Übercorsair and übercap

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

It was just barely capable of holding its own against lowly F4Fs through October 1942, despite the Zero pilots generally having more experience.

Had to sneak that one in there. [:-]

To the unintiated this is what we call bait...

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I know alot more about how WitP works than you know about World War Two history.

Here's another piece of bait, although this one is more specialized and pointing at one specific forum member...

[mdiehl]

Had to sneak that one in there.

Nothing "sneaky" about it. It was out in the open and there for all to see.

To the unintiated this is what we call bait...

To the well informed it's what we call an "observation." It's not "bait" to note that the experienced Japanese pilots of 1942 (we can all, I think, agree that the IJN pilots of much of 1942 through October were pretty experienced, and had more combat experience than their American counterparts) were just capable of holding their own (about 1:1 losses as I have compiled them) against the F4F (an aircraft that we may agree to be demonstrably inferior to the F4U in pretty much every respect), despite the fact that in the South and CenPac campaigns through August 1942 the Japanese generally had superior numbers.

Given all that, why would anyone expect the same Japanese pilots flying the same a.c. in 1943 to do substantially well against equally or better trained USN pilots, most of whom had more combat experience or in some cases advanced tactical school training (than USN pilots of of 1942) in a far superior machine?

@Terminus.

Here's another piece of bait, although this one is more specialized and pointing at one specific forum member...

It was retaliation, not "bait." You "jumping in" here is, however, bait. I'll bite. Your very selective reading of material and tendency to play "third man in" without substantively contributing to the conversation is unsurprising.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

[

To the unintiated this is what we call bait...

To the well informed it's what we call an "observation." It's not "bait" to note that the experienced Japanese pilots of 1942 (we can all, I think, agree that the IJN pilots of much of 1942 through October were pretty experienced, and had more combat experience than their American counterparts) were just capable of holding their own (about 1:1 losses as I have compiled them) against the F4F (an aircraft that we may agree to be demonstrably inferior to the F4U in pretty much every respect), despite the fact that in the South and CenPac campaigns through August 1942 the Japanese generally had superior numbers.

Given all that, why would anyone expect the same Japanese pilots flying the same a.c. in 1943 to do substantially well against equally or better trained USN pilots, most of whom had more combat experience or in some cases advanced tactical school training (than USN pilots of of 1942) in a far superior machine?

Hook. Line... and Sinker.

Are these compilations on your 1941-42 PTO Aircraft Project Thread?

[mdiehl]

No. They're past threads here and in the GGPW forum. One was a breakdown of the losses of the Guadalcanal campaign. The other was a discussion of Lundstrom's First Team twin volumes.

The WW2 a.c. thread in the CoW forum of the Steakhouse is barely underway. I don't expect the results from the SoPac and CenPac to change substantially, although more intangibles may be noted. In particular engagement of one of the US wings (VF2) at low power setting at Coral Sea owing to the extreme range of the combat. Absent that, I suspect, the USN's victory ratio vs A6Ms at Coral Sea would have been something like 2:1.

The rest of the WW2 ac project attends to USAAF losses in the China,Burma,Indonesia, Australia campaign and getting *good* information on that is a challenge. There are the Shores et al "Bloody Shambles" pair. Lots of detail but very weak on supporting data (no footnotes, no end notes, and no citations in re sources for losses given on specific dates). I have found a couple instances where USAAF official loss records simply bear no resemblance to Shores et al. So Bloody Sham v1 and v2 are questionable sources as to losses, at least for the US units. In turn, that means that the WW2 A.C. project is going to be a long, hard slog. So don't expect the summary stats any time soon.

Hook. Line... and Sinker.

Eh? Not sure what you mean by that? Do you mean You were baiting ME?

Are you saying that the IJN pilots of 1942 weren't more combat experienced than their USN counterparts?
Are you claiming that the IJN pilots achived some great success against USN pilots in 1942 that hasn't been documented by Richard Frank or John Lundstrom?
Or are you saying that the F4U wasn't a substantially better fighter than the F4F?

