The Power of Inexperience / GreyJoy(A)-Rader(J)

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

ORIGINAL: kfsgo

Without commenting on the effectiveness of flak overall, do remember that CVEs aren't overendowed with AA guns - the Casablancas (which would be the most numerous at this point in time, I guess) have, uh...a single 5" gun at the back, and then 4 Bofors and 6 Oerlikon per side until 9/44 (at which point that increases to 8 Bofors and 15 O/side, which is an improvement, but also a bit late) - not by any means a huge number. By way of contrast an Essex-class CV at this point in the war can point 8-10 5" guns, 40-64 Bofors and 30-60 Oerlikon at an attacking aircraft - big difference. Bogue type upgrades to the heavier standard earlier and slings two 5", but there's not too many of those.

All true, though note that the ~30 CVEs were in 7 TFs, each with ~15 total ships 'mostly DD/DE' (going off GreyJoy's comments). That means ~10 DD/DE in EACH TF. Not sure how many of those were DEs and what type, but unless he had flush-deck or 'leader' DDs mixed in, each of THOSE should have at least 4x5"/38DP.

Now if they were mostly early-style DEs with 3"/50s instead of 5"/38s and few if any 40mm... yeah, his flak was probably too weak to matter even in real-world terms.

OTOH is they were heavily Fletchers fitted with heavy 40mm and 20mm batteries...

It a post battle analysis after the Battle of Santa Cruz it was noted that the ship with the best chance of shooting down an attacking dive bomber or torpedo bomber is the ship being attacked. The reason for this is that this is the only ship in a TF that will be shooting at the attacker with near zero deflection. All other surrounding ships will be shooting some sort of defection shot and this is very much more difficult. So yes, the AA mounts on the ship being attacked are the most critical. Also, in a TF many of the supporting ships will not be in effective range. Their guns may be in range but distance is also very much a factor when considering accuracy. So, I agree that the weaker AA defenses of the CVEs were a factor.

However, Allied AA is still too ineffective. As far as I can see, Japanese naval AA is just as effective.

One factor that we do not talk about is the number of planes damaged. I don't think I have ever seen a damaged attack aircraft hit any targets, so damage is important. And perhaps the Allies hold a bigger edge here than we perceive. However, there should be many more splashes. Perhaps a 60-40 ratio from flak and air combat at this stage of the war-assuming the ships are all fully upgraded.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: crsutton
However, there should be many more splashes. Perhaps a 60-40 ratio from flak and air combat at this stage of the war-assuming the ships are all fully upgraded.

Why, considering that IRL flak wasn't anywhere near this ratio, even after taking into account the fact that Allied air superiority usually provided the defending ships with the most beneficial setup possible (single attackers or small groups, coming from one direction) which is not nearly as typical in AE?

Take note, that with existing DaBabes tweaks, 50% of bombers that got trough being shot down by flak will probably be typical in 1945, barring 300-planes raids (which is already in the realm of only being justified by existence of enormous Japanese bomber armadas in AE). And if your late-war CAP can take down only 1/3rd of attacking bombers, you've failed badly.

[GreyJoy]

However, just to point out that...yes, i'm willing to organize a couple of feints in the next weeks.
Now i'll be transitioning my fleet to Hokkaido so to have it protected by an AF lvl 9...at the same time my landing Armada is grouping at Bihoro.
My air fleet will keep Ominato under constant pressure, while my 4Es, even if badly depleted, will keep on ruining his a/c factories....gotta say in this regard that we're doing a fair job here....i think only a factory producing 45 Franks is still active...same for SAMs which are being produced in not more than 50 frames per months....
 
Hopefully his BBs will have some decent sys damages....really hope those losses were not for nothing....
 
CV division spotted near SUVA....distraction...gotta remain focused...
 
gotta go...see u tomorrow guys....

[jeffk3510]

Doubt they have much dmg at all GJ...why a port attack?

