Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

 
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 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 5/3/2003 2:11:53 AM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline 		I have to disagree with the view that pilots matter more than the plane. For 1:1 combat (or at least small, even numbers) there is a level of pilot skill, below which, the best of plane will not help them. This is the level of skill where flying a coordinated turn in a hurry demands a lot of their concentration (for example). The poor pilot does not have the experience to remain situationally aware, and will often get shot down without knowing there are enemy around. Even if they do get the drop on someone, they will probably overshoot, miss, or at best do slight damage. In any sort of fight (assuming the other pilot isn't also a novice), they will be lucky to survive. In these situations, the 'better' plane may well just get them killed sooner, because odds are they will crash on their own (Corsairs were a handful, and lots of torque can get you in to trouble).
Above this level of skill, the plane starts to make a difference. Any competent pilot (e.g. average US late 1942/early 1943) starts being able to play the odds. Their chance of survival rockets, and the loss ratio will tend to be dictated by a range of factors (strategic situation, tactical situation, plane quality, and tactics as well as pilot skill). Pilot skill will by no means predominate.
For really elite pilots (e.g. IJN early war, experienced Allied pilots later war), they start to buck the odds again. They can manipulate the tactics, and to some extent the tactical situation to stay alive, and some (the good shots) will pick up kills as they go. To some extent they will mitigate small deficiencies in aircraft (and we are talking small here. On a scale of say P51D or Spit 14 or Tempest V or Corsair (top end of scale) to A5M, or F2A or something (bottom of scale) - which is a big delta, Corsair to late Zero isn't so big!). The only thing a really skilled pilot can do with a hopelessly outclassed aircraft is use his experience to avoid the fight (and know that this is what he should do!)

The really big differentiator in air combat is numbers. I recall studies that suggested that, all other things being equal, in tactical engagements, the losses will be close to the square of the odds. That is 2:1 odds will tend towards a 4:1 kill ratio (obviously in favour of the majority!)

In summary, Pilot skill (above a certain threshold) will only moderate the other factors. With two averagely trained airforces, the 'non pilot skill' elements such as plane quality, tactics (i.e. degree to which that quality is exploited), strategic and tactical situations, and most of all, numbers, will predominate.

If you don't believe me, consider the Battle of Britain: did the LW lose because of pilot quality, plane quality or the strategic/tactical situation? (I vote for the latter, with tactics thrown in as a minor)
Did the Polish AF in 1939 go down so quickly due to pilot skill? Was the LW defeated in the bombing campaign over Germany due to Pilot skill (and I mean directly, not due to overloading the training system, and putting novices in the air!)?

I rest my case M'Lud. Just my 20p worth (too long for 2p)!:D

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 31
- 5/3/2003 2:40:05 AM   
frizt

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 3/19/2003
From: USA
Status: offline 		But just for fun's sake in the game, lets put more value in experience.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 32
- 5/3/2003 2:52:21 AM   
mandt

 

Posts: 37
Joined: 3/21/2003
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by SoulBlazer
[B]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? [/B][/QUOTE]


Hey Soul-

I was assuming in my response that fatigue and morale were equal across the board. I think you specify that in your example.

But if you ask me, fatgue and morale are the MOST important factors, trumping both equipment and training advantage, if they become too much of a factor. And we all know from playing this game that the morale and fatgue of our flight crews in this game can take a bad turn in a heartbeat.

Aside from that, I think Pasternaklak (or whatever his nic is ;) explains things pretty well in his posts.

I'll have to start a campaign as the Japanese and face what you are talking about first hand, and see if "I" like it. ;)

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 33
- 5/3/2003 3:05:41 AM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		I will make this one observation about the database. The Corsair is given a manuver rating of 36 which is actually higher than the Zero's 34. I don't know how manuver is factored into the air-to-air routines, but it does seem a bit odd to have the Corsair rated higher than the Zero. Perhaps if the Corsair's manuver was reduced to 34 it would suffer an occasional loss.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 34
- 5/3/2003 3:13:02 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by cap_and_gown
[B]I will make this one observation about the database. The Corsair is given a manuver rating of 36 which is actually higher than the Zero's 34. I don't know how manuver is factored into the air-to-air routines, but it does seem a bit odd to have the Corsair rated higher than the Zero. Perhaps if the Corsair's manuver was reduced to 34 it would suffer an occasional loss. [/B][/QUOTE]

Judging by the preformance of other planes (such as P-39 and Wirraway) i'd say thats a large part of the reason why the A6M is so helpless.

