PDA

View Full Version : japanese cannon 20mm



nakamura_kenji
10-31-2005, 05:08 AM
read about people say f6f weak dm against 20mm feel maybe reason it see weak compare f4f against 20mm is cannon they go hit by. f4f most like fight A6m2 A6m3 ki-43 ki-61-I-ko/otsu, only A6m2/3 have 20mm type-99-I. f6f most like fight A6m5/7 ki-61-I-hei ki-100-I-ko ki-84-IA/B/C all have cannon. need also remember all pilot most like face online much time fly that plane no real problem hit plane so no expect mid/late war shoot turkey.

A6m2 = 2x 20mm type-99-I
A6m3 = 2x 20mm type-99-I
A6m5 = 2x 20mm type-99-II
A6m7= 2x 20mm type-99-II
ki-61-I-hei = 2x 20mm mg151-20
ki-84-IA = 2x 20mm HO-5
ki-84-IB = 4x 20mm HO-5 (think need check)
ki-84-IC = 2x 20mm HO-5 2x 30mm Ho-155
ki-100-I-ko = 2x 20mm HO-5

Type 99-I Japan 20 x 72RB (142 g) 490 rpm 555 m/s 23 kg A6M Zero license-built Oerlikon FF F
(has low muzzle speed make get hit hard)

Type 99-II Japan 20 x 101RB (142 g) 490/750 rpm 750 m/s 36 kg A6M Zero development of Oerlikon FF L

Ho-5 Japan 20 x 94 850 rpm 750 m/s 33 kg (big browning .50 ^_^)

MG 151/20 Germany 20 x 82 (92 g) 740 rpm 800 m/s 42 kg

Ho-155 Japan 30 x 115 (235 g) 600 rpm 700 m/s 50 kg

rough order power guess from what feel game

1: HO-155 30mm
2: Type-99-II 20mm
3: MG-151-20
4: HO-5 20mm
5: Type-99-I 20mm

2/3/4 all feel nice powerful but feel Type-99-II most power. Type-99-I feel most weak. Type-99-II improve war larger shell longer gun all increase hit power compare Type-99-I f4f have survie. people ho-155 30mm use v fighter are no nice learn shot 20mm no take evil easyway give ija bad name it for v bomber no fighter v_v

i no so try say f6f dm correct or strong i try help explain why maybe get damage easy no so much DM but weapon hit far better than F4F hit by

KIMURA
10-31-2005, 05:32 AM
First I have to say I€m flying both sides, blue als well as red and mosty at PTO-servers.
Overall I€m absolutely agreed to the destructivness of the 20mm in PF, though I liked better on v4.01. (got the impression that calibre became little weaker from 4.01 to 4.02) A big mistake online pilots do while under fire by Japanese fighters is, they start try to turn and offer then their fullsize surface of wings and other large a/c surfaces to the enemy guns. No wonder these exposed surfaces will be shot away within seconds. Exactly these guys will post here about too strong Japanese guns and overall Japanese things.

Ktu-78th-Sentai
10-31-2005, 06:45 AM
Unfortunately I'm not sure there is a way to test the actual power of the cannons here. I can say that it "seems" to have been weakened from 3.04, yet again not really sure if it's the gun, or the loss of accuracy as I try to learn new FM's.

In any case......It's clear if an allied plane flyer is griping about any feature of the Japanese planes here being too powerful, then I welcome him to fly Japanese one night as I saw him up in his favorite allied ride.

One thing about a kill taken in a Japanese crate here..............It's earned.

Tater-SW-
10-31-2005, 08:31 AM
I fly IJAAF and IJNAF about as often as USN/USAAF. I do pretty well with them, the gun package is good if you presss home the attack very close. That said, I still think the Grummans have a specific flaw unrelated to the overall DM. They lose control cables preferentially. It seems slightly better in 4.02 perhaps, but if I get hit at all in a F4F, I seem to lose aileron control. Rudder/elevator a close second.

