Übercorsair and übercap

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Übercorsair and übercap

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 >> Übercorsair and übercap

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Übercorsair and übercap - 9/6/2007 11:17:30 PM

Martti

Posts: 237
Joined: 4/2/2005
Status: offline

Why yes, I am complaining.

I decided to make an all-or-nothing attack against the allies trying to land at Mindanao. The date is 10/43. I threw everything I had at hand against the allied carriers. From past experience, I new I needed a sizable escort force to hope to penetrate the allied übercap, so I left my carriers with only LRcap protection and threw everything at the allied cap. About 1000 aircraft flew. Not one penetrated a cap of about 250. 800 aircraft were shot down. Not to mention that my carriers suffered badly. The pilots were experienced, in the 60-85 range.

Post #: 1

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/6/2007 11:26:14 PM

marky

Posts: 5780
Joined: 3/8/2004
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline

The F4U Corsair, when u absolutley POSITIVELY have to kill every mother #$%#$% Zero around, there is no subsitution!

_____________________________

(in reply to Martti)

Post #: 2

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/6/2007 11:28:37 PM

Yakface

Posts: 846
Joined: 8/5/2006
Status: offline

Playing stock?....if so, that's your problem. There are mods out there (CHS, Nikmod, Treespider's) which reduce the effect you are seeing.

(in reply to Martti)

Post #: 3

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/6/2007 11:29:27 PM

wild_Willie2

Posts: 2934
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...
Status: offline

That's why so many people play mods now.
The air to air combat in stock is WAY to bloody.

Try Nikmod....

_____________________________

In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.

(in reply to marky)

Post #: 4

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/6/2007 11:54:37 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: marky

The F4U Corsair, when u absolutley POSITIVELY have to kill every mother #$%#$% Zero around, there is no subsitution!

Man, I laughed so hard I had to go on break

< Message edited by Lecivius -- 9/7/2007 1:26:02 AM >

(in reply to Yakface)

Post #: 5

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/7/2007 1:05:54 AM

marky

Posts: 5780
Joined: 3/8/2004
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2

That's why so many people play mods now.
The air to air combat in stock is WAY to bloody.

Try Nikmod....

i like my air and naval engagements just fine. i just sunk or damaged 18 IJN ships

_____________________________

(in reply to wild_Willie2)

Post #: 6

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/7/2007 1:35:47 AM

marky

Posts: 5780
Joined: 3/8/2004
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Martti

Why yes, I am complaining.

I decided to make an all-or-nothing attack against the allies trying to land at Mindanao. The date is 10/43. I threw everything I had at hand against the allied carriers. From past experience, I new I needed a sizable escort force to hope to penetrate the allied übercap, so I left my carriers with only LRcap protection and threw everything at the allied cap. About 1000 aircraft flew. Not one penetrated a cap of about 250. 800 aircraft were shot down. Not to mention that my carriers suffered badly. The pilots were experienced, in the 60-85 range.

u should play the allies

_____________________________

(in reply to Martti)

Post #: 7

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/7/2007 2:45:01 AM

Nomad

Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline

So Marky, boy genius, if everyone plays Allies like you say, they who is going to play Japan?

I see you are just a pest, not a troll.

_____________________________

(in reply to marky)

Post #: 8

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/7/2007 2:51:56 AM

marky

Posts: 5780
Joined: 3/8/2004
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

So Marky, boy genius, if everyone plays Allies like you say, they who is going to play Japan?

I see you are just a pest, not a troll.

lol

thank you

im not so bad once ya get ta know me

_____________________________

(in reply to Nomad)

Post #: 9

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/7/2007 7:43:03 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

Of course, in the actual Leyte Gulf landings, on the first day not a single Japanese plane made it through the CAP to attack the ships.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to marky)

Post #: 10

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/7/2007 12:05:14 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

So Marky, boy genius, if everyone plays Allies like you say, they who is going to play Japan?

I see you are just a pest, not a troll.

Why not both?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Nomad)

Post #: 11

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/7/2007 6:20:36 PM

Cavalry Corp

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline

Should not both sides lost a lot of planes

I suppose the allied units were all 80+ exp

I am investing a lot of time in PBEM - and do not like this . I am at March 43 , I can pretty much get 50/50 with the allies when my units are 70+

Read somewhere for the Japs inferior plane types they need +10exp over the allied pilot - who thinks thats true ?

