(Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific



Message

juliet7bravo -> (7/11/2002 11:16:17 PM)

Ah, wrong. "Lighter" caliber AA weapons during this period accounted for probably something like 90+% of flak kills, as well as composing the majority of Japanese AA weapons. Larger caliber AA weapons really only came into their own with radar controls and VT fuses. Prior to that, it was mainly luck of the draw. By lowering the altitude you're just getting down to where you're within their engagement envelope. What was Nimitz's quote about the Army Air Corp in general? Something like "Bombing from the stratosphere where it was safe"?

Talking anti-shipping strikes, you can't terrain hop or anything...you're just a big slow slow target over the sea. The bigger you are means that you're just that much easier to get a piece of. Very little armor on a B17 really, none on the fuel tanks or engines, so armor isn't much of a factor. IJN light AA was crap, due to slow mount speeds, low sustained ROF, and a low effective ceiling, but by getting down to that level you're giving it every opportunity for success...which is why they were doing high altitude bombing to begin with. They can't kill you if they can't reach you.



mdiehl -> (7/12/2002 12:03:29 AM)

Ah, *not* wrong because almost all kills scored by lighter caliber AA weapons occurred at ranges less than 1000 feet. The discussion was "what risk might level bombers experience from flak at 1000-3000 feet?" My answer: primarily from large caliber weapons. Large caliber weapons are area weapons with burst charges set by fuse. A B17 is big plane, but there's alot of plane on which a hit by a piece of shrapnel has no effect. So target size is not a critical variable. With bursting flak, it's *all* about accurately estimating target speed and altitude.

If you're talking about skip bombing or torpedo bombing it is another matter, since the altitude is optimally around 200 feet. In skip-bombing, light AA was a great threat, even to B17s as the anecdotal examples here and in the skip-bombing thread indicate.

What a surprise. Nimitz (navy) speaks scornfully of army airpower.



Ron Saueracker -> POP! (7/12/2002 12:29:22 AM)

Why not limit the altitude of aircraft? One has to wonder why the B 17 was not used in 1000 ft missions more often if they were this accurate. Let history be the rule. This is not a what might have been question, it's a why not.

Jennifer:

In case I missed the answer if already present on this thread. The Mutsuki was the DD hit by high altitude B17s and it was during the Eastern Solomons battle. She was part of Tanaka's transport TF and was alongside the Kinryu Maru rescuing survivors.

I believe LBA accuracy is going to be vastly toned down soon enough.



dpstafford -> Re: POP! (7/12/2002 1:01:44 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
[B]I believe LBA accuracy is going to be vastly toned down soon enough. [/B][/QUOTE]
Insider scoop???



Wilhammer -> An article on VT fuses that adds something to the AA effectiveness discussion. (7/12/2002 1:03:37 AM)

http://www.warships1.com/W-Tech/tech-075.htm



Joel Billings -> (7/12/2002 1:13:36 AM)

I have brought up the issue of level bombers being too good bombing ships (and maybe other targets as well) at low altitude (especially heavy bombers) to both Gary and Mike. The simple answer at this time is that the current state of the game is not considered a bug.

I asked Gary what he would do if it was shown that this tactic is more powerful in the game than it could have been in real life. His first suggestion was to increase the flak level at lower altitudes, as this would be the cleanest fix, with the least implications on other parts of the game. He also said that it was his goal that heavy flak losses would keep players from doing a lot of this in the game, and thus the suggestion to increase flak if it isn't currently having the desired impact. The only big possible downside is that a fix might kill torpedo bombers more than desired, and this would especially hurt the Japanese (currently the side that is already tougher to play).

When I asked Mike what he thought, he said that in his opinion (from several tests he ran along with his game experience with UV) the flak impact is considerable on low altitude attacks and he thinks the game is doing as Gary wanted it to. He doesn't believe it needs to be changed. His arguements sounded valid to me. Thus, the decision was made not to patch this in 1.2 as other more serious issues need fixing, and there is not a consensus on this issue or what to do about it.

