Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Very interesting, the ratings surprised me a bit. Quick poll: Do these seem right to you?

P-38 67%
P-40E 60% (Superior to all forms of ZERO)
Ki-44 TOJO 60%
F4F 58%
A6m3 Zero 54%
A6m2 Zero 52%
F2A-Buffalo 52%

So, by that system the Buffalo is equal to the Zero, and the P-40 superior. Now, this doesn't account for the early war Zero bonus which is why Zeros shoot down Buffalos in droves early on (plus the differences in Pilot Rating). But does this seem right over all? I will say I think P-40's can hold there own if the pilots are decent.

"War makes Heros on both sides." Hero (the movie)



Thanks !!

KPAX

quote:

So, by that system the Buffalo is equal to the Zero, and the P-40 superior. Now, this doesn't account for the early war Zero bonus which is why Zeros shoot down Buffalos in droves early on (plus the differences in Pilot Rating). But does this seem right over all? I will say I think P-40's can hold there own if the pilots are decent.

quote:

I thought pilots were worth their wings, not their salt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

There is no comparison between the F2A and the A6M. Any pilot worth a salt knows which plane would win. The A6M Zeros tore through every P-40 squadron they ever came across. The AVG never engaged A6Ms in combat so no comparison can be made there. Navy Wildcats barely held there own against the Zero. They did so because they learned that if they didn't have a height advantage, it would be suicide to engage.

The problem with this rating is that it depends on how the aircraft is being used and over-emphasizes durability as a primary indicator of combat effectiveness. Early in the war, the Allies tried to dogfight the Japanese aircraft using the tactics being used in Europe, that is a turning dogfight. The Japanese aircraft Nate, Oscar, and Zero were all far more manueverable at dogfighting speeds (<250kts) than were their Allied counterparts. Any Allied pilot attempting to stay with one of these aircraft in a turn was toast. Even the vaunted Spitfire came out second best time after time against the Zero.

The AVG learned to use boom and zoom tactics very successfully, especially when Japanese fighters were tied to bomber escort. While the AVG never encountered the A6M in combat (most of their kills were Nates and Sallys), they did occasionally encounter the Oscar but did had a much lower success rate over it than the Nate (though it was still 3.5:1).

Navy fighters learned to use the Thatch Weave to help reduce their vulnerability. Even after the P-38 came along, Japanese pilots had more than a 2:1 kill ratio against until the P-38s started using the boom and zoom. Once they did that, the kill ratio very quickly reversed itself. The F6F and the Corsair were the first aircraft that could do well against the Zeros in a horizontal plane plus they had higher top speeds.

Pilot experience is also a major factor. The best plane in the hands of an inexperienced pilot will not normally succeed against an average plane in the hands of an experienced pilot. But the biggest key was to fight using your plane's strengths and not allow the enemy to use his. Once They learned that the Zero couldn't turn very well above 300kts nor could it dive at speeds greater than 350kts, U.S. pilots began having great success against it in combat.

Chez

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Very interesting, the ratings surprised me a bit. Quick poll: Do these seem right to you?

P-38 67%
P-40E 60% (Superior to all forms of ZERO)
Ki-44 TOJO 60%
F4F 58%
A6m3 Zero 54%
A6m2 Zero 52%
F2A-Buffalo 52%

So, by that system the Buffalo is equal to the Zero, and the P-40 superior. Now, this doesn't account for the early war Zero bonus which is why Zeros shoot down Buffalos in droves early on (plus the differences in Pilot Rating). But does this seem right over all? I will say I think P-40's can hold there own if the pilots are decent.

quote:

P-40s most surely did hold their own versus Zeros when the pilots driving them understood the best way to fight Zeros with P-40s. Witness the results of the AVG. (And in that case many of those pilots were not necessarily "good" coming into China, but they were very well prepared indeed by Chennault for combat with the Zero.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

There is no comparison between the F2A and the A6M. Any pilot worth a salt knows which plane would win. The A6M Zeros tore through every P-40 squadron they ever came across. The AVG never engaged A6Ms in combat so no comparison can be made there. Navy Wildcats barely held there own against the Zero. They did so because they learned that if they didn't have a height advantage, it would be suicide to engage.

