Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

New DBB A/C files - first impressions

 
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 >> Scenario Design and Modding >> New DBB A/C files - first impressions Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/1/2013 9:27:41 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
Hi Symon, hi all,

so, me and Mr.Kane have been playing with the new DBB a/c files for some time now (more or less 4 months of game time).
We're now in Jan 1944 and so i think we have collected enough A2A results to be able to give some impressions.

I don't have any clue about the RL performances, so i believe they are all correct now.
What i do see every turn is that now the game overall balance has somehow changed A LOT.
Basically the new speed values given to the J2M, N1K and KI-100 lines have completely changed the A2A combat in the late war period.

The loss of mnvr at high altitude cannot compensate with the gain of speed at every altitudes imho.
Now the N1K is a roket and so is the J2M, and they basically roll over everything that isn't a P-47.
Just think that the George now is more than 50mhp faster than a P-40...
The Corsairs now have a max cieling lower than a N1K and, with equal speed, that means the N1K will Always get the "dive".
The Hellcat is outclassed both in speed and in altitude.
and so on...



So, under ONLY a gaming point of view, things haven't changed in a good way IMHO.
In stock Japan could compensate with numbers (thanks to production managment) and with the R&D the general inferiority of their airframes in late 1943 and 1944. The allies had lower numbers but better quality.
Now Japan has both quality and quantity.

Obviously it could be me and my inability to do the right thing (mr-Kane is a GREAT player, far better than me) and the right time, but my general feeling is that these new values, if they rapresent a more real simulation of the RL performances, do impact a lot on the gaming system, thus creating a situation which isn't exactly good for a balanced gaming experience.

Symon, you know how much i appreciate your work and i do love DBB, so please don't take it as a critic... it's just my impression. Obviously i could be wrong (i am wrong very often).

I'd like to hear what Tom (AKA mr.Kane) thinks about this
Post #: 1
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/1/2013 3:31:40 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
Hi Symon, hi all,
<snip>
so, me and Mr.Kane have been playing with the new DBB a/c files for some time now (more or less 4 months of game time).
We're now in Jan 1944 and so i think we have collected enough A2A results to be able to give some impressions.

Hi GreyJoy.

There is no right or wrong. Your subjective thoughts are valuable. Thank you very much for taking the time to do this. Much appreciated.

The longest scenario I’ve written for a Babes CPX was 20 months. We don’t do PDU and the factory tweaking is right out. I suppose the whole econ thing has developed into the eggplant that ate Chicago. Michaelm was browbeat into tweaking pilots so Japan can acquire a gazillion 90 grade pilots. Against that and the production exploits, allowed by the game, giving Japan good planes does, indeed, seem a bit much.

I would be willing to peel back Jacks and Georges, somewhat. Would also think it appropriate to make a note that if you are playing Babes, PDU=off is preferred, and Realistic R&D is mandatory. Basically, the default game conditions. This has nothing to do with your results, just my response to fanboism.

I will run some more test scens, keeping your thoughts in mind. Thanks again.

Ciao. JWE


_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 2
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/1/2013 3:46:35 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Now the N1K is a roket and so is the J2M, and they basically roll over everything that isn't a P-47.
Just think that the George now is more than 50mhp faster than a P-40...
Obviously it could be me and my inability to do the right thing (mr-Kane is a GREAT player, far better than me) and the right time, but my general feeling is that these new values, if they rapresent a more real simulation of the RL performances, do impact a lot on the gaming system, thus creating a situation which isn't exactly good for a balanced gaming experience.

N1K and J2M are both IJN planes ... you don't have that many air groups to work with until you lose your CV's and neither are CV capable.

The IJA air groups are the majority and they are still pretty much the same. Now if the IJA could use IJN planes ...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 3
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/1/2013 4:12:57 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon


quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
Hi Symon, hi all,
<snip>
so, me and Mr.Kane have been playing with the new DBB a/c files for some time now (more or less 4 months of game time).
We're now in Jan 1944 and so i think we have collected enough A2A results to be able to give some impressions.

Hi GreyJoy.

There is no right or wrong. Your subjective thoughts are valuable. Thank you very much for taking the time to do this. Much appreciated.

The longest scenario I’ve written for a Babes CPX was 20 months. We don’t do PDU and the factory tweaking is right out. I suppose the whole econ thing has developed into the eggplant that ate Chicago. Michaelm was browbeat into tweaking pilots so Japan can acquire a gazillion 90 grade pilots. Against that and the production exploits, allowed by the game, giving Japan good planes does, indeed, seem a bit much.

I would be willing to peel back Jacks and Georges, somewhat. Would also think it appropriate to make a note that if you are playing Babes, PDU=off is preferred, and Realistic R&D is mandatory. Basically, the default game conditions. This has nothing to do with your results, just my response to fanboism.

I will run some more test scens, keeping your thoughts in mind. Thanks again.

Ciao. JWE



Well, we're playing PDU=ON and Realisti R&D Off.
And Pax, it's not something related to "numbers" of sentais around.
The Georges simply outperforms everything isn't a P-47s, both when sweeping and when CAPping.

This is an example.
My pilots are crack ones (in allied standards): exp avg is 70+.
Layered CAP. 1944 allied Radar. Weather good.