Initially reading this thread, I had a gut level reaction to just go ahead and increase the low level flak and be done, but ultimately ended up not pushing for a fix now. I don't usually like design by polling, but I'm interested in getting some quantifiable feedback on this issue. I need to say up front that there is no guarantee that we will do anything here as our group may have a different opinion than the poll even after seeing the poll results. But with this in mind, I suggest someone make up a poll that asks whether we should do one of the following in a future patch:

Increase impact of low level flak against all air attacks
Increase impact of low level flak against level bombers only
Increase impact of low level flak against level bombers (but do not increase flak for torpedo/strafe/skip bombing attacks, i.e. ultra low level)
Leave the flak alone and don't change anything
Leave the flak alone but I want something else changed to make it harder for low level attacks

Hopefully this post gives you a better idea of where we are on this issue, even if it doesn't satisfy your particular view of the issue.

By the way, we tend not to want to impose an artificial limit on the player just because doctrine kept that option from being used in real life. That's why IJN sub doctrine is an optional rule.

Joel



Ron Saueracker -> (7/12/2002 1:25:07 AM)

Insider? No, it's just that most issues that are of this length seem to be addressed soon enough. For example, the land combat routines.



Ron Saueracker -> Main battery AA (7/12/2002 1:29:55 AM)

Portland used (ineffectually) her 8" guns to engage low flying torpedoe planes by errupting water gysers in front of a/c. Maybe they didn't work against nimble Kates but I wonder what they'd do against 4 engined barn dorrs.:) Probably quite scary for other ships in TF, too.:D



HMSWarspite -> Re: Main battery AA (7/12/2002 1:38:43 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
[B]Portland used (ineffectually) her 8" guns to engage low flying torpedoe planes by errupting water gysers in front of a/c. Maybe they didn't work against nimble Kates but I wonder what they'd do against 4 engined barn dorrs.:) Probably quite scary for other ships in TF, too.:D [/B][/QUOTE]

Fairly standard tactic for desparate big gun ships. Known as a splash barrage. Even worked occasionally with BB main armament, although whether they ever hit anything, or just put them off their aim, I don't know.



brisd -> Thanks Joel for feedback (7/12/2002 1:59:33 AM)

First off, the flak values for low level attacks seem to me fine, the tactical bombers suffer accordingly as well as IJN level bombers.

What I haven't heard is a good argument why three beat up B17's left over from Clark Field with no spares can fly through 21 Zeros, at high morale, experience and low fatigue and striking alone HUNDREDS of miles from their bases against fully operational ships and get four hits and lose no aircraft? If it happened once during the war, I'd say ok, there is a chance. I mean my ICON, BISMARCK, was fatally damaged by a few biplanes so ships are vulerable to aircraft, no argument there. It is not as if the CV had no CAP, was anchored or 100 miles off shore. The CAP was set for 10000 by the way in my example but I understood that CAP will adjust to attack at whatever level the bombers are.

I have no problems with players trying ahistorical strategies, I do it myself.

Don't increase the flak values against all aircraft.

Fix the B17 issue.

I will no longer play the Japanese with this flaw in the game and suggest all who do demand unlimited subs and no damage control advantage to allies to slightly balance the issue. I probably am going to cancel my pbem games which were alot of fun till this happened (two different games) but in good conscious I can't continue. Overall I have been pleased with this wargame and I was looking forward to WITP but it sounds from Joel's feedback that the solutions proposed are going to cause more harm than good.

And why bring up the Yamato being sunk by hundreds of tactical bombers? It has nothing to do with this discussion.

Still disgusted... :mad:



elmo3 -> (7/12/2002 2:04:44 AM)

Thanks for the answer Joel. I also agree that design by polling is a bad idea. Better for people to post actual results of low level level bombing or send game files to the Matrix team for review IMO.



zed -> distraught (7/12/2002 2:09:07 AM)

I tell my IJNAFand IJAAF pilots when intercepting level bombers to just try and distract them so as to throw their aim off. I dont care if they shoot down any, so long as only a few of my ships are hit.
The bombers are just to accurate, its not a question of AA, its I dont think you can get that many hits on ships dealing with AA fire and fighter interceptors. I had 8 hudsons get 8 hits on 2 ships, while 8 zeros were flying interception. Thats just not possible. Anything other than Hudsons and I would believe it.



