"Pantelleria, 1943" scenario-design topic

[Spikes]

I just wonder if there where any 205 sqaudrons around at that time? Or did they see serves on a later date? Those are some great airplanes and it would be fun to show them off in a scenario aswell since we don't see them to often, especially in a scenario where they shine.

Perhaps we can trade out the c202 with the 205s they should easier to fill aswell. And than trade out 1 set of p38's for the spit 9 or a 5 (whichever is a better balance). When registration is full we could add more 202s and p38's. Any thoughts?


DutchVII

Yes there were. 205's would be fun.

[swareiam]

LOL im sure small italian children are told stories of how thier ancesters ejoyed flying 109s over 202s. Back to average folks they either dont fly 202s or know they are junk....now the 202 is an amazing aircraft to fly light on the controls doesnt like to snap roll can stall and flap with some practice acceleration is good dive speed is good has nice range.....but the guns oh my goodness the guns. I set my convergence around 150-200 and it'll take a 1/3 to 1/2 your ammo load to bring down regular aircraft unless you get pilot hits or other critical hits that will slow or stop the aircraft so that you can deliver precision hits to bring em down. So thanks but I think if we have to fly em we can talk bad about em if we want. Bad guys know theyre bad and so do we.

Sent from my LG-H871 using Tapatalk

I really think the thing that is missing from this discussion is this.

Scenario is a CHALLENGE.

Scenarios are not written to hand either side a victory, regardless of what has transpired in past events. Each CO will need to deal with several Challenges, Issues, Deficiencies and Risk within the event. The areas of concern are different for each side. The design is as close to history as it needs to be and has a serious stab/attempt at the best balance.

Remember with the advent of military aviation technology in history, balance is a sine wave with multiple phases. I don't think that line is ever going to be flat. I don't think that line is going to be flat in scenario design either. We truly do attempt to make the best events that we can.

Scenario is meant to be fun, because we all love to fly them. It is suppose to be a serious challenge for the COs, command staffs, and GLs to execute. I think we should stop trying to overly equalize the event knowing that it is pretty close and plan for the challenges that are presented in the write up.

[Vudu15]

I really think the thing that is missing from this discussion is this.

Scenario is a CHALLENGE.

Scenarios are not written to hand either side a victory, regardless of what has transpired in past events. Each CO will need to deal with several Challenges, Issues, Deficiencies and Risk within the event. The areas of concern are different for each side. The design is as close to history as it needs to be and has a serious stab/attempt at the best balance.

Remember with the advent of military aviation technology in history, balance is a sine wave with multiple phases. I don't think that line is ever going to be flat. I don't think that line is going to be flat in scenario design either. We truly do attempt to make the best events that we can.

Scenario is meant to be fun, because we all love to fly them. It is suppose to be a serious challenge for the COs, command staffs, and GLs to execute. I think we should stop trying to overly equalize the event knowing that it is pretty close and plan for the challenges that are presented in the write up.

Good I'm glad you see that so it'll be spit 9s for the allies right?

Oh and of course you would say that flying for the allies, and It's my job to make sure that it is more equal...see you think it's ready and I flying against you dont think it is. I think that's called bias if I recall. If such a thing could be done by the CM team.

[Brooke]

P-40's and C.202's played significant parts in the battle, so they should be in the scenario.  They balance each other out a bit as well.

Anyway, the topic we were discussing was:  should the allies have a couple more planes or not?

BFOOT gave an opinion.  Would still like to hear from Guppy, oboe, etc. if they can.

[perdue3]

Good I'm glad you see that so it'll be spit 9s for the allies right?

He will likely be in a P-40.

There were a very small number of C.205's available for Pantelleria. Keep in mind, they were brand new and just in time for Corkscrew. It doesn't matter to me if we have C.205's. What is important, as Brooke mentioned, is the balance of fighters. Because we have C.202's, the worst Allied aircraft is better. Let us assume that that is the P-40. Then we have G-6's against 38G and G-2 against 38G. This is fairly even, although the 109 is slightly better overall. But, if 38 sticks actually fly them and 109 sticks fly 109's, it will be even. Finally, Spitfire versus 190, 190 wins. Not a 1v1 necessarily, but a 190 will dominate whatever fight it is in if it has alt. Fighter versus fighter seems balanced to me. If anything, a slight edge to the Luftwaffe, but not enough of one to justify adding Allied fighters.

[SEseph]

In August 1943, the 308th FS of the 31st FG – the group’s most successful squadron – became the first USAAF unit to operate the Spitfire Mk. VIII, the group having had some Mk. IXs in limited operation since the previous April, with enough in each squadron to provide a high cover flight for the Spitfires Mk. Vb.

[Vudu15]

The issue of adding extras to the registration doesn't make sense as you've added the ability to add walkons to the 38s or 40s for the allies and 109s or 202s for the axis.

Needs to be Mk 9s at 6 a/c and no additions to the squad sizes during registration.

[Brooke]

There are conflicting references on when the 31st got what.  For example:

"During May and June 1943, after being re-equipped with Mk VIII and Mk IX Spitfires, it escorted naval convoys in the Mediterranean and bombers on raids to Pantelleria."

