New ideas on A2A in the next patch

[el cid again]

Since the JNAF trained using a superior visual spotting technique - works up to 100 nautical miles in clear conditions - and STILL works today (I use it and teach it) - odds are long it worked many, many times.




this little tidbit caught my attention, is there anything available on the web regarding the subject ?

thanx in advance

It is in Samouri - the Saburo Sakai book. I did not believe it. So I asked an astronomer on the occasion of visiting an observatory. There was a class of elementary school children present. He taught us ALL how to do it - in under a minute - and we ALL mastered it - in under 10 minutes. Have used it ever since.

The trick is to learn to "focus on infinity" - then HOLD that focus and do a proper search of the part of the sky of interest. [Usually you ADJUST focus - and do so to "normal" distance - UNLESS you ALREADY see something MORE than 10 meters distant.] At normal focus you cannot see a first magnitude star in daylight (in clear conditions). A plane is just as bright (or dim) when first visible - and most pilots will NOT see it at all.
But a trained one may see it - and if he combines proper lookout sector serching (Americans don't do that well - too lazy - but they CAN do it if disciplined) - he is likely to see it. Particularly in formation with team searching complimentary vectors.

[el cid again]

Spotting aircraft at 100 miles range from another aircraft is impossible with the naked eyeball.

This much is true: If you KNOW it is impossible, and never try, you make it true for you.

This statement is patantly false. Do it all the time. Am losing it though - went up with my daughter - and she spotted two whales under water - out of season I could not see! The pilot put the plane ( a strange Polish one ) on its side - it circles in a 10 meter radius - and waited - until they came up for air - sure enough she was right. But I routinely spot planes and other things first - because I don't "know" I cannot - because I try - and because I know how to focus so it is possible.

I bet you also cannot see stars in daylight. Does not mean it is impossible - it only means you don't know how. Go to an observatory - the slit of the dome helps you learn - and have them rotate it to the right bearing - and teach you how to focus. AFTER you do it a few times you won't need the crutch any more.

[el cid again]

And anyone who has ever tried to use binoculars in an aircraft knows that the vibration makes it virtually impossible to hold them steady enough for any useful.

This is quite true. Only at SHORT range might binoculars help - as if you want to read the letters on a ship. But even then, I prefer the naked eye.
I am lucky - my distant vision is rather good. So I do not mean with optical instruments - I mean you can spot a plane - a small plane - at UP TO 100 nautical miles - in clear conditions - with the naked eye. You can CERTAINLY spot a large formation of planes at great distances. The ONLY qualifiers are (a) the target must be above the visual horizon and (b) the air must be clear - not hazy or foggy. Well, also (c) you can't do so on the bearing of a bright sun (which is not most bearings - but is some of them). The REASON Americans don't (unless I train them) is they BELIEVE they can't. It has nothing to do with physics - it is psychology - and training. I am an old man - but in a search and rescue I always spot first.

[el cid again]

Why should JNAF have higher experience than anyone else?

Because it is true.

Japan was at war - and it was an air war - for five years. It conducted the first truely long range air operations in military history. It learned bitterly lessons we had yet to learn (about things like unescorted bombers).

JNAF also got lucky. A student pilot invented a special technique (the literal translation is "turning in maneuver") and got noticed by Genda - the famous one - head of an air demonstration team called the Flying Circus (probably in imitation of a German term). He followed the student, figured it out, taught it (and in fact even the army adopted it).
This technique worked even if the plane is OUTCLASSED by enemy planes in a technical sense - and that was very rare in 1941.

So both because of experience and because of the (temporary) advantage of this technique (negated by later in the war US tactics)
the Japanese - to some extent all Japanese - but especially the Navy - should be rated SIGNIFICANTLY higher - or you won't duplicate historical results with the planes - in ANY model.

[el cid again]

Approximately 10% of them had been in combat and I will agree that those would have more experience.

