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 rising Allied airpower

 
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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> The rising Allied airpower Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The rising Allied airpower - 4/30/2003 6:45:30 AM   
SoulBlazer

 

Posts: 839
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: Providence RI
Status: offline 		I'm not used to playing this long into a PBEM game, so I don't know if anyone else can help, but I'll try. :)

In my game aganist Drex where I'm the Japanese, it's now mid 1943 and a recent air raid really showed just how far that Allied airpower has come over the last game year.

Contray to my carrier air fleet, my land based airplanes have done very well. Few losses, high experience, and high training. These are the squadrons that took PM, defended Lunga, and took part in several key battles. Mostly Zero's but it's been added on to other squadrons of newer planes as they have come online (just transfered to Lunga my first squadron of Zeke's, as a example). None of them have experience less then 80 and a couple squadrons have over 100 kills. So we're talking elite planes.

In defending Lunga, these squadrons have had a further chance to cut their teeth in battles aganist the Allied planes. I think Drex threw his P-38 Lightings into combat too soon -- I've always been able to shoot down at least on a 2 to 1 ratio, if not higher in my favor.

He did'nt make that mistake with his Corsairs, though. I can't hold a candle to these guys. During my last carrier raid about a month ago, a hybrid Allied force with a couple dozen Corsairs included heavily damaged my carrier planes. And just a couple game days ago, I had my first real air battle of my crack land based planes from Lunga escorting bombers attacking some Allied ships protected by a Corsairs. The results were not pretty. I lost about a dozen fighters and a dozen more bombers and could'nt even DAMAGE a Corsair!

So, any advice on how I might be able to at least slow down the bloodletting that the Allies are going to inflict on me for the rest of the game? :)

_____________________________

The US Navy could probaly win a war without coffee, but would prefer not to try -- Samuel Morison
Post #: 1
- 4/30/2003 7:09:03 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Not much hope for you buddy, once the second generation of planes show up (F6F / F1U), you are in for a beating. The P-38 while being nice was not one of the new generation built to zoom and boom so skilled pilots on Japan's side could help. If the '38 had the height advantage you were toast, but it didn't have the climb rates of a true fighter, consider it more of a bomber killer instead of a fighter.

As Japan all you can do is try and pick fights at extreme range to tire out the pilots and of course as the A6M upgrades, it's range dropped as a trade off which makes this difficult.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 2
- 4/30/2003 9:25:16 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		Just wait till Drex figures out what a killer combination F4Us and P-38s are when flying together at superior altitudes and how good life can be when you concentrate your P-38s at one base ...

Your next moment that will thrill you to the core is when the P-47s show up.

Happy trails ...

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 3
- 4/30/2003 9:37:11 AM   
SoulBlazer

 

Posts: 839
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: Providence RI
Status: offline 		I don't have to worry about the P-47's, thank God -- they did'nt show up in the Pacific until early 1944. And the P-51's were even later. No, he's not getting any NEW models, just improvements in what the Allies have. It's still far surperior to anything that I have, although some of these fighters are very good at knocking down bombers. He has'nt launched any bomber raids on me for a few game weeks. :)

_____________________________

The US Navy could probaly win a war without coffee, but would prefer not to try -- Samuel Morison

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 4
- 4/30/2003 9:50:59 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline 		Actually, P-47 razorbacks (C and early D models, until the D-25 version) begin arriving in Mid 1943 in Brisbane, Australia. Their range isn't great (shorter than the later Gs I believe), but they can still kick an A6M2. Look out buddy.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 5
- 4/30/2003 10:51:35 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline 		I've got more P-38s coming in and I've been using Nevea as a practice target.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 6
- 4/30/2003 11:10:33 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tankerace
[B]Actually, P-47 razorbacks (C and early D models, until the D-25 version) begin arriving in Mid 1943 in Brisbane, Australia. Their range isn't great (shorter than the later Gs I believe), but they can still kick an A6M2. Look out buddy. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yep, three squadrons all at the same time, with ample replacements building up for two months ahead of their arrival.

They don't care about the difference between film and videotape, they're just interested in the naughty bits...

