Author Topic: And you guys think CV acks are bad in this game...  (Read 1566 times)

Offline Harp00n

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 122
Re: And you guys think CV acks are bad in this game...
« Reply #15 on: November 06, 2010, 09:15:54 AM »


This pilot probably thought that CV acks are bad...in real life  ;)

Offline JHerne

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 659
Re: And you guys think CV acks are bad in this game...
« Reply #16 on: November 06, 2010, 09:18:50 AM »
Yea, but chances are he was already willing to die for his Emperor. Me, I'd prefer to get my cartoon plane home with enough pieces left to find some cartoon pavement!  :lol

Skunkworks AvA Researcher and
Primary Cause of Angst

Offline Larry

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6123
Re: And you guys think CV acks are bad in this game...
« Reply #17 on: November 06, 2010, 01:26:32 PM »
I think the real stuff looks nastier then AH :)

That's because the real stuff can actually kill you.
Once known as ''TrueKill''.
JG 54 "Grünherz"
July '18 KOTH Winner


Offline 68ZooM

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6337
Re: And you guys think CV acks are bad in this game...
« Reply #18 on: November 06, 2010, 01:54:44 PM »
I think the real stuff looks nastier then AH :)

German shipping flak seen from a Beaufighter.
(Image removed from quote.)

Navy ack.  Image from the cruise book of the USS California.
(Image removed from quote.)

WOW  :O  if we had Ack like that CV's would go untouched
UrSelf...Pigs On The Wing...Retired

Was me, I bumped a power cord. HiTEch

Offline Brooke

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15554
      • http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/
Re: And you guys think CV acks are bad in this game...
« Reply #19 on: November 06, 2010, 03:19:20 PM »
I don't think that ack in real life was more deadly than it is in the game.

In the main arena, you cannot get a torpedo bomber through a task group's AA fire, not with just auto ack and especially not if there is even one person manning a single 5".  In real life, it was possible to do that, and it was possible for planes to make gunnery passes through battleship/cruiser/destroyer groupings and survive.  Not every plane doing so would survive, of course, but there was a non-negligible probability of being able to do it.

While the volume of fire in real life was very high, I don't think the hit percentage was very high.

Offline JHerne

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 659
Re: And you guys think CV acks are bad in this game...
« Reply #20 on: November 06, 2010, 06:53:08 PM »
I dunno...in AH, its rare to see an entire squadron of torpedo planes or dive bombers. Security in numbers....

I'm willing to bet that if 12 guys attacked a CV group in TBFs, a more than a few would get through.

J
Skunkworks AvA Researcher and
Primary Cause of Angst

Offline LLogann

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4947
      • Candidz.com
Re: And you guys think CV acks are bad in this game...
« Reply #21 on: November 06, 2010, 07:41:49 PM »
You make some plausible arguments, yes, but one that I cannot, in no way agree with is that "camera/lens" combo.........  Based on your words, you think that is a telephoto lens.  (PERIOD- not up for discussion) I can't agree with that.  I'm thinking the longest that is, is 35, maybe 55mm.  A telephoto lens will "shrink" the DOF, like you are implying, but not a wide lens.  You also need to take the shooter's eye away from the camera....... This shot, to me, was a camera placed on a mound of dirt, or some other hard structure using BULB and without even looking once they grabbed the focus. 

as for the long or short of the "trail," with the wide lens & low aperture, the shutter would have to be open for an extended period even with a higher ASA such as 1600 or 3200. And another reason fro my belief is the ASA itself..... 1600, maybe 3200 I'll buy, but odds are this photog had 800 with him. (a good all around speed)

Actually Llogan I'm thinking each of those lines represents a single tracer round; you can see the cone of fire in the slightly different angles, and it's unlikely the guns were static during firing. Also there are at least three near vertical short artifacts above a/c number 315, not sure what they are but the fact that they are all roughly parallel suggests hot debris falling under gravity. Whatever they are, they would have to be moving extremely slowly (or a very long way away) to leave such a short trail at anything like 17 or 19 seconds. And is that smoke in the lower left corner? If so it's been captured almost as if by flash (it may not be smoke, hurried processing can cause similar effects).

As for the depth of field, not an issue here. Even though typically a photographer will use the widest aperture available for 'long exposure' night work, and I believe this is the case here, depth of field at this distance to the subjects wouldn't be a factor with the standard camera/lens combinations likely to have been in use. I wouldn't be suprised if this was a half second exposure.... doubtful the photographer set up a tripod in the midst of that mayhem. More likely had the camera with him on the way to the shelter and thought he may as well try a hand-held of the firework display. I've won bets shooting blur free handheld at half a second, you pick up a few useful tricks as an RAAF photographer. Personally I'd have already been cowering under my camera case in the shelter  :O   
See Rule #4
Now I only pay because of my friends.

