Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Early war air power

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Early war air power Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 1:17:06 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob
What are you smokin'?

We don't know because he won't share...

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 31
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 1:28:55 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
I have yet to see any documentation that American ed pilots were indoctrinated to continue to pursue enemy a.c. in a turning engagement to the degree that their aircraft were sluggish.


My suggestion for next time is to try reading with your eyes open.

Seriously, those actaully weren't my words. My assertion and I would be happy to reconsider if I were shown a credible source that states anything to the contrary, is that US pilots during the opening couple months of the war did in fact get involved in turning fights with the Japanese pilots. I have seen nothing here that would suggest otherwise.

Sure, sometimes myths spring up around certain historical events, but I don't think the fact the USAAF and RAF pilots got an @$$ whoopin at the start of the war is a myth.

All that aside I am still trying to discern the connection between any of this discussion and a lack of correct early war modeling of allied planes or pilots. The learning curve, plane characteristics and pilot experience all seem "in the ball park" to me...even right down to the P-39s poor high altitude performance.



_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 32
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 1:36:39 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10406
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

What are you smokin'?




If this becomes a flamewar I'm gonna enjoy reading about how it's all Doggie's fault.



A year or two ago it was pretty easy to generate a Flame War on this topic - but I'm not sure there is enough new blood to get cha there any more ... and the old crew here now probably aren't as interested in rehashing this stuff over and over ... there is room for everyone to have an opinion and obviously the room is full of them!!!



_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 33
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 1:47:50 AM   
mdiehl

 

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

My assertion and I would be happy to reconsider if I were shown a credible source that states anything to the contrary, is that US pilots during the opening couple months of the war did in fact get involved in turning fights with the Japanese pilots. I have seen nothing here that would suggest otherwise.


I have seen nothing anywhere that indicates that they regularly lost. As indicated, some turning fights turned out well for early war allied pilots. If you eliminate situations that don't really tell you anything about the qualities of the pilots or men (like the Darwin Raid, the Clark Raid, the PH raid, and other situations where the tactical set up was an ambush of pilots taking off, landing, and the like) you don't actually HAVE all that many combats left. Of the ones left you get engagements where Allied pilots turn and win, as often happened at high speed, and turned and lost, as happened if they were initially at low speed or if the Allied pilot engaged several different Japanese a.c. in sequence. Plane for plane, there is no evidence that the Japanese had any particular advantage. And when you look at ACTUAL LOSSES, where these can be really documented, you discover that at no point did Japanese A6M drivers regularly defeat USN F4F drivers.

quote:

Sure, sometimes myths spring up around certain historical events, but I don't think the fact the USAAF and RAF pilots got an @$$ whoopin at the start of the war is a myth.


I think it is to the extent that the early war losses are blamed on men or aircraft. The facts don't seem to support the claim when one looks at actual numbers of aircraft shot down.

quote:

All that aside I am still trying to discern the connection between any of this discussion and a lack of correct early warmodeling of allied planes or pilots. The learning curve, plane characteristics and pilot experience all seem "in the ball park" to me...even right down to the P-39s poor high altitude performance.


Naturally if one presupposes that the Allies were the only ones who had lessons to be learned then the Zero Bonus and requisite edge given to the Japanese in name of said "learning curve" might seem proper. But as the Japanese in reality had their own suite of lessons, some of which they simply NEVER learned, the idea of an early war unearned bonus strikes me (and I am sure others) as absurd.

I'm all for a Consim allowing the Japanese to deliver early war whuppass. But it should be for the right reasons. Solid operational planning, good logistical preparation, a high operational tempo that keeps Allied units migrating from base to base, and strategic/logistical isolation of enemy bases. NOT some made-of-whole cloth actualization of a factually unsupportable and generally ambiguous attribution of superiority in enemy a.c. or pilots.

Was I wholly off base from this, the *typical* result in a PBEM game would be the Japanese would hit their historical limit at about the same surface area and at the same timetable as historically. As has been noted in this thread, historical Japanese performance is deemed poor performance in WitP. Part of that is the model that assumes that the Allied player SHOULD expect to be delivered "whuppass" through early 1942. In the real world the Japanese did not expect to deliver same, nor in the real world did the USN expect that "retirement is the only rational option."

