Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: legoman on January 15, 2010, 03:45:56 PM
-
I personally think this would be great for the game, for late war arena's. It was the fasted prop engined fighter of WW2 reaching speeds of around 474 mph, even with a broken engine it could still reach 350 mph. The armament isn't bad either * 1 × 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 103 cannon (as forward engine-mounted Motorkanone)
* 2 × 20 mm MG 151 cannons
* Up to 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) bomb load
# Combat radius: 721 mi (1,160 km (half load))
# Service ceiling: 37,400 ft (11,400 m)
I think this would make a great perk plane
-
That never equipped any squadrons.
-
here we go again.
-
I'd love to see it. But it doesn't meet requirements.
-
what do you mean by requirements?
-
AH simulates planes & GV that fought in WWII. The Do 335 did not.
-
Actually it did see combat and it did record at least 1 kill. However it was never deployed operationally in squadron strength and to the best of my knowledge the only actual combat was an armed pre production model being flown by a test pilot in the final months of the war...
-
(http://www.scienceblogs.de/astrodicticum-simplex/2009/05/07/double-facepalm.jpg)
-
Actually it did see combat and it did record at least 1 kill.
Source?
-
I thought the only encounter with the Do 335 was when French ace Pierre Clostermann leading a flight of Tempests intercepted a lone Do 335 at tree top level that was able to out run the Tempests and escape in April of 1945.
ack-ack
-
I thought the only encounter with the Do 335 was when French ace Pierre Clostermann leading a flight of Tempests intercepted a lone Do 335 at tree top level that was able to out run the Tempests and escape in April of 1945.
ack-ack
I agree that it's 'service length in WWII' does not warrant it to be added to the game, but here is the source of Ak-Ak's comment...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_335
"French ace Pierre Clostermann claimed the first Allied combat encounter with a Pfeil in April 1945.[2][page needed] Leading a flight of four Hawker Tempests from No. 3 Squadron RAF over northern Germany, he intercepted a lone Do 335 flying at maximum speed at treetop level. Detecting the British aircraft, the German pilot reversed course to evade. Despite the Tempest's considerable speed, the RAF fighters were not able to catch up or even get into firing position."
-
There are two reports I read but can't find an active link to at the moment. One involved a leading night time ace who died shortly after the war who flew the Do-335 as a night time interceptor (prototype). The other involved a test pilot involved in a fight with two Russian fighters shortly before the end of the war. I know I've seen multiple photo's of the DO-335 in winter (snow) in an article describing field tests for air to ground and low altitude use vs Russians but don't recall the specifics
-
There are two reports I read but can't find an active link to at the moment. One involved a leading night time ace who died shortly after the war who flew the Do-335 as a night time interceptor (prototype).
Kurt Welter, whose deeds in the last days are clouded with myths and rumours. The only thing that is assured is that he did fly successful nightfighter sorties with the Me 262, but the number of kills is not known.
I know I've seen multiple photo's of the DO-335 in winter (snow) in an article describing field tests
Erprobungskommando 335, which filed a not so enthusiastic report about the Do 335 in January, listing several technical problems and shortcomings. According to them, the 335 was not ready for operational service yet.
BTW, I'm rather sceptical about all claims made by Closterman ;)
-
The only kill was the night fighter variant, IIRC.
Still did not have squadron service, thus not making the list.
-
Kurt Welter, whose deeds in the last days are clouded with myths and rumours. The only thing that is assured is that he did fly successful nightfighter sorties with the Me 262, but the number of kills is not known.
Erprobungskommando 335, which filed a not so enthusiastic report about the Do 335 in January, listing several technical problems and shortcomings. According to them, the 335 was not ready for operational service yet.
BTW, I'm rather sceptical about all claims made by Closterman ;)
According to the book "Big Show" (which that part in Wiki is taken from), the encounter was never verified.
ack-ack
-
I'm in no way making any ironclad claim. I'm putting it on the same level as P-63's over Berlin....very likely but not proven. My understanding is that a German test pilot flew a fighter that from its description had to be a DO-335 against the Russian bridge head at the ober (sp?) during the final push toward Berlin and was observed to down a soviet fighter and that accounts exist from both the soviet and german perspective on this. If I find the link again I'll certainly post it...
