Victory at Sea Supplement - Order of Battle

[Shadow4ce]

I thought the Mustang was very limited if not absent from the Pacific campaign, mainly due to their issues with the humidity. Could somebody please support or refute this?

I copied the following excerpt from an article linked from AcePilots.com

Because of the higher priority of the war in Europe, the P-51D Mustang did not arrive in the Pacific until late in 1944. P-51Ds were initially based in the Philippines and on Iwo Jima. By that stage of the war, Japanese fighter opposition was rare, and Philippine-based Mustangs mostly performed close-support work. However, while flying over Japanese-occupied regions of Luzon on January 11, 1945, Captain William A. Shomo managed to shoot down six Tonys and one bomber in one day while flying an F-6D photo-recon aircraft. For this action, he was awarded the Medal of Honor, becoming the second Mustang pilot of World War 2 to receive this award.

As Japanese resistance on Luzon came to an end, the Philippine-based Mustangs were used to bomb and strafe Japanese forces based on Formosa. Iwo Jima-based Mustangs flew the first escort missions with B-29 bombers attacking Japan, and they undertook the first land-based fighter strikes against Tokyo on April 7, 1945, when B-29s hit the Nakajima Aircraft Engine Factory. Such missions involved flights lasting up to seven or eight hours, covering distances of over 1500 miles. When General Curtis LeMay decided that most B-29 missions would take place at night from medium altitudes, the Iwo Jima-based Mustangs went over to ground attack missions against Japanese airfields. Extensive use was made of the five-inch rockets which were carried under each wing.

USAAF Mustang Groups in Pacific Theatre of Operations:

8th Reconnaissance Group
15th Fighter Group, VII Fighter Command
21st Fighter Group, VII Fighter Command, 46th, 72nd, 531st Fighter Squadrons
506th Fighter Group, VII Fighter Command, 457th, 458th, 462nd Fighter Squadrons
23rd Fighter Group, Fourteenth Air Force

Now of course, the roll they played (Mainly CAS) would hamper their ability to stay up with the Corsair, so that part of my argument just became weak. The fact still remains, the German planes and pilots faced in '44 were not significantly better than the Japanese, and were in all likelihood nowhere near as motivated. (People tend to be a little more "down for the fight" when they believe their leader is a God and not a charismatic psycho). :wink:

 

[Taellik]

Will the supplement contain counters for the new ships & aircraft like the original rulebook did ?

 

[Valen is my name]

Going back to the corsair and spit and hurries both had several upgrades and yes the FW -190 was better than a Mk1 spit but by then the Mk9 was in service, or at least would be soon, which at the very least levelled the playing service. Its quite hard to make sure that the right variants or mark are always being compared. Eg MK1 or Mk9 Spit to a corsair, and the Mk1 hurricane didn't have cannons.

The main question i wanted to ask is if a RN player has access to the P51 because as the book says it was originally designed for the RAF, so surely it should be a land based aircraft for the RN.

 

[Brass]

The main question i wanted to ask is if a RN player has access to the P51 because as the book says it was originally designed for the RAF, so surely it should be a land based aircraft for the RN.

The first Mustangs to go into service were with the RAF but the Fleet Air Arm never used the Mustang at all so, cooperation among the services being what it was, I suspect an RN player wouldn't (shouldn't) be able to use them.

LT

 

[Shadow4ce]

The main question i wanted to ask is if a RN player has access to the P51 because as the book says it was originally designed for the RAF, so surely it should be a land based aircraft for the RN.

The first Mustangs to go into service were with the RAF but the Fleet Air Arm never used the Mustang at all so, cooperation among the services being what it was, I suspect an RN player wouldn't (shouldn't) be able to use them.

LT

Brass. Why wouldn't the RAF cooperate with the RN? Did not the RAF bomb several German ships at port when caught within range?

To answer why the P-51 never became a "carrier-based" plane, I need some input from you folks who know a little more about carrier operations in WWII's input. My theory...

I know some of the P-51 Pilots from WWII whom I spoke with years ago (showing my age, lol), mentioned it was quite easy to collapse the landing gear on a "Pony" (Pilot slang for Mustang) if you left the brakes on and revved the engine.

Do you folks who know more about carrier ops in WWII know if this is the reason the Mustang never made it as a carrier-based plane?

iirc, in order to take off, one had to red-line the engine while the brakes were on, then remove them to get enough lift in the short span to take-off. Today's carriers use catapults to get around this "too much power" issue.

If you did have to really get the RPMs up before "rolling" down the deck, then this would be a very good reason the Mustang never made it into Naval service, would it not?

I know the USN looked at it and said "No" but don't know if there was ever an "official" reason released publicly.

The Corsair had some serious teething issues to make it as a carrier-based plane as well. Mostly the difficulty in landing where due to the Engine size and gull-wing design one had to approach the deck at an angle in order to see it and change over at the last minute landing by blind faith. However, the gull-wings allowed the aircraft to utilize shorter/stouter landing gear assemblies, which made it possible to really get the RPMs up with the brakes applied, having no fear of collapse.

