F-16 Zero's...

[Kadrin]

Why is it in the game that the American pilots in the Philippines are shot down by the Jap zero's at 10-0 (10 P40's for every Zero that was never shot down)?
In other words, why do 60 P-40s on cap tangle with 57 Zeros and shoot down nothing-notta-zip for the loss of half (27) the P-40s???!!!

Historically, though badly outnumbered there, P-40s still traded at - at least a one for one rate in air combat in the Philippines in 41 to early '42.

Zeros were good and so were their pilots, but this is rediculous.

[Terminus]

It's the nifty SUPER-ZERO bonus they get. It goes away eventually...

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Kadrin

Why is it in the game that the American pilots in the Philippines are shot down by the Jap zero's at 10-0 (10 P40's for every Zero that was never shot down)?
In other words, why do 60 P-40s on cap tangle with 57 Zeros and shoot down nothing-notta-zip for the loss of half (27) the P-40s???!!!

Historically, though badly outnumbered there, P-40s still traded at - at least a one for one rate in air combat in the Philippines in 41 to early '42.

Zeros were good and so were their pilots, but this is rediculous.

I had exactly the difference and even more suprising. 50 P36 Mohawk have beaten up 60 Zeros over Madras in 9/42. After all those successes I was really shocked (glorious moments of AI [:)]). My Zero daitais had an average exp of about 80 and the American fighter group had 74 (I had to look it up because I was so suprised). So these Zeros aren´t unbeatable after the loss of the Zero bonus. A good group flying P40 should perform quite good against A6M2 and your result is more than bad die rolls.

[Halsey]

The "Invincible" Zero. It's bonus is so incredible that you don't want to even fly any Allied fighters. Better to park them for 6 months till the bonus is gone. I've seen them destroy the entire RAF fighters in India in 3 days. The Germans needed some of these for the BoB.[:D]

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Halsey

The "Invincible" Zero. It's bonus is so incredible that you don't want to even fly any Allied fighters. Better to park them for 6 months till the bonus is gone. I've seen them destroy the entire RAF fighters in India in 3 days. The Germans needed some of these for the BoB.[:D]

Much to RAF's dismay the Zero's historically did exactly that!

The BoB veteran pilots flying Spitfires and Hurricanes were no match for Zero and were shoot down in great numbers (mostly due to 100% wrong tactics imployed by RAF against Zero)...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Tom Hunter]

When you ask questions like this you have to look at a number of factors, any X Vs. Y question has a lot going on in the background and to understand the end result you have to understand the many factors that go into creating it.

Firstly the Zeros have a 5% Zero bonus that declines 1% per month, this is to simulate the fact that it did take the Allies a little while to switch from dogfighting Zeros to tactics like Boom and Zoom or the Thatch Weave.

Second what was the altitude of the Zeros? What about the P40s? If the P40s are set at 15,000 feet and the Zeros came in at 18,000 feet you got bounced.

Pilot quality matters and in the early war the Japanese are in the 80s and the Allies are in the 50s and 60s except for CV groups.

How tired are the P40 Pilots. Fatigued pilots will lose to rested pilots. A good way to win air battles is fight attrition for a while then bring in fresh groups against your opponents tired pilots.

Pure dumb luck, sometimes we all roll snake eyes.

You may have lost for any one, or possibly all, of these reasons

Don't forget that though more even results were average for the war, very one sided results like these happened, a game without them would be worse, not better.

[tsimmonds]

Firstly the Zeros have a 5% Zero bonus that declines 1% per month

The bonus is not 5 percent, it is 5 points added to the maneuver rating, which is considerably more than 5 percent.

[Feinder]

The "invicible" Zero in early WitP is a combination of several things...

1. The Zero bonus. It's +5 to the Maneuver Rating in 12-41, and decreases by one each month until 05-42 (when it's +0). But a +5 to maneuver is -NOT- just a 5% bonus. When it calculates the winner in aircombat, it looks at the difference between the ratings of the two aircraft; it's far more than just adding 5% to the roll or whatever.

2. Pilot experience. Most of the Japanese sqdns have experience in the high 60s or 70s. Compare that the the Allied exp ratings, that are usually in the mid 50s, or low 60s. Experience plays a major part in engagements.

