Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

WITP suggestion???

 
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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> WITP suggestion??? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
WITP suggestion??? - 8/16/2002 4:33:07 AM   
ReDDoN45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline 		The sighting was reported to Crutchley, but they thought it were some seaplane tenders, which want to fly some recon and strike missions the next day.

As I said, I fully agree with the ASW experience point - it should really be implemented in WITP. The ASW experience shouldnīt only represnt more fighting experience, itīs also should be intended to represent better doctrine, treining and most important equiptment (or they should chage accuracy settings forr DCs to represent for poorer equiptment - the ammount of DCs needed in UV to sink a sub, is ridiculuos... I think everybody will admit, thatīs curretnly far too few)
Btu on the other hand such changes in WITP should give the Jap player a chance... a game like that isnīt intended to exactly play like history, so a Japanese player who cares about his own forces low ASW prefociency early and does something agaisnt it, should also be paid off later in the war. Noone buys a game which goes like history from the beginning to the end.

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 31
- 8/16/2002 5:54:13 AM   
FAdmiral


Posts: 378
Joined: 12/20/2002
From: Atlanta,GA, USA
Status: offline 		A good commander should NEVER assume anything in wartime.
The Salvo Island TFs were under about 3 different commands
and they probably didn't communicate well. As for the DCs
dropped from DDs doing so much damage with so few, I can
tell that is not very accurate. I have the game "Destroyer
Command" where you command a DD & many times I have
dropped 50+ charges and not damaged the sub at all:mad:


JIM BERG, SR.

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 32
- 8/16/2002 7:01:16 AM   
ReDDoN45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline 		Got that game too, as well as Silent Hunter (Iīve virtually I game on every warfare of WW2.
And I get a sub, depensiding on skipper abilities sometimes with 30 DCs or less. - most of them are to aggressive, they want to kill me with a spread, come up to periscop and then I get them. When theyīd stay deep itīs quite hard.
Most sub kills occur when asub is surprised by air or sudden DD contact. When a sub has time to dive deep itīs hard to get (almost impossible). SInce a sub which just dived after surpirse contact isnīt that deep (less lead to take) and the DD commander still has a good idead of where to place the DDs, it sinīt completely unrealistc that a sub is often sunk by just 4 or 6 dropped DCs. They just snatched him at 70 feet diving down. Then one DC explodes close and Goodnight to those undurable Pacific subs. This kind of ASW can really be considered as tied directly to the experience of the crew, as they spot sub running surface, or the periscop, dircetly attack him and sink him, before he can go deep. Such ASW isnīt so much tied to equiptment and superior long trained ASW fighting.
In this case experience really influences the propability of a sub kill, as a good commander knows where to place subs.

In this regard the sub killing is realistc. BUT, the game fails to imply long sub chases for a deep and silent running sub. Here the Allied would have a great advantege over the Japs, as they had better equiptment and more REAL ASW experience. The big japs subs also suffer from long diving time and less maneuvrability, which makes life hard when they got surprised. Also game lacks airborne surface Radar for Catalinas (at least as far as Iīve seen)
That was a real sub killer! All in all players should consider most sub kills in this game as the sub got surprised or caught in a bad situation. FOr those who wonder losing 3 Subs to a CV TF. That ainīt unrealistic, even when they way the game performs this is. Just take the results... and they are quite realistic. Try to get into postion with an old S type sub (which can harld hold 12 kn full speed in mixed weather) to attack a CV TF, which is making zig-zag course and has aircraft overhead. Even if the CV is damaged you can consider that LBA fly ASW cover for it, patroliing the sea space arround it. Then they would try to get a sub which desperately tries to move into postion with 12 kns. TF would dispatch3 DDs and goodbye to those Bull.... S-class subs. They were really bad! Anyone of you ever played Silent Hunter I. If yes, they know what I mean.

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 33
- 8/16/2002 7:04:06 AM   
ReDDoN45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline 		So FAdmiral if you have DC or SH-2 we might moutn a little DD vs sub fight!

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 34
- 8/16/2002 7:48:55 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		S-Boats are real dogs. I played enough SH 1 to know, but I also experienced sucess with the S boat. You didn't do many end arounds or follow up engagements, but if you were patient and a little lucky, you could be rewarded. And if you had an experienced crew. Didn't accomplish a lot with a green crew.