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 7
- 4/30/2003 1:51:30 PM   
SoulBlazer

 

Posts: 839
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: Providence RI
Status: offline 		Hum, my reference books on hand, including Dunnigan, state that no P-47's actually flew in COMBAT missions in the south Pacific until January 44.

Either the game is wrong or all my books are. :)

_____________________________

The US Navy could probaly win a war without coffee, but would prefer not to try -- Samuel Morison

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 8
Jugs in '43. - 4/30/2003 5:09:34 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		Er sorry soul blazer...but they [I]were[/I] flying in '43. In fact Neel Kearby won the Congressional Medal of Honor in a P-47 over Wewak in the fall of '43. He flew with the 348th, Fifth Airfarce.

_____________________________




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

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 9
Outclassed jap planes - 5/1/2003 9:43:49 PM   
Christof

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Hamburg, Germany
Status: offline 		I might be the only person on this board with this opinion, but nevertheless....

I feel UV does NOT simulate the mid '43 and '44 air situation very well.
Historically Japan was outclassed in SOPAC at that time - but mostly because of inferior pilot quality. They lost most of their aces in '42 and had absolutly no worthwile replacement programme going on. At the same time US pilot were becoming aces, getting lots of target practice.
The foremost reason for the high kill ratio of the "Hellcats" and "Corsairs" were BETTER pilots.

UV does not take this into account. A mediocre squadron of Corsairs (exp in the 60's) will always dearly beat up any squadron of Zeros - no matter which model, no matter which pilot experience, fatigue, morale.

From my point of view this is a design flaw. Men are more important than machines!

Examples?
1.) German fighter ace Hartmann scored several kills against P51's over Rumania in late '44 - '45 in his obsolete ME109.
2.) Sakais excellent book "Samurai" provides an account of a battle of Sakais lone Zero against 15 Hellcats over Iwo Jima in '44.

This can never be recreated with the UV engine...

:(

Chris

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 10
- 5/1/2003 10:21:51 PM   
mandt

 

Posts: 37
Joined: 3/21/2003
Status: offline 		There is this notion that the Japanese pilots were head and shoulders better than their American counterparts. At the very beginning of 1942, this might have been true. But talented pilots such as Thach, developed tactics that capitalized on the strengths of their aircraft. Fighters such as the F4F soon held their own against Zeros that were widely considered to be superior designs.

Also, the superior rate of aricraft and pilot replacements enjoyed by the Allies in the Pacific allowed American wing commanders to keep more, fresher flight crews on the line. This, I would wager is the key. No matter how experienced your pilots, if their morale is bad and their fatigue high, their ability to fight effectively is severely diminished.

After Midway, all had changed. The cream of Japanese Naval airpower had been severely reduced, and American pilots began to gain parity. After June 1942, I don't believe the Japanese ever enjoyed the general superiority in air-combat skill that they did prior.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 11
- 5/2/2003 12:59:10 AM   
frizt

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 3/19/2003
From: USA
Status: offline 		UV could emphasise more on fighter experience. Lets say a Zero with a pilot of 80 exp could take on a Corsair with 60 exp. Better pilot know better about the tactics to compensate the inferiority of their airplanes. Also it makes the game more interesting to have the aces stay alife longer, and watch them raise the # of kills. Plus, it will be more interesting to have some crack units on which the player could always count on.
My support.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 12
Inferior Planes - 5/2/2003 4:22:51 AM   
joliverlay

 

Posts: 635
Joined: 1/28/2003
Status: offline 		Cristoff makes reference to the importance of pilot skill using a german ace in an ME-109 dowing Allied Pilots in a P-51 in 1944-5. Having played more than a few games of Gary Grigsby's other masterpiece (Bombing the Reich), and having read several works on the subject I would say that not all ME-109s were inferior to the P-51.

The air-superiority high-altitiude model of one of the G-series was a very good plane. Moreover some of the late model 109s (G-10 or K series?) were very comparable if not equal to the P-51. A few versions even look better than the 51 on paper. Cleary the bomber killer versions were no match for the p-51. But when Adolf Golland et al. organized mixed fighter groups to attack bombers and fighters together the 109s went after the fighters and the FW190s after the bombers. A lightly armed 109 equipped for fighting allied fighters was a very good plane at higher altitudes.