Morning Air attack on Sabang , at 44,70

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 49 NM, estimated altitude 24,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 14 minutes

Japanese aircraft
N1K2-J George x 45

Allied aircraft
Spitfire VIII x 54
P-38F Lightning x 21
P-38H Lightning x 41
P-40K Warhawk x 41
P-40N5 Warhawk x 83
P-40N26 Warhawk x 13
F4U-1 Corsair x 15
F6F-3 Hellcat x 16

Japanese aircraft losses
N1K2-J George: 3 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Spitfire VIII: 2 destroyed
P-38F Lightning: 3 destroyed
P-40K Warhawk: 9 destroyed
P-40N5 Warhawk: 7 destroyed
P-40N26 Warhawk: 1 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
22 x N1K2-J George sweeping at 20000 feet *

CAP engaged:
VMF-222 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 22000 and 24000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 13 minutes
VMF-311 with F4U-1 Corsair (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 13000 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 14 minutes
No.81 Sqn RAF with Spitfire VIII (0 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 36770 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 36000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 17 minutes
No.152 Sqn RAF with Spitfire VIII (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 36770 , scrambling fighters between 12000 and 22000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 12 minutes
No.155 Sqn RAF with Spitfire VIII (0 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 36770 , scrambling fighters between 19000 and 24000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 13 minutes
No.615 Sqn RAF with Spitfire VIII (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 36770 , scrambling fighters between 18000 and 23000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 28 minutes
20th TRS with P-40N26 Warhawk (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 26000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 20 minutes
8th FG/35th FS with P-38F Lightning (0 airborne, 16 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 34500 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 34500.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 12 minutes
8th FG/36th FS with P-38H Lightning (0 airborne, 16 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 35440 , scrambling fighters between 20000 and 35440.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 21 minutes
23rd FG/74th FS with P-40N5 Warhawk (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 22000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 20 minutes
80th FG/88th FS with P-40K Warhawk (0 airborne, 16 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 12000 and 24000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 17 minutes
80th FG/89th FS with P-40K Warhawk (0 airborne, 15 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 19000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 14 minutes
80th FG/90th FS with P-40N5 Warhawk (0 airborne, 16 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 22000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 17 minutes
348th FG/341st FS with P-40N5 Warhawk (0 airborne, 14 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 14000 and 20000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 16 minutes
80th FG/459th FS with P-38H Lightning (0 airborne, 15 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 35440 , scrambling fighters between 21000 and 35440.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 29 minutes
311th FBG/528th FBS with P-40N5 Warhawk (0 airborne, 15 on standby, 0 scrambling)
5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 14000 , scrambling fighters between 14000 and 23000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 18 minutes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Sabang , at 44,70

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 18 NM, estimated altitude 24,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
N1K2-J George x 45

Allied aircraft
Spitfire VIII x 50
P-38F Lightning x 17
P-38H Lightning x 41
P-40K Warhawk x 27
P-40N5 Warhawk x 71
P-40N26 Warhawk x 12
F4U-1 Corsair x 12
F6F-3 Hellcat x 16

Japanese aircraft losses
N1K2-J George: 5 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-38H Lightning: 2 destroyed
P-40K Warhawk: 1 destroyed
P-40N5 Warhawk: 1 destroyed
P-40N26 Warhawk: 1 destroyed
F6F-3 Hellcat: 2 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
26 x N1K2-J George sweeping at 20000 feet *

CAP engaged:
VMF-222 with F6F-3 Hellcat (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 17000 and 21260.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 28 minutes
VMF-311 with F4U-1 Corsair (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 13000 and 19307.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 28 minutes
No.81 Sqn RAF with Spitfire VIII (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
8 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 36770 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 21000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 14 minutes
No.152 Sqn RAF with Spitfire VIII (0 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 7 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 36770 , scrambling fighters between 13000 and 22000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 15 minutes
No.155 Sqn RAF with Spitfire VIII (3 airborne, 4 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
7 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 36770 , scrambling fighters between 16000 and 36770.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 23 minutes
No.615 Sqn RAF with Spitfire VIII (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
9 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 36770 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 19000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 24 minutes
20th TRS with P-40N26 Warhawk (0 airborne, 6 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 20000 and 26000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 20 minutes
8th FG/35th FS with P-38F Lightning (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
9 plane(s) not yet engaged, 8 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 34500 , scrambling fighters between 18000 and 34500.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 16 minutes
8th FG/36th FS with P-38H Lightning (4 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 35440 , scrambling fighters between 14000 and 35440.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 12 minutes
80th FG/89th FS with P-40K Warhawk (0 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 24000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 18 minutes
80th FG/90th FS with P-40N5 Warhawk (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 22000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 41 minutes
348th FG/341st FS with P-40N5 Warhawk (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 24000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 19 minutes
80th FG/459th FS with P-38H Lightning (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling)
9 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 35440 , scrambling fighters between 14288 and 35440.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 13 minutes
311th FBG/528th FBS with P-40N5 Warhawk (0 airborne, 7 on standby, 0 scrambling)
7 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 14000 , scrambling fighters between 14000 and 23000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 38 minutes
23rd FG/74th FS with P-40N5 Warhawk (0 airborne, 17 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 23000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 28 minutes
80th FG/88th FS with P-40K Warhawk (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 12000 and 24000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 17 minutes



Lost 52 planes for 8 N1K2....

if i did this against QBall in DBB with the old stock files, my Georges would be murdered. Now they perform like P-47s on the allied side.
In "stock" Japan in 1944 must be very carefull when sweeping. Basically only the KI-48 can sweep with the hope of obtaining a decent result.
Now i lose every sweep against J2M, N1K1, KI-48 and even against KI-100...only if i have P-47s at Max altitude on CAP i can hope to defeat the incoming sweep...but again considering that the P47 is my only offensive weapon, the eggs in my basket become really few

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 4
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/1/2013 4:22:48 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon
Would also think it appropriate to make a note that if you are playing Babes, PDU=off is preferred, and Realistic R&D is mandatory. Basically, the default game conditions. This has nothing to do with your results, just my response to fanboism.



