Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP

[rtrapasso]

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)...

???

The whole argument has been over aircraft armaments (spec. fighters) and whether the game shortchanges the Japanese, which lead to the argument about F4F vs. Zero. Arguing about which side performed better in a specific battle rather misses the point (i think...)

[Big B]

Yes The Zeroes did such a superior job at Midway - the Japs only lost ALL their Carriers! Bravo!!!

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Big B

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

This reminds me of one of my grade-school teachers. Educated in Georgia, she said had no idea that the South lost the Civil War until she moved up North...

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: 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

We all want a historically accurate game - that is the point. As is, the Americans will always loose to the Japanese in a recreated carrier battle in 1942.

And I am still certain that allied Replacement Pilots had some 2000 hours of flying time before getting into combat by late 44 (could be wrong - but I don't think so)

B

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Big B

Yes The Zeroes did such a superior job at Midway - the Japs only lost ALL their Carriers! Bravo!!!

Midway was just a "fluke" or "bad luck" or "good luck" or "God's hand" (or whatever you want to call it)...

Zero performance was excellent and has nothing to do with why Japanese carriers were sunk (in fact until those unnoticed dive bombers showed on scene and changed tide of war the Japanese were in good situation)!


Leo "Apollo11"

[ChezDaJez]

#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.

Well, have to disagree there. The Japanese CAP allowed themselves to be drawn down to sea level when some shoulds have remained high overheard. They got fixated on the torpedo planes and allowed divebombers to blow 3 carriers to smithereens. That most certainly is the fault of the CAP. And yes, they shot down a ton of torpedo planes. But how many Dauntless' did they shoot down?

Fuchida, in his book, "God's Samurai" watched the battle from the Akagi's flight deck as he recovered from surgery for appendicitis. He watched the entire CAP go after the torpedo planes and said he prayed that the US had no more planes inbound as he knew the fleet was now unprotected.

Chez

[Brausepaul]

ORIGINAL: Big B

...As is, the Americans will always loose to the Japanese in a recreated carrier battle in 1942...

That's why Midway is such a famous battle...

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Big B

Yes The Zeroes did such a superior job at Midway - the Japs only lost ALL their Carriers! Bravo!!!

Midway was just a "fluke" or "bad luck" or "good luck" or "God's hand" (or whatever you want to call it)...

Zero performance was excellent and has nothing to do with why Japanese carriers were sunk (in fact until those unnoticed dive bombers showed on scene and changed tide of war the Japanese were in good situation)!


Leo "Apollo11"

It wasn't luck, it was scarifice and a team effort, and if the Japanese were half as good as some seem to think - they would have come back and kicked our butts!

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Brausepaul

ORIGINAL: Big B

...As is, the Americans will always loose to the Japanese in a recreated carrier battle in 1942...

That's why Midway is such a famous battle...

Wich Carrier battle did the Japs ever win?

[11Bravo]

ORIGINAL: Brausepaul

ORIGINAL: Big B

...As is, the Americans will always loose to the Japanese in a recreated carrier battle in 1942...

That's why Midway is such a famous battle...

Just like the Alamo.

[Brausepaul]

ORIGINAL: Big B

It wasn't luck, it was scarifice and a team effort, and if the Japanese were half as good as some seem to think - they would have come back and kicked our butts!

Then "Point Team Effort" would have been a better designation for the meeting point of TFs 16 and 17. [8|]

[rtrapasso]

Wich Carrier battle did the Japs ever win?

Depends what you call a "win".

Coral Sea was an IJN tactical victory, but strategic defeat. Ditto Battle of Santa Cruz.

[mdiehl]

#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.

They were quite effective against the TBDs. Poorly coordinated CAP was par for the course for both the IJN and USN in 1942 along with inadequate CAP sizes (one reason why every time I see 44 Jap Zeroes flying CAP I just shake my head). In direct engagements of F4Fs vs A6Ms flying CAP the F4Fs did quite well. So "fighter v fighter" puts the USN plane+pilot combination on top, despite the fact that the F4Fs were operating at the limit of their tactical radius.

#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.

I think one has to shrug and take a pass on that one. They did a good job vs primarily F2A3s. What does that prove? I'm not sure.

#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.

There were very few USN planes flying cap and lots of aircraft shot down by F4Fs. I think it just proves that with enough planes, some of them will get through.

#4 How good were USN Wildcats protecting Midway?
IMHO rather bad (but those were US Marines and not USN).

All five of them. And they accounted for the majority of Japanese a/c shot down at Midway, IIRC.

#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).

No worse than the Japanese aircraft were at stopping attacks on Strike Force though. Arguably much better since, in the end, Yorktown was being recovered a day later and ultimately only sunk by a submarine.

Judged by the fighter vs fighter contest the F4Fs carried the day over the Zeroes. Judged by tonnage and types of vessels sunk, the Japanese were handed their head on a pike. It had nothing at all to do with luck. A good, clear, simple USN operational plan carried the day over a complex, inadequate, flawed Japanese operational plan. The USN could hardly have had worse luck and won despite all that.

[rtrapasso]

Then "Point Team Effort" would have been a better designation for the meeting point of TFs 16 and 17.

Ah, yes, Nimitz realized that by calling the rendezvous "Point Luck", he would appease the sea gods and war gods, thus assuring victory. [:'(]

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Wich Carrier battle did the Japs ever win?

Depends what you call a "win".

Coral Sea was an IJN tactical victory, but strategic defeat. Ditto Battle of Santa Cruz.

Win - as in accomplish their mission objectives and inflict greater losses and damge on the enemy than they receive, thereby owning the field of battle and inflicting their will on their opponent.

B

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

#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.