Regarding UV, I think the difference between the japanese aircraft and the allied in 1943-4 was MUCH larger than german versus allied at about the same time. Moreover, I think that while the P38 and P40 could do some damage against zeros...both had serious difficulties in the european theater. I believe this is why so many of the P-38s went to the Pacific. I think that Corsairs (maybe better than P51s) defeating Zeros with better pilots is probably accurate. Am I wrong?

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 13
- 5/2/2003 6:30:35 AM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		From my reading of Bergerud, the Zero was the premier dogfighter of WWII--highly manuverable at low to medium speed and with a good climb rate. If an allied plane tried to take on a zero one-on-one in a dog fight it was in a bad way. The problem for the japanese is the allies quickly figured this out and they did not dogfight zeros--they tried to gain a height advantage then dove through the jap concentration. They would then try to climb to gain an altitude advantage and repeat the process. So the allies quickly compensated for less manuverable planes at medium to low speed by taking advantage of their supperior diving ability.

In addition, the allies were taught to never fly alone. They always tried to have a wing man. The japs on the other hand did not fly in any particular formations and when a fur ball started they were more or less on their own.

Superior tactics and teamwork, then, even from relatively green pilots made up for inferior planes, such as the P-40 and F4F. Even the supposedly supperior P-38 and F4U would have been at a disadvantage if they had tried to dog fight a zero. The point, is, however, that they didn't. They used the plane's strengths, strengths the zero could not match.

So how do you factor in pilot skill into a situation where it is not simply the skill of a single allied pilot against single jap pilot, but instead, an allied pilot and his wingman who are trained to fight in ways that play to the strengths of their planes? Do you rate the planes as supperior because of the tactics they can effective employ? Or do you rate the pilots as supperior because of the training they are given on ways of dealing with zeros? IMO, it is six-of-one, half-dozen-the-other.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 14
- 5/2/2003 7:34:35 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline 		i still have to say that pilot ability should have the most importance over the plane. A skilled pilot can take an inferior plane and outwit/outfight a less well-trained or skilled pilot in a better aircraft.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 15
- 5/2/2003 8:01:11 AM   
frizt

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 3/19/2003
From: USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drex
[B]i still have to say that pilot ability should have the most importance over the plane. A skilled pilot can take an inferior plane and outwit/outfight a less well-trained or skilled pilot in a better aircraft. [/B][/QUOTE]

It is very true. Take the Luftwaffe as example. It had some aces with hundrets of kills, and many of them survived the war. However, the majority of Luftwaffe replacement pilots got wiped out, although their airplanes are not much inferior to Allied airplane. Quantity and high average experience was simply overwhelming. The fact that the German aces could keep themselfs alive and still score kills against the allies during the late phase of war proved that pilot skill is very important in aerial combat.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 16
- 5/2/2003 8:10:49 AM   
Mike_B20

 

Posts: 389
Joined: 2/13/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by cap_and_gown
[B]From my reading of Bergerud, the Zero was the premier dogfighter of WWII--highly manuverable at low to medium speed and with a good climb rate. If an allied plane tried to take on a zero one-on-one in a dog fight it was in a bad way. The problem for the japanese is the allies quickly figured this out and they did not dogfight zeros--they tried to gain a height advantage then dove through the jap concentration. They would then try to climb to gain an altitude advantage and repeat the process. So the allies quickly compensated for less manuverable planes at medium to low speed by taking advantage of their supperior diving ability.

In addition, the allies were taught to never fly alone. They always tried to have a wing man. The japs on the other hand did not fly in any particular formations and when a fur ball started they were more or less on their own.

Superior tactics and teamwork, then, even from relatively green pilots made up for inferior planes, such as the P-40 and F4F. Even the supposedly supperior P-38 and F4U would have been at a disadvantage if they had tried to dog fight a zero. The point, is, however, that they didn't. They used the plane's strengths, strengths the zero could not match.

