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  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/14/2007 7:56:30 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
I think in keeping things simple I'd say that Hornet and Lex were effectively sunk by Japanese naval aviation, and Yorktown by a submarine (after all, Yorktown had been recrewed and was in the process of being salvaged when torpedoed). Tracking damaged CVs does illustrate that in the late war <edit> MANY allied ships were hit by and in many cases substantially damaged by kamikazes. I would not suggest that kamikazes were ineffective.

My perception of the kamikaze effort is that on the whole it was the picket ships, auxiliaris, and transports that sustained the brunt of the damage. Of course, picket ships were isolated, and big American CVs tended to have alot more close protection from AAA batteries on BBs and CAs, so that too makes a bit of sense.



< Message edited by mdiehl -- 9/14/2007 7:57:14 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 Joe D.)
Post #: 271
RE: This is my laugh for the day - 9/14/2007 9:27:49 PM   
wworld7


Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish
... Larger LAUGHS than the usual Wikipedia entries and comments out of books like "Shattered Swords" being treated as Gospel. What ever happened to real research?


It's Shattered Sword, the sword being the Kido Butai and how it got "broke."

I'm not saying it's gospel -- and neither are its authors -- but translating the legitmate Japanese accounts of Midway -- instead of continuing to rely on Fuchida's nonsense -- was long overdue. This situation reminds me of the when someone finally interviewed the surviving Indian scouts from Custer's last stand; the valuable info they had to share was previously all but ignored.

I've been quoting Sword on the CaW forum to get SSG to decrease the KB's plane count -- by the 20 or so Zeros it was ferrying to Midway -- and give better cloud cover between the IJN and Allied fleets along Midway's East/West axis. SSG has already agreed to decrease the planes in the next patch, but I'm still working on the cloud cover; clouds w/poor IJN recon helped shape that battle greatly, and the CaW scenario needs to be readjusted.



Joe,

I apologise if you thought my comments were directed specifically at you. They were not intended as such. IMHO, There are too many people that take as Gospel (my word) what they read in Wikipedia, and then attempt to pass it off as fact to back up their side of a discussion. While quick and easy, Wikipedia at times lacks for accuracy and/or truth.

As for Shattered Sword (my error this morning after 4 hours sleep). I agree it was a long overdue book, and it is good to look at other points of view in ANY situation. I never like to assume, but I would like to think it took SSG more than one source to change an OOB. The weather issue I will leave out of the WITP board.

Be well,



_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 272
RE: This is my laugh for the day - 9/14/2007 9:46:38 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
No need to apologize; I for one didn't take it personally.

In fact SSG did use several disparite sources and had to "guestimate" the difference in the IJN OOB. However, it seems that the more recent sources for the OOB give the KB less planes.

See the CaW forum topic "Nagumo has too many zeros" as the last thing we need on this ubberthread is another topic.

OT: Wicki has been improving its entries, correcting errors in hours instead of days, when they find them. I have even seen "user advisories" on some Wiki posts.

_____________________________

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 wworld7)
Post #: 273
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/14/2007 10:03:01 PM   
ChezDaJez


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

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Actually I did see your previous post and the point was well-made, but automatic weapons are much less complicated than airplanes, so they all look (somewhat) alike.

In any case, here’s an attempt to briefly wrap-up some of what was said re the A6M Zero. Forgive me for not going back and directly quoting all posters; this uberthread, originally re ubercap/ubercorsairs, has become very long.

Looking at the relevant posts, I have to conclude that the Zero was not copied, but neither was it that original. As someone said, nothing is developed in a vacuum, and the Mitsubishi group wasn’t above licensing other nation’s tech for its planes. There was a time long ago when Nippon banned anything Western, but that changed drastically during the 1930s when it came to obtaining occidental aircraft engines, propellers, etc.

As for effectiveness, Doggie would agree that the A6M’s bark was worse than its bite. And IJ pilots who flew by/a “come home w/your wing or upon it” doctrine disappeared en masse after the Hellcat and Corsair finally appeared, leaving the IJN w/empty CVs.

Finally, re Shattered Sword: WWII IJ warships and aircraft accurately represented its doctrine for fighting; warships emphasized speed and firepower, and planes added range. Conversely, IJ war machines put less emphasis on protection and damage control; its aircraft “were built to dish it out, but weren’t really intended to take it.”

Sorry if I missed anyone’s contribution.



Actually, that's a pretty fair summation though I would disagree about the Zero's effectiveness. It was very effective in the early war however, the Japanese doctrine of "attack, attack, attack" was reflected in its design which greatly limited its survivability. It simply wasn't a defensive fighter and their best pilots died one after another until only the very best and the very worst (new trainees) were left to fly it.

