Experience vs Machine Performance

[mdiehl]

Interesting. In re early P-40 encounters I am not ready to make a judgement. In general however I think it is appropriate to include experience as a "weak" factor in determining the outcomes of combats between similar planes or aircraft where one has a modest advantage. There comes a point, however, where the a/c disparities so dominate the fight that even a "green" pilot can scarcely lose unless he operatoinally scrags his plane by, for example, flying it into the ground (which can happen to even veterans).

I know that Stephen Ambrose would suggest that inflexibility was an Axis (or, perhaps, "individuals living in a totalitarian society") character trait, above and beyond matters of the necessity of learning. Too bad he never got a chance to write about the Pacific War.

[Highlander]

Have a look at this page http://jg26.vze.com , this is a good example that good pilots can kill a lot of enemy planes. The Luftwaffe had only very limited airpower in the west, but the JG26 still have a kill ratio of 597/claim to 252/loss !

[mdiehl]

Pilot claims are utterly immaterial and wholly unreliable. Also, your link is very strange. The link provided is not the one that the HTML code activates. Fortunately, however, it does not work, so whatever viruses are lurking there cannot be downloaded.

[2ndACR]

What about German fighter aces that flew the ME109 thruout the war and still managed to rip up Allied pilots? I know the discussion is on Pac, but it shows where good pilots with decent a/c will usually beat avg pilot in great a/c.
The 109 was greatly outclassed late in the war by allied a/c. Talking about Camel versus Corsair is not realistic. Corsair will win 85% of the time, I would think. We are talking about a/c with about the same flight characteristics.
My opinion anyway.

[Highlander]

I checked the link and it´s working fine !
But this is my PC and I am not shure that you are good in handle your client...
This is funny when I post that some elite pilots manage to kill a lot of enemy planes it´s not correct. But on the other hand you gave us a lot of such ratios and they are OK ?!?

[mdiehl]

This is funny when I post that some elite pilots manage to kill a lot of enemy planes it´s not correct. But on the other hand you gave us a lot of such ratios and they are OK ?!?

You misunderstand (or I'm not clear). According to your previous post the JG26 fanboy site lists as its source of information the pilots' "claims." If that is the case, then the data cannot be taken seriously, even if these claims represent German assessments of "confirmed kills." German pilot claims are not an authoritative source of informaton on enemy losses. You need to look to the unit records to determine that (as Frank and Lundstrom did).

For the record, no nationality's pilot claims are an authoritative source on enemy losses. So this is not a "Germans are liars" thing. It's a "pilots see lots of things, report them as faithfully as they can, and yet their reports rarely provide an accurate description of the results of the engagement." This is pretty much a universal phenomenon.

I know the discussion is on Pac, but it shows where good pilots with decent a/c will usually beat avg pilot in great a/c.

I see no authoritative analysis that demonstrates that good pilots in decent a/c will beat up average pilots in great a/c. In my opinion this is an old wives tale that has not been empirically demonstrated.

[2ndACR]

And allied pilot claims are any more accurate? Only the gun camera footage or a second pilot had to witness the act. I guess the B17 never shot down anything since they had no gun cameras and every gunner with LOS claimed the same a/c. Not sure if Axis a/c had gun cameras. But almost all historians agree to which the best pilots (aces) of both sides were.

Sorry, you edited faster than I can type.

[Highlander]

OK this is a problem, but most of the claims should be OK.

[mogami]

Hi, Our 1 real fighter pilot agreed with the pilot more important with the AC claim.

[mdiehl]

It's a matter of understanding what question you are asking. The statement "good pilots in decent aircraft will usually beat up on average pilots in great aircraft" has four assumptions... "good, decent, average and great" and one statement of probability "usually." If we take usually to mean "more often than not" then at minimum it stipulates that the "good pilot" in the "decent aircraft" will destroy an "average pilot" in a "great aircraft" in at least 51% of engagements. Where is the quantitative analysis that supports the claim that this claim has any basis in reality?