-
To my amazement, I once saw a post from German researcher Gebhard Aders ("History of the German Night Fighter Force") which mentioned that a Do 335 had been shot down during a transfer flight over Germany.
Other posters also seemed aware of the event; there was no "wtsweet" or "never-heard-that-before-ing". Apparently Aders has been through the Allied claims for the day in question and believes the Dornier was brought down by the dreaded friendly fire.
-
that sucks for him, i heard many accounts of accidental friendly fire causing deaths it stinks but proves that no gunner is perfect.
-
Sorry but I lived in a combat environment from 2004 till June of 2009, trust me there is no such thing as friendly fire. If they are shooting at you they aint very friendly.
-
Sorry but I lived in a combat environment from 2004 till June of 2009, trust me there is no such thing as friendly fire. If they are shooting at you they aint very friendly.
"Friendly fire... Isn't."
-
The Meteor meets requrements better than the Do. At least it was based in a combat zone in squadron strengths and did engage in combat, although the only "blood" drawn was from V-1's.
-
The Meteor meets requrements better than the Do. At least it was based in a combat zone in squadron strengths and did engage in combat, although the only "blood" drawn was from V-1's.
I understand the Mk IIIs stationed on the continent did do strikes on German fields and emplacements. Was I mislead about that?
-
Ground strafes of transport and the occasional airfield from mid-April '45. One Ju 88 damaged on the ground at Nordholz on the 24th, three aircraft destroyed and two damaged at Schonberg on May 3, one of which was a Storch which managed to land before being attacked. (Shores & Thomas)
-
I understand the Mk IIIs stationed on the continent did do strikes on German fields and emplacements. Was I mislead about that?
Think you are right. They did mix with 190's If I recall right, but got no kill. But IMHO they basically meet the requirements of AHII, and would add a new spice to it.
Oh, looked it up. They destroyed 46 e/a on the ground as well as doing some other ground attack.
Meteor III would be the choice, stats. max level speed of 495 mph (797 km/h) at 30,000 ft (9.145 m) declining to 458 mph (737 km/h) at sea level. Maximum rate of climb at sea level of 3,980 ft (1.213 m) per minute, and service ceiling of 44,000 ft (13.410 m). So while some 40 mphs less in top speed than the 262, it is still fast, and packs quad Hizooka in the nose. Wingloading lower than on the 262 BTW.
Anyway, back to the Do....
-
made in 1943 and can't find anything about WW2 kills or sorties. I can't trust Wiki so im not goin there.
-
This is the grey area IMO. We look at planes like the DO-335 and it certainly was never deployed operationally due to a combination of politics and the bombing of the original production line. However when we look at the allied side we find the two most potent airframes of the late war were not deployed even though they were operational at the squadron level well before the wars end (F7F/Meteor).
-
rename the thread dornier - 217 and i'll give you a +1 ;)
Everyone bangs on about the he-111, which in the MA would be a turkey shoot / hangar queen only useful for early war and special events.
I think the dornier 217 would be a good addition, it served throughout the war all over and has better specs than the ju-88.
-
The Meteor meets requrements better than the Do. At least it was based in a combat zone in squadron strengths and did engage in combat, although the only "blood" drawn was from V-1's.
Now you've done it: http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/index.php?module=see&lang=uk&code=a62ce201f2faf028473747cce6fd8415 (http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/index.php?module=see&lang=uk&code=a62ce201f2faf028473747cce6fd8415)
-
well there are basic differences in the process of fielding an aircraft type between the combatants
note the british thinking winter 43/44 was the introduction of the 190D. the must be in squadron strength rule is kind of funny in the sense that a lot of the planes that may meet the hitech requirement never actually saw combat and many planes that do not meet the requirement did see combat ...
the criteria just does not take into account the differences in the situations faced by all the various countries ...
it's a shame, we are missing a lot of interesting aircraft ...
-
Think you are right. They did mix with 190's If I recall right, but got no kill. But IMHO they basically meet the requirements of AHII, and would add a new spice to it.
Rour a/c of 616 were deployed to Melsbrook Belgium on Jan 20 1945. In March the rest of the squadron joined them at Gilze-Rijen. On April 13 1945 the 616 moved to Nijmegan and 4 days later they flew their first mission, a ground straffing of German transport near Ijmuiden.
