Matrix Games Forums

sorry Greg, I've got so many planes i can't keep track of any specific kind. All my P-38 squadrons are full.

Guys, check out these combat results just in from my game with Drex!

Remember how I said these were very experienced squadrons with a average experience of 70? They escorted some attack planes in today to hit some of his transports (allways looking to delay Allied attacks).

The results were NOT pretty:

COMBAT RESULTS FOR 5/19/43:

Air attack on TF, near Wunpuko at 51,51

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 52
G4M1 Betty x 37
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 45

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 11
P-38G Lightning x 25

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 13 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 1 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 4 damaged
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 12 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-38G Lightning x 5 destroyed
P-38G Lightning x 7 damaged

2LT D. Goerke of 67th FS is credited with kill number 7

Allied Ships
AK Almaack, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AK Deimos
AK Megrez, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
AK Melucta
AK Seginus, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
AK Centarus
AK Shaula

Attacking Level Bombers:
2 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF, near Wunpuko at 51,51

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 46
G4M1 Betty x 4
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 43

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 14
P-38G Lightning x 21

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 5 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged
G4M1 Betty x 2 damaged
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 4 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-38G Lightning x 3 destroyed
P-38G Lightning x 6 damaged

1LT E. Brzuska of 67th FS is credited with kill number 3

Allied Ships
SC 739

Attacking Level Bombers:
4 x G4M1 Betty at 200 feet



These were fully rested squadrons also! In one day I lost over 30 fighter planes, more then a month of Japan's production, with only about half a dozen P-38's shot down AND NOT EVEN ONE CORSAIR HIT!!!

How Japan can do ANYTHING at this stage in the war is beyond me as the game stands. I'm not complaining (much), this just seems to confirm what I was saying.

Originally posted by Drex
i still have to say that pilot ability should have the most importance over the plane. A skilled pilot can take an inferior plane and outwit/outfight a less well-trained or skilled pilot in a better aircraft.

Von Richtofen said "it's not the crate, but the pilot in the crate".

Geez, have my posts come to this? Quotes?

Von Frag

Some people on this board have said that the decisive factor in the pacific air war were combat tactics - and as these were developped by the Allies the Japanese were outclassed.

Well, japanese pilots developped some tactics themselves, such as the head-on attacks vs. B-17's. In fact, they did that earlier than the Germans.
Now - does UV take that into account by giving the Japanese an improved chance to down allied bombers in '43? No!

Bottom line is: combat tactics are developped and used by expert pilots - NOT by mechanical devices nor by inexperienced novices lead by green officers.
Again I can only say the same thing as before: UV fails in portraying realisticly the impact ratio of pilot experience and the technical details of his airplane.

Tech too high - experience too low.
-> Resulting in every US-player waiting for better equipment instead of husbanding expert pilot squadrons.

Christof

I think you're right Drex, to a degree. In the example, an 80 exp Japanese pilot in a Zero 'should" be able to beat a 60 exp pilot in a Corsair. To be honest, I'm not so sure this is enough of an experience difference to consistantly and significantly compensate for the difference in the aircraft. The Corsair was far superior to the Zero in every category but turning. This allowed even a modestly experienced Corsair pilot to dictate the terms of the engagment. Only a very inexperienced or reckless Corsair pilot would knowingly cast aside the advantages his aircraft provided and get into a slow-speed turning fight with the Zero.

I would say that an 80 exp Zero pilot would enjoy a significant advantage over a Corsair only if the pilot was quite inexperienced, perhaps less than 50 exp. Just my opinion.

To Christof:

I'm not so sure that both sides embraced tactics in the same manner. Tactics are developed based on a number of factors, two being the capabilities of your aircraft and the capabilities of the opponent's aircraft. Just as important though is that tactics often reflect the developers' culture and war philosophy.

From the outset of the war, the Japanese pilots were very aggressive and tended to fight as individuals. American pilots, on the other hand had to make do with inferior equipment, and so developed tactics that depended more on cooperation and "teamwork," such as the "Thach Weave." It was found that two working together as a team were superior to two working as individuals. Further, team tactics help lesser experienced pilots to a greater extent than they do more experienced pilots.

