Matrix Games Forums

It's interesting how whenever a discussion of historical facts breaks out, you try to divert it into something personal, Castor. It's almost as though you fear the conclusions will differ from the, well, whatever it is mental construct of WW2 that your incredibly narrow mind manages to contain.

I think HansBolter's first reply to this thread sums up my perspective rather succinctly.

while there might have been official or unit-based standards for point of impact convergence, pilots often would work with maintenance crews to set their guns the way they preferred

Agreed. There were standard harmonization/convergence distances for Luftwaffe, RN/FAA, RAF as well as USAAF pilots (don't know about IJN, IJA, USN or USMC) as well as what the 'official load' should be in terms of load composition (AP, HE, incendiary etc) but in many cases it was simply 'personal preference' and whatever the pilot pesonally preferred. Having met a few WWII aces and also from what I've read in books, most fighter pilots liked to tinker/alter things to their own personal settings, and weren't afraid to ignore official guidelines when it suited them (probably why they survived!), and had a good relationship with thier groundcrews who were willing to carry out minor field modifications.
Taking it to its logical extreme, in WWI there was a fairly well known RFC fighter pilot, who, disgusted with the amount of jams he had in the air (quite common in 14-18 conflict), took it upon himslef to religiously check each round of ammunition of an evening before it was loaded into his plane...

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

while there might have been official or unit-based standards for point of impact convergence, pilots often would work with maintenance crews to set their guns the way they preferred

Agreed. There were standard harmonization/convergence distances for Luftwaffe, RN/FAA, RAF as well as USAAF pilots (don't know about IJN, IJA, USN or USMC) as well as what the 'official load' should be in terms of load composition (AP, HE, incendiary etc) but in many cases it was simply 'personal preference' and whatever the pilot pesonally preferred. Having met a few WWII aces and also from what I've read in books, most fighter pilots liked to tinker/alter things to their own personal settings, and weren't afraid to ignore official guidelines when it suited them (probably why they survived!), and had a good relationship with thier groundcrews who were willing to carry out minor field modifications.
Taking it to its logical extreme, in WWI there was a fairly well known RFC fighter pilot, who, disgusted with the amount of jams he had in the air (quite common in 14-18 conflict), took it upon himslef to religiously check each round of ammunition of an evening before it was loaded into his plane...

You are sure with Luftwaffe? I thought most of the German fighters had all their guns in the nose?

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.

Hmmmm....

mDiehl said:

I know of no one who said that any type won every single engagement. I only know people like yourself who claim that Zeroes swept the skies of the opposition throughout 1942 despite the fact that they almost never broke even against F4Fs. I also know a guy who claimed thousands of B-29s were lost to "explosive decompression" but that's another argument.

mDiehl said:

So here's what happened. In face to face engagements in 1942, USN F4F drivers defeated A6M drivers in every battle, when you measure "defeat" in terms of number of wildcats and zeros shot down. That was mostly accomplished without using the beam defense and despite the fact that the Wildcats were operating at very extended range.

Quibbling over semantics such as "battle" vs "engagment" is typical for you. I call it backtracking. I've noted that now you are backing off your earlier statements such as the one above where you flatly state "USN F4F divers defeated A6M drivers in every battle." You then try to cover your a$$ by stating, "I meant CV battles." The problem is that your a$$ prevents you from removing your foot from your mouth.

Could you point others to that post where I said that thousands of B-29s were lost to explosive decompression? The last time you brought this up, I believe you said that I said we had lost hundreds of B-29s. What I actually said was that explosive decompression can, and has, caused aircraft to crash. I also said that explosive decompression can, and has, caused extreme, incapacitating discomfort in aircrew sometimes with fatal results even when the aircraft didn't crash. That's a far, far cry from your extreme misrepresentation and embellishment. But that is typical for you, isn't it?

Seems to me that's its you that keeps putting words into other people's mouths. It's you who resorts to name calling when your "facts" are corrected with reputable sources. And it's you who seems to have a problem providing credible sources to back up your "facts". "USN Sources." Now there is a very specific source. Care to narrow that down a bit?

Your constant replies of "You are incorrect" without providing a single shred of evidence from any credible source to support your position is just your normal attempt to convince people you are an expert. "Trust me. I know what I'm talking about" just doesn't work here. So put up or shut up.

