The great F4F vs AM6 Myth

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

The great F4F vs AM6 Myth

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 >> The great F4F vs AM6 Myth

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

The great F4F vs AM6 Myth - 11/7/2002 11:27:13 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

Just one man's opinion.

There seems to be a perpetuating myth out there that the UV and hence the WitP combat model vis a vis the F4F and AM6 is somehow flawed. A lot of assumptions and opinions seem to grounded on what amount to be unsubstantiated second hand AARs.

I have been playing UV for 6 months now and have yet to come accross this proported skewed combat results between the F4F and the AM6. In my expirence conditions being equal (ie; odds, fatigue, moral) you consistantly get 1:1 combat loss ratio. Once attrition starts taking effect on IJN this ratio slowly reaches about 1:2 in favor of the allies. Once superior allied a/c enter the scene it becomes 1:3 or more in favor of the allies. Expirence has some effect but its not the overideing one. At least as pertaining to F4F vs Zero combat is concerned.

Where is the historical descrepency?

True its possible to occasionally get skewed results when a player runs his air units into the ground and or fights against great odds , but these descrepencies are due to poor*game play* not poor *game design*. Quite simply UV punishes players for there mistakes and or poor judgement. FOW aslo plays a part in potentionally skewing results reported in AARs.

I ask other long time players of UV like Mogami, U2, Drongo and others. Baring other factors have, have you consistently expirenced greatly skewed combat results between F4F vs Zero?

It seems to me to be a lot of useless debate over something that aint broke.

Post #: 1

- 11/7/2002 12:45:50 PM

Ranger-75

Posts: 610
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline

I don't have breakdowns for specific aircraft, but the official totals have the F4F Wildcat downing 5.9 enemy aircraft for each Wildcat lost. This was as of the end of 1942.

How many Wildcat kills were A6M Zeros as opposed to Vals, Kates, Bettys??? not known.

How many "other types" managed to down an F4F, likely not many if any at all.

So, I would assume that "most" of the Wildcat air to air losses were at the hand of Zeros while perhaps only 1/3 to 1/4 of the Wildcat's kills were zeros. So if we say 590 kills vs 100 losses (keeping the same ratio), with all 100 losses going to zero kills, and 196 Wildcat kills being zeros, then the assumed math would work out to a 2:1 ratio of Wildcat kills to losses vs the Zero for the entire year 1942.

By the way, the F6F Hellcat kill loss ratio was 6,477:270 or 23.98:1 (all types) :eek:

The F4U Corsair had an 11.3:1 kill ratio (all types).

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 2

- 11/7/2002 2:28:16 PM

Nikademus

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

I posted my most recent stats on the Pilot rotation thread after yet another implication that the air model of UV was "crappy"
It was ignored by those who seem to feel that the model is flawed, even if they've never played it. sigh :rolleyes:

approx losses as of 12/1/42 (from earliest start in 5/42)

A6M2 : 644
A6M3 : 202

F4F3 : 1
F4F4 : 337

P40E : 50

G4M : 251
B25 : 31
B26 : 35

As I clarified, my FOW option was on, and these stats are presented to both the IJN and USN player. Further, the losses do include planes that went down with their carriers. Since the AI in my game made no serious bid for New Gineau, and did not have major air assets on Lunga when i stampeded in, there were few losses of IJN planes as a result of taken bases. So even factoring in ground/ship losses, operational and accidental losses and such, its still quite clear that the vaunted "kill ratio" is hardly out of wack after 7 months of fighting. Obviously if the AI had not been playing i feel the losses would have been either more 1:1 or slightly in favor of the Allies since most combats occured over Allied bases and as all know, Japanese dur is lower and they have no armor.

As in my last campaign....my scrappy RAAF P-40's fighting over PM fared the best, fighting defensively over their base. Losses were higher in the last game because i made a concerted effort....this time out the AI made a decent effort at first but then just seemed to say "hell with it" and focused on the Solomons chain with only semi-frequent visitations from Rabaul.

