FSO: June - Operation Husky, the Invasion of Sicily

[BnZs]

What are you basing this on? Just because you don't like to fly bombers doesn't mean everyone else doesn't, too. There are squads who actually request them, you know.

Yeah, but those 3 guys can't fill all the needed slots for buffs ...so the downside of not having formations remains.

[Hamltnblue]

I disagree that it would swing the balance too far the other way. Depending on the frame on this last campaign, I don't think I saw too many more than 15-20 defending fighters in any area my squadron was operating in. Consider that of those numbers, maybe half were actually equipped for attacking the bombers (190s, 110s, or later 109s with gondolas). If anything, so long as the bomber squadrons STAY TOGETHER, and their escorts do their jobs, (rather than run off looking for a fight like has happened in the past) it should be fairly well-balanced.

Maybe that's where the issue is.  If there were about 220 pilots defending 7 targets the number should have been 31, which should be more than enough. In frame 1 the allies got slaughtered, in frame 2 there was an issue with the Axis turnout. I'm not sure about frame 3 but it seemed pretty even.
No matter what the setup, someone isn't going to be happy.  For the most part at least half of the buff drivers would rather be flying fighters.  Taking away the little extra they have would not only make it harder to complete their mission, but would also take them out earilier in the frame.  I think that any experimentation on taking away drones should be done in in between missions in the AVA or even the SEA during the off week of FSO and not in the actual FSO. 
Right now the FSO is in a spot where it's become so successful that people are requesting changes based on individual experiences.  In the long run I think the FSO has been basically pretty balanced.
 

[AKKaz]

How would the possibility be of splitting the timing requirements for ETO scenerios.

I think it would be easy to have some of the usual stuff happen with the T60 rule applied, and let's say a large deep strike package simulating berlin or such.  For this strike, take away the time restriction as even with the planners setting up for routing, it would still be a challenge to get back in before frame end.  Kinda the double strike, short hops that we have been doing, and a long package for the deep penetration of the LW homeland.

I think it would be a good challenge to see how many get home, the escort planning and LW multiple hits as they come back out.  Even at let's say an 27k alt restriction, would definitely be interesting. would also aid in eliviating the task of having to make sure the target zone spacing for everyone as possibly 25% to 33% would be pretty deep from the other target zones.

[Krusty]

Removing the drones would make a slaughter more likely since it would reduce the amount of escorts.

Historically did they have 2 escorts for every bomber, flying 5-10k higher than the enemy could even reach?

Keep in mind in frame 2 axis ran across so many P-47Ds they blotted out the sky (50+) at alts too high for us to even nose up and fire at them in zooms, and they were HEAVY at the time! Carrying jabo ords!

No, your response is knee-jerk Ham. Think of it this way: Less overall fighters on both axis AND allies, and more bombers in single planes. So if the mission design calls for 10 bombers, instead you give them 30, no formations. So you figure out the ratios so that there's overall less swarming on both sides, but those extra players are still active.


The same way ratios work now, different units will be sent to axis or allies accordingly.

[ghostdancer]

Guys, I think you should start another thread here.

[haasehole]

 I like the idea of no formations but the idea of a bomber assigned to hit 2 targets is unhistorical ( from what i read bout the 8th ) they had a primary target to level and other targets of opportunity if clouds or what ever made primary target unavailable. But anyhow we are enjoying flying whatever and will continue to do so 

[BnZs]

Krusty:

This is not the Eastern Front.

Fighting above 30K was not  uncommon.

These altitudes were not unknown even in the Battle of Britain.

Even Fw-190As can get above 30K. (I got to 32K in about 20 minutes in a clean Fw-190 A-5 in testing for the last FSO).

Performing better at alt than the 109s with superior wing-loading and low-alt power loading is basically what the long-range American fighters have got going for them, especially the P-47 and P-38.

And we killed what, all of those P-47s when after they came down and dropped didn't we?

I'm not going to say Axis doesn't have its work cut out for it in some situations, but fighter vs. fighter it is not ridiculously unbalanced.

Historically did they have 2 escorts for every bomber, flying 5-10k higher than the enemy could even reach?

Keep in mind in frame 2 axis ran across so many P-47Ds they blotted out the sky (50+) at alts too high for us to even nose up and fire at them in zooms, and they were HEAVY at the time! Carrying jabo ords!

No, your response is knee-jerk Ham. Think of it this way: Less overall fighters on both axis AND allies, and more bombers in single planes. So if the mission design calls for 10 bombers, instead you give them 30, no formations. So you figure out the ratios so that there's overall less swarming on both sides, but those extra players are still active.


The same way ratios work now, different units will be sent to axis or allies accordingly.

[TUK]

This thread is starting to bore the crap outa me. Wish I never would have posted, now I have to check it every day.  :

[ghostdancer]

Gentlemen this thread was started for the June FSO.

The current discussions are not in relation to this, so once again please start another thread.