Some air questions.

[Denniss]

AFAIR the Ops losses also include crashes caused by damage from Flak/air combat.

[ratprince]

hehehehe....I never am personally mean, just trying to make lite of grumpiness and be cheerful [:D]

[Smirfy]

ORIGINAL: mike mcmann

hehehehe....I never am personally mean, just trying to make lite of grumpiness and be cheerful [:D]

Mike I am just trying to get my point across I dont mean to rile anyone, its not personal. Teleports have been accepted as happening and are getting fixed (have not mentioned it since) Naval is not working and is getting fixed (have not mentioned it since) Excessive movement still has certain problem areas (I might mention it again) AI forts are not optimal (Grumpy Mel has a better way of explaining than me so I dont mention it) Cut off units I have been testing (and I promised only to mention that to Joe) winning gamey v playing sensible has issues (I dont think I have found the tact to explain yet so I have not answered Warspite). I think air losses is a problem area I'll try and mention it in nicer terms.

[ratprince]

Totally cool Smirf. It is frustrating with such an awesome game when it feels like something isnt working right. I know I have gotten a bit upset over the teleport bug for sure [:)]

Just trying to make lite of the things and not getting anyone upset. Typing out speech is so hard to detect actual emotion. I know I am guilty of sounding like an ass hat when I type out some stuff hahaha....[:D]

Next time you get upset over an aspect of the game, just imagine the insane amount of time these few guys put into this game. They are not perfect for certain. They have done an extraordinary job with this and continue to work on it. I just always couch my frustration with the knowledge that "itll get better" because of the awesome support.

Cheers [:)]

[Jakerson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_ ... rld_War_II

This is how many planes Allied lost during ww2:
United Kingdom: Europe 42,010 (including 30,045 fighters and 11,965 bombers)
United States: Total losses were nearly 95,000, including 52,951 operational losses (38,418 in Europe and 14,533 in the Pacific)

Am going late spring 1944 and in my game allied have lost 15 000 planes (both USA and British together) and axis have lost 12 000 planes.

I have played about 1/3 of the full campaign turns and lost 15 000 planes if same pace of losses continue rest of the 2/3 of the campaign game I lose 30 000 planes more and end up a lot lower total casualties than what Allied historically lost at Europe.

Historically Allied lost about 80 000 planes over Europe but current estimates for me looks that am going to lose a lot lower number of planes than what was historically lost 15 000 + 30 000 = 45 000. At least my evidence is showing that allied losses are only 50% what they were historically.

What my evidence proves is that allied losses in the game might be a lot lower than they historically are and it is fully possible play the game in the way that your air war losses are lower than they historically were.

[Repsol]

Hello...

Another air-question.



If i set-up an airsuppeority AD over an area (Sicily for example) and asign a number of fighter groups to that directive...


Can i count on those fighters to be in the air at the same time as my strike-aircrafts (from a second AD) arrive in the area to do their thing ?

I know i can set them to fly on the same days but will they fly during the same hours ?

Will an airsuppeority directive GARANTE fightersupport in their asigned area to other directives operating over the same area ? Or is there only a CHANS that the fighters will help ?

Or will they not assist other directives at all (meaning that the only fightersupport other directives gets are from their own asigned Escorts ?)

[Omat]

Hello

But keep in mind that these losses also include aircraft which are not represented in WitW e.g. trainers, observation aircrafts, Liaison aircraft and so on. Also certain airgroups are not in WitW and so on...

Omat

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_ ... rld_War_II

This is how many planes Allied lost during ww2:
United Kingdom: Europe 42,010 (including 30,045 fighters and 11,965 bombers)
United States: Total losses were nearly 95,000, including 52,951 operational losses (38,418 in Europe and 14,533 in the Pacific)

Am going late spring 1944 and in my game allied have lost 15 000 planes (both USA and British together) and axis have lost 12 000 planes.

I have played about 1/3 of the full campaign turns and lost 15 000 planes if same pace of losses continue rest of the 2/3 of the campaign game I lose 30 000 planes more and end up a lot lower total casualties than what Allied historically lost at Europe.

Historically Allied lost about 80 000 planes over Europe but current estimates for me looks that am going to lose a lot lower number of planes than what was historically lost 15 000 + 30 000 = 45 000. At least my evidence is showing that allied losses are only 50% what they were historically.

What my evidence proves is that allied losses in the game might be a lot lower than they historically are and it is fully possible play the game in the way that your air war losses are lower than they historically were.

[GrumpyMel]

Hmmm...

I think through August 44 against the A.I. I have around 12,000 Allied loss to about 18,000 Axis aircraft loss. Not sure how historical it is, but from a game-play perspective, I'm not having much issue replacing my losses and keeping my air forces upto strength, and I pretty much own the air at this point. (Probably could never do that against a human opponent though).

The only crunch's I'm noticing are occasionaly on Canadian pilots and there is 1 squadron from Coastal Command who can't trade their aircraft (which aren't being built in the 43' Campaign) for any other model aircraft...which seems a bit odd to me. I'd figure you'd always be able to get assigned something in manufacture?

