Matrix Games Forums

Pandora: Eclipse of Nashira Announced! Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer Corps
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/22/2012 9:09:54 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

both the allies and japanese had fuel


The japanese had more fuel on location, better airbases from which to operate, better resupply to those airbases, and more stockpiled spare parts. They also had superior numbers and a war plan that was well-planned, promply executed.

Against that, the allies had pre-located very little in the way of supplies, spare parts, and service crew, and operated from facilities that were very crude. Wear and tear on allied a.c. under the circumstances was much greater.

quote:

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


The problem for your claim is that there is no evidence for any of those suppositions. Indeed, there is compelling evidence that Japanese pilots were worse at leading their targets than allied a.c. Certainly USN pilots were much better trained at deflection shooting. Likewise, there is no evidence of particularly bad allied navigation or good japanese navigation.

The open question you want to ask is whether or not it was JUST better pre-located assets that helped the Japanese win, or whether other factors came into play. I can only note that once the Japanese ran into allied forces that were positioned in places with strategic depth and good logistical support, they lost badly.

quote:

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 Chinese air force ceased to exist as a force in 1938. The campaign against them lasted a bit more than 28 days. While one may note that flying time helps, the general supposition that flying time in combat against Chinese pilots flying Polikarpovs was helpful when Japanese pilots ran into RAF pilots in Hurricanes is suspect. Different planes, different enemy pilots, different tactics.

Arguably, whatever experience the Japanese did gain in China served them poorly in the naval campaigns. Japanese zero drivers were badly defeated in the Coral Sea, Midway, and Guadalcanal campaigns when they flew against USN pilots -- to the tune of about 1.8 Zeroes shot down for each F4F shot down when you just count combat between Zeroes and F4Fs.

Nor were they particularly successful against USAAF/RAAF pilots once radar detection became commonplace in Australia and New Guinea.

quote:

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


Long before 1943. The weaknesses of the A6M2 were apparent by the end of May 1942.

quote:

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


Oh true. On that we agree. As an interceptor against heavy bombers, it was weak. The Japanese never developed an effective interceptor for that role.

quote:

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


The Tojo was inferior in airspeed, range, armament, defensive armor, dive, high altitude, and mid-high altitude climb, to all of the following: the Spitfire IX+, the FW-190D, the P-51, the P-47. the F4U, the Hawker Tempest, and the Lavochkin La-5+ series.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 31
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/22/2012 9:13:26 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

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!


When fighting a war, it helps if your very high performance very high maintenance engines have a sufficient supply of spare parts such that operational wear can be adequately addressed by maintenance. As a general rule, that is why, for example, the USAAF logistical train included vast numbers of people to inspect, maintain, and supply air units, as was the case throughout WW2, EXCEPT in the early days of the PTO conflict (in which there were no such vast support trains pre-positioned, and no time, in the face of a well-executed Japanese plan, to put such assets in place, in Burma or Indonesia).

Maintenance matters.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 32
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/22/2012 9:24:30 PM   
rms1pa

 

Posts: 220
Joined: 7/4/2011
Status: offline
quote:

Maintenance matters.


i occupy space and have mass, therefor i matter.

rms/pa

_____________________________

there is a technical term for those who confuse the opinions of an author's characters for the opinions of the author.
the term is IDIOT.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 33
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/22/2012 9:26:26 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
And I often stumble over cracks in the sidewalk when walking at high speed because of my big feet.

Therefore....

I Clodius.



_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to rms1pa)
Post #: 34
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/22/2012 9:32:36 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline


quote:

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


will clarify

the concept of the large radial engine, with the smallest possible fuselage and tiny wing area (15m2? )
was far ahead of its time

while the allies were making large, clumsy fighters such as the P-47 and F6F (whose bad design concepts were mitigated by superb engines and fuel)

finally the allies put together the Bearcat - everything the tojo was supposed to be, but wasn't



the tojo concept was not capitalized upon by the japanese, and it was encumbered with a large amount of fuel, and used a low power 1500 hp engine,
while the Ha-32-21 was available from early 1943, and the Ha-43 from early 1945


they actively chose lighter, less powerful engines to keep weight down, and to keep wing loading small (i.e. A6M was designed for the Zuisei, instead of the Kinsei engine)

while at the same time, the japanese liked their fuel and range, even in specialist fighters like the tojo and nick.

so in AE there is a whole pile of japanese fighters with about 10 hex range, low top speed, mediocre firepower, and its even worse
later in the war i.e. the N1K George, the jack of all trades (sure we can have lots of fuel.. and guns.. and armor.. and fly 360mph while the enemy flies 420mph)

and the ridiculous A6M5c (336 mph in 1944??)

