Informal POLL Re: Oscar

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Does anyone actually know how many P40B/C/Es or P38s were downed by Oscars during World War 2?

Well, that would have to be the starting point to see what - if anything - needs to be fixed.

Perhaps someone who has copies of all three books of the "Bloody Shambles" series could start collecting data...as a start anyway. I would think writing the US Air Force for records would be the next or possibly most logical source to mine for data.

Then you would have to sort losses by numbers of aircraft involved in each engagement, mission type - if possible, and beginning position of advantage between the forces.

All of the above historical data would have to be sorted before interpreting the data ...otherwise it couldn't be seen in context and properly interpreted.

(For example, in the 1982 Falklands War - Sea Harriers enjoyed a massive kill/Loss ratio over Argentine Skyhawks, etc. But one has to bear in mind the fact that the Arge's weren't shooting back at the Harriers - before one decides the relative merits of each aircraft type...)

A lot of work...

B

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Big B

Perhaps someone who has copies of all three books of the "Bloody Shambles" series could start collecting data...as a start anyway.

B

Uhhh...Nik does. And he seems to have a pretty good handle on how the Oscar should perform. Myabe we all need a copy of the Shores Series?

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Big B

Perhaps someone who has copies of all three books of the "Bloody Shambles" series could start collecting data...as a start anyway.

B

Uhhh...Nik does. And he seems to have a pretty good handle on how the Oscar should perform. Myabe we all need a copy of the Shores Series?

Ohhh...I'll have to get a copy of all three myself hopefully soon.

[Bombur]

Does anyone actually know how many P40B/C/Es or P38s were downed by Oscars during World War 2?

-According to Nik´s sources the score of AVG (P-40) vs Ki-43 I was 8:5. This is similar to losses we see in his mod. I don´t know nothing about the P-38. It´s likely that most P-38 vs Oscar combats involved the Ki 43 II.

[sfbaytf]

I'm currently reading "Fire in the Sky" for the third time. Excellent book. Talks about the Ocasr quite a bit and one allied pilot is quoted as seeing an Oscar do 2 consecutive immelmans followed by a hammerhead-something no other fighter -even the Zero could hope to do.

Lack of armor, self sealing tanks and Spad like armament were huge shortcommings. Was a plane designed for the previous war and not WW2. On the other hand many of the Allied pilots were not well trained in the early war years and too many allied pilots tied to dogfight with the much more manuverable Zeros and Oscars.

I'm actually working on a batch of custom missions for IL2/PF that will feature the Oscar. Its intended for those who want a real challenge or enjoy inflicting pain on oneself.

[DFalcon]

I ran that test and posted the results on my thread on the design board. The post is copied here below.

Test Result #5

This test was done in response to a thread on the main board about the Oscar. It recreates an engagement where the Ki-43IIa got the better of some P-38J.

The Oscars were given a huge advantage. They have 20 experience on the P-38, altitude and out number them by 51 to 38 against 18. I think the Mod shows very well in this test and the stock data shows it’s weakness.

Day Air attack on Rabaul , at 61,88

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 51

Allied aircraft
P-38J Lightning x 18

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-IIa Oscar: 11 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-38J Lightning: 2 damaged

I ran this type of battle 10 times with the following settings;

Defenders
64 Ki-43IIa 80% Cap 10,000ft Experience 85
72 Ki-21 targets

Attackers
20 P-38J 10% Sweep 5,00ft Experience 65

Average losses per dog fight (Standard / Mod)

Ki-43IIa 7.6 / 2.0
P-38J 0.6 / 3.0

Tomorrow I will get back to my F4U vs. A6M3a test.

[m10bob]

Yeah.....If these Japanese pilots had greater experience levels, the numbers just are not correct..
The Oscar should make a better showing than the standard model shows....

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: DFalcon

I ran that test and posted the results on my thread on the design board. The post is copied here below.

Test Result #5

This test was done in response to a thread on the main board about the Oscar. It recreates an engagement where the Ki-43IIa got the better of some P-38J.

The Oscars were given a huge advantage. They have 20 experience on the P-38, altitude and out number them by 51 to 38 against 18. I think the Mod shows very well in this test and the stock data shows it’s weakness.

Day Air attack on Rabaul , at 61,88

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 51

Allied aircraft
P-38J Lightning x 18

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-IIa Oscar: 11 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-38J Lightning: 2 damaged

I ran this type of battle 10 times with the following settings;

Defenders
64 Ki-43IIa 80% Cap 10,000ft Experience 85
72 Ki-21 targets

Attackers
20 P-38J 10% Sweep 5,00ft Experience 65

Average losses per dog fight (Standard / Mod)

Ki-43IIa 7.6 / 2.0
P-38J 0.6 / 3.0

Tomorrow I will get back to my F4U vs. A6M3a test.

