Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Friday Squad Operations => Topic started by: Stoney on July 27, 2009, 12:18:33 AM
-
After the Solomons operations had concluded, most U.S. Marine aviation remained in and around the Solomons areas, or moved north and operated out of the captured airfields of the Nimitz's thrust through the Central Pacific. Likewise, US Army Air Force resources had been supporting MacArthur's push through New Guinea and into the Phillipines. Neither service had participated in the same scale of joint operations that had characterized the desperate days of the Cactus Air Force on Guadalcanal in late 1942. But, due to poor weather and lack of resources on Leyte, 5th Air Force was not able to move as quickly to operate out of the new fields captured during the landings in late October of 1944. Meanwhile, off the coast of Leyte, Admiral Kincaid's 7th Fleet was being involved in an on-going air and naval battle that was increasing in intensity. Even after the failed attempt by the Japanese Navy to drive off the invasion force, during the Battle of Leyte Gulf, the Japanese continued to move ships and aircraft throughout the Leyte and Samar island areas to disrupt the allied assault on Leyte, while Kamikaze attacks increased on the ships in San Pedro Bay. Admiral Kincaid began to feel more exposed and pressed 5th Air Force and General MacArthur for more air cover. A compromise was reached, when MacArthur ordered Marine Air Group 12 to move to Tacloban, and begin operations under the command of 5th Air Force. Ultimately, through December 1944 and January 1945, MAG-12, and eventually MAG-14 participated in the second major joint air campaign of the war as they teamed up with 5th Air Force assets to support both 7th Fleet at sea, and 6th Army on Leyte. This FSO will attempt to recreate the events of December 1944 and January 1945 in the Phillipines.
Frame 1: 7 August, 0800 T-Time
Frame 2: 14 August, 1400 T-Time
Frame 3: 21 August, 1100 T-Time
Aircraft:
USAAF/USMC
F4U-1A (48 Min)
P-38L (48 Min)
P-40E (24 Min)
P-47D25 (48 Min) (Sub for P-47D23)
B-25C (16 Min) Formations enabled
A-20 (24 Min)
B-25H (16 Min)
IJA/IJN
A6M5 (Min 96)
Ki-61 (Min 64)
Ki-84 (Min 24)
Bf110C (Sub for Ki-45 / Min 20)
Ki-67 (20 Min) Formations enabled
Rules:
Map: Luzon
Special Rules:
--Manual calibration will be used for bombers
--Ship hardness = X3 (3 times as hard to destroy)
Arena Settings:
--Fuel Burn 1.0
--Icons Short
--.4 Ack
--Fighter and Bomber Warning Range 48,000 (~8 nautical miles)
--Tower Range 48,000 (~8 nautical miles, To Match Warning Range)
--Visibility 17 Miles
--Wind speed will vary with altitude and frame. See Objectives
--Radar Off
--Enemy Collisions On
--Friendly Collisions Off
--Killshooter Off
--Takeoff time per frame descriptions above
Task Groups:
(1) Task Groups will consist of the all ships except the CV (i.e. Cruiser and Destroyers only). They will be placed on
the map by the Frame Objectives (by the Admin, me) but shall be under Allied CIC control during each frame. See Frame
Objectives each week.
Get your squadron information updated--that includes a 3rd POC for each squad. If you do not have a 3rd POC, you need to find one, or else you can't modify your squadron information. That being said, if there's any discussion or Q & A, please post it here...
<S>
Stoney
-
Updated.
:salute
-
The N1kJ should be there right?
-
412th updated to Axis. But we may up our numbers.
-
woooooooooooooooo hooooooooooooooooooooooooooo !!!!!!!! :x :x :x
-
The N1kJ should be there right?
According to my research, no N1K2 participated in this part of the Phillipine campaign. I couldn't find any reference to the Frank for that matter, but included it for balance as they were being fielded in other places around this time-frame.
-
Bf110C (Sub for Ki-45 / Min 20)
:rofl
-
According to my research, no N1K2 participated in this part of the Phillipine campaign. I couldn't find any reference to the Frank for that matter, but included it for balance as they were being fielded in other places around this time-frame.
That, and we're missing just about ALL the IJAAF fighters that WERE there.
