1.2 Suggestions

[doomonyou]

what the hell is this crap with the 0 vp barges? I had a flight of 12 p-39d just work the !@#$ out of four jap barges filled supplies. Down they went. How does this not help hte allied war effort? If I put ten guys and a tent on Nobodyseverbeenhere atoll I get a few points, but if I send a few hundred tons of combat supplies into the drink nobody cares....Hulk no like!!!

[mdiehl]

"There should be a greater difference between an experienced pilot (90+) and a mediocre one (60-70's). My best Zero pilots haven't even mustered 8 kills in four months of constant fighting, on the contrary, most of the top pilots have been killed or wounded already. The Jap air losses started to rise in Sep/Oct 42 after the US had made the landings in Guadalcanal and received lots of reinforcements (P38 etc). Now, my Tainan regiment is comprised of replacement with a few surviving top pilots in their ranks. The guys with 90+ exp should really k i c k a s s. Now they are too easily killed."

Matrix and Grigsby were once particularly wedded to the myth that Japanese pilots were better trained than their American opponents, or that extensive experience allows a pilot in an inferior a/c to hold its own against an adequately trained pilot in a superior a/c. Neither are true, and the issue of adequate training vs. extensive experience has been dealt with many times before. Poor training is almost always fatal. Adequate training gives the the pilot in the better plane the edge over any ace. It sounds as though maybe Matrix is finally getting the a/c model correct.

As to your claim that IJN attrition rate was only negative after Guadalcanal and only after P38s were delivered there, both are manifestly false. From 1 February 1942 to 1 June 1942, in direct combats between F4Fs flown by USN pilots and A6M2s flown by IJN pilots, the F4Fs shot down 16 Zekes losing only 10 F4Fs (Lundstrom, 1994, The First Team at Guadalacanal, p4). At Guadalcanal, F4Fs were 1 plane shy of a 1:1 kill ratio through November 1942 (see the data appendix in Frank's "Guadalcanal"). It has been rumoured that IJN pilot tactics evolved only in response to assumed superiority of A6M. While it is true that pilots evolved an increased situational awareness, USN naval pilots interviewed by Lundstrom wrote that the emphasis on teamwork *in training* (i.e. in 1940 and 1941), and at accurate deflection shooting, gave them the edge.

In contrast, Japanese a/c consistantly exhibited poor skills in deflection shooting, and poor coordination within sections where wingmates did not consistently support each other when in duress. Undoubtedly the latter was due in part to the notion of heroic individualism instilled in Japanese pilots, to the absence of effective radios in their a/c to coordinate between planes, and the use of an outdated 3-plane section (rather than finger 4) long after (1943, IIRC) the Allies adopted the finger 4 (in late 1940).

I'd rate IJN naval pilots at start as EXP 65 and USN pilots at start as EXP 65.

I've not been able to verify yet the loss rates of Allied army fighter a/c in the early part of the war. AFAICT, the really poor performance seems to be limited to RAF pilots in F2A3s and F2A4s in Malaya/Burma TO. There is one account of a group of Dutch pilots who lost 6 planes when they were bounced in their landing pattern in February 1942.... something that could happen to anyone as the Japanese later learned to their detriment.

[UndercoverNotChickenSalad]

Mouse wheel support.

[mdiehl]

"The flak should have murded them with out even talking about the cap. a B17 at a 1,000 ft is a very big target!"

Target size has nothing to do with flak accuracy unless you're talking about shooting at the moon. Beyond 1000 feet, flak is purely a matter of estimating the speed and altitude of your target, setting the fuse properly, and hoping that the wind & a/c maneuvering don't put your bursting shell in the wrong place. Flak is an *area weapon.*

Agree, though, that your cap should have been able to close with and damage teh attack. Why the Hudsons made it through is questionable. The 17s would probably make it through, but they'd be right shot up. Perhaps there needs to be some inreased likelihood of aborting an inbound strike of tactical a/c if they meet too much opposition.

[DSandberg]

I'd suggest that actual weather conditions (not talking about the forecast here) should be determined exactly once for each location at the start of each air phase (morning or afternoon) and then remain "sticky" for the duration of that air phase. In other words, the enemy shouldn't be able to bomb my airfield with 100+ planes while all of my strikes from the same airfield are grounded because of bad weather overhead, just because of the vagaries of random "die rolls".

