B17 Losses too heavy

[Tristanjohn]

Let me just add one or two fast comments. I'm up north again and have to fertilize the citrus trees this morning, then off to the vet where my dog Beamer needs a teeth-cleaning and neuter procedure.

ASW work and Ron: I'm tired when it comes to these debates for a lot reasons, one of the reasons being that names get dropped so easily and are then cast off with deprecating remarks as if it were "true" without examination. Ron's a great case in point.

First of all, Ron Saueracker's name is actually Dirk Steele.

Second, I am not related to Ron/Dirk, we are not especially close (although I do respect his energy and sense of commitment to the game, and his willingness to absorb untold abuse day after day for speaking his mind), and neither of us, so far as I know, has any monetary stake in the game, the company or the proceedings herein--a not inconsequential point which can not be said of all the participants--everyone at Matrix is not a volunteer.

Ron/Dirk gets a bum rap. He gets a bum rap primarily because of the sheer volume of negative press generated on these boards by more than one person directly associated with 2by3/Matrix, which is then taken up by thoughtless individuals who are, in the parlance, hangerson, wannabes, call them what you want. Ater awhile many forum goers take this criticism of Ron/Dirk as a matter of course and place belief in it. Well, that's like reading only one newspaper for your information, say, the New York Times, which happens to be rather liberal in its leanings. Not to slam the The Times, but to read that newspaper exclusively might well lead one to think that so-called liberal political slant is the sole just and proper view of life and of the peoples who populate planet earth. It might well be at that, I don't know, but a more balanced diet of journalistic intake would serve the serious student better in the long run.

Anyway, Ron/Dirk gets a bad rap around here by the Matrix press, as it were. Nobody who is not on drugs could deny that. He's been accused of many things, large and small, most of which have nothing whatsoever to do with his specific complaints of the game system. And so, Ron/Dirk comes on the boards and says the ASW model is seriously out of whack, and before you know it he's accused of of breaking his non-disclosure agreement with 2by3/Matrix, just for example. See what I mean? Eventually, Ron/Dirk becomes a "bad apple" in the eyes of many. His problems with 2by3/Matrix with regard to his former position of playtester have nothing at all to do with his complaints regarding the system, yet everything is all heaped together and confused and pretty soon doesn't make sense anymore. The actual problem with the game system is ignored while lesser minds focus on a man's personality.

Above there's a reference that Ron/Dirk is guilty of complaining about the game system's flaws without offering any evidence to substantiate this claim. This is simply not true. Ron has many times offered any number of real-life examples of how and why the ASW model in the game does reasonably represent any portion of WWII history. This far down the line, after making his argument a gazillion times, he might well resort to just reciting the old complaint in short form, but that's only after beating his head against the company's concerted wall of denial, mainly on his own from what I can tell. Now I was off these boards for a year and a half, but I can well believe that, as I've run into the same wall--you see, only a few ever dare to cross swords with The Company on a company board--any company's board, not just here at Matrix--while the rest either lurk or happily toe the company's line. That's just the way it is.

Anyway, Ron/Dirk does give good examples of how and why the ASW model doesn't work. But these examples are constantly treated to a combined reception of shouting-down tactics, outright ridicule, argument by deflection (the tactic of making a person to be a "bad guy" with remarks such as the one's made toward Ron/Dirk with re to his failure to live up to his non-disclosure agreement--this is, by the way, the classic as hominem response, where emotions are appealed to instead of intellect) and, I'm afraid, at the far extreme of things, perfectly idiotic responses written by the crayon writers.

In the end the original argument, whether or not the ASW model makes sense, is forgotten, and all that's left is a sour impression of Ron/Dirk. There are some (I would say far too many) who view this as some kind of "victory" for the the company, but I see it as a loss for everyone involved.

So much for Ron/Dirk.

Mike (Lemurs) stated that the Japanese got their ASW training at the hands of the British. There's some truth in this, but like the devil's truth it is only partially true and is not going to (or meant to) lead anyone toward a greater life's truth.

Here's another "truth." The entire IJN was founded upon the principles of the Royal Navy. Does that mean the IJN was the "equivalent" of the Royal Navy in World War II?

