Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
ORIGINAL: canuck64
Good GOD, man- tell us you play the game, at the very least.
Otherwise your very presence here is the epitome of a "straw man" argument, only Monty Python style to boot. Smells mustily like ego on display, and nothing but.
...'just sayin. F4F vs Zero arguments notwithstanding.
ORIGINAL: canuck64
oh and incidentally,
allowing for proper management of both sides of the coin, I'm finding a slight (raw) advantage of (guesstimate) about 1.2-1.5-1 Zero vs F4F battles....the edge likely being accounted for by it being 1943, and the experiential advantage of Japanese pilots (at war theoretically since 1937) over USN pilots (trained in theory over a single year largely and then brought into battle with a rather historically untested navy) appears to be, in essence, the deal breaker.
So it seems the game, from where I sit (and I find it OCD-level micromanagement to incur these values, by the way-not always fun)....produces quite realistic results given time....
the rest is hypothesis and conjecture, and is tantamount to an argument over "who the best rock guitarist was in 1975" .....
ORIGINAL: stuman
ORIGINAL: canuck64
Good GOD, man- tell us you play the game, at the very least.
Otherwise your very presence here is the epitome of a "straw man" argument, only Monty Python style to boot. Smells mustily like ego on display, and nothing but.
...'just sayin. F4F vs Zero arguments notwithstanding.
Me ? Yes I play the game, but I was also just BS'ing [:)]
And I happen to take kindly to being compared to Monty Python [:D]
ORIGINAL: canuck64
ORIGINAL: stuman
ORIGINAL: canuck64
Good GOD, man- tell us you play the game, at the very least.
Otherwise your very presence here is the epitome of a "straw man" argument, only Monty Python style to boot. Smells mustily like ego on display, and nothing but.
...'just sayin. F4F vs Zero arguments notwithstanding.
Me ? Yes I play the game, but I was also just BS'ing [:)]
And I happen to take kindly to being compared to Monty Python [:D]
Agh, Stu comments o' mine were not directed at you, but generally offered for due notation at large.
IS....this the right room for an argument?
ORIGINAL: TheElf
This is precisely why I removed the Zero bonus and the P-39 penalty. Hard coding failures that were the result of many contributing factors across the spectrum is bad form. Better to allow what factors we have represented in the game do that for us.ORIGINAL: Shark7
As I read this what seems to be the running theme is: Allies should be better in A2A starting in the second half of 1942, without regaurd to any facts. In the real war, yes in general late 1942 and into 1943 was the turning point due to attrition losses in the Solomons.
However, if people are trying to argue that the Allies in game should automatically start being better than Japanese fighter pilots starting in 7-42 then they are way off base. The game has a major difference to history, that being my input as a player. And if I can avoid the disaster at Midway or the grinding campaign in the Solomons then there is absolutely no reason I should have weaker fighter squadrons going into 1943 or even 1944.
Basically, the Japanese player should not be automatically put at a disadvantage especially if the Japanese player has done good management of his fighter corps and pilot pools.
BTW, from this point on I will fore go posting in a thread that is titled "XYZ sucks..."
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Dead wrong.
You are incorrect.
Geez buddy, bend over, pull the corn cob out of your as* and try to have a civil discussion.
You make interesting points, but in a manner that is off putting and and uncivil. Keep to the facts and drop the name calling.
Sort of like " double-secret probation "
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
That's your free cheap shot. I usually let people get away with one. After that I give 'em payback.
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Geez buddy, bend over, pull the corn cob out of your as* and try to have a civil discussion.
That's your free cheap shot. I usually let people get away with one. After that I give 'em payback. Nikodemus long ago used up his.
You make interesting points, but in a manner that is off putting and and uncivil. Keep to the facts and drop the name calling.
It's uncivil also to completely misrepresent someone's claims to the point of making them up of whole cloth and attributing them to someone else. Which is pretty much s.o.p. for Nik. It's what he (and to a lesser extent, Chez) does when the facts don't support their claims.
