Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP

[the potemkin]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
...
By 1943 the kill ratio across the board should be on the order of 2:1. By mid 1943 about 3:1 favoring the Allies. By 1944, 10:1. By 1945, 20:1.

1. Those kill ratios are based on "confirmed" kills from allied sources
2. That was against all types of planes, not just fighters
3. Late in the war the primary target for most japanese fighters was the allied bombers, not other fighters

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: the potemkin

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
...
By 1943 the kill ratio across the board should be on the order of 2:1. By mid 1943 about 3:1 favoring the Allies. By 1944, 10:1. By 1945, 20:1.

1. Those kill ratios are based on "confirmed" kills from allied sources
2. That was against all types of planes, not just fighters
3. Late in the war the primary target for most japanese fighters was the allied bombers, not other fighters

In addition, when looking at kill ratios achieved in the game you must account for pilot experience and other factors before comparing the ratios to those achieved IRL. Individual players can be better or worse at managing those factors.

[mdiehl]

1. Those kill ratios are based on "confirmed" kills from allied sources.
2. That was against all types of planes, not just fighters

Not entirely. The kill ratios for 1942 are from unit loss records from IJN, USN, and USMC operational logs, not pilot claims or pilot "confirmed kills" based on AAR assessment. Also, for 1942, that is a count ONLY of F4Fs lost when fighting A6Ms and ONLY of A6Ms lost when fighting F4Fs.

When you include "all aircraft" the Allied success rate in 1942 based on kills recorded by units in their unit logs (not pilot claims or AAR assessments) is about 3:1 favoring the Allies.

The late war estimates are based on claims from both sides. Here I used a correction factor of 1/3 of Allied "confirmed kills" are actual kills and 1/5 of Japanese "confirmed kills" are actual kills. IMO this is conservative and favorable for the Japanese because their typical late war "confirmed kill" assessment is off usually overstated by an order of magnitude. Some day when I can get good sources with the unit loss records well recorded I'll offer up a better tally.

3. Late in the war the primary target for most japanese fighters was the allied bombers, not other fighters.

That's not correct. Or rather, it depends on what you mean by "late war." Most of the Saipan battle involved US fighters vs Japanese fighters and bombers. Some fraction of that obviously includes fighters vs fighters. The late war will be quite vexing to sort out because of the need to balance unit losses with eyewitness accounts in air to air combat. For example Japanese units on K missions will obviously have high loss rates due to flak, interceptors, and failed suicide attacks, and sorting them out will be a beeach.

But, for 1941-1942, the cas ratios for F4Fs vs A6Ms facing each other in A2A is about 1.2:1 for USN vs IJN, 1:1 for USN+USMC (VMF) vs IJN. About 0.9:1 when only the VMF are considered.

[mdiehl]

In addition, when looking at kill ratios achieved in the game you must account for pilot experience and other factors before comparing the ratios to those achieved IRL. Individual players can be better or worse at managing those factors.

True. I am assuming roughly comparable levels of game skill at managing the game mechanics. Had I written the code much of that would have been abstracted out. The "pilot experience" ratings are I think a useless detail because they aren't scaled to anything real. They're arbitrary and flawed. About all they are good for is downgrading the Japanese overall performance in the late war. But even that could have been handled with a less complex game mechanic.

[mlees]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

In addition, when looking at kill ratios achieved in the game you must account for pilot experience and other factors before comparing the ratios to those achieved IRL. Individual players can be better or worse at managing those factors.

True. I am assuming roughly comparable levels of game skill at managing the game mechanics. Had I written the code much of that would have been abstracted out. The "pilot experience" ratings are I think a useless detail because they aren't scaled to anything real. They're arbitrary and flawed. About all they are good for is downgrading the Japanese overall performance in the late war. But even that could have been handled with a less complex game mechanic.

The development of new air to air tactics versus what the enemy has been observed to be using/doing tends to favor the Allies somewhat as well. The individual airgroup commanders on the Allied side actively searched out "what works" as a general rule. (There were martinets, true, but if they did not get results, they got rotated out...) The squadron and airgroup commanders were left with plenty of latitude to train their pilots and plan missions as they saw fit, as long as the results justified the means. "Boom and zoom" was developed by the Allies, and never effectively countered by Japanese air doctrine.

