F-16 Zero's...

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Yea.., if we could only get Gary to read another book or two. Seriously, just how much worthwhile experiance can one gain beating on the Chinese Air Force? They weren't that good, and the planes they were flying were obsolete cast-offs. The Japanese Army thought the Banzaii charge was a worthwhile tactic because it worked against the Chinese.
An "experiance gain" that cost them numerous useless casualties until they realized that a Banzaii Charge which worked against poorly armed and trained Chinese troops was a disaster against Allied Firepower.

So how much real value does "experiance" against the Chinese have. Well, it does "blood" the pilots---and shooting Chinese "clay pigeons" out of the sky is good for morale. Might even improve the "shooting eye" a bit if the victims tried to manuever.
But how much? Maybe to the 70's, but the Chinese are mostly 40's so they can't really provide much opposition to "hone skills on". The Japanese are over-rated.

Allied pilots in general "played into the hands" of the Japanese in there first combats,
mostly because they under-rated them and their aircraft. They would try to 'dogfight"
the more manueverable Japanese fighters and generally get the short end. But the
AVG under Chennault wasn't trained that way. They were trained to "zoom and boom" from the beginning---a tactic the Japanese aircraft and pilots were as untrained and unable to deal with as the rest of the Allies were unready to deal with Japanese manueverability. So why doesn't the AVG get a "bonus"? Lots of questions that still need answers. We gotta get Gary another couple of books.....

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

But the
AVG under Chennault wasn't trained that way. They were trained to "zoom and boom" from the beginning---a tactic the Japanese aircraft and pilots were as untrained and unable to deal with as the rest of the Allies were unready to deal with Japanese manueverability. So why doesn't the AVG get a "bonus"? Lots of questions that still need answers. We gotta get Gary another couple of books.....

I'm not sure what is your point here. AVG doesn't get manuevarability bonus, but they have "indirect" bonus - experience and they are not under "early Japan air manuevarability bonus.

So, outcome of air AVG vs IJN or IJA battle is something completly different. AVG is really dangerous for japanese player. Just look in the AARs. They often kick off elite *ss flying in Zeros.[:D]

As for original question: Is it PBeM or just against AI?

[Lord_Calidor]

There's just one small issue:
I'm wondering how many players will cry foul when a PBEM gets into late '43/44 and IJNAF/IJAAF gets the same thrashing (if not worse) that Allies are getting in '41/42, and when they realize Kamikazes are next to useless.
Will they constrain themsleves, or just keep kicking that near-dead horse with multiple Death Stars and swarms of heavies...?

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

They were trained to "zoom and boom" from the beginning---a tactic the Japanese aircraft and pilots were as untrained and unable to deal with as the rest of the Allies were unready to deal with Japanese manueverability.

Japanese pilots were trained in BnZ.

[Marten]

just for fun: imagine -one day- +10 "what the hell is it?" bonus given to british Defiant that were facing luftwaffe. [;)]

[Lord_Calidor]

ORIGINAL: Marten

just for fun: imagine -one day- +10 "what the hell is it?" bonus given to british Defiant that were facing luftwaffe. [;)]

With Sisko in command, Kira at tactical, and O'Brien at coffeemachine. [:D]

[Marten]

errr... the other Defiant [:D]

[testarossa]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
So why doesn't the AVG get a "bonus"?

Zero bonus doesn't apply to AVG. Fixed in 1.3 or 1.4.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
Japanese pilots were trained in BnZ.

It was no only about ZnB, allied pilots used a lot an escape diving, because early Jap fighters couldn't sustain high diving speeds due to the weak airframe. I can't give exact name of the book, it covers every single aircraft produced by Japan with trial results and production numbers etc. (something like “Jap aircrafts of WW2), but first Zero model which was able safely exceed 600 km/h in the dive was A6M5. A6M2 was experiencing extreme shuttering and skin separation during high-speed dives. In A6M3 they tried to fix some of these problems, but still not enough to make a difference. A6M3a was a model produced due to the complaints of the front line units about reduced range. This one had a lighter airframe again and lower safe diving speed.

Japs used a lot a tactical advantage of the higher altitude, but high diving speeds gave P40B a chance, which was generally a mediocre aircraft. P40E was a vast improvement over P40B, and that was a workhorse for Allies for the next 2 years.

In the same book there was in interesting observation, that young pilots, who didn't have previous experience on Ki-43, performed much better on Ki-61 than veterans.

[Nikademus]

True.

Problem that tends to come up whenever this subject rears it's ugly head is a two fold generalization:

1. BnZ is presented as a kind of all purpose solution that can be implemented in all situations, works every time, has no counter, and has no disadvantages. Chris Shores was the first author i read who specifically wrote about this.

