RE: CV Air Wings

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: CV Air Wings

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: CV Air Wings - 7/9/2007 10:36:23 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel
The problem is that it isn't the Japanese who are being forced to use 25 experience pilots. Its the US Navy in 1945 that is.

When in fact America wasn't letting anyone out of "Advanced Flight School" who wasn't basically a 55-60 by 1944-45. In the US, training time was actually increased during the war. There was NO shortage of fully trained pilots/aircrew in the US by 1944-45..., in early 1945 the Army pulled thousands of guys out of flight training and made them into infantry replacements.

Why is the Allied lack of trained pilots so idiotic? Let's look at a few numbers. Japan began the war in December of 1941 with about 6000 very well-trained military pilots (divided between the IJA and the IJN). During the year 1941, the USA trained 11,000 pilots. During 1943 (the last year that Japanese "Pilot Training" actually deserved the term) the Japanese only trained 5,400 pilots, while the USA the number was 82,700! While the Americans had thousands of Pilots with training levels (in game terms) of 55-60 available (so many that at the end of 1943 they actually CUT pilot training back to 60,000 per year), the Japanese were scrambling to provide the bare minimum to allow their new pilots to get off the ground by that time.

By 1944, the USA COULD have produced over 100,000 pilots (all with a minimum of 350 hours of beginning, advanced, and "in-type" Flight Training) IF the need had existed --- while Japan was cutting it's programs down to 60-70 hours (and less) of basic Flight Training to try and get enough "warm bodies" to fill the cockpits (where almost all ended up as "cold bodies" in short order). Basically, what I am saying is that by the last two years of the war, the Allies should NEVER recieved a pilot of less than 55 experiance, while Japanese replacement pilots should NEVER show up as more than 10's (often less).

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 31

RE: CV Air Wings - 7/9/2007 10:46:39 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

1 thing you need to take into consideration Mike is the fact that 70% of our war effort was sent to Europe as the Germans were deemed the greater threat. Now I will grant you, the vast majority of Navy and Marines went to the PTO.

As for the Japs they actually had 2 schools. That for the "special attack" squadrons (step 1) take off, step 2) point your nose at this point of the ship) and the "real" flight school. While its true the Japs shortened their "regular" school from 13 months to 8 at the end of the war (IIRC may have been 9), I believe that would still rate at least a 35 and probably a 40 personally (assuming 13 months rates a 60).

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 32

RE: CV Air Wings - 7/9/2007 11:01:46 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

1 thing you need to take into consideration Mike is the fact that 70% of our war effort was sent to Europe as the Germans were deemed the greater threat. Now I will grant you, the vast majority of Navy and Marines went to the PTO.

And you should consider that 30% of US 1943 Pilots trained is still almost 25,000 compared to Japans 5400 that year.

As for the Japs they actually had 2 schools. That for the "special attack" squadrons (step 1) take off, step 2) point your nose at this point of the ship) and the "real" flight school. While its true the Japs shortened their "regular" school from 13 months to 8 at the end of the war (IIRC may have been 9), I believe that would still rate at least a 35 and probably a 40 personally (assuming 13 months rates a 60).

The "real" flight schools were the ones giving 50-70 hours of "basic" flight training during 1944-45. No "advanced" flight training at all, and the "in type" took place when they arrived at their unit and flew their first combat mission. Kamikaze tactics were developed to give these poor "lambs to the slaughter" some small hope of doing damage to the enemy before they were shot down or killed themselves accidently. Calling them a "10" is stretching it.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 33

RE: CV Air Wings - 7/9/2007 11:14:36 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

Lol, Im sorry, are you under the impression that Im saying the allied pilot replacement rate should be less than the Japs?

quote:

The "real" flight schools were the ones giving 50-70 hours of "basic" flight training during 1944-45. No "advanced" flight training at all, and the "in type" took place when they arrived at their unit and flew their first combat mission. Kamikaze tactics were developed to give these poor "lambs to the slaughter" some small hope of doing damage to the enemy before they were shot down or killed themselves accidently. Calling them a "10" is stretching it.