[Williamb]

Goood Greif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Mari ... #Aftermath

That night, Admiral Ozawa received orders from Toyoda to withdraw from the Philippine Sea. U.S. forces gave chase, but the battle was over.

The four Japanese attacks involved 373 carrier aircraft, of which 130 returned to the carriers, and several more were lost onboard the two carriers sunk on the first day by submarine attacks. After the second day the losses totaled three carriers and over 400 carrier aircraft lost and around 200 land based planes. Losses on the U.S. side on the first day were only 23, and on the second 100, most of them resulting from the night landings.

The losses to the Japanese were irreplaceable. At the Japanese naval air arm, only 35 out of Admiral Ozawa's 473 planes were left in a condition fit to fly. In the Battle of Leyte Gulf a few months later, their carriers were used solely as a decoy because of the lack of aircraft and aircrews to fly them.

[Williamb]

http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=10

The battle started shortly after 1000 on 19 Jun with the first wave of 60 Japanese planes attacking the American fleet. 42 of them were shotdown, scoring only one bomb hit on USS South Dakota. The second wave consisted of 128 planes, and 97 of them were lost without even making any significant damage to the American ships, although Warrant Officer Sakio Komatsu's name must be mentioned for his bravery: immediately after taking off from the Taiho, he saw a torpedo swimming straight for his home carrier. He dropped his plane and plunged into the ocean, intercepting the torpedo with his fighter. He sacrificed himself, and his carrier would be saved, for now. The third attack's 47 planes had a better casualty rate, losing only 7, but they did not make it through the American escort ships, let alone seeing the American carriers. By the time the fourth attack wave of 82 planes were sent, it was already almost 1400 in the afternoon, and 54 of them were shot down.

During the day of 19 June 1944, between Ozawa's attacks on the American fleet and the attacks on Guam and Rota, 429 Japanese planes were shot down. The Americans lost 29. This battle was commonly referred to among the US Navy men as the "Great Marianas Turkey Shoot". Many historians agree that this event marked the end of Japanese naval air power. Coming events would force Japan to rely on the guns of its battleships and cruisers, driving the Japanese to believe even more deeply in seeking Mahan's decisive battle with the US fleets.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

In particular engagement of one of the US wings (VF2) at low power setting at Coral Sea owing to the extreme range of the combat. Absent that, I suspect, the USN's victory ratio vs A6Ms at Coral Sea would have been something like 2:1.

Would the same be true of IJN pilots coming down from Rabaul? [:)]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

There are the Shores et al "Bloody Shambles" pair. Lots of detail but very weak on supporting data (no footnotes, no end notes, and no citations in re sources for losses given on specific dates).

I have found a couple instances where USAAF official loss records simply bear no resemblance to Shores et al. So Bloody Sham v1 and v2 are questionable sources as to losses, at least for the US units. In turn, that means that the WW2 A.C. project is going to be a long, hard slog.

Agree that Bloody Shambles falls short on the reference side of things, whether his fault or the publisher - indeed this is true of a good deal of avaition literature. But could you outline these instances you've come across?

[Doggie]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

It was just barely capable of holding its own against lowly F4Fs through October 1942, despite the Zero pilots generally having more experience.

Had to sneak that one in there. [:-]

To the unintiated this is what we call bait...

Since when is documented historical fact "bait'?

American pilots were able to hold their own against the supposedly superior Japanese even when equipped with the allegedly "inferior" P-39s, P-40s, and F-4Fs. All three of these "obsolete" aircraft remained in production until the end of the war. And they continued to shoot down zeros at a favorable exchange rate right up until VJ day.

The F-6F and F-4U could literally fly rings around the A6M. It wasn't even a contest; the kill ratios speak for themselves. It's not surprising to see samurai shot from the skies in ridiculous numbers when confronted by experienced American pilots equipped with the most successful fighter designs in aviation history. It happened all the time.

