Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: TheBug on February 26, 2006, 04:32:22 PM
-
Ok here's a rough draft:
It would be a 5 week rotation, starting date would be August 1940 and ending date would be August 1945. Therefore each day of the setup would represent approx. 2 months of the war. I prefer to leave a plane enabled for the duration once it's service date is released, but can see arguments for dropping planes as the RPS progresses, when Germany is knocked out of the war for example. Any thoughts on this?
Also planes could be added based on service dates alone, not necessarily waiting till their respective nation was at war on the timeline. Zero,Kates and Vals on day 1 instead of day 11 for example.
Also the map or maps to be used is open to discussion.
Again this is a rough draft and open to conctructive criticism, I am certain it needs tweaking from a gameplay perspective. There are no subs represented at the moment but may need to take that into consideration. I think a full RPS in the AvA has a good chance to draw some numbers and hopefully entice a few to stick around for the other "traditional" CT setups.
Looking forward to everyone's input.
Day #1 Aug-Sep 1940-
Hurricane Mk I
Spitfire Mk Ia
Bf 109e-4
Bf 110c-4b
Ju 87d-3
Day #6 Apr-May 1941
Ju-88
Hurricane MkIIc
Spitfire MkV
Boston Mk III
P40-B
Day #7 June-July 1941
Bf 109f-4
Day #8 Aug-Sep 1941
P40-e
Day #9 Oct-Nov 1941
Macchi 202
Day #11 Dec '41- Jan 1942
A6m2
B5N2
D3A-1
F4f-4
Day #12 Feb-Mar 1942
Lancaster III
Day #13 Apr-May 1942
A20-G
B26-B
Bf 110g-2
Day # 14 June-July 1942
Hurricane IId
Bf 109g-2
Day #15 Aug-Sep 1942
Spitfire MkIX
Day #16 Oct-Nov 1942
Seafire IIc
Il-2 Type 3
P-38G
Day #18 Dec 1942-Jan 1943
Yak 9-T
Macchi 205
Day # 19 Feb-Mar 1943
Bf109G-6
F4u-1
TBM-3
P-47D-11
La-5FN
Day #20 Apr-May 1943
B-24J
SBD-5
Day #21 June-July 1943
Fw-190A5
Ki-61
B-17G
Typhoon IB
Mosquito MkVI
Spitfire VIII
Day #22 Aug-Sep 1943
A6m5b
Day # 25 Dec'43-Jan 1944
P-38J
P-51B
Day # 26 Feb-Mar 1944
Fw 190A-8
Day #27 Apr-May 1944
F4u-1D
P-47D-25
P51-D
Spitfire Mk XIV
Fw 190F-8
Ki-67
Day #28 June-July 1944
FM-2
P-38L
F6f-5
Tempest V
Spitfire Mk XVI
La-7
Yak 9u
Bf 109G-14
Day #29 Aug-Sep 1944
Me-163
Ki-84-Ia
Day #30 Oct-Nov 1944
Bf109k-4
Me-262
Day #31 Dec'44-Jan 1945
Ar-234
Fw 190D-9
Ta-152H
P-47D-40
N1k2-J
Day #33 Apr-May 1945
F4u-1c
F4u-4
Day #34 June-July 1945
P-47N
Tour Ends at the completion of Day #35.
-
that is horrible, they'll probably do it
-
Originally posted by storch
that is horrible, they'll probably do it
Best possible endorsement.
Thanks for the write up Bug.:aok
-
what did I tell you they are as predictable as their monthly cycle.
-
Originally posted by storch
that is horrible, they'll probably do it
That sounds like reason enough to do it. If they do use this set will you do us a favor a leave for 5 weeks since you dont approve?
-
As a personal and squad-based (my own squad at least) opinion, I amd all for both leaving aircraft in for the whole rotation once they are enabled, and for allowing aircraft in based on service dates rather than date its country entered the war. Both for similar reasons.
Our squad, being a Romanian 109 squad, historically flew the 109E3, E4, and E7 until they were replaced by the 109G2. For historical ops (for us) this would cause a problem if the 109E was removed when the 109F became enabled. For squads based in other theaters, this could also be accurate because just because an aircraft is available, doen't mean it had reached all fronts yet. Just look at the 14th AAF in China or the RAF in North Africa as an example.
Also, I support the inclusion of aircraft before their country was actively involved for two reasons- lend-lease and subs. Like the fact that the Soviets and RAF flew P-40s well before December 1941. And substitute wise, the A6M2 is a great sub for the early model IAR 80s we could fly as another ARR ride (even though our particular squad never flew them). I know we were considering making the Zero (IAR) and Ki61 (poor He112) our main rides in the event of a PTO planeset.
I know those are selfish causes, but I figured I had better explain my reasons for endorsement beyond a simple "I like it". :)
-
Day 34 - second MA?
-
Yeah, its only for a day or two, but it would make the furballers happy. :)
Thats my only reservation about it, I'll probably avoid that last week- I prefer early to mid-war matchups.
-
Does that meen that "AvA" would stand for "Any VS All"?:confused:
-
Well here is the problem with the AvA atm...
We do have the planes to make good ETO rpses but we dont have enough russian, japanese and italian planes to make any good rpses for the other theatres.
As it is now on the fin rus setup we actually run half of it without ANY russian made planes.
Imagine the PTO rps with only two zekkes a nik and a Ki84... wooo hoo massive...
We cant run ETO rpses all the time as that would get booring. We need to mix it up but we dont have the planes to do it in a good way.
So what do we do?
1. Stick to ETO only.
2. Mix ETO with a "fictional" rps like the one above.
3. Talk HT into allowing community to contribute with plane modeling.
Thats the only three alternatives I see.
Tex
-
I dont think we have to to stick with an ETO only RPS. Obviously the PTO would be more limited and most likely will be alot shorter. But it can be done.
-
Originally posted by Slash27
I dont think we have to to stick with an ETO only RPS. Obviously the PTO would be more limited and most likely will be alot shorter. But it can be done.
