Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

 
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 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/13/2006 5:11:29 PM   
Nicholas Bell

 

Posts: 549
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline 		So pretty even the only thing I can think of is thats its got something to do with heavies as on pure fighter v fighter 42/44 makes no difference its radar difference that drive performance

I'll have to take a look at that. Still working on running this enough to eliminate some statistical anomoly.

I am running 5 tests now, a little of each at a time. Looking at the combat reports the increase Japanese losses are not really across the board (no kidding, since there is no code to produce this!) but rather is situational. Since all the radars are the same in both test (or not there at all in the second set) what other consistent factors are involved. As you point out, mission type and aircraft type involved are constants.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 121
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/14/2006 1:05:08 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Thanks for your testing and analysis.

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)
Post #: 122
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/14/2006 1:22:57 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		I am now baffled by the differing results My Sweep v CAP analysis was pretty conclusive (when I gave Japs the radar they had the advantage in same proportion as allies when allies had radar so on pure fighter combat there was no issue)

But these tests of escorted bombers assuming no radar at all are troubling. It is a pure guess but if radar is not a factor and all other things are equal between the tests I would not expect to see a variance but you are so all I can think of is some kind of allied box benefit in 43 but this is a pure guess.

My scenario is not set up to run bomber tests and it would take some faffing about to reset it so I will wait for Nicholas's analyis.

Andy

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)
Post #: 123
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/14/2006 3:00:42 AM   
Nicholas Bell

 

Posts: 549
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline 		I'm working on it

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 124
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/14/2006 4:54:48 AM   
SamCole

 

Posts: 116
Joined: 7/1/2006
Status: offline 		Question for Andy Mac and Nicolas Bell. How are you treating op losses? Do you count them? Are you counting damaged aircraft in any way? I am using Andys test senario and I am seeing that the CAP numbers vary, are you taking this into consideration?

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)
Post #: 125
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/14/2006 5:15:41 AM   
Nicholas Bell

 

Posts: 549
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline 		I am not looking specifically at ops losses, although I am recording them. Focusing on air to air only - I am using the Intel screen losses, which are greater than the combat report losses. Some aircraft listed as damaged in air to air in the combat report become destroyed based on mission range (fatigue factor). Ground and FLAK losses are also not part of this study, although I am recording them.

Understand that sortie rates vary from test to test. Weather scrubs some missions entirely. I am running 30 tests for each year/radar condition each with 9 engagements each (ie 270 engagements each full test). The thought being this is a large enough sample (50,000+ sorties per year test) to even out these sortie rate fluctuations between the 1942 and 1944 tests.

Is there a statistician in the house who can help?

I also am putting the combat reports in spreadsheet format (as I have been) so individual engagements (all 30) can be compared to the same mission in a different year side by side.

I am running a test with no radars/detectors on map for 1942 and 1944, and also a test with some radars/detectors for both years too. Should have it done in the next day or two.

(in reply to SamCole)
Post #: 126
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/14/2006 3:54:25 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		Wasn't the heavy bomber defensive fire enhanced in one of the previous patches? There might be something in that with late war Allied heavies vs. Japanese fighers.

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)
Post #: 127
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/14/2006 4:04:12 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		I turn advanced weather off to minimise scrubs

Sardauker it was but I thought it applied equally to 42 and 44 so there should be no difference.

Ops losses in my test are counted but are rarely more than 1 but I only have 4 combats of 100 v 100 per run at max range 120 miles

Andy

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 128
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/14/2006 4:07:52 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I turn advanced weather off to minimise scrubs

Sardauker it was but I thought it applied equally to 42 and 44 so there should be no difference.

Ops losses in my test are counted but are rarely more than 1 but I only have 4 combats of 100 v 100 per run at max range 120 miles

Andy


Yes, I thought it was general enhancement too. But what if there is some sort of change depending on date ? It'd make some sense based on test results. Probably they'd have said if it was so, but it's one possibility.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 129
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/14/2006 4:32:35 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Wasn't the heavy bomber defensive fire enhanced in one of the previous patches? There might be something in that with late war Allied heavies vs. Japanese fighers.



According to Joe, there is a "knee in the function" of combat results so an aircraft with a value of 40 or above (or above 40 - I forget which?) is much harder to kill. This because they didn't like their own durability rating system well enough to just use it. For this reason, RHS kept ALL durabilities below 40 - so we are not affected by the discontinuity of the function.

