RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP

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

treespider -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 9:33:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Big B Yes The Zeroes did such a superior job at Midway - the Japs only lost ALL their Carriers! Bravo!!! I've consistently seen US quarterbacks playing football throw for 300-400 yards yet the team still gets stomped. Everybody agrees the ME-262 was a wonder weapon but the Germans lost the war... So yes the Zero could have performed outstandingly at Midway and through luck and other circumstances...lack of intelligence, no radar , poor tactics (ie use of only one search plane per route), bad communications the japanese would still get stomped.

Apollo11 -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 9:37:12 PM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: treespider japanese would still get stomped. Of course - the outcome of the war was never in question once USA and Russia entered it! The Japanese lost the war the minute they decided to attack USA - Germany, similarly, lost the war the minute Hitler decided to attack Russia... Leo "Apollo11"

mdiehl -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 9:41:29 PM)
quote: Wow, its obvious you have never served as aircrew anywhere. You have no understanding of the variables that account for aircrew performance. Fatigue is insidious. Wow. You obviously have no understanding of the records of movement or deployment of either the IJN or the USN in the 1941-1942 time frame. There is no basis for claiming that the main Strike Force pilots had been in more continuos action than those on the USN's big 4 after January 1942. Pilot fatigue is not an adequate or rational explanation (under the circumstances) for the outcomes of the CV engagements. quote: Having that longer range can also be a serious disadvantage, especially when damaged. OK. I think we're talking past each other here. I said specifically the CV vs CV engagements. In these engagements, both sides operated from identical ranges, typically less than 210 miles. I'm specifically NOT talking about 11th Air Fleet at Rabaul attacking the aircraft and positions at Lunga. In the CARRIER combats, the F4Fs shot down about 10%-20% more Zekes than they lost in F4Fs. In the CARRIER combats, they occurred at ranges that (in the case of Midway) worked against the F4Fs. Therfore, since the F4Fs acquitted themselves better against the Zero than vice versa, despite adverse conditions working against the F4Fs, it is clear that the F4F victories anywhere can't just be attributed to "handicaps against the Japanese." See? When the USN VF F4F pilots had to accommodate the same handicaps, they still beat the Japanese A6Ms. Returning to the Lunga 11th Air Fleet battles. Yes, the Japanese pilots had to deal with longer flights and thus fatigue. One very clear advantage that they HAD, however, was that once clear of the combat area they were out of threat. On returning to Rabaul they had hot water showers, plenty of food, clean (if spartan) accommodations, and no fears of attack. In contrast, US pilots stationed at Henderson had inadequate food, poor accommodations, were subject to harassing artillery fire during the day, naval bombardment at night, the sounds of pitched battles fought initially less than 1 km from their position, and at times Japanese infiltrators. Is it your contention that the US pilots and Henderson field were not also suffering from substantial fatigue? If so, that is a fairly unusual claim, IMO.

Speedysteve -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 9:47:12 PM)
This is brilliant! The forum has been too quiet of late [:D]

treespider -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 9:47:55 PM)
quote: We all want a historically accurate game - that is the point. As is, the Americans will always loose to the Japanese in a recreated carrier battle in 1942. You can certainly recreate Midway in the game. Place the Japanese bombers in the carrier fleet on Airfield Attack. Place one group on search at 10% with say a 20% cap by some of the fighters, 3-4 hexes away position a US Carrier Fleet. The difference between the game and history is we all anticpate a midway and so defend against it happening. Even still I've seen any number of AAR where midway's still occur and like in history they generally stem from one side or the other being more aggressive than they should.

Nikademus -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 9:55:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl In the CARRIER combats, the F4Fs shot down about 10%-20% more Zekes than they lost in F4Fs. In the CARRIER combats, they occurred at ranges that (in the case of Midway) worked against the F4Fs. Coral Sea A6M vs. F4F losses vs. each other: F4F - 6 A6M - 3 (the majority of the F4F losses occured over their own carriers.) Eastern Solomons: F4F - 6 A6M - 6 Santa Cruz: F4F 16 A6M 10 (Midway already mentioned....All but one CV F4F was shot down over their carrier....range working against the F4F? Carrier F4F's always shooting down 10-20% more Zeros? ) (Source: Lundstrom) quote: One very clear advantage that they HAD, however, was that once clear of the combat area they were out of threat. On returning to Rabaul they had hot water showers, plenty of food, clean (if spartan) accommodations, and no fears of attack. LoL....lets see you try it. You will have to fly near daily missions of a total length of 1000+ miles for hours on end, for a period of weeks or months. Dont forget you then have to engage in combat and then fly all the way back to base...if your wounded or damaged....worse still. Now compare yourself to a pilot who only had to scramble and fight over his own base for 20-40 minutes then land where he too received the best rations and acomidations because the grunts in the trenches knew they were their first line of defense. The pilots did not have to dig trenches, they did not service their aircraft. They rested, conserving their energy for a short fight. quote: Is it your contention that the US pilots and Henderson field were not also suffering from substantial fatigue? If so, that is a fairly unusual claim, IMO. lol As Frank pointed out, their "fatigue" was not nearly as great as the Japanese, which was why he mentions this specifically in his conclusion.