In the real war, had the Japanese attempted an invasion of the HI, they would either have lost quite badly, or having succeeded briefly in securing a landing area, they'd have seen any troops landed die owing to isolation within a month or two. Sustaining ground operations as far as the Hawaiian islands or India or continental Australia was NEVER within the capability of the Japanese army and navy, even if they'd found a way to dismiss interservice rivalry.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 6/27/2007 1:51:44 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 niceguy2005)
Post #: 34
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 1:51:33 AM   
mdiehl

 

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

there is room for everyone to have an opinion and obviously the room is full of them!!!


I agree. I was just taking note of the fact that in this particular discussion, as happens every time it has been discussed, it is the, ehhm, "enthusiastic extollers of all things Imperial Japanese in the early war" faction that takes it to the low road first and as fast as possible.

_____________________________

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 #: 35
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 2:01:47 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent
You said: "AFAIC once pilots have been trained to a certain standard, the biggest difference their training can make is in operational loss rates and the propensity to nurse a badly damaged (but still flying, sort of) aircraft home. Some combat experience helps but again, beyond a certain point I don't think it matters much and it can be simulated by advanced training (as the USN and USAAF still do in their advanced tactical training programs). "

IMHO, the experience of a pilot should include how well he can fly and fire, but also his knowledge of his own aircraft , and his knowledge of the enemy aircraft. What is a "killer move" against one aircraft could leave you at the mercy of another... The fact is that you have to learn how your enemy fights and flies too.



This is a key point that the game unfortunately misses. It would be really great if a unit that upgraded it's aircraft took a penalty (kind of a reverse of the "Zero Bonus") for 2-3 months while it's pilots became aclimatized to the charicteristics and capabilities of the new A/C...




(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 36
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 2:07:46 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10406
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent
You said: "AFAIC once pilots have been trained to a certain standard, the biggest difference their training can make is in operational loss rates and the propensity to nurse a badly damaged (but still flying, sort of) aircraft home. Some combat experience helps but again, beyond a certain point I don't think it matters much and it can be simulated by advanced training (as the USN and USAAF still do in their advanced tactical training programs). "

IMHO, the experience of a pilot should include how well he can fly and fire, but also his knowledge of his own aircraft , and his knowledge of the enemy aircraft. What is a "killer move" against one aircraft could leave you at the mercy of another... The fact is that you have to learn how your enemy fights and flies too.



This is a key point that the game unfortunately misses. It would be really great if a unit that upgraded it's aircraft took a penalty (kind of a reverse of the "Zero Bonus") for 2-3 months while it's pilots became aclimatized to the charicteristics and capabilities of the new A/C...







Be careful whachu wish four



_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 37
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 2:10:33 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25388
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I do not believe this claim is correct. Seems like Lundstrom put the number at (as I recall, it WAS a long time ago) roughly 1.2:1 favoring the F4F at Coral Sea.


I'm afraid you recall incorrectly. It was 2:1 in favor of the Zero.







_____________________________


(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 38
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 2:13:33 AM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Well as usually happens in the Zero Bonus threads (of which this is the 83rd or 84th I forget)...


it has to be at least the 88th.




But is it a dual-purpose 88?

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 39
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 2:13:35 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I do not believe this claim is correct. Seems like Lundstrom put the number at (as I recall, it WAS a long time ago) roughly 1.2:1 favoring the F4F at Coral Sea.


I'm afraid you recall incorrectly. It was 2:1 in favor of the Zero.







Says the duck to the wall.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 40
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 2:13:39 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25388
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MineSweeper

No Wildcat (any make) or Hellcat had a smaller intitial turn rate than a Zero IMO.....when turning at high speed, the plane was not the determined factor, it was the pilot that could withstand the highest G-forces.....


Its fairly correct in a general sense given what i've read in Lundstrom's two volumes. Zeros more often danced around (or away) from Wildcats than vice verca. The Wildcat driver might in some cases at very high sustained speeds pull off certain maneuvers more than the Zero driver but not always and not absolutely. The Zeros tended to dictate terms when not outnumbered or surprised.

