Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Sneer

the reason was fuel consumption
ME 262 had fuel for 30 minutes of flight only

They had a better range than the 109 series. He said the passes were tighter than thirty minutes too. More like ten. They would extend and come back immediately for a second pass, no doubt to keep fighters from being vectored to their position. This was late in 1945.

Most fighters were rated for 30 minutes combat (WEP) when ranges were put in documentation. But that didn't limit any aircraft to 30 minutes combat.

Worr, out

ME262 had fuel for 30 minuts flight not combat
read more carefully

Sneer,

Not sure why the invitation to read more carefully. No mistake was printed above. The 262 did have better range than the 109. Probaby the blow past here is you are using time I'm using distance. However I find your 30 minutes a bit odd when you consider the range was 600-650 miles and even at top speed that would be more than an hour.

I've actually toured this plant. You can look at their powerplant data:

http://www.stormbirds.com/project/techn ... ical_3.htm

Either way, I hardly see how the impact of the ME-262 says something about the A6M5 or B17s should be expected to be obliberated in a single raid. Do you agree with that statement?

Worr, out

request apologize Worr
checked data - must missed with sth else - need to find that damned book

I suppose the reason was either ammo (no rockets on the ME-262) or because they assumed P-51s would soon be on the tails. Eitgher way, they continued the missio.

worr,
Firs of all,ME-262 has rockets.
Second,P-51 is no match for ME-262,P-51 can kill ME'262 only when in landing procedure.
Third,ME-262 was the best fighter of WW2

The fighter version, named Schwalbe (swallow), was armed with four 30mm guns in the nose, giving it an enormous punch which easily destroyed a heavy bomber, and also a stand-off firing range advantage vs. the bombers' defensive weapons. Before the end of the war it was also armed with R4M unguided 50mm air-to-air rockets, which also proved very lethal against bomber formations, also from stand-off range.

Read this.

What does any of this have to do with whether Zero's can destroy large quantities of B-17's or B-29's?

I'm pretty sure the 190 and 262 were the best bomber killers in WWII, but neither of them are japanese. (they're only the best because there were no masses of Axis bombers to test out Allied bomber killers)

100 Zero's vs 50 B-17's should result in at least 80% of the bombers making it home. I think that's the best the Germans could do, and they were better at it than the Japanese. Comparing Pacific bomber losses to European bomber losses is rediculous.

This thread does not convince me that something is broken.

However, I do have a gut feel that level bomber attacks on military targets (ships, airfields, LCU's and ports) are too effective. (maybe it's ok with the 1.6 changes) And, I have a gut feel that level bomber attacks on city targets are way too ineffective. (probably much worse with the 1.6 changes) I say "gut feel" because I have not looked up sources to see what effects should be nor have I actually tested it in WITP. Derek is doing some of that in his game vs the AI. Apollo has done some of it too. I think more needs to be done.

ORIGINAL: hawker

Second,P-51 is no match for ME-262,P-51 can kill ME'262 only when in landing procedure.

By 1945 it wasn't an issue of quality but quantity.

The best fighter is usually the one above you. Energy is life...jet or no jet.

ME-262s were destroyed other than in the landing pattern or on the ground as well.

I still fail to see the connect between the ME-262 and the A6M

Worr, out

ORIGINAL: Sneer

request apologize Worr
checked data - must missed with sth else - need to find that damned book

Forgiven.

Thanks, Sneer.

I also do not see a huge problem with 4-E bomber losses. It seems for every Zero 2-3 Zeros I lose, only 1 B-17 falls. Most of the time, they just sail on through. I routinely have my bases shut down after only 1-2 days of attacks. While depressing, this is a fairly accurate depiction of events from the war.

The biggest issue I have is what the 4-E bombers has do to surface ships. Their accuracy on manuevering ships was TERRIBLE! I mean, specifically, warships. Transports, Oilers, and Feighters were not easy to hit but DID get nailed periodically. Warships, on the other hand, could HARDLY be hit.

I KNOW that this has been discussed over and over within the forums but I just wanted to say my peace.

BTW...when I said (no rockets on the ME 262) I meant they broke combat because they had none..not because they couldn't physically carry them. Most ME-262s did not carry them into combat.

Like many changes in tactics, like window, it was effective at first, but then adjustments were made and it proved ineffective. The 30mm was deadly, and so most like commanders opped for the cannon attack over the rocket attack for practical reasons.

Sneer, I got to thinking about your book and the thirty minute comment. Perhaps it was speaking of the ME-163 commet? It had about 10 minutes of fuel, and would make its attack and landing as a glider. So it could have been 30 minutes total time.

But again...the question still stands. How does this fit the A6M?

