Early war air power

[jwilkerson]

As to the Darwin raid, the Japanese did achieve complete tactical surprise despite the Australians having at least 45 minutes warning of inbound Japanese aircraft

Altitude advantage is always sought by pilots for the advantages it gives

But isn't catching the enemy unable to react despite having 45 linutes of warning - more than just an altitude advantage? This result seems to indicate operational as well as tactical surprise.

[ChezDaJez]

But isn't one of the purposes of air operations planning to generate attacks in which surprise is achieved? In which enemy aircraft are caught in severe positional disadvantage?? That's how the US got the 10 to 1 ratio later - they got better and better at achieving severe positional advange. We should not consider throwing out the results of such attacks for either side.

It is?

And here I thought that there shouldn't ever be any surprise so that us amateur historians could truely determine whether the Zero bonus is justified or not.[:D][:D][:D]

Chez

[ChezDaJez]

But isn't catching the enemy unable to react despite having 45 linutes of warning - more than just an altitude advantage? This result seems to indicate operational as well as tactical surprise.

Hey, we are only supposed to cite examples where there was no operational or tactical surprise... remember?

Clark Field on 8 Dec comes to mind... they only had several hours after the attack on Pearl Harbor to get ready...

Let's not forget the air raids on Singapore on 8 Dec. They also only had a few hours to prepare after the invasion at Kota Bharu...

You know like during the Ceylon raids where the Japanese forces were spotted by a Catalina long before the attack occurred. Plus the Japanese had the audacity to fly in full view of the coast on the way to their target.... Of course, this was only 3 months after the war started...

Chez

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: 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

In response to #3…

If you read Lundstrom, the lesson’s learned from Coral Sea were not officially adopted at Midway. The turn around between the two battles was so quick that Thach and Flatley’s ideas had not promulgated to the rest of the fleet. The word was out, but the formal training and indoctrination had not yet occurred. If I recall he had an opportunity to sit down and chalk talk it with some of his boys, but that’s it.

You all make it sound like the battle of Midway was fully of steely-eyed Zero pilots descended on hapless Wildcats only to find .50 cal weapons staring back at them ala the Thach Weave. The weave was not used that many time at Midway. Now I am at a disadvantage, at work without Lundstrom, but I’m sure you nitnoids can look it up and confirm that the weave was used less than the number of fingers I have on my hand (5).

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

If the US could score a 10-1 kill ratio when they arguably had superior r aircraft flown by better trained pilots, why didn’t the Japanese achieve the same results earlier in the war (1941-42) against P-40s and F4Fs?

So tempting, yet so little time...

Take the time. [:)]

Ok, I’ll bite.

Because the disparity between the A6M2, Ki-27, & Ki43 and the P-40 and F4F were so marginal that all the allies needed were well trained and indoctrinated pilots to nullify the their advantages…Which is why there is a Zero Bonus.

By the time the Allies enjoyed the unmitigated superiority in Power, Speed, High Altitude performance, and firepower ala Corsair, P-38, F6F they also had an unparalleled training system and numerical superiority. Couple this with a 2nd generation doctrine of using a radar equipped CIC/FDO which could focus all these advantages in force at the optimum point of contact, then you have the makings of regular massacres of willing bushido slaves who would rather die in a hopeless battle than return home to face the culturally bred shame that failure would bring not only to the poor bastard who flew the plane, but his entire family for generations.

The early war battles were light years behind in the type of ferocity that characterize the years of 1944-1945 in the Pacific Air War.

Frankly, I wonder why you have to have me explain that. I’m not trying to be inflammatory here. I just really wonder…

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Several times in past few years here at the forum some people (we all know who they are) constantly try to "push" their agenda and try to persuade everyone that Allies had no doctrinal and/or technological and/or training inferiority versus Axis in WWII at the beggining.

To that I ask few very simple questions...


Why did the war last to 1945?

Why war didn't end in 1942 (this would mean USA in war for 1 full year)?


The answer is, of course, simple one and it totally rebuts every argument to the contrary!


Axis were powerful - they were not weak!


The war was very very hard struggle and many many good man had to pay the ultimate price - their lives.

Every statement to the contrary is like spitting into face of all those brave men who fought!


Thus, Zero bonus is quite reasonable, historic and not inaccurate at all. I think it is good that we have it implemented in our WitP game (BTW, I would love to see it for AVG as well because AVG didn't encounter Zeros at all and they had no practical knowledge of fighting them - IMHO I think that removal of Zero bonus for AVG was mistake done in one of the patches)...


