Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over skilled for 1941?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over skilled for 1941?

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 >> Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over skilled for 1941?

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over skill... - 10/2/2004 2:19:14 PM

tigercub

Posts: 2004
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline

Hi again

I've been going through the USN early CVs and think that they have too much experience for 1941. Some of the American naval pilots have in the 90s experience and many/most have 80s. Few have 70s. Shouldn't they be at least 10 points lower? Maybe 15? Training will only go so far. Where did the USN pilots get their high skills? Sure the fighter pilots are a little less than the SBD pilots but they all seem too high. Wouldn't the CV pilots need some real combat experience to reach these high levels? The Japs rotated their naval pilots in China and would have won their high skills rating the hard way.

bye

< Message edited by tigercub -- 10/2/2004 12:19:42 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/2/2004 2:34:47 PM

Pier5

Posts: 141
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: Portsmouth, Virginia
Status: offline

I don't think so. Peace-time training can produce good pilots. However, are you sure that IJN sent carrier aviation to China. Even if they did, I'm not sure how much valuable experience was obtained in combat against hopelessly outdated aircraft with half-trained pilots. What ships were the Vals dive bombing in China. What ships were the Kates torpedoing in China. How much flak did junks throw up?

While we're on this subject, how did the IJN ships get so much experience. Against whose Navy. Where were all these night battles where they gained all this night experience. The answer is obvious, they had little combat experience in those conditions. Since they clearly were superior, it had to be all training and, primarily I think, a superior doctrine to go along with their superior torpedo.

Pier5

(in reply to tigercub)

Post #: 2

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/2/2004 3:39:03 PM

tigercub

Posts: 2004
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline

The IJN was involved in a war with China. Invasions with specialised ships. Bombardments of troops and cities with ships. Close in support work. Landing supplies in ports and over beaches. Although there was no heroic battles won against the tiny Chinese navy, valueable experience was still gained. (The Japs also sunk the Panay in 1937). The importance of this experience must not be under-estimated for it helps explain the confidence and skill which the Japanese forces over-ran the PI, DEI, and Mayala. (Remember the Germans also had similar experiences in Spain for WWII). And the albility to land at "random" places that other nations were far from trying. (Except the USA marines who prepared for similar activities.) So high was their confidence that the JAps defeated forces much stronger in size than their own (as everybody knows this story- but the Allies made many mistakes too).

The land battles for Shanghai and Nanking were hard-fought attacks when the Chinese resissted fiercely. The heavy Japanese causalties were repaid with the rampage of death in Nanking. The Japanese made numerous landings along the lengthy Chinese coast.

Not all the IJN planes over China would have been their lastest types. Before Zeroes the Claude would have been the front line fighter.

(in reply to Pier5)

Post #: 3

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/2/2004 5:28:47 PM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

US carrier pilots are not over or understaded in EXP in 1941. At least the existing ones. The US CV's got the cream of the crop. (like now too). I totally agree with Pier5. Where did IJN get their high experience ratings? 600 planes didn't all join in on sinking Panay. IJN carrier pilots probable did get some battle experience, but so did a lot of Army and land based navy air units.

remeber that at Coral Sea and Midway, the US shot down a fair number of IJN pilots and sank a fair number of IJN ships.. And those US pilots were the same ones who started in 1941 (for the most part).

(in reply to tigercub)

Post #: 4

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/2/2004 6:47:59 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

Many naval pre war pilots had thousands of hours of flying time. In the peace time Navy, promotion was slow and most pilots had been at the job a very long time. They were very highly trained and skilled. Don't confuse skill with misplaced doctrine.

The combat experiences gained by Japanese pilots in China is highly over rated. They were fighting, but learning the wrong lessons from their experiences. As with the allies, there were many weaknesses in Japanese carrier and air doctrine in 1942. Japanese fighter pilots were superbly trained and conditioned. However, their training was primarily focused on individual dogfighting skills. Even Saburo Sakai complained about their weak skills in group tactics. As events showed, by 1942 the era of individual dogfights was over. This was to cost the Japanese dearly.

