USN air combat data from Office of Naval Intelligence

[Tristanjohn]

Hi, Can I suggest a new sig line for you TJ?

"Fair and balanced"

That's exactly what I strive to be and that is precisely what I want WitP to be.

Do you wish the game to be of some other nature? Do you want to go through your life behaving in some other manner? If so, please tell me how you would rather be known.

[HMSWarspite]

[QUOTE=Tristanjohn]You don't know what you're talking about. The only "wing strengthening" the Beaufighter was treated to was in its original design and that was to take up the increase in vibration caused by the change of engines from the Beaufort (Taurus) to the Beaufighter's Hercules. This problem the designers got around by moving the engines forward, away from the front surface of the wings, and to compensate for this new stronger and more flexible struts were built. With the engine vibration effectively dampened, a new problem arose: unfortunately this move forward of the engines caused the c.g. to shift forward as well and so more engineering thought had to be invested, with the end result the Beaufighter ended up with a "nose job." (In retrospect the same question of balance might well have been solved even more elegantly, simply by providing for, instead of a single .303 Vickers or Browning in the dorsal a twin-.50-caliber arrangement--this would probably have added to the plane's gross weight but then speed and climb rate were never this plane's forte anyway and the latter armament would have put out a helluva lot more lead.)[\QUOTE]
The only problem here would be the poor W/AG who had to try and point 2x50cal! Not practical I think

[QUOTE]As for the engines: the power necessary for 2,000-pound missions was already there. Throughout the war the ongoing series Rolls-Royce Merlin engines enjoyed ever-increasing power output through the simple expedient of adding large amounts of of tetra-ethy lead to up their octane ratings. As it turned out, the Bristol Hercules line for whatever reasons did not enjoy the same upgrade path with regard to increased engine performance and by the time the Beaufighter Mark VI was in production the Bristols had pretty much seen their best power-output specs.[\QUOTE]
Increasing the lead content of the fuel was not the main method of increasing Merlin power output. I think you will find a range of changes, not least of which a LOT of work on the superchargers.
Note: Beauf Mk1 = Hercules III (1400HP), or later Herc XI (1500HP)
Beau VI = Herc VI (1635HP)
Beau X = Herc XVII or XVIII (low alt rated - don't have o/p to hand


[QUOTE]Do some research yourself. These details ought to have been gotten right the first time. And were not. (To be off anywhere by a factor of 2 suggests whoever did do it might well be incompetent.)[\QUOTE]
You are doing it again: just possibly this is a mistake. To accuse someone you do not know of incompetance for a mistake leads me to believe you are an arrogant little Hsit!

Get a grip will you, make your points nicely or NOT AT ALL!

[mogami]

That's exactly what I strive to be and that is precisely what I want WitP to be.

Do you wish the game to be of some other nature? Do you want to go through your life behaving in some other manner? If so, please tell me how you would rather be known.

Hi, I think you are so fair that you should change your screen name to
"Judge Freisler"

No amount of evidence (or lack of it) gets any change in your response.

[Tristanjohn]

You don't know what you're talking about. The only "wing strengthening" the Beaufighter was treated to was in its original design and that was to take up the increase in vibration caused by the change of engines from the Beaufort (Taurus) to the Beaufighter's Hercules. This problem the designers got around by moving the engines forward, away from the front surface of the wings, and to compensate for this new stronger and more flexible struts were built. With the engine vibration effectively dampened, a new problem arose: unfortunately this move forward of the engines caused the c.g. to shift forward as well and so more engineering thought had to be invested, with the end result the Beaufighter ended up with a "nose job." (In retrospect the same question of balance might well have been solved even more elegantly, simply by providing for, instead of a single .303 Vickers or Browning in the dorsal a twin-.50-caliber arrangement--this would probably have added to the plane's gross weight but then speed and climb rate were never this plane's forte anyway and the latter armament would have put out a helluva lot more lead.)

The only problem here would be the poor W/AG who had to try and point 2x50cal! Not practical I think

It was a suggestion in passing, nothing more, something off the top of my head. I've no idea if the math would end up as some good or bad engineering innovation. I'm not an aeronautical engineer. For our purpose here it hardly matters.

As for the engines: the power necessary for 2,000-pound missions was already there. Throughout the war the ongoing series Rolls-Royce Merlin engines enjoyed ever-increasing power output through the simple expedient of adding large amounts of of tetra-ethy lead to up their octane ratings. As it turned out, the Bristol Hercules line for whatever reasons did not enjoy the same upgrade path with regard to increased engine performance and by the time the Beaufighter Mark VI was in production the Bristols had pretty much seen their best power-output specs.

Increasing the lead content of the fuel was not the main method of increasing Merlin power output. I think you will find a range of changes, not least of which a LOT of work on the superchargers.

You're out of your league, Warspite. Of course superchargers were used in the Merlins but after that stage of technology kicked in just about the only way to increase performance was to increase compression and thus power, and this was achieved through the introduction of ever-higher octane ratings for the gas.

Note: Beauf Mk1 = Hercules III (1400HP), or later Herc XI (1500HP)
Beau VI = Herc VI (1635HP)
Beau X = Herc XVII or XVIII (low alt rated - don't have o/p to hand

In fact the Beaufighter Mark VI production run, except for around 60 fitted with the Hercules XVI engine, was powered by the Hercules XVII engine with a rated horsepower of 1,725 h.p. (1,286 kw) @ 2,900 r.p.m. for take-off and 1,395 h.p. (1,040 kw) @ 2,400 r.p.m. at 1,500 ft. (457 m), and as far as I know all of those Mark VIs were converted over to the Mark X.

