Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Friday Squad Operations => Topic started by: ghostdancer on January 31, 2009, 04:59:47 PM
-
DESCRIPTION
At the Yalta Conference in Feb 1945, Joseph Stalin had agreed to end the non-aggression pact with Japan, immediately followed by a declaration of war, three months after Germany would be defeated. On 8 Aug 1945, exactly three months after the German surrender, Russia abided by her promise and invaded Japanese puppet state Manchukuo in northeastern China. The three Russian Armies (Fronts) of the Far Eastern Command was under the overall command of Marshal A. M. Vasilevsky. In the field, Marshal R. Y. Malinovsky commanded the Transbaikal Front, Marshal K. A. Meretskov the 1st Far East Front, and General M. A. Purkayev the 2nd Far East Front. Fielding over 1.5 million men in 80 division with the support of over 5,000 tanks and 4,300 aircraft, the Russian forces completely outnumbered General Otsuzo Yamada's Kwangtung Army's 600,000 men in 25 divisions with a 40,000-strong Manchukuo Defense Force in 8 divisions, supported by 1,215 tanks and 1,800 aircraft.
The main invasion came across the Gobi desert, a desolate region that the Japanese did not expect any army to march through. Aside from the numerical superiority, the Russian invasion came at a total surprise to the unprepared Japanese troops in western Manchuria, which was further exploited by the Russian usage of airborne units at key airfields and population center. Within two weeks, major Manchurian cities of Mukden, Changchun and Qiqihar were under Russian control.
While the main invasion came across from the west, the eastern pincer made several amphibious landings on 18 Aug in northern Korea, Sakhalin, and in the Kuril Islands. The northern Korean landing was undeniably military in nature, but the landings made in southern Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands were likely more political in nature, aiming for a long term occupation of Japanese territories.
On 14 Aug 1945, through a radio address, Emperor Hirohito of Japan declared his wish to surrender to the Allied powers. By this time, Russian troops reached the vicinity of the northern bank of the Yalu River, but stiff Japanese resistance prevented them from reaching it even though a small Russian contingent were probing behind the Japanese lines in northern Korea while the Japanese 17th Army marched north to meet them.. They failed to secure all of the Korean Peninsula before the 2 Sep Japanese surrender ceremony in order to establish a solely-Russian occupation area. On 8 Sep, American troops landed at the port city of Inchon, ending the Russian dream of being the sole occupier.
The Japanese northern-most home island of Hokkaido was in the invasion plans along with an air campaign of striking against the Japanese islands from the mainland, but Japan surrendered before Russian forces were ready to mount such an invasion.
This FSO is a what if scenario which posits that Japan did not surrender on Sep. 2nd but instead fought on for several months afterwards. Allowing the Russians to push into parts of south Korea while trying to eradicate large pockets of resistance in North Korea, conduct air strikes on the Japanese home islands, and interdicting naval and merchant marine traffic in the Sea of Japan.
NOTE: We will be using the Japan terrain for this event.
SOVIET AIRCRAFT
A-20G
B-25C/D (formations enabled)
La5N
La-7 (very limited numbers)
Mossie (sub for PE-2)
P-39Q
Yak-9T
Yak-9U
M-3
M-8
Sherman VC
JAPANESE AIRCRAFT
Ki-61
Ki-67
Ki-84
N1K2
M-3
M-8
Panzer IV
COUNTRY PERCENTAGES
Roughly 50 / 50 with the Axis having slightly more.
SCORING
CA - 40 points
DD - 20 points
5 pts - Single Engine AC with 1 crew
10 pts - Single or double engine AC with 2 crew
15 pts - Double Engine AC with 3+ crew
192 - Small Airfield
264 - Medium Airfield
381 - Large Airfield
TBD - Port
146 - Vehicle Base
ARENA SETTINGS
- Japan Terrain
- Fuel 1.0
- Icons short
- 0.5 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, 13 miles
Frame 2, 23 miles
Frame 3, 16 miles
- Radar off
- Formations off - Friendly collisions off
- Kill shooter off
- Calm winds
- Time: 11 AM
SPECIAL RULES
Note special rules sent out with the objectives trump these special rules.
1. Nobody on the allied life gets a second life flying a plane.
2. Bomber formations are enabled / available.
3. A minimum and maximum number will be assigned to each aircraft type. The CiC of each side must deploy the designated minimum per aircraft type and can not more than the maximum per aircraft type. Outside of that the CiCs can deploy the aircraft types anyway the want (i.e. can have squads fly 2 aircraft types and in split they wish as long as squads are assigned same objective).
4. If both CiCs agree they may have the setup CM end the frame early. This is usually done if one side wipes out the other side (i.e. 60 versus 5).
