Experience vs Machine Performance

[Fallschirmjager]

Now for something else


I find it quite dumb that their is only a Exp rating in the game

Imho their should be at least two ratings...

Exp and a seperate training rating (actually...if I was to have it totaly my ray...id have a dozen or so training ratings for such things as instrument flying...carrier takeoff and landing..and on and on...and pilot ratings for each aircraft...but my game would take a quarter of a century to make)

Ok....lets assume we are talking about a Japenses pilot that comes out of pre-war training school and is made operational in Nov 1941
I would give him a training rating of around 80 (lets say thats middle of his class) and an exp of about only about 20 (that would represent his flying hours, gunnary practice, instrument flying and on and on)

Now...
After he is operational...I would have a curve to where the first few missions for a pilot his EXP would jump is quickly
To where he was say a 50 after only 5 missions then would plateau off and he would gain it much more slowly

Thats how I would do it...instead of a single generic EXP rating

Those numbers are just examples...since I have no frame of reference as to what a "50" would be

Again...just my opinion and a good idea in my mind

[mogami]

Hi, You can not train a pilot above 60. That means USN pilots arrive fully trained
(IJN as well only 10 a month) USMC/USAAF pilots are 55 so they have a little room to learn. IJA pilots (out of flight school) are 50's

So training is shown in WITP/UV There are pilots in USN/USMC/USAAF with ratings over 60. Thats experiance.

[Fallschirmjager]

Hi, You can not train a pilot above 60. That means USN pilots arrive fully trained
(IJN as well only 10 a month) USMC/USAAF pilots are 55 so they have a little room to learn. IJA pilots (out of flight school) are 50's

So training is shown in WITP/UV There are pilots in USN/USMC/USAAF with ratings over 60. Thats experiance.

Id still rather see seperate ratings


But this will do

Thanks for the explanation

[Mike Scholl]

If we think of aircraft statistics as a "fixed" asset (aircraft of the same make and
model have identical statistics and potential.) and "skill/experiance" as a floating
variable (A really good pilot is going to get a lot more out of the "potential" than
an average one), then some formula ought to be possible.

An adequate aircraft flown by a good pilot (say 75-80 range---well trained and
with some combat experiance and a couple kills) is going to have an "edge"
over a somewhat better aircraft flown by a 55-60 rated pilot (trained but with
no combat experiance). Why? Because he knows what's going on and what to
expect and what to look out for. He reccognizes immediately if there are any
advantages to be exploited in the situation and pushes them---and he recog-
nizes if he's at a dissadvantage and needs to "boogie". The trained but lacking
experiance pilot may have a better plane, but his situational awareness hasn't
developed and he doesn't know how to press an advantage, or avoid an inferior
position. His plane's performance may save him to fight another day, but it
won't give him the experiance to be successful on that day.

On the other hand, if both sides are in the 55-60 range, the fight will probably
be a low-scoring affair of confusion and missed opportunities with the better
aircraft providing it's side with an edge over-all. If the opposition were of
marked inferiority in skill (as many Japanese were later in the war, then the
adequate training an better aircraft might produce a "one day ace" because
it's all the other side can do to fly straight and level in formation, and they
nay not even be aware of the attack until it's on them.

EXPERIANCE needs to be a "leveler" in the combat routine. It would keep the
side with more of it from getting hammered badly (these guys would know when
it was time to run, and how to do it), and enable the superior side too get
better results than average when the opportunity arose.

[2ndACR]

I can not agree more Mike, that was the point I was trying to make to MDiehl, that experience is extremely important. The better a/c should not always win the fight. If the game engine can track what pilot scored a kill and who got shot down, then each pilots experience level is known by the game. Each pilots exp level, plane characteristics, alt, direction (who is behind who) should all be taken into account. But I am not a programmer, so I can just state what I would like to see and then if they say it can not be done, so be it.

[Daniel Oskar]

The naval safety center did not keep detailed statistics of WWII naval aircraft losses (probably because it didn't exist yet). The data they have points to operational mishaps accounting for 25% of all losses of naval aircraft from '41-'45. Most of these lost aircraft were pranged by junior birdmen with 700hrs or less. Losing a quarter of your airplanes to pilot error tells me experience is pretty important. Those pilots had to be trained, or they wouldn't have been there to bend the airplanes in the first place. The odds of a new naval aviator being shot down (all causes) on his first mission was 7%. It fell to below 1% after he completed 10 missions. Lastly, only 5% of naval aviators shot down 5 aircraft ore more to become aces, these few guys accounted for more enemy aircraft than the other 95% combined. Hey, anybody is entitled to their opinion, but mine is that experience matters.

