Informal POLL Re: Oscar

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse



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?

Nothings hard about that ..I've been saying that all along...

B

[sfbaytf]

I also wondered if the game models differences in performance due to altitude. Allied planes like the P-38 and Corsair should have an initial advantage if fighting at higher altitudes. After a few rounds of dogfighting when things tended to get lower and slower the high altitude performance advantage should go away.

[Honda]

Duh! I know all those things. It's hard not to if you visit the forum, it's repeated monthly! What i'm saying is planes should be modeled so they reflect historical performance as best as they can and according to this thread's info, they don't because Oscars are hopeless as opposed to real life situations where they, at least, stood a fighting chance not to get 1:30 kill ratos regardless of the pilot experiance!!! That's my point! [:@]
Again and again, it's nobody's idea to make an uberOscar (the whole concept is a bit oxymoronic if not moronic) but to make an Oscar (II) a plane that doesn't get shoot out of the sky at the mere mention of an enemy fighter.
Their armement is feeble enough.
Their speed is negligable in '43 terms
Their maneuverability misrepresented
Why?
More speed = more mvr
So mvr is almost a pointless stat. Be so kind as to give Oscar the only thing it excels in, his maneuverability!

Just one more thing:
"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? "(mdiehl)
vs.
"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. "(Admiral Laurent)

The Oscars must have cheated...

[mdiehl]

So mvr is almost a pointless stat. Be so kind as to give Oscar the only thing it excels in, his maneuverability!

The problem to which I think you and previous posters may be alluding is that a/c performance varies with altitude and current airspeed. An Oscar simply ISN'T more maneuverable than an F6F if both are travelling at IAS in excess of about 320 mph. Caveat of course that if the F6F is carrying rockets and drop tanks when the two engage the F6F might well be less maneuverable.

The Oscars must have cheated...

More likely there was (a) some initial advantage that allowed the Oscars to get at their opponents or (b) the accounts of F4U and F6F demise are inaccurate.

Hey Admiral Laurent... what's the source on that engagement? Are those (a) "claimed killed," "confirmed killed," or "losses gleaned from unit records"? (The latter is the only count that is likely to have a strong consistent relationship with reality).

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse



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?

Nothings hard about that ..I've been saying that all along...

B

From what I have read, the trouble was not experience but doctrine. In WW I, the aircraft were flemsy but highly maneuverable at low speed; high g maneuvers (either turns or pull-outs) would result in the wings shedding off the a/c. As the a/c got tougher and more powerful, the doctrine of horizontal maneuver did not change although it did stress tight high-speed turns. Up through 1941 inclusive, all US army pilots were taught to maneuver in the horizontal, just like WWI.

When these pilots (some of whom were quite experienced) met the Zero or Oscar for the first time, they fought the way they had been taught, in the horizontal, and they died. Chenault, even in the pre-AVG days, was preaching vertical maneuver; in fact the reason he was in China was he was forced out of the Army Air Corps due to his outspoken criticism of what would be called ACM doctrine today (and because he was apparantly rather unpleasant with anyone who disagreed with him). He sent back word to the War Department that Japanese a/c were far more maneuverable than AAC a/c and it was suicide to dogfight with them (and I think he was talking about NATES). They continued to ignore him. When he got the AVG formed, the first thing he did was re-write THE BOOK, stressing vertical maneuver while maintaining an altitude advantage and never turning with the opposition.

When WitP first came out, I thought (and still think) that the Zero Advantage was an elegant solution to this (although it might last a little longer than necesssary). The fact that the AVG is immune to the Zero Advantage simply reflects the fact that the AVG used verticle maneuver from the beginning while the AAC spent months realizing it was the proper way to use the advantages of the P40.

Refering to US Navy ACM, note that the famous Thatch Weave credited with allowing Wildcat pilots to fight Zeros and live through the experience is still a horizontal maneuver. The fact that it was highly inovative and stressed mutual support just indicates just how little the doctrine had changed since WWI.

