Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Friday Squad Operations => Topic started by: Saxman on July 05, 2008, 09:50:23 AM
-
Since we're flying ONE "What-if" scenario right now:
"Our plan was to put six Marine squadrons on jeep carriers, and launch the F4Us from the North Sea to make a series of massive attacks on the Nazi targets. After all the planning was done, the training was in progress, and the logistics were in order, I was sent to Washington...to brief the highest civilian and military authorities including General George C. Marshall. ....General Marshall listened, but on hearing that US Marine aviators would make the planned attacks....said something to the effect, 'That's the end of this briefing. As long as I'm in charge of our armed forces, there will never be a Marine in Europe'. And there never was during World War II." -- Admiral Thomas Moore
In 1944, concern over the small size of the German V-1 launch sites and the effectiveness and accuracy of high-altitude level bomber strikes against them led to the development of Project Danny. Marine Air Group 51 was formed, consisting of VMFs-511, 512, 513 and 514, (later reinforced by a fifth existing squadron, VMO-351) and began training to attack these sites at low-altitude with precision strikes. The squadron especially favored the use of the "Tiny Tim" 11.75" air-launched rocket, which was judged by the pilots as the most effective weapon to do the job. Flying F4U-1D Corsairs, the Marines would operate from escort carriers in the North Sea and strike the V-1 launch sites, then return to their carriers again (a remarkable feat of flying ability, as the big Corsairs were difficult to handle even on the big fleet carriers).
MAG-51 was trained and ready to go when the plan was presented to General George C. Marshall. Marshall, famously, adamantly refused to allow Marines to operate in the European theater, so the project was scrapped. Ultimately other options just as effective were developed, and Project Danny became unnecessary.
Scenario
The scenario would address what might have happened had Project Danny proceeded. Five squadrons of F4U-1Ds would represent the five squadrons of MAG-51. Their targets are the V-1 sites along the continental coast of the English Channel (either BOB or North Sea would be suitable for this setup). Escort would be provided by USN F6Fs and FM-2s, or FAA Seafires. Additionally, the Allies must defend their carriers from German counter-attacks. F4Us may carry 8x5" HVARs, and 500lb bombs in place of the Tiny Tims (approximately equivalent in charge size). The Allied commander must have EXACTLY five squadrons assigned as F4Us, with a minimum size of 7-10 pilots (as assigned, this allows between 35-50 F4Us). He may use squadrons larger than 7-11 if he so wishes.
The German objectives would be the defense of the launch sites and the sinking of the American carriers.
Difficulties
The biggest difficulty in this setup is that, AFAIK, none of the maps HAVE V-1 launch sites. This would require a new or modification to an existing map, or substitution of some other target (Vehicle Field may work, as it's a more or less smaller target than an airfield. Vehicle Hangars could fill in for the block houses, and fuel bunkers would certainly be a valid target). The lack of Tiny Tim rockets should be easily made up for by using 500lb bombs, instead. We also don't have escort carriers, but with reduced AAA the standard carriers should be adequate.
-
Would there be any opposition?
-
Would there be any opposition?
I would say so, depending on when it would take place I guess. The Luftwaffe was based in Norway and all over Germany.
-
Interesting but remember for an FSO it needs to last 3 frames. Plus, we are running from about 480 to 500 now per event. So you would need to expand this what if to accomodate those numbers and then have enough objectives for 3 frames worth of action.
-
Would there be any opposition?
The German objectives would be the defense of the launch sites and the sinking of the American carriers.
