Request tacticle help for USN planes

[Flanker1985]

Hi guys. I have been flying this game ever since its very original release. However I have been flying Soviet planes. LaGG-3 and MiG-3 in the early war, La-5 in the mid war and La-7 in the late war.

Now I am trying to fly the carrier-bone fighters for the fun of it. Namely USN fighters. To enjoy sea battle ;)
OK, I know how to do a carrier take off and landing. But the issue is how can I take on an Zero or Ki series with a F4F?? The "view object" section says that US pilot had adapted tactics against Zero. But how?? Zero has superiority over F4F on both energy and maneuverability. And unlike the mid war Soviet planes which has bubble cockpit, in F4F I can't see a dawn thing behind me. Not only on F4F, it is the same case on F4U and F6F.
I have tried, the only fighter that is better than Zero on both energy and maneuverability are La-5FN and La-7.

I need your help if you know how to deal with Zeros. Please let me know.
Not only the F4Fs, the F4U, "view object" says it has good maneuver. But I tried, it can still be easily out maneuvered by Zero. Also it bleed speed so fast during maneuver. F6F has better maneuver compare to the F4s, but it is still out maneuvered by Japanese planes. The weapon is also a problem in late war, 6 heavy machine gun just don't have the same punch as they use to while Zero has cannons.

[Daniël]

Try to keep altitude and speed. Do not engage a turn fight, the Zero is better at turning than any American plane. Instead, when you have altitude, dive and attack the Zero and pull up again, out of the reach of the Zero.
The biggest downside of the Zero and about any Japanese plane is the lack of armor, so 6 .50's are more than enough to shoot down a Zero.

[JtD]

It's the Pacific theater that coined the phrase "turn and burn". You turn, you burn. The most if not all Japanese fighters are better at this than the USN birds. So hit and run tactics are what you have to do. In a team battle, this is tremendously effective and efficient. In a 1 vs. 1, you'll have a hard time.

[IceFire]

One of the tactics that USN pilots (one in particular) developed was called the Thach Weave (also known as Beam Defense).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thach_Weave

The idea is tight coordination between wingman and lead to provide mutual defensive capabilities against any attacking Zeros. Despite initial losses, effective teamwork and coordination allowed USN pilots to achieve high kill to loss ratios versus their Japanese counterparts. Particularly by Guadalcanal the USN pilots were doing extremely well and that was just with Wildcats.

By the time the Hellcat came on scene the USN pilots were all of a very high average quality while Japanese pilots tended to either be experienced Aces with dozens of kills and much more poorly trained (than earlier in the war) pilots that ended up being shot down in droves. Since you don't always face this in single player or offline you really have to know your aircrafts advantages.

Hellcats and Corsairs in particular are all slightly to moderately faster than any Zero they face. Climb rates are more-even so acceleration often favours the Zero... but a Zero cannot, over a long distance, follow any USN fighter (Wildcat, Hellcat, Corsair) in a sustained power dive.

If you wanted to sum it up... US Navy aircraft have the following pros and cons:

PRO
- Fast overall top speed and excellent dive capabilities
- Robust airframes able to absorb more punishment and protect the pilot
- Better high speed manoeuvrability

CONS
- Slower climb rates and acceleration rates (vs Zero)
- Significantly slower turn rates
- Less range than Japanese types

In short... a Japanese pilot wants to close the gap and fight the knife fight while a USN pilot wants to stay hands off and fight from above and at high speeds. Slowing down is death. Speed and altitude are life!

[ElAurens]

You have to fly the USN birds like a Bf 109 vs. a Yak.

Boom and Zoom.

And you MUST extend a LONG way before reengaging the Zero, as it's maneuverability will enable him to keep his guns on you.

It was said in the day that if you engaged a Zero 1 v 1 with a Wildcat you were outnumbered. The Wildcat also suffers because it's top speed in level flight is not as high as a Zero. Early on USMC commanders in the South Pacific even sent a panicked letter to the Navy requesting P40s as they were faster than the Zero, and much faster than the F4F.

[majorfailure]

The Wildcat also suffers because it's top speed in level flight is not as high as a Zero
Depends on version of the Zero. A6M3 and beyond has a little higher top speed on the deck up to 1000m. But if you plan your attack extremly careful, you can still outrun them. At best get to the fight with altitude advantage (if you do not have the altitude advantage you are basically screwed - you can try to run though) AND numerical superiority. Dive on the Zero(s), and do not burn too much E if they try to evade - continue to dive to 1000m or below, you can dive to up to 820 kph, the Zero breaks apart at 700something kph. Keep your speed up and run like no tomorrow, at best run towards own fighters or FlaK.

With the F4F and the other USN planes keep the fight fast, you are more maneuverable then the Zero when fast. The F4U has superior roll rate, use it to change direction.

Your guns are more than capable to severly damage your enemy even with a few hits. You can take pot shots, if you are a superb marksman you can even deliberately aim for the pilot - and the Zero burns easily and loses wings after very few hits.

If you are flexible in choosing your weapons, try P-40 vs. Zero, you always have a slight speed advantage -while you still lack maneuverability and climb.

[IceFire]

Depends on version of the Zero. A6M3 and beyond has a little higher top speed on the deck up to 1000m. But if you plan your attack extremly careful, you can still outrun them. At best get to the fight with altitude advantage (if you do not have the altitude advantage you are basically screwed - you can try to run though) AND numerical superiority. Dive on the Zero(s), and do not burn too much E if they try to evade - continue to dive to 1000m or below, you can dive to up to 820 kph, the Zero breaks apart at 700something kph. Keep your speed up and run like no tomorrow, at best run towards own fighters or FlaK.

With the F4F and the other USN planes keep the fight fast, you are more maneuverable then the Zero when fast. The F4U has superior roll rate, use it to change direction.

Your guns are more than capable to severly damage your enemy even with a few hits. You can take pot shots, if you are a superb marksman you can even deliberately aim for the pilot - and the Zero burns easily and loses wings after very few hits.

If you are flexible in choosing your weapons, try P-40 vs. Zero, you always have a slight speed advantage -while you still lack maneuverability and climb.
Even with the P-40 I feel like I have the manoeuvrability edge so long as I keep the fight fast and in the horizontal. The P-40E and M roll very quickly and turn fairly well at high speeds. But no sustained turns anywhere... always fast in and around.

[horseback]

First, if there were any pilots with a higher level of training and expertise than the IJN pilots in 1942, it was the prewar trained US Naval aviators (both Marines and Navy wore the same wings and had the same training). Even so, they needed to depend on close teamwork and good radio comms (which the average Japanese fighter pilot did not enjoy until late in the war, if ever) in order to survive, much less prevail as the actual US fighter pilots did. In an offline campaign, you do not enjoy those advantages over the ai while flying the Wildcat, and you do not have even the dive acceleration advantage or the improved high speed maneuverability vs the Japanese early war fighters. The ai will always dive faster than you can at first; you won't catch up as quickly as the real US fighters could because the only 'advantage' you have is terminal speed (and I'm still a bit dubious about that vs the ai, if not against human opponents online).

Additionally, the ai will enjoy closer teamwork than you can with your ai wingman, and they will not be limited at higher speeds the way the actual Japanese Naval aviator was (he was about 5 ft 2 inches tall or approx. 160cm, and weighed about 120 lbs or 55kg, 6 inches/16cm shorter and about 35 lbs or 15kg lighter than the US average and US pilots evaluating the Zero stated that it had very high stick forces above about 200 knots; it follows that the smaller Japanese would not be as physically strong as his American counterpart, what with the superior Allied logistics and better diet from nearly Day One, so that factor should be more significant than it appears to be in-game against the Wildcat, which emphatically did NOT suffer a similar handicap). Even so, the best course is to stay as high and as fast as you can and be a good shot. Stay in the F4F-3 as long as you can; it is lighter and quicker, plus it has more firing time than the folding wing -4.

