RE: Kamis in AE (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

Feinder -> RE: Kamis in AE (3/31/2009 12:27:25 PM)

An additional issue is the "target fixation" - where you get 5x (or more!) Kamis goinging into a single LST. It would only take one, rarely two. And the damage model allows ships to persist (and be targets), much longer than they would normally.

-F-



fabertong -> RE: Kamis in AE (3/31/2009 12:44:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

An additional issue is the "target fixation" - where you get 5x (or more!) Kamis goinging into a single LST. It would only take one, rarely two. And the damage model allows ships to persist (and be targets), much longer than they would normally.

-F-

I hit an already badly damaged US-CV with 36 Kami hits in one turn........they must have carried on hitting her as she slipped beneath the waves....would have been nice if a few of the boys had thought....'Our work here is done' and lived to fight another day........



Speedysteve -> RE: Kamis in AE (3/31/2009 12:52:15 PM)

Nonsense Brother Penguin[;)]



witpqs -> RE: Kamis in AE (3/31/2009 4:31:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I concur that m10bob was rather rude to Brad's original set of questions.  Don't understand why people have to be like that on the Forum.  Not needed.



Maybe Bob overreacted based on how he interpreted Q-Ball's post. You might be doing the same thing - give him a break. It's pretty clear from thousands of courteous and helpful posts that Bob is one of the good guys. [8D]



Q-Ball -> RE: Kamis in AE (3/31/2009 5:09:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I concur that m10bob was rather rude to Brad's original set of questions.  Don't understand why people have to be like that on the Forum.  Not needed.



Maybe Bob overreacted based on how he interpreted Q-Ball's post. You might be doing the same thing - give him a break. It's pretty clear from thousands of courteous and helpful posts that Bob is one of the good guys. [8D]


I'm OK with Bob, he's just got AE-itis: A cranky anxiety disorder related to excessive waiting for a new cool product. Last thing I want to suggest is delaying release to bake something in; that can wait for AE-mods.



witpqs -> RE: Kamis in AE (3/31/2009 6:15:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

AE-itis: A cranky anxiety disorder related to excessive waiting for a new cool product.


Me too!



byron13 -> RE: Kamis in AE (4/4/2009 9:17:19 AM)

If Q-Ball's test is representative of Kami capability, then something is off. That many planes going against transports with no CAP should have resulted in more hits. Those pilots were so incompetent that I doubt they could have gotten their planes in the air - or even gotten out of bed without hurting themselves.

It looks like hit percentages are too low. I'm guessing that maybe the chances of hitting a ship by a Kami is using a variation of - if not the same - formula for determining a bomb hit. 45 experience pilots won't get many bomb hits. But it is a lot easier to drive a plane into a ship than it is to drop a bomb on ship - a lot easier than Q-Ball's tests indicate.

This should be looked at a little more, me thinks. Let's hold up the release for another month or two to look at it.

. . . okay, maybe we can look at it after release. But it does look like something is off and it's been hidden by uber-CAP and flak walls.



witpqs -> RE: Kamis in AE (4/4/2009 4:27:00 PM)

As he noted those tests were with WITP, not AE.



byron13 -> RE: Kamis in AE (4/7/2009 6:09:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

As he noted those tests were with WITP, not AE.


True, but unless it was mentioned somewhere else in the forum, there's no indication that anything was changed. Actually, I'm just bored and waiting around for the release of . . . That which doesn't exist.



vettim89 -> RE: Kamis in AE (4/7/2009 3:15:26 PM)

Sources vary wildly on Kamikazes. I have found numbers ranging form 2300 to 400 sorties flown against the fleet off Okinawa in 1945. One British source with the lowest sorties also mentions that nearly 50% returned to base. Now that number includes escorting fighters. Interesting this source also lists the highest hit rate of 18.6 %

So much is difficult to model. Some aspects that need to be considered but may be very hard to model if not impossible:

1. Kamikazes were only effective against a fixed target. I cannot find a single refernce to a hit on a ship that was not either directly invloved in or supporting an invasion. I don't think WITP models this. The will attack TF's moving from base to base just as well as those unloading at an invasion site.

2. Kamikazes tended to fixate on the same target. This may be modelable. We know that the engine does tend to realistic fixate fire in night SCTF battle on a ship on fire.

3. Kamikaze effectiveness increased with raid size. The CAP was very effective against small attacks but hard a harder time dealing with the Floating Crysanthamum's. I think this is modeled in AE

4. Kamikaze damage was not as davstating as we think to capaital ships. At least four USN CV's were hit multiple times by Kamazes. Considering their relative short term use, this means they were damaged and returned to the fleet fairly quickly and damaged again.

5. US tactics evolved very quickly and the Kamikazes were a lot less effective at the end of their use than the beginning.

BTW, I agree with Q-Ball: the hit rate is way too low. I think the reason the damage was less on Cap ships is they tended not to penetrate well. Even though they carried a bomb, they did not have the ability to achieve the same kinetic profile as a SAP or AP bom at terminal velocity heading almost straight down. Many hits were glancing blows and did not penetrate very deeply into an armored ship. They were devastating to DD's, CVE's and small ships though




Q-Ball -> RE: Kamis in AE (4/7/2009 3:49:52 PM)

The Kami damage might be not too far off; in WITP they just bounce off BBs, and against Cruisers don't cause much damage. I have only seen good damage results against CVEs and AKs. Even then, it takes several hits to get a sinking.