As for skill, I think you will find that both sides had a strong corp of excellent pilots at the beginning of the war. I think skill wise they were fairly well matched.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 5

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/2/2004 7:39:04 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

U.S. and Brit Navy pilots have always been "hot",since the days THEY *invented* carrier pilots..
The hottest Japanese pilots were naval,but the better of them were NOT the carrier pilots,but the land-based navy fliers,(like Saburo Sakai) who got his experience flying Claude's in China..
The U.S. has always underpaid their armed forces during "peace time",and the only way a fella could get anywhere was to excel in his military profession.The U.S.Navy held regular competitions based on performance,the better ships earning an "E"(for excellence),which was painted prominantly on their ship.
IMHO,the ships known to have earned those "E"'s should have the highest all around ratings,(in the U.S, Navy anyway..)..
On a carrier,of course,this means they would have the best aircrews in the fleet,and I seriously doubt ANY nation would have carrier aircrews in the "60's",(experience-wise),except maybe Germany in a "what if" situation..

_____________________________

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 6

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/2/2004 8:52:51 PM

juliet7bravo

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline

Question isn't what WE think the experience levels reflect...it's what Matrix thinks the exp. levels reflect.

I don't think anyone should have an experience level in the 90's unless they're highly experienced in combat against relatively high level opposition...which lets almost every pilot out. I think all exp over about 75-80 should come from combat only.

Pilots should have a rating based on:
General basis:
(1) Base Training rating for their respective nationality/service (i.e. US/USN, or Jap./IJN)
(2) Unit rating (A secondary unit based in Bumfuk China or the Aleutians would have a lower rating, obviously)
(3) "Doctrine" rating (for example; IJN would get a bonus in Dec. '41/very early '42, negative after that. USN would be opposite; slightly negative Dec. '41/very early '42, positive after that).

Individual basis:
(1) Rating based on rank/peacetime exp.
(2) Rating based on combat experience

Add them all up, average...there's your pilots rating.

NOTE: The "Doctrine" rating. Here's an area where I think WitP (and UV) is messed up. The IJA/IJN weren't supermen, their weapons, ships, aircraft, and tactics weren't all that hot. Yet, to get the effect of their early victories (suprise,shock, and awe effect I guess) you have to totally skew the stats of their weapons, ships, aircraft, ect. Which screws everything up down the line later. The Zero, for example, wasn't an overwhelming aircraft, and didn't totally outclass the P-40, Japanese pilots really didn't outclass the Allied (most) at wars start. Yet, the Zero/IJN pilots really were highly effective for a short period of time, beyond what simple numbers can quantify. Give them an increased effectiness rating up front, slowly take it away after the first few months, and be done with it.

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 7

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/2/2004 9:07:42 PM

KPAX

Posts: 735
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: Where the heart is; Home of the Fighting Irish
Status: offline

Tigercub, it is a good question, and some good replies.

Midway showed, amoung other things, that the Allied pilots are comparable to the IJN pilots.

Training of Naval pilots have since the beginning been tough and demanding.

_____________________________

"War makes Heros on both sides." Hero (the movie)

Thanks !!

KPAX

(in reply to juliet7bravo)

Post #: 8

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/2/2004 9:31:12 PM

spence

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

I know it's only Hollywood but in "Tora, Tora, Tora" there were a couple of scenes depicting training by USN and IJN pilots:
1) IJN torpedo bombers attacking an island in a harbor that alledgedly looked like Pearl Harbor - it appeared the object was to fly over some flags staked out on the island? In any case they did not drop a real torpedo.
2) Enterprise SBDs dropping bombs on a target sled - and "Adm Halsey" remarking that the CAG should "tell Lt Soinso that he couldn't hit a bull in the butt with a base fiddle"
The point is that neither points very strongly at some amazingly high level of competence.
IJN torpedo bombers seem to be particularly powerful - (I can see them scoring all kinds of hits at Pearl Harbor though against moored ships) - after PH they didn't seem all that impressive from what I can remember of other engagements in 1942: two torpedo hits each on Lexington, Yorktown and Hornet at Coral Sea, Midway and Santa Cruz Islands respectively. With only 10 attacking planes at Midway their performance seems pretty good but the number of torpedo bombers involved at Coral Sea and Santa Cruz was substantially greater (I believe) so the ratio of hits to attackers would be commeasurately lower. And the IJN torpedo bombers didn't score at all at Eastern Solomons. The Americans only managed two torpedo hits on carriers in 1942 - one each by TBDs and TBFs but the TBFs also tagged Kinugasa, Hiei and I think Isuzu at the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal so in the fianl analysis maybe their performance was as good as the IJNs in that category of air to sea attack.
Did either side practice torpedo bombing using real torpedos. I am almost certain the USN did not do it as a general practice. If the IJN didn't do it either wherefore come their high exp ratings?
Dropping real practice (concrete) bombs is much cheaper and therefore much more likely to have occurred. I find no reason to quibble with the Vals experience because they undoubtably practiced with them even if they did not gain extensive experience in China. Likewise for the USN - the Marines invented dive bombing after and although they may not like the Navy much they do talk to it on occasion.l

