Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: Übercorsair and übercap Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 6:58:47 AM   
bradfordkay

 

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

"And I believe these remarks from Thach were made in early 1942, when the A6M was still a relatively unknown enity. It would be interesting to read his opinion later on."

You are mainly right: these remarks were made after the morning attacks against the KB on June 4, 1942. For some reason mdiehl seems to think that the remarks were made in Sept or Oct, though both recent posts using that quote attributed it to Midway. It was written in exasperation, but his feelings about the F4F continued. In late August (after the initial rounds at Guadalcanal) he wrote:
"Our tactics were always purely defensive. They were successful in keeping ourselves from being shot down, but we had little opportunity to use offensive action, which we should be able to use in a fighter."

His development of the beam defense maneuver was originally an act of desperation, which proved to be the most fortuitous act of desperation of the Pacific theatre (IMO).

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 181
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 7:19:32 AM   
Doggie


Posts: 3244
Joined: 9/19/2001
From: Under the porch
Status: offline
I'm sorry, Chez.   Did I compare you to a fourteen year old?  I should have said four year old.  that was a classic tantrum there.

_____________________________


(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 182
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 7:38:25 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
Guys, the WITP forumn rule is "Issues, not personalities." May we please refrain from the trading of insults?

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Doggie)
Post #: 183
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 8:06:04 AM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Mr. Diehl still seems to be under the impression that it's unwise to engage the A6M2 in the game.


I think it is unwise to engage Kido Butai with a like number of American CVs in the early war.



How the hell would YOU know?? You talking out of your hat, because YOU HAVE NEVER PLAYED THE GAME!

Speaking as someone that has played the game countless times I can say unequivically that the allies CAN defeat the KB with as little as 3 carriers. Consistanly. I have done it multiple times.

Dont talk about what you can and can not do in the game until you play the thing, ok? Until that happens, you are just another asshat. Thank you.

Edit: I actually took it down once with 2 carriers truth be told. Didnt mean to, but it happened.

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 9/13/2007 8:12:57 AM >

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 184
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 8:17:37 AM   
ChezDaJez


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Doggie

I'm sorry, Chez.   Did I compare you to a fourteen year old?  I should have said four year old.  that was a classic tantrum there.


Cool! I'm getting younger... does that mean I get to live longer?

I see you are avoiding the comments I made in my reply to your posting... typical.

Next time mdiehl needs help, tell him to send a real dog, not a chihuahah.

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 Doggie)
Post #: 185
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 8:59:52 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

You are mainly right: these remarks were made after the morning attacks against the KB on June 4, 1942. For some reason mdiehl seems to think that the remarks were made in Sept or Oct, though both recent posts using that quote attributed it to Midway. It was written in exasperation, but his feelings about the F4F continued. In late August (after the initial rounds at Guadalcanal) he wrote:
"Our tactics were always purely defensive. They were successful in keeping ourselves from being shot down, but we had little opportunity to use offensive action, which we should be able to use in a fighter."



Your right. Thach wrote it up in his report on the evening of June 4. He concluded his report stating that even the removal of armor and self sealers would not increase the preformance of the F4F sufficiently to come anywhere near the preformance of the Zero fighter and that the deficiencies he noted prevented the US VF's from properly carrying out an assigned mission and adversely affected pilot morale. He would go on to demand that a fighter plane at least superior in climb and speed, if not maneuverability be developed if the carriers so defended were expected to remain afloat

quote:


His development of the beam defense maneuver was originally an act of desperation, which proved to be the most fortuitous act of desperation of the Pacific theatre (IMO).


I'd say his implementation of it that day in June was an act of desperation given his tactical situation combined with the fact that his teammates were not familiarized with it, but his development of the Weave actually began during the summer of 41 after hearing rumor (from Chenault) that the Japanese might possess fighters that were faster, swifter climbers and more maneuverable than current navy stock. He would later work hard in late 42 and into 43 to get the "Thach Weave" as it was dubbed by Flatley made official. It was an excellent defensive maneuver. It should be noted though that it was only used 1 other time by fighters in 42 and it claimed no enemy fighters. It kept the F4F's safe though it prevented them from operating in an offensive posture as well.

