Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP

[Sharkosaurus rex]

Today is the equinox so everywhere has 12 hrs direct sunlight.
The Solomon Islands are in the southern hemisphere so day light time is increasing.

[ChezDaJez]

The Solomon Islands are in the southern hemisphere so day light time is increasing.

Oops, my bad. Forgot about that.

Chez

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: spence

S. With the Zero Bonus, restrictions on Allied CV coordination, the uber-CAP capability of the KB (which, in a lot of the AARs I've read seems to be more effective than that of 1944 (real life) TF 38s)

greetings.... i know what you are mean with uber CAP capability, i copy&paste from my game

Day Air attack on TF at 34,71

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 62

Allied aircraft
CW-21B Demon x 16
Brewster 339D x 10
Beaufort V-IX x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
CW-21B Demon: 9 destroyed
Brewster 339D: 9 destroyed
Beaufort V-IX: 5 destroyed

Japanese Ships
CVL Ryujo
CVE Hosho, Torpedo hits 2, on fire


zero exp level app 70, zero bonus +4

[:D][8|](sorry, couldn't resist[;)])

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: pauk

ORIGINAL: spence

S. With the Zero Bonus, restrictions on Allied CV coordination, the uber-CAP capability of the KB (which, in a lot of the AARs I've read seems to be more effective than that of 1944 (real life) TF 38s)

greetings.... i know what you are mean with uber CAP capability, i copy&paste from my game

Day Air attack on TF at 34,71

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 62

Allied aircraft
CW-21B Demon x 16
Brewster 339D x 10
Beaufort V-IX x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
CW-21B Demon: 9 destroyed
Brewster 339D: 9 destroyed
Beaufort V-IX: 5 destroyed

Japanese Ships
CVL Ryujo
CVE Hosho, Torpedo hits 2, on fire


zero exp level app 70, zero bonus +4

[:D][8|](sorry, couldn't resist[;)])

What's so uber about 35 out classed planes being intercepted by 62 and then only losing 23 out of the 35....If the Zero's were so uber shouldn't all of 35 been shot down? After thats almost two Zeros for every one incoming plane and they still launched at least two torps... I guess you were being facetious..[;)]

[pauk]

yes i was facetious, or at least i tried to be....[;)]...

forgot to mention, i'm the bad guy (Jap) in this situation....[:D]

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: pauk

yes i was facetious, or at least i tried to be....[;)]...

forgot to mention, i'm the bad guy (Jap) in this situation....[:D]

You're mistaken. You're the good guy.

[tsimmonds]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: pauk

ORIGINAL: spence

S. With the Zero Bonus, restrictions on Allied CV coordination, the uber-CAP capability of the KB (which, in a lot of the AARs I've read seems to be more effective than that of 1944 (real life) TF 38s)

greetings.... i know what you are mean with uber CAP capability, i copy&paste from my game

Day Air attack on TF at 34,71

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 62

Allied aircraft
CW-21B Demon x 16
Brewster 339D x 10
Beaufort V-IX x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
CW-21B Demon: 9 destroyed
Brewster 339D: 9 destroyed
Beaufort V-IX: 5 destroyed

Japanese Ships
CVL Ryujo
CVE Hosho, Torpedo hits 2, on fire


zero exp level app 70, zero bonus +4

[:D][8|](sorry, couldn't resist[;)])

What's so uber about 35 out classed planes being intercepted by 62 and then only losing 23 out of the 35....If the Zero's were so uber shouldn't all of 35 been shot down? After thats almost two Zeros for every one incoming plane and they still launched at least two torps... I guess you were being facetious..[;)]

It is not the result that is specious, it is the fact that Mini Me Butai in January 42 can put up a CAP of 62 zeroes. I don't think Nagumo put up that much CAP at Midway.

[ChezDaJez]

It is not the result that is specious, it is the fact that Mini Me Butai in January 42 can put up a CAP of 62 zeroes. I don't think Nagumo put up that much CAP at Midway.

As those 2 carriers would have a mximum capacity of 59, I would guess that he also had landbased air as part of the CAP. That is assuming he holds Kendari, 1 hex away.

The other possibility is that he stripped the carriers of all attack aircraft and loaded them with just Zeros. That would a slight overload but not enough to prevent flight ops.

And 62 Zeros should be able to tear up 26 obsolete fighters and 9 Beauforts.

Chez

[tsimmonds]

No, I reckon that Zuiho is there too.

Ryujo 28 zeroes
Zuiho 18 zeroes
Hosho 5 Zeroes
Total 51 Zeroes

Toss in Taiyo with a carrier-capable zero daitai and you're there.

My point is that too many of them are assumed to be available to intercept incoming strikes, and too many of those that are available, actually do. The success rate for interceptions, absent radar and FDOs, should be fairly low.

[ChezDaJez]

Didn't know about the other carriers, just saw what was listed in the combat report and assumed that's all there was.

But as far as the number intercepting, I really don't see that as a problem. Enterprise and Saratoga had a CAP of 53 fighters overhead at the Battle of Eastern Solomons.

Even lacking radar, the Japanese nearly always had search planes out. It's possible that the inbound raid was detected by one of them and all available fighters were launched.

Chez

[tsimmonds]

Enterprise and Saratoga had a CAP of 53 fighters overhead at the Battle of Eastern Solomons.