For those who say "the incoming strike just arrived at the right moment to avoid the worst weather", I say "Then why isn't my strike taking off at that same moment? Better late than never ... besides, if anything they should be in a much better position to monitor and capitalize on the minute by minute changes in local weather conditions than is an incoming strike."

Obviously this would go both ways (I shouldn't be able to bomb an enemy base silly if they can't even fly out of it).

[Raverdave]

Originally posted by mdiehl

Matrix and Grigsby were once particularly wedded to the myth that Japanese pilots were better trained than their American opponents, or that extensive experience allows a pilot in an inferior a/c to hold its own against an adequately trained pilot in a superior a/c. Neither are true, and the issue of adequate training vs. extensive experience has been dealt with many times before.

I am having some difficulty with this.....Chuck Yeager in his book talks alot about how a good pilot in an inferior aircraft will be better than an in inferior pilot in a superior aircraft. This is also supported in other publications, of which one was the artical " Systems Analysis Problems of Limited War", writen by an American Herbert K. Wiess. What Wiess did was to collate and anayalis all the historical data, and he came up with some interesting conclusions based on that data.

1/ 90% of pilots flying their first combat mission have 50:50 chance of getting through with out being shot down.

2/ After five combat missions the chances of survival increase by a factor of twenty.

3/ 5% of pilots will make ace, and it is this 5% group that will go on to account for 40% of all claims.

4/ These findings are consistant over both world wars and also Korea.

Poor training is almost always fatal.

Agree

Adequate training gives the the pilot in the better plane the edge over any ace.

Dissagree, have read of the following:-

"Yeager" Chuck Yeager and Leo Janos
"Splash One" Ivan Rendall
"The Most Danerous Enemy" Stephen Bungay
"Spitfire Aces" Alfred Price
"The First and The Last" Adolf Galland
"The Ace Factor" Mike Spick

As to your claim that IJN attrition rate was only negative after Guadalcanal and only after P38s were delivered there, both are manifestly false. From 1 February 1942 to 1 June 1942, in direct combats between F4Fs flown by USN pilots and A6M2s flown by IJN pilots, the F4Fs shot down 16 Zekes losing only 10 F4Fs (Lundstrom, 1994, The First Team at Guadalacanal, p4). At Guadalcanal, F4Fs were 1 plane shy of a 1:1 kill ratio through November 1942 (see the data appendix in Frank's "Guadalcanal"). It has been rumoured that IJN pilot tactics evolved only in response to assumed superiority of A6M. While it is true that pilots evolved an increased situational awareness, USN naval pilots interviewed by Lundstrom wrote that the emphasis on teamwork *in training* (i.e. in 1940 and 1941), and at accurate deflection shooting, gave them the edge.

In contrast, Japanese a/c consistantly exhibited poor skills in deflection shooting, and poor coordination within sections where wingmates did not consistently support each other when in duress. Undoubtedly the latter was due in part to the notion of heroic individualism instilled in Japanese pilots, to the absence of effective radios in their a/c to coordinate between planes, and the use of an outdated 3-plane section (rather than finger 4) long after (1943, IIRC) the Allies adopted the finger 4 (in late 1940).

I would say that all airfarces consistantly exhibited poor defection shooting. This was as an extremely difficult shot to carry out, and not many pilots were able to master it. Indeed the majority of aircraft shot down were hit within 15 degress of the rear.
The Luftwaffe pilots hand book maintained that the deflection shot was a waste of time and ammo and recommended that the pilot close from the rear and shoot at close range.

[msaario]

Originally posted by mdiehl
[BMatrix and Grigsby were once particularly wedded to the myth that Japanese pilots were better trained than their American opponents, or that extensive experience allows a pilot in an inferior a/c to hold its own against an adequately trained pilot in a superior a/c. Neither are true, and the issue of adequate training vs. extensive experience has been dealt with many times before. Poor training is almost always fatal. Adequate training gives the the pilot in the better plane the edge over any ace. It sounds as though maybe Matrix is finally getting the a/c model correct.