Yes, keeping your head down early war as the Allies is a -part- of the plan. Actually, better said, the plan should be to "limit your losses, but make Japan pay where you can.". Sure, don't go toe-to-toe with Zeros. But sometimes you have to. When you -have- to, altitude is your friend. If you can see what alt his planes are coming at, go 12k above that number (whereas, normally, you'd go about 6k above your target). What you're trying to accomplish is to simply disrupt the formation, without creating a decisive engagement. You lose fewer planes, your opponent loses fewer planes, but you (hopefully) disrupt the strike enough to lessen the accuracy of the raid.

Also, watch for where he -isn't- using Zeros. I think Japan only has like 3x Zeros sqdns to start. It will seem like they're everywhere, but in truth, Zeros only represent about 25% of the available fighters for Japan. Look for where he's using Nates and Oscars, and do your best to engage -them-. They're not nearly as capable as the Zeros (Allied fighters are on-par, if not better than Nates and Oscars), and you're only outmatched by experience. Kill these planes, and you kill -PILOTs-. Killing pilots is the best way bring down Japan.

Also, kill as many of Japans planes as you can on the ground. B-17s and B-25s are your friend. Many players love to "stuff" a few large AFs. That begs for a massive bomber raid. The best thing you can do (esp as Allies early on), is spread out your sqdns. Bombing an AF, often doesn't kill the pilot, but killing airframes is also important (at least it's points!).

The combination of the declining Zero bonus, and attriting the pilot pool, will start to show dividends about March. Having a Zero bonus of +2 on March is still significant if he's still flying sqdns with 75 exp. However, if you've depleted the pilot pool from killing every other plane but Zeros, and maybe you've killed just 15 pilots for his Zero sqnds (they -do- eventually die, esp Flak which doesn't care about the exp of the target). Those Zero sqdns will then have drawn 15 crap pilots. Because those replacement pilots suck, they -need- the Zero bonus to keep them on-par. So by the time May rolls around, and Zero bonus disappears, the Allied fighters -do- stand a reasonable chance (and it only gets better, as you continue to hammer away at the pilot pool).

In short, as Allies -
a. Engage everything that's not a Zero. You're killing pilots, and that's crucial.
b. If you must engage Zeros, make your best guess at better altitude. You won't stop him. And you'll still lose planes. But it is possible to trade 2 - 1 (if you're bouncing from alt), which is a -very- good exchange rate.

And FYI, in my current PBEM game, the strategy -is- proving sound. Total air losses on March 1st are 1100 Allies, 950 Japan (and that includes the first day's slaughter). Air-to-Air ratio is about 2.5 to 1, and I'll certainly take that as "acceptable".

-F-

[DJAndrews]

The way the game works makes sense to me. In an AI game I'm playing, I've noticed that while there are high air-to-air losses early in the war for the Allies, the operational losses for the Japanese are huge in comparison to the Allies. One in four total losses for the Japanese are due to operations, while only about 1 in 10 losses occur for the allies due to operations.

I think the game has been designed to work this way. Early in the war Allied aircraft, pilots and tactics were inferior to the Japanese. However, the Japanese doctrine was based on well trained crews in long range aircraft that were poorly armored. As a result they shot down more opponents, but often did not return from missions in which they had been victorious because of battle damage and the long return flight. As time went on Allied doctrine, training and technology improved while the Japanese could not replace the trained crews nor improve their equipment in a timely fashion.

As pointed out in a previous post, in a PBEM game the Allied player can reduce his losses by adopting certain doctrines. Similarly, the Japanese player can avoid the excessive operational losses by being more conservation in terms of the weather conditions and ranges at which he operates.

[CapAndGown]

ORIGINAL: DJAndrews

The way the game works makes sense to me. In an AI game I'm playing, I've noticed that while there are high air-to-air losses early in the war for the Allies, the operational losses for the Japanese are huge in comparison to the Allies. One in four total losses for the Japanese are due to operations, while only about 1 in 10 losses occur for the allies due to operations.

The AI runs its planes ragged. I wouldn't count on that PBEM.

[freeboy]

The "Invincible" Zero. It's bonus is so incredible that you don't want to even fly any Allied fighters. Better to park them for 6 months till the bonus is gone. I've seen them destroy the entire RAF fighters in India in 3 days. The Germans needed some of these for the BoB

While true enough, I find the avf sent to Singapore works well if they are outnumbering the japs.. I have plucked a few of those nasty nippies from the skies this way..
and later in 42 43 your better trained fighter pilots flying anything will do well, and especially the better trained better planed.. try some f4u and see!