(source - Appendix 4 Lundstrom First Team vol 1)




_____________________________


(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 186
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 9:05:51 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

My take on the compliant is that the uberCAP prevents anything from getting through... ever. I have no problem with Japanese aircraft being shot down in droves during this period but some nearly always got through. That doesn't happen in the game but it did in real life. If nothing had got through IRL, there would have been zero kamikaze hits on carriers and the Franklin would never have suffered as it did. And don't forget the bombing of the Princeton.

Now this comment only applies to the stock game, not to any of the various mods. I'm playing CHS mod 159 experiemental and so far it feels far more realistic. Some bombers always get through in this mod.

Chez


My own experiences also point to "UberCAP" being a universal problem from the get go. The IJN player benefits more simply because he has more carrier decks to utilize. USN concentration of carriers can also UberCAP and further, can near totally avoid any RL coord issues by using all 1 CV TF's and stack them together in the same hex. That way you get the same Uber coverage of a 4-5 CV TF (Like Kido Butai) but not the same risk of concentration.

Myself....i prefer Nikmod. (don't ask me why....I just do.... ) It seems to succeed in reducing the UberCap effect while also attempting to acheive a truer representation of the strengths and weaknesses of the US and Japanese 1st generation planes. What that means is that the Zero (with a good pilot) will tend to get more "hits" on an F4F (with a good pilot) but less "kills" per hit, while the F4F, while hitting less often will get more "kills" per hit. Same goes for the bombers. SBD's and TBF's are very tough for Zeros to down in large numbers.....while Vals and Kates are more vulnerable to Wildcats, esp if they are the 6 gun version to which Nikmod is tuned for.

Oh, and the Duck doesn't get it as well.....another benefit of playing Nikmod.


_____________________________


(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 187
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 9:24:42 AM   
jwilkerson


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

My take on the compliant is that the uberCAP prevents anything from getting through... ever. I have no problem with Japanese aircraft being shot down in droves during this period but some nearly always got through. That doesn't happen in the game but it did in real life. If nothing had got through IRL, there would have been zero kamikaze hits on carriers and the Franklin would never have suffered as it did. And don't forget the bombing of the Princeton.

Now this comment only applies to the stock game, not to any of the various mods. I'm playing CHS mod 159 experiemental and so far it feels far more realistic. Some bombers always get through in this mod.

Chez


My own experiences also point to "UberCAP" being a universal problem from the get go. The IJN player benefits more simply because he has more carrier decks to utilize. USN concentration of carriers can also UberCAP and further, can near totally avoid any RL coord issues by using all 1 CV TF's and stack them together in the same hex. That way you get the same Uber coverage of a 4-5 CV TF (Like Kido Butai) but not the same risk of concentration.

Myself....i prefer Nikmod. (don't ask me why....I just do.... ) It seems to succeed in reducing the UberCap effect while also attempting to acheive a truer representation of the strengths and weaknesses of the US and Japanese 1st generation planes. What that means is that the Zero (with a good pilot) will tend to get more "hits" on an F4F (with a good pilot) but less "kills" per hit, while the F4F, while hitting less often will get more "kills" per hit. Same goes for the bombers. SBD's and TBF's are very tough for Zeros to down in large numbers.....while Vals and Kates are more vulnerable to Wildcats, esp if they are the 6 gun version to which Nikmod is tuned for.

Oh, and the Duck doesn't get it as well.....another benefit of playing Nikmod.



