Calling all experts on historical reality

[HansBolter]

I've posted a diatribe on the UV boards bemoaning what I see as the single most serious design flaw that gets exploited mercilessly by the player base.....effective LRCAP at ranges of 400-500 miles.


Do any of the many, many experts on history who post here regularly have any knowledge regarding what the actual effective range of LRCAP was in reality during WWII? Am I off base in criticizing the game for allowing it to be effective at ranges of 400-500 miles?

[AW1Steve]

That depends Hans. Land based fighters providing LCAP over invasion fleets? Normandy and the Italian campaign were what , a couple hundred miles , plus loiter time. The question , I think, is not can it be done , but how much effective time can be spent over whatever you are CAPing? Unless you are using very long range fighters (think P-51D's with drop tanks) , you are probably not going to have a whole lot of loiter time. Does the game compensate by less fighters over the CAP area at one time? Say 72 fighters in relays of 4 over a 24 hour period (doable, if unpleasant for the crews performing it).

[HansBolter]

There is no way to tell how many fighters are actually present over the TF at any one time as the MERE presence of ANY fighters there prevents the bomber squadrons from ever flying against them.

200 hundred miles is about what I was thinking was a more realistic limit on the effective range of LRCAP, I just don't have any historical data at hand to support that guess.

[Terminus]

200 miles sounds fair, allowing for loiter and combat. However, LRCAP does not in any way prevent any bombers from flying against a TF.

[Dixie]

Air cover for both Normandy and the Italian campaigns based close by.  For Normandy there were plenty of airfields across southern England and hundreds of Spitfires alone to provide cover.  Italy was easily covered from Sicily, and Malta before that.

Back in the 1940s air cover at 400 miles plus would have been difficult at best.  The aircraft would need too long to transit from their base to the operational area to make it really effective.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

200 miles sounds fair, allowing for loiter and combat. However, LRCAP does not in any way prevent any bombers from flying against a TF.

It does in UV. Japanese players routinely send bombardment TFs headed for PM to a point a few hexes south of Gili Gili, which is outside of Allied fighter escort range, covered by LRCAP 400+ miles away in Rabaul. Tthe Allied bombers at PM then refuse to fly against them as a result of the tactical AI deeming the escort-to-CAP ratio as being unacceptable. So a mere 4-6 fighters flying over the TF prevents hundreds of Allied bombaers from ever flying. It makes an Allied player want to execute the bomber squadron commanders for cowardice!

[Nikademus]

LRCAP tended to be more pourous as a consequence. Anzio was a good recent example for me. They couldn't interdict entirely the frequent Luftwaffe raids on the beachhead and supporting naval vessels. Closer to your neck of the woods gamewise, the Japanese did attempt LRCAP's from Rabaul covering operations to Guadalcanal. Due to the distances involved the total # of fighters over the target were not overly large and again, the result was porous and not very effective. IIRC it resulted in more lost planes and pilots for the Japanese than it did for the Americans. The distance was simply great and the numbers involved too slender.

Love the title btw.....[:D]

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


Love the title btw.....[:D]

Hey, I recognize there is a great wealth of historical knowledge amongst the regular contributors here.

Already, from the few respondants I get the impression my take on things has some validity. The small handfull of planes from a given squadron over a TF 400-500 miles form the airbase providing that coverage completely precluding any sorties whatsoever by the opposing airforce's bomber squadrons does indeed appear to be a serious design flaw in UV.

Given how buggy UV is coupled with what I see as a game breaking design flaw, it looks like I should just move on to WitP for all future PBEM games once I conclude my current UV games. [:(]

I'm currently coming up to speed on WitP with some AI games anyway. [:)]

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Hey, I recognize there is a great wealth of historical knowledge amongst the regular contributors here.

I know.....but you wouldn't want to give us MacArthur complexes would you? [:'(] I might try to walk on water and get wet! [:D]

[Vladd]

The Japanese Navy flew LRCAP from Rabaul during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea I believe, over a considerable distance, along with Army fighters from New Guinea.

It just didn't work very well.

EDIT: Although the P38 escorts were part of the reason why.

