Recon Cameras and Altitudes

[Mehring]

Several Soviet recon planes have options for both mid and high level cameras. I've been wondering for a while whether camera altitude and recon plane type impacts upon information revealed by aerial recon, perhaps lower level revealing more tactical information while higher level shots would be adequate for revealing strategic installations. Can anyone shed some light on how this works in game?

[Hardradi]

I follow WitW posts with regards to altitude and using cameras. You can see their altitude ratings for cameras in the Editor which from memory match WitW or are very close.

I did some testing with mid-level Rumanian cameras and they appear to function better at their optimal altitude as per the rating in the Editor which from memory is 24k. They got better results on the strike hex and on the journey too and from the strike hex.

Axis has a lot of aircraft with high altitude cameras that appear to function better at 36kbut the aircraft have a max ceiling quite a bit lower than this. I don't know what to make of this disparity.

[Hardradi]

Here it is from the Editor. Maybe someone can check to make sure that 2nd number is correct.

[Mehring]

Thanks, interesting. Do you know whether high altitude affects recon planes designed for the altitude the same as other planes in terms of operational losses?

[Lurberri]

It's clear that if high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft do not have a certain operational advantage at such high altitudes, their very raison d'être and the very nature of their missions would be called into question. Those planes should certainly have some bonus for operating at long range and at high altitude (some even had pressurized cabins to perform their missions).

[Hardradi]

Thanks, interesting. Do you know whether high altitude affects recon planes designed for the altitude the same as other planes in terms of operational losses?

I am not sure. Perhaps one of the attributes, for example, durability has an effect. I have seen loki post that flying at or close to an aircraft's high altitude point causes more operational losses.

From an Axis perspective, my experience is that it will tend to attract more Soviet Mig's which fly faster at higher altitudes comparative to Axis aircraft. This makes is quite dangerous and makes me shy away from flying that high.

[loki100]

couple of bits.

One important dynamic, over the mission box recon planes will adjust to the altitude that best fits their camera (they will use their designated height on the journey in/out)

remember that they will recon on the flight path too (so sometimes a one hex target with a designed in/out route can be very effective)

afaik, altitude doesn't affect what is seen but there is a trade off between altitude and accuracy if the weather is less than ideal (ie clear)

If I recall from WiTW, anything over 25k picks up extra operational losses to reflect the impact of the cold

I'd say the main reason to go high is flak (such as over the German cities), but Hardradi is right as the German player in WiTE2 if you run a high altitude mission you are asking for real trouble from the Migs

[jubjub]

couple of bits.

One important dynamic, over the mission box recon planes will adjust to the altitude that best fits their camera (they will use their designated height on the journey in/out)

remember that they will recon on the flight path too (so sometimes a one hex target with a designed in/out route can be very effective)

afaik, altitude doesn't affect what is seen but there is a trade off between altitude and accuracy if the weather is less than ideal (ie clear)

If I recall from WiTW, anything over 25k picks up extra operational losses to reflect the impact of the cold

I'd say the main reason to go high is flak (such as over the German cities), but Hardradi is right as the German player in WiTE2 if you run a high altitude mission you are asking for real trouble from the Migs

Best to fly right at 22k so you can avoid 100% of the 37mm flak.

[DarkHorse2]

I have been flying max altitude for Recon for some time now. I actually reorganize all of my air recon groups by AC type in order to do this.

I have found you also avoid a lot of A2A intercepts as well.

The Ju 86 P-2 prototype (W.Nr. 0421) first flew in February 1940. Luftwaffe units equipped with the aircraft began reconnaissance operations that summer. The P-2’s rated service ceiling was 39,300 feet (11,980 meters), but there were instances in which 42,000 feet (12,800 meters) was obtained, an altitude that was beyond the capacity of conventional enemy fighters for some two years. Approximately 16 Ju 86 Ps were upgraded to the Ju 86 R-1 recon variant, with W.Nr. 5132 becoming the first of that type delivered to the Luftwaffe in early 1942.

Junkers had been experimenting for some time with a high-altitude version of the Jumo diesel engine, together with pressure cabin design, and in September 1939 submitted proposals for a high-altitude reconnaissance version of the Ju 86. The go-ahead was given, and two Ju 86D airframes were converted, gun positions faired over (since no fighter would be able to reach the aircraft at its operation al altitude) and a two-seat pressure cabin was fitted. The prototypes flew in February and March 1940 as Ju 86P aircraft, and reached altitudes of more than 32,810 ft (10000 m). A third prototype with wingspan increased by 10 ft 2 in (3.10 m) reached 39,700 ft (12100 m), and the success of the trials earned an order for the conversion of 40 Ju 86Ds to Ju 86Ps. Two models were built the Ju 86P-1 bomber with a load of 2,205 lbs (1000 kg) and the Ju 86P-2 reconnaissance aircraft with three cameras. One of the prototypes flew a reconnaissance mission over the UK at 41,010 ft (12,500 m) in the summer of 1940 and was undetected, and other production models both followed this over the UK and USSR.

FYI - 42,000 ft is nearly 8 miles

So, just how effective was high-altitude AAA fire? Surprisingly, not very.

Recall that, in 1940, AAA was not expected to be
effective above 13,500 feet; and in 1941 it was not expected to be
effective at 18,000 feet. But by the end of the war it was evident that the
“accuracy of enemy antiaircraft fire normally required our [AAF] formations
to bomb from heights around 25,000 feet.” In fact, the average altitude
from which bombing occurred for B-17s was just over
21,500 feet; and when the altitude was increased, the accuracy
decreased. Eighth Bomber Command, during 1944 and 1945, was
only able to place 14.2% of its bombs within 500 feet of its target
aimpoints from 21,000 feet; and only 12.6% from 25,000 feet – and these
statistics are for good visibility conditions. Yes, the bomber was able to
overfly much of the AAA – as predicted – but as enemy AAA technology
and tactics overcame the bombers’ advantage, the bombers were driven
higher and higher which drove the accuracy lower and lower.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/ ... ghters.229

All in all, the Allies took 42% of their combat losses to German flak and 37% to German fighters.

Now, heavy flak wasn't especially efficient. These big guns had to be fed with enormous amounts of ammunition. One estimate claims it took a 128mm gun nearly 3,000 shells to shot down one Allied bomber. An 88mm used up nearly 15,000 shells to score a kill.

In Strategy for Defeat: The Luftwaffe 1939-1945 Williamson Murray offers similar figures:

The 88mm flak 36 weapon seems to have required an average expenditure of 16,000-plus shells to bring down one aircraft flying at high altitude, and that was the weapon with which most flak batteries were equipped.

For other German high altitude cannons, the average ammunition expenditure was as follows: 88mm flak 41: 8,000 shells; 105mm flak 39: 6,000 shells; and the 128mm flak 40: 3,000 shells.

Edward M. Sion cites figures that claims the approximately 3,343 flak shells it took to bring down a heavy bomber cost 267,440 Reichsmarks ($107,000).

---

So, in conclusion, how effective do you think high-altitude flak is going to be firing at air reconnaissance at 30,000+ feet?

In the absence of radar, as heavily in use in the West, I would suggest that most air reconnaissance (flying in groups of 1-3 AC) at 30,000+ were barely detectable by ground base AAA, let alone, vulnerable to their fire.

[BigDuke66]

Wonder if also the number of cameras matter, some have 2 or 3, does that yield better recon value?

[Stamb]

i did tests on the same plane with no cameras and 3x cameras
and it matters

i assume that difference between 2 vs 3 will be less noticeable if any