Japanese tactical doctrine in virtually all areas failed to adequately address defensive needs in both aircraft and ships until it was too late. Anthing that hinted of being a defensive weapon was very much frowned upon. They failed to realize the benefit of radar until it was too late even though they had working sets early on. They failed to address their ASW needs until way too late and their merchants went down left and right. They failed to provide pilot protection until late in the war and by then the good pilots were gone. Their AA complements onboard their ships remained pathetically weak... in many cases weaker than early war allied complements.

This war was decided in the halls of Imperial Naval HQ welll before the first shot was fired. Their soldiers, sailors and airmen gave their best but they simply weren't provided with the means to survive, let alone win.

The US on the other hand took every lesson learned (and there were many) to heart and rapidly incorporated changes that resulted in the finest naval force the world had every seen.

Chez

editted for spelling and stupid typing


< Message edited by ChezDaJez -- 9/14/2007 10:42:34 PM >


_____________________________

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 Joe D.)
Post #: 274
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/14/2007 10:05:11 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
Your last post is a great summation IMO Chez. Totally agree.

< Message edited by Speedy -- 9/14/2007 10:06:18 PM >


_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 275
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/14/2007 10:07:24 PM   
Terminus


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

The US on the other hand took every lesson learned (and their were many) to heart and rapidly incorporated changes that resulted in the finest naval force the world had every seen.



Well, maybe not rapidly... <cough>Mk 14<cough>...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 276
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/14/2007 10:18:40 PM   
ChezDaJez


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I think in keeping things simple I'd say that Hornet and Lex were effectively sunk by Japanese naval aviation, and Yorktown by a submarine (after all, Yorktown had been recrewed and was in the process of being salvaged when torpedoed). Tracking damaged CVs does illustrate that in the late war <edit> MANY allied ships were hit by and in many cases substantially damaged by kamikazes. I would not suggest that kamikazes were ineffective.

My perception of the kamikaze effort is that on the whole it was the picket ships, auxiliaris, and transports that sustained the brunt of the damage. Of course, picket ships were isolated, and big American CVs tended to have alot more close protection from AAA batteries on BBs and CAs, so that too makes a bit of sense.




I agree with these comments though I prefer to think that Yorktown was "scuttled" by a Japanese submarine after being massively damaged by air attack. I think that even if Yorktwon had made it back to port, she effectively would have been out of the war longer than it would take to build a new one.

Kamikazes were effective weapons and they could and did sink ships. However, they were never going to be the saviour Japan hoped for. The US fleet was just too big, too strong, and two resilient to ever let Kamikazes decided the course of the war.

And you are correct in that the pickets were the sacrificial lamb if you will for the carriers. Their job was to provide early warning and soak up as many of the attacks as they could. And in that they were successful though it was certainly duty that I would not have wanted to do.

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 #: 277
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/14/2007 10:21:20 PM   
ChezDaJez


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

The US on the other hand took every lesson learned (and their were many) to heart and rapidly incorporated changes that resulted in the finest naval force the world had every seen.



Well, maybe not rapidly... <cough>Mk 14<cough>...


Well, we couldn't be always be perfect now, could we? That would be no fun (just think of all the idiots on the youtube videos we wouldn't get to see!)?

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 Terminus)
Post #: 278
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/14/2007 10:48:12 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
LOL

Regarding Kami's and picket ships do you/anyone have detailed listings of the 'escort' ships that were sunk/damaged by Kami's?

Are there any books on this?

Thanks,

Steven

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 279
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/14/2007 10:57:56 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
Frankly, I think the Zero was a brilliant design. It was a solid performer in the early war, though no "superweapon." Strategically it was ideal.

I think you've hit part of if Chez when you say it was designed as an aggressor with little consideration for defense. But it was also a strategic design. Japan knew that fuel would be a limiting factor, and that imports of almost everything were required to make their weapons of war, and they knew they'd start the war (once the US was in the fray) bereft of sufficient shipping to maintain output.

I know I know the design preceded US entry by years.

But my point is that one could make alot of Zeroes and fly them rather economically and that made the most of the resources to which the Japanese had access. Had it been more defensively designed, adding weight, demanding more horsepower (thereby adding weight), and then fuel (thereby adding weight), so that it came out like some sort of Japanese parallel to the F4F, then I think the early war ability for the Japanese to show up unexpectedly at long range from their own developed logistical sources would have been impaired. Having a heavier, more defensive plane might have slowed down the pace of operations in, say Indonesia.

_____________________________

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 #: 280
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/14/2007 11:01:45 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
I have to admit I joined this thread late and only read the first and last page...did anyone ever tell the original poster that part of the reason he got proposterous results (besides the fact that the stock A2A model isn't perfect) is that 1000 planes attack is a bit propsoterous in itself.

How many flew in the great Turkey Shoot?

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 281
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/14/2007 11:23:14 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Frankly, I think the Zero was a brilliant design. It was a solid performer in the early war, though no "superweapon." Strategically it was ideal.



Wow....I agree.