Yes. :P
ghostdancer,
True, but it's a start. It would be easier if there was a map that HAD about 30 or so little V1 sites scattered across the map to choose from, as I don't think there's enough V bases on Norway or BOB along the coast to effectively fill the roll for three different frames (maybe enough to hit each on the first frame, but not after that). Maybe whoever is working on BOB08 could be convinced to model a V-1 site to scatter across the map? *wink wink* *nudge nudge*
As for numbers, I was only looking at the number of F4Us as sort of a core to build the rest of the tour around, and 50-odd Hogs is more or less along the lines of the number of TBMs used in each frame of Guadalcanal. And while the primary Allied targets of Project Danny were the V-1 sites, that doesn't rule out they may have had the carriers strike other targets in support or to draw the Luftwaffe's attention away (ports, shipping, factories near the coast, radar sites, etc) with TBMs/etc. So while the raids on the V-1s by themselves would be adequate for a snapshot, secondary targets could be used to pad out each frame of the tour (F4Us on the "V-1s" each frame, with TBMs hitting some other target, etc) to make it more acceptable for FSO.
-
I stumbled across this "possibility" while looking for F4U ideas. I thought about doing it for a Scenario, a FSO was my second thought. It could be done on the North Sea map. I had it on my penciled list of ones to do, but with 2 other scenarios designed and ready to run, a third about ready, and another one skirting around the edges (map needed) it had not been a high priority.
Let me know if I can be of any help Saxman.
-
I like the idea alot, it would bring 2 planesets to the forefront that rarely ever face one another.
It is possible too without a massive re-write of history.
-
Allied plane set:
F6F-5
FM-2
F4U-1D (5 squads only, each at least 7-10 pilots), can carry 8x5" HVAR and 2x 500lb bombs.
TBM-3 (32 Minimum)
Ideally five Allied CVs, all of which would be German strike objectives.
I'd need help with the Luftwaffe side of the plane set, though for certain Ju-88s (formations enabled, since they're sitting ducks for enemy fighters as it is) and Bf-110s for the German strike package.
The other question that I've already stated is how to handle the V-1 launch sites. Do you know off-hand if BOB or North Sea has enough vehicle fields near the coast to substitute? Or will this really require a map specifically designed with this setup in mind? I THINK that giving the Allies more offensive objectives can be gotten away with, considering the Germans would have multiple carriers to take out which are much more difficult to destroy if properly defended.
Man, I wish more than ever we had Tiny Tims. :P
-
I think if you bed Raptor enough, he'll make the V1 launchers/ramps for ya.
Since this type of scenario runs soley off the fight with and surrounding the V1s, I would be hesitant to throw this out there without an accurate representation.
-
The other question that I've already stated is how to handle the V-1 launch sites. Do you know off-hand if BOB or North Sea has enough vehicle fields near the coast to substitute?
The Norway Terrain has numerous bases in the Denmark, Northern Germany area.
-
That really may be all that's needed for the V-1s then, along with a base to put it on, as there's enough other buildings (ammo bunkers, hangars, etc) to populate the site with. Of course there's still a matter of updating a map to include them.
A difficulty would be getting them to show up on the map, but one possibility would be to treat this like convoys or task groups: Assign each F4U squadron a sector, and their objective is to locate and strike any V-1 sites in their area of operations. This would create a situation where squadron commanders would have to plan their strikes carefully regarding how many ships to commit to each base. Additionally, a V-1 site is small enough that 10-12 F4Us would be a bit of overkill, considering the firepower the Hogs can bring to bear (even with rockets and only 500lb bombs) so this would give the squadron more targets to hit. If the V-1 sites are unmarked and small, this would also require the F4Us to approach from low-level so they can find them, which fits in with the parameters of the original Project Danny (the attacks were expected to be made from low altitude for use of the Tiny Tims).
However, this can ALSO be used to keep the Axis from knowing what type of opponents they're looking for, especially if all the V-1 sites are along the coast, and all the other targets set for the Allies are along the coast as well. Instead of telling an Axis squadron to "Defend this V-1 site from attack," or "Defend Port Whatever," the Axis is instead told to "Patrol sector x.x." If ALL the target sectors have both V-1 sites AND some other type of field (V-base, airfield or port) it would require the Axis commander to be prepared for anything when setting his defenses, rather than knowing with certainty how to position his CAP. This would in turn give the F4Us a better fighting chance if the Germans don't know for certain that the strike will be coming in from low altitude, as the commander may decide to run his CAP in a V-1 sector at 20,000ft to guard against high-alt jabo or level strikes by TBMs. Meanwhile the F4Us sneak in at 3000-5000 feet so they can locate the V-1 sites, and the Germans don't see them because they're patrolling at maximum alt.