Despite a number of display flight the occasional AA round was fired at them. (only one other 2 engine jet was operational > the German Me262)
In the last week of the war, the Meteors attempted to engage some Fw190s but were thwarted by Spitfires and Tempest which attacked the Meteors.
The final base of 616 was Fassberg. During the squadrons time in Europe it often flew from PSP strips.
-
Dornier 335
+1 Add it. :aok
Just perk it like a 262. I love the ability to fly such a diverse set of planes. More is better.
IMHO, I don't like being inhibited from flying cool planes that actually existed. Who cares if only 25.7 were built, or was only used in 3 squadrons, or bla bla bla. It if existed during WWII and it actually flew - I'd like to fly it too please.
-
The P-51H max speed: 489 mph
:neener:
-
+1 Add it. :aok
Just perk it like a 262. I love the ability to fly such a diverse set of planes. More is better.
IMHO, I don't like being inhibited from flying cool planes that actually existed. Who cares if only 25.7 were built, or was only used in 3 squadrons, or bla bla bla. It if existed during WWII and it actually flew - I'd like to fly it too please.
How about we add the Ki-43 instead? They only fought the entire war and more than 5900 were built. Not significant at all compared to the Do335....
-
How about we add the Ki-43 instead? They only fought the entire war and more than 5900 were built. Not significant at all compared to the Do335....
Ki-43 sounds like a fun ride.
More is better. Add both. +1
-
The P-51H max speed: 489 mph
:neener:
Never saw any combat.
ack-ack
-
Never saw any combat.
ack-ack
Depends on your definition.
Flew combat air patrols in the Pacific. Just because it didn't see any enemy airplanes doesn't mean it wasn't lookin for em :)
-
Depends on your definition.
Flew combat air patrols in the Pacific. Just because it didn't see any enemy airplanes doesn't mean it wasn't lookin for em :)
ooooo now that opens up all kinds of possibilities ...
-
ooooo now that opens up all kinds of possibilities ...
Well yeah, I think it'd be unfair to the P-51H, just sayin. The F8F, on the other hand, was strapped to a carrier deck en route when the surrender was signed.
I don't know about the F7F.
Now as to do we *need* the P51H? No, not really, it shouldn't be on the neccesary list at all, but if we ever get to a point where it looks like a viable addition that adds something in terms of gameplay (runnin down a tempest sounds like fun!), I think it'd merit an invitation. It was there, the guns were loaded, pilots looking for toruble. That's in combat to me.
-
Depends on your definition.
Flew combat air patrols in the Pacific. Just because it didn't see any enemy airplanes doesn't mean it wasn't lookin for em :)
It only depends on a person's definition if they try and twist the definition to suit their needs. The fact is that the P-51H never fired a round in combat against any enemy bandit. I don't think the P-51H pilots in the PTO even saw any enemy bandits. It fails to meet the requirements set for inclusion of additional planes and for good reason.
Well yeah, I think it'd be unfair to the P-51H, just sayin. The F8F, on the other hand, was strapped to a carrier deck en route when the surrender was signed.
Now as to do we *need* the P51H? No, not really, it shouldn't be on the neccesary list at all, but if we ever get to a point where it looks like a viable addition that adds something in terms of gameplay (runnin down a tempest sounds like fun!), I think it'd merit an invitation. It was there, the guns were loaded, pilots looking for toruble. That's in combat to me.
How is it unfair? Plane never saw any enemy action, let alone an enemy to shoot at. If that's your definition of combat, you need to get a dictionary.
ack-ack
-
There are two reports I read but can't find an active link to at the moment. One involved a leading night time ace who died shortly after the war who flew the Do-335 as a night time interceptor (prototype). The other involved a test pilot involved in a fight with two Russian fighters shortly before the end of the war. I know I've seen multiple photo's of the DO-335 in winter (snow) in an article describing field tests for air to ground and low altitude use vs Russians but don't recall the specifics
I have the book that the mentioned test pilot wrote and the flight you mention was a ferry flight to a base further away from the advancing Russians. He isn't sure but he thought he saw tracers flying by him and poured the coals on to evade. He was never really sure if any plane was attacking him.
-
How about we add the Ki-43 instead? They only fought the entire war and more than 5900 were built. Not significant at all compared to the Do335....
a lot are not concerned with fighting just a fast ride to escape. That's why some want it so bad. From the looks of it I bet it doesn't turn for crap. But some that play spend the majority of their time running from one adversary to another and then running again.
