Übercorsair and übercap

[bradfordkay]

doggie wrote:

"And I believe these remarks from Thach were made in early 1942, when the A6M was still a relatively unknown enity. It would be interesting to read his opinion later on."

You are mainly right: these remarks were made after the morning attacks against the KB on June 4, 1942. For some reason mdiehl seems to think that the remarks were made in Sept or Oct, though both recent posts using that quote attributed it to Midway. It was written in exasperation, but his feelings about the F4F continued. In late August (after the initial rounds at Guadalcanal) he wrote:
"Our tactics were always purely defensive. They were successful in keeping ourselves from being shot down, but we had little opportunity to use offensive action, which we should be able to use in a fighter."

His development of the beam defense maneuver was originally an act of desperation, which proved to be the most fortuitous act of desperation of the Pacific theatre (IMO).

[Doggie]

I'm sorry, Chez.   Did I compare you to a fourteen year old?  I should have said four year old.  that was a classic tantrum there.

[bradfordkay]

Guys, the WITP forumn rule is "Issues, not personalities." May we please refrain from the trading of insults?

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Mr. Diehl still seems to be under the impression that it's unwise to engage the A6M2 in the game.

I think it is unwise to engage Kido Butai with a like number of American CVs in the early war.

How the hell would YOU know?? You talking out of your hat, because YOU HAVE NEVER PLAYED THE GAME!

Speaking as someone that has played the game countless times I can say unequivically that the allies CAN defeat the KB with as little as 3 carriers. Consistanly. I have done it multiple times.

Dont talk about what you can and can not do in the game until you play the thing, ok? Until that happens, you are just another asshat. Thank you.

Edit: I actually took it down once with 2 carriers truth be told. Didnt mean to, but it happened.

[ChezDaJez]

ORIGINAL: Doggie

I'm sorry, Chez.   Did I compare you to a fourteen year old?  I should have said four year old.  that was a classic tantrum there.

Cool! I'm getting younger... does that mean I get to live longer?

I see you are avoiding the comments I made in my reply to your posting... typical.

Next time mdiehl needs help, tell him to send a real dog, not a chihuahah.

Chez

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

You are mainly right: these remarks were made after the morning attacks against the KB on June 4, 1942. For some reason mdiehl seems to think that the remarks were made in Sept or Oct, though both recent posts using that quote attributed it to Midway. It was written in exasperation, but his feelings about the F4F continued. In late August (after the initial rounds at Guadalcanal) he wrote:
"Our tactics were always purely defensive. They were successful in keeping ourselves from being shot down, but we had little opportunity to use offensive action, which we should be able to use in a fighter."

Your right. Thach wrote it up in his report on the evening of June 4. He concluded his report stating that even the removal of armor and self sealers would not increase the preformance of the F4F sufficiently to come anywhere near the preformance of the Zero fighter and that the deficiencies he noted prevented the US VF's from properly carrying out an assigned mission and adversely affected pilot morale. He would go on to demand that a fighter plane at least superior in climb and speed, if not maneuverability be developed if the carriers so defended were expected to remain afloat

His development of the beam defense maneuver was originally an act of desperation, which proved to be the most fortuitous act of desperation of the Pacific theatre (IMO).

I'd say his implementation of it that day in June was an act of desperation given his tactical situation combined with the fact that his teammates were not familiarized with it, but his development of the Weave actually began during the summer of 41 after hearing rumor (from Chenault) that the Japanese might possess fighters that were faster, swifter climbers and more maneuverable than current navy stock. He would later work hard in late 42 and into 43 to get the "Thach Weave" as it was dubbed by Flatley made official. It was an excellent defensive maneuver. It should be noted though that it was only used 1 other time by fighters in 42 and it claimed no enemy fighters. It kept the F4F's safe though it prevented them from operating in an offensive posture as well.