As to your claim that IJN attrition rate was only negative after Guadalcanal and only after P38s were delivered there, both are manifestly false. From 1 February 1942 to 1 June 1942, in direct combats between F4Fs flown by USN pilots and A6M2s flown by IJN pilots, the F4Fs shot down 16 Zekes losing only 10 F4Fs (Lundstrom, 1994, The First Team at Guadalacanal, p4). At Guadalcanal, F4Fs were 1 plane shy of a 1:1 kill ratio through November 1942 (see the data appendix in Frank's "Guadalcanal"). It has been rumoured that IJN pilot tactics evolved only in response to assumed superiority of A6M. While it is true that pilots evolved an increased situational awareness, USN naval pilots interviewed by Lundstrom wrote that the emphasis on teamwork *in training* (i.e. in 1940 and 1941), and at accurate deflection shooting, gave them the edge.

I'd rate IJN naval pilots at start as EXP 65 and USN pilots at start as EXP 65.

I've not been able to verify yet the loss rates of Allied army fighter a/c in the early part of the war. AFAICT, the really poor performance seems to be limited to RAF pilots in F2A3s and F2A4s in Malaya/Burma TO. There is one account of a group of Dutch pilots who lost 6 planes when they were bounced in their landing pattern in February 1942.... something that could happen to anyone as the Japanese later learned to their detriment. [/B]

Oh no. It is not quite that simple. The F4F was quite a rare sight in the summer of 42 and I am not talking about Buffalos here. There were P39s and P40s flying from Port Moresby and doing most of the fighting against the Japanese. F4Fs were usually flying off the carriers. I understand you are saying there was a small detachment of F4Fs in Guadalcanal between Feb and June 42? Maybe they had 16 kills against 10 losses, but that is only a tiny bunch of planes in a big theatre. Besides, I never claimed that the Japanese had a negative attrition rate only after Guadalcanal - I sad their casualties started to rise significantly at that time (Sep/Oct 42).

The F4F was not a superior plane when compared with the Zero. The US pilots employed better tactics, but not consistently in the summer of 42. Have you read the book Samurai written by Saburo Sakai? My knowledge is mainly based on that, and if it is a forgery, well, then I accept that the pilots on both sides were about equal at that time... However, by reading that personal experience, you will see that the prewar Japanese pilot training was extremely thorough and cannot be compared with the training of pilots during the war. And definitely surpasses the "adequately" massproduced US pilots of the WW2.

Besides, how do you explain the outright historical error in the game that I have no Japanese pilots with more than six or seven kills in 9/42 as their real life counterparts had amassed kill figures in 10s, 20s, 30s, 40s and even higher?? Sakai scored his 61st and 62nd kill in early August 1942... That's my whole point - why the guy flying a Zero with 96 exp cannot score against a P39 or P40, when in reality they killed the US planes left and right? I say there is an adjustment needed here. My argument is valid both ways, however I have not played the US side so far, so I do not know how they perform (I've shot down a US pilot with 7 kills, though).

BTW, the Buffalo (among other obsolete planes) was capable of great deeds in capable hands - you might want to check the fighting between the Finns and the Russians in WW2...

--Mikko

[doomonyou]

the prescenario jap pilots should be dauntingly good (although they start pretty good too)...but remember that us pilot in effect had many advantages in thier techniques and thier radios..

your also right about the airplanes...938 aircorbras were given to russia in number and were decent planes there in the right situation, many 109's were lost to them..

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by mdiehl
"There should be a greater difference between an experienced pilot (90+) and a mediocre one (60-70's). My best Zero pilots haven't even mustered 8 kills in four months of constant fighting, on the contrary, most of the top pilots have been killed or wounded already. The Jap air losses started to rise in Sep/Oct 42 after the US had made the landings in Guadalcanal and received lots of reinforcements (P38 etc). Now, my Tainan regiment is comprised of replacement with a few surviving top pilots in their ranks. The guys with 90+ exp should really k i c k a s s. Now they are too easily killed."

Matrix and Grigsby were once particularly wedded to the myth that Japanese pilots were better trained than their American opponents, or that extensive experience allows a pilot in an inferior a/c to hold its own against an adequately trained pilot in a superior a/c. Neither are true, and the issue of adequate training vs. extensive experience has been dealt with many times before. Poor training is almost always fatal. Adequate training gives the the pilot in the better plane the edge over any ace. It sounds as though maybe Matrix is finally getting the a/c model correct.

