New ideas on A2A in the next patch

[pauk]

greetings....

ORIGINAL: Drongo
You're nuts. [:'(]

Could be. I'm here long enough to become nuts[:D]

As to this secret code business, just between you and me I think it's a myth.
The Allies get the CAP bonus and (IIRC) the AA proximity shell "boost" in '43. They also get better mid to late war aircraft and considerably better AA outfits for ships. They also get better pilot replacements.

Put it all together and things will be a real handful for the Japanese player by '45 (if not sooner). It doesn't take some some secret code to explain how the reported bad results may have occured.

Well, nothing wrong with your explanation here. It could be a myth - i recall that GG's games are always were fertile ground for the myths (well, his "secret codes" certainly helped..). You are probably recalling few myths from the UV...

[spence]

FOR ALL OF 1941-42 THE IJN TORPEDO ATTACK STATS (INCLUDING 21 HITS SCORED AT PEARL HARBOR AGAINST MOORED SHIPS - 40 DROPS) COMES TO 39 HITS OUT OF 180 DROPS.

THE ONLY RECORDED INSTANCES OF IJN TORPEDO ATTACK THAT I HAVE EXCLUDED ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1) THE ZUIKAKU AIR GROUP ATTACK ON DD USS MEREDITH
2) THE RABAUL LBA ATTACK ON 9 AUG 42 ON USS JARVIS
3) RABAUL BASED LBA TORPEDO ATTACKS SUBSEQUENT TO 9 AUGUST

THE REASON THE FIRST TWO ARE EXCLUDED IS THAT I CAN FIND NO RECORDS OF HOW MANY TORPEDOS WERE DROPPED OR HIT THOSE TWO SHIPS IN THOSE TWO ATTACKS. GIVEN THAT BOTH SHIPS WERE ALONE WITH NO CAP AND ATTACKED BY A LARGE NUMBER OF BOMBERS I CAN AT LEAST IMAGINE THAT THE TORPEDO BOMBERS HAD A RELATIVELY GOOD RATIO OF HITS TO DROPS.

AS A BIT OF A SOP TO THE IJN FANCLUB #3 WAS EXCLUDED BECAUSE IT ADDS ONLY TO THE NUMBER OF TORPEDO SORTIES - THE NUMBER OF HITS WAS ZERO (and to be fair a lot of the IJN's first team LBA drivers were dead by then).

[Andrew Brown]

Very interesting analysis Spence.

I wonder if anyone has done an analysis of torpedo hit rates in the game?

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: spence

IJN TORPEDO ATTACK STATS/FACTS FOR 1942

BATTLE OF THE CORAL SEA*
15 KATES ACTUALLY DROPPED TORPEDOS AT LEXINGTON - 2 HITS (13.3%)
14 KATES DROPPED ON YORKTOWN - 0 HITS (0%)
1 DROPPED ON ASTORIA - 0 HITS (0%)

*INTERESTING NOTE: I always thought the IJN believed it was launching at USN CV's when it launched the raid which hit SIMS and NEOSHO. Seems that the Kates launched acted as high level bombers. Extended range attack?

BATTLE OF MIDWAY
6 KATES LAUNCHED - 2 HITS (33.3%)

BATTLE OF THE SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS
12 KATES LAUNCHED AT HORNET (underway) - 2 HITS (16.7%)
2 OR 3 LAUNCHED AT HORNET (under tow or DIW) - 1 HIT (50 or 33.3%)
9 LAUNCHED AT ENTERPRISE - 0 HITS

OVERALL 7 HITS OUT OF 59 OR 60 LAUNCHES = ROUGHLY 11%

THERE WAS AN ATTACK INVOLVING KATES ON THE DD MEREDITH IN MID-OCTOBER AND APPARENTLY SHE WAS HIT BY 1 OR MORE TORPEDOS BUT I'VE BEEN UNABLE TO CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISH NEITHER WHETHER THE ATTACK WAS BY 9 VALS AND 21 KATES OR 9 KATES AND 21 VALS NOR HOW MANY BOMB AND TORPEDO HITS WERE SCORED. THE RAID SANK MEREDITH IN ANY CASE BUT IT KINDA MUCKS UP THE STATS.

THAT'S THE RECORD WHILE THE DEFENSE WAS AT ITS RELATIVE WEAKEST AND THE ATTACK WAS AT ITS BEST

Why is this considered bad?

Would you care to post the USN statistics for the same battles?

(I, of course, know the score) [8D]


Leo "Apollo11"

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Ahhh... found it... already posted in thread... sorry...

ORIGINAL: spence

USN TORPEDO ATTACKS (1942) - I used HYPERWAR accounts for number of sorties and launches only. Used TROMs from NIHON KAIGUN for hits.

