JAP Attack!

[gully_raker]

Here is the promised AAR report on our Clubs first WW2 Game held last Friday night.
Chris (Halvo) flew the Zero & Val & I flew the Wildcat & Martlet.
As this scenario was based on early war Aircraft we reduced the Zero's damage points to 10 but gave it a 90 degree turn to both Left & Right to reflect the ability of the unarmoured model 2 plus the Pilot had the Ace ability of Aerobatic Pilot.

Overview: The scenario was based on the story that Ltn Commander Alan F Black of Fleet Air Arm squadron 805 flying off HMS Illustrious inbound for repairs & R & R in Sydney had been sent to a forward US base on an island in the Solomans to exchange Intellegence Information with the American HQ in the area. During his visit he was escorted for a sight seeing flight by Ltn Hamilton (Mac) McWhorter of the US Navy.

The American Wildcat & the British Martlett took off from the islands Airstrip & circled around the adjacent reefs & mangrove flats on a beautiful Pacific morning unaware that approaching from the South was a lone Japanese Val bomber escorted by a Zero intent on bombing the Islands only Airstrip.

Suddenly their Radios crackled "Bandits heading your way, Angels 12. Two confirmed by Coastwatchers. Looks like a Zero & a Val. Intercept ASAP"
Banking their Aircraft they soon spotted the two enemy Aircraft heading for the Island.



McWhorter headed for the Val whilst Black made for the Zero.

AAR 2.jpg  Views: 165  Size: 128.5 KB  ID: 76004" class="thumbnail" style="float:CONFIG" />

McWhorter was soon engaged in a savage dogfight with the more manouverable Jap aircraft & whilst he tried his best he was soon aware he was being opposed by two very experienced pilots & eventually got bracketed by a cone of fire from both the Zero & the Val. Whilst he was able to hit the Zero the superior firepower of its 20 mm Cannon soon caused major damage to his Aircraft & he bailed out realising his Aircraft was no longer able to continue the fight.

AAR 3.jpg  Views: 167  Size: 154.0 KB  ID: 76006" class="thumbnail" style="float:CONFIG" />

AAR 11.jpg  Views: 166  Size: 87.3 KB  ID: 76007" class="thumbnail" style="float:CONFIG" />

He landed safely & would go on to become an Ace with 12 victories flying Hellcats off USS Essex.

Meanwhile Black had exchanged fire with the rear gunner of the Val but now had the added concern of the Zero making for him at full speed to allow the Val to get on with its bombing mission.

AAR 4.jpg  Views: 167  Size: 141.7 KB  ID: 76012" class="thumbnail" style="float:CONFIG" />

Fortunately the Vals aim was off & the bomb fell well to the side of the 'drome.
As the Val turned back for a second run Black & the Zero were exchanging fire with the Martlet getting the worst of the exchange.

AAR 5.jpg  Views: 170  Size: 134.1 KB  ID: 76013" class="thumbnail" style="float:CONFIG" />

This time the Val's aim was much better but still only managed to put a crater on the left hand edge of the strip almost at the end of the runway.

Meanwhile the Zero which was also carring a small bomb had evaded Black's Martlet which had to take avoiding action following the last exchange which had seen the Zero managing to wound Alan with canopy splinters from a shot which damaged the side of the Martlets cockpit. The Zero now approached the runway where another American Wildcat was undertaking taxiing tests following a rebuild & the Zero saw the chance of a Target of Opportunity.

AAR 6.jpg  Views: 168  Size: 130.7 KB  ID: 76014" class="thumbnail" style="float:CONFIG" />

Adjusting its speed to perfection the Zero raked the grounded Wildcat & wounded the pilot.

AAR 7.jpg  Views: 170  Size: 122.2 KB  ID: 76016" class="thumbnail" style="float:CONFIG" />

AAR 8.jpg  Views: 166  Size: 170.9 KB  ID: 76017" class="thumbnail" style="float:CONFIG" />

It then proceeded to fly up the Airstrip to drop its "egg" to maximun effect.
Whilst this was going on Black had immlemaned & closed in on both the Val, which was now making full speed for home, & the Zero.

AAR 9.jpg  Views: 166  Size: 139.8 KB  ID: 76018" class="thumbnail" style="float:CONFIG" />

Finally Black attacked the Zero head on & finally managed to shoot it down with a close burst from his 50 cal guns. Some small honour had been achieved against a most successful Japanese attack.

AAR 10.jpg  Views: 167  Size: 131.6 KB  ID: 76021" class="thumbnail" style="float:CONFIG" />

Black vainly tried to chase down the Val but it had too much lead for him to catch it before he had to return for repairs, refuelling & rearming. Fortunately due to the small size of the bomb carried by the Zero the Seabee's were able to quickly effect repairs but the base was now on full alert for further raids & a Squadron of Wildcats were sent to strengthen defences.
After landing & refuelling the Martlett which was fitted with two wing tanks rejoined the Illustrious with both the Intellegence information & a hair raising tale of an encounter with the enemy.

