PDA

View Full Version : F4F Wildcat- When the goin' gets tough...



faustnik
04-21-2004, 11:22 AM
Only the tough fly Wildcats.

Any success our fighter pilots may have against the Japanese zero fighter is not due to the performance of the airplane we fly but is the result of the comparatively poor marksmanship of their pilots and superior marksmanship and team work of some of our pilots. The only way we can ever bring our guns to bear on the zero fighter is to trick them into recovering in front of an F4F or shoot them when they are preoccupied in firing at one of our own planes. The F4F airplane is pitifully inferior in climb, manoeuvrability and speed. - Jimmy Thatch, Yorktown Fighter Group

F4F Wildcat:
Speed- 317mph
Climb- 2083fpm @ 5000ft
Max Roll Rate 70 degrees per second
Armament- 6 x .50cal
Cieling: 34,000ft

The wildcat has a few redeeming qualities. It was tough, very tough and could soak up a lot of mg hits. The Wildcat could out roll and out dive a Zero at higher speeds. The F4F has good visibility from the cockpit in flight. The Wilcat had good stall and recovery characteristics.

Fighting in the F4F is going to be rough and not for the weak of heart. Wildcats will not attract the uberplane crowd and will require skill, determination and teamwork to survive.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Widcat.jpg
Wildcats that fought untill the bitter end at Wake Island

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

[This message was edited by faustnik on Wed April 21 2004 at 10:44 AM.]

faustnik
04-21-2004, 11:22 AM
Only the tough fly Wildcats.

Any success our fighter pilots may have against the Japanese zero fighter is not due to the performance of the airplane we fly but is the result of the comparatively poor marksmanship of their pilots and superior marksmanship and team work of some of our pilots. The only way we can ever bring our guns to bear on the zero fighter is to trick them into recovering in front of an F4F or shoot them when they are preoccupied in firing at one of our own planes. The F4F airplane is pitifully inferior in climb, manoeuvrability and speed. - Jimmy Thatch, Yorktown Fighter Group

F4F Wildcat:
Speed- 317mph
Climb- 2083fpm @ 5000ft
Max Roll Rate 70 degrees per second
Armament- 6 x .50cal
Cieling: 34,000ft

The wildcat has a few redeeming qualities. It was tough, very tough and could soak up a lot of mg hits. The Wildcat could out roll and out dive a Zero at higher speeds. The F4F has good visibility from the cockpit in flight. The Wilcat had good stall and recovery characteristics.

Fighting in the F4F is going to be rough and not for the weak of heart. Wildcats will not attract the uberplane crowd and will require skill, determination and teamwork to survive.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Widcat.jpg
Wildcats that fought untill the bitter end at Wake Island

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

[This message was edited by faustnik on Wed April 21 2004 at 10:44 AM.]

chris455
04-21-2004, 11:30 AM
"...............shoot them when they are preoccupied in firing at one of our own planes".

Can you say, "Thatch Weave"? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

A .50 caliber punch in the nose. Works first time, everytime

Nice post Faust-

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

faustnik
04-21-2004, 11:33 AM
I'm having trouble posting. I'm having to build it one paragraph at a time. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

I get a "message body is a required field message"???

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

chris455
04-21-2004, 11:54 AM
I wish I could help my friend, but please keep trying; it looks like it's going to be a nice post. Wildcat is one of my favorites. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

heywooood
04-21-2004, 12:00 PM
I am also a big fan of the flying beerkeg.

PlaneEater
04-21-2004, 01:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I am also a big fan of the flying beerkeg.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems as if I have coined a nickname. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

GK.
04-21-2004, 05:38 PM
good read. I dont know how anyone can honestly saw the f4f was an even match for the zero.

http://data.photodump.com/gk/shidensig.jpg
*Proud Chute Shooter*
"P40's can't out run the zero, so we'll have to outfly them." -Ben Affleck

Zyzbot
04-21-2004, 06:02 PM
My all time favorite Zero vs. Wildcat battle:

Saburo Sakai was among the Zeros which had mixed with SCARLET EIGHT. Afterwards he rejoined Chutai leader Sasai, but in the process had lost his two wingmen, the very ones he had exhorted to stay with him at all times. He finally saw them, or at least thought he did, as two of three Zeros battling a lone Grumman well below. Incredulously, it appeared that the enemy pilot was actually chasing the Japanese by turning into them all the time. Ichirobei Yamazaki had latched his Zero onto the Grumman 's tail at about 11,000 feet, and could be seen loosing shot bursts from behind and above. Sakai drew closer to Sasai and signalled for permission to dive into the fray below.

It was Southerland which flew the hunted Grumman. Worst of all, his guns had stopped firing, so he manually tried to recharge them, hoping they had jammed rather than run dry. With self?preservation in mind he also lowered the seat to take refuge behind the Armour plate slab behind. He observed that a Zero was attacking at this time from my starboard quarter so I pushed over as though trying to escape him, then pulled out immediately, cracking my flaps and whacking off my throttle. He overran as I 'd hoped and made a climbing turn to the left. I turned inside easily and had the aviator 's dream ? a Zero at close range perfectly lined up in my sights for about a quarter deflection shot. However, I pressed my trigger without result and realized sadly that I 'd have to fight the rest of the battle without guns. Southerland knew that the enemy were land?based Zeros, perfectly capable of running circles around me as I soon discovered.

Whilst Southerland tried to duck Yamazaki 's guns, the latter was joined by Kakimoto and Uto to lengthen the odds to three to one. The three Mitsubishis set up attacks from each side, taking turns when necessary. Sakai dived to join his comrades, making a fourth adversary for the troubled American flyer.

Southerland was aware that his major contribution now to the day was now to draw the four Zeros away from the bombers they were meant to protect, and he had determined how best to endure their methodical aggression, this consisted merely of determining which of the two Zeros, attacking almost simultaneously on either quarter, was about to open fire first, and turning sharply toward him as he opened up. This gave him a full deflection shot so he invariably under led me, riddling my fuselage aft but doing little serious damage. This quick turn also placed the second plane directly behind me so that I was well protected by my armor plate. When runs were not exactly simultaneous, I would rely chiefly on my armor, placing the attackers directly aft in succession as they made their runs. Southerland now had a clear objective ? to reach Red Beach where he could bail out within the sanctity of friendly lines. Essentially he was now engaged in a race of time versus risk. The Wildcat took more hits almost every time the Zeros made a pass, the 7.7mm slugs making the loudest sound when they impacted against the armor plate directly behind him. Sometimes a Mitsubishi would overrun and pull out ahead, adding to the frustration of defective guns, but then through his shattered goggles Southerland noticed a fourth Zero join the fight, which led in a burst at long range. Sakai had arrived.

As opposed to the mechanical tactics of his three counterparts, Sakai was determined to latch himself onto the Wildcat 's tail using the design advantages of Mitsubishi 's fighter. The enemy kept turning into him, but Sakai gradually lessened the distance with the belligerent Grumman, then at last held onto its tail. In the battle of turns the Grumman had gradually run out of altitude and options. Sakai had full confidence in his Zero 's ability to destroy the quarry using only his machine guns. He double?checked that his 20mm cannon was switched off and moved closer. The Wildcat crossed the coast just West of the Bonegi River, still eighteen arduous miles short of Red Beach, but at least over land. Unbeknown to Sakai, his rival had reached the reasoned judgment that it was time to bail out. Sakai was taken by surprise when the Grumman snapped into straight and level flight. He checked his own tail, then closed in. Now closer than he had ever been to a Wildcat, its appearance and the moment moved him sufficiently that he groped for his beloved Leica camera and in a grand example of eccentricity, savored this moment by taking a photograph for his private collection. Sakai discarded the camera to the side of the cockpit, closed to fifty metres, and fired a stream of 7.7mm projectiles at the Grumman, by his estimate between five to six hundred rounds. Incredibly they had no apparent effect. Sakai at this stage thought it astounding at how a Zero, if subjected to similar punishment, would by now be a ball of flame. He contemplated the Wildcat 's rudder, ripped to shreds, looking like an old torn piece of rag. The steadfast nature of the pursuit and the opportunity to witness a formidable enemy at such close distance briefly lulled the Japanese ace into complacency. He fire walled the Mitsubishi 's throttle to get closer, but was startled to find that his eagerness had lurched him ahead of the Grumman. Sakai cringed knowing he had placed himself cleanly in front of six Brownings. But nothing happened and Sakai then realized that at this critical moment that this had been a one?sided combat ? his opponent for whatever reason lacked teeth. He dropped back, this time falling into formation slightly left of the straight?and?level Grumman. He had previously savored the luxury of taking a photograph, now he would go a step further and examine the man in the machine.