That's all the explanation I'm offering on that.
Coral Sea and Midway "Yet in direct confronations between the two fighters, fifteen zeroes succombed as opposed to ten F4Fs" (p.4. The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign by John Lundstrom).
At Coral Sea, VF2 entered the engagement at low power settings (120 knots) and lost 3 F4Fs to two A6Ms shot down (The First Team (vol 1) pp.238-243) in the attack on Shokaku.
As for claims made in this thread about Wake Island:
One raid was aborted in January 1942 because a supporting fleet oiler was sunk by I-72. In the second raid in February (Lundstom V1 p.111-117 where V1 is "The First Team" and V2 is "The First Team at Guadalcanal" no F4Fs were lost to enemy fire. Several were lost operationally. More were lost operationally in the Marcus raid on 4 March.
Versus other highly maneuverable Japanese types losses were low.
On 1 February 1 F4F fought 3 A5M4s, destroying 2 with no loss. Other engagements (no losses to either side) included 3 F4F vs 3 A5M4s, 1 F4F vs A5M4, and 8 A5M4 vs 1 F4F. USN combat losses were 5 SBDs. Japanese other combat losses were 3 Type 97 flying boats and 2 Type 96 bombers.
As to USN perception of Japanese fighters in February 1942, I'll let "Japanese VF Stinks" (Lundstrum V1 p.77) do.
At Bougainville on 20 February there were 2 F4F that engaged 2 ype 97s, destroying both without loss, and another instance of 2 F4Fs vs only 1 Type 97, destroying it without loss. In the aborted Rabaul strike, 14 F4Fs fought 17 G4Ms, shooting down 15 for the loss of two F4Fs.
I only mention these because rumours of an early war Wake Island raid that featured F4Fs shot down by anything, much less A6Ms, are disproven, and speak to the quality of background knowledge of the person who made the claim.
Chez was correct in noting that the Japanese had a signal success on 7 August. Nine of 18 engaged F4Fs were shot down intercepting a mixed strike of A6Ms and bombers. The US pilots shot down six bombers and two A6Ms (both from the 2nd Chutai). One of the F4Fs shot down was Southerland, who was exiting the fight and out of ammunition by the time Sakai caught up with him. (The A6M losses do not include Sakai, who survived an aft-attack on a flight of SBDs but with severe injuries).
As I noted before, F4Fs were easier to shoot down when they were busy attacking bombers. (About 1/3 of the F4Fs lost to Zeroes during the Guadalcanal campign were shot down as they were engaging bombers). The F4Fs stationed at cactus had their own lopsided victory somewhat later, when the Japanese feinted with a bomber formation and hit the F4Fs with a "fighter sweep."
The total of fighter vs fighter losses during the campaign was 31 F4Fs to 25 A6Ms.
As to whether or not USN training placed any emphasis on deflection shooting, or whether or not the Aleutians Zero was materially germane to the period of critical combat during which F4F soundly defeated Zeroes, "As in the first six months of the war, the Guadalcanal Campaign demonstrated the effectiveness of U.S. naval fighter doctrine, particularly deflection shooting and team tactics." (Lundstrom V2 p.530)
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
As for your claims of facts, I'm sitting here with at least one researched historical work that sharply contradicts your claims of losses at Midway.
Then that wouldn't be The First Team by John Lundstrom or Parshall and Tully's Shattered Sword.
ORIGINAL: John Lansford
I thought the bulk of the CV pilots at Midway were picked up by other ships and brought back to Japan. Certainly the ones shot down over the US carriers weren't, but the CAP and returning planes would have ditched and the pilots rescued.
According to Shattered Sword (page 476), the KB lost 110 aircrew at Midway:
Akagi 7
Kaga 21
Hiryu 72
Soryu 10
Total 110
On page 432 in the chapter entitled "The Myths and Mythmakers of Midway" they write:
"The Japanese naval air corps was all but wiped out at the Battle of Midway." Not True. Japanese casualties at Midway amounted to fewer than a quarter of the aviators embarked. Rather, it was the attritional campaign in the Solomons that destroyed the elite corps of Japanese naval aviators.
