SUBSIM Radio Room Forums



SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997

Go Back   SUBSIM Radio Room Forums > Silent Hunter 3 - 4 - 5 > SH5 Mods Workshop
Forget password? Reset here

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-20-20, 05:52 PM   #16
kapuhy
Grey Wolf
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Poland
Posts: 873
Downloads: 72
Uploads: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gap View Post
Yes sure, share it here please!
So, a while ago I noted down from uboat.net two lists: one counting which aircraft were credited with U-Boat kills (including those sharing a credit) and second with aircraft killed by U-Boats while attempting to attack. Here's the result:

Kills and Losses

I used this to choose a list of planes to try to import. Of course, this doesn't give full picture, because it leaves out ASW/patrol missions that did not result in either aircraft or U-Boat being destroyed (for example, Avro Anson never sunk a U-Boat despite being commonly used for exactly that).

Many planes present in roster (and I mean TWoS roster because stock game is beyond repair) were not even used in theatre (Buffallo, Buccanneer) or would be unlikely to attack a U-Boat - this mostly concerns single-engined air superiority fighters (Mustang, Hurricane, Mig, Yak, La-5, P-47).

Only example I found of such planes attack on U-Boat is very telling:

"On 4 May 1945, U-155 was en route with U-680 and U-1233 from Germany to Norway through the Little Belt when they were strafed by Mustang fighters of 126 Squadron which were escorting Beaufighters of the North Coates Strike Wing. The flight broke off the attack after the leading Mustang was shot down, killing the CO of the squadron."

So it was unplanned attack on target of opportunity, which also failed - probably because attacking planes were not really trained or armed for ASW work. I think in game, such non-ASW planes, if present, should be relatively harmless and rarely attack.

Another thing - I don't know if TWoS already models this, but some some planes (USAAF-painted B-17, Avro Lancaster) would be more fitting doing air raids on ports than hunting subs at sea. Ideally, they should also behave differently: use "level bomber" AI setting and be set to fly very high. One could compensate for low aircraft numbers by making these "air raid only" planes carry more bombs (like, multiple "Bomb_Cluster" weapons) to really bring devastation to a port when player is unlucky enough to witness it.
kapuhy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-20, 03:38 PM   #17
gap
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CJ8937
Posts: 8,214
Downloads: 793
Uploads: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kapuhy View Post
So, a while ago I noted down from uboat.net two lists: one counting which aircraft were credited with U-Boat kills (including those sharing a credit) and second with aircraft killed by U-Boats while attempting to attack. Here's the result:

Kills and Losses
Amazing!

I had a similar list in mind. Besides the uboat.net database, I had found an useful Wikipedia article listing all the WWII U-boats sunk by an aircraft, but found not time for summarizing their data. Thank you for sharing the results of your own research

Quote:
Originally Posted by kapuhy View Post
I used this to choose a list of planes to try to import. Of course, this doesn't give full picture, because it leaves out ASW/patrol missions that did not result in either aircraft or U-Boat being destroyed (for example, Avro Anson never sunk a U-Boat despite being commonly used for exactly that).
Once my work on British air squadrons will be finished, we will get a wider picture.

So far (only about 30 RAF squadrons alalyzed, 2 of them operating under Coastal Command), I have found roughly four types of "maritime" duties related with each other in various ways. Here are my observations about them, the aircraft used for carrying them out, and my suggestions on how they could be implemented in game.

Coastal reconnaissance: in early war, when the risk of an invasion from the sea was feared by the British, army cooperation squadrons equipped with Westland Lysanders were rushed into the coastal patrol role. Their instructions were to use their their Lysander's armament (composed of two forward-firing guns and light bombs) for bombing/strafing the invading troops on the beach. I doubt they would have attacked ships and submarines too if they had spotted them, but indeed they would have reported them calling for better suited aircraft.
In game, Lysanders covering this role should have a relatively small radius (just enough for patrolling a few miles off the coasts of Britain), and they should be equipped with a mix of bombs without controllers (so they won't be dropped), one or two cosmetic flares with bomb controller (so they will be dropped in place of the "dummy" bombs) and maybe a visual sensor with extra detection, though I am not sure how realistic the latter feature would be.

