Transport Aircraft - High Ops Loss Rates

[BBfanboy]

Could we please stick to AS for Air Support like we use NS for Naval Support? If AV is an acronym, what would the V stand for? Besides, AV is already claimed for Assault Value or AViation Tenders.

[Ambassador]

Having excess AS (which is also used for Submarine Tenders ) is useful, but you don’t need one AS per engine. This is a confusion with the airfield stacking rules.

However, air support required is the number of ready + damaged planes, so if you field two squadrons of 12 planes with 4 reserve planes each, total of 24 ready and 8 reserve, you really *need* 24 air support. BUT, as soon as a ready plane is damaged (or put in maintenance due to airplane fatigue), and a reserve plane is drawn to fill in, your « air support required » increases. If your two squadrons have 24 ready planes, 4 damaged and 4 reserve, your required air support will be 28, not 24. Without any influence due to the number of engines which, I repeat, matter a great deal for airfields overstacking (which impacts non only number of planes launched, but also aircraft repairs).

Likewise, excess air support is also useful to counterbalance any disabled squad following some bombardment, bombing, or simply fatigue.

[GetAssista]

If your two squadrons have 24 ready planes, 4 damaged and 4 reserve, your required air support will be 28, not 24. Without any influence due to the number of engines which, I repeat, matter a great deal for airfields overstacking (which impacts non only number of planes launched, but also aircraft repairs).

I doubt there is a simple numerical rule of a "you need this much air support" variety. Planes have different service ratings (a factor in repair speed), different pilot xp (a factor in accidents and hence damage), different airfield size (probably a factor in accidents too, definitely a factor for everything if size is 8+). The more air support the better until the point where you have all your airframes cycle through maintenance w/o accumulating fatigue over time

[RangerJoe]

If your two squadrons have 24 ready planes, 4 damaged and 4 reserve, your required air support will be 28, not 24. Without any influence due to the number of engines which, I repeat, matter a great deal for airfields overstacking (which impacts non only number of planes launched, but also aircraft repairs).

I doubt there is a simple numerical rule of a "you need this much air support" variety. Planes have different service ratings (a factor in repair speed), different pilot xp (a factor in accidents and hence damage), different airfield size (probably a factor in accidents too, definitely a factor for everything if size is 8+). The more air support the better until the point where you have all your airframes cycle through maintenance w/o accumulating fatigue over time

I do believe that larger airfields have fewer ops losses. That may not be true but it seems that way to me. I think that it might have something to do with a longer place to take off and land, especially if there is a power loss when taking off or a braking problem when landing.

[Ambassador]

If your two squadrons have 24 ready planes, 4 damaged and 4 reserve, your required air support will be 28, not 24. Without any influence due to the number of engines which, I repeat, matter a great deal for airfields overstacking (which impacts non only number of planes launched, but also aircraft repairs).

I doubt there is a simple numerical rule of a "you need this much air support" variety. Planes have different service ratings (a factor in repair speed), different pilot xp (a factor in accidents and hence damage), different airfield size (probably a factor in accidents too, definitely a factor for everything if size is 8+). The more air support the better until the point where you have all your airframes cycle through maintenance w/o accumulating fatigue over time

There was a statement of The Elf somewhere, at the time AE was released, which said you need 1 AS per plane to launch, otherwise you launch less planes. More can’t hurt, more is more often that not better, if only just in case, but more is not required per se. As the game itself says : there is a threshold of « air support required », expressed in the game, and there is a penalty if you go below. Could the Devs have included a marginal improvement in case you have a certain security margin ? Not impossible, but never disclosed.
In fact, as I remember, he said several times that we’re not meant to always have enough air support, and we’re supposed to have to have overstacked airfields sometimes (or often). Notably here : https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 1#p2079351

[RangerJoe]

If your two squadrons have 24 ready planes, 4 damaged and 4 reserve, your required air support will be 28, not 24. Without any influence due to the number of engines which, I repeat, matter a great deal for airfields overstacking (which impacts non only number of planes launched, but also aircraft repairs).

I doubt there is a simple numerical rule of a "you need this much air support" variety. Planes have different service ratings (a factor in repair speed), different pilot xp (a factor in accidents and hence damage), different airfield size (probably a factor in accidents too, definitely a factor for everything if size is 8+). The more air support the better until the point where you have all your airframes cycle through maintenance w/o accumulating fatigue over time

There was a statement of The Elf somewhere, at the time AE was released, which said you need 1 AS per plane to launch, otherwise you launch less planes. More can’t hurt, more is more often that not better, if only just in case, but more is not required per se. As the game itself says : there is a threshold of « air support required », expressed in the game, and there is a penalty if you go below. Could the Devs have included a marginal improvement in case you have a certain security margin ? Not impossible, but never disclosed.
In fact, as I remember, he said several times that we’re not meant to always have enough air support, and we’re supposed to have to have overstacked airfields sometimes (or often). Notably here : https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 1#p2079351

I remember reading that. I also remember reading that units in training count 1/3 for stacking purposes and not the full amount. I wonder if that also works for air support levels.