Good sources for tactics would be Barrett Tillman's Wildcat in WWII and both volumes of John Lundstrom's The First Team, which cover Pearl harbor to Guadalcanal, and the Guadalcanal campaigns. Both are very good in terms of historical accuracy and are very well written (at least in English), and I have re-read them several times over the years, both for information and entertainment. Tillman also wrote similar books about the Corsair, the Hellcat and the SBD, covering their wartime use and development as well, and you may find them useful as well.

cheers

horseback

[JtD]

USN aviators might have seen more training, but they had certainly seen less war.

[Flanker1985]

Thanks for all those valuable information. :)
So basically what you are saying is as long as I flight USN fighters, I can forget about dog fight.

Also, about the choice between F4U and F6F, which do you thinks it's better?

By the way, is that true?? That F4F had a kill-to-loss ratio of 5.9:1 in 1942 and 6.9:1 for the entire war???

[gaunt1]

In my opinion, USN fighters were quite unimpressive (or outright bad in some cases) compared to japanese planes. The very professional training and tactics that helped the US to win the war against japan. Ingame, online this is not the case, so the Zero, Hayabusa, Hien and especially the Hayate and the Raiden are more than a match for Wildcats or Hellcats. The only tactics that work against them is hit & run.

Offline, I think its a bit easier, because it seems that IJN/IJA AI is stupid. While USN AI is trying to cooperate to a degree, they dont.

[majorfailure]

Also, about the choice between F4U and F6F, which do you thinks it's better?

The F4U for me. Faster then the F6F, does not like to be hamfisted though.
IMHO the supposedly pleasant attitude of the F6F does not translate in this game. And the F4U has great high speed roll rate.

By the way, is that true?? That F4F had a kill-to-loss ratio of 5.9:1 in 1942 and 6.9:1 for the entire war???
I think I have read that numbers before. I do think that they were for the combined F4F and FM-2 kills. The FM-2 was a somewhat improved Wildcat, and was used mostly from escort carriers later in the war.


In my opinion, USN fighters were quite unimpressive (or outright bad in some cases) compared to japanese planes. The very professional training and tactics that helped the US to win the war against japan. Ingame, online this is not the case, so the Zero, Hayabusa, Hien and especially the Hayate and the Raiden are more than a match for Wildcats or Hellcats. The only tactics that work against them is hit & run.
The problem is in the game IMHO. It simulates all planes up to factory specs, and while at least later in the war an average USN plane would perform almost up to factory specs and be ready the next day to fly again, the average Japanese plane - especially the Hayate and Hien - would underperform factory specs, and/or require lots of maintainance to be ready for the next flight. And the average online pilot knows most of his planes advantages and the enemys planes disadvantages, knows fighter team tactics, and communicates with his fellow pilots - as USN pilot as well as IJN/IJA pilot.

Offline, I think its a bit easier, because it seems that IJN/IJA AI is stupid. While USN AI is trying to cooperate to a degree, they dont.
I don't know if IJN/IJA AI really is worse than USN AI. I sometimes get the impression that Ace level IJN pilots do at least some sort of coordinated attack - and average USN/USAAF AI does not work

[JtD]

Even in game the carrier based USN fighters are better than carrier based IJN fighters in all around performance. Of course, they don't turn on a dime.

[ElAurens]

Up until late 42/early 43 the Japanese were the best trained combat pilots in the world, hands down, especially the IJN. They washed out pilots to crew positions that would have been aces in any other air force in the world.

This coupled with the poor tactical doctrine that the Allies started the war with (the dogfight), created the perfect storm for them in the first year or so of the war.

This insane training regime also was the downfall of the Japanese air arm.
They simply could not keep up with losses as the Allies adapted their tactics, and aircraft, to thawrt the Japanese.

[IceFire]

Thanks for all those valuable information. :)
So basically what you are saying is as long as I flight USN fighters, I can forget about dog fight.

Also, about the choice between F4U and F6F, which do you thinks it's better?

By the way, is that true?? That F4F had a kill-to-loss ratio of 5.9:1 in 1942 and 6.9:1 for the entire war???

USN fighters are not dog fighters, yep, that's the easiest way to put it. By 1943 their tactics emphasized the energy fight using turns only in high speed passes against Japanese aircraft and using their weight and engine power as an advantage. The Finnish called the technique a 'pendulum attack' which is actually a nice way to describe the basics of a boom and zoom. The type of attack requires more discipline but given the right teamwork it can be used to dominate the fight.

The F4U and F6F are a bit different. The F6F Hellcat should be a bit more pleasant to fly than it is, but despite that it's definitely the easier of the two. Both are big heavy fighters (a F6F is larger than a P-47... think about that for a moment) with a lot of weight to carry around but they also have very powerful engines.

The F4U Corsair is a bit trickier to handle. It's roll rate, top speed, and climb rate are all very good... but it's also less predictable. It's a little bit harder to land on a carrier deck which is one of the reasons why it earned the nickname 'Ensign Eliminator".

In a late war fight the Corsair is probably the better option but against Zeros (common right to the last day of the war) but the Hellcat is also a great fighter. The USN tended to favour the Hellcat on carriers as it was easier to land and so it saw the majority of carrier use while the Corsairs were really only seriously active on carriers in later 1944 and 1945. The USMC made extensive use of the Corsair from land bases with very exceptional results - again... excellent training and the eventual accumulation of combat experience helped.

[horseback]

Up until late 42/early 43 the Japanese were the best trained combat pilots in the world, hands down, especially the IJN. They washed out pilots to crew positions that would have been aces in any other air force in the world.

This coupled with the poor tactical doctrine that the Allies started the war with (the dogfight), created the perfect storm for them in the first year or so of the war.

This insane training regime also was the downfall of the Japanese air arm.
They simply could not keep up with losses as the Allies adapted their tactics, and aircraft, to thawrt the Japanese.The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Most rigorously trained, maybe. Tough? Hell yeah. Best? :rolleyes:

USN & USMC pilots facing Zeros for the second time usually came away with about equal results, and by the end of the Guadalcanal campaign, flying Wildcats, were well ahead in terms of victories to losses. Like the Finns, they had a very high standard of gunnery, and men who were acknowledged the best shots in the pre-war competitions were very successful when they got their chances (hint: Thach, O'Hare, and a guy named McCampbell were considered among the best marksmen in the USN-what a coincidence!). They were a tight-knit community who eagerly traded tips and tactics whenever they met, so Thach's weave and a clearer picture of Japanese capabilities and tendencies got around quickly in 1942. We tend to forget that the prewar US military could only afford to train and keep the very best, out of a much larger population pool than was available to Japan; the RAF and RCAF were the happy recipients of the services of a great many American aces and leaders who washed out of or were refused even the chance to get into USAAF and USN training.

The Japanese, flying aircraft superior in every respect excepting dive acceleration and pilot protection, in many cases having years of combat experience, and all quite well-informed of their opponents' aircraft performances vs their own mounts, did not adjust well to changing circumstances and tactical innovations by their opponents and paid the price. Their training had also made them slaves to doctrine.

That doesn't square with my understanding of 'best' training.

cheers

horseback

[JtD]

The Japanese, flying aircraft superior in every respect excepting dive acceleration and pilot protection...Sounds like a quote from history channel.:rolleyes:

[horseback]

Sounds like a quote from history channel.:rolleyes:Well, every once in a while, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn. If you can cite one performance/tactical advantage that the F4F or even the F2A held over the A6M series besides the ones I mentioned, you win a prize.:grin:

cheers

horseback

[JtD]

High speed maneuverability.

What did I win? Can I win more if I name another half dozen?

[horseback]

High speed maneuverability.

What did I win? Can I win more if I name another half dozen?

I think I mentioned that, but PM me; I just made a batch of my special Cinco de Mayo baked beans for my reconquista neighbors. I'll send you a jar, if you like.

Judges' decisions on any further entries are final.

cheers

horseback

[JtD]

You mentioned a lot of other attributes previously, but in the quoted statement you forgot about nearly everything - radio for instance.