_____________________________


(in reply to MineSweeper)
Post #: 41
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 2:15:37 AM   
MineSweeper


Posts: 653
Joined: 9/19/2006
From: Nags Head, NC
Status: offline
Agreed.....

_____________________________





(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 42
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 2:16:02 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The Zeros tended to dictate terms when not outnumbered or surprised.

I think this is one of the best ways of stating the situation I have heard...a pilot in this plane simply had more tricks in its bag to work with.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 43
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 2:17:45 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25388
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

there is room for everyone to have an opinion and obviously the room is full of them!!!


I agree. I was just taking note of the fact that in this particular discussion, as happens every time it has been discussed, it is the, ehhm, "enthusiastic extollers of all things Imperial Japanese in the early war" faction that takes it to the low road first and as fast as possible.


Can you clarify exactly who has been doing that here in this thread? The only enthusiastic poster I've noted thus far is yourself @ 11 posts (and alot of paragraphs.) extolling the virtues of Allied planes, tactics and pilots while doing the opposite for the other side.


_____________________________


(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 44
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 2:21:14 AM   
mdiehl

 

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

The Zeros tended to dictate terms when not outnumbered or surprised.


The problem is that the claim is factually incorrect. It tended to be the case that they only 'dictated" terms when they caught the enemy flat footed. At Midway, the few engagements between A6Ms and F4Fs occurred at the extreme operational range of USN F4Fs, yet the F4Fs won by a large margin, despite the fact that the Zeroes were neither surprised nor outnumbered. At Guadalcanal, some of the worst Japanese defeats occurred when they began endeavoring to feint with bombers and catch the USN planes in a fighter-sweep type engagement. Battles that occurred generally on equal terms or on conditions favorable to the zeroes, both in terms of numbers and initial positional advantage.

Nik's claims about Coral Sea are just factually incorrect.

_____________________________

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 Nikademus)
Post #: 45
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 2:23:48 AM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3435
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

Replacement of peacetime leaders with practical experience using wartime criteria combined with the improved doctrine and training adapted to lessons learned would result in improvements in combat efficiency WITHOUT NECESSARILY CHANGING AIRCRAFT.


And that statement, in a nutshell, is what is was all about. Shedding the tactics that didn't work and adapting new ones. Chennault was probably the best example of this. His observations concluded that the best way to combat the Japanese was to minimize the Oscar's maneuverabilty buy using slashing tactics. It was a simple formula but it was revolutionary and it wasn't well received by the bureaucrats back in D.C. Dive, shoot, extend and come back for another round. Boom and Zoom... very simple. It was also a lesson that the Japanese were very slow to adapt to because their aircraft weren't suited for a vertical fight as well as the heavier American fighters. They could climb like hell but high speed diving was likely to turn a Japanese aircraft into a lawn dart.

The problem was that nearly all the world's air forces had trained for horizontal combat, not vertical during the pre-war period. This includes the Americans, the Brits, the Germans and the Japanese. This doctrinal expectation and method of training also affected contemporary European fighter design. The Battle of Britain is a classic example of that style training. Most air combats became turning melees after the bounce.

One can argue that the US and Brit air forces were just as highly trained as the Japanese and they would be correct. But that training is only as good as the framework it is based on. If the framework is faulty, so is the training no matter how good it is, Japanese included. And training does not necessarily equal experience. Experience in air-air combat is far more beneficial than any peacetime classroom or flight training program even when that experience is gained against a third rate opponent. I'ld rather have a 500 hour pilot with 100 hours of combat than a pilot with 500 hours of training and no combat. Many Japanese Army pilots gained extensive combat experience in the skies over China as did a lesser number of IJN pilots. When this experience is added to their extensive and intensive flight training, it can readily be seen how the average Japanese pilot may have been a bit more skilled than their western counterparts. This is not to say that the Japanese were substantially better in every aspect but that they did have certain advantages.

The Japanese specifically designed their aircraft to be the best in horizontal maneuverability. That is what their experience in China and observations from the European conflict taught them. They hadn't as yet encountered a well-trained air force. Many of these lessons came back to haunt them later as their aircraft were rendered less effective when the allies began changing the rules of air combat.