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 282
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/14/2007 11:26:11 PM   
wworld7


Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

LOL

Regarding Kami's and picket ships do you/anyone have detailed listings of the 'escort' ships that were sunk/damaged by Kami's?

Are there any books on this?

Thanks,

Steven


Try looking at one of the major naval biography's for the Pacific War (Nimitz, Halsey, Spruance etc...) or naval books covering the Phillipine invasion to the end of the war.

They will contain the info you are looking for.



_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 283
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/14/2007 11:53:30 PM   
niceguy2005


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Had it been more defensively designed, adding weight, demanding more horsepower (thereby adding weight), and then fuel (thereby adding weight), so that it came out like some sort of Japanese parallel to the F4F, then I think the early war ability for the Japanese to show up unexpectedly at long range from their own developed logistical sources would have been impaired. Having a heavier, more defensive plane might have slowed down the pace of operations in, say Indonesia.

Very interesting thought...but what if it had been more defensively designed and actually had protected one of Japan's most precious resources...its trained pilots.

But that would be a truly academic discussion because it would be asking the Japanese to not only build a different plane, but to be a different people. The way of the Samari was to commit himself 100% to an action, without thought of personal safety.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 284
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/14/2007 11:58:09 PM   
Apollo11


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Frankly, I think the Zero was a brilliant design. It was a solid performer in the early war, though no "superweapon." Strategically it was ideal.

I think you've hit part of if Chez when you say it was designed as an aggressor with little consideration for defense. But it was also a strategic design. Japan knew that fuel would be a limiting factor, and that imports of almost everything were required to make their weapons of war, and they knew they'd start the war (once the US was in the fray) bereft of sufficient shipping to maintain output.

I know I know the design preceded US entry by years.

But my point is that one could make alot of Zeroes and fly them rather economically and that made the most of the resources to which the Japanese had access. Had it been more defensively designed, adding weight, demanding more horsepower (thereby adding weight), and then fuel (thereby adding weight), so that it came out like some sort of Japanese parallel to the F4F, then I think the early war ability for the Japanese to show up unexpectedly at long range from their own developed logistical sources would have been impaired. Having a heavier, more defensive plane might have slowed down the pace of operations in, say Indonesia.


I agree with this completely as well... (amazing)

BTW, some sort of "light" protection would have saved many Zero's (and other Japanese aircraft) and pilots for, hopefully, light weight addition: the self sealing fuel tanks and armored plate behind pilot (this would be like 50 kg = 100 lbs)...

Thus, as "ChezDaJez" already wrote, Japan counted on swift war and hoped for negotiated peace - they simply didn't count on USA fighting despite heavy initial looses... grave mistake on Japanese leaders (although many leaders including Yamamoto knew this but fought nonetheless - to me this is similar to Robert E. Lee and CSA in American Civil War)!

We now, of course, know that Japan lost war the very second they attacked Pearl Harbor and that no victories at the beginning would change the final outcome of USA victory (similarly Germany lost the very second they attacked Russia in 1941 - Russia was simply too huge to tackle in quick western like blitzkrieg fashion)...


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 mdiehl)
Post #: 285
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/15/2007 12:22:49 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
I agree with these comments though I prefer to think that Yorktown was "scuttled" by a Japanese submarine after being massively damaged by air attack. I think that even if Yorktwon had made it back to port, she effectively would have been out of the war longer than it would take to build a new one.

Chez


Unsure if it would have been as long as building a new one. But, the real point is that they were building the new ones anyway, so a repaired Yorktown would have been one more for the team.

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 286
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/15/2007 12:42:52 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

BTW, some sort of "light" protection would have saved many Zero's (and other Japanese aircraft) and pilots for, hopefully, light weight addition: the self sealing fuel tanks and armored plate behind pilot (this would be like 50 kg = 100 lbs)...


Not being an aeronautical engineer I have little idea what the addition (or subtraction) of 100 kg might be on an aircraft with an 1800 odd hp engine in 1940. I have read that Japan did not have especially powerful aircraft engines for some reason at that time and that was influential in the design and production of the Zero. I have also read that Japanese fighter pilots often removed their (unreliable) radios from their fighters to save weight. Even in the days of all vacuum tubes and so forth I'm pretty sure that their a/c radios did not weigh in at anything like 100 kg. So it would seem that there just weren't any extra hp for adding such things as self-sealing tanks and a bit of armor to the design without seriously detracting from its performance. Pretty sure that adding such things to the basic Brewster Buffalo went a long way towards turning it into such a dog in a fight. Without that extra (IIRC) stuff it did pretty well in Finnish service against the Russkis.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 287
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/15/2007 1:01:56 AM   
ChezDaJez


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

Had it been more defensively designed, adding weight, demanding more horsepower (thereby adding weight), and then fuel (thereby adding weight), so that it came out like some sort of Japanese parallel to the F4F, then I think the early war ability for the Japanese to show up unexpectedly at long range from their own developed logistical sources would have been impaired. Having a heavier, more defensive plane might have slowed down the pace of operations in, say Indonesia.