In the early days of 1942, relatively less-experienced American pilots in F4Fs were able to achieve something of a parity with their more-experienced Japanese counterparts.

As the war progressed, and American equipment got better, these tactics became even more effective.

The Japanese Zero may have been the premier dogfighter of the war, but that meant nothing as long as American pilots refused to dogfight, and stuck to their "boom-and-zoom" and other tactics.

It would be interesting to know how UV is calcualting air-combat, and whether the results we are seeing are representative of the actual statistics.

So you're saying that experience, fatique, and morale don't matter -- once I get to the point in the game that I currently am, I should EXPECT one sided diasters such as the combat results I posted and should just stop flying the Japanese air force.

Does that sound fair or even historical to you? Playing devil's advocate here, what's the point of playing then, even if you have a five to ten thousand point lead over your foe?

Originally posted by SoulBlazer
what's the point of playing then, even if you have a five to ten thousand point lead over your foe?

Hmmm, you don't have more than a 5,000 point lead? Well there's your problem right there.

You seem to have hit on japan's esential dilemma: win early or not at all.

And if you were planning on winning because of your airforce, I would say you are adopting the wrong strategy. Japan cannot win the air war. But you can stop invasions with your surface fleet. My own strategy revolves around having my surface fleet positioned to quickly break up any allied landing attempts once he tries to cross the moat between Australia/New Hebredies and New Guinea/Solomons. In the meantime, I will let him fly his long distance bombing raids and hope to down a few of his bombers each turn, slowly wearing away at these assets.

As a side note to this issue, I think people may be making too much of Japan's declining pilot quality. Certainly they were losing their premeir pre-war pilots who averaged something like 600 hours flying time at the time of Pearl Harbor. But even as late December 43 new japanese pilots arriving in the theater had 200 to 250 flying hours worth of training, about the same number as their American counter-parts. What the japanese did not have was a pilot rotation system that would allow veterans to go back and teach the newbies based on their own experience. But their worst failure was their continued lack of team work. It was not until 44 that the Japanese finally switched to using the finger four formation.

The japanese failure was not so much technological or experience based, it was the failure to adopt proper tactics. And that, I would speculate, was based on their code of Bushido and their view of themselves as Samurai. And in trying to act as if they were lone knights out to engage in individual combat, they met the same fate as the French at Agincourt.

Originally posted by Christof
Bottom line is: combat tactics are developped and used by expert pilots - NOT by mechanical devices nor by inexperienced novices lead by green officers.
Again I can only say the same thing as before: UV fails in portraying realisticly the impact ratio of pilot experience and the technical details of his airplane.

Problem is, you ignore the fact that American pilots coming into the theater were not "inexperienced novices led by green officers." The success of the American pilot training program has been discussed elsewhere in these forums, and I can only add in this context that trained pilots flying with experienced pilots and for experienced commanders using top-notch equipment and applying sound tactical doctrine are a tough combination to beat.

IIRC, the IJN didn't give much in the manner of radio coordination between their fighters. Any ideas on what impact (if any?) this would have on results? Would the radios allow pilot - to - pilot coordination of their attacks, defense, etc. to an extent that offsets, even to a degree, a skill gap between the enemies..? And I would expect (if that is the case) the impact to be greater as the Alied pilots gained experience.

As to air-to-air "dogfights" was the mission of escorts to kill or simply chase away enemy CAP to allow their bombers to execute their mission? Would that account for a lack of kills by escorting fighters?

Pretty much everything thats been said here has some validity to one degree or more. Makes it both fun and challenging at the same time to add an opinion. Essentially its a grey area with no black or white solution. For example, while the Americans often used superior and dyanmic tactics for the given situation, it did not mean that the Japanese were all a bunch of tail chasing dogfighters with no conception of team work. (particularily for the carrier arm)

Did poor or no radios hurt? certainly but with expert or highly experienced pilots often they could compensate, and Allied radios didn't always work too well either.