Agreed. A PTO RPS could run over two weeks and still show the progress from the Guadalcanal planes to the Okinawa set.
- oldman (...er...someone want to come up with such a thing?)
-
In addition, remove that planes not in use by time and we don't have
a second MA i think.
-
you could do PTO/MTO on a watery part of the map and ETO on the land side. fun for all no one excluded and run the full planes set including the F4U-4. the question becomes what map? or you could do alternating weeks PTO then ETO start PTO early war and start ETO late war and regress, at mid tour it would be mid war for two weeks, the most popular planes for many of us are the mid war set.
-
Id love it. I look forward to the days the planes I love are released. I do think that day 35 shouldnt be the last day though. Id recommend running a week of all planes available so that the guys who just got the F4uC and P47N can enjoy them awhile.
-
ETO/PTO..... How about a map to reflect the NATO:aok
(NORTH AFRICA THEATER )
-
You've got some fundamental flaws in the system as you outlined it now.
First thing I noticed was that the spit9 comes out quite a few days before the 190a5 does. The 190A actually came out FIRST and created the need for the spit9. I know the a5 isn't the a3, but introducing the spit9 with the next closest enemy being the 109G-2 isn't going to be the same as spit9 vs 190a5.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
You've got some fundamental flaws in the system as you outlined it now.
First thing I noticed was that the spit9 comes out quite a few days before the 190a5 does. The 190A actually came out FIRST and created the need for the spit9. I know the a5 isn't the a3, but introducing the spit9 with the next closest enemy being the 109G-2 isn't going to be the same as spit9 vs 190a5.
Layout is a rough draft only, using service dates as the only criteria(except for the p40s which I kinda fit in as the Kittyhawks). As I mentioned gameplay would become the next limiting factor and also the point where ideas like yours and Loddar's come in very handy. That being the case I don't see any "flaws" in my service dates, but maybe that's just a poor choice of words on your part??
The idea isn't to say here's a set-up, like it or leave but to generate a dialogue as a community of adults and come to some common, globally beneficial ground.
How could it be expected of us to come together and create models for the game if we can't even maturely generate setups for this arena.
This message isn't directly intended for ANY posts in this thread, just trying to make sure we all keep on track. I can sense this subject being a flashpoint, hence my preemptive post. :-)
So far a good case has been made to drop planes from the planeset as time goes on, also an equally good counter-point to this has been made. But in the name of gameplay I myself tend to lean towards dropping planes, and to keep from that MA feel. Next excellent point is placement of the 190A5. Should Spit IX and 190A5 arrive together? One arriving before the other is definitely going to be an imbalance(not something I am totally trying to avoid) and at least the Spit IX has the correct date over the 190A5.
Keep the opinions coming. I think this one done right has the chance to draw the best numbers seen in AvA since AH1. But it's going to take putting our heads together.
Thanks for the replies so far.
-
By "flaws" I did not mean in the dates, as in "errors", I meant mis-matches, and the like.
EDIT: oh, and you suggest enabling spit9 and 190a5 on the same day -- this would probably be best. If you go by type introduction (190a5 sub for a3) the spitV is outclassed by the 190a5 for several days, and if you go by service dates the spit9 outclasses the rest of the axis for several days. I think having them both show up at the same time is a good compromise. However, that's just 1 opinion :)
-
F4u's whoohooo!!!!!
-
he's pitting the spitV against 109E as well
-
Originally posted by storch
he's pitting the spitV against 109E as well
No I'm not. The service dates are.
Avoid the controversy, there is nothing to be gained. You have no effect upon me.
A legitimate complaint a crappy approach. What is the true goal you are striving for? I wish it was for a good setup, but if it is what I think you are aiming at... You will never win against me.
-
That was another problem I had with the setup. Malta showed us that the 109E just cannot stand up to spitVs or hurr2s. It's no comparison. However, I really don't see any way around it. We don't have the later E7s and the like that kept pressure on until the F-2s showed up (in real life, I mean). There's really not too much we can do except maybe introduce the F4 early as an F-2 substitute.
-
not likely krusty, the slant favoring the allies is so engrained that it will never be otherwise. we have ack that does not die on allied bases such as at A9 vs ack that does not come back on axis bases, furthermore the allies have roving ack wagons cruising a stone's throw from the beach at A10. meanwhile the german bases to the south are denied panzers. still if we look at the K/D ratio I suspect the axis are giving as good or better than they are getting even if the allied players seldomly leave the more than generous ack sphere they are afforded.
-
May be old info to the vets but not for noobs.
Me109e
Me 109E. A major change came with the Me 109E, which used the 960hp Daimler-Benz DB 600 engine (an inverted V-12 like the Jumo) but had a three-blade propeller and a markedly different radiator arrangement under the nose. Production Es with 1,100hp DB 600A engines entered service with the Luftwaffe early in 1939. During its production life, a wide variety of armament was incorporated in the E, and the nose-mounted cannon was standard equipment.
Certain other Es had cannon in their wings. Provision was also made for the installation of under-wing bomb racks, and a 300-liter drop tank or a 550-pound bomb could be carried under the fuselage.
In the early spring of 1944, Bf 109G-10 production
replaced Bf 109G-6 production. The G-10 was to use the
DB 605B series engine, which had an increased-
diameter supercharger and a raised compression ratio.
In combat, the Me 109E was slightly superior to the British Hurricane I and far better than the Curtiss Kittyhawk. Its performance equaled that of the early British Spitfires.
Hurricane
The Hawker Hurricane was the first operational R.A.F. aircraft capable of a top speed in excess of 300 m.p.h. The design of the Hurricane, directed by Sydney Camm, was the outcome of discussions with the Directorate of Technical Development towards the end of 1933, aimed at breaking the deadlocked biplane formula. In these discussions Camm proposed a monoplane, based otherwise on his Fury biplane, using the proposed new Rolls-Royce P.V.12 engine (later to become the Merlin), and in time incorporating a retractable undercarriage. Originally, in concert with current armament requirements, a four-gun battery was proposed; but in 1934, with successful negotiations to licence-build the reliable Colt machine gun, it was deemed possible to mount an eight-gun battery in the wings, unrestricted by the propeller arc and thus dispensing with synchronising gear.
