PDA

View Full Version : P-38 vs Zero



Tranie117
09-20-2008, 02:32 AM
O.k. I'm flying my beloved P-38 L (late) against some zeros, more specifically. The A5M4 and the A6M2. Now I'm no historien but I think this would've happened in real life all those years ago and I know that the P-38 shot down more Japanese planes than any other aircraft. But how'd they do it? I'm flying a 1 on 1, I've got the A.I. on average, I'm not an amazing piolet but I'm not too bad. It's impossible. I only managed to get one once. There just so much more manuverable. I challenge any one reading this to fly one on one in a P-38 against a Zero! Any tips, what am I doing wrong?

Pigeon_
09-20-2008, 02:52 AM
The golden rule when flying US planes against Japanese planes:

DO NOT TURN WITH THEM.

Climb well above them, then make a diving pass at them. Don't turn too much during the pass. If you don't kill them (zoom) climb up again and go for another pass. Keep in mind that you're much faster in dives and level flight. The P-38 also climbes pretty fast, but I still wouldn't try to outclimb a zero.

dirkpit7
09-20-2008, 05:08 AM
1 on 1 situation naturally favours the Zero. WW2 wasn't fought in 1 on 1 combat. Try 4 vs 4 or similar and you can expect better results.


O.k. I'm flying my beloved P-38 L (late) against some zeros, more specifically. The A5M4 and the A6M2.

More suitable opponent historically would be A6M5. A5M Claude was actually used in late 30's and not after Pearl Harbor against Americans.


I know that the P-38 shot down more Japanese planes than any other aircraft

This is not true.

gdfo
09-20-2008, 05:14 AM
I think the Hellcat has the distinction of more kills. But that is another matter.

The Planes in this game are not modelled correctly. This is more to the point. It is a game using the THEME of WW2.

And Yes BNZ is the best tactic with IJA or IJN AC.

BTW not all A6M designated planes were called 'zeros'. It did become a generic US term though.

JtD
09-20-2008, 05:49 AM
I gave it a try and came out victorious 10 out of 10 times, 5 vs A6M2, 5 vs A5M4. The A5M4, btw., is not a Zero.

So my guide to easy victory is this (starting from quick mission builder standard setup):
- Accelerate fully ahead, stay level.
- When passing the enemy, gently pull up into the vertical. This way you use your biggest performance advantage, the zoom climb.
- Roll your plane so that you keep track of the bandit through the top of your canopy.
- When you go as slow as 200 km/h, gently pull the stick so you come out of the vertical, but are inverted. Pull far enough to get the enemy in the sight.
- Roll 180?.
- Now you are on top of the bandit, on his six, with him in your sights.
- If you are a decent shot, he is done.
- If not, make a pass, don't slow down, and pull up again until you're stalling. Then come down on him again.

If something goes wrong, all you need to do is to enter a shallow dive and run with full throttle. You do this for a minute, and the bandit won't be anywhere close. You can then do an Immelmann turn and start again with the above procedure.

DuxCorvan
09-20-2008, 05:53 AM
1) A5M was not a Zero, and is unlikely to have ever met the P-38 in combat.

2) Both planes are much more maneuverable than P-38s, in fact they were famous for that. Trying to turn inside them in a Lightning and catch their tails at low speeds, losing speed and energy, is simply a stupid thing to do and a sure recipe for defeat. Use your advantage in speed and do a fast pass trying to hit them, if not, extend on and don't turn till they're really far, and try again. Never lose speed or you're fried.

3) "I challenge anyone blah, blah, blah". Don't speak like that. It makes you sound like a brat. No experienced gamer has any problem defeating average AI flying obsolescent planes like A5M or A6M2 in one on one, as far as they don't use that newbie tactic of flying a boom-and-zoom plane trying to make tighter and tighter circles inside a slower but obviously turning-designed opponent.

Tux_UK
09-20-2008, 06:42 AM
Originally posted by gdfo:
The Planes in this game are not modelled correctly. This is more to the point. It is a game using the THEME of WW2.

The vast majority of aircraft are pretty darned accurate. Certainly the particular match-up that is the current topic of discussion suffers little in terms of realism as a result of poor modelling. Historical tactics can and do work just as well as they did in Real Life (TM).

VW-IceFire
09-20-2008, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by Tranie117:
O.k. I'm flying my beloved P-38 L (late) against some zeros, more specifically. The A5M4 and the A6M2. Now I'm no historien but I think this would've happened in real life all those years ago and I know that the P-38 shot down more Japanese planes than any other aircraft. But how'd they do it? I'm flying a 1 on 1, I've got the A.I. on average, I'm not an amazing piolet but I'm not too bad. It's impossible. I only managed to get one once. There just so much more manuverable. I challenge any one reading this to fly one on one in a P-38 against a Zero! Any tips, what am I doing wrong?
What are you tactics? If you use real life techniques against the Zeros in the P-38 you will win.

The P-38 flies much faster, is tougher, has greater firepower, and climbs quicker. The A6M Zero on the other hand turns much more tightly.

Afterhours
09-20-2008, 08:01 AM
There, there Tranny, Afterhours will take care of you.....

