Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Friday Squad Operations => Topic started by: ghostdancer on April 26, 2007, 12:04:54 PM
-
Okay everyone I just have to setup this up (the description) in the events site. But here is the basic information of the upcoming visiting to the Pacific Theater:
There were only four American heavy carriers in the Pacific during the first 3 months of the war; only three were operational after a Japanese submarine torpedoed the Saratoga south of Hawaii on Jan. 11th, 1942 forcing her to return to Pearl Harbor for repairs. That left only the Yorktown, Enterprise and Lexington to contest the Japanese navy throughout the Pacific.
With these carriers the only heavy units left to the USN, a task force was built around each and plans were created for conducting hit and run raids through out the Pacific while additional forces were built up to contest the Japanese march of conquest.
On Feb. 20, 1942 the Lexington launched a raid against Rabaul on New Britain.
On March 10th, 1942 planes from Yorktown and Enterprise raid Lae and Salamau on New Guinea, just two days after the Japanese capture them in the face of no resistance.Australian forces.
On May 4th the Yorktown launches a raid against Tulagi in the Soloman islands which turned out to be the opening to the battle of the Coral Sea.
Country Percentages
50% Allied (rough estimate)
50% Axis (rough estimate)
Plane Set
Australians
Boston III
P40B
USAAF
P40E
USN
SBD-5
TBM-3
F4F-4
IJA
JU88 (Sub for Betty)
IJN
B5N2
D3A1
A6M2
Restrictions
- Boston IIIs can fly in formation
- TBMs can only use torpedoes
- JU88s can fly in formation
- B5N2s get a second life
- The min / max aircraft rule will be used not the 50/50 airplane split rule.
Further restrictions will be delinated in the objective orders for each frame.
Victory Conditions
AIR TO AIR
10 pts - Single or dual Engine AC with 1 crew
15 pts - Single or double engine AC with 2 crew
20 pts - Double Engine AC with 3+ crew
25 pts - large quad engine AC with 3+ crew
GROUND TARGETS
0.062 = Gun
0.062 = Mannable Gun
3.125 = Ammo Bunker
3.125 = Fuel Bunker
3.125 = Barracks
3.125 = Radar
27.812 = Vehicle Hangar
27.812 = Fighter Hangar
27.812 = Bomber Hangar
3.125 = Town Building
3.125 = Factory at strategic target
0.781 = Truck in convoy
1.562 = Train
20 = Destroyer
20 = Cruiser
80 = Carrier
Arena Settings
- Coral Sea terrain
- Fuel 1.25
- Icons short
- .5 Ack
- Fighter and Bomber warning range 52,000 (about 10 miles)
- Tower range set to 52,000 (for display only to match the above setting)
- Clouds / visibility
Frame 1, 22 miles
Frame 2, 11 miles
Frame 3, 9 miles
- Radar off
- Friendly collisions off
- Enemy collisions on
- Kill shooter off
- Calm winds
-
Looks cool
-
Any caps on the TBM and Bostons?
-
?
GostDancer sir?
When the Ki 67 "Peggy" is available why have you chosen to substitute the Ju 88 for the G4M "Betty"?
I'm not trying to make waves as the scenaro looks like an absolute blast!
I'm just curious about the substitution when a perfectly good IJA bomber is available and could more aesthetically take the place of the G4M "Betty" for greater continuity in your well thought out campaign.
Respectfully,
-
Originally posted by xXx
?
GostDancer sir?
When the Ki 67 "Peggy" is available why have you chosen to substitute the Ju 88 for the G4M "Betty"?
I'm not trying to make waves as the scenaro looks like an absolute blast!
I'm just curious about the substitution when a perfectly good IJA bomber is available and could more aesthetically take the place of the G4M "Betty" for greater continuity in your well thought out campaign.
Respectfully,
Because the KI-67, according to our records, was not available until 4/1944. This event is early 1942.
Good question.
-
ok ghost, so, which side are we? :D
-
Originally posted by APDrone
Because the KI-67, according to our records, was not available until 4/1944. This event is early 1942.
Good question.
True.
While the Ki 67 was released later during the war it's performance, load-out, speed and range when compared to the "Betty" is not out of balance.
The Ju 88 does have a shorter range but it also has a greater compacity for a larger bomb load out as well as the capabilty of loading out 1 extra torpedo the G4M could not load.
I'm simply comparing apples to apples while the subject at hand appears to be comparing apples with oranges because they happened to be picked for market the same day.