As to your claim that IJN attrition rate was only negative after Guadalcanal and only after P38s were delivered there, both are manifestly false. From 1 February 1942 to 1 June 1942, in direct combats between F4Fs flown by USN pilots and A6M2s flown by IJN pilots, the F4Fs shot down 16 Zekes losing only 10 F4Fs (Lundstrom, 1994, The First Team at Guadalacanal, p4). At Guadalcanal, F4Fs were 1 plane shy of a 1:1 kill ratio through November 1942 (see the data appendix in Frank's "Guadalcanal"). It has been rumoured that IJN pilot tactics evolved only in response to assumed superiority of A6M. While it is true that pilots evolved an increased situational awareness, USN naval pilots interviewed by Lundstrom wrote that the emphasis on teamwork *in training* (i.e. in 1940 and 1941), and at accurate deflection shooting, gave them the edge.

In contrast, Japanese a/c consistantly exhibited poor skills in deflection shooting, and poor coordination within sections where wingmates did not consistently support each other when in duress. Undoubtedly the latter was due in part to the notion of heroic individualism instilled in Japanese pilots, to the absence of effective radios in their a/c to coordinate between planes, and the use of an outdated 3-plane section (rather than finger 4) long after (1943, IIRC) the Allies adopted the finger 4 (in late 1940).

I'd rate IJN naval pilots at start as EXP 65 and USN pilots at start as EXP 65.

I've not been able to verify yet the loss rates of Allied army fighter a/c in the early part of the war. AFAICT, the really poor performance seems to be limited to RAF pilots in F2A3s and F2A4s in Malaya/Burma TO. There is one account of a group of Dutch pilots who lost 6 planes when they were bounced in their landing pattern in February 1942.... something that could happen to anyone as the Japanese later learned to their detriment.

Its no myth though it is a subject that is exploitable by those who wish to argue differently due to there being a propensity of US sources and US based sources of info vs Japanese sources.

Many of the IJN carrier pilots (and those of the land based contingents) had many hundreds to thousands of flight hours and the Japanese system in general for training was harsher and conducted under more realistic (and dangerous) conditions as the cultural ethos of the time stressed duty to one's country(or Emperor) vs the more safety minded US.

As for the kill ratios. It is true that F4F pilots maintained a good kill ratio against zeros after (and during) Midway.

The reason was not because of the pilots were as a whole "as good" but largely because an innovative American pilot named Jimmy Thatch, aware of the Zero's superior *individual* stats (excepting durability) developed the team tactic that allowed a Wildcat "division" to hold it's own against a "Division" of Zeros.

One on one.....a good IJN pilot in an A6M will win against a good or medocre (conscript) F4F pilot, or an F4F pilot who isn't fully aware of the characteristics of his enemy's mount. Unfortunatly for the Japanese, this wasn't WWI but WWII where "squadrons" and "flights" of aircraft tended to tangle.....thus the story could be far different when a gaggle of Zero's and Wildcats tangle


Guadalcanal added to this problem for the Zero in that the land based contingents had first to traverse many hundreds of miles before engaging their opponents only then to face an equally long trek back.


American pilots had a far less transit time and could rest up. Thus the kill ratios by themselves do not tell the whole story. While not nearly as extreme, this post reminds me of the time on the PacWar thread when someone presented these "facts" (kill ratios) and submitted to Matrix that this proved clearly that the "Best Japanese pilots were only as good as the greenest American ones" and that the air to air combat routines should be altered so that the Japanese can never score better than a 1 to 1 kill ratio against American fighters.

Hoo!

As for UV.....attempting to factor in this in the game....good luck. How would one determine a fair way to implement it? This "rule" would not be valid in every situation. Best one can do is use the classic pilot exp system to help determine things. I dont think it works badly considering that exp is but one component that determines victories.....fatique, disruption, positioning at the time of attack, "advantage" during the dogfight....all factor in. I have seen no examples of PacWar like "invincibleness on the part of Japanese Zero's in UV

So in general i agree with Saburo Sakai's asertation that "in general, at the beginning of the war, while Japanese pilots tended to be better, the Americans in turn were better at "team tactics" which could often negate any individual pool of Japanese pilot superiority, even in inferior planes. The ability to work as a team was one of the great secrets of the German airforces's success (having excellent fighters helped too) but i have read that the Japanese fighter pilots tended to work independantly which could lead to trouble. Add that to the fragility of their mounts, the "warrior ethic" present in many (like not wearing parachutes) and the Japanese military's general view that individual men were but cogs to be used and expended (thus no serious effort to effect a rescue/recovery system like the Americans developed) led to a quick and steady degreation of pilot quality once the war turned into an attrition fight.