Still - in any normal system with high durability ratings for bombers - they will be almost impossible to kill. [Reminds me of UV - when we said "the best fighter is a B-17 - just send B-17s and watch enemy planes die"] When a plane cannot die, and when there are no ammunition limits, it can dish it out, round after round - and heavy bombers have lots of guns to use to dish it out too.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 130
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/14/2006 4:45:51 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Wasn't the heavy bomber defensive fire enhanced in one of the previous patches? There might be something in that with late war Allied heavies vs. Japanese fighers.


Yes. Applies to all LBA, both sides.

quote:


According to Joe, there is a "knee in the function" of combat results so an aircraft with a value of 40 or above (or above 40 - I forget which?) is much harder to kill


The DUR 40+ hard coding that restricted fighter attacks to Range 3 or farther was removed a long time ago.






_____________________________


(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 131
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/14/2006 5:32:49 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Still - in any normal system with high durability ratings for bombers - they will be almost impossible to kill. [Reminds me of UV - when we said "the best fighter is a B-17 - just send B-17s and watch enemy planes die"] When a plane cannot die, and when there are no ammunition limits, it can dish it out, round after round - and heavy bombers have lots of guns to use to dish it out too.


Kind of reminds me what happened in one of the online air combat simulators, cannot remember if it was Air Warrior or Warbirds before they patched it. B-17 was called "Death Star" because one could fly it into furball and let computer-controlled gunners swat fighter after fighter !

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 132
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/14/2006 6:35:33 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		Truth is that Japanese fighters DID have a lot of trouble tackling B-17's until the more heavily-armed models started coming online. They lacked the firepower to bring down a "Flying Fortress" and to use what little they did have had to close well within the range of those defending .50 cals. Which considering the very light construction of Japanese early war fighters (you have to give up a lot to get that range and performance), was close to suicidal. Being able to "turn circles" around the bombers did them absolutely no good at all, as the bombers could pretty much outgun them from all approaches, especially if there were several flying in formation.

Basically you have a "Lightweight" with short arms trying to box with a slow but powerful "Heavyweight---with the additional dissadvantage that the flyweight is required to close in and try to "Knock Out" his larger opponant, meaning that Heavyweight "jab", "hook" and "uppercut" all get a chance to land.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 133
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/14/2006 11:26:28 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Truth is that Japanese fighters DID have a lot of trouble tackling B-17's until the more heavily-armed models started coming online. They lacked the firepower to bring down a "Flying Fortress" and to use what little they did have had to close well within the range of those defending .50 cals. Which considering the very light construction of Japanese early war fighters (you have to give up a lot to get that range and performance), was close to suicidal. Being able to "turn circles" around the bombers did them absolutely no good at all, as the bombers could pretty much outgun them from all approaches, especially if there were several flying in formation.

Basically you have a "Lightweight" with short arms trying to box with a slow but powerful "Heavyweight---with the additional dissadvantage that the flyweight is required to close in and try to "Knock Out" his larger opponant, meaning that Heavyweight "jab", "hook" and "uppercut" all get a chance to land.


Suburo Sakai talks about fighting B-17s in his book. The B-17s flew at altitudes where the Zero was very sluggish and then the Zero was very lightly armed for the task. He brought down a D early in the war with repeated tail end attacks, but the Zero's performance at that altitude was so poor, he only had a small speed advantage on the B-17. If he had been attacking a B-17E, or if there had been more than one, he probably would not have succeeded.

It probably wasn't until the Japanese had the Tony where they had a plane which could perform at the same altitudes the B-17s flew. I notice the ceiling for the B-17s is only in the low 20Ks. I know in Europe the B-17s were routinely flying around 30,000 feet, so I think the maximum altitude for American heavies is too low.

Bill

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 134
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/14/2006 11:58:41 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Wasn't the heavy bomber defensive fire enhanced in one of the previous patches? There might be something in that with late war Allied heavies vs. Japanese fighers.


Yes. Applies to all LBA, both sides.

quote:


According to Joe, there is a "knee in the function" of combat results so an aircraft with a value of 40 or above (or above 40 - I forget which?) is much harder to kill


The DUR 40+ hard coding that restricted fighter attacks to Range 3 or farther was removed a long time ago.

That is good. Particularly as in RHS most fighters have no weapons effective at such ranges. Only some really big cannon and maybe rockets in late war planes.






(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 135
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/15/2006 12:03:07 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Truth is that Japanese fighters DID have a lot of trouble tackling B-17's until the more heavily-armed models started coming online. They lacked the firepower to bring down a "Flying Fortress" and to use what little they did have had to close well within the range of those defending .50 cals. Which considering the very light construction of Japanese early war fighters (you have to give up a lot to get that range and performance), was close to suicidal. Being able to "turn circles" around the bombers did them absolutely no good at all, as the bombers could pretty much outgun them from all approaches, especially if there were several flying in formation.

