RE: Übercorsair and übercap

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

Big B -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/14/2007 4:41:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheElf quote: ORIGINAL: Big B Doctrine? - he was outnumbered flying an escort mission. Correct, and he was forced to fly with only one division and one half. These numbers were forced on him at the last minute, he wanted 2 full divs in order to test his weave, unfortunately it likely would not have mattered since he had not had more than a few minutes to chalk talk it with the members of his flight. Later USN doctrine for the F4F held that close escort was not favorable to the F4F's strong points. High escort was necessary to afford the Wildcat altitude from which to dive on the Zero as they had dived on him at 2500'. He never should have been put in the position he was in, but many factors contributed to this particular case, not the least of which was the lack of a clear cut doctrine that highlighted the F4Fs strengths. By the way, according to Lundstrom [page 351] Thach's 4 plane division was not in fact flying close escort with anyone, they were swarmed by the Zeros who just had finished with Torpedo 6 who had no escort, the battle took place between the attacks of Torpedo 6 and Torpdeo 3. They were attacked from behind without knowledge at 5,500 feet and quickly lost Coral Sea veteran Bassett. It was then the the three survivors of Thach's division formed into his weave formation - attacked by his estimate of 15-20 Zeros taking turns diving on them from above and behind at 20-30 second intervals. This explains the Zeros zooming past so quickly (dive speed), but Lundstrom also states that Thach downed three during the fight [page356]. Now if They weren't flying close escort to anyone in particular - I still don't see this as a mistake of US Navy doctrine? If the error was having one full division instead of two full divisions - well, you fight with what you have not what you want, that's not an error of doctrine.

ctangus -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/14/2007 4:56:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl Actually, I used the term "proud morons", not "Steakhouse Morons". I was referring to the "moronic" nature of the "was to/was not" sub-thread you guys had going...., and the wish that you would go somewhere else with it. Sorry if you felt insulted..., but if you play with the morons you risk being tagged with the same brush. Was not!!! [:D] Eh, I must have misread your post. Anyway not a big deal - probably should have gone with my first reaction and let it pass.

mdiehl -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/14/2007 5:33:46 AM)
quote: To an esoteric degree - Midway may also have been been won by the submarine Nautilus, for it was the Japanese destroyer that was sitting on her - racing North to rejoin the CVs - that was spotted and followed to the target, that lead the CVs to their quarry and decided the battle. To be fair, though, the only reason why the IJN fleet turned northward was because Nautilus was detected. Had Nautilus not been there, there would have been no need to follow that DD northward in the first place. I'd credit Nautilus if she'd pickled a CV or two. Otherwise I think mussing the discussion up doesn't make anything clearer.

ctangus -> RE: Zero vs F4F/P-40 (9/14/2007 5:37:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Big B By the way (to all) This is the greatest topic of all time on this forum. Though many complain of having heard it all - can anyone name another topic that is so evergreen, so easily able to generate 8+ pages anytime it is brought up? I think not. [;)] (that is - unless the blood pressure gets so high so quickly it gets locked). Maybe if most games lived in 1945 instead of 1942 there would be a challenger. That's true, eh? Well, to get something new we could go back to the "Ubercorsair and ubercap" which this thread started with. I've got one game now in March '44. I do think there's a couple things that can and should be done to make results more plausible. Take the OP - he's talking about a battle in Oct '43 off Mindanao. IRL that's the time of the Tarawa landing. The turkey shoot is 8 months away. Leyte's still a year away. F4Us on carriers are still over a year away (except the Brits). The FCTF was in its infancy. It wasn't really challenged IRL so we can't know for sure. But if it was challenged at that time I suspect that TF 38/58 still would have kicked butt, but not as decisively as it did in later battles. I suspect that the doctrine for its use was still being developed, though I'd be interested if anyone has hard facts on that. Anyway, back to the game. Without a mod like Nik mod, I think the following restrictions lead to plausible results: 1. Keep F4Us off carriers so early, except for the FAA. IIRC F4Us were first used on US CVs in roughly Nov/Dec '44, in response to the kamikaze threat. I'd recommend the same - maybe a month or two earlier if kamis are a problem or a month or two later if they're not. They could have been used in '43 if the USN really tried to. But they weren't IRL and they can be too overwhelming in the game. 2. Some sort of stacking limit should be in effect. I've seen people suggest no more than 450 CV-based planes per hex. In my game the limit my opponent & I agreed to is 660 (that's 2 task groups of 3 CVs + 2 CVLs each.) Though I'm mostly using mostly 500-550. 3. In return, no J2Ms or N1Ks on Japanese CVs. They weren't carrier-capable IRL. With these restrictions my opponent & I have had realistic results IMO. Mostly my CAP shoots down or turns back all raids. At least 90% of the time. One day I shot down @400. When there are leakers AA takes care of most the rest. An occasional leaker gets through to score a hit - New Jersey needs 3-4 months in port after a kamikaze hit for example. I did have one day where I got spanked. But fortunately for the US Admiral Spruance IRL was smarter than Admiral Chuck and remembered to send some of his bombers on naval search. Oops...