Well, have to disagree there. The Japanese CAP allowed themselves to be drawn down to sea level when some shoulds have remained high overheard. They got fixated on the torpedo planes and allowed divebombers to blow 3 carriers to smithereens. That most certainly is the fault of the CAP. And yes, they shot down a ton of torpedo planes. But how many Dauntless' did they shoot down?

Fuchida, in his book, "God's Samurai" watched the battle from the Akagi's flight deck as he recovered from surgery for appendicitis. He watched the entire CAP go after the torpedo planes and said he prayed that the US had no more planes inbound as he knew the fleet was now unprotected.

Chez

I read Fuchida's book (but it wasn't called like you wrote).

The CAP error was not Zero fighter error - it was error in command/control of CAG (or whatever similar title IJN had).

BTW, imagine that Japanese command/control was better and that there were more Zero fighters doing CAP (just small fragment of available Zero fighters were used for CAP)? What would happen to those Dauntless bombers?

It was great turning point of war but it was poorly executed by USN (even with all intel info they had)... "luck" or "bad luck" or "God's hand" was what decided the battle...


Leo "Apollo11"

[rtrapasso]

Win - as in accomplish their mission objectives and inflict greater losses and damge on the enemy than they receive, thereby owning the field of battle and inflicting their will on their opponent.

THe IJN did inflict greater losses in the two battles mentioned. I don't think they could claim they accomplished their objectives, although some historians say Battle of Santa Cruz was to force the USN to withdraw its carriers (which they did) and award the victory to the IJN.

So, do we call the battles a draw? Most historians are a bit more nuanced then that and break it down into strategic vs. tactical victory.

[mdiehl]

It was great turning point of war but it was poorly executed by USN (even with all intel info they had)... "luck" or "bad luck" or "God's hand" was what decided the battle...

IMO it was none of the above. The Japanese were defeated because they showed up with insufficient force for the number of jobs to hand, and they assumed there would be no opposition when they had no basis for the assumption. In a nutshell that's it. One can cherry pick lots of details that may have swung one way or the other but the USN plan was fault-tolerant and the UNS prevailed despite some bad decisions. The Japanese plan was fault-intolerant to the point of sheer brittleness and the outcome was both predictable (the Japanese predicted the outcome in their pre-operation wargames when their OpFor did precisely what the USN ships did with respect to timing the counterattack and positioning ships on the map), and likely.

[rtrapasso]

It was great turning point of war but it was poorly executed by USN (even with all intel info they had)...

What an utterly amazing conclusion!!

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

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)...

You make a good point Leo. The role of the fighter is multi-faceted and must be taken as a whole. A fighter's primary role IMO is to defend it's charges when attacking a target and Fleet defence. Lt Cmd Simpler of VF-5 had an interesting observation regarding this:

"The common practice is to judge a fighter by the number of planes it destroys. This is most misleading. Any fighter's worth is determined by the number of enemy planes who escape to return again."

This observation was made while describing the familiar drawbacks of the F4F at Lunga, namly low climb rate, slow speed and insufficient range. [Lundstrom]

To coin my own example, if an escort group successfully protects it's charges but losses a greater number of planes while keeping the enemy fighters off the backs of the bombers, who was the more successful? Not everything is made simple by simple side by side number comparisons...the whole picture must be looked at.

You asked about the Zero at Midway. Its a mixed preformance. The Zeros did a superb job initially defending first their Midway strike getting the better of the F2A and F4F pilots that rose to meet them, then in defending KB against successive waves of enemy bombers...ironic the last given the Fleet Defence was a known weakness for the KB. Nearly 40 enemy bombers were downed in the process. However in allowing their CAP to be drawn down the sea level, that set up the killing blow. bad luck to be sure but a proper CAP in theory at least should remain layered to give protection against all potential incomings.

Then things began to slide off. Thach's fighter element, a non-factor in escorting the bombers was set upon by elements of the CAP that had just dealt with the TBD's. The Zeros scored first bouncing and downing 1 of the 4 F4F's in Thach's group but then Thach went into his defensive weave for the first time and downed an estimated 6 Zeros that tried to get in on them in seperate fashion. A very impressive preformance by Thach and his crewmen that i also believe was aided by carelessness on the part of the Japanese fighter pilots, flush with their successes attacking the torpedo bombers. I'm also suspecting they were low on cannon ammo if not out completely by the time they attacked Thach aiding him still further. 7.7's alone have a very hard time downing Grummans. Thach made sure to present each attacker with a nearly full deflection shot while they were making their attack runs....something that would be very difficult for the Zero pilot to acomplish given the limited visibility over the nose. Thach himself was credited with 3 of the 6 kills.

The 1st Hiryu raid against Yorktown scores poor marks for the Zero escort. The escort only numbered 4 leaving them heavily outnumbered by the defending CAP. They were also out of position to give proper coverage to the bombers and 1 of their number further exaserbated the issue by allowing himself to be baited by an F4F which with team help turned around and flamed him. Of the three remaining Zeros that attempted to defend the bombers, 2 more fell in return for 1 F4F. The 2nd Hiryu attack escort redeemed themselves by putting in a superlative preformance defending the Kate bombers. The six escorting Zeros kept their charges largely safe and shot down 4 F4F's in trade for two of their own number. You couldn't ask for a better preformance.

Lundstrom's Tally for the battle (fighter vs fighter) was 6 F4F vs. 11 A6M. (He does not count op loss F4F's though) Numerically in total, a victory for the F4F but Lundstrom's book contained quotes from the pilots regarding the Zero's accendency in many areas of preformance. Fortunately the Grumman plane is a tough bird, well armed and well protected. In defense in particular, it had the tools to hold it's own but the pilots wanted a plane that could allow them to dicate terms rather than be dictated too.

In short. You can construct your argument both ways as has been done many times in the past and shall be again.