unrealistic air combat...

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: DEB

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Your website seems to link to itself.

Why should this be a problem? I presume you think it is?

Yes, normally you wouldnt use yourself to confirm something you said. They do provide excellent backup in these cases but I wouldnt see this as a guarantee for all cases. In this case, I am confident of my source for the RNZAF Hudson shot down

I havent yet tried night missions in UV, might give them a bash and see how they go.

Please do, and let us know the results ( as and when you feel it is OK if on PBEM ) IDC.

I set up Scen 1 with ALL aircraft on night missions, the Aussie Hudsons raided Lae but despite having all CV's in 1 hex (The 1st O in Solomons Sea) not one carrier aircraft from either side flew. So no combat results and no Ops losses!!

I'll try some base attacks next.

Dont play PBEM, turned off many years back and I see from these forum that behaviour hasnt changed (Probably guilty myself)

[tocaff]

If you'd like people to read your posts maybe you should try an eye friendly color for the text.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Yes, normally you wouldnt use yourself to confirm something you said. They do provide excellent backup in these cases but I wouldnt see this as a guarantee for all cases. In this case, I am confident of my source for the RNZAF Hudson shot down

The backup here is the cross reference given to an input by another person. Seems ok to me.

Dont play PBEM, turned off many years back and I see from these forum that behaviour hasnt changed (Probably guilty myself)

Don't blame you at all!

[mdiehl]

Interesting. Of course you fail to admit that the radar in this A/C was so poor it needed searchlights to assist! See below:-

I did not "fail" to "admit" anything. There's nothing to admit. The P-70 was a p.o.s. The J1N was another p.o.s. The P-70 was the first of the two with airborne radar. It did not require searchlight assistance from the ground. It carried its own light. Considering that it was bascally an A-20 with some cannons, its failure is no great surprise. The only really good night fighters of the war were purpose built as such, not pathetic conversions (in the P-70s case from a decent ground attack bomber, in the J1N's case from a decent photorecce/trainer).

So they did use radar, just not in our period!

No one said otherwise. The early J1Ns didn't have radar. Of the intercepts previously mentioned, the two B-17s reasonably construed as shot down by a fighter at night were taken down by radarless a.c. directed by searchlight beam.

No one would construe the J1N1-s as remotely comparable to late war radar guided Allied night fighters. They weren't. They stank.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

If you'd like people to read your posts maybe you should try an eye friendly color for the text.

Sorry, I'll go somewhere else and you can have the thread all to yourself.[8|]

[Ike99]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

If you'd like people to read your posts maybe you should try an eye friendly color for the text.



Sorry, I'll go somewhere else and you can have the thread all to yourself.

Tocaff is correct JeffK. Serious, I couldn´t read a word from that text in that font color.

[tocaff]

Thank you Ike.  There was no intent on my part other than letting somebody know that to share what they think we must be able to see it in order to read it.  To many thin skinned people around taking offense where there is none......

[fuelli]

No offense but I had a problem with reading it as well.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I did not "fail" to "admit" anything.

You denigrated the Irvings means of "targeting" whilst leaving out that the P-70 had similar problems. That's an admission failure to me.

The P-70 ... did not require searchlight assistance from the ground. It carried its own light.

That's not what the article I printed said.... , you can read ?

The only really good night fighters of the war were purpose built as such, not pathetic conversions (in the P-70s case from a decent ground attack bomber, in the J1N's case from a decent photorecce/trainer).

Hmm, are you upset about something?

No one said otherwise.

You implied it by ommission.

Of the intercepts previously mentioned, the two B-17s reasonably construed as shot down by a fighter at night were taken down by radarless a.c. directed by searchlight beam.

Did I say they were not?

No one would construe the J1N1-s as remotely comparable to late war radar guided Allied night fighters. They weren't. They stank.

The later purpose built Night Fighter shot down several B-29's. I doubt those crews ( or their families ) would agree your "assessment".

[YUP]

real jap air losses are 332[aproxamite]at midway

[DEB]

It appears to me that whilst JeffK's "bright green" paragraph was rather garish, it was certainly NOT unreadable. Those who could be bothered to try to read it, could.

Tocaff, I am suprised. You actually sent a polite reply to IKE99!

Shame on you for the snide remark at the end though.