Spooky -> (7/12/2002 2:19:47 AM)

The poll asked by Joel is now available ...
Please vote :)

Spooky



Joel Billings -> (7/12/2002 2:22:37 AM)

Surprise? :)

Sorry you're still disgusted. With CAP, anything can happen. If unlikely things are happening all the time that's different. On any given day 3 planes can sneak in undetected (before good radar). Also, zeros had a very hard time against B-17's. However, it sounds like your complaint is the invulnerability of the B17? Or is it the accuracy? Or both? I offered a possible simple solution to the problem I thought was being described. Remember that increased flak will throw off the aim of the bombers (as well as hurt them). The problem I see here is I don't see agreement on the extent of the problem, let alone the solution.

Joel



brisd -> my apologies (7/12/2002 2:43:52 AM)

Joel,

I have been very negative in my posts on this subject and I am sorry for that. I am truly disgusted and that is coming through. I am stating that the results seem wrong. I leave it to others more capable of finding a solution. The flak seems accurate now as is, the aircraft (B17) and its ability to score multiple hits in May 42 at 1000 ft, despite CAP and flak, is what I am confused and angry about. I appreciate your comments and offer of a solution. :)



juliet7bravo -> (7/12/2002 2:52:08 AM)

Well, give a couple days to set up a test scenario, game it out under different variables, and package the results, and I'll give you all the quantifiable feedback you can desire.

My "gut instinct" working hypothesis is that flak isn't effective enough overall, and much less effective at low levels than it should be. Based on the indisputable (har har) figure of more than 60% US AC losses from flak in the Pacific overall, I don't much see how this can be argued. If anything, I'd speculate that flak losses in UV should be abnormally high given that probably a higher percentage of air combat takes place over heavily defended base hexes, or against TF's with relatively high flak values. Especially since the default level bombing altitude is only 6000 ft.

As a starting point, perhaps people could post the current AC loss stats for their current game? Total # lost, and then the breakdown by cause, and by side (also if it's with a large amount of low level bombing. This would give a broad sample to be compared against the test results done under "controlled" circumstances.



dgaad -> (7/12/2002 3:24:11 AM)

Joel :

The problem with the solution you offered is that the code apparently cannot distinguish between SIZES of aircraft, in particular the size difference between medium bombers such as the B-26 and heavy bombers such as the B-17. Are we left with a distinguish variable of "Level Bombers", "Dive Bombers", "Torpedo Bombers", and "Fighter Bombers", etc?

Is there any size of target variable here?

The only change I would like to see is a very slightly increased AA value versus large bombers of the B-17/B-24 type at altitudes of 3000 feet or less. Can you make a change of this nature that, basically, only affects 4 engine bombers, and not affect medium or 2 engine bombers?



Kavik Kang -> (7/12/2002 4:27:37 AM)

Flak at low level (1000 feet) is obviously a little too weak, I assumed everyone already believed that. That is part of the problem, but the real problem when it comes down to people actually playing this game is that the level bombers are too effective at low altitude. As gamers, you don't concern yourself with the fact that each level bomber shot down means 8-10 people die. Maybe they would have been this effective in real life if used in this way, but they would never have been used in this way (at least by the allies, and bye the Japs only in the end).

In order to compensate for this issue within a simulation, it is often necessary to intentionally scew the system in an unrealistic way in order to force realistic results. This is one of those cases, and it is probably necessary to adjust both low level bombing effectiveness and low level flak to slightly unrealistic levels to achieve a correct end result among players. In other words, to make up for the fact that you aren't considering the lives of the crews... you care about your planes, so that is where you need to feel the pain. Less effect and more detriment will solve this problem and achieve a more realistic end result.

Of course, all these comments are pointless if they don't plan a gameplay patch in the future:-)



doomonyou -> I hate to harp.... (7/12/2002 5:29:52 AM)

But everything in this game is "unrealistic". My educated guess is that b-17's were never used this way because probably 25% coming back from each mission would be shot down or more likely badly damaged. But I know as a player that I will be getting more. I KNOW that the japanese player cannot afford the losses in ships that I can trade him in planes that I can afford to write off on landing. In may of 1942 in RL the Allies didn't know that the Jap's would choke on a logisitics side over a three year period. They had to husband what they had (the scenario starts realistically with around 20 or so B-17's in the THEATRE, which I blow through in about three weeks knowing that the damaged beyond repair planes are fully replaceable).