-
Depends on your definition.
Flew combat air patrols in the Pacific. Just because it didn't see any enemy airplanes doesn't mean it wasn't lookin for em :)
By your definition the P-80 should be in the plane set.
-
F7F and the Meteor are the only 2 allied planes that are truly excluded on technicalities. Both were fully operational at the Squadron level in 1944. These are not "1946 would be's" or "missed it by that much" situations but airplanes that were excluded for purely political reasons. So while both have no place in scenario's both certainly would have a place in the LWA in my opinion.
-
F7F and the Meteor are the only 2 allied planes that are truly excluded on technicalities. Both were fully operational at the Squadron level in 1944. These are not "1946 would be's" or "missed it by that much" situations but airplanes that were excluded for purely political reasons. So while both have no place in scenario's both certainly would have a place in the LWA in my opinion.
You would be a monster in it IMO. :salute
-
Depends on your definition.
Flew combat air patrols in the Pacific. Just because it didn't see any enemy airplanes doesn't mean it wasn't lookin for em :)
Just out of curiosity. When and where? How many?
wrongway
-
F7F and the Meteor are the only 2 allied planes that are truly excluded on technicalities. Both were fully operational at the Squadron level in 1944. These are not "1946 would be's" or "missed it by that much" situations but airplanes that were excluded for purely political reasons. So while both have no place in scenario's both certainly would have a place in the LWA in my opinion.
What technicality excludes the Meteor?
-
+1 Add it. :aok
Just perk it like a 262. I love the ability to fly such a diverse set of planes. More is better.
IMHO, I don't like being inhibited from flying cool planes that actually existed. Who cares if only 25.7 were built, or was only used in 3 squadrons, or bla bla bla. It if existed during WWII and it actually flew - I'd like to fly it too please.
I'm totally with Slade on this. Give me Vultee P-66 and Vengeance, TBD Devastator, Curtiss Hawk, Seversky P-35, Do335, the 410, Bachem Natter, Blackburn Skua, the BP Defiant, F7F, Meteor, Faireys Battle, Barracuda, Fulmar, Albacore, and Swordfish, FW190-D11, the Me410, Do219, Do17, Bristol Blenheim, Beaufighter, Me323, He111, Ju188/388, Henschel ASMs, Re2000, Gr.55, De520, Ms406, P63, P59, Vought Vindicator, Curtiss SB2C, C46, AR240, Horten wings, Mistel, P-61, Raiden etc...
More is better. If there's flight test data, who gives a rat's rook if it flew at squad strength? Just restrict "irregulars" to a special Luft '46 arena or perk the hell out of 'em. Further, for any who might argue for a "just like real life" experience, I can only presume, then, that we're going to do only Axis v. Allies arenas and that the maps will be real-life ETO/PTO/MTO ONLY and that types and quantities of planes to be upped will be normed to some statisitcal representation of some period in the "real life" war. Where do you stop with such an argument?
That whole argument got mooted when somebody created AHII - for computer games and real life are not one and the same. Given my death count, I count that as an advantage to AHII.
-
the funny thing is that the arenas where this really would make a difference is usually empty ...
more guys are in WB WW2 arena on those MF nights, than are in AH AVA when it is promoted ...
considering the difference in the games usual player base i am not sure what the hullabaloo is about adding stuff here as it seems very few care about what should be fighting what historically in AH ...
not a dig just an observation ...
p-80 262 volksjager meteor horton 229 f86 mig15 grumman panther and all those other first/second gen jets would be cool ...
very cool although as zilla states it may be best in a separate arena ...
-
I honestly think the problem with AvA is not the fact that people are uninterested in historical matchups, in and of itself....
the funny thing is that the arenas where this really would make a difference is usually empty ...
more guys are in WB WW2 arena on those MF nights, than are in AH AVA when it is promoted ...
considering the difference in the games usual player base i am not sure what the hullabaloo is about adding stuff here as it seems very few care about what should be fighting what historically in AH ...
not a dig just an observation ...
p-80 262 volksjager meteor horton 229 f86 mig15 grumman panther and all those other first/second gen jets would be cool ...
very cool although as zilla states it may be best in a separate arena ...