Ahead, Southerland methodically worked through the Navy checklist for bailout ? electrical switches off, disconnect microphone and transmitter cords, undo safety harness, open canopy. Alongside flew Sakai, consumed with curiosity and watching Southerland go through his paces. Southerland had time to assess the state of his mount; my plane was in bad shape but still performing nicely in low blower, full throttle, and full low pitch. Flaps and radio had been put out of commission . . . the after part of my fuselage was like a sieve. She was still smoking from incendiary but not on fire. All of the ammunition box covers on my left wing were gone and 20mm explosives had torn gaping holes in its upper surface . . . my instrument panel was badly shot up, goggles on my forehead had been shattered, my rear view mirror was broken, my Plexiglas windshield was riddled. The leak?proof tanks had apparently been punctured many times as some fuel had leaked down into the bottom of the cockpit even though there was no steady leakage. My oil tank had been punctured and oil was pouring down my right leg.

Sakai purposefully wound back his canopy and stared into the Grumman 's open cockpit. There he saw a man with a round face who he estimated was about seven or eight years older. He watched the American flier, in bloodstained flight suit, apparently undo his harness. Sakai observed that the Grumman was a shambles. Bullet holes had cut the fuselage and wings up from one end to another. The skin of the rudder was gone . . . it was incredible that his plane was still in the air. Lifting his goggles, Sakai had the impression that the man was huddled over in prayer, and thought he even tried to wave. For the first time in combat, the Imperial Navy graduate felt a conflicting empathy for the crouched figure, a contrasting emotion brought on due to the worthy nature of his enemy, but this was no way to kill a man! Not with him flying helplessly, wounded, his plane a wreck. I raised my left hand and shook my fist at him, shouting uselessly, I wished him to fight instead of just flying along like a clay pigeon. The American looked startled. I had never felt so strange before. I had killed many Americans in the air, but this was the first time a man had weakened in such a fashion directly before my eyes, and from wounds I had inflicted upon him. I honestly didn't 't know whether or not I should try to finish him off. Such thoughts were stupid of course. Wounded or not, he was the enemy, and he had taken on three of my men a few minutes ago. However, there was no reason to aim for the pilot again. I wanted the airplane, not the man. Time, a decisive indulgence in any combat, was drawing to its limits. Sakai fell in behind to finish off the Grumman. He released the cannon safety switch, aimed for its engine, and gently squeezed the firing button. Several cannon rounds impacted into the top cowl where they flashed as they exploded, cleanly removing two cylinders in the process. It was approximately half?past one on a hot Guadalcanal afternoon.
Southerland would report, at this time a Zero making a run from the port quarter put a burst in just under the left wing root and good old F?12 finally exploded. I think the explosion occurred from gasoline vapor. The flash was below and forward of my left foot. I was ready for it . . . consequently I dove over the right side just aft of the starboard wing root, head first. My .45 holster caught on the hood track, but I got rid of it immediately, though I don 't remember how. I fervently asked God to let me live and pulled the ring just as my head was passing below the starboard wing. The plane did a chandelle to the right and went down in a dive, passing about 15?20 feet ahead of me.

Caught in this unreal moment, Southerland still had the senses to reflect, the ring came out so easily in my hand that I immediately assumed my ripcord had been severed by gunfire. All aviators who bail out want to save the ring. This flashed through my mind as I reluctantly hurled it away and started clawing frantically into the webbing trying to locate the release end of the ripcord. At this point the parachute opened and I was floating comfortably about 100?150 feet above the trees. Chunky yet substantial pieces of his Wildcat tumbled from the sky and into a steep jungle ravine, grown over with dense foliage and large trees. The engine came to rest in a creek bed, whilst the rest of the debris fell through solid foliage, scattered over a length of more than three hundred meters. There they would lie undiscovered to history for nearly fifty?six years, save passing curiosity by a native hunter.

Southerland fell through trees relatively unscathed and, fearful of being strafed, hit the ground prepared to ditch his chute harness by loosening the straps. He grabbed the upwind shroud and spilled what air he could from the chute, allowing it to fill just above the trees. When he landed his first thought was the trailing Japanese would find his chute an attractive target, so he ran, 100 yards away in 9 seconds flat. My first grateful thought was to thank God that I was alive. I can guarantee that this was a wholly unexpected outcome of the battle. Under cover of nearby trees he counted eleven wounds, including three holes in his right calf, flash burns to his arms and a gaping hole in his right foot, the most painful of all. There was some consolation ? the parachute fall through the trees had given him but minor abrasions to the left leg. Southerland next sized up the geography and figured he had touched down about ten miles east of Cape Esperance, four miles inland from the beach.

Sakai noted that in the Grumman 's last seconds it rolled away, directly over the coast and headed inland. The last he saw of the pilot was him hanging limply in his chute, then lost him to view. He considered that in the process of conducting his fifty?ninth kill that his Mitsubishi had flown much too low for safety. He climbed to rejoin his cheerful companions, Uto, Yamazaki and Kakimoto, and briefly removed his scarf to identify himself. Together the four eased control sticks back for the climb. The Tainan fraternity had just destroyed five of eight VF?5 Wildcats dispatched that morning.
As the four enemy Zeros which had stalked him banked away and climbed, Southerland took stock of his lonely situation. He was in low rolling hills, covered with thick kunai grass, difficult to traverse. It was sharp too, not to mention the degree to which it made the skin itch. He realized he could not try for friendly lines in a straight line as the undergrowth and jungle in the valleys was too impassable. His best alternative lay with getting to the coast, then following its sandy littoral. Descending down hillcrests would be easiest, but this would not always be desirable as the enemy could more easily spot him against such an open background. His right shoe was full of oil, blood and dirt. He removed it and stuffed the oily black sock into the wound to minimize bleeding. Knowing he was in enemy territory and that his bail?out would probably have been seen, the downed flier 's foremost certitude lay with vacating the area. With these thoughts he cautiously hobbled off, fettered by discomfort and injury. "

Korolov
04-21-2004, 06:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:
good read. I dont know how anyone can honestly saw the f4f was an even match for the zero.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wasn't. However, teamwork was very much a match for the Zero. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

faustnik
04-21-2004, 06:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:
good read. I dont know how anyone can honestly saw the f4f was an even match for the zero.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is so amazing is that a few Navy pilots were able to change the course of history in inferior fighters. As Korolov pointed out, its the team not the machine.

Training in deflection shooting made a big difference for the American pilots. The six .50 cal armament meant a short burst would seal the fate of a Zero.


http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FightinFatbacks%20copy.jpg

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

SkyChimp
04-21-2004, 07:40 PM
It's interesting that the F4F, which most feel couldn't hold a candle to the Zero in terms of manueverability, was still an immensely manueverable fighter. That speak volumes about the manueverability of the Zero.

In Europe, the Wildcat could quickly turn the tables on a German fighter with its extreme manueverability.