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Yeah.....If these Japanese pilots had greater experience levels, the numbers just are not correct..
The Oscar should make a better showing than the standard model shows....

Well on the surface something seems out of sorts...going to bed now - but on the morrow it will be time to give the results a good think

Big B

[m10bob]

Big B...........Your TA 50 looks like cold weather gear, and the background does not look like Ft Lewis vegetation..Where was the pic taken ??

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Big B...........Your TA 50 looks like cold weather gear, and the background does not look like Ft Lewis vegetation..Where was the pic taken ??

Ahh,

It's just a standard M1941 Field Jacket (the most comon type we wore during WWII) just buttoned up all the way, standard M1910 type backpack (straps are visible). Jeep cap under my steel pot, amo bandalero visible, and handle of bayonet visible sitting in it's scabard attached to the back pack.

I'm soaked to the bone - just come back from patrol in Tunisia [X(](but it's actually Camp Roberts off Hwy 101 in Central CA[:D]).


B

[Terminus]

Quite a walk from Tunesia to Central California. No wonder you look tired...

[AmiralLaurent]

The Oscar in WITP is really bad. In Shore's "War over Burma", we see Oscars (no distinction made between model I, II and III) fight all war long over Burma, with rather experienced pilots, and held their own against all kinds of opponents, including Spitfire, P-38, P-47 and early P-51. They are not winning every battle but losses are closer to 1:1 on a whole than the 5:1 or 10:1 we will see in WITP. A strange thing is that the Ki-43 Oscars did better than the Ki-44 and the Ki-84 on this theater (but pilot quality may be an explanation).

Also in RL any sweep over the frontline may provide easy targets (like C-47 dropping supplies or Hurricanes used for tactical recon) and evade Allied patrols, while in WITP it will only engage these patrols.

To give just an example, on 19 October 1944 the Royal Navy raided the Nicobar Islands and a dozen Ki-43 from an operationnal training unit attacked and met in the air Corsairs and Hellcats. The score at the end of the battle was at least 4 and probably 6 Oscars shot down (4 pilots killed, 2 other force-landed and their AC were probably lost) against 2 Corsairs and 1 Hellcat shot down.

[mdiehl]

Yeah.....If these Japanese pilots had greater experience levels, the numbers just are not correct..

That claim is not necessarily accurate. The question is not "what is the difference in experience level in the pilots" (or at least it should not be that). The question is "does the pilot have sufficient training or experience to fly his aircraft to its strengths?" A "sufficiently" trained P-38 driver even though he might have 1000 hours less air time and little combat experience might still routinely best a Ki-43 pilot. All a Ki-43 can do is outmaneuver a P-38 at modest to slow airspeed. So if the P-38 pilots keeps his airspeed up all a Ki-43 driver can do is evade and hope that the P-38s run out of ammunition, fuel, or just go away. It's not like the Ki-43 is going to get on a P-38's tail if the P-38 keeps airspeed above 300 mph or thereabouts.

Not that I am a fan of anecdotes, but if you want one that gives a "best case" example of very experienced Ki-43 against novice P-38s look at Eric Bergerud's Fire in the Sky.

[Nikademus]

Yes, the nine Ki-43's belonged to the 1st Yasen Hikotai (Field Training Squadron) which were actually flying in from Medan and had been equipped with two drop tanks to support the long flight. They spotted the raid and attacked.

1834 Squadron lost two Corsairs and one Hellcat in exchange for four Ki-43's shot down with a further two crash landing (total of six)

[AmiralLaurent]

From what I read from WWII aerial fightings, most fighter vs fighter battles were fought among or close clouds and pilots got in and out depending of the tactical situation. So performance of the fighter will come second after pilot skill, tactical situation and luck of the pilot. For example most battles in the Pacific were at low alt with at least one side loaded with bombs. Many fighter kills in WWII were bounces rather than dogfights.

Another difference between RL in WITP is that greater fighter vs fighter battles in RL produced less kills than little. The reason is that when tens of fighters are whirling around most pilots are so busy checking their six that it is very difficult to chase a given target. WITP is failing to modelize this, and also failing to show the effect aerial superiority has in one battle. For example inferior AC may fly a defensive circle and be relatively immune to enemy AC, at least if they had enough gas to remain so until the enemy departs.

In fact I have the impression that in most cases performance or armament were not the most important factor in fighter vs fighter battle, but they were really important in fighter vs bomber. Armament of course (but even Nates were able to shot down B-17s sometimes) but also speed (are fighters able to catch enemy bombers ? And are they able to fly in front of them and do a frontal attack, the most efficient vs heavy ?).

