Slitherine

quote:

Shilling's view concerning the merits of the P-40 vs the Zero leaves no doubt as to which he considers the superior aircraft. "If you look up maneuverable in Webster's Dictionary, by all criteria the P-40 was more maneuverable." The aircraft, actually a model H81-A2 similar to the P-40B, had originally been set up for British machine guns. They were shipped to China without armament and U.S. 30 cal. guns were installed by the AVG crews. "The P-40 was faster (354 mph with combat load vs a little over 300 for the Zero), the roll rate at 240-280 mph was 3 times faster and the aircraft could outdive the Zero." In talking with Saburo Sakai, he was told that the Japanese pilots didn't like to dive the airplane at much over 350 mph. Apparently at anything much over that the control surfaces would stiffen and the skin on the wings would wrinkle, causing, as Sakai put it 'the pilot much concern'. "I many times dove to 480 mph. We didn't have any reservations about taking the plane to its red line." Shilling did admit that the Zero had a much smaller turning radius but "we didn't dogfight with them. Why should we when we had the speed advantage?" The AVG used hit-and-run tactics which worked very well, as the numbers show. "We attacked whenever we had the speed advantage. If we got into trouble we would simply dive away."

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

A2A combat is complicated and the version of history that suggests that US pilots had a problem consequence of doctrine or training, or some yet-to-be-realized learning curve thingie that gave the Zero an edge are not, in my view, substantiated by any quantititaive data. The claim's been made. I've never seen anyone back up the claim. The claim might be correct but, again, I'll have more faith in it when the data have been systematically examined.

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

quote:

However, to suggest that the allied pilots, UK/US and Dutch were operating with a superior game plan tacitically is just untrue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

It's a good catchphrase for training people not to bleed out energy against Zeroes. And yet, some WW2 vets held the P-40 to be more maneuverable.

http://www.mucheswarbirds.com/Shilling.html

quote:

Shilling's view concerning the merits of the P-40 vs the Zero leaves no doubt as to which he considers the superior aircraft. "If you look up maneuverable in Webster's Dictionary, by all criteria the P-40 was more maneuverable." The aircraft, actually a model H81-A2 similar to the P-40B, had originally been set up for British machine guns. They were shipped to China without armament and U.S. 30 cal. guns were installed by the AVG crews. "The P-40 was faster (354 mph with combat load vs a little over 300 for the Zero), the roll rate at 240-280 mph was 3 times faster and the aircraft could outdive the Zero." In talking with Saburo Sakai, he was told that the Japanese pilots didn't like to dive the airplane at much over 350 mph. Apparently at anything much over that the control surfaces would stiffen and the skin on the wings would wrinkle, causing, as Sakai put it 'the pilot much concern'. "I many times dove to 480 mph. We didn't have any reservations about taking the plane to its red line." Shilling did admit that the Zero had a much smaller turning radius but "we didn't dogfight with them. Why should we when we had the speed advantage?" The AVG used hit-and-run tactics which worked very well, as the numbers show. "We attacked whenever we had the speed advantage. If we got into trouble we would simply dive away."

Shilling also recalls the very phenom that you mention. That dogfighting with a zero wasn't a good idea, and that viral learning led P-40s to adopt other tactics.

http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Shilling2.html

Of course, Eric Hartmann also said that he avoided turning engagements more generally (same link).

I'm sorry if I came down too hard on you. Yer comment sounded like the sort of Zero advocacy that I've seen before. If it wasn't meant as such my bad.

Anyhow, my notion is that for designing a consim, the quantitative data will matter, and that's what will tell me the degree to which the Zero had any edge over USAAC types during the early war. The anedcotes provided by oral history may tell you how the Allied pilots learned to get through the early part of the war, but they won't tell you what their overall relative attrition rates were.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

AW1Steve - don't personalize these things.  You'll find on these boards that there are some very educated, very experienced even, and no less opinionated persons on this board.  They provide a great vehicle for discussion, and some them get a bit "assertive" at times.  You'll find that just like just like in real life, there are the sorts that are the "BB vs. CV" the "Maneuver vs. Frontal" or any of the other historical type of debates.  In truth, there's usually bit of overlap as to who's right or wrong, but given the fact that nobody dies when we win a debate, we have the luxury of squabbaling on for days or, in the case of this games, several years.

Agree to disagree on some things.  Most folks around here are full of BS anyway, some more than others (present company included).