First of all, these newbs all have it wrong.

At one point in the development of this sim, Oleg Maddox told us that the AI has the same FM as you! So there is the problem with AI in this sim, If you fly your P-38, or even a jet against a Zero or a Gladiator biplane that is AI, it will perform much, much better than it would if it were piloted online by a human!

If you want to defeat AI forget WWII tactics, you have to use "AI tactics". Fly low and slow, learn their patterns of attack and what they can and cannot do and exploit it. You can defeat ONE AI using Zoom and boom energy tactics easily, but you won't do near as well against multiples as you will flying low and slow.

Here is a track I made of me defeating FOUR AI 1943 A6M5s with the 1943 P-38, all flying low and slow with them on the deck, full-real-hard settings of course, no track IR, just a twisty stick:

http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=f2e8f16d828f2428d2db6fb9a8902bda

If you are flying online or on a network against Zeros that are piloted by humans, then it will be even easier. Most humans are much worse shots than this sims AI, plus your P-38 will have a great speed and fast climbing ability.

So ONLINE you want to use actual WWII tactics, and against AI, use my AI tactics. I shot down 16 AI jets with one P-40 this way.

Xiolablu3
09-20-2008, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Tux_UK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gdfo:
The Planes in this game are not modelled correctly. This is more to the point. It is a game using the THEME of WW2.

The vast majority of aircraft are pretty darned accurate. Certainly the particular match-up that is the current topic of discussion suffers little in terms of realism as a result of poor modelling. Historical tactics can and do work just as well as they did in Real Life (TM). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said mate.

SOme people are just too quick to blame the modelling of the planes when the real reason why they are failing just needs a look in the mirror.

The Zero was probably the BEST WW2 close in DOG-fighter. SO if you are using these tactics against them - you will most likely lose.

Even a SPitfire has trouble with a Zero when close in dogfighting.

You need to use realistic WW2 tactics that the P38's used. Strike from on high, if you are attacked use your speed to get away. The Zeros just could not fight on their own terms once the yanks started using these tactics.

This is why speed is so important in air combat, and armies are not flying super manouverable biplanes any more. (Which they would be if dogfighting won air battles)

Obviously a good dogfighter is extremely useful in wartime (especially if you HAVE to defend), but if the enemy uses the correct tactics, that quality can be negated. If you have a faster plane then you can usually dictate the fight, or even whether or not any fight takes place.

M_Gunz
09-20-2008, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
SOme people are just too quick to blame the modelling of the planes when the real reason why they are failing just needs a look in the mirror.

Why should they bother when they can fly against newbs who aren't even as good as the AI?

Ronbo3
09-20-2008, 03:02 PM
As far as match up goes, trainie117, A6M5 series and KI43 and 61 series would be the more historical matchup. The tips given here are sound. Keep your speed up and dont turn with them unless you know what the AI will do in a particular situation.
Since you are up against average pilot skill, head ons favor the human pilot. Just look out for head on collisions.

As far as FM modeling goes, this forum has been down that road....

fwiw..

Tranie117
09-20-2008, 03:04 PM
O.k. I think I'm getting it
I need to get better at climbing, but that was incredably helpful. I'm realy learning loads, thank you all. I understand now, before I was just turning when they got behind me... Bad news Now when I see them go past I climb and escape. I need to get better at climbing so I am higher then them by about 1,000 meters so I can make and attack run properly. But thanks guys I'm finding this froum very helpful. And thanks again to the legendary ICE Fire!

Tranie117
09-20-2008, 03:05 PM
Oh, and when it comes to arguing about the A.I. I'm not going to go there. Same goes for exploiting them.

gdfo
09-20-2008, 03:26 PM
'The vast majority of aircraft are pretty darned accurate. Certainly the particular match-up that is the current topic of discussion suffers little in terms of realism as a result of poor modelling. '

I did not say the topic or the match ups 'suffer'.
This is a game based on WW2 and while the FM of some ac are somewhat accurate there are probably more that are inaccurate.

No matter what actually happened in WW2 and in real life it is expecting too much to expect this game to represent it.

I am not attacking any posters or the game, just stating fact. What works in the game may not have worked in WW2 and vice versa.

M_Gunz
09-20-2008, 08:38 PM
You can get a lot closer (what worked to what works) in COOPS than in DF but it is still a
simulation.

If anyone thinks that full switch makes them more of a man then they're probably not much of
one IRL and badly in need of whatever self-validation they can conjure up.

Freiwillige
09-20-2008, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by Ronbo3:
As far as match up goes, trainie117, A6M5 series and KI43 and 61 series would be the more historical matchup.

A6m2 zero's were still used and at times more popular than the later marks toward the end of the war due to their lighter weight and better menouverability. Many aces chose to keep the A6M2 even in 44' and 45'

DKoor
09-21-2008, 12:02 AM
The only thing I'd watch out in P-38 v A6M is that I don't go in terminal dive with 38 meaning entering "compressibility", basically a state where, because of the hi speed, the elevator on 38 does not work.
Otherwise A6M and the 38 cannot be put in the same sentence, performance wise.
That's how much 38 is better.

