USN strike losses were not pretty either in '42.ORIGINAL: jeffs
Hi Pax,
Historically....The good, even great IJN pilots got through and scored hits....But the died by the bushel via. In some of the 1942 battles, strike losses ran to 40% for the IJN. Those are nasty numbers.
early 44, pounding the japs and WHAT?
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
RE: early 44, pounding the japs and WHAT?
Pax
RE: early 44, pounding the japs and WHAT?
+1ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Jeffs, Pax and me are trying to explain exactly why a post like yours is by far
not enough to jump any conclusions.
...
For a true confirmation whether ther is an issue someone would have to recreate an more or less exact
historical tactical situation covering all above questions (e.g. one of those 40% loss strikes)
and run it again and again.
Then compare the average to the historical result and see if its similar.
If it isn´t and the historical situation can be viewed as representative you have an argumental
basis for a discussion.
This is not critisism. I just want to point out why anybody who wants to optimise the game as close
to historical as possible cannot rely on opinions to do it. If he did he had a high chance to
reduce historical accuracy isntead of increasing it.
Well stated. Thanks.
Pax
RE: early 44, pounding the japs and WHAT?
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Just as a reminder: AAA may be a bit weak, but I am far from convinced it is.
What I think is just what it is: An opinion based on forum comments, the fact that DaBabes
increased AAA strenght (since there are really a nice bunch of brains behind
DaBabes this has probably the most weight), and a stomach feel.
This would never be enough for me to enter a discussion and selling my opinion
as a confirmed fault of the game. [;)]
The DBB adjustments to AAA was a recalculation of all the relative AAA values (for ships at least, I'm not certain if he did land-based?) based on physical parameters. I believe it was the IJ 25mm that was used as a value of "1" for each parameter and the other guns were calculated based on their relationships to that 25mm. For example, if a gun had 2x the bursting charge, etc. From there, you could adjust all the (ship board) AAA up or down but keep the relationships between them correct.
So I agree this approach carries the most weight. And IIRC they ran numerous tests both before and afterwards that showed the lethality of (ship board) AAA increased, but the numbers were still nothing like the 40% that are cited above. I think a key difference in the game is that the IJ players are more adept at maintaining higher quality pilots, which certainly makes a difference.
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home
RE: early 44, pounding the japs and WHAT?
witpqs, just as I thought, theres brains behind DaBabes. [:D] Thanks for the details!
RE: early 44, pounding the japs and WHAT?
ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Just as a reminder: AAA may be a bit weak, but I am far from convinced it is.
What I think is just what it is: An opinion based on forum comments, the fact that DaBabes
increased AAA strenght (since there are really a nice bunch of brains behind
DaBabes this has probably the most weight), and a stomach feel.
This would never be enough for me to enter a discussion and selling my opinion
as a confirmed fault of the game. [;)]
The DBB adjustments to AAA was a recalculation of all the relative AAA values (for ships at least, I'm not certain if he did land-based?) based on physical parameters. I believe it was the IJ 25mm that was used as a value of "1" for each parameter and the other guns were calculated based on their relationships to that 25mm. For example, if a gun had 2x the bursting charge, etc. From there, you could adjust all the (ship board) AAA up or down but keep the relationships between them correct.
So I agree this approach carries the most weight. And IIRC they ran numerous tests both before and afterwards that showed the lethality of (ship board) AAA increased, but the numbers were still nothing like the 40% that are cited above. I think a key difference in the game is that the IJ players are more adept at maintaining higher quality pilots, which certainly makes a difference.
I only keep a watching brief on the mod subforum and consequently I am not fully across all the details. But I thought JWE said that ultimately there is a limit to what can be done with ship AA because of the DP guns. As these guns have to both participate in gunfire and flak, there is a basic coding problem. This affects the Allies more because of the prevalence of the 5/38 DP gun.
Alfred
RE: early 44, pounding the japs and WHAT?
ORIGINAL: Alfred
I only keep a watching brief on the mod subforum and consequently I am not fully across all the details. But I thought JWE said that ultimately there is a limit to what can be done with ship AA because of the DP guns. As these guns have to both participate in gunfire and flak, there is a basic coding problem. This affects the Allies more because of the prevalence of the 5/38 DP gun.
Alfred
True. I think also one effect was in ammo allowance. If brought up to be a 'good' level for modeling the AA, then too much would be provided for anti-ship given the way the combat model works.
So many things that were wanting to be modified with the AE project, so little resources! Splitting out the AA from anti-surface ratings and ammo was something they said they wanted to do for AE, but just couldn't.
