USN air combat data from Office of Naval Intelligence

[TIMJOT]

Hi, Could the fact that all groups used in the tests are 99 morale produce these high loss rates? The lower a groups morale the more likely it is to abort/break off combat. These high morale units might all be too eager to fight.

Mogami, thats a very good point. Maybe Drongo could re-run the test with pilots with average morale and see if that makes any difference.

[mogami]

Hi, I think in actual play where one side is planning to commence air battles he will rest his groups up before beginning. So the airbattles will be very fierce at the start and gradualy decline to nothing. (Currently in my test game air combat over Rangoon has declined to merely two opposing groups appearing in animation. As soon as one side suffers even a damaged aircraft the combat breaks off. Many times there is not even any battle at all. They just fly around a little and then both sides go home. When I add a fresh (morale over 60) group it sends the Allied groups home after 1 shot. The numbers of AC involved has not changed greatly from when both sides would fight much harder.

[Tristanjohn]

"Let's see, I choose (and oh I so often wonder why) to be hypercritical of a wargame system that doesn't blush when it rates both models of the "Betty" with a durability rating identical to the P-47, and the most incisive dream to pop into your head is that I must be having a "relapse"?"

Gee I wonder if a 40 durability with 0 armor is the same as a 40 durability with 1 armor? Gee I wonder is bullets bounce off one and blow the other out of the sky? Gee I wonder if mvr ratings have any influence on the aircraft being hit?

DURABILITY:

The durability factor is the toughness the plane. An aircraft with a higher durability can sustain more damage before being shot down, can fight better when damaged and can land with more damage. Some bombers with an extremely high durability, when combined with a very high gun factor, may discourage brittle enemy aircraft without self sealing fuel tanks and a limited gun factor with from attacking. So, against the B-24, a Nate or A2M6 might only make one or two passes and fire at a greater range, before retiring. A George, on the other hand might press the attack.

Durability: A6M2 - 22, P-40 - 29, F2A - 28, F4F - 29. As can be seen, the Zero has a significant disadvantage in durability and combined with a zero armor, no self-sealing fuel tank, this aircraft must use the high maneuver rate to avoid getting hit.

I would assume that "ARMOR" in UV modeling terms is intended to "protect" a plane's pilot somewhere within the combat dynamic, not protect, for example, a plane's wings or a plane's engine(s) or a plane's gas tanks from exploding. I would assume this for the reason that that's the only intelligent way this particular plane characteristic ought to be modeled. Mike Wood implies as much above, though it is not exactly clear, and with this model I've learned anything's possible.

Or do some people just not know doodley squat and just look for any ole thing to whine about? I'm surprised you used the Betty for an example look at the Sally it has higher duribabilty and has armor too. But look Sally bombers still get shot down much more often then P-47's. Suppose you only comment when you know exactly what you are talking about? Please? You do not 'add' anything to the disscussion you only provide 'noise level'.

If you really were interested in constructive observations the above post would have read something like this....

Let's see, I choose (and oh I'm so glad to be invited into the disscussion, so many designers would just do their own thing) to inquire into the interactions of aircraft ratings. What do ratings measure? Both models of the "Betty" have a durability rating identical to the P-47. Although I see the P-47 has armor while the Betty does not. How much of durability is size? number of engines? Self sealing fuel tanks? What is the impact of one having armor? Is durability the expression of how many damage points the aircraft can take? Some mis-informed persons might think the Betty being rated the same as a P-47 strange but then making the P-47 the same as a multiengine bomber is really giving the fighter a lot of credit. It only has one engine. It only has one pilot. When dealing with ships durabilty is the amount of damage a ship can take and many ships of different class have same durabilty ratings. But when one has armor and the other does not.....Is it the P-47's armor that entitles it to the same durabilty as a multi engine bomber with no armor? If so what about the Sallys ratings? I don't think the Sally was as easy to shoot down as a Betty but was it harder then a P-47 or does Mvr figure ito the process (The model knows how often a ac will be hit in combat)"

This model's so balled up it's almost impossible to even keep an arithmetic running total of its mistakes just in assignment of raw database scores, much less attempt to derive any good sense from all that in terms of Gary's formulas, which we've been dismissively informed are "too numerous" to publish.

