Dornier 335

[thorsim]

ok well then how long should we delay the introduction of allied aircraft after they were in theatre for their "operational testing" phases?

Thorsim,

A lone Fw190D or Do335 running away from some Allied aircraft is not the same as having the aircraft in service at squadron strength using production, not prototype, airframes.

The Ki-84 has more claim to that than any German fighter I have read about as they did do squadron level service trials with many of the 100+ prototype Ki-84s.


Also, the Meteor did tangle with Fw190s briefly, before being driven off by Spitfires.

[Karnak]

ok well then how long should we delay the introduction of allied aircraft after they were in theatre for their "operational testing" phases?

The US and UK didn't do that kind of thing.  They did their testing before the aircraft saw any combat, hence the delay on the F7F for example.  If a US or British aircraft was in combat it was because the USAAF, USN, RAF or RN saw it as ready for service.  Yes, they were wrong at times, such as the Manchester, but they didn't do operational testing very often.  The only operational testing I can think of off hand would be the escort B-17s with more guns and ammo that proved to be unsuccessful, which I would also not consider valid additions for AH.

[bravoa8]

Isn't this in the wrong forum?

[thorsim]

exactly, they had a different processes for bringing aircraft into combat so you can not find a way to treat the aircraft the same in the game because the policies were different in the respective operating air-forces.
 
leaving the only accurate way to determine these dates, are the dates surrounding actual combat.  they are specific, and confirmed, dates that you only get with first combat mission, or first enemy contact, or first combat kill or loss ...

otherwise you are once again treating combatant aircraft differently because the operators had different ideas about how things should be done and do not actually reflect what happened historically.

The US and UK didn't do that kind of thing.  They did their testing before the aircraft saw any combat, hence the delay on the F7F for example.  If a US or British aircraft was in combat it was because the USAAF, USN, RAF or RN saw it as ready for service.  Yes, they were wrong at times, such as the Manchester, but they didn't do operational testing very often.  The only operational testing I can think of off hand would be the escort B-17s with more guns and ammo that proved to be unsuccessful, which I would also not consider valid additions for AH.

[Karnak]

exactly, they had a different processes for bringing aircraft into combat so you can not find a way to treat the aircraft the same in the game because the policies were different in the respective operating air-forces.
 
leaving the only accurate way to determine these dates, are the dates surrounding actual combat.  they are specific, and confirmed, dates that you only get with first combat mission, or first enemy contact, or first combat kill or loss ...

otherwise you are once again treating combatant aircraft differently because the operators had different ideas about how things should be done and do not actually reflect what happened historically.

You are also treating them differently because they couldn't even test fly an aircraft without risking it being in a combat.  The standard you suggest is unfair to American, British and Russian aircraft.

The F7F, F8F, Fury and so on didn't see combat as prototypes because their nations were not overrun by the enemy.  If Germany had not been overrun the Fw190D would not have seen combat until the Fall of 1944.

[thorsim]

no sir they were not operationally testing prototypes and i am not suggesting introducing prototypes as they do not meet the first combat mission criteria.

however the german squadrons flew combat missions during the operational testing phase and other than the titles and the ability to produce in large numbers i am at a loss to see much if any difference between what the germans called operational testing and what the first allied operators of a type were expected to do RE: sorting out the new aircraft in combat.

You are also treating them differently because they couldn't even test fly an aircraft without risking it being in a combat.  The standard you suggest is unfair to American, British and Russian aircraft.

The F7F, F8F, Fury and so on didn't see combat as prototypes because their nations were not overrun by the enemy.  If Germany had not been overrun the Fw190D would not have seen combat until the Fall of 1944.

correct and if germany had defeated England and the USSR and if german had invaded texas then the p51 would have had combat as part of its operational testing phase as well.

as far as prototypes being shot down, please remind me as i do not recall any large scale prototyping being done on the dora, most of what i have read is 1-2 prototypes variants being put together before production began on the airframe the settled on the d9.  the loss of six airframes in two days suggest much more than prototypes although records are difficult and sorting out the operational differences are as well ...

i am not sure how using the same criteria is unfair ...

[Bronk]

HTC has an obvious bias against luftwobble.

































 

[MiloMorai]

as far as prototypes being shot down, please remind me as i do not recall any large scale prototyping being done on the dora, most of what i have read is 1-2 prototypes variants being put together before production began on the airframe the settled on the d9.  the loss of six airframes in two days suggest much more than prototypes although records are difficult and sorting out the operational differences are as well ...

i am not sure how using the same criteria is unfair ...

The following are D series prototypes:
0035 - V12
0036 - V13
0037 - V15
0038 - V16
0039 - V17
0041 - V19
0042 - V20
0043 - V21
0044 - V22
0045 - V23
0050 - V25
0051 - V26
0052 - V27
0053 - V28

The first production Fw190D-9s left the Sorau factory beginning in Sept 1944. The first 30 production a/c were delivered to III./JG54 at the beginning of Oct 1944. III./JG54 was the operational trials unit for the Dora.

