Matrix Games Forums

I knew there was a European Brady out there somewhere, I just knew it.

Ram this is after the war kills analysis. Since P-51 were so vulnerable to ground fire, ground kill should be counted. The P-51 could go deep into germany P-47d could not until Allied advance in France. By the way if you play WITTP you should understand airplane range. The P-38J wiith it ability to attack shipping at a long range is important there. P-51 should be only used as fighter escort and sweeping of fighters.

Tankerace 49% is based on 4950 aerial combat which accounted for 49% of aerial comabt. Planes are destroyed in training and operational loses but we are not counting them

By a few months after D Day, P-47s with drop tanks could penetrate only about 100-150 miles less inside Germany than the P-51. Also, when totaling a K/D ratio, you do not include ground kills. K/D applies only to aircombat, not strafing runs.

ORIGINAL: madmickey

Tankerace 49% is based on 4950 aerial combat which accounted for 49% of aerial comabt. Planes are destroyed in training and operational loses but we are not counting them

If that is what you meant, that is what you should have said. You said "Destroyed 49% of the Luftwaffe". Since the Luftwaffe totaled around 70,000 planes, you see my point.

Still, I highly doubt that claim. If the P-51 shot down almost 5,000 planes (assuming that all the kills are correct. I like RAM am doubtful), then your claim is that the Luftwaffe lost only 10,000 planes.

In the Period from the Beginning of the war to the end of the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe lost about 2,000 planes shot down. The P-51 shot down 5,000. The P-47s claim about 2,000. Thight right there, in 10 months of war, plus 2 fighters claim is 90% of your total claim of L.W. planes shot down. Factor in a couple thousand claimed by Soviet pilots, and we are well over your mark, and we aren't even tallying 3/4 of the units involved. It is simply impossible for the Mustang to have shot down 49% of all planes lost.

EDIT: Just found a great site on the subject of German A/C losses. The losses part only covers September 1943 to October 1944. In those 13 months, the German Luftwaffe lost 35,660 planes to all causes. If we factor a 60% operational loss ratio, and only 40% were to kills, that means in 13 months there were 14,264 a/c lost to aircombat. The P-51 didn't even shoot down 49% of all a/c lost in 13 months (and that figure is a fairly low estimate), let alone 49% of all enemy a/c lost in the war. I'm sorry, but your claim is incorrect.

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

By a few months after D Day, P-47s with drop tanks could penetrate only about 100-150 miles less inside Germany than the P-51. Also, when totaling a K/D ratio, you do not include ground kills. K/D applies only to aircombat, not strafing runs.

Well deduct all P-51 destroyed in making the strafing run. The P-51 was vulnerable to ground fire.
For bombers the extra 150 miles of a P-51 meant a lot.
The USAAC used P-47 for close ground support, base protection and P-51 for escort and long range sweeping were they wrong?

ORIGINAL: RAM

The Ki-43 at the time of its introduction was obsolescent. It could be a dangerous foe in a close encounter, true, but as soon as the allied fighter pilots learnt not to close fight them, the Oscar stopped being a real menace.

Someone must not have informed the pilots who fought against it.

I agree on the centrally mounted weapons, but I more or less disagree with anything else. Mostly because if Oscars were obsolescent in 1941-42, the P40s were never anything much better than that...I'd say that even a Sopwith Pup was dangerous for a P40 (hehehehe ) so an Oscar should be an enemy to fear .

Judging from the results, apparantly it was.....and to use a real life example vs your joke....even the Ki-27 proved dangerous in situations.

Now seriously and jokes aside. I'm not fan of the Zero either, and I've always said that if the Zero is the myth it is, it's because it excelled against old and badly flown fighters. But the Zero never achieved air superiority against the F4F, and the F4F was by any standards a quite mediocre fighter performance-wise for 1942. In the end the Zero wasn't exactly the best plane around.

