quote:

ORIGINAL: canuck64

Good GOD, man- tell us you play the game, at the very least.

Otherwise your very presence here is the epitome of a "straw man" argument, only Monty Python style to boot. Smells mustily like ego on display, and nothing but.

...'just sayin. F4F vs Zero arguments notwithstanding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: canuck64

oh and incidentally,
allowing for proper management of both sides of the coin, I'm finding a slight (raw) advantage of (guesstimate) about 1.2-1.5-1 Zero vs F4F battles....the edge likely being accounted for by it being 1943, and the experiential advantage of Japanese pilots (at war theoretically since 1937) over USN pilots (trained in theory over a single year largely and then brought into battle with a rather historically untested navy) appears to be, in essence, the deal breaker.

So it seems the game, from where I sit (and I find it OCD-level micromanagement to incur these values, by the way-not always fun)....produces quite realistic results given time....

the rest is hypothesis and conjecture, and is tantamount to an argument over "who the best rock guitarist was in 1975" .....

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

quote:

ORIGINAL: canuck64

Good GOD, man- tell us you play the game, at the very least.

Otherwise your very presence here is the epitome of a "straw man" argument, only Monty Python style to boot. Smells mustily like ego on display, and nothing but.

...'just sayin. F4F vs Zero arguments notwithstanding.

Me ? Yes I play the game, but I was also just BS'ing [:)]
And I happen to take kindly to being compared to Monty Python [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: canuck64

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

quote:

ORIGINAL: canuck64

Good GOD, man- tell us you play the game, at the very least.

Otherwise your very presence here is the epitome of a "straw man" argument, only Monty Python style to boot. Smells mustily like ego on display, and nothing but.

...'just sayin. F4F vs Zero arguments notwithstanding.

Me ? Yes I play the game, but I was also just BS'ing [:)]
And I happen to take kindly to being compared to Monty Python [:D]

Agh, Stu comments o' mine were not directed at you, but generally offered for due notation at large.
IS....this the right room for an argument?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

As I read this what seems to be the running theme is: Allies should be better in A2A starting in the second half of 1942, without regaurd to any facts. In the real war, yes in general late 1942 and into 1943 was the turning point due to attrition losses in the Solomons.

However, if people are trying to argue that the Allies in game should automatically start being better than Japanese fighter pilots starting in 7-42 then they are way off base. The game has a major difference to history, that being my input as a player. And if I can avoid the disaster at Midway or the grinding campaign in the Solomons then there is absolutely no reason I should have weaker fighter squadrons going into 1943 or even 1944.

Basically, the Japanese player should not be automatically put at a disadvantage especially if the Japanese player has done good management of his fighter corps and pilot pools.

This is precisely why I removed the Zero bonus and the P-39 penalty. Hard coding failures that were the result of many contributing factors across the spectrum is bad form. Better to allow what factors we have represented in the game do that for us.

BTW, from this point on I will fore go posting in a thread that is titled "XYZ sucks..."

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Dead wrong.

You are incorrect.

quote:

Geez buddy, bend over, pull the corn cob out of your as* and try to have a civil discussion.

quote:

You make interesting points, but in a manner that is off putting and and uncivil. Keep to the facts and drop the name calling.

quote:

Sort of like " double-secret probation "

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
That's your free cheap shot. I usually let people get away with one. After that I give 'em payback.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Geez buddy, bend over, pull the corn cob out of your as* and try to have a civil discussion.

That's your free cheap shot. I usually let people get away with one. After that I give 'em payback. Nikodemus long ago used up his.

quote:

You make interesting points, but in a manner that is off putting and and uncivil. Keep to the facts and drop the name calling.

It's uncivil also to completely misrepresent someone's claims to the point of making them up of whole cloth and attributing them to someone else. Which is pretty much s.o.p. for Nik. It's what he (and to a lesser extent, Chez) does when the facts don't support their claims.

That's all the explanation I'm offering on that.

Coral Sea and Midway "Yet in direct confronations between the two fighters, fifteen zeroes succombed as opposed to ten F4Fs" (p.4. The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign by John Lundstrom).

At Coral Sea, VF2 entered the engagement at low power settings (120 knots) and lost 3 F4Fs to two A6Ms shot down (The First Team (vol 1) pp.238-243) in the attack on Shokaku.

As for claims made in this thread about Wake Island:

One raid was aborted in January 1942 because a supporting fleet oiler was sunk by I-72. In the second raid in February (Lundstom V1 p.111-117 where V1 is "The First Team" and V2 is "The First Team at Guadalcanal" no F4Fs were lost to enemy fire. Several were lost operationally. More were lost operationally in the Marcus raid on 4 March.