This is of course why all grognard wargames seem unrealistic when you get down to it. We as people know everything that is going to happen so we subconciously go about our business differently NO MATTER HOW WELL THE MODEL IS PUT. Try playing a civil war game with an engine that perfectly models the combat mechanics. It will always be unfair to the Allied player that the Japanese can frankly make a carrier battle group that probably cannot be defeated in combat, because although the Japanese did have the assets they never made use of them. As the Allied player I can always nail the Japanese guy if he's around PM because I know I can lose every bomber and S-boat in the game and it won't matter so long as I trade them for three Jap carriers. I mean Scenario 17 assumes midway NEVER happened and the Japanese still don't have enough combat power to make it a 50 50 bet.

If you change the b-17's, than it will be mines and subs, and changing those, it will be something else...because the core of the issue lays elsewhere

IMHO



dgaad -> Re: I hate to harp.... (7/12/2002 5:33:44 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by doomonyou
[B]My educated guess is that b-17's were never used this way because probably 25% coming back from each mission would be shot down or more likely badly damaged. IMHO [/B][/QUOTE]

I say again : B-17s WERE used this way. Just not often.



juliet7bravo -> (7/12/2002 7:28:17 AM)

Test Parameters; (FOW off)

PM; 9AF/9port, 50K supply/50K fuel 500 support/500 Av points including air HQ

Rabaul; 9AF/9port, 50K supply/50K fuel 500 support/500 Av points including air HQ. 6 x "standard" SNLF AA Bn. (4 x 75mm AA, 2 x 40mm dual AA, 10 x 13mm dual AA ea., 75 exp/100 morale) 6 x Naval Pioneer Bn. for repairs. No fighter CAP.

*NOTE; this is a fairly concentrated amount of flak

6 x B17 squadrons at PM, 12 AC each, 75 exp/100 morale, set on Naval Attack/Airfield Attack, target Rabaul, altitude 1000', nav search 0

6 x B17 "reserve" squadrons at Cairns, 12 AC each, 75 exp/100 morale, set on "Training 0"

12 x C47 squadrons at Brisbane, 24 AC each, 75 exp/100 morale, set on "Training 0".

******
First week results (rough)

860 sorties (including aborts?, 235 actual "combat sorties")
9 AC lost to flak
3 Operational losses

Ground hits = 372, with 174 AC attacking. This is 2.14 hits per attacking AC
Ship hits = 25, with 61 AC total attacking (multiple attacks on different TF's). All ships attacked were docked. This is a 41% hit rate per AC attacking. All TF's attacked had relatively low flak potential.

Flak losses per total sortie = 1%
Flak damaged = 35-50% overall against base per mission. B-17 squadron good for 2 days at high op tempo before becoming combat ineffective due to damaged AC.
Flak losses per "combat sortie" = 3.8%

(1) Bombers are apparently NOT attacked by port/base AA when attacking docked ships. Out of the AC attacking ships, there was 0 lost to flak, and 7 damaged.

(2) High number of damaged AC, but few actual losses

(3) High accuracy against ships? This is reasonable against docked ships?

I plan on running it through about a month, then change to different altitude. Then change to B25's and a different base with same parameters and repeat.



dgaad -> (7/12/2002 7:36:02 AM)

Ground AA is actually slightly less effective against aircraft at very low range 100-2000 feet, because of ground clutter. Planes travelling at 200MPH are going 1 mile every 18 seconds. The amount of time a ground based AA unit has to aim and fire is severely reduced by the relative vector to the AA gun, and ground clutter like trees, buildings, terrain, that block the fire.



juliet7bravo -> (7/12/2002 11:58:22 AM)

***one month***

2542 total sorties (much bad weather, time down)
737 combat sorties (519 ground sorties, 218 naval sorties)
43 flak losses (43 ground, 0 naval)
10 Op losses

1082 ground hits = 208.5% per AC ground sortie
169 naval hits = 77.5% per AC naval sortie (22 ships sunk, 3 more that are goners)

Number of bombs per AC at that range 4?

