Oscars are still death traps from the get-go.

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
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.

mdiehl, the vast majority of those losses were bombers and those that were fighters the vast majority were Ki-27s.

That being said I dont think anyone is saying the Ki-43 was a great aircraft. It should be very difficult for a KI-43 driver to shoot down an AVG P-40 due the AVGs training and the relative ruggedness of their aircraft vs. the relative light armament of the Ki-43. BUT the Ki-43 in the hands of expirenced pilots "was" and "should" be more than a match for Hurricanes, P-36s, Buffalos and CW-21s in the "EARLY" months of the war. This is not the case in the game and which I believe isthe point of this thread.

It cannot be denied that much of the legend/myth of the zero was in fact built on the back of the KI-43 successes in Malaya, Burma, and NEIs. Although I am fairly certain you are against the zero early war manuever bonus, Certainly if its in the game then Oscar should at least benefit from it as well.

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

A Lundstrom style modern piece of research

Not.

I concur with Nik, Shores is an excellent source who compares unit records from both sides, gives actual serial numbers of the a/c losses, and breaks down the campaing into each individual daily operations. I have found it's analysis of actual losses is more or less confirmed by a certified AVG fanboy and author Dan Ford.

[herbieh]

I suggest Mdhiel you,d better prove you've read these books Bloody shambles before you bag them. Ive got only volume one, and it is without doubt the best researched book on these times of air conflict you could ever hope to read.

The point is, The allies knocked down planes, the japs knocked down planes, in the GAME, my Oscars don't seem to knock down very many

Then again, Im not a very good player[:'(]

[Frank W.]

can you edit units ?

say give the oscar 1 more point for air combat or so ??

[2ndACR]

If you are brave enough to tangle with the editor you can. I took one look at it and decided that I did not have the patience to tinker with it. You could spend days making changes.

[Frank W.]

yep. the interface looks a bit like the SPWAW OOB editor.

i think i will become familar with it quite fast.

[tsimmonds]

<catching up with thread after ignoring for a couple of days>

<eyes glazing over as if being roasted on a spit>

<goes back to tweaking GT 1 in anticipation of 1.30 and (maybe) finally starting PBEM>

[;)][:'(]

[mdiehl]

19 P-40's were downed (1 to bomber AA fire)

They weren't AVG P-40s. Ford's volume is based on the Japanese unit records and the AVG's unit records, and focuses exclusively on the AVG's combats with the Japanese. It is not a study of the entrie CBMI theater. There are multiple, independent studies that show that the AVG lost 14 aircraft in a2a. Ford's study covers all a2a. Bond and Anderson's account (A Flying Tiger's Diary, Texas A&M Press, 1984) gives the number as 12 in a2a (but from my reading I think they excluded 2 planes lost against bombers), and 60 fighters destroyed on the ground.

So in re the AVG's EXP rating, which is what we were talking about, and the a2a loss ratios AVG vs. Japanese, your claim that the ratio was 1:1 is manifestly, completely incorrect. Unless, of course, it is your position that the Japanese claims are more accurate than the actual AVG unit loss records. If someone has told you that the losses were other than what Ford, Bond, (and also Shilling, you can ask him he's still around) and the AVG's records indicate, and you believe them, because it makes you feel good to think that some other loss ratio that is not supported by the facts makes the Japanese look better, it pretty much makes you a typical garden variety Axis Fanboy.

[mdiehl]

I suggest Mdhiel you,d better prove you've read these books Bloody shambles before you bag them.

I suggest you shred the book and smoke it.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

They weren't AVG P-40s.

Yes they were.

So in re the AVG's EXP rating, which is what we were talking about, and the a2a loss ratios AVG vs. Japanese, your claim that the ratio was 1:1 is manifestly, completely incorrect.

No it isn't.

Unless, of course, it is your position that the Japanese claims are more accurate than the actual AVG unit loss records. If someone has told you that the losses were other than what Ford, Bond, (and also Shilling, you can ask him he's still around) and the AVG's records indicate, and you believe them, because it makes you feel good to think that some other loss ratio that is not supported by the facts makes the Japanese look better, it pretty much makes you a typical garden variety Axis Fanboy

Typical Trollish response. I never said the Japanese claims were more accurate. Both side's claims were equally wrong on numerous occasions though at times the AVG's were off by a greater margin when their enthusiasm got the better of them. Shores, Like Lundstrom, abolishes the myth's of both sides claims and gives us the real score. I didn't realize either that promoting a 1:1 loss exchange makes one an Axis Fanboy either. In actuality the AVG and their RAF counterparts in Burma did the best out of all the units engaged in the SRA conflict as they stayed competetive and scored a couple tactical successes (when the early warning system functioned well enough) They just didn't do nearly as much damage as they thought they did nor did they stop the JAAF from completing their missions.