Re what I know and do not know: please see my next note to Mdiehl.

[HMSWarspite]

Mogami, thats a very good point. Maybe Drongo could re-run the test with pilots with average morale and see if that makes any difference.

Seconded - I have been guilty of jumping to a conclusion. If more 'normal' moral levels (both 60-70) gave lower losses, and low (both <40) gave almost none (break off immediately and refuse to engage) I would accept it.

The problem with UV 2.0 was that it cut the losses, but formations were not breaking off enough. I do not want the invincible attack, I want low losses to cause units to head for home. 25% should be enough to send it home without fail, and 5-10% to cause very frequent break off. Even a single damaged plane, should cause the unit to think about what it was up to (take a moral check). In fact, having an enemy fighter unit in an advantageous position should cause a moral check (with units on CAP, especially over their CV more likely to press on, and attackers more likely to break off unless with bombers to escort or something). The real combat end point ought to be loss of cohesion rather than excessive losses. A sweep of 24 should not enjoy even 1 loss, and 2-3 is definately time to go home.

A unit should be capable of operating for CAP for couple of weeks at close to 1 loss per day (on a 24 unit, and no long flights). Maybe a slow loss in moral, and slowly climbing fatigue. Any more losses, and trouble. A single loss of more than 25% should be enough to take it off ops for a couple of days (min). Even if the experienced pilots are surviving, and the newbies are the ones to go, the effect eventually gets to the aces - they become over confident (= reduced skill, = fatigue or moral), and mentally tired I believe. Unit moral suffers, because the aces become a clique, and wont mix with the new boys ('why bother, he'll be gone before I learn his name')

Of course - very rarely - a unit may get completely caught out, and losses of 5,6 or even more (out of 24) should be possible. Caught landing. Bounced thoroughly, or what ever ( but not too often).

Completely inexperienced, and out classed units could lose more as well.

Still my subjective judgement - I must look up BoB stats for squadrons (best I would have)

[mogami]

"This model's so balled up it's almost impossible to even keep an arithmetic running total of its mistakes just in assignment of raw database scores, much less attempt to derive any good sense from all that in terms of Gary's formulas, which we've been dismissively informed are "too numerous" to publish."

Since you do not know what the raw data base scores mean how can you say they are incorrect? Where do you keep getting this need to see the formulas?
All the end user needs to see are the results produced and concerning WITP it is not a released product so there is no way for anyone to know it is "balled up"

Look I know and you know, that no matter how UV worked you would have found something to come online and complain about. That is the reason you bought the **** game in the first place. You can't wait to do the same to WITP but your tipping your hand here by jumping in on things when you have no facts. As I've said once, if I can't post actual, honest TEST AAR's without people having cows all over the forum I'll just stop posting the test results.
I don't think the honest posters here think they should be seeing 100 percent (what they consider) correct results from test AAR's Why do you?

While other people wonder what causes test results and how they can be pushed in one direction to the other you stick to just "So balled up, I can't count that high" What is the sense of your posts? You don't object to the model you object to the persons making the model. For some reason it makes you insane that Joel Billings has "control" over Gary.

Your not a commentator your a online stalker. Your so transparent it's almost sad. No programmer on the planet would release his formulas or codes for a project in the works to people not involved. Yet you act like it is a common thing and the programmers are being petty by not sending you everything.

When the game is released you can start with the box design and just harp away with everything you find wrong or silly. By the time you finish I expect the first 100 or so 1735 turn PBEM games will be concluding. Please don't feel you have to publish your list as you think of items. Just wait and publish the complete list it will be more impressive that way.

[mogami]

OK, I grow weary of the massive airstrike from mega death star airfields built by the Japanese in UV.

When the Japanese player in PBEM games decides he will build Lunga to max size and then move 450 aircraft there I rub my hands together with glee.
My job has been made much easier.

