Page 4 of 5
RE: Zero early war advantage
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:12 pm
by mdiehl
ahhhhhhh, good old Mhdiel -still trolling for his usual look I am so superior to you new chums rubbish.
I notice that you're still such a blockhead that you cannot distinguish between a historical fact and a game discussion. Keep trolling, jerk.
RE: Zero early war advantage
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:31 pm
by Nikademus
ORIGINAL: dbfw190
i regularly shoot down P39s and P40 pilots who try to dogfight Zeros in the high altitude realm. Now down low, they put up a better fight.
Whenever I see enemy planes at 29k, I don't try to play the altitude game and try to send them higher, I set them at 29 and teach them a lesson why planes that didn't have a supercharger didn't fly at 29k and how its a weakness. I don't NEED or RELY on the dive to win air battles.
Where top speeds are similar the severity of this check is less (instantaneous speed check), and Combat will depend more on Maneuver values at the given altitude, Firepower, Durability, and pilot Air to Air Skill.
firepower remains your best friend. high firepower fighters will score well in most cases. Thats what makes P-39 for example a real bomber killer unless the escort can drive them off.
RE: Zero early war advantage
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:32 pm
by HansBolter
Love seeing the JFBs try to defend this myth. It never ceases to entertain.
One can't help but wonder what part of the fact that it was the inexperienced Allied pilots in F4Fs and P40s that fought the Japanese to a standstill is too complicated for them to grasp.
The arrival of the more highly trained pilots in F6Fs, P38s and P47s was an ANTICLIMAX!
geeze louise, get a grip people!
RE: Zero early war advantage
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:20 pm
by mjk428
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
One can't help but wonder what part of the fact that it was the inexperienced Allied pilots in F4Fs and P40s that fought the Japanese to a standstill is too complicated for them to grasp.
Yep.
RE: Zero early war advantage
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:52 pm
by Hortlund
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
One can't help but wonder what part of the fact that it was the inexperienced Allied pilots in F4Fs and P40s that fought the Japanese to a standstill is too complicated for them to grasp.
Only a true idiot would describe what happened in early 42 in the SRA as a standstill.
RE: Zero early war advantage
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:54 pm
by DeriKuk
Something that gets scant mention in the air-to-air topic, is the effect of numbers in the fight. When, at the instant of combat, you have significantly superior numbers, you'll find that you have a HUGE ADVANTAGE. This is valid even when you have inferior planes and pilots. My P-40E rookies racked up impressive scores by staying together . . . which some of my other knuckle-head pilots sometimes forget to do.
RE: Zero early war advantage
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 5:32 pm
by mjk428
ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
One can't help but wonder what part of the fact that it was the inexperienced Allied pilots in F4Fs and P40s that fought the Japanese to a standstill is too complicated for them to grasp.
Only a true idiot would describe what happened in early 42 in the SRA as a standstill.
Moving the goalposts to "early 42"?
The Allies were deploying inexperienced pilots in F4Fs and P40s throughout '42 (and beyond).
If the Japs were superior in both man & machine then why did their asskicking begin so soon,
Panzerjaieger Hortlund?
RE: Zero early war advantage
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 5:48 pm
by mdiehl
Do you mean inexperienced, or "inexperienced." I am not convinced that the e.war allied pilots were particularly inexperienced. The USN pilot cadres were thoroughly leavened with people that had in excess of 2000 hours air time. As I see it, the USN trained pilots with the least air time mostly went into action at Guadalcanal, and they still kicked butt.
That's why the whole "experience" thing is really such a red herring IMO. You could say well trained (pretty much everyone in 1939-1943 except Chinese nationalist pilots), poorly trained (Chinese, Japanese pilots after 1943, German pilots after mid-1944, Soviet pilots prior to mid-1942), and trained combat veterens (which would include people who had little combat experience but had been through the USN advanced fighter tactics program starting in late 1943... it was the forerunner of Top Gun program).
USN pilots were trained enough from the start to regularly beat Japanese A6M pilots. Whether you call it experience, training, or whatever, the USN pilots had more of it than the Japanese pilots. And the problem only got worse for the Japanese as the war progressed, with the superior Allied pilots gaining access to superior aircraft.