-
I honestly think the problem with AvA is not the fact that people are uninterested in historical matchups, in and of itself....
I agree.
ack-ack
-
FSOs and scenarios and the millions of little snapshots would suggest otherwise.
The problem with the AvA is the atmosphere, the attitudes, and the rather weak gameplay. To varrying degrees for each, naturally.
-
What technicality excludes the Meteor?
None, most people who post about it erroneously think it didn't see combat.
-
None, most people who post about it erroneously think it didn't see combat.
For some reason, some seem to think that chasing around V-1 bombs doesn't qualify as combat. I'm sure if they were the ones at the controls of a Meteor tasked with blowing up a flying 1,870 lb warhead before it impacts in a civilian area, they'd wholeheartedly disagree that it wasn't combat.
To me, there are more valid reasons for adding the Meteor ahead of such planes as the A-26 and especially the B-29.
ack-ack
-
For some reason, some seem to think that chasing around V-1 bombs doesn't qualify as combat. I'm sure if they were the ones at the controls of a Meteor tasked with blowing up a flying 1,870 lb warhead before it impacts in a civilian area, they'd wholeheartedly disagree that it wasn't combat.
Even if they dismiss that, they can't dismiss the combat it saw on the continent. Meteors destroyed a decent number of German aircraft on the ground, which I think one can safely assume involved being shot at.
-
so then would you not consider the 190d and 262 in operation in the summer of 44 clearly they were killing and being shot at ...
Even if they dismiss that, they can't dismiss the combat it saw on the continent. Meteors destroyed a decent number of German aircraft on the ground, which I think one can safely assume involved being shot at.
-
so then would you not consider the 190d and 262 in operation in the summer of 44 clearly they were killing and being shot at ...
The 262 was operational in the summer of 1944 but the 190D sure wasn't.
-
so then would you not consider the 190d and 262 in operation in the summer of 44 clearly they were killing and being shot at ...
Getting shot at isn't where the Fw190D fails the tests at that time. It is the lack of production models in full squadron service. Something they didn't reach until Fall of 1944. The Meteor Mk IIIs on the continent meet all three criteria.
-
FSOs and scenarios and the millions of little snapshots would suggest otherwise.
The problem with the AvA is the atmosphere, the attitudes, and the rather weak gameplay. To varrying degrees for each, naturally.
Right - but most importantly, I'm typically pretty busy and only have limited time for AHII. Thus, when I log in, I want action/practice. Typically, I'll go to Orange or Blue because that's where everyone is. Sometimes I'll go to the DA. I LOVE historical play and have taken part on most of the FSOs plus some of the Saturday reenactments since joining last April. Yet, I never even consider AvA because, first and foremost of the bandwagon, nobody plays there.
The beauty of FSO and the scenarios is that you'll see plenty of action and they're something like real life. To me, arena play is practice, scenario play the actual match.
I note that last night I, for some crazy reason, flew the P-51D and got in a fight with someone who was flying a 190D (my most frequent ride). That's much more fun, to me, than fighting another P-51. I shot him down, btw, but not without getting pw'ed when he first bounced me. At that point, I jettisoned my rockets and dealt with him.
Earlier in the evening, I used a Spixteen to kill another Spit, then got shot down by a Hog - not as much fun...
-
Getting shot at isn't where the Fw190D fails the tests at that time. It is the lack of production models in full squadron service. Something they didn't reach until Fall of 1944. The Meteor Mk IIIs on the continent meet all three criteria.
semantics,
as operational testing means at least one squadron operating the factory airframes for the luftwaffe ...
no difference between that and the first squadron operating the type for the allies ...
both groups were working the operational bugaboos out of the operations for the airframe ...
call it operational testing, or operational, there is no difference to the aircrew facing the new type in combat ...
is there?
a rose by any other name is still a rose sir ...
EDIT : point of fact is that by definition the operational testing phases of the Luftwaffe meet all the same distribution criteria that HTC requires for aircraft, and unlike the meteor most of those types met enemy pilots in air combat.
-
Thorsim,
A lone Fw190D or Do335 running away from some Allied aircraft is not the same as having the aircraft in service at squadron strength using production, not prototype, airframes.
The Ki-84 has more claim to that than any German fighter I have read about as they did do squadron level service trials with many of the 100+ prototype Ki-84s.
Also, the Meteor did tangle with Fw190s briefly, before being driven off by Spitfires.
