Author Topic: Was CV puffy ack really this deadly in RL?  (Read 3081 times)

Offline mthrockmor

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2649
Re: Was CV puffy ack really this deadly in RL?
« Reply #15 on: June 29, 2012, 04:45:48 PM »
It's a mix. In real life it was both much more dangerous and much less dangerous.

The big complaint with in-game ack is the crud about being 25k away, pulling 6gs at 15k and puffy ack getting you, of course the flight of buffs flying right next to you won't be scratched; or, flying a straight line with zero indication of anything, CV completely out of visual range and fist puff takes out your oil; or, the moment you hit six inches about 3,000 feet you are surrounded by puffy ack. This part is very unrealistic. Not even an SM-2 with Aegis could pull off these instant shots. All of this is gamey.

In real life, by the time got within 3-5k of the fleet a hundred plus 5"s were shooting at you, thousand plus 40mms and 20mms. The only chance of getting through by 1945 was a complete surprise attack like what hit the USS Bunker Hill.

Boo
No poor dumb bastard wins a war by dying for his country, he wins by making the other poor, dumb, bastard die for his.
George "Blood n Guts" Patton

Offline Ruah

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
Re: Was CV puffy ack really this deadly in RL?
« Reply #16 on: June 30, 2012, 05:39:40 PM »
it sucks. . . whether it is realistic or not

Kommando Nowotny
I/JG 77, 2nd Staffel
Mediterranean Maelstrom
HORRIDO

Offline texasfighter

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 179
Re: Was CV puffy ack really this deadly in RL?
« Reply #17 on: July 03, 2012, 08:47:03 AM »
My father served on the USS Callaghan, a late war Fletcher class destroyer. To simplify slightly, their second assignment was working with escort carriers. While doing so at Saipan on June 17th, they shot down 3 incoming jap dive bombers. All downed by the 40s. They shot down 12 total during the war. Almost all were shot down by their 40mm mounts. Their 5" just didn't seem to be as effective. Proof was the night they were sunk July 29th, 45. They were at Okinawa and the big threat was kamikazes. They were ordered not to fire any automatics (40s or 20s) so as to not give the boogies an aiming point by following the tracers. A flight of kamikazes flying training planes (slow) came out to their radar station. One kamakaze detached and made a couple of runs. Three destroyers on station fired away with their 5". No effect except to drive him off the first time. One the second run in he flew straight into the No 3 5" mount on the Callaghan. So it became the last destroyer sunk by kamakaze in the war. I interviewed the assistant gunnery officer. He was convinced that if they had been allowed to use the 40s they would have knocked that plane down. The computer that was used with the main battery (5") was mechanical and about the size of a refrigerator. They had problems with it early on and then again at Okinawa. It was hard to keep the system calibrated.

My impression was that dual purpose guns like the 5" particularly from multiple ships was effective against level bombers. But largely ineffective against anything that maneuvered or in a high speed dive.

"If you wanted a glamor picture to send home you sat in a Mustang, when you wanted to come back from a mission you sat in a Thunderbolt."

Offline RTHolmes

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
Re: Was CV puffy ack really this deadly in RL?
« Reply #18 on: July 03, 2012, 09:48:41 AM »
very interesting, thx for posting :aok

and it tallies with my understanding of WWII AAA and the accounts Ive read. for tracking small targets, even heading straight for the ship, the radar based system was almost useless. the japanese pilots learnt quickly that they could defeat it by changing alt by just 100' either way. later in the war the 5" batteries were slaved to the optical guidance system used by the 40mms for closer targets as it was much more effective.
71 (Eagle) Squadron

What most of us want to do is simply shoot stuff and look good doing it - Chilli

Offline mthrockmor

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2649
Re: Was CV puffy ack really this deadly in RL?
« Reply #19 on: July 03, 2012, 01:23:47 PM »
Agreed, great info.

For level buffs our CV task force in game, in real life would have a total of 34 5" turrets (4 open mounted on Essex, plus 4 dual mount turrents), a total of 44 5" guns, of which, depending on altitude and angle as many as 38 could be shooting at a buff formation at any given time. In game there are a total of 16 5" guns.