The first Fighter Command squadron to receive Hurricanes was No. 111, commanded by Sqdn. Ldr. John Gillan, based at Northolt before Christmas 1937; and it was the squadron's C.O. who flew one of the new fighters from Turnhouse, Edinburgh to Northolt, London at an average ground speed of 408.75 mph (659.27km/h) - a feat which earned the pilot the nickname "Downwind Gillan" for all time. Nos. 3 and 56 Squadrons took delivery during 1938, though the latter was not operational at the time of the Munich Crisis in September of that year. By the outbreak of war a year later 497 Hurricanes had been completed from an order book totalling no less than 3,500. At about this time the Gloster Aircraft Company started sub-contract manufacture of the standard Mark 1, which was now emerging from the factories with metal wings and three-blade variable-pitch propellers. One final refinement was adopted between the outbreak of war and the opening of the Battle of Britain; this was the Rotol constant-speed propeller which, apart from enabling the pilot to select an optimum pitch for take-off, climb, cruise And combat (thus bestowing a better performance under some of these conditions) also prevented the engine from overheating in a dive.
Spit Mk 1
The ancestry of the Spitfire can be traced back to the failed Supermarine Type 224, designed to meet the Air Ministry specification F.7/30 by Reginald J. Mitchell, creator of the magnificent Supermarine seaplanes which won three successive Schneider Trophy contests. The Type 224 was a gull-winged monoplane with a fixed "trousered" undercarriage, powered by a 600-h.p. Rolls-Royce engine, and Mitchell was dissatisfied with it even before it flew. He began to design a new aircraft as a private venture; the conception was revised twice, to incorporate the new P.V.12 (Merlin) engine and an eight-gun battery and the final design was accepted by the Air Ministry in January 1935, the new specification F.37/34 being "written around it" for contract purposes. The prototype first flew on 5th March 1936.
The first order for 310 machines was placed three months later, followed by a further 200 the following year shortly before the tragic death of its designer at the age of 42. In April 1938 the Nuffield Organisation was awarded an order for 1,000 Spitfires to be built at a shadow plant planned for Castle Bromwich near Birmingham, and further orders in 1939 brought the number of aircraft on the order book to a total of 2,143 by the outbreak of war.
Between August and December 1938 No. 19 Squadron at Duxford was equipped with the Spitfire Mk.1. By the outbreak of war nine squadrons were fully equipped and two others were in the process of conversion. A total of 1,583 Spitfire Is were built. Deliveries of the Mk. II (basically a Mk. I powered by a 1,175-h.p. Merlin XII) began in June 1940, but widespread re-equipment with the new version did not commence until the following winter, and it was the Mk. 1 which bore the brunt of the fighting during the Battle of Britain; by July 7th nineteen Fighter Command Squadrons were operational with the type
The performance of the Spitfire Mk I and the Messershmitt Bf-109E was very similar. The former possessed a better turning radius at any height and was slightly faster below 15,000 feet, but the Messerschmitt was superior in the climb and marginally faster above 20,000 feet. The Messerschmitt's Daimler-Benz DB 601A engine had the advantage of fuel injection which enabled the aircraft to bunt (push negative g at the top of a manoeuvre or climb) without losing power. The Merlin engine of the Spitfire had a float-type carburettor which necessitated the aircraft performing the longer manoeuvre of rolling inverted before diving to maintain positive g, thus preventing the engine from cutting out as a result of fuel starvation.
-
Gear, common error in several books (keeps getting re-published, it seems) -- the 109E never had a nose cannon in any production model. It was only tested and evaluated but the severe vibrations caused instant jamming (or some such). The 109E never had a hub cannon, despite being designed to take one. This is oft-quoted and always wrong.
I believe the G-14 replaced the G-6, and the G-10 came later, towards the end of 1944.
Originally posted by gear
and the nose-mounted cannon was standard equipment.
[snip]
In the early spring of 1944, Bf 109G-10 production
replaced Bf 109G-6 production.
Just a little spin control :)
Otherwise an informative post for those wanting to know.
-
okay I'll recheck my resources.:aok
http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/messersc/bf109e3.htm (http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/messersc/bf109e3.htm)
http://svsm.org/gallery/Bf-109E-3 (http://svsm.org/gallery/Bf-109E-3)
-
Here's the 109 I fly on a regular basis.Note the target on the side:aok
(http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Gladwin-Simms/3601L.jpg)
-
BF-109E
* The first really satisfactory version of the Bf-109 was the "Bf-109E". The Bf-109-V13, mentioned above, was the first "Bf-109E-0", and was followed by seven more Bf-109E-0s ("Bf-109-V14" through "Bf-109-V20"), with minor variations in equipment fit.
The "Bf-109-V21" and "Bf-109-V22" are stated in some sources as being Bf-109E-0s, but these two prototype numbers are also applied to the initial two "F" series prototypes, discussed in the next chapter. Duplication of the designations seems unlikely, and given the fact that earlier prototype versions underwent changes in definition, it is plausible that they started out as "E" prototypes and ended up being "F" prototypes instead.
The initial "Bf-109E-1" subvariant was first delivered to the Luftwaffe in early 1939 and featured the DB-601A-1 engine, as well as a three-bladed variable-pitch propeller. Although earlier Bf-109 variants had featured a "chin" engine radiator, the Bf-109E moved it to twin radiators, mounted one under each wing. The Bf-109E was not quite as agile as the Bf-109D but it was substantially faster, and in fact was one of the most potent fighters in the world at the time.
The Bf-109E-1 featured armament of four MG-17 7.9-millimeter machine guns, with two in the cowling and two in the wings. The cowling guns had 1,000 RPG, while the wing guns had 420 RPG.