Elsewhere in the text they discuss the numbers of IJN naval aviators as a whole and go into more detail on the matter.
ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK
ORIGINAL: TheElf
This is precisely why I removed the Zero bonus and the P-39 penalty. Hard coding failures that were the result of many contributing factors across the spectrum is bad form. Better to allow what factors we have represented in the game do that for us.ORIGINAL: Shark7
As I read this what seems to be the running theme is: Allies should be better in A2A starting in the second half of 1942, without regaurd to any facts. In the real war, yes in general late 1942 and into 1943 was the turning point due to attrition losses in the Solomons.
However, if people are trying to argue that the Allies in game should automatically start being better than Japanese fighter pilots starting in 7-42 then they are way off base. The game has a major difference to history, that being my input as a player. And if I can avoid the disaster at Midway or the grinding campaign in the Solomons then there is absolutely no reason I should have weaker fighter squadrons going into 1943 or even 1944.
Basically, the Japanese player should not be automatically put at a disadvantage especially if the Japanese player has done good management of his fighter corps and pilot pools.
BTW, from this point on I will fore go posting in a thread that is titled "XYZ sucks..."
can't say i blame you given the headers , but there are times when these do manage to make a salient point .. occosianally
Yes it was.
Covered that right in this thread in post #97:
so the non-harmonisation certainly did help poor shots.
ORIGINAL: witpqs
Why the name-calling?
As for your claims of facts, I'm sitting here with at least one researched historical work that sharply contradicts your claims of losses at Midway.
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
4 (four) Wildcats at Midway actually fought at the end of their range, the rest of air combats were around Yorktown.
That is incorrect.
Similarly, most of air-to-air action at Coral Sea happened around American carriers.
That is incorrect.
Which CAP failed to protect.
That is incorrect.
Fist off, Coral Sea happened in May.
That is correct.
Second, wrong again.
That is incorrect.
Midway was relatively light on IJN pilots,
And that also is incorrect.
The cost of Coral Sea at pilots was fairly heavy, but largely because the heaviest combat and most losses happened around American carriers, not because Japanese fought poorly in the air.
And that is first order excuse-making.
Zero could regularly defeat every Allied aircraft before Hellcat, because Zeros regularly defeated them.
Your claim is incorrect. Zeroes did not win ANY CV vs CV engagements ever during the entire war. They tended to lose, in battles, although in some elements of battles they won. The USN F4Fs shot down more A6Ms in EACH of the Coral Sea, Midway, Eastern Solomons, and Santa Cruz engagements than they lost. It's an established fact.
Losses of Zeros and pilots in air combat at Coral Sea and Midway were quite insignificant, in the grand scheme of things.
That is incorrect.
And Midway was the most abysmal performance of USA naval fighter aviation ever, with Wildcats systematically failing to connect with raids or stop small Japanese strikes.
That is incorrect.
While heroics of Thatch little group likely were one of the factor that enable the last-chance reversal of fates,
That also is incorrect.
but had the rest of escorts not failed in their duty, US forces could have won [without only snatching the victory by the last-chance reversal of fates,] or taking horrible losses in torpedo squadrons.
Correct, apart from the part in brackets. The US victory at Midway was the most likely outcome given the forces each side deployed. Partially it comes from the Japanese having the worst, least fault tolerant, most operationally complex battle plan in the history of naval aviation, and partly it comes from the USN having a very fault tolerant battle plan that succeeded despite many turns of bad luck against the USN and despite some rather botched execution.
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Yes I suppose we are. We'll keep having it as long as people who assert that the Zero was a better plane flown by better pilots and regularly defeated F4Fs keep making that claim. The evidence doesn't support that claim.
