Early war air power

[Vetamur]

Im not an expert in this area. At all.  Im just going to add my one comment..maybe two.
 
If you have to develop a particular tactic to use, and it is this one particular tactic that is responsible for generally keeping your plane competitive...then your plane isnt equal or superior to the other..its in the ballpark but inferior.
 
The quoted above article makes a good point on something else.  Generally, the Allies BELIEVED their equipment was not up to snuff.  That is so well documented I dont think it needs to be backed up. The USN felt its fighter was inferior. The Dutch had standing orders not to engage the Zero (well..not to engage at all until they realized the Oscar was a different plane).  This belief only gradually disappeared and while in place was a significant factor. 
 
For those so critical of the Zero Bonus, would they then be in favor of a morale penalty for pilots going against the Zero?

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Primarily from Thach.

Then he taught it to everyone else how? Formal flight school training or…

How did they get to the Marine on Guadalcanal or did they use different tactics?

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Anyways, as I've said before, superior tactics can make up for inferior equipment.

Do you consider the FW190 inferior? The Brits didn’t seem to, yet it could face the same problem when going up against the Spitfire. Depending on the model, in a FW190 you don’t turn with a Spitfire… more often than not you get creamed.

A Zero is going to have considerable trouble with a P-40 in a ‘Boom and Zoom’ contest… does that mean the zero is inferior equipment?

[Big B]

I'll chime in (been busy lately). I've finished reading all 5 previous pages and I'm ready to throw my 2c in .

The original question, I think, was about justification of the Zero Bonus. There has been much discussion raised here about the Zeros' effectiveness vs F4Fs', P-40s', and lesser Allied aircraft in 1942. I think all of this is very germane to the point.

I think it has been pretty well established that the Zero did not dominate P-40s' and F4F's. The Zeros' did well, so did those particular Allied opponents. The eventual totals were relatively close to a 1:1 trade on any given series of encounters - even going back to the Philippines.
Advantage in A2A combat - on any given day - had to do with the circumstances of encounters (surprised though the Allied pilots were over the good flying characteristics and proficiency of Japanese pilots).

I believe victory in the early air campaigns had a lot more to do with circumstances not directly involving A2A engagements (read - logistics, sea control, numbers of available aircraft, and bombers rendering aircraft and bases unusable).

Where the Japanese did dominate A2A combat, not related to extenuating circumstances, was over S.E.Asia, and to a lesser extent - the DEI (a lesser extent in the DEI because situation and numbers were telling there).
It was in this theater though (Burma) that the principal Japanese fighter was not the Zero - rather the Oscar and Nate.

If any aircraft needs help game-wise, it's the Oscar and Nate - NOT the Zero....IMHO.

As Pauk pointed out earlier, Zeros kill way too many planes to be realistic in WitP (and there is something of a role reversal later on with the Allies...though a better case could be made for that by 1944).

Personally, after lots of experimenting, I am moving away from the Zero Bonus for (my) next release, and substituting higher maneuverability and pilot experience across the board to replace it. From what I have seen this works well - for all aircraft...and quite frankly - the Zero - with good pilots - does not need any bonus to perform as well as it historically did.

Beyond anything else - I believe pilot experience seems to be the key, and it is needed most by aircraft other than the Zero in WitP.

B

[ChezDaJez]

Schilling claimed tactics were being used in the AVG to defeat Japanese style fighter designs, Thatch developed tactics to defeat Japanese style fighter designs, Chenault says he developed them from observations in China.

Schilling claimed it was the AVG that invented the "Beam defense" not Thach. And Chennault indeed developed his tactics after observing Japanese air forces in action in China. But he also never saw the Oscar in action until the AVG encountered it. Of the Zero, he had only heard anecdotal evidence of it though he was able to inspect one that had crash landed on a beach in China after the start of the war.

Anyways,

Chez

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Vetamur

Im not an expert in this area. At all. Im just going to add my one comment..maybe two.

If you have to develop a particular tactic to use, and it is this one particular tactic that is responsible for generally keeping your plane competitive...then your plane isnt equal or superior to the other..its in the ballpark but inferior.

The quoted above article makes a good point on something else. Generally, the Allies BELIEVED their equipment was not up to snuff. That is so well documented I dont think it needs to be backed up. The USN felt its fighter was inferior. The Dutch had standing orders not to engage the Zero (well..not to engage at all until they realized the Oscar was a different plane). This belief only gradually disappeared and while in place was a significant factor.

For those so critical of the Zero Bonus, would they then be in favor of a morale penalty for pilots going against the Zero?

The British believed the Spitfire was better than the Me109 and the Germans believed the Me109 was better than the Spitfire…. that means?

Do you believe the Zero was inferior because it couldn’t Boom and Zoom with the P-40?



Zero Bonus.