[herbieh]

So I assume by the insult (typical Mhdiel response, always attack the man, not the argument) you havent read it then

Please quote page 34, 1st line, and then i might believe some of the stuff you sprout.

Do you drink in many redneck bars by the way, have you ever noticed how many people you manage to upset and insult on these forums, ever been told vast amounts of knowledge does not necessarily equate to always being right, or that "being right" even is the point
I love these forums, you are a cancer on them

End of discussion.
gets me banned, so what, I will just continue to play this game and enjoy it, playing some one like Mhdiel would be a nightmare.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

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 cockpit was so cramped that it even restricted the amount of stick force which the pilot could apply (especially in a roll), so that the Spitfire pilot could apply 60lbs of force while the Bf 109 pilot could manage 40lbs at the most" p. 173

Air Combat Legends Vol 1: Me 109, Spitfire, Seafire. AIRtime Publishing 2004. Gen, Editor David Donald

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: BoerWar


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.

What??? Says who? This is a pretty broad statement.

[mdiehl]

Shores, Like Lundstrom, abolishes the myth's of both sides claims and gives us the real score. I didn't realize either that promoting a 1:1 loss exchange makes one an Axis Fanboy either.

Nik, it *does* if the 1:1 loss ratio is wrong. You seem to be arguing that the AVG did not know how many a/c they lost in a2a combat. Ford *also* used the Japanese documents to the extent they were available (granted.. it's an oldish source). More to the point, every AVG study that uses the AVG's records puts the number at 12-14. You read Ford's book you get the names of the pilots who were flying the planes that were shot down.

I love these forums, you are a cancer on them

Herbieh -

I'm hell on Axis Revisionist Glorifiers and, of course, people like you who hurl insults like this

I suggest Mdhiel you,d better prove you've read these books Bloody shambles before you bag them.

and then suddenly get religion about keeping the discourse civil when I respond in kind.

[mdiehl]

Nik -

Chennault put the AVG losses as follows, from their first a2a combat until the AVG were disbanded:

12 P40s in A2A
61 on the ground including 22 burned to prevent capture
4 pilots killed in A2A
3 captured
6 killed by AAA
3 killed on the grounds in air raids
10 killed operationally (accidents)

19 P-40's were downed

So those 19 P-40s can't be AVG P-40s unless you believe that Chennault, the numerous bios of the AVG pilots, Ford's book, and the Camco records conspired to hide 7 AVG aircraft shot down. Look at the AVG losses... 12 planes and 6 to ground fire, and you get close enough to 19 to justify the claim that 19 AVG planes were downed. But you can't get them downed by Oscars.

[Nikademus]

The AVG were the only group in Burma at the time flying P-40's. I dont know how Chennault defines "lost in A2A combat", but they certainly lost more than 12-14. I have not read Ford so cant comment on his research methods. I only know that Shores is one of the best, most thoroughly researched books i've come across, highly aclaimed and well regarded. Like Lundstrom, it uses sources from both sides and gives the numbers behind the 'claims' used in other books.

You can frankly, believe what you want. I dont care. Your earlier crack however that i have "no credability" on this issue is false and your Axis fanboy insult, a tribute to your maturity level.

[mdiehl]

You can frankly, believe what you want. I dont care. Your earlier crack however that i have "no credability" on this issue is false and your Axis fanboy insult, a tribute to your maturity

I'm calling it as I see it. This is not the first time that you have exaggerated claims of Japanese success. You and I started out crossing swords over F4F losses in the SOPAC area and, as I recall (although it's been a long time), you suggested that I was some sort of uber-USA type because I viewed the "Japanese confirmed victories" tallies as spurious. We also crossed opinions over USN DD doctrine, in which you argued that the Japanese should be wiping the seas whenever a Type 93 was launched, and in which you summarily dismissed the US DD action at Balikpapan as irrelevant because the US hit rate was not what Morison thought it should have been (even though the hit rate in that engagement was greater than the Japanese mean hit rate with Type 93s). If you want maturity, try showing a little just once.