2. Japanese planes of which the 1st generation were not ideal divers are described as being unable to bounce or dive at all. (huh??) Japanese pilots are labeled as tail chasing dogfighters which they were most certainly not. I find it hilarious that Lundstrom, one of the most quoted sources on this forum, devoted many pages to disbuse readers of this myth yet it ends up getting lost and/or ignored over and over again. Usually i dont even bother responding to threads like this much anymore [;)]

[pad152]

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

Playing against the AI the game always ends (game over) at the end of 1943? Do you want the game to end in 1942?

This is one of the problems with a grand tactical game, if Witp was just a stratgy game it would be about 95% correct. Trying to do a game that works both at a tactical and stratgy level, then being true to history is impossible.

Then there is history, the history books are always written by the winners, if allied pilots were half as good as in the history books the real war would have ended in 1943 too. The truth is the allies had more and more and the axis has less and less.

The reported US Army kills in Vietnam exceeded the population of North Vietnam. This is one of the reasons the US military no longer posts enemy kills in war.

[mogami]

Hi, Read the USN report following the battle of Coral Sea in May 1942. The USN still did not know what a A6M2 was. They reported after the battle that they had encountered ME-109's

[rtrapasso]

The reported US Army kills in Vietnam exceeded the population of North Vietnam. This is one of the reasons the US military no longer posts enemy kills in war.

Commonly quoted fallacy made up by some wag but now widely quoted as true. The enemy heaviest casualties reported in Vietnam were about 5000/week, and the population of N. Vietnam (let alone the South, where the Viet Cong came from) was >20,000,000. Which meant that the war would have to have gone on for more than 4000 weeks of US involvement to have wiped out the population (i.e. - around 80 years). Of course, the Vietnamese would not have been allowed to breed during that period.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

True.

Problem that tends to come up whenever this subject rears it's ugly head is a two fold generalization:

1. BnZ is presented as a kind of all purpose solution that can be implemented in all situations, works every time, has no counter, and has no disadvantages. Chris Shores was the first author i read who specifically wrote about this.

Not Really, Nik. BandZ works well for interception, but not so much for escort. The ability to "dogfight" was better in that regard. The problem with dogfighting is that the other side has to be willing to play the same game. BandZ will work even if the other side doesn't want to, if you have a speed and altitude advantage. And altitude will give you speed in a dive. Even a P-39 could be a Zero-killer on a single pass from above. When the Allies realized this, the Japanese had to start re-designing their aircraft, giving up manueverability and range for strengthened airframes and armor and more powerful engines. But they couldn't really catch up. When they finally had the aircraft designs to compete, they were out of pilots and resources and industry.

[Nikademus]

You are confusing a suprise bounce with BnZ. BnZ does not automatically work in of itself. All BnZ can help ensure, assuming it is not negated by position or damage, is escape. Altitude advantage is always the most important factor and one that all sides attempted to exploit and utilize. The Japanese often were reluctant to surrender altitude advantage while fighting over Lunga.

[Kadrin]

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT


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.

Look, stating opinions and oft repeated assertions as conventional wisdom does not make a fact. As far as "casually trained pilots" and "the AVG didn't really achieve their combat kills credited" - I won't even dignify that with a reply.

I invited anyone to site historical data to quantify Japanese pilot superiority, all I get are anecdotes and opinion. Evidently, no one is able to come up with hard figures to back up the view that the Japanese early in the war were vastly better pilots. And as one gentleman posted, how does beating up on the Chinese air force hone fighting skills? - The entire idea is absurd on it's face. No one ever claimed that the Italians honed their fighting skills fighting the Ethiopians - and the comparison is just as valid. Now the British DID hone their skills on the world's best Air Force at the time - but I guess that isn't as valuable as fighting the Chinese in Russian cast off equipment. What ever.

For the last time - Where is the documented aerial combat - where Japanese forces were outnumbered by at least 2 to 1, and they annihilated the allied air opposition? And furthermore, since anyone can have a bad day, show me an oft repeated series of such encounters - it shouldn't be difficult if it happened. I don't want to hear another authors' opinion, I don't care what an author thinks of it all. I just want to see hard figures, and if such figures don't exist in convincing numbers then how can anyone tell the difference between fighting skill and just plain superior numbers?

If it's just all about play balance, then that is an awful way to attempt it.

http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Shilling2.html

[testarossa]

Jap pilots were small yellow people, probably of the inferior and undeveloped race. They were eating rice and fish, sometimes drinking awful booze called sake, and were wearing funny clothes and even swords!!!. They were flying outdated copies of allied airplanes and couldn't invent anything themselves. More to that, they didn't know mightily powerful zoom and boom tactic (allied war secret) and were always resorting to pitiful dog fighting.

