EOS AAA (copied from mail)

[1EyedJacks]

This is the screen shot after our 1st CV-vs-CV battle. What is kind of freaking us out is the AAA value 12158. Carl can maybe post his tf for comparison view. Air units did get in but there is a big difference in the units that made it home. Carl said he was at about 75% losses to my 25%.

Experience levels of the pilots probably have somthing to do with this... I think I'll try to talk Carl thru some additional tests and pull more data - B4 and after air loss figures by CAP and Flack might be interesting...

[bbbf]

Stand down your cap in both tfs so that the bombers get unrestricted attacks.
 
You will need to play in the editor to equalise pilot experience levels.
 
Run it at least 5 times to get the trend right.

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

This is the screen shot after our 1st CV-vs-CV battle. What is kind of freaking us out is the AAA value 12158. Carl can maybe post his tf for comparison view. Air units did get in but there is a big difference in the units that made it home. Carl said he was at about 75% losses to my 25%.

Experience levels of the pilots probably have somthing to do with this... I think I'll try to talk Carl thru some additional tests and pull more data - B4 and after air loss figures by CAP and Flack might be interesting...

Hi Mike

I did not see the Guns total before. The frightening AAA drew my eye away from it. Is that sort of normal or slightly overdeveloped? No doubt our next test off Singapore with Force Z versus your BBs will give a clue...

ps - I am rather embarrassed to say that I do not know how to post screenshots. Believe me, they ain't pretty!

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

ps - I am rather embarrassed to say that I do not know how to post screenshots. Believe me, they ain't pretty!

See section 3 here: tm.asp?m=1562758

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: VSWG

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Without seeing the code - or reverse engineering the display to the point of knowing what the source of the data being displayed is - it is not possible to answer difinitively in a technically accurate way.

ORIGINAL: VSWG

For the record, the ship's AA value in the ship screen is calculated by adding the weapon effect values of all AA and DP Guns, divided by 2.

OK - then that is the problem. The effect value of an 18 inch gun is fantastic. That it has very low accuracy - and is unlikely to actually hit - is not part of the display. Nor is that it has limited altitude for such a weapon.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

Each of my CV tfs had about 2000 AAA. Mike's tf (containing 2 CVs and 2 BBs) had about 12000 AAA. My bombers that got through to attack took 75% losses, while his took about 25% losses. If I get away (extremely doubtful for the Big E) my units will rebuild with replacements with an average of 40 experience (I got two in the low 30s on my CV in San Diego), so there is no way the rebuilt units would hit anything if they get through the CAP. His will get replacements at 75 I believe. It seems the bigger AAA numbers do count...

It seems that the Allies have to try to attrite the Japs in this mod, but are royally screwed if they do! My 2E LBA attacking at 6000 ft is suffering big losses and hitting nothing when tackling BBs and CAs with the big numbers too...

If this is early days, Enterprise has no business in close to a Japanese major carrier TF. If this is EEO the Yamatos are done to Shinano standard (3.9 inch guns vice 5 inch guns - very fine heavy AAA). That matters a whole lot more than a rarely shooting 18 inch gun - and it matters above the altitude your planes can reach too. Early on US CVs are separated, not escoted by capital ships, and have awful aircraft in limited numbers. They SHOULD take awful losses to CAP and AAA - and Halsey was a fool to try to engage Kiddo Butai alone. He would surely have been lost had they been on the right vector.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

This is the screen shot after our 1st CV-vs-CV battle. What is kind of freaking us out is the AAA value 12158. Carl can maybe post his tf for comparison view. Air units did get in but there is a big difference in the units that made it home. Carl said he was at about 75% losses to my 25%.

Experience levels of the pilots probably have somthing to do with this... I think I'll try to talk Carl thru some additional tests and pull more data - B4 and after air loss figures by CAP and Flack might be interesting...

You have 16 x 14 inch AA guns plus 8 more 8 inch AA guns - besides what you think of as AA guns. That is the source of the high effect values.