[Nomad]

To me, the thing that experience provides is the ability to do the right thing without having to think about it. A trained aviator without combat experience knows what he should do but does not have the instintiveness to do it without thinking. That few moments of thinking can result in being shot down or getting into a bad situational position.

[Chiteng]

See the minimalists strike again. They admit that experience does matter,
but they dont want it to matter in the game.

The Fokker DR1 was an inferior plane. It was slow. However Voss and the Red
Baron somehow made kills with it. Experience DOES matter.

All you need to do is not listen to the minimalists.

[mdiehl]

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

Incorrect. one would only use B52s for this purpose if speed and mvr both did not matter. Speed is what wins combat and has been the primary driving force behind air supremacy fighters for 50 years. More recently stealth has been added and maneuverability re-added. Personally I think vectored thrust is a fool's gambit other than for its VTOL/STOL virtues. When the US deploys a supercruise capable fighter, it will provide a radical advantage.

It is unfortunate that pilots may not be trained beyond 60. It's manifestly incorrect that high quality training can not substitute for combat experience. That is wrong, dead wrong, and proven wrong both during WW2 and again during the VN war when the USN introduced its forerunner to the top gun program. Cunningham was no ace. He was a top gun grad. He defeated Toom, a veteran.

Bottom line, experience is a factor only up to certain levels of experience or training. If one caps out training-induced EXP at 60, one should probably cap off all EXP at 75. There aren't going to be any mistake-proof experienced pilots.

Likewise the claim that situational awareness is lax in trained pilots who have not fought combats is incorrect. Indeed, the whole problem with Japanese pilots was that despite all their training they lacked the situational awareness to competently compensate for teamwork tactics among enemy pilots despite the fact that the enemy lacked combat experience. Bottom line is that the veteran Japanese were fought to a draw by people with substantially less air time and combat experience. That pretty much shoots big holes in any claim that "Experience" gives one pilot a strong advantage over an adequately-trained inexperienced pilot.

A trained aviator without combat experience knows what he should do but does not have the instintiveness to do it without thinking.

That is at best an unproven claim. I happen to think it is wholly incorrect. With respect to "instinctiveness" I think THAT is a quality that is in place before a person even sets foot in their first training plane. Experience doesn't add to it. Lack of experience doesn't take away from it.

[Daniel Oskar]

It is unfortunate that pilots may not be trained beyond 60. It's manifestly incorrect that high quality training can not substitute for combat experience. That is wrong, dead wrong, and proven wrong both during WW2 and again during the VN war when the USN introduced its forerunner to the top gun program. Cunningham was no ace. He was a top gun grad. He defeated Toom, a veteran.

I agree. The problem is that during WWII there wasn't even anything approximating "Top Gun" or "WTI". Replacement pilots could only count on getting advanced tactical training from the old hands in their new squadron. As for there being an arbitrary number where training caps out I think its a bit simplistic. There should be a level at which basically trained pilots fresh from P'cola max out. Then another number where the replacement pilot has been trained in model, done his gunnery shoots, gone to the bombing range, trained in ACM ect... In a bind the P'cola grad could have been thrown in a fleet squadron immediately, but he wouldn't be nearly as effective as the guy who spent some time in the Replacement Air Group environment.

Likewise the claim that situational awareness is lax in trained pilots who have not fought combats is incorrect. Indeed, the whole problem with Japanese pilots was that despite all their training they lacked the situational awareness to competently compensate for teamwork tactics among enemy pilots despite the fact that the enemy lacked combat experience.
That is at best an unproven claim. I happen to think it is wholly incorrect. With respect to "instinctiveness" I think THAT is a quality that is in place before a person even sets foot in their first training plane. Experience doesn't add to it. Lack of experience doesn't take away from it.

