Ok, sell me the Pacific theatre planes.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Very true everyone makes mistakes, the important bit is being able to admit them and move on, something i have yet to see

 

Just saying it as it is.

 

Easy food...seal clubbing...raping... such opinionated emotive words

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

I missed you darling xoxo

 

 

btw Hiromachi, i just remembered, it wasn't a book, it was an interview with Saburo Sakai with subtitles. Forgot the source unfortunately, have a pretty big fluctuation of media at my PCs. He told about all sorts of encounters, and he said, they lost all fear from Hellcats (unlike before when flying Zeros), when they got their N1k

Edited October 7, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[hames123]

Well, the Americans will get a flying rock with an unhealthy obsession with pilot safety and the Japanese will get a plane that literally melts when someone sneezes at it. Lets wait for the flamewars.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Well but the N1K was better in (almost) everything, climbing, acceleration, speed, turning, firepower. Roll rate i don't know about. But holding all those advantages at once, you can dictate a fight.

It was superior in climb but not that greatly as say Zero against P-40 E. But in case of speed for instance it was actually slower than Hellcat at higher altitudes. In regard to firepower ... everyone has his own opinions but N1K2-J pilots said they would prefer a battery of six machine guns rather then four cannons, sure they had such blast that even a short burst was enough to knock Hellcat out of combat, but  in fighter vs fighter combat such as 343 Ku pilots fought guns of better rate of fire and trajectory would be preferred. Easier to make deflection shots and that kind of stuff. 

 

 

 

And like you know, Okinawa was mid 1945.

Well, April until end of June ... late spring/early summer Certainly best time of they year if you ask me !

 

 

 

Ki100, Ki84, N1K. And the US had also way better fighters by that time, Mustang D, Corsair F4U4, late Jugg. That's what i meant with "obsolete". Of course superior numbers, tactics, etc lead to the US further reigning the air (with F6F), but that's not what i meant

 

Ki-100 holds more legend than fact, nice design by 1942-1943 standards but it was not as nice in 1945. Ki-84 and N1K2-J could perform very well if there was adequate fuel and maintenance provided, normally though it wasn't. F6F was a backbone of US Navy operations and it did not have to be dominator, it was good enough to be pilot friendly and at the same time posses sufficient performance. In such way it was balanced, reliable, robust ... and personally I find it ugly  

 

 

 

Well, the Americans will get a flying rock with an unhealthy obsession with pilot safety and the Japanese will get a plane that literally melts when someone sneezes at it. Lets wait for the flamewars. 

Flame wars ... I see what you did there !

[II./JG77_Manu*]

It was superior in climb but not that greatly as say Zero against P-40 E. But in case of speed for instance it was actually slower than Hellcat at higher altitudes. In regard to firepower ... everyone has his own opinions but N1K2-J pilots said they would prefer a battery of six machine guns rather then four cannons, sure they had such blast that even a short burst was enough to knock Hellcat out of combat, but  in fighter vs fighter combat such as 343 Ku pilots fought guns of better rate of fire and trajectory would be preferred. Easier to make deflection shots and that kind of stuff. 

 

 

 

Well, April until end of June ... late spring/early summer Certainly best time of they year if you ask me !

 

 

 

 

Ki-100 holds more legend than fact, nice design by 1942-1943 standards but it was not as nice in 1945. Ki-84 and N1K2-J could perform very well if there was adequate fuel and maintenance provided, normally though it wasn't. F6F was a backbone of US Navy operations and it did not have to be dominator, it was good enough to be pilot friendly and at the same time posses sufficient performance. In such way it was balanced, reliable, robust ... and personally I find it ugly

 

Flame wars ... I see what you did there !

 

btw Hiromachi, i just remembered, it wasn't a book, it was an interview with Saburo Sakai with subtitles. Forgot the source unfortunately, have a pretty big fluctuation of media at my PCs. He told about all sorts of encounters, and he said, they lost all fear from Hellcats (unlike before when flying Zeros), when they got their N1k - just in case you missed it, because i edited my post above.

 

Like already said, i was rather talking about Sim terms, and there you always have good maintenance, proper fuel, and a new aircraft Also balanced numbers, and balanced pilot skill. And i think in such an environment, when you have equal pilots and equal numbers, you will notice a real difference between them two. 

