|
mdiehl -> (9/3/2003 4:34:15 AM)
|
[QUOTE]I realize the Japanese early carrier pilots get ratings in many cases over 90. The Allied pilots in the SRA are always given lower ratings. (I don't know what would result if we made these pilots 90 as well and only relied on the differing aircraft for results.[/QUOTE]
This is undoubtedly part of the problem but has been debated in several forums many times. The Usual Claim is that Japanese naval pilots were better pilots, by virtue of either combat experience in China, hyperselectivity in recruitment, or extensive gymnastics excercises, than American pilots, AND that the Zero was a "better" plane than the F4F.
One would expect, if this tale was correct, that the casualty ratios would at some time have favored the Japanese. In the case of USMC and USN (VMF and VF pilots) the opposite is true, and in the case of USAAF pilots the evidence is inconclusive.
Given poor Japanese in-flight command and control and the use of outdated tactical formations, it'd be more appropriate to rate the USN/USMC and Japanese naval pilots as equals in re "Exp" because Exp is a proxy for both combat experience and training. IJN pilots trained [I]harder[/I], American pilots trained [I]better[/I].
|
|
|
|
