Oscar v B17E

[Who Cares]

For all those that think the Oscar is a wonderful aircraft.

57 to 2 B-17 lead. Virtually all the 57 shot down were Oscars (a few Zeros).

Firepower and speed are what matter on attack. 1 crew got 3 kills today!

[CV Zuikaku]

firepower and speed you say.... well my N1K1s flown by pilots with avg. 70 exp can achieve only 1:1 kill ratio against B-24s... Usual situation is that unescorted flight of 3-8 B-24s fly in the CAP of 50+ N1K1s and the kill ratio is 1 to 1. It is a bit hard to believe situation and it happens regularly... the bombers just got too many oportunities to shoot at fighters and (numerous) fighters flown by good pilots are unable to break through defensive fire of 3 bombers... Very strange situation....

[bklooste]

Oscar is fine would have been the same with any non armoured Japanese aircraft.
 
Agree there are too many shots for bombers in the routine or the pilots are too aggressive.

[1275psi]

Just been reading one of the latest postings from the hyperwar historical site -the army air raids on Truk and associated islands - including Yap ect.

These results ring horribly true Oh japanese guys -bombers were killing fighters over Truk at great odds -and that included Tonies.

Reading about the nuetralisation of wewak is even more depressing - basically they put it under in 5 days -which WITPAE does as well.
Its the way it was. Im a Jap fanboy, and I just grit my teeth -and live with it.
AE still astounds me on how close to IRL it actually gets it (in the main!)

Kludo's to the developers

As A GAME -witp CHS is far better.(japan can actually fight and fight) As a simulation -AE is scary!

[1275psi]

Post post.
I share your pain Zuikaka -that is a bit hard yes - not sure how they could, or would change that -I get frustrated as hell too when his bombers just blast on through!

[xj900uk]

Funnily enough the Oscar was used a lot for high alititude strategic bomber interception, obviously the IJAAF thuoght it's two mg's more than enough to deal with the firepower of a B17, B24 & even a B29... It was a favourite because of it's good performance at high altitude and its excellent rate of climb to get up to the bomber altitudes. Pity about the armament though...
Also, IJAAF records show that losses of Oscars to strategic bombers far exceeded those lost in air-2-air combat with enemy fighters (by a ratio of 3:1+)
So I guess the game is getting this mroe than right...

On a related topic I am playing as IJ against the computer allies, and it keeps on sending its B17's to bomb that place beginning with 'B' to the ESE of the Phillipines, defended by 9 Claudes which so far in one month have shot down 3 B17's for no losses (one pilot has two victoires). Must be very good shots...

[CV Zuikaku]

ORIGINAL: 1275psi

Post post.
I share your pain Zuikaka -that is a bit hard yes - not sure how they could, or would change that -I get frustrated as hell too when his bombers just blast on through!

It's not a disaster, it's just very strange to see over and over again a flight of 3 B-24s fending off CAP of 50 N1K1s (armed with 2MGs and 4 20mm. and regularly at least 2 B-24 get through... even if all the fighters from CAP are not in place, I think that 12 N1K1s coul'd easily overwhelm 3 lonely bombers- even the mighty B-17/24s. And CAP is oviously in place, since N1K1s are massviely damaged (Many wriiten offs after landings and many damaged and repairing after turn is over- so it is not FOW... ...just very strange... and another funny thing is when I have mix of Ki-45s, Tojos and Oscars vs. bombers- Oscars tend to have most of the kills... strange...

[xj900uk]

Oscar's have excellent rate of climb so probably get up to the bombers altitude ahead of everyone else...

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: 1275psi

Just been reading one of the latest postings from the hyperwar historical site -the army air raids on Truk and associated islands - including Yap ect.

These results ring horribly true Oh japanese guys -bombers were killing fighters over Truk at great odds -and that included Tonies.

Reading about the nuetralisation of wewak is even more depressing - basically they put it under in 5 days -which WITPAE does as well.
Its the way it was. Im a Jap fanboy, and I just grit my teeth -and live with it.
AE still astounds me on how close to IRL it actually gets it (in the main!)

Kludo's to the developers

As A GAME -witp CHS is far better.(japan can actually fight and fight) As a simulation -AE is scary!

I think the main complaint is not against the large formations (or even medium formations) of B-17s being unstoppable. American Heavy Bobmers were strong for exactly that fact...the formation was strong where the planes were individually weak. A formation allows the bombers to cover each other. In that respect it is right...

The problem is that a 3 plane formation should be more susceptible to damage from fighters, the formation is not large enough to really cover itself. 3 versus 50 with the 3 winning and getting a 3:1 kill ratia is a bit much to believe...that should be an exception, not the rule.

[sfbaytf]

Japanese fighters are fine bomber interceptors. Your pilots just need to learn the skill of ramming.

[Chickenboy]

Oscars versus B-17s? As IJ, I'd gladly take a 3:1 kill ratio (Oscars: B-17s) in this exchange.

Oscars are so lightly armored and lightly armed that they've no business even being around a heavily armored / armed B-17 group. It's a total mismatch-what else would you expect with 2 rifle caliber machine guns and no armor?

