Author Topic: Side Assignments and CiCs for Dillingers Wake  (Read 1451 times)

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
Side Assignments and CiCs for Dillingers Wake
« on: January 29, 2011, 02:56:44 AM »
Available here:

http://ahevents.org/

CiCs and frame dates are:

Allied:

"68th Lightning Lancers" Frame 1 (Feb 4th 2011)
"The Gun Fighters" Frame 2 (Feb 11th 2011)
"VF-17" Frame 3 (Feb 18th 2011)

Axis:

"JG53" Frame 1 (Feb 4th 2011)
"JG77" Frame 2 (Feb 11th 2011)
"Duxford Wing RAF" Frame 3 (Feb 18th 2011)
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24

Offline Seadog36

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 666
Re: Side Assignments and CiCs for Dillingers Wake
« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2011, 04:57:36 AM »
Squire~

Why the 6 gun package on the P-47's ?:headscratch: I can understand the light load out, but 6 guns is historically inaccurate. 8 guns was the universal package for P-47s until the M when they opted for 6 to save weight.

SW Pacific Thuderbolts had great success BnZing Imperial aircraft from altitude with close wingman support. They did not mix it up turn fighting and they did not eliminate guns for that purpose. If that advantage was lost they would use their superior speed to extend away. Respectfully, that detail should be corrected for this setup.

http://webpages.charter.net/jimdoss/12to1/GROSSHUESCH.htm

Thank you for putting this together, I've been hoping to see this scenario in FSO. Hoping my squad VF-15 will get to fly 47s my favorite bird in the next 3 frames.

Is rogerdees' 35FG 39FS going to be activated for this FSO? Its the only Pacific skin we have for the 47 in AHII, even though at that time they were OD w white tails until '44 when they introduced bare metal.

 :salute

Offline daddog

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15082
      • http://www.332nd.org
Re: Side Assignments and CiCs for Dillingers Wake
« Reply #2 on: January 29, 2011, 06:40:06 AM »
Unless I am mistaken the skins are not something the CM's control. They are tied to the terrain loaded in the Special Events Arena (SEA).
Noses in the wind since 1997
332nd Flying Mongrels
daddog
Knowing for Sure

Offline Seadog36

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 666
Re: Side Assignments and CiCs for Dillingers Wake
« Reply #3 on: January 29, 2011, 10:55:03 AM »
I'm pretty sure you are right daddog~ seems like we always just get the default skin in FSOs...

Offline Nefarious

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15858
Re: Side Assignments and CiCs for Dillingers Wake
« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2011, 11:10:17 AM »
Default Skins as in the Default Skin? Not any of the player created ones?

I can select any available player created skin in FSO, even when I create and join missions.
There must also be a flyable computer available for Nefarious to do FSO. So he doesn't keep talking about it for eight and a half hours on Friday night!

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
Re: Side Assignments and CiCs for Dillingers Wake
« Reply #5 on: January 29, 2011, 12:21:07 PM »
You can call the 6 gun package a "play balance modifier" for this setup. I am aware that it normally would roll with 8 guns. Lets just say that the conditions on New Guinea are poor and the P-47 unit is having supply and maintenance issues.  ;) Im sure if flown to its strengths it will do just fine with 6 x 50 cal guns. :salute

Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24

Offline oakranger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8380
      • http://www.slybirds.com/
Re: Side Assignments and CiCs for Dillingers Wake
« Reply #6 on: January 29, 2011, 01:30:49 PM »
Squire~

Why the 6 gun package on the P-47's ?:headscratch: I can understand the light load out, but 6 guns is historically inaccurate. 8 guns was the universal package for P-47s until the M when they opted for 6 to save weight.

SW Pacific Thuderbolts had great success BnZing Imperial aircraft from altitude with close wingman support. They did not mix it up turn fighting and they did not eliminate guns for that purpose. If that advantage was lost they would use their superior speed to extend away. Respectfully, that detail should be corrected for this setup.

http://webpages.charter.net/jimdoss/12to1/GROSSHUESCH.htm

Thank you for putting this together, I've been hoping to see this scenario in FSO. Hoping my squad VF-15 will get to fly 47s my favorite bird in the next 3 frames.

Is rogerdees' 35FG 39FS going to be activated for this FSO? Its the only Pacific skin we have for the 47 in AHII, even though at that time they were OD w white tails until '44 when they introduced bare metal.

 :salute

Not trying to be a troll here.  A lot of the Jug pilots used the six gun package for weight reduction. So that is self preference to the ppl who will fly them. 
Oaktree

56th Fighter group

Offline Seadog36

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 666
Re: Side Assignments and CiCs for Dillingers Wake
« Reply #7 on: January 29, 2011, 03:22:08 PM »
You can call the 6 gun package a "play balance modifier" for this setup. I am aware that it normally would roll with 8 guns. Lets just say that the conditions on New Guinea are poor and the P-47 unit is having supply and maintenance issues.  ;) Im sure if flown to its strengths it will do just fine with 6 x 50 cal guns.

 :salute

IJA and IJN has 20mm cannon to balance "play" and AH's damage model for the beast doesn't adequately reflect the true durability of the 47, but I'm glad you feel it is necessary to hobble the Jug for a fair fight. :lol You could give the roman candles two lives to balance it instead :D


Offline Seadog36

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 666
Re: Side Assignments and CiCs for Dillingers Wake
« Reply #8 on: January 29, 2011, 03:35:21 PM »
Not trying to be a troll here.  A lot of the Jug pilots used the six gun package for weight reduction. So that is self preference to the ppl who will fly them. 

