Heretical idea???

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design and the game editor for WITP.

Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Heretical idea???

Post by el cid again »

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Well said - but possibly backwards for JNAF. The idea presented above is generally valid. But JNAF had too much training - and reducing the training period would actually significantly increase the number of well trained pilots. In RHS we did just this in EOS - we cut training time by half - and double the output of the program (approximately). What I didn't do was increase the number of planes at all - because for one thing trainers are not directly modeled. JAAF would indeed have to increase pilots on instructor duty - and then add more trainers - and unless older line planes could serve - that would indeed mean less engines and aluminum for line production.


Would agree with you completely if you'd said "the JNAF had too much worthless training". Much of the Navy's program was dedicated to rather non-sensical pastimes like memorizing the Emperor Mejei's (sic) instructions to the troops in 48 hours, and other rituals more reminicent of a Fraternity "hazing" than pilot training. And you really should cut the number of A/C in RHS. It's true they aren't modeled in the game..., but Pilot Arrival is --- and if you have more pilots arriving then they must have had more trainers --- and more of one type of A/C means less of others.


Actually I didn't mean to imply the training was worthless. At least one of the things they teach which was never part of any other training program I teach to this day - and it matters - even in the electronic age. Their training was simply too demanding. A JNAF pilot could jump from a plane unfit to land - probably useful on rare occasions - but the training to do that would expel the pilot if he even sprained an ankle! To lose a superb pilot for that is nonsense - and that is but one of dozens of similar policies. No other air force in the world trained pilots to jump without parachutes - and it didn't proove to be a big disadvantage. One could cut out the training - or at least not expel those who did it successfully but not perfectly. The training program - except for the normal flight school at the beginning - always involved trainers - or in later stages older line aircraft assigned to training duties. Reducing training time directly affects the number of trainers tied up with the training - and not being tied up they become available for other students. The program was measured in years. Even after completion you were not regarded as fit for operations until after two years as sort of an apprentice in a second line unit. Such a concept might have merit in peacetime, but not in wartime.
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Heretical idea???

Post by el cid again »

ORIGINAL: Bombur

-Equalizing Zeroes and Corsairs is probably not a good idea, but to decrease the differences between fighters could work. A Corsair is better than a Zero, but maybe kill rate could be around 3:1 instead of 10-20:1. Same thing for Zeroes vs early allied fighters or P-40 vs Oscars. Nik did a good job in achieving this. I´m making an experience with NM v5.3. I halved all the mvr and max speed values for all aircraft. The result was a considerable decrease in A2A lethality and a relative equalization of fighters. Playtesting however, is stalled due to lack of time and human opponents.....


Only a few people have reported on this, but those who compared Nikmod and RHS say that we have tamed air air combat even more than he did. We did so on a theoretical foundation - while Nik did so on a result oriented foundation.
But it may be that the problem has been addressed - if it was a problem at all. Anyway - one could check it out by running AI vs AI tests.
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Heretical idea???

Post by Nikademus »

Nik designed his mod based on his own theoretical foundation coupled with his knowlege of the game's mechanics and his understanding of the history behind the combat being simulated.

Some like it. Others don't. Some like parts of it....while not liking other aspects. Its available in different flavors and all are welcome to try or dispense with it as they see fit.




Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Heretical idea???

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Actually I didn't mean to imply the training was worthless. At least one of the things they teach which was never part of any other training program I teach to this day - and it matters - even in the electronic age. Their training was simply too demanding. A JNAF pilot could jump from a plane unfit to land - probably useful on rare occasions - but the training to do that would expel the pilot if he even sprained an ankle! To lose a superb pilot for that is nonsense - and that is but one of dozens of similar policies. No other air force in the world trained pilots to jump without parachutes - and it didn't proove to be a big disadvantage. One could cut out the training - or at least not expel those who did it successfully but not perfectly. The training program - except for the normal flight school at the beginning - always involved trainers - or in later stages older line aircraft assigned to training duties. Reducing training time directly affects the number of trainers tied up with the training - and not being tied up they become available for other students. The program was measured in years. Even after completion you were not regarded as fit for operations until after two years as sort of an apprentice in a second line unit. Such a concept might have merit in peacetime, but not in wartime.


