Air attack effectiveness

[mustang191]

No, four were active in the Western Pacific. 11 served in Korea. You explicitly stated five served in Korea.

That's fine, I made a typo.

[SunlitZelkova]

It doesn't need that many. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MUgluYZRsPU

Your source is actual Vietnamese propaganda. Do you have a better one?

The USAF claimed 80% of phantoms were lost by ground fire, the rest by SAM and Migs. Ground fire of any kind was by far the biggest killer. Whether it's rifles or bigger versions of rifles is immaterial.

In reality aircraft have a hard deck of ten thousand feet, loitering below that is truly instant death.

But as for long range sams, advanced high altitude systems and so forth I'm fine with the game modeling them. Any effective use of unguided weapons is mostly impossible given the altitude required. This is why there are no statistics on tanks bombed in Ww2 or anything, it isn't possible.

This is incorrect. There were no guided air-to-ground munitions in Korea.

However, available scholarship on the subject (Edwards 2010: 85, 87) reinforces the central role of CAS in the air war (accounting for approximately 15% of all UN sorties) and provides CAS as assisting in stabilizing UNC lines during critical points. The steady withdrawal to the Pusan Perimeter in July/August 1950 and the maintenance of the same was greatly assisted by CAS aircraft. During the Pusan fight, CAS is credited with inflicting equal enemy casualties as ground assets while destroying nearly three-quarters of DPRK mobile equipment and artillery [Emphasis added]. Likewise, during the Battle of the Chosin Reservoir, CAS is credited for 50% of CCF casualties. While CAS aircraft provided critical tactical support to ground forces, proximity to enemy infantry and air defenses negatively affected loss statistics.

https://dpaa-mil.sites.crmforce.mil/dpa ... AirBattles

The UN flew 1,040,708 sorties during the war. So about 156,000 or so were CAS. With unguided rockets (HVAR or Tiny Tim) or dumb bombs.

Most of the aircraft flying these were F-84s. 249 of those were lost in combat while 86,408 sorties were flown. If I am doing my math correctly, for every 347 missions flown 1 aircraft was lost.

The F-84s did not abort or attack “easy” targets 346 times. Most were against infantry. Because of the massed nature of communist infantry tactics at the time, there would have been plenty of PPSh sub machine guns to open fire. Yet the loss rate is low.

This would indicate CAS overall had a low loss rate, while using unguided weapons like rockets and bombs.

PPSh fire rate is 1250 RPM or so. AK-47 is 600 RPM. This doesn’t take into account heating and what not.

How can you claim automatic weapons should have a super high anti-air kill rate when this doesn’t appear to be the case based on the Korean War?

Thank you for the example.

First you have to consider what a sortie means. Not all sorties actually happened. Consider that 635,000 tons of bombs were dropped in Korea and there were 20,000 b 29 sorties with 10 ton payload. Thus the attack sorties dropped around 400,000 tons. B 26 were used in a interdiction role ("easy targets" like civilians and trains). 60,000 sorties with two tons. 280,000 tons left and a million sorties.

A saber carries two mk 65s. Thus only 1/3 of the sorties max carried bombs. That's about 50,000 of the CAS sorties. Note there were also HVAR sorties, which have the same tonnage, 16 50 lb rockets. I'm guessing those are included.

Furthermore some sorties abort or are against easy targets. On September 23rd, after the Inchon landings, many British died of friendly fire. "Easy targets" means the several percent of casualties due to friendly fire which are worse for CAS aircraft with no real way to identify multi national forces.

In the high case all the 50,000 CAS sorties were real, in the low case 5,000 of them had a useful outcome. Chosin was a human wave attack thus an "easy target". Thousands of allied aircraft were lost or damaged and its plausible the majority of CAS sorties were either friendly fire or killed quickly. For the f 84s you're excluding the damaged planes, which would be several times higher, excluding the friendly fire, and again due to the bomb tonnage not all the sorties can be real.

Can you actually provide a source for these aborted sorties and friendly fire incidents? These numbers are coming from nowhere right now.

You haven’t answered my question. I am not talking about F-86s. The data with F-84s shows that CAS was effective. How can you claim it isn’t? Especially when you have only provided interpretations of random numbers with no sources?

It should be noted that working out “successful” sorties based on payload tonnage for the F-84 isn’t going to work. The F-84E and F-84G could carry a variety of payload and may very well have been underloaded to improve take off characteristics at times, so without scouring the documents for every single sortie we won’t know.

If you want to bring up an error you see in the game, that is fine. But you have to have sources. Your math may be sound but you have not provided a source for all of these “aborted sorties” and “friendly fire incidents”. You need to have that if you are going to suggest the devs modify the game some how.

