RE: AIRCRAFT !! (Full Version)

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



Message


Andrew Brown -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/21/2007 4:08:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: High Command
lol CHS160 has moddeled the P47D as more manuvreble then the Zero for crist, do we need to say more?


Here is what it says in the CHS notes about the Zeros:

quote:

The maneuver rating on most of the aircraft have been adjusted. What I [Lemurs] had noticed was a lack of consistency between land based and carrier based aircraft. So, the maneuver ratings of the A5, A6m2, 3, and 5 were lowered. They also seem to match better with their allied counterparts.


I am no expert, but I believe that the maneverability ratings probably take into account the performance of the aircraft at various altitudes, and at the speeds the aircraft were usually fighting at, and include such things as roll rate and the ability of aircraft to dive and zoom climb in combat situations.

I also note that the P-47D is more maneuverable that the A6M2 and A6M5 Zero in the stock scenarios (while being equal to the A6M3 and the A6M8 - at 36).

Others here have more expertise in these matters than I do, and are better qualified to comment.

I would also like to repeat the comments already made - the "experimental" versions of CHS are just that - experimental.

Perhaps it would be more beneficial if you post your overall A2A losses (Japanese and Allied) in the game, and then these can be compared to real life results in the same time periods?

Andrew




Fishbed -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/21/2007 4:08:34 PM)

quote:

The 4 Bombers that made it throu, if it were ment to be so, should made it throu without being fired upon by 32 Fighters, so this is not DL, as the 32 Fighters actualy did fire upon them (all the first day) and it without them losing a singel bomber.

I think some here semes to not have acces to real world information or documentation, so it is hard to discuss this topic with you as you simply lack the neccesary knowlage on the subject.


Well then it's an issue with the in-game data of the guns. It's not a matter of accessing "real world information of documentation", but simply wrong or mis-interpreted input making the guns too weak (or the enemy bombers armor too strong) and unbalancing the whole thing.

Now there's something bad about the game system too, it's that it doesn't mimic that well a fighter pilot behavior. The fact that fighters will concentrate on stragglers and damaged bombers isn't that well reproduced. But so far, a game like Pacific Fighters on the tactical level isn't perfect neither, so well...

I suppose someone who dealt a lot with the A2A game system, like Nik, will have a lot to say about all this.

quote:

The vertion of Tojo i refered to is of course the same as I currently have, or it would not be possible to compere them.

Well if you have that many sources about those engagements you're talking about, can you please tell us more about these battles? I still don't picture thirty Tojos downing 80+ Wellingtons with their machineguns...




Andrew Brown -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/21/2007 4:11:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Umm Chinese Lancasters ? This I am interested in given Churchills attitude to China I am amazed that Lancasters were given to Chinese never heard or read that one before and while I never studied it at University I am reasonably well read so this is a shock to me !!!


I would like to hear about Chinese Lancs operating in WW2 as well. I also have not read that before.




spence -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/21/2007 4:11:17 PM)

quote:

Anyway thair are over 2000 air engagements pr year in the Pacific, i have rewieved maby 150.
Now thats not alot compered to how many missions and engagements it was, i know that, but it is after my opinion enugth to get a impression. Im sure evan half of you havent evan red a real world Air to Air Combat Report, so what is your guessings worth when you try to present historicle data?


During your exhaustive study I was wondering if your stumbled across who won the war?




High Command -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/21/2007 4:12:59 PM)

I have withdrawn from the Discussion.




Andrew Brown -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/21/2007 4:14:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
I would also like to repeat the comments already made - the "experimental" versions of CHS are just that - experimental.


I should probably elaborate - the aim of the "experimental" versions of CHS is not to short-change the Japanese players. The aim is to see what the effects are on A2A combat "bloodiness" of manipulating some of the aircraft parameters, mainly max speed and durability. These manipulations are applied to both Japanese and Allied aircraft equally (on a base level from the "normal" CHS values).




