LRCAP abuse

[borner]

DEB, what is your problem? Your first post in this thread and it already gets personal? Yes, it was a longer than normal post, but in my opinion well thought out, and an attempt to clearly make a point. I can only assume that you do not agree, and therefore the origional post is without merit in your opinion.

[DEB]

Citing any mission in this theatre is difficult, particulary LRCAP. In fact citing much about this theatre is difficult which is why everyone here has a "lively" uninformed disscussion about it.

IMHO if an aircraft can do escort duty to an area it can do LRCAP to that area too ( if they want to ).

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Grow up!

Pot, Kettle, Black!!

Try siting one example of the Japanese exploiting the "advantage" of effective LRCAP at 400-500 mile range. The Japanese NEVER made bombardment runs on PM covered by LRCAP from Rabaul because they simply couldn't!

Bullshit! If they had wanted to do it they could of. PROVE me wrong.

I AM playing the Japs, and I'm playing them in scenario #16 where they have to live with the horrible handicap of NOT having the Midway carriers. I REFUSE to play the Japs in Japanese Fan Boy Wet Drean scebarios like #17. I don't want a cakewalk. I want to have to work for a victory. Try slinging mud at a target you can actually make it stick to you miscrant.

In my experience those who complain at advantages / disadvantages for a particular side are usually bad losers. If the cap fits wear it , if not ignore it. It's miscreant by the way. Wrongdoer, is THAT an insult!

[Kingfisher]

Escort and LRCAP are worlds apart in terms of mission requirements.

The former only asks the fighters to loiter long enough to ensure the bombers perform their mission without fighter opposition. Once the bombers execute the entire package is free to go home. Since most bombing runs last at most several minutes, maybe 15 tops if the bombers are strung out, the fighters do not have to worry about pilot fatigue or excessive fuel consumption.

The latter, on the other hand, requires a presence over a given target for an extended period of time. Now you have to factor in not only distance to the target, but flight time to and from, required number of planes on station at any given time, allowances for combat and/or operational loss, etc.

To say an airframe can fly X, therefore it should be able to perform Y at X, is not taking into consideration what is required to perform Y.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: borner

DEB, what is your problem? Your first post in this thread and it already gets personal? Yes, it was a longer than normal post, but in my opinion well thought out, and an attempt to clearly make a point. I can only assume that you do not agree, and therefore the origional post is without merit in your opinion.

My problem is that HansBolter has declared "open season" on me, I will therefore respond whereever & whenever he posts as I feel fit.
His post in WitP on the same vein is much much shorter and even shows he is uncertain as to the correctness of his views. Something similar here would have been better received ( by me at least ). Given the range of the Zero ( see WitP thread post ) your presumption of my view is correct.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: Kingfisher

Escort and LRCAP are worlds apart in terms of mission requirements.

The former only asks the fighters to loiter long enough to ensure the bombers perform their mission without fighter opposition. Once the bombers execute the entire package is free to go home. Since most bombing runs last at most several minutes, maybe 15 tops if the bombers are strung out, the fighters do not have to worry about pilot fatigue or excessive fuel consumption.

The latter, on the other hand, requires a presence over a given target for an extended period of time. Now you have to factor in not only distance to the target, but flight time to and from, required number of planes on station at any given time, allowances for combat and/or operational loss, etc.

To say an airframe can fly X, therefore it should be able to perform Y at X, is not taking into consideration what is required to perform Y.

Well stated comment. However, see my post on the same subject in the WitP forum ( started by HansBolter ). Zero's can cover 500- 600 miles and still have 33%-25% flying time left. That's proberly as high a % as most Allied planes flying LRCAP at shorter distances. The Zero's disadvantage ( 42/43) was its lack of armour and self sealing fuel tanks, but never it's range. In fact the lack of armour weight almost certainly contributed to that range.

[Ike99]

From the manual-

The message that LR CAP (long range CAP) is intercepting means some CAP was approaching, while some returned to base and the group is engaging with less effectiveness than if it were all together. The message that the group area CAP is intercepting means that the CAP was spread out over a goodly area and is engaging, like LR CAP, piecemeal.

[DEB]

And your point is?