The claim is that inappropriate US tactic put the P-40 and F4F pilots at a disadvantage. Ok. The only mention of appropriate tactics seems to be during Midway well after the Zero Bonus is gone. If tactics is the issue… why isn’t there a Bonus at least through June of 1942 or later?

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Big B

If any aircraft needs help game-wise, it's the Oscar and Nate - NOT the Zero....IMHO.

I generally concur with everything else you wrote, but I would like to comment here.

In the game Nates suck and Oscars are crap. I am not sure the combat record (early) supports that.

If inappropriate tactics are the issue, why does that Zero get a bonus and not the Nates and Oscars? [&:]

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Schilling claimed tactics were being used in the AVG to defeat Japanese style fighter designs, Thatch developed tactics to defeat Japanese style fighter designs, Chenault says he developed them from observations in China.

Schilling claimed it was the AVG that invented the "Beam defense" not Thach. And Chennault indeed developed his tactics after observing Japanese air forces in action in China. But he also never saw the Oscar in action until the AVG encountered it. Of the Zero, he had only heard anecdotal evidence of it though he was able to inspect one that had crash landed on a beach in China after the start of the war.

Anyways,

Chez

Well, from what I have read from Shilling (and I know we have diverse opinions here [;)]) I think what he said was that the AVG was already using a "weaving" protection defense when the situation demanded it - not so much that they took credit for what Thatch worked out...

B

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Schilling claimed it was the AVG that invented the "Beam defense" not Thach. And Chennault indeed developed his tactics after observing Japanese air forces in action in China. But he also never saw the Oscar in action until the AVG encountered it. Of the Zero, he had only heard anecdotal evidence of it though he was able to inspect one that had crash landed on a beach in China after the start of the war.

Anyways,

Chez

They all make claims that the develope/observe tactics to win against a turn fighter, but wouldn't be true to say that tactics were around long before this period?

[ChezDaJez]

Personally, after lots of experimenting, I am moving away from the Zero Bonus for (my) next release, and substituting higher maneuverability and pilot experience across the board to replace it. From what I have seen this works well - for all aircraft...and quite frankly - the Zero - with good pilots - does not need any bonus to perform as well as it historically did.

Beyond anything else - I believe pilot experience seems to be the key, and it is needed most by aircraft other than the Zero in WitP.

Substituting increased maneuverability simply installs a permanent "Zero bonus" IMHO.

I agree that pilot experience is the key to success in the game. The Japanese rapidly lose that edge as allied experience increases and Japanese losses increase. The only issue I have with increasing pilot experience is that, like increasing maneuverability, it becomes a type of permanent bonus also.

I think people who worry about the Zero bonus don't realize just how fleeting the bonus is. One or two points of maneuverability (Mar and Apr 42) doesn't really contribute much to the algorithms especially when you remember that speed is the single biggest factor in combat ratings in the game. Consider that an A6M2 with the bonus in April 42 is less maneuverable in the game than the A6M3 which becomes available in April 42. I do not disagree with removing the Zero bonus though I think there are valid reasons for leaving it alone (or reducing it to 3 if possible).

I'm playing Bradfordkay in CHS Scenario 159 (experimental). Take a good look at what was done to air and pilot ratings in that scenario because it feels very good. Air-air combat is frustrating (for the Japanese player) because it's very difficult to sweep the skies clear, regardless of odds. I'll try to post a screenshot of our air losses to date (May 42). I don't think it uses the bonus either but I'm not sure.

Chez

[ChezDaJez]

They all make claims that the develope/observe tactics to win against a turn fighter, but wouldn't be true to say that tactics were around long before this period?

All air forces of the period were taught horizontal tactics, regardless of whether their aircraft were suitable for them. This basis was formed as a result of WWI air combat. And air combats to date in WWII air combat had failed to show anything different.

The innovation (a reinvention of the wheel so to speak) came when Chennault decided the vertical fight yielded a better chance of success against the more maneuverable Japanese aircraft. He basically fought to the strengths of his aircraft (speed and diving ability) and recognized that these vertical tactics neutralized the strengths of the Japanese fighters.

Chez

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Personally, after lots of experimenting, I am moving away from the Zero Bonus for (my) next release, and substituting higher maneuverability and pilot experience across the board to replace it. From what I have seen this works well - for all aircraft...and quite frankly - the Zero - with good pilots - does not need any bonus to perform as well as it historically did.

Beyond anything else - I believe pilot experience seems to be the key, and it is needed most by aircraft other than the Zero in WitP.

Substituting increased maneuverability simply installs a permanent "Zero bonus" IMHO.

I agree that pilot experience is the key to success in the game. The Japanese rapidly lose that edge as allied experience increases and Japanese losses increase. The only issue I have with increasing pilot experience is that, like increasing maneuverability, it becomes a type of permanent bonus also.

