Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

The IJN LOSES???

 
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 >> The IJN LOSES??? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The IJN LOSES??? - 3/15/2003 1:00:41 AM   
elcid

 

Posts: 226
Joined: 11/20/2002
From: Lakewood Washington
Status: offline 		I have so much trouble losing as IJN I want to play the allies - but never found anyone willing to play! I thought it was the allies that have problems winning in UV! One player even recommends "forget PM" which is certainly not true against the AI.

As to the Zero, it is a superb plane, in the hands of an experienced pilot. Sakai returned to combat duty in 1945 (he had been training pilots), with only one eye, and he needed special controls because of leg injuries. But he preferred the plane he knew to a newer one, and he became an ace all over again, with 5 more kills, against the newer high performance planes. Yet the zero, even with better engines and, in some versions, armor, was "hoplessly outclassed" by most reviewers late in the war.

FRAG is basically completely confused about what matters in real air combat. It is not really tactics, or energy conservation which is decisive. It is detection. Japanese fighter pilots were trained to sight stars and planes IN THE DAYTIME, because an enemy aircraft is about that visible when it first 'appears.' Not entirely believing this, I asked an astronomer, and he taught me, and an entire class of schoolchildren, how to do it in about 30 seconds! In air combat, the guy who is shot down usually is ambushed, and did not know to evade. In ANY KIND of plane, even a transport or heavy bomber, the chance of survival is pretty good if you can evade. All those sims are misleading you, even if they are any good. In fact, the Brewster Buffalo is NOT a bad fighter plane - see its service record in Finland. Yet it does not look good in the hands of Brits and Marines in the Pacific. At Midway the F4F does not look any better either - either over the island itself or over Yorktown.

But while I agree that the USN was terribly lucky at Midway - it is said the US Naval War College games ALWAYS have the USN lose - I think a fair case can be made that the Japanese lost the battle by disregarding significant principles of war and naval tactics. They did not concentrate their carriers. They did not use their own superior "two phase air search" because they "knew" we were surprised and had too few carriers to dare to commit to battle. The scale of the defeat did not even make it into the official US history - as Japanese documents now published by the University of Hawaii indicate the real plan was to invade Oahu itself - something Morison specifically says was NOT an objective! No less than three divisions were tasked for the job. Yet had the won the naval battle, three divisions in mid-1942 were probably doomed - although one might have been enough half a year earlier.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 61
- 3/15/2003 1:44:59 AM   
SoulBlazer

 

Posts: 839
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: Providence RI
Status: offline 		Invasion of Hawaii? Please. I thought we cleared up that myth years ago.

Anyone still believing that flight of fancy should read this wonderfully written article:

http://64.124.221.191/pearlops.htm

_____________________________

The US Navy could probaly win a war without coffee, but would prefer not to try -- Samuel Morison

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 62
- 3/15/2003 1:46:09 AM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		Hi Elcid

the Brewster Buffalo is NOT a bad fighter plane

LOL mate, you need to get to work on that statement, the plane the Fin's flew and the plane the Brits and Marines had was no where near the same as the one the Fins had

that fin plane did not have all the extra armor and other gear added to it, with a some what weak engine even for the Finish model

by the time they got the improved model, it was so over weight for the power plant, it was nothing but a lead sled, the export model was a much better plane

but on the other hand, people keep talking about the skill of the JP pilots, the Fin's may of been even more skilled, most of them had ungodly hours flying a plane at a time when it was not that common

HARD_Sarge
it is a pretty plane in Fin colors, it is totally Ugly in Marine Camo

_____________________________


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 63
- 3/15/2003 2:02:08 AM   
Howard Mitchell


Posts: 449
Joined: 6/3/2002
From: Blighty
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hard Sarge
[B]the Brits did send a Spit squadron to the PTO that had fought in the BoB and was seen as a crack squadron, and had a few Aces in there ranks, the Zeros toar them apart, they were used to fighting the GE, and fell for the same tricks that the other early fighter pilots fell for

sort of along the lines of what ElCid is saying, they knew they were good, they knew the GE were good, the JP, well, we'll show em and be back home in no time
HARD_Sarge [/B][/QUOTE]

I say chaps, you can say what you like about the Wildcat don’t you know, but leave the poor old spity out of it! :)

This is often mentioned, but the RAAF Spitfires in question were operating in extremely adverse conditions and, with the exception of the disastrous 2 May 43 raid, the odds seem to have been about even – 28 lost against 22 confirmed destroyed throughout 1943. The units in question were far from crack ones, mostly being inexperienced with only a handful of battle-hardened veterans.

A good reference site is: http://spitfirecmraaf.tripod.com/index.html

When used in the China/Burma/India theatre the Spitfire, especially the Spitfire VIII when introduced, soon established air superiority. ‘The Forgotten Air Force’ by Air Commodore Henry Probert, ISBN 1 85753 065 9 is a good source.