I don't then put together 25 AP/AK transport groups and move them into the Japanese range. I build a size 4 airfield (or two or three) in normal range of Lunga and move my heavy bombers to these bases. Then I target the port of Lunga at night and bomb it into rubble. 450 aircraft consume a lot of supply as do the ground forces deployed to protect this total commitment of Japanese assets. Then I switch to bombing the airfields. Many Japanese aircraft are destroyed on the ground making it a victory point heaven for me.
After 1-3 months of such pounding I begin sending fast groups to Lunga to clear out the Japanese surface ship protection. Woe to the Japanese player who can no longer prevent my bombardment groups from getting in. I place CAP over my groups and send sweeps of 70+ P-38 ( 1-3 groups from each of my bases) In the end the fall of Lunga decides the entire future of the game.
It is not something that can be done over night but it is almost too easy.
The Allied player can make super airfields much easier then the Japanese (he has more airgroups more ships and after 3 months of the long campaigns more men) Plus unlike Betty bombers the Allied heavies can pound airfields and ports and survive. (You have to wait to obtain the heavy bombers but once they are on map in number any large concentration of Japanese become road kills)

So it is not UV that produces these strange events it is misguided players.
If the allied player, responds to the fact of large numbers of enemy aircraft by sending his ships to them is it any wonder the Japanese do massive damage?
It was possible for the Japanese to mass their assets. Only they realized they could not maintain such groups so they never actually did it. (in range of enemy heavy bombers deployed in number) I would argue Japan did mass large numbers of aircraft where they could protect and maintain them.

None of this has anything to do with the model. It is a player choice. (the AI does not adopt these methods) 3 betty groups are not a mass concentration. Still I would stay out of their range and provide CAP to anything that had to move into this range.

[Tristanjohn]

Call me confused. I thought this was the WitP suite of threads, not the UV one. I recognize that the one borrows from the other just as they both borrow from GGPW, but I am confused about what game Drongo is providing AARs for and TristanJohn is providing complaints for.

TristanJohn - Your offer is very generous and I appreciate it but my answer remains no. If your contention is that UV bites I will cede the point. I was not impressed by the AARs in the first year after it's release and am unable to comment on whether the sim has been substantially improved.

When I say that I am not certain that there is a major cause for concern in the WitP model it is because I'm not certain that there is a major cause for concern in the WITP model. Mogami's results alpha testing WitP seem within 10% of historical except where large numbers of aircraft are involved, and that seems pretty good to me. It does suggest to me that when large numbers of a/c are launched on a mission (one source, one destination) there may be a substantial problem.

Unfortunately you'll remain ignorant of the extent of the problem and the implication thereof, Mdiel, by refusing to examine the UV database.

Just one example of how screwed up it is in there and why I fear the same inherent bad results must carry over to WitP, and thus by logical extension discussion of UV is still very much pertinent in the WitP thread.

I mentioned that the "Betty" is rated for DURABILITY the same as a Thunderbolt. That alone ought to prick anyone's ears who has a lick of knowledge regarding these things--the "Betty" was a flying gas can! But hold onto to your hat cuz the same database has the Beaufighter Mark VI rated at two points higher than the P-47.

Hello?

I can just hear it now, "You highbrow numbskull you! That's because it has two engines and so could limp back to base on only one of them . . . 'naaa-na-na-naaa-na!'" which no doubt accounts for the fact the P-38s are rated higher than P-47s as well.

But now, assuming any of that holds water (and it most certainly does not hold very much water on balance) then please tell me, if you can, why if the Beaufighter ought to be rated a 38 with respect to DURABILITY then it next of kin, the Beaufort, is rated at only 32. (I really don't wish to have to write PhD thesis on this stuff--just take it as wisdom that the Beaufighter was nothing more essentially than a slightly redesigned Beaufort--I realize you in all likelihood already know this, Mdiehl, and probably a lot more, but others most certainly do not.)

[left]Moving right along . . . that isn't all. Not by a long shot. The database also has the normal nominal mission loaded onto a Beaufighter as two 500-pound GP bombs when in fact this plane was rated to carry a payload of twice that, 2,000 pounds, and in any event its actual normal nominal payload/loadout/mission was not bombs but an 18-inch torpedo. When it wasn't carrying a torpedo it would normally/nominally have been equipped with wing-mounted 5-inch rockets, eight of these as a matter of fact. If and when it did go out with bombs it would have carried four 500-punders or a couple of 1,000-pound jobs, for all I know. Like I say, basically it was a torpedo-bomber and ASW weapon not a level-bomber or dive-bomber.[/left]

Sticking right with our grossly and ridiculously mismodeled Beaufighter: it's UV-modeled effective operating radius is 360 miles (480 extended) when in point of fact this airplane (it was actually referred to officially as a "torpedo-bomber" as time went on, for that's how it was inevitably used) has a normal operational radius of around 700 miles (with a torpedo) and going on 900 miles at extended range (again, with a torpedo affixed below), these figures reflecting its "crusing speed" of 194 mph.