Anti-shipping/mine-laying: a number of bomber squadrons were assigned this task in different WWII theatres and timeframes. The aircraft they flew included Vickers Wellington, Fairey Battle, Martin Marauder, Bristol Blenheim, Bristol Beaufort and Bristol Beaufighter, but keep in mind that this is an incomplete list. It is my understanding that squadrons charged with this role had surface vessels as their main target, but I think they would have attacked submarines too, on spotting them. Besides bombs or mines, where/when applicable their armament included torpedoes and rockets as well.
On a side note, air-dropped mines are not featured neither in stock game nor in OHII/TWoS. They could be added to aircraft by equipping them with a particle generator that will spawn one mine every x seconds when the dropping aircraft is flying under a certain altitude. I think the spawned mines can be made to float too and to explode on contact with any unit, just like TWoS mines. The only obvious downsides inherent to this added feature would be that, unless we script mine-laying planes in campaign, we wouldn't have any control on where they would drop their mines, they would perform their task only when within rendering range, and the mines would disappear as soon as the player clears the area.

Convoy/shipping protection: for this role, a variety of aircraft was used, probably reflecting the most likely type of menace that they were going to face; according to the data I have processed so far, squadrons assigned with convoy escort duties could be equipped with fighters (Hawker Hurricane, Supermarine Spitfire, North American Mustang), light bombers (Bristol Blenheim) or torpedo bombers (Bristol Beaufort).
Starting from 1943, RP-3 rockets came in Costal Command and Fleet Air Arm as an air-to-surface weapon, and the Hurricane was one of those aircraft which could be armed with them. Nonetheless, it seems more logical to me for convoy-escorting fighters to have provided mainly air cover against enemy planes, strafing with their guns other types of targets only on occasions. Conversely, heavier escort aircraft might have carried bombs or torpedoes and so I would equip them in game, leaving aerial depth charges for specialized ASW squadrons.
For the sake of realism (and for more effective protection), convoy-escorting sqadrons should be scripted in campaign together with the convoys they are supposed to protect. That's only theoretical though. In practice, if air units are setup in game as convoy escorts, they will try to match their speed with the speed of the convoy leader, and they will collapse miserably in the water. Making them to spawn from airbases, like the majority of the SH5 planes, is the one option left, unless some complicated workaround is devised.

Anti submarine: I think this role does not require long explanations. As far as I can see from the data I have already analyzed, aircraft assigned with it included a mix of light, medium and torpedo bombers. Lockheed Hudson, Vickers Wellington, Martin Marauder and, until December 1940, Vickers Vildebeest. In game, their armament should consist mainly of depth bombs or - when/where appropriate - torpedoes and rockets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kapuhy View Post
Many planes present in roster (and I mean TWoS roster because stock game is beyond repair) were not even used in theatre (Buffallo, Buccanneer) or would be unlikely to attack a U-Boat - this mostly concerns single-engined air superiority fighters (Mustang, Hurricane, Mig, Yak, La-5, P-47).

Only example I found of such planes attack on U-Boat is very telling:

"On 4 May 1945, U-155 was en route with U-680 and U-1233 from Germany to Norway through the Little Belt when they were strafed by Mustang fighters of 126 Squadron which were escorting Beaufighters of the North Coates Strike Wing. The flight broke off the attack after the leading Mustang was shot down, killing the CO of the squadron."

So it was unplanned attack on target of opportunity, which also failed - probably because attacking planes were not really trained or armed for ASW work. I think in game, such non-ASW planes, if present, should be relatively harmless and rarely attack.
Yes, for a long time I have had your same doubts and, as you can imagine from my notes above, I came to your same conclusions, reinforced now now by your findings.

Except maybe for carrierborne ones, the large majority of fighters in game should be armed just with "fake" bombs (i.e. harmless/invisible bombs), so that they will attack surface/ground targets only with their guns, or with no bombs at all, so to make them to only attack other aircraft if TDW's dogfight patch is enabled (otherwise they won't perform any attack).

Another important factor is aircraft max radius. Setting it up only according to real stats is a mistake. In game, that number should reflect the type of duties the plane is supposed to perform. If we subdivide fighter squadrons in "offensive" (performing bomber escorts, tactical strikers, etc.) and "defensive", the latter suqadrons should have rather short max radii so to that their fighters will show up only around ports and coastal installations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kapuhy View Post
Another thing - I don't know if TWoS already models this, but some some planes (USAAF-painted B-17, Avro Lancaster) would be more fitting doing air raids on ports than hunting subs at sea. Ideally, they should also behave differently: use "level bomber" AI setting and be set to fly very high. One could compensate for low aircraft numbers by making these "air raid only" planes carry more bombs (like, multiple "Bomb_Cluster" weapons) to really bring devastation to a port when player is unlucky enough to witness it.
I agree. Unfortunately I think there is no way to tell "air raid only" aircraft how to behave in game according to their supposed mission. Two possible workarounds come to my mind:

a) having a (very) small number of air groups whose fighters and bombers have long enough ranges to attack player bases, having a (very) high number of air groups with maritime patrol and home defense aircraft, and lowering the 'Air Strike Probability' parameter in AirStrike.cfg. That should compensate the high number of "short range" air groups and make the few "long range" airgroups to spawn rarely. Of course they would still attack the player if they spot him, but their small number should make that eveninece pretty rare.