Versus other highly maneuverable Japanese types losses were low.
On 1 February 1 F4F fought 3 A5M4s, destroying 2 with no loss. Other engagements (no losses to either side) included 3 F4F vs 3 A5M4s, 1 F4F vs A5M4, and 8 A5M4 vs 1 F4F. USN combat losses were 5 SBDs. Japanese other combat losses were 3 Type 97 flying boats and 2 Type 96 bombers.

As to USN perception of Japanese fighters in February 1942, I'll let "Japanese VF Stinks" (Lundstrum V1 p.77) do.

At Bougainville on 20 February there were 2 F4F that engaged 2 ype 97s, destroying both without loss, and another instance of 2 F4Fs vs only 1 Type 97, destroying it without loss. In the aborted Rabaul strike, 14 F4Fs fought 17 G4Ms, shooting down 15 for the loss of two F4Fs.

I only mention these because rumours of an early war Wake Island raid that featured F4Fs shot down by anything, much less A6Ms, are disproven, and speak to the quality of background knowledge of the person who made the claim.

Chez was correct in noting that the Japanese had a signal success on 7 August. Nine of 18 engaged F4Fs were shot down intercepting a mixed strike of A6Ms and bombers. The US pilots shot down six bombers and two A6Ms (both from the 2nd Chutai). One of the F4Fs shot down was Southerland, who was exiting the fight and out of ammunition by the time Sakai caught up with him. (The A6M losses do not include Sakai, who survived an aft-attack on a flight of SBDs but with severe injuries).

As I noted before, F4Fs were easier to shoot down when they were busy attacking bombers. (About 1/3 of the F4Fs lost to Zeroes during the Guadalcanal campign were shot down as they were engaging bombers). The F4Fs stationed at cactus had their own lopsided victory somewhat later, when the Japanese feinted with a bomber formation and hit the F4Fs with a "fighter sweep."

The total of fighter vs fighter losses during the campaign was 31 F4Fs to 25 A6Ms.

As to whether or not USN training placed any emphasis on deflection shooting, or whether or not the Aleutians Zero was materially germane to the period of critical combat during which F4F soundly defeated Zeroes, "As in the first six months of the war, the Guadalcanal Campaign demonstrated the effectiveness of U.S. naval fighter doctrine, particularly deflection shooting and team tactics." (Lundstrom V2 p.530)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

As for your claims of facts, I'm sitting here with at least one researched historical work that sharply contradicts your claims of losses at Midway.

Then that wouldn't be The First Team by John Lundstrom or Parshall and Tully's Shattered Sword.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I thought the bulk of the CV pilots at Midway were picked up by other ships and brought back to Japan. Certainly the ones shot down over the US carriers weren't, but the CAP and returning planes would have ditched and the pilots rescued.

According to Shattered Sword (page 476), the KB lost 110 aircrew at Midway:

Akagi 7
Kaga 21
Hiryu 72
Soryu 10

Total 110

On page 432 in the chapter entitled "The Myths and Mythmakers of Midway" they write:

quote:

"The Japanese naval air corps was all but wiped out at the Battle of Midway." Not True. Japanese casualties at Midway amounted to fewer than a quarter of the aviators embarked. Rather, it was the attritional campaign in the Solomons that destroyed the elite corps of Japanese naval aviators.

Elsewhere in the text they discuss the numbers of IJN naval aviators as a whole and go into more detail on the matter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

As I read this what seems to be the running theme is: Allies should be better in A2A starting in the second half of 1942, without regaurd to any facts. In the real war, yes in general late 1942 and into 1943 was the turning point due to attrition losses in the Solomons.

However, if people are trying to argue that the Allies in game should automatically start being better than Japanese fighter pilots starting in 7-42 then they are way off base. The game has a major difference to history, that being my input as a player. And if I can avoid the disaster at Midway or the grinding campaign in the Solomons then there is absolutely no reason I should have weaker fighter squadrons going into 1943 or even 1944.

Basically, the Japanese player should not be automatically put at a disadvantage especially if the Japanese player has done good management of his fighter corps and pilot pools.

This is precisely why I removed the Zero bonus and the P-39 penalty. Hard coding failures that were the result of many contributing factors across the spectrum is bad form. Better to allow what factors we have represented in the game do that for us.

