PDA

View Full Version : Ridiculous submarine flak



Dr. Bones
08-25-2005, 08:29 PM
Flying the SBD campaign, starting 1942...sent out to destroy a Japanese submarine. Wingman and I both missed with bombs so I went back around to strafe. A SINGLE HIT from his conning tower AAA severed my left wing during the strafing run and I spiraled in. One hit? You've got to be joking! The biggest gun that thing could possibly mount would be maybe 23mm, right? WTF?

Dr. Bones
08-25-2005, 08:29 PM
Flying the SBD campaign, starting 1942...sent out to destroy a Japanese submarine. Wingman and I both missed with bombs so I went back around to strafe. A SINGLE HIT from his conning tower AAA severed my left wing during the strafing run and I spiraled in. One hit? You've got to be joking! The biggest gun that thing could possibly mount would be maybe 23mm, right? WTF?

FritzGryphon
08-25-2005, 08:32 PM
Which sub? Some of them have 37mm cannons.

Also, there aren't any Japanese boats, so you won't see 23mm flak. It's probably a German one, either IIB or VIIC. The VIIC is armed to the teeth.

Dr. Bones
08-25-2005, 08:48 PM
I don't know what it was...the briefing just said a "Japanese sub." If they're using German boat models in the Pacific and that was a 37mm cannon, I could maybe believe it. The only sub in the object viewer is a U-boot IIB (which it sure as hell was not) so there's nothing I can compare it to.

I buy that a single hit would kill the pilot, disable the engine or sever control cables with a lucky shot. All those have happened to me from time to time. But actually take the wing off? That just seems **** hard to believe.

jarink
08-25-2005, 09:45 PM
The AAA in this game is very over-the-top in it's effectiveness.

Zeus-cat
08-25-2005, 09:54 PM
By the way, it is pointless to strafe a submarine in the game. You can strafe the sub all day and the best yo ucan do is possibly destroy the AAA guns. The only effective weapons against a sub that an SBD carries are its bombs. If you miss with the bombs just head back to the carrier.

I am working on a 30-40 mission campaign for the SBD. I'm up to mission 13 now. Look for "Straight Down" at airwarfare.com sometime soon.

Zeus-cat

Kocur_
08-25-2005, 11:10 PM
Of light flak U-boot would have 20mm cannons, many of them later in WW2. In case of IJN standard was 25mm. All subs have also more seriuos gun, one or two, between say 76mm-152mm, I mean IRL. So perhaps you were hit by large gun? Anyway, unlike warships from destroyer up, subs did not have any fire control system, and hitting a plane using optical sights on the artillery gun is VERY not likely...
And agreed - generally flak in the game is way too accurate.

Viper_42
08-26-2005, 12:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And agreed - generally flak in the game is way too accurate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

YES! As well as gunners.

FritzGryphon
08-26-2005, 12:25 AM
AA is in no way overmodelled; human gunners generally do a much better job than their AI counterparts. By no means does the AI act realistically, but by no means are they too hard, either. As a gunner on a TB-3, anyone can shoot better than the AA.

The VIIC in the game has 5 37mm cannons (2 doubles and a single). If you fly straight at the ship, of course they will hit you, and they only need one shell.

http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/uboat.jpg

Imagine yourself in the place of the gunner, say in Silent Hunter or something. It'd be a turkey shoot. Just because it's a flight sim, the gunners should not be all made with tourette's syndrome (as much as the pilots would like that).

It's why people invented dive bombing and gyro bombsights. It's dangerous to overfly flak. For example, once a PBY attacked a submarine (early VIIC) with depth charges. With 1 20mm gun, they shot it down in one pass. This boat has 10 times the firepower.

WOLFMondo
08-26-2005, 03:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dr. Bones:

I buy that a single hit would kill the pilot, disable the engine or sever control cables with a lucky shot. All those have happened to me from time to time. But actually take the wing off? That just seems **** hard to believe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A 37mm is a big shell, hitting the wing at the front its going to pass through the skin and whack the main spar, probably ignite fuel since no self sealing mechanism will fill a 3.7mm hole and the explosion of the round will send splinters throughout the cavity in the wing.

Pilots on the western front in the 2nd TAF and 9th AF dreaded the German 37mm flak guns, even a explosion in close proximity could seriosly damage your plane. A direct hit could mean the end of your plane.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jarink:
The AAA in this game is very over-the-top in it's effectiveness. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reading allot about the 2nd TAF and the support operations in the last year of the war in Europe the flak we have isn't anywhere near as effective as its in IL2:FB or PF. At airfields flak IRL would be double or triple what it is in the standard quick mission builder missions. The RAF would only allow Tempests and Typhoons to attack airfield and make one pass only because they where the only planes in RAF service deemed fast enough and tough enough to potentially survive an airfield attack.

joeap
08-26-2005, 03:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
AA is in no way overmodelled; human gunners generally do a much better job than their AI counterparts. By no means does the AI act realistically, but by no means are they too hard, either. As a gunner on a TB-3, anyone can shoot better than the AA.