 

Initially i was just trying to debilitate Cujo's post, because in Okinawa the Hellcat won't at least be a "beast" or have any huge advantage against the Japanese. This would be in early 44. Guess my expression was a little too flowery. However the sealclubbing part was not me, was a quote from this Sakai interview

Edited October 7, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

In early 1944 I'd have no fear tackling F6F-3, without water injection and spring tabs it isn't so superior. In fact in all 1943 combat it scored a bit more than F4F but still less than F4U. I will later on bring some quotes of Navy pilots or post combat reports from Battle of Philippine Sea to give perspective. 

[Dakpilot]

I missed you darling xoxo

 

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[JtD]

...In fact in all 1943 combat it scored a bit more than F4F but still less than F4U...

Looking forward to the reports, but the above statement can of course be countered by a different look at the same numbers. For instance, in 1943 the F6F was the only carrier based fighter in the USN to have actually shot down an enemy fighter. Or, one could state that in 1943 the claim/loss to enemy aircraft ratio was F6F/F4U/F4F as 9.2/6.8/3.4.

Point being, stats can be twisted any way you want, and the operational parameters of the three types were so different, that the combat results in the end are not comparable.

Personally, I like the F6F as a carrier aircraft, unlike the F4U it sacrificed considerable performance to make it a good carrier plane - rugged & easy to handle. Attributes that don't really pay in a computer game, but were important out there back in the days.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Above statement was based on a memory which in turn was based on a reading, it is correct though not precise. 

Here is a quote:

"In combat from bases in the Solomons in 1943 the F6F had established a combat ratio (claimed) of 4.9 to 1. This record was somewhat superior to that of the F4F (4.1) but not quite equal to the F4U(5.4)"

Source: Exploding Fuel Tanks by Richard L. Dunn, page 131. 

 

Anyway, here are mentioned quotes and reports.

A VF-25 combat report stated:

Zeke showed usual maneuverability. Zeke out climbed three F6F's at 11,000 feet but was caught by a fourth F6F-3 with water injection. One F6F without water injection had difficulty in overtaking Zeke at sea level despite a slight altitude advantage...at full throttle. All Zekes absorbed a lot of bullets before being destroyed: none exploded in air and some did not burn at all, indicating probable use of self-sealing fuel cells...

 

VF-27 on June 19th claimed 30  air victories, their combat report indicated:

Japanese fighters showed little in the way of defensive tactics.

 

Cdr. B. M. Strean, CO of VF-1 noted:

The Zekes were very fast in both straight and level and climbing flight. They could turn on a dime and there is nothing yet in our experience to indicate that we can out-dive them. In a head-on attacks, they were still shooting as we ducked under and over them. It is very noticeable that they have no pilot protection and that they blow up and catch fire easily.

 

LT. Cdr. R.W. Schumann, VF-10 leader: 

The F6F-3 is superior to Zeke in all respects except climb and maneuverability in tight slow turns. Same as before the F6F-3 cannot dogfight a Zeke. The F6F-3 must keep up speed, dive and pull up. Oscar [misidentification of a Zero] in a power dive is just slightly less fast than the F6F-3.

 

CO of Air Group 31, Lt. Cdr. D.J. Wallace said:

The ability of Zeke to turn and climb seemed more pronounced than ever. Zekes were able to turn 180 while Hellcat was turning 90 degrees at high speed [sic!]. The Hellcat was again faster in dives and level runs at all altitudes... In only one case the Zeke outrun F6F-3 on the deck. There was evidence of self-sealing fuel gas tanks and possibly protective armor in Zekes.

Zero pilots were aggressive and quick to exploit any advantage, and generally handled their planes with great skill.

Wallace also noted: It is harder than ever to knock down Zekes, and consequently firing must be done at closer ranges.

 

Final account comes from VF-16:

At low altitudes, Zeke had a clear maneuverability advantage, and could out turn F6F, especially at low speeds. F6F had a speed edge, climbing ability about equal. From 20,000 to 25,000 ft F6F seemed to have a 20-25 knot speed edge, could climb and turn with Zeke.

 

Source for above: Exploding Fuel Tanks by Richard L. Dunn, pages 132-134.

 

The above deserves some comments.

First, Zeros certainly did not have any protection in form of bulletproof glass or armored plate. Such features were added in A6M5b and A6M5c, first one started coming out of the factories in mid June 1944 so far too late to reach Ozawa carriers and latter one in late October of the same year. But they received fuel tank protection (or more fire counter-measures) by the end of 1943 in form of a CO₂ fire extinguisher system that would spray carbon dioxide around the burning fuel cell (there was an automated control panel behind and below pilots left hand, which when activated would react to any detection of fire and release the gas if fire was detected. Extinguishing of fire would be indicated by a light on such panel). This was available on all A6M5s introduced since December 1943, however there were also present fighter-bomber Zeros in form of A6M2s that might have it, but it is not certain how many would as Nakajima was producing those fighter-bomber A6M2s and on example No. 92717 produced in April 1944 fire extinguishers were found.