[DEB]

Given that the maximum range of the zero ( when carrying drop fuel tanks ) was between 1,930 miles ( A6M2 ) & 1,194 miles ( A6M5 ) , with the A6M3 coming in at 1,477 miles; LRCAP at 650, 400 & 500 miles respectively would still allow for 1/3 of the total flying time to be spent in combat. At 25% combat time these figures rise to 700, 450 & 550 miles.

( Information taken from the book " Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War" by René J. Francillon - Putnam Press )

The book comments that " the lack of airfields close to the combat area forced the A6M3s to operate from bases located some 560 naut miles
[ 645 statute miles ] from Guadalcanal". Normal range is specified as 1,160 miles therefore one should presume that drop tanks were a necessity for land based air OPS against Guadalcanal.
The book further notes that losses increased due to insufficent range as the new engine ( A6M3 ) had a higher fuel consumption than the older one ( A6M2 ), and the fuel tank size had been reduced. This lead to the introduction of a 45 litre tank IN each wing. The installation of these wing tanks restored the range of the Zero to it's original level ( 1,160 miles ).
The external drop tank ( 330 litres on A6M2 to A6M5 ) INCREASED the range up to the "maximum" levels quoted at the top.

Your complaint re the 400-500 mile Japanese LRCAP is therefore verbal diarrhoea. Try checking your facts BEFORE you complain about things.

[Ambassador]

Except combat consumes fuel faster than simple cruise flight, they'll also need some time to find the TF they're LRCAPping, and they need more reserve time just in case.

[Panther Bait]

I don't think anybody is really arguing that you couldn't send Zero's 400-500 miles away for combat operations.  That happened fairly frequently at Guadalcanal.
 
Establishing effective LRCAP is a different matter.  Combat takes a lot more fuel than cruising to and from the target, although loitering would probably take about the same.  So to maintain a safe margin of return fuel in case of combat, you just can't stick around as long at that range.  The shorter the length of time any given airplane can stay on station increases the total number of aircraft required to maintain a single fighter in the LRCAP zone.  Continuously flying max length missions is also going to make maintenance issues much worse, too. 
 
One other problem with LRCAP over enemy or neutral territory is that there will be no fighter direction or enemy aircraft detection at all.  Unless there are very easily identifiable landmarks and good weather, it is very probably that incoming flights won't even be able to locate the planes they are relieving. 
 
Lastly, since the first group of the day has to fly to the target, and the last group of the day has to fly home, you either have uncovered daylight hours or you have planes taking off, flying long distances, and landing in the dark.  Just a few more things that are bad for pilot health and morale.  At several landings in WW2, the Japanese intentionally timed their air raids to hit the target either before LRCAP would get in position, or after it would have left for the day.  It was easier to time these raids when the LRCAP aircraft were coming from carriers, since most carriers were not set up for night ops and the planes had to leave by a specific time to get home safely.

[Dili]

The problem it appears is the game engine.

[Shark7]

Just a personal opinion here, but I do think the length of flight time would drastically effect just how well you will fight over the target area. Long flights lead to tired crews, and tired crews are more prone to making mistakes.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: DEB

Given that the maximum range of the zero ( when carrying drop fuel tanks ) was between 1,930 miles ( A6M2 ) & 1,194 miles ( A6M5 ) , with the A6M3 coming in at 1,477 miles; LRCAP at 650, 400 & 500 miles respectively would still allow for 1/3 of the total flying time to be spent in combat. At 25% combat time these figures rise to 700, 450 & 550 miles.

( Information taken from the book " Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War" by René J. Francillon - Putnam Press )

The book comments that " the lack of airfields close to the combat area forced the A6M3s to operate from bases located some 560 naut miles
[ 645 statute miles ] from Guadalcanal". Normal range is specified as 1,160 miles therefore one should presume that drop tanks were a necessity for land based air OPS against Guadalcanal.
The book further notes that losses increased due to insufficent range as the new engine ( A6M3 ) had a higher fuel consumption than the older one ( A6M2 ), and the fuel tank size had been reduced. This lead to the introduction of a 45 litre tank IN each wing. The installation of these wing tanks restored the range of the Zero to it's original level ( 1,160 miles ).
The external drop tank ( 330 litres on A6M2 to A6M5 ) INCREASED the range up to the "maximum" levels quoted at the top.