[Brooke]

The issue of adding extras to the registration doesn't make sense

We are talking about side balance, not how we handle overfull condition.  You have to determine side balance.

For example, you can have a design that says one side gets 10 fighters and the other side gets 10 fighters.  If you are overfull, you assign walkons 1:1 to each side.

Or you can have a design that says one side gets 12 fighters and the other gets 10 fighters.  If you are overfull, you assign walkons 1.2:1.

[SEseph]

There are conflicting references on when the 31st got what.  For example:

"During May and June 1943, after being re-equipped with Mk VIII and Mk IX Spitfires, it escorted naval convoys in the Mediterranean and bombers on raids to Pantelleria."

The issue of adding extras to the registration doesn't make sense as you've added the ability to add walkons to the 38s or 40s for the allies and 109s or 202s for the axis.

Needs to be Mk 9s at 6 a/c and no additions to the squad sizes during registration.

The success of the Mk IX reduced the importance of the Mk VIII. Although the first production model was completed in November 1942, it took until June 1943 for the first squadron to be equipped with the model. One reason for the delay was that it had been decided to use the Mk VIII in the Mediterranean and Far East, and so the first squadron to use it was No. 145, based on Malta. By the summer of 1943 the crisis in the Mediterranean was in the past, and the Mk VIII saw most of its service during the invasion of Italy, often in a ground attack role.


Easy, since there are conflicting accounts, go with the safe choice. We KNOW the 9's were there. We KNOW the 8 NEVER fully replaced the 9 in Europe. We also know they had predominantly 5's. So the 6 Spit 9's will do.

[Vudu15]

The axis have the 202s so we are really 6 planes short right out of the gate as those things will never pay for themselves.

So no I don't think the allies should get 2 more of anything at this time.

[SEseph]

Since we're discussing numbers and balance...

Service debut of the C205s came in February 1943, when four examples joined the C.202’s of the 1 Stormo of the Regia Aeronautica at Sicily and Pantelleria, and by end of the March the number had risen to 21.

The aircraft had its first combat mission on April 7 over Tunisia, when fighters from Pantelleria escorted naval and aerial convoys plying between Italy and North Africa. On that day, they encountered superior numbers of Spitfire V and Curtiss P-40 fighters, obtaining significant results. In fact, by April 19, they had claimed 18 Allied aircraft destroyed.
During the Allied invasion of Sicily the 51 Stormo, one of the elite fighter units of the RA, was heavily involved in defending Sardinia, bagging ten P-40s for the loss of three C.205 by the end of July.




I can give numbers and combat records of the 205's. I feel this is a better case for them replacing the 202's than the argument for adding Spit 8's.

Just saying...

[swareiam]

Good I'm glad you see that so it'll be spit 9s for the allies right?

Oh and of course you would say that flying for the allies, and It's my job to make sure that it is more equal...see you think it's ready and I flying against you dont think it is. I think that's called bias if I recall. If such a thing could be done by the CM team.

Dweeb is correct and I completely agree with his fighter to fighter balance analysis.

There were a very small number of C.205's available for Pantelleria. Keep in mind, they were brand new and just in time for Corkscrew. It doesn't matter to me if we have C.205's. What is important, as Brooke mentioned, is the balance of fighters. Because we have C.202's, the worst Allied aircraft is better. Let us assume that that is the P-40. Then we have G-6's against 38G and G-2 against 38G. This is fairly even, although the 109 is slightly better overall. But, if 38 sticks actually fly them and 109 sticks fly 109's, it will be even. Finally, Spitfire versus 190, 190 wins. Not a 1v1 necessarily, but a 190 will dominate whatever fight it is in if it has alt. Fighter versus fighter seems balanced to me. If anything, a slight edge to the Luftwaffe, but not enough of one to justify adding Allied fighters.

He is correct again in stating that I will be in a P-40.

Look, CMs are not the enemy here. We are players just like everybody else and we really want these events to thrive. So that not only you can have fun, but we can have fun as well.



How many iron crosses do you see on this aircraft?

Well then I can tell you from my own personal perspective that I have fun flying this "Least of All" airplane in scenarios. It challenges me to be my best and out fly and out think my foes and when I can no longer do that, I die.

To me, 12 kill marks says it all. So let's get down to some agreement and get on with some registration, shall we?

[perdue3]

I hate to be THAT guy, but the historian in me would really like to see sources along with claims and quotes. I am guilty of this as well, but now there are many people claiming different things. This way we can see each source that creates the conflict and judge it from a historiographic stand point. Otherwise, we are all just throwing information around and getting no where. We can also avoid this source conflict by looking at it from a different angle:

Would the Spit VIII or Spit IX be better for the event? In my opinion, considering all of the information given and the balance of the event, six Spit IX's is the correct decision.

[SEseph]

Fair enough. If I'm willing to post it, I should allow it to be examined.

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/uncle-sams-spitfires.html
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_spitfire_mkVIII.html
https://ww2-weapons.com/macchi-c-205v-veltro/


Agree Spit IX.

Still think 205's should be added.