RHS Zero range and midget thing questions

[TulliusDetritus]

El Cid Again,

months ago Oleg Mastruko complained about the range of the Zero in CHS: you cannot simulate the historic air raids from Rabaul against Guadalcanal. He was totally right, in my opinion.

I see that in your RHS you cannot simulate the thing either [:(]

Distance Rabaul - Lunga = 11 hexes
A6M2-Zeke extended radius = 10 hexes

I know that we may use intermediate airfields (Buka, Shortlands, etc.) but...

So, why have you ignored this well known historic fact: the air raids from Rabaul?

As for the midgets thing (by the way, maybe this has been answered; but I can't be arsed to read everything on these forums [:)]):

The midgets (I mean, the ones based on submarines) are supposed to be another "weapon"? I mean they will attack other ships, just like torpedoes, the cannon? Or they are supposed to be used for attacking enemy docked ships (in ports which size is 3 and above)?

Thanks in advance

[Mike Scholl]

months ago Oleg Mastruko complained about the range of the Zero in CHS: you cannot simulate the historic air raids from Rabaul against Guadalcanal. He was totally right, in my opinion.

I see that in your RHS you cannot simulate the thing either

Distance Rabaul - Lunga = 11 hexes
A6M2-Zeke extended radius = 10 hexes

I know that we may use intermediate airfields (Buka, Shortlands, etc.) but...

So, why have you ignored this well known historic fact: the air raids from Rabaul?

If you read the Japanese accounts, you will see that only the best and most veteran pilots flew the Zero missions from Rabaul to Guadalcanal..., the ones with the experiance and knowhow to wring every last mile out of their tanks. The others couldn't make the trip until the units had been posted closer to the action. So the answer is that everybody's right..., and everybody's wrong. It's a problem with no easy solution. Do you allow everybody to fly missions that only a few could manage? Or do you make everyone "average" and keep the range to what all could achieve? If you have a good solid workable easy-to-implement notion for dealing with the situation, I'm sure the "1.9" team would love to hear it.

[ChezDaJez]

If you read the Japanese accounts, you will see that only the best and most veteran pilots flew the Zero missions from Rabaul to Guadalcanal..., the ones with the experiance and knowhow to wring every last mile out of their tanks. The others couldn't make the trip until the units had been posted closer to the action. So the answer is that everybody's right..., and everybody's wrong. It's a problem with no easy solution. Do you allow everybody to fly missions that only a few could manage? Or do you make everyone "average" and keep the range to what all could achieve? If you have a good solid workable easy-to-implement notion for dealing with the situation, I'm sure the "1.9" team would love to hear it.

Actually, there was no Japanese experience restrictions concerning trips to Guadalcanal. All Japanese air units were pretty highly experienced during the intial few air combats. In October the Japanese received a large cadre of replacement pilots to offset losses and these pilots were fairly well trained and some were very experienced. The Tainan daitai that shouldered much of the initial fighting was a highly experienced unit (Sakai's unit). Later in the campaign, the Japanese threw whomever was available into the fray. They just didn't have the luxury of withholding less experienced pilots from combat.

The only restriction had to do with aircraft logisitics. The Japanese had units with A6M2s and units with A6M3s. A6M3s did not have the range to fly to Guadalcanal and back but the A6M2 could with a belly tank. Still fuel was critical and a belly tank only allowed for about 10-15 minutes over the target.

Chez

[TulliusDetritus]

Mike Scholl,

ah, I did not know that not every pilot could do that trip. So you have to be right: "everybody's right..., and everybody's wrong". Thank you for that information [:)]

[EDIT:

Chez Da Jez,

so in your opinion only "aircraft logistics" matters? Well, I have 2 answers now. Which one is true? Or both may be true? [:)]]

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
So in your opinion only "aircraft logistics" matters? Well, I have 2 answers now. Which one is true? Or both may be true? [:)]]

There are two correct answers really.

Zeros DID fly missions from Rabaul to Lunga, but has been mentioned, these were by very experienced pilots, using special flying techniques, using extra fuel, and with only a very short time over the target. This was not within the normal capabilities of the aircraft.