BATTLE OF THE CORAL SEA
22 TBDs DROPPED ON SHOHO - 6 OR 7 HITS (22-32%)
21 TBDs DROPPED ON SHOKAKU - 0 HITS (0%)

BATTLE OF MIDWAY
2 VT-8 TBFs DROPPED - O HITS (0%)
2 B-26s DROPPED - 0 HITS (0%)
1 VT-8 TBD DROPPED - O HITS (0%)
5 VT-6 TBDs DROPPED - O HITS (0%)
3 VT-3 TBDs DROPPED - 0 HITS (0%)

BATTLE OF THE EASTERN SOLOMONS
5 TBFs DROPPED ON RYUJO - 1 HIT (20%)
2 TBFs DROPPED ON TONE - 0 HITS (0%)

BATTLE OF SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS
10 TBFs ATTACKED IJN CAs - 0 HITS (0%)

NAVAL BATTLE OF GUADALCANAL
FIGURES ARE SOMEWHAT CONTRADICTORY BUT BEST RECONSTRUCTION IS THAT 27 TORPEDO LAUNCHES WERE MADE AT HIEI BY USN AND USMC TBFs - BETWEEN 2-6 HITS
(they were having a really bad day on HIEI that day and record keeping may not have been up to snuff - HIEI was damaged in a surface action and making 10-15 kts but with steering difficulties which at times were nearly put right) (7.4% - 22%)
6 USN AND USMC TBFs DROPPED ON KINUGASA (severely damaged by bomb which decimated bridge just prior to torpedo attack - 4 OR 5 HITS (67-83%)

106 TORPEDO DROPS / 13 - 20 HITS (12-19%)

Leo "Apollo11"

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Can we dig up the data about those 1942 torpedo attacks from both sides (IJN and USN) posted above regarding available defences (i.e. CAP and AA from surrounding ships)?


Leo "Apollo11"

[spence]

Sorry, no more midnite shifts at isolated border crossings for a while (Thank God).

Eight hours digging into this was interesting but I'd druther sleep.

[spence]

regarding available defences (i.e. CAP and AA from surrounding ships

There's practically a minute by minute account of the IJN CAP at Midway in "Shattered Sword".

Another topic that "Shattered Sword" covers pretty well is the Japanese approach to fleet AA defense. Essentially it would seem that penetration of the CAP by any attack would face the flak of only the target ship (CV) plus perhaps a single DD (the planeguard). At least in so far as a CVTF is concerned.

It does indicate that Japanese fleet defense doctrine emphasized INDIVIDUAL MANUEVER for their larger ships. The use of a "Close Ring Defense" like the USN used from the start was not even studied until 1943 and not implemented til 1944.

Thus insofar as USN torpedo attacks against IJN ships is concerned the most important facts concern the amount of CAP. Flak was (perhaps in HIEI's case where flak is mentioned as being heavy) for most part ineffective. Even at Midway where the American torpedo bombers were slaughtered I don't think flak was a major factor. The TBDs, TBFs and B-26s were brought down by the CAP.

And I think it is time to go to bed. Goodnite all (even though it's day).

[Drongo]

USN TORPEDO ATTACKS (1942) - I used HYPERWAR accounts for number of sorties and launches only. Used TROMs from NIHON KAIGUN for hits.

BATTLE OF THE CORAL SEA
22 TBDs DROPPED ON SHOHO - 6 OR 7 HITS (22-32%)
21 TBDs DROPPED ON SHOKAKU - 0 HITS (0%)

BATTLE OF MIDWAY
2 VT-8 TBFs DROPPED - O HITS (0%)
2 B-26s DROPPED - 0 HITS (0%)
1 VT-8 TBD DROPPED - O HITS (0%)
5 VT-6 TBDs DROPPED - O HITS (0%)
3 VT-3 TBDs DROPPED - 0 HITS (0%)

BATTLE OF THE EASTERN SOLOMONS
5 TBFs DROPPED ON RYUJO - 1 HIT (20%)
2 TBFs DROPPED ON TONE - 0 HITS (0%)

BATTLE OF SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS
10 TBFs ATTACKED IJN CAs - 0 HITS (0%)

NAVAL BATTLE OF GUADALCANAL
FIGURES ARE SOMEWHAT CONTRADICTORY BUT BEST RECONSTRUCTION IS THAT 27 TORPEDO LAUNCHES WERE MADE AT HIEI BY USN AND USMC TBFs - BETWEEN 2-6 HITS
(they were having a really bad day on HIEI that day and record keeping may not have been up to snuff - HIEI was damaged in a surface action and making 10-15 kts but with steering difficulties which at times were nearly put right) (7.4% - 22%)
6 USN AND USMC TBFs DROPPED ON KINUGASA (severely damaged by bomb which decimated bridge just prior to torpedo attack - 4 OR 5 HITS (67-83%)

106 TORPEDO DROPS / 13 - 20 HITS (12-19%)

I not quite in agreement with some of the details but just to play devils advocate here:-
assuming everything is correct, the USN torp hit rates against ships that were conducting evasive maneuvers and making good speed at the time the torpedo bombers begin their attacks is what %?