Look. Any training in ASW doctrine and practice that the IJN received at the hands of the British was of World War I vintage and hardly impacts the ability of the IJN in World War II to successfully find and destroy Allied submarines. As a matter of fact at the beginning of World War II the British were not very good at ASW work and did not begin to get their collective act together until around the middle of 1942. I could get into this at length, but that's where it was at in a nutshell.

So you see, when we examine Mike's remark up close we realiize it makes no good sense, yet it was written as if it did make sense, and then more or less accepted by you as if it made sense, as well. So all of sudden it had been awarded a kind of credence when it ought to have been questioned and dismissed immediately as having no relevance. But instead a dumb remark now has credence, adding to the general confusion, and here I am taking more time and space trying to correct that new probelm. The result? Probably little good will come of my effort to correct matters, because the company is in denial and or just doesn't care, the hangerson will always toe that same line, and the crayon writers can't tell the difference. Another truth of life, but we do what we can.

By the way, from what I can see the ASW model might well be as broken as it was before. I can't say positively if this is the case, as my game with Chez/Joe has been going slowly of late, and my game with Mogami is too early in the war to have much of a sample to work with, plus Mogami seems to use his subs intelligently, while I don't tend to waste mine either, so it's just too early to tell.

I do know this. That while ASW seemed to be toned down a bit when I first loaded v1.5, I've had indications of late that the model has not been tweaked, or if it was tweaked then not tweaked sufficiently and/or in the correct manner.

For the company's part, there has been, typically, no word either way. That's an old (bad) story, of course.

I'm not going to answer all the points you've raised, Timtom. I think you've done a pretty good job in your response to Mike and in general I've found your work on this board to be well-considered, that is to say thoughtful in an effort to get at truth no matter where it might lie. We could use more of that.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

This is not a personal vendetta against you. Take it that way if you want. I just have a problem with people who claim that they are the one and only fountain of knowledge, that nobody else knows more about WWII history and that anyone who differs from your opinion "hasn't done their research." I asked you for your sources, you gave me a vague reference to some names. What about the names of the sources they published? You also gave me a link to discussion, which for all intents and purposes, is just like this one. People's opinions. What about the others? The problem is that you can't give them to me. You don't have them, you've may never have even read any of them yet you claim to be all-knowing on the subject and everone else on this forum is wrong. "I write emotionally" you say. I write what I know and what I can back up and if it's writing emotionally to ask you to put up or shut up, so be it. I would rather write "emotionally" with facts than "intellectually" with BS.

As far as Erik Schilling goes. Its already been proven that he is wrong in many respects. He claims to have fought against the Zero which is completely false. We went through this before. He had .75 kills (against a Sally). He flew the recon P-40 because Chenault said he didn't have the mentality required of a fighter pilot. Could that be why he flew transports over the Hump after the AVG disbanded? The AVG never encountered the Zero in combat. Even the link you provided claims that. They fought against army fighters, the Nate and the Oscar. He claims that Sakai told him max speed of a fully armored Zero was 309mph. When did it get armor? Something's wrong there and I doubt it is with Sakai. There are many sources, including his book, "Samarai!", where Sakai states the Zero was substantially faster.

Lundstrom's book "The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign: Naval Fighter Combat from August to November 1942" is not bad but totally written from the American viewpoint. His listing of Japanese air forces and aircraft in the area is incomplete and even wrong in some respects. I find no reference to a kill ratio while leafing through Morison's book, The Struggle for Guadalcanal: Vol. 5." In fact he states that the Zeros consistently "mauled" the Wildcats at Henderson and many Wildcats never flew again after landing due to severe battle damage. And how about a first name for Frank?

Midway was not the slaughter you think it was. According to Fuchida, in his book "God'Samarai: Lead Pilot at Pearl Harbor" which I just finished reading, Japan lost 24 fighter pilots about 25% of those present) and he believes that about 10 were killed onboard the carriers when they were hit. Guadalcanal is where the Japanese air forces suffered their greatest losses through continous attrition as American pilots became better and better at dealing with the Zero.

