Air combat

[mogami]

Hi, 27 May 1942 The Japanese have recieved more reinforcements
I'm going to expand operations out of Lae. As a result I'm going to move bombers to Port Moresby to challange this.
The Japanese Army Airforce will use Lae while the Navy stays at Port Moresby. The IJA will have 2 fighter groups (Oscar I )and 2 bomber groups (1 Sally and 1 Lilly) The weather has been very bad for the last 8 days. Both sides air groups have been able to rest and rebuild and gain morale. It should really hit the fan when it clears.

[mogami]

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/28/42

Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 35

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 24
P-40E Kittyhawk x 46

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 9 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 2 destroyed
P-39D Airacobra x 4 damaged
P-40E Kittyhawk x 3 destroyed
P-40E Kittyhawk x 6 damaged

FO R. Howard of 49th FG/A is credited with kill number 3


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 27
G4M1 Betty x 53

Allied aircraft
P-40E Kittyhawk x 43

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 2 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 7 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 4 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Kittyhawk x 4 destroyed
P-40E Kittyhawk x 1 damaged

FO J. Mankin of 49th FG/A is credited with kill number 4

Airbase hits 3
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 10

Attacking Level Bombers:
14 x G4M1 Betty at 6000 feet
18 x G4M1 Betty at 6000 feet
1 x G4M1 Betty at 6000 feet
8 x G4M1 Betty at 6000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 6000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 6000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 25

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 16
P-40E Kittyhawk x 35

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 9 destroyed
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 3 damaged
P-40E Kittyhawk x 1 destroyed
P-40E Kittyhawk x 2 damaged

FO R. Howard of 49th FG/A is credited with kill number 4


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2xA6M2 A2A
7xG4M1 A2A
15xKi-43-Ib A2A
2xKi-43-Ib op
3xP39D A2A
9xP40E A2A

11th Ftr Sentai (IJA) Avg Exp 51(52) Morale 80(53) Fatigue 0 (15)36(19)xKi-43-Ib 15k (sweep)

01. J. Iwahashi* 72 KIA
02. I. Mitsumori 56
03. J. Kira 56 KIA
04. F. Harada 56 KIA
05. R. Hyastake 56
06. B. Mitsumori 54 KIA
07. U. Uchida 54 KIA
08. N. Futigami 54
09. G. Kabase 53
10. C. Hashiguchi 53 (54)
11. F. Kimura 53 KIA
12. W. Eto 53 KIA
13. W. Hida 51
14. M. Ochi 51 (62) 2 kills
15. K. Ochi 51 (57) 1 kill
16. M. Aino 50 (new CO of group)
17. G. Sonokawa 50
18. H. Ishimori 50 (55) 1 kill
19. A. Dohubara 50 (52)
20. T. Goto 50
21. P. Bunchichi 50 (51)
22. O. Fuchida 50
23. I. Shirahama 50
24. E. Anabuki 50
25. C. Ryuzaki 50
26. D. Mitsumsa 49 KIA
27. E. Oba 48 KIA
28. D. Ginowa 48 KIA
29. S. Gyuba 48 (54) 1 kill
30. R. Chunkami 48 KIA
31. V. Hidaka 47 KIA
32. L. Saito 47 KIA
33. G. Notomi 47 KIA
34. I. Chosiro 46 KIA
35. N. Kamei 45 (46)
36. J. Asusa 45 KIA
2 kills also went to pilots who were themselves KIA

In only 29 days the Japanese player would have a crisis to resolve. There are 0 pilots in the IJN pool. The IJA has 412 avg exp 50 pilots in the pool. If I was playing this campaign I would be forced to withdraw IJN units and wait for pilot pool to rebuild. Continued use in combat operations would result is serious decline in the group effectiveness.

