New ideas on A2A in the next patch

[el cid again]

I'm also curious to hear what kind of airplane has a sustained 10m min radius turn and can do it without losing altitude or departing...

It is Polish - and rather famous. I have to look it up - but it is fairly good for things like observation and photography. It maneuvers rather better than a helicopter. It is very slow - it does not actually use a runway - it takes off and lands on the apron - on a TINY fraction of the apron - 2 to 4 meters of it. They have one running at the Aviation Museum at Tillimook - next to the airship hanger. I can look it up if you like.

[el cid again]

So what is that experience worth in game terms? 20 points, 30 points?

That is a good question. That is a very good question. Without the code, or a comprehensive set of test data, I have no way to answer that question either. But I am convervative: I would start with something moderate and run tests until I got historical results in a very hard data context - something not easy to define. I would guess that those with experience in the air war in Europe would be marginally better than those without - and here I mean 10% - I would NOT be rating the Philippine air force EQUAL to the USAAF (as the game does) - and I am not at all sure why the USN is rated significantly higher than USAAF? . My first guess would be pilots get 10% for every level of training:

A pilot with ground school but zero flight training is zero
Primary flight school = 10% (fly a primary trainer over 10 hours solo)
Intermediate flight school = 20 % (fly an intermediate trainer same)
Advanced flight school = 30% (fly an advanced trainer same)
Type flight school = 40% (tactical training on your aircraft type)

This might be the highest level a civilian pilot can reach - e.g. an airline pilot.

An intense military training program - like used by JNAF - might on this scale be worth 10%

Exposure (and survival) to air combat - probably just about any air combat - might be also worth 10%

Actual success in air combat might be required to go above that level.
IF that were used, THEN you might find only tiny numbers of very high ratings: something like 5% of pilots score the vast majority of kills - I forget the statistic (it is in The Ace Factor ) - maybe 85 or 90%.

IF this brainstorming - wholly uncalibrated - is not utterly worthless - then you might find a 10% advantage vs - say - RAF pilots and a 20% advantage vs - say - USAAF pilots - for the LOWEST Japanese pilots - with a fraction having significantly higher ratings above them.

[el cid again]

RE the "torpedo claims". I have asked repeatedly for someone to provide real world examples to justify the kind of lethality that the G3/G4/Kate consistently demonstrate in this game and UV. I perfectly willing to become a "believer" but to date, no one has ever been able to cite more than a relative handful of instances where they scored hits with their torpedos.

I suggest you study Japanese training and torpedo doctrine. The reality is that they could expect a remarkable percentage of hits in a test and training situation. Battle is a very different kettle of fish - and there is very little possibility of complete information being available. Individual memory is not very reliable. Even formal reports are full of individual opinion and never close to complete (insofar as a great deal of information was not known to the report writer to report in the first place).
Japan had nothing comparable to our record system - or sense records were needed - and then specifically ordered all records destroyed. The vast majority WERE destroyed. This concept - we have no records means nothing happened - is an assumption - and not a reasonable one either. Think about it: if a torpedo attack at sea is successful - you might not even hear about it at all. Many ships were lost for causes unknown: not very many of them to storms. The chances of sinking a ship outright are much higher for weapons that let water in than for weapons that let air in.

[el cid again]

The IJN was innovative in forming 1st Air Fleet. It conducted some spectacular and effective raids with the KB against land bases early in the war. Given the facts above though KB did not demonstrate any overwhelming superiority in battle against it USN counterpart ...EVER.

based on this analysis, everyone who thinks Adm Halsey was lucky he was sent in the wrong direction when the war began were wrong

his tiny handful of planes

would have no doubt done quite well against the KB

and - if joined by the other US carrier in the Central Pacific - they might have won the war - I suppose.