Regardless I was simply curious and have I been given an explanation to the question I had asked by the CM Team.
Thank You.
I look forward to the event.
Best Regards,
-
Originally posted by xXx
While the Ki 67 was released later during the war it's performance, load-out, speed and range when compared to the "Betty" is not out of balance
Incorrect. The reason we don't use the Ki67 is because it's faster than most fighters built before late 1943, and it climbs faster than most of them too. It's nearly impossible to catch, has more defensive guns (including 20mm dorsal) and while the bombload is light, like the Betty's, the performance is leaps and bounds ahead of the Betty's.
-
Krusty is correct about the KI-67. However, it will be about as easy for the Allies to catch the KI-67 as it will be for the Axis to catch the Boston III. Maybe it would be better to use the KI-67?
-
Maybe just do away with all twin engine bombers in this setup, for lack of an appropriate substitute?
-
But, the problem is not the shear speed of the KI67 only. I has great durability, and will tear any plane apart that is naive enough to loiter above it. Also at 20k it would be impossible for P40es to catch it. Now the diference from the Boston-A6M2 speed advantage thing is that once the A6Ms catch the bostons, the bostons are sitting ducks. As a testament to how good the Ki-67s are, During the scenario Operation Downfall i never got more than 2 of my birds shot down by another NME fighter, i encountered far better planes than P40Es, like F4U4s F4u1d, f4u1c, f6fs, and even a lone 38.
Maybe limit the bomb load of the Ju88s?
-
If you did Ju88s with internal ord only, that would be closer to the bombload of a Betty. That's only 1000kg (20x 50kg) Unfortunately that makes then even faster :rofl
(no external ord drag!)
I say just eliminate every twin engine in the setup. Stick to single engines.
There's no one plane with 2 engines that can sub for anything in this setup without being too fast, too strong, or too something!
-
Were Bostons available at this time? If they were, they were certainly a great plane considering the opposition. They could out run the enemy's best fighter under 15K by as much as 40 mph.
-
Historically bombers never ran at full throttle, except at takeoff. These bostons would be at max cruise settings throughout their mission.
They'd be flying HALF their speed in AH.
Unfortunately, there's no way at all to force pilots to fly at certain settings. All it takes is a little extra boost here, a unit disregarding orders there...
-
I definately did not intend to cause the hard working CM Team troubles or more work.
Substitutes usually cause problems no matter the simmulation or the campaign setting. It was and still is a huge probelm in the S3s and is a smaller problem in the WarCloud held events.
Krusty you are correct in that the Ki 67 is faster than the G4M but in looking at the loadouts they roughly are the same and that is what I measured my statements upon. The speed is practically a non issue as most Allied Fighters will be above the bombers cruising altitudes regardless of whether they are making Torpedo Attacks or Level Bombing Runs.
Sorry for the controversy.
I'll try Private Messaging or Email next time;)
Best Regards,
-
It's good to discuss things before they happen. Sometimes things are changed because something is brought to light.
IMO the speed is noticably faster than the Betty, and even if they're low the US planes will have a tough time because only the P40E has 6x50cal (and limited ammo for those 6x), the F4F-4 has the option for 6x but when it's slower than the zero it'll never catch the Ki, and the pilots will probably want to lighten it as much as possible (meaning they'll take 4x loadout).
On something that fast, even diving means you end up behind it very quickly, and the upper 6 position is exactly where that 20mm gun is aimed.
-
Sorry for the controversy.
I'll try Private Messaging or Email next time
I don't think CM's view this as a controversy. You asked a good question. I've never seen a CM in Squad Ops who was unwilling or unwanting to answer questions about their setup and their reasons for it. No need to PM questions about a setup. Others may have the same question. :aok
-
PTO...
(http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/avatar.php)
Excellent :aok
I look forward to it.
-
I never received the side request reminder this week... I'm getting the guys opinions put together, I hope we're not too late to make our requests...
-
Any word from the CMs on just removing all twin-engined planes from the setup?
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Any word from the CMs on just removing all twin-engined planes from the setup?
Not my admin design but my answer would be
"No."
-
Too bad the B-25 isn't here yet, then it would be easy.
-
Depends on the version...
-
No Australian unit was issued with, flew, sighted, wrote home to their mother about, posed beside, walked around, or kicked the tires of a P40B .....ever.
The RAAF used the P40E and the P40N.