Twenty Bf-109E-1s were turned out in time to be sent to Condor Legion in Spain before the civil war ended in March 1939. By this time, Nationalist resistance was faltering, and the new fighters met little opposition. In the end, a total of some 200 Luftwaffe pilots served with the Condor Legion, obtaining combat experience that would make Germany's fighter pilots an elite in the campaigns to come. They left the twenty Bf-109E-1s behind for the Spaniards.
Manufacture of the Bf-109E, presently referred to as the "Emil" by Luftwaffe pilots, continued to ramp up, although Messerschmitt production was shifted from Augsburg to Regensburg to make way for the Bf-110 twin-engine fighter. Other aircraft manufacturers were brought in to help feed the Luftwaffe's appetite for the Bf-109.
* By the time Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, the Luftwaffe was flying about 850 Bf-109Es and 235 Bf-109Ds. The invasion was a complete success, overwhelming Polish resistance in a rapid "Blitzkrieg (Lightning War)". A little over 200 Bf-109s participated in the invasion, with 67 being lost, mostly to ground fire. After the invasion, things went quiet again as the British and French went passive, resulting in the "Sitzkrieg (Sitting War)".
However, from the start of the war the British Royal Air Force (RAF) performed small-scale raids on German territory. These actions climaxed in the biggest air battle of 1939, on 18 December 1939, when the RAF attacked Wilhelmshaven in daylight with 24 unescorted Vickers Wellington bombers. The Luftwaffe had a party with them, shooting down 12 of the Wellingtons and damaging three others badly. The Luftwaffe lost of two Bf-109s. The British began to seriously reconsider their tactics.
Air skirmishes over the French border during the Sitzkrieg were intermittent. However, in November, a confused Luftwaffe pilot set an Emil down on the wrong side of the border, with the aircraft eventually ending up in England the following spring for flight tests and mock dogfights with British fighters. An Emil had similarly fallen into French hands back in September, but it had been lost in a mid-air collision before serious evaluation could be conducted with it.
The evaluation showed the Emil completely superior to the Hawker Hurricane in almost all respects, and generally superior to a Spitfire Mark I equipped with a two-bladed propeller. With a three-bladed Rotol propeller, the Spitfire Mark I had the upper hand at high altitude. This particular Messerschmitt is now in the RAF museum at Hendon.
-
The Doras were gradually phased out as new Emil subvariants were introduced. The "Bf-109E-2" was supposed to have been fitted with the MG-FF 20 millimeter Motorkanone, but this subvariant was not actually built.
The "Bf-109E-3" featured a DB-601Aa engine with 1,200 horsepower for take-off. The Bf-109E-3 also had a stronger canopy design; armor plate in the seat and above the pilot's head; and replaced the MG-17 wing guns to MG-FF 20 millimeter cannons with 60 RPG. The bigger weapons required the design of a blister for the lower wing to accommodate them. The pilot had a selector switch to allow firing of one or both cannons.
The definitive Emil variant, the "Bf-109E-4", was very similar to the Bf-109E-3 , but the MG-FF wing cannon were updated to MG-FF/M cannon. The MG-FF/M was externally identical to the MG-FF, but had a "softened" recoil mechanism to allow it to fire high-explosive "mine" shells that proved highly effective. The softened recoil mechanism also resulted in a higher rate of fire.
MESSERSCHMITT BF-109E-3:
_____________________ _________________ _______________________
spec metric english
_____________________ _________________ _______________________
wingspan 9.87 meters 32 feet 4 inches
length 8.64 meters 28 feet 4 inches
height 2.50 meters 8 feet 2 inches
empty weight 1,900 kilograms 4,190 pounds
loaded weight 2,665 kilograms 5,875 pounds
max speed at altitude 560 KPH 350 MPH / 300 KT
service ceiling 10,500 meters 34,500 feet
range 660 kilometers 410 MI / 355 NMI
_____________________ _________________ _______________________
When the Blitzkrieg against the Low Countries and France began in the spring of 1940, the Emil led the way, quickly gaining mastery over all contenders. The offensive was over in a matter of weeks.
The campaign in France had suggested the need for fighter-bomber ("Jagdbomber" or "Jabo") aircraft, and a number of Bf-109s and Bf-110s were experimentally fitted with centerline bomb racks. They performed attacks on Channel shipping, and the combat tests proved so successful that the Luftwaffe decided to create Jabo Bf-109 squadrons.
The first Bf-109 Jabo subvariant, the "Bf-109E-1/B", was a field conversion of existing Bf-109E-1s, featuring a centerline rack for a single 250 kilogram (550 pound) bomb, though more normally they carried a single 50 kilogram (110 pound) bomb to achieve greater range. Bf-109-E4s were also fitted with the rack in production, this modification being given the designation "Bf-109-E4/B". These Jabo subvariants were not fitted with a bombsight as such, but the standard Revi gunsight could be used in dive attacks with some accuracy, and a line was painted on the windscreen to help the pilot with his attack.
The subject of the Bf-109's centerline rack is a confusing issue. Such racks would be fitted to subvariants or modifications of the aircraft through the rest of its evolution, allowing the carriage of a 250 kilogram (550 pound) bomb, four 50 kilogram (110 pound) bombs, or a 300 liter (80 US gallon) drop tank. However, it is very unclear whether the same rack could be alternatively fitted with all three of these stores configurations, or whether different racks handled different subsets of them. As the issue is both insignificant and difficult to resolve, this document makes no judgement on it.
* Despite the success of the Bf-109E in the French campaign, some worries cropped up. For one, the Bf-109's range had proven inadequate. For another, the Bf-109E had come up against the British Supermarine Spitfire fighter while the Luftwaffe had ineffectually tried to stop the mass evacuation of Allied troops at Dunkirk, and the British fighter had proven a formidable opponent.
These worries would become critical as the Luftwaffe shifted its attention across the English Channel. At first, things went well for the Luftwaffe. After the beginning of the Battle of Britain on 13 August 1940, the Bf-109s were allowed to range freely and engage British fighters at will, using the fluid tactics devised by Moelders in Spain. The British were trained in traditional inflexible formation tactics that put them at a disadvantage, but the RAF quickly adopted the Luftwaffe's tactics.