Going on to some other errors you have made-

"It doesn't matter the loss reason because they would die anyway. Obviously if a SAM hits them first, but they would die of rifles anyway, the SAM gets the kills. Same as the Arab Israeli wars were Egypt got zero air kills because all the sams killed everything immediately.

It's like saying if you get hit by a truck and die, you would never die of a car. No, the truck got you first, you would die anyway. The important conflicts are stuff like indochina were only rifles were available. Wikipedia claims zero losses which is absurd and obviously a omission."

What? There were 0 SAMs in Korea. So you didn't know that? The only threats to CAS aircraft was ground fire. Migs were a threat for only a very short time. A number of A-1s were lost to shoulder-fired SAMs in Vietnam. I'm not even sure what you are talking about.

I'm just saying you're ignoring damage. Japan took two losses attacking repulse and 30 damaged. Warthogs weren't used in Serbia because they all died in the gulf war. Warthogs flew 2,000 sorties in Afghanistan which is ten planes a sortie a day.

The planes you mentioned were all totally destroyed after the war and never used again. The loss rate was effectively 100% you're just not counting damage.

This is incorrect. The planes in Korea were retired according to a planned schedule, and they were not “completely retired”- they were sent to ANG units or reserve status.

Some, like the AD-4 Skyraider, actually did continue serving throughout the 1950’s.

In either the F9F book or the F4U book, the USN stated that 10% of combat aircraft were lost as total write offs. That includes accidents, damage, and shoot downs. It was 750 or so to non-combat accidents and over 300 to combat-related effects. Thats either lost in the air or on return with enough damage to be a total write off. You can do the math.

The write offs were a lot more than that. Consider that all the "recon planes" and such were combat planes no longer able to work.

This is incorrect. All reconnaissance aircraft were dedicated recon variants at the time. Recon conversions were rare at the time.

No they weren't.

The wild weasels were the planes they didn't care about it and let the enemy shoot at. All trainers, recons, drones etc are the damaged planes they don't want.

The navy had 20k planes and 200k sorties, that's ten sorties per plane. There were five fleet carriers in Korea because everything died against japan.

No they did not.

At the outbreak of the Korean War in the summer of 1950, the Navy had seven attack carriers, four light carriers and four escort carriers in commission.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... yment-1950

The US lost 0 fleet carriers to Japan after 1942 and did not suffer massive aircraft losses against Japan. Japanese anti-aircraft guns were notoriously outdated and or had poor performance. The fleet was decreased after World War II due to budgetary reasons.

266k sorties

On average their planes died after ten sorties. The Corsair, panther etc were retired after Korea as they were all damaged.

They were retired because they were outdated against swept wing jets.

Or do you have a source to prove your statement?

The wild weasels were the planes they didn't care about it and let the enemy shoot at. All trainers, recons, drones etc are the damaged planes they don't want.

The navy had 20k planes and 200k sorties, that's ten sorties per plane. There were five fleet carriers in Korea because everything died against japan.

That's not what a wild weasel is. The concept never even came about until 1965.

You're trying to disagree with me, but not managing to.

But he is correct. A Wild Weasel is a strike aircraft with a dedicated SEAD mission, not “planes they didn’t want” flying into air defences.

[SunlitZelkova]

*did not suffer massive aircraft losses against Japan in the latter stage of the war

[mustang191]

Your source is actual Vietnamese propaganda. Do you have a better one?

The USAF claimed 80% of phantoms were lost by ground fire, the rest by SAM and Migs. Ground fire of any kind was by far the biggest killer. Whether it's rifles or bigger versions of rifles is immaterial.

This is incorrect. There were no guided air-to-ground munitions in Korea.



https://dpaa-mil.sites.crmforce.mil/dpa ... AirBattles

The UN flew 1,040,708 sorties during the war. So about 156,000 or so were CAS. With unguided rockets (HVAR or Tiny Tim) or dumb bombs.

Most of the aircraft flying these were F-84s. 249 of those were lost in combat while 86,408 sorties were flown. If I am doing my math correctly, for every 347 missions flown 1 aircraft was lost.

The F-84s did not abort or attack “easy” targets 346 times. Most were against infantry. Because of the massed nature of communist infantry tactics at the time, there would have been plenty of PPSh sub machine guns to open fire. Yet the loss rate is low.

This would indicate CAS overall had a low loss rate, while using unguided weapons like rockets and bombs.

PPSh fire rate is 1250 RPM or so. AK-47 is 600 RPM. This doesn’t take into account heating and what not.

