RE: Übercorsair and übercap (Full Version)

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



Message

Joe D. -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/19/2007 2:27:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Frankly, I think the Zero was a brilliant design. It was a solid performer in the early war, though no "superweapon." Strategically it was ideal...

Just to stir the pot.

I think it was an incredible stupid design that ignored most of the lessons of air to air combat; and was strategically unsound ...


We've already discussed this at great length in this very long thread; the Zero fit in w/the Japanese doctrine of maximum offense at the expense of pilot/plane protection.



Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/19/2007 2:30:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico
I think it was an incredible stupid design that ignored most of the lessons of air to air combat; and was strategically unsound.



Actually, that's an incredibly stupid statement..., and I asssume it was made "tongue in cheek". The Zero was designed around the requests and demands of Japanese pilots who were fighting in China. It was from the "lessons" they had aquired in combat that most of the Zero's weak points derived. The Combat Pilots demanded "ultra-manueverable" over all other considerations..., because this matched their experiance against the Chinese. Worked pretty well in the opening months of the Pacific War as well, because Allied pilots originally tried to "dog-fight" against it.

It's failings only came to light when the Allies stopped "playing the dogfight game", and began to use the strengths of their own A/C against the Zero's weaknesses. Strategically it was one of the soundest designs of the Pacific War because of it's great range, arguably THE single most important strategic consideration in that theatre.
How many German, British, America, etc designs followed the same logic?


---It's failings only came to light when the Allies stopped "playing the dogfight game"---

A lesson from WW1... is it not?





Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/19/2007 2:32:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.


We've already discussed this at great length in this very long thread; the Zero fit in w/the Japanese doctrine of maximum offense at the expense of pilot/plane protection.

A flawed philosophy... was it not and one quickly learned by the Japanese. How many Japanese designs that went into production after the start of the war followed this design belief?



Historiker -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/19/2007 2:53:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico


quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

In Spring 44, we still had a powerful army and the Luftwaffe hit the Allied AFs still hard. In the East, we were still able to match the Red Air Force.
The turning point came later, the war was not finally lost before mid of August 44...

(1)The turning point came in September of 1939 when the policy of short limited wars fell apart, after this there was little chance of victory; and after June of 1941 defeat was inevitable.

(2)In the spring of 1944 the Germany was incapable of holding off the Soviets alone; add the Western Allies and it wasn’t even close.

(3)At least by the summer of 1943 if not earlier the Luftwaffe had lost its ability to maintain air superiority, the result was devastating to the combat ability of the infantry divisions.



ad1 The first point can only come from a German [:D] With our tradition of selflaceration after the war, it is of course impossible that there has ever been any hope for Germany, there can't be anything good in Germany between this 12 years that dominate our history (for ourself) much more than all the other 1000 years...
And of course, the war was so defenitly lost in June, that Stalin submitted peace offers, providing much of the intended "Lebensraum".

ad2 and? who cares? It isn't necessary to hold all the ground. Especially on foreign ground, it is possible to use it for a manuever warfare. Have you ever heard of Erich von Manstein? And do you know what he did to the russians when he was allowed to retreat? Even Russia doesn't have endless abilitys. The casualties the Russians suffered through von Manstein where such horrible, that the abilities for offensives were in concrete danger. Of course, slowly retreating to the Cruzon-line doesn't make Germany to win the war, but if Manstein would have been in charge...
It has a reason why I said "august 44". In August it was certain, that the allied troops will not be thrown back to the sea, wich was indeed possible in June 44. But much more important than this, while this point allone decides the war, in august 44 Operation Bagration had ended and the Heeresgruppe Mitte has collapsed, which took germanys power to fight back in the east.
This two points, the loss of our tanks and of nearly 700.000 men together with the established second front (with even more massive losses) broke our neck. Before it was definitly not broken, yet!

ad3 The loss of air superiority didn't affect the production, but with it's affect on the ground forces, you are right. While this is really annoying, it doesn't decide the war, if the allied attempt to establish a second front would have been repelled successfully. Without an allied front in the east, marching by night is a good possibility to avoid attacks. At the estern front local air superiority was established again and again even until 45.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/19/2007 3:09:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico
How many German, British, America, etc designs followed the same logic?
---It's failings only came to light when the Allies stopped "playing the dogfight game"---
A lesson from WW1... is it not?



