Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room



Message


JeffK -> Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (2/17/2012 9:25:34 PM)

I love looking through SuluSea's comparisons, and after starting Chris Shores' Air war for Burma am surprised at the regular frontline use of the Curtiss Mohawk.

Checking the stats they are very competitive against most Oscar models and the A6M2 Zeke, the japanese have a manouvre advantage but are slower (a bit), less durable and only the A6M2 equals the firepower. I believe the biggest advantage for the japanese fighters is the their higher experience ratings.

How do players use the Mohawk?

I have usually assigned them rear area duties.




Rusty1961 -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (2/17/2012 10:41:14 PM)

If the Buffalo = meat on the table, the Mohawk does also.




Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (2/17/2012 11:03:32 PM)

put 30 exp pilots into those oscars and the mohawk will hold its own.
the pilot experience is underestimated,

historically:

the real reason japan did well in the first few months
is the massive difference in experience level of the pilots.

(typically Japanese pilots had about 1000 hours flying time, allies had very few hours)

also, the allies sent their junk to the pacific. If japan was facing Spitfire MK .IX units with 80+exp, the war in the pacific would have been over before it began.

remember this is 1942 already.
Skies over Europe are full of middle-mark spitfires,
FW-190s, Mig-3s (400+ mph speed)

planes in the pacific were always a step below the level of europe. Remember in 1940 japan is flying biplanes and fixed undercarriages during the battle of Britain, in 1942 they are flying Oscars that would be rejected by any European power, in 1944.. japan finally makes some fighters that can make 400mph.. well 390mph is close enough (Ki-84).. and at the same time Europeans have Me-262s and Gloster Meteors..





Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (2/17/2012 11:05:35 PM)

It is February 1942, RAF Manston Aerodrome, home of No. 59 squadron

Vice air marshall park arrives at the airfield in his Spitfire V, he gets out of the plane
dressed in his white flightsuit and calls all the pilots to attention on the runway

parked alongside the runway is a long row of planes, the pilots have never seem them before,
it's the RAF's newest fighter that's just been in production for a few months

"lads, we know you've been having some trouble with the Luftwaffe's focke wolf 190 and
we think we've got the answer"

We know there have been some problems with servicibility in the squadron, so we think
air cooled radial engines are the answer. to keep air resistance low the diameter is small
and it's efficient on fuel so you can fly all the way to germany and back

also boys you've been putting a heavy toll on the RAF's ammunition budget so we've reduced
the armament to 2 vickers .303 machine guns. don't worry, we've got confidence you can score hits
after all you are all pretty experienced pilots

now.. it's pointless to think you can protect yourselves against the FW-190s heavy cannon shells
so the best thing to do is to maneouver in a classic lufberry circle until they run out of fuel and
crash in the channel


[image]local://upfiles/28382/DAD98583DB904A30BC49CE214FFD9681.jpg[/image]




Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (2/17/2012 11:13:33 PM)

formal protest of pilots of No. 59 squadron

Dear sirs,
we have been provided with a new model of fighter aircraft and
have converted our pilots to the

Fairey Falcon

as requested by vice air marshall park


it is known to us it is a new design, just entering service
and will be the standard fighter of the RAF fighter command for the coming years
after some evalulation, it has been made clear that some of its performance figures are sub-optimal

Top speed: 308 mph
Firepower: poor
Armor: none
Maneouverability: yes it can turn, but nothing else

The FW-190 it appears is 100mph faster, has 10 times the firepower, is armored like a tank
and it can attack us at will while we are helpless to give chase




derp -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (2/18/2012 12:01:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I love looking through SuluSea's comparisons, and after starting Chris Shores' Air war for Burma am surprised at the regular frontline use of the Curtiss Mohawk.

Checking the stats they are very competitive against most Oscar models and the A6M2 Zeke, the japanese have a manouvre advantage but are slower (a bit), less durable and only the A6M2 equals the firepower. I believe the biggest advantage for the japanese fighters is the their higher experience ratings.

