RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (Full Version)

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



Message

Nikademus -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/13/2005 4:21:47 AM)

I understand the technical angle your coming from Brady.....however in game terms...where is the Allied slant?



Brady -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/13/2005 6:57:29 AM)


The pudding.


.............

Nikademus- As I mentioned above I do not feal this was intentional, but the way the guns are modled in WiTP gives the US a distenct advantage in this area over the weapons of their enemy, one they did not enjoy Historicaly. As noted elsewhear in WiTP the Gun value is a very high consideration. I have watched over the past few months of Air Battles in the Game with Mogami as an example, some very off results given the piolet experance levals the plane types and the over all condations, I do not feal the results are historicaly justified.

Presently I have isue with two aspects of the A to A model, one is the manuaver ratings, the other is the gun topic at hand. In an effort to seak out why some of these odd results have occured I have looked for and found suspect these two variables.

My perspective is, that the tools should be modled the way they were, they should not be tweaked to acheave a historical outcome no mater what, other factors will acheave this, in the end, things like piolet experance, leadership and player controle of assests. In a nut shell if a player uses his forces wisely and still has skilled men around to fly planes like the Ki-84, they should do well aganst an aponet, not be neautered by the game to preform as bad as they may of with green piolets in 1945. The double jepordy Manuaver ratings and the bad gun values are slanting the scale in favor of the allies more than they deserve.

Their are several allied and Japanese plane types whose preformance is other than it should be imo, When looking at the figures for them they seam to point to why...

P-38, while not doing badely imo it should be more domanate, This is imo partly do to the Cannon isue, though the 20 mm Hispano was often removed from them do to reliabality isues this is not realy modeled in WiTP, another problem is it's manuaver rating, it should be a bit better.

F4U-Sweat Jesious...

Thier are many planes that could use adjustments but in general the Cannon armed planes are being shorted in the lethality department, this coupled with the formented Manuaver rating isue is resulting in some unrealistic outcomes.




Nikademus -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/13/2005 7:11:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady


As I mentioned above I do not feal this was intentional, but the way the guns are modled in WiTP gives the US a distenct advantage in this area over the weapons of their enemy, one they did not enjoy Historicaly.


Only problem here is that there is no US advantage here because the high firepower works equally if not even more well for the Japanese as it does for Allied planes. A6M2's can kill much more durable Allied aircraft with the same propensity as the high gun value Allied planes can kill the Japanese planes. Do you see any real difference between how well SBD's or F4F's hold up vs Zeros or Vals when struck? I dont.

F4U is 'uber' primarily in the game because of it's speed edge. The high gun value is there too, but its not one that the Zero itself doesn't also posess. One can argue the finer points of the 50cal and the 20mm cannon till they're blue in the face but in game terms it doesn't really matter. Below a certain DUR value, the 2x7.7/2x20mm armament is as equally potent as the 6x50 armament.





Brady -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/13/2005 8:00:30 AM)


Some plane types do face off fairly well aganst one another, at least as much as I would expect they should, though to be honest I think the Wildcats are fairing a bit better than they should.

Some are Not, imo, many types are not fairing as well as I would suspect. It is a complicated and slipery isue though.

F4U-1: Durabality 32, Armor 1

F4F-4: 29/1

Ki-61: 29/1

Ki-84: 30/1

Ki-44: 28/1

N1K2: 30/1

P40B- 29/1

With all guns fairly close in terms of lethality, that is the .50 cal and the various 20mm cannons, with similar penatration values, their is no way given the diferance in number of guns carried that yuor going to see the results you should, to acheave parity you nead to increase the efecxct of the 20 mm cannons, planes like the N1K2 should be more lethal. remember that the Type 99 should be about three times as lethal as a .50 cal,as should the Hispano, but I cant posably imagne the game designers doing this, twice is probably more than I could posably hope for, not that I realy think they will change this.












Nikademus -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/13/2005 3:48:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady


With all guns fairly close in terms of lethality, that is the .50 cal and the various 20mm cannons, with similar penatration values, their is no way given the diferance in number of guns carried that yuor going to see the results you should, to acheave parity you nead to increase the efecxct of the 20 mm cannons, planes like the N1K2 should be more lethal.


well i cant agree with that based on what i've seen and tested. Any gun armament from 4 x .50/12.7 on up is pretty lethal to anything from DUR 60 on down (armor 0/1...also depending on exp level) and there's no appreciable difference between a cannon/MG armament or an all .50 when attacking with a pulse of fire. My next mod version will attempt to better distinquish the greater durability and toughness of Allied aircraft without tilting the kill ratio.














