Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
We have a highly abstracted but very well thought out simulation of reality here.

True, but it's leading to 39,000' patrol altitudes being used as the norm. I also don't think I've ever heard of maximum ceiling being a critical statistic in warplane performance before, at least not until you had things like MiG-25s trying to fly higher than the SAMs could reach.

There probably should be some type of penalty for operating at the max ceiling. Most missions fell between 15-20k feet for a reason. Pilots would require supplemental Oxygen to operate at those very high altitudes, so you are limited to Very High altitude flight time by size of Oxygen cylinder the plane carries.
flying above 10k' without oxygen or pressurization leads to bad things (see "Officer and a Gentleman" pressure chamber scene - "Ace of spades, ace of spades, ace of spades..."). the penalty should be that (depending on weather, ground terrain, sea state, etc) stratosweep should have significant trouble spotting planes below them. in this case, the radar directed CAP would have big advantage, i would think. if no radar, we see similar results to the Kiska test on this thread. the CAP simply didn't have time to respond since the warning was practically nil

Another point...what sense does it make for a P-40 that manuevres like a brick at very high to actually move up there to fight
he's not up there to fight...he's up there to get energy/altitude advantage...if he sees something below, he dives on them...if he encounters something at his altitude, he dives and runs like hell (not sure, but probably outdive and outrun a light Zero)...if he encounters something above him, he may be in trouble.

Final thought, if you get 'the bounce' doesn't that basically mean that you made a dive on the unsuspecting enemy. Past the initial bounce, air combat should take place at the altitude band of the defender or lower, and the stats for that altitude band used to resolve combat.
according to Elf in previous posts, "bounce" includes altitude advantages, but is not limited to it...IOW, it could be surprise or other factors that leads one side to get the "bounce" on another side. agree that it would make sense to continue the combat post-bounce at the defenders alt or lower...unless he climbs to get away!!!

edited for sloppy formatting...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Indeed.

I'll try to test how much Exp and Defensive skill helps against altitude advantage, when I have time. I hope that decent Defensive skill will have some noticeable impact.

Energy is life, so to speak. And that comes in 2 forms also in fighter combat, kinetic and potential. First is speed, latter is altitude.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

What I want to find out, if there is possibility to create situations like Guadalcanal, where it was possible for "inferior" F4F Wildcats to successfully fight Zeroes.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

What I want to find out, if there is possibility to create situations like Guadalcanal, where it was possible for "inferior" F4F Wildcats to successfully fight Zeroes.  

Zeros attempting to escort and sweep at 14 hexes will be hard pressed to break even much less win in Scn004, even with an exp edge.

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I understand your reasoning though I do not agree.

First theres an error in your calculation feet to nm:
30k feet = 4.93734 nm (lets say 5 miles)
so
10k feet (the altitude in your example (10k vs. 20k)) = 1.64578 nm (only 1.7(!) miles)

So this is much closer than most think.


But even if we take the 3.5 miles distance a pilot with training in visual target identification should notice other aircraft, more so because:
a) He is used to identify moving objects
b) It is nearly always not 1 dot but 5, or 10, or 20 or more. You need to spot only one dot to get alert though.
c) Its not one set of eyes looking for threats but 4, or 8, or 20, or more.

I quite often noticed situations where very small formations (1-3 planes for example) if they dont engage themselves where completely ignored by CAP until the post attack CAP phase.
So as far as this is concerned such a situation is covered quite well.

I am quite sure guys like TheElf with practical experience would say that 3.5 miles is a bit late and chances are that the other pilot already spotted you.


I agree that combat situations should have less chance to occur if the altitude difference is +25k for example.
I don´t know if we got enough data for such comparisions though because either the altitude delta between the two sides is much smaller than
25k or the formations engaging are so huge that you have to be virtually blind to miss them at even at that distance.

Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

30k Feet is 5.5 MILES above sea level just to put things into perspective. If you are at 10k Feet and I am at 20k Feet there is a nearly 3.5 mile altitude difference between us. Your single seat Buffalo is going to be a barely noticable moving DOT to me. I have to agree with you here, there should be a significant penalty for spotting without radar at extremely high altitudes. Sure you can see for miles and miles, but the thing you see might be so small you don't take notice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

30k Feet is 5.5 MILES above sea level just to put things into perspective. If you are at 10k Feet and I am at 20k Feet there is a nearly 3.5 mile altitude difference between us. Your single seat Buffalo is going to be a barely noticable moving DOT to me. I have to agree with you here, there should be a significant penalty for spotting without radar at extremely high altitudes. Sure you can see for miles and miles, but the thing you see might be so small you don't take notice.

