PDA

View Full Version : ship AA



clint-ruin
09-07-2004, 09:07 AM
Not to start this argument up again [never!], but I found this clicking through links on SimHQ.

5. We started leg EG of area at 1000 and at 1010 I sighted what was first believed to be Bismarck, bearing 345 at 8 miles. Definite recognition was impossible at the time due to visibility. I immediately took control from "George" (automatic pilot); started slow climbing turn to starboard, keeping ship sited to Port, while the British officer went aft to prepare contact report. My plan was to take cover in the clouds, get close to the ship as possible; making definite recognition and then shadow the ship from best point of vantage. Upon reaching 2000' we broke out of a cloud formation and were met by a terrific anti-aircraft barrage from our starboard quarter.

Immediately jettisoned the depth charges and started violent evasive action which consisted of full speed, climbing and "S" turns. The British officer went aft again to send the contact report. When making an "S" turn I could see the ship was a BB [battleship] and was the Bismarck, which had made a 90 starboard turn from its original course, (This was evident from wake made by his maneuvering), and was firing broadsides at us. The A.A. [anti-aircraft] fire lasted until we were out of range and into the clouds. It was very intense and were it not for evasive action we would have been shot down. The barrage was so close that it shook the aircraft considerably (one man was knocked from his bunk) and the noise of the burst could be hear above the propeller and engine noise. Numerous bursts were observed at close quarters and small fragments of shrapnel could be heard hitting the plane. The fitter came forward to pilots compartment saying we were full of holes. As soon as we were well clear of Bismarck we investigated the damage, which consisted of a hole in after port hull (about 2" in diameter) and one in bottom hull directly below instrument panel (about 1" in diameter). No other damage was visible at the time. I made short flight test (several turns, checked engines, etc) and finding everything satisfactory returned to area to resume shadow of Bismarck.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq118-3.htm

To be honest other than a couple of issues I mentioned to Luthier right back when this forum opened [lack of trajectory arc for some AA guns, lack of gun overheating] I think ship AA is pretty spot on in FB right now. It should be murder to close to even medium range near a battleship, let alone a carrier task force - at least for one single aircraft. In fact it could do with maybe being made a bit more harsh than it is right now - whining or not, it's not supposed to be fair - real pilots hated AA too for the same reasons people do in the sim.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

clint-ruin
09-07-2004, 09:07 AM
Not to start this argument up again [never!], but I found this clicking through links on SimHQ.

5. We started leg EG of area at 1000 and at 1010 I sighted what was first believed to be Bismarck, bearing 345 at 8 miles. Definite recognition was impossible at the time due to visibility. I immediately took control from "George" (automatic pilot); started slow climbing turn to starboard, keeping ship sited to Port, while the British officer went aft to prepare contact report. My plan was to take cover in the clouds, get close to the ship as possible; making definite recognition and then shadow the ship from best point of vantage. Upon reaching 2000' we broke out of a cloud formation and were met by a terrific anti-aircraft barrage from our starboard quarter.

Immediately jettisoned the depth charges and started violent evasive action which consisted of full speed, climbing and "S" turns. The British officer went aft again to send the contact report. When making an "S" turn I could see the ship was a BB [battleship] and was the Bismarck, which had made a 90 starboard turn from its original course, (This was evident from wake made by his maneuvering), and was firing broadsides at us. The A.A. [anti-aircraft] fire lasted until we were out of range and into the clouds. It was very intense and were it not for evasive action we would have been shot down. The barrage was so close that it shook the aircraft considerably (one man was knocked from his bunk) and the noise of the burst could be hear above the propeller and engine noise. Numerous bursts were observed at close quarters and small fragments of shrapnel could be heard hitting the plane. The fitter came forward to pilots compartment saying we were full of holes. As soon as we were well clear of Bismarck we investigated the damage, which consisted of a hole in after port hull (about 2" in diameter) and one in bottom hull directly below instrument panel (about 1" in diameter). No other damage was visible at the time. I made short flight test (several turns, checked engines, etc) and finding everything satisfactory returned to area to resume shadow of Bismarck.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq118-3.htm

To be honest other than a couple of issues I mentioned to Luthier right back when this forum opened [lack of trajectory arc for some AA guns, lack of gun overheating] I think ship AA is pretty spot on in FB right now. It should be murder to close to even medium range near a battleship, let alone a carrier task force - at least for one single aircraft. In fact it could do with maybe being made a bit more harsh than it is right now - whining or not, it's not supposed to be fair - real pilots hated AA too for the same reasons people do in the sim.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

weasel75
09-07-2004, 10:19 AM
True.
But then we hopefully get some seperate option (slider?!) for AAA-deadliness (affects accuracy, damage).
Imagine yourself flying for 2 hours (realtime!) and then you get blasted out of the sky within 30 sec. Thats called "realistic", but it can be very frustrating!
And for training this would be good too (instead of a complete invulnerable aircraft) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Fennec_P
09-07-2004, 04:54 PM
If makes you wonder how the Swordfish got off scot free.

But I'm sure, had they attacked something of '43-'45 vintage, they'd be oil slicks. Woe to the PF torpedo bomber!

SKULLS_CoyMS
09-07-2004, 05:17 PM
S!
The main reason the swordfish made it through.....the german AA firecontrol could not track the British torpodeo planes...because they were moving so slow.Those planes had a top speed of less than 100 mph.The German designers never dreamed their super battleship would be attacked by obsolete biplanes. Not one of the Swordfish was hit on any of their runs on the Bismark

wuggle85
09-07-2004, 05:22 PM
so not even 1 swordfish got damaged?

firehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gifstarter

SKULLS_CoyMS
09-07-2004, 05:25 PM
one lost some fabric from a water spout when the Bismark fired its main guns in frustration at the departing Swordfish.... but no structual damage

http://home.centurytel.net/pooka/skulls_sig-Coy.gif (http://la-famiglia.se/skulls/forum/)

Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I could stand.

[This message was edited by SKULLS_CoyMs on Fri September 10 2004 at 11:57 AM.]

wuggle85
09-07-2004, 05:43 PM
thats cool im definatlly gonna use the stringbag in a torpedo attack on big battleships lol

firehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gifstarter

clint-ruin
09-07-2004, 09:13 PM
There's a couple of things in this PBY account that stand out.

First is, the battleship "obviously" had radar control for the AA, and managed to score hits on a target even when surprised by it coming out of cloud cover almost instantly.

The second is that even at the minimum distance needed to recognise the target - which is given as something like 1-4 miles visibility - the ship AA is still extremely dangerous, even to a target with cloud cover and taking evasive action. They got hit at least twice that they could see from checks in the air, and covered with shrapnel.