Fishbed -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/21/2007 4:16:58 PM)

quote:

@Fishbed Ill be happy to tell you more about Air Engagement, but i would recommend you to go to your local Air Force Museum, i think it is better as thay will have alot of documentation ect you can read throu, and if your lucky maby borrow you or let you copy.


Well errr thanks. But French air Museum, while it will let me approach some F-105 intakes or Fw-190 MG151/20, will hardly let me access data they definitely don't have :wacko:
I can try to take a look at my Osprey collection but I am pretty sure Ive got nothing about the Tojo or the Tojo aces, that's why I am asking. Apparently you do have some sources we'd like to hear more about. These numbers are definitely weird (and being in-war numbers, may be a little inaccurate too and were probably revised, right?)




High Command -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/21/2007 4:20:39 PM)

Yep of course the numbers will be estemations, after all it was a war.
Anyway, If you are truly interested i can see if i can send you some, but it is a bit much to write off and into a PC screan, would be better to copy and snail mail..
If i send you the document numbers, will you be able to contact the proper Authorety and ask if you can get a copy from them?




Fishbed -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/21/2007 4:25:04 PM)

No it's ok don't bother Im not THAT interested - got enough work like that with my own paper, which has little to do with Nakajima stuff. Thanks [;)]




keeferon01 -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/21/2007 5:26:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

quote:


watch out mate , they might bring out the real big guns to counter you, el cid could be wheeled out here

Now YOU DO show some signs of bitterness and resentment, don't you [8|]

High Command started the conversation in a very inadequate fashion. He hid the real facts for a start, and couldn't stick with an educated behavior when it came to address us - if he's got some problem with the way Terminus is dealing with him, he can tell him without involving the whole forum crowd. Thanks to Mac and other people around here for keeping cool and so civil.
But btw I believe we don't need another troll, James... If you feel like you are so bored in your real life that you need to look for trouble over those boards with people you barely know, please look for another community to slander, thanks... [:o]




who the hell are you to call me a troll, get back into your little internet bubble and calm down, you my friend are taking yourself way too seriously and I believe the guy that started the thread is looking for trouble as I believe are you and I expect an apology on being called a troll




Fishbed -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/21/2007 5:40:02 PM)

quote:


who the hell are you to call me a troll, get back into your little internet bubble and calm down, you my friend are taking yourself way too seriously and I believe the guy that started the thread is looking for trouble as I believe are you and I expect an apology on being called a troll

Well if your intervention was indeed supposed to bring some comical relief, than you indeed have my deepest apologies right here and now for misinterpreting your comments. [&o]
Now, if you were just trying to make some sardonic and provocking remark to flame all that stuff up, you'd better start believing in God - his existence is closer to reality than anykind of apology you may ever expect from me. [:o]





m10bob -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/21/2007 5:44:40 PM)

Call me curious, (amongst other things), where and when did 30 Tojos encounter 80 Wellingtons?
When one makes interesting statements on this forum, you may expect we ignorant grognards to call you on it.

I repeat, we may all learn from one another.




Andy Mac -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/21/2007 5:48:22 PM)

Has anyone ever heard of Lancs in Chinese hands I have been searching for the last hour or so and no sign ?

I am Curious just keeping them in bombs would be tricky even compared to B17's B24's




Fishbed -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/21/2007 5:50:40 PM)

Got nothing on the Chinese Lancs neither. And the same as M10bob about the Wellingtons. Is it 83 or 38 by the way, again?!




keeferon01 -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/21/2007 5:56:20 PM)





quote:

Well if your intervention was indeed supposed to bring some comical relief, than you indeed have my deepest apologies right here and now for misinterpreting your comments.



apology accepted , now I can head back to moderate my Football Manager 2008 forum, where at least I know I am dealing with teenagers there .




m10bob -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/21/2007 6:02:12 PM)

The only people to operate the Avro Lancaster, EVER, have been Australia, Britain, Canada, and Poland,(within the RAF).