USAAC/F used the P40B however. Time for a correction in the order of battle. :)
-
Just back to the substitution thing, the main difference between Betty and Peggy that is hard to resolve is purely speed. They have similar armament, (Betty has an extra 20mm cannon but one less .50cal) and similar bomb loads , (Peggy slightly better).
It is TRADITION that Ju88 shall substitute for something in every FSO and scenario. I look forward to the day when we can have a pure Ju88 vs Ju88 FSO where they substitute for everything. :D
I always have a quiet giggle btw when I read how bomber pilots never travelled at full speed during operations. Hands up if you really think fighter pilots bored around the sky at full power? :)
Wiki mismash of specs below for the Betty and Peggy and Ju88. I haven't cross referenced them with AH specs but I figure we can just use this thread as an ersatz FSO battle this week instead of the real thing. ;)
Specifications (Mitsubishi G4M Type 22)
* Crew: 7: pilot, co-pilot, navigator/bombardier, radio operator/gunner, three gunners
* Length: 19.6 m (64 ft 4 in)
* Wingspan: 24.9 m (81 ft 8 in)
* Height: 6 m (19 ft 8 in)
* Powerplant: 2× Mitsubishi Kasei 25 radial engines, 1,380 kW (1,850 hp) each
Performance
* Maximum speed: 437 km/h (270 mph)
* Range: 4,725 km (one way) (2,935 mi)
* Service ceiling: 8,950 m (29,350 ft)
Armament
* Guns: 2x 20 mm cannons, 4x 7.7 mm machine guns
* Bombs: 800 kg (1,765 lb) of bombs or torpedoes
Specifications (Ki-67-Ib)
* Crew: 6-8
* Length: 18.7 m (61 ft 4 in)
* Wingspan: 22.50 m (73 ft 9 in)
* Height: 7.70 m (25 ft 3 in)
* Wing area: 66 m² (709 ft²)
* Empty weight: 8,649 kg (19,068 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 13,765 kg (30,347 lb)
* Powerplant: 2× Mitsubishi Ha-104 (army type 4) 18-cylinder radials, 1,417 kW (1,900 hp) each
Performance
* Maximum speed: 537 km/h (334 mph)
* Range: 3800 km (2,361 miles)
* Service ceiling: 9,470 m (31,070 ft)
* Rate of climb: 450 m/min (1,476 ft/min)
* Wing loading: 208 kg/m² (43 lb/ft²)
* Power/mass: 0.21 kW/kg (0.13 hp/lb)
Armament
* 1 × 20 mm Ho-5 cannon in dorsal turret
* 5 × 12.7 mm Type 1 machine gun, one in nose, 2 in the tail, and 1 in each beam position
* 2,359 lb of bombs in internal bay, some Kamikaze versions carried 6,000 lb of bombs
Specifications (Junkers Ju 88)
General characteristics
* Crew: 4
* Length: 14.2 m (46 ft 6 in)
* Wingspan: 18 m (59 ft 0 in)
* Height: 4.7 m (15 ft 5 in)
* Wing area: 47.8 m² (515 ft²)
* Empty weight: 3,900 kg (8,600 lb)
* Loaded weight: 7,700 kg (16,980 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: kg (lb)
* Powerplant: 2× Junkers Jumo 211A (or a BMW 801 in some cases) liquid-cooled inverted V-12, 900 kW (1,200 hp) each
Performance
* Maximum speed: 510 km/h at 4,750 m (317 mph at 15,600 ft)
* Range: 2,108 km (1,310 mi)
* Service ceiling: 9,080 m (29,800 ft)
* Rate of climb: m/s (ft/min)
Armament
* 7x 7.92 mm machine guns
* 2,500 kg (5511 lb) of bombs
-
Dantoo, fighters would fly at miltary power (i.e. full throttle) for quite a while, and would use emergency power or boost (i.e. WEP in this game) on top of that... Bombers never used full throttle except on takeoff, after which they throttled back even while climbing.
Can't compare the two, they are apples and oranges.
A couple of comments about the wiki stats:
-Didn't betty only have 1 20mm cannon?
- Ki67 has 7mms not 12.7mms, I believe.
- Bomb load listed is too high. In AH you get ONE 1k bomb, or multiple smaller bombs equalling just over 1k in weight (can't recall exact weight).
- Ju88 carries 1000kg internally (2.2k) not counting the 4x 5000kg external bombs, which bring it up to 3000kg (6600lbs). Quite a bit more than 1x1000lb bomb on the ki67, and about as much as a B17G.