I think the pilot ratings are fine. In fact if anything the Japanese ratings "have" been toned down. I see far less "90"s then PacWar had. That should make USN fans happy....especially with the "training" bug (as i see it) which kills more pilots than it trains since there's no saftey in place to prevent training missions during adverse weather (forcing the player to micro manage the settings each turn.....oh my aching fingers)

IJN replacement pilots also start off at way lower exp than American concripts.....on average a difference of 20-40 points worth. I think that balances things out very nicely. Big difference between a IJN conscript who joins the Akagi with an exp level of *20* and a USN conscript who joins the Enterprise with an exp rating of *50*

Zeros i would add are not the only example. IJN attack pilots in their Vals and Kates tended, in general to display a lesser tendancey to become disrupted and disjointed when forming and following up on carrier attacks. Their attacks over the US carriers tended to be more coordinated as a result (torp and dive bombers going in together or close together) while the zeros provided cover.

Ironically this tendancy for US air attacks to become disjointed and seperated was a factor in the Japanese defeat at Midway, where the fighters became seperated from the dive bombers who became seperated from the torp bombers. The torp bombers ended up going in first and alone and got slaughtered as a result.

It might have been useless sacrifice except at the miracle moment, a flight of SBD's spotted the Japnanese carriers and roared into the attack while the IJN CAP was still at low level.

The rest was history.

There are more examples......a great one where a very small flight of B5N's escorted by a few Zero's attacked the damaged but operational Yorktown, steaming at 22-24 knots.....the Zeros kept most of the Wildcats at bay, and in a supreme feat of markmenship, four attacking Kates scored a 50% hit ratio (2 out of 4 torps hitting the Yorktown) which crippled the carrier.

This success, esp in terms of torpedo runs is a stark contrast to the American success rate....one which the Devestator and it's torp do not alone explain (and in fact recent arguments at Warships1 have done much to "exonerate" the reputation of the oft maligned "Devastator" aircraft)

In short (again) i think the Japanese earned their pilot skill ratings for the first half of the war. USN proponents though, not satisfied with the war's ending or the metamorphasis of the USN into the best fighting force of the time after graduating from the school of hard knocks, dont appear to want to give the Japanese any slack in any area.......its simply not acceptable for the Japanese to have been better at anything then us, however temporarily.......Maybe its due to the fact that the war in the Pacific was very much a "race war" with no love lost between the two opponents....maybe its just nationalistic pride.....i dont know, dont care. but i get sick of seeing it.

[Drex]

To get back on the topic: i would like to see a better pbem procedure, one that sends both replay and game files together and hopefully doesn't use the same replay file for all games. If you play a lot of pbem you will overwrite the replay file everytime to play a different game. Each game should have its own replay file.

[Black Cat]

Would like to see the Transport Sq`s have an option to supply fuel as well as supply, add another button to the Mission Window or just add some fuel into the supply mix....

...and while we are talking Transport Sq`s they gather fatigue much faster then the in combat fighter/bomber Sq`s who are flying many more missions.

Two transport flights from Cooktown to PM and they are in the high 50`s ( not that it seems to effect them that much )

[worr]

Originally posted by mdiehl
[Bparticularly wedded to the myth that Japanese pilots were better trained than their American opponents, or that extensive experience allows a pilot in an inferior a/c to hold its own against an adequately trained pilot in a superior a/c. Neither are true, [/B]

Both of these were true.

Pilot experience is everything....and I teach aviation. Ask the insurance companies. You might have a safer ac, but if you have the experience as a pilot, that's where you are going to get the discount. This was most certainly true in war. The experienced pilot could make of for any deficiencies in their ac. And I do not particualirily see any deficiences in the F4F compared to the A6M. They were different ac...and each could be flown to their own advantages. It is the pilot and not the machine.

BTW...the superior training went to IJN pilots verses their USN pilots. I would not be right to give a blanket endorse to all things that fly for Japan.

But what does this mean for 1.2? As we know 1.12 is for bugs. Hopefully 1.2 would include some of the fixes mentione above. I would like to see some review of OOBs, especailly supply ships in the long campaign. But I see no reason to rewrite the experience levels of the pilots. You can edit them yourself in the campaign editor.

