Übercorsair and übercap

[Terminus]

Oh no, let's just forget that one...[:D]

[Yamato hugger]

Umm, tell me please mdiehl, without actually having played WitP how could you possibly expect anyone that HAS played it to take your "facts" concerning the game seriously?

I certainly dont.

If your "facts" are based on what you have read in the forms, thats all well and fine, but those are hardly "facts". 1 persons complaint about 1 mission in 1 game is hardly a "typical" game. Do lopsided battles occur from time to time? yes they do. But not always: here is a battle result from one of my games yesterday:

Even though I was woefully outnumbered my planes did better than they got. Why? Because my A6M3 and Tony pilots are over 90 experience, my A6M2s are over 85 experience, and my Tojos are over 80 experience.

Day Air attack on 33rd Division, at 30,28

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 22
A6M3 Zero x 20
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 11
Ki-61-Ib Tony x 20

Allied aircraft
Wellington III x 30
Liberator III x 9
Beaufort I x 20
B-25C Mitchell x 9
B-26B Marauder x 17
A-29 Hudson x 7
B-17E Fortress x 8
B-24D Liberator x 26
P-38F Lightning x 86

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 6 destroyed, 7 damaged
A6M3 Zero: 7 destroyed, 6 damaged
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 23 destroyed
Ki-61-Ib Tony: 8 destroyed, 4 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Wellington III: 7 destroyed, 5 damaged
Liberator III: 3 destroyed, 2 damaged
Beaufort I: 6 destroyed, 5 damaged
B-25C Mitchell: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged
B-26B Marauder: 5 destroyed, 6 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 3 destroyed, 13 damaged
P-38F Lightning: 71 destroyed

Japanese ground losses:
221 casualties reported
Guns lost 5

Edit: BTW, the reported losses were almost exactly the same as real losses. 71 P-38s were lost air to air. How I lost more Tojos than were in the battle was Im guessing because of an escorted mission in an adjacent hex.

Edit 2: This game is in Sep 42

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Don't forget BISMARK!

Good times . . . good times. [;)]

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: TheElf

I generally don't spout on about myself in these forums save the cool pic in my banner, which could be interpreted as simple love of cool pics, but later....

1. I'd first like to establish an understanding. I'd like to know your qualifications in the subject matter, namely Air Combat(general principles), and your knowledge of energy management, E-M diagrams and how they help us determine relative performance, flight training and doctrine specific to the period. Oh and if you have any flight time now would be a good time to mention it. Civil or military. I'll be forthcoming in a moment with my own...

These topics will be central to our discussion. As I mentioned before, I believe you when you say you've read the sources you mention, though your ability to cite them (quotes with page numbers title of the book, author etc.) and use their conclusions to prove your arguement vis a vis the kill ratios etc. for whatever flavor of the day arguement you might have.

2. I'd like to start with a narrow scope. Primarily so you and I can get our footing and really dig into an issue. One where we have a defined position. It would help if we found something we disagree on. Since I agree with some of the things you say, let's take our time and just dialogue, I'm sure given your propensity for verbal disagreement it won't take long, and we'll be off.

As to what I bring to this debate, I am a 10 year Navy vet, LCDR in rank. I was designated a Naval Aviator (1310) in July 2000, and I finished the RAG for the FA-18C in Summer of 2001. My 1st action was ironically 6 years ago today when my unit flew CAP over Washington DC from the USS George Washington. I then deployed to Afghanistan and shortly after to Iraq. Sidenote: When I came home from my 1st cruise I did the 1 year anniversary Fly over for 9/11 at Yankees stadium. Our division received a standing ovation when we entered the stadium afterward, and we drank for free...needless to say. Have you seen Flags of our Fathers? It was kinda like that.

After my fleet tour I qualified in the FA-18E/F Superhornet and did operational test for said A/C for three years, and was an alternate for TOPGUN, but was passed over as I was considered too senior to return to my unit and give them their money's worth. I have considered rushing the Blues, but the lifestyle is way hectic for shore duty, and family life would be severly impacted. I do have several friends, who are, were, and will be Blues. Kevin Davis was a friend.

Currently I work in Strat/policy for 6th fleet in Naples, Italy where I spend my time writing letters for Admirals and generally flying a desk while I await my next Sea Tour.

I have approx 1500 hours Day/night, am approaching 300 traps (150 night) and am CQ'd in both models of the Hornet. I am a qualified division lead, and have been involved in leading men from the boat in combat and in Large Force Exercises with the Navy and Air Force. I am thoroughly familiar with the M61 Vulcan cannon, the Amraam, the Sparrow, the Sidewinder (including the AIM-9X), the JHMCS, and all air to ground ordnance and their effects, including JDAM And JSOW.

My air combat experience is limited to other FA-18s, F-15, F-16, F-22, AV-8B. I've been to countless merges and consider myself a fair judge of another aircraft's energy state, even under G when things are a bit strained. I have no real world Air to Air victories, but that isn't likely to be a limit to our discussion unless you have some. I consider myself pretty good at what I do and have developed a "comfort" in the air. I've been told I am a little aggressive.

