Considering Ops Losses (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

histgamer -> Considering Ops Losses (3/22/2007 10:06:51 AM)

I realize planes will have accidents and crash i realize over time a plane will be worn out and have to be scraped cause of extensive use.

However arnt ops losses rather excessive?

Every single time there is a LRCAP a group will lose 1 or 2 planes with their pilots normally. Isnt that a rather high ratio? It seams like i lose 2 pilots every time i have a LRCAP i am sorry but while planes might wear out i cant belive that such a huge amount of pilots simply crashed and died or were wounded basically 2 per day.



AmiralLaurent -> RE: Considering Ops Losses (3/22/2007 11:12:46 AM)

Actually op losses in game are inferior at the real life numbers, while combat losses are far higher in game than IRL.

Accidents were around 50% of the losses in WW2....

By the way if you rest your units after each LRCAP day, op losses fall to 1-2%.



wdolson -> RE: Considering Ops Losses (3/22/2007 11:26:34 AM)

My father told me that ops losses averaged about 4% a mission.

When you're handing over a high performance plane with 2000 HP and can fly at 400 mph to a kid of 19. Accidents are bound to happen. There is a reason that car insurance rates are higher for males under age 25.

There are many causes of ops losses. Crew fatique is a big killer in the game. Many players operate their planes at higher fatigue levels than would have been done in most situations in the real world. There are also problems like poor navigation, finding a mountain in the middle of a cloud, trying to land on a damaged runway, etc.

When my father was flying out of Attu in 1945, he said there was only one take off they made where he could see the engines of his own plane. Every day they were flying heavily loaded B-25s in conditions that would ground any airliner today. The one day they took off in clear weather, he wished it was fogged in. He saw the wrecks of all the planes that ran into the mountains in the fog. The mountains around the base were covered in scrap aluminum.

I recall reading somewhere that ops losses in the Aluetians accounted for something like 75% of all losses. Though that was the most extreme environment for air operations in the theater.

Bill



m10bob -> RE: Considering Ops Losses (3/22/2007 1:59:52 PM)

Follow this link. It will give you details of just one Australian field, and a list of pics of some of the aviation accidents.
By trimming the link, you can visit all the fields in Australia, and see the crashes listed, (with pics)..

http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/ozatwar/batchelor.htm


Here are the crash pics compiled:

http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/ozcrashes.htm


Quote from the site:
"Did you know that there were at least 141 military aircraft crashes or
mishaps in the Northern Territory during 1942?

"You won't have any trouble finding your way to Darwin. Just follow the trail of crashed Kittyhawks, you can't go wrong."
The words of the Corporal in charge of the refuelling crew at Cloncurry in November 1942."




Feinder -> RE: Considering Ops Losses (3/22/2007 3:23:34 PM)

I think ops losses are "relatively" accurate as far as numbers go, but...

I don't think the pilot casualty rate for ops losses should be so high (I think it's about the same as air-to-air, as in loss=death).  Planes often brought their pilots/crews home, but were total losses and airfield accidents or mechanical failures usually occurred on/near the AF so the pilots could be recovered and close to medical facilities if necessary).

I also don't think you should get points for Ops losses, at least not as the general catagory that they are now.  If a plane is damaged on a mission by air-to-air or flak, and then crashes on landing, it is counted as a ops loss.  I think these should be counted towards point totals.  But losses in transfers and patrols due to fatigue (+ random chance), I don't think these should be counted.  The losses incurred due to landing at a damaged AF, I'm not sure.  The enemy damaged the AF, so he is is directly responsible for the loss.  But the game also doesn't allow you to bounce to an alternative field either, so it's beyond the players control to reduce the loss anyway.

And to top it all off, if you monkey with the points for the planes in any way, you really jeopardize the scoring of the game.  Plane losses (including ops) to Japan, are very much a factor in keeping the Allied player in the game for auto-win. 

I always touted that, but we've seen further issue with Nik's excellent flak/durablilty mod where, while it is much more accurate (in reducing the losses in air-to-air, and increaseing those to flak), the aircraft losses (or lack thereof), have a direct impact on the scoring of the game.

