Speed matters?

[Historiker]

Just some thoughts:

How high is the chance, that a fighter with a maxspeed of 300 can intercept a bomber with 400? I guess it's quite low, no?
But how often do planes fly with max speed - especially heavy bombers in tight formations? Moreover, don't most bombers get intercepted when they fly with cruise speed in direction of the target?
If you agree with me and while witp only allowes interceptions over the targets, shouldn't we think about the speeds od bombers to allow even slower fighters to intercept them, which they did?

[el cid again]

While it seems WITP "only allows interceptions over targets" - this isn't correct. Rarely it will let you intercept in a different hex - or so it was alleged during the radar threads/debates.

Anti-Air Warfare is/was my military specialty, and in particular Fleet Air Defense (although I got to do it ashore once in an emergency).

In general, the chance of interception depends first of all on detection. Before WWII this was pretty much always done visually (sound detectors being the only other technology, and that only for use on the ground). Radar complicates the picture, particularly the radar we have in the game: ground/sea based search radar - which can be used to vector fighters. Something that is absent - but which Japan pioneered and developed to a highly successful art - was use of recon planes in numbers to spot enemy bomber formations and vector the fighters real time: the limiting factor was fuel for the fighters - if they could fly they had a 100% chance of intercepting large raids. [Probably not 100% statistically, but 100% in fact, as they never went up and failed to intercept when using this methodology]

Back to basics: neglecting radar warning - or ground vectoring using data from spotters or sound detectors -
it comes down to "do the fighters see the bombers first or do the bombers see the fighters first?" Whoever sees the other guy first has the initiative - the option to engage or evade - and it works 90% of the time - in all situations - in all eras - both offensively and defensively. There is also a third case - "do they both see each other at the same time?" In which case it is more complicated. That is the "normal" case in WITP and most people's thinking - and what all the "interception routines" are meant to address. It is, IRL, only a minority case. However, because bombers must close a target, and that target can be known or guessed, a lot of the time it is moot: the bombers are going to close even if they spot the fighters first. But the point is this: what is critical is not speed, but initiative. If you never are spotted because you spotted first and got out of sight - or even didn't get out of sight but got such a great range/speed/altitude advantage you could not be intercepted - you get to refuse battle.

Another factor is hinted at in your question: a plane NOT aware of the enemy is at cruising speed. But a plane aware of the enemy goes to something approaching full speed. So the nature of the interception problem is also dependent on wether or not the bombers are aware of the interceptors, even if they would choose to close and engage anyway. Detection is always critical - usually decisive - and the difference between experienced and well trained crews and green ones. Experienced combat fliers are always paranoid and scanning for the enemy. And in this area the Japanese had an advantage never understood, never taught, and never used by the Allies - or anyone else: they could spot farther away because they trained how to focus eyes on infinity - and practiced on first magnitude stars in daylight. "When a plane is first visible, it is no brighter than a star in the daytime. If you cannot see a star in the daytime, and the enemy can, he can see you first. And vice versa." There is no WITP coding to reflect this advantage, but there should be - and no WWII PTO simulation which is historically accurate lacks it.

The interception problem depends on four things: speed, rate of climb, range and altitude. An interceptor starting on the ground has a big disadvantage: its speed and altitude are zero. Combat Air Patrol is different: it is at cruising speed, and it is at altitude - often higher than the raid it wants to intercept. It can trade altitude for speed to some extent - and use gravity to help it accelerate - not just engine power. A plane on the ground must use the engine and FIGHT gravity all the way. This means that CAP is much more likely to intercept than interceptors are. On the other hand, you must rotate CAP - and you can never have 100% of your planes on CAP for very long. But you can have 100% of your fighters intercept (although not as easily as you might think: pilots get tired and no plane can stand ready 24/7 without eventual maintenance issues).