I don't "believe what I want." I believe the facts. You seem to think that some source other than the AVG's records are better than the AVG's records. Certainly on *that* issue you and I are both free to "believe what we want" as regards which facts are more reliable. I think anyone would put primary sources first. That means unit loss records or at least people who flew with the unit who, one would think, ought to know which of their friends were KIA or MIA, and how many a.c. were lost.

The records on the AVG losses are clear. 12 in A2A and 6 to ground fire. Ford used unit records, so I can say that his research is comparable to Lundstrom's as well, at least with respect to AVG losses. Ford's research is highly regarded (although it was not well received by AVG fanboys who wanted to believed that the AVG pilot claims were accurate). Were it otherwise, I seriously doubt that the Smithsonian Institution would have published it. Smithsonian's peer-review process is pretty thorough.

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

So those 19 P-40s can't be AVG P-40s unless you believe that Chennault, the numerous bios of the AVG pilots, Ford's book, and the Camco records conspired to hide 7 AVG aircraft shot down. Look at the AVG losses... 12 planes and 6 to ground fire, and you get close enough to 19 to justify the claim that 19 AVG planes were downed. But you can't get them downed by Oscars.

Not sure there is any descrepency. You state a source that the 64th Sentai lost 14 a/c to a2a. Since the 64th was the "only" unit in the CBI that operated Oscars during the life of the AVG then this would indicate only 14 Oscars were lost in entire theater during this time. Couple this with your stated 14 P-40s lost a2a or even the above 12 P-40s to a2a and you have for all practical purposes a 1:1 loss ratio between the Oscar vs the P-40, give or take a few possible P-40s shot down by Nates or conversely a few oscars shot down by buffaloes/Hurricanes. I do not recall how many if any AVG were lost to bomber defensive fire.

I do know for a fact that at least a few of the Oscar a2a losses were a result of defensive bomber fire. None other than the Col Kato commander of the 64th Sentia was shot down and killed by a Bleinheim turret gunner. Four others were bounced by a forewarned AVG, while the Oscars were on a strafeing run of the AVGs airfield.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I'm calling it as I see it. This is not the first time that you have exaggerated claims of Japanese success.

Lie. [to justify trollish behavior]

typical.

You and I started out crossing swords over F4F losses in the SOPAC area and, blah blah blah blah blah blah

Distraction attempt.

The records on the AVG losses are clear.

They sure are. See Shores, vol I and II.

[mdiehl]

Not sure there is any descrepency. You state a source that the 64th Sentai lost 14 a/c to a2a. Since the 64th was the "only" unit in the CBI that operated Oscars during the life of the AVG then this would indicate only 14 Oscars were lost in entire theater during this time. Couple this with your stated 14 P-40s lost a2a or even the above 12 P-40s to a2a and you have for all practical purposes a 1:1 loss ratio between the Oscar vs the P-40, give or take a few possible P-40s shot down by Nates or conversely a few oscars shot down by buffaloes/Hurricanes. I do not recall how many if any AVG were lost to bomber defensive fire.

That's an interesting point. Vis a vis Ki-43s vs. P-40s then the results would be approximately 1:1, with the P-40s along the way also accounting for some number of Nates and bombers. Have you those numbers available? Been a while since I read Ford and I wonder whether his revised talley of about 112 Japanese a/c downed was based on ALL of the Japanese records or whether he looked only at the 64th Sentai records and applied some kind of correction factor. (Note: Ford, however, attributed 14 Oscars in A2A vs the AVG, not to the theater so, the give or take might be accounted for by the difference between Ford's 14 and Nikademus' ne Shore's 19.)

The overall kill ratio would be what... 5:1 to 10:1 favoring the AVG? And we'd conclude what...

(a) The Ki-43+pilot combination was as good as the AVG P-40+pilot combination, or
(b) The Ki-43+pilot combination was as good as the AVG P-40+pilot combination when the P-40s were flying a dual purpose intercept (break through or otherwise hold off enemy escorts in order to shoot down enemy bombers). But then, these sorts of actions comprise the bulk of the AVG's engagements... which leaves precious little data to evaluate a trend for (a).

All of this sounds eerily like the Cactus AF problem... how does one account for the dual roles of defensive interceptors engaging an escorted enemy bomber formation.

Four others were bounced by a forewarned AVG, while the Oscars were on a strafeing run of the AVGs airfield.

A fair point but it's still A2A. Similar sorts of events make the A6M look pretty good against the Dutch P-40s in the NEI. Something like 20 Dutch P40s lost in A2A there, but of those (IIRC dim recesses of memory), something like 8 were shot down in one engagement when bounced in their landing pattern.