Matrix Games Forums

Not sure Nik and Chez are actually around to joust any more this evening ...

I'm still here. I wouldn't miss this for the world. Sorry, Brad and Andy, you'll have to wait for your turns.

Again, EARLY WAR results do not indicate that the Japanese could predictably deliver a tactical drubbing except in cases where they caught enemy fighters at a severe positional disadvantage -- landing, taking off, etc.

And did those early war results indicate that during this same period the Allies could predictably deliver a tactical drubbing except in cases where they caught the enmy fighters at a sever positional disadvantage -- landing, taking off, etc.

The problem is that the ONLY actions in which the Zeros fought F4Fs are ones from April onward. It is illogical to conclude that the fact that the only data is from April and onward implies that for the period in which there is no data one would expect something statistically different than from the period for which we have data.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you can extrapolate data from a later period and apply it to early periods for which there is no data. Really, only a statistician would make that assumption when discussing real life issues. Isn't that kind of like saying that if I have $100 in my bank account yesterday and I had $100 in my account the day before yesterday, then I must have had $100 in my account last week?

Of course, this logic fails to account for the truely dismal performance of the US carriers with overwhelming numerical superiority against a surprised enemy flying A5M Claudes during the Marshal Islands raids in Feb 42. And the poor performance mounted by the Brits at Rangoon and Singapore. And surely Singapore hadn't run out of parts yet when her air force was decimated. How do you account for those performances?

Chez said:

Of course, mdiehl still hasn't purchased the game

Non sequitur, ad hominem.

Ad hominem and non-sequitar? It's not non-sequitar that you don't own the game, that you have played but a few months vs the AI on an earlier release? How is that not germane? How long ago did you actually play it? What version was it?

And how is that a personal attack? My god, TJ taught you well! Seems to me that it is about the same as you saying someone's car is crap because you drove an earlier model around the block once.

Through roughly May 1942. Turns enough to know that the model was consistently producing results that absurdly favored the Japanese and good enough to dismiss the model as critically flawed.

If it doesn't favor the Japanese with their numerical advantage early on (if nothing else were to apply), when should it? Oh, wait. I forgot. The Japanese never had an advantage in man or machine. They got all their advantages through surprise, guile and huge stockpiles of material. They really never needed the tip of the spear.

Another thought occurred to me as to why you have so much against the game. Could it be that the AI was whipping your butt? Tell me that's not so as everyone knows the AI isn't exactly challenging.

quote:

According to mdiehl that one point of maneuverability afforded by the Zero Bonus in April 42 must be the cause of everything that's wrong with the game. How can it not be otherwise?

Stick to representing your own opinions. You're not qualified to represent mine. According to mdiehl, whom I personally know, the Zero Bonus is a contributing factor to a broken air combat model. Mdiehl assures me that the existence of the Zero Bonus as a contributing factor does not preclude any inferences that there may be other flaws as well.

Must have touched a nerve... Just simply regurgitating what you have previously posted. You continuely bring up the Zero bonus as an example of what is wrong with the game so I ntaurally thought you felt that way. Sorry if I stepped on your toes.

What? I believe I said that the Oscar was inferior to most Allied planes and couldn't hold its own in a campaign unless the enemy was isolated from their supply lines. Since that is exactly what happned "in real life" you would seem to be arguing against yourself. The Zero was a better plane. Again, not a superior one. And its pilots not particularly superior to any Allied pilots.

Oh, now it's "couldn't hold its own in a campaign." Funny, outside of the AVG, it seems to have performed well enough... for an inferior aircraft.

How many Allied pilots flew from Saigon? From Pnom Penh? Tainan? Truk? Rabaul? prior to March 1942. The only decent Allied airbases that the Japanese *ever* operated from were Clark Field and Singapore. And these only after the campaigns were over. The Allied tenure at these bases is best characterized as one of logistical isolation. Japanese pilots did not face that sort of challenge until the New Guinea campaign began to heat up.

With the rapidity of the Japanese conquests, most of those airfields became tactically useless and they had to make do with captured airstrips with little ability to rapidly improve them beyond filling in bomb damage. Plus the Japanese put little effort into what overseas airfields they held prior to the war. The vast majority were grass strips with few major structures. You seem to give them a lot of undue credit in SE Asia considering that they had occupied them only a short time before the war started.