Both of those types of events are often mentioned as "unrealistic" in FB ... just pointing out that ship gunners were really no fools about this sort of thing and really didn't want to die if they could avoid it. They'll pelt a target with everything they've got if it's the only thing in range and preparing to report their position.

Anyhow, nice account too. Wish the PBY had been carrying torps :>

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

VW-IceFire
09-07-2004, 09:14 PM
It was mentioned recently that ships will have three levels of effectiveness.

So I think that wish was fufilled.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

clint-ruin
09-07-2004, 09:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
It was mentioned recently that ships will have three levels of effectiveness.

So I think that wish was fufilled.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the levels are required for online play the most - peoples connections lagging means that the plane appears to fly in a straight line for periods of time on the servers end, makes it very easy for the AA to hit them.

Along with having little guys to kill in the AA positions I think we are in for a treat with PFs AAA :&gt;

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Tater-SW-
09-07-2004, 09:21 PM
And a timeout feature so that the AAA may not light up until X seconds after the mission begins.

tater

owlwatcher
09-08-2004, 04:31 AM
Was doing some readind on AA Stuff.
What the swordfish did to the Bismark .
The adding on of small calibar( 20mm)& 37mm AA guns might have made this attack the last such victory for the Swordfish.

owlwatcher
09-08-2004, 05:07 AM
Some good reading on the effectness of AA.
http://www.cv6.org/ship/logs/action19421026.htm
Some nice notes on the Big E at Santa Cruz
DEFENSE BY ANTI-AIRCRAFT BATTERIES
Again fire control radar did not pick up any target. At no time since its installation has it been useful. Previously submitted recommendations relative to its modification are again stressed. The precision requirements necessary to put this equipment on an aerial target apparently cannot be met in action.
Neither 5-inch director picked up targets, although the rangefinder in Sky Forward was able to do so.
Complete power failures occurred on Groups I and II 5-inch. Partial power failure occurred on Group III. There were frequent rammer failures and electrical misfires on all guns.
The apparently unwieldy director firing system, augmented by numerous casualties which greatly slow the rate of fire, has made the 5-inch battery the least useful of the AA for all except high altitude horizontal bombing attacks. In local control, difficulty is experienced in getting both trainer and pointer on the same target. A new type of fuze, which it is understood will soon be available, may greatly increase the effectiveness of the 5-inch against dive bombing and torpedo attacks.
The performance of the 40mm in their first action was gratifying. Eventually these guns may prove to be our best defense against dive bombers. Several faults now exist, namely: empties jam in the chutes, local control is too sensitive, firing mechanism is not satisfactory, and our splinter shields are too high. Separate reports on these deficiencies will be forwarded.
The 20mm, in spite of its short range, was extremely effective and accounted for most of the enemy planes shot down by this ship. It can not always get the dive bombers before they release, but it can keep them high and reap fearful toll of those that press home their attacks.


And more on same page
The limitations in the use of torpedo planes, which have repeatedly been set forth in reports of previous actions, were again amply demonstrated. Although the attack of the enemy torpedo squadron (probably 18 planes) against the ENTERPRISE was executed with obvious skill and great determination, only about nine planes reached a proper release point, and no hits were made. The harassing effect on the Japanese pilots of the extremely heavy and accurate fire of the combined task force and the maneuvers of the ship in combing the wakes of the torpedoes launched were the prime factors in nullifying the attack. The results of the attacks of our own torpedo planes, while not nil, were disappointing. It has been proven time and again that the probability of success of a torpedo plane attack in good visibility against a formation properly defended by fighters and anti-aircraft fire is small and out of all proportion to the losses in planes and men. The conclusion is obvious - that in the present state of the art, torpedo plane operations should if practicable be limited to attacks delivered under conditions of low visibility or in mopping up operations after the defensive power of the enemy formation has been reduced. Thus limited, the torpedo plane is not as valuable, plane for plane, in day operations as is the dive bomber. Accordingly, it is recommended that for the present, the air groups of our large carriers include not more than twelve torpedo planes. Only when torpedo squadron personnel are fully trained and planes are equipped for all aspects of night operations will torpedo planes reach their full effectiveness. We should not abandon them for carrier use; after all, they were the decisive factor in the HORNET attack.

Attacking a major warship should be a problem.

Noticed the sercret weopon "proximity fuze "is mentioned here.

A new type of fuze, which it is understood will soon be available, may greatly increase the effectiveness of the 5-inch against dive bombing and torpedo attacks.

Really a good read.

owlwatcher
09-08-2004, 05:25 AM
More notes
On the Bismarks AA Suite
http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm#antiaircraft

I always liked this comment:
a single late-war U.S. Gearing-class destroyer (armed with 6 x 5"/38, 16 x 40mm Bofors, and 20 x 20mm Oerlikons) could put 32% more steel into the air in a minute than the Italian battleship (12,963 lbs. vs. 9,821 lbs.), and had much better fire-control to boot!

That is alot of lead in the air.

Dunkelgrun
09-08-2004, 08:20 AM
The main problem, as I see it, with the ship AA in FB is the restriction on the number of aircraft that can be used in any one attack, and the lack of fire control for the ships. If you put a realistic number of ships guarding a convoy or in a task force they will murder any attacking planes within seconds. One of my missions ends up with all six torpedo He111s shot down or fatally damaged by a single destroyer - every time! At the same time 6 high level Ju88s (well within range at the time) are totally ignored, because the 111s are closer to the destroyer.

In 1941 the Prince of Wales and Repulse, while escorted by three destroyers, were finished off by 28 G4M1 Bettys.
PoW had lost her after heavy AA guns earlier but other than that all the ships were able to put up a maximum AA barrage. Despite the Betty bursting into flames at the slightest hit in the wings only two were lost at the time with one crash-landing later.

So I am looking forward to the scalabilty of ship AA in PF. Yes, a battleship should be able to hit a single a/c almost every time, but not 16 torpedo planes without fail.

I want a chance to survive a few missions, and setting flak levels should help with this.

Cheers!

http://www.uploadit.org/igmusapa/tft2.jpg
www.nightbomber.com (http://www.nightbomber.com)

Dunkelgrun aka 242Sqn_Cat

Pentallion
09-08-2004, 09:42 AM
Funny, I read that story about the Bismark and came away thinking it proved how totally unrealisticly hard naval AAA in FB currently is. But just to make sure I made a test. I built a mission with the Tirpitz and a single plane, 2000m up flying over it.