M

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 12

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/7/2007 6:44:16 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

I know that fighting against corsairs just sucks. But look at it as you having to pay the bill for all of those uber long range torpedo carrying nells and bettys you got to play with in 1942. It all balances out.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)

Post #: 13

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/8/2007 1:13:02 AM

mdiehl

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

quote:

Should not both sides lost a lot of planes

Depends on the date. But in 1944 if the USN defenses aren't saturated, the answer should be "no." The Japanese losing 800 zeroes in a single engagement and the USN losing a few operationally and a couple shot down is within the realm of plausibility if one is willing to suspend disbelief long enough to pretend that at any time during WW2 the Japanese could have put 800 aircraft into one small region of the Pacific in the first place.

For example on 19 June 1944 US VF-31 (in Hellcats -- F6Fs, mind you, an inferior plane as compared with F4Us) 12 American a.c. shot down 28 Japanese zeroes in two engagements. In the first engagement 12 F6Fs vs 6 A6Ms, in the second engagement 11 F6Fs vs 50 A6Ms. No losses to the F6Fs.

On 19 June, for all Battle o' the PhilSea combats, the US lost 6 fighter aircraft and 14 strike aircraft, and shot down 395 Japanese aircraft.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 9/8/2007 1:17:24 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 Martti)

Post #: 14

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/8/2007 1:19:12 AM

mdiehl

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

Looking at your intel sheets, if the results are accurate (108 allied a.c. destroyed in A2A), if there is any distortion in the game here, it favors Japan. In the real event the Allies losses would have been around 40 aircraft, not 108, based on the general numbers tossed around in your intel.

_____________________________

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 #: 15

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/8/2007 6:01:46 AM

ChezDaJez

Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline

quote:

Looking at your intel sheets, if the results are accurate (108 allied a.c. destroyed in A2A), if there is any distortion in the game here, it favors Japan. In the real event the Allies losses would have been around 40 aircraft, not 108, based on the general numbers tossed around in your intel.

yeah... okay..NOT! That would only be true if the general level of experience of Japanese and Allied pilots and the aircraft mix were similar to those that participated in the real battle.

If the Japanese player is able to keep experienced pilots alive into 1944, they should perform much better than the poorly trained RL participants. You also need to look at the mix of aircraft shot down on that day as a good portion of those were bombers, not fighters.

One other thing, IRL, the US fleet could not keep all the attackers out no matter how good the their AAW and suffered many damaged ships as a result. In the stock game against an uber allied CAP, there are seldom if ever any leakers.

Of course, you wouldn't know anything about how the game really works, would you?

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 #: 16

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/8/2007 6:07:20 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Martti

Why yes, I am complaining.

I decided to make an all-or-nothing attack against the allies trying to land at Mindanao. The date is 10/43. I threw everything I had at hand against the allied carriers. From past experience, I new I needed a sizable escort force to hope to penetrate the allied übercap, so I left my carriers with only LRcap protection and threw everything at the allied cap. About 1000 aircraft flew. Not one penetrated a cap of about 250. 800 aircraft were shot down. Not to mention that my carriers suffered badly. The pilots were experienced, in the 60-85 range.

The solution I've come up with to avoid these types of results, is to make more attacks with smaller numbers of planes. The air combat model in the game is such that if the disadvantaged side throws more and more planes into the battle, they will just lose more and more planes. A large attack now and then is needed to keep the other honest and to break patterns. But look at PzB and Pauk's AARs, they've gotten most of their late war positive results with small "sniping" attacks.

And BTW this also works in reverse for the Allies in the early war. Attacking with 100s B-17s into 50+ Tony's can lose 50+ B-17s ... but attacking with 2-3 groups of 20-30 with lose much less. Maybe 6-12 total.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Martti)

Post #: 17

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/8/2007 11:58:26 AM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

mdiehl:

quote:

Depends on the date. But in 1944 if the USN defenses aren't saturated, the answer should be "no." The Japanese losing 800 zeroes in a single engagement and the USN losing a few operationally and a couple shot down is within the realm of plausibility if one is willing to suspend disbelief long enough to pretend that at any time during WW2 the Japanese could have put 800 aircraft into one small region of the Pacific in the first place.

Try the proposed defense against operation Olympic (over 7000 aircraft). What you say is largely true "historically" as far as the numbers sent up at one region, but that was largely dictated by their saving planes for the Home Islands defense later, which, of course, only somewhat came off in the form of the Okinawa kamikaze attacks. I don't have any numbers in front of me, but the Okinawa kamikaze attacks did approach over a thousand planes sent, not accounting for the conventional planes that accompanied them.