-
Since we're flying ONE "What-if" scenario right now:
In 1944, concern over the small size of the German V-1 launch sites and the effectiveness and accuracy of high-altitude level bomber strikes against them led to the development of Project Danny. Marine Air Group 51 was formed, consisting of VMFs-511, 512, 513 and 514, (later reinforced by a fifth existing squadron, VMO-351) and began training to attack these sites at low-altitude with precision strikes. The squadron especially favored the use of the "Tiny Tim" 11.75" air-launched rocket, which was judged by the pilots as the most effective weapon to do the job. Flying F4U-1D Corsairs, the Marines would operate from escort carriers in the North Sea and strike the V-1 launch sites, then return to their carriers again (a remarkable feat of flying ability, as the big Corsairs were difficult to handle even on the big fleet carriers).
MAG-51 was trained and ready to go when the plan was presented to General George C. Marshall. Marshall, famously, adamantly refused to allow Marines to operate in the European theater, so the project was scrapped. Ultimately other options just as effective were developed, and Project Danny became unnecessary.
Scenario
The scenario would address what might have happened had Project Danny proceeded. Five squadrons of F4U-1Ds would represent the five squadrons of MAG-51. Their targets are the V-1 sites along the continental coast of the English Channel (either BOB or North Sea would be suitable for this setup). Escort would be provided by USN F6Fs and FM-2s, or FAA Seafires. Additionally, the Allies must defend their carriers from German counter-attacks. F4Us may carry 8x5" HVARs, and 500lb bombs in place of the Tiny Tims (approximately equivalent in charge size). The Allied commander must have EXACTLY five squadrons assigned as F4Us, with a minimum size of 7-10 pilots (as assigned, this allows between 35-50 F4Us). He may use squadrons larger than 7-11 if he so wishes.
The German objectives would be the defense of the launch sites and the sinking of the American carriers.
Difficulties
The biggest difficulty in this setup is that, AFAIK, none of the maps HAVE V-1 launch sites. This would require a new or modification to an existing map, or substitution of some other target (Vehicle Field may work, as it's a more or less smaller target than an airfield. Vehicle Hangars could fill in for the block houses, and fuel bunkers would certainly be a valid target). The lack of Tiny Tim rockets should be easily made up for by using 500lb bombs, instead. We also don't have escort carriers, but with reduced AAA the standard carriers should be adequate.
So how would we put in the V-1s? You think Croduh could make one? I guess a 262 w/ a bomb on the front?
-
We wouldn't need the V-1s themselves, just a V-1 launch SITE model/base to scatter across the maps. All that would REALLY be needed to do this is a "ground" model to put everything on and the launch rails. The rest of the site can be assembled using existing objects.
-
Yes, assigning the allies to search a sector (saying their is a V-1 base somewhere in this sector) definitely could work. Not sure if we are able to build objects that can be destroyed and not have them show up as some sort of base on the map. Otherwise allies would know exactly where the base was.
Next on objectives. Remember both sides need to be able to score roughly equal points in one way or another. Sinking five CVs takes a lot more ordinance and is harder than hitting 5 V1 bases (or modified Vehicle bases). Just the CV takes 8000 lbs to kill. If a V1 base is equivalent to a Vehicle base (meaning destroy all objects at it) then it would work since I believe Vehicle bases are roughly around 9200 lbs. Will have to check.
Now if you use trains or convoys instead .. well those take much at all and can easily be gunned down. So you might want to think about maybe mixing some other targets in if you use the train idea and if you are giving both sides bombing objectives.
