RE: Air combat testing

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: Air combat testing

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Air combat testing - 9/30/2008 4:57:30 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

All the same....it's possible, and did happen.

Exactly. No one has claimed that a Ki-43 pilot could not with luck and skill wind up in the right place in the right time to claim a better plane flown by a better pilot. In war, stuff happens. That said, one would expect a sustained combat loss ratio in a campaign featuring "average" allied pilots in, say, P-47s, 38s, F4Us, F6Fs, and so forth, fighting super experienced Japanese pilots in Ki-43s, A6Ms, etc, to substantially favor the allied pilots.

quote:

Sorry, Diehl, but with your reputation around here, you haven't got a leg to stand on.

Dream on Terminus. I'll stake my rep against yours any time. You're a 1 trick pony whose only act is to demand data and logic to hang it on, and then a few months after you've had some absurd claim indisputably refuted, pretend that the whole discussion never happened before.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to zuikaku)

Post #: 31

RE: Air combat testing - 9/30/2008 5:05:55 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

I posted a similar sentiment in the AAR....I appreciate the passion about what's exactly right and what isn't, but in the end, I for one don't really think it matters as much as the Game. We will never get AE absolutely perfect, and one of the main reasons is that it's clearly so difficult to agree on what the facts are.

In the end this is a GAME, and as long as it's a good, clean, competitive game, that's good enough for me. Historical accuracy is a goal, but we will never completely arrive at that goal, nor should we kill ourselves trying. We could spend the next 10 years developing AE to get it "perfect", or we can play it sometime this year, and I bet it will be "mostly right", and moddable for any changes.

_____________________________

(in reply to Buck Beach)

Post #: 32

RE: Air combat testing - 9/30/2008 5:35:13 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

Look, I agree it is a game. At the same time it's a Historical Consim. That means it needs to have central tendencies that are historically quite plausible. To the degree they're not, it remains a game, but less a consim and certainly less historical.

On 7 Dec 1941. The Japanese had a fantastic initial operational plan, well pre-positioned assets and logistics, and kept a high operational tempo. The Allies had an operational plan that involved two years of preparation before it could be ready to defend against a Japanese attack. As a consequence, the Allies had weak assets that were poorly prepositioned and at the far end of a logistical pipeline that could not be sustained. It could not be sustained because the Japanese plan pinched off the pipeline in many places faster than the Allies could react. Much like the German invasion of France in 1940, or of Russia in 1941.

There's no doubt that the Japanese had well trained pilots and *some* good tactical assets (and many absolutely miserably bad tactical assets). But the mantra that every Japanese combat unit was proportionally better at its job than every allied unit, at least through May 1942, is simply incorrect. People who've read ALOT about air combat and naval combat in the PTO, know damned well that from Dec 1941 through the end of 1942, "pilot experience" and "ship crew experience" had far less to do in determining the outcome of battles than did operational plans, logistics, fatigue, logistics, massive firepower, logistics, logistics, logistics, just plain rugged construction, and logistics.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 33

RE: Air combat testing - 9/30/2008 11:22:20 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Jim,

When I read the information you offered there was a lot of 'assume this' and 'assume that' - way more than I was willing to assume.

You just might be correct in your assertions, but the information you presented was not evidence, let alone convincing.

I posted an observation based on my knowledge of historical fact and was ridiculed and told my statement was ridiculous. He then arrogantly demanded proof implying his knowledge of historical fact was somehow superior to the observation I had made (without offering any proof himself). I was able to more than back up what I said by simply looking at results from Midway, Coral Sea and Santa Cruz.

I am 100% confident any carrier battle fought will have similarly high AAA casualties, because it was a FACT of the war when planes were required to get to within 3,000 feet or closer to ships they were decimated by flak. Both torpedo planes and dive bombers routinely released weapons at ranges far closer than 3,000 feet, so they got hammered every time.

WitP fails to model this. Some/many don�t want it to model it because it would rip through their high experience pilots (again an historical reality), and it would also prevent the tactic of standing off shore and pounding targets over and over. Most carriers withdrew after one or two major air strikes because they had very few strike airframes left.

That�s a big part of the reason why the US started using replenishment CVEs, it allowed carriers to remain on station in active battle areas longer than a day or two.

Late war flak is also a big part of the reason Japan switched to Kamikaze�s. It was almost a guarantee by then that any aircraft leaving on a strike would be lost. Their pilots were supposed to achieve a higher hit percentage if they simply resigned themselves to die and concentrated 100% of their attention on hitting the target, instead of worrying about trying to survive the attack run.