So the fact that some commanders noted that it is harder to set afire Zeros and some dont seem to burn at all while others were quick to catch fire is in both ways correct as some might have simply encountered those equipped with fire extinguishers and others encountered those not equipped.

 

Same notion can be detected in performance as especially first wave of Japanese attack was filled with A6M2s which performed poorly at that time if compared to F6F-3 (first wave of 653rd Ku coming from aircraft carriers Chitose, Chiyoda and Zuiho was considered a Vanguard Force and was a fatal mistake as first wave could achieve surprise and cause a damage if not that it was also the weakest group having only 14-17 fighters [A6M5s] but more than 45 fighter-bombers [A6M2s] with attached 250 kg bomb and only 8 B6N1 torpedo bombers) and overall it is impossible to distinguish whether Hellcat pilot encountered A6M2 or A6M5 as for them everything was more or less Zeke. Thus some who encountered A6M5s could note that they noticed performance issues while those who encountered A6M2s or had a chance to fly F6F-3 with water injection could claim solid performance edge. 

 

Third, Zeke diving capability (especially to follow F6F) comes from the fact that A6M5s coming from the factories since March 1944 (also in some sources named A6M5a) had increased skin thickness allowing for dives at greater speeds - up to 400 knots indicated (or 740 km/h).

 

 

To be fair I'm not sure which one I'd prefer to fly. Both have one massive flaw - bad backward visibility. And for that there is no excuse, especially for Grumman which had opportunity to study both Zero and later also 190. 

Edited October 7, 2016 by =LD=Hiromachi

[Dakpilot]

I imagine that by Okinawa Campaign,  April - Jun 45 all Hellcats would be of F6F-5 version if it was introduced in April 44?

 

would some F-3 still be in service in USN front line carriers? ..or would older models have been completely replaced by then due to attrition and squadron changes and logistical reasons

 

As far as BOO game is concerned will we expect the F6F-5? seems it was much improved over F-3

 

"The F6F-5 featured several improvements including a more powerful R-2800-10W engine employing a water-injection system and housed in a slightly more streamlined engine cowling, spring-loaded control tabs on the ailerons, and an improved, clear view windscreen, with a flat armored-glass front panel replacing the F6F-3's curved plexiglass panel and internal armor glass screen. In addition, the rear fuselage and tail units were strengthened, and, After the first few F6F-5s were built, the small windows behind the main canopy were deleted. The F6F-5 was the most common F6F variant, with 7,870 being built."

 

(from Wiki)

 

So in our sim terms in the Battle of Okinawa  it will be the F6 that will be seal clubbed and raped? 

 

 

 

Initially i was just trying to debilitate Cujo's post, because in Okinawa the Hellcat won't at least be a "beast" or have any huge advantage against the Japanese. This would be in early 44. Guess my expression was a little too flowery. 

 

Seems Manu* thinks Okinawa took place in early 44 according to his post

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Yes, Okinawa means only F6F-5. 

I dont know what was the amount of F6F-3s in 1945, I'd assume that they were around as well but quantity was probably decreasing quickly as they were worn out and replacements were easy to provide (they made over 7000 F6F-5s  if I'm not mistaken). 

 

Doubt that it would be seal clubbed and raped. It would be more stable and comfortable machine to fly than F4U-1d, but it comes at a price of worse performance. 

 

I still dont think Okinawa should be chosen and since we have at least 2.5 years before it arrives I think there is enough time to advocate for something else (which I'm going to do with Leyte ^^). 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

I still dont think Okinawa should be chosen and since we have at least 2.5 years before it arrives I think there is enough time to advocate for something else (which I'm going to do with Leyte ^^)

Agree. Not another scenario which was quite lopsided in aerial war in real life, just like BoM and BoS. Game will only fail hugely (again) to represent history. I'd rather go for more balanced scenarios as well, like Guadalcanal, New Guinea etc.. 

[hames123]

Leyte was a bit onesided. Lets have Burma 1944, with P-47s, Hurricanes, B-26s and Spitfires against Oscars and Sallys.