How do players use the Mohawk?

I have usually assigned them rear area duties.


Leaving aside the crazy ramblings...

It's basically similar to Hurricane, performance-wise. Fractionally faster, armament worse, climbs better, better maneuverability at low altitude, worse at higher altitude. So - either use it as a low-altitude interceptor (where it can use that maneuverability to keep engaged with Japanese aircraft while higher-flying aircraft bounce them), or use the fact that it's the only SR1 fighter the RAF gets until P-47 in mid-1944 to operate it where there's a need to fly from front-line, poorly-supported or isolated bases (or China, which I guess translates to the same thing).




JeffK -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (2/18/2012 2:03:52 AM)

Thanks derp, maybe their low numbers stops you from using them more.
If you could get 70+ exp pilots into them they might look better.




derp -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (2/18/2012 2:22:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Thanks derp, maybe their low numbers stops you from using them more.


Such is the RAF until about a month before VJ-day, unfortunately.

quote:

If you could get 70+ exp pilots into them they might look better.


Well, that's true of anything. It's not a terrible aircraft - on balance it's probably slightly, immeasurably inferior to Hurricane in most situations. Not a first choice to do something important, but it's not like it's appreciably worse - so, if you've got'em and have a need for'em, well, it's not like you need to hide them away 500 miles from the enemy...




inqistor -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (2/18/2012 8:10:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I love looking through SuluSea's comparisons, and after starting Chris Shores' Air war for Burma am surprised at the regular frontline use of the Curtiss Mohawk.


Does the book mentions anything about initial number of Mohawks in India before war? I have found, that almost 100 was delivered there, but I can not find an exact date. South Africa gets theirs in mid-1941.




JeffK -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (2/19/2012 8:47:35 AM)

No, apart from comments about "8 Mohawks being the airdefence of NE India" somewhere I doubt there were many more available.

Joe Baugher's site is http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p36.html

Your "almost 100" seems high, the RAF only equipped 2 sqns.




Miller -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (2/19/2012 12:50:12 PM)

Crappy a/c = escort (bullet sponge) duty in AE.




crsutton -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (2/19/2012 3:56:03 PM)

I put them in the garage as soon as I could. Still using them for training.




dr.hal -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (2/21/2012 10:15:40 PM)

Using them in China... the problem with them in the game is the "3" service rating..ugh...




Shark7 -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (2/21/2012 10:22:14 PM)

I think a fair assessment is that the Japanese aircraft weren't bad, there were just a half a decade to a decade behind the times.

You have to admit, pitted against aircraft from the early 1930s (Buffalo, Mohawk, etc) they did fair quite well. Only when facing modern aircraft (F4F, P40, Spitfire) was there obsolescence really telling.




Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (2/21/2012 11:31:22 PM)

Japanese aviation is really quite fascinating:

japan was okay for materials (3 times more duralumin production than soviets), but a lot less than USAAF
japan was in a bad spot for fuel (best available was 92 octane, allies had 100 as standard)

a pretty low mechanization of industry but they were not making anything else than AC and ships so...they could afford
a lot more man-hours per product (Hayabusa's cost 25,000 man hours each, Hayate 15,000) ... whereas Bf-109 took about 5,000 hours and a mustang about 3,000

many good designs available (Heinkell 100, Shoki), and many bad ones (Hayabusa, Gekko)

the late war planes were quite promising too (Shinden, Keiun, the Ki-64 Rob)

access and skill with some advanced piston engine concepts, such as wing-evaporative cooling systems
many of their designs using the wrong engines (Reisen should have used the Kinsei-62 from 1943 onwards)
(Shoki should have used the Kasei-21 and later the Ha-43, and it would have climbed as fast as an F8F bearcat)


still their planes were poorly configured (laden with too much fuel) and their top speed was a lot worse than USAAF and european fighters
the firepower was wrong as well (20mm on the cowling is ideal)




Nikademus -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (2/23/2012 6:43:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

No, apart from comments about "8 Mohawks being the airdefence of NE India" somewhere I doubt there were many more available.