[2ndACR]

I would still take Priller in 109 over amost any allied pilot in P47. 1v1. Same alt, ammo, fair fight.

[mdiehl]

OK this is a problem, but most of the claims should be OK.

I do not agree. The claims are not worth more than this.

"A plane was in front of my gun. I shot at it. I thought I saw hits and damage. Shortly thereafter the plane was no longer in front of my guns and I was no longer shooting at it." Undoubtedly in many circumstances the pilot's hypothesis "I shot at it I hit it it crashed" is correct. The problem is that even when pilots say things like "I hit it, I saw the wings break in half, the engine fall out, and the enemy pilot dragged into the slip stream in his chute shortly before my 20mm ripped his body into several large pieces" they can't be trusted. Sometimes they're right. Often, indeed usually, they are not. The problem with using such data is that they are not consistent from fight to fight, among pilots, or in any given theater.

[mdiehl]

Hi, Our 1 real fighter pilot agreed with the pilot more important with the AC claim.

Many real bomber pilots believed that their statistical probability of surviving their next mission declined with each completion of the preceding mission. Many were lectured on the fundamental inaccuracy of that belief and yet they believed it until they were sent home. They believed it. It was their considered opinion as "experts in the field." And yet they were wholly and completely incorrect.

[mdiehl]

I would still take Priller in 109 over amost any allied pilot in P47. 1v1. Same alt, ammo, fair fight.

You are of course entitled to your opinion.

[2ndACR]

Dang MDiehl, you are a quick typer. I might have misled in my statement, let me clarify. A pilot rated 85 exp in Zero versus pilot 70 exp in P40, neither has a clear advantage, the more experienced pilot will more than likely win the engagement due to exp. Same for a 95 exp pilot in Zero versus 80 pilot in Corsair. A more exp pilot will usually decide yes I can beat this guy or not, where as the lower skilled pilot may say to himself my plane is much better so I can take him. Resulting in his defeat.

[mdiehl]

A pilot rated 85 exp in Zero versus pilot 70 exp in P40, neither has a clear advantage, the more experienced pilot will more than likely win the engagement due to exp.

If you are discussing the game I have no opinion as I do not know. If you are discussing "the real world" I do not agree that the Zero pilot would more than likely, or even slightly more often, win.

Same for a 95 exp pilot in Zero versus 80 pilot in Corsair. A more exp pilot will usually decide yes I can beat this guy or not, where as the lower skilled pilot may say to himself my plane is much better so I can take him. Resulting in his defeat.

If we are talking about the "real world" the Corsair pilot will usually be correct. If the Corsair pilot has more than 500 hours flying his plane in training and mock combat (pretty routine USN stuff by 1944), my money is always on the F4U4 pilot, even if the A6M2 pilot has 11,000 hours in his ship. I don't care if "god himself" is in the Zeke. He could of course get lucky, and pounce on that Corsair while the F4U is busy eating his third or fourth Zeke for dinner. (Assuming that another Corsair is not eating him at the moment). His best hope, however, is to live to fight another day and hope that the next time he gets to fly a J2M3 and is allowed some time to familiarize himself with the plane.

[2ndACR]

I am not a pilot, but from my miltary experience, experience is the make or break issue. Tactics and skill and luck all contribute to victory, but skill will win most fights. From exp, the OPFOR at Fort Irwin will beat any unit into the dirt 85% of the time. Why, because they are simply the most exp unit in the US Army. As a former Inf and Cav scout I can speak from exp. Common theory says that a Inf unit can not beat a Armor unit. Depends, exp says let me make the tanks play in my terr, on my terms. let a tank come into a city enviromate, heavy woods and I do not need anti tank weapons. Exp says hand grenade on track, no move, a little gasoline under tank, instant oven. If the Armor unit believes the myth that their tank is unbeatable, I will gladly teach them a hard lesson. Experience plays a bigger role than most people will give it credit for. Experience will allow a weaker opponent to fight a much more powerful foe and have a better than avg chance of winning. I know that the discussion is over a/c, but it seems that you are saying experience does not really matter. Sorry if I have misunderstood your position. I can not honestly speak about only a/c or pilots, because I have no exp in that dept, but I can say that exp plays alot bigger role than it seems you are giving credit for.