While the Bf-109s ranged freely, the job of protecting the bombers fell to the twin-engine Bf-110s. It didn't work. The Bf-110s were slaughtered, and so by early September the Bf-109s were ordered to operate as bomber escorts. Forced into a defensive posture, the Bf-109 was at a disadvantage relative to Hurricanes and Spitfires.
The limited range of the Bf-109 was also proving a liability, as it could not stay over the battle area for long before having to return home. After the bombings campaign was switched from British airfields to British cities, the RAF began to gain the upper hand.
The last action of the Battle of Britain was on 31 October 1940. The British had lost 631 Hurricanes, 403 Spitfires, and 115 Blenheim fighters, for a total of 1,149. The Luftwaffe lost 610 Bf-109s, along with 235 Bf-110s and 937 bombers, for a total of 1,782. Worse, many of the British pilots who had to bail out returned to battle the next day. Luftwaffe pilots who bailed out went to prisoner of war camps.
From a tactical point of view, the battle was not all that lopsided and could be regarded as a stand-off. However, it was a moral victory for the British, who had been the first to stand up to Hitler and make him back off, and a moral defeat for the Luftwaffe, who had been used to victories.
* Nonetheless, the Bf-109 was still a dangerous adversary, and its cannon armament was devastatingly effective against RAF fighters armed with rifle-caliber machine guns, another lesson the RAF would absorb. Werner Moelders was the first of Hitler's Luftwaffe pilots to exceed 50 kills, with Adolf Galland close behind him.
The Luftwaffe was still enthusiastic for the Bf-109, and new versions of the Emil were rolled out. The uprated DB-601N powerplant, with 1,200 horsepower for take-off, was fitted to the to produce the "Bf-109E-4/N" modification.
"Fighter reconnaissance" subvariants were produced, such as the "Bf-109E-5" and "Bf-109E-6", which deleted the wing guns and featured a camera in the rear fuselage. The Bf-109E-5 was fitted with the DB-601Aa engine, while the Bf-109E-6 was fitted with the uprated DB-601N engine.
A long-range fighter / Jabo variant, the "Bf-109E-7", was produced with a rack for a 300 liter (80 US gallon) centerline drop tank or 250 kilogram (550 pound) bomb. A "Bf-109E-7/U2" modification was produced for ground attack with armor protection for critical engine systems, and a "Bf-109E-7/Z" modification was built for high-altitude operation using GM-1 nitrous oxide engine boost. The nitrous oxide provided supplemental oxidizer for the engine, with the nitrous oxide bottle placed under the pilot's seat. However, the gear was heavy, and its placement disturbed the balance of the aircraft, leading to unpleasant stall-spin characteristics.
Meanwhile, in Africa, after being introduced to the theater in April 1941, the Bf-109E was enjoying the success to which it had been accustomed, racking up large numbers of kills against RAF Hurricanes and Kittyhawks. The Emil was modified for African operations by being fitted with engine sand filters and a desert survival kit. The survival kit contained food and water, a lightweight carbine, signal equipment, and other gear. The result were the "tropicalized" subvariant modifications, designated with the suffix "Trop". "Bf-109E-4/Trop", "Bf-109E-5/Trop", and "Bf-109E-7/Trop" subvariants were introduced.
The last two major subvariants of the Emil were the "Bf-109E-8" and the "Bf-109E-9". The Bf-109E-8 was similar to the Bf-109E-1 in having an armament of four MG-17 7.9 millimeter guns, but had a DB-601E engine with 1,350 horsepower for take-off, and a centerline rack for a bomb or drop tank.
The Bf-109E-9 was a long-range reconnaissance version, with a camera in the rear fuselage, two 7.9 millimeter machine guns in the cowling, and a centerline rack. Some sources claim it had the DB-601E engine and no wing guns, while others say it had the earlier DB-601N engine and an MG-FF 20 millimeter cannon under each wing. The first configuration seems slightly more plausible, since the DB-601N would have been a throwback to earlier subvariants, and wing guns were not fitted to other reconnaissance subvariants of the Bf-109. The mission did not call for heavy armament and removal of the wing guns compensated for the weight of the camera.
In any case, the Bf-109E-8 and Bf-109E-9 were only built in small quantities. They were the last of the roughly 4,000 Emils built. Luftwaffe interest had clearly moved on to something more advanced.
-
Originally posted by TheBug
Keep the opinions coming. I think this one done right has the chance to draw the best numbers seen in AvA since AH1. But it's going to take putting our heads together.
Thanks for the replies so far.
Bug,
Obviously there are going to be issues with the rolling plane set because we don't have the "whole" historic plane set. I think what we might want to try and replicate is the historic change of "balance" that took place.
Using the FWs as an example, if we don't have an A3/A4 then bring in the A5 for a day or two.. then the MKIX to counter the FW advantage.
Perhaps we could also not do the WHOLE plane set in one dash.. but in one camp focus on just 1940-43 and the 43-45... still with a rolling introduction?
-
Originally posted by gear
May be old info to the vets but not for noobs.
Me109e
Me 109E. A major change came with the Me 109E, which used the 960hp Daimler-Benz DB 600 engine (an inverted V-12 like the Jumo) but had a three-blade propeller and a markedly different radiator arrangement under the nose. Production Es with 1,100hp DB 600A engines entered service with the Luftwaffe early in 1939. During its production life, a wide variety of armament was incorporated in the E, and the nose-mounted cannon was standard equipment.
Certain other Es had cannon in their wings. Provision was also made for the installation of under-wing bomb racks, and a 300-liter drop tank or a 550-pound bomb could be carried under the fuselage.
Gear,
I would agree with your source on the armament for the 109E but like to add the following.
I am quoting from THE GREAT BOOK OR WWII AIRPLANES
Armament of the early BF109E-1 included the standardized pair of cowl mounted 7.9-mm MG17 machine-guns and a pair of the same weapons installed in the wings. However, based on the successful results of both testing with the V14, and favoring of heavier armament by the RLM, later batches of the E-1 were produced with a pair of 20-mm MG FF cannon in place of the wing-mounted machine guns. The next variant of the Bf109e to reach production was the E-3, incorporating the improved DB601a... and had the provision for the installation of an MG FF cannon between the powerplants' cyclinders. Problems of jamming, overheating and vibration, however, still plagued this modification, and most of the installations were either removed in the field, or seldom used.
Because of the apparent failure of the nose-mounted MG FF cannon, and its subsequent removal after installation, it was decided to produce the Bf109E-3 without the center-firing weapon. The result was the designation change to Bf109E-4, with production deliveries beginning during the summer of 1940.
In short, my source doesn't say they got rid of the wing mounted cannon when they introduced the center firing MG FF, but it does indicate that the center firing MG FF was universally disliked and not used.
-
Hi Bug,
>Ok here's a rough draft:
Looks good! :-)
>Also planes could be added based on service dates alone, not necessarily waiting till their respective nation was at war on the timeline.
I think that's a good idea. Outside of non-combattant nations' aircraft, I'd prefer the use of "first combat mission in squadron strength" instead of service date, but my first impression is that this is close to what you have suggsted.
Here is a link to a thread discussing that topic (containing potentially useful data on service introduction dates etc.):
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26235&highlight=Service
>Again this is a rough draft and open to conctructive criticism, I am certain it needs tweaking from a gameplay perspective.
Though I'm a great fan of historical accuracy, I admit that there might be some setups that suck. This might be made worse by the (necessarily imperfect) modelling in the simulation.
Krusty's comment on the Emil points out one possible area of weakness which could have an impact on gameplay because early in the war, the Emil is virtually the only competent Axis fighter type. Unlike Gear's posts suggest, the Emil was quite competetive against the contemporary Spitfires, including the Spitfire V. If that's not the way it is in Aces High, for example because the DB601N engined variants aren't modelled yet, we might have a playability problem there.
>There are no subs represented at the moment but may need to take that into consideration.
As has already been pointed out, the absence of an early Focke-Wulf model is really noticable on the axis side. I believe the Fw 190A-5 could be safely substitute the Fw 190A-3, as the difference comes down to external weapon capability and radio equipment. However, since there is the still unresolved issue of the extent of engine derating on the Fw 190A-3, this might be controversial :-)
Thanks for starting an RPS discussion! :-) I always thought that the shifting tactical balance dictated by competing technologies was one of the most interesting aspects of WW2 air combat!
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I like the looks of that, personally. Not that it matters, since I don't play, but I think it does a fairly decent job of representing the back and forth swing of the ETO.
-
Well,
Just for the sake of discussion...
How difficult is it to add a new plane.. whose artwork would be so similar to the A5 as to have negligible differences?
I mean, what in the code has to adapt to another airplane?
I would expect that there is a performance specifications "shell" into which the different data is loaded for each plane.
The same thing for the weapons etc.
Wouldn't it be relatively easy to add the FWa3 and FWa4 into the game?
Obviously not as difficult as putting in the Spit MK VIII (is that the one with the clipped wings?)
Especially with Tour of Duty coming...
And the interest in Special Events... it would be nice to fill in the early year plane sets...
109E-3/7 109F-2/4 Tropical Models
JU-57
190A-3/4/7
Etc.
I'd like to see a French Detwoine ...
-
Over 1800 FW-190 A3's and A4's were delivered to Luftwaffe by the end of 1942. Aircraft like Spitfire MkIX, La-5fn, Typhoon were rushed in production to restore the balance. A5 should be introduced before Spit mk IX and la-5 fn.
I don't see why someone would introduce the A5 more then one year after Spit Mk9. Our A5 may be a bit better then A3 but is no better then A4.
I think We should introduce a FW-190 somewhere at the begining of 1942.
-
Originally posted by JAWS2003
I don't see why someone would introduce the A5 more then one year after Spit Mk9.
If you check their actual service dates maybe then you might see why "someone would introduce the A5 more then (sic) one year after Spit Mk9".
But other than that you and many others have made some valid points and I will update my rough draft sometime this week and garner new opinions based upon the changes. I've meant to get back to this post sooner but RL has been a bit busy.
I do appreciate the responses and hope to develop a community created and supported setup. Without the input and fostering of the guys and gals that fly in the AvA, this setup shouldn't happen.
-
ya what he said and he's an ackllied player also
-
Hi Bug,
>But other than that you and many others have made some valid points and I will update my rough draft sometime this week and garner new opinions based upon the changes.
Here's a bit of advice from someone who has been flamed big time for RPS suggestions: Avoid to make it look like anything is based upon your personal decision :-)
Best define rational criteria for which type of date to pick and which type of substitution to make, and apply them uniformly over the entire planeset.
(Sounds simple, but it only occurred to me when I had been thoroughly scorched already :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Bug,
Here's a bit of advice from someone who has been flamed big time for RPS suggestions: Avoid to make it look like anything is based upon your personal decision :-)
Best define rational criteria for which type of date to pick and which type of substitution to make, and apply them uniformly over the entire planeset.
(Sounds simple, but it only occurred to me when I had been thoroughly scorched already :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Hehe, I do appreciate the advice... But my history has shown I'm pretty good at shooting some flames back myself. :D
-
Originally posted by Krusty
That was another problem I had with the setup. Malta showed us that the 109E just cannot stand up to spitVs or hurr2s. It's no comparison.
I'm not here to argue but I dont think this is true...
BTW wats Malta?
Only malta I know is a drink :)
-
Originally posted by Platano
I'm not here to argue but I dont think this is true...
BTW wats Malta?
Only malta I know is a drink :)
lol you little oye. malta is an island strategically located 1/2 way between africa and europe. the malta you are thinking about and drinking is malt.
-
Malta scenario was bit skewed -
1st frame we had the old AH Spit Vc with as was mentioned was a huge advantage.
2nd and last frames we had the new Vb, things were a lot more balanced.
-
Hi chaps!
Fine idea this RPS, only minor tweaking and fine tuning to make it the best possible one available. I'm all for it!
Forgot who said it, but saw a nice idea of moving from one front to another in a dinamic way, I mean, avoiding the exhaustion caused by the same scenario from beggining to end...And it would be nice to vary, one week in Europe, one week in Tunisia, one week in the Pacific, back to the Baltic, again back into the Pacific, and so forth...This would not be boring, really.
When in doubt, shoot, I mean, if you have to skip a few months because we don't have the planes, change to another theater of operations! Works everytime!
Good job!
Sparrow
-
Service dates is a good basis for a RPS.
However, gameplay tweeks are needed since as mentioned, Spit V vs. 109E and Spit9 before the 190A will not be much fun.
The real interesting thing is the historical matchups. So the time frames should be selected so planes are added together with their historical matchups. Start with The Bug's list but group it differently. This will be "war era" frames instead of linear time scale in months. This will also solve holes in the plane set by "jumping" over them. For example:
1st frame (early BoB):
as it is
2nd frame should include (late BoB and pacific begins):
Spit5/hurri2 - 109F
A6m2 - F4F
P40B
3rd frame (africa planeset added):
P40E
C202
Hurricane IId
Bf 109g-2
4th frame (canal war era):
Spitfire MkIX
Seafire
190A5 (as A series representative)
5th frame (US joins ETO)
P-38G
P-47D11
109G6
.
.
.
etc
No need to religeously stick to actual service date of our specific model. 190A5 is close enough to represent all early A models and so it is in the era frame of the Spit9. The F6F-5 is very close to enter the era of F6F-3. I'm not familiar enough with the eras in the russian front or exact yak models, but I'm sure we can find the right era for them.
Most important is to sustain good matchups and good gameplay.
Bozon
-
This would be great.
I'd encourage you guys to advertise this setup (if/when it comes to fruition) in the General forums, as I bet there are lots of people like me that enjoy the historical matchups but have become accustomed to ignoring the AvA arena.
I share the concerns about Emil vs Spit V and Hurri IIC and Spit 9's without 190A-5's, but it sounds like you guys are already figuring that out. I'd like to see subs (109F-4 introduced for F-2 and 190A5 being released earlier for the A3's and 4's), but that may just be my inner Luftwabble talking. :)
-
Originally posted by bozon
Most important is to sustain good matchups and good gameplay.
Agreed!
-
Originally posted by bozon
No need to religeously stick to actual service date of our specific model. 190A5 is close enough to represent all early A models and so it is in the era frame of the Spit9. The F6F-5 is very close to enter the era of F6F-3. I'm not familiar enough with the eras in the russian front or exact yak models, but I'm sure we can find the right era for them.
Most important is to sustain good matchups and good gameplay.
Bozon
Well you either want historical matchups or just selected planes outside their service date to 'balance' things.
I remember when the AvA first started, Spit V drivers had no qualms going up against 190's. Sure it was lopsided for a while, just as it was in reality.
Like I said if you want good balanced adversaries for the ETO, skip 1941, 1944/5.
One thing that really pees me off is the "lets take the service dates and mess with them" to allegedly improve gameplay.
no we'll never have every plane and sub variant that was available, but there is enough to run historical scenarios without messing with anything, especially for the ETO western front.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Well you either want historical matchups or just selected planes outside their service date to 'balance' things.
I remember when the AvA first started, Spit V drivers had no qualms going up against 190's. Sure it was lopsided for a while, just as it was in reality.
Like I said if you want good balanced adversaries for the ETO, skip 1941, 1944/5.
One thing that really pees me off is the "lets take the service dates and mess with them" to allegedly improve gameplay.
no we'll never have every plane and sub variant that was available, but there is enough to run historical scenarios without messing with anything, especially for the ETO western front.
Kev, why would a spit driver have any qualms about going up against anything? except for the A6M there isn't an axis plane in AH that can effectively compete if the players are of equal skill.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
I remember when the AvA first started, Spit V drivers had no qualms going up against 190's. Sure it was lopsided for a while, just as it was in reality.
Only... it wasn't realistic at all. The Spit5 was pretty damn uber, with 2x the ammo load it has now. It flew just as well then as it did now. The 190s, on the other hand, were horribly unstable, could not be turned or even banked at speeds below 250mph without snap-rolling to an inverted state -- NOBODY feared them back then, let alone spit pilots.
In regards to malta: Perhaps it was a bit more balanced after the new spits were added in round 2, but ONLY for the 109F4 pilots. We had very limitd supplies of F4s and were forced to fly E4s after the first sortie. It was whole-sale slaughter. The E4s were decimated, tons killed for few or no losses on the RAF side. The E4 can't really compete against hurr2c or spit5. It can probably get a few kills, but if you have group vs group it's toast.
Back to the lineup: Dates vs gameplay.
We have a pickle here. 190s were the scourge of the spit5s for a while. They forced the RAF to re-engine a spit to produce the spit9. Only we have the spit9 coming out almost a week before the 190 it was created to counter. Go either way and you have problems.
I suggest compromise. Somebody suggested introducing them at the same time. This means that the 190 drivers don't get to be **** of the walk for several days if the sub for A3 is used. This also means Spit9 pilots don't go around like **** of the walk for several days if production dates are used.
If you have 2 choices, both that will generate bad reactions from a lot of folks, compromise and take away the advantage from both sides. Split the difference, date-wise and put them both in at the same time. I know isn't the best but it would cut down on the complaints.
Also would suggest this for the SpitV and 109F4. Same reasons. SpitV was entered early but totally blows our early E4 away. We don't have E4/Ns or E-7s, or E-7/Ns with stronger engines to compete with the spitV, which the LW had in real life. We can't sub anything in either. So split the dates and introduce the spit5 and 109f4 on the same date. They've historically had one of the best matchups of all time in the AvA.
If you find other aircraft with similar problems (no subs, outclasses its opponents, that sort of thing) I say play with the dates.
