Matrix Games Forums

Ram,

I do not havethe time to go into all of your points but here are a few...

I never stated that i felt that PTO aircraft were as good as ETO aircraft. First, I do not believe either America or Japan were producing as good of aircraft as Britain or Germany. Plus, the PTO had different mission requirements than the ETO.
It is anile to think that 'Japanese planes sucked because they were less impressive in combat than European aircraft'. The Japanese (and to a lesser extent American) aircraft were built for overwater, long range missions, these requirements were just not needed for the primary European aircraft.

On the Merlin carburator problems just read any good history of theengine and you will find that all Merlin Carbs were swapped out or field fixed to remove the vast majority of thecut-out problem. No, a carb will never be as good as a fuel injector in a dive but they were not having the problems they suffered in the Battle for France.

Aircraft with high speed control problems... umm, the p40, P39, P36, P35, Hurricane, Spitfire... would you like me to go on? It was a universal problem and to pretend otherwise is just silly.
You don't seem to understand the problem the Me109 had;
a narrow cockpit (like the p39 as well) limits how far over you can move the stick and limited the force you can apply to the stick.
I read the British post war experiments on this at one time, i do not have the numbers in front of me, but the Me109 was bottom dog in possible force that can be applied.

The two top aircraft were the Fw190 & the P47.

The Zero and the P39 were very cramped as well.

One thing to remember is to look at foreign tests with Japanese equipment with a grain of salt. The average Japanese male in 1942 was 5'4. The average American pilot was what, 5'8? 5'9?

This makes for a more crowded cockpit and i have always wondered how this effected the test results.

We did the same thing in Korea in 1951 when we equipped the South Korean army with Garands firing a 30-06 cartridge. The South Korean male averaged 5'4 again. The Garand knocked them on their ass and broke a few shoulders and collars.

Mike

Ram,

I do not havethe time to go into all of your points but here are a few...

I never stated that i felt that PTO aircraft were as good as ETO aircraft. First, I do not believe either America or Japan were producing as good of aircraft as Britain or Germany. Plus, the PTO had different mission requirements than the ETO.
It is anile to think that 'Japanese planes sucked because they were less impressive in combat than European aircraft'. The Japanese (and to a lesser extent American) aircraft were built for overwater, long range missions, these requirements were just not needed for the primary European aircraft.

Sanity at last. The F-14/18 are worse than the F-15/16 in a straight up dog fight, but try landing an F-15 on a CV. In the environment where they were employed and which this game is attempting to simulate the Oscar performed better than this simulation appears to allow. I for one have had little luck against the Chinese AF. I agree with assigning the early war bonus to all Japanese fighters.

For me the air combat in WitP feels 100% better than in UV. Fighter vs fighter combat really isn't that important in the game anyway ...

OK back to the pointless historical argument

Maybe the Japs should have declared war against Italy, they would have found lots of planes they could have fought for years and still not need to upgrade their planes. Damn the Pacific Ocean for being so big.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl


And they still lost far more Ki-43s vs the AVG through April 1941 for each P40 downed. If

Actually, they didn't. AVG overclaims during this period rivaled, if not exceeded the most outragious claims that any Japanese airgroup might have made during this period.

What I'm trying to say is that the strenghts of the Oscars were of relatively minor importance for WW2-vintage air combat.

I dont agree here but since the focus of the argument was originally on the subject of "rubbish", i'll leave it at that.

It could use energy tactics, but the RAF pilots always tended to use turning tactics when meeting a foe, something inherited from european experience where british aircraft had better low speed maneouverability and turning that their german counterparts. If the pilot had seen combat in the ETO, this was even more true.

Getting into turning fights was a factor. Not the only factor. I fail to see how this qualifies the Ki-43 as rubbish.

