Matrix Games Forums

I actually do think that a conservative Japanese player can 'last' until late 1942/early 1943 with a very intact IJNAF. Operation I-Go in early 1943 served only to throw away much of what was left of Japan's veteran and highly trained force (whatever you think of the potencey of this force). The attacks were uncoordinated, and too divided to offer much of anything. They basically threw away 200 aircraft and pilots on well developed and defended bases in Southern New Guinea, when they would have been more importantly used to guard troop transports across the Bismark Sea.

Maybe it was only a matter of time, but I see that the Japanese did a lot to dwindle their own resources and not maximizing their ability (like UV and PW players can do).

I really don't see the F4F as 'superior', just better in certain aspects, poorer in others. When the F4U-1 arrives, many, or most of the well trained/veteran IJNAF pilots were lost on missions like I-Go which offered them little chance of survival. Until this point in time, late 1942, the US was on the 'defense' in the air (even though they were slowly advancing on the ground). It was not until they let the IJNAF bash itself to bits on its defenses did they start to attack, and did they get the REALLY good airplanes.

So, if you are looking at repeating results to see if you can get another Coaral Sea, your best bet is to try and exactly repeat the battle, with every detail. Where aircraft were launched, where they reached their target, and exactly how much CAP was in the air. Otherwize, if you just throw X A6M at X F4F you will only end up in what would have happened if X A6M met X F4F, not what happened at the Coaral Sea, or any other air battle in the South/Central Pacific in 1942.

I'd be interested in the proposed test, Drongo, but if all the naysaying convinces you it's not worth the time I'll understand.


TIMJOT says:

Its interesting that you require ten indentical results

No, I did not demand ten "identical" results. You have, again, to the point of uncountability, completely fabricated a straw man and attributed it to me. I don't believe your ancient claim to be a historian, because the only historians I know attempt to maintain at least a pretense of intellectual honesty. I just added you to my ignore list.

Originally posted by Drongo
TIMJOT,

The reason I offered to run some tests was simply to limit anecdotal references of AAR's being used to "prove" inadequacies in the game over the modeling of A6M's vs F4F's etc.

I still feel that the general opinion of people who have played through several games of UV will be the best guide. They opinion would have been shaped by countless air battles in UV, under all the different circumstances that occur with normal UV tactics. If the overall inadequacy of the F4F as a fighter was apparent (and having an impact), they would know.

All that my game experience has told me so far is that the F4F is a capable fighter which does not regularly get shot out of the sky by the A6M. More importantly, under the UV system, I consider the A6M2 and the F4F-4 to be near equals as neither will stop an enemy strike, nor ensure that a friendly strike gets through, entirely on their merits as fighters. As a UV player, fighter exchange rates (unless enormously different) mean little in the overall scope of the game. Mind you, those bloody corsairs.....

I hope my use of test results do not stop people answering the initial thread question.

Cheers.

Drongo,

I think it would be great if you could do the test if you are willing to put the time in. My play expirence so far pretty much mirrors yours. I havent noticed many lopsided results between the F4F vs the zero. The few I have encountered were due to external circumstances (low moral, high fatigue, overwelming odds ). I think some players may be confuseing the F4Fs inability to stop strikes against friendly carriers with a precieved inequality with the zero. An unequality that just doesnt exist from my expirence. Maybe its just the way I play, but I think your right. Its a questioned best answered by players playing over time under all sorts of circumstances.

I await your test with great interest

Originally posted by mdiehl
I'd be interested in the proposed test, Drongo, but if all the naysaying convinces you it's not worth the time I'll understand.


TIMJOT says:



No, I did not demand ten "identical" results. You have, again, to the point of uncountability, completely fabricated a straw man and attributed it to me. I don't believe your ancient claim to be a historian, because the only historians I know attempt to maintain at least a pretense of intellectual honesty. I just added you to my ignore list.

Gee mdiehl you need to relax man. Nothing personel. I didnt say you "demanded" anything. You asked Drongo for a test. He asked what you wanted. You said 10 Coral Seas. I simply asked why you required 10 coral seas?

BTW, I never claimed to be a historian, far from it. You must be confuseing me with someone else. It wouldnt be the first time.

Originally posted by Zakhal


1:3? Isnt it more like 1:10 for allies with the corsair as the first truly superior plane over the japanese zero.