There is something to Spence's logic: the KB in fact NEVER operated AS A UNIT after the first strike of the war. And ONLY as a unit did it have clear superiority over the USN carriers in the theater (wether together or not). Sending in 1/3 of the KB to Coral Sea was a violation of the principle of concentration - and allowed a battle at 1:1 odds - which makes even outcomes something to be expected. And when the KB WAS together the USN was not smart enough to run - it just also was not smart enough to find the enemy. So the KB didn't even intimidate the one time it should have. But forgive me for thinking it WOULD have won ANY time it was together - in 1941 or 1942.

[el cid again]

When they did hit something it was recorded.

\

Only God knows that. You don't. We surely don't. There are lots of things we don't know. Honest analysis must not begin from such a false premise. Real analysts use qualifying words - and when the evidence is STRONG they say things like "probably" - never something like you wrote.

[el cid again]

Because its secret and has since been destroyed...

Actually, I am surprised no one posted it. The usual way this conversation goes is "Oh - I know what plane you are talking about"

And I thought you were aviation buffs. This is NOT a secret plane and it IS famous

in fact it is in production and you can buy one.


It looks like a Wilga 2000 derivitive - a third generation decendent of the Wilga 1 (via the Wilga 35) - using a Western engine and avionics. It is an extreme STOL aircraft - using flaps controlled by a lever on the floor the pilot can radically change the characteristics of the plane. None of which I found amazing: it was his ability to put the plane right on its side and "hang" in the air - for a long time - until the whales sounded I found amazing.

[invernomuto]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

You don't need confirmation.

First, I would not report a test falsely.

Second, you can run your own test. Simply edit the scenario to start in 1945.

I would like to have more spare time to play with the editor and compare the results with others on the forum, but I have barely the time to play my two PBEMs. Unfortunately, I must rely on tests done by other players...

Third, this is an immature attitude. We are going to fix this. The FIRST step in fixing something is to define the problem.

Fourth, the game is very exciting until the hard code date - and the real challenge is in 1942 anyway. Play that part until we have a late war model that works properly. Which, by the way, will be sooner than you can get there playing by hand.

My game is in the second half of 1942. As I japanese I know that I have no chance to win the war but I expect to have at least some chance to fight. If proximity fuse bonus + better allied A/C + Bounce Allied bonus + PDUs combined togheter worsen the already troublesome A2A model giving to the allied player a near invincibility status, than I think that we have a big problem with this game.
If I manage to preserve my elite pilots (historically Japan lost most of them at Midway) I would like to see more balanced results, not historical kill ratio for 43.

Bye

[spence]

historically Japan lost most of them at Midway)

Actually the IJN lost something like double the aircrew at the Battle of Santa Cruz Islands than they did at Midway. Fuchida started this myth with his book. The fact that most of the bombers were on Akagi, Kaga, and Soryu and most of the fighters were in the air when the SBDs came down meant most of the flyers were rescued by the escort. Some died with their ships but not that many...only Hiryu's airgroup got decimated...they initially had a the worst time over Midway (of the 4 air groups) then pretty much went on one way strikes at Yorktown (not intentionally but each raid took 60% losses).

The airgroup or squadron records for the KBs Midway carriers apparently survived both the sinking of the ships and subsequent orders to destroy all records.

Nihon Kaigun has an account of the demise of the Hiei as well as a lengthy description of its last day in its TROM. Two or 3 DDs stood by her and also removed her crew. She had CAP from Junyo for a while too. The Americans who attacked her subjectively evaluated her flak as heavy but it seems none/few got shot down.

SHORT RESPONSES TO A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS POSTED PREVIOUSLY BY VARIOUS

[el cid again]

Fuchida started this myth with his book.

So now it is not only Sakai - but Fuchida - who tells us untruths?

I was told to expect this - in 1962 - by the then retired US Army official historian - at his retirement home (which I think is not far from Spence's home). He said it is wiser to listen to those who were there on the other side than to arm chair analysts who think they are "full of prunes." In USN I was taught the same thing Fujida said: that the fact the carriers were loaded with ordnance and that planes were fueling on deck (and some technical factors I was taught in a damage control school - like the uniforms - and the lack of even those on the occasion ) resulted in excessive casualties. But then, maybe USN has it wrong too...