Anaxagoras,
I agree with you there. This is why we SERIOUSLY need the Japanese plane set addressed. I find this as amusing as using Ki-61s to fill in for D4Ys in the last setup.
-
:rofl
Why is this so funny?
-
According to my research, no N1K2 participated in this part of the Phillipine campaign. I couldn't find any reference to the Frank for that matter, but included it for balance as they were being fielded in other places around this time-frame.
I think the Frank is a safe bet. I show the 72nd, 73rd, and 200th Sentai operating KI-84s out of the Phillipines. My source is Japanese Army Air Force Aces 1937-1945 from Osprey publishing.
-
I think the Frank is a safe bet. I show the 72nd, 73rd, and 200th Sentai operating KI-84s out of the Phillipines. My source is Japanese Army Air Force Aces 1937-1945 from Osprey publishing.
I know they were there in theater. Although certainly not exhaustive, the different resources I have didn't show any of the MAG-12/5th AF aircraft downing or encountering any Franks over the period. Either way, its a good plane for this setup. Thanks... :aok
-
I believe a little research will find that the 201st and 341st Kokutai were in the Phillipines in Late 1944 with N1K1 "George" aircraft.
-
I believe a little research will find that the 201st and 341st Kokutai were in the Phillipines in Late 1944 with N1K1 "George" aircraft.
But there's a HUGE difference between the N1K1-J, and the N1K2-J that we have. It'd be like substituting F4U-4s in place of the 1A.
Speaking of which, I wonder when the 4 and Charlie Hogs are gonna get some FSO love. Both variants were involved during the time setting of the Okinawa FSO a couple months back....
-
I know they were there in theater. Although certainly not exhaustive, the different resources I have didn't show any of the MAG-12/5th AF aircraft downing or encountering any Franks over the period. Either way, its a good plane for this setup. Thanks... :aok
NP just giving you a reference if needed.
<S>
-
But there's a HUGE difference between the N1K1-J, and the N1K2-J that we have. It'd be like substituting F4U-4s in place of the 1A.
Im game :)
-
Speaking of which, I wonder when the 4 and Charlie Hogs are gonna get some FSO love. Both variants were involved during the time setting of the Okinawa FSO a couple months back....
I'd think the only times the F4U-1C and F4U-4 will see FSO action is the Okinawa setup, or perhaps a mainland Japan setup like Nef did a couple of years ago.
-
I believe a little research will find that the 201st and 341st Kokutai were in the Phillipines in Late 1944 with N1K1 "George" aircraft.
Its not really a question of "were they in theater". The N1K1 is different from what we have, and the Ki-84's firepower, if not top speed, is a better parallel to the N1K1.
-
Last Augusts FSO had N1KJs in it. I'll try to find the setup.
-
Last Augusts FSO had N1KJs in it. I'll try to find the setup.
What does that have to do with this setup?
Just asking.
-
What does that have to do with this setup?
Just asking.
It was Battle of Leyte Gulf, Which was October 23-26 1944, which is 2 months before this setup.
-
It was Battle of Leyte Gulf, Which was October 23-26 1944, which is 2 months before this setup.
Nef chose to include the N1K2 for balance purposes, not because it was historically present.
-
Never mind Stoney gave the answer.
-
Nef chose to include the N1K2 for balance purposes, not because it was historically present.
Didnt know, disregard
-
This is gonna look gorgeous with the new terrain. :x :x :x
-
This is gonna look gorgeous with the new terrain. :x :x :x
Will the old Terrain be compatible with the new version (I haven't downloaded the new version yet)
-
We have submit a list of priority terrains to get update to BETA. Top of the list is Luzon and Coral Sea.
-
:aok
-
:rofl
I agree that the Messerschmitt Bf-110C-4/B is not a great standin for the Kawasaki Ki-45 KAIb.
But it's the closest we've got. At the moment. For the time being. >sigh<
-
Well, here's the choice gentlemen: we either accept the 110-C as a sub for the Ki-45 or we get rid of it all together. I myself usually hate sub aircraft, but the performance difference is slight, and it adds variety to an otherwise deficient planeset.
-
Well, here's the choice gentlemen: we either accept the 110-C as a sub for the Ki-45 or we get rid of it all together. I myself usually hate sub aircraft, but the performance difference is slight, and it adds variety to an otherwise deficient planeset.