Hear, hear!

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 5
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/1/2013 4:32:57 PM   
MrKane


Posts: 790
Joined: 3/9/2013
From: West Poland
Status: offline
Hi Guys,

Generally Symon a/c gives me to good navy fighters J2M & N1K. Both airframes let me fight on equal level Spit VII, F6F, F4U. Both are still dead meat for p-38, p-51 & p-47 on high alt. When I am able force this super fighter to fight at sea level I can get even 1:1 kill ratio.
I am not sure it good or bad. It depend where you sit right now -:)

And one more info we are in mid of Jan '44, GJ did not get his true super fighters yet.


I do believe that GJ p-40/f6f loses are result to be always the lower lever of his CAP, my N1K always attack them with dive bonus, and this bird has a lot of firepower.

The "defensive" skill of my pilots probably has something with it either. I am not moving any pilot to front line unit before his "defensive" skill reach 70 or 71. (I have learned hard way that is the only way to not get killed them to the last one by high alt sweeps).

Right we decided to remove Symon a/c data and get back original one back.

Tom

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 6
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/1/2013 5:07:41 PM   
MrKane


Posts: 790
Joined: 3/9/2013
From: West Poland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Well, we're playing PDU=ON and Realisti R&D Off.
And Pax, it's not something related to "numbers" of sentais around.
The Georges simply outperforms everything isn't a P-47s, both when sweeping and when CAPping.

This is an example.
My pilots are crack ones (in allied standards): exp avg is 70+.
Layered CAP. 1944 allied Radar. Weather good.

Lost 52 planes for 8 N1K2....


1st this in not rule, just happen once :)
2nd this was 251 Ku-S1 (Tainan Air grope before renaming) Elite unit with all pilots exp 85+, no fatigue, damaged airframes. Yours pilots where fatigued after long reallocation flight. Yes I I'm impress either, but I cannot repeat it :(
Nicola this is very bad example, when we are talking about a/c changes. Are all my sweeps are look like that ?
Or just one for 30 ?



< Message edited by MrKane -- 12/1/2013 6:09:24 PM >

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 7
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/1/2013 5:27:31 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
That was a bit extreme, i admit , but was to give an idea of what we were saying.
Generally speaking the N1K now does to the allied fighters (except for the P-47) what the P47 does to the Jap fighters in stock.
Speed rules, let's face it. And with a speed of 400 and whatever the N1K line (and the J2M) outperforms the Hellcat and the Corsair, so to say everything the USN have at hand in 1944.
This may for sure be real (i know from Flying "IL2-Pacific fighters" online how good the N1K2 is), but in game terms it really changes the balance.
Our game is still lots of fun, doesn't matter what files we use.
What i'm trying to say is that i'm not whining (sp!?), just saying that, against a very good jap opponent (and you are a hell of a jap player, let me tell u), the allies cannot engagé in a frontal air war not even in 1944, as they should be IMHO.

In my game against QBall (i know every game is different) the N1Ks and the Jacks are still doing very well on the defence, even if they tend to lose, especially since i can outproduce QBall easily, but on the offense (sweep) the only weapon i have is the KI-84r and, with its SR=3 we all know you can perform only a very limited offensive (basically some ambush here and then)

But if Symon has the patience to make a couple of Sandbox scenarios to test the sweep and CAP abilities of the N1K and the J2M i think he'll be find out kinda easky what we're saying

(in reply to MrKane)
Post #: 8
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/1/2013 9:58:25 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
I didn't see the original discussion on the redoing of aircraft stats. For the Japanese aircraft were the new stats based on American post war evaluations, or on more realistic wartime performance numbers? The post war flight tests were done on 100 octane avgas with the engines tuned to take advantage of the better fuel. The Japanese rarely had even 92 octane fuel when these aircraft were active and their engines were tuned accordingly.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 9
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/2/2013 5:19:23 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
Bill, I am surprised. Out of everyone, I would have thought you knew better. My stuff comes from US and Brit tests, dated 1943, 44, 45. They are quite clear and explicit that they are using 92 grade fuel. They are also quite clear and explicit that they are using boost pressures that were obtained from captured operational specification documents. It's all there, in black-and-white. No bull$hit, no nonsense.

I thought you were too old a bunny to buy into that urban nonsense crap. J

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 10
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/2/2013 5:33:49 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
Oh, yeah, and then the next urban myth. Japan couldn’t make avgas because she was so technologically inferior. What a crock of nonsense.

IJN combat fuel specification was 92 CFR-M for fighters and later DB/TBs, 87 CFR-M for bombers and early DB/TBs, and 82-85 CFR-M for transport/utility/training.

The base gas was:
IBP ….. 60C max
10% --- 80C max
50% --- 105C max
90% --- 150C max
97% --- 170C max
Rvp …. < 0.6 kg/cm^2
+ 0.085 vol% max tetra-ethyl lead = 87 grade min
+ 0.10 vol% max tetra-ethyl lead = 92 grade min

This process was in place till Aug 1944. However, it was noticed that certain crudes from certain DEI fields would not “quite” reach the 92 CFR-M minimum, so in November 1942 the spec was relaxed to 91 grade “min”, but the process was not changed. Over 87% of all “92” grade fuel was indeed “92” grade, until 1944.

