Poor Zero Performance

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Poor Zero Performance

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 >> Poor Zero Performance

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Poor Zero Performance - 11/18/2002 8:44:46 AM

anthonykevinluke

Posts: 276
Joined: 8/31/2001
Status: offline

Greetings,
I rarely post on this forum but actively read all threads. I am a dedicated UV player and have been so since it's release and through all patches. Before I am deluged with the usual barrage of historical data, claims of IJN favoritism, "I have no problems with this" etc. etc, I would merely like to state what I have seen and ask if you have experienced similar results. The issue is the poor performance of the Zeros against early allied acft, in particular the P39 and P400. I have read widely, am a serving member who reads a lot of military history, and have a Masters in Defence Studies etc. so I am not totally ignorant of the facts (this is not a defence or justification, it is just to head of the normal round of facts and data that people flood you with if you make a statement such as I have). I have run countless battles over the time of UV in all conditions with all levels of fatigue etc, but still find the ratio of losses pegs out to about 1:1.2. This includes delierate combat at 18-20000 ft (where the 39 and 400 should be dogs) and low level combat. I find that as an allied player I can smash the Zeros with ease using the 39 and 400 in the early months. In V 2.0 I have repeatedly attacked PM with 40-60 Zeros escorting Bettys at 20000 ft (deliberate attempt to draw out and attrite PM fighters at my advantage), am met by mixed bag of 20 -30 P400, P39 and some P40, and lose 1 for 1. In summary, I play it from both sides and see the same results (much worse for the IJN when I am allied), I am happy that the later allied models perform so well, but feel that the earlier models perform far too well even when placed in the worst (game wise) possible position. For your analysis/thoughts.

Tony

Post #: 1

Air loss - 11/18/2002 9:03:56 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Make sure the 1:1 is actual air to air. The Japanese flying from Rabaul will lose aircraft just flying there and back. AA damage and air to air damage (not shot down over Port Moresby) Often are lost on return trip. Fighters operating from Lae or Gili should not suffer the same loss rate as those flying from Rabaul
(The combat report is very unreliable for reporting air to air loss.)

Are you using the combat report or reviewing your groups every turn for data?

Damaging the airfield at Port Moresby can add loss to allies as the groups takeoff and land every day. However I find air to air to be very mild now as compared to earlier versions.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to anthonykevinluke)

Post #: 2

- 11/18/2002 9:09:09 AM

Caltone

Posts: 651
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: Raleigh, NC USA
Status: offline

Its the **** Wirraways that get me, how in the h**l can they knock down A6M2's?

I too would expect poor performance from the 39's and 400's at 20K feet when outnumbered by rarely see it.

(in reply to anthonykevinluke)

Post #: 3

- 11/18/2002 10:16:49 AM

anthonykevinluke

Posts: 276
Joined: 8/31/2001
Status: offline

Mogami,
Do you ever sleep? In reply to your queries, yes the results are purely from the air to air function, not operational losses, flak or other. As I indicated I play both sides quite often and would savour the feel as an early allied player the ability to kill a zero for three of my P39 or P400! Alas, the ratio is pretty well 1:1 so that real air to air challenge is not there in the early game. What I 'feel' we should be seeing is the same sort of results that occur when the hellcats, corsairs, and other late model US aircraft flood the skies, ie a clear early IJN superiority based on acft and experience, slowly diluted by the loss of the good pilots, and met by slowly improving US experience, better acft, and sheer wieght of numbers/replacements. At the moment it doesn't 'feel' right when I can 'whup' zeros with P39 in may - aug 42. The other glaring anomaly seems to be that the IJN experience does not really seem to count for much in these fights. Thankyou for your response and I hope that MATRIX may look at this issue and the very"unbloody" V2.0.

Cheers,

Tony (oh , and yes I do use the combat report for confirming all data)

(in reply to anthonykevinluke)

Post #: 4

- 11/18/2002 10:34:02 AM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]I too would expect poor performance from the 39's and 400's at 20K feet when outnumbered by rarely see it.[/QUOTE]

The 39s/400s should not be able to engage you at 20,000 feet at all since that is above the ceilings of all but the best well tuned 39s, and above the 400s (they generally lacked O2 bottles, IIRC). if the 39s are fighting you at that altitude (or ranything above 15K feet), you should be knocking them down at a rate that favors the Japanese. If UV isn't producing that result its a little wierd.

The P40s, on the other hand, should do well against A6Ms at high altitude unless they're surprised.