20mm hits should do some serious damage, but the fact that my damage is virtually always ailerons on the first ping tells me something is screwy.

tater

LEBillfish
10-31-2005, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
I fly IJAAF and IJNAF about as often as USN/USAAF. I do pretty well with them, the gun package is good if you presss home the attack very close. That said, I still think the Grummans have a specific flaw unrelated to the overall DM. They lose control cables preferentially. It seems slightly better in 4.02 perhaps, but if I get hit at all in a F4F, I seem to lose aileron control. Rudder/elevator a close second.

20mm hits should do some serious damage, but the fact that my damage is virtually always ailerons on the first ping tells me something is screwy.

tater

heh....well, when flying Japanese do you often find your "first taken hit, is your last hit?"

ElAurens
10-31-2005, 10:43 AM
Try attacking an USAAF bomber in anything short of a Ki84C.

It's a death wish.

I fly IJAFC almost exclusively online, and will only fly the A6M series if no Army type is available. So I know a thing or two about weak armament. I rarely fly the Ki61 Hei as it just feels too heavy, so with the exception of the Ki100 and a rare appearance in the Ki84 I'm a machine gun kind of guy. And I must agree, any kill agianst a US aircraft is a hard fought, well earned kill.

The US rides are easy by comparison.

Tater-SW-
10-31-2005, 10:47 AM
Yeah, my rule is to not get hit period in any japanese aircraft. I don't fly the Frank, I fly zeros, vals, and oscars for the most part (mostly because I don't fly later war anything). Bringing down a bomber in an oscar is tough since the telescopic sight lends itself to front and rear attacks only (limited field of view, and the need to make shots count).

I've actually sustained a surprising amount of damage in a zero and managed to RTB. More in oscars. Oscars vs later allied planes is kinda fun since a surprising number of them will actually turn. WTF are they thinking?

tater

LEBillfish
10-31-2005, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Bringing down a bomber in an oscar is tough since the telescopic sight lends itself to front and rear attacks only (limited field of view, and the need to make shots count).

Without hitting Shift+F1 zoom in your field of view to it's maximum.....then cycle between Shift+F1 and off.............You'll note it's the same view except the zoomed in view the retical seems smoked/tinted slightly, and in the SHift+F1 view they just black out all the view around the retical and brighten it up to exterior brightness.

That way you can use padlock or even if not keep your field of view more open till you need to zoom in actually able to sight in the non F1 view still.

Stigler_9_JG52
10-31-2005, 03:28 PM
Tater-SW wrote:

Oscars vs later allied planes is kinda fun since a surprising number of them will actually turn. WTF are they thinking?

Hehehe, I empathize completely. Actually, Oscars vs. just about anything. Provided you get in tight and don't waste ammo trying to find the mark, you can deal out quite a bit of hurt with an Oscar.

Sturm_Williger
11-01-2005, 07:42 AM
Does anyone else find that B29's seem to go down much more easily than B17's ?

Were they historically weaker ? Engines/airframe etc. ?

Not that it's easy to knock either down, it just seems to me that B17's I hit smoke a lot, but stay up. B29's seem to smoke, then burn then die.

nakamura_kenji
11-01-2005, 07:51 AM
i think there bit problem b-29 dm catch fire more easy like say as you. worst though b-24 >_< it seem invicnble sometime.

ki-43-I-lc fun super kancho engine sinper attack ^_^. it gunsight mean can at 800m and fire enige no fear ai gunner ^_^

Pig_Mac
11-01-2005, 09:04 AM
fun super kancho engine sinper attack


that sure sound like a 'special move' what's the japanese name for it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ElAurens
11-01-2005, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by Sturm_Williger:
Does anyone else find that B29's seem to go down much more easily than B17's ?

Were they historically weaker ? Engines/airframe etc. ?


The B29 was far from a perfect machine. It's development was very rushed, unlike the B17, which had several years of dev time. In fact most of the Superfortress' problems were not worked out until the release of the B-50, which looks identical but was an almost entirely new aircraft.