The provision for torpedo-carrying was introduced with the Beaufighter Mark VI.

In any event, the Hercules engines never performed much better no matter the gas fed them and the practical difference between the various Mk.'s as the war wore on wasn't enough to worry about.

Point is, the Beaufighter Mark VI, no matter its engine, could carry a full ton of ordnance if bombs were fitted though in practice it was more often than not found with an 18-inch torpedo suspended from its bellly. It was designated a "torpedo-bomber" for a reason.

Do some research yourself. These details ought to have been gotten right the first time. And were not. (To be off anywhere by a factor of 2 suggests whoever did do it might well be incompetent.)

You are doing it again: just possibly this is a mistake. To accuse someone you do not know of incompetance for a mistake leads me to believe you are an arrogant little Hsit!

Get a grip will you, make your points nicely or NOT AT ALL!

That's so typical of you people. Call me a tihs while at the same time accuse me of "not being nice."

Well, incompetence is still where you find it, your resort to vulgarity not withstanding.

Anyone who comes up with the kinds of mistakes I can easily find in the database is either grossly incompetent and/or trying to skew the model. You tell me which.

[mogami]

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 71

Allied aircraft
P-47C Thunderbolt x 54

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty x 42 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-47C Thunderbolt x 2 damaged

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 5

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 6000 feet
15 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 6000 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 6000 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 6000 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 6000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual result
32xG4M1 shot down
0xP-47C shot down

But folks to be honest The main point being TJ is trying to compare a fighter with a twin engine bomber and then crying that fighter is somehow under rated. The Betty should be compared to other bombers and P-47 to other fighters. A fighter with the same rating as a bomber is a very high rated fighter.

Actual ratings
Betty 36
B-25 42

P-47C 35 D 36
P-39 32
P-51 32

The P-47 is the most durable single engine allied fighter except for Sturmovik 41 P-38 and P-61 are more durable but twin engine

Most durable Japanese fighter? Randy and Nick. A Allied twin engine fighter with a higher rating then Betty is P-38J (39)

[Tristanjohn]

Hi, I think you are so fair that you should change your screen name to
"Judge Freisler"

No amount of evidence (or lack of it) gets any change in your response.

Listen. This is the problem.

Instead of welcoming informed critique of the model there exists a coterie of "UV/WitP/Matrix/2by3 fanboys" in this forum who right away duck into their normal state of denial each and every time an obvious flaw in the system is brought up.

This same group also tries to literally shout down!!!anyone with the temerity to offer said informed critique.

This group also favors the use of various forms of ad hominem argument as well as vulgarity and other kinds of character disparagement.

This group does these things for the reason this group is immature and unsure of itself, but feels safe the way groups always feel safe as long as they "outnumber" the offending critic.

Truth in and of itself means little if anything at all to this group and "accuracy" when it comes to their wargame models is what they make up between themselves from one day to the next, usually defined by the latest ringing call for "balance" from whichever special-interest subgroup within the larger group happens to be in best voice that day.

It's all bs but the group likes it that way and apparently Gary is all in favor of maintaining this (as people outside the group might view it, dubious) status quo.

And Gary has a right to do so. It is, afterall, his game. But that doesn't make the conduct of the group any more intelligent or educated in the social sense any more than this behavior is likely to make Gary's game better.

[TheElf]

I MISSED SOMETHING! There is a variable we ought to look at in those numbers. ALTITUDE. I don't suppose you would consider running some additional rounds of the test above at say 25,000 feet? See if the F4F's improve? Someone earlier posted some very usefull comparisons showing the change in performance in these two aircraft as the altitudes increased.
Maybe that IS factored into the equasions. Be a useful thing to know.

"The Wildcat was not suited for the fight at Guadalcanal. It had a bunch of weight in the back that we could have dispensed with very nicely. It was beefed up for carrier landings in the rear and we didn't need it. But there wasn't anything to be done in that regard. So because of this weight we'd work like hell to climb to 23,000-24,000 feet. At this altitude when you make a turn you lose 1,000 feet, and it's very easy to stall out. In theory the F4F had a higher service ceiling but not in practice. You'd look up and there see the Japs at 30,000 looking right down your gazoo. A real fun time. You couldn't get that bird much higher than 24,000: not you, not Jesus, nobody. The bird wouldn't go any higher." - Roger Haberman VMF-121, Guadalcanal. As quoted by Bergerud, Fire in the Sky

I think altitude SHOULD be factored into the resoultion of A/A combat. It is of PRIMARY concern to all pilots. Speed is life, and altitude relative to the enemy determines the speed with which you enter the fight. I hope the idea of AI Altitude selection has gone the way of the Dodo in WiTP.

As this is my first post since your arrival TristanJohn, let me first say that I tend to agree with much of what you say in spirit. If we differ in opinion on a matter I hope that you'll still treat my opinion with the respect I feel it deserves. Even though you tend to throw hand grenades at people all over this forum, and generally berate people whom I respect, I still see the value in your information when based in fact, and your opinion when based...well in your opinion.

I, as I think everyone else here, would really like to see WiTP be done right. There ARE issues with the A/A model, and not just as it occurs with F4F v. A6M combat, but Allied Medium bomber invulnerability, 2nd Gen Japanese designs v. 2nd Gen Allied designs, Large force raids etc.

Regarding Historical Accuracy, I think its important to remind everyone that this is a game, not a day for day, encounter for encounter recreation of WWII. If it were I'd skip the game and watch Victory at Sea, cuz I know how all my games would end! My point is, as has already been mentioned by Mogami in a previous thread, From turn 1 to the last turn you should not see the exact combat loss ratios that were experienced. Particularly if the players learn from the mistakes of the actual participants. If the Japanese player commands a resource surplus, then his training commands should not suffer from low flight time and excessively subpar replacement pilots. If said player also never fights the BO Midway and preserves his elite pilot cadre into 1944-45 when 2nd gen A/C such as George, Frank, and Tojo become available then the War in that paricular game should look much different, both statistically, and Strategically.