[el cid again]

What are you playing? In some of the enhanced scenarios you may be facing an entire TF with ships using optimum AAA layouts - although in 1941 they are very weak in light AAA because the Japanese had not yet figured out (nor had we) that it should be a lot better. Thus - typically - you see 13 mm MG replaced by 25 mm - and no 40 mm (except older vesels with low performing Vickers 40 mm - auxiliaries mainly). But they did have those superb 3 and 4 inch guns - and also a 5 inch Type 1 I forgot to mention - sort of like the US 5 inch 54 - only sooner, better and more reliable.

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

What are you playing? In some of the enhanced scenarios you may be facing an entire TF with ships using optimum AAA layouts - although in 1941 they are very weak in light AAA because the Japanese had not yet figured out (nor had we) that it should be a lot better. Thus - typically - you see 13 mm MG replaced by 25 mm - and no 40 mm (except older vesels with low performing Vickers 40 mm - auxiliaries mainly). But they did have those superb 3 and 4 inch guns - and also a 5 inch Type 1 I forgot to mention - sort of like the US 5 inch 54 - only sooner, better and more reliable.

This is EOS. We are just doing some testing right now - not an actual game. To tell the truth, when we saw the massive rating for AAA we thought surely no allied plane would be able to penitrate the defense of the Japanese TF.

The TF in the screen I shared went up against the Enterprise and the Lexington.

Here are snipits of the Combat report:

Day Air attack on TF at 106,68

Japanese aircraft
A6M2/Ki-65 Zeke x 16
F1M2 Pete-FF x 8

Allied aircraft
F2A-3 Buffalo x 6
SB2U-2 Vindicator x 13
SBD-3/4 Dauntless x 33
TBD Devastator x 12

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
SB2U-2 Vindicator: 5 destroyed, 3 damaged
SBD-3/4 Dauntless: 14 destroyed, 5 damaged
TBD Devastator: 6 destroyed

Japanese Ships
CV Kaga, Bomb hits 2
BB Haruna, Bomb hits 3, on fire
BB Kongo

Aircraft Attacking:
5 x SBD-3/4 Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SBD-3/4 Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
3 x TBD Devastator launching torpedoes at 200 feet
8 x SB2U-2 Vindicator bombing at 2000 feet
5 x SBD-3/4 Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
5 x SBD-3/4 Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
1 x TBD Devastator launching torpedoes at 200 feet
2 x TBD Devastator launching torpedoes at 200 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 106,68

Japanese aircraft
A6M2/Ki-65 Zeke x 12
F1M2 Pete-FF x 7

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 6
SBD-3/4 Dauntless x 34

Japanese aircraft losses
F1M2 Pete-FF: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat: 2 destroyed
SBD-3/4 Dauntless: 18 destroyed

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo, Bomb hits 2, on fire
BB Haruna, Bomb hits 2, on fire
CV Akagi, Bomb hits 3

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x SBD-3/4 Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SBD-3/4 Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
6 x SBD-3/4 Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
3 x SBD-3/4 Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet

Day Air attack on TF at 104,65

Japanese aircraft
A6M2/Ki-65 Zeke x 13
D3A2 Val x 26
B5M/B5N/Ki-47 Kate x 20

Allied aircraft
F2A-3 Buffalo x 11
F4F-3 Wildcat x 11

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2/Ki-65 Zeke: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
D3A2 Val: 5 destroyed, 3 damaged
B5M/B5N/Ki-47 Kate: 6 destroyed, 7 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F2A-3 Buffalo: 2 destroyed
F4F-3 Wildcat: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
CV Enterprise CV-6, Bomb hits 9, on fire
DD Balch
CA Chester, Torpedo hits 1, on fire

Aircraft Attacking:
2 x B5M/B5N/Ki-47 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
2 x D3A2 Val bombing at 2000 feet
1 x D3A2 Val bombing at 2000 feet
3 x B5M/B5N/Ki-47 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
4 x B5M/B5N/Ki-47 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
2 x B5M/B5N/Ki-47 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
3 x B5M/B5N/Ki-47 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
3 x D3A2 Val bombing at 2000 feet
3 x D3A2 Val bombing at 2000 feet
4 x D3A2 Val bombing at 2000 feet
4 x D3A2 Val bombing at 2000 feet
4 x D3A2 Val bombing at 2000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 104,65

