Matrix Games Forums

Looking at the United States Strategig Bombing survey, I found this curious data:

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm#eojcap

Japanese army and navy plane losses from all causes, both combat and noncombat, rose from an average rate of some 500 planes per month in the early months of the war to over 2,000 per month in the latter months of 1944. Aggregate losses during the course of the war were of the order of magnitude of 50,000 planes, of which something less than 40 percent were combat losses, and something over 60 percent were training, ferrying, and other noncombat losses.

.....and then
Aggregate United States plane losses during the course of the Pacific war, not including training losses in the United States, were approximately 27,000 planes. Of these losses 8,700 were on combat missions; the remainder were training, ferrying and other noncombat losses. Of the combat losses over 60 percent were to antiaircraft fire.


-If this data is reliable, then it has an interesting implication for the WiTP engine. If both sides suffered these massive noncombat losses, the the inability of WiTP to simulate this could be related to the complaints of many players that we have much more disposable aircraft in the game, compared with what both sides had historically (and then we have those massive Nell/Betty attacks and huge B-17 formations seeming 8th AF missions). Any thoughts?

My first thought is that I should take better care of my planes.
I've lost so far (mid September 1942) 5865 planes which gives an average of 651 planes lost each month.

Of the combat losses over 60 percent were to antiaircraft fire.

Hmm, your data might suggest not only that Operational Losses are too low in WITP, but that Japanese flak is too weak.

-Yes, this is possible. I must take a look at AA losses. I didn´t pay attention to them, but in my stock Guadalcanal PBEM scenario they were close to 7% of total losses for both sides. Assuming this data we have we should actually have something close to 24% for allies (40%x60%).

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Of the combat losses over 60 percent were to antiaircraft fire.

Hmm, your data might suggest not only that Operational Losses are too low in WITP, but that Japanese flak is too weak.

Or it could suggest that Japanese air-to-air opposition was really weaker than the game shows. Numbers can mean a lot of things. The only thing these seem to prove is that
non-combat losses don't seem to be adequately represented.

And I think he lost about 300 planes on September 9th alone.

We just had a huge Carrier battle near New Guinea, I will post it on the AAR tomorrow. Between the CV battle and the fighting in Timor and Malaya I think that 600 planes were lost on September 9th 1942. That is a game record for us, whoo hoo!

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Of the combat losses over 60 percent were to antiaircraft fire.

Hmm, your data might suggest not only that Operational Losses are too low in WITP, but that Japanese flak is too weak.

Or it could suggest that Japanese air-to-air opposition was really weaker than the game shows. Numbers can mean a lot of things. The only thing these seem to prove is that non-combat losses don't seem to be adequately represented.

Of course not. They never were. That's one of the reasons why the air model runs too fast. Wed that to logistics and support, which feed directly into operational losses (engine hours, down time and all that) and it's not difficult to imagine that just in this respect alone the game has it wrong by about half. [8D]

Hi, I have at least 1 PBEM game where Op loss is close to 50 percent of my total loss and I try to take care of my groups. I'll check as I do turns.

Game with Lee (I am Japan) 47.1 percent of total loss is from OP 32 percent from AA 20.8 percent from A2A

Game with Brady (again Japan) 22.9% OP

Can we get some numbers from other games?

Of course not. They never were. That's one of the reasons why the air model runs too fast. Wed that to logistics and support, which feed directly into operational losses (engine hours, down time and all that) and it's not difficult to imagine that just in this respect alone the game has it wrong by about half.

Definitely agree with you there, Tris. Just from the spare parts issue alone, both sides should have significant down time for their aircraft, especially the Japanese late in the war. I would seriously doubt that either side had an aircraft availability greater than 60% during 1943. Japanese availability should be slightly better prior to 1943 and significantly worse after, especially once her factories start getting bombed and the transports become scarce.

Giving the long distances these aircraft flew over water without navigational equipment (especially with the fighters), its a wonder the majority made it back. And if you factor in weather, its a wonder any made it back.

Chez

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I have at least 1 PBEM game where Op loss is close to 50 percent of my total loss and I try to take care of my groups. I'll check as I do turns.