F2/Tainan Daitai Avg Exp 86(87) Morale 99(87) Fatigue 0(19) 27(25)xA6M2 11k (escort)
01. T. Ota 99*
02. T. Nakajima 96
03. S. Kawai 96
04. J. Sassi 96
05. S. Ishui 96
06. T. Honda 95
07. W. Kanno 90
08. G. Miyazaki 89
09. J. Matsumara 87
10. D. Fujimatsu 87 (1 kill)
11. N. Yamakawa 87
12. A. Ohara 87
13. I. Sagara 86
14. C. Kumagaya 86
15. B. Ihura 86
16. K. Yoshimura 84 (1 kill)
17. G. Kanako 84 (1 kill)
18. F. Matsuhara 84
19. S. Matsuki 83
20. N. Tobushigo 83
21. E. Kukmoto 83
22. H. Kabota 83 1 kill
23. I Yamazaki 82 KIA
24. D. Fukomori 82(83) (1 kill)1 kill (2)
25. M. Hori 81 (83) 2 kills
26. V. Minami 80
27. G. Takagi 65 KIA

75th RAAF Squadron Avg Exp 62 (61)
Morale 95 (85) Fatigue 0 (4) Alt11k 16(13)xP40E (only 2 pilots were lost)
01. P. Turnbull 90*
02. J. Jackson 85 KIA
03. L. Jackson 83
04. P. Ashby 63 KIA
05. R. Woodroffe 61
06. G. Murray 60 (64) 1 kill
07. M. Thompson 59
08. F. Fisher 59
09. R Downey 57
10. S. Astin 57 (58)
11. L. Hackett 57 (58)
12. N. Doyle 55
13. T. Gilmour 54
14. U. Caldwell 53
15. P. Peirse 53
16. O. Palmer 53

The 8th FG has split into 3 Sqd. Sqd A will be the group reserve back at Cooktown B&C Sqds will
remain at PM.
8th FG/B Avg Exp 69
Morale 68 (46) Fatigue 0 (4) Alt 10k 16xP39D (14 ready 4 damaged ac)(14 pilots)
01. T. Huff 75
02. W. Danson 74* (77) 1 kill
03. J. Perkins 73 KIA
04. R. Cox 73
05 D. Campbell 73
06. R. Cordell 72
07. E. Milner 72
08. J. Clements 72
09. R. Touri 71 KIA
10. E. Zishinski 69
11. J. Mclaughlin 69
12. G. Ghramon 67 (71) 1 kill
13. W. Brown 66
14. G. Hope 64
15. G. Rogers 62
16. G. Halvston 61

8th FG/C Avg Exp 63
Morale 52 (42) Fatigue 0 (3) Alt 10k 16xP39D (13 ready 12 damaged 16 pilots)
01. W. Dwyer 74
02. V. Robbins 72
03. J. Henry 71
04. P. Brown 68*
05. C. Falletta 65
06. J. Mainwaring 64
07. H. Peterson 62
08. J. Baylock 62
09. L. Meng 61
10. R. Harringer 61
11. W. Bennett 60
12. R. Yundt 59
13. E. Ghram 58 (59)
14. C. Schuwinner 58
15. J. Lovett 58
16. J. Barley 58

49th FG spilt in 3 Squadrons Sqd 49th/A moves to Cairns (after the battle. I did not do it's pre battle roster)

49th FG/B Avg Exp 66 (67) (Group was very happy with mission Morale is 9 points higher)
Morale 84 (93) Fatigue (5) 0 Alt 15k 16xP40E (14 ready 5 damaged 15 pilots)
01. R. Taylor 70* (76) 2 kills
02. W. Markey 70
03. D. Myers 70 (71) 1 kill
04. E. Ball 69
05. D. Harbour 69
06. W. Haney 68 (73) 2 kills
07. N. Hyland 68
08. L. Donnell 67
09. C. Barnes 67
10. W. Levitan 66 KIA
11. T. Fowler 66
12. R. Molaris 65
13. C. Tice 65 (69) 1 kill
14. W. Garsch 64
15. G. Manning 63
16. R. Moonay 60

