Japanese Air to Air Combat Dropoff

[el cid again]

Sound detectors in stock or CHS based tests may be very misleading. They have a very low effectiveness rating so they will normally NOT work at all - but when they do they will skew the results. It might be best not to use sound detectors at all - since the normal case with them is "no detection." The effect is 10 - meaning 10% - so 90% of the time it is no detect. So using none makes it even at 100% of the time.

[Andy Mac]

I agree with Cid sound detectors are weird and to random for testing. Give the Japanese a few CSP1's if you want to see the impact of radar.
 
I may run a few tests (for my own interest not to prove a point) testing various Japanese aircraft against Corsairs with all things being equal and no radar. Should be fun to find out which is actually the best Corsair Killer out there lets see if I run it for
 
Jacks
Georges
Franks
Tony 1
Tony 2
Tojo
Shinden
Zeke
A6M8
 
Anyone want to lay bets on who will do the best and on which will achieve a 1:2 loss rate against the bent wing bastard ?
 
Andy

[Bliztk]

I bet for Shinden

[Nicholas Bell]

Back to the original issue -

Do you think the sound detectors are causing the increased Japanese losses in 1944?

Matrix says there is no late war code bias against the Japanese. However, it appears that there is a dated related increase in Allied effectiveness - perhaps tied to detection systems? Doesn't seem to appear when there no detection systems.

[Andy Mac]

Yes and no.

I think Japanese losses at a base with sound detectors will be higher in 44 if in range of allied radar.

My reasoning is more fighters will scramble creating moretargets for allied fighters who are operating better fighters with better radar control and will therefore kill more.

So basically in 44 sound detectors increase the targets for allied fighters so yes sound detectors cause more casualties

I think we always need to remember the range of these allied radar systems I dont know the range of some of your tests but SCR 270's have a range of 5 hexes the CSP 1 a range of 8 hexes so any allied carrier or base force within 8 hexes of the air combat in 44 will give a bounce bonus.

What I am concerned about is the scenario where NO radar is in range for the allies and a sound detector is in range for the Japanese and Japanese losses are higher than they were with no sound detector this appears counter intuitive unless the allied planes have a large qualitative advantage.

Andy

[Nicholas Bell]

Any ideas on this?

US raid on Wewak - these are totals from the combat report

No Detection Devices
Ki-61 losses were:
1942: 157
1944: 285

With Type 13 radar at Wewak
the Ki-61 losses were:
1942: 140
1944: 253

In all four test the average raid looked like:
Ki-61 KAIb Tony x 39
P-38G Lightning x 21
B-24D Liberator x 60

So radar doesn't help the Japanese, but they suffer more losses in 1944 no matter what.

[Nicholas Bell]

Here is the combat report totals for the Japanese raid on Makin (shown above in graphic format)

No Detection Device:
Japanese aircraft lost (A5m5, & P1Y)
1942: 212
1944: 192

Looks statistically "equal" to me. Now...

With SCR270 on Makin:
1942: 312
1944: 567

Yikes! Improved radar?

[Andy Mac]

Sorry does this test have allied radar in 44 but not in 42 or was it a same scenario just change the date job ?
 
I am confused as it appears that adding japanese radar has reduced losses by about 10 aircraft in both tests.
 
 
 

[Nicholas Bell]

Here are the combat report results from the Japanese raid on Lunga (from Buin) against F4Fs.

No detection device:
1942: 115 Zero/119 Betty
1944: 108 Zero/133 Betty

Again this looks to be statistically equal.

With a sound detector on Lunga:
1942: 128 Zero/111 Betty (looks like no detector results)
1944: 200 Zero/173 Betty

Maybe the sound detector becomes a radar in 1944? [8|]

[Andy Mac]

Dont know I am confused

[Andy Mac]

Can you send me your scenario mine isnt set up for bombing raids and I cannot be bothered setting it up
 
I agree something is odd but I cannot put my finger on it
 
Andy
 
a.mcphie@btinternet.com
 
 

[Andy Mac]

All I can think of is that the allied sound detector on Lunga is becoming a radar during the upgrade cycle in 44 those results are what I would expect to see if CSP 1 or SCr270 radar was present (although they still should be the same in 42 as 44)

[Nicholas Bell]

Sorry does this test have allied radar in 44 but not in 42 or was it a same scenario just change the date job ?

No device means no device in both years.
With radar means radar present both years.

I am confused as it appears that adding japanese radar has reduced losses by about 10 aircraft in both tests.


I think the lower Japanese losses are statistically insignificant. In the Wewak raids the 1942 losses are "equal" whether radar was present or not. In 1944 the losses were also "equal" to each other whether radar was present or not. However, the 1944 losses are 80% higher than the 1942 losses!! Something is causing the Japanese to hurt more in 1944 in this raid.

[Nicholas Bell]

Andy, in the no radar test I did include a pure fighter engagement - a US P47 sweep over Lae, defended by Japanese P-47s to even things out.

Well, it didn't help the Japanese.

Every mission was 29 US P-47s vs 26 Japanese P-47s, both at 10,000. Japanese were at 50% cap.

1942
Jpn Losses: 196
Allied: 110

1944
Jpn Losses: 280
Allied: 93

So once again the Japanese get sc#@%ed worse in 1944 for no apparent reason, not to mention the disparate losses between equal forces.

[Nicholas Bell]

Here are the a2a combat report loss stats for the raid against the Phillipines from Formosa:

1942 No Detection Device:
A6M2: 42
G3M: 18
P-40E: 181

1944 No Detection Device:
A6M2: 41
G3M: 35
P-40E: 153

1942 Sound Detector
A6M2: 55
G3M: 9
P-40E: 279

1944 Sound Detector
A6M2: 108
G3M: 28
P-40E: 245

[BigJ62]

Does the range field mean miles or thousands of yards for radar, if miles who defined it as miles because
the editor manual states thousands of yards for this field?
Has anyone tried gutting the B-24D take out .50 cal and bombs just to see if escort is more effective than sweep? Maybe the escorts are flying higher regardless of the alt you set resulting in a bounce bonus.
Thanks

[Andy Mac]

Weird I tested that one exhaustively and got Identical results in 42 and 44 if the Japanese had radar they won if the allies the allies won

[Nicholas Bell]

Has anyone tried gutting the B-24D take out .50 cal and bombs just to see if escort is more effective than sweep? Maybe the escorts are flying higher regardless of the alt you set resulting in a bounce bonus.

While it's possible the escort is getting the bounce, it's "should be" irrelevant because the exact same conditions exist in each test year, ie if they're getting the bounce in '42 they're getting it in '44, but the losses are higher in 1944.

Now one might think, well, maybe there's hard code to give the Allies a higher chance of bounce in 1944, but Matrix has denied any such bias

[Nicholas Bell]

I tested that one exhaustively and got Identical results in 42 and 44 if the Japanese had radar they won if the allies the allies won

If you're referring to the P47 vs P-47 sweep, Andy - there's no radar on either side. Yet the US wins...in aggregate anyway. There are a few situtions where the Japanese got the bounce - if you examine the combat report spreadsheet file.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: BigJ62

Does the range field mean miles or thousands of yards for radar, if miles who defined it as miles because
the editor manual states thousands of yards for this field?
Has anyone tried gutting the B-24D take out .50 cal and bombs just to see if escort is more effective than sweep? Maybe the escorts are flying higher regardless of the alt you set resulting in a bounce bonus.
Thanks

The meaning of this field changes with device type. It isn't documented well anywhere I know of. It probably is miles for radar. If it isn't miles then all radar ranges are too short - by 1.6 times.