Suggestions regarding next Scenario (October, 2016)

[LCADolby]

Spit5 and 109F are a perfect match for each other, set their numbers even and go from there. (wants a 109F <G> )

[Guppy35]

think I'll be going axis for this one Allied fighter choices are lacking.

Thought you wanted a Spit 9?

[Brooke]

I'd much rather have the aircraft that were operating in the given theater at that time.

The aircraft in this one are the aircraft that were there.  We are focusing on the 12th AF front.

Here is the number of times they were mentioned in the 12th AF daily diary of operations from early 1943:

p-38 -- 40
p-39 -- 29
p-40 -- 79
spitfire -- 21
a-20 -- 47
b-17 -- 64
b-25 -- 90
b-26 -- 53

The group numbers listed in the writeup are groups that were flying missions into Tunisia.

[Bruv119]

Thought you wanted a Spit 9?

I did and there aren't any in the write up.  No RAF either, we fly Axis.   Kind of a squad rule, otherwise we would never flex our Saxon muscles. 

Beware the hun in the sun because he is coming in 50 mph faster than you at all altitudes!   

[Brooke]

"just because" is a deterrent for me.

Rest assured that I don't put things in just because. 

[Bruv119]

Saturday in June..... Not the answer you are looking for, but I think a big reason for the numbers. I faced wife ACK every Saturday that I sat down at my desk.

You sir deserve a medal for outstanding bravery in the face of enemy fire.   I had moody baby ack one frame, she sat on my lap trying to flick the power switch!

[Devil 505]

To get the ball rolling more on suggested different balance of planes, here is one among many possibilities. 

This set:
-- reduces 190's as per Devil's comments to be more realistically proportional to 109's,
-- increases the P-38/Spit ratio (as is likely also more realistic), and
-- makes P-40's+P-39's equal to number of C.202's (balancing the lowest-performance planes on each side).

The non-realistic aspect is that the proportion of P-40's is much lower than history, which is this case's sacrifice to playability.

Fighters

P-38G, 24
Spit V, 12
P-39D, 6
P-40F, 8

Bf 109G-2, 15
Bf 109G-6, 15
FW 190A-5, 6
C.202, 14

Then, to make the bomber mix more even as well -- basically half the US force worse than Ju 88's and half better.

Bombers

B-25C, 7
B-26B, 4
B-17G, 4

Ju 88A-4, 15

What do folks think of this?

First off, I'll tackle the bombers. The B-17 has to go. There is no way to balance it's superior bomb load and defense(toughness and firepower). As it is, the B-26 has better speed and defense (toughness and firepower) compared to the Ju 88. The bomb load between the two is close with 4000 Lbs for the B-26 and 4400 Lbs Ju88. The B-25 comes up very short compared to the Ju-88 with 3/4 the max bomb load, but the relative speeds are closer below 15K. It is possible to close the bomb load gap by having the Ju88 take the 2x 500Kg / 2x 250Kg external bombs for 3300 Lbs. In my opinion the Ju 88 is closer in capability to the B-25 than the B-26 and I don't think a split B-25/B-26 set is the answer. I would use B-25 exclusively as the Allied bomber with the lighter bomb load on the Ju 88.

Next, does this list indicate that you are abandoning jabo aircraft, Brooke? I doubt that based on your responses to other posts.

Finally the fighter lineup. The P-38G and 109G-2 compare favorably in speed and maneuverability, but the G-6 lags behind slightly. I would have the totals for the 38's equal the total 109's. Also, the G-6 was brand new in February and no group had been fully equipped with the type until after Tunisia had been abandoned. Assign both types to all 109 groups and leave the choice of G-2 or G-6 up to the pilot.

The next best match-up is the P-40F and C.202. Similar speeds, P-40 has much better guns and armor but the 202 has much better maneuverability. Based on the speed charts, the P-39 and SpitV are in the same bracket, but both have superior turning ability and firepower, making them both much better than the C.202.

The 190 is a wildcard with no comparable Allied plane. The 190 has excellent speed and the best gun package of any plane, and fair maneuverability (worst turn rate and best roll rate)

Based on the limited numbers of 190's in Tunisia a limited number should be seen here as well. Based on your USAAF Diary, the P-39 and spitfire are the fewest occurring Allied types, and that also should be reflected.

A 50/50 side split results in some strange numbers for the Allies in order to balance sides, I think a 55/45 split may be better for balance fighter combat.

Allies

P-38G, 25
Spit V, 8
P-39D, 6
P-40F, 16

Axis

Bf 109G-2/6, 25
FW 190A-5, 4
C.202, 16

If a 50/50 split is desired then drop the 190 from the Axis as a fighter.

Allies

P-38G, 30
Spit V, 4
P-39D, 6
P-40F, 10

Axis

Bf 109G-2/6, 30
C.202, 20
 

[Devil 505]

Spit5 and 109F are a perfect match for each other, set their numbers even and go from there. (wants a 109F <G> )

Equal and low.

