Flak effectiveness

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

One thing that skews the flak losses number in game is that most are put into category of Ops losses, e.g. damaged planes crashing when landing etc.

True, but it still looks very much like flak has been seriously nerfed for both sides. I stated the case for the Allies earlier but Puhis has done a fine job of doing so for the Japanese side as well. We all know that the guys who made the DaBabes mods felt that it needed to be adjusted and so do many of us who continue to play stock.

My point is that I just wish the devs would come forward and state the facts so when those new to the game come to the forum seeking the conventional wisdom of the experienced players we can give them a definitive answer.

I hate it to say, but I really suggest to ppl thinking about this issue the same as I do to just start any new game using one of the Babes versions. Not only does this handle flak but also ASW and subwarfare. Doesn't help anyone with an ongoing game, I know.

Castor is totally right. It simply is very unlikely that there will be the kind of fixes to the stock scenarios that have been discovered, researched, calculated, tested, and then implemented in DaBabes. I've got two Babes PBMs going (both Scenario 28-C with optional stacking limits) and the I've seen the the ship-borne Japanese flak be plenty good. I saw a small group of USA dive bombers in the DEI attack a small TF of IJN DDs. They made their run against just one DD, and one DB was shot down while one was damaged. In Babes the ships shoot back! I don't have any anecdotes about land-based flak as the campaigns are at the stage where the Allies are trying to avoid concentrations of it.

[hkbhsi]

I think that Japan flak can be deadly to bombers but you need to mass it a little bit. I find that if you have a few guns they don't do much damage but if you put togheter 5 or 6 good AAA units you will force your opponent to raise his altitude and be less effective in the bombing.

The following screenshot from my ongoing PBEM (scenario 1) shows you the high number of planes lost to flak. Note that most of those for the Allies are 4Es.

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: hkbhsi
The following screenshot from my ongoing PBEM (scenario 1) shows you the high number of planes lost to flak. Note that most of those for the Allies are 4Es.

In your screenshot it's 1945, so many of your AA units are now using 12 cm type 3 AA guns, which is available 9/43. Also, after TOE upgrades your naval base forces must have lots of 12 cm DP guns. I hope those are totally different gear than 75 mm and 88 mm guns, which are rather useless.

[Banzan]

Not 100% sure, but from what i noticed in the editor, the loadcost of 9999 indicates an item installed on ships, and the onces with normal loadcost are LCU-usable.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: derp

ORIGINAL: Puhis
At the moment my main airbases have about 50 AA guns, 75 mm and 88 mm. It really bothers me that allies can bomb these bases (flying at 10k) almost daily without losing a single plane. Even 2Es seem to be almost immune to flak.

There is I think a tendency towards tunnel vision with regards to AA guns; people look at them and say "well, I only killed X aircraft today, they're obviously not doing anything at all" etc. Basically, there are two things that don't seem to be factored in a lot of the time:

- Effect of AA fire on bomber accuraccy - what's the odds a bomber hits what it's aiming at at a base with no AA guns v 50, or 200, or however many? Obviously the point at which it becomes a really significant factor is dependent on the size of the raid involved - but then that's a question of concentration that is completely situational. If you have a lot of guns, you can significantly hit the number of hits (so to speak).

- Effects of disruption on AA guns - remember that raids on airbases hit AA and base force units too; if the raids are large ones and the AA complement at the base isn't big enough to stand up to the number of hits involved they will get tired and disrupted and etc as the bombing progresses, which can take a few days to settle - days you won't have if bombing is persistent. I don't think many people look at those numbers too hard...they make a big difference.

(and, of course, 50 HAA guns ain't exactly a huge number for a 46mi hex, looking at it a certain way - but that's by the by...)

The fact remains: 14 months of war, and japanese flak have shot down just 35 allied planes. 25 of these are dive bombers, and I think land based flak have shot down just 5 or 6 planes. 14 months, 6 planes.

Historically it was dangerous job to attack major japanese air bases with numerous flak guns. In this game it's not.

Historically Allied medium bombers went in low, using suppression and refining their techniques and weapons as the war progressed. Japanese flak did get a fair number but the Allies got results this way. In the game, it does not pay to attack at low level as the benefits do not outweigh the costs. Better to stay at medium to high altititudes. Thus very few Japanese flak kills.

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: Banzan

Not 100% sure, but from what i noticed in the editor, the loadcost of 9999 indicates an item installed on ships, and the onces with normal loadcost are LCU-usable.

There is many 75 mm AA guns in database that are not used. I think correct japanese guns are named 75mm T88 AA gun and 88mm Type 99 AA gun. Those does have lousy stats.

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Historically Allied medium bombers went in low, using suppression and refining their techniques and weapons as the war progressed. Japanese flak did get a fair number but the Allies got results this way. In the game, it does not pay to attack at low level as the benefits do not outweigh the costs. Better to stay at medium to high altititudes. Thus very few Japanese flak kills.

I know that. No point use low level bombers or strafing fighters, because you can destroy airfields just using high flying 4Es.

And that is another story...

[btbw]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: Banzan

Not 100% sure, but from what i noticed in the editor, the loadcost of 9999 indicates an item installed on ships, and the onces with normal loadcost are LCU-usable.

There is many 75 mm AA guns in database that are not used. I think correct japanese guns are named 75mm T88 AA gun and 88mm Type 99 AA gun. Those does have lousy stats.