I'd say that yes, the B17 was overbuilt compared to the B29. And the B24 should be the most fragile US heavy.

Levon1981
11-01-2005, 12:57 PM
I'm absolutely agree, in the 4.02 the Japanese cannons are, indeed, kind of week. The thing that surprises me the most is the wekness of the IJA 20 mm Ho-5 cannon. Before 1945 it was overall the best serial aircraft 20 mm cannon in the world because it had the highest rate of fire(850 r/min, 650 r/min in synchronized version, although in the game it is 850 r/min), it was lighter than the most of European 20 mm guns (32.7 kg only!!!) and its projectiles had quite high muzzle velocity(750 m/sec for 123 g AP/APE and 820 m/sec for 99 g HE/HEI(12 % of exlosive content)). For its modest weight it has very good characteristics. From a distance of about 300 m it should rip appart olmost every enemy fighter. However, even two guns of this type are often useless against F6Fs, even from a distance of 80 m!!!

leitmotiv
11-01-2005, 02:33 PM
The Davis wing on the B-29, like on the B-24, which is long and narrow, lends itself to catastrophic failures in PF---especially when cannon fire is involved. Unless I'm mistaken, this was absolutely correct historically. I have found the B-29 to be an easier mark than the B-17---if you land a solid blast on it before it demolishes you. I have had good days with the A6M3 Mod 32 vs. the B-17E---the key was to open fire at long range and hope you don't take a chance .50 cal slug through the windscreen resulting in instant black screen! The best way to cream any bomber is to learn the legendary USN high side attack (which, by the way, I do not pretend to be a master, but, when I can do it right, it is absolutely devastating---you are a high deflection target speeding in on the bomber, too fast to give the gunners a good shot, and, if your timing is right, the one close burst should inflict a lot of damage).

Tater-SW-
11-01-2005, 03:01 PM
The B-29 seems too weak. Worse, the gunners need glasses. The B-29 should be the most difficult aircraft in PF to appraoch, period, and I find I get hit more often by a Val gunner, than all the guns on a B-29.

I bet that given the current AI code, a B-29 would be impossible to attack vs AI gunners, so they nerfed it.

tater

tigertalon
11-01-2005, 03:35 PM
There was a Japanese pilot, who alone managed to shoot down 3 B-24s and one of escorting P-38s with a Ki43 (!!!).

Keeping in mind that average simmer today has FAR more experience and skill in shooting than WW2 pilots had (unfortunately they didn't have refly button), I still think generally weapons are too weak / planes are too tough. On average, 3 Mk108 hits were enough to bring down four engined bomber. In PF you can do it ONLY if you hit very specific points on plane.

Tater-SW-
11-01-2005, 05:33 PM
One, I think I heard the oscar vs B-24 story before. Does the story come from the rest of the B-24 formation, or from the japanese? They overclaimed pretty badly. Anyway, I'd be curious to see if the claim was actually checked vs US losses that day.

As for the sim being too hard to make kills vs real life, I think that's 180 degrees from reality. I think it's far too easy to make kills. Heck, we don't even have slipstream turbulence.

tater

LEBillfish
11-01-2005, 05:38 PM
That's an over claim.....In fact, the Japanese routinely made claims of "damaged" equalling a kill. After reading MacArthurs Eagles where each sides victories and losses are noted it becomes pretty clear and is even stated as such.

(assuming the above is New Guinea due to plane types)

Tater-SW-
11-01-2005, 11:36 PM
Lundstrom does a similar analysis action by action using records from both sides in his First Team books. The USN guys (this is the 1st year of the war only) overclaimed 2:1. USMC/USAAF about 3:1, and from what I can tell the IJN more than that, possibly as high as 6:1.