Leo "Apollo11"

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The statement was made the A6m2's only won over junk planes.

No one has made that claim in this thread or in any other thread in which I have participated. If that statement (that I quoted above) refers to anything I have posted here I strongly recommend that you reread the thread.

Short summary. The Zero was never qualitatively superior to normal first line allied fighters & their pilots. Making that statement does not imply that no zero could beat a first line allied fighter or pilot. Likewise, making that statement does not imply that no group of zeros could ever shoot down more allied 1st line fighters in any engagement.

It does imply that the sustained loss ratios of the actual war do not warrant any special bump to the japanese specifically for pilot ability or aircraft.

You might want to read about the action at Darwin before you invoke it as a case study. The only action at Darwin occurred when Japanese aircraft conducted a surprise raid there. The P-40s shot down were literally shot down as they were taking off, or very shortly thereafter. I do not see how any reasonable person could construe cases where enemy aircraft were shot up as they were taking off are good data points for understanding much about the relative merits of the aircraft types or their pilots. The Darwin Raid combat certainly does not qualify as a "meeting engagement."

There are good explanations for Japanese early successes that do not involve pilot quality or a.c. quality. But I can only have an interesting debate about it if people are honest enough to respond to what I write, rather than some straw man version that someone wishes I would write.

I am not the one who invoked Darwin as a "case study." It was you in previous threads and again in this one that tries to convey the impression that the japanese could not win unless they had surprise or the allies were short of supply. You specifically mentioned Darwin as a case where surprise was achieved.

As to the Darwin raid, the Japanese did achieve complete tactical surprise despite the Australians having at least 45 minutes warning of inbound Japanese aircraft. There were 5 P-40's on patrol and five on the ground. Four of the five on patrol were quickly shot down. Only Lt Oestreicher was able to avoid being shot down and he claimed 2 Vals. 4 were shot down shortly after takeoff. Another taking off crashed due to pilot error. The Japanese lost 6 Zeros, all to groundfire or accident.

Ok, so that's the carrier raid of 19 Feb 42 on Darwin in a nutshell. The japanese had overwhelming superiority of position and surprise. Big deal. What does this raid have to do with the justifying or denying the Zero bonus? Seems to me this is your strawman argument... an attempt by you to cloud the issue.

So let's clear it a bit if you can.

Please educate me as to what actions occurred anywhere during the first 5 months of the war where allied fighters swept the air of A6M2s, or at the very least inflicted subtantially more losses than they received. If you want, we could also apply your "criteria" and exclude any action where surprise, poor logisitics, bad airfields, etc, etc... could be blamed. What the heck, just list any and all actions without your criteria applied. Shouldn't take too long, it's bound to be a very short list.

Bottom line is that there is far more data supporting the inclusion of a Zero bonus than there is against it, excepting your a priori analysis of course.

I don't suppose you would care to list what your a priori analysis yielded, would you? I'd really like to see that data, in detail. I don't suppose that you could provide it so the rest of us could be enlightened.

But I guess the critical question is (and one that you have ducked): Why do you care so much about a feature of a game you don't own, you don't play and you seem to hate with a passion? Seems to me that you are going to an awful lot of trouble to educate us poor, silly, ignorant players. Now I understand this is a free forum and open to everyone but really now, what's the point?

Chez

Certainly not the first time I have enjoyed seeing my genius friend from Washington take the floor.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
Please educate me as to what actions occurred anywhere during the first 5 months of the war where allied fighters swept the air of A6M2s, or at the very least inflicted subtantially more losses than they received. If you want, we could also apply your "criteria" and exclude any action where surprise, poor logisitics, bad airfields, etc, etc... could be blamed. What the heck, just list any and all actions without your criteria applied. Shouldn't take too long, it's bound to be a very short list.

Bottom line is that there is far more data supporting the inclusion of a Zero bonus than there is against it, excepting your a priori analysis of course.

In support of the above, allow me to offer some observations. It was probably true that when using optimal tactics such A/C as the P-40 or F4f were able to meet Zeros and Oscars on a quite level footing. But at the start of the war, virtually all pilots on both sides (excepting Chenault's Tigers) were ingrained with the idea of the "dogfight". And the Japanese, more than anyone else, had optimized their A/C for this type of engagement. Until the Allies were able to change their air-to-air tactics and training to maximize their own aircraft's strengths and minimize those of the Japanese, they were at a disadvantage. The game can measure the basic charicteristics of the planes, and the "experiance" of the pilots..., but not poor tactics. Thus the "Zero Bonus", which simply gives the Japanese a decreasing advantage for a few months while the Allies adjusted their tactics and thinking. It's a game mechanic that seems to work fairly well.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

But isn't one of the purposes of air operations planning to generate attacks in which surprise is achieved? In which enemy aircraft are caught in severe positional disadvantage?? That's how the US got the 10 to 1 ratio later - they got better and better at achieving severe positional advange. We should not consider throwing out the results of such attacks for either side.

