|
Ringbolt -> (9/8/2001 6:23:00 AM)
|
quote:
Originally posted by byron:
Based on the lack of conversation these past couple of days, I'm guessing we've really kicked around all of the big issues. So I was just sitting here thinking about issues, issues that make me go "Hmmmmm . . ."
Was the Corsair really such a good fighter? Or was it just fast?
In a hypothesized surface action between the Japanese and American fleets (no carriers), the Americans would have won, right? Or would the long lance torpedoes have caused the battleship line a real problem?
Why are American carriers so much easier to sink in War in the Pacific than the Japanese? Is it a cheat built in for the computer (playing the Japanese), thinner armor, better pilots, or better weapons? Always pisses me off.
What would have happened at Pearl if they'd sent something up to investigate the radar contact that they misinterpreted as being the B-17's from the mainland?
Yes the F4U was a great fighter, the proof is it was in service longer than any other WWII fighter. The P51 was also used early in Korea, but the F4U renamed as the AU-1 was used until 1954 I think. The F6F and F4U were equal in many ways only the F4U was a lot faster.
Good question about the surface action. The Long Lance would absolutely have been a factor, but the end result would I think depend on the date. Before US radar and South Dakota/Washington class I think the IJN wins, after they loose.
I dont know for sure but I think the US CV sinking thing is a cheat. Early on though, like at Midway, the US would send many more aircraft to do the same damage so maybe that is accurate. Only 5 Kate's, I think, did more damage to the Yorktown than all the US Devastators put together which was what, 36?
About the radar contact, I think the IJN still would get through no problem, but the US might have had time to button up and man AA guns. I dont think AC at Pearl, Ewa, or Hickam would have made much of an impression, but buttoned up BB's and manned AA guns would have.
Ringbolt
|
|
|
|