How can you claim automatic weapons should have a super high anti-air kill rate when this doesn’t appear to be the case based on the Korean War?

Thank you for the example.

First you have to consider what a sortie means. Not all sorties actually happened. Consider that 635,000 tons of bombs were dropped in Korea and there were 20,000 b 29 sorties with 10 ton payload. Thus the attack sorties dropped around 400,000 tons. B 26 were used in a interdiction role ("easy targets" like civilians and trains). 60,000 sorties with two tons. 280,000 tons left and a million sorties.

A saber carries two mk 65s. Thus only 1/3 of the sorties max carried bombs. That's about 50,000 of the CAS sorties. Note there were also HVAR sorties, which have the same tonnage, 16 50 lb rockets. I'm guessing those are included.

Furthermore some sorties abort or are against easy targets. On September 23rd, after the Inchon landings, many British died of friendly fire. "Easy targets" means the several percent of casualties due to friendly fire which are worse for CAS aircraft with no real way to identify multi national forces.

In the high case all the 50,000 CAS sorties were real, in the low case 5,000 of them had a useful outcome. Chosin was a human wave attack thus an "easy target". Thousands of allied aircraft were lost or damaged and its plausible the majority of CAS sorties were either friendly fire or killed quickly. For the f 84s you're excluding the damaged planes, which would be several times higher, excluding the friendly fire, and again due to the bomb tonnage not all the sorties can be real.

Can you actually provide a source for these aborted sorties and friendly fire incidents? These numbers are coming from nowhere right now.

You haven’t answered my question. I am not talking about F-86s. The data with F-84s shows that CAS was effective. How can you claim it isn’t? Especially when you have only provided interpretations of random numbers with no sources?

It should be noted that working out “successful” sorties based on payload tonnage for the F-84 isn’t going to work. The F-84E and F-84G could carry a variety of payload and may very well have been underloaded to improve take off characteristics at times, so without scouring the documents for every single sortie we won’t know.

If you want to bring up an error you see in the game, that is fine. But you have to have sources. Your math may be sound but you have not provided a source for all of these “aborted sorties” and “friendly fire incidents”. You need to have that if you are going to suggest the devs modify the game some how.

Going on to some other errors you have made-

"It doesn't matter the loss reason because they would die anyway. Obviously if a SAM hits them first, but they would die of rifles anyway, the SAM gets the kills. Same as the Arab Israeli wars were Egypt got zero air kills because all the sams killed everything immediately.

It's like saying if you get hit by a truck and die, you would never die of a car. No, the truck got you first, you would die anyway. The important conflicts are stuff like indochina were only rifles were available. Wikipedia claims zero losses which is absurd and obviously a omission."

What? There were 0 SAMs in Korea. So you didn't know that? The only threats to CAS aircraft was ground fire. Migs were a threat for only a very short time. A number of A-1s were lost to shoulder-fired SAMs in Vietnam. I'm not even sure what you are talking about.

I'm just saying you're ignoring damage. Japan took two losses attacking repulse and 30 damaged. Warthogs weren't used in Serbia because they all died in the gulf war. Warthogs flew 2,000 sorties in Afghanistan which is ten planes a sortie a day.

The planes you mentioned were all totally destroyed after the war and never used again. The loss rate was effectively 100% you're just not counting damage.

This is incorrect. The planes in Korea were retired according to a planned schedule, and they were not “completely retired”- they were sent to ANG units or reserve status.

Some, like the AD-4 Skyraider, actually did continue serving throughout the 1950’s.

In either the F9F book or the F4U book, the USN stated that 10% of combat aircraft were lost as total write offs. That includes accidents, damage, and shoot downs. It was 750 or so to non-combat accidents and over 300 to combat-related effects. Thats either lost in the air or on return with enough damage to be a total write off. You can do the math.

The write offs were a lot more than that. Consider that all the "recon planes" and such were combat planes no longer able to work.

This is incorrect. All reconnaissance aircraft were dedicated recon variants at the time. Recon conversions were rare at the time.

No they weren't.

The wild weasels were the planes they didn't care about it and let the enemy shoot at. All trainers, recons, drones etc are the damaged planes they don't want.

The navy had 20k planes and 200k sorties, that's ten sorties per plane. There were five fleet carriers in Korea because everything died against japan.

No they did not.

At the outbreak of the Korean War in the summer of 1950, the Navy had seven attack carriers, four light carriers and four escort carriers in commission.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... yment-1950

The US lost 0 fleet carriers to Japan after 1942 and did not suffer massive aircraft losses against Japan. Japanese anti-aircraft guns were notoriously outdated and or had poor performance. The fleet was decreased after World War II due to budgetary reasons.