BTW, from this point on I will fore go posting in a thread that is titled "XYZ sucks..."

can't say i blame you given the headers , but there are times when these do manage to make a salient point .. occosianally

quote:

Yes it was.
Covered that right in this thread in post #97:

quote:

so the non-harmonisation certainly did help poor shots.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Why the name-calling?

As for your claims of facts, I'm sitting here with at least one researched historical work that sharply contradicts your claims of losses at Midway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

4 (four) Wildcats at Midway actually fought at the end of their range, the rest of air combats were around Yorktown.

That is incorrect.

quote:

Similarly, most of air-to-air action at Coral Sea happened around American carriers.

That is incorrect.

quote:

Which CAP failed to protect.

That is incorrect.

quote:

Fist off, Coral Sea happened in May.

That is correct.

quote:

Second, wrong again.

That is incorrect.

quote:

Midway was relatively light on IJN pilots,

And that also is incorrect.

quote:

The cost of Coral Sea at pilots was fairly heavy, but largely because the heaviest combat and most losses happened around American carriers, not because Japanese fought poorly in the air.

And that is first order excuse-making.

quote:

Zero could regularly defeat every Allied aircraft before Hellcat, because Zeros regularly defeated them.

Your claim is incorrect. Zeroes did not win ANY CV vs CV engagements ever during the entire war. They tended to lose, in battles, although in some elements of battles they won. The USN F4Fs shot down more A6Ms in EACH of the Coral Sea, Midway, Eastern Solomons, and Santa Cruz engagements than they lost. It's an established fact.

quote:

Losses of Zeros and pilots in air combat at Coral Sea and Midway were quite insignificant, in the grand scheme of things.

That is incorrect.

quote:

And Midway was the most abysmal performance of USA naval fighter aviation ever, with Wildcats systematically failing to connect with raids or stop small Japanese strikes.

That is incorrect.

quote:

While heroics of Thatch little group likely were one of the factor that enable the last-chance reversal of fates,

That also is incorrect.

quote:

but had the rest of escorts not failed in their duty, US forces could have won [without only snatching the victory by the last-chance reversal of fates,] or taking horrible losses in torpedo squadrons.

Correct, apart from the part in brackets. The US victory at Midway was the most likely outcome given the forces each side deployed. Partially it comes from the Japanese having the worst, least fault tolerant, most operationally complex battle plan in the history of naval aviation, and partly it comes from the USN having a very fault tolerant battle plan that succeeded despite many turns of bad luck against the USN and despite some rather botched execution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Yes I suppose we are. We'll keep having it as long as people who assert that the Zero was a better plane flown by better pilots and regularly defeated F4Fs keep making that claim. The evidence doesn't support that claim.

quote:

while there might have been official or unit-based standards for point of impact convergence, pilots often would work with maintenance crews to set their guns the way they preferred

quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

quote:

while there might have been official or unit-based standards for point of impact convergence, pilots often would work with maintenance crews to set their guns the way they preferred

Agreed. There were standard harmonization/convergence distances for Luftwaffe, RN/FAA, RAF as well as USAAF pilots (don't know about IJN, IJA, USN or USMC) as well as what the 'official load' should be in terms of load composition (AP, HE, incendiary etc) but in many cases it was simply 'personal preference' and whatever the pilot pesonally preferred. Having met a few WWII aces and also from what I've read in books, most fighter pilots liked to tinker/alter things to their own personal settings, and weren't afraid to ignore official guidelines when it suited them (probably why they survived!), and had a good relationship with thier groundcrews who were willing to carry out minor field modifications.
Taking it to its logical extreme, in WWI there was a fairly well known RFC fighter pilot, who, disgusted with the amount of jams he had in the air (quite common in 14-18 conflict), took it upon himslef to religiously check each round of ammunition of an evening before it was loaded into his plane...

quote:

It's uncivil also to completely misrepresent someone's claims to the point of making them up of whole cloth and attributing them to someone else. Which is pretty much s.o.p. for Nik. It's what he (and to a lesser extent, Chez) does when the facts don't support their claims.

quote:

I know of no one who said that any type won every single engagement. I only know people like yourself who claim that Zeroes swept the skies of the opposition throughout 1942 despite the fact that they almost never broke even against F4Fs. I also know a guy who claimed thousands of B-29s were lost to "explosive decompression" but that's another argument.

quote:

So here's what happened. In face to face engagements in 1942, USN F4F drivers defeated A6M drivers in every battle, when you measure "defeat" in terms of number of wildcats and zeros shot down. That was mostly accomplished without using the beam defense and despite the fact that the Wildcats were operating at very extended range.

quote:

Quibbling over semantics such as "battle" vs "engagment" is typical for you.

quote:

I call it backtracking. I've noted that now you are backing off your earlier statements such as the one above where you flatly state "USN F4F divers defeated A6M drivers in every battle."

quote:

The problem is that your a$$ prevents you from removing your foot from your mouth.

quote:

Could you point others to that post where I said that thousands of B-29s were lost to explosive decompression?

quote:

That's a far, far cry from your extreme misrepresentation and embellishment. But that is typical for you, isn't it?

quote:

Seems to me that's its you that keeps putting words into other people's mouths.

quote:

It's you who resorts to name calling when your "facts" are corrected with reputable sources.

quote:

Care to narrow that down a bit?

quote:

BTW, you still have never owned the game, correct? You did say you played a few turns... when was that again... 2003, 2004?

quote:

Have a nice day. Oh and Merry Christmas. Hope Santa doesn't put any coal in your stocking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Quibbling over semantics such as "battle" vs "engagment" is typical for you.

No, it's not. I made it quite clear that I used the term engagement in the sense of "engaging a target" from the outset. Only you or Nik would immediately then substitute that for "battle."

quote:

I call it backtracking. I've noted that now you are backing off your earlier statements such as the one above where you flatly state "USN F4F divers defeated A6M drivers in every battle."

I clearly stated that USN F4F drivers won every CV battle. I have always said that. I've said that before and it is still my position. I've always been clear that I thought of the Guadalcanal campaign as a campaign. I've ALWAYS been clear from the outset, for a decade now in conversations with you, that the loss ratio of F4Fs vs A6Ms in that campaign favored Japan. Only a classic chickens**t could pretend that I ever implied anything else.

quote:

The problem is that your a$$ prevents you from removing your foot from your mouth.

So typical of you.

quote:

Could you point others to that post where I said that thousands of B-29s were lost to explosive decompression?

Can you point to a place where I said you're the one? Seems like you'd only be trying to defend that point if you believed it. (Then why bring it up?)

quote:

That's a far, far cry from your extreme misrepresentation and embellishment. But that is typical for you, isn't it?

You're not one to complain about someone ELSE distorting the things you say.

quote:

Seems to me that's its you that keeps putting words into other people's mouths.

Only yours, because you've done it to me so many times, including here. I guess using your own tactics against you makes you uncomfortable. Here's a tip. If you don't like it, don't do it to others. (Are you kidding me? I'm luvving it. But you misspoke again. It's your tactics used against you that make you uncomfortable- especially when backed up with references that you can't ever seem to find)

quote:

It's you who resorts to name calling when your "facts" are corrected with reputable sources.

Most of your commentary is just like the one you're trying to stir up now. You basically accuse me of writing posts that follow your s.o.p to the letter.

quote:

Care to narrow that down a bit?

Already been there and done that in this thread and elsewhere. It's not my problem that you have the memory of a gnat or else the intellectual honesty of a politician.

quote:

BTW, you still have never owned the game, correct? You did say you played a few turns... when was that again... 2003, 2004?

I drove a Chevrolet Lumina once for three months and found it, like all the other Chevrolets I've driven, to be a slipshod construct with an engine and drivetrain that were inconsistent with the general purpose of transportation, and parts that often did not function for their intended purpose. Not owning a Chevrolet Lumina ever, and not driving it now, in no way disqualifies me from the historical reflection that the Chevrolet Lumina was a p.o.s. Naturally enough, if someone says "The Chevrolet Lumina was the best car of its age" I tend to offer my dissenting point of view.

Of course, if one really DIDN'T want a historical discussion to break out because one feared it might lead to comparisons about the game results, one might try, as you usually do, to STOP a historical discussion by resorting to the attacktics that you've displayed here (and everywhere else).

quote:

Have a nice day. Oh and Merry Christmas. Hope Santa doesn't put any coal in your stocking.

Happy yuletide to you. Hope Santa never requires you to pass a history test.

quote:

I'm loving it! Would you like a bigger shovel for that hole you're digging?

quote:

How about you list out the A6M vs Wildcat losses for the following "CV" battles:

quote:

1. Coral Sea
2. Midway

quote:

3. Eastern Solomons
4. Santa Cruz

quote:

Not just how many of each were lost but how many were shot down by the other. You say you have the sources... prove your point. And list those sources like a good little boy, will ya? Put your reputation (such as it is) of the line.

quote:

Or will you take the easy way out once again and say you have nothing to prove? Put up or shut up. Prove your case. Take off the skirt. That is all I'm asking. Prove your case and I'll get off yours. Let people see what the truth is, with a credible source so they can look it up and learn also.

quote:

BTW, you once said a few years ago that you were compiling a list of the losses and their causes. Do you have it or was it just more hot air?

quote:

Double BTW, I don't believe we've been discussing this for a decade. May seem like that to you but not true. I've only been here since 2004.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

It's interesting how whenever a discussion of historical facts breaks out, you try to divert it into something personal, Castor. It's almost as though you fear the conclusions will differ from the, well, whatever it is mental construct of WW2 that your incredibly narrow mind manages to contain.

