MarkShot's CAW/CCAW tips and lots of historic discussion!

[decaro]

I'll be brief, as usual.

Re the Encyclopedia of Aircraft of WWII: "The Wildcat never outpeformed the Zero, but it won battle after battle nonetheless ..." Midway is just another example of that.

The same book also said, "While the Zero was fighting ill-trained Chineese airman ... it was almost unbeatable. But even during the early years of WW II, when folklore has it that the Zero was 'invulnerable,' small numbers of aircraft were dispatched by 'inferior' Allied types, including the Hawker Hurricane, the widely disparaged Brewster Buffalo, and even the unwieldy Britol Blenheim." So even the best pilot in the best plane could have a bad day, and apparently many IJN airmen did during Midway.

Re tanks: although just an analogy, I once interviewd a Fort Hood soldier whose grandparents were tankers in WW II on opposite sides, American and German. the American drove his Sherman throughout all of Europe sans any serious problems, but the German grandparent -- who was in a Mark IV, which suffered from the additon of more armour on a chasis not meant to carry this load -- was always repairing his vehicle. I think this was a problem in general for most German armor after the T-34 "surprise" in Russia.

He did disparingly refer to the Sherman as a "door knocker" when ever it hit his tank; at least German engineering kept crew survivability in mind.

I'm not Joe 98, I'm Joe D. Interesting quote, though.

[Baskaatje]

Interestingly enough, a couple of years ago I did an article for a Dutch aviation magazine on the Brewster Buffalo (later published in American Aviation Historical Society http://www.aahs-online.org/BackIssues/v49n2.htm) in which the Brewster was compared for its service with the USN, RAF and ML-KNIL (Netherlands East Indies AF) against that in the Finish AF. In Finland the Brewster was hughly succesfull against Rata's and not soo good Russian pilots and very well liked by its pilots. In the Far East the Brewster was less succesfull, but not as bad an airplane as always thought to be.

Bas

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

Here's a few questions regarding tactics for those in the know, that fits in with the discussion of recent:

1. Are the game's aircraft ranges accurate - are they too long?

2. Are search planes being launched too frequently - we know strikes can be re-tasked too quickly?

3. Is it historical to place a surface TG in front of an Air TG to use as cannon fodder - we've questioned auxiliaries?

4. What is the measurement of a hex in this game?

5. How far would a TF spread its TG's out?

Finessing any one of these could change the tactical and strategic feel of the game markedly.

Just getting back to the above. After replaying Coral Sea yesterday against the historical map I'm pretty confident that items #1, #4 and #5 are playing out well.

Issues such as the aircraft launch cycle, I believe, are being worked on by SSG.

That just leaves the tactical use of surface TG's as bait and likely (not mentioned) the use of storm fronts as cover, as abstractions within the game design players (as in every design) will need to live with.

I was very happy to see the B17's from Australia come into play rather than having to transfer them to Port Moresby to become operational. The reach of Japanese land based air is awesome and historically effective. The ability to spread TG's across the map fit perfectly with history as a valid strategy.

Are bigger maps needed? I think I'm going to sit back on the fence regarding that now, as the amount of maneuver I experienced yesterday was superb and the fact the Japs had room to sneek right by me under a full umberella of air, convinced me that the map scale is likley indeed fine as is.

I think once SSG tweaks randomness and historical replayability as it is currently working on, we'll find quite a mature, integrated strategic-operational carrier warfare game here, even though it will still include a schizophrenic blend of manning the fuel pumps too. But that can always be left for a tweak later on [;)]

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

[]....small numbers of aircraft were dispatched by 'inferior' Allied types, including the Hawker Hurricane, the widely disparaged Brewster Buffalo, and even the unwieldy Bristol Blenheim."

