exaggerated operational losses ?

[magnin]

During a 14-hours scenario set in 1925, about 20% of all aircraft engaged by both sides became operational losses.

3 days of this and both air forces would be wrecks, without firing a shot.

Isn't this is tad exaggerated ? 

(I am using v1.21)

[dontmajorchem]

I could be wrong as I haven't played for awhile, but I think damaged aircraft have a chance of been written off once they land. Not to mention damaged aircraft have a higher chance of crashing on landing.

[rimbecano]

Beyond that, combat missions will generally incur higher operational losses than peacetime operations. Aircraft are probably more often flying with full combat loads (thus if there is engine trouble at takeoff there is less margin for power loss before you end up in the water), the ship is probably launching more deck-load strikes (ditto, the lead aircraft don't have a lot of deck space to take off in, which reduces margin for mechanical failure), aircraft are more likely to be operating at the limit of their range, and (for fighters especially) time spent in combat will deplete fuel reserves quickly. Both ship and aircraft are likely to be operating under some degree of radio silence, so lost pilots are less likely to be able to get a vector home. The flight deck is likely to be more crowded, so landing accidents are more likely to collide with nearby aircraft. Simultaneous launch and landing operations are more likely, so with a non-angled deck it is more likely that a landing accident will crash into aircraft being launched (though there were barriers in place to try to prevent this). There will likely be a much quicker tempo of operations in general, which will lead to more mistakes from haste, etc.

[dohboy]

My assumption was that most of these losses are due to weather. Battles where weather limits air operations seem to pile up operational losses at much higher rates. Makes sense, we don't have meteorologists. We can't even look at the sky to make an old fashioned forecast. I launch strikes all the time just to have the weather change, then the strike runs search patterns till midnight with no way to recall it, then crashes trying to land in the dark in the middle of a hurricane I somehow didn't see coming.

[jwsmith26]

Not all operational losses are due to operational causes - many were the result of damage sustained during combat but were classified as operational because the loss occurred outside of combat, such as when landing a damaged aircraft. This somewhat inaccurate tally happens in the game and it happened historically as well. Historians that have attempted to analyse the losses admit that operational losses are probably overestimated. With that caveat in mind, historical operational losses accounted for around 32% of all USN aircraft losses in WW2.

It is certainly the case that a consistent 20% daily operational loss would quickly cripple any air force, but the losses the OP recorded are for a single battle in a month that saw no other losses (in the game). Most naval battles are one-day affairs, sometimes bleeding into a second day. Large naval battles like we often see in RTW2 were even more rare historically. Both in the game and historically, losses, including operational losses, were astronomically higher than normal daily losses when these battles occurred. Many carrier battles were concluded, not due to ship losses, but as a result of aircraft attrition during the battle. Had such attrition been a daily occurrence every navy would have quickly run out of planes.

The percentage of operational losses during battles in the game typically varies considerably depending on the year. I keep extensive records of aircraft losses in my battles. I find that operational losses are often as high as 75% in early carrier battles that take place in the 20s. This is because of the ineffectiveness of fighters and AA during this period. These early weapons just cannot knock down planes very effectively, meaning that the normal operational losses due to simply operating off of a carrier become exaggerated compared to losses to enemy actions. In the game, as CAP becomes more effectively controlled through the 30s and 40s, fighters become progressively more dangerous. The same occurs more slowly with AA weapons, though these weapons eventually contribute mightily to the defense with the advent of guided missiles. This increasing lethality has an impact on the proportion of planes lost operationally, so that by the 40s, in the game, the percentage of operational losses drops close to the WW2 level of 32% operational losses. There are a lot of variables involved, but overall the game seems to do a good job of replicating the percentages of operational versus combat losses that occurred historically.

[magnin]

Thanks for answering.
To be clear, I am speaking of 20% of initial aircraft becoming operational loses in one day, not of 20% of losses being operational losses. Not only naval, mostly land types from land airbases which saw little combat (mostly recon, with some CAP and torpedo attacks on ships). And in fair weather.

Is there any historical record for such losses ?

This is not 1904, this is 1926, after WWI. Aren't planes supposed to be somewhat reliable and able to land safely on land ?

I can understand 20% losses if these represent damaged aircraft, not permanent losses : perhaps would it be better if the game repaired most of these "losses" after the battle.

[seawolf]

I had found some historical data on losses for the US in the Pacific
Out of 284,073 action sorties:
4,234, or 1.49%, were losses- of those,
1,345, or just 0.47% of sorties resulted in operational loss, by the same metrics as defined in game
That means for every two hundred aircraft launched, on average one aircraft crashed, crashed from damage, or was written off
And these are combat mission losses, excluding the lower rate for aircraft that didn't encounter the enemy

That isn't to say that ops losses were negligible, as almost 32% of losses came from that category, just that they were fairly rare per airframe, certainly less than in game

[wlbjork]

Though I would point out here that the scenario the OP was taking about was 15-20 years earlier, when aircraft were (generally) more fragile and prone to engine failure etc.