AAR 13.jpg  Views: 166  Size: 162.0 KB  ID: 76019" class="thumbnail" style="float:CONFIG" />AAR 12.jpg  Views: 170  Size: 135.3 KB  ID: 76020" class="thumbnail" style="float:CONFIG" />

That was a really great introduction to WW2 action & Chris was cackling in shudo Japanese over his major victory.
At least I got to dispatch a Zero but learnt to beware of the devestating effect of their 20mm Cannons!

[gully_raker]

Ahh Drat! Just realised I posted this in the WW1 AAR section which is where I am used to put up AAR's.

I will ask Keith to move it down to the WW2 section.

SORRY FOLKS!

[Carl_Brisgamer]

Hi Barry, great AAR! Good to see those aircraft that have been sitting on a shelf of a Brisbane shop for two years getting some air time in your part of the world.

A little advice from a WGS player, keep your element together for mutual support and go after the Val first, then once you have splashed the bomber gang up on the Zeke. The A6M player will find it more difficult to evade two sets of guns.

[gully_raker]

Thanks for the tactics advice Carl & the Rep points.

I think Chris was really hooked so I can see more WW2 Action in the Future!

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Well I enjoyed it very much Barry, even if it was a contraband posting.
Great stuff, especially with the flavour of the real historical action to add flavour.
Rob.

[ptownhiker]

This is great WWII AAR. I am particularly interested in the stats modifications you applied to the Zero. From where did you get the 90 degree turn? Did the Zero get to make good use of it?

[Marechallannes]

Great firts WW II AAR, Barry.

A little advice from a WGS player, keep your element together for mutual support and go after the Val first, then once you have splashed the bomber gang up on the Zeke. The A6M player will find it more difficult to evade two sets of guns.

That's a lesson I learned, too.

...and the best way to finish off a 10 damage point Zero in the first heod-on-duel. (I think)




Did you use the aim bonus for the rear gunner?

I decided for myself not to use it.

[flash]

Very nice little bash there Baz and you dipped a Nip so good on yer !

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

OOOhh, I'm now very tempted to get into the WGS side of the game. Great AAR

Neil

[gully_raker]

This is great WWII AAR. I am particularly interested in the stats modifications you applied to the Zero. From where did you get the 90 degree turn? Did the Zero get to make good use of it?

Hi David! The modified Stats & the 90 degree turn are from Zoe & the Stats committee.

The Zero did not need the tight turn due to how the game played. Its 20 mm cannon is really nasty if you draw damage as you saw from the downed Wildcat.
The tight turn will certainly help in a dogfight between a number of Fighters.

[gully_raker]

Great firts WW II AAR, Barry.



That's a lesson I learned, too.

...and the best way to finish off a 10 damage point Zero in the first heod-on-duel. (I think)




Did you use the aim bonus for the rear gunner?

I decided for myself not to use it.

Hi Sven! No we did not use the aim bonus. Had enough going on to get our heads around without that!

[Carl_Brisgamer]

Hi David! The modified Stats & the 90 degree turn are from Zoe & the Stats committee.

The Zero did not need the tight turn due to how the game played. Its 20 mm cannon is really nasty if you draw damage as you saw from the downed Wildcat.
The tight turn will certainly help in a dogfight between a number of Fighters.

It should not matter that the A6M2 has a 90 degree turn because the first rule of Pacific combat is ALLIED AIRCRAFT DO NOT DOGFIGHT ZEROS!!!

[gully_raker]

It should not matter that the A6M2 has a 90 degree turn because the first rule of Pacific combat is ALLIED AIRCRAFT DO NOT DOGFIGHT ZEROS!!!

AMEN to that Carl!

[csadn]

It should not matter that the A6M2 has a 90 degree turn because the first rule of Pacific combat is ALLIED AIRCRAFT DO NOT DOGFIGHT ZEROS!!!

And if the WW2 ruleset didn't hand the game to the Axis, that might matter.

[Carl_Brisgamer]

And if the WW2 ruleset didn't hand the game to the Axis, that might matter.

Historically speaking if you are talking about aircraft quality you must remember that so far we are only dealing with the first three years of WW2 1939-42, where the Axis were in the ascendancy and their aircraft were often equal to or superior to their opponents (Spitfire Mk.I/II excluded).

I would suggest you wait until the P-51D, cannon armed Spitfire Mk.XIX, and F4U Corsair hit the mat and see if you still think the game is slanted in favour of the Axis powers.

[csadn]

Historically speaking if you are talking about aircraft quality you must remember that so far we are only dealing with the first three years of WW2 1939-42, where the Axis were in the ascendancy and their aircraft were often equal to or superior to their opponents (Spitfire Mk.I/II excluded).