My experience with the game indicates that there is definitely a "knee" in the airToAir combat model - to the extent that the more defensive fighters and the more attacking aircraft which are combined into one fighter the higher the losses become and I mean more than linearly more. Somewhere around 70+ for both side is about where I'd place the "knee". Above this level the losses go "off the chart" (the reality chart anyway). And it works both ways - it is not an Allied advantage or Japanese advantage, except the Allies get to enjoy it longer as they have the better and more numerous aircraft for longer. But the "workaround" is to avoid such battles. In my game with Moses we have been fighting a hecque of a slugfest in Burma for about 8 months. Overall losses have been about dead even. He has been attacking me (I'm playing Japanese) with 1000-2000 aircraft during most of this time. I avoid slaughter by spreading out the defense and avoiding giving him a juicey target. And he has managed to avoid sending 70+ unescorted bombers into my Tony nests - though he has gotten close a couple of times. But point is both sides are working to mitigate the downsides of being caught with too many aircraft in a disadvantaged position. But one could say Joe and Moses are "conservative players" and the more risky players can achieve more objectives more quickly. And that is probably true. But if you take the risks you may suffer the consequences. Joe and Moses choose not to take the risks (of large airbattles) and so we don't suffer the consequences. I'm sure Moses will test the waters more has his fighters increase in range and EXP.


What NikMod and some of the other MODS try to do in mitigation, is to reduce the effects to a disadvantaged air unit so that the upward tilting angle of the "knee" is effectively reduced. Or perhaps just pushed farther out, so that it is harder to hit. But certainly the effect is to reduce overall losses. Though fundamentally the "knee" effect cannot be made to go away completely just by tweaking the data. Well at least I doubt it. But the effects can be reduced.




_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 188
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 9:29:09 AM   
bradfordkay

 

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


quote:brad


His development of the beam defense maneuver was originally an act of desperation, which proved to be the most fortuitous act of desperation of the Pacific theatre (IMO).

Nik replied:

I'd say his implementation of it that day in June was an act of desperation given his tactical situation combined with the fact that his teammates were not familiarized with it, but his development of the Weave actually began during the summer of 41 after hearing rumor (from Chenault) that the Japanese might possess fighters that were faster, swifter climbers and more maneuverable than current navy stock. He would later work hard in late 42 and into 43 to get the "Thach Weave" as it was dubbed by Flatley made official. It was an excellent defensive maneuver. It should be noted though that it was only used 1 other time by fighters in 42 and it claimed no enemy fighters. It kept the F4F's safe though it prevented them from operating in an offensive posture as well.

(source - Appendix 4 Lundstrom First Team vol 1)

Agreed, I do recall that. My use of the word development was incorrect. I should have said "implementation".

Thanks.


_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 189
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 11:55:11 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
The OR studies on the Pacific war are clear--engagements were proportional to the number of sorties by the weaker side, and losses were proportional to engagements for both sides.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 190
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 12:25:30 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Doggie

Oh, I'm sorry, an expert has just weighed in on the subject:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Zero is original... everything else is just hoax (this is old WWII rumor similar to rumor that Germans flew Japanese aircraft or that German aircraft were on board Japanese carriers


Well, that settles it then. Anyone who thinks otherwise is obviously a "racist" The Japanese were beleived to have operated a number of Bf-109s, however and this may be the source of the 'rumor". U.S. aviators claimed a number of Bf-109s shot down over Japanese territory, though most, if not all of these were Kawasaki-Hein "Tony" fighters that resembled the messerschimdt. The real story of the Japanese Bf-109s is sketchy, and there's not much information on it.


I see that some people still didn't grasp the fact that Matrix forum is about info and not about people (and name calling)... sad...

Therefore please state your sources if you want to dispute that Zero was genuine Japanese design (except for propeller - but that was similar in almost any air fore at the time)!


As for false info at the beginning of USA involvement in WWII (i.e. December 1941 and early 1942) there is plethora of official USA reports about Germans flying Japanese aircraft (which is of course false), Germans designing and building Japanese aircraft (which is, again, of course false)...