A picture that might actually be something that goes with your line of work, if I remember correctly, if not exact your area of practice.

[Ambassador]

A picture that might actually be something that goes with your line of work, if I remember correctly, if not exact your area of practice.

You remember well. Not my area indeed (I’m still into trafic security), but I like that colleague’s way of thinking. This is precisely why I don’t want to work in that practice : fights get too ugly, too often, and irrationally so.

[RangerJoe]

A picture that might actually be something that goes with your line of work, if I remember correctly, if not exact your area of practice.

You remember well. Not my area indeed (I’m still into trafic security), but I like that colleague’s way of thinking. This is precisely why I don’t want to work in that practice : fights get too ugly, too often, and irrationally so.

Some things I can remember very well, others not so much. Especially if I have not used it for years, such is the command of my German now. I used to be able to follow Das Boote in German, but I don't think so now.

But you could pass that picture along to colleagues if you want. Maybe it could help stop some of the infighting, especially if they were to say something about affecting the case.

[Yaab]

Damn, I (almost) unlocked another mystery.

Flying transport missions form Moresby to Wau:

Catalinas - no losses ever in any campaign
Wirraway - one mission and one aircraft is already lost

Wau has airfield 1 (scen001v5) , 0 Aviation Support

Thus:
- Catalinas land on water - no Aviation Support needed, no ops losses (or maybe Catalinas airdrop supply without landing?)
- Wirraways land on the airfield -no Aviation Support at Wau, one Wirraway is written off

[Ambassador]

Damn, I (almost) unlocked another mystery.

Flying transport missions form Moresby to Wau:

Catalinas - no losses ever in any campaign
Wirraway - one mission and one aircraft is already lost

Wau has airfield 1 (scen001v5) , 0 Aviation Support

Thus:
- Catalinas land on water - no Aviation Support needed, no ops losses (or maybe Catalinas airdrop supply without landing?)
- Wirraways land on the airfield -no Aviation Support at Wau, one Wirraway is written off

Or maybe Durability ? Catalinas have 43, while Wirraways only have 28 (and 30 for DC-2). I do believe Durability has an impact on Ops Losses. I can’t exclude perception bias, but I think I see less ops losses in high Durability damaged bombers than in lower Durability damaged bombers.

Catalinas do drop supplies in Wau, as they can’t land (I presume it’s the Australian Catalina, not an amphibian one).

[Yaab]

I have ruled out durability as the cause earlier in the thread.

The problem here is, that in the game, you CANNOT force an air-drop supply over a base which has at least airfield 1, when you fly supplies using transport/bomber aircraft. Thus, even though Wau has 0 aviation support and airfield 1, a DC-2/Wirraway with orders to deliver supplies to Wau will ALWAYS try to land at the airfield, damaging itself in the process. You can only air-drop supplies to bases with 0 airfield OR non-base hexes. This means every time your LCUs get surrounded in a base with an airfield, and you try to mount an airbridge operation, you have to check if you have aviation support in the surrounded base. If not, you should first deliver a BF unit to the base, and only start flying supplies afterwards. Without aviation support, your airbridge operation will inflict high op losses on participating transports/bombers.

The alternative is to use patrol boats, since they cannot land on airfields and should be airdropping supplies every time.

[RangerJoe]

I have ruled out durability as the cause earlier in the thread.

The problem here is, that in the game, you CANNOT force an air-drop supply over a base which has at least airfield 1, when you fly supplies using transport/bomber aircraft. Thus, even though Wau has 0 aviation support and airfield 1, a DC-2/Wirraway with orders to deliver supplies to Wau will ALWAYS try to land at the airfield, damaging itself in the process. You can only air-drop supplies to bases with 0 airfield OR non-base hexes. This means every time your LCUs get surrounded in a base with an airfield, and you try to mount an airbridge operation, you have to check if you have aviation support in the surrounded base. If not, you should first deliver a BF unit to the base, and only start flying supplies afterwards. Without aviation support, your airbridge operation will inflict high op losses on participating transports/bombers.

The alternative is to use patrol boats, since they cannot land on airfields and should be airdropping supplies every time.

Another option instead of a Base Force is just to fly in part of an Air HQ to service the aircraft.

As far as fighters, fighter bombers, and light bombers dropping supplies, the RAF had special parachute equipped containers that attached to Typhoons to drop supplies. Something like dropping bombs . . .

[BBfanboy]

If your two squadrons have 24 ready planes, 4 damaged and 4 reserve, your required air support will be 28, not 24. Without any influence due to the number of engines which, I repeat, matter a great deal for airfields overstacking (which impacts non only number of planes launched, but also aircraft repairs).

I doubt there is a simple numerical rule of a "you need this much air support" variety. Planes have different service ratings (a factor in repair speed), different pilot xp (a factor in accidents and hence damage), different airfield size (probably a factor in accidents too, definitely a factor for everything if size is 8+). The more air support the better until the point where you have all your airframes cycle through maintenance w/o accumulating fatigue over time

I do believe that larger airfields have fewer ops losses. That may not be true but it seems that way to me. I think that it might have something to do with a longer place to take off and land, especially if there is a power loss when taking off or a braking problem when landing.

