Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP

 
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 >> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 8:38:01 PM   
Brausepaul


Posts: 484
Joined: 8/11/2004
From: Braunschweig, Deutschland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

It wasn't luck, it was scarifice and a team effort, and if the Japanese were half as good as some seem to think - they would have come back and kicked our butts!


Then "Point Team Effort" would have been a better designation for the meeting point of TFs 16 and 17.

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 151
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 8:40:12 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

Wich Carrier battle did the Japs ever win?


Depends what you call a "win".

Coral Sea was an IJN tactical victory, but strategic defeat. Ditto Battle of Santa Cruz.

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 152
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 8:42:24 PM   
mdiehl

 

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

#1 Did Zero fighters did well doing CAP over KB (i.e. were they killing US attackers who come wave after wave)?

IMHO yes - they did very good job (together with IJN AA which was also rather good). What caused IJN demise at Midway was no fault of Zero CAP - it was lack of radar and combat confusion and bad organization of Japanese side.


They were quite effective against the TBDs. Poorly coordinated CAP was par for the course for both the IJN and USN in 1942 along with inadequate CAP sizes (one reason why every time I see 44 Jap Zeroes flying CAP I just shake my head). In direct engagements of F4Fs vs A6Ms flying CAP the F4Fs did quite well. So "fighter v fighter" puts the USN plane+pilot combination on top, despite the fact that the F4Fs were operating at the limit of their tactical radius.

quote:

#2 Did Zero fighters escorted KB strike force against Midway successfully and prevented US CAP to stop IJN bombers?

IMHO yes - they did very good job.


I think one has to shrug and take a pass on that one. They did a good job vs primarily F2A3s. What does that prove? I'm not sure.


quote:

#3 Did Zero fighters successfully escorted (two times!) remaining IJN carrier (Hiryu) strike force against Yorktown and engaged USN CAP to enable few remaining torpedo and dive bombers to engage US carrier (and those few remaining did remarkable damage - one other point how good they were)?

IMHO yes - they did very good job even against the odds.


There were very few USN planes flying cap and lots of aircraft shot down by F4Fs. I think it just proves that with enough planes, some of them will get through.


quote:

#4 How good were USN Wildcats protecting Midway?
IMHO rather bad (but those were US Marines and not USN).


All five of them. And they accounted for the majority of Japanese a/c shot down at Midway, IIRC.

quote:

#5 How good were USN Wildcats from 3 US carriers trying to stop remnants of just single IJN carrier striking Yorktown (and add to that that they had advance radar warning)?

IMHO bad again (Yorktown was lost although there was no surprise).


No worse than the Japanese aircraft were at stopping attacks on Strike Force though. Arguably much better since, in the end, Yorktown was being recovered a day later and ultimately only sunk by a submarine.

Judged by the fighter vs fighter contest the F4Fs carried the day over the Zeroes. Judged by tonnage and types of vessels sunk, the Japanese were handed their head on a pike. It had nothing at all to do with luck. A good, clear, simple USN operational plan carried the day over a complex, inadequate, flawed Japanese operational plan. The USN could hardly have had worse luck and won despite all that.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 153
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 8:42:37 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

Then "Point Team Effort" would have been a better designation for the meeting point of TFs 16 and 17.


Ah, yes, Nimitz realized that by calling the rendezvous "Point Luck", he would appease the sea gods and war gods, thus assuring victory.

(in reply to Brausepaul)
Post #: 154
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 8:42:42 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

Wich Carrier battle did the Japs ever win?


Depends what you call a "win".

Coral Sea was an IJN tactical victory, but strategic defeat. Ditto Battle of Santa Cruz.

Win - as in accomplish their mission objectives and inflict greater losses and damge on the enemy than they receive, thereby owning the field of battle and inflicting their will on their opponent.

B

_____________________________


(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 155
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 8:46:13 PM   
Apollo11


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

#1
Did Zero fighters did well doing CAP over KB (i.e. were they killing US attackers who come wave after wave)?

IMHO yes - they did very good job (together with IJN AA which was also rather good). What caused IJN demise at Midway was no fault of Zero CAP - it was lack of radar and combat confusion and bad organization of Japanese side.


Well, have to disagree there. The Japanese CAP allowed themselves to be drawn down to sea level when some shoulds have remained high overheard. They got fixated on the torpedo planes and allowed divebombers to blow 3 carriers to smithereens. That most certainly is the fault of the CAP. And yes, they shot down a ton of torpedo planes. But how many Dauntless' did they shoot down?

