Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

They're both AFVs. They both served in the same theater. They engaged each other on the battlefield. Circumstances invite comparison, even if you consider that the Tiger was a heavy and the Sherman a medium.

We all can compare whatever we want/like but whether such comparison is valuable and fact based is something completely different matter.

Do you really think that Sherman is superior to Tiger?


If you think that is true I will offer the following hypothetical scenario for you:


Imagine one guy with rifle (i.e. this is Tiger).

Imagine 10 other guys armed with pistols (i.e. they represent 10 Shermans) against guy from above.

Who would win?

Who is better?


Of course we all know that rifle is superior to pistol but there would be circumstances where pistol would be better. Same thing was with Tiger vs. Sherman. Tiger was better but this does not mean that Sherman was not able to kill it...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

In part that may mean that US carrier pilots were slightly better than US Marine pilots, or it may mean that other circumstances (like better facilities on a CV than at Lunga, or the absence of any US early warning system at Lunga for the first several weeks of the campaign) adversely affected the VMF pilots.

The VF and VMF pilots at Lunga fought under a series of advantages greater than the VF's on the carriers did.

I think he was saying the Marines at Henderson did not have the advantages of Navy pilots on CVs, and therefore different operating circumstances.

B

[treespider]

Much of early war Japanese success that has been attributed to "better pilots" is, IMO, and this is just a working idea, more correctly attributed to Japanese numerical superiority in SE Asia, the Java-Borneo area, and the Philippines, as well as better strategic positioning (with Japan at the approximate geographic center of its operations and the Allies having to move reinforcements and supplies along the perimiter of the combat theater). Under the circumstances (more preparation for war, numerical superiority, interior lines, and fighting logistically isolated Allied positions) one would expect the Japanese to get better results, even without such outstanding tactical successes as the surprise attack on PH and the ground-elimination of USAAFFE at Clark Field.

Part of the initial Japanese success can also be attributed to tactics, never before encountered by the west...

"...,the hineri-komi or "twisting-in" maneuver, first developed at yokosuka Kokutai during 1934, proved to be a formidable combat tool. This "corckscrew" loop maneuver allowed a pursuer to cut down his turning radius and quickly achieve an attacking position above and behind an opponent who executed a standard loop. used often during the China War and to some extent during the early pacific War, it was this maneuver, even more than the inherent maneuverabilty of the fighters they flew, that established the IJN fighter pilot as a remarkable dogfighter. While other maneuvers in their air combat repertoire, such as the snap roll, Immelman turn and split-S were shared with fighter pilots of all nations, the hineri-komi was unique to the japanese fighter pilots of this period."


Hence justification for the "Zero-bonus" rule...


Some more from the same source....

", When the pacific War began, the IJN fighter pilot has greatly improved his skills in take coordinated action, particularly at the shotai and chutai levels. This enhanced ability to coordinate action within larger formations, however, was possible only because the units involved were manned by highly experienced pilots who constantly drilled together as a team. as the pacific War progressed and attrition took a steady toll of veteran pilots, the ability to coordinate combat action deterioated. Suffering from a lack of radar directed interception and effective short wave radios in their fighters, Japanese pilots were never able to achieve the level of coordination that their opponents brought to bear on them."


What these two quotes tell me ....tactics, training and teamwork matter much more than the actual weapon system.
If the Japanese had effective radar and radio communications would they have faired as poorly? Most likely Midway would have had a different outcome, as well as several other Japanese disasters IMO. Now how to model that in the game...

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Much of early war Japanese success that has been attributed to "better pilots" is, IMO, and this is just a working idea, more correctly attributed to Japanese numerical superiority in SE Asia, the Java-Borneo area, and the Philippines, as well as better strategic positioning (with Japan at the approximate geographic center of its operations and the Allies having to move reinforcements and supplies along the perimiter of the combat theater). Under the circumstances (more preparation for war, numerical superiority, interior lines, and fighting logistically isolated Allied positions) one would expect the Japanese to get better results, even without such outstanding tactical successes as the surprise attack on PH and the ground-elimination of USAAFFE at Clark Field.

Part of the initial Japanese success can also be attributed to tactics, never before encountered by the west...

