Matrix Games Forums

Japanese pilots 99 USAAF pilots 75


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
A6M8 Zeke x 101

Allied aircraft
P-51D Mustang x 188

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M8 Zeke x 109 destroyed
A6M8 Zeke x 3 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-51D Mustang x 18 destroyed
P-51D Mustang x 5 damaged

FO N.Franklin of 11th BG is credited with kill number 5


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
A6M8 Zeke x 33

Allied aircraft
P-51D Mustang x 163

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M8 Zeke x 34 destroyed
A6M8 Zeke x 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-51D Mustang x 4 destroyed
P-51D Mustang x 1 damaged

FO D.Irwin of 5th BG is credited with kill number 5


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
101 Japs destoyed
14 P-51 destroyed 16 damaged.

Forgive me if I miss the point, Mo. Why are you bouncing 2:1 odds of P51s against Zekes? If this is a test of the internal mechanics of air to air, should you not be using equal numbers of a.c?

Not definitive, and it's a web link (so of unknown value) but this UK site stipulates that B29s in Korea shot down more jets than were shot down by jets. If true that'd be 4 years of improvmenet in the analog fire control computer, but then much better opposition in the MiGs than anything Japan could field in WW2.


http://www.raf-waddington.com/specials/ ... 29/b29.htm

Originally posted by mdiehl

<snip>

I know what you mean about 1:48. I have a ProModeler Black Cat PBY I'm itching to assemble, along with an F102. Since they are in 1:48, I'm saving money for an addition to my house.

<snip>

I have around 30 1:48 diorama models (and many 1:72)...


Leo "Apollo11"

Hi, currently the US player does not have to worry about trained pilots just production These USAAF pilots were 10's versus Japanese 99's (Don't faint this is why I'm testing)
Personally I think untrained pilots are at a disadvantage no matter how good their aircraft (unless it flies it's self) It appears currently the aircraft are more important then who is flying them.
(But at least in this test, skilled pilots can achive equal kills) I'll raise the number of Japanese aircraft to see what weight the numbers difference made.


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42

Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
A6M8 Zeke x 108

Allied aircraft
P-51D Mustang x 188

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M8 Zeke x 91 destroyed
A6M8 Zeke x 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-51D Mustang x 14 destroyed
P-51D Mustang x 2 damaged

WO of is credited with kill number 0


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Lunga , at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
A6M8 Zeke x 48

Allied aircraft
P-51D Mustang x 128

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M8 Zeke x 25 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-51D Mustang x 4 destroyed
P-51D Mustang x 1 damaged

FO D.Rea of 5th BG is credited with kill number 3


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
87 A6M8 destroyed
87 P-51D destroyed 22 damaged.

Originally posted by mdiehl
Forgive me if I miss the point, Mo. Why are you bouncing 2:1 odds of P51s against Zekes? If this is a test of the internal mechanics of air to air, should you not be using equal numbers of a.c?

Hi, Yes that is true. But for my own interest I am also trying to find out what impact numbers have. (Since I expect the Japanese to face greater numbers)

I'm trying to discover the weight each factor has on results
Aircraft
Pilot
Number

Leo -

Here is a decent unit action record for the 9th BG (very heavy). It's a PDF file so you need Adobe Acrobat. On most of these missions the lack of opposition is apparent. One may assume that the flak was heavy, but inaccurate since not that many suffered damage. Almost all the "damaged" a/c survived their missions.
It should be pretty accurate in re US losses (not necessarily Japanese ones).

http://www.9thbombgrouphistory.org/Chap ... ter_07.pdf

Of particular interest are the numerous instances in which precision daylight raids were mounted from middling altitudes (10-20K feet). Significant damage inflicted on many of these.

Anyhow:

32K mission hours of which 93% were combat sorties (the rest Super Dumbo, Show of Force, Leaflet etc. missions) in 2012 sorties.

494 a/c combat losses (this appears to include operational losses in theater), 264 losses in training stateside.

Their claims of course are the usual stuff of bomber crews. For what they're worth (very little, IMO), they are credited with 714 Japanese a/c destroyed and 456 "probables."

Without talleying the results mission by mission, it looks like the overwhelming proportion of B29 losses were to flak.

Hi all,

Thanks for info (and links) "mdiehl"!


Leo "Apollo11"

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, currently the US player does not have to worry about trained pilots just production These USAAF pilots were 10's versus Japanese 99's (Don't faint this is why I'm testing)
Personally I think untrained pilots are at a disadvantage no matter how good their aircraft (unless it flies it's self) It appears currently the aircraft are more important then who is flying them.
(But at least in this test, skilled pilots can achive equal kills) I'll raise the number of Japanese aircraft to see what weight the numbers difference made.

This is really, really disheartening. It means that there is no reason to protect your pilots or try to raise their skill. In fact, you could completely eliminate skill in this game it seems. I assume that UV must be the same way.

They really need to change it so that skill is the most important thing. I believe that is how reality is, how history shows, and what would be the most fun for the player. After all, who would care that your new pilots were coming in with skill in the 10's if you never noticed a difference in their performance?

Yamamoto

No they don't need to change it so that "skill is the most important thing." An adequately trained pilot in a greatly superior aircraft should routinely shoot the tar out of an expert pilot in an inferior design. That's just the way air combat works. Note the emphasis on "adequately trained."

That said, the results turned in by Mogami's tests are awkward. I'm not sure what Exp=10 is supposed to reflect in terms of training and tactics. In PW it would have represented the worst of the late war Japanese student-aviators. If one can barely control one's aircraft, one can hardly fly it to its optimum specs, could one.