Heck you can even mix in a non V1 objective. Say have a land base where USAAF planes or bombers stage from to hit other industrial targets at the same time. So say maybe 4 V1 bases as targets and then some strat facility or such to mix things up since while this operation is going on, so are others. That gives you even more flexibility to flesh out 3 frames of action.
-
Ghost,
As I'd specified, Allied objectives could be as follows:
Five F4U squadrons to hit five sectors. Either a special V-1 object (could possibly treat it like a Shore Battery and attach it as part of a nearby airfield, vehicle base or port? That way it could be destroyable but not show up as a seperate map marker) or a Vehicle Base to substitute would be in each sector. If a special V-1 site is modelled and if it's small enough there may need to be multiple V-1 sites in each sector (say, 3-4) for the Corsairs to hit.
In addition to the Corsairs, the Allies would have a number of TBMs or jabbo F6Fs and/or FM-2s (keeping in theme with a USN/MC strike on continental Europe that was planned but never was) hitting other targets (Ports, airfields, strats, etc) in support.
The German defensive orders would ONLY specify to defend a given sector, containing the Allied objectives. That way, they won't know for sure if they're guarding against F4Us attacking V-1 sites, or TBMs/F6Fs/FM-2s attacking some other target.
Numerically, the Allies would have more individual offensive objectives, but owing to the potential small size of a custom V-1 site (rather than using structures such as VHs, which require 3000lbs of ordinance to drop, use ammo bunkers, fuel tanks, as well as a special V-1 launch rail object that could be put together to require a total of 1500-2000lbs of ordinance to destroy one site) this should balance out the ordinance weight required. Say, TBMs hitting two V bases at 9600lbs of ordinance, and the F4Us hitting 5 sectors each requiring ~4000lbs (1500-2000lbs per V-1 site, with 2-3 sites per sector) of ordinance (39,000lbs) Vs 5 CVs x 8000lbs (40,000lbs) for the Axis.
This should also keep the air-to-air side of things balanced as well. Because while the Allies have fewer objectives to defend, they'll need to devote more fighters to escort their strike packages, and vice-versa).
-
Sax,
Do you have any resources that can be used for research on this, beyond what's available on the web?
-
As far as what? Descriptions of a typical makeup of a V-1 site, or the actual planned use of USMC Corsairs to hit the sites?
-
I'm actually on top of this one guys. ;)
You handle the planning and logistics, I'll take care of the targets.
-
As far as what? Descriptions of a typical makeup of a V-1 site, or the actual planned use of USMC Corsairs to hit the sites?
No, books, articles, etc. about Project Danny. The stuff I found on the web is pretty thin. It would be good to do some more substantial research on this before embarking, especially if there are some books that could flesh this out.
-
Stoney,
I'll see what I can find. First mention I found of it was actually on this board from some years back, and searching online came up with some more specific information. I'll check with Widewing especially. If it was ever in print, he either has it, or knows where to find it.
Sweet, Dux. Again, I think the only thing REALLY needed would be the V-1 launch rails, and some sort of "base" to put them on. The rest of the V-1 sites could probably be constructed from existing objects (again, I think ammo bunkers, fuel tanks, and maybe barracks would be sufficient. Hangars would be too hardened, IMO).
-
Since you are interested, need to get your a strat map. The spacing of targets is key to many of events. They need to be spaced out so that the defenders are not all clumped together but still close enough so that the defenders in the middle sector could either turn to the one of the flanks and help out there but not so close that the defenders on one of the flanks can get to the other to help out.
Otherwise you start to get massive clumps of defending aircraft that become very tough nuts to crack. Sometimes that can't be helped and is dictated by the terrain and maybe might even part of the design but usually it is good to spread things out. So next step is take a look at the map for the North Sea. You thinking that terrain or BoB4?.