Guess it depends on how you interpret air superiority. But this is an invitation to a distraction. I'll leave it to say that the F4F had, like all airplanes, a balance of strengths and weaknesses.

Finally, that a fighter was better than the Hurricane in the vertical plane isn't something new . Every enemy that little plane met was vastly better in the vertical (even a P40 was!!!), so...

Well you can marginalize it as you see fit. It was but one aspect that the Ki-43 had an edge in, but was not the only one. As for the rest....it comes down to situation and pilot skill.

in fact, it couldn't, Nik. The Ki-43's ailerons were uncontrolable at high indicated speeds. The stick forces were so high that no pilot was able to bank the plane in a high speed dive. Under such circunstances, hitting anything in BnZ style was pretty much impossible.

Then either the Japanese army pilots who achieved hits and kills were supermen, or this is a blanket statement that loses accuracy in it's generality.

As I said if I was in any plane of the allied arsenal and had an Oscar over me all I had to do was to wait until he dived on me, bank towards his direction, and start diving. For the time he has recovered from his dive, I'm far enough to flee.

Not meaning to be intentionally sarcastic....but how easy countermoves sound from the ground. Kind of like monday morning quarterbacking.

I think some of the japanese fighters were among the best of the war...the Ki44, Ki84, J2M or N1K2 were superb designs. But the Ki43 wasn't up to the task.

The historical results dont agree with your conclusion. But then again, i never stated the Ki-43 was one of the outstanding aircraft of WWII....i simply said it was a "fine aircraft" and that it more than ably fullfilled it's tasks at war's start. However it's success would certainly prove short lived and a replacement: (the airplanes you mentioned) were definately needed.

ORIGINAL: madmickey

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

By a few months after D Day, P-47s with drop tanks could penetrate only about 100-150 miles less inside Germany than the P-51. Also, when totaling a K/D ratio, you do not include ground kills. K/D applies only to aircombat, not strafing runs.

Well deduct all P-51 destroyed in making the strafing run. The P-51 was vulnerable to ground fire.
For bombers the extra 150 miles of a P-51 meant a lot.
The USAAC used P-47 for close ground support, base protection and P-51 for escort and long range sweeping were they wrong?

Again, I am not saying the P-51 was a bad fighter. I am saying your claim on its performance is a bit too exaggerated. Please see the post you replied to for an EDIT of new info I found.

Also, the reason the P-47 was "relegated" to the ground role, is because the P-51 couldn't do it as well. The P-47, with a nice large radial engine, could take a beating and keep flying. However, it still continued to engage enemy aircraft on free range sweeps until the last day of the war.

EDIT: in case you don't want to look up:

Just found a great site on the subject of German A/C losses. The losses part only covers September 1943 to October 1944. In those 13 months, the German Luftwaffe lost 35,660 planes to all causes. If we factor a 60% operational loss ratio, and only 40% were to kills, that means in 13 months there were 14,264 a/c lost to aircombat. The P-51 didn't even shoot down 49% of all a/c lost in 13 months (and that figure is a fairly low estimate), let alone 49% of all enemy a/c lost in the war. I'm sorry, but your claim is incorrect.

German Battle of Britain loses 1389. You also want to talk about total planes produced but you want to exclude strafing loses by P-51 and ignore operational losses.

heh heh heh. Ok fine. 1,300 some in the Battle of britain. Look at my other claim of 33,000+. 40% of that (for kills) is 14,000. 49% of that is not 5,000. If you want, I'll lower this figure to 30%, and exclude all other war losses, and it comes out to 10698. 49% of that is 5242, not 4950. Im not counting operational losses, Heck, Im not even counting 4 years of war. I am counting 13 months of combat, and still your claim doesn't hold up.

EDIT. Last time I checked BoB losses to a/c, flak, and such is 2,303. Hence "about 2000" making room for op and flak losses. so half of that, and half of what the Tbolts claim (even though that was 2,000 air, 2 or 4,000 ground), and still your 49% claim doesn't hold up.

