Brewster

[Bronk]

I have questioned it in the past.  I recall an F4F pilot at the 2001 con watching somebody fly the AH1 F4F, mixing it up with Zeros and commenting that the game looked fun, but if they'd tried that with Zeros in reality they'd have died.

I wouldn't either if my life was hanging in the balance. Since it is not  I'll take the chance. IIRC Pug Sutherland gave Saburo Saki all he could handle also if Pug's guns didn't jam the out come of their fight might have gone differently. So like in game pilot quality makes a huge difference.

[humble]

This highlights the reality that from an ACM perspective most sim sticks are far ahead of there real life counterparts. While nothing can replace the real thing most combat pilots had a few hours of total combat time (time actually engaged in combat) and very little actual combat ACM experience. So true combat manuevering was rare compared to slashing hit and run attacks. Here is a quote from Saburo...

At once the Grumman snapped away in a roll to the right, clawed around in a tight turn, and ended up in a climb straight at my own plane. Never before had I seen an enemy plane move so quickly or gracefully before, and every second his guns were moving closer to the belly of my fighter   

Pretty typical in AH but very rare in actual WW2 combat...

[Karnak]

I wouldn't either if my life was hanging in the balance. Since it is not  I'll take the chance. IIRC Pug Sutherland gave Saburo Saki all he could handle also if Pug's guns didn't jam the out come of their fight might have gone differently. So like in game pilot quality makes a huge difference.

I don't think the maneuverability is off by much, if at all, on the F4F, but I do think it is modeled as being tougher than it should be.  It isn't the maneuverability that kills the A6M2, it is the astronomical difference in their respective durabilities.  It just doesn't make sense that a fighter that weighs the same as a Spitfire and is actually larger in dimension would be so much tougher.  Metal is metal, and you just can't make it do that kind of thing.  The F4F should be slightly tougher than the A6M, with the added notes that it has self sealing fuel tanks and pilot armor.  It should not be a flying cannon and machine gun sponge.

The only two fighters that I think are more maneuverable than they should be are the Bf110 and Hurricane.

[Saxman]

I don't think the maneuverability is off by much, if at all, on the F4F, but I do think it is modeled as being tougher than it should be.  It isn't the maneuverability that kills the A6M2, it is the astronomical difference in their respective durabilities.  It just doesn't make sense that a fighter that weighs the same as a Spitfire and is actually larger in dimension would be so much tougher.  Metal is metal, and you just can't make it do that kind of thing.  The F4F should be slightly tougher than the A6M, with the added notes that it has self sealing fuel tanks and pilot armor.  It should not be a flying cannon and machine gun sponge.

Then again, Sakae once emptied his clip into an F4F only to watch it fly off home....

Carrier aircraft are built tougher to withstand the stress of carrier landing, so there could be something in the structure that spells the difference between the F4F and the Spit.

[Karnak]

Then again, Sakae once emptied his clip into an F4F only to watch it fly off home....

Carrier aircraft are built tougher to withstand the stress of carrier landing, so there could be something in the structure that spells the difference between the F4F and the Spit.

The A6M is a carrier aircraft too, and not that much lighter than the F4F when both are empty.

As to Sakai's clip, I recall that was just the 7.7s, not the 20mm.

[Ardy123]

I don't think the maneuverability is off by much, if at all, on the F4F, but I do think it is modeled as being tougher than it should be.  It isn't the maneuverability that kills the A6M2, it is the astronomical difference in their respective durabilities.  It just doesn't make sense that a fighter that weighs the same as a Spitfire and is actually larger in dimension would be so much tougher.  Metal is metal, and you just can't make it do that kind of thing.  The F4F should be slightly tougher than the A6M, with the added notes that it has self sealing fuel tanks and pilot armor.  It should not be a flying cannon and machine gun sponge.

The only two fighters that I think are more maneuverable than they should be are the Bf110 and Hurricane.

My understanding is that the zero was made out of a more brittle aluminum alloy which offered more strength per pound but was more brittle than what other aircraft were using.

[Karnak]

My understanding is that the zero was made out of a more brittle aluminum alloy which offered more strength per pound but was more brittle than what other aircraft were using.

Not more brittle, but rather it would corrode and become brittle over time, but the Japanese didn't intend the Zero to be in service 10 years down the road, so they didn't think that was really an issue.  That is how I understand it.

