Proposed altitude per air directive

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Proposed altitude per air directive

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] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 >> Proposed altitude per air directive

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Proposed altitude per air directive - 6/24/2021 10:18:37 AM

aMaschina

Posts: 19
Joined: 6/15/2021
Status: offline

What are the recommended altitudes for the different AD's? Ground support, air superiority, ground attack, recon...?

I read in the manual that if an AOG is tasked with flying at 5000 feet they might also perform their duty at 1000 feet?

Ps: in reality I think the german planes performed better than their soviet counterparts in higher altitudes and vice versa?

< Message edited by aMaschina -- 6/24/2021 10:20:53 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: Proposed altitude per air directive - 6/24/2021 11:37:36 AM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: aMaschina

What are the recommended altitudes for the different AD's? Ground support, air superiority, ground attack, recon...?

I read in the manual that if an AOG is tasked with flying at 5000 feet they might also perform their duty at 1000 feet?

Ps: in reality I think the german planes performed better than their soviet counterparts in higher altitudes and vice versa?

FB and tactical bombers will execute any attacks on ground targets at 1,000', they drop from their notional mission height to do that, so the mission height is how they fly to/from the target.

mostly use 9,000' that is a good trade off but some Ground attack missions work well at 15,000'. Recon planes will adjust to their camera (or the lack) actually at the target, so again mission height is to/from.

Yes LW fighters are better higher up but if the Soviets fly at 9,000' you not often catch them. In WiTW the LW has the opposite problem in that allied fighters pull it above its optimal height.

_____________________________

(in reply to aMaschina)

Post #: 2

RE: Proposed altitude per air directive - 6/24/2021 12:19:59 PM

aMaschina

Posts: 19
Joined: 6/15/2021
Status: offline

Hi Loki,

Thanks for clarification.

So judging by your information, i always want to be flying at max altitude because thats where the flak is the weakest and the soviet air force wont go, and the plane will drop to optimal altitude in order to perform its task when in area of operation?

< Message edited by aMaschina -- 6/24/2021 1:06:53 PM >

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 3

RE: Proposed altitude per air directive - 6/24/2021 1:32:53 PM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

not quite.

recon planes move to the height that best fits their camera over target, FB and tac bombers go to 1,000' to actually deliver their attack. Both these are regardless of actual mission height.

But if you send LB on say GA-railyard, they will bomb from the mission height and there is a pretty brutal trade off between mission height and accuracy.

There are then a load of trade-offs. Going higher, yep you avoid flak and prob most fighters but you pick up more operational losses. if I recall the threshold here is 21,000' to reflect increased cold.

AS missions operate at the set height, fighter intercepts go to where the target is. This can be good, Yak-1s over 18,000' are pretty rubbish or bad, all of sudden you find out why the Mig-3 was probably the best high altitude fighter in Europe in 1941. Equally US/UK LL fighters are pretty good high up.

In general my advice is keep it simple, you end with a lot of GS as your core mission for good reason. Neither airforce can really do much that is particularly focussed, its not WiTW with the Allies where you can often find the combination of plane type and loadout that exactly matches the mission you intend to carry out.

< Message edited by loki100 -- 6/24/2021 1:33:33 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to aMaschina)

Post #: 4

RE: Proposed altitude per air directive - 6/24/2021 2:40:35 PM

DeletedUser44

Posts: 397
Joined: 5/27/2021
Status: offline

You know,I would love to know how to optimize Altitude settings in my aircraft missions.

But, so far, it escapes me and am having to rely on the defaults.

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 5

RE: Proposed altitude per air directive - 6/24/2021 3:10:32 PM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sauron_II

You know,I would love to know how to optimize Altitude settings in my aircraft missions.

But, so far, it escapes me and am having to rely on the defaults.

naybe that is because the default is actually a pretty good trade off point?

In WiTW there is some value to messing about with this variable. In part as the Allies have stuff that really does work relatively high, in part as the flak is a bigger issue, in part as altering mission height can be very effective to undermine the LW.