Read the account of the Japanese pilots who flew the missions against POW and Repulse. Their airbase was hardly modern. Saigon and its neighboring airfield, Thu Dau Moi were both grass strips prone to flooding in the monsoons. Truk's was coral. Vunakanau, the largest japanese airbase at Rabaul was originally built by the Aussies and it was grass also. The Japanese expanded it but never laid a prepared surface.

Regardless, the fact is that your opinions are not shared by any here. We know the flaws of the game more than you ever will. No one is saying that the game is perfect. Indeed it is far from perfect but Matrix and many volunteers have put a lot of time and effort into improving it. Many issues have been addressed through patches. That doesn't include the CHS, Nik and RHS mods that address many aspects of the game. Indeed, I'm finding CHS scenario 159 to be quite historically accurate. And I find the game very enjoyable as do many others. And that seems to be a peculiar purpose of yours... that of attempting to denigrate that which you so obviously despise. So tell me, to what purpose do you cast your negative opinions on a forum for a game you don't own, that you don't play and that you obviously can't stand? Or am I missing something?

Chez

Good stuff!!!

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

What are you smokin'?

[8|]

If this becomes a flamewar I'm gonna enjoy reading about how it's all Doggie's fault. [;)]

[:D]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
You and I both know that your claim is incorrect. I've done the complete referenced argument on this at least three times now. Originally in the GGPW threads almost five years ago, at which time the same general engagement was fought.

Not incorrect. You've said much the same as you've said here and little of it backed up with actual facts. The times you "cite" Lundstrom are invariably wrong or distorted....such as your claim that the USN scored better @ Coral Sea or that the Japanese didn't use high energy tactics. Both wrong. You can purchase them of course and see for yourself.



No personal attacks have been made by me and nothing untrue has been written by me. At last not consciously.

[/quote]

really;

Every time we've had this dispute in the past and I've ponied up you've clammed up. Only to later return to your same claim. At this point, I don't feel obliged to go to the trouble

This is an untrue statement.....made about me. Your skimming the line again. Apparently you didn't learn from your last run in with Joe. Of course you are free to continue claiming that you've cited this and proven that in the past. Words are easy. This is the present however..and in this thread you've offered nothing but words. Your claims in Lundstrom's name are inaccurate and we are still waiting for you to pony up.

I don't think anyone can rationally claim that the Darwin Raid, Clark, or PH strikes represent situations where pilots and planes met on anything like equal terms where doctrine and training and experience and machines could make a difference.

In other words, you don't have the figures I asked for in Post # 67. Thats too bad. Not surprising though

Sure. Stated another way, "depending on the circumstances, Allied planes were better."

If it suits you. Mind you it didn't happen very often in the early go.

In which assessment I think he is somewhat correct. The Allies had anticipated a substantial clean sweep. What they got, by their own official estimates, was something in the range of a 2-3:1 favorable kill ratio.

They didn't get it in the SRA. They didn't get it at Coral Sea. They did win the overall ratio battle for Midway....mainly due to Thach's actions which i've covered. That btw was in answer to post #45 where you incorrectly claimed:

At Midway, the few engagements between A6Ms and F4Fs occurred at the extreme operational range of USN F4Fs, yet the F4Fs won by a large margin, despite the fact that the Zeroes were neither surprised nor outnumbered.

Thach wrote as much in his summary in (IIRC) September 1942 -- that superior Allied training allowed Allies to maintain a favorable attrition rate despite poor acceleration in the F4F.

What Thach wrote was "The Grumman F4F Wildcat was pitiflly inferior in climb, maneuverability and speed" His accessment of the enemy's pilot skills was not atypical of what each side thought of the other. The 3:1 they thought they were winning came from Nimitz. He thought the alleged ratio might arise from superior training (his opinion based on reports received) but he also noted it might, if true have as much to do with self sealing tanks and armor. Thach clearly was not happy with the Wildcat not because of any alleged kill ratio (of which the Japanese didn't concern themselves with...they were concerned with mission success) but because he and his pilots had a plane that couldn't dictate terms to the Zero and forced them to often fight defensively. It didn't allow them to do their full jobs.

