Sweep Atitude (not a rant)

[vettim89]

I know there is a lot of angst about high altitude sweeps. At this point, I think we just have to accept it as it is and plan accordingly. Some judicious HR help too.

That said, I was wondering if there are those that know why the typical combat altitudes in the RL PTO were not anywhere near what we see in game. I always figured the ETO combat was at high altitude because that is where the USAAF heavy bombers flew. Ergo, the fighters had to be able to perform well at those altitudes. So the bombers drove what the fighters did and needed to be able to do.

For the most part the PTO was fought much lower. Is some of that because, with the exception of the USAAF heavies which were not present in large numbers until late in the war, most bombers used in the PTO had lower ceilings?

I think the other thing we see in game is that aircraft are for the most part given the ceilings that the buliders specs indicated. I am not denying that those numbers are accurate just that they were not the true effective altitude a lot of these aircraft could operate at. I think Combat Ceiling is a much better number. One resource I read defines this as the altitude where an aircraft can still achieve a 500 ft/minute climb rate (at least for fighters). Of note if you use that value, the F4F-4 has a combat ceiling of about 25,000 ft. That number is in line with a post that was made here a while back that quoted a RL Wildcat pilot saying the plane was basically unmaneuverable above that height. I would love to see this implemented into AE but unfortunately this kind of data is basically non-existant for Japanese aircraft.

Thoughts anyone?

[Sardaukar]

Yes, that is true.

I think it was me who quoted R. Haberman (from Fire in the Sky, Marine F4F pilot in Guadalcanal) that "nothing could get the bird go higher, not Jesus, not you". [8D] (25k ft).

I think combat should be very restricted at altitides over 75-80% of service ceiling. Like R. Haberman said, near max. service ceiling, it was very easy to stall and every time you did turn, you could lose 1000ft of altitude.

Maybe we should edit MVR ratings to be 1 in upper 25% altitude band or something.

[oldman45]

Remember that the P-400's had no O2 for the pilots so they could not go over 10k

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Yes, that is true.

I think it was me who quoted R. Haberman (from Fire in the Sky, Marine F4F pilot in Guadalcanal) that "nothing could get the bird go higher, not Jesus, not you". [8D] (25k ft).

I think combat should be very restricted at altitides over 75-80% of service ceiling. Like R. Haberman said, near max. service ceiling, it was very easy to stall and every time you did turn, you could lose 1000ft of altitude.

Maybe we should edit MVR ratings to be 1 in upper 25% altitude band or something.

Well that was what I was getting at ultimately. Perhaps some minor tinkering with the DB might solve the problem outright. I think most early war aircraft with single stage superchargers had a problem above 25 k . Then the dual stage units came only to be replaced by multstage units. I don't think this would be hard to put into the game if some one had the resources to extract the data.

[Walloc]

Playing devils advocate.
If as some suggest that its the dive and not altitude in it self that matters. Unless all have the same max celling it wont matter any thing. Who ever have the highest service celling would if the above is correct come out on top any how. As they per default get the dive. Assuming u max ur altitude, just now ceiling altitude instead of max altitude. Sure it will force combats down, but if there is a difference in max service ceiling for the different planes and it indeed is the dive that gives the bonus. I dont see the suggestion making much of a difference.
Or rather the "endless" dives, which seems to be the norm if u ask Caster troy.[;)]

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Walloc

Playing devils advocate.
If as some suggest that its the dive and not altitude in it self that matters. Unless all have the same max celling it wont matter any thing. Who ever have the highest service celling would if the above is correct come out on top any how. As they per default get the dive. Assuming u max ur altitude, just now ceiling altitude instead of max altitude. Sure it will force combats down, but if there is a difference in max service ceiling for the different planes and it indeed is the dive that gives the bonus. I dont see the suggestion making much of a difference.
Or rather the "endless" dives, which seems to be the norm if u ask Caster troy.[;)]

Kind regards,

Rasmus

Perhaps not. If A6M2's are diving on P-39's that would be accurate. If A6M2's are diving on P-38's that would not be accurate. Right now, it seems like every fighter in the game has a ceiling in the 30k or above range. I think the Nate has one of 38k IIRC. What I am sayign is that if there were a little more variance taking into account combat ceiling it would spread out the combat over a variety of ranges. Also altitude would naturally climb as the war progressed

[witpqs]

The altitude messages displayed in the game are abstractions anyway (as is all of it) - so isn't it the results that matter. How close are the results of the combats to simulating the differences between the planes and the pilots and the coast-watching and the radar and the doctrine etc., etc.

I say "Let 'em fly high."

