Informal POLL Re: Oscar

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: tabpub

The Zulus had the numbers, tactical advantage and experience at Roarke's Drift. These things are not always everything; doctrine and technology are also very important, perhaps more.

It is a difference in philosophy. Some would give all the credit to the machines and some like to give some credit to the men involved.

[Honda]

So, it's simple...
Give OscarII mvr 36/37 and a bit more speed (to equal A6M3)
Introduce OscarIII in mid '44

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Honda

So, it's simple...
Give OscarII mvr 36/37 and a bit more speed (to equal A6M3)
Introduce OscarIII in mid '44

THAT'S A START !!!!!!!![:D]

[invernomuto]

So, it's simple...
Give OscarII mvr 36/37 and a bit more speed (to equal A6M3)
Introduce OscarIII in mid '44

Increase at least Ki-43-II durability and armor rating (simple armor protection was provided for the pilot and self-sealing tanks were installed in the wings) and give it the same mvr of Oscar I. There are no evidence of Ki-43-II being less manouvrable than Ki-43-I. Bombload of Ki-43-II should be revised also (it could carry a 250 kg bomb).
Moreover, 43/11 as aval. date for Ki-43-IIa does not seem correct according to my sources.

Bye

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
Not that that's going to happen, of course. But a great discussion for a rainy day. [:)]

Couldn't the Zero bonus be removed by moving the aircraft to a different slot in the database?

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
Not that that's going to happen, of course. But a great discussion for a rainy day. [:)]

Couldn't the Zero bonus be removed by moving the aircraft to a different slot in the database?

Sure, just diplicate it in the FIRST empty slot (for naval aircraft) then replace it's original slot with a blank slot.

Not entirely sure about aircraft production...I went looking for the factories that produced it in the Data Base Editor (so Zeros can still be made) and came up empty handed[&:] - probably handled automatically in hard code...

B

Edit: And for Pete's Sake don't forget to go through all the airgroups and point the Zero sqds to the new slot!

[ChezDaJez]

That's why you need to look at Allied unit records to find out who was lost when and where and then look at Japanese unit records (to the extent that they exist) for same, and THEN look at the pilot AARs to see if you can place enemies in proximity at the time aircraft were destroyed.... as John Lundstrom did in his First Team duo.

P.S. Yes Allied pilots had motives (monetary) for claiming kills. I suspect that is one of the reasons why Allied in-theater assessments improved as the war went along (at least it's my impression that they did so... certainly the analysis showed a healthy degree of skepticism). Sometimes the government *is* skeptical as to where the money goes. Likewise the Japanese pilots had motive to exaggerate their successes... in part as an effort at morale boosting (which is why IMO late war Japanese accounts wind up even worse than early war accounts) and in part to give honor to Japanese pilots that died in battle.

Few IJAAF unit records exist and many of those were "reconstructed" from memory by the participants and cannot be relied on. Most were destroyed along with the unit they pertained to during the general retreat from New Guinea. Japanese forces did not record individual kills in the same fashion as US forces. Kills were ascribed to the unit, not the individial pilot. It is extremely difficult to determine how many kills individual Japanese pilots actually attained. Many individuals have attributed 64 kills to Saburo Sakai but Sakai would only say that he may have shot at 64 planes but that he never kept track of how many may have actually gone down. Some Japanese pilots did maintain a record of these kills but they were never officially recognized as valid. In many cases, surviving pilots who had achieved a kill in combat often attributed it as being made by a pilot who had died in the air battle. This was done mainly as a gesture of respect, especially among IJNAF pilots. Navy pilots were often posthumously promoted 2 ranks. The Japanese also did not list losses in the same manner as the US. Any aircraft that did not return from a combat mission was listed as a combat loss regardless of whether it was shot down or flew into a mountain. Ground losses were in most cases listed as a combat loss. Operational losses were considered as those aircraft lost during non-operational missions such as training or transfers.

There is really no such thing as an official USAAF pilot AAR. Crews debriefed with intelligence officers at the end of a flight and and the Intel O's compiled these individual debriefs into an official mission report. In this regard, debrief was somewhat similar to Japanese practice. However, US reports also listed Individual pilot claims along with the Intel O's estimate of the outcome and these reports were then forwarded up the chain. Allied unit records are plentiful and a list of friendly losses can often be tallied quite easily. However, the method of tallying a friendly loss was markedly different between USAAF and USN/USMC forces, indeed even different between similar units. One unit might list a crash landing by a shot up aircraft as a combat loss, another as an operational loss. Lundstrom, Bergstrom and others have attempted to break down losses but for the most part their tallies are simply best guesses based on the available evidence, especially in regard to Japanese losses.

Also, only AVG pilots were accorded money for kills.

