Aces High Bulletin Board
Help and Support Forums => Help and Training => Topic started by: Midway on June 27, 2012, 11:02:43 AM
-
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.
-
No.
edit: but on the flipside our 40mms are seriously nerfed.
-
According to all the data jocks, RL was even deadlier. I still think puffy ack is silly.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 ... :)
-
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. :D
Here's a link to the 8th AF report. http://www.mediafire.com/view/?73ely51d276ic6o
-
.
-
RL more lethal, AH you don't really die.
-
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.
-
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").
-
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. :headscratch:
-
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.
-
No.
edit: but on the flipside our 40mms are seriously nerfed.
Truth, our 40mms are very tame.
-
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
-
it sucks. . . whether it is realistic or not
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
it sucks. . . whether it is realistic or not
+10
-
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...
-
Sooooo, what I am hearing here is that people want the CV to be much, much easier to kill....
-
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.
-
Before the proximity fuse was invented, NO.
After the proximity fuse came into use RL puffy was far more dangerous to airplanes than in AH.
-
After the proximity fuse came into use RL puffy was far more dangerous to airplanes than in AH.
how?
-
how?
Rolls of the dice weren't a factor on planes getting hit, also every gun was manned in RL.
-
Rolls of the dice weren't a factor on planes getting hit, also every gun was manned in RL.
Really? :headscratch: I would have thought luck, good or bad, were important factors in surviving it.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,336074.0.html
:salute
-
Rolls of the dice weren't a factor on planes getting hit
what does this mean? and does it apply to AH, RL timed fuses or RL proxy fuses? :headscratch:
-
what does this mean? and does it apply to AH, RL timed fuses or RL proxy fuses? :headscratch:
Risk / chance / luck / roll of the dice - apply to all of these, imho. Read the poem from a real life vet... You will see puffy ack and luck mentioned.