Matrix Games Forums

who the hell are you to call me a troll, get back into your little internet bubble and calm down, you my friend are taking yourself way too seriously and I believe the guy that started the thread is looking for trouble as I believe are you and I expect an apology on being called a troll

Well if your intervention was indeed supposed to bring some comical relief, than you indeed have my deepest apologies right here and now for misinterpreting your comments. [&o]
Now, if you were just trying to make some sardonic and provocking remark to flame all that stuff up, you'd better start believing in God - his existence is closer to reality than anykind of apology you may ever expect from me. [:o]

Call me curious, (amongst other things), where and when did 30 Tojos encounter 80 Wellingtons?
When one makes interesting statements on this forum, you may expect we ignorant grognards to call you on it.

I repeat, we may all learn from one another.

Has anyone ever heard of Lancs in Chinese hands I have been searching for the last hour or so and no sign ?

I am Curious just keeping them in bombs would be tricky even compared to B17's B24's

Got nothing on the Chinese Lancs neither. And the same as M10bob about the Wellingtons. Is it 83 or 38 by the way, again?!

[/quote]

Well if your intervention was indeed supposed to bring some comical relief, than you indeed have my deepest apologies right here and now for misinterpreting your comments.

apology accepted , now I can head back to moderate my Football Manager 2008 forum, where at least I know I am dealing with teenagers there .

The only people to operate the Avro Lancaster, EVER, have been Australia, Britain, Canada, and Poland,(within the RAF).

BTW, I already know the answer about the Wellington, I'm just waiting for an interesting answer.

Every man should know his limitations.

apology accepted , now I can head back to moderate my Football Manager 2008 forum, where at least I know I am dealing with teenagers there .

Well Im sure you'll show the same kind of natural ease at understanding others the day you'll start suscribing to a French-language forum my friend [8|] [;)]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

The only people to operate the Avro Lancaster, EVER, have been Australia, Britain, Canada, and Poland,(within the RAF).

(And France. Yes they did! [:)])



She definitely was a beautiful bird by the way

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

ORIGINAL: m10bob

The only people to operate the Avro Lancaster, EVER, have been Australia, Britain, Canada, and Poland,(within the RAF).

(And France. Yes they did! [:)])



She definitely was a beautiful bird by the way

We can add New Zealand to the list, and thank you for the French info,but your info is post war. (My error was in saying "ever"..)
At any rate, I did not know the French used them even then.[;)]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

Perhaps it would be more beneficial if you post your overall A2A losses (Japanese and Allied) in the game, and then these can be compared to real life results in the same time periods?

Andrew

Andrew,

I posted the Intel screen and Aircraft losses screen in post #8 of this thread. The date of the game is 22 or 23 October 1942.

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

apology accepted , now I can head back to moderate my Football Manager 2008 forum, where at least I know I am dealing with teenagers there .

Well Im sure you'll show the same kind of natural ease at understanding others the day you'll start suscribing to a French-language forum my friend [8|] [;)]

merci, je mettrai cela sur ma liste de choses pour se produire

my pleasure [;)]

We can add New Zealand to the list, and thank you for the French info,but your info is post war. (My error was in saying "ever"..)
At any rate, I did not know the French used them even then

Well French Naval Air have the long standing tradition of using foreign planes long after their original owners gave up. The French Naval Air had its Lancasters and Corsairs flying until the mid-Sixties. More recently, they traded Crusaders for Rafale only in late 1999...
Actually in 1965 Navy pilots went directly from the Corsair to the Crusader. Now that's what you call a transition [:D]

ORIGINAL: High Command

The 4 Bombers that made it throu, if it were ment to be so, should made it throu without being fired upon by 32 Fighters, so this is not DL, as the 32 Fighters actualy did fire upon them (all the first day) and it without them losing a singel bomber.

High Command is referring to the Combat Report/Animated Replay and not the actual losses in this engagement. According to the Aircraft losses report I lost a B-25 to A2A on this day. Ironically enough this was the only engagement that day that involved this plane type.

His planes were most likely set to CAP a base. These 4 B-25 planes flew in at 2000 feet on naval attack to bomb a transport fleet that was in the same hex as Kendari.