Hi again, nik

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


Guess it depends on how you interpret air superiority. But this is an invitation to a distraction. I'll leave it to say that the F4F had, like all airplanes, a balance of strengths and weaknesses.

of course, all planes have strenghts&weaknesses. Designing a fighter is a matter of compromise still today. The F4F strenghts were structural toughness, good high speed controls and good diving and zooming.

However there were quite some planes with those same strenghts (and better at them) while having much better performance figures, flying in 1942.

I hold the opinion that one can't qualify the F4F as anything better than a decent fighter when compared with the other fighters flying at the same time the Wildcat did.

Well you can marginalize it as you see fit. It was but one aspect that the Ki-43 had an edge in, but was not the only one. As for the rest....it comes down to situation and pilot skill.

Well, the Hurri was faster, had much bigger punch, dived and zoomed better and was structurally tougher...of course pilot skill always is significant in air to air fights but if we're comparing planevsplane that shouldn't be a factor to consider.

Then either the Japanese army pilots who achieved hits and kills were supermen, or this is a blanket statement that loses accuracy in it's generality.

in fact none of both. I already said that a Ki43 stuck on your tail at short distance was mostly a death sentence. If the pilot achieved to get there, the kill was his.

What I said in my answer was that BnZ tactics not only didn't suit well with the Oscar...they couldn't be followed at all because stiff controls at high speed.

Not meaning to be intentionally sarcastic....but how easy countermoves sound from the ground. Kind of like monday morning quarterbacking.

sarcasme well taken ...I don't wish to brag but being directed at someone who was lucky enough (and a bit skilled enough, too) to shoot down Mr. Robert Shaw in an online WW2-vintage high-realism air simulator as Aces High (starting with him on a superior plane on my tail), it loses a bit of strenght...doesn't it?

believe me...I quite know a bit about WW2 air combat environment, tactics and maneouvers. I don't have just read about it, I have experienced it, even if in a low-intensive environment as an Air simulator is. I will never try to say I'm a great pilot because of a PC simulator as that is plainly stupid, however if the sim is realistic enough, it serves great to learn and understand the strenghts&weaknesses of each plane and how to fight or flee from your enemies.

The tactic I described you actually WORKED against Ki43s...given, of course, that the Oscar is spotted with enough time to set up the defensive moves. And that was another reason of many OScar victories...they got the enemy's tail before he realized it...and kaboom. But that was true for almost every fighter of WW2 that achieved to tail his enemy without him noticing it.

The historical results dont agree with your conclusion. But then again, i never stated the Ki-43 was one of the outstanding aircraft of WWII....i simply said it was a "fine aircraft" and that it more than ably fullfilled it's tasks at war's start. However it's success would certainly prove short lived and a replacement: (the airplanes you mentioned) were definately needed.

historical results might be heavily misleading as I already told Madmickey. That the Ki-84 or the N1K2 didn't achieve great results while the Ki-43 did (on the opening stages of the war) doesnt mean they were crap designs and the Oscar a great one. By the time the Frank and the George saw combat they were grossly outnumbered, mostly flown by unexperienced pilots, and flying on low octane fuel which impaired their performances. Hard to get good results out from them.

in contrast the Oscars were flown by battle-hardened pilots in the opening stages of the war against mostly outdated designs flown by pilots who were extremely green. So, the numbers they achieved were great. As soon as the oposition started flying in better planes and with capable pilots, the Oscar stopped being a menace because it simply wasn't a capable enough fighter.

BTW "stopped being a menace" doesn't mean the Oscar turned into a friendly flying clown with propeller on his nose. The plane could still kill their foes if the circumstances were right. But then again soviet Polikarpovs did also kill quite some Bf109s during Barbarossa and I hope noone tries to tell me they were a true menace for the messerschmitts by that date...