I see nothing "majorly" wrong with the combat model. I was concerned over the DUR ratings of the A6M and G4M and G3M as they do seem a bit high, especially the bombers (B25 and 26 have ratings of 42 and 44)....but after examing these latest figures i'm more of the mind that Gary knew what he was doing, more specifically I re-evaluated my opinion on how important the "armor" factor of the plane is and comparing it to the weapons stats of the principle fighters in the game. Examinations of active A6M land groups show a marked decrease in EXP and of the bombers......heck, the AI only had one G4M group in operation, and it (I believe) was a reinforcement group with a strength of 20 planes.

I did not employ any radical strategies.....no "gamie" stuff i.e., changing the default loadouts of carriers (ala Ye Old Stuff a carrier with VF's trick) and of course the AI follows it's script which while constrained and unimaginative is often more historical since only humans come up with such devious plots :) I will plead guilty to stuffing the hell out of Port Morosby though which may be a little unrealistic but what can i say? I knew the AI wasn't going to bother Austrailia and my engineers had been busy ;)

As such, I'm far more concerned with other equally important aspects of the game model.....primarily the ship damage model (which needs additional Hit Locations to prevent the classic, few (penetrating) hits high damage/sunk syndrome), the effects of FIRE on ships and of course, an old saga of mine......proper penetration ratings of GP/HE bombs and how those bombs cause damage to ships even when they do legitimately penetrate. As often related right now they behave like torpedoes more than bombs.

My only major concern for the air model is that it seems impossible to damage grounded air assets even at bases with no early warning system (i.e. "Radar", or coast watchers etc) This is especially important for later era scenerios when heavy USN Carrier assets come-a-callin.

EXP has indeed been reduced in importance (ironic given all the fuss over it), My RAAF groups had a small but definate EXP defecit when they started, this proved insufficient to save the attacking IJN planes from the effects of morale and fatique from their long journeys too and from Rabaul, much less the low DUR and lack of armor on their planes. When combined with the low hitting power of the 7.7 (pen of 1) most of my P-40's survived vs being shot down. When they were shot down.....many times the pilot bailed and lived thus helping preserve EXP to the point where it actually, slowly but painfully went up. Operational accidents robbed me of a few good men......probably more than combat, but thats how it was back then.

Heh, never forget the time i put the Hiryu's air groups on "training" then forgot about them for two weeks. EXP went down 10 points for each airgroup because of operational losses and new green pilots coming in to replace the high qualities that were killed. That was the last time i ever used that feature other than as a standdown tool ;) There has been a concern that EXP is too easily driven up by bombing easy targets. This is true to an extent but in actuality it does take far more than a few missions to bump EXP once it gets past 50.....and fighters get the least benefit from this trick....(fighter bombers are an exception of course.....but early in the game only the P-39 is "officially" rated as a fighter bomber. The P-40, F4F, and A6M while they are rated for a bomb load are labelled as "Fighters" and as such cannot have bombing runs assigned to them (they can "sweep" though) "escorting" the bombers gives little in terms of EXP increases unless actual aerial combat occurs.

Actually forget A6M's and F4F's.....the plane i'm wondering about is the C47. For some strange reason i can supply bases far in excess of it's rated endurance in the game. I was supplying Lae from Cookstown with no problem!

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 3

- 11/7/2002 2:30:19 PM

Drongo

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline

Posted by TIMJOT
[QUOTE]I ask other long time players of UV like Mogami, U2, Drongo and others. Baring other factors have, have you consistently expirenced greatly skewed combat results between F4F vs Zero? [/QUOTE]

Always hard to tell as I often cant be sure of the circumstances. I have seen the F4F badly handled by the A6M from time to time but I wouldn't know the situation on both sides that may have influenced it.

My general impression of the F4F in UV is that it is rugged and can dish out punishment and in the right circumstances can maul an equivalent group of A6M's.

Having said that, I thought I might run a quick test (since I had a test game handy). Its only 5 battles but if the F4F/US pilot combination was completely outclassed by the A6M/Jap pilot, it would show.

Since I was set up for it, the battles are designed to be representative of combat around Henderson Field in Aug-Nov '42.

