Matrix Games Forums

Hi all,

Though still unable to play my UV PBEMs I somehow managed to make one test
today that I wanted to do for long long time...

It's about importance of having radar in base for CAP.


Test Setup

I used Scenario #15 "Fortress Rabaul" (15 Feb 43 - 31 Dec 43) in H2H test with
FoW turned OFF.

I put _ALL_ aircraft on both sides to training 0% for few weeks (to fill the
squadrons up) and had relevant bases for my testing with plenty of supply
(more than 2x required).

In test Rabaul was used to attack Port Moresby.


Involved air units in Rabaul:

F1/251st Daitai (27 A6M2 Zero aircraft)
F2/251st Daitai (27 A6M2 Zero aircraft)
G1/705th Daitai (27 G4M1 Betty aircraft)


Involved air units in Port Moresby:

35th FS (24 P-38G Lightning aircraft)
36th FS (24 P-38G Lightning aircraft)
39th FS (24 P-38G Lightning aircraft)
80th FS (24 P-38G Lightning aircraft)


Since Port Moresby had 3 ENG units with 4 radar sets present (111st with 1,
117th with 2 and 166th with 2) I additionally transferred 101st and 155th ENG
units from Noumea to Port Moresby to test when radar sets were absent (and for
those tests the 111st, 117th and 166th ENG units were transported out of Port
Moresby).

All aircraft squadrons on both sides are fully rested (for weeks) and have 99
morale and 0 fatigue.

The weather was "Clear" and the "No Fly Zone" was never observed during
execution phases on both Rabaul and Port Moresby.



Test #1 (Rabaul "Sweep" vs. Port Moresby CAP at 10%)

With 4x 24 = 96 P-38G Lightning aircraft in Port Moresby expected CAP is 10
aircraft (rounded 10% of 96).


a) Radar absent

A6M2 Zero on "Sweep" vs. P-38G Lightning on CAP

54 / 10 -> actual CAP is 10% (with 0 more aircraft involved or 0% increase)
54 / 10 -> actual CAP is 10% (with 0 more aircraft involved or 0% increase)
54 / 10 -> actual CAP is 10% (with 0 more aircraft involved or 0% increase)
54 / 10 -> actual CAP is 10% (with 0 more aircraft involved or 0% increase)
54 / 10 -> actual CAP is 10% (with 0 more aircraft involved or 0% increase)
54 / 10 -> actual CAP is 10% (with 0 more aircraft involved or 0% increase)
54 / 10 -> actual CAP is 10% (with 0 more aircraft involved or 0% increase)
54 / 10 -> actual CAP is 10% (with 0 more aircraft involved or 0% increase)
54 / 10 -> actual CAP is 10% (with 0 more aircraft involved or 0% increase)
54 / 10 -> actual CAP is 10% (with 0 more aircraft involved or 0% increase)

AVG 10 -> actual CAP is 10% (with 0 more aircraft involved or 0% increase)


b) Radar present

A6M2 Zero on "Sweep" vs. P-38G Lightning on CAP

54 / 52 -> actual CAP is 54% (with 42 more aircraft involved or 44% increase)
54 / 56 -> actual CAP is 58% (with 46 more aircraft involved or 48% increase)
54 / 40 -> actual CAP is 42% (with 30 more aircraft involved or 32% increase)
54 / 40 -> actual CAP is 42% (with 30 more aircraft involved or 32% increase)
54 / 56 -> actual CAP is 58% (with 46 more aircraft involved or 48% increase)
54 / 40 -> actual CAP is 42% (with 30 more aircraft involved or 32% increase)
54 / 56 -> actual CAP is 58% (with 46 more aircraft involved or 48% increase)
54 / 56 -> actual CAP is 58% (with 46 more aircraft involved or 48% increase)
54 / 56 -> actual CAP is 58% (with 46 more aircraft involved or 48% increase)
54 / 48 -> actual CAP is 50% (with 38 more aircraft involved or 40% increase)

AVG 50 -> actual CAP is 52% (with 40 more aircraft involved or 42% increase)


c) Comments

When 10% CAP is ordered and no radar is present the actually flown CAP is
exactly as predicted.