M_Gunz
09-21-2008, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ronbo3:
As far as match up goes, trainie117, A6M5 series and KI43 and 61 series would be the more historical matchup.

A6m2 zero's were still used and at times more popular than the later marks toward the end of the war due to their lighter weight and better menouverability. Many aces chose to keep the A6M2 even in 44' and 45' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's probably a good trivia thread question or two if you can name any!
Not saying there aren't! Just that the names and/or any pics would make good ones!

dirkpit7
09-21-2008, 04:58 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ronbo3:
As far as match up goes, trainie117, A6M5 series and KI43 and 61 series would be the more historical matchup.

A6m2 zero's were still used and at times more popular than the later marks toward the end of the war due to their lighter weight and better menouverability. Many aces chose to keep the A6M2 even in 44' and 45' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's probably a good trivia thread question or two if you can name any!
Not saying there aren't! Just that the names and/or any pics would make good ones! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah I really doubt that many A6M2s were still flying in the front in 44-45. How long did it remain in production? The losses must have been huge from 43 onwards and there weren't many Pearl Harbor or Midway veteran machines left in 44-45, I guess!

Ronbo3
09-21-2008, 07:41 AM
Proof of early marks still flying would help. But units got new aircraft as they were available. The only schemes i see of A6m2s are home defense or training. If you have proof, that would be cool. But not much is out there readily available.

huggy87
09-21-2008, 07:55 AM
Hellcat pilots definitely have the crown for most japanese planes shot down. The P-38 was only the leader for the USAAF. It's a common error I've seen mentioned in many books.

M_Gunz
09-21-2008, 09:22 AM
The most Japanese newbs shot down, because of the Marianas Turkey Shoot.

Saburo_0
09-21-2008, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Ronbo3:
Proof of early marks still flying would help. But units got new aircraft as they were available. The only schemes i see of A6m2s are home defense or training. If you have proof, that would be cool. But not much is out there readily available.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/USMC-C-Aces/index.html
Has pics showing A6m2-3s in late 1943
Of course A6m2s were used for Kamikaze attacks late in the war.
Interesting point tho, when i get home i'll look thru some books & try to see how late A6m2s were being flown in combat.


Author's Collection
------------------------------
A lineup of A6M2 Zeros at Buin in 1943. By this time, the heavy combat over Guadalcanal had been replaced by engagements with Marine Corsairs over the approaches to Bougainville. Japanese Navy aircraft occasionally flew from land bases, as these Zeros, although they are actually assigned to the carrier Zuikaku.


Author's Collection Zero fighter-bombers prepare to launch for a raid from their Bougainville base in late 1943. Originally an air superiority weapon, the Zero toted light bombs as required, and ended the war as one of the primary aircraft used by the Kamikaze suicide pilots.


http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/USMC-C-Aces/index.html

Ronbo3
09-21-2008, 09:20 PM
chances are those are A6M3 type 22 with rounded wingtips. Picture not very good quality. The codes i do believe is from the Zuikaku, but i think that pic is from the Squadron Signals on the Zero. My books are mostly packed away.

A P38L late is 1944, so A6M3/M5 is still more acceptable matchup.

R_Target
09-21-2008, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
The most Japanese newbs shot down, because of the Marianas Turkey Shoot.

Pilot skill and training and superior equipment made the difference, whether against green CV replacements of the 653rd or the elite of the 343rd.

M_Gunz
09-22-2008, 02:44 AM
Pilot skill and training and superior equipment made the difference, whether against green CV replacements of the 653rd or the elite of the 343rd.

Somehow I think the kill counts and Hellcats lost numbers would have differed to some degree.
Japan would still have lost but the price to the US would have been significantly higher.

Kill counts without regard for conditions and pilot differences do not prove the plane.
Who "won" the war does not prove equipment, men or anything but who was not defeated.

JtD
09-22-2008, 09:15 AM
The A6M3 lacked both carrier gear and range to fully replace the A6M2 in service. For this reason, many A6M2 were only replaced by the A6M5 in 1943, which of course wasn't instantly available everywhere in sufficient numbers.

Afterhours
09-22-2008, 09:41 AM
Here is a looooong track of a P-38J attacking four Tonys, two Bettys and a couple of A6m5s, fighting from 7000 meters all the way to the deck using many shooting angles and fighting techniques.

Track was made with full hard settings and a twisty-stick with a hat-switch:


http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=92664d2ffc8955add2db6fb9a8902bda

If anyone has trouble downloading it, PM me and I will simply email it to you. It is a 6+mb track file.

WOLFMondo
09-22-2008, 10:48 AM
P38 vs Zero - Get a wing man, do it like the real guys did it. Or use slashing attacks.

JG53Frankyboy
09-22-2008, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
The A6M3 lacked both carrier gear and range to fully replace the A6M2 in service. For this reason, many A6M2 were only replaced by the A6M5 in 1943, which of course wasn't instantly available everywhere in sufficient numbers.
true for the A6M3 Model 32 .
but the later A6M3 Model 22 was a different story - unfortunatly this version is missing in the game's Zero line http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

jdigris001
09-22-2008, 02:31 PM
I challenge any one reading this to fly one on one in a P-38 against a Zero! Any tips, what am I doing wrong?