I must disagree. At a known distance of between 4.5 and 5 miles, I have seen standard size (in USA) automobiles are much more than dots. Yes they are small, but much bigger than dots. Ground clutter matters, but so does movement which makes things easier to see. As others have posted, pilots train and practice to spot aircraft under such conditions. I suppose clouds and other atmospheric conditions would matter most.

ADD: And WWII fighters are certainly larger than automobiles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I understand your reasoning though I do not agree.

First theres an error in your calculation feet to nm:
30k feet = 4.93734 nm (lets say 5 miles)
so
10k feet (the altitude in your example (10k vs. 20k)) = 1.64578 nm (only 1.7(!) miles)

So this is much closer than most think.


But even if we take the 3.5 miles distance a pilot with training in visual target identification should notice other aircraft, more so because:
a) He is used to identify moving objects
b) It is nearly always not 1 dot but 5, or 10, or 20 or more. You need to spot only one dot to get alert though.
c) Its not one set of eyes looking for threats but 4, or 8, or 20, or more.

I quite often noticed situations where very small formations (1-3 planes for example) if they dont engage themselves where completely ignored by CAP until the post attack CAP phase.
So as far as this is concerned such a situation is covered quite well.

I am quite sure guys like TheElf with practical experience would say that 3.5 miles is a bit late and chances are that the other pilot already spotted you.


I agree that combat situations should have less chance to occur if the altitude difference is +25k for example.
I don´t know if we got enough data for such comparisions though because either the altitude delta between the two sides is much smaller than
25k or the formations engaging are so huge that you have to be virtually blind to miss them at even at that distance.

of course, this all assumes a crystal clear sky with no cloud layers, haze, etc. in many regions/climates it is not uncommon to have cloud layers present. being up high would be a distinct disadvantage if the incoming raid or CAP was below the cloud layer...

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

It is unrealistic to fly at 30k'+ all the time. But that is the fault of the player. Would you like me to remove that decision process from you? Unfortunately the detractors for behaving this way are not reflected in the game. what are they?

1. pilots found it uncomfortable to fly for long periods of time at high altitude. It was fatiguing.
2. Range was affected, as was loiter time
3. Airplanes could fly and even fight up there, but they were mushy and difficult to maneuver. This is why bigger motors, higher manifold pressures, and larger broader props were important. If you didn't have them you were at a disadvantage.
4. Being higher when weather was a present made navigation and target detection more difficult. (This is in the game)

We could institute higher ops loss chances(fatigue), but that takes a code rewrite. We are not rewriting code.
We could DECREASE the chance of combat occurring, but then all we would do is swap complaints about Altitude for "why are my planes not fighting?!?!?!?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
Granted I'm not trained for it, but I have taken several commercial flights at 30k feet, and to be honest when I look out the window I can tell where farm fields are, or where cities are, but I couldn't make out small things. Movement might be a good thing to look for, so long as nothing is obscuring the view.

In other words I don't think its as easy as you suggest either, probably somewhere in between.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Here's the best data yet IMHO. P40Ks vs A6M2s. I at least learned something from this!

The idea here is to try and test optimal and sub optimal altitudes. The Zeroes can go higher so we'll put them at their ceiling at all times. So this means the P40Ks will be bounced all the time. So the P40K commander who is pondering altitude presumably will be looking at maneuver ratings and altitude bands to try and optimise his performance.

The assumptions made are that combat happens at or somewhat below the height of the lowest contender (ie the P40s) and that what matters is the difference in maneuver rating between the two aircraft.

So happens that the P40K, going by that, should do best at 20-30k feet, where it's maneuverability is only 6 points less than the A6M2. And it actually does the worst at under 15k feet, where the Zero has 16 points over the P40K.

Comparing P40K to P40E - the K is better in essentially every regard so one would expect it to do better even if it is being bounced.

I think the results are quite illuminating...


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Apr 15, 43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiska Island , at 157,51

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 37 NM, estimated altitude 30,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 11



Allied aircraft
P-40K Warhawk x 18


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed




Aircraft Attacking:
4 x P-40K Warhawk sweeping at 28000 feet *

CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 32810 , scrambling fighters to 32000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 3 minutes


P40Ks 2, Zeroes 0

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Apr 16, 43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiska Island , at 157,51

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 46 NM, estimated altitude 30,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 11



Allied aircraft
P-40K Warhawk x 16


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed




Aircraft Attacking:
6 x P-40K Warhawk sweeping at 28000 feet *

CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 32810 , scrambling fighters to 32000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 39 minutes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiska Island , at 157,51

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 11 NM, estimated altitude 31,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 4