-F-



spence -> RE: Considering Ops Losses (3/22/2007 3:33:39 PM)

quote:

When my father was flying out of Attu in 1945, he said there was only one take off they made where he could see the engines of his own plane. Every day they were flying heavily loaded B-25s in conditions that would ground any airliner today. The one day they took off in clear weather, he wished it was fogged in. He saw the wrecks of all the planes that ran into the mountains in the fog. The mountains around the base were covered in scrap aluminum


Just out of curiosity, to where was your father flying when he was in B-25s at Attu.
Was wondering because it sorta seems that many of the Allied bombers got their range shortened considerably in Stock (B-25 is 6 normal, 8 extended as I recall) which means that there is no place to bomb except other Aleutian islands with a B-25. PV-1s hit the Kuriles from Attu quite regularly in 43-45. The range is roughly double or more what they are given as extended range in Stock. Same applies to B-25s?



saj42 -> RE: Considering Ops Losses (3/22/2007 3:46:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

I realize planes will have accidents and crash i realize over time a plane will be worn out and have to be scraped cause of extensive use.

However arnt ops losses rather excessive?

Every single time there is a LRCAP a group will lose 1 or 2 planes with their pilots normally. Isnt that a rather high ratio? It seams like i lose 2 pilots every time i have a LRCAP i am sorry but while planes might wear out i cant belive that such a huge amount of pilots simply crashed and died or were wounded basically 2 per day.


Your seemingly excessive Op losses are probably a combination of high fatigue and flying in bad weather. Its another aspect of the micromanagement required in the game - you need to check your air units regularly and rest when appropriate.
A major reason (IMHO) that A/C losses are higher in the game than IRL is a result of us players running a very high tempo of air operations that would be unsustainable IRL (the game mechanics don't help either)



Mike Scholl -> RE: Considering Ops Losses (3/22/2007 3:58:49 PM)

I think if you check the overall statistics for the Pacific Campaign, Ops Losses usually exceeded 10% per month over the entire period for operational aircraft on both sides.  Which means production and delivery have to exceed that figure each month just to stay even (combat will cause losses as well).  The game does not represent this well, which allows air forces to grow too fast and too large.



wdolson -> RE: Considering Ops Losses (3/22/2007 11:52:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
Just out of curiosity, to where was your father flying when he was in B-25s at Attu.
Was wondering because it sorta seems that many of the Allied bombers got their range shortened considerably in Stock (B-25 is 6 normal, 8 extended as I recall) which means that there is no place to bomb except other Aleutian islands with a B-25. PV-1s hit the Kuriles from Attu quite regularly in 43-45. The range is roughly double or more what they are given as extended range in Stock. Same applies to B-25s?


The game shortens the range of many Allied bombers. I've been campaigning to fix this in CHS. I believe RHS has already adjusted the range.

The B-25s my father was flying in were heavily loaded with extra electronics for landing in bad weather, but they still had enough range to strike the Kuriles. Mostly they were hunting shipping around the islands, but they struck bases too.

My father was a combat photographer and snuck out a few of his pictures. The most haunting is a shot he made about 3 days before the end of the war. They were hitting ground targets in the Kuriles with orders to make one pass and get out. One B-25 made the decision to make a second pass and he took a direct hit from flak. My father caught a picture of it. All that's left of the B-25 is a single wing that has a sheet of flame where the fuselage used to be.

Bill



histgamer -> RE: Considering Ops Losses (3/23/2007 2:58:13 AM)

I just think that far to many pilots are killed in ops losses i have no problem with the number of destroyed planes.



Daniel Oskar -> RE: Considering Ops Losses (3/23/2007 5:13:52 AM)

The most dangerous phases of flight are takeoff and landing. Too low to bail out, and when you auger in a high performance airplane, you will most likely be moving along at a pretty good clip. Best you can hope for is an extended stay at the base hospital.



histgamer -> RE: Considering Ops Losses (3/23/2007 10:09:58 AM)

True but from what i have heard alot of ops losses are planes that make it back to base but due to damage are total wreaks. Those planes pilots would make it back safely or wounded.



AmiralLaurent -> RE: Considering Ops Losses (3/23/2007 2:18:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

I just think that far to many pilots are killed in ops losses i have no problem with the number of destroyed planes.


I disagree, for me the number of pilots killed in accidents is OK, the number of lost AC is too low compared to the number of sorties flown.