The question is relevent if you are going to attempt to build a base from which to establish what the USN torpedo hit rates are like in WitP (in 1942).

Cheers

[Ron Saueracker]

Coordination should have some impact on hit probability, just as flak, maneuverability of the target etc does...basically the elements are attacking in concert and not piecemiel as in an uncoordinated come as you are attack, thereby making it more difficult to evade the incoming bombs and torpedoes. I don't think any of this is considered, just an accuracy percentile on a per plane/weapon basis.

[Ursa MAior]

Hm, let's see. The vintage TBD + a crappy Mk13 torp equals or exceeds a Kate + Type 91 torp. Interesting conclusion.

Given the fact that the majority of the quoted results come from the attack on Shoho, which at maximum had a 10 Zero CAP against a 93 plane strike, has slowed down beause of a turn to get to downwind, plus recieved some 10+ bomb hits 10 minutes before the TBDs even started their attack. Well, as we all know these were the condotions of ANY carrier battle in 42. Do I need to say more?

Spence, you have earned your place beside mdiehl, and the other extremist allied fanboys.

Short side note of thw main wepaopn of the TBD.

Mark 13 Air Launched Torpedo.
This 2,200 pound weapon had been introduced in 1938, had not been adequately tested, but was the only one available. Its use required release at less than 60 feet and slow speed. Over a year after the Battle of Midway and after some improvements, the Bureau of Ordinance ran a test with over 100 torpedos and found only 31 percent gave a satisfactory run. Add to this -- exploder problems and erratic launches under fire against evading targets -- it is no wonder that dive bombing became the attack method of choice.
"Black Cat Raiders" by R. C. Knott

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

Hm, let's see. The vintage TBD + a crappy Mk13 torp equals or exceeds a Kate + Type 91 torp. Interesting conclusion.

Given the fact that the majority of the quoted results come from the attack on Shoho, which at maximum had a 10 Zero CAP against a 93 plane strike, has slowed down beause of a turn to get to downwind, plus recieved some 10+ bomb hits 10 minutes before the TBDs even started their attack. Well, as we all know these were the condotions of ANY carrier battle in 42. Do I need to say more?

Spence, you have earned your place beside mdiehl, and the other extremist allied fanboys.

Short side note of thw main wepaopn of the TBD.

Mark 13 Air Launched Torpedo.
This 2,200 pound weapon had been introduced in 1938, had not been adequately tested, but was the only one available. Its use required release at less than 60 feet and slow speed. Over a year after the Battle of Midway and after some improvements, the Bureau of Ordinance ran a test with over 100 torpedos and found only 31 percent gave a satisfactory run. Add to this -- exploder problems and erratic launches under fire against evading targets -- it is no wonder that dive bombing became the attack method of choice.
"Black Cat Raiders" by R. C. Knott

Again, I think there should be some distinction between coordinated attacks (anvil for eg.) and uncoordinated piecemiel attacks. This is where much of the examples posted are coming to grief. All we seem to have now is a per plane or per weapon accuracy rating.

[Ursa MAior]

Yep, but who is dilligent enough to dig up stuff like that? And without knowing the skills of the individual pilots what kind of conclusions will we get? What is more important coordiantion or plane+pilot skills? Questions, questions, questions.

[Speedysteve]

A question purely based on interest -

Spence you mention Hiei's flak was particularly effective during it's demise. Any elaboration as to why? Wasn't she totally alone? She was pretty battered as is from the previous night.

Steven

[1275psi]

OK
Lots of deviations into torpedoe arguments

lets get back to the A2A model

1/ unlimited ammo is nuts

2/ how many of you guys actually played into late 43 in UV?
because i can tell you, and wobbly would back me up -that air model works, and works well, it feels and gives great historical feeling results reflecting the current date and pilot experience

So why the difference to WITP?

I believe it has a lot to do with fatigue levels -i do remember these were changed for WITP -would Nick care to eleborate?

What ever is different this I know
In UV - if as japan I conserve experience pilots, use them sparingly, and cleverly -I can still get some results
Not all the pilots die every battle
many times both sides engage, losses are very low both sides

And its taking weeks for Wobbly to attrit rabual down -where using same planes both sides in WITP it would take just 3 days.
And we know it took months in real life

The point is -what in the UV air model did they change?

