HELP ALL YOU AIRCRAFT GURUS

[mdiehl]

The Bell P-39 and Grumman F4F-4 are key points of comparison and merit brief comment. &c

That piece was authored by Richard Dunn. See: http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdun ... rmance.htm

As a piece of research his substantive conclusion that the flight tests at San Diego understated the top speed of the A6M are correct. The standard given top speed however is not 316 mph but instead about 332 mph, according to Japanese specs. That speed is considerably slower than the top rated low altitude speed of the P-39 (376 mph). At any altitude <12000 feet the P-39 could Run Not Walk away from an A6M2.

One should note that the acceleration of the A6M was superior to the P-39, so if both aircraft were at lower airspeeds there was an interval at which the A6M could keep pace with the P-39 as the latter accelerated. This is at least consistent with the many pilots who flew P-39s experience and the head to head tests that demonstrated that above 300 mph the P-39 would outpace the Zero.

BTW, Sakai never was in theater on a mission against a P-39 base. His opinion on the matter is worth about as much as a propaganda poster.

[mdiehl]

The Zero although being the better flying aircraft was also less durable and would not survive with damage that a F4F could survive.

For the areas with the kill ratios most favoring the USN in 1942 the battles were fought over Japanese TFs, so the Zeros had places to land should enough plane be left to attempt a landing.

At Guadalcanal the kill ratio favored the Japanese but most Japanese pilots lost in that campaign were observed killed by their own pilots as well as US pilots. That's one of the reasons why Lundstrom's study of the campaign is especially authoritative vis who was shot down where and how.

The fair reading is that the A6M very clearly did sacrifice durability for acceleration and maneuverability. Most damaged zeros were critically damaged. This is in contrast with many heavily damaged F4Fs that remained quite flyable.

[mdiehl]

Big B - Yes bringing up USN/USMC EXP is warranted given their superior gunnery training. But you might achieve as much by looking at the durability ratings. The A6M2 should be lower than the Fairey Swordfish.

[mogami]

"In the WitP system this will not happen - as A6M's will run up a consistent 2 to 3:1 kill ratio over F4F's (if not even greater than 3:1).

So what is the best way to address this departure from reality? "

Hi, IN WITP the A6M do not run up a consistent 2-3 kill ratio versus the F4F. In some games they may but in many they do not.

Here is total air loss fromPBEM game (I am Japan versus dadman)(note todays loss)
Also in this game USN CV won the majority of CV versus CV battles (see AAR)(They never lost when they were present in equal or greater numbers)

You need to add the top 3 Allied fighters to equal A6M2 loss (not shown 49xA6M3 lost in A2A and 79 F4F-3 lost in A2A



I'll post the result from game versus Kereguelen game in a few moments (I am Japan again both games are into 1943)

[RAM]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
BTW, Sakai never was in theater on a mission against a P-39 base. His opinion on the matter is worth about as much as a propaganda poster.

didn't Sakai fly from Lae for a while, on missions over Port Moresby?

[mdiehl]

Yes, but he (well, his unit anyhow) was withdrawn (IIRC) to Rabaul before the first P-39s (which were, technically speaking, P-400s, but the differences were small) were sent to Moresby.

[mogami]

Hi Here is loss from other PBEm game. Notice not all games of WITP are slaughter fests. This game is in Aug 1943 these are totals for entire war. (Both games are non PDU and so A6M is main Japanese fighter in all areas. )

[mogami]

Hi, The number 1 reason A6M has good ratios in WITP has nothing to do with AC ratings or pilots. It is because most often they are in greater numbers then opposing aircraft.

Japanese Naval fighters tend to congregate in area Allied player offers resistance to air operations be it China Burma or NG/Solomons. The Allied player really need to have 3 or more areas where air combat is occuring in order to spread out the japanese mass.

Also most often early in game Japanese aircraft are operating within the command radius of a HQ.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, The number 1 reason A6M has good ratios in WITP has nothing to do with AC ratings or pilots. It is because most often they are in greater numbers then opposing aircraft.