Now I again stress, the only counter-point he has offered is an insult and his own subjective opinion. The fact you choose to believe this over the factual numbers I posted seems a bit odd. You can easily verify my numbers yourself if you think they�re wrong.

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 34

RE: Air combat testing - 9/30/2008 11:28:48 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Jim,

When I read the information you offered there was a lot of 'assume this' and 'assume that' - way more than I was willing to assume.

You just might be correct in your assertions, but the information you presented was not evidence, let alone convincing.

...because it was a FACT of the war when planes were required to get to within 3,000 feet or closer to ships they were decimated by flak.
Jim

Jim, not to be a stickler, but by definition Decimation has never resulted in more than 10% losses...

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 35

RE: Air combat testing - 9/30/2008 11:30:34 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
Jim, not to be a stickler, but by definition Decimation has never resulted in more than 10% losses...

Touch�.

_____________________________

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 36

RE: Air combat testing - 10/1/2008 12:05:27 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

Jim,

I am not believing anyone's insults, nor am I condoning any.

I saw the exchange. I then saw the information you presented, and it simply has too many assumptions in it. You were very open about where data ended and assumption began (as you should have been and much to your credit). In my judgment that information is too speculative to regard as evidence. Your conclusions might be correct, but there is too little data to conclude that.

Obviously I am speaking for my own conclusions, and you clearly disagree.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 37

RE: Air combat testing - 10/1/2008 2:54:40 AM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

These are all beta examples being given out to the WITP forum.
Flak is still being looked into, among other things on the priority list.
Updating the game on a weekly basis, a step at a time.
To make sure the changes don't interfere with mechanics already in place.

These previews were being made to the forum members to let them know that AE is still moving along, and to show them it's direction.
Plus to get you to salivate a little.

No one is receiving any compensation for their involvement in this project.
Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of hours have been freely given by this crew to expand the WITP concept.
It is the same engine, but it is not the same.

When you do get this game to play for yourselves, your eyes are going to pop out and your jaw will hit the keyboard.
Those who have spouses might warn them to have 911 on speed dial.
In case you require immediate medical attention.

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 38

RE: Air combat testing - 10/1/2008 3:23:48 AM

sventhebold

Posts: 360
Joined: 12/22/2006
From: From MN now AZ Prescott Valley
Status: offline

I pray, PRAY this will be the game you say it is Halsey. The excitement is thick enough to cut with a spoon.
And as was said they are TRYING as HARD as they CAN. In the long run the ability to mod this game will in
time help smooth out the bumps and truly make it worth what has been put into it in blood, sweat and tears. Especially tears of joy when and not if it comes out.�

< Message edited by sventhebold -- 10/1/2008 3:25:47 AM >

_____________________________

ssgt usaf 84-91 f-15a/c ops puke 525 tfs & 7th tfs

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 39

RE: Air combat testing - 10/1/2008 4:24:42 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Plus to get you to salivate a little.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 40

RE: Air combat testing - 10/1/2008 6:41:33 AM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I saw the exchange. I then saw the information you presented, and it simply has too many assumptions in it.

I only made assumptions about the Coral Sea battle, and that was because hard data about the strike is hard to find. But I did post further info that cleared up some of those original assumptions. So what we�re left with is this:

Fact: 69 Japanese planes were in the strike package.

Fact: 27 of these planes were lost.

Fact: 4 of these 27 were lost to SBDs, regular Wildcat CAP played no role in shoot downs because they were out of position.

Fact: That leaves 23 that were flak losses.

So the only thing left we don�t know for a fact is how many of the 69 airframes were zeros. But even if we assume none were zeros and all 69 were strike aircraft, 23 out of 69 is a loss rate of 33%, well within the 30%-60% estimate I gave.

Of course I seriously doubt none of the 69 were zeros, so it was probably closer to 50% of the strike airframes being destroyed by flak. But I freely admit that is an assumption based on an educated guess.

However, nothing above is subjective opinion, it is all based on the actual numbers historically involved in the fight. And more than backs up what I said originally.

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 41

RE: Air combat testing - 10/1/2008 11:43:31 AM

Elouda

Posts: 183
Joined: 2/16/2008
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline

Well, as Kull pointed out in the Coral Sea AAR thread,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull
The strike package numbers were "twenty fighters and seventy attack planes". The one thing everyone agrees on is that Japanese losses were 27 aircraft:

Of course, the simplest solution if your unhappy with how it turns out is to mod it.