323 damaged AC out of 519 ground sorties = 62.24%
43 destroyed AC out of 519 ground sorties = 8.29%
0 destroyed AC out 218 naval sorties = 0%
19 damaged AC out of 218 naval sorties = 8.7%
10 Operational Losses out 2542 sorties = 0.4%

Conclusions so far;
(1) 2 days ops per squadron before combat ineffective.
(2) Morale takes HUGE hits
(3) Port AA should be added to help protect TF's in base hexes...currently it isn't. Being docked in a port adds no extra protection, this is a HUGE issue IMO.
(4) This was a well defended target. Flak losses against a well defended target at low levels should approach 10%. This was the make/break point for daylight bombing in Europe I think. Flak ratings against low level attack, specifically low level bombers should be raised upward, possibly 25% higher given the amount of AA present.
(5) Low level bombing accuracy should be lowered SOMEWHAT, possibly 10%, especially against shipping.
(6) Operational Losses should be higher. Total Op losses in the Pacific was roughly 60% of all AC losses for both the US and the Japanese.

The values are very close, and just need minor tweaking. TF's not being protected by the base AA is a bigger issue. How much tweaking is an open question. Given that this base had 6 AA Bn. present, this was better protected than most bases will be in game, probably by about a third. This would effect how much to raise the AA values. Low level bombing SHOULD be more accurate, but it should come with a price tag of higher damaged/destroyed AC, especially using the B-17.

Ship AA values also need looked at. Not a single B-17 was lost due to shipboard AA fire, and a very low percentage damaged.



elmo3 -> (7/12/2002 5:43:47 PM)

Very interesting numbers. Hopefully they will help Matrix and 2by3 decide what to do about low alt level bombing. So far the poll results are about as inconclusive as you could get.



panda124c -> Re: Main battery AA (7/12/2002 6:29:06 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
[B]Portland used (ineffectually) her 8" guns to engage low flying torpedoe planes by errupting water gysers in front of a/c. Maybe they didn't work against nimble Kates but I wonder what they'd do against 4 engined barn dorrs.:) Probably quite scary for other ships in TF, too.:D [/B][/QUOTE]

This was common practice for all large ships including Battleships on both sides, very good against Betty's, Nell's, Kates, TBMs, and TBFs. you shoot in front of the A/C so it will fly into the column of water. Two effects, one; very discoceting to a pilot who is trying to fly low, slow, straight, and level to drop a torpedo, two; if you hit the column of water or it hits you, the aircraft flips over on it's back, no chance of recovery; the A/C gets it nose pushed up - stall, no chance of recovery; the tail gets pushed up nose down, no chance of recovery; the A/C runs into a solid wall of water, very little chance of recovery.



panda124c -> Re: Thanks Joel for feedback (7/12/2002 7:05:35 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by brisd
[B]First off, the flak values for low level attacks seem to me fine, the tactical bombers suffer accordingly as well as IJN level bombers.

What I haven't heard is a good argument why three beat up B17's left over from Clark Field with no spares can fly through 21 Zeros, at high morale, experience and low fatigue and striking alone HUNDREDS of miles from their bases against fully operational ships and get four hits and lose no aircraft? If it happened once during the war, I'd say ok, there is a chance. I mean my ICON, BISMARCK, was fatally damaged by a few biplanes so ships are vulerable to aircraft, no argument there. It is not as if the CV had no CAP, was anchored or 100 miles off shore. The CAP was set for 10000 by the way in my example but I understood that CAP will adjust to attack at whatever level the bombers are.

Still disgusted... :mad: [/B][/QUOTE]

So statically it is possible for this to happen. The main difference here is that the number of times this type of attack was tried in WWII can be counted on one hand. However the number of time this type of attack has been tried in the game (by all gamers) is greater than the number sorties flown in all theater by all B-17's. So statically it is possible for someone at sometime to be able to fly one beat up, fatigued, low moral, B-17 and sink the Yamato with one bomb (someone will eventually hit the lottery numbers too). The same applies to both sides and all aircraft.

The policies followed by the AAC for high altitude bombers was to use them at high altitude in as large a group as possible this policy never changed. The policies also was to use medium altitude bombers at medium altitude this policy was changed in WWII Pacific theater. It was considered suicide to fly high altitude bombers at low altitude because of the flak (large targets easy to hit lots of times), because the bombardiers were not trained to bomb from that altitude and the Norden Bomb sight was useless at low altitude.