266k sorties

On average their planes died after ten sorties. The Corsair, panther etc were retired after Korea as they were all damaged.

They were retired because they were outdated against swept wing jets.

Or do you have a source to prove your statement?

That's not what a wild weasel is. The concept never even came about until 1965.

You're trying to disagree with me, but not managing to.

But he is correct. A Wild Weasel is a strike aircraft with a dedicated SEAD mission, not “planes they didn’t want” flying into air defences.

The army did not give any statistics on friendly fire, which means it's bad. Enough said.

[BobTank63]

The army did not give any statistics on friendly fire, which means it's bad. Enough said.

That is the mother of all logic jumps right there. Source?

[mustang191]

The army did not give any statistics on friendly fire, which means it's bad. Enough said.

That is the mother of all logic jumps right there. Source?

There are no stats. Ww2, other wars, there are friendly fire statistics and they're high.

By far the biggest problem is you're ignoring damaged planes. Most planes take huge numbers of hits and basically all are damaged.

[SunlitZelkova]

The USAF claimed 80% of phantoms were lost by ground fire, the rest by SAM and Migs. Ground fire of any kind was by far the biggest killer. Whether it's rifles or bigger versions of rifles is immaterial.



Thank you for the example.

First you have to consider what a sortie means. Not all sorties actually happened. Consider that 635,000 tons of bombs were dropped in Korea and there were 20,000 b 29 sorties with 10 ton payload. Thus the attack sorties dropped around 400,000 tons. B 26 were used in a interdiction role ("easy targets" like civilians and trains). 60,000 sorties with two tons. 280,000 tons left and a million sorties.

A saber carries two mk 65s. Thus only 1/3 of the sorties max carried bombs. That's about 50,000 of the CAS sorties. Note there were also HVAR sorties, which have the same tonnage, 16 50 lb rockets. I'm guessing those are included.

Furthermore some sorties abort or are against easy targets. On September 23rd, after the Inchon landings, many British died of friendly fire. "Easy targets" means the several percent of casualties due to friendly fire which are worse for CAS aircraft with no real way to identify multi national forces.

In the high case all the 50,000 CAS sorties were real, in the low case 5,000 of them had a useful outcome. Chosin was a human wave attack thus an "easy target". Thousands of allied aircraft were lost or damaged and its plausible the majority of CAS sorties were either friendly fire or killed quickly. For the f 84s you're excluding the damaged planes, which would be several times higher, excluding the friendly fire, and again due to the bomb tonnage not all the sorties can be real.

Can you actually provide a source for these aborted sorties and friendly fire incidents? These numbers are coming from nowhere right now.

You haven’t answered my question. I am not talking about F-86s. The data with F-84s shows that CAS was effective. How can you claim it isn’t? Especially when you have only provided interpretations of random numbers with no sources?

It should be noted that working out “successful” sorties based on payload tonnage for the F-84 isn’t going to work. The F-84E and F-84G could carry a variety of payload and may very well have been underloaded to improve take off characteristics at times, so without scouring the documents for every single sortie we won’t know.

If you want to bring up an error you see in the game, that is fine. But you have to have sources. Your math may be sound but you have not provided a source for all of these “aborted sorties” and “friendly fire incidents”. You need to have that if you are going to suggest the devs modify the game some how.

Going on to some other errors you have made-

I'm just saying you're ignoring damage. Japan took two losses attacking repulse and 30 damaged. Warthogs weren't used in Serbia because they all died in the gulf war. Warthogs flew 2,000 sorties in Afghanistan which is ten planes a sortie a day.

The planes you mentioned were all totally destroyed after the war and never used again. The loss rate was effectively 100% you're just not counting damage.

This is incorrect. The planes in Korea were retired according to a planned schedule, and they were not “completely retired”- they were sent to ANG units or reserve status.

Some, like the AD-4 Skyraider, actually did continue serving throughout the 1950’s.

The write offs were a lot more than that. Consider that all the "recon planes" and such were combat planes no longer able to work.

This is incorrect. All reconnaissance aircraft were dedicated recon variants at the time. Recon conversions were rare at the time.

The wild weasels were the planes they didn't care about it and let the enemy shoot at. All trainers, recons, drones etc are the damaged planes they don't want.

The navy had 20k planes and 200k sorties, that's ten sorties per plane. There were five fleet carriers in Korea because everything died against japan.

No they did not.