Thanks but no thanks on the baked beans. Will be impossible to get through customs.

[Flanker1985]

Hi guys, I just survived a Jap air raid. They launched so many fighter and bombers at us. I had to bail after shot down 1 Zero and 2 Torpedo bombers.

I tried the energy tactics you guys told me, that Zero was bough down like that. However, during that charge, I didn't slow down my speed and did NOT bank hard, one of the Zero still manage to catch me after I shot down that one. Which I had no choice but to started heavy maneuver. I got away because 2 of friendly fighter came to save me, but I still got cornered by 3 Zero in the end and they shot my instruments and roll control all to hell. So I had to bail. Also since we are being raided, they had altitude advantage since the beginning, and they have been using this tactic on me. :(

I just wonder, why DIDN"T they use P-40s?? P-40 had way better maneuverability and better speed as well. And F4F's gun fire like a shotgun. I went so close and aim at Zero for like 3 seconds straight and I could see only few shots hit it. If it was a P-40, I could have bought down 2 Bf-109 already (which has better armor than Zero). But I can't shot down Zero because this gun fires like a shotgun. The bullet trajectory spread so large.

When I was piloting MiG-3, I can notice there is a difference in maneuver and acceleration if I only give MiG-3 70% (or less) fuel. But I have only given my F4F 30% fuel and I can't feel any differences.

Anyway, but it is fun. I have uploaded that mission so everyone can have a try and enjoy the sea battle.

Also to everyone who have been helping me so far: Thanks guys and anymore suggestions? :)

[Daniël]

If you don't feel comfortable with the guns of your F4F, you could try to change the gun convergence. Experiment a little and find out what works the best for you.

You said that you were very close to the Zero. In that case the gun convergence was too far I think. The bullets don't come to one point before they hit the Zero, so they spread on the plane. But don't set your convergence too close or shooting from a distance becomes useless. And with wing mounted guns convergence is always an issue. Shooting with a Bf 109 is a lot easier ;)

[Pursuivant]

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Most rigorously trained, maybe. Tough? Hell yeah. Best?

Arguably, in terms of victories scored, the top Japanese aces were superior to the top American aces. OTOH, in terms of kill ratios after the first 6-12 months of the war the U.S. mopped the floor with the Japanese in terms of kill ratios.

Your posts - not just the one above - point out some extremely important difference between IJN and IJAAF and American pilots. The Americans had lots of little, intangible differences which came from, essentially, being American. And, I DON'T say that in a jingoistic sense - it's little things like greater population, better diet, more robust manufacturing base and higher levels of personal initiative which was based as much on American culture as U.S. military training.

Additionally, I think that one of the huge things that help destroy Japanese air power is that most Japanese pilots were enlisted men, and ALL Japanese pilots were treated as being fundamentally expendable by their high command. That was reflected in everything from airplane design to quality of survival equipment. Saburo Sakai mentions this in his memoir.

The Japanese, flying aircraft superior in every respect excepting dive acceleration and pilot protection, in many cases having years of combat experience, and all quite well-informed of their opponents' aircraft performances vs their own mounts, did not adjust well to changing circumstances and tactical innovations by their opponents and paid the price. Their training had also made them slaves to doctrine.

To be fair, this is because the Japanese were increasingly isolated and had progressively less ability to train due to the changing fortunes of war.

What might have been a factor is that the Japanese had a very authoritarian culture before and during WW2. Even today, in situations where national culture prevents subordinates from pointing out their errors of their superiors, tragedy can ensue. For example, until accident investigators figured this out, Korean airliner pilots had higher levels of accidents. This is because in Korean culture the command pilot is God and the copilot's job is to sit down, shut up and do as he is told.

Again, that's not meant to be any sort of endorsement of the US of A, or any sort of condemnation of any other culture, it's just different. (Also, note that frighteningly authoritarian regimes can encourage tactical innovation in the military. The 3rd Reich, which is the poster child for "evil authoritarian regime" trained its officers to improvise in tactical situations.)

[sniperton]

The 3rd Reich, which is the poster child for "evil authoritarian regime" trained its officers to improvise in tactical situations.)

Yeah, but the Luftwaffe was a relatively new establishment with many actual combat pilots in high ranks and having influence on decisions. Göring, Udet, Galland, just to name a few. And with Hitler being more interested in tactical details than in the strategic big picture. The Luftwaffe was more perceptible to the experiences and inventions of individual pilots than the RAF or the IJN. This has more to do with the special sociologic composition of the Luftwaffe than with the authoritarian nature of the Nazi state.

[MaxGunz]

By the time the Corsair arrived, the Japanese didn't have many well trained pilots left. So was it -the plane- that made all the difference?

I saw a Bad-History Channel program on Japanese Secret Weapon Planes that stated that Japan had 100's of jet fighters at the end of the war, ready to take off and wipe the US planes from the sky. Yup. All there to just wipe the US out, lucky thing the war ended before the -next- Tuesday.

I wondered where they'd get pilots able to fly the things let alone fight in them. But in the Plane vs Plane mentality you just compare technical aspects to know the Winner, and maybe numbers manufactured. So whew did the US ever duck losing WWII to the Japanese with allllllll those jets!

[Flanker1985]

If you don't feel comfortable with the guns of your F4F, you could try to change the gun convergence. Experiment a little and find out what works the best for you.

You said that you were very close to the Zero. In that case the gun convergence was too far I think. The bullets don't come to one point before they hit the Zero, so they spread on the plane. But don't set your convergence too close or shooting from a distance becomes useless. And with wing mounted guns convergence is always an issue. Shooting with a Bf 109 is a lot easier ;)

I don't think it is a issue of convergence though. It is way easier if you are on a P-40E

[horseback]

Arguably, in terms of victories scored, the top Japanese aces were superior to the top American aces. OTOH, in terms of kill ratios after the first 6-12 months of the war the U.S. mopped the floor with the Japanese in terms of kill ratios.

Your posts - not just the one above - point out some extremely important difference between IJN and IJAAF and American pilots. The Americans had lots of little, intangible differences which came from, essentially, being American. And, I DON'T say that in a jingoistic sense - it's little things like greater population, better diet, more robust manufacturing base and higher levels of personal initiative which was based as much on American culture as U.S. military training.

Additionally, I think that one of the huge things that help destroy Japanese air power is that most Japanese pilots were enlisted men, and ALL Japanese pilots were treated as being fundamentally expendable by their high command. That was reflected in everything from airplane design to quality of survival equipment. Saburo Sakai mentions this in his memoir.
I think that if you pursue the historical record of US losses at a given time and place versus Japanese claims, you will find that the IJN and IJAAF fighter pilots overclaimed much, much more than US or Allied pilots at any given point during the war. All of the Japanese claims are taken at the claimant's word, because there was no formal claims process in the Japanese system comparable to the Allied or even German systems. I think you'll find that at Coral Sea and afterwards, US and Allied losses never remotely matched Japanese claims, and that as the Allied air forces gained experience, their claims ever more closely matched recorded Japanese losses.

This was partly due to the fact that Japanese High Command never developed an intelligence function most other air forces did; most other countries' post-mission procedures included a pilot and or aircrew interview with the intelligence officer (IO)even before making a written report. This squadron or wing IO would then try to corroborate claims, point out conflicts and inconsistencies & then try to clear them up as much as possible before submitting a report listing losses taken and damages inflicted upon the enemy, including any unusual observations, etc. This report was used to develop a picture of what was going on in the air war, not just to keep track of pilots' scores. However, the result was that those pilots who were questioned and crosschecked quickly learned to be better observers and recognize the difference between what could be claimed and what could be treated like hyperbole (and nobody can hyperbolate like an American fighter pilots).