Everything by the sound of it. Try and turn with any Japanese fighter and you will quickly be a smoking hole in the ground. I fly mainly pacific missions, a lot of them in the trusty 38 and I almost never get shot down by a zero or an oscar.

Try this, initially take them on head on, match their altitude and heading but have your throttles wide open. At 1200 to 800m you can start to hit them with the cannon. This is the P38s trump card, a nose gun with outstanding range and no need to worry about wing gun divergence. Using rudder and small movements of the stick you should be able to get at least one of the leaders wingman as they close. On nose to nose pass watch out that they dont try and ram you, the japanese AI doesnt seem to mind a fatal ram. Once past them head for the deck to get your speed up, do NOT turn!. Try to keep it in a shallow dive and watch out that you dont go into a terminal compression dive. Once you are at least 2km past them do a hard left turn with the stick pulled fully back and if you are flying the late deploy your airbrakes to reduce the turning circle. Just before you come completely around retract the airbrakes before you lose to much airspeed. Repeat the head on pass tactic, again guns starting at 1200 to 1000m. If they are running for the hills you can easily chase them down with your superior speed. NEVER EVER TRY TO TURN WITH THEM!

LEBillfish
09-22-2008, 04:29 PM
Actually, the A6M was a GREAT aircraft in it's own right and much more advanced then anything the allies had in service when introduced. Minor things such as their droptank system were revolutionary and very forward thinking......Trouble is like many axis aircraft, plans were made for a short campaign and it was expected to carry them through to the end.

Quite simply, the plane was made obsolete simply by a change in acceptable tactics then following through upon those principals with new airframes by the allies.......That change in combat mindsets inevitable, and even in WWI well documented as the way most folks got kills....

A single strafing pass....

The second you MUST turn you goofed up. However during the advent of the Zero that was still the way battles were fought by many. The Spitfire so many here love testament to that....Yet the lessons of the 109 IMLTHO the father of all things Zoom & Boom, and of the Flying Tigers in China.

The Zero was "tactically" designed well for the immediate moment, yet poorly for tomorrow. However most of all, poorly for the lessons of yesterday.

In the sim it is nothing like it was roll an important part of its design....Yet in all fairness most here do not.

K2

Bremspropeller
09-22-2008, 05:12 PM
Actually, the A6M was a GREAT aircraft in it's own right

+1

Gotta be FUNĀ³ flying one today, without shooting and stuff going on.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-22-2008, 05:16 PM
If you employ proper real world tactics the poor Zero has little chance. I can honestly say that I have never been shot down by a Zero online while flying the P-38 (I prefer the J model). I have been flying the P-38 since Oleg gave it to us. Many here have already given you some solutions, but one thing they can not give you is experience. Experience takes time.

S!

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-22-2008, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by Pigeon_:
The golden rule when flying US planes against Japanese planes:

DO NOT TURN WITH THEM.

Climb well above them, then make a diving pass at them. Don't turn too much during the pass. If you don't kill them (zoom) climb up again and go for another pass. Keep in mind that you're much faster in dives and level flight. The P-38 also climbes pretty fast, but I still wouldn't try to outclimb a zero.

You can turn with them just fine above 200mph. But you only want to turn while you can pull lead. Once the Zero pulls ahead of your piper then you want to break off and shallow power climb out. The P-38 out climbs the Zero with ease btw. It also out dives it with ease. Its obvious its much faster.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-22-2008, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by gdfo:The Planes in this game are not modelled correctly.

The planes in this game are extremely close to there real world performance. Countless test, graphs, charts, pilot accounts, ect. say so. Apparently you have not done any test yourself. When I mention test, I mean doing them in accordance with real world guidelines.

S!

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-22-2008, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:If anyone thinks that full switch makes them more of a man then they're probably not much of
one IRL and badly in need of whatever self-validation they can conjure up.

People fly FS settings because its the best interpretation of how it was and it certainly gives more immersion. Seems to me the only ones that gets defensive about it is those that dont fly it.

S!

WTE_Galway
09-22-2008, 05:37 PM
OK ...

I am saying nothing .... just pasting in the relevant bit of an interview conducted in the Bureau of Aeronautics on 26 April 1943 with CAPTAIN J. J. FOSS, USMC Executive Officer, VMF-121.

Yes the same USMC Joe Foss that won the Medal of Honor.



**************************

Q. What was your impression of the P-38's?

A. The P-38 is really a good plane as an interceptor, above 20,000 feet. If you get notice that a bogey is coming in, and don't have much time, give it to the P-38's; they can really get up there. If it's above 20,000 feet they make their runs, go on out far enough to make a turn, and come back for another run, When the P-38's were sparring around with me, they would buzz way down below me, take a look, then go up through a hole in the clouds, take a short look around and come back down. They ran all around the sky while I was doing my best just to stay where I was.