[tocaff]

Maybe I'm big enough to be polite if I try. 

I have nothing against Ike, or anyone else here, as long as it's kept respectful by all parties.

The last remark was not meant as a cheap shot, just trying to point out that my remark about the color of the print had no barbs to it. We (all of us) tend to get a little touchy at times.

[borner]

YUP, that sounda about right, but most Jap losses at Midway were from getting blow up on flight decks before they were able to take off however.

[mdiehl]

You denigrated the Irvings means of "targeting" whilst leaving out that the P-70 had similar problems. That's an admission failure to me.

Not in the least. Neither a failure nor an admission of anything. My reply was to the claim that the Japanese fielded a NF first. Nothing more. Anyone making more of it is a fool with an agenda.

You implied it by ommission.

(Edited for the sake of civility).

Well, I also omitted mentioning a whole universe of things, so what other things did I "imply" by virtue of not stating them outright?

I'm just curious about the parameters of your logical system here. Is it a kind of Dadaist logic in which wholly unrelated things are presumed to be causally juxtaposed because of the disharmonious or possibly absurd imagery they evoke? Or is it more like a kind of Postmodernist Logic in which the heretofore complete absence of any specific mention, by myself, of Michelle Foucault is proof of Foucault's universal-pervasiveness?

The later purpose built Night Fighter shot down several B-29's.

Anyone could get lucky I suppose, assuming that they, in fact, did that. According to a number of sources (here I offer "Aircraft of WWII" by Stewart Wilson) "The Gekko was initially employed in the South-west and Central pacific where it was effective agianst the B-24 Liberator but not fast enough to trouble the B-29 Superfortress when employed in the home dfence role. Most ended their days as Kamikaze aircraft."

By which I take it that Wilson (like several other sources) regards the JnN1-Sa as strategically ineffectual against B-29s. In my view the Gekko was a poor design and not terribly good even as a night fighter. In part because its successes were few and far between, and also because pretty much every source regards it as a poor entry for the type. But as I noted before. A B-17 here. A B-24 there. Anyone can get lucky.

[RGIJN]

just a little side note on "unrealistic things": why it is impossible in UV to deploy B25 Mitchell bombers on YORKTOWN class carriers...?!?! It was indeed done in RL [;)] And that it was done is more than sufficient documented...

very excited what this gets up [8D]

[fuelli]

I think that exactly reflects the fundamental "problem" when comparing PC games to reality.
Its a fixed code with a given flexibility that can only represent a limited reality. And limited in this case means that things happened in RL that can not be done in the game and things happen in the game that maybe never happened in real life. The fact that things have been done x-times in RL will lead to the fact that these things will be done x times x in the game or maybe never. Fact is that this game won´t change anymore. Take it as it is or leave it.

[tocaff]

We all have various "issues" with this and other games.  Maybe we should try to remember that it's just a game and there's no way, at present time, to satisfy everybody's quest for their version of reality.
 
Once time travel, if possible, becomes a reality then you can travel back and participate (if you dare) in the actual events and really see what the reality of the day was.  Until then we only have verbal (fewer all the time) and written accounts from the vets who lived it.

Enjoy the game for what it is and either live with it's shortfalls or search for another option that better suits you.

[tocaff]

Shooting down a B-29 was a daunting task for the virtually green Japanese fighter pilots of the day.  Maybe the planes that the Japanese used were better than you think and the pilots stunk. 

A B-29 formation was loaded with, computer (yep) controlled by the flight engineer from the dorsal (top) turret, .50 cal mgs that could be deadly as hell.  The Japanese were decreasingly willing to engage these formations as I showed with the flight log from a crewman posted in the WITP forum.

The downside for these planes was when mining the inland sea a single bullet into 1 of the bomb bays could result in a fireball in the sky.

Also the listed speed of the B-29 was, if my shot memory serves, about 320 mph cruising.  Anybody who flew them would laugh at that # and say that the loaded (underpowered) planes flew much slower than that. 

[borner]

 I think it's pretty much agreed that that F4u's are just a tad over-rated. How much of a difference would it make if the US player agreed to move every other land based unit that arrived or upgraded to F4u's to rear areas such as the Santa Cruz bases or further south?

[tocaff]

Taking fighter squadrons out of the game isn't the answer because then you won't be able to CAP bases or escort attacks.