To make thing even worse for them they were vastly outnumbered by elite air force flying best aircrafts in the world - P40B. It is considered a mystery that Japan conquered Philippines, Malaya, DEI, and good part of Pacific. How they managed to hold on for other 4 years only masters of the force can answer. Although there were some rumors (mean-spirited i presume), that British couldn’t fly their aircrafts without a cup of good old tea, and US Navy suffered from shortages of coffee (as we all know without it any puny American loses his mojo and can't fight).

I hope this explains a bit why WitP is such a poor simulator of historic events during WW2 in pacific.

[Lord_Calidor]

Can anyone explain boom and zoom tactics, and it's usefullness in prolonged air combat, please? I'm no expert in air tactics, and maybe that's the reason it seems to me that BnZ is sort of a "one off" try to shoot something - they would come at high speed, attempt head-on or slashing attack, then trade altitude for speed to escape. That puts them at tactical disadvantage, being much lower than opposing planes, and incapable of quick recovering and returning to combat. That seems to work only of one who employs BnZ also has numerical superiority.
Have I missed something or is that it...? [&:]

[Tom Hunter]

I am taking a crack at Lord_Calidors question about Boom and Zoom.

First off think about two contrasting tactics, Boom and Zoom and Tail Chasing.

Tail chasing is classic dogfighting where pilots are trying to follow eachothers planes in order to get off a shot at the enemy. Highly manueverable planes with good pilots will do well at tail chasing. A key feature of tail chasing: if you miss a shot while tail chasing you still try to stay on your opponents tail to line up another shot.

Boom and Zoom you try to approach your target and get off a shot, that is the boom. But if you miss, or even if you hit but don't see the other guy fall out of the sky, you leave. You don't stay around trying to line up on your opponents tail for another shot. The Zoom part does not necissarily mean you dive away, you might climb, you might fly into a cloud or run away on the level. The one thing you do not do is turn back to get on your opponents tail.

Of course there is more to it than this, but these are the basics.

[Toast]

Kadrin, we all feel your pain. The Zero bonus has been discussed and dismissed ad infinitum on this forum. It is one of the signatures in Gary Grisby's Pacific War games. I think the justification for this (and don't flame me here, I am not saying I agree with this at all) is that Allied pilot's did not understand the capabilites of the Zero and tried to engage them like any other aircraft when the Zero was unmatched in manueverability and could not be defeated by normal tactics. Only when different tactics were in common use by Allied fighters were the Zero's weakness and vulnerabilities brought to light. It also is supposed to represent the psychological impact of facing the Zero's Allied pilots had after the first few months of the war. I am not saying I agree with any of this but that is why it is in the game. It is hard coded into the game and won't change.

As far as Japanese pilots' eperience ratings go, I don't remember reading any discussions or threads about this subject. There have been several about the training programs and how many skilled pilots should be available. But I have not been on the forums as long as others here so they might remember a different discussion. The experience can be adjusted through the editor and if you are really disastisfied with that, then I suggested starting a mod to play.

As far as historical references, since with each turn you verge further and further away from historical reality it is really a matter of opinion whether a result is "historically accruate" or not. Everyone here is entitled to their own opinion and we all have them. SOme of us two or three. [:D]

I personally don't get bent out of shape by the results of one particular battle. There are so many variables and so many "die rolls" involved in resloving each battle that bad luck can give you very skewed results. That is just the nature of the game engine and as a digital commander, you have to know that things will go wrong in battle, sometimes horribly so.

[CapAndGown]

ORIGINAL: Lord_Calidor

Can anyone explain boom and zoom tactics, and it's usefullness in prolonged air combat, please? I'm no expert in air tactics, and maybe that's the reason it seems to me that BnZ is sort of a "one off" try to shoot something - they would come at high speed, attempt head-on or slashing attack, then trade altitude for speed to escape. That puts them at tactical disadvantage, being much lower than opposing planes, and incapable of quick recovering and returning to combat. That seems to work only of one who employs BnZ also has numerical superiority.
Have I missed something or is that it...? [&:]

The other plane has to be able to dive as quick as or quicker than you to put you at at disadvantage. This was why P-40s used BnZ, the Zero could not dive as fast.

Basically, in BnZ you try to get an initial altitude advantage. (This happens in the game, BTW) You then dive through the enemy formation hitting what you can. If you clear the enemy formation without being chased, you go back up and do it again. Otherwise, everybody ends up on the deck. A lot of dogfights in the Solomons apparently would start way up around 20,000 feet but quickly drop down almost to sea level as pilots on both side traded altitude for speed. (See Beauregaurd, Fire in the Sky)