AIRCRAFT !!

[Fishbed]

BTW

The closest i get is this statistic:

"34 Tojos shot down 83 Wellington Bombers, 2 Tojos are Destroyed" (Apr 1944)

is that 83 or 38 [&:]

In Europa the situation is a compleatly different one, and the numbers regarding 1 for 1 is correct, but this is not aigans unescorted Bombers, but aiganst escorted ones. This means, that when a Me 109 or FW190 was shot down (usualy by allied figthters), you can say, that a Allied Bomber also were shot down at same pace.
This is intill September 1942.

Huh are you sure about the dates? What is supposed to last until September 42?
Before that there were few day-time 4-Engined bombers to deal with, right.

The unescorted attack on bombers, referes to after all escort is dead. The 101 planes attacking bombers had no good sucsess.

Well try the Nickmod then, even though you may become the only one over there soon to be unhappy about the number of planes getting shot down in that mod [;)]

[High Command]

I have withdrawn from the Discussion.

[Fishbed]

Btw, about your Tojo experience since the beginning, may I remind you that you are fighting with the Tojo IIb variant, which was hardly a bomber buster with nothing but 4 MG. [:)]
The Tojo ops you use as a reference most probably involved late Tojo variants with big nasty guns (a little bit ineffective against fighters, but well bombers surely didn't like that) which proved much more effective against the big boys.

The late result you're showing is the consequence of the air combat model, which favours small strikes penetration, while large strikes will get well engaged and decimated. What were the altitude of the bombers, and did they reach their target?

[JeffroK]

From High Command

This is ABSURD; i have at universety studyed WW2 for sevral years, also do read about this subject on a weekly basis, and no time nor plase in history have this ever happend.

The closest i get is this statistic:

"34 Tojos shot down 83 Wellington Bombers, 2 Tojos are Destroyed" (Apr 1944)
"18 Tojos shot down 22 B29 August 1944, 1 Tojo is medium dammaged" (Aug 1944)
"44 Tojos shot down 11 Lancasters, 19 B17, 8 B29, 4 Tojos are destroyed" (Feb 1945)
"8 Tojos shot down 7 B24, 2 Tojos are Destroyed" (Mar 1945)

Are these real life or game results.

Not meaning to be picky but NO LANCASTERS were in the Pacific in Feb 45.
Where did the 34 Tojos knock down 83 Wellingtons????
I doubt if the USAAF had B17's in theatre in Feb 45!!
8 Tojos knock down 7 B24's, yeah, it happened often.
10/8/44 B29's bomb Japan at night, are Tojo's night fighters?
20/8/44 61 B29's bomb Japan in the day, 14 are lost, 1 to AA, 4 to fighters.
1st B29 arrive on Saipan on 24/8 but are not ready until mid Sept for action.

If you believe they are IRL, maybe you should find another University.

Anyway, you could probably pick a number of actions where losses were swayed the other way, 4 ations in 6 years of war is not a good base to work from.

My read of the stats posted above were that your fighters had to fight through an escort which gave out some heavy blows, then copped another blow from a bomber group which would have approx 1500 .50cal MG's and 234 .303cal MG's.

The dumb thing was to have about 100 aircraft destroyed on the ground and 10,000 men as bombing casualties.

The game aint perfect, but if you abuse common sense you'll get hit hard.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: High Command

Day Air attack on TF, near Kendari at 33,71

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 15
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 17

Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 4

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-25C Mitchell: 1 damaged




Tojo Group Average Experience 91
Zero Group Average Experience 78

High Command,
There are several things you are not considering or giving the game enough credit for. Believe me, I've been there bro, and it is frustrating. Everything that has been said to this point, by our "uneducated members" is true but consider this:

1. Stock Air model is complex. But A2A relies heavily on a concept of Detection Level (DL). That is, each formation has a DL score derived from various places. Radar is the most bang for the buck, but EVERY unit in the target hex has the ability to raise an incoming raids DL. Multiple radars in the same hex MULTIPLY the potential DL. The higher the DL the more effective the defense against that raid. Obviously the opposite is true with lower DLs.