If you have any questions about what any of this means feel free to ask and I can elaborate, but I may limit responses to PM as I consider this whole post a security risk...harsh times I'm afraid. And no I have never been this forthcoming about my identity on the internet, and am frankly a bit uneasy, though the likelihood of more that 100 people actually reading this before it gets locked eases my concern. Aside from a select few with whom I've had personal dealings I'd wager few in this community know any of the above about me unless they have put 2 and 2 together over the years.

So I am ready to begin when you are. What would you like to talk about first?

Oh yeah, I have a degree in Poli sci (yeah I know[;)] and a minor in military history, I've read on WWII, specifically the Air Wars, all my life.

Thanks for sharing this with us! [&o] [:)]


Leo "Apollo11"

[TheElf]

My mother raised me to turn the other cheek. My father raised me to put a fist in the eye of any person who might mention my mother as a way of attempting to insult me. As a matter of philsophy, I look upon retaliation as such a necessary function that it almost comprises of itself a moral good.

Great then you'd have to accept my mentioning "Mom" as a Moral good since it was in retaliation to your name calling...I'm having grade school flash backs...I'm sure she's a great lady. Seriously.

Thanks, I suppose.

Don't mention it. I realize my sentence there was missing "Seriously lacking." Sorry for the confusion.

I don't and don't see that you need to. That said, regardless of your experience in the modern navy, and regardless of the fact that I've never been in a cockpit of anything while it was flying, I regard myself as fully qualified to analyse any data that anyone can offer me as long as the data are expressed numerically.

Wow. You really don't see how I might have you at a bit of a disadvantage? We are after all talking about my profession. Air Combat that is. Not research methodology. Let's get that cleared up 1st.

We can take it straight to PM if you like. That way we can dispense with all the baggage of having people with whom we're not conversing intruding on the conversation.

Why don't you let me manage security issues. Like I said, likely no more than 100 people will ever see this...that's probably a liberal estimate.

Based on your experiences as a fighter pilot in the modern navy, I'd be interested in knowing what sorts of things caused you fatigue or other forms of stress that degraded your ability to fly an aircraft -- provided of course that this sort of conversation doesn't strike you as revealing anything confidential -- I have no need to know at all and so don't need to know if you know what I mean.

In that way, I could begin to develop a decent list, in some sort of rank-ordered way that might imply relative weighting, of the "intangible things that affect combat." I have a list now. But Nikademus, for example, seems to assert that fatigue caused by flying four hours to your target is more fatiguing than fatigue caused by enemy cruiser bombardments, washing machine charley, snipers, infiltrators, and the sounds of pitched battles fought a few hundreds of meters away. Is the fatigue caused by flying four hours worse than persistent bad chow, diahhrea, and chronically frayed nerves?

Not that I lack faith in you, but I don't see how this will lead to a rousing debate. But let's see.

I've never had dysentery nor have I been shelled, however I have had persistent bad chow and diarrhea. I've also flown 6 hour combat missions though the threat of Air to Air combat was nonexistent unfortunately. I am familiar with the situation you refer to and can comment professionally on how I think those things would affect me if I were in each position.

First long flights...These can be insidious. Typically things I experienced or observed were inattentiveness, lazy scan, sloppy formation flying, difficulty concentrating, boredom, and fatigue, manifested in a punch-drunk feeling or outright sleepiness. Actually nodded off once or twice...

If we limit the discussion to the effects of the above to Air Combat that would help define the discussion. Agreed?

What would scare me about long flights in the case you are referring to is that after the first hour, knowing you were a long way form enemy territory you'd begin to relax. Slowly you'd revert to the symptoms I mentioned above. The most critical in this case I'd have to say is lack of attentiveness and concentration as any fighter pilot will tell you, he who sees his opponent first gains the initiative. Combined with no early warning device this could lead to relatively low SA as any engagement began. When combat was joined however adrenaline would wipe away most fatigue. It's really a miracle drug in my opinion.

All the other stuff (enemy cruiser bombardments, washing machine charley, snipers, infiltrators, and the sounds of pitched battles, bad chow, diahhrea, and chronically frayed nerves) would cause fatigue obviously, but in the case you are referring to if I were a Wildcat pilot racing off to defend Cactus I would be charged with adrenaline from the get go and benefit from the knowledge that the enemy was close and combat was not a long time in coming. Not to mention having SA in the form of radar and GCI. The excitement of the intercept and impending combat would keep me attentive and alert, not to mention looking in the right piece of sky and planning ahead. Effectively barring a bad radio call or interpretation of a scope, the time to climb at first detection, even in a tubby wildcat given the speeds of the day should provide me plenty of time to get to altitude and seek a tactical advantage. Coming down afterward though fatigue would return rapidly, even possibly before I landed and could affect my focus during landing.

I'd argue that bad chow was universal so it cancels, as was diarrhea. But if anything I'd say diarrhea would more severely impact the pilot on a long flight if you know what I mean. Cactus boys could be secure in the knowledge that if they wanted to try and hold it they might be able to, and if they decided to let it go they wouldn't have to sit in it for very long. Not true for the Japanese, then there is the whole social ineptitude dealing with shame...

Similar. BA (double major in math and another subject, minor in ancient and medieval philosophy), MA and PhD in things having nothing whatsoever to do with warfare or history.

hmmm...math geek huh? What's the other subject?