The 'dogfight em' comment at Guadalcanal emphasised not only the fact that Japanese pilot skill was on the decline, but also the simple proven fact that the Japanese fighter pilots were fighting against severe disadvantages during their very short flight times over Henderson. Coupled with new tactics, and the vulnerablility of the Zero to damage, and the growing malise and fatigue of the enemy, it was the perfect tacitcal switch at the right place and time. In effect, the order was the realization that the enemy was punch drunk and on the ropes and it was time to take the gloves off, even at the increased risk to oneself....kind of like a boxer who senses his opponent is weak and goes for the kill by upping the offensive tempo at the cost of defensive caution. But it doesn't suddenly mean the Zero was overrated or worthless or that it's pilots all employed inferior tactics all the time.

Pilots (i.e. the men) are indeed the most important part of the equation but in terms of indiv. pilot skill, they remain a "part", and can be negated by tactical setup, altitude advantage, fatigue, tactics and technological issues

Mix up the recipe and throw in the spice of the dynamic of fighter vs fighter combat in general and you can never be sure you'll get the expected result. An exp 90 pilot who makes a mistake or who gets caught at a disadvantage can easily be shot down by an exp 60 pilot.

ok, enough philosophy, on the the main issue brought up:

The F4U from day one has had an almost legendary ability to trounce the Zero in UV. Is it a bit excessive? Yes....i think so. IIRC, Drongo conducted some eyebrow raising tests a few months back with F4U vs A6M and the results were so lopsided as to make one want to ground the Japanese airforce for the sake of humanity. How much so is the real hard part. No question the Corsair was a Zero killer and it so outclasses the Ki-43 that i would not expect that plane to score many kills (damages yes....but kills would be more rare)

One thing that is made very, VERY clear in Bergerud and i think this says it all. The "nature" and "pace" of the campaign did not "suddenly" and "radically" alter with the introduciton of 2nd generation US aircraft.

Kill ratios did not spike dramatically, actions did not become a breeze, and the campaign remained a hard one. The campaign overall continued essentially to be a grinding pulse pounding war of attrtion and the Japanese fought hard and in some places even very well (with dashes of their "old flair" as Bergerud put it) on occasion when a US air group would find itself tangling with a bunch of veterans vs a bunch of raw recruits and sometimes came off worse for wear as a result. (much harder to be the attacker vs defender such as at Guadalcanal on the end of a 550 mile journey by the enemy with Coastwatchers and Radar giving you advance intel all the way)

So yes, SoulBlazer, you do have a point.....US pilots certainly could tell the difference between green recruits and veterans when they fought them regardless of whether they were in a Corsair or not. So i do feel that a player who has managed to preserve his pilot quality when faced with the new challenge of fighting 2nd gen aircraft should at the 'very least' be more competetive against them vs the "lambs to the slaughter effect"

Its rare that a plane is SO obsolete that it cant give a decent fight.....exeptions abound of course.....the P-39 above 10,000 feet is probably the best known example.

I find it amusing in the end that with all the fuss and chest beating along lines of national contention for so long (though spurred on mostly by a few select people), that the primary factor in UV is not pilot skill as much as it is plane stats, and range.

Range is the other culprit IMO. Range 1 and 2 combat is very deadly, Range 3 and beyond is often not. Thats why single engined planes go down so much, and level bombers without .50cal weapons, and why B-17's, B-25s and B-26's are almost invulnerable.

So we have a bit of excessivess in losses to the former, and lack of losses (and more importantly, disruption) to the latter.

Thats an example of a black and white situation imposed on a grey area of combat.

