Powerful allied fighters

[Bombur]

-I´m playing the Guadalcanal camapaign PBEM as Japan. My Betties are flying frequent long range antiship missions with considerable success (in two weeks they sank 2 DD´s, 3 AP´s, and 1 PG, and damaged another CA). However, I´m impressed by the very poor performance of my escorting A6M´s groups, all of them with 70-80 experience). Int wo missions the A6M escort had to face enemy opposition from fighters.
1st: Attack on Lunga 35 F4F´s vs 11 A6M´s and then 30 F4F´s vs 25 A6M´s. Total losses: 18 A6M´s and 7 F4F´s. Given the fact that those F4F´s were CV based planes with good crews, this is not completely unexpected. However, two days after, 25 A6M´s faced 28 P-39D´s over Gilli Gilli. The results (in the intelligence report): 10 A6M´s lost vs 1 P-39D lost. Of course, this is an isolated incident, but, in how many instances in real life the P-39 were able to get 10:1 victories oves A6M´s?????

[Twotribes]

Are those positions at extended range for your Zeros? If so they suffer a penalty for that.

[Bombur]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Are those positions at extended range for your Zeros? If so they suffer a penalty for that.

-Yes. I think long range helps to explain this. But don´t forget that A6M´s actually were used in long range escorts missions against P-39´s and they usually inflicted more losses than suffered. I need more playtesting, but it´s possible that the long range effect is overestimated in the game engine. Of course, the experiences of other players would help somewhat.

[denisonh]

I have generally had the Allies get their asses kicked. Even against F4F-4s.

But the extended range, altitude, fatigue, and morale can impact combat results.

How many of the losses were actual air to air vice operational losses?

[Twotribes]

Another thing, the P-39 isnt as bad at below 15000 feet, it begins to suffer negatives over that. if your bombing below 15000 feet your playing into the strength not weakness of the P-39.

[Bombur]

ORIGINAL: denisonh

I have generally had the Allies get their asses kicked. Even against F4F-4s.

But the extended range, altitude, fatigue, and morale can impact combat results.

How many of the losses were actual air to air vice operational losses?

-I´m considering only air to air losses

[Bombur]

Original: Twotribes

Another thing, the P-39 isnt as bad at below 15000 feet, it begins to suffer negatives over that. if your bombing below 15000 feet your playing into the strength not weakness of the P-39.

-I´m using the A6M´s at 15000ft. It will be reasonable to change doctrine. But, again, this result seems to be too extreme, particularly when we considered that the A6M´s had better results against elite carrier crews flying thw much better F4F´s.

[Twotribes]

It doesnt matter what level the fighters are set too, it matters what level the bombers are on, the fighters will change altitude to escort them.

[mogami]

Hi, Many things go into air to air results. Group leader, fatigue, range, How many "new" pilots are flying in a group. Radar (helps the side intercepting get more aircraft into the air and get to the right altitude for "bounce"
Alos those USAAF pilots are not bad they just have an aircraft that can't turn and loses performance at higher altitudes. It does have pretty decent firepower. Are all these A6M2 groups the same group or different groups?

[Mike Scholl]

Bombur. You said your Betties were flying long ranged anti-shipping missions.
For any hope of hitting anything, the will be flying fairly low. If Betty's are at
long range, then your Zero's are too. So you have low flying Zero's at exten-
ded range getting attacked by the P-39's (who don't get a penalty under 10,000
feet). If you're attacking the shipping at bases (sounded like it) you could be fly-
ing into radar-guided intercepts. At your low altitude, the P-39's may well have
the "bounce" on you. So your Zero's have given up virtually all their advantages,
and the P-39's have every edge they can get. They have heavier FP than your
A/C, and are much more ruggedly built, plus they are right over their base. I
don't see your results being all that odd..., you've pretty much stacked the deck
against yourself.