The japanese squadron is an 80 experience group of 27 A6M2's led by a squadron leader with 67 leadership and 68 inspiration.
They are flying a 180 mile (6 hexes) sweep to a Henderson Field equivalent at 10,000 ft. The Japanese 80 experience is reasonable for the time (both in UV and historical) with the exception of Sakai's group.

The USN squadron is an 75 experience group of 36 F4F-4's led by a squadron leader with 65 leadership and 72 inspiration. They are on 80 % CAP at 15,000 ft (which gives them 28 interceptors max). The US base has radar to represent coastwatcher/radar early warning which normally allowed the US planes to attack Jap strikes from a height advantage.

The battles are set up to avoid any seed problems of repeating results. Each days weather has been recorded. At the end of the AAR I've recorded the real losses (they rarely differ). There are two attacks per day because of the short range. Feel free to discount each days second attack if you want. All air groups start each battle on 99 morale and 0 fatigue.
**************************
THUNDERSTORMS
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/29/42

Air attack on Irau , at 42,43

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 24

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 28

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 5 destroyed

no losses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Irau , at 42,43

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 20

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 28

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 damaged

LT F. Gabriel of VF-2 is credited with kill number 2
****************************************
[COLOR=red]A6M2 dest/dam = 7/1[/COLOR]
[COLOR=red]F4F-4 dest/dam = 1/0[/COLOR]
****************************************
RAIN
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/30/42

Air attack on Irau , at 42,43

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 25

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 28

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 3 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 2 damaged

PO1 W.Matsuyama of F2/1st Daitai is credited with kill number 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Irau , at 42,43

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 24

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 24

no losses

no losses
************************************
[COLOR=red]A6M2 dest/dam = 1/1[/COLOR]
[COLOR=red]F4F-4 dest/dam = 3/3[/COLOR]
************************************
RAIN
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/31/42

Air attack on Irau , at 42,43

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 24

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 25

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 destroyed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Irau , at 42,43

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 23

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 28

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 3 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 2 damaged

no losses

ENS E. Zaeske of VF-2 is credited with kill number 3
***************************************
[COLOR=red]A6M2 dest/dam = 6/3[/COLOR]
[COLOR=red]F4F-4 dest/dam = 1/0[/COLOR]
***************************************
PARTLY CLOUDY
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/01/43

Air attack on Irau , at 42,43

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 24

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 21

no losses

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 2 damaged
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Irau , at 42,43

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 24

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 26

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 3 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 3 damaged

WO S.Tokuda of is credited with kill number 3

LCDR P. Ramsey of VF-2 bails out and is RESCUED
***************************************
[COLOR=red]A6M2 dest/dam = 2/0[/COLOR]
[COLOR=red]F4F-4 dest/dam = 4/4[/COLOR]
***************************************
PARTLY CLOUDY
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/02/43

Air attack on Irau , at 42,43

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 24

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 28

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 2 destroyed

no losses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Irau , at 42,43

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 22

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 21

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 destroyed
***********************************
[COLOR=red]A6M2 dest/dam = 3/0[/COLOR]
[COLOR=red]F4F-4 dest/dam = 1/0[/COLOR]
***********************************
[COLOR=red]Totals[/COLOR]
[COLOR=red]A6M2 dest/dam = 19/5[/COLOR]
[COLOR=red]F4F-4 dest/dam = 9/6[/COLOR]
***********************************
Make of it what you wish.

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 4

- 11/7/2002 3:06:46 PM

Drongo

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline

As an aside, the game I used for this test was originally intended for testing the capabilities of the F4U corsair (the model was the early one you get in UV) for when I had to face it in my PBEM.

After rolling the game forward to March '43, I put up a 24 a/c squadron of F4U's on CAP. They had an average leader and 70 experience. Against them I sent one of the Tainan (?) elite squadrons (27 pilots and A6M3's, still at their original exp of 85+ as they had been sitting around doing nothing for 9 months). Their leader was top notch.

I ran 10 battles with the Japs sweeping in at 15000 ft and all the F4U's doing CAP at same alt. There was no allied radar at their base. The result was a 10-1 kill ratio in favour of the F4U's.:eek: :eek: :eek:

I quickly dropped the test, forgot the results and went back to pretending that my fighters could somehow survive 1943.

