Attacking Airfields

[herwin]

I've reached the point in Bergerud where he claims attacking airfields was the most dangerous air mission in the South Pacific. Are airfield defences well-modelled?

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: herwin

I've reached the point in Bergerud where he claims attacking airfields was the most dangerous air mission in the South Pacific. Are airfield defences well-modelled?

I guess so when playing the Japanese in Nikmod because two base forces with their flak makes the airfield immune to Japanese air attacks. All the AA rgts from Manchuko and Japan put at one airfield will result in possible three Allied bombers shot down too when attacking at 10.000 ft...

[JeffroK]

So whats the problem?

Are japanese AA guns under-rated?

Aren't there enough AA guns in the japanese TO&E?

Or is this just another whinge?

Herwin, does the book quote attacking heights? Many of the effective airfield raids in the PNG area were at low level so as to use the parafrag more effectivley.

Plus "attacking airfields was the most dangerous air mission in the South Pacific" is relative to the options, attacking merchant ships and barges, orpoorly armed japanese ground units.  Not like attacking an industrial area or a well armed German formation.

[JeffroK]

I've had a look at the data, japanese AA seems to be reasonably represented.

I noticed that AA for ships have no soft/hard effect ratings, is this deliberate or does it stop ships AA from decimating PT Boats??

Maybe 10k ft is an attempt to use the reported safe zone from AA fire ??  (I thought it was 11k ft)

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

So whats the problem?

Are japanese AA guns under-rated?

Aren't there enough AA guns in the japanese TO&E?

Or is this just another whinge?

Herwin, does the book quote attacking heights? Many of the effective airfield raids in the PNG area were at low level so as to use the parafrag more effectivley.

Plus "attacking airfields was the most dangerous air mission in the South Pacific" is relative to the options, attacking merchant ships and barges, orpoorly armed japanese ground units.  Not like attacking an industrial area or a well armed German formation.

The author discusses heights and the construction and operations techniques used by the Japanese. A larger Japanese base was very hard to hit from altitude, so to do damage, you had to come in relatively low, tangling with Japanese AA and fighters. He also points out that many ace losses occurred in these operations.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

So whats the problem?

Are japanese AA guns under-rated?

Aren't there enough AA guns in the japanese TO&E?

Or is this just another whinge?

Herwin, does the book quote attacking heights? Many of the effective airfield raids in the PNG area were at low level so as to use the parafrag more effectivley.

Plus "attacking airfields was the most dangerous air mission in the South Pacific" is relative to the options, attacking merchant ships and barges, orpoorly armed japanese ground units.  Not like attacking an industrial area or a well armed German formation.

the effect of a single Japanese gun is surely underrated as you could put 100 75mm AA guns at a base and you would still not see much of an effect. This probably compensates for the far too many big AA guns the Japanese get. There are far more 75mm and especially 105mm AA guns for the Japanese in stock and many mods than were in real life. So we Japanese players shouldn´t complain... [8|]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I've had a look at the data, japanese AA seems to be reasonably represented.

I noticed that AA for ships have no soft/hard effect ratings, is this deliberate or does it stop ships AA from decimating PT Boats??

Maybe 10k ft is an attempt to use the reported safe zone from AA fire ??  (I thought it was 11k ft)

ships AA does work just fine against other naval forces, you will see DDs being shot up by AA turrets, and the 25mm IJN AA mounts are the preferred weapon (in the game [;)]) to fight Allied PTs.

There is a flak safe zone in stock and it´s 6000ft or below when all big calibre AA guns do nothing. This isn´t valid for Nikmod for example.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I've had a look at the data, japanese AA seems to be reasonably represented.

I noticed that AA for ships have no soft/hard effect ratings, is this deliberate or does it stop ships AA from decimating PT Boats??

Maybe 10k ft is an attempt to use the reported safe zone from AA fire ??  (I thought it was 11k ft)

ships AA does work just fine against other naval forces, you will see DDs being shot up by AA turrets, and the 25mm IJN AA mounts are the preferred weapon (in the game [;)]) to fight Allied PTs.

There is a flak safe zone in stock and it´s 6000ft or below when all big calibre AA guns do nothing. This isn´t valid for Nikmod for example.

HISTORY

There was a flak-safe zone at short range (not altitude!) for most AA. It had to do with the gun slew rate not being fast enough to track the aircraft, and might also reflect the maximum elevation of the gun. Generally speaking, it was at about one third the maximum effective range.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I've had a look at the data, japanese AA seems to be reasonably represented.

I noticed that AA for ships have no soft/hard effect ratings, is this deliberate or does it stop ships AA from decimating PT Boats??

Maybe 10k ft is an attempt to use the reported safe zone from AA fire ??  (I thought it was 11k ft)

ships AA does work just fine against other naval forces, you will see DDs being shot up by AA turrets, and the 25mm IJN AA mounts are the preferred weapon (in the game [;)]) to fight Allied PTs.

There is a flak safe zone in stock and it´s 6000ft or below when all big calibre AA guns do nothing. This isn´t valid for Nikmod for example.

HISTORY

There was a flak-safe zone at short range (not altitude!) for most AA. It had to do with the gun slew rate not being fast enough to track the aircraft, and might also reflect the maximum elevation of the gun. Generally speaking, it was at about one third the maximum effective range.

There WAS an altitude "gap" as well... the US moved to close it by widespread use of the 40 mm... i don't think Japan ever quite addressed it... iirc, it is mentioned in passing in Bergerud, and has been discussed on the forum as well (but not recently).

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: herwin

HISTORY

There was a flak-safe zone at short range (not altitude!) for most AA. It had to do with the gun slew rate not being fast enough to track the aircraft, and might also reflect the maximum elevation of the gun. Generally speaking, it was at about one third the maximum effective range.

In some cases the nature of the target being defended will permit you to optimise your flak dispositions. I believe the Panavia Tornado used to be equipped with a bomblet dispenser for runway denial purposes that required the attack to be aligned along the runway's axis. Positioning guns at the ends of the target runway permitted them to engage with minimum deflection and rate of traverse, so enhancing their capability against this form of attack.

ORIGINAL: castor troy

I guess so when playing the Japanese in Nikmod because two base forces with their flak makes the airfield immune to Japanese air attacks. All the AA rgts from Manchuko and Japan put at one airfield will result in possible three Allied bombers shot down too when attacking at 10.000 ft...

<edit> Whoops hit wrong key! I wish I could get even this result in a CHS NikMod game. This is representative of what I am getting from the presence of several AA units at Daly Waters:

Day Air attack on Daly Waters , at 35,90

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 3
B-17E Fortress x 12
B-24D Liberator x 35

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-46-II Dinah: 1 destroyed
J1N1-R Irving: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 7 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 12 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
186 casualties reported
Guns lost 3

Airbase hits 8
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 53

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 4000 feet
3 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 4000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 4000 feet
8 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 4000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 4000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 4000 feet
3 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 4000 feet
3 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 4000 feet
3 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 4000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 4000 feet
3 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 4000 feet
2 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 4000 feet
2 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 4000 feet
2 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 4000 feet

Notwithstanding the low altitude of the attackers, only a third of the B-24's get hit, and not one is killed. Going to tell the boys to start throwing rocks instead, just as effective.