Overclaiming also included ships on both sides, though worse for the japanese again. Both side's pilots would routinely add a size to the ship attacked---attack an escort (DE or even far smaller, like 400 tons or less) and it was a "destroyer." Attack a DD, it was probably reported as a CA, etc. Even so, the IJN pilots made outrageous claims, particularly as it got later in the war. Reports of sinking multiple CVs after engaging only smaller ships, and sinking none. Crazy, no wonder they were hard pressed to plan any operations. Debriefing pilots was critical intelligence, not just for "kill credit" but to know how well you are hurting the enemy.

One idea I had for an "online war" server doing something like scortched earth was that it'd be cool for it to report NO KILLS at all. After each scenario, the pilots would go to a webpage, and answer debriefing questions, including both their own claims, and observed kills by others. It would then post the scenario results with claimed vs actual kills. Might be very instructive as to how people react in the heat of the moment...

tater

Waldo.Pepper
11-02-2005, 12:26 AM
There was a Japanese pilot, who alone managed to shoot down 3 B-24s and one of escorting P-38s with a Ki43 (!!!).


Here is the pilot/story.

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/anabuki/anabuki.htm

nakamura_kenji
11-02-2005, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by Xallo_72:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">fun super kancho engine sinper attack


that sure sound like a 'special move' what's the japanese name for it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i explain what kancho mean ^_^

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kancho

basic joke like attack bomber dead six out ai mg range use telescope sight like sniper aim engines work quite well but take much practice careful touch.

KIMURA
11-02-2005, 03:18 AM
Opps. Got surprised of the double-meaning of that word, nakamura. I already known Kanch as as kind of a supreme of something. Like Kanch of Shotokan Karate-Do Assosiation or similar.

nakamura_kenji
11-02-2005, 03:46 AM
mistake easy make both same romaji use.

have question other country make 20mm version browning 12.7mm like japanese ho-5 20mm? no think see other design like

EnGaurde
11-02-2005, 06:14 AM
" heh....well, when flying Japanese do you often find your "first taken hit, is your last hit? "

ha.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Indeed. Agreed.

ive taken a bit of a hiatus from Pf lately but i can assure you from memory, flying IJA or IJN aircraft means you disregard anything after hearing those first hits on your aircraft.

US flyers simply dont understand that they often whine about the level of damage that they expect to absorb.... whereas, we just thank God himself that we havent been shot yet.

japanese flyers have already acepted they can never afford to be shot, realism or not. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Maybe all'yall amerifans should adopt that attitude instead of expecting flying tanks eh?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

LEBillfish
11-02-2005, 07:26 AM
Yes have read that Waldo, yet like I said unless New Guinea I can't confirm. However, read the story and consider 17 seconds of fire, then check accounts of flights made that day by the US and losses at Rangoon.

However:

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/anabuki/anabuki.htm

FRIDAY, 8 OCTOBER 1943

CHINA-BURMA-INDIA THEATER OF OPERATIONS

CHINA (Fourteenth Air Force): 9 B-24's, supported by 20 P-40's, bomb Gia
Lam Airfield in French Indochina. While on ferry mission over the Hump, 3
B-24's bomb Tengchung, China scoring hits on warehouses, barracks, and a HQ
area.

EUROPEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS

STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force): VIII Bomber Command Mission 111.
4 locations in Germany are targetted. On this mission the Eighth Air Forces
uses, for the first time, airborne transmitters (Carpet equipment) to jam
German radar. 30 bombers and 3 fighters are lost.
1. 105 of 118 B-17's dispatched to the shipyard at Breman hit the target
at 1505-1513 hours; they claim 42-2-28 Luftwaffe aircraft; 9 B-17's are
lost and 61 damaged; casualties are 2 KIA, 18 WIA and 90 MIA.
2. 53 of 56 B-17's dispatched to the industrial area at Breman hit the
target at 1512-1513 hours; they claim 24-7-17 Luftwaffe aircraft; 4 B-17's
are lost and 44 damaged; casualties are 1 KIA, 12 WIA and 41 MIA.
3. 43 of 55 B-24's dispatched to the U-boat yards at Vegesack hit the
target at 1622-1624 hours; they claim 17-1-7 Luftwaffe aircraft; 3 B-24's
are lost and 21 damaged; casualties are 1 KIA, 5 WIA and 30 MIA.
4. 156 of 170 B-17's dispatched to the city of Bremen hit the target and
targets of opportunity at 1505-1527 hours; they claim 84-12-33 Luftwaffe
aircraft; 14 B-17's are lost, 2 damaged beyond repair and 110 damaged;
casualties are 21 WIA and 140 MIA.
The B-17's are escorted by 274 P-47's; they claim 12-2-4 Luftwaffe
aircraft; 3 P-47's are lost and 5 damaged; casualties are 2 WIA and 3 MIA.
VIII Air Support Command Mission 80: 144 B-26's are dispatched to
Lille/Vendeville and Chievres Airfields in France; the mission is abandoned
due to thick haze and generally unsuitable weather; 4 B-26's are damaged.
VIII Bomber Command Mission 112: 2 B-17's drop 266,336 leaflets over
Rennes at 0005-0011 hours, 9 Oct 43.

MEDITERRANEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS (Twelfth Air Force): In Greece, XII
Bomber Command B-24's bomb Tatoi and Eleusis Airfields at Athens, airfields
at Kastelli and Heraklion Airfields on Crete, and Maritsa Airfield on
Rhodes; B-25's also hit Eleusis airfield; P-38's fly convoy cover, patrols,
and sweeps over the Aegean Sea. Weather prevents the XII Air Support
Command from operating. In Italy, the NATBF and RAF DAF hit a bridge at
Minturno and a road junction and military concentration at Termoli.

SOUTH PACIFIC THEATER OF OPERATIONS (Thirteenth Air Force): B-25's and
P-40's sink a barge off the W coast of Choiseul Island in the Solomon
Islands.

SOUTHWEST PACIFIC THEATER OF OPERATIONS (Fifth Air Force): A single B-24 on
armed reconnaissance bombs Cape Gloucester Airfield on New Britain Island
in the Bismarck Archipelago.

Tater-SW-
11-02-2005, 07:30 AM
I have the next bloody shambles book IB from amazon, perhaps that will clear up the story, there is even a date. I'd be astounded if that claim was true.

tater

Tater-SW-
11-02-2005, 07:57 AM
Odd, according to the AF chronology (airforce website) no B-24s attacked Rangoon at all on that date, or indeed any date around that at all.

Note that the "1st daylight b-24 kill" actually corrisponds to an attack where his claim was made (haven't found US losses yet, but there WERE B-24s in the area.

tater

LEBillfish
11-02-2005, 08:03 AM
Really though one of the sadest parts of most propaganda is that it is not used on the enemy, yet a nations own citizens naturally to keep moral high.

Waldo.Pepper
11-02-2005, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Odd, according to the AF chronology (airforce website) no B-24s attacked Rangoon at all on that date, or indeed any date around that at all.

tater

Thats's why I called it a 'story' rather than an acount. All that talk about seeing his Mother is classic. Even Sakai uses it in his book when he is wounded and struggling back to his airfield. I think it is mentioned in the training syllabus for Kamikaze pilots... and in my mind always raises red flags, to say nothing of the details of the story.

Tater-SW-
11-02-2005, 08:27 AM
4 of the guy's 51 claimed kills are on one day when no such force was in the air at all (no large force of B-24s over Rangoon at all, and none escorted by P-38s). Makes me wonder about the other 47 claims.

tater

Tater-SW-
11-02-2005, 08:32 AM
All pilots overcalimed, that's just reality. The japanese seemed to be pathological about overclaiming, though. Imagine the fighters come back and tell the CO "yeah, we destroyed 10 enemy bombers of the 12 that attacked." The CO also has data from his recon flights telling him there is only 1 squadron of heavies in range of his unit---imagine his surprise when another 12 airplanes bomb his airfield the next day after they were wiped out the day before.