(in reply to juliet7bravo)

Post #: 9

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/2/2004 9:46:01 PM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

J7B,
you might draw some serious flak from anyone who has actually flown planes in the Aleutians. I get the gist of your thread, but flying aircraft in the Aleutians required a great deal of skill. Maybe not combat skill, but much higher than average at any kind of operational flying. And, once Japan was on Attu and Kiska, the Aleutians became a very hot combat theatre. Air was really the only offensive ability for the first 6 months in that theatre.

Also, I think when you're dealing with thousands of aviators, your model is just too complex. Yes, some US carrier pilots have 90's, but their average is still 75 to 80. Is it really necessary to compute 8 different factors when coming up with an individual's exp? I think it's possible for a pilot to get 90 exp without combat experience. In the time frame of this game, you could take one pilot and have him train for 4 years. He should be in the high 80's to 90's after 4 years, without combat exp. However, 1 month of combat exp is probably worth more than 1 year of non-combat exp. So, units gain exp in the game faster. But, existing US carrier pilots would have been doing their job for 5 or more years, IRL.

anyway, my 2 cents

(in reply to juliet7bravo)

Post #: 10

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/2/2004 9:55:39 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

The AVG have some BS Hollywood ratings though in my opinion.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 11

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/2/2004 10:34:57 PM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

The 'entire' harbor along with the ship placements were modeled for study in water bodies (ship models were maybe about 5' long as I've seen pictures of men in thigh deep water standing beside these models from WWII JA training - to say they were meticulous is an understatement as to see those pictures is quite a shock), but they did actually have a group of islands which had a very natural similarity to PH that they practiced on. The torpedoes were even altered to run in shallow depths for the attack.

Also, you ever see the 'training films' of the US Army where the MG squads had wooden guns and their tanks were trucks with the word 'tank' on them?

see this: http://www.iwm.org.uk/upload/package/25/pearl_harbour/pearl_harbor.htm

< Message edited by Charles_22 -- 10/2/2004 2:49:25 PM >

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 12

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/2/2004 10:49:48 PM

juliet7bravo

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

J7B,

anyway, my 2 cents

Sorry, you're right...strike "Aleutians" and insert "MiddleoftheDesert, USA", or "LostintheJungle, Java" instead.

One thing accounts, from every nationality, seem to agree on is that fighter pilots, regardless of technical expertise, who survived their first few combats, and/or got a kill or two had greatly increased likelyhood of survival. Combat experience important commodity, only one way to get it, and the stats should reflect this. Any number of highly respected and technically proficient pilots had extremely short violent careers as combat fighter pilots.

Ditto for bomber pilots, which is why the required exp. ratings for naval attack, skip bombing, ect.

Complexity...that's not intended as a formula. But those are the factors that should impact individual pilot ratings at war start. The pilots have ratings, that had to have come from somewhere when they're keying them into the database. Unless they're just making them up as they go along, they have to have some basis in reality. Examples;
(1) Some units stand out in the historical record because of outstanding professionalism (or a lack thereof), most didn't.
(2) A USN fighter pilot probably should have a higher base training rating than a USA pilot.
(3) A USN carrier fighter squadron flying Wildcats should have a higher base unit rating than an Army unit in Nevada desert flying P-35's (madeup example) or some similiar obsolete POS. Or an IJN carrier unit flying Zeros vs. a unit in China flying Claudes.
(4) All things being equal, an O-4 pilot should have a higher base (non-combat) experience rating than a snot-nose O-1.

The actual numerical experience rating is pretty unimportant. What IS important is that it's derived from common standards, based on common values, and applied evenly and consistently across the board. Modification to this would be the steady degradation in the base training/experience rating for Japanese pilots reporting to the pilots pool as casualties increase and the war progresses.

Only wildcards being bonuses given to individual pilots known to have been phenomenal performers. And, just like the "sliding scale" based on time period for ASW, flak, torpedoes, ect. effectiveness, I think the Japanese should be given an overall performance bonus for roughly the first 3-4 months to reflect "shock and awe". Starting Dec 07, steadily tapering off to zero. Would saves all the contortions required to reflect their early war success via tweaking the stats to justify it and screwing things up as the war progresses.