Fuchida, in his book, "God's Samurai" watched the battle from the Akagi's flight deck as he recovered from surgery for appendicitis. He watched the entire CAP go after the torpedo planes and said he prayed that the US had no more planes inbound as he knew the fleet was now unprotected.

Chez


I read Fuchida's book (but it wasn't called like you wrote).

The CAP error was not Zero fighter error - it was error in command/control of CAG (or whatever similar title IJN had).

BTW, imagine that Japanese command/control was better and that there were more Zero fighters doing CAP (just small fragment of available Zero fighters were used for CAP)? What would happen to those Dauntless bombers?

It was great turning point of war but it was poorly executed by USN (even with all intel info they had)... "luck" or "bad luck" or "God's hand" was what decided the battle...


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 ChezDaJez)
Post #: 156
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 8:48:53 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

Win - as in accomplish their mission objectives and inflict greater losses and damge on the enemy than they receive, thereby owning the field of battle and inflicting their will on their opponent.


THe IJN did inflict greater losses in the two battles mentioned. I don't think they could claim they accomplished their objectives, although some historians say Battle of Santa Cruz was to force the USN to withdraw its carriers (which they did) and award the victory to the IJN.

So, do we call the battles a draw? Most historians are a bit more nuanced then that and break it down into strategic vs. tactical victory.

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 157
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 8:50:43 PM   
mdiehl

 

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

It was great turning point of war but it was poorly executed by USN (even with all intel info they had)... "luck" or "bad luck" or "God's hand" was what decided the battle...


IMO it was none of the above. The Japanese were defeated because they showed up with insufficient force for the number of jobs to hand, and they assumed there would be no opposition when they had no basis for the assumption. In a nutshell that's it. One can cherry pick lots of details that may have swung one way or the other but the USN plan was fault-tolerant and the UNS prevailed despite some bad decisions. The Japanese plan was fault-intolerant to the point of sheer brittleness and the outcome was both predictable (the Japanese predicted the outcome in their pre-operation wargames when their OpFor did precisely what the USN ships did with respect to timing the counterattack and positioning ships on the map), and likely.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 158
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 8:50:45 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

It was great turning point of war but it was poorly executed by USN (even with all intel info they had)...


What an utterly amazing conclusion!!

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 159
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 8:51:09 PM   
Nikademus


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Yes... but what is the role of fighter?

Fighter role wasn't just to fight other fighters... we have to objective look at "whole package" and not just singe aspect of Air-2-Air warfare (i.e. fighter vs. fighter)...



You make a good point Leo. The role of the fighter is multi-faceted and must be taken as a whole. A fighter's primary role IMO is to defend it's charges when attacking a target and Fleet defence. Lt Cmd Simpler of VF-5 had an interesting observation regarding this:

"The common practice is to judge a fighter by the number of planes it destroys. This is most misleading. Any fighter's worth is determined by the number of enemy planes who escape to return again."

This observation was made while describing the familiar drawbacks of the F4F at Lunga, namly low climb rate, slow speed and insufficient range. [Lundstrom]

To coin my own example, if an escort group successfully protects it's charges but losses a greater number of planes while keeping the enemy fighters off the backs of the bombers, who was the more successful? Not everything is made simple by simple side by side number comparisons...the whole picture must be looked at.

You asked about the Zero at Midway. Its a mixed preformance. The Zeros did a superb job initially defending first their Midway strike getting the better of the F2A and F4F pilots that rose to meet them, then in defending KB against successive waves of enemy bombers...ironic the last given the Fleet Defence was a known weakness for the KB. Nearly 40 enemy bombers were downed in the process. However in allowing their CAP to be drawn down the sea level, that set up the killing blow. bad luck to be sure but a proper CAP in theory at least should remain layered to give protection against all potential incomings.

Then things began to slide off. Thach's fighter element, a non-factor in escorting the bombers was set upon by elements of the CAP that had just dealt with the TBD's. The Zeros scored first bouncing and downing 1 of the 4 F4F's in Thach's group but then Thach went into his defensive weave for the first time and downed an estimated 6 Zeros that tried to get in on them in seperate fashion. A very impressive preformance by Thach and his crewmen that i also believe was aided by carelessness on the part of the Japanese fighter pilots, flush with their successes attacking the torpedo bombers. I'm also suspecting they were low on cannon ammo if not out completely by the time they attacked Thach aiding him still further. 7.7's alone have a very hard time downing Grummans. Thach made sure to present each attacker with a nearly full deflection shot while they were making their attack runs....something that would be very difficult for the Zero pilot to acomplish given the limited visibility over the nose. Thach himself was credited with 3 of the 6 kills.