I think people who worry about the Zero bonus don't realize just how fleeting the bonus is. One or two points of maneuverability (Mar and Apr 42) doesn't really contribute much to the algorithms especially when you remember that speed is the single biggest factor in combat ratings in the game. Consider that an A6M2 with the bonus in April 42 is less maneuverable in the game than the A6M3 which becomes available in April 42. I do not disagree with removing the Zero bonus though I think there are valid reasons for leaving it alone (or reducing it to 3 if possible).

I'm playing Bradfordkay in CHS Scenario 159 (experimental). Take a good look at what was done to air and pilot ratings in that scenario because it feels very good. Air-air combat is frustrating (for the Japanese player) because it's very difficult to sweep the skies clear, regardless of odds. I'll try to post a screenshot of our air losses to date (May 42). I don't think it uses the bonus either but I'm not sure.

Chez

Ahhh yes - but what I did was increase maneuverability "across the board"(for ALL fighters). The effect of this (I found) is to effectively decrease their "vulnerability" while not changing "durability". [;)]
You'll just have to trust me here - it's working well [:)]

Brian

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Vetamur
For those so critical of the Zero Bonus...

I have been playing Devils Advocate to this point, but let me go on record. I am critical of it and some of the arguments being put forth in support of it. Caveat: it doesn’t mean that those arguments are not correct. [;)]


There are not a lot air to air battles between Zeros and F4Fs/P-40s in the first quarter 1942 to draw much data from, so the actually combat record isn’t lot of help. So…

Opinions.

1. The P-40s and F4Fs were no match for the Zero in a ‘turn fight’. I don’t think anyone disagrees with this claim.

2. If the US pilots used proper tactics Boom and Zoom, Thatch Weave, etc., they could achieve parity to near parity in air to air combat verses the Zero. I think most agree.

3. Some have suggested that new tactics were found to counter the Zero (Midway… June 1942) and this is why the Zero Bonus is removed. Doesn’t fit. The Zero Bonus is long gone before this date.

4. The Nakajima Ki-43 was a Turn Fighter, yet it gets no bonus at the start of the game. Why is it that ‘tactics’ are needed to confront the Zero (Turn Fighter) but not the Oscar?

[ChezDaJez]

Zero Bonus.

The claim is that inappropriate US tactic put the P-40 and F4F pilots at a disadvantage. Ok. The only mention of appropriate tactics seems to be during Midway well after the Zero Bonus is gone. If tactics is the issue… why isn’t there a Bonus at least through June of 1942 or later?

I don't feel it is warranted at that tiem, especially if you believe that the Zero bonus represents the "shock and awe" of its appearance in combat.

Flatley encountered the Zero at Coral Sea and Thach did so at Midway. Neither one of these pilots were in "shock and awe" of the Zero. They recognized the Zero was good and it was better than the Wildcat but it most certainly not a superweapon and that is the mindset these two men in particular instilled in their pilots. They refused to believe they couldn't fight against the Zero. While neither VF-42 or VF-3 were particularly stellar in these actions, they did fight the Zero to basically a draw and they did it their way.

Chez

[ChezDaJez]

Ahhh yes - but what I did was increase maneuverability "across the board"(for ALL fighters). The effect of this (I found) is to effectively decrease their "vulnerability" while not changing "durability".
You'll just have to trust me here - it's working well

A new approach... sounds good actually. Did you do anything with pilot experience yet or is that still on the drawing boards?\

this is one of the things that I really like about this game. If you don't like stock (and few do), play any one of several very well thought out mods and enjoy.

Chez

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

All air forces of the period were taught horizontal tactics, regardless of whether their aircraft were suitable for them. This basis was formed as a result of WWI air combat. And air combats to date in WWII air combat had failed to show anything different.

The innovation (a reinvention of the wheel so to speak) came when Chennault decided the vertical fight yielded a better chance of success against the more maneuverable Japanese aircraft. He basically fought to the strengths of his aircraft (speed and diving ability) and recognized that these vertical tactics neutralized the strengths of the Japanese fighters.

Chez

I am not so sure.


“Today’s vision of WWI aerial fighting was dogfights with aircraft maneuvering for advantage. The reality was that successful pilots learned to surprise the enemy, make a quick attack and an equally quick exit. These tactics are directly from Boelcke’s dicta and are still true today.”

Capt. Eddie Rickenbacker, preferred tactic was ‘dive-and-kill’ tactics, especially with the Spad XIII. He knew that his aircraft could never turn with a Dr.1 (turn rate of 82 ft per second) or even the D.VII (turn rate of 75 ft per second), as the Spad (turn rate of 73 ft per second).