-
ok well then how long should we delay the introduction of allied aircraft after they were in theatre for their "operational testing" phases?
Thorsim,
A lone Fw190D or Do335 running away from some Allied aircraft is not the same as having the aircraft in service at squadron strength using production, not prototype, airframes.
The Ki-84 has more claim to that than any German fighter I have read about as they did do squadron level service trials with many of the 100+ prototype Ki-84s.
Also, the Meteor did tangle with Fw190s briefly, before being driven off by Spitfires.
-
ok well then how long should we delay the introduction of allied aircraft after they were in theatre for their "operational testing" phases?
The US and UK didn't do that kind of thing. They did their testing before the aircraft saw any combat, hence the delay on the F7F for example. If a US or British aircraft was in combat it was because the USAAF, USN, RAF or RN saw it as ready for service. Yes, they were wrong at times, such as the Manchester, but they didn't do operational testing very often. The only operational testing I can think of off hand would be the escort B-17s with more guns and ammo that proved to be unsuccessful, which I would also not consider valid additions for AH.
-
Isn't this in the wrong forum?
-
exactly, they had a different processes for bringing aircraft into combat so you can not find a way to treat the aircraft the same in the game because the policies were different in the respective operating air-forces.
leaving the only accurate way to determine these dates, are the dates surrounding actual combat. they are specific, and confirmed, dates that you only get with first combat mission, or first enemy contact, or first combat kill or loss ...
otherwise you are once again treating combatant aircraft differently because the operators had different ideas about how things should be done and do not actually reflect what happened historically.
The US and UK didn't do that kind of thing. They did their testing before the aircraft saw any combat, hence the delay on the F7F for example. If a US or British aircraft was in combat it was because the USAAF, USN, RAF or RN saw it as ready for service. Yes, they were wrong at times, such as the Manchester, but they didn't do operational testing very often. The only operational testing I can think of off hand would be the escort B-17s with more guns and ammo that proved to be unsuccessful, which I would also not consider valid additions for AH.
-
exactly, they had a different processes for bringing aircraft into combat so you can not find a way to treat the aircraft the same in the game because the policies were different in the respective operating air-forces.
leaving the only accurate way to determine these dates, are the dates surrounding actual combat. they are specific, and confirmed, dates that you only get with first combat mission, or first enemy contact, or first combat kill or loss ...
otherwise you are once again treating combatant aircraft differently because the operators had different ideas about how things should be done and do not actually reflect what happened historically.
You are also treating them differently because they couldn't even test fly an aircraft without risking it being in a combat. The standard you suggest is unfair to American, British and Russian aircraft.
The F7F, F8F, Fury and so on didn't see combat as prototypes because their nations were not overrun by the enemy. If Germany had not been overrun the Fw190D would not have seen combat until the Fall of 1944.
-
no sir they were not operationally testing prototypes and i am not suggesting introducing prototypes as they do not meet the first combat mission criteria.
however the german squadrons flew combat missions during the operational testing phase and other than the titles and the ability to produce in large numbers i am at a loss to see much if any difference between what the germans called operational testing and what the first allied operators of a type were expected to do RE: sorting out the new aircraft in combat.
You are also treating them differently because they couldn't even test fly an aircraft without risking it being in a combat. The standard you suggest is unfair to American, British and Russian aircraft.
The F7F, F8F, Fury and so on didn't see combat as prototypes because their nations were not overrun by the enemy. If Germany had not been overrun the Fw190D would not have seen combat until the Fall of 1944.
correct and if germany had defeated England and the USSR and if german had invaded texas then the p51 would have had combat as part of its operational testing phase as well.
as far as prototypes being shot down, please remind me as i do not recall any large scale prototyping being done on the dora, most of what i have read is 1-2 prototypes variants being put together before production began on the airframe the settled on the d9. the loss of six airframes in two days suggest much more than prototypes although records are difficult and sorting out the operational differences are as well ...
i am not sure how using the same criteria is unfair ...
-
HTC has an obvious bias against luftwobble. :noid
:rofl
-
as far as prototypes being shot down, please remind me as i do not recall any large scale prototyping being done on the dora, most of what i have read is 1-2 prototypes variants being put together before production began on the airframe the settled on the d9. the loss of six airframes in two days suggest much more than prototypes although records are difficult and sorting out the operational differences are as well ...
i am not sure how using the same criteria is unfair ...