All the Japanese fighter pilots got was positive feedback; their commanders received their optimistic claims enthusiastically, and then acted upon the misconceptions that they gave rise to. Right up to the end of the war, Japanese Admirals and Generals would assume that enemy planes were destroyed, ships sunk and bases wiped from the face of the earth that still existed and threatened their own shrinking supply of aircraft, ships and bases.

Now, about the officer/enlisted distinction, I'm not sure that I can accept that one. Japanese culture was very taken up with the 'noble sacrifice' mentality; captains went down with their ships, generals and admirals died at their posts when the island they were defending was invaded, pilots repeatedly made suicidal decisions like the torpedo squadron commander at Midway who, after locating the US carriers on a recon, met his strike group in the air on the way back and turned around to lead them to the carriers (even though he knew that his position message had gotten through and his aircraft would not have enough fuel to get him back to his carrier after the strike).

The Japanese did not have the sort of mindset that allowed them to say that any one person short of the Emperor was too valuable an asset a waste on a whim, so they lost a great many skilled and specially trained men early in the war that they didn't have to, and went on to sacrifice literally millions right up to the last day of the war. Officers, enlisted, pilots, sailors, soldiers or marines, it didn't matter; you did what you were told to do, you went where you were sent and for heaven's sake, you never even considered questioning higher authority.

If MacArthur had been Japanese, he'd have either stayed on Corrigedor and died fighting to the last man, or he would have returned to Japan only so he could commit hari-kiri on the steps of the Imperial Palace to apologize for his failure. No way would he have been allowed to escape certain defeat and capture/death and then continue on in a command position--it would have been unthinkable and more importantly, unacceptable.

cheers

horseback

[horseback]

Hi guys, I just survived a Jap air raid. They launched so many fighter and bombers at us. I had to bail after shot down 1 Zero and 2 Torpedo bombers.

I tried the energy tactics you guys told me, that Zero was bough down like that. However, during that charge, I didn't slow down my speed and did NOT bank hard, one of the Zero still manage to catch me after I shot down that one. Which I had no choice but to started heavy maneuver. I got away because 2 of friendly fighter came to save me, but I still got cornered by 3 Zero in the end and they shot my instruments and roll control all to hell. So I had to bail. Also since we are being raided, they had altitude advantage since the beginning, and they have been using this tactic on me. :(

I just wonder, why DIDN"T they use P-40s?? P-40 had way better maneuverability and better speed as well. And F4F's gun fire like a shotgun. I went so close and aim at Zero for like 3 seconds straight and I could see only few shots hit it. If it was a P-40, I could have bought down 2 Bf-109 already (which has better armor than Zero). But I can't shot down Zero because this gun fires like a shotgun. The bullet trajectory spread so large.

When I was piloting MiG-3, I can notice there is a difference in maneuver and acceleration if I only give MiG-3 70% (or less) fuel. But I have only given my F4F 30% fuel and I can't feel any differences.

Anyway, but it is fun. I have uploaded that mission so everyone can have a try and enjoy the sea battle.

Also to everyone who have been helping me so far: Thanks guys and anymore suggestions? :)Your question about why the Navy and Marines didn't use P-40s has a very simple answer: it was an ARMY plane (never mind that for the first 18 months of the war, there just weren't enough of them to go around). In addition, the P-40 lacked the higher altitude performance that the F4F had due to its supercharged engine; the Allison was a very good engine up to around 4000m or so, but it lost a lot of what we cowboys like to refer to as 'oomph' above those heights, where the Wildcat had the same marginal performance right up to about 9000m. The Zero at those altitudes still had better performance, but the gap was not nearly as great.

This was extremely important at Guadalcanal, where airborne sneak attacks by either side were hard to achieve, because both sides had observers stationed on the islands between the major Japanese bases around Rabaul and the American held islands to the south and east some 500 (about 800km) miles away. When warned of an incoming strike the Marine and Navy Wildcats would take an hour to get up to altitude (most fuel efficient climb, I suspect) to be ready for the Japanese raiders, and there were still occasions that the Japanese came in higher than the Americans.

In real life, the Wildcat was considered more maneuverable than the Warhawk, and a better gun platform because the pilot's view was not obstructed by the nose and the carburetor intake; this allowed for easier deflection shooting, and US naval aviators were heavily trained in high-deflection tactics. They would have hated P-40s, never mind the better top speed.

cheers

horseback

[Kittle]

When the Corsair arrived in the South Pacific, the pilots that they faced were some of the best Japan had to offer. In Fact, one of the first major F4U opps became known as the 'St Valentine's day Massacre' when several F4Us, P40s, and a P38 were shot out of the sky by Japanese fighters. The book 'Fire in the Sky: Air War in the South Pacific' illustrates vividly the differences between American and Japanese doctrine, and the destruction of the Japanese air arm in the skies over the South Pacific. The attrition suffered in the SoPac Japan never fully recovered from. The drain of skilled pilots paid dividends during the later battles in the central pacific. In all honesty, it was aircraft like the F4F, P40, and land based F4Us that faced the last of Japan's skilled aviators, and sent them down in flames.

[JtD]

Anyway, but it is fun. I have uploaded that mission so everyone can have a try and enjoy the sea battle.Flew that one for the fun of it. First try I stuck with my wing leader, he was extending, climbing and coming back high, at which point he dived and killed an A6M, a few moments later he had one on his 6, at which point I dived and killed that one. I then had lost him and went for targets of opportunity, found another distracted A6M and shot it down. Had to dive to the deck and run at some point, but wingmen cleared my 6.
Next try I just went up to mix it, turning around and climb immediately after take off, engaged the leading A6M flight, shot one down. Then I had 6 A6M's on me, so I dived to the deck and kept running. At one point four of them turned away, and I turned around to re-engage the remaining two. I had enough separation for a head on, where I damaged one, and having gone below them, they apparently lost track of me for a moment, which allowed me to easily position for another attack, killing the other one. Then going after the damaged one in a bit of a dogfight, got that one too. Headed back to the carriers, found a bit of a fight still going on, got three more kills, all A6M distracted with engaging other planes in my flight.
In the second run, only 2 A6M and 3 B5N survived the attack, and we lost 3. Pretty good result, I'd say. We lost the carrier, though.
Anyway, my defensive tactics were extremely simple, I usually just dove to the deck and ran away. In the initial part where separation was still small, I banked the plane a little alternating left and right as to not make a too easy target, but I didn't really manoeuvre. It's simple, but it works. Had to defensively stall fight once, when I got bounced and figured a dive wouldn't give me enough separation. I ended that stall fight when he had scissored on a course opposite to mine, at which point I dove away to the deck, as usual.
Note, you're in an F4F-3, which only has 4x0.50 cal. The P-40 (E&M) has 50% more firepower, so you'll have to get used to needing a bit more time on target. But ammo is plenty, so you can fire away more freely than in a P-40.

[K_Freddie]

High speed maneuverability.
What did I win? Can I win more if I name another half dozen?
This is the key to escaping the Zero... Chinnault's Tigers were doing this before Pearl Harbour in P40's... just that back home they didn't know how to read combat reports.

The Zero had limited top speed (around 390 kph) for maneuverability in the rolling axis, where it's ailerons locked due to compressibility. The wing profile that gave it's high maneuverability at low speeds, suddenly had big limitations at high speed.

The Allies learned about this very quickly and used the high speed roll to escape or out-maneuver the Zero.
:)

[MiloMorai]

The AVG had its first combat on 20 December 1941, when aircraft of the 1st and 2nd squadrons intercepted 10 unescorted Kawasaki Ki-48 "Lily" bombers of the 21st Hikotai raiding Kunming.

This is 2 weeks after Pearl Harbour.

[horseback]

This is the key to escaping the Zero... Chinnault's Tigers were doing this before Pearl Harbour in P40's... just that back home they didn't know how to read combat reports.

The Zero had limited top speed (around 390 kph) for maneuverability in the rolling axis, where it's ailerons locked due to compressibility. The wing profile that gave it's high maneuverability at low speeds, suddenly had big limitations at high speed.