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home
RE: early 44, pounding the japs and WHAT?
But this, IMO, is only an annoyance. It would not affect AA per se, only how long before you have to re-arm. I haven't seen a comment stating "my AA fell apart because my DP guns ran out of ammo". The comments are "it doesn't work right" or "it doesn't kill enough IJ fast enough".ORIGINAL: Alfred
ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Just as a reminder: AAA may be a bit weak, but I am far from convinced it is.
What I think is just what it is: An opinion based on forum comments, the fact that DaBabes
increased AAA strenght (since there are really a nice bunch of brains behind
DaBabes this has probably the most weight), and a stomach feel.
This would never be enough for me to enter a discussion and selling my opinion
as a confirmed fault of the game. [;)]
The DBB adjustments to AAA was a recalculation of all the relative AAA values (for ships at least, I'm not certain if he did land-based?) based on physical parameters. I believe it was the IJ 25mm that was used as a value of "1" for each parameter and the other guns were calculated based on their relationships to that 25mm. For example, if a gun had 2x the bursting charge, etc. From there, you could adjust all the (ship board) AAA up or down but keep the relationships between them correct.
So I agree this approach carries the most weight. And IIRC they ran numerous tests both before and afterwards that showed the lethality of (ship board) AAA increased, but the numbers were still nothing like the 40% that are cited above. I think a key difference in the game is that the IJ players are more adept at maintaining higher quality pilots, which certainly makes a difference.
I only keep a watching brief on the mod subforum and consequently I am not fully across all the details. But I thought JWE said that ultimately there is a limit to what can be done with ship AA because of the DP guns. As these guns have to both participate in gunfire and flak, there is a basic coding problem. This affects the Allies more because of the prevalence of the 5/38 DP gun.
Alfred
I'm watching the Da Babes AAR's to see the newly balanced AA effect in battles there. So far, nothing to note that I have seen. Obviously, if it works, that data will be incorporated in future mods. I certainly think their premise (baseline = IJ 25mm) to be a very sound one. As that was used almost exclusively by one side, normalizing to those values is highly appropriate. You just wish you could set it as a variable so as you test you could shift entire effects by changing only one value. This would allow you to "zero" in quickly. Oh well... [;)]
Pax
RE: early 44, pounding the japs and WHAT?
ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
But this, IMO, is only an annoyance. It would not affect AA per se, only how long before you have to re-arm. I haven't seen a comment stating "my AA fell apart because my DP guns ran out of ammo". The comments are "it doesn't work right" or "it doesn't kill enough IJ fast enough".
I'm watching the Da Babes AAR's to see the newly balanced AA effect in battles there. So far, nothing to note that I have seen. Obviously, if it works, that data will be incorporated in future mods. I certainly think their premise (baseline = IJ 25mm) to be a very sound one. As that was used almost exclusively by one side, normalizing to those values is highly appropriate. You just wish you could set it as a variable so as you test you could shift entire effects by changing only one value. This would allow you to "zero" in quickly. Oh well... [;)]
This is basically what John did. He has it in spreadsheets outside the scenario files, though.
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home
RE: early 44, pounding the japs and WHAT?
ok, part 2
I am raiding Singapore after bombing it for a few week... I have two groups of cvs loaded with mostly trained.. a couple of ill trained groups snuck into the mix
last time, well generated this thread and I hopefully have learned my lesson to not bite off tooo much, and respect IJN 44 air!
I am hoping to get several dozen ships that are there plus several BB and a ca group!
Singapore is now the front lines so my fleets are not too exposed.. we will see as my turn comes back this morning
I am raiding Singapore after bombing it for a few week... I have two groups of cvs loaded with mostly trained.. a couple of ill trained groups snuck into the mix
last time, well generated this thread and I hopefully have learned my lesson to not bite off tooo much, and respect IJN 44 air!
I am hoping to get several dozen ships that are there plus several BB and a ca group!
Singapore is now the front lines so my fleets are not too exposed.. we will see as my turn comes back this morning
"Tanks forward"
RE: early 44, pounding the japs and WHAT?
well, not to make this an aar..
here is what happened in part two.. to date
Large raids have limited jap air to under 40 fighters at Sing.. although this low number my air failed its coordination not all planes flew... It was a 10 hex raid againstthe port ...
I avoided his cv counter attack by playing the sir robin card, "run away" the next two nights I ran strong bombard fleets in to close the airfield, allong with more daylight air raids... so now Singapore airfield is closed, allowing me to punish the few remaining merchies..
