Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

AIRCRAFT !!

 
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 >> AIRCRAFT !! Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
AIRCRAFT !! - 10/20/2007 9:38:11 PM   
High Command

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 3/2/2006
Status: offline 		I have withdrawn from the Discussion.

< Message edited by High Command -- 10/22/2007 3:21:02 PM >

_____________________________

ACCOUNT TO BE DELEATED
Post #: 1
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/20/2007 9:42:49 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline


That's actually fully realistic. Stop complaining...

You don't even know the scenario you're playing, and you're still whining about a broken game? Sheesh!

< Message edited by Terminus -- 10/20/2007 9:47:35 PM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to High Command)
Post #: 2
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/20/2007 9:46:46 PM   
High Command

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 3/2/2006
Status: offline 		I have withdrawn from the Discussion.

< Message edited by High Command -- 10/22/2007 3:21:13 PM >

_____________________________

ACCOUNT TO BE DELEATED

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 3
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/20/2007 10:11:05 PM   
okami


Posts: 404
Joined: 5/23/2007
Status: offline 		First off the game is not broken in the literal sense. Your results stem from a basic belief of the game designer that .50 cal machineguns are better than 20mm cannons. They made this assumption and the results you see are based on it. As for the 160 mod, I have played this mod twice and find that as the allies you can fly heavy bombers unescorted anywhere and be immune to flak and cap. The mod is for A2A a garbage mod but you just have to suck it up if you are playing the Japanese. You would have to ask the developers of the game why they decided to make the mg better than a cannon for actual WWII results do not support their conclusions. And remember anytime someone on this forum argues with history, it is easy to play the Aliies, after all we won the war. And there was no doubt of that outcome from the start of the pacific war. It is hard to play a side where from the start you are going to lose, that is why you have Allied fanboys, because it is easy. That of course is my opinion and it will be hotly contested.

(in reply to High Command)
Post #: 4
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/20/2007 11:03:12 PM   
Cathartes

 

Posts: 2155
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline 		1. There is the game, then there is reality. The disparity between the two adds up to infintie discussion possibilities.

2. You give us very little information about how to interpret your results. Proportion of bombers present? What was the experience of all the aircraft--bombers and fighters? "High" experience of fighters is qualitative not quantitative. Distance traveled to target, morale and relative fatigue of all units involved, LRCAP, CAP, etc? How many bombers were destroyed because they didn't make it back to base after getting damaged? Did you look at the aircraft info screen for the # of aircraft destroyed for the day?

3.
quote:

The loss ratio for Fighters attacking unescorted Bombers (1942-1943) was 0.187 Fighers lost pr unescorted Leavel Bomber shot down.
You are already trying to fit the square peg in the round hole by citing this information. Hoisting that statistic is a poor way to begin framing the argument. That statitistic (source?) is the conglomeration of a massive amount of data and it is merely interesting when compared to any single historical result, AND you are immediately comparing real life to a game. Watch out for that cliff.

How many historical examples can you cite of Libs, Wellingtons, and Fortresses mixing it up with Tojos in '42-'43? Give us stats on those instances (if there are any). That would be the best place to begin IF you want to take on the game vs reality discussion.

4. You get five points for polarizing the discussion before it begins:

quote:

i assumed that the majorety of the users of the forum is uneducated on WW2, and only WITP Fanboys, and would not be able to comment on the matter at hand as it requires Real world experience or knowlage and acces to real world operational loggs, rapports or documentation, --> And that is still my conclution.






< Message edited by Cathartes -- 10/20/2007 11:10:10 PM >

(in reply to okami)
Post #: 5
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/20/2007 11:20:52 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

ORIGINAL: High Command
As you can see, the kill ratio Fighter vs Bomber is in avverage 1 Bomber pr Fighter.
The loss ratio for Fighters attacking unescorted Bombers (1942-1943) was 0.187 Fighers lost pr unescorted Leavel Bomber shot down.



What piece of propaganda did you get this from? Approximately one-for-one was the average for the 8th Air Force during the time you cite. Which was 10-for-one in personel and quite nasty enough...

(in reply to High Command)
Post #: 6
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/20/2007 11:25:49 PM   
High Command

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 3/2/2006
Status: offline 		I have withdrawn from the Discussion.