[Karnak]

i am not sure how using the same criteria is unfair ...

There are lots of criteria that could be set that would be unfair to one combatant or another all while using the same criteria.

Lets see, how about: "No aircraft with a production run of less than 10,000."  I saw that as a suggestion about four or five years ago.  It could be equally applied to all sides and the fact that the Japanese would only have the A6M would be entirely "fair" if the rule was applied across the board.


The criteria, as I understand it, are that it had to see combat operations in squadron strength on production airframes.  That puts the Fw190D-9 in October of 1944.  The Spitfire Mk XIV was "operational" at squadron strength in January of 1944, but didn't shoot down an enemy aircraft, a Ju88 on a recon or nuisance raid, until March of 1944 and didn't see offensive use until May or June of 1944.  I would set the Spitfire Mk XIV's service entry date in March of 1944, but I could see people having valid arguments for its service entry date to be in May or June of 1944 as well.

[thorsim]

right so since the situations facing the combatants were different, the thing to do would be to use the average of both dates as using criteria that as you stated is unfair for one side or the other so the average between the two would be the fair thing to do.

however the most pertinent date is when the airframes first faced the enemy.

RE the prototypes it seems to me oddly fortunate that kills of 3 and 6 190Ds were recorded if they were truly just prototypes in testing and not on a combat operation of some sort in june of 44 ...

There are lots of criteria that could be set that would be unfair to one combatant or another all while using the same criteria.

Lets see, how about: "No aircraft with a production run of less than 10,000."  I saw that as a suggestion about four or five years ago.  It could be equally applied to all sides and the fact that the Japanese would only have the A6M would be entirely "fair" if the rule was applied across the board.


The criteria, as I understand it, are that it had to see combat operations in squadron strength on production airframes.  That puts the Fw190D-9 in October of 1944.  The Spitfire Mk XIV was "operational" at squadron strength in January of 1944, but didn't shoot down an enemy aircraft, a Ju88 on a recon or nuisance raid, until March of 1944 and didn't see offensive use until May or June of 1944.  I would set the Spitfire Mk XIV's service entry date in March of 1944, but I could see people having valid arguments for its service entry date to be in May or June of 1944 as well.

[Karnak]

In combat at squadron strength on production airframes is not unfair to either side.  It can only be seen as unfair if you're trying to sneak in prototypes or aircraft that never reached squadron strength on production airframes, such as the Do335.

[thorsim]

well what about this you include all the criteria as you stated

it had to see combat operations (first combat operation)
it had to be in squadron strength (first operational or operational testing squadron)
on production airframes.  (date first production model completed and/or delivered)
add first confirmed engagement with enemy and/or first kill and/or death in engagement with enemy
(whichever is chosen)  

average those dates so that all the situational circumstances and everyones POV is taken into account in equal measure.  

that would bring the Meteor and Volksjager into justification to be included in the set, although i am not sure about the do355, which i am not advocating for, i am just pointing out that as you said just looking at things one way or another can be pointed out to be "unfair" to one side or the other date wise.  better IMO to take all sides POV into account when selecting dates and remove circumstances and policies from the equation and focus on the actual involvement of the airframes ...

In combat at squadron strength on production airframes is not unfair to either side.  It can only be seen as unfair if you're trying to sneak in prototypes or aircraft that never reached squadron strength on production airframes, such as the Do335.

[Karnak]

The Meteor and Volksjager are both in on the original criteria, just as the Ta152 was.

There is no need to tweak anything unless your goal is to find a way to get things like the Do335 in while keeping Allied equivalents like the F7F out.

[thorsim]

sir you misunderstand me, it is the dates and not the aircraft that i am taking issue with ...

i.e. ...

i see no justification in holding a plane 4 months after it was in actual combat,
while at the same time including another one 4 months before it ever saw actual combat.  

one could always be inclusive with the criteria and equitable about the dates of introduction
as those things are not mutually exclusive ...

The Meteor and Volksjager are both in on the original criteria, just as the Ta152 was.

There is no need to tweak anything unless your goal is to find a way to get things like the Do335 in while keeping Allied equivalents like the F7F out.

[Karnak]

i see no justification in holding a plane 4 months after it was in actual combat,
while at the same time including another one 4 months before it ever saw actual combat.  

How is that relevant to anything in AH?

In the MA service date doesn't matter.

In free form "scenarios" in the Axis vs Allies arena it would be silly to allow free access to an aircraft that merely had a prototype shot down.

In hardcore scenarios the aircraft picked will be the aircraft that were actually significant, once again making the lone prototype that got shot down irrelevant.


AH doesn't have a rolling planeset for many reasons, one of which is the very discussion we're having now.