Slitherine

quote:

Odd statement given how much you highlight alleged kill ratio results in single engagements. More inconsistancy.

quote:

Except that your not interested in the game.

quote:

Problem here is that the majority of F4F's lost at Coral Sea were lost over their own carriers, defending them at High Power.

quote:

Actually the 5 P40's were initially ambushed by 1 Zero which shot down 4 of them and forced the 5th to dive out of combat.

quote:

Observers will also not have forgotten that in the last thread you graced, you claimed ALL of the losses at Darwin were due to them ALL being in a landing pattern, itself another "variable" excuse you use often.

quote:

Well....using your methodology I guess we have to erase two more Zeros shot down over Coral Sea by F4F's as valid, given that the first was abushed at low power, at low altitude, bounced from behind having never seen his attacker, or the other Zero at low altitude shot down while attacking a torpedo bomber. Indeed....its all very complicated.

quote:

Indeed I am, because both Lundstrom and Frank state it....in writing, in their respective books.

quote:

The Japanese accepted battle under very disadvantagous conditions and it hurt them and helped cost them the campaign.

quote:

Incorrect. I never said they had no issues. You are free to attempt to prove otherwise. They had issues but they were far less in terms of combat fatigue vs. what the Japanese faced.

quote:

I said intangibles only appear to matter for you when they can be used to either beef up your world view or discredit a situation that doesn't. I stand by it.

quote:

Attempting to cover up the fact that your sourceless again i see. Yes indeed.....i am CHERRY PICKING out of sources i've spent the money on and taken the time and effort to research. whatever you say Diehl

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

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

That the USN should not engage enemy CVs prior to August 1942. Beyond that I have not played the game. I regard the air combat model as rather hopelessly snagged.

quote:

Perhaps you should try the game then.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Again, you are incorrect or you are simply misrepresenting what I've said. I've said consistently that kill ratios over the couise of campaigns are what matters. I never said, anywhere, and no reasonable person could claim that I have ever said, anywhere, that the Allies won every single air engagement against the Japanese.

quote:


I'm interested in seeing the game produce realistic results. Or at least *a game* that should produce realistic results. Which is after all where this thread started.

quote:


But not the ones from VF2 and those account for a good proportion of the F4Fs lost at Coral Sea.

quote:

Actually the 5 P40's were initially ambushed by 1 Zero which shot down 4 of them and forced the 5th to dive out of combat.

quote:


Actually, that is incorrect.

quote:

Observers will also not have forgotten that in the last thread you graced, you claimed ALL of the losses at Darwin were due to them ALL being in a landing pattern, itself another "variable" excuse you use often.

Pretty much every word of your sentence is incorrect.

quote:

Orininal: mdiehl

Again, EARLY WAR results do not indicate that the Japanese could predictably deliver a tactical drubbing except in cases where they caught enemy fighters at a severe positional disadvantage -- landing, taking off, etc.

quote:



As I have not detailed my METHOD, you are in no position to tell me what I would or should do. Yer gonna have to wait, or articulate a method of your own and defend it, rather than imagine a method that I might use, and then attack that imaginary method.

quote:



Yes they do. They also mention superior USN deflection shooting, coral grit adversely affecting F4F engine performance, the lack of spare parts for allied a.c. at Henderson for the first two months of the campaign, and pilot fatigue (from being shot at and bombarded).

quote:


If ANYONE has been selective in accounting for intangibles, that person is YOU.

quote:


I disagree that the conditions were any more disadvantageous to the Japanese than to the US pilots at Henderson.

quote:


What makes you think they were less serious "issues?" Can you quantify the degree of seriousness, or explain how pilot fatigue from flying 800 air miles prior to combat is worse than pilot fatigue from lack of sleep on account of the nightly bombardment, daily snipers, and infantry infiltrators?

quote:


You stand by a perception that is not supported by facts.

quote:


You are cherry picking. Lundstrom says far more about intangibles than you care to mention, and the only ones that you mention are the ones that adversely affected the Japanese.

quote:


Whatever I say is, at least in this case, dead accurate, and you know it, although you lack the integrity to admit it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Perhaps you should try the game then.

Perhaps I should.

Are your results PBEM or versus AI?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Yes, clearly. And now you have fallen into my trap! Don't you feel silly?

No I don't. All I wanted was for you to admit that you are a troll. Now that you have, you can be ignored and no reasonable person will feel compelled to take you seriously.