 

[BuShips]

Shadow4ce, the main issue was apparently lack of good yaw control near stall speeds (landing) that kept the Mustang from carrier decks. The P-51H solved the issue but strategic plans had changed by then and land bases near Japan were available for the land-based P-51s. Here is a good site regarding the Mustang and carrier ops.

http://www.geocities.com/koala51d/naval.htm

 

[Hugbiel]

Kill ration is not a so useful info since it is too dependent of the way the war was made. The fact, that the Corsair was the carrier's fighter at a time where the US achieve air superiority and where Japaneses skilled pilot come to lack, help it to made these figure.

 

[Tankdriver]

Can't even get hold of the VaS rule book at the moment!

I just got mine from The War Store.

 

[Shadow4ce]

Kill ration is not a so useful info since it is too dependent of the way the war was made. The fact, that the Corsair was the carrier's fighter at a time where the US achieve air superiority and where Japaneses skilled pilot come to lack, help it to made these figure.

Actually, the F6F- Hellcat was the predominant Carrier Based Aircraft for the US during the part of the war the Corsair was in service. The Corsair was the second most prolific Carrier Plane for the US Circa 1944-45. The Corsair was the predominant US Marine Corps Fighter from mid-1943 on. The Wildcat was the main US fighter pre-Hellcat.

If Kill Ratio is not a valid stat, then I have to ask you... What is? The job of a fighter plane is to protect bombers and destroy enemy aircraft. Protection of Bombers is a rather subjective measurement, as #s are hard to get data for with this, but most folks would say the best US plane at this was the Mustang. Destruction of enemy craft is the Corsair's claim to fame.

Ratio is the only fair measurement, as sheer #s of some aircraft if they only destroy 1 to 1 would favor a lousy fighter (who wants to trade 1 aircraft for 1 aircraft?). 11 to 1 (a conservative measure of the Corsair) is unmatched. How would you recommend we judge this? The Wildcat and the Hellcat were both used in greater numbers by the USN. Neither can approach the Corsair for this stat.

Skilled German pilots were in the same short-supply during the P-51D model's time of service.

PS Buships, thanks for the link. Good stuff!

 

[BuShips]

Shadow4ce, the overall kill ratio of the Hellcat was 19:1, but there were many more Hellcats in contact with the enemy for them to build up that score.

The British used the Corsair first on carriers, as the Corsair had failed carrier qualifications with the U.S. Navy in 1942 (stiff landing struts and a dangerous stall kick). Missing out on early carrier deployment was a major reason that the Marines received the Corsair for land-based ops. As they say, the rest is history. Within six months of Marine use all Pacific-based Marine fighter squadrons had been given the Corsair.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Shadow4ce, the overall kill ratio of the Hellcat was 19:1, but there were many more Hellcats in contact with the enemy for them to build up that score.

The circumstances of battles also have a great effect on ratios. Compare those of the Spitfire and Hurricane. Then decide which is the better fighter (cue arguments. . .).

 

[DM]

If Kill Ratio is not a valid stat, then I have to ask you... What is?

Wing loading, power to weight ratio, standard of construction, armament, armour, presence of features such as self sealing fuel tanks, all up weight, engine power, etc. etc. etc.

 

[BuShips]

Shadow4ce, the overall kill ratio of the Hellcat was 19:1, but there were many more Hellcats in contact with the enemy for them to build up that score.

The circumstances of battles also have a great effect on ratios. Compare those of the Spitfire and Hurricane. Then decide which is the better fighter (cue arguments. . .).

Yup, I'll agree that there are many conditions that affected all of the ratios, pilot training and experience, altitude, whether they were pouncing or being pounced, and the numbers of friends/foes in the dogfight.

Was your point that the Hurricane had a higher kill-to-loss ratio but the Spit was a better fighter? I'll grant that, and raise you that imho that the Corsair was a better fighter than the Hellcat, given the pilot was experienced with the bent-wing bird.

I was simply answering the contention that the 11:1 ratio was unmatched.

The official USN/USMC figures for the F6F in the Pacific theater show 5,163 kills against 270 losses to enemy aircraft, a kill ratio of 19.1 to 1.

Matt, to support your perspective the AVG in China acheived a 70:1 ratio using P-40s. This is an aircraft which I think has a worse reputation than it deserves.

The Bf-109 and Fw-190 were great aircraft as well, but one of my personal favs is the P-47 Thunderbolt (Jug).

 

[BuShips]

Just so Shadow4ce doesn't feel that he's getting picked on, you cannot ignore the kill-to-loss ratio of a fighter as that is its final unarguable score in combat. But conversely you cannot use it alone, without looking at the conditions that got it its claim to fame.