(in reply to anthonykevinluke)

Post #: 5

A6M woes - 11/18/2002 11:00:34 AM

Michael Walker

Posts: 43
Joined: 6/27/2002
Status: offline

I agree with you Tony, I've done the exact thing thing and seen the same results. I think there may be something about the fighter combat mechanics, because even if you simply look at Matrix's own ratings -- inferior pilots flying inferior planes and being outnumbered should lose -- shouldn't they?

I'm in a long scenario where my pilots are already badly attrited and cannot see that I have done something extremely foolish with them. It is the Allied ranks that have the high kill totals, my high is 4 in 3 months.

Mike

(in reply to anthonykevinluke)

Post #: 6

Gallant Pilots defending carriers - 11/19/2002 5:06:56 PM

zed

Posts: 268
Joined: 5/20/2002
Status: offline

I hope my noble opponent wont mind, but here is the result of an action in our game. I was pleased by the performance of my zeros. Most of the enemy fighters were downed by my zeros: I put my carriers in harms way like an idiot, and really paid for it on the turn following this one:
Air attack on TF at 11,61

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 23
A6M3 Zero x 8

Allied aircraft
Beaufort x 9
Wirraway x 7
P-400 Airacobra x 12
P-39D Airacobra x 12
B-26B Marauder x 15
A-20B Havoc x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged
A6M3 Zero x 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Beaufort x 2 destroyed
Beaufort x 6 damaged
Wirraway x 2 destroyed
Wirraway x 1 damaged
P-400 Airacobra x 1 destroyed
P-400 Airacobra x 4 damaged
P-39D Airacobra x 3 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 2 damaged
A-20B Havoc x 1 destroyed
A-20B Havoc x 2 damaged

ENS K. Okabe of EI-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 2

Japanese Ships
CV Junyo, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
DD Tokitsukaze
CVL Zuiho, Torpedo hits 1
DD Hayashio

Attacking Level Bombers:
4 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet
4 x A-20B Havoc at 6000 feet
2 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet
4 x A-20B Havoc at 6000 feet
3 x Beaufort at 200 feet
1 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet
4 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet
0 x A-20B Havoc at 6000 feet
4 x Beaufort at 200 feet
4 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 11,61

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 23
A6M3 Zero x 4

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 7
SBD Dauntless x 16
P-400 Airacobra x 8
P-39D Airacobra x 6
P-40E Kittyhawk x 10
A-24 Dauntless x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 4 destroyed
A6M3 Zero x 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat x 2 destroyed
F4F-3 Wildcat x 2 damaged
SBD Dauntless x 2 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 5 damaged
P-400 Airacobra x 3 destroyed
P-400 Airacobra x 1 damaged
P-39D Airacobra x 1 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 1 damaged
P-40E Kittyhawk x 1 destroyed
A-24 Dauntless x 1 destroyed
A-24 Dauntless x 6 damaged

SLDR P. Turnbull of No. 75 Sqn RAAF is credited with kill number 3

Japanese Ships
CV Junyo, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CA Suzuya
CL Nagara
CVL Zuiho

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 11,61

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 20
A6M3 Zero x 8

Allied aircraft
Wirraway x 4
P-400 Airacobra x 5
P-39D Airacobra x 8
B-26B Marauder x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-400 Airacobra x 3 destroyed
P-400 Airacobra x 2 damaged
P-39D Airacobra x 2 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 1 damaged
B-26B Marauder x 1 destroyed
B-26B Marauder x 5 damaged

PO1 W.Minegishi of CII-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 3

Japanese Ships
CVL Ryujo
CV Soryu

Attacking Level Bombers:
1 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet
4 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet
3 x B-26B Marauder at 6000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 18,67

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 6
D3A Val x 37

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 56

Japanese aircraft losses
D3A Val x 6 destroyed
D3A Val x 11 damaged

Allied Ships
CV Enterprise, Bomb hits 4, on fire
CA Chicago, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CL Hobart
CA Australia, Bomb hits 1, on fire

(in reply to anthonykevinluke)