Even the A6M mainstay with 20mm cannon had a whale of a time against such formidable foes.

I consider it a personal triumph in one of my games that I damaged several elements of a B17 flight with Nates flying CAP. One of the B17s was lost from OPS damage on the flight home. I believe that my Nate pilot got credit for the kill. Of course, this happened ONCE and I was extremely lucky. Most of the time those Nates should be slaughtered en masse by the combined firepower of well-armed heavy Allied bombers.

[xj900uk]

Ahh but in RL there were loads of cases of Oscars being sent up against B17's flying in tight formation, dunno about Nates though I think most of them had been retired before B17's started visiting in earnest. If anything the IJAAF reserved it's Oscars for B17's as it was considered the best interceptor (prior to '44) in their arsenal. obviously the two mg's that armed the Oscar Ic did not figure very highly in Japanese air strategist thinking...

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: xj900uk
If anything the IJAAF reserved it's Oscars for B17's as it was considered the best interceptor (prior to '44) in their arsenal.

I'm not saying that I dispute your POV here, but why on Earth do you think that they would believe this?

[SuluSea]

If the Oscar gets some kind of bonus to shoot down HB's it would be just one more bonus added to Japan's list and at this point who's counting?  [:'(]

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

Ahh but in RL there were loads of cases of Oscars being sent up against B17's flying in tight formation, dunno about Nates though I think most of them had been retired before B17's started visiting in earnest. If anything the IJAAF reserved it's Oscars for B17's as it was considered the best interceptor (prior to '44) in their arsenal. obviously the two mg's that armed the Oscar Ic did not figure very highly in Japanese air strategist thinking...

As mentioned on another thread.....Ki-43's shot down a fair number of B-24's (and one B-29) in Burma and shot up more still. (its not all about whether a plane goes down or not.....there's mission thwarting and wounding of crew, and damage to the plane) Hence there was no cavilier attitude about unescorted attacks even in these big babies.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

Funnily enough the Oscar was used a lot for high alititude strategic bomber interception, obviously the IJAAF thuoght it's two mg's more than enough to deal with the firepower of a B17, B24 & even a B29... It was a favourite because of it's good performance at high altitude and its excellent rate of climb to get up to the bomber altitudes. Pity about the armament though...
Also, IJAAF records show that losses of Oscars to strategic bombers far exceeded those lost in air-2-air combat with enemy fighters (by a ratio of 3:1+)
So I guess the game is getting this more than right...

And it makes perfect sense. Japanese fighter design (especially the Zero and Oscar) gave up a lot for maneuverability..., which is pretty much worthless for attacking formations of "flying forts". They don't "maneuver", they just fly along in a group counting on heavy firepower in all directions.

And to have any real effect on a rugged B-17, you have to hold steady and pump a lot of firepower into it..., giving it's gunners (and ALL their friends) a chance to shoot at you in your "tissue paper and gasoline" Oscar. Not a "fun situation".

[Who Cares]

Should be noted that in well over 100 missions, flying at near maximum range, at night, despite most of the bombers coming home damaged every night, I have only lost 5 total airplanes and not 1 crew. I find this hard to swallow.

Ed. Note the stats on the squadron commander. If his sister wasn't sleeping with the general, he would be in command of a latrine service company in Iceland.

[crsutton]

Not just inferior guns and no armor. Poor training in group attack tactics and lack radios were a serious impediment to Japanese attacks vs all bombers.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Who Cares

For all those that think the Oscar is a wonderful aircraft.

57 to 2 B-17 lead. Virtually all the 57 shot down were Oscars (a few Zeros).

Firepower and speed are what matter on attack. 1 crew got 3 kills today!

The B 17 was (in its' day) the worst bomber for any fighter to attack. The FW 190 had as good a chance of success as any plane flying, and many of them failed against that broad-winged, well armed plane.

The Oscar had great maneuverability to dogfight like nobodies business, but you won't be dogfighting any B 17's, and 2 piddly machine guns are not gonna bring down the "Flying Fort".

Unless you are in the scrap metal business, I would suggest being more selective about what you use for interception missions.

[Who Cares]

Well, those are MY bombers. But you miss the point.

15 hex maximum (normal) range for the B-17E. If you look, they are based at Dacca and flying night bombing missions to Rangoon 100% strength (none on rest). Every night, 15 hexes out and 15 hexes back. For several months straight. 2 operational losses and 1 write off in all that time. 1275psi, if you think this is historically accurate, you need better sources sir.

Second issue. Look at the ground bombing levels for those pilots. If I had them on training for that same period they would all be in the 70s. Actually truth be told, all their levels in 2 categories would be in the 70s (as it only takes 2 months to go from 40s to 70s "in training"). Am I really the only one that finds it hard to swallow that a person learns faster "in training" than by flying actual missions? Again, historically accurate? If so, then why would the 56th fighter group not allow anyone with less than 10 combat missions under his belt to engage "the Abbyville boys"? Combat experience is so head and shoulders above "training" it isn't even in the same league, but the devs of this "simulation" know better I guess.