So, in the game, do you model the "normal" capabilities of the aircraft, or the exceptional?

Quite a few people want to see the exceptional be modeled, so that Zeros can fly 11 hexes. However if you do this, there are a lot of other aircraft that would have to be modified. For example, there were several B-24 missions which were flown from Darwin to Balikpapan, to bomb the oil facilities. These flights were by experienced crews, and used ligher bomb loads and additional onboard fuel. So if we allow exceptional circumstances, B-24s should be given an extended range of 20 hexes (Darwin to Balikpapan on my map) instead of 14.

So by all means lobby for Zeros to be given an 11 hex range, as long as you don't mind B-24s being given a range of 20 hexes (as one example).

Andrew

[ChezDaJez]

so in your opinion only "aircraft logistics" matters? Well, I have 2 answers now. Which one is true? Or both may be true?

No, but range of the aircraft was certainly the most important factor.

Mike is correct to a certain extent in that the best and most experienced pilots flew Guadalcanal missions but it wasn't done by handpicking the best pilots available at Rabaul. It was done by picking the best unit available. The Tainan airgroup was organized in Oct 41 from selected China campaign veterans and was one of the elite fighter units in the Japanese arsenal. They were also already experienced in conducting long range escort flights having provided escort services during the Philippine campaign flying missions from Taiwan to Manila (which is nearly as far as Rabaul to Lunga). It also had 5 of their best fliers, including Saburo Sakai and Hiroyoshi Nishizawa. Nishizawa was the top credited Japanese pilot of the war with 87 kills.

The point about experience levels of the Japanese pilots is that early in the campaign, they were virtually all highly experienced. As the battle wore on and replacements were assigned, the experience levels began to drop but it was the number of available aircraft that was the actual limiting factor.

Chez

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
The point about experience levels of the Japanese pilots is that early in the campaign, they were virtually all highly experienced. As the battle wore on and replacements were assigned, the experience levels began to drop but it was the number of available aircraft that was the actual limiting factor.
Chez

After the initial response missions, when the Japanese realized they had a "campaign" on their hands, they opened and moved supporting ground crews forward to bases further down the slot. So after the those missions the range became less of a factor, as did the need for using "only the best" pilots.

[el cid again]

months ago Oleg Mastruko complained about the range of the Zero in CHS: you cannot simulate the historic air raids from Rabaul against Guadalcanal. He was totally right, in my opinion.

I see that in your RHS you cannot simulate the thing either

Well

1) Oleg is a friend
2) This is the most controversial topic on the web and I almost had a fight with Joe about it

The difference in range is 5 minutes cruising time - 15 minutes of ferry range time - and you would get that extra hex

Why not ? I said.

Joe threw a fit - and lots of data. Seems that only a few pilots could do it at all. In the end, we went with the data.

Since - not under Joe's close supervision any more - I have made a rule.
I WILL alter a range if it is within 1% of an extra hex. But not if it is 95% - as in this case.

Actually -

I think we should REDUCE ALL ranges! I think averages matter in simulation, and we allow nothing for wind speed! In my games players who try to fly that far will lose planes - often. Here we should throw in 5 or 10 per cent operational reserves. But only two or three players want reduced ranges!

[el cid again]

As for the midgets thing (by the way, maybe this has been answered; but I can't be arsed to read everything on these forums ):

The midgets (I mean, the ones based on submarines) are supposed to be another "weapon"? I mean they will attack other ships, just like torpedoes, the cannon? Or they are supposed to be used for attacking enemy docked ships (in ports which size is 3 and above)?

Originally the midgets were supposed to participate in the great sea battle - the new Tsushima - IJN planned for. To that end, two ships - Mizuho and Chitose I think - two seaplane carriers had a dozen each at Midway! They WERE to attack ships at sea. And note ONE of those ships in RHS actually has a dozen midgets! [Mizuho is its own class so could be defined as half seaplane carrier half midget carrier - Chitose has a sister and you must define the class one way or the other - and be wrong for one]. So they DO attack enemy ships at sea as planned. I have a problem with code in ports- they should work there but won't. Unless the port is small enough. I give you what I can.