[Kingfisher]

I've seen the post at WitP. All your figures prove is the Zero had the range to reach the target, which is not in dispute. It does nothing to address the practicality of flying the mission. I bolded the word in order to emphasis this is what needs to be discussed. Simply citing maximum range is not enough. Otherwise I could just as easily say the B17's range was over 1,000 miles with payload, therefore I see no problem conducting bombing runs from SE England to the Ukraine.

Back to what I was saying, once you consider all the factors and variables that affect the mission you begin to see it really was not practical for the Japanese to conduct LRCAP to targets 500 miles away.

As an example, assume a 24-plane Zero squadron based in Rabaul is ordered to provide LRCAP for a target 500 miles away. Using your best case figure of 33% for 'time on target' as a baseline, this means the planes are spending 66% flying to and from. Lets assume an hour heading to, hour for ToT, hour heading home. Also assume the accepted coverage is 6 planes at any given time.

In order to achieve this you'll need to have a 6-plane echelon taking off every hour.

1st echelon takes off at 8am, ToT at 9am, leaves for home at 10am
2nd echelon takes off at 9am, ToT at 10am, leaves for home at 11am
and so on...

By noon you would have burned thru an entire squadron just flying back and forth. This does not take into account possible enemy opposition, or bad weather, or any of the other factors that could affect the mission.

[Ike99]

And your point is?

My point is just a few planes of a fighter group on LRCAP is protecting a target so it is easy to get the 1-2 fighter ratio for bombers to launch.

As an example, assume a 24-plane Zero squadron based in Rabaul is ordered to provide LRCAP for a target 500 miles away. Using your best case figure of 33% for 'time on target' as a baseline, this means the planes are spending 66% flying to and from. Lets assume an hour heading to, hour for ToT, hour heading home. Also assume the accepted coverage is 6 planes at any given time.

In order to achieve this you'll need to have a 6-plane echelon taking off every hour.

1st echelon takes off at 8am, ToT at 9am, leaves for home at 10am
2nd echelon takes off at 9am, ToT at 10am, leaves for home at 11am
and so on...

By noon you would have burned thru an entire squadron just flying back and forth. This does not take into account possible enemy opposition, or bad weather, or any of the other factors that could affect the mission.

What you just typed says it is possible to fly a 500 mile LRCAP in Zeros. Because it wasn´t actually done is irrelevant.

It does nothing to address the practicality of flying the mission.

I agree, it doesn´t seem practical at all. I don´t think it is practical in the game either. As Miller mentioned previously your ops losses will be very high and I´m sure the pilot fatigue just after one turn will be very high too. I do not think you will have a LRCAP flying at all after 2 turns because of fatigue.

But because a person does what is possible to do but not practical doesn´t mean it is a design error.

[Ike99]

I think LRCAP doesn´t stop your bombers from launching Hans.

Terminus-However, LRCAP does not in any way prevent any bombers from flying against a TF.

edit-Just did some quick testing of LRCAP, this will definately stop bombers from launching in UV completely if they are not escorted by fighters.

Terminus must be speaking of WITP only.

So, would 2 Zeros on LRCAP over a task force stop 50 B-17s from attacking in real life? No.

So add that to the CF list of things to get corrected.

[fuelli]

As far as I know its mainly the 2E bombers that get stopped by CAP. 4E tend to attack even against heavy Cap. Don´t know about LRCAP

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

I think LRCAP doesn´t stop your bombers from launching Hans.

Terminus-However, LRCAP does not in any way prevent any bombers from flying against a TF.

edit-Just did some quick testing of LRCAP, this will definately stop bombers from launching in UV completely if they are not escorted by fighters.

Terminus must be speaking of WITP only.

So, would 2 Zeros on LRCAP over a task force stop 50 B-17s from attacking in real life? No.

So add that to the CF list of things to get corrected.

Same conclusion I came to over in the thread on the WitP forum.

It isn't so much a question of whether, or not, LRCAP could, be flown at that kind of distance. The important question is whether, or not one squadrons worth of fighters, meaning approximately 4-6 fighters over the TF at any given time, should preclude the literally hundreds of bombers at PM from ever flying at all.