The Brits designed their pre-war fighters as short-ranged interceptors to protect the home islands from attack. And they performed that duty quite well. Unfortunately, few combat-experienced pilots were assigned to the Far East before the start of hostilities. And without the home chain radars to direct the intercept, the Brits were unable to seriously impede the Japanese advance.

The US Army tended to design their aircraft more as bomber interceptors than as fighters so speed and armament were important in their designs. US pre-war carrier fighter design had as much to do with carrier suitability as it did with fighter performance. Robustness was not normally a specific design criteria but more of a reflection of American tendencies to "over-engineer" their aircraft.

One on one, I believe that the average Japanese fighter and pilot were better than their allied counterparts during the early war period. But that was a fleeting advantage as the allies changed tactics and Japanese losses grew.

Beyond the tactics, there were 2 other crucial elements that allowed allied pilots to take control of the air from the Japanese. The first has already been mentioned... the durability of allied aircraft. Many pilots lived to fight again simply because their aircraft could take battle damage, at times unbelievable damage, and still make it home (or at least close enough to be rescued). Japanese aircraft, once damaged, had a tendency to flame or disintegrate. Had the Japanese aircraft been more durable (or at least better armed), many of their best pilots would have had better chances at survival.

The second of the 2 was communications. Allied air-air and ground-air communications were far superior to anything the Japanese had. Sakai commented on many occasions that it was extremely frustrating to see a Japanese formation about to be bounced and not be able to warn them. The allies also had the benefit of better ground control, especially once radar came into wide-spread use.

Also, one has to be careful when comparing overall kill ratios to determine the effectiveness of any one fighter in fighter-fighter combat unless you remove all non-fighter aircraft from their kill ledger. To do otherwise, presents a very inaccurate picture.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to denisonh)
Post #: 46
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 2:24:58 AM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

A thought that occurs to me reading this thread.

As I understand it, in real life during the first six months of the war the Japanese succeeded beyond even their most optimistic hopes.  But in PBEM games, a Japanese player who only does as well as Japan did in real life is considered a poor player, with the "standard" being expansion well beyond what was achieved in real life.


Well as usually happens in the Zero Bonus threads (of which this is the 83rd or 84th I forget) we have really two sub-threads. One talking about the game and one talking about history. The two sub-threads usually ignore each other, as is happening this time, and just repeat their arguments from the previous 82 or is it 83 incarnations of this thread.



At the risk of fanning the flames, I'll ask. Isn't that ultimately the point? Isn't the game supposed to be based on history? If the point wasn't to try to have a game based on reality, if it was supposed to be such an unrealistic fantasy, why go to such effort to make it look like its closely based on history?

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 47
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 2:26:51 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
The problem is that the claim is factually incorrect...


You have used this phrase quite a few times and your statements seem to put you at odds with most here on this account. Any chance we are going to get to see these facts of which you speak?


_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 48
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 2:28:59 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25388
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:


The problem is that the claim is factually incorrect.


Its not factually incorrect. Lundstrom's volumes spell it out very clearly. One pilot in the book was quoted as saying flat out that the only reason they stayed competitive (via the vaunted Kill Ratio) was by tricking the Zero driver or by having a teammate gang up on a Zero picking on a Wildcat)

quote:


At Midway, the few engagements between A6Ms and F4Fs occurred at the extreme operational range of USN F4Fs, yet the F4Fs won by a large margin, despite the fact that the Zeros were neither surprised nor outnumbered.


This is what is factually incorrect. There was 1 engagement at long range, and it was with Thach's element and they were not impeded by it. They were impeded by being outnumbered. It was Thach's quick thinking and his weave that saved the day. It helped too that the Japanese, fatigued from having run all over the place shooting up enemy bombers, and with little to no 20mm cannon ammo remaining tried to finish off Thach and his surviving men hastily resulting in a drubbing.

The other two major F4F/Zero engagements occured over US carriers and it was not onesided.


quote:


At Guadalcanal, some of the worst Japanese defeats occurred when they began endeavoring to feint with bombers and catch the USN planes in a fighter-sweep type engagement. Battles that occurred generally on equal terms or on conditions favorable to the zeroes, both in terms of numbers and initial positional advantage.