When radar is added the CAP rises significantly.



Test #2 (Rabaul "Sweep" vs. Port Moresby CAP at 30%)

With 4x 24 = 96 P-38G Lightning aircraft in Port Moresby expected CAP is 29
aircraft (rounded 30% of 96).


a) Radar absent

A6M2 Zero on "Sweep" vs. P-38G Lightning on CAP

54 / 25 -> actual CAP is 26% (with -4 more aircraft involved or -4% increase)
54 / 25 -> actual CAP is 26% (with -4 more aircraft involved or -4% increase)
54 / 25 -> actual CAP is 26% (with -4 more aircraft involved or -4% increase)
54 / 25 -> actual CAP is 26% (with -4 more aircraft involved or -4% increase)
54 / 25 -> actual CAP is 26% (with -4 more aircraft involved or -4% increase)
54 / 25 -> actual CAP is 26% (with -4 more aircraft involved or -4% increase)
54 / 25 -> actual CAP is 26% (with -4 more aircraft involved or -4% increase)
54 / 25 -> actual CAP is 26% (with -4 more aircraft involved or -4% increase)
54 / 25 -> actual CAP is 26% (with -4 more aircraft involved or -4% increase)
54 / 25 -> actual CAP is 26% (with -4 more aircraft involved or -4% increase)

AVG 25 -> actual CAP is 26% (with -4 more aircraft involved or -4% increase)


b) Radar present

A6M2 Zero on "Sweep" vs. P-38G Lightning on CAP

54 / 34 -> actual CAP is 35% (with 5 more aircraft involved or 5% increase)
54 / 34 -> actual CAP is 35% (with 5 more aircraft involved or 5% increase)
54 / 48 -> actual CAP is 50% (with 19 more aircraft involved or 20% increase)
54 / 40 -> actual CAP is 42% (with 11 more aircraft involved or 12% increase)
54 / 44 -> actual CAP is 46% (with 15 more aircraft involved or 16% increase)
54 / 62 -> actual CAP is 65% (with 33 more aircraft involved or 35% increase)
54 / 34 -> actual CAP is 35% (with 5 more aircraft involved or 5% increase)
54 / 34 -> actual CAP is 35% (with 5 more aircraft involved or 5% increase)
54 / 48 -> actual CAP is 50% (with 19 more aircraft involved or 20% increase)
54 / 58 -> actual CAP is 60% (with 29 more aircraft involved or 30% increase)

AVG 44 -> actual CAP is 46% (with 15 more aircraft involved or 16% increase)


c) Comments

When 30% CAP is ordered and no radar is present the actually flown CAP is less
than predicted.

When radar is added the CAP rises moderately (and with great variations).



Test #3 (Rabaul "Sweep" vs. Port Moresby CAP at 60%)

With 4x 24 = 96 P-38G Lightning aircraft in Port Moresby expected CAP is 58
aircraft (rounded 60% of 96).


a) Radar absent

A6M2 Zero on "Sweep" vs. P-38G Lightning on CAP

54 / 47 -> actual CAP is 49% (with -11 more aircraft involved or -11% increase)
54 / 50 -> actual CAP is 52% (with -8 more aircraft involved or -8% increase)
54 / 50 -> actual CAP is 52% (with -8 more aircraft involved or -8% increase)
54 / 50 -> actual CAP is 52% (with -8 more aircraft involved or -8% increase)
54 / 47 -> actual CAP is 49% (with -11 more aircraft involved or -11% increase)
54 / 50 -> actual CAP is 52% (with -8 more aircraft involved or -8% increase)
54 / 50 -> actual CAP is 52% (with -8 more aircraft involved or -8% increase)
54 / 47 -> actual CAP is 49% (with -11 more aircraft involved or -11% increase)
54 / 50 -> actual CAP is 52% (with -8 more aircraft involved or -8% increase)
54 / 50 -> actual CAP is 52% (with -8 more aircraft involved or -8% increase)