[mdiehl]

Well, from my reading the initial tactical positions had a lot to do with the first thirty seconds or so of the fight. As you note "getting the bounce" is worth alot. Still, the performance characteristics of the aircraft (from what I've read) immediately dominated the fight provided that the pilot had the basic knowledge of his aircraft's capabilities. A P38 "bounced" by an Oscar, absent a really lucky shot that killed the pilot, was likely to escape unless it was taking off or landing. In most circumstances at most altitides a P-38 could sprint away from the Oscar, even in a shallow climb. That meant that the window of time for something like an Oscar to get in a decent shot was brief, and the Oscar's guns were inadequate by any standards.

Of course you'd get exceptions. A damaged P-38 fighting several Oscars. ANY aircraft encumbered by bombs or caught in a really bad part of its flight envelope (slow acceleration, low current airspeed, poor maneuverability at current airspeed) could be shot down. Which is in the end why even a pos like the Oscar could sometimes shoot down better allied planes, even when the better Allied planes were flown by pilots who knew what do do with their aircraft. Sometimes you're just stuck with no options.

Consider the Midway strike and the Midway Island CAP. By all accounts the Japanese had positional advantage and overwhelming numerical superiority. The VMF unit lost *all* the Brewsters, but only one of the (three or four available and flying IIRC) F4Fs to incoming Japanese fighters. Aircraft performance was more important than combat flight time in general if pilots were trained to use the strengths of their plane. With F4Fs there were things a pilot could do ... with Brewsters US pilots were just s.o.o.l.

[Honda]

Isn't it clear Oscar is an underperformer in the game vs. RL? The point isn't to make it have 1-1 vs. Corsair or Hellcat but just to give a chance to 80+ exp pilots in Oscars to hurt 50-60 exp Corsairs or Hellcats. It don't see that happening due to game mechanics. OscarI seems to perform rather historicaly. However OscarII needs some help to get around in 43+ environment.
Some facts (Christopher Chant, WW2 - Aircraft):
1. OscarII had some primitive selfsealing tanks and armored pilot seat.
2. It was modified to carry 250kg bombs.
3. It's top speed at 4.000 meters was 540 km/h (A6M2 was 533 km/h at 4.500 meters)
4. OscarIII went into production in May '44. Don't know exact stats but had an engine with 25% more horse power then OscarII. If the game forces Japanese players to stick with Oscars till the end (which is historicaly accurate) it could at least give them the '44 upgrade. BTW there was also a '45 version, a high-altitude interceptor armed with two Ho-5 20mm cannons, but it never saw mass-production 'cause the war ended.

Yes, Oscar was hopelessly outdated in 43+ but not in the scale the game suggests. Help Oscars! They're your friends!

[mdiehl]

The point isn't to make it have 1-1 vs. Corsair or Hellcat but just to give a chance to 80+ exp pilots in Oscars to hurt 50-60 exp Corsairs or Hellcats.

Why should they have a chance to do so? How much of a chance? If a 50 EXP corsair pilot knows how to fly his plane to his strengths, why should an 80 EXP pilot (absent mitigating tactical circumstances such as catching his opponent landing or taking off, or tactical surprise) have any control over the fight at all?

[sfbaytf]

A few more points to keep in mind was once the allies discovered the strengths and weaknesses of Japanese fighter they devised tactics to defeat them. The Zero and Oscar did not perform well at high altitudes nor were they highly maneuverable at high speeds as their controls became heavy and sluggish. Allied who flew later planes -Hellcats, Lightning’s, Thunderbolts....were told to never get low and slow...

Most Japanese planes did not have radios and when they did they usually didn't work well. Allied planes had short and long-range radios and could sometime have contact with ground based radar stations that could vector them into favorable positions. Allied pilot's also emphasized teamwork whereas the Japanese tended to go looking for 1v1 duels.

The areas were much of the fighting took place ware rife with disease and oftentimes both sides had poor supply, support and suffered from sub par morale.


When all is said and done it was amazing either side did as well as they did. If there is one thing I will say about the game, it appears to me that attrition is toned down quite a bit. From what I've been able to gather both sides could expect the following loss ration - 40% to enemy action and 60% to operational losses...

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The point isn't to make it have 1-1 vs. Corsair or Hellcat but just to give a chance to 80+ exp pilots in Oscars to hurt 50-60 exp Corsairs or Hellcats.

Why should they have a chance to do so? How much of a chance? If a 50 EXP corsair pilot knows how to fly his plane to his strengths, why should an 80 EXP pilot (absent mitigating tactical circumstances such as catching his opponent landing or taking off, or tactical surprise) have any control over the fight at all?

I wonder why the "experience" rating isn't used instead of a "Zero bonus"? At the start of the war inexperienced allied fighter pilots -- i.e. those who haven't yet learned not to dogfight with the nimble Zeros and Oscars -- get shot down. As their experience goes up, they take advantage of their aircrafts' superior speed, firepower and protection and the Japanese get flamed. What's so hard about that?