Historically that wasn't the case, and I think that's what we are going for in FSO vs MA free for alls.

The majority of my kills are in the D-11, I always fly 8 guns and the extra devastating punch in the quick snap shot is nice.

I haven't found reducing the number of guns to be very significant in performance gain trollranger  :lol.

Offline oakranger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8380
      • http://www.slybirds.com/
Re: Side Assignments and CiCs for Dillingers Wake
« Reply #9 on: January 29, 2011, 04:30:57 PM »
Historically that wasn't the case, and I think that's what we are going for in FSO vs MA free for alls.

The majority of my kills are in the D-11, I always fly 8 guns and the extra devastating punch in the quick snap shot is nice.

I haven't found reducing the number of guns to be very significant in performance gain trollranger  :lol.

You do the 8 guns, i do the six guns.  the number of guns to be used in the P-47 is subjective among many jug dweebs like me. 
Oaktree

56th Fighter group

Offline Seadog36

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 666
Re: Side Assignments and CiCs for Dillingers Wake
« Reply #10 on: January 29, 2011, 05:02:19 PM »
You do the 8 guns, i do the six guns.  the number of guns to be used in the P-47 is subjective among many jug dweebs like me. 


:devil Live long and prosper fellow jugdweeb :lol

Offline oakranger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8380
      • http://www.slybirds.com/
Re: Side Assignments and CiCs for Dillingers Wake
« Reply #11 on: January 29, 2011, 05:51:34 PM »


:devil Live long and prosper fellow jugdweeb :lol

 :rofl    :aok
Oaktree

56th Fighter group

Offline 68falcon

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6440
      • 68th Lightning Lancers
Re: Side Assignments and CiCs for Dillingers Wake
« Reply #12 on: January 29, 2011, 11:50:00 PM »
Frame 1 CiC confirmed  :pray :salute
Commanding Officer
68th Lightning Lancers
Fear the Reaper no more. Fear the Lancers

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Side Assignments and CiCs for Dillingers Wake
« Reply #13 on: January 29, 2011, 11:56:50 PM »
The fact of the matter is many Jugs had 6 guns. This wasn't always up to the pilot. You flew what you had, you had to stay in formation, you probably all flew the same configuration. Even the early jugs often only had 6 guns adn 267 rpg. The standard loadout for 8 guns was often only 200 rpg. Some 6-gun setups went as high as 300 or in 1-2 cases I've seen 310 rpg on a 6-gun setup, but for the most part 267 was it.

The large ammo load was never used. I wish they're take it from the game. 425 rpg? Poppycock. 300 seems about the most (even that's the exception to the rule) and that only on the 6-gun setup.

Hitorically speaking 6 guns/267 rpg is the only accurate loadout currently on the jug.


P.S. In the PTO there was more than ever a desire to lessen weight. Early on they had no range, and every pound was that much less they could fly. Later when they had the range, they were over-burdened with late model Ds and then N models as well. They would load up 3 bombs, rockets, or rockets and DTs, or any combination. To counteract this heavily overloaded plane on rough unfinished landing strips as well as short runway and trees at the end, it was not uncommon to remove all but 2 guns and have a reduced ammo loadout for them. Even still, some of these ground pounders became aces.

You didn't need much to shoot down the Japanese craft. A hard fart and they'd keel over justabout. 8 guns was overkill and if the option was to remove 2 guns and half the ammo, and be able to fly 100 mi further and still down 10 enemies, it was worth it (vs having to turn back from lack of fuel)
« Last Edit: January 30, 2011, 12:03:30 AM by Krusty »

Offline oakranger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8380
      • http://www.slybirds.com/
Re: Side Assignments and CiCs for Dillingers Wake
« Reply #14 on: January 30, 2011, 12:19:09 AM »
The fact of the matter is many Jugs had 6 guns. This wasn't always up to the pilot. You flew what you had, you had to stay in formation, you probably all flew the same configuration. Even the early jugs often only had 6 guns adn 267 rpg. The standard loadout for 8 guns was often only 200 rpg. Some 6-gun setups went as high as 300 or in 1-2 cases I've seen 310 rpg on a 6-gun setup, but for the most part 267 was it.

The large ammo load was never used. I wish they're take it from the game. 425 rpg? Poppycock. 300 seems about the most (even that's the exception to the rule) and that only on the 6-gun setup.

Hitorically speaking 6 guns/267 rpg is the only accurate loadout currently on the jug.


P.S. In the PTO there was more than ever a desire to lessen weight. Early on they had no range, and every pound was that much less they could fly. Later when they had the range, they were over-burdened with late model Ds and then N models as well. They would load up 3 bombs, rockets, or rockets and DTs, or any combination. To counteract this heavily overloaded plane on rough unfinished landing strips as well as short runway and trees at the end, it was not uncommon to remove all but 2 guns and have a reduced ammo loadout for them. Even still, some of these ground pounders became aces.

You didn't need much to shoot down the Japanese craft. A hard fart and they'd keel over justabout. 8 guns was overkill and if the option was to remove 2 guns and half the ammo, and be able to fly 100 mi further and still down 10 enemies, it was worth it (vs having to turn back from lack of fuel)

Do agree with you on historic aspect.  On AH, only noobs in the jug would fly with a eight gun package. 
Oaktree

56th Fighter group