Rating Fighters

[Q-Ball]

In the same way an AA rating was developed for surface ships, I would love a kind of rating system developed for fighters. I have a tough time comparing fighters and the Maneuver, Durability, Gun, and Speed to determine what really the better dogfighter is. I know Corsairs are better than Nates, but how much better is a Zero vs. a P-40? A Buffalo vs. a Nate? You get the picture. Maybe bombers too, that would probably rate Bomb Load high, durability, and gun value. I think range would be separarte from that rating, because it doesn't impact combat performance. Ratings would be independent of pilot quality, bonuses, etc. Just comparing the machine.

Any thoughts? Has anyone taken a stab at that?

[Feinder]

There's a xls spreadsheet called "WitPAircraft.Xls" at Spooky's site that you can download. It's fairly interesting. It has a list of all the aircraft in WitP. And on the 1st page, you set a percentage value to each of the attributes

For Air-to-Air (Speed, Maneuver, Durability, Guns).
For Bombing (Speed, Load, Durability, Guns, Range).

It then assigns a "Air-to-Air Score" and a "Bomber Score" to each aircraft, based on the weight that you assigned to each attribute.

It can give you some approximate side-by-side numbers to look at.

Not sure of the exact link at Spooky's for the spreadsheet tho. But it's somewhat useful.

-F-

[Q-Ball]

Very interesting, the ratings surprised me a bit. Quick poll: Do these seem right to you?

P-38 67%
P-40E 60% (Superior to all forms of ZERO)
Ki-44 TOJO 60%
F4F 58%
A6m3 Zero 54%
A6m2 Zero 52%
F2A-Buffalo 52%

So, by that system the Buffalo is equal to the Zero, and the P-40 superior. Now, this doesn't account for the early war Zero bonus which is why Zeros shoot down Buffalos in droves early on (plus the differences in Pilot Rating). But does this seem right over all? I will say I think P-40's can hold there own if the pilots are decent.

[Gen.Hoepner]

And where are my beloved tonies????

[KPAX]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Very interesting, the ratings surprised me a bit. Quick poll: Do these seem right to you?

P-38 67%
P-40E 60% (Superior to all forms of ZERO)
Ki-44 TOJO 60%
F4F 58%
A6m3 Zero 54%
A6m2 Zero 52%
F2A-Buffalo 52%

So, by that system the Buffalo is equal to the Zero, and the P-40 superior. Now, this doesn't account for the early war Zero bonus which is why Zeros shoot down Buffalos in droves early on (plus the differences in Pilot Rating). But does this seem right over all? I will say I think P-40's can hold there own if the pilots are decent.

I would tend to agree with this overall. However, IMHO the most important item for dogfights is the XP of the pilots. I would take a great XP pilot fliying a Nate over a poor XP pilot flying a P-38

[foliveti]

So, by that system the Buffalo is equal to the Zero, and the P-40 superior. Now, this doesn't account for the early war Zero bonus which is why Zeros shoot down Buffalos in droves early on (plus the differences in Pilot Rating). But does this seem right over all? I will say I think P-40's can hold there own if the pilots are decent.

I am finding my P-40's being mauled over PM by Zeroes in May of 1942. My guys experience are in the 58-59 kind of range. Have no idea of the zeroes based nearby are. So I am somewhat surprised that they rank as even up. It could be a big experience differential. The zero bonus should be gone by the end of April so that should not be it.

Other than training which can only get you into the high 50s is there another way to improve experience before sending the lambs to the slaughter?

[ChezDaJez]

There is no comparison between the F2A and the A6M. Any pilot worth a salt knows which plane would win. The A6M Zeros tore through every P-40 squadron they ever came across. The AVG never engaged A6Ms in combat so no comparison can be made there. Navy Wildcats barely held there own against the Zero. They did so because they learned that if they didn't have a height advantage, it would be suicide to engage.