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

quote:

As always there are no absolutes as you yourself have attempted to state numerous times whenever the source was Axis.

quote:

Except during those times in the past when you tried to insert US official claims as accurate.

quote:

I know I know, i'm full of ****.

quote:

Your a tresure trove of honesty

quote:

For the AVG side the overclaims were pretty much even from what i've read.

quote:

Interestingly enough, during the SRA fighting a number of Japanese claims proved to be very accurate.

quote:

Its only problamatic to you because you don't like the result.

quote:

No, I believe what i said was that you googled a website, your usual method of "research" and that I prefer acredited, peer reviewed book source over a website that isn't.

quote:

Like during the first time you tried to justify the AVG's 20:1 claimed kill ratio and I brought out Shores for the first time.

quote:

If your going to disprove Shores then you need to use his and Brian Cull's and Yasuho Izawa's same methodology and go to the direct sources to compile, compare, research and interview participants.

quote:

Should take you quite a few years like it did them.

quote:

Do you have a publisher yet?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Not quite. I've said that Axis pilot diaries are of no value for knowing how many Allied a.c. they shot down. They are perfectly useful for stating how many planes the Axis pilot believes he shot down, but the belief cannot be presumed to have any bearing on reality. Likewise, one cannot treat Allied pilots' diaries as an accurate reference for the number of Axis a.c. shot down -- again because belief -- even when reified in the form of "confirmed kills after review of AAR" isn't worth much.

quote:


I have never, anywhere suggested that US official claims provided an accurate count of Axis a.c. shot down.

quote:


Indeed I am. Not always correct, but always honest.

quote:


nterestingly enough, during the SRA fighting a number of Japanese claims proved to be very accurate.

Really? Which ones? What is your source for that?

quote:


No. It's problematic because you need to make an accurate count.

quote:


Hyperwar isn't a website that one has to google, if one is familiar with sources of WW2 info. And since the hyperwar link is merely a reiteration of the USAAF's official history, in HTML form, that is the same as an "accredited, peer reviewed source."

quote:


Actually, the AVG's claimed kill ratio is something like 50:1. 20:1 is my "best guess" conservative estimate from before I owned Shores. I still think that 20:1 is in the ballpark. But there is much to be done. It'd be easier to believe Shores et al. if they'd actually cited their sources.

quote:

If your going to disprove Shores then you need to use his and Brian Cull's and Yasuho Izawa's same methodology and go to the direct sources to compile, compare, research and interview participants.

quote:


I'm not out to "disprove Shores." I am out to find an accurate count of American a.c. lost in 1942. I don't really need to talk to anyone to whome Shores et al. spoke. All I need are some good, credible American sources about the numbers of American aircraft lost. That pretty much means I don't need to look in any Japanese history, speak to any Japanese WW2 pilot, read any Japanese WW2 pilot's accounts of how many American a.c. he's certain that he shot down, and so forth.

quote:


I figure about 3-5 years just to get an accurate tally of the US and Australian losses. Less if it turns out that Shores et al. can be presumed to be very accurate in re RAF/RAAF losses, because I might be able to use their volume for the UK C'wealth losses rather than having to go all the way back to original sources.

quote:


When that bridge is in sight, I'll worry about whether it can be crossed.

quote:

As to the troll comment, I find it ironic as was avoiding that term myself out of politeness since I was initially ribbing you, though not entirely good natured I'll admit. But since you whipped it out I know how your mother raised you...

quote:

I believe you when you say you've read the sources you mention, though your ability to cite them (quotes with page numbers title of the book, author etc.) and use their conclusions to prove your arguement vis a vis the kill ratios etc. for whatever flavor of the day arguement you might have.

quote:

I have no real world Air to Air victories, but that isn't likely to be a limit to our discussion unless you have some.

quote:

If you have any questions about what any of this means feel free to ask and I can elaborate, but I may limit responses to PM as I consider this whole post a security risk...harsh times I'm afraid.

quote:

So I am ready to begin when you are. What would you like to talk about first?

quote:

Oh yeah, I have a degree in Poli sci (yeah I know and a minor in military history, I've read on WWII, specifically the Air Wars, all my life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Doggie
... 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 ...