I have to disagree with the view that pilots matter more than the plane. For 1:1 combat (or at least small, even numbers) there is a level of pilot skill, below which, the best of plane will not help them. This is the level of skill where flying a coordinated turn in a hurry demands a lot of their concentration (for example). The poor pilot does not have the experience to remain situationally aware, and will often get shot down without knowing there are enemy around. Even if they do get the drop on someone, they will probably overshoot, miss, or at best do slight damage. In any sort of fight (assuming the other pilot isn't also a novice), they will be lucky to survive. In these situations, the 'better' plane may well just get them killed sooner, because odds are they will crash on their own (Corsairs were a handful, and lots of torque can get you in to trouble).
Above this level of skill, the plane starts to make a difference. Any competent pilot (e.g. average US late 1942/early 1943) starts being able to play the odds. Their chance of survival rockets, and the loss ratio will tend to be dictated by a range of factors (strategic situation, tactical situation, plane quality, and tactics as well as pilot skill). Pilot skill will by no means predominate.
For really elite pilots (e.g. IJN early war, experienced Allied pilots later war), they start to buck the odds again. They can manipulate the tactics, and to some extent the tactical situation to stay alive, and some (the good shots) will pick up kills as they go. To some extent they will mitigate small deficiencies in aircraft (and we are talking small here. On a scale of say P51D or Spit 14 or Tempest V or Corsair (top end of scale) to A5M, or F2A or something (bottom of scale) - which is a big delta, Corsair to late Zero isn't so big!). The only thing a really skilled pilot can do with a hopelessly outclassed aircraft is use his experience to avoid the fight (and know that this is what he should do!)

The really big differentiator in air combat is numbers. I recall studies that suggested that, all other things being equal, in tactical engagements, the losses will be close to the square of the odds. That is 2:1 odds will tend towards a 4:1 kill ratio (obviously in favour of the majority!)

In summary, Pilot skill (above a certain threshold) will only moderate the other factors. With two averagely trained airforces, the 'non pilot skill' elements such as plane quality, tactics (i.e. degree to which that quality is exploited), strategic and tactical situations, and most of all, numbers, will predominate.

If you don't believe me, consider the Battle of Britain: did the LW lose because of pilot quality, plane quality or the strategic/tactical situation? (I vote for the latter, with tactics thrown in as a minor)
Did the Polish AF in 1939 go down so quickly due to pilot skill? Was the LW defeated in the bombing campaign over Germany due to Pilot skill (and I mean directly, not due to overloading the training system, and putting novices in the air!)?

I rest my case M'Lud. Just my 20p worth (too long for 2p)!:D

But just for fun's sake in the game, lets put more value in experience.

Originally posted by SoulBlazer
So you're saying that experience, fatique, and morale don't matter -- once I get to the point in the game that I currently am, I should EXPECT one sided diasters such as the combat results I posted and should just stop flying the Japanese air force.

Does that sound fair or even historical to you? Playing devil's advocate here, what's the point of playing then, even if you have a five to ten thousand point lead over your foe?

Hey Soul-

I was assuming in my response that fatigue and morale were equal across the board. I think you specify that in your example.

But if you ask me, fatgue and morale are the MOST important factors, trumping both equipment and training advantage, if they become too much of a factor. And we all know from playing this game that the morale and fatgue of our flight crews in this game can take a bad turn in a heartbeat.

Aside from that, I think Pasternaklak (or whatever his nic is explains things pretty well in his posts.

I'll have to start a campaign as the Japanese and face what you are talking about first hand, and see if "I" like it.

I will make this one observation about the database. The Corsair is given a manuver rating of 36 which is actually higher than the Zero's 34. I don't know how manuver is factored into the air-to-air routines, but it does seem a bit odd to have the Corsair rated higher than the Zero. Perhaps if the Corsair's manuver was reduced to 34 it would suffer an occasional loss.

Originally posted by cap_and_gown
I will make this one observation about the database. The Corsair is given a manuver rating of 36 which is actually higher than the Zero's 34. I don't know how manuver is factored into the air-to-air routines, but it does seem a bit odd to have the Corsair rated higher than the Zero. Perhaps if the Corsair's manuver was reduced to 34 it would suffer an occasional loss.

Judging by the preformance of other planes (such as P-39 and Wirraway) i'd say thats a large part of the reason why the A6M is so helpless.

Despite all the other variables, in 'general' when a plane has both its MVR and speed topped by another plane , it generally preforms poorly irregardless of pilot exp or fatigue. IIRC the manual said that exp directly tied into the 'decision process' on what kind of attack the pilot would attempt to make (dogfight style or hit and run). In the case of the F4U....either way, the Corsair wins the stat check, so from a 'game standpoint', the plane litterally cant lose.