Japanese aircraft
A6M2/Ki-65 Zeke x 5
B5M/B5N/Ki-47 Kate x 24

Allied aircraft
F2A-3 Buffalo x 9
F4F-3 Wildcat x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
B5M/B5N/Ki-47 Kate: 8 destroyed, 8 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
CV Enterprise CV-6, Torpedo hits 2, on fire
CA Salt Lake City

Aircraft Attacking:
2 x B5M/B5N/Ki-47 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
4 x B5M/B5N/Ki-47 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
4 x B5M/B5N/Ki-47 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
2 x B5M/B5N/Ki-47 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
4 x B5M/B5N/Ki-47 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet

Day Air attack on TF at 104,65

Japanese aircraft
A6M2/Ki-65 Zeke x 15
D3A2 Val x 6
B5M/B5N/Ki-47 Kate x 11

Allied aircraft
F2A-3 Buffalo x 10

Japanese aircraft losses
D3A2 Val: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged
B5M/B5N/Ki-47 Kate: 2 destroyed, 6 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F2A-3 Buffalo: 4 destroyed

Allied Ships
CV Lexington CV-2, Bomb hits 2, on fire

Aircraft Attacking:
1 x D3A2 Val bombing at 2000 feet
3 x B5M/B5N/Ki-47 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
2 x B5M/B5N/Ki-47 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
4 x B5M/B5N/Ki-47 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
3 x D3A2 Val bombing at 2000 feet

For myself, before I jump into a game of RHS I want to test out the different combat systems. GBL is understandably concerned over seeing AAA ratings that look aweful strong compared to what we are used to in Stock, CHS, and IS2. This is in no way an attempt to put down RHS or the work you and crew have done - I just want to make sure what I'm getting into B4 I put in a lot of time in a game <grin>.

I read in previous posts that you plan to do some testing of RHS. I look forward to reading any AARs regarding the different flavors of RHS. And Carl and I will do some testing on our own to get a feel for how some of the systems in RHS work.

I would note that in very brief testing the subs and ASW TFs seem more active then I'm used to seeing in CHS or IS2.

Air losses seem heavier also - specially in the flak. Does pilot experience factor in at all for aircraft defense against flak?

[el cid again]

That first attack, which seems very foolish on the part of the Allies to me, also seems to have a very conservative outcome. I would not expect ANY weapons to hit ANY carrier most of the time, and one hit the rest of the time. I would expect MORE losses to AAA - and I don't think it can be argued this is excessive. Buffalos, SB2U-2s, SPD-3s, TBDs - and in modest numbers - vs Akagi and Kaga with heavy escorts? What do YOU thinks should happen?

That second attack is amazing: THREE hits on a carrier? The Americans are doing superbly well - and the Japanese defenses are not very effective - although they should not be very effective either - even so - I see no indication this is an excessive outcome in favor of the defense. The offense is delivering - what more do you want?

The attack on Enterprise looks a bit like the attack on Yorktown - and seems also entirely realistic to me.

The attack on Lex looks very weak - and only the total lack of Allied CAP permits it to have any success. Since most 9 of 13 attackers are torpedo planes - and no torpedoes score at all - I say this is a victory for the defense. 2 of 4 Vals hit - but that is survivable - and the Val did sink more ships than any other in history. Let em in unopposed by CAP - with much FLAK distracted by deadly torpedo attacks - it might happen. I don't consider it wholly outrageous - but I am surprised at 2 hits here. Normally in RHS the hits should be about 1 less than you are seeing here - in all cases.

In EOS all the ships in your test start with historical armament: they will get better later but don't start better. In EOS (and AIO) there are almost no changes by the time the war starts - just changes in planning. The changes gradually take effect from that point. Only in EEO are there significant changes when the war begins - since they had since 1938 to change things.

