Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions?

[demonterico]

Yeah, this morning I saw its up to 11 pages so I figured I'd better go back to it to see what was going on.

[X(] WOW!!!

[Honda]

Away nuncle!
Till you still have your wits
It is not too late [:D]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

@Witpqs:

Your observation about the necessity to play the game in order to know it is flawed. Logically all that is required is to see the performance turned in by the game. This is the same principle that all intelligent consumers use when making a purchase -- from the circular saw that you buy at home despot through the V-22 Osprey that you don't buy in the DoD. You wouldn't buy a circular saw if it always broke within ten minutes of use, and if all circular saws suffered from the same propensity you'd demand that circular saw designers get a clue.

...

Now if there are people who are indeed foolish enough to claim that you can't know anything about a product without first (a) buying it, and (b) using it extensively, then I would love to sell you a RR flatcar full of used Chevrolet Cavaliers, because I figure you must be the easiest patsy for a lemon that ever walked the Earth.

You figure?

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Have you bought the game, and if you did, what is the furthest date you reached playing a) Allies and b) Japanese, in PBEM and/or vs AI?

Oleg

Looks like you'll be keeping those Chevies.

Playing this game is very different than hearing reports about it because of the inter-related aspects of the game. Those evaluating the V-22 have much better data to go on than the reports in this forum, so that analogy fails. As does the circular saw issue. The game works, just not the way we might like (make it better!). Oleg does have a point.

You can go into the gutter with name-calling (you have - "patsy"). It's clear that you put much effort into researching and analyzing some fo the points you comment on. I have serious reservations about the quality of some of your conclusions - your analysis. When I have commented I have expressed my disagreement, not called you names. For example, discovery of a technique in summer of 1941 does not demonstrate the technique was in place in the air arms in December of 1941. I did not call you a 'patsy' - or anything else - for concluding that.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: dereck

In "my" scenario I'm playing I halved the durability of all Japanese planes since they didn't have the same durability at all as American planes. Japanese planes were more maneuverable (except for the Hellcat which was the best Zero killer of the war) but they couldn't take the same amount of damage. Having Japanese planes with equal durability as American planes wasn't right in my eyes. I know this may bring up more howls of protest but that's basically how I fixed things in my scenario - it's something people can do without affecting anybody else's game.

This seems like a potentially huge point. A Zero - more lightly built and without self-sealing fuel tanks - has (about) the same durability as a Wildcat?

What kind of results are you getting with this change?

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: dereck

In "my" scenario I'm playing I halved the durability of all Japanese planes since they didn't have the same durability at all as American planes. Japanese planes were more maneuverable (except for the Hellcat which was the best Zero killer of the war) but they couldn't take the same amount of damage. Having Japanese planes with equal durability as American planes wasn't right in my eyes. I know this may bring up more howls of protest but that's basically how I fixed things in my scenario - it's something people can do without affecting anybody else's game.

This seems like a potentially huge point. A Zero - more lightly built and without self-sealing fuel tanks - has (about) the same durability as a Wildcat?

What kind of results are you getting with this change?

I think you miss-read what he said

In "my" scenario I'm playing I halved the durability of all Japanese planes since they didn't have the same durability at all as American planes. Japanese planes were more maneuverable (except for the Hellcat which was the best Zero killer of the war) but they couldn't take the same amount of damage. Having Japanese planes with equal durability as American planes wasn't right in my eyes. I know this may bring up more howls of protest but that's basically how I fixed things in my scenario - it's something people can do without affecting anybody else's game.

[mdiehl]

You figure?

[:D] My bad. Had you targeted when it should have been "Target Chez" (who signed up for the abuse by pitching in with Oleg). I hope the 5" rounds didn't damage anything IMPORTANT. [;)]

And yeah. I'll pitch the Cavaliers in Croatia. I'm sure there's at least ONE Croatian who thinks you can't know anything about a product unless you own it.

You can go into the gutter with name-calling (you have - "patsy").

Leaving aside the fact that yer irritated that I mistargeted you for the rebuttal (sorry), what's "gutter" about "patsy?" Compared to being alleged a "dunken allied fanboy" I was being nice. So, your attempt at correcting my form of speech is rejected.

And no, Oleg does NOT have a valid point. His only purpose was to derail the discussion by trying to undermine the argument by attacking the opposition rather than the argument. It's called "ad hominem speech." And I'll be as snarky as I please to be in rebutting it when it happens.

I'm not the first, and not the onliest by a long shot who thinks the Zero Bonus is (a) inappropriate, (b) part of a suite of errors contributing to a broken A2A model, and (c) contributes to a poor "look and feel" to the early war portion of the game. So there is obviously a great deal of substantial independent research to back me up in this matter. Indeed, we all know quite a lot now about the WitP A2A model, by what it produces. So the comparison with the V-22 and the Chevrolet Cavalier and broken circular saws is simultaneously appropriate, well-supported, and cogently reasoned.