I guess this is the source of your confusion: this is only true if you count every pilot in a training program. It is not true of the pilots in first line units. JNAF had a long training program followed by two years of second line service - about four years long. But first line units counted as "green" a pilot at the end of that four year regime - and he may well have been a combat veteran! It varies with the units - in fact units are made of individuals and cannot properly be rated as a whole - but some units have 100% experienced pilots - and normal ones it was the vast majority - if you talk about the units that fight. There are exceptions - some newly formed units (see Zuikaku and Shokaku) did well - but their pilots were not terribly green - and the whole First Air Fleet was intensely trained for their first operation - and Eleventh Air Fleet was even more intensely trained. [No bomber mission of the war was as accurate as the one over Clark AAF - from 24,000 feet!]

[el cid again]

Sid wrote:

" for in 1941 JNAF had the most experienced fighter pilots in the world"


I think that this statement cannot be true (even as a debateable opinion). In 1941 both the British and Germans had pilots who had survived the Battle of Britain (as well as the Battle of France and the post BoB air combat), in which they received a lot more experience fighting pilots and aircraft of a roughly similar capability, and in combats involving larger numbers of aircraft.

This was the RAF view at the time. They were SURE Battle of Britain veterans in Spitfires would eat Japanese fighters for breakfest. They were wrong. See Bloody Shambles.

[el cid again]

is this true with all allied planes or "just" with american navy...

what numbers did you use ?

We must guess the question - since you omitted the context - but my tests were with NO American planes - just JAPANESE planes vs US SHIPS.
They could not survive AA fire. Period. They did try though.


Joe said it is WORSE in air combat - the worst Allied planes can eat the best Japanese ones - ONE DAY after the hard code date before which the SAME Japanese units were effective.

[el cid again]

cause if this is true the game is broken.
The japanese players tend to give up in mid-43... if the few players who fight to the end have hardcoded no chance to inflict damage cause the game says "japanese plane can´t fight" this need fixing now !

Have a little faith please: Joe now works on the inside - and he defined the problem. If it is not already fixed, it will be fixed.

[invernomuto]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I tried tests in 1945 - putting a US fleet at Osaka - and the whole Japanese air force died in one day - in spite of NO airplanes for the Americans! They scored a single hit on USS New Jersey. Joe said - yeah - after a fixed date - Japanese planes can't function. Another person on the forum confirmed Joe's findings. Thereafter I test late war planes in 1941 - for even tests. Joe said he had 12,000 turns experience - and he felt "one day Japan can fight - the next it cannot - in the air" - that day in mid 1943.

Not sure what you are doing - but my test indicated Japan needs NO air force in 1945 - if it flies it dies.

Can somebody from Matrix confirm that? If it is true I will stop playing...

[Nikademus]

There is an Allied CAP bonus starting in 7/43. Gives Allied airgroups the bounce more often.

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Sid wrote:

" for in 1941 JNAF had the most experienced fighter pilots in the world"


I think that this statement cannot be true (even as a debateable opinion). In 1941 both the British and Germans had pilots who had survived the Battle of Britain (as well as the Battle of France and the post BoB air combat), in which they received a lot more experience fighting pilots and aircraft of a roughly similar capability, and in combats involving larger numbers of aircraft.

This was the RAF view at the time. They were SURE Battle of Britain veterans in Spitfires would eat Japanese fighters for breakfest. They were wrong. See Bloody Shambles.

First of all, No Spitfires were ever involved during the time covered in Bloody Shambles. Secondly, the Hurricanes that were sent had serious problems (the particular model sent was unsuitable to the climate). Thirdly, the main problem for the British during the Malayan cmapaign was the lack of decent early warning - their planes were usually caught by the Japanese pilots (army for the most part - a few IJNAF were involved towards the end) whilst still attempting to gain the altitude of hte incoming raids. Fouthrly, there was only a smattering of BoB experienced pilots in the theatre - mainly used as a "leavening" to increase the overall skill level of the inexperienced pilots.

Yes, there was serious underestimating of the qualities of both the Japanese pilots and aircraft during this time period, but this does not make your statement true (that the IJNAF pilots were the most experienced fighter pilots in the world in 1941). It's that sort of wild generalization that perpetuates the myths of WW2...