[seawolf]

I’ve seen that large daily loss for large operations well into the late game, however its probably closer to 10% or 15%

[jwsmith26]

Jun 14, 2020 15:28:05 GMT -6 seawolf said:

I had found some historical data on losses for the US in the Pacific
Out of 284,073 action sorties:
4,234, or 1.49%, were losses- of those,
1,345, or just 0.47% of sorties resulted in operational loss, by the same metrics as defined in game
That means for every two hundred aircraft launched, on average one aircraft crashed, crashed from damage, or was written off
And these are combat mission losses, excluding the lower rate for aircraft that didn't encounter the enemy

That isn't to say that ops losses were negligible, as almost 32% of losses came from that category, just that they were fairly rare per airframe, certainly less than in game

The sortie figures you quoted are for all action sorties, not specifically for action sorties during a carrier battle, during which losses soared far above the typical daily operational losses. The losses the OP experienced were during a battle. There were only 5 major carrier vs. carrier battles in the entire war (I exclude the battles around Leyte as there was no major Japanese carrier borne air force in those battles). Each of those battles generated aircraft losses far in excess of typical daily losses. In two of them the Japanese lost essentially their entire carrier-borne air group. Historically, many of those losses would be characterized as operational losses, for instance, the loss of an aircraft landing in the sea due to having no carrier to land on would historically be classified as an operational loss (though not in RTW2). Well over 50% of the losses experienced by the Americans at the Battle of the Philippine Sea would be described as operational losses - around 80 planes had to ditch because of lack of fuel or crash landed because of night landings. It is not entirely clear, but it appears that operational losses for the American carrier planes at Midway were in the 20% range (that is, 20% of the original carrier air group). 

The year of the battle is also important. In 1926 most carrier based planes did not carry radios and were not equipped to fly long distances over open ocean unless they were in the company of an aircraft that was so equipped. The carrier aircraft of 1926 were in most respects identical to the planes flown in WW1. Strikes were typically led by one or several TBs that were equipped with a radio and a trained navigator. In such a situation, especially following an aerial engagement in a battle, the number of planes lost to simply being lost would have been quite high. I'll point out that these navigational issues persisted into WW2. Most Japanese carrier fighters did not carry radios and would have had difficulty navigating to the target and returning home if they were not in the company of carrier bombers. Even the presence of a radio was not sufficient - navigational training was crucial. As an example, British fighter aircraft making the journey from a carrier to Malta were equipped with radios but required the presence of an RN carrier bomber to navigate to the island. Many such fighters were lost when they became separated from the group. RTW2 does not explicitly model the presence of a radio or the ability of a plane to safely navigate across open ocean on its own, but evidence suggests that it does adjust operational losses based on the year to reflect these equipment and operational deficiencies. Operational losses in 1926 should be quite a bit higher than in WW2, especially in battle situations.

To address magnin 's concern about such casualties crippling his air force I'll point out that RTW2 does not have an aircraft production system that attempts to replicate historical aircraft production. It is very unlikely that you would ever experience the kind of crippling of your air force that happened to the Japanese from single battles. In RTW2, outside of the immediate impact on the current battle, the loss of an aircraft generally has almost zero impact on the strength of your air force in the next battle. In extreme situations the production system in the game may find it hard to replace all of the losses within a single month, but it is also rare that you would fight another major carrier battle in the following month. In my experience in RTW2, losses in one carrier battle have never seriously affected my next carrier battle. 

[seawolf]

Sorry, I should have included the individual statistics for land based and carrier based. Three quarters of those operational losses are from carriers, with the rest being ground based. There were similar numbers of sorties for both.

I don't have too many issues with carrier ops losses, except for maybe the random crashes not related to damage being too high. Damaged aircraft and running out of fuel seem fine.

But on the other hand, land based ops losses should be much lower

[magnin]

Most of the losses we're talking about are not from carrier planes, but from land-based air crashing.

This has an impact on scenario Victory Points. In several scenarios, most of my VP losses were due to these plane crashes.

And even if it does not impact the long term, well, It just looks wrong. Our games are about simulated belief, aren't they ?

I ran another scenario. Airbase Saint Florent's 18 torpedo bombers took 7 operational losses in 8 hours. About 40% !

This impacted the mission points : the majority of my lost VPs are from operational a/c losses. See below.