It's clear that you put much effort into researching and analyzing some fo the points you comment on. I have serious reservations about the quality of some of your conclusions - your analysis. When I have commented I have expressed my disagreement, not called you names. For example, discovery of a technique in summer of 1941 does not demonstrate the technique was in place in the air arms in December of 1941. I did not call you a 'patsy' - or anything else - for concluding that.

What sort of experience did A6M2 pilots have fighting F4F pilots that makes you think that Japanese pilots had "the technique" for dealing with F4Fs prior to April 1942 or December 1941? If your claim is that "A Zero bonus is justified because no Wildcat pilot fought a Zero through March 1942" then by equally valid logic a "Wildcat Bonus is justified because no Zero pilot fought an F4F priort to March 1942."

The Wildcat had many characteristics that surprised and shocked Japanese A6M pilots, and that caused many Japanese pilots to DIE because they were not familiar with the enemy plane. One of these was the firepower of 6x.50cal. Another was the Wildcat's superior roll rate. A third was the much greater degree of training in deflection shooting (as a matter of doctrine from 1938 onward) of USN pilots. That is one reason why a common cause of death for an elite, highly trained, combat veteran in an A6M2 was to pull up into a vertical climb too close in front of an F4F. That little maneuver probably killed more veteran Japanese pilots in 1942 than being bounced by an undetected enemy plane.

If "unfamiliarity with the Zeke" is valid grounds for a "Zero bonus," then "unfamiliarity with any Allied aircraft" is valid grounds for a favorable F4F bonus, or P-39 bonus, or even a Brewster Buffalo bonus for that matter, that favors the allied pilots.

In re 1941 and diffusion of knowledge:

You seem not to understand the difference between the "Beam defense" and "mutual support doctrine." The mutual support doctrine was in place from the late 1930s. The "Beam defense" (aka "Thach Weave") was one particular tactic that was specifically to be used when F4Fs were in an inferior tactical position. The beam defense was invented in 1941. It was something that Thach and Flatley (and by the way, O'Hare as well) had worked on and communicated with other members of the squadrons. By the time of Midway battle in 1942, new pilots had rotated in and out of the squadrons, such that Thach had to describe it (in combat no less) to two new wingmen.

The beam defense was not the only "mutual support play" in the Allied playbook. Therefore, whether or not the "beam defense" was widely known is completely irrelevent. American USN/USMC pilots were very well positioned, by doctrine in mutual defense and in training at deflection shooting, to counter the A6M from the get go. So there is no a priori reason to assume that the Zero must have been a particular problem for F4F drivers.

There is also no data that indicate that the Zero was a particular problem for F4F drivers for the interval in question. All DATA show is that the F4F and pilot was slightly more effective than the A6M and pilot through November 1942, and substantially more effective thereafter. Such data as actually exist specifically contradict all claims about the appropriateness of the Zero bonus in a ww2 combat sim of any kind.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Oleg pisses me off because he simply criticises peoples views and not the game.

Ron,

I have to agree with Oleg here. If mdiehl has never played the game, his credibility in discussing the faults of the game is certainly lacking. All he would have to go on is other people's complaints and perceptions.

Chez

I expect that Ron was actually responding to a post Oleg made in a different thread:

BUT, here on WITP board we have no "Jans" we have abundance of guys like Ron, mdiehl, Tristan and tons of others who are continuously doing their best to *alienate* board members from the devs by their constant incessant whining etc. That's right - *alienate*.

I know for sure that what Ron wants is for this game to fulfill its promise, which it is tantalizingly close to doing, and yet at the same time is so disappointing. He has spent a great deal of his time trying to work towards that end. Some people might not like to read his posts, but if the submarine/ASW model has been improved recently, who can we thank but those posters who have kept the issue alive?

Thanks Tony...came home from a party last night and fired one off from the hip. That little gem from Oleg did annoy me just a little.[:D]

[Oznoyng]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

I was referring to the later war period (responding to an earlier post).

Is your pilots' experience on a par with your opponents pilots' experience? A big difference there makes a huge difference in combat results. Try to manage your squadrons to get experience up before they get wiped out (easier to say than to do). When you begin getting better planes - Corsairs and P-38's - you will start to make serious headway. After his pilots' experience is down and your pilots' is up, even Wildcats do much better.

Mind you I am not claiming that the air simulation is perfect, just that this has nothing to do with the zero bonus. Different issue.

That's kinda my point: i think there might be something wrong with the modelling of the Wildcats vs. Zeros. Everybody marks this down to the Zero bonus, but i think the problem runs much deeper. But, the Zero bonus is an easy target...

In evaluating this: the problem is, i don't know the relative experience of my pilots vs. my opponents. They started out in the 80's for the USN, and 60's for the Marines, but of course have quickly plummetted with these horrible losses.