ORIGINAL: RAM

I hold the opinion that one can't qualify the F4F as anything better than a decent fighter when compared with the other fighters flying at the same time the Wildcat did.

Thats fine. I hold the opinion that the Ki-43 was a decent fighter 'at the time' as well vs. "rubbish", and it's impact on the battlefield and the historical results support this.

Well, the Hurri was faster, had much bigger punch, dived and zoomed better and was structurally tougher...of course pilot skill always is significant in air to air fights but if we're comparing planevsplane that shouldn't be a factor to consider.

And the Ki-43 accelerated faster, could climb better, turn better and had superior all around maneverability unless one was talking a power dive. You cant seperate the pilot issue any more than you can seperate the tactical sitaution when talking plane vs plane, otherwise you end up with a sterile comparison only appropriate for a flight simm where most scenerios involve "duels"

in fact none of both. I already said that a Ki43 stuck on your tail at short distance was mostly a death sentence. If the pilot achieved to get there, the kill was his.

What I said in my answer was that BnZ tactics not only didn't suit well with the Oscar...they couldn't be followed at all because stiff controls at high speed.

What 'I' said was that an Oscar, as with a Zero could preform energy tactics. You are interpreting that as trying to follow an Allied fighter in a fast zoom dive, something that neither plane could do well. That is a far cry from being able to dive and bounce an opponent, which both planes could do and did do during the fighting.

sarcasme well taken ...I don't wish to brag but being directed at someone who was lucky enough (and a bit skilled enough, too) to shoot down Mr. Robert Shaw in an online WW2-vintage high-realism air simulator as Aces High (starting with him on a superior plane on my tail), it loses a bit of strenght...doesn't it?

Congratulations. I'm happy for you that you managed to win an air simm mock battle. What does this have to do with the subject of calling the Ki-43 "rubbish"?

The tactic I described you actually WORKED against Ki43s...given, of course, that the Oscar is spotted with enough time to set up the defensive moves. And that was another reason of many OScar victories...they got the enemy's tail before he realized it...and kaboom. But that was true for almost every fighter of WW2 that achieved to tail his enemy without him noticing it.

I never said this escape tactic would not work with sufficient warning. However its when such a tactic is inflated to the point where someone says, oh.....i'm facing [insert plane]? no problem, all i have to do is [insert tactic]....problem solved.

Fighter combat doesn't work that way. Maybe it does in air simm duels....but not in real life.

historical results might be heavily misleading as I already told Madmickey. in contrast the Oscars were flown by battle-hardened pilots in the opening stages of the war against mostly outdated designs flown by pilots who were extremely green. So, the numbers they achieved were great. As soon as the oposition started flying in better planes and with capable pilots, the Oscar stopped being a menace because it simply wasn't a capable enough fighter.

The Allied opposition over Malaya was a mixture of green and battle hardened veterans from the BoB. Other factors were present as well, some of which i've already mentioned. The AVG were present as well [in Burma] and while lacking actual battle experience were the best trained in terms of using the energy tactics described herin. Initially, they fared no better than the RAF. You cannot seperate the attributes of the planes from these factors. The Japanese still needed a high preformance fighter in order to assure success in these operations.

To reitterate, i'm not nominating the Ki-43 for plane of the year. I'm simply stating that the plane was not rubbish, to be discounted once more intell about the craft was available. You can discount the historical data. My research led me to rethink my initial appraisal of the aircraft.

I'm an Allied fanboy but KI-43s should not be outclassed by I-153cs and I-16cs with Chinese pilots. Period! They should be able to hold their own vs similar aircraft of the day (P40Bs, P-43s, Hurricanes, Buffaloes etc.) as well for many reasons.

Maneuverability. Although it had underwhelming firepower, it was capable of getting onto a planes tail for long enough to pump out a few bursts and be able to shake off less maneuverable adversaries. C'mon guys, the boom and zoom arguement may work vs bombers, but fighters? Should be taking less losses here.