The Japanese fought over Guadalcanal at beyond their effective operational range which badly degraded their ability to preform their tasks. They still managed to shoot down slightly more than they lost, not that it mattered one wit to them. They lost the campaign and most of their best pilots.

quote:


Nik's claims about Coral Sea are just factually incorrect.


Got Lundstrom in front of me. You have only to prove it.


_____________________________


(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 49
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 2:29:04 AM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3435
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

and the old crew here now probably aren't as interested in rehashing this stuff over and over ...


Oh, yeah?... says who????

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 50
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 2:31:39 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25388
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

At the risk of fanning the flames, I'll ask. Isn't that ultimately the point? Isn't the game supposed to be based on history? If the point wasn't to try to have a game based on reality, if it was supposed to be such an unrealistic fantasy, why go to such effort to make it look like its closely based on history?


Whats really funny...is that the Zero bonus is overblown and overwhined about in the game. It does not do that much even at full strength which only lasts for less than 30 turns.




_____________________________


(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 51
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 2:31:54 AM   
mdiehl

 

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

Can you clarify exactly who has been doing that here in this thread?


I don't see anywhere that "what're you smokin'?" and "He won't share" contribute substantively to the conversation. And it has been past experience that disagreeing with strong proponents of Axis superiority results in accusations of racism, imperialism, insensitivity to the innate all-truthfulness of everything that the Hon Saburo Sakai ever wrote, &C. I'll pass on the invitation to name names. I can't see how the latter is productive. And yes, those are all, errm, "forms of argumentation" that I've had directed at me in the past. Indeed, it's only a matter of time I suspect.

quote:

The only enthusiastic poster I've noted thus far is yourself @ 11 posts (and alot of paragraphs.)


Enthusiastic about Japanese superiority despite evidence to indicate that the alleged superiority did not exist. At least, not for reasons generally attributed (better planes, which is incorrect, or better pilots, which is also incorrect, or better training, which is incorrect).

quote:

extolling the virtues of Allied planes, tactics and pilots while doing the opposite for the other side.


I am merely pointing out that the general claim of "superior japanese aircraft" loses all merit when one actually looks at the virtues of the Japanese and American planes. Much more specificity is required both as to performance characteristics, the chunk of the whole flight envelope in which those characteristics were favorable to various types, and other considerations such as armament and armor. When one looks at those characteristics, and when one considers BOTH the lessons learned by the Allies (avoid low energy situations when combating Japanese planes) and, to a lesser extent, by Japanese pilots (turning too close to an American fighter, or trying to outmaneuver an American fighter at high IAS, is generally a bad idea). Curiously the Allies seemed to learn quite quickly about the energy disadvantage at low speed. I don't see alot of anecdotal evidence that the Japanese figured out how to deal with high energy circumstances, but given the fact that their a.c. were never really optimized for high energy performance, that is perhaps more a dig at their long term production choices than their command or training structures. That is. A P-40 driver could have a close call or hear from a friend to keep high IAS. In contrast, there really wasn't any sure fire way within a Zero pilots control to guarantee that an enemy pilot would engage under circumstances that favored the Zero.


< Message edited by mdiehl -- 6/27/2007 2:32:52 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 #: 52
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 2:38:31 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25388
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I don't see anywhere that "what're you smokin'?" and "He won't share" contribute substantively to the conversation.


True. However repeating disproven or at the very least disputed opinions stated in the form of facts doesn't help either.


quote:


Enthusiastic about Japanese superiority despite evidence to indicate that the alleged superiority did not exist. At least, not for reasons generally attributed (better planes, which is incorrect, or better pilots, which is also incorrect, or better training, which is incorrect).


I've seen no evidence on your part in this thread. Alot of generalizations and opinions dressed up as facts though. Alot of words too. By your own definition of enthusiasm you seem to be indicating yourself.

quote:


I am merely pointing out that the general claim of "superior japanese aircraft" loses all merit when one actually looks at the virtues of the Japanese and American planes.


I don't recall anyone claiming all Japanese aircraft were superior. But if thats your agenda then you've more than spoken your piece now @ 13+ posts and you should be then willing to let other people have their opinions. right?



quote:


I don't see alot of anecdotal evidence that the Japanese figured out how to deal with high energy circumstances, but given the fact that their a.c. were never really optimized for high energy performance, that is perhaps more a dig at their long term production choices than their command or training structures.