The Oscar was a POS. The AVG fought Oscars and lesser material. The AVG weren't aces, or even a particularly cohesive bunch as compared with regular army aviators or USN ones. Even discounting overclaims, their kill ratio was on the order of 20:1 (lower than the 60:1 ballpark estimates that you get from some official unit histories).

No....the Oscar was a formidable plane. The AVG and 67 Squadron were best positioned and in the AVG's case trained to deal with the Japanese attack. They did not score a 20:1 ratio but they did do the best of all the airgroups during the SRA campaign and the first offensive into Burma. I'm still waiting for your figures. Please start with Malaya.

No. I mean Guadalcanal, the place where Japanese fighters had something like 15 minutes of "safe" flight time within operational limits in a war in which most combats were won and lost in three minutes. In any case your argument is a straw man argument.

No straw. Spoken words....by Lundstrom as well as Richard Frank. The Japanese were fighting an air campaign at a distance greater than a trip by the 8th AF to Berlin with a fraction of the resources available to the 8th, with limited time and fuel to try to get the job done.

I also mean the Guadalcanal where Allied pilots were bombarded night and day by light mortars, field artillery, and IJN guns. The claim that the Japanese suffered particularly disadvantageous positional circumstances in the Solomons campaign has no merit.

Nope. The Japanese did not have the resources to do much more than light harrasements using a couple of army guns and the occasional pinprick air attack. The pilots were not in the trenches fighting. They rested and conserved their strength to counter the daily air raids. Conditions were tough....but far tougher for the Japanese who never had even a fraction of the supplies they needed to live much less fight on the Island. The pilots of course had to flying in the air sometimes with wounds for hours while the US pilots landed and conserved strength.

Of course, mdiehl still hasn't purchased the game

Non sequitur, ad hominem.
[/quote]

Relevent given this is a game board devoted to "War in the Pacific" If your not here off and on 4+ years for it, then the question naturally arrises, why are you here.

The problem is that the ONLY actions in which the Zeros fought F4Fs are ones from April onward. It is illogical to conclude that the fact that the only data is from April and onward implies that for the period in which there is no data one would expect something statistically different than from the period for which we have data.

You keep saying there is no data....yet this doesn't stop you from stating authoritively about how the Japanese won their early air battles (including other airframe types). There is data and I have it. I'd like to compare notes. Will you please cite your data?

According to mdiehl that one point of maneuverability afforded by the Zero Bonus in April 42 must be the cause of everything that's wrong with the game. How can it not be otherwise?

What? I believe I said that the Oscar was inferior to most Allied planes and couldn't hold its own in a campaign unless the enemy was isolated from their supply lines. Since that is exactly what happned "in real life" you would seem to be arguing against yourself. The Zero was a better plane. Again, not a superior one. And its pilots not particularly superior to any Allied pilots.

Incorrect. The "Enemy" was not isolated from their supply lines in Burma and the Oscar dominated over the Hurricanes right up to the end till replaced by more advanced airframes such as the Spitfire VIII. Even then air superiority was not immediately won till the numbers disperity grew to epic preportions.

He claims that surprise, tactical advantage, prewar planning, logisitics, and better airfields (of course he forgets that those "better" airfields were the same ones the allies flew from just a few days/weeks earlier) were all responsible for what few successes he claims they had...

These factors were part of it. These same factors assist all airforces though for some reason it seems we should discount the Japanese themselves. Anyway.... the quality of the pilots also contributed greatly (Shores) as did the quality of their aircraft (Shores/Lundstrom) They weren't super planes but they were not POS either.

ORIGINAL: m10bob
What are you smokin'?

mdiehl has long held this position and has backed it up with 'data'... at least as far back as some old PACWAR discussions. Is he correct... I don't know. Does he make some good points... I believe so.

Whether he is right or wrong isn’t as relevant as the fact he is presenting a serious, solid, and well structured argument.


IMO

Guys guys.. can someone explain me this?

All this talk about Zero vs. F4F and the zero bonus. But as far as I know no A6M2 vs. F4F engagements happened before coral sea in may 1942. May 1942 is the end of the zero bonus in game.

What's all the fuss about?

ORIGINAL: String

Guys guys.. can someone explain me this?

All this talk about Zero vs. F4F and the zero bonus. But as far as I know no A6M2 vs. F4F engagements happened before coral sea in may 1942. May 1942 is the end of the zero bonus in game.

What's all the fuss about?

mdiehl has long argued that certain perceptions with regards to Japanese and US Air Forces are incorrect. It isn't limited to the Zero Bonus.

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico
mdiehl has long held this position and has backed it up with 'data'... at least as far back as some old PACWAR discussions. Is he correct... I don't know. Does he make some good points... I believe so.

Whether he is right or wrong isn’t as relevant as the fact he is presenting a serious, solid, and well structured argument.

IMO

MOD jumping in here with a point of "process" ... assuming that the guys are debating "history" (versus the game WITP) which from the perponderance of their arguments would seem to be the case. The debate really is about "facts". The "eloquence" of the argument is not really the issue. But fundamentally what are "the facts". Of course in "historical debate" this amounts to a recitation of the sources and a comparison and judgement of the validity and trustworthyness of the sources.

While I will not comment further on the factual validity of the "contestants" arguments, as a PhD graduate student in the field I can say that "Be true to your sources" is the essence of the historians creed. And thus our debators are ultimately measured against this standard. Who has done their homework? Who has surveyed the broadest range of sources and evaluated them and synthesized the data into a rational answer to the question at hand.

So we look primarily to the discussion of the sources, the evaluation of the sources and then the conclusions based on the sources. All traced back to answer the original question. Which I'm not 100% clear on what that is because we don't have a high degree of structure here .. but it is often at least rolled up to "Which was better - the Zero or the F4 - in 1942" ... and at least this is a subset of the question list.

But now back to the "jousters" ... Mdiehl, Nik and Chez ... to continue their debate . which as you point out .. has been going on for years ... and apparently will continue for many more !!!

ORIGINAL: String

Guys guys.. can someone explain me this?

All this talk about Zero vs. F4F and the zero bonus. But as far as I know no A6M2 vs. F4F engagements happened before coral sea in may 1942. May 1942 is the end of the zero bonus in game.

What's all the fuss about?

The first encounter between wildcats and zeroes was on December 8 at Wake Island.  Despite being outnumbered the wildcat made a good showing of itsself

ORIGINAL: grumpyman

ORIGINAL: String

Guys guys.. can someone explain me this?

All this talk about Zero vs. F4F and the zero bonus. But as far as I know no A6M2 vs. F4F engagements happened before coral sea in may 1942. May 1942 is the end of the zero bonus in game.

What's all the fuss about?

The first encounter between wildcats and zeroes was on December 8 at Wake Island. Despite being outnumbered the wildcat made a good showing of itsself

Well, yes, but most of the allied planes encountered by the zero were not f4f's were they? Aside from Wake where else were they used?

Shouldn't the arguments be about Buffaloes, Hurricanes, P40's and the variety of other allied planes in DEI?

The first encounter between wildcats and zeroes was on December 8 at Wake Island. Despite being outnumbered the wildcat made a good showing of itself.

Actually that is incorrect.

While VMF-211 performed admirably during the Wake operation, they did not meet the Zero until 20 December. They did encounter Nells on 8 December and 11 December.

In the action on 22 December, 2 Wildcats engaged 36 Kates. Capt Freuler and 1Lt Davidson conducted a high side attack on the Kates. Freuler downed 2 Kates before being wounded and his plane shot up so badly by Zeros that he had to crash land on the beach. Davidson was shot down by Zeros and never seen again. (Lundstrom, page 41)

A Capt Elrod of VMF-211 was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honr for his action on 11 December for his sinking of the DD Hayate, the first Japanese warship lost in WWII. He also claimed two Nells but none were lost that day.

Chez

ORIGINAL: treespider

Good stuff!!!

Indeed - we haven't had a good punch-up for a while. Just try to keep it Marques of Queensberry [:D]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

This is the continuation of a friendly discussion started in another thread...

I would not really disagree with your second post...at least not on the basics.

The Allied frontline main fighter planes were nearly a match for the Zero and probably equal to the Oscar...of course its a bit of an apples and oranges comparrision unless one also considers tactics and intended use, etc.

I would agree that when you had well trained USAAF or USN pilots in either a P-40 or an F4F they fairly well held their own.

However, the Allies being woefully underprepared for the war didn't have that many fully functional frontline units and many of them were blasted apart at Hickam on 12/7. Add to this fact that while the allied pilots were well trained and cunning, they were inexperienced in battle and still made rookie mistakes.

Add to this the fact that many frontline units were not equipped with front line fighters at the outbreak of the war. The Brewster, P-36, P-35, P-26 and Wirraway were all horrible fighters.

I would agree that you add to the above the facts that you mentioned, better logistics, better maintenance, superious numbers and you can see why Japan largely controlled the skies in the opening months of the war.

So, on the whole I would agree with your statement that when Allied top air units met Japanese top air units it was mostly a draw. However, since top Allied units were few in the beginning days of the war and they could not be everywhere, Japan still controlled the air.

The point on which I would disagree is that any of this indicates that the developers of the game lacked an understanding of early war aircraft.

Oh my God... what have you done... I am away for just one afternoon/evening (bussiness trip) and what I find here... [8D]

IT'S ALIVE!!!

OLD GHOSTS HAVE WOKEN UP!!!


Leo "Apollo11"

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

That is why from the outset (Coral Sea for example) F4Fs generally shot down more zeroes than they lost to zeroes.

Zeros shot down twice as many F4F's as they lost to them at Coral Sea.

Based on a study I did thirty years ago, the exchange rate between Zeros and F4Fs during the early part of the war was about one for one.

ORIGINAL: herwin

Based on a study I did thirty years ago, the exchange rate between Zeros and F4Fs during the early part of the war was about one for one.

Based on studies i've done recently, i've found that in most cases of sustained air combat between modern combatants, the exchange rate does tend to even out. It rarely exceeds 3:1 in most cases on a per engagement basis, however the point being disputed was the assertion that Wildcats always shot down more Zeros than they lost, right from the start, which is untrue.

edit: a notable exception would appear to be the Eastern Front. (technically the SRA fighting too). I would love to obtain that series on Eastern Front air combat....but the books i believe are out of print and hideously expensive.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

That is why from the outset (Coral Sea for example) F4Fs generally shot down more zeroes than they lost to zeroes.

Zeros shot down twice as many F4F's as they lost to them at Coral Sea.

Thank you Nik...

ORIGINAL: herwin
Based on a study I did thirty years ago, the exchange rate between Zeros and F4Fs during the early part of the war was about one for one.

Not much data for the study, was there? F4f's hardly engaged Zero's in the first 5 months of the war...

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: herwin

Based on a study I did thirty years ago, the exchange rate between Zeros and F4Fs during the early part of the war was about one for one.

Based on studies i've done recently, i've found that in most cases of sustained air combat between modern combatants, the exchange rate does tend to even out. It rarely exceeds 3:1 in most cases on a per engagement basis, however the point being disputed was the assertion that Wildcats always shot down more Zeros than they lost, right from the start, which is untrue.

edit: a notable exception would appear to be the Eastern Front. (technically the SRA fighting too). I would love to obtain that series on Eastern Front air combat....but the books i believe are out of print and hideously expensive.

During 1943-44 in sustained air combat between American and Japanese fighters in the Pacific, the exchange ratio was ten Japanese fighters lost for every American fighter lost. This ratio was insensitive to the number of fighters from each side involved in each engagement. The percentage of Japanese fighters lost in an engagement was approximately constant, while the percentage of American fighters lost depended on the number of Japanese fighters per American fighter. Ref: Morse and Kimball, 45-46.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: herwin
Based on a study I did thirty years ago, the exchange rate between Zeros and F4Fs during the early part of the war was about one for one.

Not much data for the study, was there? F4f's hardly engaged Zero's in the first 5 months of the war...

Plenty of data-you just had to spend the time looking for it and look for it in the right places.

I did say, in most cases. However i should have clarified it by saying "in cases where the men had similar levels of training and the equipment was comperable. "

I'm well aware of the lopsided ratios achieved by the Allies latewar once the Axis airforce(s) started running out of qualified pilots.