"By March (1945) the Searcher was back with the home fleet, and her 882 Squadron was flying Wildcat VIs. Though the end of the war in Europe was plainly in sight, the Luftwaffe chose to contest the matter. On the 26th, in company with the Fencer and Queen, the Searcher patrolled the Norwegian coast with a flight of 882 fighters up and waiting, but Messerschmitt 109Gs of III Grupe, JG-5, surprised the Wildcats, badly damaging one in the first pass. The FM-2's manueverability allowed the British pilots to reverse the situation, and they claimed four kills. Though the Marlets had briefly tangled with 109s in North Africa, this combat wqas the first conclusive engagement between the two types.
Wildcat: The F4F in WWII Barrett Tillman

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

chris455
04-21-2004, 08:40 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GK.:
"good read. I dont know how anyone can honestly saw the f4f was an even match for the zero."

Of course the Wildcat wasn't an even match for the Zero. It was more than a match. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif
S!

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

VF-3Thunderboy
04-21-2004, 08:42 PM
You guys should read more carefully. If not for his guns jamming, Southerland would have had most if not all the Zeros, including Sakai! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Which BOOK did this paragraph come? Ive only read Saboro's version of it!

Zyzbot
04-21-2004, 08:44 PM
here is the link to the full page. long read.


http://www.pacificwrecks.com/history/tainan-ku.html


They also found parts of Southerland's Wildcat long after the war. IIRC...a piece of the Wildcat was given to Sakai

http://www.pacificghosts.com/history/history_wildcat.html

DONB3397
04-21-2004, 09:28 PM
Has anyone posted a valid comparison of the Wildcat and early Zero? I saw the Hellcat data on another thread.

My recollection is that the Japanese were less impressed by the plane than the pilots. In "Zero," Jiro Horikoshi wrote that they were surprised (given their early successes against the Americans) by the aggressive, relentless nature of the American pilots in the Solomons.

But the first U.S. plane that concerned them was the P-38 because of its high altitude performance and speed. Later the speed of the Corsair and the overall performance of the Hellcat, combined with the deterioration of IJN and JAAF pilot quality and ability to maintain equipment, led the Japanese commanders to believe the air war could not be won.

I don't remember reading anywhere that the Wildcat had any kind of performance advantage. Persistence and leadership seems to have made up for this.

http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCoEIhABne.tLZQo
"And now I see with eye serene/The very pulse of the machine;
A being breathing thoughtful breath,/A Traveller between life and death."
-- William Wordsworth

luthier1
04-21-2004, 09:57 PM
The only advantages the F4F had over the Zero were its dive characteristics, and its sturdiness. It however was more than enough in capable hands.

Wildcat was a pretty nimble plane and it was not easy to keep it in the sights for too long even for something as nimble as the Zero. And the Zero armament was really not ideal for bringing down sturdy nimble targets as the F4F. Rifle-caliber machine guns were virtually ineffective, and the 20mms had a ferociously slow rate of fire.

So the F4F was really not so desperately outclassed by the Zero as some might think. In capable hands it was anything but a deathtrap. In a one on one dogfight it stood little chance, however one on ones were very rare in the Pacific. When multiple planes were engaged, wildcats could escape in a dive which the Zeros could not follow, or evade and sustain Zero's gunfire while needing only a short burst to bring down a Zero.

One on one against the Zero a Wildcat has low chance of victory, but a pretty high chance of surviving the encounter. When the numbers get higher, the odds are becoming more even because of good US radios and reliance on teamwork, compared to Japanese focus on individual performance and often no radios at all.

Still the Wildcat is an inferior plane, and the best possible outcome of an engagement you can realistically hope for is equal losses on both sides.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

Gunner_361st
04-21-2004, 09:59 PM
Well, I have this source readily on hand, so will post the information here. The source is "World War II Aircraft" by Christopher Chant.

Grumman F4F-3 Wildcat

Engine - Pratt and Whitney R-1830-76 Twin Wasp fourteen-cyclinder air-cooled engine, 1,200 HP at takeoff and 1,050 HP at 11,000 feet.

Armament - 4x .50 Browning MG with 450 rounds per gun in the wings. (I heard some Wildcat variants had 6 .50)

Maximum Speeds - 331 mph at 21,300 feet; 281 mph at sea level.

Initial Climb Rate - 2,265 feet per minute.

Service Ceiling - 37,000 feet

Range - 860 miles

Weight - 7,065 pounds loaded

Wing Area - 260 square feet.

Mitsubishi A6M2 Model 21 Reisen (Zero Fighter)

Engine - One Nakajima NK1C Sakae 12 fourteen-cylinder air-cooled radial engine, 940 HP at take-off and 950 HP at 13,780 feet.

Armament - Two 20mm Type 99 Cannon with 60 rounds per gun in the wings and Two 7.7mm Type 97 machine guns with 500 rounds per gun in the nose.

Maximum Speed - 331 mph at 14,928 feet.

Initial climb rate - 4,517 feet per minute

Service Ceiling - 32,808 feet

Range - 1,161 miles on internal fuel, 1,929 miles with drop-tank

Weight - 5,313 pounds loaded

Wing Area - 241.541 square feet

So it would seem Top speed was practically the same.

Zero climbs much better than the Wildcat and likely out-accelerates it too.

Obviously as noted earlier, out-turns it as well.

Its my understanding that the advantages the Wildcat had on the Zero were...

-Better dive acceleration and top speed
-Much more durable and well-armored
-Better firepower (when it comes to fighter vs. fighter)
-Better high-speed control because of Zero's compression over 275 mph.

It is highly possible that the numbers for these things will differ from different sources, but thats simply the way of things. I hope this helped.

A saying I like is "There are no great planes... only great pilots."

Major Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1080.jpg

SkyChimp
04-21-2004, 10:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:

Still the Wildcat is an inferior plane, and the best possible outcome of an engagement you can realistically hope for is equal losses on both sides.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And yet, time and time again, they did better than that.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

luthier1
04-21-2004, 10:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
And yet, time and time again, they did better than that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I'm honestly not sure if that's really the case. Where have also been many cases when Wildcats suffered higher losses, and while I don't have global statistics the feeling I got from all the reading I'm doing is that this was a more common outcome.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

ElAurens
04-21-2004, 10:22 PM
what is really interesting is that the USN initially chose the Brewster Buffalo over the F4F because of it's superior performance...

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

Gunner_361st
04-21-2004, 10:25 PM
Initially. They realized the error of their ways and ordered the Wildcat shortly afterward though. :P

Major Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1080.jpg

SkyChimp
04-21-2004, 10:32 PM
That may have been the case early on. And that would be understandable given the aggressiveness of the Japanese offensive and Japanese experience. I understand it would be easy to draw the conclusion you have if you only look at the first year or so of the war.

And the Wildcat had real performance short comings, no question.

But in the long run, the Wildcat gave much better than it got finishing the war in the Pacific with a 6.9:1 kill/loss ratio. And that's losses to all causes.

I suggest Barret Tillman's book "Wildcat: The F4F in WWII." It will give you some insight into the Wildcat's contribution throughout the war.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

Gunner_361st
04-21-2004, 10:44 PM
I think the two most enjoyable and challenging fighter combats in Pacific Fighters will be flying a Wildcat against experienced Zero fighters

and...

Flying the Zero and Oscar against experienced American pilots with second-generation American aircraft, like the Hellcat, Lightning, and Thunderbolt.

May the best pilots win. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Major Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1080.jpg

luthier1
04-21-2004, 11:37 PM
Well that's a reeealy complex question SkyChimp. I think you're giving very easy answers here, very misleading too.

The kill:loss ratio is not at all indicative of how the F4F measured up against the Zero, since it includes kills of all aircraft types, and losses to all causes. I don't have the statistics - and I wonder if they even exist - but the kill:loss ratio of F4F specifically versus the Zero would not be nearly as one-sided.