The 1st Hiryu raid against Yorktown scores poor marks for the Zero escort. The escort only numbered 4 leaving them heavily outnumbered by the defending CAP. They were also out of position to give proper coverage to the bombers and 1 of their number further exaserbated the issue by allowing himself to be baited by an F4F which with team help turned around and flamed him. Of the three remaining Zeros that attempted to defend the bombers, 2 more fell in return for 1 F4F. The 2nd Hiryu attack escort redeemed themselves by putting in a superlative preformance defending the Kate bombers. The six escorting Zeros kept their charges largely safe and shot down 4 F4F's in trade for two of their own number. You couldn't ask for a better preformance.

Lundstrom's Tally for the battle (fighter vs fighter) was 6 F4F vs. 11 A6M. (He does not count op loss F4F's though) Numerically in total, a victory for the F4F but Lundstrom's book contained quotes from the pilots regarding the Zero's accendency in many areas of preformance. Fortunately the Grumman plane is a tough bird, well armed and well protected. In defense in particular, it had the tools to hold it's own but the pilots wanted a plane that could allow them to dicate terms rather than be dictated too.

In short. You can construct your argument both ways as has been done many times in the past and shall be again.

_____________________________


(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 160
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 8:53:22 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

Win - as in accomplish their mission objectives and inflict greater losses and damge on the enemy than they receive, thereby owning the field of battle and inflicting their will on their opponent.


THe IJN did inflict greater losses in the two battles mentioned. I don't think they could claim they accomplished their objectives, although some historians say Battle of Santa Cruz was to force the USN to withdraw its carriers (which they did) and award the victory to the IJN.

So, do we call the battles a draw? Most historians are a bit more nuanced then that and break it down into strategic vs. tactical victory.

In tonnage sunk in those two battles the Japs come out on top - in lives lost and plans thwarted they- loose (which is what counts)

B

_____________________________


(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 161
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 8:55:19 PM   
Apollo11


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

Win - as in accomplish their mission objectives and inflict greater losses and damge on the enemy than they receive, thereby owning the field of battle and inflicting their will on their opponent.


THe IJN did inflict greater losses in the two battles mentioned. I don't think they could claim they accomplished their objectives, although some historians say Battle of Santa Cruz was to force the USN to withdraw its carriers (which they did) and award the victory to the IJN.

So, do we call the battles a draw? Most historians are a bit more nuanced then that and break it down into strategic vs. tactical victory.


Also let us not forget that we simply didn't have full "true KB" vs. USN CV battle (i.e. full might of one against full might of other actualy used).

The "Zuikaku" and "Shokaku" were considered the least experienced CV's in IJN KB and we have them pitched against best of USN in Coral Sea (although it is considered IJN loss - I would never call it that way and if it would happen in WitP game no player would call it that way also).

The only "true KB" vs. USN CV's were just two small Hiryu attacks against Yorktown. Yorktown was effectively disabled even though USN had radar early warning and full CAP (USN Wildcats didn't do anything else than doing CAP at Midway)...


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 rtrapasso)
Post #: 162
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 8:59:01 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

In tonnage sunk in those two battles the Japs come out on top - in lives lost and plans thwarted they- loose (which is what counts)


Well, then you've changed your definition.

And if their plan was to force withdrawal of the USN carriers from Santa Cruz, then their plans were not thwarted.

Again, "victory" is not always black or white.

By using your definition, you could argue that Savo was a defeat for the IJN (did not accomplish every objective). Most folks would NOT try to argue the Allies won that battle, or that the IJN lost it.

< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 9/15/2005 9:00:27 PM >

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 163
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 8:59:18 PM   
Nikademus


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

What an utterly amazing conclusion!!


I think what Leo means is that despite the bonanza of intelligence, the US ambush nearly went wrong.

_____________________________


(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 164
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 8:59:46 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

Win - as in accomplish their mission objectives and inflict greater losses and damge on the enemy than they receive, thereby owning the field of battle and inflicting their will on their opponent.