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 13

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/2/2004 11:31:01 PM

Hartley

Posts: 255
Joined: 6/2/2003
Status: offline

Does the name Butch O'hare ring a bell here ?

(in reply to juliet7bravo)

Post #: 14

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/2/2004 11:38:15 PM

mogami

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

Hi, Even good pilots die. There remains some question concerning O'Hare. He was either killed by friendly fire or a single burst from a Betty at night brought him down.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Hartley)

Post #: 15

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/2/2004 11:42:34 PM

Hartley

Posts: 255
Joined: 6/2/2003
Status: offline

My point was about the incident which made him famous, two months into the war.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 16

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/3/2004 12:00:00 AM

juliet7bravo

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline

He shot down half a dozen unescorted Nells I think. Give him a bonus for being a phenomenal performer. In game terms, it's a fluke. But 6 Nells intercepted by CAP during daylight and good weather should take a beating anyway, pretty much regardless of bonuses or exp. ratings.

(in reply to Hartley)

Post #: 17

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/3/2004 12:12:54 AM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

I think some folks here are making a BIG assumption that pilots got no experience till AFTER Paerl Harbor..Just not the case whatsoever..
Pearl Harbor was a great success not because the U.S.Navy fliers were a bunch of screw ups,but because internally the Navy was full of "big gun admirals" who placed priority (and false sense of security) on the fact the U.S. had the most of those "big guns".
Thank goodness the carriers were "off doing their jobs"(as they had been doing for YEARS) prior to Pearl Harbor..
If the USN had any slouches,they would not have survived the cruelties of an under-budgeted War Department..About the only thing the USN fliers had plenty of,was FUEL to fly more hours than ANY nation,per man,(for EXPERIENCE)
Please note the equipment itself was not always picked by other fliers,but by either "big gun bean counters",or folks who had never even been around a plane.(This is how the Brewster Buffalo was initially picked OVER the Grumman Wildcat when they competed against each other..
Whatever the plane,they flew with what they were dealt with.
The American pilots gained gunnery proficiency *in peacetime* by either diving "guns blazing" at targets on the ground,or by deflection shooting at towed "gun sleeve targets"..
The latter was an excellent training device as it did teach deflection shooting at a moving target which in combat is invaluable..
Whether the target was being towed "dogfight style" with weaving and turning or not is irrelevant,as that was never American doctrine after Chennault sent his reports to the states ref the excellent maneuverability of Japanese fighter planes.
(While the AVG never flew in combat till after Pearl Harbor,Gen Chennault had already been there in China as the head of the Chinese air force for some time,(much as Macarthur was the Commanding General of the Phillipine Army,(and not the U.S. army)..
(Just 2 more cents pitched in..)

(

_____________________________

(in reply to Hartley)

Post #: 18

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/3/2004 3:56:45 AM

tigercub

Posts: 2004
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline

my last 2 cents ,I dont think any pilots should be 80+ experience without combat & its a joke ta think outher wise....thanks for your say guys.

_____________________________

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to tigercub)

Post #: 19

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/3/2004 4:41:12 AM

Black Cat

Posts: 615
Joined: 7/4/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub

my last 2 cents ,I dont think any pilots should be 80+ experience without combat & its a joke ta think outher wise....thanks for your say guys.

Check out the very useful Editor that shipped with the Game.

(in reply to tigercub)

Post #: 20

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/3/2004 5:04:52 AM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

Japanese were initially better at night naval fighting for two main reasons:

1) They had the Long Lance torpedo which they developed and tested using actual torpedoes and ships to ensure that it worked. The US had torpedo problems because we never had actual tests to see if the torpedoes ran at proper depth or would explode.

2) The US treated gunnery training as a competition. As such you needed to score the gunnery which meant the US Navy only held gunnery practice in perfect weather where the gunnery could be scored. The Japanese treated gunnery training as just that training and practiced at night which the US Navy never - or rarely did.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to tigercub)

Post #: 21

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/3/2004 5:25:11 AM

WiTP_Dude

Posts: 1434
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline

The P-40s easily best the Zero in head to head matchups in January 1942. I worry about what will happen to the Zero even in January 1943 against better aircaft.

