A bunch of questions on aircraft

[gap]

Originally Posted by kapuhy

- 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.

Originally Posted by kapuhy

- 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.

Originally Posted by kapuhy

- 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.

Originally Posted by kapuhy

- 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.

Originally Posted by kapuhy

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?

[gap]

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.

[LesBaker]

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

[gap]

Originally Posted by LesBaker

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:

Originally Posted by gap

• 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.

Originally Posted by Gerald

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.

[kapuhy]

Originally Posted by gap

@ 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)

[gap]

Originally Posted by kapuhy

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

Originally Posted by kapuhy

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.

Originally Posted by kapuhy

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.

[gap]

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?