So how do you factor in pilot skill into a situation where it is not simply the skill of a single allied pilot against single jap pilot, but instead, an allied pilot and his wingman who are trained to fight in ways that play to the strengths of their planes? Do you rate the planes as supperior because of the tactics they can effective employ? Or do you rate the pilots as supperior because of the training they are given on ways of dealing with zeros? IMO, it is six-of-one, half-dozen-the-other. [/B][/QUOTE]

There is an interesting write-up on the marine squadrons based at Guadalcanal,

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/USMC-C-Aces/index.html

Quoting from that site,

"Before the big mission on 23 October, the Coach had told his pilots, "When you see Zeros, dogfight 'em!" His instructions went against the warnings that most of American fighter pilots had been given about the lithe little Japanese fighter. Joe Foss' success on this day seemed to vindicate Bauer, however. Twenty Zeros and two Bettys, including the four Zeros claimed by Foss, went down in front of Marine Wildcats.

Up to this time the Zero was considered the best fighter in the Pacific. This belief stemmed from the fact that the Zero had spectacular characteristics of performance in both maneuverability, rate of climb, and radius of action, all first noted at the Battles of the Coral Sea and Midway. And it was because of its performances in these actions that it achieved the seeming invincibility that it did. At the same time, the Zero was highly flammable because it lacked armor plate in any form in its design and also because it had no self-sealing fuel tanks, such as existed in U.S. aircraft. Initially in the war, in the hands of a good pilot, the Zero could usually take care of itself against its heavier and tougher American opponents, but early in the air battles over Guadalcanal, its days of supremacy became numbered. By the end of the war in the Pacific, the kill ratio of U.S. planes over Japanese aircraft went from approximately 2.5:1 to better than 10:1.

".
Apparently, by this time the Japanese had lost a lot of their more skilled pilots and the US marines were at an advantage in a dogfight.

_____________________________

Never give up, never surrender

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 17
- 5/2/2003 8:14:49 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		Air power is not successfully projected through the exploits of individual heroic pilots. Pilots who are trained to execute the tenets of sound tactical doctrine win the day. This is the lesson that was learned in the South Pacific theater in 1942-43. Allied pilots from early in the conflict fought bravely and well but suffered from inferior equipment and experience. When superior tactics were applied by more experienced pilots, an even fight became uneven. When superior equipment was added, an uneven fight became a rout. The deficiencies in Japanese pilot training doctrine exacerbated an already hopeless situation.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 18
- 5/2/2003 8:41:11 AM   
Attack Condor

 

Posts: 425
Joined: 12/27/2002
From: Chicago
Status: offline 		Just a thought from the woefully uninformed, but if the issue is better trained pilots vs. advanced machines, doesn't Scenario 19 address this issue with an "improved training program" for replacement IJN pilots?

(btw, very interesting reading of the different viewpoints - some togas and we'll [I]really[/I] be in a forum ;) )

_____________________________

"Shouldn't we be leading the shark into shore...instead him leading us out to sea?"

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 19
- 5/2/2003 9:12:22 AM   
SoulBlazer

 

Posts: 839
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: Providence RI
Status: offline 		Thanks for all the comments. I agree with whoever said that a Zero with exp of 80 should have a equal edge with a Corsair of exp of 50-60. Especily in my case, when I had about a HUNDRED crack Zero's and Oscars going aganist only about 30 Allied fighters and only 10 of which are Corsairs! You'd expect to at least DAMAGE one of them.

It almost does'nt seem like UV takes into account the fact that Japan might just have been more carefull with their air arm and not suffer the huge losses historicaly that they did in 1943.

As for actuall air losses, due to FOW, you'd have to ask Drex. My own intel tells me only a few Corsairs have been lost, but I've shot down a couple hundred P-38's -- at least a 1 to 1 ratio for my own planes.

_____________________________

The US Navy could probaly win a war without coffee, but would prefer not to try -- Samuel Morison

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 20
- 5/2/2003 9:41:32 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline 		sorry Greg, I've got so many planes i can't keep track of any specific kind. All my P-38 squadrons are full.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 21
- 5/2/2003 10:45:45 AM   
SoulBlazer

 

Posts: 839
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: Providence RI
Status: offline 		Guys, check out these combat results just in from my game with Drex! :(

Remember how I said these were very experienced squadrons with a average experience of 70? They escorted some attack planes in today to hit some of his transports (allways looking to delay Allied attacks).