Secondly, I think the first year of the war is more indicative of the situation one should expect online. In 1942 the difference in pilot skill was much less drastic, and by 1943 and later pilot skill becomes so uneven that it really makes little difference which planes were flown by the pilots.

I think early Guadalcanal battles are probably the best indication of what could be expected of F4F vs Zero engagements with all pilots competent and working well in teams.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

faustnik
04-22-2004, 12:17 AM
The F4F situation in PF should be somewhat similar to that of the 190 in FB (uhh, without the 400mph speed capability). One on one the 190 has a very rough time with a Yak or P-51, but, get a squad of experienced 190 pilots together agianst a like number of oponents, and the story changes. Toughness and firepower don't win dogfights, but, they win battles. The ability to disengage from a fight by diving is also huge, it's saved my online butt many times. Like I said, the tough will fly Wildcats, the rest won't. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

RAC_Pips
04-22-2004, 12:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
Well I'm honestly not sure if that's really the case. Where have also been many cases when Wildcats suffered higher losses, and while I don't have global statistics the feeling I got from all the reading I'm doing is that this was a more common outcome.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you Luthier. In Zero v's F4F the Wildcat did have a poor victory ratio. According to Barrett Tillman it had a loss ratio 0f 2:1 against the A6M.

However as an effective carrier fighter it did perform better than the Zero in that it was much more effective in chopping down enemy bombers/raiders than was the Zero. Better tactics, fire power, radar, radio, teamwork and a generally higher level of marksmanship all contributed to give the F4F an overall victory ratio of 4:1. It was a very effective CAP fighter.

Not bad for an 'inferior' aircraft. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DONB3397
04-22-2004, 12:35 AM
Many of the Wildcat kills, I believe, were defending the carriers against Vals and Kates, as well as the Nells and Bettys over Guadalcanal. These weren't easy pickings, however; the Betty was pretty well armed, for instance.

http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCoEIhABne.tLZQo
"And now I see with eye serene/The very pulse of the machine;
A being breathing thoughtful breath,/A Traveller between life and death."
-- William Wordsworth

luthier1
04-22-2004, 12:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DONB3397:
Many of the Wildcat kills, I believe, were defending the carriers against Vals and Kates, as well as the Nells and Bettys over Guadalcanal. These weren't easy pickings, however; the Betty was pretty well armed, for instance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vals and Kates were not very easy prey, however I completely disagree about the Betty. It was probably the world's easiest plane to shoot down. Rifle caliber machine guns were pretty much useless against US carrier-borne fighters, and the single 20mm in the tail had such a ferociously low rate of fire that you had to be very clumsy or very unlucky to get hit.

Of course a large formation of any bombers will produce a heavy enough concentration of fire to hit something. But all in itself, the Betty was a real sorry excuse for an aircraft. Certainly not well armed at all.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

DONB3397
04-22-2004, 09:16 AM
You're right; the Betty's armament by U.S. standards, was pitifully light. But the allies seldom found these a/c alone. Protecting these bombers was a primary mission for the Zeroes. U.S. Marine and Naval pilots often had one pass.

Since the primary mission for the Wildcats was to get the bombers...not the fighters, that's where they focused (if they had a choice). So, high-side pass from port or starboard, aim for the fuel tanks amid ship, and dive out of trouble.

To the original point here, the Wildcat's kill-loss ratio was favorable largely because of its success against non-fighter aircraft. The Betty, designed for range and bombload at the expense of structure, was vulnerable when hit. It's surrounding fuel tanks exploded like a blowtorch ("One-shot lighter").

In PF, I suspect the damage models will be consistent with all this. Great. When taking my version of the Fighting 17 Corsairs against the G4Ms and G6Ms offline, I'll leave one flight high to scare off the zekes, and use the rest to light up the Betties. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCoEIhABne.tLZQo
"And now I see with eye serene/The very pulse of the machine;
A being breathing thoughtful breath,/A Traveller between life and death."
-- William Wordsworth

faustnik
04-22-2004, 09:53 AM
One possible advantage of the Wildcat might be pilots view. When I see pictures of the F4F one thing that stands out is the hieght at which the pilot sits.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Wildcat2.jpg

It looks like the forward view should be excellent.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FightinFatbacksSM.jpg

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

SkyChimp
04-22-2004, 06:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Well that's a reeealy complex question SkyChimp. I think you're giving very easy answers here, very misleading too.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe misleading with regards to F4F vs A6M kill ratio maybe, but it sort of puts to rest the notion that the F4F was an inferior fighter. And the assertion that the best Wildcat pilots could hope for was parity with the Zero is really just silly.

Tillman's Wildcat: The F4F in WWII states that at Coral Sea the Wildcats had a "six-to-three deficit" against the A6M, but "bounced back four weeks later to outshoot the A6M eleven-to-five."

At Guadalcanal, Marine fighting squadrons were regularly outnumbered by enemy fighters by two or more to one, yet regularly came out on top in air-combat with them.

Again, I highly recommend Tillman's book.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I agree with you Luthier. In Zero v's F4F the Wildcat did have a poor victory ratio. According to Barrett Tillman it had a loss ratio 0f 2:1 against the A6M.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 2:1 kill loss ratio is for the time period of December 1941 through the fall of 1943. And 2:1 is the author's speculation. During this time, the Wildcat achieved 603 confirmed victories for 178 admitted losses in the air. That's a 3.3:1 kill/loss ratio.

If that qualifies as a poor kill/loss ratio, I don't know what to say. And if that ratio weren't impressive enough, it was achieved during the time period when the Japanese had at its disposal its best pilots, and when the Japanese outnumbered the Americans by a significant margin.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

SkyChimp
04-22-2004, 06:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
One possible advantage of the Wildcat might be pilots view. When I see pictures of the F4F one thing that stands out is the hieght at which the pilot sits.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Wildcat2.jpg

It looks like the forward view should be excellent.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FightinFatbacksSM.jpg

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
http://www.7jg77.com
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Wildcat did have better forward view than the Zero due to its sloping cowling, versus the Zero's more bulbous cowling. But in the picture you posted, it looks like the pilot is sitting on a raised seat.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

BuzzU
04-22-2004, 07:40 PM
Luthier,

I hope you make the American planes as sturdy as they should be. If they come out like the FB P-47 we're dead ducks.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto/anderson9.jpg

heywooood
04-22-2004, 07:51 PM
Thatsa buzzkill if I ever saw one.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

WUAF_Badsight
04-22-2004, 10:14 PM
& on that note id like to say .....

the Wildcat looks & reminds me of the Brewster Buffalo except slightly bigger

i love to fly & Fight with the B239 in FB & im sure the Wildcat is going to be a fun plane to use as well

just not that much fun against Zeros : (

WUAF_Badsight
04-22-2004, 10:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
Luthier,

I hope you make the American planes as sturdy as they should be. If they come out like the FB P-47 we're dead ducks.

Buzz
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ARE YOU MAD ?!?!?!?!

the P-47 is the Single HARDEST plane to kill in FB

its SOOOOOO tuff

when you fly it you notice your controls getting destroyed a lot ....... this is because your taking a HUGE amount of punishment & the ONLY fricken thing that you can have hurt is your controls

its so tuff its , its , its ......... its almost historical http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
04-22-2004, 10:26 PM
thirdly ..... why do people say the Zero is Manouerverable ???

sure it will do a tight turn once its on its side .... or it will do a tight loop

but as far as being able to manouever quick . . . . . . FORGET IT

the thing has hideous slow roll even at 200 kmh

chasing a well flowen P-40 is a right pain in the a$$ its so sluggish

all you can hope for is for your bandit to be a dummie & do constant turns

why does it have this awesome reputation for tuen fighting when its such a pig to shift around in FB ?