5. Dead pilots may gun bombers. They may not man the guns of airfields or ships.
6. Ships can maneuver by the allied side during the frame as long as they stay in their containment area. Ships must stay in containment area defined in the objective orders. If they go outside of the containment area a penalty will be assessed.
7. All targets must be attacked within the first hour of the event. Both CiCs should include sending their battle plans to me so that I have proof that they planned to attack their targets by T+60.
8. All targets must be attacked by a credible force. I define a credible force to be at the very least 2 x 4-6 squads (so 8-12 planes) or 1 7x10 squad. Obviously CiCs can deploy a larger force per target as their plan dictates but no defending or attacking with just 1 x 4-6 squad.
9. All targets must be defended by a credible force. I define a credible force to be at the very least 2 x 4-6 squads (so 8-12 planes) or 1 7x10 squad. Obviously CiCs can deploy a larger force per target as their plan dictates but no defending or attacking with just 1 x 4-6 squad.
GROUND RULES
A ground combat element will be incorporated into the event. Specific rules regarding the ground combat will be forth coming. Basically I will be using the same rules and capture the flag idea that was used in the Tunisia FSO
First off the ground combat will be a type of capture the flag. Both sides will spawn outside of a base not controlled by either and will be tasked with capturing the neutral (third party base) and holding it until end frame (so a sort of capture the flag but with a stationary flag).
Also GV life might either be a one life affair for those assigned to GVs or if I determine that the GV players get a second life in planes later in frame they will not be allowed to up in planes until after a specific time marker (i.e. T+40 or T+50, etc. ... it is to TBD). However dead GV players may man the guns of other tanks and vehicles.
-
Registration is open over on http://www.ahevents.org
-
Max and minimum nunbers on the different plane types?
-
Yes I will assign min and max for plane types just like I did in Tunisia.
-
Very nice setup, this should be a blast!
:salute Ghostdancer
-
why are there shermans for the russians :huh it should be t-34/76 and some t34/85
-
why are there shermans for the russians :huh it should be t-34/76 and some t34/85
Yeah, I'm kind of flabbergasted by that one as well. Perhaps its a typo... :O
-
why are there shermans for the russians :huh it should be t-34/76 and some t34/85
Yea, did the Russians stoll M4 from Pattons 3rd Army?
-
Yes, it is a typo.
The Russians have the T-34. The Japanese actually did have a medium tanks and light tanks on the mainland. Of course nothing they really have matches up well against the T-34 but for game balance I need to give them an opposing tank (the Panzer) instead of just having them have all M-8s.
-
an m8 would probly be equivlent to a jap tank exept that the m8 is faster
-
the mossie is far too powerfull, imo. just my thoughts.
-
Did I leave the mossie in? Woops, another sort of typo .. had discussion with other CMs about whether to use the Mossie as a sub for the Pe-2 and decided that I would leave it out. So if I left it in the description that was a mistake.
-
looks like another great 1 :salute
-
Did I leave the mossie in? Woops, another sort of typo .. had discussion with other CMs about whether to use the Mossie as a sub for the Pe-2 and decided that I would leave it out. So if I left it in the description that was a mistake.
If the mossie's gone is the Nik2j gone as well? They balanced each other out.
-
If the mossie's gone is the Nik2j gone as well? They balanced each other out.
Russians still have La7. that should level things.
-
One more question.
Do the Japanese have the A6M5b? It seems like a Japanese FSO without the zeke is like the Germans without the 109.
-
A6M5 was a Navy aircraft. The Japanese Navy Carriers were at the bottom of the Pacific by late 1945.
-
wait are the Russians launching from cv's or do task groups have no cv
-
A6M5 was a Navy aircraft. The Japanese Navy Carriers were at the bottom of the Pacific by late 1945.
So was the N1K2. Just because it is Navy doesn't mean it was always used on a ship or designed for one.
There were alot of A6M5s still around in August 1945, now as to their use in Manchuria, I have no data.
-
AFAIK the N1K2 never operated from a carrier.
-
wait are the Russians launching from cv's or do task groups have no cv
I believe mother russia will launch from the Part of the land on the west side of the map
-
AFAIK the N1K2 never operated from a carrier.
You're correct Sax. Actually the N1K2 was derived from the original N1K1 Floatplane fighter.
(http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/n1k/n1k-c1.jpg)
The N1K1J was the land based version derived from it. The N1K2 being an improved version of the N1K1J.
In fact the J2M Raiden was another Japanese Navy fighter never intended for carrier use.