Pilot experience was a major item left out of DM's list (not that he didn't know it- he was listing hardware of course), as the Luftwaffe Aces flying Bf-109s would be sure to point out. Twenty-seven Aces with over 100 kills each, flying mostly in a 1930's design, the Bf-109. Then there are the exploits of the Flying Tigers, which I mentioned earlier.

 

[DM]

I didn't forget it. I deliberately left it out. Its the sort of thing that should (IMHO) be accounted for through national and skill modifiers rather than the stats for the aircraft themselves.

 

[Shadow4ce]

If Kill Ratio is not a valid stat, then I have to ask you... What is?

Wing loading, power to weight ratio, standard of construction, armament, armour, presence of features such as self sealing fuel tanks, all up weight, engine power, etc. etc. etc.

Agreed! However, please tell which of these measurements the Corsair fails to meet or exceed that of the P-51 Mustang. Please be sure to score F4U-1 vs. P-51B and F4U-4 vs. P-51D and you'll see my original reason for bringing it up.

Also, being a "results oriented" guy, I still put quite a bit of weight behind the ratio of enemy aircraft downed to model losses.

Which brings me to someone I respect a great deal...

Buships, thank you for not only pointing out something I was not aware of - Hellcat ratio higher than that of the Corsair, which is generally considered 11 to 1, but some sources say 18 to 1 (boy did I get it wrong saying the Hellcat couldn't match the Corsair),

More importantly, thank you for mentioning your data source, albeit in a later post, hehe. :wink:

I think everyone is misunderstanding me as saying the Corsair is the "end-all, be-all" fighter of WWII. It is not. Apparently, the Hellcat is, hehe. :lol: :lol: :lol:

My original and continued contention is the Corsair is just as good (measured overall) as the Mustang, with the most glaring error in the first edition rulebook being the speed score.

The Spitfire is the most beautiful plane ever built, imo, and a joy to watch fly. It looks like every fighter ever made became one with the universe. The Hurricane, the FW-190, the Thunderbolt, the Lightning, the Black Widow. :shock: All are favorites of mine for one reason or another, and the Hellcat is also! And thanks to Buships, I now have a new stat to bandy about in saying how cool it is, hehe.

Of course, the Marianas Turkey shoot should probably not count, as the sheer # of planes in the sky... lol, j/k. :wink:

To all who have added their input to this discussion...

Thanks again. It's been enlightening.

Can we get the new book to publishing already! 8)

Next on my list for hopeful fixes in the new book?

Please, please, please tell me there are more Japanese carriers...

Hiryu/Soryu, Akagi, Kaga, Shoho, et al.

While Solomons Slot night scenarios with US PT Boats and Subs vs. Japanese Cruisers and Destroyers is fun, at some point, I'd like to tackle the Battle of Midway on my VaS table! 8)

 

[Brass]

Brass. Why wouldn't the RAF cooperate with the RN? Did not the RAF bomb several German ships at port when caught within range?

Apples and oranges. Bomber Command struck at strategic targets and Coastal Command conducted anti-shipping operations but rarely was this in cooperation with or at the request of the Navy. The RAF and RN fought bitterly during the interwar period over the idea of a separate naval air component (a battle which occasionally flares up even today, although not with quite so much rancor as during the '20s and '30s) and feelings still ran high in some quarters during the war. As a result, I suspect that requests from the Navy for fighter support would have been most likely to be answered with "Send our fighters out to sea? Sorry, old man, simply not on. Anyway, have your own, don't you? Carry them about on your little boats, what?"

LT

 

[DM]

Agreed! However, please tell which of these measurements the Corsair fails to meet or exceed that of the P-51 Mustang. Please be sure to score F4U-1 vs. P-51B and F4U-4 vs. P-51D and you'll see my original reason for bringing it up.

I'm getting the feeling that you think I'm defending the original stating of the F4 and P51, whereas in fact the opposite is true. Its one of the reasons why I wanted the revised aircraft stats to be based on a consistent physical basis, using the measures of effectiveness that I mentioned, not just for these types but for the other 200-odd aircraft that have been statted out. Now I dont know yets whether the stats that will be published as calculated but I'm hopeful.

 

[jfox61]

Just look at operation Cerberus/Thunderbolt (depending on the side you support). The complete lack of coordination and cooperation between the 3 forces beggars belief. How 3 capital ships and an armada of destroyers and minesweepers had the audacity to make a dash up the Fortress that was the English Channel and actually succeed because of this ineptitude and in house fighting is beyond belief. But The UK aren't the only ones to suffer from this problem. Every major antagonist of WWII had the problem. Goering absolutely despised the Kriegsmarine. Why don't you think Graf Zeppelin never got finished. It wasn't just lack of Materiel it was mainly because of his influence over AH. It was as bad with the Italians and the Americans. You can even break it down further to Bomber command and fighter command in these forces too. All the way through the war one upmanship was practised between the rival forces of one army in one form or another

 

[DM]

LOL, and unfortunately the same is true in most armed forces today.