[321BAR]

I don't know how much the maneuverability is off, if at all, but the firepower and durability differences seem too great.  As modeled in AH the F4Fs would have slaughtered the Zeros wholesale as the Zeros have no choice but to saddle up for long tracking shots, giving other F4Fs ample time to blow the now not maneuvering Zero to bits.

a good zero pilot in the MA will soon realize that if you cannot get a shot on an enemy within the space of less than approx two seconds, its time to pull out and find a new target...

The A6M is a carrier aircraft too, and not that much lighter than the F4F when both are empty.

yes its a carrier aircraft but you do notice Japan and America used two different CV A/C styles correct? Japan went for the maneuverability and light craft, America went for the heavy armored planes with speed and firepower with SOME maneuverability

[Bronk]

Kind of off topic but since I brought up the fight between Sakai and Sutherland. I though you all might enjoy this.
http://video.pbs.org/video/1258888794/?starttime=0

[Karnak]

a good zero pilot in the MA will soon realize that if you cannot get a shot on an enemy within the space of less than approx two seconds, its time to pull out and find a new target...

Which against the F4F means you don't kill any many F4Fs as you have to saddle up for an extended time.  The F4F is plenty maneuverable to make the A6M2's shot difficult/

yes its a carrier aircraft but you do notice Japan and America used two different CV A/C styles correct? Japan went for the maneuverability and light craft, America went for the heavy armored planes with speed and firepower with SOME maneuverability

You can't magically make an extra 500lbs of aluminum on a larger airplane have that much more durability.  The light Japanese aircraft isn't that much lighter and we're not talking about a F6F or P-47 here.

[Saxman]

I'm also interested in whether you're accounting for the awful ballistics of the Zero's 20mm. I've flown both sides in early PTO scenarios, and even if I get a good tracking shot at convergence range with the 20mm the rounds still fall low and miss the target outright. (confirmed by just firing the 20mm). When I CAN get the 20mm in there is when I get the kills (and that's certainly consistent with Sakai's report. If the cannon aren't hitting, those 7.7s aren't going to do much more than tickle).

And for the record, I have no trouble putting F4Fs down with a bank of Brownings. If there's a fault I'm more inclined to believe it's the abysmal performance of the early Japanese cannon (combined with the F4F just being hard to hit) than any modeling of the F4F's durability.

[Karnak]

I've shot down F4Fs in AH with just the 7.7mm guns, but no, I am talking about hitting with the 20mm.

And it isn't only the A6M.  I have had the same experience with the Mossie, and you can't ding that one for lack of firepower or poor ballistics.  The F4F is an extremely durable fighter, and looking at it closer tonight that just doesn't make sense that it should be that tough.

[hlbly]

No need to try put words in my mouth. BAR mentioned on the constant whining and I just said like it is. There's no need to do anything based on whining, except have fun on the whiners' expense.

Oh so it accelerates to fast now I see.  

Well, have fun testing.

"And clueless and ignorant individuals whining about something isn't really a good reason to add or remove planes from the planeset."  So I put words in your mouth ? That is a quote from you .


Here is the test . Test conducted at 1000 k alt auto level on . E6b used for recording speed . 1k alt was obtained throttled back until speed was 120 ias . Full throttle then applied .2 stop watches started by myself and wife as speed hit 150 mph. watches stopped at 250 mph . Test repeated 5 times . Differences in times below .5 seconds for both watches , each test . AC were augured after each test . Fuel level was 100% no ords and heavy gun package . Load out was slightly modified from original test ,to eliminate only complaint you had to tests . This is a brew vs a 190a8 . Buffalo out accelerated the a8 . Your only response . "My guess is that the power loadings agree nicely with real life figures." You go on and on abut proof yet you give a guess as evidence ? Except for your contention that the buff was this uber plane in comparison to other ww2 fighters . You contradict every other post you make sometimes you do it right in the same post . You don't insult/name/call . Next line anyone that asks a question is lazy thick headed ignorant . You want facts, you reply with a guess . Well guess what show me the facts that prove buff could out accelerate the a8 . Then post the facts proving me wrong that my contention that it did well only in Finnish hands is wrong . Show me where they were not eliminated by their enemy either to or almost to the last machine .

Oh so it accelerates to fast now I see.  Hehe!

Well, have fun testing.