The key bit is usually higher=safer (flak, to a lesser extent fighters), higher = less accurate. But above a certain height, higher = ops losses (cold).

_____________________________

(in reply to DeletedUser44)

Post #: 6

RE: Proposed altitude per air directive - 6/24/2021 6:09:24 PM

DeletedUser44

Posts: 397
Joined: 5/27/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sauron_II

You know,I would love to know how to optimize Altitude settings in my aircraft missions.

But, so far, it escapes me and am having to rely on the defaults.

naybe that is because the default is actually a pretty good trade off point?

In WiTW there is some value to messing about with this variable. In part as the Allies have stuff that really does work relatively high, in part as the flak is a bigger issue, in part as altering mission height can be very effective to undermine the LW.

The key bit is usually higher=safer (flak, to a lesser extent fighters), higher = less accurate. But above a certain height, higher = ops losses (cold).

I feel like I would need a readily available data chart of max / optimum altitudes associated with each ac type (and possibly flak types) in order to really take advantage of altitude settings.

To my knowledge, that chart does not yet exist.

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 7

RE: Proposed altitude per air directive - 6/24/2021 7:45:36 PM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sauron_II

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sauron_II

You know,I would love to know how to optimize Altitude settings in my aircraft missions.

But, so far, it escapes me and am having to rely on the defaults.

naybe that is because the default is actually a pretty good trade off point?

In WiTW there is some value to messing about with this variable. In part as the Allies have stuff that really does work relatively high, in part as the flak is a bigger issue, in part as altering mission height can be very effective to undermine the LW.

The key bit is usually higher=safer (flak, to a lesser extent fighters), higher = less accurate. But above a certain height, higher = ops losses (cold).

I feel like I would need a readily available data chart of max / optimum altitudes associated with each ac type (and possibly flak types) in order to really take advantage of altitude settings.

To my knowledge, that chart does not yet exist.

look in the editor, the optimum altitude per plane type is in there - and can be exported to a spreadsheet

_____________________________

(in reply to DeletedUser44)

Post #: 8

RE: Proposed altitude per air directive - 6/25/2021 6:03:18 AM

EddyBear81

Posts: 153
Joined: 2/10/2012
From: Lille, France
Status: offline

The data does exist. It is exportable and will give you the "MaxSpeedAlt" which is the altitude at which planes are fastest.

But bear in mind that it does not take into account all the tradeoffs that loki indicated. MaxSpeedAlt is mostly useful for Air-to-Air Combat, and even then, it's a science to determine the best altitude for a given duel : in WitW, I had a chart for the most common fights (Spit IX vs 109-G6, Mustangs vs Fw-190, etc.).

But as loki mentioned, it's not particulary useful in WitE 2. Reason : there is a large unbalance between the air forces so no matter what, LW will win most of the time.

Bottom line : keep it default, except for very specific missions over (relatively) high local flak concentrations (bombing of Odessa or Kiev in 41 comes to mind).

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 9

RE: Proposed altitude per air directive - 6/25/2021 11:19:51 AM

beamslam

Posts: 40
Joined: 11/13/2020
From: Vejle, Denmark
Status: offline

Regarding operational flying heights.
Pilots will have increased fatigue when flying over 25.000 f. According to section 18.3.6 in the manual. This is likely the strain put on the aircrew using oxygen masks and the cold. And maybe the added flight time.

Also weather, flight distance, pilot fatigue, mission intensity, plane reliability will affect operational losses. Possible other too.

For Recc missions the best operational heights are where the cameras are optimal.
from the Editor the values are:
Low level camera, max height: 16800 f.
Low level camera, best height: 12000 f.

Mid level camera, max height: 30000 f.
Mid level camera, best height: 24000 f.

High level camera, max height: 50000 f.
High level camera, best height: 36000 f.

So it might be useful to set recc. missions to fit plane and camera type.