No..., worthless was my description for much of the ground school nonsense the IJN subjected their pilot trainees to. However, if you reduce the air training time, that's a different story. Then you reduce the "training level" the pilots arrive at. So you only save A/C if you reduce pilot quality..., which doesn't seem like a good idea. Thus you need more trainer aircraft to train more acceptable pilot replacements. The Japanese trained a total of 5,000 pilots in 1942, and 5400 in 1943. Taking this up to US levels would have required a massive increase in facilities, A/C, and instructors --- and as I said earlier, it shouldn't be possible for Japan to get "something for nothing".

I don't think we're in dissagreement; just looking at the same coin from opposite sides.
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: Heretical idea???

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: Bombur

-Equalizing Zeroes and Corsairs is probably not a good idea, but to decrease the differences between fighters could work. A Corsair is better than a Zero, but maybe kill rate could be around 3:1 instead of 10-20:1. Same thing for Zeroes vs early allied fighters or P-40 vs Oscars. Nik did a good job in achieving this. I´m making an experience with NM v5.3. I halved all the mvr and max speed values for all aircraft. The result was a considerable decrease in A2A lethality and a relative equalization of fighters. Playtesting however, is stalled due to lack of time and human opponents.....

3-1 would be just about right for equal pilots (F4U versus A6M5).
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Heretical idea???

Post by el cid again »

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Nik designed his mod based on his own theoretical foundation coupled with his knowlege of the game's mechanics and his understanding of the history behind the combat being simulated.

Some like it. Others don't. Some like parts of it....while not liking other aspects. Its available in different flavors and all are welcome to try or dispense with it as they see fit.





Sehr interissieren. My impression that Nik used result oriented design was based on his comments posted in the Forum. As I recall (and memory is dim) he responded to my comments saying that result oriented data entry was in his view superior to a theoretical approach. I believe some of this was his comments on my proposals that we design ratings for firepower, maneuverability and/or durability on a theoretical foundation - firepower in particular. I used a wholly different approach, reducing the range of weapons as much as the model allows, giving half the firepower to a .30 as a .50 (so a British plane with 8 .30 cal = exactly a US plane with 4 .50 cal) - and giving cannon more range and punch in proportion to shell weight and effective range in each case. I drew some criticism from him for that concept. This - and a system for rating durability and another for rating maneuverability - was intended to not only reduce overall lethality in air combat (and increase vulnerability to AAA fire) - but at the same time to make RELATIVE differences between planes more correct. It worked - and you probably will not get a 20:1 kill ratio of zero vs corsair - as a result.
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Heretical idea???

Post by el cid again »

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Actually I didn't mean to imply the training was worthless. At least one of the things they teach which was never part of any other training program I teach to this day - and it matters - even in the electronic age. Their training was simply too demanding. A JNAF pilot could jump from a plane unfit to land - probably useful on rare occasions - but the training to do that would expel the pilot if he even sprained an ankle! To lose a superb pilot for that is nonsense - and that is but one of dozens of similar policies. No other air force in the world trained pilots to jump without parachutes - and it didn't proove to be a big disadvantage. One could cut out the training - or at least not expel those who did it successfully but not perfectly. The training program - except for the normal flight school at the beginning - always involved trainers - or in later stages older line aircraft assigned to training duties. Reducing training time directly affects the number of trainers tied up with the training - and not being tied up they become available for other students. The program was measured in years. Even after completion you were not regarded as fit for operations until after two years as sort of an apprentice in a second line unit. Such a concept might have merit in peacetime, but not in wartime.


No..., worthless was my description for much of the ground school nonsense the IJN subjected their pilot trainees to. However, if you reduce the air training time, that's a different story. Then you reduce the "training level" the pilots arrive at. So you only save A/C if you reduce pilot quality..., which doesn't seem like a good idea. Thus you need more trainer aircraft to train more acceptable pilot replacements. The Japanese trained a total of 5,000 pilots in 1942, and 5400 in 1943. Taking this up to US levels would have required a massive increase in facilities, A/C, and instructors --- and as I said earlier, it shouldn't be possible for Japan to get "something for nothing".