If anything, it might be a bit too light, in that one hit generally won't sink anything, but that is probably true of all the ordinance in WITP in general; the engine models more hits, but less damage per hit.

The # of hits is way off for Kamis though. I haven't heard of alot of late-war testing in AE, so not sure if anything is changed from WITP to AE.



Panther Bait -> RE: Kamis in AE (4/7/2009 4:59:23 PM)

From a damage point of view, Kamikaze's should probably be more or less equivalent to a 250 kg bomb with an added fire effect and a little less penetration.

The biggest problem for BBs was usually that the plane spread burning av gas over a section of the ship.  If it hit exposed AA gun tubs, the effects were not pleasant.  If it splashed over an unmanned area, the effects were pretty minor.  Cruisers were similar.

For CVs, it was not uncommon for them to put a hole in the decking and make it to the hanger, but again the damage was typically more related to fire than explosive effect.  A CVE had very little, if any, deck armor and the kami had a chance at penetrating deeper, plus I suspect they had less effective fire fighting equipment than a full-blown CV. 

DDs and smaller ships/craft, of course, took much more damage, but even many/most of those hit by kamikazes (not including okha) were not sunk outright.  Many of the total losses were scuttled because it wasn't worth the effort to tow them back for repair, or brought back to the states and eventually decommisioned/scrapped as the war was drawing to a close. 



CV Zuikaku -> RE: Kamis in AE (4/9/2009 7:37:14 PM)

And what about Ohkas? They shoul'd have high AP ratings. And they shouldn't be invulnerable to flak!



anarchyintheuk -> RE: Kamis in AE (4/10/2009 9:27:45 PM)

Don't know about higher ap ratings. Aluminum crumples pretty much the same whether it's at 300 knots or 500 knots.

Not having a heavy radial or inline engine probably makes for less armor penetration.



AirGriff -> RE: Kamis in AE (4/11/2009 1:58:36 PM)

One of the kamikaze hits on the Intrepid (or was it the North Carolina--I'm getting my ship visits mixed up maybe) had the aircraft impact causing minimal damage, but the pilot's body was ejected from the impact and destroyed an AA mount.  Go figure that one into the game mechanics [:'(]



Kwik E Mart -> RE: Kamis in AE (4/13/2009 10:50:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: byron13

But it is a lot easier to drive a plane into a ship than it is to drop a bomb on ship - a lot easier than Q-Ball's tests indicate.



Really? I haven't seen too many interviews with successful or unsuccessful Kami pilots... [8|]



TMFoss -> RE: Kamis in AE (4/14/2009 1:59:43 AM)

Maxwell Taylor Kennedy's Danger' Hour, Simon and Shuster, 2008.  This book chronicles the kamikaze attack on Bunker Hill in 1945.  It is an ok read, but it does have a lot of interesting background information about kamikaze pilots-including some interviews.



byron13 -> RE: Kamis in AE (4/15/2009 2:45:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart


quote:

ORIGINAL: byron13

But it is a lot easier to drive a plane into a ship than it is to drop a bomb on ship - a lot easier than Q-Ball's tests indicate.



Really? I haven't seen too many interviews with successful or unsuccessful Kami pilots... [8|]



I'm thinking we're miscommunicating here. Q-ball ran tests where a number of kamikazes attacked a few transport ships without any CAP and obviously minimal AA. No hits. That makes no sense. I could see poor pilots not being able to hit a ship with a bomb, but anyone that can take off can hit a ship by flying into it if there are no other distractions. They did pretty well on 9/11 didn't they? Consider how hard it is to throw a tennis ball into a trash can while driving by it in a car. Then consider how hard it is to simply drive the car into the trash can. I'm thinking the reason the hit rate is so low is because it is using the same or similar algorithm as hitting the ship with a bomb, which is a lower percentage proposition.



Sardaukar -> RE: Kamis in AE (4/15/2009 11:05:59 AM)

Well, lot of those Kamikaze pilots were so poorly trained that they had trouble take off and fly to target area. So I could well believe that hit rate would not be spectacular in any case.

Plus, not all of those pilots were that willing to sacrifice their lives...surprisingly large number had "engine problems" or had other reasons to abort mission.

But overall, kamikaze hit % is probably too low in vanilla WitP.



Panther Bait -> RE: Kamis in AE (4/15/2009 1:24:44 PM)

In semi-WitP terms, a kamikaze should be the ultimate "centerline" weapon.   [:)]



Charles2222 -> RE: Kamis in AE (5/9/2009 4:04:23 AM)

I have provided this page of kami information from the internet multiple times, but most everyone seemed to ignore or at least not learn from it (note the kamikaze statistics towards the bottom):

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-042.htm

In the notes portion towards the bottom, this most revealing information is quite key:

quote:

Not included in the the totals in this section are Japanese Army planes used as Kamikazes and Escorts. In the US Strategic Bombing Survey report, there is an estimate of 2,550 Kamikaze sorties being flown from all services. This number apparently does not include Escorts. Some 475 of these Kamikazes, or 18.6 percent, were effective in securing hits or damaging near misses. It is not clear if these totals include strikes on British vessels, but I suspect that they do not.


Also, it seems the portion referring to hits on vessels, is counting the number of vessels hit, and not the number of hits; even then it is much higher than many are willing to believe I am sure.

edited - Actually I think I read footnote #3 (not included on this post) incorrectly and it does include some multiple hits on the same vessel anyway.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.84375