Actually, quite a few..., but they didn't push it to the extremes the Japanese did. And most of those A/C were designed without "combat experiance" well before the war started.



Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/19/2007 3:37:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Historikerad1 The first point can only come from a German [:D] With our tradition of selflaceration after the war, it is of course impossible that there has ever been any hope for Germany, there can't be anything good in Germany between this 12 years that dominate our history (for ourself) much more than all the other 1000 years...
And of course, the war was so defenitly lost in June, that Stalin submitted peace offers, providing much of the intended "Lebensraum".

During the early critical years the Germany economy was under horribly under utilized... you can’t win a long war that way. Economically, the Germans were poorly organized… way too many competing designs, lack of standardization, poor designs, etc. Politically, attacks on to many different ‘enemies’ lead to a disruption of force… Balkans, Norway, etc.

Poor leadership doomed any chance of success.



Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/19/2007 3:47:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike SchollActually, quite a few..., but they didn't push it to the extremes the Japanese did. And most of those A/C were designed without "combat experiance" well before the war started.

They didn't push it to extremes because of the lessons of WW1. The Japanese ignored these lessons and suffered for it.



The highly maneuverable concept of fighter wasn’t new at the time (pre-WW2), in 1916 it reached the pinnacle of it dominance with the fielding of the DR.1 (turn 82 ft per sec), but in one year it was superceeded when it was found that superior climb and speed would be a greater asset then superior maneuvering. SPADs using ‘dive-and-kill’ tactics (turn 73 ft per second) dominated the DR.1.



----------------------------------------------------------------


"During 1916 fighter design focused maneuverability. By 1917 this was giving way to
climb and speed as the central focus of airplane design. The famed Fokker Dr.1, was a highly maneuverable airplane, which was superior in close in dog-fighting, but had a low top speed and poor rate of climb."

"The progress in engine performance cannot be ignored. Since climb is a function of excess power larger engines made the later airplanes far superior. The success of the SPAD XIII can be attributed to its great performance in “slash and dash”




Joe D. -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/19/2007 3:37:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
quote:

Bad English speaking Kraut!

Non German speaking Yankee Doodle[;)]


I wonder if you both realize that English is a Teutonic (Germanic) language, despite all the French after the Norman Conquest and all the scientific Latin and Greek.


English isn't a teutonic language. It is a mixture of gaelic, latin and the language of the angles and the saxons, which have spoken some kind of germanic language.
This is the reason why there is no shureness for someone with another mother language than english, how to spell it everey time and why some words are similar to french and some to german...


Please refer to your own quote; I took the liberty to bold the pertinent part.

Teutonic (Germanic) in origin, English is now a mixture of almost everything.



Joe D. -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/19/2007 4:13:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.
We've already discussed this at great length in this very long thread; the Zero fit in w/the Japanese doctrine of maximum offense at the expense of pilot/plane protection.
A flawed philosophy... was it not and one quickly learned by the Japanese. How many Japanese designs that went into production after the start of the war followed this design belief?


In general, culture influences military doctrine, from which weapons and tactics are developed. The sammurai carried two swords, but no shield; the Japanese incorporated this offensive tradition into their technology, i.e., the Zero. This philosophy worked very well at Pearl Harbor and other raids, but not the invasion of Midway.

However, Shattererd Sword was more specific, claiming that IJ doctrine was directly developed to offset US advantages in men and material; " ... striking first, at longer range and with more powerful weaponry, was seen as the only possible antidote to American numerical preponderance."