This would be the same period where the Luftwaffe got its a** handed to it over southern England? Or, if we use "American dating" (starting from Dec. '41 ), would this be the same period as Coral Sea, or Midway, or any of the other shellackings handed to the Axis from North Africa to the International Date Line, using these self-same units?

No -- as has been noted: Between the hopelessly-overpowered cannon armaments on Axis fighters, and the lack of a usable altitude system to allow US acft. to use the tactics they were designed to use, WoG2 flat-out does not work.

(Given the 6x0.50 F4F's ineffectiveness versus the C- and D-draw Axis fighters, I somehow doubt any of the other US fighters will be any more usable in a fight; so I'm not holding my breath for the late-war fighters improving the situation.)

[Carl_Brisgamer]

Hi Chris,

You skipped over Axis victories over Poland, Norway, Low Countries, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, Channel Front 1941-2, Russia 1941-2, North Africa 1941-early 42, Philippines, Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies.

Battle of Britain was first and foremost a failure of tactics and expecting a tactical air force to perform a strategic role, as well as the Luftwaffe meeting the only air force in the world with a fighter as good or better than the 109.

Re Midway, the USN and USMC lost 150 out of 350 aircraft committed to the battle. The IJN lost all 248 aircraft, but that was due to their carriers being sent to the bottom, not aerial combat. Coral Sea was a great victory for the Allies, but a hard fought one with heavy losses in aircraft on both sides.

I disagree you can't use historical tactics, I have played enough WGS games over the past four years to know you can. It takes time though, and I find that many players are too impatient to make a pass, break off, take the time to regain altitude then make another pass. Or players treat WGS like WGF and don't keep their element together. Try a Thach Weave the next time you play two Wildcats vs Zeros a d see how that goes.

The cannon debate has been well and truly hashed over, but I will say that if they were so bad in aerial combat why did the RAF, USN, VVS, RAAF, all go to cannon armed fighters as the war progressed? I'm sure they had good reason.

Regards,

Carl

[csadn]

You skipped over Axis victories over Poland, Norway, Low Countries, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, Channel Front 1941-2, Russia 1941-2, North Africa 1941-early 42, Philippines, Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies.

Which reminds of an old George Carlin joke: "By the way, speaking of 'traditional American values': Aren't we overdue to start bombing some small country which only has a marginally-effective air force?" Of the groups you mentioned, exactly two of them (Britain; France) had what could be considered "effective" air forces; the rest were obsolescent, if not flat-out obsolete. Knock out those victories where air power's main role was "flying artillery" in support of ground troops, and you're left with what I mentioned above.

Also: Given the inability of Germany to cross the Channel, I'd hardly call "Channel Front '41-2" a German victory. (North Africa, given the nature of the campaign, was hard to tell who was "winning" at any given time; oddly, it bears a striking resemblance to the New Mexico campaign in the American Civil War -- a lost battle could result in a retreat of hundreds of miles.)

Battle of Britain was first and foremost a failure of tactics and expecting a tactical air force to perform a strategic role, as well as the Luftwaffe meeting the only air force in the world with a fighter as good or better than the 109.

That last bit is the cruncher -- the Allies *had the better airplane* (except for those cannon-armed pieces-of-s***, of which more later); the game mechanics, however, are incapable of reflecting this.

Re Midway, the USN and USMC lost 150 out of 350 aircraft committed to the battle. The IJN lost all 248 aircraft, but that was due to their carriers being sent to the bottom, not aerial combat. Coral Sea was a great victory for the Allies, but a hard fought one with heavy losses in aircraft on both sides.

Most of the US losses at Midway (and to an extent at Coral Sea) were obsolescent types (TBD Devastator), lost to fuel exhaustion, or acft. being pressed into roles for which they were utterly unsuited (all those Army acft. with all those rubbish torpedoes). How many on each side were lost in actual air-to-air combat, I can't find data for; the only coverage of air-to-air is the repeated descriptions of Devastators being massacred. (Coral Sea is even worse-covered.)

I disagree you can't use historical tactics, I have played enough WGS games over the past four years to know you can. It takes time though, and I find that many players are too impatient to make a pass, break off, take the time to regain altitude then make another pass. Or players treat WGS like WGF and don't keep their element together. Try a Thach Weave the next time you play two Wildcats vs Zeros a d see how that goes.

I use the Weave whenever I can play -- but I use it mainly because it's the only tactic the Allied fighters can use; fighting in the vertical plane [ahem] is not an option due to the godawful altitude rules.

The cannon debate has been well and truly hashed over, but I will say that if they were so bad in aerial combat why did the RAF, USN, VVS, RAAF, all go to cannon armed fighters as the war progressed? I'm sure they had good reason.