2. Weather affects DL. In the absence of radar, DLs tend to be lower. Size of the raid affects DL. The smaller the raid the less likely they are to be detected. Widely differing initial altitudes can cause a CAP, regardless of EXP levels, to miss a small raid. What altitude was your CAP at? How many LCUs, TFs, and radars were in the target hex? What was the altitude of the B-25s?

3. This game is not a tactical simulation of WWII Air combat. Maybe in the future we'll have higher fidelity encounters, but that remains to be seen. In the mean time to keep from getting bent around the axle, when hese things happen, ask yourself "how COULD this have happened?", rather than "How SHOULD this have happened?" There is usually an equally valid historical example of each combat we watch iin WitP.

[High Command]

The vertion of Tojo i refered to is of course the same as I currently have, or it would not be possible to compere them.

The 4 Bombers that made it throu, if it were ment to be so, should made it throu without being fired upon by 32 Fighters, so this is not DL, as the 32 Fighters actualy did fire upon them (all the first day) and it without them losing a singel bomber.


I think some here semes to not have acces to real world information or documentation, so it is hard to discuss this topic with you as you simply lack the neccesary knowlage on the subject.

The Historicle Examples above is from WW2 and Pacific Theater, i see for example one is commenting on the Lancasters, thay were Chinese, not British, i thought that was common knowlage.
Anyway thair are over 2000 air engagements pr year in the Pacific, i have rewieved maby 150.
Now thats not alot compered to how many missions and engagements it was, i know that, but it is after my opinion enugth to get a impression. Im sure evan half of you havent evan red a real world Air to Air Combat Report, so what is your guessings worth when you try to present historicle data? You must not mix what you think or have heared about with facts, facts is informrmation that is not based on opinions or enturpetations. So if you talk about facts, stick to facts, dont mix this computer based game with realety. In realety Japan would never invaded India due to Political reasons, I did that. So lets seperate the two things. The link is that this game tryes to simulate realety, and it is realy poor in that, espesialy the Air to Air modell in CHS 160 - Experimental Air to Air modell.


I see alot of the ones replaying here are real WITP fanboys, Im sure you are going to be real objective and stick to historical facts and USAF or IJAA Inteligance or Statistic Combat Reports. If not, a historicle arguement can not be taken into consideration as it will be based on a opinion and not on documentation.

Come with some real world documentation and ill take a look at it, but intill then the conclution is very simple,
this Air to Air modell, does not correspond with the Statistics of the USAF.




lol CHS160 has moddeled the P47D as more manuvreble then the Zero for crist, do we need to say more?



I rest my case!

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: High Command

lol CHS160 has moddeled the P47D as more manuvreble then the Zero for crist, do we need to say more?



I rest my case!

The maneuver rating represents horizontal and vertical maneuvering for all altitudes, so maybe this isn't as simple as you thought.

Anyway, feel free to ignore me - I'm just an "uneducated WITP fanboy"...

[Andy Mac]

Umm Chinese Lancasters ? This I am interested in given Churchills attitude to China I am amazed that Lancasters were given to Chinese never heard or read that one before and while I never studied it at University I am reasonably well read so this is a shock to me !!!

[High Command]

ORIGINAL: VSWG


The maneuver rating represents horizontal and vertical maneuvering for all altitudes, so maybe this isn't as simple as you thought.


Anyway, feel free to ignore me - I'm just an "uneducated WITP fanboy"...

Ok, we have same enturpetation then.




Here are the stats.

Document: USAF AAGAS 1808-DF & USAF AAGAS 2213-DU









VERTICAL MANUVERBILETY:

AT ZERO FUEL WEIGHT + 350 KG FUEL
PILOT WEIGHT P47D 83.4 KG
PILOT WEIGHT A6M2 82.8 KG

WEATHER:
RJTX 151010Z 16018 180V220 8500 SCT010 BKN040 17/16 Q1011 TEMPO SCT020










P47-D / P47D2S



PROPELLER:

CURTISS 12'2
714-1C212

FT/MIN

FL100
2420

FL150
2350

FL200
2180

FL240
1960

FL300
1180



PROPELLER:
CURTISS 13'2
814-3C-18

FL100
2120

FL150
2050

FL200
2080

FL240
2160

FL300
2310


*****



A6M2 -AA1A ZERO


PROPELLER:
AGAMIHY 10'4
528986347-1A

FL100
3980

FL150
3620

FL200
2890

FL240
2360

FL300
2290



HORIZONTAL MANUVERBILETY:

AT ZERO FUEL WEIGHT + 350 KG FUEL


TRIMMED FOR PITCH +5 DEGREES
AT BPS (BEST PREFORMANCE SPEED)


P47-D / P47D2S



FL100
30 Degrees Bank at Trim+5 Gain 2+ Flex-3

FL150
38 Degrees Bank at Trim+5 Gain 4+ Flex-4

FL200
28 Degrees Bank at Trim+5 Gain 3+ Flex-8

FL240
22 Degrees Bank at Trim+5 Gain 1+ Flex-7

FL300
20 Degrees Bank at Trim+7 Gain 1- Flex-9




A6M2 -AA1A ZERO



FL100
31 Degrees Bank at Trim+3 Gain 6+ Flex-1

FL150
42 Degrees Bank at Trim+4 Gain 9+ Flex-2

FL200
37 Degrees Bank at Trim+5 Gain 8+ Flex-3

FL240
33 Degrees Bank at Trim+6 Gain 5+ Flex-4

FL300
23 Degrees Bank at Trim+6 Gain 5- Flex-6



****



As you can see, USAF consider the A6M2 Zero Vertion AA1A (The one serial prodused) to be vastly suppirior in Vertical Climb and Horizontal Manuverbilety compered to the P-47D.




***

For the ones not anderstanding the diagram, i will write here a translation for you:

FL=Flight Leavel
ZEF=Zero Fuel Weight (Gross Weight + Payload)
Flex= Flex Component (Wing Flex Wake Effect)
Bank Angle- Attetude Indecator Angle at Trimed flight only (mean you applay no other controll then trim)


Ill translate the METAR for you also:

Location: RJTX (Military Field outside Tokyo)
Day: 15 of the month
Time: 1010 UTC
Wind: Surfece From 160 at 18 Knos
Wind: Variabel 180 throu 220
Visebilety: 8500 Meters
Clouds: Scatterd at 1000 Feet
Clouds: Broken at 4000 Feet
Tempature: 17
Dewpoingt 16
QNH: Pressuer is 1011 Milli Bars
Temporerely: Scatered Clouds at 2000 Feet





.

[decaro]

I see it was a daylight raid, but again, what was the wx and altitude of the bombers? Both factors are significant, esp. for the Zeros as these planes didn't perform well at high altitudes.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: High Command
lol CHS160 has moddeled the P47D as more manuvreble then the Zero for crist, do we need to say more?

Here is what it says in the CHS notes about the Zeros:

The maneuver rating on most of the aircraft have been adjusted. What I [Lemurs] had noticed was a lack of consistency between land based and carrier based aircraft. So, the maneuver ratings of the A5, A6m2, 3, and 5 were lowered. They also seem to match better with their allied counterparts.

I am no expert, but I believe that the maneverability ratings probably take into account the performance of the aircraft at various altitudes, and at the speeds the aircraft were usually fighting at, and include such things as roll rate and the ability of aircraft to dive and zoom climb in combat situations.

I also note that the P-47D is more maneuverable that the A6M2 and A6M5 Zero in the stock scenarios (while being equal to the A6M3 and the A6M8 - at 36).

Others here have more expertise in these matters than I do, and are better qualified to comment.

I would also like to repeat the comments already made - the "experimental" versions of CHS are just that - experimental.

Perhaps it would be more beneficial if you post your overall A2A losses (Japanese and Allied) in the game, and then these can be compared to real life results in the same time periods?

Andrew

[Fishbed]

The 4 Bombers that made it throu, if it were ment to be so, should made it throu without being fired upon by 32 Fighters, so this is not DL, as the 32 Fighters actualy did fire upon them (all the first day) and it without them losing a singel bomber.