If you have some evidence Allied fighters in the pacific were ever slaughtered like sheep at the hands of the almighty zero, there's a bunch of historians who would like to examine your research material.

[ctangus]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

By 1943, the Zero was outdated. It was just barely capable of holding its own against lowly F4Fs through October 1942, despite the Zero pilots generally having more experience.

I agree. The game models it pretty well, don't you think? My F4Fs, particularly the F4F-4, do extremely well against the A6M2, even when they're flown by experienced Daitai. It's certainly my favorite early-war allied fighter, with the P-40E a close second. Actually maybe the Seafire's my favorite - it eats Zeros for breakfast - but you don't get a lot of Seafires so certainly the F4F is more useful over the long-term.

What's been your experience with these fighters in your games?

[spence]

If you have some evidence Allied fighters in the pacific were ever slaughtered like sheep at the hands of the almighty zero, there's a bunch of historians who would like to examine your research material.

The Marine fighter squadron at Midway was pretty roughly handled to say the least:

However the Zeros had a 4:3 advantage in overall numbers and 3/4ths of the Marines were flying F2As rather than F4Fs. The Marines were generally inexperienced and IIRC 15 were shot down with most of the rest rendered hors de combat.

There is one little but though: the Zeros failed to protect their charges particularly well. Tellingly Hiryu's Torpedo Squadron lost half its strength either shot down or shot up so badly as to be unflyable upon return to Hiryu.

In fact, the performance of the A6M2 (with highly experienced pilots) in all applications was in fact anything but overwhelming at Midway.

Outnumbering single squadrons of unescorted bombers by upwards of 2:1 the A6Ms certainly managed to inflict serious losses on the attacker. Ultimately though, the fates of their carriers were in the untested and/or inexperienced hands of the American aviators since some part of every single one of those squadrons managed to launch its weapons at those carriers.

The Zeros certainly did poorly against J Thach and his 5 compatriots when they tangled with them (Torpedo 3's attack; Thach covering). Outnumbering him 2 or 3 to 1 they lost 6 and only got one of Thach's men.

The Zero escorts of Hiryu subsequent strikes performed pretty adequately (considering their small numbers) protecting their charges, though after those "successful" strikes Hiryu had pratically no attack aircraft left.

The Zeros final performance as CAP at Midway doesn't do much for its reputation. Against an unescorted, composite Yorktown/Enterprise "squadron" of 24 planes the Zeros (15 I think) failed to inflict any losses (maybe 1 bomber shot down) on the Americans and failed miserably to protect Hiryu from mortal damage.

[Yamato hugger]

A lot of the "lopsided" combat losses (in the real war) were due to tactics more than anything. Jap fighters followed their bombers using them for bait compared to US escorts that swept ahead of their charges to clear the way. Then there was the Jap naval doctrine of not taking evasive maneuvers by the bombers. They had to fly in formation, period (History channel the show "Dogfights" specifically the one where James Swett shot down 8 Vals. He just lined them up 1 after the other and knocked them down).

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Had to sneak that one in there.

Nothing "sneaky" about it. It was out in the open and there for all to see.

To the unintiated this is what we call bait...

To the well informed it's what we call an "observation." It's not "bait" to note that the experienced Japanese pilots of 1942 (we can all, I think, agree that the IJN pilots of much of 1942 through October were pretty experienced, and had more combat experience than their American counterparts) were just capable of holding their own (about 1:1 losses as I have compiled them) against the F4F (an aircraft that we may agree to be demonstrably inferior to the F4U in pretty much every respect), despite the fact that in the South and CenPac campaigns through August 1942 the Japanese generally had superior numbers.

Given all that, why would anyone expect the same Japanese pilots flying the same a.c. in 1943 to do substantially well against equally or better trained USN pilots, most of whom had more combat experience or in some cases advanced tactical school training (than USN pilots of of 1942) in a far superior machine?

