Aircraft Spead and the interecept...

[shoevarek]

Frag
[Look at the top end speeds of a P-40B compared to a Ki-27 (laughing very hard here) and you'll wonder why they only had the kills they had ...]

So it contradicts the earlier point of speed being the decisive factor.

I lack such technical knowledge like you guys but even taking into consideration superiority of US planes the technological gap doesn't seem so great as the gap in pilot experience. If player playing Japanese side mantains pilots' pool in the good shape there shouldn't be automatic hundreds/few kill ratio in favour of any of the 'new generation' US plane type. I hope this is not the case in WiTP. If it is it means that Japanese player should not even bother about average experience of his pilots - they will be all dead meat anyway - and I think this is not quite right.
It also means that the Air to Air combat is oversimplified.

More examples where pilot experience, tactics and morale meant more than just plain technical specs of the aircrafts used - Poland '39 or Barbarossa '41.

Achieving so great kill ratios by some of US designs does not automatically mean that all Japanese designs were piece of garbage - many other factors played part in this, one of the most important was japanese pilots' inexperience. The game is not reenactment of the history - different conditions in a game should result in different results (such as F4U or F6 beeing not so great as the history books show us) and no 'this is ahistoric' argument should be used against it.

[Mr.Frag]

You will note looking through my later AAR's that the F4F coming off UNS CV's is not fairing anywhere near as well. My only conclusion to draw is that the Mandalay situation was caused by Japan cleaning out the pilot pool *then* pulling ub-par pilots (ie: 20-30 range) to fill up the quarter squadrons that start them game resulting in rested 60 exp pilots in roughly even planes going up against 20-30 exp pilots flying at long range. This should produce the results seen.

[shoevarek]

From the discussion on the forum i understand that F4F and Zeke are more or less evenly matched.

What I am more concerned about is the performance of F6F and F4U against older (or inferior) Japanese aircrafts but managed by experienced pilots. From my UV games I remember the US guys flying those planes were virually invincible - same like B17 'fighter killer' or some other US bombers. This is great when you play US in late war scenarios. But the stick has two ends - early in the war US pilots seemed completely hopeless no matter how experienced they were.

It would be nice if experience levels played more significant role in all kinds of engagements - air, naval and ground. Element of surprise would be great addition too - like possibility to strike the enemy without him noticing my TF, possibility to miss the target - simply more chaos. However this is not a game breaking issue - more important thing is AI.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Yep, thats where Japan and Germany both were lacking ... Both the USA and the Brits strapped as many guns to the wings as could be put on. Definitely on the "BOOM" side of the fence. [:D]

I think we already had similar discussion before... [;)]

Many of German aces did in fact prefer the centerline armament (like 2x machine gun over engine + 1x cannon in shaft in Me-109) than more weapons but wing mounted (in FW-190 for example).

The problem with wing mounted armament is convergence while centerline mounted weapons have no problem with that at all...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: shoevarek
...but even taking into consideration superiority of US planes the technological gap doesn't seem so great as the gap in pilot experience.

Finns flying Buffalos achieved very good results against late war (superior) Soviet aircraft. Pilot experience, tactics and aircraft usage were the critical elements.

[Culiacan Mexico]

Comment to Brady.

I have read a couple of discussions like this in which you have participated, (I belief the other was Japanese pilot training), while you may not convince one person… I like your quoting of sources/references. It makes interesting reading.

[barbarrossa]

"Boom and Zoom" is a tactic employed by fighter aircraft, not a slang term for firepower and speed, just so everyone knows that since no one's brought it up.

Skin damage on a control surface will definitely impede flight characteristics, so skin damage is a factor, mdeihl, despite your pontifications to the contrary.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: barbarrossa
"Boom and Zoom" is a tactic employed by fighter aircraft, not a slang term for firepower and speed, just so everyone knows that since no one's brought it up.

Too true.

[MCKClaudi]

Wrong thread sorry...

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Many of German aces did in fact prefer the centerline armament (like 2x machine gun over engine + 1x cannon in shaft in Me-109) than more weapons but wing mounted (in FW-190 for example).

The problem with wing mounted armament is convergence while centerline mounted weapons have no problem with that at all...


