Hawker Hurricane IIb Trop

[treespider]

The Hurricane IIB's with the more powerful engine than we'd had at Ouston, but their radios were the old, almost useless, TR9Ds. Also they were equipped with heavy filters on the air intakes. It was a pity that they could not apparently be removed (except in one case of a plywood panel being fitted locally to replace that which in the main carried the filter) as we never got a good performance from our Hurricanes in Singapore.

Another disability of our aircraft in terms of maneuverability was that they were equipped with twelve machine guns instead of eight. Although for marksmen of our caliber a congregation of machine guns was desirable, the extra four guns and their ammunition must have weighed at least half a ton.

The Hurricanes became not only slow, particularly in the climb, but also very heavy and unwieldy to maneuver. However, we were most anxious to get amongst the formations of bombers which flew daily over Singapore....

Shores et al, Bloody Shambles, Vol 1. p. 297

The Hurricane was a unique plane with twelve 7.7mm (.303in) machine guns which caused deadly damage if we were shot from behind. Its diving speed was much faster than the 01 Fighter(Ki-43). Therefore when we fought with hurricanes we attempted to counter its fire power with the better manoeverability of the 01 and tried to hit its radiator, bringing the engine to a stop. Even with the poor fire power (two 12.7mm guns) of the 01, Hurricanes could be shot down merely by a hole in the radiator.

Shores, Air War For Burma, p. 15

In game the Hurricane IIB Trop is rated with the following stats:

Max Speed - 322
MVR- 24
DUR - 29
Armor - 1

I have developed the impression of the Hurricane in game as performing very well - regulalry besting the Ki-43. However from my reading in action it seemed not to be ... competent yes - uber no...I attributed it's in game performance to the armor and guns.

So I decided to compare it to other models such as the F4F-3

Max Speed - 329
MVR - 22
DUR - 29
Armor - 1

Its more maneuverable than the -3 Wildcat and just as durable....which doesn't seem to jive with the quotes from Shores.

Also when I looked at the Ki-43IC- the IIB's likely opponent over Burma - the Ki-43 has a MVR rating of 46 and a slower Max Speed.

IIRC from seeing snippets of code earlier in development there are several places where an aircraft's MVR may be halved...one IIRC is a comparison of speed. So when the KI-43's MVR gets halved during a speed comparison with the Hurricane it is now a 23...less than the IIB's 24.

My proposal, in light of the comments in Shores, is to ding the Hurricanes Durability and MVR by 1 or 2 points each. In addition several web based sources indicate top speed with two 500lb bombs was around 307 ...so perhaps a ding to top speed as well.

Thoughts?

------

While I'm at it I may undertake a review of all of the aircraft and develop some new numbers based on a comparison with another albeit very similar system. I'll let you know what I find.

[JWE]

Memory is the second thing to go, but I seem to recall during development a couple years ago, Ian and Tom were discussing a slight durability reduction for in-line water-cooled engine planes vs a radial - all other things being equal. Don't know how it panned out; how much or how little.

Check with Timtom or Ian. I think they can help in this area.

[witpqs]

Be very careful also when looking at game results that you account for the other factors:

- pilot quality
- squadron leader quality
- external factors such as radar

What I am suggesting is to avoid being mislead if differences you see are actually due to other factors than you are seeking to adjust vs IRL.

[JWE]

Too true.

I think it is quite rational, however, to examine the Dur of in-lines vs the Dur of radials - all other things being equal. Now, airplanes aren't my thing, so take this with a grain of salt, but I would be a touch queasy about tweaking speeds. The data for max and cruise was taken from a single master reference and vetted through several others. The advantage of this is that the different speed calculations were evaluated in the same way for every plane, i.e., consistency in relative values.

I think it impossible to determine cruise speeds for every airplane carrying loads of one form or another. So a unitary cruise speed determination is necessary to avoid the "battle of the references" syndrome. Reducing the speed of the Hurri, with two 500lb bombs, will require a consequent determination of the cruise speed reduction of every single other airplane in game with a similar, corresponding, load out. And that says nothing about the performance of a FB once it jettisons its load and operates as a fighter. All-in-all, don't think speed tweaks are a good thing. But just MHO.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Be very careful also when looking at game results that you account for the other factors:

- pilot quality
- squadron leader quality
- external factors such as radar

What I am suggesting is to avoid being mislead if differences you see are actually due to other factors than you are seeking to adjust vs IRL.