The VIIC in the game has 5 37mm cannons (2 doubles and a single). If you fly straight at the ship, of course they will hit you, and they only need one shell.

http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/uboat.jpg

Imagine yourself in the place of the gunner, say in Silent Hunter or something. It'd be a turkey shoot. Just because it's a flight sim, the gunners should not be all made with tourette's syndrome (as much as the pilots would like that).

It's why people invented dive bombing and gyro bombsights. It's dangerous to overfly flak. For example, once a PBY attacked a submarine (early VIIC) with depth charges. With 1 20mm gun, they shot it down in one pass. This boat has 10 times the firepower. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Being a SH3 and U-boat fan I can say the AA on subs is overmodelled in both games. U-boats had a very poor record against aircraft...even the special flakboots were not really sucessful. Check out u-boat.net the stats are there. Doesn't mean you should not respect ships AA etc. though.

TgD Thunderbolt56
08-26-2005, 03:52 AM
Their accuracy can be uncanny at times, however it was commonly known that ground/ship attack was the most dangerous as their AA defensive fire could be withering and the presence of the ground and/or sea eliminates your escape options thus making their vectoring easier.

christopher65
08-26-2005, 07:44 AM
Can you not go into the mission file and tone the AA down?? Just a thought.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

jarink
08-26-2005, 11:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
If you fly straight at the ship, of course they will hit you, and they only need one shell. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but the AAA also seems very good at hitting you even when you fly at an angle to it. Speed and deflection estimation are the hardest parts of AA gunnery, but the AI has it pretty much down pat. Smaller ships like subs should also be at a higher disadvantage since they are not stable gun platforms (how much depending on sea state).

Dr. Bones
08-26-2005, 01:39 PM
Well, it's not the accuracy that I'm disputing. They only hit me once. I *was* in the middle of a strafing pass (thanks for the tip about that, Zeus-cat) so there was effectively no deflection for them to worry about, and the range was reasonably close.

The lethality of the shell seems a little exaggerated, though. Especially given I'd been filling the conning tower with .50s and I would think the gun crew would have to have been pretty well suppressed. I guess PF doesn't model that :P

MLudner
08-26-2005, 02:41 PM
The FLAK is excessively lethal. Initially I would place battery level ADA assets at airbases (6 x Breach-loaders [85mm or 88mm], 6 x Autocannon [20 - 37mm]) until I discovered that this rendered any attacks on an airbase suicide. I could not even make a single pass about 6 times out 10; I was typically destroyed before I could release my bombs or get into strafing range. 3 more out the 10 I did not survive the first pass, though I was able to at least make it. On average, 1 out 10 I was able to make it back to base, though more often than not next to crippled. About the same result I got with experiments attacking B-17's and B-24's.
So, now I set no more than Gun Sections (2 barrels).
I don't dare get anywhere near a ship armed with ADA. No where near it.
Initially for my Pearl Harbor mission I set all the right ships (possible) at the base. Before I flew it (From the US side) I wanted to see if it was possible to attack the place.
It wasn't. The attack force got butchered beyond recognition in seconds and almost nothing got through. Rendered the presence of any US fighters completely superfluous. When from my A6M2 I saw the wall of FLAK bursts erupt before us as we approached Pearl I just said a quick prayer to Buddha, then died.
I promptly removed all actual warships from the harbor and replaced them with similar sized freighters, trawlers and such then threw in a few extra Bofors 40mm AC's on Ford Island to stand-in.

MLudner
08-26-2005, 05:03 PM
Continuation from above:

I have long since noted that in this game the Breach-loading guns can track me like an auto-cannon.
In reality, Breach-loaders - due to the fact that they have to be reloaded after each shot - were largely ineffective against low flying targets. The closer you get to them the safer you are. They engaged targets by firing into their path ahead of them, once the targets had passed through the engagement area the guns would have relay for another point ahead of the formation and commence firing as the target formation entered the airspace. Their rounds have to be set to detonate at a specific altitude before firing.
For this reason, IRL, when you are engaged by breach-loaders if possible you would start changing altitude at random.
In this game this is ineffective, because an 85mm / 88mm / 75mm gun evidently fires just like an autocannon. I have watched the FLAK bursts tracking me as I maneuvered, as fast as I maneuvered and hitting the deck does me squat good and the closer I get to them the more dangerous they are. Just recently in a test flight on the Crimea I was flying a Bf-109F4. I intentionally flew to a defended bridge on the map (I thoroughly build my basis missions, you will even find traffic on the roads here and there). The bridge was defended by 1 85mm Gun Section (2 Barrels) and 2 7.62mm Maxim Gun Sections (4 Guns). I was only maybe 200m away from the weapons and at low altitude (maybe 300m), which should have rendered the 85's mostly harmless, my intent being to test the effectiveness of the Maxims at protecting the 85's. I did not find out. Why? Halfway through my first orbit my 109 took a round from one of the 85's and was blown in half. I trying to pick out an 85 in order to strafe it. I'm beginning to believe even a gun section is too much.
ADA in real life was never this effective, even at its best. It was dangerous and many pilots were shot-down by it. However, like artillery in the ground war it was not as dangerous as being directly engaged by an opponent (Opposing infantry or armor on the ground or other aircraft in the air). The reason on the Western Front most casualties were inflicted by artillery fire was because you were more likely, day-to-day, to get engaged by artillery than enemy infantry, not because it was more effective than small arms. (On the EF, for example, where the odds of an engagement with hostile infantry and armor was greater, losses from small arms fire and artillery were about 50-50). ADA works the same way. The odds any one time your engaged of getting downed are pretty small, but the fact is you're going to be exposed to it repeatedly and more often than to A/C.
An aircraft, a fighter in particular, are small and fast moving targets and are very difficult to engage. They are especially so when they are close and flying across your front as opposed to straight at you. The aircraft passes quickly and the gunner has to try and get his sights ahead of him in a very brief amount of time. The gun will only turn so fast.
Going straight at a gun, however, does significantly increase the likelihood of getting nailed ... which is why you don't do that. I don't.
It is true that RAF and USAAF pilots were told to make only one pass at an enemy airbase. However, even if they had made more than one pass the vast majority would have made it fine. The reason for these orders is simple: the odds of getting hit in one pass are almost insignificant, but the more times you expose yourself the more likely you are to get hit. Say that there is a 5% chance that you'll get shot-down per pass. Roll the dice once and you'll almost certainly make through just fine. But each pass the roll has to be made again. Each time you roll the dice the liklihood of getting snake-eyes increases.
In this game one pass counts for about 12 - 15 or so IRL.
When I was brand, spanking new to Il-2 and knew squat I was flying a Bf-109G6 over the Crimea with no opposition because I was just trying to get a feel for flying in this game. I pass over the south coast and a see a ship to the east. I decide to go see what kind of ship and whose. I turn toward it and fly in a shallow dive and peer at it. I see a twinkle of guns firing ... at me! ... "Ah-"
And I was dead. I could not even complete the expression "Ah-ha!" before I was toast. Instant death.
That is why I am very skittish about ships in this game. I see a ship I go the other way as fast as I can.

RAF92_Moser
08-26-2005, 07:48 PM
I don't see what the problem is. AAA gunners have the same skill as humans do. If you can strafe and hit an AA enplacement, then why can't they hit you?


We all are watching too much Hollywood movies and think that we are experts in this subject.

The only people who can really debate about this are the pilots themselves.

I believe I read a story in "Citizen Soldiers", by Ambrose, that the there was a 30% chance for B-17 crews to finish their 25 mission tour.

Now why do you suppose the numbers were that low?

Grey_Mouser67
08-26-2005, 08:10 PM
AI gunners can only be supressed on the new ships released in PF.

As far as I know, German U-boats can neither be damaged by gunfire nor their cannons suppressed.

In real life, of course, it was fairly easy for an aircraft to kill the gunners or send them scattering for sure....and gunners, with range, get more innaccurate in real life...sometimes I wonder if this is true in the game to the same degree as in real life.

On a sub, if you cleared the deck of gunners...there weren't going to be a bunch more jumping up to grab the guns...plus HMG's and Cannons did damage subs...they were not armored.

jarink
08-27-2005, 12:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RAF92_Moser:
I don't see what the problem is. AAA gunners have the same skill as humans do. If you can strafe and hit an AA enplacement, then why can't they hit you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The AAA gunners are trying to hit a moving target; the guy in the airplane has a big advantage in that the ground target is usually not moving or not moving very fast. The guy on the ground has to account for target speed and angle to compute deflection; the strafing airplane does not, greatly simplifying his gunnery solution.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I believe I read a story in "Citizen Soldiers", by Ambrose, that the there was a 30% chance for B-17 crews to finish their 25 mission tour.

Now why do you suppose the numbers were that low? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reason #1 - Large concentrations of Heavy Flak (88 to 128mm) at or near the target, usually radr guided, when the bombers had to fly straight and level for several minutes while on the bomb run. Turkey shoots at 25,000 feet.