To those of you who would reply with the expected "Axisfanboy" accusations, let me ask you this, because I don't think its been asked this directly. I'd really appreciate a response from everyone here. What is wrong with a Japanese player doing well, if he plays his game well? If an intelligent, historically versed player avoids the classic Japanese mistakes, what is wrong with him having success? I'm talking about managing his resources, pilots, ships, Ground forces, supply and making infrormed tactical decisions that create ahistorical results. I he can't do that what is the point of this great venture?

Don't get me wrong I do not want to play a game that is riddled with statistically incorrect data. But once we get the stats right, and they're proven to be right thru testing in a controlled fashion, the players should have the greatest impact on the results. All too often though I get the feeling that many of the strongly allied-based players don't want to see anything short of an exact recreation of the war, if not on an accelerated scale. If this game is played well it should look nothing like the real thing.

That ended up being longer than I expected.

P.S. My incredible wife just gave me my anniversary present(literally 15 min ago). Wondered if anyone out there had heard of it. Its Called "Genda's Blade: Japan's Squadron of Aces, 343 Kokutai" by Henry Sakaida & Koji Takaki, classic Publications. Its a beautiful book 205p. lots of pics and stats? Anyone interested? She ordered it out of the latest issue of Tailhook magazine.

Does this make me an Axis fanboy?

v/r
Elf

[mogami]

"Instead of welcoming informed critique of the model there exists a coterie of "UV/WitP/Matrix/2by3 fanboys" in this forum who right away duck into their normal state of denial each and every time an obvious flaw in the system is brought up.

This same group also tries to literally shout down!!!anyone with the temerity to offer said informed critique."

Hi, Imformed critique is welcomed. It does not have to agree with the present model at all. Misimformed critque repeated over and over dispite being shown otherwise does after a while get ignored.

You keep posting conjecture, and I respond by posting results from the actual game. I wonder which has a more valid basis?

You fixed your beady little eyes (not ad hominem) on 1 data point. And began claiming this was proof WITP was bogus. You keep claiming WITP is UV only bigger, longer and uncut. If this was a true fact WITP would have been released about 6 months ago rather then still being in Alpha stage of development. You keep using UV results and ALpha results as your points of argument. But you don't have WITP and you've always ignored any UV result that was not an example of what you complain about.

To add to everything else you never offer any improvements. If the Beaufighter data is incorrect it will be corrected. Thank you. It is not proof of anything beyond incorrect data and every player can always modifiy the database to reflect whatever stats they feel are correct.

If you know, That the group ignores fact and truth because of a preconcived notion then your posts really become pointless. Who are you addressing them to? Yourself? You have not availed yourself to provide anything but complaints.
If your that unhappy throw the game in the trash and take up gardening.
I get sick of you acting like everyone yells at you to drown out your voice. I yell because you appear to be deaf.

If you have bothered to read all the past posts and threads you would know several current members of the team were selected because they were the minority voice. (The ones that did not agree all the time) They have not conformed their prior stance and yet they remain testers.

OK answer this question. When you first learned of UV what did you think? Before you ever loaded it up to play. You knew in advance exactly what was wrong with it correct? Am I wrong? You only found the things you complain about after you played it? Or did you buy it so you could prove to yourself (and then the rest of the world) that you were correct.

Are you now more interested in finding things wrong then in what results the game produces. (Hence your fixation with database ratings for Betty and P-47)
Do you make judgements with data? Or do you always "suspect" "assume" blah blah?

DO you have anything outside of UV results that you yourself set up to produce bizare results and then claim are the normal result to back up your claims that WITP is a bad model of WW2 in the Pacific? (or will be when released)

The model is not even in Beta and here you are dancing around pointing at all the flaws. Do you wonder why no one pays you any attention? (except for me, I can't believe anyone out there is really so thickheaded so I keep the chips flying but I'm not making much of a wood pile)

Edit: It just occured to me that there is a "Us" and "Them" aditude, However it is not a plot. It is a natural mode of behaviour. It is not that you critise the game. It is that you do so as an outsider. But you choose to be the interloper. There are plenty of "Bug-error-flaw" posts by other people that are not questioned. The first post back in "bias" thread that lead to conflict was one where I said I loved UV. (I've never said it was flawless, I have said time and again I don't get your results) Your response was anyone that liked UV was stupid, uneducated and unwashed. Since that time you have always maintained your aloof status. We are a bunch of war-gamers trying to make a game. What exactly are you? You seem to want to be the game police. You certainly are not one of us so why should we listen to any thing you say?

If you were at a table with your friends and I came over and starting in "Your all wrong and uneducated as well" Would anyone listen to me? Or would I get a bust in my chops?

[Mike Scholl]

To break a lively string and get back to the point. While we don't have
enough controlled experiment roports from WITP to be sure of a lot, two
"problems" do seem to have surfaced.

ONE is that the combat system as it now stands seems to overweight
the aircraft values to the point where other factors (such as pilot skill) don't
count for much. Results that show experiance 99 pilots going down in droves
against pilots only half-way through training school are just WRONG---even
if the trainees have a somewhat better aircraft.

TWO is that everyone posting seems to agree that larger numbers of
aircraft in combat produce bizzarre results and over-inflated losses. You
could live with this somewhat in a UV---but as the Pacific War went on the
numbers of aircraft got larger. A combat system that skews under such
conditions (especially as it skews the wrong way) is unacceptable for WITP.