At the outbreak of the Korean War in the summer of 1950, the Navy had seven attack carriers, four light carriers and four escort carriers in commission.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... yment-1950

The US lost 0 fleet carriers to Japan after 1942 and did not suffer massive aircraft losses against Japan. Japanese anti-aircraft guns were notoriously outdated and or had poor performance. The fleet was decreased after World War II due to budgetary reasons.

On average their planes died after ten sorties. The Corsair, panther etc were retired after Korea as they were all damaged.

They were retired because they were outdated against swept wing jets.

Or do you have a source to prove your statement?

You're trying to disagree with me, but not managing to.

But he is correct. A Wild Weasel is a strike aircraft with a dedicated SEAD mission, not “planes they didn’t want” flying into air defences.

The army did not give any statistics on friendly fire, which means it's bad. Enough said.

That is not the case. There may not be a statistic because of a lack of data.

Actually, I just searched. Here we go-

It appears that amicide [fratricide/friendly fire] incidents account for something less than 2% of all casualties in battle.

Based on a study of World War II, Korea and Vietnam. Page 105

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals ... hrader.pdf

That’s roughly 14,000 casualties in Korea from friendly fire. Total was around 700,000.

CAS could not have flown so many sorties and be responsible for so few friendly fire incidents almost every single time, as you claim.

[mustang191]

Can you actually provide a source for these aborted sorties and friendly fire incidents? These numbers are coming from nowhere right now.

You haven’t answered my question. I am not talking about F-86s. The data with F-84s shows that CAS was effective. How can you claim it isn’t? Especially when you have only provided interpretations of random numbers with no sources?

It should be noted that working out “successful” sorties based on payload tonnage for the F-84 isn’t going to work. The F-84E and F-84G could carry a variety of payload and may very well have been underloaded to improve take off characteristics at times, so without scouring the documents for every single sortie we won’t know.

If you want to bring up an error you see in the game, that is fine. But you have to have sources. Your math may be sound but you have not provided a source for all of these “aborted sorties” and “friendly fire incidents”. You need to have that if you are going to suggest the devs modify the game some how.

Going on to some other errors you have made-



This is incorrect. The planes in Korea were retired according to a planned schedule, and they were not “completely retired”- they were sent to ANG units or reserve status.

Some, like the AD-4 Skyraider, actually did continue serving throughout the 1950’s.



This is incorrect. All reconnaissance aircraft were dedicated recon variants at the time. Recon conversions were rare at the time.



No they did not.



https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... yment-1950

The US lost 0 fleet carriers to Japan after 1942 and did not suffer massive aircraft losses against Japan. Japanese anti-aircraft guns were notoriously outdated and or had poor performance. The fleet was decreased after World War II due to budgetary reasons.



They were retired because they were outdated against swept wing jets.

Or do you have a source to prove your statement?



But he is correct. A Wild Weasel is a strike aircraft with a dedicated SEAD mission, not “planes they didn’t want” flying into air defences.

The army did not give any statistics on friendly fire, which means it's bad. Enough said.

That is not the case. There may not be a statistic because of a lack of data.

Actually, I just searched. Here we go-

It appears that amicide [fratricide/friendly fire] incidents account for something less than 2% of all casualties in battle.

Based on a study of World War II, Korea and Vietnam. Page 105

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals ... hrader.pdf

That’s roughly 14,000 casualties in Korea from friendly fire. Total was around 700,000.

CAS could not have flown so many sorties and be responsible for so few friendly fire incidents almost every single time, as you claim.

Thanks for the source. That source gives air friendly fire for every war except Korea. For Korea it gives artillery friendly fire.

In Vietnam the friendly fire was low, which makes sense as it was mostly bombing jungle.

In Korea something like 100 Brits were killed in a day by bombing. That's a lot, it's like they were intentionally targeting them. I doubt that was the only incident, there were several more recorded. If 10% of the friendly fire is recorded on Wikipedia this comes out to a huge amount.

Also, casualties are the wrong measure of friendly fire, friendly fire can have zero casualties and still be attempted.

[Pygmalion]

Guys, this is a troll. He made his account five minutes before posting this thread and hasn't posted anywhere else.

The absolutely absurd conclusions drawn from conjecture, ludicrous leaps of logic, or nothing at all; the constant moving of goalposts; the consistent declarations that any source presented against him is somehow flawed while simultaneously refusing to post any of his own...it all reeks of the very lowest echelons of internet "discourse." If it's intentional, nothing will come of engaging, and if it isn't...well, there's nothing we can do for him now.

He's going to reply to my comment and complain, but I'm not coming into this thread again.