Reason #2 - Early Escort fighters (Spitfires and Early P-47s) did not have the range to escort the bombers all the way to the target and back. USAAC planners thought the heavy defensive armament on the bombers would be sufficient protection, but it was not. Losses dropped significantly starting in spring and early summer of 1944, when there were finally enough long-range escorts to do the job (P-51s and P-47Ds).

Neither one of these has anything to do with light AAA, since the bombers were (almost) always far, far above it. To me, the light AAA in the game has always seemed more deadly than just about all accounts I've read or listened to. The heavy flak seems OK; it's only a problem if you fly straight and level.

RAF92_Moser
08-27-2005, 04:57 PM
All this you say is true, but the flak gunners can shoot you down. Yes, it is more difficult to hit a moving target at an angle, but there is no reason why they CANNOT hit you. They certainly can and with their large rounds, one hit can do some incredible damage. Now think if they hit you multiple times, and damage important components. It's not like you are continuously be shot up even though that maybe look it.

Do you understand my perspective? Just my opinion, I have no experience in actually flying real-life combat missions where I am being shot at.

And yes, you are correct, the heavy flak has nothing to do with the light flak. I was trying to emphasize the point that flak gunners should not be underestimated. They were just as skillful as fighter pilots, because they were just as human.

P.S. Being to implement chaff into the game to disrupt the radar of the heavy flak could be a nice feature. I know I'm asking too much already.

IronHawk7076
08-29-2005, 12:58 AM
Well It's not just the sub's but all of the ships have unreal flack. Now a dive bomber might haave an 25/100 chance of escaping the fight in this game.

shoboat
08-29-2005, 01:45 AM
&gt;It is true that RAF and USAAF pilots were told to make only one pass at an enemy airbase. However, even if they had made more than one pass the vast majority would have made it fine. The reason for these orders is simple: the odds of getting hit in one pass are almost insignificant, but the more times you expose yourself the more likely you are to get hit. Say that there is a 5% chance that you'll get shot-down per pass. Roll the dice once and you'll almost certainly make through just fine. But each pass the roll has to be made again. Each time you roll the dice the liklihood of getting snake-eyes increases.

Erm...

I admit that I am no expert in probability, but my understanding is that if, as you say, you always stand a 5% chance of being shot after making an airfield pass regardless of the number of passes you make, then the chances of being hit will always be 5%. Just because you flip a coin once and get heads doesn't mean the next time you flip it you will get tails. It's still a 50/50 proposition no matter how many times you flip the coin.

A better model for this might be one of increasing chances of getting shot correlating to the number you passes you try to make. After the first pass, the element of surprise is gone and gunners would have a better opportunity to get a bead on your flight path with each successive pass, especially if you're bleeding off speed with each turn. I'm sure there are even more factors that play into it than I've briefly considered.

Not that this really matters a great deal to the topic of conversation...

marmossel
08-29-2005, 01:56 AM
well, i think you need to revise your mathematics a little bit. a 5% chance means that from 100 coin flips, you'll get 5 of them on the 5% side. or for your better understanding, from 100 passes you'll be downed in 5, that means 1 from 20, which means the more passes you do without beeing hit, the more rolls you spend from the 19 unharmed ones... figure that out..

Flying_Nutcase
08-29-2005, 02:56 AM
Regardless of whether flak is too effective or not, avoiding flak is just another skill to be mastered, just like practising dogfighting, bombing or any other skill.

There are strategies that work the vast majority of the time for avoiding flak, basically changing angles and height and not being a straight flying duck.

The easiest flak to avoid is from the auto-cannons firing tracers.

When attacking a ground target, don't head straight towards it, but head to the side of it (with the positon of AA in mind) and only line it up at the last possible moment.

Just a thought.

WOLFMondo
08-29-2005, 05:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
ADA in real life was never this effective, even at its best. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the raf 2nd taf regarded anti aircraft fire the most dangerous opponent. more pilots where shot down by it than enemy fighters and there was almost no chance of bailing out when making an attack on a ground target with aa protection.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:

It is true that RAF and USAAF pilots were told to make only one pass at an enemy airbase. However, even if they had made more than one pass the vast majority would have made it fine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

depends what you where attacking but on german airfield you only dared make one pass and allot of pilots didn't make it out ok even with one pass. you couldn't bail out and your going way to fast to belly land.

just look at bodenplat, thats the result of an all out assualt against airfields. most tempest pilots where lost to flak attacking airfields and they never made a second pass.

shoboat
08-29-2005, 08:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by buerebistas:
well, i think you need to revise your mathematics a little bit. a 5% chance means that from 100 coin flips, you'll get 5 of them on the 5% side. or for your better understanding, from 100 passes you'll be downed in 5, that means 1 from 20, which means the more passes you do without beeing hit, the more rolls you spend from the 19 unharmed ones... figure that out.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So by your reasoning, if I flip a coin and get heads, the next time I flip a coin, I have to get tails, right? Sorry, don't think so.