< Message edited by High Command -- 10/22/2007 3:21:31 PM >

_____________________________

ACCOUNT TO BE DELEATED

(in reply to Cathartes)
Post #: 7
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/21/2007 12:35:31 AM   
eloso


Posts: 335
Joined: 5/28/2006
From: The Greater Chicagoland Area, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: High Command

When attacking 177 Unescorted Bombers with 100 Fighters, i would based on historicle results and Aircraft Preformance, Pilot Avverage Skill, and other factors, demand that at least 50-125 Bombers were shot down, and thats a abseloute minimum!



I'm High Command's opponent. I just wanted to clarify a few things here as he has failed to present the actual evidence in this event that appears to be lopsided in his opinion.

I'm not here to debate whether or not CHS 2.08 scenario 160 is broken or not.

Here is the combat report:

Day Air attack on Poona , at 19,12

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 17
A6M3a Zero x 25
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 127
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 4
Ki-61-Ib Tony x 9

Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIb x 5
Kittyhawk I x 5
Blenheim IV x 13
Wellington III x 39
Liberator III x 6
P-40E Warhawk x 5
B-17E Fortress x 46
B-24D Liberator x 73
Hurricane IID/IV x 9
P-38F Lightning x 16
F-4 Lightning x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 4 destroyed, 9 damaged
A6M3a Zero: 2 destroyed, 21 damaged
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 58 destroyed, 11 damaged
Ki-45 KAIa Nick: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged
Ki-61-Ib Tony: 5 destroyed
D3A2 Val: 12 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane IIb: 4 destroyed
Kittyhawk I: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged
Blenheim IV: 2 destroyed, 5 damaged
Wellington III: 5 destroyed, 29 damaged
Liberator III: 6 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 5 destroyed
B-17E Fortress: 5 destroyed, 36 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 6 destroyed, 61 damaged
Hurricane IID/IV: 9 destroyed
P-38F Lightning: 16 destroyed
F-4 Lightning: 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
10053 casualties reported
Guns lost 144

Airbase hits 38
Airbase supply hits 8
Runway hits 105

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 9000 feet
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 9000 feet
7 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 9000 feet
5 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 9000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 9000 feet
8 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 9000 feet
8 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 9000 feet
6 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 9000 feet
6 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 9000 feet
5 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 9000 feet
8 x Wellington III bombing at 6000 feet
5 x Wellington III bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Blenheim IV bombing at 6000 feet
5 x Wellington III bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Liberator III bombing at 9000 feet
5 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 9000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 9000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 9000 feet
7 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 9000 feet
3 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 9000 feet
3 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 9000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 9000 feet
4 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 9000 feet
3 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 9000 feet
2 x Wellington III bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Wellington III bombing at 6000 feet
6 x Blenheim IV bombing at 6000 feet
5 x Wellington III bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Liberator III bombing at 9000 feet
3 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 9000 feet
2 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 9000 feet
2 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 9000 feet
2 x B-24D Liberator bombing at 9000 feet
2 x Wellington III bombing at 6000 feet
2 x Blenheim IV bombing at 6000 feet
2 x Wellington III bombing at 6000 feet
2 x Wellington III bombing at 6000 feet

I count 40 escorts for this sortie.

I don't know if these other statements have any bearing on combat results:

These air groups are based at Bombay which is 1 hex from Poona.
Radar is present at Bombay.
Weather was light precipitation for the day that the sortie took place.
All of the Allied fighter groups are in the mid to upper 70s in experience.
The P-38s are flown by the AVG which have some 99 experience pilots in them.
All of the bomber groups are in the upper 70s to low 80s in experience.
All of my groups are lead by hand-picked capable, aggressive leaders.
Most of my units had very high morale.

Intel screen:



This was the only contested A2A engagement of the day.

I suffered 56 A2A losses to his 35.

I only noticed one Tojo being shot down by a B-24 during the replay.

Actual Aircraft losses:




In other words the allies shot down the following in A2A:

22 Tojo
2 Tony
5 A6M2
3 A6M3a
3 Nick

Japan shot down the following in A2A:

16 P-38
9 B-24D
9 Hurricane III/IVD
6 B-17E
5 P-40E
3 Wellington III
4 Hurricane IIb
2 Blenheim IV
2 Kittyhawk

I can understand him being upset as his base was pretty much nuked which is overstacked with 72 LCU present from my Intel. I don't think these results are unreasonable in my humble opinion.