Alfred confirmed that ops losses are lower at a big airfield, not just because of the longer runway but because of the landing aids like homing beacons, runway lighting and radars.

[Ambassador]

I took a couple of hours yesterday to run a small, quick test.

Basically, I set up a scenario with fifteen squadrons of 20 planes, five squadrons of each variant of a C-47, and run the turns for three months, which makes around 10.000 individual flights by each plane model. I try to neutralize as many other variables as possible : all planes fly from the same base, to the same base, have identical XP (set to 70 in the editor, so all are above 60, and backup pilots through the reserve trick), same leader (a 60/60/60/60/60 clone).
Size 10 airfields and adequate AS and supply everywhere.

First test : Durability. Variations were 12, 32 (normal) and 52. Surprisingly, the normal C-47 suffered noticeably fewer Ops Losses overall, around 30% less than either the fragile or the strong ones (equal losses for both). There might be an interest to run a larger and longer test to confirm that.

Second test : plane’s range. I set one variant to fly at extended range, one at normal range and the third one at around half normal range (all to the same base), by editing the range and endurance of the planes. The model flying at extended range suffered around 50% more ops losses, unsurprisingly. But barely any difference between the model flying at the limit of normal range and the one at half-range.

Third test : cruising speed. Wondered if length of the flight, in hours, mattered. No significant differences.

Fourth test : maneuverability. Essentially wondering if it could have an influence on the takeoffs & landings. No significant differences.

What I haven’t tested yet is the cargo capacity, serviceability (I’m a bit wary it could mess with the number of planes flying, though), plane type, climb speed and max altitude.

Now, it was a small scale quick test to detect the existence of an influence of those variables, but it at least allows to rule out speed and maneuverability, and also differences in length of flight as long as it’s normal range (or maybe there’s a difference in still shorter ranges - I might test that in the future). Durability might be more complex.

[BBfanboy]

Interesting results. You also need to test for when pilot fatigue makes a significant difference.

[RangerJoe]

Thank you, that does help.

I remember reading as far as CAP/LRCAP was for ops losses, anything over two hexes from the base led to increased ops losses. To bad aircraft that need to quickly land can't land at a closer field in an emergency but that may be taken care of in the amount of damage and the number of turns needed for repairs. I remember reading about a P-40 for the AVG that actually landed in a rice paddy. it was repaired later and flown out.

[Ambassador]

Interesting results. You also need to test for when pilot fatigue makes a significant difference.

I’m not sure how I can truly control that variable without messing with the results, but I’ll think about it.

[Ambassador]

Thank you, that does help.

I remember reading as far as CAP/LRCAP was for ops losses, anything over two hexes from the base led to increased ops losses. To bad aircraft that need to quickly land can't land at a closer field in an emergency but that may be taken care of in the amount of damage and the number of turns needed for repairs. I remember reading about a P-40 for the AVG that actually landed in a rice paddy. it was repaired later and flown out.

A rice paddy, I don’t know, but I’ve read about a cemetery.

https://media.defense.gov/2010/Oct/28/2 ... 28-007.pdf

Page 27. 5 P-40 got lost and crash-landed, and Boyington came back with a couple of mechanics to try and repair two of them.

[RangerJoe]

Thank you, that does help.

I remember reading as far as CAP/LRCAP was for ops losses, anything over two hexes from the base led to increased ops losses. To bad aircraft that need to quickly land can't land at a closer field in an emergency but that may be taken care of in the amount of damage and the number of turns needed for repairs. I remember reading about a P-40 for the AVG that actually landed in a rice paddy. it was repaired later and flown out.

A rice paddy, I don’t know, but I’ve read about a cemetery.

https://media.defense.gov/2010/Oct/28/2 ... 28-007.pdf

Page 27. 5 P-40 got lost and crash-landed, and Boyington came back with a couple of mechanics to try and repair two of them.

I remembered that about the cemetery when I read the pdf but also on page 23:

"Ed Rector chased the Japanese too long before turning back and ran
out of gas. He belly-landed in a rice paddy, but was uninjrned."

I thought that that plane was repaired and some paddy dikes were knocked down so the plane could be flown out. But that was a long time ago when I read that.

In 1944, then Major Howard took on over 30 and maybe even 40+ Luftwaffe fighters and won, they did not get to attack the bombers and he shot a few down. The bomber pilots reported the action and he was the only fighter pilot in the US 8th Air Force presented with the Medal of Honor. Not bad for a boy born in Canton, China, who joined the US Navy as an enlisted man who became a pilot. His P-51B . . .

[Ambassador]

They don’t say that Rector’s P-40 wasn’t repaired and flown away, but I’d still have some doubts. Water and all, with the mechanical parts and all….

I knew about Howard. An ace both in the ETO and the PTO.