Air combat testing

[CV Zuikaku]

ORIGINAL: Howard Mitchell

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

...I was thinking of the Marianas Turkey shoot, or Phillippine Sea (contrary to some claims, late war IJN CV pilots in that battle were rather well trained...

Hello mdiehl, what is the source for this? The accounts I have say the opposite, that the vast bulk of them were very poorly trained and with little experience.

Yes, I forgott to ask that 2... I read that they ere very poorly trained for carrier ops, and hae difficulties with take offs an landings. The carrier based bombers had even less experienced crews, and those of them who managed to get through US CAP and flak scored no hits. And that woul'd not be the case in '42 when the bomber crews were experienced and well trained...

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: hosho

The most crashes occur during take off and landing even today. If you add some combat damage and it is quite reasonable ( imho ) that the bird will crash more often than the "easier to land plane".

What is the operational loss rate of Corsairs in AE that you are complaining about? Is it the same as other airplanes in AE, or higher?

[mdiehl]

Hello mdiehl, what is the source for this? The accounts I have say the opposite, that the vast bulk of them were very poorly trained and with little experience.

I'm working off memory here and have read alot on it, so I'll have to go back a bit to find the source. My memory is that Sho, Zui, and Junyo had been in substantial retraining since 1943, and most of their pilots at PhilSea were grduates of 1942-43 training programs, with most pilots operating with several hundred hours of air time prior to the Phil Sea and Turkey Shoot engagements. My recollection is that as a consequence of the PhilSea/Turkey Shoot battles the Japanese pilot pool was gutted of experienced pilots, and it was only after that when one saw substantial numbers of inadequately trained replacements.

[mdiehl]

IIRC Air Group 601 was comprised largely of Sho and Zui veterens and naval pilots with around 300 hours of flying time. IDNR stats for Air Group 602. Probably many fewer veterens in that group because Junyo had seen flight personnel stripped for land-based ops elsewhere.

To me the huge difference in 1944 was the enormous gulf between American command and control, and fighting tactics, and the (relatively unimproved) Japanese tactics and c-a-c.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Hello mdiehl, what is the source for this? The accounts I have say the opposite, that the vast bulk of them were very poorly trained and with little experience.

I'm working off memory here and have read alot on it, so I'll have to go back a bit to find the source. My memory is that Sho, Zui, and Junyo had been in substantial retraining since 1943, and most of their pilots at PhilSea were grduates of 1942-43 training programs, with most pilots operating with several hundred hours of air time prior to the Phil Sea and Turkey Shoot engagements. My recollection is that as a consequence of the PhilSea/Turkey Shoot battles the Japanese pilot pool was gutted of experienced pilots, and it was only after that when one saw substantial numbers of inadequately trained replacements.

The Japanese sources indicate the air groups (and ship crews) were very inexperienced.

Dunnigan and Nofi indicate the experienced air groups had gone ashore and been deployed to the Solomons during 1942-43. The planes were up to date (for the Japanese). The fighter exchange ratio was about 2 or 3-1 in favour of the Americans--which corresponds to the exchange ratio expected from the top speed difference, implying the fighter pilots were about equal in skill and so suggesting the experienced Japanese pilots were still around at that point.

In game terms, the Battle of the Philippine Sea wiped out the experienced nucleus of the Japanese carrier air arm.

[Dili]

Sort of OT: all carrier planes should have more operational losses than land based ones, unless that is already factored in game by carrier operations.

[hosho]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: hosho

The most crashes occur during take off and landing even today. If you add some combat damage and it is quite reasonable ( imho ) that the bird will crash more often than the "easier to land plane".

What is the operational loss rate of Corsairs in AE that you are complaining about? Is it the same as other airplanes in AE, or higher?

It wasn`t a complaint, it was ( and still is ) my opinion. I do not know what is the operational loss rate of corsairs in the AE. That is the question for the AE team. [;)]

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: treespider
So to set the record straight concerning the events surrounding the Japanese attack of May 8, 1942

per Lundstrom's First Team -

There were 69 Japanese aircraft
- 18 Zeros
- 33 Dive Bombers (DB)
- 18 Torpedo Bombers (TP)

Summary of Kills -
p250 - F4F downs 1 TP
p251 - SBD's down 2 TP (SBD's were on Anti Torpedo Patrol and not assigned to CAP but participated as such)
p252 - Yorktown AA downs 2 TP post drop
p253 - SBD downs 1 TP
p253 - Lex AA downs 1 TP
p257 - Lex AA downs 1 DB, damages several others
p257 - F4F downs 1 DB
p258 - F4F downs 1 DB
p260 - Lex AA downs 1 SDB (not counted in below subtotals)
p260 - SBDs downs 2TP, 1 DB
p261 - F4F downs 1 TP, 1 DB