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

That first attack, which seems very foolish on the part of the Allies to me, also seems to have a very conservative outcome. I would not expect ANY weapons to hit ANY carrier most of the time, and one hit the rest of the time. I would expect MORE losses to AAA - and I don't think it can be argued this is excessive. Buffalos, SB2U-2s, SPD-3s, TBDs - and in modest numbers - vs Akagi and Kaga with heavy escorts? What do YOU thinks should happen?

That second attack is amazing: THREE hits on a carrier? The Americans are doing superbly well - and the Japanese defenses are not very effective - although they should not be very effective either - even so - I see no indication this is an excessive outcome in favor of the defense. The offense is delivering - what more do you want?

The attack on Enterprise looks a bit like the attack on Yorktown - and seems also entirely realistic to me.

The attack on Lex looks very weak - and only the total lack of Allied CAP permits it to have any success. Since most 9 of 13 attackers are torpedo planes - and no torpedoes score at all - I say this is a victory for the defense. 2 of 4 Vals hit - but that is survivable - and the Val did sink more ships than any other in history. Let em in unopposed by CAP - with much FLAK distracted by deadly torpedo attacks - it might happen. I don't consider it wholly outrageous - but I am surprised at 2 hits here. Normally in RHS the hits should be about 1 less than you are seeing here - in all cases.

In EOS all the ships in your test start with historical armament: they will get better later but don't start better. In EOS (and AIO) there are almost no changes by the time the war starts - just changes in planning. The changes gradually take effect from that point. Only in EEO are there significant changes when the war begins - since they had since 1938 to change things.

Hi Sid

As stated twice previously this was a test encounter. I don't enjoy being called foolish and if I wanted tactical advice I would ask somebody who plays. If you played, the obviously overdeveloped Japanese gunpower would have leapt out at you as something that needed serious testing. Even surface gun power is skewed by the over-effectiveness of the Japanese weapons. The values in the ship/tf screen DO count as they are the figures that the game has to play with...

A2A in this mod seems great, btw.

The above combat report does look reasonable at first glance. I analysed the replay after air combat had been resolved as it was the effect of the AAA that Mike and I were interested in. Most Vindicators were lost in the A2A phase. The Dauntlesses and Devastators were the main participants in the bombing. I took approx 75% losses from the AAA, while Mike's losses to AAA were approx 25%. These are as expected bearing in mind the fact that the Jap AAA outmuscles me by a factor of up to six. The fact that hits were achieved by the USN is down to the high experience and morale of the attacking units. With allied replacements appearing with experience levels around 40 these units would not be able to repeat the feat. The BBs and CAs in the other RHS mods appear to be similarly over-muscled. I am tempted to play a game just to enjoy the wonderful map and the virtual company of Mike, but I really think that you need to take a long hard look at these gun values, if you want this mod to get the respect it so clearly deserves.

[Bliztk]

Can you look at he ammo value of the Japanese ships ?

Maybe giving the main guns of BBs an AA shell, will exhaust their ammo too fast....

[TulliusDetritus]

“What do you do to turn a blind eye to each sides moves, plans and strategy?” -- Buck Beach

Well, first of all 2 major scenarios. As I said on the past, I am a “historical game for me, please” freak so I try to simulate the war as it happened (more or less). Notice that I am still in may (the Battle of the Coral Sea will happen in about 2 days AND the Americans must lose the CV they lost in that battle). Same thing with Midway (the 4 Japanese CVs will be sunk along with one American CV, and then we have the Guadalcanal, New Guinea Campaigns etc.).

This is the 1st possible scenario then: a sort of “historical simulation”. No big problem here. Both the Japanese and Allies have to deploy their forces as usual. The air forces will attack bases (i.e. Port Moresby), will be on naval attack, sweep missions, etc.

Important note: we can assume that the Allies do know the Japanese plans, movements (until the death of Yamamoto, on april 1943), as in real life: Japanese code cracked that is. As for the Japanese, they are not clarivident, they should see (detect) the invasion, TFs coming (just like in Leyte on 1944). Then they may react. But of course we have the Sigint menu. Maybe it indicates the Grossen Invasionen.