[Gambit21]

Agree, agree and agree...but once again let's take advantage of the Midway aircraft, Burma can come down the road.

Leyte is good, and if we're talking about it being once sided hames, well as you know that backslide began after the battle of Guadalcanal in 1943, and just became more acute until we end up

at Okinawa in 1945. The Japanese left with no option but to crash their airplanes into the carriers. If we want an even match then arguably we have to back up a bit into

the Solomons and New Guinea.

 

IF we're going to skip ahead so drastically after Midway, then what I really come concerned with is the quality of the island map that I can re-purpose for use with the early war

plane set from Midway. Okinawa works for that, Leyte might work even better.

 

I wonder how many times I'm going to type certain things in the next handful of years?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Leyte was a bit onesided. Lets have Burma 1944, with P-47s, Hurricanes, B-26s and Spitfires against Oscars and Sallys.

I dont mind Burma, I mean ... I wrote suggestion for it. It's exotic, mysterious and very unique. But when it comes to 1944 combat it also becomes onesided. I'd certainly wish to see it down the road, its never been done before and has to offer great landscapes and missions. 

 

Leyte is just a good continuation, an ending chapter of Pacific struggles with aircraft carriers. Leyte was the last operation that involved strategic planning on Japanese side and whole preparations accounted for more than 70% of Japanese budget at given time, it also was the first time when Japanese Army and Navy Air Services would come under a unified command. Imperial General Headquarters Navy Directive No. 435, starting preparations for Sho plan, created air fleets made of both Army and Navy units. Navy officers would direct when enemy fleets were the targets. This directive went to a such degree that it specified which Army air units would be controlled by Navy air fleets and even listed types of aircraft involved and what kinds of enemy forces they should destroy. But those are strategic details ...

Overall Leyte fits the scheme of things. 

 

 

 

wonder how many times I'm going to type certain things in the next handful of years?

Probably more than a dozen  

[ShamrockOneFive]

Yes, Okinawa means only F6F-5. 

I dont know what was the amount of F6F-3s in 1945, I'd assume that they were around as well but quantity was probably decreasing quickly as they were worn out and replacements were easy to provide (they made over 7000 F6F-5s  if I'm not mistaken). 

 

Doubt that it would be seal clubbed and raped. It would be more stable and comfortable machine to fly than F4U-1d, but it comes at a price of worse performance. 

 

I still dont think Okinawa should be chosen and since we have at least 2.5 years before it arrives I think there is enough time to advocate for something else (which I'm going to do with Leyte ^^). 

 

 

Agree. Not another scenario which was quite lopsided in aerial war in real life, just like BoM and BoS. Game will only fail hugely (again) to represent history. I'd rather go for more balanced scenarios as well, like Guadalcanal, New Guinea etc.. 

 

I'll be the contrarian

 

I think Okinawa (and hopefully southern Kyushu) represents an great part to the war and one that I gravitated to in Pacific Fighters. Its an absolutely titanic battle and it offers up some great opportunities... Strategically the situation for Japan was terrible but for some of the air force units operating on both sides - it was still a potentially even match tactically. Especially when you factor in the elite units like 343 Kokutai. This unit put up a terrific defense before the Okinawa battle as US carriers made strikes against Japanese airbases. Okinawa also gives us the possibility of integrating in the British Pacific Fleet.

 

But that's not to say that Guadalcanal (and more specifically, 1943 and the push up the Slot) or New Guinea wouldn't be welcomed. I would after all like to fly a Ki-61 again soon.

[JtD]

Regarding A6M5 level speed - how solid are the figures available for that plane? Outside of combat reports, most of what I know about them comes from US testing, which isn't 100% accurate. 475km/h appears to be the highest figure obtained by the US at sea level, 575 at altitude. The latter appears to be reasonable, the former a bit low for my taste. Any information available from Japanese tests or manuals for sea level?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Alright, but that requires some mind stretching. I have two official documents giving two various speeds which made me really confused until I stepped upon some detailed production numbers. 

 

As you are probably unaware first 200 produced A6M5s fighters were similar to the previous aircraft model - A6M3. A6M5 had new type of wing and more streamlined cowling but on the other hand it also had two gun barrels sticking out of the wings, so speed increase due to more aerodynamic profile was partially negated, overall speed increase was in range of 1 to 4 knots. 

This is how it looked:

This is how earliest model 52 looked like, Serial no. 3904 to 4103 produced between August and mid October 1943.

