A6M5 Zero

[IcedVenom]

6 hours ago, WinterH said:

And why would that be?

 

I'd rather have Pacific planes from both sides than Eastern Front myself.

Because with Corsair and P-51, the only use a Pacific map like WWII Marianas would give would be for USA PvE as PvP would not be very fun at all unless you fight pretty terrible pilots. Zeros, even the latest design against P-51 and Corsair have no chance. Not to mention how difficult it would be to develop a Japanese module. So sure, they could do that with AI Zeros and that's fine, and then I think they should do an Eastern Front map and try to get some Soviet planes going like Yak-3 and La-7 and 9.

Hell, with an La-9 they could do a Korean map also with La-9 vs. P-51, and The MiG-15 + Sabre.

Edited August 19, 2021 by IcedVenom

[Mogster]

28 minutes ago, IcedVenom said:

Because with Corsair and P-51, the only use a Pacific map like WWII Marianas would give would be for USA PvE as PvP would not be very fun at all unless you fight pretty terrible pilots. Zeros, even the latest design against P-51 and Corsair have no chance. Not to mention how difficult it would be to develop a Japanese module. So sure, they could do that with AI Zeros and that's fine, and then I think they should do an Eastern Front map and try to get some Soviet planes going like Yak-3 and La-7 and 9.

Hell, with an La-9 they could do a Korean map also with La-9 vs. P-51, and The MiG-15 + Sabre.

 

The La 9 would only only be useful for Korea, it entered service after WW2.

[IcedVenom]

8 hours ago, Mogster said:

The La 9 would only only be useful for Korea, it entered service after WW2.

Yeah it would be really cool for Korea, but another point is that if you want a Soviet plane that can match the late-war props then that's the one.

[WarbossPetross]

11 часов назад, IcedVenom сказал:

Because with Corsair and P-51, the only use a Pacific map like WWII Marianas would give would be for USA PvE as PvP would not be very fun at all unless you fight pretty terrible pilots. Zeros, even the latest design against P-51 and Corsair have no chance. Not to mention how difficult it would be to develop a Japanese module. So sure, they could do that with AI Zeros and that's fine, and then I think they should do an Eastern Front map and try to get some Soviet planes going like Yak-3 and La-7 and 9.

Hell, with an La-9 they could do a Korean map also with La-9 vs. P-51, and The MiG-15 + Sabre.

 

The main advantage of La-9 over La-7 was more fuel and four cannons, flight performance was about the same between them (with Yak-3 being better), so La-9 for Korea alone is hardly worth the development effort. If anything, La-7 would make a pretty close stand-in for both La-9 and late La-5FN.

[ptisinge]

Meh. I don't agree with the argument that ED shouldn't do japanese aircraft because it won't be balanced for pvp. There are tons of people who love to fly the underdog and prove it's feasible to be competitive in pvp (you just need to see what the right people can do with a mig 21 fighting more modern aircraft).

If ED would go the way of the eastern front, they'd certainly not get sales from me - I had my fill of the eastern front with IL2. What I'll focus on for DCS when it comes to ww2 is the PTO and nothing else (and I'm fine with ai only on the japanese side, I fly single player).

[Nealius]

ED and 3rd Parties have already developed underdog modules anyways. F-5 and MiG-21, which are outclassed by just about everything else from the same era or later. Fw190 A8, which is outclassed by both the Mustang and Spitfire. 

[WinterH]

On 8/19/2021 at 11:31 PM, IcedVenom said:

Because with Corsair and P-51, the only use a Pacific map like WWII Marianas would give would be for USA PvE as PvP would not be very fun at all unless you fight pretty terrible pilots. Zeros, even the latest design against P-51 and Corsair have no chance. Not to mention how difficult it would be to develop a Japanese module. So sure, they could do that with AI Zeros and that's fine, and then I think they should do an Eastern Front map and try to get some Soviet planes going like Yak-3 and La-7 and 9.

Hell, with an La-9 they could do a Korean map also with La-9 vs. P-51, and The MiG-15 + Sabre.

Corsair vs Zero was a thing, and Zero pilots did get kills, yeah, Corsair is superior, but it's not like matchups in DCS aren't lopsided in other periods either. There is enough info to do some of the Japanese birds, Zero being one of them. It's not like P-47 has been easy for ED for example, as many of its docs were apparently shredded when Republic went bankrupt, but using info from whatever's available, still flyable airframes, and CFD analysis, ED pulled through. Also it is always being hinted that ED's CEO loved Hellcat and wants one in DCS at some point. Also shared by ED is a plan to make a WW2 version of Marianas Islands map in future. Leatherneck will also create WW2 pacific AI assets for their module. So yeah, there is a drive for Pacific already.