The results were NOT pretty:

COMBAT RESULTS FOR 5/19/43:

Air attack on TF, near Wunpuko at 51,51

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 52
G4M1 Betty x 37
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 45

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 11
P-38G Lightning x 25

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 13 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 1 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 4 damaged
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 12 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-38G Lightning x 5 destroyed
P-38G Lightning x 7 damaged

2LT D. Goerke of 67th FS is credited with kill number 7

Allied Ships
AK Almaack, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AK Deimos
AK Megrez, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
AK Melucta
AK Seginus, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
AK Centarus
AK Shaula

Attacking Level Bombers:
2 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Wunpuko at 51,51

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 46
G4M1 Betty x 4
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 43

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 14
P-38G Lightning x 21

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 5 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged
G4M1 Betty x 2 damaged
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 4 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-38G Lightning x 3 destroyed
P-38G Lightning x 6 damaged

1LT E. Brzuska of 67th FS is credited with kill number 3

Allied Ships
SC 739

Attacking Level Bombers:
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

:eek: :eek: :eek:

These were fully rested squadrons also! In one day I lost over 30 fighter planes, more then a month of Japan's production, with only about half a dozen P-38's shot down AND NOT EVEN ONE CORSAIR HIT!!!

How Japan can do ANYTHING at this stage in the war is beyond me as the game stands. I'm not complaining (much), this just seems to confirm what I was saying.

_____________________________

The US Navy could probaly win a war without coffee, but would prefer not to try -- Samuel Morison

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 22
I Agree - 5/2/2003 11:19:11 AM   
Von_Frag

 

Posts: 105
Joined: 5/7/2002
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drex
[B]i still have to say that pilot ability should have the most importance over the plane. A skilled pilot can take an inferior plane and outwit/outfight a less well-trained or skilled pilot in a better aircraft. [/B][/QUOTE]

Von Richtofen said "it's not the crate, but the pilot in the crate".

Geez, have my posts come to this? Quotes? ;)

Von Frag

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 23
Combat tactics? - 5/2/2003 9:33:27 PM   
Christof

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Hamburg, Germany
Status: offline 		Some people on this board have said that the decisive factor in the pacific air war were combat tactics - and as these were developped by the Allies the Japanese were outclassed.

Well, japanese pilots developped some tactics themselves, such as the head-on attacks vs. B-17's. In fact, they did that earlier than the Germans.
Now - does UV take that into account by giving the Japanese an improved chance to down allied bombers in '43? No!

Bottom line is: combat tactics are developped and used by expert pilots - NOT by mechanical devices nor by inexperienced novices lead by green officers.
Again I can only say the same thing as before: UV fails in portraying realisticly the impact ratio of pilot experience and the technical details of his airplane.

Tech too high - experience too low.
-> Resulting in every US-player waiting for better equipment instead of husbanding expert pilot squadrons.

Christof

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 24
- 5/2/2003 10:09:46 PM   
mandt

 

Posts: 37
Joined: 3/21/2003
Status: offline 		I think you're right Drex, to a degree. In the example, an 80 exp Japanese pilot in a Zero 'should" be able to beat a 60 exp pilot in a Corsair. To be honest, I'm not so sure this is enough of an experience difference to consistantly and significantly compensate for the difference in the aircraft. The Corsair was far superior to the Zero in every category but turning. This allowed even a modestly experienced Corsair pilot to dictate the terms of the engagment. Only a very inexperienced or reckless Corsair pilot would knowingly cast aside the advantages his aircraft provided and get into a slow-speed turning fight with the Zero.

I would say that an 80 exp Zero pilot would enjoy a significant advantage over a Corsair only if the pilot was quite inexperienced, perhaps less than 50 exp. Just my opinion.

To Christof:

I'm not so sure that both sides embraced tactics in the same manner. Tactics are developed based on a number of factors, two being the capabilities of your aircraft and the capabilities of the opponent's aircraft. Just as important though is that tactics often reflect the developers' culture and war philosophy.

From the outset of the war, the Japanese pilots were very aggressive and tended to fight as individuals. American pilots, on the other hand had to make do with inferior equipment, and so developed tactics that depended more on cooperation and "teamwork," such as the "Thach Weave." It was found that two working together as a team were superior to two working as individuals. Further, team tactics help lesser experienced pilots to a greater extent than they do more experienced pilots.