(source - Appendix 4 Lundstrom First Team vol 1)

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

My take on the compliant is that the uberCAP prevents anything from getting through... ever. I have no problem with Japanese aircraft being shot down in droves during this period but some nearly always got through. That doesn't happen in the game but it did in real life. If nothing had got through IRL, there would have been zero kamikaze hits on carriers and the Franklin would never have suffered as it did. And don't forget the bombing of the Princeton.

Now this comment only applies to the stock game, not to any of the various mods. I'm playing CHS mod 159 experiemental and so far it feels far more realistic. Some bombers always get through in this mod.

Chez

My own experiences also point to "UberCAP" being a universal problem from the get go. The IJN player benefits more simply because he has more carrier decks to utilize. USN concentration of carriers can also UberCAP and further, can near totally avoid any RL coord issues by using all 1 CV TF's and stack them together in the same hex. That way you get the same Uber coverage of a 4-5 CV TF (Like Kido Butai) but not the same risk of concentration.

Myself....i prefer Nikmod. (don't ask me why....I just do....[:'(] ) It seems to succeed in reducing the UberCap effect while also attempting to acheive a truer representation of the strengths and weaknesses of the US and Japanese 1st generation planes. What that means is that the Zero (with a good pilot) will tend to get more "hits" on an F4F (with a good pilot) but less "kills" per hit, while the F4F, while hitting less often will get more "kills" per hit. Same goes for the bombers. SBD's and TBF's are very tough for Zeros to down in large numbers.....while Vals and Kates are more vulnerable to Wildcats, esp if they are the 6 gun version to which Nikmod is tuned for.

Oh, and the Duck doesn't get it as well.....another benefit of playing Nikmod. [:)]

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

My take on the compliant is that the uberCAP prevents anything from getting through... ever. I have no problem with Japanese aircraft being shot down in droves during this period but some nearly always got through. That doesn't happen in the game but it did in real life. If nothing had got through IRL, there would have been zero kamikaze hits on carriers and the Franklin would never have suffered as it did. And don't forget the bombing of the Princeton.

Now this comment only applies to the stock game, not to any of the various mods. I'm playing CHS mod 159 experiemental and so far it feels far more realistic. Some bombers always get through in this mod.

Chez

My own experiences also point to "UberCAP" being a universal problem from the get go. The IJN player benefits more simply because he has more carrier decks to utilize. USN concentration of carriers can also UberCAP and further, can near totally avoid any RL coord issues by using all 1 CV TF's and stack them together in the same hex. That way you get the same Uber coverage of a 4-5 CV TF (Like Kido Butai) but not the same risk of concentration.

Myself....i prefer Nikmod. (don't ask me why....I just do....[:'(] ) It seems to succeed in reducing the UberCap effect while also attempting to acheive a truer representation of the strengths and weaknesses of the US and Japanese 1st generation planes. What that means is that the Zero (with a good pilot) will tend to get more "hits" on an F4F (with a good pilot) but less "kills" per hit, while the F4F, while hitting less often will get more "kills" per hit. Same goes for the bombers. SBD's and TBF's are very tough for Zeros to down in large numbers.....while Vals and Kates are more vulnerable to Wildcats, esp if they are the 6 gun version to which Nikmod is tuned for.

Oh, and the Duck doesn't get it as well.....another benefit of playing Nikmod. [:)]

My experience with the game indicates that there is definitely a "knee" in the airToAir combat model - to the extent that the more defensive fighters and the more attacking aircraft which are combined into one fighter the higher the losses become and I mean more than linearly more. Somewhere around 70+ for both side is about where I'd place the "knee". Above this level the losses go "off the chart" (the reality chart anyway). And it works both ways - it is not an Allied advantage or Japanese advantage, except the Allies get to enjoy it longer as they have the better and more numerous aircraft for longer. But the "workaround" is to avoid such battles. In my game with Moses we have been fighting a hecque of a slugfest in Burma for about 8 months. Overall losses have been about dead even. He has been attacking me (I'm playing Japanese) with 1000-2000 aircraft during most of this time. I avoid slaughter by spreading out the defense and avoiding giving him a juicey target. And he has managed to avoid sending 70+ unescorted bombers into my Tony nests - though he has gotten close a couple of times. But point is both sides are working to mitigate the downsides of being caught with too many aircraft in a disadvantaged position. But one could say Joe and Moses are "conservative players" and the more risky players can achieve more objectives more quickly. And that is probably true. But if you take the risks you may suffer the consequences. Joe and Moses choose not to take the risks (of large airbattles) and so we don't suffer the consequences. I'm sure Moses will test the waters more has his fighters increase in range and EXP.