(in reply to tigercub)

Post #: 22

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/3/2004 6:55:49 AM

Jon_Hal

Posts: 95
Joined: 2/23/2004
Status: offline

I think the histroical record shows that when USN and IJN Carrier aviators clashed in '42 that it was at best a draw in combat. Factor in the fact the the Japanese had superior aircraft then the USN at the time. I'm sure the Zero- Wildcat matchup has been argued may times but the fact that the Pre-war USN aviators held their own against Japan's first Teams while flying inferior planes speaks to the training that those USN pilots recieved. The Japanese aviators tore through everything they met. Army, MArines, Brits and Dutch but when the bumbed heads with the USN "first team" they met thier match.
I think that the quality of the Pre-war USN avitators is constantly underestimated. They, flying inferior aircraft, held their own against the best the Japanese had. I think the Litmus test should be if the actually results of ww2 were translated to a WiTP would you complain that the USN scored as well as it did against the IJN?

For those interested see John Lundstroms book " The First Team" excellent and detailed and fair acount of the time period and pilots we are talking about

Regards, Jon

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 23

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/3/2004 7:10:12 AM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

double post, wtf?

< Message edited by irrelevant -- 10/3/2004 12:11:49 AM >

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Jon_Hal)

Post #: 24

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/3/2004 7:11:04 AM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

Doesn't prove anything, but it is interesting, and I greatly admire this author and respect his opinion. From H.P. Willmott's The Barrier and the Javelin, p.20:

quote:

Men willing to fight to the death--indeed, to die in order to fight--proved the one and only clear-cut advantage the Japanese held over their enemies throughout the war, but it should not obscure the extremely high standard of training that obtained throughout the Imperial Navy, particularly in its aviation branch. Many arms of the navy had gained combet experience in the conflict with China. The grisly realism of navy training frequently claimed a hundred lives during a single routine exercise in the stormy waters of the northern Pacific, and the training of the aircrew involved in the Pearl Harbor attack broke virtually every safety rule in the manuals. In almost all aspects of fighting, and notably in the most hazardous aspect of naval warfare, night fighting, the Japanese were at least the equal of their enemies.

Clearly, training meant something far different to the IJN than it did to the USN.

< Message edited by irrelevant -- 10/3/2004 8:20:26 AM >

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 25

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/3/2004 7:15:40 AM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jon_Hal

I think the histroical record shows that when USN and IJN Carrier aviators clashed in '42 that it was at best a draw in combat. Factor in the fact the the Japanese had superior aircraft then the USN at the time. I'm sure the Zero- Wildcat matchup has been argued may times but the fact that the Pre-war USN aviators held their own against Japan's first Teams while flying inferior planes speaks to the training that those USN pilots recieved. The Japanese aviators tore through everything they met. Army, MArines, Brits and Dutch but when the bumbed heads with the USN "first team" they met thier match.
I think that the quality of the Pre-war USN avitators is constantly
underestimated. They, flying inferior aircraft, held their own against the best the Japanese had. I think the Litmus test should be if the actually results of ww2 were translated to a WiTP would you complain that the USN scored as well as it did against the IJN?

For those interested see John Lundstroms book " The First Team" excellent and detailed and fair acount of the time period and pilots we are talking about

Regards, Jon
I agree completely..
Aerodynamically,the P-40 had a better roll rate than anything in the early war years,but the Zero could out-turn it because weighing less,and having a greater wing surface,it lost less speed in turns(weight to power ratio).Ergo,it would be foolish to dogfight a Zero..
The Wildcat was also not a "dogfighter,but the American fighters almost all had 6 .50 cal Colt/Browning MG's,which throw a pretty heavy AP round.The Zero did not have armor and the early Japanese pilots did not wear parachutes,so even a "lucky shot" could blow the best Japanese pilot into the next world(as Saburo Sakai lamented in his book "Samurai").
While his book pretty much made it sound his group "trounced" and played with Brewsters,P-39's,etc,it was an altogether different game when he met the USN over the Solomons,(where he lost an eye and a plane to an Avenger which he mis-stook for a Wildcat).
While the "experience" rating may seem too high,I suspect some of that rating is also abstractly representing the tactics of "hit and run" rather than just the planes (or pilots') abilities.
BTW,The Brewster has been described as a plane which cornered so bad,"it could not get out of it's own way".If that plane was picked over the Grumman initially,(as it was),you can imagine the Grumman was not a whole lot better,(even though the F4F-3 did have some slight improvements to get accepted.
The fact the USN pilots knew they were flying an inferior dogfighter,forced them to fight smart,not hard,and that is their telling legacy..