It is?

And here I thought that there shouldn't ever be any surprise so that us amateur historians could truely determine whether the Zero bonus is justified or not.[:D][:D][:D]

Chez

This is exactly why this discussion is so funny to me. Don’t get me wrong, I love this kind of thread. It’s fun to talk about this subject, and it promotes learning and understanding. Hopefully it will ultimately promote a better Air Routine.

But the discussion of early war Air Power boiling down to yet another discussion of the oft cited attributes of the Zero, Ki-27, Ki-43, F4F, and P-40 are just not as important as this thread makes them out to be. Aside from the CV battles of Coral Sea and Midway in which US Navy pilots were well-trained, well radar’d and well aware of the potential threat posed by well flown A6M2s (thanks to the lessons learned by the AVG and the ABDA AFs), most engagements graced the Japanese with one or several tactical advantages.

It wouldn’t have mattered if the Allies were flying Corsairs. Sure they would have fared a bit better, but when faced with Overwhelming numbers, early war Japanese proficiency, China War experience, high tempo offensives, and surprise the Allies were just not prepared, and had too many hard lessons to learn about their surprisingly capable foe.

Air combat is a mess. Once the first merge occurs all bets are off. Of course it helps to have a better ride than the other guys, but that is no guarantee. The performance advantage of one airplane over another can quickly be nullified if it’s pilot is unaware of it’s attacker. That being said, using the performance edge you have properly, can afford you a better starting position than the other guy and can increase the chances of the unobserved attack. Often the determining factor of the result of any engagement can find it’s roots in the intial setup more than the Hp of one engine over the other, or turning radius, or blah, blah, blah. Again…it always helps but…

[m10bob]

If the thread has evolved into another "Zero bonus" question, of course I am for it and would love to see it applied to the Oscar as well, (for the same reasons.)

To demean the accomplishments of your enemy, historically, also demeans the effort to defeat them.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

The "landing in a pattern" issue - is not really relevant since during the 1944-45 US 10:1 period many Japanese aircraft were also caught in extremely disadvantageous positiions - hence being let off the hook because you got caught in a bad position should not result in rejection of the data, if it does - the 1944-45 US 10 to 1 ratio would have to be recalculated as well.

Was this for me? Please note I didn't bring the 10-1 issue in to the discussion... that was another poster, and since no one objected. [;)]

Also, I never mentioned a "landing in a pattern" issue.

Having said that, I don't have an issue with the concept that early in the war some/many/most Allied pilots didn't understand how strong a "Turn Fighter" the Zero was. I do question why it was limited to just the Zero and the justification on its length.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

Did it? Anyone have figures on aircraft losses in this theater?

Yes.

Please share. [:)]

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Ok, I’ll bite.

Because the disparity between the A6M2, Ki-27, & Ki43 and the P-40 and F4F were so marginal that all the allies needed were well trained and indoctrinated pilots to nullify the their advantages…Which is why there is a Zero Bonus.

Then this training occurred in January-April of 1942. Was it formal or informal training?

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Frankly, I wonder why you have to have me explain that. I’m not trying to be inflammatory here. I just really wonder…

Explain to you what specifically?

I asked a question “If the US could score a 10-1 kill ratio when they arguably had superior aircraft flown by better trained pilots, why didn’t the Japanese achieve the same results earlier in the war (1941-42) against P-40s and F4Fs?”

I thought most agreed that the differences between the Zero and P-40/F4F minor enough that given proper tactics there was parity. I don’t know that anyone made the same claim regarding late model aircraft, which would explain the disparity.

Is there a problem with asking questions? [&:]

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Axis were powerful - they were not weak!

Japan was very weak: economically, in the field of logistics, armor, code breaking, etc. Japan did have strengths, but they were limited. Thus the US, using only partial strength crushed the Japanese well ahead of schedule.

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

The war was very very hard struggle and many many good man had to pay the ultimate price - their lives.

Every statement to the contrary is like spitting into face of all those brave men who fought!