AVG 49 -> actual CAP is 51% (with -9 more aircraft involved or -9% increase)


b) Radar present

A6M2 Zero on "Sweep" vs. P-38G Lightning on CAP

54 / 50 -> actual CAP is 52% (with -8 more aircraft involved or -8% increase)
54 / 60 -> actual CAP is 63% (with 2 more aircraft involved or 3% increase)
54 / 57 -> actual CAP is 59% (with -1 more aircraft involved or -1% increase)
54 / 50 -> actual CAP is 52% (with -8 more aircraft involved or -8% increase)
54 / 50 -> actual CAP is 52% (with -8 more aircraft involved or -8% increase)
54 / 47 -> actual CAP is 49% (with -11 more aircraft involved or -11% increase)
54 / 60 -> actual CAP is 63% (with 2 more aircraft involved or 3% increase)
54 / 50 -> actual CAP is 52% (with -8 more aircraft involved or -8% increase)
54 / 56 -> actual CAP is 58% (with -2 more aircraft involved or -2% increase)
54 / 60 -> actual CAP is 63% (with 2 more aircraft involved or 3% increase)

AVG 54 -> actual CAP is 56% (with -4 more aircraft involved or -4% increase)


c) Comments

When 60% CAP is ordered and no radar is present the actually flown CAP is much
less than predicted.

When radar is added the CAP is again less than predicted and there is just
small amount of average increase.



Test #4 (Rabaul "Escort" + "Bombers" vs. Port Moresby CAP at 10%)

With 4x 24 = 96 P-38G Lightning aircraft in Port Moresby expected CAP is 10
aircraft (rounded 10% of 96).


a) Radar absent

A6M2 Zero on "Escort" + G4M1 Betty on "Airfield Strike" vs. P-38G Lightning on
CAP

54+19 / 10 -> actual CAP is 10% (with 0 more aircraft involved or 0% increase)
54+23 / 10 -> actual CAP is 10% (with 0 more aircraft involved or 0% increase)
54+21 / 10 -> actual CAP is 10% (with 0 more aircraft involved or 0% increase)
54+20 / 10 -> actual CAP is 10% (with 0 more aircraft involved or 0% increase)
54+21 / 10 -> actual CAP is 10% (with 0 more aircraft involved or 0% increase)
54+17 / 10 -> actual CAP is 10% (with 0 more aircraft involved or 0% increase)
54+20 / 10 -> actual CAP is 10% (with 0 more aircraft involved or 0% increase)
27+21 / 10 -> actual CAP is 10% (with 0 more aircraft involved or 0% increase)
54+18 / 10 -> actual CAP is 10% (with 0 more aircraft involved or 0% increase)
54+20 / 10 -> actual CAP is 10% (with 0 more aircraft involved or 0% increase)

AVG 10 -> actual CAP is 10% (with 0 more aircraft involved or 0% increase)


b) Radar present

A6M2 Zero on "Escort" + G4M1 Betty on "Airfield Strike" vs. P-38G Lightning on
CAP

54+22 / 48 -> actual CAP is 50% (with 38 more aircraft involved or 40% increase)
54+22 / 56 -> actual CAP is 58% (with 46 more aircraft involved or 48% increase)
54+23 / 48 -> actual CAP is 50% (with 38 more aircraft involved or 40% increase)
54+17 / 40 -> actual CAP is 42% (with 30 more aircraft involved or 32% increase)
54+18 / 56 -> actual CAP is 58% (with 46 more aircraft involved or 48% increase)
54+24 / 48 -> actual CAP is 50% (with 38 more aircraft involved or 40% increase)
54+20 / 41 -> actual CAP is 43% (with 31 more aircraft involved or 33% increase)
27+21 / 40 -> actual CAP is 42% (with 30 more aircraft involved or 32% increase)
54+21 / 68 -> actual CAP is 71% (with 58 more aircraft involved or 61% increase)
54+20 / 68 -> actual CAP is 71% (with 58 more aircraft involved or 61% increase)

AVG 51 -> actual CAP is 53% (with 41 more aircraft involved or 43% increase)


c) Comments

When 10% CAP is ordered and no radar is present the actually flown CAP is
exactly as predicted.