The Zeros are attacking at 6-7 hex range, in the rain, from carriers and bases, sometimes outnumbered and they still end up with these exchange rates (although when i outnumber them, i do somewhat better - that's when i get the 3-1 exchange rates).

I have managed to destroy 3500+ Japanese aircraft - almost in the air (into 3rd week in June 1942 - i think there are only about 150 or so destroyed "on ground"), so i would have thought he would be scraping the bottom of the barrel for pilots.

My first thought when I started writing about all this was that whoever had gotten the 3 to 1 or 6 to 1 ratios with Zeros was getting lucky, because my impressions were that the planes seemed pretty evenly matched in my experience. So, I went back and looked for encounters between F4F-4's and A6M2's in my PBEM. I only found one so far:

Results from PBEM game, battle occurred on 19 August 1942:

Day Air attack on TF at 53,101

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 54
G4M1 Betty x 68

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 20

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 10 destroyed, 1 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 12 destroyed, 44 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 17 destroyed

Allied Ships
BB Idaho, Torpedo hits 6, on fire, heavy damage
BB Colorado, Torpedo hits 3, on fire
BB Oklahoma
CA Australia, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
CA Quincy
BB Arizona, Torpedo hits 2

The actual losses were 17 F4F to 13 A6M2 (11 A2A and 2 Ops) plus 4 Betty lost A2A (12 losses were due to flak). I do not see the much exclaimed over 3-to-1 Zero to F4F-4 ratio, let alone a 6-to-1 ratio. The ratio in the encounter above was roughly 1.3-to-1. Not the 1-to-1.2 quoted from Guadalcanal, but certainly in the ballpark, and probably accurate given my numerical advantage.

In this battle, my Zeros were fighting at range 6 against F4F-4's flying LR CAP from a hex away. I was up against VF-2 and VF-3 (which had not been attritted at all so probably 85 experience) and the Zeros in question were from Daitai with average experience around 74 (80/73/69). So I had a 2.7 to 1 numerical advantage in fighters while my opponent likely had a 11 point experience advantage. Not only did his fighters manage to trade 1 to 1.31, they downed 4 Betties. I would say that the fight conditions were to my advantage, and the results showed, but not in a 6-to-1 loss ratio, but in a 1.3-to-1.

Personally, I see nothing out of whack so far. I really want to see some in game results from F4F vs A6M2 battles, *with all the vital stats on each side reported*. I am curious where these 3-to-1 and 6-to-1 ratios are coming from.

[rtrapasso]

So, I went back and looked for encounters between F4F-4's and A6M2's in my PBEM. I only found one so far:

There is a common saying in my profession about this: "One case is no case".

At this point, i've had dozens of encounters, and i am quoting the usual range of exchange. Were there instances where they did better than 3 to 1? - yes. Are there instances where they did worse than 6 to 1? Yes.

Other players have noticed similar exchange rates, and so i think i am in the right ballpark.

i don't think that you can base the overall exchange rate of Zeros to Wildcats on one encounter.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: dereck

In "my" scenario I'm playing I halved the durability of all Japanese planes since they didn't have the same durability at all as American planes. Japanese planes were more maneuverable (except for the Hellcat which was the best Zero killer of the war) but they couldn't take the same amount of damage. Having Japanese planes with equal durability as American planes wasn't right in my eyes. I know this may bring up more howls of protest but that's basically how I fixed things in my scenario - it's something people can do without affecting anybody else's game.

This seems like a potentially huge point. A Zero - more lightly built and without self-sealing fuel tanks - has (about) the same durability as a Wildcat?

What kind of results are you getting with this change?

To be honest I never kept track and I'm in February 1945 and I can literally put up 1000 carrier planes and shootdown anything that comes my way right now.

They may have changed it in later releases but the database I've been working my scenario off was the 1.21 version and the difference between a Zero and F4F in durability was within 5 points I think.

[Oznoyng]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

So, I went back and looked for encounters between F4F-4's and A6M2's in my PBEM. I only found one so far:

There is a common saying in my profession about this: "One case is no case".

At this point, i've had dozens of encounters, and i am quoting the usual range of exchange. Were there instances where they did better than 3 to 1 - yes? Are there instances where they did worse than 6 to 1? Yes.

Other players have noticed similar exchange rates, and so i think i am in the right ballpark.

i don't think that you can base the overall exchange rate of Zeros to Wildcats on one encounter.

Trying to recall results from memory is useless, because you remember the bad ones and forget all the other results that were mediocre or good. I am using a real result. Just because the "impressions" of more than one person matches doesn't make them right, it just makes them equally delusional. On a whim, I went to the AAR section and did searches for F4F vs A6M2 battles. I only got to page 17 in this one, and there is plenty of data to suggest your 3 to 1 ratio is a myth. If you choose to disagree, then post real AAR information. Note that the AAR appears to be pre-FoW change, so numbers are usually off, but at least off relatively equally.