(in reply to High Command)
Post #: 8
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/21/2007 1:09:57 AM   
wild_Willie2


Posts: 2934
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: OSO


Japanese ground losses:
10053 casualties reported
Guns lost 144

I can understand him being upset as his base was pretty much nuked which is overstacked with 72 LCU present from my Intel. I don't think these results are unreasonable in my humble opinion.


Talk about OVERSTACKING!!!

But there is not much wrong with these A-A results though....

_____________________________

In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.

(in reply to eloso)
Post #: 9
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/21/2007 1:17:41 AM   
High Command

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 3/2/2006
Status: offline 		I have withdrawn from the Discussion.

< Message edited by High Command -- 10/22/2007 3:21:44 PM >

_____________________________

ACCOUNT TO BE DELEATED

(in reply to wild_Willie2)
Post #: 10
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/21/2007 1:30:54 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Ah ok I think I understand now High Command you are looking at the A2A combat as though your remaining fighters had a free run at the bombers after all the fighters were eliminated but depending on how long the CAP v Escort battle went on they may not have had time to do more than one pass at the bombers and when they did they were probably disrupted.

WITP does not model A2A as two phases 1 v escorts then CAP v Bombers its all one massive furball.

had there been no escort at all and it was 100 UNESCORTED bombers attacking 100 Tojos with both sides comparable xp it would have been a massacre for the bombers

It has happened to me so many times its not funny losing 60 or 70 B29's to a Single Group of Tonies against PZB unescorted bombers are easy meat even the most heavily armed B29's get shot out of the sky.

The fact that these bombers were escorted meant that your fighters spent most of their time clearing out the escorts and would have made very limited runs against the bombers.

Andy


(in reply to High Command)
Post #: 11
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/21/2007 2:38:03 AM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: High Command

It is not, when attacking a Bomber Group with a Modern Figher, you dont loose as many fighters as Bombers.
I have now checked 126 (still looking) Air Operations and not found any, who has evan close to that results.
I have arround 200 more operations to read throu, i will know more in a few hours, but of the 126 i have red throu so far, not a singel one is evan close to a 1 Fighter for 1 Bomber ratio.

My Fraind recommended me to post here, i assumed that the majorety of the users of the forum is uneducated on WW2, and only WITP Fanboys, and would not be able to comment on the matter at hand as it requires Real world experience or knowlage and acces to real world operational loggs, rapports or documentation, --> And that is still my conclution.

Anyway, if you do have any knowlage of this it would be appriciated to here your oppinion,
Is this caused by the game or the mod?


Dang, talk about starting off wrong. I would say that 80% of the people here have a very vast knowledge of WW2 and alot of other wars.

You have to learn the game system. These results happen. You were really asking for a nuke attack with a base stacked up like that.

(in reply to High Command)
Post #: 12
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/21/2007 2:47:12 AM   
ctangus


Posts: 2153
Joined: 10/13/2005
From: Boston, Mass.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

It has happened to me so many times its not funny losing 60 or 70 B29's to a Single Group of Tonies against PZB unescorted bombers are easy meat even the most heavily armed B29's get shot out of the sky.



Yikes! That sounds painfully familiar to me! Substitute B24s for B29s and viberpol for PzB & that's the situation in our game. I've lost over 1400 B24s, almost 900 A2A. I long ago learned the lesson not to send unescorted 4Es against Tojos/Tonys/Jacks, etc.

Anyway, all things considered the results of this combat seem plausible to me. Most of the escorting fighters got slaughtered but kept the CAP busy enough to let most of the bombers through. BOOM! I'm sure it's painful to the Japanese player - I'd hate to lose 99 Tojos in a day - but take a break for a couple days to chill out then carry on.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 13
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/21/2007 4:27:01 AM   
eloso


Posts: 335
Joined: 5/28/2006
From: The Greater Chicagoland Area, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: High Command



Well ---> Above result talks for itself, i have found a few real wourld simuler attacks that is fairly compereble, the results are not simuler but anyway.

The unescorted attack on bombers, referes to after all escort is dead. The 101 planes attacking bombers had no good sucsess.


Anyway, my poingt is not realy only based on this game or incident.

I ren now a few tests in the Scenarios and see that the general Fighter vs Bomber results are Very week.
The 12.7mm Gun more powerfull then the 20mm Gun, and the P47D more manuvreble then the Zero!

Ect. Ect.