But because it is so slow, you didn't dare attack anything with more than 3 escorts. That was akin to suicide.

So you missed alot of opportunities, and sometimes had to pass up on a few if you wanted to see another day.

But you don't get all those duds and premature detonations which just aggravate the living $hit out of you.

_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 35
- 8/16/2002 7:57:12 AM   
ReDDoN45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline 		Exactly what I meant. One shouldnīt wonder loosing 3 S- class submarines when he tries to chase a CV TF with them. S-class only chance lay in patience and hoping that someone moves right across itīs path (like the CA Kako - that TF only had the DD Yunagi as escort... good chance of survivel for S-44)

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 36
- 8/16/2002 9:18:04 AM   
FAdmiral


Posts: 378
Joined: 12/20/2002
From: Atlanta,GA, USA
Status: offline 		Reddon, I play DC & SH2 over at GameSpy quite often at night.
(EST-US). Maybe I will see you there !!!!

JIM BERG, SR.

PS. In Sh1, I mainly used the S-Boats only against the
Japanese transports. Warships were just too risky.

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 37
- 8/16/2002 9:55:10 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reddon45
[B]Exactly what I meant. One shouldnīt wonder loosing 3 S- class submarines when he tries to chase a CV TF with them. S-class only chance lay in patience and hoping that someone moves right across itīs path (like the CA Kako - that TF only had the DD Yunagi as escort... good chance of survivel for S-44) [/B][/QUOTE]

Have to agree about the S-Boats. Played SH-1 many times and it was soooo difficult to catch anything becuase it was soooo slow submerged. Having only 4 forward and 1 rear torp tube was also a big handicap. I can remember many frustrating nights watching big juicy targets CVs, BBs, CAs pass by. In the end however I ended up prefering the S-boat becuase it was just so much more challengeing than the Gato's

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 38
- 8/16/2002 10:15:51 AM   
ReDDoN45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline 		Yes "Challenging" - as was the early war fighting! I never wanted to campaign beyond 43.... to easy. You accumulate Kretschmer like Tonnage. SH-1 bug was that there was far too mcuh shipping (and warship TFs).

Itīs not only because of speed. Iīts also because of that air cover over warship TFs, especially CV TF. YOu can hardly "move" into postion against them. YOu might only have luck and they zig - zag somewhere in front of you and then you can dare a long range spread and hope for a hit. Few had such luck like Gruner with the Agano.
Thatīs why in UV often onyl few or no torpedo hits - itīs not only torpedo unreliabilty, itīs also the fact that commanders often got only a very poor shot (or decided to stay out of a 8+ DD TF !!!!! - more clever!. Safety first!) and so only one or 2 torps hit the ship, if at all. Then the made in U.S. torpedo fail to explode and you have no hits! - like in UV.
Moreover the Mk-10 has a poor range. THough its reliable, itīs poor range and low speed make it quite hard to hit anything more than 2000 yards away. (I allways used manual TDC in SH-1)
Often commanders also have to make poor angle shots - they use every opportunity to get rid of theri torpedoes; then they can return faster to home base in Noumea and enjoy live with some french girls!

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 39
- 8/16/2002 10:19:08 AM   
ReDDoN45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline 		BTW, the S- boats were slow on the surface, but quite fast submerged - they could make 10kns under water and where built in the 1920s to support this concept of fast-submerged coast defense subs. Too bad that their battery capacity was such a joke! as itīs maximum diving depth

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 40
Just for drill.. - 8/16/2002 10:33:25 AM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline 		and in case the reference to the three subs and the CV chase was in response to my post - the three subs were not 'S' boats. I keep them near the Slot, Rabaul, or around Finschafen, Lae, Salamua to work on transport shipping. These were newer class boats (Grayling, Drum types) who were stalking a badly hit carrier. (I cheated and checked to see who was defending this ship by switching sides after the third sub went down - it was one tin can and the CV was making two knots, and there weren't that many planes on the flight deck). It was about halfway between Truk and Shortlands, in deep water, with not a whole lot else around. And the subs still got creamed by one can without getting one decent spread off. That is unreal. If I'd lost three boats to a fully operational CV with a three or four can escort, I wouldn't mind that, but for a deeply wounded empty birdfarm with a single escort at creeping speed. I withdrew the fourth sub - I needed it to work on shipping coming down from Truk.

