Matrix Games Forums

Since WitP is essentially an evolved version of UV, there are numerous instances where changes have been made that will differ it greatly from UV. "AE" is yet another upcoming "evolution" of the original game engine that will distance it further from the original UV game. Many at this point would simply tell you to take the plunge and go to WitP but the size of the game can be daunting. (AE will make it more so given the increase in detail level in certain areas)

Smaller scenarios are a great way to get your feet wet with the game before tackling the Grand Daddy of all campaigns (the dec7 full game start)

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Since WitP is essentially an evolved version of UV, there are numerous instances where changes have been made that will differ it greatly from UV. "AE" is yet another upcoming "evolution" of the original game engine that will distance it further from the original UV game. Many at this point would simply tell you to take the plunge and go to WitP but the size of the game can be daunting. (AE will make it more so given the increase in detail level in certain areas)

Smaller scenarios are a great way to get your feet wet with the game before tackling the Grand Daddy of all campaigns (the dec7 full game start)

I'm currently playing a WitP solitaire campaign game that has progressed to early June '42 so my feet are in the process of getting soaked [:)]

It's just that I have 4 UV PBEM games going that I don't want to simply quit since it wouldn't be fair to my opponents.

It's just that I have 4 UV PBEM games going that I don't want to simply quit since it wouldn't be fair to my opponents.

If they're in agreement, you could set a new house rule to address the situation.

One thing everyone forgot to mention is:
1) If their are any airfields open for Bingo fuel landings, If a 50 zeros left rabaul maybe 1/3 can loiter at guadacnal ,engage, and  if fuel is nearing Bingo , land at a different runway that is closer?
 
Will Ae provide different landings from Orginal airfield ?

ORIGINAL: Mangotree

One thing everyone forgot to mention is:
1) If their are any airfields open for Bingo fuel landings, If a 50 zeros left rabaul maybe 1/3 can loiter at guadacnal ,engage, and  if fuel is nearing Bingo , land at a different runway that is closer?

Will Ae provide different landings from Orginal airfield ?

Alternate airfields are used when CV flight decks become unusable. CV groups that have the range to reach an available airfield can re-route and land there. Aircraft "Fuel" levels in the specific are not tracked by the game.

LRCAP suffers from loiter time and pilot fatigue.  The actual time over the target area is very limited when you take into account that you need full military power (gulp, gulp) to fight with. So to LRCAP PM from Rabul would be virtually worthless as in minutes the planes would hit bingo fuel when they had to fight.

Yes a House Rule would address this issue.

I agree, a long range cap mission at that range is clearly far tougher on pilots and aircraft than a simple long range escort misson.

...and here I logged into the former thinking exactly "pity we don't have any juicy debates or flame wars going on these days...so boring." [:D]

To the question, did not the Japanese zeros fly CAP over Bouganville from Rabaul?

IMHO the LRCAP feature of witp works about right.  A squadron of fighters flying at the edge of its range will only have 2 or 3 fighters in the air at one point in time.  This forum is littered with posts by players who ask "why won't my CAP fly several hexes away."

Also, IMHO, I think if there's a game exploit involving CAP its the notion that you can put a 12 plane squadron on 100% CAP over your base and actually have 12 planes up in the air to intercept bombers.  Pilot fatigue and the need to refuel would almost certainly mandate that fewer planes would be in the air at any point in time.

All LRCAP has this problem. Not all LRCAP has the range of the Zero.

Figures of approx. 200 miles have been quoted in other posts as reasonable, but what aircraft were these & what were there maximum ranges. We can then compare.

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

Establishing effective LRCAP is a different matter. 

True....especially under conditions where weather is difficult and supporting facilities far away. Add to that a lack of proper ground control and even radios in the case of the Rabaul/Buin based Zeros and you have a recipe for frustration. Some of the CAP flights also required bombers to guide them to the target area.

For example the Japanese did attempt an improvisational LRCAP over the crippled Hiei after Third Guadalcanal. They sent a total of six LRCAP's throughout the day on Nov13, 42. In exchange for one F4F and two SBD's, Base Air Force (Rabaul/Buin) lost seven of 18 A6M's dispatched (all ditching). CV Junyo launched a total of 23 fighter sorties for LRCAP and lost 3 planes shot down and 2 more ditched. All in all a costly day for the Japanese and the total effect of the LRCAP was described by Lundstrom as "ineffectual"

But, as your example shows, they did get there, so the range ( at least ) is correct, and that's all I am saying here.

ORIGINAL: tocaff

LRCAP suffers from loiter time and pilot fatigue. 

Agreed, but the actual rate of each ( and the subsequent decrease in LRCAP ability ) cannot be deduced from the information provided by the game and so should not be disputed.

The actual time over the target area is very limited when you take into account that you need full military power (gulp, gulp) to fight with. So to LRCAP PM from Rabul would be virtually worthless as in minutes the planes would hit bingo fuel when they had to fight.

Incorrect. See also the entries on the WitP forum.

If the 200 mile range quoted for LRCAP ( WitP forum ) in the Western Front Theatre is taken from the Battle of Britain, then the following applies:-

Hawker Hurricane Mk I / Mk II : Range 460 miles
Supermarine Spitfire Mk I / Mk IA : Range 395 to 500 miles ( depending on source ).
Messerschmitt Bf 109E 1 : Range 410 to 435 miles ( depending on source ).