THe IJN did inflict greater losses in the two battles mentioned. I don't think they could claim they accomplished their objectives, although some historians say Battle of Santa Cruz was to force the USN to withdraw its carriers (which they did) and award the victory to the IJN.

So, do we call the battles a draw? Most historians are a bit more nuanced then that and break it down into strategic vs. tactical victory.


Also let us not forget that we simply didn't have full "true KB" vs. USN CV battle (i.e. full might of one against full might of other actualy used).

The "Zuikaku" and "Shokaku" were considered the least experienced CV's in IJN KB and we have them pitched against best of USN in Coral Sea (although it is considered IJN loss - I would never call it that way and if it would happen in WitP game no player would call it that way also).

The only "true KB" vs. USN CV's were just two small Hiryu attacks against Yorktown. Yorktown was effectively disabled even though USN had radar early warning and full CAP (USN Wildcats didn't do anything else than doing CAP at Midway)...


Leo "Apollo11"

Yah, I would call that a USN Victory - any day.
It's a perfect example of Japanese victories - which is why they lost the war...they DID loose the war you know.

_____________________________


(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 165
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 9:00:22 PM   
Apollo11


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

It was great turning point of war but it was poorly executed by USN (even with all intel info they had)...


What an utterly amazing conclusion!!


And how would you call it?

How can ayone call USN CV attack on KB other than utter confusion and poor execution?

Only God and "luck" or "bad luck" (depending from your viewpoint) can describe the fact that Dauntless bombers come unopossed over KB at most vulnerable moment...

The USN torpedo bombers did _NOT_ sacrifice on purpose to draw away Japanese CAP and leave window open for dive bombers - there was _NO_ coordination or intent - it was pure coincidence!


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 rtrapasso)
Post #: 166
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 9:01:45 PM   
Apollo11


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

What an utterly amazing conclusion!!


I think what Leo means is that despite the bonanza of intelligence, the US ambush nearly went wrong.


Exactly that!


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 Nikademus)
Post #: 167
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 9:02:28 PM   
Nikademus


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

ORIGINAL: Big B

they DID loose the war you know.


DID THEY??!!!! wow!

(just joshing ya big b'er)

Course i am driving a Japanese made automobile....maybe this was all part of their insidious plan.....


< Message edited by Nikademus -- 9/15/2005 9:03:30 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 168
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 9:02:46 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

What an utterly amazing conclusion!!


I think what Leo means is that despite the bonanza of intelligence, the US ambush nearly went wrong.


Exactly that!


Leo "Apollo11"

Yah - ALMOST went wrong - but didn't

_____________________________


(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 169
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 9:03:44 PM   
Nikademus


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

ORIGINAL: Big B

Yah - ALMOST went wrong - but didn't


Nope. It didn't and thank god for that.

< Message edited by Nikademus -- 9/15/2005 9:04:34 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 170
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 9:04:02 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

they DID loose the war you know.


DID THEY??!!!! wow!

(just joshing ya big b'er)

Course i am driving a Japanese made automobile....maybe this was all part of their insidious plan.....


Ok you got me there - a point I have wondered myself

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 171
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 9:07:19 PM   
Apollo11


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Yah, I would call that a USN Victory - any day.
It's a perfect example of Japanese victories - which is why they lost the war...they DID loose the war you know.


You play WitP game- right?

How would you call historic Coral Sea battle if it would happen in WitP game (let's say for the sake of argument)?

Would you trade 1x damaged CV "Shokaku" + 1x untouched CV "Zuikaku" vs 1x sunk CV "Lexington" and 1x damaged CV "Yorktown"?


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 Big B)
Post #: 172
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 9:13:16 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Yah, I would call that a USN Victory - any day.
It's a perfect example of Japanese victories - which is why they lost the war...they DID loose the war you know.


You play WitP game- right?

How would you call historic Coral Sea battle if it would happen in WitP game (let's say for the sake of argument)?

Would you trade 1x damaged CV "Shokaku" + 1x untouched CV "Zuikaku" vs 1x sunk CV "Lexington" and 1x damaged CV "Yorktown"?


Leo "Apollo11"



One sunk Lexington - both of my airgroups pilots ok - for one Sunk Shoho, one Shokaku out of the war for months, two carrier airgroups shot to hell - and unavailable for months, and the Invasion of Port Moresby stopped cold - saving New Guinea

I would be quite happy with that thank you very much (And in WitP Lexington comes back as an Essex - good trade any day)

B

_____________________________


(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 173
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 9:15:26 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

And how would you call it?