The total weight for adding pilot armor and self-sealing tanks would have been around 400lbs. The reduction in fuel would have been in the neighborhood of 10%. The A6M would still weigh more than 1500lbs less than the Wildcat. I don't think the added weight and decreased fuel capacity would have cut the range by more than about 25%, putting it into the range category of the A6M3. Of course, to maintain its performance would have meant adding a more powerful engine. The Sakae-21 engine the A6M3 used (it was avilable in 1941) would probably have provided enough power (1130hp vs 940hp) to restore performance.

I'm not sure that the reduced range would have had a substantial impact on the speed of operations in the SRA though it would have likely had some effect. The 1942 carrier battles wouldn't have been affected (due to range) but it would certainly have been a very big deal in the Solomons and probably Port Moresby as well.

In the Solomons, the Japanese would have been forced to develop bases closer to Guadalcanal much quicker for its fighters if they wished to provide escorts for their bombers. They certainly wouldn't have been in position to offer any aerial resistance during the invasion. And by the time they did get new bases operational, the land battle for Guadalcanal would probably have largely been relegated to mopping up duties. Without fighter escort, the Japanese may have been forced to acknowledge that they did not have the means of providing effective cover for troop transports and therefore decided not to reinforce the island. And who knows what impact that would have had on the many naval battles that historically occurred.

Either way, the outcome of the war would certainly not have been effected though our air losses overall may have been a little higher with the increased retention of experienced IJN pilots the additional protection afforded. But I really can't see the changes increasing the length of the war by more than a day or two at best.

Interesting what-if...

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 #: 288
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/15/2007 1:06:13 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Later in the war, veteran Zero pilots (the ones that survived) resisted armouring the newer models. It's also a matter of doctrine and Bushido...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 289
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/15/2007 1:06:33 AM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
The A6M2 Zero had a Sakae-12 940hp engine while the A6M3 used the Sakae-21 1130hp engine. It's puzzling to me why the Japanese did not install the Sakae-21 engine in the A6M2 series. It was available in 1941.

It wasn't until late-43, early-44 that the Japanese produced an engine for the Zero capable of producing more than 1500hp. By then it was a case of too little, too late...

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 spence)
Post #: 290
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/15/2007 1:12:30 AM   
ChezDaJez


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Later in the war, veteran Zero pilots (the ones that survived) resisted armouring the newer models. It's also a matter of doctrine and Bushido...



There were some who didn't want it.. Iwamoto for one (he also flew without a parachute for the weight savings.... worked for him I guess, he survived the war). Saburo Sakai, on the other hand, was of a different opinion learned the hard way...

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 Terminus)
Post #: 291
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/15/2007 1:13:59 AM   
Joe D.


Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

...but what if it had been more defensively designed and actually had protected one of Japan's most precious resources...its trained pilots.

But that would be a truly academic discussion because it would be asking the Japanese to not only build a different plane, but to be a different people. The way of the Samari was to commit himself 100% to an action, without thought of personal safety.


That's why I never mess w/the Japanese sub doctrine switch; if it's off, you're not really playing the "Japanese," but some PBEM players may not care.

Japan's sammurai culture shaped IJ doctrine, not vice versa; it was not only a duty to die for one's emporer, it was high honor, according to many kamikazee "death poems" and similar correspondence.

But IJ didn't have to redesign its Zero to preserve its pilots; it could have simply rotated their expertise back home to train others; but again, this was not the Japanese way. So when an IJ ace went to his honorable end, his expertize went w/him.

I recall that Nazi Germany didn't rotate its veteran pilots to combat flight instructors either, w/similar results.



_____________________________

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 niceguy2005)
Post #: 292
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/15/2007 1:21:46 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Well, some of the early Kamikaze pilots were indeed frothing at the mouth volunteers, but many, many others were "volunteered" for this duty.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 293
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/15/2007 1:21:50 AM   
Bliztk


Posts: 779
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Electronic City
Status: offline
Well an interesting view about early Japanese-USN training is found here:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/wwii-naval-pilot-training-426.html

quote:


A lot of that kind of information takes a lot of reading, a lot of which you’ll never find on the net, and some of it can only be ferreted out from the actual reports and documents. That being said, I recently had reason to look into the subject and came up with the following.