Despite all the other variables, in 'general' when a plane has both its MVR and speed topped by another plane , it generally preforms poorly irregardless of pilot exp or fatigue. IIRC the manual said that exp directly tied into the 'decision process' on what kind of attack the pilot would attempt to make (dogfight style or hit and run). In the case of the F4U....either way, the Corsair wins the stat check, so from a 'game standpoint', the plane litterally cant lose.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 35
- 5/3/2003 4:39:37 AM   
Full Moon

 

Posts: 201
Joined: 1/25/2003
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Hey, you guys are scaring me. I've never met Corsair yet in UV. Since I'm primarily playing as IJN, I'm very worried. Most of my PBEM games are in Sep.-Dec., 1942.
Beware for the time is near. Why is the clock ticking so fast?:(

_____________________________

"War is a series of catastrophes that results in a victory."
Georges Clemenceau

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 36
- 5/3/2003 4:45:51 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		One of the key things when looking at the odds that I really don't think UV seems to take into effect...

Ammo is a FINITE resource. Planes due to weight carry a VERY small amount.

While plane quality and pilot skill may push the odds into the 4+ to 1 ratio on planes being shot down, one does really need to have some form of hard cap embedded within this to deal with the reality that even the best pilot in the best plane is going to run out of ammo at which point he is out of the fight.

This becomes even MORE an issue when shooting down the bigger planes as simply put, you have to pump more lead into them and/or use bigger shells (weight).

I know UV takes this somewhat into account from a standpoint of durability compared to penetration etc, but I would really like to know just how it deals with the ammo issue. The bigger the gun (ie: more effective) generally, the less ammo that could be carried.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 37
Re: Outclassed jap planes - 5/3/2003 10:32:04 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Christof
[B]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 [/B][/QUOTE]

Things that gave the American pilots the edge.

1. Speed. The faster plane unless at a disadvantage will always dictate the terms of the fight.

2. Radios. Zeros for the most part did not have them. No amount of pilot skill could compensate for the lack of radios. As once the group is separated, there is no way to call for help.

3. Durability. Brings em home.

4. Firepower. Even a blind squirrel will find a nut now and then if you are putting enough lead in the air.

5. Speed. Oh, I said that before.

6. Superior group tactics. (radios)

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 38
- 5/3/2003 10:41:27 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		Oh, and did I mention speed?

The zero was an excellent dogfighting plane. Maybe the best ever. However, by 1943 dogfighting was obsolete as a tactic and planes designed to dogfight were made for another war. Firepower and speed brought about an evolution in group tactics and theory, forcing Japanese pilots, unable to fight effectively in large formations into a deeper hole. Without radios and without planes capable of countering Allied numbers and technical superiority, Japanes fighter pilots, (skilled or not) were unable to come up with an effective solution. That they died in droves is no great mystery.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 39
Re: Radios...? - 5/3/2003 10:57:11 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Attack Condor
[B]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? [/B][/QUOTE]

There are many knowledgable posters on this forum. The wealth of information that I have gained here is stunning. Still, many do not recognise the critical role the radio played in fighter combat in the South Pacific. The Japanese were critically handicapped by the lack of good radios and spare parts. There could not be any effective group tactics by air units flying without radios.

The Russians proved that as well on the Eastern Front with tanks without radios. The same applied to airplanes.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 40
Re: Re: Radios...? - 5/3/2003 2:44:26 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by crsutton
[B]There are many knowledgable posters on this forum. The wealth of information that I have gained here is stunning. Still, many do not recognise the critical role the radio played in fighter combat in the South Pacific. The Japanese were critically handicapped by the lack of good radios and spare parts. There could not be any effective group tactics by air units flying without radios.