(http://www.mmpbooks.biz/books/8391632776/raidenbookreviewrk_profils.jpg)
As far as I know the only aircraft ever envisioned to replace the Zeke on carriers was the Mitsubishi A7M which never made it to operational service.
(http://www.schofields-flying-club.com.au/newsletter/images/oct07/am7.jpg)
442w30 Some of the highest scoring Japanese Navy A6M pilots never flew it from a carrier.
Nishizawa and Sakai to name a couple.
-
Did I leave the mossie in? Woops, another sort of typo .. had discussion with other CMs about whether to use the Mossie as a sub for the Pe-2 and decided that I would leave it out. So if I left it in the description that was a mistake.
ah, roger that :)
-
There were alot of A6M5s still around in August 1945, now as to their use in Manchuria, I have no data.
Wouldn't they be later model zekes than what we have? Pitting them against Las, Yaks, and the like might seem like ... well... a bit overkill on the allied part.
Wasn't the most common zeke model in late '44 and '45 the A6M5c, with upgraded armor, weapons, and (I can't recall if this is right) a bit more horsepower?
-
AFAIK the N1K2 never operated from a carrier.
It never was intended to operate from a carrier, which was my point. But it was a Navy fighter. The Japanese were werid about their force structure.
-
Russians have the La5N.
After frame 1 as a designer I reserve the right to either add in the Mossie as a sub for the Pe-2 or add in very, very limited La-7s. Will see how things turn out and how the game play balance goes.
-
with the current FSO fuel burn 1.0 the la7 will have close to 1 hr flight time :rock
-
but 5 mins of ammo
-
I stand corrected and educated! Thank you all for info that I was unaware of. :salute
-
It never was intended to operate from a carrier, which was my point. But it was a Navy fighter. The Japanese were werid about their force structure.
Territorial war lords fighting with each other over who gets to fight the enemy was not weird for them at all :)
-
Japan was a naval power, being an island nation, so the fact it had a large naval air arm is not at all surprising. Japan, like the U.S., and Soviets, and others, had their air power controlled by their respective army and navies, with seperate air arms in both services. Most nations in WW2 did, nothing really unusual about it. The tradition of land based naval air forces goes back to WW1 where the German Naval Air Service and the Royal Naval Air Service, both operated land based fighter and bomber sqaudrons in support of the front. Naval air power was never limited to just ship borne aircraft, even after Carriers became numerous in fleets. Thats even true today.
-
I still have to test the La5N but when I did the design planning for this event I do the following testing:
I figure I will probably have 3 targets within 100 miles (4 sectors) of a launch base and 3 targets within 125 miles (5 sectors) of a launch base. So a round trip will be 200 to 250 miles if flown direct.
This gives more than enough time to get to alt, to take a non-direct path to target, etc.
- P-39Q : full power to 20K alt, 47 min of fuel | once level and at normal cruise speed 54 min of fuel, range 283 miles (radius 141 miles)
- Yak-9U : full power to 20K alt, 39 min of fuel | once level and at normal cruise speed 62 min of fuel, range 368 miles (radius 184 miles)
- La7 : full power to 20K alt, 58 min of fuel | once level and at normal cruise speed 67 min of fuel, range 404 miles (radius 202 miles)
So the Soviets should be able to deal with targets 100 to 125 miles away from their bases. The P39Q will have the toughest time but possibly flying it lower at 15K will help. I still have to test the La5n.
Now with this said .. the tenative fuel burn rate is 1.0 but remember when you get the actual objectives the fuel burn rate in those will be the final fuel burn rate for that frame. After testing the La5N and when I finalize my targets for both sides I will come up with the "final" rate for the frame and if need be yes, I am willing to drop it to 0.9 or 0.8 as needed or indicated by my test results.
So Overall the Japanese will have fuel to burn but the Russians will not. The Russians though have a definite speed advantage over all Japanese planes and the area of combat is going to be along narrow fronts. Meaning I expect each frame to be brutal knife fights.
-
Yes, I could have included the A6M5b for the Japanese and yes, I had discussions about it with other CMs. I am just being conservative since I think that the A6M5b would have a massively hard time against the La5N and Yaks. Not sure how it would do against the P-39Q. But anyway unless deployed properly (as in mixed in with other fighters in a strike package) I think it would be a little out of its league which is why I left it out.
-
That, and by the time Japan surrendered I don't think they had many Zeros left, anyway. However IIRC a LARGE number of N1K2s and Ki-84s were either stuck on the Home Islands or in China because American submarine and anti-shipping activity was so effective they couldn't redeploy them. I think almost the entire 343rd was trapped in China when they were badly needed elsewhere.
-
<S> Ghostdancer,
A quick question on the aircraft. Below is the aircraft list from the OP as of now...
