B-17's

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Chiteng
I am sorry you wont convince Dhaad of anything with regards to B-17's. He has read some article on skip-bombing and that has cemented his opinion. I offer the performance of the B-17's
at Midway as an example of how they DONT hit moving ships.

I offer Morrison who flatly states that only ONE destroyer
that was NOT moving was ever hit by a B-17. But that doesnt matter to Dhaad. He will site some article that actually pertains mostly to B-25s in late 1943 as an example of how B-17's could have been used. It is useless.

In responce to Dhaads request that someone state how a B-17 should be used 'ingame':

I suggest that it be limited to recon, asw and strategic bombing.

However I see nothing wrong with allowing it to come in at 100 feet over the airbase. I just think that the flak algorithm be upped
to make it NOT cost effective.

Heck right now you can use the B-17's to attrit Zeros over Rabual
because you KNOW the B-17 wont get more than damaged.
That is flatly silly.

I suppose, Chiteng, we could agree if I hadn't myself read numerous first person accounts of B-17s being used in low level attacks by brave pilots and crews. I suppose we could agree if I hadn't read secondary sources by reputable historians that have recorded in their accounts replete evidence that B-17s scored dozens of hits in low level attacks on shipping. I suppose I could agree with you if there weren't numerous primary sources which tell the story of General Kenney's experiments with and use of B-17s to develop skip bombing. I might agree with you if I hadn't read the accounts of Japanese pilots in the South Pacific who complained that the "biggest problem" for them in the theater was the "four-motored American B-17 bomber". Not lack of supplies, not lack of fuel, not being outnumbered, but the pesky B17.

Hey, wait, I have an idea. Why don't you read my sources and agree with me? No, wait, you won't do that. I guess my question is why you won't, or why you haven't, or why you persist with these arguments that are clearly ignorant of the many historical facts?

Your argumentation is about as good as your spelling of my name, which has almost never been right. I suppose that's an indication of how carefully you investigate the historical facts.

[Ron Saueracker]

Does your source give a "number of ships sunk" by B 17s during the total time frame using this method of low altitude bombing? I would like to compare the actual total for the duration of the war to the UV success rate and total. I'd bet UV could match that real total in about 1/10th of the time.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
Does your source give a "number of ships sunk" by B 17s during the total time frame using this method of low altitude bombing? I would like to compare the actual total for the duration of the war to the UV success rate and total. I'd bet UV could match that real total in about 1/10th of the time.

There is not any single source that breaks down the number of ships sunk by what kind of aircraft and what type of attack, at least not one that I have. Even the most authoritative sources don't have numbers like that. Fire in the Sky records numerous instances of B17 low level attacks, with good successes. I've also visited a number of veterans sites that contain good information including specific recollections and numbers of ships hit, etc., and I've also read dozens of secondary sources which discuss Kenney's effort, the whole skip bombing campaign in general (because it had a "strategic effect" on the campaign by preventing daylight surface resupply in New Guinea), along with the occasional story about Japanese pilot experiences. Also trade magazines (those that cater to the defense industry), history magazines (like Military History), etc, have the occasional interview with contemporaries of the war, including B17 pilots and crew, and Japanese military men. So, the bottom line is, no I don't have information which is that specific.

Its a facetious thing you want to do though, Ron. Don't you think? The only way you could get results that meant anything would be to play the entire game exactly as history went, down to the number of times that B17 squadrons attacked. That way you could compare the sortie / hit rate with the actual history and see if there is any difference.

All I can do is, from all of this information, give you my "best educated guess". I've read that General Kenny's men eventually got low level skip bombing tactics down (before it was actually used in combat, mind you), so that there was about a 50% chance that a B-17 on an "attack run" would hit the target. They had ships they used for practice, as well as towed targets to practice at moving targets. (Note : this is not the same thing as a Sortie / Hit ratio, since not all aircraft that leave the ground actually get to make an attack run on a target, etc.)

In combat, ratio of attack runs to hits was a bit less. Do a Google search on "Battle of the Bismarck Sea" and you will run across a number of sites that talk about this "battle" which involved almost entirely low level attacks on shipping by almost every model of US bomber aircraft in the theater at the time, including 17s. The result to the Japanese was devastating; they never again attempted daylight surface convoy resupply runs to New Guinea, thereafter instead using only single ships or small groups of small ships, usually moving short distances at night.

This battle happened, IIRC, in April 1943, when these tactics had been practiced and used in combat for months, so the skill levels were probably quite high.