I don't think we're in dissagreement; just looking at the same coin from opposite sides.

I agree - we are not in disagreement after all. I did reduce the air training time - took years to work it out on spreadsheets for a more elaborate game in which you get all trainers and training units. And yes, if you reduce the training time - you also should reduce the output skill level. In fact - one Forum member thought that reducing skill levels generally would help reduce air combat lethality - and tests show he was right. So RHS does not use the stock/CHS scale - but a new one. Unfortunately, it does not permit us to change it over time - or rather it forces it to change over time in certain respects in a hard coded way - and not in other respects. For critical design reasons, I use start of war values (since - if you cannot simulate the initial ops, you have zero chance of getting the war simulated - and also the code does reduce many pilots for Japan). What we can do is rate new units at different levels - and we did a lot of that.

I must strongly underline how much we DO agree that "Japan should not get something for nothing." And while I maintain that Japan might be able to produce fine planes from 1943, that should not require rating A6M2s as the same as Corsairs. Let em build the good planes they designed. But whatever they get - cost in whatever sense should be a consideration. I am not into play balance- PTO was not inherantly balanced! The great balancing factor is geography - Japan has inherant geographic advantages.
User avatar
jwilkerson
Posts: 8109
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:02 am
Location: Kansas
Contact:

RE: Heretical idea???

Post by jwilkerson »

ORIGINAL: el cid again
ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Nik designed his mod based on his own theoretical foundation coupled with his knowlege of the game's mechanics and his understanding of the history behind the combat being simulated.

Some like it. Others don't. Some like parts of it....while not liking other aspects. Its available in different flavors and all are welcome to try or dispense with it as they see fit.





Sehr interissieren. My impression that Nik used result oriented design was based on his comments posted in the Forum. As I recall (and memory is dim) he responded to my comments saying that result oriented data entry was in his view superior to a theoretical approach. I believe some of this was his comments on my proposals that we design ratings for firepower, maneuverability and/or durability on a theoretical foundation - firepower in particular. I used a wholly different approach, reducing the range of weapons as much as the model allows, giving half the firepower to a .30 as a .50 (so a British plane with 8 .30 cal = exactly a US plane with 4 .50 cal) - and giving cannon more range and punch in proportion to shell weight and effective range in each case. I drew some criticism from him for that concept. This - and a system for rating durability and another for rating maneuverability - was intended to not only reduce overall lethality in air combat (and increase vulnerability to AAA fire) - but at the same time to make RELATIVE differences between planes more correct. It worked - and you probably will not get a 20:1 kill ratio of zero vs corsair - as a result.


"Theoretical" versus "Results Oriented" ... one is "Push System" ... one is "Pull System" .. neither inherently better .. both have pros and cons .. and both have same constraint of having to live within the existing engine and both have same primary tool ... that of changing the data.

One day we may try to tweak the engine to reduce the amount of data manipulation required by either "push" or "pull" designers!!! Time will tell!


AE Project Lead
SCW Project Lead
User avatar
Bombur
Posts: 3666
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 4:50 am

RE: Heretical idea???

Post by Bombur »



Only a few people have reported on this, but those who compared Nikmod and RHS say that we have tamed air air combat even more than he did. We did so on a theoretical foundation - while Nik did so on a result oriented foundation.
But it may be that the problem has been addressed - if it was a problem at all. Anyway - one could check it out by running AI vs AI tests.

-My preliminary tests with RHS (unfortunately my opponent gave up...) suggested that A2A combat is bloodier than Nik mod v5.x and much bloodier than v9.x, at least when gun armed planes are involved. Zeroes are lethal in RHS, and they suffered very few losses in the hands of P-40´s, however, this is result of very limited playtest.
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Heretical idea???

Post by el cid again »

The general result of testing, and playtester reports, is that fighters are much less likely to wipe out attacking aircraft, and "there almost always are a few penetrators." Even as late as 1945 this was the case with radar and F6F CAP - penetration was a regular event.