In June 1944 supply was critical, so attempts were made to increase avgas output per barrel. The 91 CFR-M specification was instituted universally and the refining specifications were changed (Mod-1):

Mod-1 specification
IBP ….. 60C max
10% --- 80C max
50% --- 115C max
90% --- 150C max
97% --- 170C max
Rvp …. < 0.6 kg/cm^2
+ 0.13 vol% max tetra-ethyl lead = 91 grade min

This resulted in recovery of an additional 25% of product (i.e., 300,000 kilolitres).

In 1945, supply was nonexistent, so attempts were made to increase avgas output per barrel yet again. The output requirements were relaxed to 87 CFR-M, for summer grade fuel, and the refining specifications were changed (Mod-2):

Mod-1 specification
IBP ….. 60C max
10% --- 90C max
50% --- 125C max
90% --- 180C max
97% --- 200C max
Rvp …. < 0.6 kg/cm^2
+ 0.15 vol% max tetra-ethyl lead = 87 grade min

This resulted in recovery of an additional 60% of product over Mod-1 (i.e., 1,000,000 kilolitres).

At the end of the war, in 1945, Japanese aviation fuel production, while small, was still making combat grade fuels. In 1945, 40% of all Japanese avgas production was Mod-1 91 grade fuel. Contrary to urban myth, Japanese refinery techniques and petroleum chemistry, were quite up to Western standards.

They did not have liquid phase catalysis technology, and their fundamental research was a day late and a dollar short, but they knew enough to do the ethylene bromide thing as a push to TEL. And their uses of analine was an eye-opener to us, not to mention their blending of iso-butane and iso-pentane. And what about ethyl-bromide (in Japanese, ethyl fluid) as an intermixture with TEL as an AD compound?

This urban myth, that Japan was pathetic, needs to be expunged, right now.


_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 11
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/2/2013 5:41:51 PM   
MrKane


Posts: 790
Joined: 3/9/2013
From: West Poland
Status: offline
Symon you forget one important true here. History books are always written by the winner.

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 12
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/2/2013 6:33:03 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
I don´t think so MrKane. He knows this very well, probably better than you, and probably from first hand experience.

JWE has good connections and is able to acquire primary sources at will, a big benefit for such an undertaking. Also, the data he is using is from during the war, not after the war. So in case you wanted to argue that the data might be tweaked to show better performance, better think again. This data was used to help pilots survive, inaccuracies could have led to wrong decisions and death. So chances are high that it was gathered with utmost attention to detail and dedication to reflect the true enemy performance.

_____________________________


(in reply to MrKane)
Post #: 13
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/2/2013 6:43:12 PM   
MrKane


Posts: 790
Joined: 3/9/2013
From: West Poland
Status: offline
Yep I know my English ..... I was not addressing his knowledge and ability to find sources. I was try to refer to urban legends he does mention in his post.
I am completely 100% convinced that Symon's work & informations are very accurate.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 14
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/2/2013 6:54:06 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Ah misundersstood your post. Sorry.

_____________________________


(in reply to MrKane)
Post #: 15
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/2/2013 9:07:20 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
Am sorry guys, didn't want to start another of "those" thread.
as i said before, i don't know anything about the RL specs or perfomances and i do believe there's no one better than the DBB team to do this job.
All my observations were simply...well, observations, impressions, nothing else.
And those "impressions" were just by a strictly gaming point of view. Game balance etc.

Not a critic.Not at all.

And, probably, my POV is subjected to the game i am playing where, as the allies, i'm getting my butt kicked even in 1944, so possibly the evidences i think i noticed cannot be translated in a general picture.
I just dropped in and said those things because i thought could be usefull for the developing of our beloved DBB mod, nothing else.

Hope it makes sense

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 16
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/2/2013 11:19:55 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

Bill, I am surprised. Out of everyone, I would have thought you knew better. My stuff comes from US and Brit tests, dated 1943, 44, 45. They are quite clear and explicit that they are using 92 grade fuel. They are also quite clear and explicit that they are using boost pressures that were obtained from captured operational specification documents. It's all there, in black-and-white. No bull$hit, no nonsense.

I thought you were too old a bunny to buy into that urban nonsense crap. J


I did say I hadn't followed the original thread on this and I didn't bring it up due to any beliefs about inferiority of Japanese industry. I have read (possibly wrong information) that much of the testing done on Axis aircraft was with 100 octane avgas which was widely available to the US and British.

It's pretty obvious that the Japanese were not idiots. In 90 years they went from a medieval culture and technological level to a power strong enough to put both the US and the British Empire in the Far East on the ropes for a while and build an empire that covered a huge swath of the Earth's largest ocean in only 6 months. They largely caught the Allies off balance and unprepared, but they played a weaker hand excellently and came up with some technological innovations to boot.

Their industrial base was still much smaller than the west's and the fuel supply for ships and aircraft were in a crisis situation from 1943 onwards. Allied testing of the Raiden, Shinden, and Ki-84 all demonstrated good aerodynamics and good performance under good test conditions. You posted about Japanese avgas production, which was pretty decent for their industrial base with some new ideas the west hadn't tried. However, the supply was never enough. Part of this was due to the loss of so many tankers to submarines, but even near the DEI the Japanese had some fuel problems. At the Battle of the Philippine Sea the Japanese were hampered by poor quality bunker fuel (running pretty much pure crude), though they did have a decent supply of avgas.

I know by late 1944 the Japanese were sending people out to collect tree roots to make turpentine for aircraft fuel. They managed to make enough fuel to keep up some kind of air defense, but their fuel industry was pushed to the limit.