In real life our CV task force would have a total of 69 40mm guns (17 on Essex, 12 on Baltimore and 10 each per Fletcher) and 133 20mm guns (65 on Essex, 28 on Baltimore and 10 each per Fletcher.) I can see why the bofors and mike-mikes would do most of the damage.

Are there are historical records of 5" guns against high flying buff formations?

Boo
No poor dumb bastard wins a war by dying for his country, he wins by making the other poor, dumb, bastard die for his.
George "Blood n Guts" Patton

Offline Babalonian

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5817
      • Pigs on the Wing
Re: Was CV puffy ack really this deadly in RL?
« Reply #20 on: July 03, 2012, 03:51:48 PM »
I wonder, if with some apropriate sight/convergance adjsutments, if HiTech would consider increasing the manned 40mms on CVs maybe an effective range of 4 or 5k (before their tracers or bullets disapeared).....  could/would it make any notable difference, particularly in terms of their AAA role.
-Babalon
"Let's light 'em up and see how they smoke."
POTW IIw Oink! - http://www.PigsOnTheWing.org

Wow, you guys need help.

Offline RTHolmes

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
Re: Was CV puffy ack really this deadly in RL?
« Reply #21 on: July 04, 2012, 06:25:09 AM »
For level buffs our CV task force in game, in real life would have a total of 34 5" turrets (4 open mounted on Essex, plus 4 dual mount turrents), a total of 44 5" guns, of which, depending on altitude and angle as many as 38 could be shooting at a buff formation at any given time. In game there are a total of 16 5" guns.

not sure about your numbers here, for the standard CV, CA and 5x DE AH task group there are 49x 5" guns, 20 of which are manned, 29 are auto.
71 (Eagle) Squadron

What most of us want to do is simply shoot stuff and look good doing it - Chilli

Offline RTHolmes

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
Re: Was CV puffy ack really this deadly in RL?
« Reply #22 on: July 04, 2012, 06:31:08 AM »
I wonder, if with some apropriate sight/convergance adjsutments, if HiTech would consider increasing the manned 40mms on CVs maybe an effective range of 4 or 5k (before their tracers or bullets disapeared).....  could/would it make any notable difference, particularly in terms of their AAA role.

RL 40mm were used up to ~12,000' whereas ours dont fire over ~7,000'. changing this would spoil the 7k guaranteed one-pass by B26s that I see all the time. you stand a chance of turning a CV away from the bomb drop at 12k, no chance at all at 7k ...
71 (Eagle) Squadron

What most of us want to do is simply shoot stuff and look good doing it - Chilli

Online The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17934
      • Fugi's Aces Help
Re: Was CV puffy ack really this deadly in RL?
« Reply #23 on: July 04, 2012, 08:05:52 AM »
I'd like to see the "boxes" that HTC uses be different sizes for each plane, maybe each "category" of plane. Smaller boxes for those planes that are bigger, or less maneuverable, and bigger as you get to the faster, smaller, more maneuverable planes. This way the odds of being hit in a big slow buff would be pretty good were a fighter darting all over the place would have less of a chance.

Now I think the boxes are all the same size, or are determined by speed/alt, but if there was a way for the game to "ID" the planes and have each assigned a box size I think it would "simulate" the accuracy better.
 

Offline Rich52

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
Re: Was CV puffy ack really this deadly in RL?
« Reply #24 on: July 04, 2012, 08:45:48 AM »
The 40mm's in the game are only usefull against PT boats. Embarrassing cause they should be a lot of fun. And Ive never been able to fathom how a fighter gets damaged by puffy, while you can hardly even see the CV, but a bomber can fly right over it at 7,000 and kill it unscathed. The puffy and 40mm situation is just plain broken.
Yes, your on "Ignore"

Offline bozon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6037
Re: Was CV puffy ack really this deadly in RL?
« Reply #25 on: July 05, 2012, 03:38:24 AM »
I'd like to see the "boxes" that HTC uses be different sizes for each plane, maybe each "category" of plane. Smaller boxes for those planes that are bigger, or less maneuverable, and bigger as you get to the faster, smaller, more maneuverable planes. This way the odds of being hit in a big slow buff would be pretty good were a fighter darting all over the place would have less of a chance.