Fighter vs fighter combat is now greatly variable - and substantially under player control. American fighters will do better if you have them supported by flights on high CAP - as IRL. If nothing else works, penetrate right on the deck: almost none will be lost (to enemy fighters anyway - AAA is a different subject). In strait up air combat at medium altitude, a P-40 has no business tangling with a Zero - and that also is well modeled. On the other hand, the reverse is true of a Zero vs an F6F or a Corsair - but it won't be 20:1 reversed.
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Heretical idea???

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: el cid again



Sehr interissieren. My impression that Nik used result oriented design was based on his comments posted in the Forum. As I recall (and memory is dim) he responded to my comments saying that result oriented data entry was in his view superior to a theoretical approach.

Your impression is wrong. I suggest in the future that you restrict yourself to commenting on your own mod and leave explanations for other people's mods to those who've designed them.

el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Heretical idea???

Post by el cid again »

Communication theory begins with the premise that communication is difficult. I am undismayed to discover that is true.
I regard it as inherantly respectful to listen to what someone says - to remember it - and to repeat it when approprate - in spite of the possibility that I never did understand it right in the first place. I don't think it is entirely fair to say I was wrong to use theory as a basis when result oriented was better - but now to pretend that is not what was said. On the other hand, if that isn't what happened, then perhaps I should be happy what seemed to be criticism was somehow not criticism at the time.

I think Joe is right: I think result oriented design is a valid way to do things - just as I think theory oriented design is. I don't care if I was right about which was used in your mod: it would still have been valid to have used result oriented data design. If we indeed both used theory - it must be we didn't use exactly the same theory - else they would be exactly the same. And - I am told - they are not wholly different. I seem to recall asking for some information and test bed to look at - but being told it was not available. Had it been they might have been even more similar. I am not the boss of anyone - and I do not have a monopoly on anything WITP - nor time to explore every possible variation of it.
I was trying to be helpful in this thread - not critical of NikMod - which I have never heard anything negative about. It was the first to tackle the air air combat issue - and I did try to get help understanding it before and during undertaking a similar process. In the end I set out to do something broader in scope: address AAA (both for the units and the target planes), address air air combat, address air ground "nuclear bombing" (too effective bombardment), and raid penetration matters. I had to do so without being able to use the NikMod test bed - but I did get a lot of help from the Forum - and more than once from Nik - in the long process. Ultimately I failed to solve the maneuverability problem - but the Forum succeeded in giving it to me anyway. A lot more people participated in the process, for probably a lot more man hours,
and it was a much more comprehensive process - so it probably means there are more balanced impacts. But there is no difinitive way to proove that, and a lot may depend on the opinions of the observer. While many inconsistencies existed in performance of plane and AAA data, it may be that if those were ironed out, someone might like the idea of using service ceilings for planes or maximum ceilings (at maxium gun range) for AAA. [Never mind an AA gun can never achieve maximum cieling except directly overhead, nor that it is never effective at such an altitude. Never mind that aircraft performance is nothing like its maneuverability rating when it reaches service celinging - where by definition all planes have equal performance (at least in terms of ROC).] I do not claim that the hundreds of compromises required were perfectly made - only that they were carefully considered and conservatively made. I do not claim that the thousands of data fields reviewed were perfectly executed - only that they were carefully researched, posted for review, and revised when clearly appropriate. If you want a better air combat model in a comprehensive sense, you should be looking at RHS: not to look at it is to risk missing what might be the best option on the table. It is, without doubt, a prejudiced point of view - even if a justifiable one in a technical sense. But it is not a claim that the pioneer attempt to tame the air combat model did not succeed - for by all accounts it did so very well indeed.
User avatar
Greenhough222
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 7:51 pm

RE: Heretical idea???

Post by Greenhough222 »

thanks for the positive advice ideas given.  The reason for me doing this is that I want a more challenging allied experiance against the AI (I should have said this from the start to avoid confusion) because I will not be able to do pbem when I do my next tour in iraq/afghanistan.
 
I dont like the stock way of just making it harder by advantage to the AI. so thats my premise for the changes I was thinking of.  If no body else ever want to use what I make thats fine, it is not the reason for doing it.
 
El cid I appreciate your comments but im not bothered about historical accuracy as i stated at the start I want a more challenging AI experiance for me.  some of your thoughts I will use though.
 
