Flak effectiveness

[John D Salt]

A while ago, I whined that I'd never actually seen any fighter-bombers downed by AA fire in CM:BO.

I have now seen lots of them, as I've conducted a few trials on the relative effectiveness of the different AA weapons in the game. The results are reported below; for those who can't be bothered to read any further, there is not much to choose between the 2cm Flakvierling, 3.7cm Flak and 40mm Bofors; the single 2cm is about half as good.

METHOD:

The test scenario used a flat map with two metalled roads running across it. Scattered trees were placed between the roads and on either side of them. It is hoped that pilots' suspicions will not be aroused by the fact that some demented topiarist has made the trees spell out "FLAK TEST GAME".

"Regular" quality forces were used throughout. 12 trucks were placed roughly equally spaced along each road, for a total of 24 trucks. 12 of the AA weapons under test were placed along the sides of the roads, one weapon in each "letter" of the scattered trees. Each weapon was given an ammunition load of 100 shots of HE.

This target array was attacked by 12 fighter-bombers. The game was set to last 20 game turns. An unarmed jeep or Kubelwagen was scheduled to arrive as a reinforcement with 1% probability on turn 20, to prevent the game ending prematurely.

Five treatments were run, each of ten replications, as follows:

1. 2cm Flak vs. US fighter-bombers.

2. 2cm Flak vs. British fighter-bombers.

3. 2cm Flakvierling vs. US fighter-bombers.

4. 3.7cm Flak vs. US fighter-bombers.

5. US 40mm Bofors vs. German fighter-bombers.

A control treatment of ten replications was run with no AA weapons present, but German trucks and US fighter-bombers as usual.

RESULTS

For each replication, the number of guns, trucks and aircraft destroyed was recorded. The amount of ammunition expended was also recorded. For guns destroyed during the course of the game, the ammunition expended up to the time of their destruction was recorded. As the guns were placed in scattered trees a fairly safe distance form the trucks, loss of guns was rare, and no replication involved the loss of more than one gun.

Three measures of effectiveness were chosen:

1. Saves per gun. The number of surviving trucks divided by the number of guns.

2. Birds per gun. The number of downed aircraft divided by the number of guns.

3. Bursts per bird. The number of ammunition points expended divided by the number of aircraft downed.

The number of guns was considered to be the number of guns deployed, regardless of losses during a replication.

In the "control" treatment, all ten replications resulted in the destruction of all 24 trucks in the target array. The number of surviving trucks, and the "saves per gun" measure, indicate the relative ability of an AA weapon to fulfil its primary task, defence of friendly forces from air attack.

The "birds per gun" measure gives a relative indication of the ability of an AA weapon to fulfil its secondary task, the destruction of enemy aircraft.

The "bursts per bird" measure is similar to the traditional "rounds per bird" measure, and gives an idea of the order of magnitude of kill probability per burst.

Weapon____Saves/gun_birds/gun_bursts/bird

2cm Flak(vs US)_____0.92____0.43____77

2cm Flak(vs UK)_____1.37____0.48____67

2cm Flakvierling_____1.46____0.71____23

3.7cm Flak_________1.58____0.77____22

40mm Bofors_______1.14____0.70____18

CONCLUSION

The experimenter (me) was too idle to conduct any statistical tests for significance, so it is not clear how far differences in the numbers indicate genuine differences or experimental error. The 2cm Flak seems to have performed slightly better against British aircraft than American ones, but this apparent effect might vanish with a larger sample. No tests have yet been conducted comparing US and British fighter-bombers against other weapons.

There is a clear difference between the single 2cm gun and other weapons in aircraft-killing performance. The difference is much less clear-cut in terms of "saves". In terms of aircraft-killing capacity, the performance of each weapoon seems to be roughly in line with its points cost, with the Bofors perhaps rather overpriced, even though it seems to have the best hit probability. The single 2cm may, however, be the best buy in terms of putting the attacking aircraft off their stroke.

The results of individual replications showed substantial variation in both aircraft and MT kills, although the bursts per bird figure was relatively stable. From observation of the games, it may be that the performance of the attackers depends strongly on the extent to which multiple fighter-bombers attack simultaneously.

I hope this is useful.

All the best,

John.

[PiggDogg]

John,

Thanks for your work. This is quite interesting & informative.

Cheers, Richard

[Seanachai]

While intriguing, I feel forced to come forward with the ultimate quibble:

Where are the Placebos, John Salt? WHERE ARE THE BLOODY PLACEBOS?!

How do we know that soldiers throwing common sugar tablets could not have achieved the exact same percentage of kills?!

Other than that, of course, I thought this was damned interesting.

[Michael Emrys]

Seanachai, I feel quite confident that the soldiers in the tests where there were no flak guns present were sufficiently armed with M1A6e sugar tablets. My God, man, surely you don't think our government would permit our boys--the cream of our nation's manhood--to go into battle unarmed? What can you be thinking of, man? Get a grip.

Michael

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Seanachai, I feel quite confident that the soldiers in the tests where there were no flak guns present were sufficiently armed with M1A6e sugar tablets. My God, man, surely you don't think our government would permit our boys--the cream of our nation's manhood--to go into battle unarmed? What can you be thinking of, man? Get a grip.

Michael

I hope you are not seriously suggesting that I expose experimental fighter-pilots to substances as dangerous as sugar, which is well known to cause obesity and dental caries.

Instead, we here at the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen used aspartame, a low-calorie sweetener. At least, I assume that "AP" in the ammunition window indicates AsPartame.

10 reps, run as in the previous account but using an amn load of 100 AP instead of 100 HE per AA weapons, produced the foillowing results:

2cm Flak AP

0.07 saves per gun

0.13 birds per gun

448 bursts per bird

40mm Bofors AP

0.74 saves per gun

0.27 birds per gun

77 bursts per bird

So, AP works against aerial targets; just not very well.

All the best,

John.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

I hope you are not seriously suggesting that I expose experimental fighter-pilots to substances as dangerous as sugar, which is well known to cause obesity and dental caries.

Instead, we here at the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen used aspartame, a low-calorie sweetener. At least, I assume that "AP" in the ammunition window indicates AsPartame.

Aspartame was not discovered (or at least did not become commercially available) until the 1980s, I believe. You're out of line, John. Lose 10 grog points and go to the end of the line. The tablets actually contained glucose and malt.

Michael

[Brian]

Out of a matter of interest, surely the Germans would have been using beet sugar, whereas the Allies would have utilised cane sugar. Surely this would have made a difference in the sweetness of the rounds fired, for as we all know, beet sugar is notoriously less sweet than cane derived sugar.

BTW when was saccarine developed? Not that I'd ever accuse John of coating his results in that substance.