BTW, I already know the answer about the Wellington, I'm just waiting for an interesting answer.

Every man should know his limitations.

[image]local://upfiles/7909/58026C42395D4620859C4F8F1AAB8869.jpg[/image]




Fishbed -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/21/2007 6:03:46 PM)

quote:

apology accepted , now I can head back to moderate my Football Manager 2008 forum, where at least I know I am dealing with teenagers there .

Well Im sure you'll show the same kind of natural ease at understanding others the day you'll start suscribing to a French-language forum my friend [8|] [;)]




Fishbed -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/21/2007 6:06:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

The only people to operate the Avro Lancaster, EVER, have been Australia, Britain, Canada, and Poland,(within the RAF).


(And France. Yes they did! [:)])

[img]http://frenchnavy.free.fr/aircraft/lancaster/images/lancaster-003.jpg[/img]

She definitely was a beautiful bird by the way




m10bob -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/21/2007 6:09:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

The only people to operate the Avro Lancaster, EVER, have been Australia, Britain, Canada, and Poland,(within the RAF).


(And France. Yes they did! [:)])

[img]http://frenchnavy.free.fr/aircraft/lancaster/images/lancaster-003.jpg[/img]

She definitely was a beautiful bird by the way


We can add New Zealand to the list, and thank you for the French info,but your info is post war. (My error was in saying "ever"..)
At any rate, I did not know the French used them even then.[;)]




eloso -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/21/2007 6:10:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

Perhaps it would be more beneficial if you post your overall A2A losses (Japanese and Allied) in the game, and then these can be compared to real life results in the same time periods?

Andrew



Andrew,

I posted the Intel screen and Aircraft losses screen in post #8 of this thread. The date of the game is 22 or 23 October 1942.




keeferon01 -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/21/2007 6:13:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

quote:

apology accepted , now I can head back to moderate my Football Manager 2008 forum, where at least I know I am dealing with teenagers there .

Well Im sure you'll show the same kind of natural ease at understanding others the day you'll start suscribing to a French-language forum my friend [8|] [;)]




merci, je mettrai cela sur ma liste de choses pour se produire




Fishbed -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/21/2007 6:21:59 PM)

my pleasure [;)]

quote:

We can add New Zealand to the list, and thank you for the French info,but your info is post war. (My error was in saying "ever"..)
At any rate, I did not know the French used them even then

Well French Naval Air have the long standing tradition of using foreign planes long after their original owners gave up. The French Naval Air had its Lancasters and Corsairs flying until the mid-Sixties. More recently, they traded Crusaders for Rafale only in late 1999...
Actually in 1965 Navy pilots went directly from the Corsair to the Crusader. Now that's what you call a transition [:D]




eloso -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/21/2007 6:22:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: High Command

The 4 Bombers that made it throu, if it were ment to be so, should made it throu without being fired upon by 32 Fighters, so this is not DL, as the 32 Fighters actualy did fire upon them (all the first day) and it without them losing a singel bomber.



High Command is referring to the Combat Report/Animated Replay and not the actual losses in this engagement. According to the Aircraft losses report I lost a B-25 to A2A on this day. Ironically enough this was the only engagement that day that involved this plane type.

His planes were most likely set to CAP a base. These 4 B-25 planes flew in at 2000 feet on naval attack to bomb a transport fleet that was in the same hex as Kendari.





m10bob -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/21/2007 7:56:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OSO


quote:

ORIGINAL: High Command

The 4 Bombers that made it throu, if it were ment to be so, should made it throu without being fired upon by 32 Fighters, so this is not DL, as the 32 Fighters actualy did fire upon them (all the first day) and it without them losing a singel bomber.



High Command is referring to the Combat Report/Animated Replay and not the actual losses in this engagement. According to the Aircraft losses report I lost a B-25 to A2A on this day. Ironically enough this was the only engagement that day that involved this plane type.

His planes were most likely set to CAP a base. These 4 B-25 planes flew in at 2000 feet on naval attack to bomb a transport fleet that was in the same hex as Kendari.