BuzzU
04-22-2004, 10:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
Luthier,

I hope you make the American planes as sturdy as they should be. If they come out like the FB P-47 we're dead ducks.

Buzz
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

_ARE YOU MAD_ ?!?!?!?!

the P-47 is the Single HARDEST plane to kill in FB

its SOOOOOO tuff

when you fly it you notice your controls getting destroyed a lot ....... this is because your taking a HUGE amount of punishment & the ONLY fricken thing that you can have hurt is your controls

its so tuff its , its , its ......... its almost historical http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've seen the wing of a P-47 fly off with a short burst, and i'm not talking about big cannons either. That doesn't seem right from all i've read about the Jug.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto/anderson9.jpg

sugaki
04-23-2004, 12:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Maybe misleading with regards to F4F vs A6M kill ratio maybe, but it sort of puts to rest the notion that the F4F was an inferior fighter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it doesn't, because we were talking about "inferior" relative to fighter planes. It is an inferior plane.

However, it doesn't mean that F4F's were going to be massacred. A good F4F pilot can still hold his own, and a skilled F4F pilot with an altittude advantage would rock a Zero.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Tillman's Wildcat: The F4F in WWII states that at Coral Sea the Wildcats had a "six-to-three deficit" against the A6M, but "bounced back four weeks later to outshoot the A6M eleven-to-five." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As people exercise caution when embracing Japanese kill numbers, a degree of caution should be made in embracing US numbers as well. I don't know the specifics, and haven't read the book, but since people love to blow off the infamous Muto story as not being real, it's only fair to apply the same degree of healthy skepticism toward US figures.

The Zero is by no means an F4F killer, but it still was an inferior plane to the Zero.

-Aki

RAC_Pips
04-23-2004, 12:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:


The 2:1 kill loss ratio is for the time period of December 1941 through the fall of 1943. And 2:1 is the author's speculation. During this time, the Wildcat achieved 603 confirmed victories for 178 admitted losses in the air. That's a 3.3:1 kill/loss ratio.

If that qualifies as a poor kill/loss ratio, I don't know what to say. And if that ratio weren't impressive enough, it was achieved during the time period when the Japanese had at its disposal its best pilots, and when the Japanese outnumbered the Americans by a significant margin.

_Regards,_
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A point that needs to be kept in mind when discussing USN and USMC kill ratio's is the way in which both services kept records of losses at that time.

Bear in mind that the US forces were heavily scrutinised by both the newspapers of the day and by Congress. So to present a positive outlook for the public (in other words home grown propaganda) both services massaged their loss figures by the simple expedient of breaking down losses to 'direct' and 'other' cause.

'Direct' causes covered those aircraft lost over enemy targets through either enemy air to air action or Flak. 'Other causes' covered all other losses eg ditching, barrier crashes, loss to extensive damage, maintenance etc.

So in effect aircraft that were lost due to enemy action, but did not go down over target, were not classed as lost to enemy action but to 'other' causes.

This manipulation of the figures gave rise to claims like the F4F's 6:1 kill rate, the F4U's 12:1 kill ratio, or the Hellcats 19;1 claims. In reality, while the victory ratio was still very impressive, it was nowhere near as high as the USN/USMC would have you believe. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

For further reading on the subject consult Ronald Bailey's excellent 'On The Home Front, USA'. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

faustnik
04-23-2004, 01:24 PM
Good oint Pips! You can't look at any countries kill claims as being anywhere close to reality. The only instance I know of where it was close to accurate was LW claims for the 1941 on the Ostfront.

German and UK claims during the BOB period were way off as were US claims over Europe. I'm sure in the PTO claims were overblown by a huge factor by both sides.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

RAC_Pips
04-23-2004, 01:54 PM
If anyone is ever looking for an example of outrageous claims, look no further than the Fighter Command's RAF claims during 1941 and 1942. Throughtout this period Fighter Command constantly overclaimed, by a average margin of 3:1!

Take the Dieppe operation in 1942 as an example. The RAF had 750 fighters available for the operation, as opposed to 235 Luftwaffe fighters - JG2 and JG26. The RAF claimed 99 Luftwaffe aircraft for the loss of 106 RAF aircraft. According to Donald Caldwell the Luftwaffe lost just 48 aircraft, of which just 23 were fighters. The Luftwaffe claimed in turn 98 British aircraft. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

sugaki
04-23-2004, 02:07 PM
RAC_Pips: Excellent points. A lot of people simply accept figures (especially US) without any reservations, erstwhile being cynical about figures put out by other countries.

Both US and Japan have had instances where they reported more kills than they should.

SkyChimp
04-23-2004, 04:51 PM
Sugaki, you can toss around the word "inferior" all you want. It's a completely subjective, all-encompassing word that is nothing short of an easy conclusion to a complex comparison.

The truth of the matter is is that the F4F suffered performance deficits in comparison with the Zero. Fine. But the Wildcat had advantages over Zero that mitigated those liabilities and made it the better plane for which to win battles.

For every claim that the Zero was faster, and more manueverable at low speed, arguments exist for the Wildcat that it was more manueverable at high speed and dived better. The Wildcat had better armament, armor, and was tougher. The Wildcat had infinitely better radio equipment - communication being a vital element in team tactics. The Japanese often took their radios out and discarded them as useless.

Yep, the Zero has some performance characteristics which were superior to those of the Wildcat, no doubt about it. But it had major liabilities as well. It was well suited for the single-handed, one-on-one style of fighting that was a losing proposition in the long run. The Wildcat was the vastly superior plane for a fighting team.

I see it this way: whether it was intentional or not, the Wildcat was more suited to the winning style of fighting than was the Zero to its style of fighting. So, call the Wildcat inferior, it means little really. The inferior Wildcat outgunned the Zero in the long run.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

faustnik
04-23-2004, 05:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:


The Wildcat did have better forward view than the Zero due to its sloping cowling, versus the Zero's more bulbous cowling. But in the picture you posted, it looks like the pilot is sitting on a raised seat.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Wildcat3.jpg

Here's an inflight shot. The pilots sits high and appears to have a great forward view angle.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Alyssa1127
04-23-2004, 06:39 PM
Wow! People do love their favorites, here.

Everyone has their points, and for the most part, everyone is hitting it right on the nose. The Wildcat was sturdier than the Zero, The Zero could turn inside the Wildcat if the speed was low enough, the Wildcat could outdive the Zero, etc, etc, etc...

Where the lines finally separate are when the pilot assumes control, and whether he or she is able to take all the strengths and weaknesses and somehow turn them to his/her advantage.

I'm a prime example. Recently, I've delved into using the P-38 in multiplayer, and taught myself the art of B-n-Z (and by the way, Badsight, excellent advice on patience). Dive, fire, zoom up and away, repeat. I normally suck online, but refusing to accept a turning fight and always dictating my terms of the battle - how, when, and where - does wonders for a kill ratio.

On the other hand, I have gotten myself suckered into a turning fight more than once in the Lightening, and the results are fairly predictable - a sudden and rather nasty premature reunion with Mother Earth.

The Wildcat will be a wonderful plane for those who can fight as a team, are crack deflection shots, and know better than to tangle with a Zero in a classic turning fight. The Zero, on the other hand, can wreak havoc on a Wildcat if it manages to pull it down into its element.

"The quality of the crate matters little. Success depends upon the man who sits in it."
Baron Manfred von Richthofen

Alyssa

LEXX_Luthor
04-23-2004, 07:42 PM
Who cares? There are more important things.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>At 1315 hours over Savo Island, Southerland received a laconic radio order to nudge left ten degrees. Thick cloud was building and in the way, on a day which commander Simpler described as one of heavy cumulus clouds that hung in huge lumps--the kind that you can ride around the corner and anything could be right smack in front of you.