The database also seems to fudge its top-end speed (downward as its an Allied plane, presumably, for in terms of where this plane would normally operate and where "speed" might come into play its top end is not adequately reflected) and completely ignores the hand-held .303-caliber gun mounted in its dorsal canopy at mid fuselage, with no mention whatsoever of its radar capabilities (the Beaufighter was the world's first "night-fighter," if one could really call it that, and was routinely fitted with AI (Mk. VIII in a thimble nose), an item also not mentioned.

I'm getting awful tired with this, Mdiehl. Please listen for one minute.

The database is screwed up totally, much worse than you apparently imagine. While I understand your fascination and concern with the FvF/Zero/Wildcat issue this is not the only critical area or even necessarily the most critical when it comes to actual in-game play where this model just doesn't get it close to right. The research emanates from God knows where and was apparently hashed (through misinterpretation, partly, I suppose--I hope) completely in certain respects during implementation to the point where this just isn't World War II any longer but something more like the bizarre "Planet Xenon" scenario you yourself suggested some weeks back.

No amount of minor "tweaking" is going to get it right. The database needs to be gone through with a fine-toothed comb and made "right" to begin with, then the formulas need to be re-visited again and looked at with regard to "weights" distribution and sequence and so forth, then all of the modifiers should be "rethunk" and so on.

Why not do everyone a favor and examine the model that WitP is bound to be based primarily upon and see for yourself what you're actually dealing with here, not only in terms of form but with regard to perception? Take my word for it, the database's outright inaccuracies are nothing short of alarming, and with such bad raw data in the front end of the model no way Jose you're getting good results out its backside, Mogami's (or anyone else's) rather pointless testing of fighter actions notwithstanding.

[mogami]

Hi, The 2.30 version of the Beaufighter is a result of Forum poster requests (Aussies)
The bombload was 2x250lb bombs in early versions. Later versions had wings strengthed for 1000 lb bombs but the engines for this were not available.

The Beaufighter did operate at night in the Pacific but as a strike aircraft. (If you have data on night fighters in Pacific post that so it can be used)

Back to durability of P-47's again heh? You still don't know if Japanese durabilty is the same as allied durability. (The designer knows the weaopons effects better then you do and assigns durabilty based on things you know nothing of. You might as well post "P-47 and Betty are both given 2 wings"

In combat the P-47 has a much better survial rate compared to Betty. That is purpose of ratings. If Allied weapons (4 or more .30cal or .50 cal weapons ) are compared to Japanese weapons (2x7.7mm 12.7mm 20mm) And these rating are what decide durabilty your argument falls flat on its face.

I have a hard time finding fault with things I can see. I can't see you don't have the same problem. You don't know what the numbers mean or how they interact. Yet still here you are blowing your horn to the same old tune.

Why don't you go take a long nap and then buy the game when it is released.
(You are the one person I am certain can't wait to get his hands on WITP just to tear it apart) So just take deep breaths and wait. Someday you can log on and proudly proclaim "See I told you, it sucks, see I was right, see" Only everyone will be off playing and having a great time.

[Nikademus]

Nikademus,

I am a little confused. I know of the VF Vs Zeke battle on August 7th, which was what I was pointing out. Mdiehl aways refers to another incindent in late August between a VMF vs Zekes that was lopsided in favor of the Zekes. Personally I am not familiar with that encounter, perhaps he can give us a little more insite on it.

Hmmm, will have to look. There were actually numerous occasions where the Zekes came away with the "victory" in ye ol' KR game over Cactus. For a "lopsided" victory my guess is you are refferring to the Oct 2nd incident where a combined VF/VMF scramble (36 F4F) attempted to intercept a 27 plane sweep from Rabaul. Taking full advantage of their superior altitude the Zekes downed 6 F4F's (and two SBD's) to only 1 Zeke. (several damaged)

The only other truely "lopsided" incident i can think of (defined by me for this as more than a 4:1 difference) was a Cactus sponsored spanking of another Japanese sweep the next day only where the Rabual boys found themselves bounced from a superior altitude by 27 F4F's (a major shock given they had come in at very high alt hoping to repeat their earlier success only to find the Wildcats even higher up and ready for them) 9 Zekes failed to return to Rabaul and only 2 F4F's were destroyed (1 shot down, other op loss) the op loss/shot down ratio for the Zekes is not known.