MLudner
08-29-2005, 05:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shoboat:
&gt;It is true that RAF and USAAF pilots were told to make only one pass at an enemy airbase. However, even if they had made more than one pass the vast majority would have made it fine. The reason for these orders is simple: the odds of getting hit in one pass are almost insignificant, but the more times you expose yourself the more likely you are to get hit. Say that there is a 5% chance that you'll get shot-down per pass. Roll the dice once and you'll almost certainly make through just fine. But each pass the roll has to be made again. Each time you roll the dice the liklihood of getting snake-eyes increases.

Erm...

I admit that I am no expert in probability, but my understanding is that if, as you say, you always stand a 5% chance of being shot after making an airfield pass regardless of the number of passes you make, then the chances of being hit will always be 5%. Just because you flip a coin once and get heads doesn't mean the next time you flip it you will get tails. It's still a 50/50 proposition no matter how many times you flip the coin.

A better model for this might be one of increasing chances of getting shot correlating to the number you passes you try to make. After the first pass, the element of surprise is gone and gunners would have a better opportunity to get a bead on your flight path with each successive pass, especially if you're bleeding off speed with each turn. I'm sure there are even more factors that play into it than I've briefly considered.

Not that this really matters a great deal to the topic of conversation... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm a miniature wargamer and game designer ... Probability; that's just my game.

You are correct: the odds stay the same each time you pass. Each single roll of the dice the chances are the same. However, the more times you roll the more likely you are to come up short. Eventually, at some point, the dice will come up 01 - 05. This is not to say that the actual IRL risk would be 5%; I gave that number just for the sake of example.

MLudner
08-29-2005, 05:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by buerebistas:
well, i think you need to revise your mathematics a little bit. a 5% chance means that from 100 coin flips, you'll get 5 of them on the 5% side. or for your better understanding, from 100 passes you'll be downed in 5, that means 1 from 20, which means the more passes you do without beeing hit, the more rolls you spend from the 19 unharmed ones... figure that out.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A coin flip is a bad analogy as the possible percentage is a 50% increment. On average, half of the flips will heads, the other half tails. It won't necessarily go H / T / H / T, in fact it almost never will go quite that way, but on average if you flip it 10 times around half (circa 5) will be one, the rest the other. The more times you flip the closer to even the results will be.
It's very difficult to produce a 5% increment with a 50% system.

MLudner
08-29-2005, 05:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
ADA in real life was never this effective, even at its best. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the raf 2nd taf regarded anti aircraft fire the most dangerous opponent. more pilots where shot down by it than enemy fighters and there was almost no chance of bailing out when making an attack on a ground target with aa protection.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:

It is true that RAF and USAAF pilots were told to make only one pass at an enemy airbase. However, even if they had made more than one pass the vast majority would have made it fine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

depends what you where attacking but on german airfield you only dared make one pass and allot of pilots didn't make it out ok even with one pass. you couldn't bail out and your going way to fast to belly land.

just look at bodenplat, thats the result of an all out assualt against airfields. most tempest pilots where lost to flak attacking airfields and they never made a second pass. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Tempests attacked any airfields during Bodenplatte, but Tempests were attacked ON their airfields during Bodenplatte.

Let us look at Bodenplatte, I just read a very detailed, eponymous book about that operation. I would like to remind you, first off, that I never said ADA was not dangerous, just not as dangerous as in this game.
One of the LW attack groups flew through the area of Aachen which was densely packed with ADA assets from both the USA and RAF. Some German aircraft were shot-down, others were damaged, but the vast majority of them passed through unscathed. The most serious effect the ADA had was scattering the LW fighters.
At the allied airbases ADA was often lacking, but some did have good ADA positions. They did down some of the LW attackers, who made repeated passes at the airfields, but the vast majority got through anyway.
The highest losses were sustained over Asch. Why? A squadron of P-47's took-off just as the LW arrived, and there were P-51's in the vicinity as well. The German fighters were caught flying low.
The LW Jagdflieger conducting the operation faced, however, a lot more ADA fire than they did fighter opposition, and along the Dutch Coast and the Aachen area was where it was most concentrated. Over-all, they lost more to ADA than to fighters, but considering that they were much more likely to be fired on by ADA than attacked by fighters it is not suprising. After I get home I can get the exact stats.