Try as I might, I couldn't get past that Tirpitz without major damage. Best tactic was to dive and blow past him. But that's not what the pilot did in his little tale no. What he did was CLIMB and do S's. Well, that just leaves you slower and in the wall of destruction even longer. Most times, the plane was simply ripped to shreds.

Then I double checked the altitude in the story to make sure I hadn't set up the mission wrong. Sure enogh I had. The story said they were flying at 2000 FEET not meters. They'd had less than one third the altitude I was using!

Well, I didn't waste my bleeding time trying to get past a Battleship at THAT low of an altitude. It isn't possible in IL2 to pass directly over a battleship that low and last even 5 seconds.

What a joke. AAA in Fb is dramatically more deadly and precise than it was in real life.

clint-ruin
09-08-2004, 11:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pentallion:
Funny, I read that story about the Bismark and came away thinking it proved how totally unrealisticly hard naval AAA in FB currently is. But just to make sure I made a test. I built a mission with the Tirpitz and a single plane, 2000m up flying over it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, you do realise that in this story, the plane spots the tripitz as soon as it's out of the clouds, around 1 mile away assuming it was spotted as soon as they came in visual range, and immediately embarks on pissing right out of the area as soon as it can, taking such steep evasion that the crew became completely disoriented.

Why are you trying to drive over the top of the battleship if you are trying to replicate the story?

Here's my first go of this - tripitz vs pbn6, 600m, after sighting the tripitz it climbs out above the cloud layer. cloud height set to 600m, poor weather [not that it matters with ship AA currently being unaffected], passes to inside 1 mile [1.3km] of the tripitz, and doesn't even take any evasive action.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/!!!pbnlives.zip

Takes a few solid hits from small cal fire and gets a fuel leak from heavy flak on the way out. Side gunner area towards the tripitz is hit more than once - maybe the crew member was knocked out of his seat like in the story, we don't know.

This is entirely doable in FB with the same type of plane vs a BB at close range - first go, with no evasive action or weather hampering of the AA. This is before we even get into the differences in the AA armament of the Bismark vs that of the Tripitz.

Try as I might - I cannot get these events like "6 He-111 shot down" or attacking forces wiped out by one ship - one guy even popped up saying that a single subs gun knocked out a flight of 4 sturmoviks. Never ever seen anything like that happen. In fact every single kind of aircraft I've tried, is able with a flight of 4 to disable any kind of ship in FB, assuming it carries something with enough punch to kill a marat or tripitz. The ship can never, ever get all of them before they drop ord, and has a massively hard time getting dive bombers. I only get casualties when I set up Il-4s vs a heavy ship and they fly directly over the thing. Even a flight of IAR81s will take out anything up to a BB, very easily, almost every time - unless they flat out miss the moving target.

I don't know how you people are managing to get the results you are getting.

edit: add link to track

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

owlwatcher
09-08-2004, 01:10 PM
Big diffence between the AA on the Bismark and the Tirpitz .
As to the POW and Repulse.
Both had early war AA guns.
http://www.forcez-survivors.org.uk/
However, the tenacity of the Japanese pilots attacking Repulse meant it was only a matter of time before they found their target. Having successfully avoided a further high-level bombing attack, Reg Woods recalls the moment when the first torpedo struck the Battlecruiser:

"As the attacks came over with increasing intensity our gun became a scene of chaos. As the ammunition in the pom-poms was beginning to jam and foul up the reason being the cartridges were separating inside the gun barrels. At one point we had 7out of our 8 barrels out of action. Adding to our worries was that some of the Japanese were hanging out the sides of the planes with sub-machine guns literally spraying our area with bullets. And as we were all covered in cordite from the shells that'd fouled our gun one stray bullet would have been curtains for our gun crew. Though in the midst of this mayhem we did manage some success and felled a couple of bombers. But I still remember my heart missing a beat when the first torpedo struck home. It was inevitable we'd get caught though the question was could we beat the Japs off and stay afloat"
By this time Captain Tennant had sent a message to any British Man-War stating:

Read Pilots eye view.
As to your PBY exsample, it is only stalking the Bismark. You can stalk the Tirpitz in the game.

Here one AA gun that might be trouble

From Big E at Leyte Gulf

http://www.cv6.org/ship/logs/action19441022-0056.htm

ENEMY AA
Pilots report the use of enemy BB main batteries as AA guns at long ranges. Apparently, ranges in the neighborhood of 25,000 to 30,000 yards were used, permitting the relatively slow train and elevation of the turrets to stay on the target. This fire was surprisingly accurate and somewhat disturbing though no damage was sustained by the planes so attacked. The projectiles were, from all indications, of the phosphorus type.

Another development exhibited by the Japanese was the use of colored bursts, probably for spotting purposes. Blue and orange bursts, as well as black and white, were used.

In connection with the phosphorus projectiles, one pilot reported "double" bursts consisting of a small puff followed very shortly by the main burst. These bursts were distinct but apparently from the same projectile. It is probable that this effect was caused by a slight delay in the bursting of the canister after ejection, the first burst being the ejection of the canister from the projectile. A similar effect is sometimes noted with our own white phosphorus projectiles.

It is apparent that the Japanese are doing considerable experimentation to improve AA performance. The above developments are along the lines experienced in the Southwest Pacific Area and reported in Flak Information Bulletin No. 1.

Having an 18" gun taking pot shots at you.
Would be nice to see the phosphorus projectiles
displayed in the game.

clint-ruin
09-08-2004, 04:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by owlwatcher:
Big diffence between the AA on the Bismark and the Tirpitz .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Tirpitz, by 1944, was carrying 78 2cm guns in quad mounts with 90,000 rounds of ammo for them, in addition to a massive array of 37mm and heavy flak. When I try killing the Tirpitz, it's a lot easier than flying through 20 Wirlbewind plus ZSU-37s plus 88mm equivalent to what it packs on board - it actually punches well below the theoretical amount of fire it could put into the air. If I stack Whirlwinds and 37mms into a 250m long tube shape on the ground, then fly over it - it's really a lot easier to go up against the ship! :&gt;


The Catalina in the story was probably not even in range of the 2cm flak on the Bismark [800m generous max range vs 1.3km sighting distance], in any case the small cal armament of the Bismark I can see is given as 12 x 2cm on this page: http://www.battleshipbismarck.com/bismarckclass/layout/18_bismarck_vs_tirpitz.asp

Bit of a difference between the Bismark in 41 and other BBs in 44, especially after it became clear just how dangerous aircraft could be to a BB. The Bismark gets a rating of 3.5 out of ten compared to a "10" rating for the Iowa and South Dakota sporting proximity fuses and radar fire control over here: http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_aaa.htm - though they list 78 x 2cm there with a footnote saying it's what was fitted to the Tirpitz, so I'm not sure if it applies to the Tirpitz or just the Bismark. At any rate - far from the best of the BBs for anti air work. Most were much deadlier by '44.