Big B -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/14/2007 5:37:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl ....Otherwise I think mussing the discussion up doesn't make anything clearer. Make anything clearer? hehehe what a concept[:D]

Joe D. -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/14/2007 6:10:05 AM)
Hughes himself claimed the Japanese copied his racer, but he's certainly wasn't an objective source, esp. after losing a contract for the H-1 to the USAAF. ... Hughes fully expected the United States Army Air Forces to embrace his plane's new design and make the H-1 the basis for a new generation of U.S. fighter planes. However, for reasons that are obscure, this did not happen. Instead, when World War II started, the USAAF was fielding a fleet of P-39 Airacobras and P-40 Warhawks. After the war, Howard Hughes claimed that "it was quite apparent to everyone that it [the Japanese Zero] had been copied from the Hughes [H-1 Racer]." Hughes had most likely made this statement with reference to both the wing planform, and the tail empennage design, the similiairty of the Zero's and his racer's being striking. (Howard Hughes, in his own words) ... You should be happy re the Warhawks.

bradfordkay -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/14/2007 6:39:56 AM)
"October 27, 1942 U.S.S. Hornet (CV-8) sunk by carrier based air " I do believe that the Hornet was finished off by torpedoes from a Japanese destroyer (at least one US destroyer had pumped fish into her earlier, but ran off as the Japanese got closer).

Yamato hugger -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/14/2007 8:00:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Doggie quote: ORIGINAL: Yakface Shokaku, Taiyo and Shinano all went down to subs - may be others Ther only one that came to mind was the one claimed by Archerfish. Shôkaku; sunk by Cavalla Shinano ; sunk by Archerfish I wouldn't count Taiyo as a fleet carrier. U.S.S. Langley was sunk by land based air but it was used as an aircraft ferry and was more of a transport than an operational CV Should check your facts (actually this is kind of a basic one, so Im surprised, well -- no comment). The Langley wasnt an aircraft carrier. It was converted to a seaplane tender in 1937. It couldnt operate aircraft.