treespider -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 10:04:33 PM)
quote: Would you trade 1x damaged CV "Shokaku" + 1x untouched CV "Zuikaku" vs 1x sunk CV "Lexington" and 1x damaged CV "Yorktown"? You forgot about the Shoho.

treespider -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 10:08:24 PM)
quote: So if you mentally subtract Arashio from the equation (giving McCluskey no ship to intuit), you also shouldprobably subtract Strike Force's course change... and that puts McCluskey AND all the other SBDs on target at abot the same time that Kido Butai is shooting down the inbvound from Midway strikes. Only in this case the USN strike probably arrives as a coordinated strike of 3 USN CVs worth of SBDs, TBDs, and F4Fs. But then would all of the Jap. Cap have gone to the deck?

Nikademus -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 10:08:30 PM)
A word on the "paradise" at Rabaul. It was as rife with Malaria as any other island in the South Pacific. The US conducted a survey of the disease rate at Rabaul after the war. As an example; between 1/43 - 10/43, the monthly percentage of non-effectives due to Malaria ranged between 12.5 and 22.5%. Men stricken by other illnesses accounted for another 8.7 - 12.3% The high point during this segment was in May: 38.8%. A total of 4,400+ men died of illness there during the Japanese occupation, more than combat fatalities. Yep...a paradise...go back lean on the lawn chair and hope you dont get bitten. Its a long flight too and back if your malarial.

mdiehl -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 10:12:35 PM)
quote: LoL....lets see you try it. You will have to fly near daily missions of a total length of 1000+ miles for hours on end, for a period of weeks or months. Dont forget you then have to engage in combat and then fly all the way back to base...if your wounded or damaged....worse still. Now compare yourself to a pilot who only had to scramble and fight over his own base for 20-40 minutes then land where he too received the best rations and acomidations because the grunts in the trenches knew they were their first line of defense. The pilots did not have to dig trenches, they did not service their aircraft. They rested, conserving their energy for a short fight. Why would I compare myself to such a pilot? It would be an inappropriate comparison. Were I to run such a test, I'd compare myself to a pilot who was randomly and intermittently shot at by a sniper at least once a day when moving from his quarters to his ready room, and who was randomly targeted by artillery and aerial bombs at least once each day and each night. And every two weeks I'd throw in a 30 minute to 2 hour bombardment from calibers ranging from 125-350mm and let him spend the night in a water filled slit trench with the corpse of someone who did not quite make it to the trench in time. And when that pilot got "the best rations" it would be a half-ration of cold C-rations augmented by some mealy captured Japanese rice and canned monkey meat. Contrasted with the Japanese pilot who gets a full ration of his nation's best. quote: lol As Frank pointed out, their "fatigue" was not nearly as great as the Japanese, which was why he mentions this specifically in his conclusion. I don't recall him specifically made the claim that their fatigue was not as great as the Japanese fatigue owing to circumstances. I recall him saying that when American units broke down they were rotated out. But that does not mean that on any given morning the Japanese pilot who'd just flown for 3 hours was any more fatigued than the American pilot who'd had 3 hours of restless sleep the previous night when the shelling stopped. If Frank DID make the claim that somehow the conditions at Lunga were conducive to the maintenance of well rested, well fed pilots (which I doubt he did), he'd be wrong.

treespider -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 10:14:31 PM)
quote: In the CARRIER combats, the F4Fs shot down about 10%-20% more Zekes than they lost in F4Fs. In the CARRIER combats, they occurred at ranges that (in the case of Midway) worked against the F4Fs. What portion of that 10-20% is attributable to radar?

mdiehl -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 10:16:49 PM)
quote: But then would all of the Jap. Cap have gone to the deck? Perhaps not. But they'd have to fight their way through the USN F4F escorts, who under these altered circumstances would have outnumbered the CAP. I think the ultimate outcome would be more Zekes downed in combat, more F4Fs downed in combat, and a smattering of other Allied types downed in combat. You'd still have far more SBDs over the target than historically and some of the TBDs would get their shots in at ranges conducive to a hit.

11Bravo -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 10:17:20 PM)
So the long flights decreased their exposure to malaria? Sounds like another Jap advantage. I'll bet Frank missed that one. And Japs were physically shorter people with commensurate less body surface area. This would also contribute to less mosquito bites and lower malaria rates. Maybe the 1.6202 patch will correct that.

