1943+ Allied Aircraft Advantage at altitude ?

[Commander Stormwolf]

Late war allied pilots were trained to avoid turning engagements.

And this is called tactics, tactics are part of the Pilot Exp value

there is a right way and a wrong way to use your fighter, and that is up to the pilot

allied formations (thatch weave, BnZ) were like a greek phalanx
they were excellent when they worked

when tactics fell apart, Boyington became a POW
and McGuire was brought down
and many others too..

.. but so did the japanese.. diving after a P-47 in a zero would cause your wing spars to break [:)]

[Commander Stormwolf]

Of course the armor and durability mattered

Glad we agree. So did the guns.

If you look at a large sample size of dogfights,
you will understand that when a zero gets into attack position on a wildcat
it has a lower probability of shooting it down

so it means a lot more time is spent firing, and this is compensated by the
larger number of attack positions achieved

wildcats will not achieve attack position often, but when they do they
brought down the zero pretty fast (12.7mm was well suited against a fast maneouvering, armor-less target)

it is how the F4Fs at guadalcanal were able to hold their ground above henderson field

Now once the F6F comes online, you are able to achieve attack position on the A6M5
about the same as he can on you (F6F faster, A6M5 turns better) but you still have the advantage of kill time - A6M5 needs a lot of rounds on F6F, F6F just needs one burst

so this translates into a higher kill ratio like in the Battle of Philipine Sea

[Commander Stormwolf]

Hehe... remember a scene from Aces of the Pacific

the guy in the Zuikaku mess hall asks you

"Hey, want to share a bottle of sake with me?"

"This navy Grumman is armored like a komodo dragon.. I had to empty
all my ammunition to bring it down"

I think it's right after the "Tackling the Grummans" mission during the battle of Santa Cruz

talk about historical atmosphere.. [:D]

[mdiehl]

general consensus is A6M2 tore them apart during Philipines / DEI campaigns
and during a big part of 1942 over New Guinea

A consensus of whom according to what records?

but besides the AVG, good pilots were in short supply on the allied side

Based on what criteria?

so it means a lot more time is spent firing, and this is compensated by the
larger number of attack positions achieved

What makes you think that Zeroes were in attack positions against Wildcats more often than not? I think the, errm, technical aspects you have discussed in general were all important. And I'm not talking about EXP ratings specifically because I suspect that they're an uncalibrated fudge factor indexed to nothing in the real world.

The general lesson from WW2 was that speed tactics were superior to turning engagements. That did not appreciably change until the advent of high speed aams. Heck, for all I know it's still about high speed. Get in, shoot, get out. But I can't say how fire and forget aams have changed things.

I can say this. Numerically, it cannot be true that the Japanese pilots were better and their planes better. When you look at CV vs CV engagements, most of which occurred at the edge of the F4F's safe operational radius and well within the A6Ms safe radius, the F4Fs shot down 1.8 Zeroes for each F4F shot down by Zeroes.

Jimmy Thach faulted the wildcat and claimed that the "favorable results" that USN pilots had achieved through August 1942 were because USN pilots were better. James Flatley said the Wildcat was actually pretty good, and mentioned the various ways of deceiving Zero drivers into overshooting, or climbing too close to a Wildcat.

I'm not sure how that affects one's claims about superiority in general terms. I'd say that the A6M drivers and F4F drivers were probably approximately equal in their abilities, and probably the superior deflection shooting of F4F drivers and their more durable a.c. meant that they tended to win these encounters, over the course of 1942. But there were enough OTHER considerations that in no particular engagement was there any sort of certainty of outcome either way.

[Commander Stormwolf]

Based on what criteria?

1) Combat flight hours (Japanese have 4 years under their belts)

2) Tactics (allied pilots use the standard turn-burn tactics, but don't really understand
the capabilities of their aircraft and how to use them against a more maneouverable opponent) - this excluded AVG and, as you say, Jimmy thatch's squadron

[Commander Stormwolf]

What makes you think that Zeroes were in attack positions against Wildcats more often than not?

