|
Tristanjohn -> RE: Rating Fighters (3/25/2005 8:36:29 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
quote:
Of course I wasn't there, but I did send you this link once re P-40s in combat versus the Zero: http://www.airartnw.com/fightingtigers.htm
Look closely at the painting. Those are Ki-43 Oscars (note the long thin tail). The problem was that the Brits and AVG tended to call any retractable gear Japanese fighter a "Zero." Also, in the writing, he mentions Nakajima fighters, again referring to the Ki-27 Nate.
I didn't and don't care too much about the painting, only the reference. It could be that Rossi is full of it, merely confused. For the sake of my stake in this argument it hardly matters, as my only interest here is whether or not the game model has it correct, or nearly or reasonably so. (I enjoy being being devil's advocate, I guess. [:)])
quote:
If you've the interest, here's a fairly detailed (three pages) account of his action with the AVG, as written by Rossi: http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Rossi-AVG.html
quote:
The report is interesting and confirms that they were flying against Ki-27 Nates. There are 2 pictures of them, one has crashed and one appears to be a propaganda photo. On 21 Mar 42 he writes:
Quote:
"The pilots who did make contact said the Japanese planes were all faster than those they had met before; no fixed gear fighters either. Ken Jernstedt was shot down but only slightly injured. It was one of our worst engagements..." Unquote. On 8 April he also says that they met Zekes, which he says were similar to Zeros. That indicates to me that they were not Zeros and he misidentified Oscars as Zekes. Under the OOB link below, you'll find that the 64th Sentai, commanded by Col. Kako, led the mission that Rossi refers to on 8 April. The 64th Sentai flew the Ki-43 Oscar.
Again, I've read all that. Afterall, I directed you to it.
quote:
Here are a couple of interesting reads; one concerning "claimed" kills and one has the Japanese squadrons the AVG flew against (All IJA air units equipped with Nates and Oscars.
"Claims:" http://www.warbirdforum.com/loss.htm
IJA OOB: http://www.warbirdforum.com/hinoki.htm
I will look ASAP.
quote:
Your link: http://www.warbirdforum.com/vics.htm) doesn't work.
Try this, then: http://www.warbirdforum.com/vics.htm
Same link, and it works when I try it in PREVIEW mode.
Here's the main link, same AVG site: http://www.warbirdforum.com/avg.htm It's the fourth link on that page up from the bottom, listed as Flying Tiger victory credits, air and ground
quote:
Again, Triston, the AVG never met any A6Ms in combat, nor did the 23rd Ftr squadron that replaced the AVG. The only fighters they met were army fighters, mostly Ki-27 Nates and Ki-43 Oscars.
You really should read the entire warbird forum concerning the AVG at: http://www.warbirdforum.com/avg.htm
It is extremely well researched, detailed with names, places and dates of the Japanese, British and American flyers that took part in the air battles over the CBI. No where does it mention the A6M in that theater.
I've read a number of debates on the forums over the years re just that topic. I realize that the man who runs that site does not believe the AVG ever met the Zero, only some of the pilots make references to it. In fact within the last year I watched a program on television re the AVG and one of the pilots who was still alive at that time made reference to confronting the Zero. (I know know, hardly conclusive, and afterall it's only TV.)
But again. All this talk about the Zero, Steve, is getting us nowhere. The argument from my point of view is whether or not the P-40 might reasonably be construed by the game model to be on a par with the Zero in terms of overall performance. I say that it might well be so construed when we throw in combat doctrine, pilot discipline and the like, all of which I feel are valid factors.
Think about this. Gary gives a "maneuver" rating for planes, as if the ability of a plane to "maneuver" might be something absolute when in fact it should not be represented as something absolute but rather something which needs to be qualified according to the circumstance. It's like polling. If you ask bad questions of the sample the poll results will come out skewed. "Was the Zero better at maneuvering than the P-40?" a question might go. Well, it depends on what altitude the planes were at and what air speed we're talking about, right? But Gary never takes that into consideration. At 15,000 feet in a vertical space, diving, with a P-40 pilot who understands the flying dynamics of both his plane and that of the enemy, I'd take the Tomahawk any day. Wouldn't you?
So, the maneuver rating in the game is something unhelpful for the reason it's an all-or-nothing consideration. Worse than meaningless, it only serves to skew the model terribly in play. (Except for your Zeros against my P-40s, of course. [:D])
quote:
I did find it interesting that Erik Shilling never engaged a single Japanese fighter in the air during his entire flying career, in or out of the Flying Tigers, yet he claimed to be an expert on dogfighting Japanese aircraft. The only time he ever fired his guns was when his flight intercepted a Jap bomber and shot it down. He was credited with 3/4 of the kill. The only fighter-to-fighter combat he ever saw was a mock dogfight against a British Brewster Buffalo.
I believe that's fair. Looking over it from afar it would appear that Shilling's memory made much more of his own experience than was actually there at the time. I don't want to demean a man who was a veteran, but it does seem to look that way to a casual observer this far down the road.
|
|
|
|