That aspect of it is really facinating to me, the additive bad intel. Look at the navy, by the time of Midway, the IJN believed they had already sunk or crippled more carriers than we had in the first place due to false claims. That data must have colored their choices for action---why worry about a CV attack when you expect most or all the enemy CVs are already gone?

tater

LEBillfish
11-02-2005, 08:54 AM
Well from what I've been reading a LOT of the over claims make sense.....

"What's your report of action today?"

"The two in my flight & I encountered 40 Heavy Bombers, 120 Medium Bombers & 200 Fighters....We attacked a heavy and it fell out of formation trailing heavy black smoke diving out toward the sea. So we instantly turned on another and my 2 wings were shot down...So I fell on the medium bombers and set ones engine afire, and as I began to follow a fighter attacked as the bomber broke toward the jungle low, and evaded the three fighters Shooting one in the port engine noting its prop freeze, and turned back on the other two unable to reach them so hit two more bombers one trailing heavy white smoke out to sea as the other broke into the box valley s. losing an elevator yet I took hits and had to rtb quickly and ran for the slit trenches".....

"So 1 heavy bomber, 3 medium and a fighter, well done.....we lost 33 of our 40 fighters"......

Naturally, AAA did a lot of the damage, yet the tales of pilots bringing back to base planes that had to be scrapped are well known. Really with odds like that common for the PTO, who has time to watch a plane crash into the jungle and explode. So naturally "pilots" tended to mark "Kills, probables, and damaged"....and as time went on a 50 marked plane I'm sure was viewed by the new recruits as 50 kills....

Besides the fact Tokyo bumped figures for it's own population. I'm actually finding many of the reports sent off very accurate till they got to Army command...Then were changed.

LEBillfish
11-02-2005, 08:59 AM
lol....anywho....20mm cannons?

Waldo.Pepper
11-02-2005, 09:16 AM
till they got to Army command

Bingo!

Tater-SW-
11-02-2005, 09:38 AM
Actually though, there are figures for some available for the local reports (sometimes from signal intel intercepts) AND the "official" reports back at HQ in Japan. Even the local reports are usually FUBAR. I don't think it's just propaganda boosting scores, there is a cultural difference as well, perhaps. Some cultures might want to always report the best possible news, even if wrong. I know from hiking in Nepal that if you ask how long til the next vilage, you get very optimistic travel times---and I hike very fast, it's not an issue of them being faster. They want to please you by saying "2 hours" when it's really 4 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The japanese never even used gun cameras, did they? I tend to be in the camp that if a pilot's kill claims sound too good to be true, they are. I think it would be fair to divide any kill count by at least 2, unless deomonstrated vs loss records of the enemy. If you didnt use gun cameras, then maybe divide by 4.

LEBillfish
11-02-2005, 11:49 AM
In most cases Tater as far as the Japanese were concerned it really didn't matter as they knew it was 10:1 odds and just getting worse by the day. Unlike with the U.S. where numbers did matter on what you would be doing, by 43 it just simply wouldn't have made any difference in the outcome for the Japanese and seeing 300 planes fly over vs. the 20 you have left day in and day out let them know it.

As far as New Guinea goes (which was almost a worst case), reports can be compared and what I've found is they do match often from side to side.....The times they don't much like I described above...Someone limping home who would not of been expected to make it.

Essentailly most read from the bottom up "Pilot-we're helpless", "Sentai Commander-we're helpless", "Hikoudan Commander-we're helpless", "Hikoushidan commander-we're helpless", "Kokugun commander-We're holding but need more pilots & planes", "Rikugun command-we're driving them back"......."Tokyo-we're destroying them", "the public-Banzai!!"

joeap
11-02-2005, 02:21 PM
Hmmm as we drift further off topic...the fact is the Japanese did have some good pilots, aces who even if they didn't have the scores attributed to them managed like Saburo Sakai to survive. At least a few...

nakamura_kenji
11-03-2005, 02:44 AM
think claim made because pilot think plane badly damage no make home because campare japanese aircraft would no with same amount damage fly home.