Of course, if one had lots of student pilots with no real training taking a hot plane like the P51 (or P47, 38, 39Q, or F4U) into combat, one should see really appalling operational loss rates.

It's hard to say how much effect "exp" will have in the real game since we do not know the range of variation. If it's got the absurd assumptions of GGPW then having a combat profile in which experience is largely irrelevant seems reasonable.

Originally posted by mdiehl
No they don't need to change it so that "skill is the most important thing." An adequately trained pilot in a greatly superior aircraft should routinely shoot the tar out of an expert pilot in an inferior design. That's just the way air combat works. Note the emphasis on "adequately trained."

That said, the results turned in by Mogami's tests are awkward. I'm not sure what Exp=10 is supposed to reflect in terms of training and tactics. In PW it would have represented the worst of the late war Japanese student-aviators. If one can barely control one's aircraft, one can hardly fly it to its optimum specs, could one.

Of course, if one had lots of student pilots with no real training taking a hot plane like the P51 (or P47, 38, 39Q, or F4U) into combat, one should see really appalling operational loss rates.

It's hard to say how much effect "exp" will have in the real game since we do not know the range of variation. If it's got the absurd assumptions of GGPW then having a combat profile in which experience is largely irrelevant seems reasonable.

I dont agree. Since 6% of all pilots account for 80% of all actual
air to air kills (Dunnigan - How to make War)
I think skill matters quite a bit.

Originally posted by Chiteng
I dont agree. Since 6% of all pilots account for 80% of all actual
air to air kills (Dunnigan - How to make War)
I think skill matters quite a bit.

Hi, I think you better reread the numbers. If you took all the pilots who became aces. (from all countries) Add their kills together you would not have 80 perecent of the air to air kills.
It fact most air to air kills were achived by pilots that finshed with 1 or 2 kills. (It is not a few doing a lot, it is many doing a little.)

(Unless Dunnigan is lumping all pilots (bomber transport search) together and then using those that had a kill.

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, I think you better reread the numbers. If you took all the pilots who became aces. (from all countries) Add their kills together you would not have 80 perecent of the air to air kills.
It fact most air to air kills were achived by pilots that finshed with 1 or 2 kills. (It is not a few doing a lot, it is many doing a little.)

(Unless Dunnigan is lumping all pilots (bomber transport search) together and then using those that had a kill.

I dont have the resources to dispute Dunnigan, nor the desire.

He also isnt the only author to make that statement,
we could in fact ask Al Nofi himself thru Matrix, for an opinion.

Hi, No I think we are both misinterpreting that statistic.

Take P-47's for example. over 500,000 missions were flown by P-47's. They shot down 2700 enemy aircraft. (there were 15000 P-47's)


This would mean 900 pilots had 1900 kills (6 percent killing 80 percent) This is not so difficult for me to swallow. (It's only 2 each) leaving 800 to be divided among the remaining 14100 pilots (of which more then half likely never saw an enemy aircraft)

These numbers are of course not exact but do show (for me at least) that the 6 percent/80 percent is not as unreasonable as I first thought

That claim has always been very suspect, IMO. IIRC (dimly) it was based primarily on Axis strategic analyses during the war that were discovered after the war. Two problems. 1. The thing is based on pilot claims and "verified" kills. Not worth squat. 2. The "victory distribution" probably varies by major power and theater. Given the US policy of rotating veteran pilots into training duty and producing better trained pilots (on average) than the other powers, one would expect the US distribution to be, err, "flatter."

Originally posted by mdiehl
That claim has always been very suspect, IMO. IIRC (dimly) it was based primarily on Axis strategic analyses during the war that were discovered after the war. Two problems. 1. The thing is based on pilot claims and "verified" kills. Not worth squat. 2. The "victory distribution" probably varies by major power and theater. Given the US policy of rotating veteran pilots into training duty and producing better trained pilots (on average) than the other powers, one would expect the US distribution to be, err, "flatter."

So what? It still indicates that SKILL matters. Quite a bit.

I agree with HMSWarspite regarding his comments on unrestricted player control of production resulting in artificially inflated numbers of 'perfect' game weapons.
Two weeks into release every player will have nothing but the most combat effective aircraft/ships in production.

Perhaps there should be a toggle switch at startup for player control of production.
No doubt there will be many house rules in this area.

I don't envy the testers the job of testing and hopefully balancing the effectiveness of the different aircraft in the game.

Great work with the air combat testing Mogami..I can see you are dedicated to making WITP as good as it can be.

I hope the final results reflect more the historical results and less the results a lot of gamers think they should have been.
Sometimes I wonder if the UV game engine can handle a project this huge.
With all the debate regarding the accuracy of the UV modelling in the Coral Sea, the complexity of the whole Pacific theatre with production thrown in as well, it will be a miracle if all the grognards are satisfied.

Originally posted by Mike_B20
......................
With all the debate regarding the accuracy of the UV modelling in the Coral Sea, the complexity of the whole Pacific theatre with production thrown in as well, it will be a miracle if all the grognards are satisfied.

I think by definition grognards are never satisfied.

Whaddya mean grognards are never satisfied? WTF is with a thread where any yahoo can say a grognard's never satsified?Mutter mutter hang it all mutter mutter... gotta change the rules around here.. .mutter mutter.

You need to grumble, not mutter. It's in the Grognard rule book.