Typical experience is Sakai against Pug, shooting 7.7mm rounds to no effect

There was an expression in the USMC, 1 zero against 1 wildcat outnumbers the wildcat by 10 to 1

so allied pilots had to develop defensive tactics because.. the zero was in attack position a lot more often

[Commander Stormwolf]

When you look at CV vs CV engagements

1) Coral Sea --> wildcats hold their own against the least experienced Zero units
(Zuikaku and Shokaku pilots were new recruits in Dec 1941)

2) Midway --> 6 wildcats (small sample size)

3) Eastern Somlomons --> 15 Zeroes distract 55 wildcats

4) Santa Cruz --> Wildcats cannot stop Kates with Zero escort

[Commander Stormwolf]

edge of the F4F's safe operational radius

1942's major sample size was the Zero operating at the edge of its radius over guadalcanalWildcat did okay defending henderson field

Japanese could have learned that same lesson,
taken the fuel out of the Zero and increased its firepower and armor
during the defence of Rabaul in 1943

[Commander Stormwolf]

I would say the Zero's downfall was being pressed into roles where it was not well suited

by 1943 the Zero was the IJNAF's premier interceptor (charging B-24 liberator's defensive formations where MVR is useless against Bmbr planes)

and it was also used to carry ordnance and strafe as well.. not a good idea in an armor-less aerobatics plane packed full of non-self sealing fuel

[mdiehl]

1) Coral Sea --> wildcats hold their own against the least experienced Zero units
(Zuikaku and Shokaku pilots were new recruits in Dec 1941)

What do you mean by "experienced." Airtime? Zuis and Sho's pilot cadre were graduated from their training classes in 1941. Certainly they had plenty of non-combat airtime.

2) Midway --> 6 wildcats (small sample size)

?

3) Eastern Somlomons --> 15 Zeroes distract 55 wildcats

Ah, no. That is at best a pointless oversimplification. It'd be like saying "30 TBDs distracted so many Zeroes at Midway." It has nothing to do with the planes or the pilots, and everything to do with command and control on the CVs. In 1942, neither the IJN nor the USN had good command and control over CAP once the bullets started to fly. (The USN remedied that thereafter by having dedicated combat information centers on each carrier. I'm not sure the Japanese ever seriously tried to remedy their control problem).

4) Santa Cruz --> Wildcats cannot stop Kates with Zero escort

No CAP was ever going to stop 100% of an incoming enemy strike in 1942. Command and control was the key. The Wildcats *did* substantially shoot down more Zeroes than the Zeroes shot down in Wildcats. Which was, after all, my point before. Setting aside the command and control -- which when done right puts what you want where you want it and when -- the F4F drivers consistenly outperformed the A6M drivers in 1942.

At Guadalcanal things were different. Both sides operated under substantial disadvantages. The IJN operating at the edge of their safe operational radius. The USN operating from logistical conditions (including having pilots stationed in an active ground combat front) that were bestial until November. The outcome between Henderson based pilots vs. the Zeroes was 1.2:1 in favor of the Zeroes.

How one generalizes from that is the tricky part. But judging from the consistent outcome over 1942, I can't see any support for the notion that the Japanese pilots were generally better than USN pilots.

I've never tracked down the actual losses for P-39 and P-40 drivers though. That's why I asked if you had any specific detailed sources. I think it'd be really really interesting to know just how and when and under what circumstances the Zeroes won or lost against the P-30s and P-40s.

[Commander Stormwolf]

I think it'd be really really interesting to know just how and when and under what circumstances the Zeroes won or lost against the P-30s and P-40s.

Agreed.

[Commander Stormwolf]

can't see any support for the notion that the Japanese pilots were generally better than USN pilots.

I would say IJN pilots were a lot better than USAAF pilots, the RAF far east, dutch, chinese

this is how the pilot exp needs to be at the game start

1) IJN 75-85
2) USN 65-75 (besides hornet, those need to be 40 or 50 exp)
3) USAAF 40-50

[Commander Stormwolf]

Remember how it looks like in the IJN in Dec 1941

1) the war in china has been going on for 4 years
2) the chinese have bought some thousands of foreign aircraft over
those years and have had foreign volunteers fly them on occasion
3) IJN aircraft production has also been low throughout those 4 years
4) IJN pilots typically will have 1000 hours non-combat and are experts
at navigation, take-off+landing, and will suffer very few accidents
5) IJN pilots have 200-300 hours of combat strafing helpless chinese grounds troops
6) IJN pilots will have had a lot of experience escorting long-range G3M raids for the past 4 years
7) IJN pilots typically have engaged in several dogfights over those 4 years, and many have become aces in the past few months butchering I-15 and I-16 fighters in their new A6M2



You could argue that USN pilots are smart with good commanders, and have a good grasp of tactics, and have trained a lot pre-war

but the japanese will have seen the elephant a lot more times, and since they survived to tell the tale, have been more adept as result

[Commander Stormwolf]

I am skeptical (as I was 20 years ago when i really studied the subject)
about claims and loss records. These were exagerated at the time,
and any new "research" is marred by the noise and confabulation of time (it has been 70 years now)

