Okinawa setup but no Chog or P38?

[scJazz]

Originally posted by Soulyss

1) Attacking the heavily armed Ki-67 Peggy's
2) ground attack, using the 20mm to deal with the hardened ground targets.

The problem with #1 is that, yes those Pegg's are really nasty and how many people are going to want to risk the perkies going after them.  #2, how many people are going to want to dive their perkies into all that flak and AAA to take some field installations out?  Maybe it's just me but that doesn't seem likely in my mind.  Which leaves air to air combat, somthing the exsisting and included allied planeset can more than handle on their own.[/]

OK 1 very huge problem to all of this is that for some reason Brady doesn't like using perk points. He'll sometimes limit aircraft to certain bases but not often. Off hand I can't remember him ever using perk points which brings me back to another gripe. Which I'm not going to go into!

Again for this and a whole host of reasons I ask that we get a PTO setup on Okinawa so the comparisons stay consistent by another CM. I vote Jester for this although if he removes the F6F-5 Hellcat I'll go off on him as I did Brady.

CMs repeat after me "I shall never make a PTO setup that doesn't include the Hellcat". Got it? Good!

[Soulyss]

LOl, I hear ya scJazz, give me a Hellcat or a Wildcat and I'm a happy camper.


Whoops, hit enter hehe
Maybe someone could tell me, the F4U-1C's that were used in Okinawa campaign historically... I asume they were carrier based?  Or where they land based?  was there even an allied airfield within flying distance of Okinawa at the time?  Brady? anyone?

[scJazz]

I think they were land based flown by Marine Aviators in mainly Close Air Support roles.

[Toad]

In March 1945, VMF-311's tasks in the Marshall Islands were complete, and it gladly prepared to move forward into the Emperor's backyard-Okinawa. For the first time the squadron engaged enemy aircraft in aerial combat, downing its first aircraft on April 7, 1945. Combat air patrols were the predominate mission from this point until the war ended.

In slightly more than four months of operations on Okinawa, the squadron destroyed 71 Japanese aircraft, the second highest score of any squadron in the Tenth Army Tactical Force. VMF-311's outstanding record was all the more noteworthy and gratifying in that only three pilots were lost and none were lost during aerial combat.

Three pilots distinguished themselves as "Aces", including the Commanding Officer Major Mike Yunck. For its outstanding performance in the Okinawa Campaign VMF-311 was awarded the prestigious Presidential Unit Citation.

They flew out of Yantan Airfield on Okinawa. They may have initially flown off the USS SITKOH BAY before moving ashore on Okinawa. Probably not, though. Sitkoh Bay was a "replenishment" carrier and delivered planes and pilots rather than participated in combat tasking. They were aboard USS BRENTON prior to Sitkoh Bay and there is mention of some sort of Corsair from Brenton participating in a CAP action over the fleet.

However, from their squadron history you have this:

Deployments:

Departure & Return - - - - - - - - Air Wing - Carrier - Aircraft - - Area of Operations:

October 6, 1943, VMF-311 Corsairs catapulted from the USS
Nassau to their new base at Samoa Naval Air Station.

October 8, 1943, VMF-311 Corsairs flew to Wallis Island and remained there until January 1944.

March 1945 VMF-311 moved to Okinawa.

So, it sounds to me like they were just transported on Sitkoh Bay.

[thrila]

Where are the Seafires?

[brady]

From the CT Development Groupe Forum:



  Posted by me:

"Americas 100,000:

Aug. 30th 43 first F4U-1C is produced, July 44 production the F4U-1 starts (aparetnly former date is preproduction model).

Ospery Aircraft of the Aces # 8:

VMF-311 was euiped with F4U-1C's and operated from Yonton, they gained 71 kills during the campagine

VF-85 on the Shangri-La was equiped them as well during the Campagine.

The book also places VF-85 conducting some raid's on Japan in July while flying the C's, they kept the D models they were originaly equiped with for ground atack and used the C's mostly for Air to Air."


Magor Day posted this:


"Following Bunker Hill's retirement, Essex and Benningon's F4Us would only be accompanied by Shangri-La with Air Group 85 aboard. Lt Joe D Robbins (5 kills) was assigned to VBF-85 which flew the F4U-1C. He had previously gained two victories flying the F6F with VF-6 aboard Interpid.