The Allies learned about this very quickly and used the high speed roll to escape or out-maneuver the Zero.
:)
Freddy, Freddy, Freddy. You are being unfair to people who didn't even have digital watches, much less cell phones and internet porn.

How do you think that combat reports made their way back to the US from Rangoon, and from the US to carriers at sea? (and this is just based on the assumption that detailed reports were made at the time and sent to--most likely--USAAF Headquarters). Back in 1942, there was nothing even remotely like the instant communications we enjoy today; Burma was literally the backside of nowhere, and telegraph was the fastest form of communication available assuming that British commanders on the scene were willing to pass on tactical observations to a foreign power from what they considered a bunch of Yank mercenaries. Chances are that any reports were relayed through the US embassy in Chunking, and hand carried up the chain, again, assuming that the ambassador had the space in his couriers' bags at any given time.

At best, the reports from the pilots and their commander made it back to Washington in a month or two, and then you have to keep in mind that the USAAF was run by the bomber boys who had very little use for Chennault and his fighter doctrines (which was why he had to retire early in the first place). Were it not for the sensationalist press reports, his combat evaluations might never have been read at all.

NONE of the Allies seem to have been reading even their own combat reports in 1941-42; even though some RAF squadrons in England were reportedly flying finger four combat formations in early 1941 across the Channel, other squadrons in the Med and Far East continued to fly vics and strings well into 1943 (and paying the price in blood).

It seems like everyone was forced to figure things out for themselves; the USN's Thach had experimented with formations of two pairs in late fall of 1941 in San Diego based on what almost everyone at the time considered ridiculous reports about Japanese fighters whose performance equaled the best the Western Powers had, and possessed of unGodly maneuverability besides. Apparently, he had the time to kill since he was ashore prepping a new fighter squadron with the F4F-3, which was coming in in dribs and drabs, and had less than ideal performance compared to contemporary land based fighters.

Chennault, whose reports may have been what prompted Thach's experiments, adapted tactics best suited to the Hawk 81s he was expecting from Lend Lease to China. Those tactics wouldn't have worked as well for Wildcats, whose speed and acceleration were less exhilarating than the Hawks', but did possess better forward vision and sufficient maneuverability to take advantage of the deflection shooting that USN aviators trained for.

Meanwhile, in Java and then Northern Australia, the survivors flying P-40Es had learned their lessons the hard way and compared notes. None of these people had an opportunity to learn from each others' experiences until much later in the war if not after. When Chennault's 23rd FG finally got razorback Merlin Mustangs in mid-'44, his guys never got the memo about the guns jamming due to wing flexing, and they never figured out a fix beyond getting the D-models to replace the A/B/C models that never quite replaced the P-40Ms and Ns in China.

The Zero's ailerons got a lot heavier very quickly over 200 kts indicated, but it wasn't compressibility (and the shock waves it produced), it was just the tradeoff for having those big ailerons that worked so well at what the IJN considered combat speeds, below 200kts. At the higher speeds air resistance on those large control surfaces was more pronounced and the leverage you could generate on the stick was not so great, particularly for the much shorter average Japanese of the day. Allied fighters were almost all better in this regard, and since few of them could accelerate like the lighter Japanese models, they were already entering expected combat zones at higher than cruise speeds anyway. The relative advantages of staying fast were soon noted, as you pointed out.

cheers

horseback

[MaxGunz]

Chennault was regarded as a loose cannon rather than the hero that he was. Policy and doctrine were not going to be changed on his account.

I've seen a few BoB pilots say on video that learning to switch from close vics to loose fours was one of the most costly lessons yet when their group was rotated out and new guys brought in. It was everyone else's job to clue the new guys in meaning no one was given the job so no one did it. The new guys had to learn the hard way. And the new ones after them. That's how it went. They didn't need radio or telephones, just stop and talk about hard lessons before going off to much-needed R&R and still it didn't happen.

When the works drops in the pot, the training takes over. However hard you trained, that's how hard it is to change.

[K_Freddie]

The AVG had its first combat on 20 December 1941, when aircraft of the 1st and 2nd squadrons intercepted 10 unescorted Kawasaki Ki-48 "Lily" bombers of the 21st Hikotai raiding Kunming.

This is 2 weeks after Pearl Harbour.
Ja, you're right, sorry forgot to check my history times.
Remembered that the combat reports were available before the carriers got into action (mistook this for Pearl Harbour)

[K_Freddie]

The Zero's ailerons got a lot heavier very quickly over 200 kts indicated, but it wasn't compressibility (and the shock waves it produced), it was just the tradeoff for having those big ailerons that worked so well at what the IJN considered combat speeds, below 200kts. At the higher speeds air resistance on those large control surfaces was more pronounced and the leverage you could generate on the stick was not so great, particularly for the much shorter average Japanese of the day.

From what I hear , the Zero wing thickness was much larger than normal allowing better lift and maneuverability at low speed.. but the thick wing caused airflow disruption over the wing and control surfaces at high speeds.. causing the controls to lock.

The pilot stick forces required would be, from the pilots POV, dependent on stick length and force applied, and strength of pilot.. not size.

It would be harder to move the stick all the way at higher speeds, but to execute, say a roll at X-Degrees per second, you require less control surface deflection to execute the same maneuver, than at lower speeds.
:)

[horseback]

From what I hear , the Zero wing thickness was much larger than normal allowing better lift and maneuverability at low speed.. but the thick wing caused airflow disruption over the wing and control surfaces at high speeds.. causing the controls to lock.

The pilot stick forces required would be, from the pilots POV, dependent on stick length and force applied, and strength of pilot.. not size.

It would be harder to move the stick all the way at higher speeds, but to execute, say a roll at X-Degrees per second, you require less control surface deflection to execute the same maneuver, than at lower speeds.
:)
200 kts is about 227mph, or less than 370kph--not exactly a blistering pace by WWII standards, and kind of low for the onset of compressibility at medium altitudes and below for an aircraft capable of around an estimated 350 mph (as I understand it, the Zero's actual top speed is a subject of debate).

US pilots testing various models of the Zero both during and after the war have commented on the heaviness of the controls, particularly the ailerons above that relatively low speed, and how light they are at the preferred dogfighting speeds of the Japanese fighter pilot. A standard joystick's 'throw' or arc is limited by the pilot's thighs in most cases, so you have to think that the roll axis of the Zero's stick is limited to a relatively small arc; precise control at high force is very difficult to achieve, and the designer of a fighter has to figure out a way to balance stick forces at a range of speeds desired by his specifications. Jiro Horikoshi, the designer of the A6M, tried to keep his customer satisfied.

The average Japanese male in 1941 was sixty two inches tall and weighed about 125 lbs. The average American male in the same era was sixty nine inches tall and weighed 165 lbs. Even though greater than normal physical strength and coordination are qualities that are common among WWII era fighter pilots, one must at least suspect that being 11% taller and almost 30% heavier, all other things being equal, will usually make you MUCH stronger. As NFL football coach Bill Parcells once observed, in a contest that puts a premium on strength and speed, a good big man will usually dominate a great small man.

cheers

horseback

[RPS69]

Hmm... size of the pilot... a small but strong man, could move in spaces where the big man can not. It's leverage will be hampered by the reduced space.
Of all those physic assumptions, most ended as simple nonsense.
I also remember the asumptions on japanese pilots diet, and their probably bad sighting capacity... after all, all japanese wear glasses, isnt 'it? :/

[horseback]

Hmm... size of the pilot... a small but strong man, could move in spaces where the big man can not. It's leverage will be hampered by the reduced space.
Of all those physic assumptions, most ended as simple nonsense.
I also remember the asumptions on japanese pilots diet, and their probably bad sighting capacity... after all, all japanese wear glasses, isnt 'it? :/ Size does matter; the Zero's cockpit is reportedly roomier than the Bf 109's, so an average modern Westerner fits comfortably. We're not talking about a tiny tunnel, so the sort of stick movements we are discussing give a leverage advantage to the man with the longer arms and broader shoulders. Shorter levers require more force to accomplish the same work, simple as that.