Nikademus -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 10:19:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl Why would I compare myself to such a pilot? It would be an inappropriate comparison. No it wouldn't. It would show you the difference between having to fight and fly over a 1000 mile trip vs. sitting on the ground rested and waiting quote: I don't recall him specifically made the claim that their fatigue was not as great as the Japanese fatigue owing to circumstances. Yes, I've long been aware of your selective reading impediment. You should have that looked at sometime. quote: If Frank DID make the claim that somehow the conditions at Lunga were conducive to the maintenance of well rested, well fed pilots (which I doubt he did), he'd be wrong. Its also interesting that when a source is reputed to support something you are claiming, its indisputable....anyone who disagrees is an Axis Fanboy. If it does'nt....well then, the author is obviously wrong. [:D]

Nikademus -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 10:20:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 11Bravo So the long flights decreased their exposure to malaria? Sounds like another Jap advantage. I'll bet Frank missed that one. And Japs were physically shorter people with commensurate less body surface area. This would also contribute to less mosquito bites and lower malaria rates. Maybe the 1.6202 patch will correct that. You get added to my Xmas card list for that one. [:D]

mdiehl -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 10:22:18 PM)
quote: This is why war is unpredictable... so many "what if" and "could have" / "would have" possibilities outcomes of which we will never know... I agree. The problem with the "US won Midway because of 'luck'" line of reasoning is that it mostly attributes good US command decisions to luck and bad US command decisions to bad decision making, and it wholly ignores the underlying fact that the Japanese plan was just a bad plan. From my POV the "luck" experienced by the USN at Midway could hardly have been worse, and if it were (McCluskey does not find Strike Force) I think the Japanese still lose two CVs. After that it still leaves the Japanese facing down 3 US CVs (with both sides short their full complement of planes) and a still-operational land airbase. IMO if you want a Japanese win there to be plausible you have to take the IJN CVs out of the rear force and the Aleutians diversionary force and put them right there at Midway with the rest. But that's a whole different operational plan. And in that event I still think the Japanese lose 2-3 CVs for a US loss of 2-3 CVs.

11Bravo -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 10:22:46 PM)
I really shouldn't have drunk my lunch today. I'll be quiet now.

Nikademus -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 10:23:33 PM)
Can i have some....i have to go to the surgeon today and find out what he messed up on....

Apollo11 -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 10:26:16 PM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl quote: This is why war is unpredictable... so many "what if" and "could have" / "would have" possibilities outcomes of which we will never know... I agree. The problem with the "US won Midway because of 'luck'" line of reasoning is that it mostly attributes good US command decisions to luck and bad US command decisions to bad decision making, and it wholly ignores the underlying fact that the Japanese plan was just a bad plan. Nothing was as bad as utterly complex Japanese Midway plan... what unecessary dispersion of forces all over the battlefield... If we would make "top list" of bad WWII battle plans - Japanese Midway plan would seriously contest #1 place! Leo "Apollo11"

Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 10:27:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 11Bravo So the long flights decreased their exposure to malaria? Sounds like another Jap advantage. I'll bet Frank missed that one. And Japs were physically shorter people with commensurate less body surface area. This would also contribute to less mosquito bites and lower malaria rates. Maybe the 1.6202 patch will correct that. ROFL [:D][:D][:D] Post of the week... [&o] O.

Terminus -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 10:28:42 PM)
Totally OT, but American Footballers throwing 300-400 YARDS?!?!?!? Not all at once I hope, or they'd need longer fields.[X(]

anarchyintheuk -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 10:29:25 PM)
Off topic on an off topic thread . . . but what if the zero had never had the range to go from Rabaul to Guadacanal in the first place. Do you think the IJN would have written off Guadacanal and saved itself the losses it and the IJA suffered? Was the time it gained by defending/trying to recapture Guadacanal worth the effort and the losses suffered? Interesting that a valued trait like endurence in an fighter might have led to a strategic defeat. Altho, I guess that attritional battle would have been fought elsewhere. Oops, I've started babbling.

treespider -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 10:29:35 PM)
Fuchida points out one very serious shortcoming of the japanese plan at Midway was the search pattern employed by the Japanese. They used the same search pattern at Ceylon and very nearly could have been handed their lunch there as well. In essence the Japanese used a single plane per arc as opposed to a two plane search. A failure of a single plane creates a gap in the coverage. In midway the radio failed and a plane was late in launching IIRC. Had they had a two plane search pattern they very likely would have been able to confirm the presence of the US Carrier fleet prior to the decision for a second strike on Midway, thus probably altering the course of history.