The problem with this rating is that it depends on how the aircraft is being used and over-emphasizes durability as a primary indicator of combat effectiveness. Early in the war, the Allies tried to dogfight the Japanese aircraft using the tactics being used in Europe, that is a turning dogfight. The Japanese aircraft Nate, Oscar, and Zero were all far more manueverable at dogfighting speeds (<250kts) than were their Allied counterparts. Any Allied pilot attempting to stay with one of these aircraft in a turn was toast. Even the vaunted Spitfire came out second best time after time against the Zero.

The AVG learned to use boom and zoom tactics very successfully, especially when Japanese fighters were tied to bomber escort. While the AVG never encountered the A6M in combat (most of their kills were Nates and Sallys), they did occasionally encounter the Oscar but did had a much lower success rate over it than the Nate (though it was still 3.5:1).

quote:

Navy fighters learned to use the Thatch Weave to help reduce their vulnerability. Even after the P-38 came along, Japanese pilots had more than a 2:1 kill ratio against until the P-38s started using the boom and zoom. Once they did that, the kill ratio very quickly reversed itself. The F6F and the Corsair were the first aircraft that could do well against the Zeros in a horizontal plane plus they had higher top speeds.

quote:

Pilot experience is also a major factor. The best plane in the hands of an inexperienced pilot will not normally succeed against an average plane in the hands of an experienced pilot. But the biggest key was to fight using your plane's strengths and not allow the enemy to use his. Once They learned that the Zero couldn't turn very well above 300kts nor could it dive at speeds greater than 350kts, U.S. pilots began having great success against it in combat.

Chez

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

P-40s most surely did hold their own versus Zeros when the pilots driving them understood the best way to fight Zeros with P-40s. Witness the results of the AVG. (And in that case many of those pilots were not necessarily "good" coming into China, but they were very well prepared indeed by Chennault for combat with the Zero.)

Sorry, Tris, the AVG never met the Zero in combat. I know that blowhard, Eric Schilling begs to differ, but seeing as how he never even had a full kill (.75) I doubt he can be credited as an "expert" especially when Tex Hill in his writings directly contradicts him. Check out the kills Tex Hill and all the other AVG aces had. Not one Zero to be found. That's because China and Burma were pretty much an IJ Army affair. Nearly all were Nates and Sallys. Here's a detailed listing of the kills by each of the top 15 AVG pilots:

http://www.warbirdforum.com/avgaces.htm

Note: The Hayabusa is the Ki-43 IIb Oscar

Chez

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

This is a PBEM between 2 experienced players. China has seen no air battle and there has been no CV battle yet. And I have not attacked any base where I know the AVG was flying CAP. American volunterrs have so far only shot down some recon planes.
On the remaining areas, Japanese airmen are always overwhelming opposition with numbers then changing area. Offensive missions (escorts and sweeps (latter scarcely used)) are always flown with at least two Datais/Sentais that were "rested" (fly CAP only) the day before.

Date is now 18th January 1942

A6M2 Zero is the main Japanese fighter and is used everywhere to break the Allied airforce.

Overall Zero score: 253 victories for 11 air-to-air losses

vs Brewster 339: 34 victories for 1 loss
vs Buffalo: 25 victories for 2 losses
vs F4F-3: 3 victories
vs Hurricane II: 10 victories
vs P-26A: 6 victories
vs P-35A: 7 victories
vs P-36A: 3 victories
vs P-40B: 20 victories for 1 loss
vs P-40E: 48 victories for 4 losses
vs Wirraway: 12 victories
vs non-fighters: 85 victories for 3 losses (aginst B-17Cs, 15 shot down)

Ki-27 Nate almost always flies defensive mission over airfields or short range LRCAP away from Allied bases. They are used for escorts where no Allied fighter are excepted or with several units of better fighters.

Overall Nate score: 58 victories for 13 air-to-air losses

vs Buffalo: 36 victories for 8 losses
vs Hurricane II: 4 victories for 2 losses
vs P-40E: 2 victoires for 3 losses
vs non-fighters: 16 victories

Ki-43-Ia Oscar is used as the "Army Zero". The two Sentais fly together in Malaya since the start of the war and have been used against Singapore airmen. Only one Zero Daitai is used in Malaya.