Excellent story on POW and Repulse btw, thanks for posting it.

edit: Note that even these old bangers at the start of the war in the Pacific needed 3 waves of bombers to finally wear their defensive fire down and sink them, going against some of the best trained torpedo bomber pilots going [with some of the best torps too].

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

[This message was edited by clint-ruin on Wed September 08 2004 at 06:43 PM.]

Flydutch
09-08-2004, 05:12 PM
The post should have been titeled: "AA Ship"!

To make attacking shipping even more interesting (Adreline wise)lets throw in some AAA Ships to suprise us once in a while!

Fliger747
09-08-2004, 07:12 PM
The only first class AAA of any navy in WWII was USN. Not that the Brits, Japaneese or Germans used such diffrent firepower (in fact the Japanese 25mm weapon and German 88mm were pretty good) was FIRECONTROL. The MK37 director for the 5"38 was the best of it's type, though eventually with increasing post war aircraft speeds (over 450 kts) it became obsolete. Use of director fire for the 40mm Bofors increased their effectiveness as well. To deal with the Kamakaze threat even the 40mm lacked STOPING power, and post war twin 3"50 cal mounts were fitted on many ships. Eventually radar wa incorporated into the 40mm directors (mostly for range and speed), as were various computing functions. Post War, the Brits mounted a very sophisticated and complex stabilized 40mm mount. Complex is not ALWAYS a good thing shipboard.

Bismark and Tirpitz did not have automatic radar gun control per-se, but were able to intrigate the information into the computations to some degree, as was typical of the era. Radar was then accurate for RANGE, and only so-so in bearing (2 degrees or so). Height finding remained a serious problem.

The BIG US advantage other than fire control, The VT (Proximity fuse) for the 5"38. thought to increase the effectiveness of the weapon by perhaps five times. The 5"38 also had the BIG advantage of being a dual purpose weapon, big enough (just so) to act as a secondary battery (6" were better) and light enough to have a good rate of fire, elevate enough and pack enough of a wallop to be a good AAA weapon as well. A dual purpose weapon meant that many more barels were available for any task. In single mounts they could be hand trained (hard work!)if ships power were lost.

owlwatcher
09-08-2004, 10:25 PM
You might want to check your sources on the quility of the IJ 25mm gun.
It is considered a rather poor gun.
Also look at its performance in the field. Rather a poor showing.

For the time span of the war 5" was about the largest effective size for AA fire.
The 6" gun the size and weight of the shell handling becomes a problem in a AA role.
You need a automated loading system which does not see service during the war.Plus you need it incorperated into a good fire control system.

Pentallion
09-08-2004, 10:56 PM
I did the fly over because in the story, the pilot keeps the Bismark on his port side as he climbs into the clouds but after he goes into the clouds the Bismark turns starboard and passes across the planes path such that when the plane pops back down, it is taking fire from its starboard side.

Considering the relative speeds of the plane and the Battleship, it is impossible to make a mission that recreates that situation WITHOUT passing extremely close to the battleship.

owlwatcher
09-09-2004, 12:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flydutch:
The post should have been titeled: "AA Ship"!

To make attacking shipping even more interesting (Adreline wise)lets throw in some AAA Ships to suprise us once in a while!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First you have to get past the Combat Air Patrols. 50+ planes stacked and ready.

BfHeFwMe
09-09-2004, 12:10 AM
The "Buzzard Brigade" did more than its share in breaking up this move on Guadalcanal. They were officially credited with one battleship, two transports, and one cruiser. "I don't know how many planes our gunners got," says Lieut. Batten. "I know mine got at least one. But after this flight was over we had still another job to do. Some of us dropped 500 pound bombs on landing operations and supply dumps along the beach."

Lieut. Batten will tell you that the torpedo plane is one of the finest that's ever been built - that the risks with it are no more than in any other type of fighting plane. And his conclusions are supported by the fact that during the three day battle at Guadalcanal when his squadron made six attacks, it did not lose a single man nor single plane.

http://www.cv6.org/company/accounts/rbatten/

Doesn't sound very effective to me.

clint-ruin
09-09-2004, 12:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pentallion:
I did the fly over because in the story, the pilot keeps the Bismark on his port side as he climbs into the clouds but after he goes into the clouds the Bismark turns starboard and passes across the planes path such that when the plane pops back down, it is taking fire from its starboard side.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

er, as broadsides from the ship.

Should we draw a map? Bearing 345, ship turns 90 degrees starboard. Last contact the PBY had with the Bismark was to port, 8 miles out before it headed into heavy cloud. I am sure that at some point along those eight miles they passed each other, but since both were blind [range only radar for the Bismark] and travelling at such different speeds, it's not that hard to figure out.

You know what - nevermind - you have in your hot, sweaty little hands a track showing a PBY passing closer, to a ship with far more AA than the Bismark, and surving with a few holes despite the lack of weather blindness for the AA. Luthier has already mentioned that AA whiners are basically complaining over nothing, but as a pacifier he has managed to fasion a skill selector for you as well as killable crewmembers. I do so hope that this is enough.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Considering the relative speeds of the plane and the Battleship, it is impossible to make a mission that recreates that situation WITHOUT passing extremely close to the battleship.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

51kph for the battleship at max speed, 281kph max speed of the Catalina, eight miles of 600m level thick cloud.

Today I learned that there is truly no argument so ******ed that noone will pick it up on the ubi boards.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

clint-ruin
09-09-2004, 12:21 AM
BfHeFwMe - yeah, and soviet torpedo plane losses [4 missions life expectancy - good luck, boys] give a completely different impression. What's your point, exactly?

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

owlwatcher
09-09-2004, 01:02 AM
Was reading up on the Bismark
http://www.kbismarck.com/operheini.html
then read
http://www.combinedfleet.com/f_aa.htm#adjustedaa
From what I read of the Bismarks performence at shooting down planes.
The reajustment of it makes alot of sence.
The swordfish are using radar to track and attack in bad weather.
You really cannot replacate this in the game.
Did note the main guns were used.