49th FG/C Avg Exp 66 (67)
Morale 84 (90) Fatigue 0 (3) Alt 13k 16xP40E (15 ready 2 damaged 15 pilots)
01. J. Kock 72 (73) 1 kill
02. B. Harrison 72
03. J. Yancey 72* (73) 1 kill
04. L. Martin 71 (74) 1 kill
05. D. Germain 71
06. C. Harvey 68
07. L. Jarman 68 (72) 1 kill
08. C. Aubrey 68
09. J. Sauber 66
10. G. Monurry 66 KIA
11. W. Sells 65
12. G. Gardner 64
13. J. Kelting 63
14. S. Poleshunk 62
15. J. Livingstone 61
16. M. Zawigna 59

US Army pool 823xavg 55 pilots in pool
RAAF pool 413xavg 55 pilots in pool

Campaign totals to date
27xAllied aircraft lost in air to air.
38xJapanese aircraft lost in air to air.

[mogami]

Hi, I'm going to try to correctly express my understanding of the system.
Hopefully someone will read this and understand and then do a better job explaining what I am trying to say (even if they do not agrees with it)

If we use a 0-99 system to rate pilots, we then have to arrive at what each nations pilots upon completing training are.
We can argue over whether or not a Japanese Naval pilot was better trained then a USN pilot (In the game they are both 60s. IJA and US Army pilots are both 55 after training)
I think the most important thing gamewise is the number of pilots that go into the pools. The Japanese Navy will be forced to use untrained pilots. (The Army will as well but at a later date)
I think this produces the desired result since the Allies will never have to use untrained pilots (unless they experience a period of disaster that I cannot imagine. I also think this is the historic and natural way to run the WITP system.

I would prefer the starting experience ratings for all Nations be as close as possible to what they actually were. Since both IJN and USN pilots leave training as 60's we only need decide how much the active duty prewar pilots had risen. (by further training or combat experience).

We also would need to establish what increases are given for wartime experiences. Then the model should be workable.

In testing I have not noticed any bonus for Japanese pilots outside their starting experience ratings. As can be seen from my posting complete Group pilot ratings they are not all super pilots. (and strangely the higher rated pilots have not been the leading scorers)

[Tristanjohn]

(quote) Tristanjohn
-------------------------------
There may or may not be a case for whatever "morale" rating is assigned. What is important to note is that USN morale ratings are universally lower than Japanese morale ratings and this is both (part of) the problem and indicative of where the design bias of this game certainly lies. As far as "fatigue" goes, sailing around the world in a virtual floating city like Enterprise wolfing down Navy chow fatigues n-o-b-o-d-y. If American pilots were seasick I haven't read of this, and they sure as hell were less mosquito-bitten then their rice-ration-consuming Japanese counterparts at Rabaul heading into this battle.
-------------------------------


I wasnt really trying to make the case for lower USN morale, as I agreed that its too low at the start of this scenerio. However I see it not as a game design issue but simply a scenerio design issue. Something that can be easily fixed within the system. Its also the type game play issue that Matrix has been more than willing to consider in the past if advocated intelligently with supporting facts. To me in this particular case its a just an aestetic issue, Since its easy to get the morale up to the high 80s and 90s well before anyone could possibly engage the enemy.

I managed to get one FS into the "80s" (exactly 80) after eight straight days of doing nothing at all, which of course obliged me to sail into harm's way with my CVs with no CAP at all. (Sitting in Luganville's a loser as the Japanese can push five good subs in and around there immediately--sailing through that sort of hazard with carriers is a good way to lose a carrier. Fast.)

How about if we stick to this poor model's reality here?

Regarding fatigue, the fact is it wasnt the pleasure cruise you described. They still had to fly CAP, ASW patrols, Search partrols, and in this particular case they (pilots) while in transit, practiced and trained rigorelessly for "Watch Tower".

