Page 1 of 3
Strange CAP results
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 7:47 am
by invernomuto
While I appreciate the dev's effort to eliminate the Uber CAP problem in AE,
some CAP results does not sound right to me, expecially for the japanese.
(Scenario 1, latest patch, PBEM game, I'm using the Allies)
An example:
Japanese CAP:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Kragan at 54,103
Weather in hex: Light rain
Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 47
Allied aircraft
B-17D Fortress x 3
No Japanese losses
Allied aircraft losses
B-17D Fortress: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged
Japanese Ships
CV Soryu
Aircraft Attacking:
2 x B-17D Fortress bombing from 10000 feet *
Naval Attack: 4 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
CAP engaged:
Tainan Ku S-1 Det B with A6M2 Zero (1 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters to 14000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 24 minutes
3rd Ku S-1 Det A with A6M2 Zero (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 9000
Raid is overhead
Akagi-1 with A6M2 Zero (1 airborne, 5 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 13000 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 7 minutes
Soryu-1 with A6M2 Zero (1 airborne, 5 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 7000 , scrambling fighters between 7000 and 16000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 10 minutes
Shokaku-1 with A6M2 Zero (1 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters to 9000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 7 minutes
Zuikaku-1 with A6M2 Zero (1 airborne, 6 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 7 minutes
Ryujo-1 with A6M2 Zero (2 airborne, 6 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 11000 and 12000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 25 minutes
Shoho-1 with A6M2 Zero (1 airborne, 5 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 11000 , scrambling fighters between 3000 and 14000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 9 minutes
Hiryu-1 with A6M2 Zero (0 airborne, 3 on standby, 0 scrambling)
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters to 10000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 7 minutes
3 B17 against 47 zero at 10,000 feet and only one downed? I know that B17 were hard to fight for japanese plane, but in this case they were facing the entire KB and they were outnumbered by 15 to 1.
In general, to me (but it's just an impression) Allied cap seems more perfoming than Japanese one even in the early stages of the war.
RE: Strange CAP results
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:21 am
by Miller
This is par for the course against allied 4E bombers. Most Jap fighters are not heavily armed enough to bring them down. At least when they are attacked their bombing accuracy seems to go right down......
RE: Strange CAP results
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:33 am
by Sardaukar
It is also quite historical, IJN fighters had big problems with B-17. In "Fire in the Sky", IJNAF staff officer responsible of Rabaul air operations said in after-war interrogations that they just could not find any effective solution against Allied heavy bombers. And these were just about best pilots IJNAF had, apart from carrier pilots.
RE: Strange CAP results
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:11 am
by jomni
I've come to accept the fact that zeros cannot shoot down the B-17 that easily.
They weren't built to be bomber interceptors anyway.
Just hope that the remaining damaged B-17 don't reach home and become op losses which does happen.
RE: Strange CAP results
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:47 am
by Sardaukar
ORIGINAL: jomni
I've come to accept the fact that zeros cannot shoot down the B-17 that easily.
They weren't built to be bomber interceptors anyway.
Just hope that the remaining damaged B-17 don't reach home and become op losses which does happen.
Indeed.
That happens quite often..and is also quite historical. Problems that Zero had against B-17 were basically 2-fold. First was inadequate firepower, since even when Zero had 20mm cannons, round velocity, ammunition and effective firing distance were quite limited. This augments the second shortcoming, which was that Zero was horribly vulnerable to B-17 defensive armament.
It is no surprise that Germans went for 4x20mm cannons or for bigger 30mm cannons against B-17. While in no way invincible, it certainly had unmatched ruggedness in WWII.
RE: Strange CAP results
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:49 am
by Sardaukar
In addition, seems that most likely not all of those 47 Zeros managed to intercept. Combat text shows only 9 planes with message "intercepting now".
RE: Strange CAP results
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 10:27 am
by bklooste
Youd think at least some of those high agg pilots would ram the things before they attacked the ship. They certainly dived into the water to stop torps.
RE: Strange CAP results
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 2:27 pm
by invernomuto
ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
In addition, seems that most likely not all of those 47 Zeros managed to intercept. Combat text shows only 9 planes with message "intercepting now".
Those 9 where the the A/Cs airborne. Others scrambled and get the bombers in time before they reach the target.
RE: Strange CAP results
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:52 pm
by Wittmann30
Hmm...i don't see any of that planes scrambeling...pls check Cap enganged. Also check the time to make the Interception. I think 9 planes were in the air, some arrives not or after the raid dropped their payload...
RE: Strange CAP results
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 5:32 pm
by freeboy
regardingramming, I am in jan 44 scen 2 pbem as allies and the most effective means of taking down my b24s is ramming, most of the time I fly in and enemy gets dasables, and perhaps 6-10 times I have seen; "Pilot X gives life for the Emperor"
RE: Strange CAP results
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 5:43 pm
by Misconduct
Lets consider this, Each A2m Zero has 120 rounds of 20mm total, between 9 planes thats 1080 20mm rounds total, assuming accurate aiming you'd look around 450 shells actually hit, The germans averaged it needed 25 rounds of MG/151 in a vital area to bring down a B-17 or on average 75 hits per 250 rounds fired.
