by USN AA alone - which makes USN AA seem rather more lethal than I see in WITP:AE.

Granted, no WITP:AE campaign game is going to follow the historical course of the war all that closely, and as the report is from October of 1945 it may be based entirely on US claims and not Japanese actuals, but it still surprised me.

How many AA kills do you normally see in a full campaign game? Have you seen good data (including info from the Japanese side) on losses by cause?

Well, you would have to measure it against historical GCs (scen001, scen100, Babes scenariso etc.s), that end roughly in August 1945, played with PDU off and realistic RD settings.

(in reply to Gridley380)

Post #: 9

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/27/2019 9:58:31 PM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

Claims are seriously overstated...

(in reply to Yaab)

Post #: 10

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/27/2019 10:35:25 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

I was somewhat confused by the introduction of VT fuses (variable time)into the conversation, they are not the same thing as proximity fuses. Rounds with proximity fuses actually have a radar transmitter and receiver. I think usually in the case of flak, one in ten or one in five rounds had this feature. This technology did not become publicly known until the last decade, I believe. When used with standard artillery, every round had it and would detonate above ground level rather than digging itself into the ground and detonating then. It was devastating. It was used at Huertgen forest, I believe.

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 11

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/27/2019 11:18:02 PM

Zorch

Posts: 7087
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I was somewhat confused by the introduction of VT fuses (variable time)into the conversation, they are not the same thing as proximity fuses. Rounds with proximity fuses actually have a radar transmitter and receiver. I think usually in the case of flak, one in ten or one in five rounds had this feature. This technology did not become publicly known until the last decade, I believe. When used with standard artillery, every round had it and would detonate above ground level rather than digging itself into the ground and detonating then. It was devastating. It was used at Huertgen forest, I believe.

Marshall gave permission at Huertgen because it was going so badly. The allies were very concerned about Germans getting the tech from an unexploded shell.

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 12

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/27/2019 11:31:06 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

My PBEM is in November 1943. According to the Intel Screen 761 Allied a/c and 1238 Japanese a/c have been destroyed by opposing Flak.

It's been approximately 11 months since the VT Fuze (proximity fuze) was introduced by the USN. The USN seems on track to obtain a bit more than 2000 "flak kills" by August 1945. The Japanese total seems a bit high to me since by all accounts US flak was considerably more deadly than IJ flak right from the beginning.

Perhaps some others could check out what their Intel Screen looks like. The average of a bunch of results might be enlightening.

(in reply to Gridley380)

Post #: 13

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/28/2019 12:54:47 AM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

Again, VT (variable time) fuses are not the same thing as proximity fuses. The VT fuse was a good idea, but the proximity fuse was a complete game changer.

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 14

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/28/2019 2:00:45 AM

BillBrown

Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Again, VT (variable time) fuses are not the same thing as proximity fuses. The VT fuse was a good idea, but the proximity fuse was a complete game changer.

This entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica they are the same thing.

https://www.britannica.com/technology/proximity-fuze

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 15

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/28/2019 5:49:30 AM

durnedwolf

Posts: 885
Joined: 5/23/2005
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Again, VT (variable time) fuses are not the same thing as proximity fuses. The VT fuse was a good idea, but the proximity fuse was a complete game changer.

This entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica they are the same thing.

https://www.britannica.com/technology/proximity-fuze

Here's a nice video for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-D592VR4RU

_____________________________

DW

I try to live by two words - tenacity and gratitude. Tenacity gets me where I want to go and gratitude ensures I'm not angry along the way. - Henry Winkler.

The great aim of education is not knowledge but action. - Herbert Spencer

(in reply to BillBrown)

Post #: 16

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/28/2019 12:37:17 PM

Gridley380

Posts: 464
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

My PBEM is in November 1943. According to the Intel Screen 761 Allied a/c and 1238 Japanese a/c have been destroyed by opposing Flak.

It's been approximately 11 months since the VT Fuze (proximity fuze) was introduced by the USN. The USN seems on track to obtain a bit more than 2000 "flak kills" by August 1945. The Japanese total seems a bit high to me since by all accounts US flak was considerably more deadly than IJ flak right from the beginning.

