Air Attack Test Results

[Slappy]

/*

Disclaimer:

Non Statistically significant test results follow. These are intended for entertainment use only and no claims or representations are made regarding them. The tests were in fact carried out, and were faithfully recorded, I just don't want to get into the usual clownshow about test results that tends to happen around here.

*/

Abstract: Tests were done to determine the effects of air attack on lightly armored targets in open ground and in scattered trees. In both cases where vehicles were all placed in one or the other, all vehicles were destroyed. In testing where vehicles were placed in both terrain types, those in the open were destroyed and those in the scattered trees were unharmed.

Initial Setup for all tests:

0. June, 1943, Clear, South, Dry, Mid Day, Breeze, 15 turns.

1. Take a standard, flat 800m x 800m map. Fill in alternating 100m patches with scattered trees. You should now have a standard 8x8 checkerboard of scattered trees and clear.

2. For allies, place on depleated ammo spotter, hidden with LOS to nothing in a wooded corner of the map. Subject map to attack by the following:

2 Lavochkin La-5 Fighter Bombers

2 Yak-9B Fighter Bombers

2 Il-2 Type 3 Ground Attack Aircraft

Test 1: Turkey Shoot

Test Specific Setup:

Purchase 16 SPW 250/1 HT for Axis. Place in the center of the 16 open areas nearest the center of the map. None will be in the outer rim, but most of the inner 6x6 will have a HT in it. All HTs are separated by at least 200m from another.

Let loose in hotseat. Don't move anyone.

Test 1 Results:

Axis autosurrender by turn 11. 6 Abandoned HTs, 10 Knocked out. 2 HTs were crewed at the time of surrender. Aircraft are credited with 4 abandons and 10 kills. No surprises here.

Test 2: Hide? and Seek

Test Specific Setup:

Same purchase for the axis, but place the 16 HTs in the center of the scattered trees squares as above.

Test 2 Results:

Axis autosurrender on turn 12. 4 abandoned HTs, 12 knocked out. 1 HT was crewed at the time of surrender. Aircraft credited with 3 abandons and 12 KOs. THE TREES HAD NO NOTICABLE EFFECT ON VEHICLE SURVIVABILITY.

Test 3: Take your Pick

Test Specific Setup:

This time, purchase 32 SPW 250/1. Place one in each of the most central tiles (32 of 64). 16 in clear, 16 in scattered trees. No HT should be within 100m of another.

Test 3 results:

HTs in Clear:

3 Abandoned

13 Knocked Out

HTs in Scattered Trees:

1 Shocked

3 Buttoned, no other damage

12 Fine

All HTs in clear were destroyed by turn 10. Despite no remaining living HTs in the open, aircraft continued to attack the dead HTs in the clear. The one casulaty to a HT in the trees was due to an errant rocket intended for one of the HTs in the open.

Conclusion:

Aircraft AT massively favors targets in the open. So much so that it appears to favor targeting dead vehicles in the open over live ones in trees. However, in the absence of targets in the open, it will track down and successfully attack those in cover as effectively as if they were in the open.

I leave the rest of you to draw your own tactical conclusions from these results.

[ December 31, 2002, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Slappy ]

[Krazy Canuck]

Conclusion:

Aircraft AT massively favors targets in the open. So much so that it appears to favor targeting dead vehicles in the open over live ones in trees. However, in the absence of targets in the open, it will track down and successfully attack those in cover as effectively as if they were in the open.

I leave the rest of you to draw your own tactical conclusions from these results.

[Louie the Toad]

It would seem that the modeling of the game is right on when it comes to aircraft's difficulty in discerning mobile (active) targets from immobile (and most likely dead) ones.

An example that most can relate to:

Driving at a high rate of speed on a highway. Seeing a car on the shoulder ahead.

Is it stopped? Is it moving slowly and Will it pull into my lane?

Very difficult to tell based on the relative speed of my car vs their car. Slow movement and no movement appear to be the same at a distance.

Sterling Moss..... Toad

[SgtMuhammed]

Good test. It actually works out realistly.

Consider: The pilot has only a few seconds to identify the target, line up the shot, take the shot, and then leave. All the while he is looking for AA and enemy aircraft. It is not surprising that given a possible target (even one that we know is dead) in the open he would spend little time to try to find a concealed one. On the other hand, no targets in the open also means no threat (real or percieved) from those areas and so the pilot is able to concentrate on threats from the wooded areas.

Kind of shows how deep this game is.

[ January 01, 2003, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: Sgtgoody ]

[Slappy]

Maybe, here is the problem I have with the results:

When there are no vehicles in the open, the HTs in the trees are killed just as quickly as if they were in the open themselves.

I would have expected better survivability on vehicles in trees than those in the open. They should have lived longer, or maybe been unspotted. That only seems to happen when there are decoy vehicles in the open.

[SgtMuhammed]

Fewer destractions I guess. I do agree that spotting seems to be a little easy.

[KursruK]

Originally posted by Slappy:

I would have expected better survivability on vehicles in trees than those in the open. They should have lived longer, or maybe been unspotted. That only seems to happen when there are decoy vehicles in the open.

Good work Slappy. Agreed on survivability in trees issue.

The BF boys always give you some relative trade when making a decision in CMBB. It seems risky enough to be hiding armor in trees to begin with (bog down). If no "decoy" vehicle exists in the open, then give aircraft a smaller chance to spot vehicles anyway. Makes sense

[xerxes]

I always thought "distracting" aircraft with targets was a good idea. Interesting to see the results of your test. Guess I'll keep leaving that extra HT in the open.

[Radar]

Movement increases survival I've noticed. Along with smoke which blocks LOS, however temporarily.

[Monty's Double]

Slappy, were you expecting that with HTs in the trees only, they would take longer to be found and destroyed? That would seem to be the common sense theory. I would guess the reason this doesn't happen is down to "Borg spotting". In theory each plane would only be able to share spotting intel in a fairly limited way but in CM it's done "perfectly". I wonder if the plane AI stops searching when it finds a target, that would explain why the HTs in trees survive better when there are vehicles in the open. It does appear to be a slight anomaly, but nothing really "broken".

[Slappy]

I didn't intend to post it as a 'bug', which would probably be better off in the main forum, but as a 'tip' on aircraft spotting.

I think that the results are a bit ahistoric, but within the limits of reasonable simulation.

It's also a good example of what you can learn with a little creative hotseating.

[Aaron]

I would be interested in running the test again, only this time put 16 HT in woods and only one HT in the open. Increase the number of open HTs to see how many open HTs you need to "cover" the 16 hidden ones. Do you need one per plane?

Aaron

[Slappy]

Perhaps the march of science will continue to find out how many HTs in the clear are necessary for survival. That's why I described the experiment in such detail, so that others could carry on the work.