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 41
- 8/16/2002 10:46:49 AM   
ReDDoN45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline 		Of course I can can not allways be realistic - but even some results in the real war werenīt realistic. Moreover ASW is often flown from nearby bases (allways). They support TFs on that duty and report nearby sub contacts to TF commander. Thatīs a massive help. The strongest asset of a sub is surprise. If the commander has an IDEA of where the sub is, the can avoid or attack ot.
Of course that what happened to you is quite strange. Accept it - smash some dishes and fight on. Game is quite accurate and even in wars there are strange or unbeliveable things going on. A Frigate sinking several subs in one week!

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 42
Agreed! - 8/16/2002 5:47:48 PM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline 		But I have to say that smashing dishes is, in Pythonian, as "right out" as screaming at my wife for my cyber opponents successes. I guess I am part Russian and want to scream at someone - and since I can't sack Ghormley - well, this will have to do.

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 43
- 8/16/2002 7:23:08 PM   
chrisp

 

Posts: 74
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: Wichita, KS
Status: offline 		Another factor to consider in US ASW efforts was the effect of Magic --- the fact that we were reading Japanese coded communications. On at least one occasion, the US identified the location of a Japanese submarine picket line of, IIRC, 6 subs. They sent ASW teams out and sank all of them. This would not have been possible if the submarines hadn't already been "localized" by coded intercepts. It's a big ocean out there -- it helps an awful lot if you narrow the location down.

Chris P.

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 44
- 8/17/2002 2:18:09 PM   
shark

 

Posts: 58
Joined: 7/1/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		The usual stereotype is that Japan had an elite force from top to bottom with superior weapons in almost every category, but were eventually ground into dust by the crude application fo a big, dull, cudgel wielded by a bunch of comical round-eyed trolls. I once believed that stuff until one day a little light bulb went on. I read Frank's Guadalcanal, then "the First Team" and so on and asked myself, if the Japanese pilots were superior, and flying superior a/c, how come they did not sustain a favorable kill ratio over the USN pilots? *Ever?* Indeed. it's hard to find single engagements where IJN Zekes bested USN F4Fs in direct confrontations.

Here Here,
The "first team" books are a great read.
Continualy watching my naval aviators bieng smashed by japs in Pac war and UV dosent seem right as the zero is a classic "angles" fighter while there best trained jap crews were using energy tactics.
They continually sacrifice their turning advantage and use tactics best employed on by US aircraft.
Also USN pilots were trained in deflection shooting.Japs NEVER trained for this consequently USN pilots can exicute high angle off attacks on bombers greatly reducing their vunerability to bomber return fire.
Experience is important i just think the ratings need adjustment

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 45
- 8/17/2002 4:05:57 PM   
ReDDoN45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline 		Regardless of what fighters are more "suited", is the bounce and boom and zoom tactic for fighters allways the better, since it is the saver - every good pilot knows that - also the Japs! Even when you have superior turning performance you not allways dogfight, cuz even when you can master one fighter and get him into gunsight, there might be anotherone forming up from behind, thatīs why pilots allways prefer energy fighting a bit more - even when they have more maneuvrable planes (compare WW1 - German Fokker Dr.I also liked hit and run, even though they were also great dogfighters - once in dogfight there was hardly a way to escape, since planes were slower than enemies -------> pilots knew that). And what the Allied pilots had was training! Nothing more. japs pilots (in the beginning of the game) had a four year pilot training (jap pilot training was the most intensive of the world before the war) and a good deal of experience from China and the battles of the Philipines, malaya and the Dutch East Indies. Those guys were far away from being not able to make defelction shooting.

Japs didnīt like deflection shooting for several reasons - 1. Japs had no reflex gunsight 2. Jap 20mm cannons had slow muzzle velocity 3. Jap pilots were ordered to make every round count (in fact sometimes pilots were punished for excessive ammo usage without any countable results... really true!). But their more experienced piltos were well able to do some deflection shooting and kill the enemy plane.

The real Jap problem was complete lack of teamwork! No radios, no training for that and no doctrine for that. Doesnīt mean that Japs didnīt make teamwork, but the introduced it slowly and learned it the HARD way.