Yeah, well I havent gotten too far into 43 in any of my games so the Cosair hasnt really had a chance to make its presence felt yet. If Drongo's test is any indication. You can expect 1:10 raito or more in favor of the Cosair against the zero. Again UV seems to have the model correct.

Originally posted by Zakhal
So if wildcat is clearly superior to zero lets go ladder down. Hows it with buffalo? I think zero was vastly superior to it but if that comes as a myth too i guess it cant get any worse for the japanese player. Finns created aces with buffalos.

Zakhal

I dont think the Wildcat is superior to the zero. I think Jeremy is right. They are pretty much equal each with their own strengths and weaknesses.

The Finnish Buffalos pose an interesting question. " Whats more important; the pilots, the plane, or the tactics"?

The Brits, Dutch, and Americans could do nothing with the Buffalo against the zero. Yet the Finns had success with it against Soviet planes that included the P-40. While the Japanese had difficulty with the zero against P-40s.

Originally posted by Zakhal
Havent tried JA army fighters yet, but i can guess the oscar (II) is just for target practise for the allied air wings.

Hi

I really thought so too but I've used them in large numbers togheter with plenty of Zeros defending bases and they get good kills. I was pleasantly surprised. However it is now Jan 1943 in my PBEM game and larger numbers of P-38s are showing up and then the Hellcats plus Corsairs will finish them off quite easily I suspect:(

Dan

Posted by TIMJOT

The Brits, Dutch, and Americans could do nothing with the Buffalo against the zero. Yet the Finns had success with it against Soviet planes that included the P-40. While the Japanese had difficulty with the zero against P-40s.

The Finnish Buffalos were actually B-239s, a far lighter version of the F2A-2 and closer to the original performance of the F2A-1 (which was considered by many as the best model for climb, ceiling and manueverability).

The USN/USMC's had the F2A-3 (considered an overweight "slug") at Midway.

I think the story goes that when the Finns assembled the B-239's, they threw out everything they considered superfluous to save weight, added armour, the German Revi deflector sight and 3 x .50 cal HMG and a LMG (.303?), increased the fuel capacity and then used "finger four" and modern aerial tactics against the fairly bad early-war Russian pilots, tactics and equipment (like gunsights painted onto the windscreen).

The Finns flying the B-239 were led by a "Thatch" style air tactician and the B-239's were flown by pilots that were considered the best of all the Finnish veterans. The result was a kill ratio in their favour of around 70 to 1 (realistically, prob about 20 or 30 to 1).

Here is a good site for this type of anal retentive info on the Buffalo :

http://www.danford.net/buff.htm

Posted by U2

I really thought so too but I've used them in large numbers togheter with plenty of Zeros defending bases and they get good kills. I was pleasantly surprised. However it is now Jan 1943 in my PBEM game and larger numbers of P-38s are showing up and then the Hellcats plus Corsairs will finish them off quite easily I suspect

I just use the Oscars to make up the CAP numbers as the A6M's are the real killers. When used on their own vs early allied fighters, the air battles seem very light on (a few Oscars shot down vs 2-3 allied fighters damaged).

The Oscars probably have good survivability due to performance. In return, they will do little due to initial pilot quality (low) and poor armament (even the heavier armed Oscar II inflicts minimal casualties).

I keep them away from intercepting allied LBA bombers whenever possible as they just take casualties for no return.

I have the same opinion as U2 about what will happen when the later allied fighters turn up.

Originally posted by Drongo
Posted by TIMJOT


The Finnish Buffalos were actually B-239s, a far lighter version of the F2A-2 and closer to the original performance of the F2A-1 (which was considered by many as the best model for climb, ceiling and manueverability).

The USN/USMC's had the F2A-3 (considered an overweight "slug") at Midway.

I think the story goes that when the Finns assembled the B-239's, they threw out everything they considered superfluous to save weight, added armour, the German Revi deflector sight and 3 x .50 cal HMG and a LMG (.303?), increased the fuel capacity and then used "finger four" and modern aerial tactics against the fairly bad early-war Russian pilots, tactics and equipment (like gunsights painted onto the windscreen).

The Finns flying the B-239 were led by a "Thatch" style air tactician and the B-239's were flown by pilots that were considered the best of all the Finnish veterans. The result was a kill ratio in their favour of around 70 to 1 (realistically, prob about 20 or 30 to 1).

Here is a good site for this type of anal retentive info on the Buffalo :

http://www.danford.net/buff.htm

Interesting, came accross that site myself when researching the AVG. Do you no what version the Brits and Dutch flew. Im pretty sure the Dutch at least flew the export version which I assume was the B-239, not sure though.

