Author Topic: Battle for the Aleutions  (Read 571 times)

Offline USCH

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1713
Battle for the Aleutions
« on: January 17, 2010, 09:17:25 AM »
Japanese aircraft:
A6m2, B5N2, D3A1, M8, M3, LVT-2
U.S aircraft:
P-38G,P-39D,P-40B, B-25C, M8, M3, LVT-2
B-24, B-17 optional from rear fields like the Me163 in the MA if possable.


June 3, 1942 invasion start date.
August 15th, 1943 end of fighting.

I dont know when we used this map/set up last, but it could be fun.

Offline Soulyss

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6558
      • Aces High Events
Re: Battle for the Aleutions
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2010, 12:10:03 PM »
P-39D? P-38G?

May have to pop in for a few runs, when's it start? :)
80th FS "Headhunters"
I blame mir.

Offline Mister Fork

  • AvA Staff Member
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7255
Re: Battle for the Aleutions
« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2010, 02:55:30 PM »
Looks good -but I would also sub the A6M2 for the A6M5 as it was available then.  Instead of the B-24/B-17, I think the B-25 is a good bomber which was used in the Aleutions campain.
"Games are meant to be fun and fair but fighting a war is neither." - HiTech

Offline USCH

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1713
Re: Battle for the Aleutions
« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2010, 08:51:23 PM »
Ya i have the B25C in there.... is it possible to limit the 17's and 24 to a back base?... and to the best of my knowledge they didn't have the M5 in the Aleutians.

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Battle for the Aleutions
« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2010, 10:43:36 PM »
For this kind of setup there's no reason to have B-17s or B-24s at all, IMO.

Why make things more lopsided with the weak Japanese planeset? Just leave 'em out. Makes it easier.

Offline USCH

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1713
Re: Battle for the Aleutions
« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2010, 08:49:40 AM »
For this kind of setup there's no reason to have B-17s or B-24s at all, IMO.

Why make things more lopsided with the weak Japanese planeset? Just leave 'em out. Makes it easier.
I agree with that. I just rather ask for the aircraft that were there and have them not put in rather than not ask at all.
And well my mean side says "the japanese should have thought of that!"

Offline captain1ma

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14307
      • JG54 website
Re: Battle for the Aleutions
« Reply #6 on: January 18, 2010, 10:10:06 AM »
it seems, it should be about realistic and not lopsided. if there were b17, and b24's there, then so be it. so if we had 17's and 24's, put them in. if not dont. pretty simple.

Offline USCH

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1713
Re: Battle for the Aleutions
« Reply #7 on: January 18, 2010, 10:21:52 AM »
Ya but then you also get down to the nitty gritty of the fact there were no B-24J or B-17G's only B-24D's and B-17E's

Offline Anaxogoras

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7072
Re: Battle for the Aleutions
« Reply #8 on: January 18, 2010, 12:02:27 PM »
Oh boy, yet another one-sided PTO setup.
gavagai
334th FS


RPS for Aces High!

Offline Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9351
Re: Battle for the Aleutions
« Reply #9 on: January 18, 2010, 12:10:45 PM »
Oh boy, yet another one-sided PTO setup.

PTO setups are tough before 1945 because at most other points of the war they WERE one-sided - one way or the other.  But they still draw pretty fair numbers.  It's challenging to be on the worse-plane side, the maps are usually above average, and I, and probably others, get a sense of history in the PAC setups that I don't get in the ETO.

- oldman