Use those 4e and 2es what theyre meant for...

[JohnDillworth]

As to allied naval flak I believe it was discovered a while back that the Allied 5" mark 38 DP gun was not modeled correctly.  Can't find the discussion now but the problem seemed to be with it being a dual purpose gun.  The ship to ship part works correctly but the AA part does not.  As this was the mainstay of late war long range naval AA it is a significant problem.  The 5/38 radar controlled gun with proximity fuses was a quite potent weapon but those advantages are not modeled correctly.  IRL, this gun shot down lots and lots of planes.  In AE, not so much

[Gridley380]

ORIGINAL: kfsgo

However, Allied AA is still too ineffective. As far as I can see, Japanese naval AA is just as effective.

That would actually be the key indicator for me that something is wrong with the model. The USN had the 5"/38DP, 40mm Bofors, 20mm Oerlikon, good directors, and good doctrine. The IJN had inferior weapons and directors for sure, and AFAIK didn't keep up in developing doctrine either. Add to that the fact that USN aircraft were generally tougher, and the USN ought to see much lighter losses attacking the IJN than the reverse.

The point that the USN CVEs are themselves fairly soft targets is a good one, of course.

[Gridley380]

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

As to allied naval flak I believe it was discovered a while back that the Allied 5" mark 38 DP gun was not modeled correctly.  Can't find the discussion now but the problem seemed to be with it being a dual purpose gun.  The ship to ship part works correctly but the AA part does not.  As this was the mainstay of late war long range naval AA it is a significant problem.  The 5/38 radar controlled gun with proximity fuses was a quite potent weapon but those advantages are not modeled correctly.  IRL, this gun shot down lots and lots of planes.  In AE, not so much

If the USN is stuck using 3"/50s (or are those SP too?), 40mm, and 20mm ONLY, I can see their flak being quite ineffective.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

As to allied naval flak I believe it was discovered a while back that the Allied 5" mark 38 DP gun was not modeled correctly.  Can't find the discussion now but the problem seemed to be with it being a dual purpose gun.  The ship to ship part works correctly but the AA part does not.  As this was the mainstay of late war long range naval AA it is a significant problem.  The 5/38 radar controlled gun with proximity fuses was a quite potent weapon but those advantages are not modeled correctly.  IRL, this gun shot down lots and lots of planes.  In AE, not so much

Well a 40mm has a ceiling of 9800 feet range 6K yards, accuracy of 103 -- the 5in/38 celing of 37000 feet and range of 18K yards -- accuracy of 62 I am not sure how the program uses this data but 5in guns reach out and touch some one with a little less than 1/2 the accuracy of a 40mm round but a lot less of them of course get spit out in one combat round ..

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

Crackaces

The number of large anti-aircraft guns used to defend German cites against Allied bombers is quoted as 18,000. One commentator states that the Germans probably lost the Battle of Stalingrad by defending German skies against Allied bombers


Even against the combination of German fighters (some days 600 were available) and numerous anti-aircraft guns , usually 95 percent of the bombers dropped their bombs on or near their assigned targets and returned in re-usable condition to England. (Very few Allied raids had bomber losses higher than 20 percent. "Terrible losses" as viewed by bomber air crews, and "not nearly enough losses" as viewed by the Germans.)


Comments from Jerry L Brewer who did U.S. 90 mm AAA in Japan during the Korean police action. One final thought on AA guns against modern aircraft. It was taking your faithful old shotgun out to shoot birds flying by at 100 MPH. German author Werner Muller in his book "The Heavy Flak Guns" said,"Based on average monthly ammunition consumption in 1944, it took 16,000 rounds of 88mm gunfire to bring down one four engine bomber."
Mr. Mullers book contains details on German AA guns and fire control systems. It is published by Schiffer Publishing Ltd. of Westchester Pa.ISBN: 0-8870-263-1

Available by e-mail through Barnes & Noble




So 10% overall flak effectiveness is about right doing cursory research ...