The Japanese Navy had, as near as I can figure, some 3500 “front line” pilots of whom about one half were carrier current, that is, assignable to carrier squadrons. These numbers pretty much correlate with those of the USN/USMC. Just looking at active USN squadrons yields a similar number of available aviators. As far as carrier qualified pilots are concerned, that is a more difficult number ascertain from the sources I have available. I suppose a copy of “Sunburst” might clear some of this up for me, but I have yet to get around to purchasing a copy. USN carrier squadrons, at the end of 1941 only mustered about 580 flying slots in 38 squadrons. Land-based USMC VMF and VMSB squadrons probably accounted for another 200-250 readily available carrier qualified pilots. Certainly this was not the total pool of available carrier qualified USN/USMC pilots as it does not take into account carrier qualified pilots assigned to such mundane activities as training and staff positions, as well as land based squadrons. The same would be true of the IJN, there were undoubtedly many carrier qualified pilots not actually assigned to a carrier squadron and so operating. In preparing for the war, the IJN brought it’s operational aircraft up to a level of about 1800 aircraft, with about 1200 of them shore based and 600 ship based (aircraft carriers and battleship and cruiser scouts). If there were indeed only 1500 carrier qualified IJN pilots, then, obviously they had twice as many pilots as carrier pilot slots.

What was the final devastating factor for IJN aviation, both carrier and land based was their inability to make good their losses. While some like to believe that the cream of the IJN carrier aviators were wiped out at Midway, that is not exactly true. The loss of the four carriers in this battle meant that, no matter what, all of their aircraft were lost. So, probably about 256 planes were lost. This does not equate to the loss of 256 pilots; rather, the Japanese only lost somewhat less than100 pilots in the battle, most of whom met their ends aboard sinking carriers as opposed to air combat operations. Where the curve of the loss of experienced pilots started to drop off the chart was in the Solomons where both land based pilots and, thrown in as reinforcements, carrier pilot losses, went beyond the IJN’s training programs ability to replace them with a quality product. The short hiatus from the Solomons campaigns to the Mariana’s allowed the IJN some training and preparation respite, but it really was never enough to build air groups of the pre-war caliber. A substantial majority of these newly trained pilots, along with many of the residual experienced leaders, were lost in the Battle of the Philippines Sea, or as it is known, “The Great Mariana’s Turkey Shoot.” Somewhere (grabbing numbers out of the air because I don’t feel like looking it up) around 325 IJN planes and their crews were shot down, with no hope of rescue for any who might have been able to survive their downing. Essentially, this action eliminated the second generation of IJN carrier pilots and was a blow from which the IJN never recovered.

As near as I can put together, during the course of the war the IJN trained some 24,000 pilots of all stripes. Roughly 18,900 of them, and their pre-war compatriots, were killed, either in action, training, or operationally. Over 2500 of these were killed in suicide attacks.

If you look at USN pilot training, in the years 1925 through 1941 (very few aviators from classes prior to 1925 were still in flying billets by 1941) 7,061 pilots had completed the program. Of these, 44 percent, 3,112 completed the program just in 1941. Those most likely to endure the most of the fighting were those who completed flight training between 1934 and 1941, some 5,687 pilots. How many of these were carrier qualified? I have not the slightest idea; I would suspect that certainly a majority, as the USN, especially in the 1930’s, had a habit of moving pilots from one type of squadron to another.

As an aside, though not dealing with WWII, but in the period immediately after, I know a retired Navy Captain all of whose wartime flying had been VBP work in PB4Ys. After the war, in 1948, while finishing up a tour in an aviation staff job, he went to his chief of staff, one Jimmy Flatley, and requested assignment to a fighter squadron. Flatley, already pleased with this gent’s work during his tour, told him he’d see what he could do. Well, our friend thought with Flatley on his side he’d probably be able to get in an F4U squadron, or if he was lucky an F8F squadron. What Flatley did was pick up the phone and call a squadron commander who had been a young pilot with whom he had served in the Battle of the Coral Sea and later at ComFAirWest. He told the squadron CO that he had a good prospect for him and that he recommended him. The squadron commander said that was good enough for him. A few phone calls to detailer later and it was a done deal. So the PB4Y pilot found himself on the way to VF-171, the Navy’s first carrier qualified jet fighter squadron, where he quickly became checked out in the F2H, carrier qualified, and became one of the stars of the show. Of course he’d had single engine time and even some carrier landings during his training, but, and I guess this is the point, it wasn’t all that unusual both before and after the war to move from one community to another.

In 1942 USN pilot training programs started to ramp up; 10,869 aviators received their wings of gold, almost twice as many as had completed the program in the previous 8 years. In 1943 there were 20,842 graduates; 1944, 21,067; and, with then end of the war in sight, 1945 ended with 8,880 graduates. Thus in the period 1942 to 1945, the USN produced more than 2.5 times the number of pilots as the IJN. And each of those USN pilots went through a program of primary, intermediate, advanced, and, for the carrier pilots combat preparation in RAGs before heading west. New pilots were arriving for action in USN carrier squadrons with as many as 600 hours flying under their belts and as much as 200 hours of that in type.