Actually, the only reason the Allies swapped over to cannon was due to the (mistaken) perception that "cannons were better", based solely on the losses being suffered by *bombers* over Europe -- big, slow-moving, unmaneuverable bombers unescorted by fighters. Look at bomber losses once they were being escorted all the way out and back, and watch those Axis kill-scores melt away. Hell, if cannons were so superior, why was it the F-86 Sabre, armed with a "mere" six 0.50s, was able to kill the MiG-15 (2x 23mm cannon; 1 37mm cannon) at a rate of *15:1*? (OK, "Commie Pilots Suck" helped; but that wasn't all of it. > ) The cannon didn't become a viable air-to-air weapon until Vietnam, when it turned into essentially a oversized machine-gun (the 20mm GE gatling-type, with bullet-shaped rounds rather than the early cannons' "soda can with a dome" design).

As to the cannon in _WoG2_ proper: I've been experimenting with damage draws, at both short and long range, against an "average" HP of 16. So far, a short-range cannon draw results in a "one-shot kill" 1-in-3 times for the C chits, and 1-in-2 for the D; long-range, C draws are one-shotting opponents 1-in-5, D draws 1-in-3. Meanwhile, for a MG-armed fighter, it is flat-out *impossible* to one-shot an opponent without drawing the explosion chit. And this doesn't account for mixed-armament fighters, which is hopelessly illogical due to the different trajectories of MG and cannon shells; or units which draw multiple times from the C or D pile in a volley.

[Carl_Brisgamer]

Hi Chris,

Allow me to retort

Of the groups you mentioned, exactly two of them (Britain; France) had what could be considered "effective" air forces; the rest were obsolescent, if not flat-out obsolete. Knock out those victories where air power's main role was "flying artillery" in support of ground troops, and you're left with what I mentioned above.

Exactly what I was saying in my post, the effectiveness of the Axis fighters employed in the early war period greatly exceeded that of the majority of their competition.

Given the inability of Germany to cross the Channel, I'd hardly call "Channel Front '41-2" a German victory.

1941-2 saw the RAF conduct numerous operations over occupied Europe - Circuses, Rodeos, Rhubarbs and the like - and their squadrons suffered significant losses not unlike the Luftwaffe over England in 1940. Specific examples are the 1942 Dieppe Raid (RAF losses 101 aircraft (including 64 Spitfires), Luftwaffe 48 aircraft) and Operation Cerberus (RAF losses 42 aircraft, Luftwaffe 22 aircraft).

North Africa, given the nature of the campaign, was hard to tell who was "winning" at any given time

In the air JG27's Messerschmitt Bf109's took a heavy toll of the Allied air forces in North Africa (even acknowledging the overclaiming issue). The Desert Air Force had a rough time until the second half of 1942 when it built up the numbers of first line aircraft.

That last bit is the cruncher -- the Allies *had the better airplane* (except for those cannon-armed pieces-of-s***, of which more later); the game mechanics, however, are incapable of reflecting this.

As you have stated, and I agree, the Spitfire and the Bf 109E (which I would dispute was a piece of s***) were well matched. They were so well matched it often came down to the quality of the pilot. I agree it is difficult to reflect certain differences - like the fact the 109's DB601 engine was fuel injected giving the type a material advantage over the Spitfire and Hurricane with their float carburettors. Maybe take away the overdive for Spitfires? The Spitfire's rifle calibre MG's weren't great - it took a lot of rounds to take down an opponent unless you got a vital component. Hence the RAF were trying out wing mounted cannon armament like the Bf 109E before the Battle of Britain had even properly started. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Most of the US losses at Midway (and to an extent at Coral Sea) were obsolescent types (TBD Devastator), lost to fuel exhaustion, or acft. being pressed into roles for which they were utterly unsuited (all those Army acft. with all those rubbish torpedoes). How many on each side were lost in actual air-to-air combat, I can't find data for; the only coverage of air-to-air is the repeated descriptions of Devastators being massacred. (Coral Sea is even worse-covered.)

I agree with your observation regarding 'obselescent types'. I stated the Axis generally fielded better aircraft in the early war period.

I use the Weave whenever I can play -- but I use it mainly because it's the only tactic the Allied fighters can use; fighting in the vertical plane [ahem] is not an option due to the godawful altitude rules.

Climbing isn't an option with the Wildcat anyway, they could dive away OK but their climb rate was much inferior to the Zero. That's why Lt Cdr Thach devised the weave manouver. The 'boom and zoom' against Zeros was used by later generation fighters.

Actually, the only reason the Allies swapped over to cannon was due to the (mistaken) perception that "cannons were better", based solely on the losses being suffered by *bombers* over Europe -- big, slow-moving, unmaneuverable bombers unescorted by fighters. Look at bomber losses once they were being escorted all the way out and back, and watch those Axis kill-scores melt away.