God I hope that result was somehow skewed.:p

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 5

- 11/7/2002 3:29:24 PM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

Music to my ears !:D

_____________________________

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 6

Try this - 11/7/2002 8:31:45 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Greetings, I know not what course others might take, but as for me if there are 24 enemy fighters I send 100 of mine. :D

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 7

- 11/7/2002 10:05:08 PM

mdiehl

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

Interesting tests, Drongo. If you are willing, would you mind running a few 1:1 CV engagements under some controlled circumstance?

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 8

- 11/7/2002 10:31:32 PM

Drongo

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline

Posted by mdiehl
[QUOTE]Interesting tests, Drongo. If you are willing, would you mind running a few 1:1 CV engagements under some controlled circumstance?[/QUOTE]

Don't think I will have the time till next week (everything was already set up for the land combat). Setting up a series of CV vs CV encounters that can smoothly generate 5-10 seperate battles is a lot trickier.

There actually shouldn't be much variation if the same squadrons were operating from CV's (US CV would have same radar as US base) if the same range was used.

To be definitive, you need more than 10 battles (but what I posted should be indicative of what to expect in the circumstances I laid out).

As a lot of players have indicated to you, results like the ones I posted will often get buried by other circumstances.

If no one else will do it before next Tuesday, I will try to run a set of 20.

What "controlled circumstances" do you want ?(of course since you never played the bloody game, you'll have to describe them in historical terms :p).

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 9

- 11/7/2002 10:38:18 PM

mdiehl

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

Coral Sea, ten times. Both TF in known locations in range of each other. No LBA conducting airstrikes.

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 10

- 11/7/2002 11:00:38 PM

Drongo

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline

Posted by Mdiehl
[QUOTE]Coral Sea, ten times. Both TF in known locations in range of each other. No LBA conducting airstrikes.[/QUOTE]

Now you're pushing our friendship.:p

A full Coral Sea? Bugger that.

If you introduce a second squadron on each side, you'll then get a wide variety of results. Both attacking squadrons have to fly the same turn to get an unbiased result (otherwise only 1 A6M2 squadrons comes up against 2 F4F-4 squadrons, etc). The situation is already complicated by weather and the need to spot the enemy TF.

What I'll do (if still needed) is a trial run next week with 1 CV and 1 squadron (same squadrons as before) per side and see if there is any major difference to the first set of results. If there is, I might give the 2 CV/Sq vs 2CV/Sq a try. If there's not, I'll run a series of tests using land based squadrons. Depends on how much time I have.

Anyone else can volunteer in the meantime to put a myth to bed.

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 11

- 11/7/2002 11:14:35 PM

mdiehl

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

Two CVs on two then. I want to know how the A6Ms and F4Fs fare in CV combat where we may dispense with the range, airbase and all that stuff. I'm also particularly interested in the sizes of the CAPs. The test might answer two questions at the same time (The F4F A6M thing and whether allowing players to put huge numbers of a/c on CAP is appropriate).

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 12

- 11/8/2002 12:47:21 AM

Jeremy Pritchard

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline

Things you should be aware of before you do these tests...

#1. Rarely was there ever purely fighter vs. fighter actions over equal distances.

#2. Tactics used to escort bombers were different. Japanese Tactics were to minimize bomer losses, USN Tactics were to maximize enemy CAP losses.

UV and PW have air combat based purely on the US model, where both sides maximize enemy casualties (i.e., fighters act as if there are no bombers) while not protecting the bombers. Historically, the Japanese kept close to their bombers, to keep allied fighters away. This is one of the reasons why IJNAF fighter losses were higher (as they were not flying to their aircraft's maximum, like the Luftwaffe fighters did in the later part of the Battle of Britain, however this lowered friendly bomber losses to CAP).

So, there is a 'problem' in the way that PW and UV model air combat. You will notice that fighter losses/victories vs other fighters will not be different should bombers be included or not. However, it was different.

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 13

- 11/8/2002 1:30:54 AM

Nikademus

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

From watching the air action in UV Jeremy i'd say you are correct in regards to the fighter vs fighter thing.