Pentallion
09-09-2004, 10:58 AM
Clint-ruin, first off your immature attitude is annoying. Veiled insults of ******ation are low class IMO.
Secondly, where does the LAG factor come into play in your comparison to reality? In IL2, ships throw up so much tracer fire that the game freezes up unless you can reduce the amount going up there.
Thirdly, you must not fly many online wars. Well, I am the administrator for one. And the war I run concerns itself ENTIRELY with anti-shipping missions. Iron Skies Malta. And the people who fly in it have seen some pretty ridiculous things during the course of the last 6 months. 4 IL-2's being taken out by a single submarine was only the beginning. And before you start making ignorant baseless remarks about the skills of the pilots, these guys are some of the best bomber pilots to fly the game and are recognized as such.

For PF to work there needs to be certain considerations taken into account. The idea is not to dumb down the game, the idea is to:
A: First and foremost make it playable. Naval AAA currently freezes up any online game. We don't want to simulate attacking a carrier and only being able to place the carrier and maybe a couple minor ships on the map we want to put the carriers entire escort on the map. That isn't possible if something isn't done about AAA to make the game playable.
B: Make it more realistic. At the moment, we have tons of first hand test data in the literally hundreds of missions we have flown that show that Naval AAA is shooting down planes in far larger quantities than they were in the actual Med campaign and that is with us using only lightly armed ships just so frame rates are acceptable, not the more heavily armed ships they attacked historically.

So take your thick headed and rude attitude and shove it. WHen you can come back with some FACTS backed up by NUMBERS, like we can with the hundreds of Malta missions flown, then you can talk to me from a position of someone who has some actual experience, not just blowing air out your oversized head.

[This message was edited by Pentallion on Thu September 09 2004 at 12:13 PM.]

RedDeth
09-09-2004, 12:38 PM
ive read and re read clint ruins posts. i find NO immature attitude.

i do find that he shreds all counter arguments to his posts completely. this in itself would irritate some and make them start attacking him personally calling him a little twerp.

final recourse of the uninformed. personal attacks.

i find clint ruin the clear champion of discussion by knockout blow.

and in the other corner laying on the mat with a bloody ear in his teeth ... iron mike pantallion http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://66.237.29.231/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1088291823_taylor-greycap.jpg

owlwatcher
09-09-2004, 01:00 PM
If the Bismarck can not hit a PBY or Swordfish.
That is some real poor shooting.
It would be nice to replay this in the game.
First we need the Bismarck and flyable PBY and Swordfish. The game just is not up to this type of engagment.
Anyone with information on the AA gun use from the german side? There has to be reasons for such poor shooting.
Looking for use of main gun vs aircraft in this action and other actions.

Iron Skies Malta, Sounds like fun.
You would need a very powerful computer to run just one Task force. CV, BB ,CL and 4 or more DDs.Let alone both sides for a CV vs CV engagement. 100 or so planes per side.
Let alone play it on line.
Built enough missions to realize the limatations of the game with ships and AA.
Will hold comments for now and see how they are addressed in PF. Seeing gun crews gives me hope.

Blutarski2004
09-09-2004, 01:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fliger747:
The BIG US advantage other than fire control, The VT (Proximity fuse) for the 5"38. thought to increase the effectiveness of the weapon by perhaps five times.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... An interesting side note is that a 1:2 mix of VT- and time-fuzed ammunition was the standard to be fired. VT-fuzed would only burst when within close proximity to the target a/c. The burst of time-fuzed ammo enabled the gunners to track and confirm the accuracy of their firing solution.

As they say, the devil is in the details ...

BLUTARSKI

Pentallion
09-09-2004, 01:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by owlwatcher:
If the Bismarck can not hit a PBY or Swordfish.
That is some real poor shooting.
It would be nice to replay this in the game.
First we need the Bismarck and flyable PBY and Swordfish. The game just is not up to this type of engagment.
Anyone with information on the AA gun use from the german side? There has to be reasons for such poor shooting.
Looking for use of main gun vs aircraft in this action and other actions.

Iron Skies Malta, Sounds like fun.
You would need a very powerful computer to run just one Task force. CV, BB ,CL and 4 or more DDs.Let alone both sides for a CV vs CV engagement. 100 or so planes per side.
Let alone play it on line.
Built enough missions to realize the limatations of the game with ships and AA.
Will hold comments for now and see how they are addressed in PF. Seeing gun crews gives me hope.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Owlcatcher, we wouldn't be running simulataneous strikes in the same mission. We will have separate missions for each strike. In fact, we will have multiple missions generated for a single strike in many cases. Here is what we will do:
When a whole bunch of planes are involved and/or a whole bunch of ships, we will break the battle down into several missions. Some bombers may break off to attack one carrier, while others attack a Battleship or cruiser or another carrier, for example. By the same token, CAP will intercept these different groups and escort ships protecting the capital ships will be divvied up in each mission.

So the whole strike force, CAP and target fleet will not be in any single mission but in the sum of all the missions generated by the strike.

Pentallion
09-09-2004, 01:14 PM
Upon rereading Clints post and my reply I realize I was over the line to say little twerp. I have rephrased my reply.

BfHeFwMe
09-09-2004, 03:33 PM
I didn't make a point, so your beef is with a man who was actually there. So much for your credibility. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Your story is all fine and dandy, but where's the Soviet and German Navies at in this sim? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

clint-ruin
09-09-2004, 04:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
I didn't make a point, so your beef is with a man who was actually there. So much for your credibility. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My credibility? Sadly I am not quite up there in the ranks of self delusional internet blowhards with you quite yet.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Your story is all fine and dandy, but where's the Soviet and German Navies at in this sim? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know, I'm not sure I'm enough of a smarty man to follow your point. We have german, finnish, soviet and italian boats and ships in this sim - it's where they're at, if that helps you out. We are getting a shipload of Japanese and American navy craft in PF. The Finnish history of the use of Naval AA is quite well documented and highly, massively successful - they were the source of a lot of the soviet attrition. The Niobe was a special Flak-ship placed directly in the path of allied flights and survived for a damn long time considering it was basically immobile at that time. The amount of manpower the Germans used just to sink the -docked- Marat is quite unbelievably huge - a massive waste of their time as well, but they really had to work for that kill.

The point I am trying to make - perhaps you yourself are having some trouble with that one - is not that surface vessels were some kind of invulnerable hulk. Even the biggest BBs became meat on the table once carrier aviation took off. But they weren't easy kills, and often had to be worn down with combined aviation and naval assaults over an amount of time. If you look at the PQ17 sorties or the POW attack force - this is not 4 aircraft coming down in a straight line with no evasive action, not even if it's you and your 3 favorite little best-bomber-pilot-EVAR pals. This is 32 or 70 or 180 aircraft coming in a series of waves, most not even getting a successful bomb or torp shot off, but coming in such numbers as to totally swamp the AA defences.

