Design discussion for Fjord Fury (June 2018 Scenario)

[perdue3]

A personal pet peeve of mine which could easily be ignored: Using whole Gruppen for a squad in scenario. The designer should always use a specific Staffel or leave the Staffel number up to the GL. In this case you have 13/JG 5 (part of IV/JG 5) and IV/JG 5. This is confusing and makes little sense. Just assign a staffel to IV/ JG 5. As we know, no 152s were here, and so the problem is what "historical" squad do you give them to? You either make something up or make something up. I suppose JG 301 is one of those two options.

All is fine with me except the suggestion regarding staffeln versus gruppen. With 8 pilot squads in the event, it just makes more sense to call them a staffel.

[Guppy35]

41 was at least near Denmark or something and did some high-alt escort of Lancs, but OK -- as long as you pick a number for me.

Let the Canadians have the job.  402 Squadron.  They had XIVs near the end of the war. 

[Guppy35]

Yes that would be better.

I did more digging on Jg 102 and they were mostly based in Denmark, with occasional detachments to central Germany. I have yet to see any mentions of detachments to Norway. Any engagements with the RAF over Norway would have been in the southern portion of the country. Given that the author of the magazine article provided by Guppy does not understand the Luftwaffe unit naming nomenclature, I'd take anything else pertaining to the Luftwaffe in that piece with a large grain of salt.

Don't blame the author. I'm the one who doesn't always put the dots in the right spot on LW designations.  I wasn't using the article I posted for the info, but I took it from a book that is specific to the Norway battles.  Good book as it covers both sides well.

[Devil 505]

Don't blame the author. I'm the one who doesn't always put the dots in the right spot on LW designations.  I wasn't using the article I posted for the info, but I took it from a book that is specific to the Norway battles.  Good book as it covers both sides well.

Does that book mention Jg 102 specifically?

There is next to nothing about Jg 102 on the internet, as it was a short lived training unit. So any concrete details about it would be great to see.

My criticism basically it comes down to the blurb in the article contradicting a trusted source on Luftwaffe unit locations, while simultaneously having incorrect details about unit names. 

[Brooke]

All is fine with me except

What is your specific naming recommendation?

[Devil 505]

What is your specific naming recommendation?

Rename IV/Jg5 to either 14./Jg5 or 15./Jg5 as you already have 13 Staffel. Those 3 staffeln comprised IV Gruppe.

[perdue3]

Rename IV/Jg5 to either 14./Jg5 or 15./Jg5 as you already have 13 Staffel. Those 3 staffeln comprised IV Gruppe.

This.

A Staffel (13 for example) is a small squadron, similar to the numbers represented in one Scenario squadron. A Gruppe (IV for example) is 3-4 of those Staffeln, so 3-4 scenario squadrons. That was my point. As to naming it, pick a number between 13-15.

[Guppy35]

Does that book mention Jg 102 specifically?

There is next to nothing about Jg 102 on the internet, as it was a short lived training unit. So any concrete details about it would be great to see.

My criticism basically it comes down to the blurb in the article contradicting a trusted source on Luftwaffe unit locations, while simultaneously having incorrect details about unit names.

Nope no mention.  Just the JG 5 units I typed wrong.  My bad.  Freeman is good but I don’t know where he got that info. 

[DaddyAce]

Let the Canadians have the job.  402 Squadron.  They had XIVs near the end of the war.

I think this would make weiser very happy......

[Guppy35]

I rest my case your honor

[Brooke]

Group names updated.

[Brooke]

So:

-- More discussion on ratios.  Several people think Lancs are doomed with current numbers.  Should we increase ratio of alliedFighters:axisFighters?  Keep in mind, though, that bombers were not doomed in Big Week and BOWL and at least not always doomed in The Final Battle, DGS, DGSII, BOG, etc.

-- Scoring OK?

-- Increase axis radar range to 64 miles (the max I can set)?

[TequilaChaser]

Dan, I'd like to join your group of Mustang III's if you need a slot filled..... I've always preferred the Bravo over the Delta model....

I can most likely get 2 or 3 others to join, if you need any help....


As for the Radar range, you started off with a setting of 50 and now have it at 64..... Why not basically split the difference of the 14 extra miles range it jumped to.... So set it at either 56 or 58 miles range?  Just a suggestion/thought....


TC

[Guppy35]

Dan, I'd like to join your group of Mustang III's if you need a slot filled..... I've always preferred the Bravo over the Delta model....

I can most likely get 2 or 3 others to join, if you need any help....


As for the Radar range, you started off with a setting of 50 and now have it at 64..... Why not basically split the difference of the 14 extra miles range it jumped to.... So set it at either 56 or 58 miles range?  Just a suggestion/thought....


TC

Welcome to 315 

[Guppy35]

OK four so far Brooke. I think 315 will be ok.  TC any other Mustang III guys you can gather are welcome

Lets fly now

Corky


BFOOT1


Oboe


TC