Zero vs Wildcat losses '41 - '42
-
Ed Cogburn
- Posts: 1641
- Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
- Contact:
Zero vs Wildcat losses '41 - '42
My experience has always been that US carrier fighters (Wildcats) were essentially useless early on. I would often see fighter groups completely wiped out without the Zeros taking any losses. It is so bad, that you (US) really can't risk your carriers in areas without land-based fighter support. This of course is not what happened.
Yet IIRC, the fighting in the Coral sea early on resulted in many Japanese planes being shot down, including fighters. The US fighters came out of that fight having done more damage than recieved.
Whats right? Does anybody know of a site that actually has numbers (fighters lost) for the Battle of the Coral Sea and Midway? Are these lopsided results early in the war realistic?
Actually that's pretty historical. The Brewster Buffalo was totally inadequate and was used alot in the early Pacific by the US, Britain, and the Dutch...pretty much would get wiped out completely.
The Wildcat had armour, self-sealing tanks, and fast in dive (cuz of weight). Zero was a lightweight no-frills fighter whose strengths were its agility and range. US losses were due to poor air-air combat tactics and generally lower pilot ability than IJN.
The air stats in PW totally off the wall...if you went by that the Jps./Allies together would lose hundreds of thousands of aircraft together. Better indicator is to look at A/C available on your carriers after combat (or how many "went down with the ship", LOL).
Coral Sea the US had local air superiority I believe, and while they "won" (ie. prevented the Jps. from invading), they still got chawed up. Midway the US still lost more planes in actual air combat, but won due to planning, luck, timing, and over-confidence on the part of the Jps.
The Wildcat had armour, self-sealing tanks, and fast in dive (cuz of weight). Zero was a lightweight no-frills fighter whose strengths were its agility and range. US losses were due to poor air-air combat tactics and generally lower pilot ability than IJN.
The air stats in PW totally off the wall...if you went by that the Jps./Allies together would lose hundreds of thousands of aircraft together. Better indicator is to look at A/C available on your carriers after combat (or how many "went down with the ship", LOL).
Coral Sea the US had local air superiority I believe, and while they "won" (ie. prevented the Jps. from invading), they still got chawed up. Midway the US still lost more planes in actual air combat, but won due to planning, luck, timing, and over-confidence on the part of the Jps.
Seems to me that all the Allied plane losses in PacWar is another of those cheats the computer loves to use. I've had US squadrons based in the Solomon's take such heavy losses early on that getting experience to stay over 60 was a real problem. Out of curiousity I used Bear's editor to adjust my FTRs to 99 experience and the Japanese to 50...and still got blasted from the sky. Then Rich Dionne suggested a simple plan: switch to "Human vs Human" before you enter the Combat Phase. There was quite a difference in the results, is all I can say.
The problem with the AI is, is that it it Tactically sucessful, but, its strategic plans are failures. It doesn't react well to unexpected moved (ie. having the Allies attack in Burma and through the Dutch East Indies after 1942). These modes of cheats are made just to even the score between an old version of AI and a competent human player. If everything is set fair, then, games will not be that hard to beat. This way the games are more of a challenge.
Also, experience can only do so much, plane type is also important. Having veteran pilots in obsolete planes won't fair to well against green pilots in state of the art aircraft. Wildcats aren't that good when compared to A6M's and Ki-43's. The USN and USMC suffered HEAVY casualties, even with experienced pilots.
Also, experience can only do so much, plane type is also important. Having veteran pilots in obsolete planes won't fair to well against green pilots in state of the art aircraft. Wildcats aren't that good when compared to A6M's and Ki-43's. The USN and USMC suffered HEAVY casualties, even with experienced pilots.
I believe that the game rather severely distorts Zero-to-F4F combat in favor of the Zero.
The Zero was built to be light, fast, maneuverable, and to have great range. To accomplish these goals, it was lightly built. The F4F was stubby and much less maneuverable, but it was very much more strongly built (it’s builder was nicknamed the Grumman Iron Works). Each aircraft had strengths and weaknesses.
Victory usually went to the pilot that was able to exploit his aircraft’s strengths against the opponents weakness.
Everyone knows that the Japanese Naval Airgroups were superbly trained at the beginning of the war. A small group of perhaps 600 pilots (VF, VB, and VT combined), most with multiple 1000s of hours and many with combat experience. What is not so well known is the quality of the U.S. Naval airgroups. As of 12/7/41, the U.S. Pacific Fleet had a total of 58 fighter pilots aboard three carriers (Lexington, Saratoga, Enterprise). Of these 28 (48%) had between 1000 and 3500 hours. Only 14 (24%) had less than 600 hours. All were carrier qualified, of course. Many of these men went on to earn excellent combat records. Butch O’Hare became an ace in a hour (against Bettys) and John Thach invented the “Thatch Weave” – an aerial maneuver that killed many a zero.