Hey, you guys are scaring me. I've never met Corsair yet in UV. Since I'm primarily playing as IJN, I'm very worried. Most of my PBEM games are in Sep.-Dec., 1942.
Beware for the time is near. Why is the clock ticking so fast?:(

One of the key things when looking at the odds that I really don't think UV seems to take into effect...

Ammo is a FINITE resource. Planes due to weight carry a VERY small amount.

While plane quality and pilot skill may push the odds into the 4+ to 1 ratio on planes being shot down, one does really need to have some form of hard cap embedded within this to deal with the reality that even the best pilot in the best plane is going to run out of ammo at which point he is out of the fight.

This becomes even MORE an issue when shooting down the bigger planes as simply put, you have to pump more lead into them and/or use bigger shells (weight).

I know UV takes this somewhat into account from a standpoint of durability compared to penetration etc, but I would really like to know just how it deals with the ammo issue. The bigger the gun (ie: more effective) generally, the less ammo that could be carried.

Originally posted by Christof
I might be the only person on this board with this opinion, but nevertheless....

I feel UV does NOT simulate the mid '43 and '44 air situation very well.
Historically Japan was outclassed in SOPAC at that time - but mostly because of inferior pilot quality. They lost most of their aces in '42 and had absolutly no worthwile replacement programme going on. At the same time US pilot were becoming aces, getting lots of target practice.
The foremost reason for the high kill ratio of the "Hellcats" and "Corsairs" were BETTER pilots.

UV does not take this into account. A mediocre squadron of Corsairs (exp in the 60's) will always dearly beat up any squadron of Zeros - no matter which model, no matter which pilot experience, fatigue, morale.

From my point of view this is a design flaw. Men are more important than machines!

Examples?
1.) German fighter ace Hartmann scored several kills against P51's over Rumania in late '44 - '45 in his obsolete ME109.
2.) Sakais excellent book "Samurai" provides an account of a battle of Sakais lone Zero against 15 Hellcats over Iwo Jima in '44.

This can never be recreated with the UV engine..


Chris

Things that gave the American pilots the edge.

1. Speed. The faster plane unless at a disadvantage will always dictate the terms of the fight.

2. Radios. Zeros for the most part did not have them. No amount of pilot skill could compensate for the lack of radios. As once the group is separated, there is no way to call for help.

3. Durability. Brings em home.

4. Firepower. Even a blind squirrel will find a nut now and then if you are putting enough lead in the air.

5. Speed. Oh, I said that before.

6. Superior group tactics. (radios)

Oh, and did I mention speed?

The zero was an excellent dogfighting plane. Maybe the best ever. However, by 1943 dogfighting was obsolete as a tactic and planes designed to dogfight were made for another war. Firepower and speed brought about an evolution in group tactics and theory, forcing Japanese pilots, unable to fight effectively in large formations into a deeper hole. Without radios and without planes capable of countering Allied numbers and technical superiority, Japanes fighter pilots, (skilled or not) were unable to come up with an effective solution. That they died in droves is no great mystery.

Originally posted by Attack Condor
IIRC, the IJN didn't give much in the manner of radio coordination between their fighters. Any ideas on what impact (if any?) this would have on results? Would the radios allow pilot - to - pilot coordination of their attacks, defense, etc. to an extent that offsets, even to a degree, a skill gap between the enemies..? And I would expect (if that is the case) the impact to be greater as the Alied pilots gained experience.

As to air-to-air "dogfights" was the mission of escorts to kill or simply chase away enemy CAP to allow their bombers to execute their mission? Would that account for a lack of kills by escorting fighters?

There are many knowledgable posters on this forum. The wealth of information that I have gained here is stunning. Still, many do not recognise the critical role the radio played in fighter combat in the South Pacific. The Japanese were critically handicapped by the lack of good radios and spare parts. There could not be any effective group tactics by air units flying without radios.

The Russians proved that as well on the Eastern Front with tanks without radios. The same applied to airplanes.