~ http://www.pacificwrecks.com/history/tainan-ku.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://www.ucar.edu/imagelibrary/408.gif Okay Luthier1 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif
http://www.ucar.edu/imagelibrary/400-433.html


http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif http://www.ucar.edu/imagelibrary/413.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

WUAF_Badsight
04-23-2004, 08:38 PM
lmao LEXX . . . . . i love how they all bow in unison

what the wildcat people are forgetting is that right now ..... with a carefull touch the P-40 as it is in FB right now can turn fight with the Zero & keep the Zero warded off

the Zero in FB as it is now has a SUPER slow roll even at slow speeds

wasnt the Wildcat even more manouerverable & even a better turner ?!?!?!?!

Alyssa1127
04-23-2004, 09:07 PM
quote
-------
"with a carefull touch the P-40 as it is in FB right now can turn fight with the Zero & keep the Zero warded off"
-------

Oh, how elequontly put, Badsight. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Seems to suggest that pilot skill does come into play here.

PS - how have you been?

Alyssa

faustnik
04-23-2004, 11:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
lwhat the wildcat people are forgetting is that right now ..... with a carefull touch the P-40 as it is in FB right now can turn fight with the Zero & keep the Zero warded off

the Zero in FB as it is now has a SUPER slow roll even at slow speeds

wasnt the Wildcat even more manouerverable & even a better turner ?!?!?!?!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P-40 was a very maneuverable a/c. I would expect the Wildcat to be in the same ballpark. If a P-40 turnfights a Zero he would be giving up his main advantage, speed. I'm sure you are right that it can be done though by a good T&B pilot using the P-40 great roll rate to advantage.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

SkyChimp
04-24-2004, 06:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alyssa1127:
Wow! People do love their favorites, here.

Alyssa<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do, and the Wildcat is my all-time favorite airplane http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

RAC_Pips
04-24-2004, 07:23 PM
No kidding Skychimp? Who would have guessed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SkyChimp
04-24-2004, 07:30 PM
That's right. It was perfect. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

VF-3Thunderboy
04-24-2004, 08:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> the Zero in FB as it is now has a SUPER slow roll even at slow speeds
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Zero has an excellent roll rate at low speed,about 4.5 seconds. (On video)!-slow at high speeds, fast at low, but that may be difficult to model...??The Zero is light and manuverable, I bet its a *****in plane to fly!

chris455
04-25-2004, 11:29 AM
Sugaki, you have made this comparison (and mistake) before.

The Allies generally had strict criteria as to when a combat could be considered a kill. The Japanese largely discouraged kill-tallying, so there was little by the way of an official standards by which to judge claims. There are even those that say Imperial General HQ may have issued orders discouraging individual kill counts.
Also the very way the allies fought-with an emphasis on teamwork- many times provided the secondary eyewitness which clinched the "kill" as offical. The tactics used by the Japanese, which emphasized individual combat did not often lend themselves to this level of verification.

These are some of the reasons that many are quicker to "embrace" allied figures and look somewhat more sceptically on the Japanese numbers.It's also the reason that many Japanese aces had their scores reduced after the war, when their biographers or other researchers were able to compare their claims against US after action reports etc. Allied claims held up much better because they weren't awarded in the first place unless they met strict criteria. It is important for me to point out here that these are generalities- no one is implying that allied pilots never padded their scores, or that all Japanese claims are suspect, etc.

It's not a matter of simple "honesty". It has more to do with the dynamics of the two sytems.

You might want to look at it from that point of view, instead of using your own ego as a lens. When you do that it becomes an "honesty/dishonesty" thing,
which it largely isn't.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
RAC_Pips: Excellent points. A lot of people simply accept figures (especially US) without any reservations, erstwhile being cynical about figures put out by other countries.

Both US and Japan have had instances where they reported more kills than they should.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

[This message was edited by chris455 on Sun April 25 2004 at 12:49 PM.]

HarryVoyager
04-25-2004, 06:05 PM
Just a side note: in Warbirds, the Wildcat clearly performed more poorly than the Zero in a large number of ways, however, in the historical engagements they ran, the Wildcats would typically defeat the Zeros, in the ensuing large dogfights.

Now, I doubt that the Zero pilots were any less skilled, or worked together any less well than the F4F pilots, rather, the F4F's advantages were far more suited to team fighting than the A6M's were.

Note how the LaGG-3 was often the best fighter in the early war VEF wars? Same reason. Greater reliability, and heavy firepower made it a better aircraft for squadron size dogfights than the more nimber Bf-109F or Yak-1 -1B.

What happens, is that in a squadron sized dogfight, turn rate advantage becomes less effective. If you have a 30 degree per second turn rate advantage on the enemy, you still end up stuck turning only at his turn rate, if you are trying to hold a burst on target, and while you are keeping you fire on target, your turn rate has dropped below that of the other aircraft in your target's flight, which opens you up to enemy fire.

You then end up with having to either, take the hits, or break off your attack and evade. In a Zero, if you opt to take the hits, you're likely to be shot down in the process, but if you evade, you've lost the opportunity to take down one of their aircraft. Eventually, after enough of this, the less durable aircraft tend to start dieing.

Try taking a squad of P-47's up agianst Yak-3's in Il-2, and see what I mean. The Yak-3's may be able to fly rings around the Thunderbolts, but the minute a Yak-3 saddles in behind a Bolt, it's going to get shot to ribbons. Eventually, it starts to tell on the Yaks.

Harry Voyager

GK.
04-25-2004, 06:16 PM
wierd, i out turn bf109f models in a lagg3 no problem. Anyone know which plane actually turns better in game? Perhaps it is just my superior piloting skill.

http://data.photodump.com/gk/shidensig.jpg
*Proud Chute Shooter*
"P40's can't out run the zero, so we'll have to outfly them." -Ben Affleck

SkyChimp
04-25-2004, 07:07 PM
GK, in case you haven't noticed, there are two types of tight-turns in FB. There is "The Tight Turn", then there is "The Russian Tight Turn."

Historically speaking, in the Pacific, "The Tight Turn" was the turn used by Japanese Zero pilots. It became the stuff legends were made of.

In FB, Oleg has introduced us to "The Russian Tight Turn," a turn that was unknown in the west (and everywhere else in the world) until the introduction of IL2 Sturmovik and Forgotten Battles. With it, you can turn inside any known non-Russian fighter, even the A6M2.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

fordfan25
04-25-2004, 07:24 PM
lol good point chimp

chris455
04-25-2004, 07:30 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GK.:
"wierd, i out turn bf109f models in a lagg3 no problem. Anyone know which plane actually turns better in game? Perhaps it is just my superior piloting skill".

It's getting really deep in here

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/galoshes.jpg

Korolov
04-25-2004, 07:56 PM
Man the lifeboat! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/351.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

Gunner_361st
04-25-2004, 09:20 PM
"The Zero is by no means an F4F killer, but it still was an inferior plane to the Zero." - Aki

What determines inferiority of a fighter?

Obviously the A6M2 had several real performance advantages over the Wildcat. It was, from everything I have read, around the same top speed as the Wildcat, if not a little faster. It obviously because of better power-loading and design accelerated better, climbed much better, turned tighter, and handled very well at low speeds.

It paid for such things, though. It had no armor of self-sealing fuel tanks. The standard japanese radio equipment was very sensitive and faulty so most were discarded to save weight.

The F4F meanwhile dived faster, had a higher top dive speed, and because of less force required to move smaller control-surfaces at high speeds could handle better than and briefly manuever with the Zero as these high speeds.

The F4F was very well armored and a solidly built Grumman-made fighter plane. I am unsure whether it had self-sealing fuel tanks, Chimp could probably confirm whether it did or not.

The F4F pilots had quality radio equipment and had worked out advanced team-work tactics to combat the Zero. They proved successful.

The Zero also had more range than the Wildcat.