There is no mistake - cannon are better than MG's against bombers, full stop. During the Battle of Britain Hurricane and Spitfire pilots lamented their inability to knock down bombers.

Hell, if cannons were so superior, why was it the F-86 Sabre, armed with a "mere" six 0.50s, was able to kill the MiG-15 (2x 23mm cannon; 1 37mm cannon) at a rate of *15:1*? (OK, "Commie Pilots Suck" helped; but that wasn't all of it. > ) The cannon didn't become a viable air-to-air weapon until Vietnam, when it turned into essentially a oversized machine-gun (the 20mm GE gatling-type, with bullet-shaped rounds rather than the early cannons' "soda can with a dome" design).

The USAF was the last major air force to go to cannon, probably because their M2 and M3 .50s were reliable, available and effective. But after the Korean experience they did make the change with the final major variant of the F-86, the H model, armed with 4 x 20mm cannon. Regarding the Korean stats the old 10-1 loss ratio has been disputed after recent research - not going down that track though - that was a whole other war.

As to the cannon in _WoG2_ proper: I've been experimenting with damage draws, at both short and long range, against an "average" HP of 16. So far, a short-range cannon draw results in a "one-shot kill" 1-in-3 times for the C chits, and 1-in-2 for the D; long-range, C draws are one-shotting opponents 1-in-5, D draws 1-in-3. Meanwhile, for a MG-armed fighter, it is flat-out *impossible* to one-shot an opponent without drawing the explosion chit. And this doesn't account for mixed-armament fighters, which is hopelessly illogical due to the different trajectories of MG and cannon shells; or units which draw multiple times from the C or D pile in a volley.

I have not conducted similar tests, but I know from my 'flight-time' in WGS I can shoot down a Zero with a Kittyhawk and vice-versa, and often it has more to do with how many chits you dish up giving you more chances for critical damage - one reason I like the extra A chit for attacks from altitude.

I see we have some areas of agreement above and some areas we are not likely to see eye to eye. It is nevertheless always fun to engage in such discussions.

Cheers,

Carl.

[csadn]

Exactly what I was saying in my post, the effectiveness of the Axis fighters employed in the early war period greatly exceeded that of the majority of their competition.

But when confronted by an *effective* air force (or rather, effective units of same), suddenly the kill ratios are nearer even.

1941-2 saw the RAF conduct numerous operations over occupied Europe - Circuses, Rodeos, Rhubarbs and the like - and their squadrons suffered significant losses not unlike the Luftwaffe over England in 1940. Specific examples are the 1942 Dieppe Raid (RAF losses 101 aircraft (including 64 Spitfires), Luftwaffe 48 aircraft) and Operation Cerberus (RAF losses 42 aircraft, Luftwaffe 22 aircraft).

Dieppe was "Battle of Britain, reversed"; the Spitfires had maybe five minutes loiter time over the area. No wonder so many were lost. (The introduction of the FW-190 did not help, another parallel to BoB).

As to Cerberus: Most of the RAF losses were bombers and torpedo planes -- see "obsolesecent crapwagons".

In the air JG27's Messerschmitt Bf109's took a heavy toll of the Allied air forces in North Africa (even acknowledging the overclaiming issue). The Desert Air Force had a rough time until the second half of 1942 when it built up the numbers of first line aircraft.

Most of those were against P-40s and Hurricanes being used as bombers (unsupported, in most cases) -- easy prey. It wasn't just numbers which were needed; the British also needed fighters which could escort the bombers (gee, where have we seen that before? :) ).

As you have stated, and I agree, the Spitfire and the Bf 109E (which I would dispute was a piece of s***) were well matched. They were so well matched it often came down to the quality of the pilot. I agree it is difficult to reflect certain differences - like the fact the 109's DB601 engine was fuel injected giving the type a material advantage over the Spitfire and Hurricane with their float carburettors. Maybe take away the overdive for Spitfires? The Spitfire's rifle calibre MG's weren't great - it took a lot of rounds to take down an opponent unless you got a vital component. Hence the RAF were trying out wing mounted cannon armament like the Bf 109E before the Battle of Britain had even properly started. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

The E-model 109 was decent, but not brilliant -- it had four MGs, but those were only 0.30-cal.; and only some had the hub-mount 20mm, which suggests the Germans weren't sure of the efficacy of cannon. Meanwhile, the MG-armed Spits and Hurricanes may have only carried 0.30s -- but they carried *a lot* of them (I think eight was the standard; I'd have to look up when the 12-gun Hurricane IIB was introduced), and a lot of rounds for them; they got the job done.

As to the airframe and powerplant faults: The 109 had fuel-injection, but it also had those leading-edge slats which apparently had a tendency to open when the 109 flew through another airplane's wake -- and since those slats were only to be used at landing speed, not combat speed, this tended to have deleterious effects on the airplane. :)

I agree with your observation regarding 'obselescent types'. I stated the Axis generally fielded better aircraft in the early war period.

