Air combat

Air combat (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific

Message

caine -> Air combat (7/8/2003 8:05:03 PM)
I have discovered that Japanese Zeros defending a base against bombers escorted by P-39 or P-40 nearly always lose more planes in the fighter to fighter fight.I think that Zeros were significantly better than P-39 or P-40.So I misss something or something is wrong.

TIMJOT -> (7/8/2003 9:36:59 PM)
Better than the P-39, but probably not the P-40 if flown properly. If you have FOW on then your pilots claims will be exagerated. So do not take the combat reports at face value. Its been my experience that the most significant stat determining aircombat is fatigue. The AI tends to drive airunits hard, accumulating high fatigue, that over time takes its toll. If you are playing as the Japanese player make sure you rotate your airunits. Unless its an emergency do not fly them if they are above 25% fatigue. Hope this helps

tacticon -> A lurkers Observation (7/8/2003 10:32:29 PM)
The Cactus Air Force on GC achieved kill rates of 5 to 1 over Zeros using mostly F4F-4's. Dispite be outnumbered most of the time, the P40's and Kittyhawks used by the Allies gave better then they got in the skies over New Guinea. A quick search in the internet for some of the squadron histories certainly bares this out. The problem is that UV these groups get creamed by Zeros until the more advanced aircraft shows up. I try to use P40s, Kitty's and F4F's very sparingly. I never let them fly with fatigue over 20. I get radar over to PM and Lunga before I start flight ops. When I usually will put the units on 90% CAP so I can put the greatest number of planes in the Air so I am not at a numerical disadvantage. Yet my best squadrons are getting creamed by the zeros. My air to air losses are usually 3 to 1 against Zeros. Many of my most experienced pilots are getting shot down before ever getting their first kill. My research shows that it is almost univerally agreed that the Zero was a technically better fighter then the P40 or the F4F. Japanese pilots in the beginning of the war were first rate. What UV fails to model is the superior tactics that made these fighters successful. These tactics kept green pilots alive and turned vetern pilots into killers. I think there are two possible ways to make the air combat routines take the superiors tactics into account. One way is to give the allies an across the board experience bonus to coincide with doctrinal advances (zoom and boom for the P40s, Thach Wave for the F4F's). Or, we can add a drastic increase in the durability for both fighters. That way the allies losses and Japanese losses are kept fairly historical, while the allies efficiency will gradually increase. I would like to know if other players are able to keep their P40 and F4F pilots alive, or do they just accept the horrendous losses nowing full well that the P38s, and F4U will even up the score. By the way, I have been lurking on Pac War forums since they were first on Genie.

TIMJOT -> Re: A lurkers Observation (7/8/2003 10:48:47 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tacticon [B] I would like to know if other players are able to keep their P40 and F4F pilots alive, or do they just accept the horrendous losses nowing full well that the P38s, and F4U will even up the score. By the way, I have been lurking on Pac War forums since they were first on Genie. [/B][/QUOTE] Absolutely, I find that my F4Fs and P-40s more than hold their own as long as I keep Fatique levels low. This means below 20%. P-39s do reasonably ok if paired with P-40s or F4Fs , otherwise they have a hard time of it, but P-400 and Wirraways get creamed (rightfully so IMO). Occasionally I get some lopsided results, but thats usually becuase my squadrons had been overtaxed with CAP and escort duties when they got bounced.

dwesolick -> (7/9/2003 1:10:24 AM)
I think the air combat between first generation Allied planes and the Zero are modeled pretty well in UV. In addition to the excellent points above, one can also see the P-40s in the hands of the famous Flying Tigers in China more than holding their own against the Japanese. I can't remember off hand, and am too lazy to get up and look, but didn't they achieve an astronomical kill ratio? Something like 10 or 20 to 1?

TIMJOT -> (7/9/2003 3:49:45 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dwesolick [B]I think the air combat between first generation Allied planes and the Zero are modeled pretty well in UV. In addition to the excellent points above, one can also see the P-40s in the hands of the famous Flying Tigers in China more than holding their own against the Japanese. I can't remember off hand, and am too lazy to get up and look, but didn't they achieve an astronomical kill ratio? Something like 10 or 20 to 1? [/B][/QUOTE] Yes, but not against Zeros, mostly against Oscars and Nates, there were no Zeros deployed in the China Burma Theater during the time of the Flying Tigers. Unfortunately practically every Japanese fighter was indentified as Zeros early in the war. This in no way is meant to take anything away from the Tigers accomplishments. They may have done just as well against the Zero if you take Chenaults tactics into consideration, but we will never know.

