Matrix Games Forums

Hi again

I've been going through the USN early CVs and think that they have too much experience for 1941. Some of the American naval pilots have in the 90s experience and many/most have 80s. Few have 70s. Shouldn't they be at least 10 points lower? Maybe 15? Training will only go so far. Where did the USN pilots get their high skills? Sure the fighter pilots are a little less than the SBD pilots but they all seem too high. Wouldn't the CV pilots need some real combat experience to reach these high levels? The Japs rotated their naval pilots in China and would have won their high skills rating the hard way.

bye

I don't think so. Peace-time training can produce good pilots. However, are you sure that IJN sent carrier aviation to China. Even if they did, I'm not sure how much valuable experience was obtained in combat against hopelessly outdated aircraft with half-trained pilots. What ships were the Vals dive bombing in China. What ships were the Kates torpedoing in China. How much flak did junks throw up?

While we're on this subject, how did the IJN ships get so much experience. Against whose Navy. Where were all these night battles where they gained all this night experience. The answer is obvious, they had little combat experience in those conditions. Since they clearly were superior, it had to be all training and, primarily I think, a superior doctrine to go along with their superior torpedo.

Pier5

The IJN was involved in a war with China. Invasions with specialised ships. Bombardments of troops and cities with ships. Close in support work. Landing supplies in ports and over beaches. Although there was no heroic battles won against the tiny Chinese navy, valueable experience was still gained. (The Japs also sunk the Panay in 1937). The importance of this experience must not be under-estimated for it helps explain the confidence and skill which the Japanese forces over-ran the PI, DEI, and Mayala. (Remember the Germans also had similar experiences in Spain for WWII). And the albility to land at "random" places that other nations were far from trying. (Except the USA marines who prepared for similar activities.) So high was their confidence that the JAps defeated forces much stronger in size than their own (as everybody knows this story- but the Allies made many mistakes too).

The land battles for Shanghai and Nanking were hard-fought attacks when the Chinese resissted fiercely. The heavy Japanese causalties were repaid with the rampage of death in Nanking. The Japanese made numerous landings along the lengthy Chinese coast.

Not all the IJN planes over China would have been their lastest types. Before Zeroes the Claude would have been the front line fighter.

US carrier pilots are not over or understaded in EXP in 1941. At least the existing ones. The US CV's got the cream of the crop. (like now too). I totally agree with Pier5. Where did IJN get their high experience ratings? 600 planes didn't all join in on sinking Panay. IJN carrier pilots probable did get some battle experience, but so did a lot of Army and land based navy air units.

remeber that at Coral Sea and Midway, the US shot down a fair number of IJN pilots and sank a fair number of IJN ships.. And those US pilots were the same ones who started in 1941 (for the most part).

Many naval pre war pilots had thousands of hours of flying time. In the peace time Navy, promotion was slow and most pilots had been at the job a very long time. They were very highly trained and skilled. Don't confuse skill with misplaced doctrine.

The combat experiences gained by Japanese pilots in China is highly over rated. They were fighting, but learning the wrong lessons from their experiences. As with the allies, there were many weaknesses in Japanese carrier and air doctrine in 1942. Japanese fighter pilots were superbly trained and conditioned. However, their training was primarily focused on individual dogfighting skills. Even Saburo Sakai complained about their weak skills in group tactics. As events showed, by 1942 the era of individual dogfights was over. This was to cost the Japanese dearly.

As for skill, I think you will find that both sides had a strong corp of excellent pilots at the beginning of the war. I think skill wise they were fairly well matched.

U.S. and Brit Navy pilots have always been "hot",since the days THEY *invented* carrier pilots..
The hottest Japanese pilots were naval,but the better of them were NOT the carrier pilots,but the land-based navy fliers,(like Saburo Sakai) who got his experience flying Claude's in China..
The U.S. has always underpaid their armed forces during "peace time",and the only way a fella could get anywhere was to excel in his military profession.The U.S.Navy held regular competitions based on performance,the better ships earning an "E"(for excellence),which was painted prominantly on their ship.
IMHO,the ships known to have earned those "E"'s should have the highest all around ratings,(in the U.S, Navy anyway..)..
On a carrier,of course,this means they would have the best aircrews in the fleet,and I seriously doubt ANY nation would have carrier aircrews in the "60's",(experience-wise),except maybe Germany in a "what if" situation..[8D]

Question isn't what WE think the experience levels reflect...it's what Matrix thinks the exp. levels reflect.

I don't think anyone should have an experience level in the 90's unless they're highly experienced in combat against relatively high level opposition...which lets almost every pilot out. I think all exp over about 75-80 should come from combat only.