I suggest you actually purchase Lundstrom and read it instead of just name dropping him. You might be surprised to learn that the Japanese were very familiar with high energy tactics.

_____________________________


(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 53
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 2:41:24 AM   
mdiehl

 

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

They still managed to shoot down slightly more than they lost, not that it mattered one wit to them. They lost the campaign and most of their best pilots.


That is true. On the other hand, there is no merit to the claim that they had some sort of operational disadvantage that was more compelling than the disadvantage that the Allies faced. Guadalcanal was logistically isolated for much of the campaign. Rabaul was well supplied. Guadalcanal's airstrips were crude and blew coral dust into the F4Fs intakes. Rabaul had a sealed strip that was well developed with revetments and good repair and maintenance facilities. American pilots fought in the air during the day and were shelled, and even at times surrounded by ongoing ground combat at night. Japanese pilots returned to an airfield that was by comparison with Lunga, safe, secure, and very well supplied with food and support staff.

Both sides fought under hardships during the Solomons campaign. On the balance, I think the USN fought under more dire circumstances, but I would, 'cause I think fatigue and logistics were more difficult challenges for American pilots.

Vis Lundstrom. Volume 2: The First Team at Guadalcanal. On or about P.18 in any case early in the volume there is a pocket summary of the IJN and USN losses at Coral Sea, and some details about the engagements. Coral Sea was nowhere near 2:1 favoring the Japanese unless you count all American pilots missing presumed dead as shot down by Zeroes, and count all Zeroes missing and presumed dead as victims of ground fire, birdstrikes, Devastator gunners, and the like.

Where one can actually put known zeros shot down and known wildcats shot down in front of enemy fighters, the balance favors the USN.

_____________________________

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 #: 54
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 2:42:58 AM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

At the risk of fanning the flames, I'll ask. Isn't that ultimately the point? Isn't the game supposed to be based on history? If the point wasn't to try to have a game based on reality, if it was supposed to be such an unrealistic fantasy, why go to such effort to make it look like its closely based on history?


Whats really funny...is that the Zero bonus is overblown and overwhined about in the game. It does not do that much even at full strength which only lasts for less than 30 turns.

Actually, I don't think the Zero Bonus is the point of the thread. What I think Mdiehl is arguing is that the basic aircraft stats and A2A engine produce completely ahistorical results, unduely favoring the Japanese aircraft.

As for why the Zero Bonus exists, that's actually very easy. Way back when, 20, 25, 30 years ago, some company made a WWII Pacific wargame that had an early form of it (for whatever reason) and the game became very influential on later game developers who simply included it in their products because they just assumed that the game developers before them had some legitimate reason for it without actually verifying that there was one.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 55
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 2:46:25 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25388
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

That is true. On the other hand, there is no merit to the claim that they had some sort of operational disadvantage that was more compelling than the disadvantage that the Allies faced.


Sure there is, since both Lundstrom and Frank say it. In Lundstrom's case he pointed out not only the range and the wear and tear it caused, but also the fact that the Zeros often had to fight with the Aux tanks still attached robbing their planes of performance and maneuverability.


quote:


Both sides fought under hardships during the Solomons campaign. On the balance, I think the USN fought under more dire circumstances, but I would, 'cause I think fatigue and logistics were more difficult challenges for American pilots.


The Japanese suffered far more....both in the air, and on the ground.

quote:


Vis Lundstrom. Volume 2: The First Team at Guadalcanal. On or about P.18 in any case early in the volume there is a pocket summary of the IJN and USN losses at Coral Sea, and some details about the engagements. Coral Sea was nowhere near 2:1 favoring the Japanese unless you count all American pilots missing presumed dead as shot down by Zeroes, and count all Zeroes missing and presumed dead as victims of ground fire, birdstrikes, Devastator gunners, and the like.


Lundstrom did give a general list. He does not qualify it as its only a statement in the forward of Vol II. It does not say anything about Coral Sea specifically. Vol 1 has the details and it is from those pages that I gained the numbers. It helps to own the books being discussed.

quote:



Where one can actually put known zeros shot down and known wildcats shot down in front of enemy fighters, the balance favors the USN.