By far the most important impact of fighters when they escort bombers is that they often will soak up the CAP's attention leaving the bombers far far less knocked around and disrupted allowing them to make good bombing runs (but not always.....Matrix has some good randoms built in that sometimes allow fighters to get at those tasty bombers in after only minimal interaction with the escorts)

Even an outnumbered or small escort group can frequently blunt a large CAP (large at least in terms of total numbers....Matrix has repeatedly stated that the total # shown will rarely if ever be the "actual" number that engage)

Thats what makes land based torpedo craft so dangerous. If a decent escort force exists, you cant count on the CAP to down or disrupt all of the bombers any more than you can count on the AA guns doing the same.

I've learned the hard way several times never to underestimate LBA w/ torpedoes even when i have what appears to be a CV advantage in terms of fighters.

If there are no escorts or only a couple? its a field day for the CAP. A fighter's greatest role is to protect it's charges, even at the cost of a negative kill ratio. Its worth it if the fish or bombs strike home.

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 14

- 11/8/2002 9:41:29 AM

Drongo

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline

Posted by Jeremy Pritchard
[QUOTE]Things you should be aware of before you do these tests...

#1. Rarely was there ever purely fighter vs. fighter actions over equal distances.

#2. Tactics used to escort bombers were different. Japanese Tactics were to minimize bomer losses, USN Tactics were to maximize enemy CAP losses.[/QUOTE]

Well, this will have little impact on the rationale behind the tests. The topic revolves around what happens in UV. The tests are only being done as an addition to anecdotal evidence.

Tests modeling the escorting of bombers is a waste as the fighters still fight fighters first and also the losses taken from attacking the bombers just make it harder to compare direct losses from fighter vs fighter.

There was never going to be a test "over equal distances" (a meeting engagement). The extra testing I mentioned earlier was to conduct a reverse situation. The planned testing will be something like 10 battles where A6M2's sweep an equivalent F4F-4 CAP from 6 hexes away and then 10 battles where the F4F-4's sweep the A6M2 CAP.

I did wonder whether the sweep should be something like half the size of defending CAP to better model what happened in the '42 CV strikes but the final exchange ratio (with both sides having a turn at attacking) should be the same.

I'll consider any suggestions.

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 15

- 11/8/2002 9:54:47 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]Coral Sea, ten times. Both TF in known locations in range of each other. No LBA conducting airstrikes. [/B][/QUOTE]

That would be difficult or at least very time consuming since you cant select specific TF to attack in UV. You would have to run a hell of a lot of test to get ten within your paremeters. Its interesting that you require ten indentical results to verify the legitamacy of the model as compared to only four historical results. With such a small pool of historical engagements to work with, who's to say that the historical results were not the anomaly. Now, Im not saying they were anomalies, just that we should be open minded on the possibility of some un-historical results, without damning the model.

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 16

- 11/8/2002 10:32:19 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]Two CVs on two then. I want to know how the A6Ms and F4Fs fare in CV combat where we may dispense with the range, airbase and all that stuff. I'm also particularly interested in the sizes of the CAPs. The test might answer two questions at the same time (The F4F A6M thing and whether allowing players to put huge numbers of a/c on CAP is appropriate). [/B][/QUOTE]

Are you refering to the tactic of deploying landbased naval fighters on carriers? While I dont do this personally. I see no reason to disallow players from increasing the ratio of fighters on their carriers if the fighter groups are available. The USN started the war with just 18 fighters on its carriers, by the end of the war fully 2/3rds of a/c on most carriers were fighters. Includeing Marine VMFs. So if a player wishes to deploy 100% fighters on some of his carriers at the expense of offensive capability, then to each his own. I personally dont think its worth the trade off.

Regarding CAP. You are limited to 90% of your fighter group for nomal CAP and 100% LRCP, but LRCP will suck the life out of your fighter groups very quickly so you have to use it spareingly. The more CAP the less fighter escort so again its a trade off

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 17

- 11/8/2002 11:54:19 AM

Drongo

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline

TIMJOT,

The reason I offered to run some tests was simply to limit anecdotal references of AAR's being used to "prove" inadequacies in the game over the modeling of A6M's vs F4F's etc.