Q. Was any attempt made to use them at the limit of their range?

A. They went clear up to Bougainville. They sent P-38's to fly cover on B-17's and on B-24's. There would be Zeros above them and below them would be more Zeros, float bi-planes and float Zeros, but their orders were to stay in formation with the bombers. If any of the enemy fighters made an attack, they'd just pull up, give a short burst, and the enemy fighter would pull right back up out of range. When they failed to do this one day, three of them were shot down. They went down below 20,000 feet to get some "easy meat", (these float bi-planes that can turn on a dime) - went down and tried to dogfight - that was the end of three P-38's

mortoma
09-22-2008, 06:50 PM
I think it's just the way you ( original poster ) fly because I have flown the J model in New Guinea campaigns many times and I always get loads of both Zeroes and Oscars. You might simply need more pratice. I'd estimate I have shot down 300-400 of them in the P-38! And a lot of the time they are veteran and ace level AI. And add on the fact that I have had rocket tubes attached during many of those sorties. And they seldom are able to shoot me down because I'm able to run away from them with my much faster P-38 if things get ugly.

R_Target
09-22-2008, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Somehow I think the kill counts and Hellcats lost numbers would have differed to some degree.
Japan would still have lost but the price to the US would have been significantly higher.

Not an unreasonable assumption. However, your idea of significant and mine probably differ significantly.


Kill counts without regard for conditions and pilot differences do not prove the plane.

That's why I stressed USN pilot skill and training as the most important factor. And by equipment I don't mean just airplanes


Who "won" the war does not prove equipment, men or anything but who was not defeated.

Well, I don't think it's that simple, but if that's your belief I won't argue it with you.

M_Gunz
09-22-2008, 07:54 PM
Significant can mean 10% when it's a single performance figure.
I'd be thinking that twice the USN planes would have been lost at a minimum with even veteran
Japanese pilots as opposed to the barely trained. That's still not a huge percent, is it?
The Japanese would have had the same losses because they'd stop sending at the same figure.
It couldn't be 100% or there wouldn't be any left which we know isn't true.

HOW you won, or trained or whatever you did says what you earned. The Hellcat is far more
than the Wildcat but so are the later Japanese fighters than the early ones. The Wildcat
served very well once the USN got the tactics figured out, and that was thanks to Navy Pilot
training even pre-war. If the Navy guys hadn't been well trained then how would Midway have
come out, had they been the quality of the average Japanese fighter pilot during the Turkey
Shoot?

When you consider the pilots, it's no surprise at the Hellcat pilots kill counts -- they were
veterans and better flying against raw newbs. It was as close to a good squad invading a
mudhen(or newb or noob or dweeb, etc) DF server as WWII air combat got. Chances are good
that Red comes out alive with a stack of victories. Throw another good squad into Blue and
see if Red, Hellcats or not, don't come out with some more losses than say 1 or 2 maximum.
Would it have been so different IRL? Veterans getting in a shot now and then despite being
outnumbered?

Yeah, our mileages probably vary. It's Okay with me. How about you?

LEBillfish
09-22-2008, 07:57 PM
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P38.html

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/p5016.pdf

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/a6m2-oct2342.pdf

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/hamp-eb201.html

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf

P38 vs. Oscar....Applicable to a great degree
http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=4619.msg33138;topicseen#msg33138

Bear in mind however, these are untrained zero pilots flying these aircraft. In kind they were often pieced together so not running at their peak, nor did the pilots know how to push them to that peak....Lastly, no one was going to kill themselves to test an enemy plane so they were somewhat flown cautiously, not with the vigor you would when fighting for your life.

K2

R_Target
09-22-2008, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Significant can mean 10% when it's a single performance figure.
I'd be thinking that twice the USN planes would have been lost at a minimum with even veteran
Japanese pilots as opposed to the barely trained. That's still not a huge percent, is it?
The Japanese would have had the same losses because they'd stop sending at the same figure.
It couldn't be 100% or there wouldn't be any left which we know isn't true.

Actually, I think it would have been higher than 10%.


HOW you won, or trained or whatever you did says what you earned. The Hellcat is far more
than the Wildcat but so are the later Japanese fighters than the early ones. The Wildcat
served very well once the USN got the tactics figured out, and that was thanks to Navy Pilot
training even pre-war. If the Navy guys hadn't been well trained then how would Midway have
come out, had they been the quality of the average Japanese fighter pilot during the Turkey
Shoot?

Agreed, agreed, agreed, and certainly worse.


When you consider the pilots, it's no surprise at the Hellcat pilots kill counts -- they were
veterans and better flying against raw newbs.

Six USN VF squadrons were new to combat at Philippine Sea also, but had the benefit of extensive training beforehand. While there's no argument that some IJN pilots hadn't finished their training, not everyone had a cakewalk. Commander Bill Dean of VF-2, who had been flying since the beginning of the Fast Carrier TF offensive in Summer '43, considered the Zero pilots of Raid 1 "the best we've met," and concluded "I was fighting for my life for almost an hour out there."



Would it have been so different IRL? Veterans getting in a shot now and then despite being
outnumbered?