Pilots should have a rating based on:
General basis:
(1) Base Training rating for their respective nationality/service (i.e. US/USN, or Jap./IJN)
(2) Unit rating (A secondary unit based in Bumfuk China or the Aleutians would have a lower rating, obviously)
(3) "Doctrine" rating (for example; IJN would get a bonus in Dec. '41/very early '42, negative after that. USN would be opposite; slightly negative Dec. '41/very early '42, positive after that).

Individual basis:
(1) Rating based on rank/peacetime exp.
(2) Rating based on combat experience

Add them all up, average...there's your pilots rating.

NOTE: The "Doctrine" rating. Here's an area where I think WitP (and UV) is messed up. The IJA/IJN weren't supermen, their weapons, ships, aircraft, and tactics weren't all that hot. Yet, to get the effect of their early victories (suprise,shock, and awe effect I guess) you have to totally skew the stats of their weapons, ships, aircraft, ect. Which screws everything up down the line later. The Zero, for example, wasn't an overwhelming aircraft, and didn't totally outclass the P-40, Japanese pilots really didn't outclass the Allied (most) at wars start. Yet, the Zero/IJN pilots really were highly effective for a short period of time, beyond what simple numbers can quantify. Give them an increased effectiness rating up front, slowly take it away after the first few months, and be done with it.

Tigercub, it is a good question, and some good replies.

Midway showed, amoung other things, that the Allied pilots are comparable to the IJN pilots.

Training of Naval pilots have since the beginning been tough and demanding.

I know it's only Hollywood but in "Tora, Tora, Tora" there were a couple of scenes depicting training by USN and IJN pilots:
1) IJN torpedo bombers attacking an island in a harbor that alledgedly looked like Pearl Harbor - it appeared the object was to fly over some flags staked out on the island? In any case they did not drop a real torpedo.
2) Enterprise SBDs dropping bombs on a target sled - and "Adm Halsey" remarking that the CAG should "tell Lt Soinso that he couldn't hit a bull in the butt with a base fiddle"
The point is that neither points very strongly at some amazingly high level of competence.
IJN torpedo bombers seem to be particularly powerful - (I can see them scoring all kinds of hits at Pearl Harbor though against moored ships) - after PH they didn't seem all that impressive from what I can remember of other engagements in 1942: two torpedo hits each on Lexington, Yorktown and Hornet at Coral Sea, Midway and Santa Cruz Islands respectively. With only 10 attacking planes at Midway their performance seems pretty good but the number of torpedo bombers involved at Coral Sea and Santa Cruz was substantially greater (I believe) so the ratio of hits to attackers would be commeasurately lower. And the IJN torpedo bombers didn't score at all at Eastern Solomons. The Americans only managed two torpedo hits on carriers in 1942 - one each by TBDs and TBFs but the TBFs also tagged Kinugasa, Hiei and I think Isuzu at the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal so in the fianl analysis maybe their performance was as good as the IJNs in that category of air to sea attack.
Did either side practice torpedo bombing using real torpedos. I am almost certain the USN did not do it as a general practice. If the IJN didn't do it either wherefore come their high exp ratings?
Dropping real practice (concrete) bombs is much cheaper and therefore much more likely to have occurred. I find no reason to quibble with the Vals experience because they undoubtably practiced with them even if they did not gain extensive experience in China. Likewise for the USN - the Marines invented dive bombing after and although they may not like the Navy much they do talk to it on occasion.l

J7B,
you might draw some serious flak from anyone who has actually flown planes in the Aleutians. I get the gist of your thread, but flying aircraft in the Aleutians required a great deal of skill. Maybe not combat skill, but much higher than average at any kind of operational flying. And, once Japan was on Attu and Kiska, the Aleutians became a very hot combat theatre. Air was really the only offensive ability for the first 6 months in that theatre.

Also, I think when you're dealing with thousands of aviators, your model is just too complex. Yes, some US carrier pilots have 90's, but their average is still 75 to 80. Is it really necessary to compute 8 different factors when coming up with an individual's exp? I think it's possible for a pilot to get 90 exp without combat experience. In the time frame of this game, you could take one pilot and have him train for 4 years. He should be in the high 80's to 90's after 4 years, without combat exp. However, 1 month of combat exp is probably worth more than 1 year of non-combat exp. So, units gain exp in the game faster. But, existing US carrier pilots would have been doing their job for 5 or more years, IRL.

anyway, my 2 cents

The AVG have some BS Hollywood ratings though in my opinion.

The 'entire' harbor along with the ship placements were modeled for study in water bodies (ship models were maybe about 5' long as I've seen pictures of men in thigh deep water standing beside these models from WWII JA training - to say they were meticulous is an understatement as to see those pictures is quite a shock), but they did actually have a group of islands which had a very natural similarity to PH that they practiced on. The torpedoes were even altered to run in shallow depths for the attack.