The 2nd scenario is one ahistorical game. What to do here? Well, I am not sure. I remember Mogami (the contributor, moderator) said something like this: “a player wants to launch an offensive. He decides it will start on day x. This does not mean the operation will be launched that day. There will be like 1/10 of possibilites. On next week 1/5, then 1/3... and finally on day x + 30 the operation is launched no matter what”. If that player is the Japanese then you can use the rule “Japanese movements are known until the death of Yamamoto”. If Japanese, you must see, detect the invasion coming, I guess (or the sigint thing).

Special case: surface naval combats.
We have a problem here. If (for example) the Japanese send 4 DDs and the Allied player (er, yourself again) wants to intercept them, you obviously know these ships are coming (until april 1943)... So you might send a force which consists in 4 DDs as well... x3 = 12 DDs! Or 2 CAs and some DDs, or 4 monsters (BBs) plus their escorts etc., etc. So what to do? I follow this arbitrary rule. In such cases the player who wants to react will have three possibilities:
a) you must send a force relatively inferior
b) you must send a force relatively equal
c) you must send a force relatively superior
A dice may do that job: for example 1-2 (case a); 3-4 (case b); 5-6 (case c)

This last rule can be used with the ground forces as well (and maybe with the air units): “the Allies send 2 regiments to hex x. Will the Japanese send a relatively inferior, equal or superior force”?

Another note: in general Surface TF's should not be able to destroy, attack enemy transports which have i.e. more than 30% of troops unloaded (again, this is arbitrary). This never happened during the war (I am exclusively talking about big, major operations). They can attempt to attack the transports when they are almost er... unloaded (troops, not supplies).

For sure there may be more rules, little tricks. My system is not polished at all.

As for the computer, no, I don't let that poor soul in charge of anything [:)]

And nah, I am not in/from Antarctica, although I'd like to visit some day [8D]

[el cid again]

I served in real Navy CICs, so I think in terms of operational concepts. I write like I would talk to a CIC controller or ships captain. One is supposed to be candid. I play like I would fight - except in a test situation.

Since yours was a test situation, it is valid to try anything. I only meant a player should expect these results in that sort of situation.

I don't follow the use of overdeveloped. It is probably not the case. When one works out the devices, they are what they are - and relative changes from some previous case matter not. I think you will find USN AAA and gunpower are better than you think - and better than IJN - eventually anyway.

[goodboyladdie]

4000-6000 vs 250-800 AAA in BBs. The numbers do not add up. Show me how the formula the game uses understands your intention for these weapons. It does not and it cannot because all it knows is the numbers and what it is supposed to do with them. There are similar discrepancies in Surface gunnery. I cannot understand how the man who fought like a lion to get the A2A figures sorted (and did his normal bloody good job) cannot see this?

If, for arguments sake, we say that a stock Iowa at a value of 1710 epitomises the best WW2 AAA, figures of 6000 comparitively equate with a level of AAW effectiveness that we did not see until the 1980s. You are an AAW expert: You must be able to see that the math has no logic? The imbalance is too severe. Have you seen the figures Alikchi used to represent the similar weapons in Iron Storm II? They are a massive increase for the IJN, but do not cause an imbalance. Getting A2A so well balanced and controlling durability of aircraft, only to create these overpowerful Naval AAA figures does not seem logical.

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I served in real Navy CICs, so I think in terms of operational concepts. I write like I would talk to a CIC controller or ships captain. One is supposed to be candid. I play like I would fight - except in a test situation.

Since yours was a test situation, it is valid to try anything. I only meant a player should expect these results in that sort of situation.

I don't follow the use of overdeveloped. It is probably not the case. When one works out the devices, they are what they are - and relative changes from some previous case matter not. I think you will find USN AAA and gunpower are better than you think - and better than IJN - eventually anyway.

When? Is logic applied here? Do the allies react as quickly as they would have? The weapons causing these massive values are not the wonder weapons and rockets. When they come into the mix the figures must get even more ridiculous. If durability of aircraft was brought down how can it make sense to increase AAA so dramatically?