BTW, you still have never owned the game, correct? You did say you played a few turns... when was that again... 2003, 2004?

Have a nice day. Oh and Merry Christmas. Hope Santa doesn't put any coal in your stocking.

Chez

Quibbling over semantics such as "battle" vs "engagment" is typical for you.

No, it's not. I made it quite clear that I used the term engagement in the sense of "engaging a target" from the outset. Only you or Nik would immediately then substitute that for "battle."

I call it backtracking. I've noted that now you are backing off your earlier statements such as the one above where you flatly state "USN F4F divers defeated A6M drivers in every battle."

I clearly stated that USN F4F drivers won every CV battle. I have always said that. I've said that before and it is still my position. I've always been clear that I thought of the Guadalcanal campaign as a campaign. I've ALWAYS been clear from the outset, for a decade now in conversations with you, that the loss ratio of F4Fs vs A6Ms in that campaign favored Japan. Only a classic chickens**t could pretend that I ever implied anything else.

The problem is that your a$$ prevents you from removing your foot from your mouth.

So typical of you.

Could you point others to that post where I said that thousands of B-29s were lost to explosive decompression?

Can you point to a place where I said you're the one? Seems like you'd only be trying to defend that point if you believed it.

That's a far, far cry from your extreme misrepresentation and embellishment. But that is typical for you, isn't it?

You're not one to complain about someone ELSE distorting the things you say.

Seems to me that's its you that keeps putting words into other people's mouths.

Only yours, because you've done it to me so many times, including here. I guess using your own tactics against you makes you uncomfortable. Here's a tip. If you don't like it, don't do it to others.

It's you who resorts to name calling when your "facts" are corrected with reputable sources.

Most of your commentary is just like the one you're trying to stir up now. You basically accuse me of writing posts that follow your s.o.p to the letter.

Care to narrow that down a bit?

Already been there and done that in this thread and elsewhere. It's not my problem that you have the memory of a gnat or else the intellectual honesty of a politician.

BTW, you still have never owned the game, correct? You did say you played a few turns... when was that again... 2003, 2004?

I drove a Chevrolet Lumina once for three months and found it, like all the other Chevrolets I've driven, to be a slipshod construct with an engine and drivetrain that were inconsistent with the general purpose of transportation, and parts that often did not function for their intended purpose. Not owning a Chevrolet Lumina ever, and not driving it now, in no way disqualifies me from the historical reflection that the Chevrolet Lumina was a p.o.s. Naturally enough, if someone says "The Chevrolet Lumina was the best car of its age" I tend to offer my dissenting point of view.

Of course, if one really DIDN'T want a historical discussion to break out because one feared it might lead to comparisons about the game results, one might try, as you usually do, to STOP a historical discussion by resorting to the attacktics that you've displayed here (and everywhere else).

Have a nice day. Oh and Merry Christmas. Hope Santa doesn't put any coal in your stocking.

Happy yuletide to you. Hope Santa never requires you to pass a history test.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Quibbling over semantics such as "battle" vs "engagment" is typical for you.

No, it's not. I made it quite clear that I used the term engagement in the sense of "engaging a target" from the outset. Only you or Nik would immediately then substitute that for "battle."

I call it backtracking. I've noted that now you are backing off your earlier statements such as the one above where you flatly state "USN F4F divers defeated A6M drivers in every battle."

I clearly stated that USN F4F drivers won every CV battle. I have always said that. I've said that before and it is still my position. I've always been clear that I thought of the Guadalcanal campaign as a campaign. I've ALWAYS been clear from the outset, for a decade now in conversations with you, that the loss ratio of F4Fs vs A6Ms in that campaign favored Japan. Only a classic chickens**t could pretend that I ever implied anything else.

The problem is that your a$$ prevents you from removing your foot from your mouth.

So typical of you.

Could you point others to that post where I said that thousands of B-29s were lost to explosive decompression?

Can you point to a place where I said you're the one? Seems like you'd only be trying to defend that point if you believed it. (Then why bring it up?)

That's a far, far cry from your extreme misrepresentation and embellishment. But that is typical for you, isn't it?

You're not one to complain about someone ELSE distorting the things you say.

Seems to me that's its you that keeps putting words into other people's mouths.