My Overall Generall Conclution is that the Air to Air modell is no good.




I would like to remind High Command and anyone else commenting on this thread that we are using CHS scenario 160. This scenario has the Soviets active at game start and uses an experimental A2A model.

This is copied and pasted directly from the CHS website:

Experimental A2A variant: This variant has modified scenario data, especially for aircraft, in an attempt to reduce the "bloodiness" of air-to-air combat, as well as some other "experimental" changes. The purpose of this scenario variant is to allow testing of these changes in an in-game environment. Specifically, the following data changes are applied:

* The starting experience values of all Allied pilots has been decreased by 10%, except for USN pilots.
* The starting experience values of all USN and Japanese pilots has been decreased by 5%.
* The Zero bonus has been removed (this is compensated for by the larger reduction in Allied pilot experience).
* The durability values of all fighter aircraft, including float fighters, night fighters and fighter-bombers are increased by 60%.
* The durability values of all other aircraft are increased by 40%.
* The effect rating of all AA/DP weapons has been increased by 30%.
* The maximum speed value range has been compressed by halving the difference between actual aircraft max speed and a centre point of 350 MPH.
* The accuracy of all air launched torpedoes - Japanese and Allied - has been reduced by 25% (ship and sub launched torpedo accuracy is unchanged).


This variant is UNTESTED and EXPERIMENTAL. Use at your own risk! This variant may also change, depending on the success, or otherwise, of these modifications.

Now with this said, I think it is safe to say that the losses suffered by both sides in this game have been a lot higher than what other games may have and might not be a good measuring stick as to whether or not the A2A model is broken in this mod. It is also unfair to judge it based on one result.

It isn't even a year into the war and he's lost almost 7,000 aircraft to my 4200. If you notice my B-24D A2A losses, it is over 50% of the total losses for this aircraft type. These losses have mostly occurred on long distance, unescorted strikes.

I believe a lot of the Japanese losses that have happened could have been avoided from my observations. My opponent is overly aggressive and it has cost him on a number of occasions.

(in reply to High Command)
Post #: 14
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/21/2007 4:39:15 AM   
keeferon01


Posts: 334
Joined: 6/18/2005
From: North Carolina
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus




That's actually fully realistic. Stop complaining...

You don't even know the scenario you're playing, and you're still whining about a broken game? Sheesh!





My dear high Command , how dare you form a opinion about the game and even worse complain , that just brings out the big guns , silly silly

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 15
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/21/2007 4:52:44 AM   
Joe D.


Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline 		Perhaps I missed it, but what was the wx and altitude during the bombing run? I assume this was a daytime action.

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to High Command)
Post #: 16
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/21/2007 5:17:21 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: High Command

It is not, when attacking a Bomber Group with a Modern Figher, you dont loose as many fighters as Bombers.
I have now checked 126 (still looking) Air Operations and not found any, who has evan close to that results.
I have arround 200 more operations to read throu, i will know more in a few hours, but of the 126 i have red throu so far, not a singel one is evan close to a 1 Fighter for 1 Bomber ratio.

My Fraind recommended me to post here, i assumed that the majorety of the users of the forum is uneducated on WW2, and only WITP Fanboys, and would not be able to comment on the matter at hand as it requires Real world experience or knowlage and acces to real world operational loggs, rapports or documentation, --> And that is still my conclution.

Anyway, if you do have any knowlage of this it would be appriciated to here your oppinion,
Is this caused by the game or the mod?



You are not used to posting as if you were actually face to face with the people you are addressing.
It might be well for you to be civil, and not act so arrogant, if you want help on this forum.
We can all learn from one another, but your foot in the door should not have poop on it.


_____________________________




(in reply to High Command)
Post #: 17
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/21/2007 5:36:09 AM   
keeferon01


Posts: 334
Joined: 6/18/2005
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

quote:

My Fraind recommended me to post here, i assumed that the majorety of the users of the forum is uneducated on WW2, and only WITP Fanboys, and would not be able to comment on the matter at hand as it requires Real world experience or knowlage and acces to real world operational loggs, rapports or documentation, --> And that is still my conclution.


watch out mate , they might bring out the real big guns to counter you, el cid could be wheeled out here

_____________________________


(in reply to High Command)
Post #: 18
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/21/2007 6:29:08 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: OSO
This variant is UNTESTED and EXPERIMENTAL. Use at your own risk! This variant may also change, depending on the success, or otherwise, of these modifications.