In comparison yes it does . I posted on the other thread I am sure a towering intellect like you remembers  the redone test data. With double the horsepower and much much lower drag in the 190 . The brewster should not out accelerate the FW190A8 . Yours is the extraordinary claim not mine . You say it is correct that a 1936 design should out accelerate a 1943 wartime one . I say prove it . Please if you can't respond like an adult , save it for the people that have deluded you into thinking you are funny . No personal attack just prove your outlandish claim

My problem is ,that only in Finn hands ,against the Russians did it do any good at all . One version vs 1 enemy , It is a bad machine . Against anyone else in any other hands it was slaughtered .

"This is exactly what I mean by the clueless and ignorant." Once again a personal attack on something I know is basically right . The word slaughter may not have applied to the dutch , that is a matter of opinion though . Please show me anywhere else that it achieved anything like the Finnish K/D ratio . We both know you can't . Once again you suggest a claim about the plane that is inaccurate and against accepted history . Burden of proof is yours . Wish I could say I am looking forward to a reply on this . We both know it was not successful in any other hands than Finnish ones , against pilots of unequal quality . I wonder if you will suggest end of war German or Soviet pilot quality through out the war was anything other then unequal .



"I didn't call you names. I merely stated a fact. I maybe could have dropped it to you a bit more gently but it wouldn't really change the context in anyway."   "This is exactly what I mean by the clueless and ignorant." Both quotes of you . In reply to me . Both in direct contradiction of each other . I assume English is not your native tongue . Yet you write well and speak it so so . I have a hard time thinking you don't understand the definition of the words , for the context they were used in . Yet these two posts suggest you do . So please save the insults for your kids or who ever it is weaker then you that helped you to develop that attitude  .Someone has been dishonest with you . Your not funny at all . So please save it and just answer the questions . BTW a psych study done at a near by university about cyber bullying sheds some light on why you act the way you do online . A friend of my daughters who is doing graduate work on it really gave me a chuckle  when she analysed your posts in this forum. I should post the profile here , but it would just get skuzzyfied .  You make some powerful statements about how you are tired of the ignorant people and their claims . I have seen no one make claims . Just ask questions . Further I have seen you do little to nothing to answer the questions . Well I have more questions and observations to point out . I shall end it here though so as not to be accused of rambling . The two questions are easy to see lets see an answer .

[Motherland]

Question;
I think I've read somewhere that the Soviet pilots stationed near Finland were those that had previously fought Japan in the Sino-Japanese war, is this correct?
On top of that then, they would have had the added experience of fighting the Finns in the Winter War... (assuming that units weren't moved around, I'm unfamiliar with the Soviet side of this)
That would then make the Soviet pilots fighting against the Finnish Air Force the most experienced in the VVS at the opening of the Continuation War, wouldn't it?

I'm just curious, with all of this talk about pilot skill.

Having read some of Juutilainen's exploits in the Brewster, I do not doubt the capabilities of the B-239 in this game at all. I do wish we had an F2A-3, though.

[Krusty]

At the time, the soviet air force was coming out of the worst paranoid purge in all of stalinist history. About 75% of ALL the leadership and structure was "purged" (killed, sent to camps, "removed" etc...)

The pilots fighting the Finns were the worst of the worst, [Edit, don't get me wrong there may have been a couple competent folks trying to keep things going, but as an overall unit it was hopeless] by this time they had little to no training, and barely knew that "turning" was a good way to follow an enemy. This remained true to lesser and lesser degress through the war, and it wasn't until all the way up to late 44, 1945, that the Soviet training machine geared up and actually started producing pilots on par with Western nations.

Before that it was limited to a single good pilot trying to teach his squad mates very basic things. That's why the Soviet aces stood out so much, received so much accolades, because they were a step above, and were in essence the teachers for their green pilots.

At the time of Barbarossa, Soviet pilots had almost no training as well, often bombers flying straight and level in formation as they let themselves be shot down. The German pilots felt sick that they didn't even put up a fight. Left a sour taste, but they learned that Stalin's paranoia only allowed the lead plane in any formation to know what it was doing and where it was going, so they killed it first. The rest didn't know what to do and flew on level until they were all shot down.


The Soviet air force was VERY much a quantity over quality deal, and this is very much true at the beginning of the war. That's why the Finns had such a massive kill ratio against them, most didn't know how to turn, let alone turn fight.