Maybe if you didn't have a long, well documented history of blowing into this forum and engaging members of this community with typical Steakhouse antics and undocumented claims. Or if you had any shred of desire to actually provide a constructive criticism of this game or exhibit any knowledge of its workings, your nothing "sneaky" about it reply MIGHT be interpreted as genuine. You say you've read these sources, and I believe you, and in some cases may actually agree with you, but as a long standing member of this forum I'm familiar with your M.O. and from you repetitive and limited scope of discussion am familiar with what your purport is your agenda. Unfortunately in this case your agenda has little to do with what the original poster started this thread.

This thread is about the corsair and the Uber-CAP that we all know and love. To slip a comment, which you know damn well will draw your usual opponents from the woodwork, about the F4F vs. the Zero into this thread and then pull a Dr. Evil shrugging your shoulders "What? What did I say? What??" is blatant unabashed baiting and your denial is insulting.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Hook. Line... and Sinker.

Eh? Not sure what you mean by that? Do you mean You were baiting ME?

Yes, clearly. And now you have fallen into my trap![;)] Don't you feel silly?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


The solution I've come up with to avoid these types of results, is to make more attacks with smaller numbers of planes. The air combat model in the game is such that if the disadvantaged side throws more and more planes into the battle, they will just lose more and more planes. A large attack now and then is needed to keep the other honest and to break patterns. But look at PzB and Pauk's AARs, they've gotten most of their late war positive results with small "sniping" attacks.

Is there any plan to officially tweak the A2A combat model to reduce losses for both side?

In reality, air-to-air casualties on both sides were proportional to the number of fighter sorties by the weaker side.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Doggie

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

It was just barely capable of holding its own against lowly F4Fs through October 1942, despite the Zero pilots generally having more experience.

Had to sneak that one in there. [:-]

To the unintiated this is what we call bait...

Since when is documented historical fact "bait'?

American pilots were able to hold their own against the supposedly superior Japanese even when equipped with the allegedly "inferior" P-39s, P-40s, and F-4Fs. All three of these "obsolete" aircraft remained in production until the end of the war. And they continued to shoot down zeros at a favorable exchange rate right up until VJ day.

The F-6F and F-4U could literally fly rings around the A6M. It wasn't even a contest; the kill ratios speak for themselves. It's not surprising to see samurai shot from the skies in ridiculous numbers when confronted by experienced American pilots equipped with the most successful fighter designs in aviation history. It happened all the time.

If you have some evidence Allied fighters in the pacific were ever slaughtered like sheep at the hands of the almighty zero, there's a bunch of historians who would like to examine your research material.

Thanks for the input Doggie, but I am not arguing history here. My post was not about disagreeing with Mdiehl's opinion, though I find his casual assessment and usual flippant dismissal of any dissenting opinion troubling.

Given your Steakhouse association with Mdiehl, I don't think I need to explain that to you though do I?

[ChezDaJez]

Damn... and here I was at work missing all the live action [:D][:D][:D]

Oh, well better late than never!

@Chez:

quote:

Of course, you wouldn't know anything about how the game really works, would you?

I know alot more about how WitP works than you know about World War Two history.

Oooh, I'm deeply wounded! But you're right... I am ignorant of your version of WWII history... you know, your version of history that says the Japanese should never have won a single battle anywhere, anytime or in anyway. To hear you tell it, Pearl Harbor should have been a resounding Amercan victory. And to think the rest of us have been reading all those lies by Lundstrom, Shores, Bergstrom, Parshall et al.

(Speaking of Shores, where is that breakdown of aerial losses you promised us from Shores books? I can only assume that your failure to post it must have been because it didn't support your version of history. Could that be it? Or were you just lying about doing the work?