What can be understood are the trends that resulted (and you can compare these trends to production figures, how many were produced by a certain date, and how many were on hand on that date)

a few things that go in favour of the wildcat

1) henderson field was able to remain open despite daily raids by betties from rabaul
2) they shot down enough betties in that timespan that reduced the japanese torpedo plane arm significantly
3) they shot down enough zeroes to reduce the japanese pilot quality in 1943

for the zero ~

1) performed the longest-range missions of any fighter until the mustang
2) presumably shot down or critically damaged a large number of wildcats prompting the USAAF to bolster henderson field
3) would have dominated the allied fighters if it was configured differently, and not encumbered with a lot of fuel, but then it would lose its escort ability [:)]

[mdiehl]

I would say IJN pilots were a lot better than USAAF pilots, the RAF far east, dutch, chinese

I don't think we have enough data to know.

this is how the pilot exp needs to be at the game start

1) IJN 75-85
2) USN 65-75 (besides hornet, those need to be 40 or 50 exp)
3) USAAF 40-50

As long as on average it produces battles in which the USN F4Fs shoot down 1.8 zeroes for each wildcat, that would seem right. Otherwise, no. No one knows what "EXP" is supposed to be. The designers don't know where the numbers came from. They're not based on hours in training, hours of combat, quality of training, preferred tactics, or any other measured thing. The numbers you suggest are about where they were in Gary Grigsby's Pacific War. In that game, the air model was simply flawed. Too many successes for the Zeroes as compared with history. (That game had fewer user-operated parameters. The game turn was 1 week, and you only set mission, not altitude.)

There is a way to know who lost what and when. The way to know that is to ignore pilot claims or even "confirmed kills" and look to the actual units for their losses on any given day. John Lundstrom (two books: The First Team, and The First Team at Guadalcanal) has done alot of that for the F4F encounters, which is why the 1.8:1 victory ratio favoring the CV-based F4Fs over the CV-based Zeroes is a very solid number. Probably as good as you will ever get.

To my knowledge, no one has done the same thing for P-39s and P-40s in the CBI or SWPAC areas. A guy named Shores did a three book series on the UK/Commonwealth forces in the CBI, but I don't know whether he based the losses on unit loss records or on pilot claims. (The "Bloody Shambles" series. I have them all. Interesting read but it lacks details as to where the numbers come from). His numbers for the AVG/23FG USAAF don't match the 23FGs losses described by Ford.

[1275psi]

giggle

[offenseman]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


No consensus, I´d rather say its a peaceful next-to-each-other. [;)]

There is a pretty high chance that you get your ass handed due to more diverse factors than altitude only, but I guess you are aware of that.

The P47 is easily the best fighter the Allies can muster late war, and I guess this is your current Nemesis. Our opponent does pretty well by combining
George as high altitude fighter and several other airframes (Jack for example) at lower altitudes. Layered CAP works well, except if outnumbered badly,
but he still probably loses more planes than us, and it is undoubted that, if we want to, we can achieve air superiority on bases within 4-5 hexes of our own
bases easily. Further out it is a bit more balanced.
Mike does a great job to decide when its enough and pull back, and sets the next CAP station a bit further away. Works good if we fall for it, which happens on
a regular basis.

Personally I think this reflects reality quite well, and in fact its pretty much payback for the first year when the same happens with swapped symptoms when
you want to effectively fight Oscars with Warhawks, but with regards to high alt sweep you might find opinions differ. I see many games using the best, or second best,
alt band as limit for sweeps, which is basically everything a good HR should be: easy to follow, with exactly the effects desired on a broad scale.

Thank you for the kind words Lenny. Back to the OP's topic.

When the first P38 sweeps and later P47 sweeps came in over 40k it was a lot of trouble. The three of us in the game discuss game mechanics as we play so that we can all learn and become better players. In the course of those discussions it became apparent that it was foolhardy to fight those two US a/c. Against the Zero for example, Lenny discovered that the Zero was getting murdered against the high altitude sweeps BUT as the altitudes came down during a battle, started to equalize and get good results. So I tried setting some at high altitude and some in the mid-20k range to make the US fighters fight where the Zero turns well. That worked better in a straight Zero-vs P38 or P47 fight at max-alt. That said Zero is terribly outclassed in mid-late 43 and suffers from high loss rates against P38 and P47. Mixing in IJA a/c was a real help. Ki-61 has some durability which seemed to allow it to survive long enough for lower level Zeros to engage. When George came along it can fly high enough to not get bounced AND has good durability (for an IJ aircraft anyway) combined with decent firepower. Bringing those online in combination with Ki-61, especially C, and some maneuverable crates at lower altitudes seems to have helped.
Of course the big problem with George and Tony is keeping them flying, hence you really need to summon up the courage to accept that you need to get them out of combat or else you will end up fighting at a huge numerical disadvantage due to damaged crates sitting in hangars. As planes get fixed I fly them out to reform, otherwise they wil just get blown up by the 4e bombers. If you do that and they do not keep the air base smashed, you can try to fly in some CAP once in awhile to keep them off balance.
IMHO it is also better to not fight when you know that all you will do will be to get experten killed.
Of course you also have to allow for sweeps and attack missions. If you fly ALL your CAP at max alt, your CAP may never find the bombers 15-20 k below them. Staggered CAP alts are important for that reason.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: offenseman