Hurricane : 200 x 2 = 400. 460 - 400 = 60. 60 = 13% of flight time remains.
60 miles @ 318 mph ( max. speed ) =12 minutes combat time.

Spitfire [ Mk 1 ] : 200 x 2 = 400. 500 - 400 = 100. 100 = 20% of flight time remains.
100 miles @ 360 mph ( max. speed ) = 18 minutes combat time.

( Spitfire [ Mk 1A ] : 200 x 2 = 400. 395 - 400 = Nil. Nil = 0% of flight time remains. )

Me 109 : 200 x 2 = 400. 435 - 400 = 35. 35 = 8% of flight time remains.
35 miles @ 350 mph ( approx. max. speed ) = 6 minutes combat time.

( ALT Me 109 : 200 x 2 = 400. 410 - 400 = 10. 10 = 2.4% of flight time remains.
10 miles @ 350 mph ( approx. max. speed ) = 1.7 minutes combat time. )

However, in the South Pacific :-

From my previous WitP post, a Zero can operate a LRCAP of between 500 & 700 miles ( dependant on type ),
and still have between 25% & 33% of its flight time remaining.

The A6M2 ( max range 1,930 miles - cruising speed 207 mph - max. speed 331.50 mph )
33% = 1 hour 55 minutes combat time ( max. speed used )
25% = 1 hour 27 minutes combat time ( max. speed used )

The A6M3 ( max range 1,477 miles - cruising speed 230 mph - max. speed 338 mph )
33% = 1 hour 26 minutes combat time ( max. speed used )
25% = 1 hour 5 minutes combat time ( max. speed used )


The A6M5 ( max range 1,194 miles - cruising speed 230 mph - max. speed 351 mph )
33% = 1 hour 7 minutes combat time ( max. speed used )
25% = 51 minutes combat time ( max. speed used )

These latter figures use the same source as previously quoted, and allows for the use of cruising speed to and from the CAP area, whist using maximum speed at it

Therefore LRCAP of 400 to 500 miles is easily attained for the Zero, with plenty of CAP combat time.
As for the numbers of aircraft involved during a turn or the fatigue that they have at the point of contact, these are both issues extra to that originally proposed & irrelevant to the answer thereof.

Apologies for the length of this answer. The math / detail of the Battle of Britain aircraft are laid out in full to show the calulation method. The Zero information has been abridged, but uses a similar method.

The thread poster was querrying about how "effective" such a LRCAP would be. Based on the actual Japanese attempts at it, the answer was not very effective. They certainly would not constitute a shield that would prevent enemy bombers from attacking and the ultimate result was heavy operational losses for the defenders which far exceeded those of the attackers. Also, for the CAP to sustain it's patrol it would have to continue at lowered power. Combat power would greatly curtail this. On average, Japanese Zeros fighting over Lunga were limited to around 15 minutes of combat flying if they were to have a safe margin of remaining fuel to make the long journey back to Rabaul. (+they had to fight with their belly tanks attached) Ammunition expenditure was another issue....particularily in regards to cannon ammo for the A6M2.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

On average, Japanese Zeros fighting over Lunga were limited to around 15 minutes of combat flying if they were to have a safe margin of remaining fuel to make the long journey back to Rabaul.

Allowing for cruising time on site, and rotation times, that looks reasonable.

(+they had to fight with their belly tanks attached)

Are you certain re this point? Surely the planes can use the fuel from the drop tanks on the outward journey ( where they should get dropped before reaching the target ) ? It would seem an odd design choice to have to use up the standard fuel tanks fuel first.

Ammunition expenditure was another issue....particularily in regards to cannon ammo for the A6M2.

That goes without saying.


[/quote]

ORIGINAL: DEB


Are you certain re this point? Surely the planes can use the fuel from the drop tanks on the outward journey ( where they should get dropped before reaching the target ) ? It would seem an odd design choice to have to use up the standard fuel tanks fuel first.

Yes. Lundstrom mentions this specifically. The 1,130 mile round trip from Rabaul to Guadalcanal was technically beyond the effective range of the A6M2's and required very careful fuel and navigational management to make the journey. Weather, wear and tear on the planes/engines and pilot fatigue made it all the more precarious. The trips were also the longest escort mission yet called upon the Zero up to that point. (Previously, the Manila raid from Formosa had been the holder at 500 miles approx) Basically every drop of fuel counted, there was little margin for error and not much time for actual combat.

To give people a better idea of just how far such missions were, the distance from eastern England to Berlin was only 460 miles one way. (920 miles total)

Yes. Lundstrom mentions this specifically.

Then Lundstrom is wrong, if you are implying he says the internal fuel would be used before the fuel in the external drop tanks.

ORIGINAL: DEB

Are you certain re this point? Surely the planes can use the fuel from the drop tanks on the outward journey ( where they should get dropped before reaching the target ) ? It would seem an odd design choice to have to use up the standard fuel tanks fuel first.

Question: Did the Japanese actually drop their "drop tanks", or did they return with them?

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Yes. Lundstrom mentions this specifically.

Then Lundstrom is wrong, if you are implying he says the internal fuel would be used before the fuel in the external drop tanks.

He, and I....are not.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


Question: Did the Japanese actually drop their "drop tanks", or did they return with them?

I'm not sure if they always returned with them. I'd guess they probably did though depending on fuel and weather conditions, they might drop them to decrease drag.