My idea of equalising the values of certain planes was a poor example P39/P40 = A6M2 i did/does need a lot more thought but i've not given up on the idea entirerly. 
 
The really interesting stuff that came out of this so far is the pilot training ideas
 
from what i have read both US and british example flying training during the war was approximately 10 months in three phases elementry/basic/advanced there is no reason why japan counld not do exactly the same.  If you assume one instructor per student (that is about right for current RAF flying training and allows for air and ground training) during each of the three phases for a nominal output of 100 trained pilots per month you would require 100 instructors per month of training. 10 months = 1000 instructors!
 
which seems too high, I am trying to find a source stating how many instructors per student were needed during the war but I have not found anything so far so far if anyone knows of any let me know.
 
This is all academical for my mod as I really don't care about historical accuracy for it.
 
but seen as el cid raised the point and the thread has continued in this we may as well carry on.
 
Assuming were trying to stick to historical accuracy the relative number of training aircraft required would differ between recon/fighter and bomber significantly. 
 
elementary flying training requires a two seat dual control (you would hope) aircraft with short flight times 1- 2 hour training sorties none of which are modeled in the game.  three flights a day assuming 3-4 months basic flying traing of which at least 1 probably 2 months is academic classroom work would for the nominal 100 per month output need 200 students flying. A maximum of 100 aircraft
 
delete 100 nates from the reserve (training aircraft are small and of basic design and at the time most would still be bi-planes.
 
middle phase of training more flying more students (up to 400) probably single seat training aircraft worst case remove 200 from nates and older dive bombers.
 
advanced training up to 400 students again I have not worked out the ratios but iam guessing 2/3rd single seat 1/3 multi crew.  maximum 200 aircraft to remove from the orbat but of front line standard.
 
all of which can be done by reducing the starting pools of aircraft.
 
As for the pilot instructors that will depend on the ratio of instructors to students at 1:1 I would delete the pool of reserve pilots and remove the remained from 2nd line squadrons 2/3rd of which would have to be fighter squadrons etc.
 
 
All this assumes as you cannot change the replacement rate during the game that this was all in place 10 months before the start of war.  I am not that hot on pre war history, what was the earliest date at which japan "could have" decided to commit herself to planning for war.
 
And someone with more brains that me can determine what the fuel cost per month all his training would be and reduce it from the stockpiles.
120 Sqn Kinoss
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Heretical idea???

Post by el cid again »

ORIGINAL: Greenhough222

from what i have read both US and british example flying training during the war was approximately 10 months in three phases elementry/basic/advanced there is no reason why japan counld not do exactly the same.  If you assume one instructor per student (that is about right for current RAF flying training and allows for air and ground training) during each of the three phases for a nominal output of 100 trained pilots per month you would require 100 instructors per month of training. 10 months = 1000 instructors!

which seems too high, I am trying to find a source stating how many instructors per student were needed during the war but I have not found anything so far so far if anyone knows of any let me know.


It is too high. I find it hard to believe RAF is so inefficient - and I don't think this has any relation to WWII era training regimes. I will return with some data for you.

A pilot training program involves in the first instance four stages:

ground school (theory - no aircraft - but a pilot instructor per class)
primary flight training
intermediate flight training
advanced flight training