YMMV

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The altitude messages displayed in the game are abstractions anyway (as is all of it) - so isn't it the results that matter. How close are the results of the combats to simulating the differences between the planes and the pilots and the coast-watching and the radar and the doctrine etc., etc.

I say "Let 'em fly high."

YMMV

I did not want this to be another Sputnik Sweep Rant. I was not necessary attacking the game as is (my initial statement should reflect that). Instead I asked two questions: why did PTO combat occur at relatively lower altitudes when compared to the ETO? The second was would the use of a Combat Ceiling make a difference in game.

The topic is not on the validity of Sputnik Sweeps but about why things were they way they were to which no one has yet replied. As an adjunct to that would be that the use of design ceiling vs combat or operational ceiling may at least contribute to what we see in game

[witpqs]

OK, sorry for being too far off topic.

As I recall from readings, they did sometimes initiate combat very high and sometimes it went very high. But it was more about having a relative advantage. Diving on an opponent from 15K above him might be less useful than diving on him from 3K above him, the key point being to shoot him before he sees you. The secondary point that he evades but you have advantage for the ensuing dogfight or disengagement (your choice) or re-climb and make another dive.

So, even if a sweep went in at 30,000 ft over an enemy base, the combat might begin at 15,000 and be all up and down from there.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

OK, sorry for being too far off topic.

As I recall from readings, they did sometimes initiate combat very high and sometimes it went very high. But it was more about having a relative advantage. Diving on an opponent from 15K above him might be less useful than diving on him from 3K above him, the key point being to shoot him before he sees you. The secondary point that he evades but you have advantage for the ensuing dogfight or disengagement (your choice) or re-climb and make another dive.

So, even if a sweep went in at 30,000 ft over an enemy base, the combat might begin at 15,000 and be all up and down from there.

True and it did have a tendency to slowly spiral downward as the combat progressed. From Baa Baa Black Sheep, Boyington ended up on the deck when he finally got shot down. Don't recall his starting altitude but I suspect it was much higher (likely over 20k)

[crsutton]

Well, limiting planes to an effective combat ceiling is one solution, but really the problem as I see it is the height advantage and the dive. That is what is driving players up to the stratosphere. There shoud be at times a dive bonus but it should be limited and linked to surprise. Otherwise players should be rewarded for operating planes at their optimum altitude.

Not sure if it will get fixed or not. It is probably more complicated than it seems and sometimes a "fix" just opens up another problem. My opponent and I have limted height to 29,000 feet. Kind of boring as we always are fighting at 29,000 feet. But it has returned some normalcy to air combat and the air to air losses are no longer weighted to the plane that can go higher.

[spartanwarrior]

They flew lower in the PTO because they were not bombing big cities and industry (until japan). thus, the altitudes were lower to be able to see the targets. The targets were often smaller as well and likely related to be ports or shipping more than ground targets, which were largely hidden under jungle canopy. Thus, the use of twin engine bombers and attack bombers more than 4E's as seen in ETO. That all changed once japan started to be bombed. Another reason that high altitude didnt work in the PTO was that the jetstream was so strong as to throw off bomb and bomber accuracy. It wasnt until LeMay dropped the altitude below 20K altitude that the 29's were able to hit anything.

[JeffroK]

Getting a little side tracked, from the works of Joe Baugher
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p39_5.html
AFDU Comments:
The Airacobra I was powered by an Allison V-1710-E4 twelve-cylinder V in-line engine rated at 1150 hp for takeoff. Weights were 5462 pounds empty and 7845 pounds normal gross. Maximum speeds were 326 mph at 6000 feet, 343 mph at 10,000 feet, 355 mph at 13, 000 feet, 341 mph at 20,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 2040 feet per minute. With an internal fuel capacity of 100 Imp gal the Airacobra had an endurance of 1 hour 20 minutes at maximum continuous cruising speed at 6000 feet, 1 hour 5 minutes at 12,000 feet, and 1 hour 35 minutes at 20,000 feet. The true airspeeds at these altitudes were 287 mph, 327 mph, and 308 mph, respectively. Under most economical cruise conditions, the endurance increased to 3 hours 20 minutes, the relevant speeds being 183 mph at 6000 feet, 217 mph at 12,000 feet, and 215 mph at 20,000 feet. Under maximum continuous climb conditions, it took 15 minutes to reach 20,000 feet. The operational ceiling was considered to be about 24,000 feet, although there was a marked decrease in performance above 20,000 feet. At the Airacobra's rated altitude of 13,000 feet, it was 18 mph faster than the Spitfire VB. However, the speed fell off rapidly above that height, and the two planes were almost exactly matched at 15,000 feet. At 20,000 feet, the Spitfire VB was 35 mph faster and at 24,000 feet it was 55 mph faster. The ground run of the Airacobra during takeoff was 2250 feet, as compared with 1470 feet for the Hurricane II and 1590 feet for the Spitfire V.