_____________________________

While the battles the British fight may differ in the widest possible ways, they invariably have two common characteristics – they are always fought uphill and always at the junction of two or more map sheets.

General Sir William Slim

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 64
- 3/15/2003 2:22:03 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		The recent controversy revolving around the Brewster stems principally from design modifications as well as quality control issues.

As originally built, the F2A (along with the SBD and F4F for that matter) did not have self sealing tanks or armor plate and appeared to edge out the XF4F in preformance trials thus being chosen by the USN as it's new modern mono-winged carrier fighter

However as most know, Brewster failed to deliver the goods in a timely manner and as time went by ever increasing quality control issues gave the plane an extremely unfavorable reputation in the US navy. (while Grumman reworked over the F4F design working out the kinks)

Modern sources claim the addition of armor plating and self sealing tanks radically changed the dynamics of the plane's preformance due to the weight increase turning what was described earlier as a maneuverable (if tubby) little plane into a dog.

Note the Buffalo's sent to Finland were the initial type without all the extra weight. (though the fins were masters of field mods, and did add some makeshift armor) This helps explain in part the difference between how the Finland F2A's preformed and the British and US varients.

Another obvious facet was combat environment. The fins, not taking away anything from their skill or courage, were facing an airforce left in a decrepid state after Stalin's purges, whilst the British and Americans faced a prepared, motivated and skilled opponent.

My standpoint on the F2A is one of caution in light of the revisioning of late. Caution because i have some older sources that went fairly in depth into the Brewster and to summarize , the plane's issues were hardly one of speed, or manueverability, but also ones of reliability, hampered visibility, a poor power ratio and even unstable flight characteristics....facets that of course, are not revealed by stat comparisons, such as with the Wildcat.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 65
- 3/15/2003 2:44:56 AM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		Ok, I am officially lost. Is this a debate about the game UV or about Zeros vs Wildcats? It started out with LST complaining that his planes were getting slaughtered. It then turned out he was playing with the difficulty level set to very hard. So the entire premise of the thread was shot down in flames (just like a Betty :p ). From what I have seen, there is no evidence that with the historical difficulty setting the zeros are stomping F4F's. From my experience, the F4F's do just fine. They may lose some more planes, but I attribute this to the experience difference. If the claim is that the game engine now has the zeros overrated, then I would like to see evidence for that. Controlled tests that set the experience level of each side equal and has their fatigue the same are what are needed to make a case. I suggest that a seperate thread be opened up to explore how well these engagements are treated in the game. Meanwhile, this thread can continue on arguing history--which if fine, even educational, but somewhat disconnected from saying whether the game is right or wrong, since it hasn't even been shown just what the game is doing.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 66
- 3/15/2003 3:46:29 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline 		Well said, c'n'g. However, I never blamed the UV game engine. I've said that I'm an inept player - fortunately it turned out that I was just too stupid to make the right selection in the preferences. Folks, please accept my apologies *sheepish grin*.

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 67
- 3/15/2003 8:27:16 AM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline 		Posted by LargeSlowTarget
[QUOTE]Well said, c'n'g. However, I never blamed the UV game engine. I've said that I'm an inept player - fortunately it turned out that I was just too stupid to make the right selection in the preferences. Folks, please accept my apologies *sheepish grin*.[/QUOTE]

Naughty boy!!!

For your pennance, you should start a poll thread on whether or not the historical Jap Zero/pilot combination was better than any other allied fighter/pilot combination in the first year of the war AND moderate it to ensure that all contributors argue the topic both logically, factually and without emotive issues.

After that, you'll be forgiven.

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 68
- 3/15/2003 12:48:34 PM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drongo
[B]Posted by LargeSlowTarget


Naughty boy!!!

For your pennance, you should start a poll thread on whether or not the historical Jap Zero/pilot combination was better than any other allied fighter/pilot combination in the first year of the war AND moderate it to ensure that all contributors argue the topic both logically, factually and without emotive issues.

After that, you'll be forgiven. [/B][/QUOTE]

A fate worse than death!

_____________________________


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

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 69
MYTH???? - 3/15/2003 3:27:06 PM   
elcid

 

Posts: 226
Joined: 11/20/2002
From: Lakewood Washington
Status: offline 		Japanese planning for the invasion of Hawaii began in 1910, and did not end until 1943. See Hawaii Under the Rising Sun, University of Hawaii Press. It is basically just translated Japanese documents from archives, and summaries and analyses of their significance. This work was inspired when the official, Japanese language, 100 plus volume history came out. The first English reference from it seems to have been in another history of Hawaii, citing Admiral Yamamoto (no less) deciding on 10 December (Japanese time) that he must invade Hawaii to win the war - reversing his earlier refusal to make that part of the original attack plan. He was not able to get the plan adopted until after the Doolittle raid, however. There is also useful material in The Pearl Harbor Papers, which is entirely a compendium of Japanese documents, including the personal map the emperor used during the battle. I don't know what your "myth" site may say - but I also don't care - as I have the Japanese documents. Give me real scholarship by academics using archival records over web sites who disregard them, every time!