But, Ron, my main issue or point here is this : there can't be much question, if one *cares to investigate the issue themselves* (not you Ron, but others on this board ) that 17s were used, and used effectively in this role. Naturally, we players are not playing with real lives and have the benefit of hindsight, so we will use 17s much more aggressively than was the case historically. The fact that the players are using 17s this way is in my judgement the best evidence that the game is modelled correctly. Tools and methods and tactics that have been proven effective in a war, will be used even more aggressively and effectively in a simulation of that war made years later, unless "special delimiters" are put in place to prevent the application of hindsight. Like rules which, for example in other games, prevent large-scale deployment of the BEF in France in 1940, or which prevent large scale development of the Me 262 in 1942, etc.

IMHO the so-called problems with the 17 have been identified by Matrix : there was a piece of code that was supposed to prevent the application of enhanced accuracy (based on the Norden bombsight) which was not working correctly and will be fixed in 1.2. In addition to the other changes, I think we will see somewhat more reserved use of 17s, at least by intelligent players. I for one am not going to waste my 17 squadrons once I have several Mitchell and Marauder squadrons that can do the job, not even with the game as it is now.

[mdiehl]

"You on the other hand have provided no real proof that your quoted sources are any better other than to assume that the winning side which writes the history must always be correct."

Uh, for numerical facts I've quoted specifically: Richard Frank (Guadalcanal) Appendix Data tables, and John Lundstrom (two volumes on the USN in 1942), for combat losses. I won't argue whether or not a source (a peer reviewed book by a PhD historian who has consulted the operation records of the air units involved and can name who saw who shot down and where) is credible. If it isn't nothing is.

For general conclusions I can give you the closing chapter in The First team at Guadalcanal (sorry, no page number, it's back at the library, but you can read it) in which Lundstrom attests to the high quality of USN F4F pilots trained in 1940-1941 both with respect to team tactics and deflection shooting.

We could go through the same analysis for the 23rd FG in China except that it isn't conclusively clear that Zeros operated in that theater, despite Shilling's claim that they were. Or Ford's.

What we are then left with is the actual combat losses sustained in aerial combat in the first three months of the war by Allied pilots in Malaya, Burma, the PI, the NEI, Darwin and PM. Good sources on actual combat losses in this area are difficult to come by. Sakai is not a good source. It is a personal biography, and necessarily is heavily clouded by FOW and the absence of verification of his claims. AFAIS, most of the P40s shipped to Java never left their boxes, having been sunk on Langley, or voluntarily destroyed (burned) in Soerbaja. Most of the Hurricane losses in Indonesia that I can document so far were operational write-offs. Six shot down by virtue of being bounced in a landing pattern (not what you'd call a head to head meeting engagement in which the pilots can fly the planes to the virtue of their training and the a/c's capabilities), and they seem to have shot down as many Japanese a/c (30 claimed, which I read as 5 kills and 5 possibles).

I won't dispute Sakai's observation that the A6M was a much better plane than the F2 or P36.

In any case, I'm done. We don't agree, fine. To repeat, if you have a credible source of actual losses in combat of Allied army fighters against Japanese fighters prior to April 1942, I'll read it. Sakai is not a credible source on Allied losses. He did not and could not know how many allied a/c were engaged in any particular engagement. He did not and could not know with any accuracy how many Allied a/c were shot down. Since his claims were not verified by his co-author (nor did they try, because it was a personal narrative not an in-depth military assessment), they mean nothing.

I'm glad, by the way, that you think UV is better than GGPW. It gives me hope for more improvement on the way to WitP.

[Nikademus]

Thats good to hear. I'm done as well, considering i did find the now 2 year old thread over on the PacWar forum in which much the same things were said by you, me and a slew of other people (hence the comment about me and "alot others", hardly the "Cult" of Nik, given i had maybe three or four entries in dozens but i found some good nuggets that explained certain points i've tied to make better than i did, moot since all you care about are kill statistics from your one or two source books)

Agreed. We could talk "kill ratios" till the cows come home and its clear we wont agree on the signifigance of them vis-a-vis IJN/A planes and their pilots. Its no different then......its no different now. I'll leave it to others to decide for themselves. The posts are all there. Thats what the're for after all

I've heard that said about Sakai and others before too. Often sources that disagree with glowing USN/AAF conclusions are thus labeled. Never the less, he shot down a *confirmed* 64 planes, most of them in the Pacific war (only 2, possibly 3 in China) and his experiences belie the impression that all the Japanese air force did in the first six months of the war was shoot up crated planes or those in a landing pattern. And no....they were not all P-36's and F2's.