Experience. Japanese IJA pilots were as good as or better than their adversaries during 41-42.

Tactics. Many keep quoting how certain tactics and lessons learned outstripped the Ki-43s dogfighting ability. Fine, but where was this learned? Over Burma, Malaya, PI etc. during 41-42. This should not be affecting the Ki-43s performance during the first six months or so of the game. The Zero advantage should apply to all Japanese fighters given the fact that many allied pilots died "dogfighting" these very planes.

Needs further study and tweaking. Maybe the planes specs don't need work, but the early war bonusshould be granted I believe. Oh, and I still think the AVG pilots are benefitting with their high experience levels in the game. What's the big love affair with these GAWDS anyway? These guys are ranked right up there with the career prewar USN jocks, Luftwaffe veterans, RAF veterans etc. Hollywood strikes again.[X(]

No offense Ron, but the AVG Group scored 286 Japanese planes for 12 of their own KIA. Hollywood or not, that is still a very impressive score. [;)]

I agree though about the 6 month bonus rule for the Japanese. Franks need to be put into the Oscar's upgrade path also. A lot of the Oscar units were destroyed so of course their upgrade paths aren't modeled in.

Actually...they didn't.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
Thats fine. I hold the opinion that the Ki-43 was a decent fighter 'at the time' as well vs. "rubbish", and it's impact on the battlefield and the historical results support this.

Don't agree. But we can be sending quotes to each other for the rest of the month, and I think we woudln't still agree. You base your opinion on the Oscar results during the first 12 months of the war. I base my opinion on the Oscar quality as a fighter vs the allied fighter arsenal...that will always lead to different conclussions, so it's not quite useful to keep on debating it...

Anyway multiple opinions are something that enrich us...and give us the chance to hold this kind of interesting debates . I don't agree on your point of view, but I respect it, Nik, even when I'm trying to support another completely different opinion on the plane

And the Ki-43 accelerated faster, could climb better, turn better and had superior all around maneverability unless one was talking a power dive.

superior all-around maneouverability isn't true. At high speed the Oscar was VERY hard to maneouver. (and I'm not talking about power dives where it could't be maneouvered at all).

however what WW2 air combat proved, as did Korea and Vietnam, was that better climbrate, acceleration and turnrate at low speeds, weren't as important in a fighter as Dive, Zoom, firepower and hispeed maneouverability. And on those departments the Hurri (and almost any allied fighter) was quite superior to the Oscar. To make another comparison the Fw190A3 was considered as immensely superior to the Spit V, a plane which was thought as be totally outclassed by the Würger...and the Spit V had better acceleration, climbrate and low speed maneouverability...

You cant seperate the pilot issue any more than you can seperate the tactical sitaution when talking plane vs plane, otherwise you end up with a sterile comparison only appropriate for a flight simm where most scenerios involve "duels"

up to a point this is what we're doing here, comparing one plane with another as an one on one machine. As I said the Spitfire V was vastly outclassed by the 190, a fact supported by everyone who flew in WW2. However if a flight of four Fw190s was suprised by 16 Spit Vs flying 4000 feet higher,more probably than not the 190s would lose the fight. However the 190 would STILL be a best fighter than the Spitfire V no matter it lost that encounter. Hope you understand what I want to mean here.

As such,too, a Spit V piloted by an expert pilot probably would win vs a Fw190 piloted by a novice. However that STILL doesn't mean anything for qualifying one plane as better than another. So in a plane vs plane comparison the tactical situation and relative piltot quality of the engagement should be left out of the equation to reach an accurate and objective conclussion about which plane is better...

What 'I' said was that an Oscar, as with a Zero could preform energy tactics. You are interpreting that as trying to follow an Allied fighter in a fast zoom dive, something that neither plane could do well. That is a far cry from being able to dive and bounce an opponent, which both planes could do and did do during the fighting.