[DJAndrews]

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown


The AI runs its planes ragged. I wouldn't count on that PBEM.

Actually its the AI that has the really low operational losses and me that has the high op losses flying against the AI.

My flight doctrine is to fly up to a fatigue of 10 under all weather conditions, except thunderstorms, out to maximum range with Zeros and Oscars. I've lost a total of about 700 of these type of aircraft, 240 of which were operational losses (up to mid July 42).

Oddly enough I never restr Nates and fly the at 90% CAP constantly, regardless of weather or fatigue. They have the lowest level of op losses among the Japanese aircraft (presumably because of the short range flown).

[Kadrin]

Thank you all for the thoughtful replies. But to get down to cases:

In the original posting of 60 P40 vs 57 A6M2, The P40s were on CAP at alt 10,000 ft the Japanese zeros came in at 6,000 ft escorting 27 G3Ms. The P40 FG had an avg experiance of 57, fatigue less than 5, morale at about 57 (about game start level Dec 10th). The Japanese came in from Formosa, you know which squadrons are there.
Well as I said the Americans got drubbed unbeleivably.....everyone has a bad day - Fine.

But it doesn't stop there. Dec 18th Cagayan Air Field. Rested P40s (about 48 with exp 58, morale 60) on CAP over field (100%CAP), alt 10,000. Here comes the Ryujo air group not knowing American planes were even at the base. 48 Americans bounce (again) 10 A5m Claudes and 18 B5n Kates...48 to 28...ok?
Result one A5M and one B5N destroyed, 20 P40s damaged....yah. Oh, and Cagayan still got bombed.

Now for reality;
If anyone will open a history book, yes the Japanese did overrun SE Asia in a few months, but in the air war that actually happened the Buffalos (all 16) in Rangoon with 21 P40s on loan from the AVG destroyed 31 Japanese planes for the loss of 12 allied between 23-25 DEC 41. The Japanese air fleet opposing them had over 200 1st line aircraft. In early January the RAF in Rangoon received 30 Hurricane IIs and they quickly destroyed over 50 Japanese aircraft in air combat, again for the loss of only twelve of their own. In fact shortly after the Japanese called off Day bombing attacks over Rangoon until they recieved a reinforcement of 200 more aircraft. Yes, with an air fleet of 400 aircraft to the allies puny couple of dozen (and thanks to swift advances on the ground) the RAF pulled out of Rangoon shortly after.

Why all the history lesson? Because I find no historical data to back up the ZERO BONUS and the vastly greater pilot ratings. Where are the air engagements that show hopelessly outnumbered Japanese planes destroying overwelming numbers of allies? Is there a large air engagement anyone can site where Japanese aircraft found themselves outnumbered by 2 to 1 or more, and gave a lop-sided drubbing to the allies? If the Japanese are going to have such higher pilot ratings, where is the data to back it up? Or is it that they were good pilots with vastly greater numbers available at that time? Hmm?

The Axis Air Forces in the Mediterranean had the same numbers problem as the allies had in the early Pacific war, but no one claims that the allies won the Mediterranean air war because of sheer prowess.

The game already gives the Japanese more manuverable planes - and far greater numbers of them. Game mechanics alone will ensure eventual Japanese victory for the first six months of the war. Supply and superior numbers works in the game just as they did historically.

Bottom line- numbers and superior supply ensure an historical outcome already. Why underrate allied pilots and planes?

[Halsey]

Because Gary Grigsby read about it in some obscure book many moons ago.
So since he designed the game, that's the way it is.[:D]

This game is all about pilot experience. Once you get aircrews trained up, they will start producing kills.

[1275psi]

For a superb historical account of what happened when the british met the zero, read "bloody shambles"
Ill get the details tonight if you like when I get home.

There are also several other factors people overlook

japan was the attacker
In malaya especially, again and again the british got caught on the fields, or at low altitude, or refuelling, or at odds of 20 to 1
There was no early warning system to speak off.
The sheer range of the zero (and oscar to some extent) simply caught everyone by surprise.

The book details day by day, plane by plane, sorry detail by sorry detail every lost plane (and the few successes)
I think the bonus covers these factors as well as the air tactics very well.

