#### OFFICIAL ADMIRAL's EDITION AAR ####

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 4001
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by Jim D Burns »

ORIGINAL: Iridium

Is it me or is taking a few actual battle results and declaring them the norm been done and found to be rather inaccurate?

LOL that's why I chose an early battle. Flak losses are far worse later in the war.

Jim
User avatar
Iridium
Posts: 932
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 7:50 pm
Location: Jersey

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by Iridium »

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Iridium

Is it me or is taking a few actual battle results and declaring them the norm been done and found to be rather inaccurate?

LOL that's why I chose an early battle. Flak losses are far worse later in the war.

Jim

I just meant in general. There has got to be a better way.
Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.
Image
"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture
Flying Tiger
Posts: 496
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:45 pm
Location: ummmm... i HATE that question!

RE: 4 May 42: A Day of Heavy Action

Post by Flying Tiger »

-------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: This is meant to give everyone a bit on insight. A preview, if you will, of what is going on behind the curtain. WE ARE IN BETA. Whatever dynamics, trends, paradigms you detect or disagree with are subject to change. Let's not ruin this for everyone. This is not intended to foster debate or support anyone's agenda. Mostly just enjoy and take the time to learn about what is in store with AE.
-------------------------------------------
 
Poor old Elf. Did his best to avoid us all getting into a full blown debate. But alas....we are gamers. We whinge!
User avatar
Gunner98
Posts: 5978
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 12:49 am
Location: The Great White North!
Contact:

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by Gunner98 »

When you look at the results:

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-21 Zero x 8
B5N2 Kate x 42
D3A1 Val x 38

Total: 88 A/C

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2-21 Zero: 1 destroyed, 3 damaged
B5N2 Kate: 14 destroyed, 14 damaged
D3A1 Val: 4 destroyed, 16 damaged

Totoal destroyed: 19 (22%), Total damaged: 33 (38%). Final tally: 52 or 60%

Your not too far off the speculative estimate
Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 4001
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by Jim D Burns »

ORIGINAL: Gunner98
Your not too far off the speculative estimate

I said 30% - 60% of bombers attacking the targets get destroyed by flak, the rest (or most of the rest) damaged. Counting those shot down by CAP isn't part of those percentages. Of the 63 bombers that attacked targets, only 3 were flak losses according to his screenshot comments. That's why we see so many bomb hits.

Jim
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by witpqs »

AND - at Santa Cruz there were additional AA upgrades in place plus the presence of a whopping big (in AA terms) US fast battleship.

I'm feeling pretty good about the results Elf is showing us here.
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 4001
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by Jim D Burns »

ORIGINAL: witpqs

AND - at Santa Cruz there were additional AA upgrades in place plus the presence of a whopping big (in AA terms) US fast battleship.

I'm feeling pretty good about the results Elf is showing us here.

OK let’s look at the Battle of the Coral Sea.

I don’t know the specifics as to strike packages, but I do know that 69 Japanese planes (includes the fighters I think) attacked and 27 were lost. Most of these were probably bombers, so an educated guess would be well above 50% destroyed if the fighters are not counted.

I don’t think any air to air CAP intercepts were made because the few fighters in the air were vectored to the wrong altitude and were too close to their ships to be of much use due to being low on fuel. Many were landing or already landing and being refueled when the attack occurred, so we can assume most of the 27 were flak losses, if not all of them.

http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/st/~mic ... .what.html

Jim
User avatar
Kull
Posts: 2744
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:43 am
Location: El Paso, TX

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by Kull »

If we're going to compare Elf's results to history, why the reliance on figures from Midway and Santa Cruz? It would seem the proper comparison would be to Coral Sea. One web site indicates the Japanese lost 43 planes on May 8th, but doesn't distinguish which were lost to CAP, AAA, damage aboard Shokaku, ops losses, etc. Hopefully somebody can pull up something more useful.
 
I would agree that the Flak losses do seem a lot lighter than one would expect, but keep in mind that we're looking at a sample size of one. It seems reasonable to expect that the AE team has been studying flak results as part of their beta testing.
User avatar
Kull
Posts: 2744
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:43 am
Location: El Paso, TX

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by Kull »

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
I don’t know the specifics as to strike packages, but I do know that 69 Japanese planes (includes the fighters I think) attacked and 27 were lost. Most of these were probably bombers, so an educated guess would be well above 50% destroyed if the fighters are not counted.