Brady -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/13/2005 4:58:50 PM)



" there's no appreciable difference between a cannon/MG armament or an all .50 when attacking with a pulse of fire."

What does this mean exactly?






Nikademus -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/13/2005 5:03:07 PM)

It means that if for example you have an A6M attacking an F4F with better DUR and armor=1 the 'pulse' of fire will likely result in a kill as often as when the F4F fires a pulse at the A6M with it's lower Dur rating and no armor. You've never noticed this? I noticed the lack of distinction between the two sides during the first a2a battles in UV. You can pretty much interchange Vals, Kates, SBD's, TBF's and planes like A6M and F4F they preform the same under fire.



Brady -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/13/2005 5:11:06 PM)



Ahh. yes I have and as I mentioned above some planes seam to preform fairly well aganst each other, it jsut that I am now playing in 1943 mostly and I am seeing some things that are off, I am seeing Army planes and Japanese Navy planes getting damages aganst their foe's when I feal they should be getting kills. The bigest problem the Japanese had after a point was even getting into aplace to get a shot off do to the spead diferances, not nescessarly killing the target once they did.

I do see your point though no mater how porked the guns figures may be on papper if their haveing good results in game they are fine, but imo they are not, and as we progress toward the end of the war my fealing is based on what I am seeing in the first part of 43 their are going to more problems with this.










mdiehl -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/13/2005 6:59:44 PM)

There is no reason any 20mm should be rated as "more lethal" than a .50BMG. The problem here is that no combat is an ideal situation where one hangs up your favorite japanese plane on a string, plants an allied aircraft in front of it at optimal range, and calculates the throw weight of the shell. All 20mm were underpowered against armored targets, which is why late war Luftwaffe interceptors were upgrading to a mixed load of 20mm and 30mm. No 20mm in the Axis arsenal could *penetrate* the most heavily armored positions on an American (and most UK) fighter, and the 20mm's bursting charge was inadequate to do enough damage quickly in low tot situations such as aerial combat with fighters. That is one of the reason why the Axis pilots did not intensively train at deflection shooting. Their best approach on a fighter was up the six and close to about 100m before opening fire.

In contrast the .50 had much more ammo than any 20mm or larger and a higher cyclic rof than most. The 12000 ft-lb energy in the "kill zone" was sufficient to do as much kinetic energy damage to wing tanks and engines as any 20mm could achieve through bursting. It's true that the 20mm was more likely to do damage in void spaces where he only vulnerable pieces were hydraulic lines or cables but it takes alot of accumulated 20mm damage to bring down anything. So in the end the most vulnerable targets were the cockpit, fuel tanks, and engines. The .50 was as good as any 20mm at damaging the first two and probably more lethal on engines (because you could penetrate through the whole engine with one .50).

The problem for the Axis was that their interceptors had incompatible missions. Kill bombers (which required, to be really good at it, 30mm or larger) and kill agile fighters (which required better deflection shooting, more ammo, and better penetration than could be obtained with a 20mm he round).

As Mike Scholl indicated, the thing is a sim, so you have to judge the results by the context. If in the end one sees, say, F4Fs shooting down about 1.2 Zeroes per F4F lost from December 1941 through September 1942 then there is no "Allied bias" because that its the correct and most plausible range of results. If you see deviations from that (statistically determined after the results of a sufficient number of combats) then there might be a problem. If you're getting kill ratios from 1:1 (favoring neither) to 1.4:1 (favoring the Allies) then the Wildcat vs. A6M part of the model is working just fine.

By 1943 the kill ratio across the board should be on the order of 2:1. By mid 1943 about 3:1 favoring the Allies. By 1944, 10:1. By 1945, 20:1.



Nomad -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/13/2005 8:21:04 PM)

I worked on A-1Es in Thailand. They had 4 20mm in the wings and the ammo we used was dated 1945. It was all percussion primed ammo, most newer 20mm is electrical primed. The point of this is the we used a load out of 2AP-2HEI-1Tracer for ammo loads. The question here is, "didn't the Axis use any AP 20mm ammo?" I have not looked to see if they did or what the kinetic energy would be from the various guns, but it would be interesting to find out.



the potemkin -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/13/2005 8:55:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
...
By 1943 the kill ratio across the board should be on the order of 2:1. By mid 1943 about 3:1 favoring the Allies. By 1944, 10:1. By 1945, 20:1.