Perhaps the best example of an early matchup between Zero and F4F came on May 8th during the Battle of Coral Sea. A total of 4 Wildcats (escorting torpedo planes) engaged 4 Zeros. Without going into excessive detail, the Zeros repeatedly attempted shots but were thwarted by Wildcat maneuvers. Then an F4F (piloted by Scott McCuskey) used a power dive followed by a twisting climb to lead two Zeros into each other’s line of fire. When the zeros hesitated, McCuskey shot down one with a quick burst. Zeros were hard to hit but easy to shoot down once hit. The first pair of F4F continued to maneuver, evading several attacks, until the 3 remaining Zeros abandoned them to attack the torpedo planes. They were followed by the other pair of F4F, which shot down one Zero (while it was concentrating on the TBD) and badly damaged another.
At this point 3 more Zeros appeared and, seeing four F4F beating up on two Zero, joined the fight. They forced the Wildcats to maneuver out of the fight. The three new Zeros claimed two F4F shot down on their first pass, but in fact all 4 F4F survived.
In another action nearby, two Lexington F4F and some SBD were surprised by section of Zeros. The Zeros dived on the two F4F, who first noticed the enemy when tracers began to zip past them. Still, both F4F survived the original attack and eventually went one-each with the zeros. One F4F (and pilot) were lost and the other shot down a zero.
There were other actions that went less favorably for the F4F, including the loss of 3 F4F to no Zeros in defense of the carriers. But neither the F4F nor it’s pilots were completely outclassed by the Zero.
Following Midway, both navies found themselves with depleted airgroups and were forced to fill the gaps with replacement pilots. The Japanese had number of well experienced replacements, while the Americans had to rush newly trained pilots into combat. Attrition soon wore down the Japanese ranks and they too soon began to field under trained pilots. However, all evidence points to near equality between the F4F and Zero when crew training was similar. An advantage to the Zero, but not a massive one. In PacWar, this should translate into near equality when airgroup experience levels are similar. Perhaps 55% or 60% in favor of the Zero. Lost rates of 10-1 or higher are frequent in PacWar and are, I believe, quite out of line.
The Zero was built to be light, fast, maneuverable, and to have great range. To accomplish these goals, it was lightly built. The F4F was stubby and much less maneuverable, but it was very much more strongly built (it’s builder was nicknamed the Grumman Iron Works). Each aircraft had strengths and weaknesses.
Victory usually went to the pilot that was able to exploit his aircraft’s strengths against the opponents weakness.
Everyone knows that the Japanese Naval Airgroups were superbly trained at the beginning of the war. A small group of perhaps 600 pilots (VF, VB, and VT combined), most with multiple 1000s of hours and many with combat experience. What is not so well known is the quality of the U.S. Naval airgroups. As of 12/7/41, the U.S. Pacific Fleet had a total of 58 fighter pilots aboard three carriers (Lexington, Saratoga, Enterprise). Of these 28 (48%) had between 1000 and 3500 hours. Only 14 (24%) had less than 600 hours. All were carrier qualified, of course. Many of these men went on to earn excellent combat records. Butch O’Hare became an ace in a hour (against Bettys) and John Thach invented the “Thatch Weave” – an aerial maneuver that killed many a zero.
Perhaps the best example of an early matchup between Zero and F4F came on May 8th during the Battle of Coral Sea. A total of 4 Wildcats (escorting torpedo planes) engaged 4 Zeros. Without going into excessive detail, the Zeros repeatedly attempted shots but were thwarted by Wildcat maneuvers. Then an F4F (piloted by Scott McCuskey) used a power dive followed by a twisting climb to lead two Zeros into each other’s line of fire. When the zeros hesitated, McCuskey shot down one with a quick burst. Zeros were hard to hit but easy to shoot down once hit. The first pair of F4F continued to maneuver, evading several attacks, until the 3 remaining Zeros abandoned them to attack the torpedo planes. They were followed by the other pair of F4F, which shot down one Zero (while it was concentrating on the TBD) and badly damaged another.
At this point 3 more Zeros appeared and, seeing four F4F beating up on two Zero, joined the fight. They forced the Wildcats to maneuver out of the fight. The three new Zeros claimed two F4F shot down on their first pass, but in fact all 4 F4F survived.
In another action nearby, two Lexington F4F and some SBD were surprised by section of Zeros. The Zeros dived on the two F4F, who first noticed the enemy when tracers began to zip past them. Still, both F4F survived the original attack and eventually went one-each with the zeros. One F4F (and pilot) were lost and the other shot down a zero.
There were other actions that went less favorably for the F4F, including the loss of 3 F4F to no Zeros in defense of the carriers. But neither the F4F nor it’s pilots were completely outclassed by the Zero.