reading about the development of japanese designs, it is made clear that the designs themselves were excellent and revolutionary in many ways

but their configuration was marred by an awful bucreacracy that argued about what components are needed in a fighter, and finally settled on putting them all in the same fighter

contrasted with the european types that put performance first

my favourite example is the La-5











Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 35
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/22/2012 9:46:12 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

the concept of the large radial engine, with the smallest possible fuselage and tiny wing area (15m2? )
was far ahead of its time


Ah no. That concept was pushed to extremis, and found utterly wanting in merit, with the Gee Bee racer in the 1930s.

quote:

while the allies were making large, clumsy fighters such as the P-47 and F6F (whose bad design concepts were mitigated by superb engines and fuel)


The P-47 was designed as a Fighter Bomber. The F6 as a carrier fighter. Completely different demands from the land-based Tojo. Neither the P-47 nor F6 were particularly clumsy, despite their size. They indeed reflect the direction that all SUCCESSFUL (which the Ki-44 was not) designs incorporated from early 1942 until the 1990s. To wit: More Thrust Wins Fights.

The P-47 could outroll a Ki-44 at high altitude. It could out speed it and outdive it too. In WW2, given the absence of A2A missiles, the overwhelmingly important deciding factor was airspeed. An inexperience mid-war US or UK army pilot in a faster plane like a P-40E or Spitfire was more dangerous to a very experienced Japanese pilot in a highly maneuverable airplane, than vice versa. Maneuverability counted for very little in the end.

quote:

finally the allies put together the Bearcat - everything the tojo was supposed to be, but wasn't


I would not view the Bearcat as the supreme piston engined fighter. In many ways, if it was an Interceptor you really wanted, the best thing going in 1945 may have been the P-63 Kingcobra. It packed alot more firepower and was all around a better plane.

quote:

the tojo concept was not capitalized upon by the japanese, and it was encumbered with a large amount of fuel, and used a low power 1500 hp engine, while the Ha-32-21 was available from early 1943, and the Ha-43 from early 1945


The Ha-32-21 and Ha-43 were not very reliable engines at all.

quote:

they actively chose lighter, less powerful engines to keep weight down, and to keep wing loading small (i.e. A6M was designed for the Zuisei, instead of the Kinsei engine)


That was the working design premise for almost every Japanese fighter of the war. It reflected a really poor strategic choice to emphasize maneiverability and low production cost over airspeed and survivability.

quote:

reading about the development of japanese designs, it is made clear that the designs themselves were excellent and revolutionary in many ways


I can't agree. Obsolete in pursuit of a flawed doctrine better describes all of their aircraft designs, IMO.

quote:

contrasted with the european types that put performance first


Well, yeah. Isn't that the point though? Even the Ki-44 was not the right plane for any job. Adding more engine, it still would not have been the right plane for any job. Can you imagine it in ground attack roles? No of course not. So it stunk as a fighter, stunk as an interceptor, and stunk in surface attack.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 36
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/22/2012 9:59:35 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNjt7EfrmUQ&feature=relmfu


Bearcat / Tojo --> power to weight ratio

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 37
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/22/2012 10:02:56 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

would say the Reisen (with a proper config) would be among the best fighter vs fighter

Tojo the best interceptor (until the bearcat comes online)


ground attack was never strong point of any japanese design, agreed

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 38
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/22/2012 10:11:41 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

Ha-32-21 was an excellent, 1850hp high reliability engine that was put into the B6N, J2M, H8K, and G4M

not good when a turbo was attached (like the early Raiden types)

Ha-43 was good as well, but the factories were blasted apart by B-29s and earthquakes

Nakajima radials like the Mamoru and Homare were bad.


The tojo airframe was basically identical to the La-5, but since it was smaller with better materials (all duralumin verus wood),
with a good engine it would be slightly faster and of course climb a lot better

remember than the effects on performace on a small and light airframe are a lot more significant when you add fuel and guns,
than for an already heavy airframe like the P-47. Putting those 8x12.7mm didn't really hurt its performance

so the tojo needed to really be a model of the opposite extreme of the zero, the absolute minimum of fuel (like the La-5)
with maximum point of contact performance to defend the japanese aerodromes





_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 39
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/23/2012 5:56:14 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 7044
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

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!