I've trained new pilots from the day they check into primary. I've also trained them when they first get to a tactical squadron. One big thing they have in common is a pretty significant lack of situational awareness. When they are low time guys they can think, speak, or fly. Don't expect them to do more than one thing at a time! As they become more comfortable in model they can devote more attention to what is going on around them. I'm sure combat will expand your SA (or kill you) but I think its development is a function of building time in your aircraft. A important by product of follow on training at the RAG is expanded SA, but it is a skill that continues to grow throughout your career.

[Chiteng]

Cunningham was no ace. He was a top gun grad. He defeated Toom, a veteran.

*******************************************************
Oh Dear Mdeihl, you really do need to keep current:

'Colonel Tomb' was merely the callsign assigned to some pilots. The callsign
was NOT exclusive. There were no verified NVietnam Aces.

Cunningham shot SOMEONE down. That is all.

[mogami]

Hi, I think it is a mistake to consider ratings from 60 to 70 low. Before the war is very old the majority of Allied pilots be be above 60 Exp. A pilot who shoots down 20 enemy AC will be near 99 Exp.

'High' or 'Low' is relative. Overall Japanese pilot exp avg will begin to fall on day one while over all Allied Pilot avg rises from day one.

By the end of 1942 the avg USN/USMC/USAAF front line pilot will be over 75. That is higher then the avg front line Japanese pilot at start of war.

Pilots above 80 are "super' pilots. The Allies will have whole groups of "Super" pilots (while the Japanese "super" groups decline and vanish unless they are with held from combat.)

[Chiteng]

What I dislike is the ability of a player to do BS missions on blank or useless
targets to gain xp. That is BS. It should not be allowed.

Like using air supply to gain bomber xp.

[Mike Scholl]

In a WWII environment, there was no possibility of the kind of advanced tactical
training represented by "Top Gun". No lasers, no computers, not enough of the
technology needed to run such a program effectively. Training consisted at
most of making the pilot comfortable with the performance his aircraft permitted,
navigation, gunnery, bombing, and demonstrations of air-to-air tactics. But
nothing could reproduce the utter complexity and confusion of an air-to-air
"furball". Even with the best training pilots still tended to "gawk" at the chaos
surrounding them and be unable to "see" a clear enough picture of events to
be a useful participant. Which is why so many "newbies" ended up dead or
practicing for the airborne. A few (who would generally end up aces) could
actually "see" from the beginning. A larger percentage could never figure it
out and ended up as a "kill" flag on an enemy plane. The majority took from
5-15 missions with action to get to the point of being at least a useful
participant. Situational awareness is as much a "gift" as a learned response,
which is why even the majority of pilots who survive and prosper should never
get above 80. Most people just don't have the "gift" of being able to see
order and patterns and opportunities in chaos. Those that can are generally
the high-scoring aces.

[mdiehl]

Mike -

I am not certain there was no "top gun" type program in WW2. IRC reading that there was, that it was implemented specifically to give pilots training in dealing with mutually supporting team tactics, and that it was implemented in late 1942. I also recall that its genesis was the 1941 Army v Navy games in which Thach (and another fellow, name momentarily forgotten) developed the "beam defense" in anticipation of combat with the A6M2. (The general properties of the latter were known to the US in 1941 via naval intel. It was correctly assumed that the Zero was far more maneuverable. It was incorrectly assumed that the Zero was much faster. As a proxy, in the 1941 games Thach figured the P40 was a good substitute for the Zero and developed the tactics accordingly).

Anyhow, I will see if I can find you some follow up. I do not think it is accurate that Navy pilots went directly from flight school to gunnery training to combat. Equally importantly one can think of another example of a unit with EXTENSIVE training that performed as well as any veteran unit from the get-go -- the Red Tails in the ETO.

Chiteng says:

'Colonel Tomb' was merely the callsign assigned to some pilots. The callsign was NOT exclusive. There were no verified NVietnam Aces.

Yeah. Sure. Hey I heard that in WW2 there were no Japanese aces. "Saburo Sakai" was just a name given to a bunch of pilots who flew with the Tainan AG. You do carry one though. Please fabricate some more claims (like your "American Planes searching for the Bismarck" claim) as you see fit.

[mogami]

"There were very few pilots in the VPAF and they knew each other very well either from their training courses abroad or from joint service in VPAF regiments. Both Nguyen Van Coc and Pham Tuan (decorated VPAF pilots) denied, in separate interviews, that they knew or had ever heard of "Colonel Tomb".