Your complaint re the 400-500 mile Japanese LRCAP is therefore verbal diarrhoea. Try checking your facts BEFORE you complain about things.

And you have left out a couple of significant problems as well. To use "drop tanks" you have to HAVE "drop tanks" available (in this case in large numbers): and the LRC also has to "find" the TF BEFORE it can CAP it. While you have certainly proved that it was technically feasible to CAP at 4-500 miles, you haven't answered Hans question. Can you name an instance/example during the war where LRCAP was actually performed at such a distance?

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: DEB

Given that the maximum range of the zero ( when carrying drop fuel tanks ) was between 1,930 miles ( A6M2 ) & 1,194 miles ( A6M5 ) , with the A6M3 coming in at 1,477 miles; LRCAP at 650, 400 & 500 miles respectively would still allow for 1/3 of the total flying time to be spent in combat. At 25% combat time these figures rise to 700, 450 & 550 miles.

( Information taken from the book " Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War" by René J. Francillon - Putnam Press )

The book comments that " the lack of airfields close to the combat area forced the A6M3s to operate from bases located some 560 naut miles
[ 645 statute miles ] from Guadalcanal". Normal range is specified as 1,160 miles therefore one should presume that drop tanks were a necessity for land based air OPS against Guadalcanal.
The book further notes that losses increased due to insufficent range as the new engine ( A6M3 ) had a higher fuel consumption than the older one ( A6M2 ), and the fuel tank size had been reduced. This lead to the introduction of a 45 litre tank IN each wing. The installation of these wing tanks restored the range of the Zero to it's original level ( 1,160 miles ).
The external drop tank ( 330 litres on A6M2 to A6M5 ) INCREASED the range up to the "maximum" levels quoted at the top.

Your complaint re the 400-500 mile Japanese LRCAP is therefore verbal diarrhoea. Try checking your facts BEFORE you complain about things.

And you have left out a couple of significant problems as well. To use "drop tanks" you have to HAVE "drop tanks" available (in this case in large numbers): and the LRC also has to "find" the TF BEFORE it can CAP it. While you have certainly proved that it was technically feasible to CAP at 4-500 miles, you haven't answered Hans question. Can you name an instance/example during the war where LRCAP was actually performed at such a distance?

No he can't. He is simply stalking my posts so he can level insults because I stepped into a thread in the UV forum and rubbed his nose in his choice to be an obnoxious ass towards others there. Eventually his childish behaviour will catch up with him and get him banned. It seems to have escaped his grasp that "checking my facts" is exactly what I am endeavoring to do in this thread. I gave him the green button treatment this morning.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: DEB

Given that the maximum range of the zero ( when carrying drop fuel tanks ) was between 1,930 miles ( A6M2 ) & 1,194 miles ( A6M5 ) , with the A6M3 coming in at 1,477 miles; LRCAP at 650, 400 & 500 miles respectively would still allow for 1/3 of the total flying time to be spent in combat. At 25% combat time these figures rise to 700, 450 & 550 miles.

( Information taken from the book " Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War" by René J. Francillon - Putnam Press )

The book comments that " the lack of airfields close to the combat area forced the A6M3s to operate from bases located some 560 naut miles
[ 645 statute miles ] from Guadalcanal". Normal range is specified as 1,160 miles therefore one should presume that drop tanks were a necessity for land based air OPS against Guadalcanal.
The book further notes that losses increased due to insufficent range as the new engine ( A6M3 ) had a higher fuel consumption than the older one ( A6M2 ), and the fuel tank size had been reduced. This lead to the introduction of a 45 litre tank IN each wing. The installation of these wing tanks restored the range of the Zero to it's original level ( 1,160 miles ).
The external drop tank ( 330 litres on A6M2 to A6M5 ) INCREASED the range up to the "maximum" levels quoted at the top.

