AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical

AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (Full Version)

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

Message

Gridley380 -> AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/21/2019 5:29:41 PM)
I ran across this some years back but never got around to posting here: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Kamikaze/AAA-Summary-1045/ Among other things, it claims over 2,000 kills by USN AA alone - which makes USN AA seem rather more lethal than I see in WITP:AE. Granted, no WITP:AE campaign game is going to follow the historical course of the war all that closely, and as the report is from October of 1945 it may be based entirely on US claims and not Japanese actuals, but it still surprised me. How many AA kills do you normally see in a full campaign game? Have you seen good data (including info from the Japanese side) on losses by cause?

Canoerebel -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/21/2019 5:46:31 PM)
The effectiveness of flak was bumped up noticeably about five years ago, as you're probably aware. It's now a significant factor in the game. Both naval flak and land-based flak are forces to be reckoned with. It might or might not perfectly model what happened in the war but IMO it does a good job. I'd hate to see tinkering with it now, because the game has reached a level of maturity where any changes can throw things out of whack.

geofflambert -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/21/2019 8:44:08 PM)
Once they put proximity fuses in a particular type of ammunition, the AA using it was extremely lethal. All reports of that sort tend to be exaggerations, but not by much I'd wager. By the time we get there in the game, usually things are pretty much over.

geofflambert -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/22/2019 1:03:49 AM)
This thread brings up an interesting question I haven't seen addressed in the forum. Proximity fuses were in some ways like the A-bomb, they changed everything, not just flak but antipersonnel artillery. While not specifically represented in the game, A-bombs are. It's been a long time since I played Allied against the AI, but what I recall is being proud (not in an Allied way, obviously) that I kept the Soviets out of all but one single hex in Korea. I don't recall having used the bomb. I don't think I did. Who has, and what did you think about it, and what did you think about the results?

Canoerebel -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/22/2019 1:07:30 AM)
Geoff, to answer your question would be a massive hijack of a thread. Your question is a really good one. Why not open a separate thread?

BBfanboy -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/22/2019 3:04:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert This thread brings up an interesting question I haven't seen addressed in the forum. Proximity fuses were in some ways like the A-bomb, they changed everything, not just flak but antipersonnel artillery. While not specifically represented in the game, A-bombs are. It's been a long time since I played Allied against the AI, but what I recall is being proud (not in an Allied way, obviously) that I kept the Soviets out of all but one single hex in Korea. I don't recall having used the bomb. I don't think I did. Who has, and what did you think about it, and what did you think about the results? Re: the proximity fuse issue - I wonder if the programmers handled it the way they handled accuracy of naval gunfire - after you hit 1944 the game engine gives a surface combat gun boost to Allied warships that have radar. Seems to me they could have boosted AA effectiveness similarly to account for VT fuses, unless they decided not to for game balance reasons. I agree with CR about not fiddling with it any more.

Rising-Sun -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/22/2019 9:08:45 AM)
Depending on the devices (AA weapons), how accurate it is and its effects, as well crew experiences too.

RangerJoe -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/22/2019 2:35:28 PM)
I always did want to see Willy Pete with VT fuses on a Fire For Effect mission from some big guns - but not up close. Think of what that would do to infantry in the open, a bunch of vehicles getting POL, or a bunch of tanks getting resupplied with ammo. I also wonder what Willey Pete would have done if fired against Japanese aircraft with a proximity fuse. Just a little hole in the fuel cell could become a big bang right away.

Yaab -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/27/2019 9:45:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gridley380 I ran across this some years back but never got around to posting here: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Kamikaze/AAA-Summary-1045/ Among other things, it claims over 2,000 kills by USN AA alone - which makes USN AA seem rather more lethal than I see in WITP:AE. Granted, no WITP:AE campaign game is going to follow the historical course of the war all that closely, and as the report is from October of 1945 it may be based entirely on US claims and not Japanese actuals, but it still surprised me. How many AA kills do you normally see in a full campaign game? Have you seen good data (including info from the Japanese side) on losses by cause? Well, you would have to measure it against historical GCs (scen001, scen100, Babes scenariso etc.s), that end roughly in August 1945, played with PDU off and realistic RD settings.

Dili -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/27/2019 9:58:31 PM)
Claims are seriously overstated...

geofflambert -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/27/2019 10:35:25 PM)
I was somewhat confused by the introduction of VT fuses (variable time)into the conversation, they are not the same thing as proximity fuses. Rounds with proximity fuses actually have a radar transmitter and receiver. I think usually in the case of flak, one in ten or one in five rounds had this feature. This technology did not become publicly known until the last decade, I believe. When used with standard artillery, every round had it and would detonate above ground level rather than digging itself into the ground and detonating then. It was devastating. It was used at Huertgen forest, I believe.