Exactly why you should read the disclaimers first...

I'll stick to the standard CHS, thankyou.


_____________________________


(in reply to eloso)
Post #: 19
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/21/2007 10:22:09 AM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline
quote:


watch out mate , they might bring out the real big guns to counter you, el cid could be wheeled out here

Now YOU DO show some signs of bitterness and resentment, don't you

High Command started the conversation in a very inadequate fashion. He hid the real facts for a start, and couldn't stick with an educated behavior when it came to address us - if he's got some problem with the way Terminus is dealing with him, he can tell him without involving the whole forum crowd. Thanks to Mac and other people around here for keeping cool and so civil.
But btw I believe we don't need another troll, James... If you feel like you are so bored in your real life that you need to look for trouble over those boards with people you barely know, please look for another community to slander, thanks...


< Message edited by Fishbed -- 10/21/2007 10:31:13 AM >

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 20
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/21/2007 10:29:49 AM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline 		BTW

quote:

The closest i get is this statistic:

"34 Tojos shot down 83 Wellington Bombers, 2 Tojos are Destroyed" (Apr 1944)

is that 83 or 38

quote:

In Europa the situation is a compleatly different one, and the numbers regarding 1 for 1 is correct, but this is not aigans unescorted Bombers, but aiganst escorted ones. This means, that when a Me 109 or FW190 was shot down (usualy by allied figthters), you can say, that a Allied Bomber also were shot down at same pace.
This is intill September 1942.

Huh are you sure about the dates? What is supposed to last until September 42?
Before that there were few day-time 4-Engined bombers to deal with, right.

quote:

The unescorted attack on bombers, referes to after all escort is dead. The 101 planes attacking bombers had no good sucsess.

Well try the Nickmod then, even though you may become the only one over there soon to be unhappy about the number of planes getting shot down in that mod

< Message edited by Fishbed -- 10/21/2007 10:40:48 AM >

(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 21
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/21/2007 12:00:50 PM   
High Command

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 3/2/2006
Status: offline 		I have withdrawn from the Discussion.

< Message edited by High Command -- 10/22/2007 3:21:58 PM >

_____________________________

ACCOUNT TO BE DELEATED

(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 22
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/21/2007 12:41:54 PM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline 		Btw, about your Tojo experience since the beginning, may I remind you that you are fighting with the Tojo IIb variant, which was hardly a bomber buster with nothing but 4 MG.
The Tojo ops you use as a reference most probably involved late Tojo variants with big nasty guns (a little bit ineffective against fighters, but well bombers surely didn't like that) which proved much more effective against the big boys.

The late result you're showing is the consequence of the air combat model, which favours small strikes penetration, while large strikes will get well engaged and decimated. What were the altitude of the bombers, and did they reach their target?


< Message edited by Fishbed -- 10/21/2007 12:46:17 PM >

(in reply to High Command)
Post #: 23
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/21/2007 1:12:49 PM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		From High Command

This is ABSURD; i have at universety studyed WW2 for sevral years, also do read about this subject on a weekly basis, and no time nor plase in history have this ever happend.

The closest i get is this statistic:

"34 Tojos shot down 83 Wellington Bombers, 2 Tojos are Destroyed" (Apr 1944)
"18 Tojos shot down 22 B29 August 1944, 1 Tojo is medium dammaged" (Aug 1944)
"44 Tojos shot down 11 Lancasters, 19 B17, 8 B29, 4 Tojos are destroyed" (Feb 1945)
"8 Tojos shot down 7 B24, 2 Tojos are Destroyed" (Mar 1945)

Are these real life or game results.

Not meaning to be picky but NO LANCASTERS were in the Pacific in Feb 45.
Where did the 34 Tojos knock down 83 Wellingtons????
I doubt if the USAAF had B17's in theatre in Feb 45!!
8 Tojos knock down 7 B24's, yeah, it happened often.
10/8/44 B29's bomb Japan at night, are Tojo's night fighters?
20/8/44 61 B29's bomb Japan in the day, 14 are lost, 1 to AA, 4 to fighters.
1st B29 arrive on Saipan on 24/8 but are not ready until mid Sept for action.

If you believe they are IRL, maybe you should find another University.

Anyway, you could probably pick a number of actions where losses were swayed the other way, 4 ations in 6 years of war is not a good base to work from.