I really do have to thank Meklore though for the advice on making my tactical air actualy effective. Without a whole bunch of micro-managing and switching things around...I'd be flying but pretty much hitting the broad side of a barn.

P.S. Feedback from players on what they like or don't like and what they feel is working well or not working so well should always be considered a positive to the game. I don't see Smirfy or others trashing the game, just being very specific on the areas he feels aren't working so well for one reason or another....I'm pretty much in the same boat. Making a game like this is a daunting challenge and there is obviously going to be stuff on release that may need a second or third look. The Dev's so far seem to be doing a really good job of listening to and responding to that feedback. Ultimately there may end up being some things that just end up working the way they work because it's a game.... the only way to really do a true to form WW2 simulation is to get a few million guys roaming around Europe in panzer's, P47's and olive drab.[;)] Still it doesn't hurt to try to get it as close as possible if it doesn't compromise gameplay.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: Smirfy


None of my *sniping* is unsubstantiated of your 70,000 47,000 Bomber crews were KIA and another 8,100 were killed in accidents. The Typhoon losses are way out of whack. Fighter command lost 4,790 aircraft the whole war in six months in Italy I have lost 1300 fighters or Fighter bombers and 980 level bombers totalling 2500 pilots/aircrew killed in action. All this without the luftwaffe for 4 months as its down to 200 sorties a turn. Italy is a low intensity theatre. As I said Figther Command and 2nd tactical airforce did not send pilots to their deaths Flak was worked out by inteligence and recce and the pilots briefed by flak specialists each op these measures were adopted by the 8th airforce. 696 Flak losses and 1476 operational losses is nonsense. I dont attack airbases because I knew from reading AAR's Flak was totally out of whack

For instance I have now as many operational Wellington X losses in Italy as Bomber command endured the whole war and one quarter of total losses for the aircraft. And bomber comand was on freaking night ops

Lancaster operational losses 0.16%
Halifax operational losses 0.24%
Wellington operational losses 0.72%
Mosquito operational losses 0.13%
Stirling operational losses 0.32%
Hampden operational losses 1.26%
Blenhiem operational losses 0.81%
Whitley (widow maker) operational losses 1.43%

etc etc or 0.35% for bomber command *mainly night ops*

It has to said RAF operational losses hugely diminished as the war went on.

OK, thank you for those numbers. However you cannot just use raw numbers to compare with the game. How many sorties were flown in RL and the game to achieve those losses? If the air forces in the game are over or underused losses should change accordingly. Also, the number of units to fly those missions is a factor; a few planes flying hard will likely have higher losses than a larger force on the same number of sorties.

You need to stop looking at aircrew losses because the game abstracts them; I would stick to a/c losses if I were you.

Why is the absence of LW in game relevant? How many LW sorties were being flown in RL and how many RL losses were Air - Air?

I do not know where you get the idea that air commands didn't attack flak traps. I know both examples are not FC/2TAF, but Adm Vian (commander of the RN Pacific Carriers) criticised one sqd for not taking enough flak losses as he interpreted that as meaning they weren't pressing home their ground attacks (in reality they had had a long time to perfect their attack technique and could get the entire attack in from 4 directions at once, in one very quick but effective pass). Also when 8AF had broken the LW, the escorts were ordered to descend to low level and free range. This was heavily criticised as causing excessive losses but was continued anyway. If Flak had prevented attacks, the Allies probably would not have won!

When you say ops losses decreased later in the war, I think you will find the rate dropped not the total... the number of aircraft and sorties would not allow an absolute drop.

Are your Op loss rates RL or game? Oh, and you haven't forgotten that the FTS, OCUs and so on are not in game? Given the production is usually the full rate produced (for the game) Ops loss rates need to be high to avoid excessive plane stocks. Of course, I have already commented and requested prod/pool changes.

Having said all this, I have not played enough to know what I think of losses in game. I do know that most war games suffer from 'too much/too fast' syndrome. I.e. the game has insuficient 'drags' on the player to limit ahistorically intense activity.

How many games are your experiences based on?

[Ralzakark]

Some figures for losses in NW Europe – these are for April 1945. Armed recce is interdiction in modern terminology.

83 Group
Total sorties armed recce – 5,443
Losses aircraft/pilots – 83/69
Total sorties close air support and fighter patrol – 7,393
Losses aircraft/pilots – 33/27


84 Group
Total sorties armed recce – 5,302
Losses aircraft/pilots – 68/60
Total sorties close air support and fighter patrol – 3,487
Losses aircraft/pilots – 22/12

So in one month right at the end of the war the two groups lost 206 aircraft. The bulk of these losses were due to flak. Indeed, in December 1944 the RAF reduced the tour of duty of pilots engaged in low-level attack from 200 operational sorties to 60 in recognition of the danger involved.

A really good book on the subject, where these figures came from, is ‘Air Power at the Battlefront’ by Ian Gooderson.

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel
The only crunch's I'm noticing are occasionaly on Canadian pilots and there is 1 squadron from Coastal Command who can't trade their aircraft (which aren't being built in the 43' Campaign) for any other model aircraft...which seems a bit odd to me. I'd figure you'd always be able to get assigned something in manufacture?