With these things pretty obvious from limited testing, it would seem that
TJ has a point that the air-to-air combat system NEEDS WORK. I don't think
we know enough about it's inner complexities to say "it needs to be scrapped"
(I hope that isn't the case, as with the time allowed it probably couldn't be
done)----but it certainly seems to be in need of work.

So hopefully everyone has finished "trash talking" and we can get back
to asking those with alpha/beta or whatever versions of WITP to run some
more controlled tests of the air-to-air system and compile enough data so
we can discuss things like:

a) Is altitude a factor in combat as it stands now? Is it represented ade-
quately/correctly?
b) What weight and under what circumstances should "skill" be a factor?
c) Is "fatigue" over-rated? Under-rated?
d) Is the negative effect of engaging in combat at the "outer third" of the
aircraft's range properly modeled?

....and probably a host of other contributing factors which should/shouldn't
effect the combat model. To be of any use in making the system better we
need more discussion of "how is it working now"? ...and where does it produce
"odd results"? Can we at least agree on this?

[Chiteng]

"The Wildcat was not suited for the fight at Guadalcanal. It had a bunch of weight in the back that we could have dispensed with very nicely. It was beefed up for carrier landings in the rear and we didn't need it. But there wasn't anything to be done in that regard. So because of this weight we'd work like hell to climb to 23,000-24,000 feet. At this altitude when you make a turn you lose 1,000 feet, and it's very easy to stall out. In theory the F4F had a higher service ceiling but not in practice. You'd look up and there see the Japs at 30,000 looking right down your gazoo. A real fun time. You couldn't get that bird much higher than 24,000: not you, not Jesus, nobody. The bird wouldn't go any higher." - Roger Haberman VMF-121, Guadalcanal. As quoted by Bergerud, Fire in the Sky

I think altitude SHOULD be factored into the resoultion of A/A combat. It is of PRIMARY concern to all pilots. Speed is life, and altitude relative to the enemy determines the speed with which you enter the fight. I hope the idea of AI Altitude selection has gone the way of the Dodo in WiTP.

As this is my first post since your arrival TristanJohn, let me first say that I tend to agree with much of what you say in spirit. If we differ in opinion on a matter I hope that you'll still treat my opinion with the respect I feel it deserves. Even though you tend to throw hand grenades at people all over this forum, and generally berate people whom I respect, I still see the value in your information when based in fact, and your opinion when based...well in your opinion.

I, as I think everyone else here, would really like to see WiTP be done right. There ARE issues with the A/A model, and not just as it occurs with F4F v. A6M combat, but Allied Medium bomber invulnerability, 2nd Gen Japanese designs v. 2nd Gen Allied designs, Large force raids etc.

Regarding Historical Accuracy, I think its important to remind everyone that this is a game, not a day for day, encounter for encounter recreation of WWII. If it were I'd skip the game and watch Victory at Sea, cuz I know how all my games would end! My point is, as has already been mentioned by Mogami in a previous thread, From turn 1 to the last turn you should not see the exact combat loss ratios that were experienced. Particularly if the players learn from the mistakes of the actual participants. If the Japanese player commands a resource surplus, then his training commands should not suffer from low flight time and excessively subpar replacement pilots. If said player also never fights the BO Midway and preserves his elite pilot cadre into 1944-45 when 2nd gen A/C such as George, Frank, and Tojo become available then the War in that paricular game should look much different, both statistically, and Strategically.

To those of you who would reply with the expected "Axisfanboy" accusations, let me ask you this, because I don't think its been asked this directly. I'd really appreciate a response from everyone here. What is wrong with a Japanese player doing well, if he plays his game well? If an intelligent, historically versed player avoids the classic Japanese mistakes, what is wrong with him having success? I'm talking about managing his resources, pilots, ships, Ground forces, supply and making infrormed tactical decisions that create ahistorical results. I he can't do that what is the point of this great venture?

Don't get me wrong I do not want to play a game that is riddled with statistically incorrect data. But once we get the stats right, and they're proven to be right thru testing in a controlled fashion, the players should have the greatest impact on the results. All too often though I get the feeling that many of the strongly allied-based players don't want to see anything short of an exact recreation of the war, if not on an accelerated scale. If this game is played well it should look nothing like the real thing.

That ended up being longer than I expected.

P.S. My incredible wife just gave me my anniversary present(literally 15 min ago). Wondered if anyone out there had heard of it. Its Called "Genda's Blade: Japan's Squadron of Aces, 343 Kokutai" by Henry Sakaida & Koji Takaki, classic Publications. Its a beautiful book 205p. lots of pics and stats? Anyone interested? She ordered it out of the latest issue of Tailhook magazine.

Does this make me an Axis fanboy?

v/r
Elf

Elf,

There is no telling 'why' certain people expouse certain things.
For me for example, I cant see how the Germans did so well in 1941 when they
invaded the USSR. Their tanks were totally outclassed and outnumbered.
Yet they did quite well (for a while)
One assumes..that it was training and crew skill. However when you get into
subjective areas like 'training and crew skill' it seems that ALOT of people
get very uncomfortable. If you cant quantify it, then I guess it makes them
unhappy. Yet as Napoleon pointed out, subjective elements DO greatly
effect war.

So there is this drive on this board to minimize the effect of training and crew skill. You see it all the time. This USA plane should always beat this Jap plane
no matter what. The minimalists strike again. The drive to minimize the
subjective.

This reminds me of the Syrians in 1973 complaining that the Israeli had better tanks. Yet the Israeli insisted that they could easily have swapped equipment
across the board, and gotten exactly the same results.
I suspect they are correct.