Ok back to GreyJoy and the war ..

This is certainly relevant to the 4E raids over Japan we've been watching, but I don't think it is relevant to the KB attack on the CVEs. There's a huge difference between firing a heavy AA gun at a 4E level bomber at tens of thousands of feet and firing one at an IJN dive or torpedo bomber headed right at your ship, or the ship next to you. I would have expected mid-1944 USN flak to cause quite a lot of casualties in the latter set of circumstances.

I've posted official US statistics a couple of times before, in the Pacific, there were more aircraft lost to FLAK than to fighters.

[jmalter]

where also, the USN had a VT round (proximity-fuse) for the 5"/38 - when coupled w/ radar-controlled fire direction, the system could ruin enemy aircraft formations before they could line up on a target.

no doubt, it depended on a ship being 'upgraded', & req'd add'l input at the tactical level for raid detection - hence the large # of USN DD 'radar pickets' that fell victim to kamikaze attacks at Okinawa - they were deliberately sacrificied to provide tactical info (raid size, course, speed, location) to the 'main body'.

[JohnDillworth]

Last year I read a book call "Hell to Pay" about the realities of Operation Downfall and the invasion of Japan.  It did speak briefly about flak (I believe it was this book, could be wrong) and that the 20mm 20mm Oerlikon was proving less and less effective because most attacks were kamikaze attacks and the 20mm just did not have the hitting poser to destroy a plane in one shot.  Damaging a plan was no longer good enough.  The next round of refits was going to include eithier a 3" or 4" inch rapid fire radar controlled weapon.  The book also spoke to 2 nighttime kamikaze attacks on destroyers conducted by wooden float planes.  The attacks were not detected by radar and there was quite a bit of fear of future "stealth" attacks.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

As to allied naval flak I believe it was discovered a while back that the Allied 5" mark 38 DP gun was not modeled correctly.  Can't find the discussion now but the problem seemed to be with it being a dual purpose gun.  The ship to ship part works correctly but the AA part does not.  As this was the mainstay of late war long range naval AA it is a significant problem.  The 5/38 radar controlled gun with proximity fuses was a quite potent weapon but those advantages are not modeled correctly.  IRL, this gun shot down lots and lots of planes.  In AE, not so much

Don't recall all the details, but look at the various Babes threads. There are some additional fields now in the scenario files (they have to be accessed by spreadsheet as I don't think the editor shows them) that work this out. Stock scenarios are not retrofitted with that stuff. That's why I keep saying that all the refinements are in Babes: surface guns, flak, aerial bombs, base forces, etc. etc.

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

Doubt they have much dmg at all GJ...why a port attack?

Use those 4e and 2es what theyre meant for...

Simply, i thought to catch those BBs with a couple of torps in their belly....but out of 200 TBMs none of them carrier any torpedo....Manual states they could but Miller says they cannot...don't know...however the idea wasn't a bad one imho...caught Rader off balance there...he didn't expect a raid against Tokyo harbour...the only problem was that they didn't carry any torp with them....[:@]

[GreyJoy]

The good news however is that Frank and SAM production has been really really plastered during the last week....as far as i can tell he should have some big problems in the long run to equip his squadrons with his best fighters.... Now i need to concentrate on Shindens...once they are taken out of the equation (he's R&Ring more than 500 shindens[X(]) the future of air operations will look brighter[:)]

[GreyJoy]

Anyway...think Rader won't be able to send the turn back till tomorrow at best...so, in the meanwhile...MERRY X-MAS to you all guys!! Thanks for being here...thanks to all of you, only readers and contributors!
 
 

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

Doubt they have much dmg at all GJ...why a port attack?

Use those 4e and 2es what theyre meant for...