Your complaint re the 400-500 mile Japanese LRCAP is therefore verbal diarrhoea. Try checking your facts BEFORE you complain about things.

And you have left out a couple of significant problems as well. To use "drop tanks" you have to HAVE "drop tanks" available (in this case in large numbers): and the LRC also has to "find" the TF BEFORE it can CAP it. While you have certainly proved that it was technically feasible to CAP at 4-500 miles, you haven't answered Hans question. Can you name an instance/example during the war where LRCAP was actually performed at such a distance?

No he can't. He is simply stalking my posts so he can level insults because I stepped into a thread in the UV forum and rubbed his nose in his choice to be an obnoxious ass towards others there. Eventually his childish behaviour will catch up with him and get him banned. It seems to have escaped his grasp that "checking my facts" is exactly what I am endeavoring to do in this thread. I gave him the green button treatment this morning.

That comment about "verbal diarrhoea" was pretty much a red flag, wasn't it?.[:-]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Dili

The problem it appears is the game engine.

I think your short and simple statement is the crux of the matter. IF it were important enough, I can visualize a commander bringing together as many fighters together for the simple sole purpose of providing a continuous relay of LCAP over a given target. The number of planes would be huge , to provide a small CAP. The fuel wastage, use of drop tanks, pilot exhaustion and co-ordination problems would be enormous. Yet , on occassion , throughout history, militaries have done just that. I have no problem seeing a commander , on rare occurance , doing just what we have discussed . (The Berlin airlift , or the many rescue attemps in Vietnam where hundreds of aircraft attempted to rescue just one's crew). Neither of these events were practical, effcient or even made sense to their opponents. But , human nature being what it is, can we really say that someone wouldn't try?

The problem is that we don't know if the game properly models the tremendous effort that would be required to achieve such a LCAP. Untill some of the people who designed the game weight in and expalin what the game can, and can't do, might I suggest that we refrain from nbame calling and getting all childish and temperamental , and simply agree to make a restriction part of one's house rules?

The simple fact of the matter is that we don't know all the facts (about the game, not the concept) and until we do we should act like adults and show some good sportsmanship. [:)]

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Dili

The problem it appears is the game engine.

I think your short and simple statement is the crux of the matter. IF it were important enough, I can visualize a commander bringing together as many fighters together for the simple sole purpose of providing a continuous relay of LCAP over a given target. The number of planes would be huge , to provide a small CAP. The fuel wastage, use of drop tanks, pilot exhaustion and co-ordination problems would be enormous. Yet , on occassion , throughout history, militaries have done just that. I have no problem seeing a commander , on rare occurance , doing just what we have discussed . (The Berlin airlift , or the many rescue attemps in Vietnam where hundreds of aircraft attempted to rescue just one's crew). Neither of these events were practical, effcient or even made sense to their opponents. But , human nature being what it is, can we really say that someone wouldn't try?

The problem is that we don't know if the game properly models the tremendous effort that would be required to achieve such a LCAP. Untill some of the people who designed the game weight in and expalin what the game can, and can't do, might I suggest that we refrain from nbame calling and getting all childish and temperamental , and simply agree to make a restriction part of one's house rules?

The simple fact of the matter is that we don't know all the facts (about the game, not the concept) and until we do we should act like adults and show some good sportsmanship. [:)]

I think that if there is a flaw in the UV game engine it appears to be in the escort-to-CAP ratio calculations that determine if a given bomber squadron will sorty or not. It may well be possible for a fighter squadron or group of squadrons to maintain some measure of effective CAP over a very distant TF.

Terminus states that a small force of CAP over a TF in WitP wiil not preclude a bomber squadron from making a sorty. That it does in UV would SEEM to be the flaw. A flaw they apparently corrected in WitP. I haven't played WitP enough yet to see this for myself.

In UV a single squadron of 27 Zeros flying LRCAP over a bombardment TF 400+ miles away, which means there can't possibly be more than a small handful of fighters over the TF at any given time, will cause hundreds of bombers to never fly. I do have enough experience with UV to have been on both ends of this result.

I guess it's pointing to the need for me to drop UV and move on completely to WitP and the upcoming AE.