P.S. your idea would be even better if we got Ju88Cs or Ju88Gs!!! Then we could sub Ju88s for the fighters as well!! :rofl
-
Okay been having issue in real life. The first two CiC are from CM squads and I apologize before hand for giving Nefarious and Dux a shorter planning period. Objectives will go out today.
Now as for the questions:
[list=1]
- The Australians having the P40B was a typo. They also have the P40E.
- Boston IIIs are of this time period. Although in this theater you saw much more extensive use of the Beaufighter and Beaufort .. neither which we have. I know during the battle of the Bismark Sea you had A20s active and B25s (which we don't have). So I wanted to give the allies a Bomber since some targets will be in New Britain but I didn't want to give the allies B17s (since they are a pain for the A6M2 to stop and it is not an earlier model).
- The Ki67 is not an early war bomber. Plus, the thing is incredibly deadly. It is fast and the 20mm sting it has can shred the P40E and F4F. The JU88 is a better sub.
-
Thanks GD.
Rats....now all speculation and disussion can cease :lol
Dantoo, fighters would fly at miltary power (i.e. full throttle) for quite a while
Citation please!!!!
Can't compare the two, they are apples and oranges.
Nope it's apples and apples. Aero engines are aero engines. It matters not a zot what airframe they are mounted in. Prolonged running at full power causes over heating, low oil pressure, excessive wear and extra maintenance. It also chews up all your fuel.
Generally speaking, world war 2 aircraft engines were at the bleeding edge of the tech and overheating was an engineering problem than ran through all front line types from all manufacturers. Time at full power is typically time limited, something like 10 minutes would be fairly normal. Full power could also be altitude limited, both high and low. Go outside the limits and the engine has to be stripped down on return.
-
Dantoo, you're forgetting the PURPOSE of those engines. Fighters had high-performance engines that could and did run at high temperatures without failing (spitfire pilot that broke the wire and ran it for over half an hour to get home, when he landed they took the engine apart and put it back together - no damage no wear and tear).
Bomber engines usually had less power than fighters. Why, then, doesn't the B-17 have 4x Allison engines running at 1600hp? They still had single-row radials.
An engine is NOT an engine is NOT an engine...
Bombers needed range, not speed, not performance. They throttled back immediately after takeoff not because they were damaging the engines, but because they couldn't spare the precious fuel that was being consumed by them.
It is totally not the same at all.
Fighters would attack at their peak performance, almost always. Bombers would cruise at max fuel consumption, always.
-
Citations :)
-
You've not provided any that say bombers had the best engines that rivaled fighters...
You've not provided any that say fighters engaged in combat activities on max cruise fuel settings...
You've not provided any that say fighters and bombers had the same specifications and powerplant requirements, and as such flew their engines in identical manners...
You first. :)
-
I agree with Krusty on this one.
-
Well to be honest, the allied planes are gonna dominate this entire FSO. A6M2 can't stay with any of the allied planes except maybe the sbd or tbm if that. Its ammo load will be used up on 1 bomber. All allied planes in this FSO have much better guns along with ammo load. Only advantage the zekes have is the turn fight. Other then that, it all allied advantage. Zekes will barely be able to stay with the ju88's for escort, lol. Axis need another fighter for this planeset. Ki61 (with limited numbers) or ki84 (limited numbers) or even give us a 109E. I know the ki61 and ki84 are 1944 planes but really, this is gonna be a slaughter fest.
-
Actually ran a very similar one before. Same plane set and the Axis held there own. They actually won the FSO .. 3163 to 3049.
So I tend to disagree that it is inherently a slaughter fest.
Drop out the JU88 and basically this planeset is what was being used in 1942 and historically the IJN did very well with it. So it really comes down to strategy and tactics.
A Ki84 would shred the F4F and P40E. I would actually prefer or would love to have P39, P400, Bufallo, Boomerang, etc. but we don't.
Also here is a performance comparison of the planes.
http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=f4f4&p2=p40e&p3=a6m2
Now if the P40E, even restricted proves to be unbalancing I will drop the allies land forces back to the older P40B will a small number of P40E available.
-
Ki61 is a '42/'43 plane. Ki84 was a late'44 or early '45 plane, and in NO WAY would fit with this scenario (it's uber, trust me)
Agree that the P40E will probably be dominating.
What about just giving both sides Boston IIIs?
-
Originally posted by Krusty
What about just giving both sides Boston IIIs?