As demonstrated, the Zero could be very deadly, but was also an unforgiving mount to be in if you got caught in a bad situation. It also demonstrates how critical the early warning net for Cactus that allowed the F4F to play the role of interceptor by giving them the time they needed to claw enough alt. out of the air to make advantagious positional attacks. That and knowing the general 'timetable' of when the enemy could be expected due to the long flight times. It also demonstrated Marine adaptability in the face of changing enemy tactics.

[mdiehl]

Unfortunately you'll remain ignorant of the extent of the problem and the implication thereof, Mdiel, by refusing to examine the UV database.

I guess I just don't give a rip about UV.

I see that Mogami has posted "alpha test" results from WitP that seem, to me, to be in the ballpark. We can call the collective specs in the data tables the "Peanut Butter and Jelly Factor" and give the Zeke 63 of these and the F4F eleven, and attribute the difference to simultaneous capture of a particularly infamous warehouse full of USDA peanut butter in the basement of the American Embassy in Japan and an outbreak of legume leaf-blight in Georgia. If I see long-term early war loss ratios on the order of 1:1 to 1.3:1 favoring the Japanese in engagements vs land based F4Fs under rather typical operating conditions, I'll be content with that.

If the ratios favor Japan 1.5:1 then, if in most other respects the model works well, I may yet buy the game. If I see something really bizarre, I won't.

If I see AARS where the Allies gamely ante up their F4F groups, go two months of daily or bi-weekly combats with a consistent mean loss ratio of 1.3:1 favoring the Japanese, and at the end of those two months there are not rather sudden reverals in the loss ratio owing to the growing scarcity of talented Japanese pilots, I probably won't buy it.

If I see that the optimal strategy for the Allied player is to never risk CVs in head to head encounters with an equal number of Japanese CVs beginning on 7 December 1941 because the American can expect to lose, something that isn't a very accurate model IMO, I'll definitiely avoid it.

[Chiteng]

OK, I grow weary of the massive airstrike from mega death star airfields built by the Japanese in UV.

When the Japanese player in PBEM games decides he will build Lunga to max size and then move 450 aircraft there I rub my hands together with glee.
My job has been made much easier.

I don't then put together 25 AP/AK transport groups and move them into the Japanese range. I build a size 4 airfield (or two or three) in normal range of Lunga and move my heavy bombers to these bases. Then I target the port of Lunga at night and bomb it into rubble. 450 aircraft consume a lot of supply as do the ground forces deployed to protect this total commitment of Japanese assets. Then I switch to bombing the airfields. Many Japanese aircraft are destroyed on the ground making it a victory point heaven for me.
After 1-3 months of such pounding I begin sending fast groups to Lunga to clear out the Japanese surface ship protection. Woe to the Japanese player who can no longer prevent my bombardment groups from getting in. I place CAP over my groups and send sweeps of 70+ P-38 ( 1-3 groups from each of my bases) In the end the fall of Lunga decides the entire future of the game.
It is not something that can be done over night but it is almost too easy.
The Allied player can make super airfields much easier then the Japanese (he has more airgroups more ships and after 3 months of the long campaigns more men) Plus unlike Betty bombers the Allied heavies can pound airfields and ports and survive. (You have to wait to obtain the heavy bombers but once they are on map in number any large concentration of Japanese become road kills)

So it is not UV that produces these strange events it is misguided players.
If the allied player, responds to the fact of large numbers of enemy aircraft by sending his ships to them is it any wonder the Japanese do massive damage?
It was possible for the Japanese to mass their assets. Only they realized they could not maintain such groups so they never actually did it. (in range of enemy heavy bombers deployed in number) I would argue Japan did mass large numbers of aircraft where they could protect and maintain them.