The Russians proved that as well on the Eastern Front with tanks without radios. The same applied to airplanes. [/B][/QUOTE]


In fact you could say that it is foolish to go to war without good comms....from the lowest grunt upto the higest Admirals and Generals......good comms (or lack of) played a crucial roll.

_____________________________




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

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 41
- 5/3/2003 11:32:49 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		USA in '41 = Quit wasting time with CV's and put bigger guns on the BB's!

USA in '42 = Whats a CV ?

USA in '43 = Why are there NOT more CV's ?

USA in '44 = stop making those stupid CA's and give us more CV's!

Japan in '41 = Boy, look, the twits are still making non-CV's!

Japan in '42 = Hey, we've got CV's!!!

Japan in '43 = I wish we still had CV's!!!

Japan in '44 = Boy he's got lots of CV's!

Thats the Pacific in a nutshell :D

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 42
- 5/4/2003 4:52:37 AM   
NAVMAN

 

Posts: 436
Joined: 12/31/2002
Status: offline 		Re posts pilots/tactics, etc.If you fast forward to Korea,only
approx 10 years from time period of UV, you will see a good example of the pilot experience vs aircraft capability dynamic. Korea was still basically WW II style airfighting, albeit at higher performance levels. Many US pilots were WW II vets and used the
experience gained in WW II to offset advantages that the MIG-15
had, even over later model F-86 aircraft. They were also heavily
outnumbered and had severe restrictions placed on them concerning MIG sanctuaries. This was a case of good pilots,good tactics and a competetive aircraft running up a large kill ratio against poor pilots.poor tactics, good airplane. Fast forward to early Vietnam:Good pilots,poor doctrine(no need for guns, air-air missiles is the vogue, no true dogfighters, except perhaps the F8U
Crusader vs fairly well trained pilots, good dogfighters(MIG -17,MIF-21,MIG-19 and a Soviet style control system.Initial result;short end of the air-air kill ratio.Once the F-4 got a gun and wing slats and once the lost art of dogfighting was reintroduced into the training syllabus, things improved. I'll take a superior aircrew with a competetive aircraft.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 43
- 5/4/2003 10:28:38 AM   
SoulBlazer

 

Posts: 839
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: Providence RI
Status: offline 		I'm still waiting for someone to say they have actually shot down a couple of Corsairs while playing Japan. :) I hope Matrix looks at this again. If you have 100+ plus planes of elite quality aganist a dozen Corsairs for three days in a row and can't damage ONE of them, something is wrong.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 44
- 5/4/2003 10:31:51 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Thats my ammo question Soul, because it doesn't matter how good the plane is once it is out of ammo. I would like to see some sort of hard limit on how many planes 1 plane can shoot down to represent this limit.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 45
- 5/4/2003 4:07:27 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by NAVMAN
[B]Re posts pilots/tactics, etc.If you fast forward to Korea,only
approx 10 years from time period of UV, you will see a good example of the pilot experience vs aircraft capability dynamic. Korea was still basically WW II style airfighting, albeit at higher performance levels. Many US pilots were WW II vets and used the
experience gained in WW II to offset advantages that the MIG-15
had, even over later model F-86 aircraft. They were also heavily
outnumbered and had severe restrictions placed on them concerning MIG sanctuaries. This was a case of good pilots,good tactics and a competetive aircraft running up a large kill ratio against poor pilots.poor tactics, good airplane.[/B][/QUOTE]

The pilot quality differential here was not the only one. In this case pilot quality moderated the loss rate . I interpret this as a tactics/strategic situation, with a dose of pilot quality overcomes some debit on a/c quality

[QUOTE][B] Fast forward to early Vietnam:Good pilots,poor doctrine(no need for guns, air-air missiles is the vogue, no true dogfighters, except perhaps the F8U
Crusader vs fairly well trained pilots, good dogfighters(MIG -17,MIF-21,MIG-19 and a Soviet style control system.Initial result;short end of the air-air kill ratio.Once the F-4 got a gun and wing slats and once the lost art of dogfighting was reintroduced into the training syllabus, things improved. I'll take a superior aircrew with a competetive aircraft. [/B][/QUOTE]