Regardlees of whether, or not, my opponents agree to a house rule, I will unilaterally stop doing it in my games as Japanese and I will also not do it with the P38s in my games as the Allies. Since no one has come up with any real historical data yet to confrim what should be an acceptable range for effective LRCAP and 200 miles has been bandied about on the other forum as a good guess, I'll be limiting my LRCAP to a 7 hex maximum, no matter that plane type.

[Kingfisher]

ORIGINAL: Ike99
What you just typed says it is possible to fly a 500 mile LRCAP in Zeros. Because it wasn´t actually done is irrelevant.

Only in the most ideal of conditions, which really doesn't exists in a war zone. Note the schedule I posted leaves no room for error. The TF commander is relying on the 2nd echelon to arrive at the moment the 1st needs to bolt for home. If they are delayed, or the 1st has to leave sooner for whatever reason, there will be gaps in the coverage.

The worst possible scenario is for an allied raid to arrive right at the seam of two echelons. The first cannot afford to stick around or else they are swiming home, the second will risk using up so much fuel that they will be forced to leave almost immediately after the raid. Now you have almost an hour before coverage begins again.

[Ike99]

Only in the most ideal of conditions, which really doesn't exists in a war zone. Note the schedule I posted leaves no room for error. The TF commander is relying on the 2nd echelon to arrive at the moment the 1st needs to bolt for home. If they are delayed, or the 1st has to leave sooner for whatever reason, there will be gaps in the coverage.

The worst possible scenario is for an allied raid to arrive right at the seam of two echelons. The first cannot afford to stick around or else they are swiming home, the second will risk using up so much fuel that they will be forced to leave almost immediately after the raid. Now you have almost an hour before coverage begins again.

I don´t think it is a question if it is possible really for Zeros to be able to keep a rotating CAP of 2 planes over a Task Force at 500 miles.

They had the range. How effective that CAP would be is the problem. In real life it would be close to nothing. Certainly it would not stop bombers from attacking as in UV.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: DEB

ORIGINAL: borner

DEB, what is your problem? Your first post in this thread and it already gets personal? Yes, it was a longer than normal post, but in my opinion well thought out, and an attempt to clearly make a point. I can only assume that you do not agree, and therefore the origional post is without merit in your opinion.

My problem is that HansBolter has declared "open season" on me,

He hasn't declared open season on you....he has declared you nonexistent........it's called the Green Button.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

And your point is?

My point is just a few planes of a fighter group on LRCAP is protecting a target so it is easy to get the 1-2 fighter ratio for bombers to launch.

Ok. Fair enough. ( Apologies if my comment came across abrasive )

But because a person does what is possible to do but not practical doesn´t mean it is a design error.
[/quote]

This was pointed out re the Japanese night-time Air OPS also ( where we agreed the same thing ), sadly others are blind to this line of thought.

[DEB]

Everyone exsists, even a low life like you. And I know you will see this
( and any other posts I send you ) because the Green Button does not block the emails that appear in your ISP web broswer email inbox.

Try discussing the question/s in hand, via the points made; and ceasing your vitriolic remarks towards me.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


It isn't so much a question of whether, or not, LRCAP could, be flown at that kind of distance. The important question is whether, or not one squadrons worth of fighters, meaning approximately 4-6 fighters over the TF at any given time, should preclude the literally hundreds of bombers at PM from ever flying at all.

I'll certainly agree with that.

Regardlees of whether, or not, my opponents agree to a house rule, I will unilaterally stop doing it in my games as Japanese and I will also not do it with the P38s in my games as the Allies. Since no one has come up with any real historical data yet to confrim what should be an acceptable range for effective LRCAP and 200 miles has been bandied about on the other forum as a good guess, I'll be limiting my LRCAP to a 7 hex maximum, no matter that plane type.

That's what my mum would have called " cutting off your nose to spite your face"; but if you feel so strongly about it why not. Personally, if I felt as you do, I would just insist on making it a house rule.

You should take a look at the information I posted in the WitP forum.
IF the 200 mile figure is based on the Battle of Britain Aircraft, then it is either too large OR ( if correct ), then considering the CAP times I have quoted, the LRCAP for the Zero at 400-500 miles is perfectly reasonable.