Bullshit. Indicating that the Italian Army was weak in WW2 in no way does this detract from the men who died fighting them.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

If the thread has evolved into another "Zero bonus" question, of course I am for it and would love to see it applied to the Oscar as well, (for the same reasons.)

I would certainly agree with this, as quite a large number of early-war Allied reports don't seem to have been able to distinguish between the two.

[Charbroiled]

Good discussion...I'm learning a lot. Thanks for keeping it fairly civil.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

This is exactly why this discussion is so funny to me. Don’t get me wrong, I love this kind of thread. It’s fun to talk about this subject, and it promotes learning and understanding. Hopefully it will ultimately promote a better Air Routine.

But the discussion of early war Air Power boiling down to yet another discussion of the oft cited attributes of the Zero, Ki-27, Ki-43, F4F, and P-40 are just not as important as this thread makes them out to be…

Some seem to be very defense regarding the subject… for reasons that are beyond me. In my games the Zero advantage seems unimportant: I never see the US carriers or F4Fs for that matter before the bonus is gone and rarely see a P-40. As for the other Allied fighters… I would hope to think they would get slaughtered by Zeros regardless.

In my semi-historical game the Zero Bonus is probably irrelevant, while the lack of an Oscar bonus is both relevant and leaves me with a fighter that act un-historically in the game (my opinion only).

There doesn’t seem to be much in the way of actually combat data to support a Zero bonus over F4F in February of 1942… all though it may have had one. There does seem to be a fair amount of data showing a bonus could be used to adjust the Oscar which acts ahistorically low.

Just my opinion that the Oscar in the game acts sub-historically.
[;)]

[mlees]

Hmm. I am under the impression that the OP was more along the lines of "If the A2A game model was accurate enough, is the Zero bonus justified?"
 
It seems to me that the Zero bonus sort of highlights a weakness in the overall air 2 air combat model.
 
1. A6M successfull because the early war Allied pilots attempt to dogfight it, playing into the Zero's strengths. The Zero bonus is justified by the supporters of it on these grounds.  However, to me, this sounds like something that the experience rating should be addressing. Experienced pilots (e.g. Thatch) are able to develope appropriate counter tactics, even before meeting the foe in combat.
 
2. Oscar is nearly as maneuvarable as the Zero, but gets no bonus, and is considered "junk" by the IJ player. Lookit wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Ki-43 Indeed, the AVG thought the two (Oscar and Zero) were the same model aircraft for some time...
 

The Oscar was designed to be like the Mitsubishi Zero, but it was more lightweight and was even less rugged than its Navy counterpart. It was known for its nimble handling and legendary for its performance in East Asia in the early years of the war. It was designed by Hideo Itokawa, who would later become famous as a pioneer of Japanese rocketry. Although the manuverability of the Oscar was quite good, some Japanese pilots complained that its was less manuverable than the KI-27 Nate. This was remedied by the addition of a butterfly flap in the wings, but some pilots still complained.

 
So what does the current A2A combat model weight the most? Top speed? Followed by manuever rating, followed by pilot exp? What should the A2A model being looking at for the most accurate results? Let me offer a proposal:
 
1. Surprise (if applicable, as determined by the game engine/detection levels)
2. Altitude settings (set by player/AI. I think most agree that altitude is a critical advantage in A2A combat, at least in fighter vs fighter engagements.))
3. Pilot exp (The ability, or not, to get the best out of a situation he finds himself in, or the best out of his machine, and the familiarity of the enemies capabilities. Also, simulates the understanding and use of group tactics versus the enemy.)
4. Top speed (Speed seems to be important, as you can set the tempo of the combat a little more if your fighter is faster.)
5. Manuever (The Nate and the I16 are very maneuverable, but I dont think anyone would argue that these aircraft are "better" than faster, less maneuverable machines...)
 
If the pilot exp is below a certain threshold, than the lower tier factors become more important. (Assuming green Allied pilots more likely to have tried to engage in the classic horizontal dogfight instead of thinking three dimensionally. Is this wrong?)
 
Thoughts? 

[mlees]

Some seem to be very defense regarding the subject… for reasons that are beyond me. In my games the Zero advantage seems unimportant: I never see the US carriers or F4Fs for that matter before the bonus is gone and rarely see a P-40. As for the other Allied fighters… I would hope to think they would get slaughtered by Zeros regardless.

 
Pardon my silly question, but I thought that USN pilots were also immune to the Zero bonus, like the AVG? Or am I remembering wrong? 

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: mlees
... Or am I remembering wrong? 

Yes, you are remembering wrong... never saw or heard of this one before.