So assuming the germans had a hard enough time bringing them down with a Fw-190 with 4x20mm's with way more then 750rounds each aircraft, I think its pretty accurate to say those 9 Zeros give it their best shot and could of at most nailed 2 bombers with the ammo given.
RE: Strange CAP results
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 7:58 pm
by CarnageINC
Should be thankful that you didn't loose any fighters, you could of lost at least 3-4 easy.
RE: Strange CAP results
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:31 pm
by TheElf
another force at play here is relative force allocation. A CAP will not expend it's entire strength against a smaller force. It may. It may not. There is a line of code in there that will keep an entire Escort of 45 fighters from trying to engage one lone interceptor.
The idea that 47 Zeros would all engage 3 B-17s simultaneously is ludicrous.
RE: Strange CAP results
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 4:07 am
by castor troy
ORIGINAL: TheElf
another force at play here is relative force allocation. A CAP will not expend it's entire strength against a smaller force. It may. It may not. There is a line of code in there that will keep an entire Escort of 45 fighters from trying to engage one lone interceptor.
The idea that 47 Zeros would all engage 3 B-17s simultaneously is ludicrous.
interesting, thanks for the info
RE: Strange CAP results
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 4:54 pm
by invernomuto
Hi, thanks for the infos. I have to say that I am not whining, but I'm trying to understand how the CAP in AE works. It's really different than WITP.
Here is another result for you to comment.
Morning Air attack on TF, near Kragan at 54,103
Weather in hex: Heavy cloud
Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 15
Allied aircraft
139WH-3 x 8
75A-7 Hawk x 4
B-25C Mitchell x 4
No Japanese losses
Allied aircraft losses
139WH-3: 3 destroyed, 1 damaged
75A-7 Hawk: 1 destroyed
Japanese Ships
xAK Sugiyama Maru
xAK Oigawa Maru
Aircraft Attacking:
4 x B-25C Mitchell bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
1 x 139WH-3 bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 3 x 300 kg SAP Bomb
CAP engaged:
Tainan Ku S-1 Det B with A6M2 Zero (5 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(5 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 10000
Raid is overhead
4 planes vectored on to bombers
Ryujo-1 with A6M2 Zero (6 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(6 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
6 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters to 11000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 26 minutes
The Zeros performed quite well against Dutch fighters, downed 3 dutch bombers and then began to battle the heavier B-25. There were 5-6 Zeros against 4 B-25. Suddenly, one after another, all the zeros left combat for "technical trouble" (engine cut, out of ammo, etc). Has anyone see anything similar? It's not the first time I see this in combat replay, it seems that the program has to end the combat replay because it was lasting too long...
Bye
RE: Strange CAP results
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 5:54 pm
by invernomuto
ORIGINAL: TheElf
another force at play here is relative force allocation. A CAP will not expend it's entire strength against a smaller force. It may. It may not. There is a line of code in there that will keep an entire Escort of 45 fighters from trying to engage one lone interceptor.
The idea that 47 Zeros would all engage 3 B-17s simultaneously is ludicrous.
Thanks for your reply, these are really useful infos.
So the 47 Zeros in CAP are not all engaged in combat.
Could you also confirm that if CAP outnumbers the escorts part of the CAP could be reserved for bombers only?
Thanks in advance!
RE: Strange CAP results
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:18 pm
by AcePylut
Weather in hex: Light rain
Not hard to imagine that 3 lonely B-17's ducked in and out of clouds over the target.
RE: Strange CAP results
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:28 pm
by LoBaron
ORIGINAL: AcePylut
Weather in hex: Light rain
Not hard to imagine that 3 lonely B-17's ducked in and out of clouds over the target.
Well put.
RE: Strange CAP results
Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 6:06 am
by castor troy
ORIGINAL: bklooste
Youd think at least some of those high agg pilots would ram the things before they attacked the ship. They certainly dived into the water to stop torps.
none of above was usual though and far from the norm
RE: Strange CAP results
Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 6:43 am
by FatR
In RL, these B-17s would have died horribly. Examples of low-to-medium altitude daylight unescorted 4E attacks in the Pacific aren't numerous. Because these attacks ended up like the raid on Hankow on 20 August of 1943, when 14 B-24D (unescorted because fighters failed to connect with the raid) were met by a sentai of Ki-43s, lost two planes, with ten more damaged (so that the unit as a whole was effectively disabled for weeks) and failed to inflict any damage on the enemy; or the raid on Haiphong on 15 September, when five B-24Ds (not expecting fighter opposition) were intercepted by 35 Ki-43s and only one Liberator survived, while Japanese lost just one pilot in return. Note, that these examples involve the most undergunned Japanese fighter of the war (barring those that already were phased out of the units at the war's beginning).
4E Allied bombers probably were made uber-tough in the game, because AE does not really model difficulties of high-altitude interception. Against ground targets this model works passably, because, in my experience, unescorted 4E units become disabled very fast and replacement rates are too slow to afford losing even a handful of planes per average raid. However, when 4E bomber are used on low-level (6k) haval attack, never mind when they skipbomb, they can be game-breakingly potent.