Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message


Ron Saueracker -> Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/16/2004 11:10:17 PM)

I think I read somewhere that no more effort will be expended on Oscar vulnerability. If so, I'm wasting my finger flapping, but what the hey.

In the PBEMs I'm playing (both as Allied), every fighter I have, save the P-26 maybe, kicks the crap out of Oscars, even if the Oscars have 80+ exp pilots vs low grade Chinese piolets (a Brady[;)]). Watching innumerable combat replays without hitting esc key (sorry guys, makes turn longer but I was curious) I've noticed something strange, almost a possible reversal to the intent. Oscars are lightly armoured and armed, so I don't expect them to blow everything out of the sky...the odd outright kill, a few damaged enemy aircraft crashing on the return leg, but mainly damage to enemy planes. This I see.

What disturbs me is the loss rate to less maneuverable adversaries. The Oscar was renowned for it's insane maneuverability, like many Japanese fighters, but the armoured and therefore heavier and less maneuverable Allied planes predominantly both "evade" the Oscars in combat and manage to "fire from behind, Range 1", resulting more often than not in the Japanese plane's demise. The maneuverability seems not only to be negated but exceeded by less agile Allied puruits with less experienced pilots.

Something is still rotten in air combat model land.

Anyone agree?




Tankerace -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/16/2004 11:27:04 PM)

I do wholeheartedly. Its kinda tough to say that, because I like shooting down Oscars in droves. It gives me a reason to keep about 3 P-36A Mohawk units around. I have heard that the Oscar was not the best plane, but it certainly isn't useless as WitP sometimes seems to indicate.

Of course, that is just what I remember from playing. Thanks to the leader bug, I had to can my current game about 3 weeks ago [:(].




WiTP_Dude -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/16/2004 11:59:36 PM)

Oscars are garbage planes. Like the Nates, they just don't have much use. If you look at the numbers for the two planes they are about equal. Basically I use both planes for attacking airfields at 100 feet as much as possible. Or they can be used in rear areas to protect against Allied long range bombers. They don't shoot anything down but they will force the bombers to miss most of the time.




Belphegor -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/17/2004 12:12:56 AM)

Well, once again I think I got a different copy of the game. [:(]

My Oscars are doing fairly well actually. Quite happy to have them romping around. I don't know the history of the plane, so can't comment on game performance, but to where I am in '42 they still seem fairly useable. I'll leave it up to the more experienced to debate whether they are too poor in the game or not




WiTP_Dude -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/17/2004 12:13:38 AM)

What planes do use them against?




caslug -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/17/2004 12:16:16 AM)

and I used to think the ME109 in BTR was lame, because it had 3 guns versus the FW190. Now I take the ME109 anyday, especially over the lame oscars. Anyone play long enough to get the Oscar II? Wonder how those fair against 2nd gen allied fighters?




Belphegor -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/17/2004 12:17:09 AM)

Hmmm, I used them in sweeps and escort missions in the Malay, Burma, Philippines and DEI campaigns. A few LRCAP for covering landings and of course CAP

They generally go up against Buffalos (Yeah, I know) Brewsters (See number 1) etc.... Occasionally they have held their own against AVG as long as it is 1/2 way near a fair fight and not an everyday thing....




Belphegor -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/17/2004 12:21:23 AM)

I just looked at my game (against the AI, maybe that's why?) and it is 5/17/42. I have lost 57 Oscars to all causes, 29 in the sky, 20 to ops...




pad152 -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/17/2004 12:21:27 AM)

Well if you think the numbers are wrong for the Oscar, you can change it with the editor!




Ron Saueracker -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/17/2004 12:37:17 AM)

Just wondering why the Oscars are the ones which have their less nimble opponents "evade" them, then they can't themselves. Seems reversed.




Onime No Kyo -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/17/2004 5:57:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Just wondering why the Oscars are the ones which have their less nimble opponents "evade" them, then they can't themselves. Seems reversed.


I am no expert on aircraft by any stretch but I seem to remeber the Oscars being crap in the old WW2:Battles of the South Pacific game. Or is that because so many Matrix guys came from the old SSI (or so I remember being told). [:D]

Do I hear "anti-Oscar conspiracy"? [:D][:D]




esteban -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/17/2004 9:17:53 AM)

However troubled Oscars may be, they are better than Nates. [:'(]




Ron Saueracker -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/17/2004 9:26:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Just wondering why the Oscars are the ones which have their less nimble opponents "evade" them, then they can't themselves. Seems reversed.


I am no expert on aircraft by any stretch but I seem to remeber the Oscars being crap in the old WW2:Battles of the South Pacific game. Or is that because so many Matrix guys came from the old SSI (or so I remember being told). [:D]

Do I hear "anti-Oscar conspiracy"? [:D][:D]


Let's not go using games as source material! [:-][8D] And yes. a direct link is there.




Platoonist -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/17/2004 9:43:35 AM)

Put a green pilot behind the controls and it's even worse.

