Hello? chirp chirp anyone out there?

[Gman]

Ah, I see where you were going with that now.  If you feel the TBD would perform similarly to the B5N, that makes it much clearer.

Anyway, good discussion, thanks for taking the time.

[Swoop]

psssst, Brooke, check your PMs will ya.....

[ROC]

Queue  ROC to talk about team building and practice.  Big Grin

Haha Ya, Easyscor was with us when we drilled, and I mean drilled down to the bone.  He knows why I get impatient sometimes when the discussion gets bogged down in the spreadsheets and performance charts.  We have always taken whatever was given and did remarkably well with it.  Spreadsheets tell you what the Plane does.  We define what can be done with them

[Tank-Ace]

Haha Ya, Easyscor was with us when we drilled, and I mean drilled down to the bone.  He knows why I get impatient sometimes when the discussion gets bogged down in the spreadsheets and performance charts.  We have always taken whatever was given and did remarkably well with it.  Spreadsheets tell you what the Plane does.  We define what can be done with them

What a plane can do also defines what can be done with it. A P-51 will never be able to turn with Ki-43. Physics simply dictate that this is impossible. A Ki-43 will never catch a 262 in a level flight, once again, the physics dictate that this will never happen. Even in a dive, the Ki-43 is limited by the structural integrity of its airframe, to such a degree that Vne for the Ki-43 is less than Vmax for the 262. An A6M2 cannot dive with a TBM; it simply breaks apart before the TBM does.

Just tested some times for deceleration from a dive. The A6M2 takes ~55 seconds to decelerate from 375mph to about 282mph, and ~1:26 to decelerate to 271mph.

The TBM, loaded with a torpedo, takes ~47 seconds to decelerate from ~375 to 280mph, 1:18 to decelerate to 269mph, 2:00 to decelerate to 255mph.

So from a dive, both aircraft take roughly comparable times to decelerate to the 280mph mark. However, the TBM has a higher dive speed.


Let us assume for the sake of argument that a group of A6M2's exit their dive 3k behind a group of TBM's that have also exited a dive. For ~40 seconds, we know their speed differential is essentially nil, assuming both have the same dive speed. The A6M will take an additional 31 seconds to decelerate to Vmax of 271mph at 500ft. The TBM will take an additional 53 seconds to decelerate to it's Vmax.

For the ease of calculations and expediency, lets simply assume the TBM has decelerated to 255mph by 1:26. This gives us an average speed of 275mph for the A6M2 from 0:55 to 1:26, and an average speed of 267 for the TBM, giving us an average speed differential of 8mph for time ~0:50 to 1:26. So by time 1:26, we can assume the A6M2 has closed the gap from 3000yds to 2860yds.

At 1:26, we assume the TBM is at a constant speed of 255mph and the A6M2 is at a constant speed of 271mph. This gives us a speed differential of 16mph, or 7.82 yds/second. We simply divide the remaining distance of 2860 by 7.82yds/s to give us the time, in seconds, it will take for the A6M2 to close the gap. The answer is 365s, or 6.08 minutes.

Were the initial distance 2000yds, the A6M2 would take 3.95 minutes to close the gap. Were it 1500yds, it would take 2.9 minutes.



The TBM's speed is in no way negligible, and if any CAP is present, their job is very, very, VERY easy. Much easier than if we had a TBD, capable of less than 200mph at sea level, and only 202mph at 7k.


Hell, at 7k, the difference in speed for the TBM and TBD is even larger, meaning that the TBM makes an even more unrealistic target at 7k than it does on the deck.



Now I accept your reasoning for using the TBM, but do not dismiss the speed difference as insignificant, or easily overcome by simple pilot skill. This isn't a dogfight, we're simply comparing the time it takes to chase them down, which is 100% quantifiable, and therefore directly comparable.

[Swoop]

Especially with short icon ranges.....which I'm very against.

[Brooke]

Now I accept your reasoning for using the TBM, but do not dismiss the speed difference as insignificant, or easily overcome by simple pilot skill.

I don't dismiss it as insignificant, the data tells us that it doesn't much matter.

[perdue3]

As a Squad leader I can tell you that I have turned down the chance at attacking low TBM-3's because of their speed and toughness. Not only would we kill any chance of maintaining altitude but also all of our rounds to kill one or two. As Tundra said, the data cant show how many kills that weren't achieved due to the fact it was a TBM-3 vs. A6M2.

B5N is a much better substitute for the TBD and is actually still a hell of an upgrade.

[Tank-Ace]

I don't dismiss it as insignificant, the data tells us that it doesn't much matter.

But it doesn't. All it tells us is that the A6M is as effective at killing the TBM as the F4F is at killing the B5N2, it doesn't say that the B5N2 and TBM are interchangeable, since they are being operated under different situations.

And I can see why that would be, as well. The F4F has an easier time of catching the B5N, but a harder time killing them, given how maneuverable it is. The A6M has a harder time catching the TBM, but an easier time killing it.

I would fully expect allied torpedo bomber losses to jump significantly if they would finally be given the B5N2 as is objectively the best decision, ignoring the skin. The A6M is just about the ideal aircraft to kill it, save for the Ki-43.



Besides that, the data ENTIRELY ignores the effect that the speed has on the effectivnes of a CAP. Chasing down the TBM, an escorting F4F has at least a minute to simply make the A6M turn. Doesn't even have to shoot him down; just make him turn, and he looses airspeed needed to even catch the damn thing.