(And please, if you have no experience playing UV in late 43, we don't want to hear about zeros in early 42 , over an extended time i really think UV got the A2A dead right.)
Why did we change it[:@][:@][:@]

[ChezDaJez]

There's practically a minute by minute account of the IJN CAP at Midway in "Shattered Sword".

"Shattered Sword" doesn't list the 3 B-26s that attacked Junyo with torps on 6/4/42 near Unmak Island in the Aleutians. All torps missed. I've found you can't rely on just one source, you need several. Preferably from all participants.

The Japanese raids into the Bay of Bengal also produced some torpedo hits. Ryujo alone sank over a dozen ships with her Kates and damaged at least 5 more. Some were with bombs, some with torps. KB, strangely enough, used only bombs on the Hermes, Cornwal, Dorsetshire, Vampire and others. (I wonder why)

There are also several other ships torpedoed by Japanese aircraft that don't appear in most of the books covering the US side.

For example, the USAT ships John H. Couch and George Bliss were attacked by two Kates with torpedoes near Guadalcanal on 10/11/43. Both were hit but neither were sunk.

The SS John Penn was doubly unlucky at Guadalcanal on 9/13/43. 3 Kates attacked the convoy. The John Penn shot down the Kate that attacked her but the Kate crashed into the bridge area and then the torp the Kate dropped struck the ship. The ship sank in Ironbottom Sound.

The SS Antoine Saugrain was sunk by an aerial torpedo dropped from a single aircraft near the Philippines on 12/5/44. The plane type was not reported.

The main point here is that there are many aerial torpedo attacks conducted by Japan, America and Britain that were just footnotes to history because they had little impact on the course of the war. Most books tend to just provide details about the major naval battles and very little about merchants and other vessels that suffered torpedo attack.

Chez

[el cid again]

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

You don't need confirmation.

First, I would not report a test falsely.

Second, you can run your own test. Simply edit the scenario to start in 1945.

Third, this is an immature attitude. We are going to fix this. The FIRST step in fixing something is to define the problem.

Fourth, the game is very exciting until the hard code date - and the real challenge is in 1942 anyway. Play that part until we have a late war model that works properly. Which, by the way, will be sooner than you can get there playing by hand.

[el cid again]

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...

You omitted one other factor prejudicing the situation over Malaya: a renegade RAF officer who was in operations who radioed the Japanese their plans on a timely basis - until cought and shot (see Bloody Shambles) - and intel advantage if ever there was one.

OK - you don't believe what I was taught by US military historians. I am not a believer in thought police: go ahead and disbelieve. Doesn't mean either I or they are wrong though. Japanese air operations in 1941 are quite amazing in the context of the period, the technology, and the standards of other air forces. Just one tiny example is the decision to change the hit probability of horizontal bombers vs stationary ships - which reached an amazing 80% per element (for which and admittedly larger than normal element was required: 5 vice the usual 3). No one else dared try for such a thing - so no one else could do it. The Japanese enjoyed a confluence of intelligence, technology, technique, momentary tactical advantages, training, unusual specific operational training (to a standard not seen before), and the ability to see their opponents under conditions which were statistically likely to give them surprise. These factors conspire to such an extent that some sort of prejudice is required for accurate modeling - modeling that produces the kinds of results we see in the early weeks of the war. It isn't my fault - and you don't have to use anything I ever did as a model: it is a general truth and shows up in any model able to reasonably reproduce combat results. I am a professional, and quite clinical about this: I am only interested in truth, and I have no patriotic feelings about numbers. The historical record is what it is. Battle of Britain veterans were unable to handle the Japanese, either in Hurricanes or in Spitfires, and they were quite surprised to learn that - even foolishly accepting maneuver combat.

[el cid again]

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) .

Correct. While contrails did occur in WWII era, they are much more common in the era of jets and very high altitude flying. What mattered in that era was the ability to spot at great distances even when there was no white arrow saying "there is a plane in front of me." It is more like spotting a tiny knat on your windshield - on the distant side of the windshild - or better still - a star in daylight. IF you ROUTINELY see first magnitude stars - ALL of them - above the visual horizon - in daylight - you are good enough to see a plane when it is first visible (to some).

[el cid again]

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.

Guys - it takes only ONE person doing something ONE time to invalidate a statement like that. When many people can do it routinely, it is a different matter altogether.

It is not simply that you must try: it is that you must

1) become objective (willing to accept that what others can do you might also be able to do) - end this "I KNOW it can't be done" attitude stuff;

2) learn the REQUIRED technique: IF doing this means you MUST do something - and you don't do that - you are not prooving it cannot be done - you are only ignoring the requirement