I expected better from you, Sid.

[Distiller]

ORIGINAL: el cid again



The trick is to learn to "focus on infinity" - then HOLD that focus and do a proper search of the part of the sky of interest. [Usually you ADJUST focus - and do so to "normal" distance - UNLESS you ALREADY see something MORE than 10 meters distant.] At normal focus you cannot see a first magnitude star in daylight (in clear conditions). A plane is just as bright (or dim) when first visible - and most pilots will NOT see it at all.
But a trained one may see it - and if he combines proper lookout sector serching (Americans don't do that well - too lazy - but they CAN do it if disciplined) - he is likely to see it. Particularly in formation with team searching complimentary vectors.

k, thnx, i'm off to learn that, usually any plane i track has huge contrails and/or vanishes behind hills, so they don't really count (big arrow pointed towards target) .

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Spotting aircraft at 100 miles range from another aircraft is impossible with the naked eyeball.

This much is true: If you KNOW it is impossible, and never try, you make it true for you.

This statement is patantly false. Do it all the time. Am losing it though - went up with my daughter - and she spotted two whales under water - out of season I could not see! The pilot put the plane ( a strange Polish one ) on its side - it circles in a 10 meter radius - and waited - until they came up for air - sure enough she was right. But I routinely spot planes and other things first - because I don't "know" I cannot - because I try - and because I know how to focus so it is possible.

I bet you also cannot see stars in daylight. Does not mean it is impossible - it only means you don't know how. Go to an observatory - the slit of the dome helps you learn - and have them rotate it to the right bearing - and teach you how to focus. AFTER you do it a few times you won't need the crutch any more.

No Chez is right. It is physically impossible to get tally of an aircraft at 100 miles even a large one.

And I HAVE tried. I try every day. The best I've ever been able to pull off is about 20-25 miles in a clear day.

[Bombur]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
There is an Allied CAP bonus starting in 7/43. Gives Allied airgroups the bounce more often.

-To what extent does it influence combat results. Does it means my Oscars II will be unable to "fire from behind" on your F4U´s????[:D]

[treespider]

No Chez is right. It is physically impossible to get tally of an aircraft at 100 miles even a large one.

And I HAVE tried. I try every day. The best I've ever been able to pull off is about 20-25 miles in a clear day.

You must be one of those lazy Americans Cid was refering to...[;)]

[Nikademus]

Combined with the veteran bonus and radar, it's impact can be quite substantial. You won't have to worry about it if your defending your bases however. And my F4U's won't be uber. Your still gonna die though. You and the other 4CeeVee boy from England. Revenge is coming.

[:@]

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: treespider

No Chez is right. It is physically impossible to get tally of an aircraft at 100 miles even a large one.

And I HAVE tried. I try every day. The best I've ever been able to pull off is about 20-25 miles in a clear day.

You must be one of those lazy Americans Cid was refering to...[;)]

I'm also curious to hear what kind of airplane has a sustained 10m min radius turn and can do it without losing altitude or departing...

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Approximately 10% of them had been in combat and I will agree that those would have more experience.

I guess this is the source of your confusion: this is only true if you count every pilot in a training program. It is not true of the pilots in first line units. JNAF had a long training program followed by two years of second line service - about four years long. But first line units counted as "green" a pilot at the end of that four year regime - and he may well have been a combat veteran! It varies with the units - in fact units are made of individuals and cannot properly be rated as a whole - but some units have 100% experienced pilots - and normal ones it was the vast majority - if you talk about the units that fight. There are exceptions - some newly formed units (see Zuikaku and Shokaku) did well - but their pilots were not terribly green - and the whole First Air Fleet was intensely trained for their first operation - and Eleventh Air Fleet was even more intensely trained. [No bomber mission of the war was as accurate as the one over Clark AAF - from 24,000 feet!]

So what is that experience worth in game terms? 20 points, 30 points?