From tm.asp?m=679803&mpage=4&key=

Day Air attack on TF at 105,100 Ouch!

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 12

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 28
SBD Dauntless x 68

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 5 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 4 destroyed, 2 damaged
SBD Dauntless: 5 destroyed, 14 damaged

Zeros outnumbered 2.33 to 1 shoot down 4 for a loss of 5. Not 6 to 1, 1 to 1.25.

Day Air attack on TF at 105,100

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 6

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 4
SBD Dauntless x 17

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 2 destroyed
SBD Dauntless: 4 damaged
Zeros with a 1.5 to 1 advantage shoot down 2 to 0.

Day Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 67,97 - here comes the counterstrike!

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 21
G3M Nell x 18
G4M1 Betty x 13

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 14

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 11 destroyed
G3M Nell: 6 destroyed, 7 damaged - 4 lost
G4M1 Betty: 11 destroyed, 5 damaged - 6 lost

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 24 destroyed, 1 damaged - 11 Wildcats were shot down!
Despite being outnumbered 1.5 to 1, the much-maligned and whined about F4F shoots down A6M2's at a 1 to 2 ratios - oh and takes an additional 1.3 to 1 in bombers with them. Not even 3 to 1 here.

Day Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 20
G3M Nell x 12
G4M1 Betty x 31

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 11

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 3 destroyed
G3M Nell: 5 destroyed, 5 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 11 destroyed, 19 damaged - flak is deadly!

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 20 destroyed, 4 damaged - only good result in the air today, the carrier borne CAP is mauled!
Whoa, F4F's outnumbered 2 to 1 only manage to take out 3 zeros at a cost of 20 of their own. There is that 6 to 1 margin. Let's see how many other times we see it, shall we?

Day Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 12
G4M1 Betty x 5 - I've also overlooked one small Daitai of Betties, and they take of from Rabaul

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 14

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 10 destroyed - the fatigued Zeros performs badly against the carrier Wildcats today
G4M1 Betty: 2 destroyed, 3 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged
Gosh, F4F's are pathetic. Fourteen F4F intercepted 12 zeros and only shot down 10 zeros for the loss of 2 Wildcats. Not 6 to 1, but 1 to 5...

Day Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 67,97

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 31
G3M Nell x 19
G4M1 Betty x 33

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 18

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 16 destroyed
G3M Nell: 2 destroyed
G4M1 Betty: 4 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 16 destroyed, 3 damaged
Again, the F4F sucks. outnumbered 31 to 18, They manage to down an equal number of zeros. Yep, definately...uh.. 1 to 1.

Day Air attack on Jamshedpur , at 28,22

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 62
Ki-21 Sally x 39
Ki-48 Lily x 44

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 16
P-40E Warhawk x 16

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 46 destroyed, 1 damaged - 17 were lost in A2A combat
Ki-21 Sally: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged
Ki-48 Lily: 4 destroyed, 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses - 17 Allied ac lost in A2A combat
F4F-4 Wildcat: 26 destroyed, 11 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 19 destroyed, 7 damaged
Sixty-two zeros encounter 32 mixed P-40's and F4F-4's. With almost 2 to 1 odds, the Zeros manage an amazing kill ratio against F4F's of 29 to 1. er nope, sorry that is in the minds of the Allied fan boys. It is actually 46 to.... 45. Roughly 1 to 1. Yep, that nasty Zero is overrated, it is.

Day Air attack on Colombo , at 14,24

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 18
G4M1 Betty x 18
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 32

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 2 destroyed, 10 damaged - 1 Betty lost to flak
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 2 destroyed - the Oscars actually behaved pretty well!

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 12 destroyed, 4 damaged - 5 were shot down
I call foul, that completely useless A6M2, when enjoying anything less than 20 to 1 odds, should be shot down with no losses by the valiant USN/USMC pilots. They only had 3 to 1 odds here, (admittedly they 32 oscars to help, but those MG's on the Oscars are too ineffective to even scratch the paint, so we can't ever consider those!) and got that nasty 6 to 1 ratio everyone is whining about!

Day Air attack on TF, near Madioen at 21,64

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 33
G4M1 Betty x 6

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 14

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 9 destroyed, 1 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 6 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 21 destroyed, 2 damaged
Outnumbered 33 to 14, the F4F still achieved a 1 to 2.2 loss rate. No 6 to 1 here again...

Day Air attack on TF at 18,58 - this is the BIG thing! We launch from Palembang against the combined Allied might. Both UK and US cv's...

Japanese aircraft - a fine mix of fighters and bombers take off
A6M2 Zero x 48
A6M3 Zero x 21
G3M Nell x 27
G4M1 Betty x 22

Allied aircraft - this is the elite of Allied carrier aviators in mid 42!
Fulmar x 2
F4F-4 Wildcat x 48

Japanese aircraft losses - losses are grievous
A6M2 Zero: 38 destroyed, 1 damaged
A6M3 Zero: 16 destroyed
G3M Nell: 4 destroyed, 30 damaged - but the bombers get through
G4M1 Betty: 10 destroyed, 19 damaged

Allied aircraft losses - we shoot down many Allied fighters, but the Wildcats got claws!
Fulmar: 12 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat: 58 destroyed, 8 damaged
Again outnumbered, this time 69 to 48, the loss rate only barely favors the Zero, 58 to 54. Barely more than 1 to 1.