Here is an interesting link that appears to put a realistic look on losses suffered and inflicted on a IJAAF Sentai: link=http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdun ... /248th.htm]248th Sentai in New Guinea[/link]

Chez

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

So, it's simple...
Give OscarII mvr 36/37 and a bit more speed (to equal A6M3)
Introduce OscarIII in mid '44

Increase at least Ki-43-II durability and armor rating (simple armor protection was provided for the pilot and self-sealing tanks were installed in the wings) and give it the same mvr of Oscar I. There are no evidence of Ki-43-II being less manouvrable than Ki-43-I. Bombload of Ki-43-II should be revised also (it could carry a 250 kg bomb).
Moreover, 43/11 as aval. date for Ki-43-IIa does not seem correct according to my sources.

Bye

Regarding the maneuverability of the Ki 43 II..
"Combat Aircraft of The World",John W.R.Taylor,
The Ki 43 IIa entered production in early spring 1942 with twin 12.7mm arms which remained standard but the wings had a slightly smaller span, now with bomb racks for a 550 Lb bomb under each wing., this new model powered by a 1105 hp Sakae radial engine.
This model was phased out in May '43 and had already been replaced by the model IIb, with clipped wings which made the planes maneuverability the match for any Allied fighter.
The Ki 43 IIIa introduced in Dec 1944 had greater performance with the addition of the Mitsubishi Kasei (Ha-112) engine of 1250 HP..
Another model, the IIIb with 2 20mm cannon had 2 prototypes completed by VJ day.
On VJ day, six JAAF squadrons were still using the Ki 43 III.....

[mdiehl]

Few IJAAF unit records exist and many of those were "reconstructed" from memory by the participants and cannot be relied on. Most were destroyed along with the unit they pertained to during the general retreat from New Guinea. Japanese forces did not record individual kills in the same fashion as US forces. Kills were ascribed to the unit, not the individial pilot. It is extremely difficult to determine how many kills individual Japanese pilots actually attained.

You've completely misunderstood what I am saying. I'm saying that if you want to know how many Japanese planes were lost you have to look to a Japanese source (or at least that is where your best data will be found if there IS any data). If you want to know how many Allied planes were shot down you can't look at ANY Japanese source at all, because their post combat assessments are ludicrous. The fact that kills were awarded to units rather than pilots is not germane to my point. It doesn't matter to whom the Japanese credited the kills, becauase the assessment itself is not reliable.

You can count on a Japanese source to know how many Japanese pilots or aircraft were lost. Although many records do not exist, to the extent that one can interview pilots you can get a sense of "well, we lost so and so and whatsisname" but even that its a very difficult task because many units had such high casualty rates you can't count on any remaining survivors en masse to recall all those who were killed or just disappeared.

You can count on an Allied source to know how many Allied pilots or aircraft were lost. But not necessarily to know how many Japanese aircraft were lost (but I think you'd be pretty close if over the course of a campaign you divided all the Allied post battle assessment "victories" by three).

Some Japanese pilots did maintain a record of these kills but they were never officially recognized as valid.

I hope now things are clearer. It doesn't matter what Sakai or any other pilot remembers doing. The tallies of Allied a/c destroyed aren't credible.

There is really no such thing as an official USAAF pilot AAR. Crews debriefed with intelligence officers at the end of a flight and and the Intel O's compiled these individual debriefs into an official mission report.

A debriefing is basically a verbal AAR.

Lundstrom, Bergstrom and others have attempted to break down losses but for the most part their tallies are simply best guesses based on the available evidence, especially in regard to Japanese losses.

Well, using the word "guess" for their assessments of USN/USMC/USAAF losses is misleading. They are estimates and I'd bet they are damned accurate estimates at that. As you say, for Japanese losses you do the best you can, but these estimates are difficult to index to reality primarily because Japanese records are so spotty.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Few IJAAF unit records exist and many of those were "reconstructed" from memory by the participants and cannot be relied on. Most were destroyed along with the unit they pertained to during the general retreat from New Guinea. Japanese forces did not record individual kills in the same fashion as US forces. Kills were ascribed to the unit, not the individial pilot. It is extremely difficult to determine how many kills individual Japanese pilots actually attained.

You've completely misunderstood what I am saying. I'm saying that if you want to know how many Japanese planes were lost you have to look to a Japanese source (or at least that is where your best data will be found if there IS any data). If you want to know how many Allied planes were shot down you can't look at ANY Japanese source at all, because their post combat assessments are ludicrous. The fact that kills were awarded to units rather than pilots is not germane to my point. It doesn't matter to whom the Japanese credited the kills, becauase the assessment itself is not reliable.

You can count on a Japanese source to know how many Japanese pilots or aircraft were lost. Although many records do not exist, to the extent that one can interview pilots you can get a sense of "well, we lost so and so and whatsisname" but even that its a very difficult task because many units had such high casualty rates you can't count on any remaining survivors en masse to recall all those who were killed or just disappeared.