The late war Japanese fighters were also initially plagued with buggy engines. The Japanese were behind the west in engine design. Most of their early war engines were manufactured under license and based on western designs. The famous Sakae engine that powered the Zero was a licensed Gnome Rone engine. Japan hadn't licensed any powerful engines from anybody when the war broke out, most likely because nobody was selling their most powerful engines internationally. They did get license to build the DB-601 which powered a few aircraft, but the engine proved temperamental in the tropics.

They had to do a crash program to make their own large powerful engines from scratch. While they had the expertise to do it from experience building smaller engines, developing a new engine is as much art as science. Even in the west, new engine development was difficult. The new engines that powered the B-29 had a fatal flaw that resulted in a lot of engine fires on ops. The PW-2800 turned out to be one of the best radial engines ever designed and rock solid reliable, but it had a lot of teething problems when it was first introduced.

The Japanese problems were partially due to entering new territory with a new engine size design, but a lot of the issues were typical for any new engine program. They had fewer resources and less institutional knowledge to fall back on than somebody like Pratt and Whitney did. So it took them longer to work out the problems.

I know you are careful about your data sources, but everybody makes mistakes. Despite lots and lots of eyes on the details and a ton of collected expertise on the team when we were developing the original data set for the original version of AE, some errors slipped through (most of which were fixed with patches). I was positing a possible problem, it wasn't built on any conspiracy theory or anything else.

As you know, in engineering when something isn't working correctly it's common to spit ball possible sources of the problem and go from there. The most likely source is what changed most recently. I'm not a fan boy of either side, but it is unrealistic for late war Japanese fighters to take out all comers. The Japanese may have done better with these planes if they had a better experience pool to draw on late war, but I doubt they would have been war winners under any conditions.

The code can't model everything perfectly and somewhat minor changes can have dramatic effects. The air model is probably the best of the three combat models, but even it isn't perfect.

Peace,
Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 17
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/2/2013 11:35:54 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 25919
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Bill, John,

In my PBM we just don't have enough turns in with the new files (holiday and all) to have seen what Nic reported from his game. But...

Having seen what I have in A2A in AE, I strongly suspect the pilot experience model is the major factor. The difference in performance of the P-47 when piloted by ~50 to ~65 Exp versus a bunch with ~70 to ~80 Exp (against the same opponents) is just massive. And I mean even with other skills being much more comparable (but probably still somewhat different).

Mr Kane basically stated that position above. I think he's right. Not sure what the best approach is to addressing it.

_____________________________


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 18
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/3/2013 12:00:05 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Ok my 2c´s:

GJ, MrKane, I do think such threads are helpful to help to understand how the air model has changed with John´s tweaks. Thanks for providing first hand experience.

But I also think it is way early - and maybe the wrong PBEM - to assess the impact of the changes. Why? Because your whole conflict was shaped by the old air stats. Your mindset and offensive/defesive stance in the PBEM was as well. Right into an already expected and known situation, a brandnew variable is introduced that influences the tactical picture. This experience, in my opinion, is much different to an impression shaped by a whole conflict. I think we have to keep this in mind when using your game as reference, valuable as it is.

In addition, JWE pointed out that the new stats narrow the mission profile band where a certain airframe performs best. I think this is true, just by looking at the stats, and I think this is often neglected by players because the variations in strong and weak points of certain airframes were not as distinct before the change as they are now, while at the same time the delta in overall performance between airframes was larger before the stats changes. It is more important now to play an airframe to its strength. There are fewer overall performers now, instead there are planes which excel in a specific role but only perform mediocre in another.

There is another reason why the impact truly can only be assessed in a complete campaign. WitP is not about George vs. Thud. This impression might currently arise because both plane types arrivals mark significant changes in airframe quality relation of the two sides (and also because many PBEMs either recently arrived at this phase of war (again)), or just passed it, or ended at the end of this plane vs. plane shaped conflict - like my last PBEM. We are currently in preparations to begin a new PBEM and we will use the new plane stats, so we will be able to judge the changes early war and let our conflict be influenced and shaped by the new power relations. I very much look forward to this.

That said, I remember a discussion we had 2 years ago about pilot exp (and individual skill) impact on performance, and witpqs and myself had a long exchange about what would be the best way to address it.
We never came to an agreement on the second part – IIRC I favoured an approach to limit skill increase and increase its variation and witpqs preferred an approach where the impact of high skill would be reduced – but we always were in agreement on what the issue itself was:
High exp/high skill pilots perform too good ingame in relation to how easy they are trained ingame. In my opinion, and I am happy to see JWE agrees with us here, the premier reason was major, very early, patch, which increased training speed by an order of magnitude. I never understood this decision, and I believe it was simply implemented without much consideration, to satisfy a vocal crowd that did not fully grasp the implications of that change. This practically opened the door to retort pilots with 60/70/70 stats throughout the whole war with all obvious consequences. If there was one single thing I could make undone in WitP AE, it would be that ancient patch. But that is off topic and should be no part of a plane stats discussion.

Will stop the rambling now. Good discussion gents, I am really looking forward to contribute with own experience with the new stats in a couple of weeks.


< Message edited by LoBaron -- 12/3/2013 1:01:14 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 19
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/3/2013 1:51:38 PM   
MrKane


Posts: 790
Joined: 3/9/2013
From: West Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Ok my 2c´s:

GJ, MrKane, I do think such threads are helpful to help to understand how the air model has changed with John´s tweaks. Thanks for providing first hand experience.