ChezDaJez -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/14/2007 8:16:34 AM)
First let’s speak of my comment, “The fighter-fighter combat that occurred certainly doesn't give a warm, fuzzy feeling for the Wildcat's abilities. It barely held its own against surprised and outnumbered A5M Claudes” You took the comment out of context, as you are wont to do. Let’s examine the basis for that comment, shall we? The comment was made based on the Marshall Islands raid on 1 Feb 42 which I clearly stated in my posting (that you conveniently edited out) and the fact that the Wildcats failed to protect their carrier or to inflict substantial damage on the defending CAP. According to Lundstrom (The First Team, pgs 66-77), on 1 Feb 42, 5 F4Fs attacked Taroa where the Japanese had 2 A5M Claudes on CAP. These two A5Ms sighted the USS Chester on the horizon and headed to investigate so were not initially seen by the attacking F4Fs. Three A5M Claudes then took off in response to the alert of enemy warships and were climbing out over the water when the Wildcats attacked. Caught completely by surprise, one Claude (Kurakane) was immediately shot down by Rawie but the pilot bailed out, a second Claude (Atake) engaged in a head-on pass and was damaged in a collision with Rawie’s F4F but Atake managed to land safely though the flight leader, Gray, took a shot at him as he did so. Rawie turned to strafe the airfield but his guns jammed from the maneuvering. The third Claude got onto Rawie’s tail and peppered him with machine gun fire. With his guns jammed, Rawie ran for it and was able to make good his escape and return to the Enterprise alone. The other 3 Wildcats completed their attacks on the airfield. Three Claudes jumped the attacking Wildcats. One F4F pilot, Rich, immediately departed for the Enterprise with jammed guns. Heisel and Holt were both damaged by the Claudes during this fight but they too had to run when both of their guns jammed. Gray then became the center of attention being the last Wildcat over the island. The Claudes turned on him but Gray soon discovered he had only 1 MG working. With his plane totally shot up, he too bugged out. Score over Taroa: 1 Claude downed, 2 damaged. 0 F4Fs downed, 4 damaged The Enterprise sent two additional strikes against Taroa consisting of SBDs without fighter escort. Five fighters damaged 3 SBDs in the first raid and 3 fighters downed one SBD and damaged two others in the second. Several Claudes were damaged but none downed. Over Roi island, the SBDs were bereft of fighter escort and were roughly handled by the 10 Claudes that managed to get in the air during the attack. VS-6’s skipper, Hopping was blasted from the sky. Claudes got two more SBDs though one managed to ditch successfully. A fourth SBD was downed by flak. Claudes were damaged but none downed. At Taroa, 5 Nells led by Nakai readied for their attack. Nakai had wanted to load torpedoes at Roi but was refused permission due to base damage there. They took off at 1210 from Taroa loaded with bombs. Two more Nells followed 2 hours later after completing their arming. 6 F4Fs intercepted the 5 bombers 15 miles out however, gun failures once again kept all but two of them from performing their mission. These two F4Fs, piloted by Quady and Hodson, shot up Nakai’s plane but it was able to continue with its mission. By this time, the fleet AA defenses had opened fire so the Wildcats pulled off. The US AA fire was consistently exploded behind their targets. None of the bombers were hit by AA fire until bomb release when Nakai’s plane was hit again. All bombs missed but one landed 30 yards away from Enterprise, killing one sailor and starting a small fire. Nakai pulled his plane out of formation, swung back around and attempted to crash into the Enterprise. He nearly succeeded but for a last second maneuver by the carrier. As it was, his wing clipped the flight deck and sliced the tail off a SBD. the other 4 made it back to Taroa without being intercepted. At 1557, The second two Nells dropped their bombs from 14000 ft and 140 kts but scored only near misses. Of the 9 F4Fs aloft on CAP, not one intercepted prior to bomb release. Only after the Nells had cleared the US perimeter did the Wildcats intercept. . They made several passes on one Nell before it caught fire and crashed. The other Nell, trailing smoke from an AA hit, was targeted by McClusky and two other Wildcats. They failed to bring it down and it made it back safely. So, of the 7 Nells that attacked, the Wildcats brought down only one and damaged two others. AA fire damaged two, one (Nakai) previously damaged by the fighters. These big, lumbering bombers made it through CAP and AA fire to drop their bombs. That the damage was slight is only due to the skill of the captain in maneuvering his ship. Now you can twist this anyway you want but the Wildcats failed in both offensive and defensive missions due to equipment deficiencies and poor fighter direction. They went up against a decidedly inferior plane to the Wildcat and managed to down only one. And that one was taken by complete surprise as the Japanese airmen had no idea fighters were anywhere around. Yet these thoroughly surprised Claudes managed to damage 4 Wildcats, two seriously over Taroa with nothing more than a pair of 7.7mm MGs each. In addition, these Wildcats had no self-sealing tanks (Gray and Heisel both had fuel tanks punctured by bullets and are lucky they didn’t become torches.) The only armor they had was what had been made on the ship during transit to Taroa. So go ahead, twist, duck and weave... spin it anyway you want. The early-war USN was not ready for prime time just yet. quote: Let us review some significant events during the Pacific war: May 8, 1942 USS Lexington (CV-2) sunk by carrier based air October 27, 1942 U.S.S. Hornet (CV-8) sunk by carrier based air Sept. 15, 1942 - USS Wasp (CV 7) sunk by submarine June 7, 1942 U.S.S. Yorktown (CV 5) Sunk by submarine after being damaged by carrier based air. So the Japanese only managed to sink two fleet carriers with airpower alone. Now my memory is a little foggy here. I believe there was only one Japanese aircraft carrier sunk by a U.S. submarine. I do believe all the rest of them were sunk by U.S. carrier based air. Please feel free to correct me if I am in error. That would seem to imply that the lowly F-4F and it's successors did a far better job of both protecting their ships and escorting their own attack planes than the superior A6M. I might note that A6Ms defending their own ships would be presumed to be better rested than the American pilots who had to fly to their targets. So maybe some one can explain this seemingly peculiar state of events, given the F4F's inferior status. Now let’s talk about carriers. I see you failed to list all the ones that were damaged. (I guess they don’t count in determining CAP effectiveness) Picking and choosing only those facts that suit your case is something that I thought only liberal news organizations did. I can only think you did that to slew the facts. Now it seems to me reviewing this list that the US couldn’t keep leakers out, no matter how good the CAP or what period of the war. And I would think that the US did not lose any fleet carriers later in the war due to their outstanding damage control and that poorly trained Japanese pilots flying older aircraft had far less chance of getting through a CAP consisting of superior Hellcats and Corsairs with their well-trained pilots. Tell ya what… I’ll list the fleet carriers for ya and you can list the CVLs and CVEs that were damaged or sunk by enemy air action. CV-2 Lexington- sunk by bombs 8 May 42 CV-3 Saratoga- heavily damaged by bombs 21 Feb 45 CV-5 Yorktown- abandoned due to bomb damage 4 June 42, sunk by sub 7 June 52 CV-6 Enterprise- minor damage 1 Feb 42, seriously damaged 24 Aug and 26 Oct 42, minor damage 18 Mar 45, seriously damaged by kamikaze 14 May 45 CV-8 Hornet- heavily damaged by bombs and abandoned, scuttled by Japanese torpedoes 26 Oct 42 CV-9 Essex damaged by kamikaze 25 Nov 44 CV-11 Intrepid- damaged by aerial torpedo 17 Feb 44, damaged by kamikazes 30 Oct 44, and 18 Mar 45, seriously damaged by kamikazes 25 Nov 44 and 16 Apr 45. CV-13 Franklin- damaged by kamikazes 13 Oct 44 and 30 Oct 44. Damaged by bombs 16 Oct 44, massive damage by bombs 19 Mar 45 CV-14 Ticonderoga- seriously damaged by kamikaze 21 Jan 45 CV-15 Randolph- seriously damaged by kamikaze 11 Mar 45 CV-16 Lexington II- damaged by aerial torpedo 4 Dec 43, damaged by kamikaze 5 Nov 44 CV-17 Bunker Hill- heavily damaged by kamikaze 11 Apr 45 CV-18 Wasp II- damaged by bombs 19 Mar 45 CV-19 Hancock- damaged by kamikaze 7 Apr 45 These were just the fleet carriers damaged or sunk by Japanese air attacks. I haven’t included all the CVLs or CVEs sunk or damaged. This list would be considerably larger if I did. quote: It would be a plus if someone could do this without inferring I was discharged from the army for being gay, which the seems to be style preferred by the resident expert. Where in the hell did that inference come from? If you mean my use of the word “dainty”, you must be quite homophobic. I used the word “dainty” in sarcastic reference to your typically heavy-handed style. Dude, you really should see a counselor as to why you would immediately assume I meant “gay.” Wow, I can’t believe it… Chez