Perhaps some others could check out what their Intel Screen looks like. The average of a bunch of results might be enlightening.

As noted in the OP, I was indeed hoping for a number of people to post their results. Thank you for posting yours. :-) Are you playing stock?

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 17

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/28/2019 5:29:18 PM

Gridley380

Posts: 464
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline

Found another data point: the Army Air Forces Statistical Digest (December 1945) shows 4,530 AAF aircraft lost on combat missions against Japan: 1,524 to enemy aircraft, 1,037 to AA, 19 to a combination of aircraft and AA (one section had a breakout), and 1,950 to "other causes". Note this is *just* combat missions - total losses were 13,055 aircraft in theaters facing Japan.

(in reply to Gridley380)

Post #: 18

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/28/2019 5:46:10 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

The PBEM results come from a Babes Lite game.

The variable in VT fuzes is the time of explosion of the shell which is variable because it explodes when it achieves its closest point of approach to the target within a preset (by the factory) distance.

Prior to the introduction of the VT fuze one had to set the time of explosion on AA shells. This was relatively OK when one was dealing with level bombers but almost completely ineffective against dive bombers since the distance to the target and thus the time after "launch" changed too rapidly for the fuze setter (gun crew member) to keep up.

Way back when I was in the USCG on my first ship we had a 5"/38cal main gun and a Mark 52 director (I remember watching a film about the Mark 56 director which began with the narrator talking about "modern aircraft" as a TBM "flashed by" on the screen - in any case the Mark 52 director pre-dated the Mark 56). The director only worked on one day while I was on board: we left the Fire Control Techs in GTMO to fabricate from scratch while the rest of the ship took a weekend off and went to Jamaica on R&R. (parts for any repair were non-existent in the USN supply system). On that day though we fired VT shells at a target sleeve towed roughly 1000 yards behind an S2F (IIRC). On the 3rd shell we cut the cable and the follon-on shells started walking up the cable towards the tow-plane. The tow-plane jettisoned the cable.

When I got to my second (sister) ship the Mark 52 was gone without replacement. That was 3 years later. By then parts for the 5"/38cal main gun were non-existent in the USN supply system. Fortunately the USS Massachusetts Museum was just down the road in Fall River and so when we went to GTMO on that ship the Chief Gunner swapped something of value to the Museum for enough parts for our main gun to make it through REFTRA.

(in reply to Gridley380)

Post #: 19

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/28/2019 7:01:03 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Again, VT (variable time) fuses are not the same thing as proximity fuses. The VT fuse was a good idea, but the proximity fuse was a complete game changer.

This entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica they are the same thing.

https://www.britannica.com/technology/proximity-fuze

Pretty brief article, but it seems to be saying that VT does not stand for variable time, since they list it as Vt. Maybe it was invented in Vermont.

Anyway, variable time fuse would not be an accurate description. Perhaps that's what they pretended they were before declassification.

< Message edited by geofflambert -- 6/28/2019 7:03:31 PM >

(in reply to BillBrown)

Post #: 20

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/28/2019 7:08:22 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

For artillery bombardment purposes, you could calculate in terms of time exactly when you wanted a shell to burst, so an actual honest to goodness variable time fuse would be outstanding to have. The technology would be much simpler and doable anytime in the '30s if not before. Now I don't know much about it but the larger caliber flak shells obviously had such a fuse, either that or an altitude fuse with a barometer in it. All very confusing.

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 21

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/28/2019 7:10:24 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

Also, perhaps they were publicly known as proximity fuses before the public was aware of how they worked.

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 22

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/28/2019 7:55:06 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

quote:

Pretty brief article, but it seems to be saying that VT does not stand for variable time, since they list it as Vt. Maybe it was invented in Vermont.

Actually it does stand for Variable Time with a capital V and a capital T.