No, it wouldn't be too much different. Consider Kaneyoshi Muto's flight with nine other IJN pilots encountering twelve F6Fs of VF-82. Results: four F6F shot down, Yokosuka Kokutai no losses. While I don't have info on the other nine pilots, Muto was a multiple year, multiple victory veteran. VF-82 was on their first combat mission. There's also an engagement with the 343rd that I can think of off the top of my head where three Corsairs were shot down immediately, and 343rd showed a positive K/D ratio on the day. But there were other fights where 343rd had, even with a numbers advantage, a negative K/D ratio. Muto himself was killed in a dogfight over Bungo Strait where he held the advantage in both numbers and altitude.

Anyway, my opinion based on what I've read is that the big ratcheting up of easy kills was not at Philippine Sea or even Leyte, but at Iwo Jima and Okinawa during interceptions of Special Attack Squadrons.


Yeah, our mileages probably vary. It's Okay with me. How about you?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

M_Gunz
09-22-2008, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Significant can mean 10% when it's a single performance figure.
I'd be thinking that twice the USN planes would have been lost at a minimum with even veteran
Japanese pilots as opposed to the barely trained. That's still not a huge percent, is it?
The Japanese would have had the same losses because they'd stop sending at the same figure.
It couldn't be 100% or there wouldn't be any left which we know isn't true.

Actually, I think it would have been higher than 10%. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In performance? I'm trying to remember what Shaw called significant as in significant
advantage. Chap 4,
Dissimilar fighters are fighters that have some performance
characteristics which differ from those of the opponent by more than about 10 percent.

So I guess you're right if that's what you meant. It takes *more* than 10% to signify two
planes as dissimilar. But 12%-15% would apply. The percent is not large is my meaning.

I was figuring the USN would be taking twice as many losses if the Japanese had veteran
pilots instead of the ones up they did. How many Kamikazees did they shoot? Some still
got through even though (the most?) poorly trained.

EDIT: Oh, I see below they did have some at least. Soooo, how do you rate the average
quality (or should it be quality of the average) Japanese pilot in the Turkey Shoot?
I mean if NONE of the Japanese pilots had been short on fighter pilot training let alone
regular pilot training? You know, since none of the US pilots were shorted and many were
veterans.

Being in Hellcats didn't save those that met up with Yokosuka Kokutai and his buddies in at
least one case. So the difference in planes (Hellcat to Zero) means less than difference in
pilots. Makes me wonder how the got the jump? High in the sun?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When you consider the pilots, it's no surprise at the Hellcat pilots kill counts -- they were
veterans and better flying against raw newbs.

Six USN VF squadrons were new to combat at Philippine Sea also, but had the benefit of extensive training beforehand. While there's no argument that some IJN pilots hadn't finished their training, not everyone had a cakewalk. Commander Bill Dean of VF-2, who had been flying since the beginning of the Fast Carrier TF offensive in Summer '43, considered the Zero pilots of Raid 1 "the best we've met," and concluded "I was fighting for my life for almost an hour out there." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, they had some Ringers out there. Saburo Sakai lived through it. Others too.
But compare losses US to Japanese in the Marianas campaign.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Would it have been so different IRL? Veterans getting in a shot now and then despite being
outnumbered?

No, it wouldn't be too much different. Consider Kaneyoshi Muto's flight with nine other IJN pilots encountering twelve F6Fs of VF-82. Results: four F6F shot down, Yokosuka Kokutai no losses. While I don't have info on the other nine pilots, Muto was a multiple year, multiple victory veteran. VF-82 was on their first combat mission. There's also an engagement with the 343rd that I can think of off the top of my head where three Corsairs were shot down immediately, and 343rd showed a positive K/D ratio on the day. But there were other fights where 343rd had, even with a numbers advantage, a negative K/D ratio. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So there were more than a few Hellcats shot down when the Japanese planes had the hotshots
at least leading if not in an elite group.


Anyway, my opinion based on what I've read is that the big ratcheting up of easy kills was not at Philippine Sea or even Leyte, but at Iwo Jima and Okinawa during interceptions of Special Attack Squadrons.

Then why did they call it The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot?

Special Attack Squadrons --- Kamikazees? I understand they stepped up right to end.

I have one DVD with color pictures from Japan before and through the war as a documentary film.
Haven't watched it in years. Lot of people throwing their arms up and yelling Banzai till
near the end when they weren't so charged up and happy any more.

What was that super battleship they only launched at the end they didn't have air cover for?

R_Target
09-23-2008, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
In performance? I'm trying to remember what Shaw called significant as in significant
advantage. Chap 4, "Dissimilar fighters are fighters that have some performance
characteristics which differ from those of the opponent by more than about 10 percent."

So I guess you're right if that's what you meant. It takes *more* than 10% to signify two
planes as dissimilar. But 12%-15% would apply. The percent is not large is my meaning.

I think I misunderstood your question and therefore gave the wrong answer. But yes, 10% or less. I don't think ADI on the F6F was in widespread use (if at all) during the Marianas battles, thus narrowing the gap further.


I was figuring the USN would be taking twice as many losses if the Japanese had veteran
pilots instead of the ones up they did.