There is no official record of a Colonel Tomb in VPAF files, and, if he really had 13 victories, the VPAF propaganda machine would certainly have used him.
In 1972 there were no active pilots with rank of Colonel in the VPAF.
No North Vietnamese pilot had 13 aerial victories as reported by western experts.
The name Tomb does not exist in the Vietnamese language, nor are there any similar sounding names."

"According to Toperczer, the "top-scoring" would be Nguyen Van Coc, with nine claimed kills, followed by Nguyen Hong Nhi and Mai Van Cuong, with 8 each. "


Hi, It would be a lot easier if they could just figure out who the 3rd pilot was.

[Mike Scholl]

Mike -

I am not certain there was no "top gun" type program in WW2. IRC reading that there was, that it was implemented specifically to give pilots training in dealing with mutually supporting team tactics, and that it was implemented in late 1942. I also recall that its genesis was the 1941 Army v Navy games in which Thach (and another fellow, name momentarily forgotten) developed the "beam defense" in anticipation of combat with the A6M2. (The general properties of the latter were known to the US in 1941 via naval intel. It was correctly assumed that the Zero was far more maneuverable. It was incorrectly assumed that the Zero was much faster. As a proxy, in the 1941 games Thach figured the P40 was a good substitute for the Zero and developed the tactics accordingly).

The "Top Gun" program teaches "dogfighting skills"---air-to-air combat in as
realistic a manner as can be done without using bullets. My point was that
the technology for this type of training didn't exist in WW II. Training is
always good, but realistic training was almost impossible until lasers and
microchips.

In WW II you could teach a pilot to fly his aircraft, and use his ordinance
against various targets. He could "practice bomb" target ships, and shoot
at "target sleeves", and follow his instructors through various tactical
manuevers---even engage in "mock dogfights". But he had no way of knowing
for sure that he had "hit" his opponant, or why he would have missed. Target
sleeves and sleds don't manuever much, and never shoot back. So even the
best training could only take him so far. Call it experiance level 60. After that,
it took real combat to teach the "finer points" of the trade. Only "real" combat
against "real" opponants who are shooting back with "real" bullets and "trying
to kill you" can teach the rest. Even "top gun" can't reproduce that feeling.
That experiance might get you up to experiance 80. But it's been proven over
and over that only a "chosen few" have the "killer instinct" and the "situational
awareness" to climb to the top (exp. 99). Even they can't really explain it...,
they just see everything more clearly than others. Like a Major League Hitter
can "see" the rotation on a pitch, and have time to adjust to what it's going to
do. I can't do that, and you probably can't either. Very few can---and they
get paid big bucks so the rest of us can watch.

[mdiehl]

That's ture Mike. It may not have been the same standard as the current Top Gun program, but wing cameras and positional advantage were usually the basis by which these WW2 combats were judged. Not perfect but at the time if one dogfights a P-40 in an F4F one faces the same suite of challenges. If the P-40 keeps getting into your six it pretty much teaches you situational awareness.

Mogami --

In re Col. Toom. The point is that the guy's name is not known so we'll have to use that name until someone comes up with a real name. From the account of the action it is quite clear that this guy was both a veteran and possibly a squadron leader. Of course, one could argue that by virtue of his previous engagements Cunnigham was not exactly a rookie either. He was, however, a Top Gun grad and his training there game him real combat skills above and beyond the basic-gunnery-advanced training prgram that prceeded it.

[Daniel Oskar]

Not perfect but at the time if one dogfights a P-40 in an F4F one faces the same suite of challenges. If the P-40 keeps getting into your six it pretty much teaches you situational awareness.

Dissimilar ACM training was fairly uncommon as an element of initial USN training back in WWII. For the guys being trained it would have been a waste of effort anyway as they needed to develop basic skills before they could even appreciate what dissimilar training would provide. It was conducted with the type of aircraft with which the squadron was equipped. I have read of instances where Army and Navy squadrons did cooperate in dissimilar ACM, but it was in theater. Pretty unusual as well, as the interservice cooperation we enjoy today was a pretty detrimental rivalry back then.

[Chiteng]

Well Mdiehl, since you insist:

'Dirty Little Secrets of the Vietnam War' page #134 paragraph one.
Enjoy.