Please give your source for this, because every account I have read puts it at 8 or 9 months.

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 7/9/2007 11:15:18 PM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 34

RE: CV Air Wings - 7/9/2007 11:26:15 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bobogoboom

Yet for some reason the japs can produce 800 million advanced fighters a month. Seems resonable to me.

True, but at at cost. HI fuels everything. If the Japanese player chooses to produce a large number of fighters, something else eventually has to give. It may be the navy or ground forces, but something will give. Also, keep in mind that if they do build bunches of planes, the pilot experience will be in the 20s for the IJAAF and 30s for the IJNAF. Look at all the late war AARs. The Japanese players are losing 1000 or more planes a day. If they are all fighters (and they won't be), that is a cost of 36k HI per day for the airframes and engines. That ain't happening. Then there's the supply cost to build all those factories. They would need 30k factories to produce 1000 planes a day. 30k factories would require 30 million supply to repair. That ain't happening either.

(in reply to bobogoboom)

Post #: 35

RE: CV Air Wings - 7/9/2007 11:48:50 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
Please give your source for this, because every account I have read puts it at 8 or 9 months.

"Apples and Oranges" is the problem. You are talking about Flight School (class room training) and I'm referencing "Flight Training" (hours actually spent in an aircraft in the air. At War's start, the best Japaqnese pilots had 700+). As for sources, try Overy's "THE AIR WAR 1939-1945" for starters..., good overview of everything and everybody.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 36

RE: CV Air Wings - 7/10/2007 1:10:47 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijnaf.htm

"Shortening the amount of training was tried and, by the last year of the war, Japanese pilots were being pushed into combat missions with as little as 100 hours of flight time."

If one assumes 20 flight hours a week average in training, the difference between the Japs 100 hours and the US's 300 hours would be 10 weeks or 2.5 months. At 10 hours a week it would be 5 months. How much air time was given to a pilot per week in training? I have no idea.

But your statement of the Japs getting only 50 to 70 hours is in error. "As little as 100 hours" doesnt mean they ALL only got 100 hours either.

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 7/10/2007 1:11:11 AM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 37

RE: CV Air Wings - 7/10/2007 1:21:23 AM

Rainer

Posts: 1210
Joined: 11/21/2000
From: Neuching, Bavaria, Germany
Status: offline

This develops in one of the threads I don't like (which is my problem, not yours, of course).
What are the both of you trying to achieve? Who's better at guessing? The data of the events you're discussing are old, very likely incomplete, probably inaccurate, and most likely written by people who were not "there" and/or had incomplete access to "classified" sources.
Same problem for ALL historians for ALL times they study.
Again, not you're problem. Discuss as you please.
But keep in mind there is as much reliable data or sources as there is free lunch.
What I'm trying to say is don't get upset about oppinions which differ.
Cheers
Rainer

Edit for spelling

< Message edited by Rainer -- 7/10/2007 1:23:25 AM >

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 38

RE: CV Air Wings - 7/10/2007 1:28:30 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

Well I think the original point was Mike stated that he ran out of pilots for his US airgroups and I said there are other things you can do to compensate - in a nutshell.

(in reply to Rainer)

Post #: 39

RE: CV Air Wings - 7/10/2007 2:16:49 AM

bobogoboom

Posts: 3799
Joined: 2/13/2006
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: bobogoboom

Yet for some reason the japs can produce 800 million advanced fighters a month. Seems resonable to me.

True, but at at cost. HI fuels everything. If the Japanese player chooses to produce a large number of fighters, something else eventually has to give. It may be the navy or ground forces, but something will give. Also, keep in mind that if they do build bunches of planes, the pilot experience will be in the 20s for the IJAAF and 30s for the IJNAF. Look at all the late war AARs. The Japanese players are losing 1000 or more planes a day. If they are all fighters (and they won't be), that is a cost of 36k HI per day for the airframes and engines. That ain't happening. Then there's the supply cost to build all those factories. They would need 30k factories to produce 1000 planes a day. 30k factories would require 30 million supply to repair. That ain't happening either.