When fighting a war, it helps if your very high performance very high maintenance engines have a sufficient supply of spare parts such that operational wear can be adequately addressed by maintenance. As a general rule, that is why, for example, the USAAF logistical train included vast numbers of people to inspect, maintain, and supply air units, as was the case throughout WW2, EXCEPT in the early days of the PTO conflict (in which there were no such vast support trains pre-positioned, and no time, in the face of a well-executed Japanese plan, to put such assets in place, in Burma or Indonesia).

Maintenance matters.


Yes, we too often get hung up on paper specifics when examining our favorite aircraft. The fact was that aircraft engines were very sensitive and demanding and began degrade as soon as the started to get a few hours service time on them. The stats we quote are ideal "out of the box" figures usually made during testing under ideal conditions. It is doubtful that any plane in the field ever flew at the top speeds we see when we look up the stats for them. It did not take long for a WWII aircraft to wear out and the side that could provide the best fuel, maintenance and flow of spare parts had the edge. All fighters for each side would feel the effect of service in the field. However on average you would expect the average Japanese aircraft to be performing at speeds further below ideal than the average US fighter. They simply just did not come close in the ability to service their aircraft. On paper the zero might have a slight speed edge on the wildcat but I suspect in the field that this edge may have been lost or at least equal in many theaters.

But it makes perfect sense to me that in the initial days of the war that Japan held the edge. The Allied just were not prepared and were losing territory, equipment and bases at a very fast pace. This had to degrade the fighting capability of aircraft very quickly.


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 40
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/23/2012 12:42:29 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The P-47 was designed as a Fighter Bomber.




Actually it was designed as a high altitude interceptor..., and above 27500 feet it could pretty much hold it's own against any other fighter on either side in maneuverability.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 41
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/23/2012 2:45:44 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5621
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

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

+1

Totally and completely agree. And it wasn't exactly the engine, it was the induction system. IJ struggled to get multi-stage (as opposed to multi-speed) super chargers and twin-chargers into production. The multi-stage charger is what delayed the Homare Ha-45 for 2 years ... 2 critical years of the war (42 - 44).

As QB states that lack meant far less HP/kg especially at altitude, and as he states all of the crucial performance metrics.

PS: their engine designs (cylinder, HP/bulk m3, etc. were actually quite good. They had taken the Wasp design (and others) and advanced them quite nicely. At least as well as the allies did, arguably maybe a bit better. The Homare was a very good design*. Very compact with high HP output potential finally realized in '44, about 2 years behind the allies ...

*The allies never recovered enough Homare's to thoroughly test, or if they did I haven't tripped across the reports. The design was very compact. We will never know how good because compact high HP radial engine development essentially stopped at the wars end in favor of jets. Otherwise, we would be able to see if any of the Homare design engineering had been utilized in post war designs. That never happened, so we will never know.

My questions would revolve around its cyclinder useful life-cycle. Did it have a very high cylinder replacement rate? We know it did anecdotally from IJ war notes that they did replace a lot of cylinders on the Homare, but I can't tell if it was combat damage or simply overheat wear as to the cause. Again, I doubt we will ever know much more than the testing performed on the Frank post-war which gave it rave reviews ... in large part due to that Homare engine.

Anyway, just my Saturday morning ramblings here with a large mug of latte ...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 42
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/23/2012 2:48:08 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5621
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The P-47 was designed as a Fighter Bomber.




Actually it was designed as a high altitude interceptor..., and above 27500 feet it could pretty much hold it's own against any other fighter on either side in maneuverability.


+1

I agree with MS1. Later, after they found out how 'tough' the airframe was, they developed a FB version.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 43
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/23/2012 6:53:16 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

the concept of the large radial engine, with the smallest possible fuselage and tiny wing area (15m2? )
was far ahead of its time


Four words: Pratt Whitney Double Wasp.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 44
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/23/2012 11:46:17 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 7882
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The P-47 was designed as a Fighter Bomber.



quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
Actually it was designed as a high altitude interceptor..., and above 27500 feet it could pretty much hold it's own against any other fighter on either side in maneuverability.



quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
+1

I agree with MS1. Later, after they found out how 'tough' the airframe was, they developed a FB version.


When the 9th AF was formed, it's primary role was to support the ground advance in Europe. The USAAF initially followed British practice and assigned the first P-51s to the 9th. Someone realized that the P-51 was better suited to the 8th AF's role and the P-47 to the 9ths so the two AFs came to an agreement that all future P-51s would go to the 8th and the cast off P-47s would go to the 9th as 8th AF units converted.

The P-47D already had hard points in the center of the fuselage and on the wings for drop tanks. For the FB role, they just put bombs on those racks instead of fuel tanks. Later they added rocket rails, but that wasn't part of the load out of the first FBs.