b) removing "air raid only" from bases, and scripoting them in campaign. This way we would have full control on route and altitude of the attackers, on player bases to attacked and on the frequancy raids will happen. I am not an expert of campaign stuff, but I am confident that some randomness can be addeed to scripted events, so that they won't happen always on the same dates and with the same freqiuency...
__________________
_____________________
|May the Force be with you!|
...\/
gap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-20, 03:34 PM   #18
kapuhy
Grey Wolf
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Poland
Posts: 873
Downloads: 72
Uploads: 3
Default

Some thoughts:

- Lysanders: I doubt these would fly far out into the sea, especially if they were army pilots rushed to coastal defense. These could be scripted like current air patrols over Bay of Biscay, except they'd fly up and down the coast, able to spot an U-Boat and raise alarm if you sail within sight from shore.

- Hurricanes, Spitfires etc. in convoy protection: unless we're talking carrier-based, I strongly suspect that the convoys they were protecting were English Channel and South-East England coastal convoys, and "protection" in this case meant deterring Luftwaffe.

- Making convoy protection squadrons spawned from airbases in not that unrealistic. That's just my recollection from Clay Blair's book, but what seemed to happen is, because they didn't have aircraft to protect all convoys at all times (at least until late war), SOP was to saturate skies with aircraft over convoys that were under attack or expected imminent attack. More or less how spawning system works : when they learn you're in area, then they start sending planes.

- Re "air raid" planes: I'd choose the option of scripting them in campaign. Leave base air groups for what they do best (reacting to detected threats/targets in airbase's range), and add an air group for every U-Boat base flying regular high altitude air raids (might be good to check how often these bases were really bombed).

It's a bit more predictable (experienced player might learn never to dock at Brest on Mondays and never leave Lorient on Thursdays - unless you can randomize frequency that is), but allows to retain more control over how these "special events" unfold. Relying on air wings might end up requiring much more work time playtesting and finetuning to work well than scripting those groups in.
kapuhy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-20, 07:29 PM   #19
gap
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CJ8937
Posts: 8,214
Downloads: 793
Uploads: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kapuhy View Post
- Lysanders: I doubt these would fly far out into the sea, especially if they were army pilots rushed to coastal defense. These could be scripted like current air patrols over Bay of Biscay, except they'd fly up and down the coast, able to spot an U-Boat and raise alarm if you sail within sight from shore.
  • No. 4 Squadron is known to have complemented its coastal patrol role with Air-Sea Recue duties.

  • No. 16 Squadron is said by one of my sources to have "operated as a reconnaissance squadron, first around the British coast, guarding against a German landing, then further out to sea" (http://www.historyofwar.org/air/units/RAF/16_wwII.html).

  • Talking about another Lysander squadron, No. 26, the same website states: "After the fall of France the squadron flew coastal patrols, especially over the potential German invasion ports" (http://www.historyofwar.org/air/units/RAF/26_wwII.html).

Scripting those squadrons might be a good idea: the circular range of activity of base-spawned aircraft is probably not the best way to imitate in game some patrol courses that, in reality, had to be nearly parallel to the coastline. Nonetheless, going by the impression I got from the aforementioned facts, I would move Lysander's courses more to the sea side than to the land side (but indeed not too much) and I would privilege the areas near the major British ports. How mutch the patrol area of each Lysander squadron stretched over the coastline, and which harbour areas were more guarded by them, is an information we will discover once we find all of those squadrons and we plot their stations on map but, indeed, I expect the southern British shore to be the most hravily guarded.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kapuhy View Post
- Hurricanes, Spitfires etc. in convoy protection: unless we're talking carrier-based, I strongly suspect that the convoys they were protecting were English Channel and South-East England coastal convoys, and "protection" in this case meant deterring Luftwaffe.
  • In May-June 1940, No. 19 Squadron covered the Dunkirk Evacuation with its Spitfires.