I am not a pilot, simply reasonably well-read. My point is that the capabilities of the US a/c in 1941 were not as significant as they should have been since the pilots were taught to fight according to the "tried and true" methods of the past. Also they trained against each other; a P40 pilot who learned ACM per doctrine and practiced with another P40 could become highly experienced and still be meat on the table the first time he encountered a Zero or Oscar (and still no one learned, look at F4 against MiG 21 in 1967).

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: pompack

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse



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?

Nothings hard about that ..I've been saying that all along...

B

From what I have read, the trouble was not experience but doctrine. In WW I, the aircraft were flemsy but highly maneuverable at low speed; high g maneuvers (either turns or pull-outs) would result in the wings shedding off the a/c. As the a/c got tougher and more powerful, the doctrine of horizontal maneuver did not change although it did stress tight high-speed turns. Up through 1941 inclusive, all US army pilots were taught to maneuver in the horizontal, just like WWI.

When these pilots (some of whom were quite experienced) met the Zero or Oscar for the first time, they fought the way they had been taught, in the horizontal, and they died. Chenault, even in the pre-AVG days, was preaching vertical maneuver; in fact the reason he was in China was he was forced out of the Army Air Corps due to his outspoken criticism of what would be called ACM doctrine today (and because he was apparantly rather unpleasant with anyone who disagreed with him). He sent back word to the War Department that Japanese a/c were far more maneuverable than AAC a/c and it was suicide to dogfight with them (and I think he was talking about NATES). They continued to ignore him. When he got the AVG formed, the first thing he did was re-write THE BOOK, stressing vertical maneuver while maintaining an altitude advantage and never turning with the opposition.

When WitP first came out, I thought (and still think) that the Zero Advantage was an elegant solution to this (although it might last a little longer than necesssary). The fact that the AVG is immune to the Zero Advantage simply reflects the fact that the AVG used verticle maneuver from the beginning while the AAC spent months realizing it was the proper way to use the advantages of the P40.

Refering to US Navy ACM, note that the famous Thatch Weave credited with allowing Wildcat pilots to fight Zeros and live through the experience is still a horizontal maneuver. The fact that it was highly inovative and stressed mutual support just indicates just how little the doctrine had changed since WWI.

I am not a pilot, simply reasonably well-read. My point is that the capabilities of the US a/c in 1941 were not as significant as they should have been since the pilots were taught to fight according to the "tried and true" methods of the past. Also they trained against each other; a P40 pilot who learned ACM per doctrine and practiced with another P40 could become highly experienced and still be meat on the table the first time he encountered a Zero or Oscar (and still no one learned, look at F4 against MiG 21 in 1967).

It's not that I am totally disagreeing with you but -

1) Let's not forget that the US Army AirCorps knew the value of verticle maneuver since Capt Eddie Rickenbacker and his Spad XIII fought the Flying Circus in 1918. It's just diving on your enemy (hopefully from out of the sun) at speeds he can't follow...zooming.

2) It's NOT a question of KI 43 and Zero pilots having an advantage of P-40s and the like - it's only a question of HOW MUCH advantage you want them to have.

My point all along has been that with a 20 -40 exp advantage AND the historically accurate superior numbers - the Japanese player has SUFFICENT advantage during the first months of war to allow for complete air domination where they choose.

B

[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.

It suddenly occured to me- if you want to duplicate the above air battle that rtrapasso quoted - put the P-38s on strafe or air base attack - not fighter sweep.
It may well change the results...

B

[tabpub]

It suddenly occured to me- if you want to duplicate the above air battle that rtrapasso quoted - put the P-38s on strafe or air base attack - not fighter sweep.
It may well change the results...

B

It certainly would to some degree; fighters in the bomber mode are at a large disadvantage in A2A combat.

[mdiehl]

Refering to US Navy ACM, note that the famous Thatch Weave credited with allowing Wildcat pilots to fight Zeros and live through the experience is still a horizontal maneuver.

It was the Thach-Flatley Weave but they called it the "beam defense." It was one of several ways that the US F4F pilots could beat IJN A6M pilots. It stressed close mutual support but in fact murual support was US doctrine anyhow, so it was not unusual by January 1942 to see US pilots acknowledging the value of fighting as teams.

