Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP

[ChezDaJez]

What these two quotes tell me ....tactics, training and teamwork matter much more than the actual weapon system.

You've hit the nail on the head, Treespider.

If you want to find out which plane is better in air-air combat, then you have to compare them one-on-one with similarly trained and experienced pilots (Identical twins would be great!) and run them through a series of test such as starting head-to-head, side-by-side, one behind the other, etc... Under these conditions, I would think the Zero would have the advantage against a Wildcat but that's just MHO.

But when its 4-on-4 or any other similar odds, then its tactics, communications and teamwork that spell the difference, assuming that the aircraft are relatively similar in overall performance. This is where the US nullified the advantages of the Zero. If the Zero had an effective radio system, I think they would have been able to reduce their losses and maybe increase Allied losses. Radios saved the lives of many an Allied pilot.

Just my .02 cents.

Chez

[ChezDaJez]

But I would really like to know (and might I add - innocentently) JUST HOW IN BE-JUSES are the Kaga Akagi Soryu and Hiryu airgroups rated at 90, as opposed to Shokaku and everyone elses rated at 80 and lower? -
I really am at a loss to understand how that is justified. And YES I think that has a huge impact on the game.

The average Japanese pilot had a great deal more flight time at the beginning of the war and many had combat experience in China. At Pearl Harbor the average Japanese pilot had 600-800 flight hours with nearly all flight leaders having more than 2000 hours. The Japanese also tended to keep their pilots together in a unit rather than rotate them around as was American practise so their coordination was excellent. Shokaku is rated lower as she was brand new, commisioned in Aug 1941 and Zuikaku was even newer, commisioned in October 1941.

The average American carrier pilot had less than 300 hours at the time. It could be argued that American experience may actually be a little too high but I wouldn't have a clue what a representative number would be. However there are plenty of examples of inexperienced American pilots being added to US airwings en masse early in the war. If you read some of the unit histories, you get an idea of just how new to the fleet many were. One example would be VT-8 at Midway. When George Gay flew off Hornet with the rest of his squadron, it was the first time he had every flown from a ship with a torpedo loaded. Four other pilots were the same way. Yorktown had to replace a third of her pilots who were killed or wounded at Coral Sea. Also consider that the Lexington was still flying F2Fs at the start of the war. Their experience in the Wildcat was nil.

Side note: Almost Every post deals with th Scen 15/16 1941 - 1943 campaigns in progress, because that seems to deal wit the period in the war that everyones' most interested in.

I don't about "most interested" but that's where nearly all the scenarios start and I think most players want to experience the entire campaign. Playing only a late war scenario certainly wouldn't be much fun for the Japanese!

I think WE would ALL have more enjoyment if the early allies weren't so hopeless in competing with the the Japanese on an individual scale.

Sure, but then it wouldn't be based on historical reality which is where, IMHO, scenarios should start.

Conversely, if the Japanese had the possability of doing well early - AND maintaing their supply lines so they could have somewhat decent pilots later (because they never had a resource shortage, and therefore could train pilots properly) - a lot more of us might be interested in playing the later war scenarios as well.

Now that I completely agree with.

Chez

[Speedysteve]

Woah. I spend the evening with a mate in the pub, wake up, get to work and I find this!

Mdiehl is back! Where's TJ when you need him? [:D]

Steven

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

ORIGINAL: mlees

And comparing PzVIE to Sherman is, well, ridiculous... we did it several times in WitP forum history and you were the only man who wanted us all to acknowledge something that is historically wrong (it's like comparing apples and oranges)...

Correct, I think. The true value judgment placed on a weapon system should be restricted to "How well did the system perform for the role it was designed to fill?"

Anything else, like how that weapon was actually used, or whether or not that weapon design reflected the actual needs of the theatre is more of a leadership and planning question.

Comparing a sherman to a tiger is apples to apples.

Some of you are answering the question like there are no other variables besides two tanks, one at each end of a football field and deciding which one will destroy the other. Don't forget to take into account things like: how many can you produce with the same materials and manpower. How many can you get to the field with the same transport. can you field repair them when they get damaged. Will they break down easily.

