Was CV puffy ack really this deadly in RL?

[Midway]

I mean for a fighter flying thousands of yards from a task group, was it this dense and did it take fighters out that often as in here?

Not sure if this is right place for the question.  Maybe we need a RL WWII forum section?

but really am curious, because it sure seems frequently deadly in AH.

[RTHolmes]

No.


edit: but on the flipside our 40mms are seriously nerfed.

[titanic3]

According to all the data jocks, RL was even deadlier. I still think puffy ack is silly.

[RTHolmes]

According to all the data jocks, RL was even deadlier.

nahhh. according to people posting WWII pics of skies full of puffy RL was deadlier. they forget that that puffy is being produced by a fleet with 10-30x as many AA guns as our fleets have. look at the stats, look at the attack profiles of the victims, understand the mechanics of how an analogue computer works, and the operation of the sights and director and the only conclusion is that our auto puffy is all wrong.

[Ack-Ack]

I mean for a fighter flying thousands of yards from a task group, was it this dense and did it take fighters out that often as in here?

It was far more lethal in real life.

ack-ack

[FLS]

The 8th AF documented a first shot puffy ack fighter kill at 22k and noted that the majority of fighter losses were to ground fire not enemy fighters.

[RTHolmes]

The 8th AF documented a first shot puffy ack fighter kill at 22k

how many guns were firing at them? how many fighters were there? what was their mission profile and their maneuvering at the time? how many similar sorties ended with no fighters being one-shotted at 22k? you see what I'm saying ...

[FLS]

how many guns were firing at them? how many fighters were there? what was their mission profile and their maneuvering at the time? how many similar sorties ended with no fighters being one-shotted at 22k? you see what I'm saying ...

Yes, you're saying that you don't know what WW2 puffy ack was like.  

Here's a link to the 8th AF report. http://www.mediafire.com/view/?73ely51d276ic6o

[Midway]

.

[flatiron1]

RL more lethal, AH you don't really die.

[Tom5572]

RL more lethal, AH you don't really die.

Beat me to it.

Game cv ack is not nearly as thick as it was over cv groups in WWII.

[RTHolmes]

Yes, you're saying that you don't know what WW2 puffy ack was like.

Well I wasnt there so I dont personally know what it was like, but I do understand director operation and the limitations of the system. Which is how I know it was impossible for the system to track a maneuvering aircraft in the way AH's system does. lets be very clear about this - not difficult, but impossible. otoh a formation of B26s on a level bomb run to the CV at 8k should be shredded every single time (and more likely by the 40mm than 5").

[Slate]

   I usally am not bothered by Puffy Ack but last night trying to get near CV 204 WHAM out of nowhere killed instantly. Up another WHAM again.

   Both times in F4u-d about 5-6 k and not directly over cv. Bombers with thier big formation rarely are hit unless by a good gunner. Both times no player kill message so I know it was the AI guns.
   Oh well I went and did something else. 

[FLS]

Well I wasnt there so I dont personally know what it was like, but I do understand director operation and the limitations of the system. Which is how I know it was impossible for the system to track a maneuvering aircraft in the way AH's system does. lets be very clear about this - not difficult, but impossible. otoh a formation of B26s on a level bomb run to the CV at 8k should be shredded every single time (and more likely by the 40mm than 5").

You may know more about WW2 ack than I do, I wasn't there either, but, consider that the puffy ack was used 2 different ways. There was the tracking ack and there was the box of ack that aircraft had to fly through to reach their target. The tracking ack didn't fire into a box around the target the way AH does. It directed a number of gun positions to fire to the same predicted location. The box of ack was just fired to the correct altitude in cases where the targets had to fly through that airspace. The fact that AH can use a low overhead solution to put a random box of ack around a precise location can't be compared directly to either type of WW2 ack. The complaints I see tend to state that someone doesn't like the ack and it should be less effective but nobody can post data to support that. Arguments like yours that compare aiming systems miss the point that neither of the actual WW2 tracking or box systems is modeled.  We seem to have more of a hybrid. The fact is that the puffy ack in Aces High mostly misses but who talks about the misses? It's the occasional hit, or the even more rare 2 hits in a row that get the attention.

[Babalonian]

No.


edit: but on the flipside our 40mms are seriously nerfed.

Truth, our 40mms are very tame.