The problem with this rating is that it depends on how the aircraft is being used and over-emphasizes durability as a primary indicator of combat effectiveness. Early in the war, the Allies tried to dogfight the Japanese aircraft using the tactics being used in Europe, that is a turning dogfight. The Japanese aircraft Nate, Oscar, and Zero were all far more manueverable at dogfighting speeds (<250kts) than were their Allied counterparts. Any Allied pilot attempting to stay with one of these aircraft in a turn was toast. Even the vaunted Spitfire came out second best time after time against the Zero.

The AVG learned to use boom and zoom tactics very successfully, especially when Japanese fighters were tied to bomber escort. While the AVG never encountered the A6M in combat (most of their kills were Nates and Sallys), they did occasionally encounter the Oscar but did had a much lower success rate over it than the Nate (though it was still 3.5:1).

Navy fighters learned to use the Thatch Weave to help reduce their vulnerability. Even after the P-38 came along, Japanese pilots had more than a 2:1 kill ratio against until the P-38s started using the boom and zoom. Once they did that, the kill ratio very quickly reversed itself. The F6F and the Corsair were the first aircraft that could do well against the Zeros in a horizontal plane plus they had higher top speeds.

Pilot experience is also a major factor. The best plane in the hands of an inexperienced pilot will not normally succeed against an average plane in the hands of an experienced pilot. But the biggest key was to fight using your plane's strengths and not allow the enemy to use his. Once They learned that the Zero couldn't turn very well above 300kts nor could it dive at speeds greater than 350kts, U.S. pilots began having great success against it in combat.

Chez

[Onime No Kyo]

I thought pilots were worth their wings, not their salt. [:D]

Other than that, I agree completely. Allied fighters didnt dogfight, they zoomed through enemy formations and then ran like hell for the deck or for altitude.

[ChezDaJez]

I thought pilots were worth their wings, not their salt.

We'll make that salty wings, I'm retired Navy.

Chez

[Onime No Kyo]

Mmmmm....Buffalo Wings. Wait, what were we talking about?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

There is no comparison between the F2A and the A6M. Any pilot worth a salt knows which plane would win. The A6M Zeros tore through every P-40 squadron they ever came across. The AVG never engaged A6Ms in combat so no comparison can be made there. Navy Wildcats barely held there own against the Zero. They did so because they learned that if they didn't have a height advantage, it would be suicide to engage.

The problem with this rating is that it depends on how the aircraft is being used and over-emphasizes durability as a primary indicator of combat effectiveness. Early in the war, the Allies tried to dogfight the Japanese aircraft using the tactics being used in Europe, that is a turning dogfight. The Japanese aircraft Nate, Oscar, and Zero were all far more manueverable at dogfighting speeds (<250kts) than were their Allied counterparts. Any Allied pilot attempting to stay with one of these aircraft in a turn was toast. Even the vaunted Spitfire came out second best time after time against the Zero.

The AVG learned to use boom and zoom tactics very successfully, especially when Japanese fighters were tied to bomber escort. While the AVG never encountered the A6M in combat (most of their kills were Nates and Sallys), they did occasionally encounter the Oscar but did had a much lower success rate over it than the Nate (though it was still 3.5:1).

Navy fighters learned to use the Thatch Weave to help reduce their vulnerability. Even after the P-38 came along, Japanese pilots had more than a 2:1 kill ratio against until the P-38s started using the boom and zoom. Once they did that, the kill ratio very quickly reversed itself. The F6F and the Corsair were the first aircraft that could do well against the Zeros in a horizontal plane plus they had higher top speeds.

Pilot experience is also a major factor. The best plane in the hands of an inexperienced pilot will not normally succeed against an average plane in the hands of an experienced pilot. But the biggest key was to fight using your plane's strengths and not allow the enemy to use his. Once They learned that the Zero couldn't turn very well above 300kts nor could it dive at speeds greater than 350kts, U.S. pilots began having great success against it in combat.