Seriously - you should read up on some of the uses of naval aa in WW2, some fairly epic fights involved in its use. Interesting stuff.

edit: to add to that, the fact that most ships are sinkable with 4 aircraft alone - even torpedo boats or lone destroyers - is pretty amazingly easy as compared to real life. Ships in FB bat well below their true offensive average against aircraft.

edit: actually, again - 4 missions life expectancy is lower than even that of an Il-2 rear gunner. Convicts facing death could be sentenced to the backseat of that plane. Lower expectancy than even the worst of the worst casualty rates for bombers in the west. This is not supposed to be easy.


http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

[This message was edited by clint-ruin on Thu September 09 2004 at 04:00 PM.]

Pentallion
09-09-2004, 05:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:


The point I am trying to make - perhaps you yourself are having some trouble with that one - is not that surface vessels were some kind of invulnerable hulk. Even the biggest BBs became meat on the table once carrier aviation took off. But they weren't easy kills, and often had to be worn down with combined aviation and naval assaults over an amount of time. If you look at the PQ17 sorties or the POW attack force - this is not 4 aircraft coming down in a straight line with no evasive action, not even if it's you and your 3 favorite little best-bomber-pilot-EVAR pals. This is 32 or 70 or 180 aircraft coming in a series of waves, most not even getting a successful bomb or torp shot off, but coming in such numbers as to totally swamp the AA defences.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

[This message was edited by clint-ruin on Thu September 09 2004 at 04:00 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And since we can't field 180 or even 70 aircraft in this sim to overwhelm AAA defenses AND since damage inflicted in one coop is not carried over to the next coop, how do you think it is a good idea to have massive AAA fire coming from a battleship when only a handful of planes can ever attack one in the game?

Since the airpower is toned down (they COULD have made PF a massive multiplayer online game but they chose eye candy over quantity of players) why do you keep harping that the AAA should stay as it is?

BfHeFwMe
09-09-2004, 11:51 PM
And here I thought it was going to be a Pacific based naval air sim, so why not use USN, Commonwealth, and IJN data, whats with the Soviet, Finnish, and Kriegsmarine stuff, who cares? They've never rated as naval powers, why not include the Swiss and Hungarian naval arms.

Of course they had to jam their ships with massive amounts of flak, they never had support vessles and screen fleet protection. A few disasterous lone wolf sorties by BB's hardly makes for a surface naval presence. Want to do a naval air sim, at least look at the operations of some real navies.

clint-ruin
09-10-2004, 01:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pentallion:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:


The point I am trying to make - perhaps you yourself are having some trouble with that one - is not that surface vessels were some kind of invulnerable hulk. Even the biggest BBs became meat on the table once carrier aviation took off. But they weren't easy kills, and often had to be worn down with combined aviation and naval assaults over an amount of time. If you look at the PQ17 sorties or the POW attack force - this is not 4 aircraft coming down in a straight line with no evasive action, not even if it's you and your 3 favorite little best-bomber-pilot-EVAR pals. This is 32 or 70 or 180 aircraft coming in a series of waves, most not even getting a successful bomb or torp shot off, but coming in such numbers as to totally swamp the AA defences.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

[This message was edited by clint-ruin on Thu September 09 2004 at 04:00 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And since we can't field 180 or even 70 aircraft in this sim to overwhelm AAA defenses AND since damage inflicted in one coop is not carried over to the next coop, how do you think it is a good idea to have massive AAA fire coming from a battleship when only a handful of planes can ever attack one in the game?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wait what?

Have you noticed the way that your argument seems to change every single message?

Ship AA is too hard and not realistic, because it's too hard in reality, because that would be more realistic for it to be easier than it really was.

I would not stoop to saying learn to fly - you have your mum to say that to you. I would however say that you need to learn how to design a mission, because I can only think you are doing this wrong somehow if you think that the effects of waves of aircraft coming down cannot be represented in this game. I'm telling you that if the AA is that much of a problem for you - you are doing this wrong.

On the other hand - when PF comes out I am sure that you will have plenty of company online, with your friends - wonderwoman view, 4 planes taking on a single carrier, and winning - AA set to 'rookie' of course. But we can't go around harming the egos of the worlds best computer bomber pilots EVAR, now, can we?

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

clint-ruin
09-10-2004, 01:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
And here I thought it was going to be a Pacific based naval air sim, so why not use USN, Commonwealth, and IJN data, whats with the Soviet, Finnish, and Kriegsmarine stuff, who cares? They've never rated as naval powers, why not include the Swiss and Hungarian naval arms.

Of course they had to jam their ships with massive amounts of flak, they never had support vessles and screen fleet protection. A few disasterous lone wolf sorties by BB's hardly makes for a surface naval presence. Want to do a naval air sim, at least look at the operations of some real navies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you've gone right over my head with this one laddie.

The Fins and Russians whose ships we have - who gave very good account of themselves, flak ships or no - were still very much towards the bottom ranks of raw AA power [niobe and tirtpiz excluded]. Just about anything we see from the USN or IJN will be better than the majority of vessels we have in FBAEP. It will be even harder.

Don't get it. Sorry?

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

owlwatcher
09-10-2004, 01:55 AM
Throw Weight Per Minute: Total AA
South Dakota
48601 lbs.

No sweat. Where is my Baka?

clint-ruin
09-10-2004, 05:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by owlwatcher:
If the Bismarck can not hit a PBY or Swordfish.
That is some real poor shooting.
It would be nice to replay this in the game.
First we need the Bismarck and flyable PBY and Swordfish. The game just is not up to this type of engagment.
Anyone with information on the AA gun use from the german side? There has to be reasons for such poor shooting.
Looking for use of main gun vs aircraft in this action and other actions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reason given for the Bismarks poor shooting vs the swordfish is usually given as an inability for any sighting than dead reckoning on the guns. Without predictive ability, the guns had to be manually trained and walked in to the targets, which were small and no doubt taking some evasive action where they could. The other larger guns would probably be used to being trained on precomputed targets in the sense of artillery, not for chasing small biplanes around the sky in 3 dimensions. By the time the strike had begun it was practically over, too - and the damage sustained was only critical by blind luck.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Built enough missions to realize the limatations of the game with ships and AA.
Will hold comments for now and see how they are addressed in PF. Seeing gun crews gives me hope.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just to share some knowledge on this - the most useful thing I have found to set up "long" battlegroup battles is the use of stationery ships that die before any aircraft come on the scene. But before they die they will damage the opposition to simulate previous strikes - knock some of the CAP around a bit - whatever. If you have limits on the number of aircraft in a mission, as I used to have pretty severely, this really helps 'fast forward' a large naval battle. There are limitations to what one person can reasonably do in the FMB, not necessarily in the game itself. The FMB is limited, but quite flexible if you get used to the different things that will happen with different objects/waypoint orders/heights/speeds/etc. It just takes a loong time to get used to predicting its behaviour.