I don't know enough re IJ aircraft to comment on their later designs, but their industrial base could never produce these aircraft fast enough to turn the tide.






mlees -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/19/2007 6:10:26 PM)

In regards to Uber-CAP, can it be mitigated by house-ruling a maximum CAP percentage setting of the Allied CV fighter groups? (Basically, reduce the max possible size of the CAP.)



jwilkerson -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/19/2007 6:41:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

In regards to Uber-CAP, can it be mitigated by house-ruling a maximum CAP percentage setting of the Allied CV fighter groups? (Basically, reduce the max possible size of the CAP.)


This doesn't totally work (as Andy and PzB discovered when they tried to implement this house rule) because the code has a step that launches all remaining fighters under certain conditions. And the summary of those conditions would be if you are late war Allies.




mlees -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/19/2007 6:55:04 PM)

Ahhh rats! Thanks for the reply. [:)]

But after reading the (sometimes heated) discussions in this thread, I became motivated to go out and order the "Bloody Shambles" and "First Team" series.

Thanks for feeding my obsession... err... interests, gents. [;)]



bradfordkay -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/19/2007 7:05:42 PM)

So the best way to regulate it under the current game would be to limit the number of squadrons involved. This would require like minded thinking on both sides. As long as the attacker is putting 100+ bombers into the air, you can't blame the defender for maximizing the number of aircraft flying CAP.

Now, if each attacking airgroup was only 70 planes or so, then the defending player might not mind having his aircombat TFs in seperate hexes - say 2 or 3 carriers max per hex.



jwilkerson -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/19/2007 7:29:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

So the best way to regulate it under the current game would be to limit the number of squadrons involved. This would require like minded thinking on both sides. As long as the attacker is putting 100+ bombers into the air, you can't blame the defender for maximizing the number of aircraft flying CAP.

Now, if each attacking airgroup was only 70 planes or so, then the defending player might not mind having his aircombat TFs in seperate hexes - say 2 or 3 carriers max per hex.


I said essentially the below way back at the start of this thread, in response to the orignal post. But I will repeat here in a bit more detail as strangely this galactically wandering thread seems to have "randomly" wound up back on topic! :)

Currently in stock (and at least I think this was the case historically) a larger number smaller sized Japanese strikes have a better chance of inflicting damage on Allied CV TFs than a smaller number of larger sized strikes. For example at Philippine Sea, Ozawa's four "large" strikes were effectively defeated. But during Leyte Gulf campaign, the Princeton was sunk by a "lone wolf". This roughly mimics my experience in the game where a 300 plane Japanese strike is totally defeated but a 20 plane strike can go in and maybe get one hit. The game code actually instantiates the idea that larger strikes will (potentially) be more heavily defended against. And this seems fairly historical to me anyway. So one aspect of the problem for the late war Japanese is to engineer situations in which there are a larger number of smaller strikes. This means planes spread out at more airbases especially those that generate attacks at multiple ranges (as same range attacks are more likely to join). This might seem counter intuative to some who seek ways of piling more and more planes onto one base. But the point of the original post was that piling everything in one place doesn't work. And what I'm saying is ... then don't do that!!! Instead spread out! You also make yourself less vulnerable to counter-measures by being spread out!!






Joe D. -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/20/2007 1:33:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

... Currently in stock (and at least I think this was the case historically) a larger number smaller sized Japanese strikes have a better chance of inflicting damage on Allied CV TFs than a smaller number of larger sized strikes...


This seems to be the opposite of my experience w/UV, which shares the same engine as WitP; one or two large formations of IJ planes will overwhelm the Allied CAP and always get thru to score good hits on CVs. The CAP generally holds its own vs. more numerous "bite-sized" enemy plane formations.

However, it's just opposite for PTs; smaller, more numerous PT TFs seem to perform better than fewre, larger PT squadons.



Bombur -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/20/2007 1:43:03 AM)

-In Nik mod, sequential and smaller strikes are pretty effective too. It seems that spending of AA anmo in first strike is an issue.



Page: <<   < prev  10 11 12 13 [14]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.6875