Same goes for the CVs .. using them will allow you to position them where needed for strikes against targets but you want to make sure they can get to alt and then get to target say by T+40. They have to hit the target by T+60 (as you know) but you want to build in a cushion of time to allow the CiC to construct battle plans that don't have their forces taking a direct route from their launch point. And in the case of CVs you want to make sure the enemy has to search for them (which is why we put them in a 3 or 4 sector containment grid.
Again usually we have these containment areas not overlapping usually so that the you don't have 2 or more groups of defenders basically formed up over and defending 2 fleets placed right on top of each other.
You really need to start taking a look at a strat map to get an idea of placing attack objectives and such. Some maps are tougher to do this on than others.
-
You thinking that terrain or BoB4?.
I am talking about the update to BoB04... BoB08 which will be ready in the fall.
-
North Sea MAY be better, as IIRC it would give more room for the positioning of the Allied task groups, and I think I may still have a copy of the map from when my squad flew in that campaign. If not is the full-sized strat map used by the CiCs up for download on ahevents, or could you post or e-mail it to me? I sent a PM to Widewing to see if he has more information on Project Danny that may help with planning a full FSO campaign around it. I didn't ask specifically about where the targeted sites were located, but can follow up if he has more reliable information to work from.
-
Did a quick search on Yahoo. So far the most specific details of target locations I can come up with is Eastern France as part of Operation Crossbow, so the BOB terrain would appear to be more appropriate, as far as the historical plan. However this was a brief mention in Wiki under one of the squadron's designated for the assignment (VMF-511, although similar references also appear in the Wiki pages for the other four squadrons of MAG-51) and the link in this Wiki page to Operation Crossbow - Project Danny is no longer valid.
However a list of V-1 sites from the actual Wiki article on Operation Crossbow (Project Danny is not listed) bombed by the Allies is as follows:
Abbeville (Tilley-le-Haut)
Abbeville (site in wood at Flixecourt)
Ailly
Amiens ("Wemars/Cappel")
Anderbeck
Anderbelck
Acquet
Acquet
Ardouval
Bachimont
Belle Croix
Belloy-sur-Summe
Blangermont
Bois de la Justice (#74)
Bonneton
Bremont les Hautes
Bristillerie
Cachie D'Eque
Cocques
Coubronne:
Droinville (#50)
Ferfay
Ferme du Forestal
Foręt de Croc
Gapennes
Gorenflos
Grand Parc (#107)
Herbouville
Jardins
La Glacerie
La Houssoye
Les Hauts Buissons
Les Landes
Maisoncette
Mont Candon
Mont Louis
Oisemont
Pont A Verdin
Prouville
St Philibert Ferme
Regnaville
Remaisnil
Rollez
Sottevast
Wadicourt
-
Did a quick look at North Sea and it really only covers Denmark and North. France is not all on it and only a sliver of the Netherlands or is that Belgium next to Denmark?
Were there any V1 bases in Denmark?
Otherwise looks like the BoB4 terrain might be your only bet.
-
Operation Crossbow would have covered V-1 sites in France for certain, possibly the Dutch coast, so you're right, as far as geography BOB would be the best option. To give enough range between launch sites and targets (both sides) some of the V-1 sites and alternate Allied targets, and active Axis bases would have to be further inland than they may have been historically, tho. Either that, or Allied carrier operations would be restricted to the larger bodies of water along the Normandy coast, or north of Calais.
Is the BOB map in 1:1 scale? If it's at a reduced scale for playability of flight times another option, though it may take more time to implement, would be to create a "zoomed in" map closer to a 1:1 scale to spread out objectives.
-
BoB04/BoB08 is 1:1.
-
Ok, this would mean concentrating the Allied task groups north of Calais and along the Normandy Coast to provide them enough room to navigate, with both Axis launch points and Allied targets further inland. There MAY not be much choice but have the Allied carrier groups combined in two groups of three. This will also present an added challenge for the Allied strike packages, as there's considerably more radar to have to navigate, especially towards the Western and central ends of the map.