To win a battle, the winners have to WANT to win.

[HMSWarspite]

I'm not an aeronautical engineer. For our purpose here it hardly matters.[\QUOTE]

For the subjects you are talking about, you don't need an aeronautical engineer, you want a mechanical one with experience of aircraft/engine design and performance. But that's all right, because guess what? I am one.

You're out of your league, Warspite. Of course superchargers were used in the Merlins but after that stage of technology kicked in just about the only way to increase performance was to increase compression and thus power, and this was achieved through the introduction of ever-higher octane ratings for the gas.

And here you show us quite a lot about which league you are in. Supercharging is not a single stage of technology: Supercharger performance was improved significantly throughout the war, both in terms of pure aerodynamics, and mechanical design (2 stage, 2 speed blowers etc). It isn't as easy as just fitting one, and then souping up the fuel! Oh, and the purpose of a supercharger is ...guess, go on....that's right, INCREASE THE COMPRESSION....DOH!

In fact the Beaufighter Mark VI production run, except for around 60 fitted with the Hercules XVI engine, was powered by the Hercules XVII engine with a rated horsepower of 1,725 h.p. (1,286 kw) @ 2,900 r.p.m. for take-off and 1,395 h.p. (1,040 kw) @ 2,400 r.p.m. at 1,500 ft. (457 m), and as far as I know all of those Mark VIs were converted over to the Mark X.

Moving back to a more grown up discussion, I would be interested to know your sources. I haven't got any B'fighter specific books, but in my usual basic a/c ref, I have:

The Hercules VI engine rated at 1635HP became available, and supplanted the interim Hercules XI powered Mk1 a/c. This was called the B'F Mk VI. It began to enter both Fighter Command and Coastal Command operation in early 1942. In March 1942 work began on the adaption of the Coastal Command a/c to carry a torpedo, the aircraft then becoming the VIC. (Thats '6C' - the fighters were VIF). From May 1943, VICs carrying 8 rockets in lieu of wing guns were also introduced. Total production of VIF, and VIC was 1852 a/c.

The Beaufighter TF Mk X differed from the VIC in having Hercules XVII engines, better suited to the low altitude role in which the a/c was used. It standardised on the AI Mk VIII radar ( the VIC having the Mk VII). A Vickers K gun was introduced for the Observer, and a bomb load of 2x250lb, and 2x500lb bombs could be carrier, or 8 rockets, as an alternative to the torpedo.
TF X production was 2205 a/c. A futher 163 of a very similar version, the XIC, differed only in not having the torpedo gear. Production of a version basically similar to the TF X was undertaken in Australia as the Mk21. 4x50cal MG replaced the 6x.303 MG in the wings, and the Hercules XVIII was installed. The first Mk 21 flew on 26 May 1944, and 364 were built.
Note, I have found another source on the web (http://www.aviation-history.com/bristol/beaufite.html) that quotes 1063 Mk VI, and 2231 Mk X. I have also just this second found this site (not had time to read it yet: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.myrin ... ification/) Pays your money and takes your pick (unless anyone has definitive details).

While I am at it: Ranges: VI - 1540miles at 190mph (normal range)
X - 1470 miles at 205 mph (normal)
The range for the B'F VIC in the game database is less than this by a large margin (360/480 miles normal/extended). HOWEVER, before we get our knickers in a twist, a lot of other aircraft ranges are less than the figure I have (e.g P51B, Spit 8, and wait for it...A6M series). Now, I am hazarding a guess that the range figures used in the game have been factored for various things like forming up time, search time (even when they 'know' where they are going). Anyone know? Or should I join in the hysterical screams for the play testers head?

The provision for torpedo-carrying was introduced with the Beaufighter Mark VI.

In any event, the Hercules engines never performed much better no matter the gas fed them and the practical difference between the various Mk.'s as the war wore on wasn't enough to worry about.

Point is, the Beaufighter Mark VI, no matter its engine, could carry a full ton of ordnance if bombs were fitted though in practice it was more often than not found with an 18-inch torpedo suspended from its bellly. It was designated a "torpedo-bomber" for a reason.

[Picky mode on] It wasn't, it was called a Torpedo Fighter! [Picky mode off]

That's so typical of you people. Call me a tihs while at the same time accuse me of "not being nice."

Well, incompetence is still where you find it, your resort to vulgarity not withstanding.

Anyone who comes up with the kinds of mistakes I can easily find in the database is either grossly incompetent and/or trying to skew the model. You tell me which.

I (we) have tried to explain to you nicely, and it doesn't seem to work somehow. If you really have a serious point to make PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make it (constructively). Otherwise, why don't you go and find something useful to do. And no you haven't made it yet, your insistance that the entire air model is fouled up, and you cant tell us why until you see the algorithms has not succeeded in communicating anything to us yet.

[IronDuke_slith]

I've no doubt that inch for inch, a P-47 is better protected and more DURable than a G4M, however a G4M is much larger, has more crew and has two engines vs one and thus even unarmored, can potentially soak up alot of bullets before going down. The lack of self sealers is of course it's biggest weakness, but more on that below.

I'm sure you'll find plenty here to object too.....but evidence from Guadalcanal would support this theory. The G4M has oft been characterized as a "flying Zippo" easy to destroy with a single burst. I had no problem with this myself but one quote from a man who would know disturbed me. His name was Joe Foss, and in an interview he stated that he didn't consider the G4M a "zippo" or an "easy mark"

Richard Frank's and John Lundstrom's books would seem to confirm Foss's eyewitness remarks......even in the most heavy air engagements, one did not see G4M's falling like leaves in the Autumn after slashing F4F passes. While damaged and suffering crew casualties no doubt, often the planes kept flying though a good # with the limp of damaged property.