ChezDaJez -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/14/2007 8:57:05 AM)
quote: I was also thinking on the way home from work that the decision to give the zero such a large combat radius, in retrospect, might have been a huge mistake by the Japanese. The plane's ability to fly such long combat missions inevitably means that someone will use it that way. Coupled with the need to decrease pilot protection and forego other protective devices, particularly self-sealing fuel tanks, to achieve that combat radius, the long-range combat missions seem like pilot killers. Increased pilot fatigue during the mission, increased danger of pilot wounding, an increased risk of fuel loss during a long ride home, seems to make the zero hard on pilots. You bring up a good point. Military planners are always going to use what's the weapon offers, regardless of the long-term effect. Personally I think that the A6M5b is the derivative the Japanese should have been building in 1941 instead of the A6M2. With its armor plating, fire extinguisher system, 2-12.7mm MGs plus cannon and a 460mph dive speed (and still maintain a healthy maneuvering ability), I do believe that a lot more Japanese pilots would have lived (at least a little longer) and a lot more allied pilots would have died. But woulda, coulda, shoulda... hindsight is 20/20. Chez

ChezDaJez -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/14/2007 9:06:01 AM)
quote: ... Hughes fully expected the United States Army Air Forces to embrace his plane's new design and make the H-1 the basis for a new generation of U.S. fighter Except Hughes went and shot himself in the foot over it. The USAAF general in charge of procurment (Ecchles, IIRC or something like that) wanted Hughes to bring the racer to Ohio so that they could examine it for possible acquisition. Hughes said he would. But Hughes then failed to show and left him standing on the ramp with a large crowd of dignitaries. The general was so livid that he proclaimed Hughes would never get a government contract as long as he had anything to say about it. Hughes explanation was that he didn't want anyone crawling all over his racer and stealing his ideas. Chez

Apollo11 -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/14/2007 10:27:05 AM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez A person can point to any aircraft of any era and cite similarities between various aircraft and indeed there were. Many designers "borrowed" concepts and innovative design features from competitors however that doesn't mean that the resulting design was a copied design or even based on it. The Japanese were no exception. They initially purchased many of their initial aircraft from the French and British during and after WWI. They examined their designs and developed their own that most likely drew heavily upon those aircraft. As their aircraft design industry grew, they produced many different types of aircraft. Some were built under license such as the Japanese version of the DC-3 while others such as the A6M series were a totally Japanese innovation design. About the only thing not of original design on the Zero was the propellor (built under license from Hamilton Standard) and some the guns built under license from Hispano) The aircraft listed in this thread referred to as the H-2 was in fact the H-1B. It first flew in 1935 after being developed in great secrecy and last flew in 1937. If you look at both aircraft there are no design similarities to the A6M series beyond both being radial-powered, low-winged monoplanes with retracting gear. The H-1B was built for speed and the A6M was built to turn... two totally different design philosophies. The wing, fuselage, and tail assembly bear no resemblance to each other at all. In fact, the H-1B wings are built of wood and only the fuselage was aluminium. plus Hughes had two sets of wings built for it; one set 20 feet long for speed, the other 31 feet long for distance. How someone can look at these two airplanes and say that A6M was a copy, or derived from, the H-1B is, in my opinion, a very long stretch of the imagination. I personally think that the rumors of the A6M being copied from the H-1B are an attempt by some to imply that the Japanese were incapable of producing their own designs. Indeed, if you look at the H-1B in profile, it closely resembles the Corsair with its set back cockpit and extended nose. I agree 100% ! External likeness is and never was a "proof" of copying because what matters in "under skin"! Like I wrote before the most obvious (and best) example of our time is Kalashnikov AK-47 and Sturmgewehr 44 (StG44): [image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/AK-47_type_II_Part_DM-ST-89-01131.jpg/300px-AK-47_type_II_Part_DM-ST-89-01131.jpg[/image] [image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Sturmgewehr_44.jpg/300px-Sturmgewehr_44.jpg[/image] Although externally alike internally they are different... The same applies to WWII (and pre WWII aircraft) - many designers used proven concepts but this only meant that there could exist more-or-less external likeness. If you look at the, for example, the British Hurricane and Spitfire from outside you would never guess (if you don't know it) that they are so much apart internally (i.e. Hurricane build in old fashion dating back to WWI whilst Spitfire was brand new monocoque design)! Leo "Apollo11"