Chez

So it more or less boils down to tactics and skill. If you want to dog-fight, the light and agile Zeroes and Oscars will have
an advantage against the heavier and more durable Allied planes. Throw in an advantage in pilot skill at War's start and
the fact that most Allied pilots started the war willing to try to dog-fight, and the Japanese do quite well. As soon as the
"word" began to get out that getting into a tail-chasing contest with a Japanese fighter was a losing proposition, tactics
began to change. Once Allied tactics began to change to emphasize speed and firepower and vertical combat the Japs
started losing their advantage. Same aircraft, different tactics.

What hurt the Japanese was when the tactics changed, they didn't have the A/C to be competative in the new style. They
tried to catch up with more "Allied-style" fighters like the Tony as the war went on, but were usually a generation behind
until the very end, when their production let them down. Couple this with a very inadequate (numbers-wise) pilot training
program, and they were caught in a downward spiral they couldn't recover from. As long as the game is basically true
to this overall situation, it is adequate. The gradual decline in the pilot skill differential can be used to represent the shift
in tactics. It's not perfect, but it will work as long as the advantages aren't built into the aircraft models. If a fight
between a Zero and a Wildcat with equal pilots is a fairly equal proposition (say 55% to 45% success rate). Same with a
P-40 vs and Oscar, etc. When Allied skill levels start exceeding the Japs, and F6F's and P-38's come into play, then things
get ugly for the Japanese.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Very interesting, the ratings surprised me a bit. Quick poll: Do these seem right to you?

P-38 67%
P-40E 60% (Superior to all forms of ZERO)
Ki-44 TOJO 60%
F4F 58%
A6m3 Zero 54%
A6m2 Zero 52%
F2A-Buffalo 52%

So, by that system the Buffalo is equal to the Zero, and the P-40 superior. Now, this doesn't account for the early war Zero bonus which is why Zeros shoot down Buffalos in droves early on (plus the differences in Pilot Rating). But does this seem right over all? I will say I think P-40's can hold there own if the pilots are decent.

P-40s most surely did hold their own versus Zeros when the pilots driving them understood the best way to fight Zeros with P-40s. Witness the results of the AVG. (And in that case many of those pilots were not necessarily "good" coming into China, but they were very well prepared indeed by Chennault for combat with the Zero.)

[ChezDaJez]

P-40s most surely did hold their own versus Zeros when the pilots driving them understood the best way to fight Zeros with P-40s. Witness the results of the AVG. (And in that case many of those pilots were not necessarily "good" coming into China, but they were very well prepared indeed by Chennault for combat with the Zero.)

Sorry, Tris, the AVG never met the Zero in combat. I know that blowhard, Eric Schilling begs to differ, but seeing as how he never even had a full kill (.75) I doubt he can be credited as an "expert" especially when Tex Hill in his writings directly contradicts him. Check out the kills Tex Hill and all the other AVG aces had. Not one Zero to be found. That's because China and Burma were pretty much an IJ Army affair. Nearly all were Nates and Sallys. Here's a detailed listing of the kills by each of the top 15 AVG pilots:

http://www.warbirdforum.com/avgaces.htm

Note: The Hayabusa is the Ki-43 IIb Oscar

Chez

[AmiralLaurent]

This is a PBEM between 2 experienced players. China has seen no air battle and there has been no CV battle yet. And I have not attacked any base where I know the AVG was flying CAP. American volunterrs have so far only shot down some recon planes.
On the remaining areas, Japanese airmen are always overwhelming opposition with numbers then changing area. Offensive missions (escorts and sweeps (latter scarcely used)) are always flown with at least two Datais/Sentais that were "rested" (fly CAP only) the day before.

Date is now 18th January 1942

A6M2 Zero is the main Japanese fighter and is used everywhere to break the Allied airforce.

Overall Zero score: 253 victories for 11 air-to-air losses

vs Brewster 339: 34 victories for 1 loss
vs Buffalo: 25 victories for 2 losses
vs F4F-3: 3 victories
vs Hurricane II: 10 victories
vs P-26A: 6 victories
vs P-35A: 7 victories
vs P-36A: 3 victories
vs P-40B: 20 victories for 1 loss
vs P-40E: 48 victories for 4 losses
vs Wirraway: 12 victories
vs non-fighters: 85 victories for 3 losses (aginst B-17Cs, 15 shot down)

Ki-27 Nate almost always flies defensive mission over airfields or short range LRCAP away from Allied bases. They are used for escorts where no Allied fighter are excepted or with several units of better fighters.