But I also think it is way early - and maybe the wrong PBEM - to assess the impact of the changes. Why? Because your whole conflict was shaped by the old air stats. Your mindset and offensive/defesive stance in the PBEM was as well. Right into an already expected and known situation, a brandnew variable is introduced that influences the tactical picture. This experience, in my opinion, is much different to an impression shaped by a whole conflict. I think we have to keep this in mind when using your game as reference, valuable as it is.

In addition, JWE pointed out that the new stats narrow the mission profile band where a certain airframe performs best. I think this is true, just by looking at the stats, and I think this is often neglected by players because the variations in strong and weak points of certain airframes were not as distinct before the change as they are now, while at the same time the delta in overall performance between airframes was larger before the stats changes. It is more important now to play an airframe to its strength. There are fewer overall performers now, instead there are planes which excel in a specific role but only perform mediocre in another.

There is another reason why the impact truly can only be assessed in a complete campaign. WitP is not about George vs. Thud. This impression might currently arise because both plane types arrivals mark significant changes in airframe quality relation of the two sides (and also because many PBEMs either recently arrived at this phase of war (again)), or just passed it, or ended at the end of this plane vs. plane shaped conflict - like my last PBEM. We are currently in preparations to begin a new PBEM and we will use the new plane stats, so we will be able to judge the changes early war and let our conflict be influenced and shaped by the new power relations. I very much look forward to this.

That said, I remember a discussion we had 2 years ago about pilot exp (and individual skill) impact on performance, and witpqs and myself had a long exchange about what would be the best way to address it.
We never came to an agreement on the second part – IIRC I favoured an approach to limit skill increase and increase its variation and witpqs preferred an approach where the impact of high skill would be reduced – but we always were in agreement on what the issue itself was:
High exp/high skill pilots perform too good ingame in relation to how easy they are trained ingame. In my opinion, and I am happy to see JWE agrees with us here, the premier reason was major, very early, patch, which increased training speed by an order of magnitude. I never understood this decision, and I believe it was simply implemented without much consideration, to satisfy a vocal crowd that did not fully grasp the implications of that change. This practically opened the door to retort pilots with 60/70/70 stats throughout the whole war with all obvious consequences. If there was one single thing I could make undone in WitP AE, it would be that ancient patch. But that is off topic and should be no part of a plane stats discussion.

Will stop the rambling now. Good discussion gents, I am really looking forward to contribute with own experience with the new stats in a couple of weeks.




I agree with opinion that our game should not be use as reference. I am still "noob" in PBEM. This my first game reaching beyond magic Aug '42 date. And my opponent is very experienced player, so I am trusting him when hi says that my airframes where overpowered, simply I do not have my own experience in area to question his judgment. Let see what feedback will came from game played by two experienced players.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 20
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/3/2013 3:08:05 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9867
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Like Mr Kane, who is my second opponent, using the new air data there will be an adjustment period. In my game vs Olorin (Nick) we have just reached '44 and both the new air data and our HR on altitude restrictions have changed. From our brief A2A battles the P-47s is an uber-fighter while the P-38s, especially the J model, have done very well. I have not faced the Jack yet as its performance was not good enough for Olorin to build them then. He has reported doing so now.

In my game vs Mr Kane we are playing RA and have updated to the latest air data from Symon. There have been few A2A combat as of March '42. IMO, we both will bring in things learned from our '44 games to this game and adjust tactics and plane usage accordingly. I believe that Symon has presented the best data that he can find on airframe performance and like any change, their will be adjustments made.

_____________________________


(in reply to MrKane)
Post #: 21
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/3/2013 3:09:10 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
MrKane, just to avoid misunderstandings: I am aware that GJ is a very experienced and capable player, and from all I read in his AAR you are a very capable player as well. For sure I did not want to leave the impression that there are players with more experience required to judge the new plane stats objectively. Your and his opinion and experience matters as much as anybody elses, and sharing your impressions on the changes is highly apprechiated.

I was rather referring to the point in the game where you implemented the change, which needs to be kept in mind when forming opinions about how the new plane stats influence the air war in your game.

_____________________________


(in reply to MrKane)
Post #: 22
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/3/2013 3:49:11 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 25919
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

High exp/high skill pilots perform too good ingame in relation to how easy they are trained ingame. In my opinion, and I am happy to see JWE agrees with us here, the premier reason was major, very early, patch, which increased training speed by an order of magnitude. I never understood this decision, and I believe it was simply implemented without much consideration, to satisfy a vocal crowd that did not fully grasp the implications of that change. This practically opened the door to retort pilots with 60/70/70 stats throughout the whole war with all obvious consequences. If there was one single thing I could make undone in WitP AE, it would be that ancient patch.


That was a good discussion.

The original decision you mention, to make pilots train up faster, was (very early after release as you mention and) before I was doing much with pilot training. I'm not sure that I would reverse that decision. I suspect that doing so would more strongly favor the Japanese as - within the game system - the Japanese player inherently has a greater ability to grow and harvest skilled and experienced pilots.

Instead, I think a modification of the formulae that apply Exp and skills, so that there is a (steeper) diminishment of returns above a certain level, say experience and skills above 70.

As LoBaron said, I understand that this is quite possibly off limits at this stage of development, but I strongly suspect it is the real issue at hand. It goes beyond air to air; it affects hits on ships and subs and air bases and ports and cities/factories/manpower and troops on the ground. A number of these things are items of contention among players.

_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 23
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/3/2013 6:49:35 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
You're ok Bill. There is much truth to what people are saying. We (US, Britain, even the Sovs) did a lot of airframe and engine testing in 1946 just to see what could be possible to do with them. Wright-Pat did do its testing with AN48 (100/115) grade. But the specs came from contemporary wartime documentation.