Only yours, because you've done it to me so many times, including here. I guess using your own tactics against you makes you uncomfortable. Here's a tip. If you don't like it, don't do it to others. (Are you kidding me? I'm luvving it. But you misspoke again. It's your tactics used against you that make you uncomfortable- especially when backed up with references that you can't ever seem to find)

It's you who resorts to name calling when your "facts" are corrected with reputable sources.

Most of your commentary is just like the one you're trying to stir up now. You basically accuse me of writing posts that follow your s.o.p to the letter.

Care to narrow that down a bit?

Already been there and done that in this thread and elsewhere. It's not my problem that you have the memory of a gnat or else the intellectual honesty of a politician.

BTW, you still have never owned the game, correct? You did say you played a few turns... when was that again... 2003, 2004?

I drove a Chevrolet Lumina once for three months and found it, like all the other Chevrolets I've driven, to be a slipshod construct with an engine and drivetrain that were inconsistent with the general purpose of transportation, and parts that often did not function for their intended purpose. Not owning a Chevrolet Lumina ever, and not driving it now, in no way disqualifies me from the historical reflection that the Chevrolet Lumina was a p.o.s. Naturally enough, if someone says "The Chevrolet Lumina was the best car of its age" I tend to offer my dissenting point of view.

Of course, if one really DIDN'T want a historical discussion to break out because one feared it might lead to comparisons about the game results, one might try, as you usually do, to STOP a historical discussion by resorting to the attacktics that you've displayed here (and everywhere else).

Have a nice day. Oh and Merry Christmas. Hope Santa doesn't put any coal in your stocking.

Happy yuletide to you. Hope Santa never requires you to pass a history test.

[:D][:D][:D] I'm loving it! Would you like a bigger shovel for that hole you're digging?

Tell ya what... let's just cut to the chase. Prove your point.

How about you list out the A6M vs Wildcat losses for the following "CV" battles:

1. Coral Sea
2. Midway
3. Eastern Solomons
4. Santa Cruz

Not just how many of each were lost but how many were shot down by the other. You say you have the sources... prove your point. And list those sources like a good little boy, will ya? Put your reputation (such as it is) of the line.

Or will you take the easy way out once again and say you have nothing to prove? Put up or shut up. Prove your case. Take off the skirt. That is all I'm asking. Prove your case and I'll get off yours. Let people see what the truth is, with a credible source so they can look it up and learn also.

BTW, you once said a few years ago that you were compiling a list of the losses and their causes. Do you have it or was it just more hot air?

Double BTW, I don't believe we've been discussing this for a decade. May seem like that to you but not true. I've only been here since 2004.

Chez

I'm loving it! Would you like a bigger shovel for that hole you're digging?

As you are, cognition-wise, a small man, I think the shovel I'm using is more than adequate for the task ahead of me.

How about you list out the A6M vs Wildcat losses for the following "CV" battles:

1. Coral Sea
2. Midway

15 Zekes lost to 10 F4Fs. Lundstrom The First Team at Guadalcanal, p.4.

3. Eastern Solomons
4. Santa Cruz

25 Zekes lost to 31 F4Fs, Lundstrom, the First Team at Guadalcanal. Backing out the VMF losses and the 9 VF losses in the engagement at Lunga on 7 August 1942 doesn't leave any room for Japanese "wins" at Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz, but I'll have to go through the volume line by line to give you exact tallies, again, as I have done before, twice.

Not just how many of each were lost but how many were shot down by the other. You say you have the sources... prove your point. And list those sources like a good little boy, will ya? Put your reputation (such as it is) of the line.

Already been there and done that. See, the thing is, whether I'm a good boy or just the bad boy who kicks your loudmouth in the teeth and demonstrates, again, that you have your head up your posterior, I am pretty sure that 6 months from now when some 3rd party says "The Zeroes usually trounced the Wildcates in 1942" and I say "Errm, no, the facts don't support that claim," you will once again jump in demanding that I cite chapter and verse, even though I've already done that several times.

Will there be a point where you will stfu and concede the point if I once again provide the citations for the references that you claim to own and have read but somehow manage to keep forgetting?

Or will you take the easy way out once again and say you have nothing to prove? Put up or shut up. Prove your case. Take off the skirt. That is all I'm asking. Prove your case and I'll get off yours. Let people see what the truth is, with a credible source so they can look it up and learn also.

You'd know more about wearing a skirt than I.

BTW, you once said a few years ago that you were compiling a list of the losses and their causes. Do you have it or was it just more hot air?