[Bombur]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Bombur. You said your Betties were flying long ranged anti-shipping missions.
For any hope of hitting anything, the will be flying fairly low. If Betty's are at
long range, then your Zero's are too. So you have low flying Zero's at exten-
ded range getting attacked by the P-39's (who don't get a penalty under 10,000
feet). If you're attacking the shipping at bases (sounded like it) you could be fly-
ing into radar-guided intercepts. At your low altitude, the P-39's may well have
the "bounce" on you. So your Zero's have given up virtually all their advantages,
and the P-39's have every edge they can get. They have heavier FP than your
A/C, and are much more ruggedly built, plus they are right over their base. I
don't see your results being all that odd..., you've pretty much stacked the deck
against yourself.

-My Betties weren´t flying in their extended range. They are using torpedoes, however,but they were ordered to fly at 15k feet before torpedo launching. But my complaint is not that more A6M´s than P-39´s were shot down, but the extreme results here (much worse than that obtained vs F4F´s pilots despite a similar situation, as far the variables you mentioned are considered). Was there any instance in 1942 were P-39´s got 10:1 kills vs. good A6M crews? At least in UV I never saw this happen (I used Bettiez/A6M´s in similar missions in UV).

[Bombur]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Many things go into air to air results. Group leader, fatigue, range, How many "new" pilots are flying in a group. Radar (helps the side intercepting get more aircraft into the air and get to the right altitude for "bounce"
Alos those USAAF pilots are not bad they just have an aircraft that can't turn and loses performance at higher altitudes. It does have pretty decent firepower. Are all these A6M2 groups the same group or different groups?

-Most pilots were veterans in the range of 75-85 experience points. I must check fatigue for them. There were two groups of A6M2 involved.

[plaxx]

One thing that I have noticed also is that with Fog of War, the numbers in the combat reports are not always accurate...I made a raid with three carriers against Makin Island, 54 F4F vs. 40 A6Ms, March 42...the losses said that I had 44 F4Fs destroyed, 10 damaged vs 6 Zekes destroyed, 2 damaged. I was pretty upset until I actually looked at my carriers. I only had 13 destroyed! So maybe the Zeke pilots (like most pilots in war) overestimated the results? I don't know if this is programmed to happen, but it seems to happen a lot...the numbers reported are not always right.

[Bombur]

ORIGINAL: plaxx

One thing that I have noticed also is that with Fog of War, the numbers in the combat reports are not always accurate...I made a raid with three carriers against Makin Island, 54 F4F vs. 40 A6Ms, March 42...the losses said that I had 44 F4Fs destroyed, 10 damaged vs 6 Zekes destroyed, 2 damaged. I was pretty upset until I actually looked at my carriers. I only had 13 destroyed! So maybe the Zeke pilots (like most pilots in war) overestimated the results? I don't know if this is programmed to happen, but it seems to happen a lot...the numbers reported are not always right.

-The numbers of aircraft shot down in the combat report are wildly inflated. I´m using the intel estimates, which are much more reliable (and close to real losses, I think).

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Many things go into air to air results. Group leader, fatigue, range, How many "new" pilots are flying in a group. Radar (helps the side intercepting get more aircraft into the air and get to the right altitude for "bounce"
Alos those USAAF pilots are not bad they just have an aircraft that can't turn and loses performance at higher altitudes. It does have pretty decent firepower. Are all these A6M2 groups the same group or different groups?

There is one thing here that concerns/bothers me a lot...


Why is "Group Leader" taken into account in air to air combat?


I ask this because not all "Group leaders" are actually pilots that fly (many leadres are just desk jockeys).

Also "group leader" even if he is active pilot can or can not fly the mission.

So... how can he influence the air to air combat?


Leo "Apollo11"

[Splinterhead]

My guess is that the leader's effect on the squadron is what he does before the battle; flight assignments, training, mission planning etc. I should think once the shooting starts he would, assuming he is flying, be too busy to manage the battle in anything other than the most general fashion.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Bombur

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Bombur. You said your Betties were flying long ranged anti-shipping missions.
For any hope of hitting anything, the will be flying fairly low. If Betty's are at
long range, then your Zero's are too. So you have low flying Zero's at exten-
ded range getting attacked by the P-39's (who don't get a penalty under 10,000
feet). If you're attacking the shipping at bases (sounded like it) you could be fly-
ing into radar-guided intercepts. At your low altitude, the P-39's may well have
the "bounce" on you. So your Zero's have given up virtually all their advantages,
and the P-39's have every edge they can get. They have heavier FP than your
A/C, and are much more ruggedly built, plus they are right over their base. I
don't see your results being all that odd..., you've pretty much stacked the deck
against yourself.