They had the 109 -- and that was about it. Most other users were barely getting the idea of closed cockpits and retractable landing gear; and those who had did a damned-sight better against the Luftwaffe. See above re the Channel Dash -- most of the losses were concentrated among the torpedo planes and bombers, which were older and obsolescent (if not obsolete). Try taking a 109 against that Dewoitine in the basic game; now imagine if France had been able to build more of them....

Climbing isn't an option with the Wildcat anyway, they could dive away OK but their climb rate was much inferior to the Zero. That's why Lt Cdr Thach devised the weave manouver. The 'boom and zoom' against Zeros was used by later generation fighters.

In reality, yes; in the game, tho', it's not possible to do "boom-and-zoom" (god, I hate that phrase), due to the failings of the altitude system.

There is no mistake - cannon are better than MG's against bombers, full stop. During the Battle of Britain Hurricane and Spitfire pilots lamented their inability to knock down bombers.

Bombers, yes -- slow, unmaneuverable sitting ducks. (Some asshat on YouTube has a reel of German gun-camera footage of US bombers being cut up, with comments saying "this proves German superiority"; I haven't bothered to point out to him the bombers aren't moving fast, aren't trying to dodge, and that German kill tallies against bombers *plummeted* once fighters were able to escort bombers to and from the target. :P ) Against something fast, or highly-maneuverable, or both (like, say, a fighter), the cannons of the period had to be lucky in order to score a hit.

The USAF was the last major air force to go to cannon, probably because their M2 and M3 .50s were reliable, available and effective. But after the Korean experience they did make the change with the final major variant of the F-86, the H model, armed with 4 x 20mm cannon.

Yes, the M39 -- and note it went with the *smaller* round (20mm, not 30mm), as it allowed a higher muzzle velocity, rate-of-fire, and ammo count. (Also worth noting: The -86H was a fighter-bomber, not a pure fighter; and it never saw combat, so there's no telling whether the cannon worked or not.)

Regarding the Korean stats the old 10-1 loss ratio has been disputed after recent research - not going down that track though - that was a whole other war.

I've read the studies -- the problem is: The US ratio counts "enemy acft. claimed destroyed in air combat" against "fighters confirmed lost in air combat"; while the Communists, where they have bothered to report at all, lump everything together; so we have different groups using different criteria to make their arguments -- a problem also seen in WW2, he said to bring this on-topic. :)

I have not conducted similar tests, but I know from my 'flight-time' in WGS I can shoot down a Zero with a Kittyhawk and vice-versa, and often it has more to do with how many chits you dish up giving you more chances for critical damage - one reason I like the extra A chit for attacks from altitude.

My problem with that is: It's a house rule. I remember back in the days when I was playing _Car Wars_, every club had its own "pet" ruleset; this made co-ordinating matches between clubs a PITA. Worse, when the World Championships <snort!> came around, the only "house rules" which mattered were the ones being used by SJG's in-house duelling group -- they knew going into the Worlds how the referee was going to call various rules, what options would be allowed, etc. To the surprise of absolutely no one, they won every championship for about a decade. After that, the winners invariably came from which club was hosting the Worlds -- and knew the rules in advance. So "house rules" bother me -- it would have been better had this been gotten right in the actual ruleset, and spared us these discussions. :)

[gully_raker]

Facinating debate there Carl & Chris!

I have heard about the Thatch Weave but have no idea what it looks like & how it works & for that matter how it would work in WoG 2.

Would either/both of you gentlemen please enlighten me.

[wargamer]

further info; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Thach

Since this is obviously not a single or even a pair of cards maneuver but instead a intricate constant set of maneuvers, good luck!

[csadn]

Since this is obviously not a single or even a pair of cards maneuver but instead a intricate constant set of maneuvers, good luck!

It' s a bit easier to pull off in _WoG_, with the arc-of-fire rather than straight-ahead firing (the Weave in _Crimson Skies_, for ex., was utterly ineffective); the problem is the Zero typically draws a "boom" as soon as it gets within range....

[COLBATMAN]

Wow Bazz
Good post for a first, you certainly know how to 'Open a discussion'! Most of it over my head, do I have to learn all this!!
Not keen on facing up to Wildcats etc with Vals & Kates! That would be like facing a FW 190 in a BP Defiant!!
Hope this does not start more discussion! Seriously guys thanks for the entertainment and info

Col

[gully_raker]

further info; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Thach

Since this is obviously not a single or even a pair of cards maneuver but instead a intricate constant set of maneuvers, good luck!

Looks horribly like a recipe for Collisions to me?

[Carl_Brisgamer]

Looks horribly like a recipe for Collisions to me?

Just have one fighter gain a climb counter. Plus as the player controls both aircraft it is less likely to occur.