When radar is added the CAP rises significantly (and with great variations).



Test #5 (Rabaul "Escort" + "Bombers" vs. Port Moresby CAP at 30%)

With 4x 24 = 96 P-38G Lightning aircraft in Port Moresby expected CAP is 29
aircraft (rounded 30% of 96).


a) Radar absent

A6M2 Zero on "Escort" + G4M1 Betty on "Airfield Strike" vs. P-38G Lightning on
CAP

54+23 / 25 -> actual CAP is 26% (with -4 more aircraft involved or -4% increase)
54+21 / 25 -> actual CAP is 26% (with -4 more aircraft involved or -4% increase)
54+21 / 25 -> actual CAP is 26% (with -4 more aircraft involved or -4% increase)
54+25 / 25 -> actual CAP is 26% (with -4 more aircraft involved or -4% increase)
27+23 / 25 -> actual CAP is 26% (with -4 more aircraft involved or -4% increase)
54+20 / 25 -> actual CAP is 26% (with -4 more aircraft involved or -4% increase)
54+22 / 25 -> actual CAP is 26% (with -4 more aircraft involved or -4% increase)
54+19 / 25 -> actual CAP is 26% (with -4 more aircraft involved or -4% increase)
54+20 / 25 -> actual CAP is 26% (with -4 more aircraft involved or -4% increase)
54+21 / 25 -> actual CAP is 26% (with -4 more aircraft involved or -4% increase)

AVG 25 -> actual CAP is 26% (with -4 more aircraft involved or -4% increase)


b) Radar present

A6M2 Zero on "Escort" + G4M1 Betty on "Airfield Strike" vs. P-38G Lightning on
CAP

54+20 / 48 -> actual CAP is 50% (with 19 more aircraft involved or 20% increase)
54+24 / 62 -> actual CAP is 65% (with 33 more aircraft involved or 35% increase)
54+23 / 76 -> actual CAP is 79% (with 47 more aircraft involved or 49% increase)
54+22 / 62 -> actual CAP is 65% (with 33 more aircraft involved or 35% increase)
54+23 / 62 -> actual CAP is 65% (with 33 more aircraft involved or 35% increase)
54+19 / 48 -> actual CAP is 50% (with 19 more aircraft involved or 20% increase)
54+17 / 62 -> actual CAP is 65% (with 33 more aircraft involved or 35% increase)
54+19 / 72 -> actual CAP is 75% (with 43 more aircraft involved or 45% increase)
27+22 / 48 -> actual CAP is 50% (with 19 more aircraft involved or 20% increase)
54+22 / 58 -> actual CAP is 60% (with 29 more aircraft involved or 30% increase)

AVG 60 -> actual CAP is 63% (with 31 more aircraft involved or 33% increase)


c) Comments

When 30% CAP is ordered and no radar is present the actually flown CAP is less
than predicted.

When radar is added the CAP rises significantly (and with great variations).



Test #6 (Rabaul "Escort" + "Bombers" vs. Port Moresby CAP at 60%)

With 4x 24 = 96 P-38G Lightning aircraft in Port Moresby expected CAP is 58
aircraft (rounded 60% of 96).


a) Radar absent

A6M2 Zero on "Escort" + G4M1 Betty on "Airfield Strike" vs. P-38G Lightning on
CAP

54+18 / 44 -> actual CAP is 46% (with -14 more aircraft involved or -14% increase)
27+21 / 50 -> actual CAP is 52% (with -8 more aircraft involved or -8% increase)
54+24 / 50 -> actual CAP is 52% (with -8 more aircraft involved or -8% increase)
54+23 / 50 -> actual CAP is 52% (with -8 more aircraft involved or -8% increase)
54+23 / 44 -> actual CAP is 46% (with -14 more aircraft involved or -14% increase)
54+21 / 50 -> actual CAP is 52% (with -8 more aircraft involved or -8% increase)
54+20 / 50 -> actual CAP is 52% (with -8 more aircraft involved or -8% increase)
54+23 / 44 -> actual CAP is 46% (with -14 more aircraft involved or -14% increase)
54+20 / 50 -> actual CAP is 52% (with -8 more aircraft involved or -8% increase)
54+21 / 50 -> actual CAP is 52% (with -8 more aircraft involved or -8% increase)