I sunk a few merchies, maybe 20 or 30, but missed the prizes, all those surfase assets...
So I cannot get to invasion sights around Sing.. as he has a strong local force of cv... and ca bb groups... and the area is back to the slow grind as opposed to the quick multifleet invasion with overwhelming forces... which is what I would like...
the good.. Sing will get pounbded into dust by my airpower.... other possitives, I know he has multiple cv groups nearby, usefull info...
unfortunately I am not ready to risk cv 2 cv atacks under his aircover and he has other bases in Indo china that are allowing him greater freedom...
will post the next cv 2 cv action in 44
all those prior to the last one from late 42 saw a mostly one sided allied growing supperiority....
I cannot imagine what this will look like with Kamis
here is what happened in part two.. to date
Large raids have limited jap air to under 40 fighters at Sing.. although this low number my air failed its coordination not all planes flew... It was a 10 hex raid againstthe port ...
I avoided his cv counter attack by playing the sir robin card, "run away" the next two nights I ran strong bombard fleets in to close the airfield, allong with more daylight air raids... so now Singapore airfield is closed, allowing me to punish the few remaining merchies..
I sunk a few merchies, maybe 20 or 30, but missed the prizes, all those surfase assets...
So I cannot get to invasion sights around Sing.. as he has a strong local force of cv... and ca bb groups... and the area is back to the slow grind as opposed to the quick multifleet invasion with overwhelming forces... which is what I would like...
the good.. Sing will get pounbded into dust by my airpower.... other possitives, I know he has multiple cv groups nearby, usefull info...
unfortunately I am not ready to risk cv 2 cv atacks under his aircover and he has other bases in Indo china that are allowing him greater freedom...
will post the next cv 2 cv action in 44
all those prior to the last one from late 42 saw a mostly one sided allied growing supperiority....
I cannot imagine what this will look like with Kamis
"Tanks forward"
RE: early 44, pounding the japs and WHAT?
Seriously people, is there anyone here willing to put together a test with a 1942 US CVBG, a 1943 US CVBG and a 1944 CVBG, with upgraded ships, against the same air foes and without cap, and see how they fare?
My opinion about Allied naval AA right now is not particularly positive, seriously. Even though I am on the bright side of my carrier battles right now in my SOPAC pbem, I still have more carrier planes that fell to Japanese naval AA than the opposite... I would be very interested in a statistical approach of the issue right now, because, with all due respect, post November 1942 naval AAA was more than a mere "stomach feel" for Japanese pilots, especially if you read their accounts from Santa Cruz. And that was before proximity fuses and double-stacked Bofors everywhere.
My opinion about Allied naval AA right now is not particularly positive, seriously. Even though I am on the bright side of my carrier battles right now in my SOPAC pbem, I still have more carrier planes that fell to Japanese naval AA than the opposite... I would be very interested in a statistical approach of the issue right now, because, with all due respect, post November 1942 naval AAA was more than a mere "stomach feel" for Japanese pilots, especially if you read their accounts from Santa Cruz. And that was before proximity fuses and double-stacked Bofors everywhere.
RE: early 44, pounding the japs and WHAT?
As for historical info (and it is not perfect) from Frank`s Guadalcanal...
Battle of Santa Cruz..
IJN First strike on hornet
Type Losses Total planes in strike
zero 5 12
Val 17 21
Kate 16 20
He is not clear on how much was CAP vs AA but it was clear at least half the Japanese bombers were in on the attack unmolested. Also the US planes (while a fairly numerous 37) were caught in a bad position and tangled with the zeroes protecting the flight.
So an educated guess would be at least half the losses on bombers was due to flak (feel free to argue...I am going on what info I have)
On the first attack on Enterprise... 10 out of 19 vals were felled by flak with another 2 forced to ditch before regaining their ship(but probably the pilots survived)
Then an attack by 16 kates lost 9 planes with 1 more forced to ditch, though it seems that around half were nailed by CAP
the next attack by 17 vals lost 11 in total (3 ditched). The bulk, if not all of the losses were due to flak. The south dokata apparently was
very effective.
Then an attack on the immobile Hornet (and it lost a CLAA defending due to a misunderstood order) was attacked by 7 kates and 8 zeroes as cover. No US planes in the area
2 kates and zeroes got whacked and another 3 zeroes would be forced to ditch.
Did every strike take this amount of damage from AA.