When confronted with the Oscar the Hurri pilots always tended to enter close fights, and in those fights they were dead meat against the Oscars. Once they realized it and resorted to E-fighting the losses started to go down...still they lost quite a number, but that is because the Hurricane was a very dated design by that time, and the E-fighting techniques and tactics didn't fit well with that aircraft, either (even while it was better than the Oscar in that department).

Naturally losses go down when you begin to take the measure of an opponent. . The Germans quickly learned not to do certain things against both Hurricanes and Spitfires. This helped reduce losses, but neither eliminated them nor made the UK aircraft of less value. Hurricane pilots did use E-tactics in the PTO and i saw no evidence that the plane was less capable of using them. It proved to be no magic solution for them anymore than with the AVG.

The spitfire was a much faster plane than the Oscar and had similar or better climbrate and acceleration (depending on the version of the Spit we're talking about). The Spit would've had a much better result than a hurricane...

The pilots who arrived late war in the theater their Spitfires probably thought the same thing before they got a harsh lesson. Given the circumstances over Malaya...i doubt the Spitfires would have done substantially better.

And evidence of actual combat results doesn't give objective facts when that combat didn't happen between similar numbers and similar pilots quality wise, as I already said. Factual data sometimes is VERY subjective because of the particular circumstances of the war at any given moment.

And anyway those combat reports don't speak so well of the Oscar. At least not from the moment when the Oscar faced experienced pilots in capable planes instead of lousy riders with winged garbage cans...

Well here we are certainly going to differ in our approaches. As i said, I'll take research and an analysis of the combat and it's factors over the dubious qualities of whatever airsimm game your garnaring part of your experiences from. It is true that the data can be interpreted in different ways which is where a true rift in our opinion lies. No big shock there....thats why historians will be arguing military history till the sun explodes. You look at some of the conditions and judge essentially that the primary reason for the Japanese plane's success was due to outside factors, soon easily corrected with noticable results. I see the plane's attributes as integral to the success and the data as supportive of this. It is also a perspective of extremes. The Hurricane, while not the UK's premiere model by end 41, doesn't rate as a "flying crate with wings" in my eyes any more than i view the 43 as "rubbish"

the P-51 had an inferior range to both the P-47D

Bilge.

The max range of the P-51D on the improved ventral tank and with wing tanks was about 2000 miles. On internal fuel the max combat radius was about 900 miles. Late P-47Ds with drop tanks could manage about 1900 miles.

Here is the P-51D with internal tanks and improved ventral internal tank but no drop tanks:
http://www.warbirdalley.com/p51.htm

qua P-47D with drop tanks:
http://www.warbirdalley.com/p47.htm

See also:
http://www.aviation-history.com/north-american/p51.html


Here are various P-51 stats with and without drop tanks. Note that the D/K variant had a 2000 mile combat radius on external fuel. Just edging out the P-47.

http://www.mustangsmustangs.net/p-51/p51specs.shtml

You might also consider reading the USAAF official history of the war. When introduced, the plane had superior combat radius over contemporary models of the P-38 and P-47 with and without external tanks. Late war improvements in propellors and TSCs allowed the P-47 to catch up a little. The N variant of the P-47 was a radical variant. Basically Republic's last effort to make a long range escort that could compete with the superior range of the P-51. But by then the P-51H with adequate range and a max level flight airspeed of 480+ mph was the superior fighter.

Which of course does not detract from the P47 at all. Were I twenty and flying USAAF fighters in 1944 I'd want to be a Juggernaut pilot, not a Mustand pilot.

The Japanese (and to a lesser extent American) aircraft were built for overwater, long range missions, these requirements were just not needed for the primary European aircraft.

That's a wonderful theory, it's wrong. Japanese a/c were built to maximize performance with a minimum of strategic materials, and to get top performance out of radial engined fighters absent high-octane fuels. The superior range was recognized as a benefit that came with the trade off of the absence of armor and fuel tank protection.