 

I'm much more interested in Pacific aircraft than Eastern Front, because we have seen a whole lot of Eastern Front since 2001 in various flavors of IL-2 sim series. The last time Pacific birds, especially the Japanese ones done justice was... ?

 

La-9 would be a super weird choice BTW... Only fits Korea. La-5FN or La-7 would make much, much more sense. There are many WW2 Soviet aicraft I like, Pe-2, IL-2, amd a whole bunch of Yak fighters. But I'd rather like seeing less often done periods/theaters at this point: Pacific, Battle of Britain, and in general aircraft from early to mid war.

[Gambit21]

On 8/19/2021 at 1:31 PM, IcedVenom said:

....USA PvE as PvP would not be very fun at all unless you fight pretty terrible pilots. Zeros, even the latest design against P-51 and Corsair have no chance. 

 

 

Once again, simply not true.

 

[Pikey]

16 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Once again, simply not true.

 

The sentiment is. PvP is fought under different circumstances than the seond World war was. Whilst you might say the Hawker Hurricane was undermatched it held off the defence of Britain as the backbone of the fighters. But what would the pvp crowd consider of it in DCS World? They would consider it inferior and their opinion would be pretty spot on.
Does single player depend on multiplayer? That's a better question.

The IJN didnt have a matched response to USN as a carrier fighter after the middle of the war, there is no historian on the planet that will counter that statement and DCS provides accurate simulation, to a point where at least good players can exploit the benefit they are given.

Whilst the post quote might have hyperbole, people clamouring for a Zeke aren't willing to fly it when it really counts, they just want the idea of a matchup.

[Gambit21]

30 minutes ago, Pikey said:

The sentiment is. PvP is fought under different circumstances than the seond World war was. Whilst you might say the Hawker Hurricane was undermatched it held off the defence of Britain as the backbone of the fighters. But what would the pvp crowd consider of it in DCS World? They would consider it inferior and their opinion would be pretty spot on.
Does single player depend on multiplayer? That's a better question.

The IJN didnt have a matched response to USN as a carrier fighter after the middle of the war, there is no historian on the planet that will counter that statement and DCS provides accurate simulation, to a point where at least good players can exploit the benefit they are given.

Whilst the post quote might have hyperbole, people clamouring for a Zeke aren't willing to fly it when it really counts, they just want the idea of a matchup.

 

 

My statement is made on past experience. I flew the Zero extensively, many, many, many times against the mentioned opponents in a different time and place.

I lost very few fights, and I even came out on top when outnumbered more than once for a simple reason I'll outline below. Granted this wasn't a perfect simulation of these aircraft - I get it. Relative differences were in the ballpark enough however to make a statement on this.

 

Point is, it's more than a match in multiplayer - why?

This is because most online pilots, including those flying Mustang or Corsair etc will succumb to their ego, or simple lack of discipline.

 

Even if they know that they shouldn't get sucked into a knife-fight, they will...it happens almost every time. Whether they do it out of ignorance, or because they figure "just this once" or "I'm good enough to pull it off"...whatever the case is, they almost always will make this mistake...and the Zero pilot will have them cold if he's good.

 

I lost count of how many Mustangs, Corsairs and Hellcats etc I shot down elsewhere in that "different time and place" despite my supposed disadvantages. I had all of the advantages I needed when I could dictate the fight, and I almost always was able to dictate the fight. On the flipside when I flew I Corsair I could also dictate the fight and stay away from the Zero's guns at will, but then I had discipline.

 

Bottom line most online pilots will allow themselves to get pulled into a low and slow brawl and the Zero wins.

So that's the real difference between the actual war and PvP online play. 

 

That said, the A6M5 was a legit threat against even early Hellcats...make no mistake.

Edited September 4, 2021 by Gambit21

[Pikey]

Well your anecdote doesn't disagree with the machine or my statements, you've simply said you found suckers to kill in another sim. The same people exist in servers in DCS, I think you might try your luck in Spit vs Dora and see who get's suckered into whose fight, because none of this is actually about the machine itself and all about the players. I don't have any data for module versus module, it sure would be interesting to see. I'm sure it's the player not the aircraft most times, but I'm still suggesting that I think the good players do not pick inferior machines mostly.

[jeventy26]

On 8/17/2021 at 12:34 AM, IcedVenom said:

We do not need Japanese planes in DCS and they have no capability to get proper documents in order to make a Japanese WWII aircraft or any other Japanese aircraft. Instead ED should focus on an Eastern Front map (such as Eastern Baltics map) and work on planes such as La-7 or La-9 and Yak-3

 

You mean like another WW2 platform is already doing?  No.  Pacific is untapped and it's already started.   We are getting Pacific thank God.  Much needed.  There are flying Japanese aircraft... including Zeros.  