I have witnessed probably as much as several hundreds air combats with Hurricanes throughout 1942, from both sides. And they very consistently outperformed everything else Allies had, until the appearance of Ligthings. I'd also say they actually surpass pre-Tojo Japanese fighters, other factors being comparable. It is just not immediately obvious, because Japanese have serious initial edge in pilots' skill.

[wdolson]

The 12 .303s are probably what give the IIb the big edge.  Most IIbs had the outer pair of .303s removed in each wing giving them only 8 .303s.  The extra weight that far outboard probably affected the maneuverability. 

The game needs to make some compromises on aircraft.  I think Treespider should reduce the guns on the IIb to 8.  It won't reflect the first IIbs in combat, but will reflect the majority in theater.

Bill

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The 12 .303s are probably what give the IIb the big edge.  Most IIbs had the outer pair of .303s removed in each wing giving them only 8 .303s.  The extra weight that far outboard probably affected the maneuverability. 

The game needs to make some compromises on aircraft.  I think Treespider should reduce the guns on the IIb to 8.  It won't reflect the first IIbs in combat, but will reflect the majority in theater.

Bill

I do recall reading that somewhere...about removing the outer set of mg's.

Perhaps introduce two types of IIb's the early arriving variety and the modified variety.

[treespider]

Okie sm' dokie...here goes...did some messing around with some numbers this afternoon...consider this a work in progress that will need testing...this is for DUR.

This is based on formulas used in the Admiralty Trilogy of games, aka Harpoon. In that series of games they give all aircraft a damage value and factor armor into the value.

Their formula includes:

Weight Factor = Function of aircraft weight in KG

Engine factor = Function of # of Engines

Construction factor = effects of structural strength
-Wood & Fabric = .5
-Mixed Metal, Wood, Fabric = .65
-Monocoque Construction, no self sealing tanks = .8
-Monocoque Construction, self sealing tanks = 1

Armor Factor - Entire Aircraft, Pilot tubs don't count
-Normal = 1
-Armored vs 7.62mm+ = 1.1
-Armored vs 12.7mm+ = 1.2

I decided to modify their formula by using cube root of # of engines for my engine factor. I also factor in inline engines by multiply the engine factor by .95 for inline engines.

I then double and round the final product...to arrive at my final DUR.

I also factor the self-sealing tanks out of the current armor equation and aircraft cannon pen values. Essentially an across the board cut in Armor and Pen by 1. Aircraft without self sealing tanks will have less DUR than aircraft with the tanks.

So where does that now get us .... here are some comparisons -

Hurricane IIB Trop
Original
DUR =29
Armor =1

New
DUR =26
Armor =0

A6M2
Original
DUR = 22
Armor = 0

New
Dur =19
Armor = 0

F4F-4
Original
Dur = 29
Armor = 1

New
Dur =28
Arm =0

B-17G
Original
Dur =69
Arm =1

New
Dur =81
Arm =0

G4M2
Original
Dur = 36
Arm = 0

New
Dur = 41
Arm = 0


B-25J
Original
Dur = 42
Arm = 1

New
Dur = 52
Arm = 0

F6F-5
Original
Dur = 32
Arm = 1

New
Dur = 32
Arm = 0

F2A-3
Original
Dur = 28
Arm = 1

New
Dur = 26
Arm = 0

Problem is coming up with empty weight values for all of the different models of aircraft.

Should be interesting to see what happens... Wonder if anyone has a sandbox I can use?

I might throw this in the air-mod version of my scenario....if it proves workable.

[oldman45]

Doesn't current durability also effect maintenance?

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Doesn't current durability also effect maintenance?

I believe it does...

[kfsgo]

ORIGINAL: FatR

I have witnessed probably as much as several hundreds air combats with Hurricanes throughout 1942, from both sides. And they very consistently outperformed everything else Allies had, until the appearance of Ligthings. I'd also say they actually surpass pre-Tojo Japanese fighters, other factors being comparable. It is just not immediately obvious, because Japanese have serious initial edge in pilots' skill.