(in reply to aMaschina)

Post #: 10

RE: Proposed altitude per air directive - 6/25/2021 6:57:06 PM

Starway

Posts: 15
Joined: 5/16/2021
From: Bielefeld, Germany
Status: offline

Where can I see what sort of camera my recc plans have?

(in reply to beamslam)

Post #: 11

RE: Proposed altitude per air directive - 6/25/2021 11:47:11 PM

beamslam

Posts: 40
Joined: 11/13/2020
From: Vejle, Denmark
Status: offline

The type of camera is in the aircraft weapons list of the unit.

(in reply to Starway)

Post #: 12

RE: Proposed altitude per air directive - 6/26/2021 4:18:54 AM

DeletedUser44

Posts: 397
Joined: 5/27/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: beamslam

Regarding operational flying heights.
Pilots will have increased fatigue when flying over 25.000 f. According to section 18.3.6 in the manual. This is likely the strain put on the aircrew using oxygen masks and the cold. And maybe the added flight time.

Also weather, flight distance, pilot fatigue, mission intensity, plane reliability will affect operational losses. Possible other too.

For Recc missions the best operational heights are where the cameras are optimal.
from the Editor the values are:
Low level camera, max height: 16800 f.
Low level camera, best height: 12000 f.

Mid level camera, max height: 30000 f.
Mid level camera, best height: 24000 f.

High level camera, max height: 50000 f.
High level camera, best height: 36000 f.

So it might be useful to set recc. missions to fit plane and camera type.

I actually took the time to separate out various Axis Recc formations based on camera type. Involved a lot of micromanaging.

And then had AD set to their altitude.... but then I thought I read somewhere in the rules where Recc do this automatically anyways.

EDIT:

Here it is - "Reconnaissance aircraft automatically change to the altitude that is the best fit for their load out when they reach the target hex(es). In effect, they fly (and generate some detection information) to their target hex(es) at the mission altitude and then adjust automatically so a formation with a low level camera will always adjust to the most effective altitude."

< Message edited by Sauron_II -- 6/26/2021 9:28:45 AM >

(in reply to beamslam)

Post #: 13

RE: Proposed altitude per air directive - 6/26/2021 10:31:42 AM

beamslam

Posts: 40
Joined: 11/13/2020
From: Vejle, Denmark
Status: offline

Yes, the automation seems to do a quite good job, from what I have seen in posts and with my so far limited experiences.
But sometimes it is probably a good idea to manage some operations manually. For my first full campaign I plan do all the air operations manually. Then its important to know the various data, at least generally.

(in reply to DeletedUser44)

Post #: 14

RE: Proposed altitude per air directive - 6/26/2021 2:35:17 PM

juv95hrn

Posts: 242
Joined: 6/28/2005
Status: offline

I think AA ceiling is 20k feet? Then strat bombing would be "safest" at 21k feet? How does this figure out with decreased efficiency and increased operational losses? I would like to try out bombing Axis railyards to stall the 1942 offensive somewhat...

(in reply to beamslam)

Post #: 15

RE: Proposed altitude per air directive - 6/26/2021 5:22:46 PM

beamslam

Posts: 40
Joined: 11/13/2020
From: Vejle, Denmark
Status: offline

The effective and max ceilings for the medium and heavy flak guns are:
37 mm Flak 36 Eff: 15.000 Max: 21.000 f.
88 mm Flak 18 Eff: 26.000 Max: 36.400 f.

76,2 mm Eff: 29.000 Max: 40.600 f.
85 mm Eff: 30.000 Max: 42.000 f.

Then we have accuracy, rate of fire blast radius on top of it too.

For bombing of German logistic targets, I would likely consider bombing at night to avoid any Luftwaffe turkey scooting practice on the bombers. Or at least give them a substantial fighter cover on the way if bombing in daylight. Not sure if the Russian pilots can do some effective night bombings.

(in reply to juv95hrn)

Post #: 16