As far as I know, there were no modifications to the P-47s made to convert them to the FB role unless they added some radio equipment for ground communication.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 45
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/24/2012 1:44:27 AM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

Four words: Pratt Whitney Double Wasp.


needed a Tojo with the PWDW

or Ha-32-21 until the Ha-43 was developed


Tojo was a briilliant design, let down by the poor engines and fuel the japanese had at their disposal

the only way to compensate was to maximize the config, like the soviets did with the La-5

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 46
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/26/2012 5:46:33 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
They didn't need the Tojo. They had the F4U-4. Top speed in the mid-400s. More maneuverable and faster climb rate than ANY Japanese plane, even the Zero, by a wide margin. Ceiling above 40K.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 6/26/2012 5:49:15 PM >


_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 47
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/27/2012 1:52:28 AM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

Allied planes in general were fast, but had a poor turn rate

only exception is the Spitfire probably, it had both speed and low wing loading,
the result of good materials and a well thought out design

also it carried very little fuel to keep its weight down

a mustang in an interceptor config would also be scary

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 48
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/27/2012 4:30:53 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
Turn rate only matters if the competing aircraft have roughly comparable top speeds. The speed difference between a 400+ mph plane and a 350 mph plane was a huge advantage to the pilot of the faster plane. That is why well trained US pilots with little combat experience racked up huge kill ratios at the expense of highly experienced Japanese pilots flying slower but slightly more maneuverable planes.

Moreover, several Japanese planes lost even their turn rate edge at higher speeds. A Zero could out turn a lowly F4F wildcat at 260 mph. Above 270 the wildcat started to get the edge. Above 310 and the wildcat turned faster because the Zero's ability to roll started to be impaired. In dives, the Zero's controls were notorious for approaching lock-up. A Zero couldn't follow a Wildcat in a turning dive even at 340 mph because the Wildcat could turn away from the Zero completely.

Eric Shilling wrote that the best way to beat Oscars with the P-40 was to ramp up to high speed and out turn them. He was convinced that at high speed the P40 was much more maneuverable. And there are numerous accounts of F4Fs at high speed turning inside Zeroes around Guadalcanal and shooting them down (notably in Lundstrom's second "First Team" book).

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 6/27/2012 4:32:22 AM >


_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 49
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/27/2012 2:36:28 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

compare the A6M5 and the F6F

what if you give the A6M5 the same durability as the F6F?
the same firepower?

a 350 mph plane with 120 kg/m2 , would do well against the 380 mph plane with 180 kg/m2

need to understand the equations of what is happening


bad pilots was a big reason why the A6M started to lose in 1943

it had bad firepower and bad durability, that's what usn pilots will tell you

"one burst, and it lit up light a christmas tree"
"i had a zero in front of me at 1000 feet and .. *whistles* it rolled right under me (split-S),
my corsair wouldn't a done it, it woulda hit the deck"






_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 50
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/27/2012 2:45:09 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

about the ailerons locking, that is the early models (A6M2) that carried servo tabs

they reduced the force needed at low speed, but increased the force at high speed

A6M2 was designed to dogfight at low speed, and it couldn't dive fast as well (would dissintegrate in a 400 mph dive)


by 1943, the lessons of combat against the USAAF had been incorporated into the A6M5, but their config still remained bad
the navy couldn't give any priorities to mitsubishi (horikoshi wanted to put the ha-33-62 into the reisen airframe, navy said no)


now about the wildcat, it was among the most maneouverable allied fighters (besides the P-36)
also well configured with armor, well suited to an attritional campaign like the solomons

but give it the same long range as a Reisen, and it wouldn't be very good
testing a long range escort fighter against a short range fighter isn't all that fair
Reisen could have been an implaccable fighter if configured for short range


_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 51
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/27/2012 4:30:26 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

bad pilots was a big reason why the A6M started to lose in 1943


The A6Ms started to lose against the F4Fs in April 1942. In every CV vs CV engagement in 1942, F4F shot down more Zeroes than Zeroes shot down in F4Fs. John Lundstrom puts the Talley through Midway at something like 17 A6Ms shot down to 10 F4Fs. That explicitly does not include operational losses, Zeroes or Wildcats shot down by non-fighters (such as SBDs) or losses to ground fire. That's just fighters vs fighters. The results were even more favorable for the F4Fs over the course of the August-Sept carrier battles.