Following Midway, both navies found themselves with depleted airgroups and were forced to fill the gaps with replacement pilots. The Japanese had number of well experienced replacements, while the Americans had to rush newly trained pilots into combat. Attrition soon wore down the Japanese ranks and they too soon began to field under trained pilots. However, all evidence points to near equality between the F4F and Zero when crew training was similar. An advantage to the Zero, but not a massive one. In PacWar, this should translate into near equality when airgroup experience levels are similar. Perhaps 55% or 60% in favor of the Zero. Lost rates of 10-1 or higher are frequent in PacWar and are, I believe, quite out of line.
-
Ed Cogburn
- Posts: 1641
- Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
- Contact:
Originally posted by Don Bowen:
Lost rates of 10-1 or higher are frequent in PacWar and are, I believe, quite out of line.
Thank you for those examples, Don. I remember an interview with a WW2 ace who flew a P38 (can't remember the model). They offered him a better plane (Mustang?), but he *declined* and stayed with his P-38. He knew the strengths and weaknesses of his plane and chose to stay with it rather than learn a whole new plane, despite the pundits who would say switching to a P-51 should be a no-brainer.
Your examples seem to suggest that 10-1 loss ratios are just a *little* out of whack.
To Redbirdy: It does make you wonder, don't it? Switch to human vs human and you get some "interesting" results. I've seen it to.
Hello...
I am the programmer on this project. For good or ill, I have removed the computer advantage in air-to-air combat. The allies will still take a licking in the early war, because the Japanese have mainly 70 to 90 percent skill in a very good plane, the Zero. The allies, with inferior aircraft and skills of 40 to 50 percent should have the same problems they had in history. But, a few air groups, like the AVG, should be able to hold their own against Claudes and Nates.
As the war progresses and the F4 pilots climb into the 70 to 80 percent skill ranges, they should do ok against the Zero. But, even then, they will take about 3 to 1 losses, due to the superior abilities of the Japanese fighter. Of those, about 1/3 will actually be kills and 2/3 only damages. In the case of the Zero, about 1/2 will be kills and 1/2 damaged. So. the Zero will really do kill about 2 for every one they loose. The P-38 and the Spitfire will reverse this and if you have weakened the Zeros by the time of their introduction, they will rule the skies.
Thanks for Your Support...
Michael Wood
I am the programmer on this project. For good or ill, I have removed the computer advantage in air-to-air combat. The allies will still take a licking in the early war, because the Japanese have mainly 70 to 90 percent skill in a very good plane, the Zero. The allies, with inferior aircraft and skills of 40 to 50 percent should have the same problems they had in history. But, a few air groups, like the AVG, should be able to hold their own against Claudes and Nates.
As the war progresses and the F4 pilots climb into the 70 to 80 percent skill ranges, they should do ok against the Zero. But, even then, they will take about 3 to 1 losses, due to the superior abilities of the Japanese fighter. Of those, about 1/3 will actually be kills and 2/3 only damages. In the case of the Zero, about 1/2 will be kills and 1/2 damaged. So. the Zero will really do kill about 2 for every one they loose. The P-38 and the Spitfire will reverse this and if you have weakened the Zeros by the time of their introduction, they will rule the skies.
Thanks for Your Support...
Michael Wood
Perhaps to compensate for the AI's less-than-stellar strategic wits,
you could give Japan a boost in it's aircraft production capacity?
It's obvious the AI needs some help and I would *much* rather it
get some extra planes than cheat against me when we get into actual combat.
This boost would only apply to games against the computer.
you could give Japan a boost in it's aircraft production capacity?
It's obvious the AI needs some help and I would *much* rather it
get some extra planes than cheat against me when we get into actual combat.
This boost would only apply to games against the computer.
There are already help levels to balance play for AI vs human. While I enjoy solo games, this baby comes into its own vs another human.
"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."-Note sent with Congressman Washburne from Spotsylvania, May 11, 1864, to General Halleck. - General Ulysses S. Grant
Quite true, and Rich has a method for dealing with that as well, although it's a bit more complicated:Originally posted by Major Tom:
The problem about that is that the Japanese will not always be the AI...
1) During your turn as Japanese player, complete all orders as desired.
2) Press "Q" to quit your turn, but don't press "End Turn" yet. Instead,
first press setup and change to "Both Computer".
3) Now "End Turn", and the computer Allied player will start to make its orders.
4) As soon as the "Allied Convoy Report" pops up, press "Enter" a couple of times to make sure the game is paused momentarily, press "Enter" again and Allied player will complete its orders. (Doing this initiates a "Stop Flag" that stops the game from executing after the Allied orders phase.)
5) Now, the Allied player has completed its orders. Bring up setup and change play to "Both Human", press "End Turn" and you're into execution with a "level playing field"!
This method does not prevent the computer player from moving ships long distance and cheating during marching, but it does make air combat equal.
With the changes Matrix has in the works it looks as if this "workaround" won't be needed any longer.
Great work guys! I'm really looking forward to seeing PacWar taken to this new level.