Later in war Germans did try to help Japanese with certain designs but this was all too little too late (there was never any substantial cooperation between Axis in research and development during the war - this alone was one of the main reasons for loosing the war - just see how USA and UK cooperated in radar technology and code breaking)...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

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

(in reply to Doggie)
Post #: 191
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 1:10:58 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

BTW, external likeness is never 100% proof of copying...


The best example is Kalashnikov AK-47 and Sturmgewehr 44 (StG44):





Although externaly alike internaly they are different...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

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

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 192
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 1:44:18 PM   
invernomuto


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

My take on the compliant is that the uberCAP prevents anything from getting through... ever. I have no problem with Japanese aircraft being shot down in droves during this period but some nearly always got through. That doesn't happen in the game but it did in real life. If nothing had got through IRL, there would have been zero kamikaze hits on carriers and the Franklin would never have suffered as it did. And don't forget the bombing of the Princeton.


Thank you for bringing back the discussion to the point.
We are not complaining about loss rates, but about not having a single bomber getting through US Cap in large A2A combats in late games.



_____________________________


(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 193
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 2:19:02 PM   
ctangus


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

I almost let this pass, but decided not to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Doggie


quote:

ORIGINAL: ctangus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Doggie


quote:

ORIGINAL: ctangus

BTW it's Iowa that was the bestest ship evah!



Was not!!!!



Was too!!!


Was NOT!!!!




Would you "proud morons" please take this "discussion" someplace else! Maybe back "under the porch" or "behind the outhouse" or some other fitting location.


Since when am I a "Steakhouse moron"? A few months back I lurked there a couple times but it doesn't look like my cup of tea. I certainly didn't register.

I try to stay cordial on this board to anybody I talk to, even when I don't agree with them...

Now, I must admit I'm sometimes a moron when I play WITP. Perhaps that's what you mean...

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 194
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 4:05:12 PM   
VicKevlar

 

Posts: 881
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Minneapolis, MN
Status: offline
quote:

I see that some people still didn't grasp the fact that Matrix forum is about info and not about people (and name calling)... sad...


BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHA!

That was a good one! Seriously, I read that and now you owe me a new keyboard.

The Matrix Forums have ALWAYS been about the users and conflict. The Forums are always at a low boil and oft times they explode.

Oh, the stories I could tell about this place.



_____________________________

The infantry doesn't change. We're the only arm of the military where the weapon is the man himself.

C. T. Shortis


(in reply to ctangus)
Post #: 195
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 4:49:25 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ctangus

Heya Mike,

I almost let this pass, but decided not to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Doggie


quote:

ORIGINAL: ctangus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Doggie


quote:

ORIGINAL: ctangus

BTW it's Iowa that was the bestest ship evah!



Was not!!!!



Was too!!!


Was NOT!!!!




Would you "proud morons" please take this "discussion" someplace else! Maybe back "under the porch" or "behind the outhouse" or some other fitting location.


Since when am I a "Steakhouse moron"? A few months back I lurked there a couple times but it doesn't look like my cup of tea. I certainly didn't register.

I try to stay cordial on this board to anybody I talk to, even when I don't agree with them...

Now, I must admit I'm sometimes a moron when I play WITP. Perhaps that's what you mean...



Actually, I used the term "proud morons", not "Steakhouse Morons". I was referring to the "moronic" nature of the "was to/was not" sub-thread you guys had going...., and the wish that you would go somewhere else with it. Sorry if you felt insulted..., but if you play with the morons you risk being tagged with the same brush.

(in reply to ctangus)
Post #: 196
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 5:02:44 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: VicKevlar

quote:

I see that some people still didn't grasp the fact that Matrix forum is about info and not about people (and name calling)... sad...


BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHA!

That was a good one! Seriously, I read that and now you owe me a new keyboard.

The Matrix Forums have ALWAYS been about the users and conflict. The Forums are always at a low boil and oft times they explode.

Oh, the stories I could tell about this place.