In the early days of 1942, relatively less-experienced American pilots in F4Fs were able to achieve something of a parity with their more-experienced Japanese counterparts.

As the war progressed, and American equipment got better, these tactics became even more effective.

The Japanese Zero may have been the premier dogfighter of the war, but that meant nothing as long as American pilots refused to dogfight, and stuck to their "boom-and-zoom" and other tactics.

It would be interesting to know how UV is calcualting air-combat, and whether the results we are seeing are representative of the actual statistics.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 25
- 5/2/2003 10:29:37 PM   
SoulBlazer

 

Posts: 839
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: Providence RI
Status: offline 		So you're saying that experience, fatique, and morale don't matter -- once I get to the point in the game that I currently am, I should EXPECT one sided diasters such as the combat results I posted and should just stop flying the Japanese air force.

Does that sound fair or even historical to you? Playing devil's advocate here, what's the point of playing then, even if you have a five to ten thousand point lead over your foe?

_____________________________

The US Navy could probaly win a war without coffee, but would prefer not to try -- Samuel Morison

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 26
- 5/2/2003 10:52:51 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by SoulBlazer
[B] what's the point of playing then, even if you have a five to ten thousand point lead over your foe? [/B][/QUOTE]

Hmmm, you [B]don't[/B] have more than a 5,000 point lead? Well there's your problem right there. :D

You seem to have hit on japan's esential dilemma: win early or not at all.

And if you were planning on winning because of your airforce, I would say you are adopting the wrong strategy. Japan cannot win the air war. But you can stop invasions with your surface fleet. My own strategy revolves around having my surface fleet positioned to quickly break up any allied landing attempts once he tries to cross the moat between Australia/New Hebredies and New Guinea/Solomons. In the meantime, I will let him fly his long distance bombing raids and hope to down a few of his bombers each turn, slowly wearing away at these assets.

As a side note to this issue, I think people may be making too much of Japan's declining pilot quality. Certainly they were losing their premeir pre-war pilots who averaged something like 600 hours flying time at the time of Pearl Harbor. But even as late December 43 new japanese pilots arriving in the theater had 200 to 250 flying hours worth of training, about the same number as their American counter-parts. What the japanese did not have was a pilot rotation system that would allow veterans to go back and teach the newbies based on their own experience. But their worst failure was their continued lack of team work. It was not until 44 that the Japanese finally switched to using the finger four formation.

The japanese failure was not so much technological or experience based, it was the failure to adopt proper tactics. And that, I would speculate, was based on their code of Bushido and their view of themselves as Samurai. And in trying to act as if they were lone knights out to engage in individual combat, they met the same fate as the French at Agincourt.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 27
Re: Combat tactics? - 5/2/2003 11:16:12 PM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Christof
[B]Bottom line is: combat tactics are developped and used by expert pilots - NOT by mechanical devices nor by inexperienced novices lead by green officers.
Again I can only say the same thing as before: UV fails in portraying realisticly the impact ratio of pilot experience and the technical details of his airplane. [/B][/QUOTE]

Problem is, you ignore the fact that American pilots coming into the theater were not "inexperienced novices led by green officers." The success of the American pilot training program has been discussed elsewhere in these forums, and I can only add in this context that trained pilots flying with experienced pilots and for experienced commanders using top-notch equipment and applying sound tactical doctrine are a tough combination to beat.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 28
Radios...? - 5/2/2003 11:22:53 PM   
Attack Condor

 

Posts: 425
Joined: 12/27/2002
From: Chicago
Status: offline 		IIRC, the IJN didn't give much in the manner of radio coordination between their fighters. Any ideas on what impact (if any?) this would have on results? Would the radios allow pilot - to - pilot coordination of their attacks, defense, etc. to an extent that offsets, even to a degree, a skill gap between the enemies..? And I would expect (if that is the case) the impact to be greater as the Alied pilots gained experience.

As to air-to-air "dogfights" was the mission of escorts to kill or simply chase away enemy CAP to allow their bombers to execute their mission? Would that account for a lack of kills by escorting fighters?

_____________________________

"Shouldn't we be leading the shark into shore...instead him leading us out to sea?"