Leo "Apollo11"

Richard Bong, the US's highest scoring Ace in the Pacific, flew a P-38 with it's centerline armament. From what i read....Bong basically had a fairly simple and straightforward strategy He'd beeline straight to the enemy, get as close as possible and blast away.

An all centerline armament does simplify the firing solution a bit if Bong's kill #'s are anything to go by. You didn't have to worry about converging your firing streams at the optimal distance to the target

[Mr.Frag]

An all centerline armament does simplify the firing solution a bit if Bong's kill #'s are anything to go by. You didn't have to worry about converging your firing streams at the optimal distance to the target

Yep, the problem comes from the amount of space available to stick weapons there. It dramatically complicates engine placement and design. When it comes to wartime production, simpler is better because you can make more.

Better 100 fighters with not so accurate guns then 20 with excellent guns. Mass has a quality of it's own when it comes to air combat because ammo is limited. Once you are out of ammo, even the greenest pilot out there can shoot at you until you get hit. [;)]

[Nikademus]

fortunately the P-38's designers seem to have solved the problem rather nicely [;)] Four 50's and a 20 can really ruin your day!

[mdiehl]

Sounds like one hit kills to me.....

Based on those tests I'd say it's more accurately and at best described as "1 hit, 33% chance of a kill." The point is moot however. The tests were wrong. So many instances of USAAF fighters returning safely with multiple cannon hits exist that the German "stats" are transparently incorrect. 1 hit with a 30mm generally was not enough to do for an Allied fighter unless the hit struck something important. I am also unsurprised that they favored cannons over rifle-caliber slugs; if they'd used .50s they'd have seen that the differences were not so clear cut.

The USAAF did its own suite of tests in the 1930s. The .50 was found to be superior to 20mm on single engined aircraft largely because of volume, accuracy, and shooting time. The need for cannons in interceptors striking heavier aircraft was recognized and that is why the 37mm was installed in the P-39. Late war US bomber designs featured a 20mm in the tail because twin-engined interceptors were standing off and launching rockets.

[Mr.Frag]

fortunately the P-38's designers seem to have solved the problem rather nicely Four 50's and a 20 can really ruin your day!

You neglect you mention the *size* of the P-38, it was not a fighter, it was 2.5 fighters strapped together! [:D]

[Nikademus]

"size does matter..."

-ancient Chinese proverb

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Yep, the problem comes from the amount of space available to stick weapons there. It dramatically complicates engine placement and design. When it comes to wartime production, simpler is better because you can make more.

Better 100 fighters with not so accurate guns then 20 with excellent guns. Mass has a quality of it's own when it comes to air combat because ammo is limited. Once you are out of ammo, even the greenest pilot out there can shoot at you until you get hit. [;)]

Interestingly enough the US did gradually abandon the wing mounted weapons in post-WWII aircraft and favored centerline mounted instead for its fighters... [;)]


Leo "Apollo11"

[mdiehl]

IIRC the last .50cal armed primary fighter was the F-86. A very successful design in its day.

[Mr.Frag]

Interestingly enough the US did gradually abandon the wing mounted weapons in post-WWII aircraft and favored centerline mounted instead for its fighters...

Jet engines are not normally monster sized Radial's stuck on the front of the plane [;)]

It tends to leave a lot more room including space for mounting things like Radar.

[Brady]

Culiacan Mexico: Thanks[:)]

..................................
"IIRC the last .50cal armed primary fighter was the F-86. A very successful design in its day. "

It was considered underguned by the standards of the day.

.........................................

Mr. Frag, you realise that mounting the guns in the wings was not by any means considerd ideal, and that their were several US planes that had guns that were mounted above radial engines and fired throught the prop?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Interestingly enough the US did gradually abandon the wing mounted weapons in post-WWII aircraft and favored centerline mounted instead for its fighters...

Jet engines are not normally monster sized Radial's stuck on the front of the plane [;)]

It tends to leave a lot more room including space for mounting things like Radar.

Not to mention that the wings started getting a lot thinner with the increase in speed of
jet powered A/C..., you could almost shave with the wing of an F-104. Plus Jet engines
were actually in the center or towards the rear of the A/C, and didn't require avoidance
of the propellor arc or synchronization.