Another possibility is that Project Danny would have rolled off sometime after the Normandy landings, so at least part of continental Europe would be under Allied control at this time. This could open up a new defensive objective for the Allies of either the beachhead itself, or Allied convoys (represented by destroyer-only task forces) in the channel.
-
From what I have read on this topic, the action would have taken place after July 1944. This would have meant that the targets of the attack would not have been those sites along the Channel Coast but those on the coast of Holland and Denmark.
http://www.adamsplanes.com/VMF-512.htm
-
Besides, I would not put the V1 sites where they were historically, other than 'on the coast'. Finding them would be half the fun and make more sense imho.
-
Fencer,
Would North Sea provide enough of Denmark to suit this purpose? I'd need to find a map to know if any of Holland would be covered by EITHER North Sea or BOB.
-
A small potion of Holland is on Bob04, but not alot. Almost none of it is on Northsea. Denmark in it's entirety is there though.
-
Besides, I would not put the V1 sites where they were historically, other than 'on the coast'. Finding them would be half the fun and make more sense imho.
I need to do more research on this to be certain, but... For the most part, these types of strikes would hit known target areas. They would not have sent out squadrons to just rove about the airspace looking for sites. The purpose of the low-altitude training was merely for the delivery of the Tiny Tim, not so they could visually ID the targets before hitting them. The U.S. Navy, in particular, was very detailed in its pre-strike intelligence gathering, and would have done so in this case.
One thing that is not represented in most history books is the immense amount of aerial photographic intelligence that was conducted by all sides throughout the war. For example, the U.S. had practically every visible enemy emplacement on Iwo Jima charted prior to the landings. Destroying them efficiently was another matter. If the Marines were going after V-1/V-2 emplacements, they would have known which ones they were attacking prior to launch.
Even with the air superiority achieved at this point in the war by the Allies in ETO, heavy fighters cruising around on the deck was very dangerous due to the amount of flak that was available and employed by the Germans. The danger in this mission was during the Tiny Tim delivery. Flak around these installations was extremely heavy. If we can find the resources and documentation, I believe we'll find that a medium-to-high altitude ingress, with a steep dive rocket attack, followed by a medium-to-high altitude egress, would have been the planned mission profile.
Regardless, this could be an interesting match up if the game and map mechanics can be worked out.
-
Fencer,
Would you be in agreement, then, that North Sea would then be the better choice after all, due to the July start date? Certainly, as in my initial thoughts, North Sea would offer FAR more room to position the Allied carriers.
Stoney,
From what I can dig up, this would then mean the Germans had TWO strategies in defense: Early on more permanent structures, while later as the sites had started to be hit, they altered their designs to make them easier to put back into commission again. Not quite MOBILE, but certainly less permanent. Even if the early sites were heavily armed, the later practice seems to suggest the Germans would have relied more on secrecy and air defenses in the surrounding area than heavy AAA on the site itself, while only major sites like Peenemundë retained the real heavy local air defenses. Granted, based on the dates the sites I listed here were bombed (available in the Wiki article on Crossbow) the July time frame would seem to indicate the earlier practice.
I do still believe that, due to the small probable size of the target, each Corsair Squadron should be given a specific sector to attack, with 2-3 V-1 sites in each sector. A Corsair with 2x500lb bombs, and 8x5" HVAR carries 2000lbs of ordinance. Multiply that by the max end of a 7-10 squadron (10 standard, 12 with +2 allowance) you're talking 20,000-24,0000lbs of ordinance for a site that may not require more than 2000-3000. Remove the rockets and you're still looking at over-kill. However, if each squadron must hit 2-3 sites in their sector of operations, you've just given the squadron commander a critical tactical decision: Keep his squadron together in hopes of making it through the air defenses to each site sequentially by numbers and attrition, or should he risk dividing his squadron in an attempt at striking all the sites at once in hopes that they can make it through on at least one or two, with enough ships left over to rearm and make a second pass on any that are missed?