[puller]

If a 50/50 split is desired then drop the 190 from the Axis.

Allies

P-38G, 30
Spit V, 4
P-39D, 6
P-40F, 10

Axis

Bf 109G-2/6, 30
C.202, 20
 

 

[Brooke]

Devil, I'm about to put the next draft of the writeup in, and it does include changes in numbers sort of like what you are talking about.  I will post it tonight after I am back from work.

Next, does this list indicate that you are abandoning jabo aircraft, Brooke?

At the end of this, I ask folks for an opinion on a couple of options.

Option 1.

Dedicated attack aircraft and no bombs on fighters.  Yes, in the battle the US fighters did have jabo duties at times instead of escort, fighter sweeps, interceptions, etc.  There are two reasons for this option:  balance and giving attack planes their place.

Regarding balance, the axis did not load bombs much at all on those 109G's (at least according to what I could find), whereas the allies did use P-38's and P-40's for that at times.  The 190's that carried bombs are specifically already accounted for in the attack section.  So, if the allies carry bombs on fighters and the axis doesn't, it creates a giant balance problem.  Also, if you have fighters carrying bombs, you need to keep them from flying bombs around at the alt cap because that leads to the style of fighting being silly and totally ahistorical.  Attack planes help create a much more realistic style to the fighting in battles like this one that were tactical in nature.

Regarding giving attack planes their place:  The large majority of people in AH prefer fighters.  There is a minority that like bombers.  And there is a super minority that will agree to fly attack planes.  It is far more challenging to fill attack aircraft.  When you fly those aircraft, you want your role to matter -- not just be in there as a nod to history but mostly a target for fighters.  If you have fighters doing attack work, it destroys the motivation to be a dedicated attack pilot.  This is a fact, as I know from flying dedicated attack aircraft frequently in Scenarios and knowing the opinions of attack pilots, and it is how I feel about it as well.

Option 2:

One way to change this is to let P-40's carry bombs, let a portion of the P-38's carry bombs, cut down A-20's to a minimal number (or even eliminate them -- as they won't be appealing to many people under these conditions and need small number to have a chance to fill them), remove Bf 110's (maybe, as most jabos were 190's), increase 190A's significantly to balance bomb capability on each side, and let all 190A's carry bombs.  Also, we would need fighters carrying bombs to have some imposed lower altitude cap or things get silly.  Basically, we would be eliminating (or nearly eliminating) the dedicated attack groups and replacing them with fighter bombers.

---------------------------------

So, that's what I see as the viable options:  (1) have dedicated attack aircraft, and fighters don't fill that role or (2) get rid of the dedicated attack aircraft, and let fighters fill that role with special alt caps if you have a bomb.

Which way do folks prefer?

[Brooke]

I had moody baby ack one frame

Yes, but she got 15 of your 19 kills.   

[Bruv119]

She nearly killed a spit16 in the MA today.   

I was doing the fighter pilet stuff and she lobbed my mouse onto the spacebar and held it there.   Scored hits but no kill because he out climbed us and ran off.   

She does now remember what button on my stick fires MG's it makes her giggle a bit  but she can't reach the cannon.   Baby steps.   

[Guppy35]

I did and there aren't any in the write up.  No RAF either, we fly Axis.   Kind of a squad rule, otherwise we would never flex our Saxon muscles. 

Beware the hun in the sun because he is coming in 50 mph faster than you at all altitudes!   

Thought there was a small number which was why I did the Spit IX profile for ya.  Ahh well.  I'll be looking for high 109s 😀

[Brooke]

She nearly killed a spit16 in the MA today.   

I was doing the fighter pilet stuff and she lobbed my mouse onto the spacebar and held it there.   Scored hits but no kill because he out climbed us and ran off.   

She does now remember what button on my stick fires MG's it makes her giggle a bit  but she can't reach the cannon.   Baby steps.

   I've had similar experiences with my twin daughters who are now 6.  I do actually like it when they would say "I want to fly airplanes with Daddy" and climb up on my lap.  It's so sweet!

[Devil 505]

Regarding balance, the axis did not load bombs much at all on those 109G's (at least according to what I could find), whereas the allies did use P-38's and P-40's for that at times.  The 190's that carried bombs are specifically already accounted for in the attack section.  So, if the allies carry bombs on fighters and the axis doesn't, it creates a giant balance problem.  Also, if you have fighters carrying bombs, you need to keep them from flying bombs around at the alt cap because that leads to the style of fighting being silly and totally ahistorical.  Attack planes help create a much more realistic style to the fighting in battles like this one that were tactical in nature.

I was referring only to the posted attack aircraft from the writeup; the A-20 and 190F. I agree that the fighter squads should not have a strike capability.