"...,the hineri-komi or "twisting-in" maneuver, first developed at yokosuka Kokutai during 1934, proved to be a formidable combat tool. This "corckscrew" loop maneuver allowed a pursuer to cut down his turning radius and quickly achieve an attacking position above and behind an opponent who executed a standard loop. used often during the China War and to some extent during the early pacific War, it was this maneuver, even more than the inherent maneuverabilty of the fighters they flew, that established the IJN fighter pilot as a remarkable dogfighter. While other maneuvers in their air combat repertoire, such as the snap roll, Immelman turn and split-S were shared with fighter pilots of all nations, the hineri-komi was unique to the japanese fighter pilots of this period."


Hence justification for the "Zero-bonus" rule...

A zero can't even begin to roll with a P-40 or F4F especially at airspeeds over 200mph.
And that Zero Bonus rule produces ridiculously one sided combat results.
Read Erik Schillings link http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Shilling2.html
B

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Big B


I think he was saying the Marines at Henderson did not have the advantages of Navy pilots on CVs, and therefore different operating circumstances.

B

I'm not sure what advantages that would be but it doesnt' really matter to me to be honest. Diehl doesn't even play WitP and i've heard all his bunk before. He's only hear to start the same old arguments all over again. I only entered this thread to ask Brady a honest question since he seems to feel there was a great injustice done to the Japanese side in regards to the gun values (and i dont mean that sarcastically) This theoretical discussion on the 50cal and cannon is interesting but one that, based on what i've seen in the game doesnt' really have the great connontations that Brady feared...at least not yet. High gun value planes on both sides will kill with virtual equal potency up to a certain DUR level. Still fiddling with it but messing with the A2A values is a tricky business because everything's interconnected.

[mdiehl]

@Leo -

Do you really think the Sherman is superior to the Tiger.

I really think that word's like "superior" require a lot of fleshing out. Also, words like "Sherman." An M4 with a 75? Heck no. That's why I think you have to consider the 76 armed Sherman. "Superior?" Well, the Sherman was more reliable, more mobile, had a higher rate of fire, and had (with the 76) a gun that could kill Tigers out to about 800m. The tiger had a better gun any day. Correcting for slope the two had comparable frontal armor. Soo... defined ONLY by the gun, one can say the Tiger can penetrate a Sherman at any range. Not so a Sherman (even a 76 armed one) going to a Tiger's front armor. But then, how many engagements in France occurred with clear unobstructed LOS to 900m? Where terrain varies and ranges are often short the 76 armed Sherman has the firepower to do the job, better mobility, and in many cases a gyroed gun. The defender is still going to "win" a little more often because the defender, being not moving and often concealed, is not revealed to the attacker and the defender will get the first shot... usually.

Nik says:

If one is going chatise other people for not either backing up an argument with data, or using correct data, then one should ensure that their own 'data' is correct.

And mine is.

My source is Lundstrom.

Then perhaps you should have mentioned that rather than (Richard) Frank. I can only hold you accountable to the sources you cite. [;)]

You recall incorrectly.

Maybe so but not by much. I posted the detailed analysis here, twice, and at the time YOU, agreed, and IIRC a guy named Tristanjohn (who did not particularly believe me at the time) redid the analysis and came up with the same numbers.

Frank does not go into the same level of detail breakdown as Lundstrom, however it is Frank's analysis of the vital factors that led the battle going the way it did that are important.

OK. So the facts aren't as important as the interpretations? Let's throw in some vital factors. Much of the Japanese favorable overall fighter loss ratio in the LUNGA campaign stems from a late August combat in which the coastwatcher system failed and the radar was not yet operational. Tactical surprise occurred Aka "the bounce." If you eliminate that engagement because of "vital factors" that were not common in the later campaign, the VMF wildcats look better than the IJN Zekes. By October when the Japanese were using fighter SWEEPS to try to force unequal contests (Japanese numerical superiority) in situations where ONLY zeroes fought ONLY wildcats, the Japanese got trounced. Most of the Japanese minor successes occurred when Zekes shot down Wildcats that were engaging bombers. So as with ANY situation one can pick (I would say "cherry pick" when it comes to people who look solely at the adverse conditions that the Japanese faced) "vital factors" to suit their tastes.