Overall Nate score: 58 victories for 13 air-to-air losses

vs Buffalo: 36 victories for 8 losses
vs Hurricane II: 4 victories for 2 losses
vs P-40E: 2 victoires for 3 losses
vs non-fighters: 16 victories

Ki-43-Ia Oscar is used as the "Army Zero". The two Sentais fly together in Malaya since the start of the war and have been used against Singapore airmen. Only one Zero Daitai is used in Malaya.

Overall Oscar I score: 54 victories vs 14 air-to-air losses

vs Buffalo: 22 victories for 5 losses
vs Hurricane II: 13 victories for 8 losses
vs non-fighters: 19 victories for 1 loss (against a Blenheim IV)

Ki-44 Tojo and A5M Claude have never engaged enemy planes.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

There is no comparison between the F2A and the A6M. Any pilot worth a salt knows which plane would win. The A6M Zeros tore through every P-40 squadron they ever came across. The AVG never engaged A6Ms in combat so no comparison can be made there. Navy Wildcats barely held there own against the Zero. They did so because they learned that if they didn't have a height advantage, it would be suicide to engage.

The problem with this rating is that it depends on how the aircraft is being used and over-emphasizes durability as a primary indicator of combat effectiveness. Early in the war, the Allies tried to dogfight the Japanese aircraft using the tactics being used in Europe, that is a turning dogfight. The Japanese aircraft Nate, Oscar, and Zero were all far more manueverable at dogfighting speeds (<250kts) than were their Allied counterparts. Any Allied pilot attempting to stay with one of these aircraft in a turn was toast. Even the vaunted Spitfire came out second best time after time against the Zero.

The AVG learned to use boom and zoom tactics very successfully, especially when Japanese fighters were tied to bomber escort. While the AVG never encountered the A6M in combat (most of their kills were Nates and Sallys), they did occasionally encounter the Oscar but did had a much lower success rate over it than the Nate (though it was still 3.5:1).

Of course I wasn't there, but I did send you this link once re P-40s in combat versus the Zero: http://www.airartnw.com/fightingtigers.htm

There are others. For example: http://www.flyingtigersavg.com/tiger2.htm

J. Richard Rossi was a flying Tiger, by the way, and was credited with six kills: http://www.warbirdforum.com/vics.htm

I don't know what the truth is. I wasn't there. But the jury seems to be out on this one.

If you've the interest, here's a fairly detailed (three pages) account of his action with the AVG, as written by Rossi: http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Rossi-AVG.html

As for durability of an aircraft: it tends to keep a plane in the fight. It's a good thing if your gas tanks up there aren't exploding every few seconds, if the armored cockpits shield your pilots from 7.7mm rounds (there were instances where the plexiglas shielded Navy pilots from 20mm shots), etc. Whether this factors into "combat effectiveness" or merely "survivability" seems to split hairs, and as I don't know exactly how Gary is working this stuff out mathematically it's a moot point here.

Navy fighters learned to use the Thatch Weave to help reduce their vulnerability. Even after the P-38 came along, Japanese pilots had more than a 2:1 kill ratio against until the P-38s started using the boom and zoom. Once they did that, the kill ratio very quickly reversed itself. The F6F and the Corsair were the first aircraft that could do well against the Zeros in a horizontal plane plus they had higher top speeds.

Make that "Thach." [;)]

Pilot experience is also a major factor. The best plane in the hands of an inexperienced pilot will not normally succeed against an average plane in the hands of an experienced pilot. But the biggest key was to fight using your plane's strengths and not allow the enemy to use his. Once They learned that the Zero couldn't turn very well above 300kts nor could it dive at speeds greater than 350kts, U.S. pilots began having great success against it in combat.