Read "Samarai!" written by Saburo Sakai and Martin Caiden. Excellent book that gives many details on the plane's performance. There are many other books such as "Zero!" by Robert Mikesh which contains all the flight test data from Mitsubishi and captured Zeros. These are references. Give me stuff like this, not a link to someone's unsubstantiated opinion.

You again say the propeller was responsible for its loss of power. The prototype flew with a 2-bladed propeller attached to a Mitsubishi Zuisei 14 cylinder engine that was quickly replaced with the Nakajima Sakae 12 driving a 3-bladed prop. BTW, the same 3-bladed prop was used on all variants of the Zero, including the A6M8. It was a lack of a supercharger that was responsible for a loss of power above 20,000, something the A6M3 didn't experience with its supercharged Sakae 21 engine.

You are right in one respect, as I also stated in my pervious post. It wasn't the aircraft itself but the tactics and teamwork US pilots developed to offset the deficiencies in their aircraft and take advantage of the deficiencies of the Zero

TristanJohn, you continue to spout generalities and fail to provide verifiable sources. I'll drop this thread because it is clear that you cannot accept someone being able to make counter claims and back them up. I think I'm beginning to feel like Lemur, "Whenever I see TristanJohn's posts, I feel dismal!"

Chez

edit: corrected incomplete sentence.

Steve, let's try to get this back on a useful track.

I wish mdiehl were here to to recite the statistics he culled from Frank and Lundstrom. I tossed in Morison because while he didn't get into the same detail and wrote more in a narrative style, his bottom line was the same as both Frank and Lundstrom.

Frank, by the way, is Richard B. Frank. He wrote a book on Guadacanal. I don't own it but finally broke down a couple years ago and got a copy out of the San Jose State University library and read it. Not too bad, though his writing style is somewhat crimped. A good addition to anyone's personal library, and if your interest is in this area I'd recommend Frank's work as the best I've read to date. It can be found here: Guadacanal

Let's get back to mdiehl. I never get along with this guy. He, too, took things personally, would write with emotion, and pretty soon would lose track of his main subject. But. Mdiehl has a brain. A large one from what I can tell. And he's willing to do his homework. So I accept his personal quirks.

Mdiehl's homework was this. He pored over the work of Frank on Guadacanal and both of Lundstrom's "First Team" books and extracted this simple statistic: through 1942 the Wildcat enjoyed a bare 1.2:1 advantage expressed as a kill ratio over the Zero.

I thought that was interesting but at the time I hadn't read Frank yet. I own the works of Lundstrom (without ever having bothered to add up the score plane by plane, engagement by engagement) and Morison, though, and had gotten pretty much the same general impression, so I bit the bullet, picked up Frank's work from the SJSU library, read it, went back to Lundstrom's books, got those statistics, re-read the pertinent volumes from Morison, put it all together, this time in somewhat more detailed fashion, and sure enough, that's what it came out as: 1.2:1.

Now that's from three different authors with three different points of view. All three of these authors are not of the coffee-table variety like Francillon and Green. These are not books with "pictures" in them geared for a crowd with "casual interest" in the subject, who couldn't less if the speed statistic of the Zero is off by 25 mph or not. No, these are three authros doing serious historical work for serious historical students. And the collective work of these three historians comes out as a 1.2:1 favorable kill ratio for the Wildcat over the Zero,, through 1942. (After that it got to be a slaughter.)

As I say, I wish mdiehl were still around and he could cite chapter and verse. Indeed, I believe he did cite actual page numbers to someone at one juncture--it might have been anyone, can't recall now, but a search of his name will pull up all sorts of articles he wrote, and eventually you could retireve those old threads if you have the interest.

I don't happen to have the page numbers handy. So, if you want that same data, the same kill ratio, you will need to laboriously go through at least five and half volumes of rather complicated literature to retrieve that data. But it is there, so don't tell me it is not there. I've read it.

For the purpose of this discussion, let's just suppose that I'm not making all this up and that the kill ratio, as arrived at by those three esteemed authors, does come to 1.2:1. All three of them might be mistaken, but the odds are strong that, within a plane or two, they have their numbers right. Or as right as they'll ever be given the nature of thse things--piss-poor Japanese records, and maybe an honest error or two on the part of the American bean counters. But basically that's the ratio: 1.2:1. And that's as good and as accurate as it's ever likely to get.