Charles2222 -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/14/2007 10:29:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: invernomuto quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez My take on the compliant is that the uberCAP prevents anything from getting through... ever. I have no problem with Japanese aircraft being shot down in droves during this period but some nearly always got through. That doesn't happen in the game but it did in real life. If nothing had got through IRL, there would have been zero kamikaze hits on carriers and the Franklin would never have suffered as it did. And don't forget the bombing of the Princeton. Thank you for bringing back the discussion to the point. We are not complaining about loss rates, but about not having a single bomber getting through US Cap in large A2A combats in late games. Nothing gets through, no kamikaze hits. From what little I've heard of the kamikazes in the game, even without CAP I think their hit ratio is ridiculously low, but then I wouldn't know through my own personal experience.

ChezDaJez -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/14/2007 11:18:54 AM)
quote: Nothing gets through, no kamikaze hits. From what little I've heard of the kamikazes in the game, even without CAP I think their hit ratio is ridiculously low, but then I wouldn't know through my own personal experience. I too have little experience with the game mid-44 and later beyond playing as the IJ vs the AI. Even against the AI it was impossible to have anything get through. One has only to read PzBs AAR vs Andy to see how useless attacks are against US CVTFs once Corsairs are onboard. One of the big game problems is the fragmentation of the raids... It is very difficult for the Japanese forces to muster a raid large enough to even have a chance at penetrating the CAP with even just one bomber or kamikaze. The game mechanics tend to send the planes in piecemeal. You can 1000 ac ready and they will arrive in groups of <50 at a time and be shredded by 200-300 Corsairs and Hellcats. The other problem is with the 200-300 US aircraft on CAP. Regardless of the size of the raid, every single US fighters gets a shot. Hardly realistic. If that were the case IRL, I daresay that the CAP would have suffered more casualties from frinedly fire than from enemy aircraft. Now that doesn't mean that Japanese strikes shouldn't be devastated against the Hellcats and Corsairs, but some leakers should make it... say 5-10% or so. That is not to say the US late-war CAP wasn't good... it was damn good but it wasn't invincible and it couldn't stop every plane every time like in the game. Chez

herwin -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/14/2007 1:31:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Charles_22 quote: ORIGINAL: invernomuto quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez My take on the compliant is that the uberCAP prevents anything from getting through... ever. I have no problem with Japanese aircraft being shot down in droves during this period but some nearly always got through. That doesn't happen in the game but it did in real life. If nothing had got through IRL, there would have been zero kamikaze hits on carriers and the Franklin would never have suffered as it did. And don't forget the bombing of the Princeton. Thank you for bringing back the discussion to the point. We are not complaining about loss rates, but about not having a single bomber getting through US Cap in large A2A combats in late games. Nothing gets through, no kamikaze hits. From what little I've heard of the kamikazes in the game, even without CAP I think their hit ratio is ridiculously low, but then I wouldn't know through my own personal experience. The OR study of Kamikaze tactics in Morse and Kimball was based on 477 cases of a suicide plane getting past the CAP and area AA and entering a final dive aimed at a specific ship. There were 172 hits and 27 sinkings. Interestingly, between 60 and 70% of the planes took AA hits during the final dive.

veji1 -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/14/2007 2:14:58 PM)
that's interesting, out of something like 3000 or 4000 kamikaze attacks between 10 and 15% managed to go through CAP, of which a third hit... this is between a 3-5% hit rate for kamikazes of CAPPED target.