Enjoy the "disucssion".  But, if you're not actually enjoying the ta-de-da, it's not worth raising your blood-pressure over.

Regards,
-F-

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

It's a good catchphrase for training people not to bleed out energy against Zeroes. And yet, some WW2 vets held the P-40 to be more maneuverable.

http://www.mucheswarbirds.com/Shilling.html

quote:

Shilling's view concerning the merits of the P-40 vs the Zero leaves no doubt as to which he considers the superior aircraft. "If you look up maneuverable in Webster's Dictionary, by all criteria the P-40 was more maneuverable." The aircraft, actually a model H81-A2 similar to the P-40B, had originally been set up for British machine guns. They were shipped to China without armament and U.S. 30 cal. guns were installed by the AVG crews. "The P-40 was faster (354 mph with combat load vs a little over 300 for the Zero), the roll rate at 240-280 mph was 3 times faster and the aircraft could outdive the Zero." In talking with Saburo Sakai, he was told that the Japanese pilots didn't like to dive the airplane at much over 350 mph. Apparently at anything much over that the control surfaces would stiffen and the skin on the wings would wrinkle, causing, as Sakai put it 'the pilot much concern'. "I many times dove to 480 mph. We didn't have any reservations about taking the plane to its red line." Shilling did admit that the Zero had a much smaller turning radius but "we didn't dogfight with them. Why should we when we had the speed advantage?" The AVG used hit-and-run tactics which worked very well, as the numbers show. "We attacked whenever we had the speed advantage. If we got into trouble we would simply dive away."

Shilling also recalls the very phenom that you mention. That dogfighting with a zero wasn't a good idea, and that viral learning led P-40s to adopt other tactics.

http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Shilling2.html

Of course, Eric Hartmann also said that he avoided turning engagements more generally (same link).

I'm sorry if I came down too hard on you. Yer comment sounded like the sort of Zero advocacy that I've seen before. If it wasn't meant as such my bad.

Anyhow, my notion is that for designing a consim, the quantitative data will matter, and that's what will tell me the degree to which the Zero had any edge over USAAC types during the early war. The anedcotes provided by oral history may tell you how the Allied pilots learned to get through the early part of the war, but they won't tell you what their overall relative attrition rates were.

I think if you go back and read the rest of my posts , you see that All I have tried to say , since my very first response , is what Von Richoffen , and Boeche said in world war 1. "It's not the crate , it's the pilot". I can't be any plainer. The way you ripped me was not indicative of someone who has been following the post s, but someone who jumped in with both feet when he saw a chance to pontificate on his favorite subject. You won't have to try and put words in my mouth if you go back and read my previous posts . You "were not hard on me because I sounded like a zero advocate". You were rude because you never bothered to read what I or anyone else had written. In the Navy we used to have an abbreviation RTFQ. Talk about "inaccurate and inadequet".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

It's a good catchphrase for training people not to bleed out energy against Zeroes. And yet, some WW2 vets held the P-40 to be more maneuverable.

http://www.mucheswarbirds.com/Shilling.html

quote:

Shilling's view concerning the merits of the P-40 vs the Zero leaves no doubt as to which he considers the superior aircraft. "If you look up maneuverable in Webster's Dictionary, by all criteria the P-40 was more maneuverable." The aircraft, actually a model H81-A2 similar to the P-40B, had originally been set up for British machine guns. They were shipped to China without armament and U.S. 30 cal. guns were installed by the AVG crews. "The P-40 was faster (354 mph with combat load vs a little over 300 for the Zero), the roll rate at 240-280 mph was 3 times faster and the aircraft could outdive the Zero." In talking with Saburo Sakai, he was told that the Japanese pilots didn't like to dive the airplane at much over 350 mph. Apparently at anything much over that the control surfaces would stiffen and the skin on the wings would wrinkle, causing, as Sakai put it 'the pilot much concern'. "I many times dove to 480 mph. We didn't have any reservations about taking the plane to its red line." Shilling did admit that the Zero had a much smaller turning radius but "we didn't dogfight with them. Why should we when we had the speed advantage?" The AVG used hit-and-run tactics which worked very well, as the numbers show. "We attacked whenever we had the speed advantage. If we got into trouble we would simply dive away."

Shilling also recalls the very phenom that you mention. That dogfighting with a zero wasn't a good idea, and that viral learning led P-40s to adopt other tactics.

http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Shilling2.html

Of course, Eric Hartmann also said that he avoided turning engagements more generally (same link).