AVG 48 -> actual CAP is 50% (with -10 more aircraft involved or -10% increase)


b) Radar present

A6M2 Zero on "Escort" + G4M1 Betty on "Airfield Strike" vs. P-38G Lightning on
CAP

54+22 / 46 -> actual CAP is 48% (with -12 more aircraft involved or -12% increase)
54+23 / 47 -> actual CAP is 49% (with -11 more aircraft involved or -11% increase)
54+22 / 60 -> actual CAP is 63% (with 2 more aircraft involved or 3% increase)
54+23 / 59 -> actual CAP is 61% (with 1 more aircraft involved or 1% increase)
54+22 / 70 -> actual CAP is 73% (with 12 more aircraft involved or 13% increase)
54+22 / 60 -> actual CAP is 63% (with 2 more aircraft involved or 3% increase)
54+24 / 60 -> actual CAP is 63% (with 2 more aircraft involved or 3% increase)
27+22 / 69 -> actual CAP is 72% (with 11 more aircraft involved or 12% increase)
54+22 / 60 -> actual CAP is 63% (with 2 more aircraft involved or 3% increase)
54+20 / 60 -> actual CAP is 63% (with 2 more aircraft involved or 3% increase)

AVG 59 -> actual CAP is 61% (with 1 more aircraft involved or 1% increase)


c) Comments

When 60% CAP is ordered and no radar is present the actually flown CAP is much
less than predicted.

When radar is added the CAP rises only small amount (with great variations)
and even then it just surpasses the predicted level.



Summary


Rabaul "Sweep" vs. Port Moresby CAP

10% CAP Radar absent:
AVG 10 -> actual CAP is 10% (with 0 more aircraft involved or 0% increase)

10% CAP Radar present:
AVG 50 -> actual CAP is 52% (with 40 more aircraft involved or 42% increase)

30% CAP Radar absent:
AVG 25 -> actual CAP is 26% (with -4 more aircraft involved or -4% increase)

30% CAP Radar present:
AVG 44 -> actual CAP is 46% (with 15 more aircraft involved or 16% increase)

60% CAP Radar absent:
AVG 49 -> actual CAP is 51% (with -9 more aircraft involved or -9% increase)

60% CAP Radar present:
AVG 54 -> actual CAP is 56% (with -4 more aircraft involved or -4% increase)


The best CAP number is, as expected, with greatest (60% CAP) effort.

Strangely enough the 30% CAP together plus radar gives worse results than 10%
CAP plus radar.

Please note that the 10% CAP plus radar compared to 60% CAP plus radar is very
very close and that this is certainly the best way to have low fatigue and
still have rather large CAP coverage (i.e. this is the most efficient
CAP/radar combination for this situation).



Rabaul "Escort" + "Bombers" vs. Port Moresby CAP

10% CAP Radar absent:
AVG 10 -> actual CAP is 10% (with 0 more aircraft involved or 0% increase)

10% CAP Radar present:
AVG 51 -> actual CAP is 53% (with 41 more aircraft involved or 43% increase)

30% CAP Radar absent:
AVG 25 -> actual CAP is 26% (with -4 more aircraft involved or -4% increase)

30% CAP Radar present:
AVG 60 -> actual CAP is 63% (with 31 more aircraft involved or 33% increase)

60% CAP Radar absent:
AVG 48 -> actual CAP is 50% (with -10 more aircraft involved or -10% increase)

60% CAP Radar present:
AVG 59 -> actual CAP is 61% (with 1 more aircraft involved or 1% increase)


The best CAP number is, strangely, with 30% CAP effort and not with greatest
(60% CAP) effort.

Therefore the 30% CAP plus radar is certainly the best way to have low fatigue
and still have rather large CAP coverage (i.e. this is the most efficient
CAP/radar combination for this situation).



Unfortunately this means that there is no easy setting (i.e. one for all) that
can deal beast with both "Sweep" and "Escort" + "Bombers" threats.