Sure, if you're the guy in the turret, you want a tiger. If you're the supreme commander, you want the 10 shermans that can be fielded with the same effort that you can field 1 tiger.

Ask yourself this question: Would you rather have one Yamato or two Iowas? It's the same question about whether you want a Tiger or a sherman. You just have to take into account how many shermans you get for the price of a tiger.

Hi Bradley7735.

You're only touching on the surface here. This is a dumb argument anyway. Why? Because you're comparing two different types of tanks, that is, a heavy versus a medium. How many heavies can anyone think of that in the same relative operational period were inferior in one-to-one duels versus any medium? Only the Panther comes to mind as superior to some heavies, and of course it was more a hybrid-heavy/medium anyway.

As well, when comparing the Tiger to say a Sherman, the same ol' dumb argument about how a jillion Shermans would prove superior to it, applies to other heavies when compared to other mediums as well. It seems to be based on the assumption that the Germans were stupid for producing Tigers when they could've produced a bunch more mediums in it's place. Of course, look at production records for Germany and you find that they knew this too. Their medium tank, and especially their assault guns numbers, dwarf the heavies, but than that's true of every nation that had any heavies. Same goes for USSR, where for some strange reason people are always comparing on an outer-class basis again, where the T34 is compared to the Tiger, where T34's run circles around Tigers as though Germany was dumb enough to make nothing but Tigers.

Doesn't it ever strike you as odd that you don't hear people asking which would defeat the other, the Panther (or PZIV) versus the JSII? Funny you never hear any PZIIIJ vs KVIE arguments do you (where the principle that more numerous mediums might overwhelm)? It's always the Tiger which seems to be subject to this sort of unreasonable comparison.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

But I would really like to know (and might I add - innocentently) JUST HOW IN BE-JUSES are the Kaga Akagi Soryu and Hiryu airgroups rated at 90, as opposed to Shokaku and everyone elses rated at 80 and lower? -
I really am at a loss to understand how that is justified. And YES I think that has a huge impact on the game.

The average Japanese pilot had a great deal more flight time at the beginning of the war and many had combat experience in China. At Pearl Harbor the average Japanese pilot had 600-800 flight hours with nearly all flight leaders having more than 2000 hours. The Japanese also tended to keep their pilots together in a unit rather than rotate them around as was American practise so their coordination was excellent. Shokaku is rated lower as she was brand new, commisioned in Aug 1941 and Zuikaku was even newer, commisioned in October 1941.

The average American carrier pilot had less than 300 hours at the time. It could be argued that American experience may actually be a little too high but I wouldn't have a clue what a representative number would be. However there are plenty of examples of inexperienced American pilots being added to US airwings en masse early in the war. If you read some of the unit histories, you get an idea of just how new to the fleet many were. One example would be VT-8 at Midway. When George Gay flew off Hornet with the rest of his squadron, it was the first time he had every flown from a ship with a torpedo loaded. Four other pilots were the same way. Yorktown had to replace a third of her pilots who were killed or wounded at Coral Sea. Also consider that the Lexington was still flying F2Fs at the start of the war. Their experience in the Wildcat was nil.

Side note: Almost Every post deals with th Scen 15/16 1941 - 1943 campaigns in progress, because that seems to deal wit the period in the war that everyones' most interested in.

I don't about "most interested" but that's where nearly all the scenarios start and I think most players want to experience the entire campaign. Playing only a late war scenario certainly wouldn't be much fun for the Japanese!

I think WE would ALL have more enjoyment if the early allies weren't so hopeless in competing with the the Japanese on an individual scale.

Sure, but then it wouldn't be based on historical reality which is where, IMHO, scenarios should start.

Conversely, if the Japanese had the possability of doing well early - AND maintaing their supply lines so they could have somewhat decent pilots later (because they never had a resource shortage, and therefore could train pilots properly) - a lot more of us might be interested in playing the later war scenarios as well.