Point taken.

_____________________________

I feel like I'm Han Solo, and you're Chewie, and she's Ben Kenobi, and we're in that bar.
Member Texas Thread Mafia.

Sig art by rogueusmc

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 40

RE: CV Air Wings - 7/10/2007 3:19:00 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijnaf.htm

"Shortening the amount of training was tried and, by the last year of the war, Japanese pilots were being pushed into combat missions with as little as 100 hours of flight time."

But your statement of the Japs getting only 50 to 70 hours is in error. "As little as 100 hours" doesnt mean they ALL only got 100 hours either.

You should have quoted the entire statement:

"Shortening the amount of training was tried and, by the last year of the war, Japanese pilots were being pushed into combat missions with as little as 100 hours of flight time. (By contrast, American pilots at that stage of the war[1944] would have had more than 300 hours of flight time.) When these pilots entered combat they were terrified novices, easy marks for American pilots. Even rookie American pilots were better off than this. As for experienced Japanese pilots, those who were still alive were also gradually being killed off in combat. Nor did a Japanese student pilot have to die in combat--many of them died in flying accidents, particularly when they were pushed into the cockpits of fast, unforgiving fighters. Flying accidents and training fatalities were common enough in the continental United States, but anecdotes give the impression that they were much more common in Japan. "

Your source says pretty much exactly what I said. So whatever the number of hours, the resultant product was apparently the same..., "terrified novices", "easy marks", "cannon fodder"; nothing resembling even the level 30's you suggested.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 41

RE: CV Air Wings - 7/10/2007 9:47:52 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

You wouldnt consider 25/30 experience Jap pilots as cannon fodder against Hellcats and Corsairs?

I REALLY need to play you man. I really do. You can be Japs.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 42

RE: CV Air Wings - 7/10/2007 11:21:07 AM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Well I think the original point was Mike stated that he ran out of pilots for his US airgroups and I said there are other things you can do to compensate - in a nutshell.

Yes, you're saying its not a problem because there is a work-around that involves potentially running afoul of a program bug.

I don't find that acceptable.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 43

RE: CV Air Wings - 7/10/2007 12:36:48 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

Is it a program bug? I dont know that. You dont know that either. What kind of losses did he have in 44 that he used up all his planes and pilots before the 45 upgrade? I mean seriously, there would have to be some really hellashious losses to use up all your planes and pilots in 44. What version is his game? Before the "pilot overflow" thing was fixed? Did he send the file to Bob for investigation? Havent seen anything to that effect either.

I dont call anything a "bug" until its actually proven to be a bug. I landed with the South Seas Detachment at Midway and sustained 440 losses out of a 5900 man landing force, and the remaining 5400 troops died of attrition at the end of the turn. I considered that a bug. Was told by Joe working as intended. It was very very unlikely that that would happen, but was possible.

(in reply to dtravel)

Post #: 44

RE: CV Air Wings - 7/10/2007 4:08:35 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
You wouldnt consider 25/30 experience Jap pilots as cannon fodder against Hellcats and Corsairs?

Immaterial to the discussion. If the game considers well-trained new pilots fresh from the homeland training programs to be in the 55-60 range, then there is no way the poor "sacrificial lambs" the Japanese were churning out in 1944-45 should approach even half of that. They were being sent into battle in A/C they had had virtually no time to get familiar with, against people who had 100+ hours of "in type training" before they left flight school. It wasn't "fair"..., but war can be like that.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 45

RE: CV Air Wings - 7/10/2007 4:38:14 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

OK, what exactly does Jap training time have to do with your CV air groups expanding and eating all your planes and pilots then? Isnt THAT the discussion?

What were your pilot levels before the upgrade? How many planes did you have before? Do you have before and after saves? Did you send them to Rob?