The radar significantly changed the CAP numbers when comparing "Sweep" and
"Escort" + "Bombers" threats while this difference doesn't appear when radar
is not present.

IMHO it is possible to assume that having bombers sighted by radar produces
different outcome than when just sighting enemy fighters and that enemy
bombers result in larger CAP effort for defense when radar is present.


Very interesting indeed...



Leo "Apollo11"

Excellent work Apollo - it does sound like you may be going quietly mad without PBEM though

A question: what happens to the extra CAP level if you are using escort as your CAP option and the ACs that would make up the increase are actually flying escort on a bombing mission?

What Appollo11 failed to report is that in a lot of cases no extra fighters (in at least 50% of tests I did) scramble against "Sweep" missions at the target base...leaving the defending fighters outnumbered and their best pilots vulnerable.

Perhaps the size of the Sweep or number of defending fighters makes a difference to the likelihood of extra fighters scrambling.
When I did my test I used the "Fortress Rabaul" scenario had single squads flying sweeps from Rabaul to PM and single squads defending on 20% CAP.
I rotated the fighters as they got tired and flew the same single Sweep mission about 30 times.

Hi all,

Mike_B20 wrote:What Appollo11 failed to report is that in a lot of cases no extra fighters (in at least 50% of tests I did) scramble against "Sweep" missions at the target base...leaving the defending fighters outnumbered and their best pilots vulnerable.

Perhaps the size of the Sweep or number of defending fighters makes a difference to the likelihood of extra fighters scrambling.
When I did my test I used the "Fortress Rabaul" scenario had single squads flying sweeps from Rabaul to PM and single squads defending on 20% CAP.
I rotated the fighters as they got tired and flew the same single Sweep mission about 30 times.

I did 120 tests (12x10=120) altogether and all numbers are listed in my first
post.

The number of defending fighters scrambled varied many times but I think that
always all 4 defending squadrons flew (with varying numbers of fighters due to
CAP percentage and additional number of fighter required by Radar depending on
situation).

Please note that in majority of all cases the defending fighters were indeed
outnumbered although their gross number (4 squadrons x24 = 96) was larger than
number of attacking fighters (2 squadrons x27 = 54).

IMHO this is because the CAP must always be in air (through all execution
phases) while attackers fly just once (when on "Escort") or twice (when on
"Sweep") and they can always mount bigger effort at certain point of time.

This is not unrealistic at all.


Leo "Apollo11"

Hi all,

wobbly wrote:Excellent work Apollo - it does sound like you may be going quietly mad without PBEM though

A question: what happens to the extra CAP level if you are using escort as your CAP option and the ACs that would make up the increase are actually flying escort on a bombing mission?

Yes... interesting question indeed...


I think that CAP aircraft are those that are in air and those that are in
transit (that's why with CAP percentage larger than 10% and when no radar is
present the actual in air number of aircraft is less than predicted).

So when radar is available I suspect that there would be no additional
aircraft available for emergency scramble because all other available aircraft
(that are not currently on CAP) would go to "Escort".


Leo "Apollo11"

So, if there is a 50% (let's just say for convenience) probability of exra fighters scrambling for each squad on CAP defence:

In the case of 4 squads defending there is,

15 to 1 possibilty of no squads scrambling
4.33 to 1 possibility of 1 squad scrambling
1 to 1 possibility of 2 squads scrambling
4.33 to 1 possibility of 3 squads scrambling
15 to 1 possibility of 4 squads scrambling

This is just supposition on my part and someone with a better grasp of probability please correct my figures where I'm wrong.

I think that all squadrons that are tasked with CAP fly always (so when you
have 4 squadrons on CAP all 4 of them fly together and number of fighters in
air depends on CAP percentage).

When radar is present additional free fighters can join them (i.e. scramble)
but their number varies with various circumstances (I think/suspect that all
squadrons contribute to those additional fighters again).


Leo "Apollo11"

Thanks for the info Leo. Glad to know I have been doing things right for once. I try for Radar and use 10-30% in most circumstances. That seems to give the best overall results. Of course as Japan things change.