[el cid again]

Axis guns are too high performance - meaning too much weight and range - and too low in ROF. So they do awful damage IF they hit you - but don't hit you much - and they wear out too soon. USN prefers moderate performance, high ROF - and long life. Later they modify that with better fire control as well.

The index - looking at "effect" - is really only seeing weight of shell - not hit probability.

Also - you are not being fair to the index. You need to compare ship for ship to see what is happening - rating wise. Comparing task forces not essentially identical is not going to work out if you expect similar ratings.

For the forces engaged, the battle results are reasonable. If the aircrews were fresh. There is nothing wrong with the values in the indexes either except a desire they should be similar.

A scientist does not care about the data emotionally - although players often do. Data is just data. It is what it is. RHS reformed the data to use the same standards for both sides. Effect is supposed to be weight of shell - and it is - or it is 2/4 of that for AP shell. We don't pick the shell weights - the real navies did. But just thinking about shell weight is silly - it does not tell you much about damage done. How many hit???? For AAA - how many hit airplanes?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I served in real Navy CICs, so I think in terms of operational concepts. I write like I would talk to a CIC controller or ships captain. One is supposed to be candid. I play like I would fight - except in a test situation.

Since yours was a test situation, it is valid to try anything. I only meant a player should expect these results in that sort of situation.

I don't follow the use of overdeveloped. It is probably not the case. When one works out the devices, they are what they are - and relative changes from some previous case matter not. I think you will find USN AAA and gunpower are better than you think - and better than IJN - eventually anyway.

When? Is logic applied here? Do the allies react as quickly as they would have? The weapons causing these massive values are not the wonder weapons and rockets. When they come into the mix the figures must get even more ridiculous. If durability of aircraft was brought down how can it make sense to increase AAA so dramatically?

The Allies would not know about the high performance guns - really - until they were captured. Nor do I believe they would be willing to change ANYTHING when they learned about them: the US in particular was ruthless about keeping production up. Allied policy was to use adequate weapons in great numbers. And the Allied focus on radar, tactical fire direction centers, etc was on the right track.

Another problem is that the US DID have a FAILED set of high performance AA gun programs during WWII: the only one to work out very well was the later 3 inch/50 - and it took until after the war was over to perfect. The 5 inch programs failed so badly even the one that finally made it has today been de-rated to the point it is not used for AAA at all. The 6 inch weapon of the Worcester class may be said to have succeeded in some sense - too late - but it was so expensive the victory was phyrric. The combination of expensive weapons and expensive ships to mount them meant that the Worcester was deemed not cost effective. That very high performance guns were possible was known. They were in development. But we didn't get them to work. In contrast the Japanese 1938 designs were much better concieved. Further, they were variants of each other: the same design team, as many parts in common as possible, the same fire control system, a truly remarkable achievement. And it came to very little with two notable exceptions: the series of AA destroyers and about 100 shore mountings (with ship type fire direction centers) late in the war. The finest AA weapons of the war were not universally adopted - nor adopted at all as soon as they could and should have been. I make the Japanese live with this in the strictly historical CVO and BBO families - because they are saddled with historical choices. In EOS family they begin to change policy late in 1941. In EEO they do so late in 1938. The POINT of EOS family is to show what could have happened with better Japanese management. It is NOT the point to try to balance that better management to produce a more "fair" contest: the contest is in all cases "unfairly" unbalanced in favor of the Allies. We let the Allies react when they would have done that - but not for the sake of fairness - only for the sake of simulating what was likely to happen. In this case, there is no suitable Allied weapon. Or rather the suitable Allied weapons are all in service and all integrating as they ought to - you can't do better than superb.

I am working up a table for all AAA, DP and very heavy weapons to help show their values. So far - starting with low devices - I have all the very heavy weapons - and the Allied ones are far more efficient for their caliber than the Japanese ones are. [It isn't my fault only British 8 inch, French 6 inch and Dutch 5.9 inch very heavies were used: they were better than the Japanese 8 inch, 14 inch, 16 inch or 18 inch - in terms of volume of airspace defended and effect ratings.] I work with the data as it is - and it is inherantly not identical or balanced.