Worr, out

P.S. A great read on some of the cultural aspects that make an army superior is a book out called "Carnage and Culture." Very provocative!

[Black Cat]

Originally posted by worr


Both of these were true.

Pilot experience is everything....and I teach aviation. Ask the insurance companies. You might have a safer ac, but if you have the experience as a pilot, that's where you are going to get the discount. This was most certainly true in war. The experienced pilot could make of for any deficiencies in their ac. And I do not particualirily see any deficiences in the F4F compared to the A6M. They were different ac...and each could be flown to their own advantages. It is the pilot and not the machine.

BTW...the superior training went to IJN pilots verses their USN pilots. I would not be right to give a blanket endorse to all things that fly for Japan.

But what does this mean for 1.2? As we know 1.12 is for bugs. Hopefully 1.2 would include some of the fixes mentione above. I would like to see some review of OOBs, especailly supply ships in the long campaign. But I see no reason to rewrite the experience levels of the pilots.

Worr, out

P.S. A great read on some of the cultural aspects that make an army superior is a book out called "Carnage and Culture." Very provocative!

Actually if you feel the need to rewrite the experience levels of pilots or Sq`s the handy dandy editor in the Scenario Folder works easy & well. I`m now flying with VF - 3 as a 1st. Lt:)

FWIW Lots of things folks seem to want can be accomplished there.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by Black Cat


Actually if you feel the need to rewrite the experience levels of pilots or Sq`s the handy dandy editor in the Scenario Folder works easy & well. I`m now flying with VF - 3 as a 1st. Lt:)

FWIW Lots of things folks seem to want can be accomplished there.

what experience level did you give yourself? :p

[Black Cat]

Originally posted by Nikademus


what experience level did you give yourself? :p

errrrrm 89

[msaario]

I have no need to touch the exp levels, I was suggesting that there could be a bigger difference between the high and low exp guy. The Japanese will eventually lose their good pilots but in the mean time, some of them should become aces many times over...

When I got the game, I had no idea there would be individual pilots in the database, so I got excited and wanted more and more historical ... well ... accuracy?!

Let the low exp guys die and high exp guys score more often (no matter what the plane or nationality)!!

--Mikko

[Skyfire7631]

One thing that would be very nice (though I suspect this could be hard to implement) would be to have some graphics over time about some data.

For example, at a given airbase, we could click on supplies or fuel line, and then get a new window showing how these data have evolved over time.

Some other things could use this feature, like air sorties for example.

Apart from this, what has already been said : direction of spotted task forces, % of completion of port/airbase/fortification building, enhanced weather.

Regards.

[Drex]

Since UV keeps statistics on pilots' kills, how about the same for subs or sub commanders?

[Spooky]

Originally posted by Drex
Since UV keeps statistics on pilots' kills, how about the same for subs or sub commanders?

It is not as simple as for the pilots' kills ... however, subs & ships kills could be awarded to ships, subs or even pilots (or air squadrons). The rule would be that the "killer" sub/ship/pilot (or sqdrn) is the last having hit the target.

BTW, since the cause of sinking is already indicated in the sunk ships screen, it shouldn't be that difficult to implement (in WITP ?)

Spooky

[JohnK]

Originally posted by Nikademus
One on one.....a good IJN pilot in an A6M will win against a good or medocre (conscript) F4F pilot,

There were VERY few of these in time period of the 1942 Carrier Battles.

You seem to be functioning under the mis-impression that USN F4F pilots in 1942 were recently drafted conscripts going up against IJN pilots with a zillion hours of training.

All of the CVs in the 1942 battles existed long before the war, with air groups that had been around for many years.

USN Carrier pilots all were very experienced (albeit without the combat experience in China...against very weak opposition...that many IJN pilots had) and were generally an elite, handpicked force of volunteers that had been flying for many years, and that was selecting very few pilots out of a large pool of people that wanted to be pilots. As many hours and quite as selective as the IJN? No. But easily the best pilots the US had at that point, and ranking with the IJN, Fighter Command in Britain, and certain LW units as the best trained pilots in the world.

IJN pilots in Zeros never dominated ANYONE in WWII other than Chinese, poor saps stuck in Brewster Buffalos, or P-39s that were forced to fight at high altitudes, and horrendously poorly trained British and Dutch in Malaysia and Java, often in obsolete aircraft to boot.