[Gambit21]

9 hours ago, Pikey said:

 I'm still suggesting that I think the good players do not pick inferior machines mostly.

 

If you’re talking about “E-Sports”, ego driven “good” players and air quake servers than sure - but that was never my thing. Otherwise players fly what appeals to them historically or emotionally - good players or other wise.

 

Also I didn’t say that I “found” suckers - I said just about every pilot encountered fell into this trap.

 

A disciplined Corsair pilot will own a Zero yes. Also you’re correct in the sense that no ego-driven pilot only out to boost his score would likely choose a Zero. Many of us don’t fall into that category however and would do just fine with it.

 

 

 

[Mogster]

The Japanese “experten” we’re getting kills in their highly manoeuvrable but underpowered and undergunned crates till the end of the war. 
 

A well flown DCS A6M or Ki-43 would be a serious handful I suspect.

[IcedVenom]

1 hour ago, Mogster said:

The Japanese “experten” we’re getting kills in their highly manoeuvrable but underpowered and undergunned crates till the end of the war. 
 

A well flown DCS A6M or Ki-43 would be a serious handful I suspect.

You would be wrong lol.

[Nealius]

He's only wrong on the "til the end of the war" part, but it's obvious this thread is full of min/max gamers who have no knowledge of how to analyze history, simply parroting off oversimplified, biased comments from a History Channel documentary.

[Mogster]

Some IJA units flew the Ki43 to the end of the war, the Ki43 shot down examples of every type of allied aircraft they encountered, including late war fighter types and 4 engined bombers. According to Hiroshi Ichimura…

 

"From October to December 1944, 17 Ki-43s were shot down in air combat; their pilots claimed seven C-47s, five B-24 Liberators, two Spitfires, two Beaufighters, two Mosquitoes, two F4U Corsairs, two B-29 Superfortresses, one F6F Hellcat, one P-38, and one B-25."

 

The Mosquitoes and P38 were PR and apparently were shot down by using a dive and zoom climb technique. I’m not sure how you’d shoot down a B29 in a Ki43 though?

[Nealius]

"Their pilots claimed..."

 

Pilots of both Allied and Axis sides tend to overestimate their number of kills. Is there documentation looking into confirmed kills?

 

Not saying the airframe is incapable, rather that it's known that Japan had run out of good pilots by '44, which makes it wise to take kill claims with healthy skepticism. 

Edited September 5, 2021 by Nealius

[Mogster]

4 hours ago, Nealius said:

"Their pilots claimed..."

 

Pilots of both Allied and Axis sides tend to overestimate their number of kills. Is there documentation looking into confirmed kills?

 

Not saying the airframe is incapable, rather that it's known that Japan had run out of good pilots by '44, which makes it wise to take kill claims with healthy skepticism. 

 

Records of lost aircraft and air combat by US and UK airforces have survived pretty well so with research claims can be cross referenced. The Mosquito kills are also detailed in one of Christopher Shores books.

 

The top scoring P47 PTO ace Neel Kearby was shot down by Ki43s in mid 1944.

 

Second overall scoring US WW2 P38 ace Thomas McGuire was killed in January 1945 in combat with a flight of Ki43s.

 

The point is that Japan had fewer good pilots by 1944, not none. The 1944 A6M and Ki43 were very different to the pre war and early war versions and in experienced hands could still be dangerous.

Edited September 5, 2021 by Mogster

[Lynchsl62]

5 hours ago, Mogster said:

Records of lost aircraft and air combat by US and UK airforces have survived pretty well so with research claims can be cross referenced. The Mosquito kills are also detailed in one of Christopher Shores books.

 

The top scoring P47 PTO ace Neel Kearby was shot down by Ki43s in mid 1944.

 

Second overall scoring US WW2 P38 ace Thomas McGuire was killed in January 1945 in combat with a flight of Ki43s.

 

The point is that Japan had fewer good pilots by 1944, not none. The 1944 A6M and Ki43 were very different to the pre war and early war versions and in experienced hands could still be dangerous.

 

Nealy got shotdown by being over zealous, possible fatigue, and was caught low and slow after attacking some Japanese bombers - he knew the jug was a sitting target when low and slow. He was shot down by the superb airmanship that the Japanese pilots, early war, had with superb marksmanship - he actually wounded and balied out but died i think in his parachute snagged in the jungle.