Edit: I should mention that I have flown and fought hung over. Very similar to the effects you are referring to. It was my first DACT with an F-15C. My Marine WSO and I dominated.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

But Nikademus, for example, seems to assert that fatigue caused by flying four hours to your target is more fatiguing than fatigue caused by enemy cruiser bombardments, washing machine charley, snipers, infiltrators, and the sounds of pitched battles fought a few hundreds of meters away. Is the fatigue caused by flying four hours worse than persistent bad chow, diahhrea, and chronically frayed nerves?

The five-star, beach-fronted luxury accommodation at Rabaul was of course famous for it's exquisite cuisine and splendid sanitatary facilities. Indeed the perfect recreational spot for any pilot in need of a break from anything up to five years of combat flying.

[mdiehl]

I'm still waiting for you data.

I've already presented it in these forums. Twice. The first time when you ran away from the discussion back in the GGPW thread. The second time a long time ago in this forum. Selective amnesia seems to be the only kind of memory you have.

Only because you say it is.

Fair enough. But I'd guarantee that it I wrote a rebuttal to Shores et al. with no bibliographic citations in the footnotes, end notes, or text, it would not get published, because those sorts of things are the benchmark standard for most publications.

Tell you what. Why don't you contact Mr. Shores and ask him since your so concerned.

That is the only intelligent statement you have offered in five years of your participation in these threads.

Because as i've stated repeatedly, they are respected, acredited and peer reviewed researchers of standing.

Go into that a little further. Was their book peer-reviewed? Do you know it for a fact. The press is a rather obscure one, and there's the pesty problem of lack of notes. Are they accredited? At what? By whom? As I recall, Shores is an accountant or a banker or something. By training he's no more (or less) qualified than I am.

Lets see your credentials?

Asked and answered already.

Because Shores does contain references.....in Vol III at the end of his study (which was in three parts remember) Because the size of the bibliography page does not of itself denote the degree of credibility.

The inclusion of an end of text biliography does not a "reference make." There is a whole suite of conventions for substantiating claims about facts through the use of in-text references, either in the form of parenthetical references such as (Nikedemus, 2007:12), or as footnotes (superscript 1 -- at the bottom of the page, then, 1. Nikademus, 2007:12), or as end-notes (superscript 1, thence to a section entitled End Notes, thence 1. Nikademus, 2007:12). Sometimes, when a researcher is being really disclosive, the footnotes or end notes are detailed as to conflicts in the claims of original sources. On those occasions you really get a good idea of the researcher's methods.

I I believe what i said was that you googled a website, your usual method of "research" and that I prefer acredited, peer reviewed book source over a website that isn't.

Again, the web site link is a copy of the USAAF official history. So at this point, you're just sort of whimpering around a technical claim that the source I provided wasn't a published piece of paper that you may not be able to read (because you may not own a copy), but instead an internet copy (that you can read) of a piece of paper that was in fact part of a published, peer-reviewed volume.

Depends. As you yourself have mentioned in the past, some records can be distorted or simply be in error.

Are you suggesting that the USAAF's official history is not a credible source because it is likely to be "distorted" somehow but Shores et al. is less likely to be distorted?

This conversation is becoming Python-esque. Am I to ask you now whether or not a coconut can migrate?

Thats why true researchers have to be willing to look at all sources with objectivity and not straight-jacketed by a simple assumption. You'll also need to tap those sources directly. Not google them.

Heh. I'll trust my own instincts, thanks, on what "true researchers" need to do. [:D]

In this case, your claim that Sakai and company were afraid to engage P-39's at lower altitude was not verified.

Except that I made no such claim. I said an argument made about the P-39s presumptive fearfulness of A6Ms because the P39s would not climb to engage has no more merit than an argument about the presumptive A6M driver's fearfulness of P-39s because the A6Ms did not descend to engage. The point was one about the logical construction of the claim made about P-39's pilots perceptions of the Zero.

That'd be an observation about methods, by the way.

and four hours back after the same stresses and fatigue of being in combat you credit to the US pilots....only they got to land, the Japanese, some wounded, many exhausted, had to fly fours back over terrain bereft of landmarks and water....and then do it again.....and again....and again and again.

This is not particularly different from the pilot fatigue experienced by USAAF fighter pilots in the ETO. Indeed, since it's pretty much solely a discussion of airtime, it's the exact same kind of fatigue. To get at the effects of it, at least insofar as the Japanese go, probably the measure will involve numbers of aircraft seen disengaging from Guadalcanal that simply unaccountably disappeared, and trying in some way to figure out whether or not it was fatigue and concomitant disorientation that caused the loss, or serious battle damage.

Frank does mention it.

Frank and Lundstrom both mention fatigue. Neither of them mention inordinate post-combat air losses resulting from it.

You mean the "mighty" Eighth Airforce P-51,s and 38's and 47s? That same airforce that had far far greater resources to conduct the same mission allowing them to mass the necessary numbers to overwhelm the Luftwaffe and rotate their crews? A very weak comparison.

Actually, it is a very robust comparison to which you responded with a weak effort at subject substitution. The subject was fatigue caused by long-duration flying, not force ratios, as you have tried to make it. If post combat fatigue and resulting post-combat losses in route to base on the return flight were a pressing problem, then one would see it in other nations fighters engaged in long duration missions.

