Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP

[treespider]

You have attributed Japanese losses to fatigue induced by an 1100 mile trip. The distance from Rabaul to Lunga is 565 miles. Is it your contention that fatigue killed a substantial number of Japanese pilots after they withdrew from combat at Lunga and were en route returning to Rabaul?

You miss quoted him again...

He said round trip.

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Yeah well, I've got a big mouth.

Yup and it's full of $%$&*$ [;)]

[Speedysteve]

P.S. European footballers are far more talented than their American counterparts [:'(][;)]

[mdiehl]

@treespider

You miss quoted him again...
He said round trip.

That is incorrect. I did not misquote him. His claim is that fatigue from an 1100 mile trip caused increased losses. The distance from Rabaul to Lunga is 565 miles. It logically follows (to anyone except those who try to avoid the point) that a pilot flying from Rabaul to Lunga, and then engaging in combat, has only flown 565 miles. 565 miles is not a "round trip." It's a "half trip." That pilot has logged only about 3 hours of flight time, and this after a fine night's rest, prior to combat. Of that 3 hours, about 2.5 hours of it is routine flying with no threat of contact prior to the engagement, and 2.5 hours of routine flying (if the aircraft has not suffered substantial damage) after the combat.

If one wishes to claim that fatigue induced by more than 565 miles worth of flight time affected Zero losses on a day to day basis, then one has to assume that substantial numbers of pilots were lost after breaking off combat at Lunga and on the way home to Rabaul.

The thing is, that is a logical (it would seem straightforward) implication of what Nickledimus writes. But as he has made pretense of being a victim of "distortions" of his claim, it seems reasonable to ask him or anyone else who holds that pov to state directly how that 2.5 hours of flying prior to combat equates with higher losses concomitant with 5 hours of flying.

[fcooke]

mdiehl - you've been claiming a 1.2 zero to 1 f4f loss rate for CV 42 battles and someone posted a batttle by battle tally that does not support that claim. Off the top of my head those numbers look right and I did not see you dispute them - care to comment on why?

[pmelheck1]

Several years back I read that the Midway battle was wargamed by the Japanese staff and 4 CV were sunk in the course of the game. The referee running the game ruled that this was not possable and ruled 1 CV was sunk, 1 CV was damaged and the other 2 were untouched. Boy it's funny, this thread goes WAY back [:'(]

[treespider]

His claim is that fatigue from an 1100 mile trip caused increased losses

You misquoted him again he did not say that!. He said an 1100 mile round trip and you keep quoting him as say an 1100 mile trip. The last time I checked 565 plus 565 = 1130 miles pretty close to 1100.

[treespider]

If one wishes to claim that fatigue induced by more than 565 miles worth of flight time affected Zero losses on a day to day basis, then one has to assume that substantial numbers of pilots were lost after breaking off combat at Lunga and on the way home to Rabaul.

But you keep forgetting that these Zero also had to fly 565 miles back to base...

[tsimmonds]

Every time something like this comes up, I Google to try to find an image of two guys p1ssing on each others' boots, but so far, no joy.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Every time something like this comes up, I Google to try to find an image of two guys p1ssing on each others' boots, but so far, no joy.

Oohhhh that wasa bad...but perhaps not without truth!

that's why I would rather keep it friendly...

B

[mdiehl]

mdiehl - you've been claiming a 1.2 zero to 1 f4f loss rate for CV 42 battles and someone posted a batttle by battle tally that does not support that claim. Off the top of my head those numbers look right and I did not see you dispute them - care to comment on why

Sure I ran through the same exercise in these very forums citing the same sources (the First Team and The First Team at Guadalcanal) and giving page numbers and came up with a different talley. At the time I was very clear about my methodology and it was a rather conservative one. Some time later, someone, IIRC it was Tristanjohn, in a subsequent thread, claimed to have checked me on the facts and substantiated my findings. IIRC at the time he was arguing with Chez da Jez over something. Anyhow, people with time depth around here would never characterize me n Tristanjohn as co-conspirators in whitewashing the Allied record. He and I crossed rhetorical swords on several occasions. I figured that with him substantiating the results I claimed to have researched earlier I was home free. Apparently not. I can't explain why Nick claims different results. Either he missed some or he was operating under different methods. For example I was eliminating aircraft "missing, presumed lost" and (IIRC, it's been two years and I tossed the notes long ago) counting only those observed to crash or to disintegrate in the air.

@Treespider

You misquoted him again he did not say that!. He said an 1100 mile round trip and you keep quoting him as say an 1100 mile trip. The last time I checked 565 plus 565 = 1130 miles pretty close to 1100.

But you keep forgetting that these Zero also had to fly 565 miles back to base...

Let's be precise. I "quoted" Richard Frank and in a subsequent post noted that the distance from Rabaul to Lunga was 565. Nick then revised his post from 500 or so miles to 1100, "thanking" me for "proving his point" or some such nonsense. Now, Richard Frank speaks of the fatigue induced in the context of a 565 mile flight before contact. Nick speaks of fatigue on the round trip.

That's why I asked him whether his position was that substantial numbers of Zekes were lost post contact owing to "fatigue" .. meaning whether or not he thinks lots of pilots were so exhausted that they disappeared on route back to Rabaul after breaking contact and exiting the immediate battle area. I suspect that we will find that not many aircraft were lost en route back to Rabaul (in part becasue I do not recall reading that an impressive percentage of the Japanese a/c lost disappeared post-combat, and also because the Zeke was such a fragile machine that any substantial hit had a good chance of bringing it down in the immediate context of the fight where it can be attributed definitively to catastrophic battle damage). I think if people want to take the position that there were substantial losses en route back to Rabaul after clearing the battle area they ought to say so in order that the question can be put to empirical test. I suspect that is why he refuses to answer (ironically, all the while accusing me of "duck and weave"). In any case it is unsafe, apparently, to derive anything that seems obvious from the things he writes, as that becomes, in some strange universe, "distortion."