Post #: 7

Re: Poor Zero Performance - 11/19/2002 9:00:15 PM

Von_Frag

Posts: 105
Joined: 5/7/2002
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tony luke
[B]Greetings,
I rarely post on this forum but actively read all threads. I am a dedicated UV player and have been so since it's release and through all patches. Before I am deluged with the usual barrage of historical data, claims of IJN favoritism, "I have no problems with this" etc. etc, I would merely like to state what I have seen and ask if you have experienced similar results. The issue is the poor performance of the Zeros against early allied acft, in particular the P39 and P400. I have read widely, am a serving member who reads a lot of military history, and have a Masters in Defence Studies etc. so I am not totally ignorant of the facts (this is not a defence or justification, it is just to head of the normal round of facts and data that people flood you with if you make a statement such as I have). I have run countless battles over the time of UV in all conditions with all levels of fatigue etc, but still find the ratio of losses pegs out to about 1:1.2. This includes delierate combat at 18-20000 ft (where the 39 and 400 should be dogs) and low level combat. I find that as an allied player I can smash the Zeros with ease using the 39 and 400 in the early months. In V 2.0 I have repeatedly attacked PM with 40-60 Zeros escorting Bettys at 20000 ft (deliberate attempt to draw out and attrite PM fighters at my advantage), am met by mixed bag of 20 -30 P400, P39 and some P40, and lose 1 for 1. In summary, I play it from both sides and see the same results (much worse for the IJN when I am allied), I am happy that the later allied models perform so well, but feel that the earlier models perform far too well even when placed in the worst (game wise) possible position. For your analysis/thoughts.

Tony [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi Tony,

I wish I would have kept it, but an AAR I had last night was the worst spanking I've seen in the game yet. It went a little something like this:

game version 2.0, new scenario 17, playing as allies.

P-39x38
P-400x15
P-40E Kittyhawkx14
P-40E Warhawkx28
F4F-4x15

A6M2x58
A6M3x51
KI-43Ibx19
G4M1x13

Note: The raid came from Rabaul with the Zero's coming from sunk carriers. ;)

Results, or there about:

A6M2 7 destroyed
A6M3 3 destroyed

P-39 21 destroyed!
p-400 9 destroyed
P-40E Kittyhawk 5 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk 2 damaged
F4F-4 13 destroyed

I don't remember the actual number of damaged a/c but there were many. I only remember the Warhawks damage total because it was those two squadrons first combat. Each one of these squadrons had good morale and had experience in the hi 60's, to low 70's. I've never seen such a spanking.......well I take that back. In one of the carrier battles that made all those Zero's land at Rabaul, my carrier t/f's coordinated a raid of 136 SBD's, but failed to provide fighter escort. I lost 88 to all causes but the survivors sent 3 flattops to the bottom for 2 of mine damaged. Hopefully I can attrit those partial Zero squadrons down to nothing as they should not receive replacements.

Von Frag

(in reply to anthonykevinluke)

Post #: 8

- 11/19/2002 9:10:23 PM

loader6

Posts: 198
Joined: 5/21/2002
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

While I also think the A6M doesn't do as good as it should, at least against early war allied planes and pilots, I am glad to hear you're pilots are getting badly attrited Michael! And no, you haven't done anything stupid and I haven't done anything special aside from lots of R&R for my pilots when possible.

(in reply to anthonykevinluke)

Post #: 9

Zeroes are rubbish arnt they ? - 11/19/2002 10:11:17 PM

Pawlock

Posts: 1041
Joined: 9/18/2002
From: U.K.
Status: offline

ir attack on TF, near Nevea at 50,43

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 43
A6M3 Zero x 18
D3A Val x 51
B5N Kate x 18

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 36

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged
D3A Val x 2 destroyed
D3A Val x 1 damaged
B5N Kate x 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 18 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 12 damaged

LTJG P.Matsuki of DII-1 Daitai is credited with kill number 3

Allied Ships
DD Warramunga
DD Alwin
SC 640
SC 703
SC 644
SC 699

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Nevea at 50,43

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 3
D3A Val x 21
B5N Kate x 16

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
D3A Val x 2 destroyed
B5N Kate x 5 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 damaged

Allied Ships
SC 703
DD Alwin, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
SC 644, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
DD Warramunga, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
SC 642

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Nevea at 50,43

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 82
A6M3 Zero x 43
G4M1 Betty x 43
J1N1-R Irving x 1

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 13

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty x 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 11 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 3 damaged

ENS G.Kondo of F1/3rd Daitai is credited with kill number 2

LTC H. Bauer of VMF-212 bails out WOUNDED and is RESCUED

Allied Ships
SC 706, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Alwin, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
SC 743
SC 703, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Attacking Level Bombers:
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
1 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Gavigamana at 51,47

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 78
A6M3 Zero x 38
G4M1 Betty x 7

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 32
P-39D Airacobra x 10
P-40E Warhawk x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 5 destroyed
A6M3 Zero x 2 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 1 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 7 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 15 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 10 damaged
P-39D Airacobra x 9 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 1 damaged
P-40E Warhawk x 4 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk x 3 damaged

LTJG C.Ibusuki of F2/1st Daitai is credited with kill number 5

I DONT THINK SO!!!