Simply, i thought to catch those BBs with a couple of torps in their belly....but out of 200 TBMs none of them carrier any torpedo....Manual states they could but Miller says they cannot...don't know...however the idea wasn't a bad one imho...caught Rader off balance there...he didn't expect a raid against Tokyo harbour...the only problem was that they didn't carry any torp with them....[:@]

I quoted the manual GreyJoy . very few planes, if any, will carry torps in a port attack with the exeception of the Dec 7th surprise ...

[cwDeici]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Anyway...think Rader won't be able to send the turn back till tomorrow at best...so, in the meanwhile...MERRY X-MAS to you all guys!! Thanks for being here...thanks to all of you, only readers and contributors!

Merry Christmas!

[terje439]

Merry Xmas, and may Santa bring you lots of new toys to harass Rader with!

Terje

[GreyJoy]

July 16, 17, 18 19 1944

After the tragedy of the first Tokyo Raid, our air force rested for the 16th and the 17th, but on the 18th it took off another time to slap Japan in its face.
Target were the Frank and Tony factories at Hammamatsu...
We arrived well coordinated (a part for some stragglers on the 18th) and we delivered a very stiff blow. Rader had more than 500 fighters on CAP but once again it really seems that, when big battles are concerned, CAP (on both sides) is less than effective....our bombers penetrated the enemy fighter shield like a warm knife into a butter block...very few losses and, after two days, 51 more Franks and 71 more Ki-100s are out of the equation...

Think there's something wrong in the system....[&:]

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Jul 18, 44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Hamamatsu , at 111,61

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 77 NM, estimated altitude 22,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 26 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 59
A6M5 Zero x 141
A6M5c Zero x 16
A7M2 Sam x 45
N1K1-J George x 32
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 5
Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 173
Ki-84a Frank x 17
Ki-102b Randy x 33



Allied aircraft
Liberator B.III x 12
Liberator B.VI x 41
B-24D1 Liberator x 23
B-24J Liberator x 90
B-29-1 Superfort x 67
P-38J Lightning x 28
P-51B Mustang x 37
F4U-1 Corsair x 30
F4U-1A Corsair x 66
PB4Y-1 Liberator x 45


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Liberator B.III: 1 damaged
Liberator B.VI: 2 damaged
B-24D1 Liberator: 4 damaged
B-29-1 Superfort: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
P-51B Mustang: 1 destroyed
F4U-1 Corsair: 1 destroyed



Ki-84a Frank factory hits 17
Ki-100-I Tony factory hits 22
Ki-83 factory hits 2


CAP engaged:
S-302 Kokutai with N1K1-J George (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 31000
Raid is overhead
S-309 Hikotai with A6M5c Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 9 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 1 minutes
Ominato Ku S-1 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 31000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 7 minutes
254 Ku S-1 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 31000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 7 minutes
261 Ku S-2 with N1K1-J George (5 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 31000
Raid is overhead
265 Ku S-2 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 10 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes
10 planes vectored on to bombers
331 Ku S-1 with A6M5c Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 9 minutes
343 Ku S-2 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 5 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 31000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 3 minutes
S-351 Hikotai with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 31000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 33 minutes
3 planes vectored on to bombers
1001 Ku U-1 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 31000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 7 minutes
S-311 Hikotai with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 5 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 31000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 11 minutes
S-407 Hikotai with A6M3a Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 10 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 4 minutes
Sasebo Ku S-1 with N1K1-J George (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 31000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 9 minutes
3 planes vectored on to bombers
Kaga-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 7 on standby, 10 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 20000 and 25000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 34 minutes
13 planes vectored on to bombers
Soryu-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 6 on standby, 10 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 17000 and 26000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 33 minutes
3 planes vectored on to bombers
Shokaku-1 with A7M2 Sam (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 31000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 3 minutes
Ryujo-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 3 minutes
Junyo-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 6 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 17000 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 32 minutes
2 planes vectored on to bombers
Zuiho-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 9 minutes
Ryuho-1 with A6M5 Zero (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 13 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 11000 and 25000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 30 minutes
5 planes vectored on to bombers