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

In that way, I could begin to develop a decent list, in some sort of rank-ordered way that might imply relative weighting, of the "intangible things that affect combat." I have a list now. But Nikademus, for example, seems to assert that fatigue caused by flying four hours to your target is more fatiguing than fatigue caused by enemy cruiser bombardments, washing machine charley, snipers, infiltrators, and the sounds of pitched battles fought a few hundreds of meters away. Is the fatigue caused by flying four hours worse than persistent bad chow, diahhrea, and chronically frayed nerves?

quote:

I remember you saying that Sakai was incorrect about even seeing or fighting P-39's over New Guneau.

quote:

sure you havn't.

quote:

Except when you have seletive amnesia of course.

quote:

I said a number of them.

quote:

Shores, Cull and Izawa spent years compiling the information.

quote:

I'm willing to give them the benefit of a doubt and have not read any damning accounts of their research methods.

quote:

I feel they are fairly accurate just as I feel Lundstrom's are.

quote:

Who did you contact to verify that the information on the website was accurately transposed.

quote:

And yes, if your going to have any ghost of a chance at objectivity, your going to have to look at all the records of both sides directly and compare.

quote:

For inconsistancies you'll need to contact relevent parties and arrange interviews and talk to people who are sources of info or eyewitnesses to coroborate or reveal inaccuracies.

quote:

BTW it was an eight hour trip too and from Lunga from Rabaul.

quote:

No I don't. All I wanted was for you to admit that you are a troll. Now that you have, you can be ignored and no reasonable person will feel compelled to take you seriously.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I remember saying that Sakai mentioned his chagrine at the P-39s unwillingness to try to climb to engage escorting Zeroes, and I remember noting the irony that Sakai was not willing to descened to the altitude of the P-39s to engage them. At the time, someone was mentioning the P-39s unwillingness to climb to 20K feet in what amounted to an assertion of overwhelming fear of Zeroes, and I simply noted that by that sort of standard it was equally proof of the Zeroes overwhelming fear of P39s that they refused to descend to engage. At the least, it would have required far less effort for the Zero zeroes to descend to 14K feet than for the P-39s to climb to 20K. Sakai might run out of fuel waiting for the Iron Dogs to make it that high.

quote:

sure you havn't.

That's right. I haven't.

quote:

Except when you have seletive amnesia of course.

Never happened.

quote:


Which ones? Saying that they were accurate on a number of occasions is meaningless. Which occasions? What are your sources.

quote:


And yet, somehow, there is not one single bibliographic footnote or reference regarding any individual engagement. That's A Problem.

quote:


It's rather difficult to know precisely what methods they used given that there are no bibliographic footnotes, end notes, or in-text citations -- the common ordinary sort of annotations that pretty much all OTHER "authoritative" histories of WW2 are required to provide.

quote:


Lundstrom's and Frank's works on the subject are heavily annotated and referenced. The contrast with Shores et al. is stark. Why do you "feel" Shores et al. must be as credible as, for example, Lundstrom? On what is that "feeling" based?

quote:


Are you suggesting that the guys at Hyperwar have committed fraud?

quote:


If not, why would I think they'd be more likely to inaccurately transpose something (especially since all they needed to do was scan it) than Shores et. al would be to inaccurately read, record, or represent a data point from WW2?

quote:


There is no logical reason on earth to imagine that a Japanese source about US aircraft losses would be a better source than a USAAF or USN or USMC source. Likewise, there is no reason to treat a USN, USMC, or USAAF source on IJN/IJA a.c. losses as more or even equally authoritative than credible Japanese sources. Objectivity does not require that one treat low quality sources as the equal in merit of high quality sources.

quote:


If your methods require that you treat, say, Samurai, as an equally valid data point as, for example, a unit history from one of the 5th AF squadrons, then go ahead and do it

quote:


My methods don't require same.

quote:


Nope. For US losses, I can with good precedent assume that any USAAF official history or unit record is a superior source of info on US a.c. losses than any Japanese source, and a superior source to any secondary source like Shores et al.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Sure. But only four hours of that were flown prior to the combat.

quote:


If there were some huge problem with undamaged aicraft falling out of the sky on the return flight, then 1) you'd think the Japanese would have mentioned it.

quote:


2) you'd think that other a.c. that endured long missions (here I'm thinking of P-51, P-38, and P-47 drivers on missions over Germany) would have noticed it too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Well, this is certainly the most entertaining thread we've had since Ben Franklin.

-F-

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Don't forget BISMARK!

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

I generally don't spout on about myself in these forums save the cool pic in my banner, which could be interpreted as simple love of cool pics, but later....