IF there were a change in war policy - it might be possible to put 90mm, 105mm and 120mm guns on ships. Wether or not this would be an advantage I will advise - after seeing how the guns are rated? I will post the table - and upload the spreadsheet.

This process will inevitably detect data errors. The first is that the Naval KS-12 (Soviet) is 16 instead of 160 for effect - the same as its land counterpart was in CHS. I will immediately correct any and all errors on either side - because that is our SOP.

[el cid again]

Tentatively, it looks like the very best AA gun was the British 5.25 inch. This should not be too surprising - it was superb.

Nope: the French 6 inch M1930 rates much better (19 vice 14 for the 5.25 inch and the Japanese 4 inch - which are tied for second place so far).

I am rating AAA by a different method than the Matrix display: I take volume of defended airspace times accuracy -
which yields the chance of a hit per unit time. It does not matter much how big the hit is - and it does not matter at all how big your shell is if you miss! The shell weight (effect) rating system is a horrible misindication of AA potential.

[el cid again]

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Incomplete posting - but some good indicators here:

3. Heavy AA Guns and DP Guns
10 5 in/50 3 Year Type 127 5 27 59.5 51 85 11 32 4055 3 No Yes IJN 5 in/50 3 Year Type
43 85 mm/53 KS-12 85 3.346 9.54 21 21 175 10 30 3142 5 Yes No USSR 85 mm/53 KS-12
45 4.7 in/40 & 50 DP Gun 120 4.7 20.41 45 36 120 11 32 4055 5 No Yes IJN 4.7 in/40 & 50 DP Gun
47 5.25 in/50 Mark I 133 5.25 36.3 80 54 109 16 46.5 12465 14 Yes No RN 5.25 in/50 Mark I
48 5 in/40 Type 88 127 5 23 50.7 51 110 10 30.97 3243 4 No Yes IJN 5 in/40 Type 88
50 & 294 3.9 in/55 Type 98 100 3.937 13 28.7 29 180 14 42.65 8754 16 No Yes IJN 3.9 in/55 Type 98 On land only in EEO (although on land IRL)
51 3.9 in/50 Type 88 100 3.937 13 28.7 29 90 12 36.75 5542 5 No Yes IJN 3.9 in/50 Type 88
52 & 292 3 in/60 Type 98 76.2 3 5.99 13.2 13 188 10 29.85 3126 6 No Yes IJN 3 in/60 Type 98 On land only in EOS family
53 & 292 3 in/40 Type 88 76.2 3 5.99 13.2 13 120 8 23.6 1582 2 No Yes IJN 3 in/40 Type 88 On land only in CVO & BBO families
54 5 in/25 AA Short Gun 127 5 24.43 53.85 54 175 9 27.4 2324 4 Yes No USN 5 in/25 AA Short Gun
55 5 in/38 Mark 12 DP Gun 127 5 24.95 55 37 170 12 37.2 5609 10 Yes No USN 5 in/38 Mark 12 DP Gun
56 3 in/50 Mark 10 AA Gun 76.2 3 5.9 13 9 180 10 29.8 3121 6 Yes No USN 3 in/50 Mark 10 AA Gun
58 4.5 in Mk I to IV DP Gun 112.03 4.5 24.95 55 37 120 14 41 8415 10 Yes No RN 4.5 in Mk I to IV DP Gun
59 4 in Mark V DP Gun 101.6 4 14.06 31 21 175 10 31 3246 6 Yes No RN 4 in Mark V DP Gun
60 4 in Mark XVI DP Gun 101.6 4 15.88 35 23 120 13 39 6902 8 Yes No RN 4 in Mark XVI DP Gun
61 5 in/54 Mark 16 DP Gun 127 5 31.75 70 47 150 17 51 15434 23 Yes No USN 5 in/54 Mark 16 DP Gun
62 3.9 in/45 M1930 AA Gun 100 3.937 14.9 32.96 22 100 11 32.28 4090 4 Yes Yes FFN, VFN 3.9 in/45 M1930 AA Gun
63 3.5 in/50 M1926 AA Gun 90 3.543 18 39.7 26 100 12 34.8 5248 5 Yes Yes FFN, VFN 3.5 in/50 M1926 AA Gun
64 3 in/50 M1922 AA Gun 75 2.95 12 26.5 26 150 11 32.8 4156 6 Yes Yes FFN, VFN 3 in/50 M1922 AA Gun
65 & 276 4.7 in/45 Type 10 120 4.724 20.41 45 45 110 11 32.8 4156 5 No Yes IJN 4.7 in/45 Type 10