Japanese Naval fighters tend to congregate in area Allied player offers resistance to air operations be it China Burma or NG/Solomons. The Allied player really need to have 3 or more areas where air combat is occuring in order to spread out the japanese mass.

Also most often early in game Japanese aircraft are operating within the command radius of a HQ.

Just what is the RL advantage of flying within the command radius of an HQ? This is one of those age old game design features that really have been lost to me.

[mogami]

Hi, Your right Ron there is no reason a fighter group leader can't fly missions and keep track of the big picture and arrange all the little mission details.&nbsp; coast watchers and radar units should all just have direct connections to group leaders who track Operations between flying missions.&nbsp;

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi Here is loss from other PBEm game. Notice not all games of WITP are slaughter fests. This game is in Aug 1943 these are totals for entire war. (Both games are non PDU and so A6M is main Japanese fighter in all areas. )

I would suspect with the numbers you posted for one day losses in Aug 43, that those squadrons are not experience 75 and over (or perhaps a whole lot of rookies in good squadrons were hit[8|]).

What I am beginning to lean towards is going back to the notion of across the board reduction in starting experience (which I tried once in an experiment - and it worked quite well and evenly)

I am loath to muck with aircraft data, not knowing for certain how 2x3 arrived at their all the ratings - I can only assume that it was done evenly and uniformly - I have seen lots of evidence of that in ships and devices.

B

[mogami]

Hi, The reason the daitai are not 75 exp in 1943 is they did not achive 3-1 kill ratios in 1942.
I do not employ any of the training practices other then setting a group to train and then flying training missions. (I don't use the isolated enemy base method or flying supply to your own airfield)

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: Big B
What I am beginning to lean towards is going back to the notion of across the board reduction in starting experience (which I tried once in an experiment - and it worked quite well and evenly)

And what kind of knock-on effects did you see? Reducing all pilots experience might make A2A less bloody, but what else does it affect? Skip bombing, which was historically a good tactic by all accounts, suddenly becomes useless. And how do you stop the various superspeed training methods from invalidating the whole thing in a real game? Patrol aircraft, from reports, need to be at least 80 experience before they will even start to attack subs. Subs as it is already don't fear aircraft enough. I'm sure there are a lot of other things that would be affected. The game was pretty obviously designed with lots of high experience pilots in mind and probably stops performing as intended if they aren't there.

*said the guy in a cranky mood for no reason*

[m10bob]

Big B sez:

Weren't allied planes capable of 'Over boost' for short periods of time(W.E.P.)? then the F4F could be given a speed closer to the A6M (say 330mph) - which would change the kill ratio.

To the best of my knowledge, "Overboost" was used only on planes furnished with superchargers, and it was accomplished by a short, quick injection of glycol and alcohol into the cylinder head, which acted on combustion and compression like nitro in fuel dragsters..It could not be done for longer periods as it would burn out the engine.
I believe I first learned of it by reading Grp Cpt Johnny Johnsons' excellent book"Wing Leader".....

[Drongo]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
BTW, Sakai never was in theater on a mission against a P-39 base. His opinion on the matter is worth about as much as a propaganda poster.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Yes, but he (well, his unit anyhow) was withdrawn (IIRC) to Rabaul before the first P-39s (which were, technically speaking, P-400s, but the differences were small) were sent to Moresby.

What have you been googling?

Sakai (and his unit) arrived at Lae in April '42 and operated there until the start of August '42. They had flown missions against Port Moresby (including the surrounding Allied airbases) up to and including July '42.

Units of the 8th FG equipped with P-39s had been based out of airfields in the Port Moresby area since late April '42. After the withdrawl of the RAAF fighters in May, the 8th FG became the only fighter defence for the area. In June they were relieved by units of the 35th FG flying a mix of P-39s and P-400s. Further US units equipped with P-39s/P-400s arrived in July.

Cheers

[mogami]

Hi,




8-Apr
Saburo Sakai's squadron arrives at Lae, joining two other squadrons that had landed a few days earlier.



11-Apr
Sakai's first combat over Port Moresby. 9 Zeros fly over; attack P-39s. 4 P-39s shot down (2 by Sakai).



