|
PresterJohn001 -> RE: Good to know UBER Cap is gone (1/15/2010 11:31:40 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EUBanana
quote:
ORIGINAL: dbfw190
It's the man, not the machine. experienced pilots in obsolete planes can hold their own against superior fighters.. not indefinately, but long enough to make the pilot in the more superior craft to realize he's met his match.
This old chestnut really annoys me, so I'm going to actually challenge it, even though it's a slight tangent.
The Allied pilots in question were not useless!. This JFB conceit comes up all the time. They were in fact among the very best the Allies have in 1942 aside from naval aviators - experience and air skill 60-65. They may not have been spectacular, but they were competent.
I expect Japanese pilots to be better than Allied pilots, but I also expect them to be worn down in the course of the war until they are inferior. Question is - who does the wearing down? Answer - the guys who just got slaughtered. There's nobody else!
A loss ratio of 3 to 1, or 4 to 1, say, would at least inflict attrition upon the Japanese which I would say is realistic. But 30 to 1 - you cannot attritt the Japanese uberpilots with loss ratios like that. In such a scenario it is the Allies, not the Japanese, whose quality and numbers will plummet. Hell, within a few days of following that course there wouldn't be an Allied airforce left.
As for the situation in question, the background of this result - there were an equal number of Japanese planes operating from a very small airfield on CAP facing sweeping Allied fighters in somewhat superior numbers - so really, this is almost the best scenario possible as far as the Allies are concerned. It really doesn't get much better than this. I'm happy to accept that bad days and bad rolls mean bad results, I don't expect to win all the time after all even if the situation is favourable, but 30 to 1 is an absolutely crushing defeat, a wipeout which will have strategic implications, as well as being unrealistic to boot. 75% of a fighter formation shot down in one day? I don't buy it.
And from a larger scale, if this is a regular occurrence - and it does seem to be depressing regular - there can be no wearing down. Who is going to shoot down this Jap airforce of aces? Nobody. Nobody on the map can do it, so they'll be living till 1945 then, like Jedi Knights among the peons.
And as an aside, I think it's unrealistic bullshit, no matter how good the opposing pilots are. As someone said, it's not Star Wars, and we're not talking about vulnerable bombers, we're talking about a huge furball over 20,000 feet altitude differences without on board radars and with primitive or non existent direction from the ground. I'd expect fairly low casualties on both sides.
I'm not bothered too much as I realise that sending in fighters in varying altitudes is not a winning strategy in this game. Apparently Zeroes can go from 35k feet to 5k feet and back up to 15k feet all within one air phase without any problem at all. OK - lesson learned, I won't do that again, and this probably reflects as bad as a result as possible. Next time I'll stick to one altitude so my planes mass properly. The issue of massing is at least realistic.
75% casualties though is not. I'd expect Japanese pilots to survive a long time if a Fabian strategy was being pursued regarding their commitment, but packing everything you got as far forward as you can on a primitive airstrip right next to huge Allied airfields is not a Fabian strategy aimed at preserving pilot quality, it's exposing them to among the worst conditions imaginable.
Long tangent over.
Of course pilot quality is a factor, but it's one factor among many and not even necessarily the most important. I know mdiehl had some table which broke down just how valuable a mph of top speed, or a months flying experience, or a tighter turning circle or a heavier armament actually was. IIRC top speed was the #1 factor and pilot experience was pretty much equally important.
Equally important does not mean crushingly important, though. And as I said before I think an OOB filled with pilots of 90+ experience is totally whacked anyway, it's like saying that the entirety of an air force is staffed by the likes of Sailor Malan, Galland and the rest.
I've seen crazy stuff in this game due to that. In that thousand mile war game I was playing the Japs, and my Rufe squadron (Rufes ffs!) ripped Allied P40s and even B24s to little bits. I know why - because the entire Rufe squadron, we're talking 20+ pilots, had experience 90+. That must be the most badass float plane squadron in the history of the world. AVG eat your heart out, we're talking all-ace star team. That is an OOB issue, not an engine issue, far as I'm concerned. Do you really think that a Japanese floatplane squadron based in Ass End of Nowhere in 1943 was among the very best in the entire world, absolutely elite, top notch, every one of them. Cuz I don't.
From the Japanese side, if you are referring to the combats at Diamond Harbour as i recall there have been 2 major engagements. The first (which i don't think you're refering to) was the invasion turn when KB was in the DH hex and the allies lost circa 70 air, primarily from what i saw because they were on naval attack vs a prepped KB CAP. The second major conflict was a while later and DH was a size 2 airfield at this point with 4 large fighter units ( 3 Oscar, 1 Zero) in place, all with pilots in the 70-80 range. I do put my Oscars as high as they will go (38500) because that seems to get them a good combat advantage (certainly other air battles ive been in seem to favour the highest altitude) and the allies seemed to come in seperated.
anyway and not related to the above if you're talking about inexperienced pilots in obsolscent machines what about the Turkey Shoot?
A game with 2 human players will lead to ahistorical utilisation of forces and outcomes that would not have happened in the real world. I think at some point you have to accept that, unless you want a re-run of ww2, which for both sides would be rather dull as a game, odd outcomes will occur.
|
|
|
|