Just used the numbers to try and quantify the good versus avg pilot.

[mdiehl]

This is all very sensitive. It's also common to many professions to have the conceit that a veteran of the field is necessarily more qualified to judge than a person with great theoretical training. In archaeology one often sees this played out in the form of the Mystic Cult of the Digger, in which it is asserted that the excavator of a site has more knowledge of the meaning and importance of the material that he excavates than anyone else. One often sees that played out in such terms as "real digger" used to describe a person who has lots of dirt moving experience and "armchair archaeologist" (most often raised in the context of scholars who point out the myriads of holes in the arguments of people who claim to have found sites that pre-date the widespread Clovis occupation of North America). In short, if you can't supply the data, invoke "the man" in a pro hominem or ad hominem way.

I think we may be talking past each other, 2nd ACR. I'd agree that the vet has an edge if the aircraft are comparable in performance. Unless, of course, the rookie has intense training that obviates the vet's edge (in air combat a classic example of the latter is Cunningham v. Toom).

As for your ground pounder example. I may have heard of these OPFOR guys. I had a pal (a student of mine many years back) who was at the time a Cavalry troop guy in a Bradley company at Knox (his name was J. Slider and at the time he was a Captain, just winding up his B.A. at U of L). Anyhow, he mentioned the OPFOR guys (I think it was them) in the most glowing terms.

Anyhow, the purpose of OPFOR is to give new guys an object lesson in tactics and mock combat. This is essentially what the USAAF and USN attempted to do starting in late 1942. The thing about OPFOR is that they tend to fight against people using comparable equipment (IIRC OPFOR gets late Russian stuff and the boys in blue the usual modern stuff), and the boys in blue tend not to be intensively trained.

I wonder how these things would turn out if the boys in blue got to break into two teams and had 500 hours of practice before going against OPFOR?

I wonder how these things would turn out if OPFOR were given PzIVs and SD251s and the boys in blue got to use Bradleys and Abrams?

The F4U4 is to the A6M2 as the Abrams is to the PzIVF2. IMO (as ever).

[2ndACR]

I understand that the Zero or Zeke were not top of the line in late 44 or early 45. I can not say that I would agree with the Abrams to PzIV comparison.
I am just trying to point out that experience plays alot bigger role role in things.

Normal units do hard training against each other before a NTC rotation. It is just that OPFOR does it alot more than anyone else. Actually any Russian tank can not fight and win against an M1a2 or M1a1 hvy. Even a M1a2 v M1a2 would probably be a tie. In GW1 we were told Bradley v tank you lose. Wrong. Bradley has a good chance if the crew knows what it is doing and forces the fight on their terms. You do not sit out in the open at 2500 yards and slug it out. Alot of regular units try that with OPFOR using brute force and lose, because OPFOR (which is the 11th ACR now, I think) has been there and done that and has learned how to defeat the so called advantage.

[Fallschirmjager]

Well, this is sort of moot since the F4F was not particularly inferior to the A6M2 and the P-40 was considerably better than the A6M2. But this is not really your central point.

Your original point was that "experience" should trump aircraft specs "to a certain degree." With the proviso that no one seems to know what "experience" is in GGPW, UV, or WitP in re training, tactics, and flight time, I agree with your assessment. The problem with the translation of this sentiment into a simulation lies in the murky "to a certain degree."

A pilot that is adequately trained to the strengths of his aircraft and trained in superior tactics will usually wreak havoc on the most veteran ace of aces if the former is flying a markedly superior aircraft. One should not think of a difference in experience giving the more experienced pilot the edge in combat (although that may indeed be how the various Grigsby games handle the EXP ratings).