Japanese engines had their share of teething problems, but how does one model that? We did find some very bizarre things when we looked at the vast fields of planes after the war. There are comments that they all seemed to have superchargers and even carburation that was one-off to each plane. Ducting, ports, intakes, were all different. Type-13 supercharger parts were lathe turned to fit and stuck onto type-33s, etc.. Woof !!

I think Japan simply could not make sufficient spare parts (particularly not of rare and getting rarer specialty strategic metals) and if they had them, they couldn’t get them to where they had to go. Poor Sushi Hamachi had to make do with whatever he could find in the parts shed and beat it with a hammer till it would fit.

Maybe that’s why certain planes did such a sterling job when in the Home Islands and barfed when they were out-deployed for more than a few weeks. This might even be the genesis of the myth that Japanese planes were tested with “new” motors and “special” superchargers. I’m sure our guys went “whoa! what a roach!” and rebuilt things to spec before they would allow anybody to take the thing off the ground.

So, Japan had some issues. But they were the kind of issues that cannot be realistically modeled. I think it unfair to universally and forever penalize an entire weapon system for deficiencies in maintenance and logistic support. And don’t forget that skilled mechanics and factory technicians were drafted into the IJA as private soldiers (cannon fodder) without regard to their usefulness to the sinews of war and over the violent objections of the IJN. Skilled mechanics were drafted as privates; rice farmers were trained as mechanics. Go figure.


_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 24
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/3/2013 7:27:55 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
I think GJ and Mr Kane are doing a great thing. I appreciate their input and want more. Seems the biggest witch is how this new stuff impacts the game balance. I’ll get philosophical for just a bit, but I want it understood that I am not commenting on mechanics, or player choices, or any of that stuff. Player choices are different and often violently held. Ain’t gonna stick Mr Winky in that fan. This is personal observation and preference only.

It seems that much of the issue revolves around side issues dealing with the production/logistics system. Under the old specs, a Japanese player needed to raise a gazillion pilots, and change all his factories and all of his airgroups to specific models in order to have any hope of confronting the Allied 1944/45 buzz-saw. What that meant was there was kind of a sweet spot in 1942/43 where things worked ok, but got a little outré afterwards.

What we are trying to do with the new specs is reduce the dependency of game performance on the choice of switches; trying to make the sweet spot wider and sweeter for “nominal” play. That’s not to say that people can’t take advantage of this with PDU and R&D switches, but those switches are intended to define “outside the box” conditions, so being outside the box means one may have to learn some new rules.

Just my $.02 and a bit of Babes philosophy. Take it for what it’s worth . JWE


_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 25
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/3/2013 8:44:58 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
One last little bit is the technical bit. Perhaps, just perhaps, I can get out the potato peeler and skin back the Jack somewhat. Jack was a point-defense interceptor rocket. It had speed, climb, but doo-doo for maneuver. Seems the maneuver program gives it a bit more than it should have. And the early versions could lose a touch of speed. … See, I’m reasonable.

Mr George is another matter. People (Hawks, Evans, Santos, etc..) been on this guy for ages. There’s a N1K2 that has been around since forever and gone from place-to-place and has had every cubic millimeter measured. We even have an equivalent NACA section for the wing. The existing plane wasn’t tested, but an exact centimeter scale model was run through wind tunnel testing to refine the drag coefficients. The plane was exceptional in many respects; perhaps some of them were accidental, but nevertheless …

Many people thing the stats are a bit conservative, but the game engine has its foibles. Given a well maintained engine, that performs to spec, it’s not hard to see how a Sentai of experienced pilots could rape a bunch of F6Fs. And the pilots, themselves, reported that they had nothing to fear from US Hellcats. Apocrypha, yes, but it comes from somewhere.

Anyway, I like Mr George where he is. Perhaps Jacks to open is a teensy bit much. Call any vegetable … and the chances are good … that the vegetable will respond to you.

Ciao. JWE


_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 26
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/3/2013 11:46:30 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

You're ok Bill. There is much truth to what people are saying. We (US, Britain, even the Sovs) did a lot of airframe and engine testing in 1946 just to see what could be possible to do with them. Wright-Pat did do its testing with AN48 (100/115) grade. But the specs came from contemporary wartime documentation.


Post war the investigation teams were interested in learning all the tricks the enemy used so they could be incorporated into the next generation of their own aircraft.

I did read an account of US war time testing of something captured and they used better fuel than what the enemy was using and got performance curves much better than what the enemy was seeing. When that intel was passed on to pilots in the field they had exaggerated ideas about what the enemy aircraft could do, but in wartime conditions, that is probably a good thing. It's much safer to assume your enemy is more capable than he is than underestimate.

quote:


Japanese engines had their share of teething problems, but how does one model that? We did find some very bizarre things when we looked at the vast fields of planes after the war. There are comments that they all seemed to have superchargers and even carburation that was one-off to each plane. Ducting, ports, intakes, were all different. Type-13 supercharger parts were lathe turned to fit and stuck onto type-33s, etc.. Woof !!


We do have the service rating, which is an abstraction, but it was used to make the early P-38s maintenance dogs to prevent the US from getting a super fighter in 1942. Anyone who has tried to deploy P-38Es in game has found they spend a lot of time under repair and not a lot of time in the fight.