1. I'd first like to establish an understanding. I'd like to know your qualifications in the subject matter, namely Air Combat(general principles), and your knowledge of energy management, E-M diagrams and how they help us determine relative performance, flight training and doctrine specific to the period. Oh and if you have any flight time now would be a good time to mention it. Civil or military. I'll be forthcoming in a moment with my own...

These topics will be central to our discussion. As I mentioned before, I believe you when you say you've read the sources you mention, though your ability to cite them (quotes with page numbers title of the book, author etc.) and use their conclusions to prove your arguement vis a vis the kill ratios etc. for whatever flavor of the day arguement you might have.

2. I'd like to start with a narrow scope. Primarily so you and I can get our footing and really dig into an issue. One where we have a defined position. It would help if we found something we disagree on. Since I agree with some of the things you say, let's take our time and just dialogue, I'm sure given your propensity for verbal disagreement it won't take long, and we'll be off.

As to what I bring to this debate, I am a 10 year Navy vet, LCDR in rank. I was designated a Naval Aviator (1310) in July 2000, and I finished the RAG for the FA-18C in Summer of 2001. My 1st action was ironically 6 years ago today when my unit flew CAP over Washington DC from the USS George Washington. I then deployed to Afghanistan and shortly after to Iraq. Sidenote: When I came home from my 1st cruise I did the 1 year anniversary Fly over for 9/11 at Yankees stadium. Our division received a standing ovation when we entered the stadium afterward, and we drank for free...needless to say. Have you seen Flags of our Fathers? It was kinda like that.

After my fleet tour I qualified in the FA-18E/F Superhornet and did operational test for said A/C for three years, and was an alternate for TOPGUN, but was passed over as I was considered too senior to return to my unit and give them their money's worth. I have considered rushing the Blues, but the lifestyle is way hectic for shore duty, and family life would be severly impacted. I do have several friends, who are, were, and will be Blues. Kevin Davis was a friend.

Currently I work in Strat/policy for 6th fleet in Naples, Italy where I spend my time writing letters for Admirals and generally flying a desk while I await my next Sea Tour.

I have approx 1500 hours Day/night, am approaching 300 traps (150 night) and am CQ'd in both models of the Hornet. I am a qualified division lead, and have been involved in leading men from the boat in combat and in Large Force Exercises with the Navy and Air Force. I am thoroughly familiar with the M61 Vulcan cannon, the Amraam, the Sparrow, the Sidewinder (including the AIM-9X), the JHMCS, and all air to ground ordnance and their effects, including JDAM And JSOW.

My air combat experience is limited to other FA-18s, F-15, F-16, F-22, AV-8B. I've been to countless merges and consider myself a fair judge of another aircraft's energy state, even under G when things are a bit strained. I have no real world Air to Air victories, but that isn't likely to be a limit to our discussion unless you have some. I consider myself pretty good at what I do and have developed a "comfort" in the air. I've been told I am a little aggressive.

If you have any questions about what any of this means feel free to ask and I can elaborate, but I may limit responses to PM as I consider this whole post a security risk...harsh times I'm afraid. And no I have never been this forthcoming about my identity on the internet, and am frankly a bit uneasy, though the likelihood of more that 100 people actually reading this before it gets locked eases my concern. Aside from a select few with whom I've had personal dealings I'd wager few in this community know any of the above about me unless they have put 2 and 2 together over the years.

So I am ready to begin when you are. What would you like to talk about first?

Oh yeah, I have a degree in Poli sci (yeah I know and a minor in military history, I've read on WWII, specifically the Air Wars, all my life.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

My mother raised me to turn the other cheek. My father raised me to put a fist in the eye of any person who might mention my mother as a way of attempting to insult me. As a matter of philsophy, I look upon retaliation as such a necessary function that it almost comprises of itself a moral good.

quote:



Thanks, I suppose.

quote:

I don't and don't see that you need to. That said, regardless of your experience in the modern navy, and regardless of the fact that I've never been in a cockpit of anything while it was flying, I regard myself as fully qualified to analyse any data that anyone can offer me as long as the data are expressed numerically.

quote:

We can take it straight to PM if you like. That way we can dispense with all the baggage of having people with whom we're not conversing intruding on the conversation.

quote:

Based on your experiences as a fighter pilot in the modern navy, I'd be interested in knowing what sorts of things caused you fatigue or other forms of stress that degraded your ability to fly an aircraft -- provided of course that this sort of conversation doesn't strike you as revealing anything confidential -- I have no need to know at all and so don't need to know if you know what I mean.