I'm sorry if I came down too hard on you. Yer comment sounded like the sort of Zero advocacy that I've seen before. If it wasn't meant as such my bad.

Anyhow, my notion is that for designing a consim, the quantitative data will matter, and that's what will tell me the degree to which the Zero had any edge over USAAC types during the early war. The anedcotes provided by oral history may tell you how the Allied pilots learned to get through the early part of the war, but they won't tell you what their overall relative attrition rates were.

I think if you go back and read the rest of my posts , you see that All I have tried to say , since my very first response , is what Von Richoffen , and Boeche said in world war 1. "It's not the crate , it's the pilot". I can't be any plainer. The way you ripped me was not indicative of someone who has been following the post s, but someone who jumped in with both feet when he saw a chance to pontificate on his favorite subject. You won't have to try and put words in my mouth if you go back and read my previous posts . You "were not hard on me because I sounded like a zero advocate". You were rude because you never bothered to read what I or anyone else had written. In the Navy we used to have an abbreviation RTFQ. Talk about "inaccurate and inadequet".

Steve,
As a poster who has been quiet for quite a long time, let me just add a little perspective to this.
I'm sure Mdiehl meant no offense - he said so above.
But this relates to this game, and hence it's place on this forum. If you follow the link he posted, you will discover that the origin of the emotional debate goes back to the genesis of WitP in it's first form GG's PacWar.
In the posted thread link back in 2000 as PacWar was being developed - there was a discussion going on over how to rate the aircraft in the game and the one-sided exchange rates being developed. It was argued in that link that historical or not it provided game balance. Mdiehl argued (basically a lone voice t the time) that it was not only unhistorical - it was a poor way to develop game balance.

It has carried over into WitP and has been debated ever since. The only solution now is to document as best as can be done what really happened, and take it from there.

Needless to say, over the years this has become a hot topic. The only thing that makes sense now is to calmly do the study that Mdiehl is undertaking and see where it leads.

No subject is too dangerous to look into.

So be of good cheer and let's not go into defensive mode.

[By the way, a relative of mine died in a P-40 over China during the war (his case was waste in as far as it was a mechanical failure at the end of his tour - not combat), and I don't take offense at looking into this topic.]

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
I think if you go back and read the rest of my posts , you see that All I have tried to say , since my very first response , is what Von Richoffen , and Boeche said in world war 1. "It's not the crate , it's the pilot". I can't be any plainer. The way you ripped me was not indicative of someone who has been following the post s, but someone who jumped in with both feet when he saw a chance to pontificate on his favorite subject. You won't have to try and put words in my mouth if you go back and read my previous posts . You "were not hard on me because I sounded like a zero advocate". You were rude because you never bothered to read what I or anyone else had written. In the Navy we used to have an abbreviation RTFQ. Talk about "inaccurate and inadequet".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

There was a series of books documenting the air war between the Luftwaffe and the Red Air Force during WWII. The name escapes me but I believe they are out of print and rather pricey IIRC. Anyone know?

Black Cross vs Red Star series I believe you're referring too.....yup pricey and i've never managed to get my hands on them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
I think if you go back and read the rest of my posts , you see that All I have tried to say , since my very first response , is what Von Richoffen , and Boeche said in world war 1. "It's not the crate , it's the pilot". I can't be any plainer. The way you ripped me was not indicative of someone who has been following the post s, but someone who jumped in with both feet when he saw a chance to pontificate on his favorite subject. You won't have to try and put words in my mouth if you go back and read my previous posts . You "were not hard on me because I sounded like a zero advocate". You were rude because you never bothered to read what I or anyone else had written. In the Navy we used to have an abbreviation RTFQ. Talk about "inaccurate and inadequet".

Steve. I think you are being a bit thin-skinned here. Some mis-understanding over who made what point or said this or that is inevitable in a multiple entry forum like this. Mdiehl has stated, as I did, that no disrespect was intended. He was just offering an opposing point of view, based on statistics he had gathered that showed no great one-sidedness in air-to-air results. If the Japanese were superior pilots in superior aircraft, then the results should be demonstrably one-sided. If the results come out pretty equal, then there is a need to re-think the assumption.