Ok, then let me rephrase the sentence. The Oscar wasn't very successful at bouncing enemies because it's inherent horrible hispeed maneouvering qualities.

Better that way? .

Congratulations. I'm happy for you that you managed to win an air simm mock battle. What does this have to do with the subject of calling the Ki-43 "rubbish"?

nothing, but it has quite a lot to do with your affirmation that "how easy countermoves sound from the ground. Kind of like monday morning quarterbacking.". If I'm saying what I'm saying is because I know about air combat tactics and stuff, and have put it in practice in an environment where, if you don't dominate it, you won't get any kind of success. I did have quite success in it. In a realistic air simulator you won't achieve to be an excellent pilot, but you can learn, understand, and master, a lot of real life combat tactics, maneouvers, offensive and defensive moves, and disengagement strategies.

I never said this escape tactic would not work with sufficient warning. However its when such a tactic is inflated to the point where someone says, oh.....i'm facing [insert plane]? no problem, all i have to do is [insert tactic]....problem solved.

Fighter combat doesn't work that way. Maybe it does in air simm duels....but not in real life.

bassically this is right. If the pilot of a P40, for instance, sees a Ki43 higher readying himself to dive, and times the moves I described with the dive of the Oscar, he will save his a$$. The Oscar simply can't follow such a move (in fact a Zero mostly couldn't either), and this kind of disengagement tactic was used in real life with exceptional success by the allied pilots facing Oscar or Zeros.

So fighter combat DOES work that way...because in real life this tactic was standard (diving and changing direction at speeds where the japanese fighters couldn't follow, and disengaging), and worked neatly...so in real life it WORKED that way .

The Allied opposition over Malaya was a mixture of green and battle hardened veterans from the BoB. Other factors were present as well, some of which i've already mentioned. The AVG were present as well and while lacking actual battle experience were the best trained in terms of using the energy tactics described herin. Initially, they fared no better than the RAF. You cannot seperate the attributes of the planes from these factors. The Japanese still needed a high preformance fighter in order to assure success in these operations.

and which kind of planes were at malaya? Buffalos? Blenheims?. You qualify it as a decent opposition?.

the AVG I already said was well trained and ready to mix it up vs the japanese because they had learnt enough of japanese tactics to know how to fly their planes. And the AVG fared really well against the Oscar...in a not-that-extraordinary plane as the P40.

To reitterate, i'm not nominating the Ki-43 for plane of the year. I'm simply stating that the plane was not rubbish, to be discounted once more intell about the craft was available. You can discount the historical data. My research led me to rethink my initial appraisal of the aircraft.

for early 1942 the Oscar was outperformed by almost every of its contemporaries, which, too, had better qualities for the kind of fight which mattered in WW2: High speed fighting, Boom'n'Zoom, and Hit'n'Run tactics, all of them where the Oscar sucked bad.

I can't see the way to not qualify it as rubbish...even with its initial successes.

ORIGINAL: RAM

Don't agree. But we can be sending quotes to each other for the rest of the month, and I think we woudln't still agree. You base your opinion on the Oscar results during the first 12 months of the war. I base my opinion on the Oscar quality as a fighter vs the allied fighter arsenal...that will always lead to different conclussions, so it's not quite useful to keep on debating it...

If you like i can post you the numbers.

superior all-around maneouverability isn't true. At high speed the Oscar was VERY hard to maneouver. (and I'm not talking about power dives where it could't be maneouvered at all).

This is incorrect.

however what WW2 air combat proved, as did Korea and Vietnam, was that better climbrate, acceleration and turnrate at low speeds, weren't as important in a fighter as Dive, Zoom, firepower and hispeed maneouverability.

In the end they were not as important. Neither could they be discounted.

up to a point this is what we're doing here, comparing one plane with another as an one on one machine.

Correction. 'You' are attempting to make a side by side comparison between plane states. I am analysing the plane's historical preformance as well as it's states and also examining the real life conditions by which the combat was fought.