So, we have a kill ratio in favor of the Wildcat, flown by Navy piloits (not Marines--that ratio was about even taken in conjunction with Navy pilots) through 1942, of 1.2:1.

Assuming that ratio is representative of reality . . . what do we do with it?

I don't care about anything here but game results. How do we get the game to give us that ratio, or something reasonably close to that ratio? Because if the game can't do that it's not an historical simulation but just a glorified version of Risk. And I would not (and did not) buy the latter knowingly.

That's all.

The rest of this is of no interest to me.

[Iridium]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
I don't care about anything here but game results. How do we get the game to give us that ratio, or something reasonably close to that ratio? Because if the game can't do that it's not an historical simulation but just a glorified version of Risk. And I would not (and did not) buy the latter knowingly.

That's all.

The rest of this is of no interest to me.

Hmm, sorry but wouldn't you be more interested in a scenario of AI vs AI where you can watch the game do exactly what was done in the past so as to perfectly represent casualties, etc? I'll admit I love historical accuracy but without the ability to affect the war, what's the point in playing?

I just think this argument along with similar ones have gotten absurd. Everyone can argue till we all die of old age (or whatever) about these things.

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: Iridium

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
I don't care about anything here but game results. How do we get the game to give us that ratio, or something reasonably close to that ratio? Because if the game can't do that it's not an historical simulation but just a glorified version of Risk. And I would not (and did not) buy the latter knowingly.

That's all.

The rest of this is of no interest to me.

Hmm, sorry but wouldn't you be more interested in a scenario of AI vs AI where you can watch the game do exactly what was done in the past so as to perfectly represent casualties, etc? I'll admit I love historical accuracy but without the ability to affect the war, what's the point in playing?

I just think this argument along with similar ones have gotten absurd. Everyone can argue till we all die of old age (or whatever) about these things.

I hate to speak for Tristanjohn, but I think what he had intended was that with all other variables remaining constant, the kill ratio should be 1.2 to 1.

Now, if the allied player drives his F4F into the dirt by sending them on mission after mission, without any rest and lots of losses and if the Japanese player rests his A6M2 squadrons and commits them intelligently, with trained pilots, then the kill ratios should reverse significantly.

I really don't think Tristanjohn is proposing a game that repeats history exactly, unless the two players mimick history themselves.

[EUBanana]

How do we get the game to give us that ratio, or something reasonably close to that ratio? Because if the game can't do that it's not an historical simulation but just a glorified version of Risk. And I would not (and did not) buy the latter knowingly.

This seems pretty overly harsh to me. Whatever its flaws WitP is nowhere near Risk or even any other Pacific War strategy game for that matter.

Given almost nobody uses historical tactics even if the ratio was 1.2 to 1 its not like it would be WW2 in a box anyway.

[Iridium]

Well at the moment I think that if you try to create a situation artificially then odd result are going to pop up in different circumstances. Basically this whole; plane X should have kill ratio Y, is resulting from Japan losing the war quite badly (in reality). So how do we know how a Ki-84 'Frank' would do if it was well maintained, had a good pilot, etc. We don't, we never will so we make up numbers on supposed agility and durability and presto people are pissed because some Japanese planes are killing American fighters in droves. Same goes for any other circumstance.

I'm just trying to say that nothing is perfect and data used in the real war might have absolutly nothing to do in 'your WWII'. Then there is always luck, that's always a good portion of war anyhow.[:D]

Wasn't trying to pick on Tristanjohn but he pretty much sumed up a good portion of what this thread is about.

Edit: gah odd last sentence...

[Bradley7735]

Yep, you're right. WWII was not a test environment. At least not all of it. I didn't think about later war models when historic Japan had crappy pilots. And the fact that doctrine is built into many models in the game. My doctrine's are different than WWII's in many respects. But, I still get the benefit/penalty for historic doctrine's all over the game.

The more I read this forum, the more I see 2x3's and Matrix's problems with making the game. There is no perfect point the game can get to. Too much of it is theory and not enough is laboratory test results.