The following are D series prototypes:
0035 - V12
0036 - V13
0037 - V15
0038 - V16
0039 - V17
0041 - V19
0042 - V20
0043 - V21
0044 - V22
0045 - V23
0050 - V25
0051 - V26
0052 - V27
0053 - V28
The first production Fw190D-9s left the Sorau factory beginning in Sept 1944. The first 30 production a/c were delivered to III./JG54 at the beginning of Oct 1944. III./JG54 was the operational trials unit for the Dora.
-
i am not sure how using the same criteria is unfair ...
There are lots of criteria that could be set that would be unfair to one combatant or another all while using the same criteria.
Lets see, how about: "No aircraft with a production run of less than 10,000." I saw that as a suggestion about four or five years ago. It could be equally applied to all sides and the fact that the Japanese would only have the A6M would be entirely "fair" if the rule was applied across the board.
The criteria, as I understand it, are that it had to see combat operations in squadron strength on production airframes. That puts the Fw190D-9 in October of 1944. The Spitfire Mk XIV was "operational" at squadron strength in January of 1944, but didn't shoot down an enemy aircraft, a Ju88 on a recon or nuisance raid, until March of 1944 and didn't see offensive use until May or June of 1944. I would set the Spitfire Mk XIV's service entry date in March of 1944, but I could see people having valid arguments for its service entry date to be in May or June of 1944 as well.
-
right so since the situations facing the combatants were different, the thing to do would be to use the average of both dates as using criteria that as you stated is unfair for one side or the other so the average between the two would be the fair thing to do.
however the most pertinent date is when the airframes first faced the enemy.
RE the prototypes it seems to me oddly fortunate that kills of 3 and 6 190Ds were recorded if they were truly just prototypes in testing and not on a combat operation of some sort in june of 44 ...
There are lots of criteria that could be set that would be unfair to one combatant or another all while using the same criteria.
Lets see, how about: "No aircraft with a production run of less than 10,000." I saw that as a suggestion about four or five years ago. It could be equally applied to all sides and the fact that the Japanese would only have the A6M would be entirely "fair" if the rule was applied across the board.
The criteria, as I understand it, are that it had to see combat operations in squadron strength on production airframes. That puts the Fw190D-9 in October of 1944. The Spitfire Mk XIV was "operational" at squadron strength in January of 1944, but didn't shoot down an enemy aircraft, a Ju88 on a recon or nuisance raid, until March of 1944 and didn't see offensive use until May or June of 1944. I would set the Spitfire Mk XIV's service entry date in March of 1944, but I could see people having valid arguments for its service entry date to be in May or June of 1944 as well.
-
In combat at squadron strength on production airframes is not unfair to either side. It can only be seen as unfair if you're trying to sneak in prototypes or aircraft that never reached squadron strength on production airframes, such as the Do335.
-
well what about this you include all the criteria as you stated
it had to see combat operations (first combat operation)
it had to be in squadron strength (first operational or operational testing squadron)
on production airframes. (date first production model completed and/or delivered)
add first confirmed engagement with enemy and/or first kill and/or death in engagement with enemy
(whichever is chosen)
average those dates so that all the situational circumstances and everyones POV is taken into account in equal measure.
that would bring the Meteor and Volksjager into justification to be included in the set, although i am not sure about the do355, which i am not advocating for, i am just pointing out that as you said just looking at things one way or another can be pointed out to be "unfair" to one side or the other date wise. better IMO to take all sides POV into account when selecting dates and remove circumstances and policies from the equation and focus on the actual involvement of the airframes ...
In combat at squadron strength on production airframes is not unfair to either side. It can only be seen as unfair if you're trying to sneak in prototypes or aircraft that never reached squadron strength on production airframes, such as the Do335.
-
The Meteor and Volksjager are both in on the original criteria, just as the Ta152 was.
There is no need to tweak anything unless your goal is to find a way to get things like the Do335 in while keeping Allied equivalents like the F7F out.
-
sir you misunderstand me, it is the dates and not the aircraft that i am taking issue with ...
i.e. ...
i see no justification in holding a plane 4 months after it was in actual combat,
while at the same time including another one 4 months before it ever saw actual combat.
one could always be inclusive with the criteria and equitable about the dates of introduction
as those things are not mutually exclusive ...