1. Those kill ratios are based on "confirmed" kills from allied sources
2. That was against all types of planes, not just fighters
3. Late in the war the primary target for most japanese fighters was the allied bombers, not other fighters



witpqs -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/13/2005 9:32:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: the potemkin

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
...
By 1943 the kill ratio across the board should be on the order of 2:1. By mid 1943 about 3:1 favoring the Allies. By 1944, 10:1. By 1945, 20:1.


1. Those kill ratios are based on "confirmed" kills from allied sources
2. That was against all types of planes, not just fighters
3. Late in the war the primary target for most japanese fighters was the allied bombers, not other fighters

In addition, when looking at kill ratios achieved in the game you must account for pilot experience and other factors before comparing the ratios to those achieved IRL. Individual players can be better or worse at managing those factors.



mdiehl -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/13/2005 10:00:05 PM)

quote:

1. Those kill ratios are based on "confirmed" kills from allied sources.
2. That was against all types of planes, not just fighters


Not entirely. The kill ratios for 1942 are from unit loss records from IJN, USN, and USMC operational logs, not pilot claims or pilot "confirmed kills" based on AAR assessment. Also, for 1942, that is a count ONLY of F4Fs lost when fighting A6Ms and ONLY of A6Ms lost when fighting F4Fs.

When you include "all aircraft" the Allied success rate in 1942 based on kills recorded by units in their unit logs (not pilot claims or AAR assessments) is about 3:1 favoring the Allies.

The late war estimates are based on claims from both sides. Here I used a correction factor of 1/3 of Allied "confirmed kills" are actual kills and 1/5 of Japanese "confirmed kills" are actual kills. IMO this is conservative and favorable for the Japanese because their typical late war "confirmed kill" assessment is off usually overstated by an order of magnitude. Some day when I can get good sources with the unit loss records well recorded I'll offer up a better tally.

quote:

3. Late in the war the primary target for most japanese fighters was the allied bombers, not other fighters.


That's not correct. Or rather, it depends on what you mean by "late war." Most of the Saipan battle involved US fighters vs Japanese fighters and bombers. Some fraction of that obviously includes fighters vs fighters. The late war will be quite vexing to sort out because of the need to balance unit losses with eyewitness accounts in air to air combat. For example Japanese units on K missions will obviously have high loss rates due to flak, interceptors, and failed suicide attacks, and sorting them out will be a beeach.

But, for 1941-1942, the cas ratios for F4Fs vs A6Ms facing each other in A2A is about 1.2:1 for USN vs IJN, 1:1 for USN+USMC (VMF) vs IJN. About 0.9:1 when only the VMF are considered.



mdiehl -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/13/2005 10:02:33 PM)

quote:

In addition, when looking at kill ratios achieved in the game you must account for pilot experience and other factors before comparing the ratios to those achieved IRL. Individual players can be better or worse at managing those factors.


True. I am assuming roughly comparable levels of game skill at managing the game mechanics. Had I written the code much of that would have been abstracted out. The "pilot experience" ratings are I think a useless detail because they aren't scaled to anything real. They're arbitrary and flawed. About all they are good for is downgrading the Japanese overall performance in the late war. But even that could have been handled with a less complex game mechanic.



mlees -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/14/2005 12:27:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

In addition, when looking at kill ratios achieved in the game you must account for pilot experience and other factors before comparing the ratios to those achieved IRL. Individual players can be better or worse at managing those factors.


True. I am assuming roughly comparable levels of game skill at managing the game mechanics. Had I written the code much of that would have been abstracted out. The "pilot experience" ratings are I think a useless detail because they aren't scaled to anything real. They're arbitrary and flawed. About all they are good for is downgrading the Japanese overall performance in the late war. But even that could have been handled with a less complex game mechanic.


The development of new air to air tactics versus what the enemy has been observed to be using/doing tends to favor the Allies somewhat as well. The individual airgroup commanders on the Allied side actively searched out "what works" as a general rule. (There were martinets, true, but if they did not get results, they got rotated out...) The squadron and airgroup commanders were left with plenty of latitude to train their pilots and plan missions as they saw fit, as long as the results justified the means. "Boom and zoom" was developed by the Allies, and never effectively countered by Japanese air doctrine.

The Japanese are seen as being much more rigid in their doctrine, and their commanders had less latitude in deviating from planning than their Allied counterparts. Their pilots were kept in the front lines much longer than their Allied counterparts, leading to a downward spiral in their life expectancy rate. This stereotype is exagerrated in some literature, but there is still a kernal of truth to it.