Subtotals so far -
F4F - 2 TP, 3 DB
SBD - 5 TP, 1 DB
AA - 2 TP, 1DB
SubTotal - 9 TP, 5 DB

Strikes now return to Japanese carriers and here the record is open to interpretation.

p277 - Japanese sent Shokaku away thus leaving a single flight deck to land returning strike aircraft.
p277 - Japanese made the consicious decision to ditch 1 Zero, 5 DB and 1 TP because they did not want to tie up Zuikaku Flight Deck with damaged aircraft. (1 additional) Zero diverted to Deb. Isl. Presumably had Shokaku been around they could have recovered these damaged planes.

Now how these aircraft were damaged is open to interpretation - lets attribute 1/2 to AA so 3 DB and 1 TP because CAP did damage some returning bombers.

So additional Subtotals (Damaged then Ditched) -

A2A - 2 Zeros, 2 DB
AA - 3 DB, 1 TP
Subtotal - 2 Zeros, 5 DB, 1 TP

Loss Grand Totals-
2 Zeros, 10 DB, 10 TP

Of these AA "likely" accounted for 4 DB and 3 TP....but definitely accounted for 3 aircraft (and one friendly)

7 aircraft out of 51 Attack planes = 14%

EDIT:
p278 After landing the japanese pushed an additional 3 Zeros, 4 DB and 5 TP that were damaged over the side...so using our above assumption of AA we will add an additional 2 DB and 3 TP to the AA losses.

so 12 out of 51 attack planes = 24% lost to AA of which 3 were definite kills and 9 were damaged & written off...

Well 24% is less than my 30% low, but it’s still far more than the one or two airframes going down to flak that we see in game for carrier airstrikes. That big strike the Japanese launched in one of the AARs saw what, 3 planes downed by flak (can’t remember for sure) and I think the US counter-attack saw no planes go down to flak.

That said, I’d be leery of using just one source to lock in kill numbers. Based on the data you collated from the book, it appears he’s using US pilot claims for the data he gives (found a copy for sale for $100.00, so I took a pass on picking it up for myself, I may get it later if I find a better price) and we all know how pilots regularly claimed 50% -200% or more on air to air kills.

Chances are some of those F4F kills were AAA as the F4Fs were clearly out of position when the Japanese strike arrived. They perhaps took part in shooting down some planes after the strike, but before? I’m not too confident those pilot claims are real air to air kills.

Jim

Edit: You also only account for 22 kills, when most sources state 27 were lost. The ones pushed over the side of the Japanese CVs were not part of that 27.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


Well 24% is less than my 30% low, but it’s still far more than the one or two airframes going down to flak that we see in game for carrier airstrikes. That big strike the Japanese launched in one of the AARs saw what, 3 planes downed by flak (can’t remember for sure) and I think the US counter-attack saw no planes go down to flak.

And how many others were damaged?

That said, I’d be leery of using just one source to lock in kill numbers. Based on the data you collated from the book, it appears he’s using US pilot claims for the data he gives (found a copy for sale for $100.00, so I took a pass on picking it up for myself, I may get it later if I find a better price) and we all know how pilots regularly claimed 50% -200% or more on air to air kills.


Chances are some of those F4F kills were AAA as the F4Fs were clearly out of position when the Japanese strike arrived. They perhaps took part in shooting down some planes after the strike, but before? I’m not too confident those pilot claims are real air to air kills.

No, ...just like Shores...he compares the reported claims to exactly what returned to base.

Jim

Edit: You also only account for 22 kills, when most sources state 27 were lost. The ones pushed over the side of the Japanese CVs were not part of that 27.

So name them....

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Sort of OT: all carrier planes should have more operational losses than land based ones, unless that is already factored in game by carrier operations.

Not necessarily..The Navy carriers had excellent maintenance hangers and aviation mechanics at hand, with spare parts, also at hand, (though I understand you are referring to possible landing and handling problems.)[8D]

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: Dili

Sort of OT: all carrier planes should have more operational losses than land based ones, unless that is already factored in game by carrier operations.

Not necessarily..The Navy carriers had excellent maintenance hangers and aviation mechanics at hand, with spare parts, also at hand, (though I understand you are referring to possible landing and handling problems.)[8D]

As late as the 1950s, the peacetime accident rate for carrier ops was high enough that the average carrier pilot had about a 50% chance of surviving to retirement.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: hosho

It wasn`t a complaint, it was ( and still is ) my opinion. I do not know what is the operational loss rate of corsairs in the AE. That is the question for the AE team. [;)]

I misunderstood. I thought you were saying, in effect, "the rate in AE is too low." [8D]