I'd strongly recommend just walking away and saving your sanity.

[mustang191]

Guys, this is a troll. He made his account five minutes before posting this thread and hasn't posted anywhere else.

The absolutely absurd conclusions drawn from conjecture, ludicrous leaps of logic, or nothing at all; the constant moving of goalposts; the consistent declarations that any source presented against him is somehow flawed while simultaneously refusing to post any of his own...it all reeks of the very lowest echelons of internet "discourse." If it's intentional, nothing will come of engaging, and if it isn't...well, there's nothing we can do for him now.

He's going to reply to my comment and complain, but I'm not coming into this thread again.

I'd strongly recommend just walking away and saving your sanity.

You're obviously a troll, I just gave math.

[SunlitZelkova]

The army did not give any statistics on friendly fire, which means it's bad. Enough said.

That is not the case. There may not be a statistic because of a lack of data.

Actually, I just searched. Here we go-

It appears that amicide [fratricide/friendly fire] incidents account for something less than 2% of all casualties in battle.

Based on a study of World War II, Korea and Vietnam. Page 105

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals ... hrader.pdf

That’s roughly 14,000 casualties in Korea from friendly fire. Total was around 700,000.

CAS could not have flown so many sorties and be responsible for so few friendly fire incidents almost every single time, as you claim.

Thanks for the source. That source gives air friendly fire for every war except Korea. For Korea it gives artillery friendly fire.

In Vietnam the friendly fire was low, which makes sense as it was mostly bombing jungle.

In Korea something like 100 Brits were killed in a day by bombing. That's a lot, it's like they were intentionally targeting them. I doubt that was the only incident, there were several more recorded. If 10% of the friendly fire is recorded on Wikipedia this comes out to a huge amount.

Also, casualties are the wrong measure of friendly fire, friendly fire can have zero casualties and still be attempted.

Page 60

Although much better studied, the evidence for attacks by friendly aircraft on friendly ground troops, like that for artillery amicide, is still incomplete and vague, but does permit some tentative conclusions as to its meaning and the ways in which such incidents might effectively be prevented.

Page XI

While it is possible to discern cases of amicide in individual casualty reports, the composite statistics for World War II, Korea, and Vietnam are of little use for the study of the problem of amicide without a knowledge of how cases of amicide were categorized in each conflict. Even then it is likely that the criteria varied from statistician to statistician at the various reporting levels. This brief study has not produced a magic key. A major investigation of casualty reporting methods would be required to do so.

An extremely detailed historical study of the casualty reporting system used during the Korean War, for example, does not allude to casualties caused by friendly fire.

It is stated here that there is a lack of data. This does not automatically mean friendly fire was as common as you claim.

Where does this 10% number come from?

Again, you have not provided an actual source for your figures. You need to do that if you want a change in the game.

[mustang191]

That is not the case. There may not be a statistic because of a lack of data.

Actually, I just searched. Here we go-



Based on a study of World War II, Korea and Vietnam. Page 105

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals ... hrader.pdf

That’s roughly 14,000 casualties in Korea from friendly fire. Total was around 700,000.

CAS could not have flown so many sorties and be responsible for so few friendly fire incidents almost every single time, as you claim.

Thanks for the source. That source gives air friendly fire for every war except Korea. For Korea it gives artillery friendly fire.

In Vietnam the friendly fire was low, which makes sense as it was mostly bombing jungle.

In Korea something like 100 Brits were killed in a day by bombing. That's a lot, it's like they were intentionally targeting them. I doubt that was the only incident, there were several more recorded. If 10% of the friendly fire is recorded on Wikipedia this comes out to a huge amount.

Also, casualties are the wrong measure of friendly fire, friendly fire can have zero casualties and still be attempted.

Page 60

Although much better studied, the evidence for attacks by friendly aircraft on friendly ground troops, like that for artillery amicide, is still incomplete and vague, but does permit some tentative conclusions as to its meaning and the ways in which such incidents might effectively be prevented.

Page XI

While it is possible to discern cases of amicide in individual casualty reports, the composite statistics for World War II, Korea, and Vietnam are of little use for the study of the problem of amicide without a knowledge of how cases of amicide were categorized in each conflict. Even then it is likely that the criteria varied from statistician to statistician at the various reporting levels. This brief study has not produced a magic key. A major investigation of casualty reporting methods would be required to do so.

An extremely detailed historical study of the casualty reporting system used during the Korean War, for example, does not allude to casualties caused by friendly fire.

It is stated here that there is a lack of data. This does not automatically mean friendly fire was as common as you claim.

Where does this 10% number come from?