Gunners on ships will be excellent - great for making fighters and turrets on bombers more useful against ground targets.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

k5054
09-10-2004, 07:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The reason given for the Bismarks poor shooting vs the swordfish is usually given as an inability for any sighting than dead reckoning on the guns. Without predictive ability, the guns had to be manually trained and walked in to the targets, which were small and no doubt taking some evasive action where they could. The other larger guns would probably be used to being trained on precomputed targets in the sense of artillery, not for chasing small biplanes around the sky in 3 dimensions. By the time the strike had begun it was practically over, too - and the damage sustained was only critical by blind luck.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you're saying the Bismarck's flak defence wasn't actually any good for protecting the ship from the most dangerous aerial attack mode. And the presence of Swordfish in the FAA was such a surprise to the KM they hadn't set up their gunsights to go that slow? What the H were they doing when they designed the boat? (Apart from running the main electric lines above the armour deck, of course, that's how the RN ships were able to disable the ship so quickly without being able to sink her.)

By blind luck the Swordfish got a hit, but it could have been a hit on the screws and stopped the Bismarck, or it could have been a hit elsewhere causing damage ( not much chance of a really deadly hit with a light torp, but plenty of chance of damage).

Swordfish had a different attack profile than, say, the TBD. Typically they would close the target from as high as possible (not very high!) in a fairly steep dive, pull out near the surface and fly straight for a pretty short time to launch the fish. This is not too easy for predicted flak and minimizes the time exposed to short-range weapons. Kates used a similar technique.

clint-ruin
09-10-2004, 08:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
So you're saying the Bismarck's flak defence wasn't actually any good for protecting the ship from the most dangerous aerial attack mode. And the presence of Swordfish in the FAA was such a surprise to the KM they hadn't set up their gunsights to go that slow? What the H were they doing when they designed the boat? (Apart from running the main electric lines above the armour deck, of course, that's how the RN ships were able to disable the ship so quickly without being able to sink her.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, they screwed it up pretty good. You have to realise though that at this time aviation was treated either as suspicious or a big unknown - shouldn't have been. The example of the British mission, going after the Italian fleet in dock [on which Pearl was based] was a good example of what was to come. Even the Japanese, who had probably the best operational understanding of combined naval/air actions, had a lot of naysayers on the concept of carrier attacks on ships, some who kept that attitude throughout the war.

Put it another way - I think Bismarks antiair resources were seen as generous right up until the time some brit decided to throw torps at it from biplanes. It may have well stood a better chance against faster or larger aircaft - it was just engaged by something it had no effective defence against.

Like someone taking out a Patriot battery with a stone thrown from a trebuchet, really. Not knocking the swordfish pilots skill at all in that either, it was an incredibly ballsy attack and it worked. The expectations were actually pretty grim for a Swordfish pilot going into battle even at that time in the war, I think I've even seen accounts posted here of their shock at having survived the missions they were tasked with.

Note that the AA defences of two near identical battleships [Bismark/Tirpitz] changed radically after the loss of the Bismark and the events in the med, and especially the pacific. They didn't replace entire secondary batteries with flak, quadruple the amount of 20mm AA, etc, just for fits and giggles. Aircraft were known to be dangerous and a BB needed a serious AA defence just to stay afloat in '44. Nonetheless the Tirpitz, and especially the Bismark represent the absolute bottom rung of the ladder in terms of fire control, radar early warning, shell effectiveness, tracking, and especially number of batteries of any BB of the later era of WW2. Especially those we will encounter in the Pacific.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
By blind luck the Swordfish got a hit, but it could have been a hit on the screws and stopped the Bismarck, or it could have been a hit elsewhere causing damage ( not much chance of a really deadly hit with a light torp, but plenty of chance of damage).

Swordfish had a different attack profile than, say, the TBD. Typically they would close the target from as high as possible (not very high!) in a fairly steep dive, pull out near the surface and fly straight for a pretty short time to launch the fish. This is not too easy for predicted flak and minimizes the time exposed to short-range weapons. Kates used a similar technique.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bad weather on the mission as well wasn't it? And I think I read something about the Swordfish being near radar invisible to sets of the time, due to the lack of reflective material used in its construction, so even the range sets the Bismark had would've been of limited use. I think damage from light torp strikes is to be expected - but not something that almost totally immobilises the flagship. At least, that kind of damage really wasn't something they could deal with.

The lack of exposure to small AA is basically all you can do to avoid getting hit - same tactic would apply to the Swordfish as to the Kate as to anything else really. The other reason this worked so well was that the Bismarks AA couldn't track properly, and there simply weren't enough batteries to kill targets quickly under those conditions.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

SKULLS_CoyMS
09-10-2004, 08:32 AM
The Germans were aware from their initial shakedown cruise of the Bismark that it could not maneuver if it lost its rudder...they tried using just the screws to be able to control the ship,but found that it would not respond.They knew this to be a problem,and some Officers were worried about this.Felt that some contengency plan need to be developed. But they were over ruled.When one of the Torpedos took out the rudder,and they were unable to repair it...they knew they were doomed

http://home.centurytel.net/pooka/skulls_sig-Coy.gif (http://la-famiglia.se/skulls/forum/)

Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I could stand.

[This message was edited by SKULLS_CoyMs on Fri September 10 2004 at 11:56 AM.]

owlwatcher
09-10-2004, 04:22 PM
Thanks for the thoughts on the Bismarks AA defences.
Did the PBY have radar ?, I know the Swordfish did.
What were the sea conditions? Any reports on the sea swells?


The Tirptz went threw quite a few AAA upgrades
Picked these pictures some where on the net.
ttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/owlwatcher/tirpitz_armament_layout_1944_july.gif
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/owlwatcher/tirpitz_armament_layout_1943_march.gif
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/owlwatcher/tirpitz_armament_layout_1942_june
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/owlwatcher/tirpitz_armament_layout_1941_july.gif
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/owlwatcher/tirpitz_armament_layout_1941_may.gif

owlwatcher
09-10-2004, 04:43 PM
Moving on up to Best ship AAA defences.
Late War U.S.N. .
Would you say the game (as it stands) replacates what you should expect from a late model USN warship?
I know the quad 40 are not yet in the game.
Does the computer guided AA act like what the radar and fire control systems in late war situations could really do?
For simplicty please keep the Kamaikize out of the mix for now.
I am saying yes to how good late war USN the AA was?