None of this has anything to do with the model. It is a player choice. (the AI does not adopt these methods) 3 betty groups are not a mass concentration. Still I would stay out of their range and provide CAP to anything that had to move into this range.

Only works if he puts planes and supply on it Mogami =)
Otherwise.....its a decoy. However I still say its a bad idea to build any base
that the allies can then capture and use.
You make their job easier doing that.

[TIMJOT]

Hmmm, will have to look. There were actually numerous occasions where the Zekes came away with the "victory" in ye ol' KR game over Cactus. For a "lopsided" victory my guess is you are refferring to the Oct 2nd incident where a combined VF/VMF scramble (36 F4F) attempted to intercept a 27 plane sweep from Rabaul. Taking full advantage of their superior altitude the Zekes downed 6 F4F's (and two SBD's) to only 1 Zeke. (several damaged)

The only other truely "lopsided" incident i can think of (defined by me for this as more than a 4:1 difference) was a Cactus sponsored spanking of another Japanese sweep the next day only where the Rabual boys found themselves bounced from a superior altitude by 27 F4F's (a major shock given they had come in at very high alt hoping to repeat their earlier success only to find the Wildcats even higher up and ready for them) 9 Zekes failed to return to Rabaul and only 2 F4F's were destroyed (1 shot down, other op loss) the op loss/shot down ratio for the Zekes is not known.

As demonstrated, the Zero could be very deadly, but was also an unforgiving mount to be in if you got caught in a bad situation. It also demonstrates how critical the early warning net for Cactus that allowed the F4F to play the role of interceptor by giving them the time they needed to claw enough alt. out of the air to make advantagious positional attacks. That and knowing the general 'timetable' of when the enemy could be expected due to the long flight times. It also demonstrated Marine adaptability in the face of changing enemy tactics.

Hi Nik

Yeah, I am going to assume those are the two outlayers he repeatedly refers to. Which brings me back to my point. I have never seen him refer to the August 7,1942. 9 F4F to 2 Zekes loss, the omission of which, I assume would skew his loss ratio numbers between VF F4Fs vs IJN Zekes.

Again, I ask Mdeihl did you include the August 7 airbattle in your calculations?

[mdiehl]

Timjot.

I do not recall. See previous post about dog eating the notes. I THINK I did include the 7 August battle except that I thought it was later in the month. I recall including the 2 October result that favored the Japanese, and excluding the 3 October result that favored the Americans. In both cases I remember thinking that being bushwacked ("the bounce") was rather a rather infrequent event and had more to do with things like the degree of early warning (or its absence) than with planes or their pilots. But the 2 October was a fuzzy data point, so included it rather than excluded it.

[TIMJOT]

If I see that the optimal strategy for the Allied player is to never risk CVs in head to head encounters with an equal number of Japanese CVs beginning on 7 December 1941 because the American can expect to lose, something that isn't a very accurate model IMO, I'll definitiely avoid it.

Well not so fast, how about if the Lex armed with F2-As and TBDs on Dec 8th 1941 went up against lets say the Shokaku with Zekes and Kates?

[mdiehl]

:rolleyes:

Actually, that's a fair question. I would not EXPECT the Lex to lose. I would expect almost all of the outcome to hinge on who spotted whom first and at what range. If the Lex is 150 miles away and launches a substantial strike, bye bye Sho. If, while the US flight is on the way, the Sho launches a strike of its own, bye bye Lex.

[TIMJOT]

:rolleyes:

Actually, that's a fair question. I would not EXPECT the Lex to lose. I would expect almost all of the outcome to hinge on who spotted whom first and at what range. If the Lex is 150 miles away and launches a substantial strike, bye bye Sho. If, while the US flight is on the way, the Sho launches a strike of its own, bye bye Lex.

I dont know Mdeihl, I agree first strike is crucial, but if if IIRC except for midway all CV vs CV battles in 42 where launched more of less simutaneously.

I would say the chance of, F2-As being less effective clearing a path for a strike or conversly stopping a strike, would be considerably less than a Zeke. If we assume Vals and SBDs more or less equal in "strike" ability and the Kate superior to TBD in strike capability, then I believe the odds should favor the Shokaku.