In the largest single air battle over G....a whopping 3 G4M's went down. hardly sounds like a "Flying Zippo" to me. Dont misinterpret me now......a B25 or better a B-17 would have far greater survival mainly because its self sealers all but gurantee no fire and fire is the greatest danger to an aircraft. (i consider self sealers even more important than armor) However the Betty and Nell remain medium bombers, i.e. big bombers, not tactical bombers or fighters and thus unless you quickly hit a vulerable area with sustained fire, it could prove resistant. Whether or not it becomes a write off after the battle is another question. (and many G4M's did)

As far as the "game" is considered. Well, i dont know what results you are getting but i've yet to see a situation where G4M's (or G3M's) do not suffer well from Allied attacks unless they have a good sized escort. In short, i see no evidence of a great ahistorical inaccuracy inherrant in UV regarding the Betty and the Nell. They are potentially dangerous but require heavy escort unless one wishes to suffer 20-40% attrition per engagement and Japan as is well known has only so many decent pilots. Gee....maybe the DUR rating of the G4M is fine after all.



Have you been? I hadn't noticed. Usually all i see are insults, usually aimed at Mogami, but then again maybe he has also come under the influence of.........The Aussies


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The simple point is the "Betty" wasn't as durable as a P-47. If you want to argue otherwise, be my guest.

As for what you see: if you had an ounce of sense and altrusitic bent and integrity you'd "see" that I've busted my butt trying to point out some of this game's more obvious flaws and along the way I've also suggested intelligent ways to improve matters.

Now how about if you just take a long walk off a short pier, and while you're all wet out there be sure to say hello to your good pal Mogami.
============================================================

This is an interesting post. Nikademus has quoted an eye-witness, two secondary sources of some repute, cited a key engagement and the relevant kill stats from it, offered some analysis and then given some thoughts on his own experiences.

Now, you could have: perhaps explained why his eyewitness was not in a position to say what he did, or cited other eye witnesses who disagree;You could have quoted secondary sources who supported your argument or criticised the analysis of those he quoted; You could have given examples of engagements that favoured your thesis or even imparted your own UV experiences where they favoured your thesis .

Instead, you repeat your "argument" as fact, divulge nothing in the way of the evidence that is so convincing you, question his integrity and sense, and then leave with a parting insult.

Now, I highlight this only because later in this priceless thread you state:

"Instead of welcoming informed critique of the model there exists a coterie of "UV/WitP/Matrix/2by3 fanboys" in this forum who right away duck into their normal state of denial each and every time an obvious flaw in the system is brought up.

This same group also tries to literally shout down!!!anyone with the temerity to offer said informed critique.

This group also favors the use of various forms of ad hominem argument as well as vulgarity and other kinds of character disparagement."

Now, when someone presents eyewitness accounts, quality secondary sources, personal experiences and actual engagements in support of their argument, I call that informed critique. Informed critique doesn't mean they are right, just that they have interpreted relevant facts when formulating their argument.

Now, when someone in reply questions their intelligence, their motives, and tells them to get lost because they are wrong, that sounds suspiciously like shouting someone down, because your arguments are not aimed at their thesis, but at their character. It also sounds like character disparagement because you present no evidence to counter their claims, merely deliver a few insults which (since you have never met Nikademus) are at best ill informed.

In conclusion, you seem guilty of all the traits about which you so ardently complain, condemned by your own posts, a couple of which I have quoted. There is a word for people like that.

One last thought. There were several patches to the original UV. Many of the amendments contained in the patches did not address bugs, but added features and amended the ratings of some weapons systems. The impetus to amend the ratings came from these Forums. If threads were able to present statistics, eye witness reports, good secondary sources etc (all the things Nikademus did) to prove something was wrong, then it was acted upon.

Regards,
IronDuke.

[Drongo]

It wasn't TIMJOT, it was me, and you are right, I didn't read properly. You can pretty much ignore my thoughts on the rate of losses in that test.

Note to self: READ THE QUESTION!

Note to self: CHECK WHO POSTED WHAT!

Apologies. I only made that comment as I thought TIMJOT would know my post style and take it in the right way.

The brain cells holding my statisitical analysis methods were the first to be destroyed by post-graduation celebrations, so it is helpful to have someone else run the figures through (even if they used the WRONG BLOODY ONES).

Cheers mate.

[Drongo]

This is another 4 x 10 set of test results using the current WitP Alpha.

Same situation -
2 bases in adjacent locations to minimise additional fatigue and "operational" losses on an attacker so as to give a better balanced test. No radar.

2 squadrons of P-40Es (24 each) vs 2 squadrons of A6M2s (set to 24 each).

As before, both side's squadrons have identical leaders (60 leadership and 60 skill), squadron experience (60) and experience spread (ie both range from 50 to 70 experience with the majority being 55-65 - no hot shot pilots present). Both side's squadrons have 99 morale and 15 fatigue. Both sides tended to end the day of combat with a squadron average of around 10 fatigue, regardless of who attacked who.

Engagement conditions - weather always clear, altitude for all is 10,000 ft. % are set so that 36 a/c will engage 36 a/c, one side defending against the other sweeping. Test is restarted from scratch after every combat.