No..Reading about Coral sea it seems an attack by 14 kates lost 4 planes to Cap and 4 to AA
But a further attack by 33 vals seems to have lost only a few (hard to get an exact number but probably 3-5) to flak damage.
Of the Original 69 planes in the attack 46 made it back but 12 were damage beyond repair and thrown away.
But I think an honest look at the data shows pretty much what I said
> In some of the 1942 battles, strike losses ran to 40% for the IJN. Those are nasty numbers.
Battle of Santa Cruz..
IJN First strike on hornet
Type Losses Total planes in strike
zero 5 12
Val 17 21
Kate 16 20
He is not clear on how much was CAP vs AA but it was clear at least half the Japanese bombers were in on the attack unmolested. Also the US planes (while a fairly numerous 37) were caught in a bad position and tangled with the zeroes protecting the flight.
So an educated guess would be at least half the losses on bombers was due to flak (feel free to argue...I am going on what info I have)
On the first attack on Enterprise... 10 out of 19 vals were felled by flak with another 2 forced to ditch before regaining their ship(but probably the pilots survived)
Then an attack by 16 kates lost 9 planes with 1 more forced to ditch, though it seems that around half were nailed by CAP
the next attack by 17 vals lost 11 in total (3 ditched). The bulk, if not all of the losses were due to flak. The south dokata apparently was
very effective.
Then an attack on the immobile Hornet (and it lost a CLAA defending due to a misunderstood order) was attacked by 7 kates and 8 zeroes as cover. No US planes in the area
2 kates and zeroes got whacked and another 3 zeroes would be forced to ditch.
Did every strike take this amount of damage from AA.
No..Reading about Coral sea it seems an attack by 14 kates lost 4 planes to Cap and 4 to AA
But a further attack by 33 vals seems to have lost only a few (hard to get an exact number but probably 3-5) to flak damage.
Of the Original 69 planes in the attack 46 made it back but 12 were damage beyond repair and thrown away.
But I think an honest look at the data shows pretty much what I said
> In some of the 1942 battles, strike losses ran to 40% for the IJN. Those are nasty numbers.
To quote from Evans/Peattie`s {Kaigun}
"Mistakes in operations and tactics can be corrected, but
political and strategic mistakes live forever". The authors were refering to Japan but the same could be said of the US misadventure in Iraq
"Mistakes in operations and tactics can be corrected, but
political and strategic mistakes live forever". The authors were refering to Japan but the same could be said of the US misadventure in Iraq
RE: early 44, pounding the japs and WHAT?
In a CV battle of mine (PBEM) I had
72 Zero
166 B5N
125 D3A
Against 2 x 10-ship TFs including 3 CVs.
My losses were 26 x B5N (7 or 8 to CAP), 8 D3A (all to AAA) and 2 Zeroes (CAP). That is, out of attack aircraft, 26 destroyed + about 30 damaged to AAA, 9% destroyed, ~20% hit, by very early war AAA(unupdated CVs, of the 17 escort ships, 6 were CAs and 1 CL). Cant really comment on US losses against Jap flak, as only 12 planes got through(many already damaged), and 8 of them went after BBs(that did shoot down 3 or 4 Devastators, other ships damaged a few more). Any way that is just a single example, and one where the Japanese attack pretty much overwhelmed the US CAP and the ships with most AAA were neutralized or sunk after only about 60%-ish of attacks... The engagement distance was 3 hex.
EDIT: altitudes were 15kft for D3As and standard 9kft for B5Ns.
72 Zero
166 B5N
125 D3A
Against 2 x 10-ship TFs including 3 CVs.
My losses were 26 x B5N (7 or 8 to CAP), 8 D3A (all to AAA) and 2 Zeroes (CAP). That is, out of attack aircraft, 26 destroyed + about 30 damaged to AAA, 9% destroyed, ~20% hit, by very early war AAA(unupdated CVs, of the 17 escort ships, 6 were CAs and 1 CL). Cant really comment on US losses against Jap flak, as only 12 planes got through(many already damaged), and 8 of them went after BBs(that did shoot down 3 or 4 Devastators, other ships damaged a few more). Any way that is just a single example, and one where the Japanese attack pretty much overwhelmed the US CAP and the ships with most AAA were neutralized or sunk after only about 60%-ish of attacks... The engagement distance was 3 hex.
EDIT: altitudes were 15kft for D3As and standard 9kft for B5Ns.
