Jump to content


Photo

Aerial Differences


  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

#1 Jim O'Neil

Jim O'Neil

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • 232 posts
  • LocationSE Arizona, Sierra Vista/ Ft Huachuca area

Posted 01 October 2006 - 01:00 PM

In reading through the rules and the charts, it seems that a pilot rating should be used. I grant that it is quite subjective, as the well trained British Battle of Britain pilots flying Spitfires, had their posterior spanked by the Japanese Pilots of the Kido Butai. They just did not listen to their teachers... so a -1 rating.Most USAAC pilots were still of the maneuverability school... a place you don't play with a Japanese fighter... they get a 0 rating or maybe a -1.US Navy Carrier Fighers were every bit as good as their Japanese counterparts, iuf for slightly different reasons. But as Lundstrom has proven, they could take the F4F-4 and hold their own against the best of the Kido Butai. They certainly deserve the same +1 that the Japanese Navy pilots get in 1942. The Marines at places like Wake Is. showed thatthey were that good too... the Marines at Midway were a little less solid, but VMF-221 (with the Buffalo's) was a brand new unit... later many of these same pilots would exact a terrible revenge on Japanese aviation; But for Midway, they get a 0 or even a -1.I think that divisions/chutai/ pairs/ etc with an ace pilot should be rated a +1 or even +2 if theyare that good. Certainly some of the great Japanese aces deserve that +2 ( Sakai and Niishizawa for two).

#2 gregoryk

gregoryk

    GQ3 Product Manager

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 02 October 2006 - 11:37 AM

I agree that flying ability is one of the prime determiners of success in any aircraft. The best technology could still fall victim to a lesser aircraft with an experienced, skilled pilot.Gregory




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users