So, when it comes to all-around flight performance of the Airplane, sure, the Zero was better in an all-around sense.

That didn't stop Allied teamwork, tactics, and firepower from winning the Air War in the South Pacific, though.

Major Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1087.jpg

GK.
04-25-2004, 09:27 PM
lol chimp! Well said.
il2 fb has grown monotonous and irritating at times. I really won't miss it too much and I look forward to wildcats vs zeros and I will be flying for both sides. A welcome change indeed.

http://data.photodump.com/gk/shidensig.jpg
*Proud Chute Shooter*
"P40's can't out run the zero, so we'll have to outfly them." -Ben Affleck

WUAF_Badsight
04-25-2004, 09:57 PM
well GK ..... ive seen P-40s out-flying Zeros in FB ...... beating them at turn fighting

not constant turn fighting of course .... cause thats just stupid to do with zeros

but it all comes down to the pilot

ace FB players are deadly no matter what plane they decide to use for their next virtual sortie

k5054
04-26-2004, 04:28 AM
I hope we get an FM-2 Wildcat, in 1945 this had the best kill/loss in the USN, 32 to 1 (claimed). Just a little more HP than the F4F-4 and a little less weight, and back to 4 guns.

faustnik
04-26-2004, 10:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
GK, in case you haven't noticed, there are two types of tight-turns in FB. There is "The Tight Turn", then there is "The Russian Tight Turn."

Historically speaking, in the Pacific, "The Tight Turn" was the turn used by Japanese Zero pilots. It became the stuff legends were made of.

In FB, Oleg has introduced us to "The Russian Tight Turn," a turn that was unknown in the west (and everywhere else in the world) until the introduction of IL2 Sturmovik and Forgotten Battles. With it, you can turn inside any known non-Russian fighter, even the A6M2.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OH NO!!!! SkyChimp is a Luftwhiner.

The end is near... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

fordfan25
04-26-2004, 10:29 AM
lol http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

sugaki
04-26-2004, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So, when it comes to all-around flight performance of the Airplane, sure, the Zero was better in an all-around sense.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly my point http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Don't get me wrong, I think the F4F gets a worse rap than maybe it should.

A factor in the higher kill ratios of Wildcats to Zeroes was pilot experience: people in the early days didn't know that turning with the Wildcat was suicide, and the days of the Wildcat were the time when Japan had the most skilled pilots at its disposal, contrasted to US pilots who didn't have much experience in actual battles.

Combining teamwork, proper tactics for the plane, Zero pilots had their handful, which is in fact what is reflected during battles in New Guinea.

F4F's a pretty decent plane, but overall I still say it's not as good as a Zero.

sugaki
04-26-2004, 12:52 PM
Gah, it double posted.

[This message was edited by sugaki on Mon April 26 2004 at 12:07 PM.]

sugaki
04-26-2004, 01:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Allies generally had strict criteria as to when a combat could be considered a kill. There are even those that say Imperial General HQ may have issued orders discouraging individual kill counts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except in this instance we're not talking about individual kill counts, but group kill counts for skirmishes, which the IJN _did_ keep track of. They discouraged invididual kill counts, but still recorded reported losses for each battle.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also the very way the allies fought-with an emphasis on teamwork- many times provided the secondary eyewitness which clinched the "kill" as offical. The tactics used by the Japanese, which emphasized individual combat did not often lend themselves to this level of verification.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When we're talking of kill ratios, again this is irrelevant, as Japanese kept tallies of total losses per battle. And what you're stating is pure conjecture: you're assuming that Japanese pilots, because of their emphasis on individual skill, didn't back or confirm other pilot's claims? Japanese pilots did confirm and back other's claims. Actually there's a famous pilot in Japan who reported 350 kills, which was tuned down to 27 since he was so blatantly lying (Akamatsu Sadaaki). Either way, this statement has no backing to validate it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It's not a matter of simple "honesty". It has more to do with the dynamics of the two sytems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The dynamics of which, you have yet to illustrate. We're talking overall kill-ratios here, not individual pilot kills, which weren't officially recorded by the IJN.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You might want to look at it from that point of view, instead of using your own ego as a lens. When you do that it becomes an "honesty/dishonesty" thing,
which it largely isn't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ego as a lens? I'm applying the same measure of skepticism as is applied to Japanese figures, which nobody has given a valid reason why I shouldn't.

chris455
04-26-2004, 06:04 PM
Except for my entire post, which you choose to dismiss as having "no valid backing".

BTW: The following post was the one I was responding to:

[QUOTE] from Sugaki:
"RAC_Pips: Excellent points. A lot of people simply accept figures (especially US) without any reservations, erstwhile being cynical about figures put out by other countries. Both US and Japan have had instances where they reported more kills than they should".

Now do you see the word "ratio" anywhere in your post? Neither do I. Do you even know how relaxed the methedology was in most JAAF units when reporting kills for group scoring? That was part of the reason for my rejoinder to your post, above.
Talk about "no valid backing"

Sugaki, it is clear by now that you begin typing before you read/comprehend what others are posting. And yes that does have a bit of ego as one of it's componenents. Probabaly other words for it too.

"None so blind........................." http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

[This message was edited by chris455 on Mon April 26 2004 at 06:16 PM.]

[This message was edited by chris455 on Mon April 26 2004 at 06:18 PM.]

sugaki
04-26-2004, 10:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Now do you see the word "ratio" anywhere in your post? Neither do I. Do you even know how _relaxed _ the methedology was in most JAAF units when reporting kills for _group_ scoring? That was part of the reason for my rejoinder to _your_ post, above.
Talk about "no valid backing"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do I even know? Apparently not, please explain to me, as you have not yet done so in any of your posts. Simply claiming that JAAF reporting was lax doesn't make it true.

Note that you're the one making that allegation, the burden of proof is on you. So instead of talking about ego's n such, you need to provide support for your assertions.

You can arbitrarily say JAAF reporting is bad, and unless there's substance behind those claims there's no reason for me or anybody to take your word for it.

-Aki

chris455
04-26-2004, 11:59 PM
We can begin here, with this piece from Dr. Yasuho Izawa, author of "Nihon rikugun sentokitai" (JAAF Fighter Units)

"Victories-the way they were credited.
I have heard that no firm way of confirming aerial victories existed either in the army or the navy. In Japanese Imperial Forces there was no emphasis on individual accomplishments, with the result that in fierce combat there was a tendency to over-estimate total victories, and there was no mechanism for correcting this tendency at any level of command.
I think that both army and navy victories were recorded in this way: After a combat mission, each participating pilot reported the circumstances of his combat, his success, the fate of his comrades, etc., to his superior--in the case of the army, his sentai commander or chutai leader. The superior then summed up the reports of all his pilots. If there were reports from friendly grounds troops, steps of someone's victories [?], or intercepts of enemy reports of losses, these might be added to the summary.

There was no operations or intelligence officer whose job it was to sum up and evaluate the unit's results. Instead, it was usually an NCO who wrote the combat reports.

Army units had the custom of writing up individual victories, so I heard, but to date I have seen only two units' combat reports. They were the 77th Sentai for the period December 1941 to April 1944, and the 64th Sentai for the years 1937-1939. [Both groups fought against the AVG in Burma and China.] The reports of the 77th were captured by U.S. troops at Hollandia in 1944, where the group ended its history. The reports of the 64th were kept by a former sergeant-pilot of the unit until the war ended.

Seventy percent of the reports of navy flying units are on file in the war history chamber of the Japan Defense Agency, but the majority of them contain only the combat summary, the names of the participating pilots, and the unit's total victories--not individual victories.

We aviation historians have to estimate individual victories from these records, supplemented by newspaper articles, stories of the surviving pilots, and pilot diaries (there are many of these) and log books (very few--I saw only eight of them). So if we know of a pilot who achieved considerable success, but there are no details, we must guess at his score. The majority of Japanese aces are in this category.

