Why do we not use historical initial air groups? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding



Message

el cid again -> Why do we not use historical initial air groups? (7/4/2011 10:18:25 PM)

Testing my move before submitting for a human player in a modified Scenario 1
I had to do some sort of Allied turn
and I was struck by the fact EVERY Allied carrier air squadron is at strength -
when IRL none were.

Since this is a nominally historical scenario, I wonder why that is the case?
Usually, as an Allied player on the first day, I consider my air groups too weak to
commit - never mind the carriers are not yet united. With 18 planes per squadron,
I find it tempting to go hunting.



Terminus -> RE: Why do we not use historical initial air groups? (7/4/2011 11:07:07 PM)

Yawn...[8|] The only bad example of this otherwise imagined "issue" is VF-3.

And if having a full-strength USN scouting or bombing squadron on 12/7 makes you want to "go hunting", the only thing you're "exposing" is your lack of experience in actually PLAYING the game, rather than whinging about it not being the way you think it should be.



timtom -> RE: Why do we not use historical initial air groups? (7/6/2011 11:14:31 PM)

Actually Sid has a point. IIRC Niehorster's data was used for this, but what's currently on his website is rather at variance with what's in the DB.



spence -> RE: Why do we not use historical initial air groups? (7/7/2011 1:23:22 AM)

quote:

Actually Sid has a point. IIRC Niehorster's data was used for this, but what's currently on his website is rather at variance with what's in the DB.


Sid may have a point BUT by what stretch of fantasy do the pilots of the newly formed air groups of the 5th Carrier Division (Zuikaku and Shokaku) have 70's experience when they:
1) had no experience to speak of fighting other aircraft; including Chinese aircraft
2) had for the most part never dropped a bomb on anyone; including Chinese
3) had for the most part never even practiced dropping torpedoes
For the Pearl Harbor raid they practiced landings on carriers and formation flying (not getting lost) because they'd never even done that.

By comparision the pilots of the USN airgroups were in large part long-term professional aviators, many having completed tours of duty in different types of aircraft (that is to say fighter pilots who knew how to dive bomb and fly search patterns and various other permutations of the preceding). Even as the "newbies" joined the fleet they were graduates having considerable training hours having joined the training programs well before hostilities.
The training did not have the benefit of war veterans prior to Dec 1941 but then the Japanese experience of fighting untrained pilots flying obsolete/obsolescent aircraft really wasn't all that much help fighting anybody who didn't suffer the same liabilities.


The USN did not:
1) have an operational doctrine that stressed coordinating the operations of multiple carriers and
2) did not have aircraft whose flight characteristics so seamlessly meshed together as those of the IJN.

The experience and quality of the individual pilots was much the same.



JeffroK -> RE: Why do we not use historical initial air groups? (7/7/2011 3:22:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

Actually Sid has a point. IIRC Niehorster's data was used for this, but what's currently on his website is rather at variance with what's in the DB.


Sid may have a point BUT by what stretch of fantasy do the pilots of the newly formed air groups of the 5th Carrier Division (Zuikaku and Shokaku) have 70's experience when they:
1) had no experience to speak of fighting other aircraft; including Chinese aircraft
2) had for the most part never dropped a bomb on anyone; including Chinese
3) had for the most part never even practiced dropping torpedoes
For the Pearl Harbor raid they practiced landings on carriers and formation flying (not getting lost) because they'd never even done that.

By comparision the pilots of the USN airgroups were in large part long-term professional aviators, many having completed tours of duty in different types of aircraft (that is to say fighter pilots who knew how to dive bomb and fly search patterns and various other permutations of the preceding). Even as the "newbies" joined the fleet they were graduates having considerable training hours having joined the training programs well before hostilities.
The training did not have the benefit of war veterans prior to Dec 1941 but then the Japanese experience of fighting untrained pilots flying obsolete/obsolescent aircraft really wasn't all that much help fighting anybody who didn't suffer the same liabilities.


The USN did not:
1) have an operational doctrine that stressed coordinating the operations of multiple carriers and
2) did not have aircraft whose flight characteristics so seamlessly meshed together as those of the IJN.

The experience and quality of the individual pilots was much the same.


Spence,

You could probably extend this to Ship, TF & LCU leaders and troops.

Instead of the IJA/IJN player having to work hard for his victories against underwhelming enemies, they are given help in this area to ensure its a given.




Gary D -> RE: Why do we not use historical initial air groups? (7/7/2011 7:43:54 PM)

In Scenario 1 stock I do not see all full USN CV airgroups.

4 of the 12 groups are below complement.

VF-2 22/27
VT-2 12/15
VF-6 23/27
VF-3 21/27

Regards



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.96875