This Japan followed in three different forms: JAAF, JNAF regular pilots, and JNAF float pilots. All three programs had separate aircraft for the three stages of flight training. A typical ratio of pilots instructors to students was 1:12. However,
there also would be two more pilot officers per training battalion: a commanding officer and his number 2 or executive officer in US terminology. Since these programs were triangular, you got 5 pilots per 36 students. I think there were five JAAF schools before this was expanded by contract with civilian flying schools later in the war. These fed a number of specialized schools, including fighter schools (3), light and heavy bomber schools (2 each) and a reconnaissance school (1). It may be transport pilots were from heavy bomber schools, but also they came from nominally civil sources: Japan's aviation industry was para-military and most transport pilots (and even airline organizations) were JAAF reservists: a few exceptions (on flying boats) were in naval reserve service. Anyway the training periods in the type schools were of such length and staggered so that the five basic schools could feed them. It went something like this: one month at each stage of the basic training program (after some other military training not considered here) = 4 months to get out of basic flight training regiment. Then two more months in the type training regiment. Then you are considered a novice pilot unfit for combat who is ideally sent to some advanced training school or third line unit for seasoning in either the exact aircraft you are to fly, or something similar. At the time of mobilization (July 1941) the JAAF had "slots" for about 1154 student pilots. The total number of "real" pilots in training regiments was about 354. From this you might derive a ratio of 1 pilot to 3 students if total organizational numbers are of interest. About 180 student pilots enter basic flight training regiments each month and about 150 leave them to enter type training regiments for a loss rate of about 1 in 6. Most of the "lost" trainee pilots become aircrew of some kind (bombradiers or navigators in particular). Aircrew training graduated about 144 per month and ground crews considerably more: perhaps 1200 per month. In theory a pilot should spend three months in a third line or advanced training unit before being committed to combat. Excluding military service before entering a basic flight school, a JAAF pilot should expect 4 months in the basic training regiment, 2 months in the type training regiment, and 3 months in advanced training = 9 months of military flight schools, 8 of them actually flying something (although in the beginning these are very basic trainers). In some programs there might be one instructor per student in the first month of flight training - but it appears that it is more common for the students to take turns flying with the unit instructor - which is why the number of students is so low. Any given student only flies a few hours per month.

The navy program was radically different, far less efficient, and focused on much higher standards of training. It was also divided (originally) into two fundamentally exclusive programs: wheel and float, each in turn divided after advanced training into fighter and crew type aircraft. [Japan was the only nation ever to build training flying boats for example]
These programs demanded many more instructor/staff pilots in the training regime, but kept the students so much longer it actually graduated fewer of them per month! But that was only the beginning: the Navy required graduates of type schools to spend two full years more in third line or advanced training units - before posting to actual combat! A Navy student entering a flight training regiment could expect 8 months in the basic flight school, 4 months of type training, and 24 months of seasoning = 36 months (3 years) before being regarded as a second rate combat pilot! I no longer can remember the internal details, but a navy training group (two wheeled, one float) had 43 pilots total (including staff and commanders), and 84 students (if we only consider those who make it) - for a ratio of 1 pilot to 2 students. But they were kept so much longer it resulted in a very low graduation rate: only one wheeled class graduated per month (vice 5 for the army) - and only one float class every two months. The training groups were much larger than army training Sentai, but they had huge drop out rates, so that graduate rates were very low. The Navy (on mobilization in July 1941) had about 568 pilots in training groups - but was graduating slilghtly fewer pilots per month than the JAAF was - in spite of nearly twice the number of instructor/staff pilots and training aircraft! [The monthly rate averaged 126 - although it really alternated between 84 and 168 - depending on wether or not there was a float class that month: remarkably fewer for the rather greater number of pilots involved in training them compared to JAAF.]


A military pilot training program then involves another stage which in the US we call type training.
Here the students either fly crew trainers or they fly fighter planes, depending on their intended end type.

User avatar
Greenhough222
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 7:51 pm

RE: Heretical idea???

Post by Greenhough222 »

Yes it is inefficient (training is a lot more complex now as well) but thats the cost of diminishing returns when we are now so small
 
And thanks in advance for the data
120 Sqn Kinoss
User avatar
Greenhough222
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 7:51 pm

RE: Heretical idea???

Post by Greenhough222 »

I've read your updated post now, thanks cid, if you've got a link to your source doc or what book its in I fancy a thorough read.
 
I think i'll plum for the 3:1 student/instructor until i've read further.
 
It is the same here in the UK, last stage of training is an OCU "operational conversion unit" and then 6-9 months (on all the a/c types I know of ) seasoning on a Squadron before being declared combat ready
120 Sqn Kinoss
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Heretical idea???