If one knew with precision one's elevation and the target's elevation (of course if one had to shoot at a target on a reverse slope or a military crest you'd have to time each and every shell differently) you could set a fuze for that precise delay from "launch". Or in US Forces from 1943 on you could just shoot a VT shell which would explode when it got close to the target.

The civilian scientists/engineers who invented/designed the shell probably called them proximity fuzes but the military functionaries who managed the shells figured "why use two words of 14 letters when three words of 17 letters would be so much better.

< Message edited by spence -- 6/28/2019 8:02:22 PM >

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 23

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/28/2019 8:13:40 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

So you agree they aren't the same thing even though some people called them the same thing and still do. Either the dang thing has a radar transmitter and receiver in it or it doesn't.

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 24

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/28/2019 8:23:45 PM

durnedwolf

Posts: 885
Joined: 5/23/2005
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

My PBEM is in November 1943. According to the Intel Screen 761 Allied a/c and 1238 Japanese a/c have been destroyed by opposing Flak.

It's been approximately 11 months since the VT Fuze (proximity fuze) was introduced by the USN. The USN seems on track to obtain a bit more than 2000 "flak kills" by August 1945. The Japanese total seems a bit high to me since by all accounts US flak was considerably more deadly than IJ flak right from the beginning.

Perhaps some others could check out what their Intel Screen looks like. The average of a bunch of results might be enlightening.

As noted in the OP, I was indeed hoping for a number of people to post their results. Thank you for posting yours. :-) Are you playing stock?

So this is data pulled from Tracker regarding DOCUP's mod that is, I'm told, based off of a Reluctant Admiral mod but heavily modified. Note that the current data is from 14DEC41...

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by durnedwolf -- 6/28/2019 8:26:45 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Gridley380)

Post #: 25

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/28/2019 8:47:45 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

11/27/43

Attachment (1)

(in reply to durnedwolf)

Post #: 26

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/28/2019 9:08:02 PM

durnedwolf

Posts: 885
Joined: 5/23/2005
From: USA
Status: offline

Deleted - this was duplicate to data below...

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by durnedwolf -- 6/28/2019 9:13:22 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to durnedwolf)

Post #: 27

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/28/2019 9:09:49 PM

durnedwolf

Posts: 885
Joined: 5/23/2005
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: durnedwolf

quote:

ORIGINAL: durnedwolf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

My PBEM is in November 1943. According to the Intel Screen 761 Allied a/c and 1238 Japanese a/c have been destroyed by opposing Flak.

It's been approximately 11 months since the VT Fuze (proximity fuze) was introduced by the USN. The USN seems on track to obtain a bit more than 2000 "flak kills" by August 1945. The Japanese total seems a bit high to me since by all accounts US flak was considerably more deadly than IJ flak right from the beginning.

Perhaps some others could check out what their Intel Screen looks like. The average of a bunch of results might be enlightening.

As noted in the OP, I was indeed hoping for a number of people to post their results. Thank you for posting yours. :-) Are you playing stock?

So this is a different look at data pulled from Tracker regarding DOCUP's mod that is, I'm told, based off of a Reluctant Admiral mod but heavily modified. Interesting to see my Dive Bombers at the top of the loss list...

1/3 loss attributed to flak but than I lose another 9 to "operations" which I suppose means they were shot up pretty bad and written off or crash-landed.

_____________________________

DW

I try to live by two words - tenacity and gratitude. Tenacity gets me where I want to go and gratitude ensures I'm not angry along the way. - Henry Winkler.

The great aim of education is not knowledge but action. - Herbert Spencer

(in reply to durnedwolf)

Post #: 28

RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical - 6/28/2019 10:00:45 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

I ran across this some years back but never got around to posting here:

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

Among other things, it claims over 2,000 kills by USN AA alone - which makes USN AA seem rather more lethal than I see in WITP:AE.

Granted, no WITP:AE campaign game is going to follow the historical course of the war all that closely, and as the report is from October of 1945 it may be based entirely on US claims and not Japanese actuals, but it still surprised me.

How many AA kills do you normally see in a full campaign game? Have you seen good data (including info from the Japanese side) on losses by cause?