I think HansBolter's first reply to this thread sums up my perspective rather succinctly.

quote:

I´m only pointing out that YOU are the one that is diverting it into something personal

quote:

Nice one Chez....i'd only add that you forgot to mention the simple fact that half of the Wildcats shot down at Coral Sea occured while they were defending their home carriers.....not as alleged, while straining at max range under "low power" while being unfairly attacked by Zeros (Is there such a thing as unfair a2a combat??!) Lundstrom in fact mentions only one specific situation whereby two Wildcats reving at cruise speed got attacked, neither plane was lost. If one is going to nitpick on what constitutes "fair" a2a combat (lol) then i guess it should be mentioned that the first Zero shot down by a navy Wildcat was at "low power", low altitude and was bushwacked from behind, the pilot never seeing his attacker. oops. One can also add the two F4F's shot down over Wake by Zeros for no return losses. Wildcats always winning? I know of no plane that won every single air engagement numerically speaking.

quote:

as your posts towards Nikademus pretty much leave no doubt about it.

quote:

And one of the few narrow minded on this forum are you,

quote:

there are enough people here that have no doubt about it. Like all your posts, that could be done by a bot.

quote:

... All that was and is needed is to look at the losses they took in A2A combat in April and June 1942. The better part of four carriers worth of pilots was basically erased. ...

quote:

I thought the bulk of the CV pilots at Midway were picked up by other ships and brought back to Japan. Certainly the ones shot down over the US carriers weren't, but the CAP and returning planes would have ditched and the pilots rescued.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I thought the bulk of the CV pilots at Midway were picked up by other ships and brought back to Japan. Certainly the ones shot down over the US carriers weren't, but the CAP and returning planes would have ditched and the pilots rescued.

According to Shattered Sword (page 476), the KB lost 110 aircrew at Midway:

Akagi 7
Kaga 21
Hiryu 72
Soryu 10

Total 110

On page 432 in the chapter entitled "The Myths and Mythmakers of Midway" they write:

quote:

"The Japanese naval air corps was all but wiped out at the Battle of Midway." Not True. Japanese casualties at Midway amounted to fewer than a quarter of the aviators embarked. Rather, it was the attritional campaign in the Solomons that destroyed the elite corps of Japanese naval aviators.

Elsewhere in the text they discuss the numbers of IJN naval aviators as a whole and go into more detail on the matter.

quote:

Why the name-calling?

As for your claims of facts, I'm sitting here with at least one researched historical work that sharply contradicts your claims of losses at Midway.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

As for your claims of facts, I'm sitting here with at least one researched historical work that sharply contradicts your claims of losses at Midway.

Then that wouldn't be The First Team by John Lundstrom or Parshall and Tully's Shattered Sword.

quote:

Why the name-calling?

As for your claims of facts, I'm sitting here with at least one researched historical work that sharply contradicts your claims of losses at Midway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

As for your claims of facts, I'm sitting here with at least one researched historical work that sharply contradicts your claims of losses at Midway.

Then that wouldn't be The First Team by John Lundstrom or Parshall and Tully's Shattered Sword.

Yes it was.

Covered that right in this thread in post #97:

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I thought the bulk of the CV pilots at Midway were picked up by other ships and brought back to Japan. Certainly the ones shot down over the US carriers weren't, but the CAP and returning planes would have ditched and the pilots rescued.

According to Shattered Sword (page 476), the KB lost 110 aircrew at Midway:

Akagi 7
Kaga 21
Hiryu 72
Soryu 10

Total 110

On page 432 in the chapter entitled "The Myths and Mythmakers of Midway" they write:

quote:

"The Japanese naval air corps was all but wiped out at the Battle of Midway." Not True. Japanese casualties at Midway amounted to fewer than a quarter of the aviators embarked. Rather, it was the attritional campaign in the Solomons that destroyed the elite corps of Japanese naval aviators.

Elsewhere in the text they discuss the numbers of IJN naval aviators as a whole and go into more detail on the matter.