4. Very Heavy AA Guns and DP Guns
1 18.1 in/45 84 Year Type 460 18.11 1460 3219 2147 19 46 12 26590 5 No Yes IJN 18.1 in/45 84 Year Type
2 16.1 in/45 3 Year Type 410 16.14 1020 2249 1500 28 42 11 20319 6 No Yes IJN, IJA 16.1 in/45 3 Year Type
3 14 in/45 41 Year Type 355.6 14 673.5 1485 990 20 39 10 15927 3 No Yes IJN 14 in/45 41 Year Type
4 8 in/50 3 Year Type 203.2 8 125.85 277.45 185 30 32 8 8578 3 No Yes IJN, IJA 8 in/50 3 Year Type
28 8 in/50 3 Mark VIII 203.2 8 116.1 256 172 55 31 26 26165 14 Yes No RN 8 in/50 3 Mark VIII
41 6 in/55 M1930 152.4 6 54.17 119.4 80 85 26.4 30 21895 19 Yes No FFN 6 in/55 M1930
44 5.9 in/50 Quick Firing 149.1 5.9 46.7 103 69 40 21.3 21.3 10119 4 Yes No RNN 5.9 in/50 Quick Firing

Device Name Caliber: Shell Weight Effect Accuracy Range Ceiling Volume AAA Allied Axis Service Device Name Notes
milimeters inches kg lbs Rating

Note 1: Except for Very Heavy DP guns, RHS AA gun range is ceiling divided by 3000, rounded to the nearest whole number.
Note 2: WITP Range is in thousands of yards.
Note 3: WITP ceiling is in thousands of feet. RHS uses effective ceiling rather than absolute ceiling.
Note 4: RHS uses effect = shell weight for HE and AA fragmentation type shells, but 2/3 of shell weight for all guns which have AP or SAP shells.
This is mainly for use in surface battles. For AA combat, larger effect values are probably meaningless: they will kill the target regardless.
The question that matters is: can the target be hit? The RHS AAA value scales the answer to this question objectively.
Note 5: RAN, RIN, RNZN, Commonwealth navies and RTN often use RN weapons.
Note 6: RTN often uses IJN weapons.
Note 7: Late war Soviet vessels often use USN weapons.


The last digit before the No or Yes is the RHS AAA index - the volume of airspace times accuracy. The highest rating so far is 19 for a French 6 inch Very Heavy DP gun. The lowest is 2 for a Japanese obsolete 3 inch. The second highest rating is a 3 way tie between the British 5.25 inch, the Japanese new 100 mm, and the British 8 inch cruiser Very Heavy DP gun - all at 14. Good guns have a rating of 10 - and include the US 5 inch 38 and the RN 4.5 inch Marks I to IV. Note the old Japanese 5 inch 50 destroyer gun is badly rated - at 3 - as it should be.


On revision, I found a typo in my spreadsheet misrated the superb Japanese 100 mm - it should be a 16. But the record now goes to the late war (and disliked) USN 5 inch 54 - at 23! I served with two derivitives of this weapon - a later 5 inch 54 firing the same shell to the same range and altitude but at a whopping 42 rounds per minute: it was down more than it was up and in the end got de-rated. The 23 shows it was indeed an attempt at super high performance, and this never works out as well as reasonable performance. Similarly, the second place French 6 inch, with 19, was also considered a technical failure even before WWII began. Using oversimplified systems in games, it is hard to show this sort of thing.

Note also that other factors should be in the AA effectiveness value - notably training and elevation speeds - but they are not in this system.