What NikMod and some of the other MODS try to do in mitigation, is to reduce the effects to a disadvantaged air unit so that the upward tilting angle of the "knee" is effectively reduced. Or perhaps just pushed farther out, so that it is harder to hit. But certainly the effect is to reduce overall losses. Though fundamentally the "knee" effect cannot be made to go away completely just by tweaking the data. Well at least I doubt it. But the effects can be reduced.

[bradfordkay]

quote:brad


His development of the beam defense maneuver was originally an act of desperation, which proved to be the most fortuitous act of desperation of the Pacific theatre (IMO).

Nik replied:

I'd say his implementation of it that day in June was an act of desperation given his tactical situation combined with the fact that his teammates were not familiarized with it, but his development of the Weave actually began during the summer of 41 after hearing rumor (from Chenault) that the Japanese might possess fighters that were faster, swifter climbers and more maneuverable than current navy stock. He would later work hard in late 42 and into 43 to get the "Thach Weave" as it was dubbed by Flatley made official. It was an excellent defensive maneuver. It should be noted though that it was only used 1 other time by fighters in 42 and it claimed no enemy fighters. It kept the F4F's safe though it prevented them from operating in an offensive posture as well.

(source - Appendix 4 Lundstrom First Team vol 1)

Agreed, I do recall that. My use of the word development was incorrect. I should have said "implementation".

Thanks.

[herwin]

The OR studies on the Pacific war are clear--engagements were proportional to the number of sorties by the weaker side, and losses were proportional to engagements for both sides.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Doggie

Oh, I'm sorry, an expert has just weighed in on the subject:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Zero is original... everything else is just hoax (this is old WWII rumor similar to rumor that Germans flew Japanese aircraft or that German aircraft were on board Japanese carriers

Well, that settles it then. Anyone who thinks otherwise is obviously a "racist" The Japanese were beleived to have operated a number of Bf-109s, however and this may be the source of the 'rumor". U.S. aviators claimed a number of Bf-109s shot down over Japanese territory, though most, if not all of these were Kawasaki-Hein "Tony" fighters that resembled the messerschimdt. The real story of the Japanese Bf-109s is sketchy, and there's not much information on it.

I see that some people still didn't grasp the fact that Matrix forum is about info and not about people (and name calling)... sad...

Therefore please state your sources if you want to dispute that Zero was genuine Japanese design (except for propeller - but that was similar in almost any air fore at the time)!


As for false info at the beginning of USA involvement in WWII (i.e. December 1941 and early 1942) there is plethora of official USA reports about Germans flying Japanese aircraft (which is of course false), Germans designing and building Japanese aircraft (which is, again, of course false)...

Later in war Germans did try to help Japanese with certain designs but this was all too little too late (there was never any substantial cooperation between Axis in research and development during the war - this alone was one of the main reasons for loosing the war - just see how USA and UK cooperated in radar technology and code breaking)...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

BTW, external likeness is never 100% proof of copying... [:)]


The best example is Kalashnikov AK-47 and Sturmgewehr 44 (StG44):





Although externaly alike internaly they are different...


Leo "Apollo11"

[invernomuto]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

My take on the compliant is that the uberCAP prevents anything from getting through... ever. I have no problem with Japanese aircraft being shot down in droves during this period but some nearly always got through. That doesn't happen in the game but it did in real life. If nothing had got through IRL, there would have been zero kamikaze hits on carriers and the Franklin would never have suffered as it did. And don't forget the bombing of the Princeton.