'On 8 April 1945, we departed Ford Island and and on 26 April 1945 we joined the carrier Task Force off Okinawa. We had 16 carriers making up three task groups. One Task Group would replenish each day whilst the other two would be hitting targets in Japan. On 4 May 1945 I was the flight leader for 12 F4U-1Cs flying CAP over a destroyer 12 miles north of Okinawa. The Japs were sending planes from Japan to attack our forces on Okinawa and ships at sea. At times kamikaze planes would be at a low altitude with fighter cover at a higher altitude. Our mission was to intercept and shoot down these aircraft. We launched in the early morning from the Shangri-La and took up our station. As always, we charged and test-fired our guns after take-off. My divison was assigned an altitude of 20,000 ft, whilst the second divison was at 10,000 ft and the third 5,000 ft. We have been on station a short time when at 0830 we received a vector at distance 26 miles to a bogey, and we were told that it was below us. I had fuel in the belly tank and I didn't want to drop it until I saw the bogey.

'These flights were about four hours long so you didn't want to drop the tank until you had to. I had my left hand on the switch in preparation, ready to go to the main gas tank and drop the belly store when I saw the bogey. We were all looking down when all of a sudden about 30 Zekes came from above and attacked us. We didn't see them approach as it was hazy and we had also been told they were below us. I switched tanks and dropped the belly tanks and made a sharp turn all at the same time - I had to. By doing this, however the engine was not getting any fuel, so it stopped. It takes only a few seconde to switch and get suction again, but I didn't have that few seconds. You don't get suction when you are making sharp turns and I was really making them. One plane was in my gun sight coming from the 10 o'clock position. I tired a 30' deflection shot and pulled the trigger; no guns. I was banking right and then left as steep as I could to keep them from shooting at me, still no engine. I kept recharging the guns and still they wouldn't fire. I kept banking one side and then to the other, keeping my nose down and losing altitude. I had at least four of them in my sights, but my guns wouldn't fire!

'These enemy planes were escort cover for some kamikaze planes below. Although I wasn't hit, they shot down my wingman, Frank Siddall, and second section leader, Sonny Chernoff, and then they left. The divison at 5000 ft then intercepted them. I was at about 16,000 ft when I got my engine started, and I followed my wingman down and he made a good landing in the water. I stayed over him until a destroyer picked him up 35 minute later. The destroyer that rescued him, the St. George, was hit by a kamikaze two days later while he was still aboard.

'Out of the four planes in my division, none of the guns would fire. At that time were the only Navy unit that had the 20 mm guns. That afternoon they were tested at high altitude and it was found that they froze and would not fire at about 15,000 ft. We checked with Washington and learned that the flights that were to test them at high altiude had been CANCELLED! From then on were restricted to 12,000 ft until we got gun heaters. We still flew CAPs and target strikes below this altitude. VBF-85 (.50 cals) flew the higher CAPs.

- - The Blue Devils books by Mark Styling & Barrett Tillman"

[Toad]

So Brady, I guess your point is that the F4U-1C wasn't really effective? Due to frozen guns and all?

In slightly more than four months of operations on Okinawa, the squadron destroyed 71 Japanese aircraft, the second highest score of any squadron in the Tenth Army Tactical Force.

It'd shoulda been in this setup in the "historical" CT; this is where it was "historically" used. You use non-historical planes all the time, like Peggys at Guadalcanal.

There's no excuse for leaving it out.

Well, yah, there is ONE and everybody here knows what it is.

[brady]

No that was not my point at all calearly it was effective, I posted that for general info. Their are several Late War Japanese planes that faught at Okinawa that we do not have in AH that were far better preformers than the ones we do, while we have virtualy every late war US Navy plane that was their, the Allies have tremendious advantages already in a number of areas, adding the C hog just compounds them, it is a balance issue.

 Comparing two entirely different set up's is not realy revelent to any argument, espichaly since the allied bomber was just as uber in the slot set up as the Japanese one, and in some may's more so.

[brady]

thrila: I looked long and hard at the seafire, most RN fleat air Arm forces operating off Okianwa or in suport of those operations (atacks on targets around Formosa) were Flying F4U's or Hellcats, their were some Spitfires  Notably on Indafatagable, which did operate in a raid or two aganst Japan, howeaver I was unable to place them at Okinawa proper. And since the RN Presence was best rpresented by the F4U I went with one skined for their use.

[Kweassa]

* The performance differences between the -1D and the -1C is almost none.

* The performance difference between the -1 and the -1C are less visible than say a Bf109G-2 and a G-6.

 Just what exactly can the -1C do, that the -1D or -1 cannot, that you people so want it badly?

 Really, all I can think of is just the ability to spray rounds incessantly at extending targets and get bullshi* kills with lucky pings, the ability to give confidence to the pilot to HO everything at sight, and the ability to provide nice ground-strafing power for both structures and vulch kills.

 It's a really mixed logic - "to match up" the firepower of the N1K2 you ask for the -1C? So then, what do the IJAAF/IJN pilots get to match up the 50~60mph speed margin with?

 Are you asking for gameplay balance, or historicity?

 ...

 Obviously the limited, minimal JP planeset offers no possibility of satisfactory results - neither in terms of gameplay nor in terms of historicity. The only way to get rid of dissatisfaction, is to not run the PAC setups at all.