[el cid again]

The only restriction had to do with aircraft logisitics. The Japanese had units with A6M2s and units with A6M3s.

Not if you believe Sakai - and I do. HE said only a minority of pilots were up to it.

[el cid again]

So by all means lobby for Zeros to be given an 11 hex range, as long as you don't mind B-24s being given a range of 20 hexes (as one example).

My B-24D has an extended range of 25 hexes - because its ferry range is 76 hexes - so with a reduced bomb load you CAN fly that route. Joe and I adopted the standard "go with the data." On the average. There were even longer range missions - and we don't allow those.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

months ago Oleg Mastruko complained about the range of the Zero in CHS: you cannot simulate the historic air raids from Rabaul against Guadalcanal. He was totally right, in my opinion.

I see that in your RHS you cannot simulate the thing either

Well

1) Oleg is a friend
2) This is the most controversial topic on the web and I almost had a fight with Joe about it

The difference in range is 5 minutes cruising time - 15 minutes of ferry range time - and you would get that extra hex

Why not ? I said.

Joe threw a fit - and lots of data. Seems that only a few pilots could do it at all. In the end, we went with the data.

Since - not under Joe's close supervision any more - I have made a rule.
I WILL alter a range if it is within 1% of an extra hex. But not if it is 95% - as in this case.

Actually -

I think we should REDUCE ALL ranges! I think averages matter in simulation, and we allow nothing for wind speed! In my games players who try to fly that far will lose planes - often. Here we should throw in 5 or 10 per cent operational reserves. But only two or three players want reduced ranges!

ACTUALLY, there IS one thing that would make me tend to ask you for this particular "stretch". The game doesn't allow for a "strike transfer" as were often flown by both sides. Fly from Rabaul to Guadalcanal, but land at the Shortlands or Bouganville on the way back before returning to "home base". But Overall, I think you are right to hold the ranges to what can be proved to be possible for an average crew.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

As for the midgets thing (by the way, maybe this has been answered; but I can't be arsed to read everything on these forums ):

The midgets (I mean, the ones based on submarines) are supposed to be another "weapon"? I mean they will attack other ships, just like torpedoes, the cannon? Or they are supposed to be used for attacking enemy docked ships (in ports which size is 3 and above)?

Originally the midgets were supposed to participate in the great sea battle - the new Tsushima - IJN planned for. To that end, two ships - Mizuho and Chitose I think - two seaplane carriers had a dozen each at Midway! They WERE to attack ships at sea. And note ONE of those ships in RHS actually has a dozen midgets! [Mizuho is its own class so could be defined as half seaplane carrier half midget carrier - Chitose has a sister and you must define the class one way or the other - and be wrong for one]. So they DO attack enemy ships at sea as planned. I have a problem with code in ports- they should work there but won't. Unless the port is small enough. I give you what I can.

I think the "key" word in your explaination is "supposed"..... The Japanese had a lot of "ideas" about their planned "Jutland in the Pacific" that didn't work out in practice......Look what happened to the Kitakami and the Oi, the "torpedo cruisers" that were going to be used in the "battle".....Reconfigured as Daihatsu Carriers, and then as Kaiten Carriers; they both went on to accomplish absolutely NOTHING......Or almost as much as the LITTLE MORE THAN NOTHING accomplished by "midgets".....Given the almost useless nature of these "weapons", are they worth the trouble of the additional coding required?

[ChezDaJez]

Not if you believe Sakai - and I do. HE said only a minority of pilots were up to it.

Well, 18 of the 24 operational A6M2s of the Tainan airgroup flew to Guadalcanal on 7 Aug 42. 16 returned, 2 were missing, probably shot down. That was Sakai's unit. So it seems like the MAJORITY of the Tainan airgroup was up to it. And they did it day after day. The Chitose, 1st and 2nd airgroups among others also routinely conducted missions from Rabaul beginning the 2nd of September. Even Zuikaku and Shokaku fliers pariticpated after their carriers were rendered hors' d combat. And carrier pilots certainly weren't trained in the art of long distance flying.