Hadn't thought of that Krusty. That might be fair, but I guess it is a cross country steriotype that blocks some choices out. I think it would be generally disliked however for the same reason subbing Ju-88's for B-25's is also not very popular. Every time these types of discussions come up, I am reminded of how big some of the plane holes we still have.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Agree that the P40E will probably be dominating.
Not the one that I ram.... :t
-
You've not provided any that say bombers had the best engines that rivaled fighters...
You've not provided any that say fighters engaged in combat activities on max cruise fuel settings...
You've not provided any that say fighters and bombers had the same specifications and powerplant requirements, and as such flew their engines in identical manners...
LOLOL Krusty. Ok here ya go:
I didn't make the first claim, or the second claim and wait, not the third claim you've put on me but since you seem to genuinely be interested:
After two years of this the Merlin had matured into one of the most reliable aero engines in the world, and could be run at full power for entire eight-hour bombing missions with no problems.
From here Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/rolls-royce-merlin)
The same info is repeated on other sites. But instead of throwing a bunch of Googling at you and a bibliography I just picked up the phone and spoke to the "source".
Peter Pring-Shambler is the Chief Engineer at Temora Aviation (http://www.aviationmuseum.com.au/) and was happy to help out. They run quite a few "living" warbirds including a Spit 8 and a Spit 16. Give him a call.
His information:
Maximum Power (100%) for these types available for 5 minutes.
Maximum Continuous Power (80-85%) available continously (by definition).
Climb Power 70%
Cruise Power 50% (some variations here but a good figure)
Economic Cruise 45%.
We focussed on the Spits but all figures are accurate within a percent or two across the board for the types and engines they run. The Operating Manuals have the specific figures but I didn't trouble him to dig them out for the sake of this BBS. The problem is overheating.
I queried him quickly on bomber types and this is where I nearly got the giggles. The requirements for lifting heavier and heavier loads brought on the fitting of extra cooling for bomber engines. They had the extra room and could carry the extra weight I presume (yes that's my assumption there). Bomber engines with the extra cooling measures could be run at maximum power settings for much longer that fighter engines. In some cases apparently it was necessary to run at 100% for long periods until enough fuel had burnt off allowing you to ease back.
There was a margin of safety in that multi engine aircraft could lose an engine and return to base after dumping the bomb load. Single engine fighters lack that option.
I look forward to the day in fso when bombers are required to operate at 100% and fighters are required to operate at 85% :) Silly .... Yes! Of course it is in a computer game. I'm sure we will see the same stuff poured out again and again in the future.
Have a nice day!
:aok
-
First, in Aces High, "full throttle" (no WEP) is max. continuous in real life. WEP is 100%. It's just implemented differently.
As for comparing spitfires to lancasters -- not so easily done.
You say "I didn't say those" -- but you directly imply them by saying that a fighter engine is identical to a bomber engine in every way, and would be run the same way. It isn't the same and it wouldn't be run the same. I'm sorry to burst your bubble.
An engine is NOT an engine is NOT an engine. Problems with fighters include overheating, problems with bombers rarely include overheating.
Your man with the spitfires is talking about spit8s and spit16s with way higher boost, way way higher horespower, and a lot more heat problems.
In contrast, the Spit LF Mk.VIII has Merlin 66 engine with over 1700 hp at its command. It ran at boosts up to +25 (or higher!). Check the boost levels on the Merlin XX-powered Lancaster we have in this game. How high do they go?
Like I said, it was NEVER about overheating. Bombers don't have the same raw power as fighters, and as such don't have to worry about heat. Never about heat. It's about cruise.
As an aside: Lancaster Mk.I and Mk.IIIs (the I had Merlin XXs, the III had US Packard built clones, but were identical) had 1250 hp engines. That's barely more than the Spit Mk.I.
Bombers, of most nations, cruised at all times. *
I don't buy your quote "ran full throttle til they burned off enough fuel" -- enough for what? Why? The Lancaster has a range well over 2000 miles.... How long are you going to run at full throttle before you're... what? out of gas? Light enough to do immelmans like in Aces High? I don't buy that quote without more info and context, and I don't buy your argument.
*= Soviets were nuts... They often ran full throttle, but only had to go 100 miles or less.
-
Krusty stop now - you are making things up and it's embarrassing.
-
I'm sorry Dantoo, I don't think I'm the one making huge leaps.
I'm not going to pursue it further in here (don't want to disrupt things) but I think you're very wrong on the matter.
-
The B-25C does 285 mph at 15,000 ft.
