New ideas on A2A in the next patch

[Ursa MAior]

spence
Your basic assumption is completely false. The japs shoould be clearly on the defense by 45 so these results does not prove a lot. If you have please post one with the same numbers but roles reversed.

[spence]

Not sure what you think my basic assumption is.
The year is 1945. The prewar pilots are dead. The fleet and the merchant marine are on the bottom of the sea. The economy is a shambles and the newspapers in Tokyo are printing recipes for the populace on how to prepare grass for the day's main meal. The Japanese strikes got through the CAP and the flak and scored some hits. An inconveniece for the Allied Player. You say yourself that Japan should be clearly on the defensive...do you imagine a situation where the Japanese could have done anything better than inconveniece the rest of the world which was arrayed against them.

[Drongo]

So it appears then that we've moved on from fearing a magic date after which all Japanese air attacks are automatically ineffective and are now back to business as usual with spence and his torpedo claims?

Ah, normality.

[spence]

RE the "torpedo claims". I have asked repeatedly for someone to provide real world examples to justify the kind of lethality that the G3/G4/Kate consistently demonstrate in this game and UV. I perfectly willing to become a "believer" but to date, no one has ever been able to cite more than a relative handful of instances where they scored hits with their torpedos.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Drongo

So it appears then that we've moved on from fearing a magic date after which all Japanese air attacks are automatically ineffective and are now back to business as usual with spence and his torpedo claims?

Ah, normality.

Maybe this sort of thing only works on a long campaign, such that at bare minimum you would need to play the day before it occurs and 2-3 afterwards to see the sham? It may just occur in the same scenario that he was playing. If that were the case, and assuming it were the long campaign (scen 15) then the other scenario designers may had forgot to put them in, or the long campaign had it put in to some degree of error.

To somewhat counter the thought I had above, I see el cid says that a "test" was done in '45, so it don't sound like what I just talked about (unless he was using a scenario that had the defect, assumning it exists), but I also see that he said that basically all died. At first I thought he was talking about in A2A (considering the title of the thread) but I think he's talking about flak, which I'm sure most of you figured out. The description is rather vague and though I expect heavy losses because of the allied flak in '45, it's a little less disconcerting than if they had lost like that in A2A. I don't know, but I'm starting to get confused.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: spence

RE the "torpedo claims". I have asked repeatedly for someone to provide real world examples to justify the kind of lethality that the G3/G4/Kate consistently demonstrate in this game and UV. I perfectly willing to become a "believer" but to date, no one has ever been able to cite more than a relative handful of instances where they scored hits with their torpedos.

Maybe since this is a largely hypothetical game and since their torps were the best in the world, and they were certainly capable of doing it, then perhaps, maybe, many are considering that view as irrelevant? You might as well stop type 91 depth charges from damaged allied subs because to your knowledge this never occured (or rarely) and nobody ever has numerous reports to tell you otherwise. I'm actually starting to look at this monsterous way of looking, at IJ only, as being pretty amusing, because in countering this position I have defeated the use of the a-bomb in the game (or should have) and I have yet to hear any counters to suggest that the USA had tons of them to use and that it was anything but a rare practice, and yet this very flawed way of treating IJ persists.

[Akos Gergely]

Spence how many examples You want?

Coral Sea, Midway, Santa Cruz for the Kates just to name a few, relatively low number of planes achived a good hit percentage. Also for the twin engine bombers there is for example USS Chicago.

As for more Kate examples there are the night torpedoings of Independence, Lexington II and Intrepid just to name a few.

Also remember the Canberra II and Houston II torpedoed with a few day difference in 1944 (these by land based bombers, and IIRC with twin engined ones!). And these are just the ones from the top of my head....

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: Drongo

There's an awful lot of gloom and doom being assumed without anyone bothering to check if it's that bad.

Why don't you test it yourselves rather than relying on hearsay?