_____________________________

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 42

RE: Air combat testing - 10/1/2008 11:45:23 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

And with the new editor, it'll be so easy, you won't believe it.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Elouda)

Post #: 43

RE: Air combat testing - 10/1/2008 2:10:40 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elouda
Well, as Kull pointed out in the Coral Sea AAR thread,

Those numbers from that crappy book were pulled out of the authors arse, ignore them. No one could put 100 airframes into the air by the 8th due to the heavy losses taken in previous fighting. Even the US barely got 75 into the air on the 8th.

The two Japanese carriers started the battle with 64 and 57 airframes respectively. Many were lost in the fighting on the7th, including some of their best pilots in a botched night op when 21 of the 27 planes launched were lost. 99% of sources agree that Japan got 69 airframes up on the 8th, no more. I'd say the author of that book made up his numbers out of thin air.

Jim

< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 2/28/2009 4:46:27 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Elouda)

Post #: 44

RE: Air combat testing - 10/1/2008 3:20:09 PM

racndoc

Posts: 2519
Joined: 10/29/2004
From: Newport Coast, California
Status: offline

According to Jim Dunnigan and Albert Nofi from 'Victory at Sea", BB South Dakota had her AA complement upgraded in September 1942 from 16 5" guns, 28 1.1" guns, 6 20mm guns and 8 .50MGs to 16 5" guns, 16 40mm guns, 20 1.1" guns, and 36 20mm guns.

On October 26th, 1942 during the Batlle of the Santa Cruz Islands, BB South Dakota was attacked by at least 69 Japanese dive bombers and torpedo bombers and shot down 26.....by herself.

"The success of BB South Dakota on October 26th, 1942 was not only due to the volume of AA fire but to:

1)Effective radar fire direction
2)The resiliency and maneuverability of the ship
3)The intorduction of proximity-fuzed ammunition for her 5" guns"

Despite the performance of BB South Dakota at Santa Cruz, her volume of AA fire was considered inadequate.

In February 1943, her AA complement was upgraded to 16 5" guns, 68 40mm guns and 35 20mm guns. By March 1945, her AA had been upgraded to 16 5" guns, 68 40mm guns and 77 20mm guns.

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 45

RE: Air combat testing - 10/1/2008 7:09:14 PM

romanovich

Posts: 126
Joined: 12/8/2004
From: SoCal
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

These are all beta examples being given out to the WITP forum.
Flak is still being looked into, among other things on the priority list.
Updating the game on a weekly basis, a step at a time.

Based on the current rate of the weekly progress, how many weeks would it take to work off the remaining items on the priority list?

And, dear Lord, please don't let Terminus answer this one...

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 46

RE: Air combat testing - 10/1/2008 8:54:41 PM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: romanovich

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

These are all beta examples being given out to the WITP forum.
Flak is still being looked into, among other things on the priority list.
Updating the game on a weekly basis, a step at a time.

Based on the current rate of the weekly progress, how many weeks would it take to work off the remaining items on the priority list?

And, dear Lord, please don't let Terminus answer this one...

The only thing I can say for sure is, it is getting closer.
You might even see the Japanese with the ability to temporarily shut down Allied airfields.
Improvements in bombload assignments, and such.

No more additions are being made.
It's all about working out the current routines so that they do work.
Without messing up routines in place.

For the forum's information, the testers have already started a list for even more fine tuning.
The aim right now is to get it out to you fanatics.

I wish I were a fly on the wall.
When everyone opens the game.
My guess is, the first thing that comes to your mind will be...
Whoa, where do I start!

_____________________________

(in reply to romanovich)

Post #: 47

RE: Air combat testing - 10/1/2008 8:56:36 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: romanovich

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

These are all beta examples being given out to the WITP forum.
Flak is still being looked into, among other things on the priority list.
Updating the game on a weekly basis, a step at a time.

Based on the current rate of the weekly progress, how many weeks would it take to work off the remaining items on the priority list?

And, dear Lord, please don't let Terminus answer this one...

I'm not going to answer it.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to romanovich)

Post #: 48

RE: Air combat testing - 10/1/2008 9:50:34 PM

goodboyladdie

Posts: 3469
Joined: 11/18/2005
From: Rendlesham, Suffolk
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: romanovich

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

These are all beta examples being given out to the WITP forum.
Flak is still being looked into, among other things on the priority list.
Updating the game on a weekly basis, a step at a time.

Based on the current rate of the weekly progress, how many weeks would it take to work off the remaining items on the priority list?

And, dear Lord, please don't let Terminus answer this one...

I'm not going to answer it.