[mdiehl]

I'm not gonna let you walk with anaspersion on Frank or on Lundstrom. Lundstrom has an MA. Frank, a PhD. You don't have either, AFAIK. Sakai didn't. Their books were peer-reviewed scholarly *research based* books. Sakai's was a non-peer-reviewed narrative with no substantive research. They're not equivalents. Frank, and Lundstrom used *both* IJN (in order to get reliable counts on Japanese losses) and USN (in order to get reliable accounts on USN losses) unit records. Sakai's "confirmed" victories are "confirmed by the Japanese." They are no more reliable than the "confirmed" claims by B17 crews of Axis fighters shot down over Germany or Allied pilots claims over Guadalacanal.

For reliable numbers you have to go to the most credible source. That means Japanese unit records for Japanese losses, and not Allied pilot claims. That means Allied unit records for Allied losses and not Japanese pilot claims.

Again, to the point. Have you any source that uses losses from unit records to account for combat losses prior to April 1942?

Name one, if you can, and I'll try to find it.

[Nikademus]

Thought you said you were done?

I'm not gonna let you walk all over Sakai either. I found his book to be well written, thoughtful, insightful and hardly "one sided". Much of what he said and related on directly touches upon many of the subjects dwelled up herein. But as always, i find high amusement in the "pick and choose" method people like you use when considering such sources. They're reliable and accurate, as long as their agreeing with your viewpoint. In the end you dismiss him and others because they failed to confirm your 'theory' of helpless Zeros and experienced pilots holding their heads in despair as P-39's and 40's effortlessly took them apart regardless of what they might do to counter it

Ye old " They dont know what their talking about" spiel. Nothing new here


I'm not gonna talk about the numbers anymore. Been there done that, its been discussed here and on the other thread ad-nausium Cling to them and the one or two books you got them from if you must because they are all you can fall back on whenever a new point or factor is introduced. The air war remains a much larger equation.

[mdiehl]

Look here, Nikademus. It's not a matter of "pick and choose" or arbitrary choice, or rejecting a viewpoint because it is contrary, or "guys like you" as you put it. You're opretty consistent about trying to make this about *me,* and I'm trying to make it about the *evidence* presented by scholars. Your arguments are ad hominem, non-sequitur, and not scholarly. Do you really think that your approach to argumentation is enhancing your credibility?

When I compare Lundstrom and Frank and Sakai, it's a matter of assessing who is qualified to make what kind of observation. I'm not dissing Sakai. He was a great pilot and knew his plane well. Neither he nor his co-author researched the unit losses of the Allied units that Sakai engaged. *They did not even try.* *That wasn't the puropse of their book.* They were not presenting Samurai (which is, I assume, the source you mean) as a *research* book and its specific purpose was not to assess the efficacy of the various combatants pilots and a/c. Sakai talks about his opinions, but they are anecdotes.

"I'm not gonna talk about the numbers anymore."

You haven't talked *numbers* at all. You've just claimed either that the numbers aren't relevant, or more incredibly, that the research done by historians Richard B. Frank, PhD, and John B. Lundstrom, MA, is unreliable even though the peer-reviews of their works are overwhelmingly praiseful. Geesh!

It's supremely ironic that you accuse me of "clinging" to a position or selectively retaining information from a limited suite of books, when:

1. You won't state your criteria for evaluating the issue.
2. You have not named, yet, *any* source for your claims, although I gather from your remarks that you've read "Samurai."
3. You can't cite a scholarly source that rebuts the numbers presented by Frank or Lundstrom (all you seem to be able to do is vaguely accuse them of bad scholarship).
4. You can't address the basic question of combat losses or a/c performance.
5. Still can't name a credible source for combat losses during the early part of the war.
6. Given the apparent absence of hard evidence to support your position you fall back on the fundamentally illogical and irrational tactic of insulting me.

I may be wrong on all this. At this point, I've had my fill of your aspersions, your unwillingness or inability to address the points that I've raised, and your inability to support any of your own claims.

I welcome the participation of anyone who can name credible sources with quantitative information on this matter, in regards to aerial combat prior to April 1942 in the ABDA, Malaya, and SWPac areas.

Cheers to all of you who have patiently read from the sidelines.

[dgaad]

I do find Mdiehls arguments persuasive because they appear to be based on sources that based their conclusions, numbers, assumptions, on the most reliable primary source documents available.