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 29
- 5/3/2003 12:36:05 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		Pretty much everything thats been said here has some validity to one degree or more. Makes it both fun and challenging at the same time to add an opinion. Essentially its a grey area with no black or white solution. For example, while the Americans often used superior and dyanmic tactics for the given situation, it did not mean that the Japanese were all a bunch of tail chasing dogfighters with no conception of team work. (particularily for the carrier arm)

Did poor or no radios hurt? certainly but with expert or highly experienced pilots often they could compensate, and Allied radios didn't always work too well either.

The 'dogfight em' comment at Guadalcanal emphasised not only the fact that Japanese pilot skill was on the decline, but also the simple proven fact that the Japanese fighter pilots were fighting against severe disadvantages during their very short flight times over Henderson. Coupled with new tactics, and the vulnerablility of the Zero to damage, and the growing malise and fatigue of the enemy, it was the perfect tacitcal switch at the right place and time. In effect, the order was the realization that the enemy was punch drunk and on the ropes and it was time to take the gloves off, even at the increased risk to oneself....kind of like a boxer who senses his opponent is weak and goes for the kill by upping the offensive tempo at the cost of defensive caution. But it doesn't suddenly mean the Zero was overrated or worthless or that it's pilots all employed inferior tactics all the time.

Pilots (i.e. the men) are indeed the most important part of the equation but in terms of indiv. pilot skill, they remain a "part", and can be negated by tactical setup, altitude advantage, fatigue, tactics and technological issues

Mix up the recipe and throw in the spice of the dynamic of fighter vs fighter combat in general and you can never be sure you'll get the expected result. An exp 90 pilot who makes a mistake or who gets caught at a disadvantage can easily be shot down by an exp 60 pilot.

ok, enough philosophy, on the the main issue brought up:

The F4U from day one has had an almost legendary ability to trounce the Zero in UV. Is it a bit excessive? Yes....i think so. IIRC, Drongo conducted some eyebrow raising tests a few months back with F4U vs A6M and the results were so lopsided as to make one want to ground the Japanese airforce for the sake of humanity. How much so is the real hard part. No question the Corsair was a Zero killer and it so outclasses the Ki-43 that i would not expect that plane to score many kills (damages yes....but kills would be more rare)

One thing that is made very, VERY clear in Bergerud and i think this says it all. The "nature" and "pace" of the campaign did not "suddenly" and "radically" alter with the introduciton of 2nd generation US aircraft.

Kill ratios did not spike dramatically, actions did not become a breeze, and the campaign remained a hard one. The campaign overall continued essentially to be a grinding pulse pounding war of attrtion and the Japanese fought hard and in some places even very well (with dashes of their "old flair" as Bergerud put it) on occasion when a US air group would find itself tangling with a bunch of veterans vs a bunch of raw recruits and sometimes came off worse for wear as a result. (much harder to be the attacker vs defender such as at Guadalcanal on the end of a 550 mile journey by the enemy with Coastwatchers and Radar giving you advance intel all the way)

So yes, SoulBlazer, you do have a point.....US pilots certainly could tell the difference between green recruits and veterans when they fought them regardless of whether they were in a Corsair or not. So i do feel that a player who has managed to preserve his pilot quality when faced with the new challenge of fighting 2nd gen aircraft should at the 'very least' be more competetive against them vs the "lambs to the slaughter effect"

Its rare that a plane is SO obsolete that it cant give a decent fight.....exeptions abound of course.....the P-39 above 10,000 feet is probably the best known example.

I find it amusing in the end that with all the fuss and chest beating along lines of national contention for so long (though spurred on mostly by a few select people), that the primary factor in UV is not pilot skill as much as it is plane stats, and range.

Range is the other culprit IMO. Range 1 and 2 combat is very deadly, Range 3 and beyond is often not. Thats why single engined planes go down so much, and level bombers without .50cal weapons, and why B-17's, B-25s and B-26's are almost invulnerable.

So we have a bit of excessivess in losses to the former, and lack of losses (and more importantly, disruption) to the latter.

Thats an example of a black and white situation imposed on a grey area of combat.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> The rising Allied airpower Page: [1] 2 3   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

1.609