BUT, is the "no oxygen" for the P400 a myth.
Could it be that lack of oxygen facilities meant that those of the Cactus Air Force flew without oxygen?
If the same aircraft flew out of Sydney, Pearl or San Francisco it would have oxygen and be capable of the altitudes mentioned above?

[Dobey455]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I know there is a lot of angst about high altitude sweeps. At this point, I think we just have to accept it as it is and plan accordingly. Some judicious HR help too.

That said, I was wondering if there are those that know why the typical combat altitudes in the RL PTO were not anywhere near what we see in game. I always figured the ETO combat was at high altitude because that is where the USAAF heavy bombers flew. Ergo, the fighters had to be able to perform well at those altitudes. So the bombers drove what the fighters did and needed to be able to do.

For the most part the PTO was fought much lower. Is some of that because, with the exception of the USAAF heavies which were not present in large numbers until late in the war, most bombers used in the PTO had lower ceilings?

I think the other thing we see in game is that aircraft are for the most part given the ceilings that the buliders specs indicated. I am not denying that those numbers are accurate just that they were not the true effective altitude a lot of these aircraft could operate at. I think Combat Ceiling is a much better number. One resource I read defines this as the altitude where an aircraft can still achieve a 500 ft/minute climb rate (at least for fighters). Of note if you use that value, the F4F-4 has a combat ceiling of about 25,000 ft. That number is in line with a post that was made here a while back that quoted a RL Wildcat pilot saying the plane was basically unmaneuverable above that height. I would love to see this implemented into AE but unfortunately this kind of data is basically non-existant for Japanese aircraft.

Thoughts anyone?

From a technical point the mechanical limiting reason was that most early fighters in PTO either had no Turbo\Super charger, or a very poor one.
The P-40 didn't, the P-39 didn't, The Buffalo didn't (and even worse the RAF version required the pilot to use one hand to constantly pump a manual fuel pressure pump if they climbed above 14,000'), the Hurricane II had a poor quality single stage one, and in any case the Hurricane itself was obsolescent by Dec '41.
Most of the Japanese early war fightrs are the same. The A6M3 was the first model to be equipt with a 2 stage supercharger, but by then it was facing P-38's, newer Spitfires and early Corsairs so.....

You are ABSOLUTELY right about the combat ceiling being the factor which should be modelled. It might be possible to simulate in game by editing the manouver bands so that at or near the ceiling aircraft have a manouvre rating of 1 or 0 to represent the fact that all they can do at that height is just stay in the air....but I have no idea what results that would produce, or even if it is possible.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Getting a little side tracked, from the works of Joe Baugher
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p39_5.html
AFDU Comments:
The Airacobra I was powered by an Allison V-1710-E4 twelve-cylinder V in-line engine rated at 1150 hp for takeoff. Weights were 5462 pounds empty and 7845 pounds normal gross. Maximum speeds were 326 mph at 6000 feet, 343 mph at 10,000 feet, 355 mph at 13, 000 feet, 341 mph at 20,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 2040 feet per minute. With an internal fuel capacity of 100 Imp gal the Airacobra had an endurance of 1 hour 20 minutes at maximum continuous cruising speed at 6000 feet, 1 hour 5 minutes at 12,000 feet, and 1 hour 35 minutes at 20,000 feet. The true airspeeds at these altitudes were 287 mph, 327 mph, and 308 mph, respectively. Under most economical cruise conditions, the endurance increased to 3 hours 20 minutes, the relevant speeds being 183 mph at 6000 feet, 217 mph at 12,000 feet, and 215 mph at 20,000 feet. Under maximum continuous climb conditions, it took 15 minutes to reach 20,000 feet. The operational ceiling was considered to be about 24,000 feet, although there was a marked decrease in performance above 20,000 feet. At the Airacobra's rated altitude of 13,000 feet, it was 18 mph faster than the Spitfire VB. However, the speed fell off rapidly above that height, and the two planes were almost exactly matched at 15,000 feet. At 20,000 feet, the Spitfire VB was 35 mph faster and at 24,000 feet it was 55 mph faster. The ground run of the Airacobra during takeoff was 2250 feet, as compared with 1470 feet for the Hurricane II and 1590 feet for the Spitfire V.

BUT, is the "no oxygen" for the P400 a myth.
Could it be that lack of oxygen facilities meant that those of the Cactus Air Force flew without oxygen?
If the same aircraft flew out of Sydney, Pearl or San Francisco it would have oxygen and be capable of the altitudes mentioned above?