I made no assumptions about Japanese pilots' diet, beyond what their own memoirs tell me, and what they tell me is that in the latter stages of the Solomons campaign (early to mid 1943 and after), the Japanese supply chain was in serious trouble, while the Allied supply chain was becoming much better and more reliable by the day, just as it was in the ETO and Med. German and Axis soldiers undoubtedly became less effective when they were forced to get by on reduced rations short on important nutrients, else we were just shooting and bombing their supply lines for the fun of it.

The Japanese memoirs also report that it definitely had an effect, just as it had an effect on US pilots who also suffered through the malaria and short rations in the early New Guinea and Guadalcanal campaigns. As for the crack about glasses, you're projecting racism where there is none.

If you don't like my opinions, produce facts to counter them.

cheers

horseback

[RPS69]

Size does matter; the Zero's cockpit is reportedly roomier than the Bf 109's, so an average modern Westerner fits comfortably. We're not talking about a tiny tunnel, so the sort of stick movements we are discussing give a leverage advantage to the man with the longer arms and broader shoulders. Shorter levers require more force to accomplish the same work, simple as that.

I made no assumptions about Japanese pilots' diet, beyond what their own memoirs tell me, and what they tell me is that in the latter stages of the Solomons campaign (early to mid 1943 and after), the Japanese supply chain was in serious trouble, while the Allied supply chain was becoming much better and more reliable by the day, just as it was in the ETO and Med. German and Axis soldiers undoubtedly became less effective when they were forced to get by on reduced rations short on important nutrients, else we were just shooting and bombing their supply lines for the fun of it.

The Japanese memoirs also report that it definitely had an effect, just as it had an effect on US pilots who also suffered through the malaria and short rations in the early New Guinea and Guadalcanal campaigns. As for the crack about glasses, you're projecting racism where there is none.

If you don't like my opinions, produce facts to counter them.

cheers

horseback

For sure! USAAF reports after the war, stated that shorter men, will support higher G's than taller men. So your big man, can't stand high G's as well as a shorty one.
So your big men, were perfect boom and zoomers, while your tiny japs, were excelent dogfighters. That's the kind of conclusions you can achieve with a single approach on those reports.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Telling, the japanes pilots were generally weak, is some kind of rassism. Little bit...

http://25.media.tumblr.com/eee16cae34cb31675a1d256951aa8e1d/tumblr_mlvixhyB5p1qfb6too2_250.gif

[Jure_502]

Telling, the japanes pilots were generally weak, is some kind of rassism. Little bit...

http://25.media.tumblr.com/eee16cae34cb31675a1d256951aa8e1d/tumblr_mlvixhyB5p1qfb6too2_250.gif

True. Serial high esteem of Americans can really get's annoying after a while, especially when it comes to war.

[ElAurens]

Gents, please don't paint all of my countrymen with the same broad brush.

We are not all racists.

The Japanese defeat in WW2 had nothing to do with their size, or their race. It had everything to do with their mindset, their poor understanding of how the US, The British Empire, China, and the Netherlands East Indies, would react, and their inability to consolodate their newly gained holdings after the first six months of the war. ( "Victory Disease" as it was called later by the Japanese). And most significantly the inability of Japanese industry to produce the engines of war in the numbers and quality necessary.

The Japanese bet everything on a lightening campaign that would shock the Allies to the bargaining table. They commited all their reserves out of the gate. To be sure at the time their and our perceptions of each other were very racist, and all mostly wrong.

They saw the west as a bunch of fat, lazy shopkeepers who could never be warriors, and we saw the Japanese as short, near sighted, dull witted people that were no threat.

Obviously neither assesment was correct.

[RPS69]

Gents, please don't paint all of my countrymen with the same broad brush.

We are not all racists.

The Japanese defeat in WW2 had nothing to do with their size, or their race. It had everything to do with their mindset, their poor understanding of how the US, The British Empire, China, and the Netherlands East Indies, would react, and their inability to consolodate their newly gained holdings after the first six months of the war. ( "Victory Disease" as it was called later by the Japanese). And most significantly the inability of Japanese industry to produce the engines of war in the numbers and quality necessary.

The Japanese bet everything on a lightening campaign that would shock the Allies to the bargaining table. They commited all their reserves out of the gate. To be sure at the time their and our perceptions of each other were very racist, and all mostly wrong.

They saw the west as a bunch of fat, lazy shopkeepers who could never be warriors, and we saw the Japanese as short, near sighted, dull witted people that were no threat.

Obviously neither assesment was correct.

I fully agree with you, but I can't agree with anyone that tries to use prejudice to sustain its claims. I won't fall into the trap of putting all USA citizens on the same bag.
And in this case, this conclussions are trying to justify in game planes performance for the n'th time in this forums, based on the same allready put down argument, of physical prowess. I suppose that for some people Captain America was a reality hidden by the FBI and the CIA as a comic... :rolleyes:

[JtD]

Modern day statistical evaluation, average body height, males, taken from some internet site:

Belgium - 180,4 cm
Canada - 180,1 cm
Finland - 176,6 cm
France - 173,1 cm
Germany - 180,2 cm
Italy - 172,2 cm
Japan - 165,6 cm
Netherlands - 180,8 cm
Norway - 179,7 cm
Spain - 170,0 cm
Taiwan - 172,7 cm
USA - 175,5 cm

It's a fact that not all humans are physically the same, and it's a fact that different bodies have different abilities. And it is also possible to quantify the differences statistically, broken down to all sorts of things - to time period, economical conditions, region or even nationality. I don't see anything racist in the statement of fact that on average in the WW2 period the Japanese pilot was smaller and more lightweight than the average US pilot.
And personally I don't see how on average the smaller guy has the strength of the taller guy. Same way I don't see how on average the tall guy has the same resistance to g loads. Unless of course one of the guys is genetically superior but that would be racism.

Neither racism nor political correctness change medicine, physics or facts.

And finally, nothing like that is modelled in game. So I don't really know why you guys are discussing this in the first place.

[horseback]

Telling, the japanes pilots were generally weak, is some kind of rassism. Little bit...

http://25.media.tumblr.com/eee16cae34cb31675a1d256951aa8e1d/tumblr_mlvixhyB5p1qfb6too2_250.gif

There is a big difference between pointing out that one group of generally larger people might be exert more strength/control in a given set of circumstances than another group composed of generally smaller people and asserting that the reason is inherent racial superiority. If you pick five Croatians who are over 200cm tall and have them play basketball against five other Croatians who average 175 cm, it is not unreasonable to expect the taller group to be more successful, and it has nothing to do with race. One might think that my being American is causing you to make racial/nationalist assumptions about me.

The Zero, like all of the main Japanese early war fighters was optimized for a certain kind of combat, based on the preferences of the IJN's senior aviators and their technical staffs. That choice required sacrificing certain other capabilities and limiting others in order to obtain the qualities they considered more important. Some of those choices limited the potential top speed and maneuverability at the higher speeds where Western fighter designs were generally superior. It was noted fairly early on that at higher speeds the Zeros didn't have nearly the margin of maneuverability over their opponents that they enjoyed in close-in dogfights where being light and having good climb/acceleration allowed them to make use of their ailerons and elevators at maximum efficiency.

The loss of maneuverability was markedly disproportionate to the increased speeds, and American tests of the recovered 'Aleutian' Zero in the fall/winter of 1942 revealed that the stick became uncomfortably stiff at 200 kts and the faster you were going, the more difficult it became to exert fine control; I merely pointed out that it would be even more difficult for smaller men to handle, and it gets blown into some sort of racial slur.

I think that my original point was that this particular fault is not modeled in the game, but someone latched onto the 'smaller man/people' comment instead of recognizing the main point that the game often ignores some historically significant factors.

cheers

horseback

[MaxGunz]

Stick forces have always been modeled in IL2. All pilots are the same strength in IL2. All. IRL pilots from the same country varied as to strength.

