Request tacticle help for USN planes

[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]

Originally Posted by Flanker1985

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.

Originally Posted by Flanker1985

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by gaunt1

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.

[horseback]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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]

Originally Posted by horseback

The Japanese, flying aircraft superior in every respect excepting dive acceleration and pilot protection...

Sounds like a quote from history channel.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by horseback

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.

Originally Posted by horseback

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.)

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by 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???

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.