RE: early 44, pounding the japs and WHAT?
and part three maybe comming up, three large stacks of cv cvl and cve groups with heavy AA numbers, and if he stays to thwart my invasion of maly I may get a multi base multi cv group attack on the ilusive remaining jap carriers... my issue is not just my poor performance after great showing in 43, but his unbelievable performance against good cap and aa .. so its 44 march and I await the results.. if he stays our carriers should be super close, if he flees well.. I do not expect this ..
BUT
I do have multiple bases in range with heavies nd I totally feel great about doing some anti shipping attacks high low and in the middle alts..
anyone want to guess how things will go..
I will post here today the results
BUT
I do have multiple bases in range with heavies nd I totally feel great about doing some anti shipping attacks high low and in the middle alts..
anyone want to guess how things will go..
I will post here today the results
"Tanks forward"
RE: early 44, pounding the japs and WHAT?
ok
well, it was interesting as he did not charge in to destroy my fleets, nor hold place, as a result in the air he SLAUGHTERED the land based air, although he noted that every strike squeked at least one plane through..
the night raiders got in some hits... although a bb group missed sinking several carriers at 3k!! WHAT??? this is stranger than fiction.. oh wait it is fiction
My cv groups sit by and watch mostly db and tb groups get ravaged.. my carriers dont react and he kills one BB and a a cl.. to lossing some fighters and one cvl and some other ships scraqtched included a cv or two.. wow... seriously dissappointing.
But the critical 44 cap and aa over my cv groups was not tested.. so no results for the ? at hand regarding 44 jap air power vs cap and aa over fleets!!!
I had 800 planes not fly against him.. for variuos reasons!
well, it was interesting as he did not charge in to destroy my fleets, nor hold place, as a result in the air he SLAUGHTERED the land based air, although he noted that every strike squeked at least one plane through..
the night raiders got in some hits... although a bb group missed sinking several carriers at 3k!! WHAT??? this is stranger than fiction.. oh wait it is fiction
My cv groups sit by and watch mostly db and tb groups get ravaged.. my carriers dont react and he kills one BB and a a cl.. to lossing some fighters and one cvl and some other ships scraqtched included a cv or two.. wow... seriously dissappointing.
But the critical 44 cap and aa over my cv groups was not tested.. so no results for the ? at hand regarding 44 jap air power vs cap and aa over fleets!!!
I had 800 planes not fly against him.. for variuos reasons!
"Tanks forward"
RE: early 44, pounding the japs and WHAT?
and the winner is???
ok.. evedently I cannot upload images humm
well here is the tally
168 zeros escorting
61 jills and
95 judys
intercepted by346 f3 f5 corsair and other fighters
turkey shoot right?
nope
he lost
1 fighter destroyed
16 dive bomers destroyed and
10 tbd
a few where damaged
I lost 2 fighters
what??????????????????
to say this is odd is an understatement
AND
seriusly!
weather must have been awefull right?
NOPE
partly cloudy..
So on a partly clpoudy day my fleet get within wet pecker distance of his.. and we each launch wave after wave..
and my fighters cannot find and shoot down japaneese planes? really ? is there some new code?
HE was unlucky in his 8 torpedo hits and his 19 bomb hits... no cv sunk.. but really? is there anyone anywhere will to venture as to why we are seeign such borked results in 44?
ok.. evedently I cannot upload images humm
well here is the tally
168 zeros escorting
61 jills and
95 judys
intercepted by346 f3 f5 corsair and other fighters
turkey shoot right?
nope
he lost
1 fighter destroyed
16 dive bomers destroyed and
10 tbd
a few where damaged
I lost 2 fighters
what??????????????????
to say this is odd is an understatement
AND
seriusly!
weather must have been awefull right?
NOPE
partly cloudy..
So on a partly clpoudy day my fleet get within wet pecker distance of his.. and we each launch wave after wave..
and my fighters cannot find and shoot down japaneese planes? really ? is there some new code?
HE was unlucky in his 8 torpedo hits and his 19 bomb hits... no cv sunk.. but really? is there anyone anywhere will to venture as to why we are seeign such borked results in 44?
"Tanks forward"
RE: early 44, pounding the japs and WHAT?
anyone else besides the two of us think this is really off?
hello?
hello?
"Tanks forward"
RE: early 44, pounding the japs and WHAT?
ok.. lets try again to upload
- Attachments
-
- aaa.jpg (61.39 KiB) Viewed 311 times
"Tanks forward"
RE: early 44, pounding the japs and WHAT?
ORIGINAL: freeboy
anyone else besides the two of us think this is really off?
hello?
I've once lost 95 % of KB's bombers in a one carrier battle in 1942, so I don't think it's really off... [8|]