The TBM's get further away, making the job of running them down even more difficult.


All that changes dramatically when you have 75mph+ closure rate on your target, vs 16mph.

[Swoop]

In Coral Sea 2009, TBM's were lost about 80% as often as B5N's.  That's a difference, but it's not large.

I feel the need to point out that 20% is not insignificant.  2% is insignificant, 20% is a massive, massive difference.

This idea that 'it doesn't matter', I feel is a false assumption.

[Devil 505]

Besides that, the data ENTIRELY ignores the effect that the speed has on the effectivnes of a CAP. Chasing down the TBM, an escorting F4F has at least a minute to simply make the A6M turn. Doesn't even have to shoot him down; just make him turn, and he looses airspeed needed to even catch the damn thing.

The TBM's get further away, making the job of running them down even more difficult.


All that changes dramatically when you have 75mph+ closure rate on your target, vs 16mph.

Also remember, if the Zeke is out of the very limited 20mm ammo then the TBM has the advantege in firepower as well. Given that in a tail chase, the Zeke must take a flightpath that most efficently cuts the distance, it's aproach is VERY predictable. Hense, The tailgunner in the TBM has the upper hand over the fighter. Which is not at all remotely close to historically accurate.

The only way to even partially negate the speed differential disparity would be to limit the TBMs to an alt less than 3K.

[Swoop]

Ya know....it might be a band aid over the problem but.....limiting numbers of TBMs in early war frames to compensate could be an idea.

[Brooke]

As a Squad leader I can tell you that I have turned down the chance at attacking low TBM-3's because of their speed and toughness. Not only would we kill any chance of maintaining altitude but also all of our rounds to kill one or two. As Tundra said, the data cant show how many kills that weren't achieved due to the fact it was a TBM-3 vs. A6M2.

As a squad leader of torpedo bombers in every frame of every scenario that has used them and as a pilot of torpedo bombers in every "This Day in WWII" event that has used them, I can tell you that I have not even once seen enemy fighters not engage me or my group.

The data can estimate how many kills weren't achieved, as I have shown.

With regard to speed, an A6M2 has a 70 mph speed advantage over a TBM at 15k.  By comparison to other scenario setups, a P-38 has a 50 mph speed advantage over a Ki-67 at 15k; a Spit V has a 70 mph speed advantage over a Ju 88 at 15k; and a Bf 109G-14 has a 50 mph speed advantage over a B-17 at 15k.  At 0k that shrinks to about 20 mph, but Zeros are usually not cruising around at 0k.  They usually have at least some altitude when they spot the TBM's, so I don't t think it's that hard catching TBM's on the deck (which is in line with my experience in TBM's).

With regard to TBM's being so tough that you can kill only a couple, well, that is the case for everything.  Most people in scenarios don't kill more than a couple of anything.  Let's look at your kills in Med. Maelstrom (frame 1, 1 kill in mission 1, zero in mission 2; frame 2, 2 kills in mission 1, 1 in mission 2) and in DGS II (frame 1 zero kills; frame 2, 2 kills in mission 1, zero in mission 2; frame 3, 3 kills in mission 1, 3 in mission 2 -- well done; frame 4, 2 kills in mission 1, zero in mission 2).  If people are killing a couple of enemies in a mission, they are doing well.  Attacking TBM's in A6M2's is much easier than attacking formations of Ju 88's, Ki-67's, or B-17's, so anyone shying away from that fight definitely would be shying away from attacking any formations of anything, which doesn't seem to happen.

[Brooke]

But it doesn't. . . .
[etc.]

I realize that there is no convincing you, no matter what I analyze. 

One can estimate things based on past events, and you can always say of that analysis, "But you didn't roll back the hands of time, substitute X for Y, and then rerun history."  Sometimes that is a valid criticism (if the analysis makes assumptions that are way off), and sometimes that is not a valid criticism (if the analysis makes assumptions that are not way off).  The only assumption you need to make in my analysis above is that the TBD isn't a significantly worse plane than the B5N.  So, if you want to pick at my analysis, you can make cases that the TBD is significantly worse than the B5N (although I doubt that's the case).  Any other picking at it is barking up the wrong tree.

Regardless, in the end, what really matters -- what trumps arguments of this or that thing being wrong, whether it is this plane substituted for that plane, or too many of this type of plane, or this objective or that objective being unfair, etc. -- is this:  do both sides win approximately as frequently?  If yes, then things are balanced.  In Coral Sea, both sides won approximately as frequently.

[Brooke]

I feel the need to point out that 20% is not insignificant.  2% is insignificant, 20% is a massive, massive difference.

This idea that 'it doesn't matter', I feel is a false assumption.

No, because that 20% difference equates to a difference of about 6 kills.  A 6-kill difference is insignificant -- it is very far into the noise of kill rate in a scenario frame.

and

No, because it's 6 kills and because the difference resulted in no significant difference in torpedo hits or frame outcome.

[Brooke]

Also remember, if the Zeke

Zeke's have done fine vs. TBM's in the scenario and "This Day" events.

The only way to even partially negate the speed differential disparity would be to limit the TBMs to an alt less than 3K.

The Zero has more and more speed advantage as alt increases (see above -- it's 70 mph advantage at 15k).  But there is already a limit to TBM's being at zero altitude and 200 mph substantially before target (well, if they want to hit anything with their torp).