Agreed. Maybe even more. Results of a higher ratio of vets to rookies would be especially apparent in engagements where USN VF were outnumbered, which was a not infrequent occurrence. Another thing to remember regarding Battle of Philippine Sea is that on June 19th, USN had only fighters engaging for the most part, so there would be no easy meat attack planes for the Zeros while there was plenty for the Hellcats; tilting the score even more in favor of the Navy.


How many Kamikazees did they shoot? Some still
got through even though (the most?) poorly trained.

I don't really know offhand; or if I could even figure it out. There is documentation for some of the large raids, but there were small raids also, and it appears that not a lot of information survived in any case. USN claims by plane by month are listed in Naval Aviation Combat Statistics, so if anybody wanted to, they could cross-check against months of known large attacks. And yes, some definitely still got through. They appear to have been more successful sneaking in singly or in twos amid the controlled chaos of Flight Ops. A favored tactic was latching onto the tail end of a returning USN strike formation. USS Princeton was sunk by a conventional bombing attack at Leyte in broad daylight in the middle of the fleet! So yeah, even with nearly doubling the size of VF squads and putting Marine squads on CVs, they still couldn't get them all.


EDIT: Oh, I see below they did have some at least. Soooo, how do you rate the average
quality (or should it be quality of the average) Japanese pilot in the Turkey Shoot?
I mean if NONE of the Japanese pilots had been short on fighter pilot training let alone
regular pilot training? You know, since none of the US pilots were shorted and many were
veterans.

Somewhere between fair and poor on the whole. With better IJN VF pilots, I think more F6Fs would have been lost; 50 or 60 would be my wild guess. IMO the outcome would still not be in doubt.


Being in Hellcats didn't save those that met up with Yokosuka Kokutai and his buddies in at
least one case. So the difference in planes (Hellcat to Zero) means less than difference in
pilots. Makes me wonder how the got the jump? High in the sun?

I don't have that much information on the VF-82 combat. If they didn't start with an advantage, they probably created one. Muto's first (and last) combat after transferring to 343rd Kokutai started with a numbers (4 N1K2 + 5 or 6 N1K2 top cover vs. 2 VBF-1 Corsairs) and altitude advantage. One Corsair went down right away, attracting the attention of two Hellcats which were immediately bounced by another pair of N1K2, with one F6F going down. The remaining Corsair and Hellcat (with a stuck belly tank) engaged and shot down Muto and two other Shiden-Kai from his flight, all veteran pilots.


So there were more than a few Hellcats shot down when the Japanese planes had the hotshots
at least leading if not in an elite group.

Yes.



Then why did they call it The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot?

Despite a spirited defense from some of the VFs, the bombers and torpedo planes that constituted a large portion of the attacks were sitting ducks-er, turkeys; and were knocked down en masse.


Special Attack Squadrons --- Kamikazees? I understand they stepped up right to end.

I have one DVD with color pictures from Japan before and through the war as a documentary film.
Haven't watched it in years. Lot of people throwing their arms up and yelling Banzai till
near the end when they weren't so charged up and happy any more.

What was that super battleship they only launched at the end they didn't have air cover for?

Yamato I believe. Tough ship and a hard kill.

Kettenhunde
09-23-2008, 09:12 PM
Dissimilar fighters are fighters that have some performance
characteristics which differ from those of the opponent by more than about 10 percent.

That is absolutely correct. I think players fail to understand just how large the differences must be to be even noticeable.

For example, 10% at 400mph is a 40mph difference to even begin to notice a performance advantage.

All the best,

Crumpp

P.FunkAdelic
09-23-2008, 11:09 PM
I would imagine the performance differences exhibited online are more likely related to poor or excellent pilot performance than anything else. Something tells me very few pilots in this game actually use their aircraft the way a real pilot would've, even those virtual pilots who may be successful.

I've read enough stories though about real life pilots in unequal aircraft face offs which would cause most people here to cry "good luck, with that plane set you're screwed" but in reality saw the inferior plane out do the superior one because of pure pilot skill. Mainly this would be Germans in 109s against the most advanced of enemies. Everyone claims that 190s should kill anything but similar fighters when flown right but somehow in real life aces who stayed in last year's tech could still dominate those with the newest, and those being dominated weren't run of the mill greenhorns.

I think players fail to understand how significant the difference between time logged online and time spent in a classroom is. I read earlier this week somewhere on this board that average training before being deployed to combat ops was 250 hours in a classroom and 250 in a plane and all that time with constant 8 hour a day focus and expert instructors able to answer and offer immediate criticism.

Joint ops seems our closest option for understanding the realities of fighter characteristics and how each one's subtle advantages or disadvantages ought to play into your strategy like a real cadet would've. Squads too I suppose.

Afterhours
09-24-2008, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by Tranie117:
O.k. I'm flying my beloved P-38 L (late) against some zeros, more specifically. The A5M4 and the A6M2. Now I'm no historien but I think this would've happened in real life all those years ago and I know that the P-38 shot down more Japanese planes than any other aircraft. But how'd they do it? I'm flying a 1 on 1, I've got the A.I. on average, I'm not an amazing piolet but I'm not too bad. It's impossible. I only managed to get one once. There just so much more manuverable. I challenge any one reading this to fly one on one in a P-38 against a Zero! Any tips, what am I doing wrong?