Still working on it.

Double BTW, I don't believe we've been discussing this for a decade. May seem like that to you but not true. I've only been here since 2004.

I might be a decade more or less with Nik. Seems like the first time this came up was in the GGPW thread when I did a fairly detailed tally based on Richard Frank's Guadalcanal. At the time the rebuttal was of the form of 'Well, the actual combat losses don't disprove the claim that Japanese pilots were better and Japanese planes were better therefore a consim should offer as a regular combat result, combat losses that substantially favor the zero.' At least I've finally managed to get you and Nik to concede that it might not have been so. Who knows, maybe even in a few more years one or the other of you will actually admit that in the first several encounters between USN and IJN pilots the USN pilots (on the whole) won.

You claim I misrepresent your position. Fine:

Do you think there was any sustained interval during 1942 in which Japanese pilots in Zeroes facing USN pilots in F4Fs regularly defeated or even achieved parity against those USN pilots in F4Fs? If so, when was that interval? On what evidence would you make that claim?

If not, do you think it is reasonable to assume that a consim reflecting the relative merits of the two nations pilots and a.c. types will produce sustained results in virtual 1942 that produce attrition rates comparable to WW2, assuming that all players in the game are of relatively equal skill?

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

It's interesting how whenever a discussion of historical facts breaks out, you try to divert it into something personal, Castor. It's almost as though you fear the conclusions will differ from the, well, whatever it is mental construct of WW2 that your incredibly narrow mind manages to contain.

I think HansBolter's first reply to this thread sums up my perspective rather succinctly.

I´m not arguing with you, I´m only pointing out that YOU are the one that is diverting it into something personal, as your posts towards Nikademus pretty much leave no doubt about it. And one of the few narrow minded on this forum are you, there are enough people here that have no doubt about it. Like all your posts, that could be done by a bot. [>:]

I´m only pointing out that YOU are the one that is diverting it into something personal

Only a person with a highly biased slant could make that claim. Here's his very first reply to me in this thread. Boldface indicates wholesale distortions. Italics indicates wholsale fabrications. Underlines indicate unsubstantiated (and subsequently refuted by me, citing relevant text, in this thread) claims.

Nice one Chez....i'd only add that you forgot to mention the simple fact that half of the Wildcats shot down at Coral Sea occured while they were defending their home carriers.....not as alleged, while straining at max range under "low power" while being unfairly attacked by Zeros (Is there such a thing as unfair a2a combat??!) Lundstrom in fact mentions only one specific situation whereby two Wildcats reving at cruise speed got attacked, neither plane was lost. If one is going to nitpick on what constitutes "fair" a2a combat (lol) then i guess it should be mentioned that the first Zero shot down by a navy Wildcat was at "low power", low altitude and was bushwacked from behind, the pilot never seeing his attacker. oops. One can also add the two F4F's shot down over Wake by Zeros for no return losses. Wildcats always winning? I know of no plane that won every single air engagement numerically speaking.

Specifically, I didn't say half the losses at Coral Sea were obtained in a low power engagement, I didn't say anything about "fairness," Lundstrom names the two fighters lost in the low power engagement, and Lundstrom notes that NO F4Fs were lost to Japanese fighters at Wake Island.

The complete lack of concern for basic truthfulness in his post pretty much sums up Nik to the core, in my experience.

as your posts towards Nikademus pretty much leave no doubt about it.

What's inaccurate about what I've stated or unfair about retaliation?

And one of the few narrow minded on this forum are you,

Nope. I've never allowed devotion to a notion to stand in the way of a fact-based rebuttal. The fact that I'm still being told how unreasonable I am for sticking to the facts reveals who the "narrow minded" people truly are, unless by "narrow minded" you mean "isn't willing to concede that facts don't matter.:

there are enough people here that have no doubt about it. Like all your posts, that could be done by a bot.

There are enough narrow minded people here who have no doubt about it. And if my posts could be done by a bot, then you're a heck of a skilled orator (not) to lose an argument to a guy whom you say has the debating skills of a bot.

Post # 92, mdiehl states:

... All that was and is needed is to look at the losses they took in A2A combat in April and June 1942. The better part of four carriers worth of pilots was basically erased. ...

To which John Lansford replied (post # 94):

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.

I replied (post # 97):

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.