If you are going to use B-17's to attack ships at low altitudes you should expect to lose a lot of them, have them get fatigued, lose moral, and maybe just maybe get a fantastic result once in awhile. I have found B-17's much more useful bombing ports, airfield and shooting down CAP at high altitude than bombing moving ships.

It is interesting to note that the Navy used B-24's at low altitude against moving ships with good results but not in large formations.

How many fantastic events happen in WWII???
One of my favorites is the Wallis Tall Boy that was dropped on a rail way tunnel, the bomb penetrated through the mountain into the tunnel, exploded and collapsed the mountain crushing the tunnel (this was no low altitude mission). Or the Tall Boy that was dropped on the sub pens and bounced (it was dropped below minimum altitude [20,000ft]).

:D



juliet7bravo -> (7/12/2002 8:24:00 PM)

Same test with B25D's out of Dodadura...

So far, lower percentage of damaged, but higher percentage destroyed. Number of hits per sortie lower, but they're carrying fewer bombs. Numbers to follow.

Maybe the answer is to separate the heavy bombers and SOME of the medium bombers into a "level bomber" classification, and the majority of the medium bombers into an "attack bomber" class? Then increase the effectiveness of low level flak against the "level bombers" considerably, and just slightly against all others. From what I'm seeing so far, this would be my initial suggestion. Should still be a "clean" fix, and cover the angles.

The port flak not protecting the docked ships is a bad one...this needs fixed really really badly.



doomonyou -> sounds like the major fixes needed are... (7/12/2002 8:36:51 PM)

port AAA coverage as well as something to tell naval attack aircraft not to drive into the center of rabaul harbor at noon on a cloudless day would be nice...

also the real tweak (I feel) for the heavy bombers is not to destroy more (mind you in the West, b-17 could fly home 600 miles over german terrirtory with two blown engines and wing damage) but more importantly to respect that even at a major airfield the damaged four engines bombers are repaired too quickly. A heavy damaged b-17 might take two weeks to fix.....



juliet7bravo -> (7/12/2002 9:47:03 PM)

Ship AA...so far, I haven't tested against a hard core pure naval TF, just transport TF's and "light" SC TF's. But, it occurs to me...a medium-large transport TF probably has more AA firepower in absolute terms than the 6 AA Bn that are at Rabaul, and most definitely are engaging over "flat terrain"...yet TF AA fire to date has been uniformly anemic, weak, and useless. Six DD's would be roughly comparable to the 6 AA Bn's, and 6 DD's (with a CL or 2 thrown in) get their peepees whacked severely, and without doing any damage to the AC's worth mentioning. What's up with that?



doomonyou -> That comparison between land and sea is not fair.... (7/12/2002 10:53:24 PM)

ships have the following disadvantages--

1) they are not stationary, stable shooting platforms. Even on calm seas at slow speed they are moving both horizontally and vertically, often significantly.

2) Ships mount thier arms on both sides of the ship. This is critical because while an AA battery on land can (and typically does) have 360, most shipboard has 180 or even less traverse. While a bomber passing over both sides would be exposed to both sides, only half of the guns would come into play before the bombs were dropped, which would have a fairly suppressing effect even if they are just near misses.

3) ships typically spread themselves out over a fair distance (which is why high level bombing didn't work, if you want to argue that the Japanese could compress thier formations very tightly than the high level bombing would become effective). Even just five ships would probably be spread over a square mile of space, probably more, which would place the commonly small calliber (and piss poor for the japanese I might add) 26mm and under weapons on a ship at one edge of the formation well outside of the effective range of the other edge. An airbase/port like Truk for example only coverage a relatively small area and was protected by more large caliber, sighted weapons.

The port protection thing should be fixed as I myself have noticed such seeming suicidal attacks succeed with relatively low loss rates. With enough AA protection (6 AAA bn's as cited, + plus STATIONARY shipboard weapons) on a ground based target, ships docked in port should be practically immune to any sort of low to midlevel port assaults. That is where high level bombing was historically used and used to good effect.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.234375