This was a level of training and preparation with which the IJN could never dream of competing. The IJN training programs suffered from an insufficient number of qualified instructors, lack of fuel for extensive flying time, poor maintenance of training aircraft, and shortages of ordnance. There two most critically lacking areas were a continued adherence to traditional adversarial nature of their programs (for every one graduate, there were nine others who did not) and, of course, time. There was never enough time to develop the students’ skills, to practice attack tactics or defensive actions. Most of them arrived in combat squadrons with less than 200 hours in all, by the very end of the war, less than 100 hours. Most had to learn combat skills on the job once assigned to a combat squadron. By then, it is too late and few survived.

Many will harp on the overall superiority of the start of the war IJN carrier pilots. I would suggest that this, too, is somewhat of a distorted view. Popularly, the IJN pilots are given credit for racking up all this great combat experience in China. Well, so what about this great combat experience? This was exciting work, bombing raids blasting relatively, certainly by later wartime standards, undefended villages, towns, cities and the odd US gunboat. Fighter plane wise, this meant flying strike escort for these mostly unchallenged air raids; shooting up an occasional column of troops or refugees; and, on rare occasions, cornering a bunch of Russian built and Chinese flown I-15 biplanes or a rare I-16 monoplane.

Also, consider that IJN air units had considerably less involvement in China than IJA air units and that virtually all, if not actually all, during those critical first 12 months of the war, USN/USMC VF vs Japanese VF encounters, were against IJN VF. This is not to say the IJN flyers had no combat experience, but to posit instead that it was, perhaps, a "lower quality combat experience" than that for which they are popularly given credit . . . really not much more than overly realistic training. The entire argument of the IJN pilots having all this vast combat experience must rest on some fairly unlikely presuppositions, such as: that all IJN pilots/air groups went off to China and obtained this vast combat experience. That all sorties resulted in air-to-air combat action and as a result all VF pilots had the benefit of this air-to-air combat experience. And all VF air-to-air combat experience was obtained flying the A6M2. The extensions of these pre-suppositions are also equally unlikely: that all IJN pilots/air groups went off to fight the Americans with no pilot without this experience. That there were no PCS transfers out of these units. There had been no operational casualties in these units. There were no assignments of new pilots fresh from whatever advanced training to these units. And there were no PCS transfers into these units from pilots who were busy elsewhere during the China adventure.

Significantly, whatever combat experience the IJN pilots did acquire in China would only stand them good stead if the USN pilots flew like the Chinese Air Force . . . which was, most definitely, not the case.

So the popular theory is that these green, inexperienced, fresh from training, USN/USMC pilots faced all these, to a man, combat experienced, multiple victory, mature late 20's to early 30's, rock steady, hardened professionals. Not really true. Statistically unlikely.

The USN/USMC VF pilots of the period, while not combat experienced, were, in most cases, well trained, well led, and possessed of sound tactical doctrine. Their squadron commanders and executive officers, for the most part, were experienced aviators who had received their wings by the early 1930's, the division and section leaders usually had anywhere from three years to slightly less than a year in type. What do you suppose the USN/USMC pilots were doing while the IJN pilots were cavorting around in the air over China ... sitting around on their hands at the Kaneohe, Ford Island, or Norfolk NAS O Clubs? No, they were flying and training, flying and training, flying and training, ad nauseum. They had a good idea who they were going to have to fight, and some, Lt Cdr's James Flatley and John Thach being the prime examples, had a pretty good idea how they were going to go about it.

An example of the USN squadrons would be the aviators from one fighter squadron, VF-42, who fought against the Shoho, Zuikaku, Shokaku, Akagi, Soryu, Hiryu, and Kaga air groups, as well as aircraft stationed at Tulagi. VF-42 had spent some 8 months on Neutrality Patrols in the Atlantic, flying F4F's (and before that in its previous identity of VS-41, SBUs) off Ranger, Wasp, and Yorktown before Pearl Harbor. In June of 1941, the squadron was attached to the Yorktown and, with the coming of the war, went to the Pacific aboard her. The experience level for the squadron, reported on 30 April 1942, ranged from a high of 3019.3 hours (Flatley, the XO) down to 274.4 hours (Ens Gibbs, who joined the squadron on 8 December 1941). The average pilot hours for the squadron were 989.4. Note that 3.8 hours flying a day, 5 days a week, for a year would net you 988 hours flight time. In actuality, once assigned to a carrier squadron one could expect a pilot to acquire not more than about 10 hours a week if he really worked at it, or about 500 hours a year. Even in 1945, USN carrier pilots were still only averaging 10 hours a week in operational flying, this during the final July-August strikes. The squadron average, therefore, represents almost two years worth of flying experience.