Game with Lee (I am Japan) 47.1 percent of total loss is from OP 32 percent from AA 20.8 percent from A2A

Can we get some numbers from other games?

In my rather low intensity game (see Pbem AAR) it is mid Feb 42 and the stats read as this:

Allied Japanese
Total 858 Total 576
A2A 379 44% A2A 178 31%
Grnd 350 41% Grnd 87 15%
Flak 24 03% Flak 115 20%
Ops 105 12% Ops 196 34%

There is something definately screwed up with Japanese flak. Ya I know that Jap ships don't have near the AA firepower as the Allied ships and that Jap combat units don't have any organic AA,,, but even if you jam a base full of anti-aircraft artillery units, they will still almost never hit a thing.

I guess they must have recruited all of the blind people in Japan as gunners.

Yes non-op losses are too low in WITP compared to reality but your number includes losses of trainer planes (at least for the Japanese losses) and ferrying flights, that are not shown in WITP, as planes just appear where they are needed.

The op losses are OK for me for crew losses. GG games are always been far too much bloddy for pilots compared to RL. They are lost 50-75 % of the times while the real ratio should be 25-50 % depending of the mission. Especially for the non-op losses, many planes of both sides ditched after being damaged or getting lost ("I said you this island was not Tanikapokapo, but Tanikopakopa", "Shut up and continue to row") but crews survived most of the times.

As for Japanese AA scoring more kills than Zeroes, this will probably be true in a full game lasting until 1945. Most of the Allied losses were in 1944-45, when the Japanese air force was unable to fight on a daily basis and was rather used in big bloody operations lasting some days or a week. On the other hand, Allied planes were pounding Japanese troops, bases and ships everywhere and losses to AA fire over bypassed bases were usual (and high enough to rise a protest by Australian pilots in 1945, as they had enough to being shot at for no good reason). WITP fails to simulate the use of infantry MGs as AA weapons, that are rather inaccurate but successfull sometimes.

I have never gotten so far in WITP but in late 1943 in UV ops losses were also the main reason of Allied losses. AA losses were zero against bypassed troops and bases but were heavy (by US standards, very light compared to Japanese losses) against Japanese warships.

In my current PBEM vs DenisonH, date is 3 Feb 1942 and losses are (from memory):
Japan around 350 losses, 60 A2A, around 100 AA, around 20 ground, more than 170 ops
Allied around 900 losses: more than 400 A2A, some tens AA, more than 350 ground, 100 ops

In my PBEM against Brigada, I have on 17 january a total of 421 plane losses

40% OPS
40% FLAK
19% Air to air
1% ground

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


Of course not. They never were. That's one of the reasons why the air model runs too fast. Wed that to logistics and support, which feed directly into operational losses (engine hours, down time and all that) and it's not difficult to imagine that just in this respect alone the game has it wrong by about half. [8D]

And it will run even faster after 1.5 patch, since large airgroops will repair much faster.
I would prefer if the fix did the opposite, it should slow down repair of A/B/C components to 1/3 of it's previous speed, so in total it would be slower, but at the same speed as the whole unit, so there would be no need to split squadron to A/B/C parts to speed up repairs.
Instead we will get speeding up repair time of whole squadron 3 times to match combined A/B/C speed, which will only mean lots more aircraft all over the already overcrowded map...

ORIGINAL: doktorblood
I guess they must have recruited all of the blind people in Japan as gunners.

Well, they used all the sharp-eyed people as lookouts aboard warships [:D].

PBEM game 1942 December, 30th

Allied
AtA losses 2,660 (44.06%)
Destroyed on field 1,781 (29.50%)
Destroyed by flak 373 (6.18%)
Operational losses 1,223 (20.26%)
Total losses 6,037 (464 per month)


Jap
AtA losses 2,952 (47.91%)
Destroyed on field 764 (12.40%)
Destroyed by flak 1,016 (16.49%)
Operational losses 1,430 (23.21%)
Total losses 6,162 (474 per month)

ORIGINAL: Bombur

Looking at the United States Strategig Bombing survey, I found this curious data:

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm#eojcap

Japanese army and navy plane losses from all causes, both combat and noncombat, rose from an average rate of some 500 planes per month in the early months of the war to over 2,000 per month in the latter months of 1944. Aggregate losses during the course of the war were of the order of magnitude of 50,000 planes, of which something less than 40 percent were combat losses, and something over 60 percent were training, ferrying, and other noncombat losses.