The chance of interception is less as range and altitude increase. On the other hand, if the interceptors are located on or near the target, the bombers are closing the range at least. It breaks down into three general cases:

1) The target is closing (headed here)

2) The target is crossing (headed somewhere else)

3) The target it opening (trying to avoid interception)

IF the raid is high enough, and opening, it is virtually impossible to intercept. Incerceptors using full out engine power have very little range. Fighters also usually get rid of drop tanks immediately in order to gain speed and maneuverability - so no boost from them either.

IF the raid is high and crossing, interception is difficult, but rarely occurs.

IF the raid is closing, it hardly matters what the speeds are - the sum of the two force speeds is the closing rate and there is going to be at least a brief battle - unless the fighters cannot reach the correct altitude or make a mistake.

ONLY IF there is an interception does speed really matter. THEN it matters tactically - along with other factors - and in general more speed is better. Similarly rate of climb, dive speed, maneuverability, and firepower all matter in tactical air combat. But it is only once air combat is engaged that speed becomes truly critical. Speed helps a plane intercept or avoid interception - but ONLY if it is aware of the enemy. When the plane is fat dumb and happy, anything can intercept it - even a non-fighter on occasion. IF you spot the enemy at a distance you almost always can escape - even if he does see you - and certainly if he does not see you. Practical interception is not done at great ranges, in the absense of long range, ground/sea based air search radar - and even then it is difficult, rare and exceptional vs an aircraft that does not wish to fight. Only the target that wants to close and do whatever he is out to do (take pictures, drop bombs, or even decieve you into sending fighters at the wrong target) is "easy" to intercept - because HE is closing the range for you.

[Historiker]

Just consider a raid in Germany:
The bombers are starting at London and are heading for Schweinfurt. The first Interceptions begin already over the channel or at least after entering occupied Europe. While the bombers go on, new fighters start for their interception from Belgium, the Rhinelands and then from airbases in Frankonia. When the bombers have released their load, the fighters have refuled meanwhile and are awaiting the bombers on their way home and at night there where even some NF over the British bases to destroy enemy bombers while landing.
When we take the Ju-88 NF version, it has a topspeed of 300-310 mp/h and the bomber may have one of 350. Usually an interception would be very difficult as the Ju-88 has to have an altitude advantege to speed up while diving - or it has to attack from the front (which seems to be nearly impossible at night).
But while the bombers have to stay in formation at night and have a long journey to go, they can't go it at max speed all the time, even just over the target is difficult with lager formations. But the NF/Intercepte can intercept with max-speed, as it only awayts the bomber on it's route (if detected, he's guided to the right place etc.). So IRL a Ju-88 may do a good job intercepting the teoretically faster bombers because the fly only with cruise speed - let's say with 270-280 mp/h.

In witp one can only intercept at the target hex - or at least I've never had it the other way. So when you claim that to be not correct, it happens so rarley that it can be neglected. In this case, the "underway" interception must be calculated, too - and as it isn't possible to invent it because of the code, it must enter the game in modified speed, wouldn't you agree?

[el cid again]

Apparently it happens more later in the war, when there is more likely to be good radar, and when the fighters are better. I too thought there were no out of hex interceptions - and posted it - and got corrected by experienced players.

It is, however, nothing like as common as it should be - in that both Japanese services were able to intercept at great ranges. They used a "patrol line" concept - putting up a continuous line of fighters from Kyushu to Central Honshu - and putting recon planes out at distances of hundreds of km - permitting raid detection, continuous tracking, altitude measurement - and organizing of "interception parties" (sections of the patrol line). When this was done - there was never an instance the line failed to engage - and even B-29s were not immune to being shot down. B-29 pilots who were so shot down said the opposition was "professional."

[Historiker]

Changing the speed of dayfighters might unblance the game to much, but shouldn't the usual "en route" interceptions take part at least in the speed calculations of NFs?

[el cid again]

Actually, speed is used. It is posted by a programmer somewhere - sometimes cruising speed is used - other times full speed - it depends on the tactical situation.