I for one don't give as much credence to the great superiority of Japanese fighter pilots as many do. Yes, they had a great deal of experiance---against the Chinese Air Farce. Hardly a first class opponant. Then they jumped the unready and poorly equipped Allied "second string" in Malaya and the DEI. The only "first line" opposition they faced in the opening moves of the War was the Americans, and when MacArthur and Bereton "screwed the pooch" on the opening day and got most of their A/C taken out on the ground, that became a rather one-sided fight as well. The AVG was the only first-class opposition they faced in the opening few months, and they didn't do very well against it.

Mdiehl did some serious statistical analysis on the results when both sides were ready for a fight..., basically in the SW Pacific from May of 1942 to the end of the year. And it showed no clear advantage to either side (the US came out a bit ahead, but the Japanese were flying extended range ops in the Solomons which made their task more difficult). We are not trying to "put you down". Just pointing out that when you "crunch the numbers", you don't get the result you were predicting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

No, he's saying that the AVG never engaged the Zeros... I'm not sure that USN F2As ever engaged Zeros either...

Ah , now I understand. Yes the USMC F2a's had the misfortune to meet them at Midway. I had thought that the the British Buff's had encountered Zero's when the KB attacked the Indian ocean forces.

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

This is true...excpet perhaps actually engaging the zeros.

To settle the debate they actaully had a mock dogfight. A pilot from the RAF and AVG each was selected and they took off from the same airfield (at Mandalay IIRC) and engaged in several mock dogfights. The P-40 thoroughly trounced the Buff.

This happened very early on in the war....I'm not sure in retrospect it was a very good idea. It can't have done much for the confidence of the RAF pilots in their plane. Pointing out their vulnerability would not necessarily have helped the pilots unless you could teach them tactics to overcome them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

There was a series of books documenting the air war between the Luftwaffe and the Red Air Force during WWII. The name escapes me but I believe they are out of print and rather pricey IIRC. Anyone know?

Black Cross vs Red Star series I believe you're referring too.....yup pricey and i've never managed to get my hands on them.

I have several leads on the volumes....though I'll forgo the seller that wants $980.00 for a Vol I original. It'll have to wait anyway. Having finished my studies in the Pacific and Burma, I want to return to the Med as the JG-26 bucked my ongoing theory a bit so Shores' Malta volumes are next. Nomanhan gave me a sample of Soviet air combat for the time being anyway unless i find a realllly good deal.

One point of confusion though. There are three volumes of BC vs. RS that i've found but there also seems to be a newer book that is all contained and in one volume....an abridged "light" version I take it? and it's still in print.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Nik,

Was BCvRS written by Christer Bergstromm?

If so he has a website which could lead you to the info

http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl

You should contact him, he's as full of BS as the rest of us and would feel at home on this forum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who has sent me a PM . I appreciate the advice and kind words. I apologise for taking anything or anyone out of context. I'm sorry for taking offense where apparently none was given. And I regret any annoyance , unpleasantness ,discomfort or bad feelings that I have cause on this thread. Sorry. I'll try not to let it happen again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Nik,

Was BCvRS written by Christer Bergstromm?

If so he has a website which could lead you to the info

http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl

You should contact him, he's as full of BS as the rest of us and would feel at home on this forum.

Yes. C. Bergstrom. You've read the books then? What makes you say he's full of the stuff or am I missing an obvious Aussie joke again....(Drongo did that to me all the time ) Only have read good things about him so far but have no experience as with Shores and other authors so that and the price has made me a tad leary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

 I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who has sent me a PM . I appreciate the advice and kind words. I apologise for taking anything or anyone out of context. I'm sorry for taking offense where apparently none was given. And I regret any annoyance , unpleasantness ,discomfort or bad feelings that I have cause on this thread. Sorry. I'll try not to let it happen again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Oh yea the AVG thought they were slighted because they did not get the Buffalos until Rangoon."


I'm not sure that I understand this comment. When did the AVG get Buffalos? Are you saying that they wanted Buffalos and were upset at getting P40s instead?

quote:

ORIGINAL: trollelite
but P-39 perform bad even against unescorted D3A or B5N, while at least Brewster 339 is deadly in such case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: trollelite

Some planes are poor against fighter, but relatively deadly to unescorted bombers. But there are several Fighters or FB cannot shot down anything, most notabaly wirraway, I think with their 37 mm cannon cobra should be better, but it's not. Perhaps 37mm not too accurate, but they still have their .5 nose MG.....

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: trollelite

Sorry perhaps it's because of CHS. But I never impressed by aircobra anyway. And PI pilots not too good, but dutch exp also rather low.

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie