Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Friday Squad Operations => Topic started by: ramzey on January 25, 2004, 04:51:32 PM
-
how you like it?
-
Ill reply tomorrow when Ive cooled off.
Furzy
-
Ditto
Adjuster
-
great plan well exacuted. enjoyed it and my squad with me :)
-
I have email asking for people's take on things. Until I get feedback I can't comment on specifics.
However, after looking at logs I will say I not really happy with what I saw. From what I have heard nothing violated anything I put down as CM. But from the number of kills at timing I would have to say that the fun factor probably was missing and was more a frustrating cat and mouse frame. Strategically fun but not tactically.
A frame of only 7 kills must have been tedious. I don't like trying to shove sides together in a scripted way but allow them to do what they want within the frame work of what is laid down. CiCs do what they want. But I keep an eye on the fun factor and I would say frame 2 was missing it.
I have thought about how to rectify this and will have objectives out for tomorrow but I am scrapping my original idea for frame 3 in light of frame 2 results and instead do one that should guarantee more engagements.
[list=1]
- We will simulate just 1 IJN invasion fleet instead of the 2 I planned and I will move it to move it closer (basically looking for a knife fight) .. say about 3 to 4 sectors from target (A11 on the sea coast). The USAAFFE will not have to worry about flying over mountains to defend.
- I want to give the USAAFFE the ability to attack the IJN fleet so will be checking with squad C.O.s about the following options .. 1) Give the USAAFFEE some P40Es which can dive bomb 2) or SBDs which can dive bomb and then they get second lives just like IJN D3A1 or B5N 3) USAAFFE stays with P40Bs but get 3 or 4 max formations of B17s.
- I was thinking of putting a US fleet in action to simulate that Davao was not destroyed and allowing dead IJN and USAAFFE pilots to man the main guns of their respective fleet. I think that will be scrap this idea as its getting things to complicated.
- Since I am giving the US and IJN both one target to strike and defend I might shift one IJN squad to US. Have to look into the number imbalance issue this frame.
Will be sending out discussion to squad C.O.s and then will based on their feedback will and get out new objectives, etc. tomorrow night.
--
Ghost Dancer C.O.
Nightmares VMF-101
-
I think we all agree that tonights frame was a bit off. Important thing is we learn from it and move on.
-
Originally posted by Gremlin
I think we all agree that tonights frame was a bit off. Important thing is we learn from it and move on.
and why we not learn week ago?
-
hmmm...from the initial set up it looked to be an improvement over last week. I would the axis CO's plans had more to do with it than the set up. Of course I've stated as much already so I'll shut up now. :D
-
Originally posted by bike killa
great plan well exacuted. enjoyed it and my squad with me :)
if somone will give you cube to play, you will be happy to ;-)
-
Originally posted by ghostdancer
I have email asking for people's take on things. Until I get feedback I can't comment on specifics.
However, after looking at logs I will say I not really happy with what I saw. From what I have heard nothing violated anything I put down as CM. But from the number of kills at timing I would have to say that the fun factor probably was missing and was more a frustrating cat and mouse frame. Strategically fun but not tactically.
A frame of only 7 kills must have been tedious. I don't like trying to shove sides together in a scripted way but allow them to do what they want within the frame work of what is laid down. CiCs do what they want. But I keep an eye on the fun factor and I would say frame 2 was missing it.
I have thought about how to rectify this and will have objectives out for tomorrow but I am scrapping my original idea for frame 3 in light of frame 2 results and instead do one that should guarantee more engagements.
[list=1]
- We will simulate just 1 IJN invasion fleet instead of the 2 I planned and I will move it to move it closer (basically looking for a knife fight) .. say about 3 to 4 sectors from target (A11 on the sea coast). The USAAFFE will not have to worry about flying over mountains to defend.
- I want to give the USAAFFE the ability to attack the IJN fleet so will be checking with squad C.O.s about the following options .. 1) Give the USAAFFEE some P40Es which can dive bomb 2) or SBDs which can dive bomb and then they get second lives just like IJN D3A1 or B5N 3) USAAFFE stays with P40Bs but get 3 or 4 max formations of B17s.
- I was thinking of putting a US fleet in action to simulate that Davao was not destroyed and allowing dead IJN and USAAFFE pilots to man the main guns of their respective fleet. I think that will be scrap this idea as its getting things to complicated.