(in reply to anthonykevinluke)

Post #: 10

Comments... - 11/20/2002 10:39:01 AM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

Tony,

I appreciate your piping up on this after seeing a lot of evidence to support the ratio you state. My own experience has been different when testing against the AI. Against a human, there are truly too many variables in play.

As the Japanese Player, I think the key is to aggressively dominate the skies early over your forward bases like Lae. If you control Lae and send your M2/M3 escorts from there to hit PM, your air to air ratio will be significantly improved thanks to the fatigue difference. I do find that the Zero/early Japanese pilot combo is a weapon that will quickly lose its edge if only used over long distances from Rabaul.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to anthonykevinluke)

Post #: 11

Au contraire... - 11/25/2002 6:03:35 AM

LargeSlowTarget

Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

I don't think Zeros suffer from poor performance against early allied a/c, not in my experience. Perhaps I'm doing something wrong - but my P-39, 40 and 400 at PM are eaten alive by Zeros from Rabaul. I'm playing Scen. 17 as Allied against AI. I have put all available fighter / fighter-bomber squadrons in the SWPAC area into PM, with plenty of Base Forces and supplies. I keep the Airacobras at 10.000 feet and the Warhawks at 15.000, CAP at 50% to 80%, depending on the weather and number of ships in port. Worked well against smaller raids in the first few weeks. When the Japanese went big time for PM, I hoped my CAP would at least be able to hold itself, but... in the first big engagement I had 40+ Hawks and 60+ Cobras engaging 80+ Zeros escorting 8 (!) bombers at 6000 feet - lost more than 40 planes shot down and about same number damaged for five Zeros damaged and two downed, and those two pilots probably laughed themselves to death while watching my boys getting shredded. I thought that I had downed some more Zeros not reported due to FOW, but over the next few days it was "Here come the last 80 Zeros" all over again, and after three days I had to withdraw the remnants of my squadrons, all down to half a dozen planes or less. Replacements are slow in coming, moral and experience of the survivors is LOW. Ships running supplies into PM without CAP are getting sunk in port almost daily.

I have restarted the campaign several times and have experimented with different combinations of height, CAP-%, stand-down etc., but found no way to put up an even marginally effective resistance to those Zeros. I'm playing Scen. 17 PBEM as Allies, too - and there it is even worse. I would really like to know how to 'whup' Zeros with P-39 in May-August 42...

One peculiar thing I noticed during the combat display is that most of my planes 'bounced' Zeros, but 8 out of 10 were damaged or shot down themselves without getting off a single burst of their own. AFAIK 'bouncing' means diving on an enemy from an higher altitude, thus having speed advantage and probably some kind of surprise. Shouldn't there be some more kills by my 'bouncing' planes then?

LST

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to anthonykevinluke)

Post #: 12

Re: Au contraire... - 11/25/2002 6:26:04 AM

Pawlock

Posts: 1041
Joined: 9/18/2002
From: U.K.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LargeSlowTarget
[B]

I have restarted the campaign several times and have experimented with different combinations of height, CAP-%, stand-down etc., but found no way to put up an even marginally effective resistance to those Zeros. I'm playing Scen. 17 PBEM as Allies, too - and there it is even worse. I would really like to know how to 'whup' Zeros with P-39 in May-August 42...

LST [/B][/QUOTE]

You are never really going to match the Zeroes early on in a fair fight. The way I look at it is, just think of it as a war of attrittion. Sure you are gonna lose perhaps 2 maybe more for every one zero shot down, but in the long run you can take those losses, he cant. You perhaps can do a few things to minimize this ie rotate squadrons out of Pm to cooktown to R and R, use the weather to rest fatigued squadrons. As a side note I operate on no squadron flies (unless emergency with over 30 fat and morale under 50. If need to rest a squadron for a week or 2, take it out of PM so it doesent get bombed (which will lower morale more).

Dont fly with High fatigue /low moral , all your doing is giving more experience to the Zero pilots.

Tough it out, after a good few months and more planes available although still no match, you can start to make him hurt a bit. Its only till you start getting the P38's that you can hope to match him in a fair fight.

(in reply to anthonykevinluke)

Post #: 13

Re: Comments... - 11/25/2002 7:46:16 AM

CapAndGown

Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins
[B]
As the Japanese Player, I think the key is to aggressively dominate the skies early over your forward bases like Lae. If you control Lae and send your M2/M3 escorts from there to hit PM, your air to air ratio will be significantly improved thanks to the fatigue difference. I do find that the Zero/early Japanese pilot combo is a weapon that will quickly lose its edge if only used over long distances from Rabaul.