Chez

Agreed.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

P-40s most surely did hold their own versus Zeros when the pilots driving them understood the best way to fight Zeros with P-40s. Witness the results of the AVG. (And in that case many of those pilots were not necessarily "good" coming into China, but they were very well prepared indeed by Chennault for combat with the Zero.)

Sorry, Tris, the AVG never met the Zero in combat. I know that blowhard, Eric Schilling begs to differ, but seeing as how he never even had a full kill (.75) I doubt he can be credited as an "expert" especially when Tex Hill in his writings directly contradicts him. Check out the kills Tex Hill and all the other AVG aces had. Not one Zero to be found. That's because China and Burma were pretty much an IJ Army affair. Nearly all were Nates and Sallys. Here's a detailed listing of the kills by each of the top 15 AVG pilots:

http://www.warbirdforum.com/avgaces.htm

Note: The Hayabusa is the Ki-43 IIb Oscar

Chez

Well, it's kind of a case of yes he did, no he didn't. As for Erik Shilling, why would you believe Hill before Shilling? What about Rossi? He was an AVG ace with six kills.

I've been to that link you provided. Like I said, the jury seems to be out. I have no special stake in this one way or the other, and whether the P-40 was just up against Nates and the occasional Oscar doesn't really disprove a thing re the quality of the P-40 when driven by a well-trained pilot. The argument has been made over and over again that the Navy Wildcats weren't any good, either, and yet they did better than 1:1 versus . . . Zeros, and until after Midway some of those fights were against the best pilots Japan possessed.

You've said yourself, and I agree, that an average pilot in a superior plane might not do very well against a superior pilot in an inferior aircraft. Well, all I'm saying is that the AVG/Navy pilots/eventually Marines and Army pilots were "superior" to their Japanese counterparts, not because they could fly better but because they did fly smarter.And so whether the P-40s of the AVG ever met the Zero or no is immaterial to that argument.

I only want to relate this to the game, anyhow, and try to make sense of the model one way or the other. Again, I have no ax to grind here.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

This is a PBEM between 2 experienced players. China has seen no air battle and there has been no CV battle yet. And I have not attacked any base where I know the AVG was flying CAP. American volunterrs have so far only shot down some recon planes.
On the remaining areas, Japanese airmen are always overwhelming opposition with numbers then changing area. Offensive missions (escorts and sweeps (latter scarcely used)) are always flown with at least two Datais/Sentais that were "rested" (fly CAP only) the day before.

Date is now 18th January 1942

A6M2 Zero is the main Japanese fighter and is used everywhere to break the Allied airforce.

Overall Zero score: 253 victories for 11 air-to-air losses

vs Brewster 339: 34 victories for 1 loss
vs Buffalo: 25 victories for 2 losses
vs F4F-3: 3 victories
vs Hurricane II: 10 victories
vs P-26A: 6 victories
vs P-35A: 7 victories
vs P-36A: 3 victories
vs P-40B: 20 victories for 1 loss
vs P-40E: 48 victories for 4 losses
vs Wirraway: 12 victories
vs non-fighters: 85 victories for 3 losses (aginst B-17Cs, 15 shot down)

Ki-27 Nate almost always flies defensive mission over airfields or short range LRCAP away from Allied bases. They are used for escorts where no Allied fighter are excepted or with several units of better fighters.

Overall Nate score: 58 victories for 13 air-to-air losses

vs Buffalo: 36 victories for 8 losses
vs Hurricane II: 4 victories for 2 losses
vs P-40E: 2 victoires for 3 losses
vs non-fighters: 16 victories

Ki-43-Ia Oscar is used as the "Army Zero". The two Sentais fly together in Malaya since the start of the war and have been used against Singapore airmen. Only one Zero Daitai is used in Malaya.

Overall Oscar I score: 54 victories vs 14 air-to-air losses

vs Buffalo: 22 victories for 5 losses
vs Hurricane II: 13 victories for 8 losses
vs non-fighters: 19 victories for 1 loss (against a Blenheim IV)

Ki-44 Tojo and A5M Claude have never engaged enemy planes.