Overall Oscar I score: 54 victories vs 14 air-to-air losses

vs Buffalo: 22 victories for 5 losses
vs Hurricane II: 13 victories for 8 losses
vs non-fighters: 19 victories for 1 loss (against a Blenheim IV)

Ki-44 Tojo and A5M Claude have never engaged enemy planes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

There is no comparison between the F2A and the A6M. Any pilot worth a salt knows which plane would win. The A6M Zeros tore through every P-40 squadron they ever came across. The AVG never engaged A6Ms in combat so no comparison can be made there. Navy Wildcats barely held there own against the Zero. They did so because they learned that if they didn't have a height advantage, it would be suicide to engage.

The problem with this rating is that it depends on how the aircraft is being used and over-emphasizes durability as a primary indicator of combat effectiveness. Early in the war, the Allies tried to dogfight the Japanese aircraft using the tactics being used in Europe, that is a turning dogfight. The Japanese aircraft Nate, Oscar, and Zero were all far more manueverable at dogfighting speeds (<250kts) than were their Allied counterparts. Any Allied pilot attempting to stay with one of these aircraft in a turn was toast. Even the vaunted Spitfire came out second best time after time against the Zero.

The AVG learned to use boom and zoom tactics very successfully, especially when Japanese fighters were tied to bomber escort. While the AVG never encountered the A6M in combat (most of their kills were Nates and Sallys), they did occasionally encounter the Oscar but did had a much lower success rate over it than the Nate (though it was still 3.5:1).

Navy fighters learned to use the Thatch Weave to help reduce their vulnerability. Even after the P-38 came along, Japanese pilots had more than a 2:1 kill ratio against until the P-38s started using the boom and zoom. Once they did that, the kill ratio very quickly reversed itself. The F6F and the Corsair were the first aircraft that could do well against the Zeros in a horizontal plane plus they had higher top speeds.

Pilot experience is also a major factor. The best plane in the hands of an inexperienced pilot will not normally succeed against an average plane in the hands of an experienced pilot. But the biggest key was to fight using your plane's strengths and not allow the enemy to use his. Once They learned that the Zero couldn't turn very well above 300kts nor could it dive at speeds greater than 350kts, U.S. pilots began having great success against it in combat.

Chez

So it more or less boils down to tactics and skill. If you want to dog-fight, the light and agile Zeroes and Oscars will have
an advantage against the heavier and more durable Allied planes. Throw in an advantage in pilot skill at War's start and
the fact that most Allied pilots started the war willing to try to dog-fight, and the Japanese do quite well. As soon as the
"word" began to get out that getting into a tail-chasing contest with a Japanese fighter was a losing proposition, tactics
began to change. Once Allied tactics began to change to emphasize speed and firepower and vertical combat the Japs
started losing their advantage. Same aircraft, different tactics.

What hurt the Japanese was when the tactics changed, they didn't have the A/C to be competative in the new style. They
tried to catch up with more "Allied-style" fighters like the Tony as the war went on, but were usually a generation behind
until the very end, when their production let them down. Couple this with a very inadequate (numbers-wise) pilot training
program, and they were caught in a downward spiral they couldn't recover from. As long as the game is basically true
to this overall situation, it is adequate. The gradual decline in the pilot skill differential can be used to represent the shift
in tactics. It's not perfect, but it will work as long as the advantages aren't built into the aircraft models. If a fight
between a Zero and a Wildcat with equal pilots is a fairly equal proposition (say 55% to 45% success rate). Same with a
P-40 vs and Oscar, etc. When Allied skill levels start exceeding the Japs, and F6F's and P-38's come into play, then things
get ugly for the Japanese.

quote:

Of course I wasn't there, but I did send you this link once re P-40s in combat versus the Zero: http://www.airartnw.com/fightingtigers.htm

quote:

If you've the interest, here's a fairly detailed (three pages) account of his action with the AVG, as written by Rossi: http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Rossi-AVG.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

Of course I wasn't there, but I did send you this link once re P-40s in combat versus the Zero: http://www.airartnw.com/fightingtigers.htm

Look closely at the painting. Those are Ki-43 Oscars (note the long thin tail). The problem was that the Brits and AVG tended to call any retractable gear Japanese fighter a "Zero." Also, in the writing, he mentions Nakajima fighters, again referring to the Ki-27 Nate.

quote:

If you've the interest, here's a fairly detailed (three pages) account of his action with the AVG, as written by Rossi: http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Rossi-AVG.html

quote:

The report is interesting and confirms that they were flying against Ki-27 Nates. There are 2 pictures of them, one has crashed and one appears to be a propaganda photo. On 21 Mar 42 he writes:
Quote:
"The pilots who did make contact said the Japanese planes were all faster than those they had met before; no fixed gear fighters either. Ken Jernstedt was shot down but only slightly injured. It was one of our worst engagements..." Unquote. On 8 April he also says that they met Zekes, which he says were similar to Zeros. That indicates to me that they were not Zeros and he misidentified Oscars as Zekes. Under the OOB link below, you'll find that the 64th Sentai, commanded by Col. Kako, led the mission that Rossi refers to on 8 April. The 64th Sentai flew the Ki-43 Oscar.

quote:

Here are a couple of interesting reads; one concerning "claimed" kills and one has the Japanese squadrons the AVG flew against (All IJA air units equipped with Nates and Oscars.

"Claims:" http://www.warbirdforum.com/loss.htm
IJA OOB: http://www.warbirdforum.com/hinoki.htm

quote:

Your link: http://www.warbirdforum.com/vics.htm) doesn't work.

quote:

Again, Triston, the AVG never met any A6Ms in combat, nor did the 23rd Ftr squadron that replaced the AVG. The only fighters they met were army fighters, mostly Ki-27 Nates and Ki-43 Oscars.

You really should read the entire warbird forum concerning the AVG at: http://www.warbirdforum.com/avg.htm
It is extremely well researched, detailed with names, places and dates of the Japanese, British and American flyers that took part in the air battles over the CBI. No where does it mention the A6M in that theater.

quote:

I did find it interesting that Erik Shilling never engaged a single Japanese fighter in the air during his entire flying career, in or out of the Flying Tigers, yet he claimed to be an expert on dogfighting Japanese aircraft. The only time he ever fired his guns was when his flight intercepted a Jap bomber and shot it down. He was credited with 3/4 of the kill. The only fighter-to-fighter combat he ever saw was a mock dogfight against a British Brewster Buffalo.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder
Again, this does not take into account the Zero bonus, or the fact that 1-on-1, most Japanese pilots will have an exp rating of about 70 vs. 60 of their Allied counterparts. Exp is the single most important attribute in a-t-a combat (and in WitP). However, because it can vary widely, it can't be accounted for. And as I said, I personally put a lot of emphasis on range. The Hurricane II is a fair fighter, but it's range sucks, so it's relegated to point-defense duties.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

There is no comparison between the F2A and the A6M. Any pilot worth a salt knows which plane would win. The A6M Zeros tore through every P-40 squadron they ever came across. The AVG never engaged A6Ms in combat so no comparison can be made there. Navy Wildcats barely held there own against the Zero. They did so because they learned that if they didn't have a height advantage, it would be suicide to engage.


Chez

quote:

Think about this. Gary gives a "maneuver" rating for planes, as if the ability of a plane to "maneuver" might be something absolute when in fact it should not be represented as something absolute but rather something which needs to be qualified according to the circumstance. It's like polling. If you ask bad questions of the sample the poll results will come out skewed. "Was the Zero better at maneuvering than the P-40?" a question might go. Well, it depends on what altitude the planes were at and what air speed we're talking about, right? But Gary never takes that into consideration. At 15,000 feet in a vertical space, diving, with a P-40 pilot who understands the flying dynamics of both his plane and that of the enemy, I'd take the Tomahawk any day. Wouldn't you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Now you're getting into semantics Trist.

Yes, everything you are indicating is correct. There are many facets of experience, and how it helps you in most ways, but everybody can have a bad day and forget to check-6 the one time you should. And yes, the Allies had superior techonolgy as the war progressed, and quickly developed superiour tacticts, all which contribute to over-coming an experience advantage of the individual.

I will reitterate for the 3rd time. I'm just using the spreadsheet to create parings in WitP. Historical anecdotes are not relevent to the spread sheet. It is simply a reflection of what I feel is important in how I "grade" my own aircraft. Allied technolgoy is reflected in better speed/maneuver/gun ratings. There is -no- way that WitP accounts for superiour group tactics (except perhaps thru leader ratings, but the Allies aren't being given a specific advantage there).

-F-