How is it going? You asked for tips about flying your P-38 against AI and you got just about everything under the sun didn't you?

The tracks I made should have answered your questions and challenge. I just did not use a Late P-38 against early zekes because I thought it would have been overkill, it is much more of a challenge to use the P-38J. And it just felt right flying it against opponents from the same year.

As you can see, flying against AI does not have to be done using any historical tactics. You CAN use the P-38s speed, but you can save time and mix it up in a turn fight also, if you noticed I did both.

Online against human opponents then of course you want to use the P-38s speed and just hit and run, again another technique you asked to be shown and I delivered in track.

Do you see how many posts and their wives tales on this thread are disproven by my tracks?

Afterhours
09-24-2008, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by P.FunkAdelic:
I would imagine the performance differences exhibited online are more likely related to poor or excellent pilot performance than anything else. Something tells me very few pilots in this game actually use their aircraft the way a real pilot would've, even those virtual pilots who may be successful.

I think players fail to understand how significant the difference between time logged online and time spent in a classroom is. I read earlier this week somewhere on this board that average training before being deployed to combat ops was 250 hours in a classroom and 250 in a plane and all that time with constant 8 hour a day focus and expert instructors able to answer and offer immediate criticism.

Flying this sim online is interesting because the IL2 simmers who have been flying online since it was released have so much experience that there may be nothing a newcomer can do to ever catch up to them.
These veterans have way more hours flying fighters in this sim than any WWII veteran. A lot of them have tricks and tactics that they will not give up either.

Someone with a lot of experience flying on type of fighter in this sim CAN make it go faster, get better fuel economy, and perform better in any parameter than a beginner, that is common sense.

When flying IL2 online against all human opponents historical tactics from WWII work the best. When flying against AI then absolutely nothing has to have anything to do with real-world tactics because the AI have so many flaws and differences from human pilots.

Don't fly off-line and expect things with the AI to make sense or be like history books. Setting the AI to rookie may be the most realistic setting, otherwise the AI aircraft performance is really unique.

The tracks I posted here were all vs. ACE AI, and you can see how they can be defeated using AI specific tactics. There are a lot of places AI won't go where a human pilot will try to.

Then again, a lot of human pilots try to go where AI won't and don't do well either.

If you want the COOP mission I flew vs. 8 ACE AI, PM me your email and I will send it to you, it is a fun mission, I think I will try it with a wingman sometime, then it would be much easier.

R_Target
09-24-2008, 06:52 PM
For the original poster, here's an essay on 5th AF P-38 tactics by Thomas MacGuire.

http://i36.tinypic.com/14age9.jpg

http://i34.tinypic.com/2dkxxm9.jpg

http://i37.tinypic.com/2jfhcop.jpg

http://i38.tinypic.com/16the8.jpg

http://i38.tinypic.com/w2jeqf.jpg

Stingray333
09-24-2008, 06:57 PM
Hey R_Target, what book is that from? Looks like it might be a good addition to my library,

Thanks,

Stingray


Originally posted by R_Target:
For the original poster, here's an essay on 5th AF P-38 tactics by Thomas MacGuire.

WTE_Galway
09-24-2008, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by Stingray333:
Hey R_Target, what book is that from? Looks like it might be a good addition to my library,

Thanks,

Stingray

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
For the original poster, here's an essay on 5th AF P-38 tactics by Thomas MacGuire.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You need to look under McGuire not MacGuire.

http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_mcguire.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_McGuire

I have heard of his book but never seen a copy.

R_Target
09-24-2008, 07:56 PM
Oops, I did spell McGuire wrong. Sorry about that. I kept looking at the foreword by MacDonald when I was formatting the scans and got a little lost.

It's from a book called Pacific Sweep by William N. Hess; and it should be available cheap from a used dealer.

McGuire's piece is available online somewhere, as well as some stuff by other 5th AF fliers, but I've lost my digital version and can't remember where I found it.

struth
09-24-2008, 09:55 PM
I don't share any of the opinons expressed about the modelling of the A1's. I take what comes and deal with it. From RL I expect A1's to behave in a similar way to flying against fast or slower aircraft in RL. A slow aircraft can merge extremely quickly with your course simply by tangent; for then it is under circular acceleration.
In RL I have nearly been collected by another plane merging onto my course from behind (the other pilot's mistake). I saw him at the last second. It was break right and wait for response: the response was 2 radio clicks apologising and acknowledging that I had saved lives. Obviously that pilot had only saw me at the last second also. In terms of speed it was similar to but faster than the time frame in which an A1 in game can do a stall turn back down onto you from a forward pass.
IMHO A1's will teach you better and quicker than online and even if they might display unbelievable performance at times it might just be correct while the pilots complaining about them wrong.

The P-38 rates as among the best accelerating aircraft if not the best. Use its speed and acceleration to position on your target's six and accelerate into easier gun range or lay back and use the long range of the powerful cannons in the nose.
The Zero out-turns most aircraft only if you let it.