Day Air attack on TF at 18,58

Japanese aircraft - this small strike got fended off
A6M2 Zero x 6
A6M3 Zero x 3
G3M Nell x 8

Allied aircraft
Fulmar x 4
F4F-4 Wildcat x 36

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 6 destroyed
A6M3 Zero: 2 destroyed
G3M Nell: 5 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 8 destroyed, 1 damaged
I cry foul! The Zeros were outnumbered 36 to 9, but shot down at 1 to 1 odds. Still looking for that average of 3 to 1 or 6 to 1, btw.

Day Air attack on TF at 18,58

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 21
A6M3 Zero x 13
G4M1 Betty x 4

Allied aircraft
Fulmar x 10
F4F-4 Wildcat x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 5 destroyed, 1 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 5 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Fulmar: 6 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat: 11 destroyed, 1 damaged
Thirty four zeros against 12 wildcats and 10 fulmars. The Zero got 17 to 5. Oh my gosh, our first 3 to 1 result!

Day Air attack on TF at 18,58

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 2
A6M3 Zero x 2
G3M Nell x 3
G4M1 Betty x 3

Allied aircraft
Fulmar x 5
F4F-4 Wildcat x 8

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell: 2 destroyed
G4M1 Betty: 3 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Fulmar: 5 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat: 2 destroyed
Ah, another one that exceeds 6 to 1. Four Zeros shot down 2 F4F's for the loss of none. The Zero is now offically INFINATELY better than the F4F in WitP and needs to be reduced in power!

Day Air attack on TF, near Tjilitjap at 19,62

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 22
A6M3 Zero x 8
G3M Nell x 6
G4M1 Betty x 12

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 9
P-40E Warhawk x 34

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 22 destroyed
A6M3 Zero: 2 destroyed
G3M Nell: 4 destroyed
G4M1 Betty: 4 destroyed, 6 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 8 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk: 40 destroyed, 4 damaged
With a 43 to 30 advantage in numbers, the dastardly zero shot down 48 for the loss of 24, a 2 to 1 ratio. Still not 3 to 1, boys.

Day Air attack on TF at 15,60

Japanese aircraft - this is the force based in Batavia
A6M3 Zero x 25
Ki-30 Ann x 17

Allied aircraft - ouch
F4F-4 Wildcat x 56

Japanese aircraft losses - the new A6M3s were savaged by the heavy CAP
A6M3 Zero: 42 destroyed
Ki-30 Ann: 33 destroyed, 7 damaged

Allied aircraft losses - a few Anns get through and plan a 100kg bomb into the Hornet. Didn't penetrate the flight deck
F4F-4 Wildcat: 9 destroyed, 3 damaged
Geez, 56 to 25 advantage and the Zero still managed to lose at 4 to 1 odds. I mean what is an Allied fan boy to do when the Amazing F4F achieves 4.5 to 1 odds against the Zero, and not just any zero, but an A6M3!

Day Air attack on TF, near Tjilitjap at 19,62

Japanese aircraft - I've now ordered my bombers to stay away from Tjilitjap. Don't want to wrestle with Allied LBA
A6M2 Zero x 20
A6M3 Zero x 15
G3M Nell x 11
G4M1 Betty x 14

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 9
P-40E Warhawk x 28

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 22 destroyed
A6M3 Zero: 5 destroyed
G3M Nell: 2 destroyed
G4M1 Betty: 4 destroyed, 8 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 29 destroyed
35 to 37 and the losses are roughly 1 to 1. Sorry, getting tired of coming up with sarcastic, snide remarks.

Day Air attack on TF, near Tjilitjap at 19,62

Japanese aircraft - this raid was turned back. Morale is low and fatigue high. Need a few days R&R
A6M2 Zero x 7
A6M3 Zero x 4
G4M1 Betty x 3

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 7
P-40E Warhawk x 16

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 7 destroyed
A6M3 Zero: 2 destroyed
G4M1 Betty: 2 destroyed
I stopped cutting and pasting here. 11 to 23 and Zero lost 9 to 0 Allied. The F4F is infinately better than the Zero, and needs to be adjusted downward...

Now, a rough total of all of the above (when another plane, like the Oscar/Fulmar/P-40 was involved, I counted it as a F4F or A6M, that did not happen enough imo to skew the results greatly and in fact causes me to overstate the Zero's abilities below):

roughly 464 Zeros combined fought roughly 421 F4F's for a numerical advantage to the Zero of 1.1 to 1.
roughly 271 Zeros were shot down to 334 F4F's for a kill ratio of.......1.25 to 1 in favor of the Zero.