Now that I completely agree with.

Chez

Yes, I understand that they had more hours flight time in their units. But rating them at 90 experience allows them to be (IMO) far more potent than they were in real life - if they were that good ITRW the Japanese would have won the war in 1942. - it's a question of a mix of historical accuracy and game play. The Americans did face the Japanese in numerous carrier battles in 1942 - and came off better in virtually each one. With the current levels of ratings if the US player tried this -he'd lose everyone very badly.

A better solution to show their experience would be to downgrade everyone else to 70 and leave them at around 80. at least at those levels players could compete.

Also if I recall, by 1944-5 US pilots were coming in with 2000 hours flight time - do they come in rated at 90 experience?.

My thoughts -B

[11Bravo]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

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]

Like an Anschluss?

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: 11Bravo

ORIGINAL: castor troy

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]

Like an Anschluss?

Don't worry 11Bravo, many Europeans have thought we were all "wrong thinking nuts" since 1776.

B

[Brausepaul]

@ 11Bravo

Making real arguments instead of dumb remarks would make a good start.

[anarchyintheuk]

You mean an arguement like "American and overrated goes hand in hand"?

[rtrapasso]

Listen, guys - this is starting to get ugly.

Let's cool it, ok??

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


Listen, guys - this is starting to get ugly.

Let's cool it, ok??

Yah, this thread has had a history of that.

[anarchyintheuk]

Heated is better than dull. Its about time we moved onto the f4f v. zero debate anyway.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Heated is better than dull. Its about time we moved onto the f4f v. zero debate anyway.

Heated = OK, but:

Ugly = NOT OK.

[mdiehl]

The average Japanese pilot had a great deal more flight time at the beginning of the war and many had combat experience in China. At Pearl Harbor the average Japanese pilot had 600-800 flight hours with nearly all flight leaders having more than 2000 hours. The Japanese also tended to keep their pilots together in a unit rather than rotate them around as was American practise so their coordination was excellent. Shokaku is rated lower as she was brand new, commisioned in Aug 1941 and Zuikaku was even newer, commisioned in October 1941.

The average American carrier pilot had less than 300 hours at the time. It could be argued that American experience may actually be a little too high but I wouldn't have a clue what a representative number would be. However there are plenty of examples of inexperienced American pilots being added to US airwings en masse early in the war. If you read some of the unit histories, you get an idea of just how new to the fleet many were. One example would be VT-8 at Midway. When George Gay flew off Hornet with the rest of his squadron, it was the first time he had every flown from a ship with a torpedo loaded. Four other pilots were the same way. Yorktown had to replace a third of her pilots who were killed or wounded at Coral Sea. Also consider that the Lexington was still flying F2Fs at the start of the war. Their experience in the Wildcat was nil.

All of that is basically correct as to the facts. The question remains "how much much experience is enough?" The basic disconnect that the flamers can't address is this one:

If the zero was a superior plane, and the Japanese pilots were superior pilots, then "How is it that in the 4 1942 US CV vs IJN CV battles, when F4Fs directly engaged A6Ms, they consistently acquitted themselves better?"

Asking the question strictly vis the CVs sets aside the alleged and very minor Japanese disadvantages (that did not offset Allied disadvantages there) of the Guadalcanal encounters between 11th AF and the VMF VF pilots at Henderson because the CVs typically faced off at ranges that favored the Zero and handicapped the F4F. Yet the F4Fs still came out on top.

As far as "experience" goes, if this is operationalized in a game based solely "air time in class" then one winds up with a simulation in which Zeroes routinely best F4Fs in the early part of the war. Whereas in fact the simulation should (if it is to be a historical simulation rather than a fantasy) should consistently produce results in which the F4Fs routinely best Zeroes by a small margin (in the range of 10%-20% over the course of a campaign).

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

If the zero was a superior plane, and the Japanese pilots were superior pilots, then "How is it that in the 4 1942 US CV vs IJN CV battles, when F4Fs directly engaged A6Ms, they consistently acquitted themselves better?"