If you believe that only the best could attempt it, why then did newly arrived Japanese replacements routinely perform the missions to Guadalcanal all throughout the campaign? By November, there certainly weren't many of the original veterans left. So the idea that only the best attempted the flight is BS. The Japanese sent whoever they could lay their hands on.

Not to disparage Sakai because I respected the man greatly, but how would he know who flew the missions to Guadalcanal? He was wounded on 7 Aug and evacuated on 12 August to Japan where he spent months in the hospital. He didn't even fly again until late 44. He is either wrong or misquoted. The Japanese weren't exactly blabbing about how things were going to the people back home.

If you choose to ignore historical precedence, thats fine. But creating another wrong doesn't make it right. If the map is the source of the error, fix the map. Don't remove a historical capability, one that was amply demonstrated.

I don't know much about RHS other than it was supposed to reflect greater attention to historical accuracy. If this is a result of that "greater attention," I think I'll pass on this mod.

Chez

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: el cid again

months ago Oleg Mastruko complained about the range of the Zero in CHS: you cannot simulate the historic air raids from Rabaul against Guadalcanal. He was totally right, in my opinion.

I see that in your RHS you cannot simulate the thing either

Well

1) Oleg is a friend
2) This is the most controversial topic on the web and I almost had a fight with Joe about it

The difference in range is 5 minutes cruising time - 15 minutes of ferry range time - and you would get that extra hex

Why not ? I said.

Joe threw a fit - and lots of data. Seems that only a few pilots could do it at all. In the end, we went with the data.

Since - not under Joe's close supervision any more - I have made a rule.
I WILL alter a range if it is within 1% of an extra hex. But not if it is 95% - as in this case.

Actually -

I think we should REDUCE ALL ranges! I think averages matter in simulation, and we allow nothing for wind speed! In my games players who try to fly that far will lose planes - often. Here we should throw in 5 or 10 per cent operational reserves. But only two or three players want reduced ranges!

ACTUALLY, there IS one thing that would make me tend to ask you for this particular "stretch". The game doesn't allow for a "strike transfer" as were often flown by both sides. Fly from Rabaul to Guadalcanal, but land at the Shortlands or Bouganville on the way back before returning to "home base". But Overall, I think you are right to hold the ranges to what can be proved to be possible for an average crew.

Mike, the game does allow "transfer strikes" because it allows you to transfer aircraft without operational penalties. There are many members of this forum who decry this ability given players in the game, but I use it instead. I do place limitations on the ability, trying to deduct the distance of the transfer from the aircraft's allotted range when choosing targets for strikes of this sort.

It's one way that a historically minded player can play the system without making it seem off kilter...

[Mike Scholl]

Mike, the game does allow "transfer strikes" because it allows you to transfer aircraft without operational penalties. There are many members of this forum who decry this ability given players in the game, but I use it instead. I do place limitations on the ability, trying to deduct the distance of the transfer from the aircraft's allotted range when choosing targets for strikes of this sort.

It's one way that a historically minded player can play the system without making it seem off kilter...

I've always tried to avoid this problem by simply limiting myself to only allowing a transfer mission during a day. There are a few instances when it can be justified, but to me it just seems to feel like "cheating" for the most part.

[bradfordkay]

On another thread I detailed my rules on this. Basically, a squadron has to be able to make the transfer within 4-6 hours of flying time at cruising speed. I feel that this allows for the historical transfer missions (or staged missions) without exploiting the weakness in the game system. One could make a more detailed set of rules for this use, but mine has the beauty of be simple and easy to employ (since I am often playing in my evening, after-work coctail hour(s) I need a rule that is simple and easy to employ).

[Ron Saueracker]

I'm trying to imagine a reserved guy like Joe W throwing a fit over the range issue regarding the A6M2![:D]

[el cid again]

I think the "key" word in your explaination is "supposed"..... The Japanese had a lot of "ideas" about their planned "Jutland in the Pacific" that didn't work out in practice......Look what happened to the Kitakami and the Oi, the "torpedo cruisers" that were going to be used in the "battle".....Reconfigured as Daihatsu Carriers, and then as Kaiten Carriers; they both went on to accomplish absolutely NOTHING......Or almost as much as the LITTLE MORE THAN NOTHING accomplished by "midgets".....Given the almost useless nature of these "weapons", are they worth the trouble of the additional coding required?