[/quote][/quote]

After several other posts passed on the thread, I wrote (post # 107):

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.

mdiehl replied (post # 115):

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.

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.

To which I replied (post # 132):

ORIGINAL: witpqs

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.

Yes it was.

Covered that right in this thread in post #97:

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.

And still no reply from mdiehl on this. A pair of direct quotations from one of the sources that mdiehl is obliquely referring to as authoritative (see his post # 115), yet only continued blustering.

Chez - let me know if you decide to hold your breath waiting for that list of losses with sources for each. I'll call 911.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
You'd know more about wearing a skirt than I.

I just loooove this thread - it has such a catchy title - don't cha think???


ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

I could just sing that tune all the live long day !!!
[:D]

And still no reply from mdiehl on this.

That is not correct. See post 136.

A pair of direct quotations from one of the sources that mdiehl is obliquely referring to as authoritative (see his post # 115), yet only continued blustering.

You are incorrect. I always acknowledge when a definitive citation is offered. You seem to be doing a bit of selective reading.

Chez - let me know if you decide to hold your breath waiting for that list of losses with sources for each. I'll call 911.

Troll. [8|]

ORIGINAL: UniformYankee

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
You'd know more about wearing a skirt than I.

I just loooove this thread - it has such a catchy title - don't cha think???


ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

I could just sing that tune all the live long day !!!
[:D]

I'm not sure but I think the OP is trying to say that

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

Damn this diregarding thread makes us all crazy... [:D]

Is this the new disregard thread? The old one was getting boring, at least this one has posters sniping at each other. [:D]

Well thats a fact. Hard to disregard I have to say...

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

And still no reply from mdiehl on this.

That is not correct. See post 136.

A pair of direct quotations from one of the sources that mdiehl is obliquely referring to as authoritative (see his post # 115), yet only continued blustering.

You are incorrect. I always acknowledge when a definitive citation is offered. You seem to be doing a bit of selective reading.

Chez - let me know if you decide to hold your breath waiting for that list of losses with sources for each. I'll call 911.

Troll. [8|]

I didn't look for a reply to me in a post replying to Stuman. 35% losses you say? Right in the text it says fewer than one quarter. You're doing the selective reading.

As for my comment about the list you claim to have, I don't believe you have compiled such a list. When you publish it here I will believe that you have. Which is not to say I will trust your list or your analysis and conclusions.

"Troll"? So you're back to name-calling. Your choice of the word Troll brings up the question: Why are you here, on a forum about a game you claim is basically warped (my paraphrasing), and that you admit that you do not own? Blaming your lack of ownership on Nik's alleged bad influence over Matrix certainly doesn't cut it.

ORIGINAL: Nomad

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

ALLIED FIGHTERS SUCK

Nomad, I don't understand your point here. Please clarify.

Thanks.

my my my.....i see i'm someone's favorite again! [:D]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Specifically, I didn't say half the losses at Coral Sea were obtained in a low power engagement, I didn't say anything about "fairness," Lundstrom names the two fighters lost in the low power engagement,

This is true, you didn't say half.....and you didn't say "fairness" What you said was:

mDeihl post 92

One of the Coral Sea sub-engagements only turned out favorably for the Zekes because the F4Fs went into the battle at relatively low power settings due to lack of fuel at range.

"only" huh?


Here we are again....

mDiehl post 128

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.

VF-2? what the whole escort, low power again....what? the whole time?


hmmmm......I'll tell you what....you get the names of the two pilots who were shot down at "low power" and i'll get the name of the Zero pilot from the same battle who was also shot down at "low power" and we'll have a Low Power Party or LPP for short. There you can explain why you keep straining to mention F4F's, whether a "sub-element" or an entire squadron, are "only" being shot down because of "reletively low power", if not to imply some sort of unfairness to the F4F's in question being lost. You can also explain why you never qualify Zero losses in similar circumstances.

and Lundstrom notes that NO F4Fs were lost to Japanese fighters at Wake Island.

You are confused. I never said that the F4F's shot down over Wake came from Lundstrom's work. I also never said they were navy F4F's. If that magic list you like to mention from time to time were real....you'd know that. oopsie.

The complete lack of concern for basic truthfulness in his post pretty much sums up Nik to the core, in my experience.

You say the nicest things......

Nik...are you being facetious again?[:-]

Ooops, I'd better be careful...there's folks here that might not know what that means and complain...[;)]