But on the other hand a team of 2 US fighters (F4F/P-39) is only strong until one gots shot down - if so the otherone follows soon. US were highly dependend on team tactics (in 42). As jap pilot it didnīt take long after you stalk one yankee, that the otherone appeared behind you (or before you, according to Thach Weave)

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 46
INCOMING MESSAGE, ADMIRAL! - 8/17/2002 6:47:17 PM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline 		Z110501Z OCT 42
FM: CINCPAC
TO: CTF201
RE: AIR OPS CORAL SEA AREA
BT
RAY, I DONT KNOW WHO THE &^%&*%& ROYALLY &^$*( UP YESTERDAY, BUT THE NITWIT IN CHARGE OF AIR OPS IN THAT &^#)(@^ ROLLING CIRCUS YOU CALL A CARRIER TASK FORCE BETTER &^$# WELL REALIZE THERE IS A *&^$#* WAR ON! WHEN WE BUST OUR +&$% TO GET YOU IN POSITION 180 NM FM SHORTLAND WITH FULL DECKLOADS AND YOUR SHIPS IN GOOD MATERIAL CONDITION, I FULLY ^%##@&( EXPECT YOU TO LAUNCH YOUR *%$#$))^%$-(*&^%$$ PLANES. THE JAPS WERE FLYING, THE AUSSIES WERE FLYING, THE ARMY WAS FLYING, EVEN THE THE &%&$( MARINES WERE FLYING, BUT YOUR (*&%$$ &%^$%**%$ WERE SITTING AROUND LIKE THEY WERE PLAYING WITH *&^%^$%& IN A TURKISH ^&%%^$ HOUSE BECAUSE OF THE &^&^$& WEATHER. I HAVE A JOB WHERE THE &%&$&( WEATHER WONT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. WE HAVE A NEW COMMAND CLEANING OUT *^&$%( POTS IN ADAK. DO YOU &%#$&( WANT IT?
CHET
BT

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 47
- 8/17/2002 8:10:38 PM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline 		Z111001Z OCT 42
FM: CTF201
TO: CINPAC
RE: AIR OPS CORAL SEA AREA
BT

PLEASE REPEAT MESSAGE

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 48
- 8/17/2002 9:11:32 PM   
Mojo

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 2/6/2002
From: Portland, Oregon USA
Status: offline 		LOL RevRick. I know what you mean.:D I could tell some stories

_____________________________

If something's not working you might want to tunk it a dite.
Mojo's Mom

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 49
Re: INCOMING MESSAGE, ADMIRAL! - 8/17/2002 10:12:56 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by RevRick
[B]Z110501Z OCT 42
FM: CINCPAC
TO: CTF201
RE: AIR OPS CORAL SEA AREA
BT
RAY, I DONT KNOW WHO THE &^%&*%& ROYALLY &^$*( UP YESTERDAY, BUT THE NITWIT IN CHARGE OF AIR OPS IN THAT &^#)(@^ ROLLING CIRCUS YOU CALL A CARRIER TASK FORCE BETTER &^$# WELL REALIZE THERE IS A *&^$#* WAR ON! WHEN WE BUST OUR +&$% TO GET YOU IN POSITION 180 NM FM SHORTLAND WITH FULL DECKLOADS AND YOUR SHIPS IN GOOD MATERIAL CONDITION, I FULLY ^%##@&( EXPECT YOU TO LAUNCH YOUR *%$#$))^%$-(*&^%$$ PLANES. THE JAPS WERE FLYING, THE AUSSIES WERE FLYING, THE ARMY WAS FLYING, EVEN THE THE &%&$( MARINES WERE FLYING, BUT YOUR (*&%$$ &%^$%**%$ WERE SITTING AROUND LIKE THEY WERE PLAYING WITH *&^%^$%& IN A TURKISH ^&%%^$ HOUSE BECAUSE OF THE &^&^$& WEATHER. I HAVE A JOB WHERE THE &%&$&( WEATHER WONT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. WE HAVE A NEW COMMAND CLEANING OUT *^&$%( POTS IN ADAK. DO YOU &%#$&( WANT IT?
CHET
BT [/B][/QUOTE]

This is REALLY very funny ! :D

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 50
- 8/18/2002 6:38:32 AM   
shark

 

Posts: 58
Joined: 7/1/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		[And what the Allied pilots had was training! Nothing more. japs pilots (in the beginning of the game) had a four year pilot training (jap pilot training was the most intensive of the world before the war) and a good deal of experience from China and the battles of the Philipines, malaya and the Dutch East Indies. Those guys were far away from being not able to make defelction shooting.