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 18

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/8/2007 1:54:00 PM

invernomuto

Posts: 986
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

The solution I've come up with to avoid these types of results, is to make more attacks with smaller numbers of planes. The air combat model in the game is such that if the disadvantaged side throws more and more planes into the battle, they will just lose more and more planes. A large attack now and then is needed to keep the other honest and to break patterns. But look at PzB and Pauk's AARs, they've gotten most of their late war positive results with small "sniping" attacks.

Is there any plan to officially tweak the A2A combat model to reduce losses for both side?

_____________________________

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 19

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/10/2007 11:14:51 PM

mdiehl

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

quote:

What you say is largely true "historically" as far as the numbers sent up at one region, but that was largely dictated by their saving planes for the Home Islands defense later, which, of course, only somewhat came off in the form of the Okinawa kamikaze attacks.

It was less a consequence of the Japanese "saving planes for later" and more a consequence of Japanese command and control and logistics being unable to manage that many aircraft in a narrow theater. One of the persistent probs in WitP is the sizes of strikes deployable. Only the US managed to develop both the logistics and the command and control functions to be able to deploy huge CAPs over CVs, and then only after about mid-1943, and only the USAAF and RAF managed to be able to send up huge streams of land-based strike a.c. to saturate targets *anywhere.*

quote:

I don't have any numbers in front of me, but the Okinawa kamikaze attacks did approach over a thousand planes sent, not accounting for the conventional planes that accompanied them.

Sure. But those thousand a.c. were sent over a period of roughly 1 week. Single raids comprised of huge numbers of aircraft simply didn't happen in the Axis. Even the Phil Sea "Turkey Shoot" was successive waves of a.c. The only "thousand plane raids" of the war (or anything close to 'em) were fielded by the Allies, starting with the big Cologne raid in the ETO.

@Chez:

quote:

Of course, you wouldn't know anything about how the game really works, would you?

I know alot more about how WitP works than you know about World War Two history.

quote:

yeah... okay..NOT! That would only be true if the general level of experience of Japanese and Allied pilots and the aircraft mix were similar to those that participated in the real battle.

There's one man's opinion.

quote:

If the Japanese player is able to keep experienced pilots alive into 1944, they should perform much better than the poorly trained RL participants.

I disagree. In 1943, veteran zero drivers were routinely shot down by well-trained but combat-inexperience F6F drivers and F4U drivers. That is because those qualitative intangibles only go a long ways when the a.c. pitted against each other are roughly comparable. By 1943, the Zero was outdated. It was just barely capable of holding its own against lowly F4Fs through October 1942, despite the Zero pilots generally having more experience.

quote:

One other thing, IRL, the US fleet could not keep all the attackers out no matter how good the their AAW and suffered many damaged ships as a result. In the stock game against an uber allied CAP, there are seldom if ever any leakers.

Uber CAP is a problem throughout the war in pretty much every iteration of WitP, but Japanese players don't seem to complain about being able to use Uber CAP in 1942 as far as I can tell. And yes lots of ships were lost to leakers. Not only in 1944 but indeed in 1942. The problem is that small numbers of a.c. have difficulty penetrating any cap. It's one of the details that makes the "Kido Butai Death Star" such an (ahistorically) attractive option for the Japanese, and one of the (several) reasons why the Japanese player routinely takes substantially more ground in WitP than they historically could.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 9/10/2007 11:18:42 PM >

_____________________________

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

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Martti)

Post #: 20

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/11/2007 12:24:37 AM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

It was just barely capable of holding its own against lowly F4Fs through October 1942, despite the Zero pilots generally having more experience.

Had to sneak that one in there.

To the unintiated this is what we call bait...

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 21

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/11/2007 12:45:16 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I know alot more about how WitP works than you know about World War Two history.

Here's another piece of bait, although this one is more specialized and pointing at one specific forum member...

< Message edited by Terminus -- 9/11/2007 12:46:54 AM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 22

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/11/2007 1:49:44 AM

mdiehl

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

quote:

Had to sneak that one in there.

Nothing "sneaky" about it. It was out in the open and there for all to see.

quote:

To the unintiated this is what we call bait...