I do like reading these kinds of threads though. You can go from "wow, that guy is an ass!" to "wow, that guy seems like an ass, but he sure knows what he's talking about!" (before anyone thinks I'm writing about them, realize that the previous statements could relate to just about anyone who writes on this forum.)

[Charbroiled]

I feel that the "historical results vs. game engine results" argument is getting carried to the extreme. It is a computer game, not a military similator, which I feel that the developers did an excellent job of attempting to get things as historically accurate as possible. As long as players use non-historic tactics, there are going to be non-historic reults (where have I heard that before?).

Can there be improvements? Of course there can...as with any computer game. As long as I can enjoy myself (which I can as the game stands now) then I am happy.[:)]

If I send 200 B-17s on a bombing run and only half return, then I should rethink my strategy if I feel I can't afford to lose that many bombers....or if I attack an island and get pounded by 155mm (no matter which branch they are from), my first thought would be "Hmm, better not do that again until I knock out those guns". As with any computer game. I need to find out what works and what doesn't.

If it is a bug (something doing something it should or shouldn't do in relation to the game engine), then it should be fixed. And they are.

If people want a more historic approach, maybe the game should be converted from a turn based game to a real-time game. (I think I just heard Mr. Frag hit the floor).[X(]

[Hortlund]

*shrug* whatever matrix and 2by3 does with WitP in general and these flaws in the game engine in particular will echo into the future.

If they try to sell another game as some sort of ww2 strategy wargame (like the upcoming eastern front game) this will come back to haunt them. Because then I'll know that whenever they talk about realism, they arent; whenever they talk about accuracy; they arent; Whatever they will be saying in their future releases, I'll see B-17 raids with 70% losses, I'll see entire armies surrounded and eliminated by a platoon of paratroopers, I'll see depth charges more effective than modern homing torpedoes...and I'll remember the reasons given why those things will not change.

Unless they fix these problems, why the hell should I ever trust them again? If they pretend there is no flaw in the game engine and sends in hoards of fanbois or mods to dream up more or less retarded arguments to avoid having to fix what is so obviously broken...why should I ever assume that the same things will not be repeated in the next release?

We play wargames, gentlemen. There are no points for second place.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

How do we get the game to give us that ratio, or something reasonably close to that ratio? Because if the game can't do that it's not an historical simulation but just a glorified version of Risk. And I would not (and did not) buy the latter knowingly.

This seems pretty overly harsh to me. Whatever its flaws WitP is nowhere near Risk or even any other Pacific War strategy game for that matter.

Given almost nobody uses historical tactics even if the ratio was 1.2 to 1 its not like it would be WW2 in a box anyway.

You're mistaken. WitP has much in common with Risk at the core. The results from Gary's game are not historic, or even close to historic, in far too many areas, the same as Risk. It's true that WitP offers "detail," but in fact this "detail" amounts to so much chrome because it is not 1) all-inclusive but presented arbitrarily, and 2) is fed unintelligently into the various models--plus, from all I can tell and from what has been described to me, these models do not even operate all the time as was intended.

The result at end of day are two games which rely on dice to arrive at results that might as well be from a war on some other planet in some other universe. You could no more cite results taken from a session from the WitP "simulation" and portray those as "meaningful" or "instructional" than you could with results taken from Risk. Neither make much sense.

In a way, Risk is a better "simulation" of war insofar as it at least does not profess to be historical of nature, whereas WitP does dare that pretense. At least with Risk one knows perfectly well up front that beer and pretzels are the evening's fare; one has to find that out the hard (and expensive) way with WitP.

Now, as always, I'm willing to give Gary credit for designing fun games. I've played his games for years, donated my time to test them. And this game, too, is fun to play. To a point. But it is not a serious or even semi-serious simulation of WWII in the Pacific theater. Whatever lessons it teaches are mainly false, and it seems to have been designed with more of a Risk audience than hard-core wargamers. If you like it, fine. But that's not what we're talking about.

[moses]

As if any wargame is even close to being realistic.

The real commanders were lucky to have 1 % of the real-time intel we have in the game and less then that of actual control of the forces.