Now, if you want to persist in saying that the F4F gets shot down 3 to 1, bring out some real evidence.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Oznoyng

roughly 464 Zeros combined fought roughly 421 F4F's for a numerical advantage to the Zero of 1.1 to 1.
roughly 271 Zeros were shot down to 334 F4F's for a kill ratio of.......1.25 to 1 in favor of the Zero.

Now, if you want to persist in saying that the F4F gets shot down 3 to 1, bring out some real evidence.

I am puzzled by many posted losses above exceding the aircraft type involved,
Are these a selection of ARRs? If so I'm confused.

Anyway the best thing to do is to test under controlled conditions.

[ChezDaJez]

That's the short summary. There are a couple other observations worthy of mention that I have skipped for the sake of brevity. Mostly they attend to the dozen or so obvious cues that were available to Japanese intel that they might be walking into a trap -- which cues they summarily ignored. Each of these points may be expanded upon in detail and I have already done so in great detail once, and in lesser detail a second time, (and now in abstract form in this reply).

mdiehl,

I don't disagree with many of your assertions concerning Midway. The Japanese plan was deeply flawed in many ways. Still if it had been properly implemented it did have a chance for success.

Much of the failure at Midway can be laid at Nagumo's feet. He was too cautious at PH and he was too cautious at Midway. His vacillation concerning the arming/rearming of his aircraft sealed their fate more than any other action taken by them. IMO, they should have launched everything they had with whatever ordnance was loaded for a strike against the US fleet.

Most of my disagreement with you comes from your application of your version of history to the game. It's obvious to me that you feel the US fleet should be able to take on the Japanese fleet from the day one. That premise is simply your unfounded opinion. If the US fleet was so capable early in the war, why then did they not seek an engagement with the Japanese carriers? Why did they only commit hit and run raids in those areas where they knew the Japanese carriers weren't? And why then did they only commit the carriers in response to a Japanese move on Port Moreseby?

The truth is they were sorely lacking in experience and did not realistically expect to win a battle against the Japanese carriers, even at 1:1 carrier odds. They were only willing to risk the carriers when they had to. Once they did commit them at Coral Sea, the results were still less than impressive. By your contention, this battle should have resulted in a major US tactical victory yet ut ended as a minor Japanese tactical victory and strategic defeat. You stated earlier that US pilots were highly skilled in divebombing and as they greatly ountnumbered the Japanese (70-42) in divebomber strength at Coral Sea, they should have done more damage. Yet, except for Shoho, their divebombing was unbelievably poor. As far as air losses go, they were nearly equal for both sides. The Japanese lost 77 aircraft (55.4% of the force) and the US lost 66 aircraft (49%) from all causes (air-air, AA fire, ops, and losses from ship sinkings). The best picture of US air losses comes from reading the Lexington's and Yorktown's after action reports. Their claims of Japanese fighter losses greatly exceed the number that was actually present.

Now let's look at Midway. Hiryu was the only Japanese CV to actually engage the US carriers. She launched 2 attacks; the first consisted of 6 Zeros and 18 Vals. They encountered a CAP of 18 Wildcats. 3 Zeros and 10 Vals were shot down by fighters before reaching the target yet the Vals were still able to hit Yorktown with 3 bombs and had 2 very near misses. The second attack saw 20 Wildcats on CAP intercept Hiryu's 6 Zeros and 10 Kates. Many were shot down yet 5 Kates managed to launch their torps with 2 hitting Yorktown.

Now extrapolate those results into what might have been had Nagumo immediately launched every plane he had against the US carriers. I dare say that all US carriers would have been heavily damaged, if not sunk.

You tend to confuse training as being the same as experience. It is not. Training is not the same as experience. Training can help instill an instinctual response to a given tactical situation but experience will help determine which course of action is the correct one based on previous observations. Experience makes a much more effective pilot than does training. The reverse is seldom true. Loook at it this way: Who would you rather have in the cockpit of your next commercial flight? The pilot fresh out of airline flight school or the pilot who has a few thousand hours in type under his belt?

If you look at both the US Navy and Army fighter training command doctrines, you will find that they indeed continued to emphasize classic dogfight style engagements until late 1942. Only after Koga's Zero was examined and the use of combat experienced pilots as instructors, did they decrease the emphasis on turning with the enemy. It is highly illogical to assume that US training commands would throw out all the lessons learned to date about fighter tactics from the European war on the basis of Chennault's observations or Thatch's ruminations. If you have ever been associated with a military training command, you would know that people basically have to die before the powers that be start to take notice.