 

Given speed in manual is 282.5 knots(523 km/h) at 3250 m and 294 knots (544 km/h) at 5900 m. All of this at rated power (+200 mmHg and 2700 RPM). Now there is of course emergency power that would be activated by pulling a knob on a control panel giving pilot more juice to work with, but Japanese (either Navy or Army) did not carry tests at emergency power. It seems they approved it and left up to pilot whether they wish to use it or not, but aircraft was supposed to meet requirements at rated power. Manual was written somewhere in October 1943 so it does not take into account change which I'm going to explain now.

 

After tests on various other air-frames were carried before and approved, Mitsubishi also added individual exhaust stacks providing jet-thrust which was an easy way to get more out of the airframe with no penalties (except that now pilots were complaining that when taxying on the airfields they were getting hit by a hot air straight into their face if they would stick the head outside of cockpit). 

Most likely first A6M5 with individual exhaust pipes was aircraft no. 4104 built between 18th and 29th October 1943 (exact date unknown). It was looking like this :

So the other document that I got indicates speed increase up to 302 knots (559 km/h) at 6000 meters (rated power again). I know that Mitsubishi was playing a bit with those stacks to get most efficient result, so their length was slightly changed.  Based formulas from Fluid Dynamic Drag by S. F. Hoerner I figured that thrust gain would be in the area of 49-53 kg. Based on Jiro Horikoshi book the speed gain for such setting was between 15 to 25 km/h depending on engine setting and altitude. 

 

So 575 km/h coming from TAIC 102 D-1 is entirely possible, could be even slightly faster to be fair. But I dont have any data for sea level though, I'm sorry that I cannot help with it, though I guess this could be calculated if need be. 

[JtD]

Thanks for the detailed explanation and data. I think speed increase for WEP is in the range of 15-20 km/h, I've also seen the 575 region confirmed in a Japanese manual. All adds up well with what you've stated and if thrust indeed was in the 50kg region, both your figures would also be in the same ballpark.

 

It's possible to give the sea level estimate a good shot using the 523 and 544 kph. I'm just too lazy to do that right now.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I know that Sunday feeling.

 

Well, Hoerner gives a formula for that type of engines and exhaust arrangements as 0.11 to 0.13 * HP. I decided to take the lower end, since that kind of arrangement isnt particularly clean and would reserve 0.13 for aircraft like 190 for instance, where this was really well designed. That is 0.11*980 HP at given altitude which is 108 pounds or 49 kg. I know Holtzauge uses different formula and based on that one it is 523.7 N or 53.4 kg. Either way its close enough.

If you decide some day to give it a shot, here is CD₀ and Prop efficiency Jiro Horikoshi gave in his book:

CD₀= 0.0215 - although its for A6M3, so there can be a small fluctuation in this regard with A6M5. 

Prop efficiency = 0.76

[Mac_Messer]

Some interesting and informative posts in this thread. Nice to read.

 

But all of that wonderfull PTO stuff will not mean diddly squat unless the sp campaign and online feature are executed on A level. And the team does have limited resources.

 

Pacific Fighters showed that it is much harder to do PTO well than Western Front or Eastern Front. You need to pick the right campaign, you need to pick the right planes, the right set of game features and so on. There is hardly a ready formula for the PTO yet.

 

Personally I love all mid war Japanes planes and flew online coops for the IJN. And for the most part, unless the mission was a tactical  short ground/carrier attack, it all didn`t go well usually. Just flying 50 minutes until you get zoomed and bailed. I rarely ever encountered the enemy, and if even, I could never dogfight on terms that were remotely even. My 6:1 ratio with the Zero did not change any of that experience, which was a bad if not boring time, mostly.

 

IMO placing two similar theaters of operations one after another is a bad idea. For me, unless the PTO is executed on a A level, the series will just go dark for about 3 years. And it is always needed to get some new stuff from times to time. For this reason I think that Battle of Moscow is a missed opportunity and Battle of Kuban will probably be the first to revitalise the series.

[Mac_Messer]

Yeah, it's the "JG" guys that always go for the "new best" while benevolent mid-westerners make due with P-40.

 

For a decade all American kids did nothing in Il-2 but cry for the latest P-63 and over boosted P-51 on 150 grade aviation fuel, all the while insisting that P-80 was a real bona fide WW2 fighter. And then proceeded to fill servers with nothing but those planes, once they got their hands on them lol.

 

It's amazing what a lack of perspective or sense awareness will do for you.