[spence]

The number one problem in WITP A2A model is that every fighter unit will attack every enemy fighter unit, then every remaining intercepting unit will attack every enemy bomber unit. Not the way it was working in real life....

Also we saw huge raids mixing Swordfishes to P-38 flying together at long range with no problems. They should arrive mostly in smaller raids.

Same thing for raids with hundred of bombers of the same type (ie B-17) concentration should take time, so for each 50 bombers range should be reduced by one. Also there should be a check to see if the concentration fails or not.

As for the CV, every CV raid/battle saw the CVs of both sides launch several waves. The reason is simple, a CV carried more AC that she could launch in one group. This concept of "deck load" is ignored by the game. It seems to me that usually a CV was able to launch about 40-50% of its load in one raid (the other AC being used for CAP and patrol)

Of course every of the points above is reducing the size of raid, but the CAP efficiency should be greatly reduced. I read an interesting figure yesterday. On D-Day, the RAF fighters units covering the invasion force flew 1567 sorties (only couting LRCAP over the fleet and beaches). That was to only have 72 AC on CAP at any time (ie 5% of the total of sorties), ie 36 over British beaches and 36 over US ones. They were able to intercept the dusk raid by the Ju88 of I./ZG 1 but the well-known strafing pass by two pilots of JG 26 or far-less-known rocket and strafing attacks by JG 2/26 later in the afternoon were not intercepted.

It seems to me that of the fighters allowed to CAP, a maximum 30% should be on CAP above their base/ship at any moment, 30 other % may have a chance to scramble if the raid is reported incoming and the other 40% will be refueling, rearming, under repair, returning home with few fuel, etc...
Again the 30% above is consistent with every account I have read of Pacific battles, where CAP over US or Japanese CV was listed as being 6-8 fighters per CV rather than 25-30...

Then for the A2A model, here is an algorithm for an escorted raid:
1) escorting fighters will be divided in groups of 4 or less fighters
2) depending of their agressivity, number relative to the escort, speed difference vs their escort, each of these group will be considered as close escort or "sweep"
3) the defending fighters are also divided in groups of 4 or less fighters
4) depending of the radar warning, speed of the incoming raid, state of the ship/runway, a number of fighters may be scrambled. They are also divied into groups of 4 or less fighters.

So we have "sweep" and "escort" fighter groups on the attacking side, "CAP" and "scramble" groups on the defending side

The first phase of the battle saw each "sweep" trying to engage enemy fighters.
1) first they have a chance to attack a scramble group. If they manage to engage one, a CAP group will try to engage them and so cover the scramble group. In this case the battle will then be fought between the CAP and sweep group on even terms, if not the "scramble" group will be attacked with a strong disadvantage.
2) if a "sweep" group hadn't been engaged yet, it will try to engage a CAP group

The next phase, see the "CAP" and "scramble" groups that have not yet been engaged trying to engage enemy bombers
1) each unengaged "CAP" group will try to engage an enemy bomber unit. If they manage to engage one, an escort group will try to engage them and so protect the bombers. If they succeed, the battle is fought between fighters, if not the defending fighters have a go against the bombers.
2) then each unengaged "CAP" group will try to engage enemy escorts.
3) then each unengaged "scramble" group will try to engage the bombers on the same way, but with less success chances and more chance for the escort to stop them.
4) then each unengaged "scramble" group will try to engage enemy escorts.
5) each unengaged escort group may try to engage an enemy fighter group, depending of their agressivity, in this case they will become "sweep" groups.

At the end of the phase, scramble groups become CAP groups. Each damaged AC may become a group alone, or be covered by a wingman. Each engaged group will have a chance to have no more ammunitions, fuel and will try to leave the battle area. If it didn't succeed (depending of their speed relative to enemy speed, damage and cloud cover), it will be a easier target the next turn.

If the bombers are especially slow, and depending of the radar warning and cloud cover, this phase may be repeated, allowing more attacks and more defending fighters to be scrambled (but the overall total should only by 30% or scrambles)

Then there is the bombing attack, as it is now.

And then I would like a pursuit phase. Each remaining "sweep" fighter will become an escort and each defending fighter will have a chance to attack.