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


No consensus, I´d rather say its a peaceful next-to-each-other. [;)]

There is a pretty high chance that you get your ass handed due to more diverse factors than altitude only, but I guess you are aware of that.

The P47 is easily the best fighter the Allies can muster late war, and I guess this is your current Nemesis. Our opponent does pretty well by combining
George as high altitude fighter and several other airframes (Jack for example) at lower altitudes. Layered CAP works well, except if outnumbered badly,
but he still probably loses more planes than us, and it is undoubted that, if we want to, we can achieve air superiority on bases within 4-5 hexes of our own
bases easily. Further out it is a bit more balanced.
Mike does a great job to decide when its enough and pull back, and sets the next CAP station a bit further away. Works good if we fall for it, which happens on
a regular basis.

Personally I think this reflects reality quite well, and in fact its pretty much payback for the first year when the same happens with swapped symptoms when
you want to effectively fight Oscars with Warhawks, but with regards to high alt sweep you might find opinions differ. I see many games using the best, or second best,
alt band as limit for sweeps, which is basically everything a good HR should be: easy to follow, with exactly the effects desired on a broad scale.

Thank you for the kind words Lenny. Back to the OP's topic.

When the first P38 sweeps and later P47 sweeps came in over 40k it was a lot of trouble. The three of us in the game discuss game mechanics as we play so that we can all learn and become better players. In the course of those discussions it became apparent that it was foolhardy to fight those two US a/c. Against the Zero for example, Lenny discovered that the Zero was getting murdered against the high altitude sweeps BUT as the altitudes came down during a battle, started to equalize and get good results. So I tried setting some at high altitude and some in the mid-20k range to make the US fighters fight where the Zero turns well. That worked better in a straight Zero-vs P38 or P47 fight at max-alt. That said Zero is terribly outclassed in mid-late 43 and suffers from high loss rates against P38 and P47. Mixing in IJA a/c was a real help. Ki-61 has some durability which seemed to allow it to survive long enough for lower level Zeros to engage. When George came along it can fly high enough to not get bounced AND has good durability (for an IJ aircraft anyway) combined with decent firepower. Bringing those online in combination with Ki-61, especially C, and some maneuverable crates at lower altitudes seems to have helped.
Of course the big problem with George and Tony is keeping them flying, hence you really need to summon up the courage to accept that you need to get them out of combat or else you will end up fighting at a huge numerical disadvantage due to damaged crates sitting in hangars. As planes get fixed I fly them out to reform, otherwise they wil just get blown up by the 4e bombers. If you do that and they do not keep the air base smashed, you can try to fly in some CAP once in awhile to keep them off balance.
IMHO it is also better to not fight when you know that all you will do will be to get experten killed.
Of course you also have to allow for sweeps and attack missions. If you fly ALL your CAP at max alt, your CAP may never find the bombers 15-20 k below them. Staggered CAP alts are important for that reason.

You bet Rob and me are having our regular share of gritted teeth my friend! [;)]

[Nikademus]

Altitude advantage is abstracted, but less so in AE vs. WitP as seen by the multiple MVR values based on altitude. The combat routines as MichaelM has explained a number of times do include checks for bounce and such. However the issue of "he who can set his aircraft to the highest altitude setting wins" has long been vetted and known.

Firepower remains the #1 variable however which is what makes the P47 so dangerous and the sixpack (6x 50cal) aircraft with good exp remains a trump card, especially against lower DUR aircraft

[Commander Stormwolf]

Even without the altitude advantage the P-47 does really well,

I did a test with all AC max altitude of 30,000 feet,
it still achieves 20 or 30 to 1 against oscars and zeroes

so removing the altitude edge will make it wipe away 1st generation japanese planes
but do about 2-1 against late war planes

and that is pretty realistic