< Message edited by m10bob -- 10/3/2004 12:23:35 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Jon_Hal)

Post #: 26

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/3/2004 7:24:56 AM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

quote:

The Americans only managed two torpedo hits on carriers in 1942 - one each by TBDs and TBFs

According to Japanese sources, the TBDs put seven torps into Shoho, but seeing as how she was nearly dead in the water at the time, that almost should not count.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 27

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/3/2004 11:55:28 AM

Apollo11

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

Hi all,

Just a few thoughts regarding the subject...

Training is great way to prepare but even if it takes long long time an even if it is as close as possible to "real thing" it would never ever be nothing more than very poor substitute for actual combat.

Combat is combat and nothing on earth can simulate it.

When you can kill or can get killed - that is something different from anything soldier can experience.

Thus Japanese airmen combating poorly trained (and for most part poorly equipped) Chinese means that they had _HUGE_ experience leverage over their US (and other allied) counterparts.

Why?

Because "they tasted blood" and their US (and other allied) counterparts didn't.

It is as simple as that and every soldier who was in actual combat where he was in position to kill or get killed would tell you that.

Only in actual combat you can see how a soldier would behave...

Also let us not forget that in WWII there were no trainers capable of teaching pilots 3D combat.

The art of deflection shooting (essential in aerial combat and with sight technology that existed then) was something that had to be inside pilot.

I remember reading that, at the beginning of WWII, many outstanding fighter pilots that were considered masters of the skies were actually discovered to be utterly useless because they were unable to master the art of feeling for deflection shooting (high speed fighters that com into service at the end of 1930's introduced 100% different tactics and
100% different set of problems in aerial combat).

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to tigercub)

Post #: 28

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/3/2004 1:13:10 PM

Central Blue

Posts: 695
Joined: 8/20/2004
Status: offline

If we can count Japanese air experience in China, can we also count Marine experience with CAS in the Carribean? The Marines didn't get sucked into the Mitchell/Douhet strategic approach. Nor did the USN.

If the Solomons campaign includes Guadalcanal, where did the IJ airforce tear through the Marine and Army aviators of the Cactus airforce?

When it comes to evaluating the airwar at Guadalcanal it may not all be about planes and pilots. I'm reading from Richard B. Frank's book on the Guadalcanal campaig; the Japanese complained about their inability to build airbases closer to Guadalcanal and Vandegrift credits the coast-watchers that provided the early warning system till they could get radar to Henderson field.

If we're talking about doctrine... We should consider whoever it was in the US that decided to put so much effort into protecting pilots in planes and recovering pilots after their planes were shot down. Frank makes the following point when discussing casualties:

"American losses included 150 members of the United States Army Air Force and 130 Naval and 140 Marine personnel for a total of 420. Japanese losses exceeded this figure by from two to four times, essentially because more of their missing aircraft contained multiple crewmen and proportionately many fewer of their flight crews survived their aircraft. Moreover, the Japanese losses occurred primarily among their top-quality and best trained aviation personnell...at the beginning of the war the Imperial Navy's air service mustered about 3,500 pilots. Of these, the carrier air groups featured the 600 or so most skilled pilots, with an average of 800 hours of flying time. At Guadalcanal approximately 125 carrier pilots fell, most of who came from this select band of 600."

My apologies for any typing errors; that wasn't a cut and paste.

While Japanese air crew losses were apparently 2 to 4 times higher than US losses, the loss of planes broke out at 615 Allied to 682 IJ according to Frank's definition of the Gudalcanal campaign.

_____________________________

USS St. Louis firing on Guam, July 1944. The Cardinals and Browns faced each other in the World Series that year

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 29

RE: Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over s... - 10/3/2004 3:26:31 PM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

quote:

While Japanese air crew losses were apparently 2 to 4 times higher than US losses, the loss of planes broke out at 615 Allied to 682 IJ according to Frank's definition of the Gudalcanal campaign.

A striking illustration of just one of several disadvantages of fighting over the other guy's airbases. If you don't have clear local superiority before you begin an offensive, or if the defender can quickly out-reinforce you, you are going to get smoked.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Central Blue)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Does anyone else think the USA CV pilots are over skilled for 1941?