- Since I am giving the US and IJN both one target to strike and defend I might shift one IJN squad to US. Have to look into the number imbalance issue this frame.
Will be sending out discussion to squad C.O.s and then will based on their feedback will and get out new objectives, etc. tomorrow night.
--
Ghost Dancer C.O.
Nightmares VMF-101
Ghostdancer, could you cancel last frame and let Suave run his setup next week? Of course if he is ready
This setup is wont worth to fix
-
Like others I will wait until tomorrow to respond to your additional posts in this thread Ramzey.
I will not comment on them now. However, in light of the email discussion that all squad C.O.s and X.O.s were involved in concerning frame 1 and if that frame was fun or not. In addition too, the general quality of Sunday Squad Ops events and the fact that no other squad agreed with you and your opinions and now you post for cancelling the end of an event because you don't think the next frame can be tweaked / modified to try to make sure the fun factor is re-established
To be professional I have to tell you that you are walking a very, very fine line here.
I will post in detail tomorrow.
My email requesting feedback from the other C.O.s and X.O.s about specific points is now on hold while I gather different feedback.
-
i had fun:) got shot down,,but had fun,,lol<~~was the poor zero that got singled out by your mighty squad
i tried to give ya some hell:) good fight all
-
if somone will give you cube to play, you will be happy to ;-)
I would take a room full of cube players than a room with boys who will never be happy irregardless of what gadget you put in front of them.
Just thought I would mention that. ;)
-
Originally posted by ramzey
if somone will give you cube to play, you will be happy to ;-)
If you asked, i do enjoy other things outside AH also ;)
However in this case i really enjoyed the flight. I can see it could be frustrating for Allies, but atoh it was great plan executed by Axis and this came from the calculations (aha work done be the creator). It's nice to see that someone put his work in it and acheves his goal.
-
As the initial creator of the Frame 2 Axis plan I offer my appologies to the Allied pilots for their frustration in frame 2.
I will not plead ignorance, I knew exactly what I was doing when I put it forward for consideration.
The plan removed the Allied forces from any effective role in the frame bar climbing into certain death. (If they were not caught refueling)
In fact the original plan included more bomber squads than actually participated. It did not need as many zeke squadrons as we used.
The fact that the plan was executed perfectly and with precision (with which those axis squads participating may be proud) meant that there were not even any real error related scraps for the allies to chew on.
For the Allies it was one frustrating frame.
I would accept the critique that it broke the spirit of SO's.
-
I suppose it was "boring" for USAFFE since they could not meet the bombers. What was the reason though?
-IJN CAP (15 zeros) kept the 24 P-40's down and away?
-Refuelling at critical time?
-P-40 performance inability at 25-28k alt?
-P-40 vs Zero performance?
Camo's (and Tilt's, sorry) plan seemed to work perfectly for IJN, S! for that. Was that the cause to lack of fun for USAFFE? There was no way Ju-88's could have made 2 runs anyway (one life only and bases quite far away) so it was natural to make one run only. Too bad if they were not there to meet the bombers.
For myself this frame was fun even though I saw only a few (maybe 5) enemies a bit below my bomber and only for a minute. Flying bombers in big formation and making it home alive is actually fun sometimes. 5min instant kill runs can always be flown at MA.
7 kills in total sound much more historical to me than some of those frames where hardly anyone returns home.
-
btw, minimum JU-88 pilots required was 4
.... now IJN used 13 Ju-88 pilots.
-
As an allied player last night, I think it is fair to say that allied strategy didnt help either. If flights and refuels were staggered there would certainly have been many more P40s available however even after last weeks frame we didnt learn our lessons and just repeated the strategy which failed us last week. Yes, I still wonder what would have happened evern if all the allied force were able to attack the IJN formation. May not have turned out any different, but we would have at least tried:)
I would *not* be in favour of cancelling frame three.
-
tilt, brilliant tactic
but that was no fun for us allies, 101 squadron didnt even fired a shot.
now my question, did japaneese planes were equiped with oxigen bottles in that phaze of the war?
if my memory serve me right they where NOT.
this could be applied in the rules limmiting the IJN forces to a certien ceiling.
it might ruin the fun for the IJN but:
A: its more historacly correct.
B: it will give the allies a chance to fight back
-
Flyboy,
good suggestion about alt limit. The more historical, the better and also more fun.... at least for me :)
Oxygen is actually one aspect that has not been considered in AH. There should be a bottle which can run out for those planes that had it and others should suffer blacking out if they go too high for too long!!!!! Could someone suggest this to HTC !!!!
This would very effectively limit or restrict the high altitude flights and would make it all more historical, intresting and possibly more action packed.
Maybe the CM's should also get a power to enable oxygen bottles of different sizes for all planes so that some plane types could be used as replacements for missing types.
-
btw, at least the altitude had "some" effect to Ju-88's in last frame. Above some altitude the manifold gauges stopped working... we all thought and speculated that they were frozen :)
-
yeah! that's good idea :)
Till we have that feature we could confider some alt restrictions tho... but then it was mentiones some time ago and overall opinion was that this is not a good idea to restrict the alt. Maybe it's time to think abou it?
-
What was the axis objective?
As it seemed to me that not a lot of damage was done, was either airfield destoryed?
So from that point looks like the allied fighters did thier job, with out firing a shot:).
I agree good tactics for the axis well researched and well planned and excuted.
But like Tilt said
"I would accept the critique that it broke the spirit of SO's."
I would agree.
But on a personal note, yes it was the most boring SSO I have taken part in, and one out of all the SO's I have taken part in, thats not bad %:).
Thx to Warloc for leading us.
RGJ
PS. I am not for cancelling the next frame
-
First of all, I'd like to apologize to those that didnt have fun.
The axis plan was to minimize losses while fulfilling our bomber mission. The attack time was calculated so we'd hit the allied while they were refueling. The axis squadrons executed the plan perfectly. I received reports that over half of the allied force was refueling just as the Ju88s calibrated their bomb sights.
The high altitude of the bombers practically removed the allied from the game altogether. While a good plan as such, it was probably not in the spirit of SquadOps. The bombers should have been brought in at a lower altitude. Again, I apologize for that.
Generally speaking, do people participate in the SquadOps for the air combat action or to experience as historically accurate mission results as possible?
Camo
Axis CO
-
It was a poor SSO, axis damaged very little and allies damaged little too.
P40 max is 30 k, Zeke 36 k, put bombers at 30 k (historically in- accurate too) and nothing is going to happen.
ah well
wipass
-
wipass,
Ju-88's could not climb higher than 29k and even then it was very hard to keep them in formation. During the bomb run we were all between 25 and 28k.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/ju88a4climb.gif)
-
It's ok blauk :)
our p40's at 25 k were not very good either
wipass
-
Basicly to me it looks as we have a very frustrated Allied side of this frames SSO, based on the fact that they had to fly approx 60 min of area CAP before spotting any enemys,
and when Axis forces show up we are too high for them.
The P-40 where too low to even try to engage the JU-88īs and Axis fighters were very strict on just protecting bombers and not engaging in furballs with the low P-40īs
The few P-40īs that was high (30k alt) over targets (A-10/A-11) before JU-88 came in was draged down by Axis fighters.
Maybe it is just the fact that the Axis squads knows the big advantage the A6m2 has over the P-40 at higher alt and is using that, that has thrown the Allied squads of now.
But I can admit that JU-88īs at 25-28k is too fast for any fighter of this time to even try too catch up or attack it.
-
The main problem is not Tilt's tactics - it is great and right.
The problem is setup:
[list=1]
- Planeset is not really balanced P-40B is outperformed in allmost all by Zerro.
- IJN get 2 lives for bombers ? When did it heppen last time in SSO?
- Ju88 just has no place there - they can outrun p-40b when light - and how do you suggest to intercept them with cover of 30k Zerros? At least turn formations off.
- What wrong with Vals - looks like they should be main bombers for IJN - at least that will give better chances for interseption
- Fuel settings 1.5 - if it was reduced to 1.0 it will make the setup more ballanced and would require less refules for USAF
- Alt limit - I do not think it is good idea to set it up. But it is possible to make restrictions for bombers alt to 20k - that is much more reasonable then for fighters that can go high during combat
- But there are many other ways to ballance the setup - give limited P-40E or force more bombers for IJN.
Most important part of each senario is ballance and if it is not present it is impossible to have a fun (at least not for all of us)
-
I had no intention of patrolling my squad's P40s higher than 25k. At frame start I simply didn't believe any buffs would be higher than that, in fact I thought 25k might actually be too high :) If we had been at 30k our performance edge over the Ju88s meant we would not have accomplished very much, even if they had been unescorted.
Congrats to the Axis for doing the unexpected but... the plan was a only really a success in that it kept the bombers safe (it could hardly have done otherwise). Should not the Axis' primary objective have been to destroy the fields, rather than conserve aircraft through avoiding combat? Only light damage was inflicted to the bases after all.
Anyway I am also not in favour of cancelling frame 3. The setup is OK IMO, lets put this one down to experience and move on.
Vladd
-
Great Plan - well executed. Had fun and so did squad.
I participate here because of the immersion, the requirement for discipline and need for intelligent tactical planning.
The aim is to complete the task and come home alive. It is in those two achievements that satisfaction is gained. This week we achieved everything and we gained maximum satisfaction.
I get sick to death of the whines that come from same predictable prima-donnas whenever a furball fails to materialise or whenever they get shot.
I had two words for them but have managed to refine it to one -
"LEAVE".
-
Artik,
Thank you for the comments.
Planeset is not really balanced P-40B is outperformed in allmost all by Zerro.
Matter of debate on just how much teh P40B is better than the A6M2. It has its advantages but it is definitely more of a challenge to fly versus the A6M2 in this match up. I don't believe it is a hopelss match up though.
IJN get 2 lives for bombers ? When did it heppen last time in SSO?
We have done 2 lives for early war bombers before in FSO and SSO (haven't been in the pacific for a long time in SSO). It makes up for the fact that person flying these planes are basically dead if fighters come across them.
Remember in frame 1 2nd lives made very little difference because of the timing of the IJN strikes. And in frame 2 they didn't use any (JU88s did not get 2nd lives). So was a non issue but allowed those assigned to D3A1s a chance at flying something else late in the frame that gives them more of a chance for fun.
SBDs for allies will also have 2nd lives.
Ju88 just has no place there - they can outrun p-40b when light - and how do you suggest to intercept them with cover of 30k Zerros? At least turn formations off.
Granted JU88s are not a good stand in for Betties. And actually they are not a good stand in for He111s as the allies found out in frame 3 of the battle of Britain for FSO.
What wrong with Vals - looks like they should be main bombers for IJN - at least that will give better chances for interseption
Nothing is wrong with vals. JU88s were given as an option to simulate the medium bomber forces coming in from Taiwan to bomb. The IJN were given this option and took it and the IJN did up quite a few JU88s in frame 2. To very little affect as others pointed out. They went high and became very innaccurate for the amount of bombers they had and bombs dropped. Which is the cost of going high.
I personally prefer JABO strikes but that is me and I will not micromanage a CiCs battle plans.
However, the JU88s had more of an impact than I thought they would. Not battle wise they just scratch the based but in the fun factor. The IJN had fun with them the allies were bored and watched the JU88s basically bomb rice paddies instead of hangars.
Fuel settings 1.5 - if it was reduced to 1.0 it will make the setup more ballanced and would require less refules for USAF
Fuel setting was 1.0 not 1.5. However, there are those suggesting this just made things worst. Since it gave the IJN plenty of time to stage, get to alt, and take a round about method instead of having to get to the target much sooner and lower to have enough fuel to get home.
But fuel setting was 1.0.
Alt limit - I do not think it is good idea to set it up. But it is possible to make restrictions for bombers alt to 20k - that is much more reasonable then for fighters that can go high during combat
Alt limit is under discussion for future similiar circumstances. If B17s are used frame 3 by the allies there will be one keeping them from going into the 30s. If we go with the SBD option advocated by Flyboy instead and have SBD strikes versus D3A1 strikes there will be no alt limit. Dive bombers have to come down some time and diving from 30K is difficult to say the least.
But there are many other ways to ballance the setup - give limited P-40E or force more bombers for IJN.
Frame 1, from the majority of the C.O.s and X.O.s communications, seemed to be fine. Frame 2 is the one we have issues with and making adjustments for.
Thank you for your polite feedback.
-
Vladd good observation. The IJN kept their planes safe but as you point out had very little affect on taking out the US airfields.
So again the frame really goes to the US since Clark airfield and its sister airfield are almost fully operational and ready for the invasion. Something the Japanese wanted to make absolutely sure did not happen in real life.
However, the real issue was the fun factor for both sides. The IJN had the fun of pulling off, cooridanting, etc. a deep range strike. The Allied did not have fun.
-
reducing the fuel burn to 1.0 allowed the zekes to stay up all frame.......and then some. Actually, given that the P40'es would have to enter refuelling patterns any way, a higher burn rate (say 1.5) would have meant that the zeke could not hold cap for the full frame and the Ju88's would have had to hit earlier............. and therefore lower.
The irony was that the very thing done as a response to frame 1 enabled us to do what we did in frame 2...............
Moral........becareful what you wish for.................
Re field damage...........any one looking would have seen that 10 and 11 was covered in crators............. whan camo changed the plan (as was his right) from 3 bomber squads to 2 my thoughts were........."well he may have a point".......in retrospect I think the additional 8 x 10 x 3 =240 bombs per target field of the 9GIAP would have been significant.
-
I have not gotten responses back from every squad yet. But here is the responses I have gotten from the commanding staff of the squads participatin so far in response to Ramzey call to cancel frame 3:
Don't Cancel = 880 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Don't Cancel = 101"RED" Sqn, ISRAEL
Don't Cancel = 56 firebirds (fiter) squadron RAF
Don't Cancel = 308 (Polish) Sqd "City of Cracow"
Don't Cancel = 9 GIAP VVS RKKA
Don't Cancel = The Wings of Death
Don't Cancel = Lentolaivue 34
Cancel = 315 (Polish) Sqd "City of Deblin" RAF
Not reponded yet = 332nd Viking Squadron
Not reponded yet = Lentolaivue 32
I will wait a bit longer to make sure that the last 3 squads have their say by email. But one way or another I plan to have this resolved tonight.
-
IMHO Scenarios are for immersion, SSOs are to try to achieve that but also to bring a reasonable level of engagement to these very regular turnouts.
I think the weakness in Frame 2 was not having an IJN objective with real value.
The minimal damage inflicted in achieving the IJN objective of just bombing the fields would have meant little in RL other than a waste of much needed IJN resources. Requiring a pre-determined minimum level of damage for victory would probably have brought the bombers in lower with greater engagement all round.
With no offence intended to anyone I felt the frame was pretty impotent, but that's easy to say with hindsight.
all
-
Okay heard from 332nd. Things now stand at:
Don't Cancel = 880 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Don't Cancel = 101"RED" Sqn, ISRAEL
Don't Cancel = 56 firebirds (fiter) squadron RAF
Don't Cancel = 308 (Polish) Sqd "City of Cracow"
Don't Cancel = 9 GIAP VVS RKKA
Don't Cancel = The Wings of Death
Don't Cancel = Lentolaivue 34
Don't Cancel = 332nd Viking Squadron
Cancel = 315 (Polish) Sqd "City of Deblin" RAF
Not reponded yet = Lentolaivue 32
So that is 8 to 1 with 1 not heard from.
Frame 3 of Invasion Philippines is a go. Objectives will be going out tonight.
Suave's SSO will follow after frame 3.
-
Originally posted by artik
The main problem is not Tilt's tactics - it is great and right.
The problem is setup:
[list=1]
- Planeset is not really balanced P-40B is outperformed in allmost all by Zerro.
- IJN get 2 lives for bombers ? When did it heppen last time in SSO?
- Ju88 just has no place there - they can outrun p-40b when light - and how do you suggest to intercept them with cover of 30k Zerros? At least turn formations off.
- What wrong with Vals - looks like they should be main bombers for IJN - at least that will give better chances for interseption
- Fuel settings 1.5 - if it was reduced to 1.0 it will make the setup more ballanced and would require less refules for USAF
- Alt limit - I do not think it is good idea to set it up. But it is possible to make restrictions for bombers alt to 20k - that is much more reasonable then for fighters that can go high during combat
- But there are many other ways to ballance the setup - give limited P-40E or force more bombers for IJN.
Most important part of each senario is ballance and if it is not present it is impossible to have a fun (at least not for all of us)
I think maybe b5n kate would've been a better choice of level bomber than the ju88 for balance purposes.
-
In hindsight possibly correct. Although the 101st RED sqn, Israel thinks that the TBM would be a better substitute for the betty. Hopefully when AH2 is finished we will get the Betty and He111 for early war events.
I have heard from all the squads now. 9 vote DON'T CANCEL frame 3. 1 votes CANCEL frame 3.
Objectives have been sent (the Allies are going with the SBDs with 2nd life optio over the very, very limited B17 option based on feed back from command staff of squads).
Its ViFF versus Dantoo.
-
Hi all :)
Looks like getting dumped saved me from "death by boredom".
While I'll admit the axis achieved (very limited) objectives, and disregarding that the allies refuelling can be set on your watch, this seems to be a strange way to conduct a battle?, Why would you want to attack the enemy but not destroy his air force?, seems like a short-sighted strategy.
No land attack would succeed while the allies still have (bomb capable?) P-40's and have suffered virtually no aircraft losses.
I'm afraid I'm unimpressed by the axis strategy. Lack of action is a by product of this strategy...
"Once at the enemy, you should not aspire just to strike him, but to cling after the attack"
Miyamoto Musashi
-
Aircraft losses dont really count for anythin g in SqOps, do they? Even if all P-40's were destroyed there would still be a plane for each and every allied pilot in next frame.
If the given task was to kill the P-40's then I guess IJN failed terribly. IJN shoul d have taken the min 4 ju-88's and then just zeros to kill the enemy fighters. If the task was to bomb 2 bases it was a success, even tough a very minor one if the damage is counted in hangars and objects. Still what would be the point to kill hangars when only one is needed to up the whole allied force in AH.
In many earlier SqOps bombing missions I have heard "just drop them in the base area" and then screenshots have been taken or craters verified (counted?) afterwards to figure out the target stage. Now I dont really know what is the proper way to play "historical" bombing missions in SqOps. Are people supposed to just hunt the objects or is the mission also properly executed if the rwy is full of craters?
Maybe mission tasks should be explained with further details.
-
It depends on the individual squad ops.
For example in the just recently ended FSO (Battle of Britain) points were given for percentage of target destroyed (so actual objects had to be destroyed). Points were also given to both sides for losses of aircraft for all reasons off the opposing side.
So while the next frame both sides got to reup all planes planes losses could tip the frame one or another for victory in that frame.
For example in frame 3 the LW bombed london and did 83% damage. They got 502 points out of a possible 600 max. So the RAF goal was to stop the bombing (destruction of objects) and prevent them from scoring points. But then each side also got 10 pts for each fighter lossed, 20 points for me110s and 25 points to JU88s. So besides preventing points the RAF was able to score points be destroying the opposing airforce. The LW got the same.
In frame 3 the point spread was 107 to the LW. It was close, they got through but took losses. Problem was that the RAF took much heavier air to air losses trying to stop them.
Now in Invasion Phillipines the point structure is not clearly laid out. But yes, both factors are consider .. destruction of objects and the type of object. The goal of the IJN is to destroy the american ability to field aircraft and naval forces (like in real life). Obviously for game play we are not going to restrict how many fighters can up, etc.
But it is kept in mind. Which is why I judge frame 1 and 2 goes to the allies. The bases were hit but still very operational. 2 out of 3 naval bases in the south full up. The Allied airfields in the N only lightly damaged.
Next is air to air losses. They have been equal so far. The IJN want to first destroy the american bases (historical would be hard to fly with no spare parts, ammo, etc.) and then of course wipe out the american air opposition to the invasion.
Unlike Warloc (admin CM for FSO) I don't go by an official point score but look at the results of what is hit and losses on both sides and then judge the level of victory.
The plans of frame 1 and frame 2 were well executed and good plans for the IJN. But the results left in place operational naval bases and airfields and the allied airforce for the most part. Leaving the americans the ability to oppose the invasion (even if we did start factoring in losses and preventing both sides from up what they lossed).
I will try to be more clear on that in the future. And will fire off a note to the command staff of the squads clarifying this.
The allies are striving for survival and keeping their bases operational so that they can try to stop the invasion. The IJN were striving at destroying the allied ability to field planes and ships. Destroy their bases and inflict air losses. This is what is being used for this particular SSO for determining victory.
-
Excellent write up Ghostdancer :)
-
Good clarification. So next time if a base is targeted it is good to mention that the actual objects need to get hit.
In last frame the IJN order was just to carpet bomb the bases and not target individual objects.
In object hunting precise dive bombings are the way to do it.
-
Originally posted by BlauK
wipass,
Ju-88's could not climb higher than 29k and even then it was very hard to keep them in formation. During the bomb run we were all between 25 and 28k.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/ju88a4climb.gif)
HAhem *cough*
(http://hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/p40bclimb.gif)
i rest my case ;)
-
Flyboy,
the left line in P-40 chart is "500 feet/min" while in Ju-88 it is "0 feet/min" ;)