Treespider's CHS (2.08) variant and A2A model

[Tomasek]

We started Treespider's CHS (2.08) scenario 171 and it seems that the penetrability of CAP is not realistic. Zero is almost unable to stop any incoming aircraft. There was a battle between two jap carriers and Saratoga. The Allied planes attacked without fighter support (fighters were training . 43 Zero were unable to stop the same number of bombers, they destroy only 9DB and 6TB:
A6M2 Zero x 43

Allied aircraft
SBD-3 Dauntless x 34
TBD Devastator x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
SBD-3 Dauntless: 9 destroyed, 16 damaged
TBD Devastator: 7 destroyed

Japanese Ships
CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 6, on fire

Obviously there should be leakers, but it is a bit much. Considering Midway in RL, the LBA would smash KB without any support from sea. I thought that A2A model for this CHS version was based on the standard one (155). Is it true?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Tomasek
Obviously there should be leakers, but it is a bit much. Considering Midway in RL, the LBA would smash KB without any support from sea. I thought that A2A model for this CHS version was based on the standard one (155). Is it true?

I don't know what Treespider used for his A2A model. Perhaps there is some information in his notes?

Regarding the CHS "standard" model - as used in scenario 155 - it is the same as the stock one (plus a few minor alterations to aircraft performance values).

Andrew

[spence]

43 Zero were unable to stop the same number of bombers, they destroy only 9DB and 6TB:
A6M2 Zero x 43

Allied aircraft
SBD-3 Dauntless x 34
TBD Devastator x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
SBD-3 Dauntless: 9 destroyed, 16 damaged
TBD Devastator: 7 destroyed

Japanese Ships
CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 6, on fire

You are absolutely correct that those results could not happen in Stock. Whether or not they could have happened IRL is less certain.

IRL the 43 Zeros would be getting no certain direction from any of the ships or each other since most never used and many did not even carry a radio. If the weather was cloudy the threat axis could develop from somewhere where only a few had a good view so half the fighters might have simply not known a thing was going on. The attack was a hi-lo attack. So without any direction the fighters may have ganged up on the torpedo bombers and ignored the dive bombers (that's what appears to have happened to Yorktown's strike on KB at Midway). Even the annihilation of Torpedo 8 at Midway pitted some 30 Zeros against only 15 TBDs. Japanese UberCAP never made an appearance IRL during the war.

[Tomasek]

I agree, Spence, but there are other factors in RL affecting the attack. Obviously, CAP was unable to stop all attacking planes, but they could make an attack very difficult by disturbing their formation. The only way how increase the chance to hit the ship is coordinated attack from more directions. The doctrine was easy – DB and TB should attack simultaneously and TB even from more directions. Such attack is quite difficult against ships without CAP, but almost impossible against ships protected by effective CAP. You mention weather effect limiting the CAP, but they could limit attackers as well. Absence of radar and radio was disadvantage for Japanese CAP, but the radar performance was hindered by inexperience of the operators on US ships during the first year of the war.
The main problem is to find balance in A2A battles, and it seems to me the scenario referred to above is almost as far from RL as stock. I did three equal tests: on day 2 KB (CAP 60%) met two CV. The CAP was unable to stop the attack supported by low number of fighters and almost two thirds of bombers leaked through. The results depended then o pure luck – from four CV’s lightly damaged to two lost. Then I tried three times 2CV vs. 2CV battle. All ships involved were sunk or heavily damaged. Therefore, Allied could pack their 3CV’s and meet KB with high chance to destroy at least 3CV, probably more. Obviously, they will be destroyed, but 1/1 ratio is splendid for Allies during the first months. If they have 5CV...
And the leaking CAP would be even much worse for Allied due to very experience of pilots in pool (30-45 for Allied). In the scenario description is written:"No air midifications" It does not seem to be true...

[treespider]

Per the notes in an earler thread...
 
1. Aircraft cannon ACC was reduced by 30%
2. Pilot experience was cut
3. Aircraft were rated in terms of knots instead of MPH thereby reducing the topspeeds the game engine sees.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Tomasek

We started Treespider's CHS (2.08) scenario 171 and it seems that the penetrability of CAP is not realistic. Zero is almost unable to stop any incoming aircraft. There was a battle between two jap carriers and Saratoga. The Allied planes attacked without fighter support (fighters were training . 43 Zero were unable to stop the same number of bombers, they destroy only 9DB and 6TB:
A6M2 Zero x 43

You may be suprised Tomasek but a raid losing 15 planes in RL would be considered a very severe loss. Another factor to bear in mind is that even though a game like WitP "displays" the total # of CAP either in the air or scrambling, often only a fraction of that CAP might engage enemy elements. This was true even among Allied airforces that had radar. For example during the afternoon of 5/10/42 a German raid approaching Malta was detected on radar which resulted in the scrambling of 20 Spitfire Vc's and 6 Hurricane IIc's. Of the 26 aircraft scrambled and vectored towards the incoming raid only 8 managed to engage the raid.