The real trick, methods wise, is to figure out what weight to give fatigue, or fatigue vs. the combination of fatigue and battle damage, that may have affected retiring Japanese a.c. If an a.c. was substantially damaged by combat, but disengaged, it does not follow that the a.c. was lost because it had to fly 400 miles back to Rabaul (because it might have been so badly damaged that it might have been lost anyhow even if it were flying a mere 100 miles back to base).

[mdiehl]

The five-star, beach-fronted luxury accommodation at Rabaul was of course famous for it's exquisite cuisine and splendid sanitatary facilities. Indeed the perfect recreational spot for any pilot in need of a break from anything up to five years of combat flying.

At the least, it was famously larger, less crowded, and better provisioned than Henderson Field and Fighter 1 through October 1942. And if the Gin n Tonics were not up to snuff ([;)]) then at least it had the merits of not being bombarded by American cruisers and BBs, taking fire from American howitzers, or infiltrated by American snipers or snoopers.

The point being that a Japanese pilot landing at Rabaul prior to Autumn 1942 was landing in a relatively quiet, safe, and secure area. An American pilot landing at Henderson in Autumn 1942 was flying out of aerial combat only to land literally on the front lines of a combat zone.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The five-star, beach-fronted luxury accommodation at Rabaul was of course famous for it's exquisite cuisine and splendid sanitatary facilities. Indeed the perfect recreational spot for any pilot in need of a break from anything up to five years of combat flying.

At the least, it was famously larger, less crowded, and better provisioned than Henderson Field and Fighter 1 through October 1942. And if the Gin n Tonics were not up to snuff ([;)]) then at least it had the merits of not being bombarded by American cruisers and BBs, taking fire from American howitzers, or infiltrated by American snipers or snoopers.

The point being that a Japanese pilot landing at Rabaul prior to Autumn 1942 was landing in a relatively quiet, safe, and secure area. An American pilot landing at Henderson in Autumn 1942 was flying out of aerial combat only to land literally on the front lines of a combat zone.

This is all true, but flying from an aircraft carrier is no picnic either, particularly at night or at war. To this day the thought of it turns my stomach. But you'd be surprised what people can get used to. You just deal with it.

[mdiehl]

Great then you'd have to accept my mentioning "Mom" as a Moral good since it was in retaliation to your name calling.

Nope. It's only a moral good on the part of the person who doesn't initiate the offense.

Wow. You really don't see how I might have you at a bit of a disadvantage?

Nope. I really don't.

Not that I lack faith in you, but I don't see how this will lead to a rousing debate.

It's not supposed to lead to a debate, rousing or otherwise. It's just supposed to lead to the generation of a list. I invited Chez and Nik a long time ago to put together a comprehensive list of intangibles that they wanted covered when I assemble the tallies. Crickets chirped.

What would scare me about long flights in the case you are referring to is that after the first hour, knowing you were a long way form enemy territory you'd begin to relax. &c

If I understand all that right, the critical threat would be inattentiveness at some interval distant from Rabaul, but prior to the adrenaline rush that would kick in as one anticipated the approach to Lunga. Something like 1 hour out from Rabaul and, I dunno, 20 minutes away from Henderson?

hmmm...math geek huh? What's the other subject?

Something else. [;)]

Edit: I should mention that I have flown and fought hung over. Very similar to the effects you are referring to. It was my first DACT with an F-15C. My Marine WSO and I dominated.

That's the kind of thing I think you could really say alot about and with great authority. Not "being hungover" but rather what does fatigue feel like, how does it affect you etc.

There are independent studies that compare sleep loss to inebriation (I'm thinking here of some studies of WW2 skippers, and also long haul truck drivers in the US). Those studies are in part why I think the effects of "living at Henderson" are, by some, understated.

[mdiehl]

This is all true, but flying from an aircraft carrier is no picnic either, particularly at night or at war. To this day the thought of it turns my stomach. But you'd be surprised what people can get used to. You just deal with it.

Yes yes. But we're talking about land based Japanese air vs. land based USN/USMC aircraft for the bulk of the Guadalcanal campaign... which is where Nik and Chez keep bringing up fatigue.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Nope. It's only a moral good on the part of the person who doesn't initiate the offense.

So by that rational, I take it your moral good bit only applies to offense taken by you...

Wow. You really don't see how I might have you at a bit of a disadvantage?

Nope. I really don't.

Ok...

Not that I lack faith in you, but I don't see how this will lead to a rousing debate.

It's not supposed to lead to a debate, rousing or otherwise. It's just supposed to lead to the generation of a list. I invited Chez and Nik a long time ago to put together a comprehensive list of intangibles that they wanted covered when I assemble the tallies. Crickets chirped.

Actually it is. You called me a troll and I accepted your challenge to prove otherwise. Don;t tell me you are bugging out? And since when is anythin you post here NOT supposed to lead to debate with someone?

What would scare me about long flights in the case you are referring to is that after the first hour, knowing you were a long way form enemy territory you'd begin to relax. &c

If I understand all that right, the critical threat would be inattentiveness at some interval distant from Rabaul, but prior to the adrenaline rush that would kick in as one anticipated the approach to Lunga. Something like 1 hour out from Rabaul and, I dunno, 20 minutes away from Henderson?

Remember the part where I asked you if you didn't think I had you at a disadvantage? Ok let's try this again. You're bored, you're tired. You've let your guard down. After 4 hours its tough to get things wired. Sometimes something has to jar you back to reality. You don't have any indication of the enemy's whereabouts no tipper, no gouge, no SA, no purple, no GCI; you may even doubt your own exact position or that the enemy is even about, until "WHAM" your wingman blows up, or you see a flicker of something in your peripheral vision and you hear the distinctive sound of rounds perforating your plane.

Why would I lose or doubt my position? I'm good right? I can navigate, I can look down at the islands and match up my position with the terrain...Yes usually, sometimes, probably, but Human error and perception can't always be trusted right? you say as much when you talk about believing a pilots recall of events and whether he can CONFIRM a kill or admit to a probable...

I'm not saying that this happened EVERY time, but the insidious nature of long flights can really take you out of it until something happens to get your attention. That isn't to say that you can't wake yourself up and get ready, but. But thats just you. Not the rest of your flight and even then it isn't nearly as charged up as say scrambling from your field and riding that high right into the battle.

hmmm...math geek huh? What's the other subject?

Something else. [;)]

Sounds fishy. Is this an ace up your sleeve or a joker? Ok I'll have a go...beauty school? Airport management? Don't say communications, that's just embarrassing.

Edit: I should mention that I have flown and fought hung over. Very similar to the effects you are referring to. It was my first DACT with an F-15C. My Marine WSO and I dominated.

That's the kind of thing I think you could really say a lot about and with great authority. Not "being hungover" but rather what does fatigue feel like, how does it affect you etc.

Not all that other stuff I said? That was just crazy talk right?

There are independent studies that compare sleep loss to inebriation (I'm thinking here of some studies of WW2 skippers, and also long haul truck drivers in the US). Those studies are in part why I think the effects of "living at Henderson" are, by some, understated.

I think I must have assumed you'd get that I was not only hung over, but suffering from sleep loss too...still nothing a bit of adrenaline couldn't fix for me in this case, and as I mentioned it didn't affect my performance.
[/quote]

Ok nite nite. I have policy to formulate in the morning...

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

This is all true, but flying from an aircraft carrier is no picnic either, particularly at night or at war. To this day the thought of it turns my stomach. But you'd be surprised what people can get used to. You just deal with it.

Yes yes. But we're talking about land based Japanese air vs. land based USN/USMC aircraft for the bulk of the Guadalcanal campaign... which is where Nik and Chez keep bringing up fatigue.

dammit. I am suffering from loss of sleep now.

My point was that even normal operation from a carrier is a strain on the human psyche, something I can attest to and try to relate here. What you go through just in peace time operations is not normal stress by any standard. It's constant fear of death and people aren't even shooting at you.

Add to that a dark that you couldn't even possibly imagine and things ratchet up a notch. And nothing has even gone wrong yet, we're just talking about normal ops. There are some that can't handle it. Nevermind combat op tempo...

Everytime we brief a flight we are reminded of our mortality, it's in our briefing guide. We're forced to talk about it. How many times a day in the last ten years have you been reminded of your mortality?

But you get used to it. You joke about it. It becomes routine, until one beautiful sunny day in the Med as you go into tension on Cat 4, you hear the boss scream "eject! eject! eject" and your heart jumps out of your throat as you wonder if he means you. Then you watch a Tomcat on Cat 1 dribble of the front end and flop into the water after it's nose gear disintegrates.

Can you see the connection I am making here? If not it'll have to wait til tomorrow. Til then anyone else who gets it feel free to help our friend.

[ctangus]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

What's been your experience with these fighters in your games?

That the USN should not engage enemy CVs prior to August 1942. Beyond that I have not played the game. I regard the air combat model as rather hopelessly snagged.

No need to be so pessimistic. You're a math geek like me. I'm sure if you play the game some more you'll get better.

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Can you see the connection I am making here? If not it'll have to wait til tomorrow. Til then anyone else who gets it feel free to help our friend.

Well, I'm pretty sure I see as much of the connection as is possible without having any experience as a naval aviator. However, I doubt certain other parties will ever want to see the connection.

[mdiehl]

So by that rational, I take it your moral good bit only applies to offense taken by you...

No, it's a chronological order thing. Read back a bit. You jumped in on my retaliation against Chez for Chez's ad hominem rhetoric (his: "Of course, you wouldn't know anything about how the game really works, would you?"). All Chez has to do is forbear that sort of chickenshit. If he won't, he's fair game. All YOU had to do was either stay out of it, or simply address the argument, rather than piling on as you did.

Actually it is. You called me a troll and I accepted your challenge to prove otherwise.

Mm. Not sure what the demand is. I'm not claiming that you weren't trolling. My claim is that you were trolling when you said: "Had to sneak that one in there. To the unintiated this is what we call bait..." and again here: "Hook. Line... and Sinker." You clearly were not addressing any pertinent element of the debate, and you straight up admitted to trying to provoke me.

I wasn't trying to "bait" anyone. For you to presume to know my intent and carry on as you did was, to any reasonable person, "trolling."

Don;t tell me you are bugging out?

More trolling.

And since when is anythin you post here NOT supposed to lead to debate with someone?

And more presumption of intent.

Remember the part where I asked you if you didn't think I had you at a disadvantage?

I still don't think so.

Ok let's try this again. You're bored, you're tired. You've let your guard down. After 4 hours its tough to get things wired. Sometimes something has to jar you back to reality. You don't have any indication of the enemy's whereabouts no tipper, no gouge, no SA, no purple, no GCI; you may even doubt your own exact position or that the enemy is even about, until "WHAM" your wingman blows up, or you see a flicker of something in your peripheral vision and you hear the distinctive sound of rounds perforating your plane.

Perhaps so. But in the Solomons, it was generally the case that the Japanese had a rather good idea of where the enemy was (roughly within 25 miles of Lunga). And at Lunga in particular it was rarely the case that the Americans had the advantage of tactical surprise. Even with the first radar sets, the early warning was just sufficient for the Wildcats to become airborne and achieve an altitude roughly comparable to the inbound strikes. Some days that worked out well for the Wildcats, other days it was all bolt out of the sky no warning Japanese planes. Most of the time the engagements were similar to complex meeting engagements.

Why would I lose or doubt my position? I'm good right? I can navigate, I can look down at the islands and match up my position with the terrain...Yes usually, sometimes, probably, but Human error and perception can't always be trusted right? you say as much when you talk about believing a pilots recall of events and whether he can CONFIRM a kill or admit to a probable...

I'm not saying that this happened EVERY time, but the insidious nature of long flights can really take you out of it until something happens to get your attention. That isn't to say that you can't wake yourself up and get ready, but. But thats just you. Not the rest of your flight and even then it isn't nearly as charged up as say scrambling from your field and riding that high right into the battle.

Sure. That is I believe all of that. And that sort of thing didn't happen every time. I'm not even sure you could say it happened "most of the time," or even "often." Or that when it did happen, the Japanese (fatigued as they were) weren't being opposed by pilots so sleep deprived as to perform as though inebriated.

I'm not saying fatigue doesn't matter. I'm saying it matters no matter what causes it.

Sounds fishy. Is this an ace up your sleeve or a joker?

Heh. There's no way to play the card. No matter how it lands, it doesn't have any bearing on the discussion, because "proof by authority" isn't worth a cup o' coffee in my book.

Not all that other stuff I said? That was just crazy talk right?

?

Are you fatigued?

I think I must have assumed you'd get that I was not only hung over, but suffering from sleep loss too...still nothing a bit of adrenaline couldn't fix for me in this case, and as I mentioned it didn't affect my performance.

Then I think you are an unusual fellow, by pilot standards, that you can be hung over and sleep deprived, and maintain that you were unaffected by it, where the merely bored Japanese pilots were in dire straits.

[Yamato hugger]

Seriously mdiehl, why are you here?

You dont play the game, yet you try talk like you have played for years. You dont really seem to have anything to contribute here, just talking for the sake of talking I guess, yes? See how much you can stir the pot?

Bad attention is better than no attention? Is that it? I pity you.

Shoo pest.

[mdiehl]

Seriously mdiehl, why are you here? You dont play the game, yet you try talk like you have played for years.

WitP isn't being all that it could be. I don't play the game, because I'm an original owner of GGPW and UV, both games from which WitP borrows heavily in design, and have played WitP enough to know it shares the same elementary design flaws of these two previous games. As a matter of preference, I'd love to see a game where the design improves on GGPW, rather than one that offers up a substantially more complicated version that is known to produce wierd results. Call me crazy, but I have this idea that if every time someone says something that isn't supported by the facts in a discussion like this, pointing it out eventually filters back to a game designer, somewhere, who might be entertaining the idea of trying to revise this game, or write a new one.

If you mean "why are you here in this thread?" the answer is that I enjoy comparing WW2 IRL vs that which consims produce. The opening post of this thread seemed to indicate great complaint at the results of a particular AAR. All I did was point out that the results weren't particularly implausible for a late war engagement of the magnitude envisioned.

All that has proceeded thereafter from all contributors has been a combination of historical discussion and baloney.

You dont really seem to have anything to contribute here, just talking for the sake of talking I guess, yes? See how much you can stir the pot?

What have you contributed then, exactly? A couple of noncommital shrugs and this little diatribe now against me? Hell, if I'm a "pest," I'll claim the virtue of being a pest with a relevant point.

Bad attention is better than no attention? Is that it?

Nope. That's not it.

I pity you.

<shrug>

I pity the Chicago Cubs, but that's just me speaking as a satisfied member of Red Sox Nation.

[ChezDaJez]

quote:
I said:
But you're right... I am ignorant of your version of WWII history... you know, your version of history that says the Japanese should never have won a single battle anywhere, anytime or in anyway. To hear you tell it, Pearl Harbor should have been a resounding Amercan victory. And to think the rest of us have been reading all those lies by Lundstrom, Shores, Bergstrom, Parshall et al.

You said:
I've never made any of those claims or anything remotely like 'em. If you could provide a quote, your credibility may be restored.

Not in exact words but that has the gist of every posting you have ever made. And as far as my credibility goes, I don't give rat's behind as to whether you find me credible or not. Its the other members of this forum that will determine my credibility, not you and your constant denunciation of other's opinions.

Of course, when asked to put up or shut up with facts, you don't provide any. You claim equality yet you don't provide the actual numbers that prove it... only a summation of what you SAY you have done. Oh, I forgot... it's a work in progress. Yeah, okay.

The challenge, then, is to figure out how other intangibles such as force ratios, perceived mission (fixation on intercepting bombers to the detriment of defending self, and that sort of thing), range, secure non-combat area, &c, fit into the mix. It's not the sort of thing one does in a few months, not even if one limits oneself to the USN campaigns and Guadalcanal, unless one does this sort of thing for a living.

i assume of course that you are willng to apply the same standard to the Japanese? Oh, silly me... that's not your style, is it? If it ain't US, it ain't worth a hoot. That's your style... about as natiocentric as they come.

quote:

Oh, can't have that can we? Got to throw out any fact that slews the result away from your preconceived notion, right? Just like you wanted to throw out the air combat over Darwin with the P-40s and Zeros.

Look, we all know that you are adept at attempting character assasination, even though you make a poor job of it. But the fact is I never said I wanted to throw out the air combat over Darwin. Find any place where I did. What I said was that there are intangibles. You and, as I recall, Nik, seem to think that Zeroes operating at long range to Guadalcanal was an important intangible that subtantially adversely affected A6M performance there. It is a reasonable claim to make, albeit one that I think is overstated based on the evidence. But if it is fair game to note such intangibles, where they adversely affect the Japanese, it is also fair game to track the ones that adversely affected the Allies.

Tap dancing but you forgot to put the taps on the shoes. And there you go again... everytime the US aircraft suffered higher losses in combat, you attempt to explain it away with "intangibles." Oh, they were taking off... oh, they were at low power settings... oh, they were kept awake all night.... oh, they didn't have breakfast... oh, they forgot to wipe their butts...

Intangibles work both ways. Take the Guadalcanal campaign for example. You arbitrarily dismiss the fatiguing effects of flying daya after day 3-4 hours to engage in a 30 minute battle and then flying 3-4 hours back, sometimes in a damaged aircraft that requires all your strength and concentration to keep it in the air. But then you turn around and say that US pilots were more fatigued because of an occasional Japanese night nuisance raid and the fact that they had to sit on alert waiting for the bombers to appear. Of course, you fail to mention that the Wildcats were seldom in the air for more than an hour at a time.

Yet you fail to include the intangibles that allowed the Wildcat to be successful on defense such as radar and coast watchers. Without this early warning, the Wildcats would seldom have been in position to intercept. It's what's known as a force multiplier. Indeed, the ability of radar to detect and then direct Wildcats to the enemy certainly was the most important factor in allowing Wildcats to engage at virtually every battle it fought in. Because its obvious that the Wildcat certainly wouldn't have had the time to climb to altitude without it. But that doesn't fit your opininion that the Wildcat was the equal of the Zero, does it.

Another intangible that greatly benefitted the US was tactical innovation, something the Japanese singularly failed to appreciate. If pilots like Thatch and Flatley hadn't discarded their tactical training and developed new tactics to counter the Zero's strongpoints, the US pilots would certainly have suffered higher casualties. The AVG is a prime example. By adopting slashing attacks, they negated any numerical advantage the Japanese had.

As to Darwin, see: http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/darwin02.htm

By my reading that's 36A6Ms at full power setting attacking a CAP of 5 P-40s, with 5 more P-40s on the ground refueling, and five P-40s bounced while scrambling to take off. Not exactly any intelligent person's idea of a meeting engagement or even a meeting of aircraft on roughly even terms, even if we ignore the 7:1 initial force ratio advantage favoring the Japanese.

That's why intagibles matter.

The link you posted is typically of your mindset. "Oh, gee, let's use a single internet source that is one-sided and accept it as gospel."

But okay, have it your way... we'll use it. Of course, you failed to mention that the site states that 6 Zeros were busy strafing Brathurst Island and that 9 Zeros had engaged a Catalina and become separated from the main force. So of those 36 Zeros you say engaged, only 21 were actually available to engage the 5 P-40s on CAP. And of course we don't know how many Zeros really engaged the CAP while the others dove down to strafe the P-40s attempting to take off, do we.

Oh, but they were surprised! Oh, duh, I forgot, can't have that, can we. It's one of your intangibles you want to include. Why do you never include surprise against a Japanese force as an intangible? Yeah, yeah, I know... it's not how you play this game...

That is not correct. In any case, in the Marianas engagement most of the Japanese pilots from the IJN CVs were extensively trained. Not as extensively experienced as their forerunners of the Kido Butai of 1941-1942, but substantially trained nonetheless. How they compare in training vs the slight experienced and highly trained American pilots who comprised TF58/38's regular air crews is not easy to quantify.

And your source for that statement would be......? Substantially trained... hmmm.... yeah, okay. More than 70% of these pilots had never seen combat and only the flight leaders had any substantial combat experience. According to the "Battle History of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1941-1945", most pilots had less than 100 hours in the air. Hardly call that substantially trained. The US pilots at this point in time were better trained and had more experience in type and in battle.

Let's look at the actual results from the Marianas Turkey Shoot... specifically the part the Japanese carriers played in it. And we'll use a few facts... something you are adverse at doing.

Ozawa had 3 carrier squadrons, a total of 9 carriers. 3 of these were fleet carriers, 3 were CVLs and the last 3 were somewhere in between. Between them they carried a mximum complement of 431 aircraft: 249 fighters, 113 dive bombers and 69 torpedo planes. How many were operationally is not known but we'll assume that a significant portion (90+%) was.

The US had a total of 15 carriers: 7 fleet carriers and 8 CVLs. Maximum aircraft complement consisted of 902 aircraft: 476 fighters, 233 dive bombers and 193 torpedo planes. We'll use the same assumption for the US in regards to operational aircraft.

On 19 June 44, Ozawa launched 4 strikes. The US fleet had over 200 fighters on CAP. FD directed them in successive waves to their targets.

The first consisted of 90 aircraft. 42 were shot down with 25 of those attributed to fighters, the rest to AA. The attack damaged the South Dakota.

The second strike consisted 128 aircraft. 97 were shot down with 70 attributed to fighters. Several managed to attack the US carriers but scored no hits.

The third strike consised of 47 aircraft. 7 were lost to fighters and none to AA.

The fourth strike was given the wrong position and 49 diverted to Guam. 27 Hellcats intercepted and shot down 30 while landing. The remainder found TF 58.2 and attacked. Of the 33 that attacked, 24 were shot down: 9 to fighters, the rest to AA. This strike achieved no hits.

So, of the 347 carrier aircraft launched, 200 were shot down, 141 of those to fighters. 75% of these total losses were bombers. The Japanese lost 43 fighters in air-air combat but it should be noted that of the 14 fighters that accompanied the third strike, all but 5 carried bombs. The US lost 23 fighters in air-air combat.

Impressive results to be sure but a 2:1 numerical superiority in fighters, radar, good FD, and plenty of flight decks tends to produce them. However, the losses in fighters was only a 2:1 ratio in favor of the US and reflects the original 2:1 numerical superiority in fighters.

Please, if you wish to dispute these facts... do so with facts, not rhetoric, not wishful thinking but with facts.

Chez

[Bombur]

And your source for that statement would be......? Substantially trained... hmmm.... yeah, okay. More than 70% of these pilots had never seen combat and only the flight leaders had any substantial combat experience. According to the "Battle History of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1941-1945", most pilots had less than 100 hours in the air. Hardly call that substantially trained. The US pilots at this point in time were better trained and had more experience in type and in battle.

Let's look at the actual results from the Marianas Turkey Shoot... specifically the part the Japanese carriers played in it. And we'll use a few facts... something you are adverse at doing.

Ozawa had 3 carrier squadrons, a total of 9 carriers. 3 of these were fleet carriers, 3 were CVLs and the last 3 were somewhere in between. Between them they carried a mximum complement of 431 aircraft: 249 fighters, 113 dive bombers and 69 torpedo planes. How many were operationally is not known but we'll assume that a significant portion (90+%) was.

The US had a total of 15 carriers: 7 fleet carriers and 8 CVLs. Maximum aircraft complement consisted of 902 aircraft: 476 fighters, 233 dive bombers and 193 torpedo planes. We'll use the same assumption for the US in regards to operational aircraft.

On 19 June 44, Ozawa launched 4 strikes. The US fleet had over 200 fighters on CAP. FD directed them in successive waves to their targets.

The first consisted of 90 aircraft. 42 were shot down with 25 of those attributed to fighters, the rest to AA. The attack damaged the South Dakota.

The second strike consisted 128 aircraft. 97 were shot down with 70 attributed to fighters. Several managed to attack the US carriers but scored no hits.

The third strike consised of 47 aircraft. 7 were lost to fighters and none to AA.

The fourth strike was given the wrong position and 49 diverted to Guam. 27 Hellcats intercepted and shot down 30 while landing. The remainder found TF 58.2 and attacked. Of the 33 that attacked, 24 were shot down: 9 to fighters, the rest to AA. This strike achieved no hits.

So, of the 347 carrier aircraft launched, 200 were shot down, 141 of those to fighters. 75% of these total losses were bombers. The Japanese lost 43 fighters in air-air combat but it should be noted that of the 14 fighters that accompanied the third strike, all but 5 carried bombs. The US lost 23 fighters in air-air combat.

Impressive results to be sure but a 2:1 numerical superiority in fighters, radar, good FD, and plenty of flight decks tends to produce them. However, the losses in fighters was only a 2:1 ratio in favor of the US and reflects the original 2:1 numerical superiority in fighters.

Please, if you wish to dispute these facts... do so with facts, not rhetoric, not wishful thinking but with facts.

Chez

-Thank you for data. I always wanted to know what were the results of fighter vs fighter combat over the Marianas (I estimated them on 4:1 assuming 2/3 of losses being bombers and 240 planes shot down). But have a little question. What were op. losses for US fighters in this specific action (not counting those lost in the night attacks against IJN fleet). And what were the combat losses in the defense of IJN carriers?