I will try to play a game where I use the 'Weave' soon and post an AAR.

[gully_raker]

Just have one fighter gain a climb counter. Plus as the player controls both aircraft it is less likely to occur.

I will try to play a game where I use the 'Weave' soon and post an AAR.

I will look forward to that Carl!

[Doug]

Interesting thread by Chris and Carl, it has given me lots to think about for my future gameing. One small point I would add is that AAA (both land and ship) had improved by then and although may not killed a lot of planes it was certainly a contributing factor especialy at low leval. (Ex AAA gunner)!

[csadn]

:eek: Looks horribly like a recipe for Collisions to me?

The US plane without the IJ behind it plays a slow straight after its turn, while the one with plays a fast straight; if the IJ tries to keep up with its target, it ends up square in the sights of the other US plane. (If nothing else: If a collision occurs, it isn't with a friendly -- which seems all-too-often the case with folks around here! >;) )

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

Altitude could be a leveller here. Not being a WGS player soley WGF. I am amused that we only count climb tokens and everyone dives the same. Heavier aircraft should climb slower (which they do) but dive a hell of a lot faster than the lighter, better climb rate, aircraft. SO for the heavier aircraft one of the tactics to get away from enemy aircraft, the dive, is virtually redundant. The altitude markers should be designed to show 0-20 (either feet or metres) and the inner small one 0-9 (for those 100' or metres) whichever you choose. That way you could reflect accurate climb and dive rates. Or does it add added complications and delay? If your going to play climb rates then you have to include dive rates for a balanced game.

[csadn]

Altitude could be a leveller here. Not being a WGS player soley WGF. I am amused that we only count climb tokens and everyone dives the same. Heavier aircraft should climb slower (which they do) but dive a hell of a lot faster than the lighter, better climb rate, aircraft. SO for the heavier aircraft one of the tactics to get away from enemy aircraft, the dive, is virtually redundant. The altitude markers should be designed to show 0-20 (either feet or metres) and the inner small one 0-9 (for those 100' or metres) whichever you choose. That way you could reflect accurate climb and dive rates. Or does it add added complications and delay? If your going to play climb rates then you have to include dive rates for a balanced game.

I've been working on this -- it's the system I use for WoG1. Not only is it infinitely simpler than the official altitude rules, it also tells players at-sight where exactly each unit is, and allows for diving as a combat tactic rather than a game-stopping math exercise.

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

I took the idea from the boardgame von Richtofens War. Have a WOGF play sheet with 2 slide markers, one on each side. One slide bar shows height in 1000', feet and the other in 50' feet increments. Took the climb and dive rates off the sheets provided. Lots of gaps for certain aircraft but these can be found by simple research on wikipedia or off the other aerodrome site.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

I've been working on this -- it's the system I use for WoG1. Not only is it infinitely simpler than the official altitude rules, it also tells players at-sight where exactly each unit is, and allows for diving as a combat tactic rather than a game-stopping math exercise.

I will be very interested to see your results Chris. It is one of the few things that bugs me, asnd any simple solution would be great.
Rob.

[csadn]

I will be very interested to see your results Chris. It is one of the few things that bugs me, asnd any simple solution would be great.
Rob.

Well, I have the basics down -- and it even works with existing product (the number chits from the basic game, or the AA dials); right now it's a question of getting the exact climb and dive rates for various units of both wars (for ex.: Japanese acft. generally have a better climb rate, but can't dive without either "floating" or risking damage; whereas most US acft. don't climb worth a damn, but can dive like a piano onto a Morris Marina).

[gully_raker]

Well, I have the basics down -- and it even works with existing product (the number chits from the basic game, or the AA dials); right now it's a question of getting the exact climb and dive rates for various units of both wars (for ex.: Japanese acft. generally have a better climb rate, but can't dive without either "floating" or risking damage; whereas most US acft. don't climb worth a damn, but can dive like a piano onto a Morris Marina).

I think you have been watching faaaar too much "Top Gear" Chris.

[csadn]

:cheezy: I think you have been watching faaaar too much "Top Gear" Chris.:lol::lol::lol:

[looks at the downloads of all _TG_ episodes on his desktop]

What gave you that idea? :)

And now I'm picturing three Forumites: "We were told to select a 1916 single-seater, and bring it to an airfield in Belgium, where we would be issued A Series Of Challenges...." >:)

[gully_raker]

[looks at the downloads of all _TG_ episodes on his desktop]

What gave you that idea?

And now I'm picturing three Forumites: "We were told to select a 1916 single-seater, and bring it to an airfield in Belgium, where we would be issued A Series Of Challenges...." >

Iam IN! I will bring a Hearts of Oak Camel. Mr Kyte will being his SE 5a so what is your Bird?

[csadn]

:thumbsup: Iam IN! I will bring a Hearts of Oak Camel. Mr Kyte will being his SE 5a so what is your Bird?:confused:

Umm -- those are 191*7* acft....