Maybe, sort of, up to a point?

WARNING: ANECDATA

I've been playing around with some 'blank slate' air fights in a test scenario lately - nothing scientific, just tossing 1000 aircraft at 1000 aircraft, given identical pilots, leaders, altitudes, radar, simple weather etc and seeing what happens. Given that environment, the Mk. I and Mk. IIc variants of the Hurricane do quite badly against the Oscar Ic - I'd expect to lose about 1.25-3 of those Hurricanes per Oscar depending on conditions, with the loss rate shifting in the Hurricane's favour as altitudes increase. The Mk. IIa and IIb Hurricanes by contrast do ok, with the IIb doing better at low altitude (about 1.25:1 in the IIb's favour) and the IIa better at high altitude.

It's a very incomplete data set so far, though - I've just run stuff until someone is down 200 aircraft, so for example 'blank slate' Hurri IIas have pulled off 6.1:1 versus Oscars on sweeps at 30,000ft but 0.79:1 on CAP at 30,000ft; the same numbers at 10,000ft are 1.03:1 and 1.05:1 - ie, who knows what I'll get after running a hundred or so. Obviously there's a whole constellation of factors that can come into play, but there are only so many hours in a day...

I dunno. The only thing I feel really comfortable saying is that the IIc is a significant step down from the IIa or IIb when fighting Oscars or A6M2s, I guess, so...consider stuff in that light?

[treespider]

Is this blank slate scenario available?

[kfsgo]

In the sense that it's just Scenario 13 with a cutdown map area, sure - I'd upload it but it took all of five minutes to make, so it'd probably be quicker to make your own.

e: I'll upload it anyway, hold on
e2: https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1Hrlf ... y=CPvHqZ8P

104 is set up so 5 Japanese groups sweep, 105 set up so 5 Allied groups sweep. Air groups 5980 onwards are the toys, nothing else interesting happens anywhere on the map and a day takes about 15 seconds to process.

[wdolson]

If your tweaking the aircraft, you might want to go over the service ratings again too.  A few aircraft are a bit off.  The formula originally used was the # of engines plus 1 if liquid cooled and higher for some aircraft that had a reputation of being a bear to maintain.  This is correct for most aircraft, but I think that the P-40 should be tweaked downward to 1, it had a reputation of being easily maintained even under the most primitive conditions.  The radiator right under the engine made plumbing much simpler than with most other liquid cooled aircraft.  The P-47 has a service rating of 1, but it had a large and complex turbo system that I believe should raise the service rating to 2.

The P-40 ended up serving the entire war in the Pacific in part because it was so reliable in the field.  It was east to keep squadrons at or near full strength.

Bill

[JeffroK]

I'd be wary of using 1 anecdote to change too much .

Enemy airman are always proud of how good their aircraft was and how only a few bullets would take down the enemy.

The Hurris had a good reputation as a strong aircraft, their problem by early 42 was more their age and poor maintenance. The stats were probably based on being factory fresh and in the cool skies of Britain.

But, I think the Hurri IIB is a bit overrated, maybe taking off a little speed and a little maneuverability and a little durability rather than just alter 1 field.

[Erkki]

Wonder why IId has armor rating of 2 instead of 1 and why IIa is more maneuverable than IIb too. [:)]

edit: I do know some extra armor plates were added, but doubt they would change much IRL especially when compared to other aircraft and their sub versions. Was Hurri IId with some thin extra plates more durable, with its inline engine and oil radiator hanging below the belly, than say a P-47 or F4U? Hardly. [:)]

[Sardaukar]

Not sure if F4F-4 should get armour level reduced. By all accounts I have read, it was very well armoured and durable plane, called "Grumman Ironworks". E.g. Joe Foss said that the plane durability and pilot armour saved him many times.

[treespider]

Ran some tests...using the sandbox provided - thank you kfsgo. Interesting results to ponder...

So what did I do?

kfsgo has five groups set up 3 hexes apart with each group having 200 fighters. AFAIK each has been 50'd out so everything same-same.

For the first set of tests I used stock numbers KI-43-IC vs IIb Trop-

Japanese - I would set one group to sweep at 10k feet and leave the rest stood down
UK - 1 group set to Escort, CAP 100 at 10k feet and the rest stood down

The next day i would switch to the next group in the stack until I had run through five separate combats...there was an interesting hiccup which I will get to later.