As to national averages and military jobs it is ridiculous to say that those in the jobs are represented by the national average.

[Derda508]

Does size matter? And nutrition? Well, we all know for sure that a bunch of ... let´s say tiny south-east Asians, fed on half a bowl of rice per day, could not stand against a modern army of well fed, tall, well trained and perfectly equipped .. ahem .. let´s say Westerners. They wouldn´t stand a chance, wouldn´t they? Except they did.
Just like the (in average) shorter Romans beat the shit out of the (in average) taller Celtic and Germanic warriors. Just like the (in average) short Huns and Mongols did later with the (in average) much taller European knights. And this was when fighting was physical. Tactics, strategy, motivation, numbers, leadership, logistics, technology, resource-management and a lot of other factors are what counts. Physical size never really did.
Size, by the way, is not a very good indicator for strength, toughness and endurance. I, as a European, worked quite some time in south and south-eastern Asia. I was much taller and (that was quite some time ago, when I did work-out regularly) much more beefy than our skinny, short workmen. But hell, they all were much stronger and much tougher than all of us Westerners, because they were used to constant hard labour since childhood (certainly not a healthy way of life and with 40 they looked like 60).
And statistics ... hrmmpf, I don´t reach the 180,2 cm that I should (although I am guilty of blue eyes) but all the male Korean relatives of my wife are taller than me ...

[majorfailure]

The loss of maneuverability was markedly disproportionate to the increased speeds, and American tests of the recovered 'Aleutian' Zero in the fall/winter of 1942 revealed that the stick became uncomfortably stiff at 200 kts and the faster you were going, the more difficult it became to exert fine control; I merely pointed out that it would be even more difficult for smaller men to handle, and it gets blown into some sort of racial slur.

I see how your statements could be percieved as racism, but I don't think they were.
But I fail to see how the averagely bigger, stronger pilot necessarily has an advantage over the smaller one. He MAY have, but if the construction of the cockpit is optimised for the smaller pilot he MAY even be at a disadvantage. We would have to put two or more test candidates into a Zero pit and see what stick force they could exert to be absolutely sure.
And even then I don't see the point - there are many other abilities that I'd like to see in a fighter pilot before considering physical ability, e.g. eyesight, advanced combat maneuvres, team tactics, marksmanship.
Just imagine that the all the rookie Japanese fighter pilots in 1943 would look like Arnold Schwarzenegger in his best days - but still have the same lack of training - would they have done any better?
And then imagine they all had top notch eyesight and 5000h of training - they could have looked like Homer Simpson and still would have had an impact.
A certain level of physical fitness is needed though, a fat astmathic will never be a fine fighter pilot - no matter how keen his eyesight is.

And I'm glad IL2 does not model different countries pilots differently - that would just open a can of very slimy worms.
Could be interesting to randomly have different pilot models - as selectable difficulty option -and the AI would be affected, too.

[Jumoschwanz]

Yet another thread where someone is disappointed that they can not win against the enemies aircraft by "dogfighting".

Always in the face of incredible overwhelming history that says dogfighting was far down the list of things that won the air war in WWII.

The United States and USSR advantage in WWII air combat was either in teamwork and/or overwhelming production capability. Japan was a tiny island and Germany was a tiny country, both with very limited resources.

It was the rare exception in WWII when an allied pilot with sensational flying ability was able to successfully dogfight with an experience Japanese pilot in a Japanese aircraft.
There are so many books, essays and articles filled with how the allied aircraft's advantage lay in speed and teamwork that it would take you a lifetime to read them all, but the ones everyone looks at are the very few where some good allied pilot used his bag of tricks to get his SBD, Wildcat, Hellcat etc. to fly toe to toe with some Jap pilot of questionable skill.

The only way to beat Aces flying Jap planes is to use an advantage in E or numbers, or to exploit a weakness in the AI.

All the bad things that ever happened to this sim have had allied Fan-Boys at the root of it, complaining that they can not dogfight with Axis craft, or that their machine guns for some reason are not as powerful as CANNONS. They will look for anyway to get things done except for the way it was done in history, including hacking the official patches of IL2.

[Marabekm]

Fly with a wingman or 3. Use teamwork. Which will never happen since that will just lead to kill stealing and shoulder shooting calls.

[MaxGunz]

Yet another thread where someone is disappointed that they can not win against the enemies aircraft by "dogfighting".

Always in the face of incredible overwhelming history that says dogfighting was far down the list of things that won the air war in WWII.

The United States and USSR advantage in WWII air combat was either in teamwork and/or overwhelming production capability.

Untrue. Both the US and USSR made faster planes in time to often have the equal or better plane to the German ones. Dogfighting ... see what the highest scoring German Aces wrote about dogfighting. Numbers ... East Front 1941-1942 ... who had the numbers and the faster planes?

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Dogfighting is for biplanes and beginners.

Japan was a tiny island and Germany was a tiny country, both with very limited resources.

They picked the fight.

It was the rare exception in WWII when an allied pilot with sensational flying ability was able to successfully dogfight with an experience Japanese pilot in a Japanese aircraft.
There are so many books, essays and articles filled with how the allied aircraft's advantage lay in speed and teamwork that it would take you a lifetime to read them all, but the ones everyone looks at are the very few where some good allied pilot used his bag of tricks to get his SBD, Wildcat, Hellcat etc. to fly toe to toe with some Jap pilot of questionable skill.

Stanley Vejtasa in an SBD took 3 Zeros down in a fight with many. He had a much slower and less maneuverable plane and they had numbers. Please re-iterate how the Allies only won through numbers. That was October 1942. Would you say that Japan had so few good pilots then that none of those were attackers were good?

In every air force there are the few that count for half or more of all victories. But while it's okay to champion Joachim Marseilles it is bad to champion Joe Foss? It must be so if you feel so bad over what are no more than little boy's arguments for national pride.

The only way to beat Aces flying Jap planes is to use an advantage in E or numbers, or to exploit a weakness in the AI.

All the bad things that ever happened to this sim have had allied Fan-Boys at the root of it, complaining that they can not dogfight with Axis craft, or that their machine guns for some reason are not as powerful as CANNONS. They will look for anyway to get things done except for the way it was done in history, including hacking the official patches of IL2.

Have you forgotten the first YEARS of IL2? Russian Lazers? My FW doesn't turn fast enough. My 109 can't do this thing in my book. German whine and Russian cheese on German and English forums while on Russian forums the tastes reversed.

Maybe you are not forgetting. Maybe you didn't arrive until later but that's how it went.

[Igo kyu]

The best boom and zoom planes were axis (German), the best turn and burn planes were axis (Japanese (or did the Hurricane really out-turn them as it does in this sim?)).

To say the axis has only turn and burn planes, is as silly as to say they only had boom and zoom planes, they had both, but they weren't the same planes or in the same theatres.

[JtD]

The United States and USSR advantage in WWII air combat was either in teamwork and/or overwhelming production capability.and/or better performing aircraft, better trained pilots, better logistics, better weapons, tougher aircraft, better strategic and/or tactical doctrine, better recon and/or whatnotelse. I don't really know what kind of statement you were trying to make, but taking it at face value, it is far from the truth.

[Igo kyu]

Dogfighting is for biplanes and beginners.
Cobblers, dogfighting is for the guy in the plane that turns best. You have to know which plane is which.

[MaxGunz]

LOL, turning ability and the power to keep it up are relative and as in all cases depends on the pilot. Angles fighting limits options by wasting energy. It has far less potential than energy fighting.