Most US fighters pilots arrived at their replacement units with around 200 hours of primary and advanced flight training. In the replacement units, they were trained in the type aircraft they could expect to fly in combat. This training normally consisted of 50-75 hours of tactical formation and combat training. Gunnery training consisted of about 5 hours in aerial gunnery, 3 hours of which were spent shooting at targets on the ground or sea. Deflection gunnery did not receive any emphasis until 1943. It's interesting to note that US carrier pilots were only required to perform 5 takeoffs and landings before being declared "carrier trained." I have a copy of the Naval Aviation Flight Cirriculum published in October 1941 that lists in detail the required courses and training regimens for pilots. I also have a partial copy of the Naval Reserve Aviation Candidate Training manual published in 1944. Unfortunately the part that I have primarily covers the ground training aspects but is still quite useful.

One last thought. Why is it that nearly every pilot who flew the Wildcat in combat against the Zero stated that the Wildcat was markedly inferior to the Zero and why is it that only the historians who never flew any aircraft in combat who reject their experiences? Could it be that a historical statistical analysis doesn't always present the clearest picture?

Chez

[rtrapasso]

Now, if you want to persist in saying that the F4F gets shot down 3 to 1, bring out some real evidence.

Q: are you playing a standard game, or a mod?

My remarks are restricted to standard WITP.

In my circumstances, it would be hard to do a breakdown like you have done as i am having mixed engagements of Zeros vs. Fulmars, P-40s, P-36s, Hurricanes, Wildcats, and Spitfires. The only way to see the actual results is to watch the combat replay. Yes, i understand there is fog of war involved here. But the combat results anyone posts are subject to that. However, i do have copies of some "pure" Zero vs. Wildcat engagements, (i think) - i'll try to dig them out.

There is not "memory" involved here (as you claim), i.e., i am not looking back on stuff and thinking, "Gosh, there seems to be about a 3 to 1 loss." Rather, i noticed that something peculiar was going on from the start, and so started keeping track.

I will also point out that i am not the only one who has noticed this.

My Wildcats DO shoot down a lot of planes - but they are not Zeros. They are bombers.

I suppose i can also post my Intel screen - but that would be All Zeros shot down in air-to-air, not just by Wildcats. Strangely, i find that Hurricanes do well relatively well against the Zeros, generally much better than Wildcats - (at least Hurri vs. Zero in Burma). I have no idea if that just an anomaly, or if this is a general phenomenon.

Also, notice i am not saying there is JUST a problem with Zero vs. Wildcat. I think there are also serious problems with Oscar vs. most relatively modern Allied planes, as well as the Corsair vs. most Japanese planes (reverse problems - the Oscar loses too much, the Corsair doesn't lose enough).

[rtrapasso]

Anyway the best thing to do is to test under controlled conditions.

I think that would be the best way to sort this out. We can quote AARs back and forth forever and not settle anything.

[mdiehl]

1:1 is where it ought to be within .2 or thereabouts. I notice that you (Oznoyng) omitted such critical information as dates of encounters (was the ZB "on"? was it 1944 with low exp IJN pilots?) contexts (was anyone fatigued?) and consequences of defeat (did anyone lose a CV because the reasonable expectation of about 1:1 instead resulted in a 1 sided slaughter that made CVs vulnerable to attack?)

Here's a question:

Would you risk, as an Allied player, a 2 USN CV vs 2 IJN CV engagement in January 1942 in "neutral waters" with both sides operating rested aircrews, expecting that the result would be a "tactical draw" approximately?

If not, then the game does not capture the look and feel of the strategic position of the two combatants in early 1942.

[mdiehl]

mdiehl,

I don't disagree with many of your assertions concerning Midway. The Japanese plan was deeply flawed in many ways. Still if it had been properly implemented it did have a chance for success.

Thanks for that.

Much of the failure at Midway can be laid at Nagumo's feet. He was too cautious at PH and he was too cautious at Midway. His vacillation concerning the arming/rearming of his aircraft sealed their fate more than any other action taken by them. IMO, they should have launched everything they had with whatever ordnance was loaded for a strike against the US fleet.

Ya know I just think it's fashionable to "blame Nagumo." It's already been demonstrated (recently, not by me, maybe quoting that Midway book) that Nagumo could not have gotten off an effective strike, given his CAP situation, regardless of "vacillating." But IMO the changing and contradictory info that he was given would have likely resulted in the same command confusion in any navy at the time. Anyone could have been in charge of Kido Butai that day and had the same result.

That premise is simply your unfounded opinion. If the US fleet was so capable early in the war, why then did they not seek an engagement with the Japanese carriers? Why did they only commit hit and run raids in those areas where they knew the Japanese carriers weren't? And why then did they only commit the carriers in response to a Japanese move on Port Moreseby?

Well, EVERY opinion then qualifies as an "unfounded opinion." Look, in e. 1942 the USN was not engaged in a strategy of "avoiding Japanese CVs" as many seem to think. It's just that the USN wasn't going to sail through 1000 miles of Japanese held waters, past Japanese forward recon bases at Kwajalein or Wake, just for a shot at CDiv1 sitting in, for example, Truk, or Marcus. That would have been as dumb an idea as, for example, an IJN CV follow-up raid on Pearl Harbor, or San Diego, in early 1942.