Hehehe... but this is new "Politicaly Correct" policy and we must adhere...


Leo "Apollo11"


_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

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

(in reply to VicKevlar)
Post #: 197
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 5:18:18 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: invernomuto


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

My take on the compliant is that the uberCAP prevents anything from getting through... ever. I have no problem with Japanese aircraft being shot down in droves during this period but some nearly always got through. That doesn't happen in the game but it did in real life. If nothing had got through IRL, there would have been zero kamikaze hits on carriers and the Franklin would never have suffered as it did. And don't forget the bombing of the Princeton.


Thank you for bringing back the discussion to the point.
We are not complaining about loss rates, but about not having a single bomber getting through US Cap in large A2A combats in late games.




In real fighter versus fighter combat in the Pacific, there was no advantage in outnumbering your opponent by a significant margin. The number of losses on each side was proportional to the strength of the weaker side. In a study based on the work reported in Morse and Kimball, I found evidence that this also applied to fighter versus bomber engagements. In WiTP terms, a CAP much larger than the strike being intercepted was a waste of sorties.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to invernomuto)
Post #: 198
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 5:26:01 PM   
latosusi

 

Posts: 327
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: London/Kuopio
Status: offline
Martti, are you finnish?

(in reply to Martti)
Post #: 199
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 5:32:30 PM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

In real fighter versus fighter combat in the Pacific, there was no advantage in outnumbering your opponent by a significant margin. The number of losses on each side was proportional to the strength of the weaker side. In a study based on the work reported in Morse and Kimball, I found evidence that this also applied to fighter versus bomber engagements. In WiTP terms, a CAP much larger than the strike being intercepted was a waste of sorties.


This is quite interesting, could you be a bit more specific, ie give simple examples so that slooooowww minds like me can understand ? Thanks.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 200
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 5:38:15 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL:

Hehehe... but this is new "Politicaly Correct" policy and we must adhere...




Couldn't you have phrased that another way? Nothing wrankles more than the thought of "PC"

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 201
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 5:54:48 PM   
Charbroiled


Posts: 1181
Joined: 10/15/2004
From: Oregon
Status: offline

quote:


Other F4F drivers, like Marion Carl ....


The mention of Marion Carl's name reminded me of the sad events that ended his life:

ROSEBURG, Oregon -- Retired Major General Marion Carl, a World War II ace and postwar test pilot considered the "Chuck Yeager of the Marine Corps,'' was shot to death in a robbery at his home by a man who kicked in his door.

The 82-year-old Carl, one of the Marines' most highly decorated aviators, was shot in the head Sunday night. His wife, Edna, suffered a glancing shotgun blast to the head.

Sheriff's deputies Monday searched for the gunman in the wooded hills nearby. Monday afternoon, authorities issued a warrant for the arrest of Jesse Stuart Fanus, a 19-year-old from the area who has a record of arrests on charges including drunken driving, burglary and criminal trespass.

"It's a hell of a way to lose a great American hero,'' said retired Marine Col. Denis J. Keily, spokesman for the Naval Aviation Museum Foundation in Pensacola, Fla. "I guess it's a statement of our times.''

Mrs. Carl told police that a young man who was wearing sunglasses and had a German shepherd with him kicked in the front door, asked for money and her car keys, and shot her husband when he confronted the intruder.

The gunman stole $200 to $400 and drove off in the couple's car. Mrs. Carl said there may have been another person outside because there was a commotion in the driveway.

The car was abandoned about five miles away, and a patrolman found the dog walking about a mile from the car.

"It appears to be totally random -- random and irrational and not thought out,'' sheriff's Detective Joe Perkins said.

Carl's flying exploits spanned from World War II to Vietnam, that included 18.5 aerial victories.

In 1942, the Oregon native became the first Marine fighter ace, downing three Japanese bombers and a fighter plane over Guadalcanal. He ended his stint at Guadalcanal with 11.5 combat aircraft destroyed, according to the National Museum of Naval Aviation.