RE: Zero early war advantage
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 5:54 pm
by mdiehl
If the Japs were superior in both man & machine then why did their asskicking begin so soon, Panzerjaieger Hortlund?
The myth endures because some people believe everything written by a Japanese veteren where claims of lots of Allied a.c. shot down were "confirmed" by Japanese post-battle analysts (which, in reality, means nothing) and they believe nothing when they're faced with empircal evidence of Japanese lack of awesomeness.
I'm with doggie. I'll concede, as he does, that the American TBD was an inferior dogfighter to the A6M. It's the only category of aircraft vs aircraft engagement where the JFB "Zeros swept the skies" indoctrination has any empirical validity at all.
RE: Zero early war advantage
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:16 pm
by Terminus
Good grief...[8|]
RE: Zero early war advantage
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:27 pm
by Apollo11
Hi all,
ORIGINAL: Terminus
Good grief...[8|]
<IRONIC MODE ON>
Yep...
And not only that... the war was over in just few short weeks... the vastly superior Allied aircraft, ships and troops simply swept away incompetent and untrained Japanese together with their totally inferior aircraft and ships in one quick strike - they were blown to smithereens without any trouble and with minimal loss of life!
The war was over by spring 1942 and it was no problem at all!
But... wait...
This didn't happen - right?
<IRONIC MODE OFF>
Leo "Apollo11"
RE: Zero early war advantage
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:44 pm
by LoBaron
Well its a known fact that the late summer offensives were countered with Samurai swords, the occasional pitchfork and
the remainder of the attrited Zeke force - most running on one or two cylinders. [:)]
RE: Zero early war advantage
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:33 pm
by Nikademus
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Well its a known fact that the late summer offensives were countered with Samurai swords, the occasional pitchfork and
the remainder of the attrited Zeke force - most running on one or two cylinders. [:)]
and at low power.....while in a landing pattern.....with the sun in their eyes. [;)]
RE: Zero early war advantage
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:44 pm
by spence
And not only that... the war was over in just few short weeks... the vastly superior Allied aircraft, ships and troops simply swept away incompetent and untrained Japanese together with their totally inferior aircraft and ships in one quick strike - they were blown to smithereens without any trouble and with minimal loss of life!
The war was over by spring 1942 and it was no problem at all!
But... wait...
This didn't happen - right?
Lacking any actual historical record to back up your contention that the A6M was so superior you now seem to be confusing the capture/occupation of ground with air to air combat. The elite force of IJNAF pilots/aircrew were mostly dead by the end of 1942. The instruments of their destruction were F4Fs, P-40s and P-39s.
Geography and the need to build bases out of nothing did much more to delay the inevitable destruction of the Japanese Empire than the A6M.
RE: Zero early war advantage
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:08 pm
by mdiehl
and at low power.....while in a landing pattern.....with the sun in their eyes.
Whose a grumpy boy? [;)]
Spence, you know they're on the ropes when they go from claiming that the Japanese won the war to counterarguing that the fact that the Allies did not win the war by the end of 1942 means that the Japanese really won the war.
Actually, I'm waiting for the part where Leo and Nickledimus accuse me of Heresy or Thoughtcrime. It should be very entertaining. [:D]
RE: Zero early war advantage
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 1:06 am
by Big B
You know, as a veteran of many years of these A6M vs F4F/P-40 debates, the one thing I am struck with is this pattern:
It always seems one train of argument goes; the Japanese pilots and the A6M had so wide wide a margin of superiority over their Allied counterparts that - that alone explains why the Pacific War went the way it did in the first 6 months... skill, elan' and sheer technical superiority.
While the Allied side points out that the Allies were not inept novices flying 3rd rate equipment, and actually went toe to toe with the Japanese and actually prevailed in the course of the first year.
My point is this: I don't think anyone believes (or have ever really stated) that the Japanese First Team and their A6M were second rate, and to be scorned. Quite the contrary - they were obviously a very potent force to be reckoned with...as if that needed to be said.