For a sweep mission, there will only be the sweep phase of the fight, with a phase on the approach, a phase replacing the bombing and a pursuit phase.

It may seem complicated, but it is an easy algorithm to put in place. Of course, the success chance and formula should be worked on to achieve historical results... Each aircraft may have a chance to engage 1-3 enemy formations (or 1-3 times the same), with something as 25-50% each turn to engage one. Then depending of the experience of both attacker and target, performance of Ac and previous damage, a given pilot may fire at and down several AC in the same phase.

I like Admiral's ideas/concepts.

I would like to suggest that rather than the 4 plane groupings that the Admiral specifies that some accounting be done for the air to air fighter doctrines of the different countries.
It seems to me that the US Navy (anyway) had adopted the Leader/Wingman concept and tried as best as circumstances allowed to use that as its base tactical unit in air to air combat. I believe the Brits early on in the war used a 3 plane vee as their base tactical unit but at some point subsequent to the BoB adopted the same idea as the USN (and their German opponents who seemed to been first off the mark with the idea). Whether or not this practice had migrated to their units in the Far East by Dec 41 is unknown to me. The three plane vee was harder to control and easier to break up though which of course explains why it fell out of favor.

In a large variety of readings it seems to me that the IJN did not have a formal standard tactical unit that was designed to function in combat. The individual pilot seems to have operated as a "lone wolf" throughout a significant portion of the war. That's not to say that they didn't help one another in combat but that there was not any formal setup where one pilot was responsible for any specific other pilot as is established in the Leader/Wingman concept.
Evidence of this can be found in "Shattered Sword" where the operations of the IJN CAP over KB are very exhaustively described. Descriptions such as the following are made "PO1c xxxx led 3 fighters of the Akagi's "4th watch" into the air, the 2 planes of Ens yyy's Shotai attacked the TBDs, PO2c zzz landed to rearm while the other 2 planes in Hiryu's 2nd watch continued their patrol...Kaga launched the 5 Zeros of its 3rd watch".
Shattered Sword uses the word "organic" to describe tthe IJN CAP and seems to indicate that it reacted more instinctively than thoughtfully to the USN attacks at Midway. Though it brought overwhelming firepower to bear on the individually attacking squadrons from Midway and Torpedos 8 and 6 this same instinctive reaction led to a serious problem when confronted with the high/low and escorted attack of Yorktown's stike: far too many CAP pilots got into a furball with the escort than was required to neutralize it and ALL those pilots who didn't went after the TBDs leaving Yorktown's SBDs to make their attack utterly unmolested. Further evidence of the instinctive and "lone wolf" philosophy of the IJN fighter pilots is indicated by the attack on some straggling SBDs by most or all of the escorting Zeros for Hiryu's first strike on Yorktown. In the greater scheme of things it is hard to justify them abandoning their charges (the bombers), even temporarily, when any hope of victory rides on their ability to strike the enemy. As it was the attack on the SBDs, deprived the escort of 1 or 2 Zeros and cost the Vals several bombers shot down before the remaining escorting Zeros were able to engage the CAP. As I recall a similar incident occurred at Santa Cruz and though in that instance it happened before the USN planes had expended their ordinance, it also deprived the IJN bombers of escorts before they encountered the US CAP.
In any case, it would seem that rather than a 4 plane grouping IJN CAP and escorts, up to some point (randomly determined maybe - at some point I believe the IJN officially started to operate in leader/wingman mode) might be better simulated by a randomly generated number of say 1 to 5 planes per group while USN would be in multiples of 2 (4 max) while the Brits and maybe Dutch would be in 3s.

Well just some thoughts.

[ChezDaJez]

I'm also curious to hear what kind of airplane has a sustained 10m min radius turn and can do it without losing altitude or departing...

"...a strange Polish one..."[:D][:D][:D] according to Cid.

10 meter radius / 20 meter diameter? 125 meter circumference? Ever notice how he never provides specifics such as the aircraft type and designation?

Chez