Thank you for bringing back the discussion to the point.
We are not complaining about loss rates, but about not having a single bomber getting through US Cap in large A2A combats in late games.

[ctangus]

Heya Mike,

I almost let this pass, but decided not to.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Doggie

ORIGINAL: ctangus



Was too!!! [:'(]

Was NOT!!!!

Would you "proud morons" please take this "discussion" someplace else! Maybe back "under the porch" or "behind the outhouse" or some other fitting location.

Since when am I a "Steakhouse moron"? A few months back I lurked there a couple times but it doesn't look like my cup of tea. I certainly didn't register.

I try to stay cordial on this board to anybody I talk to, even when I don't agree with them...

Now, I must admit I'm sometimes a moron when I play WITP. Perhaps that's what you mean...

[VicKevlar]

I see that some people still didn't grasp the fact that Matrix forum is about info and not about people (and name calling)... sad...

BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHA! [:D]

That was a good one! Seriously, I read that and now you owe me a new keyboard.

The Matrix Forums have ALWAYS been about the users and conflict. The Forums are always at a low boil and oft times they explode.

Oh, the stories I could tell about this place. [;)]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: ctangus

Heya Mike,

I almost let this pass, but decided not to.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Doggie




Was NOT!!!!

Would you "proud morons" please take this "discussion" someplace else! Maybe back "under the porch" or "behind the outhouse" or some other fitting location.

Since when am I a "Steakhouse moron"? A few months back I lurked there a couple times but it doesn't look like my cup of tea. I certainly didn't register.

I try to stay cordial on this board to anybody I talk to, even when I don't agree with them...

Now, I must admit I'm sometimes a moron when I play WITP. Perhaps that's what you mean...

Actually, I used the term "proud morons", not "Steakhouse Morons". I was referring to the "moronic" nature of the "was to/was not" sub-thread you guys had going...., and the wish that you would go somewhere else with it. Sorry if you felt insulted..., but if you play with the morons you risk being tagged with the same brush.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: VicKevlar

I see that some people still didn't grasp the fact that Matrix forum is about info and not about people (and name calling)... sad...

BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHA! [:D]

That was a good one! Seriously, I read that and now you owe me a new keyboard.

The Matrix Forums have ALWAYS been about the users and conflict. The Forums are always at a low boil and oft times they explode.

Oh, the stories I could tell about this place. [;)]

Hehehe... but this is new "Politicaly Correct" policy and we must adhere... [8D]


Leo "Apollo11"

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

My take on the compliant is that the uberCAP prevents anything from getting through... ever. I have no problem with Japanese aircraft being shot down in droves during this period but some nearly always got through. That doesn't happen in the game but it did in real life. If nothing had got through IRL, there would have been zero kamikaze hits on carriers and the Franklin would never have suffered as it did. And don't forget the bombing of the Princeton.

Thank you for bringing back the discussion to the point.
We are not complaining about loss rates, but about not having a single bomber getting through US Cap in large A2A combats in late games.

In real fighter versus fighter combat in the Pacific, there was no advantage in outnumbering your opponent by a significant margin. The number of losses on each side was proportional to the strength of the weaker side. In a study based on the work reported in Morse and Kimball, I found evidence that this also applied to fighter versus bomber engagements. In WiTP terms, a CAP much larger than the strike being intercepted was a waste of sorties.

[latosusi]

Martti, are you finnish?

[veji1]

ORIGINAL: herwin

In real fighter versus fighter combat in the Pacific, there was no advantage in outnumbering your opponent by a significant margin. The number of losses on each side was proportional to the strength of the weaker side. In a study based on the work reported in Morse and Kimball, I found evidence that this also applied to fighter versus bomber engagements. In WiTP terms, a CAP much larger than the strike being intercepted was a waste of sorties.

This is quite interesting, could you be a bit more specific, ie give simple examples so that slooooowww minds like me can understand ? Thanks.