Except in those situations where it doesn't.


_____________________________


(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 56
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 2:47:23 AM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3435
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

Rabaul had a sealed strip that was well developed with revetments and good repair and maintenance facilities.


And plenty of volcanic ash that created the same problems for the Japanese as the coral at Guadalcanal.

Both sides had advantages and disadvantages that impacted each battle they fought.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 57
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 2:50:07 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25388
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

Actually, I don't think the Zero Bonus is the point of the thread. What I think Mdiehl is arguing is that the basic aircraft stats and A2A engine produce completely ahistorical results, unduely favoring the Japanese aircraft.



I thought the point of the thread was "Early War Air Power". It seems Mr Diehl succeeded in leading it to.....yet another Zero vs Wildcat thread.

quote:


As for why the Zero Bonus exists, that's actually very easy. Way back when, 20, 25, 30 years ago, some company made a WWII Pacific wargame that had an early form of it (for whatever reason) and the game became very influential on later game developers who simply included it in their products because they just assumed that the game developers before them had some legitimate reason for it without actually verifying that there was one.


The bonus was created because the Zeros were not preforming historically in the game in the earliest months. I, you might be suprised...argued against it being put in. I don't like "bonuses" (i.e. quick fixes) being used in place of a better working model. But like i said....it ultimately does next to nothing because 4-5 MVR points in absentia of anything else does little in the game engine.


_____________________________


(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 58
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 2:57:05 AM   
mdiehl

 

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

True. However repeating disproven or at the very least disputed opinions stated in the form of facts doesn't help either.


Only because I've cited chapter and verse on this numerous times as you well know. Every time we've had this dispute in the past and I've ponied up you've clammed up. Only to later return to your same claim. At this point, I don't feel obliged to go to the trouble. Plenty of people were there, although among the old guard perhaps you and I are among the few remaining.

quote:

I've seen no evidence on your part in this thread.


Again, been there done that with you and posted all the necessary details. I am perhaps placing too much faith in institutional memory here. Tough luck.

quote:

I don't recall anyone claiming all Japanese aircraft were superior.


That's because this thread is a continuation of another thread in which it was stated that:

quote:

2-3. Early in the war, the allies have poor planes and unexperienced pilots. Japan has better planes and more experienced pilots. Betty's are very deadly against Capitol ships.


The statement asserts (accurately) that WitP credits the Japanese with having better planes and pilots vis a vis the e-war combat model. In this thread it has also been stated:

quote:

The Allied frontline main fighter planes were nearly a match for the Zero and probably equal to the Oscar


which statement on the face of it is both a historical claim, and an assertion that the zero was better (if one looks at the adjective "nearly") and maybe even inferior to the Oscar (if one looks at "probably equal to"). Both of which aren't supported either by casualties in the real war, or detailed studies of the capabilities of the planes. The Oscar wasn't probably the equal of anything. It was a genuine pos that failed miserably against first line Allied planes in all engagements that began with anything like tactical parity of initial position.

quote:

But if thats your agenda then you've more than spoken your piece now @ 13+ posts and you should be then willing to let other people have their opinions. right?


Why? They're wrong. Why let 'em linger in a misinformed state?

quote:

I suggest you actually purchase Lundstrom and read it instead of just name dropping him. You might be surprised to learn that the Japanese were very familiar with high energy tactics.


I suggest you read Lundstrom rather than just name dropping him. You might be surprised to learn that Japanese high energy tactics were generally used against Chinese pilots, not Allied ones, and that USN pilots were genuinely better at deflection shooting. You will also find plenty of good descriptions of Japanese planes trying to turn too close to Allied ones and being shot down for their trouble.

While you're at it, look at the single worst day of the Guadalcanal campaign. You'll discover that it did not happen when the Japanese were taken by surprise, and you'll discover that it happened when the Japanese had superior numbers.


_____________________________

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 #: 59
RE: Early war air power - 6/27/2007 3:01:48 AM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15474
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
LOL....don't forget guys Rabaul is a paradise that has luxurious beaches with cocktail serving waiters (referral to previous thread many many moons ago)

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Early war air power 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

0.217