The P-39 and P-40 had no high speed control problems comparable to the A6Ms until you hit IAS in excess of 450 mph. In contrast the A6M and Ki-43 control surfaces became increasingly stiff at IAS in excess of 280 mph. There was no IAS over 300 mph in which an A6M or Ki-43 could hope to roll or turn with a P-39 or P-40. At IAS in excess of 330 mph (which the F4F could only attain in a dive), the F4F could out turn the Zeke. That is why the common practice for an F4F pilot diving out of combat was a diving right split.

The top five a/c IMO were:
The F4U
The P51
The P47
The FW190
The Spitfire XIV.

Were I shooting down a B17, B24 or B29 I'd want the FW190. Were I intercepting a Kamikaze I'd want the F4U. Were I escorting a bomber I'd want the P-51. Were I flying both escort one day and intercept against a bomber another day I'd want the Spit. Were I within 10,000 feet of the ground over enemy territory I'd want the P47.

Maybe the Japs should have declared war against Italy, they would have found lots of planes they could have fought for years and still not need to upgrade their planes. Damn the Pacific Ocean for being so big.

The Japanese would have been whupped in the Med. The MC-202 folgore was quite the plane -- better than anything the Japanese fielded -- and Italian pilots were quite good. If Italy's industry had not made Germany's gauleiter system look efficient by comparison the Italians might have given the USAAF/RAF really serious problems in Sicily and the Italian peninsula.

AVG overclaims during this period rivaled, if not exceeded the most outragious claims that any Japanese airgroup might have made during this period.

During this period, Japanese overclaims ranged from 10:1 to 30:1. The AVG's corrected claims are more or less conservatively placed at around 100-150 a/c. During the early part of the war, the AVGs did not get credit for an enemy a/c downed in combat until the wreckage was observed by a ground team. Later, as the AVG began spoiling attacks on airfields they were awarded credit for a/c seen "destroyed" (which of course can mean anything) by any independent observer. That's still roughly a 10:1 favorable kill ratio for the AVG.

ORIGINAL: RAM
True as it is, the Spitfire always went one step behind the Fw190 development, exception made for the late'43-early'44 period.

And in 1939-1940 as well of course, where the Spitfire pretty much out-preformed the Fw190 in all categories.

(sorry, couldn't resist)

AVG and Japanese losses through this period were (roughly) 1:1.

In my book Buffaloes over Singapore:RAF,RAAF, RNZAF and Dutch Brewster Fighters in Action over Malaya and the East Indies 1941-42 (by Brian Cull) on page 224 Geoff Fisken DFC sums up.

With the Buffaloes, if you had any height at all, you could get away from them by diving straight down, no trouble. We had the diving speed, and would hold together, whereas their planes wouldn't. We had armour plating on our Buffaloes and they had none at all. If you hit one of them they would often burst into flames. They were so very, very light. The only really good chance we had was of we managed to come out of a cloud and they were a few hundred feet below us. We had a chance then, but apart from that, they had too many for us.

The only way we could get away was to dive as fast as we could. They wouldn't follow us down- they wouldn't follow you in a dive. There wasn't much combat at any time. Because they were so much lighter than us, and therefore more manoeuvrable, they had us beat. You would try and get as much height. Naturally the more height you had the better and safer you were. With a height advantage you could get up plenty of speed in a Buffalo. The only way of getting a victory was to bash in and fire a three or four second burst and then get out of it. Otherwise there would be five or six more on your tail. Normally you had to go through their fighters to get to the bombers. They had great cover. There might have been masses of bombers but there would also be loads of fighters as well above, so the strategy was not to take any notice of the fighters- try to get through them as fast as you could. A fighter was no use to you, whereas if you knocked down a bomber, it was carrying a lot of explosives that could kill a lot of people and do a lot of damage to aerodrome, buildings etc. Normally you never worried about the fighters, unless one was sitting on your tail, of course, and then you had to get out of it. You had to be in the right position at the right time to get a plane, be it a deflection or tail shot or whatever. It was only a split second that you had and you had to take it. You would have committed suicide if you tried to dogfight with a Jap. It was an impossibility, so the only thing you could do- if you met them on even terms- was go for about a three or five second burst, and then get out of it because they wouldn't follow you down. If you didn't meet them on even terms- then you had to get out of it.