.....and then
Aggregate United States plane losses during the course of the Pacific war, not including training losses in the United States, were approximately 27,000 planes. Of these losses 8,700 were on combat missions; the remainder were training, ferrying and other noncombat losses. Of the combat losses over 60 percent were to antiaircraft fire.


-If this data is reliable, then it has an interesting implication for the WiTP engine. If both sides suffered these massive noncombat losses, the the inability of WiTP to simulate this could be related to the complaints of many players that we have much more disposable aircraft in the game, compared with what both sides had historically (and then we have those massive Nell/Betty attacks and huge B-17 formations seeming 8th AF missions). Any thoughts?

Of course, the data may well not BE accurate!

Numbers get thrown around a lot, and differ wildly from one source to another.

In Fire From the Sky (massive book on the air war in the South Pacific, and the Pacific theater in general)- the numbers quoted are QUITE different. The Japanese operational losses are very low (as a percentage) and the author spends a lot of time trying to analyze this. (I don't have the book handy, so i can't quote them. The author used Japanese data for analysis, not what the US forces CLAIMED they did to the Japanese).

Before we advocate changing the game engine (with all attendant collateral damage in new bugs that will ineviditably appear), we best be sure that what we want is in fact accurate.

BTW - the biggest killer of pilots and planes? TRAINING! Iirc, this was for both the Allies and Japan.

Bergerud's research seemed to indicate that in the early half of the war, Japanese op losses were low....much lower than US losses. He attributed this in part to the nature of Japanese aircraft. (light with docile handling qualities, such as with the Zero) and also to pilot skill/training. Combat losses were in much higher preportion. Allied/US aircraft were far heavier in general and of course, could take much more punishment which could get the pilot home but not necessarily with the plane intact. It should be noted too that in addition to number conflicts between sources, The way by which the Americans and Japanese classified their losses was very different too.

This trend reversed in the late war period.....Japanese operational losses soared while combat losses went down. Training would appear to be the biggest culprit here....Japanese recruits were getting an extremely abreviated schedule and would too quickly be put into the cockpit of a high preformance aircraft ending up with the resulting rise in crackups and accidents.

I've wondered also how some losses get counted.

I.e. - an aircraft comes back from a mission with some battle damage after encountering Zeros and flak. Airplane cracks up somewhat on landing. The plane is repairable but they don't have parts immediately available. The plane sits around, until the mechanics make her a "cannibal queen" - start stripping parts off the plane to repair other planes. The aircraft is never repaired.

Now LOTS of planes suffered this kind of fate. How would count the loss? Operational? Air to Air? Flak? Just to make it more complicated, we could say this was Guadalcanal, and the plane was parked in the boneyard when the IJN came along and blew the snot of it during the Bombardment.[:'(] Then we could say it was air to air, or flak, or operational, or a ground loss. Probably would be best to say it was A% air to air, B% flak, etc.

We could complicate it even more, if we said it was a Japanese plane, damaged as above (but US cruisers doing the bombardment at say, Buna) and the plane is captured when the Allies capture Buna, etc.

Some guy in a hurry to get discharged is asked to fill out a form after the war is over is making this determination - he doesn't give a flip and just checks off the first thing that comes to mind...

Historians are finding all kinds of these problems looking over records on U-boats, I-boats and merchant shipping. With aircraft just multiply the problem by 10,000 or so. I wouldn't get TOO worked up over some statistics of arguably dubious quality.

in general, the Japanese tended to lump all losses that wern't directly attributable to a crack at or near their base as "combat losses". For example a plane that went out on a combat strike but failed to return would be listed as a combat loss.

US practice would list that as an op loss and used the term much more broadly in general. For example, a plane that is shot up to the point of a deadstick landing and eventual write off would be listed as an op loss too. The Germans would probably list it as a kill. (combat loss)