Yes i wrote weak stats for 75 type 88 AA gun but people continue citate STATIC guns which cannot produce and not use in flak LCU.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Shark7

OK, here is the Japanese 75mm AAA, nothing special, and nothing stands out about it. However, I can't remember if it was in WiTP or Pacific War (both by G. Grigsby), but IIRC in one (or possibly both) game Japanese flak had a modifier of 0.75. Not sure if that is still the case, one of the Dev Team might though.

This is the 75mm I was using, device #068. It has a start date of 12/1941 and an Effect of 13. The one you posted is a '9999' with an Effect of 15. I am no editor maven, so I'm not sure which one is 'better'.

Didn't notice the 9999 when I looked it up, that one I posted is not used in game.

The effect difference would make a slight difference, but nothing overly noticeable.

[inqistor]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

The effect difference would make a slight difference, but nothing overly noticeable.

Some few hundred first Devices seems to be not used in game. They are probably remnants from original WitP.

Also it seems, that there is cap to maximum damage dealt, as even with YAMATO guns changed into DP I could not get more than 1 destroyed B29 during attack.


Some time ago I have done some tests with three latest upgraded ESSEX CVs (and no other ships in TF). No CAP, and it was massacre for attacking planes. Most waves have lost 50% of planes. Smaller packets (around 30) got 75-90% destroyed regularly (during attack, not ops). So if there is something wrong with AA fire, it is either because not enough guns firing, or something happening if there is friendly CAP present.


I have an interesting British report from early war, against Ju-88. It compares different types of fire control, but expended ammunition is also interesting:

[spence]

Allied flak has been seriously nerfed in the current AE. I have never seen anything even remotely resembling the historical 29 a/c shot down at Pearl Harbor to say nothing of the many a/c damaged beyond repair that the KB suffered in its surprise attack. But even worse is the enhancement of the historically terrible IJN AAA to where they routinely shoot down attacking Allied aircraft in significant numbers. At Midway, the best of the IJN flak shot down only 3 a/c out of well over 200 attacking a/c on June 4th and one of those 3 was one of their own fighters.

[Erkki]

ORIGINAL: spence

Allied flak has been seriously nerfed in the current AE. I have never seen anything even remotely resembling the historical 29 a/c shot down at Pearl Harbor to say nothing of the many a/c damaged beyond repair that the KB suffered in its surprise attack. But even worse is the enhancement of the historically terrible IJN AAA to where they routinely shoot down attacking Allied aircraft in significant numbers. At Midway, the best of the IJN flak shot down only 3 a/c out of well over 200 attacking a/c on June 4th and one of those 3 was one of their own fighters.

2 AC out of 200 attackers is pretty much in line with what my Jap naval AAA is in my WitPAE... Vs. that I couldnt even keep Singapore properly suppressed, bombing at 15kft, because I lost too many bombers to Allied AAA. Brewsters didnt need to fly. I dont want to see late war Allied flak. [:-]

Allied naval flak OTOH... Yeah they could shoot more. But now in my DBB campaign single old British CLs score hits on about every 3rd attacking plane. [:(]

[spence]

The fact is that the flying cadre of the IJN's 1st Air Fleet, the implement by which they started the war at the run, was all but destroyed by the end of 1942.

One can credit either:
1)USN flak (prior to the introduction of the proximity fuze);
2)USN CAP while equipped with the less than sterling F4F

Neither option seems to appeal much to some but that is what happened in real life.

[CaptBeefheart]

ORIGINAL: spence

The fact is that the flying cadre of the IJN's 1st Air Fleet, the implement by which they started the war at the run, was all but destroyed by the end of 1942.

One can credit either:
1)USN flak (prior to the introduction of the proximity fuze);
2)USN CAP while equipped with the less than sterling F4F

Neither option seems to appeal much to some but that is what happened in real life.

Well, some of the pilots went down with their ships on June 4, 1942, no?

Cheers,
CC

[mdiehl]

As I recall, according to Parshall and Tulley and other sources as well, very few of the IJN pilots lost at Midway went down with their ships. Most of 'em died in subsequent A2A combat at Eastern Solomons and the Btl of Santa Curz Islands. Japanese CV-based aviators took fearful losses in A2A combat when fighting USN CV-based pilots. And USN flak tore great gaping holes in their attack a.c. ranks beginning in August.

[btbw]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

As I recall, according to Parshall and Tulley and other sources as well, very few of the IJN pilots lost at Midway went down with their ships. Most of 'em died in subsequent A2A combat at Eastern Solomons and the Btl of Santa Curz Islands. Japanese CV-based aviators took fearful losses in A2A combat when fighting USN CV-based pilots. And USN flak tore great gaping holes in their attack a.c. ranks beginning in August.

Most experienced jap pilots died from summary of:
1. A2A combats against enemy in better position (radar scramble, survive from rescue, unlimited reinforce, design of planes, unlimited intelligence, better radio net and info)
2. Flak
3. Operational losses
4. Error in strategy of post-Midway war
It summary and almost useless losses. Main keyparts of jap strategy was missed:
1. One main battle of US and Jap fleets. Lil battle was Midway when Yamamoto hope draw americans under Nagumo's hammer. But jap lost it. Again it happen only in Marianas.
But before japs dieing without achieving their target.
2. Wide-spread out forces on border of jap area. Months spent before forces concentrated on Guadalcanal direction. It give US slowpokes ability for accumulate enormous force in region and take a win. Against splinters of KB too.

[btbw]

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody


Well, some of the pilots went down with their ships on June 4, 1942, no?

Cheers,
CC

Losses from sink lesser then in one air raid.