  • No. 6 Squadron was based in Edku when, between December '42 and February '43 it was appointed to the protection of Allied shipping (probably in-/out-bound to/from the near port of Alexandria) with its Hurricanes.

  • Between July '43 and April '44, when it was carrying out convoy escort patrols, No. 26 Squadron was based in Yorkshire (First at RAF Church Fenton and then at RAF Hutton Cranswick, both close to Port of Hull), with a detachment flying from RAF Ballyhalbert, Northern Ireland.

I am not 100% sure that those fighter squadrons would have ignored any other attacker than Axis aircraft, but I am reasonably confident that their primary mission was contrasting raids from the air.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kapuhy View Post
- Making convoy protection squadrons spawned from airbases in not that unrealistic. That's just my recollection from Clay Blair's book, but what seemed to happen is, because they didn't have aircraft to protect all convoys at all times (at least until late war), SOP was to saturate skies with aircraft over convoys that were under attack or expected imminent attack. More or less how spawning system works : when they learn you're in area, then they start sending planes.
Okay, good to know, I rather thought that they were following up and down the route of convoys they were supposed to protect, but that's probably more correct for US blimps.

Going by your account, the best way to simulate in game the activity of RAF convoy escorts, is giving them the maximum realistic number of aircraft (24 for fighter and 12 for bomber squadrons) and making their max radius relatively wide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kapuhy View Post
- Re "air raid" planes: I'd choose the option of scripting them in campaign. Leave base air groups for what they do best (reacting to detected threats/targets in airbase's range), and add an air group for every U-Boat base flying regular high altitude air raids (might be good to check how often these bases were really bombed).
I totally agree with you that scripting is the best available method for simulating air raids against player bases. That would give us full control on air raids' aircraft composition, on their frequency, their altitude and the route they will follow. The scripted aircraft might still (irrealistically) divert from their mission and attack enemy vessels at sea if they meet with them, but that would be a much rarer eventuality than if the "U-boat bunker raiders" were left to spawn from air bases and to freely roam in the skies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kapuhy View Post
It's a bit more predictable (experienced player might learn never to dock at Brest on Mondays and never leave Lorient on Thursdays - unless you can randomize frequency that is), but allows to retain more control over how these "special events" unfold. Relying on air wings might end up requiring much more work time playtesting and finetuning to work well than scripting those groups in.
I wish we could randomize the frequency of recurring scripted (air) traffic, but I am a total ignorant on this respect. Is there any way to do that?
__________________
_____________________
|May the Force be with you!|
...\/
gap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-20, 11:48 AM   #20
gap
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CJ8937
Posts: 8,214
Downloads: 793
Uploads: 10
Default

In my previous reports I overlooked an example of a fighter used in the anti-shipping role.

After having played a mostly defensive role in the first part of the conflict, from June '43 to June '44 No. 3 Squadron switched to the offensive, carrying out intruder missions over France and the Netherlands and anti-shipping attacks in the Channel area.
Sources:

http://www.historyofwar.org/air/units/RAF/3_wwII.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._3_Squadron_RAF

At the time of its new appointment, the squadron was flying Hawker Typhoons and, from February '44, Hawker Tempest fighter-bombers. Both aircraft were fitted with four 20 mm cannons and they could carry two 500 lb or two 1,000 lb bombs. Moreover, according to Wikipedia, starting from September '43 Typhoons could be armed with eight RP-3 rockets, attaining a devastating firepower against any ground or surface target.
__________________
_____________________
|May the Force be with you!|
...\/

Last edited by gap; 11-25-20 at 01:31 PM.
gap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-20, 01:04 PM   #21
LesBaker
Loader
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Netley Abbey, Southampton, United Kingdom
Posts: 90
Downloads: 521
Uploads: 5
Default

You might find this article interesting as it covers the development and use of guns used for both offence and defence by RAF aircraft leading up to and during WWII, also for the various bombs and air to ground rockets used and the type of aircraft that used them.


https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documen...al_weapons.pdf


Les
LesBaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-20, 04:30 PM   #22
Gerald
SUBSIM Newsman
 
Gerald's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Close to sea
Posts: 24,195
Downloads: 548
Uploads: 0


Default

Good work gap

Aircraft an important factor in the game. Especially low flying that sweeps in over the Bay of Biscay which means that the M42 has to work a little harder ... and if the outcome is good, free beer will be served for dinner.
__________________
Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood.