You are argueing that the non-teaching of dogfighting skills manifests as a pilot skill issue? I would argue that it is a tactics (doctrine) issue). I think we have exposed an issue here. In UV, if an airforce is using outmoded tactics, and tactics are encompassed in pilot skill, there would have to be a cap on individual skill level. There isn't. On the other hand there is no factor for tactics separate to pilot experience or aircraft. I thus moderate my view about the importance of pilot skill, however you can't just apply this blanket fashion.
If an airforce is using obsolete tactics, even the best pilots will be outclassed (my 'cap on skill' above). However, if the AF uses correct tactics, but has overloaded the pilot supply chain to produce inexperienced pilots, they will still be taught the rudiments of correct tactics. In other words, pilot skill is too crude a parameter to cover all cases, and (in a similar way as was suggested for ships some while ago) a base AF skill is required (i.e. each airforce - USN, RAAF, USAAF, etc) should have a 'doctrine' score. IJN/IJA would have relatively static levels, initially better than US, but US would improve rapidly during 1942, (Thach weave etc). Individual pilot skill would should then be less significant (as per my original post above).

What we need to avoid at all costs is a totally pilot skill dominated air battle. I cite again, BoB, bomber offensive over Germany, Poland 1939, and for that matter, US CV CAP management, etc.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 46
- 5/4/2003 6:14:15 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		I also think a factor to look at is the different 'scales'/levels at work. Let me elaborate using the bomber offensive over Germany - Yes the Luftwaffe had some very skilled pilots and towards the end many green pilots. Now on a ONE on ONE situation the factors involved are plane quality/characteristics, pilot inherent skill and tactical doctrine used by the 2 pilots.

The situation is different when large number of planes initially combat each other. E.g. if you had a JG of 36 planes attacking a FG of 48 planes - INITIALLY pilot skill is not as important since the sheer numbers of aircraft involved make luck or lack of it a factor in survival. Even the best pilots could be surprised/overwhelmed by sheer numbers.

So my argument is that on a one on one situation pilot skill/experience is crucial. However, en masse battles rely more on luck/firepower at the outset (until the groups become entangled and skill/experience/plane chacteristics take over).

I believe UV does take into account pilot experience (compare the results of UV vs BTR air combat). I have never seen the Corsair in action so can't comment per se on that. HOWEVER, if as others say not one Corsair can even be damaged that is unrealistic. Sure it may be a superior plane but the realities of war are that at least some of the planes would be damaged/destroyed.

Just a few thoughts.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 47
Zero Last Hope - 5/4/2003 10:57:54 PM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline 		Zero’s Last Hope

All posted above inspired me to run some tests in order to find out suitable tactics for Zero vs Corsair. Tests were done with 2.30. I modified several A6M3-M5 squadrons, average exp.-85-92, average morale- 78-89. Squadron leaders were given 90/90+ Skill/Insp values. In later war periods you must have 3-5 Zero units, with such characteristics, still swift and deadly, if you were good commander and didn’t waste your most valuable pilots. Corsairs units were left untouched, average exp.- 68-82, morale – 56-90, commanders were given slightly improved skill values. Main idea. Corsair have excellent climb rate, but it is still not enough to climb to 38 000 ft from 15000 ft fast enough to strike first, Corsair have good dive characteristics, but it’s still take time to get to 1000 ft from 37000 ft. => the only chance for Zero is engage Corsair from maximum altitude, if Corsairs are on 15-20 000ft, if Corsairs are on 30000+ ft. Zero must enter combat area on extremely low altitudes. Huge difference in altitudes is the clue. No matter how good Zero can dive, altitude advantage is still advantage, at least for defense. Sometimes Zeros even have chances to avoid combat at all. AAR:

1.) (US Sweep) Air attack on Lae , at 9,33

Japanese aircraft
A6M3 Zero x 20 (32 810ft) fatigue – 14

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 24 (15 000ft) fatigue – 15

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3 Zero x 3 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1 Corsair x 1 destroyed