The British did a lot of hand fitting with their aircraft too. I read an account of a factory rep for a US aircraft maker who was sent to England to train British mechanics on US aircraft. The British mechanics showed up with a bunch of chisels and files. The factory rep was confused why and the British mechanics were amazed that spare parts just fit without any field work.

Bill Dunn who was an Eagle Squadron pilot before transferring to the USAAF had a comparison of all the aircraft he flew as an appendix in his book. He said that the rolls Royce Merlins ran far smoother than the Packard Merlins because the RR Merlins were hand built and the Packard engines were mass manufactured with looser tolerances. As a consequence he said the Mustang vibrated more. The Spitfire and Hurricane purred by comparison.

That hand building had consequences in the field though.

quote:


I think Japan simply could not make sufficient spare parts (particularly not of rare and getting rarer specialty strategic metals) and if they had them, they couldn’t get them to where they had to go. Poor Sushi Hamachi had to make do with whatever he could find in the parts shed and beat it with a hammer till it would fit.

Maybe that’s why certain planes did such a sterling job when in the Home Islands and barfed when they were out-deployed for more than a few weeks. This might even be the genesis of the myth that Japanese planes were tested with “new” motors and “special” superchargers. I’m sure our guys went “whoa! what a roach!” and rebuilt things to spec before they would allow anybody to take the thing off the ground.


Both sides did their share of field improvisation to keep planes flying. I think the US was probably better than anyone else at capturing field born ideas that were good and incorporating them. A lot of Pappy Gunn's ideas became factory standard or options at some point.

After the first year and a half of war, the US didn't have to rely on field improv as much, but the Japanese were more and more forced to use it.

The US culture by 1940 was the most mass manufacturing oriented in the world. There was a large body of institutional knowledge about how to do things on a mass scale and it was well utilized. Britain has a mix of mass manufacturing and boutique kind of manufacturing (like the RR engines). Japan had industrialized very quickly and were still building their economy when they got bogged down in China and the exigencies of war there bogged down everything.

The industrial revolution in Japan was less than a generation old when they went to war, in the US the men fighting the war had grandfathers who had worked in factories their whole lives. That tends to mold collective mindsets.

quote:


So, Japan had some issues. But they were the kind of issues that cannot be realistically modeled. I think it unfair to universally and forever penalize an entire weapon system for deficiencies in maintenance and logistic support. And don’t forget that skilled mechanics and factory technicians were drafted into the IJA as private soldiers (cannon fodder) without regard to their usefulness to the sinews of war and over the violent objections of the IJN. Skilled mechanics were drafted as privates; rice farmers were trained as mechanics. Go figure.



Japan was very poor at managing their manpower. The interservice rivalries tended to trump everything else. Other countries had their rivalries too, which caused problems, but usually someone pointing out there was a war on got people to back down from their games and more or less cooperate.

Japan also realized too late that the Allies emphasis on saving downed air crew at high risk to the rescuers actually helped the war effort. A lot of crews learned lessons from being shot down they both used themselves and taught others. It built up a tremendous pool of institutional knowledge that Japan lost whenever one of their experts were lost in combat.

Bill



_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 27
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/4/2013 4:25:01 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Taken on paper the Japanese planes were well designed and potentially deadly. But the game can't model certain factors that had an impact on the performance of Japanese fighters as a whole. Aside from the lack of parts and skilled maintenance, due to late war production difficulties any Japanese plane if pushed to the edge of the envelope has the potential for catastrophic structural failure of some sort. It is one of the difficult things to measure as it was hard to tell when a plane did not return because some unfortunate pilots pushed it too hard and the plane fell apart. Japanese pilots were human and in spite of the myths about them, not too different for any other human. I would expect that there would have been some hesitation on the part of pilots to push their planes fully in combat as a simple act of self preservation. This in itself would implement a sort of "human governor" on Japanese aircraft.

Aside from this there were tactical and doctrinal differences that cannot be measured. Simply put, the general lack of radios would have put Japanese pilots at a tactical disadvantage and made Allied fighters with no real qualitative edge much more deadly. And although it was more of a late war edge the ability of Allied ground direction using radar to alert and vector aircraft once again added a qualitative edge to Allied fighters at least when on the defensive. The question is how do you reflect these factors in game terms. I am speculating here but I would think that given the difficulties cited above it might probably have meant that the real average speed and performance of Japanese fighters was significantly less than what they were capable of. Of course, the Allies had to deal with some of these issues as well-especially at forward bases in the early years of the war. But overall, all things considered the Average Allied plane and pilot was going to perform at a much higher level than the average Japanese aircraft. For this reason, in game terms, rethinking the specs of the Japanese aircraft might be in order.



_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 28
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/4/2013 1:56:24 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 4955
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline
I'm going to toss an idea out there. Now bear in mind this is like a 12 year old popping up with a comment in an adult conversation at dinner.

Just from reading this. If the plane model is accurate, and the pilot experience scales in Japans favor during late war A2A, why don’t we leave the plane model alone and the Japanese pilot training model?

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 29
RE: New DBB A/C files - first impressions - 12/4/2013 3:39:11 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 25919
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

I'm going to toss an idea out there. Now bear in mind this is like a 12 year old popping up with a comment in an adult conversation at dinner.

Just from reading this. If the plane model is accurate, and the pilot experience scales in Japans favor during late war A2A, why don’t we leave the plane model alone and the Japanese pilot training model?

'...and what the Japanese pilot training model?'

Do you mean reduce pilot training for just the Japanese? If it is reduced for both, I think that will have a comparatively harsher effect on the Allies.

_____________________________


(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> New DBB A/C files - first impressions Page: [1] 2   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

0.321