SOVIET AIRCRAFT
A-20G
B-25C/D (formations enabled)
La5N
La-7 (very limited numbers)
Mossie (sub for PE-2)
P-39Q
Yak-9T
Yak-9U
M-3
M-8
Sherman VC
JAPANESE AIRCRAFT
Ki-61
Ki-67
Ki-84
N1K2
M-3
M-8
Panzer IV
and this aircraft list is from the events webpage as of right now: Link http://ahevents.org/pacific-theatre/1945-operation-august-storm-russian-vs.-japan.html (http://ahevents.org/pacific-theatre/1945-operation-august-storm-russian-vs.-japan.html)
SOVIET AIRCRAFT
A-20G
B-25C/D (formations enabled)
P-39Q
LA5N
YAK-9U
YAK-9T
T-34
M-3
M8
JAPANESE AIRCRAFT
Ki-61
Ki-67
Ki-84
Panzer
M-3
M-8
I know the mossie is gone(per this thread), but what is the actual set we are going to be flying?
Thanks in advance,
Twizz
*spelling
-
Frigging Typos .. here is the list:
SOVIET AIRCRAFT
A-20G
B-25C/D (formations enabled)
P-39Q
LA5N
YAK-9U
YAK-9T
(based on how frame 1 turns out I might and stress might reinsert a very limited number of La-7s and also possibly reinsert Mossies if I deem the play balance is off but for frame 1 no mossies or La-7s.).
T-34
M-3
M8
JAPANESE AIRCRAFT
Ki-61
Ki-67
Ki-84
N1K2
Panzer
M-3
M-8
-
Perfect, Thanks Ghostdancer <S>
-
Which T-34?
-
WOOT, This should be a slugfest!! I'm very glad to see this come about, <S> Ghostdancer! :D
-
Well so much for La7 Balancing out the Nik2J lol.
-
OH no more la7 :cry
-
The La5N should give the N1K2 a good run for its money. It is faster, climbs better (but doesn't blow the N1K2 away in the climb), and has massive acceleration advantage. The N1K2 advantage comes down to better turn radius, longer legs (range), and of course 4 20mm cannons versus the La5N's 2 20mm.
Against the other planes .. Ki61 and Ki84 the La5n more than holds it own.
Here is a link to a stats comparison:
http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=la5fn&p2=ki61&p3=ki84&p4=n1k2j
-
The La5N should give the N1K2 a good run for its money. It is faster, climbs better (but doesn't blow the N1K2 away in the climb), and has massive acceleration advantage. The N1K2 advantage comes down to better turn radius, longer legs (range), and of course 4 20mm cannons versus the La5N's 2 20mm.
Against the other planes .. Ki61 and Ki84 the La5n more than holds it own.
Here is a link to a stats comparison:
http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=la5fn&p2=ki61&p3=ki84&p4=n1k2j
The Ki-84 is the best Japanese fighter. Worrying about the slow, poor-rolling N1K is silly.
Where's the Il-2?
-
Decided to leave it out because it really was made for ground attack but I don't want planes involved attacking the tanks in the tank battle portion. Outside of that role the IL2 would really not stack up well versus the Ki61, Ki84 and N1K2.
-
I vote that the N1K2 should have these skins.
(http://i393.photobucket.com/albums/pp20/skbluestem/nikkihellokitty.jpg?t=1233812259)
-
+1
-
The Bf110C-4 would be a good sub for the Pe-2. It has a slightly better gun package and slightly worse ability to carry ord. The Bf110C-4 has the same speed as the Pe-2 as well. Or, another sub for the Pe-4 might be the TBM with the 12/100lb bombs. Please consider it. It wouldnt be right to for the Soviets not to have a light bomber (outside of the B25).
-
Will consider the Bf110-C4
-
i may be in minority here but i belive we should keep it as historical as we can, meaning putting the fuel burn rate at 1.0
and giving both sides their respective planes no mattar what.
ofcourse the objective of those scenarios is to have as much fun as possible.
fun comes from good fights, and good fights come from a balanced plane set.
so the CMs balance things out by spiliting the forces around 50-50, limiting the numbers of the "good" planes and adding subs for holes in the plane set.
in case of this scenario i belive we can pull this off with the "uber" La7 and the il2 and maybe the 110 as the Pe2.
keep the fuel at 1.0 as it allways is and should be.
my knowledge is lacking on both late war russian and japaneese planes, but i belive the shart legs of the LA7 + the obligation to cover the low Il2s and 110s will balance the gap in performence.
that and maybe give the russians harder targets?
anyway i have 100% trust in the CM team to solve the puzzle of a fun and ballanced game and still keep it as historical as possible, i know you work hard for those scenarios to come out.
thanks and <S>
-
Agreed on the fuel burn, it should be kept at 1.0. It SHOULD be a major consideration of the squad leaders and CiCs when planning their flightplans and power settings.