[image]local://upfiles/9147/Ca820227033.jpg[/image]




Ron Saueracker -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/17/2004 9:45:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Platoonist

Put a green pilot behind the controls and it's even worse.

[image]local://upfiles/9147/Ca820227033.jpg[/image]


[:D][&o]




Tankerace -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/17/2004 9:53:33 AM)

I know how we can prove if the Oscar's are bad. Once I get the carriers in the WPO mod working, we can have unmodified Oscars tangle with the Vought VE-7SF fighters of Langley's VF-1. Or, to be less humiliating, we can have them go at Curtiss F6C-4 Hawks of VF-2 (Not sure where Ill stick VF-2 yet.... kinda ran outta flattops). Or, we can use the Army's DH-4Bs left over from WWI. Sound like a good test?

EDIT: Whoops, F6C-4 Hawks, not F9Cs.




Ron Saueracker -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/17/2004 9:59:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I know how we can prove if the Oscar's are bad. Once I get the carriers in the WPO mod working, we can have unmodified Oscars tangle with the Vought VE-7SF fighters of Langley's VF-1. Or, to be less humiliating, we can have them go at Curtiss F6C-4 Hawks of VF-2 (Not sure where Ill stick VF-2 yet.... kinda ran outta flattops). Or, we can use the Army's DH-4Bs left over from WWI. Sound like a good test?

EDIT: Whoops, F6C-4 Hawks, not F9Cs.



Yes, yes, yes.




Tankerace -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/17/2004 10:08:09 AM)

Im actually scared to do it, but you never know what will happen, right?




Nikademus -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/17/2004 10:14:36 AM)

Oscars were the most successful plane type during the Malaya campaign in terms of kills. They also preformed well during the Sumatra and Java operations, but their successes were overshadowed by the exploits and fame of the Zero.




2ndACR -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/17/2004 10:20:02 AM)

Nik,

With respect, they may have been real good in real life, but they suck worse than anything in the game. Even with no fatigue, high morale, 80+ experience. Anything can outmaneuver them and shoot them down.




Tankerace -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/17/2004 10:21:47 AM)

Hence my half sarcastic suggestion of having them dogfight a 1922 biplane fighter. They way they perform ingame, it could be an even match.




Nikademus -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/17/2004 10:48:46 AM)

I know. I was commenting on the historical preformance of the plane. In the game they are undervalued.




Tankerace -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/17/2004 10:49:59 AM)

Yeah. I wonder why though, that is just... "un 2by3ish". I wonder what would happen if a biplane fighter tangled with it in game....now I'm curious![:D]




Apollo11 -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/17/2004 10:51:09 AM)

Hi ali,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Oscars were the most successful plane type during the Malaya campaign in terms of kills. They also preformed well during the Sumatra and Java operations, but their successes were overshadowed by the exploits and fame of the Zero.


It is same everywhere... [;)]

In BoB most downed German pilots claimed that Spitfires did it (while many times the Hurricane was involved).

In Pacific most downed Allied pilots similarly credited Zero and not Oscar (especially since the external apperance was rather similar)...


Leo "Apollo11"




Nikademus -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/17/2004 10:56:08 AM)

You are correct. Part of the reason the Oscar's preformance was overshadowed by the Zero was because 9 out of 10 times, Allied pilots reported attacking and being attacked by "0" type aircraft during the SRA fighting. In many of these cases they were actually fighting Oscars...not Zeros.

The humble Nate also contributed substantially in Malaya and over Burma despite it's obsolesence.




Ron Saueracker -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/17/2004 11:51:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I know. I was commenting on the historical preformance of the plane. In the game they are undervalued.



Hey, I know. Have a few beers, act like an ass in the private forums as you pressure for a change. Worked for me.[8|] Not!




RAM -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/17/2004 3:24:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Just wondering why the Oscars are the ones which have their less nimble opponents "evade" them, then they can't themselves. Seems reversed.



to evade an Oscar (or a Zero, for that matter) you only had to point your plane downwards. The Oscar had outrageous diving qualities...it didn't build up speed fast (because it was extra-light), and when it indeed built speed, it was hard as hell to maneovuer on dives (controls stiff as concrete at speeds over 300IAS), and was even prone to lose its wings at high speed maneouvers (because of extra-light construction). I don't find surprising to see so many allied fighters evading Oscars...specially if the allied fighters have a decent pilot on board. All he had to do is dive, build up speed and if the japanese fighter follows, when fast enough bank a bit to change direction, and pull up making a zoom (Zooming: another thing the Oscar was outrageous at) to leave the Oscar helpless under him (as he couldn't follow). From that point onwards the Ki-43 was mostly dead meat...if it didn't rip his wings trying to follow the maneouver.


The initial successes of the model were because the same reason as the Zero's: everyone tried to dogfight them...as soon as the allied fighters started using energy fighting, the Oscar was pretty much useless for air combat.

I don't think is undervalued. The Oscar was probably one of the most rubbish fighters of WW2.




RAM -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/17/2004 3:46:50 PM)

also, there are many ways for a less nimble fighter on the tail of a highly maneouverable one to follow it into a sharp turn...high and low yoyos, Slicebacks, etc.