Basically you have a "Lightweight" with short arms trying to box with a slow but powerful "Heavyweight---with the additional dissadvantage that the flyweight is required to close in and try to "Knock Out" his larger opponant, meaning that Heavyweight "jab", "hook" and "uppercut" all get a chance to land.


Suburo Sakai talks about fighting B-17s in his book. The B-17s flew at altitudes where the Zero was very sluggish and then the Zero was very lightly armed for the task. He brought down a D early in the war with repeated tail end attacks, but the Zero's performance at that altitude was so poor, he only had a small speed advantage on the B-17. If he had been attacking a B-17E, or if there had been more than one, he probably would not have succeeded.

It probably wasn't until the Japanese had the Tony where they had a plane which could perform at the same altitudes the B-17s flew. I notice the ceiling for the B-17s is only in the low 20Ks. I know in Europe the B-17s were routinely flying around 30,000 feet, so I think the maximum altitude for American heavies is too low.

Bill


Altitudes for planes in CHS and stock are completely inconsistent. This was deliberate - but only partially done - not consistently done - because of modders' views of the rarity of high altitude combat. Sometimes they took off 10,000 feet, sometimes 2000 feet, sometimes nothing, and sometimes they ADDED altitude - even in one case more than 100% more altitude (a mistake?). RHS adopted a different system - "operational altitude" - which is a fraction of "service celiing" - and the fraction depends on the engine type. Turbo supercharged planes do better than regular.
And jets better still. This was combined with realistic limits on AAA - so you can overfly it if your plane is good enough.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 136
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/15/2006 5:43:02 AM   
Nicholas Bell

 

Posts: 549
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline 		Here's the raw data in an Excel spreadsheet. Rename the .txt extension to .zip to uncompress.

Note that the tests with radar and those without cannot be compared directly in aggregate because of some changes I made in missions. You can compare many of the missions directly, which is probably the way to go. The aggregate losses are from the intel screen as previously noted include in the air to air losses those aircraft which were lost on the return flight (crashed) which inflates the losses way beyond those shown in the combatreport for long range missions.

Only air to air losses are shown.

And for those who may not have been following this thread, the only difference between the 1942 and the 1944 sets of tests is the date. Numbers of aircraft, pilots missions, altitudes all remain the same. All pilots set to experience and morale of 75.

Each "test" consists of day with several aerial battles (7 engagements in the no radar tests, 8 engagements in the some radar tests - one reason why you cannot directly compare the aggregate numbers between the groups). Tests were repeated 30 times for each set.

The no radar test appears to confirm that there is no hard coded bias against the Japanese. Appears to, since the Japanese losses are higher by 16%. Perhaps someone who really knows statistics can confirm my hunch that the higher Japanese losses are within the margin of error for this sample size. If not, then further examination/comparision of individual raids is necessary to devine possible reasons for this.

The "Radar" test is somewhat of a misnomer. All bases have sound detectors except the following: (type 13: Hanoi, Lae, Wewak, Rahaeng SCR270 Kumning, Makin. Rangoon has no detection device) No detection device is in range to affect offensive operations. One might say that the Japanese radars are outside the range of defensive operations because they don't seem to help much at all (and yes they do have a penetration of 500).

What I do see based on the Japanese raid on Makin (with the SCR270) is an increase effectiveness in the number of F4U sorties flown. Perhaps the bounce probability is increased in 1944 when within range of radar?

This doesn't explain the 42% increase in Japanese losses since none of the other missions are in range of the other Allied radar. Oddly, the Rangoon Buffalos had an increased sortie rate in 1944 over 1942 in the radar tests accounting for some of the additional losses for the Japanese. Unfortunately I scrubbed this mission from the No Radars test, but I don't see an overall increase in sortie rate in the 1944 No Radars test over those of 1942 No Radar.

I need to study the individual mission combatreports more.



Attachment (1)

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)
Post #: 137
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/15/2006 5:43:40 AM   
Nicholas Bell

 

Posts: 549
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline 		Here are the aggregate No Radar losses




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)
Post #: 138
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/15/2006 5:44:26 AM   
Nicholas Bell

 

Posts: 549
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline 		Here are the With Radar aggregate losses




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)
Post #: 139
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/15/2006 5:45:58 AM   
Nicholas Bell

 

Posts: 549
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline 		Here is the With Radar Makin Raid Comparision between 1942 and 1944. The increased effectiveness is apparent.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)
Post #: 140
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/15/2006 2:45:10 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Sound detectors in stock or CHS based tests may be very misleading. They have a very low effectiveness rating so they will normally NOT work at all - but when they do they will skew the results. It might be best not to use sound detectors at all - since the normal case with them is "no detection." The effect is 10 - meaning 10% - so 90% of the time it is no detect. So using none makes it even at 100% of the time.