My views on this subject are unconventional. First, I know the curator of a museum which long had custody of a from of midget which is not listed anywhere: it has now been sent to a museum in Japan. [Nothing like getting ones hands on something that "does not exist" to cause one to suspect it existed, after all.] This particular midget is a variation of Kaiten adapted to special operations - it is not a weapon but a recon type.
Second, it was found in July 1945 by the US Army (not exactly a pro-Japanese source, nor a source able to do much in the way of fabricating submarines) on beach patrol in Panama. There is no way, if you accept official history, it could be there. But it was. Presenting a conundrum: if it was there, something took it there: what? My bet is a submarine, but nevertheless, what submarine? There are no nice answers to these questions - for those who "know" all that midgets and parent vessels did "practically nothing."

Then there is the matter of the picture. The same museum curator had a copy of a Japanese recon picture taken at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. He asked all who would look what it shows? Eventually he put it in a book on Japanese submarines - Advance Force Pearl Harbor. In it he noted that the advance force, long said to have achieved "practically nothing" - was the only element of the Pearl Harbor Striking force to hit a primary target: an aircraft carrier. He is right, of course: since it didn't happen on the same day it is usually overlooked. He also published this picture, and it led to a series of forinsic investigations, mainly by Navy experts, but also by academics. It is pretty clear to me the midgets DID achieve something on Pearl Harbor day: it is also clear that it is very hard to tell the difference between an 18 inch torpedo hit from an airplane and one from a midget, particularly since they are the exact same torpedo. I suspect as well it was good politics to ridicule the midget sub concept: we have gone on to use it and we did to this what we did to radio incercept and to stealth materials - we tried to make it look like Axis ideas didn't work - so we could use them to advantage in the Cold War. This conspires with those who love to claim automatic superiority for American technology to make it popular to cite official statements claiming just that - even when the officials knew better and did it for reasons other than academic historical accuracy.

There is a fine book done on all midgets of all nations - Midget Submarines of the Second World War. It concludes the Japanese midgets were superb craft, subject to limitations which always apply to craft of this sort, to this day. They were never able to operate in their design role. They did achieve some successes in two other roles we know of - and if they were also used in special operations the nature of Japanese culture is they will never tell us. [See The China Clipper and The Nagano School for hints in English - that is two different titles - not one long one.]
I think it is worth the effort to give players options to explore a very interesting concept. And it is in any case chrome which was asked for.

[el cid again]

If you believe that only the best could attempt it, why then did newly arrived Japanese replacements routinely perform the missions to Guadalcanal all throughout the campaign? By November, there certainly weren't many of the original veterans left. So the idea that only the best attempted the flight is BS. The Japanese sent whoever they could lay their hands on.

I was trained in military history by a famous and controversial man, the official historian for the US Army of his generation. He taught me to ignore what is popular and to ignore what is in secondary materials in favor of what eyewitnesses and original documents say - in particular about foreign operations. And I actually met Saburo Sakai and - well I do not have a lot of doubt about his character: after a certain point there is no need to make things up - and combat veterans can recognize this in each other. There is a species that must exaggerate everything - just as there are super patriots - on all sides: Sakai is not one of them. You are free to believe I am mistaken.

I do not have the slightest doubt that Tinian was a superb air group. Nor that even trainees, when finally released, were also superb. I regard IJN fighter pilots in 1941-2 as the best in the world - and I still teach one of their concepts when modern fighter pilots will listen (one not taught by any fighter school in the world). Sakai says this, over and over, but not as praise: as criticism - the training standards are too high and the graduate rate too low for combat operations against a major power. Your data indicates that about a third didn't attempt the mission: that is not possible to program into a game: players (and AI) will send em all.

IF we had a more complex system, I am a freespieler, and I would allow the mission to be flown, by a sub set. We don't. I work within the system at hand.