Marie Curie





Gerald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-20, 04:35 PM   #23
gap
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CJ8937
Posts: 8,214
Downloads: 793
Uploads: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LesBaker View Post
You might find this article interesting as it covers the development and use of guns used for both offence and defence by RAF aircraft leading up to and during WWII, also for the various bombs and air to ground rockets used and the type of aircraft that used them.


https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documen...al_weapons.pdf
Thank you very much Les

indeed your article looks interesting. I already saved it on my HD and I will read it carefully

@ kapuhy

A little addition to our discussion on British fighters in the anti-shipping/shipping protection role:

Quote:
Originally Posted by gap View Post
  • No. 6 Squadron was based in Edku when, between December '42 and February '43 it was appointed to the protection of Allied shipping (probably in-/out-bound to/from the near port of Alexandria) with its Hurricanes.
The Hurricane mark used by the squadron while in Edku was Mk IIC, a fighter-bomber variant armed with four 20 mm cannons and capable of carrying a 250 lb or 500 lb bomb.
According to Wikipedia: «By then [June 1941, when the Mark IIC entered service] performance was inferior to the latest German fighters, and the Hurricane changed to the ground-attack role, sometimes referred to as the Hurribomber. The mark also served as a night fighter and "intruder"».

Also interesting is the fact that, before and after its deployment in Idku, No 6 Squadron was flying another ground attack version of the Hurricane, the Mk IID:
«Mk IIs were used in ground support, where it was quickly learned that destroying German tanks was difficult; the cannons did not have the performance needed, while bombing the tanks was almost impossible. The solution was to equip the aircraft with a 40 mm cannon in a pod under each wing, reducing the other armament to a single Browning in each wing loaded with tracers for aiming purposes. The Hurricanes No. 6 Squadron, the first squadron equipped with this armament, were so effective that the squadron was nicknamed the "Flying Can Openers". A winged can-opener became an unofficial squadron emblem, and is painted on present-day aircraft of 6 Squadron».

So my doubt is, why diverting a squadron specialized in the ground-attack role from its regular duties and appointing it to the defense of convoys, if the main menace was air raids? Wouldn't they appoint a fighter squadron and equip it with interceptors, more adequate for this new role? My impression is that, in that case, No. 6 Squadron's Hurricanes were meant to contrast Italian torpedo boats that at the time were pestering Allied shipping in the Mediterranean.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerald View Post
Good work gap

Aircraft an important factor in the game. Especially low flying that sweeps in over the Bay of Biscay which means that the M42 has to work a little harder ... and if the outcome is good, free beer will be served for dinner.
__________________
_____________________
|May the Force be with you!|
...\/
gap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-20, 05:32 PM   #24
kapuhy
Grey Wolf
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Poland
Posts: 873
Downloads: 72
Uploads: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gap View Post
@ kapuhy

A little addition to our discussion on British fighters in the anti-shipping/shipping protection role:

So my doubt is, why diverting a squadron specialized in the ground-attack role from its regular duties and appointing it to the defense of convoys, if the main menace was air raids? Wouldn't they appoint a fighter squadron and equip it with interceptors, more adequate for this new role? My impression is that, in that case, No. 6 Squadron's Hurricanes were meant to contrast Italian torpedo boats that at the time were pestering Allied shipping in the Mediterranean.
I think you are right. This period of time is right after Allies have retaken Tobruk and Benghazi in the wake of 2nd El Alamein battle, and the shipping No.6 Squadron was meant to protect was probably moving supplies along the coast from Port Said/Alexandria to retaken ports. I doubt they were under much threat from Axis air forces (which were probably in rather poor shape after major defeat, and with frontline moving west it lost closest airbases), so Italian light naval units must have been main problem.

But fighters patrolling close to the coast, strafing or even bombing anything that tries to engage coastal sea traffic (including surfaced U-Boats if they happen to spot one), is not what I have problem with. It's the notion of planes like Hurricane, Spitfire or Mustang flying out several hundred kilometers (or miles? I'm not entirely sure what units are used for MaxRadius= in cfg files) hunting for enemy ships over open sea. This I doubt ever happened - but that's kinda how these planes are currently configured and I think an effort to accurately model air traffic in SH5 should include correcting this.