crsutton -> (7/9/2003 4:02:14 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dwesolick [B]I think the air combat between first generation Allied planes and the Zero are modeled pretty well in UV. In addition to the excellent points above, one can also see the P-40s in the hands of the famous Flying Tigers in China more than holding their own against the Japanese. I can't remember off hand, and am too lazy to get up and look, but didn't they achieve an astronomical kill ratio? Something like 10 or 20 to 1? [/B][/QUOTE] It is important to remember that the Flying Tigers were not fighting against zeros but mostly army aircraft. Nates and oscars (mostly nates). Nates were hopelessly obsolete and the oscar was rapidly approaching the end of the line. Against the P40 and wildcat, the zero was a fairly even match with each plane having advantages over the other. The zero of course was a splended dogfighter and could out turn just about anything (except maybe the nate and oscar) at low to medium speed. The zero also had a good climb rate. The p40 was slightly faster than the zero in level flight and much faster in the dive. At higher speeds, I think the p40 had some manuevering advantages as well. The wildcat was slightly slower than the zero but quick in the dive. The zero had a nasty tendency to shed its wings in a high speed dive. Both the wildcat and p40 were much more rugged and much better armed than the zero. As I have mentioned in my posts many times over, very few zeros had radios. That in itself placed the Japanese pilots at a great tactical disadvantage. Pilot skill was a factor in the early stages of the fight but allied skill tends to be underated. The Anzac pilots were actually very good and gave as good as they got with their p40s, and American navy and marine pilots were very well trained. Saburo Saki was impressed with the skill of the P39 pilots flying out of Port Morsby, but knew they were being wasted in terrible aircraft. Once he went up against the navy and marine pilots after being transferred to Rabaul, he was very complimentary of their skill and tactics.

crsutton -> Re: Air combat (7/9/2003 4:11:49 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by caine [B]I have discovered that Japanese Zeros defending a base against bombers escorted by P-39 or P-40 nearly always lose more planes in the fighter to fighter fight.I think that Zeros were significantly better than P-39 or P-40.So I misss something or something is wrong. [/B][/QUOTE] As said before, fatique is a key factor. If your zeros are getting knocked about then you need to check your fatigue levels. If your cap exceeds 30-40% then you will run up your fatigue levels fairly fast. My experience is that with better pilots and low fatigue, the zero dominates. I am flying wildcats with experience levels in the 60s out of Nevea and they were getting kicked about by zeros flying out of Lunga. Problem was that my cap level was set at 50% and the wildcats were just too fatigued ( in the 20s) I reset the cap levels to 30% and the fatigue came down to around single digits and the wildcats are doing better. I discovered that if you have radar at your base, it is not necessary to have high cap levels as radar will detect incoming enemy and scramble more planes to meet the attack.

dwesolick -> (7/9/2003 7:30:05 AM)
Great info on this thread. I didn't know that no Zero's flew against the Tigers. I guess it makes sense, because the Japanese would use secondary fighters against the Chinese and save the best for the Brits/Aussies/US. when did the first Zero's become operational? 1939-40? Didn't the Zero also suffer from a fatal lack of armament (like no self-sealing fuel tanks, etc)? Perhaps this is modeled into the game as well.

TIMJOT -> (7/9/2003 8:04:12 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dwesolick [B]Great info on this thread. I didn't know that no Zero's flew against the Tigers. I guess it makes sense, because the Japanese would use secondary fighters against the Chinese and save the best for the Brits/Aussies/US. when did the first Zero's become operational? 1939-40? Didn't the Zero also suffer from a fatal lack of armament (like no self-sealing fuel tanks, etc)? Perhaps this is modeled into the game as well. [/B][/QUOTE] dwesolick, Yes the Zero became operational in 1940. Its initial deployment was in fact China, where it pretty much cleared the skies. Chenault got some first hand intelligence on it while adviseing the Nationals, and Devised some tactics on combating it. He passed it on to Washington, and it was promptly ignored then forgotten. Having pretty much destroyed the Chinese airforce, the Zero was withdrawn in the summer of 41, as they were needed for the upcomming operations in the Pacific.

AmiralLaurent -> (7/9/2003 2:55:40 PM)
The primary reason that AVG fought Nate and Oscar was that only Army Air units fought over Burma. Zeroes where part from the Navy Air Force. Also, the real kill ratio of the AVG was far lower than the claimed one, Burma battles in 1942 see high overclaiming by both sides.