Well rested experienced well trained Japanese naval aviators generally lost when faced by well rested, trained USN aviators from the very outset of the war.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 6/27/2012 4:31:23 PM >


_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 52
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/27/2012 6:40:34 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41344
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
You know Diehl, everytime you "quote" from a book that you clearly don't own and haven't read, I wonder if you're spelling the Google search phrases correctly... Are you in fact iliterate? Don't be ashamed of that; I'm sure there are courses you can take.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 53
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/27/2012 8:00:55 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25297
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
Ok. Termi's post got me curious.....so I looked



quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl


The A6Ms started to lose against the F4Fs in April 1942. In every CV vs CV engagement in 1942, F4F shot down more Zeroes than Zeroes shot down in F4Fs.


The Japanese carrier Zero drivers scored a 2:1 stat victory over the carrier F4F drivers. 3 Zeros fell to 6 Wildcats.

quote:


John Lundstrom puts the Talley through Midway at something like 17 A6Ms shot down to 10 F4Fs.


wrong. Depending on how one goes about it, one gets several figures. Lundstrom says 15 A6M to 10 F4F in the forward of Vol II. However a careful sifting of Vol I gives a different number. 14 x A6M to 12 x F4F. Lundsrom isn't counting the USMC F4F's lost which tips the scale back to the IJN from a statistical angle in Vol I. He does address USMC losses in Vol II.

quote:


Well rested experienced well trained Japanese naval aviators generally lost when faced by well rested, trained USN aviators from the very outset of the war


A misleading, generalistic and inaccurate statement.

Back to your regularily scheduled Green Button. I know you don't like book sources CSW.....but at least you should get accurate info if someone's gonna try to beat you over the head with it.



< Message edited by Nikademus -- 6/27/2012 8:22:19 PM >

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 54
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/27/2012 8:23:18 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
I'll have the exact quote from Lundstrom tonight, Cdr. IIRC, it's on or about pp.16-18 of Lundstrom's 1st Team Vol 2. But I can get the exact page numbers later. I've posted both the quote, the page number, and the full bibliographic cite in these forums in the past.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 55
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/27/2012 8:30:49 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4738
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
Do you base your knowledge around a single book?

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 56
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/27/2012 8:31:48 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41344
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Ok. Termi's post got me curious.....so I looked



quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl


The A6Ms started to lose against the F4Fs in April 1942. In every CV vs CV engagement in 1942, F4F shot down more Zeroes than Zeroes shot down in F4Fs.


The Japanese carrier Zero drivers scored a 2:1 stat victory over the carrier F4F drivers. 3 Zeros fell to 6 Wildcats.

quote:


John Lundstrom puts the Talley through Midway at something like 17 A6Ms shot down to 10 F4Fs.


wrong. Depending on how one goes about it, one gets several figures. Lundstrom says 15 A6M to 10 F4F in the forward of Vol II. However a careful sifting of Vol I gives a different number. 14 x A6M to 12 x F4F. Lundsrom isn't counting the USMC F4F's lost which tips the scale back to the IJN from a statistical angle in Vol I. He does address USMC losses in Vol II.

quote:


Well rested experienced well trained Japanese naval aviators generally lost when faced by well rested, trained USN aviators from the very outset of the war


A misleading, generalistic and inaccurate statement.

Back to your regularily scheduled Green Button. I know you don't like book sources CSW.....but at least you should get accurate info if someone's gonna try to beat you over the head with it.




Who the hell "doesn't like book sources"? Except for iliterates?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 57
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/27/2012 8:34:28 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25297
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I'll have the exact quote from Lundstrom tonight, Cdr. IIRC, it's on or about pp.16-18 of Lundstrom's 1st Team Vol 2. But I can get the exact page numbers later. I've posted both the quote, the page number, and the full bibliographic cite in these forums in the past.


Indeed. You should have an answer to your PM's/Emails by then hopefully.

I'll save you the trouble. Its not on page 16, 17 or 18.

Its on page 4.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 58
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/27/2012 8:35:04 PM   
Gräfin Zeppelin


Posts: 1143
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Do you base your knowledge around a single book?

I do.



_____________________________



(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 59
RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke - 6/27/2012 8:37:37 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25297
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Who the hell "doesn't like book sources"? Except for iliterates?


CSW has told me a couple times that books are misleading because anyone can write them. To an extent he's right. Just because a book says something doesn't mean its 100% truth, or more commonly that the author's interpretation or conclusions are 100% accurate. Lundstrom himself admitted to Brady that he could only do the best job he did after the whole Val "Canister" issue came up and that he might have been mistaken. In the end people have to decide for themselves what to believe.


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: Comparison - Mohawk v Oscar/Zeke Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.344