 But oh wait, people want the setup, whether the planeset is dinked or not.

 So what does the staff do?

 They make a decision.

 brady made his. It's final.

 We can ask for zillion other things but he's not gonna give it to us, and he has explained his reasons. Agree with it or not, we play by his rules - unless, like some people are lobbying, people get to be decision makers themselves.

 Is that so hard to understand?

 Besides, just look at the posts - its not even an universal consensus. There are mixed opinions for both sides - and yet people ask for certain things which the guy in charge again and again answered "NO" to. When's the last time we've seen a Tunisia setup with the Fw190A-5 enabled? Oh sure, I've enjoyed SpitV mass killings, winging up with some nice gents, but ever since then I've never seen the setup appear twice. Why? Because the Fw190A-5 in Tunisia, was like the Tempest of its time. Unbalancing? You bet. That's why the staff never ran that setup again.

 Or how about early PAC setups when the worst JP fighters and bombers were pitted up with the best of Wildcats and SBDs? People complained, but that was once. Another fault of the plane setup choices, but it ended there, since there was no other option.

 Slap up some "whiner" stickers on your foreheads guys. If you don't like this particular setup, and the guy in charge says its staying that way, then it's staying that way. Return when you get to see a setup you like. This ain't no democracy, not to mention there isn't even a public consensus of the "demos".

 I don't fly N1Ks, I don't fly with a squad. I fly with whatever plane I like, with the whatever side lacking in numbers. You say the Allies are getting gangbanged because of N1k2s? I'm afraid not - I can't say I've been in the CT everday this week, but at least from what I've seen, I've seen the poorest tactics possible by both sides.

 And when tactics go poof, what's left is a chaotic theater, which planes excell in such circumstances, you people already know.

 Oh, and one more thing, park the fediddlein' CV 5 miles off coast and do that ack hugging thing, and you bet I'm gonna go kill it anyway I can, If I'm flying for the IJAAF that day. I don't care how many times I have to die for it, but I'm gonna do it.

 As for my opinion, brady, just give them their fediddlein C-hog. Quad Hizookas are gonna shine in gangbanging fights with lots of snapshot opportunities, but the way they are flying, it's not gonna make any difference. Maybe when they learn to utilize some group tactic things, then maybe other people will ask to do away with the C-hog.

[Arlo]

*ShruG*

Put it in or don't. The ChoG with it's cannons and typical F4U maneuverability won't "shine" in a furball anymore than the George with it's cannons and "spin on a dime and retain E" ability. It has to be flown like any other Hog if it wants an equivilant K/D to any of the IJ fighters.

The one main reason to be afraid of the C-Hog in a setup (from a pro-axis point of view) is the possibility that it'll neuter the Peggy threat as much as the George neuters the Marauder threat.

But ... like some of the pro-axis rationalizers in this thread ... I could "care less" (in spite of taking the time to argue several paragraphs pro or con).  As long as -1s or -1ds are available for the fight and within a couple of sectors of it whenever I log on.

There ya go. Let's keep this ball rolling!

[Toad]

LOL!

The CT, home of the historical matchups.

[Batz]

Originally posted by Toad
LOL!

The CT, home of the historical matchups.

Why don’t you call HT and tell on him instead of whining. Since Brady 1st ran this setup a year or so ago he hasn’t enabled the chog. He has flat out said he won’t ever enable it in this set up when he runs it. Continually whining is not going to get it enabled. Remember Mandoble and Ram. Their whines got them nothing; neither will whining about Brady's "bias".

The CT has never been absolutely "historical". Not in usage of a particular plane, nor in their deployment. AH doesn’t have the necessary models to run 100% historical match ups.

There's other CT cms. Ask them to run what you want. You have HT's number and email addy just call him and complain. Tell him “Brady won't do what I say”. See what he says.

What’s really interesting is to see that the allied farm bois are but 1 set up away from being luft… err allied whiners.

[MajorDay]

Brady has the power what he want in Combat Theater and you cannot tell him what to do or so on.  Yes, Chog did went to war, but I would say that Chog can wait until Ah2 fully release and hopefully we get newer Okinawa map for CT.

[humble]

My comment on the c-hog isnt really a "request" for it...I always end up flying on the side of the meatball in pac setups since they are always outnumbered...at least when I'm up in the CT. I hate the nikki almost as much as the 109...but I flew the luwtwabble side almost all of the latewar setup. Actually grew somewhat fond of the G-6.

Anyway, I'm just curious why we run these porked setups. If your going to run the setup I really dont see the C-hog as unbalancing...especially if you limit it to 1carrier. Obviously if that CV is close then your gonna attract attention...otherwise the riceballs will have time to grab some alt anyway.