Ask an infantryman what he most fears and most of them will say the artillery. For why just reread my original posts.

shoboat
08-29-2005, 09:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
You are correct: the odds stay the same each time you pass. Each single roll of the dice the chances are the same. However, the more times you roll the more likely you are to come up short. Eventually, at some point, the dice will come up 01 - 05. This is not to say that the actual IRL risk would be 5%; I gave that number just for the sake of example. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Coolness. Glad to have that confirmed. Probability really spins my head sometimes, so I admit I'm no expert. I'm sure you can get into some really esoteric chaos things that turn simple probability on its head.

Funny sidebar: I had a friend whose parents would actually fly out on different planes thinking that having them on different flights spread out the risk that they would both die in a plane crash. From a pure probability standpoint they both still stood an equal chance of going down, so they really weren't reducing their risk at all. Anyhow, always found that funny...not to mention a bit extreme.

WTE_Chunder
08-30-2005, 05:43 AM
Things that you have to remember: AAA gunners got far more practice at shooting down airplanes, than airplanes got at experience. Flack crews spending an entire war as such got experience.

2. For lag reasons on the game, you can only have so many ack ack emplacements, so more accurate aaa can effectively deal with it.

3. i think you can tone down the level of flack fire in game.

4. Airfield attacks were very dangerous things to take. The optional profile of flight planes could take to the target were very limited. Ack ack has a much easier time shooting at a target heading towards it. Tempests and Typhoons, for all their strength suffered huge losses they weren't invincible!

Yeah ack ack is extremely accurate in game but so be it. Spend 5 years of your life centered around firing shells at formations and see how good you get, It's reasonable to expect that crews that got gunnery position on subs weren't just out of school - but were trained especially for the role, and selected for the responsible job of defending the ship. Look at RAF coastal commands loss of planes to submarines. They started putting guns on their planes to shoot back at the subs.

I reckon the ack ack is accurate but i appreciate all the variables that have to be taken care of. What I do find a bit beyond the pale is how a ship and it's accompaning ack ack can start shooting at you from the guns maximum range including behind mountains etc. THeres nothing more irritating than flying just behind some clouds to have a split seconds chance in reaction time before getting vaporised by a shell. Ship fire is deadly because you are attacking the ship, your presence around the ship is orientated towards the ship, presenting a relitively stationary target so far as AAA is concearned, with every tom, ****, and harry throwing every bit of ammunition at you that they can.

WOLFMondo
08-30-2005, 08:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:

No Tempests attacked any airfields during Bodenplatte, but Tempests were attacked ON their airfields during Bodenplatte. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm aware of that. maybe I needed to structure my sentence better or you need to assume I have a vague idea what I'm waffling on abouthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

AFAIK most Tempests where in the air doing rat catch patrols when the fields where attacked.

MLudner
08-30-2005, 02:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:

No Tempests attacked any airfields during Bodenplatte, but Tempests were attacked ON their airfields during Bodenplatte. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm aware of that. maybe I needed to structure my sentence better or you need to assume I have a vague idea what I'm waffling on abouthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

AFAIK most Tempests where in the air doing rat catch patrols when the fields where attacked. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. Sorry. I noted after I replied that you had a period in there and had forgotten to capitalize the sentence concerning Tempests and I had taken the period for a comma at first glance as a result.

Most Tempests lost were lost to ADA because the Tempests were strike aircraft and that was primarily the opposition they faced on their sorties. What has to looked at is the percentage of an attacking force downed to understand how dangerous ADA was or was not. My experience with ADA in this game has been very, very frightening. ADA opens fire and I go down in flames almost immediately. None of the examples I gave were fictional - within the game.
In the Aachen sector, for example, where the ADA was exceptionally dense something like 70 - 80 LW fighters, a mix of 109's and 190's, passed through a veritable storm of ADA fire. Somewhere around 8 were shot-down or forced to abort.

lbhskier37
08-30-2005, 03:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shoboat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
You are correct: the odds stay the same each time you pass. Each single roll of the dice the chances are the same. However, the more times you roll the more likely you are to come up short. Eventually, at some point, the dice will come up 01 - 05. This is not to say that the actual IRL risk would be 5%; I gave that number just for the sake of example. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Coolness. Glad to have that confirmed. Probability really spins my head sometimes, so I admit I'm no expert. I'm sure you can get into some really esoteric chaos things that turn simple probability on its head.

Funny sidebar: I had a friend whose parents would actually fly out on different planes thinking that having them on different flights spread out the risk that they would both die in a plane crash. From a pure probability standpoint they both still stood an equal chance of going down, so they really weren't reducing their risk at all. Anyhow, always found that funny...not to mention a bit extreme. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually they were reducing their risk of both going down. Lets say there is a .5% chance of any flight going down. Well then there is a .5%(.005)x.5%(.005) chance, or .0025%(.000025) chance of both going down.