ChezDaJez -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/14/2007 2:20:43 PM)
quote: that's interesting, out of something like 3000 or 4000 kamikaze attacks between 10 and 15% managed to go through CAP, of which a third hit... this is between a 3-5% hit rate for kamikazes of CAPPED target. That's exactly the original point of this thread... nothing gets through the late-war ubercap but there should be some that do. Chez

Raverdave -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/14/2007 2:46:23 PM)
Bugger ! I wish I could take my PC screen with me when I sit on the dunny........There is to my way of thinking, no better place to read this thread than when you are squeezing out a darky. At least the smell matches what you are reading. [;)]

Terminus -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/14/2007 2:49:26 PM)
On your pink toilet... With deadly Australian Sewer-Web spiders crawling up your backside...[:'(]

Raverdave -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/14/2007 2:51:41 PM)
Did you know that there is a song about getting bitten on the arse by a Red Back Spider?

Terminus -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/14/2007 2:58:51 PM)
I can truthfully say I did not...

Charles2222 -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/14/2007 2:59:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: veji1 that's interesting, out of something like 3000 or 4000 kamikaze attacks between 10 and 15% managed to go through CAP, of which a third hit... this is between a 3-5% hit rate for kamikazes of CAPPED target. I wouldn't find it so troubling myself, if it hadn't been for the fact that IJ went so much in that direction, and for the fact that in the late war it's really about all you have left to play for. It's also interesting as well, particularly since the IJ player has to decide just which a/c will fulfill the role. I don't think they have any reinforcements that come in as kamikaze do they?

wworld7 -> This is my laugh for the day (9/14/2007 3:01:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raverdave Bugger ! I wish I could take my PC screen with me when I sit on the dunny........There is to my way of thinking, no better place to read this thread than when you are squeezing out a darky. At least the smell matches what you are reading. [;)] Raver, It could be a strange day but, but your comment above just made me LAUGH!!! Larger LAUGHS than the usual Wikipedia entries and comments out of books like "Shattered Swords" being treated as Gospel. What ever happened to real research?

Charles2222 -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/14/2007 3:02:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: veji1 that's interesting, out of something like 3000 or 4000 kamikaze attacks between 10 and 15% managed to go through CAP, of which a third hit... this is between a 3-5% hit rate for kamikazes of CAPPED target. I'm not sure where I got the numbers on the internet, or in a book I have at home, but IIRC the number of hits, which I believe didn't include near misses, was like 20%-22% of the kamikazes having flown.