Allied aircraft
P-40K Warhawk x 2


No Japanese losses

No Allied losses



CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 32810 , scrambling fighters between 28000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 122 minutes


P40Ks 2, Zeroes 1


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Apr 16, 43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiska Island , at 157,51

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 36 NM, estimated altitude 31,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 11



Allied aircraft
P-40K Warhawk x 18


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-40K Warhawk: 2 destroyed



Aircraft Attacking:
4 x P-40K Warhawk sweeping at 28000 feet *

CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 32810 , scrambling fighters to 32000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 44 minutes



P40Ks 3, Zeroes 1


P40s low level sweeping :-

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Apr 15, 43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiska Island , at 157,51

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 40 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 11



Allied aircraft
P-40K Warhawk x 16


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed




Aircraft Attacking:
12 x P-40K Warhawk sweeping at 13000 feet *

CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 32810 , scrambling fighters to 32000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 6 minutes


P40s 3, Zeroes 0

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiska Island , at 157,51

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 11 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 4



Allied aircraft
P-40K Warhawk x 2


No Japanese losses

No Allied losses



CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 32810 , scrambling fighters to 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 57 minutes


P40s 3, Zeroes 0


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Apr 17, 43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiska Island , at 157,51

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 26 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 11



Allied aircraft
P-40K Warhawk x 16


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed




Aircraft Attacking:
4 x P-40K Warhawk sweeping at 13000 feet *

CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 32810 , scrambling fighters to 32000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiska Island , at 157,51

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 23 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 3



Allied aircraft
P-40K Warhawk x 2


No Japanese losses

No Allied losses



CAP engaged:
452 Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 32810 , scrambling fighters between 26000 and 27000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 37 minutes



P40s 1, Zeroes 0 (Zeroes fatigued, goddamn weather messing up my tests!)



First thing I noticed is that the P40K is clearly a much maligned aircraft! I know I've maligned it quite a bit myself but according to these tests its performance is out of all proportion to the P40E. It's up against a fairly old Zero here, so perhaps you don't see it in game doing so well as by the time the Allies get their mitts on it they are dealing with superior Japanese opponents so the benefits cancel out.

It can clearly handle Zeroes even with the bounce. However, as regards maneuverability impacting the result - I really cannot see any benefit whatsoever here due to maneuver ratings and altitude bands. It really does look like if its having an effect it's lost in the noise of other, more important modifiers. If anything it seemed to do better when theory would suggest it should do worse, ie at low level when the Zero has a major maneuverability advantage.

So I'll change my mind on the crapness of the P40K - it's not crap, it looks like a major step up from the P40E. I'm not changing my mind about maneuverability bands being an irrelevance though.

Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

i wish you would do the same tests and add a radar to the CAPing Zero's...i think you might find it would even the fight quite a bit...these P-40's are practically on top of the base when the CAP gets launched...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

30k Feet is 5.5 MILES above sea level just to put things into perspective. If you are at 10k Feet and I am at 20k Feet there is a nearly 3.5 mile altitude difference between us. Your single seat Buffalo is going to be a barely noticable moving DOT to me. I have to agree with you here, there should be a significant penalty for spotting without radar at extremely high altitudes. Sure you can see for miles and miles, but the thing you see might be so small you don't take notice.

I must disagree. At a known distance of between 4.5 and 5 miles, I have seen standard size (in USA) automobiles are much more than dots. Yes they are small, but much bigger than dots. Ground clutter matters, but so does movement which makes things easier to see. As others have posted, pilots train and practice to spot aircraft under such conditions. I suppose clouds and other atmospheric conditions would matter most.

ADD: And WWII fighters are certainly larger than automobiles.

Granted I'm not trained for it, but I have taken several commercial flights at 30k feet, and to be honest when I look out the window I can tell where farm fields are, or where cities are, but I couldn't make out small things. Movement might be a good thing to look for, so long as nothing is obscuring the view.

In other words I don't think its as easy as you suggest either, probably somewhere in between.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
My test is as inconclusive as EUBanana´s because I did take nothing else into account.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
My test is as inconclusive as EUBanana´s because I did take nothing else into account.

Huh?

The way you test that is to fix all variables and just modify one - altitude. Which is what I did.

So it is very conclusive. Same pilots, same planes, same date, same island, even mostly the same weather, the only varying factor in each case is the altitude.

My main interest is looking at how much altitude bands impact results. My conclusion, and it looks rock solid to me, is that they don't, at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

So my tests are ignored? 

Tests should be run with FOW OFF, ADVANCED WEATHER EFFECT OFF and getting their results from Intelligence screen Aircraft losses. Otherwise they are null and void.