Additionally, I also still believe the German pilots should be instructed ONLY to defend a specific sector, (or maybe a group of sectors) which contains both V-1 sites AND a potential alternate target (port, V-base, etc). That way the Axis won't know in advance if they're looking for Corsairs striking the V-1s, or TBMs or jabo F6Fs/FM-2s after a different target.
Also, I mentioned before but what sort of German iron would be available for July 1944? I know for certain Ju-88s and Bf-110Gs (Fw-190Fs I think would also likely be available) for the Luftwaffe strike packages, but what about air-to-air? Would the same Axis plane set as Kanalkampf be applicable?
-
Saxman,
The Germans did everything you mention, but as they withdrew from occupied territory they carried their AAA back with them whenever possible, note the amount of equipment in photos of the Falaise pocket. Some of the final bombing and strafing missions of the war were infact the most dangerous missions flown. The documentary "A Fighter Pilots Story" covers this well as does the history channel program WW2 in color when they followed a P-47 group all the way to the Rhine. They were losing 1-2 A/C a mission to ground fire into May of 45.
Valkyrie
-
I have a few questions;
1. How long did it take to erect a V1 launching platform? If it took 48 hours or less, you could actually respawn targets, or the Axis Commander could choose to move them. If movement is possible, you'd have to consider an incentive to spread them out (ie V1s can strike more cities).
2. A zone defense for a 'fixed' ground target against fighter aircraft is next to impossible without overwhelming numbers of aircraft. Do you want this scenario to allow the Axis Commander to choose what sites to protect (ie he who protects everything, protects nothing... consolidation of fighters is key once he discovers a CV's location).
3. Do you plan on ack having any teeth this scenario?
-
Also, I mentioned before but what sort of German iron would be available for July 1944? I know for certain Ju-88s and Bf-110Gs (Fw-190Fs I think would also likely be available) for the Luftwaffe strike packages, but what about air-to-air? Would the same Axis plane set as Kanalkampf be applicable?
Well, I believe we should probably find a Air Order of Battle for the Luftwaffe in the vicinity of this time period. That would give us a first read on what a historical match-up would have been. Then, we can make the necessary adjustments for balance. Again, finding some good resources would make this idea really flourish...
-
2. A zone defense for a 'fixed' ground target against fighter aircraft is next to impossible without overwhelming numbers of aircraft. Do you want this scenario to allow the Axis Commander to choose what sites to protect (ie he who protects everything, protects nothing... consolidation of fighters is key once he discovers a CV's location).
3. Do you plan on ack having any teeth this scenario?
2. Just as the commander of the F4U squadrons would have to make a decision on whether to concentrate on one site at a time, or split up and strike them individually, the Axis CiC would face the same hard choice.
3. That hasn't been completely settled yet, but there's likely going to be some guns on the ground.
-
Stoney,
Still waiting to hear back from WW to see if he has any more specific information on this, but here's what I've been coming up with regarding Luftwaffe aircraft in the region via Google (currently assuming North Sea would be the map to use) in July 1944:
Ju-87 (no specification of type)
Ju-88D
Bf-110G
Fw-190A (generally no more specific than that, though I've found at least one squadron equipped with A8s)
Bf-109G (no specification of type).
-
Once again have to look at the map and also see if Dux can build in custom destroyable objects (V1 bases) that can be placed in a sector but not show as bases. Right now we have FSO through October. So if we did this it would be several months out.
Now Delerium most likely how the V1 bases would be handled would be the same as how we handle the CVs in FSOs. The allies would be told there is a base(s) in this sector(s). With a CV we usually tell the attacker that somewhere within these 3 to 4 sectors is the enemy fleet.