After the war, Carl became a Navy test pilot, setting a world speed record of 651 mph on Aug. 25, 1947, at Muroc Field, now Edwards Air Force Base, in California. But his fame was fleeting and soon forgotten.

Yeager, the Air Force's top test pilot, wrested away the title of world's fastest human by breaking the sound barrier two months later, also at Muroc. He flew a Bell X-1 rocket plane at Mach 1.07 -- 700 mph -- on Oct. 14.

In 1953, Carl set a world altitude record of 83,235 feet and two years later flew U-2 photo reconnaissance missions over China.

He returned to combat during the Vietnam War, commanding the 2nd Marine Air Wing. He retired in 1973 with 13,000 flying hours, a Navy Cross with two Gold Stars, the Legion of Merit with three Gold Stars, the Distinguished Flying Cross with four Gold Stars and the Air Medal with 13 Gold Stars.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 202
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 5:56:10 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
When it comes to Japanese aircraft development, you have me at a disadvantage. However, consider the following public domain "cut and paste" re the development of the A5M Claude, which I assume is the precurser to the A6M Zero:

In 1932, the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) issued a requirement for a new naval carrier fighter, and in response a Mitsubishi design team under Jiro Horikoshi developed the "1MF10" fighter, which had a strong resemblance to the American Boeing P-26 "Peashooter" fighter, being a low-wing monoplane, with a metal fuselage and fabric-covered wings; an open cockpit; an air-cooled radial engine, driving a two-bladed fixed wooden propeller; fixed landing gear; twin 7.7 millimeter (0.303 caliber) machine guns in the upper lip of the engine cowling; and a telescopic tube gunsight.

The first of two prototypes performed its initial flight in March 1933. The second prototype followed shortly after and differed from the first by replacing the strut-braced main landing gear with main gear in spats. The 1MF10 was an unlucky aircraft. It failed to meet IJN performance requirements and both prototypes were lost in crashes. It did, however, give Horikoshi and Mitsubishi a basis for further work.

In 1934, the IJN issued another request for a carrier fighter, and Mitsubishi and Horikoshi came up with a new design, the "Ka-14", with the same overall configuration as the 1MF10 but cleaner, and featuring all-metal construction, an inverted gull wing, and a Nakajima Kotobuki 5 nine-cylinder radial providing 410 kW (550 HP). The initial prototype performed its first flight on 4 February 1935. The prototype exceeded its speed requirements, but it had a number of handling problems.

As a result, the inverted gull wing was replaced in the second prototype by a flat wing with a slight outboard dihedral. The second prototype also featured an uprated Kotobuki 3 radial with 475 kW (640 HP). Four more prototypes were built that were similar to the second prototype, differing in small details and being used to evaluate a variety of engine fits. Following successful trials, the IJN approved production of the type as the "A5M1" or "Type 96 Carrier Fighter Model 1", powered by a Kotobuki-2-KAI-1 engine with 430 kW (580 HP).


Looking at photos of these two planes, the A5M is the spitting image of the earlier P-26, at least from the outside. Is this just a coincidence?

And if the lineage of the A6 goes thru the A5, and the same team that deveolped both planes was "inspired" by the US P-26 design for its A5 prototype, how original is the A6?

To paraphrase Ecclesiastes, it looks like "there's nothing new under the (rising) sun."

< Message edited by Joe D. -- 9/13/2007 6:56:16 PM >


_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

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

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 203
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 6:10:01 PM   
Dino


Posts: 1032
Joined: 11/14/2005
From: Serbia
Status: offline
I'm sure it has something to do with Wright brothers, too.

EDIT: Oh, and let's not forget Newton.


< Message edited by Dino -- 9/13/2007 6:14:01 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 204
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 8:07:31 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
I know Thach's report was included in one of the USN's Sept/October assessments. I thought it had been written some time in August after Thach had chased it around for a while. Didn't know he'd written it right after Midway.