Chez and I haven't had that result in our game. P-40s have held their own. And then some. In fact, Chez wonders where his Zero bonus was hiding . . . before it evaporated completely last turn! [:D]

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

There is no comparison between the F2A and the A6M. Any pilot worth a salt knows which plane would win. The A6M Zeros tore through every P-40 squadron they ever came across. The AVG never engaged A6Ms in combat so no comparison can be made there. Navy Wildcats barely held there own against the Zero. They did so because they learned that if they didn't have a height advantage, it would be suicide to engage.

The problem with this rating is that it depends on how the aircraft is being used and over-emphasizes durability as a primary indicator of combat effectiveness. Early in the war, the Allies tried to dogfight the Japanese aircraft using the tactics being used in Europe, that is a turning dogfight. The Japanese aircraft Nate, Oscar, and Zero were all far more manueverable at dogfighting speeds (<250kts) than were their Allied counterparts. Any Allied pilot attempting to stay with one of these aircraft in a turn was toast. Even the vaunted Spitfire came out second best time after time against the Zero.

The AVG learned to use boom and zoom tactics very successfully, especially when Japanese fighters were tied to bomber escort. While the AVG never encountered the A6M in combat (most of their kills were Nates and Sallys), they did occasionally encounter the Oscar but did had a much lower success rate over it than the Nate (though it was still 3.5:1).

Navy fighters learned to use the Thatch Weave to help reduce their vulnerability. Even after the P-38 came along, Japanese pilots had more than a 2:1 kill ratio against until the P-38s started using the boom and zoom. Once they did that, the kill ratio very quickly reversed itself. The F6F and the Corsair were the first aircraft that could do well against the Zeros in a horizontal plane plus they had higher top speeds.

Pilot experience is also a major factor. The best plane in the hands of an inexperienced pilot will not normally succeed against an average plane in the hands of an experienced pilot. But the biggest key was to fight using your plane's strengths and not allow the enemy to use his. Once They learned that the Zero couldn't turn very well above 300kts nor could it dive at speeds greater than 350kts, U.S. pilots began having great success against it in combat.

Chez

So it more or less boils down to tactics and skill. If you want to dog-fight, the light and agile Zeroes and Oscars will have
an advantage against the heavier and more durable Allied planes. Throw in an advantage in pilot skill at War's start and
the fact that most Allied pilots started the war willing to try to dog-fight, and the Japanese do quite well. As soon as the
"word" began to get out that getting into a tail-chasing contest with a Japanese fighter was a losing proposition, tactics
began to change. Once Allied tactics began to change to emphasize speed and firepower and vertical combat the Japs
started losing their advantage. Same aircraft, different tactics.

What hurt the Japanese was when the tactics changed, they didn't have the A/C to be competative in the new style. They
tried to catch up with more "Allied-style" fighters like the Tony as the war went on, but were usually a generation behind
until the very end, when their production let them down. Couple this with a very inadequate (numbers-wise) pilot training
program, and they were caught in a downward spiral they couldn't recover from. As long as the game is basically true
to this overall situation, it is adequate. The gradual decline in the pilot skill differential can be used to represent the shift
in tactics. It's not perfect, but it will work as long as the advantages aren't built into the aircraft models. If a fight
between a Zero and a Wildcat with equal pilots is a fairly equal proposition (say 55% to 45% success rate). Same with a
P-40 vs and Oscar, etc. When Allied skill levels start exceeding the Japs, and F6F's and P-38's come into play, then things
get ugly for the Japanese.

Where the model fails overall is in its inadequacy to represent the parallel thought processes of real life versus the serial representation of the game re the "word of mouth" you mention vis-a-vis a shift in pilot tactics. And any model that has the Zero shooting down the Wildcat 55:45 [X(] is just plain broken.

[ChezDaJez]

Of course I wasn't there, but I did send you this link once re P-40s in combat versus the Zero: http://www.airartnw.com/fightingtigers.htm

Look closely at the painting. Those are Ki-43 Oscars (note the long thin tail). The problem was that the Brits and AVG tended to call any retractable gear Japanese fighter a "Zero." Also, in the writing, he mentions Nakajima fighters, again referring to the Ki-27 Nate.