Zorch -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/27/2019 11:18:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert I was somewhat confused by the introduction of VT fuses (variable time)into the conversation, they are not the same thing as proximity fuses. Rounds with proximity fuses actually have a radar transmitter and receiver. I think usually in the case of flak, one in ten or one in five rounds had this feature. This technology did not become publicly known until the last decade, I believe. When used with standard artillery, every round had it and would detonate above ground level rather than digging itself into the ground and detonating then. It was devastating. It was used at Huertgen forest, I believe. Marshall gave permission at Huertgen because it was going so badly. The allies were very concerned about Germans getting the tech from an unexploded shell.

spence -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/27/2019 11:31:06 PM)
My PBEM is in November 1943. According to the Intel Screen 761 Allied a/c and 1238 Japanese a/c have been destroyed by opposing Flak. It's been approximately 11 months since the VT Fuze (proximity fuze) was introduced by the USN. The USN seems on track to obtain a bit more than 2000 "flak kills" by August 1945. The Japanese total seems a bit high to me since by all accounts US flak was considerably more deadly than IJ flak right from the beginning. Perhaps some others could check out what their Intel Screen looks like. The average of a bunch of results might be enlightening.

geofflambert -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/28/2019 12:54:47 AM)
Again, VT (variable time) fuses are not the same thing as proximity fuses. The VT fuse was a good idea, but the proximity fuse was a complete game changer.

BillBrown -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/28/2019 2:00:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert Again, VT (variable time) fuses are not the same thing as proximity fuses. The VT fuse was a good idea, but the proximity fuse was a complete game changer. This entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica they are the same thing. https://www.britannica.com/technology/proximity-fuze

durnedwolf -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/28/2019 5:49:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BillBrown quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert Again, VT (variable time) fuses are not the same thing as proximity fuses. The VT fuse was a good idea, but the proximity fuse was a complete game changer. This entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica they are the same thing. https://www.britannica.com/technology/proximity-fuze Here's a nice video for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-D592VR4RU

Gridley380 -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/28/2019 12:37:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spence My PBEM is in November 1943. According to the Intel Screen 761 Allied a/c and 1238 Japanese a/c have been destroyed by opposing Flak. It's been approximately 11 months since the VT Fuze (proximity fuze) was introduced by the USN. The USN seems on track to obtain a bit more than 2000 "flak kills" by August 1945. The Japanese total seems a bit high to me since by all accounts US flak was considerably more deadly than IJ flak right from the beginning. Perhaps some others could check out what their Intel Screen looks like. The average of a bunch of results might be enlightening. As noted in the OP, I was indeed hoping for a number of people to post their results. Thank you for posting yours. :-) Are you playing stock?

Gridley380 -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/28/2019 5:29:18 PM)
Found another data point: the Army Air Forces Statistical Digest (December 1945) shows 4,530 AAF aircraft lost on combat missions against Japan: 1,524 to enemy aircraft, 1,037 to AA, 19 to a combination of aircraft and AA (one section had a breakout), and 1,950 to "other causes". Note this is just combat missions - total losses were 13,055 aircraft in theaters facing Japan.

spence -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/28/2019 5:46:10 PM)
The PBEM results come from a Babes Lite game. The variable in VT fuzes is the time of explosion of the shell which is variable because it explodes when it achieves its closest point of approach to the target within a preset (by the factory) distance. Prior to the introduction of the VT fuze one had to set the time of explosion on AA shells. This was relatively OK when one was dealing with level bombers but almost completely ineffective against dive bombers since the distance to the target and thus the time after "launch" changed too rapidly for the fuze setter (gun crew member) to keep up. Way back when I was in the USCG on my first ship we had a 5"/38cal main gun and a Mark 52 director (I remember watching a film about the Mark 56 director which began with the narrator talking about "modern aircraft" as a TBM "flashed by" on the screen - in any case the Mark 52 director pre-dated the Mark 56). The director only worked on one day while I was on board: we left the Fire Control Techs in GTMO to fabricate from scratch while the rest of the ship took a weekend off and went to Jamaica on R&R. (parts for any repair were non-existent in the USN supply system). On that day though we fired VT shells at a target sleeve towed roughly 1000 yards behind an S2F (IIRC). On the 3rd shell we cut the cable and the follon-on shells started walking up the cable towards the tow-plane. The tow-plane jettisoned the cable. When I got to my second (sister) ship the Mark 52 was gone without replacement. That was 3 years later. By then parts for the 5"/38cal main gun were non-existent in the USN supply system. Fortunately the USS Massachusetts Museum was just down the road in Fall River and so when we went to GTMO on that ship the Chief Gunner swapped something of value to the Museum for enough parts for our main gun to make it through REFTRA.

geofflambert -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/28/2019 7:01:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BillBrown quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert Again, VT (variable time) fuses are not the same thing as proximity fuses. The VT fuse was a good idea, but the proximity fuse was a complete game changer. This entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica they are the same thing. https://www.britannica.com/technology/proximity-fuze Pretty brief article, but it seems to be saying that VT does not stand for variable time, since they list it as Vt. Maybe it was invented in Vermont. Anyway, variable time fuse would not be an accurate description. Perhaps that's what they pretended they were before declassification.