TheElf -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/14/2007 3:32:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Big B quote: ORIGINAL: TheElf quote: ORIGINAL: Big B Doctrine? - he was outnumbered flying an escort mission. Correct, and he was forced to fly with only one division and one half. These numbers were forced on him at the last minute, he wanted 2 full divs in order to test his weave, unfortunately it likely would not have mattered since he had not had more than a few minutes to chalk talk it with the members of his flight. Later USN doctrine for the F4F held that close escort was not favorable to the F4F's strong points. High escort was necessary to afford the Wildcat altitude from which to dive on the Zero as they had dived on him at 2500'. He never should have been put in the position he was in, but many factors contributed to this particular case, not the least of which was the lack of a clear cut doctrine that highlighted the F4Fs strengths. By the way, according to Lundstrom [page 351] Thach's 4 plane division was not in fact flying close escort with anyone, they were swarmed by the Zeros who just had finished with Torpedo 6 who had no escort, the battle took place between the attacks of Torpedo 6 and Torpdeo 3. They were attacked from behind without knowledge at 5,500 feet and quickly lost Coral Sea veteran Bassett. It was then the the three survivors of Thach's division formed into his weave formation - attacked by his estimate of 15-20 Zeros taking turns diving on them from above and behind at 20-30 second intervals. This explains the Zeros zooming past so quickly (dive speed), but Lundstrom also states that Thach downed three during the fight [page356]. Now if They weren't flying close escort to anyone in particular - I still don't see this as a mistake of US Navy doctrine? If the error was having one full division instead of two full divisions - well, you fight with what you have not what you want, that's not an error of doctrine. Commander John Thach, the leader of Yorktown's fighter pilots, was escorting torpedo planes attacking the Japanese carriers: Several Zeros came in on a head-on attack on the torpedo planes.... In the meantime, a number of Zeros were coming down in a string on our fighters. The air was just like a beehive. I was utterly convinced that we weren't any of us coming back because there were still so many Zeros.... And then I saw a glint in the sun that looked like a beautiful silver waterfall. It was the dive-bombers coming in. I could see them very well because they came from the same direction as the Zeros. I'd never seen such superb dive-bombing. After the dive-bomber attack was over, I stayed there. I could only see three carriers. And one of them was burning with bright pink flames and sometimes blue flames. I remember gauging the height of those flames by the length of the ship, the distance was about the same. It was just solid flame going skyward and there was a lot of smoke on top of that. Before I left the scene I saw three carriers burning pretty furiously. ---------------------------------- 0837 hrs Kido Butai: Japanese carriers turn into the wind to recover returning aircraft from the Midway strike and CAP. NE of Midway: Yorktown also turns into the wind to launch its strike at one of the two reported CVs. Strike is Massey's 12 TDBs, Leslie's 17 SBD-3s (each with 1000 lbr), and 6 F4Fs for escort. Thach irate; had wanted multiples of 4 to try out his theoretical weave. Worse still, three pilots are new to squadron (Lexington pilots picked up in Pearl Harbor), who are pnly just hearing about this idea. --------------------------------- When the order came to man our aircraft, Thach gathered us in a huddle outside the ready room. His instructions were short and to the point. "Whatever happens, stick together! None of this "lone wolf" business! "You will only get yourself killed and won’t do the rest of us any good! Another thing–lean your mixture as much as you can--save your fuel! "Cheek, you and Sheedy stick close to the torpedoes, just astern and about a thousand feet above. Stop anyone trying to get to them. I will be three or four thousand feet above you and give you high cover. Lets go!" ------------------------------- Yorktown's Torpedo Three, despite the benefit of a small fighter escort led by LCDR Thach, suffered similarly. Only one plane of VT-3's twelve ever returned to Task Force 17; too damaged to land, it ditched near the task force. The pilot was picked up later by destroyer Hammann; the gunner died of wounds before then. Carrier Hiryu evaded the five torpedoes the squadron dropped. --------------------------- Action report USS Yorktown: Buckmaster to Nimitz The fighter escort group consisted of 6 F4F-4's of VF-3 squadron, their mission being to protect the torpedo planes' attack. Two VF were placed at 1000 feet above the torpedo planes and the other four VF 3000-4000 feet above them to furnish further protection. When about 4 miles from the Jap outer screen., which in turn was about 10- miles out from the CV's, two AA bursts were fired by a Jap ship. These bursts were used evidently to direct the enemy Combat Air Patrol to our planes, for almost immediately afterwards our VT and VF were attacked by about 18-20 Zero fighters. Our VF formed a line astern formation in order to stay together and give the leader an opportunity to turn and fire at the attacking planes. Soon after this the rear fighter was shot down. The formation twisted and turned to prevent the Zeros from getting on their tails and also to obtain firing position. During the engagement our remaining 3 VF were able to shoot down 5 Zeros. The Zeros concentrated most of their attacks on the rear plane, making beam and astern runs and pulling clear after each run. The two VF planes directly over the torpedo planes were able to furnish considerable support to the VT during the first part of the approach when there were only 4 Zeros attacking. But later they were joined by 6 more Zeros, and the 2 VF were too heavily out-numbered to be of much help. They shot down one Zero and possibly another, and saw one Zero shot down by the TBD rear seat men. Soon thereafter, they became separated from each other and from the torpedo planes. One of these fighters was badly damaged and crash landed on board the Hornet. The 4 remaining planes of the escort group landed on board. They lost one pilot and two planes and shot down 6 and damaged two Zeros in the engagement.

TheElf -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/14/2007 4:13:11 PM)
More from Yorktown's AAR GENERAL REMARKS 6. Japanese Tactics (a) Zero Fighters It was noted that the Jap fighters made runs from all directions against our torpedo planes. This is the first time that we have had any Zero fighters make beam runs on our planes. They appeared to allow insufficient lead. However, it is important that this point be remembered for it shows that the Japanese are quick to learn. In the Coral Sea Battle, they made all their approaches from the rear or high side and did relatively little damage because of our armor. It also is desired to call attention to the fact that there was an absence of the fancy stunting during pull outs or approaches for attacks. In this battle, the Japs dove in, made the attack and then immediately pulled out, taking advantage of their superior climb and maneuverability. In attacking fighters, the Zeros usually attacked from above rear at high speed and recovered by climbing vertically until they lost some speed and then pulled on through to complete a small loop of high wing over which placed them out of reach and in position for another attack. By reversing the turn sharply after each attack the leader may get a shot at the enemy while he is climbing away or head on into a scissor if the Jap turns to meet it. (b) Approach of Jap Dive Bombers and Torpedo Planes In the two attacks on June 4th, the Japanese planes apparently came in at low altitude to avoid Radar detection until they were within 40-50 miles and then commenced climbing. This is quite different from the Coral Sea Battle when the Jap Attack Group came in as a unit at high altitude and were picked up 68 miles out. This time we picked the two attacks up at 46 and 33 miles with the Radar comment that they appeared to be climbing. (c) F4F-4 Airplanes The fighter pilots are very disappointed with the performance and length of sustained fire power of the F4F-4 airplanes. THE Zero fighters could easily outmaneuver and out-climb the F4F-3, and the consensus of fighter pilot opinion is that the F4F-4 is even more sluggish and slow than the F4F-3. It is also felt that it was a mistake to put 6 guns on the F4F-4 and thus to reduce the rounds per gun. For the opposition now being encountered the combination of 4 guns and 450 rounds per gun is much superior to the 6 guns with 240 rounds per gun. Many of our fighters ran out of ammunition even before the Jap dive bombers arrived over our forces; these were experienced pilots, not novices. It is strongly urged that the Navy be supplied with a fighter that is at least equal of the Zero fighter. It is believed that 4-50 caliber fixed machine guns give sufficient fire power for carrier based fighters, especially in view of the loss of performance involved in adding two additional guns.