I don’t think any air to air CAP intercepts were made because the few fighters in the air were vectored to the wrong altitude and were too close to their ships to be of much use due to being low on fuel. Many were landing or already landing and being refueled when the attack occurred, so we can assume most of the 27 were flak losses, if not all of them.

http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/st/~mic ... .what.html

Jim

The website below has better information on the nature of the Japanese strike, but unfortunately does not provide numbers. In this view CAP was an active factor, and appears to account for many of the Japanese a/c loses:

http://www.bluejacket.com/ww2_05-04-42_coral-sea.html
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 4001
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by Jim D Burns »

Ok this site gives CAP details:

23 Dauntless dive bombers shot down 4 torpedo-planes (the rest of the CAP was out of position), so 23 of the 27 destroyed are from flak. Though it doesn't say how many of the 69 are zeroes.

http://www.microworks.net/PACIFIC/battles/coral_sea.htm

Jim
User avatar
Kull
Posts: 2744
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:43 am
Location: El Paso, TX

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by Kull »

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Ok this site gives CAP details:

23 Dauntless dive bombers shot down 4 torpedo-planes (the rest of the CAP was out of position), so 23 of the 27 destroyed are from flak. Though it doesn't say how many of the 69 are zeroes.

I'm seeing conflicting information as to AA vs. Cap losses (look at pages 68-71). The strike package numbers were "twenty fighters and seventy attack planes". The one thing everyone agrees on is that Japanese losses were 27 aircraft:

http://books.google.com/books?id=bNtS8A ... A1-PA69,M1

As an interesting side note, the same book notes that the Japanese strikes on Neosho and Sims cost them six planes. Obviously there was no CAP in that engagement and the AA had to be paltry in comparison to that Carrier Task force, yet it still claimed six planes.
User avatar
TheElf
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 1:46 am
Location: Pax River, MD

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by TheElf »

CORAL SEA Continues...

Immediately following the brutal attack of CARDIV 5, Shoho launches her small AirGroup less 6 CAP Zekes. The strike is extremely effective, finding both American CVs in the throws of pitched damage control battles and blind without Radar. The Airborne CAP of 6 Cats does well to bag 2 Zekes from the meager escort, but fails to cut into the Strikers. The result is a 33% hit rate for the Shoho Kates. Lex seems all but doomed.

Image
The Shoho takes advantage of a an enemy while it's down...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Cooktown at 98,138

Japanese aircraft
A6M2-21 Zero x 6
B5N2 Kate x 6


Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 7


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2-21 Zero: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged
B5N2 Kate: 6 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat: 4 damaged

Allied Ships
CV Lexington, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires


Aircraft Attacking:
2 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet (EIII-3 Daitai / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
4 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet (EIII-3 Daitai / None)
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

Image
User avatar
PeteG662
Posts: 1263
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:01 pm

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by PeteG662 »

From this example looks like strikes may be more brutal on the receiver.
User avatar
cantona2
Posts: 3749
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Gibraltar

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by cantona2 »

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Remember that Miss Betty carries a very teeny-tiny bombload.

Its the damn torpedo she carry's thats the problem [:(]
1966 was a great year for English Football...Eric was born

User avatar
TheElf
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 1:46 am
Location: Pax River, MD

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by TheElf »

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

From this example looks like strikes may be more brutal on the receiver.
It's not as bad as it looks. FoW is on. Lex is not in too bad a shape. At least not for having received 4 torpedoes. She'll make port and fight again.
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

Image
moose1999
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:41 pm

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by moose1999 »

Is it possible to turn FOW on and off - also during a game, not just at the beginning?
Is it possible to turn FOW on/off just for the combat reports?
If not, would any of the above be possible through modding?
regards,

Briny
User avatar
m10bob
Posts: 8583
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 9:09 pm
Location: Dismal Seepage Indiana

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by m10bob »

In Elf's last example it looks like the Zeke's did a good job of protecting the bombers and keeping the Wildcats busy...Nice..So much damage to the bombers with the escort, It would be a waste to send un-escorted bombers against a defended target.
Image

User avatar
DuckofTindalos
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by DuckofTindalos »

ORIGINAL: briny_norman

Is it possible to turn FOW on and off - also during a game, not just at the beginning?
Is it possible to turn FOW on/off just for the combat reports?
If not, would any of the above be possible through modding?

No, no and no.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
DuckofTindalos
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by DuckofTindalos »

ORIGINAL: m10bob

In Elf's last example it looks like the Zeke's did a good job of protecting the bombers and keeping the Wildcats busy...Nice..So much damage to the bombers with the escort, It would be a waste to send un-escorted bombers against a defended target.

Plus, there's also now a significant risk of unescorted bombers turning back before reaching the target, or inbound strikes breaking up into smaller packets.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
PeteG662
Posts: 1263
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:01 pm

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by PeteG662 »

Its going to be interesting.
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”