Tpaktop2_1 NA Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/a/antiaircraft-action-summary.html https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/a/suicide-attacks-apr-1945.html I did not know the USN did a study on the subject. It looks like the average for shoot down attacking enemy planes was 18%. Here is a short blip about the Okinawa Campaign: Quote Non-Suicide Attacks Although the number of non-suicide planes which attacked ships in the Okinawa campaign rose to unprecedented magnitude, they accomplished very little damage to our ships. The 1,234 such planes fired at by AA. sank no ships, damaged 24 of them. Two hundred sixty-two, or 21 percent of the planes were destroyed by AA. fire as compared with 15 percent of non-suicide planes destroyed in the Philippines. Quote Summation In general, there appears to have been little difference in the AA. effectiveness of various task groups within the force. However, Task Group 58.1 had a notably high ratio of planes shot down to planes scoring hits on ship. This ratio was 13 to 1, as compared with other task groups' records varying between 1 to 1 and 7 to 1. What also made a difference in WW2 AA is VT fuzes (Variable time aka proximity fuze) for the 3 and 5 inch guns. What is scary is that the USN did considered using nukes for AA because of the Kamikazes. So I am guessing that Wargaming is the 1 to 1 ratio for AA defense. I thought I would bring this resource to your attention. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asym Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 There are several After-Action-Reports the War Department created to insure that the "History of Warfare" is not lost on the Future of warfare. In the old forum, I posted several Anti-Aircraft data sheets that were available; and proposed, that each Tier of ship align to the AA effectivity of their era... It makes no sense to discuss AA as absolute values when, in reality, technology between 1925 and 1945 was on an escalating and dramatic curve.... Take as an example, that British biplanes were the reason the Bismark was sunk or, the Prince of Wales and Repulse in Asia..... Then, fast forward to the German Fritz-X and the Ke-Go in Japan.... What we have is a standard template for simplicity. What we need is an Era template that aligns to the Tiers of Ships: a vast difference between the Washington Treaty ships and the end of WW2 technologies. Now, that the topic is brought up, AA and ASW need to be "separate" skill groups with the specialized ships developed for those specialized combat skills. The Japanese Akizuki line of ships were AA ships with Radar. The German Flak ships. The American Fletcher DD's and the American CL's designed to AA..... Why the heck not..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 52 minutes ago, Tpaktop2_1 NA said: https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/a/antiaircraft-action-summary.html https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/a/suicide-attacks-apr-1945.html I did not know the USN did a study on the subject. It looks like the average for shoot down attacking enemy planes was 18%. Here is a short blip about the Okinawa Campaign: What also made a difference in WW2 AA is VT fuzes (Variable time aka proximity fuze) for the 3 and 5 inch guns. What is scary is that the USN did considered using nukes for AA because of the Kamikazes. So I am guessing that Wargaming is the 1 to 1 ratio for AA defense. I thought I would bring this resource to your attention. On the old forum, I mentioned that AA during WW-II in the Pacific Theater was less effective than in-game AA. I think I've mentioned it somewhere on DevStrike, too. Some people are reluctant to accept that their AA isn't able to swat multiple squadrons from the pixel skies before the planes can launch ordnance, though. Bottom line? In my opinion, AA in WOWs is effective enough, and perhaps moreso. It's better than actual historic performance of AA, in my opinion. 🙂 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 20 minutes ago, Asym said: What we need is an Era template that aligns to the Tiers of Ships: a vast difference between the Washington Treaty ships and the end of WW2 technologies. So, Tier of ship plus the time frame (year and month) of when the "battle map" is "taking place" in-game? By adding a "when is the date on the map?" variable, ship's have their performance parameters adjusted according to the historic date of their refits or equipment installations? If I understand you correctly, that's interesting. But, I imagine there would need to be a player menu available so that players could select which year/month they wish for their ship to operate within (perhaps as a sub-men of the battle mode selection screen?), eh? And doing so may complicate the matchmaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snargfargle Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 2 hours ago, Asym said: technology between 1925 and 1945 was on an escalating and dramatic curve.... There's nothing like a world war and an unlimited military research budget to drive technological innovation. Just prior to WWII, my grandpa was cutting logs with a handsaw and delivering them to a sawmill using a horse-drawn wagon. Fifteen years after WWII, he was working on a communications array for nuclear missile silos. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asym Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 2 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said: So, Tier of ship plus the time frame (year and month) of when the "battle map" is "taking place" in-game? By adding a "when is the date on the map?" variable, ship's have their performance parameters adjusted according to the historic date of their refits or equipment installations? If I understand you correctly, that's interesting. But, I imagine there would need to be a player menu available so that players could select which year/month they wish for their ship to operate within (perhaps as a sub-men of the battle mode selection screen?), eh? And doing so may complicate the matchmaking. Yes. Think about what happens when you mix technologies in an unlimited manner. We get radar ships farming Tier 5 ships..... Think about the Long Lance torpedo that the US didn't even know existed till late 1943.... German snorkels. And, the game simply throws by class without even considering technology.... I've used the Prince of Wales and Repulse example many times.... Air power did that to under prepared capital ships.... The Bismark and the Swordfish biplanes that disabled her..... Radar in the Pacific....et al.. I'd keep the era paradigm simpler: create an Era mode of play that recreated the tech capabilities of that era. As an example, a "1940 North Atlantic battle" temp mode. And, only ships that were built in that era could participate - and, here's the kicker - stripped of any technology that was installed "after 1940"...... That wouldn't be that hard to program or implement. Imagine North Atlantic 1936 mode so that the lower tiers could play. A 1941 Mediterranean conflict with the Italian, French, German , British and US ships.... I would be a lot of fun ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 35 minutes ago, Asym said: Yes. Think about what happens when you mix technologies in an unlimited manner. We get radar ships farming Tier 5 ships..... Think about the Long Lance torpedo that the US didn't even know existed till late 1943.... German snorkels. And, the game simply throws by class without even considering technology.... I've used the Prince of Wales and Repulse example many times.... Air power did that to under prepared capital ships.... The Bismark and the Swordfish biplanes that disabled her..... Radar in the Pacific....et al.. I'd keep the era paradigm simpler: create an Era mode of play that recreated the tech capabilities of that era. As an example, a "1940 North Atlantic battle" temp mode. And, only ships that were built in that era could participate - and, here's the kicker - stripped of any technology that was installed "after 1940"...... That wouldn't be that hard to program or implement. Imagine North Atlantic 1936 mode so that the lower tiers could play. A 1941 Mediterranean conflict with the Italian, French, German , British and US ships.... I would be a lot of fun ! Nice food for thought, at least. 🙂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcus_Aesopi Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 4 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said: On the old forum, I mentioned that AA during WW-II in the Pacific Theater was less effective than in-game AA. I think I've mentioned it somewhere on DevStrike, too. Some people are reluctant to accept that their AA isn't able to swat multiple squadrons from the pixel skies before the planes can launch ordnance, though. Bottom line? In my opinion, AA in WOWs is effective enough, and perhaps moreso. It's better than actual historic performance of AA, in my opinion. 🙂 Hope you didn't miss the part about the aircraft ordinance being less effective than in game also. 🙂 4 hours ago, Asym said: There are several After-Action-Reports the War Department created to insure that the "History of Warfare" is not lost on the Future of warfare. In the old forum, I posted several Anti-Aircraft data sheets that were available; and proposed, that each Tier of ship align to the AA effectivity of their era... It makes no sense to discuss AA as absolute values when, in reality, technology between 1925 and 1945 was on an escalating and dramatic curve.... Take as an example, that British biplanes were the reason the Bismark was sunk or, the Prince of Wales and Repulse in Asia..... Then, fast forward to the German Fritz-X and the Ke-Go in Japan.... What we have is a standard template for simplicity. What we need is an Era template that aligns to the Tiers of Ships: a vast difference between the Washington Treaty ships and the end of WW2 technologies. Now, that the topic is brought up, AA and ASW need to be "separate" skill groups with the specialized ships developed for those specialized combat skills. The Japanese Akizuki line of ships were AA ships with Radar. The German Flak ships. The American Fletcher DD's and the American CL's designed to AA..... Why the heck not..... I would love to see the era templates implemented. 🙂 This is the way... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 2 hours ago, Arcus_Aesopi said: Hope you didn't miss the part about the aircraft ordinance being less effective than in game also. 🙂 I was "speed reading" and only glanced at your cited article and it looked familiar (from past research). Thanks for highlighting that important point and reminding me of it. 🙂 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpaktop2_1 NA Posted January 6 Author Share Posted January 6 6 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said: On the old forum, I mentioned that AA during WW-II in the Pacific Theater was less effective than in-game AA. I think I've mentioned it somewhere on DevStrike, too. Some people are reluctant to accept that their AA isn't able to swat multiple squadrons from the pixel skies before the planes can launch ordnance, though. Bottom line? In my opinion, AA in WOWs is effective enough, and perhaps moreso. It's better than actual historic performance of AA, in my opinion. 