Edit: also, if this map (showing combat radius of various fighters) is accurate, than fighter ranges in SH5 seem to be overestimated (Spitfire for example has MaxRadius=680, even if these are indeed kilometers it's still 422 miles)

Last edited by kapuhy; 11-26-20 at 05:44 PM.
kapuhy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-20, 12:13 PM   #25
gap
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CJ8937
Posts: 8,214
Downloads: 793
Uploads: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kapuhy View Post
I think you are right. This period of time is right after Allies have retaken Tobruk and Benghazi in the wake of 2nd El Alamein battle, and the shipping No.6 Squadron was meant to protect was probably moving supplies along the coast from Port Said/Alexandria to retaken ports. I doubt they were under much threat from Axis air forces (which were probably in rather poor shape after major defeat, and with frontline moving west it lost closest airbases), so Italian light naval units must have been main problem.
Exactly my point

Quote:
Originally Posted by kapuhy View Post
But fighters patrolling close to the coast, strafing or even bombing anything that tries to engage coastal sea traffic (including surfaced U-Boats if they happen to spot one), is not what I have problem with. It's the notion of planes like Hurricane, Spitfire or Mustang flying out several hundred kilometers (or miles? I'm not entirely sure what units are used for MaxRadius= in cfg files) hunting for enemy ships over open sea. This I doubt ever happened - but that's kinda how these planes are currently configured and I think an effort to accurately model air traffic in SH5 should include correcting this.
I definitely agree with you. Imo the ahistorical usage of fighters in game comes from two factors: misinterpretation of the max radius setting and lack of aircraft in game. See my thoughts below for more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kapuhy View Post
Edit: also, if this map (showing combat radius of various fighters) is accurate, than fighter ranges in SH5 seem to be overestimated (Spitfire for example has MaxRadius=680, even if these are indeed kilometers it's still 422 miles)
Nice graph!

In order to simulate in game fairly realistic aircraft ranges, we must take into account three important factors:
  • Aircraft MaxRadius setting. To the best of my understanding, this is likely to translate in game the combat radius in kilometers, i.e. «the maximum distance a warplane can travel from its base of operations, accomplish some objective, and return to its original airfield with minimal reserves»*. This is a somehow aleatory variable though, because it might depend on the duration of the mission that must be accomplished, on the speed and altitude maintained during the mission itself, and on the weight of the armament carried (heavier ordnance implying lesser extra fuel reserves and increased fuels consumption). Interestingly, the aircraft range most commonly reported in warplanes' specs is either the combat range, i.e. «the maximum range the aircraft can fly when carrying ordnance» (that should be roughly two times the combat radius) or the maximal total range i.e. the «maximum distance an aircraft can fly between takeoff and landing, as limited by fuel capacity in powered aircraft»*. The combat range of WWII fighters is not always declared. Inferring it - and thus the combat radius - from maximum range is a matter of speculation, but I believe that a 0.4 to 0.5 ratio would be a decent approximation.
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_(aeronautics)
  • Aircraft variant. Some long-lived WWII fighters, like the Hurricane, had many incarantions whose performances improved almost constantly. Having just one variant modelled in game which will spawn throughout the whole campaign, might lead to gross under/over estimations of aircraft range, speed and firepower.

  • SH map projection. From my remarks above, we might get that MaxRadius = 1/2 Combat Range ≈ 1/4 to 1/5 Maximal Range. Unfortunately things are not that easy. In real world, one degree of latitude measures about 111 km. This is also the approximate length of one degree of longitude at the Equator but, due to the fact that meridians are converging, this distance decreases as we move from the Equator to the Poles where it is equal to 0. Coversely, in the SH world one degree of latitude/longitude will always measure exactly 120 km, no matter where we are on the map. This fact implies that, near the Equator, distances on the SH5 map are 108% bigger than real world ones, and the discrepancy gets much worser at higher latitudes where most of the campaign takes place.

All in all, I think that the best method for addressing the above shortcomings, would be having several proxy clones for each aircraft variant modelled in game, and setting their MaxRadius property according to the duties that, in real WWII warfare, those planes accomplished in each theater. In theory, we should have one aircraft clone with customized range (and armament) for each air group using it, but in practice several squadrons/air groups with similar deployment and missions would share the same aircraft "clone".

Talking more specifically about fighters, the plan I have in mind is as follows:
  • Home defense interceptors / night fighters: only the fighter squadrons which are known to have been based near a port should be added to the game, and the radius of their aircraft should be just long enough to cover the air space above that port. No need to simulate inland squadrons, or squadrons whose base was located in areas of little interest for the game.

  • Fighters and fighter-bombers defending coastal shipping: these are a bit trickier to be simulated; the circular range of action of airbase-spawned aircraft would involve that, rather than sticking to coastal areas, they would sweep in all the directions, also moving toward the open sea. Moreover, if the player is spotted within their range, there is a chance that they are called in for an ASW attack, decreasing the chance that better suited and more historically correct planes spawn instead. Maybe, if there are not too many of these "coastal patrol fighter squadrons", scripting them rather than adding them to airbases would be a better idea.