The beam defense was not as many believe invented as a response to casualties in the face of Zeros. It was in fact first developed and used successfully by the Navy in Army-Navy Opfor games in 1941, with F4Fs successfully meeting P-40s and forcing the latter into head-to-head passes that minimized the advantages of the P-40s (greater speed and acceleration) and played to the advantages of the F4F (faster roll rate).

More to the point it is not very apparent that the Japanese really "mopped the skies" of opposition at any point in the early war. As one previous poster noted, operational losses accounted for more on all sides than shoot downs. The few really terrible engagements seem to involve Oscars or Zeroes against Brewsters -- principally in Burma where RAF pilots in Buffaloes got mugged. And as many know the same happened at Midway where all 12 Brewsters were destroyed but only one of five engaged F4Fs was shot down even though the Zekes had far superior numbers and positional advantage going into the fight.

During the Guadalcanal campaign, where the beam defense was largely NOT used by the USMC defenders, the losses in direct confrontations between F4Fs and A6M only slight favored the Zeroes. In naval engagements (US CV based F4Fs vs A6Ms) the F4Fs had a slightly favorable kill ratio. Although some would grasp at explanations involving range or fatigue, it is noted that at least in the naval (CV vs CV) engagements the range consistently favored the Zeke drivers and worked against the F4Fs.

I'm still waiting for someone to post an *authoritative* tally on aircraft losses in the New Guinea campaign and in the Java campaign. By authoritative I don't mean Japanese "official kills" credited to Japanese pilots. I mean actual Allied and Japanese unit loss records. At this point I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that you could find consistently good performance in Malaya (favoring the Japanese) and in the Darwin Raid. I'd bet that for the rest the general result of early campaigns was loss ratios on the order of one to one.

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: Big B

It suddenly occured to me- if you want to duplicate the above air battle that rtrapasso quoted - put the P-38s on strafe or air base attack - not fighter sweep.
It may well change the results...

B

Wether it recreates the said battle or not it certainly shows us somthing about the combat system. Numbers, tactical advantage and experience mean very little (almost nothing) measured against the performance when it hits a certain point. At least with the standard data.[;)] This also happens on the other side when early war allied planes fight the zero.

I think the player should be rewarded for providing the numbers, tactical advantage and experience and not have it trumped when he does. Wether that is more realistic or not I will let others debate.

[Gen.Hoepner]

I think the player should be rewarded for providing the numbers, tactical advantage and experience and not have it trumped when he does. Wether that is more realistic or not I will let others debate.

Cannot but agree.

[tabpub]

ORIGINAL: DFalcon

ORIGINAL: Big B

It suddenly occured to me- if you want to duplicate the above air battle that rtrapasso quoted - put the P-38s on strafe or air base attack - not fighter sweep.
It may well change the results...

B

Wether it recreates the said battle or not it certainly shows us somthing about the combat system. Numbers, tactical advantage and experience mean very little (almost nothing) measured against the performance. At least with the standard data.[;)]

I think the player should be rewarded for providing the numbers, tactical advantage and experience and not have it next to meaningless. Wether that is more realistic or not I will let others debate.

The Zulus had the numbers, tactical advantage and experience at Roarke's Drift. These things are not always everything; doctrine and technology are also very important, perhaps more.

[TheElf]

While I feel debate is healthy, the purpose of this "Poll" was to see what everyone's experiences were with the Oscar, not to try and convince everyone else that "you" (the Royal you)are right. That being said, and Air combat being as near and dear to my heart as it is I cannot sit idly by with pointing out some things...

mdiehl:
1. If a 50ish EXP P-38 pilot can fly his aircraft to its strengths, what is an 80ish EXP Oscar pilot doing??

sfbaytf:
1. The game does not model aircraft performance at different altitudes. The only nod to performance, or lack thereof, is the P-39/400s lack of performance above 10K'

2. "Allied pilot's also emphasized teamwork whereas the Japanese tended to go looking for 1v1 duels." ---This is less true than everyone thinks. It is true that the Samurai ethos enjoyed a revival, but the Vic formation, and later the 4-ship fingertip or Schwarm (yes the Japanese used them too)implied a realization that mutual support was necessary.