I'm saying if you want to talk about the fatigue experienced by a Japanese pilot during the 565 mile (about 3 hours) flight before contact with the defenders at Lunga it is a fair point and warrants consideration as a mitigating circumstance. But it's only 3 hours, and most of it is low stress. I think it's fair to compare that sort of fatigue (and the obvious opportunity to recover at a well supplied base in a threat free environment) with the fatigue experienced by the F4F pilots who were under imminent threat of shelling for some 70 consecutive days. To be sure, they weren't shelled every day, but the threat (and bad food, and the sounds of combat in very close proximity) amount to a considerable accumulated stress and fatigue as well.

I'm not willing to concede the point that "the Japanese suffered some unusual or severe handicap" to people who mine the data looking for apologies for results adverse to the Japanese but never consider the circumstances that worked against the allies. It's really more honest to look thoughtfully and honestly at all aspects.

Or, if one is going to get into a battle with people who want to cherry pick the conditions to favor whatever point of view their ideology demands, skip close inspection of the "mitigating circumstances" and just look at the gross numbers. Either way the F4Fs consistently beat up on the Zeroes. When you throw in the other aircraft that the F4Fs destroyed while fighting the zeroes to a draw I think the preponderance of the evidence makes the US F4F plane+pilot combination hands down more lethal than the A6M plane+pilot combination.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

@treespider

You miss quoted him again...
He said round trip.

That is incorrect. I did not misquote him. His claim is that fatigue from an 1100 mile trip caused increased losses. The distance from Rabaul to Lunga is 565 miles. It logically follows (to anyone except those who try to avoid the point) that a pilot flying from Rabaul to Lunga, and then engaging in combat, has only flown 565 miles. 565 miles is not a "round trip." It's a "half trip." That pilot has logged only about 3 hours of flight time, and this after a fine night's rest, prior to combat. Of that 3 hours, about 2.5 hours of it is routine flying with no threat of contact prior to the engagement, and 2.5 hours of routine flying (if the aircraft has not suffered substantial damage) after the combat.

If one wishes to claim that fatigue induced by more than 565 miles worth of flight time affected Zero losses on a day to day basis, then one has to assume that substantial numbers of pilots were lost after breaking off combat at Lunga and on the way home to Rabaul.

The thing is, that is a logical (it would seem straightforward) implication of what Nickledimus writes. But as he has made pretense of being a victim of "distortions" of his claim, it seems reasonable to ask him or anyone else who holds that pov to state directly how that 2.5 hours of flying prior to combat equates with higher losses concomitant with 5 hours of flying.

Can't cite the source, but I recall reading that only the best of Japanese pilots were sent on the Rabaul-Guadalcanal missions because they were at the "outer edge" of the range that could be coaxed from the aircraft for a combat mission and called for leaning down the feul mixture and low cruising speeds. So I think your 2.5 hour estimate for the trip down might be overly optimistic. At 160 mph it would be more like a 3.5 hour trip, giving 7 hours of cruising plus the combat time. Fatigue probably was a factor in the Japanese loss rates. On the other hand, they were only sending the best of the best, which would probably warp the results in the other direction. So it might be a wash in the long run.

[castor troy]

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?

I´m sorry sir! Never seen such an idiotic reply! Just one fact about me: one of my grandfathers was Jewish so if I would like an Anschluss I would probably land in a KZ. Before you come with "poor little guy" my other grandfather was a Nazi in the Wehrmacht. But that post is probably of a person I described above. And sorry this was 60 years ago but watch CNN and change the flag and it looks like a election campaign of your president nowadays with all the people around not raising their hands for the Hitlergruss but instead all with little flags.

Perhaps you didn´t understand what I wanted to say, but I can tell you that not the whole world agrees with the American politic (as it is now) or the way of thinking. And not everyone behind your border is your enemy sir!

[pauk]

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?

I´m sorry sir! Never seen such an idiotic reply! Just one fact about me: one of my grandfathers was Jewish so if I would like an Anschluss I would probably land in a KZ. But that post is probably of a person I described above. And sorry this was 60 years ago but watch CNN and change the flag and it looks like a election campaign of your president nowadays.

i'm too...


And this is a really infantile argumentation... one wise cat said "look first at yours before you start laugh at mine" or something like this. If i'm child too, i would say just two words "Indians, coloured people", but i don't think that inapposite "argument" deserves similar answer.

Fortunatly there is majority of nice and adult Americans on the forum here.

[castor troy]

yes, I´m looking at this forum every day and it´s the best. You don´t have problems with people here, the users know what they´re talking about, but that just shocked me. In Austria you get arrested for posting or publishing such pictures (we learned of our history).

I don´t want to start a war with people who like Bush, but I can´t resist posting this:

Why is this guy rising his right arm?????? [;)]

65 years ago a man stood in Munich like this!

[doktorblood]

I like pie.

[mogami]

Hi, This thread is about to cross over into belonging at Mad Cows. (Mads Cows is a nice forum where this kind of debate is encouraged. This is the WITP forum not a political debating forum)

[DuckofTindalos]

Not my call, obviously, but I think it crossed over a while ago...

[Rainerle]

Maybe we can save it by talking about beer again ???[:D]

[11Bravo]

Is it possible to play this game by having the two sides switch equipment? Could Japanese carriers be equipped with Wildcats and Allied carriers with Zeros, or would something in the game prevent it? Might be an interesting scenerio...