5" used to break up your attack formation
40mm To kill during your release
20mm so you don,t get home.

clint-ruin
09-10-2004, 07:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by owlwatcher:
Thanks for the thoughts on the Bismarks AA defences.
Did the PBY have radar ?, I know the Swordfish did.
What were the sea conditions? Any reports on the sea swells?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.mikekemble.com/ww2/bismarck3.html

That's the best writeup on the Swordfish &gt; Bismarck strike I've found in terms of an overall picture on both sides, on the net for free anyhow.

Don't have any other info on the PBY contact, other than that it made contact after breaking through clouds and then got the hell out. Don't think it had similar ASV radar to the Swordfish, since it was using visual contact with the target in heavy weather.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Tirptz went threw quite a few AAA upgrades
Picked these pictures some where on the net.
ttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/owlwatcher/tirpitz_armament_layout_1944_july.gif
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/owlwatcher/tirpitz_armament_layout_1943_march.gif
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/owlwatcher/tirpitz_armament_layout_1942_june
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/owlwatcher/tirpitz_armament_layout_1941_july.gif
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/owlwatcher/tirpitz_armament_layout_1941_may.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Awesome, thanks.

Also worth noting that ship AA defence has now gotten to the point where skip and dive bombing is now totally useless against a missile cruiser or carrier group - they have point defence that can stand a fair chance of killing an inbound guided missile, even. Despite their vulnerabilty [torps and nukes] in the modern day, a fleet can still give a pretty damn good account of itself against air attack.

Also worth noting the way the Tirpitz was taken out - it scared the absolute bejesus out of the British and Russians for ages, then had to be taken out with one of the largest conventional bombs ever made dropped from high alt. And it took more than one go to do it, too. This was nowhere near as good as what the USN had - mobile and with backup vessels - by '44.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

owlwatcher
09-11-2004, 02:58 AM
Good link on the Swordfish Thanks

k5054
09-11-2004, 04:25 AM
The tirpitz was struck successfully by carrier aircraft that pretty much got away with it, the sad old Barracuda's finest half-hour.
I wouldn't say it scared the Brits and Russians, its presence was extremely inconvenient though. Nobody would have minded if it had come out, but just to sit there tied up loads of fleet assets. If it was gone the Fleet's major units could go to the far east. Note that this was the most useful contribution made by any German surface ships, the ones that came out mostly didn't so well.
It would be deceptive to say 'it took the big bombs to sink it' as though Tirpitz was not as vulnerable as any BB to mines, torps, dive bombers etc. The RAF just happened to have those bombs, designed for another purpose, and the aircraft to deliver them, and were on the lookout for targets to suit.

clint-ruin
09-11-2004, 04:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
It would be deceptive to say 'it took the big bombs to sink it' as though Tirpitz was not as vulnerable as any BB to mines, torps, dive bombers etc. The RAF just happened to have those bombs, designed for another purpose, and the aircraft to deliver them, and were on the lookout for targets to suit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with that, but given the choice of weapon to do it with, if you reach for the only thing short of a nuclear warhead to take the target out, I think that says a lot about how seriously the target is regarded. If it had been easy to take it out with low level bombing, torps, etc, they would've done it that way, much earlier on, when it was regarded as a more serious threat.

Same deal with the Marat - even without support and immobile and with a pathetic AA array compared to contemporaries, BBs took an awful lot of sorties to bring down, using some seriously heavy weaponry. You don't break out the 1800kg and heavier bombs unless you need to make every hit count.

As it stands the Tirpitz we have in the game is incapable of stopping -any- flight of four aircraft before they get a shot off - low level bombing, dive bombing, torpedo strikes, whatever - it will never live, assuming there is enough weaponry thrown at it to bring it down. It might get planes during or just after their drop, but it's never enough to prevent damage from occuring.

If this took 15 to 30 strikes over days or weeks or months to kill, with 30 or 50 or 100 aircraft per sortie, and I can do it with one sortie and four aircraft .. is FB harder or easier than reality? Seems to me to indicate that it's a hell of a lot easier in FB than it was in reality, but a lot of people hold just the opposite opinion.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

owlwatcher
09-11-2004, 05:15 AM
Real nice fiew of the Bismark
http://www.kbismarck.com/perfili.html

This is how the Bismarck looked right after being commissioned in August 1940. At this time the battleship was not complete yet. The three rotating domes for the range finders, the four after 10.5cm SK C/33 mountings, and the two 2 cm Flak C/38 quadruple mounts on both sides of the foremast over the searchlight platform had not been installed yet.


Also found this
http://www.kbismarck.com/archives/debriefing2.html

On Saturday, about noon, 1 flying boat appeared. By its construction it was surmised to be a Do 18. From hearsay, I know that an ID [ES, Erkennungssignal, recognition/ID signal. UR] was requested; and that the aircraft answered with the correct ID. This was also broadcast by telephone. As it approached to 4000 meters, the light Flak leader, Kapit√¬§nleutnant Gellert, recognized that [we] were dealing with an American-made machine [plane]. Consequently, fire was opened on the aircraft with the 10.5 cm [guns]. The aircraft veered away, but tried to come closer several times; however, it was always forced to turn away [retreat] by the Flak fire. Then the aircraft stationed itself outside the Flak range, but nevertheless kept up its surveillance.


Excellent website.
The swordfish attacks by survivors is worth reading.

owlwatcher
09-11-2004, 05:28 AM
The attacks on the Tirpitz should not even be looked at as exsamples of game play.

The ship in life was a Hanger Qween. It was attacked in protected fjords.
Tirpitz had orders not to sail for fear of air attacks.

owlwatcher
09-11-2004, 05:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
[
Also worth noting that ship AA defence has now gotten to the point where skip and dive bombing is now totally useless against a missile cruiser or carrier group - they have point defence that can stand a fair chance of killing an inbound guided missile, even. Despite their vulnerabilty [torps and nukes] in the modern day, a fleet can still give a pretty damn good account of itself against air attack.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about the Falklins??

clint-ruin
09-11-2004, 05:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

What about the Falklins??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most of what was hit badly wasn't packing anything defensive on board.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

owlwatcher
09-11-2004, 06:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

What about the Falklins??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most of what was hit badly wasn't packing anything defensive on board.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In weopon develoment there is ones on top.
The AA defences were poor in the Falklins.
They were mounting 20mm .
I like the A4s.
I think air power had the upper edge on the Brits ships AA defense suite.