Very interesting section, indeed. The emphasis here should be put on "small numbers", though.
The hurricane did well during the battle of Britain, its performance was good. Maybe the nightfighter-version of the Bristol Blenheim (MK IV) Bomber might have had some value (since it scored some kills against German bombers during the night raids on London), but I doubt that it was successful if operating in the PTO in a daylight fighter-role (with its low top speed of ~266 mph). Whatsoever, none of these aircrafts could outperform the Zeros. I didn't say Wildcats, Hurricanes, or whatever other a/c didn't score kills. The real killer employed by the USN in the PTO was the Hellcat, and that one didn't see action in the Battle of Midway (correct me if I'm wrong :p), that's all I said.

Mark IV, which suffered from the additon of more armour on a chasis not meant to carry this load

.... probably the latest PzIV, add. armor skirts, turret upgraded, general armor upgraded. Not sure if these ones were underpowered too, would have to check. The desert/tropics version of the PzIV serving in North Africa did pretty well. I've read the complete history of a particular Pz Regt. serving in the Afrika Korps (with numbers regarding tanks fit for service and with numbers of units being repaired - covering quite some operations), but I don't recall a massive amount of breakdowns/failures. Most of the unintentional "stops" were caused by the invariably imminent lack of fuel supply or noteable encounters where 70-100 British tanks got driven away by ~20-30 German tanks, PzIV, few PzIII.

I'm not Joe 98, I'm Joe D. Interesting quote, though.

My apologies, sore eyes here. [:)][&o].

[GoodGuy]

@ Adam Parker et al: Sorry for posting off-topic stuff again, hehe

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

And it was his collection of fables about the fighting that were among the cheif sources of information, not only for conventional, postwar authors, but also service-produced accounts like the one that you cite above.That Fuchida has come to be recognized as such a shameless liar is not a product Western revisionists but of Japanese historians who have pored over the logs of the Kido Butai's airgroups, and proven as much.

Respectfully, can we dispense with Fuchida's account(s) of the Battle of Midway?

What "more recent" accounts are you referring to in particular? "Dispense with" means "do without"? Sorry, but my english skills go on vacation at times .
I'm convinced that Nagumos subordinates triggered/suggested a good amount of the bad decisions, I've stated that already. His staff had conflicting suggestions/opinions, which didn't help to make up his mind.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

@ Adam Parker et al: Sorry for posting off-topic stuff again, hehe

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

And it was his collection of fables about the fighting that were among the cheif sources of information, not only for conventional, postwar authors, but also service-produced accounts like the one that you cite above.That Fuchida has come to be recognized as such a shameless liar is not a product Western revisionists but of Japanese historians who have pored over the logs of the Kido Butai's airgroups, and proven as much.

Respectfully, can we dispense with Fuchida's account(s) of the Battle of Midway?

What "more recent" accounts are you referring to in particular? "Dispense with" means "do without"? Sorry, but my english skills go on vacation at times .
I'm convinced that Nagumos subordinates triggered/suggested a good amount of the bad decisions, I've stated that already. His staff had conflicting suggestions/opinions, which didn't help to make up his mind.

Quickly, let me apologize. I realize that my comments sound kind of pedantic, at best.

The real culprit, however, is Fuchida. He's been haunting this forum for what seems like months, now. "Fuchida said this...Midway: The Battle that Doomed Japan said that." The man was also a principal source of information about the day's events in the Lord and Prange books. And then there are all the "official studies," the USSBS and other postwar government-generated reports that use him as the main source of information about IJN operations at Midway.

All these folks went looking for an eyewitness and factual expert on the proceedings, before, during and after the battle. And his central role in retelling its story wouldn't be a problem if he hadn't been exposed by Japanese researchers as a fraud as relates to the events associated with the Midway operation. I'm sorry, but the irony attendant to so many of my peers forever referencing his "contributions" to the body of knowledge surrounding the battle just got the best of me.

But, don't take my word for any of this. Seriously, there are excellent books available that draw heavily on the work of Japanese historians bent on telling the truth. For decades after the Fuchida book, they have systematically dismembered his account of the events associated with the battle of Midway. and language differences held the bulk of their work in obscurity for far, far too long.

