PDA

View Full Version : Pacific Taskforce



LeadSpitter_
06-10-2004, 06:28 AM
I recently seen hell in the pacific 1 and 2 from http://www.historicaviation.com

They say 1 out of 100 ijn aircraft were able to reach the core of the taskforce. Center Carriers.

Im wondering if the Ship AAA will hold up to those numbers. Also will the japanese un armored carrier decks let us cause major damage with 500lb bombs?

Im also wondering about torpedos, the japanese torpedo bombers were superior to the usn torpedo bombers. They were able to drop them from a higher distance and greater speed then the US torpedos.

Im sure you have the data but Dont know if its going to be considered. In FB/AEP you can drop a torp from any alt and it works and even goes thru islands

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

LeadSpitter_
06-10-2004, 06:28 AM
I recently seen hell in the pacific 1 and 2 from http://www.historicaviation.com

They say 1 out of 100 ijn aircraft were able to reach the core of the taskforce. Center Carriers.

Im wondering if the Ship AAA will hold up to those numbers. Also will the japanese un armored carrier decks let us cause major damage with 500lb bombs?

Im also wondering about torpedos, the japanese torpedo bombers were superior to the usn torpedo bombers. They were able to drop them from a higher distance and greater speed then the US torpedos.

Im sure you have the data but Dont know if its going to be considered. In FB/AEP you can drop a torp from any alt and it works and even goes thru islands

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

michapma
06-10-2004, 07:27 AM
Lead, you are a wonder(in'). http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Did it mention how many ships there were to fire at the IJN aircraft? Judging from the footage I saw yesterday, my computer would reboot with that much AA fire.

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_chap.jpg (http://giap.webhop.info)

The ongoing IL-2 User's Guide (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/) | Forgotten Skies (http://www.forgottenskies.com/)
But we are all that way: when we know a thing we have only scorn for other people who don't happen to know it. - Mark Twain, Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc

Stuntie
06-10-2004, 09:04 AM
Don't forget as well that US torps suffered from a lot of duds. Same for the subs as well.
Dodgy detonators that invariably failed with a direct hit.

Fly through the flak - perfect line up - dodge the zero - ingnore the burning wing - right speed - right height - wipe the blood from your eyes - On target - drop! - splash - whir - Clang!

Cheers.
Stuntie

Kitakami
06-10-2004, 11:05 AM
Well, the Pacific air war was undoubtebly highly frustrating and deadly for the real pilots involved, so I hope they don't dumb down the game (simulator?) too much for the masses in this respect. For one, around 50% losses on the airgroups of one or both sides were not uncommon at all in carrier battles.

Duds, getting shot down by impossibly deadly flak fire and the likes should all be there IMO (with the tried and true missing your target after many hours of flight).

The subject of FPS and AA(A) has been brought up before. It will be intresting how they manage to handle all those tracers. A normal early war carrier taskforce could easily have hundreads of light AA guns, and for late war ones the figure could be thousands. Historical battles like Phillippine Sea, where the US fleet had nearly thousand 127mm AAA guns alone, are probably outright impossible to manage.

Blutarski2004
06-11-2004, 04:34 PM
The difference between USN warship AA armaments in 1942 and 1944/45 is mind boggling.

Example -

http://johnsmilitaryhistory.tripod.com/carriertactics.html

Radar was also fitted on 5 inch anti-aircraft shells. These proximity shells exploded when near the target, instead of at a specific set time with previous fuses, vastly improving the effectiveness of the guns. (Hughes 116,132) The Bureau of Ordnance estimated that guns firing proximity rounds were four times more effective than guns firing regular time-fused rounds. (Rowland 286) Their performance in battle was impressive. Soon after their introduction, an American task force reported that it downed 91 planes of a 130 plane Japanese formation. (Rowland 287)

For medium range anti-aircraft duty, a quick firing Bofors 40 mm gun with exploding shells was adopted. These guns were later tied in with the fire control for 5 inch guns, bringing improvement to both gun types. (Rowland 386) For close-in anti-aircraft protection the newly adopted 20mm Oerlikon gun was 8 to 10 times more effective than the .50 caliber machine gun it replaced. (Rowland 235) New gyroscopic optical fire controllers (basically K14 type sights adapted for shipboard use) which calculated a target's rate of change helped make the guns more effective than when used with a standard sight over the gun barrel. An early indication of improved effectiveness was in October 1942 when the battleship South Dakota shot down ALL 38 planes of an attacking Japanese force. (Rowland 382)

Anti-aircraft protection increased not only because of improved guns, fire control, and proximity fuses. The number of anti-aircraft guns was drastically increased. The battleship Nevada, an old Pearl Harbor survivor is a good example. It doubled its 5 inch gun armament from 8 to 16 guns, its four 3 inch guns were replaced by eight 40 mm quad mounts with a total of 32 gun barrels, and its eight .50 caliber machine guns were replaced by forty 20 mm guns. The battleship South Dakota completed during the war is another example. Originally planned to have three 1.1 inch quad mounts, by March 1945 there were instead seventeen 40 mm quad mounts. Instead of its planned twelve .50 caliber machine guns, in March 1945 there were no less than seventy seven 20 mm guns! (Rowland 243, 246)


..... Go to the above-mentioned website for more info on carrier task forces in the WW2 Pacific theater.

BLUTARSKI

SkyChimp
06-11-2004, 07:30 PM
Here's a good site on torpedoes:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/torpedos.html

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/halfstaff.gif

Fliger747
06-12-2004, 11:27 AM
The Kamakazi threat changed the anti-aircraft situation dramatically! Even the vaunted quad Bofors was considered inadequate, and the Orlikon, well when those started rattling it was time to plug your ears and pray. The US Navy more or less abandoned the 40mm and went to a twin 3" mount, some of which were I believe installed on the Midway carriers and Worchester "Light Cruisers".

The 5" proximity fuse didn't show up till perhapas a year and a half into the war, but was effective when combined with the excellent Mk 37 director. To my knowledge the Bofors was not coupled to the Mk 37 system, but had it's own directors, including a radar "assisted" one which was mounted on at least the Iowa's at some time or another.

Ships a sea could survive determined air attack, but it took much more AA than anyone pre-war could have imagined.