This is open to debate!


Even at Midway the Zero was very very good at what it did and just "luck" or "God's hand" wrecked the Japanese plans into shatters...


Questions to discuss (using Midway as example):


#1
Did Zero fighters did well doing CAP over KB (i.e. were they killing US attackers who come wave after wave)?

IMHO yes - they did very good job (together with IJN AA which was also rather good). What caused IJN demise at Midway was no fault of Zero CAP - it was lack of radar and combat confusion and bad organization of Japanese side.


#2
Did Zero fighters escorted KB strike force against Midway successfully and prevented US CAP to stop IJN bombers?

IMHO yes - they did very good job.


#3
Did Zero fighters successfully escorted (two times!) remaining IJN carrier (Hiryu) strike force against Yorktown and engaged USN CAP to enable few remaining torpedo and dive bombers to engage US carrier (and those few remaining did remarkable damage - one other point how good they were)?

IMHO yes - they did very good job even against the odds.


#4
How good were USN Wildcats protecting Midway?

IMHO rather bad (but those were US Marines and not USN).


#5
How good were USN Wildcats from 3 US carriers trying to stop remnants of just single IJN carrier striking Yorktown (and add to that that they had advance radar warning)?

IMHO bad again (Yorktown was lost although there was no surprise).


Leo "Apollo11"

[rtrapasso]

This doesn't really address the question of fighter vs. fighter and the relative losses: it talks about fighter vs. bombers, and whether bombers got through.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

This doesn't really address the question of fighter vs. fighter and the relative losses: it talks about fighter vs. bombers, and whether bombers got through.

Yes... but what is the role of fighter?

Fighter role wasn't just to fight other fighters... we have to objective look at "whole package" and not just singe aspect of Air-2-Air warfare (i.e. fighter vs. fighter)...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Big B]

Oh for Pete's sake!
We aren't going to try to spin that some how the Japs bested America at Midway??!!

[11Bravo]

Let's just agree that the P-40 could beat both of them and let it go at that...

[ChezDaJez]

Yes, I understand that they had more hours flight time in their units. But rating them at 90 experience allows them to be (IMO) far more potent than they were in real life - if they were that good ITRW the Japanese would have won the war in 1942. - it's a question of a mix of historical accuracy and game play. The Americans did face the Japanese in numerous carrier battles in 1942 - and came off better in virtually each one. With the current levels of ratings if the US player tried this -he'd lose everyone very badly.

A better solution to show their experience would be to downgrade everyone else to 70 and leave them at around 80. at least at those levels players could compete.

Also if I recall, by 1944-5 US pilots were coming in with 2000 hours flight time - do they come in rated at 90 experience?.

They were very good in the beginning. What rating they should truely have is anybody's guess but they should be started a fair bit higher than most of the alllied air units.

And don't forget, most of the Japanese carrier pilots had been in near continuous combat since the beginning. They were probably quite fatigued. Then came Coral Sea and Midway where many were killed. What ones survived these battles died over the jungles of the Solomons and New Guinea. The replacements at this time were still good, but had little combat experience whereas American experience was growing fast. But realistically, which pilot is more experienced? The one with 500 hours of flight training or the one with 500 hours of training and combat?

And reducing experience is fine if all you want is a balanced game. What I want is a historically accurate game to the greatest extent possible. Ask yourself this question: Why do so many more players want to play as allies rather than the Japanese?

BTW, Do you know how long it takes to get to 2000 hours? Most Allied fighter pilots finished the war with far less than 2000 hours. A typical flight in a fighter lasted less than 2-3 hours. That would be 1 flight a day for almost 3 years. Outside of those areas where air attack was possible, the pilots just didn't fly that much. In a combat zone, they flew mostly 2 hour CAP. And as CAP was rotated among the carriers in a TF, a pillot might not fly for days. I have nearly 9000 hours in P-3 Orions and that took almost 26 years to get and that was flying 10-12 hour anti-submarine patrols.

Chez