Get rid of it.
-
Get rid of it.
Care to flesh that argument out? I get tired of trying to pull this stuff out--that's two completely unhelpful posts from you now. If you guys have beef with something, make a well-reasoned argument and present it. I don't solicit for this type of feedback--it does me no good.
-
Nobody really likes substitutes however until some of the planesets are filled out...
I personally don't have a problem if it adds a historical situation that cannot otherwise be recreated and if the sub is a close match. There is no heavy Japanese fighter to add to this scenario. However the BF-110C is a very close match.
Specifications Ki-45
Data from Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War [2]
General characteristics
Crew: Two
Length: 11.00 m (36 ft 1 in)
Wingspan: 15.02 m (49 ft 4 in)
Height: 3.70 m (12 ft 2 in)
Wing area: 32.0 m² (344 ft²)
Empty weight: 4,000 kg (8,820 lb)
Loaded weight: 5,500 kg (12,125 lb)
Powerplant: 2× Mitsubishi Ha-102 14-cylinder radial engines, 783 kW (1,050 hp) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 540 km/h (292 kn, 336 mph)
Range: 2,000 km (1,081 nmi, 1,243 mi)
Service ceiling: 10,000 m (32,800 ft)
Rate of climb: 11.7 m/s (2,300 ft/min)
Wing loading: 171.9 kg/m² (35 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 0.26 kW/kg (0.16 hp/lb)
Armament
Ko: 1 × 20 mm, 2 × 12.7 mm (.50 in), 2 × 7.92 mm (.312 in)
Otsu: 1 × 37 mm (1.46 in), 2 × 12.7 mm (.50 in), 1 × 7.92 mm (.312 in)
Hei: 1 × 37 mm (1.46 in), 1 × 20 mm, 1 × 7.92 mm (.312 in)
Tei: 1 × 37 mm (1.46 in), 2 × 20 mm
Bo: 1 × 40 mm (1.57 in)
Comparable aircraft
Fw 187
Westland Whirlwind
Messerschmitt Bf 110
Specifications Messerschmitt Bf 110 C-4
Data from[citation needed]
General characteristics
Crew: 2 (3 for night fighter variants)
Length: 12.3 m (40 ft 6 in)
Wingspan: 16.3 m (53 ft 4 in)
Height: 3.3 m (10 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 38.8 m² (414 ft²)
Empty weight: 4,500 kg (9,921 lb)
Loaded weight: 6,700 kg (14,771 lb)
Powerplant: 2× Daimler-Benz DB 601B-1 liquid-cooled inverted V-12, 809 kW (1,100 PS (1,085 hp)) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 560 km/h (348 mph)
Range: 2,410 km (1,500 mi)
Ferry range: 2,800 km (1,750 mi)
Service ceiling: 10,500 m (35,000 ft)
Wing loading: 173 kg/m² (35.7 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 0.3644 kW/kg (0.155 hp/lb)
Armament
Guns:
2 × 20 mm MG FF/M cannons (180 rpg - 3 drums with 60 rpg, cannon were reloaded by rear gunner or radio operator during flight)
4 × 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 17 machine guns (1,000 rpg)
1 × 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 15 machine guns for defense
Comparable aircraft
Bristol Beaufighter
de Havilland Mosquito
Focke-Wulf Fw 187 Falke
Fokker G.I
Kawasaki Ki-45
Nakajima J1N
P-38 Lightning
Petlyakov Pe-2
PZL.38 Wilk
Westland Whirlwind
-
Shifty,
Those specs are remarkably close,other than the firepower!
Do you have an ammo loadout for the Ki45,just curious,it would seem that 2x20mm would be close to the 37mm depending on ammo load.
Also,what variants of the KI were involved.
:salute
-
Care to flesh that argument out? I get tired of trying to pull this stuff out--that's two completely unhelpful posts from you now. If you guys have beef with something, make a well-reasoned argument and present it. I don't solicit for this type of feedback--it does me no good.
X 2, I'm interested in hearing why as well
-
Shifty,
Those specs are remarkably close,other than the firepower!
Do you have an ammo loadout for the Ki45,just curious,it would seem that 2x20mm would be close to the 37mm depending on ammo load.