8-May
Battle of the Coral Sea, Day 2
Fighter sweep over Moresby. Sakai shoots down a P-39.



12-May
15 Zeros near Port Moreseby. Lt. Sasai (Commander of Sakai's Chutai) shoots down three P-39s flying in a column.



17-May
Maximum effort fighter sweep: 18 Zeros over port Moresby. 3 "enemy fighter formations" (usually 12 each) clashed with over the air field. 6 P-39s downed. Ota, Sakai, and Nishizawa perform loops over the field at the end of the attack.



20-May
15 Zeros over Port Moresby at 30,000 ft. met head on by 10 new version P-39s, with working oxygen. 2 P-39s shot down, but the margin of performance quite narrow at that altitude.



16-Jun
21 Zeros catch 3 groups of 12 fighters (newer model P-39s) separated. 19 P-39s shot down. As they return, they catch 10 B-26s raiding Lae (vs. 19 defenders), followed by 10 P-39s strafing. 1 P-39 shot down.



26-Jul
Sakai's last mission to Port Moresby, after a running chase of 5 B-26s ( 2 were shot down).

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Big B sez:

Weren't allied planes capable of 'Over boost' for short periods of time(W.E.P.)? then the F4F could be given a speed closer to the A6M (say 330mph) - which would change the kill ratio.

To the best of my knowledge, "Overboost" was used only on planes furnished with superchargers, and it was accomplished by a short, quick injection of glycol and alcohol into the cylinder head, which acted on combustion and compression like nitro in fuel dragsters..It could not be done for longer periods as it would burn out the engine.
I believe I first learned of it by reading Grp Cpt Johnny Johnsons' excellent book"Wing Leader".....

I believe that is what is known in USAF/USN circles as "War Emergency Power, or W.E.P. .

The F4F also was the first American Fighter to be equipped with a Two-Stage Two-Speed Supercharger.

That really was my original question in this thread. The often quoted 318 MPH rating -is that under Full Military Power or War Emergency Power? That makes quite a diference, and I have never seen under which condition that speed was arrived at.
That would make the same speed diference as the Zero having full speed at 316mph, but brief 'overboost' up to 332-345.

[worr]

ORIGINAL: Big B


Here's the conundrum, The A6M2/3 is accepted to be more agile, a better climber, and faster than a Wildcat. However, in real combat the Wildcat and it's pilots consistently held their own, and prevailed.

Team work was the edge they used.

Also the heavier US planes would dive better so there was an escape route afford to them if the fight began at altitude.

There are many variables to dog fighting...and no computer system is going to get it right with all those variables.

Worr, out

[worr]

Not all WEP was afforded by injection water or nitro. Often times it was simply more throttle or boost, in the case of a turbo charger, which allowed better performance for about 5 minutes. But this then demanded a scheduled overhaul of the engine.
&nbsp;
Worr, out

[mdiehl]

@Drongo -

It was an IIRC. Last night I double checked and found IDNRC. [;)]

@Mo

Those are claimed kills. Not worth a penny to a dollar for knowing how many enemy a.c. he shot down. In any case, Sakai was never in a position to know what the top speed of a P-39 was. And that is after all what the subject was (max level airspeeds of a.c. in flight). The fact that Sakai may have been able to shoot one down does not logically lead to the conclusion that at low altitude an A6M2 was as fast as a P-39.

I think at least for max level airspeed we can assume that the 332 mph given by the Zero's manufacturer (achieved at 15K feet) is accurate and that the 368 mph given by Bell (achieved at 12K feet) is accurate. Like all of these "a vs b" a.c. discussions there were windows in which each was at its best, so the "oh yay a zero was as fast as a P.39" shtick does as usual ignore both the general facts and the complexity of the analaysis. This claim:

This compilation of reports indicates the Zero was either equal to or close to the P-39 in speed at the altitudes of the various encounters.

Is accurate but the contextual use of it "it was as fast as the P-39" isn't worth a toss. With this comparison, altitude matters alot.

In any case judging combat effectiveness I'd bet the sustained kill ratio of the P-39 vs A6M in direct ftf encounters is roughly 1:1.