In wwII most kills were taken by the "fill the windshield with an enemy plane "who hasnt seen you coming" and blast him.This works best against an enemy not using team tactics (or having no radios).Not just single element tactics.

Shooting fish in a barrel in china is not good training for a different set of tactics used by a different enemy.

The historical loss rates do not support Jap superority.

Also look what happened in china when the AVG started flying.

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 51
- 8/18/2002 7:30:19 AM   
XPav

 

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		Folks, use quoting when you reply.

Please.

Just hit the "quote" button.

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 52
- 8/18/2002 9:55:30 AM   
JohnK

 

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by shark
[B]
Also look what happened in china when the AVG started flying. [/B][/QUOTE]

I've always been fully behind the idea that many games overrate the Zero and/or Japanese pilots relative to the Early War USN...

In defense of the Japanese, though, regarding the AVG in China, the OVERWHELMING majority of AVG kills were either bombers or (fixed gear, obolete, similar to the Claudes of UV) Ki-27 "Nate" fighters, with a handful of Ki-43 Oscar kills.

At NO point did the AVG EVER encounter so much as ONE Zero; there were none in China at the time they operated. People are REALLY resistant to that idea, though. But it's true.

Of course, it's hard enough to kill the myth that the AVG was flying in combat BEFORE Pearl Harbor in some quarters; amazing how many people believe that.

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 53
- 8/18/2002 11:29:12 AM   
ReDDoN45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline 		I think UV is much more historic than mosti think. The experience values for the japanese pilots are rated for "only flying 1 - 1 abilities". That doesnīt mean that only they are taken for calculation (otherwise the results would be far more lopsided. It seems that the game really implies a bit of these superior team tactics and the slashing attack attitude of the allies... as I said otherwise the results of a 85 exp. sqd. vs a 50 exp. would be far more one sided.

Of course I know that you oughtta get close before killing - I am Hartmann fan! But Someone stated that japs werenīt able to make deflection shooting - thatīs only half the truth ---> thatīs why my comment followed.

Whatīs far more important about experience for pilots is experience of newbie pilots just coming from training and the ammount of them coming. Thatīs what counts in long wars, and thereīs were the Allies had an advantege over the Japs (and the Germans) - as both neglected a well considered "long term mass training and aircraft programm". In game the Allies also have that advantege. Thatīs a gigentic one! YOu just need to attrit the jap pilots in the begininng and they are unreplaceable (with much fighting - and fatigue for the japs).
In fact all what counts in air war is the ratio of "our newbie pilotīs kills - to their oneīs " if you got a relative advantege here, you will sooner or later win air war.

When people experience severe dificulties fighting the Japs, than they should reconsider their tactics. I have no problems achieving 1-1 results in air fighting against jap pilots. Rotate and do your job as commander: DECIDE. THey donīt need you when you just order every day 70% CAP. Thatīs no decsion - YOu have to decide when to defend with your CAP. Some day donītīsend one up at all, than make a massive ambush another day. Just more "tactic". "He who defends everthing (or everytime), defends nothing".

Concerning AVG, JohnK said all I would have replied either. Even the Ki-43 kills were only very few, as this aircraft just became introduced before Pearl Harbor. And a P-40 flies almost 100 mph faster than a Nate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - not speaking of armor and and armament

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 54
- 8/18/2002 2:32:32 PM   
shark

 

Posts: 58
Joined: 7/1/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reddon45

Of course I know that you oughtta get close before killing - I am Hartmann fan! But Someone stated that japs werenīt able to make deflection shooting - thatīs only half the truth ---> thatīs why my comment followed.

t [/B][/QUOTE]
My original message said japs were not trained in deflection shooting. the usn did.
most great aces were not trained in this but had a natural instinct for it. Later when the us developed deflection sights some aces didnt use them,as they were naturslly better.
This sight did help new pilots improve their scores.