In that way, I could begin to develop a decent list, in some sort of rank-ordered way that might imply relative weighting, of the "intangible things that affect combat." I have a list now. But Nikademus, for example, seems to assert that fatigue caused by flying four hours to your target is more fatiguing than fatigue caused by enemy cruiser bombardments, washing machine charley, snipers, infiltrators, and the sounds of pitched battles fought a few hundreds of meters away. Is the fatigue caused by flying four hours worse than persistent bad chow, diahhrea, and chronically frayed nerves?

quote:

Similar. BA (double major in math and another subject, minor in ancient and medieval philosophy), MA and PhD in things having nothing whatsoever to do with warfare or history.

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

But Nikademus, for example, seems to assert that fatigue caused by flying four hours to your target is more fatiguing than fatigue caused by enemy cruiser bombardments, washing machine charley, snipers, infiltrators, and the sounds of pitched battles fought a few hundreds of meters away. Is the fatigue caused by flying four hours worse than persistent bad chow, diahhrea, and chronically frayed nerves?

Where's the Any key?

quote:

I'm still waiting for you data.

quote:

Only because you say it is.

quote:

Tell you what. Why don't you contact Mr. Shores and ask him since your so concerned.

quote:

Because as i've stated repeatedly, they are respected, acredited and peer reviewed researchers of standing.

quote:

Lets see your credentials?

quote:

Because Shores does contain references.....in Vol III at the end of his study (which was in three parts remember) Because the size of the bibliography page does not of itself denote the degree of credibility.

quote:

I I believe what i said was that you googled a website, your usual method of "research" and that I prefer acredited, peer reviewed book source over a website that isn't.

quote:

Depends. As you yourself have mentioned in the past, some records can be distorted or simply be in error.

quote:

Thats why true researchers have to be willing to look at all sources with objectivity and not straight-jacketed by a simple assumption. You'll also need to tap those sources directly. Not google them.

quote:

In this case, your claim that Sakai and company were afraid to engage P-39's at lower altitude was not verified.

quote:

and four hours back after the same stresses and fatigue of being in combat you credit to the US pilots....only they got to land, the Japanese, some wounded, many exhausted, had to fly fours back over terrain bereft of landmarks and water....and then do it again.....and again....and again and again.

quote:

Frank does mention it.

quote:

You mean the "mighty" Eighth Airforce P-51,s and 38's and 47s? That same airforce that had far far greater resources to conduct the same mission allowing them to mass the necessary numbers to overwhelm the Luftwaffe and rotate their crews? A very weak comparison.

quote:

The five-star, beach-fronted luxury accommodation at Rabaul was of course famous for it's exquisite cuisine and splendid sanitatary facilities. Indeed the perfect recreational spot for any pilot in need of a break from anything up to five years of combat flying.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

The five-star, beach-fronted luxury accommodation at Rabaul was of course famous for it's exquisite cuisine and splendid sanitatary facilities. Indeed the perfect recreational spot for any pilot in need of a break from anything up to five years of combat flying.

At the least, it was famously larger, less crowded, and better provisioned than Henderson Field and Fighter 1 through October 1942. And if the Gin n Tonics were not up to snuff () then at least it had the merits of not being bombarded by American cruisers and BBs, taking fire from American howitzers, or infiltrated by American snipers or snoopers.

The point being that a Japanese pilot landing at Rabaul prior to Autumn 1942 was landing in a relatively quiet, safe, and secure area. An American pilot landing at Henderson in Autumn 1942 was flying out of aerial combat only to land literally on the front lines of a combat zone.

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

quote:

Great then you'd have to accept my mentioning "Mom" as a Moral good since it was in retaliation to your name calling.

quote:

Wow. You really don't see how I might have you at a bit of a disadvantage?

quote:

Not that I lack faith in you, but I don't see how this will lead to a rousing debate.

quote:

What would scare me about long flights in the case you are referring to is that after the first hour, knowing you were a long way form enemy territory you'd begin to relax. &c

quote:

hmmm...math geek huh? What's the other subject?

quote:

Edit: I should mention that I have flown and fought hung over. Very similar to the effects you are referring to. It was my first DACT with an F-15C. My Marine WSO and I dominated.