Also,what variants of the KI were involved.
:salute
Morf I cannot find the exact models used in the current setup. I can suggest or guess it would have been the KAIa model with the 20mm. The up gunned versions were probably to counter B-29 attacks on the home Islands. I've been able to find two Sentais the 27th and the 45th that operated the Ki-45 in the PI.
<S>
-
Rgr,and Thx :aok
seems reasonable sub. to me.
:salute
-
Care to flesh that argument out? I get tired of trying to pull this stuff out--that's two completely unhelpful posts from you now. If you guys have beef with something, make a well-reasoned argument and present it. I don't solicit for this type of feedback--it does me no good.
I've explained my arguments against substitutions on numerous occasions to you. You already know them. The last time we had a similar debate was about which 190 to use in Italy to represent 190 ground attack aircraft. You asked for feedback and then refused to discuss the issue:
The 190A5 bears a closer resemblance to the performance of the earlier G series 190's, IMO. Outside of wing drop tanks, ordnance capacity is almost identical. Plus, the in-game F model and its PB-1 rockets were not introduced until later--mid-to-late 1944 if I understand correctly. So, short answer is no. The A5 will stay versus the F8, unless someone can provide a more convincing argument. Thanks for the question though.
So I decided to step up the plate and continue the discussion:
The F8 could be restricted to only use the 4x50kg bombs on the wings to simulate the abilities of the G. The 190G was a long range version of the 190F; the F has better range than the A5, which has extremely short range and can't carry both ordinance and a drop tank.
Second part of the argument: the 190A-5 will be used as an air-superiority fighter if it's available, the 190F-8 would be used for what the 190G was used for.
And then you stonewalled me:
Sorry, we're going to leave the A5s as they are.
So forgive me if I don't think there's much point in giving you reasons and arguments. You make up your mind on your own.
-
So forgive me if I don't think there's much point in giving you reasons and arguments. You make up your mind on your own.
Then don't post at all.
-
KI-45, would love to have the real nick in the game
-
Care to flesh that argument out? I get tired of trying to pull this stuff out--that's two completely unhelpful posts from you now. If you guys have beef with something, make a well-reasoned argument and present it. I don't solicit for this type of feedback--it does me no good.
Aside from the fact that the Bf-110C-4/B and the Ki-45 KAIb were both two-seat twins, IMHO they seem pretty different in weight, armament, power, and wing loading.* >shrug<
Guess I'm just wishing out loud about the IJA/IJN plane set. Sorry if this bugs you, Stoney. :salute
* see "Warplanes of the Third Reich" by William Green and "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War" by Rene Francillon
-
Aside from the fact that the Bf-110C-4/B and the Ki-45 KAIb were both two-seat twins, IMHO they seem pretty different in weight, armament, power, and wing loading.* >shrug<
Guess I'm just wishing out loud about the IJA/IJN plane set. Sorry if this bugs you, Stoney. :salute
* see "Warplanes of the Third Reich" by William Green and "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War" by Rene Francillon
You must be looking at different numbers than the ones that Shifty posted. What numbers do you have? I don't have those two references you quoted.
-
Green only gives a few figures for the specific model of the 110 Aces High has, the Bf-110C-4/B.
engines:
Daimler DB601N (1,200 HP at take-off, 1,270 HP at WEP at 16,400 feet)
weight:
(normal loaded) 13,779 pounds
The following details are listed for the slightly lighter Bf-110C-1 (13,289 lb.) with the 1,050 HP DB601A-1 engines.
max speed:
295 MPH at sea level
326 MPH at 13,120 feet
336 MPH at 19,685 feet
initial climb rate:
2,165 feet per minute
climb to 19,685 feet in 10.2 minutes
wing area:
413.3 square feet
guns:
2 x 20mm MG FF
4 x 7.9mm MG 17
Green does not list any wing loadings. I get 33.33 lb/sqft from his wing area of the C-1 and weight of the C-4/B.
Francillon only provides details on the Ki-45 KAIa and KAIc night-fighters, which carried a pair of dorsal oblique-firing 12.77mm or 20mm guns.