You just did

_____________________________

Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 49

RE: Air combat testing - 10/1/2008 10:38:48 PM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

I have over 4 weeks of vacation on the books along with enough sick time to keep me out of the office for about 4 months. I can see many "mental health" days of being sick in my future.

(in reply to goodboyladdie)

Post #: 50

RE: Air combat testing - 10/1/2008 11:13:45 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: romanovich

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

These are all beta examples being given out to the WITP forum.
Flak is still being looked into, among other things on the priority list.
Updating the game on a weekly basis, a step at a time.

Based on the current rate of the weekly progress, how many weeks would it take to work off the remaining items on the priority list?

And, dear Lord, please don't let Terminus answer this one...

I'm not going to answer it.

Because it does not exist.

_____________________________

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 51

RE: Air combat testing - 10/2/2008 1:03:14 AM

romanovich

Posts: 126
Joined: 12/8/2004
From: SoCal
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

The only thing I can say for sure is, it is getting closer.
You might even see the Japanese with the ability to temporarily shut down Allied airfields.
Improvements in bombload assignments, and such.

No more additions are being made.
It's all about working out the current routines so that they do work.
Without messing up routines in place.

For the forum's information, the testers have already started a list for even more fine tuning.
The aim right now is to get it out to you fanatics.

"The aim right now"? What the heck were you guys up to in all those months prior? Keeping it away from us?

I'm just kidding, of course.

"For the forum's information, the testers have already started a list for even more fine tuning." Is that the priority list that was mentioned is being worked on? Or is that the also-got-to-be-fixed-before-release list that is growing in size behind that nifty priority list?

There are 13 weeks remaining in 2008. Given that it progress is measured in weekly builds now, that leaves 13 tries to make it a 2008 release. That, of course, if there is not that dreaded one or two months delay between "going gold" and Matrix getting the opening credits right...

Oh, please do tell: are you guys expecting this to be a 2008 release??

I think there's no risk in telling us so. It'll just allow me to skip the forums for a few months and come back early next year. All would be good!

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 52

RE: Air combat testing - 10/2/2008 1:56:00 AM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: romanovich

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

The only thing I can say for sure is, it is getting closer.
You might even see the Japanese with the ability to temporarily shut down Allied airfields.
Improvements in bombload assignments, and such.

No more additions are being made.
It's all about working out the current routines so that they do work.
Without messing up routines in place.

For the forum's information, the testers have already started a list for even more fine tuning.
The aim right now is to get it out to you fanatics.

"The aim right now"? What the heck were you guys up to in all those months prior? Keeping it away from us?

I'm just kidding, of course.

"For the forum's information, the testers have already started a list for even more fine tuning." Is that the priority list that was mentioned is being worked on? Or is that the also-got-to-be-fixed-before-release list that is growing in size behind that nifty priority list?

There are 13 weeks remaining in 2008. Given that it progress is measured in weekly builds now, that leaves 13 tries to make it a 2008 release. That, of course, if there is not that dreaded one or two months delay between "going gold" and Matrix getting the opening credits right...

Oh, please do tell: are you guys expecting this to be a 2008 release??

I think there's no risk in telling us so. It'll just allow me to skip the forums for a few months and come back early next year. All would be good!

No, this is beyond the priority list.
Everyone knows you players won't be satisfied, unless every decision you make, forces you to pull your own hair out at their roots beforehand.

That's up to the bigshots at Matrix to make that call.
I'm sure when the game gets to a certain point they'll call our hand.

_____________________________

(in reply to romanovich)

Post #: 53

RE: Air combat testing - 10/2/2008 3:46:26 PM

morganbj

Posts: 3634
Joined: 8/12/2007
From: Mosquito Bite, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Jim, not to be a stickler, but by definition Decimation has never resulted in more than 10% losses...

Well, not to be a stickler myself, but the origin of the word has little realationship to the common use of the word today. While it originally meant "1 in 10," that proper understanding has been radically modified in everydayspeak, the language of pseudo military historians and journalists describing the results of modern combat action. Depending on their political orientation 1% can be decimation (if you're against a particular war) or 99% can be decimation (if you're not).

So, to prevent such misunderstanding on these boards, I propose that in common usage decimation now means 1 in 10 survive, or perhaps more accurately, "up to 90% casualties." 90% to 99% becomes "anihilated."

100% becomes "They had a very, very bad day."

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 54

RE: Air combat testing - 10/2/2008 4:17:18 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Jim, not to be a stickler, but by definition Decimation has never resulted in more than 10% losses...