 

There were many tens of superb Japanese pilots at the end of the war and they could secure victories against over zealous pilots that either were not aware of the situation and got jumped or did not follow the rules of never engage in a turning dogfight, boom-n-zoom only. However against the onslaught of the USN/USAAF they were way to few and far between. Sakai even claimed to have downed a B29 (B31) after the end of hostilities in a Zero

 

I always wondered how the underpowered, lightly armed (the Ki-43 never had heavier weapons than 13mm) could shoot down B-17, B-24 and B-29 when the Luftwaffe had to rely on at least 20 20mm hits to destroy a heavy bomber and even with the MK-108 it was 4 hits

 

06:40 The wingman was lost to a Zero on the way home - though USAAF plane recognition was an understandable problem

 

[Mogster]

1 hour ago, Lynchsl62 said:

Nealy got shotdown by being over zealous, possible fatigue, and was caught low and slow after attacking some Japanese bombers - he knew the jug was a sitting target when low and slow. He was shot down by the superb airmanship that the Japanese pilots, early war, had with superb marksmanship - he actually wounded and balied out but died i think in his parachute snagged in the jungle.

 

There were many tens of superb Japanese pilots at the end of the war and they could secure victories against over zealous pilots that either were not aware of the situation and got jumped or did not follow the rules of never engage in a turning dogfight, boom-n-zoom only. However against the onslaught of the USN/USAAF they were way to few and far between. Sakai even claimed to have downed a B29 (B31) after the end of hostilities in a Zero

 

I always wondered how the underpowered, lightly armed (the Ki-43 never had heavier weapons than 13mm) could shoot down B-17, B-24 and B-29 when the Luftwaffe had to rely on at least 20 20mm hits to destroy a heavy bomber and even with the MK-108 it was 4 hits

 

06:40 The wingman was lost to a Zero on the way home - though USAAF plane recognition was an understandable problem

 

I can only assume that mgs mounted on the cowling without dispersion we’re much more effective than wing mounted mgs. If you’re hitting then you’re getting more bullets on target. More like a power hose than a sprinkler… 

 

It seems Japanese pilots were aware of the weakness of their armament and to counter this tried to aim for cockpit shots mostly. For heavy bombers a head on attack was preferred. You will down a B29 even if you make a mess of the cockpit.

 

 

[Lynchsl62]

To attack the B-29 the Japanese recommended an inverted vertical attack from above aiming at the nose of the B-29 to target the must vulnerable elements - the flight crew. This was apparently trialled again B-17 in the South Pacific. The challenge was to be higher than the B-29 which considering the operational altitude was not easy especially for the Ki-43 and A6M. Somewhat better in the Ki-44, the J2M3 and the Ki-84. If executed in the Ki-43 or A6M it must have been a one shot as they were not emery fighters

[Lynchsl62]

R.I.P to all the brave young men and women 

[Gambit21]

9 hours ago, Mogster said:

Records of lost aircraft and air combat by US and UK airforces have survived pretty well so with research claims can be cross referenced. The Mosquito kills are also detailed in one of Christopher Shores books.

 

The top scoring P47 PTO ace Neel Kearby was shot down by Ki43s in mid 1944.

 

Second overall scoring US WW2 P38 ace Thomas McGuire was killed in January 1945 in combat with a flight of Ki43s.

 

The point is that Japan had fewer good pilots by 1944, not none. The 1944 A6M and Ki43 were very different to the pre war and early war versions and in experienced hands could still be dangerous.

 

 

 

I can't remember which of my books I read this in, might have been "Fire In the Sky" by Eric Bergerud...anyway a pair of P-38's encountered a lone Oscar down in the South Pacific...I forget exactly where.

Both P-38's took turns making gun passes, repeatedly...but the Oscar pilot evaded every time. Finally after 20 minutes or so the P-38's gave up and went home.

 

I'm more of a Zero guy, but I love that little story.

[WinterH]

On 9/4/2021 at 11:34 PM, Gambit21 said:

If you’re talking about “E-Sports”, ego driven “good” players and air quake servers than sure - but that was never my thing. Otherwise players fly what appeals to them historically or emotionally - good players or other wise.

Basically this is all that needs to be said.

 

I like DCS for experiencing individual aircraft with their quirks and subjective "feel" as well as objective numbers. I don't give a single damn about potential online competitiveness in team deathmatch. It would be a shame if online competitiveness would be a deciding factor in all module development, as that would preclude some amazing aircraft from being developed, like the very cool to fly I-16 we got. I'm not saying it shouldn't be given any weight at all everytime. But arguing not to get something as iconic and crazy to fly like Mitsubishi Zero just because it wouldn't be most competitive goes against everything I and many others like about DCS.