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 70
I read your site - 3/15/2003 4:00:11 PM   
elcid

 

Posts: 226
Joined: 11/20/2002
From: Lakewood Washington
Status: offline 		The kaigun article on the invasion of Hawaii is not half bad. Its first conclusion, that 3 divisions would be needed, is exactly what the Japanese did! [It later expands that to 5 divisions, and concludes it is not logistically possible, and that is also true]. It is written ignorance of the actual Japanese plan, but its conclusion it was not likely to succeed is one I agree with - note I said in my original note that an invasion in 1942 "was probably doomed." Doomed attacks were not unheard of in the IJA! The article is well worth reading, and it does anything but dispell the myth!

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 71
- 3/15/2003 6:23:26 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline 		Jeez, Drongo, have a heart! I'd rather live with this social disgrace! Maybe it's time for a new identity... :D.

elcid, do your documents show whether invading Hawaii was a genuine military plan or a mere 'declaration of intent', victory disease or plain daydreaming? I wouldn't discard your documents offhand, but I'm sceptical. I grant that some people in Japan might have played with the idea of invading Hawaii and that these thoughts found their way into documents. But I doubt the Japanese themselves saw a realistic chance for their success.

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 72
- 3/15/2003 11:19:34 PM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline 		Posted by LargeSlowTarget
[QUOTE]Jeez, Drongo, have a heart! I'd rather live with this social disgrace! Maybe it's time for a new identity... [/QUOTE]

Alright, we'll let you off this time but no more starting controversial threads. They just disrupt our harmonious little group.

[QUOTE] I grant that some people in Japan might have played with the idea of invading Hawaii and that these thoughts found their way into documents. But I doubt the Japanese themselves saw a realistic chance for their success.[/QUOTE]

Probably up there with their planned eight division invasion of Australia for 1942. Nice idea, shame about the practicality.

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 73
"Matching" the Zero - 7/9/2003 6:10:46 AM   
CEDeaton


Posts: 149
Joined: 4/16/2003
From: Plano, TX
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]
[B]Would you prefer the facts directly from the USN site?

It does not matter where the facts come from, this magic concept of the F4F-4 making a huge difference over the F4F-3's is utterly false.

Superior numbers made the difference, Pilot skill made the difference. The plane itself was NOT even remotely a match for an A6M. [/B][/QUOTE]


I can't believe none of the 'experts' seem to have mentioned this yet... or did I just not see it in the posts?

The Zero's manueverability was primarily a function of it's overall light weight and the wing loading it enjoyed as a result. This was attained, however, by giving up a few little things the Americans DID have, like adequate pilot armor and self-sealing fuel tanks.

Since the Zero's fuel tanks weren't self-sealing - a common problem actually for many of Japan's planes from everything I've ever read on the subject - they tended to go BOOM quite a bit more easily than did the 'Cat or almost anything else in the U.S. inventory during the war.

Japanese pilots were also much easier to injure or kill because of the reduced pilot armor, which, if I recall correctly, was really only adequate behind the pilot in a Zeke whereas the Americans sat in a sort of armored bathtub.

So the light weight that made the Zero what it was, was also it's biggest drawback and that was [U]the[/U] great "equalizer" in the entire Wildcat/Zero matchup equation.

Since even a marginal pilot has a chance to put a couple of rounds on target, the Allies should get in the game (as they did historically), more kills where pilot skill or the superiority in A/C maneuverability wasn't nearly as much of a factor. Simply put, the Americans had a much larger "lucky shot" area to work with than did the guys flying the 'Zippo'.

I'm not sure how these stats work in the game, so I wouldn't even try to guess at what it [I]should[/I] be, but I suspect that Japanese planes might be just a bit "tougher" in the game than they really were because I've also seen results from both sides of the lines that look like the 'Cat doesn't quite live up to it's actual combat record.

_____________________________

Semper Fi,
Craig

It's always pilot error. Sometimes the idiot just doesn't know how to fly a broken aircraft.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 74
- 7/9/2003 6:20:01 AM   
CEDeaton


Posts: 149
Joined: 4/16/2003
From: Plano, TX
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hard Sarge
[B]

it is a pretty plane in Fin colors, it is totally Ugly in Marine Camo [/B][/QUOTE]

But we LIKE ugly! Well, we've grown acustomed to ugly anyway. That's what happens when you've been constantly forced to use equipment that is mostly "leftovers" from the Army and the Navy.

We never really expect them to put on a fresh coat of paint before they gave us their old toys. But - and this is a big 'but' - we DO take great pride in the fact that we're usually better at using that equipment than they were in the first place - painted or not!

_____________________________

Semper Fi,
Craig

It's always pilot error. Sometimes the idiot just doesn't know how to fly a broken aircraft.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 75
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> The IJN LOSES??? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
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

2.141