The business of the Zeros "bonus" justified by the fact they were engaging a "shocked and demoralized" opponent is flat out wrong. Nor was the absence of a purely defensive doctrine a particular problem for the F4Fs. Thach may well have been annoyed or even angry about the perceived deficiency of the F4F, but not everyone agreed with Thach, and his annoyance did not reduce his willingness to engage nor his effectiveness in combat.

After all, that is WHY the initial direct confrontations between the USN and IJN slightly favored the Allies. It's not like Yorktown F4F drivers had to think up something new. Despite Thach's complaints, their kill ratio vs the Zero favored the USN, not the Japanese. And that, if anyone cares about data, is why the whole business about the Japanese having both better pilots and better planes doesn't stand up to any rational test.

I maintain that the Zero and F4F were "roughly comparable" and their pilots "about the same" at least as one can judge it by data. The open question to me remains "How, really, in terms of actual losses, did the Japanese fare against army pilots?" And the second question is "Why?"

Strategic isolation of Allied forces in the Malaya/Indonesia/Burma area, long years of outstanding pre-war Japanese operational prep, pre-war deployment of assets, reserves, and logistics, and a high operational tempo do, I suspect, account for Japanese success, rather than any kind of qualitative superiority in men or material.

The second claim is that Japanese naval pilots had a range advantage. Technically true I think. But when you look at the air strikes they launched it did not seem to help them all that much against USN CVs. It probably made the biggest difference when striking land bases like PH. Midway, and Darwin. At least that's how it seems to me.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 9/13/2007 8:08:33 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 ChezDaJez)
Post #: 205
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 8:20:18 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

In real fighter versus fighter combat in the Pacific, there was no advantage in outnumbering your opponent by a significant margin. The number of losses on each side was proportional to the strength of the weaker side. In a study based on the work reported in Morse and Kimball, I found evidence that this also applied to fighter versus bomber engagements. In WiTP terms, a CAP much larger than the strike being intercepted was a waste of sorties.


This is quite interesting, could you be a bit more specific, ie give simple examples so that slooooowww minds like me can understand ? Thanks.


The OR studies indicate that engagements rarely involved more than one aircraft from each side, and defending aircraft weren't engaged more than once (if that). So adding aircraft to the CAP didn't increase the number of engagements once all the strike aircraft were matched up.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 206
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 8:28:36 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Thach may well have been annoyed or even angry about the perceived deficiency of the F4F, but not everyone agreed with Thach, and his annoyance did not reduce his willingness to engage nor his effectiveness in combat...

From Lundstrom:
[page 300] Coral Sea provided the US naval fighter pilots
with the introduction to the vaunted Japanese Zero fighter. VF-2 and VF-42
pilots respected the enemy fighter, particularly it's tremendous
maneuverability, BUT the Mitsubishi's DID NOT intimidate them. On the basis
of their first combat experiences, the pilots felt their Grumman F4F-3
Wildcats were equal to the Zero in speed and climbing ability and SUPERIOR
in firepower and protection, being only inferior in maneuverability.
Flately stated their feelings best: "The F4F-3 properly handled can best the enemy
carrier based fighters encountered so far. This includes the Type Zero"
---------------
The F4F-3s principal defect, they thought, was radius of action. The
escort fighters, in particular VF-2s troops, got into trouble on May 8
because they had throttled back to save fuel. In that condition they were
just not prepared to face enemy fighters.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 207
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 8:39:35 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
Edit:
misread Dr Herwin's point. nevermind!

< Message edited by Big B -- 9/13/2007 8:48:36 PM >

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 208
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 8:50:12 PM   
Terminus


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled


quote:


Other F4F drivers, like Marion Carl ....


The mention of Marion Carl's name reminded me of the sad events that ended his life:

ROSEBURG, Oregon -- Retired Major General Marion Carl, a World War II ace and postwar test pilot considered the "Chuck Yeager of the Marine Corps,'' was shot to death in a robbery at his home by a man who kicked in his door.