I think some here semes to not have acces to real world information or documentation, so it is hard to discuss this topic with you as you simply lack the neccesary knowlage on the subject.

Well then it's an issue with the in-game data of the guns. It's not a matter of accessing "real world information of documentation", but simply wrong or mis-interpreted input making the guns too weak (or the enemy bombers armor too strong) and unbalancing the whole thing.

Now there's something bad about the game system too, it's that it doesn't mimic that well a fighter pilot behavior. The fact that fighters will concentrate on stragglers and damaged bombers isn't that well reproduced. But so far, a game like Pacific Fighters on the tactical level isn't perfect neither, so well...

I suppose someone who dealt a lot with the A2A game system, like Nik, will have a lot to say about all this.

The vertion of Tojo i refered to is of course the same as I currently have, or it would not be possible to compere them.

Well if you have that many sources about those engagements you're talking about, can you please tell us more about these battles? I still don't picture thirty Tojos downing 80+ Wellingtons with their machineguns...

[spence]

Anyway thair are over 2000 air engagements pr year in the Pacific, i have rewieved maby 150.
Now thats not alot compered to how many missions and engagements it was, i know that, but it is after my opinion enugth to get a impression. Im sure evan half of you havent evan red a real world Air to Air Combat Report, so what is your guessings worth when you try to present historicle data?

During your exhaustive study I was wondering if your stumbled across who won the war?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Umm Chinese Lancasters ? This I am interested in given Churchills attitude to China I am amazed that Lancasters were given to Chinese never heard or read that one before and while I never studied it at University I am reasonably well read so this is a shock to me !!!

I would like to hear about Chinese Lancs operating in WW2 as well. I also have not read that before.

[High Command]

I have withdrawn from the Discussion.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
I would also like to repeat the comments already made - the "experimental" versions of CHS are just that - experimental.

I should probably elaborate - the aim of the "experimental" versions of CHS is not to short-change the Japanese players. The aim is to see what the effects are on A2A combat "bloodiness" of manipulating some of the aircraft parameters, mainly max speed and durability. These manipulations are applied to both Japanese and Allied aircraft equally (on a base level from the "normal" CHS values).

[Fishbed]

@Fishbed Ill be happy to tell you more about Air Engagement, but i would recommend you to go to your local Air Force Museum, i think it is better as thay will have alot of documentation ect you can read throu, and if your lucky maby borrow you or let you copy.

Well errr thanks. But French air Museum, while it will let me approach some F-105 intakes or Fw-190 MG151/20, will hardly let me access data they definitely don't have :wacko:
I can try to take a look at my Osprey collection but I am pretty sure Ive got nothing about the Tojo or the Tojo aces, that's why I am asking. Apparently you do have some sources we'd like to hear more about. These numbers are definitely weird (and being in-war numbers, may be a little inaccurate too and were probably revised, right?)

[High Command]

Yep of course the numbers will be estemations, after all it was a war.
Anyway, If you are truly interested i can see if i can send you some, but it is a bit much to write off and into a PC screan, would be better to copy and snail mail..
If i send you the document numbers, will you be able to contact the proper Authorety and ask if you can get a copy from them?

[Fishbed]

No it's ok don't bother Im not THAT interested - got enough work like that with my own paper, which has little to do with Nakajima stuff. Thanks [;)]

[keeferon01]

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

watch out mate , they might bring out the real big guns to counter you, el cid could be wheeled out here

Now YOU DO show some signs of bitterness and resentment, don't you [8|]

High Command started the conversation in a very inadequate fashion. He hid the real facts for a start, and couldn't stick with an educated behavior when it came to address us - if he's got some problem with the way Terminus is dealing with him, he can tell him without involving the whole forum crowd. Thanks to Mac and other people around here for keeping cool and so civil.
But btw I believe we don't need another troll, James... If you feel like you are so bored in your real life that you need to look for trouble over those boards with people you barely know, please look for another community to slander, thanks... [:o]

who the hell are you to call me a troll, get back into your little internet bubble and calm down, you my friend are taking yourself way too seriously and I believe the guy that started the thread is looking for trouble as I believe are you and I expect an apology on being called a troll