-
Ummm, please don't sub the 110 for the Pe-2.
Secondly, the La-7 is nothing special above 10k ft. The Yak-9U is the fastest Russian fighter.
-
Fuel burn rate is at 1.0 for the 1st frame. Depending on results I could lower it if I deem it necessary for play balance.
As CMs we do try to keep things historical but we also have factor in play balance and player fun. If it was historical the Russians would out number the Japanese in the air about 5 to 1. So as a CM I make compromises because I want both sides to have a chance and I want both sides to enjoy the event. Also I am sort of limited by terrains. I would much rather have this over in Manchuria but the closest I can get is the Japan terrain (Japan and North Korea), so again a little fudging and creating a what if scenario to give the players something new.
Now I can inject the IL-2 .. personally I think it will get slaughtered, which is why I kept it out. Who wants to fly in a dead man's plane. But yes, I can still inject and then leave it up to the CiCs to use. Although I do think that the Russians used medium bombers more in this campaign since it was fluid and the Japanese did not have a massive armor force like the Germans did. So leaving out the IL-2 is no big deal.
As for the La-7. I have talked and discussed things with other CMs on this issue and while there were some involved I am not sure of how many. I know La5Ns were involved but again not sure of the mix between the two planes. The most modern planes were in the east and still be transferred west to this front (war in Europe just ended about 4 to 5 months ago and the logistical capability from Europe to the Far east was .. primitive to say the least for the Russians). So for frame 1 I am leaving the La-7 out. Again if the results of frame 1 indicate the Russians need a bit of an oomph or if other factors make me think it is okay I will introduce the La-7 in limited quantities in other frames.
-
Hmmm.. The 13th, is so torn on this FSO.. Dont know which side to pick....
Couple ?,s. Will there be la 7's? If so how many? ... Tuk :rolleyes:
-
Per ghost in the post right above yours: None in Frame 1. Frame 2 and 3 depending on how things look in Frame 1.
-
There were Regiments of Soviet Navy IL-10s involved in the campaign, but mainly as anti-shipping and port strikes. Due to the ranges involved tactical air was lacking, with medium bombers picking up the slack.
I would believe that the LA-7 was there in numbers more so than the P-39Q, but there was so little JAAF resistance in the real battle that it would not have mattered either way. The designer knows what he wants and is making a reasoned call.
An interesting read of the actual battle can be found in this RAND Corporation document.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/2005/R1825.pdf
-
Hmmm.. The 13th, is so torn on this FSO.. Dont know which side to pick....
Couple ?,s. Will there be la 7's? If so how many? ... Tuk :rolleyes:
353rd FG is in the same boat here, 50/50 split on what side to fly. Having a duel to settle it :devil
-
Now I can inject the IL-2 .. personally I think it will get slaughtered, which is why I kept it out. Who wants to fly in a dead man's plane. But yes, I can still inject and then leave it up to the CiCs to use.
Had to snip that part. I can tell you sir, that when I was CiC in one of the Tunisia frames, the guys in Stukas got absolutely clobbered. I felt bad for them really and it was hard to plan where to send them. The one good thing was a second life. I know most folks and from what I hear most CM's don't like 2nd lives because they're a pain to keep up with, but I would say use it if you had to use the IL-2 or like you said make it optional to use.
-
I will think about it for frame 2. Not saying yes or now and I need to do some endurance testing of the IL2. All targets in frame 1 are 100 to 125 miles away from a launch base. So 200 - 250 miles round trip.
-
not that my opinion matters... but I think if the aircraft was present in the far east, and AH2 has it available, then it should available for use. HOWEVER, I have no issues with putting a limit on the numbers able to be used.
Also, if there is a major player like the Pe-2, Ki-45, or other such aircraft that is not present in the game, there are aircraft close in approximate ability then allow for a sub. Heck, the TBM is close enough to the Pe-2 in performance to be allowed, IMO. Ditto for the Bf110C-4 and the Pe-2 or even the Ki-45. Perhaps even the Boston (no flights) for the Pe-2.
Fill up the skies with as many DIFFERENT types of aircraft available, especially the historically correct one.
:salute
-
Like ghostdancer has said lets run frame 1 way things are see how it shakes out
-
We will see how frame 1 goes. I know about it being historical but I am also concerned about game balance. So for frame 1 the La7 sits out. In frame 2 it might be introduced in limited numbers. We will see.