Now I think the boxes are all the same size, or are determined by speed/alt, but if there was a way for the game to "ID" the planes and have each assigned a box size I think it would "simulate" the accuracy better.
I think that the box of puffs is just a visual effect. Under the hood AH simply rolls a dice whether there is a hit or not. If the "ḧit roll" depends on the size of the plane, that is an interesting question.

The way I see it, AH puffy ack simulates a volume attack. With heavy acks they were not aiming at any specific plane, but instead fill a volume in the sky that is supposed to have planes in it. In this case, speed, maneuvering flickering the landing lights will not change a thing. The only thing that will help you is being smaller. Being faster will help by getting you out of range faster, but not improve your chances while in the ack volume.

Evasive maneuvers will help only if the crossing time of the ack volume (t_cross = box_size / plane_speed) is similar or shorter than the projectile travel time. So in a akies full of acks (large box_size) evasive maneuvers achieve little more than making your stay in the acks range longer.

All of the above is not true when the heavy flaks are aiming at a specific plane, but I don't think this is what HTC were trying to simulate.

Now, since this is a game and I don't consider the puffy-acks as part of the "simulator" side of it, I wouldn't mind if the hit probabilities against fighters will be artificially decreased and the hit probability against bombers artificially increased.
Mosquito VI - twice the spitfire, four times the ENY.

Click!>> "So, you want to fly the wooden wonder" - <<click!
the almost incomplete and not entirely inaccurate guide to the AH Mosquito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGOWswdzGQs

Offline coombz

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3701
Re: Was CV puffy ack really this deadly in RL?
« Reply #26 on: July 05, 2012, 06:59:10 AM »
it sucks. . . whether it is realistic or not

+10
Did you see my dad on dogfights yet?
I'll be seeing you face to face possibly next month.

Offline Babalonian

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5817
      • Pigs on the Wing
Re: Was CV puffy ack really this deadly in RL?
« Reply #27 on: July 05, 2012, 05:27:02 PM »
RL 40mm were used up to ~12,000' whereas ours dont fire over ~7,000'. changing this would spoil the 7k guaranteed one-pass by B26s that I see all the time. you stand a chance of turning a CV away from the bomb drop at 12k, no chance at all at 7k ...

And it's not like they get three drones, so a lucky/practiced gunner can maybe get more than two before they drop.  A lucky manned 5"er can get lucky and take out multiples in one shot as is...

My concern would specificly be with the use of CVs/Task groups in their widespread use as close/direct-support for beachhead landings in-game.  If you think a couple manned twin 5"s are havok to a runway a couple hundred yards away, imagine a couple dozen twin and quad 40mms sniping away at it.  Or enemy PT boats getting within torp range.  CV to CV battles would rarely last as long as they do now once the ships close to that range and the ships start getting hosed by 40mms.  Those would be my concerns, would a change meant to impact air defence impact other things more signifigantly.  Also, it's not like torpedo planes don't already have a short stick...
-Babalon
"Let's light 'em up and see how they smoke."
POTW IIw Oink! - http://www.PigsOnTheWing.org

Wow, you guys need help.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: Was CV puffy ack really this deadly in RL?
« Reply #28 on: July 06, 2012, 02:07:56 PM »
Sooooo, what I am hearing here is that people want the CV to be much, much easier to kill....
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline titanic3

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4235
Re: Was CV puffy ack really this deadly in RL?
« Reply #29 on: July 06, 2012, 03:31:38 PM »
Sooooo, what I am hearing here is that people want the CV to be much, much easier to kill....

More manned 5in, less auto puffy.

  the game is concentrated on combat, not on shaking the screen.

semp