These factors are not modeled in game, but they do contribute to the skewing of the air losses (in favor of the Allies) later in the war.



Oznoyng -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/14/2005 1:17:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
But, for 1941-1942, the cas ratios for F4Fs vs A6Ms facing each other in A2A is about 1.2:1 for USN vs IJN, 1:1 for USN+USMC (VMF) vs IJN. About 0.9:1 when only the VMF are considered.

What is your source for this infornmation? I understand operational logs are giving you the numbers, but where are the operational logs coming from?



mdiehl -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/14/2005 1:37:54 AM)

My source is primarily John Lundstrom's two first team volumes for the F4F vs A6M stats specifically. Lundstrom and Richard Frank (for his work Guadalcanal) had a set of translated Japanese unit records and pilots' post combat briefings (thus it was possible in many instances for Lundstrom to match up an American's pilot downed with a Japanese pilot that did the shooting and vice versa).

I thrashed this out with lots of people a long, long time ago. I even had reference page numbers at one point. In the end convinced a few and decided that there was no arguing with some. Anywho, check them out for yourself. Lundstrom The First Team and The First Team at Guadalcanal and Richard Frank's Guadalcanal (for a longer term summary but fewer details).

Lundstrom attributed USN superiority from the get go to moire intensive training at deflection shooting IIRC.

Now to sit back and watch the usual suspects start fragging the data.... [;)]



Big B -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/14/2005 5:42:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

My source is primarily John Lundstrom's two first team volumes for the F4F vs A6M stats specifically. Lundstrom and Richard Frank (for his work Guadalcanal) had a set of translated Japanese unit records and pilots' post combat briefings (thus it was possible in many instances for Lundstrom to match up an American's pilot downed with a Japanese pilot that did the shooting and vice versa).

I thrashed this out with lots of people a long, long time ago. I even had reference page numbers at one point. In the end convinced a few and decided that there was no arguing with some. Anywho, check them out for yourself. Lundstrom The First Team and The First Team at Guadalcanal and Richard Frank's Guadalcanal (for a longer term summary but fewer details).

Lundstrom attributed USN superiority from the get go to moire intensive training at deflection shooting IIRC.

Now to sit back and watch the usual suspects start fragging the data.... [;)]


I read "THE FIRST TEAM" some years ago...an excellent book. It is certainly at odds with the evaluation of Japanese Navy vs US Navy pilots in WitP.

I don't know what Grigsby and company got for data - to rate IJN pilots so far above USN pilots for 41-42...especially the air groups of Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu and Soryu - ALL 90s in quality. The Shokaku and Zuikaku airgroups fought several carrier duels in 42 and consequently left a paper trail to judge their quality by, the other four CVs dissapeared in their only carrier duel (largely without fighting US CVs) - leaving no historical record to prove their relative quality in the "Big Arena" so to say, yet they are rated way above all others...beats me how you could prove THAT.

But I'm getting off the point - we are addressing gun power in this thread, not pilot ratings, sorry.

B



Brady -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/14/2005 5:56:05 AM)


mdiehl-

"There is no reason any 20mm should be rated as "more lethal" than a .50BMG."

This comment alone should make me just LOL histaricaly to the point that I just stop right hear and walk away espichaly since little if anyhting will ever come of this.

"All 20mm were underpowered against armored targets,"

This is compleat BS, Hispanons were all apont AP and far more efecitve than a .50 cal inthis regard, do you read any of the links and referances I post?

Ya know what F.... it, I can see what I am up aganst and have been for a long time and Nothing is ever going to change the entrenched stupidity and ethcentricity that is rampent amonst some folks. Beelave what you want pry to yuor god and live in peace.




castor troy -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/14/2005 9:44:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady


mdiehl-

"There is no reason any 20mm should be rated as "more lethal" than a .50BMG."

This comment alone should make me just LOL histaricaly to the point that I just stop right hear and walk away espichaly since little if anyhting will ever come of this.

"All 20mm were underpowered against armored targets,"

This is compleat BS, Hispanons were all apont AP and far more efecitve than a .50 cal inthis regard, do you read any of the links and referances I post?

Ya know what F.... it, I can see what I am up aganst and have been for a long time and Nothing is ever going to change the entrenched stupidity and ethcentricity that is rampent amonst some folks. Beelave what you want pry to yuor god and live in peace.