I find Nikki's viewpoints and arguments to have some value as well. But he is evasive when faced with the numbers, as he realizes that's an argument he cant win. The numbers pertaining to kill ratios do not bear out the general claim that the zero was a "much better plane" or that the Japanese were "much better pilots."

TMBR: Authors such as Eric Bergerud argue that Japanese aircraft ultimately proved unsuitable for the demands of Second World War air combat? Do you agree?

Peattie: Yes, I do. Again, the problem goes back to mistaken Japanese assumptions about the kind of war it planned to fight ---- a lightning war which would bring us to our knees after a few slashing offensives -- as opposed to the kind of war it was actually obliged to fight -- a grinding war of attrition. The aircraft it had available in the first few months of Japan's lightning offensives at the opening of the Pacific War were eminently suited to that strategy and to the navy's tactical air doctrine: fast aircraft, with incredible range, and, in the case of its fighter planes, aircraft that were agile and powerfully armed. In the hands of outstanding pilots these aircraft were formidable. But they had inadequate protection for the most valuable assets of the navy's air service: its aircrews. Attrition of experienced aircrews and the vulnerability of the navy's aircraft thus had a fatally symbiotic relationship in an ever-increasing spiral of destruction for both.

One other element of the eventual unsuitability of Japanese naval aircraft should be mentioned : inferior power plants. The Zero, for example, had an engine that was well suited to the intricate maneuvers of relatively low-speed, low-altitude dog fighting. But by 1943 they were hopelessly outclassed by American aircraft like the Corsair and Lightning and their greater power plants which were admirably adapted to the new American tactics of climbing and diving pursuit.

[Joel Billings]

We are very close to releasing the new patch. Thanks to some quick response testing and comments from Erik (also U2 and a few others), we may finally have the combination of changes that will resolve the low level bombing issue. One bug was found (CAP diving down were taking added disruption when this was not intended) which made it easier for the low level strikes to get through CAP. In addition to previous changes I said we were going to make, Gary also added code that would make low level bombers without experienced pilots (exp 70 +rnd(20)) very bad at hitting targets that are defended by decent CAP/flak. At this point, if anything, the delay in repairing heavy bombers will probably be considered overkill and we'll start hearing complaints that the B-17's aren't performing as well as they should.

No promises, but we hope to be releasing a patch by late tonight or tomorrow morning so cross your fingers and hope the test group doesn't find something today that will delay release of the patch. This is an "unofficial" announcement, as Matrix still has to put their stamp of approval on the patch and actually set it up for public access.

[elmo3]

Thanks for the update Joel. Do you know if the PBEM coast watcher bug will be fixed in this patch?

[1089]

Originally posted by Joel Billings
Gary also added code that would make low level bombers without experienced pilots (exp 70 +rnd(20)) very bad at hitting targets that are defended by decent CAP/flak.

Do you mean the pilots exp must be greater than 70 + rnd(20), in order not to fail the check for accuracy?

kp

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by dgaad
I do find Mdiehls arguments persuasive because they appear to be based on sources that based their conclusions, numbers, assumptions, on the most reliable primary source documents available.

I find Nikki's viewpoints and arguments to have some value as well. But he is evasive when faced with the numbers, as he realizes that's an argument he cant win. The numbers pertaining to kill ratios do not bear out the general claim that the zero was a "much better plane" or that the Japanese were "much better pilots."

Point. The reason i dont come up with the "numbers" is because first off, i'm not exactly disputing them though as i've said, i do question their vericity. The primary point I and others have made is that these "kill ratio" statistics that mdiehl has pulled from his one or two books cannot in any way support some of the outlandish and all-encompasing conclusions that he has drawn from them. I dare say that the authors being quoted would agree either if faced with the questions. The kill ratios say nothing about the conditions that were being fought, how much time the respective sides had (for example, Guadalcanal....at the limit of the Zero's range with about 10-15 minutes time over the target max to fight it out....a similar problem that the Germans had in the BoB) and certainly do not support such claims that all Japanese aircraft were junk and that their pilots were subpar.

Nor do i agree with such all-encompasing asertations that the Allies knew even before the war started the best way to face planes such as the Zero, did so on all occasions nor that the Japanese pilots couldnt do anything about it. I find such conclusions sloppy and biased. When evidence is found to the contrary it is dismissed. Just because Sakai for example doesnt present his information in spreadsheet format doesn't mean its any less pertient. Nor was this something written half a century after the conflict ended with memories faded

As for the "numbers" themselves. It is something i do intend to investigate as my interest is piqued. Already i have read one source which questions some of the figures given and already it is dismissed as twaddle (big suprise) It certainly did not, as i related paint the gloomy picture that mdiehl would have us all believe. Such statements as "Sakai probably never even fought a P-39" can be dismissed as the ignorant statement it is.