You're looking at DH2s, Nieuport 17s, and similar.

As for what I'm bringing -- guess. [glances at his avatar, which was introduced in 1916... ;) ]

[Carl_Brisgamer]

The Hanriot HD.1 did not enter operational service with either the Belgians or the Italians until 1917, and with the US not until 1918. I am having a déjavu moment because I'm sure this has been previously discussed on some other thread.

If you want to fly Belgians in 1916 you get Nieuports 11 and 17, Italians also get the Bebe and the N.17 from October 1916.

[Grey Knight]

Nice AAR

[gully_raker]

Umm -- those are 191*7* acft....

You're looking at DH2s, Nieuport 17s, and similar.

As for what I'm bringing -- guess. [glances at his avatar, which was introduced in 1916... ]

Stupid me! I completely overlooked the 1916 bit!

So Gunbus for me & maybe a DH-2 for Ltn Kyte or Albert Ball's N17(?)

[csadn]

The Hanriot HD.1 did not enter operational service with either the Belgians or the Italians until 1917, and with the US not until 1918.

It did not enter full service until then; but it was available in mid-1916:

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircr...ircraft_id=839 (for some reason, this site isn't permitting copy-and-paste of text).

[Carl_Brisgamer]

It did not enter full service until then; but it was available in mid-1916:

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircr...ircraft_id=839 (for some reason, this site isn't permitting copy-and-paste of text).

Having a couple of pre-production aircraft counts? If a type has not yet been accepted into service it is not available for use on operations at the front.

Unless in this case you are doing a 'what if' scenario - like in WW2 introducing the Me262 in 1943.

[Zoe Brain]

One remark - cannon aren't created equal.
The Oerlikons on the 109E and A6M2 was slow, inaccurate, low-velocity. At short range ouchy, at long, ineffective except vs "can't miss" targets like bombers. Also had only 6 seconds of firing. - enough for 3 bursts in WGS. CCA/B vs fighters, CCA/CA vs bombers.

The HS on the Spit 1Cs and D520s etc were high velocity, accurate - but again, the drums only had 60 rounds, enough for 3 bursts. CCA/CA or CA/B for both.

On the LAG-5, the 2 20mm firing through the props should be CC/C vs both, and with 200 rounds each, enough for 12 bursts.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Can I just get a reprise on this chaps! How did we get to discussing the service dates of WW1 aircraft in the WW11 forum?
Rob.

[Baldrick62]

Can I just get a reprise on this chaps! How did we get to discussing the service dates of WW1 aircraft in the WW11 forum?
Rob.

Because of the anarchic thread-drift, so beloved of so many on the forum?

In this particular case, it seems to have stemmed from a 'Top Gear' challenge 'excursion'.

[Carl_Brisgamer]

I want it put on record that I tried to pull it back with the Me 262 comment..........

[Doug]

Back to the thread, glad you had a good game and that we can get you into WW2 (the dark side of WoG)!

[csadn]

Having a couple of pre-production aircraft counts? If a type has not yet been accepted into service it is not available for use on operations at the front.

As I understand it: Hanriot were all geared up for production, and had even cranked out some units -- then the French rejected them. (BTW: In the HD.1 design, one can see an aspect of what Hanriot was building before it made the HD.1 -- the strut configuration is all-but-identical to the Sopwith 1&1/2-Strutters they were building under license).

It's funny you mention the Me 262: It *could* have been in full production in '43, if not for two fatal problems: First, the lethargy of German procurement; second, on August 17, '43, the US 8th AF destroyed the -262 production lines at Regensburg. Even then, the -262 hit the Erpro units in very-late '43 (and then Dear Old Uncle Adi asked if it could drop bombs, and that stuck a fork in the program).

So there's a world of difference between "it wasn't available because it didn't exist at all", and "it wasn't available because no one could be arsed to buy the thing". It's amazing (and appalling) how much Stupidity has influenced what made it where when.

One remark - cannon aren't created equal.
The Oerlikons on the 109E and A6M2 was slow, inaccurate, low-velocity. At short range ouchy, at long, ineffective except vs "can't miss" targets like bombers. Also had only 6 seconds of firing. - enough for 3 bursts in WGS. CCA/B vs fighters, CCA/CA vs bombers.

The HS on the Spit 1Cs and D520s etc were high velocity, accurate - but again, the drums only had 60 rounds, enough for 3 bursts. CCA/CA or CA/B for both.

On the LAG-5, the 2 20mm firing through the props should be CC/C vs both, and with 200 rounds each, enough for 12 bursts.

Careless of me to not think of mentioning this myself -- thanks.

[HTRAINo]

Is that a vinyl mat? Got my no man's land, but fancy doing another at some point. Got any pointers for images?
Great aar, and very nice pics!