Ok, then let me rephrase the sentence. The Oscar wasn't very successful at bouncing enemies because it's inherent horrible hispeed maneouvering qualities.

Better that way? .

nope. [;)]

nothing, but it has quite a lot to do with your affirmation that "how easy countermoves sound from the ground. Kind of like monday morning quarterbacking.". If I'm saying what I'm saying is because I know about air combat tactics and stuff, and have put it in practice in an environment where, if you don't dominate it, you won't get any kind of success. I did have quite success in it. In a realistic air simulator.

If i have to choose between research and a person's impressioned garnared from an "air simm" whose attributes and qualities cannot be confirmed or assertained....i'll take the research. My opinion of course....but thats just me.

bassically this is right. If the pilot of a P40, for instance, sees a Ki43 higher readying himself to dive, and times the moves I described with the dive of the Oscar, he will save his a$$. The Oscar simply can't follow such a move (in fact a Zero mostly couldn't either), and this kind of disengagement tactic was used in real life with exceptional success by the allied pilots facing Oscar or Zeros.

So fighter combat DOES work that way...because in real life this tactic was standard (diving and changing direction at speeds where the japanese fighters couldn't follow, and disengaging), and worked neatly...so in real life it WORKED that way .

You misunderstood me. I said fighter combat doesn't work in the simplisitic manner you are describing at all times. Any fighter pilot in any plane, with 360 degree hindsight and advance knowledge and sufficient time will usually be able to counter the moves of another.....unless the circumstances are different...or more complicated. Diving out of combat is all fine and dandy...unless by doing so you are abandoning your mission.

and which kind of planes were at malaya? Buffalos? Blenheims?. You qualify it as a decent opposition?.

You forgot the Hurricanes and P-40E's. The planes had the ability to win battles if the tactical situation was favorable and the pilots qualified enough.

the AVG I already said was well trained and ready to mix it up vs the japanese because they had learnt enough of japanese tactics to know how to fly their planes. And the AVG fared really well against the Oscar...in a not-that-extraordinary plane as the P40.

Not intially. Ironically...neither did they fare all the well against Ki-27's either. The P40E would also not be considered one of the "Greats", but it too was a solid capable aircraft.

for early 1942 the Oscar was outperformed by almost every of its contemporaries, which, too, had better qualities for the kind of fight which mattered in WW2: High speed fighting, Boom'n'Zoom, and Hit'n'Run tactics, all of them where the Oscar sucked bad.

Again, i suggest you read up on the actual fighting. I recommend Shores "Bloody shambles" The Oscar, for all your negative appraisals, was the most successful plane in terms of kills. It's principle target....the Hurricane.

I can't see the way to not qualify it as rubbish...even with its initial successes.

You are entitled to your opinion [:)]

to evade an Oscar (or a Zero, for that matter) you only had to point your plane downwards.

Beyond all your other observations about the plane's lousy dive and high-speed maneuevrability, the max airspeed IIRC of 310 mph made it one of the easier planes to leave in the dust. To evade one of these a P40, P36, or F4F only had to open the throttle and run don't walk away.

I don't think is undervalued. The Oscar was probably one of the most rubbish fighters of WW2.

[&o]

This topic is heating up nicely [;)]

In general, while I agree the Oscar (at least the Ib) is not all that good, my general observation is that it is a bit more poor than it out should be. I'm using it almost exclusively in China and Burma, going against mostly those worthless Chinese things and mostly Buffaloes and few Hurricanes. It should at least hold it's own there but it seems as though it doesn't. I've worked my way into May in a couple of my games by now so I have a fairly long term persepective (getting close to the scheduled Oscar upgrades now available in Lemur).

Question is, are the database number for this airframe a bit off or it is the air combat resolution system that is a bit off? My other air combat results "seem" OK to me, indicating a modest database alteration may be the "fix". Those hypothetical bi-plane results Tankerace mentioned would be interesting to see.....