Also, planes regarded as "highly maneouverable" had relatively low corner speeds while the "can't turn" planes had high corner speeds. This is a misconception and a very common error. PLanes aren't "highly maneouverable" or "bricks"...depending on the speed they are fighting, ALL and EVERY plane can be both "extremely maneouverable" or a Brick.

So, at low speeds what we usually call the "maneouverable" plane can turn faster and inside the "less maneouverable" plane. That's mostly because at low speeds wingloading (in fact liftloading, but that is another issue) are the most important asset for turnfighters. The lower the wingloading, the better the low-speed turn a plane has. Planes with low wing loadings had very low "corner speeds" (corner speed= speed at which a plane achieves its best turning performance, over or under that speed the plane loses turning performance, the farther from the corner speed ,the more turning performance it loses)


So, at high speeds the plane with a higher wingloading, and thus, high corner speeds, may be able to actually turn INSIDE the "more maneouverable" fighter. As long as the "less maneouverable" plane starts with an advantageous position, it can follow the "more maneouverable" one until the speeds drop under safe margins for the higher wingloading plane (and then is time to disengage).


For instance, the Fw190 was one of the best dogfighters of WW2 even while having a high wingloading. It was one of the best dogfighters because they could be used in very high-speed close encounters, starting with advantage (said that, the Fw190 was kept on BnZ and energy fighting tactics, which were the main tactics of the Luftwaffe, but IT WAS an exceptional hispeed dogfighter none the less).

With its high wingloading, great high speed controls and its extremely good roll rate the Fw190 was able to win angles to fire on almost everything as long as the fight stood well over 250mph IAS. There are a lot of accounts of Fw190s cutting into Spitfires' turns...because those turns happened at 300+ mph IAS, where the turn rate of the 190 was quite superior to that of the Spitfire. A Spit with a 190 in his tail was in serious trouble, if the speeds involved were high enough (if not, all the 190 pilot had to do is to not turn with his enemy).

When the speed dropped, the Fw190's dive gave it the chance to disengage at will from the Spitfire.


Change the words "190" for "F4F" and "Spitfire" for "Zero", and you have the reason why the americans were able to fight successfully a plane with better performances on the paper. Change again the words "190" for "F4U", and "Spitfire" for "A6M5", and you know the story...

finally, if we change "190" for "F4 Phantom" and the "Spitfire" for "MiG 17" ,you'll see that the same lessons still held true 30 years after WW2, as Randy Cunningham (among many others) proved repeatedly over the Vietnam skies.


This means that high maneouverability planes, as we think of them, are in fact good LOW SPEED fighters...which lose a lot of their maneouverability at high speed clashes...while "low maneouverability" planes, as they are called, can be extremely successfull high-speed dogfighters but mostly dead meat at low speed.

There is no absolute thing as a "very nimble" fighter and a "brick" fighter. All fighters have their own fields on their flight envelope were they are "Very nimble"...or "Bricks"...against any given foe. The Oscar was a "very nimble" fighter at low speeds but a "Brick" at high speeds. The 190 (or the P47 or P51) was "very nimble" at high speeds but powerless at low speeds.


In the end what WW2 showed was that in an one on one encounter a heavy fighter with properly light high-speed controls and good dive and zoom qualities would always prevail over lightly built, designed to turn at low speeds, enemy planes, as long as the pilot didn't let his speed go under a certain treshold. In short: it's better to be nimble at high speeds than at low speeds.

The Oscar was extremely light and an excellent low speed turner. However it couldn't fight at all at high speeds. So...results : it was dead meat against almost anything else if the "anything else" stood out of low-speed dogfights.




Ron Saueracker -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/17/2004 4:08:32 PM)

Well, good points. At what time did allied pilots discover the boom and zoom energy solution. Seems like they have it at the outset. Perhaps a restriction vs Japanese fighters, not just zeros is an idea (unless of course it is this way now...can't remember). Also, traditional dogfighter like I-153c are doing as well as Oscars, despite having pilots with less than 50% of the Japanese pilot exp rating. Overall, I think the Oscar is either getting a bad deal or the Allied planes are getting a great deal.




RAM -> RE: Oscars are still death traps from the get-go. (10/17/2004 4:18:30 PM)

I would say that the benefits of the Zero should apply to every fighter of the Japanese arsenal, not only to the A6M...except for the AVG (those guys had already figured the correct way to fight japanese fighter already for 1940). In the opening stages of the Pacific war every allied fighter tried to turn with the japanese...and that's why the Zeros and Oscars got those great results that early.

With time and proper development of tactics, this should fade away (as it does with the Zeros).

I agree on that, Ron. However, my previous posts were intended to show that when a message comes up with a fighter avoiding the attack of another, doesn't mean that the attacked fighter has done an ultra-sharp turn. It may have been as simple as a Split-S, for instance, and that doesn't depend on the plane's maneouverability, but on the pilot's situational awareness and correct evaluation of the avoidance move, and the correct timing to apply it :)




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.640625