Yup. I remember all of it.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Mac_Messer, I agree with you pretty much on the two campaigns chosen, hence the need to have a land based early to mid war scenario.

 

Yes the carrier war is the more "glamorous" (thanks to Hollywood) scenario, but for sustained gameplay a ground based scenario is absolutely essential.

 

Several of us have mentioned it before in this thread.   Midway is a two day affair, by and large, however, in a sim this will get tedious as there is nothing to fight for but water,  no front lines to support, etc...  Whereas a campaign like New Guinea, or Guadalcanal, has far more options for mission builders, and you can still use your carriers if you so desire.

 

As to the late war aircraft argument, it plays out the same for Allied and Axis.  There is always a vocal bunch that clamors for the P51D, Spit XIV, Dora, 109K etc...  Several times when I was hosting on HL had a squad come in to a server I was running that was clearly labeled as an early Pacific DF, and demand that I add the190 D as that is the only plane they fly and would not leave and just sat there demanding in chat that I add that plane, until I kicked/banned them.  So please, let's not go there in this thread.

 

Are there not enough numpties to go around as it is?

Edited October 11, 2016 by BlitzPig_EL

[Gambit21]

Yes the carrier war is the more "glamorous" (thanks to Hollywood) scenario, but for sustained gameplay a ground based scenario is absolutely essential.

 

Several of us have mentioned it before in this thread. Midway is a two day affair, by and large, however, in a sim this will get tedious as there is nothing to fight for but water, no front lines to support, etc... Whereas a campaign like New Guinea, or Guadalcanal, has far more options for mission builders, and you can still use your carriers if you so desire.

 

Worth repeating

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Pacific Fighters showed that it is much harder to do PTO well than Western Front or Eastern Front. You need to pick the right campaign, you need to pick the right planes, the right set of game features and so on. There is hardly a ready formula for the PTO yet.

Major issues with PF for me were the unbalanced setups for campaigns, somebody did not even try to verify units participating in most of this campaigns and was throwing into that mission pot everything possible. Other problem were messed up performance and flight characteristics, particularly of Japanese aircraft. And what sealed for me experience was primitive Ai, ships that did not try to dodge and CAP that could never make up their mind what is the priority.

PF worked much better on multi when someone had a good idea and could apply it.  

 

 

 

Personally I love all mid war Japanes planes and flew online coops for the IJN. And for the most part, unless the mission was a tactical  short ground/carrier attack, it all didn`t go well usually. Just flying 50 minutes until you get zoomed and bailed. I rarely ever encountered the enemy, and if even, I could never dogfight on terms that were remotely even. My 6:1 ratio with the Zero did not change any of that experience, which was a bad if not boring time, mostly.

I hear ya. Flying for hours is not fun, but it can very well apply for a western front either - long trip in Malta scenario was already once a reason to put up "artificial" airfields. That is why there should be chosen theaters of closest possible flight routes and of high levels of activity. That excludes for instance 1942-1943 Port Darwin raids or 1941 Philippines with flights from Formosa. I also have my doubts about Okinawa since realistically flight from Kyushu is one heck of a trip. But at the same time there are theaters like Burma, New Guinea, Leyte, Bougainville or couple of others that fit perfectly.

 

 

 

For me, unless the PTO is executed on a A level, the series will just go dark for about 3 years.

IMO all depends on how Midway will be executed. I went for some hours reading the posts in career assistance section and though how all of this could apply ? There werent all that many aces in Japanese fleet, there wont be daily messages with news from around the world. To be fair its impossible to make RoF style campaign for Midway or any other direct Carrier engagement. RoF style campaign requires a fixed theater with operations lasting at least few weeks.

That is one hell of a problem to solve. Most likely that would require a highly scripted campaign is a style of Combat Flight Simulator 2.  

[J2_Trupobaw]

 To be fair its impossible to make RoF style campaign for Midway or any other direct Carrier engagement. RoF style campaign requires a fixed theater with operations lasting at least few weeks.

That is one hell of a problem to solve. Most likely that would require a highly scripted campaign is a style of Combat Flight Simulator 2.  

 

Wouldn't most of the career of Naval pilot consist of flying patrol over landless part of sea occupied by his carrier and accompanying fleet? The empty sea map looks the same even if carrier is supposed to never be in same place twice in row...  