Brady youīre one of the few Americans that doesnīt see EVERYTHING from the American way of sight! I appreciate you for that. Iīve accepted it that games made in USA are a "bit" in favour of the ratings of American weapons and American troops. I donīt say thatīs by intention but thatīs just how it is. No matter how good Axis weapons or pilots were, the American ones just have to be better. If a Japanese pilot with 99 exp. in a corsair would be shot down by an American pilot with exp. 60 in a Zero then many people here would explain it to you because that was of the better American tactics even though it was a fight one vs one....

Living in OLD EUROPE (thatīs a term only an American president can come up with) people here are always confrontated by the American thought that all and everything in America was and is the best. Iīm sure thatīs not the way every American thinks but isnīt that the opinion of the majority? Most people here think that in the US there has to be a process started to change the way of common thinking. No matter if itīs about the change in climate (Kyoto), terrorism, or rogue states (itīs called "Schurkenstaaten" here, no clue what you call it in English[:)]),...

No offense so I hope people donīt get me wrong. Iīve got no problem with the US or the people over there! Iīve been there for holiday, I use American products and watch American films (okay, the films would be another thread about the way of sight [:D]) So Iīm not an anti America extremist. NOT AT ALL! But it seems to me that "American" and "overrated" just goes hand in hand.

Okay, now you all can beat me up! [:D]



ChezDaJez -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/14/2005 11:12:13 AM)

quote:

Okay, now you all can beat me up!


A lot of what you say is true so I won't throw any punches. There are some Americans who come across as being very arrogant and can't understand why there are people across the world that don't want to live the American way. They can't comprehend that some people don't want the luxuries and fast food that we have available at our finger tips.

I saw it on many occasions during my travels overseas with the Navy. Sailors would enter a bar, get drunk and take over the place, bad mouthing anything and everything about it. I lived in Rota, Spain for over 3 years and when the fleet came in, especially if it was the gator navy, I stayed in my house because I knew it was going to get pretty rowdy in town for the next few days. I was also stationed with a guy whose attitude was that Spain would be a great place to be stationed if it weren't for all the foreigners. He was referring to the local populace.

So yeah, I know what you are talking about. But I will say, these Americans who do that are a small, very vocal minority. People never remember the quiet visitors, only the loud, obnoxious ones. I think the vast majority of Americans appreciate what they have and feel no need to boast about it or belittle another country's people for not believing the same as they do.

Chez



BlackVoid -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/14/2005 4:23:42 PM)

Well, what do you expect?

I remember in another thread (maybe Combat Mission thread?), mdiehl argued that Sherman tank is better than Tiger. In his book, anything from the US is superior to anything else. [:-]



castor troy -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/14/2005 4:26:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

Well, what do you expect?

I remember in another thread (maybe Combat Mission thread?), mdiehl argued that Sherman tank is better than Tiger. In his book, anything from the US is superior to anything else. [:-]


Was that ment seriously by him? [X(][:D]



BlackVoid -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/14/2005 4:30:34 PM)

Unfortunately, in this age of information, you can find sources as proof for just about anything and for the opposite as well.



rtrapasso -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/14/2005 4:31:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

Well, what do you expect?

I remember in another thread (maybe Combat Mission thread?), mdiehl argued that Sherman tank is better than Tiger. In his book, anything from the US is superior to anything else. [:-]


Was that ment seriously by him? [X(][:D]



I haven't seen the thread, but i'm guessing it was along the lines of "A Sherman that runs is better than a Tiger that is broken down and out of gas..." (reliability and fuel consumption being the big weaknesses of the Tiger).



Speedysteve -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/14/2005 4:31:42 PM)

It was an interesting thread for sure [;)]



Speedysteve -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/14/2005 4:32:28 PM)

I think also the traverse rate of the turret was used as an argument too [;)]



rtrapasso -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/14/2005 4:34:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

I think also the traverse rate of the turret was used as an argument too [;)]


Yeah, an important factor in battles at 800 meters...[8|][:'(][:D]



Speedysteve -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/14/2005 4:39:33 PM)

My take:

"Sir, we've hit that thing 3 times and every shot has bounced off. It's gun is almost in line with us for a shot. What should we do?" BOOM......

(P.S. before this goes onto that topic in depth and it's various quagmires this is meant purely in jest [;)])



BlackVoid -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/14/2005 4:43:07 PM)

I do not want to hijack the thread.

Real life losses comparison is meaningless for this, because in the game encounters can be totally different. Whereas in real life US forces had the numerical advantage most of the time, a clever human player as Japan will not allow this and will concentrate forces.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.265625