Greetings Drongo, i agree with you and that's why i tried to settle down things. However, the main problem with testing IMHO is that PBEM offers different results than H2H or vs AI (don't ask me why i have this feeling but i pretty sure thats the way it is)

It doesn't appear to be automatic death for the Japanese to take to the air in '45.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 56,91

Japanese aircraft
Ki-84-Ia Frank x 68
Ki-67 Peggy x 51

Allied aircraft
F6F Hellcat x 72

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-84-Ia Frank: 37 destroyed
Ki-67 Peggy: 26 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F6F Hellcat: 38 destroyed

Allied Ships
BB Missouri
BB Wisconsin, Torpedo hits 1
CV Lake Champlain, Torpedo hits 1
CL Dayton
CLAA Flint
CV Shangri-La

Aircraft Attacking:
2 x Ki-67 Peggy launching torpedoes at 200 feet
4 x Ki-67 Peggy launching torpedoes at 200 feet
2 x Ki-67 Peggy launching torpedoes at 200 feet
2 x Ki-67 Peggy launching torpedoes at 200 feet
3 x Ki-67 Peggy launching torpedoes at 200 feet
3 x Ki-67 Peggy launching torpedoes at 200 feet
2 x Ki-67 Peggy launching torpedoes at 200 feet
1 x Ki-67 Peggy launching torpedoes at 200 feet
3 x Ki-67 Peggy launching torpedoes at 200 feet
2 x Ki-67 Peggy launching torpedoes at 200 feet
1 x Ki-67 Peggy launching torpedoes at 200 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
Ki-84-Ia Frank x 72
Ki-67 Peggy x 71
Ki-46-II Dinah x 4

Allied aircraft
P-38J Lightning x 43

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-84-Ia Frank: 31 destroyed, 3 damaged
Ki-67 Peggy: 5 destroyed, 9 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-38J Lightning: 20 destroyed, 3 damaged


Allied ground losses:
5 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 3

Aircraft Attacking:
29 x Ki-67 Peggy bombing at 15000 feet
26 x Ki-67 Peggy bombing at 15000 feet
5 x Ki-67 Peggy bombing at 15000 feet
3 x Ki-67 Peggy bombing at 15000 feet
3 x Ki-67 Peggy bombing at 15000 feet

I would more than pleased if i got such results like you (of course, if my planes are experienced etc. etc). But (there is always but) - you've tested a2a combat in "small numbers" where the A2A works good. You are probably aware that the mega-air battles (with couple of houndreds planes) are one-sided.

Don't get me wrong, el cid and otheres stated that they couldn't do anything thanks to "secret code" (if i understand it correctly). It would be nice that we all have more info about that...

[spence]

The IJN flew a statistically significant number of torpedo armed sorties. The majority of them were ineffective. The USN flew a statistically significant number of torpedo armed sorties. The majority of them were ineffective. It is hard to hit a moving warship with a torpedo.

In 1942 when the numbers of aircraft were comparable between the opponents, the number of hits scored by US torpedo bombers (TBDs and TBFs with the lousy Mark 13 torpedo) approxiamates the number of hits scored by the 's Kates against warships underway.

There were 4 carrier fights in 1942 in a period of 6 months. The IJN won two. The US won two. The odds in the battles were relatively even. The losses (sunk) were 3 US CVs vs 4 IJN CVs and 2 IJN CVLs.

The IJN was innovative in forming 1st Air Fleet. It conducted some spectacular and effective raids with the KB against land bases early in the war. Given the facts above though KB did not demonstrate any overwhelming superiority in battle against it USN counterpart ...EVER.

[Nikademus]

Nik, thanks for info. Does it mean that any allied ac have this bonus?

(that would explain why Franks barely achived 1:1 kills ratio against Kittyhawk III)...

Any Allied fighter defending (i.e. CAP) a base can benefit from the bonus.

[spence]

Spence how many examples You want?

Coral Sea, Midway, Santa Cruz for the Kates just to name a few, relatively low number of planes achived a good hit percentage. Also for the twin engine bombers there is for example USS Chicago.

As for more Kate examples there are the night torpedoings of Independence, Lexington II and Intrepid just to name a few.

Also remember the Canberra II and Houston II torpedoed with a few day difference in 1944 (these by land based bombers, and IIRC with twin engined ones!). And these are just the ones from the top of my head....