So Allied pilots were practicing zoom and boom tactics very early over Singapore from the start of the campaign!!!


on other pages it says:
24 Buffalo pilots were KIA. over Malaya while losing 68 destroyed and many write-offs.
15 ..................................over DIE.
The Buffaloes' harvest was:
....................Ki27......Ki48...Ki51...Ki43....Ki46...G3M...A6M...G4M
confirmed.......22........13.......13......2........1..........3....11.......1
probable.........8..........4.........1.......5.........1.........4.....9........0
The Dutch got 16 confirmed. and 10 probs

For each Buffalo it has their serial numbers and interesting points. like:
W8147 243 SqnWP-O: damaged in combat 12/1/42, Sgt GB Fisken RNZAF unhurt; damaged 14/1/42, Sgt GB Fisken RNZAF unhurt; damaged in combat 17/1/42, Plt Off GL Bonham RNZAF unhurt; shot down 22/1/42, Sgt V. Arthur RNZAF killed.

W8187 243 Sqn WP-R: damaged in combat 12/1/42, Sgt MJF Baldwin RAF unhurt; shot down 22/1/42, Sgt MJF Baldwin RAF KiA

ORIGINAL: Sharkosaurus rex

Maybe the Japs should have declared war against Italy, they would have found lots of planes they could have fought for years and still not need to upgrade their planes. Damn the Pacific Ocean for being so big.

[:-]

Macchi C205

http://www.iwai.it/mc205.html

AVG and Japanese losses through this period were (roughly) 1:1.

Nope.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Nope.

yep.

You have no credibility in the matter. The overwhelming majority of sources do not support your propaganda on this subject.

Are you referring to the AVG fan sites? Yes...they are using the official credited claims as their source. I'm using Chris Shores Bloody Shambles. A Lundstrom style modern piece of research.

No, I'm referring to level-headed, skeptical examinations of both sides claims and actual losses. The 64th Sentai lost 14 aircraft in air to air combat vs. the AVG according to two surviving Japanese pilots from that group. It was one of several units with which the AVG tangled. Wrecks shot down by the AVG and counted on the ground by British salvage teams numbered 37 planes. I think it unlikely that every downed plane was found but you can believe what you want.

Even handed, skeptical analysis of the situation shows that the AVG destroyed around 114 a/c in a2a. In exchange they had 14 AVG P-40s shot down.

See, for an on-line example:

http://www.warbirdforum.com/loss.htm

A Lundstrom style modern piece of research

Not.

Not.

Yep. Same methods. Same type of research, piecing together what happened using the records of both sides during the conflict. The resulting two volume set is the result of years of work by Mr Shores, Brian Cull and Yashuho Izawa.

For example between 12/8/41 and 1/31/42, 19 P-40's were downed (1 to bomber AA fire) along with 8 Buffalos in exchange for 17 Ki-27 and 2 Ki-43. A total of 15 Ki-21 were lost along with 1 Ki-15 and 1 Ki-30. During this period the weight of the escort and offensive missions were shouldered by the Ki-27.

While scoring a couple local successes, overall neither the AVG nor the RAF prevented the JAAF from completing their missions.

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

ORIGINAL: Sharkosaurus rex

Maybe the Japs should have declared war against Italy, they would have found lots of planes they could have fought for years and still not need to upgrade their planes. Damn the Pacific Ocean for being so big.

[:-]

Macchi C205

http://www.iwai.it/mc205.html

Oh I did so love this a/c in BTR. Equip a few German squadrons with it and it just chewed up the allies. Also liked the G55.