IIRC, the Cactus P-400's were originally intended to go to the Sovs as Lend-Lease. The critical need for fighters in SoPac in late 1942 cause the USAAF to "repossess" the P-400's. The Sov's didn't care about the O2 because they were going to use them as CAS/tank busters which the aircraft was very well suited.

[JeffroK]

From Baugher as well

By the time this decision was made, production of British-contract Airacobras had reached four a day at Bell's Buffalo plant. The initial contract for 170 planes (RAF serials AH570 thru AH739) had been completed before the end of September, and all but six of these planes had actually been shipped to Britain. However, many of them remained in their crates and were shipped directly to the Soviet Union without being opened. Somewhere between 80 and 100 Airacobras were assembled and flown in Britain by the end of 1941. They were gathered at maintenance units for final modification before being re-crated and shipped to the Soviet Union during 1942. In all, the Soviet Union received 212 of the British Airacobras (some of them shipped direct from the USA), but 49 more were lost at sea en route. No 601 Squadron relinquished its 13 Airacobras in March of 1942 in favor of Spitfires. One Airacobra was fitted with an arrester hook and was used for deck landing trials at the RAE at Farnborough. After Pearl Harbor, the USA found itself in desperate need of aircraft to stem the Japanese onslaught in the Pacific. Consequently, nearly 200 of the British direct-purchase Airacobras still in the USA were promptly requisitioned by the USAAC. Although they were similar to the USAAC's P-39Ds, they were not identical and were known by the USAAC under the non-standard designation of P-400. The P-400 designation had, in fact, been associated with the British Airacobras for contractual purposes as early as August 1941. The USAAC P-400s retained their original British serial numbers and their three-color camouflage paint. Most of these planes were used for training stateside, but some of them were rushed to the Southwest Pacific in an attempt to stem the onrushing Japanese advance. The P-400s also saw some use closer to Britain. 179 of the Airacobras sent to Britain were re-acquired by the USAAF and were sent to North Africa to join the Twelfth Air Force.

[vonTirpitz]

For most of what I have read, both the Japanese and Americans mandated the use of oxygen systems at altitudes at either 10k or 15k. Perhaps it was more difficult to maintain adequately supplied airgroups at forward bases with primitive airfields? If one side or the other were flying without adequate oxygen supplies then it would make sense that the other would drop altitude to engage. Additionally, the temperature drops at higher altitudes had to make for very uncomfortable flights for any duration.

The resulting reliability (or lack thereof) of early heating and oxygen systems and associated gear would, IMHO, make it more preferable to do most of the flying and lower altitudes (especially early in the war).

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Well, limiting planes to an effective combat ceiling is one solution, but really the problem as I see it is the height advantage and the dive. That is what is driving players up to the stratosphere. There shoud be at times a dive bonus but it should be limited and linked to surprise. Otherwise players should be rewarded for operating planes at their optimum altitude.

Not sure if it will get fixed or not. It is probably more complicated than it seems and sometimes a "fix" just opens up another problem. My opponent and I have limted height to 29,000 feet. Kind of boring as we always are fighting at 29,000 feet. But it has returned some normalcy to air combat and the air to air losses are no longer weighted to the plane that can go higher.

Just an FYI regarding that max - many of the Wildcat models max out at 28,300.

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: vonTirpitz

... Additionally, the temperature drops at higher altitudes had to make for very uncomfortable flights for any duration.

The resulting reliability (or lack thereof) of early heating and oxygen systems and associated gear would, IMHO, make it more preferable to do most of the flying and lower altitudes (especially early in the war).

This why despite the tropical conditions, RAAF aircrew were issued with sheepskin lined flying boots. How many pictures have you seen of pilots with arctic boots also wearing SHORTS!!! [X(]

These boots were high demand trade items with American pilots who were expected to wear normal shoes in combat.

The photo below show the pilots of No.30 Squadron RAAF in New Guinea on 28th September 1943.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

ORIGINAL: witpqs

OK, sorry for being too far off topic.

As I recall from readings, they did sometimes initiate combat very high and sometimes it went very high. But it was more about having a relative advantage. Diving on an opponent from 15K above him might be less useful than diving on him from 3K above him, the key point being to shoot him before he sees you. The secondary point that he evades but you have advantage for the ensuing dogfight or disengagement (your choice) or re-climb and make another dive.

So, even if a sweep went in at 30,000 ft over an enemy base, the combat might begin at 15,000 and be all up and down from there.

True and it did have a tendency to slowly spiral downward as the combat progressed. From Baa Baa Black Sheep, Boyington ended up on the deck when he finally got shot down. Don't recall his starting altitude but I suspect it was much higher (likely over 20k)

Most of the quotes about Pacific air war say that whatever altitude the fight starts, they all end up at low level, it's just physics and aerodynamics in work.