And of these, how many actually intercepted the incoming strikes, how many were stacked at incorrect altitude, how many were mis-vectored, and how many just could not figure out what to do because the single fighter-direction radio channel was overwhelmed with chatter? This is exactly my point. Fifty-three planes in the air over the TF should not equal fifty-three planes attacking as defensive CAP in WitP.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Enterprise and Saratoga had a CAP of 53 fighters overhead at the Battle of Eastern Solomons.

And of these, how many actually intercepted the incoming strikes, how many were stacked at incorrect altitude, how many were mis-vectored, and how many just could not figure out what to do because the single fighter-direction radio channel was overwhelmed with chatter? This is exactly my point. Fifty-three planes in the air over the TF should not equal fifty-three planes attacking as defensive CAP in WitP.

But in the game perhaps there are 62 in the air but only 26 actually do any fighting... In the zen of the replay the 26 plane strike perhaps arrives over the target in groups of 5 or 6 over a two hour period..And there are only 12 planes on cap at any one time and they rotate over the course of the two to three hours represented by this combat report.

I think we tend to take the combat reports as an isolated single combat as it may be in many cases...

[treespider]

Continuing my above thought....Pearl Harbor was actually two different attacks both of which would be resolved in the game by a single combat report in the AM.

[tsimmonds]

But in the game perhaps there are 62 in the air but only 26 actually do any fighting...

Well....could be I suppose. I don't watch the air-to-air nearly as closely as I do the ground combat. Just that some of the results certainly seem to indicate that all of the CAP are intercepting....

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

But in the game perhaps there are 62 in the air but only 26 actually do any fighting...

Well....could be I suppose. I don't watch the air-to-air nearly as closely as I do the ground combat. Just that some of the results certainly seem to indicate that all of the CAP are intercepting....

I feel one of the really bad problems here is that there is no way to find out what happened. It would have been nice if some sort of report was generated so you would know what went right and what went wrong.

[ChezDaJez]

Well....could be I suppose. I don't watch the air-to-air nearly as closely as I do the ground combat. Just that some of the results certainly seem to indicate that all of the CAP are intercepting....

One thing I've noticed is that I can put a CAP set to 90% (escort mission vice long range CAP) with 27 planes in the unit so logically you would think that 24-25 fighters would intercept but I seldom see more than 18-20 of them listed on the combat report so my feeling is that the number of planes listed in the combat report is the number that actually intercepted. So there may have even more assigned to CAP.

Also, at the Battle of Eastern Solomons, only 8 fighters failed to intercept out of 53. The failure of these 8 to intercept was attributed to poor radio discipline on the fighter director network by pilots (a problem that plagued US carriers in several actions).

Chez

[DrewMatrix]

OK, so I couldn't read all 5 pages tonight (I've been busy at work) and my apologies if this has been mentioned, but

Isn't the main reason that the axis went to larger cal guns that, by mid war, the Axis were on the defensive, shooting at big huge bombers , while the Allied fighters were mostly escorts shooting at Axis interceptors?

It takes more to bring down a 4 engine bomber than an interceptor.

[ChezDaJez]

Isn't the main reason that the axis went to larger cal guns that, by mid war, the Axis were on the defensive, shooting at big huge bombers , while the Allied fighters were mostly escorts shooting at Axis interceptors?

It takes more to bring down a 4 engine bomber than an interceptor.

Well considering the Yamato, Musashi and Shinano were first designed with 18" guns about 1935 with construction beginning in 1937 and completed on 16 December 1941, I'd have to say no, that's not why they built these monstors.

This link explains why:

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/his ... to_bat.txt

Chez

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

No, I reckon that Zuiho is there too.

Ryujo 28 zeroes
Zuiho 18 zeroes
Hosho 5 Zeroes
Total 51 Zeroes

Toss in Taiyo with a carrier-capable zero daitai and you're there.

My point is that too many of them are assumed to be available to intercept incoming strikes, and too many of those that are available, actually do. The success rate for interceptions, absent radar and FDOs, should be fairly low.

You are right, Taiyo was in mini KB.

Seriously, i haven't got anything against above mentioned result, seems to me that changes in 1.6 ("the bombers will always get through"*) works fine. But, spence mentioned AARs and uber cap capability and its effiency) so i have to copy and paste from my AAR. I don't know, maybe i'm really most unfortunate Jap "fanboy" here, but from my experience i just don't think that Japan have often-mentioned advantages. I guess it is depending of the style of the game - sometimes i feel that here are certain number of allied players who think in that way "i don't want loose single DD or plane, but i protest against "unfair" and "unhistorical" advantages that Japan have."



IMO opinion the only problem of game is that everything happends to fast. So yes, Japan can "stretch Yamamoto", but in retrun Allies will re-take japanese possesions (to fast).








*forgot the name of british air commander who stated this? (was it "bomber" Harris?)

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Isn't the main reason that the axis went to larger cal guns that, by mid war, the Axis were on the defensive, shooting at big huge bombers , while the Allied fighters were mostly escorts shooting at Axis interceptors?

It takes more to bring down a 4 engine bomber than an interceptor.

Well considering the Yamato, Musashi and Shinano were first designed with 18" guns about 1935 with construction beginning in 1937 and completed on 16 December 1941, I'd have to say no, that's not why they built these monstors.

This link explains why:

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/his ... to_bat.txt

Chez

I think he was referencing the caliber of aircraft weapons.