mdiehl -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 10:30:19 PM)
quote: No it wouldn't. It would show you the difference between having to fight and fly over a 1000 mile trip vs. sitting on the ground rested and waiting Yer being a little disingenuous here. If you are attributing the battle losses to fatigue it;s a 560 mile trip, not a 1000 mile trip. And all you are doing is flatly ignoring the fact that the Japanese pilot is coming off of 8-10 hours rest vs the US pilot coming off of 3-6 hours rest. After about 5 days the difference is moot. And only one of these (the US pilots) is being subjected to 24-7 combat stress. quote: Yes, I've long been aware of your selective reading impediment. You should have that looked at sometime. Your usual form of argumentation at its best and most typical. quote: Its also interesting that when a source is reputed to support something you are claiming, its indisputable....anyone who disagrees is an Axis Fanboy. No, I'm claiming that you are a lousy source of information as to what Frank (or anybody else) said. As to Richard Frank, he's not here. I think you are putting emphasis in the text that reflects your bias, rather than what he wrote. I'd debate HIM as well if he characterized the US pilots at Henderson as well rested, as have you.

treespider -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 10:32:29 PM)
quote: Totally OT, but American Footballers throwing 300-400 YARDS?!?!?!? Not all at once I hope, or they'd need longer fields. No over the course of a game. In an average game a Quarterback may throw the ball for an accumulated average of say 250 yards. There are quite a number of games in which a quarterback may throw for 3-400 yards and the team still lose. You can draw the same analogy to any team sport ....In hockey a forward may score three goals yet the team still loses.

mdiehl -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 10:33:29 PM)
quote: Had they had a two plane search pattern they very likely would have been able to confirm the presence of the US Carrier fleet prior to the decision for a second strike on Midway, thus probably altering the course of history. Perhaps so. It seems entirely plausible to me. I'd have to double check it against Bob Ballard's plot but a stronger recon plan might have helped alot.

Big B -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 10:36:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider quote: Totally OT, but American Footballers throwing 300-400 YARDS?!?!?!? Not all at once I hope, or they'd need longer fields. No over the course of a game. In an average game a Quarterback may throw the ball for an accumulated average of say 250 yards. There are quite a number of games in which a quarterback may throw for 3-400 yards and the team still lose. You can draw the same analogy to any team sport ....In hockey a forward may score three goals yet the team still loses. Yep I watched Vince Ferragamo throw a then record 509 yards in a losing effort against Chicago... But thus REALLY is off topic! Sorry!

mdiehl -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 10:37:31 PM)
quote: Off topic on an off topic thread . . . but what if the zero had never had the range to go from Rabaul to Guadacanal in the first place. Do you think the IJN would have written off Guadacanal and saved itself the losses it and the IJA suffered? Was the time it gained by defending/trying to recapture Guadacanal worth the effort and the losses suffered? Interesting that a valued trait like endurence in an fighter might have led to a strategic defeat. Altho, I guess that attritional battle would have been fought elsewhere. Oops, I've started babbling. I don't see how they could have attempted to retain Guadalcanal absent the presence of long range fighters. The Betties suffered mightily and that was WITH escort. Had they known the size of the US force landed at Lunga, I suspect they would not have attempted to reinforce and drive the US out. Instead they'd have ratcheted up their efforts on New Georgia where any US counterthrust would have to fight well within operational range of everything that Rabaul could field and well-outside of US land based air.

treespider -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 10:40:36 PM)
quote: Yep I watched Vince Ferragamo throw a then record 509 yards in a losing effort against Chicago... But thus REALLY is off topic! Sorry! Not really off topic. This analogy all started in response to the "If the Zero performed so great why did the Japanese lose Midway" line of thought.

Nikademus -> RE: Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP (9/15/2005 10:41:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl Yer being a little disingenuous here. If you are attributing the battle losses to fatigue it;s a 560 mile trip, not a 1000 mile trip. Nope, I'm attributing it to a 1000mile+ round trip I'm sorry, i forgot about the trouble you have interpreting printed text. To make sure there is no further misunderstanding, its a round trip of 1,130 miles quote: And all you are doing is flatly ignoring the fact that the Japanese pilot is coming off of 8-10 hours rest vs the US pilot coming off of 3-6 hours rest. After about 5 days the difference is moot. And only one of these (the US pilots) is being subjected to 24-7 combat stress. I'm not ignoring it...i'm dismissing it because its a complete fabrication on your part. quote: Your usual form of argumentation at its best and most typical. As is your ducking and weaving, selective interpretation of an author's text, not to mention fellow that of other posters. quote: No, I'm claiming that you are a lousy source of information as to what Frank (or anybody else) said. Oh dear......I am crushed. not. Readers can make their own judgements on that as I stated from the beginning.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1