The 82-year-old Carl, one of the Marines' most highly decorated aviators, was shot in the head Sunday night. His wife, Edna, suffered a glancing shotgun blast to the head.

Sheriff's deputies Monday searched for the gunman in the wooded hills nearby. Monday afternoon, authorities issued a warrant for the arrest of Jesse Stuart Fanus, a 19-year-old from the area who has a record of arrests on charges including drunken driving, burglary and criminal trespass.

"It's a hell of a way to lose a great American hero,'' said retired Marine Col. Denis J. Keily, spokesman for the Naval Aviation Museum Foundation in Pensacola, Fla. "I guess it's a statement of our times.''

Mrs. Carl told police that a young man who was wearing sunglasses and had a German shepherd with him kicked in the front door, asked for money and her car keys, and shot her husband when he confronted the intruder.

The gunman stole $200 to $400 and drove off in the couple's car. Mrs. Carl said there may have been another person outside because there was a commotion in the driveway.

The car was abandoned about five miles away, and a patrolman found the dog walking about a mile from the car.

"It appears to be totally random -- random and irrational and not thought out,'' sheriff's Detective Joe Perkins said.

Carl's flying exploits spanned from World War II to Vietnam, that included 18.5 aerial victories.

In 1942, the Oregon native became the first Marine fighter ace, downing three Japanese bombers and a fighter plane over Guadalcanal. He ended his stint at Guadalcanal with 11.5 combat aircraft destroyed, according to the National Museum of Naval Aviation.

After the war, Carl became a Navy test pilot, setting a world speed record of 651 mph on Aug. 25, 1947, at Muroc Field, now Edwards Air Force Base, in California. But his fame was fleeting and soon forgotten.

Yeager, the Air Force's top test pilot, wrested away the title of world's fastest human by breaking the sound barrier two months later, also at Muroc. He flew a Bell X-1 rocket plane at Mach 1.07 -- 700 mph -- on Oct. 14.

In 1953, Carl set a world altitude record of 83,235 feet and two years later flew U-2 photo reconnaissance missions over China.

He returned to combat during the Vietnam War, commanding the 2nd Marine Air Wing. He retired in 1973 with 13,000 flying hours, a Navy Cross with two Gold Stars, the Legion of Merit with three Gold Stars, the Distinguished Flying Cross with four Gold Stars and the Air Medal with 13 Gold Stars.



What a sad story...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Charbroiled)
Post #: 209
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/13/2007 8:56:21 PM   
Doggie


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

I see that some people still didn't grasp the fact that Matrix forum is about info and not about people (and name calling)... sad...


Yep.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

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


quote:

Of course, the main question that these Steakhouse Morons



quote:

Never argue with an idiot.




quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
Ask your storm trooper, Diehl.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger


you are just another asshat.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Would you "proud morons" please take this "discussion" someplace else! Maybe back "under the porch" or "behind the outhouse" or some other fitting location.


Actually, I used the term "proud morons", not "Steakhouse Morons". I was referring to the "moronic" nature and the wish that you would go somewhere else with it. Sorry if you felt insulted..., but if you play with the morons you risk being tagged with the same brush.


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
Next time mdiehl needs help, tell him to send a real dog, not a chihuahah.

"Of course, you wouldn't know anything about how the game really works, would you?" to mdiehl hit a raw nerve, that's too bad. I would think a Steakhouse Moron would have a thicker skin.


And the winner is:

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

You see, most of the discussions conducted on this board are conducted civilly. If you are a regular poster, you will see that most disagreements do not result in the type of posting that you and your kind bring. We normally don't resort to name calling

Now I do recall saying, "Only a moron would argue that experience doesn't matter" in response to an mdiehl posting. That's normally as close to name calling as I tend to get





_____________________________


(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Übercorsair and übercap Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   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

2.172