Even if the numbers are true....it will never justify some of the steps being suggested by my esteemed opponent. I would like to see such a suggestion fielded on other forums just to see the reactions they would entail. Why not suggest that the Luftwaffe always score a 5:1 kill ratio against the Russians? statistically the 'facts' would support such a move. Why not suggest the Germans in an operational level game should always suffer 1:1 losses in tanks during their peak periods? What point, all the myriad of internal factors that games like UV implement in if there is to be some all encompasing rule that restricts one side from ever scoring better than 1:1 all because someone with a book in his hands keeps quoting numbers without qualification other than to say.....a plane that might be 10mph faster assuming its flying level and had time to creep up to maxium speed cant be touched by an enemy aircraft. right.

Utter nonsense. I wont rehash what has already been stated by myself and others. The arguments revloving around the explanation of "kill ratios" is there for all to see.

So its not the numbers i argue against.....it is the premises that are drawn from them. And regardless of what myself or others come up with in the way of explanation or possible explanation, it is always the same answer in reply. quoted stats from a wide variety of combat situations with little to no qualification therin, and when there is, of a highly dubious and questionable nature.

[Joel Billings]

Originally posted by 1089


Do you mean the pilots exp must be greater than 70 + rnd(20), in order not to fail the check for accuracy?

kp

Yes, that's what I meant. The high experience pilots will never fail this accuracy check. Those with insufficient experience that are disrupted from CAP/flak may fail based on their level of disruption.

[Kavik Kang]

Hi again... I know I just happened to get the game and make a few posts right when they were finishing up a new patch. And I could tell when I first mentioned it, that the low level bomber issue had been mentioned before. But I just have to say that in over 20 years of playing games I have never bought a game, had one big problem with it I didn't like, mention it on the board, and have a patch adressing exactly my complaint within 2 weeks!!!

I know it's most just coincidence, but I love you guys anyway:-)

[mdiehl]

"The reason i dont come up with the "numbers" is because first off, i'm not exactly disputing them though as i've said, i do question their vericity."

Which is a really evasive way of disputing them without actually providing any substantive basis for disputing them.

"The primary point I and others have made is that these "kill ratio" statistics that mdiehl has pulled from his one or two books"

again, the pejorative non-sequitur, noting that the three references I have cited are infinitely more than the *none* that you have cited and three times as many as the *one* to which you have obliquely referred

"... cannot in any way support some of the outlandish and all-encompasing conclusions that he has drawn from them."

None of which I have made. Your extreme charicature of my observations is *your* all-encompassing conclusion, not mine. That's the problem with reductio ad absurdem arguments: you have to be careful when you deploy them. Unless someone actually *makes* the absurd argument, all you've done is mark yourself by fabricating an obvious straw man.

"I dare say that the authors being quoted would agree either if faced with the questions."

In which Nikademus appoints himself to be the spokesmen for the referred sources. I at least have the intellectual honesty not to put words in *their* mouths or, for that matter, *yours.*

"The kill ratios say nothing about the conditions that were being fought..."

*That,* at least, is true. Indeed, my whole point about the early war Allied losses rests upon the observation that the conditions in which they fought, vis, logistics and supply, surprise, and numerical inferiority, had alot to do with early Japanese success. A focus on the numerical losses might go a long way to illustrate some of the similarities (and differences) not only in plane and pilot quality, but also the circumstances that mitigated in favor of one side or the other.

".. how much time the respective sides had (for example, Guadalcanal....at the limit of the Zero's range with about 10-15 minutes time over the target..."

With, in most cases, numerical superiority, often (but not most of the time) with the element of surprise, in combats that for any given plane/pilot, probably lasted less than 3 minutes.

"...and certainly do not support such claims that all Japanese aircraft were junk..."

Not a claim that I've made.

"...and that their pilots were subpar."

Not a claim that I've made for 1942.

"Nor do i agree with such all-encompasing asertations that the Allies knew even before the war started the best way to face planes such as the Zero..."

Not a claim that I've made. They trained for tactics that were superior with or without the Zeke in the equation.

"...did so on all occasions..."

Not a claim that I've made.

"...nor that the Japanese pilots couldnt do anything about it."