The argument is best illustrated by a reducto ad absurdem argument. Please forgive me. Consider, for example, a combat between an F4 Phantom (that's right, the jet that proved that with enough thrust even a brick can fly), and a Sopwith Camel. The sopwith has all of the advantages in maneuverability. There's no point or need to talk about maneuverability at speed, because the Sopwith is by any standard slow, and its best "mvr" occurs around the stall speeds of the F4.

Now suppose that super duper Ace of Aces is flying the camel, and has 4000 hours of air time in the plane. He has all the knowledge of Manfred von Richtofen, Saburo Sakai, an Joe Foss. The F4 pilot is Lieutenant Mudd, a USMC pilot with 500 hours of air time in the F4 and no combat experience.

Will Ace of Aces have any control over this combat? Not really. Lt Mudd can decide when, where and how to engage the Sopwith. The Sopwith in turn can use its superior maneuverability in an effort to turn out of the F4s attack. We'll make the model simple and assume that both aircraft are using their guns.

In this combat, the Sopwith has, at best, a chance of survival. It has no realistic hope of doing any damage to the F4 unless Lt. Mudd is so poorly trained as to not fly his aircraft to any advantage. The relative difference in the two pilots' air times and Mudd's lack of combat experience is completelty immaterial. He either knows his plane or he does not.

The upshot is that EXP in any of these games should not be a continuously distributed variable. This is something that one should suspect ANYHOW given that nobody can justify where these numbers come from. They are in effect cardinal numbers (quantitative) that have inappropriately been subsitituted for ordinal numbers (a rank-order system). The ranking should probably just rate pilots, for example, as untrained (can get airplane off the ground etc), pilot qualified (minimal airtime in plane), and trained (will fly aircraft to the strengths of the plane), and experienced (might have situational awareness enough to avoid getting killed when encountering trained pilots flying superior aircraft).

How aburd is the comparison? Not so absurd when one compares late war Allied a/c with things like the Zero. Imagine an A6M2 encountering a P51D. At ANY altitude the P51 has more than 100mph on the Zeke. And "Roll Rate" should be the P51's "middle name." Ditto for a variety of other allied aircraft. In general, the deterministic factor in deciding whether or not "average" pilots kill veterans when the average pilots are flying better planes is maximum airspeed. That lesson has been repeatedly learned throughout the history of aerial warfare. It is why people now fly Sukhois and F18s rather than A6M2s and Sopwith Camels. If "MVR" were worth much, the ideal modern fighter would be a Fokker D1.

I'd back an adequate pilot in a superior plane any day over an ace of aces in an antiquated plane. All the Ace can realistically hope for is to live long enough to see his aircraft replaced with something better.

I knew someone would try to do this

I recognize an F4 would probably beat a Camal (all the F4 would have to do is buzz the bi-plane and its engine wash would send the bi-plane into a nasty spin)

But that argument is useless here

We are talking about planes that are within 5 year gap of design here....not 50 years

If MVR didnt matter...they would use B-52's as Air Superiority fighters....of course it matters

MVR is as much defensive as offensinve


Im not saying A6M2's should slice through waves of P-51's
Im saying that there should be some sort of curve where by Exp overcomes the limitations of the machine being flown
Let me give you an example

P-39's engage A6M2's where the Zeros are escorting bombers

I think its safe to say on paper that the Zero is a slighty better plane for Air Superiority

In example #1 we will have both groups of pilots with an exp of 50
The P-39's will shoot straight in....will not use team work....get into turning dogfights...and the Japensese with their superior planes will shoot them down and drive them off

Now...
Example #2
Zeros have an Exp rating of 50 and the P-39's 80
The P-39's will swoop in at a higher alltiude....making slashing runs at the zeros...and have enough E to disengage at will...use team work to cover one anothers tails...and distract the Escorts while a group makes attack runs at Bombers


This is what im advocating
It seems to me (and im sure im wrong that Ive just misread your statements)
That whenever a superior plane meets a inferior plane....it should be set in stone that the superior plane is the victor when that should not always be the case