My read of the stats posted above were that your fighters had to fight through an escort which gave out some heavy blows, then copped another blow from a bomber group which would have approx 1500 .50cal MG's and 234 .303cal MG's.

The dumb thing was to have about 100 aircraft destroyed on the ground and 10,000 men as bombing casualties.

The game aint perfect, but if you abuse common sense you'll get hit hard.

< Message edited by JeffK -- 10/21/2007 1:28:44 PM >

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 24
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/21/2007 2:08:18 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: High Command

Day Air attack on TF, near Kendari at 33,71

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 15
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 17

Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 4

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-25C Mitchell: 1 damaged




Tojo Group Average Experience 91
Zero Group Average Experience 78



High Command,
There are several things you are not considering or giving the game enough credit for. Believe me, I've been there bro, and it is frustrating. Everything that has been said to this point, by our "uneducated members" is true but consider this:

1. Stock Air model is complex. But A2A relies heavily on a concept of Detection Level (DL). That is, each formation has a DL score derived from various places. Radar is the most bang for the buck, but EVERY unit in the target hex has the ability to raise an incoming raids DL. Multiple radars in the same hex MULTIPLY the potential DL. The higher the DL the more effective the defense against that raid. Obviously the opposite is true with lower DLs.

2. Weather affects DL. In the absence of radar, DLs tend to be lower. Size of the raid affects DL. The smaller the raid the less likely they are to be detected. Widely differing initial altitudes can cause a CAP, regardless of EXP levels, to miss a small raid. What altitude was your CAP at? How many LCUs, TFs, and radars were in the target hex? What was the altitude of the B-25s?

3. This game is not a tactical simulation of WWII Air combat. Maybe in the future we'll have higher fidelity encounters, but that remains to be seen. In the mean time to keep from getting bent around the axle, when hese things happen, ask yourself "how COULD this have happened?", rather than "How SHOULD this have happened?" There is usually an equally valid historical example of each combat we watch iin WitP.


_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to High Command)
Post #: 25
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/21/2007 2:33:40 PM   
High Command

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 3/2/2006
Status: offline 		The vertion of Tojo i refered to is of course the same as I currently have, or it would not be possible to compere them.

The 4 Bombers that made it throu, if it were ment to be so, should made it throu without being fired upon by 32 Fighters, so this is not DL, as the 32 Fighters actualy did fire upon them (all the first day) and it without them losing a singel bomber.


I think some here semes to not have acces to real world information or documentation, so it is hard to discuss this topic with you as you simply lack the neccesary knowlage on the subject.

The Historicle Examples above is from WW2 and Pacific Theater, i see for example one is commenting on the Lancasters, thay were Chinese, not British, i thought that was common knowlage.
Anyway thair are over 2000 air engagements pr year in the Pacific, i have rewieved maby 150.
Now thats not alot compered to how many missions and engagements it was, i know that, but it is after my opinion enugth to get a impression. Im sure evan half of you havent evan red a real world Air to Air Combat Report, so what is your guessings worth when you try to present historicle data? You must not mix what you think or have heared about with facts, facts is informrmation that is not based on opinions or enturpetations. So if you talk about facts, stick to facts, dont mix this computer based game with realety. In realety Japan would never invaded India due to Political reasons, I did that. So lets seperate the two things. The link is that this game tryes to simulate realety, and it is realy poor in that, espesialy the Air to Air modell in CHS 160 - Experimental Air to Air modell.


I see alot of the ones replaying here are real WITP fanboys, Im sure you are going to be real objective and stick to historical facts and USAF or IJAA Inteligance or Statistic Combat Reports. If not, a historicle arguement can not be taken into consideration as it will be based on a opinion and not on documentation.

Come with some real world documentation and ill take a look at it, but intill then the conclution is very simple,
this Air to Air modell, does not correspond with the Statistics of the USAF.




lol CHS160 has moddeled the P47D as more manuvreble then the Zero for crist, do we need to say more?



I rest my case!

< Message edited by High Command -- 10/21/2007 3:08:20 PM >

_____________________________

ACCOUNT TO BE DELEATED

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 26
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/21/2007 3:14:42 PM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: High Command

lol CHS160 has moddeled the P47D as more manuvreble then the Zero for crist, do we need to say more?



I rest my case!

The maneuver rating represents horizontal and vertical maneuvering for all altitudes, so maybe this isn't as simple as you thought.