Joe Baugher's site is http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p36.html

Your "almost 100" seems high, the RAF only equipped 2 sqns.


Mohawk/Hawk75 action was limited in Burma. This limited exposure combined with some favorable combat situations actually gave the Mohawk a better record vs the Ki-43II's as opposed to the Hurricanes which saw wide spread use and overall got a drubbing from the Oscars. The Mohawk was a competetive plane in comparison to it's peers which included early varients of the 109, which under French service fought to a very competetive and typical kill ratio in 1939-40. Specific numbers available if interested. Game wise.....AE has improved the situation with lighter armed planes like the Ki-43 making them more competetive vs. useless as was the case in WitP stock.




JeffK -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (2/24/2012 12:50:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

No, apart from comments about "8 Mohawks being the airdefence of NE India" somewhere I doubt there were many more available.

Joe Baugher's site is http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p36.html

Your "almost 100" seems high, the RAF only equipped 2 sqns.


Mohawk/Hawk75 action was limited in Burma. This limited exposure combined with some favorable combat situations actually gave the Mohawk a better record vs the Ki-43II's as opposed to the Hurricanes which saw wide spread use and overall got a drubbing from the Oscars. The Mohawk was a competetive plane in comparison to it's peers which included early varients of the 109, which under French service fought to a very competetive and typical kill ratio in 1939-40. Specific numbers available if interested. Game wise.....AE has improved the situation with lighter armed planes like the Ki-43 making them more competetive vs. useless as was the case in WitP stock.


Only limited IRL in that it only equipped 2 squadrons. It was used as an escort, point defense and in ground attack. Cant think of other roles to perform.
Its oppositon was the Hayabusa or Ki27.

As with the Hurris "getting a drubbing" a lot had to do with the relative experience levels (or the claims of ceratin units & pilots), which soon leveled out.




Wirraway_Ace -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (2/24/2012 4:21:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

No, apart from comments about "8 Mohawks being the airdefence of NE India" somewhere I doubt there were many more available.

Joe Baugher's site is http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p36.html

Your "almost 100" seems high, the RAF only equipped 2 sqns.


Mohawk/Hawk75 action was limited in Burma. This limited exposure combined with some favorable combat situations actually gave the Mohawk a better record vs the Ki-43II's as opposed to the Hurricanes which saw wide spread use and overall got a drubbing from the Oscars. The Mohawk was a competetive plane in comparison to it's peers which included early varients of the 109, which under French service fought to a very competetive and typical kill ratio in 1939-40. Specific numbers available if interested. Game wise.....AE has improved the situation with lighter armed planes like the Ki-43 making them more competetive vs. useless as was the case in WitP stock.


Only limited IRL in that it only equipped 2 squadrons. It was used as an escort, point defense and in ground attack. Cant think of other roles to perform.
Its oppositon was the Hayabusa or Ki27.

As with the Hurris "getting a drubbing" a lot had to do with the relative experience levels (or the claims of ceratin units & pilots), which soon leveled out.

My memory from tallyng the losses documented in Shore's 3 volumes was that Oscars achieved a 3:1 kill ratio against the various models of the Hurri in Malaya, Java and Burma. Certainly pilot experience and the initial numbers advantages were key factors, but Shore's interviews suggest the Hurri was not well thought of by the pilots who flew it against Zeros and Oscars. The pilots often mistook Ki43s for A6Ms, but at least one remarked that while the "Zero" could out climb and out turn the Buffalo, the Buffalo could at least out dive them, while the Hurricane could not out turn, out climb nor out dive the enemy.




Nikademus -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (2/24/2012 6:03:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

No, apart from comments about "8 Mohawks being the airdefence of NE India" somewhere I doubt there were many more available.

Joe Baugher's site is http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p36.html

Your "almost 100" seems high, the RAF only equipped 2 sqns.