Nikademus -> AVG (7/11/2003 12:13:20 AM)
Another thing that should be pointed out is that the AVG did not fight a conventional air war against the Japanese. By "convetional" i mean the typical engagements you see in UV, (CAP over base, escort. etc) Chenault made it very clear that the AVG fought by a strict set of rules, almost gurrilla warfare in the air and the #1 GOLDEN rule was that the AVG never, repeat NEVER engaged the Japanese unless they were in an advantagious situation. If not.....no enagement. Chenault did report on the Zero so it might be assumed that the AVG did have 'some' contact with the Zeros though its not clear since from what i've read it was worded that Chenault had "received" disturbing intelligence on a new Japanese fighter. Given his intellect and knowledge of his advesary its reasonable to say that he might have devised his tactics based on what he "heard" coupled with what he knew already about current Japanese tactics and equipment. It doesn't mean that the AVG ran into a gaggle of Zeros. I've certainly not read of any encounter on the Japanese side in regards to this. Either way, most of the AVG's fighting was against Army aircraft, (Oscar, Nate, probably some Claude (navy)) which would have well suited their hit and fade style of combat as neither plane would be able to overtake a P-40 that did not wish to engage. This is why i dont take the AVG experience and graft it on what one sees in UV. Different environment. Different objectives/goals, different situation. This is not to take anything away from them, much credit must go to Chenault, he seems to have been a brilliant leader and air tactician but "Chenault's" were not a dime a dozen so i would not assume that all Allied groups would preform similarily any more than i would assume all Zero groups would preform like the Tainen Air Group.

tacticon -> (7/11/2003 6:46:19 AM)
The air combat situation for the AVG in China, 1941 and New Guinea in 1942 are more similar then they were different. Both groups were flying P40�s against a numerically superior foe. While the AVG pilots flew mostly against IJA aircraft, they still had plenty of encounters with the AM6-2 Zeros and most lived to tell about it. Chennaults� hit and run tactics, which were supposedly ignored by Washington, became the Zoom and Boom tactic that was successfully employed by Kittyhawk and P40 Army Air units in PNG. Zoom and Boom means attacking from higher altitude, making a quick slashing attack against a surprised foe and using your aircrafts superior speed to escape the enemy�s response. Zoom and Boom were not invented by USAAF, other air forces and aircraft going back to WW I used variations of this tactic. The example of AVG in China further supports my original position that Allied air combat doctrine is under represented by UV air combat sub-routines. Now in all fairness to Matrix, I switched back to historical difficulty (from very hard) and P40�s and Kitty�s will have more even exchange with Zeros when they are properly managed. I have to apologize to the board for my original post. I should have checked the P40 survivability at historical difficulty before posting. It has been a long time since used the historical setting, I completely forgot about until I read the other air combat thread.

TIMJOT -> (7/11/2003 8:26:17 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tacticon [B] While the AVG pilots flew mostly against IJA aircraft, they still had plenty of encounters with the AM6-2 Zeros and most lived to tell about it. [/B][/QUOTE] Traction, Japanese records have proven that there were NO as in zero, Zeros deployed in the China/Burma Theater of operations during the life span of the AVG. This is not to say they wouldnt have done just as well against Zeros if they had the chance because Chenaults tactics would have work against them quite well. Chenault's intel was ignored. None of the front line fighter units in 1941 had any idea of the combat capability of the zero or that it even existed for that matter. The PNG pilots learned the proper tactics to combat the zero on there own or from vetrans that had fought earlier in the Philipines and Java. Not from any intel comming out of China. You will find that the P-40 gives as good as it gets if set at the "Historical" level and you keep their fatigue levels down.

dwesolick -> (7/11/2003 9:27:19 AM)
Well, this thread has done it. It has piqued my interest in the AVG. :mad: Only one thing left to do.....get a BOOK on the subject!:) I have some general studies that include the AVG in a peripheral way, but can anyone suggest the best book on the topic (AVG-Flying Tigers)? As if I NEED another WWII book. :rolleyes: ;) Still working my way thru "Fire in the Sky" (Bergerud)...great book.

TIMJOT -> (7/11/2003 10:51:41 PM)
Dwesolick Dan Ford's "Flying Tigers, Clair Chenault and the AVG. He also has an excellent web page pack full of good stuff on the AVG. [URL]danford.net/avg.htm[/URL]

dwesolick -> (7/12/2003 1:08:12 AM)
Thanks Timjot, The website is great (forgot Pappy Boyington had been a Tiger) and the book looks good as well. :)