In point of fact the USN was willing to risk a possible confrontation with IJN carriers in April in the Doolittle Raid. The only thing that made the idea tenable was that a strike on IJN homeland would not require the USN CVs to come withing effective range of Japanese LBA. That and the possibility of IJN CVs would have been too great a risk.

And as you note the USN was willing to counter the Port Moresby move. It wasn't because in April, Halsey had determined that "It was safe to oppose the IJN because the Zero Bonus was low," it was because (a) intel indicated that the balance of forces would be roughly equal in CV based aircraft, and (b) because it was decided that the Allies should not easily suffer the loss of Port Moresby.

Had the Japanese tried operation MO in January 1942 I expect that the CV battle would have turned out substantially the same, and possibly that the IJN surface fleet could have continued to move on Port Moresby and carry out the assault. Heck, sometimes I wonder why they did not? Were they worried that there was yet another US CV in the area?

And where was CDiv1 all this time? Had they been out playing at Midway, or Johnson, there would I think have been a big CV battle in January 1942. But they weren't in the eastern Pacific looking to run down the US CVs or bag forward bases. They were in IIRC refit and resupply, then raiding Darwin, and some of them off to the Indian Ocean. There was no opportunity for the USN to take on the Japanese CVs even if they were willing to take foolish risks to do so until the Japanese launched the MO operation.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Anyway the best thing to do is to test under controlled conditions.

I think that would be the best way to sort this out. We can quote AARs back and forth forever and not settle anything.

Well I'm attempting to find the requirements to run a test scenario so I may run a couple of hundred tests with Zeros against P-40s and F4Fs - with and without the Zero Bonus, I may also take a look at the effect of experience levels, what the heck.

[Bradley7735]

Chez, the US did not have enough carriers until 5/42 to engage (on equal terms) the Japanese carriers. The US wanted to engage the Japanese carriers on equal terms (hence CS and Midway).

The US, via code breaking, knew approximately where and how many carriers the japanese were operating all through early 42.

the US did not, in fact, avoid fighting because they thought their aviators were inferior. They just didn't want to fight at 3 to 1 odds in total numbers of carriers.

I can't quote the books I've read this in, as I've forgotten. But, it's a pretty consistent theme in all of them. I know I read a book on code breaking that spelled this doctrine out pretty well. The US fought at Coral sea because they could oppose, for the first time, with an equal force.

I'm a firm believer that the allied player should be able to seek combat in early 42 and expect to win half the time when opposed by an equal force, lose mostly when opposed by a superior force and win mostly when opposed by an inferior force. The game does not do that (IMO), and 9 out of 10 times if I engage AI controlled forces in early 42, I will have my ass handed to me. Maybe I just suck as a player, but that's what I get. Only when I have 36 fighters, TBF's and no zero bonus will I even attempt to fight on even terms. And, preferably when the AI carriers have hit land bases hard, and lost a few planes. As mhdiel puts it, "that is not the look and feel of the historic war".

I agree with rtrapasso on the testing thing. AAR's don't tell you enough. someone needs to test equal forces with the exact same stats for pilots and leaders, fatigue and exp. Test it twice (once with Zero's on offense and once with F4F's on offense). Only then will you get the results worth looking at. Oh yeah, test it 4 times. Once in 12/41 and once in 5/42, both sides on offense. I bet you see 10 to 1 losses in 12/41. and 3 to 1 in 5/42.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
I agree with rtrapasso on the testing thing. AAR's don't tell you enough. someone needs to test equal forces with the exact same stats for pilots and leaders, fatigue and exp. Test it twice (once with Zero's on offense and once with F4F's on offense). Only then will you get the results worth looking at. Oh yeah, test it 4 times. Once in 12/41 and once in 5/42, both sides on offense. I bet you see 10 to 1 losses in 12/41. and 3 to 1 in 5/42.

Yes, tests such as those would be very interesting. AAR results are useful, as long as the circumstances are known. Also, the number of aircraft destroyed by flak needs to be taken into account when reviewing AAR results. I regret not being able to help with any potential testing, as I am busy with CHS and map work (a new version of my map will be released soon, in conjunction with the next update to CHS).

I would also like to see results from tests done with CHS, as the aircraft stats in CHS are different from the stock scenarios.

Because this is such a controversial topic, I now plan on doing the following: NOT suggesting that the Zero bonus be removed from CHS. Then, after the next CHS version is released, use it as a base for an experimental scenario, which will include the removal of the Zero bonus, probable reductions in Allied (or maybe also including the Japanese) pilot experience levels, and mods to the aircraft ratings (a la Nik and DFalcon) to try to reduce the bloodiness of air-to-air combat. I then hope to play a PBEM game with that scenario to see how it plays.

Andrew