The game teaches a lot about the Pacific war. Most major systems have a fairly realistic feel to them even if they are not strictly 100% accurate under all conditions.
The flow of the game is a little too fast but otherwise can reasonably approximate the flow of the actual war.

Anyone who has played wargames for the last few decades knows that this is the most detailed accurate treatment of any large theater ever produced. Its fine to quibble about the details but to feign moral indignation over the failure of the developers to achieve perfection is too much.

[testarossa]

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled
If people want a more historic approach, maybe the game should be converted from a turn based game to a real-time game.

You know I thought about the same thing.

Remember Harpoon? What a great game! Fictional and without land combat, but what a blast were those carrier battles. You were able to choose what and when to launch, the ordnance choice, different platforms. 3rd dimension for aircrafts and submarines. Different speed settings, influencing fuel consumption.

Why can’t someone make something like this for PTO?

[moses]

ORIGINAL: testarossa

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled
If people want a more historic approach, maybe the game should be converted from a turn based game to a real-time game.

You know I thought about the same thing.

Remember Harpoon? What a great game! Fictional and without land combat, but what a blast were those carrier battles. You were able to choose what and when to launch, the ordnance choice, different platforms. 3rd dimension for aircrafts and submarines. Different speed settings, influencing fuel consumption.

Why can’t someone make something like this for PTO?

It would take a couple years to finish the first day of combat. And once a few people got through the first day you would start finding many examples of unrealistic results.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: moses

ORIGINAL: testarossa

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled
If people want a more historic approach, maybe the game should be converted from a turn based game to a real-time game.

You know I thought about the same thing.

Remember Harpoon? What a great game! Fictional and without land combat, but what a blast were those carrier battles. You were able to choose what and when to launch, the ordnance choice, different platforms. 3rd dimension for aircrafts and submarines. Different speed settings, influencing fuel consumption.

Why can’t someone make something like this for PTO?

It would take a couple years to finish the first day of combat. And once a few people got through the first day you would start finding many examples of unrealistic results.

I think what Testarossa means by "fictional" is that there never was ( or at least hasn't been yet ) a war in the North Atlantaic/ North Sea area as portrayed in Harpoon .. hence "fictional" though the units represented ... Nimitz carriers, Alpha subs ... were not fictional ... and to my memory preformed inline with at least my expectations ... so the "hardware" at least has to be modeled correctly if it represents hardware that existed. "carrier battles" and old computer game ... was pretty much this in the UV scope ... I think WITP is more strategic/operational ... whereas Harpoon was more operational/tactical ... but I agree ... it certainly would not take LESS time to play ! And there is quite a lot going on in WITP already !

[ChezDaJez]

First let me say this started when I offered relevant data concerning the debate over the Tony. I made no claim as to its veracity or completeness. I do find Joe Baugher's data generally much more reliable than many other sources. Joe is a professor of physics and has published books and article with such intimidating titles as "Fast Triplet Excimer Formation in Fluid Solutions of Dinaphthylalkanes", whatever the heck that is. I assume that he understands what it means to conduct research.

You chose to not only disregard the data, as is your right, but in typical TristanJohn fashion, you chose also to denigrate my attempt to provide it. It is the latter, not the former, attitude that I have a problem with.

So, we have a kill ratio in favor of the Wildcat, flown by Navy piloits (not Marines--that ratio was about even taken in conjunction with Navy pilots) through 1942, of 1.2:1.

I don't reject that the kill ratio could be around 1.2:1 in favor of the Wildcat and about 1:1 when Marine pilots are included. But as you break it down between Navy and Marine pilots, shouldn't we also break down the Japanese pilots into land and sea based? this data also only applies to the Guadalcanal campaign and should not be interpreted as applying to the entire 1942 period.

However, using the numbers that Gooftroop provided from Frank's book, we get 115 Zeros lost vs 101 Wildcats which equates to a ratio of 1.13:1. Close but less than 1.2:1. Frank, however, also says that 13 of the Zeros lost were due to P-39/400s so let's subtract them out. That give 102 Zeros lost against 101 Wildcats... even odds. Including Marine pilots would drop the ratio to under 1:1 for the Wildcat.