If you've the interest, here's a fairly detailed (three pages) account of his action with the AVG, as written by Rossi: http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Rossi-AVG.html

The report is interesting and confirms that they were flying against Ki-27 Nates. There are 2 pictures of them, one has crashed and one appears to be a propaganda photo. On 21 Mar 42 he writes:
Quote:
"The pilots who did make contact said the Japanese planes were all faster than those they had met before; no fixed gear fighters either. Ken Jernstedt was shot down but only slightly injured. It was one of our worst engagements..." Unquote. On 8 April he also says that they met Zekes, which he says were similar to Zeros. That indicates to me that they were not Zeros and he misidentified Oscars as Zekes. Under the OOB link below, you'll find that the 64th Sentai, commanded by Col. Kako, led the mission that Rossi refers to on 8 April. The 64th Sentai flew the Ki-43 Oscar.

Here are a couple of interesting reads; one concerning "claimed" kills and one has the Japanese squadrons the AVG flew against (All IJA air units equipped with Nates and Oscars.

"Claims:" http://www.warbirdforum.com/loss.htm
IJA OOB: http://www.warbirdforum.com/hinoki.htm

Your link: http://www.warbirdforum.com/vics.htm) doesn't work.

Again, Triston, the AVG never met any A6Ms in combat, nor did the 23rd Ftr squadron that replaced the AVG. The only fighters they met were army fighters, mostly Ki-27 Nates and Ki-43 Oscars.

You really should read the entire warbird forum concerning the AVG at: http://www.warbirdforum.com/avg.htm
It is extremely well researched, detailed with names, places and dates of the Japanese, British and American flyers that took part in the air battles over the CBI. No where does it mention the A6M in that theater.

I did find it interesting that Erik Shilling never engaged a single Japanese fighter in the air during his entire flying career, in or out of the Flying Tigers, yet he claimed to be an expert on dogfighting Japanese aircraft. The only time he ever fired his guns was when his flight intercepted a Jap bomber and shot it down. He was credited with 3/4 of the kill. The only fighter-to-fighter combat he ever saw was a mock dogfight against a British Brewster Buffalo.

Chez

[Feinder]

The spreadsheet does -not- take into account the "zero bonus". Early war, you're going to have much higher kill ratios of "Zero vs. "

The settings that I have are :

Air-to-Air (speed is the primary winner of an a-t-a engagement)
Speed : 50%
Maneuver : 35%
Durability : 10%
Guns : 5%
(I'm disappointed that range isn't in this catagory also, because I -love- the Buffalos, they're mediocre fighters, but their range is excellent).

Bombing (I figure I want payload on a distant target, my bombers aren't going to outrun anything).
Speed : 0%
Load : 40%
Durability : 10%
Guns : 0%
Range : 50%

These forumulas allow me to derive these ratings:
A6M2 Zero = 64
Ki-43 Oscar = 62
Ki-27 Nate = 54
P-40B Tomahawk = 66
P-40E Warhawk = 68
F-4F3 Wildcat = 63
F4-F4 Wildcat = 64
Buffalo I (UK) = 55
Hurricane II (UK) = 64

Again, this does not take into account the Zero bonus, or the fact that 1-on-1, most Japanese pilots will have an exp rating of about 70 vs. 60 of their Allied counterparts. Exp is the single most important attribute in a-t-a combat (and in WitP). However, because it can vary widely, it can't be accounted for. And as I said, I personally put a lot of emphasis on range. The Hurricane II is a fair fighter, but it's range sucks, so it's relegated to point-defense duties.


*** And don't be so fast to nit-pick a point or two. I think my percentage roughly pair correctly. I do think that in the example earlier (where the Zero was 54, and the P-40 was 60, that might be a bit much). But my percentages give what, in my opinion, is a fair representation of the situation at large. Remember, you're also trying to closely represent the algorithm in WitP here, this is one time where historical anectdotes mean nothing. You're trying to simulate relative pairings for WitP.