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Hamamatsu , at 111,61

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 36 NM, estimated altitude 24,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 52
A6M5 Zero x 132
A6M5c Zero x 11
A7M2 Sam x 41
N1K1-J George x 24
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 5
Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 166
Ki-84a Frank x 14
Ki-102b Randy x 33



Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 6
B-29-1 Superfort x 6
F4U-1A Corsair x 10


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3a Zero: 1 destroyed
A6M5 Zero: 1 destroyed
Ki-44-IIc Tojo: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-24J Liberator: 1 destroyed
B-29-1 Superfort: 4 destroyed
F4U-1A Corsair: 1 destroyed


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Hamamatsu , at 111,61

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 66 NM, estimated altitude 42,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 19 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 45
A6M5 Zero x 120
A6M5c Zero x 8
A7M2 Sam x 38
N1K1-J George x 20
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 5
Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 141
Ki-84a Frank x 11
Ki-102b Randy x 30



Allied aircraft
P-38J Lightning x 9
P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 220
P-51B Mustang x 2


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3a Zero: 2 destroyed
A6M5 Zero: 4 destroyed
A6M5c Zero: 1 destroyed
A7M2 Sam: 2 destroyed
N1K1-J George: 1 destroyed
Ki-44-IIc Tojo: 7 destroyed
Ki-84a Frank: 2 destroyed
Ki-102b Randy: 5 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 1 destroyed



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Jul 19, 44


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Hamamatsu , at 111,61

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 77 NM, estimated altitude 22,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 26 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 49
A6M5 Zero x 131
A6M5c Zero x 35
A7M2 Sam x 49
J2M3 Jack x 2
N1K1-J George x 24
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 3
Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 134
Ki-84a Frank x 16
Ki-102b Randy x 19



Allied aircraft
Liberator B.III x 13
Liberator B.VI x 39
B-24D1 Liberator x 18
B-24J Liberator x 81
B-29-1 Superfort x 66
P-38J Lightning x 29
P-51B Mustang x 40
F4U-1 Corsair x 28
F4U-1A Corsair x 71
PB4Y-1 Liberator x 44


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5c Zero: 2 destroyed
A7M2 Sam: 1 destroyed
Ki-44-IIc Tojo: 1 destroyed
Ki-84a Frank: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Liberator B.III: 1 damaged
Liberator B.VI: 1 damaged
B-24J Liberator: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged
B-29-1 Superfort: 3 damaged
P-51B Mustang: 1 destroyed
F4U-1A Corsair: 1 destroyed



Ki-100-I Tony factory hits 13
Ki-83 factory hits 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Hamamatsu , at 111,61

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 42,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 23 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 40
A6M5 Zero x 108
A6M5c Zero x 28
A7M2 Sam x 46
J2M3 Jack x 1
N1K1-J George x 12
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 1
Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 116
Ki-84a Frank x 10
Ki-102b Randy x 18



Allied aircraft
P-38J Lightning x 9
P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 189


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3a Zero: 1 destroyed
A6M5 Zero: 8 destroyed
A6M5c Zero: 2 destroyed
A7M2 Sam: 1 destroyed
J2M3 Jack: 1 destroyed
N1K1-J George: 2 destroyed
Ki-44-IIc Tojo: 6 destroyed
Ki-102b Randy: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 1 destroyed

[ADB123]

Think there's something wrong in the system

It's the result of a design over-reaction to a perceived problem with CAP in the original WitP - CAP didn't "leak enough" to satisfy the folks who redesigned WitP into AE, so they overcompensated and now CAP leaks to the point of being a joke.

And don't listen to all of the apologists who make up imaginary scenarios to "explain away" the current really, REALLY bad design of CAP in AE.

But we, the paying customers, are stuck with it, so you, Radar and the rest of us have to live with it, no matter how bad it is.