I still feel that the general opinion of people who have played through several games of UV will be the best guide. They opinion would have been shaped by countless air battles in UV, under all the different circumstances that occur with normal UV tactics. If the overall inadequacy of the F4F as a fighter was apparent (and having an impact), they would know.

All that my game experience has told me so far is that the F4F is a capable fighter which does not regularly get shot out of the sky by the A6M. More importantly, under the UV system, I consider the A6M2 and the F4F-4 to be near equals as neither will stop an enemy strike, nor ensure that a friendly strike gets through, entirely on their merits as fighters. As a UV player, fighter exchange rates (unless enormously different) mean little in the overall scope of the game. Mind you, those bloody corsairs.....

I hope my use of test results do not stop people answering the initial thread question.

Cheers.

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 18

- 11/8/2002 12:00:34 PM

Zakhal

Posts: 2494
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Jyv�skyl�, Finland
Status: offline

So if wildcat is clearly superior to zero lets go ladder down. Hows it with buffalo? I think zero was vastly superior to it but if that comes as a myth too i guess it cant get any worse for the japanese player. Finns created aces with buffalos.

Few months from the start of the war japanese are able to response to allied airwar but then the next 3 years its all allied supremacy in the air. In pacific war you could atleast duke it out fairly till late 42-early 43.

10-1 against corsair? Sounds like a murder.:rolleyes:

As for playing UV i can say P40 kittyhawk owns zero. And theres zippo/nada you can do abt it. Unless you use numbers against quality. Havent tried JA army fighters yet, but i can guess the oscar (II) is just for target practise for the allied air wings.

Things have really changed worse for the japanese from the pacific war. But i guess thats the realism. If it was like this in reality the japanese had awful planes almost from the start.

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 19

Re: The great F4F vs AM6 Myth - 11/8/2002 12:29:24 PM

Zakhal

Posts: 2494
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Jyv�skyl�, Finland
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TIMJOT
[B]Just one man's opinion.
1:2 in favor of the allies. Once superior allied a/c enter the scene it becomes 1:3 or more in favor of the allies. Expirence has some effect but its not the overideing one.
[/B][/QUOTE]

1:3? Isnt it more like 1:10 for allies with the corsair as the first truly superior plane over the japanese zero.

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 20

- 11/8/2002 8:47:31 PM

Jeremy Pritchard

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline

I actually do think that a conservative Japanese player can 'last' until late 1942/early 1943 with a very intact IJNAF. Operation I-Go in early 1943 served only to throw away much of what was left of Japan's veteran and highly trained force (whatever you think of the potencey of this force). The attacks were uncoordinated, and too divided to offer much of anything. They basically threw away 200 aircraft and pilots on well developed and defended bases in Southern New Guinea, when they would have been more importantly used to guard troop transports across the Bismark Sea.

Maybe it was only a matter of time, but I see that the Japanese did a lot to dwindle their own resources and not maximizing their ability (like UV and PW players can do).

I really don't see the F4F as 'superior', just better in certain aspects, poorer in others. When the F4U-1 arrives, many, or most of the well trained/veteran IJNAF pilots were lost on missions like I-Go which offered them little chance of survival. Until this point in time, late 1942, the US was on the 'defense' in the air (even though they were slowly advancing on the ground). It was not until they let the IJNAF bash itself to bits on its defenses did they start to attack, and did they get the REALLY good airplanes.

So, if you are looking at repeating results to see if you can get another Coaral Sea, your best bet is to try and exactly repeat the battle, with every detail. Where aircraft were launched, where they reached their target, and exactly how much CAP was in the air. Otherwize, if you just throw X A6M at X F4F you will only end up in what would have happened if X A6M met X F4F, not what happened at the Coaral Sea, or any other air battle in the South/Central Pacific in 1942.

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 21

- 11/8/2002 9:33:42 PM

mdiehl

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

I'd be interested in the proposed test, Drongo, but if all the naysaying convinces you it's not worth the time I'll understand.