The only real point of contention always seems to be - were their Allied opponents themselves a second rate bunch flying decidedly inferior aircraft, and the implied national insult that accompanies that line of thought.
All I can say is that obviously both sides were quite good in pilots, dedication, and equipment - so therefore the explanation for the course of events must lie elsewhere.
The A6M was quite good at what it was designed to do - but so were the Allied aircraft. Therefore it logically follows that the course of events were dictated by other factors of a tactical and strategic nature...
I don't know why that is so hard to grasp?...
Sayonara,
B
EDIT: Think back to the cardboard board game days - if a Zero and a Wildcat were both rated at -say a 9 (whatever that would mean) no one got their panties in a bunch.... just sayin'
RE: Zero early war advantage
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 1:55 am
by Alfred
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Well its a known fact that the late summer offensives were countered with Samurai swords, the occasional pitchfork and
the remainder of the attrited Zeke force - most running on one or two cylinders. [:)]
You forgot their black ninja clothing, ability to jump up backwards from the ground to trees/roofs, and their star shaped "frisbees".[:)]
Alfred
RE: Zero early war advantage
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 2:59 am
by stuman
ORIGINAL: Big B
You know, as a veteran of many years of these A6M vs F4F/P-40 debates, the one thing I am struck with is this pattern:
It always seems one train of argument goes; the Japanese pilots and the A6M had so wide wide a margin of superiority over their Allied counterparts that - that alone explains why the Pacific War went the way it did in the first 6 months... skill, elan' and sheer technical superiority.
While the Allied side points out that the Allies were not inept novices flying 3rd rate equipment, and actually went toe to toe with the Japanese and actually prevailed in the course of the first year.
My point is this: I don't think anyone believes (or have ever really stated) that the Japanese First Team and their A6M were second rate, and to be scorned. Quite the contrary - they were obviously a very potent force to be reckoned with...as if that needed to be said.
The only real point of contention always seems to be - were their Allied opponents themselves a second rate bunch flying decidedly inferior aircraft, and the implied national insult that accompanies that line of thought.
All I can say is that obviously both sides were quite good in pilots, dedication, and equipment - so therefore the explanation for the course of events must lie elsewhere.
The A6M was quite good at what it was designed to do - but so were the Allied aircraft. Therefore it logically follows that the course of events were dictated by other factors of a tactical and strategic nature...
I don't know why that is so hard to grasp?...
Sayonara,
B
EDIT: Think back to the cardboard board game days - if a Zero and a Wildcat were both rated at -say a 9 (whatever that would mean) no one got their panties in a bunch.... just sayin'
Yours seems to be a logical response. What is wrong with you ! [;)]
RE: Zero early war advantage
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:03 am
by bradfordkay
There is no room for logic in this debate! Get thee hence!!!
RE: Zero early war advantage
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 6:51 am
by mjk428
ORIGINAL: Big B
My point is this: I don't think anyone believes (or have ever really stated) that the Japanese First Team and their A6M were second rate, and to be scorned. Quite the contrary - they were obviously a very potent force to be reckoned with...as if that needed to be said.
The only real point of contention always seems to be - were their Allied opponents themselves a second rate bunch flying decidedly inferior aircraft, and the implied national insult that accompanies that line of thought.
All I can say is that obviously both sides were quite good in pilots, dedication, and equipment - so therefore the explanation for the course of events must lie elsewhere.
The A6M was quite good at what it was designed to do - but so were the Allied aircraft. Therefore it logically follows that the course of events were dictated by other factors of a tactical and strategic nature...
I don't know why that is so hard to grasp?...
Sayonara,
B
EDIT: Think back to the cardboard board game days - if a Zero and a Wildcat were both rated at -say a 9 (whatever that would mean) no one got their panties in a bunch.... just sayin'
Well said.
As an Allied player I'd be thrilled to have a few squadrons of Zeros - mostly for their outstanding range. It's a long time before the Allies get anything that compares. They make great escorts/raiders but I'd rather have P40s/F4Fs flying CAP.