  • Offensive long range fighters, either intruders or, later in the war, bomber escorts: my idea is definitely to script them where/when appropriate. In this category should also fall fighter squadrons that are known to have played a role in one-time historical events (like Dunkirk evacuation, D-day landings, etc.).

I hope I didn't forget anything. Probably yes, but we will discover it as I proceed with my analysis of RAF squadrons.
__________________
_____________________
|May the Force be with you!|
...\/

Last edited by gap; 11-27-20 at 12:21 PM.
gap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-20, 07:15 PM   #26
gap
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CJ8937
Posts: 8,214
Downloads: 793
Uploads: 10
Default

Friends I need your help again. This time it is not a question about game settings, but rather a question relative to military history.

Based on information on RAF squadrons I have gathered so far, I am setting up some new airbases with their own air groups. My goal is to reproduce as closely as possible WWII RAF order of battle where it had an influence on naval warfare.

Real airbase locations and real aircraft types for each base, with realistic combat ranges and plausible armaments are in my mind, all of the above factors evolving over time according to historical records.
Attaining that level of accuracy requires an hard work, and some simplifications are going to be needed for accommodating it within the limited resources of our game and of our computers, but even so, I think that the result might be worth the effort.

Now I am looking for information on the typical composition of a RAF squadron (for different Commands and at various stages of the war) in terms of Flights and aircrews/aircraft. Do you have any numbers that you can offer me or can you point me to some source where I can get the said information?
__________________
_____________________
|May the Force be with you!|
...\/
gap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-20, 04:45 AM   #27
LesBaker
Loader
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Netley Abbey, Southampton, United Kingdom
Posts: 90
Downloads: 521
Uploads: 5
Default

Hi Gap, Here's a link to a Map of all RAF bases used during WWII and which Squadrons used them.


https://www.rotary-ribi.org/clubs/pa...446&ClubID=460




and Here's an index of all RAF squadrons and aircraft used during WWII.


http://www.historyofwar.org/subject_RAF_units.html




Fighter Squdrons normaly comprised of 12 Aircraft, Bomber Squadrons varied in size a lot in the early years there were 6-8 aircraft per Flight with normaly 2 Flights per squadron giving 12-16 aircraft, from 1943 on there were normaly 12 aircraft per Flight and 3 Flights per squadron, as for Costal Command (the Cinderella Command) there were no fixed amount of aircraft per squadron just what was availble




Les

Last edited by LesBaker; 12-05-20 at 05:40 AM.
LesBaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-20, 06:58 AM   #28
gap
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CJ8937
Posts: 8,214
Downloads: 793
Uploads: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LesBaker View Post
Hi Gap, Here's a link to a Map of all RAF bases used during WWII and which Squadrons used them.


https://www.rotary-ribi.org/clubs/pa...446&ClubID=460


Les
Wow, that's a nice map, thank you Les!

I am slowly building a similar map on Google Earth; hopefully I will manage making a good selection for our game, else we will have more airbases than ports lol
__________________
_____________________
|May the Force be with you!|
...\/
gap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-20, 12:17 PM   #29
vdr1981
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Србија
Posts: 6,078
Downloads: 581
Uploads: 13


Default

Here's what I learned about airbases and planes in SH5...

Quote:
Are aircraft (or any other AI units) able to use their non-visual sensors for spotting other AI units, or they are only effective against player's boat?
I'll test this and let you know...

Quote:
For airbase-spawned aircraft, do they need to be in the same base and/or airgroup to act coordinately (i.e. a group of bombers with their fighter escort)?
I never saw such behavior in SH5. Spawned group of airplanes is always made of one plane type...If that's what you meant?

Quote:
For airbase/carrier-spawned aircraft, is there any way to make some classes not to spawn at night or - conversely - to only spawn in night time?
I don't think so, only nighttime modifier from airstrike.cfg which effects SH5 globally.

Quote:
For airbase/carrier-spawned aircraft, do they inherit their veterancy level from the unit they spawn from, or how else is their veterancy level determined?
I was wondering the same. My guess is yes, but it's only a guess...

Quote:
Has anyone tried adding one or more airgroup(s) to any non-carrier sea unit? That would be useful for simulating CAM/MAC ships and scout planes aboard cruisers and battleships.
Hm, that's an interesting one... In theory this should work just like normal AC.