Again, you have not provided an actual source for your figures. You need to do that if you want a change in the game.

There's no source, like I said. If you need individual incidents of friendly fire I can cite those.

But those don't even matter. Even if I completely agree with everything you're saying, you're still saying the average navy plane only flew ten sorties before dying or "not being used again".

[SunlitZelkova]

Thanks for the source. That source gives air friendly fire for every war except Korea. For Korea it gives artillery friendly fire.

In Vietnam the friendly fire was low, which makes sense as it was mostly bombing jungle.

In Korea something like 100 Brits were killed in a day by bombing. That's a lot, it's like they were intentionally targeting them. I doubt that was the only incident, there were several more recorded. If 10% of the friendly fire is recorded on Wikipedia this comes out to a huge amount.

Also, casualties are the wrong measure of friendly fire, friendly fire can have zero casualties and still be attempted.

Page 60

Although much better studied, the evidence for attacks by friendly aircraft on friendly ground troops, like that for artillery amicide, is still incomplete and vague, but does permit some tentative conclusions as to its meaning and the ways in which such incidents might effectively be prevented.

Page XI

While it is possible to discern cases of amicide in individual casualty reports, the composite statistics for World War II, Korea, and Vietnam are of little use for the study of the problem of amicide without a knowledge of how cases of amicide were categorized in each conflict. Even then it is likely that the criteria varied from statistician to statistician at the various reporting levels. This brief study has not produced a magic key. A major investigation of casualty reporting methods would be required to do so.

An extremely detailed historical study of the casualty reporting system used during the Korean War, for example, does not allude to casualties caused by friendly fire.

It is stated here that there is a lack of data. This does not automatically mean friendly fire was as common as you claim.

Where does this 10% number come from?

Again, you have not provided an actual source for your figures. You need to do that if you want a change in the game.

There's no source, like I said. If you need individual incidents of friendly fire I can cite those.

But those don't even matter. Even if I completely agree with everything you're saying, you're still saying the average navy plane only flew ten sorties before dying or "not being used again".

If there is no source it will not be considered by the devs for a change.

I don’t know where you got the thing about Navy aircraft from. That is not what I said. You can go back and point it out to me if you like.

If you will not provide sources it will not be considered for implementation in the game and therefore I don’t see much reason to continue this conversation.

[mustang191]

Page 60



Page XI



It is stated here that there is a lack of data. This does not automatically mean friendly fire was as common as you claim.

Where does this 10% number come from?

Again, you have not provided an actual source for your figures. You need to do that if you want a change in the game.

There's no source, like I said. If you need individual incidents of friendly fire I can cite those.

But those don't even matter. Even if I completely agree with everything you're saying, you're still saying the average navy plane only flew ten sorties before dying or "not being used again".

If there is no source it will not be considered by the devs for a change.

I don’t know where you got the thing about Navy aircraft from. That is not what I said. You can go back and point it out to me if you like.

If you will not provide sources it will not be considered for implementation in the game and therefore I don’t see much reason to continue this conversation.

I didn't know you were asking about that.

The original topic was the effectiveness of the air attack themselves, like how 1 sortie doesn't kill 30 infantry. That debate was resolved with a "oops we won't implement that" response.

Then the debate turned to air defense effectiveness. I don't think the game simulates rifles, but it simulates other defenses it's the same problem.

We don't even have statistics on damaged aircraft, but we know A) how many planes they had and B) how many sorties they flew before dying or falling out of use.

In the case of the game you get unlimited sorties, there's not really any definite limit on how many times you can fly a plane.

In reality planes fly about ten sorties on average before dying. This is a definite, cited fact I can cite from multiple wars.

[SunlitZelkova]

There's no source, like I said. If you need individual incidents of friendly fire I can cite those.

But those don't even matter. Even if I completely agree with everything you're saying, you're still saying the average navy plane only flew ten sorties before dying or "not being used again".

If there is no source it will not be considered by the devs for a change.

I don’t know where you got the thing about Navy aircraft from. That is not what I said. You can go back and point it out to me if you like.

If you will not provide sources it will not be considered for implementation in the game and therefore I don’t see much reason to continue this conversation.

I didn't know you were asking about that.

The original topic was the effectiveness of the air attack themselves, like how 1 sortie doesn't kill 30 infantry. That debate was resolved with a "oops we won't implement that" response.

Then the debate turned to air defense effectiveness. I don't think the game simulates rifles, but it simulates other defenses it's the same problem.

We don't even have statistics on damaged aircraft, but we know A) how many planes they had and B) how many sorties they flew before dying or falling out of use.