MAJ O.Berg of VMF-213 bails out and is CAPTURED
__________________________________________________
Ratio 3 : 1

2) (US Sweep) Air attack on Lae , at 9,33

Japanese aircraft
A6M3 Zero x 18 (25 000ft) f- 20

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 21 (15 000) f- 16

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3 Zero x 3 destroyed


FO E.Shannon of VMF-213 is credited with kill number 2
_________________________________________________
Ratio 3 : 0

3) (Japanese Sweep) Air attack on Buna , at 12,38

Japanese aircraft
A6M3 Zero x 27 (32 000ft) f -20

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 13 (15000ft) f - 15

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3 Zero x 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1 Corsair x 1 destroyed
_____________________________________________
Ratio 1:1

4) (Japanese Sweep) Air attack on Buna , at 12,38

Japanese aircraft
A6M3 Zero x 26 (35 000 ft) low f

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 12 (18 000 ft) low f

no losses

no losses

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combat evaded, but Zeros made a strafe run

5) (Japanese Sweep) Air attack on Lae , at 9,33

Japanese aircraft
A6M3 Zero x 40 (20000ft ) f -23

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 45 (10000ft) f –10

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3 Zero x 17 destroyed
A6M3 Zero x 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1 Corsair x 1 destroyed

1LT U.Neal of VMF-112 is credited with kill number 4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOW off. 14 Zero shot down vs 1 F4 shot down Ratio 14 : 1 => altitude advantage is not sufficient

6) (Japanese Sweep) Air attack on Port Moresby , at 10,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M3 Zero x 49 (32000ft) low f

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 30 (15000ft) high f

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3 Zero x 8 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1 Corsair x 3 destroyed
F4U-1 Corsair x 1 damaged

1LT R.Jordan of VMF-112 is credited with kill number 2
___________________________________________________
FOW off: 8 Zero shot down vs 4 Corsair shot down. Ratio 2 : 1

7) Air attack on 30th Aus Brigade, at 10,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 9 (32810 ft)
G3M Nell x 17 (29950 ft)

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 27 (12000 ft)

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 destroyed
G3M Nell x 1 destroyed
G3M Nell x 1 damaged

FO D.Gallagher of VMF-213 is credited with kill number 3

Allied ground losses:
Men lost 20

Attacking Level Bombers:
16 x G3M Nell at 29950 feet
___________________________________________________
Corsairs were able to attack only once

8) Air attack on Port Moresby , at 10,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zeke x 79 (35 000ft)
G4M1 Betty x 12 (30 000ft)

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 30 (15-18000ft)

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zeke x 12 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1 Corsair x 7 destroyed
F4U-1 Corsair x 3 damaged

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x G4M1 Betty at 30000 feet
9 x G4M1 Betty at 30000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOW off: 11 Zero shot down, 7 Corsairs shot down + 3 op. losses. Ratio 1,1 : 1

9) Air attack on Lae , at 9,33

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zeke x 44 (35 000ft)

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 40 (15 000ft)
B-25D Mitchell x 24 (11 000ft)

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zeke x 16 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1 Corsair x 2 damaged
B-25D Mitchell x 1 destroyed
B-25D Mitchell x 5 damaged

1LT C.Norton of VMF-213 is credited with kill number 3
Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 42

Port hits 2
Port supply hits 1

Attacking Level Bombers:
6 x B-25D Mitchell at 11000 feet
3 x B-25D Mitchell at 11000 feet
6 x B-25D Mitchell at 11000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOW off: 14 Zero shot down, 2 Corsairs shot down + 3 B-25 shot down 2,8 : 1 Ratio
Zero broke thru Corsairs and got 3 bombers, 6 other B-25 turned back

10) Air attack on Port Moresby , at 10,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zeke x 54 (1000 ft) average f
G4M2 Betty x 44 (100 ft)

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 19 (30000ft) low f
F4U-4 Corsair x 32 (30000ft) low f