Ki-45 KAIa
engines:
Nakajima Ha-25 (1,050 HP at take-off, 970 HP at 11,155 feet)
weight:
(loaded) 11,632 pounds
max speed:
340 MPH at 22,965 feet
climb to 16,405 feet in 6 minutes 17 seconds (~6.28)
wing area:
344.4 square feet
guns:
KAIa
1 x 20mm Ho-3
2 x 12.7mm Type 1
KAIb
1 x 37mm Ho-203
1 x 20mm Ho-3
Francillon lists the wing loading of the KAIa at 33.8 lb/sqft and I get 33.77 from his figures. I have no idea if the 37mm gun carried by the KAIb weighed as much as the dorsal guns of the night-fighters.
Guess it's pretty much a wash. >shrug< The 110 might be a touch faster in level flight, the Ki-45 might have climbed better, and the guns were somewhat similar. No idea about roll rates, but I suppose neither would excel at rolling. I'd bet on the Ki-45 having a better sustained turn rate, though. (It looks like Shifty lists the numbers for the KAIc, one of the later night-fighter versions...?)
-
Thanks Bino--a well-reasoned, informative post. That's all I'm asking for gents. So, it appears that, if you compare the right versions of the aircraft, you get close. And, obviously for other versions, there are bigger discrepancies. I'm hoping one day soon we don't have to sub for the Ki-45 or any others for that matter. Regardless, we'll keep the 110C in there for now and after frame 1, if there needs to be an adjustment, I'll make it.
Thanks again...
<S>
Stoney
-
No problem, Stoney. :salute
Maybe I should get to work on an IJA skin for the 110C? ;)
-
The problem with substitutions is the assumption that they are better than nothing, when instead the superiority of a substitution versus leaving a gap should be argued for on a case by case basis. The result of such a discussion will largely depend on the requirements of the historical scenario, i.e. how badly would the re-enactment be hurt with the total absence of this aircraft? A good example might be the Battle of Britain, where not subbing the Ju-87D for the Ju-87B, and the Ju-88 for the He-111 (the majority of the bomber force), would hurt the event as a whole. Where such a damaging gap might exist in a historical event, it is an open question whether it should be run in the first place.
Now, as for the question of whether a substitution is workable, the standard should not be limited to a list of performance figures. Part of what makes an event like FSO great is the immersion into the history of air combat. The aircraft we fly look like the aircraft that flew in the war. In most cases, substitutions fail this standard. Where an event would be harmed so badly by the absence of an aircraft that a substitution is desired, and there is a potential substitute with similar performance, and the positives of running this event with an incomplete planeset outweigh the option of running a different event with a complete planeset, the substituted aircraft should resemble what it's replacing with an appropriate skin bearing the correct national insignia. This has already been done for the Ju-88 and the C-47.
In the present case of the Bf 110C subbing for the Ki-45, I am yet to hear an argument for why running the event without any Ki-45 would harm it so badly that a substitution cannot be ignored. Even if that standard were met, we do not have an appropriate skin for the 110C to make it look Japanese.
This is how I see the issue of substitutions and their role in FSO.
-
I can see your point of view, and respect your opinoin on the issue, it is a valid point you make. But, without a true to the setup plane set, you may as well just come out and say were just flying a "what if scenario" Thats how it comes across to me anyways. Granted I am all for the immersion and all that goes with it, but if we are missing a " key to the setup plane" then what? We just label the setup a what if ?
There is nothing you, or I, or anyone else can really do about at the present time except, make the best with what we have. Is it the correct answer? NO, but for the time being, seems to me its the best we have.
If we leave a plane out of a setup due to inavailability, does it make the setup anymore, or less true historical? I believe it certianly does, but thats me. Hopefully someday we'll have all the planes :x and this will no longer be a sticking point on some of our FSO setups.
:salute
-
This has already been done for...the C-47.
C-47 is a different case entirely. There's a Japanese skin because the Japanese DID use C-47s. Or rather, a license-built C-47 produced before the war began.
-
Stoney, just FYI, although I have found a few references to the Ki-45 being used in a ground-attack or anti-ship (anti-PT boat, actually) role, I cannot find any mention of its ever carrying bombs, even as a field modification. As far as I can tell, it would seem the Ki-45 was used exclusively as a strafer when it attacked targets on the ground or in the water. Again, just FYI.