Think of it like a lottery drawing, to figure out your odds you would multiply the odds of each individual number in the drawing, for example if they are drawing 5 balls, and each ball could be 1 of 100 numbers, the probability of getting any individual number correct is 1/100 or .01. The odds of getting 2 numbers right is .01X.01, 3 numbers is .01X.01X.01, and so on. (all this is assuming you are replacing the ball you draw so it can be drawn again)

luftluuver
08-30-2005, 08:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
Most Tempests lost were lost to ADA because the Tempests were strike aircraft and that was primarily the opposition they faced on their sorties. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Tempests of the 2TAF were primarily used as a local air superiority fighter that sometimes did a2g and this was mostly during the last couple of months as there was almost no LW to be found in the air.

Only 5 of the 14 Tempests losses in Oct 44 were due to flak.(either shot down directly or forced to crash land due to damage)
Only 2 of the 11 Tempests losses in Nov 44 were due to flak.
Only 3 of the 17 Tempests losses in Dec 44 were due to flak.
Only 5 of the 13 Tempests losses in Jan 45 were due to flak.
Only 17 of the 37 Tempests losses in Feb 45 were due to flak.
Only 11 of the 29 Tempests losses in Mar 45 were due to flak.
Only 21 of the 51 Tempests losses in Apr 45 were due to flak.

I am still looking for WW2 Tempest photos, with bombs or rockets attached and that flew operations, for many years now.

neural_dream
08-30-2005, 09:03 PM
and you call that "only"? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

WOLFMondo
08-31-2005, 04:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
I am still looking for WW2 Tempest photos, with bombs or rockets attached and that flew operations, for many years now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Get the RAF produced Tempest DVD. Watch them in trials with bombs, rockets and Napalm. I've not seen operational photo's of Tempests with any ordanance other than 2 drop tanks which is pretty much all they went up with.

From all I've read and seen about the Tempest they usually went out regardless of the mission with just 2 drop tanks and there guns fully loaded. If it required rockets or bombs to do the job then Typhoons or Spitfire IX's would be sent instead or sent in support but the usual Tempest sortie other than rat catching was either a patrol and kill anything with a swastika attached to it or airfield attack.

However the Tempest was cleared for rockets, 500 and 1000lbs bombs and Napalm regardless of whether or not they ever used them in the field (which personally I've not read anything to say they did).

Nimits
08-31-2005, 10:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dr. Bones:
Flying the SBD campaign, starting 1942...sent out to destroy a Japanese submarine. Wingman and I both missed with bombs so I went back around to strafe. A SINGLE HIT from his conning tower AAA severed my left wing during the strafing run and I spiraled in. One hit? You've got to be joking! The biggest gun that thing could possibly mount would be maybe 23mm, right? WTF? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Out of curiosity, would it be possible for you to open this mission up (either with the FMB or Wordpad) and find out whether it was a German Type VII or Type II, or a USN Gato, playing the part of the IJN sub? Also, what career and campaign was this?

luftluuver
08-31-2005, 10:42 PM
If the USS Hornet, CV-12, could only make 9 claims after:

7,275 rounds of 5" ammo fired
115,179 rounds of 40mm ammo fired
409,580 rounds of 20mm ammo fired

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~drmiles/cv-12_16feb45.html

Yup, the sub aa is too accurate.

Waldo.Pepper
08-31-2005, 11:00 PM
Does shipboard flak get less accurate the higher the sea state?

Has anyone tested this?

I suspect I know the answer already, even without testing it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

MLudner
09-01-2005, 05:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
Most Tempests lost were lost to ADA because the Tempests were strike aircraft and that was primarily the opposition they faced on their sorties. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Tempests of the 2TAF were primarily used as a local air superiority fighter that sometimes did a2g and this was mostly during the last couple of months as there was almost no LW to be found in the air.

Only 5 of the 14 Tempests losses in Oct 44 were due to flak.(either shot down directly or forced to crash land due to damage)
Only 2 of the 11 Tempests losses in Nov 44 were due to flak.
Only 3 of the 17 Tempests losses in Dec 44 were due to flak.
Only 5 of the 13 Tempests losses in Jan 45 were due to flak.
Only 17 of the 37 Tempests losses in Feb 45 were due to flak.
Only 11 of the 29 Tempests losses in Mar 45 were due to flak.
Only 21 of the 51 Tempests losses in Apr 45 were due to flak.

I am still looking for WW2 Tempest photos, with bombs or rockets attached and that flew operations, for many years now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, silliness! I was thinking Typhoon. **** Hawker, naming everything after storms. Get an imagination!
(I'm being facetious, of course.)