Thats going to be @ 250mph at sea level I would think, almost 60 mph slower than a Boston III at most alts.
We desperately need this a/c for 1942 PAC setups, which is why im glad we are getting it.
The A6M2 cannot catch a Boston III. The speed difference is insane. When you do catch it in a powerdive, you have 60 cannon rounds to shoot off at a formation of 3, and usually its not enough to bring it down.
Even a Ki-61 has a chase on its hands with a Boston III, but at least it can dive well and has 120 rpg for its cannons.
A6M5? forget it, its not going to catch it either, the only advantage it does have is that in a powerdive, you can close and have enough ammo to down a few.
As for the Ki-67, you need Hellcats, F4Us and/or P-38s in the mix, anything less is a joke. Its too fast and too well armed. 1943 setups at the absolute earliest.
Just my 2 cents.
-
Axis got crushed. 122 pilots , 57 kills, 76 deaths.
allied 137 pilots, 111 kills, only 42 deaths.
Zekes were mainly on the defense this frame. At least for us.
-
Zekes were mainly on the defense this frame. At least for us
Yes, I attacked the AKs with my tail at every turn. But then I'm not the best fighter pilot by far. The ones in my squad that are had a rough time with y'all and the 65th, if that's any concilation. You had the alt. We wound up about even money fighter to fighter AFAIK. Don't know about the rest of the arena though.
Our objective was to pull you away from the bomber and take that alt from you (hard to get a second chance on Bostons in an A6M2). We did and consider it a postumis success. But it was far from fun.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
You've not provided any that say bombers had the best engines that rivaled fighters...
You first. :)
Certainly not the "best" fighters but frontline at the time...but when it was introduced, the B-17 had the P&W R1820 which was the same engine on the SBD and early F4F's. Only difference was the B-17's was turbo-charged, vice super-charged. The B-24 shared the P&W R1830 with the F4F-4. The R2800 was also shared by both fighters (P-47, F6F, etc.) and some bombers/transport aircraft. A lot of post-war airliners used the R-2800 as well.
And also, full throttle in AH is full throttle in real life. WEP is WEP. The manifold pressure readings correspond with the book values for those same settings for the engines.
-
Originally posted by RSLQK186
Yes, I attacked the AKs with my tail at every turn. But then I'm not the best fighter pilot by far. The ones in my squad that are had a rough time with y'all and the 65th, if that's any concilation. You had the alt. We wound up about even money fighter to fighter AFAIK. Don't know about the rest of the arena though.
Our objective was to pull you away from the bomber and take that alt from you (hard to get a second chance on Bostons in an A6M2). We did and consider it a postumis success. But it was far from fun.
U met up with flight a which was the group I was in. U out numbered us and got us down. I had 4 f4f's on me but we were fighting for 5 mins,lol. I had a few pop shots on them but they eventually got me. Wxman was about 4k from me with the same situation. to those I was fighting with. I know I put up a good fight, hehehehe.
-
Nah Dogg, Hack (RSLQK186) was with my group, we got bounced by the 65th who had at least 7k alt on us and numbers. That is what he was refering to. I didn't meet up with the AK's this time around =) that was the part of the squad that didn't get cut off.
-
Looked at the logs closer. My mistake. It just looked like an AK hord against our small group that had not quite caught up with the bombers. But it was all 65th.
The rest of the escorts that were with the bombers had help that I was not aware of by the orders I was given. I only knew what my part was. Get some Zekes to chase me and not the buffs. I did that well. Just didn't know what to do with them after that.LOL
-
Originally posted by RSLQK186
Get some Zekes to chase me and not the buffs. I did that well. Just didn't know what to do with them after that.LOL
That usually sounds like the orders they give me.... I can get thier attention, but after that I am usually fubar! :rofl
-
:lol
Hacksaw you guys accounted for yourselves admirably. We were saying the same thing sitting in the tower about the same time you were. Most of us never saw the guy who popped us.
Initially I tried to stay high thinking it was a trap but more and more of you guys showed up below us so I rolled over and dove in trying to get into the fight but it was too late. I'd loose 3k in a compressing dive and pull out only to see the fight was now another 3k below me. I think it was Ridge off by himself in trouble so I clawed my way down to him only to see him get popped as I saddled up on his pursuer. I rolled around to keep following your guy and never saw the one that sent me back to the tower with one ping. It was very frustrating.
S!
-
That was the first enjoyable fso for me in a long time. I actually got a couple kills and my framerates have been ok since latest patches.