[spence]

In USN I was taught the same thing Fujida said: that the fact the carriers were loaded with ordnance and that planes were fueling on deck

The KBs bombers were not on deck. The KB was not within minutes of launching. That is in fact one of the main, thoroughly researched (in Japanese records and by personal interviews) points of "Shattered Sword". Fuchida is exposed as a liar.

The time and place of deaths of individual flyers within KBs air groups is recorded in their squadron records which survived the war. Though they took heavy losses in every real battle they fought, Midway was not by a long shot, the "swan song" of the KBs flyers. Deaths among the air group maintenance people were much more severe than amongst the actual aviators/aircrew.

As to Sakai, I've never disputed anything he wrote since I read his book too many ages ago to now remember any specifics.

[Mike Scholl]

Back to the original point of the thread. Has anyone figured out a way to run Air-to-Air combat tests with both sides flying the SAME aircraft? Seems that wouod be the best way to evaluate the effects of "pilot skill". If both sides have Zeros or F6F's, then you can judge these factors accurately in testing. Give both sides the same experiance level as well, and you can judge any "built in" biases or special effects; like the Zero Bonus or the supposed Allied "bonuses" that increase during the war.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Has anyone figured out a way to run Air-to-Air combat tests with both sides flying the SAME aircraft? Seems that wouod be the best way to evaluate the effects of "pilot skill". If both sides have Zeros or F6F's, then you can judge these factors accurately in testing. Give both sides the same experiance level as well, and you can judge any "built in" biases or special effects; like the Zero Bonus or the supposed Allied "bonuses" that increase during the war.

I know this for long time... it's simple...

Just give all stats (armour, durabiliy, speed, maneouverability etc.) for aircraft you want to change to be same as the one you wish to "emulate" (for example if you give F4F same stats as Zero then F4F "becomes" Zero)!


Leo "Apollo11"

[Mike Scholl]

Just give all stats (armour, durabiliy, speed, maneouverability etc.) for aircraft you want to change to be same as the one you wish to "emulate" (for example if you give F4F same stats as Zero then F4F "becomes" Zero)!

Leo "Apollo11"

Sounds like a workable notion. Do you know if anyone has run a series of tests on such a basis?

[spence]

The Japanese raids into the Bay of Bengal also produced some torpedo hits. Ryujo alone sank over a dozen ships with her Kates and damaged at least 5 more. Some were with bombs, some with torps.

Not that I don't believe that torpedos were used by Ryujo in the IO but it's curious that they were not used when hunting warships (Exeter, Encounter, Pope and presumably the other survivors) in the Java Sea after the Battle of the Java Sea. (The Kates that attacked Pope did so with bombs).

Never heard of the B-26 attack in the Aleutians. Always thought the Midway sorties by B-26s with torpedos were a singular event.

[Apollo11]

HI all,

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Just give all stats (armour, durabiliy, speed, maneouverability etc.) for aircraft you want to change to be same as the one you wish to "emulate" (for example if you give F4F same stats as Zero then F4F "becomes" Zero)!

Sounds like a workable notion. Do you know if anyone has run a series of tests on such a basis?

I used it when I extensively tested bombing of ships in port (B-25, B-17 amd B-29) last year (there were huge threads on that here). At the end of testing, on "Mr. Frag's" request, I "converted" USA aircraft to emulate Japanese aircraft and see how AA is affecting weaker Japanese aircraft designs... it worked just fine...


Leo "Apollo11"

[bradfordkay]

"I am a professional, and quite clinical about this: I am only interested in truth, and I have no patriotic feelings about numbers. The historical record is what it is. Battle of Britain veterans were unable to handle the Japanese, either in Hurricanes or in Spitfires, and they were quite surprised to learn that - even foolishly accepting maneuver combat."