However, It's important to note that when TDW patches for AC are activated, AC will indeed spawn aircrafts when you are detected but the planes will simply roll of the deck and fall in the water...
Regardless, AC will still regularly spawn planes even without TDW patches enabled but only while outside of players 3D rendering range (40 km by default), just like "moving" airbase.

There is also one more very important and ugly bug about airbases in SH5.
Inactive bases will spawn planes even before airbase activation date if there's axis threat zone up to XXX miles away (in addition to sea traffic avoidance,opposite threat zones are used as a patrol zones for planes as well )! For example, Airbase in Azores, which should become active in 1943 IIRC, will spawn planes even in Happy times campaign as well, well before airbase activation date. If such planes enter players 3D rendering range the game will most likelly CTD and if saved before that, the save will become corrupted.

There were a lot of these conflicts in the original OHII files but I managed to solved them somehow in Wolves...
vdr1981 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-20, 01:52 PM   #30
gap
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CJ8937
Posts: 8,214
Downloads: 793
Uploads: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vdr1981 View Post
Here's what I learned about airbases and planes in SH5...
Thank you Vecko, I was waiting for you to give your contribution to this thread, and now I know that my wait was worth all the knowledge you had to share on the topic

Quote:
Originally Posted by vdr1981 View Post
I'll test this and let you know...
Yes please! I would test that myself but at present I have not the game installed on my computer...

Quote:
Originally Posted by vdr1981 View Post
I never saw such behavior in SH5. Spawned group of airplanes is always made of one plane type...If that's what you meant?
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. In other words, the only way to simulate bomber raids with fighter escorts, is by scripting them, isn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vdr1981 View Post
I don't think so, only nighttime modifier from airstrike.cfg which effects SH5 globally.
That's a real pity, but I am afraid we will have to live with it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by vdr1981 View Post
I was wondering the same. My guess is yes, but it's only a guess...
According to propbeanie, whose bigger experience is relative to SHIV, yes they take the veterancy level of their parent unit (no matter whether it is an airbase or a carrier), and airplanes lesser than 'elite' or whatever is the highest veterancy level, have the bad tendency to stall and fall down. Can you confirm that the former statement also applies to SH5?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vdr1981 View Post
Hm, that's an interesting one... In theory this should work just like normal AC.
That would be really cool, but again, according to propbeanie it won't work in SHIV. There is only a little chance that it will in SH5, but worth a test anyway

Quote:
Originally Posted by vdr1981 View Post
However, It's important to note that when TDW patches for AC are activated, AC will indeed spawn aircrafts when you are detected but the planes will simply roll of the deck and fall in the water...
Regardless, AC will still regularly spawn planes even without TDW patches enabled but only while outside of players 3D rendering range (40 km by default), just like "moving" airbase.
mmm... that's weird. I am pretty sure the same TDW had tested that patch before releasing it. I remember that from the discussion we had back then. Maybe some other mod/patch is messing with that feature, or it will only work under certain circumstances. I wonder whether carrier (=aircraft?) vetrancy level or IRAI version might have anything to do with that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by vdr1981 View Post
There is also one more very important and ugly bug about airbases in SH5.
Inactive bases will spawn planes even before airbase activation date if there's axis threat zone up to XXX miles away (in addition to sea traffic avoidance,opposite threat zones are used as a patrol zones for planes as well )! For example, Airbase in Azores, which should become active in 1943 IIRC, will spawn planes even in Happy times campaign as well, well before airbase activation date. If such planes enter players 3D rendering range the game will most likelly CTD and if saved before that, the save will become corrupted.

There were a lot of these conflicts in the original OHII files but I managed to solved them somehow in Wolves...
That's probably the most important piece of information of your last reply, I am really admired by your patience in tracking down all these bugs!

In other words - correct me if I am wrong - that means that air groups must cover without gaps the whole campaign duration, otherwise some buggy planes will spawn and the game will crash as soon as they enter rendering radius, right?

If so, a possible workaround might be filling the empty gaps before, after and in between "offensive" air groups with "filler" air groups equipped with one or more unharmed planes, like a transport, a trainer, a liaison aircraft, a scout or something along these lines. Even better, we could assign to those airgroups just one customized aircraft with a very short max radius, so that it will hardly cross our routes
__________________
_____________________
|May the Force be with you!|
...\/

Last edited by gap; 12-05-20 at 02:01 PM.
gap is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2024 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.