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

To be fair no. There were specific pilots assigned for search missions (scouting/reconnaissance requires additional training) since offensive patrols weren't really a thing until mid 1944. Then you would also have fighter pilots doing daily duty in form of CAP. Rest would be doing whatever pilots do when they got nothing to do. I know that officers on board of one of the carriers belonging to TF 38.3 before Leyte had a ping pong tournament. 

[Bearfoot]

To be fair no. There were specific pilots assigned for search missions (scouting/reconnaissance requires additional training) since offensive patrols weren't really a thing until mid 1944. Then you would also have fighter pilots doing daily duty in form of CAP. Rest would be doing whatever pilots do when they got nothing to do. I know that officers on board of one of the carriers belonging to TF 38.3 before Leyte had a ping pong tournament. 

 

Well, this provides an opportunity for IL2 to bring in other types of simulators. Might I suggest:

 

(1) The IL2 BOMi Guitar Collector Edition Module. Most HOTAS throttles have enough buttons to map to control the fret fingers, and, of course, the stick can be moved back and forth to control the strumming.

(2) The IL2 BOMi Poker Collector Edition Module. Just the mouse needed here. Play SP or MP online against other pilots. Play for IL2 Bucks or IL2 Toothpicks.

(3) The IL2 BOMi Shoot-the-Sh1t Collector Edition Module. Just need a mike/speaker here. Again can play SP or MP, but I imagine the AI will not be very satisfying here, so probably better to play MP. Special features will include various funny noises that can be made at a click of a button, as well as simulated farts of various kinds (varying by loudness, wetness, duration, and strength of smell, from "wrinkle the nose" to "clear the room" to "Condition 1 Alpha All Hands Get Ready to Abandon Ship").

[TheElf]

Wouldn't most of the career of Naval pilot consist of flying patrol over landless part of sea occupied by his carrier and accompanying fleet? The empty sea map looks the same even if carrier is supposed to never be in same place twice in row...  

 

No, Not necessarily.  The Navy deployed units to Cactus and later on further up the Slot.  In the early cases it was out of necessity due to a shortage of Carriers (See Coral Sea / Midway) and a premium on protecting gains made at Guadalcanal.  Later it was due to the F4U not being deemed suitable for Carrier Operations (See VF-17 Jolly Rogers) and also out of necessity.  So Ground based campaigns for the Navy are an option.  The USMC is another way to allow for Ground based campaigns for the Navy Department.

[Bearfoot]

No, Not necessarily.  The Navy deployed units to Cactus and later on further up the Slot.  In the early cases it was out of necessity due to a shortage of Carriers (See Coral Sea / Midway) and a premium on protecting gains made at Guadalcanal.  Later it was due to the F4U not being deemed suitable for Carrier Operations (See VF-17 Jolly Rogers) and also out of necessity.  So Ground based campaigns for the Navy are an option.  The USMC is another way to allow for Ground based campaigns for the Navy Department.

 

A little -- no VERY -- OT, but I've been diving into War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition recently, and have to say that this is a FANTASTIC, FANTASTIC, FANTASTIC game.

 

No, not game. Simulation.

 

Though it will take me weeks if not months to actually come to grips with all its aspects, so far, really, really, really, really, like it!

 

Chess with carriers ... perfect complement to getting behind the stick of that Dauntless/Wildcat/Val/Zero! 

 

I noticed that someone called "The Elf" worked on it. Is that you?

[Gambit21]

No, Not necessarily.  The Navy deployed units to Cactus and later on further up the Slot.  In the early cases it was out of necessity due to a shortage of Carriers (See Coral Sea / Midway) and a premium on protecting gains made at Guadalcanal.  Later it was due to the F4U not being deemed suitable for Carrier Operations (See VF-17 Jolly Rogers) and also out of necessity.  So Ground based campaigns for the Navy are an option.  The USMC is another way to allow for Ground based campaigns for the Navy Department.

Yep

Ground based operations are what we need if we want actual ongoing campaigns, and this is equally true of the Japanese side.

[Trooper117]

I'm all for Guadalcanal, or even an AVG type campaign... carriers never flipped my switch I'm afraid.

In fact, I can't understand why the dev's are going to Okinawa after Midway... the next logical step would be Guadalcanal!

[216th_Jordan]

I'm all for Guadalcanal, or even an AVG type campaign... carriers never flipped my switch I'm afraid.

In fact, I can't understand why the dev's are going to Okinawa after Midway... the next logical step would be Guadalcanal!

They are not necessarily going anywhere. Its a roadmap it can be changed. However it is known that 1C wants quite some copies of BoK to be sold in order for it to fund the next theatres. Should we be able to skip this barrier then i guess there is a lot more space and time to discuss which direction to take.

