An Idiots Guide To Losing Your CV's Before 1942: WiTP:AE KyzBP vs UCG

[FarAway Sooner]

Once again the B-25's out perform the other bombers.  I need more of these guys.  They seem to be my most effective
and versatile bomber.  I wish the Allied side had the ability to control production because I'd build a poop load of these.

Historical aside 

You know, the history of aircraft production and utilization in WW II is one of the most fascinating areas of technology policy in the 20th century.  The lead time to get a plane designed was huge--comparable to building an aircraft carrier.  But, once they were in production, tweaks and changes were relatively easy to make. 

Just as two examples: 

• The P-51 was designed in 1940, but didn't come into its own as one of the best fighters of the war until late 1943, when they switched to a new Rolls-Royce Merlin engine.  This brought the plane's high-altitude performance up to the level required for escorting bombers deep into Germany.  The P-51D (which represented 2/3 of total P-51 production) didn't enter service until mid-1944.
• The F4U Corsair was designed in 1938, and released to the US Navy in late 1942.  However, it had problems with carrier landings, and thus got a bad reputation in aviation circles.  In February 1942, the initial production batches ultimately found their way to combat in that bastard stepchild of a bastard stepchild, the US Marine Corp air service.  Nobody else really wanted it, and (like many planes) the combat debut was underwhelming.  But, once pilots learned its strengths and weaknesses and developed appropriate tactics, it quickly became the best air superiority fighter in the South Pacific.

It's fascinating, because each plane had strengths and weaknesses, but it took some trial-and-error and pilots experienced in flying that particular plane to figure out how to work it.  The P-38 had great firepower and good top speed, but below 22,000 feet, it's poor roll capabilities and other limitations made it a poor match-up versus the Zero.  Above 22,000 feet, however, it's supercharger gave it a commanding lead over the Zero. 

Previously, the P-40 had held its own against Zeros at lower altitudes but performed poorly when flown at higher altitudes (and thus had to surrender the altitude edge to the Zeros).  By mid-1943, large Allied bomber missions in the Pacific were typically flown with a squadron of P-40s providing low cover (flying under the bomber formation) and P-38s flying top cover.  The Zeros had to pick their poison, and attrition among Japanese fighter pilots climbed dramatically (as did the success rate of Allied bomber missions in the South Pacific).

It was a curious feedback loop between engineers designing and modifying planes, pilots flying them, and tactics evolving to suit the capabilities of those planes.  This is just one example, but WW II aviation history is replete with others.

[KyzBP]

Good stuff, Sooner.  Since this game seems to take every little nuance into consideration I'll make sure my P-38's are flying High Cap.  The game models in the P-40's weakness above 10,000 ft. so I'm sure It'll model in the P-38's strengths/weaknesses as well.

[JasonPratt]

Relatedly, I read something in Fire in the Sky recently about how Airacobras worked great against Zeros at super-low altitudes, but from about 3000 feet upward (where Zs had room to really maneuver I guess) they just couldn't cut it. This was discovered in the early Solomon campaign in the first defenses of Henderson Field.

[mirth]

No turbocharger on the Airacobra. Severely limited the performance at mid-high altitude. It was terrific at low altitudes though. Too bad, it was a beautiful design.

[FarAway Sooner]

The centrally mounted 37mm cannon on that one was an interesting engineering choice.  It only spat out 5 rounds per second, which just wasn't enough lead in the air to connect with enemy airplanes reliably.

It had a reputation for effective ground support in the Red Air Force, but Wikipedia tells us that was just a translation problem and it wasn't really used that way by Soviet pilots.  It was, however, more popular in the Red Air Force, due to the relative unimportance of high-altitude flying.  It was a curious plane indeed.

[JasonPratt]

I know when flying it in Aces of the Pacific, I preferred it over everything else, but I also fought low. Sure, it only spat 5 rounds a second, but I didn't spray and pray anyway: I only shot when I lined up a shot. I used the cannons of other craft the same way, for the sure shots, and harassed with any machine guns on the lower-chance shots. One 37mm exploding shell can ruin your whole day.

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

The other issue with the cannon on the Aircobra was that it had a very low muzzle velocity making it hard to hit anything when using deflection shooting.  It was also prone to jamming.

[FarAway Sooner]

The other issue with the cannon on the Aircobra was that it had a very low muzzle velocity making it hard to hit anything when using deflection shooting.  It was also prone to jamming.

Yet another instance of how important it is for pilots to know the limitations of their planes.  One other interesting thing I learned from Wikipedia:  Because the P-38 had 4 .50 caliber machine guns and a 20mm cannon all mounted in the nose, it didn't suffer any of the adverse effects of convergence patterns where wing-mounted guns are "focused" at a certain range (just like a magnifying glass would be).  This meant that the P-38 fired a very concentrated stream of lead across a small area.

Richard Bong (the leading US ace of the war) got most of his kills in the P-38 and admitted that he got most of them just firing straight at an oncoming plane.  This made the P-38 effective up to a range of 1,000 yards, as long as it was a straight shot.  And again highlighted the deficiency of Japanese training regimens for aviators once WW II got started.

[JasonPratt]

Am I misremembering, or didn't the Zero also have a 20 mm cannon in the nose? (Plus guns in the wings.)

Yeah, I got most of my other kills in that old game with the Lightning, too.  8)

[Staggerwing]

Zeros had two 20MM auto cannons in the wings and two rifle-caliber (7-point-something) MGs mounted behind the top of the engine. The cannons didn't have much in the way of ammo, iirc.

[JasonPratt]

Now that you mention it, I remember reading something from a Guadalcanal soldier just recently about how he survived a Zero's cannon strafing run because the shells could only flank him on either side. (And the Zero was going after something else, a kitchen iirc!)

[FarAway Sooner]

Yeah.  The Zero had 2 20mm cannons and 2 .303 caliber MGs.  The cannons were very effective, and were almost necessary to bring down the more sturdy American planes (even the planes in service by mid-1942, like TBDs and SBDs and F4Fs, were fairly ruggedly built).  It was still deadly in a dogfight, had great long range, and was operable on both carriers and land.

However, it was fragile and lacked the staying power of its American counterparts.  More damningly, the Japanese didn't come up with significantly better fighters throughout the course of the war.  Japan had a superpower Navy and training for its pilots, but it did not have a superpower industrial base.

[airboy]

Learned a lot about Pacific aviation from reading this thread.  But despite the moniker, I know little to nothing about aerial combat. O0

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

Yeah.  The Zero had 2 20mm cannons and 2 .303 caliber MGs.  The cannons were very effective, and were almost necessary to bring down the more sturdy American planes (even the planes in service by mid-1942, like TBDs and SBDs and F4Fs, were fairly ruggedly built).  It was still deadly in a dogfight, had great long range, and was operable on both carriers and land.

However, it was fragile and lacked the staying power of its American counterparts.  More damningly, the Japanese didn't come up with significantly better fighters throughout the course of the war.  Japan had a superpower Navy and training for its pilots, but it did not have a superpower industrial base.

I'd disagree with this.  The IJN didn't do much to develop better fighters but the IJA came up with some very decent fighters such as the Ki-84 and the Ki-61.  The problem was that by the time these fighters were in mainstream production, they simply didn't have the proper logistics to maintain and support them.   

[FarAway Sooner]

Yeah, SDR, that's pretty fair.  I thought about trying to reword my previous to address the very inaccuracy you mentioned, but gave up after worrying that too many of my posts are already too long.   :D

The Japanese did build a couple better planes late in the war, but they were far too little far too late.  And, had they been produced in larger quantities, their lack of a pilot training program would have had dire implications for the survivability of those planes.