decourcy -> numbers (7/12/2003 1:23:27 AM)
Tacticon, I have to comment on your "flying p40s (and p39's) in '42 vs a numerically superior foe" That chestnut has been hauled out for every war in history. I particularly loved Alexander of Macedons propaganda about 100,000....200,000....500,000 Persians! Play UV.... Hmm the Japs have 2 fighters, 1 of which is half strength and equipped with honest to god A5ms which can't catch most allied bombers, and 3 bomber units, oh, but two of those bomber units have virtually no replacements so after a couple of raids i withdraw one. What do the Allies have in Australia-New Guinea? 2 P39s, 2 P40s, 1 P400, 1 dive bomber, 6 medium bomber groups with good to great replacements, and those god awfull B17s! And you say the allies are outnumbered! Oh, did I forget to mention that those 5 Jap groups are not only covering New Guinea but the Solomons as well. Hmmm... Oh, i don't remember who made the comment that the marines on Guadacanal were getting like 5 to 1 kills or so, but again, that was what was claimed. I remember reading an account from the 70's written in America about GC, the marines claimed to have shot down 300 betties in October '42. If you play UV you will find you don't have that many! The Marines answered the question of "If you shot down all the Japanese planes yesterday where are these coming from?" with "oh, another 100 jap planes flew into Rabaul last night" un huh. Yes, GC was a turning point and i know the marines did a great job but you have to take some of these claims with a grain of salt. In '44 the American Airforce and Navy claimed more kills than the Japs had or built that year! On another thread people were declaiming on the American air tactics and how they won the war. There were a couple other factors involved.... If in WW2 Japan had equivalent resources, populations, etc, and they chose maneuver while the Americans chose speed then i will admit that the American tactic was wonderfull and the Japanese tactic was terrible. Untill then people are making statements of fact with only part of the evidence. Is an electron a particle or a wave? Well, it exhibits the properties of a wave so it is a wave.... Michael ps. And i forgot the Hudson group which makes pretty good bombers as well.

Bosun -> Veteran pilots (7/15/2003 2:16:59 PM)
If you are dealing with N.G. you are going to probably face F1 and/or F2 Tainan Daitai. These groups are loaded with vets of the conflict with China in the 30s and flew against the best of the West. In 8 PBEMs as the IJN, only sheer weight of numbers and dogged grinding of Lae with all out attacks were the Allies able to achieve anything approaching victory in the air. This was at the cost of at least 2:1 losses for the Allies in fighters. This assumes, of course, proper play by the Japanese. If your airbase approaches 50% damage: GET OUT!

caine -> (7/23/2003 10:57:06 PM)
Cetrtainly, I agrre in the fact that Zero experienced pilots should at the beginning be able to sweep the skies.But in my experience tat does not happen in the game.In the majority of attacks against P39 or P40, Zeros suffer equal or more casualties than the Americans.I do not know why, but something should be done.Or am I wrong?

denisonh -> (7/23/2003 11:07:36 PM)
In my PBEMs as both USN and IJN, I have not seen that. I find that the Zeros with exeprienced pilots eat the Allies for lunch. Particularly in naval air, where I have seen the Zeros kill F4Fs with a better than 5 to 1 kill ratio. But I would say that if you ouse your fighter groups at long range with high fatigue, you will lose more. I avoid using fatigued groups in order to preserve the veteran pilots and avoid high levels of operational losses.

caine -> (7/24/2003 4:48:30 PM)
Well, I have been playing agains the computer in hard level.I think this is not important, but... Anyway, whati is high fatigue.Because my Zeros flying from Rabaul got 40 fatigue, nearly always after flying there.Perhaps morale is a key factor, also? I am trying to find if there is something I am doing wrong.Perhaps morale? I have experienced also that under low morale my pilots go back, which is logical.Anyway, which is the quickest way to recover morale?

Nikademus -> (7/25/2003 2:15:25 AM)
Unless i'm misunderstanding you Caine, i think your mistaken about the difficulty level. It greatly skews air combat results in favor of the AI when enabled which will force many changes in playing style I've never tried it myself because the only a-historical situations i like to play are situational ones, such as SC-19. Never saw the point of playing with handicaps against the actual mechanics of the game engine.

TIMJOT -> (7/25/2003 4:01:38 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by caine [B]Well, I have been playing agains the computer in hard level.I think this is not important, but... Anyway, whati is high fatigue.Because my Zeros flying from Rabaul got 40 fatigue, nearly always after flying there.Perhaps morale is a key factor, also? I am trying to find if there is something I am doing wrong.Perhaps morale? I have experienced also that under low morale my pilots go back, which is logical.Anyway, which is the quickest way to recover morale? [/B][/QUOTE] Caine, if you play on hard level it will greatly skew combat results in to favor the AI. Basically the AI cheats . So it will make a huge difference. If you play on historical level you should more or less get pretty close to historical combat results IMO. Also, 40 fatigue is very high. If you start out that high your pilots will be in the 60's 70's by the time they get to PM. Its important to rest and rotate you squadrons, especially for long missions like Rabaul/PM. Hope this helps

caine -> (7/25/2003 4:10:49 PM)
Thank you all, I will try.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.218994