You can't stay 100% true to dates if you have a woefully incomplete planeset. That's the sad truth of it. My mind on the matter says to stay as true as you can, and make exceptions where needed.
-
Is it just me or does everyone s*** on the 109E-4?? :confused:
-
Like I said before, we don't have 1000+ aircraft to balance the gameplay.
Imagine if we did though.... :O the headache of balancing the entry of every model... ugh!
:)
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
One thing that really pees me off is the "lets take the service dates and mess with them" to allegedly improve gameplay.
no we'll never have every plane and sub variant that was available, but there is enough to run historical scenarios without messing with anything, especially for the ETO western front.
Hold your horses.
RPS is not a scenario. Service dates have no historical value save for the absolute earliest date you could meet that specific model in the air.
What I did suggest is to take the service dates list and instead of cutting it into equal 2 months bins and take what ever comes out, use some more imagination in deciding the time frames. They don't have to be equal in time and by expanding some time frames or contracting others, the resulting matchups in each frame would be more interesting and fun, WITHOUT breaking any historical validity.
The other part of my suggestion was less historical. If aircraft manufacturer X took his plane, replaced the pilot seat cusion and advanced the model number by 1, in my eyes it is still the exact same plane for our purposes. So I don't mind if you count 190A5 as A3 or what ever was the 1st A 190 to see real combat and use the earlier service date. Same goes for some 109Gx models, F6F5/3 or P47D5/11.
Or, you can ingnore all that, the spit9 would enter before the 190s and the numbers in the areana would likely stay below 10 because frankly - it's just not fun sometimes.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by Platano
Is it just me or does everyone s*** on the 109E-4?? :confused:
I think the Emil is one of the more difficult planes to learn to fly well. That said, once you figure it out, it does fairly well against the current version of the Spit 5, although the Spit clearly has the advantage.
- oldman
-
Well Splat take heart in that you fly it extremely well. Last time I tangled with you I assumed you were in a an F or G2. Not until after the fight did I realize you were in an emil.:aok
-
I'd like to tangle with someone 1v1.. me in Emil vs Spit5 and see the outcome.....
1v1 I think the emil will win...but outnumbered and getting ganged (which is becoming common in the AvA for both sides) spits will win...
-
Originally posted by TheBug
It would be a 5 week rotation
Staffers all agree, if you folks can compress this into a three week rotation, we'll run it. Current RPS has about a week left to run, so there's your time goal. Don't know if you want to do it as a true, day-by-day sort of RPS, like the ETO RPS Sable came up with, or as a multi-phase RPS, like the current PAC setup; either will be fine. We can try different maps, too.
- oldman
-
And make sure you include yer maps you want us to use but keep in mind that some maps are difficult to setup (i.e. Slot). Also, include any special arena settings you want us to use (check out the list of arena settings in the setup menu).
Also, include downtimes for objects, and object strength.
:)
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Staffers all agree, if you folks can compress this into a three week rotation, we'll run it
Well, first off, if you want to compress it, you DON'T need a full week of BOB. While fun on its own, if you're doing a RPS that's just dragging your feet. Day 1 stays in effect until Day 5 or 6 or something. Change that to just a couple of days. See if there are similar large gaps elsewhere.
-
BoB or any other period for a week is just far too long, 3-4 days per period is about fine IMHO.
-
Originally posted by Platano
I'd like to tangle with someone 1v1.. me in Emil vs Spit5 and see the outcome.....
You got a date:D
-
Originally posted by Slash27
You got a date:D
Next time i see you I will be sure to remind you... probably sometime tonight
-
Im on shift today. 7 am-7 am. Maybe tomorrow afternoon?
-
umm tomorrow afternoon gonna be at my cousins wedding..dont what time ill be home... but if anything we just do it next time we see each other
-
np:aok
-
Originally posted by Slash27
You got a date:D
First the exchange in "ack down times", and now this?:huh
You two are starting to concern me.:confused:
-
LOLOLOLOLOL :rofl
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Staffers all agree, if you folks can compress this into a three week rotation, we'll run it. Current RPS has about a week left to run, so there's your time goal. Don't know if you want to do it as a true, day-by-day sort of RPS, like the ETO RPS Sable came up with, or as a multi-phase RPS, like the current PAC setup; either will be fine. We can try different maps, too.
- oldman
*tap* *tap*
Anyone here?
- oldman
-
Originally posted by bozon
Hold your horses.
RPS is not a scenario. Service dates have no historical value save for the absolute earliest date you could meet that specific model in the air.
What I did suggest is to take the service dates list and instead of cutting it into equal 2 months bins and take what ever comes out, use some more imagination in deciding the time frames. They don't have to be equal in time and by expanding some time frames or contracting others, the resulting matchups in each frame would be more interesting and fun, WITHOUT breaking any historical validity.
The other part of my suggestion was less historical. If aircraft manufacturer X took his plane, replaced the pilot seat cusion and advanced the model number by 1, in my eyes it is still the exact same plane for our purposes. So I don't mind if you count 190A5 as A3 or what ever was the 1st A 190 to see real combat and use the earlier service date. Same goes for some 109Gx models, F6F5/3 or P47D5/11.
Or, you can ingnore all that, the spit9 would enter before the 190s and the numbers in the areana would likely stay below 10 because frankly - it's just not fun sometimes.
Bozon
Or conversely you could say -
The A5 at 1.42ata never flew before mid-43.
It has an approx 15-20mph advantage over the A3 (so hardly just a headrest etc)
Against an already much slower 1941 Vb.
And if 15-20mph is no biggie, then the Spit F IX can sub for -
the 1942 LF Vc
the 1944 Seafire L III
the 1942 Seafire L IIc. (one with the Merlin 32)
The Spit XIV can sub for the 1943 Spit XII
See how complicated and ugly it becomes.
Saying that - I still think there is enough planes in the planeset to get historical matchups if you choose to do them.
I would suggest subs if used should be equal or lesser performance than what they are subbing for, NOT better.