Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Air ASW test results

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Air ASW test results Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Air ASW test results - 7/28/2004 6:35:51 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		I've been playing around with ASW a bit. I turned off all aircraft except the catalina's flying out of PH. Disbanded all TF's except the JP subs around PH which I deplayed in a ring with each sub exactly 4 hexes from PH. I then ran ASW and naval searches of various types.

Conclusion 1: Sub searches occur out to half the range that you set in the range setting for each aircraft. Doing ASW search with range settings of 7 or less yielded zero hits in numerous trials. By setting ASW and Naval search ranges to 8 I got many hits on the target located 4 hexes away.

Conclusion 2: ASW search is significantely more effective then naval search. In 10 trials of ASW search range 8, I obtained 39 contacts and 9 attacks on subs. In 10 trials with Naval search range 8 I obtained 16 contacts and made 0 attacks on subs. All trials were conducted at 6000 ft. and I did try to stagger the tests to account for improving aircraft experience during the test.

All in all this system appears to function correctly.

< Message edited by moses -- 7/28/2004 9:11:20 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: Air ASW test results - 7/28/2004 6:39:01 AM   
Xargun

 

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline 		I don't expect my aircraft to kill subs.. I let them spot them for my ASW groups to pound. That, in my opinion, is the actual use for aircraft on ASW missions..

Xargun

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 2
RE: Air ASW test results - 7/28/2004 6:39:34 AM   
olivier_slith


Posts: 187
Joined: 5/7/2000
From: USA
Status: offline 		are you saying that 8 is the optimum range for ASW research, or it was just an example?

_____________________________


(in reply to moses)
Post #: 3
RE: Air ASW test results - 7/28/2004 6:47:17 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		Just an example. I wanted to verify that when I set a range for sub search if it was searching out to that range or out to half of that range. This test verified that fact. If your aircraft has a max search range of 10 it has an effective sub search range of 5. Again if you set search range to 10 it will search for subs only to range 5.

The catalina has a normal search range of 9 so its effective sub search range is 4 (half of 9 rounded down). You seach out to 4 hexes by setting a ASW search range of 8. I also picked search range of 8 because I had enough JP subs to fill every hex 4 hexes from PH allowing lots of opportunities for contacts.

(in reply to olivier_slith)
Post #: 4
RE: Air ASW test results - 7/28/2004 10:02:17 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Would you be willing to run the test again, but add a couple of Jap surface TFs to see if the ASW a/c will spot them? I'd just like to verify that they will.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 5
RE: Air ASW test results - 7/28/2004 11:58:16 AM   
le Jason

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 5/24/2000
From: Hamburg, Germany
Status: offline 		I can remember, that the UV manual statet, that the ASW Search Range is halved compared to the Naval Search range. I assumed that WITP would work the same, so I did not even look it up.

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 6
RE: Air ASW test results - 7/28/2004 3:04:15 PM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline 		Thanks for doing this, interesting.

(in reply to le Jason)
Post #: 7
RE: Air ASW test results - 7/28/2004 3:12:08 PM   
strawbuk


Posts: 289
Joined: 4/30/2004
From: London via Glos
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun

I don't expect my aircraft to kill subs.. I let them spot them for my ASW groups to pound. That, in my opinion, is the actual use for aircraft on ASW missions..

Xargun


Though not historically accurate? Sub losses in WWII are largely from aircraft attack. Caveat: well trained aircraft with decent airdroppable depth charges. In 1941 I wonder how much of the only recent gained experience on anti-sub ops (air of surface) in the Atlantic has filtered through to Pacific? Even allowing for poorer Japanese subs. Over on East coast it is still U-boat happy time due to poor/non-exsitant US ant-sub tactics.

_____________________________



Twinkle twinkle PBY
Seeking Kido Bu-tai
Flying o' the sea so high
An ill-omen in the sky
Twinkle twinkle PBY
Pointing out who's next to fry

(in reply to Xargun)
Post #: 8
RE: Air ASW test results - 7/28/2004 3:37:28 PM   
RUPD3658


Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline 		Did you exepriment with altitude at all? I am playing the Japs and am getting killed by spotted Allied subs eventhough I have very aircraft in the South China Sea on ASW patrol. Not a single attack on a sub yet. They were all switched from Naval Search and left at 15-20K feet.