🙂 It would be better if the AA guns load at start like the other armaments than when the planes are first spotted. In addition, the article states that observation is one of the keys to successful AA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 7 minutes ago, Tpaktop2_1 NA said: It would be better if the AA guns load at start like the other armaments than when the planes are first spotted. In addition, the article states that observation is one of the keys to successful AA. I agree that it would be nice if we could have "everything loaded" in anticipation of action. Of course, this would apply to all ship types and consumables. So Submarines wouldn't have to wait to use their Submarine Surveilance consumable, for example. But, that being said... Would a Battleship Captain really want their personnel manning the AA guns and secondary battery guns that aren't inside turrets while the main-guns are firing at the same time? The blast from the main-guns is a consideration. So, crew might have to wear personal protective clothing/equipment and avoid manning certain AA emplacements during main-gun use? Which could reduce a ship's AA capability during a simultaneous engagement of surface and aerial targets? Food for thought, eh? 🙂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asym Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 3 hours ago, Arcus_Aesopi said: Hope you didn't miss the part about the aircraft ordinance being less effective than in game also. 🙂 I would love to see the era templates implemented. 🙂 This is the way... I would as well. It broke Anti-Aircraft effectivities down by year (1940-1945). Planes attacking ships wasn't very smart by 1945.... Missiles almost made planes and jets obsolete within LOS of the ship.... Almost.........everyone talks about the "Falklin adventure" as proof jets could attack major combatants.... But, the British CAP simply failed to do their jobs............ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpaktop2_1 NA Posted January 6 Author Share Posted January 6 20 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said: I agree that it would be nice if we could have "everything loaded" in anticipation of action. Of course, this would apply to all ship types and consumables. So Submarines wouldn't have to wait to use their Submarine Surveilance consumable, for example. But, that being said... Would a Battleship Captain really want their personnel manning the AA guns and secondary battery guns that aren't inside turrets while the main-guns are firing at the same time? The blast from the main-guns is a consideration. So, crew might have to wear personal protective clothing/equipment and avoid manning certain AA emplacements during main-gun use? Which could reduce a ship's AA capability during a simultaneous engagement of surface and aerial targets? Food for thought, eh? 🙂 Are you talking arcade or simulation now? I wonder about what you said too. AA mounts on top of turrets. I realize there are give and takes in the game however make the game plausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 1 minute ago, Tpaktop2_1 NA said: 25 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said: I agree that it would be nice if we could have "everything loaded" in anticipation of action. Of course, this would apply to all ship types and consumables. So Submarines wouldn't have to wait to use their Submarine Surveilance consumable, for example. But, that being said... Would a Battleship Captain really want their personnel manning the AA guns and secondary battery guns that aren't inside turrets while the main-guns are firing at the same time? The blast from the main-guns is a consideration. So, crew might have to wear personal protective clothing/equipment and avoid manning certain AA emplacements during main-gun use? Which could reduce a ship's AA capability during a simultaneous engagement of surface and aerial targets? Food for thought, eh? 🙂 Are you talking arcade or simulation now? I wonder about what you said too. AA mounts on top of turrets. I realize there are give and takes in the game however make the game plausible. I was assuming for the moment that you were advocating for "full realism" or more realism than we have now. And then I was pointing out one instance (of possibly many situations) wherein realism would require some choice being made by the player and a possible consequence or "trade-off" from such a choice. Is there more that you feel needs to be conveyed or discussed? 🙂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcus_Aesopi Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 I don't think any of us want "realism", but just not the jarring out of context weaponry that doesn't belong (...back to wanting eras better represented). That would also allow for gameplay at various tiers to be better balanced and enjoyable... most of the "powercreep" comes from out of context gunnery, guided torps, inappropriate use of tech for the time, etc. Most matches would be better served if the tiers were more locked down to just 2.. like in T1+2, T3+4 ... 9+10 and experimental BST (bs tier) 11+. Then the "era" concept could be implemented. WG better get its act together before DCS starts allowing players to captain ships... I'm sure it's on the drawing board somewhere... If you want guided missiles and mostly automated gameplay, it's already there in DCS. Does anyone else remember when you could select a "target" for AA? I want that back and have my gunners shooting at the planes coming to kill THEM instead of waving their guns randomly around the pixel sky... Of course, I want friendly fire back... and deadly friendly ramming... and captain's licenses for all players with rules of the road enforced! (ok, maybe that's going a bit far...) 🙂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfswetpaws Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 (edited) 1 hour ago, Arcus_Aesopi said: Does anyone else remember when you could select a "target" for AA? I want that back and have my gunners shooting at the planes coming to kill THEM instead of waving their guns randomly around the pixel sky... I remember. I used it while sailing my Aigle in Scenario Operation Dynamo. Apparently both the scenario and that feature of the game (AA that can target a specific threat) are both "on hiatus"? 🙂 Edited January 7 by Wolfswetpaws 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now