[J2_Trupobaw]

Ground operations need mapped landmasses. Which is not unthinkable, with most of area to be modelled consisting of the sea devs can well make several archipelago maps and pack them together under "Battle of Midway" label...  because Midway and Okinawa (along with Pearl Harbour, Hiroshima and Yamato) are key words even the ignorants like me have heard of.  

Back to the career - do I get it right that a fighter pilot stationed on a carrier did no flying unless there was confirmed presence of the enemy - either his ship was supporting a ground operation, or engaged in large fleet vs fleet action? And a "day in, day out" RoF-style career isn't feasible for them? I suppose when you're on the carrier you don't waste fuel and risk the planes you have in takeoffs and landings just to keep the pilots sharp...

[CUJO_1970]

The more I think about the move to the pacific, the less I like it.

[Gambit21]

The more I think about the move to the pacific, the less I like it.

 

It will be epic - we just need the right maps.

[andyw248]

Ground operations need mapped landmasses. Which is not unthinkable, with most of area to be modelled consisting of the sea devs can well make several archipelago maps and pack them together under "Battle of Midway" label...  because Midway and Okinawa (along with Pearl Harbour, Hiroshima and Yamato) are key words even the ignorants like me have heard of.  

 

Back to the career - do I get it right that a fighter pilot stationed on a carrier did no flying unless there was confirmed presence of the enemy - either his ship was supporting a ground operation, or engaged in large fleet vs fleet action? And a "day in, day out" RoF-style career isn't feasible for them? I suppose when you're on the carrier you don't waste fuel and risk the planes you have in takeoffs and landings just to keep the pilots sharp...

 

Exactly... They are going to model career mode so that you have to sit and wait for days on end while the carrier sails to the target area. However, not all is lost because there will be occasional torpedo practice where you can try to hit the escorts with dummy fish

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

The more I think about the move to the pacific, the less I like it.

Mind explaining why ? I mean ... what seems to be the problem with Pacific in your opinion CUJO ?

 

On the other fronts, I believe Sokol posted in the other thread a CGI with raids on Indian Ocean somewhere before. I've recently found a footage of raids on harbour at Trincomalee and attack on HMS Hermes and HMS Vampire. Gives a nice close view on A6M2b and B5N2 during take-off. One can also spot that while pilots are being briefed about their mission, crews work hard on positioning aircraft and preparing them for flight.

 

[Crump]

 

 

In early 1944 I'd have no fear tackling F6F-3, without water injection and spring tabs it isn't so superior. In fact in all 1943 combat it scored a bit more than F4F but still less than F4U. I will later on bring some quotes of Navy pilots or post combat reports from Battle of Philippine Sea to give perspective. 

 

I absolutely agree.  The early F6F Hellcat is on very even terms with the Zeke.  It is another "blondes vs brunettes" line up and should be lots of fun. 

 

From the facts I have seen, the defeat of the IJN pilots was not about aircraft performance as much as pilot training and experience.

[Gambit21]

From the facts I have seen, the defeat of the IJN pilots was not about aircraft performance as much as pilot training and experience.

 

They're not mutually exclusive factors - it was both as well as other factors.

The Zeke was the most common fighter until the end of the war, and while there were changes along the way between A6m2 and A6m5, those changes did not amount to much

in the face of the F6F-5 and the Corsair. Yes by the time the A6m5c came along near the end of 1944 many of the pilots were gone, with few experienced pilots around to talk about living through a burst

of .050 cal because of self sealing tanks. 

 

The defeat of the Japanese Navy was due to many things, poor decision making by the upper echelons, infighting and missed opportunities being no small part of the equation.

[TheElf]

A little -- no VERY -- OT, but I've been diving into

 

 

 

<a data-ipb="nomediaparse" data-cke-saved-href="http://www.matrixgames.com/products/351/details/War.in.the.Pacific.-.Admiral"href="http://www.matrixgames.com/products/351/details/War.in.the.Pacific.-.Admiral" s.edition"="">I noticed that someone called "The Elf" worked on it. Is that you?

 

One and the Same.  It is a great simulation.  For anyone who likes the Pacific and is into micromanagement it is a dream come true...   Glad you are enjoying it!

 

I hope you try the grand campaign with a human opponent.  The AI is good, but the truest experience is going head to head with another thinking player.

Edited October 14, 2016 by TheElf