TIMJOT

Interesting, came accross that site myself when researching the AVG. Do you no what version the Brits and Dutch flew.

The Finns had the B-239 (F2A-1) with 1000 hp engine.

The Poms had the B-339E (F2A-2) with 1100 hp engine. When first sent to the Far East, it weighed 1000 lbs more than the original F2A-2 (wich was already considered too heavy). They stipped about 500 lbs of the weight soon after the fighting with the Japs started but it was still too heavy.

The Clogs had the B-339D and B-439. There wasnt much diff between the B-339D and E but the B-439 (about 20 a/c) was considered a better a/c as it had a 1200 hp engine. Not sure if the B-439 was the export version of the F2A-3 (prob was).

Originally posted by Drongo
TIMJOT


The Finns had the B-239 (F2A-1) with 1000 hp engine.

The Poms had the B-339E (F2A-2) with 1100 hp engine. When first sent to the Far East, it weighed 1000 lbs more than the original F2A-2 (wich was already considered too heavy). They stipped about 500 lbs of the weight soon after the fighting with the Japs started but it was still too heavy.

The Clogs had the B-339D and B-439. There wasnt much diff between the B-339D and E but the B-439 (about 20 a/c) was considered a better a/c as it had a 1200 hp engine. Not sure if the B-439 was the export version of the F2A-3 (prob was).

Not exactly. The F2A-3 still had the 1100hp engine, which is why the weight gain carried such a heavy aerodynamic penalty. AFAIK, all F2A-3s went to the USN and USMC as Brewster was by that time way behind on deliveries to their launch customer. IIRC, the story with the B-439s is that they were originally ordered as B-339Ds, but an engine shortage resulted in a few aircraft getting a substitute powerplant.

One factor in the Finns' success with the Buffalo which I didn't see mentioned is environment. The Buffalo was at its best down low, and most of the air fighting over the Eastern Front took place at lower altitudes than in other theaters. (This is also part of what allowed late-war Soviet fighters to compete with late-war German fighters which on paper should have flown circles around them.)

Originally posted by CynicAl

One factor in the Finns' success with the Buffalo which I didn't see mentioned is environment. The Buffalo was at its best down low, and most of the air fighting over the Eastern Front took place at lower altitudes than in other theaters. (This is also part of what allowed late-war Soviet fighters to compete with late-war German fighters which on paper should have flown circles around them.)

No, no no. It’s the men, not the machines. Give us anything that has speed and horse powers and we show how to use them. Rally cars, Formula 1s, or airplanes, it is all the same.

Now only if we would learn to brew as good beer as Aussies…

Posted by Piiska

Now only if we would learn to brew as good beer as Aussies…

Careful Piiska, your in danger of being assimulated.

We'll have to start calling you Pisshead.:p

Originally posted by Piiska


No, no no. It’s the men, not the machines. Give us anything that has speed and horse powers and we show how to use them. Rally cars, Formula 1s, or airplanes, it is all the same.

Now only if we would learn to brew as good beer as Aussies…

True only to a point - there are limits. B-239 vs I-15 is one thing, B-239 vs Me262 is a different story. Unless one side is entirely unskilled, the machines have to be at least competitive.

Originally posted by Drongo
Posted by Piiska


Careful Piiska, your in danger of being assimulated.

We'll have to start calling you Pisshead.:p

Oi! I was called Pisshead long before my arrival to Oz.
Although, I have to admit that Australian piss does taste better than ours, so it is possible that my head now contains even more piss than it did before (Finns stop laughing). Which, of course, I'm very proud and happy about

As said by one wise man: Beer is good

Re : Any further UV F4F vs A6M testing.

I've just upgraded to 2.0. Bugger that for a joke. All my carefully set up scenarios for testing now run like ****.

Part of the testing process involves lots of saves and loads. The time this now requires is way too long to bother. I also noted from the few battles I ran under 2.0, the number of aircraft that appear in combat, despite equal starting numbers, will vary wildly (one side will often outnumber the other by 2 to 1). This makes analysis very difficult and time consuming.

Looks like its back to anecdotes until I get round to building test scenarios from scratch under 2.0 (the problem seems to only occur with games started under 1.4 being played under 2.0).

I am so pleased that a visitor from a strange land has seen the light,

yes, Beer is good:D


PS beer is good