Shattered Sword is one such book, one that focuses primarily on the Japanese experience at the Midway, one which would appear totally foreign to anyone who grew up as I did, reading books filled with Fuchida's nonsense. Another, book that draws heavily on Japanese research is The First Team, a book about the U.S carrier fighters in the first six months of the war. Lundstrom goes out of his way to "fill in the blanks" associated with Midway by using Japanese sources.

These are just two, but if you will give them a read, I honestly think that they will seriously alter your beliefs and understanding of Midway, and by extension, about the carrier engagements of 1942.

Again, however, I apologize for my tone.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: baskreuger
Interestingly enough, a couple of years ago I did an article for a Dutch aviation magazine on the Brewster Buffalo (later published in American Aviation Historical Society http://www.aahs-online.org/BackIssues/v49n2.htm) in which the Brewster was compared for its service with the USN, RAF and ML-KNIL (Netherlands East Indies AF) against that in the Finish AF.

In Finland the Brewster was hughly succesfull against Rata's and not soo good Russian pilots and very well liked by its pilots. In the Far East the Brewster was less succesfull, but not as bad an airplane as always thought to be.
Bas

For some reason, I can't access your link to the American Aviation Hist. Society.

In a similar situation, the US-built P-39 Airacobra did not perform well for the Brits, who transfered many of them to Russia, where the P-39s peformed much better. I recall one Russian ace was very fond of -- and very successful with -- the P-39 against superior German fighters.

I wonder why certain peoples/nationalities do better w/a particular aircraft than other peoples, or is it simply a matter of the singer, not the song, i.e., the pilot rather than the plane.

Of course, during WW II lend-lease, "beggers" couldn't afford to be choosers when it came to flying other people's planes.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Of course there are always some universal truths & time proven strategies: drink a glass of milk every day, keep carriers fueled, don't run with scissors.... [:D]

Never seems to work for those of us who are lactose intolerant......our motto is NEVER drink a glass of milk! [;)]

[MarkShot]

Added tip #14.

[MarkShot]

More refinements to tip #14

[MarkShot]

Added tip #15

[MarkShot]

More tips based on "search and strike".

[MarkShot]

(16) It seems that during an air base strike, your recon and bomber AC are quite vulnerable to damage. Perhaps simply getting them airborn at first light when an airstrike is expected might be a good means of force preservation. So, "search and strike" artificial siting report may serve as a means to get non-fighter AC out of harms way when an airstrike is imminent.

The following screens illustrate the above technique of getting Midway's non-fighters out of harms way - an inbound large Japanese alpha strike.

[MarkShot]

Artificial report ...

[MarkShot]

Alpha strike inbound. Red AC are the enemy. My non-fighters, white AC, are already 30-60 miles from Midway.

[MarkShot]

Air operations, you can see a large number of planes have gotten away before the strike ...

[MarkShot]

Added tip #18

[MarkShot]

Added tip #19

[MarkShot]

(19) In a multi-day scenario, it may benefit you (especially if you are the defender and the underdog) to not rush into the battle area. Instead first make sure that you have positioned your forces relative to the weather and that you have a good understanding what the weather is doing in different sectors of the map. (I believe the scenario editor provides for 9 quadrants of weather behavior across the map.) Having done this, remember that the presence of mission objectives having locations make the enemy predictable, and may, in fact, force him to expose himself to clear skies. In the meantime, you can use hit and run tactics peripheral to the main battle area. Although it is nice to sink the enemy's carriers, if you can continue to maul him without being hit back, then you can certainly run up the score in your favor. A strategy based soley on catching the enemy's carriers can be very risk prone. Landing forces and capital ships without air cover can be torn up pretty good for not too much cost in aircraft or pilots.

Midway Historical: The screenshot shows an example of the above. I am striking at the distant enemy having massed my three carrier force. The enemy is exposed in clear skies. My TGs are station keeping as a squal line drifts over them towards the West. The enemy will be striking in heavy weather. In the meantime, I have a full three CV emergency CAP up to meet inbound Japanese strike force. I expect to inflict a lot of damage while sustaining fairly minimal damage myself.

[MarkShot]

Added #20