Which is why I tend to work back to basic numbers. As to the rest. My numbers are correct. Asserting that they are "incorrect" doesn't make you correct. At the risk of sounding like Monty Python, I will add that's not a debate (an argument) it is just a contradiction. Considering the source (you) I'm not willing to accept a "correction." I'm right, you're not and never the twain shall meet I suppose.

The VF and VMF pilots at Lunga fought under a series of advantages greater than the VF's on the carriers did.

That is a meaningless statement. What is "greater than." Does having better radar on the carriers count? Does not having ANY radar for the first 18 days of the Lunga campaign AT LUNGA count? Does having little fuel and fewer spares at Lunga count? How about bad food, lack of sleep due to interruptions by things like IJA artillery, night combats, coastal TF bombardments and so forth?

[treespider]

A zero can't even begin to roll with a P-40 or F4F especially at airspeeds over 200mph.
And that Zero Bonus rule produces ridiculously one sided combat results.

B

I'm not disputing that...

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Nik says:


Then perhaps you should have mentioned that rather than (Richard) Frank. I can only hold you accountable to the sources you cite. [;)]

And i can hold you accountable for the sources you site, and the things you've claimed in their name in the past.

Maybe so but not by much. I posted the detailed analysis here, twice...

regardless....if you want to strip statistics...get it right.

OK. So the facts aren't as important as the interpretations? blah blah blah blah blah

Interpretation is very important which is why i laugh at your 'strip the statisics, the numbers speak for themselves' type argument. And your Frank 'interpretation' runs 100% contrary to what Frank himself concluded...and he's the one who did the research...not you.

Which is why I tend to work back to basic numbers. As to the rest. My numbers are correct.

Yes, except where they are not.

That is a meaningless statement. blah blah...duck and weave..blah blah

not meaningless. Quoted by Richard Frank.

[Big B]

From a neutral corner...

It's getting pretty hot in here, maybe we should turn up the air conditioning - and cool off.

B

[mdiehl]

@leo

Vis killing tanks....

From Fire and Movement (RAC Tank Museum 1975) the M1A2's penetration is 89mm@1000 yards (APCBC) 134mm@1000 yards (HVAP) vs homogeneous 30-degree sloped armor. That'd be staring down an 88 (whose penetration need not be listed as it can do for a Sherman at any range). For its defense the Tiger can boast 100mm of basically vertical front armor. Thus "all other things being equal" the HVAP armed M4 76mm Sherman (prior to 1945 would typically have 4-6 rounds of HVAP saved for special targets) will do for a Tiger at most effetive combat/visibility ranges on the western front. The APCBC shot will not, but US tankers tended to use that on ordinary AFVs (which were far more common anyhow). At 500m even the APCBC round will go 116mm.

So there it is. The business about shots "bouncing off" is all very nice and makes for great drama in a Telly Savalis movie but doesn't much capture the reality.

I think what makes it all very dramatic and memorable is that when a 88 hits a modestly armored vehicle, the target explodes. That'd leave a lasting impression on any US tanker of the day. When a 76mm hits a Tiger, it's KOd but in a much less dramatic fashion (unless you happen miraculously to hit the ammo box at short range).

[mdiehl]

That is a meaningless statement. blah blah...duck and weave..blah blah

[:D]

Why would anyone believe your claims about the contents of Richard Frank's or John Lundstrom's works when you can't even represent the things I say without fabricating text?

You are REVEALED Sir. The above is your "gold standard"... your "best effort" at reasoned discourse and it is a shameful effort at that.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl


Why would anyone believe your claims about the contents of Richard Frank's or John Lundstrom's works when you can't even represent the things I say without fabricating text?

They dont have too. Unlike you Diehl, I dont attempt to "dictate" to others what they should think and how. People are free to conclude or believe what they want. I have merely set the record straight on the approximate kill ratio that you were misquoting earlier. If they dont believe me, thats fine. Lundstrom's books are readily available, they too can go through them as i did and get the numbers, and the factors that influenced those numbers.

You are REVEALED Sir. The above is your "gold standard"... your "best effort" at reasoned discourse and it is a shameful effort at that.