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke


(in reply to moses)
Post #: 9
RE: Air ASW test results - 7/28/2004 4:44:44 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		I have the test set up and my PBEM opponent went camping and has apparently been eaten by a bear. So I,ll run the test and change altitudes and maybe run a couplae JP surface ships through the ASW patrol area. The altitude test will be easy. The test of how well ASW dettect surface shipping is more difficult to control but at least I should be able to at least determine if it will detect surface ships.

In reply to Le Jason the manual does say this, you are correct. There was some confusion in my mind and I think some others as to how this worked. For instance say an aircraft has a max range of 12 and you set your ASW search range to 6 does it search out to range 6 (half of 12) or 3 (Half of 6). Now I know that it halfs the search range you set. Also this halving also applies to the Navel search for subs only. There was also a possibility in my mind that the statement in the manual was a carry over from UV and was no longer correct once the ability to set search ranges was put in the game. But the manual is correct.

I was also curious as to whether their was really much difference between naval and ASW searches. Now it appears clear to me that the difference is quite significant both in terms of number of contacts and number of attacks launched.

I considered not posting this since things seem to be working as they should so theres no real news. But had things looked buggy or inaccurate I certainly would have posted so I thought it only fair to report that this portion of the simulation appears to be quite sound.

I'll test the ASW altitudes now.

(in reply to RUPD3658)
Post #: 10
RE: Air ASW test results - 7/28/2004 4:58:32 PM   
PeteG662


Posts: 1263
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline 		Now try this using the Naval search since my PBYs have been making spottings and some attacks at longer ranges. Would the mission type dictate attack methodology? I still get attacks at 6000 on Naval search albeit from your earelier post you said far fewer but the range differential may also be a consideration. With all the subs around PH in the beginning, ASW TFs are my answer and the PBYs do the Naval Search which includes attackes farther afield! My Coronados hit a sub at 10 hex distance!

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 11
RE: Air ASW test results - 7/28/2004 5:08:02 PM   
Rainerle

 

Posts: 463
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: Burghausen/Bavaria
Status: offline 		Hi,
there seems to be a mistake in your calculations. You should compare ASW spottings with range 8 to Naval Search spotting range 4 (not 8). Since your naval search planes covered more ground it is logical that they spotted less subs.

_____________________________


Image brought to you by courtesy of Subchaser!

(in reply to PeteG662)
Post #: 12
RE: Air ASW test results - 7/28/2004 5:10:47 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		In my test I did not get attacks from naval search but that does not mean they do not occur. I do not have enough data and I believe I have seen naval search attacks on subs during games. I do have enough data to say that you will get more actual attacks with the ASW setting.

< Message edited by moses -- 7/28/2004 10:33:42 AM >

(in reply to PeteG662)
Post #: 13
RE: Air ASW test results - 7/28/2004 6:05:29 PM   
PeteG662


Posts: 1263
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline 		I do get attacks and understand the posts above. I do notice that the range issue and attack issue are distinct. I have seen long range attacks and spottings on Naval Search versus ASW search is all I am trying to convey. IMO, Naval search seems to work fine in ragards to doing dual duty as ASW and at a longer range. There may be some differences in attacks etc but finding the enemy is the issue. Once you find them then the ASW TFs can go get em.....more effective use of my resources IMO.

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 14
RE: Air ASW test results - 7/28/2004 6:46:28 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		I did initially try to compare ASW range 8 to Navel search range 4 since this seems logical as you suggested. When I did this I recieved zero contacts from the naval search aircraft against targets located 4 hexes away. Only when I set naval search to 8 did I start getting contacts on subs located 4 hexes away. It appears to work is this. An naval search range 8 search up to 4 hexes for subs and 8 hexes for shipping. An ASW search range 8 puts all effort into the searching for subs out to 4 hexes.

So it works logically. The naval search gives you less effective ASW but also gives you the long range shipping search.