Please. My point was rock solid. Why apologize, why make endless excuses for this idiocy? Who benefits from that? Who possibly could? I don't get it. Do you own stock in Matrix or 2by3? (Is either publicly traded? Probably not. And you might imagine the scene at the annual-report meeting should I own one of these shares.)

Sailing out to Guadacanal on a USN carrier was i-n-f-i-n-i-t-e-l-y less arduous than anything save the Queen Mary, and that assumes room service and shuffle board on the latter.

We are talking about only 12-14% fatigue afterall and again it can easily be brought down to zero before one could possibly encounter the enemy.

Easily? Before? What are you talking about?

Let's take this as you so carelessly present it: 1) fatigue doesn't drop off "easily" but rather over time, which happens to be the critical essence of all things war, and as a rule morale won't start to climb back up until fatigue does come off; 2) "before" combat doesn't impress me much when I face "Bettys" and "Nells" based at Rabaul in any kind of weather unless I've some sort of CAP overhead, most preferably a low-fatigued, high-morale CAP--only I didn't have that any more than you'd have that because the Wildcats come dysfunctional for all intents and purposes.

Do you mean "easy" as in "the gamer can very well go inside there and change all this stuff by using the provided editor"? Please tell me you did not mean that--I just want to be sure.

The reality of Scenario #14 is that the USN is forced to sail its carriers out of Segond Channel with either no CAP or suffer any even bigger fatigue/morale hit than he otherwise would have once he reaches position off the landing areas.

Dumb.

[Tristanjohn]

I would prefer the starting experience ratings for all Nations be as close as possible to what they actually were. Since both IJN and USN pilots leave training as 60's we only need decide how much the active duty prewar pilots had risen. (by further training or combat experience).

We also would need to establish what increases are given for wartime experiences. Then the model should be workable.

In testing I have not noticed any bonus for Japanese pilots outside their starting experience ratings. As can be seen from my posting complete Group pilot ratings they are not all super pilots. (and strangely the higher rated pilots have not been the leading scorers)

Just what is "experience" and how does one come buy this good thing in the real world? That is the question that needs to be asked before anyone touches the model again.

I'll give you a couple of clues. "Experience" is not the linear thing this model presents it as, and as for Japanese pilot-pool "experience" prior to the war in the South Pacific an excellent case might well be made that much if not most of it was actually detrimental to not only the air arm's future development but negatively impacted front-line combat versus the Americans right off the bat.

Think about that before anyone touches the model again.

Garbage in, garbage out. What a wonderful modeling theory.

Dumb.

[mogami]

Hi, Just go into the editor and raise all the ratings to 99.
You'd have to ask Rich Dionne why scenarios have certain ratings and why ships arrive or don't arrive. It has nothing to do with the model since Morale and Fatigue and Experiance or not fixed data.
The most important thing for impacting morale is the leader. If you look at pilots you will note they do not have a morale. Only experiance and fatigue. So morale must mean much more then how happy a pilot is.
It might have just been a bad choice of label. (Since it seems to me to be directly a reflection on the groups leader and other elements that are not pilots but affect the pilots in combat.) The low morale might be a reflection that the pilots have sat around too long. Or logged so many hours that all the aircraft need new sparkplugs but the crews have none to put in.
Morale is not just a reflection of no mail. Still I have ran the landing on Lunga a couple of dozen times without the Japanese being able to do squat about it. (I think they start with 2 half size bomber groups)
In UV you can be stuck with real bums in command of airgroups. In WITP you can fire the guy and appoint a new leader.
I do agree all units in scenarios should begin with near perfect ratings for morale and fatigue. The impact of leaders is such that certain leaders can cause a units morale to decrease even when it does nothing.
So morale can be a reflection of a leader that does not know how to fight his unit. (uses bad tactics or poor discpline in combat)

[mogami]

Just what is "experience" and how does one come buy this good thing in the real world? That is the question that needs to be asked before anyone touches the model again.