In regards to Lundstrom's work, I've been told by others very familiar with his book that he only qualifies 31 Wildcat and 25 Zero kills as air-to-air losses. If true, this yields a 1.24:1 kill ratio in favor of the Zero. I understand however, that this data is not supported by the text in his book. I don't have this book but I do intend to get it and see for myself.

However there are many mitigating factors that must also be taken into account when trying to determine the effectiveness of one over the other. Much has to do with the way combat losses are tallied.

First: The distance involved. The Japanese had to fly hundreds of miles before engaging in combat while the Wildcat benefited from its close proximity to home base. Many Japanese aircraft were lost from battle damage while returning to base. A single bullet hole in a fuel tank would typically ensure that the aircraft could not get home due to loss of fuel. A wounded pilot might also be unable to make the long trip back. These are counted as combat losses and rightfully so. It is probably impossible to tally the number of aircraft lost as a direct result of the distance required to return. The other Wildcat benefit was the ability to land, rearm and reengage in a fairly rapid manner.

The Wildcat was often close enough to base to land despite sustaining crtitical damage or severe wounds to the pilot. On many occasions, a pilot could bring his plane back and not be counted as a loss, even if the aircraft was a writeoff. The US did not count crash landings as a combat loss. Personally, I feel any loss of an aircraft as a direct result of battle damage should be considered a combat loss. Again, its probably impossible to determine what those numbers should be.

Second: Evolving US Tactical Fighter Doctrine. This was the true reason for the combat effectiveness of the Wildcat during the Guadalcanal period. US pilots were learning, slowly but surely, how to avoid the strengths of the Zero. The data from the captured Zero tests, obtained from flight trials conducted in Sep and Oct 1942 and published in Dec 1942, went a long way towards reducing the Zero's advantage. It would be reasonable to assume that many of the findings found their way to the fleet a little quicker than the actual published results. They learned to use hit and run tactics and not attempt to dogfight. However, that was a secondary lesson. They learned, the hard way, that mutually supporting tactics were an absolute necesssity for their survival. The Thach Weave was a first step. 2-ship formations enabled tactical flexibility and maximum protection. The Japanese, on the other hand, never developed a true wingman concept and continued to use 3-ship formations well after they should have.

Third: Tactical Communications. US fighters had radios, the few Japanese aircraft with them found them unreliable and too short-ranged. Sakai stated his frustration on many occasions of not being able to warn other pilots who were about to be jumped by enemy fighters. He could only watch as he attempted to close. The ability to communicate is key in any battle but even more so in the air.

Fourth: Early Warning. The US had both radar and coastwatchers who could warn of approaching aircraft. This gave the Wildcat time to climb to altitude. Without it, the Wildcat would have been at a severe disadvantage with its poor climbing ability.

In today's terms, these advantages are known as force multipliers. They were responsible for offsetting the superiority of the Zero, not the actual capability of the Wildcat. Put it this way, had the roles been reversed and the Zero had all the above advantages, would the Wildcat have been able to overcome them? I think not. Even with the above advantages, the Wildcat barely held its own.

But regardless of what the actual loss ratios or what the force mulitpliers were, what I have said is that the Zero was the superior dogfighter and in a 1 vs 1 combat, should be expected to win the majority of the time, assuming equal pilot ability. That has been my point from the beginning.

As far as WitP being a total historical simulation, I admit it falls short, sometimes woefully short. Supply and replacements being the worst offenders in my opinion. But I also believe that it has more to do with ahistorical play than the actual coding of the game. Large groups of unescorted bombers getting brutalized by large groups of fighters is unrealistic but then again so is large groups of bombers and opposing fighters. I don't believe that the game was ever designed to provide a historical result for this type of combat because the there wasn't any basis to model it by. You could try to extrapolate results from the European theater but I'm sure that would not have been satisfactory to you.

I am curious. Given the original reason for this posting on unescorted B-17s, what would you consider to be an acceptable range of results? What should the be the uppermost limit? How many bombers should be lost or damaged? How many fighters should be lost or damaged? Should it be better or worse at lower altitudes? I would like to know how you would have modeled it.

Chez


editted for incomplete sentence.

[timtom]

Been digging about and came across these figures. They're on the no. of 21st BC B-29's lost to Japanese fighters Nov.44 - Aug.45.