The Japanese are seen as being much more rigid in their doctrine, and their commanders had less latitude in deviating from planning than their Allied counterparts. Their pilots were kept in the front lines much longer than their Allied counterparts, leading to a downward spiral in their life expectancy rate. This stereotype is exagerrated in some literature, but there is still a kernal of truth to it.

These factors are not modeled in game, but they do contribute to the skewing of the air losses (in favor of the Allies) later in the war.

[Oznoyng]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
But, for 1941-1942, the cas ratios for F4Fs vs A6Ms facing each other in A2A is about 1.2:1 for USN vs IJN, 1:1 for USN+USMC (VMF) vs IJN. About 0.9:1 when only the VMF are considered.

What is your source for this infornmation? I understand operational logs are giving you the numbers, but where are the operational logs coming from?

[mdiehl]

My source is primarily John Lundstrom's two first team volumes for the F4F vs A6M stats specifically. Lundstrom and Richard Frank (for his work Guadalcanal) had a set of translated Japanese unit records and pilots' post combat briefings (thus it was possible in many instances for Lundstrom to match up an American's pilot downed with a Japanese pilot that did the shooting and vice versa).

I thrashed this out with lots of people a long, long time ago. I even had reference page numbers at one point. In the end convinced a few and decided that there was no arguing with some. Anywho, check them out for yourself. Lundstrom The First Team and The First Team at Guadalcanal and Richard Frank's Guadalcanal (for a longer term summary but fewer details).

Lundstrom attributed USN superiority from the get go to moire intensive training at deflection shooting IIRC.

Now to sit back and watch the usual suspects start fragging the data.... [;)]

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

My source is primarily John Lundstrom's two first team volumes for the F4F vs A6M stats specifically. Lundstrom and Richard Frank (for his work Guadalcanal) had a set of translated Japanese unit records and pilots' post combat briefings (thus it was possible in many instances for Lundstrom to match up an American's pilot downed with a Japanese pilot that did the shooting and vice versa).

I thrashed this out with lots of people a long, long time ago. I even had reference page numbers at one point. In the end convinced a few and decided that there was no arguing with some. Anywho, check them out for yourself. Lundstrom The First Team and The First Team at Guadalcanal and Richard Frank's Guadalcanal (for a longer term summary but fewer details).

Lundstrom attributed USN superiority from the get go to moire intensive training at deflection shooting IIRC.

Now to sit back and watch the usual suspects start fragging the data.... [;)]

I read "THE FIRST TEAM" some years ago...an excellent book. It is certainly at odds with the evaluation of Japanese Navy vs US Navy pilots in WitP.

I don't know what Grigsby and company got for data - to rate IJN pilots so far above USN pilots for 41-42...especially the air groups of Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu and Soryu - ALL 90s in quality. The Shokaku and Zuikaku airgroups fought several carrier duels in 42 and consequently left a paper trail to judge their quality by, the other four CVs dissapeared in their only carrier duel (largely without fighting US CVs) - leaving no historical record to prove their relative quality in the "Big Arena" so to say, yet they are rated way above all others...beats me how you could prove THAT.

But I'm getting off the point - we are addressing gun power in this thread, not pilot ratings, sorry.

B

[Brady]

mdiehl-

"There is no reason any 20mm should be rated as "more lethal" than a .50BMG."

This comment alone should make me just LOL histaricaly to the point that I just stop right hear and walk away espichaly since little if anyhting will ever come of this.

"All 20mm were underpowered against armored targets,"

This is compleat BS, Hispanons were all apont AP and far more efecitve than a .50 cal inthis regard, do you read any of the links and referances I post?

Ya know what F.... it, I can see what I am up aganst and have been for a long time and Nothing is ever going to change the entrenched stupidity and ethcentricity that is rampent amonst some folks. Beelave what you want pry to yuor god and live in peace.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Brady


mdiehl-

"There is no reason any 20mm should be rated as "more lethal" than a .50BMG."

This comment alone should make me just LOL histaricaly to the point that I just stop right hear and walk away espichaly since little if anyhting will ever come of this.

"All 20mm were underpowered against armored targets,"

This is compleat BS, Hispanons were all apont AP and far more efecitve than a .50 cal inthis regard, do you read any of the links and referances I post?