TIMJOT says:

[QUOTE]Its interesting that you require ten indentical results [/QUOTE]

No, I did not demand ten "identical" results. You have, again, to the point of uncountability, completely fabricated a straw man and attributed it to me. I don't believe your ancient claim to be a historian, because the only historians I know attempt to maintain at least a pretense of intellectual honesty. I just added you to my ignore list.

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 22

- 11/9/2002 4:06:21 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drongo
[B]TIMJOT,

The reason I offered to run some tests was simply to limit anecdotal references of AAR's being used to "prove" inadequacies in the game over the modeling of A6M's vs F4F's etc.

I still feel that the general opinion of people who have played through several games of UV will be the best guide. They opinion would have been shaped by countless air battles in UV, under all the different circumstances that occur with normal UV tactics. If the overall inadequacy of the F4F as a fighter was apparent (and having an impact), they would know.

All that my game experience has told me so far is that the F4F is a capable fighter which does not regularly get shot out of the sky by the A6M. More importantly, under the UV system, I consider the A6M2 and the F4F-4 to be near equals as neither will stop an enemy strike, nor ensure that a friendly strike gets through, entirely on their merits as fighters. As a UV player, fighter exchange rates (unless enormously different) mean little in the overall scope of the game. Mind you, those bloody corsairs.....

I hope my use of test results do not stop people answering the initial thread question.

Cheers. [/B][/QUOTE]

Drongo,

I think it would be great if you could do the test if you are willing to put the time in. My play expirence so far pretty much mirrors yours. I havent noticed many lopsided results between the F4F vs the zero. The few I have encountered were due to external circumstances (low moral, high fatigue, overwelming odds ). I think some players may be confuseing the F4Fs inability to stop strikes against friendly carriers with a precieved inequality with the zero. An unequality that just doesnt exist from my expirence. Maybe its just the way I play, but I think your right. Its a questioned best answered by players playing over time under all sorts of circumstances.

I await your test with great interest :)

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 23

- 11/9/2002 4:38:38 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]I'd be interested in the proposed test, Drongo, but if all the naysaying convinces you it's not worth the time I'll understand.

TIMJOT says:

No, I did not demand ten "identical" results. You have, again, to the point of uncountability, completely fabricated a straw man and attributed it to me. I don't believe your ancient claim to be a historian, because the only historians I know attempt to maintain at least a pretense of intellectual honesty. I just added you to my ignore list. [/B][/QUOTE]

Gee mdiehl you need to relax man. Nothing personel. I didnt say you "demanded" anything. You asked Drongo for a test. He asked what you wanted. You said 10 Coral Seas. I simply asked why you required 10 coral seas?:confused:

BTW, I never claimed to be a historian, far from it. You must be confuseing me with someone else. It wouldnt be the first time.:D

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 24

Re: Re: The great F4F vs AM6 Myth - 11/9/2002 4:46:28 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zakhal
[B]

1:3? Isnt it more like 1:10 for allies with the corsair as the first truly superior plane over the japanese zero. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yeah, well I havent gotten too far into 43 in any of my games so the Cosair hasnt really had a chance to make its presence felt yet. If Drongo's test is any indication. You can expect 1:10 raito or more in favor of the Cosair against the zero. Again UV seems to have the model correct.

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 25

- 11/9/2002 5:11:31 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zakhal
[B]So if wildcat is clearly superior to zero lets go ladder down. Hows it with buffalo? I think zero was vastly superior to it but if that comes as a myth too i guess it cant get any worse for the japanese player. Finns created aces with buffalos.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Zakhal

I dont think the Wildcat is superior to the zero. I think Jeremy is right. They are pretty much equal each with their own strengths and weaknesses.

The Finnish Buffalos pose an interesting question. " Whats more important; the pilots, the plane, or the tactics"?