Mohawk/Hawk75 action was limited in Burma. This limited exposure combined with some favorable combat situations actually gave the Mohawk a better record vs the Ki-43II's as opposed to the Hurricanes which saw wide spread use and overall got a drubbing from the Oscars. The Mohawk was a competetive plane in comparison to it's peers which included early varients of the 109, which under French service fought to a very competetive and typical kill ratio in 1939-40. Specific numbers available if interested. Game wise.....AE has improved the situation with lighter armed planes like the Ki-43 making them more competetive vs. useless as was the case in WitP stock.


Only limited IRL in that it only equipped 2 squadrons. It was used as an escort, point defense and in ground attack. Cant think of other roles to perform.
Its oppositon was the Hayabusa or Ki27.

As with the Hurris "getting a drubbing" a lot had to do with the relative experience levels (or the claims of ceratin units & pilots), which soon leveled out.

My memory from tallyng the losses documented in Shore's 3 volumes was that Oscars achieved a 3:1 kill ratio against the various models of the Hurri in Malaya, Java and Burma. Certainly pilot experience and the initial numbers advantages were key factors, but Shore's interviews suggest the Hurri was not well thought of by the pilots who flew it against Zeros and Oscars. The pilots often mistook Ki43s for A6Ms, but at least one remarked that while the "Zero" could out climb and out turn the Buffalo, the Buffalo could at least out dive them, while the Hurricane could not out turn, out climb nor out dive the enemy.


Hi,

My tally of Shores vol III yielded a 5.2:1 ratio of Ki-43II vs Hurricane in favor of the Ki-43, a signifigant skew from more normal exchanges. The ratio of Mohawk to Ki-43 was a more conventional 1.5:1 in favor of the Ki-43.

Jeff- When i said "Limited" my context was that in comparison to the sortie rates, breadth of deployment and time factor, there were far more Hurricane ops vs. Mohawk and of the limited number of dogfights that occured several of them presented favorable conditions to the Mohawk pilots. This was an important distinction that I made on another board when it was "suggested" that based on "the ratios" that the Mohawk was in fact superior to the Hurricane even though the RAF felt the opposite. My personal opinion was that the data from Burma re: Mohawk was far too limited in scope in comparison to the Hurricane data to support such a conclusion of superiority.

A similar argument gets more play (and support) when looking at the Sitzkrieg period in France. Looking at the ratios alone, the Hurr suffered a 2:1 ratio vs the 109E in favor of the 109, but the French piloted Hawk75A (Mohawk in RAF service) performed better, getting a reverse score, 2:1 in favor of the H-75 against mainly 109D's along with the early E's. Shores noted that he H75 was superior to the D, but not the E but early 109E's had lighter armaments which hurt them early on. Later 109 varients lengthened the gap. Myself, again i noted that the French air force got the bulk of the engagements during this period and when the RAF finally engaged they were dogged by several bad situations which aided the German score. Overall, from a tech aspect there was not alot to choose from the 3 advesaries.

On why the Hurr suffered so badly in Burma, as always lots of factors. Japanese pilot experience was one of them, as was the fact that they faced the definitive Ki-43 varient in the improved and refined Ki-43-II. Lack of pilot exp was a factor on the RAF side but not enough to explain solely the disprecency. I agree with Wing Commander Paul Richy's accessment when he went to Burma as a "troubleshooter" He noted that the Hurricane had similar tools and capabiities to other 1st gen Allied planes that could be competetive against the Japanese and that in his vew the main reason was tactics used by the RAF there. Unfortunatley being an outsider and critical in his report, the local RAF commanders pushed back.....and the Hurr continued to suffer. Even after Spitfires deployed in numbers though, despite their "technical" superiority (particularily the Mark VIII) the crack Sentais in Burma were briefly able to hold their own but could no longer gain full air superiority.....but neither could the RAF....so a stalemate ensued. Then the numbers began to go against the JAAF.




Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/21/2012 7:16:39 PM)


double post




LoBaron -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/21/2012 9:04:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I love looking through SuluSea's comparisons, and after starting Chris Shores' Air war for Burma am surprised at the regular frontline use of the Curtiss Mohawk.

Checking the stats they are very competitive against most Oscar models and the A6M2 Zeke, the japanese have a manouvre advantage but are slower (a bit), less durable and only the A6M2 equals the firepower. I believe the biggest advantage for the japanese fighters is the their higher experience ratings.

How do players use the Mohawk?

I have usually assigned them rear area duties.


The replacement rate is so bad that Mowhawk squadrons attrit extremely fast. This is the main disadvantage IMHO.
Also, but this goes from memory as I am not near tracker, I think their climb rate is sub par.




PaxMondo -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/22/2012 4:35:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I have usually assigned them rear area duties.


The replacement rate is so bad that Mowhawk squadrons attrit extremely fast. This is the main disadvantage IMHO.


+1

+1

ANd their armament is quite poor as well.




mike scholl 1 -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/22/2012 7:18:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

On why the Hurri suffered so badly in Burma, as always lots of factors. Japanese pilot experience was one of them, as was the fact that they faced the definitive Ki-43 varient in the improved and refined Ki-43-II. Lack of pilot exp was a factor on the RAF side but not enough to explain solely the disprecency. I agree with Wing Commander Paul Richy's accessment when he went to Burma as a "troubleshooter" He noted that the Hurricane had similar tools and capabiities to other 1st gen Allied planes that could be competetive against the Japanese and that in his vew the main reason was tactics used by the RAF there. Unfortunatley being an outsider and critical in his report, the local RAF commanders pushed back.....and the Hurr continued to suffer. Even after Spitfires deployed in numbers though, despite their "technical" superiority (particularily the Mark VIII) the crack Sentais in Burma were briefly able to hold their own but could no longer gain full air superiority.....but neither could the RAF....so a stalemate ensued. Then the numbers began to go against the JAAF.



Or to quote Claire Chennault, "NEVER dogfight with a Jap!". Too bad the game forces the Brits to ignore this simple lesson as in truth most of the Japanese training superiority was totally neutralized by this single tactic.




Nikademus -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/22/2012 7:28:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

Or to quote Claire Chennault, "NEVER dogfight with a Jap!". Too bad the game forces the Brits to ignore this simple lesson as in truth most of the Japanese training superiority was totally neutralized by this single tactic.



The Japanese pilots were far more than tail chasers and no one tactic neutralizes an entire nation's training. Read Dan Ford's book on the Flying Tigers. Contained within were interviews with the pilots who said that in the heat of battle they largely forgot Chenault's lectures. Their performance was a mix of guts, ambush tactics, the chaos of battlefield, better early warning and choosing when and where to fight. There was no simple formula for winning, which was what the RAF command in Burma shot back at Ritchie after his condemnation. Add to that the JAAF, like the JNAF also used energy tactics. A often not mentioned advantage the Ki-43II possessed in combination with good situational awareness was the ability to quickly climb after spotting an RAF formation to gain altitude advantage, then bounce them.

Still....all that said, like i mentioned, i agree with Ritchie's accessment that overall tactics were a large part of the problem. Unlike the situation in the solomons however, the RAF had a huge country to cover and a variety of offensive and defensive mission profiles to fill. Not knowing where and when the enemy might strike or appear made things alot more complicated. The JAAF used shuttle techniques to constantly shift airgroups from airbases around Rangoon to Mandalay and such. Finally the Sentais in Burma contained some of their best pilots. The lopsided kill raito also helped ease attrition somewhat for a while. It took until late 44 with a huge influx of numbers before the Allies were able to finally start succeeding in catching the JAAF fighters in vulnerable situations (landing, taking off.....on the ground)





Q-Ball -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/22/2012 7:38:28 PM)

The real difference between Japanese and Allied aircraft development, IMO, is in the engines. Allied engines progressed rapidly in HP, and Japanese engine designs didn't. Better engines = faster, more guns, more armor on the airframe




jeffk3510 -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/22/2012 7:44:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I have usually assigned them rear area duties.