I think everyone agrees on some basic things here:

1. WitP Air Combat, in general, tends to be an all or nothing game. Either your side dominates, or it doesn't. The result is typically very good for you or very bad depending on which side you are on. I have seen some "draws" if you will, but they are few.

2. The Oscar, in particular does not get the benefit of ever having a "good day" vs. anything from the P-38F on. Look back in this thread to see my comments on the Lighting as an Allied player.

3. Air Combat tends to favor luck first. Whether its "getting sight to win the fight" first or happening upon a numerically inferior force at an altitude or SA disadvantage, the intial tactical picture is big part of the outcome of any air battle. Skill/EXP comes into play, and is defined as what an airborne leader does when luck or the intitial tactical advantage isn't on his side. Likewise it is also what that same leader does to maximize the effect of good fortune/tactical advantage when he has it.

4. Air Combat in WWII was a story of matches and mis-matches, and lots of variables. For example....

Weather is bad, clouds abound, Fortune would have it that this day Capt Ito had his Oscars at 14,000' above an undercast.

Misfortune would have it that Sldr Jones, had his bomb/rocket laden Corsairs and Hellcats below an overcast.

Again fortune and puts Ito in an advatageous position and his experience allows him to translate that into an unobserved entry for all of his fighters on a group of Strikers.

Aircraft performance, in this case weak armament, results in 2 Corsairs and 1 hellcat being lost for 4-6 Oscars. But perhaps Ito's EXP mitigated his weak armament such that 3 kills can be called a better than average result. Had he been better armed this might have been a more one-sided engagement.

Pilot EXP and a performance edge over the Oscars gives Sldr Jones and his men the ability to overcome a tactical disadvantage using knowledge of their aircraft and knowledge of mutually supportive tactics. Perhaps the guys that were lost were green and had not seen combat, they hesitated a second too long when the first call the "Break!!!" came over their headset. The pilots who survived were highly experienced and muscle memory took over. After the first pass they had a moment to regain their composure and fight their aircraft to it's strengths

Unfortunately if you ran this scenario a hundred times with the WitP A2A combat model and the WitP Oscar, you would NEVER get a "good day" result for the poor Oscar.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: tabpub

The Zulus had the numbers, tactical advantage and experience at Roarke's Drift. These things are not always everything; doctrine and technology are also very important, perhaps more.

I remember reading something about 40 years ago, so forgive if I dont get it 100% correct but the jist of it.

Some airgroup (one of the first to get the P51 in Aus) sent 2 pilots out on a check flight (may have been another aircraft type, but Im thinking it was P51). Neither had ever flown the plane before. When they returned the flight leader flew over the airfield and did a victory roll, everyone on the ground cheered. He did it again. And again. And again. after the 5th, the folks on the ground were getting pissed. His wingman had landed during the display and one of the senior officers came over to him ranting and raving how the "victory roll" wasnt to be made fun of like that. His wingman replied that he did indeed get 5 kills, and he himself had gotten 3 but didnt know how to do a victory roll, so he just came in and landed.

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
By authoritative I don't mean Japanese "official kills" credited to Japanese pilots.

"official kills" were Allied "invention"

[Blackhorse]

The Zulus had the numbers, tactical advantage and experience at Roarke's Drift. These things are not always everything; doctrine and technology are also very important, perhaps more

In WitP I would think "experience" is meant to include doctrine and the other 'intangibles' of training and fieldcraft. Otherwise the Chinese Army (or the Zulus, above) should have extremely high experience levels since they've been fighting at least since 1937.

If WitP "experience" includes learning proper doctrine then there should be no need for a separate Zero bonus -- allied 1941 fighter experience levels should be set low enough to allow Japanese pilots to out-perform them in their more maneuverable Oscars and Zeros. Later allied pilots joining from the 'pool' have higher experience levels -- not because they have more training than their 1941 peers, but because they've been trained to better doctrine -- and in their hands planes should either stand up to the Zero, or clearly outperform them.