Unfortunately for your point, in 3 yrs, 9 months of war and with all the torpedo sorties launched by the IJN, the hit list just doesn't get significantly longer. Repeating the same (short) litany of successful strikes over and over does not increase their historical rate of success. When they did hit something it was recorded. When they didn't, their only epitaph (in most cases) was that the TF X came under air attack. Only Hiryu's June 4th attack against Yorktown qualifies as small number of planes achieving relatively high percentage of hits. The attacks against Lexington and Hornet were by large and coordinated hi/low strikes from 2 CVs.

I do not advocate making the IJNs torpedo bombers impotent. The fact that they are capable of severely damaging/sinking Allied warships should be an important consideration when the Allied Player commits his forces. The game as presently
coded virtually insures that they WILL severely damage/sink some Allied ship(s) in any engagement in which they participate unless the IJN Player is dead or unconscious when making his move. That is a gross overstatement of what they did accomplish.

[Drongo]

ORIGINAL: spence
RE the "torpedo claims". I have asked repeatedly for someone to provide real world examples to justify the kind of lethality that the G3/G4/Kate consistently demonstrate in this game and UV. I perfectly willing to become a "believer" but to date, no one has ever been able to cite more than a relative handful of instances where they scored hits with their torpedos.

Yes, I know you have asked.

And I doubt if anyone will be able to cite more than a relative handful of instances because there were only a relative handful of historical instances (in '42 anyway when the pre-war trained pilots were around) where Japanese torpedo carrying aircraft contacted naval targets.

So what you should be looking at if you want to check whether or not the game over-models the lethality of IJN torp bombers is what hit rate was achieved by those historical torpedo carrying aircraft who contacted an enemy TF, what were their circumstances and what hit rate does the game give you when you recreate (close to) those circumstances.

And if the game does reflect close to that hit rate, then perhaps the problem you see in the game's battle results has a cause which lies elsewhere.

[treespider]

In a large variety of readings it seems to me that the IJN did not have a formal standard tactical unit that was designed to function in combat. The individual pilot seems to have operated as a "lone wolf" throughout a significant portion of the war. That's not to say that they didn't help one another in combat but that there was not any formal setup where one pilot was responsible for any specific other pilot as is established in the Leader/Wingman concept.

Osprey's book on the IJN Aviator describes a three-plane formation. Am at work right now...will provide more later.

[Edit: After reading further I see Chez provided the info.)

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

I'm also curious to hear what kind of airplane has a sustained 10m min radius turn and can do it without losing altitude or departing...

"...a strange Polish one..."[:D][:D][:D] according to Cid.

10 meter radius / 20 meter diameter? 125 meter circumference? Ever notice how he never provides specifics such as the aircraft type and designation?

Chez

Because its secret and has since been destroyed...[;)]

[Nikademus]

Japanese naval pilots operated in a 3 plane unit called a "Shotai" (for any who havn't heard the term before) While often described as an equivilent to a British 3 plane "Vic" it is anything but being a more combat oriented and flexible formation vs. the British element which was more adminitrative. The leader at the head of the element would often conduct attacks on a target while the two wingmen watched his back.

[treespider]

What does A2A in WitP actually represent?

Is it one single combat as represented in the animation?

Or is it a series of combats over the course 6-8 hours which are represented as one single combat in the animation?

IMO this may be one of the failings of trying to give an operational game a tactical feel...

[Nikademus]

A series of combats.

[Akos Gergely]

"The IJN flew a statistically significant number of torpedo armed sorties. The majority of them were ineffective. The USN flew a statistically significant number of torpedo armed sorties. The majority of them were ineffective. It is hard to hit a moving warship with a torpedo. "

Well I'm not sure I can agree with this. Most warships sunk by USN carriers were done in by torpedo planes. Also how many USN capitalships were sunk without torp hits from either planes or subs? It's commonly known that torpedo bombers were the true ship killers. Com'on, what are You talking about.....

(Just look at the battle of the Philippine Sea, where only IIRC San Jacinto's VT squad was armed with torpes and only they were ablo to actually sink a jap CV - Hiyo IIRC.)

Also if we look at it statistically we can also say that dive bombers weren't much more effective compared to their much higher numbers....