Anyway, feel free to ignore me - I'm just an "uneducated WITP fanboy"...

_____________________________


(in reply to High Command)
Post #: 27
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/21/2007 3:40:16 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Umm Chinese Lancasters ? This I am interested in given Churchills attitude to China I am amazed that Lancasters were given to Chinese never heard or read that one before and while I never studied it at University I am reasonably well read so this is a shock to me !!!

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 28
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/21/2007 3:44:57 PM   
High Command

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 3/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG


The maneuver rating represents horizontal and vertical maneuvering for all altitudes, so maybe this isn't as simple as you thought.


Anyway, feel free to ignore me - I'm just an "uneducated WITP fanboy"...





Ok, we have same enturpetation then.




Here are the stats.

Document: USAF AAGAS 1808-DF & USAF AAGAS 2213-DU









VERTICAL MANUVERBILETY:

AT ZERO FUEL WEIGHT + 350 KG FUEL
PILOT WEIGHT P47D 83.4 KG
PILOT WEIGHT A6M2 82.8 KG

WEATHER:
RJTX 151010Z 16018 180V220 8500 SCT010 BKN040 17/16 Q1011 TEMPO SCT020










P47-D / P47D2S



PROPELLER:

CURTISS 12'2
714-1C212

FT/MIN

FL100
2420

FL150
2350

FL200
2180

FL240
1960

FL300
1180



PROPELLER:
CURTISS 13'2
814-3C-18

FL100
2120

FL150
2050

FL200
2080

FL240
2160

FL300
2310


*****



A6M2 -AA1A ZERO


PROPELLER:
AGAMIHY 10'4
528986347-1A

FL100
3980

FL150
3620

FL200
2890

FL240
2360

FL300
2290



HORIZONTAL MANUVERBILETY:

AT ZERO FUEL WEIGHT + 350 KG FUEL


TRIMMED FOR PITCH +5 DEGREES
AT BPS (BEST PREFORMANCE SPEED)


P47-D / P47D2S



FL100
30 Degrees Bank at Trim+5 Gain 2+ Flex-3

FL150
38 Degrees Bank at Trim+5 Gain 4+ Flex-4

FL200
28 Degrees Bank at Trim+5 Gain 3+ Flex-8

FL240
22 Degrees Bank at Trim+5 Gain 1+ Flex-7

FL300
20 Degrees Bank at Trim+7 Gain 1- Flex-9




A6M2 -AA1A ZERO



FL100
31 Degrees Bank at Trim+3 Gain 6+ Flex-1

FL150
42 Degrees Bank at Trim+4 Gain 9+ Flex-2

FL200
37 Degrees Bank at Trim+5 Gain 8+ Flex-3

FL240
33 Degrees Bank at Trim+6 Gain 5+ Flex-4

FL300
23 Degrees Bank at Trim+6 Gain 5- Flex-6



****



As you can see, USAF consider the A6M2 Zero Vertion AA1A (The one serial prodused) to be vastly suppirior in Vertical Climb and Horizontal Manuverbilety compered to the P-47D.




***

For the ones not anderstanding the diagram, i will write here a translation for you:

FL=Flight Leavel
ZEF=Zero Fuel Weight (Gross Weight + Payload)
Flex= Flex Component (Wing Flex Wake Effect)
Bank Angle- Attetude Indecator Angle at Trimed flight only (mean you applay no other controll then trim)


Ill translate the METAR for you also:

Location: RJTX (Military Field outside Tokyo)
Day: 15 of the month
Time: 1010 UTC
Wind: Surfece From 160 at 18 Knos
Wind: Variabel 180 throu 220
Visebilety: 8500 Meters
Clouds: Scatterd at 1000 Feet
Clouds: Broken at 4000 Feet
Tempature: 17
Dewpoingt 16
QNH: Pressuer is 1011 Milli Bars
Temporerely: Scatered Clouds at 2000 Feet





.







< Message edited by High Command -- 10/21/2007 4:09:05 PM >

_____________________________

ACCOUNT TO BE DELEATED

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 29
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 10/21/2007 4:06:53 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline 		I see it was a daylight raid, but again, what was the wx and altitude of the bombers? Both factors are significant, esp. for the Zeros as these planes didn't perform well at high altitudes.

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to High Command)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> AIRCRAFT !! Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.109