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zeke x 24 destroyed
A6M5 Zeke x 1 damaged
G4M2 Betty x 4 destroyed
G4M2 Betty x 11 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1 Corsair x 5 destroyed
F4U-4 Corsair x 3 destroyed
F4U-4 Corsair x 5 damaged

PO1 B.Nishiura of F2/1st Daitai is credited with kill number 2

MAJ U.Long of VMF-215 is KILLED

Allied ground losses:
Men lost 62

Port hits 11
Port supply hits 16

Attacking Level Bombers:
4 x G4M2 Betty at 100 feet
2 x G4M2 Betty at 100 feet
3 x G4M2 Betty at 100 feet
11 x G4M2 Betty at 100 feet
9 x G4M2 Betty at 100 feet
3 x G4M2 Betty at 100 feet
5 x G4M2 Betty at 100 feet
3 x G4M2 Betty at 100 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOW off: 16 Zero shot down, 7 betty shot down - 8 Corsairs shot down (Overal Ratio - 2,85:1 Fighter-vs-Fighter Ratio 2:1) Corsairs were awaiting Zeros on altitudes used by japs for the last 3 days

11) (High Altitude US sweep) Air attack on Lae , at 9,33

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zeke x 60 (38000ft)

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 24 (37000ft)
F4U-4 Corsair x 40 (30000ft)

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zeke x 29 destroyed
A6M5 Zeke x 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1 Corsair x 2 destroyed
F4U-1 Corsair x 1 damaged
F4U-4 Corsair x 2 destroyed
F4U-4 Corsair x 3 damaged

WO N.Lange of VMF-112 is credited with kill number 4
_____________________________________________
No altitude advantage – usual slaughter

So, this tactics can't solve the problem, 65/80 F4U pilots can shoot huge amount of elite 99/99 Zero, even with altitude advantage it was 30:1 ratio sometimes. But if used wisely this tactics can bring some dividends. US opponent is forced to echelon his CAP, thus make it weaker. His bombers are forced to fly higher and their attacks are less deadly. Use it from time to time to surprise US forces with extreme high/low altitude, and more Zeros will survive.

Sorry for my poor Englsih

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 48
- 5/5/2003 12:29:35 AM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline 		Posted by SoulBlazer
[QUOTE]I'm still waiting for someone to say they have actually shot down a couple of Corsairs while playing Japan. I hope Matrix looks at this again. If you have 100+ plus planes of elite quality aganist a dozen Corsairs for three days in a row and can't damage ONE of them, something is wrong.[/QUOTE]

I've shot down Corsairs while playing as Japan. I think it was at least 2, maybe even 3.

Happy now? :p

Yep, the Corsair in UV seems a tad over the top.

After hundreds of hours testing/playing. the best counter to the F4U is the law of probability. That's about it. Somewhere during the loss of between 5 and 20 Japanese fighters, an F4U will probably fall burning from the sky. Mind you, it can get worse. After one intense 6 week period of UV combat in the Solomons, an F4U squadron had amassed 200+ kills for the loss of 6 pilots.

I don't know the exact formula for how exp/speed/manuever/leadership/fatigue applies in UV air combat but when facing the F4U, no Japanese fighter in the game will stand a chance regardless of their pilot's experience. The impact of pilot experience will come to very little when faced in UV with an aircraft that has both superior manuever AND far higher speed.

For those Jap players who are facing the prospect of trying to survive through '43, also take note of the P47C, P47D, P38J and the Spit VIII, all of which will carve your carefully preserved experienced squadrons from the Pacific skies at kill ratios that are almost up with the F4Us. The only saving grace is that they all only turn up relatively late in the game.

Enjoy.

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 49
- 5/5/2003 12:42:48 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline 		I agree that these uber-planes occur so late in the game that the outcome has already been decided by the time of their arrival. Are these super-planes enough to change the game outcome, I don't know.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 50
historical accuracy?? - 5/5/2003 1:02:15 AM   
Christof

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Hamburg, Germany
Status: offline 		Hi everybody,

as these tests show there might be a couple of tricks you can use gamewise to offset the biggest disadvantages of the Zero, BUT
these results are UNHISTORICAL.