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)
Post #: 141
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/15/2006 3:05:59 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		I agree with Cid sound detectors are weird and to random for testing. Give the Japanese a few CSP1's if you want to see the impact of radar.

I may run a few tests (for my own interest not to prove a point) testing various Japanese aircraft against Corsairs with all things being equal and no radar. Should be fun to find out which is actually the best Corsair Killer out there lets see if I run it for

Jacks
Georges
Franks
Tony 1
Tony 2
Tojo
Shinden
Zeke
A6M8

Anyone want to lay bets on who will do the best and on which will achieve a 1:2 loss rate against the bent wing bastard ?

Andy

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 142
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/15/2006 3:21:05 PM   
Bliztk


Posts: 779
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Electronic City
Status: offline 		I bet for Shinden

< Message edited by Bliztk -- 9/15/2006 3:22:32 PM >

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 143
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/15/2006 5:27:05 PM   
Nicholas Bell

 

Posts: 549
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline 		Back to the original issue -

Do you think the sound detectors are causing the increased Japanese losses in 1944?

Matrix says there is no late war code bias against the Japanese. However, it appears that there is a dated related increase in Allied effectiveness - perhaps tied to detection systems? Doesn't seem to appear when there no detection systems.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 144
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/15/2006 6:52:09 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Yes and no.

I think Japanese losses at a base with sound detectors will be higher in 44 if in range of allied radar.

My reasoning is more fighters will scramble creating moretargets for allied fighters who are operating better fighters with better radar control and will therefore kill more.

So basically in 44 sound detectors increase the targets for allied fighters so yes sound detectors cause more casualties

I think we always need to remember the range of these allied radar systems I dont know the range of some of your tests but SCR 270's have a range of 5 hexes the CSP 1 a range of 8 hexes so any allied carrier or base force within 8 hexes of the air combat in 44 will give a bounce bonus.

What I am concerned about is the scenario where NO radar is in range for the allies and a sound detector is in range for the Japanese and Japanese losses are higher than they were with no sound detector this appears counter intuitive unless the allied planes have a large qualitative advantage.

Andy

< Message edited by Andy Mac -- 9/15/2006 6:53:46 PM >

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)
Post #: 145
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/15/2006 7:20:48 PM   
Nicholas Bell

 

Posts: 549
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline 		Any ideas on this?

US raid on Wewak - these are totals from the combat report

No Detection Devices
Ki-61 losses were:
1942: 157
1944: 285

With Type 13 radar at Wewak
the Ki-61 losses were:
1942: 140
1944: 253

In all four test the average raid looked like:
Ki-61 KAIb Tony x 39
P-38G Lightning x 21
B-24D Liberator x 60

So radar doesn't help the Japanese, but they suffer more losses in 1944 no matter what.



< Message edited by Nicholas Bell -- 9/15/2006 7:22:15 PM >

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 146
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/15/2006 7:26:12 PM   
Nicholas Bell

 

Posts: 549
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline 		Here is the combat report totals for the Japanese raid on Makin (shown above in graphic format)

No Detection Device:
Japanese aircraft lost (A5m5, & P1Y)
1942: 212
1944: 192

Looks statistically "equal" to me. Now...

With SCR270 on Makin:
1942: 312
1944: 567

Yikes! Improved radar?

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)
Post #: 147
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/15/2006 7:30:28 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Sorry does this test have allied radar in 44 but not in 42 or was it a same scenario just change the date job ?

I am confused as it appears that adding japanese radar has reduced losses by about 10 aircraft in both tests.



(in reply to Nicholas Bell)
Post #: 148
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/15/2006 7:30:29 PM   
Nicholas Bell

 

Posts: 549
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline 		Here are the combat report results from the Japanese raid on Lunga (from Buin) against F4Fs.

No detection device:
1942: 115 Zero/119 Betty
1944: 108 Zero/133 Betty

Again this looks to be statistically equal.

With a sound detector on Lunga:
1942: 128 Zero/111 Betty (looks like no detector results)
1944: 200 Zero/173 Betty

Maybe the sound detector becomes a radar in 1944?


(in reply to Nicholas Bell)
Post #: 149
RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff - 9/15/2006 7:31:34 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Dont know I am confused

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
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

1.625