Classic Diehl.....smoke, mirrors and continual attacks on the person arguing against, not the subject in question. All thats missing is the Axis Fanboy insult. For people interested in Frank's analysis of the critical factors that gave the US it's edge during the Lunga campaign, reference Chapter 24, page 612. These are Frank's own words, not mine, not Diehl's. Judge for youself.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Real life losses are definitely relevant. The game should be designed so that if all the factors (exp, numbers, supply, etc) are the same as the real war, the results would be the same as the real war. That way, when players change things from history, the results will be different than history.

Bradley has it right and states it well. Just bluntly comparing game results with RL results is flawed - only specific game results can be usefully compared with specific RL results that have similar circumstances.

[Bradley7735]

[quote]ORIGINAL: mlees

You quoted me directly, and I can only assume that your statement of "considering no other variables" was directed at me. But my statement alludes to the fact that there are variables other than blueprint qualities to be considered. Please don't confuse me so early in the AM...

[quote]

Sorry mlees,

I did not mean to reply to you directly. It took a while to type what I was thinking, and when I was done, I realized my comments shouldn't have been directed at your post. I was trying for more of a general statement.

bc

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Real life losses are definitely relevant. The game should be designed so that if all the factors (exp, numbers, supply, etc) are the same as the real war, the results would be the same as the real war. That way, when players change things from history, the results will be different than history.

Bradley has it right and states it well. Just bluntly comparing game results with RL results is flawed - only specific game results can be usefully compared with specific RL results that have similar circumstances.

It's not often that I actually get my point across in written form. Now you're going to make my ego swell.

[Feinder]

This has gotten downright amusing.

Much than even the morning funnies!



-F-

[DFalcon]

Nik,

I have been following with interest your efforts to tweek the air to air model in the game. I know you have played with durability and softened the speed difference.

This thread and your comments here made me wonder if you have ever played with air to air weapon ratings. It seems to me that a tweek downward in effect of all air to air weapons might be more effective than durability changes as it does not impact AA.

Appologies to teh side track for being on topic.

[Nikademus]

Yes, i have and continue to tinker. Versions 2.0 - 3.11 featured new (changed) air weapons for the A5M4, Ki-43 and Ki-27. The 3.0 Ki-43 can now actually hold it's own vs. a P-40 under certain conditions vs. the usual 30:1 ratio you see in the stock scenerio. Its an ongoing process. However more work is needed. While overall the changes i've made have produced good results there are still times, usually with large numbered air battles where you still see some head splitting results. Just had one with my game with Kaiser. 45 P40E's over two days shot down 45 aircraft, 20ish Ki-44's, 20ish K-21's. Part of the reason may have been due to defensive trigger which when tripped produces a uber defense and an escort that just sits there and takes it without firing back. The high gun value typified by the P40E (allied side ... 6 x 50cal) and the high exp level ensured that virtually every pulse of fire was a kill instead of a damage. Armor 1 or 0, makes little difference.

I'm close to a solution. I can produce results similar in number for the Allied side in a 4 on 4 carrier battle vs Zeros with the Axis version of a high gun value armament. However because everything is interconnected i cant just implement it because it causes the Japan side to suffer a huge kill ratio loss vs. the toughened Allied tactical bombers and fighters.

Currently testing an across the board change in gun armament value that combined with the changes i've already made, may provide an alternate solution to the uber number, uber losses exponential phenomenum that can impact the game. If it pans out it will be in 4.0 of my mod.

On a happier note...had a good encounter with B-24's facing 60 fighters. 6 bombers to 4 fighters downed over a two day period. Much better.

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

...

Currently testing an across the board change in gun armament value that combined with the changes i've already made, may provide an alternate solution to the uber number, uber losses exponential phenomenum that can impact the game.

This is the question that the thread promted for me. Would and across the board lowering of firepower help in dealing with this area of the game. I am interested to see how your test turns out. Good luck with it.

[Nikademus]

i'd been thinking of an across the board reduction of a critical variable for some time but had hesitated because i dont want to make the fighter vs fighter combat better at the cost of making the bombers 'too' tough. That interconnected issue again. I'll need to do alot more testing before i'm ready to try the new mod version. So far....the results i'm getting are encouraging.