Worr, out

worr,
i am not talking about quantity,i talk about quality.
If you refer to quantity than Sherman is the best tank of WW2,truth is that "tin can" like Sherman could fire whole day to Tiger only to scratch his paint[;)].Same as aircrafts,ME-262 was too much for P-51 in every aspect of fight,except in numbers.
So,my point is quality not quantity.
You are right,quantity wins over quality but with great losses.
Examples:
-Bismarck against whole brittish "home fleet"
-Sherman,T-34 against any german tank
-P-51 against ME-262
-4E bombers in WITP against anything[;)]
You have countless examples...

ORIGINAL: hawker

worr,
i am not talking about quantity,i talk about quality.

Naturally!

But you were commenting on my conversation with my friend who flew B24s and watched the ME 262s making their passes among his formation. He most certainly belived they buggered out because fighter cover was above. He witnessed this twice on two separate occasions...and had the same opinion. It was Spring 45. Now, he may have been wrong. But I think any ME 262 had to respect the flow of battle enough to get out when they could.

They were not invincible. And they certainly didn't obliberate bomber formations. You would agree, hawker, no?

The Americans had a unique system of radio vectoring that late in the war also. Just like you can outrun a police car, but not a police radio, so too these pilots probably figured they were overdue for departure.

I've read similiar actions involving ME 262s and B17s. This story rings true. They made a couple passes and left. Their attacks were devistating, but also concentrated. 1000 bomber raids might see a handful of these jets at a time.

Hawker, could you explain how this connects with the A6M?

worr,
i am talking what if...

1 ME-262 against 1 P-51

Result P-51 shot down,ME'262 going home.
Agree?
There is lot of lucky things in WW2,Midway,Stalingrad,Leyte....
All this things could change the course of war,but in WITP 4E set the course of war in one direction.

No I don't agree. I'll take the plane that has altitude. You ever dog fight in a real aircraft before?

Now answer my two questions above and we'll be even.

I actually was pilot on MiG 21 of Croatia airforce during the war in my country but i never has a fight against other aircraft.Only combat trinings.Also,i was pilot on MI-8 helicopters.
Do you have similar experience?

Not exactly during the war,little after[;)].

Yea, PP for about ten years. Dog fighter was for giggles in military trainers. When you take the raw numbers for the two aircraft and put them into a sim you get an interesting fight. But yes, the higher plane wins. No fighter vs fighter engagement is a done deal. ME 262 had speed and fire power, but not manuverability and range. I still give the nod to the fighter with altitude.

Hawker, can you connect A6M vs B-17 with the ME 262 vs 4E bomber? I'm still at a loss how this matters.

Also, do you agree even at its best the B-17 was never "obliberated." Yes, no?

The B-17s in Europe were in fact deterred at times from attack. Not from aprticular attacks, true, but there were cases where they were stood down becauase they could not maintain the operational loss rate.

Losing 10% per attack was not sustainable, for example. Yes, the aprticualr attack would get through, but in an operational sense, that loss rate is a victory for the defender.

I also do not see a huge problem with 4-E bomber losses. It seems for every Zero 2-3 Zeros I lose, only 1 B-17 falls. Most of the time, they just sail on through. I routinely have my bases shut down after only 1-2 days of attacks. While depressing, this is a fairly accurate depiction of events from the war.

I agree with you on this point. The B-17 was an extremely durable bomber and very difficult to shoot down but it just wasn't as effective in the Pacific as it was in Europe becuase it was designed for strategic bombing, not the tactical type found in the Pacific. It was effective in Europe primarily because the US was able to mass it against strategic targets. They simply bombed the crap out of everything within a couple of miles of the target. Precise it was not. The Pacific simply did not have a need for hundreds of bombers bombing a single airfield. And from everything I've read, the US was lucky to be able to put more than 30 of them on any one raid. Even then, they were often sent out in long strings of aircraft as they were capable of defending themselves against Japanese fighters for the most part.

I do think they are much too effective in WitP against ships at sea. They would have a better chance of hitting ships docked or at anchor but the ship's dispersion should ensure that only a relatively small number of bombs actually hit. IRL, B-17s never hit any ship that was underway from any altitude above 3000 feet. The were used in a limited fashion to skipbomb but the B-25 and fighterbombers were much more effective in that role due to their maneuverability. They could be very effective against land targets but generally required a large number of them to be so. The B-24 had the same basic limitations except that had a better range and load.

Defensively, I think it is modeled pretty well. It should be able to withstand most fighter attacks. They were often damaged but seldom brought down. My PBEM game (I'm Japanese) reflects this fairly well. I can engage 80 B-17s with 50 fighters and end up downing 1 or 2 B-17s and damage 15-20 others while losing 10-15 fighters. I think that is fairly realistic (much to my chagrin)[:@]

IMO, the problem with B-17s or B-24s isn't their effectiveness against fighters or land bombing so much as it is the abnormally high replacement rate. This rate should reflect what was actually available as replacements to Pacific theater forces, not the USAAF as a whole. A rate of 20-30 per month is probably realistic for the B-17 and 30-40 a month for the B-24.

Chez