Try to create a scenario where you use Corsair pilots with an exp level between 40 and 50 and give them a commander with 30's.
Then give 'em fatigue in the 40's and morale of about 50.

When fighting a crack jap formation they will still enjoy a large kill-ratio advantage and might lose more planes on crash-landings than during battle...

I think Matrix might want to fix this....!

Anybody else?

Cheers,
Chris

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 51
- 5/5/2003 3:20:58 AM   
Admiral_Arctic

 

Posts: 154
Joined: 8/15/2002
From: Nonamia
Status: offline 		Just send your bombers in unescorted and let their tail gunners shoot down any Corsairs that try to get too close. Don't forget that the occasional Val or Kate unfortuneate enough to get shot down can be replaced from your 20 a month.

_____________________________

I'm a hazard to myself.

Want. Take. Have.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 52
- 5/5/2003 4:25:58 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline 		Unless someone can post some (significant) tests of the kill ratios, I am not certain this thread will go anywhere. The examples above are interesting, but do not include enough data. The historic kill ratio of the Corsair was 11:1. Now, some of that will be due to poor IJN/IJA pilots, but no one will be able to tell us how many. Thus, unless someone can post results of lots of PBEM games (AI not up to the task), that show kill rates well above this (for reasonable numbers of missions) I would not expect Matrix to react.

For those of you questioning the high manoevre rating of the F4U, do not forget that manoevre has to represent the whole of combat manoevre, not just pure dog fighting turns etc. I.E. the F4U, with its big engine) may well be due the additional manoevre rating.

Aside - according to the figures I have, the kill:loss ratio (i.e. losses to all causes) for the F4U is 1.26:1 (2140 kills, 1694 losses - 10% landing accidents alone)

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 53
- 5/5/2003 10:44:03 PM   
frizt

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 3/19/2003
From: USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Admiral_Arctic
[B]Just send your bombers in unescorted and let their tail gunners shoot down any Corsairs that try to get too close. Don't forget that the occasional Val or Kate unfortuneate enough to get shot down can be replaced from your 20 a month. [/B][/QUOTE]
I would recommand Kamikazi Squadron. You can send them agains those F4U's and hit them mid-air! If you can catch them...:(

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 54
- 5/6/2003 10:35:26 AM   
NAVMAN

 

Posts: 436
Joined: 12/31/2002
Status: offline 		HMSWarspite:See if this makes sense:doctrine leads to tactics and tactics leads to training. In other words, a theory(doctrine) such as strategic bombing, leads to tactics to enable the doctrine and training enables the tactics.Does that sound kosher?So while an aircrew may become "proficient" at tactics, it may not have the
"experience" that only comes from contact with the enemy. As the aircrews are debriefed by the intel types, that input, hopefully, goes up the chain and comes back down again in refined tactics,
which enables experience. The doctrine would not change but the tactics might. For example, 8th Fighter Command switched from
"close escort" to a combination of "close escort" and "loose escort", while 8th Bomber Command refind the "combat box' formation.Maybe these factors,"proficiency/experience" is what is abstracted in the "experience" factor for aircrews in the game.
Would also like to recc a two volume book set on the airwar in the Pacific for this period. By John B. Lundstrom,Vol I:"The First Team,Pacific Air Combat from Pearl Harbor to Midway."Vol II:
"The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign,Naval Fighter Combat from August to November 1942."Both excellent.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 55
Understatement - 5/6/2003 11:27:58 AM   
JohnK

 

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by mandt
[B]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.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Actually there was really no time in WWII, from the very beginning, where USN and Marine F4F pilots weren't generally superior to the Japanese.

And pilots who were already in the Marines and USN prior to the war were pretty hand-picked and had been extensively trained.

Japanese fighter aircraft were never superior to anyone other than P-39s above 10,000 ft., obsolete aircraft, the Dutch, or poorly-trained British pilots in Malaya, etc.