In the case of the game you get unlimited sorties, there's not really any definite limit on how many times you can fly a plane.

In reality planes fly about ten sorties on average before dying. This is a definite, cited fact I can cite from multiple wars.

I presume the topic of AA effectiveness was in relation to the game. The manner in which you brought it up suggested it was about the game.

I think that question is answered, the game does not similar infantry. Fine.

The other problem is air defense [Emphasis added]. I take a rifle and shoot a plane a mile away. The plane is a acre. My shooting area is a square mile.

If I fire completely randomly, with a clip, I have a 1% chance of hit.

A rifle platoon, firing completely randomly, no attempt to aim, has a 50% chance of hitting a plane.

In real life low level attacks are completely impossible and even rifle fire, let alone computer targeted AA, will kill anything.

The discussion of the assault rifle could be applied to the heavy machine guns and light auto cannons present in the game. There are general purpose (7.62mm) anti-air capable MGs in the game too I think.

All I am saying is these will not have their probability of hit values changed without evidence and sources for that evidence.

Thus currently AA doesn’t do too well against low flying aircraft. I’ve found if a massed attack is launched, while one plane might suffer heavy damage, the rest usually take light damage or none at all.

[mustang191]

If there is no source it will not be considered by the devs for a change.

I don’t know where you got the thing about Navy aircraft from. That is not what I said. You can go back and point it out to me if you like.

If you will not provide sources it will not be considered for implementation in the game and therefore I don’t see much reason to continue this conversation.

I didn't know you were asking about that.

The original topic was the effectiveness of the air attack themselves, like how 1 sortie doesn't kill 30 infantry. That debate was resolved with a "oops we won't implement that" response.

Then the debate turned to air defense effectiveness. I don't think the game simulates rifles, but it simulates other defenses it's the same problem.

We don't even have statistics on damaged aircraft, but we know A) how many planes they had and B) how many sorties they flew before dying or falling out of use.

In the case of the game you get unlimited sorties, there's not really any definite limit on how many times you can fly a plane.

In reality planes fly about ten sorties on average before dying. This is a definite, cited fact I can cite from multiple wars.

I presume the topic of AA effectiveness was in relation to the game. The manner in which you brought it up suggested it was about the game.

I think that question is answered, the game does not similar infantry. Fine.

The other problem is air defense [Emphasis added]. I take a rifle and shoot a plane a mile away. The plane is a acre. My shooting area is a square mile.

If I fire completely randomly, with a clip, I have a 1% chance of hit.

A rifle platoon, firing completely randomly, no attempt to aim, has a 50% chance of hitting a plane.

In real life low level attacks are completely impossible and even rifle fire, let alone computer targeted AA, will kill anything.

The discussion of the assault rifle could be applied to the heavy machine guns and light auto cannons present in the game. There are general purpose (7.62mm) anti-air capable MGs in the game too I think.

All I am saying is these will not have their probability of hit values changed without evidence and sources for that evidence.

Thus currently AA doesn’t do too well against low flying aircraft. I’ve found if a massed attack is launched, while one plane might suffer heavy damage, the rest usually take light damage or none at all.

I havent tested it but that particular AA is probably modeled correctly. As I cited the army hit chance experiment found a few percent Pk per burst.

It's not the individual rifles that are the problem, it's their number. One rifle has a low hit rate, an infantry platoon has a staggering hit rate. If you put 50 guns together in the game they would probably tear up anything they encountered (as would happen in reality).

Also, the game doesn't have a concept of attrition, accumulating damage over sorties, etc. A few hits is usually fatal in the long term whereas the game is about a brief scenario where it doesn't matter.

The biggest actionable change I can see for the game is some concept of vintage or equipment age. A car lasts a decade yet people expect a fighter jet to last 40 years. In reality military equipment degrades after a few years and this is what "Pk calculations" are actually trying to represent. If you could set a age parameter for equipment it would explain the difference between say, fresh migs in 1965 and scrapped Yugoslav migs in 1999. The fresh equipment has a Pk close to 1, then functionality degrades.

[BDukes]

Say Mustang-What you doing around tax audit time next year? Bring the cellphone screenshot research-we'll need that too

Mike

[BobTank63]

I've directed OP's thoughts to a forum where I think they might be more appreciated.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDef ... &context=3

[thewood1]

Whose shift is it. I don't think I'm on until 10.

[mustang191]

I've directed OP's thoughts to a forum where I think they might be more appreciated.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDef ... &context=3

They didn't even dispute it.

They said a single bullet has a .01% chance so a company firing a clip is 50%.