Sid, you need to understand that I have little in the way of patriotic feelings about this, either. If you had ever participated in the Art of War forum, you would realize that I am one of those Americans least likely to have "Go, Go, USA" type patriotic feelings on such matters.

If you had stated that the IJN pilots were the best trained in the world in 1941, I would not have questioned your comment. However, you stated that they were the most experienced combat pilots - and I do question that comment. Yes, the RAF BoB veterans were taken to the cleaners by the Oscar pilots in Malaya - for all the reasons that both you and I have stated. They wrongly felt that they could get into turning battles with the Oscars (and those very few Zeros they finally ran into later in the campaign). This does not diminish their experience, but rather their judgement. There is a difference. Personally, I think that the Germans probably had the most experienced combat pilots in late 1941...


I have seen so many myths of ww2 repeated on these forums, any I will usually confront those myths when I see them. It's a matter of professionalism...

[spence]

based on this analysis, everyone who thinks Adm Halsey was lucky he was sent in the wrong direction when the war began were wrong

his tiny handful of planes

would have no doubt done quite well against the KB

and - if joined by the other US carrier in the Central Pacific - they might have won the war - I suppose.

The 4 carrier battles of 1942 were pretty much even odds battles and from that record I concluded that the IJN never demonstrated an overwhelming superiority over the USN in fighting a carrier battle. Both sides had their fair share of mishaps and miscalculations on the operational level. The only result that overwhelmingly favored one side was Midway and that can be laid at the door of the strategic planners who overtasked the KB and dispersed their otherwise overwhelming forces.

Enterprise vs the KB on December 8+ would have resulted in Enterprise sunk if the Japanese detected her. If she got in a first strike my guess would be that some of her bombers would have gotten through the CAP and likely damaged a carrier or two. That result seems to be the result in WitP if one turns OFF historical first turn and aims the Enterprise at the KB (no mod to IJN historical movement).

Various aspects of WitP coding virtually guarantee that any confrontation between more or less equal numbers of carriers (or carrier a/c) before the US has had one or more AA upgrades and upgrades of both their fighter and torpedo bomber squadrons will result in a lop-sided IJN victory yet twice IRL they met before those conditions were fulfilled and in neither instance did the IJN win unequivocably (far from it).

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: spence
Enterprise vs the KB on December 8+ would have resulted in Enterprise sunk if the Japanese detected her. If she got in a first strike my guess would be that some of her bombers would have gotten through the CAP and likely damaged a carrier or two.

And we all know that a Sherman could easily destroy a Tiger without any problem if...........

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

ORIGINAL: spence
Enterprise vs the KB on December 8+ would have resulted in Enterprise sunk if the Japanese detected her. If she got in a first strike my guess would be that some of her bombers would have gotten through the CAP and likely damaged a carrier or two.

And we all know that a Sherman could easily destroy a Tiger without any problem if...........

Oh, please...it is a well known fact that Shermans needed a 4-1 edge to defeat anything mildly better. What does your comment have to do with established historical fact regarding the 4 CV battles of '42? Aside from trying to belittle the arguement in favour of maintaining unwarranted design driven advantages perhaps. Remember, history is not what we've been used to playing in GG designed games...he has a whack of personal and unwarranted assumptions/bias based on what I'd suspect is a youthful interest in the Pacific War that should have been eliminated over twenty years of gaming evolution and further study but have not. Frustrating but true.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

No Chez is right. It is physically impossible to get tally of an aircraft at 100 miles even a large one.

And I HAVE tried. I try every day. The best I've ever been able to pull off is about 20-25 miles in a clear day.

Guys - it takes only ONE person doing something ONE time to invalidate a statement like that. When many people can do it routinely, it is a different matter altogether.

It is not simply that you must try: it is that you must

1) become objective (willing to accept that what others can do you might also be able to do) - end this "I KNOW it can't be done" attitude stuff;

2) learn the REQUIRED technique: IF doing this means you MUST do something - and you don't do that - you are not prooving it cannot be done - you are only ignoring the requirement

Teach me then. I am a willing student.