The rest of the WW2 ac project attends to USAAF losses in the China,Burma,Indonesia, Australia campaign and getting *good* information on that is a challenge. There are the Shores et al "Bloody Shambles" pair. Lots of detail but very weak on supporting data (no footnotes, no end notes, and no citations in re sources for losses given on specific dates). I have found a couple instances where USAAF official loss records simply bear no resemblance to Shores et al. So Bloody Sham v1 and v2 are questionable sources as to losses, at least for the US units. In turn, that means that the WW2 A.C. project is going to be a long, hard slog. So don't expect the summary stats any time soon.

Ah.. So that's what's going on. Oh, I see the plan now... discredit the sources first... good idea![:-]

In particular engagement of one of the US wings (VF2) at low power setting at Coral Sea owing to the extreme range of the combat. Absent that, I suspect, the USN's victory ratio vs A6Ms at Coral Sea would have been something like 2:1.

Oh, can't have that can we? Got to throw out any fact that slews the result away from your preconceived notion, right? Just like you wanted to throw out the air combat over Darwin with the P-40s and Zeros. [:-]

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

What do you call someone who fails to produce those statistics that he said he would? [8|]

quote:
I said:

yeah... okay..NOT! That would only be true if the general level of experience of Japanese and Allied pilots and the aircraft mix were similar to those that participated in the real battle.

mdiehl replied:

There's one man's opinion.

And probably the opinion of most others who have even a passing knowledge of the airwar in the Pacific... something you semm to be singularly lacking. (oh, darn... and I was going to take the high road!)

quote:
I said:

If the Japanese player is able to keep experienced pilots alive into 1944, they should perform much better than the poorly trained RL participants.

mdiehl replaied:

I disagree. In 1943, veteran zero drivers were routinely shot down by well-trained but combat-inexperience F6F drivers and F4U drivers. That is because those qualitative intangibles only go a long ways when the a.c. pitted against each other are roughly comparable. By 1943, the Zero was outdated. It was just barely capable of holding its own against lowly F4Fs through October 1942, despite the Zero pilots generally having more experience.

Only a moron would argue that experience doesn't matter. The vast majority of Japanese naval pilots lost after 1943 were very inexperienced, most having only 10-20 hours in type upon leaving flight school. These were the pilots that were slaughtered in places like the Marianas and the PI and that was due more to their lack of training than any major deficiency in their aircraft. There is no doubt that the Zero was well passed its prime by 1944 but in the hands of an experienced pilot, it was still a dangerous opponent.

Pilots like Sakai, Iwamoto, Okumura, Okabe and Kanno all held their own against the best the US had to throw at them in 1944 and 1945 and they were flying these antiquated Zeros. Take a look at the Japanese naval ace list and see just how many of those died in the war. Indeed only 6 of the top 50 Japanese naval aces were killed in combat.

Of course, you probably won't do that because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions that thinks inexperienced US pilots blasted every experienced Japanese pilot in every encounter.

Uber CAP is a problem throughout the war in pretty much every iteration of WitP, but Japanese players don't seem to complain about being able to use Uber CAP in 1942 as far as I can tell. And yes lots of ships were lost to leakers. Not only in 1944 but indeed in 1942. The problem is that small numbers of a.c. have difficulty penetrating any cap. It's one of the details that makes the "Kido Butai Death Star" such an (ahistorically) attractive option for the Japanese, and one of the (several) reasons why the Japanese player routinely takes substantially more ground in WitP than they historically could.

And you would know about WitP ubercap in every iteration how? What is your experience with mid-late war ubercap? Just from reading the forum probably... certainly isn't from playing the game.

The problem with WitP is that it doesn't matter how large the strike is against a US carrier TF once the Corsair arrives. 10 planes or 500 planes attacking. They will all be shot down regardless of the experience level of the pilots involved and that my dear uninformed friend is the crux of the problem with the game.