I'll give you a couple of clues. "Experience" is not the linear thing this model presents it as, and as for Japanese pilot-pool "experience" prior to the war in the South Pacific an excellent case might well be made that much if not most of it was actually detrimental to not only the air arm's future development but negatively impacted front-line combat versus the Americans right off the bat.

Think about that before anyone touches the model again.

Garbage in, garbage out. What a wonderful modeling theory.

Dumb.

Hi, Can you please explain this? It does nothing to help. All it shows it that you don't like the system. What alternative do you propose?
If there is an excellent case why do you keep it secret?
The program will still need a set of numbers. How do you arrive at yours?

[mogami]

Hi The following is a fact. It is not conjecture. The USAAF in the pacific lost 4,530 aircraft during combat missions from 1 Jan 42 to end of war.
They destroyed 10,343 Japanese aircraft during this period.

4,530-10,343 2.28-1.00

USAAF loss does not include lost in training, crashed on non combat mission, destoyed by enemy on ground, just plain wore out.
It does not include any lost before Jan 42.

It does include Japanese aircraft destroyed on ground but not lost in training, crashed on non combat missions or just plain wore out. It does not include any Japanese lost before Feb 42.

It is only the USAAF so allies and USN and USMC totals are not reflected.
(I am interested in finding these totals as well)

By year (USAAF loss during combat missions)
1942 341
1943 819
1944 1671
1945 1699 (Jan-Aug 45)

By year Japanese loss (from USAAF combat missions)
1942 608
1943 3232
1944 3778
1945 2226

ratios
1942 1.78-1.00
1943 3.94-1.00
1944 2.26-1.00
1945 1.31-1.00

My tests so far 1.40-1.00

From these numbers it appears the Japanese got better after 1943. Now what happened in 1943? The Japanese Naval Air Arm was destroyed in the South Pacific. Allied air superiority allowed many Japanese aircraft to be destroyed on the ground. The battle began in Aug 1942. Before Aug 1942 (using month by month totals that do not include the PI or Java or other isolated Allied places) The Japanese maintained a 1-1 (or better) ratio. It was when the system was pushed beyond what it could replace that it collapsed. It appears this collapse lasted well into 1944.

Since when numbers were even and the prewar pilots were still the ones maintaining the 1-1 (or better) ratios. Is it any wonder people might believe it was the loss of the prewar pilots and the growing number of Allied aircraft that produced the decline?

(The first month the USAAF destroys over 100 Japanese aircraft is Dec 1942)

Actual loss in May 1942 (South Pacific)was 36 Japanese 49 USAAF in my test it was 38 Japanese 27 USAAF so in model USAAF does much better then history. It could be argued the model is broke in regards to Japan.

In fact when I subtract the 2 kills by the RAAF and the 5 ac they lost
the numbers are 36 Japanese and 22 USAAF so the model is spot on in regards to USAAF killing Japanese but WITP Japanese are only half as good as the real mcoys

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Hi The following is a fact. It is not conjecture. The USAAF in the pacific lost 4,530 aircraft during combat missions from 1 Jan 42 to end of war.
They destroyed 10,343 Japanese aircraft during this period.

4,530-10,343 2.28-1.00

USAAF loss does not include lost in training, crashed on non combat mission, destoyed by enemy on ground, just plain wore out.
It does not include any lost before Jan 42.

It does include Japanese aircraft destroyed on ground but not lost in training, crashed on non combat missions or just plain wore out. It does not include any Japanese lost before Feb 42.

It is only the USAAF so allies and USN and USMC totals are not reflected.

<snip>

WOW... this is really interesting info... never before I saw such added
statistics represented as a whole...

Mogami from what book you took this from?

Thanks a lot!