Still, your numbers go far to making my point. The number lost to ADA increases proportionately to the dirth of LW fighter opposition.

It still leaves unanswered, though two vital questions:
Out of how many sorties?
By how many planes conducting the sorties?

MLudner
09-01-2005, 06:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lbhskier37:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shoboat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
You are correct: the odds stay the same each time you pass. Each single roll of the dice the chances are the same. However, the more times you roll the more likely you are to come up short. Eventually, at some point, the dice will come up 01 - 05. This is not to say that the actual IRL risk would be 5%; I gave that number just for the sake of example. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Coolness. Glad to have that confirmed. Probability really spins my head sometimes, so I admit I'm no expert. I'm sure you can get into some really esoteric chaos things that turn simple probability on its head.

Funny sidebar: I had a friend whose parents would actually fly out on different planes thinking that having them on different flights spread out the risk that they would both die in a plane crash. From a pure probability standpoint they both still stood an equal chance of going down, so they really weren't reducing their risk at all. Anyhow, always found that funny...not to mention a bit extreme. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually they were reducing their risk of both going down. Lets say there is a .5% chance of any flight going down. Well then there is a .5%(.005)x.5%(.005) chance, or .0025%(.000025) chance of both going down.

Think of it like a lottery drawing, to figure out your odds you would multiply the odds of each individual number in the drawing, for example if they are drawing 5 balls, and each ball could be 1 of 100 numbers, the probability of getting any individual number correct is 1/100 or .01. The odds of getting 2 numbers right is .01X.01, 3 numbers is .01X.01X.01, and so on. (all this is assuming you are replacing the ball you draw so it can be drawn again) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, good point. In fact, they were increasing the risk that at least one of them would be involved in a crash by doubling the opportunities. Simple math:
.05% for two at once.
2 x .05 = .10% liklihood that one or the other goes down. Though, not quite literally as taking the risk twice does not actually double the risk, just the chances of the risk being taken occuring.
Yes; I know what I meant.

Note: No one is actually saying the actual risk of a plane crashing is .05%.

WOLFMondo
09-02-2005, 05:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
If the USS Hornet, CV-12, could only make 9 claims after:

7,275 rounds of 5" ammo fired
115,179 rounds of 40mm ammo fired
409,580 rounds of 20mm ammo fired

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~drmiles/cv-12_16feb45.html

Yup, the sub aa is too accurate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If thats all the guns firing then when it comes to it thats only a few minutes worth of ammunition from an entire CV's worth of AA guns. Not that much in the grand scheme of things and 9 planes shot down is nothing to laugh at, thats a serious blow to a carrier fleets aircraft contingent.

Basing AA accuracy on some ammunition spent stats is hardly good science to base your assumptions on.

Kocur_
09-02-2005, 08:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">115,179 rounds of 40mm ammo fired </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If to assume that ALL 40mm stations were firing, and I dont think, thats the case, and that practical ROF of all of those 68 Bofors guns was 100rpm we have:
115,179 / 68 / 100 = ~17 minutes of firing

127mm were firing longer, and 20mm shorter due to different ranges.

So statistically first claim could be made after, say ~1,7 minute from moment when firing begun. And since all ships around were firing there were probably less kills by USS Hornet than claims.

BUT we MUST remember that:
-those 17 Bofors stations had individual fire control systems,
-127mm Mk38 guns were firing VT proximity fuses shells.

Subs do not have FCS for main gun, neither for automatic cannons. They should not have proximity fuses either. So their statistical AA effectivenes should be even worse than drawed than number of guns compared to those of CV.

Btw. we seem to have 37mm Flak18/3
7mm M1939/40mm Bofors automatic cannons firing shells with proximity or time fuses. That is incorrect. Those guns fired shells with contact fuses only. The only detonation in flight without contact with target that could happen was effect of self destruction, but that would be about on top of balistic curve...So in fact all 37/40mm AA automatic guns in game are ridiculous really...

luftluuver
09-02-2005, 10:12 AM
Wolf, you can like stats or not but it still took a heck of a lot of rnds to get a kill from a big stable a/c carrier. How many more rnds would be required from a bobbing cork sub, without FCS systems, as Kocur stated, to get a kill?

A 3.7cm Flak 18, -36, -43 had a pracical RoF of ~80rnd/barrel. The 20mm guns, 2cm Flak 30, and -38, had a pracical RoF of 120-180rnd/barrel. This is from a stabile ground position.

Nimits
09-02-2005, 02:00 PM
If a plane flies straight at a sub sailing in a straight line (which is more or less what we have in FB), its pretty easy to kill, so long as you can start shooting before he does. Add in any manuvering by either party, though, and it is alot more difficult.