[Dr. Izawa doesn't mention another factor that confused the accounting. A Japanese pilot might "give" his victory to a dead comrade (the AVG had a similar tradition) or to his commander, as a repayment of the giri or filial obligation owed to a superior officer. - Dan]

Awards and citations
Except for the high brass (I have no interest in them), the only medal awarded to a Japanese soldier was one of several degrees of kinshi-kunsho or Order of the Golden Kite, and that was given upon his death in combat. In addition to valor, a soldier's everyday conduct was also considered. So was his rank: for the same accomplishment, an officer would receive a medal one higher degree than an NCO.
The policy of honoring only the dead was waived on three occasions. Surviving soldiers who did well in combat received kinshi-kunsho medals in 1895 for the first Japanese-China war, in 1905 for the Russo-Japanese war, and in 1940 for the "China Incident" and the Nomonkan border conflict with Russia. [That explains why some pilots who fought against the Allies in the Pacific War were decorated, including Major Tateo Kato of the 64th Sentai.]

The Japanese Imperial forces paid high respects--sometimes I think too high respects--to the dead. Soldiers killed in combat were promoted one rank posthumously. The especially distinguished dead--including all kamikaze pilots--were promoted two ranks. [Kato was a lieutenant colonel when he was shot down in May 1942 by a British turret gunner aptly named McLucky, but was promoted to the rank of general and the status of "war god."] On some occasions, unit commanders made beautiful stories for the dead.

In 1943, with victories harder to come by, commanding generals and admirals at the front sometimes gave citations on an unsystematic basis to living soldiers who had distinguished themselves in spite of harsh conditions, or gave a sword for gallantry.

In late 1944, the army established the bukosho or Distinguished Service Order, divided into ko and otsu (A and B) degrees. Several living fighter pilots received this medal. Similarly, the navy issued citations to living fighter pilots (including Sakai and Sugita) in 1945, but did not give medals to the living after 1941".


Sugaki, as much as you wish to believe it to be so, I have no desire to diminish the acheivements of Japanese pilots during the war. But your "fair is fair" approach to the problem of allied claims vs Japanese claims totally ignores the realities I have spoken of, and that Dr. Izawa enumerates above.
I would not have responded to your post so spiritedly had it not been for your response to a much earlier post I made, regarding the average scores of pilots serving in the PTO over time . In that response you were equally fixated on a perceived bias which did not exist. You are mistaken to believe that it is chiefly bias that drives the credibility gap between JAAF or IJNAF pilot claims and allied claims. The Japanese relied on a scoring and reporting system that was simply less objective and more vulnerable to revision based on supplemental data that became available later, sometimes years later.

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

sugaki
04-27-2004, 03:16 PM
Note that the original subject we were discussing was overall performance of the Wildcat to the Zero.

"Seventy percent of the reports of navy flying units are on file in the war history chamber of the Japan Defense Agency, but the majority of them contain only the combat summary, the names of the participating pilots, and the unit's total victories--not individual victories.
"

The emphasis in this article is the inaccuracy of the individual kills reported. I'm not talking about aces in this thread; I'm talking about total kills reported.

Whether allies or IJN, they face the same limiting contraints in reporting accurate kills in battle, that is, as Izawa stated,

"in fierce combat there was a tendency to over-estimate total victories"

US pilots didn't magically report better kills, nor did their superiors--no matter how arduous the process, brass simply doesn't have the clairvoyance to somehow pick out over-estimations.

As evidence for this, I previously posted a skirmish between the 343 Koukutai and a US carrier task force over Japan's naval base over Kure in March 1945. The Japanese side reported 52 planes shot down, at a loss of 17 planes, while the US reported that they shot down 50 planes, at a loss of a couple dozen.

Reporting kills is never an exact science, and whether one side intends to or not, there's always going to be misreports, simply from the fact that you can't keep track of every plane that went down.

Maybe the Japanese side has more overestimations. But to assume that US didn't at all is too naive IMO.

-Aki

chris455
04-28-2004, 01:37 PM
Sugaki,
I was responding to something you yourself wrote, and in this thread:

"A lot of people simply accept figures (especially US) without any reservations, erstwhile being cynical about figures put out by other countries".

I explained to you why this was so; you rejected my explanation. You called for supporting material, I provided it. You responded with:

"The emphasis in this article is the inaccuracy of the individual kills reported. I'm not talking about aces in this thread; I'm talking about total kills reported".

Your initial statement (the one I am addressing) says nothing about individual or group kills; it speaks ony of "figures". You acknowledge that the article addresses inaccuracies in the Japanese scoring system, yet remain dumbfounded that these inaccuracies generate scepticism! It is a reckless, blanket statement that I have effectively refuted.

And please stop hiding behind the title of this thread. Your initial statement has nothing to do with Wildcats either.
Ignoring the facts doesn't change the facts.

There is a reason for the difference in perception between Japanese kill claims and US kill claims. I have tried to enlighten you as to why that disparity exists. Go on beleiving that it is "bias" if that comforts you; but be aware that more contemplative students of the Pacific War know better. I am finished here.

Chris

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

[This message was edited by chris455 on Wed April 28 2004 at 12:50 PM.]

sugaki
04-28-2004, 02:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>_Your initial statement_ (the one I am addressing) says _nothing_ about individual or group kills; it speaks ony of "figures". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you go back and read my post again? Allow me to quote my original post.

"Tillman's Wildcat: The F4F in WWII states that at Coral Sea the Wildcats had a "six-to-three deficit" against the A6M, but "bounced back four weeks later to outshoot the A6M eleven-to-five."

"As people exercise caution when embracing Japanese kill numbers, a degree of caution should be made in embracing US numbers as well."

The context directly refers to group kills--you've clearly taken my words out of context.

"It is a reckless, blanket statement that I have effectively refuted."

I'm not the one offering blanket statements that essentially say "US figures good, Japan bad." I've never embraced US nor Japanese figures. My "bias" is that both sides potentially give biased accounts of what transpired.

Hide behind the title? You make it sound as though I have something to prove in each thread. I'm not a Zero fanboy, I don't have pinups, sigs, wallpapers or anything related to the Zero. Heck, it's not even my favorite plane. It's inferior to the F6F, F4U, and basically any other late-war US plane.

You universally take sides with anything US, and then start taking things personally when an opposing viewpoint arises. All this talk of egos and "hiding" ...if you disagree at least leave out all the ad hominem rhetoric.

"Go on beleiving that it is "bias" if that comforts you; but be aware that more contemplative students of the Pacific War know better."

I'm not sure if you consider yourself to be a "contemplative student of the Pacific War," but you have a have one-sided viewpoint of the war. And given how personal you get with these posts, it is not I that requires "comforting."

-Aki

SkyChimp
04-28-2004, 05:23 PM
In lawyer's circles, there is a saying, "Reasonable men can disagree."

Now, agree to disagree so we can get on with the Wildcat worship.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

sugaki
04-28-2004, 05:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In lawyer's circles, there is a saying, "Reasonable men can disagree."

Now, agree to disagree so we can get on with the Wildcat worship.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hahah, great point, sans Wildcat worship http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Always wondered though SkyChimp, why so much luv for a Wildcat and not Hellcat? Hellcat looks cooler (IMO), more powerful, and can pommel Zeroes.

-Aki

Korolov
04-28-2004, 05:51 PM
Because you have to be one lucky son of a b**** to survive a one on one against a Zeke in a F4F.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

faustnik
04-29-2004, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
Because you have to be one lucky son of a b**** to survive a one on one against a Zeke in a F4F.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure standard procedure will be a full throttle dive to the deck and get the hell out of there!

I should be real good at it, I've had plenty of practice in the 190. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)