Dawn of Battle concerns

[Anaxogoras]

I haven't decided which side to fly for, if I decide to fly, but two of the aircraft/vehicle selections seem dubious and slanted toward the Allies:

1.  The 110C would not be in service in Africa in 1943.  Rather, the 110E or F would have been present, both of which had upgraded engines and high-velocity MG 151 cannon, not the low velocity MGFF.  When we run this setup in FSO the 110G is available.  I hate substitutions, but in this case the 110G is the lesser of evils.

2.  The Firefly did not serve in Africa, and it will decimate the Panzer IV over open terrain because it can kill at long range.  At distances around 1200 yards and more the Panzer IV shells usually bounce off the Firefly's armor, while a single Firefly shell can kill outright.  In the AvA we've subbed the T-34/76 for earlier American/British tanks and that seems to be a good compromise.

Thank you for considering these concerns.

[Krusty]

Main differences in the D and E models were mostly exterior support for more drop tanks or weapons. I believe they retained the MG/FFM all the way up to the early G models. The F model had the same underwing stores options as the G-models but not the internal guns. While the F did jump to 1300hp engines, the G has almost 1500hp, and the C-4b model we have now (according to the forum rants) is slightly up-engined from the normal 1100hp models anways.

Given the unbalancing factors of 2x 30mm with 300 rounds of ammo to go with them, the liberally generous flight model of the current 110s in-game, I think putting in the G is a bad call.

It would be like subbing a P-47D-11 for a P-40N or something. Faster, more power, better weapons, etc.

[Anaxogoras]

I believe they retained the MG/FFM all the way up to the early G models.

You seem to be right about this, my bad.

[Krusty]

It would be interesting to have an early G-model in-game, with 4x 7mms and 2x MG151/20s, though. It could be useful in situations where 2x30mm is major overkill, eh?

[Brooke]

Here are Fencer's thoughts on the aspect of the tanks:

"Fireflies . . . Would rather have 75mm Shermans.  But here is why I think they are essential

1.  This is an open terrain.  You give the Allies T34/76ss and the Axis will set back at 3000yds in their Tigers and pick them off using the MkIVs as a screen.
2.  The Allies had a huge superiority in Artilery.  Arty was what stopped the Axis at Kasserine.  The gunners lined up lowered their tubes and shot thousands of shells on the Afrkia Korp.  We don't have Arty.  So we compenstate by giving the Allies a better tank, and we compensate for THAT by giving the Axis alot more Tigers than they actually had available.
"

His third reason was that he felt we wouldn't get allied tankers unless they have something better than T-34/76 vs. Panzers and Tigers.

[Brooke]

The other aspect is that there was a Tunisia FSO run September, 2008.  The writeup says that they used Shermans and Panzers, and that one proved to be quite well balanced and fun for the GV'ers.

[Brooke]

By the way, I very much appreciate folks posting any concerns here.  It is very useful, as this is a new scenario design.

Having folks who do a lot of GV'ing and tank battling look it over and see what they think is especially useful.  We want a large, thrilling tank battle -- and so we need it to appeal to GV'ers so that they sign up in numbers.

We are aiming for about 30 GV'ers per side so that we can have a 60-tank ground battle.  But it would be great to have even more in the ground war.

[Husky01]

Here are Fencer's thoughts on the aspect of the tanks:

1.  This is an open terrain.  You give the Allies T34/76ss and the Axis will set back at 3000yds in their Tigers and pick them off using the MkIVs as a screen.

Couldn't the same be said for the Allies and their Fireflys?

[Krusty]

How does the T34/85 stack up? Less powerful gun than the Sherman, right? Would it be a good sub, or not? (I don't know too much about this one, I don't GV enough to know how it compares to other in-game tanks)

[Brooke]

How it went with the FSO on the Tunisia terrain is an important data point.

[Fencer51]

Couldn't the same be said for the Allies and their Fireflys?

No, the Allies don't have MKIVs.

[Husky01]

Cant they use their M8s as distractions?

[Anaxogoras]

Fwiw, my concerns have been assuaged.

[Brooke]

Fwiw, my concerns have been assuaged.

Sounds good.  Many thanks for the discussion.

[Brooke]

There was also this from Baumer:

Brooke,
I was a little surprised at the 12th AF aircraft distribution and was wondering if it was done to make people happy? Specifically the P-40 was the most common fighter with the 12thAF at the time and it's hardly used.

Looking at the Air Force Historical Research Agency website, under WWII data look at the following table;

http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t090.pdf

I drew up a table showing the comparative number's (keeping the 12th AF at 80 planes) to show the difference between the historical numbers and the current scenario rules.

(Image removed from quote.)

It's pretty easy to see that the P-40 is under represented and the Spitfires are over represented.

This is just an observation and not meant to be critical in any way.

Thanks,
Baumer