You claim that the "Kido Butai Death Star" in WitP has the same effect in 1942. I submit to you that you don't know what you are talking about. You have no basis for comparison, certainly no personal experience with which to compare. KBDS can be deadly to be sure to those players wishing to impale themselves upon its sword. But KB's CAP is not invincible at any point in the game, unlike the late-war US CAP which is impervious to all strikes of any size. And if KB becomes so engaged, it will suffer air losses to such a large degree that it will be out of action for months while it retrains, much like the Zuikaku and Coral Sea.

Of course, I don't expect anyone who has only played one very early version game (and quit in May 42) to know any of this. I mean, why let the facts get in your way? BTW, did you ever return that copy of WitP you "borrowed" and delete the game from your harddrive?

quote:

Terminus said: "To the unintiated this is what we call bait... "

mdiehl replied: To the well informed it's what we call an "observation." It's not "bait" to note that the experienced Japanese pilots of 1942 (we can all, I think, agree that the IJN pilots of much of 1942 through October were pretty experienced, and had more combat experience than their American counterparts) were just capable of holding their own (about 1:1 losses as I have compiled them) against the F4F (an aircraft that we may agree to be demonstrably inferior to the F4U in pretty much every respect), despite the fact that in the South and CenPac campaigns through August 1942 the Japanese generally had superior numbers.

"Observation" said the blind man. I assume that this is a comprehensive compilation that you are willing to post online in this forum for all to see. Or are you just going to give us your "nutshell" version once again. I also assume that if you have such a comprhensive compilation that it includes date, time, place, pilot, aircraft flown and most importantly your references so that we may see you aren't using just Martin Caidin??? Or would that once again be too much to ask? Or is it like your Malaya compilation you promised... non-existant (except in your own mind).

As far as the Japanese having superior numbers go... try again. Take at look at the number of carrier aircraft available to both sides at Coral Sea and Midway. You'll find that the numbers were pretty equal. Then throw in the number of US land-based aircraft at Midway and it swings towards the American side.

Given all that, why would anyone expect the same Japanese pilots flying the same a.c. in 1943 to do substantially well against equally or better trained USN pilots, most of whom had more combat experience or in some cases advanced tactical school training (than USN pilots of of 1942) in a far superior machine?

You sure know how to twist one's words. No one is saying that the A6M was going to sweep the sky in 1943. But to say that experienced Japanese pilots in A6Ms could not be successful against Hellcats and Corsairs is to ignore history as Sakai along with several other aces demonstrated on several occasions over Iwo Jima and the home islands in late 44 and 45.

The Hellcat and Corsair were outstanding aircraft and when piloted by experienced aircrews were something to be feared by the average Japanese fighter pilot. These aircraft however were not invincible. Indeed the US lost 189 Corsairs to the IJNAF in air-air combat in 1944 (This does not include losses to AA or ops). It could have been worse had it not been for the dismal pilot training the Japanese had after mid-43. One need only to compare the prewar Japanese pilot training program with the 1943 program to know that the japanese had no hope of being victorious after 1942.

When comparing prewar training of both US and Japanese air forces, it would difficult, if not impossible to say that US naval pilot selection and training equalled, let alone bested, the Japanese naval pilot program. Japanese standards for pilot applicants were far more rigorous than were those in the US and the IJN pilot training program took over 2.5 years to complete whereas the prewar US pilot training program was less than 2 years. It wasn't until mid-42 when the Japanese loosened applicant standards and cut their pilot training program down to 10-12 months that US pilot training equalled the Japanese. And once the US advanced fighter schools opened in late 42, the Japanese pilot training program would never again be comparable to the US. And the situation only got worse as the Japanese further decreased pilot training time in mid-43. By mid-late 44, fuel and aircraft shortages resulted in most pilots receiving only 50 hours flight training with only about 10-20 hours in type. The US, on the other hand, was able to greatly expand its pilot training without a significant decrease in the quality of the training. And that was the key to the air war regardless of who was flying what.