To the well informed it's what we call an "observation." It's not "bait" to note that the experienced Japanese pilots of 1942 (we can all, I think, agree that the IJN pilots of much of 1942 through October were pretty experienced, and had more combat experience than their American counterparts) were just capable of holding their own (about 1:1 losses as I have compiled them) against the F4F (an aircraft that we may agree to be demonstrably inferior to the F4U in pretty much every respect), despite the fact that in the South and CenPac campaigns through August 1942 the Japanese generally had superior numbers.

Given all that, why would anyone expect the same Japanese pilots flying the same a.c. in 1943 to do substantially well against equally or better trained USN pilots, most of whom had more combat experience or in some cases advanced tactical school training (than USN pilots of of 1942) in a far superior machine?

@Terminus.

quote:

Here's another piece of bait, although this one is more specialized and pointing at one specific forum member...

It was retaliation, not "bait." You "jumping in" here is, however, bait. I'll bite. Your very selective reading of material and tendency to play "third man in" without substantively contributing to the conversation is unsurprising.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 9/11/2007 1:52:29 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 Martti)

Post #: 23

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/11/2007 1:53:40 AM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

[

quote:

To the unintiated this is what we call bait...

To the well informed it's what we call an "observation." It's not "bait" to note that the experienced Japanese pilots of 1942 (we can all, I think, agree that the IJN pilots of much of 1942 through October were pretty experienced, and had more combat experience than their American counterparts) were just capable of holding their own (about 1:1 losses as I have compiled them) against the F4F (an aircraft that we may agree to be demonstrably inferior to the F4U in pretty much every respect), despite the fact that in the South and CenPac campaigns through August 1942 the Japanese generally had superior numbers.

Given all that, why would anyone expect the same Japanese pilots flying the same a.c. in 1943 to do substantially well against equally or better trained USN pilots, most of whom had more combat experience or in some cases advanced tactical school training (than USN pilots of of 1942) in a far superior machine?

Hook. Line... and Sinker.

Are these compilations on your 1941-42 PTO Aircraft Project Thread?

< Message edited by TheElf -- 9/11/2007 1:56:14 AM >

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 24

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/11/2007 2:03:41 AM

mdiehl

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

No. They're past threads here and in the GGPW forum. One was a breakdown of the losses of the Guadalcanal campaign. The other was a discussion of Lundstrom's First Team twin volumes.

The WW2 a.c. thread in the CoW forum of the Steakhouse is barely underway. I don't expect the results from the SoPac and CenPac to change substantially, although more intangibles may be noted. In particular engagement of one of the US wings (VF2) at low power setting at Coral Sea owing to the extreme range of the combat. Absent that, I suspect, the USN's victory ratio vs A6Ms at Coral Sea would have been something like 2:1.

The rest of the WW2 ac project attends to USAAF losses in the China,Burma,Indonesia, Australia campaign and getting *good* information on that is a challenge. There are the Shores et al "Bloody Shambles" pair. Lots of detail but very weak on supporting data (no footnotes, no end notes, and no citations in re sources for losses given on specific dates). I have found a couple instances where USAAF official loss records simply bear no resemblance to Shores et al. So Bloody Sham v1 and v2 are questionable sources as to losses, at least for the US units. In turn, that means that the WW2 A.C. project is going to be a long, hard slog. So don't expect the summary stats any time soon.

quote:

Hook. Line... and Sinker.

Eh? Not sure what you mean by that? Do you mean You were baiting ME?

Are you saying that the IJN pilots of 1942 weren't more combat experienced than their USN counterparts?
Are you claiming that the IJN pilots achived some great success against USN pilots in 1942 that hasn't been documented by Richard Frank or John Lundstrom?
Or are you saying that the F4U wasn't a substantially better fighter than the F4F?

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 9/11/2007 2:14:49 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 Martti)

Post #: 25

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/11/2007 2:33:41 AM

Williamb

Posts: 594
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Dayton Ohio
Status: offline

Goood Greif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Marianas_Turkey_Shoot#Aftermath

That night, Admiral Ozawa received orders from Toyoda to withdraw from the Philippine Sea. U.S. forces gave chase, but the battle was over.

The four Japanese attacks involved 373 carrier aircraft, of which 130 returned to the carriers, and several more were lost onboard the two carriers sunk on the first day by submarine attacks. After the second day the losses totaled three carriers and over 400 carrier aircraft lost and around 200 land based planes. Losses on the U.S. side on the first day were only 23, and on the second 100, most of them resulting from the night landings.

The losses to the Japanese were irreplaceable. At the Japanese naval air arm, only 35 out of Admiral Ozawa's 473 planes were left in a condition fit to fly. In the Battle of Leyte Gulf a few months later, their carriers were used solely as a decoy because of the lack of aircraft and aircrews to fly them.