Simply put, if the buffalos, and hurricanes got a 1 to 1 in malaya - that would be very very non historical indeed

[Kadrin]

ORIGINAL: 1275psi

There are also several other factors people overlook

japan was the attacker
In malaya especially, again and again the british got caught on the fields, or at low altitude, or refuelling, or at odds of 20 to 1

Odds of 20 to 1, refuelling, or otherwise caught on the ground. Were they caught off guard on the ground because of superior Japanese pilots? Does facing overwhelming odds in the air mean your opponent is a better flyer? Or does all this mean that the strtegic and tactical situation favored the more numerous Japanese?

Thank you for proving my point.

[testarossa]

They were more numerous on 12/7/1941.

Allies had a lot of planes, but just somewhere else. Later they start to arrive in numbers, and by mid summer 1942 Allies started to put enough resistance, to stop Japs in India.

What game simulates perfectly - total surprise given by the quality of Jap aircrafts and pilots. There was no information about Jap planes. Oscar was confused for Zero. Zero was called Hamm or something in SEA and Zero in Pacific. Still it's just a simulation, designed to give you true outcomes on average. Particular battles give unexpected results.

Another aspect simulated perfectly - shortage of trained pilots for Japan. There was a thread somewhere dedicated to this problem only, with information about hours allocated for training etc. But facts are facts - by 1944 Jap pilots presented good practicing targets. I don’t' say that there where no excellent Jap pilots in 1944. Just main bulk of them were inexperienced rookies, who never had a chance to get any as their first mission was their last.

[bradfordkay]

Just want to make one point here: operational losses will always be higher for the side that is on the offensive. Taking a bomber or fighter group to the enemy's bases and bringing them back will result in more planes lost due to mechanicals than just flying over your own bases for defense. Thus, later in the war the allies operational losses will increase while the Japanese operational losses should decrease slightly (of course, having poorly trained and tired pilots will be another factor in this equation).

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: Kadrin


Now for reality;
If anyone will open a history book, yes the Japanese did overrun SE Asia in a few months, but in the air war that actually happened the Buffalos (all 16) in Rangoon with 21 P40s on loan from the AVG destroyed 31 Japanese planes for the loss of 12 allied between 23-25 DEC 41. The Japanese air fleet opposing them had over 200 1st line aircraft.

Whos reality and what history book? FYI those Buffs and P-40s over Rangoon NEVER engaged Zeros in combat during the time period you indicate and far as first line fighters are concerned, well if you considered a KI-27 Nate first line aircraft you might have a point. That is "IF" your numbers were correct the trouble is that post war analysis of IJA records does not cooraborate the exagerating claims of the RAF and AVG pilots. As for the actual numbers that were shot down the vast majority were bombers.

As far as those P-40s in the PI, no way they had a 1:1 kill ratio versus the Zero. They only fought agianst the Zero in the first few days of the campaign and the Ratio was more like 3-4 to 1 in favor of the Zero. After that the P-40s that were left were no longer allowed to be used for interception but rather ordered to be used solely in a recon/ground attack role and to avoid aircombat whenever possible.

The fact is the vast majority of the USAFFE fighters pilots in the PI were half trained "casual" pilots straight out of flight school that were expected to get their advanced fighter training with their assigned front line units. The problem was that war started before much of this training could be done. The 58 EXP of your pilots is not very good in game terms, but probably, if anything is somewhat overstated from the historic reality.

IF you are interested some good books on the subject are

1)"They Fought with What They Had" Walther Edmunds

2)"A Bloody Shambles" Vol I & II Christorper Shores

3)"Doomed at the Start" Bartch

Regards

[ADavidB]

Bottom line- numbers and superior supply ensure an historical outcome already. Why underrate allied pilots and planes?

It's all about "play balance" - that magic phrase that some of the folks involved in the game design and support whisper once in a while. They want to allow a Japanese player to play the campaign game and have a reasonable chance at achieving something like the historical results. They also want to allow the Japanese player a chance to win the game.

Should it be this way? I tend to believe that it shouldn't, and that the game should be designed to allow good players to "beat history" rather than to cripple one side. But Gary Grigsby has always designed his Pacific war games this way, and we have to learn to play around the non-historical design decisions.

Dave Baranyi