Then I agree op losses on raids are a bit too high but on the other hand aircraft flying CAP have a close to zero op loss percentage.

Also it seems to me that pilots have a better chance of survival in op losses than in combat losses, especially when away from the frontline (like in training). Ok you may have a Japanese pilot captured while flying training from Osaka or an US one over Los Angeles, but overall training units in my experience seems to lose 3-4 pilots killed for 10 aircraft losses, half of the survivors being wounded (and so disappearing from the roster for some times). Such a ratio is not too high regarding the historical examples I know.

It also seems to me that in one of the last patches the probability of being wounded rather than killed when shot down or crashing was increased, and became closer to historical figures.



pauk -> RE: Considering Ops Losses (3/23/2007 2:29:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

It also seems to me that in one of the last patches the probability of being wounded rather than killed when shot down or crashing was increased, and became closer to historical figures.


right...i'm 100% sure about it....

I guess that main reason for increasing the probablilty of being wounded/rescued is delaying as much as possible dissapearing pilots bug (hm, not sure that is correct name for it). Once when all slots for the pilots are full, active pilots start dissapearing...



Nikademus -> RE: Considering Ops Losses (3/23/2007 11:13:06 PM)

op losses are too low.....but they are deliberately so so that you don't loose too many pilots. Ideally, in a perfect world.....it would be better if more/most op losses in most cases allowed more pilots to survive.

An exception would be op losses from carrier battles which should be both far higher and costlier to pilots.




histgamer -> RE: Considering Ops Losses (3/23/2007 11:41:59 PM)

As far as pilots go do ops losses allow for an ace to have a higher percentage change of living in say a crash due to mechanical failure or damage than they would a rookie? The idea that a vet wouldnt be better at, at least coming home and getting himself down alive is stupid.

I can see alot of younger less experanced pilots killing themselves on training missions but not vets.



wdolson -> RE: Considering Ops Losses (3/24/2007 6:10:37 AM)

Though some of top aces were killed in operational accidents.  Marseille and Richard Bong among them.  Though Bong was flying as a test pilot for the P-80 at the time.

A skilled pilot will survive situations where a green pilot won't though.  The first DC-10 serious problem didn't become a major air disaster because American Airline's most senior pilot was at the controls.

Bill



Nikademus -> RE: Considering Ops Losses (3/24/2007 9:28:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

As far as pilots go do ops losses allow for an ace to have a higher percentage change of living in say a crash due to mechanical failure or damage than they would a rookie? The idea that a vet wouldn't be better at, at least coming home and getting himself down alive is stupid.

I can see alot of younger less experienced pilots killing themselves on training missions but not vets.



Unfortunately, no. Were this so, the "Train the newbie pilots by flying combat missions right out the gate" tactic would be largely invalid. Normally newbie pilots (exp 10-45-40ish roughly i'd say) learn the basics of flying on the ground and in trainers. They then 'graduate' to the high performance aircraft, particularly in the case of fighters. In WitP, you can take the greenest pilot and send him on actual combat missions, even if the target is undefended, in a high performance aircraft and "rapid" train them up circumventing the built in "training" mission's calibrated time table.

If i could have written it, i'd tie op losses directly to the exp level with emphasis on exp <50 pilots....to represent the higher incidence of training accidents likely if the pilots are thrown into these birds too soon. (This is what happened to Japan as shown by the fact that in the 1st half of the war....combat losses exceeded operational accidents but by late war operational accidents far exceeded combat losses. Japanese newbies simply were not getting the required training hours and were being thrown into the cockpits with a fraction of the hours required of USN trainees.



Fredk -> RE: Considering Ops Losses (3/28/2007 6:17:03 AM)

On a humurous note, I just bought IL-2: 1946 and I can totally believe the figures on ops losses...the number of times I've smashed my Bf-109 into the ground on takeoff/landing!!! [:@][:-]



JeffroK -> RE: Considering Ops Losses (3/28/2007 7:09:49 AM)

"Bluey" Truscott, an RAAF pilot with experience in England & New Guinea, I think around 15 claimed kills, crashed off the NW coast of OZ when practising "shadow shooting".

After inexperience weeds out some, over confidence & fatigue gets its share.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.203125