Leo "Apollo11"

[mogami]

Hi. www.USAAF.net

[mogami]

Hi, Here is how the 2 Navies did against one another. (but also at this time the Japanese are being pounded in NG)

Total Allied Losses Guadalcanal Campaign
615 Aircraft
2 Carriers
6 Heavy Cruisers
2 Light Cruisers
14 Destroyers
4 Transport Ships

Total Japanese Losses Guadalcanal Campaign

683 Aircraft
1 Light Carrier
2 Battleships
3 Heavy Cruisers
1 Light Cruiser
13 Destroyers
6 Submarines
14 Transport Ships

[Tristanjohn]

Hi The following is a fact. It is not conjecture. The USAAF in the pacific lost 4,530 aircraft during combat missions from 1 Jan 42 to end of war.
They destroyed 10,343 Japanese aircraft during this period.

4,530-10,343 2.28-1.00

USAAF loss does not include lost in training, crashed on non combat mission, destoyed by enemy on ground, just plain wore out.
It does not include any lost before Jan 42.

Mogami, as usual you have not the least idea of what you're talking about. It is irresponsible of you to post this kind of material without 1) getting it out there accurately and 2) not understanding its meaning.

As a result you make yourself look foolish.

I offered the forum two links earlier so everyone would have a one-stop-shopping place for these statistics, broken down into convenient categories. (This site owner has gone to the trouble of posting scanned copies of US documents which are in the public domain and readily available from the United States Government Printing Office. There are no secrets revealed in them.)

The statistics for the Japanese collated by the USAAF are not as categorized as those for our service, but as I continue to tell you that is the norm for Japanese statistics for the war: they're not so hot.

Here's the link (again): http://tinyurl.com/n7u5

Now please, this time find out what you're talking about before you post again. All you do is confuse people further who are already confused enough.

[Tristanjohn]

Hi all,




WOW... this is really interesting info... never before I saw such added
statistics represented as a whole...

Mogami from what book you took this from?

Thanks a lot!


Leo "Apollo11"

Apollo, count to ten slowly, dry off your right hand and then go to bed.

That's a good boy.

[mogami]

Hi, Hey Knucklehead the url you posted is the same one I gave. We ARE using the same stats.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

"Tristanjohn" (or whatever your name is) - grow up and stop acting like
misunderstood and spoiled child...

You would really make great thing by simply disappearing from our forums
since you obviously don't like UV and have nothing positive to contribute...


Leo "Apollo11"

[USSMaine]

Is T-john Derek Smart in drag ??? Perhaps he's been banned from so many other forums his only recourse was to violate this one.....

[mdiehl]

[edit] This msg is better delivered in private.

[Tristanjohn]

TJ says:



Impressive, TJ. You've managed to be inflammatory, condescending, dismissive and yet offer a complete lack of content in a mere 19 words - 2 sentences. Such a "marvelous economy of thought."

PLEASE apologize to Apollo11 and Mogami or show yourself the door. In the mean time, welcome to my ignore list.

So you choose to play this game, too.

Well, you're a good writer and what you write when you stay on topic is both intelligent and insightful. But pandering to this forum's lowest common denominator is not the answer and never could be. And if you continue to do so you shall always have second-rate games to play.

Have a nice day, Mdiehl.

[pasternakski]

I have to agree with what Leo and Mdiehl have said. These insulting, belittling remarks are not tolerated any longer even on the AoW forum. Why the moderators have allowed it to go on for so long here is beyond my comprehension.

Personally, I am sick to death of being obliquely insulted in this cretin's polemics. I have tried on occasion to respond to his nonsensical whinings about what an awful simulation UV is, but now refrain, as all this brings you is more invective, as demonstrated in the last couple of pages of this thread.

Besides, he uses "shall," an offense that brings defenestration in the expository writing classes I teach (not to mention "pandering to ... (a) ... lowest common denominator," whatever in the world that's supposed to mean. Prostitution in algebra class, maybe?).

[Tristanjohn]

Besides, he uses "shall," an offense that brings defenestration in the expository writing classes I teach. . . .

You teach writing and just throw out any English verbs you don't happen to like? Do you throw out the students who use these verbs as well? Through the window, into the garbage, what?