i fly fighter with mix weapon 2x20mm(mg-151-20 or Ho-5) 2x12.7mm. use 12.7mm mg cripple enemy plane and general anoy use 20mm kill close range know will hit. have convergance 500m machine gun 100m cannon. best area find hit wing area conect to main body of plane no many plane take 20mm hit without wing break.

find many people fly america plane expect plane fly tank be able take huge amount of hit always believe wrong approch. avoid hit best than block hit what martial art teach me same find plane also

KIMURA
11-03-2005, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
think claim made because pilot think plane badly damage no make home because campare japanese aircraft would no with same amount damage fly home.

i fly fighter with mix weapon 2x20mm(mg-151-20 or Ho-5) 2x12.7mm. use 12.7mm mg cripple enemy plane and general anoy use 20mm kill close range know will hit. have convergance 500m machine gun 100m cannon. best area find hit wing area conect to main body of plane no many plane take 20mm hit without wing break.

find many people fly america plane expect plane fly tank be able take huge amount of hit always believe wrong approch. avoid hit best than block hit what martial art teach me same find plane also

Sure that. Best protection system is not being in the trajectory of enemy guns, where bullets are passing by. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Tater-SW-
11-03-2005, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
think claim made because pilot think plane badly damage no make home because campare japanese aircraft would no with same amount damage fly home.

That would be true if any P-38s or B-24s were over Rangoon that day. None were, or indeed any other mission. So he must have just shot at birds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

tater

KIMURA
11-03-2005, 12:11 PM
Kill claiming - where no enemy plane was - has been "practised" by any nation - the USAAF was no exception. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Tater-SW-
11-03-2005, 12:27 PM
No, all sides overclaimed. The japanese, particularly as the war went on got worse and worse about it. Kamikaze attack escorts return to claim numerous CVs sunk when none were even hit, etc. They also had no system for recording kills (gun camera) so their claims are aways going to be far more subjective. Japanese recorded their own losses without cause, usually. This means it's hard to extract ground kills from air to air at times. US operational records are extremely detailed by comparison. A reason to pick on the aixis in general is that they have many pilots who have kill claims well in excess of allied pilots. If you claim 51 kills, a number which would make you the US ace of aces, they should be looked at in some detail vs a guy who claimed 7 total.

I'm really interested in the historians who manage to reconcile claims on both sides of the same engagement with the actual losses.

tigertalon
11-03-2005, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
A reason to pick on the aixis in general is that they have many pilots who have kill claims well in excess of allied pilots.

If we take a look at Germans:

1. You have to keep in mind, that they did not pull their aces from the front when they achieved 20 or so kills to train newbies, like they did in USAAF or RAF.

2. They reengaged even after they have been injured. They stayed in as a pilot as long as possible (incapacitated/dead).

3. and most important and also most overlooked factor: BIG majority of German high scoring aces scored majority of their kills in 43/44. By then they were vasty outnumbered. Many mustan pilots flew a circle of 50 sorties over Germany and they never saw a german plane - so they couldn't get a kill. Germans, because of being outnumbered, always find targets, Germany and occupied teritories were a target rich area in 43/44/45. While newbies (a great majority of german pilots late in the war) got shot down quite early in their flying career, aces were usually returning home with no ammo.

For same reason north vietnamese had more / higher scoring aces than americans.

Tater-SW-
11-03-2005, 01:43 PM
I'm aware of the arguments defending the huge German kil counts, but I don;t buy ANY kill claims unless someone has gone through the records on both sides. For the century aces (100+ kills) I think at the very least you need to look at a few well documented air battles, and pore through the records to see if the claims for that day are plausible. If you sample a % of engagements and find overclaims of X amount, you at the least might generalize that rate upon the other claims.

In general it's probably a good idea to assume at most 1/2 are legit until proved otherwise. You also need to apply the same standard to all for consistancy.

tater

nakamura_kenji
11-24-2005, 04:23 AM
i find this on ho-155 30mm may find interest

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/30_mm_ho155_browning.htm