Results (all losses show shot down only, no damaged):

1) A6M2s sweep
Losses:
Jp US
3 for 6
7 for 4
2 for 2
3 for 4
4 for 1
6 for 7
5 for 5
5 for 5
4 for 3
2 for 1
*******
41 for 38
*******

2) A6M2s sweep
Losses:
Jp US
2 for 3
4 for 5
7 for 1
5 for 3
7 for 4
3 for 3
4 for 4
8 for 4
4 for 4
6 for 1
*******
50 for 32
*******

3) P-40Es Sweep
Losses:
Jp US
3 for 7
2 for 1
2 for 5
2 for 0
4 for 6
3 for 3
4 for 2
2 for 6
4 for 6
1 for 1
*******
27 for 37
*******

4) P-40Es sweep
Losses:
Jap US
2 for 2
1 for 7
2 for 3
5 for 2
2 for 10
0 for 5
5 for 8
3 for 3
2 for 4
4 for 4
*******
26 for 48
*******

Final total
***********
144 A6M2s shot down for 155 P-40Es = (approx) 1 : 1 kill ratio when no apparent advantage is present for either side.
***********
Note the apparent trend that appears to favour the defender (observation only).

Edit Note: I have corrected a transposing of labels which occured in the F4F-4 vs A6M2 test post. After this correction, that test too shows a trend of kill ratios improving when performing defensive missions.

[Drongo]

This thread contains the gist of the beaufighter case as presented to Matrix/2x3 by a joint contingent of Australian and international posters. Note the unusual approach of relying on documented facts as well as opinion to back the claim for a change in the way that RAAF Beaufighters were modeled in UV.

showthread.php?t=28041

[HMSWarspite]

Note to self: CHECK WHO POSTED WHAT!

Apologies. I only made that comment as I thought TIMJOT would know my post style and take it in the right way.

The brain cells holding my statisitical analysis methods were the first to be destroyed by post-graduation celebrations, so it is helpful to have someone else run the figures through (even if they used the WRONG BLOODY ONES).

Cheers mate.

No problem, thanks for pointing my error out, otherwise I might have done it again! I will rework the numbers, and then see what my conclusion is. (BTW, my stats went the same way, but my calculator doesn't drink!
)

[Drongo]

This is another 4 x 10 set of test results using the current WitP Alpha.

Same situation as before except -
36 Buffalo Is vs 36 A6M2s.

Results (all losses show shot down only, no damaged):

1) Buffalo Is sweep
Losses:
Jp....US
3 for 4
2 for 2
1 for 8
2 for 4
2 for 6
4 for 1
5 for 4
3 for 9
0 for 1
3 for 5
*******
25 for 44
*******

2) Buffalo Is sweep
Losses:
Jp....US
4 for 4
2 for 9
1 for 2
5 for 6
0 for 5
1 for 8
4 for 7
2 for 5
0 for 11
1 for 8
*******
20 for 65
*******

3) A6M2s Sweep
Losses:
Jp....US
1 for 4
2 for 4
2 for 8
3 for 2
3 for 6
2 for 2
4 for 7
2 for 3
3 for 1
1 for 6
*******
23 for 43
*******

4) A6M2s sweep
Losses:
Jp....US
3 for 5
3 for 5
2 for 8
4 for 3
2 for 2
3 for 5
2 for 2
3 for 1
3 for 3
2 for 3
*******
27 for 37
*******

Final total
***********
95 A6M2s shot down for 189 Buffalo Is = (approx) 2 : 1 kill ratio when no apparent advantage is present for either side.
***********

For comparison purposes
a) Ki 43-Is sweep against Buffalo Is
Losses:
Jp....US
0 for 3
1 for 1
2 for 5
7 for 1
2 for 1
6 for 1
2 for 1
4 for 2
2 for 1
4 for 0
*******
30 for 16
*******

b) Ki 27s sweep against Buffalo Is
Losses:
Jp....US
5 for 0
7 for 0
4 for 1
3 for 0
3 for 0
2 for 0
4 for 0
6 for 0
4 for 1
5 for 1
******
43 for 3
******

Note : In test a), the Ki 43-I lacked the firepower to consistently bring down the armoured and relatively durable Buffalo I. For every Buffalo I shot down, at least 2 more would be damaged and survive. The Ki-27 also lacked the firepower and was even more hampered by the fact that it is slower and no more manueverable than the Buffalo I (in WitP, it effectively means less opportunities to get a good shot at the Buffalo I).

[HMSWarspite]

This is another 4 x 10 set of test results using the current WitP Alpha.

Same situation -
2 bases in adjacent locations to minimise additional fatigue and "operational" losses on an attacker so as to give a better balanced test. No radar.

2 squadrons of P-40Es (24 each) vs 2 squadrons of A6M2s (set to 24 each).

As before, both side's squadrons have identical leaders (60 leadership and 60 skill), squadron experience (60) and experience spread (ie both range from 50 to 70 experience with the majority being 55-65 - no hot shot pilots present). Both side's squadrons have 99 morale and 15 fatigue. Both sides tended to end the day of combat with a squadron average of around 10 fatigue, regardless of who attacked who.

Engagement conditions - weather always clear, altitude for all is 10,000 ft. % are set so that 36 a/c will engage 36 a/c, one side defending against the other sweeping. Test is restarted from scratch after every combat.

Results (all losses show shot down only, no damaged):

1) A6M2s sweep
Losses:
Jp US
3 for 6
7 for 4
2 for 2
3 for 4
4 for 1
6 for 7
5 for 5
5 for 5
4 for 3
2 for 1
*******
41 for 38
*******

2) A6M2s sweep
Losses:
Jp US
2 for 3
4 for 5
7 for 1
5 for 3
7 for 4
3 for 3
4 for 4
8 for 4
4 for 4
6 for 1
*******
50 for 32
*******

3) P-40Es Sweep
Losses:
Jp US
3 for 7
2 for 1
2 for 5
2 for 0
4 for 6
3 for 3
4 for 2
2 for 6
4 for 6
1 for 1
*******
27 for 37
*******

4) P-40Es sweep
Losses:
Jap US
2 for 2
1 for 7
2 for 3
5 for 2
2 for 10
0 for 5
5 for 8
3 for 3
2 for 4
4 for 4
*******
26 for 48
*******

Final total
***********
144 A6M2s shot down for 155 P-40Es = (approx) 1 : 1 kill ratio when no apparent advantage is present for either side.
***********
Note the apparent trend that appears to favour the defender (observation only).