-My Betties weren´t flying in their extended range. They are using torpedoes, however,but they were ordered to fly at 15k feet before torpedo launching. But my complaint is not that more A6M´s than P-39´s were shot down, but the extreme results here (much worse than that obtained vs F4F´s pilots despite a similar situation, as far the variables you mentioned are considered). Was there any instance in 1942 were P-39´s got 10:1 kills vs. good A6M crews? At least in UV I never saw this happen (I used Bettiez/A6M´s in similar missions in UV).

Bombur. If your Betties were dropping Torpedos from 15,000 feet they weren't much
danger to anyone. I assume they were dropping them from 200 ft, which would be the
altitude that they (and their escort if it was going to be of any use at all) were flying
at the time of the intercept. So your Zeros were low and slow ( to stay with the Betties
they were escorting) and the P-39's got the "bounce". Straight Fighter-fighter the Japs
probably have enough manueverability to dodge most trouble---but as they have to
protect the Torpedo Bombers (and to have any chance of a hit, the Betties can't be
"jinking around" much), your Zeros are between a rock and a hard place and will occa-
sionally get beat up even by "inferior" A/C.

[denisonh]

There is no doubt that leadership is one of the critical factors impacting combat.

Modern combat is a collective effort, and as such how the UNIT performs is only in part a function of INDIVIDUAL performance.

The application of tactics and doctrine based on the situation confronting a unit is where leadership can make the difference in the outcome.

To fail to include this as a major part of the air combat model would be ludicrous.

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Many things go into air to air results. Group leader, fatigue, range, How many "new" pilots are flying in a group. Radar (helps the side intercepting get more aircraft into the air and get to the right altitude for "bounce"
Alos those USAAF pilots are not bad they just have an aircraft that can't turn and loses performance at higher altitudes. It does have pretty decent firepower. Are all these A6M2 groups the same group or different groups?

There is one thing here that concerns/bothers me a lot...


Why is "Group Leader" taken into account in air to air combat?


I ask this because not all "Group leaders" are actually pilots that fly (many leadres are just desk jockeys).

Also "group leader" even if he is active pilot can or can not fly the mission.

So... how can he influence the air to air combat?


Leo "Apollo11"

[Bombur]

Bombur. If your Betties were dropping Torpedos from 15,000 feet they weren't much
danger to anyone. I assume they were dropping them from 200 ft, which would be the
altitude that they (and their escort if it was going to be of any use at all) were flying
at the time of the intercept. So your Zeros were low and slow ( to stay with the Betties
they were escorting) and the P-39's got the "bounce". Straight Fighter-fighter the Japs
probably have enough manueverability to dodge most trouble---but as they have to
protect the Torpedo Bombers (and to have any chance of a hit, the Betties can't be
"jinking around" much), your Zeros are between a rock and a hard place and will occa-
sionally get beat up even by "inferior" A/C.

-I understand, but, if you are right, then(1) you have a big diffference in relation to the UV system, where A6M´s could escort Betties withouth being decimated and (2) Every figther escorting torpedo bombers will be subjected to the same penalties. As I said before, this is an isolaqted incident, but I think it is worth to be subjected to more extensive testing. My PBEM opponent, btw, noticed the same thing. He argues that Wirraways are the only allied planes thar can´t survive the A6M´s.I will start a Guadalcanal scenario vs the AI to report these results

[Bombur]

Here are my first results

Guadalcanal scenarios

1-P-39´s vs A6M´s (over PM, A6M´s escorting level bombers)
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/04/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 15
G4M1 Betty x 6

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 19

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 5 destroyed
G4M1 Betty: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 15 destroyed, 2 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
5 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 15000 feet

Real losses: 3 A6M2 vs 7 P-39