In the long run, vis, the A6M vs. P40 or F4F, they were unable to do anything about it.

"When evidence is found to the contrary it is dismissed."

You've not offered any. You've yet to actually state even one source for your opinion.

"Just because Sakai for example doesnt present his information in spreadsheet format doesn't mean its any less pertient."

If I want to know what is the best way to fly a Zeke, Sakai is a great source. If I want a strategic assessment of the relative merits of the a/c, the training, or the pilots, Sakai is a lousy source because his information is anecdotal, unresearched (in re Allied losses) and has not been verified.

"Nor was this something written half a century after the conflict ended with memories faded."

Irrelevant. Pilot claims about victories are as notoriously unreliable on the day they engage as they are 50 years later.

"As for the "numbers" themselves. It is something i do intend to investigate as my interest is piqued."

Outstanding!

"Already i have read one source which questions some of the figures given..."

Do tell. And that is? Your source has critically reviewed either the numbers in Guadalcanal by Frank or the two sources by Lundstrom? It's an authoritative, peer-reviewed book or journal article? Please share.

"Sakai probably never even fought a P-39" can be dismissed as the ignorant statement it is."

Name the Allied unit to which the P39 was assigned that Sakai fought. Do it. What's holding you back?

"Even if the numbers are true....i[extended]..."

Imposing a 1:1 kill ratio limit is a better model than one that produces wildly skewed results in roughly historical situations. Clearly not the best, or the only, solution.

[Joel Billings]

Originally posted by elmo3
Thanks for the update Joel. Do you know if the PBEM coast watcher bug will be fixed in this patch?

I don't know about the coastwatcher PBEM bug. I got involved with this patch because of the level bomber problem. Mike had already made many other changes, but I don't see one listed on the patch notes that has to do with coastwatchers. At this point unless the patch gets bounced out of testing in the next few hours, it is frozen. Do you have a thread to point me at that details a coastwatcher problem?

[dpstafford]

Originally posted by Joel Billings
I don't know about the coastwatcher PBEM bug. I got involved with this patch because of the level bomber problem. Mike had already made many other changes, but I don't see one listed on the patch notes that has to do with coastwatchers. At this point unless the patch gets bounced out of testing in the next few hours, it is frozen. Do you have a thread to point me at that details a coastwatcher problem?

I'm not sure there is a "coastwatcher" bug. The combat resolution / reply sequence no longer identifies coastwatchers by name when TF's are sighted, but I thought that might be because the resolution / reply file is the same for both IJN and USN players. A compromise to the "fog of war".
Or I could be comletely off track.

[elmo3]

Originally posted by Joel Billings


... Do you have a thread to point me at that details a coastwatcher problem?

Yup, and thanks for the reply:

showthread.php?s=&threadid=22272

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Nikademus


So its not the numbers i argue against.....it is the premises that are drawn from them. And regardless of what myself or others come up with in the way of explanation or possible explanation, it is always the same answer in reply. quoted stats from a wide variety of combat situations with little to no qualification therin, and when there is, of a highly dubious and questionable nature.

IIRC mdiehls numbers were being used to dispute your claim/premise that the Zero was a much better plane in the theater / time period of the first 6-12 months of the war. IIRC no one is asking that raw kill ratios be used, but that the best estimate of genuine air to air combat losses be used to estimate the relative effectiveness of pilots and planes. IIRC these numbers do not bear out the (your) claim that the Zero was a much better plane or piloted by vastly superior pilots in the period we are talking about.

Your response to this general line of presentation has been to dispute validity without providing alternatives, or evasiveness. This is okay though. When something strikes me as "wrong" and I don't have any hard evidence to back up my instinct, this is what I do to. I make my best guess and try to back it up with logic.

Your instinct is that the Zero had superior manuverability, range, and with an experienced pilot was a formidable opponent, particularly if the opponent was not aware of any of the Zero's weaknesses. This was largely the case early in the war. Its also true in this period there were far fewer total sorties (both sides) than there were later in the war. Even mdiehl admits, obliquely, that for about a 3 month period (Jan-March 42) the kill ratios were very favorable to the Japanese.

As time went on, allied pilots became more experienced, the weaknesses of the Zeros became more generally known, and the "superiority" of the Zero was exposed as a myth, particularly by exploiting the inferior energy characteristics of that plane. Air to air kill ratios bear out this "curve of superiority", but they do not support the general claim that, objectively, the Zero was a superior craft. I do agree that it is a classic of the war, for reasons I spoke of in earlier posts.