How to beat a fighter with better turning skill was around since WW1, whether it was taught in US fighter groups… I don’t know.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Ahhh yes - but what I did was increase maneuverability "across the board"(for ALL fighters). The effect of this (I found) is to effectively decrease their "vulnerability" while not changing "durability".
You'll just have to trust me here - it's working well

A new approach... sounds good actually. Did you do anything with pilot experience yet or is that still on the drawing boards?\

this is one of the things that I really like about this game. If you don't like stock (and few do), play any one of several very well thought out mods and enjoy.

Chez

Yes - acually. I was able to put pilot experience back up to stock ratings. So the Japanese, in relatively crummy planes like the Nate, will perform quite well with all the things I did...even I was surprised! [:D]

But, like you said above - "experience"...experience is the long term key (well...along with heavily armed and armored planes that go past 400 mph).

I think it should reproduce the war situation fairly well...at casualty rates we can live with.

Yes! I love this games adaptability too!![&o][&o][&o]

B

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico
{snip}...
Capt. Eddie Rickenbacker, preferred tactic was ‘dive-and-kill’ tactics, especially with the Spad XIII. He knew that his aircraft could never turn with a Dr.1 (turn rate of 82 ft per second) or even the D.VII (turn rate of 75 ft per second), as the Spad (turn rate of 73 ft per second).

How to beat a fighter with better turning skill was around since WW1, whether it was taught in US fighter groups… I don’t know.

By the way Culiacan Mexico (from Germany? [X(]) I totally agree with you - nothing new here at all....not since Oswald Boelcke

B

[Culiacan Mexico]

Chez



I don't feel it is warranted at that tiem, especially if you believe that the Zero bonus represents the "shock and awe" of its appearance in combat.

Flatley encountered the Zero at Coral Sea and Thach did so at Midway. Neither one of these pilots were in "shock and awe" of the Zero. They recognized the Zero was good and it was better than the Wildcat but it most certainly not a superweapon and that is the mindset these two men in particular instilled in their pilots. They refused to believe they couldn't fight against the Zero. While neither VF-42 or VF-3 were particularly stellar in these actions, they did fight the Zero to basically a draw and they did it their way.

Chez

Why weren’t they in awe? Before Coral Sea there wasn’t much in the way of engagements between F4F and Zeros. Why be in awe in March but not May?

“Shock and Awe”

This is a different subject and while I am a supporter of, but it wouldn’t just cover one type of aircraft. The standard Japanese fighter at the time was a “Turn Fighter” and the British showed themselves unprepared to deal with the issue early on… poor tactics against Oscars.

[ChezDaJez]

I have been playing Devils Advocate to this point, but let me go on record. I am critical of it and some of the arguments being put forth in support of it. Caveat: it doesn’t mean that those arguments are not correct.


There are not a lot air to air battles between Zeros and F4Fs/P-40s in the first quarter 1942 to draw much data from, so the actually combat record isn’t lot of help. So…

Opinions.

1. The P-40s and F4Fs were no match for the Zero in a ‘turn fight’. I don’t think anyone disagrees with this claim.

2. If the US pilots used proper tactics Boom and Zoom, Thatch Weave, etc., they could achieve parity to near parity in air to air combat verses the Zero. I think most agree.

3. Some have suggested that new tactics were found to counter the Zero (Midway… June 1942) and this is why the Zero Bonus is removed. Doesn’t fit. The Zero Bonus is long gone before this date.

4. The Nakajima Ki-43 was a Turn Fighter, yet it gets no bonus at the start of the game. Why is it that ‘tactics’ are needed to confront the Zero (Turn Fighter) but not the Oscar?

Sneaky little Devil's Advocate, aren't you?

1. Agreed

2. Agreed

3. The Zero bonus is a decreasing value (5 pts-Dec 41, 4 pts-Jan 42, etc) and ostensibly reflects the increasing knowledge the allies gained about the Zero while observing it in combat. By the time of Midway, tactics to counter it were in place (at least in some US units). I actually think that the Zero bonus is a good way of reflecting this period though I also think it does not have that great an effect on combat past February 42.

4. The Claudes and Nates were also turn fighters. The Oscar was only marginally faster than the Nate and wasn't a huge leap forward over the Nate as the Zero was over the Claude. IMO, only the Zero A6M2 model warrants the bonus if any are to get it. Besides, if you gave it to the Oscar also, AFBs around the world would be howling from here to eternity[:D].

While I once used to be a huge supporter of the Zero bonus, I can take it or leave it now. I think there are many justifiable reasons for its inclusion and nearly as many against. I do think that it is a legitimate way of reflecting the historical times in the game though.

Chez

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Big BBy the way Culiacan Mexico (from Germany? [X(]) I totally agree with you - nothing new here at all....not since Oswald Boelcke

B

I was working in Culiacan Mexico when I joined Matrix... lack of imagination prevailed in my user name. After that I went to Egypt and now Germany... with a lot of luck... Iraq in four months.