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 55
- 8/19/2002 3:40:19 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		The AVG example is interesting because it is one of many examples (but one of the easiest to deploy in an argument) that contravenes the claims that a highly experienced pilot in an inadequate plane has a significant edge over an adequately trained rookie in a superior plane. The Oscar v P40 engagements of the AVG are clearly the only examples worthy of close inspection, since a P40 vs. Nate is as one-sided an affair as a A6M2 vs. an F2A3.

I was not aware that Japanese pilots were particularly *bad* at deflection shooting. Is that the claim? Is there a source for this? It seems pretty counterintuitive to me, given all their airtime.

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 56
- 8/19/2002 5:33:02 AM   
ReDDoN45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline 		with 2 slowfiring 20mm cannons, which moreover even have a slow muzzle velocity, you just donīt make defelction shooting. You get close behind him - after killing his energy - and then you kill him. the problem is that that takes time - one thing you nearly donīt have when the enemy is largely employing teamtactics.

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 57
Deflection shooting, Fighter Tactics, and China - 8/19/2002 7:04:21 AM   
CynicAl


Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline 		It's been a little while since I read Lundstrom, but one of the things I took away from the First Team books was that IJN pilots just didn't do deflection shooting.

Another was that they were not proficient in energy tactics. Only a handful of IJN pilots could pull them off correctly without overshooting - which would put the F4F squarely on the Zero's tail, often with a better shot than the Zero driver had had.

Yet another was that the Japanese pilots were woefully unschooled in proper team tactics. There was one anecdote in particular about a single Wildcat attacked by three (or so) Zeros at low altitude over Guadalcanal. Low and slow and jumped by several Zeros, conventional wisdom would have it that that F4F pilot was a goner. Not so - the Zeros lined up and attacked one at a time, which allowed the US pilot to evade each attack as it came. Had they coordinated their attacks, they almost certainly would have had him - as it was, he hung in there for several minutes and IIRC did as much damage to the A6Ms as they did to him.

As for "Combat Experience Gained in China" - "Experience" is only useful if you draw correct lessons from it, and the Japanese air services drew very few correct lessons from the fighting over China, and several very poor ones. The lessons they took home from China regarding fighter tactics were appalling; worse were the lessons they "learned" about what was required for their next generation of front-line fighters, the Ki-43 and A6M. Worse because that meant that pilots often didn't live long enough to figure out what was wrong with their tactics - and when they did begin to figure it out, the tools they had to work with weren't suited to the job.

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 58
Effectiveness of US Subs - 8/19/2002 7:49:56 PM   
dtx

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 8/13/2002
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		The various comments (complaints?) about US subs ineffectiveness made me check some references. While it may be frustrating that US subs are ineffective (missing targets like huge carriers), in this UV reflects history well.

One book noted that of 96 torpedoes launched off the coast of the Phillipines early in the war, 3 Jap ships were sunk. In 1942, a US sub commander launced 10 torpedoes at ~700 yds (perfect range) at 2 CVL and 1 CV, one torp did minor damage to a CVL.

A story from early 1943 is even more telling: Even after the problem of torps running too deep was fixed, torps remained highly ineffect. A sub launched 2 spreads of torps at a slow moving cargo ship. One stopped the ship. Over the next 90 min, the sub launched all its remaining torps (but 1), at a non-moving huge target from perfect range. Zero detonated - i.e., over 20 torps expended for 1 hit. How do you model such ineffectiveness in a wargame? I think UV has done it well.

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 59
INCOMING MESSAGE, ADMIRAL! - 8/19/2002 10:46:28 PM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline 		OZ120901Z OCT 42
FM: CINCPAC
TO: CTF201
RE: MY Z110501Z OCT 42
BT
RAY, REF MY LAST MSG. DISREGARD PUNCTUATION MARKS. LOST AGAIN IN THE CHIEFS MESS POKER GAME - FULL BOAT TO FLUSH. PLEASE ADVISE YOUR STAFF AEROGRAPHY OFFICER THAT WE STILL NEED TO DISCUSS HIS NEXT POST ASAP. OTHER OPS LOOK FINE. MAYBE THE ARMY WILL FIGURE OUT HOW TO KEEP THE HEAVIES FLYING SOON. REGARDS;
CHET
BT
EOM

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to Gabby)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> WITP suggestion??? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   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

0.766