If WitP "experience" does not include "doctrine," then the diminishing Zero bonus should be retained . . . and, based on what I've gleaned from this forum discussion it probably ought to be extended to include at least the Oscar as well.

Not that that's going to happen, of course. But a great discussion for a rainy day. [:)]

[m10bob]

I am playing a CHS scenerio...It is 4/1943...I just raided Chengshu with 3 Chinese SB2's..I was intercepted by 9 Oscar I's..
The Oscars attacked from slight height advantage..No Chinese planes were damaged, and the 3 went on to their bombing run.............
I just don't think the Japanese pilots would really give up that easy ??
Gee guys........The poll Elf started is not about tactics, or who had the best pilots..The poll is asking if the Oscar is under-represented..
I believe it is, and have provided historical documentation in this thread, as have others..
I am not a "fanboy"...I am a pseudo historian, (as are most of us).........Just looking for some similarity between this game plane and the real one, O.K. ?

BTW, regarding "official Japanese claims"..We all know many claims of all sides can be circumspect, but usually with motive.
The Japanese did not reward their pilots with rank, nor money, and rarely with medals..
Most of their pilots were low grade NCO's, and stayed that way till the end of the war,(or their lives).

[Big B]

Well, everyone has posted their thoughts and some have posted data or reprints of encounters - and no one has changed their mind.

It seems to me that the only way to convincingly prove that the KI43 is under performing in the game is to get historical kill loss ratios posted - by year and aircraft type then test it in the game and post the data.

Also, seeing how a Zero is rated mvr 35/36, and KI43 is 35/34 I don't see why the KI43II pwerformance level drops! And where the heck is the KI 43III?

But until we actually know in hard numbers what they really did - and what they do in the game under similar circumstances - WE CAN'T EVEN KNOW IF THERE IS A PROBLEM.

B

[crsutton]

Designed for the wrong war and obsolete they day the first one rolled off the assembly line.

That is pretty well reflected in the game. They can hold their own against other obsolete planes but even hurricanes and P40s seem to shoot them down fairly easy.

[mdiehl]

official kills" were Allied "invention"

I have no idea what that means but it indicates maybe that I was not clear. Japanese pilots (like all pilots) assessed on their experience the damage/shoot downs that they inflicted on the enemy in air to air combat. Japanese ground personnel reviewed pilots' assessments and judged them on their merits and made reports to their superiors vis the outcomes of engagements/campaigns/the war. The latter is what I mean by "official kills."

Any Japanese source that purports to know how many Allied aircraft were destroyed in an engagement is not a credible source. Likewise for Allied sources that claim to know how many Japanese aircraft were destroyed in an engagement. I tried to figure out, a long time ago, whether or not one could take *any* of the numbers and find a consistent relationship between assessment and actual. With a few exceptions (where the theatre of engagement was so constrained that it was easy to count the number of enemy aircraft wrecks) there's no consistent relationship. As a working rule I usually divide Allied "official" estimates of Japanese wrecks by three. You can't even begin to come up with a constant for Japanese estimates of Allied wrecks. On a good day they (like the Allies) can come pretty close; on their worst days they assess more Allied planes shot down than were in the engagement, so you get results like "27 Allied aircraft shot down" when in fact only 14 Allied aircraft were engaged and one was shot down.

That's why you need to look at Allied unit records to find out who was lost when and where and then look at Japanese unit records (to the extent that they exist) for same, and THEN look at the pilot AARs to see if you can place enemies in proximity at the time aircraft were destroyed.... as John Lundstrom did in his First Team duo.

P.S. Yes Allied pilots had motives (monetary) for claiming kills. I suspect that is one of the reasons why Allied in-theater assessments improved as the war went along (at least it's my impression that they did so... certainly the analysis showed a healthy degree of skepticism). Sometimes the government *is* skeptical as to where the money goes. Likewise the Japanese pilots had motive to exaggerate their successes... in part as an effort at morale boosting (which is why IMO late war Japanese accounts wind up even worse than early war accounts) and in part to give honor to Japanese pilots that died in battle.