The Meteor and Volksjager are both in on the original criteria, just as the Ta152 was.
There is no need to tweak anything unless your goal is to find a way to get things like the Do335 in while keeping Allied equivalents like the F7F out.
-
i see no justification in holding a plane 4 months after it was in actual combat,
while at the same time including another one 4 months before it ever saw actual combat.
How is that relevant to anything in AH?
In the MA service date doesn't matter.
In free form "scenarios" in the Axis vs Allies arena it would be silly to allow free access to an aircraft that merely had a prototype shot down.
In hardcore scenarios the aircraft picked will be the aircraft that were actually significant, once again making the lone prototype that got shot down irrelevant.
AH doesn't have a rolling planeset for many reasons, one of which is the very discussion we're having now.
-
this seemed a continuation of the AVA, Events, RPS, and Wish list discussions ...
and i thought dates were important to those discussions, pardon me if i was mistaken.
we could look at this as a "how to address a possible RPS" and a purely hypothetical for enjoyment type discussion ...
;)
-
For the purposes of the Axis vs Allies or a rolling planeset environment, I'd say we would need to pick a date at which the aircraft was in significant service. Using the Spitfire Mk XIV as an example, I would say June or July, 1944, make it 3rd quarter of 1944, would be fair. A single squadron equipped with them in January, 1944 and not seeing any action at all until March, 1944, just does not seem to meet the standard needed for an aircraft that will, theoretically, see very wide usage in the game. The Fw190D-9 I'd make available in October, 1944, say 4th quarter of 1944. For the Me262, we'll set 3rd quarter of 1944 as well. Even though the Meteor Mk I technically entered service before the Me262, I really wouldn't consider the Mk I a valid addition to AH, it is more of a prototype than production version. The Mk III on the other hand could be fairly set at the 1st or 2nd quarter of 1945.
-
Just out of curiosity. When and where? How many?
wrongway
Iwo Jima... Four P-51H fighters were delivered on or around August 3, 1945 and were used to fly standing patrols around Iwo Jima to enable pilots to become familiar with them. No Japanese aircraft were encountered. A small detachment of Marine F7F-2Ns were deployed and began night ops the evening before the shooting stopped. No enemy aircraft were encountered in their one combat patrol. F8F-1s equipped two squadrons on carriers, but were still several days from joining Halsey's fleet when Japan surrendered. Given another week... Who knows?
Stateside, whole squadrons were operational with the F7F and F8F as early as June, 1945. Nonetheless, all of the above never fired a gun or dropped ordnance on an enemy during WWII. F7F-3Ns ruled the night sky over Korea for more than a year. F8Fs saw combat in Vietnam with the French Air Force. The P-51H was never deployed to Korea. F-82s did see combat in Korea, shooting down several Yak-9Ps.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Iwo Jima... Four P-51H fighters were delivered on or around August 3, 1945 and were used to fly standing patrols around Iwo Jima to enable pilots to become familiar with them. No Japanese aircraft were encountered. A small detachment of Marine F7F-2Ns were deployed and began night ops the evening before the shooting stopped. No enemy aircraft were encountered in their one combat patrol. F8F-1s equipped two squadrons on carriers, but were still several days from joining Halsey's fleet when Japan surrendered. Given another week... Who knows?
Stateside, whole squadrons were operational with the F7F and F8F as early as June, 1945. Nonetheless, all of the above never fired a gun or dropped ordnance on an enemy during WWII. F7F-3Ns ruled the night sky over Korea for more than a year. F8Fs saw combat in Vietnam with the French Air Force. The P-51H was never deployed to Korea. F-82s did see combat in Korea, shooting down several Yak-9Ps.
My regards,
Widewing
Thanks WideWing
-
Why not the 162? It was delivered to a squadron and was a production airframe. Would be a riot for sure, trying to hit something smaller and faster than a Yak!
-
Why not the 162? It was delivered to a squadron and was a production airframe. Would be a riot for sure, trying to hit something smaller and faster than a Yak!
The He162, like the Meteor Mk III, does meet the requirements for AH, but both should be very low priority additions.
-
AH <>= WWII and therefore we could very well have AH 1946 or AH Mig Alley. Nothing to fear here.
Infidelz