Post by el cid again »

Another measure was trainer aircraft:

JNAF had slots for 72 serving (and 48 spare) basic wheel trainers: K2Y2
72 serving (and 48 spare) intermediate wheel trainers: K5Y1
72 serving (and 45 spare) advanced wheel trainers: Also K5Y1
36 serving (and 64 spare) basic float trainers: K4Y1
36 serving (and 54 spare) intermediate float trainers: K5Y2
36 serving (and 32 spare) advanced float trainers: E8N1 or 2

= 324 serving trainers in three identified basic flight training groups

JAAF had slots for 180 serving basic trainers: Ki-17
180 serving intermediate traingers: Ki-9
180 serving advanced trainers: Ki-55

= 540 serving trainers in five identified basic flight training sentai

The navy only had about 357 wheeled trainers - so vastly increasing the training regime for non-float pilots would be difficult - and eventually was accomplished only by (a) buying more trainers (including a German import)
and (b) contracting with civilian flying schools (which had, in fact, military trainers, purchased in peacetime at subsidized rates) Most trainers were not in production - and would not be easy to put into production. There were also efforts to design wartime trainers that might be better - including one case of a licence copy of a US one! [It appears ALL cases of Japanese production of US aircraft were properly licenced, in spite of wartime belief to the contrary]



el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Heretical idea???

Post by el cid again »

ORIGINAL: Greenhough222

I've read your updated post now, thanks cid, if you've got a link to your source doc or what book its in I fancy a thorough read.

I think i'll plum for the 3:1 student/instructor until i've read further.

It is the same here in the UK, last stage of training is an OCU "operational conversion unit" and then 6-9 months (on all the a/c types I know of ) seasoning on a Squadron before being declared combat ready

This material is not available in a nice book form. I collected it over about 35 years - starting when I was home ported at Yokosuka Naval Station (the largest naval base and air training base in IJN in WWII).

A good start can be made with Sunburst (USNI). Another good place to learn things is Japanese Naval Aces and Fighter Units of World War II (USNI). Yet another is Zero (one of the authors of which proposed expanding training in 1941). If you read Japanese, lots of material is available from the National Diet Library.

I have the collected material on spreadsheets - many of them on ancient forms not directly readable by Excel - and when converted you lose some functionality.
highblooded
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 1:23 pm

RE: Heretical idea???

Post by highblooded »

Hello,

Since you are looking for a challenge against the Japanese AI, I would highly recommend giving it a few more crutches. The AI has major issues with supplying its units well, and it's convoy system sucks. Fixing the Pilot issue will help a great deal, but I would recommend adding additional oil and resources close to Japan (probably in Japan would help the best).

Many real sources of these items do exist today but were unknown at the time of the war.

Between Harbin and Tsitsihar (in Manchuria) are the Daquing Oilfields-near Anda (China discovered and began exploiting these fields in the late 50s to mid 60s -1976 output 50 million tons) If Japan had discovered these in the early 1930s the oil issues would have been solved (they still needed a great many other things to achive an autarky). Supposedly 2.2 billion tons(of 5.7 billion) could be mined by 1940s technology(not sure how much was viable for 1930s tech) supposedly Standard Oil even discovered part of it in the 1920s.

Another possible source of oil could be if the synthetic oil projects around Fushun had paid off better. Fushun had massive amounts of oil shale. Iron and steel were mined or made around fushun as well, Perhaps on a larger scale things would have worked out better.

Manchuria was a very rich country, much of the materials that Japan needed were available just under the surface. Northern China was extremly resource loaded as well.

So it is possible to come up with a reasonable alternate history without fabricating resources.

Assuming China and the US let Manchuria be developed prewar, many things become reasonable. If Manchuria becomes the Venezula of the East all that Oil money will come in handy for developing the economy or military. This could be how the advanced aircraft get created sooner. Just using 100+ octane fuel would allow much better engines (IMHO 100 octane-and Germanys lack of it, provided the edge that won the Battle of Britain)

Anyway.... I think you'll find that if Japan does not have to rely on rebuilding the DEI Oil industry then shipping oil north to run the economy, the AI will benefit greatly.

My two cents...
User avatar
m10bob
Posts: 8583
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 9:09 pm
Location: Dismal Seepage Indiana

RE: Heretical idea???

Post by m10bob »

Some WW2 aviation training info:

http://www.talkingproud.us/HistoryWWWIIFtrPilot.html

(I learned to fly in the J3.)[;)]


This also:


http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviati ... g-426.html
Image

Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design”