_____________________________

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 26

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/11/2007 2:39:04 AM

Williamb

Posts: 594
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Dayton Ohio
Status: offline

http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=10

The battle started shortly after 1000 on 19 Jun with the first wave of 60 Japanese planes attacking the American fleet. 42 of them were shotdown, scoring only one bomb hit on USS South Dakota. The second wave consisted of 128 planes, and 97 of them were lost without even making any significant damage to the American ships, although Warrant Officer Sakio Komatsu's name must be mentioned for his bravery: immediately after taking off from the Taiho, he saw a torpedo swimming straight for his home carrier. He dropped his plane and plunged into the ocean, intercepting the torpedo with his fighter. He sacrificed himself, and his carrier would be saved, for now. The third attack's 47 planes had a better casualty rate, losing only 7, but they did not make it through the American escort ships, let alone seeing the American carriers. By the time the fourth attack wave of 82 planes were sent, it was already almost 1400 in the afternoon, and 54 of them were shot down.

During the day of 19 June 1944, between Ozawa's attacks on the American fleet and the attacks on Guam and Rota, 429 Japanese planes were shot down. The Americans lost 29. This battle was commonly referred to among the US Navy men as the "Great Marianas Turkey Shoot". Many historians agree that this event marked the end of Japanese naval air power. Coming events would force Japan to rely on the guns of its battleships and cruisers, driving the Japanese to believe even more deeply in seeking Mahan's decisive battle with the US fleets.

_____________________________

(in reply to Williamb)

Post #: 27

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/11/2007 3:05:14 AM

timtom

Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

In particular engagement of one of the US wings (VF2) at low power setting at Coral Sea owing to the extreme range of the combat. Absent that, I suspect, the USN's victory ratio vs A6Ms at Coral Sea would have been something like 2:1.

Would the same be true of IJN pilots coming down from Rabaul?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

There are the Shores et al "Bloody Shambles" pair. Lots of detail but very weak on supporting data (no footnotes, no end notes, and no citations in re sources for losses given on specific dates).

I have found a couple instances where USAAF official loss records simply bear no resemblance to Shores et al. So Bloody Sham v1 and v2 are questionable sources as to losses, at least for the US units. In turn, that means that the WW2 A.C. project is going to be a long, hard slog.

Agree that Bloody Shambles falls short on the reference side of things, whether his fault or the publisher - indeed this is true of a good deal of avaition literature. But could you outline these instances you've come across?

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 28

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/11/2007 3:09:28 AM

Doggie

Posts: 3244
Joined: 9/19/2001
From: Under the porch
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

It was just barely capable of holding its own against lowly F4Fs through October 1942, despite the Zero pilots generally having more experience.

Had to sneak that one in there.

To the unintiated this is what we call bait...

Since when is documented historical fact "bait'?

American pilots were able to hold their own against the supposedly superior Japanese even when equipped with the allegedly "inferior" P-39s, P-40s, and F-4Fs. All three of these "obsolete" aircraft remained in production until the end of the war. And they continued to shoot down zeros at a favorable exchange rate right up until VJ day.

The F-6F and F-4U could literally fly rings around the A6M. It wasn't even a contest; the kill ratios speak for themselves. It's not surprising to see samurai shot from the skies in ridiculous numbers when confronted by experienced American pilots equipped with the most successful fighter designs in aviation history. It happened all the time.

If you have some evidence Allied fighters in the pacific were ever slaughtered like sheep at the hands of the almighty zero, there's a bunch of historians who would like to examine your research material.

_____________________________

Visit the New, Improved Mad Dog's Drive Thru

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 29

RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/11/2007 4:47:40 AM

ctangus

Posts: 2153
Joined: 10/13/2005
From: Boston, Mass.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

By 1943, the Zero was outdated. It was just barely capable of holding its own against lowly F4Fs through October 1942, despite the Zero pilots generally having more experience.

I agree. The game models it pretty well, don't you think? My F4Fs, particularly the F4F-4, do extremely well against the A6M2, even when they're flown by experienced Daitai. It's certainly my favorite early-war allied fighter, with the P-40E a close second. Actually maybe the Seafire's my favorite - it eats Zeros for breakfast - but you don't get a lot of Seafires so certainly the F4F is more useful over the long-term.

What's been your experience with these fighters in your games?

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Übercorsair and übercap