If we can place custom objects that can be targeted and destroyed then probably would do the same thing. Somewhere within this sector(s) is a V1 base. Now probably would have to experiment and have it down to 1 or 2 sectors. Since a fleet is easy to spot from up high while the V1 base (if I understand what Saxman would like) would be difficult to spot. Meaning planes would have to come in low to medium alt to find it (just like we had to do when train hunting in some of the old Tunisian FSOs).
So the defender would know where he has to defend, just like when he had a normal base. The attacker though would have a bit of scouting to do on top of dealing with the defenders.
As for the F4U commander, remember ALL targets must be attacked by T+60. So a CiC could decided to hit this one or two targets with F4Us but the other targets still need to be attack by other allied planes.
Lastly, an order battle is nice to go by but remember we can and do make accomodations / modifications for playability. So while only one reference to that A8 has been found keep in mind what the Germans are facing .. F4Us, etc. You want to make sure that they have planes that have a reasonable chance of competing. So have to research the A5 and A8 and see how they stack up against the F4U you are thinking of using. Also even if say you can't find plane types in use in the area you can stretch and include them for play balance if you think it is reasonable or plausible for them to be in the area (especially as this is a what if).
-
The problem with an object that is destroyable on the map, but not noted on the clipboard map is that it is stationary. So as soon as the map is downloaded, the Allied players could pre-scout the sector and find it with ease. So not having it on the clipboard map doesn't really help what you're striving for.
Now if there was something similar to a CV/task force that took as much ordinance to kill, but moved around the map at a slow rate, that would be something. :)
-
Well, based on other comments it sounds like the Allies--at least in the July time frame--would have known right where those sites were located anyway, so hiding them wouldn't really be necessary. However if they don't appear on the in-game map it would give the more pro-active Allied C/Os (either frame CiCs, or individual squadron commanders) a little more pre-planning to do, to find the exact location of the sites and mark it for their own use so they know where they are. However even if they're in the right keypad, they'd still need to visually locate the targets (It's not too disimilar to CVs as it is. You can have a scout call out a KP of the boat's location, but the guys coming behind still have to find it. The only difference is the task groups are much larger, and much more easily seen from altitude).
-
Stoney,
Still waiting to hear back from WW to see if he has any more specific information on this, but here's what I've been coming up with regarding Luftwaffe aircraft in the region via Google (currently assuming North Sea would be the map to use) in July 1944:
Ju-87 (no specification of type)
Ju-88D
Bf-110G
Fw-190A (generally no more specific than that, though I've found at least one squadron equipped with A8s)
Bf-109G (no specification of type).
Yes I would suggest North Sea, look at it this way, why use CVs in the English Channel? I would bet that their intention all along was to operate in the area off of northern Holland. But realistically, this was a really bad idea, exposing the CVs for so little return. Don't forget there were UBoats around too.
I have alot of Luftwaffe OOB stuff but this week is crazy for me at work (two projects due) and it will take time to pull it together. Maybe this weekend if WW hasn't gotten to it by then.
-
I read the thread from the beginning but must have missed the part where this is July 44.
The Allies were going after No-Ball targets as early as November 43 with RAF and USAAF mediums and mossies. The pilots didn't know what they were going after other then it was potential sights for German rockets. They were hard to spot from the air. They tried Spits dive bombing them, Tiffies, you name it.
I'd think you'd want a mix of real and not so real emplacements that the Allied pilots would have to find and destroy. I don't think all the sites were known or pin pointed by Allied intelligence. This was a fairly large part of the operations pre-D-Day. Any particular reason for July 44 instead of prior to the invasion? Just curious
-
This was part of Operation Crossbow, which puts it after D-Day. Additionally what information on Project Danny I can find also indicates a start date of at LEAST July 1944.
-
I read the thread from the beginning but must have missed the part where this is July 44.
The fact that we're talking about V-1s puts it at least after June '44. :)
-
Actually they were building the launch ramps way before D-Day. They just never shot them til afterwards.
Guppy this is a US Navy OP which was set to go sometime during or after July 44. See the link I posted upthread.