Some air questions.

[Smirfy]

How many of your sorties are naval patrol?

[Smirfy]

ORIGINAL: 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.

It works out as one loss for tactical Bomber or fighter bomber for every 250 sorties over the period covered by the game for the tactical airforces. That is NW Europe in the Italian campaign losses one would have to imagine would be lower again.

[HMSWarspite]

Next turn, similar results (54000 sorties, just above 250 flak, just under 250 ops).

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

How many of your sorties are naval patrol?

11770 for 71 losses

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

ORIGINAL: 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.

It works out as one loss for tactical Bomber or fighter bomber for every 250 sorties over the period covered by the game for the tactical airforces. That is NW Europe in the Italian campaign losses one would have to imagine would be lower again.

Sorry, where does 1 per 250 come from? And why would Italy be less flak prone? Terrain is the only real difference, the troops and flak were similar...

[barkman44]

The eastern front was different,russian infantry was required to shoot at attacking aircraft not dive into a nearby ditch.

ORIGINAL: 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.

[KWG]

The eastern front was different....

during ww1 while flying recon in the east the red baron's biggest fear was being shot down and beaten to death.

wow 100 years ago, first winter of ww1.

[marion61]

Not sure if you got an answer Repsol, so this is my take on air superiority. The air groups you assign to AS will attempt to intercept axis planes in the area of coverage. So technically they are assisting all of your directives with in the area. It's also good to keep an air superiority directive over your beaches and out to sea a few hexes. That will lower the axis naval interdiction also cause your intercepting them. Just remember that the larger the area you use the less planes you'll have in the area at any given time. So don't try and make a huge air superiority box or area.

[barkman44]

Was'nt Richtofen supposedly shot down by Australian infantry fire?

ORIGINAL: KWG

The eastern front was different....

during ww1 while flying recon in the east the red baron's biggest fear was being shot down and beaten to death.

wow 100 years ago, first winter of ww1.

[HMSWarspite]

Jury is still out, but most likely not. And WW1 a/c can be brought down rather more easily...

[Smirfy]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

ORIGINAL: 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.

It works out as one loss for tactical Bomber or fighter bomber for every 250 sorties over the period covered by the game for the tactical airforces. That is NW Europe in the Italian campaign losses one would have to imagine would be lower again.

Sorry, where does 1 per 250 come from? And why would Italy be less flak prone? Terrain is the only real difference, the troops and flak were similar...

The figures there include *damaged* aircraft. Im talking about actual losses which in the officai report into flak for the 9th states was 1 for evey 250 sorties for the ETO which the poster said bore out his firgues for 2nd TAF. 9th airforce performed much the same task as 2TAF. Included in those losses are some interesting ops like the airbourne resupply of Bastogne were the aircraft could not fly above 700 feet, the Flak suppression Ops for Market Garden but where the 9th as I said lost most was the period fighting in and around the Ruhr were Flak density was highest. In Northwest Europe apart from the flak covering the flight paths to Germany you had Flak formations commited to the battle in large number in Italy that just did not happen. In Italy the *density* just aint there.

My original contention is losses of Typhoons and probably FB's in general is far too high especially when Rockets and 20MM cannon gave them a stand off capability and Im not attacking airfield with them. AS for operational losses I am coming to the opinion that they are too high.

[Smirfy]

An example

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

An example

not a very helpful example I'm afraid. What is the experience of the unit .., that heavily influences operations losses as well as the 'reliability; assigned to a given plane type

[Smirfy]

For the Halifax reliabilty 22 experiece beween 57 and 78 fatigue 1 The Mitchill is 3 times more reliable with 8 and 72 experience. I'm not sure that matters when you see a 3.5% operational loss

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Smirfy


For the Halifax reliabilty 22 experiece beween 57 and 78 fatigue 1 The Mitchill is 3 times more reliable with 8 and 72 experience. I'm not sure that matters when you see a 3.5% operational loss

well you've just explained what you are seeing. Relatively low experience flying a plane with pretty low reliability = the bulk of your losses. Roughly 30% of your planes are Halifaxes and they make up 60% of your operational losses.

I'd suggest either put them on training, try to get them all over 70 experience or swap them out to other planes.

For the others you've lost 3/144 so below 2%?

[Smirfy]

Your 2% is 4.5 times normal. But I do enjoy that some planes are real dogs like the Halifax

[marion61]

Not sure what your morale is on those air groups, but if you let them get too low on morale you op losses will increase significantly. I try not to fly any air groups below 50 during a push, and 60-70 during normal operations. Manage you morale and it will cost you less planes to op losses.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: meklore61

Not sure what your morale is on those air groups, but if you let them get too low on morale you op losses will increase significantly. I try not to fly any air groups below 50 during a push, and 60-70 during normal operations. Manage you morale and it will cost you less planes to op losses.

actually the two problems - low experience and low morale compound if you are not careful. Low experience = more losses, more losses (and this includes damage as well outright losses) lower your morale. If either experience or morale is too low (a subjective concept) then your losses go up.

In WiTW, unless I have a really strong reason, I'm resting WA units with morale <60 or experience <70. If you are doing a 1943 start, you don't need everything every turn, so best to let them have regular breaks.

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

Your 2% is 4.5 times normal. But I do enjoy that some planes are real dogs like the Halifax

Smirfy, I'll believe your claim but you don't know (and neither do I) how the real war dynamics of type of raid/altitude/commitment map onto what you are doing in the particular game you are citing. It seems that you've been missing the intersection of low morale/exp on op losses for starters. Are you doing more 'dangerous' missions in addition, or simply more missions?

Even if you are sure you are comparing a similar pattern of air activity between the war and your game, we come down to this is a simulation and what sometimes matters is the end result. It *may*, and as often with your posts, its not exactly proved, that ops losses are higher but that in turn may help to ensure the overall intensity of the air war is pretty much correct?

[HMSWarspite]

Also, most of the examples so far were tactical 2TAF and 9th. That is strategic, on a city (strategic) target. With city raids, the altitude is an issue. However with Halifax present I guess that was medium alt. I must confess to be a little surprised at 7 ops and no flak losses. Soft target flak wise. Morale, fatigue and skill will dominate.

As I said, I am sure I am taking more 4 engined losses than necessary because I haven't optimised that yet... When a/c production is adjusted I will look at that

[Repsol]

ORIGINAL: meklore61

Not sure if you got an answer Repsol, so this is my take on air superiority. The air groups you assign to AS will attempt to intercept axis planes in the area of coverage. So technically they are assisting all of your directives with in the area. It's also good to keep an air superiority directive over your beaches and out to sea a few hexes. That will lower the axis naval interdiction also cause your intercepting them. Just remember that the larger the area you use the less planes you'll have in the area at any given time. So don't try and make a huge air superiority box or area.

Thanks for your answer, meklore61