The replacement rate is so bad that Mowhawk squadrons attrit extremely fast. This is the main disadvantage IMHO.


+1

+1

ANd their armament is quite poor as well.


Agreed as well. Good trainers... I guess you could use them in a pinch over other, worse aircraft.




Nikademus -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/22/2012 7:47:41 PM)

My only cavet to that would be that Japanese engines "did" also develop in the same way...but slower due to resource issues. The Homare engine, properly built with it's original 100 octane specification produced a competetive HP. Only a few Ki-84's served in Burma, a drop in the bucket compared to the Allied hordes of Thunderbolts, Mustangs, Lightnings and Spitfires.

I was suprised though at how gamely the JAAF fought against both the USAAF and RAF in Burma till the numbers game and lack of support from Japan turned the tide to the point of "why bother taking off?"




mdiehl -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/22/2012 7:50:56 PM)

quote:

historically:

the real reason japan did well in the first few months
is the massive difference in experience level of the pilots.


Ah, no.

HistoricallY:

In point of fact, Japanese pilots did not have a whole lot of combat experience. And many of the RAF pilots in the CBI area had plenty of combat experience from the preceding 2.3 years of war.

The difference between the early war Japanese (say... prior to May 1942) and the later Japanese was that the earlier campaigns were conducted with an enormous logistical and pre-preparation advantage favoring the Japanese. Once they began to reach beyond their logistical capability, they were trounced.

It was never about "experience." It was about very good Japanese planning and logistics leading up to Dec 7. They showed up with solid operational plans, prepositioned assets, and the supplies to do the job. Once they hit the edge of their initial operational plans, and began to operate in areas where they lacked good logistics and prepositioned assets, they regularly got beat up.




Historiker -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/22/2012 8:08:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

historically:

the real reason japan did well in the first few months
is the massive difference in experience level of the pilots.


Ah, no.

HistoricallY:

In point of fact, Japanese pilots did not have a whole lot of combat experience. And many of the RAF pilots in the CBI area had plenty of combat experience from the preceding 2.3 years of war.

The difference between the early war Japanese (say... prior to May 1942) and the later Japanese was that the earlier campaigns were conducted with an enormous logistical and pre-preparation advantage favoring the Japanese. Once they began to reach beyond their logistical capability, they were trounced.

It was never about "experience." It was about very good Japanese planning and logistics leading up to Dec 7. They showed up with solid operational plans, prepositioned assets, and the supplies to do the job. Once they hit the edge of their initial operational plans, and began to operate in areas where they lacked good logistics and prepositioned assets, they regularly got beat up.

Sure!

Nothing is more important in dogfights then a pilot knowing he'll have nice fresh bedsheets and a warm meal once he's back at the base. Once the Japanese didn't have ice cold beer and some whores for the pilots they weren't in the mood to win any more. Once again in dogfights, they simply decided to die!




Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke (6/22/2012 8:30:24 PM)


both the allies and japanese had fuel

both the allies and japanese had ammo

and the japanese shot down the allies planes, with just a pair of 7.7mm guns

so.. yes.. they had better marksmanship, better aerobatic skill, navigation, etc

and they had been fighting for 4 years against the chinese (add up all the planes the chinese had during
those 4 years, and the number of troops killed on the ground by japanese planes, and you will see how experienced
the japanese pilots were)

the war did not begin on Dec 7, 1941


once those pilots died however, the tactical ineffectiveness of the japanese planes was made evident during 1943

and their approach to making a fighter the jack of all trades did not help

who needs 600L of fuel in your zero, when you are fighting B-24s above rabaul?
what use is maneouverability against bombers?

if the japanese were able to take an airframe to its extreme, and make a good escort fighter
why not the other extreme and make a good interceptor?

the Tojo was the most advanced airframe design until the bearcat, just poorly configured






Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.734375E-02