[K_Freddie]

Originally Posted by Jumoschwanz View Post
The United States and USSR advantage in WWII air combat was either in teamwork and/or overwhelming production capability.

and/or better performing aircraft, better trained pilots, better logistics, better weapons, tougher aircraft, better strategic and/or tactical doctrine, better recon and/or whatnotelse. I don't really know what kind of statement you were trying to make, but taking it at face value, it is far from the truth.
Really JtD... I expected more insight/historical knowledge from you :confused:

[horseback]

I see how your statements could be percieved as racism, but I don't think they were.
But I fail to see how the averagely bigger, stronger pilot necessarily has an advantage over the smaller one. He MAY have, but if the construction of the cockpit is optimised for the smaller pilot he MAY even be at a disadvantage. We would have to put two or more test candidates into a Zero pit and see what stick force they could exert to be absolutely sure.
And even then I don't see the point - there are many other abilities that I'd like to see in a fighter pilot before considering physical ability, e.g. eyesight, advanced combat maneuvres, team tactics, marksmanship.
Just imagine that the all the rookie Japanese fighter pilots in 1943 would look like Arnold Schwarzenegger in his best days - but still have the same lack of training - would they have done any better?
And then imagine they all had top notch eyesight and 5000h of training - they could have looked like Homer Simpson and still would have had an impact.
A certain level of physical fitness is needed though, a fat astmathic will never be a fine fighter pilot - no matter how keen his eyesight is.

And I'm glad IL2 does not model different countries pilots differently - that would just open a can of very slimy worms.
Could be interesting to randomly have different pilot models - as selectable difficulty option -and the AI would be affected, too.That wasn't my complaint-American test pilots had the same issues in captured Zeros at those speeds and made it part of their reports; that's how Allied fighter pilots knew what to look for. I merely mentioned in passing that if it was harder to roll for a fit, healthy guy, it would be that much tougher on a guy 30% smaller who was at a frontline base in Rabaul or New Guinea and had been missing a few meals of late.

Fighter pilots in WWII were generally the cream of the crop in almost all nations; you had to be a near perfect specimen before you even entered training, and if you weren't bright enough to pass the the classes and capable of accepting military discipline, you were washed out before you ever got into a cockpit. That shouldgo without saying.

We are moving far afield from the original issue; the real-life fact that the Zero’s maneuverability dropped off at higher speeds due to increasingly high stick forces as speeds went further past 200 kts indicated. It dropped off so much that the phenomenon became quickly recognizable to experienced Allied pilots, who then were able to exploit that weakness by keeping their speed above 200kts/225mph. It was not a matter of ‘greater strength’ in Western pilots because Western pilots who tested captured Zeros all noted the same high stick forces and also could not achieve the kind of precise or tight maneuvers in it at the higher speeds that it demonstrated at speeds just a few knots slower. It was a matter of Allied designs having lighter ailerons at higher speeds, because Western design philosophy placed a higher premium on speed and firepower than on low speed turn and climb/acceleration.

If the AI pilots all have the ‘same’ strength AND the high stick forces were part of the A6M series’ FM, one could reasonably expect the Zeros’ high G maneuvering to drop off at higher speeds and their recovery from dives to be mainly in a straight line until their excess speed was burned off. But they don’t, just as AI gunners in some planes are much more accurate than AI gunners in other aircraft for reasons unknown. In an offline campaign, it is that much harder to use the tactics used successfully in real life when your AI wingman bugs off and the AI aircraft you are fighting don’t exhibit the sort of limitations that the aircraft that they are supposed to be modeled on had.

cheers

horseback

[MaxGunz]

I read about conditions at Guadalcanal for the Marine pilots there. Malaria being rife and you kept flying until you couldn't get in the plane. Not being able to get a night's sleep often due to air raids. And yes, missing the occasional meal as well as going up in planes with unfixed gigs that occasionally amounted to crash on or soon after takeoff with the lucky ones only having to turn back. It was very bad for the Marines from the start and well into it at Henderson Field.

But their stick roll forces were not so great at high speed.

I think that the difference came when tactics that took advantage of such margins were put into operation, same as with the AVG & the 14th Air Corps and that those tactics were in play before Guadalcanal was taken.

Those tactics allowed the US pilots to decline close-in dogfighting and win.

One thing about planes with great low speed turning ability is that it's not great at mid speed and loses out before things get really fast. I've taken advantage of that in many sims online and off just through tactics. Taking the faster, less turn easy plane and flying fast large half-vertical egg-shapes I've been able to hit the slow movers and be gone.
Any that did have speed up were generally not able to follow and get lead enough to shoot. They could fly inside my great circle but still losing lap after lap while almost all the time I held the initiative. When I'd get to the top well above them I could hold up there if it even looked like the sucker might get a shot timed and drop down behind him in seconds. When I was roaring along the bottom I had enough smash to alter course a good 10-15 degrees quickly without much slowing and be in a very different part of the sky than my path had been headed rather more quickly than my slower moving adversary could respond to. I could roll onto a new heading at any time and had the speed to make something real of it while my slower enemy had less of all that including the ability to turn at the speed he was forced to fly. His ability to use initiative was almost nil.

Of course if I hadn't been able to shoot deflection well, it wouldn't have meant so much. That's why I think there are so few good energy fighters. You have to get past needing to sit on someone's tail and pepper them from close in to energy fight.

[IceFire]

That's why I think there are so few good energy fighters. You have to get past needing to sit on someone's tail and pepper them from close in to energy fight.

All good stuff Max but I wanted to highlight that. Quote for truth!

Energy fighting doesn't involve that sitting on the tail tactic at all... and that's a mistake that a lot of pilots make. The aim is to shoot to kill in the first burst and if you miss then you start over again.

With a Wildcat or a Corsair you may not obliterate the Zero but you can aim for his wing, a rather large target on a Zero, and either cripple his ability to turn fight or de-wing them and score the kill. If aimed well at a good deflection angle... you can cripple or de-wing with a quick burst from the guns. All it takes.

And if you miss... then you re-position. It's not a rally race.

[majorfailure]

If the AI pilots all have the ‘same’ strength AND the high stick forces were part of the A6M series’ FM, one could reasonably expect the Zeros’ high G maneuvering to drop off at higher speeds and their recovery from dives to be mainly in a straight line until their excess speed was burned off. But they don’t, just as AI gunners in some planes are much more accurate than AI gunners in other aircraft for reasons unknown. In an offline campaign, it is that much harder to use the tactics used successfully in real life when your AI wingman bugs off and the AI aircraft you are fighting don’t exhibit the sort of limitations that the aircraft that they are supposed to be modeled on had.

cheers

horseback
Haven't flown the A6M in a long time, but against it in P-39/40/F4F as long as the fight is fast, my roll rate exceeds or is close enough to theirs. Only when closing speed is high, that is A6M very slow, then I cannot follow -but its difficult to say if its better maneuverability or the big speed gap.

[MaxGunz]

All good stuff Max but I wanted to highlight that. Quote for truth!

Energy fighting doesn't involve that sitting on the tail tactic at all... and that's a mistake that a lot of pilots make. The aim is to shoot to kill in the first burst and if you miss then you start over again.

With a Wildcat or a Corsair you may not obliterate the Zero but you can aim for his wing, a rather large target on a Zero, and either cripple his ability to turn fight or de-wing them and score the kill. If aimed well at a good deflection angle... you can cripple or de-wing with a quick burst from the guns. All it takes.

And if you miss... then you re-position. It's not a rally race.

I see some problems with getting on the tail, closing in and shooting:

1) in IL2 structure = armor. Tail wheel assemblies can soak a lot of hits and that's not the only hard to destroy pieces depending on the plane.

2) to stay behind the target's six you have to be co-speed and co-alt. If you can maneuver quicker and harder at that speed/alt then you're at a disadvantage.

3) on someone's tail and closer than 200m, every jink they make displaces them wide from your sights.

I like to come in from one side. If they turn away then they become an easy shot, if they turn into me then I have a harder shot but nose and cockpit stand out, a longer burst generally gets some oblique hits on thin to no armor or IL-2 bullet sponge parts.

I learned the one-side approach from reading Hartmann, BTW. I think that he showed it is better to be a aerial hunter than an aerial fighter.