The Brits, Dutch, and Americans could do nothing with the Buffalo against the zero. Yet the Finns had success with it against Soviet planes that included the P-40. While the Japanese had difficulty with the zero against P-40s.
:confused:

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 26

- 11/9/2002 5:39:58 AM

Posts: 3332
Joined: 7/17/2001
From: V�ster�s,Sweden
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zakhal
[B] Havent tried JA army fighters yet, but i can guess the oscar (II) is just for target practise for the allied air wings.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Hi

I really thought so too but I've used them in large numbers togheter with plenty of Zeros defending bases and they get good kills. I was pleasantly surprised. However it is now Jan 1943 in my PBEM game and larger numbers of P-38s are showing up and then the Hellcats plus Corsairs will finish them off quite easily I suspect:(

Dan

_____________________________

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 27

- 11/9/2002 12:11:51 PM

Drongo

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline

Posted by TIMJOT
[QUOTE]The Brits, Dutch, and Americans could do nothing with the Buffalo against the zero. Yet the Finns had success with it against Soviet planes that included the P-40. While the Japanese had difficulty with the zero against P-40s. [/QUOTE]

The Finnish Buffalos were actually B-239s, a far lighter version of the F2A-2 and closer to the original performance of the F2A-1 (which was considered by many as the best model for climb, ceiling and manueverability).

The USN/USMC's had the F2A-3 (considered an overweight "slug") at Midway.

I think the story goes that when the Finns assembled the B-239's, they threw out everything they considered superfluous to save weight, added armour, the German Revi deflector sight and 3 x .50 cal HMG and a LMG (.303?), increased the fuel capacity and then used "finger four" and modern aerial tactics against the fairly bad early-war Russian pilots, tactics and equipment (like gunsights painted onto the windscreen).

The Finns flying the B-239 were led by a "Thatch" style air tactician and the B-239's were flown by pilots that were considered the best of all the Finnish veterans. The result was a kill ratio in their favour of around 70 to 1 (realistically, prob about 20 or 30 to 1).

Here is a good site for this type of anal retentive info on the Buffalo :

http://www.danford.net/buff.htm

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 28

- 11/9/2002 12:24:49 PM

Drongo

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline

Posted by U2
[QUOTE]I really thought so too but I've used them in large numbers togheter with plenty of Zeros defending bases and they get good kills. I was pleasantly surprised. However it is now Jan 1943 in my PBEM game and larger numbers of P-38s are showing up and then the Hellcats plus Corsairs will finish them off quite easily I suspect [/QUOTE]

I just use the Oscars to make up the CAP numbers as the A6M's are the real killers. When used on their own vs early allied fighters, the air battles seem very light on (a few Oscars shot down vs 2-3 allied fighters damaged).

The Oscars probably have good survivability due to performance. In return, they will do little due to initial pilot quality (low) and poor armament (even the heavier armed Oscar II inflicts minimal casualties).

I keep them away from intercepting allied LBA bombers whenever possible as they just take casualties for no return.

I have the same opinion as U2 about what will happen when the later allied fighters turn up.

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 29

- 11/9/2002 12:29:26 PM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drongo
[B]Posted by TIMJOT

The Finnish Buffalos were actually B-239s, a far lighter version of the F2A-2 and closer to the original performance of the F2A-1 (which was considered by many as the best model for climb, ceiling and manueverability).

The USN/USMC's had the F2A-3 (considered an overweight "slug") at Midway.

I think the story goes that when the Finns assembled the B-239's, they threw out everything they considered superfluous to save weight, added armour, the German Revi deflector sight and 3 x .50 cal HMG and a LMG (.303?), increased the fuel capacity and then used "finger four" and modern aerial tactics against the fairly bad early-war Russian pilots, tactics and equipment (like gunsights painted onto the windscreen).

The Finns flying the B-239 were led by a "Thatch" style air tactician and the B-239's were flown by pilots that were considered the best of all the Finnish veterans. The result was a kill ratio in their favour of around 70 to 1 (realistically, prob about 20 or 30 to 1).

Here is a good site for this type of anal retentive info on the Buffalo :

http://www.danford.net/buff.htm [/B][/QUOTE]

Interesting, came accross that site myself when researching the AVG. Do you no what version the Brits and Dutch flew. Im pretty sure the Dutch at least flew the export version which I assume was the B-239, not sure though.

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The great F4F vs AM6 Myth

Page: [1] 2 next > >>