The squadron suffered no combat casualties in the early raids, in fact, none until the Battle of the Coral Sea, where they lost two planes and one pilot in air-to-air combat. Another one plane and its pilot were lost operationally during the battle. The squadron was credited with 24 victories between 4 May 42 and 8 May 42. A month later, at Midway, where VF-42 pilots made up 64% (16 of 25) of Jimmy Thach's VF-3 pilots engaged on June 4th (and 59% of VF-3, overall), they lost 4 planes shot down and 2 pilots. Of claims confirmed and credited to pilots flying with VF-3 at Midway, 17 of 27 went to the VF-42 contingent. Of a total of 21 pilots assigned to this squadron from 7 December, 1941 to the end of June 1942 when it was disestablished, only 6 planes and 3 pilots were lost in combat. This squadron was one of only two that flew at both at Coral Sea and at Midway (the other squadron being the Yorktown's VB-5, which was temporarily re-designated "VS-5" during the Midway period) and the only US VF squadron whose pilots fought at both battles.

Where the real difference lay, as I am always so quick to point out, was in tactics . . . and this is where the discussion wraps back around to training . . . without training and practice in tactics you are just boring holes in the sky until someone shoots you down. While the USN/USMC VF pilots specialized in deflection gunnery, the IJN pilots, while having some training in deflection gunnery, tended to prefer the high side rear or frontal attack. If their target turned away at the last instance before firing, as the USN pilots were trained to react, the attack was spoiled. It has been said that true deflection gunnery tactics ended forever the concept of the "dogfight" as it had been practiced since WWI. If you do not practice the art of deflection gunnery and you find yourself up against someone who does, you re already behind the curve and in deep trouble. When you add Thach's beam defense to deflection gunnery, you are close to a world-beater. Escorting the Yorktown's VT-3 on its strike on the Japanese carriers at Midway, Jimmy Thach led a 4-plane VF-3 division as cover. After losing one plane (a VF-42 pilot, E. Bassett), in the initial contact with the Japanese CAP, he initiated the beam defense tactic with the remaining three planes of his division. They shot down at least four, and probably five, A6M2's with no further losses to themselves. In the process, they soaked up the attentions of some 12 of the Japanese CAP (almost a third of the airborne CAP) while the SBDs were gathering overhead. The Japanese reported that they had encountered some 18 Grumman fighters in this action.

By mid 1942 virtually all the USN/USMC squadrons operated in two plane sections and four plane divisions. Sections could be internally supportive one with one and externally supportive in divisions, two with two. The Japanese, on the other hand were saddled with the three-plane section, nine-plane division, a practice that looks nice in air shows and was more suitable for WWI type tactics. The 3-9 set up, indeed, evolved during WWI as it provides a better lookout doctrine in the biplane world. The 2-4 set up takes advantage of the monoplane construction with no overhead and forward wing to block the view. While one might think that the greater numbers would work to the Japanese advantage, in practice it was hard to maintain section cohesiveness. Oft times the third man in a section turned out to be the odd man out and it was he who was sure to get burned in an approach on weaving F4Fs. The USN/USMC fighter pilots were already experimenting with, and some squadrons had firmly established, the 2-4 formations before they ever got into the war. The Japanese maintained their 3-9 formations into 1944.

Bottom line is that the Japanese could not match the numbers of pilots trained and could not make good their own losses. In spite of what ever experience level they had acquired in China, that experience did not prepare them for combat against the USN. While they did not do badly at first, their inability to absorb losses and lessons pretty much led them down a path to futility. And, certainly, long road back for the USN, but one, especially as the Solomons campaign was drawing to a close, where a final victory lay as a prize at the end.




_____________________________


(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 294
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/15/2007 1:27:13 AM   
jwilkerson


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

That's why I never mess w/the Japanese sub doctrine switch; if it's off, you're not really playing the "Japanese," but some PBEM players may not care.




Funny thing though, the real Japanese themselves didn't follow Japanese "sub doctrine" through about the first six months of the war. During that period the IJN subs sank about 60ish mostly independently sailing merchants (see for example Rohwer, J., Axis Submarine Successes 1939-1945, Naval Institute Press: Anapolis Maryland, 1983).

And actually I've been hard pressed, in the game, to sink that many Allied merchant ships even with sub doctrine OFF. I got close in one game, where the Allied player made a point of never escorting any merchant convoys. But none of my other opponents has ever tried that tactic, and so game losses are always well below the historical levels (even with doctrine OFF).



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 295
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/15/2007 1:31:15 AM   
wdolson

 

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

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
The Japanese were no exception. They initially purchased many of their initial aircraft from the French and British during and after WWI. They examined their designs and developed their own that most likely drew heavily upon those aircraft. As their aircraft design industry grew, they produced many different types of aircraft. Some were built under license such as the Japanese version of the DC-3 while others such as the A6M series were a totally Japanese innovation design. About the only thing not of original design on the Zero was the propellor (built under license from Hamilton Standard) and some the guns built under license from Hispano)


The Japanese engine industry was heavily influenced by American radial design too. The A6M2's engine is virtually a copy of the P&W 1830. When their engine designers were cut off from American engine designs by the war, they did develop some very good engines in country.

quote:


The aircraft listed in this thread referred to as the H-2 was in fact the H-1B. It first flew in 1935 after being developed in great secrecy and last flew in 1937. If you look at both aircraft there are no design similarities to the A6M series beyond both being radial-powered, low-winged monoplanes with retracting gear. The H-1B was built for speed and the A6M was built to turn... two totally different design philosophies. The wing, fuselage, and tail assembly bear no resemblance to each other at all. In fact, the H-1B wings are built of wood and only the fuselage was aluminium. plus Hughes had two sets of wings built for it; one set 20 feet long for speed, the other 31 feet long for distance.


Just this alone proves the case that the Zero and H-1B had no relationship. The Zero had the cockpit section of the fuselage integrated into the wing. If disassembling the plane for shipping, it's much easier to remove the fuselage section behind the cockpit and forward of the wing than separate the wing from the fuselage.

This is very obvious in a video I got in a special edition Zero model from Hasegawa. It was about a Mustang and the Planes of Fame Zero being sent to Japan to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end of WW II. The planes had to be partially disassembled for shipping. With the Mustang, this simply meant removing the wing from the fuselage, much like most Mustang models are made. The Zero was much more difficult and the cockpit section of the fuselage was left mated with the wing.

The video is in Japanese, but they interview some of the Americans involved in the project. The way the main wing spar is attached to the fuselage, it was easier to take apart the fuelage that separate the wing from the cockpit section.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 296
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/15/2007 1:33:35 AM   
Joe D.


Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Well, some of the early Kamikaze pilots were indeed frothing at the mouth volunteers, but many, many others were "volunteered" for this duty.


I actually recall an amusing Tim Conway sketch re kamikazee "volunteers" from the old Carol Burnett show, which you probably have never seen in Denmark.

But how could special attack squadron "volunteers" honorably refuse? To lose face would not only disgrace the would-be pilot, but shame his family all the way back to its ancient ancestors.


_____________________________

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 Terminus)
Post #: 297
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/15/2007 1:38:25 AM   
wdolson

 

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

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

Did you know that there is a song about getting bitten on the arse by a Red Back Spider?


There was a red back on the toilet seat when I was there last night,
I didn't see him in the dark, but boy I felt his bite!

Here I am in hospital, a sad and sorry sight,
Because there was a red back on the toilet seat when I was there last night.

What I remember of it off the top of my head.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 298
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/15/2007 1:51:33 AM   
niceguy2005


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, some of the early Kamikaze pilots were indeed frothing at the mouth volunteers, but many, many others were "volunteered" for this duty.

I have heard this (read it somewhere, but can't recall the reference). I did see a documentary once where they interivewed a "kamikaze" pilot. I think the war ended before he flew his mission. He said that many of the pilots felt they were being selected to be murdered and were deeply resentful of the program. Still, peer pressure being what it was in Japanese society it would be better to fly off and die rather than stay home and face scorn and ridicule.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 299
RE: Übercorsair and übercap - 9/15/2007 1:58:38 AM   
wdolson

 

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

ORIGINAL: Yakface

Shokaku, Taiyo and Shinano all went down to subs - may be others


quote:

ORIGINAL: Doggie

Shôkaku; sunk by Cavalla

Shinano ; sunk by Archerfish

I wouldn't count Taiyo as a fleet carrier. U.S.S. Langley was sunk by land based air but it was used as an aircraft ferry and was more of a transport than an operational CV



I think he was possibly thinking of Taiho, which was sunk by Albacore on the eve of the Battle of the Philippine Sea. The Taiyo was a CVE which was torpedoed on three different occasions and survived two of them.

Hornet was abandoned and the USN was attempting to scuttle her when Japanese surface forces arrived and finished the job. I would credit her loss to Japanese naval air since the USN would have scuttled her if the surface ships didn't arrive.

The Princeton was also lost to a dive bomber attack, though it was from a land based dive bomber. Quite a few US carriers were damaged by aircraft. Most of the big deck carriers (CVs) in action in early 1945 was hit at least once by a kamikaze. Intrepid was torpedoed early in her carreer too. Saratoga and Enterprise both took damage in 1942. The Saratoga was torpedoed by a sub though.

Superior US damage control processes enabled badly damaged ships to be saved.

One factor that made a big difference was evolving doctrine and procedures. When the Allies encountered an area that had a problem, they usually got aggressive about fixing it and doing better. The USN torpedo debacle was notable for going against this trend.

Japan was much slower to adopt new doctrine and procedures. Taiho was lost for the same reason the 4 carriers are Midway became infernos. The torpedo hit ruptured av gas lines which fed fires. After the Lexingon's loss, the USN started flooding fuel lines with CO2 when not in use. This simple procedure saved several US carriers during the war.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Doggie)
Post #: 300
Page:   <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   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  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.687