What difference does it make if allied pilots had 300 hours or 3000 hours? If you used all your pilots aircraft in '44 then it isnt a bug. If you dont agree with stock replacement levels then play CHS. I really dont know what it is you are saying anymore frankly.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 46

RE: CV Air Wings - 7/10/2007 7:25:24 PM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

I would suggest everybody return to your corners and take a breather - the head butting is starting to cause bleeding and is messing up the mat. So take a break and then when the break is over come back and tell us all what you guys are talking about.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 47

RE: CV Air Wings - 7/10/2007 10:52:50 PM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Is it a program bug? I dont know that. You dont know that either. What kind of losses did he have in 44 that he used up all his planes and pilots before the 45 upgrade? I mean seriously, there would have to be some really hellashious losses to use up all your planes and pilots in 44. What version is his game? Before the "pilot overflow" thing was fixed? Did he send the file to Bob for investigation? Havent seen anything to that effect either.

I dont call anything a "bug" until its actually proven to be a bug. I landed with the South Seas Detachment at Midway and sustained 440 losses out of a 5900 man landing force, and the remaining 5400 troops died of attrition at the end of the turn. I considered that a bug. Was told by Joe working as intended. It was very very unlikely that that would happen, but was possible.

The program bug I was referring to is the one where carrier based air units removed from their carriers start resetting or changing their sizes and can't be reloaded on to their carriers. It may happen primarily to USN VR squadrons but is not limited to them. It may have been fixed, it may not, but given the track record I'm not comfortable trusting that it has been. And "bugs" can be problems with how it was intended to work, not just something not working as intended. I agree with you, having a 5,000+ man unit go *poof* like that is a bug, even if it isn't the result of broken code. Its mis-designed code generating unintended consequences. Still a bug.

As for running out of USN pilots, I did as soon as the 1945 CV airgroup re-organization took effect in my game against the AI. It is not just the carrier airgroups that draw on that "nationality". All the US PBY and PBM patrol units are USN, so are most of the PB4Y bomber units as well as a number of land-based fighter and divebomber units.

And I'm not the only one. This has been debated for at least six months after one of the higher profile AARs was reporting the Allied player having to stop some offensives because his USN pilot pool was empty.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 48

RE: CV Air Wings - 7/10/2007 11:05:46 PM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I would suggest everybody return to your corners and take a breather - the head butting is starting to cause bleeding and is messing up the mat. So take a break and then when the break is over come back and tell us all what you guys are talking about.

What is the root of the current discussion is the 1945 US carrier airgroup re-organization. Besides re-sizing the three existing air units, it adds a fourth (the Corsair VBF squadrons). That unit is created "empty", having no planes or pilots. They then have to be filled from the aircraft and pilot replacement pools. Those pools are not of an appropriate size or have a reasonable rate of replenishment to support doing so.

Bringing those VBF units up to strength requires around 700 F4U-1D's and pilots. That's seven months of aircraft production in stock and and an entire year's output of pilots. Even in a game that has gone well (better than real life) for the Allied player, that sudden demand is more than can be filled. In real life the USN was not suddenly out of pilots or aircraft in 1945. It is unreasonable that this game mechanism suddenly makes them so, severly impacting their offensive capability at a time when IRL they were "picking up steam".

IMHO, it is not a situation that can be addressed by scenario or database changes. The carrier airgroup changes are hard-coded and any such Mods cannot touch the fact that those units are created empty.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 49

RE: CV Air Wings - 7/10/2007 11:38:37 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

I would think that a simple fix would be to have those air units come with planes and pilots. I was told that Allied squadrons came with planes and the planes didn't come out of the pool. Is that not true for air units attached to carriers?

(in reply to dtravel)

Post #: 50

RE: CV Air Wings - 7/11/2007 7:41:59 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

Another fix that can be made in mods would be to increase the USN pilot replacement rate.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 51

RE: CV Air Wings - 7/11/2007 10:28:50 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

Mods are easy. Just give the US a million of each type of pilot and dont worry about the replacement rate. (note: US not allied). Ive never run out of pilots in US groups anyway. The bottleneck for them is aircraft.

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 52