How can ayone call USN CV attack on KB other than utter confusion and poor execution?

Only God and "luck" or "bad luck" (depending from your viewpoint) can describe the fact that Dauntless bombers come unopossed over KB at most vulnerable moment...

The USN torpedo bombers did _NOT_ sacrifice on purpose to draw away Japanese CAP and leave window open for dive bombers - there was _NO_ coordination or intent - it was pure coincidence!


Who knows how things might have gone if the timing were different?? That's why we play these games, i think - trying to guess. Maybe things would have been different had the SBDs shown up first - and the torpedo bombers would have gotten through when the Zeros were attacking the SBDs up in the clouds (they wouldn't have been really good at diving, iirc). Or maybe things could have happened that they both arrived at the same time. Then what would have happened? Who really knows?

But Spruance took the chance by launching at maximum range, knowing that things could go very wrong, but taking the chance he could catch the IJN flatfooted- which occurred. One could argue that the bad luck was with the USN - the lack of coordination was "bad luck". (Note - i do NOT hold that to be the case). But to say it was "bad luck" for the IJN (or good luck for the USN) when the battle came off pretty much as the itself originally IJN predicted, is, well, astonishing is the word that leaps to mind again.

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 174
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 9:20:52 PM   
mdiehl

 

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

Only God and "luck" or "bad luck" (depending from your viewpoint) can describe the fact that Dauntless bombers come unopossed over KB at most vulnerable moment...


Not at all. Look, you've got to look at the details. The Japanese CAP was down low in part because of poor command and control. (The USN had the same problem at the time. This is understandable because these were the first CV vs CV engagements anyone ever had. Prior to that it had been on both sides a matter of attacking and defending fixed installations, which I think is operationally a much less complex task both attacking and defending.) It was also down low because the Japanese fleet had been under continuous attack for 40 minutes. Their defense was overtaxed and stretched beyond its breaking point.

That leaves the Dauntlesses. One formation (led by McCluskey) found Strike force courtesy of locating Arashio. More on that in a moment. The other formation found Strike Force because they'd been told (prior to launch) of Strike Force's course change (where McCluskey had not). Either way you've got a minimum of 14 SBDs over Strike Force with their CAP on the deck. No matter what you change, IMO, the Japanese lose two CVs.

Now to McCluskey. He found Arashio. Arashio was where she was courtesy of hounding USS Nautilus as the latter set up for an attack on one of the carriers (probably Kaga). The Japanese course change was precipitated in part by the effort to evade submarines thought to be in the area (and whose presence was confirmed by the appearance of Nautilus).

So if you mentally subtract Arashio from the equation (giving McCluskey no ship to intuit), you also shouldprobably subtract Strike Force's course change... and that puts McCluskey AND all the other SBDs on target at abot the same time that Kido Butai is shooting down the inbvound from Midway strikes. Only in this case the USN strike probably arrives as a coordinated strike of 3 USN CVs worth of SBDs, TBDs, and F4Fs.

IMO that would have been even worse for the Japanese than the historical result because I think all 4 Japanese CVs would have been sunk straight away, leaving Yorktown unharmed and a whole bunch of F4Fs available that in the historical fight had to ditch when they ran out of fuel.




_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 175
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 9:23:40 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
BRADY!!!

SEE WHAT YOU STARTED!!!

_____________________________


(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 176
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 9:25:54 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

BRADY!!!

SEE WHAT YOU STARTED!!!



Oh sure, blame it on Brady!!

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 177
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 9:26:09 PM   
Apollo11


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

BRADY!!!

SEE WHAT YOU STARTED!!!


Oh this is nothing yet... I think in early days we had 10-20 pages of F4F vs Zero discussons (I think those are gone because when hacker attacked Matrix the forum lost many many dood posts/threads)...


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 Big B)
Post #: 178
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 9:27:06 PM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

If the zero was a superior plane, and the Japanese pilots were superior pilots, then "How is it that in the 4 1942 US CV vs IJN CV battles, when F4Fs directly engaged A6Ms, they consistently acquitted themselves better?"


The Zero had many advantages over the Wildcat but the greatest advantage the Wildcat had was its ability to bring its pilot home after suffering battle damage. We'll nevere know how many Japanese pilots were lost trying to nurse a damaged plane home. Just having self-sealing tanks made a huge difference. A single bullet hole in a fuel tank was normally good enough to bring down a Zero if he had any distance to fly.
Another factor is pilot fatigue. It would be far more realistic to adjust fatigue levels then experience and aircraft attributes. The game does a poor job of modeling fatigue. Engaging in combat should induce large amounts of fatigue. Take a look at what the two fleets had been doing prior to those 4 carrier battles.