Then I switched Allies to sweep and Japan to CAP

So what happened? Even with FOW off the combat report is more or less just a guide of how the battle went losses for both sides were much higher than the reports presumably due to planes not making it back to base.

On average:

KI-43 losses while Sweeping
A2A - 42.8
w/off - 14.2
Total - 57 out of 200
Dam - 8

IIb Trop losses while CAP
A2A - 24.2
w/off - 13.4
Total - 37.6 out of 200
Dam - 15

KI-43 losses while CAP
A2A - 27.6
w/off - 11.4
Total - 39
Dam - 7.4

IIb Trop losses while Sweep
A2A - 22.2
w/off - 8.2
Total - 30.4 out of 200
Dam - 12.2

TOTAL AVERAGE
Ki-43
A2A - 35.2
w/off - 12.8
Total - 48
Dam - 7.7

IIb Trop
A2A - 23.2
w/off - 10.8
Total - 34
Dam - 13.6

For the second round of tests I implemented the DUR, Armor and PEN changes I wanted to look at. These tests demonstrate, to me at least, the effects of PEN and Armor.

In the first round of tests the Hurricanes guns had a PEN 1 vs Armor 0, in the second round it was 0 v 0. In both sets the Oscar's guns had a 1 point advantage in Pen vs Arm, 2 vs 1 then 1 vs 0. The results were a fairly dramatic shift...

On average:

KI-43 losses while Sweeping
A2A - 16.4
w/off - 5.8
Total - 22.2 out of 200
Dam - 14.6

IIb Trop losses while CAP
A2A - 33.6
w/off - 11.8
Total - 35.4 out of 200
Dam - 14.6

KI-43 losses while CAP
A2A - 15.6
w/off - 3.8
Total - 19.4
Dam - 15.8

IIb Trop losses while Sweep
A2A - 21.2
w/off - 9.2
Total - 30.4 out of 200
Dam - 10.4


TOTAL AVERAGE
Ki-43
A2A - 16
w/off - 4.8
Total - 20.8
Dam - 15.2

IIb Trop
A2A - 27.4
w/off - 10.5
Total - 37.9
Dam - 12.5

While the losses incurred by the Hurricane did not dramatically change (11% increase in destroyed planes or 4 per engagement) presumably due to the 3 point (10% drop in DUR); the losses to the Oscar dramatically dropped (57% or 27 per engagement, presumably as a result of the rifle caliber round of the Hurricane now equaling the "armor" of the Oscar.

Average Destroyed Ratios - everything being equal

Un-Modded - 48:34 = 1.4 Ki-43s to 1 IIb Trop
Modded - 20.8:37.9 = 1 Ki-43 to 1.8 IIB Trop

Interesting stuff...not sure if it will make it to a mod near you... but it does demonstrate the leverage of some data points over others.

PS - The Hiccup --- in both runs modded and unmodded the Allies sweep on the 2nd day was delayed for three turns. Every other sweep ran as scheduled.


Might run another series of tests where I leave self-sealing tanks as armor ... and simply recalculate DUR as a function of engines and weight... in that test IIB Trop would have a DUR of 26 vs 29 and arm=1, Ki-43 would be DUR 22 vs 23.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Not sure if F4F-4 should get armour level reduced. By all accounts I have read, it was very well armoured and durable plane, called "Grumman Ironworks".

I guess that depends on how one wants to define armoured plane.

E.g. Joe Foss said that the plane durability and pilot armour saved him many times.

But did it save the plane?[;)]

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Not sure if F4F-4 should get armour level reduced. By all accounts I have read, it was very well armoured and durable plane, called "Grumman Ironworks".

I guess that depends on how one wants to define armoured plane.

E.g. Joe Foss said that the plane durability and pilot armour saved him many times.

But did it save the plane?[;)]

Well..at least cockpit armour was able to deflect quite a lot of "rifle-caliber" fire. [:'(] I'd not set F4F-4 to same level with Oscar or even Zero, armourwise. But just my opinion...maybe we should have larger scale than 0-2 in game, to better reflect the differences.