According to the source, XXI.Bomber Command, 20th AF B-29 were subjected to 11,026 attacks by Japanese fighters while operating against metropolitan Japan. This resulted in the destruction of 58 B-29's. Another 29 were destroyed by a combination of fighters and AAA. 348 B-29 were damaged by fighters, and another 234 by the fighter-AAA combo.

So Japanese fighters destroyed or partook in the destruction of 87 B-29's, equal to 0.79% of fighter attacks resulting in the destruction of the B-29.

Japanese Fighters damaged or partook in damaging 582 B-29's, equal to 5.28% of fighter attacks resulting the damaging of the B-29.

Thus 669 (6.07%) of Japanese fighter attacks were of effect against the B-29's in question.

Approved claims by B-29 gunners were 714 fighters destroyed, 456 probables and 770 damaged. Without cross refence to Japanese sources, I should think it safest to disregard these.

(Source: MacIsaac, John (ed.): The United States Strategic Bombing Survey vol.IX: The Strategic Air Operations of Very Heavy Bombardment in the War Against Japan, Garland Publishing 1976 (1946), pp.20-21.)

Whether this data is of relevance to the current debate I'll leave it to you to decide.

Tom

[ArticFire]

Well for my money untill any of the nay sayers produce their own game that is "historic" by their definition WiTP is an excellent historic wargame simulation of WWII in the pacific.

But that will never happen , and frankly if it did no one would play it. There reason is if every single encounter is garunteed to result in a specific loss ration based on some paragraph in some book someone wrote who in their right mind would ever play Japan ?

[Mike Scholl]

CHEZ. Your points are legitimate and well-founded. In most of the time that the numbers cited were gathered the Japanese were on the offensive rather than the defensive, so the 1.2 to1 "edge" of the Wildcats is probably inflated by the factors you mentioned by about 25%. Which would give an "even
odds" result of something like 1 : .95 in favor of the Zeros. John would probably not object if the game were producing a relatively even exchange rate over the long haul. I wouldn't. Sure some days will be good, and some won't. The Zero has many "edges" in such combats, the F4F relatively few. But the few are important ones, like being A LOT tougher and having better usable firepower and having the ability to break off in an unfavorable situation by accellerating into a roll or putting the nose down and diving.

Once the tactical suprise that the Japanese COULD build a truely modern and effective fighter wore off, and the tactics to meet it's threat were evolved, the war's figures show that the fighting was pretty even.
Which is not good news for the Japanese, as their opponants are going to out produce them by a huge margin, and are already training 100,000 pilots during the year. Which means the following years figures
are going to show a much less than even result. Which is more or less born out by history.

The Japs are "behind the curve" in every aspect of the air war as a whole. They start with some great designs and pilots and a good plan, which gives them the short-term tactical edge. But as suprise wears off, and the reality of fighting such a huge campaign takes over, they are hurting. I cited figures in another post showing that Japanese "non-combat" losses in the Pacific were greater than ALL US losses
from all causes. Trying to shuffle inadequate forces around the Pacific to meet Allied threats means a
LOT of "operational losses" in reality---though the game let's both sides off rather lightly in this regard.
The Japanese will NEVER lose over 60% of their planes in this manner in the game, so they get a break.
They have more difficulty replacing such losses than the Allies, so it's a significant one. Which means the game CAN afford to be more accurate in the actual air-to-air results. And if it were, I doubt there would be much complaint.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

If people want a more historic approach, maybe the game should be converted from a turn based game to a real-time game. (I think I just heard Mr. Frag hit the floor).[X(]

Great idea! At the start of scenario 15 the Allied player is required to be out grocery shopping, to help simulate turn 1 surprise.[X(]

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

If people want a more historic approach, maybe the game should be converted from a turn based game to a real-time game. (I think I just heard Mr. Frag hit the floor).[X(]

Great idea! At the start of scenario 15 the Allied player is required to be out grocery shopping, to help simulate turn 1 surprise.[X(]

But at the start of turn one, the Allied player will have about 20 hours to finish his shopping ( the average amount of time it takes the Japanese player to key in his turn one orders !!! ) [:D]