Well, not to be a stickler myself, but the origin of the word has little realationship to the common use of the word today. While it originally meant "1 in 10," that proper understanding has been radically modified in everydayspeak, the language of pseudo military historians and journalists describing the results of modern combat action. Depending on their political orientation 1% can be decimation (if you're against a particular war) or 99% can be decimation (if you're not).

So, to prevent such misunderstanding on these boards, I propose that in common usage decimation now means 1 in 10 survive, or perhaps more accurately, "up to 90% casualties." 90% to 99% becomes "anihilated."

100% becomes "They had a very, very bad day."

I tend to have those more than I'd like in PBEM games.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to morganbj)

Post #: 55

RE: Air combat testing - 10/2/2008 5:55:41 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Jim, not to be a stickler, but by definition Decimation has never resulted in more than 10% losses...

Well, not to be a stickler myself, but the origin of the word has little realationship to the common use of the word today. While it originally meant "1 in 10," that proper understanding has been radically modified in everydayspeak, the language of pseudo military historians and journalists describing the results of modern combat action. Depending on their political orientation 1% can be decimation (if you're against a particular war) or 99% can be decimation (if you're not).

So, to prevent such misunderstanding on these boards, I propose that in common usage decimation now means 1 in 10 survive, or perhaps more accurately, "up to 90% casualties." 90% to 99% becomes "anihilated."

100% becomes "They had a very, very bad day."

We could just go metric instead. Especially in honor of the roots of the words decimation itself. For example:

millidecimation - Their feelings were hurt.

centidecimation - They actually thought about their aircraft being damaged. Maybe it was FOW.

decidecimation - A few of their aircraft were lost or knocked out of commission.

decimation - About 10% lost or knocked out of commission.

decadecimation - Bloody well just about the whole unit was wiped out.

hectodecimation - Unit wiped out. Support facilities over-run and vandalized. Copyrighted music downloaded.

kilodecimation - Unit wiped out. Service records burned.

megadecimation - Enemy used time machine to hunt down ancestors.

gigadecimation - Enemy crossed beams of fusion powered backpack weapons. Very Bad.

teradecimation - Raised and refitted as spaceship, BB Yamato time travels to scenario and destroys original Yamato in friendly fire accident. Having destroyed itself in the past, spaceship Yamato vanishes, leaving behind a black hole. AE swallowed by black hole.

(in reply to morganbj)

Post #: 56

RE: Air combat testing - 10/3/2008 8:43:16 PM

sadja

Posts: 299
Joined: 8/1/2004
Status: offline

Bravo

_____________________________

Your never Lost if you don't care where you are.

Tom Massie GPAA

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 57

RE: Air combat testing - 10/3/2008 9:14:48 PM

wild_Willie2

Posts: 2934
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...
Status: offline

I must now�mention that the original roman meaning of the term "decimation" was, as a�form of�punishment,�to kill 1 in 10 men�in a certain unit�....

< Message edited by wild_Willie2 -- 10/3/2008 9:16:18 PM >

_____________________________

In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.

(in reply to sadja)

Post #: 58

RE: Air combat testing - 2/28/2009 2:02:17 PM

String

Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdmSpruance

According to Jim Dunnigan and Albert Nofi from 'Victory at Sea", BB South Dakota had her AA complement upgraded in September 1942 from 16 5" guns, 28 1.1" guns, 6 20mm guns and 8 .50MGs to 16 5" guns, 16 40mm guns, 20 1.1" guns, and 36 20mm guns.

On October 26th, 1942 during the Batlle of the Santa Cruz Islands, BB South Dakota was attacked by at least 69 Japanese dive bombers and torpedo bombers and shot down 26.....by herself.

"The success of BB South Dakota on October 26th, 1942 was not only due to the volume of AA fire but to:

1)Effective radar fire direction
2)The resiliency and maneuverability of the ship
3)The intorduction of proximity-fuzed ammunition for her 5" guns"

Despite the performance of BB South Dakota at Santa Cruz, her volume of AA fire was considered inadequate.

In February 1943, her AA complement was upgraded to 16 5" guns, 68 40mm guns and 35 20mm guns. By March 1945, her AA had been upgraded to 16 5" guns, 68 40mm guns and 77 20mm guns.

And are those numbers supported by japanese records or are they just US claims?

(in reply to racndoc)

Post #: 59

RE: Air combat testing - 2/28/2009 3:19:47 PM

CV Zuikaku

Posts: 442
Joined: 12/18/2008
From: Legrad, Croatia
Status: offline

Well, according to Japanese reports, their bomber air groups were decimated.
But there is allways problem with overclaiming. How many of these 26 bombers were also claimed by AA crews of other escorting ships?

(in reply to String)

Post #: 60