Offline SWkiljoy

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 677
Re: And you guys think CV acks are bad in this game...
« Reply #22 on: November 07, 2010, 11:18:42 AM »
great pics  :rock
Proud member and Flight Leader of the 125th Spartan Warriors
<<S>> SWkiljoy

Offline JHerne

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 659
Re: And you guys think CV acks are bad in this game...
« Reply #23 on: November 07, 2010, 02:39:23 PM »
LMAO, I'm reading LLogan's post and thinking to myself, "What in the hell is he talking about?!!?" Then I remembered the discussion of the photographers camera settings back on page one...

Time for more beer.
Skunkworks AvA Researcher and
Primary Cause of Angst

Offline LLogann

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4947
      • Candidz.com
Re: And you guys think CV acks are bad in this game...
« Reply #24 on: November 07, 2010, 02:43:40 PM »
 :x
LMAO, I'm reading LLogan's post and thinking to myself, "What in the hell is he talking about?!!?" Then I remembered the discussion of the photographers camera settings back on page one...

Time for more beer.

All the bullchit that I say on these boards, photography is actually the one thing I'll always give the straight line for......  It's my business these days.   :salute

But if any prosumer camera dudes out there are curious to ASA.....   Same as ISO.   :aok
See Rule #4
Now I only pay because of my friends.

Offline rvflyer

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 738
Re: And you guys think CV acks are bad in this game...
« Reply #25 on: November 07, 2010, 03:09:03 PM »
Be glad you never had to face them in real life or the whines would be deafening.

(Image removed from quote.)
March 1945: Japanese night raiders are greeted with a lacework of antiaircraft fire by the U.S. Marine defenders of Yontan airfield, on Okinawa during World War II. In the foreground are Marine Corsair fighter planes of the "Hells Belles" squadron standing silhouetted against the sky. (AP Photo)



ack-ack

The rest of the photos,  :salute the men and women of WWII

http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2010/03/18/captured-blog-the-pacific-and-adjacent-theaters/1547/
Tour 70 2005 to present

Offline Brooke

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15554
      • http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/
Re: And you guys think CV acks are bad in this game...
« Reply #26 on: November 07, 2010, 06:05:54 PM »
I dunno...in AH, its rare to see an entire squadron of torpedo planes or dive bombers. Security in numbers....

I'm willing to bet that if 12 guys attacked a CV group in TBFs, a more than a few would get through.

J

From the pictures and videos I've looked at and accounts I've read over the years, planes didn't often manage to go in that close together.  For example, I don't think I've seen a single picture or video of torpedo runs of either US or Japanese planes that had more than about two planes close together, and most of the things I've seen have one.  Planes would frequently get separated while each maneuvered to get a good run on the target.  Dive bombing, too, often has the planes separated enough to be the equivalent of one plane at a time.

Also, there are numerous accounts like "I made a gunnery pass on a cruiser in for formation of cruisers and destroyers.  I went in and strafed the deck of the ship.  Then I did another run until I was out of ammo and headed back to base."  Of course there are many people who are shot down on runs like that.

My point is only that, in real WWII, there were many accounts of planes going in on a taskgroup of ships, right through all of that flak, and making it through.

Offline JHerne

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 659
Re: And you guys think CV acks are bad in this game...
« Reply #27 on: November 07, 2010, 06:12:04 PM »
The point that I was making was in reference to the game itself. Perhaps one day we should try it and see what happens, get 10-12 people in TBFs attacking a CV group at the same time. Or get 10-12 ppl in SBDs coming in from 10K on a single target. I'm sure some guys will 'fly right through' while others won't get enough time to release.

During actual combat situations, squadrons would arrive over the target at the same time, thus attacking various targets and not allowing the entire AA battery to focus on a single plane. A good study are the squadron AARs on the attacks on Yamato and Musashi.

On the opposite side of the coin, Japanese attacks were often made by a smaller number, or individual aircraft, who met the wall 'o flak from the 5", 40mm, and 20mm.

Skunkworks AvA Researcher and
Primary Cause of Angst

Offline Brooke

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15554
      • http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/
Re: And you guys think CV acks are bad in this game...
« Reply #28 on: November 07, 2010, 09:49:52 PM »
The point that I was making was in reference to the game itself. Perhaps one day we should try it and see what happens, get 10-12 people in TBFs attacking a CV group at the same time. Or get 10-12 ppl in SBDs coming in from 10K on a single target. I'm sure some guys will 'fly right through' while others won't get enough time to release.