Given the other US advantages such as radar, tactical innovation, unlimited logistical support and an endless stream of replacements, the conclusion was readily apparant. Even aircraft inferior to the Zero could offset the A6Ms advantages when radar was present. A perfect example is the F4F. Compare its effectiveness when under radar early warning and direction to those combats where radar wasn't a factor. The difference is night and day.

Ah... reinforcements! The more the merrier!

Doggie said:

The F-6F and F-4U could literally fly rings around the A6M.

Uh, not quite. Your statement implies that either could out turn the Zero. The A6M could still out turn either below 250mph but why let that get in the way. Suffice to say that the Hellcat and Corsair were substantially superior to the A6M and leave it at that.

Anyways, [>:][>:][>:]

Chez

[ChezDaJez]

ORIGINAL: ctangus

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

By 1943, the Zero was outdated. It was just barely capable of holding its own against lowly F4Fs through October 1942, despite the Zero pilots generally having more experience.

I agree. The game models it pretty well, don't you think? My F4Fs, particularly the F4F-4, do extremely well against the A6M2, even when they're flown by experienced Daitai. It's certainly my favorite early-war allied fighter, with the P-40E a close second. Actually maybe the Seafire's my favorite - it eats Zeros for breakfast - but you don't get a lot of Seafires so certainly the F4F is more useful over the long-term.

What's been your experience with these fighters in your games?

Oh, now look what you have done, ctangus. [:-] You just pulled the rug out from mdiehl and his argument that this game is totaly borked because the F4F can't shoot down a Zero.

Shame on you! [:D]

Chez

[ChezDaJez]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Had to sneak that one in there.

Nothing "sneaky" about it. It was out in the open and there for all to see.

To the unintiated this is what we call bait...

To the well informed it's what we call an "observation." It's not "bait" to note that the experienced Japanese pilots of 1942 (we can all, I think, agree that the IJN pilots of much of 1942 through October were pretty experienced, and had more combat experience than their American counterparts) were just capable of holding their own (about 1:1 losses as I have compiled them) against the F4F (an aircraft that we may agree to be demonstrably inferior to the F4U in pretty much every respect), despite the fact that in the South and CenPac campaigns through August 1942 the Japanese generally had superior numbers.

Given all that, why would anyone expect the same Japanese pilots flying the same a.c. in 1943 to do substantially well against equally or better trained USN pilots, most of whom had more combat experience or in some cases advanced tactical school training (than USN pilots of of 1942) in a far superior machine?

Maybe if you didn't have a long, well documented history of blowing into this forum and engaging members of this community with typical Steakhouse antics and undocumented claims. Or if you had any shred of desire to actually provide a constructive criticism of this game or exhibit any knowledge of its workings, your nothing "sneaky" about it reply MIGHT be interpreted as genuine. You say you've read these sources, and I believe you, and in some cases may actually agree with you, but as a long standing member of this forum I'm familiar with your M.O. and from you repetitive and limited scope of discussion am familiar with what your purport is your agenda. Unfortunately in this case your agenda has little to do with what the original poster started this thread.

This thread is about the corsair and the Uber-CAP that we all know and love. To slip a comment, which you know damn well will draw your usual opponents from the woodwork, about the F4F vs. the Zero into this thread and then pull a Dr. Evil shrugging your shoulders "What? What did I say? What??" is blatant unabashed baiting and your denial is insulting.

He does do that, dosen't he.

But then again, I don't mind. Of course having a battle of wits with him is like battling an unarmed man.

Chez

[ChezDaJez]

Of course, the main question that these Steakhouse Morons always refuse to answer is:

"Why do you care so much about a game that you don't own and don't play?"

Doggie? mdiehl?? Beuller??? Anyone????

I can't help but think that there must be some sinister plan of theirs (looks over shoulder) in play. Why else would they find it so compelling to steer us poor misguided souls to their light? Certainly can't be their altruism... or can it?

Nah... that's certainly not it.

Ah, forget it. I'm done.

As someone once said: "Never argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Chez