Regards,

- Erik [/B][/QUOTE]

How do you hold Lae open? From my experience the Americans can shut that base down for good in no time flat. I would love to put the zero's in there if I thought they could actually fly. But invariably my opponent bombs it into the stone age. :)

(in reply to anthonykevinluke)

Post #: 14

- 11/25/2002 5:03:17 PM

Samurai

Posts: 20
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Croatia
Status: offline

I agree that Zero performance varies from time to time (I had some games where Zeroes were unbeatable and some wherethey were shot down with rocks, probablly), but one thing was driving me crazy! In many of my games I noticed that Zeroes were very bad agains Devastators. I don't know about anyone else, but I had some examples where a low number of Devs would come on attack, escorted by few P-39, and not only surviving but even torpedoing my CV's. And the numbers would be like 20-30 zeroes (2 or 3 CV's in TF) against 10-15 P-39 10 Devs! And by some accounts the Devastators were, I quote "with it's light armament and slow approach speed an easy prey for Japanese Zeroes" (Great campaigns of WW II, Silverdale books, London, 2002.) Maybe I'm wrong, some of you guys have different experiences with this, but to me it is a bit overrated.

_____________________________

All warfare is based on deception.
Art of War _____ Sun Tzu

(in reply to anthonykevinluke)

Post #: 15

- 11/25/2002 5:47:56 PM

zed

Posts: 268
Joined: 5/20/2002
Status: offline

The game is basically like this now. Anywhere American medium bombers can reach the Japanese better not be there. Zeroes cannot stop them, its almost a waste of time to use CAP. The message is "Interceptors driven off". Japan is now on the defensive from the beginning in Scenario #17. I am not sure this is not accurate historically. I think we(the IJN players) have been spoiled in the past by overrated equipment, now we are seeing more balance. I even think Nells and Bettys are overrated, they seem to hit more times than not. I remember that the Nell attack against the CRace's TF in May 7 was a disaster. The air unit had been decimated in February when attacking the Lexington !!! (had lost 15 of 33 nells).

(in reply to anthonykevinluke)

Post #: 16

- 11/26/2002 12:30:04 AM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

Every unescorted Japanese medium bomber assault against TFs with CAP was more or less a disaster. The February strike against (IIRC) Yorktown 16 betties vs. 6 F4Fs. 11 betties flamed, 2 aborted damaged, 3 forced to drop their torps at extreme range. 25th NAF at Rabaul did not recover from this loss until May, only to repeat the error.

Zekes should give medium US bombers hell. Sure the bombers were fast and good defensively, but the Zekes had the punch to knock one down, albeit at some risk.

In a board game the fighter attacks and defensive bomber fire would be resolved simultaneously. This isn't perfect realism but it works pretty well.

Matrix should consider having both interceptor and flak combat be *partially* implemented simultaneously. Perhaps half of the aborted/damaged/destroyed interceptors should get their licks in on the bombers *anyhow.* Half the bombers that are shot down/aborted/damaged by *flak* should drop their loads anyhow, maybe with an unfavorable "to hit" modifier. This might smooth out some of the extreme results.

(in reply to anthonykevinluke)

Post #: 17

Sakai wrote that they had no problems with 2-engine une... - 11/26/2002 1:18:22 AM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]

Zekes should give medium US bombers hell. Sure the bombers were fast and good defensively, but the Zekes had the punch to knock one down, albeit at some risk.

[/B][/QUOTE]

100% on mark.

Saburo Sakai in his book "Samurai" wrote that they didn't have any problem
with downing allied 2-engine bombers in 1942 New Guinea.

He wrote that allied bombers attacked their airbases with regularity. They
flew low level without escort (this was their only way of possible survival)
but were almost always cut to pieces.

Zero had cannon and this counted very much...

Leo "Apollo11"

P.S.
I read on several occasions that Sakai's book in US edition was severely
edited and that many parts (perhaps "touchy" ones) are missing from original.

(in reply to anthonykevinluke)

Post #: 18

- 11/26/2002 5:15:56 AM

zed

Posts: 268
Joined: 5/20/2002
Status: offline

When I play allies I am very happy my bombers cannot be intercepted. When I play the Japanese I am angry nothing can stop the bombers. Its a 50 50 tie!

(in reply to anthonykevinluke)

Post #: 19