Edit Note: I have corrected a transposing of labels which occured in the F4F-4 vs A6M2 test post. After this correction, that test too shows a trend of kill ratios improving when performing defensive missions.

OK, after carefully reading the question , here are the stats (boring I know, but a less subjective method of assessing these things than perception from observation).

Taking 36 a/c engaged each side, out of total forces of 48 a/c each:

The overall average losses from 40 simulations are (Jn:US) 3.6:3.9, or 10%:10.6% of those engaged, with Standard deviations of 1.8:2.2. Thus (approximately), losses are 10% +/- 10% on each side. Against the total forces, these are 7.5% - heavy for sustained combat, but this models sweeps that actually engaged, so maybe not out of court.

When we split by attacker, we get:

Jn attacks, total losses (Jn:US again) 4.6:3.9 (or 12.8%:10.8%), the SDs are 1.8:1.7
US attacks gives 2.7:4.3 (7.5%:11.9%), SDs 1.3:2.6.
The first thing that strikes me here is that the SDs are scaling pro-rata with the mean losses, so we seem to be looking at a similar distribution of losses here. (Which means no one is 'guaranteed' victories - if the results came out with a mean of 6, SD of 1, they are always going to lose more than say 4 each combat, assuming normal distributions.

Looking at the attackers results (irrespective of nationality - i.e. assuming the a/c are equal and the tactical situation wins) gives means of 4.4 losses to the attacker, and 3.1 to the defender. In addition, to these (true means). the SDs are (attacker:defender) 2.2:1.6.

Looking at the distribution of wins/draws/losses in the result of the combats (i.e.who kills more than the enemy), we get 16 Jn wins, 11 draws, 13 US wins. These are split as 5Jn, 9 US, 6 draws when Jn sweeps, and 11Jn, 4 US, 5 draws when US sweeps.
Lets look at outliers. From the SD's above you cant have absolute outliers on the low side (bounded by 0 losses), so let's take a high outlier as 7 or higher (roughly +2SD above the overall mean). This gives 4Jn to 5US. Interestingly, all bar one of these (a US one) happened to the attacking side. Is it possible that the difference between attack and defence is that the attacker can occasionally lose big? Excluding any combat where either side lost 7 or more gives overall mean losses of 3.5:3 (attacker:defender). So although not the whole answer, the 'large loss' factor is partly why attacker losses are higher.
In deference to certain people, what about the size of the large loss events for each nationality? Jn has 1x8, 3x7, whilst US has 1x10, 1x8, 3x7. Ah - bias! Alternatively, the only difference is the US had a 10 loss event, the Jn didn't:sleep: Anyone still reading?

Now, what does this all tell me? The overall losses are broadly equal (1.08 in favour of JN). This ratio could be explained by the one battle where the US lose 10 (total losses would be 142:145 without this one). Attacking seems to be more than 25% more dangerous than average (or 50% more dangerous than defending), but there is a wide spread. About 10% of the time, one side will suffer high losses, the remainder is all less than 20% of those engaged. About 15% of the time, combined losses are less than 4 a/c (or less than 6% of the total aircraft on both sides

The model has lots going on, and I suspect the sample should be larger to ensure the results are stable, however, much to my surprise, I am not too bothered by these results. If anyone finds this level of detail useful, I will do it on the F4F post (properly!)

Conclusion on the method: 1)we must do 50:50 attack/defence tests when comparing a/c.
2) 40 tests (unfortunately) is a minimum I think (ideally you should do them in batches of say 10 attack, 10 defence, checking the cumulative means and SDs until stability is achieved to say 2DP).
3) we need historical info in huge quantities (individual actions in enough detail to deem them relevant, and calculate mean losses, and extremes etc, otherwise we will get bogged in a very subjective arguement again :rolleyes:


And now back to our usual scheduled argument...

[Drongo]

OK, after carefully reading the question , here are the stats (boring I know, but a less subjective method of assessing these things than perception from observation).
.........blah, blah, blah, :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: , blah, blah, blah
Conclusion on the method: 1)we must do 50:50 attack/defence tests when comparing a/c.
2) 40 tests (unfortunately) is a minimum I think (ideally you should do them in batches of say 10 attack, 10 defence, checking the cumulative means and SDs until stability is achieved to say 2DP).
3) we need historical info in huge quantities (individual actions in enough detail to deem them relevant, and calculate mean losses, and extremes etc, otherwise we will get bogged in a very subjective arguement again :rolleyes:


And now back to our usual scheduled argument...

I'm bored so I'll agree with you for something to do. :p

I'd started to suspect during the testing that the variance size would mean that far more tests would have to be run for each condition.

However, I'm done for sufficient time at the moment so I'll leave it up to the others if they want to try similar tests.

Cheers mate (Oh, and get a life).

[HMSWarspite]

I'm bored so I'll agree with you for something to do. :p

I'd started to suspect during the testing that the variance size would mean that far more tests would have to be run for each condition.

However, I'm done for sufficient time at the moment so I'll leave it up to the others if they want to try similar tests.

Cheers mate (Oh, and get a life).

You mean you don't think this is a life?