What's really interesting is you'll find US pilots talking about FEELING inferior to the Japanese even though they had positive kill ratios at the time they were talking about their feelings.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 56
Re: Understatement - 5/7/2003 4:06:00 AM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by JohnK
[B] What's really interesting is you'll find US pilots talking about FEELING inferior to the Japanese even though they had positive kill ratios at the time they were talking about their feelings. [/B][/QUOTE]

Perhaps this is due to the early land and naval success by the Japanese creating a myth they were superior/invincible in ALL theatres?

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 57
- 5/7/2003 4:14:04 AM   
Mike_B20

 

Posts: 389
Joined: 2/13/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		Also, the Zero was incredibly agile with good firepower.

It must have been nervewracking to be shot up in a Wildcat even though the pilot managed a deadstick landing or bailout.

The Zero had a huge disasdvantage however in not having any armour for the pilot or self-sealing fuel tanks...all it took was a few .50 cal rounds and they were turned into fireballs.

This COULD give the impression to the allied pilots that they were inferior...the difference being they survived while the Japs didn't.

_____________________________

Never give up, never surrender

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 58
Losses of Corsairs - 5/7/2003 6:05:33 AM   
joliverlay

 

Posts: 635
Joined: 1/28/2003
Status: offline 		I was looking at Book Dunnigan's Victory in the Pacific (I think thats the title) this morning. In the discussion on the Corsair it mentions that it was considered by many to be the best fighter of WWII and that in tests it could outfly both the P51 and P-47. Also he mentions only a handfull of Corsairs were lost to combat with Japanese aircraft. I believe the number was under 200 over the entire war.

Regarding Japanese pilot quality. While it is perhaps possible in UV to husband expert Japanese pilots, this excellet book also points out that the Japanese aircrew losses in the victories BEFORE Coral Sea were already more than the Japanese training program could sustain.

The total inability of the Japanese to retain any air superiority is not unhistorical.

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 59
- 6/29/2003 4:12:04 AM   
mrbungle

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 6/29/2003
Status: offline 		HMSWarspite. You are right that there were many factors that decided about win or loose the air war. But as it is wrong to say that pilots experience is the only important factor, it is also not true that plane specs decide about outcome of air confrontation. As it is in UV and (what I heared) in WiTP the better planes you have the bigger advantage (no matter how experienced pilots you have).

[Polish example]
In September 1939 Polish AF had to fight with enemy few times stronger. Moreover Polish fighter planes (PZL P11) were about 100km/h slower than German fighters. Right after 17th of September there was no organized air defence, but not due to annihilation of Polish AF. Soviet attack and German blitzkrieg enforced withdrawal of AF to Romania. There was just no hope of any success with Allies standing and dropping leaflets on German cities.
I don't remember exact numbers but LW lost quite a lot of planes in that short period of time fighting with such weak enemy - Poland had only 175 fighter planes (and I think it includes reserve, and some planes that were in repair and never used). All my books left in Poland unfortunately so i don't know how many planes were lost on both sides in air combat, due to ground fire, accidents and how many returned but were beyond repair.
All in all i think fighter losses were maybe 2-1 for Germans (maybe even less) with pilots experience difference not such large as in UV.
Plane characteristics look great on paper but mean nothing if you don't know how to use it when time comes. I can give an example - in 1939 the pilot of slow training plane (I think RWD 5 - Polish pilots won a lot of prizes before war in races flying that plane) was attacked by 2 Me 109. Due to crazy low altitude maneuvers one crasched the ground and the other gave up. If they were experienced pilots they would have probably got the kill.

[Conclusion]
When veteran Japanese pilots encounter green (50 - 60) US pilots flying their newest superplanes they still should be able to be equal. Of course the more experience US pilots become the more advantage they have but still they shouldn't score more than let's say in average 3 - 1 ratio (i think it is still too much). Of course now and then the results can be more for one side (not only US but Japan too) due to eg element of surprise, luck etc. I don't really think we can take historic accounts and try to fit it in this game. Japan training system was poor and USAF, after japanese veterans were killed, was fighting with green pilots (hence so good numbers). What would be the results if USAF was facing experienced pilots through entire war - noone can say (and that situation often happens in UV).

(in reply to SoulBlazer)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  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

0.750