The Japanese had been in near continuous combat since the start. American pilots were much fresher. The US conducted a few raids and basically picked when and where they fought and rested in between. So Japanese fatigue levels should be much higher. And its a well known fact that fatigued pilots make far more mistakes and are less likely to survive combat.

quote:

Asking the question strictly vis the CVs sets aside the alleged and very minor Japanese disadvantages (that did not offset Allied disadvantages there) of the Guadalcanal encounters between 11th AF and the VMF VF pilots at Henderson because the CVs typically faced off at ranges that favored the Zero and handicapped the F4F. Yet the F4Fs still came out on top.


Wow, its obvious you have never served as aircrew anywhere. You have no understanding of the variables that account for aircrew performance. Fatigue is insidious. A tired pilot makes mistakes. It affects his ability to think clearly. Having that longer range can also be a serious disadvantage, especially when damaged. These factors play on your mind and can create feelings of futility. Which would you rather do? Fly escort on a bunch of bombers in a lightweight fighter for 550 miles (8-10 hours of flight time), engage in combat, then possibly nurse a damaged plane home OR fly from a primitive airstrip in a robust airplane, engage the enemy, then land and wait for the next attack. The Japanese knew that if they were damaged, they stood little chance of returning. US pilots had an excellent chance of doing so. Even if you got shelled that night, its still better being on the defensive at Guadalcanal. And you make Rabaul sound as though it were a garden paradise... hardly. The living conditions were certainly much better than at Henderson but the fact is it was no picnic either. As the battles progressed, both sides became fatigued but conditions continued to improve for US pilots. They didn't for Japanese.

The Japanese lost a lot of good pilots in both the land and sea campaigns that weren't easily replaced. Their training program had yet to really ramp up to meet the demand.

Combat should induce much more fatigue than what the game actually does. Fatigue is primarily based on range in WitP. Combat should be the greatest factor. And if you have to fly a long way then engage in combat, fatigue should really jump.

Chez


_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 179
RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP - 9/15/2005 9:28:35 PM   
Apollo11


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Only God and "luck" or "bad luck" (depending from your viewpoint) can describe the fact that Dauntless bombers come unopossed over KB at most vulnerable moment...


Not at all. Look, you've got to look at the details. The Japanese CAP was down low in part because of poor command and control. (The USN had the same problem at the time. This is understandable because these were the first CV vs CV engagements anyone ever had. Prior to that it had been on both sides a matter of attacking and defending fixed installations, which I think is operationally a much less complex task both attacking and defending.) It was also down low because the Japanese fleet had been under continuous attack for 40 minutes. Their defense was overtaxed and stretched beyond its breaking point.

That leaves the Dauntlesses. One formation (led by McCluskey) found Strike force courtesy of locating Arashio. More on that in a moment. The other formation found Strike Force because they'd been told (prior to launch) of Strike Force's course change (where McCluskey had not). Either way you've got a minimum of 14 SBDs over Strike Force with their CAP on the deck. No matter what you change, IMO, the Japanese lose two CVs.

Now to McCluskey. He found Arashio. Arashio was where she was courtesy of hounding USS Nautilus as the latter set up for an attack on one of the carriers (probably Kaga). The Japanese course change was precipitated in part by the effort to evade submarines thought to be in the area (and whose presence was confirmed by the appearance of Nautilus).

So if you mentally subtract Arashio from the equation (giving McCluskey no ship to intuit), you also shouldprobably subtract Strike Force's course change... and that puts McCluskey AND all the other SBDs on target at abot the same time that Kido Butai is shooting down the inbvound from Midway strikes. Only in this case the USN strike probably arrives as a coordinated strike of 3 USN CVs worth of SBDs, TBDs, and F4Fs.

IMO that would have been even worse for the Japanese than the historical result because I think all 4 Japanese CVs would have been sunk straight away, leaving Yorktown unharmed and a whole bunch of F4Fs available that in the historical fight had to ditch when they ran out of fuel.


This is why war is unpredictable... so many "what if" and "could have" / "would have" possibilities outcomes of which we will never know...


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 mdiehl)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   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

0.723