ORIGINAL: OSO

ORIGINAL: High Command

The 4 Bombers that made it throu, if it were ment to be so, should made it throu without being fired upon by 32 Fighters, so this is not DL, as the 32 Fighters actualy did fire upon them (all the first day) and it without them losing a singel bomber.

High Command is referring to the Combat Report/Animated Replay and not the actual losses in this engagement. According to the Aircraft losses report I lost a B-25 to A2A on this day. Ironically enough this was the only engagement that day that involved this plane type.

His planes were most likely set to CAP a base. These 4 B-25 planes flew in at 2000 feet on naval attack to bomb a transport fleet that was in the same hex as Kendari.

This is somewhat illuminating!
If his CAP was high enough, and those bombers came in at 2000 feet, they evaded the CAP entirely!
The program rolls a die to determine how many feet a plane can climb/dive to intercept an enemy at a different altitude,
If I am putting a CAP over ships, I will almost never have them over 6000 feet, even though this makes it very vulnerable to any incoming enemy fighters flying sweep or escort.
The game handles A2A intercepts pretty much "common sense" in this regard,(IMHO), but the A2A problems have been noted elsewhere, and several of the mods,(including CHS) have been working to correct/improve it.
This in itself is hindered by built in game programming parameters............


Still waiting for details on those 80 Wellingtons who flew against those 30 Tojoes.[:D]

Just a humble ignoramous awaiting cranial washing in the presence of the learned......[&o]

The scoreboard says very clearly. Jap player is too inexperienced to get any good result. As for scenario 160, I find it as the best A2A model so far. Only 10000+ casaulty seems somewhat strange, even considering overstacked base troopers.

So, you see, limiting 50 AC per airfield size is unnecessary. He who stacks many AC in a single field run the risk of letting enemy torch them in the ground. 72 Tojo destroyed on the ground, they never took off. Otherwise Japs could score a clear victroy. 

Considering the number of Tojo actually took off, one could only say even scenario 160 still a little "too bloody".

Also i would like to add, that the 12.7mm Weapon System used in defence by the B17, and B24 -- had very poor effect aiganst some Japanese planes like the Zero, due to the Zeros thin Beam Construction. and due to the lack of armor, the rounds tended to go throu the aircraft instead of having the effect the weapon system was designed for.

That 12.7mm (0.50cal) MG was deadly against nearly all opponents. It could, and did, inflict severe damage to any target it hit. Passing through a thin beam is more catastrophic than passing through a thick beam. I understand why you think 0.50cals slugs would just pass through the structure. They often did and it was a lucky Zero pilot who lived to tell about it. But those bullets more often flamed the Zero than destroyed it outright.

But you must also remember that the Zero had two siginificant structural design compromises, none of which is directly related to the airframe. These were a lack of fuel tank protection and a lack of pilot protection. Most Zeros lost were due to fire and subsequent explosion or disintegration or from killing the pilot.

Some people think of the Zero as being weak because it was lightweight but it wasn't. It was flammable but not necessarily fragile. It was very strong and capable of handling a high-G load. The skin provided a significant degree of structural strength to make up for the light-weight frame. The problem with this was that its strength depended upon the entire structure, skin included, staying intact. Damage the skin and the Zero became weaker with every bullet. The airframe was the major strength point in most allied fighters but the Zero's major strength was derived from its skin and frame. One way to look at the Zero's construction is to compare it to an automotive unibody. The allied fighters were built with a true frame by comparison.

As far as bombers losses vs fighter losses in the game, there are so many variables that it defies historical comparison, especially when using ahistorical mixes of aircraft.

Chez

From the high command

The Historicle Examples above is from WW2 and Pacific Theater, i see for example one is commenting on the Lancasters, thay were Chinese, not British, i thought that was common knowlage

Now I know you are full of.......

Chinese Lancasters, better joke than Iraqi WMD!!!!

ORIGINAL: JeffK


The Historicle Examples above is from WW2 and Pacific Theater, i see for example one is commenting on the Lancasters, thay were Chinese, not British, i thought that was common knowlage

Now I know you are full of.......

Why the hell is this in reply to me; I never said it!!!!
If you can't correctly use the reply option after more than 1,000 posts, try quoting!!!