Also, you ever see the 'training films' of the US Army where the MG squads had wooden guns and their tanks were trucks with the word 'tank' on them? [:D][:D][:D]

see this: http://www.iwm.org.uk/upload/package/25 ... harbor.htm

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

J7B,

anyway, my 2 cents

Sorry, you're right...strike "Aleutians" and insert "MiddleoftheDesert, USA", or "LostintheJungle, Java" instead.

One thing accounts, from every nationality, seem to agree on is that fighter pilots, regardless of technical expertise, who survived their first few combats, and/or got a kill or two had greatly increased likelyhood of survival. Combat experience important commodity, only one way to get it, and the stats should reflect this. Any number of highly respected and technically proficient pilots had extremely short violent careers as combat fighter pilots.

Ditto for bomber pilots, which is why the required exp. ratings for naval attack, skip bombing, ect.

Complexity...that's not intended as a formula. But those are the factors that should impact individual pilot ratings at war start. The pilots have ratings, that had to have come from somewhere when they're keying them into the database. Unless they're just making them up as they go along, they have to have some basis in reality. Examples;
(1) Some units stand out in the historical record because of outstanding professionalism (or a lack thereof), most didn't.
(2) A USN fighter pilot probably should have a higher base training rating than a USA pilot.
(3) A USN carrier fighter squadron flying Wildcats should have a higher base unit rating than an Army unit in Nevada desert flying P-35's (madeup example) or some similiar obsolete POS. Or an IJN carrier unit flying Zeros vs. a unit in China flying Claudes.
(4) All things being equal, an O-4 pilot should have a higher base (non-combat) experience rating than a snot-nose O-1.

The actual numerical experience rating is pretty unimportant. What IS important is that it's derived from common standards, based on common values, and applied evenly and consistently across the board. Modification to this would be the steady degradation in the base training/experience rating for Japanese pilots reporting to the pilots pool as casualties increase and the war progresses.

Only wildcards being bonuses given to individual pilots known to have been phenomenal performers. And, just like the "sliding scale" based on time period for ASW, flak, torpedoes, ect. effectiveness, I think the Japanese should be given an overall performance bonus for roughly the first 3-4 months to reflect "shock and awe". Starting Dec 07, steadily tapering off to zero. Would saves all the contortions required to reflect their early war success via tweaking the stats to justify it and screwing things up as the war progresses.

Does the name Butch O'hare ring a bell here ?

Hi, Even good pilots die. There remains some question concerning O'Hare. He was either killed by friendly fire or a single burst from a Betty at night brought him down.

My point was about the incident which made him famous, two months into the war.

He shot down half a dozen unescorted Nells I think. Give him a bonus for being a phenomenal performer. In game terms, it's a fluke. But 6 Nells intercepted by CAP during daylight and good weather should take a beating anyway, pretty much regardless of bonuses or exp. ratings.

I think some folks here are making a BIG assumption that pilots got no experience till AFTER Paerl Harbor..Just not the case whatsoever..
Pearl Harbor was a great success not because the U.S.Navy fliers were a bunch of screw ups,but because internally the Navy was full of "big gun admirals" who placed priority (and false sense of security) on the fact the U.S. had the most of those "big guns".
Thank goodness the carriers were "off doing their jobs"(as they had been doing for YEARS) prior to Pearl Harbor..
If the USN had any slouches,they would not have survived the cruelties of an under-budgeted War Department..About the only thing the USN fliers had plenty of,was FUEL to fly more hours than ANY nation,per man,(for EXPERIENCE)
Please note the equipment itself was not always picked by other fliers,but by either "big gun bean counters",or folks who had never even been around a plane.(This is how the Brewster Buffalo was initially picked OVER the Grumman Wildcat when they competed against each other..
Whatever the plane,they flew with what they were dealt with.
The American pilots gained gunnery proficiency *in peacetime* by either diving "guns blazing" at targets on the ground,or by deflection shooting at towed "gun sleeve targets"..
The latter was an excellent training device as it did teach deflection shooting at a moving target which in combat is invaluable..
Whether the target was being towed "dogfight style" with weaving and turning or not is irrelevant,as that was never American doctrine after Chennault sent his reports to the states ref the excellent maneuverability of Japanese fighter planes.
(While the AVG never flew in combat till after Pearl Harbor,Gen Chennault had already been there in China as the head of the Chinese air force for some time,(much as Macarthur was the Commanding General of the Phillipine Army,(and not the U.S. army)..
(Just 2 more cents pitched in..)[8|]

(

my last 2 cents ,I dont think any pilots should be 80+ experience without combat & its a joke ta think outher wise....thanks for your say guys.

ORIGINAL: tigercub

my last 2 cents ,I dont think any pilots should be 80+ experience without combat & its a joke ta think outher wise....thanks for your say guys.

Check out the very useful Editor that shipped with the Game.[;)]