FSO: Pacific Pinsalamanders

[ghostdancer]

Okay everyone I just have to setup this up (the description) in the events site. But here is the basic information of the upcoming visiting to the Pacific Theater:





There were only four American heavy carriers in the Pacific during the first 3 months of the war; only three were operational after a Japanese submarine torpedoed the Saratoga south of Hawaii on Jan. 11th, 1942 forcing her to return to Pearl Harbor for repairs. That left only the Yorktown, Enterprise and Lexington to contest the Japanese navy throughout the Pacific.

With these carriers the only heavy units left to the USN, a task force was built around each and plans were created for conducting hit and run raids through out the Pacific while additional forces were built up to contest the Japanese march of conquest.

On Feb. 20, 1942 the Lexington launched a raid against Rabaul on New Britain.

On March 10th, 1942 planes from Yorktown and Enterprise raid Lae and Salamau on New Guinea, just two days after the Japanese capture them in the face of no resistance.Australian forces.

On May 4th the Yorktown launches a raid against Tulagi in the Soloman islands which turned out to be the opening to the battle of the Coral Sea.


Country Percentages
50% Allied (rough estimate)
50% Axis (rough estimate)


Plane Set

Australians
Boston III
P40B

USAAF
P40E

USN

SBD-5
TBM-3
F4F-4


IJA
JU88 (Sub for Betty)

IJN
B5N2
D3A1
A6M2


Restrictions
- Boston IIIs can fly in formation
- TBMs can only use torpedoes
- JU88s can fly in formation
- B5N2s get a second life
- The min / max aircraft rule will be used not the 50/50 airplane split rule.

Further restrictions will be delinated in the objective orders for each frame.


Victory Conditions

AIR TO AIR
10 pts - Single or dual Engine AC with 1 crew
15 pts - Single or double engine AC with 2 crew
20 pts - Double Engine AC with 3+ crew
25 pts - large quad engine AC with 3+ crew

GROUND TARGETS
0.062 = Gun
0.062 = Mannable Gun
3.125 = Ammo Bunker
3.125 = Fuel Bunker
3.125 = Barracks
3.125 = Radar
27.812 = Vehicle Hangar
27.812 = Fighter Hangar
27.812 = Bomber Hangar
3.125 = Town Building
3.125 = Factory at strategic target
0.781 = Truck in convoy
1.562 = Train
20 = Destroyer
20 = Cruiser
80 = Carrier


Arena Settings
- Coral Sea terrain
- Fuel 1.25
- Icons short
- .5 Ack
- Fighter and Bomber warning range 52,000 (about 10 miles)
- Tower range set to 52,000 (for display only to match the above setting)
- Clouds / visibility
Frame 1, 22 miles
Frame 2, 11 miles
Frame 3, 9 miles
- Radar off
- Friendly collisions off
- Enemy collisions on
- Kill shooter off
- Calm winds

[Krusty]

Looks cool

[TracerX]

Any caps on the TBM and Bostons?

[xXx]

?

GostDancer sir?

When the Ki 67 "Peggy" is available why have you chosen to substitute the Ju 88 for the G4M "Betty"?

I'm not trying to make waves as the scenaro looks like an absolute blast!

I'm just curious about the substitution when a perfectly good IJA bomber is available and could more aesthetically take the place of the G4M "Betty" for greater continuity in your well thought out campaign.

Respectfully,

[APDrone]

Originally posted by xXx
?

GostDancer sir?

When the Ki 67 "Peggy" is available why have you chosen to substitute the Ju 88 for the G4M "Betty"?

I'm not trying to make waves as the scenaro looks like an absolute blast!

I'm just curious about the substitution when a perfectly good IJA bomber is available and could more aesthetically take the place of the G4M "Betty" for greater continuity in your well thought out campaign.

Respectfully,

Because the KI-67, according to our records, was not available until 4/1944.  This event is early 1942.

Good question.

[FDutchmn]

ok ghost, so, which side are we?

[xXx]

Originally posted by APDrone
Because the KI-67, according to our records, was not available until 4/1944.  This event is early 1942.

Good question.

True.

While the Ki 67 was released later during the war it's performance, load-out, speed and range when compared to the "Betty" is not out of balance.

The Ju 88 does have a shorter range but it also has a greater compacity for a larger bomb load out as well as the capabilty of loading out 1 extra torpedo the G4M could not load.

I'm simply comparing apples to apples while the subject at hand appears to be comparing apples with oranges because they happened to be picked  for market the same day.

Regardless I was simply curious and have I been given an explanation to the question I had asked by the CM Team.

Thank You.

I look forward to the event.

Best Regards,

[Krusty]

Originally posted by xXx
While the Ki 67 was released later during the war it's performance, load-out, speed and range when compared to the "Betty" is not out of balance

Incorrect. The reason we don't use the Ki67 is because it's faster than most fighters built before late 1943, and it climbs faster than most of them too. It's nearly impossible to catch, has more defensive guns (including 20mm dorsal) and while the bombload is light, like the Betty's, the performance is leaps and bounds ahead of the Betty's.

[TracerX]

Krusty is correct about the KI-67.  However, it will be about as easy for the Allies to catch the KI-67 as it will be for the Axis to catch the Boston III.  Maybe it would be better to use the KI-67?

[Krusty]

Maybe just do away with all twin engine bombers in this setup, for lack of an appropriate substitute?

[toadkill]

But, the problem is not the shear speed of the KI67 only. I has great durability, and will tear any plane apart that is naive enough to loiter above it. Also at 20k it would be impossible for P40es to catch it. Now the diference from the Boston-A6M2 speed advantage thing is that once the A6Ms catch the bostons, the bostons are sitting ducks. As a testament to how good the Ki-67s are, During the scenario Operation Downfall i never got more than 2 of my birds shot down by another NME fighter, i encountered far better planes than P40Es, like F4U4s F4u1d, f4u1c, f6fs, and even a lone 38.

Maybe limit the bomb load of the Ju88s?

[Krusty]

If you did Ju88s with internal ord only, that would be closer to the bombload of a Betty. That's only 1000kg (20x 50kg) Unfortunately that makes then even faster

(no external ord drag!)

I say just eliminate every twin engine in the setup. Stick to single engines.

There's no one plane with 2 engines that can sub for anything in this setup without being too fast, too strong, or too something!

[TracerX]

Were Bostons available at this time?  If they were, they were certainly a great plane considering the opposition.  They could out run the enemy's best fighter under 15K by as much as 40 mph.

[Krusty]

Historically bombers never ran at full throttle, except at takeoff. These bostons would be at max cruise settings throughout their mission.

They'd be flying HALF their speed in AH.

Unfortunately, there's no way at all to force pilots to fly at certain settings. All it takes is a little extra boost here, a unit disregarding orders there...

[xXx]

I definately did not intend to cause the hard working CM Team troubles or more work.

Substitutes usually cause problems no matter the simmulation or the campaign setting. It was and still is a huge probelm in the S3s and is a smaller problem in the WarCloud held events.

Krusty you are correct in that the Ki 67 is faster than the G4M but in looking at the loadouts they roughly are the same and that is what I measured my statements upon. The speed is practically a non issue as most Allied Fighters will be above the bombers cruising altitudes regardless of whether they are making Torpedo Attacks or Level Bombing Runs.

Sorry for the controversy.

I'll try Private Messaging or Email next time;)

Best Regards,