Ya know what F.... it, I can see what I am up aganst and have been for a long time and Nothing is ever going to change the entrenched stupidity and ethcentricity that is rampent amonst some folks. Beelave what you want pry to yuor god and live in peace.

Brady you´re one of the few Americans that doesn´t see EVERYTHING from the American way of sight! I appreciate you for that. I´ve accepted it that games made in USA are a "bit" in favour of the ratings of American weapons and American troops. I don´t say that´s by intention but that´s just how it is. No matter how good Axis weapons or pilots were, the American ones just have to be better. If a Japanese pilot with 99 exp. in a corsair would be shot down by an American pilot with exp. 60 in a Zero then many people here would explain it to you because that was of the better American tactics even though it was a fight one vs one....

Living in OLD EUROPE (that´s a term only an American president can come up with) people here are always confrontated by the American thought that all and everything in America was and is the best. I´m sure that´s not the way every American thinks but isn´t that the opinion of the majority? Most people here think that in the US there has to be a process started to change the way of common thinking. No matter if it´s about the change in climate (Kyoto), terrorism, or rogue states (it´s called "Schurkenstaaten" here, no clue what you call it in English[:)]),...

No offense so I hope people don´t get me wrong. I´ve got no problem with the US or the people over there! I´ve been there for holiday, I use American products and watch American films (okay, the films would be another thread about the way of sight [:D]) So I´m not an anti America extremist. NOT AT ALL! But it seems to me that "American" and "overrated" just goes hand in hand.

Okay, now you all can beat me up! [:D]

[ChezDaJez]

Okay, now you all can beat me up!

A lot of what you say is true so I won't throw any punches. There are some Americans who come across as being very arrogant and can't understand why there are people across the world that don't want to live the American way. They can't comprehend that some people don't want the luxuries and fast food that we have available at our finger tips.

I saw it on many occasions during my travels overseas with the Navy. Sailors would enter a bar, get drunk and take over the place, bad mouthing anything and everything about it. I lived in Rota, Spain for over 3 years and when the fleet came in, especially if it was the gator navy, I stayed in my house because I knew it was going to get pretty rowdy in town for the next few days. I was also stationed with a guy whose attitude was that Spain would be a great place to be stationed if it weren't for all the foreigners. He was referring to the local populace.

So yeah, I know what you are talking about. But I will say, these Americans who do that are a small, very vocal minority. People never remember the quiet visitors, only the loud, obnoxious ones. I think the vast majority of Americans appreciate what they have and feel no need to boast about it or belittle another country's people for not believing the same as they do.

Chez

[BlackVoid]

Well, what do you expect?

I remember in another thread (maybe Combat Mission thread?), mdiehl argued that Sherman tank is better than Tiger. In his book, anything from the US is superior to anything else. [:-]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

Well, what do you expect?

I remember in another thread (maybe Combat Mission thread?), mdiehl argued that Sherman tank is better than Tiger. In his book, anything from the US is superior to anything else. [:-]

Was that ment seriously by him? [X(][:D]

[BlackVoid]

Unfortunately, in this age of information, you can find sources as proof for just about anything and for the opposite as well.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

Well, what do you expect?

I remember in another thread (maybe Combat Mission thread?), mdiehl argued that Sherman tank is better than Tiger. In his book, anything from the US is superior to anything else. [:-]

Was that ment seriously by him? [X(][:D]

I haven't seen the thread, but i'm guessing it was along the lines of "A Sherman that runs is better than a Tiger that is broken down and out of gas..." (reliability and fuel consumption being the big weaknesses of the Tiger).

[Speedysteve]

It was an interesting thread for sure [;)]

[Speedysteve]

I think also the traverse rate of the turret was used as an argument too [;)]

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

I think also the traverse rate of the turret was used as an argument too [;)]

Yeah, an important factor in battles at 800 meters...[8|][:'(][:D]

[Speedysteve]

My take:

"Sir, we've hit that thing 3 times and every shot has bounced off. It's gun is almost in line with us for a shot. What should we do?" BOOM......

(P.S. before this goes onto that topic in depth and it's various quagmires this is meant purely in jest [;)])

[BlackVoid]

I do not want to hijack the thread.

Real life losses comparison is meaningless for this, because in the game encounters can be totally different. Whereas in real life US forces had the numerical advantage most of the time, a clever human player as Japan will not allow this and will concentrate forces.