Also I have seen the rare long range sub sighting also which made this more confusing. I think what is probably happening is that occasionally the long range naval search will pick up a sub.

(in reply to PeteG662)
Post #: 15
RE: Air ASW test results - 7/28/2004 7:01:57 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		OK I did some more tests.

1. ASW aircraft will spot surface forces out to one half of their range setting. I had the aircraft set on ASW range 8 and as soon as ships came within 4 hexes they were spotted. Outside of 4 hexes I recieved no sightings.

2. It is still uncertain if altitude is a significant factor. I ran 6 tests of each of the following altitudes. All aircraft were set at ASW range 8. I alternated between altitudes so increasing experience as the test progressed does not factor in.
1000 ft: 33 contacts/9 attacks.
3000 ft 19 contacts/ 3 attacks
6000 ft 21 contacts/6 attacks.
It appears that low altitude is better but you can decide if my sample size is large enough.

After these tests were run I continued and tested 20000 and 100 ft altitudes. The airgroups are a little more (3 or 4 pts) experienced now so you should take that into consideration.
20000 ft 33 contacts/6 attacks.
100 ft 30 contacts/7 attacks.

Surprise, high altitudes seem to work fine too. I really am not sure what to think of this data.

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 16
RE: Air ASW test results - 7/28/2004 7:11:30 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Thanks for the test there Moses. I am glad to see that naval spotting goes both ways (ASW a/c spot surface ships and Naval Search a/c spot subs). This is as it should be. Howwever, to reduce confusion, they should search out to the range given by the player. I know that the manual says that they will only perform ASW at half the given range. With Naval Search a/c you get the sub sightings only up to half the Naval Search range, but with ASW a/c you still only get curface TF spottings up to half the given range. Why include this feature at all? Why not just have them perform the search up to the range given by the player and let him suffer his mistake for setting the range too far (fewer sub sightings because the planes are moving to far, too fast)? Just a thought.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 17
RE: Air ASW test results - 7/28/2004 7:22:06 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		Yes I was confused with this which is why I ran the tests. Basically ASW searches out to half the set range. Naval searches the full set range for ships and half the set range for subs.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 18
RE: Air ASW test results - 7/28/2004 7:40:36 PM   
PeteG662


Posts: 1263
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline 		I beg to differ with the results since I am seeing long range sub contacts and attacks using Naval Search at 6000 ft altitude....

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 19
RE: Air ASW test results - 7/28/2004 8:12:26 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		Yes I posted about these earlier. I did get some long range sightings of subs with naval search. They were very rare and I have struggled to explain them. The best explanation that I can come up with is that subs can be spotted by naval search also. So I'm specualting that when you do a Navel search at range setting 8 the program does an ASW search out to range 4 and then a naval search to range 8. The naval search may have a low probabilty chance of also sighting the sub.

I may be interpeting the data incorrectly but here is why I believe that. I had the subs set up at range 4. When I set the naval searches to range 4 I got only rare single sightings--10 tests gave me 2 sightings When I set the naval search to 8 I got 16 sightings in 10 tests. Now if it was doing an ASW search out to the range you set you would predict the opposite result. The subs are all at range four so a range 4 search being more concentrated should yield better results. But it does not.

(in reply to PeteG662)
Post #: 20
RE: Air ASW test results - 7/28/2004 8:35:25 PM   
PeteG662


Posts: 1263
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline 		I was watching your results closely.....interesting to note there doesn't seem to be a real answer as to a best practice though since it depends on priorities.

On your lower altitudes how did the fatigue and operational losses differ from anything above 6000 which seems to be a "magic number" for altitude?

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 21
RE: Air ASW test results - 7/28/2004 8:36:48 PM   
PeteG662


Posts: 1263
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline 		BTW....I don't screw around with the ranges yet and let them default right now for the searching aspect.

(in reply to PeteG662)
Post #: 22
RE: Air ASW test results - 7/29/2004 11:41:08 AM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

Interesting tests - thanks!

BTW, what scenario did you use for testing?


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S.
I am still building my WitP TEST scenario (lots and lots of mouse clicking required)...

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 23
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Air ASW test results Page: [1]
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

0.766