[mogami]

Hi, My last Coral Sea air to air results were 7 Zeros, 1 F4F 9 SBD 1 TBF shotdown in air to air. (total for both sides in battle) (The USN escorted with 26 fighters and kept 12 on CAP) (USN had 2 strikes 1 with 9 F4F other with 17 F4F)
All combat was in PM phase weather prevented AM strikes

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/06/42

Air attack on TF at 61,98

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 28

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 9
SBD Dauntless x 36
TBD Devastator x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
SBD Dauntless x 2 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 1 damaged
TBD Devastator x 1 destroyed


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 61,98

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 27

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 17
SBD Dauntless x 36
TBD Devastator x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 3 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 2 damaged
SBD Dauntless x 29 destroyed
SBD Dauntless x 13 damaged
TBD Devastator x 5 destroyed
TBD Devastator x 7 damaged


Air attack on TF at 60,99

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 29
D3A Val x 45
B5N Kate x 48

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 3 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged
D3A Val x 18 destroyed
D3A Val x 34 damaged
B5N Kate x 14 destroyed
B5N Kate x 39 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat x 2 damaged


The combat report text is as usual inflated in both Air to air and AA loss reports.

[mdiehl]

I would say the chance of, F2-As being less effective clearing a path for a strike or conversly stopping a strike, would be considerably less than a Zeke. If we assume Vals and SBDs more or less equal in "strike" ability and the Kate superior to TBD in strike capability, then I believe the odds should favor the Shokaku.

Sure, but because you've picked such an early war example, you've picked the other basic conditions as well: 1. No Japanese (or American) combat experience managing a CAP. 2. Not even a photon of Japanese radar to detect the incoming strike. and 3. A period of the war in which both sides are guaranteed to field far too few aicrcraft to provide an effective CAP.

In your example I see the Zekes having too many targets in general. If they ignore the F2s, the F2s will shoot down many of them before they get at the SBDs. The TBDs will contribute by attracting Zekes and flak away from the most dangerous weapon in the US strike --- the SBDs.

I don't think Vals are the equal of SBDs in strike capability. I'll treat the Kate's superiority over the TBD as a given, with the caveat that a TBD will soak up more Zeke ammunition and Japanese TF flak than a Kate will soak up Wildcat ammunition or US TF flak.

[mogami]

Hi, While these 2 CL never left Japan they were the only IJN ships that began the war with radar installed. What would be the expected impact of their becoming
like the 2 Tone CA ever present members of the Japanese CV TF?

Prewar, what was the largest number of USN CV in a TF making practive stike launch? I think the IJN CV did a few combat launches into China prior to the PH strike. I have to go find my data for sure. But I'm fairly certain the Japanese CV practiced together (I don't thnik they trained alone that often)

In any case the Pearl Harbor strike was rather well executed. The raids in the Indian Ocean and against Darwin were not too shabby and even at Midway the first strike got off nicely. So I think it's safe to say they knew what they were doing.

[TIMJOT]

I don't think Vals are the equal of SBDs in strike capability. I'll treat the Kate's superiority over the TBD as a given, with the caveat that a TBD will soak up more Zeke ammunition and Japanese TF flak than a Kate will soak up Wildcat ammunition or US TF flak.

By equal strike capability I Mean placeing its ordinance on target. I agree the SBD was a superior a/c and had superior ordinance, but I have seen no evidence that the SBD was substantially more accurate than the Val. Regardless If I give you superior US DB ability against Superior IJN fighter and torp capability you would still have odds favoring the IJN.

I dont see any evidence that the TBD would soak up "more" ammo or flak than a Kate.

Also, unless we assume that the IJN CV is caught armming its a/c, it would be less likely that the IJN CV would be "SUNK" by bombs than the USN CV being "SUNK" by torpedoes.

I agree both sides had insufficient fighter numbers but the IJN CV at least have slightly more than the USN CV at this time and in this particular case a substantially superior one at that.

Now mdeihl, admit it. If the same situation was was reversed, Wouldnt you give a USN CV armed with F4Fs vs a IJN CV armed with Claudes better odds?

That being said I realize the Lex in Dec 41 is a unique situation, and I only brought it up as a debateing point. In practical terms, all things being equal, I would expect early CV vs CV battles generally to follow the historic mean, which was basically a 1:1 loss ratio.

I do know this, In the game I will keep the Lex out of harmsway until I can ugrade its fighter group.