Joe D. -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/14/2007 4:21:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez quote: ... Hughes fully expected the United States Army Air Forces to embrace his plane's new design and make the H-1 the basis for a new generation of U.S. fighter Except Hughes went and shot himself in the foot over it. The USAAF general in charge of procurment (Ecchles, IIRC or something like that) wanted Hughes to bring the racer to Ohio so that they could examine it for possible acquisition. Hughes said he would. But Hughes then failed to show and left him standing on the ramp with a large crowd of dignitaries. The general was so livid that he proclaimed Hughes would never get a government contract as long as he had anything to say about it. Hughes explanation was that he didn't want anyone crawling all over his racer and stealing his ideas. Chez I guess that was the "However, for reasons that are obscure" part. But I wonder if Howard had a bout of obsessive-compulsive behavior that day and was in no condition to appear publicly, so he needed an excuse and concocted the above "explanation."

Joe D. -> RE: This is my laugh for the day (9/14/2007 4:45:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish ... Larger LAUGHS than the usual Wikipedia entries and comments out of books like "Shattered Swords" being treated as Gospel. What ever happened to real research? It's Shattered Sword, the sword being the Kido Butai and how it got "broke." I'm not saying it's gospel -- and neither are its authors -- but translating the legitmate Japanese accounts of Midway -- instead of continuing to rely on Fuchida's nonsense -- was long overdue. This situation reminds me of the when someone finally interviewed the surviving Indian scouts from Custer's last stand; the valuable info they had to share was previously all but ignored. I've been quoting Sword on the CaW forum to get SSG to decrease the KB's plane count -- by the 20 or so Zeros it was ferrying to Midway -- and give better cloud cover between the IJN and Allied fleets along Midway's East/West axis. SSG has already agreed to decrease the planes in the next patch, but I'm still working on the cloud cover; clouds w/poor IJN recon helped shape that battle greatly, and the CaW scenario needs to be readjusted.

spence -> RE: This is my laugh for the day (9/14/2007 5:22:13 PM)
quote: (b) Approach of Jap Dive Bombers and Torpedo Planes In the two attacks on June 4th, the Japanese planes apparently came in at low altitude to avoid Radar detection until they were within 40-50 miles and then commenced climbing. This is quite different from the Coral Sea Battle when the Jap Attack Group came in as a unit at high altitude and were picked up 68 miles out. This time we picked the two attacks up at 46 and 33 miles with the Radar comment that they appeared to be climbing. I wonder if this perception is framed within the context of "what I would have done" thinking but might not actually be the result of the Hiryu being relatively close to the Yorktown when it launched its strikes. The bombers simply climbed slowly after launch to conserve fuel and ate up half the distance to Yorktown doing so. Other than at Philippine Sea the Japanese seem to have made very little use of the range advantage of their aircraft during the war.

Joe D. -> RE: Übercorsair and übercap (9/14/2007 6:15:27 PM)
Actually I did see your previous post and the point was well-made, but automatic weapons are much less complicated than airplanes, so they all look (somewhat) alike. In any case, here’s an attempt to briefly wrap-up some of what was said re the A6M Zero. Forgive me for not going back and directly quoting all posters; this uberthread, originally re ubercap/ubercorsairs, has become very long. Looking at the relevant posts, I have to conclude that the Zero was not copied, but neither was it that original. As someone said, nothing is developed in a vacuum, and the Mitsubishi group wasn’t above licensing other nation’s tech for its planes. There was a time long ago when Nippon banned anything Western, but that changed drastically during the 1930s when it came to obtaining occidental aircraft engines, propellers, etc. As for effectiveness, Doggie would agree that the A6M’s bark was worse than its bite. And IJ pilots who flew by/a “come home w/your wing or upon it” doctrine disappeared en masse after the Hellcat and Corsair finally appeared, leaving the IJN w/empty CVs. Finally, re Shattered Sword: WWII IJ warships and aircraft accurately represented its doctrine for fighting; warships emphasized speed and firepower, and planes added range. Conversely, IJ war machines put less emphasis on protection and damage control; its aircraft “were built to dish it out, but weren’t really intended to take it.” Sorry if I missed anyone’s contribution.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.03125