You can count on an Allied source to know how many Allied pilots or aircraft were lost. But not necessarily to know how many Japanese aircraft were lost (but I think you'd be pretty close if over the course of a campaign you divided all the Allied post battle assessment "victories" by three).

Some Japanese pilots did maintain a record of these kills but they were never officially recognized as valid.

I hope now things are clearer. It doesn't matter what Sakai or any other pilot remembers doing. The tallies of Allied a/c destroyed aren't credible.

There is really no such thing as an official USAAF pilot AAR. Crews debriefed with intelligence officers at the end of a flight and and the Intel O's compiled these individual debriefs into an official mission report.

A debriefing is basically a verbal AAR.

Lundstrom, Bergstrom and others have attempted to break down losses but for the most part their tallies are simply best guesses based on the available evidence, especially in regard to Japanese losses.

Well, using the word "guess" for their assessments of USN/USMC/USAAF losses is misleading. They are estimates and I'd bet they are damned accurate estimates at that. As you say, for Japanese losses you do the best you can, but these estimates are difficult to index to reality primarily because Japanese records are so spotty.

mdiehl has made good points here..........I read a narrative a couple of days ago wherein a Japanese ace admitted that at wars end, the pilots of his unit destroyed all their personal records, awards, etc, as they had been told a victorious Allied foe would kill the successful Japanese flyers,etc..........
(mdiehl, you did not list your true name on your profile, so I could not address you personally..[8D]

[ChezDaJez]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

I would agree that the time of the Oscar is certainly beginning to draw to an end, but Nik's sources seem to indicate that they were still formidable, or to be even more diplomatic...not the push over that they are in our beloved game.

2. The A6M2 was the primary opponent for US forces throughout 1942, especially early on. This was the plane that took everyone by surprise. By the time of Midway, however, it had lost much of its mystique and by fall 42, its failings were well known to US pilots.

Not in my PBEM it isn't. And that is the point. Why do we always have to argue against history when history never repeats itself in WitP? The Oscar DID take the allies by suprise, so much so that they thought that it was a Type 0 fighter until mid-42' after a focused intelligence and aircraft recognition campaign had been conducted.

Other than its gun package the Oscar performs as well if not better than the zero. So in essence a slighty(very slightly) lesser aircraft, the Zero, benefits from this early war bonus. Why is that? Just because IRL the Oscar didn't encounter USAAC units? That makes no sense.

If the concern is that the Oscar will become some kind of P-40 killer because it has the Zero bonus, go take a look at the AAR Nik is running right now with all these changes we are debating. Or look at how the ZERO performs in the game right now. They aren't invincible.

I think the gun package problem will take care of itself. Particularly with his across the board 50% durability increase.

We do have to argue against history as that is the only benchmark we have. Anything else is simply pure supposition or personal opinion. Yes, the Oscar did take the Allies by surprise but the AVG certainly had no problems handling it. British Buffalos did have problems because of their obsolete aircraft but mainly becuase of their early insistence on dogfighing. Its quite possible that the Buffalo may have fared better if it had used the same tactics as the AVG.

From everything I've read, the Oscar simply did not have the "air" of invincibility early in the war that the Zero inspired. I think a large part of this was due to the Zero's long range which allowed it to appear in unexpected places. An Oscar didn't have the range to do that.

A "slightly (very slightly) lesser aircraft." I think it was much inferior to the Zero. Compared to the Zero, it was underpowered, underarmed, had half the range, couldn't dive as fast and even more fragile and flammable. Now compare it with Allied fighters of the time and it becomes readily appearant that it was outclassed by all but the most obsolete of Allied aircraft. I know of no allied aircraft besides the Buffalo where it had anything approaching a 1:1 kill ratio. That's hardly an awe-inspiring machine in my opinion.

And I agree, the Zero isn't invincible. It wasn't early in the war either but Allied fighter pilots (US included) who were trained to dogfight thought so. Once it's weaknesses were learned and tactics devised to combat it effectively, it lost its aura of invincibility but it still was respected.

Increasing the durability isn't the answer either, IMO. The effect will reach far beyond any Zero bonus. It will last the entire war and Allied aircraft are already very difficult to shoot down as they were IRL. Increasing durability will make allied aircraft virtually invincible to any Japanese weapon.

The Zero bonus as it now stands is gone by 1 May 42 and reflects the deficiencies of the allied tactical doctrine in fighting it early on. It should have nothing to do with the capabilities of the aircraft or the experience of the pilot. After 1 May 42, Japanese aircraft are more likely to be the victim than the victimizer as demonstrated IRL due to the changing experience levels for both sides.

Chez