This is somewhat illuminating!
If his CAP was high enough, and those bombers came in at 2000 feet, they evaded the CAP entirely!
The program rolls a die to determine how many feet a plane can climb/dive to intercept an enemy at a different altitude,
If I am putting a CAP over ships, I will almost never have them over 6000 feet, even though this makes it very vulnerable to any incoming enemy fighters flying sweep or escort.
The game handles A2A intercepts pretty much "common sense" in this regard,(IMHO), but the A2A problems have been noted elsewhere, and several of the mods,(including CHS) have been working to correct/improve it.
This in itself is hindered by built in game programming parameters............


Still waiting for details on those 80 Wellingtons who flew against those 30 Tojoes.[:D]

Just a humble ignoramous awaiting cranial washing in the presence of the learned......[&o]




trollelite -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/21/2007 10:39:12 PM)

The scoreboard says very clearly. Jap player is too inexperienced to get any good result. As for scenario 160, I find it as the best A2A model so far. Only 10000+ casaulty seems somewhat strange, even considering overstacked base troopers.




trollelite -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/21/2007 10:44:26 PM)

So, you see, limiting 50 AC per airfield size is unnecessary. He who stacks many AC in a single field run the risk of letting enemy torch them in the ground. 72 Tojo destroyed on the ground, they never took off. Otherwise Japs could score a clear victroy. 




trollelite -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/21/2007 10:45:51 PM)

Considering the number of Tojo actually took off, one could only say even scenario 160 still a little "too bloody".




ChezDaJez -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 1:48:33 AM)

quote:

Also i would like to add, that the 12.7mm Weapon System used in defence by the B17, and B24 -- had very poor effect aiganst some Japanese planes like the Zero, due to the Zeros thin Beam Construction. and due to the lack of armor, the rounds tended to go throu the aircraft instead of having the effect the weapon system was designed for.


That 12.7mm (0.50cal) MG was deadly against nearly all opponents. It could, and did, inflict severe damage to any target it hit. Passing through a thin beam is more catastrophic than passing through a thick beam. I understand why you think 0.50cals slugs would just pass through the structure. They often did and it was a lucky Zero pilot who lived to tell about it. But those bullets more often flamed the Zero than destroyed it outright.

But you must also remember that the Zero had two siginificant structural design compromises, none of which is directly related to the airframe. These were a lack of fuel tank protection and a lack of pilot protection. Most Zeros lost were due to fire and subsequent explosion or disintegration or from killing the pilot.

Some people think of the Zero as being weak because it was lightweight but it wasn't. It was flammable but not necessarily fragile. It was very strong and capable of handling a high-G load. The skin provided a significant degree of structural strength to make up for the light-weight frame. The problem with this was that its strength depended upon the entire structure, skin included, staying intact. Damage the skin and the Zero became weaker with every bullet. The airframe was the major strength point in most allied fighters but the Zero's major strength was derived from its skin and frame. One way to look at the Zero's construction is to compare it to an automotive unibody. The allied fighters were built with a true frame by comparison.

As far as bombers losses vs fighter losses in the game, there are so many variables that it defies historical comparison, especially when using ahistorical mixes of aircraft.

Chez





JeffroK -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 2:02:41 AM)

From the high command

The Historicle Examples above is from WW2 and Pacific Theater, i see for example one is commenting on the Lancasters, thay were Chinese, not British, i thought that was common knowlage

Now I know you are full of.......

Chinese Lancasters, better joke than Iraqi WMD!!!!




Joe D. -> RE: AIRCRAFT !! (10/22/2007 4:13:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK


The Historicle Examples above is from WW2 and Pacific Theater, i see for example one is commenting on the Lancasters, thay were Chinese, not British, i thought that was common knowlage

Now I know you are full of.......


Why the hell is this in reply to me; I never said it!!!!
If you can't correctly use the reply option after more than 1,000 posts, try quoting!!!




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1