geofflambert -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/28/2019 7:08:22 PM)
For artillery bombardment purposes, you could calculate in terms of time exactly when you wanted a shell to burst, so an actual honest to goodness variable time fuse would be outstanding to have. The technology would be much simpler and doable anytime in the '30s if not before. Now I don't know much about it but the larger caliber flak shells obviously had such a fuse, either that or an altitude fuse with a barometer in it. All very confusing.

geofflambert -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/28/2019 7:10:24 PM)
Also, perhaps they were publicly known as proximity fuses before the public was aware of how they worked.

spence -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/28/2019 7:55:06 PM)
quote: Pretty brief article, but it seems to be saying that VT does not stand for variable time, since they list it as Vt. Maybe it was invented in Vermont. Actually it does stand for Variable Time with a capital V and a capital T. If one knew with precision one's elevation and the target's elevation (of course if one had to shoot at a target on a reverse slope or a military crest you'd have to time each and every shell differently) you could set a fuze for that precise delay from "launch". Or in US Forces from 1943 on you could just shoot a VT shell which would explode when it got close to the target. The civilian scientists/engineers who invented/designed the shell probably called them proximity fuzes but the military functionaries who managed the shells figured "why use two words of 14 letters when three words of 17 letters would be so much better.

geofflambert -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/28/2019 8:13:40 PM)
So you agree they aren't the same thing even though some people called them the same thing and still do. Either the dang thing has a radar transmitter and receiver in it or it doesn't.

durnedwolf -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/28/2019 8:23:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gridley380 quote: ORIGINAL: spence My PBEM is in November 1943. According to the Intel Screen 761 Allied a/c and 1238 Japanese a/c have been destroyed by opposing Flak. It's been approximately 11 months since the VT Fuze (proximity fuze) was introduced by the USN. The USN seems on track to obtain a bit more than 2000 "flak kills" by August 1945. The Japanese total seems a bit high to me since by all accounts US flak was considerably more deadly than IJ flak right from the beginning. Perhaps some others could check out what their Intel Screen looks like. The average of a bunch of results might be enlightening. As noted in the OP, I was indeed hoping for a number of people to post their results. Thank you for posting yours. :-) Are you playing stock? So this is data pulled from Tracker regarding DOCUP's mod that is, I'm told, based off of a Reluctant Admiral mod but heavily modified. Note that the current data is from 14DEC41... [image]local://upfiles/16754/7DB7286BFBBA47559C0A560F09D341FF.jpg[/image]

geofflambert -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/28/2019 8:47:45 PM)
11/27/43 [image]local://upfiles/37002/F1E1081E65B84730B63598C3C4CEC495.jpg[/image]

durnedwolf -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/28/2019 9:08:02 PM)
Deleted - this was duplicate to data below...

durnedwolf -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/28/2019 9:09:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: durnedwolf quote: ORIGINAL: durnedwolf quote: ORIGINAL: Gridley380 quote: ORIGINAL: spence My PBEM is in November 1943. According to the Intel Screen 761 Allied a/c and 1238 Japanese a/c have been destroyed by opposing Flak. It's been approximately 11 months since the VT Fuze (proximity fuze) was introduced by the USN. The USN seems on track to obtain a bit more than 2000 "flak kills" by August 1945. The Japanese total seems a bit high to me since by all accounts US flak was considerably more deadly than IJ flak right from the beginning. Perhaps some others could check out what their Intel Screen looks like. The average of a bunch of results might be enlightening. As noted in the OP, I was indeed hoping for a number of people to post their results. Thank you for posting yours. :-) Are you playing stock? So this is a different look at data pulled from Tracker regarding DOCUP's mod that is, I'm told, based off of a Reluctant Admiral mod but heavily modified. Interesting to see my Dive Bombers at the top of the loss list... 1/3 loss attributed to flak but than I lose another 9 to "operations" which I suppose means they were shot up pretty bad and written off or crash-landed. [image]local://upfiles/16754/E2F5B5D9829F4E4283CEBFA85171AE4C.jpg[/image]

HansBolter -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/28/2019 10:00:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gridley380 I ran across this some years back but never got around to posting here: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Kamikaze/AAA-Summary-1045/ Among other things, it claims over 2,000 kills by USN AA alone - which makes USN AA seem rather more lethal than I see in WITP:AE. Granted, no WITP:AE campaign game is going to follow the historical course of the war all that closely, and as the report is from October of 1945 it may be based entirely on US claims and not Japanese actuals, but it still surprised me. How many AA kills do you normally see in a full campaign game? Have you seen good data (including info from the Japanese side) on losses by cause? You need to play the game to completion to see that in-game losses not only rival, but exceed the historical: [image]local://upfiles/21458/FDB99A3347334F63A9A2606E208A7380.jpg[/image]

Miller -> RE: AA Effectiveness: in-game vs. historical (6/28/2019 11:08:06 PM)
In stock games land based flak is reasonably in line with the real war but ship based flak is far too weak.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.046875