I put Canadian squadrons resting / training mode more often than other squadrons. Sometimes Free French squadrons too. Other allied minors dont run out pilots that easily as they have less casulty heavy bomber squadrons or fighter bombers that are used in bombing missions.

[HMSWarspite]

And that's a month when the war was almost over and the lw was gone

[KWG]

"Some figures for losses in NW Europe – these are for April 1945"


Not only flak but lots of small arms fire i bet. In WitW Aircraft may be protected from small arms. I wonder what is the smallest caliber in the game that shoots at low flying aircraft?

[HMSWarspite]

Doubt it. Even at WW2 speeds the chance of a small arm shooting down an aircaft is not high. The RAF concluded that 8 .303 mg firing reasonable bursts was not enough to reliably shoot aircraft down. A few shots from a ground based mg (even an MG42) are unlikely to have an affect. AA MGs are largely for the morale of the firer.

[KWG]

meant that there was lots of small arms fire not that small arms shot down a lot of planes. I have done small arms anti aircraft training using rc aircraft. Just to hit the aircraft is difficult. The most people we had firing at one time was around 30. We shot it down twice one day. And just about any hit would bring it down. In real situations it would be critical hits to plane rather than massive damage that would make the difference.

Who was it wrote that during a strafe he swears he saw a horseshoe go by his plane.

Tobruk
One British captain shot down 6 with 2 rigged lewis guns. Claim lewis and rifles credited almost half of planes shot down.
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/defga/

German pilots had a healthy fear of small arms.

[Smirfy]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

And that's a month when the war was almost over and the lw was gone

Those figures are all causes and the loss rate is .95% Im running that just at operational losses. I assume as well those losses are in a high intensity theatre as well like NW Europe. Just finished reading the interrogations of the FLAK officers in Italy against the 15th Airforce had not got enough petrol for generators to power radar when they did have power their radar were jammed and had to lay their guns manually and their crews were replaced with old men. batteries had to be moved by hoof.

[Smirfy]

9th airforce official report into Flak.

First two weeks of Normandy campaign 41% of total losses fighters and bomber was down to Flak this was at a rate of .30% for Bombers and .23% for fighters of sorties flown.

[Smirfy]

In the European campaign the 9th averaged 4.2 and 3.9 bombers and fighters lost for *1000* sorties that's below half a percent. Losses to Flak peaked in January and February 45 when the armies were fighting near the Ruhr (heaviest concentrations of flak) to 8 in every *1000* sortie.

*edit* these are losses to Flak

[Ralzakark]

For 2TAF the percentage figures were similar for ground support and armed recce sortie:

Month - Sorties per aircraft casualty
Aug - 126.7
Sep - 75.5
Oct - 143.7
Nov - 100.0
Dec - 49.4
Jan - 79.0
Feb - 90.8

A casualty here is an aircraft shot down or damaged.

Interestingly the most dangerous mission was armed recce, or interdiction, not close support, and the deeper the penetration behind the front line the riskier the mission was. Close support strikes at the front line could often be supported by artillery suppression of flak batteries, and damaged aircraft naturally had further to travel on armed recce missions.

It is worth remembering the huge scale of the Allied air effort. In August 1944 2TAF flew over 13,000 ground support and armed recce sorties alone. When dealing with such huge numbers even small percentage losses will give a large number of aircraft casualties.

I agree with Warspite1 that small-arms fire was little threat to fighter bombers. Doubtless a few were brought down by it but I have never seen any figures. A 1944 fighter-bomber was tough, well-armoured and very fast, so a difficult target to hit. When air forces attacked armies without proper anti-aircraft weapons, such as when the Germans invaded Yugoslavia, the result was usually very few casualties.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

And that's a month when the war was almost over and the lw was gone

Those figures are all causes and the loss rate is .95% Im running that just at operational losses. I assume as well those losses are in a high intensity theatre as well like NW Europe. Just finished reading the interrogations of the FLAK officers in Italy against the 15th Airforce had not got enough petrol for generators to power radar when they did have power their radar were jammed and had to lay their guns manually and their crews were replaced with old men. batteries had to be moved by hoof.

As usual, we seem to be playing different games. 0.95% operational losses? Really?


I know this is a random example (and hence not conclusive) but I have just run a mid-July '44 turn in my AI game (full campaign): air sorties just under 80000 (all theatres), loss rate 95 sorties per loss, 790 overall losses. These consist of : about 90 air combat (vs 180 for the bad guys), just under 400 flak and 300 operational. This give me 0.5% flak, 0.4% operational, and 0.1% a-a.

How did you get nearly 1% operational losses?

Oh, and the whole of 2TAF, 9AF, Med Air force TAF and Malta Commands are on GA/GS with a little superiority, BC and 8AF are attacking cities (high losses - over 200 heavies lost this turn!)

Really not seeing an issue with the tactical air forces... and the heavy bomber losses are almost certainly because I have not learnt to optimise city raids yet.