BTW You have just provided the right facts:

"There were 4 carrier fights in 1942 in a period of 6 months. The IJN won two. The US won two. The odds in the battles were relatively even. The losses (sunk) were 3 US CVs vs 4 IJN CVs and 2 IJN CVLs. "

Now my question is how many of the USN CVs were sunk by the Kates? All of them suffered serious torp damage and while it can be argued what done them in, in all cases the Kate's torps gave the crippling blow.

On the other side how many of the Japanese carriers were sunk by torps? I can only quote Shoho here, but in that case there was no real fighter cover. What's more the USN was unable to sink SHo&Zui in any of the 42 battles....simply because they never received torp damage!

[Drongo]

ORIGINAL: pauk
Greetings Drongo, i agree with you and that's why i tried to settle down things. However, the main problem with testing IMHO is that PBEM offers different results than H2H or vs AI (don't ask me why i have this feeling but i pretty sure thats the way it is)

G'day Pauk,

Settle things down? Which forum are you in?

You have a feeling that PBEM offers different results to H2H or AI? You're nuts. [:'(]

In theory (and in my experience) there is no difference other than being able to set the difficulty level for games vs the AI. Whether you will encounter the exact same set of circumstances in a PBEM that you tested for using H2H or vs AI, that's a different matter.

I would more than pleased if i got such results like you (of course, if my planes are experienced etc. etc). But (there is always but) - you've tested a2a combat in "small numbers" where the A2A works good. You are probably aware that the mega-air battles (with couple of houndreds planes) are one-sided.

Don't get me wrong, el cid and otheres stated that they couldn't do anything thanks to "secret code" (if i understand it correctly). It would be nice that we all have more info about that...

The tests were posted only in response to the claims that combat after a certain date '43 was a guarranteed "lose no matter what you do" situation for the Japanese. The point was to show you can engage Allied aircraft without always losing and you can engage strong Allied TFs, get some hits and not lose every aircraft.

When you increase numbers or use less experienced Japanese pilots will obviously change the results but since no one indicated there was any other condition than "combat after a certain date", the tests are relevent.

As to this secret code business, just between you and me I think it's a myth. The Allies get the CAP bonus and (IIRC) the AA proximity shell "boost" in '43. They also get better mid to late war aircraft and considerably better AA outfits for ships. They also get better pilot replacements.

Put it all together and things will be a real handful for the Japanese player by '45 (if not sooner). It doesn't take some some secret code to explain how the reported bad results may have occured.

I'd also be very interested to see the exact conditions of El Cid's test involving the entire Japanese airforce attacking the USN TF. That and knowing whether he was using stock WitP or not.

Cheers

[ChezDaJez]

So what you should be looking at if you want to check whether or not the game over-models the lethality of IJN torp bombers is what hit rate was achieved by those historical torpedo carrying aircraft who contacted an enemy TF, what were their circumstances and what hit rate does the game give you when you recreate (close to) those circumstances.

I think one part of determining torpedo aircraft effectiveness is being overlooked. Its not the number of sorties that counts, its the number of aircraft that actually launched their weapon.

For example, take a hypothetical situation where Japan launches 50 Kates and a Daitai of fighters against a well-defended 4-CV TF in 1944. The Japanese fighters become entangled in a fight for their lives against the typically strong CAP fielded by US carriers during this time frame. Additional fighters take on the Kates well away from the TF. Maybe 25 Kates survive to penetrate the screen. AA fire takes care of 10-15 more. Call it a total loss of 40 Kates so far. The remaining 10 launch their torps and achieve 3 hits. That produces a decent hit rate of 30% for those who actually launched torps. But the overall hit rate for the mission was only 6%. 3 hits for the loss of 40 aircraft hardly seem worth it.

Personally, I think the best way to look at it is to compare the number of hits with the number of torps launched. I think thats the only fair way of evaluating torpedo doctrine effectiveness. To do otherwise is simply evaluating the effectiveness of the defense.

So it depends on how you evaluate their effectiveness and what criteria you use to do so. That's the problem with statistics, you can make them indicate just about anything you want them to.

Chez