We have done that many times in scenarios (Coral Sea 2005, Operation Husky, Coral Sea 2009, and Philippine Phandango -- pictorials AAR's of all of those, with pictures of what the attack runs ended up looking like, are here:  http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/scenarios.html ).  Those are scenarios with lots of training and practice and people working to go in as close together as possible and attacking a squadron at a time.  Yet even there, you won't see more that 1-2 planes going in as if they were in formation because folks just get a bit more separated than that as they individually line up for the attack.  For those, we turn the auto ack way, way down and disable 5" manned guns, or no torpedo bombers would ever make it in.

Quote
During actual combat situations, squadrons would arrive over the target at the same time, thus attacking various targets and not allowing the entire AA battery to focus on a single plane. A good study are the squadron AARs on the attacks on Yamato and Musashi.

I've read a lot of accounts of those encounters and many, many more, as well as looking at photographs of attack runs and footage of attack runs for both US and Japanese forces.  Yes, a squadron goes in.  But when you look at what the actual attack runs look like, rarely are they a squadron attacking in formation.  They are, effectively from our point of view AH with regard to ack range, etc., a plane at a time, even though, yes, it is a whole squadron attacking.

Quote
On the opposite side of the coin, Japanese attacks were often made by a smaller number, or individual aircraft, who met the wall 'o flak from the 5", 40mm, and 20mm.

Later in the war, yes, but not necessarily in the big earlier encounters such as Midway and Coral Sea.  Yet there, and even at Pearl Harbor, where there was no aerial opposition and hundreds of attackers, you don't see many (or perhaps any?  I'm not sure -- I haven't seen any pics or footage that shows it, but I can't say none exist) planes going in while in formation.  You see mostly what we would call a plane at a time or what would here be in effect a plane at at time (i.e., ack focusing on a plane as it comes in, then the next plane, and so on -- not 4 or 8 or 12 at once).

Offline SCTusk

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 283
      • Skeleton Crew Squadron
Re: And you guys think CV acks are bad in this game...
« Reply #29 on: November 07, 2010, 09:51:10 PM »
Based on your words, you think that is a telephoto lens.  (PERIOD- not up for discussion) I can't agree with that.  I'm thinking the longest that is, is 35, maybe 55mm.

Hi again LLogan, neg I never said it was a telephoto, in fact I'm presuming a standard 55mm as you suggest (what did I say to make you think otherwise?) Not entirely sure what your reasons are for thinking this is a longer exposure, those tracers would have been very bright, remember a meteor shower leaves nice trails and although generally the shutter is open for some time each trail is made in a second or two, given the tracers are 1. closer and 2. brighter I don't see a problem with the exposure having been under a second.

the shutter would have to be open for an extended period even with a higher ASA such as 1600 or 3200. And another reason fro my belief is the ASA itself..... 1600, maybe 3200 I'll buy, but odds are this photog had 800 with him. (a good all around speed)

...more probably 50 or maybe 100. I realise this figure works against my argument rather than with it, but back in the mid '70's the RAAF at least was using 100ASA standard B&W, if we got hold of 200 we thought it was Christmas and 400 was something we read about in the civilian photographic magazines. You could 'push' it of course, in the processing, at some cost to quality (increased grain).

I'm looking at the image and just trying to run through in my mind what was going on... the photographer's probably moving briskly toward the nearest shelter and looks up, says to himself 'wow I've gotta get a shot of that' cranks his aperture wide open without looking but glances down as he sets the shutter speed, probably suprised that he can actually see the setting scale in the reflected light. The brightness convinces him to try a quick hand held shot at half a second, maybe he sits down and uses his knees to steady, maybe he places the camera against something solid... but I just don't see him fiddling about with 15 second exposures, I wouldn't as there's no need, even at 50ASA.

Does it matter that much? Let's say you're right. You may well be, I haven't had a professional interest in photography since I left the service in 1982, whereas you are current. I only posted because I suspected the amount of fire evident seemed to me about right for something under a second or so, and a closer look at the image seemed to confirm that. If we're going to exchange ideas we might be better off finding some common ground, I certainly have no wish to become the forum expert on photography, you are probably far more qualified for that role than I  :)  






"We don't have a plan, so nothing can go wrong." (Spike Milligan)

Read my WW1 online novel 'Blood and Old Bones' at http://www.ww1sims.com/
A tribute to WW1 airmen and the squadron spirit, inspired by virtual air combat.

SCTusk    ++ SKELETON CREW ++  founde